On What Ground do You Presuppositionalists Pre-Suppose Your'e Pre-Suppositions? And other questions.

[LeviRPCGA]

I agree, but if we are presupposing Scripture in order to make sense of everything--and granted that is a more Clarkian slant than a Van Tillian one--it is not clear why we need the Protestant canon to do so. Now, if the Van Tillian isn't claiming as much as first generation presups did, then he can say that the Protestant canon is justified on historical grounds, and I wouldn't disagree. That is a more moderate claim.

I will try to say it another way:

If we take our stand on the Self-Contained Concrete Universal, we presumably do so from knowledge of Scripture, yet the canon of Scripture is an posteriori fact. A legitimate one, but one doesn't normally think of a posteriori facts as the things we need to make sense of everything else.

We cannot presuppose anything without the use of propositions. The Canonization of Scripture as an event is posteriori, but the very existence of the Word of God is a priori which of course is then revealed by way propositions to man in order to make sense of anything at all. Romans 1 and John 1. See also the 1st chapter of the WCF.

The fact that the Canon is the Word of God is justified by the Logos Himself and it is by Him alone that any man has any understanding whatsoever (John 1:9). Where do we find this? From the very mind of God Himself that is contained in the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments and is the only rule whereby we may glorify God and enjoy Him.

We cannot presuppose anything without the use of propositions. The Canonization of Scripture as an event is posteriori, but the very existence of the Word of God is a priori which of course is then revealed by way propositions to man in order to make sense of anything at all. Romans 1 and John 1. See also the 1st chapter of the WCF.

The fact that the Canon is the Word of God is justified by the Logos Himself and it is by Him alone that any man has any understanding whatsoever (John 1:9). Where do we find this? From the very mind of God Himself that is contained in the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments and is the only rule whereby we may glorify God and enjoy Him.

To be clear, I am not saying the Word of God contains the WHOLE mind of God. There must be a proper application of Deut 29:29.

 

[RamistThomist]

We cannot presuppose anything without the use of propositions. The Canonization of Scripture as an event is posteriori, but the very existence of the Word of God is a priori which of course is then revealed by way propositions to man in order to make sense of anything at all. Romans 1 and John 1. See also the 1st chapter of the WCF.

The fact that the Canon is the Word of God is justified by the Logos Himself and it is by Him alone that any man has any understanding whatsoever (John 1:9). Where do we find this? From the very mind of God Himself that is contained in the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments and is the only rule whereby we may glorify God and enjoy Him.

I agree with all of that, but nothing in those two paragraphs would give me 66 books instead of 67 books.

 

[Cornelius Van Halen]

I agree with all of that, but nothing in those two paragraphs would give me 66 books instead of 67 books.

In debates regarding canon, do you presuppose that God exists and reveals Himself? If God doesn’t exist or doesn’t reveal Himself, there’s no point to a canon.

What about God and revelation must be known to determine canon?

And where do you learn that?

 

[Knight]

As has been discussed elsewhere, a useful distinction (that would be relevant in this context) is knowledge of God's word vs. a defense of [one's knowledge of] God's word (link). In turn, we might also distinguish various meanings of "knowledge."

 

[RamistThomist]

In debates regarding canon, do you presuppose that God exists and reveals Himself? If God doesn’t exist or doesn’t reveal Himself, there’s no point to a canon.

In terms of the order of being, yes God exists. I am not disputing whether we should presuppose that God exists.

What about God and revelation must be known to determine canon?

That seems like the question I am asking.

 

[Cornelius Van Halen]

I think the Character and Attributes of the God we presuppose have a fair bit to do with our understanding of Canon.

WCF 1.3 "The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon of the Scripture, and therefore are of no authority in the church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings.
WCF 1.4 "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 hold that the Scripture is inspired because the author is God, and that the Canon is, as B.B. Warfield notes, the “collection of books given of God to be the authoritative rule of faith and practice.”

So, to have a Canon, for it to even be a subject worthy of consideration, we need to have the foundation that God is personal, that He has spoken, that what He speaks is authoritative and that it doesn't contradict Himself (He can't contradict Himself).

