# Whitaker's Disputations on Holy Scripture Back in Print



## DTK (Apr 26, 2006)

*Whitaker's Disputation Back in Print*

Whitaker's _A Disputation on Holy Scripture Against the Papists, Especially Bellarmine and Stapleton_ is back in print once again by Soli Deo Gloria. I cannot recommend this book too highly. It is a must read on the subject of _sola Scriptura_. I have two copies of the old Parker Society edition (1849), and a copy when it was first republished by Soli Deo Gloria. Whitaker's treatment is paralleled only by the Evangelical Anglican, William Goode's _The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice_ first published in 1842 in two volumes, and then expanded and republished in 1853 in three volumes, which was a response to the Tractarian Movement (also called the Oxford Movement) led by Newman, Keble, and Pusey.

If you don't have Whitaker, your understanding of this subject, historically, may be somewhat impoverished. It was stated by Donald Lupton in his _History of the Modern Protestant Divines_ published in 1637 and by Anthony Wood in his _Athenae Oxonienses_ that the Jesuit controversialist, Bellarmine, hung a portrait of Whitaker in his study. When asked why he did so Bellarmine replied, _"Quod quamvis hereticus erat et adversarius, erat tamen doctus adversarius"_ (that though he was a heretic and his adversary, yet he was a learned adversary). _Tolle lege!_

DTK


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Apr 26, 2006)

Yes, it's on sale here until 4/28/06. And just to whet the appetite, here is a sampling of some of the gems contained in his treatise.


----------



## Scott (Apr 26, 2006)

Do you guys find convincing Whitaker's treatment of how one can recognize which books are part of the Old Testament canon? For those who affirm presuppositional apologetics, do you consider Whitaker's treatment consistent with presuppositionalism (as, say, Bahnsen would take)? 

(FYI - It has been a few years since I read Whitaker).


----------



## Arch2k (Apr 26, 2006)

I found it for $29.95 here.


----------



## ChristianTrader (Apr 26, 2006)

http://www.monergismbooks.com/disputations0902.html

with free shipping 

Also for those who don't with to buy the tape, here is Bahnsen's discussion in print: http://www.reformed.org/bible/bahnsen_canon.html


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Apr 26, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> I found it for $29.95 here.



Well done, Jeff! That's my 




anyways.


----------



## DTK (Apr 26, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> Do you guys find convincing Whitaker's treatment of how one can recognize which books are part of the Old Testament canon? For those who affirm presuppositional apologetics, do you consider Whitaker's treatment consistent with presuppositionalism (as, say, Bahnsen would take)?
> 
> (FYI - It has been a few years since I read Whitaker).


The short answer is yes. Whitaker's argument was essentially the same as Calvin's, and also provided the framework (with others) for the position set forth by Turretin and the Westminster divines in our standards. And it is my understanding that these essentially reflect the position articulated by Dr. Bahnsen as well. They all reflect the affirmation that Holy Scripture is auvto,pistoj. Dr. Muller's treatment of this is very helpful in pages 261ff, and 371-441 of his _Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, The Rise and Development of Reformed Orthodoxy, ca. 1520 to ca. 1725: Vol. II, Holy Scripture, The Cognitive Foundation of Theology_, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003).

This position is also reflected in patristic sources as well.

DTK


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Apr 26, 2006)

I've been waiting to see this book available again. I won't miss out on getting it this time, as I did previously.

Hermonta, I was charged 5 bucks for shipping from monergism. I dunno where the "free shipping" idea came from. It's right there on the homepage as well. $5 flat fee, unlimited book order. I sure would have liked to get a real steal. Instead its $37.00.

By the way, with CVBBS, add $7.50 for shipping and you pay $37.45. Ligonier was even higher, when you added shipping. So monergism still looks the best of the offers listed in this thread...


----------



## BaptistCanuk (Apr 26, 2006)

I'll have to check that out. By the way, I just found my copy of the Westminster Confession of Faith, to go along with my Baptist 1689 one. I wish it was translated into more modern English but I get the drift of what they are saying.


----------



## Scott (Apr 26, 2006)

Brian: There is a Modern English Study Version of the Westminster Confession online.


