Sola Scriptura, the Canon Problem, and Reformed Epistemology

In a previous post (HERE), I laid out an argument against the Protestant doctrine of sola Scriptura as follows:

1. Either the canon of Sacred Scripture is known infallibly, or it is not.
2. If the canon of Sacred Scripture is not known infallibly, then Sacred Scripture is a fallible collection of infallible books.
3. A fallible collection of infallible books is incoherent.
4. Therefore, Sacred Scripture is not a fallible collection of infallible books (3).
5. Therefore, the canon of Sacred Scripture is known infallibly (2, 4).
6. Either the canon of Sacred Scripture is known by Sacred Scripture itself or by Tradition.
7. The canon of Sacred Scripture is not known by Sacred Scripture itself.
8. Therefore, the canon of Sacred Scripture is known by Tradition (6, 7).
9. If the canon of Sacred Scripture is known infallibly and is known by Tradition, then there is an infallible Tradition (pertaining to the Christian faith) outside of Sacred Scripture.
10. Therefore, there is an infallible Tradition outside of Sacred Scripture (5, 8, 9).
11. If there is an infallible Tradition outside of Sacred Scripture, then sola Scriptura is false.
12. Therefore, sola Scriptura is false (10, 11).

In this post, I want to consider a possible objection to this argument. A Protestant could try to reject premise 6. Premise 6, a Protestant might argue, presents a false dilemma. There is a third possibility: the canon of Sacred Scripture is known by the internal witness of the Holy Spirit. For a genuinely born-again Christian, the Holy Spirit internally testifies to the authenticity of the Bible as the word of God. Through this internal testimony, the believer thereby knows the canon of Scripture infallibly. Thus, because of the internal witness of the Holy Spirit, Sacred Tradition is not needed for the canon of Sacred Scripture to be known infallibly. This idea is expressed in the Westminster Confession:

The authority of the holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or church, but wholly upon God (who is truth itself), the Author thereof; and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.

We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the holy Scripture; and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God; yet, notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth, and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts (Westminster Confession, I.IV-V, boldface added).

John Calvin elaborates on all of this as follows:

A most pernicious error has very generally prevailed—viz. that Scripture is of importance only in so far as conceded to it by the suffrage of the Church; as if the eternal and inviolable truth of God could depend on the will of men. 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 I, 7, 1).

These ravings are admirably refuted by a single expression of an apostle. Paul testifies that the Church is “built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets,” (Eph. 2:20). If the doctrine of the apostles and prophets is the foundation of the Church, the former must have had its certainty before the latter began to exist. Nor is there any room for the cavil, that though the Church derives her first beginning from thence, it still remains doubtful what writings are to be attributed to the apostles and prophets, until her Judgment is interposed. For if the Christian Church was founded at first on the writings of the prophets, and the preaching of the apostles, that doctrine, wheresoever it may be found, was certainly ascertained and sanctioned antecedently to the Church, since, but for this, the Church herself never could have existed. Nothing therefore can be more absurd than the fiction, that the power of judging Scripture is in the Church, and that on her nod its certainty depends. When the Church receives it, and gives it the stamp of her authority, she does not make that authentic which was otherwise doubtful or controverted but, acknowledging it as the truth of God, she, as in duty bounds shows her reverence by an unhesitating assent. 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 (ibid. I, 7, 2).

[T[he testimony of the Spirit is superior to reason. For as God alone can properly bear witness to his own words, so these words will not obtain full credit in the hearts of men, until they are sealed by the inward testimony of the Spirit. The same Spirit, therefore, who spoke by the mouth of the prophets, must penetrate our hearts, in order to convince us that they faithfully delivered the message with which they were divinely entrusted. This connection is most aptly expressed by Isaiah in these words, “My Spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed’s seed, saith the Lord, from henceforth and for ever,” (Isa. 59:21). Some worthy persons feel disconcerted, because, while the wicked murmur with impunity at the Word of God, they have not a clear proof at hand to silence them, forgetting that the Spirit is called an earnest and seal to confirm the faith of the godly, for this very reason, that, until he enlightens their minds, they are tossed to and fro in a sea of doubts (ibid. I, 7, 4).

