Stapleton's third argument is that Scripture cannot be proved from Scripture; therefore, we need the Magisterium to identify Scripture for us. He explains this in more detail, using an example I've seen in various forms online discussion boards over the years:
Should any one, [Stapleton] says, deny Paul's epistles to be canonical, it cannot be proved either from the old Testament, or from the gospel, because there is nowhere any mention there made of them. Then he goes on to say that neither the whole scripture, nor any part of it, can be proved from scripture itself, because all proof is drawn from things better known than the thing to be proved. Therefore (says he) to one who denies or knows not either the whole scripture or any part of it, nothing can be proved from scripture itself. But here, according to him, the church comes to our help in both cases. For, should any one deny a part of scripture, the church persuades him to receive these books upon the same ground as he hath received the others: he who is ignorant of the whole scripture, it persuades to accept the scripture in the same way as he hath accepted Christ.1
Whitaker's response contains too much material to effectively summarize all of it, so it seemed best to draw out just a few relevant points--that we can recognize Scripture as God's voice through the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit and that there are external testimonies available to prove the canon as well (although to a lesser, different degree than the certainty provided by the Holy Spirit).
Scripture as the Recognizable Voice of God
Whitaker describes Scripture as recognizable, as one voice is recognizable from another or from other sounds:
From these2 and similar passages, we reason thus: There is the greatest perspicuity and light in the scriptures: therefore the scripture may be understood by the scripture, if one only have eyes to perceive this light. As the brightest light appears in the sun, so the greatest splendour of divinity shines forth in the word of God. The blind cannot perceive even the light of the sun; nor can they distinguish the splendour of the scriptures, whose minds are not illuminated. But those who have eyes of faith can behold this light. Besides, if we recognize men when they speak, why should we not also hear and recognise God speaking in his word? For what need is there that another should teach that this is the voice of somebody, when I recognize it myself; or should inform me that my friend speaks, when I myself hear and understand him speaking?3
So the identification of Scripture for Whitaker is much like being able to discern between external stimuli using the relevant sense. If presented with a variety of sounds, people with proper hearing will be able to distinguish between the various noises and identify which is someone speaking and which is, say, merely the sound of the wind blowing through trees.
The Internal Testimony of the Holy Spirit
Now, it seems Stapleton and other Catholics objected to this position because Scripture is not like hearing someone else speak. Yet Whitaker here says that the Holy Spirit gives an internal witness to the believer so that he may understand that God is speaking through Scripture (emphasis in original):
But they object that we cannot recognize the voice of God, because we do not hear God speaking. This I deny. For those who have the Holy Spirit, are taught of God: these can recognise the voice of God as much as any one can recognize a friend, with whom he hath long and familiarly lived, by his voice. Nay, they can even hear God. For so Augustine (Ep. III.), "God addresses us every day. He speaks to the heart of every one of us."4 If we do not understand, the reason is because we have not the Spirit, by which our hearts should be enlightened. With respect to us, therefore, the authority of scripture depends upon, and is made clear by, the internal witness of the Holy Spirit; without which, though you were to hear a thousand times that this is the word of God, yet you could never believe in such a manner as to acquiesce with an entire assent.5
This seems reasonable enough. If, indeed, the Holy Spirit is real, then its internal testimony is valid enough for individual Christians to know that Scripture is true.
And if the Holy Spirit testifies to the truthfulness of Scripture, the role Stapleton wishes for the Magisterium to play is no longer appropriate or even possible.
External Testimony
Now, the testimony of the Holy Spirit might very well be sufficient for the individual Christian, but how would an external case be made for the truthfulness of Scripture? Whitaker's reasons can be summarized as follows6:
1. The majestic and unique nature of the doctrines of Scripture as compared with the writings of the greatest of pagan philosophers or Christian theologians. This is true even for those works that were doubted by some early Christians, such as Jude, 2 Peter, 2 John and 3 John.
