|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
Canonicity (protestant perspective only please) - 1/26/2009 3:07:04 PM
|
|
|
rhpmike
Posts: 196
Joined: 7/26/2005
Status: offline
|
Hi,
I have been deeply struggling with canonicity lately and I was hoping someone from a protestant background could help. I don't necessarily want to go through all of the Roman Catholic/Protestant/EasternOrthodox/etc. arguments.
In any case, here is my concern:
Roman Catholics have a person/position that they believe can speak infallibly from God. Therefore, all that is necessary for them is for the Pope to speak ex cathedra and Bingo! they can know for certain what is the true and authoritative Word of God.
Unfortunately, as Protestants, we don't have that luxury. We believe the only thing that is infallible is the Word of God. However, no where in the "Word of God" do we have a statement about what exactly IS the Word of God.
Therefore, it seems to me that we are Always stuck with a Fallible collection of Infallible books. This strikes me as very difficult for perhaps obvious reasons.
Beyond that, I have had issues with the criteria that some have used to argue for canonicity.
The question is, How do I know that a book belongs in the Canon?
If it is answered "Apostolicity" I ask whether this is either/or a Necessary or Sufficient criterion. If it is necessary, then mustn't it immediately disqualify books with an unknown author (in the NT, Hebrews is an obvious example). Further, it seems that it must cast doubt on books with disputed authors: Pastoral Epistles, IIPeter, etc.
If it is answered "Internal Authority" I ask whether this is a subjective criterion. If so, can two people with different canons both be correct? If I find that the additions to Esther contain more authority than the original Esther, should I accept the additions? If I find that the Didache has more authority than Philemon, should I accept the former and discard the latter?
If it is answered "Is in harmony with other Scripture" I ask whether this is circular logic and begging the question. How can we determine what is Scripture based on whether it accords with other Scripture when we have not yet determined what other scripture is?
If it is answered "Is in harmony with essential Christian doctrine" I ask From where does Essential Christian doctrine come from if the Scriptures. If it comes from Scripture, are we not again begging the question.
If it is answered "Received by the earliest Christian Church" then what must we do with the books that took a long time to be accepted and were not accepted by the earliest church? Further, what do we do with books like 1Clement and the Shepherd of Hermes which were sometimes accepted by the Early Church. This isn't even to mention the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical books that seemed to be received by many in the Early Church.
If it is answered "God has protected his Word throughout the ages" I ask whether he has preserved it in the form of the Roman Catholic Bible, the Eastern Orthodox Bible, The Syriac Bible, Martin Luther's Bible or the current Protestant Bible.
If it is answered "Christians since the fourth century have accepted these same books" I ask whether that is definitive. Why is their judgment any more valuable than Luther's judgment? Than the Council of Trent's judgment? Than my own judgment?
Etc.
The list goes on.
Please help me.
Thank you!
Mike
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Canonicity (protestant perspective only please) - 1/26/2009 3:51:34 PM
|
|
|
Bluethread
Posts: 2940
Joined: 11/8/2007
Status: online
|
I am not protesting anything, but presume you mean you do not want to hear from those who accept an overarching authortarian structure. Presuming that is the case, I would say this is one of many reasons to begin with Ha Torah(the pentetuch) as the founding canon, judge the other books in relation to that first, and build from there. There is much debate over the proper interpretation and translation of certain terms, but for the most part there is little debate over whether or not those books are Scripture.
_____________________________
"Show me wherein I have errored and I will hold my tongue." Iyov(Job)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Canonicity (protestant perspective only please) - 1/26/2009 4:00:20 PM
|
|
|
rhpmike
Posts: 196
Joined: 7/26/2005
Status: offline
|
Okay, so We accept the Torah ... where do we go from there?
