ckp@grebyn.com (Checkpoint Technologies) (08/24/90)
1. The Reformers asserted Proposition A: "ALL REVEALED TRUTH IS TO BE
FOUND IN THE INSPIRED SCRIPTURES." However, this is quite useless
unless we know which books are meant by the "inspired Scriptures."
2. The theory we are considering, when it talks of "inspired
Scriptures," means in fact those 66 books which are bound and published
in Protestant Bibles. For convenience we shall refer to them from now
on simply as "the 66 books."
3. The precise statement of the theory we are examining thus becomes
Proposition B: "ALL REVEALED TRUTH IS TO BE FOUND IN THE 66 BOOKS."
4. It is a fact that nowhere in the 66 books themselves can we find
any statements telling us which books make up the entire corpus of
inspired Scripture. There is no complete list of inspired books
amywhere within their own pages, nor can such a list be compiled by
putting isolated verses together.
(This *would* be the case if: [a] you could find verses like "Ester
is the Word of God," or "This Gospel is inspired by God," or "The Second
of Peter is inspired Scripture," etc., for *all* the 66 books; *AND* [b]
you could also find a Biblical passage stating that no books other than
these 66 books were to be held as inspired. Obviously, no one has ever
pretended to have found all this information about the canon of
Scripture in the Bible itself.)
5. It follows that Proposition B -- the very foundation of Protestant
Christianity -- is neither found in Scripture nor can be deduced from
Scripture in any way. Since the 66 books are not even identified in
Scripture, much less can any further information about them (e.g.,
that *all* revealed truth is contained in them) be found there. In
short, we must affirm Proposition C: "PROPOSITION B IS AN ADDITION TO
THE 66 BOOKS."
6. It follows immediately from the truth of Proposition C that
Proposition B cannot itself be revealed truth. To assert that it is
would involve a self-contradictory statement: "All revealed truth is to be
found in the 66 books, but this revealed truth is not found there."
7. Could it be the case that Proposition B is true, but is not
*revealed* truth? If that is the case, then it must be either [a]
something which can be deduced from revealed truth or [b] something which
natural human reason alone can discover, without any help from
revelation.
The first possibility [a] is ruled out because, as we saw in steps 4
and 5, B cannot be deduced from Scripture, and to postulate some other
revealed extra-Scritural premise from which B might be deduced would
contradict B itself.
The second possibility [b] involves no self-contradiction, but it is
factually preposterous, and I doubt whether any Protestant has seriously
tried to defend it -- least of all those traditional Protestants who
strongly emphasise the corruption of man's natural intellectual powers
as a result of the Fall. How could reason alone reach a well-founded
certitude about a collection of 66 books which do not even lay claim to
what is attributed to them? (The point is reinforced when we remember
that those who attribute the totality of revealed truth to the 66 books,
namely Protestant Church members, are very ready to acknowledge their
own fallibility -- whether individually or collectively -- in matters of
religious doctrine. All Protestant Churches deny their own infallability
as much as they deny the Pope's.)
Human reason might well be able to conclude prudently and responsibly
that an authority which itself claimed to possess the totality of
revealed truth was in fact justified in making that claim, provided
that this authority backed up the claim by some very striking
evidence. (Catholics, in fact, believe that their Church is precicely
such an authority. Interestingly enough, all Christians accept the
Catholic Church's authority on this matter.)
8. Since Proposition B is not revealed truth, nor a truth which can
be deduced from revelation, nor a naturally-knowable truth, it is not
true at all. Therefore, the basic doctrine for which the reformers
fought is simply false.
{This line of logic was borrowed from an article in _Living Tradition_.}
I hope you all can appreciate the gravity and impact of this argument!
chris
--
First comes the logo: C H E C K P O I N T T E C H N O L O G I E S / /
\\ / /
Then, the disclaimer: All expressed opinions are, indeed, opinions. \ / o
Now for the witty part: I'm pink, therefore, I'm spam! \/kutz@cis.ohio-state.edu (Kenneth J. Kutz) (08/30/90)
In article <Aug.24.00.00.29.1990.25734@athos.rutgers.edu>, ckp@grebyn.com (Checkpoint Technologies) writes: > 3. The precise statement of the theory we are examining thus becomes > Proposition B: "ALL REVEALED TRUTH IS TO BE FOUND IN THE 66 BOOKS." > 5. It follows that Proposition B -- the very foundation of Protestant > Christianity -- is neither found in Scripture nor can be deduced from > Scripture in any way. > we must affirm Proposition C: "PROPOSITION B IS AN ADDITION TO > THE 66 BOOKS." > 8. Since Proposition B is not revealed truth, nor a truth which can > be deduced from revelation, nor a naturally-knowable truth, it is not > true at all. Therefore, the basic doctrine for which the reformers > fought is simply false. > I hope you all can appreciate the gravity and impact of this argument! I am very fond of theological points being made in IF...THEN... fashion because I write computer programs. However I always have difficulty reading any further than the "IF" when the very foundation of the argument is based on faulty information. Although I don't enjoy the use of labels such as "Protestant", I would have to consider myself one. As a "protestant" I have to say that proposition B above is *not* "the very foundation of Protestant Christianity" as is asserted. Additionally I do not personally know anyone who would agree with this statement. Certainly God can (and does) reveal truth today and will continue to reveal truth tomorrow. James 1:5 (one of the "66 books which Protestant's believe to be completely true) says: "If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, AND IT (WISDOM) WILL BE GIVEN HIM. Certainly this wisdom will be true and often times is very circumstantially specific to my life (praying about what person to marry, career decisions, etc) therefore could never be found in the Bible which was penned before I was born. Therefore if I might add my own proposition to yours: IF proposition B is held to be true by Protestants THEN James 1:5 doesn't exist in the Protestant Bible SINCE James 1:5 is in the Protestant Bible Proposition B is not held to be true by protestants I believe you would find general agreement amongst protestants that the promise of James 1:5 was fulfilled when the 66 books were chosen for inclusion into the canon. (After reading this post, it sounds cold. I guess most IF...THEN... texts are. I really prefer - though don't always succeed :-( -to respond with words which reflect a heart changed by Christ, but in this instance I have chosen to respond in the format of the original poster) -- Kenneth J. Kutz Internet kutz@andy.bgsu.edu Systems Programmer BITNET KUTZ@ANDY University Computer Services UUCP ...!osu-cis!bgsuvax!kutz Bowling Green State Univ. US Mail 238 Math Science, BG OH 43403