The Bible is self-authenticating. On account of this, there is no need to appeal to anything beyond it in order for it to merit belief. It merits belief of itself. This is absolutely not to say that we are to never appeal to facts outside of it so as to reference evidence for it and occasion belief in the word of God where there has not been belief, but even those facts must attest to the Bible by the strength of the Bible itself as the very light and justification of truth. Whatever truths the facts outside the Bible may affirm, invariably they have their manifest justification in the Bible. This view is called Biblical Dogmaticism as I understand it.
I believe there are possibly different interpretations on the claim that the Bible is sufficient to justify itself depending on the way that claim is worded. To say that the Bible is true, because it says it’s true can be too ambiguous though I am not opposed to saying it. It might be taken to mean that it literally makes itself true as if it were previously false or non-propositional. Rather than saying this, Biblical Dogmaticism says our knowledge that the Bible is true is based on God’s revelation in the Bible. Of course, the notion that the Bible reveals that the Bible is true assumes that the Bible is true. But if it actually does say that it’s true and true justification for what it says is in the Bible, then there is legitimate grounds for believing in and assuming that the Bible is true on account of the Bible. It is therefore not known to be true merely because it’s true, but also because it reveals or speaks to the one who knows.
Naturally, people reject that the Bible is sufficient to justify itself before the unbeliever, saying the following…
If the Bible justifies itself and is therefore in no need of justification for anything outside of it or if one has the right to assume the Bible, everyone has the right to assume other beliefs on account of those beliefs.
This is stated in order to argue that the Bible is actually not sufficient justification of itself. I take it to mean one or both of these two things. (1) They are saying the implication of the claim that the Bible is sufficient justification of itself is that other truth claims ought to be true or should be taken as such by mere virtue of the fact that they are claimed to be true. (2) They are saying that if one can say the Bible is sufficient justification of itself, then who is he to reprove someone else who happens to say his beliefs are true or should be taken as such by mere virtue of the fact that they are said to be true?
Now the claim that Biblical Dogmaticism allows for other views to be dogmatically held relies upon the assumption that Biblical Dogmaticism is false because the claim is based on a principle other than the Bible itself. If it were actually based on the Bible, then to dogmatically hold to alternate views would be seen as prohibited by Biblical Dogmaticism, not allowed. So to set forth that claim is to beg the question. And since the claim is stated in order to demonstrate that the Bible must be falsifiable to be worthy of belief, we cannot infer on account of it that the Bible must be falsifiable since it begs the question. Moreover, since the claim is made in order to demonstrate that Biblical Dogmaticism is false, it is viciously circular since it first assumes that Biblical Dogmaticism is false. That the Bible is actually not falsifiable is exactly what would be required if Biblical Dogmaticism were correct. Even if one were able to test particular propositions in the Bible to see whether they were true, there will always be biblical propositons that are themselves not falsiable. Thus, the Bible’s self-justification would not be falsifiable since its trueness necessitates the trueness of those propositons. And those propositions are known to be true because the Bible says they are true.
Now I acknowledge that the notion that Bible merits belief even if it is falsifiable is counter-intuitive. And that should be addressed. But the point I am now making is that since it is not falsifiable, to argue that other beliefs merit belief of themselves just because Biblical Dogmaticism says the Bible merits belief of itself is to commit the fallacy of comparison and to downright ignore what Biblical Dogaticism is saying. As I’ve stated, unlike Bible, alternate beliefs are falsifiable at least in the sense that they can be disproven by the Bible itself. This makes the comparison invalid. Again, Biblical Dogmaticism says that if one knows the Bible is true on account of the Bible, then it necessarily follows from this that alternative beliefs cannot truly merit belief, which means absolutely no one has the moral right to affirm alternate beliefs on account of the beliefs themselves. Thus Biblical Dogmaticism does not imply that beliefs that contradict it can be dogmatically held nor does it render the one who dogmatically assumes the Bible unqualified to object to other dogmas.
Note: The views and opinions expressed in this blog post are the author’s and are not necessarily the views of any other contributor on this site.
{ 6 comments… read them below or add one }
I read the article that you posted and it raised some questions in my mind that I would like to hear your responses to.
*If Scripture were actually “self-authenticating,” why was there so much disagreement and uncertainty over various books in the New Testament? (James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, & Revelation)
*When was the canon of the Bible identified? Why was the canon of the Bible not identified much earlier if its books were allegedly so readily discernible?
*Soon after Jesus’ death, a number of books and letters circulated that claimed to contain the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles. Who decided what books were inspired?
*How can you say that the Bible is self-authenticating if some books in the Bible do not identify their own authors? If it isn’t definitively apostolic, then by what criteria was it decided that that particular book should be included in the canon? Ex) We don’t know for certain who wrote the book of Hebrews.
R.C Sproul sums up the Protestant canon when he says, it is “a fallible collection of infallible books.”
Hello Jen, thank you very much for taking the time to read what I’ve written and write out a response. In regards to this subject, although I am confident in what I believe, I’m still learning not just on my understanding of the subject itself, but also on how to respond to the various questions people might have. But hopefully what I’ve written below will make for a progressive interaction.
You wrote, “*If Scripture were actually “self-authenticating,” why was there so much disagreement and uncertainty over various books in the New Testament? (James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, & Revelation)”
If one could justifiably believe that the six books you mentioned are Scripture, whether there are church authorities who disagree or not, it has to be by virtue of divine revelation (the word of God) which would necessarily include those six books. So one knows that those six books are parts of the canon on account of the six books. This is why the view I advocate is recognized as dogmatic. Why should one trust the word of God, which means why should I trust those books? Because the word of God in Scripture requires it. Yes, there has been uncertainty and disagreement on what books should be considered Scriptuere, but this is not eliminated when the church has established the collection of books, because even as those who supposedly possess the entire canon of Scripture, there is disagreement as to what is Scripture since we will hold to different interpretations on the same text.
If it seems ungrounded to presuppose that the six books mentioned above are Scripture, then the question can be asked, “How do we know that we don’t know that they are Scripture?” Because church figures disagree? That’s the reason skeptics give as to why they don’t accept the Bible as the infallible word of the true and living God even though they will say that it could be. But I dont believe the fact that there is disagreement between scholars and theologians means that no ones knows what Scripture is. Moreover, generally, people disagree on what truth is. Does that mean nobody knows anything since one cannot have knowledge without belief in the truth?
