If You Can't Stand Superiority, Get Off the Top Shelf

Published on by D. G. Hart

The chief deficiency of Protestantism, according to Jason and the Callers, is that we only have a Bible that needs to be interpreted while they — Roman Catholics — have a pope who is the final word on interpretation. In other words, Protestants have multiple opinions about the Bible’s meaning while Roman Catholics have one truth thanks to its one pope (please don’t notice, by the way, when the church had more than one).

Given this anti-Protestant polemic (the new acceptable prejudice), I had a good chuckle when devout Roman Catholics had to come to the rescue to explain what Francis meant in his recent universalistic sounding homily.

Andrew Preslar did a pretty good impersonation of a Protestant reading his Bible when he wrote:

The key to understanding the Pope’s remarks is to understand that there is a difference between being redeemed–as are all men (objectively), because of Christ’s death and resurrection–and being saved or in a state of grace–as are only those who receive God’s grace by faith and abide in his love. It is also important to notice that the Pope was not teaching that atheists can be saved merely by doing good works. He made two distinct though related points; namely, that atheists can do good works and that Christ has redeemed everyone. For these reasons, we can “meet one another in doing good.” [1] Of course, the Pope’s point about the universality of the Atonement is disputed by Calvinists, and the teaching of Vatican II concerning the possibility of salvation apart from explicit faith in Christ is widely debated in non-Catholic Christian circles. Without here entering into these debates by way of argument, I want to describe how I think about this matter now, as a Catholic, with special reference to evangelism.

Bryan Cross couldn’t resist getting in on the fun of private interpretation:

Whatever the merits of these explanations of Francis, they flatly contradict the claim that Protestantism suffers from a diversity of opinions. Roman Catholicism does as well. You have the former Protestant line of Francis’ meaning, and then you have the cradle-left-leaning-social-justice Roman Catholic version. Link to NCR comments on homily. Protestants have to interpret the Bible and Roman Catholics (post-Vatican 2) have the freedom to interpret their bishops. Without any temporal power to enforce the right interpretation – whether Geneva’s City Council or the Roman Inquisition, we’re all Protestants now.

If Jason and the Callers had the slightest awareness of history, they would know that they jumped from the frying pan of denominationalism into the fire of Roman Catholic opinion making. But to justify their rational, autonomous decisionism, they continue to think they have chosen the church of Cappadocia circa 389 AD.

Modernity does make its demands.

497 thoughts on “If You Can't Stand Superiority, Get Off the Top Shelf”

  1. No doubt, grace alone. Got nowhere by myself and by myself would head to the same place again, alone-no peace-no hope-no joy-no freedom.
    Good night,
    Michael

    Like

  2. Drew,
    I’ll see if I can help you understand where I am in all this. To get the info down here in this post, I’m going to quote your questioning parts of 9/6 1:22 post and try to put my thoughts after each paragraph. But before I do, I think a little of my background will help here. I am the only Catholic in my circle of relations. I came into the Church through the study of it. I brought my whole nuclear family of 6 in with me. I am probably the first Catholic in my family line since England prior to the American Revolution. Nobody signs themselves with the Cross at our family gathering but us. I realize I have made a major change in my family direction regarding the Catholic Church. I do not like the least amount of separation between my family and the rest of my family. I would prefer my little family not being the only Catholics in my close family. We are a close knit and large family. Not many heavy church goers, but by God’s grace we are lovers of goodness and Christ. It is common to have a hundred or more heads bowed with hands held at a family birthday party. Maybe this is normal, but in my opinion it doesn’t seem to be in our culture. Anyway, God has been good to my family. I don’t like being an outsider regarding my faith. I wish I could just be a solid Christian like others. It is this Canon/Sola Scriptura authority issue which has made that not possible for me. Once I understood it, it was this that made me realize I would be unfaithful to Christ and the Scriptures if I remained Protestant. I am in a different position now regarding whether I would be Protestant or not after I was convinced of a reasonable way out of the contradiction. None the less, it makes a difference in my call to witness to the hope I have now to this family I love so much. It also makes a substantial difference on how I interact charitably with others, such as you, online and in the world. I do believe this matter is a matter regarding the salvation of many souls. This is probably the hold out you hear in me on some of these issues. This area is the last remaining possible Protestant ground left in me. It is what caused me to jump ship. I have not seen a good scriptural case on the formation and reception of the canon. I see this issue as paramount for the possibility of Sola Scriptura operating as the final authority over the whole Christian community. If we can get a firm canon from Scripture itself then all things needed to operate Sola Scriptura would be a reasonable choice for Christians. A good plausible resolution to the canon authority issue would bring me to consider the Catholic Faith could possibly be a sect of the Christian Faith, instead of the presenter of the Faith itself. I will try and be more decisive with you. I can see how it would be maddening. I’ll let you stay the Protestant and me be the Catholic. Fair? So you know, this is the hill I am dying on. It is where the battle began. It is the hill on which I am getting torn into. Our topic is basically the Gesemene prayer where I’m asking our Father to take this Catholic evangelization cup away from me. I await His will, so I press on into the possibility that I could have been wrong about the contradiction.
    Maybe all that helps, maybe it doesn’t. I just want you to know where I am at Drew.

    Moving into what concern you had. You said:

    … from the outset of our discussion, it has been my understanding of your position that the M&T are necessary for it to be known what is and isn’t Scripture yet, I see you arguing that it is possible (though perhaps not probable) that this was not necessarily true always. These 2 things are incompatible. They could be made compatible by amending certain parts of the statements so that you could say something like: there was a time when the M&T were not the means by which God determined the books of Scripture to be known but since the advent of Christ, He has determined that it only be done by the virtue of the M&T. That statement is possible and we could proceed to evaluate it but it is a far different thing from saying that the M&T are necessary for to knowing what Scripture is. But it’s very hard for me to be able to engage your position if it’s being argued that the M&T are necessary but maybe they weren’t always.

    Ok, this is understandably troubling, but there is a way through here. The very short answer is I don’t believe the canon can faithfully be discerned without the guidance of the author. And the author was given to the Church(God’s People). The Church has teaching offices, so the Church’s Spirit can speak on the subject through the teaching offices. This is what I and Sean had been getting into with the covenant community in the links above. There was an OT covenant community in the people of Israel which were to live the life of the covenant given. God’s word came to them as a grace. They were to receive it. That community would know who they were in relation to God and the covenant because of their uniquely shaped history (Tradition). The Scriptures were formed from within this shaped community. The core of the Scriptures testify to the existence of the community of God’s covenant and what applies to them in that relationship (only them). They would be the light to the Gentiles (outside peoples). This is the same function of the Church, God’s people born of Israel in Christ (redeemer of Jew and Gentile [the reconciler into one people for both covenant people]). I do believe God’s People had a way to identify the Prophets, because it was God’s word to them. I do not believe outsiders would be able to identify what were the Scriptures apart from what they said they were. They would lack the Tradition necessary to receive them and lack the applicable promises to the covenant community. I also believe there would be a way for there to be an official position for the nation of Israel taken on such a matter as the canon. I also think Scripture points to a position that says there was an official canon of the time. Therefore, it is reasonable to say the Bereans would be searching a knowable canon with sure enough knowledge to discern the truth of Paul’s preaching. And this would make them “nobler” than others. Here is what I do not know. I do not know what those officially receive and recognized books were. I also do not know if any books would have been officially added to it in the last two or three hundred years or how that process would happen. I also don’t know if there was a process of discrediting some of the books in the LXX to set the Jewish canon before 200AD. But, I don’t think the Bereans would necessarily need the books we are talking about added to discern the truth of Paul’s authority, though the book of Wisdom would surely help. I think something to remember in all this is that Israel was a theocracy. God OT “magisterium” would have been intertwined with the governance of the people. Then to summarize my belief, I believe God uses the earthly authority within the covenant community to relay the canon in the OT and NT, but my historical knowledge of what books had been officially recognized under Jewish pre-Christian authority is uncertain of the OT.

    Moving on you said:

    Similarly, I’m trying to sort out arguments that I don’t see as being germane to what we’re discussing. For example, if your position is that the only authority on the canon is the M&T, then not much is accomplished in citing history in describing that position since history doesn’t have the authority to determine the issue according to that position. History can be legitimately used for other purposes but it only muddies the waters as far as establishing that position as far as I’m concerned. Now, if I’ve misunderstood your position and it is not only the M&T that has the authority to determine the canon, then engaging in this part of the discussion will be helpful to clarify that. Similarly, if you don’t agree with me that history is not germane to the position I’ve attributed to you but rather think that it has an essential role in your position, it would certainly help to hear you clarify why that is.

    I think the above info probably helps you clear some of this up. For clarity’s sake, the three areas in which I think history plays a major role in this is:

    1) Showing there was certain books officially receive and recognized by Israel during their rightful authority period.
    2) Showing there was official books recognized which differ from the Catholic Canon that was recognized by the leadership in Rome. I say Rome because in my eclesiology a contradiction in this area is enough to bring serious doubt to the Holy Spirit’s protection of dogma for the Church as recognized from my position.
    3)What the leadership of the historic Christian communities and church leaders used as criteria probably could get into this in some way.

