Skip to comments.LOGIC AND THE FOUNDATIONS OF PROTESTANTISM
Posted on 03/24/2008 3:36:37 PM PDT by annalex
LOGIC AND THE FOUNDATIONS OF PROTESTANTISM
by Brian W. Harrison
As an active Protestant in my mid-twenties I began to feel that I might have a vocation to become a minister. The trouble was that while I had quite definite convictions about the things that most Christians have traditionally held in commonthe sort of thing C.S. Lewis termed "mere Christianity."
I had had some firsthand experience with several denominations (Presbyterian, Anglican, Lutheran, Methodist) and was far from certain as to which of them (if any) had an overall advantage over the others. So I began to think, study, search, and pray. Was there a true Church? If so, how was one to decide which?
The more I studied, the more perplexed I became. At one stage my elder sister, a very committed evangelical with somewhat flexible denominational affiliations, chided me with becoming "obsessed" with trying to find a "true Church." "Does it really matter?" she would ask. Well, yes it did. It was all very well for a lay Protestant to relegate the denominational issue to a fairly low priority amongst religious questions: lay people can go to one Protestant Church one week and another the next week and nobody really worries too much. But an ordained minister obviously cannot do that. He must make a very serious commitment to a definite Church community, and under normal circumstances that commitment will be expected to last a lifetime. So clearly that choice had to be made with a deep sense of responsibility; and the time to make it was before, not after, ordination.
As matters turned out, my search lasted several years, and eventually led me to where I never suspected it would at first. I shall not attempt to relate the full story, but will focus on just one aspect of the question as it developed for mean aspect which seems quite fundamental.
As I groped and prayed my way towards a decision, I came close to despair and agnosticism at times, as I contemplated the mountains of erudition, the vast labyrinth of conflicting interpretations of Christianity (not to mention other faiths) which lined the shelves of religious bookshops and libraries. If all the "experts" on Truththe great theologians, historians, philosophersdisagreed interminably with each other, then how did God, if He was really there, expect me, an ordinary Joe Blow, to work out what was true?
The more I became enmeshed in specific questions of Biblical interpretationof who had the right understanding of justification, of the Eucharist, Baptism, grace, Christology, Church government and discipline, and so onthe more I came to feel that this whole-line of approach was a hopeless quest, a blind alley. These were all questions that required a great deal of erudition, learning, competence in Biblical exegesis, patristics, history, metaphysics, ancient languagesin short, scholarly research. But was it really credible (I began to ask myself) that God, if He were to reveal the truth about these disputed questions at all, would make this truth so inaccessible that only a small scholarly elite had even the faintest chance of reaching it? Wasnt that a kind of gnosticism? Where did it leave the nonscholarly bulk of the human race? It didnt seem to make sense. If, as they say, war is too important to be left to the generals, then revealed truth seemed too important to be left to the Biblical scholars. It was no use saying that perhaps God simply expected the non-scholars to trust the scholars. How were they to know which scholars to trust, given that the scholars all contradicted each other?
Therefore, in my efforts to break out of the dense exegetical undergrowth where I could not see the wood for the trees, I shifted towards a new emphasis in my truth-seeking criteria: I tried to get beyond the bewildering mass of contingent historical and linguistic data upon which the rival exegetes and theologians constructed their doctrinal castles, in order to concentrate on those elemental, necessary principles of human thought which are accessible to all of us, learned and unlearned alike. In a word, I began to suspect that an emphasis on logic, rather than on research, might expedite an answer to my prayers for guidance.
The advantage was that you dont need to be learned to be logical. You need not have spent years amassing mountains of information in libraries in order to apply the first principles of reason. You can apply them from the comfort of your armchair, so to speak, in order to test the claims of any body of doctrine, on any subject whatsoever, that comes claiming your acceptance. Moreover logic, like mathematics, yields firm certitude, not mere changeable opinions and provisional hypotheses. Logic is the first natural "beacon of light" with which God has provided us as intelligent beings living in a world darkened by the confusion of countless conflicting attitudes, doctrines and world-views, all telling us how to live our lives during this brief time that is given to us here on earth.