Let it therefore be held as fixed, that those who are inwardly taught by the Holy Spirit acquiesce implicitly in Scripture; that Scripture, carrying its own evidence along with it, deigns not to submit to proofs and arguments, but owes the full conviction with which we ought to receive it to the testimony of the Spirit. Enlightened by him, we no longer believe, either on our own Judgment or that of others, that the Scriptures are from God; but, in a way superior to human Judgment, feel perfectly assured—as much so as if we beheld the divine image visibly impressed on it—that it came to us, by the instrumentality of men, from the very mouth of God. We ask not for proofs or probabilities on which to rest our Judgment, but we subject our intellect and Judgment to it as too transcendent for us to estimate. This, however, we do, not in the manner in which some are wont to fasten on an unknown object, which, as soon as known, displeases, but because we have a thorough conviction that, in holding it, we hold unassailable truth; not like miserable men, whose minds are enslaved by superstition, but because we feel a divine energy living and breathing in it—an energy by which we are drawn and animated to obey it, willingly indeed, and knowingly, but more vividly and effectually than could be done by human will or knowledge (ibid. I, 7, 5).

[L]et us now understand that the only true faith is that which the Spirit of God seals on our hearts. Nay, the modest and teachable reader will find a sufficient reason in the promise contained in Isaiah, that all the children of the renovated Church “shall be taught of the Lord,” (Isaiah 54:13). This singular privilege God bestows on his elect only, whom he separates from the rest of mankind. For what is the beginning of true doctrine but prompt alacrity to hear the Word of God? And God, by the mouth of Moses, thus demands to be heard: “It is not in heavens that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear and do it? But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth and in thy heart,” (Deut. 30:12, 14) (ibid.).

In this post, I will not go into everything that Calvin proposes here. Instead, I want to focus on the idea that we can know the canon of Scripture by the testimony of the Holy Spirit. This idea of having infallible knowledge of the objects of faith on the basis of the internal witness of the Holy Spirit is the main idea behind Reformed epistemology, sometimes also called Holy Spirit epistemology. The foremost contemporary proponent of Reformed epistemology is the philosopher Alvin Plantinga, who summarizes his epistemological model of Christian belief as follows:

God needed a way to inform human beings of many times and places of the scheme of salvation he has graciously made available. No doubt he could have done this in a thousand different ways; in fact, according to the model, he chose to do so in the following way. First, there were the prophets and the apostles, and the Bible, a collection of writings by human authors, but specially inspired by God in such a way that he can be said to be its principal author. Second, he has sent the Holy Spirit, promised by Christ before his death and resurrection. And third, a principal work of the Holy Spirit with respect to us human beings is the production in us human beings of the gift of faith, that “firm and certain knowledge of God’s benevolence towards us, founded upon the truth of the freely given promise in Christ, both revealed to our minds and sealed upon our hearts through the Holy Spirit” [Institutes III, 2, 7] of which Calvin speaks. By virtue of the internal testimony or witness of the Holy Spirit, we come to see the truth of the central Christian affirmations (Knowledge and Christian Belief, Ch. 4).

The idea, then, is that Christians can know with certainty the canon of Scripture and the status of Scripture as the authoritative, inspired word of God by the internal witness of the Holy Spirit. A visible Church and her decrees, therefore, are simply not needed. In response, although I have sympathies for elements of the Reformed epistemology approach to Christian belief in general, there are some significant difficulties particularly with regard to the canon of Sacred Scripture.