    Now, perhaps you’re not willing to box yourself in in the ways I’m asking for and, if so, then we’ll have to see if there is still a way to have a productive discussion. But, please don’t understand me as questioning your motives or anything like that. It is just very easy for there to be confusion between us on this issue and for us to get sidetracked into unhelpful discussions so I want to try as best I can to avoid those things.

    I think I may have given myself enough of a box in this post, but I will say I can’t say my position is “the” Catholic position. I know of nothing in my position that contradicts the Church’s teachings on the matter, and as a Catholic I fully submit to those teachings as my guide. This understanding of things is what has made the most sense to me as a person with the data I have. I do hope we can move deeper into this topic together, because I really appreciate your interaction, Drew. I hope to hear your thoughts on some of the things I have brought up and asked. I do wish to comprehend a positive Sola Scriptura case for the canon from someone at some point. I am willing to wait, but the issue of a cogent Protestant canon with Sola Scriptura is very important to me.

    Blessings in Christ,
    Michael

    Like

  3. MichaelTX —

    The traditional Protestant view for the canon is that God raises up a bible for his people. So canon is not fixed or closed. The canon the people of God pick is the canon. That is the Gothic bible (didn’t contain Acts for example) was a valid bible for the Goths. The Vulgate (78 book canon) was a valid bible for the middle ages. Luther’s canon (66 books) is a valid canon for modern Protestants. And that applies geographically as well. So 2 Baruch is part of the legitimate bible for Syrian Christians. 3 Esdras is part of the legitimate bible for Russian Christians.

    This theory deals nicely with the historical fact that canons are not constant across time or place.

    Like

  4. Showing there was certain books officially receive and recognized by Israel during their rightful authority period.

    Assuming that the rightful authority period ended before the start of the Christian era, 30 CE. Nope didn’t happen. The canon was not remotely closed by Jews during this period of time, the best you can say is there was a mostly agreed to classification system and which books were in which class had some level of agreement.

    Showing there was official books recognized which differ from the Catholic Canon that was recognized by the leadership in Rome. I say Rome because in my eclesiology a contradiction in this area is enough to bring serious doubt to the Holy Spirit’s protection of dogma for the Church as recognized from my position.

    No question that happened. Tobit is a great example. The Jews didn’t even care about it enough to preserve the Hebrew version (in the 1950s fragments were found) but it was part of the LXX and the church has always considered it part of the canon.

    Like

  5. CD,
    Your first point is basically my understanding as well. On your second point, I was meaning that if Rome had proclaimed two contradictory canon. That would bring serious doubt in me thinking Rome had a special place in the role of discerning the canon. Not, that it accepts a distinct canon from some books by some Jews.
    Thanks for the input.

    Like

  6. CD,
    I assume you realize a lot on 66 book Reformation Protestants would seriously disagree with your 10:18 post. Especial those who do believe the Bible is to be composed only and completely of God’s inerrantly inspired books.

    Like

  7. On your second point, I was meaning that if Rome had proclaimed two contradictory canon. That would bring serious doubt in me thinking Rome had a special place in the role of discerning the canon.

    Well that happened, sort of. The official lists and the early Vulgates didn’t match (3 Esdras, 4 Esdras, Prayer of Manasseh, Psalm 151 mostly). Vulgata Sixtina was an attempt to bring the two lists into agreement but the Catholic population rejected it. The Clementine Vulgate thus went back to the more inclusive list showing the church and the church’s councils disagreed on the canon. The Nova Vulgata (1970s on) agrees with the Trent list and there is no controversy.

    I assume you realize a lot on 66 book Reformation Protestants would seriously disagree with your 10:18 post. Especial those who do believe the Bible is to be composed only and completely of God’s inerrantly inspired books.

    That’s Baptist and Pentecostal. Mostly though, I think most agree in principle. Put their back to the wall and ask them if the bible existed for most Protestants prior to the 19th century? You’ll see a lot of hemming and hawing to get around the idea that the bible is a recent innovation of the British Bible Society.

    Like

  8. I like your info CD. Do you have a source where I could read more details on the official lists and the history of the early Vulgates issue. Seem like something the Eastern Orthodox would have concerns with. I don’t think the list was fully and “Church wide” anathematized until Trent, but the details are all interesting to me.
    Thanks,
    Michael

    Like

  9. Hey Drew,
    Here are two interesting article I read today that falls right into our topic. Some of the content may be a bit polemic for my taste, but none the less it puts forward a lot of info in a short bit.

    This one is a letter written by Steve Ray. Author of “Crossing the Tiber” and “Upon This Rock”
    http://www.catholic-convert.com/documents/BibleCanonCorrect.doc

    Small peice on Moses’ seat

    Click to access ChairOfPeter.pdf

    Here is where I got them:
    http://www.catholic-convert.com/resources/writings/steve-rays/

    Like

  10. Michael,

    I’m having trouble coming up with a comprehensive response to both your post and the article you linked so if I don’t address something you want me to, let me know.

    First, it occurs to me that I may need you to answer another question as, in our interactions, I’ve noticed something on which we may disagree but on which I had been assuming we agreed. So, here’s the question: was/is the revelation that God gives by means other than Scripture in need of an authority to say that it is truly from Him in the same way that Scripture is?

    Second, it seems that we also may understand the idea of determining things in a different way. I find Ray’s concept of determination problematic. I don’t see how, in his analogy, the Egyptologist determines anything. He’s not determining the number of sites since 10 sites is nothing more than the fact of the number of sites that have been found. Nor does he determine the authenticity of the sites. The sites either contain artifacts actually from Egypt or they don’t; his proclamation on the matter is immaterial to its truth. At best, he’s pointing others to something that he thinks he’s found but that’s far from a determination. I guess it could be argued that in order to even think about or react to anything that we must make determinations about it but it seems to me that such a definition of determination lacks the weight to say anything substantive in the matter of the canon. If that were the sense in which determination was being used, then nothing at all is being determined about the canon but rather what is being determined is our conception of it and how we will respond to it.

    So, I still find myself having a problem with this idea that anyone has been given the right to determine the canon. Let me give my own analogy. If you, as a father, give instructions to your son, he may decide that he has the prerogative to determine whether or not the instructions are truly from you but the conclusion he comes to has no bearing on the fact that you did indeed give the instructions. Similarly, if he determined that words said by someone else were actually words said by you, his determination would not change the fact that you were not responsible for those words. So, perhaps it would help to hear how you think the idea of determining the canon is helpful because all it seems to do to me is prop up a special place of authority for those who would make themselves masters over the Scriptures.

    Third, but related to the points that have preceded this is that I am still a little confused by how history works in your framework. Let me give an example that perhaps will help communicate where I’m coming from. In the Garden of Eden, God commands Adam concerning the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and what would happen to him if he ate of it. The correct response on the part of Adam and Eve is to accept God at His word by virtue of who God is. It would not be appropriate for them to set about trying to find other means of verifying what God had said. It is Satan who introduces the idea of Adam and Eve needing to ascertain the veracity of God’s word for themselves. So, I’m wondering why this wouldn’t be the case for you and the canon when it comes to M&T. Does God’s word need accompanying evidence for you to believe it and does the authority that you believe was given by God to lead us into the truth need further evidence for you to believe it? If the historical evidence wasn’t there, would it change your position at all?

    Those are all the thoughts I have for now.

    Like

  11. Drew,
    I’m uncertain of the meaning of your question here. Could you rephase? Are you trying to zero in on Tradition?
    was/is the revelation that God gives by means other than Scripture in need of an authority to say that it is truly from Him in the same way that Scripture is?

    The Steve Ray articles were just for cruising through. Nothing particularly I wanted addressed. They were on topic and thought you might find them of interest in understanding another Catholic.

    I’ll try and address what I think I can in your last two paragraphs tomorrow.

    Here are a couple of sections the the our catechism that may help you.
    http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s1c2a2.htm
    http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s1c2a3.htm

    Like

  12. Michael,

    I am trying to zero in on something like the M&T with my question but I’m also trying to discern a little bit more. Is there an inherent difference in God’s revelation in the Scriptures as opposed to visions, voice from heaven, prophetic proclamation, etc. as far as our ability to discern that He has spoken? As I understand you and the Roman position, God’s revelation in Scripture is something we cannot know about apart from the M&T. Is that the same for the other means by which God reveals himself?

    Like

  16. Drew,
    I think you may be overstating the position I take here: God’s revelation in Scripture is something we cannot know about apart from the M&T
    My position would probably be better stated with something like: The full extent of God’s written revelation can not be know without the surety given by the protection from error given in the written Revelation.

