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.
Old Life 
Hey, Sean, you remember Nancy and her Borg Apologetic? There was that yearning to be lost in union with The One. How unusual or typical is that driving force in RCC?
LikeLike
Michael, sort of, maybe, but not really. You don’t have an RC view apart from sacerdotalism. You’d have to argue a primitive or non-Tridentine understanding of the RC view.
LikeLike
MikeM,
In a part yes and in part no. But, before I was married I was no less who I am, but am now still just a man but also a now husband. I have been transformed. We now with the coming of Christ are now longer servants, but “beloved.” This is spousal language. We are now in “intimate” communion with God in Christ. He has taken to Himself a bride. We are His beloved bride through the Cross. He laid down His life in love for His bride we receive Him in thanksgiving for His graceful reception of us a wayward adulterous harlot of a wife to be cleansed by His and His healing hands. We are not disintegrated we are His received Body. Ephesians 5’s great mystery speaking of Christ and the Church.
LikeLike
You don’t have an RC view apart from sacerdotalism.
I understand Sean, my point is you don’t have to only make a Catholic understand your view, you must also make a Lutheran which does not except the requirement of a unbreakable priestly calling in the Church.
LikeLike
So I would think you can help me understand without getting into that. I’m just trying to understand.
LikeLike
MM, the RC’s have always kinda fallen back to pietistic or romantic notions of just ‘love God’ or just believe or “I believe that I might understand’. That’s the why of the ascetics and monastics- I need to be closer to God. Vows of silence and poverty, the contemplatives, the mystics. There’s a real heart of divination that goes along with devout RC. Priestly charism, actual transformation of matter, veneration, pageant, ‘you catch more than you learn’. Hierarchy among the faithful, heirarchy among the priestly class. There’s quite a bit of ladder climbing and losing yourself in the divine center if you will.
LikeLike
MikeM,
This may sound crazy, but I truly held out the possibility that at my first reception of Christ in the Mass may have been my last day, for better of worst.
LikeLike
Michael, sort of. I get what you’re trying to drive at. Well, as you know, Luther and Calvin never did bridge the gap. Lutherans don’t let me at their table from either background. But with the lutherans I’m just dealing with the texts. There is no mere dealing with the text with RC’s. We can agree it’s mysterious and more than memorialism or symbolism. I’d frankly have to brush up on the lutheran position; with and under I believe. Which just from a first blush is borrowing from a medieval understanding of metaphysics.
LikeLike
MikeM,
When you asked earlier about a experimental sign of this union. This is the same thing asked of Christ by people in His day. You couldn’t look smell or taste the divine in Him, He just was. So yes I do believe there are parts to our Faith that we are called to “just believe” for Christ’s sake. He said “if you do not believe that I am He you will die in your sins.” I wish you could know how much I begged God to stop me if this were not true.
Just trying to give you some of my mind,
MichaelTX
LikeLike
I repeat what I asked just to get my wondering back where we are.
We feed really but spiritually by faith.
Ok, you feed really on what?
And then was wondering with MikeM about this:
MikeM,
I’d also say that desire for union with God and separation from sin is quite normal in the Scriptures, too. Especially, in Paul and John.
LikeLike
Lutherans don’t let me at their table from either background.,/I>
Sean, I think many Lutheran bodies now do, but they speak very clearly about receivers being Baptized and believing in the real presence of Christ. But, I’m no Lutheran expert either.
LikeLike
“So yes I do believe there are parts to our Faith that we are called to “just believe” for Christ’s sake.”
And that’s fine for spiritual realities. But when you speak of physical changes and physical union, let’s take it to the science lab.
“I truly held out the possibility that at my first reception of Christ in the Mass may have been my last day, for better of worst.”
Can you explain?
LikeLike
Well,
The Catholic belief is either the greatest blasphemy there is or the greatest unbelievable blessing there is this side of the grave. Therefore, I understand blasphemy to be reasonably punishable by God with death and true union with God to be reasonably the end of the purpose of man. I guess from there you may be able to suppose the rabbit holes of reasonable possibilities.
