# Proof for the NT canon



## Puritan Sailor (Sep 20, 2004)

I was introduced to this argument while visiting RTS and thought it would be an intersting topic for discussion here. How do we prove that the NT canon is the inspired Word of God?


----------



## SolaScriptura (Sep 20, 2004)

What was the argument that you were introduced to?
Or were you simply introduced to the question of how do we prove it?


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Sep 20, 2004)

[quote:a04cda2c24="SolaScriptura"]What was the argument that you were introduced to?
Or were you simply introduced to the question of how do we prove it?[/quote:a04cda2c24]
It was the question, asked in a way I hadn't thought of before. The usual way to prove that the Scriptures are the Word of God is ultimately their self-attestation, their claim to be the Word of God. Where does the NT make such a claim?


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 20, 2004)

[quote:f06db2416a="puritansailor"]


Where does the NT make such a claim?[/quote:f06db2416a]

Patrick Madrid challenged Doug Wilson on that point; Wilson did not respond to it; not that I can think of, anyway.


----------



## fredtgreco (Sep 20, 2004)

I won't answer, because I was with Patrick at that time. Just let me say that the answer given by a capable theologian, was very helpful and groundbreaking.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Sep 20, 2004)

[quote:0e3f626c53="fredtgreco"]I won't answer, because I was with Patrick at that time. Just let me say that the answer given by a capable theologian, was very helpful and groundbreaking.[/quote:0e3f626c53]

Actually, Fred I may need your help because I'm not sure I remembered the whole argument. But it was still very good.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Sep 20, 2004)

Since the goal is to show that the New Testament claims to be inspired, one way we can know that it does so is if it refers to itself as "Scripture," because of 2 Timothy 3:16. Well, in 2 Peter 3:15-16 (ESV) we find just such a reference: "And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures." Here Peter mentions Paul's letters, and talks about how people misinterpreted them as well as the [i:8064165d3a]other[/i:8064165d3a] Scriptures. So reading this passage in light of 2 Timothy 3:16, we can at least make the claim that the New Testament gives self-attestation with regard to some of Paul's writing.

From there, I suppose we could make an inferential case based on Paul's ordained status as an apostle, and thus the relation of his writings to all the other apostles' as well, which include the New Testament canonical books. I know this second paragraph is largely speculation, but Peter's claim certainly at least forms a foundation for the beginning of the New Testament's self-attestation, since it confirms that at least some of Paul's writing was Scripture.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Sep 20, 2004)

[quote:505d250fe5="Me Died Blue"]Since the goal is to show that the New Testament claims to be inspired, one way we can know that it does so is if it refers to itself as "Scripture," because of 2 Timothy 3:16. Well, in 2 Peter 3:15-16 (ESV) we find just such a reference: "And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures." Here Peter mentions Paul's letters, and talks about how people misinterpreted them as well as the [i:505d250fe5]other[/i:505d250fe5] Scriptures. So reading this passage in light of 2 Timothy 3:16, we can at least make the claim that the New Testament gives self-attestation with regard to some of Paul's writing.

From there, I suppose we could make an inferential case based on Paul's ordained status as an apostle, and thus the relation of his writings to all the other apostles' as well, which include the New Testament canonical books. I know this second paragraph is largely speculation, but Peter's claim certainly at least forms a foundation for the beginning of the New Testament's self-attestation, since it confirms that at least some of Paul's writing was Scripture.[/quote:505d250fe5]

And how do you know Peter's writings are inspired? How do we know that his writings are not just his personal opinion of Paul's writings?


----------



## Me Died Blue (Sep 20, 2004)

I just realized a potential hole in my above argument. Peter called Paul's writing "Scripture," but that is said without giving a logical argument that Peter's writing itself attested to be "Scripture."

I remember hearing a very good argument for the inerrancy of the New Testament when I was sitting in on a Bible class visiting Wheaton a year or so ago. It went something along the lines of Jesus' foretellings that His apostles would write the complete New Covenant Scripture, and thus that if He is the Son of God that foretelling could not be in err. I can't quite remember the details of the argument, but I remember that it was quite convincing.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Sep 20, 2004)

Patrick, you beat me to the question!


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Sep 21, 2004)

You are on the right track Chris. Keep thinking.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Sep 21, 2004)

It's interesting and helpful to review what the Westminster Assembly had to say on the subject of the inspiration and authenticity of the New and Old Testaments, including the verses cited to support their statements:

Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 1:
[quote:03a5d32920]IV. The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, depends 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.

