# Nuda Scriptura anyone?



## john_Mark (Mar 22, 2005)

I am posting this here to see if any of you have a better understanding of what's being said here http://www.societaschristiana.com/archives/cat_discussions_and_debates.html#000320

One of the paragraphs from the post is:




> Many subsidiary questions are involved in these larger ones, to be sure. One particularly minefield-like area of disagreement is the nature and meaning of the Reformation principle sola Scriptura. Especially as I read some of White's recent blog posts, I find it exceedingly difficult to imagine having to retract many things I have said about his views on this point. I believe that James White is defending what he honestly believes to be true on this point, but at the same time I honestly believe that White's view of sola Scriptura bears almost no relation to the principle and practice of the Protestant Reformers themselves but is instead better described as nuda Scriptura. This view of "naked texts" subsequently affects his view of hermeneutics and the nature and prospects of the exegetical task, and how he approaches and tries to reason with the members of other Christian denominations. Similarly, my view of sola Scriptura affects my thinking and practice on those points.



There are some other references on the same blog to "nuda scriptura" and such. 

Does anyone here see things the same way as posted on this blog?


----------



## Areopagus (Mar 22, 2005)

James White is already dealing with this:

http://www.aomin.org/index.php?itemid=291

Dustin...


----------



## john_Mark (Mar 22, 2005)

Dustin, 

I know. I am an op in his chatroom.  I just wanted to get some other perspectives on this. One of the things that's really confusing to me and others is that this particular crowd basically will just say that James White is wrong and go on to say why without demonstrating why. An answer isn't given asking them to exegete a passage of Scripture, but they will say how wrong White and the rest of us are.

I want to apologize to DTK if he reads this thread.


----------



## Scott (Mar 23, 2005)

"One of the things that's really confusing to me and others is that this particular crowd basically will just say that James White is wrong and go on to say why without demonstrating why."

As I read the thread, the criticism is that James White's methodology is wrong. In that sense, right or wrong, he does seem to present reasons why White's methodology is wrong.

BTW, I am not saying the criticisms are right. I am not sure I even understand what he is saying. It sounds like a variant of presuppsitionalism. I am not a fan of James White's though. 

[Edited on 3-23-2005 by Scott]


----------



## john_Mark (Mar 23, 2005)

*I\'ll try to simplify.*

I will try to put this in the simplest terms as I see the problem.

James will say A + B = C and go on to say why.
Tim will respond on his blog that James' interpretive method is wrong. He will write pages and pages as to why James is wrong about A & B and how the culture influences him, etc. etc. All the while never telling us what A + B actually equals. He writes about concepts and never really gives the "whys" onto the proper "interpretation". This really unfolded a couple years ago on another board where Tim was asked to exegete a passage of Scripture. Never got an answer, but got plenty of words. 


Scott said


> I am not a fan of James White's though.



Any particular reason? Just curious.


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Mar 24, 2005)

> _Originally posted by john_Mark_
> I will try to put this in the simplest terms as I see the problem.
> 
> James will say A + B = C and go on to say why.
> Tim will respond on his blog that James' interpretive method is wrong. He will write pages and pages as to why James is wrong about A & B and how the culture influences him, etc. etc. All the while never telling us what A + B actually equals. He writes about concepts and never really gives the "whys" onto the proper "interpretation". This really unfolded a couple years ago on another board where Tim was asked to exegete a passage of Scripture. Never got an answer, but got plenty of words.



Kinda the same way Rome argues for papal infallibility and magisterium, against sola scriptura, but _never_ gives you a detailed list of all infallible traditions or infallibily defined scriptures....

shame. I really didn't know tim all that well, and he seemed like a cool guy....then one day, he just up and went off to left field.....


----------



## Scott (Mar 24, 2005)

"Any particular reason? Just curious."

At a general level, he strikes me as individualistic and does not give proper weight to ecclesial authority. 

At a more specific level, his treatment of the topics I have seen him address seem weak. I am thinking of his responses, for example, the argument that 2 Tim. 3:16 is not a sufficient proof text for sola scriptura, b/c when it was written the canon of the NT had not been formed. 

I am also thinking of his treatment of the relation of the canon to sola scriptura. He candidly admits that there is no what I think I remember him calling a "golden list" - which would be an inspired list of inspired books. The process of canonization took centuries and involved the collective mind of the church. We rely on this ecclesial tradition to even tell us what books are properly in the Bible. Individuals do not have individual duties to personally discern whether the Gospel of Thomas or the Apocalypse of Peter are properly part of the canon. The Church has collectivelly made those decisions. 

Anyway, a failure to sufficiently answer these questions I think undermines his apologetic, especially given his individualism in interpretation.


Its been years since I read anything by him, but those are my impressions.

Scott

[Edited on 3-24-2005 by Scott]


----------



## Areopagus (Mar 24, 2005)

John,

In light of what you posted about Mr. Enloe's method of arguing by intuition, you really need to read this blog by Vincent Cheung. I agree with your view of his approach and that is why I think you are really going to like this. It's brilliant.

http://vincentcheung.blogspot.com/2005/03/more-on-apparent-contradictions.html

Dustin...


----------



## john_Mark (Mar 24, 2005)

Just want to briefly state a few things and try not to derail this thread.

Scott said


> At a general level, he strikes me as individualistic and does not give proper weight to ecclesial authority.



