\n
One, what must the nature of the church\u2019s authority be for its recognition of the canon to be infallible?<\/span><\/p>\n* * *\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n\u00a0<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
\n
Obviously, I think, a binding (we would say, apostolic) authority; otherwise, what good is the proclamation? It is no better than you or I saying which books are Scripture. It is clear from Scripture itself that the Church has such authority. We see it most clearly in the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:28: RSV: \u201cFor it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things\u201d).<\/p>\n
* * *<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Even Paul and Timothy proclaimed this binding authoritative pronouncement: \u201cAs they went on their way through the cities, they delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem\u201d (Acts 16:4).<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\n
* * *<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
\u201cInfallibility\u201d is simply another way of saying that something is
\u00a0true<\/span>\u00a0(and in this case, protected by the assistance of the Holy Spirit). It is because Protestants often now accept theological relativism or relativistic latitude on a host of issues, that they disparage certitude and infallibility. In other words, since y\u2019all can\u2019t resolve your never-ending internal differences, you relegate large areas of Christianity to mere personal choice.<\/div>\n* * *<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\n
That approach is, with all due respect, post-Enlightenment, postmodernist gobbledygook, not biblical or historic Christianity, nor even the Christianity of Luther and Calvin, who felt quite certain of their own beliefs and even damned those who differed from it (e.g., Luther\u2019s opinion of Zwingli, or Calvin calling Lutheranism an \u201cevil\u201d).<\/p>\n
* * *<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\n
Two, does infallibility apply to the component parts of the canon only or does it extend to the collection as a whole also?<\/p>\n
* * *<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\n
Catholics believe that all Scripture is infallible (in its manuscripts). We also believe that the proclamation of the canon is an infallible one, since it was finalized at Trent in a dogmatic fashion.<\/p>\n
* * *<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
How can the RCC authoritatively declare that certain books are God-breathed and authoritative, without undercutting their authority by playing the king-maker?<\/div>\n
* * *<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
The same way it could declare that circumcision was no longer necessary for Gentiles, in the Jerusalem council. The same way it could determine that Matthias was a successor to Judas; hence an apostle (hence an operation of apostolic succession), recorded in Holy Scripture itself. It does so because it is the \u201cpillar and foundation of the truth\u201d.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
* * *<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
I\u2019d like to address some of the (rather interesting and thoughtful) questions from Jeff (from #270) that I didn\u2019t have time for up till now.<\/div>\n
* * *<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
. . . this central question has arisen:<\/div>\n
* * *<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Does the church create truth or recognize truth?<\/div>\n
* * *<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Obviously the latter in terms of the canon (or indeed,\u00a0
anything<\/span>, I would say). The truth is what it is. The Catholic Church can create dogmas (just as the Calvinist communion creates the dogma of TULIP) but not truths themselves. And the Church can do neither out of thin air, as we are often charged. I addressed this above in one of my remarks (#254), and cited Vatican I and II to prove that this is in fact what we assert regarding the canon (contrary to many contra-Catholic myths to the contrary).<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
* * *<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
\n
Sean\u2019s response (#126):<\/p>\n
* * *<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Your question, \u201cDoes the church create truth or recognize truth?\u201d leaves out a third option: \u201cDoes the Church authoritatively declare truth?\u201d<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\n
* * *<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
And so now the question on the table is, What does that third option mean? What is the difference between authoritatively declaring truth and either recognizing truth (as scientists attempt to do) or creating truth (as baseball umpires do).<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\n
* * *<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
