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Friend 2 (who originally made the tu quoque) responded: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.
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.
There are three problems with accepting “all” the testimonies of the church fathers.
1. Who really is a church father? In the early church there were many priests and bishops whose beliefs were later determined to be heretical. Whose testimony do we believe if there is no determination of the orthodoxy of that testimony?
2. All we have that survive are various writings. Just like the Bible, those writings are subject to interpretation. For instance, I can read Irenaeus and think, “wow – this guy believes in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist”. But then someone over at http://one-fold.com can read the same words and say these words prove the early church did NOT believe in the Real Presence in the Eucharist.
Irenaeus isn’t alive today, so he can’t tell us what he really meant.
3. The church fathers were sometimes inconsistent with each other.
Hi Devin,
I like this- its good that you guys are interacting this way! I have responded to the Tom Brown article on my blog though no one has weighed in yet. http://reformnow-garret.blogspot.com/2010/02/canon-question-tom-brown-part-one.html
the question of how we can know the canon with certainty within our own respective systems
Tom Brown’s (and Devin’s) objection to the Protestant ability to decide is based on a misapplication and misunderstanding of sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura is applied TO a group of Scriptures that that were beforehand identified, and in this case received as God-breathed Scripture. This is supposed to be separate from discussions on the canon for the following vital reasons. To apply sola Scriptura to the canon question is to force incoherence onto the subject by applying sola Scriptura prior to identifying Scripture- an impossibility. Impossibilities are just that- impossible- so they can be rejected outright as a fallacy- and we don’t have to accept those impossible terms at all. No man can apply a doctrine to something that does not exist, nor that has been identified. Sola Scriptura ONLY means that the Scriptures (that you can point to) are the sole infallible rule of faith. The canon has to be allowed to be identified! This is seems so basic to me, but look at Tom and Devin’s arguments closely, and they force the unreasonable. As to Devin’s attempt to force his hand- They’re also “inconsistent”, because they (Protestants) claim sola scriptura, but to be consistent, a Protestant must believe sola scripture “plus” the testimony of .. Yes of course! Scripture has to be written and then identified and historical factors are appropriate to consider.
After the Scriptures have been identified can one THEN apply a doctrine such as sola Scriptura. To the Roman apologist somehow, sola Scriptura has to be caught in an infinite regress of authority claims that land soley on the shoulders of fallible men. Further- somehow- God cannot work to get Scriptures into our hands through fallible men in any coherent way as far as they’re concerned for Protestants. Those early church men don’t believe exactly like you (nor Modern Roman Catholics) in every doctrine- so you cannot trust their testimony in regards to Scripture. But because Scripture is grounded in God- not men, He would bring it forward through time for us, and give us the ability to know and trust in His word. We believe that God has spoken, that His word is the Holy Scriptures as they themselves testify, and that we can know it. We can also consider the testimony of men to bolster our confidence in the Scriptures.
God bless,
Garret
Garret,
So you are saying the scriptures were determined by another rule of faith and then at some point in time the Sola Scriptura rule of faith kicked in. That is logical but isn’t it quite arbitrary? It even sounds like two covenants. Remember Sola Scriptura is a super doctrine. It is the doctrine that tells us how to approach all other questions of doctrine. Therefore if it was introduced at some point after Pentecost that would mean the way God reveals Himself to man had shifted significantly. When did that happen? On what basis should we believe this happened?
Protestants don’t want to say there was a new covenant because each covenant is to be greater than the last. Saying Luther brought in a greater covenant than Jesus did is unthinkable. So having two phases of history has many problems. But how can Sola Scriptura be possible on Pentecost when not one word of the New Testament was written yet and would not be for decades.
Hi Randy
Sola Scriptura comes after the Scriptures, not before. Sola Scriptura is not the gospel itself, it is not a ‘new covenant.’
You said-
Remember Sola Scriptura is a super doctrine. It is the doctrine that tells us how to approach all other questions of doctrine. Therefore if it was introduced at some point after Pentecost that would mean the way God reveals Himself to man had shifted significantly. When did that happen? On what basis should we believe this happened?
Randy- you are making the issue much more difficult than it actually is. Think about it simply for a moment and the logic reveals itself. The Scriptures are God-breathed. They are given to us by God NOT man and are infallible. If these things are then true, they are the unchanging infallible word of God that we can refer to. Then, observing man, we can see man changes his mind all the time, often at a whim. Man seeks power and control and will claim many different things about God that are not true in order to gain or keep power and control. God allows this to happen because it does happen. There is however something provided by God that does not change. The written word does not change, and history shows that we can be confident that we have the original text of the Bible within the ‘critical text’. So we can then refer to the unchanging Word of God as the sole infallible rule of faith just on logic alone!
It is not an act of creating a ‘new covenant’- God created that with Jesus Christ. It is Scriptures unchanging reference to that new Covenant that is in question.
But how can Sola Scriptura be possible on Pentecost when not one word of the New Testament was written yet and would not be for decades.
Wow. The entire point of the reply that I wrote- that you then responded to- answered that objection as being illogical. Sola Scriptura is NOT the gospel Randy. The Scriptures transmit the gospel, but they can be learned by hearing it preached as well. I recommend reading on the subject from a Protestant source in order to come to understand the doctrine. I recommend for everyone the book ‘Holy Scripture’ Volume 1 David T King.
God bless,
Garret
Responding to Friend 2 above:
I agree that something outside the Bible must give it it’s validity.
By this I think what is meant is that we need something outside of the Bible to tell us which books belong in the Bible (i.e. “the canon”, the books which God inspired).
The issue is really two-fold, and the error in this tu quoque argument is the conflation of which “system” (the Protestant or the Catholic one) is being evaluated for its consistency.
