Once more on the word "biblicism"

Here is the work by Sophei Finngan which discussed "Biblicism".

Note that Finngan is a Catholic Priest. pic.twitter.com/Ov7snxXodB

— Namor 📖 (@NamorPB) July 25, 2023

What is "biblicism"? Matthew Barrett has found an early work from 1827 that uses the term "bibicism," probably the earliest known use of that word in the English language. Does this somehow imply that the word "biblicism" has that meaning used by its first author Sophei Finngan? If we go strictly by the "first use" principle, then certainly "biblicism" would have the same meaning as what Finngan meant by the use of that term. But should it?

When we examined Finngan's book (as found on Google Books), it can be easily seen that Finngan is an Irish Roman Catholic priest writing a polemical work primarily against the Protestants of England. "Biblicism" by Finngan is a wicked idolatry that uses the Bible wrongly and breaks the unity of the Roman Catholic church. In other words, Finngan's "biblicism" is a derogatory slur against the Protestant practice of Sola Scriptura. Finngan did indeed use the term to attack rank heretics like Spinoza whom he claims as springing from within Protestantism, but he does not see this as a wrong use of the Protestant interpretation of Scripture (as what Barrett and company wants to make it into), but rather as proof that atheism and all manner of heresies have their origin in Sola Scriptura.

Since, I hope, that supposed Protestant Great Tradition men want to insist that they hold to Sola Scriptura, Barrett's reliance on Finngan's use of the term "biblicism" is an own-goal. If one agrees with Barrett and Finngan, then the logical conclusion is to abandon Sola Scriptura altogether. This raises the important question whether Barrett actually checked the primary source here, as relying on anti-Protestant polemics to attack "biblicism" only serves to undermine the Reformation, even if Finngan had a valid point, which he did not. As with many polemics written in church history, reason and rational arguments are far from its pages, and the goal is to rile up the masses with mass accusations and guilt by association arguments.

Shoud we therefore consider that "biblicism" is a word that has many meanings then? Or is the term redeemable in some fashion? Dr. James White has been talking about the term "Reformed biblicism" as his way of approaching the Scriptures. The issue of word usage then is: Who gets to define the word? Or if there is none, should anyone be allowed to define the term in any way they wish? I would suggest not.

As I have mentioned time and again, I see church historian David Bebbington's usage of the word "biblicism" to be normative. Even with this current revelation that the word was used in the 19th century by a Roman Catholic priest, my position remains the same. Finngan had used the term, but few people caught onto the term as it was then used. What has caught on however is the Bebbington Quadrilateral, which remains an important element in the study of Evangelicalism. In other words, it is Bebbington's use of the term that is prevalent in the academy and the study of the history of Evangelicalism. The current bastardized use of the term by Great Tradition polemicists is a more recent invention, and one that plays off the established meaning of "biblicism" while eviscerating it of its historical meaning.

It is this more established use, a neutral historical use, of the word "biblicism" that makes me uncomfortable with Dr. White's attempted appropriation of the term in "Reformed biblicism." "Biblicism" has a certain use and meaning in the history of Evangelicalism. Unless Dr. White's hermeneutics is indeed similar to that of 19th century Evangelicals, he should not utilize that term of his hermeneutics. Dr. White does engage in systematic thinking, is not afraid of dealing with matters of church history, and holds to the historic creeds, so according to Bebbington's meaning of the term, Dr. White is not a biblicist.

For me therefore, it is the desire to be able to talk about Evangelical church history that drives me towards Bebbington's use of the word "biblicism." I have no desire to throw out an entire work of study on the history of Evangelicalism, just to appease recent doctrinal extremists. They are the ones who should stop their ignorant prattle, instead of spewing nonsense and creating their own sects.

We have the prophetic word made more sure: Natural Theology, Hermeneutics, and Sola Scriptura

It has been some time, but I have completed my response to Jordan Steffaniak's article in Modern Reformation on Natural Theology and Sola Scriptura, and have decided to just publish it on my website, here.

At a time when the term "biblicism" is thrown around as a term of derision, and where Reformed confessionalists have veered hard towards Roman Catholicism in her fascination with the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas, it is hard for those of us who are Reformed and still hold to the Reformed Confessions to stand on the truths of Scripture. I offer this response here therefore as a way forward between the "biblicist" position and the new ressourcement position, which I am convinced is bringing the churches back towards the epistemic position of Roman Catholicism, and a rejection of Sola Scriptura for a position that can be described as "Scripture Plus": Scripture is supreme, but we also need X or Scripture cannot be properly interpreted.

Here is an excerpt from my paper, entitled "We have the prophetic Word made more sure: Natural Theology, Hermeneutics, and Sola Scriptura":

It is along this trajectory that Jordon Steffaniak, co-founder of the website The London Lyceum, wrote an article for Modern Reformation arguing for the use of Natural Theology in reading and interpreting Scripture. Steffaniak’s main point is that there is an errant view of Sola Scriptura within Evangelism, a “disordered variation,” called “biblicism.” As opposed to “biblicism,” the correct view of Sola Scriptura is one that must utilize external sources like Natural Theology as a guide to understand Scripture, although Scripture remains the “supreme source” of the Christian faith.

Steffaniak contrasts what he claims to be the true Sola Scriptura with biblicism’s supposed distorted view of Sola Scriptura. But is Steffaniak’s contrast legitimate? How does one rightly interpret the Scriptures? ...

[continued]

Babel babble: A review of Christian Smith's The Bible Made Impossible

The term "biblicism" has been floating around for quite some time. What is it, and is it really bad?

In this light, I have recently finished a book review of Christian Smith's book attacking "biblicism." Entitled The Bible Made Impossible: Why Biblicism is not truly an Evangelical Reading of Scripture, Smith thinks that biblicism is wrong and not a biblical hermeneutic. If Smith is true, then evangelicalism has been reading the Bible wrongly for a long time, but is that so? I would assert not. In the process of my review, I addressed the issue of "biblicism" in some detail. An excerpt of the review is here given:

How should a person read the Bible? In the Reformation, the emphasis was on placing the Bible in the hands of the laity, so that God’s people can read God’s Word for themselves. Whatever one can say about the Reformation, one must be able to say that putting the Bible into the hands of the laity, into “untrained hands” as it were, is a good thing. But is that really the case?

