The chief deficiency of Protestantism, according to Jason and the Callers, is that we only have a Bible that needs to be interpreted while they — Roman Catholics — have a pope who is the final word on interpretation. In other words, Protestants have multiple opinions about the Bible’s meaning while Roman Catholics have one truth thanks to its one pope (please don’t notice, by the way, when the church had more than one).
Given this anti-Protestant polemic (the new acceptable prejudice), I had a good chuckle when devout Roman Catholics had to come to the rescue to explain what Francis meant in his recent universalistic sounding homily.
Andrew Preslar did a pretty good impersonation of a Protestant reading his Bible when he wrote:
The key to understanding the Pope’s remarks is to understand that there is a difference between being redeemed–as are all men (objectively), because of Christ’s death and resurrection–and being saved or in a state of grace–as are only those who receive God’s grace by faith and abide in his love. It is also important to notice that the Pope was not teaching that atheists can be saved merely by doing good works. He made two distinct though related points; namely, that atheists can do good works and that Christ has redeemed everyone. For these reasons, we can “meet one another in doing good.” [1] Of course, the Pope’s point about the universality of the Atonement is disputed by Calvinists, and the teaching of Vatican II concerning the possibility of salvation apart from explicit faith in Christ is widely debated in non-Catholic Christian circles. Without here entering into these debates by way of argument, I want to describe how I think about this matter now, as a Catholic, with special reference to evangelism.
Bryan Cross couldn’t resist getting in on the fun of private interpretation:
Whatever the merits of these explanations of Francis, they flatly contradict the claim that Protestantism suffers from a diversity of opinions. Roman Catholicism does as well. You have the former Protestant line of Francis’ meaning, and then you have the cradle-left-leaning-social-justice Roman Catholic version. Link to NCR comments on homily. Protestants have to interpret the Bible and Roman Catholics (post-Vatican 2) have the freedom to interpret their bishops. Without any temporal power to enforce the right interpretation – whether Geneva’s City Council or the Roman Inquisition, we’re all Protestants now.
If Jason and the Callers had the slightest awareness of history, they would know that they jumped from the frying pan of denominationalism into the fire of Roman Catholic opinion making. But to justify their rational, autonomous decisionism, they continue to think they have chosen the church of Cappadocia circa 389 AD.
Modernity does make its demands.
Old Life 
MTX, I see, your church has direct access to the mouth of God and a monopoly on the first and second greatest commandments. Well, what can any Protestant say to that other than it sounds awfully similar to Pentecostals and their words of knowledge.
Hashtag: brickwall.
LikeLike
Not what I said. I believe the Church to be ordered to Preach to the nation as you and I as disciples are called be “like” our Teacher. Therefore, the promises of Scripture apply to the Church. If not so with this Church, show me where to find the community to which they do apply.
LikeLike
MTX, it is the community marked per Belgic 29 (in oart):
The true church can be recognized if it has the following marks: The church engages in the pure preaching of the gospel; it makes use of the pure administration of the sacraments as Christ instituted them; it practices church discipline for correcting faults. In short, it governs itself according to the pure Word of God, rejecting all things contrary to it and holding Jesus Christ as the only Head. By these marks one can be assured of recognizing the true church– and no one ought to be separated from it.
LikeLike
And Zrim,
I’m not talking about the “holy” church officials. I’m talking about faithful studiers and disciples of Christ who are faithful to the Church.
LikeLike
MTX, me too. But with your church’s claims to apostolic succession, it’s hard to believe you don’t privilege the church being the one in fellowship with the Bishop of Rome.
LikeLike
Zrim,
Your marks seem to be missing a mark of the Kingdom at hand which Christ preached. He told the servants of his field not to damage the wheat by pulling out all the tares. The angels would take care of that. The Aposles were sent to preach to the nations.
LikeLike
MTX, actually if they’re missing anything they’re missing where God is rightly worshiped according to Scripture. I’ve always puzzled over how the only tradition with something like the RPW doesn’t have that as a fourth mark.
LikeLike
Zrim,
About AS, I don’t believe the Church can divide because with the Spirit dwelling in her she would never divorce her Lord. There is no division in the Church. It is one because the Lord is one whom formed her and will never leave her nor forsake her. So, the community will by necessity remain in a line to the beginning. It just happens the Roman See has never bailed ship, enen if at times they may have been poor rowers. One ship we’re all rowing to the Holy City, but each bishop has his own crew with Christ as the one head of each of us all.
LikeLike
RPW?
LikeLike
Michael – I will not throw anathemas at words and beliefs that are used to mean different thing than what the Church condemned at Trent. I will try and understand truly what you mean when you say it and answer questions that I can.
Erik – O.K. I say people can be saved who have faith in Christ and who refuse to join the Roman Catholic Church. They can be a member of Prsbyterian or Reformed Church. They will hear the gospel proclaimed more purely there than in the Roman Catholic Church. Have I earned an anathema?