My challenge to Friend 2 is how he knows the 66-book (Protestant) canon is true. His answer must be consistent with his other (Protestant) beliefs, the most important of which is sola Scriptura.
By conceding that he needs something outside the Bible to give him the canon, he is diverging from the classical Protestant position that the Bible is self-authenticating, such that the canon can be known with certainty from the quality or nature of the books themselves (i.e. they are “God-breathed”). It’s fine for a Protestant to diverge from Calvin’s self-authentication argument, but then it must be demonstrated how analysis of historical evidence can give us certainty that our canon is correct. In fact, it cannot.
So the second issue that the tu quoque is trying to get at is, Catholics have the same problem with regard to historical evidence and what we choose to believe from the Fathers/early Church. It is no quite a good tu quoque, however, since Catholics within their own system are consistent in their reasons for believing the 73 book (Catholic) canon.
The Catholic argument is that only if God (infallibly) guided the process by which the men who led his Church discerned the books of the canon, can that canon be known to be true with certainty. Catholics believe that he did do that, consistent with their belief that he guided the Church into all truth on her beliefs on faith and morals (and not, for example, on mathematics).
This belief is not ad hoc because 1) the Bible supports it with many verses: The Holy Spirit will lead you into all truth, the Church is the pillar and bulwark of the truth, the gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church, etc. and 2) this understanding of the parameters of God’s infallible guidance of the Church’s rightful authorities (i.e. the successors of the Apostles) was made by the Church, established by Christ, in which the Scriptures were written, etc. etc. so it is only ad hoc if the Church itself is some arbitrary entity not established and guided by God, which she isn’t since God did establish her.
I look forward to your (Friend 2 and others’) responses!
Hi Devin
You are a talented writer and have a good sense of how to piece together a convincing argument. I intend to point out where the errors are as I see them.
Continuing with some fallacies- I’m seeing another variation of the same.
By conceding that he needs something outside the Bible to give him the canon, he is diverging from the classical Protestant position that the Bible is self-authenticating, such that the canon can be known with certainty from the quality or nature of the books themselves (i.e. they are “God-breathed”).
1. The classical Protestant position of self authentication is intact, there is no ‘diversion’ from it. A great article that is worth the read to understand the issue is here- http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pt093.htm Self authentication, as the article shows is itself a plural approach to the canon question.
2. The Protestant canon can be known with the same amount of certainty that the Roman Catholic can know it. We are all fallible beings, and have to make the best decisions we can. You decided to become a Roman Catholic, you accepted the claims of that Church- and you defend them. One does the same as a Protestant, and has the same confidence, based on a plurality of reasons.
It’s fine for a Protestant to diverge from Calvin’s self-authentication argument, but then it must be demonstrated how analysis of historical evidence can give us certainty that our canon is correct. In fact, it cannot.
It disappoints me that I have not been responded to in my response to Tom Brown (link in response #2). In it, I show (over 3 posts so far) that the Protestant position- and the position that John Calvin held- is a plural approach. I demonstrate that there, so I won’t go into it here.
Notice the subtle straw man Devin is employing here. This is done by attempting to foist an either/or proposition onto the Protestant position, when that is not the case at all. In other words, it is implied that it is either ‘self-authentication’ or historical reasoning- NOT both. But who decides that? Why should we accept being told that we cannot consider all of the factors given to us and use a plural approach to the canon question? This is nothing more than an attempt to convince Protestants that they cannot be consistent with their beliefs while at the same time telling them WHAT they can and cannot believe!
God bless,
Garret
Hi Garret,
I read the article you linked to but he didn’t demonstrate how we could know with certainty that the 66-book Protestant canon is accurate. Since James White and Turretinfan haven’t shown up to play ball at CalledtoCommunion on the canon article, I would encourage you to refute Tom’s arguments there.
In your argument #2, you are making the conflation error again which we have talked about many times. To demonstrate your error, let’s add a third person into the mix, a Mormon. “We are all fallible beings, and have to make the ‘best’ decisions we can. You decided to become Catholic/Protestant, and I decided to become a Mormon and accept the claims of Mormonism; you can defend your claims, and I can defend mine, and I can have the ‘same confidence’ as you that the (Protestant) Bible + the Book of Mormon are true; after all, we’re all fallible human beings.”
But you would respond “no no! Here are ten reasons why Mormonism doesn’t make sense (both internally to itself and in comparison to scientific facts and to the nature of God which we can know to a degree through reason).”
That’s what we’re looking for here: the reasons behind the assent of faith that (I grant you) both of us have made. That an assent of faith is necessary no one denies, but to avoid assenting to Mormonism, we are examining the reasons behind that assent.
Notice the subtle straw man Devin is employing here. This is done by attempting to foist an either/or proposition onto the Protestant position, when that is not the case at all. In other words, it is implied that it is either ’self-authentication’ or historical reasoning- NOT both.
I certainly did not intend to make a straw man and don’t think I did. For purposes of argument, ignoring Tom Brown’s article on the canon which makes guacamole of self-authentication (and I think it also makes mince-meat of the historical criterion as well), let’s say I give you that as a Protestant you can have a double-criteria of historical analysis and self-authentication: the first criterion is fallible and cannot give certainty to your canon, and the second criterion is subjective and cannot give certainty to it either, so you have two fallible criteria giving you a fallible canon.
Only if God protected the discernment of the canon from error can we know it with certainty. Just as he guided the very fallible human beings who wrote the books of the Bible to write them such that they are inerrant, so he guided the very fallible human beings who corporately led his Church in knowing which books those were such that the canon is inerrant.