Sociologist Christian Smith, in his new book, demurred against this approach. Smith’s central thesis is that a plain reading of the Bible is impossible, and that one has to approach the Bible differently from that “biblicist” approach. Smith does not advocate for removing the Bible from the hands of the laity, but he thinks the typical approach they take in reading it is not correct. Given that the “biblicist” approach is the approach of the unwashed masses, what Smith’s argument implies is that, while the laity can have the Bible, they cannot read it for themselves, because they will otherwise read it with a “biblicist” and hence wrong hermeneutic. Rather, they must be taught to read it differently from what they have been doing by default.

[continue]

Warfield on Inerrancy and Preservation of Scripture

It is another curiosity of the controversial use of a phrase, to find the Church's careful definition of the complete truth and trustworthiness of the Scriptures as belonging, as a matter of course, only to the genuine text of Scripture, represented as an appeal from the actually existing texts of Scripture to a lost autograph—as if it were the autographic codex and not the autographic text that is in question. Thus, we have heard a vast deal, of late, of "the first manuscripts of the Bible which no living man has ever seen," of "Scriptures that have disappeared forever," of "original autographs which have vanished"; concerning the contents of which these controversialists are willing to declare, with the emphasis of italics, that they know nothing, that no man knows anything, and that they are perfectly contented with their ignorance. Now, again, if this were to be taken literally, it would amount to a strong asseveration that the Bible, as God gave it to men, is lost beyond controversy; and that men are shut up, therefore, to the use of Bibles so hopelessly corrupted that it is impossible now to say what was in the original autographs and what not! [B.B. Warfield, "Inerrancy of the Original Autographs," in Selected Shorter Writings, 2:583]

(1)There is nothing new under the sun. Warfield could have been describing Bart Ehrman if we didn't know the time period he was writing it.

(2) Preservation of Scripture pertains to the text of Scripture, not to the codex of Scripture. Therefore, the absence of the original autographs are not a problem at all. Since we have so many textual evidences, there are few issues with establishing the original text of Scripture among the many variants.

(3) The KJVO (King James Version-Only) position accepts the liberal axiom that an authoritative Scripture require an authoritative codex of Scripture. Whereas the liberals denies the existence of an authoritative codex, and thus they deny the authority of the text of Scripture, KJVOnlyism asserts that there MUST be an authoritative codex (i.e. the King James Version) because otherwise there would not be an authoritative text of Scripture.

Warfield on the Westminster Doctrine of Scripture, contra liberalism and Barth

The [Westminster] Confession teaches that by their inspiration the Scripture are made not only to contain but to be the Word of God. In i.2 the alternate name of Holy Scripture is "the Word of God written." In i.4 it is declared that Holy Scripture "is the Word of God"; in i. 5 it is pointed out how it evidences itself "to be the Word of God." This phraseology pervades the whole document (cf. iii. 13; x. 1, 4; xiii. 1; xiv. 1, 2; xvi. 1; xx. 2; xxi. 5, 6, 7; xxii. 7, xxiv. 4; xxx. 2; Shorter Catechism, Q. 2, 99; Larger Catechism, Q. 3, 4, 67, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160 etc.). The Holy Scripture which is thus declared to be the Word of God is defined to be itself "all the books of the Old and New Testament"; and cannot, therefore, be thought to be only selected passages in those books. It is called the "Word of God written" to distinguish it by its accidents from the spoken Word of God, as given to the prophets aforetime, in the sense of i. 1, and as explained in the citation from Calamy. Finally, when we read in the Shorter Catechism of "the Word of God, which is contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments," we are not reading of a distinction within the limits of Scripture between a word of God and a word not of God, as if it were only asserted that the former is to be found indeed within the Scriptures; but we are reading an anti-Romish and anti-Mystic declaration that the only Word of God that is recognized is that contained in the Scriptures. This, everyone acquainted with the literature of the times will perceive at once; ... As simple historical students, we must admit that the Westminster Confession is committed to the position that the Bible not only contains but is the Word of God. [B.B. Warfield, "The Westminster Doctrine of Inspiration," in Selected Shorter Writings, 2:576-7]

Anyone who believes in any version of "limited inerrancy" or flat our deny inerrancy, and/ or who take the Barthian view of Scripture, cannot hold to the Westminster Confession concerning this issue and thus they cannot subscribe sincerely and truly to that Confession.

Warfield on authority and the Liberal attack on "bibliolatry"

Thus, he [a Liberal], too, throws back the spirit upon itself, under the euphemism of "the witness of the Spirit in the heart," for the source and test of all truth. One of the strange things in connection with this widely prevalent subjectivism is the tendency observed in many and very diverse quarters to represent it [this attitude of rejecting the authority of the external text of Scripture] as a return to the attitude of the Reformers. It stands rather, of course, in direct contradiction to the Reformers' attitude. What they renounced was not "external authority," but "human authority," inclusive naturally of that of their own spirits; and what they fell back on was "Divine authority,: which not only includes, but primarily exhibits itself in, the Scriptures. When it is "external authority" that is renounced, the authority of God goes with it, and we can revert only to the human authority of the individual soul. And that, conceal it under whatever honeyed phrases we may, is nothing but a return to the fundamental principle, not of the Reformation, but of "Rationalism." [B.B. Warfield, "Recent Reconstructions of Theology," in Selected Shorter Writings, 2:293]

The charge of "bibliolatry," or making an idol of the Bible, is a spurious charge by liberals against those who believe the true Christian faith. Since no one is actually bowing down to a physical copy of the Bible, or to Codex Sinaiticus or any of the Papyrii, the charge is false. Those who refuse to be constrained by Scripture are rejecting the authority of God Himself, and thus are themselves idolators of their own reason and/or experience.

God reveals Himself to us... in Scripture

Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. (Heb. 1:1-2)

And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. (Jn. 1:14)

And we have the prophetic word (προφητικὸν λόγον) more fully confirmed, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. (2 Peter 1:19-21)

God reveals Himself to His people. Yet, what is the nature of this revelation? From Hebrews 1:1-2, we can see that God has indeed utilized a variety of ways in times past to reveal Himself and His will, like through theophanies and even the casting of lots (Lev. 16:8, Prob. 16:33). But NOW all God's revelation is found in His Son, and the former ways of revelation have now ceased, as the Westminster Confession of Faith 1.1 so beautifully states as a deduction from this passage.

The only way to get to this revelation of both the "former ways" and the final revelation of Christ however is through the Scriptures, for we would otherwise have no other way to access God's revelation than for it to be recorded for us, since God's revelation is given in history (thus the contrast between the former times in history and the "now" in history). From 2 Peter 1:19-21, we can see that the written revelation that is the prophetic word or Scripture is given to us as a more sure way of revelation, even in comparison to the glory of our Lord's Transfiguration. In other words, written revelation trumps even the most glorious revelatory experiences. The supremacy of the written Word is expressed earlier in redemptive-history in Isaiah 8:20, "To the teaching and to the testimony! If they will not speak according to this word, it is because they have no dawn."

