A canon question for Protestants

[Kay_Cee]

You don’t have to have infallible certainty to know something or to have confidence that something or a belief is correct.

For example, you are a fallible human who has (I assume you are catholic) used his judgement to come to the conclusion that the Catholic church is what it claims to be.

Actually, that would be *her *judgment.

I think God would leave us with something much more reliable than “a fallible collection of infallible books.” Without an authority outside the Bible to pronounce on the canon, any fallibility of the collection leaves it open to interpretation by anybody and thus can lead to things like the Jesus Seminar that accepts the Gospel of Thomas.

If I were a member of the Jesus Seminar, and you wanted to convince me that I shouldn’t accept the Gospel of Thomas as scripture, how would you do that? After all, if the collection is, as you say, fallible, what’s to prevent someone from adding to it? Or deleting from it?

 

[Kay_Cee]

When I was growing up as a Protestant I heard several different versions of the “self-authenticating” argument.

Thank you for responding. I see a problem right here. There’s no set definition? Did you hear these several versions within one denomination or within various ones?

I believe primarily it was understood to mean that all the books of the Bible were of extremely high moral character and didn’t contradict each other. Meaning that the Biblical books presented a consistent and unified message that didn’t deviate from one or the other. Basically it was sort of assumed that books included in the Bible were just “obvious.”

If that’s the case, doesn’t one have to start with 1) a sort of “default” set of doctrine scripture must adhere to, or 2) a pre-conceived decision that certain books of the Bible are the criterea by which the others should be judged? Otherwise, why shouldn’t I include books like the Didache or the Shepherd of Hermes? And why delete books like Wisdom and Maccabees?

If it were just “obvious” wouldn’t there be universal agreement on the canon? But, as we can see, there isn’t.

Also, I heard the argument that the OT books were chosen since they were either quoted by NT authors and were part of the Hebrew Canon, supposedly in use in Israel during the 1st century. Our ministers never made mention of the Council of Jamnia as a justification for the OT canon.

Yes, I’ve heard this argument before. If that’s the case, what about Ecclesiastes? It’s not quoted in the NT. As Mark Shea points out in *By What Authority? “*its nihilistic vision conflicts mightily with Christian hope. Why then do we regard as canonical a book (cited nowhere in the New Testament) that describes life as ‘vanity’ and teaches that ‘the dead know nothing, they have no further reward’”?

If we had any Bible with the deuterocanonical books they were always lumped together at the end of the Bible as an appendix. The general consensus was that they were good to read had good moral character, interesting for the light in shed on the “inter-testamental period” but of little value beyond that to the believer.

We never said it out loud but we couldn’t say exactly how or why we had which books in the Bible. We knew the canon was closed but it wasn’t clear why. Sometimes a weak appeal to “tradition” was made – but it never went much beyond that.

From a Protestant view point you can see why this question is hard to answer. There is no one dominant answer, sometimes even the best responses can seem nebulous and unexact. It took me quite a few years to realize that the Catholic Church had God given authority and the right to say what was or wasn’t in the canon. I’m much better off for it, too.

ChadS

Yes, it certainly makes more sense!

 

[Kay_Cee]

I guess. I don’t know what else self-authentication would mean to a Protestant, though . They might be thinking of something different.

I’m beginning to think it’s a way of dismissing any questioning without actually answering the question. At any rate, I don’t seem to be able to get an answer to my question about how a writing authenticates itself.

I agree. Putting religious experience above reliable spiritual authority is a very bad move. In fact, it is the seed of relativism.

I don’t know if you’re aware of it, but some of the greatest saints in Catholicism came to the same conclusion. Even those who had visions and spiritual ecstasies always submitted to the authority of the Church.

I think that the Lord dealt with me in the way he did, with regard to the Book of Revelation, because as a Protestant I didn’t have any other authority about such matters to rely on.

That isn’t to say people don’t make mistakes. Some also hear from demons, and some hear their own imaginations. If the scripture is open for anyone to interpret in their own way, demonic or human interpretations are more likely to spread than they are if there is a Magisterium to protect the Church against errors.

I agree. And it’s very easy to see that has happened, else why more than one denomination?

