I was called upon by two JW's today- Mike and Brandt, by arrangement. The JW's deny the deity of Jesus Christ, believing instead that he was the archangel Michael!
My initial approach was to declare that I am a trintarian Christian, and am one because of the Holy Scriptures. I believe that the Scriptures teach that Jesus is YHWH, 'Jehovah'. Their version of the Scriptures is a corrupt one 'the New World Translation'. It has taken great pains to take out any and all notions of the diety of Jesus Christ. But they didn't get rid of it all, and that is the wedge I can take advantage of.
My first dilemma to them- the comparison of Psalm 102 specifically verses 25-27, and Hebrews 1:10-12, which quotes the Psalm. Here is the rub- the Psalm speaks very clearly about Jehovah the true unchangeable God, and the Hebrews passage then takes that and ascribes it directly to Jesus Christ. If Jesus Christ is a creature, as they say- then the writer of Hebrews has done something horribly inappropriate. Unless, of course, Jesus is Jehovah God, then it is appropriate. They will look into that for me, and prepare a response for next time.
The second of the dilemmas- John 12:37-41 and Isaiah 6:1-10. Specifically in John 12:41, where the 'glory' is mentioned by John- note that the glory that Isaiah saw is the same glory of Christ on earth. This is subtle, but the point can be made. The glory that Isaiah saw- YHWH, Jehovah. The glory that John saw- Jesus. John has no problem there connecting the two. Again, the promise to deal with these things is forthcoming.
The seven I AMs of John is one of the next things we will discuss in the future. They translate the I AM differently as 'I have been'. There is a rather long argument that takes one through Isaiah in the LXX to show the translation of Hebrew 'ani hu' into greek 'ego eimi'-then linking it to the Exodus IAM, and this helps form a foundation for the Apostolic use of I AM by John as identification of Jesus claim to be YHWH, coupled with the reaction of the Jews to Jesus 'I AM' statement in Chap 8.
Another target, the issue of the general disdain of the NW Translation of the Bible- even by non-trinitarians and agnostics.
They gave me homework too- Psalm 96:4-5 and Ecclisiastes Chapter 9.
God bless
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Thursday, April 1, 2010
'E'pologist melt-down
The author of this blog- lattes & rainy days has cut me out of the discussion. That's okay, it's is her choice to do so. I guess I missed her disclaimer, that she didn't want emotions to run high, that it is somehow to be approached as a personal testimony, not a theological discussion. The thing that is strange is that at least 3 articles were written that attack Protestantism as being false, and present a video and hundreds of words listing numerous reasons that Protestantism is a disaster to be avoided. Many of her Protestant friends are responding with comments that indicate they are listening, and paying attention. The question is- what are they being exposed to- truth, or the twisted history that the modern pop RC apologists spit out?
To the world she proudly proclaims such RC 'dilemmas' to the Protestants such as sola Scriptura leads to chaos- 'And this is the result of us all reading the same, "perspicuous and self-interpreting" Scripture?' She pounds her pulpit with falsehoods such as 'since sola fide meant good works counted for nothing, morality became a real free-for-all.' Hmmm the Puritans were a real free for all bunch of folks, weren't they? Blanket assertions that do nothing BUT challenge a Protestant to respond such as- "we have anywhere 9,000 -34,000 Christian denominations and counting (depending on which resource you consult), all teaching something different, but all claiming to preach and teach the 'Bible alone.'" Well the Mormons and JWs and Roman Catholics in the 34,ooo don't teach the 'Bible alone'. The 'progressive denominations' in the list don't teach the 'Bible alone' either. They put the cultural norms on sexuality and morals ABOVE the Bibles norms- that is not 'Bible alone', it's more like 'Bible- as long as it doesn't teach false, offensive old notions that hold us all back in the dark ages'. How is that remaining true to the Bible? It's not!
I call a person who makes these posts available to all, with confident assertions and sources and persons responding- an apologist. And as such, I would say that she should expect challenges. Some of those challenges will come hard. Some of them she had never heard apparently. I'm sorry that she hadn't. Perhaps if she had heard the more solid arguments while she was Protestant, she would never have become Roman Catholic- in fact I am certain of it. It is never too late to get the facts and go where the truth is- and that is my prayer for her and her husband and family.
The Lord's blessings to all this Resurrection Sunday!
