Thursday, April 18, 2013

The Canon of Scripture Revisited

From time to time, I like to revisit and try to clarify previous posts with updated information or terminology I've learned. And I never mind sincere questions from someone who wants to better understand my philosophy. With that in mind, recent question as to the canonicity of James (link) brought with it some questions as to how Clarkians or Scripturalists think men can know Scripture is God's word. It has been a long time since my initial post on the canon of Scripture (link), but I consider the short summary I provide there is as true then as it is now. The answer is the same as many if not most other Protestants would give: God's word is self-authenticating. 

Still, some do not find this answer plausible. In light of what the Bible says about the spiritual condition of most men, this is not unexpected. But in any case, what would be another way we could know that God has revealed Himself? Maybe the reply will be that God hasn't revealed Himself - or if He has, we couldn't know it anyway. Or perhaps there is no God. When these sorts of replies are made, though, I find that the person in question has inevitably not thought through how partial knowledge could be possible apart from revelation of such from one who is omniscient (link). And all other answers suppose that it is more legitimate to evaluate a creator by His creation than creation by a creator. Are any of these options really more plausible than a self-authenticating revelation? Do any of these alternatives have something more substantial than a superficially intuitive appeal? Well, I must leave that to the reader to decide. I would obviously answer in the negative.

Of course, there are perspectives which I would allege attempt to copy the method of knowing God's word, distorting it by substituting in place of Scripture something not of divine origin. And this troubles people, because if revelation is supposed to be self-authenticating, then how is it possible to sift through all these varying claims? Is playing a back-and-forth game of "my source is true and yours is not because my source says so" really the best that a Christian apologist has to offer? Still more troubling, how can our answer to such questions be made without presupposing revelation? After all, if some sort of revelation is necessary, then we wouldn't be able to answer any question without first specifying said revelation.

Well, actually all of this doesn't turn out to be so problematic. For the reply to this last question just is that we can't answer any question without first presupposing a specific, concrete revelation. So what? The reason why some accept and others reject one proposal over against another should depend on what one's revelation has to say about such. In the case of Scripture, while God's word may be self-evident, the only means by or reason for which any sinner would acknowledge it as such is grace.

Even so, we may further note that we are not left without means of distinguishing false claims to divine revelation. Keeping in mind that no necessary condition for knowledge can ground or function to demonstrate a sufficient condition for knowledge (link), there are nonetheless tests we can perform which serve as confirmatory evidences.

Now, necessary truths obviously cannot be falsified. So given that the idea of God, that His revelation is self-authenticating, and that what He speaks cannot be a lie are all necessary truths, the Bible, God's self-attesting word, cannot be falsified. That some do not take these divinely revealed truths as constituting a or the sufficient condition for knowledge does not imply we shouldn't.

Then again, this doesn't imply our belief is arbitrary. In addition to the possibility (indeed, the necessity - link) of self-authenticity, the Bible itself prescribes criteria against which we can test its claims. Prophecy is one example. Internal consistency is another necessary condition for some communication to have been revealed by God. Etc. I have outlined and dealt with numerous such conditions elsewhere on this blog. Once again, no matter how many of these subsidiary conditions we show the Bible must and does satisfy, our trust in it must ultimately be based on its own, self-authenticating claim to be God's word. But by applying these subsidiary conditions to other worldviews, we can falsify them and thereby lend credibility to our own. While this is not demonstration - no first principle can be demonstrated anyway - it is a technique which is seemingly the most plausible means of persuasion available. The rest is left to God.

So, to summarize, Scripturalism - the axiom that the canon of divine revelation in general and the Bible in particular comprises the extant extent of that which men can know - is clearly not the conclusion of a set of theorems, no matter how necessary those theorems may be in order for a system to be true. Axioms must be self-authenticating or self-evident.