2. The "simplicity, purity, and divinity of the style" in which Scripture is written as compared with the philosophers Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, etc.
3. The fact that the books of Moses are older than any other work, containing the oldest and purest of all historical knowledge, giving it more authority than any other work.
4. The fulfillment of prophecies such as 1 Kings 13:2, Isaiah 44:28, etc.
5. The prodigious miraculous accounts contained in Scripture.
6. The repeated and failed attempts of God's enemies to destroy the documents (perhaps copies) of Scripture. These enemies sometimes came to see that God wrote Scripture after suffering punishments for attempting to destroy them.
7. The blood and confessions of martyrs to its truthfulness.
8. The changed or unexpected character of many of the authors of Scripture:
Who was Moses, before he was called by God? First, a courtier in Egypt, then a shepherd, finally, endued with the richest outpouring of the Spirit, he became a prophet, and the leader of the people of Israel. Who was Jeremiah? A man, incapable, as himself testifies, of any eloquence. Who was David? A youth and a shepherd. Who Peter? A fisherman, an ignorant and illiterate person. Who John? A man of the same low rank. Who was Matthew? A publican, altogether a stranger to holy things. Who was Paul? An enemy and persecutor of that doctrine which he afterwards professed. Who was Luke? A physician. How could such men have written so divinely without the divine inspiration of the Holy Ghost? They were, almost all, illiterate men, learned in no accomplishments, taught in no schools, imbued with no instruction; but afterwards summoned by a divine call, marked out for this office, admitted to the counsels of God: and so they committed all to writing with the exactest fidelity; which writings are now in our hands.7
While the list contains some rather valid reasons, not all of these will be acceptable to all persons (for example, the third is, perhaps, a fallacious appeal to antiquity), and we might very well employ refined versions of these arguments (or different ones altogether) should we be pressed to make our own attempt at the question of external verification.
However, if any readers wish to object to this list, it would be best to recognize that Whitaker seems to be making a cumulative case. All the various reasons must be considered together and in relation to one another. We cannot, as some skeptics do with respect to the Resurrection, object to, for example, the seventh reason by noting that many people have died for beliefs we know to be false, therefore, the seventh reason is completely worthless and may be discarded as such. No, the purpose of the seventh reason does not seem to be merely to say that martyrdom proves that a position is true. Rather, it seems to suggest that martyrdom demonstrates the sincerity of those who die for their cause, making it more likely that the position to which they attest and willingly die is true.
All this to say that this is an effective list, but we are cautioned still:
These topics may prove that these books are divine, yet will never be sufficient to bring conviction to our souls so as to make us assent, unless the testimony of the Holy Spirit be added. When this is added, it fills our minds with a wonderful plenitude of assurance, confirms them, and causes us most gladly to embrace the scriptures, giving force to the preceding arguments. Those previous arguments may indeed urge and constrain us; but this (I mean the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit) is the only argument which can persuade us.8
A useful reminder for those of us involved in apologetics.
_____________________________
1. Whitaker, Disputations, 288-289.
2. 2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 1:12, 19; Psalm 119:105-112.
3. Whitaker, Disputations, 289-290.
4. The citation for this quote is "Ep. 137. Opp. T. II. 528. Bassan. 1797." If anyone knows where to find this in a modern work, I would be grateful to read it in its fuller context.
5. Whitaker, Disputations, 290.
6. Ibid. 293-294.
7. Ibid., 294.
8. Ibid., 294-295.
Posts
21 comments:
In my own study of the internal testimony of the Spirit, I found the concept has Scriptural warrant especially in the Johannine corpus.
This subject has always been a problem for the Sola Scriptura cause. The fact is, Scripture only gives limited information on what the Canon is (e.g. "The Law"), but not much more, especially in regards to the New Testament. I've personally tried to derive the Canon from Scripture, and I've seen that it just can't be done.