----------



## ChristianTrader (Apr 26, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> 
> Hermonta, I was charged 5 bucks for shipping from monergism. I dunno where the "free shipping" idea came from. It's right there on the homepage as well. $5 flat fee, unlimited book order. I sure would have liked to get a real steal. Instead its $37.00.



http://www.monergismbooks.com/email/040806email.html

There is a small link underneath the search box that leads to the free shipping offer.

CT

[Edited on 4-26-2006 by ChristianTrader]


----------



## Scott (Apr 26, 2006)

Refresh me memory on Whitaker (I don't have the book at my fingertips). Did he say that a way that we recognize that the various Old Testament books are inspired is because they were authored by prophets?

In the tape I linked to, Bahnsen criticizes the typical evangelical means of identifying whether books are inspired are not. As I recall, one of the tests for the NT canon is to identify whether a book was written by an apostle or a close associate of an apostle. Analysis of that perspective would seem relevant to evaluating an approach that established canonicity of OT books by demonstrating prophetic authorship. 

BTW, the article Hermonta links to does not include Bahnsen's criticism of the common evangelical approach.

[Edited on 4-26-2006 by Scott]


----------



## ChristianTrader (Apr 26, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> BTW, the article Hermonta links to does not include Bahnsen's criticism of the common evangelical approach.
> [Edited on 4-26-2006 by Scott]



Sorry bout that, I just assumed it would be "relevantly similar".


----------



## DTK (Apr 26, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> Refresh me memory on Whitaker (I don't have the book at my fingertips). Did he say that a way that we recognize that the various Old Testament books are inspired is because they were authored by prophets?
> 
> In the tape I linked to, Bahnsen criticizes the typical evangelical means of identifying whether books are inspired are not. As I recall, one of the tests for the NT canon is to identify whether a book was written by an apostle or a close associate of an apostle. Analysis of that perspective would seem relevant to evaluating an approach that established canonicity of OT books by demonstrating prophetic authorship.
> ...


Scott,

Here is how Whitaker begins his argument against Stapleton; I'll let you judge. These quotes are from my notes...

*William Whitaker (1547-1595):* Therefore...I answer, that it is false to say as he [Stapleton] does, that no authority is more certain than that of the church: it is a mere begging of the question. For greater and more certain is the authority of God of the Scriptures themselves, and of the Holy Spirit, by whose testimony the truth of Scripture is sealed in our minds, and without which all other testimonies are utterly devoid of strength. But God (says he) teaches us through the church, and by no other medium: therefore there is no more certain authority than that of the church. I answer: For the authority of him who teaches is greater than that of him through whom one is taught. God teaches us through the church: therefore the authority of God is greater than the church. I am surprised that Stapleton should have been so stupid as not to see that, if it be God who teaches through the church, the authority of God must be greater than that of the church. He confesses that we are taught by God through the church: therefore, since God is the prime and highest teacher, it is evident that his authority and trustworthiness is the chief. William Whitaker, _A Disputation on Holy Scripture Against the Papists, Especially Bellarmine and Stapleton_, trans. and ed. William Fitzgerald (Cambridge: University Press, reprinted 1849), p. 286.

