Additional comments to Dr. White's excellent recent series on Sola Scriptura

Dr. James White recently did a 5 part series on Sola Scriptura.  I had planned to go through it again and type out more of his comments and analysis, but all I have had time for is to make about 5 additional points that I would make; additional points to his already excellent series.  See the link to John Samson's blog post of putting all 5 together in one post.

https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2016/11/08/sola-scriptura-series-by-dr-white/

Two respectful discussions about the Qur'an and the Bible - Dr. James White and Imam Muhammad Musri

The world at this time needs this kind of discussion and debate.  We can disagree without resorting to sinful anger, ad hominem arguments, insults or violence.

Dr. White did an excellent job; and the Imam was very respectful and showed better knowledge of the issues than most Muslims.  He had to be corrected on the common mistake that Muslims repeat that "The Council of Nicea and Constantine decided which books belong in the canon".

https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2015/10/15/two-respectful-and-peaceful-discussions-about-the-bible-and-the-quran/

Canon Issues have to be constantly talked about, because:
1.  Liberal scholarship constantly attacks the dates of the NT books and distorts the canon process.
2.  The claims of the Roman Catholic Church put the Church over the canon, and that needs to be challenged also.

Dr. White gave the Imam 2 books on the canon by Dr. Michael J. Kruger.

The Canon Revisited

The Question of Canon

These are two good blog series also by Michael J. Kruger on the canon:

http://michaeljkruger.com/the-complete-series-10-misconceptions-about-the-nt-canon/

http://michaeljkruger.com/the-complete-series-ten-basic-facts-about-the-nt-canon-that-every-christian-should-memorize/

Roman Catholic commercial video during Papal visit

I noticed this Roman Catholic commercial video being played a lot recently on Fox News.  Seems the timing was to go with the visit of Pope Francis.  (Jorge Bergoglio)



This is a very well done video for the time that it takes.

Problems:
1.  It assumes "catholic" is the same as "Roman Catholic". (without even mentioning the phrase, "Roman Catholic")
2.  It subtly claims the Roman Catholic Church compiled the Bible.  This is false.  The early church testified, affirmed, discerned, discovered, and put under one "book cover" which texts were "God-breathed"/ inspired.  (2 Timothy 3:16)  They called themselves "catholic" in the sense of "universal" / "according to the whole" / able to grow in all nations and cultures (Revelation 5:9), but it was not the same church doctrinally that today claims the Papacy, Transubstantiation, Purgatory, Indulgences, Marian dogmas, Marian piety, praying to Mary, praying to statues and icons, denial of Justification by Faith Alone at Trent, etc.
3.  It claims Peter was the first Pope.
Many problems with that.  See below in Dr. White's lecture on the Dividing Line.
4.  The mention of "sacred tradition", in addition to the written Scriptures.
5.  claimed 2000 years of an unbroken line of shepherds.

There may be other problems, but those are the 5 that stuck out to me.

Dr. White did an excellent DL yesterday, on Sept. 23, about the current Pope and Papacy:



Take note of the 5 things that Roman Catholics have to prove as true all at the same time in the last half of his lecture.

The closing Scripture verses Dr. White pointed to were from Acts 20:17-32.  Acts 20:32 - "And now I commend to God and the word of His grace, which is about to build you up and to give the inheritance among those who are being sanctified."

Some other things about the Papal visit of Pope Francis.  It seems, from what I have read, that President Obama and/ or the White House staff deliberately invited a bunch of homosexuals, trans-gender activists, and Roman Catholics for abortion, in order to cause this Pope some discomfort, or embarrass him, or give him a message, or protest his views on same sex marriage and abortion.  That is shameful, IMO.  His statement's on homosexuality have been weak and unclear, but as conservative RC's have pointed out, he has not changed church doctrine on that issue.  I can appreciate and respect the Roman Catholic Church's stand against abortion and stand for marriage as one man and one woman, etc.

The current Pope's opposition to the death penalty ( I have never understood that, even for first degree murder, since I started hearing about that from the time of John Paul 2) and leftist views of the borders, illegal immigration, global warming, and capitalism are revealing.

Addendum:  The Debate on the Papacy that Dr. White had with Mitch Pacwa in 1998:

The Bible is Self-authenticating, by Michael J. Kruger

http://michaeljkruger.com/what-do-we-mean-when-we-say-the-bible-is-self-authenticating/

See the link to the audio lecture and the written outline.

New Catholic Encyclopedia: The Canon Was Not Settled Until Trent

I was asked recently to document the following from the New Catholic Encyclopedia:

"According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the Biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Church (at the Council of Trent). Before that time there was some doubt about the canonicity of certain Biblical books, i.e., about their belonging to the canon."

This quote come from the New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. III Can to Col (New York: Mcgraw-Hill, 1967), 29.

Nihil Obstat: John P. Whalen, M.A., S.T.D. Censor Deputatus

Imprimatur: Patrick O'Boyle, D.D. Archbishop of Washington, August 5, 1966

The Canon Was Closed in 1442?

Some years back Tim Staples asserted that the canon was officially closed in 1442. Someone recently challenged me to document this, so here it is:

https://soundcloud.com/james-swan-14/staples-canon

If I recall, the clip is from Tim Staples in discussion with James White on the Bible Answer Man Show. This discussion can be heard in full here:

http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=72115192611

http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=72215152113

Why does this matter? The typical mantra is that the canon was closed by Hippo and Carthage.

"the church wrote the Bible" claim of Roman Catholicism

https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2015/06/17/the-church-wrote-the-bible-claim-of-roman-catholicism/

Be Careful the way you communicate the issue of the canon in the early church

Andy Stanley, Pastor of NorthPoint Community Church outside of Atlanta, Ga, said, in his recent Easter sermon, "History's Mystery", basically, "the Bible didn't exist until around 300 - 400 AD".  "for 300 years there was no Bible" and "they had no New Testament for really, 400 years".  (at the 5:56 time mark to 6:20 mark) This is a sloppy and misleading statement, because it sounds like the individual NT books didn't exist, but they all did, by 96 AD.  They were individual scrolls and early churches used them, read them, taught them, and quoted them in the first 3-4 centuries.  They only didn't have all 27 books all together under "one book cover" or "canon list".  Originally, "canon" meant "rule" or "standard" or "criterion", and later came to mean a "list of God-breathed books" or "a list of inspired books".

Whatever is "God-breathed" Scripture, is therefore "canon" or rule or standard.  2 Timothy 3:16 says "All Scripture is God-breathed . . . "  Whatever God inspired as revelation that was written down, by reason of the character of the writing being from God Himself, those were the books that were discerned as "canon"/ standard / rule.

