Home

There is no source outside of the witness of the Early Church that gives Protestants intelligibility of the Scriptures. Even Protestants’ criterion for canonicity are contingent upon the veracity, trustworthiness and authority of the testimony of the Church. It is not the case that the Early Church was lucky–and by chance got the Canon right. Rather–there would be no intelligibility of the Divine Scripture without the Early Churches witness. Thus–Protestants are consciously bound to the decision that the Church eventually made on the Canon. According to the Classical Reformation teaching–the means by which the Christian conscience is bound on doctrine is through the Scripture Alone. The Early Churches witness is the pillar by which intelligibility of Scripture rests–which Protestants are bound to–this being outside Scripture–and ergo, is inconsistent and incompatible in the Protestant paradigm (specifically Sola Scriptura).

We can prove this by showing the dependency that the Protestants have on the Early Church for intelligibility of Scripture. Descriptive aspects of Scripture aside from the text itself claiming to be of Divine Origin such as widespread “orthodoxy”/acceptance, and Apostolic origin are contingent upon the fact that the Early Churches witness is reliable such that there is a loss of liberty of conscience to these propositions. This shows a major inconsistency in the Protestant paradigm–since intelligibility of the Divine Scripture is a proposition that is binding to the point where liberty of conscience is lost. And thus undermines the ethos behind Sola Scriptura–that we are bound in a way in which liberty of conscience is lost to the Divine Scriptures alone. The proposition “the Bible is the sole Infallible rule of faith” assumes a way to account for what consists of the Bible. Protestantism doesn’t do this–which I see as a deficient position.

If according to the Westminster Confession that: “God alone is lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of man which are in any thing contrary to his Word”–or in other words the Word of God alone has the ability to restrain the liberty of conscious. And, the Early Churches witness–bringing forth intelligibility of the Divine Scripture is binding in such a way that there is a loss of liberty of conscience. Will end up putting the Early Churches witness on par with the Word of God. Thus–refuting the Protestant paradigm of Sola Scriptura.

Also–if a Protestant were to affirm that one can retain a liberty of conscience on the Early Churches witness of the Biblical Canon. This undermines the very foundation by which we know what the Divine Scriptures are. Then on no basis–could a Protestant bind me to what the Church would eventually acknowledge is Divine Scripture, or adding texts that were formally rejected by the Early Church witness.