Now regarding the claims of the Roman Catholic church that Devin brings forward. All Protestants will note one thing. The Roman Catholic insists at every turn that the RCC is THE Church founded by Christ, and that it does not need to defend doctrines that cannot be seen in the Bible- they were there, just not written (at least explicitly)- and most believe that they developed
somewhat.
it is only ad hoc if the Church itself is some arbitrary entity not established and guided by God, which she isn’t since God did establish her.
This assumes that the modern Roman Catholic Church is in fact the church that Christ was talking about. This is asserted by Rome. This assertion implies that it is not faith in Christ that Christ really cared about, but rather, a particular institution that Christ was founding. It has to have a particular look, liturgy, and a sacerdotal system of requirements that you need to meet in order to pass through the pearly gates.
The early Church believed very differently from the modern Roman Church. Doctrine has developed, of that there is no question. You cannot get the de fide beliefs about Mary from the Scriptures (the bodily assumption of Mary, the perpetual virginity etc.- where is that in the Apostolic writings?), nor can we find where we are supposed to see an infallible Roman Bishop guide the Church all across the planet. Therefore, we cannot confirm the Apostolicity of those beliefs. Jesus said “I am the way, the truth and the life, no one comes to the Father except through me.” The Faith is build on Him and rests on Him- if you have Christ, you have gained eternal life. I know that Roman Catholics believe what I just wrote about Christ- I am pointing out that the emphasis is skewed away from Christ, and onto the Roman Church. This is wrong hearted.
More about development of doctrine here-
http://reformation500.wordpress.com/2010/02/15/a-summary-reminder-on-newman/
The Apostolic succession is meaningless, unless we can see the clear link to the Apostolic teachings, understood as THEY taught. Since the faith was once for all delivered by the apostles, it should not change or develop- it WAS delivered. Roman Catholicism is a different faith than that of Paul and the Apostles- Rome did not make it through the middle ages theologically unscathed. The concept of the free, unmerited grace of God has been permanently altered- into a meriting of more grace. Indulgences are a real requirement to this day, and you need them in order to be saved without suffering a purging of your sins. http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Paul06/p6indulg.htm Paul had no concept of this whatsoever, and anyone who reads Paul knows this. We don’t need to be told otherwise, we can read what he believed about salvation. He wrote a letter to Christians that he had never met- and to them he laid down the good news on a solid foundation- the book of Romans. He wanted to make sure they had a solid grounding in the faith, that they would understand it. Nowhere do we see a hint of anything resembling indulgences or merit- it is all grace untouched by any effort that man makes to gain more grace (mans obedience is required, it is expected).
On going discussion I am sure-
God bless,
Garret
Hi Devin
Now to #7
We have been over this, you are right. I see that twice in #7 you used the idea of Roman Catholic ‘certainty’ as being above any other faiths ‘certainty’ as an assumption- that’s okay, I do it too. We all have the same sense of certainty. As you demonstrated- the Protestant, Catholic and Mormon are all certain, but someone is wrong. Being certain in oneself does not make it so. An authoritative Church telling you you can be certain does not make it so either- that describes the Mormon and the Roman Catholic Churches. A person can feel certain and be completely wrong. John Calvin believed that his claims at internal knowing were insufficient for outsiders. That was the point of chapter 8, book one of his Institutes. He made the point in Chapter 7 that the Child of God knows Scriptures by an internal testimony of sorts, Chapter 8 was for those that need outside logical proofs. I hope that you note that and stop teaching otherwise in you class, for the sake of truth and honesty.
Re: I certainly did not intend to make a straw man and don’t think I did
Well, your explanation shows that the point you meant to make was that the Protestant position is just wrong- based on inferior evidence. That is different than saying we cannot use our reasons- whether they are right or wrong does not mean we can not use them. But you proposed just that- I can’t have a plurality of reasons to become reasonably certain that my canon is right. I have to gain some kind of infallible certainty which certainty is either based on internal testimony of the Holy Spirit OR an authority making that claim. You deny my Holy Spirit claim, and you claim that your authority gives you that certainty, and bemoan my lack of similar authority. That kind of certainty is impossible with men, so we trust the Word of God alone. That is the point of sola Scriptura- you cannot rely on the claims of men, but God does not lie, nor does He change His mind.
Many of your authorities and scholars prior to Trent (and after) were convinced of a different canon. It took your Church 1500 years to decide. The vote on the canon at Trent was not very confident at all-24 yea 15 nay 16 abstain. Who were those 24 men- learned scholars on the subject? Not according to “the Roman Catholic scholar, and expert on Trent, Hubert Jedin (who) said there was a small group of scholars at the Council of Trent that were considered fairly knowledgeable on the non-canonicity of the apocrypha. Jedin states Seripando “was aligned with the leaders of a minority that was outstanding for its theological scholarship at the Council of Trent.”
source- http://aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=2423
BTW I would encourage you to refute Tom’s arguments there.
My article is there to be refuted at my blog, he and all are welcome to it! The commboxes at CTC are not a great place for the lengthy discussions needed to get where we need to. I was asked to keep it short by Tim Troutman as it was. This is why the refutation of solo/sola was made elsewhere (TurretinFan). They can go there to refute it, but they have not- because they cannot- they are wrong, of that I am fallibly certain.
God bless Devin!
Garret
Hi Garrett,
I’m the very confused guy whom Devin says is Church of Christ turned Quaker turned Episcopal.
You said “certainty is impossible with men, so we trust the Word of God alone.”
I want to understand from your perspective, why do you believe that the 66-book Protestant Bible is the Word of God? It seems like you are appealing to some sort of historical evidence or self-authentication, but at the same time you are saying that such certainty is impossible. The evidence to that is that, between Christian groups, we can’t agree on which books are inspired and which are not. And we certainly can’t agree on what inspired means and how to interpret them. Protestants, Catholics, Orthodox, Mormons, King James-only-ists all disagree.