Andy's main point, that Christianity is based on the person of Christ (and His crucifixion and resurrection), and not philosophy or ideas, is basically true, but he should have expanded and clarified with more; something like, "Christianity is primarily based on the person of Christ; but also His works and doctrines and teachings, which were written down by His apostles in God-breathed Scripture, and that includes all the 27 books of the NT, including the writings of the apostle Paul, as fulfillment of the coming of the Holy Spirit to led the apostles into all the truth." (John chapters 14, 15, 16)

Andy needs to read Michael Kruger's books and blog on the canon and NT history, as Dr. White suggests. (on the video below) 

Dr. Micheal Kruger's blog. 

The Question of Canon.

The Canon Revisited. 

The Heresy of Orthodoxy.  (with Andreas Kostenberger) 

Statements like "the Bible did not exist for the first 3 centuries", can make people in the audience vulnerable to Roman Catholic apologetic claims.  That is what happened to my friend Rod Bennett; he was not well taught in the canon issues as a Protestant, and so fell prey to that kind of argument. They claim that the church authoritatively decided and determined the canon (the list of which books are inspired/ "God-breathed").  No; rather they were determined by God the Holy Spirit to be "criterion" / "standard" / (the original meaning of "canon", as soon as they were written as individual books / scrolls.  It just took time to collect them all under one "book cover" or "canon list", so to speak.   The early church discovered, discerned, witnessed to which books were already "God -breathed" and therefore, by nature, were "canon" / criterion / standard. 

Dr. White rightly points this out in this screen flow.  If Andy means the final form of where there was unanimous agreement as to the canon list, as in Athanasius' list in 367 AD, then that is right, but the way he communicated his statement makes it seem like the individual letters / gospels did not exist in churches to guide them into the truth and doctrine and practice.  But even long before Athanasius in 367, Origen around 250 AD indicates the same 27 NT book list.  See here.

Below is a compilation of statements that I originally tweeted yesterday and today, but expanded here in this article.

The Scriptures existed and were "God-breathed" right when the ink dried, therefore "canon" when written. (R. C. Sproul, Sola Scriptura: The Protestant position on the Bible, page 82 - "For the Reformers, the Bible was canon as soon as it was written."); they were individual books, to be exact scrolls; later collected under one "book cover"/canon list.

For a Protestant to say, "the Bible did not exist until 300s or 400s AD", gives credibility to Roman Catholic apologetic claims. Andy Stanley needs to clarify his statement.

Clement of Rome, in 96 AD, wrote, "take up the epistle of Paul to the Corinthians", affirming that 1 Corinthians was written in 55 AD, and considered God-breathed Scripture by Clement.

Clement of Rome (Letter of 1 Clement) quoted and alluded to (hinted and pointed to) several of Paul's letters & at least one of the written gospels (Matthew, written sometime from 50-65 AD) - Clement writing in 96 AD, refers to these earlier writings. (Geisler and Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible, p. 294.)

Tertullian and Ireneus quoted from most of the NT books in 180-220 AD.  Ignatius (107-117 AD), Justin Martyr (150 AD), Polycarp (165 AD) quote from some books of the NT.   Origen (250 AD) actually lists all of the 27 books and discusses many of them. (see link above) Cyprian (250 AD), Clement of Alexandria, (215 AD),  quote from and allude to most of the books of the New Testament.  (Ignatius and Polycarp quote from and allude to some; Justin Martyr quotes and alludes to some, and seems to know all the Gospels, and uses the Logos theology of John 1:1 and 1:14 to speak of Jesus, etc.)

All the 27 NT books existed by 96 AD, they were just not collected together under 1 canon list or "book cover" yet.  

The nature of the NT documents-they were individual letters/gospels written on scrolls: the Codex form did not even exist in common usage until about 150-200 AD.  Before then, books and letters had to be individually rolled up as scrolls.  So, the form of a modern book, with a binding, flat, etc., did not even exist when the individual letters were written to different areas in the first century.  

The apostles Peter and Paul were executed by Nero around 67 AD.  This means that all their letters were written and existed before then.  The book of Hebrews also was clearly written before 70 AD, because he presents his argument based on the fact that the priests were currently offering sacrifices and the temple was still standing; but He says Christ was the final, once for all time, sacrifice.  If he was writing after 70 AD, he would have said, "And we have proof that Jesus is the fulfillment of all the sacrificial system, because God ordained the Romans to come and destroy the temple in 70 AD, thus proving that Christ is the final sacrifice.  

The Gospel according to Mark (written sometime between 48-60 AD), James, Galatians, written around 48-50 AD; these are the earliest NT documents; they existed, and churches used them and quoted from the them in the first 3 centuries.  So it is misleading to say, "The Bible did not exist until the 300s or 400s AD".    We know Galatians was written before the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 in 48-49 AD (Carson, Moo, Intro to NT, p. 464), because if Galatians was written after that, Paul would have mentioned the decisions in his letter to the Galatians to bolster his case.  The fact that he does not mention those decisions is proof that the letter to the Galatians was written sometime before the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15.

We know that Luke wrote the book of Acts shortly after his release from the 2 year in house prison because of the abrupt ending and lack of other details as to what he did after that.  ("other considerations suggest a date not long after 62 AD".  (See Carson and Moo, Intro to NT, page 300.)  This means The Gospel of Luke was written before then, in 60 or 61 AD, or before Acts early in the year of 62 AD.

Most conservative NT scholars believe the Gospel according to John, the letters of 1, 2, 3 John, and the book of Revelation were written somewhere between 80-96 AD, but some argue for a pre- 70 AD dating. That leaves the little book of Jude to be around 80 AD, and "the faith once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 1:3) (or verse 3) may indicate it was the last book written or one of the last NT books written.

The main reason liberals date Matthew, Mark, and Luke after 70 AD, is because they don't believe in supernatural, predictive prophesy, but Jesus clearly predicted the destruction of the temple in Matthew 24:1-3 as future to Him (spoken in 30 AD before the cross), and, it indeed happened in 70 AD. It is interesting that "a generation" was generally considered "40 years". This has implications for Matthew 24:34 - "this generation will not pass away until all these things take place". Does Jesus' woes and judgment pronouncements on that generation living at that time extend from Matthew 23:36 ("all these things will come upon this generation") to Matthew 24:34 ?

