# the "dreaded" canon question



## tellville (Mar 3, 2006)

*the \"dreaded\" canon question*

I'm curious how everybody here would answer the "dreaded" canon question:

How do you know which books should be in your Bible? 


added:
I'm looking for the Reformed position in particular. (however, feel free to give any other insights you may have!) 

[Edited on 3-4-2006 by tellville]

[Edited on 3-4-2006 by tellville]


----------



## BobVigneault (Mar 3, 2006)

The doctrine of preservation. If the soveriegn God is going to reveal himself to His people than he would surely preserve the scripture for all generations. From a human point of view the canon was voted on all those hundreds of years ago after much debate. But the soveriegn Lord raised up the men who would debate, and when it cam to the vote, the fix was in. Just as God had prepared the men who wrote down the scriptures God has preserved the scriptures through various means. The canon itself is the result of God moving in history to form and preserve the 69 books.


----------



## DTK (Mar 4, 2006)

> _Originally posted by tellville_
> I'm curious how everybody here would answer the "dreaded" canon question:
> 
> How do you know which books should be in your Bible?
> ...


You might want to read this post, and particularly the Metzger and patristic citations. 

http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=13124#pid185879

This issue of the canon, and the Protestant position respecting it is discussed at length in volume 2 of _Holy Scripture, the Ground and Pillar of Our Faith_. http://www.christiantruth.com/ssvol2ad.html
The many citations, references, and bibliography will serve to point you in the right direction.

Blessings,
DTK


----------



## Bryan (Mar 4, 2006)

I think you could argue that the Bible as we have it presents a complete and infaliable worldview and therefore no other books are required to be part of it since they could not add to an already perfect worldview. Basicly since it would be making it our highest authority you couldn't question if the wrong books are in it except by showing by it that something is missing which since we all accept that scripture is perfect we know will not be done. 

Bryan
SDG


----------



## Ron (Mar 4, 2006)

Bahnsen:

To recapitulate: we know from God's Word (1) that the church of the New Covenant recognized the standing canon of the Old Testament, and (2) that the Lord intended for the New Covenant church to be built upon the word of the apostles, coming thereby to recognize the canonical literature of the New Testament. To these premises we can add the conviction (3) that all of history is governed by God's providence ("...according to the plan of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His own will," Eph. 1:11). So then, trusting Christ's promise that He would indeed build His church, and being confident in the controlling sovereignty of God, we can be assured the God-ordained recognition of the canon would be providentially accomplished -- which, in retrospect, is now a matter of historical record.

To think otherwise would be, in actual effect, to deprive the Christian church of the sure word of God. And that would in turn (a) undermine confidence in the gospel, contrary to God's promise and our spiritual necessity, as well as (b) deprive us of the philosophical precondition of any knowledge whatsoever, thus consigning us (in principle) to utter scepticism.


----------



## Ron (Mar 4, 2006)

> _Originally posted by BobVigneault_
> The doctrine of preservation. If the soveriegn God is going to reveal himself to His people than he would surely preserve the scripture for all generations. From a human point of view the canon was voted on all those hundreds of years ago after much debate. But the soveriegn Lord raised up the men who would debate, and when it cam to the vote, the fix was in. Just as God had prepared the men who wrote down the scriptures God has preserved the scriptures through various means. The canon itself is the result of God moving in history to form and preserve the 69 books.



Bob, well stated. If I might add, even had the early church voted with the intention of undermining the canon, they would have failed due to God's intention that the church _receive_ his word, which would be preserved by God through providence.

Ron


----------



## tellville (Mar 4, 2006)

What of the accusation that we (Reformed) are starting with modern conceptions, categories, views, and conclusions and impose them upon, or at least see them in, the evidence preserved in antiquity?

I know neutrality is a myth. So I am not talking about the objection that we are not approaching the text from a neutral stand point.

[Edited on 3-5-2006 by tellville]


----------



## Archlute (Mar 4, 2006)

Herman N. Ridderbos wrote a compelling work defending the canon from a Reformed perspective entitled _Redemptive History and the New Testament Scriptures_ (formerly _The Authority of the New Testament Scriptures_). It is published by Presbyterian and Reformed publishing company (popularly known as P&R publishing), and is a brief read of about 80pp. I'd highly recommend you purchase a copy if you are able to do so. 

Also, since I see you are a new member here - Welcome!

Blessings


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Mar 4, 2006)

This is a tough question


----------



## just_grace (Mar 5, 2006)

> _Originally posted by tellville_
> I'm curious how everybody here would answer the "dreaded" canon question:
> 
> How do you know which books should be in your Bible?
> ...



Because I am a child and I trust God. He is Holy and in Him is no wickedness.

I have my Bible since I was ten, it was a gift from the Gideon people.