To me this seems to be a big problem. How can we rely on scripture when we can’t even be certain about scripture?
What I’m wondering is, when you get right down to it, do you simply take the 66-book Protestant Bible on faith?
Thanks
Jonathan
Garret,
I hope you will respond to Jonathan’s question (and do so before you respond to this comment).
I can’t have a plurality of reasons to become reasonably certain that my canon is right
You can have all the reasons you like, so long as they 1) don’t contradict other doctrines you accept, like sola Scriptura and 2) they logically support a canon which can bind your conscience.
See comment #77 by Tom Brown on the Canon Question article at CalledToCommunion.com. Excerpt: “My argument is that we have no assurance reliable enough to bind our consciences that the Protestant canon is true. (I also argue that it is ad hoc, but I won’t repeat that here.)”
Being “reasonably” certain about your canon is not reliable enough to bind your conscience. It is that “fallible collection” of books that Protestant pastor R.C. Sproul conceded. If the collection is fallible, it could include non-God-breathed books and therefore error.
We all have the same sense of certainty….A person can feel certain and be completely wrong.
You are demonstrating a form of philosophical skepticism here and trying to argue that the fallibility of an agent to err leads to fallibilism.
I’m gonna have to drop a Bryan Cross on you:
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/07/on-perspicuity-and-commentaries/#comment-1917
Many of your authorities and scholars prior to Trent (and after) were convinced of a different canon. It took your Church 1500 years to decide. The vote on the canon at Trent was not very confident at all-24 yea 15 nay 16 abstain.
This is a side-trail, but I’ll mention something important about it. Oh I totally agree with you (not just on the OT canon but on lots of other doctrines decided by the Church) that reading the history of the Church’s Councils (not just Trent) often reveals the muddy messiness of human beings being human. Trent itself was almost started, postponed, delayed, almost started again, delayed, started, adjourned, started again, adjourned again, and so on until finally after long years it was completed. There is no reason to think that these human beings came to the truth on the canon unless God has protected his Church from error.
Just to ponder another analogous (yet inverted) doctrinal decision: the Pope created a commission of theologians and others to study the question of contraception and offer their conclusion as to whether it was moral (within marriage). The overwhelming decision of the commission was that Yes, contraception is moral and the Church should allow it (as all the Protestant churches had done).
The Pope releases Humanae Vitae, condemning contraception as immoral. Why should we believe that he got it right when this commission of theologians that studied it got it wrong? We shouldn’t, if God hasn’t protected his Church from error. Of course, now half a century later we see (some, especially more traditional/orthodox/conservative) Protestants rejecting contraception for the first time in two generations, coming around to seeing the truth that the Church never budged from.
If the Church hasn’t been protected from error, then flip a coin, roll the dice, throw some darts and choose the 66-book Protestant canon, the 73-book Catholic one, or the (varying) 73+ book Orthodox canons, because there is no reason to trust that the 16th century Protestant Reformer human beings got the canon right over the Catholic human beings or the Orthodox human beings.
Hi Jonathan,
I take a plural, or multi-faceted approach to the issue. You are correct to point out that when it gets down to it I accept the 66 book canon on faith- but obviously not faith apart from reason. This is true of the Roman Catholic Church too- faith that God has guided the Church infallibly in its decision- but obviously the result is different in regards to the OT canon.
So who is right? That argument is settled by a multi-faceted approach. To the Catholic, the Church was guided infallibly to the canon by the Holy Spirit AND they have reasons X, Y, and Z to point to as well. The Protestant points to historical reasons to cast doubt on the canonicity of the Apochrypha- and this argument wins the day as far as I am concerned, as well as other arguments covered elsewhere. You are welcome to read my article by way of rebuttal- just click my name here and start on the second article from the top.
Better than that-
I highly recommend listening to the debate “Is the Apocrypha Scripture?” between the very congenial and learned Catholic apologist Gary Michuta versus James White. Both sides have a lot of important things to say about the issue, and I have learned a lot from both of them. Podcast it if you can, listen to it several times! You will get a sense of how this plays out in proper discourse- and please note that sola Scriptura is not mentioned even once- because it should NOT be. http://www.aomin.org/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=39_45&products_id=197
God bless you- and please keep it coming!
Garret
Hi Garrett,
Thanks for the response. If I understand your answer to my question, then I might rephase it like this: you are saying that you’re not _certain_ that the 66-book Protestant Bible is the complete Word of God (since certainty is impossible for men), BUT your faith in your belief is supported by historical evidence that speaks against books that the Catholics and Orthodox have chosen as their canon. Is that right?
I attended a somewhat liberal Quaker meeting for a while, and I might like to ask more about why you believe ANY of the books in the Bible are the Word of God, but my real follow-up question is this: As part of your faith in the 66-book Protestant Bible, do you believe God has protected you from error in your selection of that particular canon? (and that God has not protected Devin from error in his selection of the Catholic canon?)
What I am getting at here is this question: does God want us to know with certainty which books comprise the holy scriptures? (Or not?)
(BTW, thanks for the link to the podcast – I have listened to a couple of James White’s debates in the past and find him to be a good debater.)
Thanks,
Jonathan
Hi Devin Re:#11
Being “reasonably” certain about your canon is not reliable enough to bind your conscience. It is that “fallible collection” of books that Protestant pastor R.C. Sproul conceded. If the collection is fallible, it could include non-God-breathed books and therefore error.
God binds the conscience of every human being- re-read Romans 1. The ‘binding’ is grounded in our conscience by Gods law, which we violate and we know it, but suppress it- His law is written in our hearts.
