Background and Disclaimer
Catholic blogger Eamonn Clark wrote that I was “intellectually lazy”, because I didn’t address his arguments made in response to my defense of sola sriptura. Although his criticism of my laziness is valid in general, it is invalid, not to mention uncharitable, in this particular case. I would be more than happy to engage further, as long and hard as necessary, if I believed that this type of discussion would be beneficial, but my experience has shown that it is usually an exercises in futility, and time would be better spent elsewhere. Nevertheless, as Clark was kind enough to make a point-by-point response to my original blogpost, and subsequently narrowed his critique to one main argument, thus making it easier to focus the discussion, I feel obligated to respond in kind, and hold up my end.
Before I proceed further, I’d like to make clear that my comments here regarding the Church should be taken within a very narrow context, viz. I’m responding to one specific argument for the authority of the Church over/against the authority of the Scripture, and explaining why the latter should take precedence. It’s not my intention to attack the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox Church, which I know very little about. I have no official affiliation with any churches or denominations. So the views expressed here are merely the musings of an armchair theologian, and do not represent any official position.
The Question of Canon
Clark made an objection to sola scriptura, which is commonly raised by Roman Catholics, as I found out just recently. It goes like this, if I understand correctly: a) the Scripture started out as individual books written by different authors centuries apart, b) there is no way of knowing which books belong in the Scripture c) unless there is an authority outside the Scripture that can infallibly determine what constitutes Scripture, d) ergo the infallible authority of the Catholic Church.
For starters, regarding (d), even if we grant that an authority outside the Scripture is necessary to determine what constitutes Scripture, it doesn’t follow that the magisterium of the Catholic Church is such an authority. I get the impression, rightly or wrongly, that Roman Catholics are attacking sola scriptura as if it were a zero-sum game, and they would establish the authority of the Church simply by knocking down the authority of the Scripture. But that is far, far from the case. From the epistemic perspective, the same questions would remain: How do we know that (the magisterium of) the Church is infallible? What constitutes the magisterium and who decides that infallibly?[1] Does it speak with one voice or many? How do we know that the teachings of the magisterium are interpreted correctly? The list goes on.
Second, regarding (c) the canon. If we define canon as a definitive collection of books that are recognized by believers as Scripture, then what constitutes the canon changes over time, at least from a historical perspective. For example, in the Gospels, Jesus constantly refers to (what we now call) Old Testament books, namely, the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms (Luke 24:44-45), which the Gospel authors designate collectively as “the Scriptures” , or simply “the Scripture”, emphasizing its unity. The canon then did not include the New Testament books which were written later. By the fourth century, the majority of the 27 books of the New Testament have been recognized as Scripture, as evidenced by extant New Testament manuscripts and the writings of the Church Fathers. There is no evidence that such recognition resulted from a Church Council.[2] It is likely that the canon emerged organically through a grass-roots networking process, independent of any central authority.[3]
Third, a few more words regarding the self-authentication of the Scripture (b). Jesus says, “It is written in the Prophets, ‘And they will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me” (John 6:45). And “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.” (John 10:27) It is interesting that, with the advance of technology, voice recognition software can uniquely identify the speaker from a voice recording, as the voice of each person has a unique digital signature. If I may use another analogy, the Scriptures bear the seal of the Lord, just as signet rings are used by ancient kings to authenticate their royal decrees. All believers, without exception, have been and will continue to be taught by the Lord, and have the right and obligation to hear His voice and follow Him.
Lastly, if we define the Canon as a complete collection of books inspired by God for the salvation of His people, then the Canon is fixed from the foundation of the world. But, one might ask, is what we have today the whole Canon? It is possible that some inspired books have become extinct, e.g., Paul’s letter to Laodicea (Colossians 4:16), just as some species God created has become extinct through the long lapse of time, and just as His prophets died after they had served the purpose of God in their own generations. We can only answer (in faith) that God has preserved the canon through history to accomplish His purpose, so that the canon we have is sufficient and necessary for salvation, and the lost books, if any, do not subtract from the integrity of the canon, nor their inclusion make the canon redundant in any part.
Notes:
- ^1. In his treatises on government, Locke made a similar argument against the divine right of kings, i.e., it is impossible for the people to know who has been chosen by God as supreme ruler over the people
- ^2. Kruger, Michael J. The Question of Canon: Challenging the Status Quo in the New Testament Debate.. InterVarsity Press, 2013.
- ^3. See my posts on the Formation of the New Testament Canon (here and here)
Related Posts:
One comment