    You also asked: Is there an inherent difference in God’s revelation in the Scriptures as opposed to visions, voice from heaven, prophetic proclamation, etc. as far as our ability to discern that He has spoken?
    Yes, there is an extreme difference in the Revelation in the Scriptures and what the Catholic would call “private revelation”. One is binding on all people of all time and the other can be completely disregarded without any sin unless God has “privately revealed” those things to you and you have come to know it is Him who revealed them or if God has lead you in such a way to reasonably trust a “private revelation” from some one else. All private revelations MUST be in accord with the written public revelation, Scripture.

    Like

  17. Michael,

    I’m not really sure how my mischaracterization is different from what you say below it; would you elaborate on that a bit?

    To further clarify on your answer to my question, is what you are saying true of every revelation that isn’t Scripture? Not every non-Scriptural revelation is private. The heavenly voice at Christ’s baptism and the Lord coming down on Mt. Sinai are both very public revelations. Are they not in need of validation? But in the cases where they are private, what about when God revealed Himself to a prophet who was commanded to share that private revelation with the king and the kingdom as a whole? What rules governed that? How was anyone to determine the falsehood of a revelation when that revelation could be supported from Scripture but was still false?

    Like

  18. Drew,
    I just saw this new post above. I will go ahead and post the comment I have put together to address your previous post and then see if it doesn’t cover some of what you have just asked. I will get back to you with any thing I can help with.

    Earlier you said: I still find myself having a problem with this idea that anyone has been given the right to determine the canon. Let me give my own analogy. If you, as a father, give instructions to your son, he may decide that he has the prerogative to determine whether or not the instructions are truly from you but the conclusion he comes to has no bearing on the fact that you did indeed give the instructions. Similarly, if he determined that words said by someone else were actually words said by you, his determination would not change the fact that you were not responsible for those words. So, perhaps it would help to hear how you think the idea of determining the canon is helpful because all it seems to do to me is prop up a special place of authority for those who would make themselves masters over the Scriptures.

    I really can understand your concern that anyone has the right to determine the canon. It is this same concern that makes me know I can’t be the one who must study the details of this and decide by some process that I would come up with. The ANE treaty idea that Sean and I have talked about come close to solving this problem, but I fear it won’t be firm enough. The parameters still seem to be set by men such as myself who have no such given right to decide those parameters. I still hope to read the book Sean recommends to understand it all more.
    I’ll see if I can put a Catholic and Biblical perspective on your parable and see if you can catch what the difference is. It has to do with “who has the right” gift of God given to them to serve God’s people in such ways.

    The Father in Heaven sent His only Son to fully reveal Himself. [John 10:30] The Eternal Word became flesh and walked among us to reveal God to us. [John 1] The Son speaks with the full authority of the Father on all matters. [Matt 28:18] The Son alone could be the one who could reveal the will of the Father on a matter. [Matt 11:27] Therefore, the Son alone has the right to reveal the fullness of the Fathers instructions [Heb 1] (the parameters of the Revelation from God); the Scriptures would be included in this. Jesus chose men to send out and speak with His authority; this is His will and therefore the will of the Father. [Matt 28:19, 16:19, 18:18, John 21:15-19] He gave them the right and power to do the things he called them to do. [Luke 10:17, John 20:23] Then He commanded those certain men to instruct all people. [Matt 28:19] God gave his Spirit to assure the protection of the instructions. [John 16:13] I’m going to skip a lot of details I could add in here. But essentially, I have not been given this right; therefore some other group of men has. I need instruction on what the canon of Scripture is; therefore I want to know where to find the men given such a right and the promised guidance given in John 16:13. If there is a way for the Apostles to let me know this without Apostolic Succession, which is exampled in the Scriptures [Act 1:15, Tim,Titus] & Church history, I am willing to receive the Scriptures directly from them. Otherwise I see the Son working still directly through His willing the Church teachers to instruct on the matter of the canon, as they were sent to instruct all people in the beginning[Matt 28:19]. We are called to submit to the rightful teachers of the Church by Paul, who was an “illegitimate” Apostle. [Heb 13:17] We should not submit to false teachers. [2 Pet 2] If we are His sheep, we will be able to know the voice of our true Teacher, Christ. [John 10:5, 10:27] If the Catholic Bishop’s are not this group of teachers, I want to be among those who are and would teach me(at least reveal the canon to me). I don’t know of many groups that categorize themselves in these Biblical terms. I have concluded on my current knowledge and begging prayers that it is the Christian Bishops/overseers in union with the Bishop of Rome. I could be wrong, but this is where I see I can receive the instruction from the type of teachers the Bible reveals. I hear my Shepard’s voice both in the Scriptures they proclaim are and have always been the Scriptures.

    So to reword your parable, the Father gives His instructions and His instruction is the Son. The Son has always kept the Father’s instructions and this obedience leads Him to the obedience of the incarnation and the Cross. He loves the Father and the Father loves the world. So, this leads him to make instructions for the world. His instructions are His words. (Many of these are recorded in the Scriptures) His words form His Church (all disciples and teachers of Christ). His Church(all who hear His words and believe) keeps His words.(In the world but not of the world) Their love of the Son and His love of the world leads them to make instructions and those instructions include the Scriptures. They proclaim the Scriptures just as the Father sent the Son and the Son sent the Church(teachers and disciples).

    The Church is no more the master of the Scriptures than the Son is the master of the Father. The disciple of Christ should no more be the master of the Canon than a new disciple be the teacher of the whole Church. The Eternal Son alone can be in the place of teacher of the whole church.

    I hope you were able to follow some of that Drew. I’ll try and get to some of your questions on history’s place in some of this when I can. History would seem to play the biggest place in discerning whether there was a single canon recognized by the Jewish people before the time of Christ, being they had a call to discern such things from God at this time. And also, History would be ably to play a role in discerning what “church” has the lineage to qualify as the Church with overseers appointed by Christ to teach all people. Scripture would be able to show these ideas are either truth or false. There could be more I could say. This post took longer than I thought, but I hope it helps some.

    Like

  19. Drew,
    I’m not sure that I would be able to give the detail you are asking for in your 1:11 post. I will do what little I can to address your concerns, but that is a tall order for me to say what rules govern private revelation in a comm box, especially from me. That may take a quote from some wiser souls than I. I will say I have just read St Teresa of Avila’s Interior Castle and she gets into it in the later chapters. I will see if I can find you a quote from her. I am currently reading St John of the Cross’s Ascent of Mt Carmel and after that will be starting Dark Night of the Soul, again. I’ve tried to read the three part book three times and each time I finish the first part I realize how spiritual inept I am and I work on that growth for a while. I would imagine He gets into the topic of discerning private revelation’s validity in one or both of them. To address your question of the Baptismal voice of God and Mt Sinai, I would think both of those would be considered private revelations that are now part of the public revelation. We accept them on the veracity of the witness. What makes the most sense of Israel’s history as a people and what makes the most sense of the lives of the Apostles and the Church. Is it possible the 12 tribes lied about its history? Yes. Does it truly make the most sense of the historic data? I don’t think so. It is quite similar with the 12 apostles and the message of Christ including the voice from heaven. Is it possible they lied about the voice and stole the body? Yes. Does it make the most sense of the historic data? I don’t think so and nor do most Christians. I say most, because there some “Christians” who hold to a spiritual resurrection and a spiritual understanding of the Gospels histories. We have a historic religion. Divorce it from history and you don’t have Christianity.

    Concerning my rewording of your characterization of my position, I mean no hardness by the correction. Not that I think you took it that way. I reworded just for clarities sake. My position has to do with the Magisterium and Tradition, but it is not an only Magisterium and Tradition position. It is an only because of the Church position. The Church isn’t just the Magisterium. The Church includes you, if you are baptized into Christ’s death by water and the Spirit, and me, all the evangelist(lay and ordained) , teachers (lay and ordained) and learners of all nations who seek the truth of Christ. Our catechism says “The holy people of God[the Church] share also in the prophetic office above all in a supernatural sense of faith that belongs to the whole People, lay and clergy, when it unfailingly adheres to this faith… once for all delivered to the saints, and when it deepens its understanding and becomes Christ’s witness in the midst of this world.” So when I say, The full extent of God’s written revelation cannot be known without the surety given by the protection from error given in the written Revelation, I can be a part of revealing that revelation to others when in submission to that revelation. So when you said, “God’s revelation in Scripture is something we cannot know about apart from the M&T.” I hear lots there I don’t agree with. I can know lots of God’s revelation in Scripture apart from reading the Councils or statements from the Church’s teachers. I have the words in my hands. Much in the Scriptures can be understood without a teacher, just not everything. Basically, the whole NT was written by teachers of the Church, so reading it will bring vast amounts of understanding. Also, even I can relay the truth of the Canon to you with the inerrant protection of the Holy Spirit, if the Catholic Church’s overseers have such a protection. All I have to say is here it is: xyz and the other as listed in the Church’s ecumenical councils or dogmatically defined otherwise. I also believe even the spreading of the Scriptures by non-Catholics in an incomplete form are able to bring one to know those Scriptures are God’s revealed inerrant word and can truly lead to following true teachings of God and the Church. But none of this contradicts my statement that we can’t know the full extent of God’s written word without the protection of the promised Holy Spirit to the Church. The key is being able to discern what constitutes the Holy Spirit protected authoritative Church speaking on a matter. I see the Catholic Church being able to answer this question.
    Does some of that help?

