…no answer for how a Protestant can know that their (66-book) Biblical canon is inerrant.
I’m speaking of this post on Called to Communion that I linked to in a previous post. There have been 337 comments made, but so far no answer for how one can know that the [Protestant] canon is inerrant, that is, that the 66 books of their Bible are all inspired by God and that those are the only inspired books.
This situation is what I and many others who have become Catholic through Protestantism discovered again and again: There is no good Protestant answer for this most fundamental question concerning our Christian Faith.
Because Protestants claim that the Bible alone is the highest authority, knowing which books, exactly, make up the Bible is of crucial importance. Yet, because the Bible’s table of contents does not exist in any book of the Bible nor was it given by God out of the sky to us in a numbered list, we are left with the historical reality of the canon being discerned by the Catholic Church through a process over hundreds of years which was all too human and therefore full of questions, confusions, disputations, and differing canons until around 400 AD when the canon solidified into the 73 books in the Catholic Bible today.
Even at that time it was not dogmatically defined as closed with those 73 books comprising it, though the Apostolic Tradition was that public revelation (and therefore the canon) was closed at the death of St. John, the last Apostle. (Incidentally, the Bible nowhere says that it will end with the last book written by the last Apostle and then after that there can be no more inspired books, but Protestants believe the same as Catholics on this because they accept this piece of Apostolic Tradition; side digression, Mormons (knowingly or unknowingly) reject this Apostolic Tradition because they claim that public revelation was given by God to Joseph Smith in the 1800s in the Book of Mormon (side-side digression: the Mormon claim that the books were actually written in Old Testament times and then shown to Joseph Smith for transcription does not materially alter my point).)
An interesting thought experiment for our Protestant readers is to ask themselves on what basis they believe that public revelation was closed at the death of the last Apostle.
A thought experiment for our Mormon readers is to ask themselves on what basis they accept the [Protestant] canon of Scripture, that is, the 66-book Bible and reject the 7 deuterocanonicals. To do so requires the strange logic that, during the Great Apostasy (that is, during the time when allegedly Christ’s Church had apostasized) in 400 AD the bishops of the Catholic Church mostly got the Bible right then 1100 years later in the 1500s, still during the Great Apostasy, the Protestant Reformers then corrected the (pre-Book of Mormon) Bible to the accurate 66 books. During the Great Apostasy, Mormons believe that the priesthood–the authority–had left Christ’s Church, so by what authority did the Catholic bishops and Protestant Reformers discern which books were inspired and which were not, and why should any Mormon believe them?
I think this issue is rather less complex than all this. When you ask how a Protestant can know the canon is inerrant, you might mean one of two things (at least two, anyway):
1. What reasons does a Protestant have for believing the canon inerrant?
2. What makes a Protestant feel certain the canon is inerrant?
If the Protestant believes in miracles, and I should think all who are genuinely Christian do, the answer to the first question is more parsimonious than you may like — the Spirit intervened in history to guide the creation of the canon, the Old Testament of which is received from Judaism intact. Miracles, as such, do not entail the sorts of institutional and ecclesiological debates that usually arise among Catholics and Protestants. As for question two, certitude may vary and it is, anyway, an emotional response rather than a quality of a proposition.
Hi Kevin,
Thank you for your response.
I meant #2 in my post, and your answer is that God miraculously intervened in history to guide “the canon’s” discernment.
I put “the canon” in quotes because there are two different canons: The Protestant one and the Catholic one, so which one did God miraculously guide history to choose?
I think your answer is a bit too vague and would like to ask you some questions:
1. When, exactly, did God miraculously intervene in history to show “some group(s)” of persons the canon?
2. Who are those group(s) of persons to whom God miraculously revealed the canon?
3. Why should we believe those group(s) of persons (e.g. how do we know they had God’s authority)?
And to offer a challenge to your answer, one of my Mormon friends could also claim your answer of miracles. For instance, he could say that “God miraculously intervened in history again in the 1820s when He showed Joseph Smith the tablets from which he transcribed the Book of Mormon, which joins the inspired books of the [Protestant] Bible as sacred Scripture.”