It seems to me that to even be able to identify criteria for determining a canon, we need to presuppose that God exists, and that He speaks.

And, to be fully circular, we know about God and that He is a God who speaks because of Scripture. We know about His character, and His attributes, and can discern which books are canonical because we have God-Breathed revelation. We determine books to be non-authoritative because we have books that are authoritative.

Do presuppositions about God and Revelation support 66 books instead of 67? I think it's reasonable to suggest that without those foundations, we don't have the criteria to defend our canon. We don't even have a reason to assume there is a canon.

 

[Cornelius Van Halen]

Okay, I guess that makes sense in a way, though it does not resolve all my questions.
If you pardon me moving the goalposts a little, how would you reply to a covenant child, or a doubting, yet quite possibly regenerate Christian, regarding the reasons to trust in scripture? How does this self-attestation of the scripture work in practice?

Sorry, I missed this earlier. This is a lengthier answer than I initially intended, so please forgive me.

For a covenant child, or doubting Christian, there are two important realities. First, as has been mentioned, we are dependent upon the Holy Spirit to shine light on the truth, to remind our children or doubting believers of Christ and His Word. We cannot engage as though we were the end-all, necessary element of an encounter like this. However, the Lord has given us, as @Knight put so eloquently, beautiful tools within Scripture and the ability to craft clear and powerful arguments.

Van Til connects these realities by stating, "that we preach with the understanding that the acceptance of the Christ of Scriptures by sinners who, being alienated from God, seek to flee his face, comes about when the Holy Spirit, in the presence of inescapably clear evidence, opens their eyes so that they see things as they truly are."

For Van Til, the Spirit is absolutely necessary, but that doesn't mean we abandon the use of inescapably clear evidence.

What evidence would I provide to my child?
I'd like to cite all of WCF 1.5, as it is relevant in its entirety:
"We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the church to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture (1 Tim. 3.15). 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 (1 John 2.20,27; John 16.13-14; 1 Cor. 2.10-12; Isa. 59.21)."

The Scriptures are beautiful, and even within the discovery of canon, we find incredible elements that support the inspiration. Voddie Bauchkam has a lecture entitled "Why I choose to believe the Bible" (A youtube link is Here). Voddie holds to a flavor of presuppositionalism, outlined in his book Expository Apologetics. He provides excellent arguments, clear pieces of evidence. But without the Spirit, full persuasion is not possible. That doesn't diminish the usefulness of the arguments; they are pieces of evidence that are useful in "destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God" (1 Cor. 10.5).

To take it a step further, Van Til also writes on p. 17 of Christian Apologetics, that "apologetics is the vindication of the Christian philosophy of life against the various forms of the non-Christian philosophy of life." I think here he is showing some connectivity with Kuyper in his famous statement that "principle must be arrayed against principle" - that is, it's a battle of worldviews.

I include this because, in the apologetic task, I think logical arguments, syllogisms, rhetorical devices, and a whole host of other strategies are incredibly useful for knocking down arguments, answering difficult questions, and presenting positive arguments for a Christian worldview. But it's a bit like the end of Star Wars Episode 4 - you don't win by destroying all the Tie Fighters (each opposing argument), you win by blowing up the Death Star. I think, when it comes to tools we can utilize, Scripture alone "blows up the Death Star." I believe this to be the case because of the Holy Spirit's activity in giving us new hearts, and new eyes to see.

Finally, in the most practical sense, the very first thing I would do is this: "Why are you doubting?"

Is my child doubting because he's having an epistemological crisis? Or is it because he's having a hard time reconciling something in scripture? Or is it because he's sinning?

And if we keep talking and he tells me that it's because there is a different authority that denies Scripture, knocking down that authority with clear evidence is a wonderful thing. Even better is affirming the truth of the Scriptures by letting the wisdom of God address my child's issue.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

It's worth a separate thread at some point to discuss how the Protestant Churches confessed the books of the Scripture that we commonly call the Canon.