If we maintain that there are grounds to believe or presuppose that they are Scripture, but not without our reliance on the methods of the Church, “How do we know that they are Scripture without it being based solely on Scripture?” For example, we know on account of Scripture that God would lead the Church unto all truth. By Scripture, we know that Jesus says that God’s word is truth. We know by Scripture that in Jesus, all the treasures of wisdom and knowlwdge are found. We know, by Scripture, that Jesus cannot lie.
“*When was the canon of the Bible identified? Why was the canon of the Bible not identified much earlier if its books were allegedly so readily discernible?”
Given my perspective and to save time, in response to this I’ll just say for now that I don’t believe it is relevant as to when the canon of Scripture was identified exhaustively. But I do believe it was identified exhaustively even if not necessarily until many years after it was all written. And it was identified, though not exhaustively, even before it was written (Rom 9:17, Gal 3:8). And this is precisely because Scripture is self-authenticating as there has to be an epistemic basis for a belief we rightly recognizes as knowledge. I believe that the epistemic basis for knowledge is Scripture. There are many people who don’t know exactly what the canon of Scripture consists of even to this day. But Scripture is what it is and it doesn’t need to be exhaustively, readily dicernable in order to be what it is. And invariably, Scripture cannot be what it is without proper justification since the truth is justified by definition.
“*Soon after Jesus’ death, a number of books and letters circulated that claimed to contain the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles. Who decided what books were inspired?”
By definition God -not man- had to have decided what books were inspired and he did that before he even created man. Man can only have that revealed unto him.
“*How can you say that the Bible is self-authenticating if some books in the Bible do not identify their own authors? If it isn’t definitively apostolic, then by what criteria was it decided that that particular book should be included in the canon? Ex) We don’t know for certain who wrote the book of Hebrews.”
Of course, one doesnt have to know who wrote the book of Hebrews in order to know the book of Hebrews is the word of God. Regardless of whatever process the church underwent to count Hebrews as a part of the Canon, God would still have to reveal to them that it was a part of the canon. And one cannot determine that Hebrews is a part of the canon except on account of Hebrews….unless we can justifiably ascertain that Hebrews is not Scripture.
“R.C Sproul sums up the Protestant canon when he says, it is “a fallible collection of infallible books.”"
As R.C. Sproul has stated himself, he happens to represent the perspective that stands at odds with Biblical Dogmaticism. But without being so quick to say I disagree with him on this specific claim, I will say for now that I am having a difficult time understand how it is correct. If the books within the canon are infallible, how could the collection of the books be fallible? I do not believe the fact that there has been disagreement within the Church on what exactly constituted the canon of Scripture demonstrates that the collection was fallible. Even if the Church seemed arbitrary in thir decree on what Scripture was, to supposed that Scripture is actually Scripture on acccount of Scripture (including James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, and Revelation) cannot be arbitrary.
Sonny,
Thank you for taking the time to respond to my post. I really appreciated how organized your response was to my questions. I don’t want to respond the same way (for now) because a lot of your answers are very similar.
In a lot of your answers you basically say that in order to know if Scripture is divinely inspired, you have to go to Scripture and see if Scripture says it is. Basically, “Check scripture with scripture.” The problem with this is that you already have the assumption that the 66 books in your Bible are the Word of God. Let’s assume I don’t know it is the Word of God. If I don’t believe the Bible is the Word of God, how can you tell me to go check the bible to prove it is inspired? Remember, I don’t believe in it. (Just for your information, I actually do believe the bible is God’s word but I don’t believe it is self-authenticating.)
First, every book in the bible doesn’t directly state it is the word of God. Second, one cannot prove the inspiration of Scripture, or any text, from the text itself. The Book of Mormon, the Qur’an, the writings of Mary Baker Eddy, and other books all claim inspiration, but this does not make them inspired. This is circular reasoning. We cannot have a discussion on why the bible is inspired by using solely the Bible. For example, Muslims believe that the Qur’an is inspired by God. They believe their book is unique, unlike any other book in the whole world. They believe this with absolute certainty. They can even say, “The Qur’an is ‘self-authenticating’.” You may say, “How do I know the Qur’an is inspired?” They can easily reply, “Read it. You will feel inspired.” The Muslim could even tell you, “It is self-authenticating because this verse says so.”
Mormons do the exact same thing regarding the Book of Mormon. They are instructed to tell people they feel a ‘burning in their bosom’ when they read it, and that’s how they know it’s true. So if you were talking to a Mormon or a Muslim and you all claim that your holy book is inspired by God, does the conversation end there because you don’t acknowledge the inspiration of the other books? Or is there something more that we can appeal to in order to determine inspiration.
We are having this discussion with the benefit of almost 2000 years of knowing what the bible is. For the sake of this discussion I think it would be helpful to put ourselves in the shoes of those who lived at the time that the original manuscripts were written, instead of assuming we already know Romans (or some other book) is Scripture. If you were making a case for why these books are inspired you can’t just say ‘because they are’ or ‘it says it is.’ That is not reasonable. That would simply be a claim based on no objective evidence.
In my first question I asked, “If Scripture were actually “self-authenticating,” why was there so much disagreement and uncertainty over various books in the New Testament?”
One thing you said was, “How do we know that we don’t know that they are Scripture.”
Exactly. We don’t know if it is or if it isn’t Scripture. Since we don’t know for certain…we can’t assume it is. You wouldn’t assume that with other “holy books” so why assume that with the Bible? You are trying to prove that the Bible is self-authenticating by using the bible. The Bible does not and cannot answer questions about its own inspiration or about the canon. Also, the New Testament is the most accurate and verifiable historical document in all of ancient history, but one cannot deduce from this that it is inspired.
Another question I asked was: “When was the canon of the Bible identified? Why was the canon of the Bible not identified much earlier if its books were allegedly so readily discernible?”
You said, “But I do believe it was identified exhaustively even if not necessarily until many years after it was all written.” You acknowledge that someone identified the canon. Who identified it? How can we trust whoever identified Scripture? Also, you quoted Rom & Gal which don’t make your point. Those verses aren’t talking about when the canon was identified or by whom. If we are going to be discussing the canon of Scripture, then you can’t quote scripture to prove that Scripture is inspired (again, for the sake of argument, we have to assume that we don’t already know which books make up the Bible).
“Scripture cannot be what it is without proper justification since the truth is justified by definition.”