The relation of Christ and the Word is that Christ IS the Word, at least the Word Incarnate. As Christ who is the final revelation reveals God to us as the Word Incarnate (Logos Ensarkos), so the Scriptures which is the God-breathed-out Word (logos theopneustos) reveals what God in Christ reveals. Christ is the ontological revelation of God, and Scripture the epistemological revelation. God is not a schizopreniac, so obviously the two are one and the same revelation, differing only in kind. Whatever Scriptures teaches, Christ teaches, and whatever Christ teaches, Scripture teaches. God does not have two different logoi (words), but one logos (Word). The Word became flesh (Jn. 1:14), the prophetic word (2 Peter 1:19) breathed out (2 Tim. 3:16), are the one and the same Word.

We do not live in the "former times" of the Old Testament, or even the foundation times of the New Testament. We live in the "last days" where God's revelation is found in Christ and thus in Scripture, the written prophetic word. Scripture is thus the only revelation for us from God today; it is sufficient for us. Therefore, since Scripture is sufficient, it must be clear for us to understand since God intends His revelation to be understood.

Since Scripture is sufficient and clear, therefore any theory that concludes that Scripture is unclear (because of the limits of language or other such arguments) must be in error. This is the argument form known as modus tollens (If p, then not q; q, therefore not p). It doesn't matter how sounds the other theory is. For if the theory (p) will result in a denial of what we already know, the "conclusion" that Scripture is sufficient and clear (not q), then our knowing from Scripture that Scripture is indeed sufficient and clear (q) necessitates a rejection of the theory no matter how true that theory (p) sound to us. The question to be asked for someone who doubts is not whether any particular theory (p1, p2, p3) (that would lead us to conclude that Scripture is unclear) is true, but rather whether the conclusion q is true. If the conclusion q is true, then those theories (p1, p2, p3 etc.) are rendered false by default.

On the other hand, some may ask concerning natural revelation. The biblical answer in Romans 1:18-23 is that there is indeed a natural revelation, yet by itself it only leads to condemnation. Can one grow "close" to God through nature? The Psalmist certainly broke out in praise after seeing the work of God in creation (Ps. 19:1-4) so in this sense we can say that one can "grow close" to God through nature, yet such is done through the lens of Scripture, for we read in Romans 1:18-23 that natural revelation in itself leads the sinner to idolatry and rejection of God. So yes, there is a natural, or general, revelation by God outside of Scripture, yet (1) it reveals only condemnation, (2) in itself it cannot reveal God in grace to us and thus will not bring us to praise Him and fellowship with Him. The Psalmist is only able to write Psalms 19 out of a regenerate heart already in communion with God, something only God can accomplish through His Word. Therefore, while there is a revelation of God outside of Scripture, it is limited and unable to reveal God in grace to us.

God reveals to us, in a way for our good, in Scripture. We are to look at Scripture therefore for our knowledge of God in order to know Him, and even to Scripture in order for us to interpret Nature and General Revelation alright. Above all, Scripture reigns supreme as the source and final authority for our faith, and where we should go to to have communion with God (alongside the sacraments, which are another form of the Word, but those are dependent on Scripture and are another topic altogether).

Rome, authority and Argumentum Ad Infinitum

An objection, however, is often made to the doctrine of infallibility, in limine, which is too important not to be taken into consideration. It is urged that, as all religious knowledge rests on moral evidence, not on demonstration, our belief in the Church's infallibility must be of this character; but what can be more absurd than a probable infallibility, or a certainty resting on doubt?— I believe, because I am sure, and I am sure, because I supposed. Granting then that the gift of infallibility be adapted, when believed to unite all intellects in one common confession, the fact that it is given is as difficult of proof as the developments which is to prove, and nurgatory therefore, and in consequence improbable in a Divine Scheme. The advocates of Rome, it has been urged, "insist on the necessity of an infallible guide in religious matters, as an argument that such a guide has really been accorded. Now it is obvious to inquire how individuals are to know with certainty that Rome is infallible... how any ground can be such as to bring home to the mind infallibly that she is infallible; what conceivable proof amounts to more than a probability of the fact; and what advantage is an infallible guide, if those who are to be guided have, after all, no more than an opinion, as the Romanists call it, that she is infallible?" 81.1

This argument, however, excepted when used, as is intended in this passage, against such persons as would remove all imperfection in the proof of Religion, is certainly a fallacious one. For since, as all allow, the Apostles were infallible, it tells against their infallibility, or the infallibility of Scripture, as truly as against the infallibility of the Church; for no one will say that the Apostles were made infallible for nothing, yet we are only morally certain that they were infallible. Further, if we have but probable grounds for the Church's infallibility, we have but the like for the impossibility of certain things, the necessity of others, the truth, the certainty of others; and therefore the words infallibility, necessity, truth, and certainty ought all of them to be banished from the language. But why is it more inconsistent to speak of an uncertain infallibility than of a doubtful truth or a contingent necessity, phrase which present ideas clear and undeniable? In sooth we are playing with words when we use arguments of this sort. When we say that a person is infallible, we mean no more than that what he says is always true, always to be believed, always to be done. The term is resolvable into these phrases as its equivalents; either then the phrases are inadmissible, or the idea of infallibility must be allowed. A probable infallibility is faith and obedience towards a person founded on the probability of his never erring in his declarations or commands. What is inconsistent in this idea? Whatever then be the particular means of determining infallibility, the abstract objection may be put aside. 81.2 [John Henry Cardinal Newman, Essays on the Development of Christian Doctrine, 58-9]

Before there was Catholic Answers, there was John Henry Newman, the apostate from Anglicanism. On the issue of the infallibility of the Roman Church, there is surely some continuity between the two. Protestants, in response to Roman claims on the infallibility of the Church, rightly ask how one can be infallibly certain of that. Newman's response is to say that this same argument can be used against the infallibility of the Apostles and the Scripture, the former probably as a polemic against Anglicanism and the latter against Protestantism as a whole. Since the same argument can be used against other views, either one has to abandon all usage of the words "infallibility, necessity, truth and certainty," or the argument is to be discounted altogether.