Logic of course has its limits. Pure "armchair" reasoning alone will never be able to tell you the meaning of your life and how you should live it. But as far as it goes, logic is an indispensable tool, and I even suspect that you sin against God, the first Truth, if you knowingly flout or ignore it in your thinking. "Thou shalt not contradict thyself" seems to me an important precept of the natural moral law. Be that as it may, I found that the main use of logic, in my quest for religious truth, turned out to be in deciding not what was true, but what was false. If someone presents you with a system of ideas or doctrines which logical analysis reveals to be coherentthat is, free from internal contradictions and meaningless absurditiesthen you can conclude, "This set of ideas may be true. It has at least passed the first test of truththe coherence test." To find out if it actually is true you will then have to leave your logicians armchair and seek further information. But if it fails this most elementary test of truth, it can safely be eliminated without further ado from the ideological competition, no matter how many impressive-looking volumes of erudition may have been written in support of it, and no matter how attractive and appealing many of its features (or many of its proponents) may appear.
Some readers may wonder why I am laboring the point about logic. Isnt all this perfectly obvious? Well, it ought to be obvious to everyone, and is indeed obvious to many, including those who have had the good fortune of receiving a classical Catholic education. Catholicism, as I came to discover, has a quite positive approach to our natural reasoning powers, and traditionally has its future priests study philosophy for years before they even begin theology. But I came from a religious milieu where this outlook was not encouraged, and was often even discouraged. The Protestant Reformers taught that original sin has so weakened the human intellect that we must be extremely cautious about the claims of "proud reason." Luther called reason the "devils whore"a siren which seduced men into grievous error. "Dont trust your reason, just bow humbly before Gods truth revealed to you in His holy Word, the Bible!"this was pretty much the message that came through to me from the Calvinist and Lutheran circles that influenced me most in the first few years after I made my "decision for Christ" at the age of 18. The Reformers themselves were forced to employ reason even while denouncing it, in their efforts to rebut the Biblical arguments of their "Papist" foes. And that, it seemed to me, was rather illogical on their part.
LOGIC AND THE "SOLA SCRIPTURA" PRINCIPLE
Thus, with my awakening interest in logical analysis as a test of religious truth, I was naturally led to ask whether this illogicality in the practice of the Reformers was, perhaps, accompanied by illogicality at the more fundamental level of their theory. As a good Protestant I had been brought up to hold as sacred the basic methodological principle of the Reformation: that the Bible alone contains all the truth that God has revealed for our salvation. Churches that held to that principle were at least "respectable," one was given to understand, even though they might differ considerably from each other in regard to the interpretation of Scripture. But as for Roman Catholicism and other Churches which unashamedly added their own traditions to the Word of Godwere they not self-evidently outside the pale? Were they not condemned out of their own mouths?
But when I got down to making a serious attempt to explore the implications of this rock-bottom dogma of the Reformers, I could not avoid the conclusion that it was rationally indefensible. This is demonstrated in the following eight steps, which embody nothing more than simple, commonsense logic, and a couple of indisputable, empirically observable facts about the Bible:
1. The Reformers asserted Proposition A: "All revealed truth is to be found in the inspired Scriptures." However, this is quite useless unless we know which books are meant by the "inspired Scriptures." After all, many different sects and religions have many different books, which they call "inspired Scriptures."
2. The theory we are considering, when it talks of "inspired Scriptures," means in fact those 66 books, which are bound and published in Protestant Bibles. For convenience we shall refer to them from now on simply as "the 66 books."
3. The precise statement of the theory we are examining thus becomes Proposition B: "All revealed truth is to be found in the 66 books."
4. It is a fact that nowhere in the 66 books themselves can we find any statements telling us which books make up the entire corpus of inspired Scripture. There is no complete list of inspired books anywhere within their own pages, nor can such a list be compiled by putting isolated verses together. (This would be the case: (a) if you could find verses like "Esther is the Word of God," "This Gospel is inspired by God," "The Second Letter of Peter is inspired Scripture," etc., for all of the 66 books; and (b) if you could also find a Biblical passage stating that no books other than these 66 were to be held as inspired. Obviously, nobody could even pretend to find all this information about the canon of Scripture in the Bible itself.)
5. It follows that Proposition Bthe very foundation of all Protestant Christianityis neither found in Scripture nor can be deduced from Scripture in any way. Since the 66 books are not even identified in Scripture, much less can any further information about them (e.g., that all revealed truth is contained in them) be found there. In short, we must affirm Proposition C: "Proposition B is an addition to the 66 books. "
6. It follows immediately from the truth of Proposition C that Proposition B cannot itself be revealed truth. To assert that it is would involve a self-contradictory statement: "All revealed truth is to be found in the 66 books, but this revealed truth itself is not found there."
