Home

Rough notes from my reading of John Peckham’s Canonical Theology, the Biblical Canon, Sola Scriptura and Theological Method. Professional APA style critique of Sola Scriptura can be read here.

First Contradiction

P1: If “apostles” were (at minimum) eyewitnesses to the risen Christ and thereby appointed as his witnesses (cf. Acts 1:2-4; 9:3-15; 26:12-18), then genuinely apostolic testimony would be restricted to that of this chosen group, whose testimony would possess intrinsically “canonical” authority in virtue of their unique relationship with, and commission by, the risen Christ.” (Peckham, 27)

P2:  In particular, we might identify three criteria of canon recognition: books must be 1) divinely commissioned as prophetic and/or apostolic. (Peckham, 32)

P3: Many books yield internal evidence regarding their prophetic or apostolic nature. (Peckham, 42)

C: First, note that the recognition of the canonical books does not hinge upon identification of the authors in every case. (Peckham, 42)

Second Contradiction 

• With this in mind, there is strong evidence (particularly with, but not lim-ited to, the internal evidence of the books) supporting the propheticity and apostolicity of the sixty-six books of the Protestant canon, reinforced (but not determined) by both Judaism’s and Christianitys overwhelming recognition of at least these same books. (Peckham, 42)

• Given that historical certitude is beyond our reach, however, caution should be exercised in the application of the prophetic/apostolic criterion. While important historical referents may greatly assist in the recognition of canonical books, the historical data regarding propheticity/apostolicity is variously interpreted and should not be expected to settle the matter of canonicity. In this regard, it is helpful to consider two further criteria that themselves impinge upon whether a given book should be confidently recognized as prophetic and/or apostolic. (Peckham, 37)

• What guards against one’s own individual or community perspective from being mistakenly presumed to be the leading of the Spirit? Do both open and closed confessional traditions run the risk of mistakenly assuming that their tradition/community was and is led by the Holy Spirit in a way that keeps them from “mortal” error? What guards, then, against the deceptions of false prophets and false spirits that plagued biblical, presumably Spirit-led, communities (Ter 14:14; Luke 6:26; cf. chapter 3), and of which Christ himself warned (Matt 7:15; 24:11, 24; Mark 13:22; cf. 2 Pet 2:1; Rev 16:13-14)? (Peckham 106-107)

Peckham supposes that all tradition is viciously contradict each other like its going out of style, and that they are in desperate need of sola Scriptura. Last time I checked, those operating on sola Scriptura can not agree which day to worship on (Seventh day vs First day), Infant Baptism, Anthropology (monergism vs synergism, Original Sin vs Original Guilt), Soteriology (OSAS, Eternal Security, Losing salvation), Eschatology (Pre Tribulation theology, Post tribulation theology, Amillennial), Eschatological lenses (Historicism, Partial Preterism, Full Preterism, Futurism), Old Testament covenant interpretation (Covenant theology vs Dispensationalism), Women Pastors, Communion (Real Presence, Spiritual Presence, Just a symbol bro) Baptism (Symbol, necessary for Salvaiton), Liturgical style (Contemportary vs Hymnal/Classical Reformation), Foot Washing as a Sacrament, Iconoclasm Vs Iconodulism.

• “One cannot coherently adopt all the traditions that labeled themselves as Christian because some are mutually exclusive. Further, it is inadequate to claim that we should accept only the teachings of “true” Christians, for this assumes that we already know what true Christianity is, the necessary identification of which is precisely the rationale for appealing to tradition or community as a source or arbiter of interpretation in the first place.” (Peckham, #152)

It is interesting that Peckham makes this critique about Sacred Tradition. The idea that one accepts Tradition, and when asked What tradition? Responding “True Christianity” would beg the question and be circular. I would totally agree, when asked for criteria for True Christianity, responding with True Chrisitanity is circular. This is the same problem Peckham will have in knowing the correct interpretation of Scripture. Claiming that X is the correct interpretation of Scripture will presuppose that we know what the correct interpretation of Scripture is. Therefore Sola Scriptura as a paradigm does not efficiently give individual certitude on an interpretation as it claims to do by virtue of Peckhams critique.

 Peckham admits this later on in the book, explaining how one under the paradigm of Sola Scriptura achieves epistemic certitude about what the correct interpretation of Scripture;

Also, circularity is not necessarily a problem for Peckham, since he explains that Sola Scriptura is circular as well “It is crucial to recognize, then, that the charge of circularity is not a problem for canonical sola Scriptura specifically but a universal epistemological issue” (Peckham, 149). So this critique of Tradition being circular as a paradigm applies to his paradigm as well. Which makes this critique on the basis of Peckhams paradigm a non sequitur not proving anything or reinforcing his paradigm. 