Here is Dr. White responding to Roman Catholic apologist Mark Shea´s book By What Authority? which may give you some understanding from Dr. White´s perspective. Not to mention he wrote a section of the book Perspectives on Church Government: Five Views of Church Polity.

Scott said 


> At a more specific level, his treatment of the topics I have seen him address seem weak. I am thinking of his responses, for example, the argument that 2 Tim. 3:16 is not a sufficient proof text for sola scriptura, b/c when it was written the canon of the NT had not been formed.



Though there are other examples, in Dr. White´s debate against Patrick Madrid he states, 


> "œNow, the doctrine of sola scriptura is based upon the inspiration of Scripture. Our primary passage this evening, I hope you have your Bibles with you, will be found in Paul's second letter to Timothy. The gentlemen from Catholic Answers have made it a practice for years to assert that Protestants cannot provide a single verse that teaches sola scriptura. Yet, they are quite mistaken in this, though they have been corrected a number of times in the past, and let us examine the passage to see if this is the case. II Timothy 3:16-17, "All Scripture is God-breathed, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for instruction, for training in righteousness, in order that the man of God might be complete, fully equipped for every good work."
> 
> We begin by noting that Scripture is theopneustos, "God-breathed." The term is very strong. I refer anyone who wishes a full discussion of this term to B.B. Warfield's excellent treatment of it. That which is theopneustos has ultimate authority, for there can be no higher authority than God's very speaking. "All Scripture is God-breathed."



This debate can be found here: http://aomin.org/SANTRAN.html and I believe subjects like the Gospel of Thomas are touched on in the debate.

I am not sure Dr. White has failed to address these issues. Nor does he seem individualistic in that he uses many of the Reformers as examples of supporting his positions. There are many liked-minded men, but maybe it´s just the Reformed Baptists, those who hold to the 1689, that fit your description as a whole. I am really not sure.


----------



## john_Mark (Mar 24, 2005)

Thanks, Dustin. I will check it out.


----------



## DTK (Mar 24, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> "Any particular reason? Just curious."
> 
> At a general level, he strikes me as individualistic and does not give proper weight to ecclesial authority.
> ...


Scott,

I think your criticism has to overcome another problem, namely the ability of the Early Church to know what books were inspired apart from any official conciliar statement. I´ll offer this example for your consideration...(Note, the little squares in the quote below is the Greek text from that supplied by Migne that would not translate in the post)


> *Alexander of Alexandria (d. 328),* the spiritual mentor of Athanasius, testified of the Arian heretics in a letter to Alexander of Constantinople: They are not ashamed to oppose the godly clearness of the ancient scriptures. _NPNF2: Vol. III, Theodoret´s Ecclesiastical History_, Book 1, Chapter 3, or the translation of this phrase as the letter is preserved in _ANF: Vol. VI, Epistle to Alexander, Bishop of the City of Constantinople_, Â§10, "œThe religious perspicuity of the ancient Scriptures caused them no shame . . ."
> ïïµïªï€ ï«ï¡ï´ï¨ï¶ï¤ï¥ï³ï¥ï®ï€ ï¡ïµïªï´ï¯ïµï€»ï¾ï€ ï¨ïŠï€ ï´ï·ï ï®ï€ ï¡ïªï²ï£ï¡ï©ï¶ï·ï®ï€ ï‡ï²ï¡ï¦ï·ï ï®ï€ ï¦ï©ï¬ï¯ï¶ï±ï¥ï¯ï¾ï€ ï³ï¡ï¦ï¨ï¶ï®ï¥ï©ï¡ï€ ï€®ï€ ï€®ï€ ï€® _Theodoreti Ecclesiasticae Historiae_, Liber I, Caput III, PG 82:904.


Now, then, bear with me for a moment as we consider this statement from Alexander in its proper time reference. When Alexander of Alexandria made this comment, there had been no conciliar statement as to the extent of the canon. Had the Arians argued as our modern day Roman opponents are prone to do, they could have said, "œWait a minute! How do you know what is scripture and what is not? No council has given us any such list!"

And this is precisely where the Roman apologist has no answer. For when they ask the question, "œhow do you folks even know what books are part of the canon of Scripture?" I then ask them, "œHow did Alexander know which writings were Scripture apart from any conciliar authority?" They have no answer. I have asked this question of them repeatedly, and they simply have no response. I tell them we know the Scriptures the same way Alexander knew them. God made them authoritative, and as Christ said, His sheep know the voice of their shepherd. Now, since I´ve had extensive conversations with Dr. White I know that he would agree with the following quotes from Metzger...