LikeLike
MTX, Reformed also believe the Spirit preserves the church from beginning to end. But it’s preserved through the Word, not Peter.
RPW = regulative principle of worship.
LikeLike
RPW = Regulative Principle of Worship, i.e. only worshipping God in ways He has commanded us in His Word and not according to human inventions.
LikeLike
Michael, part of your arguments are tantamount to us(confessionalists) saying because we amended our confessions legislating out sinful behavior, we therefore in principle no longer sin and therefore our claims to being perfectly sinless in Christ are true. And even though people have sinned we’ve never abandoned our claims that confessionally we are sinless. Therefore if you want to be part of a sinless church, since we’re the only ones to claim it, you must be in communion with us. You would laugh at us and tell us to go fish, and you’d be right. Yet when you go off into your rhetoric about Rome being the one church and having no division and how it’s so because the Lord formed her, etc.. you can imagine the reaction. We don’t live in narnia, much less heaven this side of glory.
LikeLike
Got no power and flash flooding happen over here boys. Catch up later.
BTW Erik,
Thou art ANATHEMA in the name of the Holy Roman Church. Peace, Mike
LikeLike
Thanks, Mike. I feel better now.
LikeLike
Ops Erik, I forget I can’t speak as your elder even from my “top shelf” position in the boat with Peter. Thought I could help you with your anathema needs, but I called the Pope and he said, “NO NO NO Bad Mikey!”
Maybe next time they can elect me.
Later,
MichaelTX
LikeLike
Sean,
I’m not really grasping the intent of your metaphor. Is it about wheat and tares bit? I do know I can speak to hear my own words sometimes. Sorry, if what you’re speaking of is from that vice.
LikeLike
Drew,
I do hope to try and work through clearing some of that up for you. I did have one thing in there I find inconsistent with my situation as a post-Protestant now-Catholic guy.
The Protestant contention is that we can get a canon without the clear testimony of a community because the Holy Spirit testifies to the words that are His.
Personally the Holy Spirit never did this against the 7 other books in the Catholic and Orthodox canon, therefore I would have to there is something else you are talking about or I would have to disregard the promises I have from the Scriptures that I now am a Temple of the Holy Spirit.
Am I miss understanding you?
LikeLike
Michael,
The testimony is not against anything in this case. Rather, it’s that the Spirit speaks through the books that are His in a way that He does not speak through anything else.
LikeLike
Michael, it’s not about wheat and tares. I don’t know about the vice bit either. My point is, in response to challenges of your particular faith claims, you make statements about Rome which are rhetorically rich, much like a Fanny Crosby hymn, but aren’t arguments and are highly dubious and are often the very points that are in contention. We have folks who speak the same way on this side of the fence too. You’re a bit of a hybrid. It just makes conversation difficult at times. It’s difficult to address somebody’s particular ‘brand’ of a thing. It becomes a very subjective enterprise.
LikeLike
Drew,
I guess that is not my experience then. I do read the “other” books and hear the same type of speaking. I could read and listen over and over to the Book of Wisdom, especially. I have found it as nourishing as Proverbs. I hear the knowledge of that book in the thoughts of the writings of the Apostles.
Just not my experience, I guess. So, that doesn’t seem to be a very good objective criteria. Now give a read through some other books and I agree, to a degree. The book of Enoch or the Epistle of Barnabas for example, has some good stuff in there but there is some “speaking” differences. I will grant that. I just could discern what you are speaking of in those seven that sit right along every other book in the Catholic and Orthodox Bibles, apparently they couldn’t either or they wouldn’t be there.
LikeLike
Sean,
I think I understand. There are somethings that have moved beyond subjective in a persons studies that have take too much thinking and working through, what they have studied and worked through, to relay clearly in anything less than a doctoral dissertation and I don’t think we can get that done here. And I even doubt myself ready to try and do that. So, some things just get said instead of argued and laid out.
This sort of what you are talking about?
LikeLike
Hey Drew,
I wan’t sure if you caught my put this Article up when I was posting to Sean. But, It does have a whole section in it covering the concerns of the criteria you were just talking about. Check it out if you get a chance.
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/01/the-canon-question/
Tom Brown really seems to cover this ground well to me and I would be happy to hear any faults in the work.
Sean,
Other than possibly the “Canon with in the Canon” criteria he doesn’t highlight the ANE treaty idea we have been getting into.
LikeLike
Michael,
Looking over the article, I think it tries to prove too much. First, it assumes that we know who those are who have been given the Spirit. I know Rome claims such on behalf of the fathers but since Roman claims are what are in contention here, that point needs to be examined a little more critically. However, since I nor any Protestant I know would cast doubt on the grace given to the fathers, we’ll grant that point for the sake of the argument.
