The word Canon comes from a Greek word meaning “rule.” This is an existential concept; a visible formula for the body of Christ to lean on and live by. It fulfills the Lord’s Prayer to have God’s will be done “on earth as it is in heaven.” This rule of life is not found in heaven, for in heaven there is no need for rules.
Canonicity is an existential value! The word and very doctrine of canonicity is “earthly” - heavenly power transcendentally transferred to God’s creation.
The Church is also an exsenstential doctrine such as canonicity. Now my point: This doctrine/rule of living known as the Canon cannot be juxtaposed with the doctrine of the Church. One cannot be pitched against the other! You cannot say for instance, as Protestants say, that the “Canon formed the Church, not vice-versa.” This dichotomy creates a heavenly definition of the Canon and a mere earthly/existential definition of the Church. But we know both the Canon and the Church to be existential realities with heavenly foundations. Neither doctrine is purely heavenly such as the doctrine of aangels or the doctrine of heaven itself. The Church is rooted in the heavenly kingdom of God as is the Canon. Ultimately both the Canon and the Church are existential values. It is the logos that is purely divine not the written text in and of itself or the Church in an of itself. In order to get to the the Canon, eschatologically speaking, the logos must pass through the Church: Logos>Church>Canon
The fundamentalist argument is to quote John 1:1, “in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God.” The word “Word” here doe not mean Canon or Bible. The Greek word is logos which means much more than just text, or even divine text. The word logos has many cultural roots but it seems fairly obvious that it has to do with God’s revelation, but not just his revelation as through text but his complete divine revelation of wisdom and power - beyond mere words.
In the beginning was the logos and the logos had to become readable. It became readable through the body of Christ, transcribing and authorizing through various study and council - at first local councils and then later larger councils such as Carthage, the largest council of ancient Africa in which Augustine of Hippo helped lead.
The logos/word could never have become text without the Catholic Church. In order to believe in the very existence of the Canon/Bible one must believe that the Church is capable of completing such a transmission. The cults and radical sects will say that the Church was able to transmit the Canon only for a short time and then the Church fell away until the sect was established. Some may say that those before the Reformation had a limited knowledge of God and his Word and are therefore not held as accountable as we are held. Such people that say these things are warped, mislead and clearly unlearned in the writings of the early Church.
Some will go as far as stating that the authority of the text was transfered to the Protestants in the medieval ages as if for the first 1500 years of the Church the Bible was corrupt. Where was this prophesied? Who came down from heaven to transfer authority to a new group of men who were attempting to take out books such as Revelation and James? along with many of the Old Testament Books?
Protestant Scholars such as R.C. Sproul will go as far as stating that this history is all “divine providence” and that the Protestants were able to redefine the Canon and take authority of the text. After all, isn’t it logical that such-and-such a thing is now in place (i.e. the new formation of the Bible and the Protestant Church)? Such a claim is not based on any authority but that of rationalism, which is the foundation of liberalisn, and in turn is what most of all the Reformed (Protestant) Churches have become: liberal (PCUSA, ELCA, etc.).
The Canon was formed by the Church which was formed by God’s logos. You cannot have the Bible unless you first have the Church!
Below is this article in its entirety. It states how the Vatican has recently pinned the Protestant mess on fundamentalist hermeneutics. I find this very interesting considering the fact that I have had to experience much of the Protestant fundamental hermeneutic in my own personal journey. Most Protestants understand the Bible as some sort of magical rule book that can be understood outside of the greater context of the Church (see this post). This fundamentalist perception of the Bible only causes division within the Church (see this post). When I left the Roman Church as a young man, I was pulled into the Calvary Chapel (baptistic) movement in which this individualistic hermeneutic was taught. The Bible, to them, is to be understood in terms of how it speaks to you on a pietistic level; very literally leading one to think that, for instance, the end of the world is eminent. I think that the best way to describe the hermeneutic of Catholic Church (English, Roman and Eastern Church) in a quick snapshot is through the terms of the following categories:
1. Ecclesiology (Covenant and Church)
2. Sacrament
3. Spirituality (law, grace, forgiveness)
4. Eschatology
It is not until one understands how the Bible describes what God is doing with his Covenant people that one can then place themselves in the scheme of things. To apply the Bible to one’s life is to apply one’s life to God’s Covenant people. After all, isn’t that what God is currently up to? drawing his people to form and finish his Kingdom? Many fundamentalists do indeed attempt to study the Bible through a grid such as this, but again, it is attempted through a literalistic approach with no real concept of Sacrament, Covenant and eschatological freedom. One is bound to the current happenings in the newspaper when digesting the Scriptures as well as the overzealous desire to be exactly like the Church of Acts.