The main difficulty is this: On this Reformed epistemology approach to the canon of Scripture, Christians must rely on their internal feelings in order to come to a knowledge of the canon of Scripture. While this may suffice for very broad and general issues such as the existence of God, it seems far more prone to error with respect to something like which specific books belong and which do not belong to Sacred Scripture (cf. The Case for the Deuterocanon, pg. 321-323). If a Christian, for instance, reads 1 Corinthians but feels no sense of authority in it, should he discard it from his Bible? If, on the other hand, a Christian reads 1 Clement and feels a sense of authority in it, should he add it to his Bible? If the answer is no, then it seems that the internal witness of the Holy Spirit does not suffice for knowing the canon of Scripture. If yes, then what of those Christians who have opposite internal feelings? Are we to conclude that the Holy Spirit is schizophrenic? Surely not. Should we instead conclude that only one side has the genuine internal witness of the Holy Spirit? In this case, however, how are we to determine which is which? By the internal witness of the Holy Spirit? This lands us in the exact same problem. By Scripture? What Scripture is in the first place is what is under dispute. And if Scripture alone is to be the sole infallible regulating authority for the Church as the doctrine of sola Scriptura says, how is there supposed to be a unified Christian Church when the very canon of Scripture is determined by the internal witness of the Holy Spirit as discerned and interpreted by each individual Christian? As Brad S. Gregory writes concerning this Holy Spirit epistemology used by the early Protestants (and that continues to be used today) in an attempt to resolve doctrinal disputes which themselves could not be resolved by appeal to Scripture alone:

As with the principle of sola scriptura itself, claims of the Spirit's authenticating, illuminating influence were voiced by those on all sides of every dispute. Such appeals compounded competing claims about the understanding of scripture with competing claims to genuine inspiration by the Holy Spirit. "What am I to do," Erasmus asked in 1524, "when many persons allege different interpretations, each one of whom swears to have the Spirit?" Indeed. Rarely if ever in the course of doctrinal controversy did anyone say something like this: "You're right—I lack the Holy Spirit's guidance in my reading of scripture, and I see that you have it in yours. I admit I was mistaken, so I'll trust you instead." ...

Unlike exegetical disagreements about the "external Word"—in which texts could be cited and weighed, compared and debated—disagreements about whom the Spirit had "taught from above" "in the heart" were insurmountably problematic because of their inaccessible interiority. Nothing has changed in this respect between the early Reformation and the early twenty-first century (The Unintended Reformation: How a Religious Revolution Secularized Society, pg. 98-99).

It seems necessary, therefore, for there to be a privileged Christian or a group of privileged Christians who has/have the authority to definitively determine and promulgate the objective truth of the matter with respect to Christian doctrine and practice. We see this clearly illustrated at the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15.

The Reformed epistemology solution to the canon problem resembles the Mormon notion of a "burning in the bosom" as expressed by Joseph Smith in the Doctrine and Covenants:

But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.

But if it be not right you shall have no such feelings, but you shall have a stupor of thought that shall cause you to forget the thing which is wrong; therefore, you cannot write that which is sacred save it be given you from me (D&C 9:8-9).

Protestants (e.g., Jeff Durban) (rightly) criticize Mormons for relying on the subjective feeling of a "burning in the bosom" in order to determine what is true by pointing out that we can be deceived by our own desires, flights of fancy, or even demonic spirits. For this reason, they insist, we have to always test our internal feelings against Scripture to determine whether they are or are not genuine and reliable (cf. 1 Thessalonians 5:19-21, 1 John 4:1). The internal problem for these Protestant critics of Mormonism, however, is this: How do we know what Scripture is in the first place so as to test our internal feelings against it? The Protestant answer as informed by Reformed epistemology, as we have seen, is that we know what Scripture is by the internal witness of the Holy Spirit. In other words, we know what Scripture is by a burning in the bosom, by an internal feeling.

Protestants who take this approach to the canon problem, therefore, are in a real bind: On the one hand, we must test our internal feelings against Scripture; on the other hand, the way we know what Scripture is in the first place is determined by the internal witness of the Holy Spirit, which we apprehend by our internal feelings. Thus, we need Scripture to test our internal feelings, but we can't test our internal feelings with respect to what Scripture is because what Scripture is is based on those internal feelings. If Protestants respond to this by arbitrarily making an exception in the case of the Bible, then they should also think that it is acceptable for Mormons to do the same thing with respect to the Book of Mormon. Otherwise, Protestants should admit that the Reformed epistemology solution to the canon problem fails. Thus, if premise 6 in my argument is false, we can simply add the third possibility of the internal witness of the Holy Spirit and reject it for the above reasons. This modified premise, therefore, would allow the argument to go through as before.