I am looking on page 23 of my Bible and it has the list of books. The books all together number 66—39 in the Old Testament and 27 in the New Testament. This is often referred to as the “canon” of Scripture. “Canon” (Gk. kanon) means “rule” or “measuring rod.” The canon of Scripture is the collection or a “rule” of books that Christians believe belong in the Bible. There are some variations among Christian traditions concerning the number of books. The Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox churches all use different canons (as well, some eastern churches will vary still). The Catholic and Orthodox include a group of books in their Bibles referred to as the Deuterocanonical books (“second canon”) or, as Protestants would call it, the “Apocrypha” (although the Orthodox church is not quite as settled upon the status of the Apocrypha).
The question How do you know what books belong in the Bible? is a significant one indeed. The Catholics and Orthodox will normally refer to the establishment of these books as part of the canon by fourth century councils. Catholics would further refer to the teachings of the council of Trent (1545-1563) which dogmatically and infallibly declared the current Catholic canon (including the Apocrypha) as being authoritative.
I believe that the 66 books of the Protestant canon belong in the Bible, no more no less. I believe that all 66 books are inspired, inerrant, and infallible. Yet the list on page 23 of my Bible is not part of the canon. In other words, the list itself is not part of the inspired word of God. I am using the English Standard Version, but it is the same in any version of any language. The NET Bible does not have an inspired list, even in the footnotes! There is no early Greek or Hebrew manuscript that solves the problem either. Therefore I have a potential difficulty. Since do not believe in an infallible human authority that can determine what books belong in the Bible, how can I be certain what books belong in the Bible?
It was R.C. Sproul who first made the claim that Protestants have a fallible canon of infallible books. A fallible canon of infallible books? What good is that? Catholics often jest about the seemingly ironic situation in which advocates of sola Scriptura find themselves. The doctrine of sola Scripture was one of the two primary battle cries of the Reformation in the sixteenth century. Essentially it means that the Scripture is the ultimate and only infallible authority for the body of Christ in matters of Christian faith and practice. Professing this doctrine does not mean that there are no other authorities, but that there are no other ultimate and infallible authorities. Catholics on the other hand will claim that they, due to their belief in a living infallible authority, have an infallible collection of infallible books.
Not only this, but what about interpretation? Not only do Protestants not believe in an infallible authority to dogmatize which books belong in the Bible, but they don’t believe in an infallible authority to interpret the Bible. Therefore, we can take this to the next level. Protestants have a fallible interpretation of an fallible canon of infallible books. Ouch! Sounds like it is time to convert to Catholicism, eh?
Not so fast. In the end, this is an issue of epistemology. Epistemology deals with the question “How do you know?” How do we know the canon is correct? How do we know we have the right interpretation? Assumed within these questions is the idea of certainty. How do you know with certainty? Not only this, but how do you know with absolute certainty?
The question that I would ask is this: Do we need absolute infallible certainty about something to 1) be justified in our belief about that something, 2) to be held responsible for a belief in that something. I would answer “no” for two primary reasons:
1. This supposed need for absolute certainty is primarily the product of the enlightenment and a Cartesian epistemology. To say that we have to be infallibly certain about something before it can be believed and acted upon is setting the standard so high that only God Himself could attain to it. Outside of mathematics and analytical statements (e.g. a triangle had three sides), there is no absolute certainty, only relative certainty. This does not, however, give anyone an excuse or alleviate responsibility for belief in something.
For example, I believe that the sun is going to rise tomorrow. I prepare each day with this belief in mind. Each night, I set my alarm clock and review my appointments for the following day, having a certain expectation that the next day will truly come. While I have certainty about the sun rising the next day, I don’t have infallible certainty that it will. There could be some astronomical anomaly that causes the earth to stop its rotation. There could be an asteroid that comes and destroys the earth. Christ could come in the middle of the night. In short, I don’t have absolute infallible certainty about the coming of the next day. This, however, does not give me an excuse before men or God for not believing that it will come. What if I missed an early appointment the next day and told the person “I am sorry, I did not set my alarm clock because I did not have infallible certainty that this day would come.” Would that be a valid excuse? It would neither be a valid excuse to the person who I was supposed to meet or to God.