    Like

  21. Drew,
    St Teresa’s Interior Castle covers private visions in Chp 3 of the 6th Mansion. I’ll drop a few opinions of hers below. I’ll cut out what I can to make it as short as possible, but reading the whole chapter would be best.
    Here is a link to the chapter:
    http://www.ccel.org/ccel/teresa/castle2.x.iv.html
    Here is the link to the whole book:
    http://www.ccel.org/ccel/teresa/castle2.toc.html

    Speaking of “locutions”(words, etc) she says:
    In my opinion these are the most certain signs of their being divine.
    1The first and truest is the power and authority they carry with them, for these words are operative. For example: a soul is suffering all the sorrow and disquiet I have described: the mind is darkened and dry; but it is set at peace, freed from all trouble and filled with light merely by hearing the words: ‘Be not troubled.’ These deliver it from all its pains, although it felt as though, if the whole world and all its theologians had united in trying to persuade it there was no cause for grief, it could not, in spite of all their efforts, have been delivered from its affliction.
    2The second sign is a great calm and a devout and peaceful recollection which dwell in the soul together with a desire to praise God.
    3The third proof is that these words do not pass from the memory but remain there for a very long time; sometimes they are never forgotten. This is not the case with what men may utter, which, however grave and learned they may be, is not thus impressed on our memory. Neither, if they prophesy of things to come, do we believe them as we do these divine locutions which leave us so convinced of their truth that, although their fulfillment sometimes seems utterly impossible and we vacillate and doubt about them, there still remains in the soul a certainty of their verity which cannot be destroyed. Perhaps everything may seem to militate against what was heard and years pass by, yet the spirit never loses its belief that God will make use of means unknown to men for the purpose and that finally what was foretold must surely happen; as indeed it does. … 15. In fact, as these words come from the Spirit of God, it is right thus to trust them and to desire that He Who is supreme truth should not be thought a deceiver. Justly, therefore, does their hearer rejoice when, after a thousand delays and enormous difficulties, they are accomplished. Although this success may entail great suffering on herself, she prefers it to the nonfulfilment of what she knows our Lord most certainly foretold.

    She also in this Chapter speaks of what are called “intellectual visions”. This is a communication that is “spiritual hearing”. It is more than just hearing. It is a deeper communication from God which is a knowing and understanding in a “most mysterious manner” that is “far within the innermost depths of the soul.”
    She says … the results produced by them, convince us that they cannot in any way come from the devil. Their powerful aftereffects force us to admit this and plainly show they do not spring from the imagination.256 Careful consideration will assure us of this for the following reasons;—
    20. Firstly, the clearness of the language varies 183in the different kinds of locutions. Those that are divine are so distinct that the hearer remembers if there were a syllable missing, and what words were made use of even though a whole sentence was spoken. But if the speech were only a freak of fancy, it would not be so audible nor would the words be so distinct but would be only half articulated.257
    21. The second reason is that often the person was not thinking of what is heard; sometimes the locution even comes unexpectedly during conversation, though at times it refers to some thought that passed quickly through the mind or to a subject it was before engaged upon. Frequently it concerns things of whose existence the hearer knew nothing nor even imagined such events could ever come to pass; therefore it is impossible for the imagination to have framed such speeches and deceived the mind by fancies about what it had never wished, nor sought for, nor even thought about.258
    22. The third reason is that in a genuine case the soul seems to listen to the words, whereas when the imagination is at work, little by little it composes what the person wishes to hear.259
    23. The fourth reason is because divine locutions differ immensely from others, a single word comprising a depth of meaning which our understanding could not thus quickly condense into one phrase.260
    24. Fifthly because, in a manner I cannot explain, these communications, without any further explanations, frequently give us to understand far 184more than is implied by the words themselves. I shall speak farther on of this way of understanding hidden things which is very subtle and a favour for which we should thank God.

    Drew, I’m not sure if these quotes give you what you are looking for but I hope they help in some way. I know they don’t directly hit on what you were asking about, but I think in a parallel type of way they can apply. I really recommend the whole book. And if you have never read Dark Night of the Soul, you should.

    Like

  25. Michael,

    Sorry for the delay. It seems that we have some work to do in understanding one another here. So, let’s see if we can untie some of the knots I have in trying to understand your position.

    MTX: I really can understand your concern that anyone has the right to determine the canon. It is this same concern that makes me know I can’t be the one who must study the details of this and decide by some process that I would come up with.

    DP: Statements like this is exactly why I question your use of history in our discussion. Perhaps I’ve misunderstood but I don’t believe that Rome has declared that they have discerned the canon based on a proper evaluation of history. Rather, their claim is that they alone have been given the unique authority to set the bounds for what is and is not the canon so that, as you say, you can’t be the one who decides this by study. So, doesn’t it follow that Rome’s definition of the canon would be correct regardless of your reading of the history? You can’t use any means to find it out; Rome must tell you what it is whatever the historical record may be.

    I don’t really see an answer to my question on determination. Again, what exactly is it that Rome is determining? God has spoken in some books and not in others. Any proclamation that they make concerning which those are either conform to that truth or they don’t but they don’t determine or cause it to be true. Those books are not made Scripture by Rome’s declaration; they are Scripture because they are the inspired word of God. So I’m still not seeing how the idea of determination can exist or why Rome would want it to in the first place as distinct from receiving the Scriptures unless there is something about the process they’re trying to control. Is Rome’s determination of the canon anything different than discerning or receiving the canon? If it is different, how is it different? If it’s not different, why use language that makes their role in identifying the canon sound more controlling than it is?

    For these reasons I’ve been trying to clarify M&T’s relationship to Scripture. Regarding your dealing with my analogy, I can understand if you think it’s invalid but it seems you just sidestepped it and replaced it with an expression of your understanding of how God communicates. That’s all well and good but it misses the thrust of my questions. I’m trying to get you to answer questions about the nature of revelation and I’m finding your answers to what I’m specifically asking to be elusive so perhaps I’ve been vague in my approach. I’ll try to clarify.

    I characterized your position as, “God’s revelation in Scripture is something we cannot know about apart from the M&T.” I understand that Rome’s position is that people are able to learn from the Scriptures but you’ve also been communicating to me that no one can know what those Scriptures are apart from M&T. Therefore, anything that can be known about God’s revelation in Scripture, according to your view, can only be known in light of M&T. Whether what one is reading is the word of God or not cannot be discerned or known about apart from M&T has been my understanding. So, much of what you’ve been saying here seems to be at odds with that. When you say such a thing as, “I also believe even the spreading of the Scriptures by non-Catholics in an incomplete form are able to bring one to know those Scriptures are God’s revealed inerrant word and can truly lead to following true teachings of God and the Church,“ I don’t understand how that can fit into your position. Is it possible to know which writings are the inspired word of God apart from M&T or not? I thought you had been arguing that it’s not.

    But I have a deeper issue I’m driving at in all of this. My understanding of the Roman position has been that M&T is necessary to know what God’s revelation in Scripture is. When I say necessary, I mean that it is so by the very nature of revelation. So, if M&T is necessary (using the definition that’d I’m employing) it cannot be the case that there could have ever been another way that God’s revelation in Scripture could have been received, not because God decided it would be that way but because the nature of Scripture demands it. To give an example to perhaps make my point clearer, the Triune nature of God is necessary to His being. It is not possible for God not to be Triune. The same is true of His goodness, eternality, holiness, etc. All of these things are necessary to the nature of God; He cannot be other than those things. To lack any of those things is to be less than God by nature. However, being creator is not something that is necessary to God’s being. He was God before He created. He is creator only by virtue of His decision to create but He need not have been so. It is a characteristic He freely decided to take on. So, I’m asking in respect to Scripture if M&T is by its very nature necessary to knowing what it is, in the same way holiness is necessary to the being of God, or if God had any number of ways by which His revelation in Scripture could have theoretically come to be known but He chose that M&T would be the mechanism by which it would happen. Again, my understanding of the Roman position has been that M&T is necessary in the way I’ve described above. Perhaps I’ve been giving weight to the words I’ve been reading that are not meant to be there but that is how I’ve been understanding the Roman argument.

    So, I’ll let you answer which you think is correct and continue to refine my questions accordingly.