> *Bruce Metzger:* It may be concluded, therefore, that, while the New Testament canon should, from a theoretical point of view, be regarded as open in principle for either the addition or the deletion of one or more books, from a practical point of view such a modification can scarcely be contemplated as either possible or desirable. To say that the canon may be revised is not the same as saying it must be revised. The canon by which the Church has lived over the centuries emerged in history, the result of a slow and gradual process. To be sure, in this canon there are documents less firmly attested by external criteria than others. But the several parts have all been cemented together by usage and by general acceptance in the Church, which has recognized, and recognizes, that God has spoken and is speaking to her in and through this body of early Christian literature. As regards this social fact, nothing can be changed; the Church has received the canon of the New Testament as it is today, in the same way as the Synagogue has had bequeathed to it the Hebrew canon. In short, the canon cannot be remade"”for the simple reason that history cannot be remade. Bruce M. Metzger, _The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance_, third, enlarged ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997), p. 275.
> 
> * Bruce M. Metzger writing on the NT canon:* In most discussions of the canon of the New Testament little or no attention is paid to the basic question whether the canon should be described as a collection of authoritative books or as an authoritative collection of books. These two formulations differ fundamentally and involve totally different implications. (A third formulation, that the canon is an authoritative collection of authoritative books, is merely a modification of the second formulation, and may be set aside in the present discussion.
> The word "˜canon´, whether in Greek, Latin or English, conveys many different meanings. In Greek, among the several major meanings which the word ï«ï¡ï®ï·ï¶ï® bears, these are two uses that, for the sake of clarity, must be distinguished when considering the development of the New Testament canon. The word ï«ï¡ï®ï·ï¶ï® has an active sense, referring to those books that serve to mark out the norm for Christian faith and life; it has also a passive sense, referring to the list of books that have been marked out by the Church as normative. The two usages may be succinctly designated by two Latin tags, _norma Normans_, that is, "˜the rules that prescribes´, and _norma normata_, that is, "˜the rule that is prescribed´, i.e. by the Church. According to these two senses of ï«ï¡ï®ï·ï¶ï® the New Testament can be described either as a collection of authoritative books, or as an authoritative collection of books.
> ...


I think the comment that Metzger goes on to make speaks more to the actual fact of the canon, more in terms of its historical context than any dogmatic ecclesial decree on the canon. In fact, the so-called ecumenical Council of Trullo (the Quinisext Council) recognized four different canonical lists of scripture as authoritative, even though all four differed from one another.

Dr. White has correctly recognized that appeal to ecclesial authority with respect to the determination of the canon throws the whole issue into an impossible quagmire of subjectivity depending on what period of history in which one is seeking to establish it, and to what provincial or ecumenical conciliar statement appeal is made. Now, I agree, that affirming ecclesial authority for the recognition of the canon sounds very appealing. But the real facts of history militate against such a simplistic approach. If such is/was required, then we have no such authoritative lists until Trent for the Roman Catholics and the Reformed creedal statements for Protestantism. The history is the canon is far too complex to simply defer to ecclesial authority.

As for Dr. White´s alleged denial "œthat 2 Tim. 3:16 is not a sufficient proof text for sola scriptura, b/c when it was written the canon of the NT had not been formed," I think you have misunderstood his argument. He argues the very opposite...


> *James White:* The emphasis is upon "œall," as in "œall Scripture." _All_ Scripture is God-breathed, and, because it is, _all_ Scripture forms the basis, the foundation, upon which Timothy is to base his exhortation, his doctrine, his teaching. The true application of the text is not to open the door for other equally profitable things (Paul makes no reference to such sources for the man of God) but to extend the profitability of the Word across the entirety of God´s work of inspiration: that is, _all_ of the Scripture...is profitable as sound doctrine. See _Scripture Alone_ (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 2004), p. 51.


Now, if you are in possession of this historical "golden list" or this "œinspired list of inspired books," which you think he was wrong to deny, I would welcome the opportunity to examine your evidence for it.

Now, I agree (and so would Dr. White) that "œIndividuals do not have individual duties to personally discern whether the Gospel of Thomas or the Apolcolypse of Peter are properly part of the canon." And he does confess that the Protestant church has collectively recognized them. But to claim that "œthe Church has collectivelly made those decisions" is, I think, a by-pass of the historical evidence, and one which leaves us with no recognized canon until the Reformation. As much as I am for conciliar authority, we can´t create it where it does not exist, and no such canonical list that we recognize (as Protestants today) existed uniformly prior to the Reformation. 

As for individuals being involved in the process, it is a rather interesting fact to observe that a great many medieval ecclesial authorities simply followed the individual work of Jerome with respect to the OT canon. Bill Webster and I have documented some 30 medieval witnesses (the texts of which we paid professional linguists from Notre Dame to translate) in vol. 2 of _Holy Scripture, the Ground and Pillar of Our Faith_, many of them taking their cue from the individual work of Jerome. Simply put, an appeal to ecclesial authority for the determination of the canon historically is as nebulous as the diversity to be seen in the history of the church respecting it. If these books were God-breathed when produced, then Metzger is correct in insisting that their canonicity is dependent on their providential source rather than "œthe circumstance of their inclusion within a collection made by the Church."

Moreover Scott, it seems to me that looking to ecclesial authority to establish the canon is the very thing (confessionally speaking) concerning which the Westminster Confession warns us...


> *WCF 1:5* We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to a high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture. And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man´s salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God: yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.


Blessings,
DTK

[Edited on 3-24-2005 by DTK]

[Edited on 3-24-2005 by DTK]

[Edited on 3-24-2005 by DTK]


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Mar 25, 2005)

*saves thread*

I always love it when DTK posts. 
One day, I'll have pop-up IRC scripts ready with 30-50 citations from the church fathers on sola everything.....


----------



## fredtgreco (Mar 25, 2005)

Yes,

David is always worth listening to! On the other hand Tim Gallant and the [size=-4]Reformed [/size]Catholics crew are hardly ever worth paying attention to.

[Edited on 3/26/2005 by fredtgreco]


----------



## Scott (Mar 28, 2005)

"I am not sure Dr. White has failed to address these issues."

Mark: I did not say that White did not address the issues, just that he did not address them persuasively. I am a protestant and sympathetic to a form of his views and I just did not think that he did a good job. Again, it was a few years back when I read and listened to his debates.