As far as a human argument goes- By ‘reasonable’ certainty I am referring to the only certainty any human being on this earth has- including you and any other human being- Roman Catholic or non. We will explore this idea further in a moment.
The contested books are the ‘Apocrypha’, and there are plenty of reasons to reject those books.
You are demonstrating a form of philosophical skepticism here and trying to argue that the fallibility of an agent to err leads to fallibilism.
I’m gonna have to drop a Bryan Cross on you:
That is a false charge- you have charged me with that before, and hit me with that fallacious Bryan Cross argument before as well. Here is the fallacy you are committing, please note this carefully-
1. I am not skeptical about knowledge in the least. I am very confident that I am right, and further, that I can know I am right, and I can know that you are wrong. I hold no skepticism there.
2.You are misidentifying my argument. My argument is this- that the Roman Catholic cannot know he is right any more than anybody else can know that they are right! We can all know we are right- this is not skepticism, this is reality- this is how we carry on through our days, with self confidence that we know things about reality- visible and invisible. The confidence in the claims we all make in religious matters rests on authority outside of oneself. In the case of the Protestant, it rests in God’s word alone as the rule of faith, and also uses men who are trained expositors to teach and guide us in the faith. In the Roman Catholic it rests in Apostolic succession, Magisterium, Tradition= ‘Church’ plus Scripture. You trust the RCC to be guided by the Spirit and to be infallible in matters of faith under specific conditions. NOW here is my claim— You cannot personally know the particular infallibility of your Church with any more certainty than I can know my doctrine of sola Scriptura, Devin. You can claim you do- but this is just a claim based on acceptance of RC Church authority- I am not going to fall for that, because I know your Church is outside of the will of God as revealed in His Scriptures. Again, this is not skepticism- it is reality based on fallible beings (which we all are) making decisions.
I am convinced, further, that this knowledge is grounded in God, and it is His work in my heart as a believer that causes me to know His truth. Because this is true- I am personally convinced I can supernaturally know about God better than unregenerate folks through the Word. But I do not generally argue that- because it does not make for good theological discourse between different faiths. Therefore, I limit the epistemological argument to the common experience of man. God’s children know who they are- His sheep hear His voice.
Bryan Cross in his last paragraph there took Jesus’ promises to His Apostles – and applied it directly to- and only to- the Roman Catholic Church. Merely begging the question. As far as Protestants such as myself are concerned the gates of Hades prevailed against the Roman Catholic Church, but not against Christs church- His body. We can know that, not by the word of man who gives himself God’s authority, but by the Scriptures which bypass mans claims and go directly to God. His warnings to watch for false teachers must be there for a purpose- I know you agree, but apply that differently.
If the Church hasn’t been protected from error, then flip a coin, roll the dice, throw some darts and choose the 66-book Protestant canon, the 73-book Catholic one, or the (varying) 73+ book Orthodox canons, because there is no reason to trust that the 16th century Protestant Reformer human beings got the canon right over the Catholic human beings or the Orthodox human beings.
All of this is based on the assumption that the RCC is the true Church, and that the Protestant Reformation was not the work of God. No Protestant is going to believe the Reformation was a mere work of man, a coin toss. It does not help the discussion to assume that Protestants have no faith in the claims about their doctrines or the canon question, and that these things are grounded in God Himself. We don’t question whether the RCC or EOdox got it right- they got it wrong, and we know it beyond a shadow of a doubt.
God bless,
Garret
Garret,
I am going to bow out of the discussion with you at this point so you can focus on Jonathan’s questions. With Jonathan, you have (as he said himself) someone who is on the fence. Do your best to convince him of your position.
One comment here:
You cannot personally know the particular infallibility of your Church with any more certainty than I can know my doctrine of sola Scriptura, Devin. You can claim you do- but this is just a claim based on acceptance of RC Church authority- I am not going to fall for that, because I know your Church is outside of the will of God as revealed in His Scriptures. Again, this is not skepticism- it is reality based on fallible beings (which we all are) making decisions.
I’ll try one more time to demonstrate why your claim here is fideism.
Add our Mormon friend in here and replace sola Scriptura or Church with “Book of Mormon” and you are claiming that because we are all fallible we cannot have more certainty about X than Y, in effect, that one makes a fideistic leap, the reasons for which do not contribute to greater certainty for one person than the other. That is a form of philosophical skepticism that i think Bryan Cross’ statement directly rebuts. If you disagree, please either admit that you have no more certainty than does a Mormon (fideism) OR explain why you have more certainty than they do (which concedes my argument that one can have greater certainty about X than Y).
I am convinced, further, that this knowledge is grounded in God, and it is His work in my heart as a believer that causes me to know His truth. Because this is true- I am personally convinced I can supernaturally know about God better than unregenerate folks through the Word.
I claim the same. I claim to be regenerate by God’s grace. I am a believer and know his truth: I knew it in large part, but mixed with error, when I was an Evangelical Protestant and now know it in the fullness by God’s grace, when He brought me into full communion with his Church. I understand why you don’t lay the claim here–as you said it is unhelpful. Instead we have to go to the reasons for what we believe and discern whether they are consistent and faithful.
If you respond to this, you’ll have the last word. In any case, i will watch with interest your answers to Jonathan.
God bless!
Hi Johnathan Re #13
you are saying that you’re not _certain_ that the 66-book Protestant Bible is the complete Word of God (since certainty is impossible for men), BUT your faith in your belief is supported by historical evidence that speaks against books that the Catholics and Orthodox have chosen as their canon. Is that right?
I think there is a confusion here about faith and certainty. Faith is an active trust, and does have certainty- but not a certainty that convinces others that don’t have the faith (in general)- for that, we can use reasoning to make an appeal. Not to confuse the issue for you, but I am as certain as anyone can be that the 66 book Protestant Bible is the complete word of God. I trust (faith) that it has been correctly identified, and that there are no books that are missing. This is the work of God, to ensure that His word has been preserved and correctly identified.