It's not quite accurate that the 66 books we recognize as canonical were presupposed to be Canonical. The Church has answered the question differently in Church history.

There's even a medieval distinction in theology by which Luther questioned the Book of James not on its full inspiration but on its status in some areas that he initially thought spoke against a key tenet as he saw Christ as the scope of the Scriptures.

Calvin and some other Reformers didn't simply tell the Papists that he presupposed 66 books but judged them according to their doctrine. This is why many Reformed confessions place the Apocrypha outside the Canon but consider them Ecclesiastical works.

For the purposes of this thread, however, it suffices to note that the recognition by the Church of those books that we consider Scripture was not by way of presupposition.

 

[Cornelius Van Halen]

Can you provide criteria to determine canonicity that doesn’t presuppose that God reveals himself through His Word?

[edit] Before anyone utilized tools to formulate Canon, wasn’t presupposing that God speaks authoritatively a requirement?

 

[RamistThomist]

Can you provide criteria to determine canonicity that doesn’t presuppose that God reveals himself through His Word?

[edit] Before anyone utilized tools to formulate Canon, wasn’t presupposing that God speaks authoritatively a requirement?

Everyone would have agreed with that in the ancient church. Even granting the truth/proposition:

God reveals himself through his word--

Doesn't tell me what criteria should be used for the canon.

My bottom line is that all sides have to go to the historical process/evidence on canonization.

 

[Cornelius Van Halen]

Is "His words must be consistent with Himself" not criteria?

 

[RamistThomist]

Is "His words must be consistent with Himself" not criteria?

It's a necessary condition, but not a sufficient one. It does not rule out Wisdom of Solomon, for example. And if I were to play Devil's Advocate, I'd point out you can't even begin with "what is consistent with Himself." That's the very thing under discussion.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

To be clear, as well, the Confession doesn't say that we reason what we think is consistent with God in Himself. He condescends to us by way of Covenant, and only then do we have any fruition in Him. In other words, His revelation is. Abraham didn't presuppose that God would reveal Himself to him. God condescended and revealed Himself.

The post-Reformation dogmaticians also argued that, in its infancy, God revealed Himself by way of dreams and visions to families, but as the people of God grew from a family to a nation to nations, God inscripurated His revealed will. Moses didn't reason that God would do this. It happened in human history for the benefit of the people of God.

 

[Cornelius Van Halen]

@RamistThomist Good. I think we agree, right?

God being consistent and revealing Himself is a necessary condition for the Canon. Ultimately, we discover it - we don't determine it. It was God who formed it.

Therefore, before doing any other steps regarding 66 or 67 books, step one is to believe in God and believe that God speaks. That's my point. Are there other steps? Sure. Does presupposing God and Scripture mean I can't discuss/interact with those other steps? Am I saying I would never entertain those topics/questions with an Atheist? No - who would propose such things?
OP's question was, "What do you presuppose?" I presuppose God and the Scriptures.

As for consistency between God and His Word, I'm totally at home with being circular in my reasoning. I can and will begin with the Scriptures, where He has revealed Himself. At some point, I have to come to the end of myself, even when I'm defending canon to an atheist/Muslim/etc.

Eventually, when pressed, I need to state that I believe the Bible is God's Word and it is the standard by which I judge other things. And, if an interlocutor rejects that standard and refuses to acknowledge the voice of the King, then winning or losing the debate on canonicity is the least of my concerns. If they reject Jesus and believe in 67 books instead, I'll be pretty uninterested in debating canon with them. In fact, I would be totally fine with them walking away from the conversation, having heard the Gospel, and still believing that 2 Maccabees should be in the Bible.

To be clear, as well, the Confession doesn't say that we reason what we think is consistent with God in Himself. He condescends to us by way of Covenant, and only then do we have any fruition in Him. In other words, His revelation is. Abraham didn't presuppose that God would reveal Himself to him. God condescended and revealed Himself.