All I have experienced since seems to be evil and corrupt.

The Bible is God's way,of expressing the Eternal Logos to a lost world.

The Bible is not perfect. Why? Cuz man got his hand on it. God's purpose yes. The Logos is more pure than any Bible you or I own.

Anybody argue with that?

David

What a dull answer.

Sorry.

God is Holy and in Him is no wickedness.

God Is.

Repent.

[Edited on 3-5-2006 by just_grace]


----------



## Craig (Mar 5, 2006)

Great question...

David....uhhh....


----------



## just_grace (Mar 5, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Craig_
> Great question...
> 
> David....uhhh....



What?

If you want to confuse your life. Go ahead.

I was just sticking up for the Bible.

It is our lifeline. A real one.

I know I can be a bit cryptic.. Sorry.


----------



## Craig (Mar 5, 2006)

{Moderating}
Edited for tone and direct personal references 

(beside, the Admins have made a decision on the issue)

Blessings, all

[Edited on 3-6-2006 by Contra_Mundum]


----------



## Ron (Mar 5, 2006)

> The Logos is more pure than any Bible you or I own.



Who revealed this to you? If your "corrupt" Bible, then how can you know God is pure?

Ron


----------



## BobVigneault (Mar 5, 2006)

Ease up gentlemen. Let us admire our brother David's zeal and well-meaning and let us pray for him. For reasons known only to the Lord our friend seems to be compelled to tilt at windmills. Let's be patient for a season while he learns and let us all strive to live up to the high calling we have received.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Mar 5, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Bladestunner316_
> This is a tough question






The Eastern church, from the beginning, has accepted the LXX (Septuagint) as the inerrant preservation of the Old Testament. And to their credit, the Apostles themselves favored the LXX. Where the Hebrew text disagrees with the LXX, the Apostles almost always favor the LXX in NT quotations of the OT. 

Well, the LXX contains whole chapters and books that our Bibles don't contain. Have you ever read the 151st Psalm, by David, for instance? I just read it the other day, and I don't see anything at all wrong with it, but I would still be really uncomfortable to allow it into my Bible. The LXX book of Esther is about twice as long as Esther in my Bible. And Job has additional info tacked onto the end of it. Jeremiah is quite different too. And there are several books which we (the Protestant Western church) call "apocrypha", which the Eastern church simply calls "Scripture".

The tough thing is that there is no chapter in the Bible that tells us what the canon is. The Eastern church has books that neither we nor Rome have; that is their tradition. The Western church (Rome) has books that we don't have. And we have the lowest common demoninator: 66 books. That is our tradition.

But how do we prove that our tradition is right, and theirs is wrong? That is a toughy. 

Of course I like to think we're the ones who are right . . .







[Edited on 3-6-2006 by biblelighthouse]


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Mar 5, 2006)

Other than the Bible and biblical arguments, I think no book is more exhaustive on Inspiration and Preservation than William Whitaker's "Disputation on the Holy Scriptures".

Reformation Heritage Books has copies of it, whereas it was previously out of print.


----------



## DTK (Mar 6, 2006)

Actually, the issue of the canon for Eastern Orthodoxy is not an undisputed topic, nor is it one of critical interest to them given their conviction of the infallibility of the church. Some of their scholars have been very open about this.

*Demetrios J. Constantelos:* The early church as a whole did not take a definite position for or against the Deuterocanonicals. Church leaders and ecclesiastical writers of both the Greek east and Latin west were not in full agreement. Some preferred the Hebrew canon, while others accepted the longer canon that included the Deuterocanonicals. The ambivalence of ecumenical and local synods (Nicea, 325 CE; Rome, 382; Laodicea, 365; Hippo, 393) was resolved by the Trullan Synod (692). It adopted deliberations of councils that had favored the shorter list, and decisions of other synods that had advocated the longer list. See his article "œEastern Orthodoxy and the Bible" in Bruce M. Metzger and Michael D. Coogan, eds., _The Oxford Companion to the Bible_ (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993), p. 174.

*Demetrios J. Constantelos:* The canonicity of the Deuterocanonical books is still a disputed topic in Orthodox biblical theology. See his article "œEastern Orthodoxy and the Bible" in Bruce M. Metzger and Michael D. Coogan, eds., _The Oxford Companion to the Bible_ (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993), p. 175.