Second, it is assumed that we need an objective criterion for the canon to be able to exist or be defined. Without knowing if the inward work of the Spirit with or without external evidence can be considered “objective” in this context, I’m not willing to concede that point. I also think this assumption causes one of the problems we’ve been discussing that I’ll get back to at the end.
Third, and much more to the point, it is assumed that the confessional view requires 100% agreement by every person given the Spirit. Here, I’m willing to critique the Calvin quote a little and say that at this point I’m not comfortable using an analogy such as black and white to describe how the canon appears apparent since that would lend itself to a 100% agreement position. However, I see no reason for the confessional view to be forced into such a position nor for it to be construed as something quite so individualistic. Even the “Universal Consent of the Fathers” isn’t held to a 100% threshold by Rome so it is disingenuous to arbitrarily impose such a standard on our view of the canon and declare our position defeated.
So, how do I see it working? Here I think we may find a great deal of agreement in reasoning about this to a point. The Holy Spirit was given to the church to bear witness to Christ (John 15:26). I think we’re agreed on this issue so the question becomes, how does the Spirit bear witness? I would argue that He bears witness by speaking to the church through the Scriptures. I’m not sure if you would agree or add on to that but that’s the direction I’m going and I hope we’d have pretty general agreement to this point. So, I do think the general testimony of the church through all ages (including prior to the advent of Christ as far as was possible then) is a good barometer (though not necessarily infallible). Now, to steal a page from the Roman apologist book, the testimony of history attests to the Protestant canon in almost every case. The dispute is over the books we exclude but the books we include are not disputed by and large and are certainly not disputed by Rome.
Now, if we couple this with the fact that Rome (unless I’m wrong) likes to be generous nowadays and say that we Protestants are granted the gift of the Spirit as well, the question becomes, to what end? If we are given the Spirit who is given for the purpose of testifying to Christ and He testifies to Christ in these other seven books that we do not receive, why does He withhold the grace from us to see Christ there? I can see Rome’s answer being along the lines of the fact that that particular gift was given to the apostles and to their successors and that since we reject those who have received that particular gift, we are not able to rightly acknowledge the canon. If we were to grant Rome’s premises then, of course, that would be correct. However, given that we are at this point working within the scheme of the testimony of the Spirit being the means of discerning the canon, the question remains, why would He withhold that revelation from us? The argument could be made that it is because sin has clouded our judgment here, which is possible but would not make a positive argument for Rome or any position in particular since our position could easily make the same claim about the other positions. The same problem would arise from claims of more or less grace being given to certain groups over the others; it simply doesn’t solve anything from an argumentative standpoint.
The simplest and really only way I see of resolving the question is to say that the Holy Spirit is not withholding that revelation from us because it is not revelation. Rather, we have a canon that has been attested to by the near unanimous consent of the catholic church throughout all ages. It is those who hold to the extended canon who hold to a canon that has been disputed by large sections of the catholic church throughout history. It seems rather simple to me, the Spirit has testified to those 66 books consistently but not the others, so the 66 seem to be the way to go. That’s how I see it anyway.
Getting back to what I mentioned in the second point above, all of this still causes problems as I see it on the Roman side of things. This article, much like Barber’s, seems to throw dirt on the possibility of any before the advent of Christ being able to receive God’s word in Scripture. They both also disagree with the option you chose concerning this issue of there being some sort of body that defined the canon for the OT people of God. So, I’ll pose the question to you; do you agree with these articles concerning that matter or are you more using them to poke holes in the Protestant way of thinking?
LikeLike
Drew,
I am still working on elaborating your concerns about the Bereans and OT authority thoughts I have.
I thought I would answer your question though.
Do you agree with these articles concerning that matter or are you more using them to poke holes in the Protestant way of thinking?
By in large I do find the conclusions most reasonable with what I understand. So, my own “Protestant way of thinking” has holes in it and I would still like to find if there are reasonable answers to this dilemma. I am not joking when I say my Protestant boat sprung a leak and was sinking and the only boat I saw afloat was AS communities that were “sent” to speak the saving truths of the Faith by Christ in a direct way, therefor had been given a right to speak on the limits of Canon. Otherwise, I found it to be us or me who were setting the limits of God’s revelation instead of Him and those given that right.
So, I am saying my Protestant faith is no longer possible, yet many here say it is the true faith of God; therefore, can anybody show this poor Texas boy some other boat. I find this one quite nice and in accord with Scripture, but if it is headed to hell I don’t want to be in it. Most especially for m;y children’s sake.
Does that help you understand where I’m at? This is why I want a clear answer here and why I can see no way to accept any Reformed confessions which: (1)names the Canon and say we can’t dogmatically know true dogma except what can be found in Scripture or (2)confessions that say all things concerning the Faith are to be found in Scripture and don’t name the books of the Canon. Mainly that last one is odder in some ways to me than the first. This leaves me seeing the only options of(1)my own direct revelation of the Canon which conforms to a confession or (2)that there is a community having “T” tradition which is authoritative and has not been made by men that gives a way to know the Canon by the protection promised in the Scriptures by the Holy Spirit. Otherwise I see no resolution into the living Word of God, Christ.