2PE 1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts. 21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. 2TI 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. 1JO 5:9 If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son. 1 TH 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

V. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture. 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 does 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.

1TI 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

1JO 2:20 But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things. 27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him. JOH 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. 14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you. 1CO 2:10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. 11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. ISA 59:21 As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the Lord; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the Lord, from henceforth and for ever.

VIII. The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them. But, because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated in to the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that, the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship Him in an acceptable manner; and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.

MAT 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

ISA 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. ACT 15:15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written. JOH 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. 46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.

JOH 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

1CO 14:6 Now, brethren, if I come undo you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, except I shall speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, of by prophesying, or by doctrine? 9 So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air. 11 Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me. 12 Even so ye, forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the church. 24 But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all: 27 If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most three, and that by course; and let one interpret. 28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.

COL 3:16 Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms, and hymns, and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.

ROM 15:4 For whatsoever things were written aforetime, were written for our learning; that we, through patience and comfort of the scriptures, might have hope.[/quote:03a5d32920]


----------



## Me Died Blue (Sep 21, 2004)

In John 16:12-15 (ESV), Jesus tells His disciples, "I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you." I'm pretty sure this was the passage mentioned by the professor at Wheaton. His point was basically that even though the canon was officially decided by the Church councils, if it was not the perfect and complete inspired revelatory work of God, Christ's above words would be false. Likewise, it was argued, if Christ's divinity is valid, the books that were chosen as the canon must have been true and correct as well.

However, what this argument seems to me to be lacking is that the above passage in John simply says that the Spirit will guide Christ's disciples into all the truth - but it neither explicitly nor implicitly links that promise with a command to write, or a "passing on" per se of that truth. It seems like such a link would need to be found to solidify the argument.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Sep 21, 2004)

Perhaps that link that I mentioned in my above post is found in my previous point. In other words, Christ says that the Spirit will guide His disciples into all truth, and Peter's status as one of those disciples is what gives authority to his statement that Paul was writing Scripture. Furthermore, Paul refers to Luke's writing as Scripture in 1 Timothy 5:18, and his own writing in 2 Thessalonians 3:14. He also speaks of the writings of "us" (presumably other apostles) as having similar authority in 2 Thessalonians 2:15, in accordance with 1 Thessalonians 2:13 and 4:2, 1 Peter 1:12 and 1 Corinthians 2:13.

So the points in the above paragraph give authority to the apostles' writings in general as inspired, and Christ's promise to guide them into "all the truth" seems to confirm that if Christ is trustworthy, the apostles' writings that ended up being distinguished as canonical by the Church councils were correctly distinguished from their non-canonical works.

But still, He only directly promised that the disciples themselves would be guided into all the truth, which confirms the inspired nature of the apostles' writings in general as shown by the above passages, but that still can't automatically be interpreted as meaning that the Spirit would also guide the Church councils into all truth. And we need that claim just as much as the claim of the divine inspiration of the apostles' writings in general, otherwise it could be said that, say, the gospel of Thomas is canonical as well.

Hmmm...


----------



## Me Died Blue (Sep 21, 2004)

For the record, I just remembered that it was not in a Bible class I attended while visiting Wheaton that I heard that argument for NT inerrancy, but Trinity International University.


----------



## A.J.A. (Sep 21, 2004)

But then the question is, how do we know [i:09dfcbcc3d]John[/i:09dfcbcc3d] is Scripture? After all, the authority of those words depends on your faith that the Spirit made the Apostle John get it right. Otherwise it's no better than Thomas.


----------



## luvroftheWord (Sep 21, 2004)

Uh oh! Looks like we need an infallible magisterium to tell us what Scripture is. 

But then again, how do we know who this magisterium is without Scripture to tell us?


----------



## Ianterrell (Sep 21, 2004)

uzzled:


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 21, 2004)

We could apply John Frame's response and say that everybody, due to their ultimate commitmments, is reasoning in a circle. Although that does not prove the NT validity, it can keep at bay the RCC argument.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Sep 21, 2004)

[quote:96c4f31242="A.J.A."]But then the question is, how do we know [i:96c4f31242]John[/i:96c4f31242] is Scripture? After all, the authority of those words depends on your faith that the Spirit made the Apostle John get it right. Otherwise it's no better than Thomas.[/quote:96c4f31242]

Aaron, if you'll look at the passage again, it is not John saying something about the authority of apostolic writings, but it is the recorded words of [i:96c4f31242]Jesus[/i:96c4f31242] saying it! [i:96c4f31242]That[/i:96c4f31242] is what gives weight to the part of the argument that comes from the book of John. But still, as I realized and noted in my last post, that of course does not give an answer for how we know that the Church council would be guided into all truth, but rather only gives such an answer for the disciples, and thus their writings only in a general sense, as seen in the Scriptures I mentioned above from Corinthians, Thessalonians, etc.