----------



## john_Mark (Mar 28, 2005)

Thanks, Scott. Let me now say that I believe your objections to Dr. White not addressing these issues persuasively have been answered. 

It's also good to know that as a Baptist it's not just me i.e. see DTK's post.


----------



## Scott (Mar 28, 2005)

David: I am not sure what position you think I hold. Let me clarify a few things. I did not say that a conciliar decision was necessary to determine the canon. I don't think it is. In fact, in debates with Catholics I use the example of the Old Testament for the position that a conciliar decision is not necessary (Jesus and others used the OT with no conciliar decision as to the extent of the canon). I also agree that the early church used the books of the Bible without an authoritative canon and which books were used varied by jurisdiction and region. This is widely recognized (indeed I just finished a book by a noted liberal scholar who uses this fact like a hammer to try and break apart confidence in orthodox texts - and may he ever fail).

I also think you misread what I said about White. I did not say he denied the entire statment you quoted. I said that his response to the quoted argument argument was unpersuasive. I did not state what he affirmatively taught on the matter.

I also did not say that the *authority* of the scriptures rested in church approval. I also agree that the inward illumination of the Holy Spirit is necessary for someone subjectively to recognize the scriptures as true. 

I don't think that any of this fact undermines the idea that church consensus, developed painstakingly and through a muddy process over centuries, is a reliable guide to the canon - certainly a more reliable guide than the opinion of an individual claiming that he perceives some document to be inspired. I would hope you agree with that point, though. As Christians today, we have no obligation to reinvent the wheel (as you said you agreed). We can be confident that the Church as a whole has heard her master's voice in the scriptures. 

When a Christian is handed a copy of the Gospel of Thomas (which is sadly happening more and more often today) he does not need to read it himself to see if it is inspired or if the Holy Spirit will illumine his heart. He does not need to do independent investigation into the historical circumstances of the gospel. The Christian can be confident that his mother, the Church, has already told him what documents are inspired by his Father.

Scott


----------



## Scott (Mar 28, 2005)

"Thanks, Scott. Let me now say that I believe your objections to Dr. White not addressing these issues persuasively have been answered."

That's fine. You just asked why I was not a fan and I told you. I was not trying to substantively rebut White just answer your question. I am glad you find him helpful.


----------



## DTK (Mar 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> David: I am not sure what position you think I hold. Let me clarify a few things. I did not say that a conciliar decision was necessary to determine the canon. I don't think it is. In fact, in debates with Catholics I use the example of the Old Testament for the position that a conciliar decision is not necessary (Jesus and others used the OT with no conciliar decision as to the extent of the canon). I also agree that the early church used the books of the Bible without an authoritative canon and which books were used varied by jurisdiction and region. This is widely recognized (indeed I just finished a book by a noted liberal scholar who uses this fact like a hammer to try and break apart confidence in orthodox texts - and may he ever fail).


The point is, Scott, that the early church did quite well without any conciliar authority on the canon of Scripture. 


> I also think you misread what I said about White. I did not say he denied the entire statment you quoted. I said that his response to the quoted argument argument was unpersuasive. I did not state what he affirmatively taught on the matter.


Well, it's my guess that I'm not the only one misunderstanding you.


> I also did not say that the *authority* of the scriptures rested in church approval. I also agree that the inward illumination of the Holy Spirit is necessary for someone subjectively to recognize the scriptures as true.


But Scott, that is where your stated position tends to lead. The point is not that you agree that "the inward illumination of the Holy Spirit is necessary for someone subjectively to recognize the scriptures as true," but whether you agree (confessionally speaking, WCF 1:5) if persuasion of this rests ultimately in the "full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts." Augustine echoed the same truth...


> *Augustine (354-430):* Let us treat scripture like scripture, like God speaking; don´t let´s look there for man going wrong. It is not for nothing, you see, *that the canon has been established for the Church. This is the function of the Holy Spirit.* So if anybody reads my book, let him pass judgment on me. If I have said something reasonable, let him follow, not me, but reason itself; if I´ve proved it by the clearest divine testimony, let him follow, not me, but the divine scripture. John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., _The Works of Saint Augustine_, Part 3, Vol. 11, trans. Edmund Hill, O.P., Newly Discovered Sermons, Sermon 162C.15 (New York: New City Press, 1997), p. 176.


Maybe Augustine was just speaking in a subjective fashion here. 


> I don't think that any of this fact undermines the idea that church consensus, developed painstakingly and through a muddy process over centuries, is a reliable guide to the canon - certainly a more reliable guide than the opinion of an individual claiming that he perceives some document to be inspired. I would hope you agree with that point, though. As Christians today, we have no obligation to reinvent the wheel (as you said you agreed). We can be confident that the Church as a whole has heard her master's voice in the scriptures.


Well, I agree that no human individual determines the canon. But this "Church as a whole" appeal is the very point in question, is it not? You're simply repeating your previous assertion. I made the distinction between recognition and decision in my previous post. If we take the "church as a whole" Scott, what "church as a whole" gives us a uniformed list of the canon? I've already shown, I think, that this is a very nebulous appeal. 


> When a Christian is handed a copy of the Gospel of Thomas (which is sadly happening more and more often today) he does not need to read it himself to see if it is inspired or if the Holy Spirit will illumine his heart. He does not need to do independent investigation into the historical circumstances of the gospel. The Christian can be confident that his mother, the Church, has already told him what documents are inspired by his Father.