Help?
LikeLike
BTW Drew,
I do like your ability to think through things.
One thought concerning this:
I would argue that He bears witness by speaking to the church through the Scriptures. I’m not sure if you would agree or add on to that but that’s the direction I’m going and I hope we’d have pretty general agreement to this point.
Basically there would be no disagreement that the Spirit surely does bear witness through the Scriptures, but I find the Spirit bearing witness to the identification of those Scriptures seems to require another inlet. I see this inlet given by testimony of the Scriptures to the Apostles and the Church’s gift of the Spirit who were “sent” by Christ to maske disciples of all the nations in the Scriptures and given the promise,“But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth. For he shall not speak of himself; but what things soever he shall hear, he shall speak; and the things that are to come, he shall shew you..
Make sense?
LikeLike
Michael,
I’m afraid it doesn’t help much. The issues that you bring up don’t strike at the core of the issue as far as I’m concerned. They may do well in describing how we perceive the situation but I don’t see it having much bearing on the actual defining of the canon unless we assume Roman principles about it from the outset. I understand that you see a deficiency in the Protestant way of conceiving of the canon but I’m still not clear on how your arguments come to bear on the notion of the testimony of the Spirit. Like I said, the 66 books of the Protestant canon are accepted by the catholic church of all ages with almost no debate, the 7 additional books to which you hold are not. I don’t see why it has to come down to your own authority or the authority of Tradition. What is insufficient about the Holy Spirit speaking in the 66 books that have been universally attested to by the church?
Concerning your following comment, I’m still not quite tracking with you. I agree that the Spirit speaks in the word to the Apostles and others He has sent. No problem. I’m not seeing the connection from that to them therefore defining what that word is.
I’m glad we’re able to have this conversation and this is why I wanted to have it. I know there is a lot of common ground for us to work from here but it also seems that there is a good bit of talking past each other in this discussion so being able to clarify these issues is helpful.
LikeLike
Drew,
I know it is easy for us to talk past each other, so I like the ability to clarify as well.
Concerning, “What is insufficient about the Holy Spirit speaking in the 66 books that have been universally attested to by the church?”
It looks like defining them and dogmatically limiting the Canon at any set of books goes beyond the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Not really a problem for a “binding and loosing” which was given to the Apostles, but there is no sure guaranty recognized in the Reformed eclesiology for Councils. That seems to only be pushed in to present day a Catholic understanding or random cults.
Why I think having the fullness of the inerrant Scriptures inspired by the Spirit is: In knowing the Truth we know Christ and Christ said in that knowledge we would be made free. So, I see to have any less of a goal is to be against the Word; therefore I would think we both would condemned that.
On you not tracking me here:
…no disagreement that the Spirit surely does bear witness through the Scriptures, but I find the Spirit bearing witness to the identification of those Scriptures seems to require another inlet.
If the Spirit we all have been given as Christians both speaks through the Scriptures and leads to the Scriptures to all Christians, we wouldn’t have a problem. We could then boldly hope for perspicuity of Scripture and the perspicuity of identification of the limits of the Scripture. Neither seems to have happened. There isn’t consensus. Consensus or lowest common denominator doesn’t seem to be what the revelation of Christ is. This seems to cut at why we are even talking about this topic at all. There is not universal agreement about the canon among Christians and would seem to require the “black or white” approach spoken of by Calvin. It also seems to put me or all Christains “personally” discerning revelation; not revelation personally discerning us.
Clearer?
LikeLike
MTX: It looks like defining them and dogmatically limiting the Canon at any set of books goes beyond the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Not really a problem for a “binding and loosing” which was given to the Apostles, but there is no sure guaranty recognized in the Reformed eclesiology for Councils. That seems to only be pushed in to present day a Catholic understanding or random cults.
Why I think having the fullness of the inerrant Scriptures inspired by the Spirit is: In knowing the Truth we know Christ and Christ said in that knowledge we would be made free. So, I see to have any less of a goal is to be against the Word; therefore I would think we both would condemned that.
If the Spirit we all have been given as Christians both speaks through the Scriptures and leads to the Scriptures to all Christians, we wouldn’t have a problem. We could then boldly hope for perspicuity of Scripture and the perspicuity of identification of the limits of the Scripture. Neither seems to have happened. There isn’t consensus. Consensus or lowest common denominator doesn’t seem to be what the revelation of Christ is. This seems to cut at why we are even talking about this topic at all. There is not universal agreement about the canon among Christians and would seem to require the “black or white” approach spoken of by Calvin. It also seems to put me or all Christains “personally” discerning revelation; not revelation personally discerning us.