I think it is mainly a question of semantics and clarification. I won\u2019t speak for Sean. That is for him to do (being the world\u2019s greatest expert on the thoughts and intentions in his own head). But I have my own thoughts.<\/div>\n
* * *<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
The Church doesn\u2019t \u201ccreate\u201d the canon in the most technical sense because it is what it is: God-inspired revelation: a thing that is separate from and prior to the Catholic Church (or anyone) recognizing it for what it is. So we can lay that to rest. It makes no sense once we understand what Holy Scripture inherently is, and it is not our claim anyway. So bye-bye, pseudo-objection and false stereotype . . . it comes from the Protestant either\/or speculation that the Catholic Church is always trying to place itself above Scripture. That is not our position at all, as I also explained in the same post above (#254).<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\n
* * *<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
I would say that declaring and recognizing truth are basically the same thing. Using either word in a sentence regarding a truth or a fact amounts to essentially the use of what are synonyms. But to use the terminology of \u201cauthoritatively declare\u201d as Sean did, brings in the additional element of proclamation of a\u00a0
dogma<\/i>, which is a different thing.<\/div>\n* * *<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
This is why I myself use the phraseology of saying that there needed to be a binding, authoritative proclamation of the biblical canon, to settle the question once and for all. It was not completely settled spontaneously in history. There was a significant consensus, granted (especially for the gospels and Pauline epistles), but there were lots of doubts about other books, and many eminent fathers thought books not now included, were Scripture.<\/div>\n
* * *<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
I would disagree, by the way, that a baseball umpire \u201ccreates truth.\u201d He does not. If anything, he creates a \u201cdogma\u201d: a certain pitch is now to be regarded dogmatically as a strike or a ball and a play as an out or not or a ball fair or foul, etc. The things involved are what they are: truths, prior to the umpire making a decision on them. In fact, any given thrown pitch was either a strike or not. The umpire may be correct in his assessment or incorrect. But he doesn\u2019t create anything. He declares.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\n
* * *<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
Conveniently, this was graphically brought home in the recent Detroit Tigers game where our pitcher was deprived of a perfect game because of a clearly blown umpire\u2019s call. Replays revealed that the last base runner was in fact out. But the umpire had created the \u201cdogma\u201d that he was safe. He did not create a new \u201ctruth\u201d that he was safe, because in fact he was\u00a0
not<\/i>\u00a0safe. Even the umpire knows this now. The commissioner of baseball has decided to uphold the \u201cdogma.\u201d<\/div>\n* * *<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
In relationship to the canon, that\u2019s what Paige is getting at. What is the difference between \u201cinfallibly recognizing the canon\u201d and \u201cinfallibly authoritatively declaring the canon\u201d?<\/div>\n
* * *<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
We have established that no one is \u201ccreating\u201d anything. Now you are using the word \u201cinfallibly.\u201d I don\u2019t see much difference in recognizing vs. declaring. The real question is infallibility, authority, and a binding decree or dogma. Our position is consistent. We believe in the three-legged stool as our rule of faith: Scripture, Church, Tradition. None is \u201cabove\u201d the other. They are all of a piece.<\/div>\n
* * *<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
The canon is above all a practical matter: how can the Christian know which books are indeed God-breathed Scripture? The early Christians disagreed too much and couldn\u2019t fully settle it. So the Church did, and did so authoritatively. But Protestants accept no infallible Church declaration, since their only final infallible authority is Scripture. So they are left with a radical circularity and vicious circle: they must adopt, in effect, an infallible Church authority (which they cannot do) in order to have their infallible Scripture, which they make alone the infallible authority in all Matters Christian.<\/div>\n
* * *<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
If the Church was in fact, fallible when it made the decision (and Protestants do actually think this when it comes to the deuterocanon), then Protestants are left with an open canon, and cannot know with the certitude of faith what are indeed the legitimate New Testament books. A fallible collection of infallible books is a contradiction in terms.<\/div>\n