I'm not sure I understand the point. How is presupposing God and Scripture to discuss Canon related to Abraham presupposing that God would reveal Himself? I'm not engaging in an apologetic task with God. That would be a really short conversation if I was trying to prove to God that He speaks to me, while He's speaking to me.

When Abraham takes Isaac up on the Hill, he rests on the Character of God and the Authority of His Word - Abraham will be the father of many nations, through the promised son. Abraham even acknowledges that they will come down the hill together. I doubt he tried to prove to Isaac that God spoke to him on the way up the mountain. Probably, like David, He continued to remind himself of the content of what God told him.

May I flip the question? How would you discuss canonicity with an inquisitive atheist or Muslim?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

May I flip the question? How would you discuss canonicity with an inquisitive atheist or Muslim?

The same way the Reformed Orthodox argued for the 66 books, making historical and theological arguments. The same way that WCF does as to which 66 books are to be considered canonical.

The Reformers were not Clarkians. They didn't simply respond to Canonical questions with the answer that they presuppose the Canonicity of 66 books with no other arguments.

 

[Cornelius Van Halen]

Would you give an example of a Theological argument that doesn't presuppose your belief in God and Scripture?

I've stated, more than once, that the point is that before you do historical and theological argumentation, you have to have some sort of foundation. Mine is God and Scripture. I don't think this is inconsistent with Van Til, as he cites using clear evidence (which I've referred to repeatedly). Additionally, I've suggested that I would use historical and theological arguments. See posts #2, 7, 21 36, 37, and 44. These posts suggest utilizing historical and theological argumentations, while the arguments themselves aren't necessarily spelled out (given the OP's original parameters).

 

[Laborer for the Lord]

Is "His words must be consistent with Himself" not criteria?

Certainly, but it is not the only, nor even the most important, criteria when examining the historical process by which the Church of ages past identified certain writings, prophetic utterances, or miscellaneous sayings as being nothing less than λόγιον θεός. Here, I think, is where a rich understanding of Biblical Theology comes into play. Revelatory history really begins with the Pentateuch; the circumstances of its authorship and its being received by the children of Israel and all subsequent generations of Jews as divinely inspired is set forth in the Exodus narrative. The ultimate foundation on which the authority of the Torah rested was the mighty acts of YHWH Himself in creation and redemption; God working in and through history to perform that which He had promised aforetime to the patriarchs, both to deliver and bless His people as well as punish His adversaries. The ten plagues of Egypt, the parting of the Red Sea, and the various deliverances and judgments wrought during Israel's forty year sojourn in the wilderness all served as authenticating 'witnesses' to the exclusive reality of the Living God and the validity of His Word. That this was the basis of the Israelite nation and its faith is reiterated time and again both in the Mosaic law as well as in the Psalms.

Subsequent revelation was to be judged on the criteria of how it stood in relation with the doctrines taught in the Pentateuch; any oracle or "dreamers of dreams" who tempted the people to turn aside from the pure worship of YHWH and of fidelity to the covenant was to be recognized as a false teacher and stoned to death, even if they performed 'signs' or 'wonders' (Deuteronomy 13:1-5). Likewise, a prophet's legitimacy was contingent on whether or not what he/she had spoken indeed came to pass or failed to do so (Deuteronomy 18:20-22). Thus, a thorough acquaintance with the existing Scriptures, combined with formal theological instruction by the priests, and made efficacious by a work of the Spirit in the hearts of believers, would have sufficiently equipped God's people to discern whether 'new revelation' was bogus or legit. Obviously, some candidates would have been harder to discern than others (Esther, for example), but we know from much recent scholarship that by the post-exilic period, there was a general consensus among the Jews on the OT canon, notwithstanding Malachi, Zechariah, and Haggai, whose sayings had yet to be written down.