____________________
VATICAN CITY (RNS) A tendency to read the Bible through the lens of “fundamentalism” threatens to undermine Catholics’ understanding of Scripture, the Vatican said Thursday (June 12).
The statement appears in the agenda for the next general assembly of the Synod of Bishops, which will bring prelates to Rome in October to consider the “importance of the Word of God in the life and mission of the Church.”
The 86-page document released Thursday emphasizes the need to increase Catholics’ knowledge and understanding of Scripture. While encouraging the faithful to read the Bible either alone or in study groups, it stresses that all interpretation must be in light of church teaching.
“Fundamentalism takes refuge in literalism and refuses to take into consideration the historical dimension of biblical revelation,” the document states.
“This kind of interpretation is winning more and more adherents … even among Catholics,” the agenda’s authors add, quoting an earlier Vatican document. “It demands an unshakable adherence to rigid doctrinal points of view and imposes, as the only source of teaching for Christian life and salvation, a reading of the Bible which rejects all questioning and any kind of critical research.”
Fundamentalism in its “extreme form” exists in “the sects,” the document states.
The term “sects” refers to “marginal” Protestant churches that do not participate in dialogue with Rome, explained the Synod’s general secretary, Archbishop Nikola Eterovic, at a press conference to present the document.
Eterovic noted that representatives of several non-Catholic Christian churches will attend the October meeting.
What Scripture doth plainly deliver, to that first place both of credit and obedience is due; the next whereunto is whatsoever any man can necessarily conclude by force of reason; after these the voice of the Church succeedeth. That which the Church by her ecclesiastical authority shall probably think and define to be true or good, must in congruity of reason over-rule all other inferior judgments whatsoever.
Thus the highest authority is given to Holy Scripture and then those things that may be deduced from it by reason. Tradition (understood as synonymous with Hooker’s “voice of the Church”) is given only a secondary authority and in this it is not considered to be an infallible one.
The objection might be raised at this point that an authority without infallibility is useless. However, this is certainly not the case in any other matter of human understanding so one wonders why theology must attain standards not demanded elsewhere. No other realm of authority in human understanding insists on infallibility. Neither Newton nor Einstein was infallible on matters of physics but this was not a requirement to judge the body of their work worthy of respect.
Indeed, certain questions of theology may never be answered this side of eternity but we can use that passed down to us both as a reliable guide – though not an infallible one – to grasp both a likely answer to questions that are not clearly covered in Holy Scripture and as a guide to the most reliable interpretation of Divine writ.
A related (though certainly not identical) view is presented by the Eastern Orthodox Churches in their veneration of Mary. Many things concerning the Holy Virgin are believed by the Orthodox with all their hearts as true but have never been raised to the level of dogma. The dogmas concerning Mary are actually few and most of these reflect Christological concerns. However, there are other commonly held beliefs concerning Mary that are given Church tradition through the prayers and hymns of the Divine Liturgy and the writings of the Eastern Fathers that are part of their understanding of the Faith though not raised to the dogmatic level.
Thus the point I wish to emphasize is that something may be held as true and not likely subject to revision without necessarily being considered infallible. In any field of study, existing views are subject to being challenged but the new concept must explain the fruitful results of that it would replace. For example, Einstein’s Theory of Relativity reduces to Newton’s Laws in most but the extreme circumstances and works in those circumstances where Newton’s Laws failed. Hence, it explained Newton’s success until those circumstances were encountered.