*John Meyendorff:* The Christian East took a longer time than the West in settling on an agreed canon of Scripture. The principal hesitations concerned the books of the Old Testament which are not contained in the Hebrew canon ("œshorter" canon) and the Book of the Revelation in the New Testament. Fourth-century conciliar and patristic authorities in the East differ in their attitude concerning the exact authority of Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Esther, Judith, and Tobit. Athanasius in his famous _Paschal Letter 39_ excludes them from Scripture proper, but considers them useful for catechumens, an opinion which he shares with Cyril of Jerusalem. Canon 60 of the council of Laodicea"”whether authentic or not"”also reflects the tradition of a "œshorter" canon. But the Quinisext Council (692) endorses the authority of the Apostolic Canon 85, which admits some books of the "œlonger" canon, including even 3 Maccabees, but omits Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus as "œadmirable," yet fails to include them in the canon. Therefore, in spite of the fact that Byzantine patristic and ecclesiastical tradition almost exclusively uses the Septuagint as the standard Biblical text, and that parts of the "œlonger" canon"”especially Wisdom"”are of frequent liturgical use, Byzantine theologians remain faithful to a "œHebrew" criterion for Old Testament literature, which excludes texts originally composed in Greek. Modern Orthodox theology is consistent with this unresolved polarity when it distinguishes between "œcanonical" and "œdeuterocanonical" literatue of the Old Testament, applying the first term only to the books of the "œshorter" canon. John Meyendorff, _Byzantine Theology: Historical Trends and Doctrinal Themes_, 2nd rev. ed. (New York: Fordham University Press, 1983), p. 7.

*John Meyendorff:* This system of internal priorities within the canon of Scriptures is further shown in two facts in the history of the scriptural canon in the Eastern half of the Christian world. The first fact is that the final settlement of the canon did not take place until 692, and that uncertainty as to the boundaries of written revelation was not, for many centuries, considered a major problem in doing theology. The second fact is that, when the settlement took place, a measure of uncertainty remained as to the exact status of the "œlonger canon" of the Old Testament; books like Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus"”which were not a part of the Hebrew canon, but only of the Septuagint, and which are called Apocrypha in the West"”were still recognized by some in the eighth century as "œadmissible," though they were not included in the canon. Even today, Orthodox theologians refer to them as deuterocanonical books. They are considered part of Scripture and are read in church liturgically, but occupy something of a marginal place in the canon.
This rather detached Orthodox attitude toward the problem of the scriptural canon shows clearly that for them the Christian faith and experience can in no way be compatible with the notion of Scriptura sola. See his chapter "œDoing Theology in an Eastern Orthodox Perspective" in Daniel B. Clendenin, ed., _Eastern Orthodox Theology: A Contemporary Reader_ (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1995), p. 82.

DTK


----------



## Scott (Mar 6, 2006)

Calvin wrote: "As to the question, How shall we be persuaded that it came from God without recurring to a decree of the Church? it is just the same as if it were asked, How shall we learn to distinguish light from darkness, white from black, sweet from bitter? Scripture bears upon the face of it as clear evidence of its truth, as white and black do of their colour, sweet and bitter of their taste."

This sounds somewhat presuppositional to me. Of course it is the Holy Spirit that opens our eyes to them. The excerpt seems to describe how people in real life normally come to accept the scriptures. Most people hear the gospel and believe the scriptures prior to debating the canon. Inquiry into the canon is something that normally happens after maturation. 

As to the guy who says, "I read the Book of Numbers and don't believe it is inspired" or "I read the Book of the Laodiceans and believe it is inspired," I think one (not the only) response to emphasize the communal nature of the understanding of scripture. The Holy Spirit is like the wind that blows where it will. But as the wind blows individual leaves on a tree in the same direction, so the Holy Spirit illumines the minds of men in similar ways. Christ's people will for the most part see the same scriptures as inspired.

It seems that this was the case in the time of Christ. At that point the books of the OT were generally accepted by the of orthodox but some groups denied various books (eg. some accepted only the first 5 books of Moses). 

Also as to the communal nature of the understanding, our visible confessional churches have spoken judicially on the scope of the canon (eg. the WCF and the denominations that have adopted it). I think that this is important. We have courts to decide things like that. It can have a bit of a chicken-and-the-egg appearance, as the church's authority is founded on the scripture. But in the end, I don't think it is. It is sort of like the Supreme Court defining the scope of its authority under the constitution, or even the bounds of the constitution (eg. was 19th Amendment properly ratified and binding on the Supreme Court). 

Of course other courts have come to different conclusions, which leaves the results a bit fuzzy (as with the examples of the Eastern Orthodox people have raised). Although, there is typically tremendous overlap.

Also have to be careful to avoid the trap of saying the church authorizes the scriptures. Having the church make a judicial decision about the scope of the canon no more entails that the church authorizes the scriptures than saying the Supreme Court's interpretation of the scope of the constitution entails that the Supreme Court authorizes the constitution. As the constitution is prior to and authorizes the Supreme Court, so the scriptures were prior to (at least the OT) and authorize the Church.

[Edited on 3-6-2006 by Scott]


----------