As John A. T. Robinson argued, if Matthew, Mark, and Luke had been written after 70 AD, they would have surely added something like, "and this was fulfilled when Titus' armies rolled in and destroyed the temple in 70 AD." (Redating the New Testament, pages 13-30)
The 27 books of the NT and generally accepted dates by conservative students and scholars:
Galatians - 48- 49 AD
James - 48-50 AD (?)
Gospel according to Mark - 48-60 AD
Council of Jerusalem - 49 AD
1 Thessalonians - 50 AD
2 Thessalonians - 51 AD
Matthew - 50-65 AD
Luke - 60-61 AD
Acts - 62 AD
1 Corinthians - 55 AD
2 Corinthians - 56 AD
Romans - 57-58 AD
Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon (60-62 AD - in Paul's first imprisonment at end of Acts.)
Paul released from prison; seeks to go to Spain. (Romans 15:20-24)
I Peter - 64 AD
I Timothy, Titus - 63-65 AD
2 Timothy - 67 AD
2 Peter - 67 AD (Dictated to a student from prison; to Jude, possibly, the half brother of Jesus, which would explain similarities of style and vocabulary.)
Apostles Paul and Peter executed by Nero. (67 AD)
Nero commits suicide - 67 AD
Hebrews - 68 AD
70 AD - Destruction of Temple
80-96 AD - Gospel of John, letters of 1, 2, 3 John, Revelation
80 AD - Jude - "the faith was once for all delivered to the saints"

So, when admitting that the Bible in its final book form or canon list was not available until either 250 AD (per Origen) or 367 AD (per Athanasius Festal Letter 39), we should make clear that the books of the NT were already written from around 48-96 AD, and that the early churches each had either one gospel (maybe 2 or 3) and one or more NT letters; that they were never without some portion of Scripture. Pastors and teachers should be careful the way they communicate the issue of the canon and the history of it in the early church.

Sola Scriptura, the Canon, and Roman Catholicism

Dr. White and Dr. Michael Kruger, President and Professor of Reformed Theological Seminary in Charlotte, NC.,  discuss Sola Scriptura, the Canon, and Roman Catholicism on the Dividing Line, back on January 7, 2014 on the Dividing Line.  They listened to a call from a Lutheran to the "Catholic Answers"radio program and then discuss.  I embedded this Dividing Line and discuss some basic canon issues over at my other blog.

"Sola Scriptura", the Canon, and Roman Catholicism 

Anyone commenting must demonstrate they have listened to the whole Dividing Line program first. (smile)

And read my other comments at my other blog, called "Apologetics and Agape". (smile)

What about the Canon? What about Bob? and "feelings of Nostalgia"

This is the combination of two older posts, with additional comments.  (and a 3rd link to Michael Horton's article)  This is also where I made some comments about my friend Rod Bennett and his book Four Witnesses and his struggles with doubt about church history, the canon, which interpretation, which church is right, etc.  He went through the same kinds of doubts and skepticism that John Henry Cardinal Newman, Scott Hahn, Chesterton, Peter Kreeft and pretty much all former Protestants who have crossed the Tiber and become Roman Catholic have gone through.  In a way, this could be "Review of Rod Bennett's book, Four Witnesses, Part 3".

"1.  What about the Canon?  What about Bob?"

2.  "Feelings of Nostalgia" in "A word about intellectual converts" by John Bugay (see below)


3.  Michael Horton has an excellent summary of the problems with Papal Infallibility.   ("Who's in Charge Here?  The Illusion of Papal Infallibility")

In the "What about the Canon?" article, this was also a good summary of the issues.

Though I don't agree with some of what he writes at his blog, on this issue of Sola Scriptura and the canon and uncertainty, C. Michael Patton wrote an excellent article on Sola Scriptura and the Canon here a while back, with a classic picture of Bill Murray from the movie, "What about Bob?"

This part of C. Michael Patton's article was especially good in shooting down the typical Roman Catholic method of trying to sow doubt and confusion into the mind of sensitive Protestants who also enjoy church history, who take seriously the Biblical doctrine of the church; and who take historical theology seriously.

"We have a term that we use for people who require infallible certainty about everything: “mentally ill.” Remember What About Bob? He was mentally ill because he made decisions based on the improbability factor. Because it was a possibility that something bad could happen to him if he stepped outside his house, he assumed it would happen. There are degrees of probability. We act according to degrees of probability. Simply because it is a possibility that the sun will not rise tomorrow does not mean that it is a probability that it won’t.  C. Michael Patton

I am not saying that all Roman Catholics are mentally ill; but I am just agreeing that that kind of skepticism leads to such instability that it leads people astray from the truth, and it could possibly lead to mental illness.

The same argument can be made about uncertainty about the canon and interpretation of Scripture.

Just because there is a possibility that we are wrong (being fallible), does not mean that it is a probability. Therefore, we look to the evidence for the degree of probability concerning Scripture.  The smoke screen of epistemological certainty that seems to be provided by having a living infallible authority (Magisterium) disappears when we realize that we all start with fallibility. No one would claim personal infallibility. Therefore it is possible for all of us to be wrong. We all have to start with personal fallible engagement in any issue. Therefore, any belief in an infallible living authority could be wrong. As Geisler and MacKenzie put it, “The supposed need for an infallible magisterium is an epistemically insufficient basis for rising above the level of probable knowledge. Catholic scholars admit, as they must, that they do not have infallible evidence that there is an infallible teaching magisterium. They have merely what even they believe to be only probable arguments. But if this is the case, then epistemically or apologetically there is no more than a probable basis for Catholics to believe that a supposedly infallible pronouncement [either about the canon or interpretation of the canon] of their church is true” (Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences, p. 216)."  C. Michael Patton

2.  A word about Intellectual converts. by John Bugay

Concerning the search for "feelings of Nostagia", I wrote these comments, with some updated editing.

nostalgia - 1. A bittersweet longing for things, persons, or situations of the past.
2. The condition of being homesick; homesickness.

Scott and Kimberly Hahn - "Rome, Sweet Home" - you can feel the longing for nostalgia here.

Rod Bennett, author of Four Witnesses: the Early Church in Her Own Words (Ignatius Press, 2002) (who was one of my best friends for years; one of my groomsmen in my wedding; after 8 years of debate, after he informed me of his decision to convert to Rome; he told me he wanted to debate no more. We debated from 1996-2004 by email and phone and face to face in many 3 to 5 hour discussions/arguments/informal debate.)

Rod had this same longing for nostalgia - connection to history, old architecture, pilgrimages, grave sites; heroes of the past (martyrs, saints), wars of chivalry, knights, and rescuing princesses; and he also longed for unity and perfection and ultimate authority.  (some of that is not bad, as long as we are balanced and come back to reality to today and let the Scriptures be our stabilizing comfort by the power of the Holy Spirit.)

He used John Henry Cardinal Newman and G. K. Chesterton types of arguments a lot. Interesting that the Roman Catholic author that John Bugay cited above in "A word about intellectual converts",  says, “Newman probably is the one who started that mess . . . “

Interesting that that cradle Roman Catholic that John Bugay cited looks at all the nostalgia and Newman methods  as a negative thing; and he doesn’t sound too sure or positive about pope Pius IX.

But also, they seem to long for perfection here on earth – for example -  the dissillusionment with pastors and churches and disunity in history and denominations comes from this root of longing for perfection here on earth, which is delusional.