7. Could it be the case that Proposition B is true, but is not revealed truth? If that is the case, then it must be either something which can be deduced from revealed truth or something which natural human reason alone can discover, without any help from revelation. The first possibility is ruled out because, as we saw in steps 4 and 5, B cannot be deduced from Scripture, and to postulate some other revealed extra-Scriptural premise from which B might be deduced would contradict B itself. The second possibility involves no self-contradiction, but it is factually preposterous, and I doubt whether any Protestant has seriously tried to defend itleast of all those traditional Protestants who strongly emphasize the corruption of mans natural intellectual powers as a result of the Fall. Human reason might well be able to conclude prudently and responsibly that an authority which itself claimed to possess the totality of revealed truth was in fact justified in making that claim, provided that this authority backed up the claim by some very striking evidence. (Catholics, in fact, believe that their Church is precisely such an authority.) But how could reason alone reach that same well-founded certitude about a collection of 66 books which do not even lay claim to what is attributed to them? (The point is reinforced when we remember that those who attribute the totality of revealed truth to the 66 books, namely Protestant Church members, are very ready to acknowledge their own fallibilitywhether individually or collectivelyin matters of religious doctrine. All Protestant Churches deny their own infallibility as much as they deny the Popes.)
8. Since Proposition B is not revealed truth, nor a truth which can be deduced from revelation, nor a naturally-knowable truth, it is not true at all. Therefore, the basic doctrine for which the Reformers fought is simply false.
CALVINS ATTEMPTED SOLUTION
How did the Reformers try to cope with this fundamental weakness in the logical structure of their own first principles? John Calvin, usually credited with being the most systematic and coherent thinker of the Reformation, tried to justify belief in the divine authorship of the 66 books by dogmatically postulating a direct communication of this knowledge from God to the individual believer. Calvin makes it clear that in saying Scripture is "self-authenticated," he does not mean to be taken literally and absolutely. He does not mean that some Bible text or other affirms that the 66 books, and they alone, are divinely inspired. As we observed in step 4 above, nobody ever could claim anything so patently false. Calvin simply means that no extra-Biblical human testimony, such as that of Church tradition, is needed in order for individuals to know that these books are inspired. We can summarize his view as Proposition D: "The Holy Spirit teaches Christians individually, by a direct inward testimony, that the 66 books are inspired by God. "
The trouble is that the Holy Spirit Himself is an extra-Biblical authority as much as a Pope or Council. The third Person of the Trinity is clearly not identical with the truths He has expressed, through human authors, in the Bible. It follows that even if Calvins Proposition D is true, it contradicts Proposition B, for "if all revealed truth is to be found in the 66 books," then that leaves no room for the Holy Spirit to reveal directly and non-verbally one truth which cannot be found in any passage of those books, namely, the fact that each one of them is inspired.
In any case, even if Calvin could somehow show that D did not itself contradict B, he would still not have succeeded in showing that B is true. Even if we were to accept the extremely implausible view represented by Proposition D, that would not prove that no other writings are inspired, and much less would it prove that there are no revealed truths that come to us through tradition rather than through inspired writings. In short, Calvins defense of Biblical inspiration in no way overthrows our eight-step disproof of the sola Scriptura principle. Indeed, it does not even attempt to establish that principle as a whole, but only one aspect of itthat is, which books are to be understood by the term "Scriptura."
The schizoid history of Protestantism itself bears witness to the original inner contradiction which marked its conception and birth. Conservative Protestants have maintained the original insistence on the Bible as the unique infallible source of revealed truth, at the price of logical incoherence. Liberals on the other hand have escaped the incoherence while maintaining the claim to "private interpretation" over against that of Popes and Councils, but at the price of abandoning the Reformers insistence on an infallible Bible. They thereby effectively replace revealed truth by human opinion, and faith by an autonomous reason. Thus, in the liberal/evangelical split within Protestantism since the 18th century, we see both sides teaching radically opposed doctrines, even while each claims to be the authentic heir of the Reformation. The irony is that both sides are right: their conflicting beliefs are simply the two horns of a dilemma, which has been tearing at the inner fabric of Protestantism ever since its turbulent beginnings.