Worse yet, the Bible doesn't give 'instructions' on going out and deriving the canon or that the "inner testimony of the Holy Spirit" is to be used in that manner.
So, the problem is two fold: the approach is not only fundamentally subjective, it isn't even mandated by Scripture.
Nick writes:
I've personally tried to derive the Canon from Scripture, and I've seen that it just can't be done.
1. So what Protestant scholars or apologists have you read on the issue? Which methods of theirs do you have in mind as ultimately being unsuccessful?
It's not really appropriate to reject derivation of the canon from Scripture based on your attempt. You're not exactly an expert in this field, and you don't exactly strike me as someone who has the motivation to seriously work though the issue.
2. Eric Svendsen makes a nice, simple case for the canon from Scripture (cf. Evangelical Answers [Lindenhurst, NY: Reformation Press, 1999], 97-107).
Worse yet, the Bible doesn't give 'instructions' on going out and deriving the canon or that the "inner testimony of the Holy Spirit" is to be used in that manner.
Why is there an expectation that the Bible should give "instructions" to derive the canon? It's really not obvious how that's a valid expectation.
As for the testimony of the Spirit, Ryan has made some relevant comments on the subject.
Ryan,
Thanks for your post and your quote from Carson. They were both great reads.
Why is there an expectation that the Bible should give "instructions" to derive the canon? It's really not obvious how that's a valid expectation.
Indeed, unlike Romanists, we do not allege a canonical list of books to be an object of revelation, rather we view such a list as a result (or artifact) of revelation. We believe in the providence of God over-ruling and guiding His church in the recognition of Scripture as the word of God. It's not by mere coincidence that virtually all of Protestantism agrees on the canonical list of books.
The contention of our Roman opponents is really a self-serving apologetic that acts solely in the interest of the communion of Rome, otherwise known as special pleading.
What's puzzling is why we don't see Roman apologists pressing this accusation against such early church fathers, for example, as Alexander of Alexandria, who could say entirely apart from any official, conciliar authority in his day concerning the Arians, "They are not ashamed to oppose the godly clearness of the ancient scriptures." NPNF2: Vol. III, Theodoret’s Ecclesiastical History, Book 1, Chapter 3; or the translation of this phrase as the letter is preserved in ANF: Vol. VI, Epistle to Alexander, Bishop of the City of Constantinople, §10, “The religious perspicuity of the ancient Scriptures caused them no shame . . .”
The Greek text reads: Οὐ κατήδεσεν αὐτοὺς ἡ τῶν ἀρχαίων Γραφῶν φιλόθεος σαφήνεια . . . Theodoreti Ecclesiasticae Historiae, Liber I, Caput III, PG 82:904.
Of course, Alexander confesses the perspicuity of the Scriptures as opposed to the Arians, but our Roman opponents will have none of that either.
Moreover, there are many ECFs who likewise confess the self-attesting nature of Holy Scripture, even as Protestants do today. But Romanists either dismiss and/or ignore (or really, are ignorant of) these witnesses regarding Holy Scripture.
It's only a problem insofar as Romanists *want* it to be a problem for Protestants. God has managed His scriptures very well, thank you.
The citation for this quote is "Ep. 137. Opp. T. II. 528. Bassan. 1797." If anyone knows where to find this in a modern work, I would be grateful to read it in its fuller context.
Augustine (354-430): Consider, moreover, the style in which Sacred Scripture is composed,—how accessible it is to all men, though its deeper mysteries are penetrable to very few. The plain truths which it contains it declares in the artless language of familiar friendship to the hearts both of the unlearned and of the learned; but even the truths which it veils in symbols it does not set forth in stiff and stately sentences, which a mind somewhat sluggish and uneducated might shrink from approaching, as a poor man shrinks from the presence of the rich; but, by the condescension of its style, it invites all not only to be fed with the truth which is plain, but also to be exercised by the truth which is concealed, having both in its simple and in its obscure portions the same truth. Lest what is easily understood should beget satiety in the reader, the same truth being in another place more obscurely expressed becomes again desired, and, being desired, is somehow invested with a new attractiveness, and thus is received with pleasure into the heart. By these means wayward minds are corrected, weak minds are nourished, and strong minds are filled with pleasure, in such a way as is profitable to all. This doctrine has no enemy but the man who, being in error, is ignorant of its incomparable usefulness, or, being spiritually diseased, is averse to its healing power. NPNF1: Vol. I, Letters of St. Augustine, Letter 137, Chapter 5, §18.