    Like

  26. Hey Drew,
    You seem to be closing in. I think I’ll be able to get those thoughts clearer. I’ll get something together soon. It may still be tomorrow.
    Blessings in Christ,
    Michael

    Like

  27. Drew,

    It does seem you are now getting to the things that are making it hard for you to understand my position. I think you have assumed some things about my position that are making it difficult. I’ll see if I can help. Your question shaping helps a lot. Thanks. The Scriptures are God’s Word by their nature not by the Church’s role in proclaiming them so. The NT Scriptures were originally formed in the Church by members of the Church gifted by God’s Spirit to relay those inerrant writing. The OT is likewise formed by God within the OT people of God. The Church does not make Scripture into Scripture. The Church is the servant of God. Therefore as His servant, circumstances in history called for clarity on what was Scripture and the Church did this as a service to God and for His people throughout the ages. This it did by way of the Church’s leaders having councils and spreading decrees and such. This is God’s will in how it came to be our knowledge. So, I guess the Church’s action is inherent to the history of the formation of the canon, but not the Words themself. The Church can’t form inerrant writings from non-inerrant writings. Either the Scriptures accepted are the Spirit inspired inerrant books or the Catholic Church is not Christ’s Church and I would need a new Church. The Church’s discernment processes is just God’s chosen means. More could be said, but I think that says enough for now.

    History is extremely important to the Church’s position. In history is where God has chosen to work out our salvation. I’ll give a quote from the Catechism which also quotes Dei Verbum from Vatican II “God’s Word” (Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation). I’ll also try and put some comments afterward for clarity on it.

    CCC 105 God is the author of Sacred Scripture. “The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.”
    “For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself.”

    It goes on the list the canonical books.
    I think the phrase “relying on the faith of the apostolic age” is relaying how it is the historic Tradition which was used by the Church to discern the Scriptures. To do a condensed personal summary of what I believe the Church’s Tradition is, I’d say it is the Christological and Apostolic things “handed on by the spoken word of their preaching, by their example, by the institutions they established” [CCC76] which occurred during the life of Christ and the Apostles which stopped being created at the death of the last Apostle. This is “T” Tradition. This historic reality is what was studied to discern the Scriptures. It is on this assessment of history that the Church discerned the God ordained inerrant books. It was by the apostolic Tradition that the Church discerned which writings are to be included in the list of the sacred books. [CCC 120] So, it is on its proper evaluation of the historic reality of the advent of Christ and the historic “faith of apostolic age” which the Church claims it has used to determine what books were and are the canonical books.

    In my assessment you seem to be putting me in a box of having to be Catholic even if I find the Church is truly in error on the canon. I am freer than you give me credit for. If I discover the Catholic Church is truly in a dogmatic error on this issue then it can’t be Christ Church. Therefore I will not submit to anyone other than Christ and the true authorities He ordains. The law of the land may be that we can abort children and divorce our wives, but I will not submit to believing abortion and divorce are good and right because I believe it is against God’s love, mercy and truth revealed in His Word. If I discover reasons by which the Catholic understanding of the Christian faith is against God’s love, mercy and truth revealed in His Word, then I will not submit to its asserted authority. No matter how well asserted it may be. Where I am in my understanding is that it truly does hold the authority it claims. Therefore the Church has been given the right to discern and proclaim truths such as the 73 books canon of inerrant Scriptures being it is given the keys promised in the Scriptures by Christ. If I come to understand the Church in not Christ’s Church, I will choose Christ over rejection from any communion even choosing death over losing my submission to Christ if need be. This would be by God’s grace alone of course. You believe I am not submitted to Christ while I am submitted to the Church, but for me my submission is to Christ alone. The Church is just a means ordained by my Lord for my benefit.

    You also asked of my position that someone could come to an understanding that God’s Word is inerrant even outside of the visible Catholic Church.
    You said, I characterized your position as, “God’s revelation in Scripture is something we cannot know about apart from the M&T.” I understand that Rome’s position is that people are able to learn from the Scriptures but you’ve also been communicating to me that no one can know what those Scriptures are apart from M&T. Therefore, anything that can be known about God’s revelation in Scripture, according to your view, can only be known in light of M&T. Whether what one is reading is the word of God or not cannot be discerned or known about apart from M&T has been my understanding. So, much of what you’ve been saying here seems to be at odds with that. When you say such a thing as, “I also believe even the spreading of the Scriptures by non-Catholics in an incomplete form are able to bring one to know those Scriptures are God’s revealed inerrant word and can truly lead to following true teachings of God and the Church,“ I don’t understand how that can fit into your position. Is it possible to know which writings are the inspired word of God apart from M&T or not? I thought you had been arguing that it’s not.

    You really are zeroing in on a really hard line to find. In a since you are asking a question that does not exist in my view. It is ultimately like asking if the Gospel would have been received if the Apostles didn’t preach. Ultimately the answers is no, but the Apostles did preach by the grace of the Spirit and people did hear and hearts were converted by the grace of the same Spirit and people were received into the Body of Christ by Christ’s ordained means. The Church ultimately is the means God has used to spread the truth. His Scriptures are historically part of that spreading of truth. I find no other way to receive the Scriptures than by assuming God’s work in the action of the historic people of God, the Church. I have to give His Spirit the credit for the work He has done in His sinful people, fulfilling the promises in the Scriptures to guide us to all Truth. I believe the Spirit is even in action in that spreading and receiving of truth which occurs outside the visible bounds of the Catholic Church, this includes revealing truths in the Scriptures. He works as He sees fit. Who am I to judge Him. He judges me. The Spirit goes as He wills, but He is bound to fulfill what is revealed in the Word. It is not necessary for Him to do what is not promised in the Word, but without His work outside of the saved people of God none of us could be saved. He has been poured out on those in the Church and those outside the Church as God choses so that there would be one people made from separated peoples by God’s election. I could get way of topic here. To directly address your last question, is it possible to know which writings are the inspired Word of God apart from M&T? Yes it is possible. But, how is what I have been asking. And I have yet to get an answer that satisfies the importance of the question. I do not believe that we can get there from a Sola Scriptura authority structure in the Church. I am willing to be enlightened on my ignorance of the subject from a Reformed stance. Direct revelation would seem to be the only inlet. Calvin’s black and white assertion. It didn’t seem that easy to the early Church. It is not black and white for me. It doesn’t seem black or white between all the Christian communities of our day. So it would seem God has chosen to not give me this black and white revelation and He has also not deemed fit to reveal it that way to all Christian communities. It seems He intents on the revelation coming from somewhere else. I see in the Scriptures there are men given duties to teach God’s truth to all nations. May be they can be found? I also see in the Scriptures that we can separate ourselves from the people of God[1 John 2:19]. I also see in Scripture we can be exiled from this community[1 Cor 5:5] I believe to have found this rightful people of God in the Catholic Church. It is now black and white to me as a Catholic. God help me if I am missing something. In my opinion black and white is needed for this subject, especially in a Sola Scriptura authority structure. What do you think, Drew? I am open to any suggestions.

    Like

  28. I’ll try and address more directly your analog.
    You said: “ So, I still find myself having a problem with this idea that anyone has been given the right to determine the canon. Let me give my own analogy. If you, as a father, give instructions to your son, he may decide that he has the prerogative to determine whether or not the instructions are truly from you but the conclusion he comes to has no bearing on the fact that you did indeed give the instructions. Similarly, if he determined that words said by someone else were actually words said by you, his determination would not change the fact that you were not responsible for those words. So, perhaps it would help to hear how you think the idea of determining the canon is helpful because all it seems to do to me is prop up a special place of authority for those who would make themselves masters over the Scriptures.

    I believe you are right in your assessment that my instructions to my son would be my instructions even if my son decides otherwise. And also they would be my instructions even if he decides someone else’s instructions were actually mine. The difference comes in when you actually put the historic context of the Apostles and Christ and the sending by the Father in place. What actually are some of the interpretation of those written instructions do differ between us. This is where the Protestant and Catholic faith part ways regarding Apostolic Succession.
    Adding to your analogy will make it a Catholic understanding and it even happened in my house the other day.
    I[the one with authority] sent my three year old to tell my older children[age 8 & 6] to tell them I said to come eat dinner. They were playing. They chose not to trust him and we began dinner without them. Of course I did this to teach them at times they need to listen to their younger brother, or at least check out his story. If they had they would have discovered what he said would have been true. Being they didn’t believe him enough to check they had to say their own prayers and begin eating colder food. My three year old was my apostle and son. This above is a common understanding between us as Catholic and Protestant. The Apostles were sent by Christ to tell teach what he taught them. The Catholic difference in this idea would come in if my instructions were different. If I would have told my three year old, which has great language BTW, to tell my older children to go tell the all the neighbor’s kids to come have a pizza party with us tonight. Then my kids have two choices. They can come check it out first with me if they could; which might be good, though it might be better to go let more neighbors know more quickly, which is the other choice. Both are valid choices, though. The most important part is that the instruction are from me [the true authority of the party]. Now maybe my children will be the ones who require verification and one of them[my oldest son] comes to see all the pizza and what all is at the party while my daughter stays and plays. And he gets the fuller instructions and quickly then goes to tell everybody. Getting all the neighbors informed about the party would be the most important part. So wisely my oldest son selects trustworthy neighborhood kids to help them spread the news. Some may believe the story about the pizza party. Some may not. But those who think it is worth checking out will come to see it is true. Now the ones who were initial sent[my son who got the verification] put down some of the details on a flyer to hand to the neighbor’s kids which they chose were trustworthy. These get passed around so all the kids who get the news have some of the details about the party. But some of the other trustworthy kids put together some things to help let everybody know as well. Maybe the details will be right but maybe they won’t be on these flyers. They haven’t seen the party. While everybody is moving around the neighborhood some folks talk with my son and more details about the party are confirmed and certain flyers are told to be his while others are not, but not everybody got this news. Sometime latter my son is called to come back home to the party and he begin to enjoy and others also join us, but others remain to tell as many kids as possible to come to the party. Nobody is given a detail on when the party will end. Some of the kids way down the street still out telling the news and spreading the flyers start arguing about some of the flyers not being from my son so they get together to find all the people who would have more of the details to compare with to know which ones are my son’s confirmed flyers. Other folks don’t get together with them and decide on the flyers being his while others disagree about the details of the instructions. Maybe they disagree on how to get to the house or who was chosen by my son to spread the news or something else. Either way they disagree on the instruction. And they need help. May be they should ask the youngest son who is at the party with me.