I agree. Scripture needs proper justification. But like I have been saying, it’s not enough for it to claim its own inspiration. As human beings we have limited intellect and knowledge, I’m not saying it’s impossible for God to instill the canon of Scripture in my heart. He could certainly do that. I don’t see that working out in reality though. Martin Luther is a perfect example for this topic. Martin Luther felt as though James, Hebrew, and Revelation didn’t belong in the bible. So he put it in the back of his bible. He “felt” that they weren’t truly inspired by God. Was he right to do this? Why or why not? If everyone can just as easily say that they feel the Bible is God’s word, then people can easily counter that by saying, “I don’t feel like it’s God’s word.” If there is no authority outside of the bible to determine who is correct then we have no way of knowing which books are truly God’s word. Again, your only “proof” would fall back on your subjective opinion or experience but not on any objective, substantial proof. (Just for the record I’m actually someone who does disagree with what you would consider the canon of Scripture. I believe that the Bible is comprised of 73 books and this belief of mine is consistent with the beliefs of all Christians from the end of the 4th century until the 16th century.) So again, who is to decide between us which canon is correct? Is it merely “my opinion” or “my feelings” against yours?
I said: *How can you say that the Bible is self-authenticating if some books in the Bible do not identify their own authors?
You said: “Of course, one doesn’t have to know who wrote the book of Hebrews in order to know the book of Hebrews is the word of God. Regardless of whatever process the church underwent to count Hebrews as a part of the Canon, God would still have to reveal to them that it was a part of the canon. And one cannot determine that Hebrews is a part of the canon except on account of Hebrews….unless we can justifiably ascertain that Hebrews is not Scripture.”
I’m a little confused by your use of the word church. What church are you referring to when you say “regardless of what process the church underwent to count Hebrews as a part of the Canon, God would still have to reveal to them that it was a part of the canon.”
How do you know that God revealed to the “church” that Hebrews was a part of the canon? It sounds to me like you are accepting some authority other than the bible when you say “process the church underwent to count Hebrews as a part of the Canon.” Again, if you claim that the Bible is self-authenticating and the author of the text doesn’t say that or in this case we don’t even know who the author is, how can you personally say that Hebrews is the Word of God without any objective evidence?
This is a very important question:
Do you believe that the church was operating on its own power/authority, or was the Church being guided by the Holy Spirit?
R.C Sproul: sums up the Protestant canon when he says, it is “a fallible collection of infallible books.
“I will say for now that I am having a difficult time understand how it is correct. If the books within the canon are infallible, how could the collection of the books be fallible?”
Because you don’t accept any authority outside of the Bible, you have no way of knowing who collected the books. They weren’t originally written in book form. Each Gospel or epistle was separate than the others. So someone had to have compiled it all together. If you say that the Bible is self-authenticating, then you are not accepting any authority outside the bible. The problem with this is that you have no sure way of knowing how the books came to be canonized and by whom. If you cannot accept the authority that compiled the Bible, then you are “hoping” whoever put the bible together didn’t mess up! If the people who made the decisions about which books belonged in the Bible were not given authority and guidance from God, then you have no way of knowing if the collection that you have today is accurate and complete.
Please let me know if you don’t understand what I’m saying or if you need me to explain anything further.
Hi Jen,
Thanks again for your response.
You said, “The problem with this is that you already have the assumption that the 66 books in your Bible are the Word of God.”
If Scripture is axiomatic, it is actually no problem at all. (More detail on this below)
“Remember, I don’t believe in it. (Just for your information, I actually do believe the bible is God’s word but I don’t believe it is self-authenticating.)”
No one is totally without knowledge of (belief in) the Bible. With every thinking person, there is some knowledge of it. The problem is that we believe in notions that negate that knowledge and we are inconsistent in that we believe in it while misinterpreting it and we believe in parts of it while failing to believe in all of it. This is true whether we outright deny the Bible, are living in a cave somewhere in uncharted territory, or are faithful adherents to it.
“First, every book in the bible doesn’t directly state it is the word of God. Second, one cannot prove the inspiration of Scripture, or any text, from the text itself. The Book of Mormon, the Qur’an, the writings of Mary Baker Eddy, and other books all claim inspiration, but this does not make them inspired. This is circular reasoning.”
It is not circular reasoning, because I make no attempts at proving it. It is axiomatic reasoning. And the Bible is the true axiom as it possesses justification within itself (All of Scripture is given by inspiration of God). If it actually didn’t possess justification in itself as you assert, then it would be absolutely necessary to reference something outside of the Bible in order for belief in it to be justified. But even so, without having an ultimate standard to consistently and justifiably appeal to for the sake of judging all things (not excluding the the standard itself), one will be truly circular. However, I certainly don’t advocate that we can’t appeal to anything outside of the Bible so as to reference external evidence for it since evidence is not necessarily proof. As a matter of fact, we should reference external evidence because that is what God commands in Scripture and that is what is done in Scripture. As Romans Ch 1 says, we have creation to reference. However, Jesus still says to Thomas, “Blessed are those who believe without seeing”. Again, Paul says, “We walk by faith, not by sight [or the senses]”
“If you were making a case for why these books are inspired you can’t just say ‘because they are’ or ‘it says it is.’ That is not reasonable. That would simply be a claim based on no objective evidence.”
We can’t *just* say that they are the word of God because they say they are because God has commanded more from us and we are to acquiesce to the ones we preach to. Paul says that to the Jew I became a Jew that I might win him and he had Timothy circumcised. Jesus acquiesced to Thomas when he told him to touch his side. But we, yet, can say that they are Scripture because they say they are if indeed they are even if we don’t say explicitly that we speak ultimately on account of Scripture and even if Scripture doesn’t always explicitly state on paper that it is Scripture.
“One thing you said was, “How do we know that we don’t know that they are Scripture.”
Exactly. We don’t know if it is or if it isn’t Scripture. Since we don’t know for certain…we can’t assume it is. You wouldn’t assume that with other “holy books” so why assume that with the Bible? You are trying to prove that the Bible is self-authenticating by using the bible. The Bible does not and cannot answer questions about its own inspiration or about the canon.”
I understand that you believe that we don’t know if it is or isn’t Scripture, but my question was, “*How* do you know that we don’t know whether the six books are Scripture?” On account of the axiom that is Scripture I do not believe that we don’t know. And since I hold Scripture to be the Christian axiom, I make no attempts at proving it. If I make an attempt at proving it, then I deny that it’s an axiom. And then, I might end up being circular. But if I make no attempt at proving it, then I act consistently with what I believe and that certainly does not necessarily mean I’m being arbitrary or am relying upon feelings. I’m relying upon Scripture, and justifiably so.
““You said, “But I do believe it was identified exhaustively even if not necessarily until many years after it was all written.” You acknowledge that someone identified the canon. Who identified it? How can we trust whoever identified Scripture? Also, you quoted Rom & Gal which don’t make your point. Those verses aren’t talking about when the canon was identified or by whom. If we are going to be discussing the canon of Scripture, then you can’t quote scripture to prove that Scripture is inspired (again, for the sake of argument, we have to assume that we don’t already know which books make up the Bible).”
