# Canon and Scripture, any difference?



## Sydnorphyn (Mar 14, 2008)

In your opinion, is there a difference between Canon and Scripture? Further, when was the canon closed - if at all?

I attended the ETS Eastern Regional conference and this was the topic - at WTS - you could cut the tension with the knife; Stephen Chapman from Duke was the plenary speaker. It was GREAT...GREAT...Great, I tell you.

John


----------



## Hippo (Mar 14, 2008)

I would say that Canon is what is recognised as scripture, as such the two are physically identical but conceptually slightly different. 

The canon closed when all the inspired texts had been written. The church recognised that the cannon was complete at some later date. As Apostolic authority (among other things ) was necessary in order for a text to be inspired I am firmly of the view that the canon has closed.

That has always been my understanding.


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Mar 15, 2008)

Hi:

F.F. Bruce has an excellent book on the subject: ISBN: 978-0830812585 

Blessings,

-CH


----------



## Pergamum (Mar 15, 2008)

I think a difference between canon and what we consider to be Scripture would be that Paul evidently wrote other letters that, if they still existed, would have been incorporated into the canon as well...but God so ordained it so not to be.

The canon seemed to have closed with the death of the aApostles or close associates of those aApostles.


----------



## Sydnorphyn (Mar 15, 2008)

*Why, with the death of the apostles*



Pergamum said:


> I think a difference between canon and what we consider to be Scripture would be that Paul evidently wrote other letters that, if they still existed, would have been incorporated into the canon as well...but God so ordained it so not to be.
> 
> The canon seemed to have closed with the death of the aApostles or close associates of those aApostles.



Why? Is this not an argument from silence?


----------



## Pergamum (Mar 15, 2008)

Okay, I'll ask you...after John wrote Revelation can you name anything else that should be added to the Canon? And if so, on what ground?


----------



## Herald (Mar 15, 2008)

Apart from the apocrypha's claim to be scripture, which the church has rightly judged as unworthy of the canon, there is a _strong_ argument from silence to consider. There has been no written revelation from God in approximately 2000 years. The church was founded on the teachings of Christ and the Apostles. A futurist would look at events in Revelation as supporting verbal and natural revelation but there is no mention of written revelation. If the canon could be added to today then we must believe that direct revelation is still possible. If direct revelation is still possible then there needs to be something worthy of revealing. How would new canonical writings be recognized? Who would have the authority to produce such writings? What would be the sign of their authority? We open up a huge can of worms. I suppose the Roman Catholics would have an easier time in proposing a living canon since they hold to apostolic succession, but you would be hard pressed to find that view among Reformed believers. In the abstract an open canon seems like a way to keep your options open. I'm sure that appeals to academics and theologians. No one likes to be boxed in. But I believe the argument is not one for the church to defend as much as it is for its adherents to prove.


----------



## Thomas2007 (Mar 15, 2008)

The Reformers held the canon was closed and identified it in their return to ancient catholic orthodoxy and rejected the Apocraphyl books on that basis. To the Reformers though the canon of Scripture is the text of Scripture and is received as a unified whole, God's word is to be found in the text of Scripture. And the canon is the final form in which Scripture is received, not the initial form. It is an explicitly theological approach to the Scripture which takes seriously the fact that each and every book of the Bible has come down to us as part of the canon.

This is in direct contradiction in which the Scripture is approached today in the critical school of thought which flows from Johann Semler's presuppositions. Semler approached the Scripture in a historical context and held that the Scripture cannot be identical to God's word, but that it only contained it. Hence, he held that the canon was fluid and was left up to individuals whereby each person could look into the Scripture and decide for themselves what was or was not canonical for them. This is the antithesis of Sola Scriptura and is the default position today in the quest to find the word of God independent from the canon of Scripture.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Mar 15, 2008)

There is a strong presumption, at this moment in time, that we should not expect any more divine revelation *until* the Second Coming. Word revelation accompanies act revelation, (sometimes) to predict it, and (always) to explain it.