To the world she proudly proclaims such RC 'dilemmas' to the Protestants such as sola Scriptura leads to chaos- 'And this is the result of us all reading the same, "perspicuous and self-interpreting" Scripture?' She pounds her pulpit with falsehoods such as 'since sola fide meant good works counted for nothing, morality became a real free-for-all.' Hmmm the Puritans were a real free for all bunch of folks, weren't they? Blanket assertions that do nothing BUT challenge a Protestant to respond such as- "we have anywhere 9,000 -34,000 Christian denominations and counting (depending on which resource you consult), all teaching something different, but all claiming to preach and teach the 'Bible alone.'" Well the Mormons and JWs and Roman Catholics in the 34,ooo don't teach the 'Bible alone'. The 'progressive denominations' in the list don't teach the 'Bible alone' either. They put the cultural norms on sexuality and morals ABOVE the Bibles norms- that is not 'Bible alone', it's more like 'Bible- as long as it doesn't teach false, offensive old notions that hold us all back in the dark ages'. How is that remaining true to the Bible? It's not!
I call a person who makes these posts available to all, with confident assertions and sources and persons responding- an apologist. And as such, I would say that she should expect challenges. Some of those challenges will come hard. Some of them she had never heard apparently. I'm sorry that she hadn't. Perhaps if she had heard the more solid arguments while she was Protestant, she would never have become Roman Catholic- in fact I am certain of it. It is never too late to get the facts and go where the truth is- and that is my prayer for her and her husband and family.
The Lord's blessings to all this Resurrection Sunday!
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Tom Brown on the Canon- links to my articles
Saturday, March 6, 2010
Complete and Total Blasphemy
One of the issues that divides Roman Catholics and Protestants is the hyperdulia of Mary. The Roman Catholic points out this is not worship, it is appropriate veneration, given to the "Mother of God." We can then expect to hear an explanation of dulia and latria, and that latria is worship of God alone. Dulia is the honoring of saints, and is not an act of worship, according to our Catholic friends. I would argue that prayer is an act of worship. I would further argue that silent prayer is an attribute that is accessible only to God. Further, that omnipresence is required to get all of the prayers that are happening worldwide at any one time, and omnipresence is an attribute of God alone.
But all questions of worshiping Mary are settled with the writings of one Alphonsus Liguori. His most famous work on Mary is found here in total, The Glories of Mary. This is how it looks folks, to get 2,000 years past the ascension of our Lord, and to have devious, evil minds work on the question of Mary and her proper role in faith. Reading through the Gospels and the book of Acts- Mary was appropriately honored, most notably in Luke Chapter 1, but downplayed almost everywhere else- especially by Christ Himself! The New Testament is Christocentric, Mary is not the focus. Contrary to the Biblical notion of Mary, in "the Glories of Mary", we see the focus shift TO her. One can read the book in whole, but I will merely post the chapter titles, and let them speak for themselves. If this is not worshipful language- the giving of God's glory to the woman Mary, giving her credit for our salvation, calling her our only hope, and calling her the giver of eternal life- then perhaps I don't know what worship means at all. To rob glory and honor from God and give it to Mary is not honoring either of them. It needs to be rejected, my Catholic friends need to repent, and turn to Christ alone as our only hope of salvation. This is the clear message of the Gospel- repent, turn from your sins, turn to your only hope- Jesus Christ- He alone is our salvation, by no other name are we saved- He is Lord God almighty, and it is blasphemy to teach otherwise.
Here are the chapter titles of the book, to give you an idea of where A. Liguori takes dulia, and you tell me if this sounds like worship given to a goddess, or mere veneration. From the first book-
1. How great our confidence should be in Mary, who is the Queen of mercy. (Mary is the mother of penitent sinners)
2. Mary is our life, because she obtains for us the pardon of our sins. She is our life because she obtains for us perseverance. Mary is our sweetness: she renders death sweet to her clients.
3. Mary is the hope of all- Mary is the hope of all sinners.
4. The promptitude of Mary in assisting those who invoke her. The greatness of the power of Mary to defend those who invoke her when tempted by the devil.
5. The necessity of the intercession of Mary for our salvation.
6. Mary is the advocate who is able to save all...Mary is the peace-maker between sinners and God.
8. Mary delivers her clients from Hell. Mary succors her clients in purgatory- Mary leads her servants to heaven.
9. How great are the clemency and compassion of Mary.
If you can stomach more, read the hymns dedicated to her- and tell me they are not worship.
Look at these attributes in the list- to say that Mary gives salvation, she intercedes, she has great power in her name, she is our only hope, she can save all, she delivers you from Hell, and leads you to heaven. To believe these things, your soul is doomed to eternal damnation in Hell. You will die in your sins. Mary is none of those things, nor she can do any of those things. How can I know that? The Holy Scriptures.
Jn 14:6 "I am the way, the truth, the life, no one comes to Father except through me."
Acts 4:12 "And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved."
Jesus said ask in His name and you shall receive. What can Mary do that Jesus the Lord can't?
Ligouri wants you to know this-
"But those who hope in Mary, as Mother of God, who is able to obtain graces and eternal life for them, are truly blessed and acceptable to the heart of God, who desires to see that greatest of His creatures honored...."