I think that the Spirit is glad to speak to believers on all kinds of matters, though. I see the Spirit as a Counselor for people as individuals as well as a Counselor for the pope and the Magisterium.

Yes, but as always, the tricky part of making sure it’s the Holy Spirit!

Good; I think that’s exactly the right thing to do. Unfortunately for me, all my family is Protestant, and the two spiritual directors I’ve been turning to for years are Protestant. I have told one of them about my shift in perspective toward Catholicism, and she gave me some ordinary Protestant anti-Catholic arguments. She’s pretty elderly and doesn’t like debate, and I don’t want to upset her, so I didn’t argue the matter.

My other spiritual director was an Anglican pastor. She stopped being my spiritual director two or three years ago, though. I still occasionally ask her questions, though. I might talk to her again soon, though, and if I do, I’ll talk to her about this.

I also get a lot of spiritual counsel from my father. He is a very wise and Spirit filled man. Unfortunately, my talks with him about this have underlying tension, and have occasionally turned into angry debates. We have had some good talks about this, and I’m glad the communication lines are still open, but there also have been a couple explosions. He and I are both responsible for those conversation crashes. We have generally agreed on just about everything until now.

So counsel is a tricky business for me at present, though I am getting it. I don’t tell my spiritual directors about the experiences with the Lord that I’ve had relating to this, though. That would be pretty much telling them to change their beliefs because the Lord says so, which would be prideful on my part and a poor approach.

I don’t know any Catholics outside of the Internet. So I’m getting counsel, but that’s a tricky and sticky situation for me right now.

Have you considered getting a Catholic spiritual director? You might approach the priest in a local parish, tell him which way you are leaning spiritually, and ask if he can recommend someone. (That’s how I got my spiritual director.)

Thankfully, the Lord has been gracious enough to confirm my present move toward Catholicism through my Protestant sister. She had a dream from the Lord about me that she didn’t know how to interpret, so she told it to me, and it related directly to what I was going through. The fact that she had a dream supporting what I was going through greatly boosted my confidence. My sister has a strong personal relationship with Christ.

I do compare my religious experiences with scripture, though. And I have also started to compare them with church teaching.

Yes, please be careful! We know God can communicate through dreams (like to Joseph), but again, the trick is making sure it’s God.

Hope things work out for you. I’ll keep you in my prayers.

 

[Kay_Cee]

I thing that the whole selfauthentificating argument have the same invincible logic of OSAS/perpetual assurance.

And, come to think of it, where does the Bible say scripture is self-authenticating? And where does the Bible say “self-authentication” is the criterea to determine canonicity?

 

[Lief_Erikson]

I’m beginning to think it’s a way of dismissing any questioning without actually answering the question. At any rate, I don’t seem to be able to get an answer to my question about how a writing authenticates itself.

I wouldn’t give up too quickly. We haven’t heard from many Protestants in this thread. One or two, and I’m very glad they responded, but not many. There are a lot more Protestants out there with set ideas about what they think.

I don’t know if you’re aware of it, but some of the greatest saints in Catholicism came to the same conclusion. Even those who had visions and spiritual ecstasies always submitted to the authority of the Church.

I’d be interested to read saints’ writings about Protestantism.

Yes, but as always, the tricky part of making sure it’s the Holy Spirit!

To a significant extent, I think that one can tell. Jesus said in the scripture that his sheep know his voice, and when the wrong shepherd calls to them, they will run the other way. I’ve experienced that a few times. Often spiritual communication from the enemy will create a feeling of unease or disturbance within the soul of the person receiving the word, instead of a feeling of peace. And that feeling of unease is different from the unease one feels at going out of one’s comfort zone. Sometimes the Lord wants his followers to do the latter, but that feeling of unease . . . I don’t know how to describe the difference, but there definitely is one. A person going outside of their comfort zone can feel peace and confidence that they are doing the right thing, while simultaneously feeling uncomfortable with stepping out further in faith than they have before.

In addition to that protective inner peace, there is also the witness of spiritual authorities, such as church dogma and scripture.

And in addition to that, there can be confirmation from the Body of Christ, by which I mean other believers, who hear things from God that confirm what you think you are hearing.