* * *<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
I don\u2019t view this at all as a game, but as the central question surrounding RC authority:<\/div>\n
* * *<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Good. It is a very serious discussion indeed, with momentous consequences, depending on how one comes down on the question.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\n
* * *<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
how can the RCC make the claims that it does about authority, without usurping God\u2019s own authority?<\/div>\n
* * *<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
It is not doing so at all, because the Church was given its authority by God, and is guided by the Holy Spirit (Jn 14:26; 15:26; 16:13). Jesus commissioned Peter as the head of the Church (tons of Scriptures for Petrine primacy, that even many Protestant scholars now recognize). Paul was commissioned by the Church and possessed apostolic authority, as did the other apostles. The Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) exercised profound binding, infallible authority, as I have mentioned. Paul went around proclaiming these binding decrees (Acts 16:4). Bishops had a strong authority. Matthias was an apostle in replacement of Judas: thus showing apostolic succession in the Bible itself. The Church has the power to anathematize (Matt 18:17) and bind and loose (Matt 16:19; 18:18; Jn 20:23), forgive sins, and pronounce absolution and penances. Personal infallibility, such as we believe popes possess in certain circumstances, was already foreseen to an even greater extent in the prophets, infallible (and even inspired) Bible writers, and the apostles. It is no novel thing at all. 1 Timothy 3:15 alone, as I have argued, is sufficient to establish a sublime Church authority.<\/div>\n
* * *<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
I have collected literally many hundreds of Bible passages demonstrating all these things. The Tradition, Church, and Papacy chapters of my book,\u00a0
Bible Proofs for Catholic Truths<\/i>\u00a0take up its first 161 pages: and it is 95% simply listed Scripture, like\u00a0Nave\u2019s Topical Bible<\/i>.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
* * *<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
All this, yet you can\u2019t see ecclesiastical authority in Scripture, and feel as if any such authority must needs be in conflict with God, in classic Protestant \u201ceither\/or\u201d fashion?<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\n
* * *<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
Reformed churches have authority, too, you know, on a lesser scale than us, but they still do. How does that not usurp God, just as you claim our authority does?<\/div>\n
* * *<\/div>\n
Allow me to try further to understand your position. You write,\u00a0<\/span> <\/i><\/div>\n<\/div>\n
* * *<\/div>\n
If the Church was in fact, fallible when it made the decision (and Protestants do actually think this when it comes to the deuterocanon), then Protestants are left with an open canon, and cannot know with the certitude of faith what are indeed the legitimate NT books\u2026.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n
* * *<\/p>\n
My question: is it your position that for the church\u2019s recognition of the canon to be infallible, the nature of the church\u2019s authority must be infallible? If so, why does this follow?<\/p>\n
* * *<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Fair question. It\u2019s not strictly necessary, of course (your word \u201cmust\u201d), for some Christian body to make a declaration (even a binding one) in an infallible way. So broadly speaking, no.<\/div>\n
* * *<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
What I\u2019m arguing is that in order to have certainty that the Bible as we know it (leaving off the question of the deuterocanon for now, and sticking to the 66 books we all agree on) contains certain books, we need a strong authority to proclaim this, so as to put the vexed question to an end and for the sake or unity and theological order.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\n
* * *<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
This doesn\u2019t\u00a0
have<\/span>\u00a0to be infallible authority, but our claim is that the Catholic proclamation was indeed that, because that is how our authority works.<\/div>\n* * *<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
The problem for you and all Protestants is dealing with this state of affairs. Even assuming such authority was not infallible (as indeed you do), this does not get you out of your epistemological conundrum because you are still relying on the ecclesiastical authority to arrive at your conclusion of the nature and parameters of the biblical canon.<\/div>\n