But it would seem this blasphemous Mary worshiper does not understand that Christ Jesus alone has obtained eternal salvation for His people. The honor does not belong to creatures- it belongs to the Creator.
Hebrews 9:12 -and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.
Hebrews 12:2-fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith, who for the joy set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.
Hebrews 10:14- For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.
Jesus Christ alone has obtained eternal life, redemption, He is the author and perfecter of our faith, and has perfected us for all time- what need could we possibly have for Mary? None! Jesus did it- it was the work of God, for our salvation. Giving Mary the credit as though she achieved the work of the cross is unbiblical and absurd- and dangerous. How many people died clinging to the lies of Ligouri, to discover their hope was misplaced? Millions?
To all, I want to encourage you to read the Holy Bible with an open, receptive heart. Find out from God, as revealed in the Scriptures, how it is that we are saved. Ligouri and his prayers and psalms are blasphemous lies, and do not belong on the lips of anyone.
In Christ,
Garret
But all questions of worshiping Mary are settled with the writings of one Alphonsus Liguori. His most famous work on Mary is found here in total, The Glories of Mary. This is how it looks folks, to get 2,000 years past the ascension of our Lord, and to have devious, evil minds work on the question of Mary and her proper role in faith. Reading through the Gospels and the book of Acts- Mary was appropriately honored, most notably in Luke Chapter 1, but downplayed almost everywhere else- especially by Christ Himself! The New Testament is Christocentric, Mary is not the focus. Contrary to the Biblical notion of Mary, in "the Glories of Mary", we see the focus shift TO her. One can read the book in whole, but I will merely post the chapter titles, and let them speak for themselves. If this is not worshipful language- the giving of God's glory to the woman Mary, giving her credit for our salvation, calling her our only hope, and calling her the giver of eternal life- then perhaps I don't know what worship means at all. To rob glory and honor from God and give it to Mary is not honoring either of them. It needs to be rejected, my Catholic friends need to repent, and turn to Christ alone as our only hope of salvation. This is the clear message of the Gospel- repent, turn from your sins, turn to your only hope- Jesus Christ- He alone is our salvation, by no other name are we saved- He is Lord God almighty, and it is blasphemy to teach otherwise.
Here are the chapter titles of the book, to give you an idea of where A. Liguori takes dulia, and you tell me if this sounds like worship given to a goddess, or mere veneration. From the first book-
1. How great our confidence should be in Mary, who is the Queen of mercy. (Mary is the mother of penitent sinners)
2. Mary is our life, because she obtains for us the pardon of our sins. She is our life because she obtains for us perseverance. Mary is our sweetness: she renders death sweet to her clients.
3. Mary is the hope of all- Mary is the hope of all sinners.
4. The promptitude of Mary in assisting those who invoke her. The greatness of the power of Mary to defend those who invoke her when tempted by the devil.
5. The necessity of the intercession of Mary for our salvation.
6. Mary is the advocate who is able to save all...Mary is the peace-maker between sinners and God.
8. Mary delivers her clients from Hell. Mary succors her clients in purgatory- Mary leads her servants to heaven.
9. How great are the clemency and compassion of Mary.
If you can stomach more, read the hymns dedicated to her- and tell me they are not worship.
Look at these attributes in the list- to say that Mary gives salvation, she intercedes, she has great power in her name, she is our only hope, she can save all, she delivers you from Hell, and leads you to heaven. To believe these things, your soul is doomed to eternal damnation in Hell. You will die in your sins. Mary is none of those things, nor she can do any of those things. How can I know that? The Holy Scriptures.
Jn 14:6 "I am the way, the truth, the life, no one comes to Father except through me."
Acts 4:12 "And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved."
Jesus said ask in His name and you shall receive. What can Mary do that Jesus the Lord can't?
Ligouri wants you to know this-
"But those who hope in Mary, as Mother of God, who is able to obtain graces and eternal life for them, are truly blessed and acceptable to the heart of God, who desires to see that greatest of His creatures honored...."
But it would seem this blasphemous Mary worshiper does not understand that Christ Jesus alone has obtained eternal salvation for His people. The honor does not belong to creatures- it belongs to the Creator.
Hebrews 9:12 -and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.
Hebrews 12:2-fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith, who for the joy set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.
Hebrews 10:14- For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.
Jesus Christ alone has obtained eternal life, redemption, He is the author and perfecter of our faith, and has perfected us for all time- what need could we possibly have for Mary? None! Jesus did it- it was the work of God, for our salvation. Giving Mary the credit as though she achieved the work of the cross is unbiblical and absurd- and dangerous. How many people died clinging to the lies of Ligouri, to discover their hope was misplaced? Millions?
