~JM~

Not a huge fan of Doug Wilson's soteriology but I think he makes a valid point,

"This witness is not offered by the Church as “something to think about” or as a mere “suggestion.” The testimony of the Church on this point is submissive to Scripture, but authoritative for the saints. For example, if an elder in a Christian church took it upon himself to add a book to the canon of Scripture, or sought to take away a book, the duty of his church would be to try him for heresy and remove him immediately. This disciplinary action is authoritative, taken in defense of an authoritative canonical settlement. This does not mean the Church is defending the Word of God; the Church is defending her witness to the Word. As the necessity of discipline makes plain, this witness is dogmatic and authoritative. It is not open for discussion. God does not intend for us to debate the canon of Scripture afresh every generation. We have already given our testimony; our duty now is to remain faithful to it. "

Are we assuming a secular, unbelieving epistemology if we retreat from the Roman Magisterium only to accept another?

Dr. Daniel Wallace is a professor at Dallas Theological Seminary and is considered an expert on ancient / Biblical Greek and New Testament criticism. Without putting forth the idea of New Testament eclecticism I’d like to post a quote from one of his recent blog posts about the the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature :

As remarkable as it may sound, most biblical scholars are not Christians. I don’t know the exact numbers, but my guess is that between 60% and 80% of the members of SBL do not believe that Jesus’ death paid for our sins, or that he was bodily raised from the dead.