Canon of Scripture

[mercygate]

well, I’m jumping back in here kind of late, but

I believe the Bible is self-authenticating in many ways. I’ve already listed the historical and geological accuracies that testify to it truthfulness.

But Scripture itself testifies from one book to another. Many authors of many books all affirming the truth of the others.

2 Peter 3:15-16 refers to Paul’‘s writings as Scripture.
Since Peter considered Paul’‘s writings as Scripture, I should think Peter’'s writings were also considered Scripture - (You are Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church)

The Gospel of Matthew, was written between 42 -50 AD, so Christians knew of this book and since Matthew was one of the twelve, they would accept it as Scripture.

So, many of these books were written and accepted as Scripture in the first century while the Apostles were still alive.

The authors testify to their own and each other’s authenticity.

Absolutely! Everything you say here is part of how all of these writings came together and were recognized by the Church.

One point, though. Because we KNOW the canon was “loose” in the first century (the Saducees accepted only the Pentateuch, e.g., and others accepted the Deuterocanonicals, while some did not), I believe that the idea of “Sacred Scripture” (rolling the “r’s here”) as a fixed, inviolable, inerrant, rock-hard, undisputed single thing, came much later – perhaps as late as the Reformation?

The books we have canonized as “scripture” and that we venerate as the inerrant written Word of God, were for the most part recognized by most of the Church very early on as “special.” But the word “scripture” simply means “writings.” It was really the Church, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, that recognized the absolute sanctity of the ‘writings’ and separated only these books as holding divine status.

Namely, the word “scripture” in scripture does not hold the rock-hard meaning it does for all of us today. The fact that the early councils tossed around the idea of including the Letter of Clement to the Corinthians, and that The Shepherd of Hermas is bound into the Codex Sinaiticus gives us a sense of the relative fluidity of the word “scripture” in the early Church.

 

[steve_b]

Part 4 of 5

“As Dr. R.C. Sproul says, I believe we have a fallible list of infallible books".,

IMO, Sproul probably wishes he could take that statement back.

 

[mgrfin]

Absolutely! Everything you say here is part of how all of these writings came together and were recognized by the Church.

One point, though. Because we KNOW the canon was “loose” in the first century (the Saducees accepted only the Pentateuch, e.g., and others accepted the Deuterocanonicals, while some did not), I believe that the idea of “Sacred Scripture” (rolling the “r’s here”) as a fixed, inviolable, inerrant, rock-hard, undisputed single thing, came much later – perhaps as late as the Reformation?

The books we have canonized as “scripture” and that we venerate as the inerrant written Word of God, were for the most part recognized by most of the Church very early on as “special.” But the word “scripture” simply means “writings.” It was really the Church, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, that recognized the absolute sanctity of the ‘writings’ and separated only these books as holding divine status.

Namely, the word “scripture” in scripture does not hold the rock-hard meaning it does for all of us today. The fact that the early councils tossed around the idea of including the Letter of Clement to the Corinthians, and that The Shepherd of Hermas is bound into the Codex Sinaiticus gives us a sense of the relative fluidity of the word “scripture” in the early Church.

When you talk with bible-centered Christian communities, they tend to talk of things like self-authenticating scriptures - they are scriptures because the scriptures say that they are. Totally illogical. I am very glad you pointed out that ‘scriptures’ were just writings. That sounds very reasonable since these people didn’t have bible books to carry around.

peace

 

[Philthy]

Philthy,

I haven’t forgotten about you or lost interest but witht he upcoming holidays I probably won’t post much of anything, if anything, until this weekend.

Thank you for being so considerate. I understand completely as I too have a very busy life - even when there are no holidays. Take however much time you need, you dont owe me anthing. When you do respond, please send me a PM to let me know as I will be pretty busy also.
May God’s peace be with you and your loved ones guarding your hearts and minds in Christ Jesus,

Phil

 

[Philthy]

One point, though…we KNOW the canon was “loose” in the first century (the Saducees accepted only the Pentateuch, e.g., and others accepted the Deuterocanonicals, while some did not), I believe that the idea of “Sacred Scripture” (rolling the “r’s here”) as a fixed, inviolable, inerrant, rock-hard, undisputed single thing, came much later – perhaps as late as the Reformation?.. the word “scripture” simply means “writings.” It was really the Church, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, that recognized the absolute sanctity of the ‘writings’ and separated only these books as holding divine status. Namely, the word “scripture” in scripture does not hold the rock-hard meaning it does for all of us today… The fact that the early councils tossed around the idea of including the Letter of Clement to the Corinthians, and that The Shepherd of Hermas is bound into the Codex Sinaiticus gives us a sense of the relative fluidity of the word “scripture” in the early Church.