----------



## A.J.A. (Sep 21, 2004)

Christopher,

Yes, I agree Jesus said it. But how do we know He said it? Because the Apostle John quoted Him. And how do we know John quoted Him correctly? Because of the inspiration. And how do we know John was inspired? Because the Gospel of John is Scripture. And how do we know know the Gospel of John is Scripture?

It seems we can make one of two arguments. Either we can reason our way to it, first with the typical apologetic for Christianity, and then pointing out that as God, Christ has the power and and is of such a character to give us a perfect record of Him. Or we can argue that none of the alternatives ultimately make sense (if I understand it correctly, that's the presuppositional approach).

That way, you get rid of the circularity. With the quote from John, you're still saying "because the Bible says so", you just push it back several steps.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Sep 21, 2004)

The words of Jesus being accurately recorded or not is really another ballpark. (And simply arguing that none of the alternatives make sense is the Clarkian approach, which is different from Van Til's.) At least as it has progressed thusfar, in this thread we are discussing the proof for the NT canon with the assumption that all of the authors' writings were at least historically accurate (which would include quotations of Christ). In other words, as Patrick mentioned near the beginning, at this point we're trying to show that the Bible has self-attesting claims of divine inspiration that necessarily follow if Jesus' divinity and words are valid.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Sep 21, 2004)

Perhaps then brothers you may want to go a little further back than even the Gospels to find the foundation for this self-attestation in the NT. :bs2:


----------



## Me Died Blue (Sep 21, 2004)

Amos 3:7-8 (ESV) reads, "For the Lord GOD does nothing without revealing his secret to his servants the prophets. The lion has roared; who will not fear? The Lord GOD has spoken; who can but prophesy?"


----------



## VanVos (Sep 21, 2004)

Also we have have Signs and Wonders that confirmed the Word Heb 2:3-4. All scripture (or the Word of God) was testified to by Signs and Wonders 2 Cor 12:12, 1 kings 17:24 etc.

VanVos


----------



## JohnV (Sep 21, 2004)

I always thought that the impossibility of the contrary regarding proposistions was a rule of logic and of conjunctions.

Rev. Jonathan's point is well taken. I know that we have to again believe the writings to believe the content of them, concerning the miracles, but the lack of a body of Christ is most compelling all around. It is quite a claim, and to refute it all that would have had to be done would have been to come up with the body. There is hardly any possibility of a conspiracy, as this all happened in the most hostile territory for it to happen. And again, it would have been easily refuted if false. And that is just one miracle; what about the others?

The WCF speaks of the singular content itself as being testimony of its inscripturated standing: "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,...." These too are evidence of the NT books being Scripture.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Sep 21, 2004)

Duet 18
15 "The LORD your God will raise up for you a Prophet like me from your midst, from your brethren. Him you shall hear, 16according to all you desired of the LORD your God in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying, "Let me not hear again the voice of the LORD my God, nor let me see this great fire anymore, lest I die.' 
17"And the LORD said to me: "What they have spoken is good. 18I will raise up for them a Prophet like you from among their brethren, and will put My words in His mouth, and He shall speak to them all that I command Him. 19And it shall be that whoever will not hear My words, which He speaks in My name, I will require it of him.

Joel 2
28 "And it shall come to pass afterward 
That I will pour out My Spirit on all flesh; 
Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, 
Your old men shall dream dreams, 
Your young men shall see visions. 
29And also on My menservants and on My maidservants 
I will pour out My Spirit in those days. 

Mal. 3
1 "Behold, I send My messenger, 
And he will prepare the way before Me. 
And the Lord, whom you seek, 
Will suddenly come to His temple, 
Even the Messenger of the covenant, 
In whom you delight. 
Behold, He is coming," 
Says the LORD of hosts.

Here's a start.


----------



## A.J.A. (Sep 21, 2004)

An atheist would answer that he rejects the Old Testament, too.