Augustine (354-430): The very language in which Holy Scripture is expressed is easy for all, although understood by very few. In its easily understood parts it speaks to the heart of unlearned and learned like a familiar friend who uses no subterfuge, but, in those truths which it veils in mystery, it does not raise itself aloft with proud speech. Hence, the backward and untutored mind dares to draw near to it as a poor man to a rich one, because it invites all in simple language, and feeds their minds with its teaching in plain words, while training them in the truth by its hidden message, having the same effect in both the obvious and the obscure. But, lest the obvious should cause disgust, the hidden truths arouse longing; longing brings on certain renewal; renewal brings sweet inner knowledge. By these means depraved minds are set right, small ones are nourished, great ones are filled with delight. The mind which is an enemy to this teaching is the one that errs in not knowing its power to save, or, in its sickness, hates its curative power. See FC, Vol. 20, Saint Augustine Letters, Letter 137, Addressed to Volusian (412 AD) (New York: Fathers of the Church, Inc., 1953), p. 34.
Latin text: Modus autem ipse dicendi, quo sancta Scriptura contexitur, quam omnibus accessibilis, quamvis paucissimis penetrabilis! Ea quae aperta continet, quasi amicus familiaris, sine fuco ad cor loquitur indoctorum atque doctorum: ea vero quae in mysteriis occultat, nec ipsa eloquio superbo erigit, quo non audeat accedere meus tardiuscula et inerudita, quasi pauper ad divitem; sed invitat omnes humili sermone, quos non solum manifesta paseat, sed etiam secreta exerceat veritate, hoc in promptis quod in reconditis habens. Sed ne aperta fastidirentur, eadem rursus operta desiderantur, desiderata quodam modo renovantur, renovata suaviter intimantur. His salubriter et prava corriguntur, et parva nutriuntur, et magna oblectantur ingenia. Ille huic doctrinae inimicus est animus, qui vel errando eam nescit esse saluberrimam, vel odit aegrotando medicinam. Epistola CXXXVII, Caput V, §18, PL 33:524.
Jerome says the same thing...
Jerome (347-420): For this purpose I shall rely on the holy scriptures in which God every day speaks to those who believe. NPNF2: Vol. VI, The Letters of St. Jerome, Letter 133, §13.
Latin text: quod nobis sanctarum Scripturarum testimoniis asserendum est, in quibus quotidie credentibus loquitur Deus. Epistola CXXXIII, §13, PL 22:1160.
Nick should tell us what the canon of Roman Catholic tradition is. Catholics disagree among themselves on the subject. At least Evangelicals have a far more stable and widely agreed upon canon for their rule of faith.
And since Nick objects to the fact that "Scripture only gives limited information on what the Canon is", he should tell us where Jesus and the apostles have directed us to a canon of Catholic tradition in a way that isn't limited. I'm aware of the (erroneous) arguments for Catholicism from Biblical passages like Matthew 16:18-19 and patristic passages like Irenaeus' Against Heresies 3:3:3. But such passages don't actually lead to the conclusions Catholics draw from them, and even those Catholic conclusions fall short of giving us all of the relevant information regarding just what is apostolic tradition and what isn't.