And that’s fine for spiritual realities. But when you speak of physical changes and physical union, let’s take it to the science lab.
I understand your thought here, but when you hold that same standard beside Jesus you can find nothing divine in Him either. “Is this not the son of Mary and Joseph?”
LikeLike
Sorry,
Poor Scripture quote.
“Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James…And He could do no miracle there except that He laid His hands on a few sick people and healed them.6And He wondered at their unbelief.”
Sorry. Hope the added context helps.
LikeLike
Michael, this is part of the rub from my side; I’m already believing in the miraculous, the invisible, the mysterious. God has uniquely revealed himself and required of me a faith beyond doubting Thomas. A faith supernaturally enabled by God’s gifting through the work of the Holy Spirit. The object of which is testated by the Christ as revealed in the scriptures. So, while we can have disagreements about the canonical texts, where does Rome get the canonical license to go beyond those scriptures? That she does this is not a matter of contest. Iow, it’s one thing to require of me supernatural faith to revealed(canonical) truths, it’s another altogether to require it of me in extra canonical tradition. We would consider this an illegitimate attempt to bind a believer’s conscience. And and obscuring of the gospel message. So, it’s not a matter of a lack of faith but of the proper objects of that faith.
LikeLike
Sean,
I get it, but could not the 33 AD Jew say the same thing and reject Christ and His Apostles?
But, this has nothing to do with you helping me understand the view reguarding Holy Communion you are taking which I don’t understand. What do you understand yourself to feed on?
Do you understand my concerns regarding the Christology?
LikeLike
Michael, according to Jesus and the apostles, the 33 AD Jew has no such rock if they rightly understood the scriptures. As it was, they were more beholden to their traditions and failed to see Christ in the scriptures. This would be roughly the same charge I would lay at the feet of the RCC. Their traditions have obscured the Christ of the scriptures they claim to uphold.
Matthew 15
Then Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said, 2 “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat.” 3 He answered them, “And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? 4 For God commanded, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’ 5 But you say, ‘If anyone tells his father or his mother, “What you would have gained from me is given to God,”[a] 6 he need not honor his father.’ So for the sake of your tradition you have made void the word[b] of God. 7 You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said:
8 “‘This people honors me with their lips,
but their heart is far from me;
9 in vain do they worship me,
teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’”
Michael, I feed on Christ really but spiritually by faith when I partake of the lord’s supper. I’m not partaking of any physicality either by conversion or through communion with or underneath the elements. Here’s Calvin;
The body of Christ remains in heaven. There is no “descent” of Christ to earth. “Flesh must therefore be flesh; spirit, spirit — each thing in the state and condition wherein God created it. But such is the condition of flesh that it must subsist in one definite place, with its own size and form.” [12] The human properties of Christ’s body are not impaired. Moreover the elements of the Supper retain their full, substantial identity as bread and wine.
There is however a descent of the Holy Spirit who constitutes the connection between the risen Christ and the souls of believers. “No extent of space interferes with the boundless energy of the Spirit, which transfuses life into us from the flesh of Christ.”[13] “It is certainly a proof of truly divine and incomprehensible power that how remote so ever He may be from us, He infuses life from the substance of His flesh and blood into our souls so that no distance of place can impede the union of head and members.” [14] The manner in which Christ’s flesh is eaten is spiritual. The Holy Spirit communicates the life-giving benefits of Christ’s natural body to us.
The mystery I hold defies the clarity of specificity you are asking of me. Here’s the WCF;
VII. Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements, in this sacrament,[13] do then also, inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally but spiritually, receive and feed upon, Christ crucified, and all benefits of His death: the body and blood of Christ being then, not corporally or carnally, in, with, or under the bread and wine; yet, as really, but spiritually, present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses.[14]
LikeLike
Sean,
The problem is I and the Church say this same thing, there is “no such rock if they rightly understood the scriptures.”
Sorry, but I would think this is what you would know about the Church. If it or I thought the “T” tradition was against the the Scriptures I and it would reject them, too.