I suppose it depends on [i:2de1c36d8e]who[/i:2de1c36d8e] you're trying to prove the inspiration of the New Testament to.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Sep 21, 2004)

Patrick,
(great discussion you got going here, BTW)
It sounds like what we're coming to here is a focus on Jesus, the Word (or Revelation). Heb 1:1-2 tells us that he is the culmination of the revelation from God. Jesus said, "My sheep hear my voice, ... and they follow me" (Jn. 10:27). We recognize in the pages of the NT the authentic Voice of the Shepherd. In the Gospels, he tells us something of his life and mission upon earth. Partly in the Gospels, but especially in the epistles, he teaches us his doctrine. In the Revelation he also speaks to us. He promised this would be the way, through his spokesmen and by the Holy Spirit, that he would do this.

We aren't lone rangers, so we don't simply trust our own individual and fallible judgment, but neither do we rest implicit confidence in the pronouncements of the Church, as if IT had created or authorized the Bible. Ultimately we believe in the same canon as believers have done down through every century from the first, and for the same reason--Because Jesus speaks straight to the heart of every true believer in it, and in NO WHERE ELSE.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Sep 22, 2004)

[quote:a2cdc3eae5="Contra_Mundum"]Patrick,
(great discussion you got going here, BTW)[/quote:a2cdc3eae5]
Don't thank me. Thank Derrick Thomas and John Owen :bs2: 
[quote:a2cdc3eae5]
It sounds like what we're coming to here is a focus on Jesus, the Word (or Revelation). Heb 1:1-2 tells us that he is the culmination of the revelation from God. Jesus said, "My sheep hear my voice, ... and they follow me" (Jn. 10:27). We recognize in the pages of the NT the authentic Voice of the Shepherd. In the Gospels, he tells us something of his life and mission upon earth. Partly in the Gospels, but especially in the epistles, he teaches us his doctrine. In the Revelation he also speaks to us. He promised this would be the way, through his spokesmen and by the Holy Spirit, that he would do this.
[/quote:a2cdc3eae5]
You've just about hit the nail on the head Bruce. The NT is part of the fulfillment of Christ's Messianic ministry to His people both in person, and through His Spirit. The OT fortold His coming and ministry, Jesus claimed to fulfill it and promised further revelation through the Spirit, His Spirit, and the NT is the fulfillment of it, and that fulfillment is self-attested in the NT. I'm at work right now, but I'll throw in some Scriptures later on, if you all don't beat me to it. It kinda helps put a new angle in reading the NT now, at least for me. But keep the thoughts coming, we could go a lot deeper.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Sep 22, 2004)

Patrick, specifically in light of the objections I raised to my own points above, I guess I'm still not clear on just [i:07125d8fa9]how[/i:07125d8fa9] we know that "the NT is the fulfillment of it, and that fulfillment is self-attested in the NT." Perhaps the passages you give later will help clarify that.


----------



## fredtgreco (Sep 22, 2004)

Chris,

Here is the shortcut:

the issue of inspiration and inerrancy is not one of theoretical theology. It is one of relationship and submission. What Owen points out (brilliantly) is that you cannot doubt inerrancy and inspiration without casting aside your relationship with Christ. Because Christ is THE prophet.

The argument here is not so much with the atheist, but with the "Christian" theologian who says that "inerrancy does not matter, it is enough that I have Jesus." What Owen says is that you must have either BOTH or NEITHER.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Sep 22, 2004)

[quote:b8ae2d2c32="Me Died Blue"]Patrick, specifically in light of the objections I raised to my own points above, I guess I'm still not clear on just [i:b8ae2d2c32]how[/i:b8ae2d2c32] we know that "the NT is the fulfillment of it, and that fulfillment is self-attested in the NT." Perhaps the passages you give later will help clarify that.[/quote:b8ae2d2c32]

What Fred said :bs2: 

Also, look at how the Gospels were written. Certainly we could comb through the gospels for this data but will stick to a few for now. 

Matthew begins by identifying Christ, claiming Christ to be the promised Messiah from the OT and ends his gospel with the great commission "teaching them to observe all things I have commanded you..." emphasising that he is a witness and messenger of Christ to accomplish this purpose. 

Mark opens with "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. As it is written in the prophets..." He grounds his gospel as well in the self-attesting prophecies of the OT, essentially making his work an extension of those prophesies, or the fulfillment of them. 

Luke does the same format in 1:1-4, referencing those who were "eyewitnesses and ministers of the [i:b8ae2d2c32]word[/i:b8ae2d2c32] delivered to them." 

And John of course opens his gospel account with Christ as the preincarnate Word and as the One who "declared" the Father. And he concludes his account with "these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and believing that you may have life in His name." He further concludes that his "testimony is true" essentailly self-attesting that what he is proclaiming is necessary for you to believe to have eternal life. 