Newman's move, while an interesting play on his part, does not actually solve the problem. One can use the same argument to argue for the infallibility of the apostles or the infallibility of Scripture, or basically any authority. Put that (X is infallible) as the thesis, then when one's opponents inquire how one knows that (X is infallible) is true, then claim that either the thesis X is infallible (e.g. Scripture is infallible) is true, or that these words (infallibility, necessity, truth, and certainty) have no meaning whatsoever. Once the form of the argument is recognized, we see that Newman's argument is begging the question. It works only to the extent that his thesis is seen to be the default by which all others are to be judged, but since the thesis itself is questioned, one cannot claim that as the default.

So Rome's claims of authority is circular, and in the end it is no more certain than other claims. That it is circular does not necessarily make it wrong, but it must be admitted that the reason why Romanism is right is because one bases one's faith on the claimed authority of the Roman church (i.e. Sola Ecclesia). The major problem for Romanism now is the inconsistency of its authority figure. Ever since Vatican II, the Roman church has been ever shifting in its positions on all manner of Christians doctrines. Where once heretics and schismatics were anathemized, now Protestants are regarded as "separated brethren" and Muslims and Jews part of the plan of God (Vatican II Document Lumen Gentium). If one's authority is ever shifting, how can it function as the axiom of one's system?

Against Laudian Anglicanism, it is impossible to see the Church Fathers as being authoritative for understanding the Christian faith, since one does not have the entire corpus of Patristic writings and there is always the possibility, and indeed there are, divergences between the various church fathers. As for apostles, the only way we know what the apostles have taught is in the Scriptures. Supposed apostolic tradition mediated to the church fathers always have the question how much is actual mediation, and how much is addition, and thus one cannot appeal to the church fathers as necessarily indicative of apostolic tradition.

Scripture alone can stand as its own authority. The canon of Scripture is fixed and it is closed. Textual variants, because of the multitude of textual evidences, can be evaluated and the original text more or less arrived at. We therefore can know what Scripture teaches and it wouldn't change from age to age, pace Rome, and there wouldn't be problems of incompleteness and divergences, pace Laudian Anglicanism. Scripture is autopistos, authenticating itself as the supreme authority. Can one be "infalllibly sure" of the authority of Scripture? No, in the same way as one cannot be infallibly sure of anything. But one can be sure of its infallibility, while one cannot be sure of the infallibility of any others.

So this Romanist apologetic fails because (1) it cuts all ways, (2) the authority contradicts itself often, (3) Only Scripture is autopistos, while the rest are not. We do not have to fear Rome's promotion of Sola Ecclesia, for it is a broken reed wounding all who rely on it.

Sola Scriptura, authority and "tolerance"

There is one way that Christians might possibly prove ["Radical Orthodoxy" John] Milbank wrong [on his accusations of "Fundamentalism"]: they might come to see the meaning of Sola Scriptura not as they traditionally have in terms of the supreme trumping or silencing power of the text over all potentially rival sources of knowledge, but rather in terms of the noncoercive, nonviolent authority of a witness that continually evokes and invites open-ended conversations about its meanings. The unique or sole authority of Scripture would in this case lies not in the Bible's ability to provide once-and-for-all answers to all our most pressing questions, nor [sic] in its power to tidily dispatch with challenging new evidence from history, science and human experiences with a fideistic "Thus saith the Lord." It would instead lie in the way that reading Scripture in communion with others who are also committed to making its narrative central in the midst of new realities with the right kind of responsiveness to the Other with whom we may have unresolved—possibly unresolvable—disagreements. [Ronald E. Osborn, Death Before the Fall: Biblical Literalism and the Problem of Animal Suffering (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2014), 83-4]

In chapter six of Osborn's book, he continues with his strong critique of "Fundamentalism" and its "enclave mentality," pleading for "tolerance" of alternative positions and citing with approval Karl Barth's view of Scripture. This I might add seems to be the mainstream view within the liberal wing of Evangelicalism, or the conservative wing of mainline theology, whichever characterization one prefers.

The first problem here is that Osborn has a very shallow understanding of "Fundamentalism." From what he has written and what I have read, his background seems to be from the Seventh-Day Adventist camp. The problem is that Fundamentalism especially in America is an extremely complex social phenomenon. Just like New Evangelicalism, it is extremely simplistic to say that Fundamentalism is stereotype X. Fundamentalism has no real creed, it has no central authority, no disciplinary committees, and thus is not monolithic. Yes, there are certain tendencies in Fundamentalism, and one could in a sense take those tendencies as typical of the movement. However, I do not see anywhere that Osborn has actually dealt seriously with the movement. Merely citing a couple of books on Fundamentalism, and at least a book on Marxism, is not a real analysis of Fundamentalism, of which the Seventh-Day Adventist were a part but not the whole. As I have said, picking up people like those from Westboro Baptist and think they represent Fundamentalism is just plain ridiculous. And while one might disagree (and I do) with Fundamentalists, they do not usually have malicious intent and actually are trying to do what is right according to Scripture. This is the one thing most lacking in Osborn's analysis of Fundamentalism: actually trying to understand Fundamentalism according to its adherents instead of according to its hostile opponents, or former adherents like Mark Noll (in the Scandal of the Evangelical Mind) who is ashamed of his past.

As I have said in response to Osborn, I find it incredible that he is outraged at me using two words which discount his position, while he spent more than 10 pages attacking creationism (which is linked with "Fundamentalism") as being essentially cultic. Osborn speaks about respect and tolerance, but where is that attitude from him extended to those he is writing against? I mean, if you can dish it, then you are supposed to be able to take it in kind. To the degree that you critique others, you should be willing to take it as well. I think that is a very basic law. Furthermore, since he is pleading for tolerance of opposing viewpoints, shouldn't he be practicing what he is advocating? I must say that consistency is somewhat lacking in the way he rather intolerantly attacks creationists while at the same time calling for greater tolerance.

Along this idea of "tolerance," I find it interesting that he is calling for open-ended conversations. I would question his call however for what kind of "open-ended conversations" he is seeking when he has already sent a preemptive strike against creationism by delegitimizing it? Conversations means dialogue, which means two sides speaking, not a monologue where the "enlightened" side tells us how "intolerant" and simpleton the other party is and so we must "converse" with a view towards embracing his position. So is Osborn really interested in having a conversation or not?

