Good post. A couple of thoughts. First you say, "I'll point out the verses from which one can plainly deduce the doctrine [of Sola Scriptura]." My point is that these verses don't exist. A scriptural verse referring to a "book" can only be referring to the actual book it's written in, not to the whole Bible, since the Bible was not compiled when the book was written (or even conceived of). If you claim that the Bible is all we need, then the Bible must make this claim itself, otherwise your claim refutes itself. There are many places in the Bible, by the way, where we are told to hold to the written and oral teachings of the apostles. Are you arguing that this is a mistake on the writer's part? Or are you suggesting that later on these teachings were written down? I'm simply looking for your logic here.
In terms of the Apocrypha, it's important to note that in the New Testament, Jesus and the Apostles quoted from the Septuagint virtually exclusively and the Septuagint includes the Apocryphal books. In addition, there are several direct quotes that are clearly influenced by the Apocrypha - Here's a good article on the subject.
Finally, I think it's important to note that Christ founded a church (Matt 16:1
for a reason: to lead us to heaven. We can accept Tradition and can be confident that God Himself ensures that Tradition is correct.
God bless,
Jay
That should be Matt 16:18 - my 8 and my close parenthesis became a face, but not intentionally!
Jay
What would you say about the following sort of argument? --
God is the author of Scripture, not only the individual Scriptures, but Scripture as a whole.
In the same wasyGod led people by the Holy Spirit to infallibly record certain things and not others or to collect certain songs of Israel into the Psalter and not others, so also he led the canonical Scriptures to be collected and preserved and recognized by the church.
This doesn't imply the infallibility of the church or of tradition any more than Luke's infallible authorship of his Gospel (selecting and editing various witnesses) implies that Luke was infallible in everything he ever said to anyone about Jesus or that we should try to preserve every prayer he ever prayed with his kids as some sort of sacred tradition.
To have an infallible canon, we don't need a statement somewhere else in the Bible that Jude should be included any more than we need a statement somewhere else in the Bible that Matthew rightly included the Sermon on the Mount in order to have an infallible Matthew.
The same processes of compiling, editing, recognizing, redacting, and organizing that when into the composition of individual books of Scripture also when into the formation of Scripture as a whole.
The church's "canonization" of the New Testament was simply a reflexive recognition of these processes.
Garver,
I agree with the gist of what you said. But it still falls under tradition. Given the ground rules of Sola Scriptura, I can use scripture to argue for Sola Scriptura itself as well as the inerrancy and infallibility of scripture. However, I cannot argue (within said ground rules) for the perfection of the canon. I can only say that (a) I am confident in the process and (b) in my heart of hearts I do not believe the Holy Spirit would have allowed the process to go awry. But I can’t prove it, I can only believe it. Hence it is a tradition, in my opinion.
Uh... well who makes up the "ground rules" for what Sola Scriptura is or is not?
David,
How then do you explain the removal of certain books? Again, Christ and the Apostles repeately quoted from the Septuagint, which included the books Luther removed. The Jews didn't declare their official canon (without those books) until after the destruction of the temple in 70 AD at which time most would argue the power to determine the canon went to the early church.
I commonly hear that certain Early Church Fathers, including Jerome, argued over the canon, which is fine. But as soon as it was finalized, Jerome made clear that he would follow the teachings of the church and accept the books as part of the canon.
If you believe the Holy Spirit wouldn't allow error, then why not accept these books? If you don't, then you are suggesting that each believer study the possible books to be included and determine on their own if they are part of the canon (we would have more variations of the Bible than you or I could count). At some point, we have to say "The Church was infallible in this decision" - which begs the question, when did she lose the power to be infallible and who is infallible enough to make that determination?
God bless,
Jay
Jay,
[1] Were the Old Testament Jews guided by God in their selection of which writings made up the OT canon?
[2] Were the OT Jews guided by God in every case when they preserved oral traditions outside that canon?
To me, the challenge over "How do you know the canon should include all and only these books?" is meaningless in the abstract. It's like asking "How can you be sure your father hasn't sired other children you don't know about?" Let's see some concrete examples. Let's see my alleged lost half-brother and check the family resemblance. Where is the narrowly-rejected deutero-canonical "Gospel of Andrew" that contains all the Marian doctrines? Everything I've ever come across that missed out on being canonised is either pretty much a re-statement of what did get canonised (eg, the Didachê) or is so way outside the ballpark that it can easily be rejected (stories of the child Jesus striking his playmates dumb, alleged romances of St Paul with the holy virgin Thecla, etc).