* * *<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
So, assuming it is a non-infallible proclamation, you are still (for some reason) adhering to it, save for the seven disputed books. If one steps back and ponders that, it is a rather odd state of affairs. If it was not an infallible pronouncement, then Protestants, by the very nature of their own system and rule of faith, would have the \u201cright\u201d to dissent against it. Yet they rarely do. Apart from some wild mostly early statements from Luther about several books and a few liberals, by and large, there has been no dispute. This means that the authoritative proclamation was in effect, accepted, even though it is regarded as itself fallible.<\/div>\n
* * *<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Logically, if there is no binding and infallible declaration, we should see a lot more latitude of opinion among Protestants. Martin Luther was arguably more consistent on this score than almost all Protestants subsequently.<\/div>\n
* * *<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\n
Paul Althaus, in his\u00a0Theology of Martin Luther<\/i>\u00a0(Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966, pp. 85, 336) opined:<\/p>\n
* * *<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
\nHe thereby established the principle that the early church\u2019s formation and limitation of the canon is not exempt from re-examination . . . the canon is only a relative unity, just as it is only relatively closed. Therewith Luther has in principle abandoned every formal approach to the authority of the Bible. It is certainly understandable that Luther\u2019s prefaces were no longer printed in German Bibles.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
One may characterize his attitude in this way: The canon itself was, as far as Luther was concerned, a piece of ecclesiastical tradition and therefore subject to criticism on the basis of God\u2019s word.<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
* * *<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Lutheran Mark F. Bartling (WELS), in his informative paper, \u201cLuther and James: Did Luther Use the Historical-Critical Method?\u201d [no longer online at the URL I found], although unwilling to grant that Luther\u2019s view amounted to subjectivism, arbitrariness, and liberal higher criticism, nevertheless, stated:<\/div>\n
* * *<\/div>\n
\n
It must be admitted that Luther did develop a personal criterion of canonicity that took its place along side of apostolicity and universality (those books unanimously accepted by the early church, homologoumena) . . . It was, of all people, Carlstadt who condemned Luther for this criterion. Carlstadt said: \u201cOne must appeal either to known apostolic authorship or to universal historical acceptance as to the test of a book\u2019s canonicity, not to internal doctrinal considerations.\u201d [De Canonicis Scripturis libellus<\/i>, Wittenberg, 1520, p. 50]. This position of Carlstadt was also the position of Martin Chemnitz and of C. F. W. Walther [Compendium Theologiae Positivae<\/i>, Vol. I. p. 149].<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n\n
* * *<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
Brooke Foss Westcott (1825-1901), the great biblical scholar, strongly disagreed with Luther, too:<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
* * *<\/div>\n
\nThe freshness and power of Luther\u2019s judgments on the Bible, the living sense of fellowship with the spirit which animates them, the bold independence and self-assertion which separate them from all simply critical conclusions, combined to limit their practical acceptance to individuals. Such judgments rest on no definite external evidence. They cannot be justified by the ordinary rule and measure of criticism or dogma. No Church could rest on a theory which makes private feeling the supreme authority as to doctrine and the source of doctrine. As a natural consequence the later Lutherans abandoned the teaching of their great master on the written Word.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
(
A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament,\u00a0<\/i>6th edition, 1889; reprinted by Baker Book House: Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1980, 483-484)<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n* * *<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Luther was wrong, but he was self-consistent. For much, much more on Luther\u2019s view of the canon, see my paper: \u201cLuther\u2019s Outrageous Assertions About Certain Biblical Books (Protestant Scholars\u2019 Opinions and \u201cDebate\u201d With John Warwick Montgomery).\u201d<\/p>\n
* * *<\/p>\n
I argue that Protestants are right (excepting the Deuterocanon) but for the wrong reasons, and inconsistent, because their notions of the canon clash with their rule of faith,\u00a0
sola Scriptura<\/span>.<\/div>\n* * *<\/div>\n