Osborn has also embraced the idea that a focus on words and propositions is a legacy of the Enlightenment. The problem is that this is just terrible history. Yes, there wasn't a huge focus on words in the early church and medieval and Reformation eras, but that is because ideas like words are words and propositions are the units of thought are basic concepts that are unquestioned. Which pre-modern or early modern would have countenanced the idea that error can be actually infallible (the Barthian non-inerrant infallible position)? Would that make sense to anyone at all in these earlier eras, that errors do communicate truth? No! Only in the modern and postmodern eras do we have such a concept, through an artificial division of content and form (i.e. the form of the words is errant, the [deeper] content is truth).

Osborn's appropriation of John Milbank is also interesting. I question however why what Milbank, being a modern day Anabaptist, has to say about "Fundamentalist" is important. How does his concept of "noncoercion" and "nonviolence" tally with the history of the church with its many councils proclaiming what is and what is not to be believed, even proclaiming anathema against those who disagree with the council's edicts? Has Osborn read the Athanasian Creed recently, especially its opening words? Osborn wants to read Scripture in communion with others, which I agree but not in the same way he does. If we are to talk about reading Scripture in community, then why are we discounting much of church history? The dogmaticism of the early, medieval and Reformation-era Church stands in direct contrast to Osborn's position and have much more in common with "Fundamentalism." It is the modern and postmodern church that stands in profound discontinuity with the historic Christian faith, so one would think that reading Scripture in community means rejecting most of the novelties of the last two to three hundred years. Ad fontes!

In conclusion, I do not find Osborn's plea very convincing. Like mainline Liberals, all the pleas for tolerance and open-mindedness do not seem sincere. If Osborn really wants to be taken seriously, he needs to practice what he preaches, not say one thing and do another.

"Asian theologies" and the Nouvelle trend

Singapore Nouvelle theologian Simon Chan has written a book on Asian "Grassroots theology," which I have just began to read. Right at the beginning we already see the beginnings of a shipwreck and the clear influence on this man's theology. Let me quote a bit from the beginning:

...Putting it another way, any healthy theological development requires holding together two processes in a healthy tension: ressourcement and aggiornamento. Ressourcement is not merely a return to the past; rather it is a creative engagement with earlier sources, the fountainhead of spiritual life. Only in this way can we begin to engage in the work of aggiornamento, or adaption and updating in light of the new situations in which the church finds itself. Without the prerequisite of ressourcement, aggiornamento could easily end up with the church capitulating to the spirit of the age. (p. 8)

Tradition implies a community with a history. For Christianity, the history of the church is a continuation of the history of Jesus Christ. ... Church and tradition, therefore, need to play a more critical role in the development of local theologies. We can no longer speak in terms of sola scriptura, at least not with qualification. (pp. 11-12)

— Simon Chan, Grassroots Asian Theology: Thinking the faith from the ground up (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2014)

The terms ressourcement and aggiornamento are terms derived from the Nouvelle Theologie, a theological movement especially within northern European Roman Catholic (especially France) that seeks a new way of doing theology in the turn of the 20th century. It was censored by the Roman curia for a long time before it triumphed at Vatican II. The terms themselves look sound: Ressourcement is a French word which roughly means return back to the (past) sources, especially patristic sources. Aggiornamento is an Italian word which simply refer to the updating of theology, based upon the insights gained from ressourcement. Who doesn't like the idea of going back to the original sources and reforming the church accordingly? But all is not as it seems. As I have critiqued before, ressourcement is not the same as the Reformational principle of ad fonts. Rather, this sort of "return" and "reform" is a back door for smuggling all sorts of philosophies into both Scripture and the patristic and medieval writers through the back door, under the guise of reading these original sources.

We note here that Chan rejects the basic Christian principle of Sola Scriptura. This is despite the fact that the patristic sources held to the principle both formally and materially (See David King's and William Webster's three-volume work Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of our Faith), and that the necessity of Scripture necessarily leads to the sufficiency of Holy Scripture. To claim otherwise is to say that the Scripture themselves were wrong when they proclaim its own sufficiency. So what kind of ressourcement is this when one claims to return to the Patristics yet deny what they teach?

We note also the absolute nonsense that "for Christianity, the history of the church is a continuation of the history of Jesus Christ." This is a blatant denial of the change in redemptive-historical eras between the apostolic times and our times. The closing of the canon and the cessation of special revelation implies a change in redemptive-historical eras. The Church is not Christ, the Church does not incarnate Christ, and the "body" language is federal language, not physical or essential language. The believer's union with Christ is mediated by the Holy Spirit, not an essential (i.e. esse, being) identification. In the times between the already and the not-yet, there is a real absence of Christ, so that believers yearn for the return of Christ. Maranatha (Our Lord come)! (1 Cor. 16:22) It is not "our Lord is already here." So much for Chan's ridiculous and unbiblical idea of tradition.

This attack against Scripture can only come about primarily by an attack on the sufficiency of language to convey truth, which is what I will discuss in my next post.

No Compromise Ever: Episode 2

Erin Benzinger has posted the link to the second episode of the No Compromise Podcast, which focuses on the topic of Sola Scriptura, mysticism, and some interactions with John Eldrige's idea of masculinity.

Bible study class: Scripture Alone is Biblical

My friend Nate Taylor has done part 1 of his 6 part series on the doctrine of Sola Scriptura here. Do check it out

A response to the Called to Confusion's criticism of Sola Scriptura

One criticism leveled at Protestants by the new Roman apoologists is that there is no essential difference between Solo Scriptura (Scripture Only) and Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone). This allegedly one of the reasons behind Stellman's apostasy, and likely behind Joshua Lim's and countless others' too. The sad thing is that the whole argument is rationalistic to the core and flawed throughout. As such, it shouldn't be given any credence by those who claim to believe in the power and presence of God and the Holy Spirit.

The neo-Romanist argument (Part 1)

According to these neo-Roman apologists, the difference between Solo Scriptura and Sola Scriptura is that in the former, the individual is directly "acting as his own ultimate and magisterial authority." In the latter, the individual does so indirectly, by submitting "to others only when one agrees with them."

As opposed to these, the Romanist claimed that he submits to an "objective" church which is marked by apostolic succession. Such a definition of the church is supposedly "objective" without the subjective looking for the "marks of a true church" which Protestants use. The argument presented to prove his case is as follows:

1. According to solo scriptura, Scripture is the only ecclesial authority. [def]

2. If solo scriptura is true, then each individual is his own final interpretive authority concerning what he considers to be essential. [1]

3. According to sola scriptura, Scripture is the only infallible ecclesial authority. [def]

4. If sola scriptura entails that each individual is his own final interpretive authority concerning what he considers to be essential, then in this respect there is no principled difference between solo scriptura and sola scriptura.