*William Whitaker (1547-1595):* The second argument wherewith Stapleton confirms the assumption of the preceding syllogism is this: All other mediums that can be attempted are insufficient without making recourse to the judgment of the church; and then he enumerates the mediums upon which we rely. For as to the style (says he) and phraseology, and other mediums, by which the scripture is usually distinguished,"”these the church knows best, and is best able to judge aright. There, &c. I answer: If by the church he understand the pope and the bishops (as the papists always do), I deny that they are best able to distinguish the style and phraseology of scripture; I deny that this is the true church of Christ which knows the voice of Christ. But if he speaks of the true church, this fallacy is that called ignoratio elenchi, and the state of the question is changed. For before this he had been speaking of the external judgment of scripture, which perhaps may properly belong to the bishops: but here he understands the internal judgment, which is not only proper to the pastors, but common to all Christians: for all Christ´s sheep know his voice, and are internally persuaded of the truth of scripture. Secondly, although we should concede all this to him, yet where will be the coherence of his reasoning,"”The church knows best the voice of the spouse, and the style and phraseology of scripture; therefore its authority is the most certain? For what though the church know? What is that to me? Are these things therefore known and certain to me? For the real question is, how can I know it best? Although the church know ever so well the voice of its spouse, and the style and phraseology of scripture, it hath that knowledge to itself, not to me; and by whatever means it hath gained that knowledge, why should I be able to gain it also by the same? Thirdly, from what he says, the contrary of his conclusion might much more correctly be inferred, namely, that the authority of scripture is more certain than that of the church. For if the authority of the church be therefore most certain, because it knows best the style of scripture, and judges by the style of scripture, it is plain that the authority of scripture itself is far more certain, since it indicates itself to the church by its style. But I (you will say) should not know that this was the voice of the spouse, that this was the style of scripture, unless the church were to teach me. This, indeed, is untrue, since it can be known that this is the voice of Christ and true and genuine scripture without the judgment of the church, as shall hereafter be shewn more at large. But, although we were to grant him this, that it could not be known otherwise than through the church, that these were the scriptures, yet even so the argument would be inconsequential. For many would not have known Christ, if John had not taught them, pointed him out, and exclaimed, "œBehold the Lamb of God, who taketh away the sin of the world!" Was then the authority of John more certain than that of Christ? By no means. For John brought many to Christ, who afterwards believed much more on account of Christ himself, than on account of the preaching and testimony of John. So many through means of the church believe these to be the scriptures, who afterwards believe still more firmly, being persuaded by the scriptures themselves. Besides, Paul and Peter and the other apostles best knew the voice of Christ; must therefore their authority be rated higher than that of Christ himself? Far from it. It does not therefore follow that because the church knows very well the voice of Christ, the authority of the church is greater than that of Christ. But as to his pretence that because the church delivers the rule of faith, it must therefore be the correctest judge of that rule; we must observe that the terms deliverer and judge are ambiguous. The church does indeed deliver that rule, not as its author, but as a witness, and an admonisher, and a minister: it judges also when instructed by the Holy Spirit. But may I therefore conclude, that I cannot be certain of this rule, but barely by the testimony of the church? It is a mere fallacy of the accident. There is no consequence in this reasoning: I can be led by the church´s voice to the rule of faith; therefore I can have no more certain judgment than that of the church. William Whitaker, _A Disputation on Holy Scripture Against the Papists, Especially Bellarmine and Stapleton_, trans. and ed. William Fitzgerald (Cambridge: University Press, reprinted 1849), pp. 286-288.

DTK


----------



## DTK (Apr 26, 2006)

BTW, Whitaker exposes the double-standard of many of the papists on this issue with whom he was familiar...

*Whitaker (1547-1595):* We have besides the testimonies of papists themselves. For the chief popish writers may be cited in this cause. Gabriel Biel, in _Sentent_. Lib. III. Dist. 25, in Dub. 3, speaks thus: "œCatholic verities, without any approbation of the church, are by their own nature immutable, and immutably true, and so are to be considered immutably catholic." [Sicut veritates catholicÃ¦ absque omni approbatione ecclesiÃ¦ ex natura rei sunt immutabiles, et immutabiliter verÃ¦, ita sunt immutabiliter catholicÃ¦ reputandÃ¦."”p. 253. BrixiÃ¦, 1574.] Hosius in his _Confessio Petrocoïµiensis_, cap. 16, says that we believe the gospel on no other score, but on account of the voice of God speaking within and teaching us. [..propter Dei vocem intus loquentis."”p. 21. Opp. Lugd. 1564.] This he affirms more than once in that book, although afterwards he tries in some degree to correct and excuse himself. Melchior Canus, _Loc. Commun_. Lib. II. c. 8, disputes upon this question at great length, and, though differing from us in words, agrees with us in substance. For he says, that, without infused faith we can believe nothing necessarily, nor be persuaded of any thing certainly. But that faith which springs from the church´s judgment is acquired; whereas infused faith proceeds from the Holy Spirit. Therefore, even by the confession of the papists themselves, the scripture is to us what it is, that is, the scripture, on account of the authority of God; and in order that we should certainly believe what we receive in scripture, we have need of the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit. Canisus, in his catechism, in the chapter upon the precepts of the church, sect. 16, says that we "œbelieve, adhere, and attribute the greatest authority to scripture on account of the testimony of the divine Spirit which speaks in it." [ScripturÃ¦ propter testimonium divini Spiritus in illa loquentis credimus, &c."”Opus Catech. p. 157. Colon. 1577.] Hence two things are collected: first, that the Holy Spirit speaks in scripture; secondly, that the Holy Spirit, speaking in scripture, persuades us to believe scripture and assign to it the greatest authority. So Stapleton in the last chapter of his first book: "œIt is not derogatory to the sacred scripture that it receives witness from the church, although it have greater testimony from the Spirit of God, who is its author." If this be true, why hath Stapleton afterwards disputed so keenly against this testimony of the Spirit, which he had himself confessed to be greater than the testimony of the church? And Bellarmine himself, in his MS. lectures upon Thomas´ _Secunda SecundÃ¦_, QuÃ¦st. 1, Art. 1, Dub. 1, teaches that we believe, not on account of the church, but on account of the revelation of God; and refutes the contrary opinions of certain others. Thus we conclude that our opinion is true not only in itself, but even in the judgment of our adversaries themselves. William Whitaker, _A Disputation on Holy Scripture Against the Papists, Especially Bellarmine and Stapleton_, trans. and ed. William Fitzgerald (Cambridge: University Press, reprinted 1849), pp. 357-358.