I acknowledge that I cannot be infallibly certain about all things (I can think of at least one thing- that I exist)- but reasonable certainty IS the human certainty- and is the certainty that gives confidence that we are right. My only beef is with the concept of infallible certainty as a necessity in this issue. The need to be infallibly certain does not drive your most important decisions in life, but you have certainty, none the less.
I also believe, and I mentioned it above to Devin, that God’s children know Him and His truth. The Scriptures speak His truth, and by them we can know at a deeper level than a natural level, that they are the words of God. I don’t generally argue that, and perhaps I should start to do so. The reason I haven’t- I assumed it would be merely brushed aside, just as it was by Devin when he read Calvin’s argument about the same thing. I should not assume that, and should merely proclaim it as a matter of faith.
As part of your faith in the 66-book Protestant Bible, do you believe God has protected you from error in your selection of that particular canon? (and that God has not protected Devin from error in his selection of the Catholic canon?)
What I am getting at here is this question: does God want us to know with certainty which books comprise the holy scriptures? (Or not?)
The canon(s) were delivered to Devin and I (and you). Strictly speaking, we never selected any canon, we are told which one is correct when we come to the faith, and we are now defending those canons. This is why we generally stick to reasons for acceptance of them by way of historical factors and testimonies for the discussion, rather than merely saying ‘my Church says it is so’. Although, come to think of it, it does seem that the RC arguments especially boil down to exactly that!
Yes- God wants us to know with certainty (the type of certainty appropriate to our limited minds and being), and that is why we argue the question. As soon as someone says they are certain, along comes another who casts doubt on that. Other peoples doubts aren’t automatically a cause for concern- you need more information, and again, that is where reason comes in.
I hope I am not confusing the issue- come back at me please!
God bless you,
Garret
Hi Garrett,
Sorry for the long delay in replying. So, I really did misunderstand you. You say you _are_ certain about the 66-book Protestant canon. (It was your earlier quote that “certainty with men is impossible” that I thought this couldn’t be true).
The problem is, I’m still not seeing the difference in your _certainty_ (based mostly on faith) about the 66-book Protestant canon, and Devin’s _certainty_ (based mostly on faith) that God has protected the Church’s teachings from error (on matters of faith and morals).
On the one hand, I wish I had the kind of faith either of you has. (I hope I do someday). On the other hand, you can’t both be right – so for at least one of you guys, God only knows who, your false faith is making you blind.
You said:
“The canon(s) were delivered to Devin and I (and you). Strictly speaking, we never selected any canon, we are told which one is correct when we come to the faith, and we are now defending those canons. This is why we generally stick to reasons for acceptance of them by way of historical factors and testimonies for the discussion, rather than merely saying ‘my Church says it is so’. Although, come to think of it, it does seem that the RC arguments especially boil down to exactly that!”
Yes, I agree that is Devin’s argument.
The problem for us Protestants is if there is no provable argument for our position, then it really does boil down to “who says so”. And Devin wins that debate by default. The Catholic Church, if it really is the very same Katholike Ekklesia of Peter, Paul, Ignatius and Irenaeus, through which God worked to write, preserve, and select the scriptures, is certainly a more credible witness to the selection and interpretation of scripture than modern individuals like Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, James White, and Tom Wright.
If the Protestant wants to trump the credibility of the Catholic Church, then he must destroy that credibility by proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that scripture contradicts the teaching of the Church that produced the scriptures.
Hi Jonathan
Okay, we are getting somewhere now! Thanks for your comments. I hope I can make some points for you to contemplate. Lets listen to Devin and see if he has answers, or whether they hold water. By the way, I respect Devin very much and consider him a friend, and I think he feels the same. I disagree in theology, and wish for him all the best, and that he finds Truth. I know he wishes the same for me.
The problem for us Protestants is if there is no provable argument for our position, then it really does boil down to “who says so”. And Devin wins that debate by default. The Catholic Church, if it really is the very same Katholike Ekklesia of Peter, Paul, Ignatius and Irenaeus, through which God worked to write, preserve, and select the scriptures, is certainly a more credible witness to the selection and interpretation of scripture than modern individuals like Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, James White, and Tom Wright.
If the Protestant wants to trump the credibility of the Catholic Church, then he must destroy that credibility by proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that scripture contradicts the teaching of the Church that produced the scriptures.
Then we are perfectly safe. The modern Roman Catholic Church is NOT the church of the Apostles- it is very different. I disagree with your statement that the RCC is the default position. I encourage you to take the time to read Church history and the development of doctrine. Phillip Schaffs landmark work on the history of the Christian church in 8 volumes is found online free here- http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/history/About.htm
I encourage you to consider The Marian dogmas and the hyperdulia of Mary, papal infallibility versus the history of the papacy- indulgences ( google doctrina indulgentiarum, the first listing is the Vaticans link- read it!) versus the biblical view of grace.
Could you answer this ‘logic’- why there are medieval popes who had children and mistresses, hoarded treasure, murdered people, bought their papacy or were given it by their mistresses and this continued for decades, centuries off and on- and the modern Catholic holds it forth as an ‘apostolic succession’ that should prove their faith is Apostolic? That chain has been broken by horrible evil and heresy. Apostolicity is only proven through the writings of the Apostles, not modern mens claims. This is the only logical way to prove Apostolic beliefs- therefore the RCC is NOT the default, by default! The Roman Catholic has to answer how Apostolicity can be known any other way- they cannot do so. Therefore, the only thing to compare their doctrines to is Scripture, period. Volumes of Reformed works disprove Roman Catholic doctrine time and time again.