• “The suggestion that only the “universal” creeds be accepted does not suffice because no creed has been universally accepted by all who self-identify as Christians”. (Peckham, 152)

I’m not sure how a creed that is proclaimed to be universal loses its universal status because people have disagreed with the Creed. This is like saying that the universal proposition that 2+2 = 4, is not actually true since there are some that disagree with the universal proposition. The purpose of calling a Creed “universal” is not because every Christian has and will agree with it. It is universal by the fact that Christendom came together at Councils in order to specify what Christendom believes and teaches. We could use this same critique on the Protestant Canon by saying that the Protestant Canon has never been universally accepted therefore the Canon is not to be accepted as universally understood.

• There is, then, considerable controversy among evangelicals over eternal generation, functional subordination, and social vs. Latin conceptions of the Trinity, and such disagreements include fundamentally different interpretations of the Christian tradition. It is difficult to see how the tradition itself could, then, function as interpretive authority. In light of this brief survey of significant contemporary conflicts over the Trinity in evangelical literature, we now return to discuss each of the four ways in which the community approach does not appear to be preferable. (Peckham, 182)

For about a chapter, Peckham lays out the various disagreements amongst Protestants on the understanding of what Church Tradition teaches on the Eternal Generation of the Son. However, just because people disagree does not make something false. This, again, is conflating the two categories in Epistemology of Normative Authority and Individual Certitude. People having differing interpretations is a different question than the Normative Authority itself. This argument that Peckham makes could also be used against him. Well bro there’s a bunch of different interpretations of the Bible, so it must not be sufficient for certainty on doctrine, etc. This critique would be true, however what undergirds this question is Individual Certitude. Or the question of  how do I  come to certainty about Jesus, Church Teaching, etc. That there is a Normative Authority, is a different question that Which Normative Authority is true. 

Also this whole chapter is a non-sequitur, since Protestants are under the paradigm of Sola Scriptura! Peckham later admits this (lol). Honestly this book is very hard to read because of Peckhams double standards and non sequitur arguments. These critiques usually #1) Conflate having a Normative Authority with knowing personally which Normative Authority is true. #2) Non sequitur and double standard  arguments (ex. Irenaeus, Criteria for Canonicity, Varying interpretations of Church Teaching).

This whole chapter of a critique is Peckham whining about how “Bible-believing Christians” disagree on how to interpret Tradition. 

• Conversely, one might rightly point out that Scripture alone also does not settle these debates, as evidenced by the fact that the debates continue among Bible-believing Christians. However, the canonical sola Scriptura approach does not expect Scripture to settle such disputes because of its fundamental (descriptive) recognition of the universal hermeneutical context within which different human interpreters (individual or collective) inevitably contribute to the result of interpretation, leading to unavoidable hermeneutical diversity. (Peckham, 183)

Peckham admits that his critique of Tradition is a double standard. Meaning that his critique is self refuting, in not being able to be applied within his own paradigm. He admits canonical sola Scriptura doesn’t have to settle the issue of interpretation since our paradigm allows dat. So this is just an admission of a double standard. Also, Peckham is realizing that most of his argumentation is conflating the two questions in epistemology of Normative Authority and Individual Certitude.

• In order to implement the authority of the Nicene Creed, however, one must first determine which form should function as the rule of faith.? That is, should the Eastern or Western (filioque) wording of the Creed be adopted? (Peckham, 184)

Yet again, another conflating of Normative Authority and Individual Certitude. That there is a Nicene Creed is a different question from which form of the Creed is true. As Orthodox, we are going to use various criteria (epistemic holism) in order to reach certitude and we believe ultimately the Holy Spirit leads one to certainty. 

• Even with communitarian approaches, individual interpretation that informs the decision of where one will place faith (or not) is unavoidable. As such, the community itself cannot adequately function as the arbiter of truth. (Peckham, 189)

I understand the nature of Peckhams critique, however individual interpretation has a factor in observing all types of evidence. So individual interpretation can not be criteria for why tradition can not function as an arbiter of truth. This, again is a conflation of Normative Authority vs Individual Certitude. We understand that having a Normative Authority does not preclude knowing which Normative Authority is true. We are just arguing that Normative Authority as a means is something important in someone coming to certitude. Not that the concept of Normative Authority magically grants someone certitude.