There is no communities without extra biblical “traditions.” Calvin or any of the Reformed Church communities are the same. It was traditions apart from Scripture which showed me the error that apart from a “T” tradition we will have only “man” made traditions parallel with Scripture.
“VII. Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements, in this sacrament,[13] do then also, inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally but spiritually, receive and feed upon, Christ crucified, and all benefits of His death: the body and blood of Christ being then, not corporally or carnally, in, with, or under the bread and wine; yet, as really, but spiritually, present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses.[14]
I would think you would understand the Catholic would want clarifications on those bold areas, but otherwise would say the exact same thing. The Lutheran would say the same. Both would say if it contradicts the unbolded areas we have a human tradition that contradicts Scripture. I am not alone even within the Sola Scriptura Reformational crowd.
LikeLike
Michael,
We both have traditions. But Rome has “T” tradition that allows it NOT to hold itself finally to canonical tradition/scripture when it comes to “T”. Protestants have no such out. Rome argues a non written apostolic tradition as “deposit” but has no biblical basis for it or necessary biblical teaching about it’s contents. Protestants have no such “T” tradition. Protestants don’t hold to a ‘parallel tradition’ but a subjugated one to infallible scripture.
Michael, it’s not even that we don’t have shared ground, it’s that roman “T” adds to revealed scripture and, in the assessment of protestants, obscures the revealed scriptures. Protestants don’t have a 3 legged stool but a heirarchy of authority. The Roman 3 legged stool is more a heirarchy as well with the magisterium supervising the ‘deposit’ which contains the interpretation of scripture and additional apostolic teaching not found in scripture. I don’t understand your line on the eucharist. You believe in transubstantiation, the reformed don’t. I gave you our understanding of it. If it lacks the specificity you desire of what ‘IT’ is, I can’t help it there’s a mystery here. We understand it as being NOT what RC’s or lutheran’s for that matter put forward it is. My primary pushback isn’t against real presence but conversion of elements per priestly charism and participation in an ongoing sacrifice. We refuse to speak in the specificity of thomistic or platonic metaphysical categories. That’s an answer.
LikeLike
Sean,
I will agree that is an answer, but if there is no contact with Christ and the redemptive reality accomplished in His Body, then it seems Christ has us moving back to ritual and shadow instead of the reality of the NT Covenant. If the “IT”s of the NT ordinances do not truly connect us to Christ there seems to be large disconnect with Scriptural faith to me.
I’dlike to still be resting just fine on my one leg of Scripture alone, but I got nocked of it with he canon/sola scriptura contradiction I have been trying to get you to see. If it is not there and you never catch it I hope it is not there and you never do, but It is quite clear to me and I will wait til I can see some other reasonable reason to grasp the 66 Canon other than just this is what it is. I do wish there was some other answer than a authority give to a communion with the orders to show the faith to the world, but that is what I see in the Scriptures and I can’t reject the idea that there is such a community with those divinely given duties and the accompanied promises.
LikeLike
Michael, in response to the first part of your assertion, there is a REAL connection. A spiritual ‘connection’ or reality by faith is no less real than those who didn’t have the opportunity Thomas had to feel his hands and stick his hand into his side, and Jesus calls those blessed for their faith in what they have not seen. I need to keep thinking over the canonical question. I honestly don’t see the Roman structure in scripture and would need to see it there to believe in it. I don’t want to diminish your faith in it by writing it off to some psychological need or wish fulfillment, but I know a number of Trads who talk about it just that way. You and I both hold to a canonical community. How we believe that community is constituted and the authority they adhere seems to be what we are at odds about.
LikeLike
That last bit through there is quite agreed. We both have a community. How it is constituted is what the Catholic priesthood under Bishop’s orders is all about. Priest have no “sending” apart from bishops. Bishops have no “sending” apart from Apostles. Apostles have no “sending” apart from Christ and by our faith we believe Christ is sent by the Father who shows justification for our faith with the resurrection. All this is also confirmed with the unquenchable resilience created by the power of the Holy Spirit in the community of faith since the beginning.
