Mark Hausam, a former member of Jason Wallace's Presbyterian Church in Salt Lake City (keep that in mind next time Wallace harps on the fact that a guest of his on his tv show is a former LDS!) posted an article on his blog on the canonicity of Jude and Protestantism. Here is a section showing that Protestants have no leg to stand on when they critique the LDS view of a spiritual witness of the Book of Mormon:
It is true that some Protestants have appealed to "the inward testimony of the Holy Spirit" to prove that certain books are truly Scripture. John Calvin did this. As they do in our day, so in Calvin's day also the Catholics asked the Protestants how they knew which books were supposed to be in the canon of Scripture if they wouldn't trust the judgment of the Church in its Tradition?
Good argument and good question, I think. Calvin's answer?
My paraphrase of Calvin's answer, with application to the Book of Jude: "Ultimately, we know the Book of Jude is Scripture not because of the decrees of the Church but because it's just obvious if you will look carefully. The Spirit will tell you it's true." He acknowledged historical arguments that could be made as well, but he came back to this as his central argument.
But this is very subjective. I've read the Book of Jude. It's a great book, but I don't have some kind of mystical experience necessarily when I read it, convincing me it is Scripture. Nor is it obviously Scripture if we just look at it closely. There are lots of good books that aren't Scripture. Even if Jude has "the ring of truth" because it tell us true things about God that we can know in other ways as well, this doesn't prove it is Scripture--that is, that it is an infallible book inspired by the Holy Spirit which should be included in the Bible and made an authoritative foundation for faith and practice.
Calvin's approach here reminds me of how Mormons attempt to convince people that the Book of Mormon is a true revelation from God. Here is an example from the LDS Church's website, quoting LDS President Thomas S. Monson:
Somehow, though, I doubt that John Calvin would have liked the Book of Mormon or would have agreed with President Monson's testimony.
We could add that Martin Luther himself, the founder of the Protestant Reformation, using similar subjective criteria for evaluating Scripture, came to the conclusion that a number of books, including James and Jude, did not actually belong in Scripture. Here are a few of his comments on James (written in 1522):
Here's his take on Jude:
So Luther looked at the same books that Calvin did, but apparently his taste buds to discern sweet and bitter weren't functioning as well as Calvin's, for he came to an opposite conclusion. But how did Luther know how much Christ should be talked about in a book before it could be canonical? How did he know how much talk about the law and works is allowed? Why did he think that James contradicted Paul? Why did he not instead accept both Paul and James as Scripture and interpret them both in light of each other to arrive at a balanced, harmonious doctrine, as almost all other Protestants have attempted to do? Ultimately, Luther's approach is very subjective. He's like a cook who puts his finger in the pot, tasts the soup, and declares, "Too salty!" But why should Luther's spiritual and theological tastes be accepted as the final authoritative standard in determining apostolicity and canonicity in proposed biblical books? This is better than trusting the historic judgment of the Church?
The approaches of Calvin and Luther to determining canonicity are so subjective that I am pretty sure that most people who think they accept the Book of Jude on grounds like these really accept them because that is what they have been taught--just as Mormons who grew up in the Mormon Church and love it are likely to find the Holy Ghost testifying powerfully in their hearts to the truth of the Book of Mormon. Most people aren't going to follow Luther and revise the canon on these kinds of grounds, because they recognize that this will make them look like lunatics to everyone around them. They trust the historic judgment of the rest of the Church over their own subjective personal taste--as they should.
The Inward Testimony of the Spirit?
It is true that some Protestants have appealed to "the inward testimony of the Holy Spirit" to prove that certain books are truly Scripture. John Calvin did this. As they do in our day, so in Calvin's day also the Catholics asked the Protestants how they knew which books were supposed to be in the canon of Scripture if they wouldn't trust the judgment of the Church in its Tradition?
With great insult to the Holy Spirit, it is asked, who can assure us that the Scriptures proceeded from God; who guarantee that they have come down safe and unimpaired to our times; who persuade us that this book is to be received with reverence, and that one expunged from the list, did not the Church regulate all these things with certainty? On the determination of the Church, therefore, it is said, depend both the reverence which is due to Scripture, and the books which are to be admitted into the canon. (Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 7, tr. Henry Beveridge, plain text version at the Christian Classics Etherial Library - also found here more accessibly)
Good argument and good question, I think. Calvin's answer?
As to the question, How shall we be persuaded that it came from God without recurring to a decree of the Church? it is just the same as if it were asked, How shall we learn to distinguish light from darkness, white from black, sweet from bitter? Scripture bears upon the face of it as clear evidence of its truth, as white and black do of their colour, sweet and bitter of their taste. . . .
If, then, we would consult most effectually for our consciences, and save them from being driven about in a whirl of uncertainty, from wavering, and even stumbling at the smallest obstacle, our conviction of the truth of Scripture must be derived from a higher source than human conjectures, Judgments, or reasons; namely, the secret testimony of the Spirit. (Ibid.)
