Back
How Do We Know What Books Belong in the Bible?
God didn't "list" his canon in the sense that he inspired a 67th book of the Bible called "Canon" that was inspired just like the books of the Bible. Instead, God's canon was an artifact of inspiration--the act of inspiring the books in the Bible created the canon (which is infallible because it is God's canon).
On the other hand we have man's fallible canon. Man's canon is not inspired, so it is not infallible.
I believe what R.C. Sproul and Dr. John Gerstner have said, "The Bible is a fallible collection of infallible books." The canon, because it is not inspired, is fallible, but the Bible itself is infallible.
Do I think Rome got the New Testament right? Yes. I recognize that when Rome wrote down what she thought the Canon was, she was fallible. It was a historical process. Now it's one thing to say the church could have erred with respect to the canon, and another thing to say the church did err. I think Rome got the NT canon correct, but I admit there is room for error in the NT canon--because the canon isn't inspired. I also believe it is correct because I believe God would have reason to give us a correct canon.
Now some may object that they find it scary that we don't have an infallible Canon.
It didn't seem to scare Jesus in Matthew 22:23-32 where Jesus held the Sadducees accountable to the Scriptures. He says "You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God...But about the resurrection of the dead--have you not read what God said to you...".
Jesus quotes Exodus 3:6 and holds the Sadducees accountable to it, who, I might add, did not have an infallible canon. How would the Jew in Jesus' day know the canon infallibly?
The Sadducees didn't say, "Hey no fair, that Scripture isn't binding on us, because we don't infallibly know if Exodus is canonical or not!" Jesus never told them, "Hey, in order for you to follow the teachings in Exodus, I also use my infallible powers to declare Exodus canonical so that you may follow the teachings in it."
It's also no scarier than what the Christian had always had up until 1546, when Rome "infallibly" defined the canon. Until then, there was no way to know the canon "infallibly."
So, I have sufficient knowledge of the canon. Not infallible knowledge of it. And I'm not "scared" because Jesus seemed to think that sufficient knowledge of the canon was all I needed.
But how can you say the Bible is infallible when you don't even know if the books in your Bible are correct?
This is a little like saying "I can't use my computer since I don't know exhaustively how it works."
Look, I don't need to know exhaustively how my computer works in order to claim to say that it works (although as a Computer Engineer I have a pretty good idea what's going on in there).
You may feel that Rome has some "advantage" concerning infallibility--the Church and the Canon are both infallible, in your eyes. Of course you have a problem--how do you know Rome is infallible? How do you know that the Mormons, who claim to have an "infallible magisterium" aren't the true church? On the other hand, how about the Jehovah's Witnesses who also have an "infallible magisterium"--are they the true church? Or maybe you looked at the Seventh-Day Adventists, whose "infallible interpreter" is Ellen G. White? Or perchance you looked into the Way International whose "infallible" founder's interpretation you need before you can understand the Scriptures correctly?
The bottom line is (1) you fallibly decided that there should be an infallible interpreter. (2) you fallibly used private interpretation of the Scriptures and history to conclude that there is an infallible interpreter. (3) you fallibly decided that Rome is that infallible interpreter while rejecting the tens of thousands of other competing authorities.
Now, is your canon infallible? Nope--and neither is mine.
But the Pope is Infallible!
Now herein lies the rub. A Roman Catholic has absolutely no problem accepting that the Pope is infallible when speaking on matters of faith and morals, yet when asked to show how they know this infallibly they respond with silence.
If you say that the Protestant must have an infallible list of books in order to say that the Bible is infallible, you'd better be prepared to provide an infallible list of Popes in order to say that the Pope is infallible.
Last modified about about 1 year ago.
| # Comment from | |||
|
3 months ago. "Firstly, if you cannot know which books are infallible, you cannot know that they are infallible."I agree with that, did I claim otherwise? "You say you think Rome got the NT correct. Why? On what basis do you make that assumption?" I see the criteria Rome tested books with before they considered a book canonical. I see that the Fathers rejected books that were not written by Apostles. I believe they got the New Testament right, however the Church could have erred when it decided what books were canonical. However, I don't believe I (or anyone) can have infallible knowledge of the Canon--as you presuppose. This is not to detract from the authority of the Bible. *It is one thing to say that the church could have erred, but it is another thing altogether to say that the church did err.* "Secondly, no Catholic knows infallibly that the Pope is infallible, rather he accepts, in faith, that as Christ promised that we would be led into all truth, so indeed we are." Setting aside for the moment your liberal interpretation of "all truth," why do you label the Protestant stance on the Canon as fideism, then? Because I at least gave more evidence as to why I believe the Protestant canon is correct. "Finally, concerning the establishing of the Canon, all Trent asserted was the traditional canon (in use by all Christians since the fifth century and effectively settled a century before that) over and against Luther's deletions." 1. Luther didn't delete anything. You need to read less polemical works. 2. The Catholic canon was not even close to settled by 1546. Jerome and the higher scholars in the Catholic Church followed the Protestant canon. Jerome, Cardinal Cajetan, Gregory the Great, and scores of other Catholic scholars did not follow the canon set forth at the earlier councils you are claiming. "The traditional Christian OT canon was the Septuagint, which included the seven books misnamed the Apocrypha." Yes, the Septuagint did include the apocrypha (Catholic Deuterocanonicals), and many books that Catholics don't accept, too. So, if being in the Septuagint automatically makes a book canonical, then Catholics must accept 3 and 4 Maccabees and 3 Esdras. "In 90 A.D, a group of Rabbi's in the Turkish city of Jamnia (modern day Javneh), threw Christians out of the synagogues and declared their canon, the Septuagint, to be inferior in favor of the purely Hebrew scriptures." The Synod of Jamnia theory goes back to Heinrich Graetz in 1871, who proposed that Jamnia led to the closing of the Canon. There is no consensus on this, and it has been completely refuted by J.P. Lewis and S.Z. Leiman. They've concluded: 1. The term "synod" or "council" is inappropriate. Rather, the academy at Jamnia, established by Rabbi Johanan ben Zakkai shortly before the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70, was both a college and a legislative body and the occasion in question was a session of the elders there. 