# Help Making a Persuasive Case for the NT Canon



## McPatrickClan (Nov 12, 2009)

Hi Guys- I have an upcoming assignment for seminary where I am expected to make a persuasive case for the 27 books of the NT. Yes, this is somewhat vague but it is to be addressed to entire nation via YouTube, so I am trying to pin down exactly what the big things are.

I am thinking that the keys are:

a) all the NT books were written by eyewitness Apostles to the ministry & person of Jesus Christ

b) they were largely accepted by a majority at the Council of Nicaea

c) There is continuity between the books of the NT and the larger themes of the Scriptures (the OT & the other 26 NT books, for example)

Anything else I should add? Any suggestions for taking things away, adding them in?

Thanks guys.


----------



## Jack K (Nov 13, 2009)

I'd add:
We believe the Spirit of God is active and at work in the church, that he guided the early councils and church fathers who determined the canon, and has protected his Word right up to this very day. Any suggestion that we should rethink the canon supposes that the Spirit has, for two millenia, been taking a nap.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Nov 13, 2009)

It is a complex subject. Many become disillusioned as they see what actually transpired and how long it took. There was no objective criteria applied at the time. It was largely subjective. 

The make-up of the NT Canon was also questioned again during the Reformation. Unfortunately, ascribing it to providence is unsatisfying to liberal Christians and non-Christians.

However, your observations are good. Keep it simple. Lol.


----------



## Peairtach (Nov 13, 2009)

This is a good, easy to read book which shows the inadequacy and inconsistency of the Gnostic books compared with the 27.

[ame=http://www.amazon.co.uk/Why-Twenty-Seven-Right-Testament/dp/0852346506/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1258123081&sr=1-1]Why Twenty Seven?: How Can We Be Sure That We Have the Right Books in the New Testament?: Amazon.co.uk: Brian H. Edwards: Books[/ame]

Ultimately the defence of the canon must be upon presuppositional principles. Would the God of Scripture which all men presuppose in their thinking, allow books to enter or be missed out of His New Testament, that should not be in the NT, or that should not be missing from the NT? Would the God of Truth do this, especially when He indicates that it is complete?

See texts that relate to the above: e.g. Romans 8:32, II Timothy 3:16-17, Revelation 22:18-19, and many others that teach us to have confidence in God's Word.

Also check out with others better qualified than myself on a Van Tillian or Presuppositional defence of the Canon.

Revelation 10:2 (Is the Little Book the completed NT, that Christ hands to John?). Revelation 12:16 (Is the water out of the Serpent's mouth the Gnostic teaching and writings that threatened to corrupt the church?).

The last two suggestions are speculation, because Revelation is a difficult book to interpret in places, and depend upon an early date for the Book of Revelation, before AD 70.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Nov 13, 2009)

It's only through the canonical books that the Holy Spritit creates and builds up the Church. He does not so accompany the reading and preaching of any other material. The Canon forms the Church, not the other way around. See Ridderbos, _Redemptive History and the NT Scriptures_. If you want some breif points to browse through or organize your presentation, then look through some Systematic Theologies like Reymond, Bavinck, Hodge, or Grudem.


----------



## McPatrickClan (Nov 13, 2009)

Thank you much fellas- that gets me on the right track. Any others with suggestions, that would be great. Thank you!


----------



## Karnes (Nov 13, 2009)

I think you could go even deeper on letter "b". Most of them were widely accepted prior to the Council, only the Council and circumstances calling the council required that the Books be agreed upon.


----------



## Brian Withnell (Nov 13, 2009)

McPatrickClan said:


> Hi Guys- I have an upcoming assignment for seminary where I am expected to make a persuasive case for the 27 books of the NT. Yes, this is somewhat vague but it is to be addressed to entire nation via YouTube, so I am trying to pin down exactly what the big things are.
> 
> I am thinking that the keys are:
> 
> ...



Ack! Can you object to the assignment on principle? We do not argue for why the scripture is to be accepted, to do so is to be the judge of what is and is not the scripture, and to put our judgment and reason over the Word of God. The church does not define scripture, but the scripture defines the church. The church receives the scripture and has done so ... we cannot give "reasons" as to why, or those reasons become rational criteria as to what is and is not scripture.


----------



## McPatrickClan (Nov 13, 2009)

Brian Withnell said:


> McPatrickClan said:
> 
> 
> > Hi Guys- I have an upcoming assignment for seminary where I am expected to make a persuasive case for the 27 books of the NT. Yes, this is somewhat vague but it is to be addressed to entire nation via YouTube, so I am trying to pin down exactly what the big things are.
> ...



Good point. However, while I agree with your line of thinking, I am taking the assignment as a charge to be ready with some level of understanding for when a new and interested person may visit my church someday. It's not necessarily a question that requires an evidential answer.