For the sake of argument, I might assume that we don’t know which books make up the Bible in order to attempt to show how doing other than assuming the Bible leads to illogical errors.
As to who identified Scripture, firstly, God identified Scripture. And as sovereignly decreed by him, the Church assumed that identification since he says in Scripture, that the Holy Spirit would lead his Church unto all truth. And by the Church, I mean the Body of Christ though I do not mean every single person in the body of Christ agrees on exactly what Scripture is. My understanding is that different parts of Scripture was already recognized/identified by different people within the Church prior to when they officially recognized books of Scripture. Although there are synods that took place where they would officially establish what they believed the canon to be, it is hard if not downright impossible to say exactly when every book was recognized as Scripture by what person among men. But my point was that I don’t believe it to be particularly relevant. So I won’t say, for example, that Scripture was recognized in 397 A.D. because, although I know that the different books I consider to be Scripture were recognized before that point in time, the point I was making is that they were recognized.
I referenced Rom and Gal in order to set forth more detail as to what I believe and yet to make for what I think is a more simple representation of what I believe. If Scripture was self authenticating at the time of Abraham and Pharoah, it is self-authenticating now. For the same way they knew what God was saying is the same way we know what God is saying now. They had evidence (or signs) attesting to the word of God, but they didn’t identify the word of God ultimately on account of the evidence as if the evidence said anything of itself, but on account of the word of God itself. Of course, a provision of evidence might have occasioned belief where there previously wasn’t belief.
““Scripture cannot be what it is without proper justification since the truth is justified by definition.”
I agree. Scripture needs proper justification.
But like I have been saying, it’s not enough for it to claim its own inspiration. As human beings we have limited intellect and knowledge, I’m not saying it’s impossible for God to instill the canon of Scripture in my heart. He could certainly do that. I don’t see that working out in reality though.”
In some sense, he does it all the time. Romans Ch 2 says that we have the work of the law written in our hearts. How do I have an comprehension of the law in my heart? Upon the basis of Scripture, since the law is attested to by Scripture. Even with all of the alleged proof or evidence of the Bible, to have some innate comprehension of the canon is what would be necessary at the end of the day even if it is in some way negated as in the case with Martin Luther -as in the case with all fallible persons.
“Martin Luther felt as though James, Hebrew, and Revelation didn’t belong in the bible. So he put it in the back of his bible. He “felt” that they weren’t truly inspired by God. Was he right to do this? Why or why not? If everyone can just as easily say that they feel the Bible is God’s word, then people can easily counter that by saying, “I don’t feel like it’s God’s word.” If there is no authority outside of the bible to determine who is correct then we have no way of knowing which books are truly God’s word. Again, your only “proof” would fall back on your subjective opinion or experience but not on any objective, substantial proof. (Just for the record I’m actually someone who does disagree with what you would consider the canon of Scripture.”
As I basically said in my initial post, those who hear me say that the Bible is self justifying and decide they want to counter by saying that they feel like what they believe is correct on account of what they believe are still in error as they assume a theory of knowledge that is incorrect. So when they counter in such a way, they are expressing their variance with the truth. But I will not hold that against them, for I will acquiesce to them. Such is the responsibility of the person who is born from above and has the benefit of the expunging of his own errors. (To not come off as judgmental, let me specify that this is not to say that the person who counters in said manner is not also born from above.) So in line with what I’ve already stated in my initial post, I will ask that person how he knows he can counter by being dogmatic about his view. If my axiom is true, then I’m already correct in assuming my axiom and thus, those who contradict it are incorrect. (Again, it is an axiom) And so, actually, the one who contradicts can neither ethically nor justifiably counter my rhetoric insofar as my rhetoric is warranted by my axiom -if my axiom is true. In countering my rhetoric in such a way, he is also making a dogmatic assumption -namely, that my position is wrong. Otherwise, how can the one who rejects my axiom (think that he can) counter by saying that his view is true because it’s true or because it says it’s true? If he has countered in said fashion, then he does the very thing that my perspective has done and which has prompted him to counter in the first place. Thus, he has undermined his own position since he evidently thinks making dogmatic assumptions is wrong. But he hasn’t undermined mine. If I happen to be talking with someone who understands that being dogmatic is unavoidable, then I won’t necessarily say he’s undermined his position in this particular way. But he still has problems, which I can address depending on what his worldview is.
“I believe that the Bible is comprised of 73 books and this belief of mine is consistent with the beliefs of all Christians from the end of the 4th century until the 16th century.)”
Given my research, it is not true that 73 books were believed to be the canon by all Christians. Perhaps the majority of Christians and maybe that is what you mean, but majority doesn’t determine what the canon actually comprises.
“So again, who is to decide between us which canon is correct? Is it merely “my opinion” or “my feelings” against yours?”
I know saying this probably seems redundant by now, but God decides which canon is correct, assuming either one is correct, in his written word. And he reveals that to men on account of the canon, whichever one is the correct one.
“I’m a little confused by your use of the word church. What church are you referring to when you say “regardless of what process the church underwent to count Hebrews as a part of the Canon, God would still have to reveal to them that it was a part of the canon.””
This is answered above.
“How do you know that God revealed to the “church” that Hebrews was a part of the canon? It sounds to me like you are accepting some authority other than the bible when you say “process the church underwent to count Hebrews as a part of the Canon.” Again, if you claim that the Bible is self-authenticating and the author of the text doesn’t say that or in this case we don’t even know who the author is, how can you personally say that Hebrews is the Word of God without any objective evidence?
This is a very important question:
Do you believe that the church was operating on its own power/authority, or was the Church being guided by the Holy Spirit?”
As of now, I believe there are two possible ways of rendering the process the Church underwent and the criteria they assumed to “determine” what books should be within the canon of Scripture. Either part of the criteria was arbitrary (since everyone, including the Church, is subject to error) or they “determined” on account of the divine word as communicated by the Holy Spirit, whether stated in Scripture or not, what should be the criteria for “determining” what books should be part of the canon. But even if there was the possibility of error as far as the criteria they assumed was concerned, I trust the Church insofar as I trust Scripture as it says that the Holy Spirit will lead the Church unto all truth.
My theology is not developed enough to dogmatically render the process and the criteria one way or the other. But *if* Hebrews really is Scripture and one would rightly see it as such, one still has to either say such a perception is based on an inductive conclusion, which characterizes the kind of reasoning R.C. Sproul advocates and what I believe is fallacious (I say this with all due respect – I do learn a lot from him), or he shall rightly count his belief in the book of Hebrews to be based on the book of Hebrews.