So ... Not conflicting with the Torah. Is this a necessary or a Sufficient condition? 1) If it is necessary: I think Christians are going to have a hard time "You've heard it said X,y,z, but I tell you A, B, C" 2) If it is sufficient: There are a whole lot of Jewish works/commentary/etc. that do not conflict with the Torah. Should they be considered Scripture?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Canonicity (protestant perspective only please) - 1/26/2009 4:19:14 PM
|
|
|
Bluethread
Posts: 2940
Joined: 11/8/2007
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rhpmike
Okay, so We accept the Torah ... where do we go from there?
So ... Not conflicting with the Torah. Is this a necessary or a Sufficient condition? 1) If it is necessary: I think Christians are going to have a hard time "You've heard it said X,y,z, but I tell you A, B, C" 2) If it is sufficient: There are a whole lot of Jewish works/commentary/etc. that do not conflict with the Torah. Should they be considered Scripture?
We would need to look at those X,Y,Z but I say A, B ,C passages one by one. However, I have found that these are clarifications of rabbinic misunderstandings. In other words, the Scriptures literally say x,y,z, but what that meant was a,b,c. Or, others have said x,y,z, but the Scriptures really say a,b,c. a,b,c is not replacing x,y,z, it is clarifying what was misunderstood.
_____________________________
"Show me wherein I have errored and I will hold my tongue." Iyov(Job)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Canonicity (protestant perspective only please) - 1/27/2009 3:42:21 AM
|
|
|
Irish2
Posts: 199
Status: offline
|
Great thread Mike!
The New Testament canon of scripture- the Achilles heel of sola scriptura.
Since I'm not a protestant, I can't help you out with this one.
But...young Jedi,
If there is a clear and logical answer to your question, you should get about 50 identical, common sense responses, all in complete agreement with each other. Truth is truth right? 2 plus 2 equals 4 correct? This should prove sola scriptura. The bible should contain the answer.
or...
On the other hand your probably going to get 50 different theories and all kinds of varying opinions as to why the bible has the books that it has. The failure of sola scriptura.
Just my guess (no offense to anyone)
Good luck and have fun...
_____________________________
"These are the days when the Christian is expected to praise every creed except his own." G.K. Chesterton
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Canonicity (protestant perspective only please) - 1/27/2009 8:31:07 AM
|
|
|
sparkleingsnow
Posts: 5048
Joined: 1/9/2007
Status: offline
|
I think thats something we've all asked ourselfs at one time or another. I havn't studyed how the books of the NT were choosen, but I put my faith in the fact that the Lord lead them in this. Man is failable but God isn't. I don't think He would have allowed anything that it was importen for us to know, to be left out. Why would He? He loves us and wants us to follow Jesus. He made a way for us to be with Him so why would He allow something that would keep us from Him to be left out?
So I do believe that the Lord helped guide the chooseing of what should be in the Bible. Reminber most of the book of the NT were written by men that actually walked with Jesus while He was on this earth, and Paul who the Lord made Himself known to in a powerful way.
If satan can get us to doubt the Bible, then he can start chipping away at our faith. Reminber part of the armor of God is His word, and we need to renew ourselfs in it daily.
2 Timothy 3: 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
I believe that the choosing of the books of the NT were God inspired. That everything is the Bible is scripture, and that it is complete in what God wanted it to be. Like I said before, He gave us this instruction manual. Why would He leave anything out?
_____________________________
The LORD is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer; my God, my strength, in whom I will trust; my buckler, and the horn of my salvation, and my high tower. Psalms 18:2
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Canonicity (protestant perspective only please) - 1/27/2009 9:12:06 AM
|
|
|
sparkleingsnow
Posts: 5048
Joined: 1/9/2007
Status: offline
|
I just came back to say, that Paul said in Galatians:
Galatians 1: 8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. 9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
There were a lot of books written back then. Some of them misleading. Be careful what you read and believe. God bless.
_____________________________
The LORD is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer; my God, my strength, in whom I will trust; my buckler, and the horn of my salvation, and my high tower. Psalms 18:2
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Canonicity (protestant perspective only please) - 1/27/2009 11:00:20 AM
|
|
|
BookerG
Posts: 165
Status: offline
|
Instead of starting with the question of how we decide what God’s Word is, start with the fact that God decided. Then there might still be some uncertainty on our part, but we can rest assured that, first, nothing of God’s Word has been lost, and, second, that anything that contradicts God’s Word can be recognized as error.
