| Most Recently Posted Ask a Question | |||||||
| Q: | You said, "Our conviction that the apostolic writings which comprise the New Testament are none other than God's authoritative Word channeled through these writers does not rest on such a command. It is based on the self-authenticating nature of the Scriptures as they convince us of their reliability and authority." "Here we may speak of... their internal testimony (they often claim to be authoritative and divinely inspired), and their full agreement with all that the Old Testament Scriptures had said and promised". My question to you is this. How can scripture be self authenticating? No book can authenticate itself? There is no divinely inspired table of contents in the Bible showing which books are the Word of God and which are not. And even if there was it would not prove anything. The Mormons and Muslims both also claim to thier holy books are inspired. They say that they have an "Internal testimony" that is true. The Mormons call this the "Burning in the bosom." I say it is heartburn. Even if the New Testament could be proven to fulfill the Old Testament (which it does), it would still be a moot argument because then you have to prove that the Old Testmant is inspired. The Jews themselves were divided which Old Testament books were inspired and which were not. And no book can authenticate itself. No internal testimony will avail, or else all the world religions would be true. People today only accept the authority of the Bible becuase they implicitly accept the authority of the Catholic church, its Apostolic traditions, and its Popes (Damasus I, ) and Councils (Rome 382 A.D. Carthage, Hippo, 2nd Nicea, Flourence, Trent). (A thing that Martin Luther and Saint Augustine admitted). Had it not been for those things nobody would know for sure Wwhat Scripture even was or constituted. In other words, you are picking fruit from a tree you didn't plant. It would be easy for anybody to take a holy book and claim it for their own internal testimony. T he real question is where does that book come from? The witness of the Fathers of the church, i.e., apostolic tradition and the authoritative councils that historically can trace themselves back to the apostles who can trace themsleves back to Jesus is the answer, not internal testimony, or else all books that claim to be inspired (every major religion in the world) would be true. | ||||||
| A: | Having read your comments and interspersed questions several times, I believe that our convictions are simply different in this matter. To respond to your major points I offer the following: "How can Scripture be self-authenticating?" Because it is and will remain the vehicle of the Holy Spirit who works in the human heart through the Writings. "No internal testimony will avail or else all the world religions would be true." Your conclusion does not follow. If your point is that one person's internal testimony cannot empirically prove itself superior to another's, we agree. If your point is that there are a lot of wrong and self-produced internal testimonies (deceptions and self-deceptions) about sacred writings, we agree. But these facts certainly do not make all of these convictions or the writings in question equally true or equally valid. You are obviously seeking (or demanding) some empirical evidence to establish or substantiate the canon of Scripture over against other supposed canons. And you have elected to use the church fathers and/or decrees of the visible church to provide this. With the Reformers we certainly see value in such testimonies as they grant what may be called a "human certainty" of Scripture's authority. But we rejoice more in the "divine certainty" that only the Holy Spirit can provide through his inspired Scriptures. | ||||||
| |||||||