Reflections such as these from a Catholic onlooker may seem a little hard or unyielding to someill-suited, perhaps, to a climate of ecumenical dialogue in which gentle suggestion, rather than blunt affirmation, is the preferred mode of discourse. But logic is of its very nature hard and unyielding; and insofar as truth and honesty are to be the hallmarks of true ecumenism, the claims of logic will have to be squarely faced, not politely avoided.
Fr. Brian Harrison is currently teaching at the Pontifical University of Puerto Rico in Ponce.
I had the pleasure of meeting Fr. Harrison once a little over a decade ago. He is a very learned, intelligent and kind gentleman.
That’s a real thing of beauty!
For those who find it a bit dry -- or agree with the Orthodox that we somehow overdo reason, here's a critique of the Sola Scriptura superstition from an Orthodox source:
Hope you had a great Easter, in celebration of our Lord’s Resurrection. Thanks!
The best ever.
They both are.
How many Catholic FReepers who will rush to lay praises on him can say they agree with him on these things? How many will consider him a "closet Protestant" because of them?
There are few communities smaller and lonelier than that of inerrantist Catholics. And I should know, 'cause I used to be one.
annalex, please explain why you are pinging me to these anti-Protestant threads, when I have never asked you to ping me (except to inform me when you talk about me behind my back) - and when I appear to be the only Protestant that you are continually pinging...
Please remove me from your pinglists hereon, unless you would like me to exchange pings with you, specifically and personally, to some of my own threads that I believe you will find enlightening. I will happily return the favor, if you'd like!
There is only one true God. He took flesh and became man only once. When man, He founded only one religion and one Church, the Roman Catholic Religion and the Roman Catholic Church.
That Church is the divinely appointed guardian of the writings divinely inspired by God, known as the Bible. This Holy Bible is like no other book, because no other book has God for its principal author.
Nevertheless the Bible is not the foundation of the Church, but the Church is the foundation of the Bible. That is why Catholics need Mother Church as the guardian and interpreter of the Bible.
by Richard Williamson, Bishop
Winona, MN August 16th, 1997
And from the same "Catechism"
The Bible And Science
1. Is the Bible a book of science?
The Bible is not a book of science, and was never intended to answer the purpose of a book of science.
2. Does the Bible teach anything that has to do with science?
Yes, the Bible mentions many things that have to do with science.
3. Name one biblical account that touches on science.
The account of the Creation in the Book of Genesis touches on many branches of science.
4. Does not the Bible contain many things that science has proved false?
Since God is the author of the Bible and also, the foundation of true science, the Bible cannot err when it touches on science.
5. How, then, are we to account for the apparent contradictions between the Bible and science?
In many ways, for example: some so-called scientific findings are false; others are mere unsubstantiated theories (Evolution); while still others, when properly examined, do not contradict the biblical narrative.
6. Is not the Bible statement that the sun stood still in the heavens (Jos. 10, 13) an example of obvious error?
No, we must remember that the Bible was written in every-day language of the time, not in scientific terms. Even to this day, for example, we speak of sunset even though the sun is not setting anywhere and we know that the Earth is turning around the Sun and not vice-versa.
7. Can one be a great scientist and still be a firm believer in the Bible?
Yes, there have been and are now many great Catholic scientists, believing firmly in the Bible.
8. Name some scientists who, at the same time, believed firmly in the Bible.
Copernicus (a priest), Pascal, Gauss, Ampere, Pasteur, Marconi, to name just a few.
9. Does the Catholic Church discourage the study of science as being opposed to the Bible?
Nonsense; on the contrary, the Catholic Church has always encouraged science; some of her most eminent children have also been leaders in science.
10. Can science be of any help to Bible study?
True science can help Bible study in interpreting some difficult passages.
11. Is the Bible helpful in the study of science?
As a lighthouse helps a ship at sea, so does the Bible help scientists.
I am pinging you because you often post articles about Catholicism and I appreciate your interest in my Church.
“How many Catholic FReepers who will rush to lay praises on him can say they agree with him on these things?”
More than you think.
“How many will consider him a “closet Protestant” because of them?”
“There are few communities smaller and lonelier than that of inerrantist Catholics. And I should know, ‘cause I used to be one.”