Here is a really quick scetchy bit on somestuff in the NT on the Roman structure. I know people say it is just asserted that the Pastorial letters are sent to “bishops” but this is very key to seeing it more clearly in the NT. Paul the Apostles appoints Timothy to appoint “presbyters” and “overseers.” Timothy being given the right to appoint overseers tells a lot. This is what Paul does. Presbyter is the root of the German word from which we get the word priest and quite obviously the role of overseer can be the bishop who is called to speak with all authority. All of these are to be discipled men who can teach the faith they have been taught. I could go on but I would really need more time than I have now. I think Karl Adams has a good book I’ve been waiting to read covering the Church. Hopefully sometime I can pick it up. I think it is called “The Church of God.” Maybe… Ignatius Press. I know some of it can be read online.
But, really I would still like you to as possible keep the blood trail on the canon question. Still enjoying chatting.
Thanks,
MichaelTX
LikeLike
Oh Sean,
I also see the doubting Thomas blessing senario clearly in the Catholics faith in the true presence. I don’t see the body of Christ nor taste nor feel, but I do believe and say “my Lord and my God” and then act accordingly.
LikeLike
Sean, sorry the book earlier was by Louis Bouyer and it is from Ignatius Press, but it is in depth ecclesiology and probably not the book to just skim for Scripture quotes. About 450 pages I think. It looks really good though. He has book on the essential and beautiful heart of Protestantism which is easily missed by Catholics called “The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism”. I read it a about a year or so back.
Later,
Mike
LikeLike
Michael,
If Jesus is a real man with a real body how is he in heaven and in your mouth at the same time? “It’s a mystery” is not an answer. No fideism.
LikeLike
“I’ll try and get to some of those thoughts this week. I’m no Catholic genius over here, but I’ll do my best.”
Nope. Not good enough, Michael.
You’re just another Bryan Cross, who doesn’t know the prot answers before you leave for Rome when they should be at your fingertips.
IOW you need to back off the triumphal attitude/approach that you have taken so far, if you really expect people to take you seriously.
I’m not knocking sean. If he wants to engage, that’s his business. He knows his stuff, but me, I only got so much time to waste.
LikeLike
Nope. Not good enough, Michael.
You’ve done quite good enough, Michael, and props to Sean too for listening back. Butt out, Bob.
Rock on. Let it rain.
LikeLike
Michael,
I’m interested in engaging you further on the canon/community issue. However, it seems to me that there are a few questions that must be answered to which I haven’t seen a definitive answer in your interactions with Sean.
When did the church recognize the authoritative canon of the Old Testament (I assume we can leave the NT out of this since there is no dispute concerning the books included therein) that is to be received by all Christians? Was it possible to know what was and was not Scripture prior to that time and, if so, how? Are Tradition and the Magisterium necessary to know what is taught in the Scriptures and have they always been necessary? Is the Tradition of the RC revelation in the same sense as Scripture is and, if not, how is it different?
I’m sure there are many other questions with which I will need to follow up after hearing your answers but those are the foundational ones that I see as needing to be answered before having common ground to engage on the issue.
LikeLike
Michael, the timothy example is a tough sell on this side of the river. The Gregorian reforms then Trent forever changed the structure and face of RC, you don’t even have a priestly class as we know it until the 11th century. Even if you grant the ground of episkopos, and I don’t in the way you or I know it, these guys were little more than pastors of local churches. IOW, they functioned like elders, teaching elders. The structure you see in scripture is elder rule. This doesn’t come anywhere near to the needed, much less unbroken line of AS, centralist-monarchist papacy or compulsory clericalism. Rome became a medieval institution and has held onto it as best it could. What’s remarkable about Rome isn’t it’s NT prescription, but that it’s a medieval institution living in 2013. Granted, it’s down to Vatican City, but still that’s some work.
LikeLike
Bob S,
You sort of gave me a shotgun spray of things to address. I was not blowing you off. I truly would have try to put together something addressing your concerns. I am a father of four who home schools my kids and takes care of the business side of a family business. You pointed at some big topics that just don’t have 1 2 3 answers. Sorry, I can not just drop my responsibilities. Those are not just of the cuff type of questions. I do truly try and present what the Churches teachings are and at times that means making sure and brushing up first.