Well Scott, I don't think it is undermining confidence in the church to investigate what the church says, not to make a self-determination, but to verify the claim of truth. And again, it seems to me that (confessionally speaking) WCF 1:5 directs us to where our faith must ultimately rest, and it doesn't point us there to conciliar authority as our ultimate resting place. I don't even find the Apostles taking that posture (Acts 17:11). Even as William Whitaker pointed out in his _Disputation on Holy Scripture_, after noting the Church as the moving cause for commending Holy Scripture to us, he asks: "But does it therefore follow that the apocryphal books cannot be distinguished from the canonical otherwise than by the mere authority of the church? By no means" (pp. 322-323). I think it's rather helpful to educate people not to act mindlessly in receiving ecclesial authority for something. We can show them good reasons for rejecting books received as Scripture by some churches in earlier ages of the church. I think that such a view as yours tends toward placing "implicit faith" in the church, and that in the confusion of "which church?" That is why I desire to challenge your comments.

Thanks for your response,
DTK


----------



## Scott (Mar 28, 2005)

> The point is not that you agree that "the inward illumination of the Holy Spirit is necessary for someone subjectively to recognize the scriptures as true," but whether you agree (confessionally speaking, WCF 1:5) if persuasion of this rests ultimately in the "full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.



Yes, I agree with this, and it is just an expansion of what I said earlier. I also would point out that 1.5 does not describe the process by which the canon came to be recognized. It assumes the canon. Basically 1.5 asks how we know that the set of documents predefined in 1.2 are the "œWord of God" "“ i.e. inspired and not just the writings of mere men. It recognizes objective "œevidences," such as the "œmajesty of the style." It also recognizes that subjectively "œfull persuasion of the infallible truth and divine authority" comes from the illumination of the Holy Spirit. 1.5 does not directly address how the process by which the documents defined in 1.2 came to be part of the canon. 

Also, to again clarify a later point of yours, when I speak of using the Church as a guide for the canon, I am speaking of recognition, if that helps. I agree that the scriptures bear an inherent authority to them and do not need to be authorized in an ontological sense by the Church, as if they were not inspired prior to the Church´s approval. I am supposing that you believed that the Augustine quote contradicts something I think but it does not. Perhaps this clarification of terms will help. 




> "œI think it's rather helpful to educate people not to act mindlessly in receiving ecclesial authority for something. We can show them good reasons for rejecting books received as Scripture by some churches in earlier ages of the church."



I agree and of course I am not suggesting that we should not tell people the reasons books were accepted or rejected. My mere suggestion is that we can assure them that God´s Bride, the Church, has faithfully done this. Individuals are not in a position to recreate these efforts at recognition. The process by which the canon was determined (in the sense of recognized, not created) was a Herculean task that involved countless people and amazing time and effort. I don´t see how this could be replicated. And, for anybody to try (and, I suppose, that is part what higher critics try to do "“ I am not a fan of higher criticism), they would need an amazing amount of expertise (in history, language, textual criticism, etc.) that is beyond reach for all but a tiny, tiny minority of people. So, when people look at the human process God was providentially using to disclose His canon, they can be confident that God´s Bride did this. They don´t need to embark on some textual critical quest of their own. As I understand, you too agree that they do not need to do that. 

Scott


----------



## DTK (Mar 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> I agree and of course I am not suggesting that we should not tell people the reasons books were accepted or rejected. My mere suggestion is that we can assure them that God´s Bride, the Church, has faithfully done this. Individuals are not in a position to recreate these efforts at recognition. The process by which the canon was determined (in the sense of recognized, not created) was a Herculean task that involved countless people and amazing time and effort. I don´t see how this could be replicated. And, for anybody to try (and, I suppose, that is part what higher critics try to do "“ I am not a fan of higher criticism), they would need an amazing amount of expertise (in history, language, textual criticism, etc.) that is beyond reach for all but a tiny, tiny minority of people. So, when people look at the human process God was providentially using to disclose His canon, they can be confident that God´s Bride did this. They don´t need to embark on some textual critical quest of their own. As I understand, you too agree that they do not need to do that.
> 
> Scott


Well, I'm not a fan of higher criticism either, but that's "neither here nor there" per our discussion. There are very helpful books addressing these subjects for any and all who desire to learn about the process, and I don't think that all such endeavors are above the skills of laymen to explore with a pastor (or someone else who is proficient) this process. But I'm not going to address anyone's felt need to embark on such a study by discouraging them from it. Again, that seems to suggest "implicit faith" in the church.

Scott, I do very much appreciate your desire for us to agree. That is a noble trait in you. But I guess I am confused about your position. You've gone from stating "The Church has collectivelly made those decisions" (in your original post in this thread) to saying the church has "recognized" the canon of Scripture. I think there is a substantial difference between those two things.

Moreover, you've been critical of Dr. White in a general fashion that I don't find particularly helpful. I'm just trying to ascertain whether there's any substance for your evaluation of his defense of _sola Scriptura_ with respect to the canon of Scripture.

I still think that the appeal to ecclesial authority, as such with respect to the canon of Scripture, is a nebulous appeal for reasons I've already stated. 

When you state, "My mere suggestion is that we can assure them that God´s Bride, the Church, has faithfully done this. Individuals are not in a position to recreate these efforts at recognition," I find that somewhat confusing. It was the work of individuals upon which the church itself has by and large benefitted (e.g. Jerome) in the recognition of the canonical Scriptures. And it seems to me that it was the concern of the Westminster Assembly for us to seek "our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts" rather than any belief that "the Church, has faithfully done this."