I did a series of posts on the New Testament canon last year. I argued for the twenty-seven-book New Testament without any appeal to Roman Catholic authority or any appeal to the testimony of the Spirit (though the latter is a valid means of arriving at a canon). One of those posts, here, gives examples of the Bible itself and some of the church fathers speaking of recognizing scripture apart from something like an infallible church ruling. Christians for centuries thought they could reach confident conclusions about the canon without something like Trent's ruling on the subject. So did Jewish believers before them.
"I'm aware of the (erroneous) arguments for Catholicism from Biblical passages like Matthew 16:18-19 and patristic passages like Irenaeus' Against Heresies 3:3:3."
Not to mention why, on RC grounds, one should consider them canonical at all. Which comes first: the authority of Scripture or the authority of the Magisterium, and by what means is the "first" established as authoritative?
“Indeed, unlike Romanists, we do not allege a canonical list of books to be an object of revelation, rather we view such a list as a result (or artifact) of revelation.”
Is the above a true statement and is it a teaching that all Protestant teaching authorities can affirm? If so, how can one verify that it is a universal Protestant teaching? Is this assertion to be found in the scriptures which are supposed to be the only basis for Protestant doctrines?
“We believe in the providence of God over-ruling and guiding His church in the recognition of Scripture as the word of God.”
How exactly did this happen or is it continuing to happen? Who in Protestantism did the recognizing – individuals, para church ministries, or denomination?
“It's not by mere coincidence that virtually all of Protestantism agrees on the canonical list of books.”
The implication is that not “all of Protestantism agrees on the canonical list of books”. Here I I would like to repeat questions I have asked elsewhere and received nothing by way of answer:
a)Is there a Protestant canon?
b)Did it just appear or was it decided upon?
c)Is there documentation of the process of canonization?
d)Who was involved in the process – individual, councils, etc?
e)What were the criteria for determining what was canonical?
f)Is the word “canon” found in scripture, if not, who came up with it?
g)The word canon was already in use before there was Protestantism; do Protestants have a way of saying the same thing without borrowing from the Church that existed before Protestantism?
I said: “Indeed, unlike Romanists, we do not allege a canonical list of books to be an object of revelation, rather we view such a list as a result (or artifact) of revelation.”
Is the above a true statement and is it a teaching that all Protestant teaching authorities can affirm?
Human teaching authorities are not our infallible rule of faith; That’s a tenet of Rome, not Protestantism.
If so, how can one verify that it is a universal Protestant teaching?
Ever hear of history? I recommend it; to study it is to cease to be a Romanist.
Is this assertion to be found in the scriptures which are supposed to be the only basis for Protestant doctrines?
I’ve already answered – We do not allege a canonical list of books to be an object of revelation. That is an ahistorical and uncatholic demand peculiar to the communion of Rome.
How exactly did this (God’s providence) happen or is it continuing to happen? Who in Protestantism did the recognizing – individuals, para church ministries, or denomination?
You may ask that of God in the day of judgment if you regard it so essential.
The implication is that not “all of Protestantism agrees on the canonical list of books”. Here I I [sic] would like to repeat questions I have asked elsewhere and received nothing by way of answer:
This alleged “implication” was not purposefully intended. Protestants share the same recognition of what books belong to Holy Scripture. I know of no true Protestant communion that would dispute this. But if you insist to the contrary, I’ll leave it to you to prove otherwise.
a)Is there a Protestant canon?
b)Did it just appear or was it decided upon?
c)Is there documentation of the process of canonization?
d)Who was involved in the process – individual, councils, etc?
e)What were the criteria for determining what was canonical?
f)Is the word “canon” found in scripture, if not, who came up with it?
g)The word canon was already in use before there was Protestantism; do Protestants have a way of saying the same thing without borrowing from the Church that existed before Protestantism?
