MY oh My what a ‘Way’ to get out of “continuing in My word”, but no student knows anymore than his teacher.

[...] As a philosopher, I’m perfectly comfortable with the notion that we may be wrong. I don’t personally think we’re wrong about which books the Bible should contain (e.g. everything that’s there should be there), but there’s a possibility we might be wrong about which books were excluded (e.g. that some non-canonical writings might be canonical). Another view on that from C. Michael Patton, here. [...]

[...] Patton posted a couple of weeks ago on Why I Believe the Canon is Fallible . . . And am Fine with It! He asks, “Do we need absolute infallible certainty about something to 1) be justified in our [...]

I need to clarify one sentence in my last comment. In the last paragraph I said, “But on the other hand does not have the same degree of certainty about which of them should be a part of the canon?” That sentence should read, “But on the other hand does not have the same degree of certainty about which BOOKS should be a part of the canon?”

Mike B,

I understand what you are saying and pretty much agree with you. However, I do not like the word fallible applied to the canon because it does leave a degree of question–probability there–if the books we have there are the right ones. Maybe one or two should have been left out? Maybe there is another that needs to be added in of the ones that we know exist–although I don’t believe that to be the case? Maybe one has been lost altogether that contained very vital information that we really need to know? When it comes to our relationship with God and our eternal destinies, “iffines” leaves me quite uncomforatable.

But my main question has been related to CMP’s assertion on how fallible we really are as people in relationship to this whole issue. I believe that it was in comment # 128 that he stated that he was wearing shoes and assured us that he was but then stated that even that statement is fallible! Now that seems to be a very high degree of fallibility to grant to people! Granted, I suppose it could be argued that he was only having a hallucination at the moment and just thought he was wearing shoes!

However, if he really believes we as people are that fallible that he can’t even know for sure at any given time if he is wearing shoes or not–although in all probability he is–I just don’t see how he can be so certain that the books that are part of the Bible are infallible. How can a man that can only know in a fallible way if he is wearing shoes know if the books of the Bible are truly infallible? Isn’t his belief that they are infallible at best a fallible belief??

Or is it that he is convinced with such a high degree of certainty that those books are infallible that he is willing to pronounce them so? But on the other hand does not have the same degree of certainty about which of them should be a part of the canon? Either way, unless I have missed something totally here, it seems to me that there is the possibility for a good degree of doubt being opened up here. And obviously several other folks have had the same questions.

@John

we have incorrectly included the book(s) that establish the doctrine of inerrancy.

Which texts do you use to support this doctrine?

I agree with CMP that no alternatives from a Protestant view adequately deal with the historic facts regarding the collection of the books into a canon.

@cherylu

Inerrancy (for me) comes from the fact that the truths we have in the Bible were originally taught verbally. THink Peter @ Pentecost and Paul in Corinth (the events that were written about). The truths taught are confirmed with signs and wonders. A very lively experience to those hearing these truths in the first century. Then these writers compose letters to various churches spread around the world. These letters explain and correct things that were taught. They in essence say remember what I taught you and confirmed with signs and my life style.

These letters were accepted because they align with what the apostle taught and confirmed. Then the letters get shared over time likely in geographical regions based on proximity at first. Hence the idea that Ephesus might not have Corinthians letters right away etc.

It is the HS that confirmed to the early church the apostles teaching and the original letters that were sent (from possible false ones). However over time we have to trust the fallible (IMO) collection of all these works into a single canon. (see Augustine On Christian Doctrine excerpt in comments above). I hope to expand on this in blog later but for me that’s how I can accept inerrant books and a fallible canon.

CMP,

Coing back to the thread, it seems that the issue has not been grasped. So let me attempt to clarify.

It is the case that on Protestant principles, the formal canon is still revisable. It may be the case that materially speaking such and so books are in fact inspired, but the formal canon may not always or necessisarily match up with the material canon. This is because the formal canon is a fallible reconstruction. And even if it did, the formal canon qua fallible is still revisable, even in the direction of error in excluding inspired works.

So as regards to what the formal canon is, we are not in the same position. On say Orthodox principles, the formal canon is not in principle revisable. On Protestant principles, the formal canon is revisable. Fallible knowing about the formal canon does not put us in the same position as to what the nature of the formal canon is.

As to our shared individual fallible epistemic position, this is irrelevant, since as such on Orthodox principles individuals are not the source of the formal canon. It is one thing to say I have a fallible belief about an infallible canon qua a formal doctrinal list and another to say that the list itself is revisable.

As to point three, this would be true with most forms of reasoning, but not necessarily with transcendental forms of reasoning. If an infallible church is a necessary condition for a formally infallible canon, then it isn’t clear that such an argument can be objected to in a way that say a premise in a deductive argument can be objected to. While it may be true that Protestants may reject the belief that the canon is formally infallible and unrevisable, they can do so on pain of other problems entailed by such a rejection, much as a naturalist can reject induction to stave off admitting that belief that there is a God is rational.

Even if there were no other option, it doesn’t follow that the Protestant option is right or correct.

Guys, this has been a great conversation and I appreciate the responses, but this is going to have to be my last comment here as it seems that we are going around and around in circles.

1. Fallibility does not speak to probability. Our epistemic assurance about our faith rests in a great deal of probability that we can have utmost confidence about, including the canon. See sun illustration.
2. You have offered no alternatives to this from a Protestant perspective. Unless you are willing to say that the Church was infallibible in this specific declaration, then you are still in the same position as me, you just are not comfortable with it.
3. Even if you do say that the church was infallible with regard to this, then you are STILL in the same position as your belief about the churches infallibility has to be justified by arguments and these arguments are going to be fallible!
4. Finally, if you were to appeal the the assurance that the Holy Spirit give you, this is a different issue all-together. Assurance does not produce infallibility. As well, a subjective appeal to the witness of the Spirit is still subjective and all traditions make such a claim. Which one has it right?

In the end, I do think the case is very strong that we have a fallible canon of infallible (and inerrant) books, but we need not be alarmed by this in the slightest. There is simply no other option. And even if you convert to the Roman Catholic position you have not really solved anything, just pushed the problem up one level.

God bless friends.

I’m with cheryly and mbaker. If the Bible is a fallible collection of books, then perhaps we have incorrectly included the book(s) that establish the doctrine of inerrancy. Perhaps the true canon wouldn’t include that book, in which case we lose support for inerrancy. My faith would survive finding out that the canon was a fallible collection, but I’m certainly not “fine” with the idea. Theoretically, the two (infallible collection and inerrant words) don’t necessarily have to go together, but it seems more likely that they would.

Regards,
#John

CMP,

Just to further clarify my comment #175:

You have stated:

“Catholics have a fallible belief about an infallible authority; Protestants have a fallible belief about an infallible authority. Both authorities must be substantiated by the evidence and both authorities must be interpreted by fallible people.

This is the question that I have: In the end, what is the difference?”

I think that it does make a difference in this regard:

I think Sproul made a mistake by saying the canon is a fallible collection of infallible books. While it’s a catchy little Christian phrase, obviously it doesn’t make sense in the first place since the definitions are polar opposites. It also gives rise to the question of whether the Bible as a whole book is reliable, because of differing opinions on which books should have been included or left out, as the case may be. I think that’s what some of us here are having trouble with.

Whereas, if he wants to say the perceptions of different theologians as to what should or should not be included the canon are fallible that’s fine with me. That’s an entirely different ball game than saying the Bible is made of 66 infallible books, but as a whole the canon itself is fallible just because certain people can’t agree on what should or not have been included.

That’s kind of the same thing as saying God is fallible because some folks can’t agree on whether He exists or not, is it not?