Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Not a few Roman Catholics do not know that even Vatican I states that the church holds these books to be canonical not because of the church’s authority but because they have God as their author.
Those unaware of the above hence see the issue becoming how the Roman Catholic church establishes its own authority. Well, if the church is to be infallible, then it must have an infallible foundation for its infallible authority. Where is this infallible foundation?
Pick one:
1. Scripture is the source for the infallibility of the church.
If so, then the circularity of the church grounding the canon and the canon grounding the church cannot be avoided.
2. External evidence from the history of the church.
If so, then historical evidence is infallible. Sigh.
3. The church is itself self-authenticating.
Why then Rome's cry that Reformer's assert Sola Scriptura is self-authenticating while advocating self-authenticating Sola Ecclesia?
It should not be in dispute that the earliest Christians did have a canon, namely, the Old Testament itself (Rom. 15:4, 1 Cor. 10:6, 2 Tim. 3:15-16), which seems to have existed just fine prior to Roman Catholicism. Moreover, there are no reasons to think that the Israel of Our Lord's day had any infallible revelation from God that helped it choose the books of the Old Testament canon.
From the very earliest days, Paul's letters were received by believers as Scripture (1 Thes. 2:13). Paul clearly intended them to be received as Scripture (Gal. 1:1-24), and even other writers thought they were Scripture (2 Pet. 3:16).
Thus, the Scriptures themselves never give the impression that their authority was derivative from the church, or from some future ecclesiastical decision.
Not until Trent in 1546 was a formal declaration made one the canon of the Bible. A declaration that included particularly the Apocrypha.
So given the above, are we to believe Rome's claim that without them there would be no New Testament? That no canon existed for over fifteen hundred years until Trent? I think a proper reading of history shows the church had a proper functioning canon long before Trent and even the fourth century councils.
I think it was Packer who once said, the church no more gave us the New Testament canon than Sir Isaac Newton gave us the force of gravity. God gave us gravity…Newton did not create gravity but recognized it.
This is why the WCF Ch. 1. plainly states:
AMR
Those unaware of the above hence see the issue becoming how the Roman Catholic church establishes its own authority. Well, if the church is to be infallible, then it must have an infallible foundation for its infallible authority. Where is this infallible foundation?
Pick one:
1. Scripture is the source for the infallibility of the church.
If so, then the circularity of the church grounding the canon and the canon grounding the church cannot be avoided.
2. External evidence from the history of the church.
If so, then historical evidence is infallible. Sigh.
3. The church is itself self-authenticating.
Why then Rome's cry that Reformer's assert Sola Scriptura is self-authenticating while advocating self-authenticating Sola Ecclesia?
It should not be in dispute that the earliest Christians did have a canon, namely, the Old Testament itself (Rom. 15:4, 1 Cor. 10:6, 2 Tim. 3:15-16), which seems to have existed just fine prior to Roman Catholicism. Moreover, there are no reasons to think that the Israel of Our Lord's day had any infallible revelation from God that helped it choose the books of the Old Testament canon.
From the very earliest days, Paul's letters were received by believers as Scripture (1 Thes. 2:13). Paul clearly intended them to be received as Scripture (Gal. 1:1-24), and even other writers thought they were Scripture (2 Pet. 3:16).
Thus, the Scriptures themselves never give the impression that their authority was derivative from the church, or from some future ecclesiastical decision.
Not until Trent in 1546 was a formal declaration made one the canon of the Bible. A declaration that included particularly the Apocrypha.
So given the above, are we to believe Rome's claim that without them there would be no New Testament? That no canon existed for over fifteen hundred years until Trent? I think a proper reading of history shows the church had a proper functioning canon long before Trent and even the fourth century councils.
I think it was Packer who once said, the church no more gave us the New Testament canon than Sir Isaac Newton gave us the force of gravity. God gave us gravity…Newton did not create gravity but recognized it.
This is why the WCF Ch. 1. plainly states:
3. The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon of the Scripture, and therefore are of no authority in the Church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings. (Luke 24:27, 44, Rom. 3:2, 2 Pet. 1:21)
4. The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God. (2 Pet. 1:19, 21, 2 Tim. 3:16, 1 John 5:9, 1 Thess. 2:13)
5. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverend esteem of the Holy Scripture. (1 Tim. 3:15) And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God: yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts. (1 John. 2:20, John 16:13-14, 1 Cor. 2:10-12, Isa. 59:21)
4. The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God. (2 Pet. 1:19, 21, 2 Tim. 3:16, 1 John 5:9, 1 Thess. 2:13)
5. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverend esteem of the Holy Scripture. (1 Tim. 3:15) And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God: yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts. (1 John. 2:20, John 16:13-14, 1 Cor. 2:10-12, Isa. 59:21)
AMR