• Moreover, the canonical approach maintains that each individual has a right to religious freedom and a duty to engage and interpret Scripture and theology in accordance with the individual’s own conscience. The question regarding which community of faith one should be a part of, then, is left to each individual’s decision. Everyone must ultimately choose which religious beliefs to accept (if any) and which community most closely allies with those beliefs. With a canonical approach, the question becomes which community of faith possesses a system that appears to best correspond to the canon, with internal consistency. (Peckham, 190)

This is truly the fruit of Protestantism, and it is a relief to see Peckham be honest. Protestants ultimately are left on their own when it comes to interpreting the Scriptures, and there is no one in Protestantism that can bind someone else to a set of beliefs or propositions about dogma and Church Teaching. At the end of the day, yes we all are interpreting something. However, in Protestantism, it is not interpreting something that is already established, what Jesus left us. Rather, their own personal convictions and what they think Scripture says about certain dogma, teaching, etc. The epitome of falsehood and Man-Made Religion.

• It simply does not follow that because Scripture is often misinterpreted, Scripture is therefore doctrinally insufficient – unless sufficiency is taken to require universal uniformity of interpretation, which seems unattainable. (Peckham, 193)

This book is like nails on a chalkboard. A few pages before Peckham says this about Scripture, he gave the same critique about Tradition. That since Tradition needs to be interpreted, therefore it is not sufficient as criteria to gain certainty. Then, says that since something is misinterpreted it does not follow that it is doctrinally insufficient.

• The final-form canonical approach posited here recognizes the common canonical core as the divinely commissioned basis and rule of Christian doctrine. This recognition is admittedly a methodological presupposition, the justification of which is beyond the scope of this work. (Peckham, 197)

Here, Peckham openly admits that the 66 book canon is a “metholodigcal presupposition” that is not justified in the Protestant paradigm. This is the whole point of the Apostolic Tradition argument. It states that the presuppositon of a 66 book canon is not justified within the Protestant paradigm. Therefore, since this presupposition is #1) arbitrary and #2) not justified. Why should someone use Sola Scriptura as criteria for certainty on dogma, when said criteria is never justified? This is the same struggle that David Hume had with the problem of Induction. Induction is circular, and never justified – so Hume concluded that we can not rationally justify the principle of uniformity. Atheist and Protestants have the same issue, which I prelculed as a faulty epistemology.

• However, given the now-widespread recognition that every system requires the adoption of a starting point (which is not to say all are equally viable),? it seems appropriate to accept the biblical canon as basis of Christian doctrine given Scriptures own claims and its historical role within Christianity. (Peckham, 197)

The issue here is the 66 book canon is not a ‘basic’ foundational presuppostion for Christian epistemology. As show, the Early Church did not operate on Sola Scriptura and that the canon, as admitted by Protestant Scholars admit that there was a development up until the 4th century. The idea that the 66 book canon is foundational and epsitemically ‘basic’ is only a Protestant presupposition. This is why we are asking for justification for inteligility for said Canon, which would ground the presuppositon of Sola Scriptura .

• To be sure, the question of the final form of the canonical text includes a great deal of complexity, requiring considerable care. As a working approach it seems reasonable to approach the canonical text in the extant form(s) that we have, admitting the lack of access to a complete, original, final form. This final-form approach thus utilizes the most attested findings of textual criticism wherever such bear on the canonical meaning of the text. However, canonical theology does not divert attention to non-manuscript-based reconstruction of the text based on form, source, or tradition criticism because of the unavoidably conjectural nature of such undertakings. Rather, attention is focused on the received corpus of canonical texts and the study thereof, focusing on textual and in-tertextual hermeneutics regarding the final form of the sixty-six-book canon without neglecting textual issues that pertain to extant texts from this canon. (Peckham, 200)

This is another truly honest admission from Peckham—that Protestants ultimately do not have a Canon. There is no normative decision that constitutes what the Canon, or a normative list of books that constitute the Bible. Therefore, the Canon is subject to Reformation (or indefinite in nature), since there is no definite list of books that constitute what the Bible is. The problem with this idea is that Textual Criticism does not gives you a 66 book canon, the Qumran Caves do not provide Protestants with a 66 book canon. And if “extra textual factors such as tradition” do not play a role in the Canon. This leads to the logical conslusion in Protestantism is that there is no definite canon. 