Hebrews 1 really explains the completeness of New Testament revelation. In these last days, He has spoken to us by His Son. His Son's spokesmen were the Apostles. They have spoken, and their ministry recorded for his abiding church in the New Testament. What else is there to say? "He who hears you, hears me," Christ told them.

When God speaks again (at the end of time, if we rightly understand the Bible's teaching on eschatology) his people will recognize--as they always have--the Voice of their God. God's asking Abraham for the "inexplicable" of sacrificing his son Isaac was not doubted by Abraham, though it seemed contrary to previous revelation. Why? He knew Who spoke it; the content was not determinative.

But aren't we supposed to judge the man who claims to speak for God against previous revelation? Yes, indubitably. Which is why we all keep rejecting the lies of the false prophets. But "he who has ears to hear, LET HIM HEAR."


----------



## DTK (Mar 15, 2008)

> Apart from the apocrypha's claim to be scripture...


Dear Bill,

Please help me out here (sincerely), because I want to know if I've missed this in my readings...where does the aprocrypha, as a whole or as a part, make this claim for itself? Now, I am aware that others make this claim for the apocryphal books, but I'm interested in where it makes this claim for itself.

On another note, this is how I would distinguish, but not separate, the canon from Scripture. Scripture itself is inspired, or properly put, theopneustos; whereas the canon (the list of canonical books) is a by-product or artifact of that which is theopneustos. In other words, the identity of the canon, i.e. the list of canonical books should not be confused with revelation or theopneustos itself as the Roman communion has.

Thanks,
DTK


----------



## py3ak (Mar 15, 2008)

I found Ridderbos' _Redemptive History and the New Testament Scriptures_ to be a very helpful book on the topic of the canon.


----------



## Herald (Mar 15, 2008)

DTK said:


> > Apart from the apocrypha's claim to be scripture...
> 
> 
> Dear Bill,
> ...



David, great question and thank you for catching my poor choice of words. The apocrypha doesn't make that claim, others do. I should have said, "Apart from the claim of some that the apocrypha is scripture..."


----------



## Sydnorphyn (Mar 16, 2008)

*humm*



Pergamum said:


> Okay, I'll ask you...after John wrote Revelation can you name anything else that should be added to the Canon? And if so, on what ground?



The question is, what would we do if we came across texts which are similar to the ones we have - like Paul's lost letter mentioned in Colossians?


----------



## Sydnorphyn (Mar 16, 2008)

*thanks*



py3ak said:


> I found Ridderbos' _Redemptive History and the New Testament Scriptures_ to be a very helpful book on the topic of the canon.



Does it argue for Prophetic and Apostolic authority? If so, this is an assumption...and an argument from silence. We do not know who wrote the gospels, but accept them as a community of faith - as our forefathers.


----------



## Sydnorphyn (Mar 16, 2008)

*Vitcan I*



North Jersey Baptist said:


> Apart from the apocrypha's claim to be scripture, which the church has rightly judged as unworthy of the canon, there is a _strong_ argument from silence to consider. There has been no written revelation from God in approximately 2000 years. The church was founded on the teachings of Christ and the Apostles. A futurist would look at events in Revelation as supporting verbal and natural revelation but there is no mention of written revelation. If the canon could be added to today then we must believe that direct revelation is still possible. If direct revelation is still possible then there needs to be something worthy of revealing. How would new canonical writings be recognized? Who would have the authority to produce such writings? What would be the sign of their authority? We open up a huge can of worms. I suppose the Roman Catholics would have an easier time in proposing a living canon since they hold to apostolic succession, but you would be hard pressed to find that view among Reformed believers. In the abstract an open canon seems like a way to keep your options open. I'm sure that appeals to academics and theologians. No one likes to be boxed in. But I believe the argument is not one for the church to defend as much as it is for its adherents to prove.