I doubt it.
Count me in.
Then in the interests of respect and fairness, I'm positive you won't mind pinging all the other Protestants and non-Catholics who post articles about Catholicism, each and every time that you ping me as well!
My Journey of Faith [Marco Fallon]
My (Imminent) Reception into the Roman Catholic Church [Robert Koons]
Thousands in U.S. to Join (Catholic) Church - Many Feel They Have Found a Home
TURN ABOUT (Carl Olson, former Evangelical and Monday's guest on EWTN's Journey Home)
Former Southern Baptist Pastor Now a Traveling Crusader for the Catholic Church [Michael Cumbie]
All Roads Lead To Rome (A Southern Baptist's Journey into the Catholic Church)[John David Young]
Allen Hunt, Methodist Minister ...Journeys Home (Catholic, Re: Real Presence)
The Challenges and Graces of Conversion [Chris Findley]
An Open Letter...from Bishop John Lipscomb [Another TEC Bishop Goes Papist]
Unlocking the Convert's Heart [Marcus Grodi]
His Open Arms Welcomed Me [ Paul Thigpen}
Why I'm Catholic (Sola Scriptura leads atheist to Catholic Church)
From Calvinist to Catholic (another powerful conversion story) Rodney Beason
Good-bye To All That (Another Episcopalian gets ready to swim the Tiber)
Bp. Steenson's Letter to his clergy on his conversion to the Catholic Church
Bishop Steensons Statement to the House [of Bishops: Episcopal (TEC) to Catholic]
Bp. Steenson's Letter to his clergy on his conversion to the Catholic Church
Bishop Steenson Will Become a Roman Catholic
Married man considers turn as Catholic priest
Pavarotti returns to the Catholic faith before dying
Searching For Authority (A Methodist minister finds himself surprised by Truth!)
Why I Returned to the Catholic Church. Part VI: The Biblical Reality (Al Kresta)
Why I Returned to the Catholic Church. Part V: The Catholics and the Pope(Al Kresta)
The Hail Mary of a Protestant (A true story)
Why I Returned to the Catholic Church. Part IV: Crucifix and Altar(Al Kresta)
Why I Returned to the Catholic Church. Part III: Tradition and Church (Al Kresta)
Why I Returned to the Catholic Church. Part II: Doubts (Al Kresta)
Conversion Story - Rusty Tisdale (former Pentecostal)
Why I Returned to the Catholic Church. Part I: Darkness(Al Kresta)
Conversion Story - Matt Enloe (former Baptist) [prepare to be amazed!]
THE ORTHODOX REVIVAL IN RUSSIA
Conversion Story - David Finkelstein (former Jew)
Conversion Story - John Weidner (former Evangelical)
12 Reasons I Joined the Catholic Church
Conversion Story - Tom Hunt
The Tide Is Turning Toward Catholicism: The Converts
John Calvin Made Me Catholic
Journey Home - May 21 - Neil Babcox (former Presbyterian) - A minister encounters Mary
Going Catholic - Six journeys to Rome
My (Imminent) Reception into the Roman Catholic Church
A Convert's Pilgrimage [Christopher Cuddy]
From Pastor to Parishioner: My Love for Christ Led Me Home (to the Catholic Church) [Drake McCalister]
Lutheran professor of philosophy prepares to enter Catholic Church
Patty Bonds (former Baptist and sister of Dr. James White) to appear on The Journey Home - May 7
Pastor and Flock Become Catholics
Why Converts Choose Catholicism
From Calvinist to Catholic
The journey back - Dr. Beckwith explains his reasons for returning to the Catholic Church
Famous Homosexual Italian Author Returned to the Church Before Dying of AIDS
Dr. Francis Beckwith Returns To Full Communion With The Church
laetare (commentary on ordination of married Anglican convert to the Archdiocese of Los Angeles) Father Bill Lowe
Catholic Converts - Stephen K. Ray (former Evangelical)
Catholic Converts - Malcolm Muggeridge
Catholic Converts - Richard John Neuhaus
Catholic Converts - Avery Cardinal Dulles
Catholic Converts - Israel (Eugenio) Zolli - Chief Rabbi of Rome
Catholic Converts - Robert H. Bork , American Jurist (Catholic Caucus)
Catholic Converts - Marcus Grodi
He Was an Evangelical Christian Until He Read Aquinas [Rob Evans]
LIke you people don't ping your myrmidons at the first sign of intelligent opposition in the first place....