I think that one generally gets confirmation from other believers when it’s a significant, life direction issue one is dealing with rather than an everyday kind of word. The latter being a blessing that’s just clearly good and clearly God, and not something one has to take pains to double-check. If what one is hearing involves morals or doctrine, or if there is any question as to its rightness, it should definitely be thoroughly checked out.

If the scripture is open to anyone’s interpretation, though, I can see how, for many people, it wouldn’t be as reliable a means of checking against one’s experiences as it should be. I agree with you that that’s one of the reasons why there are so many denominations.

Have you considered getting a Catholic spiritual director? You might approach the priest in a local parish, tell him which way you are leaning spiritually, and ask if he can recommend someone. (That’s how I got my spiritual director.)

I might end up doing that. There is a Catholic Church nearby my house that I’ve been thinking about driving to. Presently, though, my brother needs driving to church, and he doesn’t want to check out a Catholic Church, so I’m taking him where he wants to go. In the long term, I plan to start attending Catholic Church services. I may end up getting a spiritual director too; I’ll have to look into that more.

In the short term, I’m learning all I can about Catholicism off Catholic websites and from Catholic articles, and I’m going to buy and read the Catechism soon. I’m also reading the deuterocanonical books. I’m moving forward very rapidly along in this investigation I’m conducting into Catholicism.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Yes, please be careful! We know God can communicate through dreams (like to Joseph), but again, the trick is making sure it’s God.

Yes, I agree. Demons used to torment me in my life and give me words that were not from God. Because of those experiences, I test everything I hear that is not obvious where it’s coming from. I am very careful, and I have put my religious experiences regarding Catholicism, because they are so important to my walk with God, through a lot of private tests, prayer, questioning and investigation. I gave God all the opportunity he could possibly want to contradict what I’ve been hearing, and I have sought his counsel many days and nights and received it. All I have received for month after month is confirmation after confirmation. I’ve been consumed with this issue, spiritually and mentally, since March 2007, when I began to hear the words that led me in this direction. My will became extremely caught up with the matter because of all I’d learned in my investigation, and because of all the words I’d received.

Finally I decided that I had to come to a final decision, but my will was too caught up in it. So I surrendered the whole thing to God, begging his protection and guidance, and I felt it lift from me, as I prayed. Whether Catholicism was right or wrong (along with those guiding pointers that had directed me to Catholicism), I didn’t know, but I gave them to God and asked his protection. It was about midday one Sunday. I felt them taken away and felt a peace from God. I had prayed during many of my previous conversations also for protection, and had felt and received it. I pray strongly for protection whenever I’m receiving a word that I’m unsure about.

So that Sunday, after I felt the Lord take away the issue from me, I began to walk around the neighborhood, listening for his voice. For quite a while, I didn’t hear anything. But then I glimpsed a stop sign on the street, and I had a strong impression at that moment that it was the Lord telling me to stop. So I trusted him and stopped, and I was standing completely still at the place he had told me to stop throughout the experience I’ll relate.

Then I glanced to my left and I saw the garden of the house I’d stopped in front of. I found myself looking at a tree. It was one single tree, surrounded by a brick retaining wall. Surrounding that retaining wall was a thorn bush. I realized at that moment that it symbolized the single, united Catholic Church with its authority that protected its unity. And the scripture came to mind that said the kingdom of God is like a tree that starts small and then grows to fill the garden, and the birds of the air land on it.

But I thought to myself, “This isn’t clear enough evidence. There are trees all over this neighborhood hear and there. I might have stopped before one with a retaining wall and thorns that excellently symbolizes what’s going on, but who’s to say that in front of other houses there aren’t other things that could be interpreted symbolically? I need to know this is Catholicism it’s referring to.”

I happened to glance to my left again the moment I thought that prayer, and I saw that in front of the house I had stopped at was a statue of the Virgin Mary. It was a Catholic household. It was the only house in the neighborhood to have an indicator of Catholicism in front of it.

That was the final sign I needed. I had handed the entire issue over to God, and I felt him return it to me.

I thought to myself, in these words, “Now I know without a doubt that my God has spoken to me. He has proved it. The only question that now remains is: Shall I trust God?”