"Wouldn’t it be great if we had a living voice, someone who could walk into the room and say "thus says the Lord" someone who could tell us what the right interpretation is and solve all the disunity problems in Protestant denominationalism?" Rod Bennett (this is basically what he would say to me, from memory of many talks with him over those 8 years.)

Tim Staples also reflects this "nostalgia" and said similar things about a living voice that can walk into the room and solve disunity problems, in his debates and discussions with James White on the Bible Answer Man program and in debates - he has the same nostalgia.

Rod Bennett's uncertainty about the right interpretation and disillusionment over disunity in Protestantism reminded me of what C. Micheal Patton wrote about the radical skepticism of doubting everything and obsession to know for sure, to require infallible certainty; and the illustration from the movie, “What About Bob?”, with Bill Murray. The picture of Bill Murray from the movie is worth a thousand words.

“We have a term that we use for people who require infallible certainty about everything: “mentally ill.” Remember What About Bob? He was mentally ill because he made decisions based on the improbability factor. Because it was a possibility that something bad could happen to him if he stepped outside his house, he assumed it would happen. There are degrees of probability. We act according to degrees of probability. Simply because it is a possibility that the sun will not rise tomorrow does not mean that it is a probability that it won’t.”

That seems to be the root issue for the RC apologetic – this “how do you know for sure?” questions. Peter Kreeft, as I recall, used the same kind of argument, when another friend of mine contacted him about doubts about church history, the canon, assurance, how to know the right interpretation, etc. with statements like, 

 “What if the canon was not right?” 

"What if your interpretation is not right?"

" How do you know for sure you have the right books or the right interpretation?"

"How do you know for sure you are in the right church?"

 It is all based on epistemology and the search for knowing for sure. Somehow, the pope and infallible church claim gives them comfort.

It is a false assurance.

It is the nature of epistemology and "how do you know what you know?" that is the Roman Catholic apologetic tactic.   The Roman Catholics, especially the former Protestant like the Called to Communion folks, are just using a very clever tool in their churches' apologetic kit.   It is what happened to Newman; it is Descartes methodology in RCC terminology and dressed up in Cardinal's clothes, so to speak.

Notice Ephesians 3:12 - "in whom, we have boldness and confident access through faith in Him." The Bible gives us all the confidence we need:

"to write and orderly account for you . . . " . . . so that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught". Luke 1:1-4 ESV

NIV = "certainty"

NASB says "so that you might know the exact truth about the things you have been taught."

"I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, in order that you have know you have eternal life." I John 5:13

2 Peter 1:12-21 and 3:1 (read and meditate on these verses) also communicate from Peter himself, who according to your church is the first Pope, yet before he dies, he does not mention anything about the bishop or elders or church leadership and he does not say "ask them for assurance" or "trust in them for the right interpretation", etc. - he leaves a letter so that the believers will have something to teach them and remind them of the truth and because he did write it down, he says, "therefore we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts . . ." (2 Peter 1:19)

Roman Catholics will say "you only have a "fair amount of certainty".

I disagree.  It is rather the highest amount of certainty that God expects from humans who will be reading His God-breathed Scriptures. There are many other passages - John 20:30-31"these have been written that you may know".  God never expects us humans to have "infallible certainty" in our feelings or souls, etc.  That category of "infallibility" is not even within our subjective feelings and knowledge.  Rather, we have reasonable and sufficient certainty by reading the Scriptures and by the power of the Holy Spirit communicating that assurance to us.

With the clear teaching of Scripture, I don't understand the creation of another level of extra-certainty, which is superfluous of the whole infallible RC church/magisterium/pope/ etc.  We have all the certainty that God requires.

And in fact, because of the mistakes and the errors and the false doctrines that have been added to the Scriptures (Marian dogmas, penance, treasury of merit, indulgences, purgatory, NT priests, Apocryphal books, prayers for the dead, alms giving and good works as required conditions for salvation; infant baptismal regeneration, transubstantiation and bowing down to the consecrated host of bread and wine; praying to statues and icons; having other mediators beyond the one mediator (contradiction to 1 Tim. 2:5) - these things actually take away confidence and assurance and certainty and create a trust in man-made traditions. So, the Roman Catholic "certainty" is not a certainty at all for me, even though it claims "infallible certainty", it does not inspire a stronger certainty at all for me.  

What About the Canon? What About Bob?

Michael Horton has an excellent summary of the problems with Papal Infallibility. 


Though I don't agree with some of what he writes at his blog, on this issue, C. Michael Patton wrote an excellent article on Sola Scriptura and the Canon here a while back:

http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2008/07/in-defense-of-sola-scriptura-part-seven-what-about-the-canon/

This part of C. Michael Patton's article was especially good in shooting down the typical Roman Catholic method of trying to sow doubt and confusion into the mind of sensitive Protestants who also enjoy church history, who take seriously the Biblical doctrine of the church; and who take historical theology seriously. 

"We have a term that we use for people who require infallible certainty about everything: “mentally ill.” Remember What About Bob? He was mentally ill because he made decisions based on the improbability factor. Because it was a possibility that something bad could happen to him if he stepped outside his house, he assumed it would happen. There are degrees of probability. We act according to degrees of probability. Simply because it is a possibility that the sun will not rise tomorrow does not mean that it is aprobability that it won’t.

The same can be said about the canon and interpretation of Scripture. Just because there is a possibility that we are wrong (being fallible), does not mean that it is a probability. Therefore, we look to the evidence for the degree of probability concerning Scripture.

2. The smoke screen of epistemological certainty that seems to be provided by having a living infallible authority (Magisterium) disappears when we realize that we all start with fallibility. No one would claim personal infallibility. Therefore it is possible for all of us to be wrong. We all have to start with personal fallible engagement in any issue. Therefore, any belief in an infallible living authority could be wrong. As Geisler and MacKenzie put it, “The supposed need for an infallible magisterium is an epistemically insufficient basis for rising above the level of probable knowledge. Catholic scholars admit, as they must, that they do not have infallible evidence that there is an infallible teaching magisterium. They have merely what even they believe to be only probable arguments. But if this is the case, then epistemically or apologetically there is no more than a probable basis for Catholics to believe that a supposedly infallible pronouncement [either about the canon or interpretation of the canon] of their church is true” (Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences, p. 216)."

Interesting Lectures on Evangelical Tiber Swimmers and the Canon

Justin Taylor posted an interesting link on Saturday, April 28. It is called "On Evangelical (s) Swimming the Tiber".

Listen here:  There are three lectures with some questions and answers in between sessions. They are all in one file at Chris Castaldo's blog.

Sessions include:
 1. Dr. Gregg Allison – The Roman Road, or the Road to Rome? Why Some Protestants Drift to Catholicism.