Bryan Cross seems like a good enough guy, but we do not operate the same way. I think a lot of the answers someone has about the Church would be much better to search out for themselves. Noone know ones own concerns like ones self and God is always willing to teach us. If the Church is wrong to hell with ists self important propaganda. If it is true praise be the God who dwells among His sinful people.
What is your most important concern Bob? Maybe I can point you in a direction if you do want answers.
LikeLike
Erik,
Please don’t take this wrong.
If Jesus is the God who is eternal how was he born? How did He die? How did he with a real resurrected body walk into a locked room with the disciples? Why didn’t the Apostles recognize Him? Above all, how does He want us to be with Him for all eternity?
We are dealing right here with the ability to walk through the veil of eternity while remaining in the temporal world in a like manner that the Son walked from eternity into the temporal affairs of men; we have to deal with some mystery.
Sorry, we have to deal with stuff that is hard.
LikeLike
Drew P,
I am happy to have anybody look into this with me. I really haven’t found a way around it. I didn’t drop Sola Scriptura just cause I wanted to take a swim across the Tiber. It was truly my love of God and the Scriptures that made me need an answer to this topic. It left it impossible for me to logically remain Protestant. I will say there are probably more informed people than me on this topic. I do what I can and that is also why even after being in the Church for a 1 1/2 now I still hold out the possibility of more answers here. I do love being Catholic, but if what made me loss my Protestant position and walk this road is wrong then at least I know others might rightfully have different options.
To what I can think of of the top of my head with your questions:
When did the church recognize the authoritative canon of the Old Testament (I assume we can leave the NT out of this since there is no dispute concerning the books included therein) that is to be received by all Christians?
With this one it is addressed in serveral local synods in the 400s as far as I know and was mainly recieved by all Catholics. It was also in the Council of Florance which was bring back together the Rome and the Orthodox around 1400. The “disputed books” were in the Gutenberg bible 1450s, I think.
Was it possible to know what was and was not Scripture prior to that time and, if so, how?
I think this is a harder question to answer. Even the Jews communities had division over this. Sadducees and the Samaritains apparently held only the Pentatuch as the Canon, while the Pharisees held to a larger canon and historically the extent of it is not known until after the establishing of the Church of the NT Apostles.
Are Tradition and the Magisterium necessary to know what is taught in the Scriptures and have they always been necessary? I think quite clearly the disputes of the Church in the NT shows that it operated under the ability to say what and how things were to be in the Church, so a “magisterium” was used in the NT Scriptures. Magisterium just mean teaching office, I think.
Is the Tradition of the RC revelation in the same sense as Scripture is and, if not, how is it different? With understanding of history and order of the NT Church part of this has to be basically, Scripture is established by Tradition, so without some form of authoritative Tradition we do not have a sure knowledge of Church order and therefore the God given limits of the Canon.
Hope that gives a light overview of those concerns. More could surely be said, but I am out of time.
MichaelTX
LikeLike
Michael – need an answer
Wish fulfillment?
How is using the Bible to recognize the Catholic church (i.e. apostolic sucession, Peter receiving the keys, etc.) and having the Catholic church tell us what the Bible consists of not circular?
LikeLike
Erik,
I don’t think so if you look at it from a different perspective. If like me you have a Bible and love the God revealed in it and you by grace have been lead to be continually changed by the God of those words, then seeking more wisdom and understanding of how God brings surety and the unity of His people (which is in those words)along with those words, then I am just following the echo of God’s voice until I find His chosen source.
LikeLike
Michael,
I appreciate you taking the time to answer my questions. I understand if your time constraints kept you from treating these as in depth as you would like and if that’s the case I’m willing to continue to listen. However, at this point, I’m not quite satisfied with some of the answers so I’d like to pursue them further because I do think that they are vital.