The fact that, in some way, God “miraculously intervened” in history can be agreed upon by Catholics and Protestants, but the “how and when and who” makes all the difference.
I hope you will be able to find time to respond. Thanks again my friend!
Greetings! Not every Protestant on there left the question unanswered, though. My comments clearly contend that Prots can hold to the first 7 ecumenical councils as authoritative, even if the majority of Prots (despite lip service) don’t currently do so.
Hi Chris,
Thanks for clarifying that. Also, I should say that Andrew M., a Protestant who commented a lot on that post, made attempts to answer the question, but in my opinion did not succeed.
On what basis are the first 7 ecumenical councils authoritative but none others since have been? Can there ever be another authoritative ecumenical council? If so, who would be authorized to hold it? If not, why did they stop at 7?
Good questions, Devin. I’m no biblical expert, but again, I think this is less an issue than it appears. I’m happy to concede deuterocanonical status to the controversial books (I study from the Oxford Bible, RSV translation); what I’m resisting is the oft-breezy, occasionally downright pedantic way Catholic apologists treat Protestant commitments, questions, and concerns — a style most evident in the comment box to which you linked (though I’m certainly not accusing you of anything like that). So I just want to make their case, or at least establish that 400 years and billions of Christians haven’t been utterly incoherent.
They would argue that God intervened in history to create the Tanakh, which does not include the deuterocanonical texts, and the New Testament.
As for Q3, since you mean definition #2 of certitude, I’m not sure what to say here. I should think the emotion of certitude rightly attends beliefs for which one has good reasons, so I just don’t think the feeling itself is as central to the debte as the reasons. The Protestant has reasons (def. #1) for trusting the 66-book canon, the most important of which is a belief in the miraculous nature of God’s intervention in history to produce the canon.
Hello, Devman.
You asked: “On what basis are the first 7 ecumenical councils authoritative but none others since have been?”
At the risk of oversimplification, the first 7 were truly ecumenical, and history (from my perspective, especially regarding the nature of schism) comports with this. I think it’s probably obvious what the answers to your other questions are then. The only truly ecumenical council that could come about these days is through some sort of communion between the branches of christendom, it seems to me, and it also seems to me that some sort of communion, prior to the return of Christ, looks impossible. “But with God, all things….”
But really the issue is about what Kevin says above (with whom I agree). The first 7 ecumenical councils didn’t decree anything about a canon, and if we as the church were waiting for Rome’s decree regarding the canon, we wouldn’t have had it until Trent!
Chris,
What are the necessary and sufficient conditions for a council being “truly ecumenical?” My concern, as you may know, is that this term “truly ecumenical” is being used here in an ad hoc way. Why was it that the Second Ecumenical Council (AD 381) was “truly ecumenical,” even though the Donatists didn’t participate?
In the peace of Christ,
- Bryan
I hope it’s not ad hoc, Bryan. The historical requirement of a “truly ecumenical” council seemed to be the presence of all five patriarchs (Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem, for the onlookers).
Unfortunately, this need was once-for-all swept aside by Bellarmine (historians up to that point had varied in their enumerations) in De Controversiis when he numbered the anti-Photian Council, the four Lateran Councils, the two in Lyon, Constance and finally Florence as among the ecumenical councils of the church. This is no small innovation on his part. Of course, this paved the way for Lateran V, Trent, and Vatican 1&2 to be numbered among the ecumenical councils as well.
“However,” Catholic historian Leo Donald Davis writes, “the Orthodox Churches still accept only the first seven councils as truly ecumenical. All subsequent councils are rejected as non-ecumenical because either they dealt with purely disciplinary measures and did not make dogmatic definitions like the Councils of 869-70 and 879-80 or they were not attended by all five patriarchs like all subsequent councils.” He then adds, somewhat surprisingly but appropriately in the eyes of this Protestant, “Perhaps in the interest of better relations with the Orthodox and the Protestants, the time has come to reconsider the whole question and accept with them only the first seven great councils as the truly ecumenical pillars of the faith” (p. 325).