To all, I want to encourage you to read the Holy Bible with an open, receptive heart. Find out from God, as revealed in the Scriptures, how it is that we are saved. Ligouri and his prayers and psalms are blasphemous lies, and do not belong on the lips of anyone.
In Christ,
Garret
On Justification and Peace
I have been dialoging with Tim Troutman and Bryan Cross and company over at their blog "Called to Communion". We had strayed off topic, and onto the subject "the peace of Christ", so I wanted to create this thread so we can discuss it here if they so choose!
The original post is found here enjoy!
Garret
The original post is found here enjoy!
Garret
Thursday, February 25, 2010
The Canon Question, Tom Brown Part One
An interesting and very LONG article by Tom Brown. I like Tom, and my interactions with him have been intense- he is a very smart, well written and well read man. I think his article suffers from more than a few flaws though.
First, sola Scriptura properly understood, and condensed into one sentence- the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, that is, the infallible rule of faith for the church. Notice how this concept refers to rules of faith- it doesn't say all knowledge is in Scripture, and that reasoning and factors outside of Scripture can't be used to bolster confidence in them. This will come up many times. This is not about sola Scriptura, it is about the canon of Scripture, but SS needs to be brought up here, because it brought up in the article being reviewed.
Secondly, he misrepresents Calvin's full treatment of the subject of Scripture in the Institutes by referring to Chapter 7 only, when it was treated in Chaps 6, 7, and 8. Were he to have used the full council of the Insititutes, he would have realized that Calvin held the plural view that he recognized in his article elsewhere. For instance, from book one, Chapter 8 of the Institutes, we see him give credit to Gods providence through the Church, who protected and preserved it.
Third, the attempt to pull the legs out from the very ability of the Protestant canon to exist by virtue of the fact that for man to select a canon is to put man over the canon. This also destroys the notion for anyone to select a canon, the Romans and Orthodox as well. Why for instance do they get a free pass- well, God guided the choosing of the canon. For us Protestants it would seem then, that it is merely an act of men, God could not have guided this decision in the least. That does not fit the Christian view of reality at all. Most importantly for Protestants, perhaps we would claim that the 'refining' of the canon into its 66 books is a work of God, not man- so the objection centered in man is irrelevant. You won't see many God fearing Protestants claiming they can just rip books out of Scripture at will.
A quick definition at the top- Canon means 'measure', or 'rule' and is a reference to the collection of the books of the Bible. The Protestant canon is 66 books, the Roman Catholic is 73. The difference is in the Old Testament. Basically the question on the table is "Justify your truncated Old Testament canon, by what authority do you decide this?" We were not the first of course. the modern Jewish canon is the Protestant OT canon.
Further things to ponder before we dig into the article itself-
Note how Athanasius, writing LONG before an infallible canon was selected by Rome (Not until Trent actually), handled the issue of canonical and non canonical books- and which books he names!
Some additional points that Turretinfan brings forward on the issue of 'canon' truths to know and consider-
Jesus was able to tell the Jews to "Search the Scriptures" without the Jews needing an infallible canon to know what were the Scriptures. Paul was able to talk to Timothy about the Scriptures in the same way, and the whole visible church managed to get by without an infallible canon of Scripture at least until Trent.
If you have "the Bible" you can deduce the canon. This seems simple, but the Scriptures we have are not Scriptures that WE decided are Scriptures. We come to Christ as believers and begin to gladly read the Scriptures that we are given. God secures this for His people, we have to trust His guidance.
Having Scripture is the antecedent for having Sola Scriptura. First we are given the Scriptures, then we believe what they say. I realize this is boundlessly inconvenient for folks who wish to misrepresent Sola Scriptura, but it is what it is.
Further, this is not an endevour that bothers the majority of the Christian world- as Tom mentions in the article. Toms comments are in Courier type.
II
For Harris, having a variety of canon theories within the Protestant academy is tolerable, so long as they each yield the 66-book Protestant canon. But as Dr. Flesseman-van Leer has rightly observed, those who accept the traditional canon of Scripture today cannot legitimately defend it with arguments that played no part in its original formation. 7 Post hoc rationalization of such a critical point as the formation of the canon would be like painting a target around one’s arrow that is already embedded in the wall. If a rule which has led some to the 66-book canon proves false, or fails to be truly objective, the remedy is not to find a new rule allowing us to reach the same conclusion. Instead, to be intellectually honest, we must find the rule that is ultimately right and true, and accept where it leads us, wherever it leads us.
This statement is valid, as far as it goes. We should strive to understand what logic men used, what were their reasons behind selection of the canon. However-new light must be allowed to emerge. We have it much better than the church of the second century as far as manuscripts that we can refer to, both OT and NT. We can use computers to access libraries of information, whereas libraries and manuscripts were incomplete then! We must also be allowed to build upon the minds of the past, insight upon insight, 'standing on the shoulders of giants' as it were. Yes, we shall not claim that the ancients used techniques and arguments that they didn't, but we don't have to do what they did exactly as they did either.