I think it’s vital to iron out an answer to my second question because if we don’t have it, then how in the world can we believe that God’s people prior to the advent of Christ knew what God had revealed to them? Luke tells us in Acts 17 that the Bereans were nobler than the Thessalonians because they searched the Scriptures in order to examine Paul’s teaching. If there was not a way to know what the Scriptures were at that time, how could they accomplish such a feat? Was there a difference in being able to determine the canonicity of a certain book as opposed to being able to determine the canon as a whole? If so, how?
I think you missed the thrust of my third question. I understand the necessity from the Roman point of view of Tradition and the Magisterium to shed light on the Scriptures following the ascension of Christ. My question is more along the lines of, how did God’s people prior to that point know what was taught in the Scriptures? Did they have an infallible Tradition and Magisterium (i.e. was there an infallible body of works or spiritual governing body that could instruct David as to what God revealed in the Pentateuch)?
I’m afraid I simply don’t understand your answer to my fourth question. I’m assuming that we both agree that the Scriptures are the word of God (as 2 Tim says, “God-breathed”) although we disagree concerning what constitutes those Scriptures. My question is, is Tradition breathed by God in the same sense or not? If not, is Tradition still the revelation of God but just in a different sense? Is the Tradition in every sense equal to the Scriptures to the point that they could be considered a third testament or a continuation of the NT or is there a qualitative difference between the Scriptures and Tradition that gives one authority over the other?
LikeLike
Drew,
I’m not sure if you were following me and Sean over in “Unexpected Developement”, but we wlked through some of this over there. It may be good to read through some of that chatting over there.
I would be satisfied with my answers either.
Concerning, If there was not a way to know what the Scriptures were at that time, how could they accomplish such a feat? Was there a difference in being able to determine the canonicity of a certain book as opposed to being able to determine the canon as a whole? If so, how?
I have no doubt that the Bereans did their due diligence, but problem is I don’t know what Scripture Tradition they were following. Though I do know more that the 39 book OT was translated and used in the Greek Septuagint. There are some books that have universal acceptance and maybe they are using them, but I don’t know. Scripture doesn’t tell us and history doesn’t definitively teach us either.
Try and read over at Unexpected Development starting here:
https://oldlife.org/2013/05/unexpected-development/comment-page-3/#comment-84043
It is a jump off of my comment to Sean from Developement of a Loophole here:
https://oldlife.org/2013/05/development-of-loophole/comment-page-3/#comment-83740
I will try and address some of your other questions shortly. The depth needed for this topic will be hard for us in comboxes and I may recommend some other reading,too.
Peace,
MichaelTX
LikeLike
Drew,
One more thought on your first section, how in the world can we believe that God’s people prior to the advent of Christ knew what God had revealed to them? I think one of the things that is paramount in this is that the number one thing the OT people knew of the revelation they had is that they were God’s chosen people and the Scriptures testified to that covenant reality. Me and Sean discussed this over there in Unexpected regarding some articles he had me read by Meredeth Kline covering Canon and Community.
Til later,
MichaelTX
LikeLike
Michael,
In other words it’s totally subjective. “You have your truth and I have mine”. You are a thoroughly postmodern man, as much as I am a “child of the enlightenment”.
LikeLike
Michael,
How can the Bible point you to the RCC as the church that Christ founded while at the same time the RCC denies the gospel at Trent? Read Hart & Muether’s piece I posted at “Roman Inquisition’s Success”.
LikeLike
Drew,
By the way I meant to say earlier that “I wouldn’t be satisfied with my answers, either.”
They are pretty sparse on the amount of depth needed to address such substantial concerns.
Here is a good but relatively short three part study into these detail (historic and eclesiastic):
http://www.catholicfidelity.com/apologetics-topics/bible/old-testament-canon-by-michael-barber/
LikeLike
Erik per you #39,
Maybe I misunderstand how you mean postmodern. If I say the Catholic Church is the only rightful manifestation of the visible Church and all people should follow God’s directive and order and this can be known by all people in God’s own providential way, how am I postmodern? I do say there is but one knowable truth for all people and that truth is the truth revealed through Christ our Lord. Isn’t this the opposite of postmodernism?
LikeLike
Erik,
I guess the only postmodern possibility is where I admit I may be wrong?
