Third Response (SHORT VERSION) to Gerry Soliman – A Brief Note on Discerning the Canon

Moses striking the Rock while Aaron standing on his side wearing a Mitre

*******

Gerry Soliman’s “response” to me also contains the following answer to one of my responses, which is one of the strangest and weirdest attempts at Protestant apologetics that I’ve ever seen. I have put Mr. Soliman’s text in blue and red, my answer is in bold black.

This is the SHORT VERSION. I have a second, LONG VERSION of my response, which I can post when necessary.

A Variant of the White Question

#13 - How could the Jews know that books of Kings or Isaiah were Scripture?

Mr. Palad's Response: They had access to the inspired voice of a continuous stream of patriarchs and prophets, ending with John the Baptist. We can also point to the Seat of Moses (a reference to the teaching authority of the High Priest and the Sanhedrin).

Comment: Unfortunately for Mr. Palad, he does not get the implication of the question. Roman Catholics claim that they know the books that belongs in the Bible because their infallible magisterium tells them so. But for the Jews who were born years before Christ how did they know that Kings or Isaiah were Scripture when there is no Catholic Church at that time? In fairness Mr. Palad's response is somewhat accurate which the Jews can inquire from the High Priest and Sanhedrin. But is Mr. Palad actually saying that Old Testament authorities were infallible like the claim he gives for the Church of Rome? If so, what is his basis? Can he actually present credible historical data that the Old Testament High Priest, Sanhedrin, patriarchs, and prophets claimed infallibility or were recognized as infallible? If it was possible for the Old Testament Jews to rightly identify the Scriptures without an aid of an infallible authority, then infallibility for the church is out of the question.

Mr. Soliman, in his crusade against the papacy, sets up an argument that openly questions the infallibility of the Old Testament patriarchs and prophets. This is a horrendous blasphemy that no real Evangelical would even countenance. If the patriarchs and prophets are not infallible, then what is the point of considering the Old Testament to be God’s infallible Word???

In addition, apart from the question of the infallibility of the Prophets and Patriarchs, if we are to grant the correctness Mr. Soliman’s argument that the Jews were capable of discerning Scriptures on their own without any authority then this should greatly hurt the Protestant position. The Old Testament Jews, for instance, accepted the Books of Tobit, Judith, the 2 Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus and Baruch, as we can see from the pre-Christian “Septuagint” Bible. If – according to Mr. Soliman – the Old Testament Jews were capable of pointing out which books are inspired, then why do the Protestants keep rejecting the verdict of the Old Testament Jews, and accept instead the reduced “Canon” of Scriptures codified by some of the Rabbis of post-Temple Judaism, who had rejected Christ and the Apostles and had anathemized the Christians?

Be it an Old Testament Jew or a New Testament Christian, they have fellowship with God. Through this fellowship, they developed a relationship with God which made them know the character of God. And since they know God, they can recognize his words and tell if they are Scriptures:

You know, I think a lot of Protestants will shout this down as heresy. Are you stating that the Old Testament Jews and the New Testament Christians are on an equal plane, and have the same fellowship and relationship with God, and had the same knowledge of God? This flies in the face of all Biblical and apostolic teaching, and makes the Death of the Savior and the very Gospel itself unnecessary.

It should also be obvious that to appeal to the special situation of the Jews who lived prior to Our Lord’s life, ministry, and saving Passion, in order to debunk what the Catholic Church teaches regarding the way by which spiritual certainty is accessible to the men of the time AFTER the Ascension of Our Lord, is extremely foolish, and implicitly denies the distinction between the Old and New Testaments.

Enough said.

When he has brought out all his own, he goes on ahead of them, and his sheep follow him because they know his voice. But they will never follow a stranger; in fact, they will run away from him because they do not recognize a stranger's voice. John 10:4-5 NIV

Thank you for citing this verse, which also powerfully points out – if you didn’t notice – the need for the sheep to follow the shepherd. In the Catholic Church, the Holy Father is our Pastor, who stands as the representative of, and by the authority of, Christ the Good Shepherd. The same cannot be said of the Protestants, who by no stretch of the imagination can be seen as a single sheepfold following a single shepherd.