:clapping: You are such a smartypants - where do you get all this juicy stuff!? Would you please comment on how these thoughts apply to the verse where Peter refers to Pauls writings as “scripture”( 2Pet 3:16)? Does this mean that Peter didnt necessarily yet recognize Pauls writings as having the same “divine status” as, say, Isaiah or the Pentateuch even though he uses the term scripture indirectly in identifying them? If this is off topic, please send me a PM…

 

[jmcrae]

:clapping: You are such a smartypants - where do you get all this juicy stuff!? Would you please comment on how these thoughts apply to the verse where Peter refers to Pauls writings as “scripture”( 2Pet 3:16)? Does this mean that Peter didnt necessarily yet recognize Pauls writings as having the same “divine status” as, say, Isaiah or the Pentateuch even though he uses the term scripture indirectly in identifying them? If this is off topic, please send me a PM…

“Scripture” means “writings.”

St. Peter was referring to all of St. Paul’s writings, but not all of St. Paul’s writings made it into the canon of the New Testament - we find only 12 of his letters in the New Testament (or 13, if he did in fact write the Letter to the Hebrews), out of what must originally have been hundreds.

 

[Philthy]

…you say “To me, it sounds like he really wants an infallible collection of inerrant Scripture but to do so would require granting infallibility to the Church, and thats a line many simply cannot cross.” and I agree w/ you on this and think he has said as much.

Yeah, its a toughy for sure. Your position (and his) is entirely reasonable and I can respect that. That doesnt mean it is correct, however. Hence, the thread…

 

[mercygate]

:clapping: You are such a smartypants - where do you get all this juicy stuff!? Would you please comment on how these thoughts apply to the verse where Peter refers to Pauls writings as “scripture”( 2Pet 3:16)? Does this mean that Peter didnt necessarily yet recogneize Pauls writings as having the same “divine status” as, say, Isaiah or the Pentateuch? If this is off topic, please send me a PM…

Actually, I made this up from the available facts.

Look at the history. 1) The New Testament had not been canonized. 2) The Jewish Canon was not yet closed, and 3) a major segment of the Jewish leadership rejected everything but the Pentateuch. 4) Codex Sinaiticus (early 4th C) includes “Shepherd” – IOW, that was a valued book SOMEBODY thought worthy of binding in an elaborate codex, although it was LATER excluded from the NT canon.

So there was a general veneration of “writings” without a clear boundary line for a limited canon. Relying on the common witness and Apostolic tradition, the Church operated without a hard-and-fast canon for over 350 years.

In the second and third centuries, because of the distance from first-generation apostolic succession and the rapid world-wide spread of Christianity, a vast number of questionable “Apostolic writings” (Barnabas, Thomas, Peter, Judas, etc), emerged. The the councils of Hippo and Carthage, recognizing the need to identify those texts that would, going forward, be the only texts recognized as authentic for use in the churches, fixed the canon.

Thus, the Holy Spirit guided the Church in this decision. Thus, “the writings” (respected, honored) receive authentication and become THE BIBLE – by the authority promised to the Church by Christ Himself. By the authority of the Church, under the direction of the Holy Spirit, “the writings” become unquestioned as “inspired” and “inerrant.”

As for Peter referring to Paul’s letters as “scripture”, I would say that this is a point that affirms Peter’s privileged position. Peter (y’know, the guy with the Keys) is effectively “canonizing” Paul’s writings by using the word, “scriptures.”

 

[mgrfin]

“Scripture” means “writings.”

St. Peter was referring to all of St. Paul’s writings, but not all of St. Paul’s writings made it into the canon of the New Testament - we find only 12 of his letters in the New Testament (or 13, if he did in fact write the Letter to the Hebrews), out of what must originally have been hundreds.

I don’t know where you get 12/13 from? My D-R has 14:
Romans
1 Cor
2 Cor
Galatians
Ephesians
Phillipians
Colossians
1 Thess
2 Thess
1 Tim
2 Tim
Titus
Philemon
Hebrews.

Someone help me out here.

Tks

peace

 

[jmcrae]

I don’t know where you get 12/13 from? My D-R has 14:

Whups!! I miscounted. (That’s what I get for trying to go by memory.)

Sorry about that!!

In any case, my main point was that not all of St. Paul’s writings were included in the New Testament - just those few.

 

[Ginger2]

Whups!! I miscounted. (That’s what I get for trying to go by memory.)

Sorry about that!!

In any case, my main point was that not all of St. Paul’s writings were included in the New Testament - just those few.

I guess I would ask, then, how many of those hundreds of letters do we find complete copies of?

 

[jmcrae]

I guess I would ask, then, how many of those hundreds of letters do we find complete copies of?

What has that got to do with it? If the Church had considered them to be divinely inspired, or likely to be divinely inspired, people would have made careful copies of them, and they would not have disappeared.

 

[Pwrlftr]

Awesome - I agree! Could you please tell me what you mean by “the church” in this statement? .

Philthy,

I thought about writing a long response to your question but decided that I never would get around to it. So, in a nutshell, here it is…
Church:

Q. 61. Are all they saved who hear the gospel, and live in the church?
A. All that hear the gospel, and live in the visible church, are not saved; but they only who are true members of the church invisible.

Q. 62. What is the visible church?
A. The visible church is a society made up of all such as in all ages and places of the world do profess the true religion, and of their children.