2. *The date of the session may have been as early as AD 75 or as late as AD 117.* 3. *The dicussion was confined to the question whether Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs (or maybe just Ecclesiastes)* make the hands unclean, or are divinely inspired. 4. The decision reached was not considered authoritative, since contrary opinions continued to be expressed throughout the second century. "You claim that the canon is inspired because the Scriptures are inspired, but that is a circular argument." I don't claim that man's canon is inspired, but that God's is inspired. Our canon is not infallible, but I have every reason to believe it is correct. God's canon is a list of the books he's written--it is the by-product of writing the books. Please point out the circularity? Could you answer my questions? * Jesus quotes Exodus 3:6 and holds the Sadducees accountable to it, who, I might add, did not have an infallible canon. How would the Jew in Jesus' day know the canon infallibly? * How would the Christian in 1545 know which books should be read and followed? Did he need an infallible canon? * When you attack private interpretation, you are sawing off the very branch that is holding you up. Could you tell us how you came to decide that Rome was the "true" church *without engaging in the very private judgment that you have already dismissed as illegitimate*? * While you're at it, *without engaging in private judgment and interpretation*, could you demonstrate how you can be certain that you chose the "true" church from among all the other so-called "true" churches that say you cannot rightly understand the Bible and church history without their help, such as the Eastern Orthodox church, the Watctower Society, Mormonism, and every other cult that exists? * You are saying I need an infallible interpreter for the Scriptures otherwise my interpretation is invalid. Well, let's apply this standard to yourself. ;) * Do you have an infallible interpreter to tell you what the Pope's encyclicals mean? Do you have an infallible interpreter to infallibly interpret this other infallible interpreter? * If my lack of an infallible interpreter renders my Bible illegitimate as a rule of faith, then certainly you must admit that since *you* can't infallibly interpret the Pope that *he* is no longer a valid rule of faith for you. |
|||
| # Comment from | |||
|
3 months ago. Firstly, if you cannot know which books are infallible, you cannot know that they are infallible. You say you think Rome got the NT correct. Why? On what basis do you make that assumption? Not on the basis of Scripture because you don't really know what that is. All you know is that you are willing to bet on the accuracy of a Church you claim as corrupt, with no real evidence. At worst its foolish, at best fideism.Secondly, no Catholic knows infallibly that the Pope is infallible, rather he accepts, in faith, that as Christ promised that we would be led into all truth, so indeed we are. The Pope's infallibility is not innate in the man, but is the work of the Holy Spirit. Your God is just too small. Finally, concerning the establishing of the Canon, all Trent asserted was the traditional canon (in use by all Christians since the fifth century and effectively settled a century before that) over and against Luther's deletions. The traditional Christian OT canon was the Septuagint, which included the seven books misnamed the Apocrypha. In 90 A.D, a group of Rabbi's in the Turkish city of Jamnia (modern day Javneh), threw Christians out of the synagogues and declared their canon, the Septuagint, to be inferior in favor of the purely Hebrew scriptures. Note that the so-called Apocryphal books were, for the most part, originally written in Hebrew, but most survived in Greek manuscripts and were purged. The point being, Luther, in rejecting the apocrypha, sided against the early Church in favor of post-messiah Rabbinical Judaism. You claim that the canon is inspired because the Scriptures are inspired, but that is a circular argument. You can only assert the inspiration of Scripture based on Scripture, so you cannot call upon Scripture to establish what Scripture is. There must be something outside the Scriptures to testify as to what is and is not Scripture if you are to use the Scripture as a basis of argumentation. You assert that you can use your computer without knowing how it works, but your analogy fails in that it does not take into account how to use your computer when you don't even know what it is, nor do you have a way of cogently investigating that reality. All that being said, part of the problem is your misuse of the word infallible. Properly speaking, a canon cannot be infallible. It may be accurate or inaccurate, but not infallible. Infallible, meaning that it cannot fail/ does not lead you into error, is outside the scope of a list. A phone book can have every number correct, but unless you know what number you are looking for it is of no use to you. You are right about the canon being inspired, though you have no way to demonstrate how or why. You are incorrect when you claim to have sufficient knowledge of the canon. You yourself have no means to determine one way or the other what the canon should be. Can you sift through the several hundreds of documents considered by the Church Fathers and discern between them? Of course not. All you have is a vague hope founded on shoddy logic and confidence in a best guess by a Church you dislike. You might be better off as a Mormon. |
|||
| # Comment from | |||
|
12 months ago. On "when asked to show how they know this infallibly they respond with silence." How can anyone know anything infallibly? Of course they can't respond, because no one could respond to that.They claim the Pope is infallible because the Bible and history witness to it: http://www.scripturecatholic.com/primacy_o f_peter.html and http://www.catholic.com// library/Peter_and_the_Papacy.asp Church Fathers' quotes may be verified from: http://www.ccel.org/fathers.html http://www.catholic.com/library/fathers_know_bes t.asp |
|||
|
88 |
 Clear, 80 |
| 80 | ||
| 69 |