I would say that most Protestants (who, I strongly suspect, never think much about the issue, just as I didn\u2019t much when I was a Protestant) accept it uncritically. Basically, they buy a Bible and certain books are in there and they accept that without further thought.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\n
* * *<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
Those who do ponder and grapple with it, have not, I think, come up with an acceptable solution to the dilemma. Either flimsy, implausible arguments for a provisional, temporary Church authority are set forth, or they anachronistically apply our present \u201ccertainty\u201d back to the early Church, or adopt the position that all biblical books are self-attesting (which has its own host of problems, and even if true, did not lead all early Christians to agreement on the canon).<\/div>\n
* * *<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\n
Along with the irritating fact that\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/i>\u00a0cannot be proven from Scripture Alone (which it has to be in order to sensibly hold as worthy of belief), the canon issue makes it a double whammy against the Protestant rule of faith: a position that has more logical holes in it than a pin cushion.<\/p>\n
* * *<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
Couldn\u2019t resist turning the tables:<\/p>\n
* * *<\/p>\n
the\u00a0
fallible<\/span>\u00a0cannot know it has identified and received the\u00a0infallible<\/span>. . . . After all, if the\u00a0fallible<\/span>\u00a0cannot identify and receive the\u00a0infallible<\/span>\u00a0and know it has done so, then Dave (being fallible) cannot know that the Roman communion is indeed infallible on matters of faith and practice.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
* * *<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
[first of all, this is not my position in the first place, as can readily be seen above, particularly when I plainly answered the re-cited question \u201cno\u201d. My view has been distorted by Ron, as usual. The man can\u2019t get it right where I am concerned, to save his life]<\/div>\n
* * *<\/div>\n
the\u00a0fallible<\/span>\u00a0cannot know it has identified and received the\u00a0infallible<\/span>\u00a0(let alone the inspired, which is a greater characteristic) . . . . After all, if the\u00a0fallible<\/span>\u00a0cannot identify and receive the\u00a0infallible<\/span>\u00a0(or the inspired) and know it has done so, then Protestants (being fallible) cannot know that Holy Scripture is indeed infallible on matters of faith and practice, and all matters, let alone inspired (God-breathed).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n
* * *<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
And this amounts to the theologically liberal position: the Scriptures are fallible and full of errors, therefore we shall pick and choose from it what we deem to be true and reject what we decide is false, outdated, a later textual addition, etc.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\n
* * *<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
This is what one gets when they epistemologically (for the moment) reduce Christianity and Christian faith to mere philosophy. Protestant fundamentals fall right alongside Catholic ones, should these false and wrongheaded premises be adopted.<\/div>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Martin Luther\u2019s German translation of the Bible; 1534 edition, from his house in Wittenberg, Germany [public domain \/ Wikimedia Commons] (6-5-10) These remarks and dialogues occurred in\u00a0a combox\u00a0on the Reformed Protestant-dominated\u00a0Green Baggins website\u00a0(starting at\u00a0comment #259). Paige Britton\u2019s words are in\u00a0blue,\u00a0rfwhite\u2018s in\u00a0green, Jeff Cagle\u2019s in\u00a0purple. The words of anti-Catholic polemicist Ron DiGiacomo (who entered the discussion […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2331,"featured_media":5335,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[31],"tags":[514,489,1430,616,33,1787,1786,977,32,35,47],"class_list":["post-5333","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-bible-and-tradition","tag-bible-only","tag-biblical-canon","tag-books-of-the-bible","tag-canon-of-scripture","tag-christian-authority","tag-inspired-books","tag-protestants-the-canon","tag-revelation","tag-rule-of-faith","tag-scripture-alone","tag-sola-scriptura"],"yoast_head":"\n