So the gospels in essence aren't self-attesting to be the "scriptures", but they are self-attesting to be the revelation of Christ, and the fulfillment of previous self-attesting prophecies.

With the gospels then claiming to be the revealed word and work of Christ, We then turn to the claim of Christ that the Spirit would come and grant them further revelation and power to help them bear further witness of Christ, hence establishing the apostles and giving them the job of teaching these new revelations from the Spirit to the church. Hence, Paul and Peter always introducing themselves as an "apostle of Jesus Christ," or a messenger of Christ. 

So as Fred said, Christ is THE Prophet. To deny the message of Christ's messengers, is to deny the word or revelation of Christ, hence you deny the entire person and work of Christ. You can't have Jesus and discard his revelation to the apostles. They are tied together. 

Enough for now. I'm still thinking through this myself so please feel free to probe further.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Sep 22, 2004)

[quote:c19f2b2281="puritansailor"]With the gospels then claiming to be the revealed word and work of Christ, We then turn to the claim of Christ that the Spirit would come and grant them further revelation and power to help them bear further witness of Christ, hence establishing the apostles and giving them the job of teaching these new revelations from the Spirit to the church. Hence, Paul and Peter always introducing themselves as an "apostle of Jesus Christ," or a messenger of Christ. 

So as Fred said, Christ is THE Prophet. To deny the message of Christ's messengers, is to deny the word or revelation of Christ, hence you deny the entire person and work of Christ. You can't have Jesus and discard his revelation to the apostles. They are tied together.[/quote:c19f2b2281]

Thanks for summing that up. I understand that principle and how it is the essence of what you, Fred, Thomas and Owen were talking about. But the only "brick" still standing in the way per se is the fact that Jesus only promised that the Spirit would give fullness of knowledge to know and proclaim Christ to the apostles themselves. Indeed, that promise is the ground for our knowledge that the Apostolic writings as a whole contain the full revelation and counsel of God for the New Covenant age. But on what ground do we know that the post-Apostolic church council gathered up the right combination of works from the bulk of Apostolic work as a whole?

Indeed, we know that the latter (the bulk of Apostolic writings) [i:c19f2b2281]contains[/i:c19f2b2281] the full word of God for us, on the basis of Christ's promise that all truth would be revealed to the Apostles for the spreading of the truth. But how do we know that the former (the canonical selection among the bulk of Apostolic writings) is right on? For Christ did not make a promise that the truth would be revealed to the post-Apostolic churchmen for the distinguishing of the full truth contained in the Apostles' writings.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Sep 22, 2004)

Blue,
Lets pretend just a minute that TODAY, you and I have no Bibles printed up together in 66 books. No one before us has bothered to list up the "authentic" books of the Bible. We have all the individual books (plus the OT) and a few "questionable" ones. So now, for some reason, WE have been asked to join a church council to declare where our church believes God has spoken. How do we do that?

We do NOT appeal as a final authority to the Church before us. We DO acknowledge that down through the ages--from the days of the Apostles until now--we see how that the Church has consistently recognized the Voice of the Savior, the Word, in these 27 books. But WE acknowledge them because WE hear the Voice of the Word in them.

We are so used to simply accepting the (Protestant!) Bible [i:34c4cf0bff]as is[/i:34c4cf0bff] because (we think) that the work has already been done for us. And to some extent it has. The Spirit of God has already worked mightily in the Church. But we err if we rest upon the testimony and councils of the Church as if they were finally authoritative. The work is CONTINUAL, not DEFINITIVE.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Sep 22, 2004)

I agree with Bruce. There are several reasons, as listed above in the WCF why we can be certain of the NT authenticy, but ultimately, the proof that the Scriptures are the Word of God is the testimony of the Spirit. Some may think this too subjective, but it is the testimony of God himself convincing our hearts that the Scriptures are indeed His Word.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Sep 22, 2004)

Well, if it's [i:3aca5a096f]ultimately[/i:3aca5a096f] dependant upon the heart, what could you say to a man who feels moved and increasingly aware of God's truth, and thinks that he now sees an even greater consistency in the rest of Scripture, in response to reading the Gospel of Thomas?

A divine promise is fully and ultimately reliable; our own hearts, while they can be corroborative, are simply not.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Sep 22, 2004)

Blue, 
I'm not speaking here from a supercilious attitude, but I would direct your attention to the Confession at this point, ch. 1, para. 5, the last full clause [quote:5049afb29e]...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.[/quote:5049afb29e] And note the Scripture proofs.