Sure, I agree, that I want folks to believe that the Reformational Church has faithfully recognized the canonical Scriptures. But I do not believe it was the desire of the Westminster divines to argue for "implicit faith" in their own work on this issue per WCF 1:5.

The appeal to "the church" remains nebulous so long as the identity of "what church" is in question. And I'm convinced that it is for this very reason that the Westminster divines spoke as they did in WCF 1:5.

Thanks for the interaction,
DTK


----------



## Scott (Mar 28, 2005)

> You've gone from stating "The Church has collectivelly made those decisions" (in your original post in this thread) to saying the church has "recognized" the canon of Scripture. I think there is a substantial difference between those two things.



I think any we may have been using words in different ways. When I said that the church made the decisions, I was not saying that the Church ontologically established the canon. I was referring to recognition, or an epistemic awareness. It was a decision about recognition.

I also don't hold to an implicit faith in the Church. Faith comes through the preached and written Word and would often be received before even understanding what the Church or the canon is. I generally agree with Ridderbos´ Redemptive History and the New Testament Scriptures if that is any help. I would characterize his defense of the canon is essentially presuppositional.



> "My mere suggestion is that we can assure them that God´s Bride, the Church, has faithfully done this. Individuals are not in a position to recreate these efforts at recognition," I find that somewhat confusing. It was the work of individuals upon which the church itself has by and large benefitted (e.g. Jerome) in the recognition of the canonical Scriptures..



Right, I am using Church is a broad sense, meaning all those who profess the true Christian religion. The Church (broadly understood) in the first few centuries had access to things that we did not. For example, the Church was in a better position to detect forgeries and exclude (in an epistemic sense) them from the canon. Forgeries were a serious problem and Paul himself warned of them. 2 Thes. 1:1-2. It is allot harder for us, 2000 years removed, to detect them. An example of the importance of proximity to the events is the detection of Acts of Paul and Thecla, which detailed the exploits of Paul and a woman named Thecla, as a forgery. This document was receiving some use and approval in the early Church. In his work "œOn Baptism," Tertullian mentions that the Acts of Paul and Thecla was a forgery and that the forger, a presbyter, confessed to fabricating the document. Tertullian also mentions that the forger was removed from office (rightfully so!). 

In law, most crimes and causes of action have a "œstatute of limitation" "“ meaning that the crimes and wrongs can´t be prosecuted after a period of time. One reason is that evidence goes stale or disappears. The same principle applies here. Nobody who created a forgery today is around to confess, as did the presbyter who forged the Acts of Paul and Thecla. That is just one example of the value of the early Church´s work and why its judgments are more reliable than work done 2000 years out.

Scott


----------



## DTK (Mar 28, 2005)

OK Scott, I´d like to interact with these comments. Your description of the Church in a broad sense as "œall those who profess the true Christian religion" is the very thing I´m convinced remains nebulous. The fact is that *every* church professed that they embraced the "œtrue Christian religion." But I will limit my comments (for the most part) to your statement "œThe Church (broadly understood) in the first few centuries."
You wrote:


> Right, I am using Church is a broad sense, meaning all those who profess the true Christian religion. The Church (broadly understood) in the first few centuries had access to things that we did not. For example, the Church was in a better position to detect forgeries and exclude (in an epistemic sense) them from the canon. Forgeries were a serious problem and Paul himself warned of them. 2 Thes. 1:1-2. It is allot harder for us, 2000 years removed, to detect them. An example of the importance of proximity to the events is the detection of Acts of Paul and Thecla, which detailed the exploits of Paul and a woman named Thecla, as a forgery. This document was receiving some use and approval in the early Church. In his work "œOn Baptism," Tertullian mentions that the Acts of Paul and Thecla was a forgery and that the forger, a presbyter, confessed to fabricating the document. Tertullian also mentions that the forger was removed from office (rightfully so!).


If the early church, having this favorable access to things we do not, what position among them should we accept with respect to the OT apocrypha? They had differing views, so which witness of what church should we accept? Yes, forgeries were a serious problem. But Tertullian´s rejection of this work wasn´t only based on his alleged personal information respecting the presbyter who forged it, but on its departure from known Pauline teaching (e.g. On, Baptism, chapter 17). How can we (centuries removed) be certain that Tertullian´s personal information, which he surely must have received via second hand related, on this presbyter was correct? After all, Tertullian is speaking on the basis of "œhearsay." The presbyter in question was a continent removed from him in Asia. If you want to use the argument of law and courtroom evidence which you mention below, nobody would accept that piece of information as credible toward adjudication of the question. Moreover, if Tertullian´s rejection of this apocryphal work is noteworthy, because of things he had access to that we do not, then the same argument could be applied to his acceptance of 1 Enoch as canonical Scripture. Furthermore, the Ethiopic church "œprofessed" to be part of "œthe true Christian religion," and it accepted 1 Enoch as canonical. The same argument could be applied, viz., that they had access to information that we do not. But Tertullian´s error with respect to 1 Enoch isn´t his only blunder, as F. F. Bruce points out...


> F. F. Bruce: A compilation to which Tertullian and other early Christian writers assigned genuine prophetic authority was the _Sibylline Oracles_. The _Sibylline Oracles_ which they knew were Jewish and Christian poems composed in an oracular idiom at various times between 200 BC and AD 250. But those writers who took them at face value as the genuine prophecies of an ancient pagan prophetess"”"˜the Sibyl´, says Tertullian, "˜who antedated all literature and was a true prophetess of truth.´ F.F. Bruce, _The Canon of Scripture_ (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1988), p. 86.