At that moment I happened to look down at my feet, and I saw lying directly in front of my feet a dime. I picked it up and was confronted with the words, “In God we trust.”

Concluding this long-winded narrative in the next post . . .

 

[Lief_Erikson]

The first thing I saw when stopped by the Lord was a single tree that mirrored what I’d been taught. When I then asked specifically about Catholicism, by unlikely coincidence I happened to notice at just the moment the prayer left me that I was right in front of a Catholic household. Why not a bit before, or a couple minutes later? And the instant I prayed about whether or not I would trust God, I saw the coin. Not just the “coincidences,” but the timing of the coincidences was to me breathtaking. And I had been standing still all that time, right where the Lord had told me to “Stop.” If he had told me to stop anywhere else in the neighborhood, I wouldn’t have been standing there . . . and the fact that I just happened to glance down at just that instant . . . oh well, to me it was all amazing .

So that was my final confirmation. I had covered myself through prayer in endless spiritual protection throughout the months beforehand, because what I was experiencing was so important to my spiritual walk that I felt desperately the need to avoid error. That final experience was what clinched my belief. After that, I have not doubted but have instead believed.

And I think that God can make his meaning plain to individual believers. It’s not always as plain as the above experience, of course, but the Holy Spirit can give people a genuine peace. On small things that are clearly good, I don’t bother with checking. I know my Father’s voice. But on big things, I always double-check and triple-check.

Hope things work out for you. I’ll keep you in my prayers.

Thank-you. Praying that the Lord protect me from error or weakness would be great, and praying that he will enlighten me I’d also really appreciate.

I’m sure that I’ll get through what I’m going through right now. My big concern is actually a powerful spiritual hunger that is just consuming me. I’ve been feeling for months this desperate longing for deeper intimacy with God, and I haven’t received the full answer. The Lord told me through Sirach to hope for lasting joy and mercy, so that is what I’m doing, but this hunger in the meantime is intense. I’m wondering if I would filled if I took the Catholic Eucharist.

Do I have to wait to be officially a Catholic to take the Eucharist? I believe what you do about it. I believe it is Christ’s flesh, blood, soul and divinity. I am also baptized in the Holy Spirit. I know that restrictions against taking it exist for non-Catholics to prevent them from being spiritually harmed, but that harm comes from taking it with the wrong attitude. I would not take it in such a way.

 

[Kay_Cee]

Lief:

It does sound like you’re being extremely cautious, and you are to be commended for that. It also sounds like you’re being pulled by the Spirit, but I should hasten to add that I’m just a layperson and don’t have the authority or the wisdom to judge that for certain. A spiritual advisor would be able to tell you better, so I’ll just leave it at that.

I’m sure that I’ll get through what I’m going through right now. My big concern is actually a powerful spiritual hunger that is just consuming me. I’ve been feeling for months this desperate longing for deeper intimacy with God, and I haven’t received the full answer. The Lord told me through Sirach to hope for lasting joy and mercy, so that is what I’m doing, but this hunger in the meantime is intense. I’m wondering if I would filled if I took the Catholic Eucharist.

That is entirely possible. I’ve heard that from other converts. Since I’m a cradle Catholic, it’s hard for me to say.

I do believe God creates us to be drawn to Him, and we don’t completely satisfy that hunger until we’re one with Him in Heaven. (Well, okay, maybe a few saints got that far on earth. I certainly haven’t.)

Regarding your question about saints who wrote about Protestants: I’m not aware of any, but that is not an area I’ve studied. Perhaps if you start a thread about it you might get some responses.

Do I have to wait to be officially a Catholic to take the Eucharist? I believe what you do about it. I believe it is Christ’s flesh, blood, soul and divinity. I am also baptized in the Holy Spirit. I know that restrictions against taking it exist for non-Catholics to prevent them from being spiritually harmed, but that harm comes from taking it with the wrong attitude. I would not take it in such a way.

Okay, this gets a bit complicated. Yes, you do have to wait until you’re officially Catholic, unless there’s a dispensation or you’re in danger of death (at least I think those two are the exceptions–I hope someone corrects me if I’m wrong). Believing as Catholics do about the Eucharist is one of the requirements, but there’s more to it than that. To take Communion means to be fully in communion with the Church and her teachings. Since you’re still on the journey, you’re not fully in communion yet.