    Drew, in my parable, the instructions are the OT, my youngest son is Christ, the party is the resurrection, my daughter is the unbelieving Jews, my oldest son is the Apostles, the trustworthy chosen kids are the bishops/teachers of the Church, the gatherings are councils, the current disagreement is the difference in the seven books which I accept and you currently do not. My daughter would possibly not have the whole view of the instructions, because she did not come to see me. It is not about authority over the Scriptures. It is about getting kids safely to the true party. Let me know what you think.

    Like

  29. Michael,

    Clarifying this is very helpful. Though your admission of, “To directly address your last question, is it possible to know which writings are the inspired Word of God apart from M&T? Yes it is possible,” is at odds with what I have read from others in the Roman camp. This is a bit tangential to our discussion and you can do with it what you like but that has been an issue for me in this. I’m trying to understand THE Roman position on these issues and it seems that it either doesn’t exist or is rather ill defined. I’ve been taking those statements I’ve seen made by others as representative of the whole of Rome, and therefore you as well, on the issue. It is the forcefulness of their rhetoric and the insistence I have seen on the impossibility of people to know what Scripture is apart from M&T that so perplexed me and got me started on this conversation with you in the first place. So, part of this is frustrating for me in that I’m not necessarily able to take what I’ve learned from our discussion and use it as a representative sample of those who submit to Rome but I’m also gratified to see that the position which you hold is more coherent than what I see others taking up apologetics for Rome holding to. So my curiosity is not sated insofar as trying to understand how one can understand the Scriptures from the standpoint of it being impossible to know what they are apart from M&T but, for the purposes of our conversation, I’m glad that’s not an issue that needs to be ironed out. And, for what it’s worth, based on my limited reading of the catechism you linked for me, your position is much more in line with what I read there than those who would take the other side.

    I am still not quite clear on how these two statements are reconciled in your view: “I can’t be the one who must study the details of this and decide by some process that I would come up with,” versus ”If I discover the Catholic Church is truly in a dogmatic error on this issue then it can’t be Christ Church.” It seems to me that you are very much studying the details by some process you’ve come up with to measure the evidence against and that it is only by Rome meeting some historical, biblical, philosophical, or any other kind of criteria that you’ve set up does it gain the authority to decide this. Ultimately, I see you saying that you decided that Rome has the authority to decide. Other than the tangible clarity that you gain by having physical documents that purport to have authority that outline the canon, how is that different from the Protestant deciding the means by which we discern the canon? It looks like you’re arguing for the need of an authority to discern these things while still retaining the authority yourself to discern if the authority is wrong. That makes you the authority as far as I can tell. So, I’d like to see you go into this more to help me understand here.

    Touching on your analogy, I don’t really have a problem with it as far as it goes. The question I was trying to get at with the analogy is whether or not the idea of Rome “determining” the canon was in any way different from discerning the canon. Judging from your response, the answer to that question is no. So if all that is meant by “determine” is “discern” then I am satisfied to let the issue rest.

    I do think we are much closer to me understanding your position. Hopefully, at that point, I will be better able to answer your questions, better able to ask questions of you, and better able to understand what you mean when you ask and answer.

    Like

  30. Drew,
    Concerning my reconciling the two statements you quoted from me, they aren’t reconciled. They are two ideas held in tension required by my lack of sufficent knowledge to make a full discernment on the issue at hand. And, me not being the one with a right to discern the canon comes from me not being told to by God in a way that I can understand to do such a thing. The other has to do with having an ingrained desire to know and submit to truth and to teach to my children the truth that they may know it for themselves. Currently I trust the Church’s judgement, because I can find no other way to authoritatively have a true authority such as the Scriptures revealed to me. One that could tell the canon with the protection of the Holy Spirit to keep it from error. I guess in other words, from my current knowledge I have nothing else I can do except submit to the Church, but I do hold the possiblity that there is another way because I do not know all ways. Help?

    Like

  31. So you know there are things that don’t have “THE” Roman position defined. There are many theological debates that channel inside of the Church, as it has been since the beginning. There are things that final get to a head and get cleared up difinatively, but on some issues that can take centuries. It takes looking at things for a long time with many debates at times. There are levels of clarity on certain issues. As you can probably tell with me, I am still trying to zero in on the Church’s position on this myself. Talking with you and others helps press me into doing that.

    Like

  32. Michael,

    I appreciate your willingness to allow that tension to exist. However, it does become problematic in discussing this with you if, when you argue that we don’t have the authority to determine these matters, you do so based on the foundation of you using your own authority to come to that conclusion. In the end, holding to both only seems to make individual authority reign supreme.

    So really, it seems to me that our approaches to this issue become close to the same. We’re both looking for an infallible authority, I look to the internal witness of the Spirit and it seems that you want something more tangible. You’re looking for something that conforms to your criteria and I’m looking for that to which the Spirit testifies. Does that pretty well sum up the situation as far as you can tell? If not, how would you describe where you think we stand on the issue?

    Like

  34. Drew, I don’t think that sums it up. The other reason I still hold that tension open for a canon authority answer is because I have found it extremely hard to come to the conclusion that there isn’t a satisfiable answer from the camp in which my faith and love of God and His word were formed. That was a hard thing to face. That is still a hard thing to face. I have great respect for many teachers I learned from and it is hard for me to think that they don’t have an answer on this. Regarding individual authority reigning supreme, this is why when I saw this problem among things I became Catholic. I abondon my individual authority on this issue along with others, but I did so with the understanding that I could not see any other reasonalbe answer to form the canon of authoritative books. I just hold out the possiblility that someone more informed than I can inform me. I accept the Holy Spirit’s work in me and in the Church, but if it is not Christ’s Church then I would not remain in it by the work of the Spirit. My view is closer to your view, but I am in the Church and you are outside of it. I am able to be submitted to the Scriptures and the Spirit and the Church while also studying these matters and looking for more clarity on my areas of ignorance. This is Catholic. When I find a convincing arguement I will bring it to the Church for clarity as well. Iron sharpen iron. You sharpen me, Andrew sharpens me, Sean sharpens me, my Pastor sharpens me, books sharpen me, but ultimately it is God who sharpens us all through each other. It must be in Him that we place our trust.

    Drew, you will have to help me understand how you don’t have an individual determination in accepting the WCF over other confessions which differ. Doesn’t this take a individual decission on accepting the Church leadership you have chosen? I understand I have made a individual determination in accepting the Church, but I have accepted it because I believe it is “the” Church and not “a” Church. God’s nows how much I begged Him to stop me if I was wrong. I still beg Him to save me if I am in error today. This is where I am. It either is His Church or it isn’t. I believe it is so I am Catholic. If it is then more people need to know about it and what the Church truly teaches. So I use what gifts I have to put things out for others here on the web in hope that some might think it is worth looking into themselves. If it is not His Church then I need to be corrected so I keep that tension which bothers you. I do this out of the love of others. I don’t want to lead others away from truth. I want to be part of leading others to Christ not away from Him. I hope that some of this helps you understand me, Drew.

    Blessings in Christ,
    Michael

    Like

  35. So I use what gifts I have to put things out for others here on the web in hope that some might think it is worth looking into themselves.

    I don’t know if this will sharpen, Michael, but I try to put less of myself on the web, and instead, point people to Scripture and the Church. Or maybe it’s my problem that I’m just not at a stage in my life where I can devote the time I need to important pursuits like theological comboxxing. Or golfing…

    Take care, Michael. Don’t let what you read on the internet get you down. Whatever, it’s not my blog, maybe Darryl’s enjoying reading your interaction back and forth. It was only a suggestion, since I found e-mail discussions very helpful at a particular time in my questioning.