Biblical Canon vs. Protestant "Sola Scriptura"<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Beyond the fact that sola Scriptura cannot be proven from Scripture Alone, the canon issue makes it a double whammy against the Protestant rule of faith.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2016\/01\/biblical-canon-vs-protestant-sola-scriptura.html\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Biblical Canon vs. Protestant "Sola Scriptura"\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Beyond the fact that sola Scriptura cannot be proven from Scripture Alone, the canon issue makes it a double whammy against the Protestant rule of faith.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2016\/01\/biblical-canon-vs-protestant-sola-scriptura.html\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:author\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/dave.armstrong.798\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2016-01-05T15:02:52+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-04-03T21:00:17+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2016\/01\/BibleLuther.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"640\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"485\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Dave Armstrong\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Dave Armstrong\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2016\/01\/biblical-canon-vs-protestant-sola-scriptura.html\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2016\/01\/biblical-canon-vs-protestant-sola-scriptura.html\",\"name\":\"Biblical Canon vs. Protestant \\\"Sola Scriptura\\\"\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2016-01-05T15:02:52+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-03T21:00:17+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e\"},\"description\":\"Beyond the fact that sola Scriptura cannot be proven from Scripture Alone, the canon issue makes it a double whammy against the Protestant rule of faith.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2016\/01\/biblical-canon-vs-protestant-sola-scriptura.html#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2016\/01\/biblical-canon-vs-protestant-sola-scriptura.html\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2016\/01\/biblical-canon-vs-protestant-sola-scriptura.html#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Biblical Canon vs. Protestant “Sola Scriptura”\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/\",\"name\":\"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism\",\"description\":\"Catholic biblical apologetics\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e\",\"name\":\"Dave Armstrong\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/820e6db89734ae7a9e5dac8d498f5ac7?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/820e6db89734ae7a9e5dac8d498f5ac7?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Dave Armstrong\"},\"description\":\"Dave Armstrong is a Catholic author and apologist, who has been actively proclaiming and defending Christianity since 1981, and Catholicism in particular since 1991 (full-time since December 2001). Formerly a campus missionary, as a Protestant, Dave was received into the Catholic Church in February 1991, by the late, well-known catechist and theologian, Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J. Dave\u2019s articles have appeared in many influential Catholic periodicals, including \\\"This Rock\\\" (now called \\\"Catholic Answers Magazine\\\"), \\\"Envoy Magazine\\\" (Patrick Madrid), \\\"The Catholic Answer,\\\" \\\"The Coming Home Journal,\\\" \\\"Gilbert Magazine\\\" (American Chesterton Society), and \\\"The Latin Mass.\\\" He also writes a featured column for every issue of \\\"The Michigan Catholic\\\": published by the archdiocese of Detroit, and was editor for most of the apologetics tracts published by the St. Paul Street Evangelization apostolate. Dave\u2019s apologetics and writing apostolate was the subject of a feature article in the May 2002 issue of \\\"Envoy Magazine.\\\" He served as the staff moderator at the Internet discussion forum for The Coming Home Network, from 2007-2010. Dave has been interviewed on many nationally syndicated Catholic radio shows, including \\\"Catholic Answers Live\\\" (twice), \\\"Faith and Family Live\\\" (Steve Wood), \\\"Kresta in the Afternoon,\\\" \\\"Son Rise Morning Show,\\\" \\\"Catholic Connection\\\" (Teresa Tomeo), and \\\"The Catholics Next Door.\\\" His large and popular website, \\\"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism,\\\" was online from March 1997 to March 2007, and received the 1998 Catholic Website of the Year award from \\\"Envoy Magazine.