Canon and Scripture, any difference?

[AV1611]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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?

Why?

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]

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?

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]

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]

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