DTK


----------



## Scott (Apr 26, 2006)

"Sorry bout that, I just assumed it would be "relevantly similar"."

It is relevant and it is good, as are most things by Bahnsen. That one piece (the criticism of the standard evangelical method) is missing.


----------



## Scott (Apr 26, 2006)

David: Thanks. I was thinking about something different in Whitaker's book. I will try and find the relevant portion at home when I have time. It is dealing not with who (church, individual, or other) is the proper entity to perform a test to recognize inspiration, but rather what the substantive test itself is (irrespective of who is going to apply it). I think there is something about prophetic authorship being a signature of inspiration.


----------



## BaptistCanuk (Apr 26, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> Brian: There is a Modern English Study Version of the Westminster Confession online.



Thanks Scott. It is very cool to see that available.


----------



## Scott (Apr 26, 2006)

This is the argument I was thinking of in Whitaker's book (p. 51 of the SDG version). The context concerns whether the apocryphal books are inspired and canonical.


> I form the argument thus: These books, concerning which we contend [the apocrypha], were not written by prophets: therefore they are not canonical. The entire syllogism is this. All canonical books of the old Testament were written by prophets: none of these books was written by any prophet: therefore none of these books in canonical.


This sounds similar (although there are differences) to the apostle/apostolic associate standard for NT canonicity that many use for the NT (which I believe Bahnsen criticized, although I would need to pull out the tape for details). 

Anyway, apart from what Bahnsen said, what do you guys think about this argument?

Scott


----------



## DTK (Apr 26, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> This is the argument I was thinking of in Whitaker's book (p. 51 of the SDG version). The context concerns whether the apocryphal books are inspired and canonical.
> 
> 
> ...


Scott, I think perhaps you're comparing apples and oranges here. The quote you've cited is on pp. 49-50 of both the Parker Society and the SDG editions. Whitaker is not presenting a positive argument by which we recognize the canon, but responding specifically to Stapleton's argument for the legitimacy/inclusion of the _Deutero-canonicals_, or what we refer to as the OT apocrypha. Whitaker is simply setting forth an argument that these books were clearly not authored by any of the OT prophets. In other words, he's making a sound case for their _exclusion_, not for their _inclusion_. It is only later in his work, much further on, that he sets forth his positive argument for how how we come to recognize the authority of those books which are included in the canon. I don't think Bahnsen would object to this particular argument. Moreover, Whitaker states in the first sentence of the very next paragraph, "The major [premise] rests upon plain testimonies of scripture." I think that Whitaker's argument here would be sanctioned by what Bahnsen called, "Evidential Apologetics: The Right Way."

DTK


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Apr 27, 2006)

> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> ...



Excellent -- good tip, Hermonta!


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Apr 27, 2006)

OK HG,
(now that my $$ was spent  )
But aside from that new link you've given, RegularGuy just signing into monergism or using the link straight to the book, and there is no ka-ching. So how legit is that offer for anyone except for you? Even if I hadn't already spent the jack, I'd be wondering whether I met the criteria printed in that link...


----------



## ChristianTrader (Apr 27, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> OK HG,
> (now that my $$ was spent  )
> But aside from that new link you've given, RegularGuy just signing into monergism or using the link straight to the book, and there is no ka-ching. So how legit is that offer for anyone except for you? Even if I hadn't already spent the jack, I'd be wondering whether I met the criteria printed in that link...