LikeLike
I’ll try and have read of the article. Concerning Trent, you should know Catholics do not believe we have denied the Scriptural Gospel of Christ, even if you think we have. We believe at Trent we have done what the God’s people always have done; protected it.
LikeLike
Erik,
Is this the posting of the whole article here?
https://oldlife.org/2013/05/roman-inquisitions-success/comment-page-6/#comment-87012
LikeLike
Michael, couple of things on Barber; you(Barber) don’t get to essentially dismiss Josephus as a partisan in favor of later historical determinations. This is just bad history and even anachronistic. Also, Barber has no interaction with ANE treaty form that I can find. This is critical for OT scholarship and canonical studies, one may not agree with Kline’s conclusions or ANE analysis but you don’t get to bypass treaty form and be taken seriously. According to ANE treaty form, canon is NOT a later developing historical determination but a contemporary written account of covenantal relationship. Until Barber deals with ANE treaty form and the serious historicity of Josephus’ account this is little more than hopeful RC favorable historic cherry picking.
LikeLike
……..cherry picking on Barber’s part
LikeLike
Hey Sean,
Not that I dislike the company but we seem to have reignited this tread. 🙂
I’ll read back over that stretch in Barber, but he doesn’t just dismiss it I don’t think. He just takes it as a historic record along with others, right? Through, he clearly doesn’t grant him the infallibility of being the definitive teacher for all Judaism as well as the Christian Church who apparently set their own canon disregarding Him, too. Have you read all three parts yet?
About the timothy stuff. I was just giving you an area to start looking at from a different perspective. There are other areas to jump at, but maybe we can get into that later after we get this canon stuff all in our minds together.
LikeLike
Michael, he gives Josephus what amounts to a skinny paragraph and argues against giving his account too much weight. Yikes. More importantly and a primary consideration is ANE analysis. I don’t see where he ever even broaches it.
LikeLike
I’d say you are right he doesn’t get in to the ANE treaty ideas, but I think you may be discrediting him for having no knowledge of the topic. He is not cover how we can come up with a core canon. He is covering historic knowledge of the canon. I’ll search to see if I can find anything from him on it, but I doubt he is ignorant of the topic.
He doesn’t just say don’t give it much weight. He basically says we have reasons for not saying Josephus alone can give us true knowledge of it.
The earliest and most explicit testimony of a Hebrew canonical list comes from Josephus:
“For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another [as the Greeks have], but only twenty-two books, which contain all the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine; and of them five belong to Moses, which contain his laws and the traditions of the origin of mankind till his death… the prophets, who were after Moses, wrote down what was done in their times in thirteen books. The remaining four books contain hymns to God, and precepts for the conduct of human life.”[25]
Though scholars have reconstructed Josephus’ list differently, it seems clear that we have in his testimony a list of books very close to the Hebrew canon as it stands today. Nonetheless, his canon is not identical to that of the modern Hebrew Bible.[26] Moreover, it is debatable whether or not his canon had a tripartite structure.[27] Thus, one should be careful not to overstate the importance of Josephus. For one thing, Josephus was clearly a member of the Pharisaic party and, although he might not have liked to think so, his was not the universally accepted Jewish Bible—other Jewish communities included more than twenty-two books.[28]
For a long time it was believed that the Hebrew Bible was closed at the end of the first century C. E. It was believed that a group of Rabbis made an official binding decision at a gathering known as “the Council of Jamnia.” Today, however, it is largely recognized that there is virtually no evidence that such a “council” ever occurred. While some Rabbis may have gathered in Jamnia at the end of the first century C. E. to discuss the status of some disputed books such as Ecclesiastes or Song of Songs, they most certainly did not make any binding decisions about the canon.[29] This is apparent in the fact that rabbinic debate over the canon continued to rage on until 200 C. E.! Strikingly, Sirach is quoted as Scripture in the Babylonian Talmud.[30] In addition, Ecclesiastes was disputed in some rabbinic circles and there remained lingering doubts over the book of Esther.[31]
I have Josephus’ work on my desk. Is there some other areas in it you think I should read for a better picture?
LikeLike