5. If apostolic succession is false, then no one’s determination of the marks of the Church is any more authoritative than anyone else’s.

6. If no one’s determination of the marks of the Church is any more authoritative than anyone else’s, then each individual is his own final interpretive authority concerning what he considers to be essential.

7. If apostolic succession is false, then each individual is his own final interpretive authority concerning what he considers to be essential. [(5),(6)]

8. The doctrine of apostolic succession is false. [A]

9. If sola scriptura is true, then each individual is his own final interpretive authority concerning what he considers to be essential. [(7),(8)]

10. There is no principled difference between sola scriptura and solo scriptura. [(4),(9)]

First response

Before we go on further, what are we to make of this argument? First, we note that God and the Holy Spirit is noticeably absent throughout the entire argument. The whole argument is naturalistic to the core.

When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. (John 16:13)

To the new Roman apologists, the decision of choosing a true church and the true Gospel is an autonomous decision. Since it is an autonomous decision, final authority ultimately rests upon the individual. But Protestantism has never claimed that the decision of choosing a true church and the truth Gospel is an autonomous decision. Rather, it is something that is done by the Holy Spirit working within a person. It is not a choice so much as an acknowledgment of what is already there.

We believe that the true church and the true Gospel is extra nos. We do not get to choose it. It is objective and spiritual, and thus spiritually discerned (1 Cor. 2:14). The person of the Holy Spirit works within an individual's heart to recognize (not create) the true church and the true Gospel.

Thus, in the Romanist constructed syllogism, premise 4 is wrong. Sola Scriptura does not entail that each individual is his own final interpretive authority. The Holy Spirit is the only final interpretive authority. Yes, on the surface it seems that one person (e.g. Martin Luther) is the final interpretive authority. But that only shows that the Romanists are materialists in this regard. Just because the Spirit's work is invisible does not mean that it is not real. That the blind do not see does not make what those with eyes see wrong.

In the same light, premise 7 is wrong. In fact, it so blatantly contradicts Scripture in Jn. 16:13 that it is not funny. The whole argument for apostolic succession is circular to the extreme. Where in Scripture after all is the notion of apostolic succession taught? A dubious interpretation of Mt. 16:18 does not count!

This brings us to our counter-charge. It is the Romanists who are actually indirectly making themselves the final authority. The only difference is that their leap of faith is supposedly a final leap. Thus, as opposed to those who practice Solo Scriptura, the decision to make Rome the final authority is supposed to stop after they have made the plunge into the Tiber.

The Romanists claim that they submit to the church which objectively has apostolic succession. The problem is that the very notion of a physical apostolic succession is disputed outside Roman (and Eastern Orthodox and Anglican) circles. Therefore, one will only think that apostolic succession is objective only if one is in either of these three groups. Aside from that, upon what basis should anyone accept that apostolic succession actually exists and is unbroken (think of the problems posed by the Avignon Papacy)?

True, Romanism does not practice an individual choosing the church "acting as his own ultimate and magisterial authority," directly. However, it does involve an individual choosing to accept the claims of apostolic succession through "acting as his own ultimate and magisterial authority." In other words, the choice to think that there is such a thing as physical apostolic succession is a leap of faith to make, not an objective fact that can be proven.

Solo Scriptura and Romanism therefore are actually two sides of the same coin of rationalism. Both sides (the Anabaptist and the Romanist) refuse to deal with the person and power of the Holy Spirit. The Pietist decides based upon "a burning in the bosom," while the Romanist decides based upon alleged "apostolic succession." The biblical Christian however decides base upon the Spirit working through the Word. To use R. Scott Clark's categories, the Pietist errs with QIRE (Quest for Illegitimate Religious Experience) while the Romanist errs with QIRC (Quest for Illegitimate Religious Certainty).

The neo-Romanist argument (Part 2)

The Romanists continue by claiming that Sola Scriptura is contradictory. Citing Matthison, they see a contradiction in saying that "all appeals to Scripture are appeals to interpretations of Scripture" (contra Solo Scriptura) and "Scripture is the final authority." It is then claimed:

But, if all appeals to Scripture are appeals to interpretations of Scripture, then it follows necessarily that either someone’s interpretation of Scripture is the final and authoritative norm of doctrine and practice, or Scripture itself cannot be the final and authoritative norm of doctrine and practice.

Second response

The problem with this argument is that it flattens the issues and thus present a false dichotomy. All appeals to Scripture are appeals to interpretation in the sense that there is no such thing as an uninterpreted naked text of Scripture. This is mere recognition that there is no such thing as a naked fact or naked text. But this is not to suggest that since there are no uninterpreted texts means that all interpretations of texts are equally valid, which is the postmodern position. Rather, by stating that Scripture is the final authority, we are saying as a synedeche that the Holy Spirit who breathed out the Scriptures is the final authority, and the Holy Spirit works through Scripture (Rom. 10:17, 2 Tim. 3:16-17). The Romanists think that putting forth this dichotomy would mean that one should chose for the insufficiency of Scripture. But the same argument can be used against Rome. Look at Rome's decrees and how many different ways they have been interpreted. Does Vatican II implies that people may be saved by earnestly seeking God without professing Christ? Do the many interpretations of Rome's decrees mean that Rome is not the "final and authoritative norm of doctrine and practice"? Let's say Rome issued a decree to clarify what she meant, the process is then repeated over and over again.

In the Roman church, it is ironic that one gets to say that other fellow Romanists (espeically liberal RC clergy) are wrong. Why should one think that one's interpretation of Vatican II on salvation of those who haven't heard of Christ is to be preferred over the interpretation of liberal RC bishops? The dichotomy applies even more to Romanists, since it cannot be denied that there are many interpretations of Rome's decrees.

Final remarks

In reply to the tu quoque objection on the nature of authority, the Romanist claims that the difference between Romanism and Protestantism with regards to authority is that Protestants do not find a Magisterium and thus they retain ultimate final authority. That is a truly astonishing claim, because it is false. Reformed Protestants do have a "Magisterium" to bind the conscience. This "Magisterium" is the Holy Spirit. Protestants are not free to believe whatever they want to, which is the problem with Solo Scriptura adherents. And this is what makes Rome such an abomination — the Roman Magisterium usurps the office of the Holy Spirit in binding the consciences of Man.