A.
Assurance is confirmation, not selection. We will see this claim extended to allegedly be subject to not just a test of determination by experienced theologians, but by 'babies in the Spirit'. In otherwords- the above claim and all it entails is to be 'put to the test-' used by people who have just been converted- who are then told to select what is and isn't Scripture from a mixed pile of writings. Of course, this is silly, and is an example of selecting a canon, not a feeling of assurance of the canons truth from the Holy Spirit that a believer comes to feel. He also claims that it is immediate. I have never seen the claim that it is immediate discernment.
Re: Calvin-
His answer, then, is that we can be assured that Scripture is of God simply by looking at it, just as we can tell black from white simply by looking at it.
Reading Chapter 7, this is largely fair as far as I can tell. Once again, I don't see Calvin saying "this is how to select the canon of Scripture" Instead, we see him telling us that we don't need a church authority to tell us these are Scriptures, as God confirms it in the Spirit. The Scriptures also objectively and directly give themselves this authority. Continue reading my post, you will come to Bahnsen's article on Self- Attestation. His opening paragraphs exhaustively cover this self- authority.
This is essential to the Reformed system because if Scripture were subordinate to fallible human authority, its contents could be erroneous, thus rendering Scripture unreliable. And if Scripture were unreliable, it could not act as our sole infallible authority over all matters of the faith.
This is essential for all believers, I would say. We all claim that God is the author. Here is an example where he ties sola Scriptura into the discussion. Sola Scriptura could be applied to multiple canons of Scripture. If it was, you could in fact be looking at different doctrines altogether, though that depends on what the Scriptures say.
'THE TEST'
If the classical Reformed canon criterion were true and we set various candidate texts, like books or passages from the New Testament, apocryphal works, or revered writings from the early Church Fathers, in front of new Christians who have the Spirit but have never read the Bible, they would all pick out the same books or passages as canonical.
Again, the equating of attestation with selection methodology. History shows how canon issues were settled. This was a work of God- His providence. A great article on the subject, from the reformed position is here. Notice how Dr. Greg Bahnsen carefully makes vital distinctions. There is a distinction between recognizing the canon and the nature of the canon. Notice the role of the Spirit is to confirm the objective claim that the Scriptures make about themselves- to be the very word of God. Notice how the Scriptures come forth as an act of God's providence, NOT by sitting down and asking the Spirit to show us what is and isn't Scripture for the purpose of creating a canon.
On to Part II
First, sola Scriptura properly understood, and condensed into one sentence- the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, that is, the infallible rule of faith for the church. Notice how this concept refers to rules of faith- it doesn't say all knowledge is in Scripture, and that reasoning and factors outside of Scripture can't be used to bolster confidence in them. This will come up many times. This is not about sola Scriptura, it is about the canon of Scripture, but SS needs to be brought up here, because it brought up in the article being reviewed.
Secondly, he misrepresents Calvin's full treatment of the subject of Scripture in the Institutes by referring to Chapter 7 only, when it was treated in Chaps 6, 7, and 8. Were he to have used the full council of the Insititutes, he would have realized that Calvin held the plural view that he recognized in his article elsewhere. For instance, from book one, Chapter 8 of the Institutes, we see him give credit to Gods providence through the Church, who protected and preserved it.
Third, the attempt to pull the legs out from the very ability of the Protestant canon to exist by virtue of the fact that for man to select a canon is to put man over the canon. This also destroys the notion for anyone to select a canon, the Romans and Orthodox as well. Why for instance do they get a free pass- well, God guided the choosing of the canon. For us Protestants it would seem then, that it is merely an act of men, God could not have guided this decision in the least. That does not fit the Christian view of reality at all. Most importantly for Protestants, perhaps we would claim that the 'refining' of the canon into its 66 books is a work of God, not man- so the objection centered in man is irrelevant. You won't see many God fearing Protestants claiming they can just rip books out of Scripture at will.
A quick definition at the top- Canon means 'measure', or 'rule' and is a reference to the collection of the books of the Bible. The Protestant canon is 66 books, the Roman Catholic is 73. The difference is in the Old Testament. Basically the question on the table is "Justify your truncated Old Testament canon, by what authority do you decide this?" We were not the first of course. the modern Jewish canon is the Protestant OT canon.
Further things to ponder before we dig into the article itself-
Note how Athanasius, writing LONG before an infallible canon was selected by Rome (Not until Trent actually), handled the issue of canonical and non canonical books- and which books he names!