Thanks Kevin and Chris, for your replies, and Bryan, I welcome your comments as well.
Chris, regarding this statement: “The first 7 ecumenical councils didn’t decree anything about a canon, and if we as the church were waiting for Rome’s decree regarding the canon, we wouldn’t have had it until Trent!”
One point I would like to make here is that, as I recall Newman saying somewhere, a doctrine is not defined until it is attacked. For example, the nature of the Trinity and Christ’s person/natures/wills were not dogmatically defined for centuries after the Apostolic times–that doesn’t mean of course that 1) The Church didn’t know these to be true for those hundreds of years nor that 2) The true and heretical teachings about these important matters were all equally believed and held as valid until the Church’s Councils’ made declarations on them.
The Father and the Son have always been “one in being with each other” but it is true that not until Arius contradicted this truth, which had not been dogmatically defined yet, did the Church convene the Council of Nicaea to confirm the truth.
So why didn’t the Church convene an Ecumenical Council sometime from 100 AD to, say, 1400 AD to dogmatically state which books belonged in the canon (and declare that the canon was closed)? Simply because the truth of the canon, which previous synods and councils had affirmed multiple times, had not been challenged or contradicted for centuries.
Bryan mentioned this topic of the canon and councils in one of his comments on the Called to Communion site: http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/06/calvin-on-self-authentication/#comment-1109
I made a post earlier today about Ecumenical Councils, the Pope, and Encyclicals with some broader arguments if you are interested:
http://www.devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/blog/2009/07/07/new-encyclical-and-what-of-ecumenical-councils/
Thanks for the discussion–I pray our Lord will guide us closer to Christ, Who is the Truth!
Chris,
The historical requirement of a “truly ecumenical” council seemed to be the presence of all five patriarchs (Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem, for the onlookers).
There was no Patriarch of Constantinople in 325. The See of Constantinople was subject to the metropolitan authority of Heraclea until 381. So if the presence of those five patriarchs is required, then Nicea 325 was not an ecumenical council.
What is the basis or source of your claim that the presence of all five patriarchs is a necessary condition for an ecumenical council?
In the peace of Christ,
- Bryan
Bryan, it’s also debatable as to whether or not the patriarch of Rome was present at Constantinople 1. But just like Nicea (325) (at Ephesus [431], and subsequent affirmations throughout the church’s early history), Constantinople 1 was affirmed as ecumenical by Chalcedon’s (451) five patriarchs.
I know this is somewhat circular, but you’re Catholic, so you’re no doubt comfortable with it. I do take the authority of these councils seriously.
At any rate, “five patriarchs” is simply shorthand for “worldwide,” and Nicea 325 was clearly that. Regarding the basis or source of the claim that the presence of all five patriarchs is a necessary condition for an ecumenical council, I just pick this up, not least from the Catholic historian I quoted above, as a general way to speak of the nature of the early councils and what made them “ecumenical” (still keeping in mind the oikoumenikos point above).
@Devman: I agree with you fully that a church council does not create truth, it rather defines the boundaries.
I’m just trying to respond to the Catholic rejoinder that Prots have no basis for assurance in a biblical canon. My response is: But Catholics didn’t have this decreed until Trent! Was the church really without a canon for 1500 years? Well, of course not, for the very reasons you gave above. As you know, there were all kinds of early lists floating around in the first few centuries (local synods, letters, etc.), and they were remarkably close to what we now consider the “canon.”
Chris,
The bishop of Rome was not represented at Constantinople in 381, but that’s not a problem for the Catholic understanding of what makes an ecumenical council to be an ecumenical council.
It is a problem, however, for the claim that “the historical requirement of a “truly ecumenical” council seemed to be the presence of all five patriarchs.”
Ephesus in 431 condemned Nestorius, the Patriarch of Constantinople. But Nestorius himself did not need to approve the council, in order for it to be ecumenical? Similarly, Chalcedon in 451 condemned Dioscoros, the Patriarch of Alexandria. Dioscoros did not need to approve the council, in order for it to be ecumenical. That was the beginning of the Coptic schism.