The next objection of an infinite regress in interpretive authority states that one needs an interpretive authority to interpret another interpretative authority and on it goes. The reply by the Romanists is that such is true for a book but not for a person, since one can put a person in the dock but not a book. First, this does not work as an argument against Sola Scriptura, since the Holy Spirit is a person! Second, this still works against Rome because the Magisterium is made up of fallible human beings, whereas the Holy Spirit is infallible. Putting together a bunch of fallible human beings does not an infallible institution make. The way to solve a leaking bucket is not to put 10 leaking buckets together one inside another and then think that the composite bucket does not leak!

In conclusion, the new Romanist apologetic has been tried and found wanting. It is utterly rationalistic and materialist, making Rome a usurper of the person of the Holy Spirit in binding the conscience with her "infallible" interpretation, instead of the Holy Spirit's infallible interpretation.

I would rather choose the Holy Spirit as my "Magisterium." At least He is infallible always, sinless, loving, and true. These cannot be said of any human magisterium no matter how learned they may be.

Verbal Plenary Inspiration and the charge of worshiping the Bible

The charge against a biblical view of the verbal plenary inspiration (VPI) of the Scriptures has been that such makes the Bible a "paper pope," and therefore those who hold to that position worship a book. Against this charge, Gordon Clark has excellently refuted it as follows:

This caricature [by the VPI-denying liberals] stems from their materialistic turn of mind; a naturalism that may not be apparent in other discussions, but that which comes to the surface when they direct their fire against fundamentalism. They think of the Bible as a material book, with paper contents, and a leather binding. That the contents are the thoughts of God, expressed in God's own words, is a position to which they are so invincibly antagonistic that they canot even admit it to be the position of a fundamentalist [i.e. Bible-believing Christian].

[Gordon H. Clark, "The Philosophy of Gordon H. Clark," in The Works of Gordon Haddon Clark Vol. 7 (Unicoi, TN: Trinity Foundation, 2009), 60]

James White called T4G's position on the Bible inaccurate

I am not as sharp as I should be on this issue, plus of course I did not look at Together for the Gospel's Statement of Faith in detail. Dr. James White however has picked up on the language that the T4G Statement of Faith uses as describing the Bible as "the sole authority for the Church," as an expression of Solo Scriptura a la "me and my Bible alone in the woods." Dr. White's comments on this topic is certainly illuminating and can be read here.

Paper: The Apologetic Import of the Autopistia of Scripture

I have just received my other paper back. The paper is entitled The Apologetic Import of the Autopistia of Scripture. Barring formatting changes, the paper is presented as submitted, here.

An excerpt:

In apologetic endeavors, the question of authority or the ground of knowledge is an important one. How can one know what is the truth? For a Christian, not only do we ponder over the question of how we can know what the truth is, but the question of how truth and Scripture relate to each other is equally pertinent.

In this paper, I would like to defend the thesis that the doctrine of autopistia or the self-authenticating nature of Scripture substantiates the proper foundation or ground of knowledge which is the Scriptures themselves, and that this can be used profitably in the realm of apologetics. To this end, firstly, I will put forward the proposition that the foundation for the framework of all knowledge is the Scriptures themselves. Secondly, I would show how the doctrine of autopistia can be used to substantiate it. Thirdly, I would proceed from there to suggest a method to apply this fact in the realm of apologetics.

[cont]

These would be extremely pertinent I think:

There is therefore no shame and no need to hide the fact that the Christian epistemology is circular, for all epistemologies are likewise circular. ...

...

What is the import of this doctrine [of autopistia] in apologetics? Since all epistemologies are circular, the fact that the ultimate authority of the faith appeals to itself is actually self-consistent with its own claim to be the ultimate authority. Although it is most definitely not sufficient to prove the faith, as if apart from the work of the Spirit anyone can be argued into the kingdom, the coherency of the Christian system is a work of beauty indeed.

Along these lines, we have a platform to critique rival epistemologies. Empiricism can be critiqued because there is nothing in empiricism to validate empiricism as a valid epistemology. Rationalism can be similarly critiqued since formulae such as Cogito Ergo Sum (I think therefore I am) are not inherently found in reason but reasoned out in order to support rationalism. In other word, reason itself never claimed to be an ultimate authority in any sense. Rather, it is fallen men who cling on to reason as their ultimate authority since that is internally all they have, and they therefore make reason their ultimate authority by an irrational leap of faith.

Two articles

I have just finished formatting two articles for my website, which were previously blog posts here. They can be accessed now as follows:

Scripturalism and the Canon of Scripture

Why the Global Day of Prayer does not conform to Scripture

Scripturalism and the formation of the Canon of Scripture

There have been many attacks on the authority of Scripture in order to undermine its authority. Neo-Orthodoxy utilize Kantian metaphysics to render the words of Scripture mere forms which are not the real Word of God (Rather, they contain the Word of God). Liberals since the birth of German Higher Criticism have been engaging in "creative" deconstruction of the biblical text, a methodology probably epitomized best in the so-called scholarship of the "Jesus Seminar" — where a bunch of "old white liberals" come together to vote on how "authentic" they think the passages in the Gospel accounts are based upon ridiculous self-serving naturalistic criteria.

One particular area of attack which the Liberals and the Roman Catholics capitalize on is to focus on the formation of the Canon of Scripture, though for different reasons. Liberals focus on the events in order to "demonstrate" how the Bible is not really of God, but rather a compilation of certain "Jesus tradition" texts, out of the many others present like the Gnostic "gospels". This was done by the group (the ancient Catholic Church) which defeated other rival "Christian sects" and thus impose their Canon on others. The Roman Catholics on the other hand focus on the formation of the Canon in order to bring in their view of Sola Ecclesiae — that nobody can know the real Canon of Scripture apart from embracing the Church which form that Canon, which is of course assumed to be the Roman Catholic Church.

For those of us who embrace Scripturalism, that the axiom of thought is that the Bible alone is the Word of God., the formation of the Canon of Scripture presents its own set of questions. One question is how can we take Scripture to be the Word of God if, as it seems, the formation of the Canon of Scripture is a historical process undertaken by humans and thus we cannot be sure of the contents of Scripture? Of course, we Christians believe that God has indeed preserved His Word such that the entire process of canonization is kept free of error by the supervision and inspiration of the Holy Spirit (cf 2 Peter 1:19-21), therefore we know that the Canon of Scripture is indeed what God has made it out to be.

Such of course would be met with a charge of circular reasoning of assuming Scripture to prove Scripture (assuming that they have no problem with the exegesis of the verse). While I will not focus too much on epistemology in this post, suffice it is to say that epistemological issues ultimately are circular in reasoning, as both foundationalism and coherentism admits. (Non-foundationalism is just irrational!). We can point to the excellent resources produced by empirical research to validate Scripture, but due to my denial of the validity of empiricism by itself to discover truth or even possible truth, such research would be of secondary importance.