    Like

  36. All is good over here, Andrew. We should do what we believe God is calling us to. At times that may be golf. For each person this will be different. God made enough different types of things in the world to let us know it is ok to have different pursuits among us as men. Emailing is good too. We thought about it, but moved on anyway.
    Blessings friend,
    Michael

    Like

  38. I doubt it, AB. Maybe someday he will catch some of it, but he stays pretty busy on the current stuff he puts out. We are just back in the dugout having a discussion about how the game is played and what the rules are.

    Like

  39. Michael,

    I’m not claiming that there is no individual discerning on my part. However, that doesn’t preclude the Holy Spirit working in me to show me the truth much like the fact that the Scriptures were written by men does not preclude them being authored by the Spirit. So, while individual discernment for me is allowed and even required to a degree, my position cannot rest on that discernment insofar as it is mine alone. It is the Spirit’s testimony that is the deciding factor, not my reading of any evidence or any conclusions I draw on my own. Your position, as I understand it, is somewhat the opposite. Your discernment is the deciding factor for you but the position to which your discernment has lead you ultimately declares that discernment to be invalid. So it’s hard for me to understand an appeal to personal discernment from a position that doesn’t allow it.

    So, I’m not exactly sure what a good next step for our discussion is. If we can’t untie what I see as a knot here then there’s not much further to go in my seeking to understand your position. I think I have a good enough understanding to be able to start dealing with your questions in better detail now. I’m sure we’ll need more clarification along the way on some issues but it’s certainly clearer to me where you’re coming from at least. How, do you want to proceed?

    Like

  40. Drew,
    I agree with the essential place of your position. Currently, our personal discernment has us in separated bodies of people baptized into Christ. This is what I hope to see removed between us. And I care not if I come to understand I am wrong or not. True mutual fellowship in the Truth between seekers of truth and faithfulness to God and His Word and work is what I seek. Keeping it right here with your question about individual discernment sounds fine until we get that clearer. I try and answer that soon.

    Like

  41. Drew,
    Sorry for the length. This may take a bit to get my point over but I will circle back around to it in the end.

    The story of God in the Scriptures may help give my understanding of this one independent choice its place. When God in the beginning set Adam in the garden He gave the command not to eat of the tree in the midst of the garden, one choice; trust and act accordingly. This is what they didn’t do. They lacked the living action which flows from believing God’s word, the life of the Spirit. Adam was given a witness from the “One” who was the US who said “let us make man in OUR image”. Adam got a witness of what should be done from the multi-witnessing nature of the God, but failed to live out the action of the Word of God. The family is formed in God’s image. The husband being the source of life[the Father], the Wife being like the beloved[the Son], the child being the fruit of their love[the Spirit]. In the OT we read that things should be established on the word of two witnesses. This is why Jesus had John the Baptist preach at His coming. Two witnesses are called for in the Law. He did not need them, but for our good He gives more than is needed. Why? Two witnesses were needed to overcome the liar in the beginning. The Scriptures do not point to the woman being given the witness from God about the tree of the knowledge of g&e, but it is written God said to the man while he is still alone, “from that tree you shall not eat; the moment you eat of it you shall surely die.” Eve is not given this command from God, except in that she was taken from the side or rib of the man[depending your translation]. She is given this command while “in” Adam. She is bone of man’s bone and flesh of man’s flesh. The Serpent comes to Eve telling her the opposite of what Adam has been told by the Triune “Us”[multi-witness]. His Word has a plural character to it. Satan is a singular witness of a singular position. He is proposing God is not telling the truth and She “will not die.” This story turns South, because the woman does not unite to the witness[Adam] who witnessed the word of the True Witness and can reason with her to look to see that it takes two witnesses to reveal this to her, instead of the single witness of Satan. She acted as if she could chose on her own wisdom while only listening to the independent witness[Satan] and the chooser who is weighing between the two choices, one affirmed by Satan and the other what she thinks could be true. This makes two false witnesses for Satan’s choice. She freely chooses to act on what she has heard from the single witness and the observation of the object in question[the fruit of the tree]. Her other choice is to look to her husband who is the source from which God took her. This in turn is what Adam was to do if she was to come to him. Go to the source[God] and confirm His Law. Here a few facts may be helpful to state. God put the tree here. God is the creator. God is the source of the life they have been given. He is in the position of having the knowledge to know. Satan is just in the midst of the garden, too. He is not claiming he is the creator or that he made the tree or anything of that sort. He is just claiming that the one who is in the position to know and speak about the tree is speaking falsely. Satan also doesn’t tell her to go search for the Truth and come back, because his words can’t be tested and proven false.
    Drew, the reason I am putting this here is mainly to point to the fact that the woman was faced with one free choice about the tree, which the consequences of the action would come from God. The current state of things was the consequences of their trust in God, blessedness. The temptation would test God’s proclaimed consequences. And also that choice had a clear answer from the mouth of God. The woman’s source for this Law came from Adam when she was united to him. Adam and the woman’s source for that was God. God is the Triune multi-witness by His nature, because He is not created, but is a witness of Himself; the Father witnessing the Son, the Son witnessing the Father and the Spirit being the eternal fruit of that eternal union. God gives the gift of being His created son born of God in creation to image His beloved Son in eternity within space and time. But, for Adam to fulfill that role he must act as the Son would act in the flesh. Here is why the tree is there and why the bride should come to Adam to remember the word of the Eternal Father, the truth about the eating of that tree. The bride was to come to Adam to receive the word of the witness of God. This is what would have kept true God ordained fellowship in order. This breaking of the order of creation and the family is what caused the effects of the fall. Death, suffering, thorns, the woman’s increased suffering in bearing a child, the woman’s desire being for her husband and the woman’s husband ruling over the her; the Curse. Adam was the son of God[Luke 4], but not the “Son of Man”.
    It was the breaking of this God ordained order which Christ reversed. He fulfilled the consequences of breaking God’s Word, the curse; the bad side of the Law. In the beginning the woman listened only to one part of the creation[Satan] and her desires to have knowledge and please the eyes by taking the good looking fruit. She did not seek the revelation of God, which would be confirmed by her husband recalling the Word of God to resist the call from the tempter in the creation[Satan] and live in harmony and peace. The “son of God” was to be sought out for direction. This “son of God” is the created son of God and from him the one who needed God’s Word could come to know it[the beloved]. But, the woman who was thinking on these things with the serpent did not try to seek and know God’s Word regarding this temptation. Here is her free choice acting counter to the truth. She acts against what the internal witness of the Holy Spirit would be. Her husband, and in this one case her source of material life, would have given her God’s Word[the law regarding the tree]. The job of the man was to give the woman the command of God. Like Satan did to her, she ends up coming to Adam as a tempter. She should have called Adam to the tree to proclaim the Word of God to the serpent in the flesh. There would then be two witnesses. Satan would be out witnessed. “It is not good that the man should be alone.”
    Satan is the one who would use the creation of God[the fruit of the tree] to destroy the life of the family of God which should have been headed by the “son of God”. The woman has that one free choice to look to and trust in the Word of God given at the time of union with the man. Adam is the one who needed to be at the tree to reveal the Word of God to her. The woman wanted wisdom apart from her husband and she believed Satan instead of seeking the son of God’s witnessed council. The problem was that she failed to know God wanted her desire for wisdom and fulfillment of her eyes and taste to be filled at a place without the curse of death. For that she must seek and know the Word of God from the “son of God”, who was her husband from which she came. She must go back to her husband and stop listening to the serpent, who is tempting her not the trust God and his son. This is what should have happened and didn’t. The family God wanted to image Him failed to produce Godly fruit, the life of the Spirit[obedience out of love and trust]. Now we deal with the curse.
    Regarding the Curse’s positive things God said (1) there will be enmity between Satan and the woman and her seed (2) the woman’s seed will crush the head of the Serpent. The one thing Adam adds about the woman is that she will be called Eve “because she became the mother of all the living”. For me, all these types and images translate directly to the life of Christ and the Cross, “the last Adam.”[1 Cor 15:45] All gets reversed. Christ is last Adam instead of the first Adam, the one taken from woman rather than having woman taken from Him, the woman gives His material life, His woman believes and keeps God’s word and is blessed instead of breaking God’s command and being cursed, He is present at “the tree” to tell the Word of God to the woman and his beloved disciple and makes him her son[John 19:26], there was no fruit of the Spirit[a son] from the woman at the first tree, the life of the Spirit was lived to the full at the last tree and produced the beloved disciple, His tree is the tree of life, the first was the tree of death, the first was the tree which produced the curse, this tree fulfilled the curse, Adam did not die at the first tree, Adam did die at the second tree, the family was broken down by the curse at the first, but healed at the last, there were no thorns or suffering at the first tree, that was what the second tree was made to do best and the thorns were on His head, the first tree looked pleasant to the woman, this one looks horrific to her, the Spirit came because of this tree, while the Spirit was quenched at the first… I could keep going Drew, but I will get to my point. God’s intended image for humanity was marred at the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. That image is represented at this tree perfectly. There are three people representing the true image of love which was missing at the first tree. Christ is the good fruit[the life giving Spirit][1 Cor 15:45], Mary is the awake[instead of in a deep sleep] partner given to the beloved who is not alone, the beloved disciple is the one present who was absent at the begin. He loved the Word of God and received it. Christ came to save the one lost sheep, the beloved disciple. All these at the Cross loved the Word of God and believed. Mary believed and was overshadowed by the Spirit and conceived the Lamb now being slain as the fruit of the tree of life. There is only room for the beloved disciple who the Scriptures leave unnamed. He stands looking at the cross because he followed the Word’s of Christ to gain life. He was given two “bodies” of Christ, one physically the other mystically. One was on Holy Thursday when Christ said, “Take this all of you and eat it, for this is my body.” The other he took into his home as his mother, the “woman” who continually “pondered these things in her heart” and was weeping at the “side” of Adam on the Cross where He fell “asleep”. She stayed with the Word of God. Drew, both are called the “Body of Christ” in the Scriptures, the Church whom the beloved disciple takes as his own mother and the “bread which we break”[1 Cor 10:16]. This is the prime area of discernment called for in the Scriptures. “For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgement on himself.”[1 Cor 11:29] The Church is one because the “bread is one.” “We, though many are one body, for we partake of the one loaf.”[1 Cor 10:17] You and I have been baptized into Christ, but we do not have “one bread” therefore we are not together living as the one Church. You and I do not have the fellowship which the Scriptures call for. We must discern which body is Christ’s body between us. This is the one sure thing we are called to so we do not “eat and drink judgement on” ourselves. This is why I say I believe I have am in “the” Church and not “a” Church, because there is only one body of Christ. And I see the only way to receive the Word as being from the Church. Many say come follow me, but His sheep know his voice and they will follow Him. I follow Christ. His Word is my guide. The Church doesn’t usurp that, it serves that. So, the choice we are talking about really isn’t a choice. It is a belief born of the Spirit and the action which necessarily follow that belief.[1 John] He calls and we answer or we don’t. This is how we will know if we are His sheep. “Blessed are those that hear the word of God and keep it.”[Luke 11:28] I pick up my cross daily and follow Him. This is all because I have the gift of the Spirit, which the first Woman and Adam denounced. The Spirit is poured out on all people. The question is whether we will go where the Spirit calls or not. He calls us to the cross, the tree of life, where we are to be remade in the likeness of Christ and that means death to us. The Spirit has already been liberally given to all people who hear the Word. It is completely free but it costs everything to follow Christ. We are told like the woman at the well, “go find your husband.” At his side we will find streams of living water and flowing blood, which are for the healing of the nations(divided people). At the Cross we find the “Body” of Adam proclaiming the fulfillment of the curse by the death of Adam’s replacement for Adam’s sin and we see the only true “mother of the living”, the Bride of Christ imaged mystically by Mary who carried and was in a place to know where the living Word of God came from. She conceived Him by the Holy Spirit. She was willing to wait for the Word of God(the cursed blessed one) to be fulfilled so that a new Mary weeping and laying outside a new tomb in a new garden could ask in a new garden where have they taken the body of her Lord. When she could look in the lomb she could see two angels, like at the blocking of the first garden. She is sent to tell the disciples about the Risen Lord by the Lord himself. She found the True Witness.
    So, Drew to give you a little of the Word I carry from the tomb of Christ Risen. I am a member of this new woman, the Bride of Christ. I come to tell you, whom I believe is a beloved disciple, I have seen the Risen Body of Christ. I have discerned His body in the breaking of the bread which the Lord breaks saying “This is my Body”. Like the Mary of Magdala in the Gospel of John, I do not recognize Him with my eyes and I do not feel Him when I partake of the Bread. She was told not to hold on to Him. So His who am I to judge His love for me by Him not wanting me to touch Him now. Even with all these bariers, I can still discern Him telling me “Go tell my disciples”. At the end of Mass each first day of the week the doors are closed and the Lord comes among us who are still with the Apostles and says “Peace be with you.” But, each Sunday at the end of the Sacrifice of the Mass the Lord also says to me “The Mass is finished. Go in peace, glorifying the Lord by your life.” So, I go like the woman at the well to tell people in town who will listen, “Could this be the Christ.” Then I hope they come and see the Man at the well who washes with living water and baptizes with the Spirit. Then they can come to say, “We no longer believe because of your word; for we have heard for ourselves, and know that this is truly the savior of the world.”
    Drew, this is not my choice, this is my understanding of the Truth. I believe you are baptized and anointed by God’s Spirit. Therefore, I believe you can find this out for yourself. Go to a Mass sometime. See if I have any idea what I am talking about. Keep searching the Scriptures. Ask a local priest for help with things. As the Scriptures do, they tell of the Christ. He is still with us and he will never leave the tree until all His children come home. He tells us the good news that “It is finished” “go tell my people all that I have taught you.” “Freely you have received freely give.” We “sent ones” come to find all the people gathered around false trees and tell them to test their teachers with the Word of God. Drew, I believe I have found the tree of life and have eaten from the right tree in the garden guided by my God come in the flesh (the living Word), He overshadows with the Spirit and unveils the true bride of Christ. Every Mass we live His return and await His definitive return when our faith will turn to sight. Then we will no longer see through a glass darkly, but face to face. He truly is with us and we teach that truth, without shame. God is good. And He sent His Son that we may have a right to the tree of life again. Come and see if what I say is true, Drew. You do have one choice. Do I speak the truth of the Word of God or not? I am different than Satan. I send you to inquire of your teachers and the Scriptures about the Body of Christ. Test me by the Word and sound reason. Continue to check and see if there truly are answers to the teachings of the Catholic Church, as you are doing. Pray to our Lord for truth. He will answer the prayer of the one in need of wisdom. The Scriptures teach to do such things as this. He will not leave your prayers unanswered.
    I guess here is when I ask you where you would like to go from here. I’m here with anything else I can help with. But you best pray about my words now because our advisory the Devil goes around seeking to snatch the Word of God up before it can take root. We men are weak and He is a liar and a murderer from the beginning, so he is deceptive and seeks to destroy and drag you to hell. Christ is the beginning and the end, the Son of man and the Son of God come in the flesh. Find out if what I say about the living Bread of Life is taught in the Scriptures. Think of the Emmaus Road, “He was made known to them in the breaking of the bread.”[Luke 24:25]