 2. Rev. Chris Castaldo - Crossing the Tiber: Why Catholics and Protestants Convert.

 3. Dr. Craig Blaising – Does Accepting the Canon of Scripture Implicitly Affirm Rome’s Authority?

 4. Dr. Robert Plummer – Moderator of question and answer sessions in between lectures.

Dr. Gregg Allison has a very good analysis of why some Protestants convert to the Roman Catholic Church.  Dr. Allison has an interesting book on historical theology.  It is on my book list to get soon.

Dr. Allison talks about Evangelical Protestants who convert to the Roman Catholic Church did so out of a shallow experience in an Evangelical Protestant church that caused a dis-satisfaction with their church and then they went on a "Quest for Transcendence" ( In other words, "Mystery" ?)

That quest for transcendence is expressed in four ways:
a.  Desire for Certainty - certainty over what is the right interpretation among all the different interpretations in the Protestant camp.
b.  Desire for Connectivity to the early church, saints, martyrs, medieval theologians, history
c.  Desire for greater Unity
d.  Desire for Ultimate Authority

Dr. Allison demonstrates that the Roman Catholic Church does not really satisfy those desires and that Quest; he responds with a robust biblical response. (For the time slot he has.)

This analysis was similar to a JETS article that Scott McKnight wrote several years ago.

Dr. Craig Blaising's lecture on the canon was excellent and offered some new insights that I had not known or thought about before.

Rev. Chris Castaldo, who has the lectures at his blog, gave the second lecture.  It was interesting, but there was a problem. Let's see who will listen to the whole thing and figure out the one problem I would have with Castaldo's approach. He regularly reaches out to Roman Catholics and eats lunch and dinner with priests and has discussions with them over theology. Castaldo is willing to discuss issues and have meals with Roman Catholics. I think that is a good thing. I think it is good to have meals together and "eat with sinners and tax-collectors" and discuss things with Roman Catholics; and Muslims, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and atheists. He had some interesting facts on John Henry Cardinal Newman and Peter Martyr Vermigli, a Roman Catholic priest who became a Protestant during the Reformation period.

Notice how Peter Martyr Virmigli is pointing to the Bible. 

Castaldo indicates that Vermigli and Thomas Cranmer were the great foundation layers of the Anglican Church; and "historians have proven definitively that Vermigli had a great deal of influence in the modifications of the Book of Common Prayer in 1552."

Five very interesting points that Dr. Craig Blaising made in the 3rd lecture:

1. The reason why the early church did not make an official list of the books that belonged in the canon in first 2-3 centuries was because it would have been easier for the Roman persecutors to identify the ones that they wanted to confiscate and burn.  (though there is some evidence of partial lists of books that follow the criterion/rule of faith; i.e., the Muratorian Canon (about 170 AD), Irenaeus' basic "canon" of referring to most of the NT books in 180 AD; and Origen around 250 AD seems to have the same list of books as Athanasius in 367 AD),

 2. Tradition - "the things handed down" and Traitor - "one who hands over" (the Scriptures to the Roman persecutors) - both come from the same root word.

 3. He says that the famous passage in Irenaeus 3:3:2, that says “every church must agree” (with the Roman Church) meaning is refuted by Louise Abramowski in  a Journal of Theological Studies article in 1977. Abramowski, L. Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. III. 3, 2: Ecclesia Romana and Omms Ecclesia; and ibid. 3 , 3 : Anacletus of Rome .  Journal of Theological Studies. Oxford University Press, 1977. I tried to find the article on line, but all I found was the title in a Pdf of the indexes.

 4.  His comments on Athanasius and his 39th Easter Letter and a section from Orations Against the Arians was indeed interesting!   Athanasius – Against the Arians (Orations Against the Arians) 1:9 – "we take Scripture and put it up as a light on a candlestick" – the Scripture is like light on a candlestick; and he proceeds to expound a great doctrinal passage on Christ, very similar to the "rule of faith" in Irenaeus and Tertullian; and Athanasius also includes "homo-ousios"( 'ομοουσιος) in this segment.

5.  Dr. Blaising did a good job of showing that the "rule (canon) of faith" in both Irenaeus and Tertullian were fed from Scripture and the main reason for discerning the books of the NT was because they contained the rule of faith or compatible with the rule of faith.

Dr. Blaising said that Cyril of Alexandria was the main driving force behind the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD.  But Cyril died in 444 AD.  At the Council of Ephesus in 431 AD, Cyril was the main force in that council and was very aggressive in condemning Nestorius.  Dr. Blaising meant that his efforts and writings influenced others who later led the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD, because they even submitted Leo's Tome to Cyril of Alexandria's writings.

Why the Canon Is Closed According to Roman Catholic Apologists, and Why the Canon is Not Closed According to Roman Catholic Apologists

You can't make this stuff up:

The Canon is closed:

"Scripture was Scripture before the canon was declared. Vatican I and Vatican II both state this. The canon is not Scripture itself, but the authoritative list of biblical books. Thus, there is no difficulty in saying 'Scripture existed before the canon was declared.' Indeed, this was necessarily the case, since declaring a list of biblical books presupposes that there are biblical books to be listed! The point of the canon was to end dispute once and for all as to which books are part of the Bible, since some didn't accept various books, and others thought books were Scripture that were not (as later determined by councils and popes and general consensus)."

"I would say that many Christians largely knew what books were part of Scripture, but not exactly or with precision, and that's where the Church's declarations were important and necessary: to remove any remaining doubt and make it more certain what books were in the Bible."[source]

The canon is open:

"The fourth question of the Capita Dubitationum asked whether those books that were not included in Trent's list, but were included in the Latin Vulgate (e.g. The Book of Esdras, 4 Ezra, and 3 Maccabees), should be rejected by a Conciliar decree, or should they be passed over in silence. Only three Fathers voted for an explicit rejection. Forty-two voted that the status of these books should be passed over in silence. Eight bishops did not vote. The majority won, and Trent deliberately withheld any explicit decision on these books.

...The question of Esdras' canonical status was left theoretically open." [Gary Michuta, Why Catholic Bibles are Bigger (Michigan: Grotto Press, 2007), pp. 240-241].

"Let me be perfectly clear. My assertion that the Council of Trent passed over the question of the canonicity of Esdras in silence is not a matter of my own or anyone else's interpretation of the decree. It is a historical fact." Source: Silence and the Problem of Catholic Canon Certainty

Why Roman Catholics Really Do Have a Different Canon

What exactly is meant by the term "canon"? Technically, the word  comes from a Semitic root basically meaning "reed." The sense of the term was expanded to mean "straight rod" or "staff." This term was used as descriptive of a measuring rod or ruler in architecture. In Biblical Greek the term means measure, rule, or norm. When we think of the Scriptures as "canon", we're saying that it alone is the measuring rod or standard all else is be judged by.  The canon of Scripture is a collection of writings recognized as inspired, authoritative and normative for the faith and practice of the church.  Since the Bible is the very word of God, how could it be any other way? How could there be any other or higher ultimate standard, measuring rod, or ruler that is authoritative and normative than the very words of God?

