Thursday, December 01, 2005

Back to the canon


"What would be the point of having a fallible list of infallible dogmas?"

But don't Protestants regard the canon as a fallible list of infallible books? How can we rely on such a canon?

# posted by NumbaOne22 : 12/01/2005 11:02 AM


This is a perfectly valid question. By way of answer I’d say the following:

1.I’m answering Dave on his own grounds. Even if “NumbaOne’s” objection against my own position were valid, that does nothing to invalidate my objection to Dave’s position.

So his question, while legit in its one right, is diverting attention from the original burden of proof which Armstrong set for himself. Even if my position were wrong, that wouldn’t make Armstrong's position right

2.Assuming, for the sake of argument, that “NumbaOne’s” objection were sound, it would, at best, reduce the Catholic rule of faith and the Protestant rule of faith to epistemic parity.

But it isn’t enough for Dave to show that Papists and Protestants are in the same boat. He needs to show that Papists are in a leak-proof boat while Protestants are in a leaky boat. He needs to show the superiority of the Catholic rule of faith.

3.As for the basis of the Protestant canon, see my argument below:


  1. Must say I'm overjoyed to see this argument coming back up. This was the one which, when I used it, reduced the attack dogs over at DCF to screaming, crying, and pathetically aggressive insults.

  2. Relavant to this discussion are Steve Hays' critique of Philip Blosser's critique of sola scriptura, "By Scripture Alone," and Blosser's rebuttal, "Sola Scriptura revisited: a reply to Steve Hays (in 95 antitheses)."