Another factoid-
Did you know that there was no single Bishop of Rome until approx. 125 years after Christ ascended into heaven! Read this interesting article-http://reformation500.wordpress.com/2010/01/14/historical-literature-on-the-earliest-papacy/ and Johns latest articles apply as well- the Catholic has a lot to answer for in his arguments. Perhaps Devin can weigh in on that one and face Mr. Bugay head on?
There are many more reasons to explore. it amazes me that so many Catholics can be so confident in their claims- but that might just be me- you have to decide for yourself there brother!
God bless,
Garret
Gentlemen,
By the way I totally think of Garret as a friend–we need to hang out sometime!
A brief note regarding Did you know that there was no single Bishop of Rome until approx. 125 years after Christ ascended into heaven! Read this interesting article-http://reformation500.wordpress.com/2010/01/14/historical-literature-on-the-earliest-papacy/
This is not proven but instead is an assertion, like the Jesus Seminar which claims it “knows” which words from the Gospels really were spoken by Christ versus those made up by the Apostles versus those made up by those after the Apostles.
I would note that in that above article, since St. Irenaeus’ claims directly contradict the claim being made, guess who is wrong? Irenaeus! (says some scholar). He knows that Irenaeus is not reliable when he speaks of succession and Peter and Paul and the church of Rome because he claims to “know” that Irenaeus used fictitious information from another person.
I would just say “Pay no attention to the successor of the Apostles who was discipled by Polycarp who was discipled by St. John the Apostle himself–no! he is not trustworthy and thankfully through modern scholarship and intuitive leaps we “know” that now; yes we know better and realize (on scant to nil evidence) that his teachings are not what the Apostles taught.”
So I’ve finally gotten around to reading all of what you guys have written.
1. Very well argued on both sides. If I were to even open my mouth I would be doing all of you an injustice. I don’t know the history either Devin or Garrett has claimed nor am I nearly as well read.
2. Jonathan, thanks for your honest questions and expecting real answers. I’m there with ya man.
Why I believe….
In my original quote way back up at the top I said I felt that historical evidence was enough to prove which books of the Bible were legitimate. However Devin has said that I can’t use history because I’m a Protestant. I disagree with that. My question is, “Why can’t I look to history and see if the New Testament was written by the original witnesses of Christ (aka Apostles) or guys like Luke?”
If you quote sola Scripture then I would invoke Garret’s very well explained arguments. I agree that something did have to “testify to Scripture”. But now we have that Scripture. So case closed. Scripture is here, believe it.
On the authority of apostolic succession, I read one of the articles recommended by Garret and in it there was a VERY powerful passage. I quote it below.
“The theological error of believing that special, verbal revelation or quasi-revelation continued beyond the time of the apostles is made equally by Roman Catholics (imputing inspired authority to papal “interpretations” and unwritten tradition) and Charismatics (teaching tongues and prophecy as gifts to be expected throughout the life of the church). Both the office of Apostle and the gifts which accompanied the ministry of the apostles (cf. II Cor. 12:12; Heb. 2:3-4) were intended to be temporary, confined to the founding of the church. To be an Apostle, it was required to be a witness of the resurrected Christ (Acts 1:22; e.g. I Cor. 9:1) and to be commissioned directly by Him (Gal. 1:1), thus restricting the apostolic office to the first generation of the church. Paul indicated that he was the last of the apostles (I Cor. 15:7-9); his successor, Timothy, is never given that title. By the later New Testament epistles we have no further mention or discussion of revelatory gifts like tongues and prophecy, for with the completing (bringing to its end or “perfection”) of that which was “partial” – namely, the process of revelation – the temporary revelatory gifts of tongues and prophecy had to “cease” (I Cor. 13:8-10).”
Protestants stand on the infallibility of a series of books. That series of books is validated by asking the question “who wrote them?” and “Are they internally consistent?” If the original writers were apostles, then I feel it is more logical to rely on 1st generation apostles than the subsequent so called “apostles”. The first generation was actually there. Based on historicity, you can’t get any better than that.
In addition, Paul validated using Scripture (not tradition) when he commended the Bareans for checking up on him. This is a precedent that validates going to Scripture (which I have defined above) as a source of authority.
I see no contradiction in my belief system. Devin would say “how can you know your cannon is correct?” My answer is because of history and trusting God to preserve HIS words. This is not a contradiction (and sola scriptura CANNOT BE INVOKED HERE because I already acknowledge the cannon had to be assembled!!!!!).
Therefore, I feel like I’m perfectly within my logical limits to accept the Bible as the sole authority for my faith and morals.
That establishes my argument. The RCC must answer the following questions.
1. Why are the judgments of the papacy and Magisterium only limited to Faith and Morals? Why not Faith Morals and Conduct? Why not just Faith? This is an arbitrary line that has been drawn and indicates the “wisdom of men” rather than the “power of God” in my opinion.
2. “Faith and Morals” is a very nebulous term. The RCC could make a pronouncement, let time test it and if it was correct, then was either a Faith or Moral. If it turns out to be false, then it wasn’t a Faith or Moral. In other words, the RCC seems to use hindsight to get itself out of blatant contradictions, such as indulgences and the Crusades. Both were \ are obviously wrong, but Devin has said at our lunch that neither of these was a faith or morals statement…. that’s convenient. Further Devin has said in our lunch meetings that indulgences can be “abused”. Again, convenient. If the papcy took the money, then the office was guilt. It had full knowledge of how the money was obtained and therefore condoned it (read here, taught it). Therefore the papcy taught that you could “buy your salvation”. This contradicts, well, all of Romans!