Yet we have even more to assure ourselves of the wisdom of the Church than the experience and faith of the great saints of two millennia. We have Christ’s promise that the Church can never be overcome by darkness and His assurance that the Holy Spirit will lead us to all truth. Now He never stated that the road to the truth would always be easy or that the recognition of the Spirit’s leading would be immediate, but that in the fullness of time the Church would be led – sometimes kicking and screaming – to all truth. It is thus clear the teaching of the historic Church safeguards the truths of the faith in her exegesis of Holy Scripture and her witness through this age.
Now the objection might be raised that there is no absolute assurance that the Church’s understanding at this time is true. Perhaps this is the case but given the choice between the greatest minds and most devout souls in the legacy of the Church against the word of a modern revisionist who claims to understand what none before could grasp, siding with the former seems a far more prudent path. This is not to say that such determinations are without possibility of reform. Past giants of the faith may through no fault of their own have erred in their judgment. But as their age was closer to the Apostles’ own and their understanding of the Faith is steeped in the world from which the Church first arose, so their insights are much to be favored.
Those who seek to revise long held beliefs must overcome hurdles before them that all but make their desired changes impossible. The first hurdle is their insistence that private judgment – no matter how well intentioned – is to overrule the clear teaching of Christendom held as far back as one can ascertain with any degree of certainty.
Usually such assertions are born not out of insights but of ignorance and parochialism. The ignorance is often born of their refusal to place importance in the accumulated wisdom of the Church. Rather than consider centuries of insights, they choose to make their judgment based upon their own short reflections on matters that the Church has wrestled with for centuries. The parochialism is born out of human pride that cannot see any time or place more at the center of God’s plan than their own. Thus they often decide in favor of beliefs that turn central beliefs on its head as it lends credence to their belief in their own intelligence and uniqueness.
It is a peculiarity of our time that we find such comfort in the iconoclastic. We celebrate all manner of novelty in the name of “progress” while derisively labeling any appeal to tradition as “dead orthodoxy.” Certainly there have been past reformers who sought to change the Church but it was always – regardless of how well-founded their execution – by appealing to an earlier time. The Protestant Reformers were no less knowledgeable of the Church Fathers as their Catholic opponents and did seek to place their reforms within the Great Tradition of the Church. The denial of continuity we see now is of an entirely different character and seeks to create a new church as an adversary to the one founded by our Lord. Such desires echo the deception of the serpent that we can be as God.
If the revisionists’ first hurdle is their overconfidence in their own abilities, then their second is their lack of confidence in Christ. As mentioned above, Jesus vowed the gates of hell would never prevail and the Church would be led to all truth but their vanity says, “No – the Church has fallen into darkness and the Holy Spirit has neglected his duties until God has raised me to set things right.” In the Church’s early centuries this was the claim of the Gnostics, the Montanists, and other groups both heretical and pseudo-Christian. In medieval times the Bogomils and the Cathari would advance such claims. There were similar leanings in the more radical elements of the Protestant Reformation and again in the heretical groups arising from the ashes of the Millerite fantasy. And today we see this spirit of rebellion against our inherited tradition throughout the Church.
This rebellion is not just the dissent of leftists who seek to throw off all remnants of Christian morality and order but also the so-called “conservatives” whose conservation extends only to their self-proclaimed right to decide all matters of theology for themselves. Overlooking their attitude merely differentiates them from the leftists in their political affiliations and occasions of sin, they strongly assert an adherence to “old-time religion” while their beliefs are more reflective of American values than Christian ones.
Now one may rightly ask how it would be possible for any reform to take place. For this we take a look at how it has in fact been reformed in the past. A problem that first arises might initially elicit different solutions until the matter is discussed, debated, and, most importantly, prayed over. Over time we may trust that the Holy Spirit will raise up those who will put forth an orthodox solution to the dilemma. The faithful will recognize this since it will be rooted in both the Holy Scripture and the tradition of the Church but now applied in a new area. As this process goes forth, there will undoubtedly be those who resist the reform – not always from malice but often from caution – and it may take years for the correct view to be recognized. Naturally, the more widely held and the more established the more established within the Church’s tradition a view may be, the more powerful and overwhelming the evidence in favor of an alternative must be in order to warrant any reform. But this is as it should be if we are to claim to worship a God who is the same yesterday, today, and forever.