Bill: You gotta read the canons of Vatican I where the Catholic church's stance on scripture was virtually identical to the reformers - this blew me away when I was introduced to it - of course, the question is, which canon.


----------



## Sydnorphyn (Mar 16, 2008)

*Knowledge?*

There has been no written revelation from God in approximately 2000 years. The church was founded on the teachings of Christ and the Apostles. 

Bill: How do we know?


----------



## DTK (Mar 16, 2008)

> Does it argue for Prophetic and Apostolic authority? If so, this is an assumption...and an argument from silence. We do not know who wrote the gospels, but accept them as a community of faith - as our forefathers.


Actually it is an argument from silence to assert that we do not know who wrote the gospels. It is the claim of Rome that we do not know who wrote the gospels apart from the testimony of Rome. 

Bruce M. Metzger informs us that “in the oldest manuscripts of the New Testament the titles of several books are short and simple, e.g. ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΘΘΑΙΟΝ,” thus citing the Gospel of Matthew as an example. See Bruce M. Metzger, _The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration_, third, enlarged ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992), p. 26.

Moreover, it is pointed out by Carson, Moo and Morris that “we have no evidence that these gospels ever circulated without an appropriate designation κατὰ Μαθθαῖον (kata Matthaion, “according to Matthew”) or the like.” See D. A. Carson, Douglas J. Moo, and Leon Morris, _An Introduction to the New Testament_ (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992), p. 66.

Guthrie likewise concurs, speaking of Matthew explicitly, “there is no positive evidence that the book ever circulated without this title.” See Donald Guthrie, _New Testament Introduction_, 3rd ed. (Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity Press, 1970), p. 33.

To be sure, there is a strong tradition supporting Matthean authorship, but it is an argument from silence for anyone who would venture to assert that the four gospel accounts were ever circulated anonymously. In other words, the earliest manuscripts of the Gospel of Matthew bear this inscription. Thus, the Roman allegation at this point is not only offered as an argument from silence, but against the earliest probable evidence as well. As a result of his investigations regarding the inscriptions of the Gospel manuscripts, Martin Hengel, Professor of New Testament and early Judaism in the University of Tübingen, has challenged the oft repeated assertion that “the inscriptiones and subscriptiones in the Gospel manuscripts are late.” (Martin Hengel, _Studies in the Gospel of Mark_ (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985), pp. 64ff.). He offers some nine considerations against the alleged theory that these accounts were first circulated anonymously. Recent scholarship has welcomed the results of his investigations. See D. A. Carson, Douglas J. Moo, and Leon Morris, _An Introduction to the New Testament_, p. 66; and R. T. France, _Matthew: Evangelist and Teacher_ (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press), p. pp. 51-53, who concludes: “If the theory of anonymous circulation of gospels for a generation or two is to be established over against Hengel’s model, it must be supported by an equally careful demonstration that such a procedure could ‘make sense’ in first-century Christianity. In recent scholarship no such demonstration seems to have been offered.”

DTK


----------



## Sydnorphyn (Mar 16, 2008)

*ok, but...*



DTK said:


> > Does it argue for Prophetic and Apostolic authority? If so, this is an assumption...and an argument from silence. We do not know who wrote the gospels, but accept them as a community of faith - as our forefathers.
> 
> 
> Actually it is an argument from silence to assert that we do not know who wrote the gospels. It is the claim of Rome that we do not know who wrote the gospels apart from the testimony of Rome.
> ...



ok for tradition, but the textual evidence is silent - while I have a GREAT deal of respect for the authors you cite, the evidence is still absent from what is better called the autographs. Again, does knowing who wrote the texts matter at ALL.

Kindly,
John


----------



## Hippo (Mar 16, 2008)

Sydnorphyn said:


> DTK said:
> 
> 
> > > Does it argue for Prophetic and Apostolic authority? If so, this is an assumption...and an argument from silence. We do not know who wrote the gospels, but accept them as a community of faith - as our forefathers.
> ...