This is often missed by those engaging Roman Catholics. If the canon is the very voice of God and the measuring rod, then it must be that which judges all things, including church history, any alleged "infallible" pronouncements, [T]radition and [t]radition. It can't logically be any other way. It can't be that infallible pronouncements and Tradition measure or rule what the Bible says on anything. The Bible is to measure and rule the church rather than the church measuring and ruling the Bible. If this were reversed, the Bible in effect would no longer be functioning as canon. The church, Tradition, infallible pronouncements, etc., would be functioning as the canon. This is what is meant by the phrase sola ecclesia. I'm not sure who originally coined the phrase, but it is indeed an apt way to summarize the actual Roman Catholic rule of faith or measuring rod.  Dr White explained long ago:

What is sola ecclesia? It is the concept that the Roman Church (exemplified in the Papacy especially) is the sole and final authority in all matters. Scripture and Tradition (whatever that is in particular) are subservient to the Church, despite Rome’s protests otherwise. A moment’s reflection demonstrates why this is: Rome claims to define both what Scripture is (the canon), and what Scripture says (interpretation of particular passages, as well as the message of Scripture en toto). Likewise, she claims to be able to determine what is "tradition"... and what this tradition then means. Hence, if you control the definition of both the content and meaning of both Scripture and Tradition and you claim to be infallible as well (meaning you cannot retract what you have decided these things teach and have officially defined these views in the past), the result is inevitable: sola ecclesia. The Church as the final authority in all things.

Karl Keating on Canon Certainty From Local Church Councils

This is a blog post I did last year on aomin.org.

Here's an interesting tidbit from Karl Keating's book Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Fransisco: Ignatius Press, 1988). Chapter two is dedicated to exposing the errors of Lorraine Boettner's book on Roman Catholicism.

Keating documents Boettner's error of attributing the forbidding of the Bible to laymen by the Council of Valencia in 1229. Keating points out this is historically inaccurate. It would be impossible for a council to have occurred at this location at this period in history. Keating does though go the extra mile: he suggests a council which may actually be the source for Boettner's claim.

Keating notes a council was held in Toulouse France in 1229. Keating specifically notes it was not an ecumenical council (p.45). He then goes on to describe the situation which prompted this council to restrict the use of the Bible. He notes, "Their action was a local one" and it "is hardly the across-the-board prohibition of the Bible" Boettner mentioned (pp. 45-46). Problem solved: Boettner confused a local decree with an ecumenical decree binding on the church for all ages. Case closed.

But not so fast- If one skips a bit further down page 46, one finds Mr. Keating correcting Boettner's position that the Roman church added the apocrypha to the Bible in 1546. Keating states,

The fact is that the Council of Trent did not add to the Bible what Protestants call the apocryphal books. Instead, the Reformers dropped from the Bible books that had been in common use for centuries. The Council of Trent convened to reaffirm Catholic doctrines and to revitalize the Church, proclaimed that these books always had belonged to the Bible and had to remain in it. After all, it was the Catholic Church, in the fourth century, that officially decided which books composed the canon of the Bible and which did not. The Council of Trent came on the scene about twelve centuries later and merely restated the ancient position (pp. 46-47).

Keating states "it was the Catholic Church, in the fourth century, that officially decided which books composed the canon of the Bible and which did not." Now if Keating is referring to the councils of Hippo and Carthage, they were provincial councils which did not have ecumenical authority. There's also the Esdras problem. Hippo and Carthage include a book as canonical that Trent later passed over in silence. So, if Keating has these councils in mind, why is it these local councils were binding on decreeing the canon, while just a few paragraphs earlier, Keating explains local councils aren't binding on the church for all time?

I'll go the extra mile for Keating like he did for Boettner. Maybe Keating has the Council of Rome with Pope Damasus in mind. A few years back I read the following from a Roman Catholic blogger:

"It was at the Council of Rome in 382 that St. Pope Damasus decreed the final canon of Scripture. Often, it is said that the Council of Trent codified the canon of Scripture after the reformation, but the evidence points to this early council as the when the canon was finalized. The Council of Trent reiterated the canon in a response to the reformer's revision of the historic canon" [source].

The canon as allegedly defined by Damasus includes the apocryphal books, so it's important for Roman Catholics that the statement from this early Pope be used as historical proof for the Bible they claim their church has infallibly defined. Upon closer scrutiny, the distinct position held by the Roman Catholic writer above on the canon is not consistent, nor does the historical record provide any certainty for the beliefs espoused above. The historical record is important in Roman Catholicism, because the claim made by the current batch of Roman Catholic apologists is that Rome provides certainty.

Roman Catholics are supposed to believe conciliar statements which bind all Christians are those put forth by ecumenical councils. The Catholic Encyclopedia points out: "Ecumenical councils are those to which the bishops, and others entitled to vote, are convoked from the whole world under the presidency of the pope or his legates, and the decrees of which, having received papal confirmation, bind all Christians." Was the Council of Rome an ecumenical council? No it was not. It was a local council. Were the decrees issues by this council then infallible binding pronouncements for the universal church? No. The Catholic Encyclopedia states also, "only the decisions of ecumenical councils and the ex cathedra teaching of the pope have been treated as strictly definitive in the canonical sense, and the function of the magisterium ordinarium has been concerned with the effective promulgation and maintenance of what has been formally defined by the magisterium solemne or may be legitimately deduced from its definitions." So, in terms of the Council of Rome being a binding council for all, it was not. Here we find that whatever was said at the Council of Rome cannot bind all Christians. Whatever was said at the Council of Rome can provide no certainty for a Roman Catholic. Hence, it cannot be true, in a consistent Roman Catholic paradigm, that the Council of Rome infallibly decreed the final Canon.

But the Pope was at the Council of Rome, was he not? Doesn't this mean what he said at this local council binds the universal church? In the decree on the Canon, Damasus is reported as saying:

"The holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other Churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Here we can infer that the statement on the canon issued by Damasus is infallible because the Roman Church and Pope speak infallibly. But here is a rarely cited fact by the defenders of Rome. The statement above, and indeed, the entire statement from Damasus listing the canonical books, probably didn't come from Damasus. F.F. Bruce notes,

"What is commonly called the Gelasian decree on books which are to be received and not received takes its name from Pope Gelasius (492-496). It gives a list of biblical books as they appeared in the Vulgate, with the Apocrypha interspersed among the others. In some manuscripts, indeed, it is attributed to Pope Damasus, as though it had been promulgated by him at the Council of Rome in 382. But actually it appears to have been a private compilation drawn up somewhere in Italy in the early sixth century" [F.F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture (Downers Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity Press, 1988), p. 97).