So let us go back to the issue under consideration. Let us grant the validity of the Canon and the entire process due to the work of the Holy Spirit in history. This gives rise however to the second question: Does this not by itself militate against the Scripturalist position that the axiom of thought is that the Bible alone is the Word of God? Since the Bible is itself a product of the Spirit working in time through people, isn't this "axiom" materially and formally dependent on the Holy Spirit, being also time-bound? Such an "axiom" therefore cannot function as the basis for all thought.

In his book Scripture Alone (Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany House, 2004), Dr. James R. White addresses the issue of the Canon of Scripture in the context of Roman Catholic apologetics. While primarily concerned to defend the sufficiency of Scripture against the charge of Roman Catholic apologists, Dr. White mentioned a concept which is indeed helpful for us in understanding the formation of the Canon with regards to the issue of Scripturalism — that of the Canon as an artefact of revelation, not an object of revelation. As White wrote:

The term canon originally referred to a stick by which a measurement was made. By extension it came to mean a rule or standard, and finally it was applied to an authoritative list of something, such as all the books written by a certain author or, in this case, the books of Scripture. However, if we think the biblical canon is nothing more than a fancy way of referring to the table of contents, we have missed the heart of the issue and will never arrive at a satisfactory answer to our questions.

...

We need to start off by realizing we are talking about the canon of Scripture. As we have already seen, Scripture is theopneustos, God-breathed; to say we are talking about something unique is to master the art of understatement. Scripture does not simply drop down out of heaven like rain to be gathered up and organized by man. The nature of Scripture determines the canon of Scripture; that is the canon must be defined in light of what Scripture is. If Scripture is (1) God-breathed and (2) given fr the purposes revealed within its own revelation, then vitally important conclusions must be drawn from these two truths, conclusions that deeply impact our understanding of the canon and its implications.

The reason I raise these issues is simple: I believe we must determine the divine view and purpose of the canon before we can have any basis upon which to discuss the human side of recognizing and understanding the canon. This may seems like a simplistic thought, but it seems often to have been left out in consideration of the subject: Without the act of inspiration (revelation), there would be no canon. ... the fact that we dealing with a book God intends to exist in a particular form for a particular purpose cannot be ignored.

The thesis I will seek to establish is this: The canon is an artefact of revelation, not an object of revelation itself. It is known infallibly to God by necessity and to man with a certainty directly related to God's purpose in giving the Word to the church. The canon exists because God has inspired some writings, not all writings. It is known to man in fulfilment of God's purpose in engaging in the actions of inspiration so as to give His people a lamp for their feet and a light for their path. The canon, then, has two aspects as we consider it in light of its relationship to God's overall purpose in giving the Scriptures. The first aspect, to which I will refer as canon¹, is the divine knowledge and understanding of the canon. The second aspect, which I will identify as canon², is the human knowledge and understanding of the canon (which has been the primary focus of debate down through the centuries). ...

...

When an author writes a book, a "canon" of his or her writings is automatically created as a result of the simple consideration that he or she has written at least one book, but has not written all books that have ever been written. Hence, a canon of a single book comes into existence at the completion of that first work. If the author continues writing, the canon changes with the completion of each project. It should be noted that even if the author does not write down a listing or his or her works, a canon exists nonetheless, which he or she knows infallibly. No one else can infallibly know this canon outside of the author's effort to communicate it to others, for only the author knows what he or she has truly written. Even those closest to the author may not know with utter certainty whether the author has used anyone else in the writing process or whether he or she has borrowed from someone else. Therefore, the originator of a book (or books) has an infallible knowledge of the canon of these works, while anyone else has a mediated knowledge, dependent upon both the honesty and integrity of the author and the author's desire to make that canon known to others.

When we apply these considerations to Scripture, we are able to see that canon¹ is the necessary result of God's freely chosen act of inspiration. Once God's Spirit moved upon the very first author of Scripture, canon¹ came into existence. Before anyone else could possibly know what God had done (canon²), God infallibly knew the current state and content of canon¹. With each passing phase of His unfolding revelation in Scripture, canon¹ remained current and infallible, fully reflective (by necessity) of the ongoing work of enscripturation. This is why we should call the canon an artefact of revelation. It is not itself an object of revelation, but comes into existence as a by-product of the action itself. God inspires, and the canon expresses the limitation of that action.

In other words, the Canon of Scripture is determined by the extent of Scripture, which is determined by God. God's knowledge of His Word is archetypal, while our knowledge is ectypal, being mediated by God to us. The Canon is known to us because God has revealed to us the extent of His special revelation, and the Canon is merely the boundary lines marking out what God has revealed to us as His Word for us.

Forever, O Lord, your word is firmly fixed in the heavens (Ps. 119:89)

So how does this concept aids us in our understanding of the canonization of Scripture with respects to Scripturalism? God being immutable, unchanging and omniscient knows the content of His Word for us (canon¹) from eternity past to eternity future. Canon¹ is then actualized before God in time as the Holy Spirit breathes out His Word through the human writers. Canon² is then known to us as God reveals to us through our reasoning it out through examination of the texts to see if they conform to the nature of Scripture. The contours of the Canon therefore are as immutable as God, and exist in the mind of God in eternity past. As Ps. 119:89 tells us, God's Word is fixed forever, as it were "in the heavens".

Since that is so, there is no problem with the Scripturalist position. Although the Canon was worked out in time (canon²), yet the knowledge of canon¹ is always evident to God from eternity. Therefore, the canonization process does not undercut the Scripturalist position at all.

Scripture as God-breathed therefore is in fact authoritative over all of life. When viewed in its own merits, Scripture can account for its own canonization without the need to invoke other sources of authority besides the God who breathes it out. Those who attempt to deconstruct the Canon therefore have no basis besides that of unbelief to do so, since faith accepts the God which is revealed in Scripture who is sovereign over history.

James R. White's critique of Peter Enns' "Incarnational" model of inspiration

In this talk at Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary (GPTS), Dr. James R. White spoke on Peter Enns and the authority of Scripture, and refuted Enns' idea of the Incarnational model of the inspiration of Scripture.

[HT: AOMin]

James White responding to Bryan Cross and Francis Beckwith

In this video, Dr. James R. White responded to the arguments of apostates Bryan Cross and Francis Beckwith on their denial of the sufficiency of Scripture through a special appeal to the doctrine of the Trinity.

[HT: Aomin.org ]