In the context of Roman vs Protestant polemics, this is a huge accomplishment. Literally the last question I heard as a Roman Catholic was "how do you know which books are in the canon of the New Testament if not for the authority of the Roman Catholic Church?"
I've cited Oscar Cullmann, for whom the response to his Peter book was that very question. Cullmann's article in response, which I've also cited, is not readily available. James White put forth the argument of "Canon1" and "Canon2" in his "Sola Scriptura, which operated along the same lines. And Ridderbos's "Redemptive History and the New Testament Scriptures", which approaches the topic from the same perspective, is also a difficult read.
So for the first time, it seems to me, there is, in the context of a polemical discussion like this one, a thorough and scholarly work addressing the Scriptural and patristic evidence.
Protestants will never again have to respond to the thoughtless Roman question, "how do you know which books are in the New Testament, if not for the authority of the Roman Catholic Church?"
Excerpts here: http://www.wtsbooks.com/pdf_files/9781433505003.pdf and i can see quotes therein (like “No matter where we look there are problems and it may therefore be simpler at this stage to cut our losses and simply dispense with the concept of canon.”, etc.) this will supply plenty of "canon fodder" for those who want to promote the RC assertion.
However, the fact is that most of the Divine writings we hold as Scripture were established as such before there ever was a church in Rome, else the N.T. would have not have its 263 direct quotes from and approx 370 allusions (one estimate, see many refs here).
Which did not require a perpetual, assuredly infallible magisterium of men, nor do conciliar make writings Scripture or establish that they are, anymore than they make or establish a man of God as being such - although such affirmation should be the norm.
Instead, what establishes something as being from God is its Heavenly qualities and other aspects of Divine attestation, including the conflation and complementarity of and with Scripture. A man or women of God is characterized by the former, and their life is a testimony to Scripture, as is the new birth.
About 2,000 years ago a couple of itinerant preachers showed up in Israel and were confronted by a certain class of authorities demanding to know “By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority to do these things?” (see Mk. 11:27-33)
These two preaches lacked the sanction of those who claimed authority based upon ancient promises and historical descent, which positional authority in their case was actually affirmed specifically by Scripture. (Matthew 23:2)
Why then should anyone follow these itinerant preachers? The answer is that, in contrast to them, the Lord Jesus established His claims on Scripture, in word and in the manifest power of God it affirms, as did the apostles and early church. ( Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12)
As for those who sat in the seat of Moses, like Roman Catholicism today, they presumed a level of assured veracity and perpetuation (through their progeny by formal descent) which was beyond what was written.
But how did the first words of Scripture become Scripture? Or, why should anyone have listened to Moses? The answer is that God mightily supernaturally affirmed the faith of Moses which in term affirmed the faith of Abraham, and was written the law of Moses became the standard for obedience and for testing truth claims.
And the most critical aspect of this basis of attestation of authority is that the of the gospel of grace, and manifest regeneration by repentant faith in it, and which kind of living effectual faith the church relies upon for its members and for storming the gates of Hell.
And which affirms that the church is that of the living God, (1Tim. 1:15) versus its institutionalized counterpart, Catholic or Protestant. "For the kingdom of God is not in word [self declaration], but in power, " (1 Cori. 4:20) by "manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God." (2 Corinthians 4:2)
Moreover, the way truth was preserved was not via an assuredly infallible magisterium as per Rome, but by God often raising up manifests men of God from without the formal magisterium to correct it.
And thus Christ came and thus we have the church which is built upon dissent from those claimed authority on the basis of Rome.
In the context of Roman vs Protestant polemics, this is a huge accomplishment. Literally the last question I heard as a Roman Catholic was "how do you know which books are in the canon of the New Testament if not for the authority of the Roman Catholic Church?"
ReplyDeleteI've cited Oscar Cullmann, for whom the response to his Peter book was that very question. Cullmann's article in response, which I've also cited, is not readily available. James White put forth the argument of "Canon1" and "Canon2" in his "Sola Scriptura, which operated along the same lines. And Ridderbos's "Redemptive History and the New Testament Scriptures", which approaches the topic from the same perspective, is also a difficult read.
So for the first time, it seems to me, there is, in the context of a polemical discussion like this one, a thorough and scholarly work addressing the Scriptural and patristic evidence.
Protestants will never again have to respond to the thoughtless Roman question, "how do you know which books are in the New Testament, if not for the authority of the Roman Catholic Church?"
Excerpts here: http://www.wtsbooks.com/pdf_files/9781433505003.pdf and i can see quotes therein (like “No matter where we look there are problems and it may therefore be simpler at this stage to cut our losses and simply dispense with the concept of canon.”, etc.) this will supply plenty of "canon fodder" for those who want to promote the RC assertion.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the fact is that most of the Divine writings we hold as Scripture were established as such before there ever was a church in Rome, else the N.T. would have not have its 263 direct quotes from and approx 370 allusions (one estimate, see many refs here).
Which did not require a perpetual, assuredly infallible magisterium of men, nor do conciliar make writings Scripture or establish that they are, anymore than they make or establish a man of God as being such - although such affirmation should be the norm.
Instead, what establishes something as being from God is its Heavenly qualities and other aspects of Divine attestation, including the conflation and complementarity of and with Scripture. A man or women of God is characterized by the former, and their life is a testimony to Scripture, as is the new birth.
About 2,000 years ago a couple of itinerant preachers showed up in Israel and were confronted by a certain class of authorities demanding to know “By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority to do these things?” (see Mk. 11:27-33)
These two preaches lacked the sanction of those who claimed authority based upon ancient promises and historical descent, which positional authority in their case was actually affirmed specifically by Scripture. (Matthew 23:2)
Why then should anyone follow these itinerant preachers? The answer is that, in contrast to them, the Lord Jesus established His claims on Scripture, in word and in the manifest power of God it affirms, as did the apostles and early church. ( Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12)
As for those who sat in the seat of Moses, like Roman Catholicism today, they presumed a level of assured veracity and perpetuation (through their progeny by formal descent) which was beyond what was written.
But how did the first words of Scripture become Scripture? Or, why should anyone have listened to Moses? The answer is that God mightily supernaturally affirmed the faith of Moses which in term affirmed the faith of Abraham, and was written the law of Moses became the standard for obedience and for testing truth claims.
And the most critical aspect of this basis of attestation of authority is that the of the gospel of grace, and manifest regeneration by repentant faith in it, and which kind of living effectual faith the church relies upon for its members and for storming the gates of Hell.
And which affirms that the church is that of the living God, (1Tim. 1:15) versus its institutionalized counterpart, Catholic or Protestant. "For the kingdom of God is not in word [self declaration], but in power, " (1 Cori. 4:20) by "manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God." (2 Corinthians 4:2)
Moreover, the way truth was preserved was not via an assuredly infallible magisterium as per Rome, but by God often raising up manifests men of God from without the formal magisterium to correct it.
And thus Christ came and thus we have the church which is built upon dissent from those claimed authority on the basis of Rome.