Will do, please suggest the list of them.
More than you think.
Well, considering that almost every Catholic FReeper who comments on these issues loudly endorses evolution, denies total Biblical inerrancy, or else never says a word on these subjects I think I can be forgiven for not knowing this.
How many will consider him a closet Protestant because of them?
I don't know about that. Lots of Catholics who argue against Biblical inerrancy assume that the concept was invented by Protestants and is inseparable from sola scriptura. They seem to think that shooting the Bible full of holes vindicates the magisterium and Catholic oral tradition. Even the British Catholic creationist Daylight Origins Society traces the acceptance of evolution in the Catholic Church to a mistrust of the Bible that began at the time of the reformation. Never mind that liberal, anti-inerrantist Protestants are every bit as anti-inerrancy as any atheist, and they are just as much sola scriptura as Fundamentalist Protestants are.
There are few communities smaller and lonelier than that of inerrantist Catholics. And I should know, cause I used to be one.
I doubt it.
Of course you know all about me. How dare I say something about my own personal experience of Catholicism when I was obviously dreaming or something?
I agree with him. I hadn't "rush(ed) to lay praises on him," of course; I never rush.
“Well, considering that almost every Catholic FReeper who comments on these issues...”
Wait. Almost every Catholic Freeper who comments on inerrancy denies inerrancy?
Do you have proof of that?
“Lots of Catholics who argue against Biblical inerrancy assume that the concept was invented by Protestants and is inseparable from sola scriptura.”
So, of course you point them toward Dei verbum, right?
“Of course you know all about me.”
I know you have shown no particular knowledge of the Catholic faith so why would anyone conclude you were once Catholic?
How dare I say something about my own personal experience of Catholicism when I was obviously dreaming or something?
Huh? Calvin postulated that? No, God's holy word "postulated" that, and Calvin rightly affirmed it.
Calvin makes it clear that in saying Scripture is "self-authenticated," he does not mean to be taken literally and absolutely. He does not mean that some Bible text or other affirms that the 66 books, and they alone, are divinely inspired. As we observed in step 4 above, nobody ever could claim anything so patently false.
But that is exactly what Calvin wrote and meant and claimed and affirmed...for all those with ears to hear.
Calvin simply means that no extra-Biblical human testimony, such as that of Church tradition, is needed in order for individuals to know that these books are inspired. We can summarize his view as Proposition D: "The Holy Spirit teaches Christians individually, by a direct inward testimony, that the 66 books are inspired by God."
Isn't this exactly what the author said Calvin didn't do?
The trouble is that the Holy Spirit Himself is an extra-Biblical authority as much as a Pope or Council.
Yep. Spoken straight from Rome -- "the Holy Spirit Himself is an extra-Biblical authority."
Adding insult to injury, this goofy author continues to show his ignorance by actually equating in some manner or another the Holy Spirit to "a Pope" or "a Council."
And this author is attempting to show the illogic of the Protestant faith?
Illogic is believing there is "another Christ" and that there is a "Co-Redeemer" and that there is another mediator between God and men but Christ Jesus. That's illogical at best, and at worst, those words will condemn those who believe them.
As soon as any "intelligent opposition" shows up, let us know.
My pastor had a wonderful message on Resurrection Sunday. In the message he discussed Thomas and the difference between honest doubters and dishonest doubters. Thomas when he actually touched the wounds on Jesus the Resurrected LORD he immediately cried out "My Lord and my God!".
I mention this because I really don't see the opportunity for an honest discussion. Alex Murphy was even pinged just so a flame war could be started.
Hello. A Happy Easter wish to all (a day after Easter).
This person’s argument against Protestantism seems to be based on the canon of scripture - the “66 books” as he calls it.
I would like to ask all the Catholic Christians who care to answer - because I really do not know the answer to this question:
Which books of “the 66 books” does the Catholic Church deem not accepted as part of the Canon of Scripture to which the Catholic Church looks for the basis of our shared faith in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord?
Thanks in advance.
IIRC, Thomas did not need to touch . . . he cried out when he merely saw The Lord face to face.