In the New Testament period, likewise, we see this pattern recur of God's herald/prophet announcing the divinely prepared message (in this case, the spokesman being the Messiah Himself), God confirming His word with miraculous displays of His power, which evidence ought be sufficient for its recognition (John 5:36-37, John 10:25, John 10:37-38, John 14:10-11), and the receipt of the gospel message in light of prior revelation (Acts 17:11). Going forward, then, it is Christ's own precepts, as relayed by the narrative accounts of His ministry, as well as the teachings of the apostles and their recognized inner circle (i.e. Jude, James, Luke, Mark) that form the nucleus of Christian doctrine and practice. All subsequent church material, whether devotional, exegetical, or applicatory, is subordinate to this body of New Testament Scripture (1 Corinthians 14:37-38, Jude 1:3).

 

[Laborer for the Lord]

For those who are generally interested the theological processes by which the New Testament canon in particular was determined, Ligonier Ministries has a series presented by Professor Michael Kruger from RTS Charlotte. I found it pretty helpful in framing the issues of Sola Scriptura as well as how we can have confidence that the Protestant canon (i.e the 66 books) is indeed the one most faithful to the church's historic confession.

The New Testament Canon

 

[LeviRPCGA]

Everyone would have agreed with that in the ancient church. Even granting the truth/proposition:

God reveals himself through his word--

Doesn't tell me what criteria should be used for the canon.

My bottom line is that all sides have to go to the historical process/evidence on canonization.

Not if we may rightfully rely upon the Holy Spirit being the Supreme judge of all things pertaining to the Word of God. WCF 1.10.

I believe history bears out that the events of canonization are nothing more than evidence of this very fact and are not authoritative in and of themselves.

 

[RamistThomist]

Not if we may rightfully rely upon the Holy Spirit being the Supreme judge of all things pertaining to the Word of God. WCF 1.10.

I believe history bears out that the events of canonization are nothing more than evidence of this very fact and are not authoritative in and of themselves.

All of that is true, but history's bearing out is not a priori judgment.

 

[Cornelius Van Halen]

These are places of disconnect in the responses to the statement regarding presuppositions and canon:

1. To "bear something out in history" requires, at a foundational level, the belief that it exists. Why would anyone form a Canon, and seek to make historical and theological arguments for it if they don't believe the God of the Bible speaks? This question has not been answered. Additionally, believing the foundation is necessary in no way devalues or removes the need to apply or utilize historical and theological arguments regarding issues of canonicity. Not a single person has said otherwise.

2. The Reformed Argumentation for Canonicity was within the context of other people who a) already believed in God and b) already believed God spoke authoritatively. I would be surprised to learn that the Reformers were having canon discussions with atheists or Muslims! Even so, the theological and historical arguments still stand on the fact of God and the fact that God Spoke. If these men didn't believe this, they would not have made an effort to form a canon. Muller writes in PRRD2 3.1.A:

“The logical priority of Scripture over all other means of religious knowing in the church—tradition, present-day corporate or official doctrine, and individual insight or illumination—lies at the heart of the teaching of the Reformation and of its great confessional documents.” Scripture has a logical priority.

Muller, in his Dictionary of Latin and Greek terms, defines principia theologiae this way:

"fundamental principles or foundations of theology. According to the Protestant scholastics, theology has two principia, Scripture and God, i.e., the revelation and the one who reveals himself.”

3. With fear and trepidation I ask this question, by whose standard do you determine Canon? In fact, who is it that determines canon? Regarding canon, isn't this the historical dilemma between Rome and Reformation?

4. A major part of the presuppositional argument, which has yet to be stated, is not only that I bring the presuppositions of God and Revelation to the table - it is that all arguments, whether or not they acknowledge it, depend on that reality. God and Scripture are the necessary preconditions for this argument. Why can we have discussions regarding God and what he says? Because He is, and because He said it.

I understand that canon was worked out in history. That has nothing to do with the foundational truths that must be acknowledged to have that discussion.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

These are places of disconnect in the responses to the statement regarding presuppositions and canon:

1. To "bear something out in history" requires, at a foundational level, the belief that it exists. Why would anyone form a Canon, and seek to make historical and theological arguments for it if they don't believe the God of the Bible speaks? This question has not been answered. Additionally, believing the foundation is necessary in no way devalues or removes the need to apply or utilize historical and theological arguments regarding issues of canonicity. Not a single person has said otherwise.