\\\" His blog of the same name (now transferred to Patheos), begun in February 2004, contains more than 1,500 papers, at least 500 debates or dialogues, and over 50 distinct \\\"index\\\" web pages. Unsolicited correspondence has indicated many hundreds of conversions (or returns) to the Catholic faith as a result, by God's grace, of these writings. Dave's conversion story was published in the bestselling book \\\"Surprised by Truth\\\" (edited by Patrick Madrid; San Diego: Basilica Press, 1994). Sophia Institute Press has published six of his books: \\\"A Biblical Defense of Catholicism\\\" (Foreword by Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J., 1996 \/ 2003), \\\"The Catholic Verses\\\" (2004), \\\"The One-Minute Apologist\\\" (2007), \\\"Bible Proofs for Catholic Truths\\\" (2009), \\\"The Quotable Newman\\\" (editor: 2012), and \\\"Proving the Catholic Faith is Biblical\\\" (2015). He is co-author (with Dr. Paul Thigpen) of the inserts for \\\"The New Catholic Answer Bible\\\" (Our Sunday Visitor: 2005), and editor for \\\"The Wisdom of Mr. Chesterton: The Very Best Quotes, Quips, and Cracks from the Pen of G. K. Chesterton\\\" (Saint Benedict Press \/ TAN Books: 2009). \\\"100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura\\\" was published by Catholic Answers in May 2012. His \\\"Quotable Wesley\\\" compilation was published by (Protestant \/ Wesleyan publisher) Beacon Hill Press in April 2014. Several of his 49 books are bestsellers in their field. Dave maintains a popular personal Facebook page, a Facebook author page, and has a Twitter account as well. He offers almost all of his books in e-book form on his own Biblical Catholicism site (http:\/\/biblicalcatholicism.com\/), at a permanent deep discount: only $2.99 for ePub, mobi, and AZW, and $1.99 for PDF. His writing has been enthusiastically endorsed or recommended by many leading Catholic apologists, authors, and priests, including Dr. Scott Hahn, Fr. Peter M. J. Stravinskas, Marcus Grodi, Patrick Madrid, Steve Ray, Tim Staples, Devin Rose, Mike Aquilina, Al Kresta, Karl Keating, Fr. Dwight Longenecker, Brandon Vogt, Marcellino D'Ambrosio, and Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J. Dave has been happily married to his wife Judy since October 1984. They have three sons and a daughter, and reside in southeast Michigan (metro Detroit).\",\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/biblicalcatholicism.com\/\",\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/dave.armstrong.798\",\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/@LuxVeritatisApologetics\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/author\/davearmstrong\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Biblical Canon vs. Protestant \"Sola Scriptura\"","description":"Beyond the fact that sola Scriptura cannot be proven from Scripture Alone, the canon issue makes it a double whammy against the Protestant rule of faith.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2016\/01\/biblical-canon-vs-protestant-sola-scriptura.html","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Biblical Canon vs. Protestant \"Sola Scriptura\"","og_description":"Beyond the fact that sola Scriptura cannot be proven from Scripture Alone, the canon issue makes it a double whammy against the Protestant rule of faith.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2016\/01\/biblical-canon-vs-protestant-sola-scriptura.html","og_site_name":"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism","article_author":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/dave.armstrong.798","article_published_time":"2016-01-05T15:02:52+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-04-03T21:00:17+00:00","og_image":[{"width":640,"height":485,"url":"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2016\/01\/BibleLuther.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Dave Armstrong","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Dave Armstrong","Est. reading time":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2016\/01\/biblical-canon-vs-protestant-sola-scriptura.html","url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2016\/01\/biblical-canon-vs-protestant-sola-scriptura.html","name":"Biblical Canon vs. Protestant \"Sola Scriptura\"","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website"},"datePublished":"2016-01-05T15:02:52+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-03T21:00:17+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e"},"description":"Beyond the fact that sola Scriptura cannot be proven from Scripture Alone, the canon issue makes it a double whammy against the Protestant rule of faith.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2016\/01\/biblical-canon-vs-protestant-sola-scriptura.html#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2016\/01\/biblical-canon-vs-protestant-sola-scriptura.html"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2016\/01\/biblical-canon-vs-protestant-sola-scriptura.html#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Biblical Canon vs. Protestant “Sola Scriptura”"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/","name":"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism","description":"Catholic biblical apologetics","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e","name":"Dave Armstrong","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/820e6db89734ae7a9e5dac8d498f5ac7?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/820e6db89734ae7a9e5dac8d498f5ac7?