Authorship mattered to the early Church when it recognised the canon, I really found "The Shape of Sola Scriptura" by Keith Mathison really helpful here. You cannot seperate any discussion of the canon without discussing the authority of the church. Not everything written by the Apostles was canon, if new writings were uncovered by Paul there is no reason to preume that they would be canonical, indeed there are very strong presumptions (to put it mildly) to the contrary.


----------



## Herald (Mar 16, 2008)

Sydnorphyn said:


> North Jersey Baptist said:
> 
> 
> > Apart from the apocrypha's claim to be scripture, which the church has rightly judged as unworthy of the canon, there is a _strong_ argument from silence to consider. There has been no written revelation from God in approximately 2000 years. The church was founded on the teachings of Christ and the Apostles. A futurist would look at events in Revelation as supporting verbal and natural revelation but there is no mention of written revelation. If the canon could be added to today then we must believe that direct revelation is still possible. If direct revelation is still possible then there needs to be something worthy of revealing. How would new canonical writings be recognized? Who would have the authority to produce such writings? What would be the sign of their authority? We open up a huge can of worms. I suppose the Roman Catholics would have an easier time in proposing a living canon since they hold to apostolic succession, but you would be hard pressed to find that view among Reformed believers. In the abstract an open canon seems like a way to keep your options open. I'm sure that appeals to academics and theologians. No one likes to be boxed in. But I believe the argument is not one for the church to defend as much as it is for its adherents to prove.
> ...



John,

I don't claim to be a canonical scholar, but I'll take a risk and stay into this area. Vatican I was held in 1869. In my humble opinion the Roman Church had already become an apostate church. Consider this quote from Vatican I:



> "The fourth chapter, lastly, contains the definition of papal infallibility. First, all the corresponding decrees of the Fourth Council of Constantinople, 680 (Sixth Ecumenical), of the Second Council of Lyons, 1274 (Fourteenth Ecumenical) and of the Council of Florence, 1439 (Seventeenth Ecumenical), are repeated and confirmed. It is pointed out, further, that at all times the popes, in the consciousness of their infallibility in matters of faith for the preservation of the purity of the Apostolic tradition, have acted as the court of last instance and have been called upon as such. Then follows the important tenet that the successors of St. Peter have been promised the Holy Ghost, not for the promulgation of new doctrines, but only for the preservation and interpretation of the Revelation delivered by the Apostles. The Constitution closes with the following words: "Faithfully adhering, therefore, to the tradition inherited from the beginning of the Christian Faith, we, with the approbation of the sacred council, for the glory of God our Saviour, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion, and the salvation of Christian peoples, teach and define, as a Divinely revealed dogma, that the Roman pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when he, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, decides that a doctrine concerning faith or morals is to be held by the entire Church he possesses, in consequence of the Divine aid promised him in St. Peter, that infallibility with which the Divine Saviour wished to have His Church furnished for the definition of doctrine concerning faith or morals; and that such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not in consequence of the Church's consent, irreformable."



Vatican I - In my humble opinion - was held as a referendum on Pope Piux IX's infallibility. The fact that Rome validated the canon is interesting only from a historical perspective, not as a work of God. That is my opinion. 

As far as Romes approach to canonicity; even though Rome was filled with errors and apostasies their traditions still held sway. Some traditions were more true than others. Let's remember - Rome wasn't _always _apostate.


----------



## Herald (Mar 16, 2008)

Hippo said:


> Sydnorphyn said:
> 
> 
> > DTK said:
> ...



Correct. We know that Paul wrote a third letter to the Corinthians. Why wasn't it preserved as scripture? I know - argument from silence. But if the canon is going to be expanded upon, wouldn't it begin with the writings of the Apostles?