    Blessings and prayers in the peace of Christ,
    Michael

    Like

  43. Drew,
    I hope my previous comment didn’t come across like a different person. In working throught all of this with you I have come back to the full surity of the Church’s profession of the Canon being the only clear way a believer can know and assent to the Scriptures place in the Christian life. I was wavering in my faith. I am sorry if my last comment came across so strong at the end. You seem to be a person who loves the truth and will follow whatever you come to understand as true and I hope my zeal that night has not turned you away from the Catholic Church. It was a long night when I was finishing that comment and I may have over pressed my point. I hope you will accept my apologies. I do think I have settled the Canon question on my side though and I do not think that there is a Protestant view that would satisfy me. I thank you for your help in me coming to know this.
    Blessings in Christ,
    Michael

    Like

  44. Michael,

    Your post is requiring much more work for me to compose my response. Trying to respond in a way that is commensurate to what you said and is able to clearly communicate the problems I see is proving to be a tough task. I’m not sure when I’ll be finished. If you’re worried about your interaction with me affecting my posture towards Rome, I can assure you that you have no bearing on that.

    Like

  45. Thanks for responding, Drew. I thought you might have given up on me as being respectful, at least. Sorry, about the “you best pray” bit. In responding to you I believe I attacked a “demon” of doubt in me. I have a strong mystical bend in my thinking at times and it can be hard to relay well to others. I’m not even sure if you need to respond. My main point is that it is not a choice it is a belief. It is a understanding not a determination. You can’t choose what you believe to be true. It just is.
    I will not be interacting too much online going forward. It is not because of you. I need to do more learning and less trying to teach. I have a lot still to learn. I believe God is calling me to learn more in other ways than through blog form right now. Especially, about myself and the God who is truly worthy of all love. I will read your response, but realize I may take a while before I get to responding.
    I need to rest and recoup.

    God’s blessings and peace be with you through Christ our Lord+,
    Michael

    Like

  46. Drew, I hope you don’t think I want to just abondon you here. I have appreciated our interaction. You can contact me with anything at my email. I just assume being I have no more need for an explaination about your specific view of the canon that you may not wish to continue with it. Hope all is well.
    Blessings,
    Michael

    michaeltx2013 @ gmail com

    Like

  47. Pingback: What Do Pope Francis and Russell Moore Have in Common? | Old Life Theological Society

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.