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Dave Armstrong"},"description":"Dave Armstrong is a Catholic author and apologist, who has been actively proclaiming and defending Christianity since 1981, and Catholicism in particular since 1991 (full-time since December 2001). Formerly a campus missionary, as a Protestant, Dave was received into the Catholic Church in February 1991, by the late, well-known catechist and theologian, Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J. Dave\u2019s articles have appeared in many influential Catholic periodicals, including \"This Rock\" (now called \"Catholic Answers Magazine\"), \"Envoy Magazine\" (Patrick Madrid), \"The Catholic Answer,\" \"The Coming Home Journal,\" \"Gilbert Magazine\" (American Chesterton Society), and \"The Latin Mass.\" He also writes a featured column for every issue of \"The Michigan Catholic\": published by the archdiocese of Detroit, and was editor for most of the apologetics tracts published by the St. Paul Street Evangelization apostolate. Dave\u2019s apologetics and writing apostolate was the subject of a feature article in the May 2002 issue of \"Envoy Magazine.\" He served as the staff moderator at the Internet discussion forum for The Coming Home Network, from 2007-2010. Dave has been interviewed on many nationally syndicated Catholic radio shows, including \"Catholic Answers Live\" (twice), \"Faith and Family Live\" (Steve Wood), \"Kresta in the Afternoon,\" \"Son Rise Morning Show,\" \"Catholic Connection\" (Teresa Tomeo), and \"The Catholics Next Door.\" His large and popular website, \"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism,\" was online from March 1997 to March 2007, and received the 1998 Catholic Website of the Year award from \"Envoy Magazine.\" His blog of the same name (now transferred to Patheos), begun in February 2004, contains more than 1,500 papers, at least 500 debates or dialogues, and over 50 distinct \"index\" web pages. Unsolicited correspondence has indicated many hundreds of conversions (or returns) to the Catholic faith as a result, by God's grace, of these writings. Dave's conversion story was published in the bestselling book \"Surprised by Truth\" (edited by Patrick Madrid; San Diego: Basilica Press, 1994). Sophia Institute Press has published six of his books: \"A Biblical Defense of Catholicism\" (Foreword by Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J., 1996 \/ 2003), \"The Catholic Verses\" (2004), \"The One-Minute Apologist\" (2007), \"Bible Proofs for Catholic Truths\" (2009), \"The Quotable Newman\" (editor: 2012), and \"Proving the Catholic Faith is Biblical\" (2015). He is co-author (with Dr. Paul Thigpen) of the inserts for \"The New Catholic Answer Bible\" (Our Sunday Visitor: 2005), and editor for \"The Wisdom of Mr. Chesterton: The Very Best Quotes, Quips, and Cracks from the Pen of G. K. Chesterton\" (Saint Benedict Press \/ TAN Books: 2009). \"100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura\" was published by Catholic Answers in May 2012. His \"Quotable Wesley\" compilation was published by (Protestant \/ Wesleyan publisher) Beacon Hill Press in April 2014. Several of his 49 books are bestsellers in their field. Dave maintains a popular personal Facebook page, a Facebook author page, and has a Twitter account as well. He offers almost all of his books in e-book form on his own Biblical Catholicism site (http:\/\/biblicalcatholicism.com\/), at a permanent deep discount: only $2.99 for ePub, mobi, and AZW, and $1.99 for PDF. His writing has been enthusiastically endorsed or recommended by many leading Catholic apologists, authors, and priests, including Dr. Scott Hahn, Fr. Peter M. J. Stravinskas, Marcus Grodi, Patrick Madrid, Steve Ray, Tim Staples, Devin Rose, Mike Aquilina, Al Kresta, Karl Keating, Fr. Dwight Longenecker, Brandon Vogt, Marcellino D'Ambrosio, and Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J. Dave has been happily married to his wife Judy since October 1984. They have three sons and a daughter, and reside in southeast Michigan (metro Detroit).","sameAs":["https:\/\/biblicalcatholicism.com\/","https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/dave.armstrong.798","https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/@LuxVeritatisApologetics"],"url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/author\/davearmstrong"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5333","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2331"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5333"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5333\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/5335"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5333"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5333"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5333"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
![\"BibleLuther\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2016\/01\/BibleLuther.jpg\")
<\/a><\/div>\n