• I agree with Vanhoozer that “we must read the Bible canonically, as one book. Each part has meaning in light of the whole (and in light of its center, Jesus Christ).(Peckham, 202)

I totally agree with Vanhoozers dedcution about the Bible, that is should be read in light of the other books within it (which also presuposses a closed Canon). However, within Protestantism thert is no definite canon, and we don’t know what goes into the whole. Therefore, how can one make the dedcution that you ought to read the books as a whole, when there is no whole/ the whole has not been fully determine? Its a faulty and incomplete epistemology.

• A canonical “system” looks beyond (without overlooking) the limits of individual texts and passages, viewing its parts in light of the whole and its whole in light of its parts without imposing one upon the other. (Peckham, 206)

Peckhams Systematic Theology requires a canon, out of his own admission. If a canonical system does not only require individual Scriptures, rather the totality of Scripture. Therefore, a canon is required to hold a canonical system. However, as shown, there is no Canon in Protestantism.

• Thus, the text itself is not identical to the complexity and fullness of the intention in the author’s consciousness at the precise time of writing. (Peckham, 211)

• There is a determinate meaning that the author intended to convey in the text, notwithstanding the fact that the interpreter is incapable of capturing the entirety of that intended meaning. (Peckham, 211)

Now things are getting absurd, Peckham admits that the canon–or the list of books is indefinite and is not definitely known to man. Now he is admitting that Scripture itself is not able to be known by the interpretator and that the “original intended meaning” could be in some way altered since it is communicated though men. This is the absurdity of Protestantism, there is no definite decision in terms of doctrine. Therefore there is no things that we can know definitely about dogma and Church Teaching.

• In this regard, I adopt hermeneutical (critical) realism such that determinate meaning exists in the text prior to and independent of interpretation while recognizing that the interpreter brings his or her own horizon to the text such that explicating the meaning in the text is an imperfect, complex, and continual process. Thus, while there is an objective standard (the text), the interpreter may never attain that standard perfectly in interpretation. (Peckham 212)

My only question for Peckham is, is the text ‘super basic’ or do the texts require and presuppose personal criteria in interpretating said text. If the texts are basic, and are epistemically prior to interpretation–then personal interpretation is not critera in understanding the texts. However, out of Peckhams admission–personal interpretation is in effect in knowing the meaning of the text. This seems to be a conflating of Normative Authority vs Individual Certitude. Just because there is an authoritative book in history is a different question from how to interpret the authoritative book. Protestantism ultimately collapses since there is no normative way to interpret said book. And, therefore, no answer to the second question that we are calling into question. This is why we see Peckham trying to use the authroitative book to grant an indivdual interpretation. However, as we see, this is not the books function, and nor does this end up achieving what it sets out to achieve.

Conclusion of the book

I would give this book a 5/5 since I truly admire and respect the scholarship of the book. Even though I disagree with the canonical Sola Scriptura model. I will now lay out three critiques that undergird the book.

#1) Conflation of Normative Autority vs Individual Certitude 

• Peckham throughout the book makes the critique, exclaiming “which tradition”? However, Peckham fails to realize that the question of Individual Certitude or how an individual comes to certitude about dogma and Church Teaching is a different question in epistemology to acknowledging a Normative Authority. In order to begin laying down criteria for which Normative Authority is true, one must accept the concept of Normative Authority. However, within Protestantism there is no normative authority. Or a group of people in history that have the authority to bind the consciousness of believers. Which we will point out as a faulty position.

#2) Assuption that the written text alone is God’s Word

• For texts such as Matthew 15 and various Church letters such as Thessalonians, Peckham will assume that the written text alone constitutes God’s word However, this presuppostion is problematic. In the sence that, if one held that God’s word is limited to the written text alone. Paul and Peters oral preaching was not God’s word (or fallible) and there are too many problmes withs assuming that Pauls preaching was fallible. This presuppositon would also contradict Scripture. This argument I make in my paper; Also, this equivocation fallacy would lead to a contradiction since Paul claims that his oral preaching was the Word of God apart from the Written Text; “the word of God, which you heard from us”.

#3) Lack of Normative Canon or Interpretation of Canon
The logic that stems from not having a Normative Authority, or not having a group of people that have the authority in history to bind the consciousness of believers leads to an arbitrary Theology. Theology is always in reform, therefore the Canon also is subject to reform. Sola Scriptura depends on a fixed and definite Canon (tota Scriptura), which its paradigm can not account for. Jude 1:3 exclaims that the faith is delivered once and for all. However, Protestants argue that the faith was given incomplete, and ‘in reformation and always reforming’. Which the Orthodox rightly point out as heresy.