Even according to my view, the author doesn’t need to explicitly state on paper that his writing is Scripture in order for us to rightly recognize it as such if we know on account of the book of Hebrews if it really is Scripture. There is nothing wrong with assuming that it is Scripture on account of it – if it really is Scripture. That is what is done with all of the canonical books that are reckoned to be Scripture even with our supposed commitment to relying on the evidence.
To not seem as if I am trying to take us in circles, let’s consider the contrary position. As I’ve already asked, how do we know that we have the right to assume that Hebrews *is at least possibly* not a part of Scripture? How do we argue that we don’t know without doing the same exact thing that Biblical Dogmatists are accused of doing –namely, circular reasoning? It’s a bit difficult to conceptualize what one will say in response to this question. So I’m now trying to do a better job than I have in the past of just leaving it up to the one who questions Scripture or Biblical Dogmaticism to explain how we don’t know. I don’t believe that disagreement is sufficient to account for why we don’t know nor do I believe that majority rule somehow proves what Scripture is and I hope that I have done a good enough job at explaining why. If I haven’t, at your request, I will make another attempt.
Besides, how do we know that there was disagreement in the midst of the church? Because we can read books and see for ourselves? How do we know that we can read? How do we know whatever it is we appeal to in order to state how we can read? These questions might seem silly, but I’m simply trying to stress that our disagreement as to whether or not Scripture is self authenticating ultimately hinges on what our respective theories of knowledge (epistemology) are. At some point one has to see the ultimate attestation to his or her belief as an assumption. But, depending on what the assumption is, not necessarily an arbitrary assumption, but a truthfully self-attesting one. Again, I believe that to be Scripture. How do I know that God created the world in six days, whether we interpret that to mean six twenty-four hour periods or otherwise? Because that’s what God says in Scripture. How do we know that Jericho was an actually existing place? Because that’s what we see in the Bible and that’s what archeology attests to? How do we know that both the Bible and Archeology attests to the existence of Jericho? Can I argue that without being circular? If you assume something other than axiomatic reasoning, which means you are not reasoning according to a single self-authenticating ultimate principle, you will end up being circular.
“If you say that the Bible is self-authenticating, then you are not accepting any authority outside the bible. If the people who made the decisions about which books belonged in the Bible were not given authority and guidance from God, then you have no way of knowing if the collection that you have today is accurate and complete.”
I don’t accept any authority unless it is the Bible’s authority or unless it is warranted according to the Bible. And I don’t believe that there is no authority “outside the Bible”. Rather I believe that the Bible is solely the ultimate authority.
God has magnified his word above his name.
Sonny,
Hope you are having a good week! Thank you so much for taking the time to respond to me. Sorry I don’t respond as quickly as you!
I read through your responses several times trying to really understand where you are coming from, but I think you may be misunderstanding me. Your argument for self-authentication is no different then what a Muslim or a Mormon would say. Please understand this. You are essentially defending it the exact same way they would defend their own beliefs in their holy books.
1) You never commented on Martin Luther putting books in the back of his bible. Was he right to do this? In his German translation of the Bible (1534), he separated the writings he considered “not scripture” into two appendices, one for the OT and another for the NT, and kept them apart from the writings he considered Scripture. He “felt” like certain books weren’t Scripture, just like you “feel” certain books are. Who is right?
2) Even the original King James Bible of 1611 (which was a Protestant translation and had nothing to do with the Catholic Church) had the 7 books you are missing in your bible today. Obviously there were many copies and translations before this one and all of them included the 7 books you are missing.
3) I’m asking you to back up your point that scripture is self-authenticating without using Scripture. You cannot do this.
4) You claim that no one is without knowledge of the Bible. Where is this in the bible? Do you have a Scripture verse to back up this statement? (Not that it would even make the case for self-authentication.) Don’t confuse God with the Bible. (Romans 1:20 claims that all people have a knowledge and existence of God, but it does not say the Bible.) You are giving your opinion when you say no one is without knowledge of the Bible. That statement is not based on facts or even Scripture. There are ton of people around the world that don’t have knowledge of the Bible. Do you know what the literacy rate is in other countries around the world? Some countries have 75% of people who can’t read! So to say that they have a bible, read it, comprehend it, and know that is inspired is not helping your argument at all.
5) You would not know the Scriptures were inspired unless someone first told you that they were. Why is this true? First, what do you feel when you read Leviticus? Do you feel like that book is inspired? How about 2 Chronicles? My point is that not every book in the bible feels “inspiring” but you believe it is inspired because it is in your bible not because every verse or book gives you that “special feeling.” (Mormon and Muslim argument about their feelings of what is inspired)
6) Scripture is not self-authenticating, which is what you are assuming. If it were, then the canon of Scripture would have been settled right away. The fact is, the Church debated it for four centuries. Why? Because it is not self-authenticating. Even after Pope Damasus determined the canon, some in the Church questioned it. The Council of Trent put this to bed by elevating the Church’s teaching on the canon to a dogmatic teaching.
7) A couple things. The Scriptures came from God because He is their author. The “Bible” was compiled by the Catholic Church at the end of the fourth century, at the direction of God. I want to make this distinction between what is God-breathed Scripture versus how we KNOW what is God-breathed Scripture. We only know what is inspired by the authority of the Catholic Church, who compiled the Bible with authority from God. ( “I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so” – Saint Augustine- Early 5th century)
I really love talking about this kind of stuff. My faith is the most important thing in my life. Thank you for taking the time to have a discussion with me. I can tell by your thorough responses that this is something that you really care about. It’s nice talking to people that are passionate enough to give and find answers. These are questions that I struggled with a year ago and I could see how important it was to find answers to these questions. If someone would have asked me a couple years ago where the bible came from, I would not have been able to give objective evidence, but only subjective feelings. When I found answers, it made my love for God and His word much deeper. I’m so thankful for taking the time to pray, search, and find truth. I don’t know how much time you have, but I think you might find this article interesting. It goes into more depth about self-authentication. Actually, the article is written by a Reformed Calvanist who converted to the Catholic Church. He once had the same view as you claiming that scripture is self-authenticating, but he began to see that that position is untenable. Here are the articles I was talking about.
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/06/calvin-on-self-authentication/ -short article
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/03/the-canon-as-its-own-measure/ – short article
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/01/the-canon-question/ -longer article (more in depth)
The website belongs to 18 men who converted to Catholicism after years of believing in Reformed Theology. This website is dedicated to explaining their reasons for conversion to the Catholic Church. I’ve read some of their articles and because I don’t have a background of Reformed Theology so I think these people can better explain what I’m trying to say using your terminology that you may be more familiar with. If you do read an article I’d like to hear what you think. Once again I appreciate your willingingness to have this dialogue with me.