We have a term that we use for people who require infallible certainty about everything: “mentally ill.” Remember What About Bob? He was mentally ill because he made decisions based on the improbability factor. Because it was a possibility that something bad could happen to him if he stepped outside his house, he assumed it would happen. There are degrees of probability. We act according to degrees of probability. Simply because it is a possibility that the sun will not rise tomorrow does not mean that it is a probability that it won’t.
The same can be said about the canon and interpretation of Scripture. Just because there is a possibility that we are wrong (being fallible), does not mean that it is a probability. Therefore, we look to the evidence for the degree of probability concerning Scripture.
2. The smoke screen of epistemological certainty that seems to be provided by having a living infallible authority (Magisterium) disappears when we realize that we all start with fallibility. No one would claim personal infallibility. Therefore it is possible for all of us to be wrong. We all have to start with personal fallible engagement in any issue. Therefore, any belief in an infallible living authority could be wrong. As Geisler and MacKenzie put it, “The supposed need for an infallible magisterium is an epistemically insufficient basis for rising above the level of probable knowledge. Catholic scholars admit, as they must, that they do not have infallible evidence that there is an infallible teaching magisterium. They have merely what even they believe to be only probable arguments. But if this is the case, then epistemically or apologetically there is no more than a probable basis for Catholics to believe that a supposedly infallible pronouncement [either about the canon or interpretation of the canon] of their church is true” (Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences, p. 216).
This means that we are all floating the same river, just different boats. Catholics have a fallible belief about an infallible authority; Protestants have a fallible belief about an infallible authority. Both authorities must be substantiated by the evidence and both authorities must be interpreted by fallible people.
This is the question that I have: In the end, what is the difference?
Do we have a fallible collection of infallible books? Yes, I believe we do. When all is said and done, all of our beliefs are fallible and therefore subject to error. I am comfortable with this. But remember, the possibility of error does not necessitate the probability of error. We have to appeal to the evidence to decide.
191 replies to "Why I Believe the Canon is Fallible . . . And am Fine with It!"
If there was some authoritative source for finding out the canon in Protestant thought, then we might give credence to Michael’s thoughts about the fallible nature of our perception of that source.
However, since its highly questionable if Protestantism even has such an identifiable and documentable source, I don’t see how it is comparable.
Perry’s knowledge of the Church’s canon might be fallible, but at least he has a source to look to. Whether Michael has any source is highly questionable.
John, you mean whether Protestants have any source? Either way, the source is the evidence, which is not the subject of this post. But I appreciate your understanding of the direction of this post with regard to our common plight—fallible beliefs. But this, does not need cause us de facto discouragement as everything in life and all our beliefs are fallible. The possibility of error does not necessarily lead to the probability of error.
This post is meant to answer a common objection that primarily comes from Catholics that since we have a fallible canon, our faith is in jeapordy. I have demonstrated that this is not the case at all since no matter what position you take, it is fallible. A humble task, but I don’t think that there is any way around it and its implications.
C. Michael Patton, saying that you believe in a fallible canon and then that your belief in the canon is fallible are not the same thing.
David, I figured the post and the fact that I have a particular (Protestant) canon, assumed these things. If not, this is what I meant.
“the source is the evidence”
What evidence? To have evidence, you would have to have an objective documentable basis for application of evidence. Since the scripture doesn’t document an objective basis for knowing what is scripture, all you have evidence for is non-theological facts, like who possibly wrote a book, and so forth, and even then the evidence in that respect is fairly scant. But evidence for what books are inspired is non-existent, because the basis for such application is non-existent outside the authority of the church. But if you start appealing to evidence from authority, that such and such a church fathers thought something is scripture, then you’ve wandered into our turf of the authority of the church.
That may be, but the two ideas are not the same. One should be prepared to argue for a conflation when one commits said conflation. Do you really think belief in a fallible canon is the same a fallible belief in an infallible canon?
David, from the standpoint of a Catholic apologetic against the Protestant idea of canon, yes, it parallels perfectly. (The same could be said for the KJV Only camp and the insistance on an infallible translation).
John, I have said it a few times on this post that this post is not about the evidence, but about the prolegomena of the canon issue. If you want to get into the evidence for all positions, then the only thing I can do is point you to where I have taught on this in my Bibliology and Hermeneutics class. You would have to watch session 1-4 to get an understanding.
http://www.reclaimingthemind.org is the place to go. Click on The Theology Program and then courses.