----------



## Sydnorphyn (Mar 16, 2008)

*humm*



North Jersey Baptist said:


> Hippo said:
> 
> 
> > Sydnorphyn said:
> ...




Why is apostolic authorship - or prophetic authorship (like with Isaiah) essential?


----------



## Hippo (Mar 16, 2008)

Also remember the Rome's view of tradition used to be entirely orthodox, in that it did recognise that the Church must establish traditions in accordance with revelation, not as a revelation as of itself.

Before the Canon was recognised the Church acted according to the Rule of Faith that encompased the apostolic tradition, it is on the basis of this revelation that the Canon was established.

Rather interestingly the whole notion of Papal infalability was first expounded by the Franciscans who were terrified that a new Pope could find them to be heretical, they rather ingeneously argued that as the past Pope had found them to be orthodox this finding of orthodoxy was infallible and binding on the next Pope and his successors. It is the development of this line of logic that helped lead to Rome's rejection of the historical doctrine of the authority of tradition in its proper context.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Mar 16, 2008)

The NT says: "God spake by the prophets." (Heb. 1:1, Lk. 1:70). They were his spokesmen. If God spoke by one, that one was a prophet.

When we pass into the NT age, we still see prophecy. 1 Cor 13:8 tells us that prophecy will cease. In fact, that whole vv8-10 compares the "partial prophecy" which will be done away when that which is complete has arrived.

I am not bound to direct apostolic authorship of the NT documents (so, for example: Mark's Gospel, or Jude), although I see no reason not to note their explicit or implicit supervision of the foundation of the NT church, which comes into being as a *product* of the Word of God. So that, even where there are prophets besides the apostles, it is to the testimony of the apostles which the alleged prophet's words must conform.


----------



## DTK (Mar 16, 2008)

> ...but the textual evidence is silent



I am going to have to say that I respectfully disagree for this reason. I do not believe the textual evidence is silent because the earliest mss of the gospels that we do possess offer every indication that these Gospels had inscriptions and were never circulated anonymously. Now, it is true we do not possess the autographs, but the speculation that they were ever circulated without the inscriptions and/or titles is an argument drawn from silence, and militates against the probable evidence that we do have. Why should we believe that these gospels were ever circulated anonymously? Do you have some proof that the autographs had no inscriptions and/or titles? I think your contention is the argument from silence.

As for church authority, I think Metzger's point on that is the best summary of the historical recognition of the canon. 



> *Bruce M. Metzger:* The distinction between the New Testament writings and later ecclesiastical literature is not based upon arbitrary fiat; it has historical reasons. The generations following the apostles bore witness to the effect that certain writings had on their faith and life. The self-authenticating witness of the word testified to their divine origin of the gospel that had brought the Church into being; such is the implication of Paul’s words to the Thessalonians: ‘We thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of any human being but as what it really is, the word of God which is at work in you believers’ (1 Thess. ii. 13). During the second and succeeding centuries, this authoritative word was found, not in utterances of contemporary leaders and teachers, but in the apostolic testimony contained within certain early Christian writings. From this point of view the Church did not create the canon, but came to recognize, accept, affirm, and confirm the self-authenticating quality of certain documents that imposed themselves as such upon the Church. *If this fact is obscured, one comes into serious conflict not with dogma but with history.* Bruce M. Metzger, _The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance_, third, enlarged ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997), pp. 286-287.



I'm never sure of what some Reformed folk mean today when they speak of the authority of the church in connection with the identity of the canon. In the end, Dr. Mathison took his cue from a point made by Roger Nicole, and said while speaking of the virtual unanimity of the church's recognition of the canon...


> The unanimity is not due to coincidence, and it is not due to centuries of conciliar decrees; it is due to the action of the Holy Spirit enabling God's people to hear His voice.
> 
> But do we believe this because a particular Church tells us so? No, we believe this because of the witness of the Holy Spirit, which was given corporately to all of God's people and has been made manifest by a virtually unanimous receiving of the same New Testament canon in all of the Christian Churches. Keith Mathison, _The Shape of Sola Scriptura_ (Moscow, Idaho: Canon Press, 2001), pp. 318 and 319.