Some additional points that Turretinfan brings forward on the issue of 'canon' truths to know and consider-
Jesus was able to tell the Jews to "Search the Scriptures" without the Jews needing an infallible canon to know what were the Scriptures. Paul was able to talk to Timothy about the Scriptures in the same way, and the whole visible church managed to get by without an infallible canon of Scripture at least until Trent.
If you have "the Bible" you can deduce the canon. This seems simple, but the Scriptures we have are not Scriptures that WE decided are Scriptures. We come to Christ as believers and begin to gladly read the Scriptures that we are given. God secures this for His people, we have to trust His guidance.
Having Scripture is the antecedent for having Sola Scriptura. First we are given the Scriptures, then we believe what they say. I realize this is boundlessly inconvenient for folks who wish to misrepresent Sola Scriptura, but it is what it is.
Further, this is not an endevour that bothers the majority of the Christian world- as Tom mentions in the article. Toms comments are in Courier type.
II
For Harris, having a variety of canon theories within the Protestant academy is tolerable, so long as they each yield the 66-book Protestant canon. But as Dr. Flesseman-van Leer has rightly observed, those who accept the traditional canon of Scripture today cannot legitimately defend it with arguments that played no part in its original formation. 7 Post hoc rationalization of such a critical point as the formation of the canon would be like painting a target around one’s arrow that is already embedded in the wall. If a rule which has led some to the 66-book canon proves false, or fails to be truly objective, the remedy is not to find a new rule allowing us to reach the same conclusion. Instead, to be intellectually honest, we must find the rule that is ultimately right and true, and accept where it leads us, wherever it leads us.
This statement is valid, as far as it goes. We should strive to understand what logic men used, what were their reasons behind selection of the canon. However-new light must be allowed to emerge. We have it much better than the church of the second century as far as manuscripts that we can refer to, both OT and NT. We can use computers to access libraries of information, whereas libraries and manuscripts were incomplete then! We must also be allowed to build upon the minds of the past, insight upon insight, 'standing on the shoulders of giants' as it were. Yes, we shall not claim that the ancients used techniques and arguments that they didn't, but we don't have to do what they did exactly as they did either.
A.
The Classical Reformed View:
The classical and confessional Reformed answer to the Canon Question stresses that the Holy Spirit is our immediate assurance of the canon’s truth, and also notes that the reliability of Scripture appears from within Scripture itself.Assurance is confirmation, not selection. We will see this claim extended to allegedly be subject to not just a test of determination by experienced theologians, but by 'babies in the Spirit'. In otherwords- the above claim and all it entails is to be 'put to the test-' used by people who have just been converted- who are then told to select what is and isn't Scripture from a mixed pile of writings. Of course, this is silly, and is an example of selecting a canon, not a feeling of assurance of the canons truth from the Holy Spirit that a believer comes to feel. He also claims that it is immediate. I have never seen the claim that it is immediate discernment.
Re: Calvin-
His answer, then, is that we can be assured that Scripture is of God simply by looking at it, just as we can tell black from white simply by looking at it.
Reading Chapter 7, this is largely fair as far as I can tell. Once again, I don't see Calvin saying "this is how to select the canon of Scripture" Instead, we see him telling us that we don't need a church authority to tell us these are Scriptures, as God confirms it in the Spirit. The Scriptures also objectively and directly give themselves this authority. Continue reading my post, you will come to Bahnsen's article on Self- Attestation. His opening paragraphs exhaustively cover this self- authority.
This is essential to the Reformed system because if Scripture were subordinate to fallible human authority, its contents could be erroneous, thus rendering Scripture unreliable. And if Scripture were unreliable, it could not act as our sole infallible authority over all matters of the faith.
This is essential for all believers, I would say. We all claim that God is the author. Here is an example where he ties sola Scriptura into the discussion. Sola Scriptura could be applied to multiple canons of Scripture. If it was, you could in fact be looking at different doctrines altogether, though that depends on what the Scriptures say.
'THE TEST'
If the classical Reformed canon criterion were true and we set various candidate texts, like books or passages from the New Testament, apocryphal works, or revered writings from the early Church Fathers, in front of new Christians who have the Spirit but have never read the Bible, they would all pick out the same books or passages as canonical.
Again, the equating of attestation with selection methodology. History shows how canon issues were settled. This was a work of God- His providence. A great article on the subject, from the reformed position is here. Notice how Dr. Greg Bahnsen carefully makes vital distinctions. There is a distinction between recognizing the canon and the nature of the canon. Notice the role of the Spirit is to confirm the objective claim that the Scriptures make about themselves- to be the very word of God. Notice how the Scriptures come forth as an act of God's providence, NOT by sitting down and asking the Spirit to show us what is and isn't Scripture for the purpose of creating a canon.