I don’t have to get into the evidence to point out that there is no evidence concerning the issue of inspiration. There is evidence about who might have written stuff, and there is evidence about the opinion of church figures about what is scripture, but there is no criteria outside the opinion of the church about what is inspired.
The one exception might be 2 Peter calling Paul’s writings scripture, but since that is the most disputed book in the canon, you can’t really use that as the foundation for proving the inspiration of the least disputed books.
And this is all on-topic here, because we have fallible knowledge about an infallible authority, whereas you have fallible knowledge about mere historical, and non-theological factoids about who wrote what book, since your hermeneutic lacks an infallible source for fallibly knowing the canon. You have fallible knowledge of history and secular knowledge. We have fallible knowledge of a revelation of the canon to the church. You are one more level removed.
John, please calm down and respect what I have said. My point has been made. If you disagree, it is your right. And if a have said the topic of this post is not about the evidence I, the author, have that insight! I don’t need any evidence for that…I am the source!!
No more going that direction or your comments will be deleted.
I don’t know what you mean about not respecting you about this thread not being about the evidence. I haven’t brought up any evidence, I haven’t challenged you to bring up evidence. I’ve just mentioned the meta-issue that for you, the canon is not an object of revelation, whereas for us it is.
CMP,
I read the previous post you alluded to; let’s see if I can hit the mark here. You accept a fallible canon; which you and I would agree upon. Great. Where do we go from here?
The Protestant mind MUST, MUST, MUST close the canon first so the mind can then extract from a finite source what must be believed to save their personal derrierre. Agreed? It’s fundamental to spiritual survival. Even if you KNEW and were CERTAIN you had the correct canon, you know your mind is fallen and rendered incapable of deriving correct doctrine from those books. Will you do “OK”? Maybe, maybe not. The chances are less than deriving which books are infallible. Frankly, I think the idea that an individual examines each book objectivelyand then and only then, decides to include it in their canon is less than absurd, it is delusional. Who has EVER examined each book and made up their own mind on each and every single one? By what criteria did they accept 3rd John? Give me a break; they accepted it as a whole, they just don’t have the courage to be honest. They picked it from the bookstore, listened to some preacher who told them which books to accept, and drank the kool-aid.
If finding an infallible list is improbable; how much less is finding the proper interpretive schema amongst the thousands, if not millions, of schemas the millions of minds can create to digest that list of books into something that is the correct interpretation of those very same books? The odds are infinitesmal. As you can already tell from the vitriol of the Protestant reaction to your postings; their minds have already raced to the inescapable conclusion that an unclosed canon is intellectual and spiritual doomsday. If you apply the EXACT same criteria you have to the canon to the more important issue of interpretation, then you’ll understand Perry’s question.
CMP,
You write that the correct canon is not infallible, but again, I am not sure how we get form a fallible belief about the canon to the canon itself being revisable. This would only be so if the canon were the product of a fallible process and judgment, but to assume so is just to beg a whole lot of questions.
To say that all of my beliefs are fallible is somewhat misleading. Suppose there are analytic truths and that a triangle has three sides is one of them. Is that a fallible belief? If it is a priori true then it doesn’t seem so or does it? Is the belief that all beliefs are fallible, fallible or no?
Thirdly, your position is that the canon itself is a fallible thing since it is the product of a fallible church, but that presupposes a certain understanding of the church. My position is that I have a fallible belief about an object. I could be wrong, or I could be right but fail in my justification or whatever the fourth condition on knowledge turns out to be. There is more than one way to fail with respect to knowledge. In any case, my belief about the canon may be fallible, but the canon itself can still be infallible. Your position is that formally, this is in principle not so or possible since the canon formally speaking is a human and fallible product. But to reason from the mode in which I hold a belief to the nature of the object itself is specious. Just because I hold a belief about something in a fallible way doesn’t transfer to the object such that it might be otherwise per se.
Suppose Jesus gave us a list of books. My belief about that list is fallible, but the list isn’t.
The problem that seems untouched by your post is the in principle revisionary status of a belief system that entails an absolute commitment. I can’t see anything written in your post or remarks that touches the seemingly problematic nature of a revisable canon.