Since this process is ascribed to God’s providential oversight, I rest content for you, in the last day, to ask it of the only infallible judge who will on that day judge between His sheep and the goats. But I suspect you’ll have far more weightier concerns before you when that day finds us. I suspect, as well, that the sovereign Lord of the universe won’t find it amusing when you ask for His I.D. while he’s addressing you. Perhaps you can ask Him, then as well, why He waited till approximately 1546 to illuminate an “infallible” canonical list to Trent, since you find God’s providential working such an object of curiosity. But when you’re alone, and no one else is an audience, it really doesn’t concern you, does it? It only concerns you when you attempt words games with Protestants, right? :)
Moreover, If you need to ask me if the word “canon” is found in Holy Scripture, it only displays your own ignorance of the same. I’m not your magisterium, remember? But I can assure you of this, the word “canon” was well in use before the Roman communion ever existed, so it really doesn’t matter whether the word “canon” itself was anterior or posterior to Protestantism. But, then, along with the rest of your comments, you really didn't think that one through very well either, did you? :)
Dozie wrote:
"Here I I would like to repeat questions I have asked elsewhere and received nothing by way of answer"
Before he was banned at Triablogue, Dozie would frequently ignore questions people asked him. His posts would often be just one or two sentences long, and he would make unsupported assertions, then leave the discussion without making much of an effort to interact with objections or questions written in response. And now he tells us that he's "asked and received nothing by way of answer". If people are treating him that way, then he's receiving what he's been giving.
If Dozie had done some research on Protestant views of the canon, like reading some articles and books on the subject, maybe he wouldn't have to ask the questions he poses above. And if he'd given the issues involved more thought, maybe he'd realize that similar questions can be asked of the Roman Catholic rule of faith.
The objection to the use of the word "canon" is particularly ridiculous. It's not as though sola scriptura is meant to condemn the use of extra-Biblical terminology. Similarly, Roman Catholics often use terminology, including in religious contexts, that didn't originate with Roman Catholicism. (As David King noted, it's not as if Roman Catholicism came up with the term "canon" or defined it infallibly.) Is that a violation of the Roman Catholic rule of faith? Would Dozie ever even think of suggesting such a thing, let alone posting about it in an online forum? Catholics frequently apply reasoning to Protestantism that they don't apply to Catholicism.
I banned dozie from the blog once before after putting up with insulting comments for quite a while. He returned some time later, a little less nasty, and I haven't kept up the ban.
I don't get a chance to read every comment, so I trust Matthew, John, and Rho will delete or ban comments that need to be.
"Before he was banned at Triablogue, Dozie would..."
Would it not be more fruitful to give an answer for what you believe than engage in this kind wastful and petty talk?
Would it not be more fruitful to give an answer for what you believe than engage in this kind wastful and petty talk?
We think the same thing with respect to you. :)
“If Dozie had done some research on Protestant views of the canon, like reading some articles and books on the subject, maybe he wouldn't have to ask the questions he poses above.”
Jason therefore assumes that every Protestant has to have read the same articles and books and, at a minimum, agrees with the conclusions of such articles and books. But since Protestantism does not like the concept of “infallible magistra” I do not see how mere agreement with another author (which can be no more than: “I like the argument”) is sufficient ground for believing in a concept as serious as a closed infallible “Christian Canon”.
“And if he'd given the issues involved more thought, maybe he'd realize that similar questions can be asked of the Roman Catholic rule of faith.”
With respect to the canon issue, similar questions can be asked of a Catholic but an adult and sane Catholic should, at a minimum, say that he/she does not know the details of how the canon came to be and that he/she accepts the canon on the authority of the Church. Since this line of answer can be offensive to Protestant apologists, I asked to know how a person (say, an average Protestant) would answer the canon question(s). Instead of providing helpful answers, Jason prefers to refer one to articles and books which the vast majority of Protestants do not have access to nor care for. So, the questions remain untouched.
Dozie writes:
"Jason therefore assumes that every Protestant has to have read the same articles and books and, at a minimum, agrees with the conclusions of such articles and books. But since Protestantism does not like the concept of 'infallible magistra' I do not see how mere agreement with another author (which can be no more than: 'I like the argument') is sufficient ground for believing in a concept as serious as a closed infallible 'Christian Canon'. "
I didn't say anything about "every Protestant" or a "closed infallible" canon.