As for the hypothetical guy above who is "moved" by the pseudo-"Gospel of Thomas" all we can say/ask are:

1) What does it mean that he was moved/made more aware of God's truth, etc? Is he moved to add this work to his accepted Authority?

2) Assuming he does embrace the G.o.T.--as those who positively [i:5049afb29e]reject[/i:5049afb29e] that work as undevotional and even opposed to the rest of Scripture, we have to say he is confused at best (like a wandering sheep), or not of this flock (Jn. 10:26; 8:47; 1 Jn 4:6; cf. Jn. 10:5). He's definitely hearing something "funny" that the rest of us aren't. Why is that? Is he under attack, or does he belong elsewhere?

3) Assuming then that he refuses to be corrected, he's determined to "listen" to the voice of his private siren. He is asserting a false autonomy, exhibiting a hyper-individualist streak (where he ought to be submissive). He is a "lone ranger," claiming something outside of the consistent witness of the Church in history. If he tries to gather a following, he fits the spiritual pathology (given in Scripture) of a false teacher.
We do not [i:5049afb29e]ignore[/i:5049afb29e] the testimony of the Church, but we don't accept it without reflection, or as if it were of such a character as that the RCC demands that we believe of it.

Reflect some more on my scenario above. You and me--at a church council. How are we (together with all the congress) going to come up with a list of the Word of Christ? I suggest that the answer to that question is not [i:5049afb29e]substantively[/i:5049afb29e] different from the answer to how we know the same thing today.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Sep 22, 2004)

[quote:18b35c6588="Me Died Blue"]Well, if it's [i:18b35c6588]ultimately[/i:18b35c6588] dependant upon the heart, what could you say to a man who feels moved and increasingly aware of God's truth, and thinks that he now sees an even greater consistency in the rest of Scripture, in response to reading the Gospel of Thomas?

A divine promise is fully and ultimately reliable; our own hearts, while they can be corroborative, are simply not.[/quote:18b35c6588]
You are right, the heart is not reliable. But you will notice I didn't say it depends on the heart, but on the testimony of the Spirit. They are two different things. Our hearts follow the lead of the Spirit as He opens our minds to understand the written Word. This is true of all believers. Hence, the consistent testimony of the Church throughout all ages recognizing the Word. All believers have been drawn in because they hear the voice of the Shepard calling them through the Scriptures. The Word of God cuts to the heart. The other apocriphal writings do not share this power or have this effect. 
And again it kind of a two pronged approach of the testimony of the Christ's Spirit working in our hearts, and the self-attesting testimony of the written Word without. There should be no conflict between the two since both are the voice of Christ to His people. 
Again, more to ponder....


----------



## Me Died Blue (Sep 22, 2004)

[quote:2b1a821397="puritansailor"]And again it kind of a two pronged approach of the testimony of the Christ's Spirit working in our hearts, and the self-attesting testimony of the written Word without. There should be no conflict between the two since both are the voice of Christ to His people.[/quote:2b1a821397]

Yeah, I'm seeing your point here. And Bruce, I'll go back and review the Scripture proofs for WCF.I.

[quote:2b1a821397="puritansailor"]Again, more to ponder....[/quote:2b1a821397]

Indeed. I'm thinking of buying this book soon and reading it at the recommendation of a fellow Puritanhead, since it supposedly approaches the subject from a presuppositional perspective, which basically seems to be what I'm searching for at this point.


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 22, 2004)

Thanks for the book recommendation. IS there a connection between redemptive historical hermeneutics and presuppositional thinking? Indeed, that is m ore to ponder...


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Sep 23, 2004)

For more (!) reading, 
see Calvin's Institutes, Book 1, ch. 7, especially sections 4 & 5 (the 2nd half). 
Then, read ch. 8, section 1 and compare to section 5 to WCF 1.5.
(oooooh! those plagiarizers!!!!) :bs2:


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Sep 23, 2004)

Also read "On the Divine Original... of the Scriptures" by John Owen, in volume 16 of his works. Good stuff.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Sep 23, 2004)

Thanks, Bruce and Patrick. I already own the [i:b1b4e2685f]Institutes[/i:b1b4e2685f], so I might just have to ask for Owen's complete works for Christmas!


----------



## Galahad (Oct 1, 2004)

surprise surprise, of the six volumns I have of John Owen, I have 16! I'll have to read up on what he said.


----------