But the acceptance of an axiom is not arbitrary. If it were arbitrary, then it would be unnecessary. One of the necessary conditions, however, is that partial knowledge requires self-authenticating communication from one who is omniscient. We may not be able to demonstrate or prove the Bible in particular is said revelation, but this isn't relevant. For the Bible is taken to be the sufficient condition, not a mere necessary condition, and no axiom can be demonstrated, proved, or externally justified. The fact it just is self-authenticating is enough. People may not accept this, but then again, people may not accept that I know myself. I can't demonstrate that either, but is that any reason to think I can't know myself? No. So, to conclude this post on how we can recognize the canon, I cite for consideration the following statement by Gordon Clark from Today's Evangelism, Counterfeit or Genuine? (pg. 113):
But if there is a revelation, there can be no criterion for it. God cannot swear by a greater; therefore he has sworn by himself. One cannot ask one’s own experience to judge God and determine whether God tells the truth or not. Consider Abraham. How could Abraham be sure that God commanded him to sacrifice Isaac? Maybe this suggestion was of the devil; maybe it was a queer auto-suggestion. There is no higher answer to this question than God himself. The final criterion is merely God’s statement. It cannot be tested by any superior truth.

11 comments:

徐马可 said...

Ryan,

Thanks for writing a post on this subject. I am very interested to see your detail exposition of this subject under Dr. Clark's philosophy, I get swamped with work lately, will definitely check back later.

Thanks,

Mark

Max said...

"no matter how many of these subsidiary conditions we show the Bible must and does satisfy, our trust in it must ultimately be based on its own, self-authenticating claim to be God's word."

I think the issue of the canon is the most important thing for Clarkians / Scripturalists to consider, because there are many Bible books which make no claim of divine inspiration. I myself have concluded that many of the 66 books we take for granted may be merely the words of men. We must rely on God's spirit and pray that we be not deceived on this. We shouldn't blindly believe every word in the New Testament. Even Martin Luther questioned James, Hebrews, Jude, and Revelation. I think part of the reason Protestantism is dying today is the unwillingness to remove more books from the canon as un-inspired books. They already removed 7 of those books from the Catholic canon.

I write this to you because I have been in error about certain doctrines, and by returning to Scripturalist / Protestant principles, I have been corrected, but I am now forced to reach these bold conclusions about the scriptural canon.

Ryan said...

"because there are many Bible books which make no claim of divine inspiration"

And there are theophanic appearances to Abraham and those near him in which God did not announce Himself as such and yet was recognized. Point? Where did you get the idea that in order to qualify as God's word, a statement must reflexively identify itself as that?

"They already removed 7 of those books from the Catholic canon."

Which ones, and source?

"I am now forced to reach these bold conclusions about the scriptural canon."

On what grounds?

Max said...

"there are theophanic appearances to Abraham and those near him in which God did not announce Himself as such and yet was recognized. Point?"

I don't recall any recorded theophany where God gave no indication that it was Him speaking. If God gives no indication, I don't think we can know it's him. The reason Abraham knew that the true God spoke to him is that God made himself known, either with audible speech, or if He "announces" himself visually, as in the burning bush to Moses, He made himself known by a miracle without speech and He also references himself by saying "I am the God of your father," etc. When God speaks, it seems there is always an indication. We should treat a written text as a mere human writing unless there is an indication it is a revelation from Him. The Five Books of Moses definitely qualify as a written revelation from God in my opinion. Now then, other books that claim the name of God should be weighed in the balance of those Five Books.

If you claim demons can do the same visual and audible miracles, I find no evidence in the Five Books. Demons appear to be a much later Rabbinic or Hellenic tradition/myth. Deu 32:17 is about false gods that don't exist. (1 Corinthians 8:4. See also LXX Isaiah 65:3)

The 7 apocryphal books removed were: Tobias, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, Baruch, 1 and 2 Maccabees. According to the Westminster Confession 1.3 : "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."

""I am now forced to reach these bold conclusions about the scriptural canon." On what grounds?"

Through studying New Testament prophecy and eschatology, I concluded those teachings don't make sense and seem to add nothing to the Gospel, so I am suspicious of any "second coming" or "final judgment" doctrines. They may have been added by the corrupt "church" to scare people. God's judgments in this life are fearful enough. There are also tons of textual criticism difficulties in the NT, far more than in the Torah. This is a clue that the texts may have been heavily edited.