On to Part II
The Canon Question, Tom Brown Part Two
Back to John Calvin-
As an initial matter, Calvin misstates the Catholic position by stating that, according to the Catholic Church, Scripture has its authoritative weight accorded to it by the Church. Rather, the Catholic position is that Scripture has divine authority because it is God-breathed, the Holy Spirit having inspired the texts’ authors...First Vatican Council...Dei Verbum, written by Pope Paul VI in 1965. These texts prove that the Catholic Church...
Calvin had his opponents that he was referring to. Technically then, if Calvin was accurately portraying his opponents position, then Tom Brown and modern Roman Catholics agree with Calvin that his opponents were making an erroneous argument. But to say he wasn't accurately portraying the Catholic position is to apply his argument to the Vatican one and DV claims. Well, they weren't extant in his time. It would seem his opponents were possibly satisfied with a bare authority claim of the Church as the final say in the matter. This notion is absurd to John Calvin and Tom Brown.
More on the issue at hand
[A]part from Magisterial guidance concerning the canon, it would be exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, for all believers independently to come to complete agreement about the canon without each believer receiving miraculous enlightenment from the Holy Spirit.
Without God's guidance. Understand that the RCC claims that the Magisterium is guided by the Holy Spirit.
Also, notice the need for 'miraculous enlightenment' this is not the same as the claim that had been presented by the reformed side regarding Spiritual confirmation of the Scriptures.
Regarding Ridderbos-
If Scripture is the sole infallible authority of the faith, and everything else is subordinate in authority to Scripture, then the basis for determining the canon cannot be any authority but Scripture...Lessons of history, use by Hebrew-speaking Jews of the time of Christ, prophetic and apostolic authority, and the like–each of these involve criteria by which a text is judged to be canonical that is extra-canonical, so goes beyond the canon itself, and thus posits a canon above the canon.
Tom Brown likes this- he considers this honesty, the other positions to be a dodge of the real issues. Again, sola Scriptura does not mean that we cannot use reason or seek confirmation in history. I haven't read the book, so I can only work with this quote. How does Ridderbos say that we came to get the canon of Scripture? Would he say that any effort of man fails, including the Roman Catholic effort? What if God has decreed that He would work through man to sort and organize the Scriptures? I have read a few of the responses of Tom to inquisitors about Ridderbos, and I'm seeing only the appeal to reason as being inadequate. The appeal to reason alone IS inadequate according to orthodox (small o) Christianity in general. God provides and guides.
But prior to Calvin, the Church never used this method to recognize a book as belonging to the canon.
Not true. Please see my post on the subject of self attesting , just a week ago. The total list includes Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Lactanius, Hilary of Poitiers, Nemesius of Emesa, Salvian the Presbyter, Origen, Epiphanius, and Augustine.
Today’s average Protestant does not study why he has the Protestant 66-book canon, and does not independently decide if the Bible handed to him is correct. Rather, he accepts as an a priori of his Protestant faith that the 66-book canon is correct. Belief that the 66-book canon is right is part and parcel with the small cluster of unifying evangelical Protestant beliefs. Since it is a unifying principle for most Protestants, we would hardly expect to see anything but universal agreement; thus we can draw no lessons about the canon from this widespread agreement.
I would say that the lessons we can learn about the Roman Catholic Church includes a remarkable lack of unity in the body in anything other than a very superficial 'gather together' mentality. Phil Johnson goes out of his way to make this point very clear, with links to Catholic sites galore as proof. But I digress.
To resolve the disputes that lingered in spite of his supposedly objective test, Calvin employed a potpourri of fall-back arguments to shore up his teaching that the Holy Spirit allows a reader to perceive directly what belongs to the canon of Scripture...Calvin, in using reason and historical proof to determine the canon (for example, by appealing to “those books” that have “been recognized [as canonical] from the church’s inception”), is either contradicting his principle that no evidence outside of Scripture can determine the canon, or is refining his principle in an ad hoc fashion.
Again, the lack of noticing the complete council in the Institutes in this matter has brought forth the notion that allegedly Calvin is telling his readers how to go out and select a canon of Scriptures for themselves. Now he supposedly has to back-peddle and beef up his arguments. No- in Chapter 8 (link in part one) Calvin considers "Secondary helps to establish the credibility of Scripture" including "proofs from Church history". He held what Tom would call a plurality view.
In part 3, I will get to the rest, I imagine it will be 4 parts
As an initial matter, Calvin misstates the Catholic position by stating that, according to the Catholic Church, Scripture has its authoritative weight accorded to it by the Church. Rather, the Catholic position is that Scripture has divine authority because it is God-breathed, the Holy Spirit having inspired the texts’ authors...First Vatican Council...Dei Verbum, written by Pope Paul VI in 1965. These texts prove that the Catholic Church...