Clearer?
Yes, that is clearer Michael. I am better able to understand your points, thank you. I don’t see why the issue of the canon looks so much like a problem with Sola Scriptura for you. The Scriptures call on Christians to receive the word of God as He gives it by the Spirit. They also tell us that the Spirit will lead His people into the truth. I agree that defining (if by that you mean we get to set the boundaries) and dogmatically limiting the canon goes beyond Sola Scriptura, which is why we don’t do it. We don’t define anything concerning God’s word nor have we the right to dogmatically limit it. We are, however, constrained to receive God’s word and teach the same to the world. That requires us to recognize where God has spoken and where He has not. So, when you see a list of enumerated books detailing the canon, we are not defining anything. We are simply testifying that this is where God has spoken and we are bound by the 3rd commandment (or 2nd as far as you’re concerned) to speak truthfully concerning God and His works. I grant that there is nothing in Scripture that gives me a list of what is Scripture, but Scripture doesn’t promise me such a list either. It promises that the Holy Spirit will lead us into truth and we have found that truth in the 66 books to which we hold.
On the consensus issue, again, I see no problem on the Protestant side. There is consensus on our books, the lack of consensus is concerning yours. Where is this crisis of every Christian personally deciding on the canon for himself? I see a Christianity that has been united on the testimony of 66 books with an ongoing disagreement about 7 others. When we confess the 66 canon, we are merely confessing the common belief of the church.
Here’s where I think there is a bit of a disconnect. The canon issue is not an issue about one canon versus another. It is an issue about 73 individual books (in this case) and whether the Holy Spirit spoke in them through the agency of men. We are not testing one canon against another but the individual canonicity of each book. 66 of those books have passed the test almost unanimously. The other 7 are in question. So, let us not miss this, the church, and our two parties on opposite sides of this issue, have come to a consensus on the positive canonicity of a text 66 times (and nearly infinite times negatively on all other books). To say there is not consensus is misleading, there is a great deal of consensus. Where there is not consensus is on those remaining 7. So, in light of the lack of consensus, why should I be compelled to accept these other books apart from the bare assertion on the part of Rome to special authority?
So, maybe there’s another layer here that I’m missing but I’m not seeing how this strikes at Sola Scriptura. In any case, I hope you’re still working on my other questions because I really do think they need to be answered for us to make any progress here. Because, in spite of all of the issues you’ve raised, I have still not seen an explanation on your side as to how the Scriptures were received before the definition of the Rome. Ultimately, all of these Roman arguments concerning the canon boil down to the need for Rome to tell us what the Scriptures are. Well, the OT church did not have Rome but they had the Scriptures so the question still remains to be answered, how? Until that question is answered, telling us that we need Rome rings hollow.
LikeLike
Michael,
From now through the rest of the weekend I will not be available as much to continue our discussion so if I’m not able to get to your responses, I apologize. I will get back to them next week, Lord willing. Have a good weekend.
LikeLike
Sounds good Drew. I will try and clear up some of those things. It will be hard to to see with out the images in my mind, but I will do my best. I’m a bit of a visual thinker, or parable like thinker may be a more Christlike way to out it..
LikeLike
Sean,
You still with us?
LikeLike
Drew,
I did have one quick thought if you catch it.
If Reform Confessional Christianity is what Christianity is suppose to be, and we should be allowed to “recieve” a “collection” in a confession, and one Spirit filled believer disagrees with one book on that list or believes one book should be adds. Does this not bar Him from fellowship of the confession of the Church. Does this not create disunity and disfellowship of Spirit filled believers in the Reformed concept of Confessional Christianity by necessity.
Am I missing something? Would he not be forced to form His own Confession, if no Confessional body agreed with His canon? I think this is what I was talking about in thinking each believer would have to decide for himself.
LikeLike
Drew
Also, thought I would quickly try and address this:
Yes, Christ even quotes the Deuteronomic Covenental Law to the Devil saying we do, “not live by bread alone, but by every word which proceeds from the mouth of God.”
When seeking to affirm the Sola Scriptura formulas in the differing confession which contain a “received” list is when it is highlighted to my conscience that it is “I” who have to affirm or denounce the confession containing the list in question. If Sola Scriptura as defined in the confessions calls me and the Church to only affirm dogma found in Scripture, either the canonical books are not dogma or sola scriptura is not. Christ says let my “yes be yes” and my “no be no.” Affirming a list to receive would still call me to do it. This would seem to call me to being the great historian and discerner of which spirit is the author of which books. It seems to make me the Apostle given the keys and protection of the Spirit given to “them” in the beginning, but those promises weren’t given to me. As I understand it they were given to the same “group” who were called to make disciples of all people and to go out in to all the ends of the earth. I do know I am called to disciple my children, but I don’t think this “calling” to discern the canon is given to me.