The Gospel seems more of an inference and deduction from the Law (Pentateuch), than a preserved written text from the 1st century AD. Many Protestant doctrines are true, but I do not think they are based on every word of the 66 canonical books.

I know, I said "may be" and "seems" a lot, but at this point I can't be certain before I have systematically worked everything out, because these beliefs are kind of new to me, but they're actually based on the path that I was on 3 years ago. May the Reformation continue! I view Gordon Clark as a pioneering Reformer of this age.

Ryan said...

"I don't recall any recorded theophany where God gave no indication that it was Him speaking"

He didn't identify Himself to Hagaar in Genesis 16, Abraham in Genesis 18/20, I'm sure there's others but see no need to keep digging. They knew it was the Lord without having to be told.

"The Five Books of Moses definitely qualify as a written revelation from God in my opinion."

Why them and not any other?

"The 7 apocryphal books removed were: Tobias, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, Baruch, 1 and 2 Maccabees."

It depends on how you're using the word "canon" here. Obviously, they didn't become uninspired. Nor is there necessarily a discontinuity between the Westminster divines and those who included those books in their ecclesiastical readings while recognizing they weren't inspired.

"I can't be certain before I have systematically worked everything out"

Given you said you were forced to reach bold conclusions, the response you gave was disappointing.

Max said...

"He didn't identify Himself to Hagaar in Genesis 16."

It was the angel of the Lord, a visual manifestation.

"Abraham in Genesis 18/20."

Good point but it seems Abraham became aware that the men were angels in Gen 18:10 - he remembered the promise of Isaac and knew the angels were speaking for God.

""The Five Books of Moses definitely qualify as a written revelation from God in my opinion." Why them and not any other?"

I am considering other books (the Prophets, for example), but it may take me much study and prayer to have a conviction on them. I need spirit-filled fellowship to help me out, 'cause I am like a lone ranger in the wilderness.

""The 7 apocryphal books removed were: Tobias, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, Baruch, 1 and 2 Maccabees." It depends on how you're using the word "canon" here. Obviously, they didn't become uninspired. Nor is there necessarily a discontinuity between the Westminster divines and those who included those books in their ecclesiastical readings while recognizing they weren't inspired."

My point was that there was a consensus among Christians of that age (1500s) that certain Old Testament books were inspired, but Protestants later rejected them, and they were correct in doing so. Therefore it can be done again and I believe it will be done - God, through the process of Reformation, will right the wrongs of the past and bring to light the corruptions of evil men. I hope.

Max said...

What do you think of Drake Shelton's latest video critiquing Clark's view of the canon:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2H0I5VuEOE8

Ryan said...

I think it's ironic that the next thing he reads is a passage he thinks warns us to be skeptical of our interpretative abilities. Drake used to reject Revelation as a canonical book too, has he changed his mind? I remember discussing James 2 with him on his old blog somewhere, it was clear to me he didn't have good reason for doubting its canonicity.

Max said...

He only used Ecclesiastes 8:1 regarding phenomena in the material world. He believes in the Protestant right of private judgment, which I also do. His conscience will not allow him to accept James' epistle.

I don't remember that he rejected the Apocalypse - he still believes the Pope is The Antichrist, so he must accept it, I guess (even though I don't think the book says anything about the Pope, but most Reformed/Presbyterian eschatology does).

Ryan said...

The point is the restriction of Ecc 8:1 to the material world seems arbitrary.

I also don't think Revelation is about the Pope. But Drake did once reject its canonicity iirc due to his position on annihilationism.

Max said...

From Drake's perspective, that verse cannot mean that no one can know the interpretation of anything, because this contradicts Private Judgment. This is why I reject some things in the Bible and follow a hierarchy of Scriptural authority, so I don't have to arbitrarily impose meanings on texts to harmonize them.

The amazing thing is, when I rejected the Bible as the infallible word of God, I did not become an atheist, but I still believed the Gospel and justification by faith alone, and a future resurrection of my body, as much as I did 8 years ago, when I was regenerated. The infallible word of God is the Law and the Gospel, which can never be corrupted, but are stable as the earth and heaven.

I also believe in doing systematic theology.