Calvin had his opponents that he was referring to. Technically then, if Calvin was accurately portraying his opponents position, then Tom Brown and modern Roman Catholics agree with Calvin that his opponents were making an erroneous argument. But to say he wasn't accurately portraying the Catholic position is to apply his argument to the Vatican one and DV claims. Well, they weren't extant in his time. It would seem his opponents were possibly satisfied with a bare authority claim of the Church as the final say in the matter. This notion is absurd to John Calvin and Tom Brown.
More on the issue at hand
[A]part from Magisterial guidance concerning the canon, it would be exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, for all believers independently to come to complete agreement about the canon without each believer receiving miraculous enlightenment from the Holy Spirit.
Without God's guidance. Understand that the RCC claims that the Magisterium is guided by the Holy Spirit.
Also, notice the need for 'miraculous enlightenment' this is not the same as the claim that had been presented by the reformed side regarding Spiritual confirmation of the Scriptures.
Note the significance of Calvin’s addition of the word “teaching” to his restatement of Ephesians. But St. Paul actually says that the Church is built on the foundation of the prophets and the apostles themselves. For Calvin, a teaching has authority, not the teacher. He treats Paul’s statement that the Church is “built upon the foundation of the prophets and apostles” as referring to a set of teachings, not any persons.
Calvin’s whole doctrine of Scripture revolves around this insertion of the word “teaching” into St. Paul’s statement to the Ephesians, and upon seeing the teacher as having authority derived from the teaching only insofar as he holds to that teaching...The Church is not founded upon these words, the teachings of prophets and apostles, but upon the prophets and apostles themselves based on their divine authority. Because of the prophets’ and apostles’ divine authorization, we can know the teaching they transmitted to be divine in origin.
Regarding Ridderbos-
If Scripture is the sole infallible authority of the faith, and everything else is subordinate in authority to Scripture, then the basis for determining the canon cannot be any authority but Scripture...Lessons of history, use by Hebrew-speaking Jews of the time of Christ, prophetic and apostolic authority, and the like–each of these involve criteria by which a text is judged to be canonical that is extra-canonical, so goes beyond the canon itself, and thus posits a canon above the canon.
Tom Brown likes this- he considers this honesty, the other positions to be a dodge of the real issues. Again, sola Scriptura does not mean that we cannot use reason or seek confirmation in history. I haven't read the book, so I can only work with this quote. How does Ridderbos say that we came to get the canon of Scripture? Would he say that any effort of man fails, including the Roman Catholic effort? What if God has decreed that He would work through man to sort and organize the Scriptures? I have read a few of the responses of Tom to inquisitors about Ridderbos, and I'm seeing only the appeal to reason as being inadequate. The appeal to reason alone IS inadequate according to orthodox (small o) Christianity in general. God provides and guides.
But prior to Calvin, the Church never used this method to recognize a book as belonging to the canon.
Not true. Please see my post on the subject of self attesting , just a week ago. The total list includes Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Lactanius, Hilary of Poitiers, Nemesius of Emesa, Salvian the Presbyter, Origen, Epiphanius, and Augustine.
Today’s average Protestant does not study why he has the Protestant 66-book canon, and does not independently decide if the Bible handed to him is correct. Rather, he accepts as an a priori of his Protestant faith that the 66-book canon is correct. Belief that the 66-book canon is right is part and parcel with the small cluster of unifying evangelical Protestant beliefs. Since it is a unifying principle for most Protestants, we would hardly expect to see anything but universal agreement; thus we can draw no lessons about the canon from this widespread agreement.
I would say that the lessons we can learn about the Roman Catholic Church includes a remarkable lack of unity in the body in anything other than a very superficial 'gather together' mentality. Phil Johnson goes out of his way to make this point very clear, with links to Catholic sites galore as proof. But I digress.
To resolve the disputes that lingered in spite of his supposedly objective test, Calvin employed a potpourri of fall-back arguments to shore up his teaching that the Holy Spirit allows a reader to perceive directly what belongs to the canon of Scripture...Calvin, in using reason and historical proof to determine the canon (for example, by appealing to “those books” that have “been recognized [as canonical] from the church’s inception”), is either contradicting his principle that no evidence outside of Scripture can determine the canon, or is refining his principle in an ad hoc fashion.
Again, the lack of noticing the complete council in the Institutes in this matter has brought forth the notion that allegedly Calvin is telling his readers how to go out and select a canon of Scriptures for themselves. Now he supposedly has to back-peddle and beef up his arguments. No- in Chapter 8 (link in part one) Calvin considers "Secondary helps to establish the credibility of Scripture" including "proofs from Church history". He held what Tom would call a plurality view.
In part 3, I will get to the rest, I imagine it will be 4 parts
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Followers