There could be more to add, but that should be enough to give you some concerns of mine.
Blessing on your weekend Drew,
MichaelTX
LikeLike
Michael,
Your hypothetical concerning the Spirit-filled believer who disagrees with the canon would create division in the church, the same as if a man claiming true apostolic authority, direct revelation from God, and had signs and wonders accompanying him who posited a different canon from the Roman one would create division in Rome. Division is inevitable when one disagrees on matters as vital as where and how God has spoken. Indeed, your hypothetical man may feel that he would be forced to start his own denomination. However, he has no right to so do. He, like all of us, is constrained to receive God’s word where it is given. Whether or not we have earnest, Spirit-filled people who disagree is immaterial to the issue. Much like the two articles you before cited point out, there was not unanimity concerning the Scriptures among the Jews, but the fact remains that God had spoken to them in some works and not others and they had to receive those that are His as His word and reject those that are not His. I see no reason why it would be different now.
I don’t see why you believe that recognizing where the Holy Spirit has spoken is somehow pitted against Sola Scriptura. Here’s the Westminster Confession’s definition of it:
1.6. The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men. Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word: and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.
So, by good and necessary consequence I have deduced from Scripture that the Holy Spirit has inspired some writings, that I am to receive and believe them, and that the Holy Spirit Himself will testify as to what those works are. As best as I can tell, though I am obviously not yet free from sin and deception, the Holy Spirit has testified to the 66 books of the Protestant canon alone. I don’t see how that is in tension with what is quoted above. So my basic answer is that you misrepresent Sola Scriptura. It does not demand, as you say, to “only affirm dogma found in Scripture.” Rather, it demands that we believe those doctrines found in Scripture and things that are not explicitly stated but are nonetheless deduced from the teachings of Scripture as I believe the Protestant canon to be.
Still hoping to hear from you on my questions as I still don’t think that we can get anywhere following this path until the starting points on both sides are defined.
LikeLike
Michael,
Still hoping to hear from you.
LikeLike
Don’t think you will hear from him, Drew.
Like it or not, he wants to pass on deciding what is the canon, but he still has to decide which is the true church even as he essentially argues for implicit faith. IOW Michael wants to pick and choose what he can abdicate on. Scripture, yes; true church, no.
Even as he either inconsistently appeals to Scripture (Matt. 16) to justify his decision or else plays the reasonable card ala Byrome Cross: It is reasonable to think that Christ would leave a visible and infallible church behind in his place, rather than abandon believers to walking by faith in the Word Jn.16:13, 1 Tim. 3:17.
That if not abandoned to their own private judgement, which romanists have to exercise even if it is the default of basking in the assurance of implicit faith.
LikeLike
Drew,
Really sorry i haven’t gotten back with you. I have been in the hospital. I am home now, but will most likely be taking it easy for a while in the blogosphere. I’ll pray for you Drew and hopefully get to a place where I can help you again soon. But, I must make the care of my family and my health in that regard my highest priority right now.
Blessings and peace to you. I’m am glad you have found this topic so important as well. I wish I could continue with you right now.
Later,
Michael
LikeLike
Michael,
I’m glad that you’re alright and I hope you have a speedy recovery. I will pray for you as well. Best wishes to you.
LikeLike
Get well soon, Michael.
LikeLike
Hey Drew,
I’ll see if I can get back into this. We seem to have a lot of irons in the fire by my reading back over the posts just on this page. I haven’t had a chance to get back to your original list of questions yet. I did at one point have those in a word doc I had somewhere, but have since lost it. So, I will just start with two things I read over at your 7/7 3:47PM post that I noticed and touch on your 7/10 10:45AM post. They seem to give us at least a reasonable point of departure from here. Maybe I can help you understand my view.
You said:
On the consensus issue, again, I see no problem on the Protestant side. There is consensus on our books, the lack of consensus is concerning yours. Where is this crisis of every Christian personally deciding on the canon for himself? I see a Christianity that has been united on the testimony of 66 books with an ongoing disagreement about 7 others. When we confess the 66 canon, we are merely confessing the common belief of the church.
Here’s where I think there is a bit of a disconnect. The canon issue is not an issue about one canon versus another. It is an issue about 73 individual books (in this case) and whether the Holy Spirit spoke in them through the agency of men. We are not testing one canon against another but the individual canonicity of each book. 66 of those books have passed the test almost unanimously. The other 7 are in question. So, let us not miss this, the church, and our two parties on opposite sides of this issue, have come to a consensus on the positive canonicity of a text 66 times (and nearly infinite times negatively on all other books). To say there is not consensus is misleading, there is a great deal of consensus. Where there is not consensus is on those remaining 7. So, in light of the lack of consensus, why should I be compelled to accept these other books apart from the bare assertion on the part of Rome to special authority?