So this statement from Damasus didn't actually come from Damasus. In fact, as far as I know, there isn't a written formal record of the proceedings at the Council of Rome to have certainty exactly what was said or decreed. Much historical speculation then surrounds the decree of the canon by Damasus. The bottom line though, is that Roman Catholics cannot have any certainty on the accuracy of this statement. Of course, they are free to believe it, but they do so on faith, not on historical verification. Thus to be deep in history, is not to be certain that the Roman Catholic Church infallibly defined the Canon in 382.

To make it even a bit more complicated, Tim Staples (who works for Karl Keating as a staff apologist for Catholic Answers) says the canon was dogmatically closed in 1442. Here's a quick mp3 clip from Dr. White on the Bible Answer Man show with Catholic apologist Tim Staples:

Tim Staples Dogmatically Closes the Canon

Staples dogmatically closes the canon in 1442, while Dr. White says Rome closed it in 1546. Anyone interested in this entire discussion can purchase the mp3 here for a few bucks.

Ah, what a tangled web they weave.

The Never Ending Canon Debate

I recently found this blog entry critiquing something I posted a few months back: Sproul: "The Bible is a fallible collection of infallible books". In that entry, I sought to simply explain what's meant by that phrase. In his response, this particular blogger presents a long basketball analogy and then sums up my position on the collection of the canon saying, "The Church wasn't protected from missing, but in history managed to get the right answer." Does that sounds like something a Reformed person would say? Hardly. This blogger though provoked me to at least stop for a moment and ponder again, the never ending canon debate.

My actual position is that it is God’s sovereign power and providence which protects and  reveals His Word to His church, for His purposes, in the unfolding of history.  Think of it this way: God has providential control over His Word, to the last detail. He is the Divine Author.  A.A. Hodge notes,

God providentially produced the very man for the precise occasion, with the faculties, qualities, education, and gracious experience needed for the production of the intended writing, Moses, David, Isaiah, Paul, or John, genius and character, nature and grace, peasant, philosopher, or prince, the man, and with him each subtle personal accident, was providentially prepared at the proper moment as the necessary instrumental precondition of the work to be done. (Outlines of Theology, Libronix Electronic Version).

As creatures we are dependent on God's purposes in giving us His inspired Scriptures. God "providentially preserves the Scriptures and leads His people to a functional sufficient knowledge of the canon so as to fulfill His purposes in inspiring them" (James White, Scripture Alone, p. 103). For God to do this, His Church need not be infallible. It simply doesn't logically follow nor can it even be proven from Scripture itself that a stamp of approval from an infallible magisterium is needed. Rome thinks it is the true church and that her authority comes from God. It thinks church history is specifically her history.

God's people though have recognized God's Word long before any alleged infallible magisterium came along. Herman Bavinck points out:

As the various writings of the OT originated and became known, they were also recognized as authoritative. The laws of YHWH were deposited in the sanctuary (Exod. 25:22; 38:21; 40:20; Deut. 31:9, 26; Josh. 24:25f.; 1 Sam. 10:25). The poetic products were preserved (Deut. 31:19; Josh. 10:13; 2 Sam. 1:18); at an early stage the Psalms were collected for use in the cult (Ps. 72:20); the men of Hezekiah made a second collection of the Proverbs (Prov. 25:1). The prophecies were widely read: Ezekiel knows Isaiah and Jeremiah; later prophets based themselves on earlier ones. Daniel (9:2) is already familiar with a collection of prophetic writings including Jeremiah. In the postexilic community the authority of the law and the prophets is certain and fixed, as is clear from Ezra, Haggai, and Zechariah. Jesus Sirach has a very high view of the law and the prophets (15:1-8; 24:23; 39:1f.; 44-49). In the preface his grandson mentions the three parts in which Scripture is divided. The LXX contains several apocryphal writings, but these themselves witness to the authority of the canonical books (1 Macc. 2:50; 2 Macc. 6:23; Wisdom 11:1; 18:4; Baruch 2:28; Tob. 1:6; 14:7; Sir. 1:5 [marg.]; 17:12; 24:23; 39:1; 46:15; etc.). Philo cites only the canonical books. The fourth book of Ezra ([= 2 Esdras] 14:18-47) knows of the division into 24 books. Josephus counts 22 books divided into three parts. In the opinion of all concerned, the OT canon of Philo and Josephus was identical with ours. [Reformed Dogmatics I, 393-394].

Greg Bahnsen argues the canon is self-establishing, not built on human authority. That is, "There is no created person or power which is in a position to judge or verify the word of God... men are not qualified or authorized to say what God might be expected to reveal or what can count as His communication... Only God can identify His own word. Thus God's word must attest to itself -- must witness to its own divine character and origin." Does this sound far-fetched? Bahnsen explains:

Those works which God gave to His people for their canon always received immediate recognition as inspired, at least by a portion of the church (e.g., Deut. 31:24-26; Josh. 24:25; I Sam. 10:25; Dan. 9:2; I Cor. 14:37; I Thess. 2:13; 5:27; II Thess. 3:14; II Peter 3:15-16), and God intended for those writings to receive recognition by the church as a whole (e.g., Col. 4:16; Rev. 1:4). The Spiritual discernment of inspired writings from God by the corporate church was, of course, sometimes a drawn-out process and struggle. This is due to the fact that the ancient world had slow means of communication and transportation (thus taking some time for epistles to circulate), coupled with the understandable caution of the church before the threat of false teachers (thus producing dialogue and debate along the way to achieving one mind).


Historical evidence indicates that, even with the difficulties mentioned above, the Old and New Testament canons were substantially recognized and already established in the Christian church by the end of the second century. However, there is adequate Biblical and theological reason to believe that the canon of Scripture was essentially settled even in the earliest days of the church.