So acceptance or approval by all five patriarchs would seem to presuppose that none of the five could fall into heresy. But the third and fourth ecumenical councils determined that a patriarch falling into heresy is precisely what actually happened. So the two claims don’t fit together.
As for “worldwide,” that’s not a clear-cut term. What are the conditions for a council counting as “worldwide”, and who decides whether a particular council was “worldwide” or merely provincial? There were many Christians communities not represented at Nicea in 325, for example, and at other ecumenical councils.
I’ve ready Davis’s book, and he is not an orthodox Catholic. Anyone who thinks that ecumenical councils 8-21 were not ecumenical is in dissent from the teaching of the Catholic Church.
Regarding the basis or source of the claim that the presence of all five patriarchs is a necessary condition for an ecumenical council, why would Davis’s personal opinion carry more authority than, say, the bishop of Rome, or Vatican I? I’m pushing on this because this five-patriarchs-must be-present-or-approve criterion for an ecumenical council needs to have some basis, otherwise, it is just mere opinion.
The Catholic Church has a basis for what counts as an ecumenical council; it includes the approval of the one entrusted with the “keys of the Kingdom.” The Catholic Church does not require that all five Patriarchs approve of a council for it to be ecumenical. The Church recognizes that one or more of these Patriarchs (and their Sees) can fall into heresy and/or schism. Their doing so, however, does not split the Church, for whom unity [unam] is an essential mark (one of four: one, holy, catholic and apostolic).
In the peace of Christ,
- Bryan
Clearly the crux here is the very nature of “schism.” I see the church as fragmented, in contradistinction to our Lord’s desires. You see it, I suppose, as unified with unfortunate schismatics having spun off at different points in history. The problem is, the East says the same thing.
But regarding the point about what makes a council truly ecumenical, I’d have to say that I tend to take the word of a seemingly (and relatively) honest historian over historiography any day. I mean, that’s the elephant in the room here. I don’t trust most Catholic historians because they appear to bend history to fit their paradigm. Bellarmine once again comes to mind.
Surely we’re all biased, and absolutely the point about a council being truly ecumenical based on its pre-schismatic nature is a matter of opinion. But I think it’s an informed opinion that develops when looking at history in as unbiased a manner as possible. Folks who do this are always labeled “unorthodox.” The same holds true for Prots as much as Caths. Jesus knew this all too well, which is why he’s often (mis)labeled a Cynic. I’d rather mourn at the sight of a naked emperor than cheer “God save the king!” during his procession.
Chris,
The problem is, the East says the same thing.
That’s not a problem for the Catholic position. It is a problem for the Protestant position, because it means that the idea that the Church can lose her essential unity is a novelty arising 1500 years after the founding of the Church.
Davis has a bias; he is not standing nowhere. He’s on the Orthodox side. You can’t know that Davis has no bias, while orthodox Catholic historians do have a bias, without knowing the basis for Davis’ claim about ecumenical councils and the evidence for or against it. And that’s the evidence that hasn’t been brought out yet. The very idea that dissent is evidence of objectivity presupposes that faith contradicts reason. In other words, it is an anti-Catholic presupposition that begs the question (and hence, ironically, isn’t unbiased).
I have no interest in debating whether Davis has a bias, because I try to avoid ad hominems and debates about people’s character. I rub shoulders with historians every day, because we share the same building in our department. I’m not going to build my theology on the mere (and unsubstantiated) opinion of any one of them. They are fallible and ideological just like the rest of us. To be an historian is not to be handed a scepter. If the foundation of theology is going to be brute appeals to human authorities, then I’m going with the successors of the Apostles, and with the successor of St. Peter in particular. We don’t have two competing Magisteria: Church and Historians. So, if the historian wants to persuade me of something, he has to show the evidence to support his claim that acceptance by all five patriarchs is a necessary condition for an ecumenical council. That’s the evidence that has not yet been produced. And if we don’t know what are the necessary conditions for an ecumenical council to be an ecumenical council, then there is no point in talking about accepting ecumenical councils, because we don’t yet know how to identify them as ecumenical.
