Highly recommend 👇

"The foundation of natural theology is threefold: Reason, Universal Experience, and Holy Scripture." Johann Alsted @postnuance @RefClassicalist

Roman Catholics hold the view that the Church has provided them with the Canon, and see the Protestant view of Scripture's self-authenticating evidence as a strange, late development. In this challenge, Augustine (pictured) is obviously in view here due to his statement ""I would not have believed the Gospel unless the authority of the Catholic Church had moved me." (Against the Epistle of Manichaeus, 5.6) But see how Gregory of Rimini explains this in his Prologue to Lecture 1 (Q1 A3 Vol. 1 p.33ff): "Augustine does not say that the faith by which he believes the Gospel has reference to some other principle from which the Gospel is demonstrated or syllogistically proved to be true, but only to the authority of the Church as a cause moving him to faith in the Gospel. It is much as if he or someone else had said, “I would not believe the Gospel unless the holiness of the Church moved me”; or as if, in the time of Christ, one of the believers had said, “I would not believe the Gospel unless Christ’s miracles moved me.”" Gregory’s meaning becomes unmistakable from the analogy immediately following his description of the Church as a causa movens. He says that Augustine’s words are as though he had said, “I would not believe the Gospel unless the holiness of the Church moved me,” or as though a believer in Christ’s time had said, “I would not believe the Gospel unless Christ’s miracles moved me.” The Church’s authority therefore occupies the same epistemic category as Christ’s miracles: it is an external sign or motive leading the hearer to faith, not the formal ground upon which divine faith ultimately rests. Gregory expressly denies that Augustine regarded the Church as “some other principle from which the Gospel is demonstrated or syllogistically proved to be true.” The Gospel is consequently not believed as a conclusion deduced from the superior premise of ecclesiastical authority. Rather, ecclesiastical authority moves the person to the Gospel, while faith terminates upon the divine truth of the Gospel itself. In the supernatural order, the deeper efficient cause is God’s gift of infused faith; in the epistemic order, Scripture itself, rather than the Church, stands as the theological principle. And what else does Augustine say in the SAME work (Chapter 14)? He goes onto clarify the doctrine of inward illumination: ""While we shall follow those who invite us to begin with believing what we cannot yet fully perceive, that, strengthened by this very faith, we may come into a position to know what we believe by the inward illumination and confirmation of our minds, due no longer to men, but to God Himself."" As for finding footprints in the tracks of other church fathers of the Protestant view of Scripture, there is material in abundance. ~~~~ Here is Junillus Africanus (Instituta Regularia Divinae Legis): ""From what source are the books of the catholic claimed to be? Whence do we prove that the books of our religion have been composed with divine inspiration? From many things, first of which is the truth of Scripture itself. Second, the arrangement of the material, the harmony of the precepts, the manner of speaking without circumlocution, and the plainness of the words. In addition, there is the condition of the writers and preachers: that humans would not have handed down godly things, humble persons lofty things, inarticulate persons subtle things, unless they had been filled with divine inspiration. Third, the power of the preaching, which gained the world, although it was preached by a few despised people." ~~~ Tertullian, Apology 20: "We point to the majesty of our Scriptures, if not to their antiquity. If you doubt that they are as ancient as we say, we offer proof that they are divine... . While we suffer the calamities, we read of them in the Scriptures; as we examine, they are proved. Well, the truth of a prophecy, I think, is the demonstration of its being from above. Hence there is among us an assured faith in regard to coming events as things already proved to us, for they were predicted along with what we have day by day fulfilled. They are uttered by the same voices, they are written in the same books — the same Spirit inspires them. All time is one to prophecy foretelling the future. Among men, it may be, a distinction of times is made while the fulfilment is going on: from being future we think of it as present, and then from being present we count it as belonging to the past. How are we to blame, I pray you, that we believe in things to come as though they already were, with the grounds we have for our faith in these two steps?" ~~~ Clement (Stromata 2.24): "But we, who have heard by the Scriptures that self-determining choice and refusal have been given by the Lord to men, rest in the infallible criterion of faith, manifesting a willing spirit, since we have chosen life and believe God through His voice. And he who has believed the Word knows the matter to be true; for the Word is truth. But he who has disbelieved Him that speaks, has disbelieved God." ~~~ Justin Martyr (Dialogue with Trypho): "For they did not use demonstration in their treatises, seeing that they were witnesses to the truth above all demonstration, and worthy of belief; and those events which have happened, and those which are happening, compel you to assent to the utterances made by them, although, indeed, they were entitled to credit on account of the miracles which they performed, since they both glorified the Creator, the God and Father of all things, and proclaimed His Son, the Christ [sent] by Him: which, indeed, the false prophets, who are filled with the lying unclean spirit, neither have done nor do, but venture to work certain wonderful deeds for the purpose of astonishing men, and glorify the spirits and demons of error" ~~~ Tatian on why to believe the Scriptures over the writings of the pagans: "Tatian: "Wherefore, having seen these things, and moreover also having been admitted to the mysteries, and having everywhere examined the religious rites performed by the effeminate and the pathic, and having found among the Romans their Latiarian Jupiter delighting in human gore and the blood of slaughtered men, and Artemis not far from the great city498 sanctioning acts of the same kind, and one demon here and another there instigating to the perpetration of evil,—retiring by myself, I sought how I might be able to