From God’s point of view the formation of the canon was immediate and definitive. From man’s point of view it’s a little slower and messier, not because the canon is some vague, changeable collection, but because our own knowledge and certainties are limited and imperfect, and because the church has always had hypocrites and heretics. To expect unanimity in the church’s acceptance of one specific canon would be to expect a perfect church. It is not. The debates and discussions within the church did not decide the canon. They merely recognized the canon and came, slowly, to a universal defense of those books that were canon from the beginning, as the books that were true Scriptures stood up for themselves by their internal authority, their agreement with the rest of Scriptures, their living power.
The NT canon was being gathered already by the apostles and recognized as God’s Word by those chosen by Christ with the special gift and indwelling of the Holy Spirit, as, for example, Peter testifies to the collected divine wisdom of Paul’s writings (2 Peter 3:15-16), and Timothy quotes Luke as Scriptures (1 Tim. 5:18). Even though we do not have a surviving apostolic listing of specific books, later debates in the church did not decide the canon, they defended it.
There might still be some uncertainty on our part. But it’s really not a faith-shattering concern if I can’t say with absolute certainty that the Bible is these exact 66 books and no others, although I am confident that it is. If we begin with those books about which there has never been any controversy, we have all that we need for faith and salvation. If any book contains teachings that deny or contradict the Scriptures, then it can’t be Scripture. If any book agrees 100% with the rest of Scriptures, then I could be mistaken about whether God intended it to be included within the covers of my Bible, but I still have the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
There is no major teaching of Scriptures which is found only within the antilegomena--books that were spoken against. (Of course, that point betrays my own bias regarding the book of Revelation, that I believe it simply teaches in picture language what is taught in the rest of Scriptures; it’s not a roadmap to future events, rapture, millenium...)
All of the basic criteria that you mentioned (apostolicity, internal authority, acceptance by the church) help us confirm in our own hearts what is God’s Word, but they do not establish or create the canon.
The bottom line is faith, I'll trust what God has revealed to me in his Word and as his Word. It's not proof. And there are plenty of people with mistaken faith. But faith is all I have. It's all I need or want.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Canonicity (protestant perspective only please) - 1/27/2009 12:07:50 PM
|
|
|
OldJoe
Posts: 50
Joined: 3/16/2007
Status: offline
|
Greetings Mike
There are some good responses above.
I would like to add: God is not a God of Confusion. Paul wrote to Timothy and Titus to avoid needles controversies. We all must watch for this.
The reference made to Galatians Ch 1 vs 8 and 9 is excellent. Read and pray is the rule of thumb for most of us when it comes to the scriptures. Stay with the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ and God will reveal to you the scriptures you require as you require them.
If I can share one example with you: I was praying in regards to a specific happening at my Church and with which I was not comfortable but with which most of the congregation thought was correct. God gave me a scripture which if taken in the context of the scriptures around it, was of no use. God gave it to me in a different context. The verse: "Zeal for your house will consume me". The context in which God gave me this verse for the specific occasion: the zeal of the congregation for the Church was consuming God in such a way that He was being left out of decisions.
Always read, pray and trust God for his revelation for your personal situation at the time. God loves you and will not let you down.
God Bless you
Old Joe - - - long retired
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Canonicity (protestant perspective only please) - 1/27/2009 12:28:36 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 4627
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Therefore, it seems to me that we are Always stuck with a Fallible collection of Infallible books. This strikes me as very difficult for perhaps obvious reasons. I guess it's not so obvious to me why you find canonicity "very difficult" to accept, rhpmike. Can you identify any significant contradictions of doctrinal theology throughout the 66 Books? I certainly cannot! Do you feel we are missing some essential teaching of the faith found outside the 66 Books? I certainly do not! So what's the big deal?