It seems to me that Dr. Mathison looks to the ultimate action of the Spirit's work in this respect rather than resting it on conciliar authority. This seems to be the view that Augustine held as well. Notice his distinction below, that the canon was established *for* the Church rather than *by* the Church...


> *Augustine (354-430):* It is not for nothing, you see, that the canon has been established for the Church. This is the function of the Holy Spirit. So if anybody reads my book, let him pass judgment on me. If I have said something reasonable, let him follow, not me, but reason itself; if I’ve proved it by the clearest divine testimony, let him follow, not me, but the divine scripture. John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., _The Works of Saint Augustine_ Part 3, Vol. 11, trans. Edmund Hill, O.P., _Newly Discovered Sermons_, Sermon 162C.15 (New York: New City Press, 1997), p. 176.


Repeatedly, the entire Reformed tradition speaks with virtually one voice in rejecting conciliar authority for the establishment of the canon. Whitaker's statement is a summary of the Reformed position...


> *William Whitaker (1547-1595):* For we gladly receive the testimony of the church, and admit its authority; but we affirm that there is a far different, more certain, true and august testimony than that of the church. The sum of our opinion is, that the scripture is _autopistos_, that is, hath all its authority and credit from itself; is to be acknowledged, is to be received, not only because the church hath so determined and commanded, but because it comes from God, not by the church, but by the Holy Ghost. William Whitaker, _A Disputation on Holy Scripture Against the Papists, Especially Bellarmine and Stapleton_, trans. and ed. William Fitzgerald (Cambridge: University Press, reprinted 1849), pp. 279-280.



DTK


----------



## Herald (Mar 16, 2008)

Sydnorphyn said:


> North Jersey Baptist said:
> 
> 
> > Hippo said:
> ...



John, see Bruce's (Contra Mundum) reply.


----------



## Sydnorphyn (Mar 17, 2008)

*humm*



Thomas2007 said:


> The Reformers held the canon was closed and identified it in their return to ancient catholic orthodoxy and rejected the Apocraphyl books on that basis. To the Reformers though the canon of Scripture is the text of Scripture and is received as a unified whole, God's word is to be found in the text of Scripture. And the canon is the final form in which Scripture is received, not the initial form. It is an explicitly theological approach to the Scripture which takes seriously the fact that each and every book of the Bible has come down to us as part of the canon.
> 
> This is in direct contradiction in which the Scripture is approached today in the critical school of thought which flows from Johann Semler's presuppositions. Semler approached the Scripture in a historical context and held that the Scripture cannot be identical to God's word, but that it only contained it. Hence, he held that the canon was fluid and was left up to individuals whereby each person could look into the Scripture and decide for themselves what was or was not canonical for them. This is the antithesis of Sola Scriptura and is the default position today in the quest to find the word of God independent from the canon of Scripture.



Thomas: Is "God's word to be found in scripture" or is it scripture. I think Barth would have given you an "A" for that comment...


----------



## Sydnorphyn (Mar 17, 2008)

*meaning*



Contra_Mundum said:


> The NT says: "God spake by the prophets." (Heb. 1:1, Lk. 1:70). They were his spokesmen. If God spoke by one, that one was a prophet.
> 
> When we pass into the NT age, we still see prophecy. 1 Cor 13:8 tells us that prophecy will cease. In fact, that whole vv8-10 compares the "partial prophecy" which will be done away when that which is complete has arrived.
> 
> I am not bound to direct apostolic authorship of the NT documents (so, for example: Mark's Gospel, or Jude), although I see no reason not to note their explicit or implicit supervision of the foundation of the NT church, which comes into being as a *product* of the Word of God. So that, even where there are prophets besides the apostles, it is to the testimony of the apostles which the alleged prophet's words must conform.