If that sounds unfair, I might point out I had to wait eight years to receive the Eucharist, until I had been taught enough and reached a level of understanding to be in full communion with the Church. This, of course, was because I was a child, but it still was hard to watch my parents and older sister receive while I couldn’t. I wanted to receive Jesus that way so badly! You, of course, would not have to wait so long, just until you’re brought into full communion.

However, if you do attend a Mass, you can go forward with everyone else and receive a blessing. You just cross your forearms across your chest with your hands toward your shoulders. (This indicates to the priest or extraordinary minister that you are not receiving but wish for a blessing.)

Of course, you could talk to that local priest you’ve been meaning to see and find out what he has to say about all this. I admit I am not an expert in these matters, and it would be best for you to consult someone who is.

 

[ChadS]

Kay Cee,

I think you might be waiting a while to get a really good answer to the self-authenticating answer. The answer I gave you was pretty much a variety of explanations heard from my time in one denomination. The fact is that my answer was very stripped down and bare bones but a good Protestant apologist would dress it up and make it sound very logical and airtight but at its base the answers won’t be much different than what I gave.

Of course all the objections you raised to the answer I gave are all valid and do expose serious flaws in their logic.

Sometimes Protestants will say we know the canon through Christian tradition. Their views of tradition are not really analogous to a Catholic’s. They do not view tradition as sacred, divinely inspired or protecte or infallible – all things Catholics understand tradition to be. Tradition for the average Protestant is sort of something that has always been known, you know just passed down.

I’m sorry I can’t get much more specific, it’s just the way it is.

ChadS

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Kay, no, what you said about Communion does not sound unfair to me. It sounds very logical. I’m just so darn hungry that eating before I’m supposed to is a significant temptation! I will resist, though . And wait .

Don’t worry, I won’t partake until I’m better educated.

 

[Kay_Cee]

Kay Cee,

I think you might be waiting a while to get a really good answer to the self-authenticating answer. The answer I gave you was pretty much a variety of explanations heard from my time in one denomination. The fact is that my answer was very stripped down and bare bones but a good Protestant apologist would dress it up and make it sound very logical and airtight but at its base the answers won’t be much different than what I gave.

Of course all the objections you raised to the answer I gave are all valid and do expose serious flaws in their logic.

Sometimes Protestants will say we know the canon through Christian tradition. Their views of tradition are not really analogous to a Catholic’s. They do not view tradition as sacred, divinely inspired or protecte or infallible – all things Catholics understand tradition to be. Tradition for the average Protestant is sort of something that has always been known, you know just passed down.

I’m sorry I can’t get much more specific, it’s just the way it is.

ChadS

Hey, Chad, thanks for your reply.

It would be interesting to receive a more thorough answer to the question. I’m not asking you to give one, mind you. It’s just that I’ve debated the issue of the canon before, but somehow the “self-authenticating” aspect never came up. Mostly I’ve debated it over the issue of *sola scriptura, *and that’s usually easy to rout since the Bible’s table of contents is not part of its inspired text.

 

[Kay_Cee]

Kay, no, what you said about Communion does not sound unfair to me. It sounds very logical. I’m just so darn hungry that eating before I’m supposed to is a significant temptation! I will resist, though . And wait .

Don’t worry, I won’t partake until I’m better educated.

Well, that right there shows a willingness to submit to the authority of the Church–something all the saints have done.

Please do talk to your local priest. It may be too late to enter RCIA this year, but in rare cases exemptions have been granted for those who are already pretty well educated in Church doctrine (at least so I hear).

In case you don’t know, RCIA is the Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults. It’s essentially a class to learn about Catholicism. You don’t have to convert at the end of it, if you don’t want to.

And please continue to ask questions about the Catholic faith. There are a lot of extremely knowledgeable people here who would be more than happy to answer any question you might have.

 

[grandfather]

I am a protestant and believe that, as RC Sproul explains, we have a fallible list of infallible books. In other words, I don’t believe any person or council is infallible so I don’t believe we have 100% certainty in this matter.

