This is a hypothetical I thought of for a debate tournament that upon reflection I will be unable to use. Might be interesting for the community so at least it's not totally wasted
( Read more... )
I was at a Christian gathering one time a few years back, Catholics and Protestants. One of the Catholic speakers was addressing the crowd, and digressed briefly into a bit on Purgatory. He stopped himself and said, "Oh that's right, you Protestants don't believe in Purgatory. Don't worry, you will."
The question is whether we will be able to cognitively differentiate it from Gate C32 at George Bush International, where I am currently once again waiting for a delayed United flight.
It seems the comparison is there - a hellish wait yet with a distant hope of returning to the promised land. Where New Jersey, of course, is a metaphor for heaven.
Seriously, though, I would take it as persuasive but not canonical -- somewhat like patristics plus. The canon is not just based on empirical authenticity. It is based on a special collective imprimatur of a young and fairly unschismed Church.
-Would I accept as part of the canon of scripture? Well that would depend upon a number of things, one being what the head of my church said about it, and also what answer I receive when I pray about it.
-Would my opinion about authenticity change if it included or failed to include certain specific doctrines? Probably not as I would base most of my decision upon the answer to my prayer about it.
-If it included a doctrine which I did not believe do I think I might find it a persuasive argument for that doctrine? I suppose in this situation.. yes, if I had confirmation in prayer that it was legitimate, I would open my mind and heart to whatever was contained.
I'd probably wait and see what the Catholic Church said about it. And then given my current apathy, probably ignore it until I find some motivation toward religious fervor again.
I would not accept it as canonical, because the canon has already been established via infallible Council.
However, as I reject the faulty doctrine of sola scriptura, and recognize the importance of Tradition in the revelation of Jesus Christ, I would be prone to give it considerable weight in my interpretation of revelation, and conceivably could see it as a useful hermeneutical lens through which to read Paul's epistles.
In the case of its attribution to an apostle not included in the canon, I would again consider it as a significant text from the early Church and give it a considerable weight accordingly, but for the reasons above could not include it in the canon.
Comments 46
Oh, that's not what you meant. :P
Reply
He received mixed reactions, but I laughed :)
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
-Would I accept as part of the canon of scripture?
Well that would depend upon a number of things, one being what the head of my church said about it, and also what answer I receive when I pray about it.
-Would my opinion about authenticity change if it included or failed to include certain specific doctrines?
Probably not as I would base most of my decision upon the answer to my prayer about it.
-If it included a doctrine which I did not believe do I think I might find it a persuasive argument for that doctrine?
I suppose in this situation.. yes, if I had confirmation in prayer that it was legitimate, I would open my mind and heart to whatever was contained.
Reply
Reply
However, as I reject the faulty doctrine of sola scriptura, and recognize the importance of Tradition in the revelation of Jesus Christ, I would be prone to give it considerable weight in my interpretation of revelation, and conceivably could see it as a useful hermeneutical lens through which to read Paul's epistles.
In the case of its attribution to an apostle not included in the canon, I would again consider it as a significant text from the early Church and give it a considerable weight accordingly, but for the reasons above could not include it in the canon.
Reply
Leave a comment