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

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):

I argued (in part) that either the Church is reliable (enough to bind consciences) in delivering doctrine or it is not. Like you were getting at, it’s perfectly possible that the Holy Spirit led the Church into truth when the Church developed (or recognized) the canon, but did not so lead the Church in any other matter. But this is not the classical Reformational belief. More, this does not allow for assurance that the Scripture–the final authority in all matters of faith for the Protestant–is reliable. There is no way to know that the situation isn’t flipped around, e.g., that the Holy Spirit did lead the Church to truth about baptismal regeneration, but allowed the Church to err with regard to the canon. You need a basis for asserting that belief X was a guided-to belief while belief Y was not. Otherwise, you are making an ad hoc assertion that commands only so much submission as any other ad hoc claim. You would certainly not be in a position to bind consciences about the 66-book Protestant canon.

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.

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

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.

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.”

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

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.

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

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!

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