You see, on the surface, that kind of argument you suggest sounds good; it´s the appeal to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is not always a sound argument as Tertullian´s fellow and later African, Cyprian, noted when he stated that "œcustom without truth is the antiquity of error." _ANF: Vol. V, The Epistles of Cyprian_, Epistle 73, Â§9. Now, it is true that Jerome in his _Lives of Illustrious Men_ (Chapter 7) mentions this account based upon his knowledge of Tertullian´s report concerning this certain Presbyter in Asia, which is itself based on hearsay of hearsay. But prior to that, Jerome notes that the internal evidence itself of this apocryphal work testifies against its authenticity when he noted: "œTherefore the _Acts of Paul and Thecla_ and all the fable about the lion baptized by him we reckon among the apocryphal writings, for how is it possible that the inseparable companion of the apostle in his other affairs, alone should have been ignorant of this thing." I would hope that you would agree that the report concerning the baptism of a lion militates against its acceptance as canonical, and that it doesn´t require extensive expertise of such a matter to render that verdict. Thus our removal from this time or alleged incident by centuries doesn´t make our detection of this work as a forgery difficult at all. Metzger says of this apocryphal work, and apparently this story about a lion Paul allegedly baptized was unknown to Tertullian for he doesn´t mention it...


> *Bruce M. Metzger:* Among the episodes in this cycle of tales about Paul perhaps the most entertaining is that which concerns the Apostle and the baptized lion. Although previously known from meager allusions to it in patristic writers, it was not until 1936 that the complete text was made available by the publication of a recently discovered Greek papyrus containing a detailed account of Paul´s encounter with a lion in the amphitheatre at Ephesus....Interest is added when the reader learns that some time earlier in the wilds of the countryside Paul had preached to that very lion and, on its profession of faith, had baptized the beast." See Bruce M. Metzger, _The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance_, third, enlarged ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997), pp. 175-176.


You wrote:


> In law, most crimes and causes of action have a "œstatute of limitation" "“ meaning that the crimes and wrongs can´t be prosecuted after a period of time. One reason is that evidence goes stale or disappears. The same principle applies here. Nobody who created a forgery today is around to confess, as did the presbyter who forged the Acts of Paul and Thecla. That is just one example of the value of the early Church´s work and why its judgments are more reliable than work done 2000 years out.


Tertullian is speaking on hearsay, not as an eye or ear witness of the account in question, and that of an alleged incident that was a continent removed from him in distance. And that´s why "œthis example of the value of the early Church´s work and why its judgments are more reliable than work done 2000 years out" doesn´t hold water. I think this example would provoke laughter in a court of law. Now, there is no doubt that Tertullian had believed this hearsay, but he certainly had no access to firsthand details to verify the report. And as Bruce Metzger notes in his discussion of this Apocryphal work; "œIt was especially Thecla´s venturing, as a woman, to administer baptism that scandalized Tertullian and led him to condemn the entire book." See Metzger´s _The Canon of the New Testament_, p. 25, fn #25.

Blessings,
DTK


----------



## Scott (Mar 29, 2005)

David:

I think you misunderstood the way I was using Tertullian´s document. I did not suggest that we use the document as evidence in a modern adjudication over whether the Acts of Paul and Thecla are canonical. I simply provided an example of the types of evidence not available to us today "“ namely a live confession of a forger. In Tertullian´s period, these were available. Today they are not. 

As a lawyer, I can tell you that my actual position that the quality and volume of evidence diminishes over time is uncontroversial in the law. It is one basis of our statutes of limitations. What would be controversial would be to suggest that we moderns could credibly adjudicate an ancient controversy. 

Also, even if I were to use Tertullian´s document as you suggest, your hearsay argument could fail for a couple of reasons. First, the hearsay rule recognizes an exception for "œancient documents." See Federal Rule of Evidence 803(16). There are also other exceptions that could possibly apply, namely exceptions for records of religious organizations, public records, learned treatises, and the like. Additionally, experts may rely on hearsay and other evidence not normally permissible under the rules of evidence. See FRE 703, for example. To the extent Tertullian could be qualified as an expert, his reliance on that could be ok. 

I would compare the enterprise of a modern going back today to someone second guessing an ancient judgment from a lawsuit. In a trial of a lawsuit, a jury sees allot of evidence. They make their judgment based on the totality of the evidence. Someone who goes back to try and reconstruct the findings after the fact is necessarily in a more difficult position, as they will not have access to the entire scope of evidence used by the jury. Whatever judgment is made will be on an incomplete record. 

When someone today goes back and tries to reconstruct, or second guess, the judgments made regarding the authenticity of the biblical documents, he faces similar problems. A modern does not have the same access to the evidence that the early church had. Documentary critics recognize and admit this. A noted higher critic, Bart Ehrman, candidly admitted these limitations in a book of his I recently finished (Lost Christianities). That does not stop them from rendering their opinions based simply on documentary comparisons a very limited archaeological record. 