----------



## DTK (Nov 14, 2009)

McPatrickClan said:


> Hi Guys- I have an upcoming assignment for seminary where I am expected to make a persuasive case for the 27 books of the NT...
> 
> b) they were largely accepted by a majority at the Council of Nicaea


I have no reason to doubt the truth of this assertion, but I would be interested in your providing positive proof for it. I would be grateful for your help.

Thanks,
DTK


----------



## Philip (Nov 14, 2009)

> b) they were largely accepted by a majority at the Council of Nicaea



This is a myth. The first official statement about books of the Bible was at Trent. The Easter Letter of Athanasius is generally accepted as the final word. The letter reflects the general consensus of the Church then and since, but there was not any official statement until the Reformation.


----------



## Peairtach (Nov 14, 2009)

This thread on the cessation of canonical writing may be useful, or complicate things. It's certainly related to your topic.

http://www.puritanboard.com/f62/how-do-we-explain-apparent-use-gifts-today-53892/

also this thread:-

http://www.puritanboard.com/f62/divine-revelation-real-made-up-my-head-51765/

I highly recommend once again Douglas Judisch's book, on texts which speak of the cessation of prophecy and hence also the completion of the canon.

Sadly this book is out of print. I see there are some secondhand copies here:-

douglas judisch - AbeBooks

The Pentecostalists have to answer, if there are no texts in Scripture which indicate that prophecy and revelation were to cease, and if it didn't cease, how did the apostolic fathers know that the canon had been completed? 

There must have been a ceasing of revelation from God - and we find Scripture texts which intimate that, and even indicate when it will happen - or a marked deterioration in its quality, which last view would be a slur on the Holy Spirit.


----------



## Romans922 (Nov 14, 2009)

Something I have been dealing with in an old friend is Eastern Orthodoxy. They say we can't claim Scripture alone because we believe in the authority of tradition as well, this is one of those cases in which they will use. How do you know there are 27 books in the NT? Because of the Church Fathers (tradition).


----------



## DTK (Nov 14, 2009)

P. F. Pugh said:


> > b) they were largely accepted by a majority at the Council of Nicaea
> 
> 
> 
> This is a myth. The first official statement about books of the Bible was at Trent. The Easter Letter of Athanasius is generally accepted as the final word. The letter reflects the general consensus of the Church then and since, but there was not any official statement until the Reformation.



No, these remarks are a myth. There were conciliar statements about the canon prior to Trent, which was the first time a council spoke officially for the Roman communion according to a number of Roman theologians. And there have been many other remarks on the canon after the Festal Letter of Athanasius that reflected the general consensus of the Church, the most well-known being that of Jerome whose precedent many (if not most) of the medieval theologians followed.

DTK

-----Added 11/14/2009 at 04:54:21 EST-----



Romans922 said:


> Something I have been dealing with in an old friend is Eastern Orthodoxy. They say we can't claim Scripture alone because we believe in the authority of tradition as well, this is one of those cases in which they will use. How do you know there are 27 books in the NT? Because of the Church Fathers (tradition).



Eastern Orthodoxy has no advantage in this respect, for example, the Council of Trullo approved four different canonical lists...


> *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 “Eastern 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.



and it is still a topic of disputation in Eastern Orthodoxy...



> *Demetrios J. Constantelos: *The canonicity of the Deuterocanonical books is still a disputed topic in Orthodox biblical theology. See his article “Eastern 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.
> 
> J*ohn 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 (“shorter” 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 “shorter” canon. But the Quinisext Council (692) endorses the authority of the Apostolic Canon 85, which admits some books of the “longer” canon, including even 3 Maccabees, but omits Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus as “admirable,” 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 “longer” canon—especially Wisdom—are of frequent liturgical use, Byzantine theologians remain faithful to a “Hebrew” 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 “canonical” and “deuterocanonical” literature of the Old Testament, applying the first term only to the books of the “shorter” canon. John Meyendorff, _Byzantine Theology: Historical Trends and Doctrinal Themes_, 2nd rev. ed. (New York: Fordham University Press, 1983), p. 7.



DTK


----------



## py3ak (Nov 14, 2009)

Here is a thumbnail sketch of one point of Ridderbos' book, translated from Spanish:



> *The Apostolate and the Canon of the New Testament*
> 
> The question of the canon of Scripture can be a difficult topic, and one we sometimes tend to avoid. It is not so much a problem with the OT, as we take over the books which Jesus accepted and are confident of being on solid ground - again, we receive them from the OT church without qualms (Rom. 3:2). But what of the books written after Jesus ascended? What of the NT? There is no list in Scripture of what constitutes the boundaries of the New Testament, so this is a real problem. Herman Ridderbos wrote a remarkable book called _Redemptive History and the New Testament Scriptures_, which is very helpful on this topic: I would like to treat one of the main points he makes in that book, about the relationship of the apostolate to the canon of the NT.
> 
> ...


----------



## McPatrickClan (Nov 19, 2009)

Well, it may not be the most fantastic work ever but I posted my product on YouTube. Thanks for your help, PBers!

[video=youtube;OHq3cIY-4tM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHq3cIY-4tM[/video]


----------