God Bless you.
Hello Jen! This one took me a little longer than the other ones, but here it is…
You said, “Hope you are having a good week! Thank you so much for taking the time to respond to me. Sorry I don’t respond as quickly as you!
”
No need to apologize! I know there is such a thing as life beyond this discussion thread. And thank you, my week’s going alright….and fast! I hope the same for you!
“I read through your responses several times trying to really understand where you are coming from, but I think you may be misunderstanding me.”
No, I understand you. In principle, you’re saying what I had always believed and what man naturally assumes. So I’m very familiar with it. As a matter of fact, what you’re saying is exactly what my blog post was meant to address.
“Your argument for self-authentication is no different then what a Muslim or a Mormon would say. Please understand this. You are essentially defending it the exact same way they would defend their own beliefs in their holy books.”
But the thing is *the merit is not in the way I defend my belief, but in the belief itself*. Therefore, the fact that I defend my belief the same way they do simply does not matter. You somehow think that the way I defend my view indicates that I’m thinking or acting according to my feelings and are addressing me as if that’s what I’m conceding. In this respect, the Mormon position significantly differs from mine, assuming we are both correct in our common understanding of Mormonism. They may be okay with determining what truth is according to to their feelings, but it has yet to be established that this is my position. Also, if my belief is the truth, then I have a moral and philosophical right to defend my belief the way I do while they do not. In essence, what I’ve been seeking to stress from the point at which I composed my blog post was that those who have disagreed with the way defend my belief -likening it, for example, to the way Mormons defend their beliefs- are guilty of what’s called the fallacy of comparison. What I believe and what they believe are significantly and *relevantly* different. Therefore, the comparison is utterly invalid.
More recently added: If the object of my belief (Scripture) is as vital and trustworthy as Christians (especially Calvinists!) say it is, why in all of heaven and earth should I desire to defend it or the act of believing it by anything other than the object of my belief!? Even when contemporary Roman Catholics say that the Holy Spirit guided the Catholic Church at Carthage to authenticating Scripture or determine what should be in the canon, they are appealing to Scripture! But will they say they aren’t?
As I’ve basically been saying, you and I disagree on the foundational level as we hold to mutually exclusive theories of knowledge. However, in respect to my theory of knowledge, to defend my belief the way that I do is not only consistent with my belief, it is also what everyone else does. So those who are prohibiting my manner of defense are fatally inconsistent since they are “guilty” of the exact same thing. The fact that they believe it’s wrong to do this simply helps to conceal that fact. If you would not disregard some of the questions I’m posing, I might be able to successfully help you understand this.
Again, you said that someone can counter my Biblical Dogmaticism by saying that actually their belief is rightly assumed to be true, because the belief says it’s true. Upon what objective basis can one justifiably infer that? You are making a claim. I’m not the only one under scrutiny. I’m challenging you to disprove that you are not being dogmatic also. (Are you assuming that everything that one is arguing for must be proven in order for the argument to be effective? Note, I don’t believe Christianity can be proven, though I hold that belief in it is justified. Thus, men are still responsible. But I do believe contradictory beliefs can be disproved) In other words, I’m challenging you to show how you’re not the doing the same exact thing you think I’m wrong for doing. Can you back your claim up objectively? If you are being dogmatic *as I am* and as I believe you are, then your position is self-undermining and thus, all that depends on it is undermined. Mine is not, because I’m not the one who has a problem with the way I defend my belief. I know the Mormons can defend their belief the way they do just as they can sin (This is very important). Again, I know the Mormons can defend their belief the way they do just as they can sin. But in it light of Scripture, I know they are wrong for doing that *because what they believe is wrong*.
In addition to being inconsistent in the sense I specified, those who disagree with the way I defend my belief end up being circular. This is something they accuse me of doing, but not only am I not doing it -since my reasoning is axiomatic- they are the only ones that are doing it. Is there such a thing as an ultimate justification for knowledge? Even if you say ‘yes’, how do you defend this in a non-circular way? Let me clarify that I don’t believe you have to accuse me of being circular in order to be guilty of being circular. So I’m not challenging you with this just because you accused me of being circular.
“1) You never commented on Martin Luther putting books in the back of his bible. Was he right to do this? In his German translation of the Bible (1534), he separated the writings he considered “not scripture” into two appendices, one for the OT and another for the NT, and kept them apart from the writings he considered Scripture. He “felt” like certain books weren’t Scripture, just like you “feel” certain books are. Who is right?
It’s not that I feel certain books are correct. In light of my axiom (not my feelings), Martin Luther was wrong. I meant for what I said concerning him to imply this, but I suppose I should have been more explicit.
“2) Even the original King James Bible of 1611 (which was a Protestant translation and had nothing to do with the Catholic Church) had the 7 books you are missing in your bible today. Obviously there were many copies and translations before this one and all of them included the 7 books you are missing.”
I recognize that there is variation in the lists. For a years, I actually used a copy that included the seven books. And I make sure I have the Deuterocanonical books even today. Okay.
“3) I’m asking you to back up your point that scripture is self-authenticating without using Scripture. You cannot do this.”
I really appreciate that you actually read through my responses several times, but this point shows that you are still disregarding my position. I’m not saying I think you’re doing this intentionally. But if I do what you are asking me to do, then I will have thereby denied what I am affirming. I just cannot avoid using Scripture nor do I want to. Why? Because I have no interest in being circular and causing myself to believe that holding to unfalsifiable beliefs and being objective or having objective evidence are mutually exclusive.
“4) You claim that no one is without knowledge of the Bible. Where is this in the bible? Do you have a Scripture verse to back up this statement? (Not that it would even make the case for self-authentication.) Don’t confuse God with the Bible. (Romans 1:20 claims that all people have a knowledge and existence of God, but it does not say the Bible.) You are giving your opinion when you say no one is without knowledge of the Bible. That statement is not based on facts or even Scripture. There are ton of people around the world that don’t have knowledge of the Bible. Do you know what the literacy rate is in other countries around the world? Some countries have 75% of people who can’t read! So to say that they have a bible, read it, comprehend it, and know that is inspired is not helping your argument at all.”