We have seen such changes in the past. The belief in triune nature of God has been with us in a nascent form from the Apostolic age but the understanding of the Most Holy and Blessed Trinity that was formulated at Nicea and Constantinople was the result of centuries of theological reflection upon the Holy Scriptures aided by the living tradition of the Church. This development was necessitated by heretical views promoted during the founding centuries of the Church.
We can also see how reform works in the development of eschatology. There was much debate over the exact meaning of the millennium that often motivated some to reject the Book of Revelation as canonical. Early premillennial beliefs developed from the popularity of certain apocryphal writings rejected by the Church that linked the millennium to both an early return of Christ and the placing of hell buried within the earth. Those who saw hell as a spiritual rather than overtly physical torment rejected this view and saw the millennium as a spiritual kingdom age of the Church. As the centuries wore on, the obvious weakness of the premillennial view became apparent and was rejected. However, many of those who held the erroneous view were still seen as great saints given they did not have the benefit of such hindsight.
Finally, I turn to the matter of sola scriptura as itself a doctrine. I would assert that it functions less as doctrine so much as metadoctrine. That is, it serves as a methodological principle from whence we may decide the relative strength of received beliefs. It states that only those doctrines proven from Holy Scripture are to be understood as absolutely infallible. Many other things may be believed as true with almost assured confidence but it rests upon a lesser authority than that derived from Holy Scripture.
This rejects both assertions by Catholic apologists that sola scriptura must be proven from Holy Scripture to avoid circularity and the assertion by Protestant apologists that it in fact can so be proven. The former assertion confuses deductions proved within a theory from the intuitive principles that give rise to its postulates while the latter is a matter of poor analysis wherein preconceived notions are read into passages that do not address the issue.
The Roman Catholic Church declares (The Documents of Vatican II, ed. waiter M. Abbott [New York: Herden and Herden, 1966] p. 116. Dei Verbum, 8.):
“It is clear, therefore, that sacred tradition, sacred Scriptures and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God’s most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others, and that all together and each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.”
Compare the statement above with the statement below by one of the leading Protestant authorities, Pastor James White:
“The Scriptures are not in need of any supplement. Their authority comes from their nature as God-breathed revelation. Their authority is not dependent upon man, Church or council. The Scriptures are self-consistent, self-interpreting, and self-authenticating.”
I would have to humbly say that Rome’s definition is much more logical. White’s definition amounts to a near idolatry of the written text, as if the text speaks audibly. One will say that it does indeed speak audibly “through the Spirit.” If this is the case, then why have pastors and teachers? Why not just let the Spirit do all the teaching? through the Bible? The statement that the authority of the Scripture is not dependent on the Church is absolutely ridiculous.
True Sola Scriptura is the Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek and Aramaic New Testament. Try reading and digesting that. That is the Bible without the Church (actually the Bible without the Church is just an empty set of pages, but this is another argument)! You see, we could not even begin to understand the Bible without the help of the Church. Minds of the Church must come together to determine just what each passage says and means, which laws are to be obeyed and which are to be dismissed, which people of the Bible were godly and which were not, etc.
The difference between Catholic revelation and Protestant revelation is that Catholic revelation involves the minds of the leadership, which has been ordained by God and set forth in Scripture; and Protestant revelation involves the minds of each individual as each sees fit (where is this in the Bible?), which is why there are so many Protestant denominations that refuse to return to their Mother. The Protestant version is nothing but moral relativism, which is what this country is plagued with today - every man seeing what is right in his own eyes. Nothing can even be deemed as absolute truth since every man has his own personal shot at interpretation. This is why you will find the Obama types of Christians dialoguing with liberals and heretics: they cannot turn any interpretation down. They neither have the authority nor the faith to do so, and as James says, they succumb to every wind of doctrine - in hopes of a revival that will never come.
