• Wednesday, March 10th, 2010
I’m bringing a lunch-time discussion from work to the blog so that my buddies and I can continue our discussion and others can join in as well.
We’ve been talking about the canon of Scripture, and in the discussion are: a Catholic (me) and three Protestants (one churches of Christ turned Quaker turned Episcopal, one Presbyterian (PCA), and one non-denominational (with Pentecostal leanings)). I won’t give away who anyone is and everyone who comments can do so under their own pseudonym, but I think it’s helpful to see the variety of Christian traditions represented.
Jumping right into it. I responded to a tu quoque objection with links to Called to Communion:
Why are the Catholic reasons for the canon consistent and not ad hoc, as Tom Brown (and I) claim that the Protestant position is? Here are Tom’s responses:
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/01/the-canon-question/#comment-6190
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/01/the-canon-question/#comment-6264
Friend 1 added on:
When these guys [Called to Communion guys] say the “Protestant” position, they are referring to Sola Scriptura specifically. I think the point is that “scripture alone” is not enough to determine what scripture is. So Catholics and Protestants are left with the need to define by what authority you use to determine the canon, and the interpretation.
The difference is that Catholics explicitly define what criteria they use to determine the canon. (it was defined by the Magisterium of the Church). Protestants use some other authority to determine the canon, generally Martin Luther. They’re also “inconsistent”, because they claim sola scriptura, but to be consistent, a Protestant must believe sola scripture “plus” the testimony of <someone making some historical argument>.
Protestants who have used the “historicity” approach are generally trying to do one of two things:
1. Look at history and look for evidence that supports a preconceived conclusion (the 66-book Luther Bible).
2. Look at history to come up with “original” conclusions on scripture (e.g. the Jesus Seminar and their 5 gospels). I don’t like their conclusion, but if we don’t believe God guided the Church in the selection of scripture, then their approach might as well be the right one.
as opposed to the Catholic argument that:
3. God guided the Church (through the Magisterium) in the true determination of the canon.
Friend 2 (who originally made the tu quoque) responded:
I agree that something outside the Bible must give it it’s validity. I rely on the apostle’s letters as acknowledged by those immediately after them (church fathers). However, the Catholic response is then “why do you only accept part of the early church father’s testimonies and not all their teachings”.
And then Devin broadened it to not really be the teaching of the church fathers but rather the teachings of the church. I would argue that the church has been influenced by the early church fathers so that at least in some cases what the fathers believed is what the church taught (this is an assumption because I don’t know a lot of church history).
Some of the church fathers taught error (and therefore the church taught error), but a catholic would say, “never on issues of faith and morals”, to which I reply “why do you only accept part of the early church father’s testimonies and not all their teachings”.
I don’t think that the attached article answers this question because it’s main point it to prove that the Bible needs external “witness”, and I agree with that.
I plan to respond to Friend 2’s reiteration of his objection in the comments. It may take me a day or two, so in the meantime, anyone feel free to chime in.
To tip my hand a bit, I think the reason this tu quoque doesn’t work is that we each have to answer the question of how we can know the canon with certainty within our own respective systems: he as a Protestant must explain how he is not contradicting or being inconsistent with sola Scriptura while I as a Catholic must demonstrate how my reasons are consistent with my beliefs.
When these guys say the “Protestant” position, they are referring to Sola Scriptura specifically. I think the point is that “scripture alone” is not enough to determine what scripture is. So Catholics and Protestants are left with the need to define by what authority you use to determine the canon, and the interpretation.
The difference is that Catholics explicitly define what criteria they use to determine the canon. (it was defined by the Magisterium of the Church). Protestants use some other authority to determine the canon, generally Martin Luther. They’re also “inconsistent”, because they claim sola scriptura, but to be consistent, a Protestant must believe sola scripture “plus” the testimony of <someone making some historical argument>.
Protestants who have used the “historicity” approach are generally trying to do one of two things:
1. Look at history and look for evidence that supports a preconceived conclusion (the 66-book Luther Bible).
2. Look at history to come up with “original” conclusions on scripture (e.g. the Jesus Seminar and their 5 gospels). I don’t like their conclusion, but if we don’t believe God guided the Church in the selection of scripture, then their approach might as well be the right one.
as opposed to the Catholic argument that:
3. God guided the Church (through the Magisterium) in the true determination of the canon.
Recent Comments