Q. 63. What are the special privileges of the visible church?
A. The visible church hath the privilege of being under God’s special care and government; of being protected and preserved in all ages, notwithstanding the opposition of all enemies; and of enjoying the communion of saints, the ordinary means of salvation, and offers of grace by Christ to all the members of it in the ministry of the gospel, testifying, that whosoever believes in him shall be saved, and excluding none that will come unto him.

Q. 64. What is the invisible church?
A. The invisible church is the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one under Christ the head.

Q. 65. What special benefits do the members of the invisible church enjoy by Christ?
A. The members of the invisible church by Christ enjoy union and communion with him in grace and glory.

I guess there are various ways of describing the true chuch. I prefer to speak of it as the body that contains the faithful remnant of Christ.

I’m not a church historian but I do believe that the traditional Reformed community speaks of three marks of the church:
1.) The preaching of the word.
2.) The right administration of the sacraments.
3.) Proper church discipline.

We also accept the the four marks of the church listed in the Nicene Creed; the church is also one, holy, catholic and apostolic.

From the above, one should be able to see that I believe there was a visible church from the beginning and has never disappeared from the earth.

 

[mgrfin]

Philthy,

I thought about writing a long response to your question but decided that I never would get around to it. So, in a nutshell, here it is…

I guess there are various ways of describing the true chuch. I prefer to speak of it as the body that contains the faithful remnant of Christ.

I’m not a church historian but I do believe that the traditional Reformed community speaks of three marks of the church:
1.) The preaching of the word.
2.) The right administration of the sacraments.
3.) Proper church discipline.

We also accept the the four marks of the church listed in the Nicene Creed; the church is also one, holy, catholic and apostolic.

From the above, one should be able to see that I believe there was a visible church from the beginning and has never disappeared from the earth.

Lifter:

You seem to be describing the Roman Catholic Church.

peace

 

[Ginger2]

“Scripture” means “writings.”

St. Peter was referring to all of St. Paul’s writings, but not all of St. Paul’s writings made it into the canon of the New Testament - we find only 12 of his letters in the New Testament (or 13, if he did in fact write the Letter to the Hebrews), out of what must originally have been hundreds.

I am wondering what makes you think he wrote “hundreds”?

Is there any writing, concerning the Christian faith, attributed to Paul that is not in the Bible?

Your claim is that Paul wrote hundreds of letters and/or other inspired writings, that the Church specifically decided did not belong in the canon.

Name one.

 

[Pwrlftr]

Lifter:

You seem to be describing the Roman Catholic Church.

peace

I don’t know how to respond to that other than to say that there are many things we both believe and agree with each other on and, unfortunately, there are some issues that things that we remain seperated on.

 

[mgrfin]

I am wondering what makes you think he wrote “hundreds”?

Is there any writing, concerning the Christian faith, attributed to Paul that is not in the Bible?

Your claim is that Paul wrote hundreds of letters and/or other inspired writings, that the Church specifically decided did not belong in the canon.

Name one.

So you really believe that St. Paul only wrote 14 letters?

Here we have a prolific preacher, who spent his time mediatating on the mysteries of christianity. And you believe that he only wrote 14 epistles.

How much did Martin Luther write? How much did John Calvin write? They couldn’t stop once they got started. It’s in their blood. Name a religious leader: John Smith, John Wesley, Bishop Sheen, etc. Love to put the word of God onto paper.

Paul probably never considered these things as scripture. They were written for a specific cause and purpose, not for us later to read them and declare them “Scripture”.

I don’t know about the Church specifically deciding they did not belong in the canon. They probably got lost. People hung on to them and did not share them with others. Like what we do. We put things in trunks, in the garage, in the attic. We keep personal things, and then our kids throw them out.

I am not upset by it, but I think the human thing is to believe that such a preacher as St. Paul wrote up a storm.

I have a cousin who is doing our ancestry. By digging he is coming up with unimmaginable things: birth and death records, pictures, personal letters, ships logs, books, autographs.

Paul wrote tons.

peace
peace

 

[mercygate]

I am wondering what makes you think he wrote “hundreds”?

Is there any writing, concerning the Christian faith, attributed to Paul that is not in the Bible?

Your claim is that Paul wrote hundreds of letters and/or other inspired writings, that the Church specifically decided did not belong in the canon.

Name one.

The Acts of Paul and Thecla is an early “writing” – one of those spurious documents attributed to Paul that didn’t make it into the canon. Good thing. It wasn’t written by him.

 

[Pwrlftr]

Philthy,

You asked me how the church revealed the canon to me. You do know volumes have been written to answer this very question don’t you?

Well, I am going to cop out and say that with a few differences I believe the canon came to me the same way it came to you with the main difference being that I don’t think any of the early (or late for that matter) councils were infallible.

We agree explicitly on the canon of the NT and and part ways when your church dogmatically declared the OT canon to include the 7 books you refer to as deutercanonical.

Earlier you said you felt that your postion was one of faith, pragmatics, and I believe reason. I would describe my position the same way.

 

[Pwrlftr]

Here’s the rub. Given what we agree on, why are there ANY disagreements on ANY books?

Why do people disagree on anything? It sounds like you are looking for something specific and it has flown over my head.

Please 'splain yo self.