Here is a new website that demonstrates our need to recover the Holy Lands. This is something that much of Christendom - due to the Dispensationalists - has failed to realize: that the Holy Lands are indeed “holy,” and that that land is our land. All throughout the Old Testament we can see the prophecies of how God has promised his people this rich land, from the “everlasting covenant” of David. We can also see in the book of Romans, Chapter 11, that “Israel” will be saved.
Pre-reformation saints fought and died for the preservation of the Holy Lands. But we are now giving it up to Islam. This is something that our kinsmen will reap! Our children or grandchildren (etc.) will one day be compelled to take this promise land back. Christians will begin to migrate back to the land, and many could indeed be martyred. But martyrdom is not always necessary for victory. Many times, martyrdom has simply been the result of previous, disobedient generations. If we begin to realize that this land is holy then perhaps it will be easier to finally aquire.
The recapturing of Jerusalem will first begin with a proper theology of the eschaton and its relation to the Gospel. A “postmillenial” hermeneutic is proper to understand this. With this hermanuetic, one can begin to understand the entirety of the Bible, rather than bits and pieces. One can then begin to understand that there is an overarching plan for God’s people that first began in the Garden and will then end in a “garden;” a garden that is inclusive to what God first started with.
I have noticed that within many Protestant circles theological discussion - especially in the “Bible only” camps - can sometimes actually be an hindrance to the Christian’s sanctification. Yes, that’s right! What happens is that these groups of Christians thrive on reinventing the wheel, becoming preoccupied with “wrestling with the Scriptures,” rather than living and believing the Scriptures. It becomes a type of legalism, where one feels sanctified because they are “in the Word.” I hate to say this, but you are not in the Word just because you are in a wrestling match with the Bible. The Word is the logos, the living being of Christ that involves the spiritual formation of souls. The Word is not God reduced to the English or even Greek and Hebrew vocabulary. The Word of God is His revelatory will for mankind found within the Scriptures, but as they illuminate themselves through the authority of His Church, not as they illuminate themselves through Nelson Printing Press, or any other schmo that takes his own authority to become the standard-bearer.
The Word of God is what the Bible is saying and doing, not just what the Bible said or once said. Some theology-buffs may now be howling outside their windows through the authority of what their seminary teacher taught them about hermeneutics, so please allow me to qualify: Certainly there is a place for what is called The Grammatical-Historical Hermeneutic, but what happens is that this form of studying the Bible is often not properly embraced, even by seminarians, and one suddenly becomes a theologian overnight from proof-texting verses; then goes to his friends and spreads this germ, and born is a Bible study.
This sounds like your typical overzealous Baptist/Evangelical, right? Yes, but it is within the higher churches, also, just on a more sophisticated level. What happens here is that rather than wrestling with Bible verses, they wrestle with theological positions that have not yet blossomed. They create false dichotomies of argumentation by splitting a traditional doctrine in two and then pitching them against each other. One perfect example of this would be the “Law and Gospel” debate; as if the Gospel does not include Law and the Law does not include Gospel. Or how about this one: The Five Points of Calvinism; not that the Five Points are heretical, but the five points cannot be understood very easily outside the context of many other biblical concepts; and after one understands these concepts, the Five Points begin to look like unreasonable dichotomies. Yes, that is right. When something so powerful like the Gospel is reduced to five propositions, mass friction is bound to happen, resulting in explosion.
If you are looking for dogma, as you should be, then look no further than the ancient creeds, as well as the catechism and Canons of the Church, which will lead you to all sorts of ethical and soteriological standards, including standards of worship. But, if you are not looking for dogma, and you simply want to feel like a theologian, then there is always a divisive debate-circle or modern/independent church, just waiting to suck you in.