My paraphrase of Calvin's answer, with application to the Book of Jude: "Ultimately, we know the Book of Jude is Scripture not because of the decrees of the Church but because it's just obvious if you will look carefully. The Spirit will tell you it's true." He acknowledged historical arguments that could be made as well, but he came back to this as his central argument.
But this is very subjective. I've read the Book of Jude. It's a great book, but I don't have some kind of mystical experience necessarily when I read it, convincing me it is Scripture. Nor is it obviously Scripture if we just look at it closely. There are lots of good books that aren't Scripture. Even if Jude has "the ring of truth" because it tell us true things about God that we can know in other ways as well, this doesn't prove it is Scripture--that is, that it is an infallible book inspired by the Holy Spirit which should be included in the Bible and made an authoritative foundation for faith and practice.
Calvin's approach here reminds me of how Mormons attempt to convince people that the Book of Mormon is a true revelation from God. Here is an example from the LDS Church's website, quoting LDS President Thomas S. Monson:
“Whether you are 12 or 112—or anywhere in between—you can know for yourself that the gospel of Jesus Christ is true. Read the Book of Mormon. Ponder its teachings. Ask Heavenly Father if it is true. We have the promise that ‘if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.’”
“[Along] with other latter-day prophets, I testify of the truthfulness of this ‘most correct of any book on earth,’ even the Book of Mormon, another testament of Jesus Christ,” President Monson says. “Its message spans the earth and brings its readers to a knowledge of the truth. It is my testimony that the Book of Mormon changes lives.
Somehow, though, I doubt that John Calvin would have liked the Book of Mormon or would have agreed with President Monson's testimony.
We could add that Martin Luther himself, the founder of the Protestant Reformation, using similar subjective criteria for evaluating Scripture, came to the conclusion that a number of books, including James and Jude, did not actually belong in Scripture. Here are a few of his comments on James (written in 1522):
I think highly of the epistle of James, and regard it as valuable although it was rejected in the early days. . . . Yet, to give my own opinion without prejudice to that of anyone else, I do not hold it to be of apostolic authorship, for the following reasons:
Firstly, because, in direct opposition to St. Paul and all the rest of the Bible, it ascribes justification to works, and declares that Abraham was justified by his works when he offered up his son. . . . This defect proves that the epistle is not of apostolic provenance.
Secondly, because in the whole length of its teaching, not once does it give Christians any instruction or reminder of the passion, resurrection, or spirit of Christ. . . . All genuinely sacred books are unanimous here, and all preach Christ emphatically. The true touchstone for testing every book is to discover whether it emphasizes the prominence of Christ or not. . . .
The epsitle of James, however, only drives you to the law and its works. . . .
In sum: he wished to guard against those who depended on faith without going on to works, but he had neither the spirit nor the thought nor the eloquence equal to the task. He does violence to Scripture, and so contradicts Paul and all Scripture. . . . I therefore refuse him a place among the writers of the true canon of my Bible; (Preface to the Epistles of St. James and St. Jude, found in Martin Luther: Selections from his Writings, ed. John Dillenberger [Garden City, NY: Anchor Books, Doubleday, 1961], 35-36.)
Here's his take on Jude:
No one can deny that this epistle is an excerpt from, or copy of, the second epistle of St. Peter, for all he says is nearly the same over again. Moreover, he speaks of the apostles as would a disciple of a much later date. He quotes words and events which are found nowhere in Scripture, and which moved the fathers to reject this epistle from the canon. Moreover, the apostle Jude did no go into Greek-speaking lands, but into Persia; and it is said that he could not write Greek. Hence, although I value the book, yet it is not essential to reckon it among the canonical books that lay the foundation of faith. (Ibid., 36-37 - See here for these quotations in a little bit fuller context.)
So Luther looked at the same books that Calvin did, but apparently his taste buds to discern sweet and bitter weren't functioning as well as Calvin's, for he came to an opposite conclusion. But how did Luther know how much Christ should be talked about in a book before it could be canonical? How did he know how much talk about the law and works is allowed? Why did he think that James contradicted Paul? Why did he not instead accept both Paul and James as Scripture and interpret them both in light of each other to arrive at a balanced, harmonious doctrine, as almost all other Protestants have attempted to do? Ultimately, Luther's approach is very subjective. He's like a cook who puts his finger in the pot, tasts the soup, and declares, "Too salty!" But why should Luther's spiritual and theological tastes be accepted as the final authoritative standard in determining apostolicity and canonicity in proposed biblical books? This is better than trusting the historic judgment of the Church?
The approaches of Calvin and Luther to determining canonicity are so subjective that I am pretty sure that most people who think they accept the Book of Jude on grounds like these really accept them because that is what they have been taught--just as Mormons who grew up in the Mormon Church and love it are likely to find the Holy Ghost testifying powerfully in their hearts to the truth of the Book of Mormon. Most people aren't going to follow Luther and revise the canon on these kinds of grounds, because they recognize that this will make them look like lunatics to everyone around them. They trust the historic judgment of the rest of the Church over their own subjective personal taste--as they should.