Drew, I have no problem granting the great consensus on the inspired books. That both you and I agree on 66 books written being by men and are inspired by the Holy Spirit and are inerrant and are gifts of God to His people “for teaching, for refutation, and for training in righteousness.” This is a great blessing.
I understand you have no problem with the 66 book canon. I have no problem with the 73 book canon, yet I once only had the 66 book canon, too. You say, “we are merely confessing the common belief of the church.” How do you judge the common confession of the Church? I have 7 books which I understand should be used for “for teaching, for refutation, and for training in righteousness,” which you believe can be ignored for such reasons. Here are my couple of concern that I don’t see resolutions to. My current Church body shows by its leadership’s rightful authority that it is in a position to judge this; with me being filled with the Spirit I have accepted this judgement. Your plan seems to be working with the lowest common denominator to discern acceptable truth. This brings us possibly down to just the Gospels, in certain Christian bodies. That doesn’t seem to coincide with the desired revelation of God to us, in my opinion. Either the Spirit has not attested to the 7 books or it has not. This is what must be discerned. In the same way the added parts by the Orthodox are either Spirit inspired or not. This 7 book detail is not directly discernable by me in my current knowledge. I also believe it would be hard, if not impossible, to discern the 66 books on my own wisdom without the historic work of the leadership of the Church in history. The authority structure was different in settling this matter than mine was as a Protestant. This is just a fact. If possible, lets exclude saying Rome’s authority to save us some unneeded debate in all this. Just looking at the early Church doesn’t seem to give me a solid canon. I see disputed books being excepted as Scripture and currently undisputed books being disputed. Just looking at today doesn’t give me an undebated canonical list. Even the Eastern Orthodox are slightly differing in the 73 book canon. I’m sure there are more details in the current situation which I don’t know. I think the Ethiopian church (I don’t know its name) includes books like Enoch. Some church bodies only accept the consensus of the four Gospels. Many Lutheran bodies accept only a smaller NT canon as the canonical core for doctrine, from what I have heard. And idiotic scholars speak all kinds of nonsense. I would need to discern who has the Spirit if I can’t discern this myself. As a Protestant I read in the Scripture, I accepted as a Protestant, and discovered there is a authoritative leadership in God’s Church which we are to submit to that has the ability to teach and settle disputes. I found no way to settle the canon dispute without the Catholic fullness of Truth. I saw no way to do it other wise. That doesn’t mean it has to be Rome who settles it. That is a different question. There are other bodies who speak as Spirit filled believers and speakers of God’s truth as they understand it. Some speak of different canonical list. This is the category where I see something like the list given in the WCF and other confessions falling into and where it bumps into the WCF’s self defined Sola Scriptura, as I understand it.
Here again is the WCF 1.6 you cited on 7/10 @ 10:45AM:
You continued and said:
…I have deduced from Scripture that the Holy Spirit has inspired some writings, that I am to receive and believe them, and that the Holy Spirit Himself will testify as to what those works are. As best as I can tell, though I am obviously not yet free from sin and deception, the Holy Spirit has testified to the 66 books of the Protestant canon alone. I don’t see how that is in tension with what is quoted above. So my basic answer is that you misrepresent Sola Scriptura. It does not demand, as you say, to “only affirm dogma found in Scripture.” Rather, it demands that we believe those doctrines found in Scripture and things that are not explicitly stated but are nonetheless deduced from the teachings of Scripture as I believe the Protestant canon to be.
This is why I want to know how you have come to believe, ”the Holy Spirit has testified to the 66 books of the Protestant canon alone” from Scripture and sound reason or why He has not deemed fit to do this illuminating for me? And also, why I have come to believe He has illuminated other books in my canon. This puts me outside of all the Reformed confessions? By this I am put outside of your fellowship in what I affirm is true. Even in my sinfulness He has made me His willing student, by God’s grace. By His mercy and strength, I am willing to be corrected. I know how proud I am at heart. I am quite aware of how little I know of history and the power of our God. By His grace Drew, I am willing to hear Him teach me through you. Sean tried to give me a frame work in the Ancient Near Eastern treaty formulations put forward by Kline. I hope he will talk with me some more about it. I have not seen yet how it reasonably forbids the books we are in disagreement about. Time frame alone does seem to be solid enough for me. That was what he posted the other day in “Rome in American Exceptionalism.” I also have seen no cogent argument laid out from Scripture. I am willing to look into any solid books on the subject you know of.
So to repeat my essential questions:
How do you judge the common confession of the Church, on this subject?
How have you come to believe, “the Holy Spirit has testified to the 66 books of the Protestant canon alone” from Scripture and sound reason?
Why I have come to believe He has illuminated other books in the Catholic canon, being I would prefer not being outside of the Reformed confessions?
To add one question for my peace of mind:
Have you read the 7 books in the Scriptures we are speaking of with a prayerful heart?
LikeLike
Sean,
you listening over here?