So if the protestants are being arbitrary (and I don’t think we are), then the catholic church is far more so.
Ok, my arguments aren’t nearly as eloquent as ya’lls, but my brain hurts. Thanks for all your thoughts gentlemen.
Thanks guys!
Devin- John explains many of your objections in that article referred to. There are other early Church writers that can be compared to each- historical facts clash amongst them in some cases. It is a matter of what historians are digging up, and who is saying what as testimonies are being pieced together.
Re getting together- If you every want to bring the kids to Disneyland, I don’t live far from there! I don’t get to Texas but once a decade or so. I have relatives in the Houston area I think, though I’ve never been to their place. I shot a commercial for a bank in Houston about 3 years ago, a fun little project. I was there for all of 16 hours, so I didn’t get to see my relatives.
Chris- I am glad to see you reading and thinking through this too. To me, your thinking is very sound- you are trusting in God’s word above the word of men, and falling for nothing less. That is the essence of the issue. The simple question- God has spoken, and we can be confident that we have His Word, why should I trust anyone who teaches otherwise, and most importantly, those who teach concepts and ideas contrary to the Word?
The attempt to use mans disobedience- disobedience to authority, God’s law and revealed will- to use that to try and undermine confidence in the Scriptures is to misidentify the problem- man’s fallen nature, sin. Disobedience plagues the Roman Catholic Church as well. It is the universal problem of man’s fallen nature that creates disunity, which disunity the Catholic apologist tries to leverage against Protestantism and sola Scriptura while hoping one doesn’t notice that the same problem is in their camp too.
Thanks to all, and all of God’s blessings to you and yours!
Garret
Hi Friend 2, aka Chris,
Thanks for your reply–I only have a short time right now, so i will focus my reply on a few things you said:
Protestants stand on the infallibility of a series of books. That series of books is validated by asking the question “who wrote them?” and “Are they internally consistent?” If the original writers were apostles, then I feel it is more logical to rely on 1st generation apostles than the subsequent so called “apostles”. The first generation was actually there. Based on historicity, you can’t get any better than that.
A few problems with this argument:
1. How do we know who wrote those books?
The Apostles themselves didn’t always tell us, and even if they wrote in each book “I wrote this”, we have to trust that someone else didn’t claim to be an Apostle and falsely make the same claim.
A brief correction: No one calls Christians–even Christian bishops and priests–who came after the Apostles, “Apostles”. Only the Apostles go by that name. The bishops are called their successors.
Historical evidence in the 1st century is not exhaustive–its the opposite, very scant–so we do not know from the history from that time which books were written by the Apostles; instead, we have to rely on the later Christians who led the Church and discerned which books were Apostolic and which were not.
The problem there is that, as admitted by many Protestants, the Church and her leaders already by the 2nd century had begun falling to significant falsehoods and corruption in their teachings. Just yesterday I was in a discussion with a Protestant apologist (one of the ones that Garret linked to), and as our discussion wasn’t going anywhere, I asked him flat out which century the Church’s teachings became corrupted. Answer: 2nd century: http://reformation500.wordpress.com/2010/03/20/bryan-cross-and-apostolic-succession/#comment-175
That’s a problem because 1) we are relying on Christians post-Apostolic Age (i.e. 2nd century onward) for knowing the canon but 2) Protestants are forced to admit, as this Protestant apologist does, that significant errors in teachings were already found in the 2nd century (in his particular case, he has chosen to believe that St. Irenaeus (ca. 180 AD) made several errors in his writings where he called upon the Apostolic Tradition/Succession of bishops, primacy of the church of Rome founded by Peter and Paul, etc. This Protestant apologist is *right* but Irenaeus the disciple of Polycarp the disciple of St. John the Apostle is *wrong*.
As Tom Brown explained here with regard to this same dilemma for Protestants (but this time with the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, held from the earliest times in the Church):
http://www.devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/blog/2010/02/13/the-protestant-dilemma-on-the-canon-of-scripture/#comment-72609
Why are the judgments of the papacy and Magisterium only limited to Faith and Morals?
Jesus said that he would send us the Holy Spirit who would lead us into “all truth”. Yet, the Church has never understood this “all” to mean in every area of human knowledge (mathematics, physics, biology, psychology, chemistry, etc.). You can accuse that decision of being arbitrary and claim that he meant that the Spirit would lead us into all truth in every area, but that would be your interpretation of the Bible.
Faith and morals are not nebulous terms. They mean very specific things: the dogmas about the Trinity fall under faith, and abortion, contraception, adultery, etc. fall under morals (for example). We could examine specifics here but it is not so loose as you imagine.
Hi Devin
It is a confused answer you give, period. So what- we should all say (including you)- that there is testimony from men 1,900 years ago about the Scriptures that we all care about, YET they don’t believe exactly as we do. What does it matter if one early writer says that the Gospel of Mark is from Peters disciple, AND that that person also believed in triple immersion baptism (Devin doesn’t, we don’t), praying towards the east (Devin doesn’t, we don’t), and that phoenixes were actual birds that really did exist (Devin doesn’t, we don’t)? It is a logical error of a very high order to throw away testimony on a historical claim they make- because of their personal beliefs. No one that I know does this, nor thinks this way- including you- so why are you trying to force something that you don’t believe is true on us, as though we should believe that!? Answer that please Devin. How do my personal religious beliefs affect my ability to make historical truth claims? Yet you imply just that when you say this- “Historical evidence in the 1st century is not exhaustive…The problem there is that, as admitted by many Protestants, the Church and her leaders already by the 2nd century had begun falling to significant falsehoods and corruption in their teachings.”
I’m sorry Devin, but that is a flawed apologetic that is asking us to accept a fallacy, of course no one should accept fallacies!
God bless,
Garret