You write:
"With respect to the canon issue, similar questions can be asked of a Catholic but an adult and sane Catholic should, at a minimum, say that he/she does not know the details of how the canon came to be and that he/she accepts the canon on the authority of the Church."
I referred to the Catholic rule of faith, which consists of more than scripture.
You write:
"Since this line of answer can be offensive to Protestant apologists, I asked to know how a person (say, an average Protestant) would answer the canon question(s). Instead of providing helpful answers, Jason prefers to refer one to articles and books which the vast majority of Protestants do not have access to nor care for."
Matthew Schultz, Ryan, and David King have already addressed the testimony of the Holy Spirit as a means of arriving at a canon. If you're going to ask for an objective argument for the canon, such as a historical argument, then most Protestants wouldn't be able to produce such an argument in full. But the same is true of most Catholics with regard to the Catholic rule of faith. The Catholic situation is even worse in that, as I said earlier, Catholics are at less agreement with each other about the canon of their tradition. And they have more historical material to sort through (papal decrees, council rulings, etc. covering a lengthier period of time).
Matthew,
1) I have no specific Protestant scholars in mind, nor was I suggesting I went by a specific scholar's methodology. Rather, I've done what many Protestants I've spoken with have done, and that is check for facts within the accepted canon that would somehow indicate canonicity. The most popular (and in many ways valid) approach is to see if a book is quoted elsewhere in the Bible (most often a given OT book being cited in the NT).
2) I've not read this book, but if it's *truly* "a nice, simple case for the canon from Scripture," I'd imagine this formula would be all over the web.
3) Under the SS paradigm, the Bible should give instructions on how to derive the canon, for that information is paramount to the Christian's life and doctrine.
David King,
The "artifact of revelation" argument doesn't really help the Protestant cause, and could even be considered an agnostic approach to the Christian faith.
As for your claim: "It's not by mere coincidence that virtually all of Protestantism agrees on the canonical list of books." The main reason for this is two-fold: (1) the great majority of Protestants simply accept the books in the Bible handed to them; (2) Protestants have questioned or had doubts on the "Protestant canon" (e.g. the mighty Luther), though most Protestants today know that to disagree or doubt or question the "Protestant canon" would be fatal to their Protestant cause.
Lastly, the "perspicuity" issue is it's own can of worms for the Protestant, but I won't go off on that now. (For a look at my interaction with TurretinFan on this subject, see my posts at his blog, especially Wednesday, May 26, 2010 4:11:00 AM and onward).
Nick writes:
Matthew,
1) I have no specific Protestant scholars in mind,
You're not responding to my objection. Why do you think it's reasonable to strongly conclude that this method fails if you do not know what Protestant scholars and apologists argue on the subject?
nor was I suggesting I went by a specific scholar's methodology.
I never said you did. Indeed, the very point is that you haven't identified and critiqued any specific methodology, other than your own, failed attempt at deriving the canon from Scripture.
2) I've not read this book, but if it's *truly* "a nice, simple case for the canon from Scripture," I'd imagine this formula would be all over the web.
And how is this a reasonable expectation?
It's not obvious what drives this response, other than a desire to avoid reading what Protestant scholars and apologists have to say on these issues.
3) Under the SS paradigm, the Bible should give instructions on how to derive the canon, for that information is paramount to the Christian's life and doctrine.
You're still not explaining how this is as a valid expectation "under the SS paradigm."
The "artifact of revelation" argument doesn't really help the Protestant cause, and could even be considered an agnostic approach to the Christian faith.
Thanks for sharing. These claims/objections don't change/affect my view in the least, and my time is better spent than running hither and thither to read what you think you have to offer. Have a great evening.
Post a Comment