Thanks...I think, what is the world do you mean?? Are you suggesting Hebrews refers to written text?


----------



## Sydnorphyn (Mar 17, 2008)

*Interesting*



DTK said:


> > ...but the textual evidence is silent
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The point is there is NO evidence for the gospels being written by MMLJ - early church evidence is nice for apologetic reasons (maybe) but the textual manuscripts are absent of any author...I know rough syntax...and grammar, it early.


----------



## Sydnorphyn (Mar 17, 2008)

*Why?*



North Jersey Baptist said:


> Hippo said:
> 
> 
> > Sydnorphyn said:
> ...



Why?


----------



## AV1611 (Mar 17, 2008)

Our faith is an apostolic faith, that is, it is founded upon the teaching of the Apostles. This teaching is preserved in their writings which we have in the Canon.

One of the best points that Warfield has made is that the Church has never been without Scripture as he noted in _The Formation of the Canon of the New Testament_ which is worth a read if you have the time. 

The issue is whether the inspired works that we do not have in the Canon (St. Paul's third letter to the Corinthians being one example) contained additional revelation to what we find in the Canon now? I for one would say that it didn't.

As for whether the Scriptures contain God's word or are God's word is something I am not 100% set upon but I would maintain that every word in the Canon is inerrant.


----------



## DTK (Mar 17, 2008)

> The point is there is NO evidence for the gospels being written by MMLJ - early church evidence is nice for apologetic reasons (maybe) but the textual manuscripts are absent of any author...


Yes, I understand your claim. I simply think that you do not credit the textual evidence of the earliest mss of the gospels. 

If you applied this same reasoning concerning the non-extant nature of the _autographa_ to all of the NT, then you would have no evidence that any NT writings are apostolic, but perhaps that is where you are.

DTK


----------



## Hippo (Mar 17, 2008)

AV1611 said:


> Our faith is an apostolic faith, that is, it is founded upon the teaching of the Apostles. This teaching is preserved in their writings which we have in the Canon.
> 
> One of the best points that Warfield has made is that the Church has never been without Scripture as he noted in _The Formation of the Canon of the New Testament_ which is worth a read if you have the time.
> 
> ...



I agree.

The Apostolic basis of the canon really cannot be underestimated, even if certain works were not written by an apostle the works were accepted on the basis that they were believed to be written under the direction of the Apostles. 

Even if the Church could have been mistaken here the works were selected on the basis that they fully accorded with the Apostolic tradition (the rule of faith) of which the Church was the custodian. 

As such tradition is no longer remembered seperately from scripture. This is in my mind a powerful argument that the sum of this tradition was contained in the canon. The canon is therefore complete.

Even if we found some writing that we wanted to include in the canon we do not have the clear apostolic authority for the inclusion into the canon and neither would we have the unity required in the Church to agree to its inclusion. Such inclusion would have to be a decision of the Church, and the universal church as a decision making body in a question of such immense magnitude is in ruin.


----------



## Herald (Mar 17, 2008)

Sydnorphyn said:


> North Jersey Baptist said:
> 
> 
> > Hippo said:
> ...



John, go back to some of my earlier comments. Additionally I would ask you, for what purpose would we need the canon expanded? The continuity of scripture regarding the Messiah certainly validated the reason for the New Testament. Whether one is futurist or not, the New Testament also provides a glimpse regarding the end of the present age. I would be interested in hearing your argument to support and expanded canon. Even if you're just posing the question perhaps you can carry that a bit further by adding a defense.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Mar 17, 2008)

Sydnorphyn said:


> Contra_Mundum said:
> 
> 
> > The NT says: "God spake by the prophets." (Heb. 1:1, Lk. 1:70). They were his spokesmen. If God spoke by one, that one was a prophet.
> ...



You asked: "Why is apostolic authorship - or prophetic authorship (like with Isaiah) essential?"