Intersting article. He starts out asking the right questions, but ends up relying on Aristotelian Greek logic to arrive at a false conclusion about a decidedly Hebrew subject. If he would have just simply read the story of the NT apart from all the ridiculous human tradition that we’ve shellacked upon it, he would have found a much simpler and more pure destination.
Of course the Old Testament is older, but the Christian Canon of it is set forth by the Church, while the New Testament, the tool that unlocks the Old Testament for us, is a direct product of the Church.
Happy Easter. Christ is risen!
Doctor, would you care to defend Calvin's ridiculous view on the self-authenticating scripture, somehow? A scriptural eveidence of such self-authentication would help.
Pinging Alex Murphy guaranteed dishonesty of the discussion?
“No, God’s holy word “postulated” that, and Calvin rightly affirmed it.”
All things necessary to become a Christian, live as a Christian, and grow as a Christian are clearly presented in the Bible. Without the Bible we could not know these things. Jesus said in Matthew 4:4, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God. As Gods very words, the words of Scripture are more than simply true; they are truth itself (John 17:17). They are the final measure by which all supposed truth is to be gauged.
The Bible is our only source for clear and definite statements about Gods will. While God has not revealed all aspects of his will to us, for the secret things belong to the Lord our God, there are many aspects of his will revealed to us through the Scriptures, that we may do all the words of this law (Deut. 29:2). Love for God is demonstrated by keeping his commandments (1 John 5:3). And his commandments are found on the pages of Scripture.
The New Testament affirms that its words are the very words of God. In 2 Peter 3:16, Peter refers to all of Pauls letters as one part of the Scriptures. This means that Peter, and the early church, considered Pauls writings to be in the same category as the Old Testament writings. Therefore, they considered Pauls writings to be the very words of God. Paul, in 2 Timothy 3:16, makes this clear when he writes that all Scripture is breathed out by God. and as Paul told Timothy, the sacred writings ... are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus (2 Tim. 3:15).
Paul, in 1 Timothy 5:18, writes that the Scripture says two things: You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain and The laborer deserves his wages: The first quote regarding an ox comes from the Old Testament (Deuteronomy. 25:4). The second comes from the New Testament (Luke 10:7). Paul, without any hesitation, quotes from both the Old and New Testaments, calling them both Scripture; the very words of God. That is why Paul could write, the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord (1 Cor. 14:37).
Since the Old and New Testament writings are both considered Scripture, it is right to say they are both, in the words of 2 Timothy 3:16, breathed out by God. This makes sense when we consider Jesus promise that the Holy Spirit would bring to the discipless remembrance all that Jesus said to them (John 14:26). It was as the disciples wrote the Spirit-enabled words, that books such as Matthew, John, and 1 and 2 Peter were written.
The “extra-biblical authority” Holy Spirit, doesnt change the words of Scripture in any way; he doesnt supernaturally make them become the words of God (they always have been). He does, however, change the reader of Scripture. The Holy Spirit makes readers realize the Bible is unlike any book they have ever read. Through reading, they believe that the words of Scripture are the very words of God himself versus the extra biblical writings and traditions. It is as Jesus said in John 10:27: My sheep hear my voice and they follow me.
The New Testament canon of the Catholic Bible and the Protestant Bible are the same with 27 Books.
The difference in the Old Testaments actually goes back to the time before and during Christs life. At this time, there was no official Jewish canon of scripture.
The Jews in Egypt translated their choices of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek in the second century before Christ. This translation of 46 books, called the Septuagint, had wide use in the Roman world because most Jews lived far from Palestine in Greek cities. Many of these Jews spoke only Greek.
The early Christian Church was born into this world. The Church, with its bilingual Jews and more and more Greek-speaking Gentiles, used the books of the Septuagint as its Bible. Remember the early Christians were just writing the documents what would become the New Testament.
After the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, with increasing persecution from the Romans and competition from the fledgling Christian Church, the Jewish leaders came together and declared its official canon of Scripture, eliminating seven books from the Septuagint.
The books removed were Tobit, Judith, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, Wisdom (of Solomon), Sirach, and Baruch. Parts of existing books were also removed including Psalm 151 (from Psalms), parts of the Book of Esther, Susanna (from Daniel as chapter 13), and Bel and the Dragon (from Daniel as chapter 14).
The Christian Church did not follow suit but kept all the books in the Septuagint. 46 27 = 73 Books total.
