In a previous post (1
Cor 5:9-10 and the "missing books of the Bible" argument), I
wrote the following about Protestantism's failure to give an authoritative
answer on contents of the canon (intimately tied into the concept of tota
scriptura, an essential building block for sola scriptura):
While acknowledging (correctly) Paul is
referencing a letter no longer extant in this text, Calvin engages in special
pleading by arguing that God did not allow its preservation in his sovereignty
as the extant Pauline letters (and rest of the canon) would “suffice” (be
formally sufficient). However, outside his ipse dixit, and fallacious
reasoning, he and any other Protestant who holds to, not just sola, but tota
scriptura, cannot ever be sure of this.
While it is true that just because a volume
is referenced in the Bible does not mean that the biblical authors imputed to
it the status of God-breathed scripture, can a Protestant claim with 100%
confidence this lost epistle was not inspired by God? If they will argue that
if it were, God would have preserved it, then what about the book of
Deuteronomy that was lost for years until it was rediscovered in 2 Kgs 22?
Furthermore, what about "missing books" which are not secular texts
(e.g., annals), but said to have been written by prophets? For instance, in 2
Chron 9:29, we read:
Now the rest of the acts of Solomon, from
first to last, are they not written in the history of the prophet Nathan, and
in the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, and in the visions of the seer Iddo
concerning Jeroboam son of Nebat?
All the descriptions of these prophets and
their writings reflect the language of divine inspiration, not merely
historical works the biblical authors refer the reader to for further secular
information, such as "prophet" (נָבִיא);
"prophecy" (נְבוּאָה); "visions" (חֲזוֹת) and
"seer" (חֹזֶה). Again, only by engaging in special
pleading can a Protestant apologist brush off the "missing books in the
Bible" argument for these and similar prophetical/apostolic writings.
I
recently came across a very interesting exchange between Daniel McCllelan (“Maklelan”) and
Robert M. Bowman on the issue of 2
Tim 3:16-17 and inerrancy. The Protestant failure to provide a meaningful
response to the “canon question,” and instead rely on their ipse dixit was really brought out during
the initial part of this exchange when McClellan responded to Bowman (Bowman’s
comments will be in red; McCllelan’s in blue [emphasis added]):
RB: The doctrine of inerrancy
simply affirms that whatever has the status of Scripture is inerrant. If a
particular book is Scripture, then that book is inerrant. We disagree on the
precise extent of the body of writings that have the status of Scripture. For example,
you think the Book of Mormon is Scripture and I do not. The doctrine of
inerrancy does not weigh in on this question. What it says, though, is that
whatever is Scripture will be inerrant.
Maklelan:
But this means that there is no inerrant way to identify scripture. More
problematic is the fact that there is no way to know if 2 Tim 3:16 is true or
not. You have to presuppose that 2 Timothy is scripture and then presuppose
that the modern canon is accepted by scripture (and is thus inerrantly
identified as scripture). Until you can find a way to show that 2 Tim 3:16 was
written as scripture, and that the scriptures identify which texts are
scriptures, your entire doctrine of inerrancy rests on presumption.
RB: Thus, whatever writings we
do agree are to be classified as Scripture, we ought to recognize those texts
as inerrant.
Maklelan:
So now a consensus grants inerrant status to each text? How can we be sure this
consensus is inerrant? Must we again just presuppose it to be so?
RB: This is the evangelical
view; I realize of course that Mormons do not view any scripture as inerrant.
Maklelan:
I contend that this view is methodologically indefensible.