At the bottom of the post, I mentioned that the link is actually the same link as is on the front page of the monergism book site (I actually said just front page). So there is no actual need to have bought stuff before.

You could probably email them to get your five bucks back.

CT


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Apr 27, 2006)

Ya, I looked there, and didn't see it! gnnrnnngngnrrrggrrrgrnrngnrnr

E-mail... We'll see how generous they are.

BTW, AOMIN is selling it for $30 (plus shipping).


----------



## D. Paul (Apr 27, 2006)

*One more Offer...*

James White aomin.org offers it for $30
https://aomin.org/bookstore/shop.html?shop=books

but I'm not sure of shipping cost.


----------



## Scott (May 2, 2006)

> Whitaker is simply setting forth an argument that these books were clearly not authored by any of the OT prophets. In other words, he's making a sound case for their exclusion, not for their inclusion.


I agree that it is in the form of a negative argument and is directed at discrediting the various books of the apocrypha (which is part of the reason I mentioned differences b/t WW and current canonical arguments). Still, his major premise is "[a]ll canonical books of the old Testament were written by prophets," and he spends a page or so defending this biblically. Whitaker's explanation of the major premise seems to lean in the direction of the standard evangelical position of apostolic / apostolic associate view. WW does not purport to offer a complete explanation of the OT canon, though. 


> It is only later in his work, much further on, that he sets forth his positive argument for how how we come to recognize the authority of those books which are included in the canon.


Where is the positive argument?


----------



## DTK (May 2, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Scott_


I agree that it is in the form of a negative argument and is directed at discrediting the various books of the apocrypha (which is part of the reason I mentioned differences b/t WW and current canonical arguments). Still, his major premise is "[a]ll canonical books of the old Testament were written by prophets," and he spends a page or so defending this biblically. Whitaker's explanation of the major premise seems to lean in the direction of the standard evangelical position of apostolic / apostolic associate view. WW does not purport to offer a complete explanation of the OT canon, though. [/quote] 
Then we will simply have to disagree, agreeably I trust.  But elsewhere while addressing the issue of canonicity properly, Whitaker plainly states that "it is possible that prophets and apostles may have written some things in an ordinary way to private persons, as, for instance, David sent private letters to Joab. These things ought not to be received into the canon. But whatever they wrote as prophets, and inspired by God, for the public instruction of the church, have been received into the canon" (pp. 300-301). Thus he doesn't make authorship by a prophet and/or apostle the automatic criterion for a document to be canonical, but rather qeo,pneustoj. His primary argument, by which he prefaces his entire discussion of canonicity (when he addresses it properly), is that of the self-attestation of Holy Scripture. In fact after discussing some of the positions and inconsistencies of the Romanists of his day, Whitaker plainly states on p. 279: "The sum of our opinion is that the scripture is auvto,pistoj, that is, hath all its authority and credit from itself; is to be acknowledged, is to be received, not only because the church hath so determined and commanded, but because it comes from God; and that we certainly know that it comes from God, not by the church, but by the Holy Ghost" (pp. 279-280).


> Where is the positive argument?


It begins on p. 275 and runs through p. 358 where Whitaker does proceed into what I regard as "a complete explanation of the OT canon." It is encompassed under his "Question 3: The authority of Scripture."

DTK

[Edited on 5-2-2006 by DTK]


----------



## Scott (May 2, 2006)

Thanks. I need to read through the positive argument. Whitaker is good.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (May 18, 2006)

There is a biography of William Whitaker written by Samuel Clarke which is available here.

[Edited on 5-18-2006 by VirginiaHuguenot]


----------



## ChristianTrader (May 22, 2006)

Bahnsen's lecture on the canon is available for free here: http://www.sermonaudio.ca/bahnsen/Bahnsen_QuestionOfCanonicity.mp3


----------



## JM (Nov 5, 2006)

I can't seem to find a review for this title. Is it an apologetic work? Is is a "need" title or a "want" title?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Nov 5, 2006)

See this thread.


----------



## JM (Nov 5, 2006)

Thank you, I thought I had seen one around here, I even thought I made a post in the thread...


----------



## Arch2k (Nov 5, 2006)

Threads merged!


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Apr 12, 2007)

Available online: 

William Whitaker, _A Disputation on Holy Scripture_


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Apr 12, 2007)

whoohoo! It'd be nice if I could select text and paste it, though.


----------