Bahnsen argues that Christ ultimately establishes the canon through the apostles (the once and for all spokesmen for Jesus Christ). They were those who were given the authority to speak in God's name, and who spoke with the authority of Christ. It was they who ultimately imposed certain writings as the law of the church. In essence, since they spoke for God, they themselves "the Lord intended for the New Covenant church to be built upon the word of the apostles, coming thereby to recognize the canonical literature of the New Testament." The tradition of the apostles, which is the authority of Christ, was set down in writing so the Church could have their teaching once they died. This isn't simply a position that insists a book merely had to be written by an apostle to be the teaching of Christ. As B. B. Warfield points out,

Let it, however, be clearly understood that it was not exactly apostolic authorship which in the estimation of the earliest churches, constituted a book a portion of the "canon." Apostolic authorship was, indeed, early confounded with canonicity. It was doubt as to the apostolic authorship of Hebrews, in the West, and of James and Jude, apparently, which underlay the slowness of the inclusion of these books in the "canon" of certain churches. But from the beginning it was not so. The principle of canonicity was not apostolic authorship, but imposition by the apostles as "law." Hence Tertullian's name for the "canon" is "instrumentum"; and he speaks of the Old and New Instrument as we would of the Old and New Testament. That the apostles so imposed the Old Testament on the churches which they founded - as their "Instrument," or "Law," or "Canon" - can be denied by none. And in imposing new books on the same churches, by the same apostolical authority, they did not confine themselves to books of their own composition. It is the Gospel according to Luke, a man who was not an apostle, which Paul parallels in 1 Tim. 5:18 with Deuteronomy as equally "Scripture" with it, in the first extant quotation of a New Testament book as Scripture. The Gospels which constituted the first division of the New Books, - of "The Gospel and the Apostles," - Justin tells us were "written by the apostles and their companions." The authority of the apostles, as by divine appointment founders of the church was embodied in whatever books they imposed on the church as law not merely in those they themselves had written.


The early churches, in short, received, as we receive, into the New Testament all the books historically evinced to them as give by the apostles to the churches as their code of law; and we must not mistake the historical evidences of the slow circulation an authentication of these books over the widely-extended church, evidence of slowness of "canonization" of books by the authority or the taste of the church itself. [The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible, (Philadelphia: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1970), 441-442].

Christ and the apostles intended the church to recognize the authority of the New Testament writings. Is this not the same process that God used for His Word previous to the New Testament?  Why then should it be assumed the infallible magisterium of the Roman Church is needed to settle the canon? Indeed, God gives His Word to His church. As Bahnsen points out, "Scripture teaches us that only God is adequate to witness to Himself. There is no created person or power which is in a position to judge or verify the word of God. Thus: 'when God made promise to Abraham, since He could swear by none greater, He swore by Himself...' (Heb. 6:13)."

Of interest on this subject  is this mp3 lecture from Greg Bahnsen on the canon.

Desperately Seeking Certainty on the Canon of Scripture

A recent Called to Communion post states "we would not know, with the certainty of faith, which writings are sacred (in the relevant sense) apart from the supernatural testimony of the Church."

I certainly realize the thrust of CTC's post is not on canon certainty. However, I think it's interesting that whenever this issue is brought up, the entire Old Testament disappears, as if its existence doesn't matter. Here's a snippet I've posted before, but it brings the problem into focus:

Second Question from James White to Patrick Madrid:

White: Mr. Madrid, I've asked you this before. How did the Jewish man 50 years before Jesus Christ know that the books of 2 Chronicles and Isaiah were Scripture? Would you like me to repeat that?

Madrid: No, I think I got that. Thank you. The Jewish man of the 50 year period before Christ knew that that Scripture, 1 and 2 Chronicles, was inspired because the Old Testament church, the Old Testament people of God, regarded it as Scripture. It had the official pedigree of coming from a prophet and it had always been regarded that way. So he would draw not only on what his internal testimony was of what those books say, but he would also base what his position was on what the constant teaching of the Old Testament people was as well. As you remember, they regarded 1 and 2 Chronicles as Scripture. What I'd like to ask you, though, is, and whether we do it now or later, is your choice, later in the debate tonight—is you keep going back to this issue of how does he know, how does he know? Well, that's what I want to throw back at you. How do you know? Let's take it out of the Old Testament, Mr. White, and bring it back to the New Testament. And let's settle once and for all how you know that those 27 books belong in Scripture. How do you know that they are inspired? How do you know Matthew wrote Matthew? What is your authority to know that? If you reject the Catholic Church that's fine, that's your choice. I think you do so at your own peril. But if you reject the Catholic Church you have to furnish us with some other source upon which you base your testimony that those words in that Bible—in that 27 books of the Bible—are God's words.

Now, I don't want to give anyone the false impression as I think you were trying to do earlier that I believe that the Catholic Church rendered the Bible as inspired. You know that that is not the Catholic position. You know Mr. White that the Catholic Church does not claim to have made the Scriptures canonical simply because she chose those books. That is a red herring. It's false. The Catholic Church recognized the canon of Scripture. The Catholic Church received the word that was given to her by her husband, Jesus Christ, and as you well know, the Church hears and recognizes the voice of her husband. So it is the Church, Mr. White, I assert, who recognized [Moderator: "Time."] I have 24 seconds left...the Church recognizes her husband's voice and she preaches that to the world. You, if you reject the Church, have to fall back on something else. What'll it be? The Muratorian Fragment? The Church Fathers? This or that Greek scholar, perhaps? Your own personal interpretation? You have to tell us tonight what your authority is, Mr. White.

White: First of all, in sticking to the actual question that I asked, we are told that the Old Testament Church told the man that Isaiah and 2 Chronicles were Scripture. Now that's interesting, because, does that mean the Old Testament Church was infallible? That is the same Old Testament Church that taught the Korban rule, I think, yes, the same Old Testament Church. Oh, that's the same Old Testament Church that rejected the Apocryphal books and never believed they were Scripture but you say that they are Scripture and place someone under the anathema that doesn't believe those things. So I guess the Old Testament Church was fallible which means that you can have a fallible authority to tell you that something is Scripture, because it's very plain that the Lord Jesus held everyone responsible for reading Scripture. In fact, in Matthew chapter 22, he said to the Sadducees, "But about the resurrection of the dead, have you not read God said to you?" And Mr. Madrid keeps saying, "What's your authority?" Listen to what Jesus says. He says to these men, "Have you not read what God said to you?" If God speaks to you, you do not ask Him for His business card. God's Word is theopneustos, it's His speaking.

So since the ex-Reformers of CTC are working out their epistemological foundations, perhaps they could similarly answer this basic question: How did the Jewish man 50 years before Jesus Christ know that the books of 2 Chronicles and Isaiah were Scripture?''

Addendum
Based on the entirety of the CTC blog entry, perhaps we can speculate an answer. The author appears to be arguing at one point that believing in Romanist infallibility is a basic faith claim:

We are commanded to believe the Gospel. For many converts to the Catholic Church, ecclesial infallibility came to be understood as indispensable to the faith we had while not in full communion with the Catholic Church. Accepting infallibility was not so much a matter of longing for certainty as finally recognizing the grounds for the certainty of faith by which we had already begun to know the truth revealed by God in Christ Jesus.

Later though he also states "the Church that Christ founded, of the Church that comes from Christ and is irrevocably united to him, lends a specific kind of objectivity to the task of identifying her."

I think the only possible solution for the CTC gang would be that the Jewish man 50 years before Jesus Christ knew that the books of 2 Chronicles and Isaiah were Scripture because of his faith relationship to God, but he had this while objectively not being able to identify the church of his day as infallible. If this was so for the Jewish man 50 years before Jesus Christ, why not today as well?