Perry, I agree. But that is like saying the truth is really the truth! The problem is not an ontological one concerning the canon (is there one and is it correct—that is a different story that gets into way too much postmodern thought than I am ready to touch), but an epistemic one, i.e. can we have a infallible belief about the canon? The answer is no. No one is infallible, therefore all of our belief are, by definition, fallible. Therefore, the Catholic argument concerning the Protestant belief in a fallible canon loses all its force when perspective is gained.
However, I don’t want this to go in the wrong direction. I believe, precisely because of the testimony of the historic Christian church, that we can have a great degree of certianty about the canon, albeit fallible.
I really feel as if I am going in circles here, but I hope it has helped. Either way, I can’t continue to engage in this post (it is a very old post, relatively speaking!)
CMP, I am a bit perplexed. How do we get from a fallible belief to belief in a fallible source? How does a claim for one amount to a claim for the other?
David, I doubt that anyone would claim that the source for the canon (God) is fallible.
CMP, OK: so if God is the source for the canon and is infallible, then is the canon infallible or fallible? It doesn’t seem to leave much wiggle room, does it?
David, God is infallible and he is the source of a lot of things, like reason, rationality, and people. This does not make the expression from each of these infallible does it? In other words, the canon as God knows it is perfect and infallible. But as we, fallible people, attempt to access these things, they will, by definition, be fallible. This does not make them wrong or up in the air any more than my fallible statement that I am wearing shoes right now is wrong (I am wearing shoes). However, I cannot make an infallible statement about such since I don’t possess the impossibility not to fail (which is what infalliblility is). Therefore, I rely on the basic reliability of sense perception and make a fallible judgment that is correct. Not infallible, but correct. The same thing is true about the canon. I don’t need an infallible canon to have have assurance that the canon we have is correct.
David,
When did God reveal the canon? And by what means did He do so?
Don, I do not understand the question of ‘when.’ The canon was codified by the Church and in my opinion is on a level with doctrinal statements such as the Trinity, the Incarnation, and the Theotokos.
Really? When? The best case any Orthodox person could make is the 6th Council, which accepted multitudes of canons without much discussion, but how binding are some of those lesser canons where most have never been enforced?. For the East, it never was a big issue, and it still isn’t.
I thought you were a Prot, my bad. They ultimately appeal to their feelings without an external source, and quite vaguely. The words may be different than the Mormons, but in kind Protestants sound just like Mormons that appeal to a burning in their bosom to validate the canon. Both usually react with anger when questioned on the subject. Lutherans aren’t so bad on the subject; confessionally they basically have an open canon.
Protestant theology begins and ends with soteriology, and that done solely from a judicial point-of-view. Say Trinity, they merely say mystery. Say incarnation, you get a milk-toast reply of God-man that means what they want it to. Say Theotokos, and venom spews forth. The last one is the one that exposes their weak Christology. In this last one, we see Perry’s true point; that their interpretations are varied so as to create anarchy, and all of them tend toward if not fully embrace heresy.
Don Bradley, no I am Orthodox, Antiochian jurisdiction.
Say Theotokos, and venom spews forth.
No, the venom doesn’t spew forth. Mostly they go, “The Theo-wha…?” 😕
I never did understand why Greek Catholics and other Orthodox refer to Mary as the Theotokos, but refer to their Old Testament as the Septuagint (aka LXX) instead of as the Evthomikonda (Εβδομηκοντα aka Ο’) (Modern Greek pronunciation). 🙂
Also, unlike Trent for the RCC, I’m not sure the EOC has ever officially or conciliarly codified or declared the canon.
Protestant theology begins and ends with soteriology, and that done solely from a judicial point-of-view.
Is that true for the Wesleyan/Holiness/Sanctification tradition in Protestantism?
EricW-
“Is that true for the Wesleyan/Holiness/Sanctification tradition in Protestantism?”
No. In fact, there are many common traits between EO and Wesleyan/Holiness beliefs.