In the peace of Christ,
- Bryan
That’s not a problem for the Catholic position.
But it relativizes you and your church’s claims. It might not from your perspective (as convinced as you are), but from where I’m standing, you can’t both be right, but you both certainly can be wrong.
It is a problem for the Protestant position, because it means that the idea that the Church can lose her essential unity is a novelty arising 1500 years after the founding of the Church.
I’m not sure I follow you here. The Protestant position (my “position,” I guess) isn’t even a position; it’s an inductive statment. We have failed, for now.
“Surely we all have a bias,” I wrote, and that includes Davis, you, me, and your church’s magisterium. I like Davis’ bias better, because it appears to deal more honestly with the history revolving around the early church and her councils. If I did not, I would be Catholic. I suffer under no delusions that a historian’s “word” is somehow gold simply because he or she has uttered it. And the same goes for any bishop on these particular matters, for the very same reasons you gave above. But the point about how when someone from outside the Catholic Church reads someone within the Catholic Church who dissents then that outsider tends to grant objectivity to the dissenter is well taken and helpful. Thank you for it.
I’m clearly taking the Orthodox line on this one (so far as it is useful to me), and I’m sure you’ve debated this ad nauseum elsewhere, so…
I suppose I should stress for clarity’s sake that “five patriarchs” ought to be stretched to mean also that a particular council’s oikoumenikos nature is, again as history seems to show (i.e., as the very conveners and participants of the councils thought of these councils themselves—as immediately binding), determined by how they accurately teach the truth handed down in tradition from the fathers (scripture included under this rubric).
“Receptionism” is not the main reason, I suppose, for granting a council ecumenical status. Though it’s not entirely useless, either, not least in the face of claims that a council’s ecumenicity is primarily determined by its ratification by the Pope of Rome.
Chris,
But it relativizes you and your church’s claims..
I’m not sure what you mean here. If I say x, and you reply ~x, does that ‘relativize’ my claim that x? Does that mean that every time heretic contradicts orthodoxy, it ‘relativizes’ orthodoxy?
The Orthodox claim that they are the continuation of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church, and that the Catholics are a schism. The Catholics, on the other hand, claim that they are the continuation of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church, and that the Orthodox Churches are in schism. There is no relativism here. Each thinks the other is flat-out wrong (on this point).
Only when Protestantism comes on the scene 1500 years later do we get the notion of an invisible church that allows schisms to be treated as branches. (It was foreshadowed by Wycliffe, whose writings influenced Hus and Luther.)
because it appears to deal more honestly with the history revolving around the early church and her councils.
If we don’t yet know where Davis is getting his claim that agreement by all five is necessary, then I don’t know how you can know that the orthodox Catholic historians who disagree with him on this point are being dishonest. Without the evidence on the table in front of us [at least virtually], we’re would just be speculating blindly when it comes to saying which historians are more honest and which ones are twisting history to advance their own agenda.
If you think all five are necessary, then at least we agree that the approval of the bishop of Rome is necessary. So, the point of disagreement is whether all five are necessary. When I read the history, I see a different role for the bishop of Rome than I see for the other Patriarchs. Steve Ray’s Upon This Rock goes through some of this in the first five centuries. The example of canon 28 at Chalcedon shows clearly what the other bishops thought about the necessity of the approval of the bishop of Rome. (See, for example, here.) And that is even clearer in the 5th – 7th councils. And it is quite explicit in the Eighth Ecumenical Council of 869, which the Orthodox do not recognize. (Philip Hughes book The Church in Crisis: A History of the General Councils, 325-1870 is a good history. So is Warren Carroll’s Christendom series.
I’ll post something soon on CTC on this “branch vs. schism” question. I think Devin has also written on this here somewhere.
In the peace of Christ,
- Bryan
If I might chime in here a note of encouragement, I am really benefiting from the discussion that you two are having. It is beneficial to see two educated people debate in a Christian manner such important topics that I have (in all honesty) seldom heard discussed.
I for one appreciate both of your efforts in seeking better understanding, while at the same time benefiting the onlookers (me).
In Christ,
Andy