In an earlier post (Protestant Fideism: A Primer [a response to an inane article by a Protestant apologist on the intellectually bankrupt Bugger All Exegesis blog]) I showed the subjective nature of Protestant epistemology vis-a-vis acceptance of the Bible. Here, let us examine the "testimonies" of three anti-Mormons: Matt Slick and Mike and Ann Thomas.
Matt Slick (CARM)
In a debate
against Gerry Matatics (Sedevacantist) on why
he believes the Protestant canon of the Bible in general, Slick admitted
(at the 14:08 mark):
The reason I believe
it is, I mean, it is very subjective, I believe it by faith--that's it. That's
why I believe the Bible.
Sungenis: How do you know what books are in the Bible?
Slick: Well, Jesus tells us "my sheep hear my voice and they follow me" (35:08 mark)
Sungenis answered this argument in his book, Not by Scripture Alone:
This is the solution forced upon Protestants
in their attempt to explain the final compilation of the books of the Bible—if
one can’t accept the Church as an authority to determine the canon, then the
only possible answer is to say that the Scripture determines itself. Thus they
tell us that people of God, in their own judgment, will ultimately be able to
recognize its authenticity as the word of God. We sense, however, some
equivocation in this apologist’s assertion, since he adds the phrases “in a
real sense” and “in the deepest sense.” What do these phrases really mean? Are
there any “senses” in which the Scripture is not self-authenticating? Further exacerbating
the problem is that his apologist has not given us any criteria for the mental
process by which the people of God should finally judge the canon. He only
makes a casual reference to John 10:14-16 in which the “sheep listen to the
shepherd’s voice” as proof of his claim. But let’s examine this more closely.
Is the context of John 10:14-16 speaking about such esoteric topics as
determining the canon of Scripture? Certainly not. It is speaking about simple
obedience to Jesus’ known commands. Moreover, since Jesus never says what
constitutes the canon, how can we expect these people to “hear his voice” on
that specific subject? Even if John 10 did apply to the canon, would this
apologist also say that these sheep heard the words of the shepherd infallibly?
If not, what kind of shepherd would lead them to fallible information? If he
doesn’t lead them to green pastures but to dry weeds he is no better than the
hired hand he criticizes.
We should also add that if it is the precise nature of Scripture that leads people to
determine the canon, what is this definitive mark of canonicity? And if someone
does propose such a definitive mark, who has the authority to judge if it is
accurate and complete? If one cannot specifically catalogue and limit, can
those who take it upon themselves to determine the canon rely on a mere feeling that a certain book is the word
of God? Just what is the final criterion for the determination of the canon? It
seems from what this apologist is saying that the criterion is more the
fallible sheep rather than the infallible Scripture.
Compounding the problem of the sheep judging the word of God, certain
books of the canon hardly meet even the general criterion for canonicity
suggested for other books. For example, the book of Philemon lacks many of the
traits of canonicity that Protestants usually associate with other books of the
Bible such as Romans or Galatians. Philemon contains no gospel/salvation
message, per se. It is just a short letter expressing concern about the
fortunes of a runaway slave. Nor can one claim Philemon is canonical merely
because it claims Paul as its author, for not only is such an assertion
unprovable but Paul wrote other letters that were not accepted as canonical
(cf. 1 Cor. 5:9; 2 Cor. 10:10; Phil. 3:1; Col. 4:16). One can raise the same
questions about intrinsic worth of such books and 2 John and 3 John, and other
New Testament books. When we recall that some Protestant theologians of the
sixteenth century either demoted or outright rejected even long-accepted books
of the canon, such as James, Hebrews, and Revelation, which do speak heavily about gospel/salvation
issues, we sense that determining the canon is not simply a matter of the lowly
sheep hearing the shepherd’s voice (For example, Luther called James “an
epistle of straw, compared to these others, for it has nothing of the nature of
gospel about it” [LW 35, 362]. Martin
Chemnitz was not too far behind: “No dogma ought therefore to be drawn out of these
books which does not have reliable and clear foundations in other canonical books”
[An Examination of the Council of Trent,
Part 1, p. 189]). (Robert Sungenis, “Point/Counterpoint: Protestant Objections
and Catholic Answers” in Robert A. Sungenis, ed. Not by Scripture Alone: A Catholic Critique of the Protestant Doctrine
of Sola Scriptura [2d ed: Catholic Apologetics International: 2013],
193-294, here, pp. 243-45)
She came along that evening [to a friend's Protestant church], and the love that was shared there, the gospel was preached and Ann lasted about twenty minutes into the service when she fled the building. And I thought, "what have I done? I've done something dreadful here; something is wrong and I've not picked up on this." So I rushed out to her; two of the ladies in the church came out as well--very concerned. And Ann was sobbing in the carpark. And we said, "what's wrong?" And she said, "there's nothing wrong; it's just so wonderful!" And the Spirit of God was so powerful and she just couldn't take the weight of it. It was an incredible experience." (8:23 mark)
Often anti-Mormons caricature the LDS testimony as "mere emotions" and claim that the "burning in the bosom" is not the Holy Spirit but a sign one needs a tablet for indigestion; perhaps here Ann Thomas just needed to pop an anti-depressant and all would have been well (and seeing that Mike chokes up telling this story may hint that he needs one, too). If anything, it does show the hypocrisy of anti-Mormons such as Mike and Ann Thomas--they have a chapter in both editions of Mormonism: A Gold-Plated Religion (1997, 2008) on the LDS testimony where they mischaracterise it as mere emotions (you know, like getting emotional during a church service . . . oh, wait, if it is within a Protestant context, it is a-okay! Silly me . . . )