Here is a link from Duke Divin. School that deals with that issue, and I understand that places such as St. Vlad’s Seminary is doing more research into that common ground.
http://www.divinity.duke.edu/docs/faculty/maddox/wesley/John_Wesley_Eastern_Orthodoxy.pdf
Rick:
I actually have a book of essays on the overlap between Wesleyan and Eastern Orthodox beliefs:
http://www.amazon.com/Orthodox-Wesleyan-Scriptural-Understanding-Practice/dp/0881413011/ref=pd_sim_b_1
(there is at least one other volume in this series/set edited by Kimbrough)
hence my question – because I felt Don Bradley overly simplified Protestantism in his statement. Protestants aren’t uniform re: views of the atonement, either, and the New Perspective on Paul (NPP) and scholars such as N.T. Wright are influencing what Protestants believe about everything from salvation to justification.
EricW-
You are right, Protestantism is a little more diverse than Don appears to be considering. The influences on various denominations and schools of thought are not as uniform as some believe.
Thanks for the heads-up on the book. I will put that on my list!
Thank you!! This is awesome.
This is the post/essay I’ve been looking for for a long time.
CMP,
Sorry I don’t follow that line of reasoning either. Yes we are fallible but because we are, do we have to automatically assume the canon is because we doubt it? It just follows to me, that we if we make that assumption, based on what we think, rather than what scripture says, then we would have to make the story of Christ fallible. How is that different?
CMP,
I asked a very similar question way back at the start of this thread to the one just brought up by mbaker. I missed it if you replied to it. You argue that we are fallible people with all of our beliefs subject to error. If that is the case, how can we know that our Bible is made up of infallible books? How do we know that belief is not in error? It was after all written down by fallible people, was it not? Does this idea not in fact leave us open to the very real possibility that our Bible contains Scripture–the inspired word of God–but that not all of it is Scripture? That idea has been argued by some here on another thread. And how then would we know which parts are which?
And most importantly, how do we then know that the redemption story as given us in our Bible is indeed infallible and that we are not basing our eternal destinies on something that is totally incorrect?
Now I certainly realize that we are convinced of the realities of God an salvation by the Holy Spirit, but those realities are based on what is told us in His Word. It is our final statement of truth. Otherwise we are no different then any other religious group. Say the Mormons for instance.
CMP,
I ran out of time in my editing and adding to my last comment.
I guess what I am trying to say is that that we as Christians have always claimed to have the Bible as our final objective authority and any experience we have or what we believe to be the Spirit’s conviction will always and must always line up with that Word. If we can’t say for certain that Word is infallible, where does that leave us? And I honestly do not see any way that we can say that if we follow your line of reasoning to it’s logical conclusion.
Am I missing something here?
I think that you are still equating fallibility with “there is a good chance we are wrong.” This is not the case at all. Refer to the sun illustration. My beliefs about the sun raising are fallible. There is a possibility that the sun will not raise. But a possibility does not equal a probability.
Therefore, for Catholics to say that we have a fallible canon of infallible books is empty in its intentions. All our beliefs are fallible.
Not only this, but we have a fallible interpretation about a fallible canon of infallible books!
But fallibility is unavoidable.
Even Catholics, who believe that the Magisterium is infallible, have a fallible believe in the Magisterium.
My point is that no one escape the possibility that their beliefs may be in error. No one.
I’m with mbaker and cherylu.
I don’t follow the significance of this at all. So we might be wrong. That’s true of almost all our beliefs (excluding math, etc.), and though true it is also trite. Moreover, it would also be true of a belief about inerrancy.
The proper question is not whether our belief is fallible, but whether it is warranted.
Regards,
#John
Compare:
“2. The smoke screen of epistemological certainty that seems to be provided by having a living infallible authority (Magisterium) disappears when we realize that we all start with fallibility.”
and:
“The smoke screen of epistemological certainty that seems to be provided by having an inerrant Bible disappears when we realize that we all start with fallibility.”
No significant difference. If the question we ask is whether our belief could be in error, we get nowhere. How do I know my beliefs are correct and true if I could be wrong about the Bible being inerrant? How do I know my beliefs are correct and true if I could be wrong about which books actually constitute God’s Word? How can I be secure in my relationship with my wife if I could be wrong about her love for me? (and I know more than one person who was told after many years, “I never really loved you from the get go”)
The issue is not error, nor the possibility of error, but warrant. That is, despite the possibility of error are my beliefs warranted?