My answer was: the Bible seems to say that God's Word for us is _prophetic word,_ therefore the words of the prophets are God's Word. What difference does it make what form the Word comes in? So, sure it refers to spoken and "written text." Isaiah's text says Isaiah received that Word. Jesus (e.g. Mt 15:7) identifies Isaiah as the prophet who related that Word.

Does the text of Isaiah make a fictional claim? Did Jesus really say that? When you read either one of these things, does the Spirit bear witness with your spirit in conscience that these things are the truth in Christ? (Rom 8:16; 9:1) Do you recognize the Voice of your God? (Jn 10:3, 27)

If you say that is "circular"--I say, of course it is. God's Word is not subject to "validation" by its human receptors on other grounds. Again Jesus words (can you hear him saying them?) are pertinent: "He who _has ears to hear,_ let him hear."

Anyone who entertains a question about any part of the God-Word has two choices: 1) reject (or ignore for now until persuaded) the assertions of authority by that part; or 2) accept it on the authority of its previous reception by the greater part of the church for thousands of years now, and continually increasing--i.e. accept the fact that its probably your own "hearing" that's bad at this point, rather than that *nearly everybody else* has been wrong, hearing God speak where he didn't really.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Mar 17, 2008)

btw,
I'm not suggesting John (syndorphyn) is toying with departure from confidence in God's Word. Just answering the prima facie questions.

To address another one of the thread questions: what would we do if we found a letter we were reasonably certain was written by Paul (or some other inspired writer)?--
The question of Bible inspiration is not utterly separable from Bible preservation, any more than it is separable from the question of its authority. Not _every word_ ever said or written by, say, Jeremiah, was an inspired Word. Not every authoritative word of Jeremiah's (a preached word) was an inspired Word.

There is no reason I can think of, no reason explicated in the present collection of recognized _inspired literature,_ the Bible, that tells me to be on the lookout for an "overlooked," "lost," or "ignored" bit of inspiration. By "preservation", surely we include the idea "preserved for use by the church." The same God who inspired the Word, and backs it up with his authority, has assuredly left it in the hands of his church.

Otherwise, we'd have to assume that Paul or Peter or John had written a piece (how would we know it was their's anyway?) addressed to this point in time and later, and deliberately obscured in the intermediate period. How strange. Daniel's prophecy was given especially for a later time of "unsealing" but never squirreled away. Rather, it was entrusted to the church from that point on for preservation until the appointed time of unsealing.


----------



## sth (Mar 21, 2008)

*Which Canon?: “Messiness” at the Evangelical Theological Society at WTS*

 
At the recent Evangelical Theological Society (ETS) regional NE meeting at Westminster Theological Seminary we learned that the erudite and eloquent keynote speaker (invited by Dr. Peter Enns) Stephen Chapman (Duke Divinity School) is an “evangelical.” If this be the case, it is not the first time I have heard someone using this evangelical label that does not believe in the inerrancy of scripture nor that revelation/inspiration is what determines the canonicity/authority of scripture. Perhaps most peculiar was his view that the Holy Spirit inspired the long history of textual redaction/revision as popularized in the historical-critical renditions of how the Bible came to be canon. His challenge to those in ETS who are theologically Reformed was not-so-profound as it may have sounded to some: “You believe in sovereignty/providence, then why not believe the historical-critical process of redaction was inspired”? (paraphrase). Such a strained effort to have it both ways will result in the view that God is theologically conflicted and morally confused, since the historical-critical (source and tradition-historical) hermeneutic depends upon contradicting (polarized/dialectical) theological schools of theology/politics that were syncretized by late post-exilic redactors (who knew full well they were rewriting the text). If this is to be affirmed, then I suppose so can macroevolution of people and pollywogs, so long as God is in the process. But then we have come full circle back to the basics of unbelief. 
To read the rest of this, go to http://postbiblical.info/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=118&Itemid=1


----------