LikeLike
BTW Drew,
When speaking of the ANE treaty form, I meant to say time frame alone doesn’t seem to be solid enough for me to reject the 7 books. And, the third paragraph should be cited from you, of course.
Sorry for the confusion,
Michael
LikeLike
Michael,
I’m glad you’re back to continue our discussion. You raise many issues that perhaps we can get into more but, right now, I’m not going to address them for a couple of reasons. First, my original questions, which are the occasion of the discussion, have not yet been answered and I do believe that they are foundational for straightening out what we are presently trying to discuss. At present, I think we aren’t making much headway because the basic starting points are not clear on both sides. So, I must insist that we address those original questions in order to lend more clarity to this part of the discussion.
Second, I’m not sure what more you’re asking of me. I’ve given you my reasons for why I hold to the Protestant canon and why I believe they are in accord with Sola Scriptura. If they aren’t satisfying to you, I can’t say I’m surprised given that you hold an opposing view. But you haven’t demonstrated why my accounting is insufficient only that you have reasons that you disagree with it but those reasons are hardly necessary. My approach is not lowest common denominator and, unless you’re going to show how it necessarily leads to such, does not lead to reducing the canon to the 4 gospels alone. So either you need to better outline the necessity of why I too must object to my view or to accept my explanation of it I think. Maybe we have different objectives here. If you’re trying to get questions answered for your own personal wrestling with the issue then, after we settle my original questions, I’ll be glad to pursue that and go point by point through your objections at that time until we run into a dead end or you’ve received a satisfactory answer. However, as far as I’m concerned, I’ve sufficiently answered your question concerning whether or not the Protestant canon is in accord with Sola Scriptura and see no need to defend it further.
LikeLike
Drew,
I’m glad we can get back to it as well. I am assuming the questions you are speaking of are in your 7/6 11:11 post. It took reading for a while to remember everything. My hospital stay really disoriented our discussion for me. Those seem to be the only ones not addressed in some way. Let me know if that is the questions you are asking about. And a restatement of them would be helpful.
I hope you can come to realize I’m not playing a chess game with you. It seems as if you felt that way in this previous post. If my perception is wrong, forgive me. I really do hope to find that I can understand a reasonable Protestant view on the canon. It will take a burden off of me. I’m not certain it would be enough to bring me back into the Reformed camp at this point in my understanding of everything, but it would give me peace about others remaining there. I possibly would be able to see Lutheran communion with peace, if I can get the canon established outside of apostolic secession. If I can see your reasons and understand them it will truly help me live with greater peace about where you and others are at. I will also be in a position to make wiser decisions. I truly don’t understand how we can come to the surety of the canon in the Protestant eclesiology and the Sola Scriptura standard. If I did I wouldn’t be asking and probing. I truly seek to be sincere. So I guess I’m just asking for patience with my ignorance and lack of being able to understand you. I still don’t grasp how you are getting to the only 66 book canon. Could you give my some of your understanding of history laying out that it is to commonly accepted OT books for the NT Church?
LikeLike
Michael, I’ve read back over some of our interaction and others interaction with you, and I’m not sure I know how to engage your canon questions any more than I have.
LikeLike
Sean,
I guess more of why you think the ANE treaty’s historical assessment truly forbids the inclusion of the Maccabees histories along with the books of wisdom and if their is some other Scriptural information you are using to prohibit the seven books in contest. I haven’t seen a positive case against them yet.
LikeLike
Sean,
Over in the other post you said you saw nothing in Kline’s work limiting the other books in the Catholic canon, “other than they don’t fit the time frame in consideration. They have some resemblance to wisdom literature that fit within the treaty form. But again they’re late in authorship to qualify. They’re at best an extra-canonical historical reference.”
I’m guessing some of that is personal thoughts and not read in Kline? Eitherway , in what way do we judge what is outside of God’s chosen time frame? Salvation history was still in progress and I find nothing in Scripture saying so. Also, let’s not forget the Festival of Lights was formed in response to miracles preformed by God during the history recorded in the books of Maccabees, which Christ celebrated. This is where Jesus stood up in the temple proclaiming, “I am the light of the World. If anyone will come to me He will not walk in darkness.” This is a response to the Festival of God’s Chosen people. He shows Himself as the True miraculous light of God’s provision to fulfill the Law, as he showed Himself the True bread from Heaven over the miraculous manna in the desert.
LikeLike
Did catch that email I sent you talking about the miracle with the one remaining day of lamp oil consecrated by the last previously appointed High priest lasting the eight days required by the Law to rededicate the Temple after it had been desecrated under the pig slaughtering?
LikeLike
Is not the “abomination” in Daniel prophesying the situation invoking the Maccabees Revolt. These things seem to draw them into the formation process of the canon in the ANE framework. Am I wrong about Kline’s work? I haven’t read his bigger book on the topic.
LikeLike