1500 years later, Protestants decided to keep the Catholic New Testament but change its Old Testament from the Catholic canon to the Jewish canon.
The books that were removed supported such things as
- Prayers for the dead (Tobit 12:12; 2 Maccabees 12:39-45)
- Purgatory (Wisdom 3:1-7)
- Intercession of saints in heaven (2 Maccabees 15:14)
- Intercession of angels (Tobit 12:12-15)
The books they dropped are sometimes called the Apocrypha.
Here is a Catholic Bible website: http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/
The author does not argue that the 66 books are not inspired. They are. But the Protestant Canon is truncated to avoid scriptural contradictions of Protestantism, which illustrates the point that an extrascriptural authority is required to even form the canon, let alone interpret the content.
... then what? The proper Old Testament canon will emerge? Illogic becomes logic? Scripture will self-authenticate?
In isolation from the Old Testament the "sola scriptura" superstition looks even worse, since Jesus, unlike Moses, did not write or instruct the Apostles to write the New Testament, while He did found His Church with them. and gave her the teaching authority and the juruducal authority.
Where is that written?
“Where is that written?
Matthew 4:4, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.
the sacred writings ... are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus (2 Tim. 3:15).
John 17:17, “Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.”
2 Timothy 3:16-17, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.”
Yes, I understood his argument.
Thank you for the information on the Canon of Scripture upon which Catholics and Protestants alike agree...specifically the books of the New Testament in which the Gospel of Jesus Christ is most clearly enunciated by the Holy Spirit inspired Words written by human instruments.
Do Catholics agree these New Teatament books in the agreed upon Canon of NT books are infallible, without error?
We agree that the scripture (at least the books we all consider canonical) is necessary for salvation, is truth and can ve a vehicle of sanctifying grace, and is “profitable” for the clergy to round off their education.
Where is it written that “all things necessary to become a Christian, live as a Christian, and grow as a Christian are clearly presented in the Bible”? Where, for example, is it written that the Bible contains one book but not another? Re-read the article, please - you can do better than that.
Yes. Of course.
Wow. In one fell swoop, the entire New Testament - and especially The Book of the Revelation of Jesus Christ - is removed from the Catholic Canon, no matter which member of the Trinity was involved in it's writing...
...and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work...
1 Timothy 3:15-17
"Write in a book what you see, and send it to the seven churches: to Ephesus and to Smyrna and to Pergamum and to Thyatira and to Sardis and to Philadelphia and to Laodicea..."
- Revelation 1:11
I read the article and many others just like it. The early church that had the original documents “heard” the Holy Spirit in the writings and were convinced as to their authenticity. Through reading, they believed that the Scriptures they had were the very words of God himself and they were able to distinguish the authentic from the spurious. It is as Jesus said in John 10:27: My sheep hear my voice and they follow me. The fixing of the “canon” some two to three hundred years later did not authenticate the books of the bible, but merely cataloged them.
The problem you have is explained by the author of the article very well. The Holy Scripture does not contain a commandment of Christ to write the gospels, for example.
If Catholics and Protestants agree that the books of the New Testament are canonical and that they are inspired by the Holy Spirit, and as such are infallible......then we must be able to agree on much.
Such as the fact that Jesus Christ himself endorsed much of the canonical books of the Old Testament by quoting from them (therefore giving them authenticity).
He quoted from Job, from Jonah, from Psalms, from Daniel, from the Torah, and from many other books of the old Testament canon as viewed by Protestants.
As did the writers of the Gospels and the book of Acts and the letters and the Revelation....hundreds of references in the INFALLIBLE New Testament to the canonical books of the Old Testament. There was no need to say: The book of Isaiah is a legitimate canonical book of the Old Testament. By quoting that book, the Holy Spirit (author of the New Testament books upon which we agree are canonical and infallible)....gave those books their AUTHENTICATION ENDORSEMENT BY GOD HIMSELF.
To write all of the passages of the New Testament Scriptures which quote from the Old Testament canonical books would take way too much space since there are HUNDREDS of such references.
How can anyone say the Canon of Old Testament Scripture as endorsed by the Protestant Church has no logical support for its Canon?
That is, simply, an utterly untrue statement.
Ah, thanks. This is a Catholic statement, unlike that Calvin's self-authentication nonsense. This, of course, also validates the Deuterocanon.