discover the truth. And, while I was giving my most earnest attention to the matter, I happened to meet with certain barbaric writings, too old to be compared with the opinions of the Greeks, and too divine to be compared with their errors; and I was led to put faith in these by the unpretending cast of the language, the inartificial character of the writers, the foreknowledge displayed of future events, the excellent quality of the precepts, and the declaration of the government of the universe as centred in one Being. And, my soul being taught of God, I discern that the former class of writings lead to condemnation, but that these put an end to the slavery that is in the world, and rescue us from a multiplicity of rulers and ten thousand tyrants, while they give us, not indeed what we had not before received, but what we had received but were prevented by error from retaining." ~~~ Lactantius (Institutes 5.12): "But their teaching, because it is true, everywhere agrees, and is altogether consistent with itself; and on this account it effects persuasion, because it is based on a consistent plan." ~~~ Cyril of Jerusalem (Catechetical Lecture 4): ""For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell you these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning , but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures." ~~~ That is the theoretical aspect; what of the practical application to the specific Protestant canonicity? Is our canon a latter invention? By no means! Several church fathers rejected the canonicity of the Apocrpyha. You'll see them counting the 39 books of the "Protestant" Old Testament canon as 22, as explained in the visual attached here. ~~~ Jerome (Prologue to the Books of Solomon): "Jerome: “The Church reads Judith, Tobias, and the Maccabees, but does not receive them among the canonical Scriptures … [they are read] for the edification of the people, not for confirming the authority of ecclesiastical doctrines.” ~~~ Rufinus (Commentary on the Apostle's Creed): "Our fathers call [Wisdom, Sirach, Tobit, Judith, and Maccabees] not ‘canonical’ but ‘ecclesiastical’ … they would have them read in the churches, but not appealed to for the confirmation of doctrine." ~~~ Nicephorus: "There are 22 books of the Old Testament." ~~~ Leontius of Byzantium: "Of the Old Testament there are 22 books." ~~~ Rabanus Maurus: Ezra distributed the Old Testament into 22 books "that there might be as many books in the law as there are letters." ~~~ John of Damascus: "It must be known that there are 22 books of the Old Testament, according to the alphabet of the Hebrew language." ~~~ Isidore: The Old Testament was settled by Ezra in 22 books "that the books in the law might correspond in number with the [Hebrew] letters." ~~~ Athanasius (39th Festal Letter): "There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number; for, as I have heard, it is handed down that this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews; their respective order and names being as follows. The first is Genesis, then Exodus, next Leviticus, after that Numbers, and then Deuteronomy. Following these there is Joshua, the son of Nun, then Judges, then Ruth. And again, after these four books of Kings, the first and second being reckoned as one book, and so likewise the third and fourth as one book. And again, the first and second of the Chronicles are reckoned as one book. Again Ezra, the first and second are similarly one book. After these there is the book of Psalms, then the Proverbs, next Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs. Job follows, then the Prophets, the twelve being reckoned as one book. Then Isaiah, one book, then Jeremiah with Baruch, Lamentations, and the epistle, one book; afterwards, Ezekiel and Daniel, each one book. Thus far constitutes the Old Testament. [...] But for greater exactness I add this also, writing of necessity; that there are other books besides these not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness. The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. But the former, my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being [merely] read; nor is there in any place a mention of apocryphal writings. But they are an invention of heretics, who write them when they choose, bestowing upon them their approbation, and assigning to them a date, that so, using them as ancient writings, they may find occasion to lead astray the simple." ~~~ Gregory of Nazianzus in "Concerning the Genuine Books of Divinely Inspired Scripture" (after naming the same books Protestants have, although excluding Esther): “You have them all. If there is anything beyond these, it is not among the genuine.” ~~~ Julius Africanus wrote to Origen, rejecting Susana: "“I cannot understand how it escaped you that this part of the book is spurious. For this section … is plainly a more modern forgery. There are many proofs of this.” ~~~ Gregory the Great noted that Maccabees is not canonical: “We are not acting irregularly if from books, though not canonical, yet brought forth for the edification of the Church, we bring forward testimony.” ~~~ John of Damascus rejected the canonicity of Wisdom and Sirach: “These are virtuous and noble, but are not counted, nor were they placed in the ark.” ~~~ Origen rejected the canonicity of the Books of the Maccabees, in his exposition of Psalm 1, as recorded by Eusebius (Church History, Book 6): "The twenty-two books of the Hebrews are the following: [...]. And besides these there are the Maccabees, which are entitled Sarbeth Sabanaiel. He gives these in the above-mentioned work." ~~ Hugh of St. Victor: "These books are read indeed, but not written in the body of the text or in the authoritative canon; that is, such as the book of Tobit, Judith, Maccabees, the Wisdom of Solomon, and Ecclesiasticus." ~~~ Richard of St. Victor: ""There are besides other books, as the Wisdom of Solomon, the book of Jesus the son of Sirach, and the book of Judith and Tobit, and the book of Maccabees, which are read indeed, but not written in the canon." ~~~ This brings us full circle to Augustine, who writes on the Books of the Maccabees (City of God 18.36): "The calculation of which times is not to be found in the sacred Scriptures which are called canonical, but in others, amongst which are also the books of Maccabees." ~~ Look into it.

.@irishpresby on Christian politics & the spirituality of the church.

.@PerfInjust on the method of Christian politics.

.@ZacharyGarris on the true views of the 1788 American Revisers of the WCF.