Regards,
#John
John,
“The proper question is not whether our belief is fallible, but whether it is warranted.”
Exactly. This is the entire point of the post. I think that you would have to have been in one of these discussions with a Catholic to realize the point.
John,
“”2. The smoke screen of epistemological certainty that seems to be provided by having a living infallible authority (Magisterium) disappears when we realize that we all start with fallibility.”
and:
“The smoke screen of epistemological certainty that seems to be provided by having an inerrant Bible disappears when we realize that we all start with fallibility.”
No significant difference. If the question we ask is whether our belief could be in error, we get nowhere. How do I know my beliefs are correct and true if I could be wrong about the Bible being inerrant? How do I know my beliefs are correct and true if I could be wrong about which books actually constitute God’s Word? How can I be secure in my relationship with my wife if I could be wrong about her love for me? (and I know more than one person who was told after many years, “I never really loved you from the get go”)
The issue is not error, nor the possibility of error, but warrant. That is, despite the possibility of error are my beliefs warranted?
Regards,
#John”
Again, you are kind of understanding but lacking to see the significance. The Bible, people would believe, is inerrant due to its nature, not for pragmatic reasons of necessity.
No matter how many middle men one puts into the equation, we all have to interpret and this produces a fallible faith. Catholics have to interpret the Pope and the catechism and we have to interpret the Bible. We just take out the middleman.
Pragmatically, neither is necessarily better. It is just a matter of justification. But Catholics argue that they must have an infallible authority to personally possess infallible beliefs. My point is that it does not help with regard to this goal, therefore, it is not a good argument.
It is really pretty cut and dry. Not much to argue about here, especially from a Protestant perspective. It is classical Protestantism.
I, and apparently Cherylu, still have a problem with the lack of attention paid to the Holy Spirit in this issue. The discussion seems to be just about “reason”, and the focus on individuals.
My concern in #5 still stands.
@Rick
I know you & I expressed some thoughts regarding that in this discussion, hope others join in so we can hear some other POV too.
For me the question I have is this:
if the HS did illuminate the church (and I don’t rule out the possibility) regarding the compilation of the NT canon then did He do this only in regards to the NT books? All the early lists that contain the NT (27 books) – Athanasius, Council Hippo/Carthage also contain the OT with the Apocrypha. It would seem that we (Prots) would have to accept that set of books too based on this fact. Or we must be very selective in what decisions the HS supported and which it did not within the same documents.
Then we have to ask: how do we know that the 27 book list is the right list? Maybe the HS was right in guiding the church in producing one of the other (and earlier lists) like the Muratorian Fragment which does not include several books in the NT that we do today.
CMP,
“The Bible, people would believe, is inerrant due to its nature, not for pragmatic reasons of necessity.”
But we are fallible people subject to error and mistakes in our beliefs. So following that line of reasoning, what makes any one at all sure that our belief that the Bible is inerrant due to its nature is not a mistaken fallible belief? How can you state with any certainty that the Bible in infallible under these conditions? After all, you gave the example of the statement that you were wearing shoes–which you insisted you were–as a fallible statement! With this type of logic in place, it doesn’t seem to me that one can know anything with certainty.
And I am sorry, but when it comes to things of eternal importance–like my faith in Jesus for my eternal destiny as we are taught in the Bible– the thought that I am a fallible person subject to fallible beliefs and therefore it is possible that I may be wrong about this is something that I don’t find very comforting at all. As a matter of fact, it is something that I find very disturbing.
See what your “deconstructing” is doing to us?!? (Don’t know how to use the smiley face, or I would put one here.)
“The Bible, people would believe, is inerrant due to its nature, not for pragmatic reasons of necessity. ”
compare
“The canon of the Bible, people would believe, is infallible due to its nature, not for pragmatic reasons of necessity.”
No difference.
cherylu got my point, or perhaps I got hers: if we can be be wrong about infallibility, we can be wrong about inerrancy. If we can be wrong about those things, we can be wrong about doctrine regarding our salvation. It all unravels if the only relevant aspect is the possibility of error.
Hence, its not the possibility of error, but the warrant that is important. If it’s warrant that is important, then we can have a warranted belief that we have an infallible canon.