2. The Reformed Argumentation for Canonicity was within the context of other people who a) already believed in God and b) already believed God spoke authoritatively. I would be surprised to learn that the Reformers were having canon discussions with atheists or Muslims! Even so, the theological and historical arguments still stand on the fact of God and the fact that God Spoke. If these men didn't believe this, they would not have made an effort to form a canon. Muller writes in PRRD2 3.1.A:



Muller, in his Dictionary of Latin and Greek terms, defines principia theologiae this way:



3. With fear and trepidation I ask this question, by whose standard do you determine Canon? In fact, who is it that determines canon? Regarding canon, isn't this the historical dilemma between Rome and Reformation?

4. A major part of the presuppositional argument, which has yet to be stated, is not only that I bring the presuppositions of God and Revelation to the table - it is that all arguments, whether or not they acknowledge it, depend on that reality. God and Scripture are the necessary preconditions for this argument. Why can we have discussions regarding God and what he says? Because He is, and because He said it.

I understand that canon was worked out in history. That has nothing to do with the foundational truths that must be acknowledged to have that discussion.

One cannot hang everything on a simple presupposition.

You quote one sentence from Muller on Canon, where the entire volume deals with all the ways in which the post-Reformation orthodox refined the doctrine of Scripture and developed doctrines and arguments to argue for the Canon of Scripture.

Assuming you have read the volume, you may recall that Scripture is the principium cognoscendi - that it is the cognitive foundation of revealed theology.

Even so, it did not stop the Reformed orthodox from noting that the way we know that the Scripture is the Word of God includes evidences that it is the Word of God. Though, ultimately we are persuaded by the Holy Spirit that it is, these evidences manifest themselves and were argued for by the Reformed.

In fact, the Reformed argued against the inclusion of the Apocrypha into the Canon not by some appeal to presuppositions but by a process of demonstrating that the books did not meet the external criteria of being canonical. They contradicted other teachings clearly taught, they were poorly written, etc.

The point here is not to reject presuppositions but that you can't wield the idea of presuppositions in a clumsy manner and claim that it answers every area of investigation and argument. The purpose of a presupposition is to establish where you start the theological method and is not the theological method en toto.

 

[Cornelius Van Halen]

Assuming you have read the volume, you may recall that Scripture is the principium cognoscendi - that it is the cognitive foundation of revealed theology.

Principium cognoscendi, "is the ground or basis on which something is known” (Muller)

How does this do anything other than support my claim?

The point here is not to reject presuppositions but that you can't wield the idea of presuppositions in a clumsy manner and claim that it answers every area of investigation and argument.

When did I do this? The question was "what presuppositions do you have?" I gave my presuppositions. I suggested the need for historical and theological argumentation. That doesn't change the fact that they are foundational.

The purpose of a presupposition is to establish where you start the theological method and is not the theological method en toto.

This is the whole point that we've been discussing! My point, from the beginning, has been that these are necessary starting points. Not that they function in isolation. I'm beginning to wonder if you've read what I've said at all.

Also, does anything further along in Muller negate that passage? My reading thus far has not done suggested anything of the sort. In fact, it supports the statement made at the sections beginning. I can quote larger sections, but that seems tedious for the conversations purposes.

What about the dictionary entry? That entry is more substantial for the argument I was making, and I noticed you overlooked it.

I would love to be charitable, but it is exhausting to read you disagree with me by ending your post with my exact argument.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Principium cognoscendi, "is the ground or basis on which something is known” (Muller)

How does this do anything other than support my claim?



When did I do this? The question was "what presuppositions do you have?" I gave my presuppositions. I suggested the need for historical and theological argumentation. That doesn't change the fact that they are foundational.



This is the whole point that we've been discussing! My point, from the beginning, has been that these are necessary starting points. Not that they function in isolation. I'm beginning to wonder if you've read what I've said at all.

Also, does anything further along in Muller negate that passage? My reading thus far has not done suggested anything of the sort. In fact, it supports the statement made at the sections beginning. I can quote larger sections, but that seems tedious for the conversations purposes.