And this point shows a *critical* difference as to what we understand Scripture to be. It also bespeaks a misunderstanding of Scripture and certainly the Calvinistic understanding of it. This is one of the reasons why I referenced Rom 9:17 and Gal 3:8 (Scripture). You think Abraham and Pharaoh were “reading” Scripture when Scripture spoke to them? When I speak of Scripture, I’m referring to the propositions therein. Propositions can be written and they are. But they don’t have to be written, read, or even heard to be known. Propositions are metaphysical. This is the kind of thing I’m indicating when I say that even someone who is “living in a cave somewhere in uncharted territory” knows Scripture.
To say that propositions have to be written, read, or heard is akin to the claim that Aristotle invented the laws of logic. But without the laws of logic, we would not be able to know or make any conclusion about anything. He might have *written* (notice the key word) them down in systematic form, but he certainly didn’t invent them. The laws of logic are axioms and as such, they are deduced from Scripture. For example, one of them is, “A is A’ this is seen in the proposition, “I am that I am”. But the proposition, ‘A is A’, was *assumed* before Aristotle and before Scripture was written as there was knowledge and logical thinking prior to Aristotle and prior to when Scripture was written.
“5) You would not know the Scriptures were inspired unless someone first told you that they were.”
But how could I possibly know that what that someone was telling me was true? And how could I know that whatever reason someone gave me as to why what they’re saying is true is actually true? How could I know that whatever reason they are giving me for the reason for why what they’re saying is true is true? This is extremely important because I’m talking about how we know what we know. I am not expecting you to type out an answer for every single question, but I’ve been seeking for you to reference the grounds for your beliefs and how you “know” that they are adequate grounds.
“Why is this true? First, what do you feel when you read Leviticus? Do you feel like that book is inspired? How about 2 Chronicles? My point is that not every book in the bible feels “inspiring” but you believe it is inspired because it is in your bible not because every verse or book gives you that “special feeling.” (Mormon and Muslim argument about their feelings of what is inspired)”
This is what I said in my previous post: “But if I make no attempt at proving it, then I act consistently with what I believe and *that certainly does not necessarily mean I’m being arbitrary or am relying upon feelings*. I’m relying upon Scripture, and justifiably so.” (emphasis added). You are not giving regard to what I am saying.
6) Scripture is not self-authenticating, which is what you are assuming. If it were, then the canon of Scripture would have been settled right away.
The notion that the Bible is self-authenticating absolutely does not mean that the canon would have been settled by men in the sense that that there would not have been any doubt as to what it was.
“The fact is, the Church debated it for four centuries. Why? Because it is not self-authenticating. Even after Pope Damasus determined the canon, some in the Church questioned it. The Council of Trent put this to bed by elevating the Church’s teaching on the canon to a dogmatic teaching.”
Even to this day, there are many individual scriptures (or truths) that are debated even within the midst of those who hold to the 66 books that are clarified by a consideration of the contents of the 66 books. For example, consider the biblical truth that the coming of the Lord will be attended by a gathering of his people unto himself (otherwise called ‘the rapture’). We all know it’s true just like we know that Scripture is true (regardless of whatever it is we think is the justification for our belief in it). But there’s debate over whether this coming of the Lord is fulfilled with a pre-tribulation rapture. The fact that Jesus will return to gather his Church is the scriptural truth, but in the hearts of men, it is negated by a mere counterfeit of it, because the pre-tribulation rapture doctrine is false. And so there is a lack of clarity, confusion, disagreement, debate, etc. But I need not go beyond Scripture in order to authenticate the truth and, thus, expose the lie. I know what the truth is concerning our being gathered together unto him on account of the contents of the very Bible that speaks that truth I don’t need to reference that the Church didn’t believe in a pre-tribulation “rapture” until 1830 in order for this to be the case although I think I should since there is some reason for that. What the truth actually is, whether we’re talking about Scripture (which is the truth, unless you’re willing to believe it isn’t the truth) or the fact that the gathering of God’s people will accompany the coming of Christ, has not been settled in the sense that there is debate and confusion over it. But Scripture is definitely self-authenticating in that the truth concerning the gathering of the Lord *as affirmed by Scripture* is authenticated by Scripture.
You might not accept this example, but since I believe that I know the gathering of God’s people is going take place the same way I know that Scripture is true, then it’s only fitting that I use it. At the same time, I hope that it wasn’t too elaborate of an example.
“7) A couple things. The Scriptures came from God because He is their author.”
How do you know this?
“The “Bible” was compiled by the Catholic Church at the end of the fourth century, at the direction of God. ”
How do you know this?
“I want to make this distinction between what is God-breathed Scripture versus how we KNOW what is God-breathed Scripture. We only know what is inspired by the authority of the Catholic Church, who compiled the Bible with authority from God. ( “I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so” – Saint Augustine- Early 5th century)”
What is the authority of the Catholic Church? How does one know what that authority is? Why should I trust the authority of the Catholic Church? How does one know they had the authority to which I should subject myself?
Again, these questions are not as irrelevant as people tend to think. I know that our beliefs overlap, but since you reject that the Bible is an axiom, how do you know what you assume you know? I’ve already stated what my epistemic basis is, but you don’t accept that it is what I say it is. So what is yours? Please don’t ignore this, for this is what our disagreement hinges on.
In my last response, I said, “*I’m simply trying to stress that our disagreement as to whether or not Scripture is self authenticating ultimately hinges on what our respective theories of knowledge (epistemology) are.* At some point, one has to see the ultimate attestation to his or her belief as an assumption. But, depending on what the assumption is, not necessarily an arbitrary assumption, but a truthfully self-attesting one.”
Again, please don’t ignore this. Perhaps, you don’t agree that one’s standard has to be a self-attesting one, but the fact remains that we still hold to mutually contradictory theories of knowledge. What facts are you ultimately appealing to as justification for your beliefs? And how do you know you are justified in appealing to those facts? How do you know those facts are justified if you think they constitute justification for your beliefs? See if you can actually avoid being circular if you should so deign to answer any or all of these question. If you reject biblical axiomatic reasoning, then how do you know what you assume you know?
I could have taken a different approach and reduced my responses to predominantly questioning every single thing (and I mean literally every single thing) you claim you know (whether correct or not), but I sought rather to take a different route so as attempt to explicate Biblical Dogmaticism.
Since knowledge is belief in the truth by definition, what is justification for that belief, but truth itself (Talk about “circular reasoning”)? So epistemologically speaking, why should I believe the truth? Because the truth said so. Therefore assumption of the truth is as “reasonable” as it gets. Would you say this is not objective? This is the essence of my view. If Scripture is God’s word and God’s word is truth, then it should be no wonder it is treated/assumed as truth. It should not be deemed so incredible that one believes what it says on account of what it says.