If one goes, the other goes; if one stays, the other stays, too (inerrant text, infallible canon).
Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
An fallible canon is not basic or historical Protestantism, but an American reaction to issues of inerrancy.
regards,
#John
Cheryl,
At times like this, a saying comes to mind: “Just because it’s conceivable that I could be wrong, it doesn’t mean that it’s reasonable to think that I am.”
It’s conceivable that we’re living in the Matrix, or we’re the dream of a butterfly. It’s conceivable that Vitamin C is a poison, and arsenic is necessary for life—and someone has been been tricking me through manipulating my senses, as part of a conspiracy to get me to eat a poisonous, poisonous orange!
But… Well, it’s not very reasonable to worry about it.
Jugulum,
I agree that it is not very reasonable to worry about such things as you have mentioned.
But let me get even blunter and quite personal here for a moment. I am not particularly young any more (just had my 60th birthday). I have been having a series of health issues this winter that I still don’t know for sure what the final diagnosis will be. In other words, I have been having to realize that not only due to my age, but also because of medical conditions, I am staring my own mortality squarely in the face.
When in such circumstances, the last thing I need or want to know is that there is a possibility that I have been wrong about everything I have believed (although it isn’t probable) about my faith in God. When staring your own mortality in the face, you need to KNOW beyond the shadow of doubt that what the Bible teaches and you have based your faith on are correct. Probabilities don’t quite seem to cut it at such times.
CMP,
The example of the sun coming up is based upon things we can see happen with unchanging regularity. Faith is the evidence of the unseen.
So on what we do we base this faith, if not upon the infallibility of Christ’s life, death and resurrection, the story of which is both prophesied and fulfilled in the word of God? Should we start qualifying the Christian belief to others by telling them that the Bible is based upon a collection of books we are told were inspired by the HS, yet those who decided to put the books together in one place were not similarly inspired on some level?
It just doesn’t sound like God to do a halfway job, and then quit. Perhaps a post on how the canonizers themselves went about deciding the books which were inspired and those which were not, and the criteria they used would answer the questions several of us have seem to have here.
Thanks.
The Formation of the Canon of the New Testament
By B.B. Warfield
Pub. 1892, by the American Sunday School Union, Philadelphia, Pa.
IN ORDER to obtain a correct understanding of what is called the formation of the Canon of the New Testament, it is necessary to begin by fixing very firmly in our minds one fact which is obvious enough when attention is once called to it. That is, that the Christian church did not require to form for itself the idea of a “canon,” – or, as we should more commonly call it, of a “Bible,” -that is, of a collection of books given of God to be the authoritative rule of faith and practice. . . . The church did not grow up by natural law: it was founded. And the authoritative teachers sent forth by Christ to found His church, carried with them, as their most precious possession, a body of divine Scriptures, which they imposed on the church that they founded as its code of law. . . .
What needs emphasis at present about these facts is that they obviously are not evidences of a gradually-heightening estimate of the New Testament books, originally received on a lower level and just beginning to be tentatively accounted Scripture; they are conclusive evidences rather of the estimation of the New Testament books from the very beginning as Scripture, and of their attachment as Scripture to the other Scriptures already in hand. The early Christians did not, then, first form a rival “canon” of “new books” which came only gradually to be accounted as of equal divinity and authority with the “old books”; they received new book after new book from the apostolical circle, as equally “Scripture” with the old books, and added them one by one to the collection of old books as additional Scriptures, until at length the new books thus added were numerous enough to be looked upon as another section of the Scriptures. . . .
Let it, however, be clearly understood that it was not exactly apostolic authorship which in the estimation of the earliest churches, constituted a book a portion of the “canon.” . . . [from the beginning] [t]he principle of canonicity was not apostolic authorship, but imposition by the apostles as “law.” . . . That the apostles so imposed the Old Testament on the churches which they founded – as their “Instrument,” or “Law,” or “Canon” – can be denied by none. . . . The authority of the apostles, as by divine appointment founders of the church was embodied in whatever books they imposed on the church as law not merely in those they themselves had written.
The early churches, in short, received, as we receive, into the New Testament all the books historically evinced to them as give by the apostles to the churches as their code of law; and we must not mistake the historical evidences of the slow circulation an authentication of these books over the widely-extended church, evidence of slowness of “canonization” of books by the authority or the taste of the church itself.