What about the dictionary entry? That entry is more substantial for the argument I was making, and I noticed you overlooked it.

I would love to be charitable, but it is exhausting to read you disagree with me by ending your post with my exact argument.

My response was prompted by this fundamental assertion:

These are places of disconnect in the responses to the statement regarding presuppositions and canon:

Who was "disconnected" from the foundation? Who has been denying the notion that the foundation of theological inquiry is the Scriptures? In fact, I was the first to quote Muller at length regarding how the Reformed argued for the Scriptures as being the foundation of theological inquiry.

The question about Canon hasn't been about theological foundation but how one arrives at and defends 66 books. That is not arrived at by mere presupposition.

So, I might respond by noting that your post, in the stream of the conversation was completely superfluous because it does nothing to advance how Canonical books are arrived at but merely recapitulates what everyone agrees with.

 

[Cornelius Van Halen]

That's fair.

Thanks!

 

[Laborer for the Lord]

The Reformed Argumentation for Canonicity was within the context of other people who a) already believed in God and b) already believed God spoke authoritatively. I would be surprised to learn that the Reformers were having canon discussions with atheists or Muslims! Even so, the theological and historical arguments still stand on the fact of God and the fact that God Spoke.

You're absolutely correct in that the formulation of the WCF and other Reformed standards' statements on the canon were effectively the fruit of 'intramural' discussion within the wider bounds of Christendom, wherein all participants assumed at the outset both that a personal (i.e. an intentional, rational, and communicative) God existed, as well as the fact that He has revealed Himself in the creation broadly and in Scripture specifically. But those two presuppositions alone do not suffice to inform the lay-person, neither in the Reformers' day nor our own, which of the myriad religious tomes constitutes genuine Holy Writ, though they are essential preconditions for its possibility. The fact of the matter is that such questions were largely dealt with in a prefatory manner in most dogmatic theologies of the 16th or 17th centuries, not because the issue was itself deemed unimportant, but because a genuine consensus existed among the Protestant communion about the way in which the church could correctly identify those books that were inspired. As @Semper Fidelis pointed out above, WCF 1.5 furnishes a brief list of Scripture's 'excellencies' that the young catechumen ought contemplate when hearing/reading the Word so as to aid in the forming of a full assurance of belief. In other words, the divines did not discount evidence as an aid to faith.

In our own day, and especially since the advent of Enlightenment era biblical criticism, all sorts of arguments have been leveled against the canon as having been an arbitrary post-hoc development, either of the Babylonian Jews in the case of the OT or the 3rd century church with regards to the NT. Whether we like it or not, the confessing church of today is under obligation to provide a robust defense for the Word of God as being what it claims to be, hence the increased role of historical and textual scholarship at the seminary level. I am not implying by this that the Bible is unable to stand for itself, but that the task of the Christian now involves a serious consideration of the dynamics at play in the events of revelation, inscripturation, and transmission. Part and parcel of this is the formalizing of a clear criteria for determination of the canon, hence my linking to the Ligonier resource above.

The bottom line is that I doubt presuppositional Biblicism was the apologetic method of choice that the Reformers and later Scholastic orthodox employed when it came to issues surrounding the canon. Presup is useful in laying bare the assumptions that underpin our thinking, and the cohesion or lackthereof in one's worldview, but it does little in actually arguing the case for preferring one set of holy books (the Hebrew Bible and New Testament) over another (the Qur'an, the Vedas, the Pāli canon, Tao Te Ching, etc.). Such an endeavor inevitably involves the use of historical and theological arguments, which, while being informed by the Bible and Christian theology, nevertheless relies on a body of evidence to frame and support its reasoning; hence coherence and correspondence to fact are indispensable elements in defending the truth. If I have time today, I'll make a post on Calvin's careful presentation in the Institutes as a hallmark example of classical apologetics in action.

 

[Laborer for the Lord]

Just wanted to share a link to the new thread I mentioned that I would try and make.