So then what do you have certainty on? Think it through. The Bible is the sole rule of faith for you. You are not certain that the canon (list) of Biblical books is correct. This means that some books that belong in the canon might be omitted, or some books that are in the canon might not belong there. Which ones do you think that are there should be left out, if any? There is no way to know. If we knew they would not be there. Right? If we do not know which of the books that should not be there, but are, which should be removed, then we do not know which should remain. You have no certainty about the thing that is your sole rule of faith. What have you then? How do you have any certainty about any doctrine that you take from scripture if you do not know what is scripture for certain. In this system it is impossible to know anything for certain. You are unsure of something you rely on as the sole rule of faith. Do you see how this leaves open the possiblity that some new version of Proitestantism could arise and make up their own version of scripture, using scripture and their own interpretations to start chopping up scripture?

 

[Pwrlftr]

So then what do you have certainty on? Think it through. The Bible is the sole rule of faith for you. You are not certain that the canon (list) of Biblical books is correct. This means that some books that belong in the canon might be omitted, or some books that are in the canon might not belong there. Which ones do you think that are there should be left out, if any? There is no way to know. If we knew they would not be there. Right? If we do not know which of the books that should not be there, but are, which should be removed, then we do not know which should remain. You have no certainty about the thing that is your sole rule of faith. What have you then? How do you have any certainty about any doctrine that you take from scripture if you do not know what is scripture for certain. In this system it is impossible to know anything for certain. You are unsure of something you rely on as the sole rule of faith. Do you see how this leaves open the possiblity that some new version of Proitestantism could arise and make up their own version of scripture, using scripture and their own interpretations to start chopping up scripture?

It took your church 1500 years before it dogmatically defined the canon. Apparently the need for infallible certainty wasn’t all that important.

 

[grandfather]

It took your church 1500 years before it dogmatically defined the canon. Apparently the need for infallible certainty wasn’t all that important.

You did not answer. If Sprouil is right in his view about the undertainty of the canon, how do you have any certainty in doctrine if the sole rule of faith is scripture?

The dogma was only necessary after Luther challenged what had always been universally accepted by all. The Church never dogmatically defined that women can not be priests, until the need arose. That is how dogma happens.

What would you do today if another individual came along and wanted to redo the canon again, based on his personal view of what it should be, as Luther did?

 

[Kay_Cee]

You did not answer. If Sprouil is right in his view about the undertainty of the canon, how do you have any certainty in doctrine if the sole rule of faith is scripture?

The dogma was only necessary after Luther challenged what had always been universally accepted by all. The Church never dogmatically defined that women can not be priests, until the need arose. That is how dogma happens.

What would you do today if another individual came along and wanted to redo the canon again, based on his personal view of what it should be, as Luther did?

Another question might be: If you were one of the early Christians, upon what would you base the claim that the gospel of Matthew is scripture and the gospel of Thomas is not?

 

[Pwrlftr]

You did not answer. If Sprouil is right in his view about the undertainty of the canon, how do you have any certainty in doctrine if the sole rule of faith is scripture?

The dogma was only necessary after Luther challenged what had always been universally accepted by all. The Church never dogmatically defined that women can not be priests, until the need arose. That is how dogma happens.

What would you do today if another individual came along and wanted to redo the canon again, based on his personal view of what it should be, as Luther did?

I don’t know how else to say that I don’t believe one can have infallible certainty on this issue. It’s that simple.

But, not having infallible certainty does not mean that one has no certainty at all.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

But what you feel certain about, others might feel uncertain about. Which makes opinion the basis of scripture, rather than scripture the basis of opinion.

 

[HannahLisa]

As a Protestant, I believe that the Apocryphal books are most likely canon. I have not done extensive research, however. I think there are more arguments to not accept them than Martin Luther taking them out somewhat arbitrarily, but I’m not sure. Either way, I haven’t actually studied the books themselves, aside from a brief study in my theology class this past semester.

 

[Pwrlftr]

But what you feel certain about, others might feel uncertain about. Which makes opinion the basis of scripture, rather than scripture the basis of opinion.

How is this any different than your situation, other than you back it up one step.