#John,
Thanks. If what Warfield says is correct, it sounds quite authoritative to me. Actually, that is the basic idea I have always been taught about the formation of the canon.
MikeB #138-
I would go along more with the “Vincentian Canon” (”everywhere, always, all”) on the issue, but you ask a good question.
However, the role of the Holy Spirit in the matter has not even been much of a topic.
As MBaker said in #143-
“It just doesn’t sound like God to do a halfway job, and then quit.”
Hebrews 11:1 “Now faith is the assurance of {things} hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.”
In protestant circles with our great, and I believe correct, emphasis on Sola Scriptura, it seems to me to be quite difficult, if not even impossible to have the faith spoken of in Heb 11:1 if we are to contend that we have a fallible canon.
Perhaps a post on how the canonizers themselves went about deciding the books which were inspired and those which were not, and the criteria they used would answer the questions several of us have seem to have here.
The problem with this, I believe, is that there is a certain amount of conjecture involved in statements about this subject. I.e., we don’t have documents from that time that tell us in enough detail how the canonizers, whether of the OT or the NT, went about doing this. We have some of the arguments people made in favor of or against certain books – e.g., Jerome’s arguments/statements for the Hebrew OT text and the Jewish canon vs. Augustine’s arguments for the Greek OT including the Apocrypha (or at least I believe we have what they said about this) – and we have lists like Melito’s and Josephus’ (maybe not a list, but more a numbering) and Athanasius’ and the Muratorian Canon, but how each book was argued for or against and decided upon or decided against is I think information we at present lack. How a book was determined to “defile the hands,” etc., is not explained, is it?
Some of this is forever lost in the murky shadows of tradition.
Please correct me if I’m wrong; I haven’t read books on canon formation for quite some time.
Thanks #John.
“The authority of the apostles, as by divine appointment founders of the church was embodied in whatever books they imposed on the church as law not merely in those they themselves had written.”
I think this puts the onus on those who think that the original canonizers were a bunch of politically/denominationally oriented people instead, who included or excluded books which were or were not a refection of their own beliefs.
Doctrinal oversight by the church is certainly important, but as Warfield pointed out it was not the main thrust of the canonizers of original church doctrine. Context and a solid hermeneutic is invaluable in correctly interpreting the Bible, however a correct interpretation alone does not make something true, any more than an incorrect interpretation makes it untrue.
So for CMP to conclude, on a probability basis, that we have a fallible collection of infallible books, without more specific reasons to back up why, how and where he believes the canonizers themselves erred would seem to me more a rhetorical statement at this point, than proof we have a fallible canon.
http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2010/01/why-i-believe-the-canon-is-fallible-and-am-fine-with-it/comment-page-2/#comment-25044
Quoting Warfield:
What historical and documentary proofs by persons from that time or by persons who accurately learned from persons from that time does Warfield provide to support this (these) statement(s) of his?
And what proof does he offer that the books that he accepts as the 66-book OT canon + 27-book NT canon are the very same and only books he insists the apostles carried with them and imposed on the churches as their code of law?
Just askin’.
I have seen some comments regarding how the canon was “decided”. THe best (only) reference from a historical perspective comes from Augustine – who was alive and active in the canon debate at the time of the councils in N. Africa in the 4th century. I hope this helps us trust that the canon on NT books was based on the churches like Ephesus, Corinth etc having first accepted the letters/books that were written by Paul who actually visited them and performed signs & wonders.
On Christian Doctrine Book II Chapter 8
…Now, in regard to the canonical Scriptures, he must follow the judgment of the greater number of [universal] churches; and among these, of course, a high place must be given to such as have been thought worthy to be the seat of an apostle and to receive epistles. Accordingly, among the canonical Scriptures he will judge according to the following standard: to prefer those that are received by all the catholic churches to those which some do not receive. Among those, again, which are not received by all, he will prefer such as have the sanction of the greater number and those of greater authority, to such as are held by the smaller number and those of less authority. If, however, he shall find that some books are held by the greater number of churches, and others by the churches of greater authority (though this is not a very likely thing to happen), I think that in such a case the authority on the two sides is to be looked upon as equal.