The links you shared…
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/06/calvin-on-self-authentication/ -short article
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/03/the-canon-as-its-own-measure/ – short article
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/01/the-canon-question/ -longer article (more in depth)”
I’ll read the other two when I get the chance, but so far, I’ve read the article entitled, “Calvin on Self-Authentication”. I’d just like to address a couple of comments he makes…
“[Calvin] clouded the issue by assuming (as have many following him) that when something seems clear and evident to him it’s got to be because the Spirit is speaking directly to him, giving him the unvarnished news, as it were, whereas anyone who doesn’t see precisely the same thing must not enjoy that unmediated spiritual insight he has but is instead being blinded by some or other interpretive “filter.””
What jumped out at me while observing the author’s handling of Calvin’s words is that there is apparently this misunderstanding of and confusion over the Calvinististic claim of self-authentication. When we say that Scripture authenticates itself, it is extremely important that one understands -whether Catholic or Calvinist- that what necessarily follows from this is absolutely not that there won’t be confusion and disagreement on what Scripture is -on what truth is. This is what I stated in my first response to you. If you think that the the presence of confusion and disagreement somehow indicates that the claim of self-authentication is wrong, then you’re probably misunderstanding the claim. And if there is misunderstanding, it probably has to do with the fact that you haven’t stated your theory of knowledge (Again, how do you know what you know -assuming you do, in fact, know what you know?). Scripture is indeed clear and evident in that truth is clear and evident since Scripture is truth. Scripture is clear and evident in the sense that truth is clear and evident if it is truth. Do you know what inviolably indicates that Scripture (truth) is clear and evident? The existence of knowledge as possessed by all thinking persons. Knowledge -defined in philosophy as ‘justified true belief’- is clear and evident. Otherwise, it wouldn’t be knowlwdge.
The familiarity of Calvin’s writings, even though I’ve personally read very little of them, is fascinating and exhilarating. Why is the excerpted material so familiar to me? Because I know about the theory of knowledge he advocates even if there are differences between his perception of the biblical theory of knowledge and mine! The reason why I have expressed my objection to R.C. Sproul on this subject in this discussion is because he holds to a theory of knowledge I downright reject -because I see, to whatever degree, the inherent problems in it. I expressed my objection because I wanted to make it evident that I reject his position. And even though he calls himself a Calvinist -and I wouldn’t argue that he isn’t one- he holds to a Roman Catholic theory of knowledge and view on Christian Apologetics!
Even those Calvinists whose view is popularly designated by the term ‘Presuppositionalism’, which is a proper designation for my view, affirm some understandings which I believe to be inconsistent with Sola Scriptura and Presuppositionalism and just plain fallacious. I wouldn’t say they’re neither Calvinistic nor Reformed just as I wouldn’t say that if you hold to unbiblical views, you can’t be a Christian. But when I see that there is this site that is run by eighteen Catholics who supposedly used to be Reformed, I’m just not going to be so immediately impressed. The notion that they used to be Reformed does not mean they ever had a sufficient grasp on key Reformed tenets. While reading the first article -the one entitled, “Calvin on Self-Athentication”- I couldn’t finish two sentences without seeing evidence of disregard for or ignorance of certain key points Calvin made (within the very excerpt he sought to address!) as well as my specific view on the doctrine of Scripture’s self-authentication (which certainly isn’t limited to me).
Also…
The author is absolutely right when he says that if Scripture is self-authenticating when the Church (several individuals) determines what should be a part of the canon, it is self-authenticating when *the individual* determines what Scripture is. Amen to that. But then he says that Calvin’s view meant that the individual replaces the Church in determining what Scripture is. There is a problem here…
As is indicative of his apparent misunderstanding of ‘self-authentication’, he is conflating two distinct senses in which ‘determination’ is meant (as in determination on what is Scripture). There is determination in the sense meant by Biblical Dogmaticism where its justification is in Scripture and what seems to be what Calvin is saying. And there’s determination as made in a Church council as percieved by contemporary Roman Catholics. I assert that the latter is contingent upon the former, but is not necessarily perfectly consistent with it. Again, he conflates two significantly different things! It’s evident that Calvin presupposed this distinction and was speaking accordingly. But because the author doesn’t adequately understand self-authentication, he actually ends up thinking that he is exposing errors when he simply isn’t.
God has determined what Scripture is as I’ve said, and he *immediately* (that is, without mediation) reveals what he’s determined to be Scripture to his Church, the body of Christ. And they determine what is Scripture, but not without it being affirmed to them in Scripture. But if he immediately reveals that unto his Church and we can rightly say that his Church consists in those who attended the synods in Hippo and Carthage (though it is not limited to them as there were Christians before them and Christians after them), then God revealed Scripture unto them as well. But they could not have attended those councils without Scripture already being revealed unto them beforehand as it was revealed unto others. I would never argue that there was not some learning as to what Scripture was upon the occasion of the council (and thus, more determining), but the official determination as to what Scripture was could only be sound to the extent that it was based off of God’s determination, which was revealed prior to the council -though not always exhaustively- in Scripture.
And again, the recurring appeals to Church councils by Roman Catholics are made under the assumption of a theory of knowledge that precludes Biblical Dogmaticism. But what is the justification for this theory of knowledge -whatever this theory of knowlege is? Perhaps, a consideration of this can occasion a hint as to why Calvin saw such appeals as relying upon the decision/judgment of man in spite of the claims that reliance is ultimately upon God in the Holy Spirit.
Thanks for sharing your experiences about your path to Roman Catholicism. Interesting, what you have undergone the past one/two years. Since we are in a sharing mood, I would like to share some things. Some reasons as to why I insist upon seeing Scripture as self-authenticating is as follows: It encourages confidence in the word of God, allowing us to affirm it with no allowance for the idea that it’s possibly wrong, because for one, it’s a deductive system (I deduce from God word’s that God exists) rather than an inductive one (God exists ‘cause the Bible has been right so far). I believe it also shows that other ways of formulating or presenting arguments are just redundant. It respects that God’s word is magnified above his name and that to appeal to what some fallible historian says, sensation and feelings, and brute facts in order to attempt to authenticate or prove God’s wholesome, holy, and perfect word is presumptuous and glorifying of the wrong thing. It is prophetic in that it endues me with the authority to affirm to the Mormon, the Atheist, or the Deist that his view is wrong and damnable and should be renouned even before they think they have grounds to determine that it is wrong. This view is also called Covenental Apologetics because it indicates to us who are Lord is and tells us to not compromise our respect for that when people will laugh at us, our beliefs, our conduct, or our tactics.
Thank you very much for reading and I always welcome responses! Lord bless you!!