There are a few borderline cases. III John is used in the Syrian chuch, I believe; but then (according to one of my Catholic friends who'd read it) "it doesn't say anything that I and II John don't already say". Certain parts of the Apocrypha would fit the canon without jarring, but others conflict with the rest (eg, 2 Maccabees 14:46 which endorses suicide).
Hey, Garver,
(1) Why does everyone refer to you by your surname only?
(2) Have I got this right: you're Reformed, but you lecture at a Catholic university?
Best,
Tom
Now just because the potential exists for having say, omitted a book that should have been included, it doesn’t mean that an error was made.
One could also say that the potential exists that those books that were included were not inspired.
In any case, given your position that the Bible is a fallible list of infallible books, how do you establish that the Bible is trustworth?
For if the canon is fallible then the books that it includes just might not be inspired. Likewise, as you noted, there might be other books out there that are inspired.
Were I to hold to sola scriptura, I'm not sure that the last two arguments that you offer would make me feel secure. 2 Pt 3:16 and 1 Tm 5:18 does not refer to any specific book of what we now call the New Testament. And the three criteria that you argue that the early Church used to judge whether or not a book was inspired was itself not drawn from scripture but was a, ahem, tradition.
At the end, you state that the canon is a tradition in which we can be confident.
But why? You really haven't answered that question to my satisfaction.
You also forgot to point out "Protestants do not believe that their Fathers are infallible, either." So just because Luther said something doesn't mean I believe it's true.
Jay-
There are no original extant copies of the Septuagint. As far as I know, the Jews didn't always include all the books the Apocrypha in every collection of the LXX, which is why if you look at Fathers prior to 400 AD, they number the books of the Old Testament quite variously. It was in fact expanded to include the Apocrypha and some pseudepigrapha; why did the Roman church retain the former but not the latter? Further, simply because the Apocrypha and the pseudepigrapha were included doesn't mean they were read with the same authority as the Law and Prophets. Some 1500 years from now, someone might dig up my Bible and conclude that the Holy Book of Maps must be included in the canon.
Actually some people do believe that Sola Scriptura means you can only believe things that are in the Bible. Gordon Clark did, but he had a really absurd definition of the word "believe."
And Josh, that was hilarious. And I thought it was impossible to add humor to the never-ending canon debate.
Great post!
I have to admit, when I read the bit about fallibility/infallibility, I cringed. I've been chewed out for thinking about the Bible...
I'd like to hear sometime if you think "inerrant" and "infallible" are similar, regarding the Bible.
Hi Jay,
First, "DeoOG" (Can't very well call it "DOG"?!) is a very well-presented and well-argued site. You guys have clearly put a great deal of work into it. Also, while I don't agree with your conclusions, for the most part I congratulate you for being reasonably fair in presenting the evangelical position.
However, I do think this opening line sets up a straw opponent:
> Protestants are quick to suggest that all traditions fall under the condemned “traditions of man” in the Bible.
That's roughly equivalent to caricaturing the Catholic position as "lay people aren't allowed to read the Bible". We have no problem with [T]radition[s]. What we do disagree with is the claim that, when (eg) St Paul says "my teachings, whether by written letter or word of mouth", the content of the latter differed in any significant respect from the former; eg, that he taught Marian devotions or purgatory in his oral teachings but, in his written letters, not only made no mention of these doctrines, but taught that a different, more "compact" set of doctrines and practices were sufficient. (Eg, telling the Ephesian elders that their protection against "fierce wolves" infiltrating the flock was "the Word of [God's] power".)
It's one thing to argue that Scripture isn't exhaustive. We do not know how Paul "set things in order" further when he arrived after his letter did. (AFAIK, Catholic tradition doesn't claim to tell us either). But it's different, and much more serious, to claim that Scripture is misleading by omission. A Catholic priest who taught the doctrines that St Paul did, and taught them as if they were the only important doctrines for a Christian, would be like a medical doctor telling a cancer patient to "take aspirin and drink plenty of water"... but not once mentioning chemotherapy.
So, again: traditions are fine, but they're tested against the written Word (in its totality -- ie, taking account of all the "proof-texts" on each topic, not selecting one or some in isolation), and we have to be prepared for the shock of finding that it's our traditions that went off the rails ... even if they're centuries old (five centuries or seventeen centuries -- all the same!).
Best wishes,
Russell
> while I don't agree with your conclusions
m2say, "while I don't agree completely with your conclusions". I agree with about 20% of your criticisms of Protestantism and 90% of your criticisms of "non-Christianity".
Commenting by HaloScan