You had mentioned the rules of law and your belief that certain types of evidence would not be admissible in court. There is another type of evidence that would not be admissible. That would be what are called "œexpert opinions" from someone who does not meet the legal requirements of an expert. To render a judgment about the authenticity of ancient documents would certainly fall into that category. Someone who wants to opine on these topics must meet certain thresholds of credibility or have their opinions excluded from evidence. This is typically called a "œDaubert" challenge, after a Supreme Court case with the same name. In order the meet this standard, the witness would need to have the right Phds in documentary criticism, have peer-reviewed publications on the relevant topics, among other things. Few people meet this standard. There are some, but not many. In any event, it is far beyond the reach of the ordinary Christian. They should not place their hope in their ability to do something they are not qualified to do.

Scott


----------



## DTK (Mar 29, 2005)

> I think you misunderstood the way I was using Tertullian´s document. I did not suggest that we use the document as evidence in a modern adjudication over whether the Acts of Paul and Thecla are canonical. I simply provided an example of the types of evidence not available to us today "“ namely a live confession of a forger. In Tertullian´s period, these were available. Today they are not.


Scott, I don't think I've misunderstood you at all. You have tried to use Tertullian's testimony of evidence not available to us today, and that example simply does not hold water. He is relating the confession of an alleged forger who was removed a continent away from him on the basis of hearsay. And I've shown that this apocryphal work was rejected for other reasons that does not require the discernment of an expert.


> As a lawyer, I can tell you that my actual position that the quality and volume of evidence diminishes over time is uncontroversial in the law. It is one basis of our statutes of limitations. What would be controversial would be to suggest that we moderns could credibly adjudicate an ancient controversy.


That question is not in dispute, and Tertullian's example is proof of the reality of which you're speaking. As for adjudicating ancient controversies, historians engage in that each time they attempt to reconstruct events from the past. Everyone with common sense understands the difficulty involved with every historical endeavor. But God-breathed Scripture, by virtue of its nature, does not diminish in its self-authenticating evidence. The Westminster divines attested to that reality in WCF 1:5. On the other hand, it doesn't require any expert to understand how bizarre the account of a lion making a profession of faith, and being baptized by Paul is ridiculous. I'm beginning to think you're now arguing for the sake of arguing. 


> Also, even if I were to use Tertullian´s document as you suggest, your hearsay argument could fail for a couple of reasons. First, the hearsay rule recognizes an exception for "œancient documents." See Federal Rule of Evidence 803(16). There are also other exceptions that could possibly apply, namely exceptions for records of religious organizations, public records, learned treatises, and the like. Additionally, experts may rely on hearsay and other evidence not normally permissible under the rules of evidence. See FRE 703, for example. To the extent Tertullian could be qualified as an expert, his reliance on that could be ok.


Scott, I suggest that you take your case to a court and convince them. Tertullian spoke on hearsay, and that's quite enough for me. It doesn't wash, no matter what you think "Federal Rule of Evidence 803, or FRE 703" suggests. The man was not an eye or ear witness to the secondhand information he received. You're stretching the imagination here at best. Save it for the courtroom.


> I would compare the enterprise of a modern going back today to someone second guessing an ancient judgment from a lawsuit. In a trial of a lawsuit, a jury sees allot of evidence. They make their judgment based on the totality of the evidence. Someone who goes back to try and reconstruct the findings after the fact is necessarily in a more difficult position, as they will not have access to the entire scope of evidence used by the jury. Whatever judgment is made will be on an incomplete record.


Methinks I hear a lawyer arguing in a courtroom. Yes, and whatever judgment Tertullian made was based on an incomplete record. 


> When someone today goes back and tries to reconstruct, or second guess, the judgments made regarding the authenticity of the biblical documents, he faces similar problems. A modern does not have the same access to the evidence that the early church had. Documentary critics recognize and admit this. A noted higher critic, Bart Ehrman, candidly admitted these limitations in a book of his I recently finished (Lost Christianities). That does not stop them from rendering their opinions based simply on documentary comparisons a very limited archaeological record.


Yes, and the same methodology can be applied to Tertullian's attempt to reconstruct his report based on hearsay, and admittedly it didn't stop Tertullian from rendering his opinion based simply on the limitations of his knowledge of the event in question. 


> You had mentioned the rules of law and your belief that certain types of evidence would not be admissible in court. There is another type of evidence that would not be admissible. That would be what are called "œexpert opinions" from someone who does not meet the legal requirements of an expert. To render a judgment about the authenticity of ancient documents would certainly fall into that category. Someone who wants to opine on these topics must meet certain thresholds of credibility or have their opinions excluded from evidence. This is typically called a "œDaubert" challenge, after a Supreme Court case with the same name. In order the meet this standard, the witness would need to have the right Phds in documentary criticism, have peer-reviewed publications on the relevant topics, among other things. Few people meet this standard. There are some, but not many. In any event, it is far beyond the reach of the ordinary Christian. They should not place their hope in their ability to do something they are not qualified to do.


I think now we've come to the heart of your position. It is beyond the ability of the ordinary Christian to investigate these matters, and that they should simply accept the testimony of those who are "qualified" to make these decisions. That, Scott, is precisely why the framers of WCF 1:5 expressed themselves as they did. And what they prescribed is beyond the ability of any man, but nonetheless a spiritual reality that God makes common to all His people.

Blessings,
DTK


----------



## Scott (Mar 29, 2005)

David: I think this conversation is breaking down. I am going to discontinue. Be at peace.

Scott


----------



## DTK (Mar 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> David: I think this conversation is breaking down. I am going to discontinue. Be at peace.
> 
> Scott



Scott, thank you for your kind word. I am indeed thankful that my peace doesn't rest on the testimony of half-inspired wisdom, but on God's inscripturated word.

Blessings to you,
DTK


----------