This article, from Alastair Roberts, is absolutely outstanding. In the article, Roberts describes how the Bible is not so much a book as it is a continuing revelation from God; that the Bible is meant to be read aloud in the Church and experienced in this way, rather than just picking up whenever convenient and reading it within only your personal sphere. The title of his article is “HOW GUTENBURG TOOK THE BIBLE FROM US.” That statement is such a sharp perspective of just what we have come to as Christ’s Church. Technology has certainly gotten the best of us! Maybe he will write a post on how TV, Radio, and Internet has taken the Church. If we have all these things what then could we possibly need the church for?
If you are not a liturgical Christian who is in submission to a historical lectionary, I would like to urge you to run to the nearest continuing Anglican (or other) liturgical church and give yourself to its liturgy. At this point in your life, you have no idea what you are missing out on. If you cherish the Word of God and love to be guided by it, then go and do this! Hear the Word of God in its fullest context, where you are forced to sit (and stand, kneel and bow, for that matter) and give yourself entirely to the Word in an ancient and humble atmosphere of reverence and awe.
Below, you will find the main points of Alastair’s article.
Contents:
- Background of The Apocrypha
- Canonical Development of The Apocrypha
- Historical Development of The Apocrypha
- Anglicanism and The Apocrypha
- Conclusion
One of the biggest stumbling blocks for dispensational believers to begin to understand the more historic and Anglican (Reformed Catholic) view of theology is their insistence on clinching tightly to, what I call, proof-text theology. Proof-text theology has, like all theological camps, its own hermeneutic. Its particular hermeneutic involves…yes, you guessed it, proof-texting. I’m sure you have heard, when discussing theology with your dispensational friends, how this particular theology is not found in the Bible and that particular theology is not found in the Bible and that there simply is not enough “scriptural support” for your Anglican argument.
There is an interesting book review of Reformed Baptist’s James White’s version of sola scriptura that can be found here. This book looks like it demonstrates a prime example of the pitfalls one can encounter in the more modern Evangelical movements. The term ”Scripture Alone” has snowballed into this notion that there is no human authority of revealing the gospel to us and that the very text of the Bible is all the authority we need.
This has come to be idolatry today in many Evangelical circles. The Bible can indeed speak to anyone that reads it, but it will not speak to them outside and contrary to what the Church approves of…unless the person has some sort of prophetic gift. Perhaps men like Calvin were modern prophets, in that God revealed to them more than what the current church could swallow. But are all 2 million of today’s Evangelicals on par with Calvin? The idea that we do not need church leaders today as a viable means of God’s revealed Word is just absolutely absurd.
If the Bible should be ”alone” as many say it should be and that man has no part of God’s revealed truth then there can be no teachers within the Church. The Bible can only be read aloud over the pulpit and not expounded upon. Once a man expounds on the Scriptures and reveals dogma he now becomes a part of God’s revelation. This is why Paul the Apostle says that not many should become teachers, and that teachers have stricter judgement. After all they are revealing the very Word of God.
The logical conclusion of today’s Christians that stretch the definition of sola scriptura is that they are all immersed in autonomy, the very antithesis of the gospel. Each one of these people simply cannot give up their individualized authority and so become their own pope. If they do not “agree” with something the Church teaches, rather than researching as to whether or not the Church has taught or teaches that doctrine (looking into all her history) they merely research their personal - usually mental - library, concluding that the teaching is false because they have “never heard” such teachings. But the fact of the matter is that most Christians are not studied enough to make the accusations that they do. Even many seminaries today will not reveal doctrine to a student unless it is in line with that particular denomination, as if all others are heretics!
We must remember that many of the Reformers taught that there was no salvation outside the Church. Even the late Reformers of the Westminster divines taught that there was no ordinary means of salvation outside the Church (WCF XXV:II). The Church has authority to bind and loose, as Christ says in Matthew 16.
The doctrine of sola scriptura is a good doctrine if it is viewed as a polemic for its time and that does indeed have equity for our time, but we must understand the nature of debate in the Medieval times, and how subjects had much more of an internal “combustion.” Many of the prophetic utterances of the Reformation were new to that age and so had to be packaged tightly so as to not dissolve into the heat of the movement. Now that we have hindsight on the Reformational terms, let us take those terms and use them to grow rather than to wallow in.