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Canonicity (protestant perspective only please) - 1/27/2009 8:23:52 PM
|
|
|
rhpmike
Posts: 196
Joined: 7/26/2005
Status: offline
|
So far, I'm hearing some similar answers
quote:
I havn't studyed how the books of the NT were choosen, but I put my faith in the fact that the Lord lead them in this. Man is failable but God isn't. I don't think He would have allowed anything that it was importen for us to know, to be left out
quote:
I would like to add: God is not a God of Confusion. Paul wrote to Timothy and Titus to avoid needles controversies. We all must watch for this.
quote:
Instead of starting with the question of how we decide what God’s Word is, start with the fact that God decided. Then there might still be some uncertainty on our part, but we can rest assured that, first, nothing of God’s Word has been lost, and, second, that anything that contradicts God’s Word can be recognized as error.
Right ... God is not a God of confusion and he is faithful to preserve his word. That makes since, except for the fact that people who call themselves Christians (not counting cults like JWs or Mormons) have at least 4 different canons, not to mention the many disagreements that theologians have had over history. If all Christians everywhere agreed, then this argument would make sense. But, unfortunately, what you are really saying is "God is not a God of confusion and will preserve his word THROUGH Protestant Traditions" and I just do not have a reason to believe that this is true and so I find this answer unhelpful.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Canonicity (protestant perspective only please) - 1/27/2009 8:25:45 PM
|
|
|
rhpmike
Posts: 196
Joined: 7/26/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
There were a lot of books written back then. Some of them misleading. Be careful what you read and believe. God bless.
Exactly. That is why it is so important to know what the Canon actually is. What is misleading and what is God's inspired word??
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Canonicity (protestant perspective only please) - 1/27/2009 8:27:57 PM
|
|
|
rhpmike
Posts: 196
Joined: 7/26/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
I guess it's not so obvious to me why you find canonicity "very difficult" to accept, rhpmike. Can you identify any significant contradictions of doctrinal theology throughout the 66 Books? I certainly cannot! Do you feel we are missing some essential teaching of the faith found outside the 66 Books?
First, you are starting with an a priori assumption that we have 66 books, when my question is what books we ought to have. Roman Catholics tell us that we are missing several key doctrines, some of which are found in books that are found in their Bible, not ours. I do not agree with them for several reasons, but the point is, we cannot know what "essential teachings of the faith" are if we do not know what God's Inspired word is.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Canonicity (protestant perspective only please) - 1/27/2009 8:33:00 PM
|
|
|
rhpmike
Posts: 196
Joined: 7/26/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
There might still be some uncertainty on our part. But it’s really not a faith-shattering concern if I can’t say with absolute certainty that the Bible is these exact 66 books and no others, although I am confident that it is.
Would it be okay with you if I cut out Esther, the Pastoral Epistles, II Peter, IIJohn, IIIJohn, Jude, and Revelation from my Bible? Would I be an Evangelical in the same sense that you are?
Thanks (btw, that's a real question).
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Canonicity (protestant perspective only please) - 1/27/2009 10:12:25 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 4627
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
First, you are starting with an a priori assumption that we have 66 books Umm, you're the one that requested "Protestant perspective only, please". That's your a priori, not mine!
quote:
when my question is what books we ought to have. No, your OP qustion is: How do I know that a book belongs in the Canon? There is a subtle, but important, difference between those two questions.
quote:
Roman Catholics tell us that we are missing several key doctrines They are wrong, from a "Protestant perspective only, please"!
quote:
we cannot know what "essential teachings of the faith" are if we do not know what God's Inspired word is. Well, I disagree as indicated by my two questions to you. We do indeed know God's Inspired Word if nothing is contradictory throughout the 66 Books and no essential doctrine is found outside them!
quote:
Would it be okay with you if I cut out Esther, the Pastoral Epistles, II Peter, IIJohn, IIIJohn, Jude, and Revelation from my Bible? Would I be an Evangelical in the same sense that you are? Why worry about what is okay with me? God is the One you need to be okay with and if He wants you to learn from those dozen books, then you better read them!
quote:
Would I be an Evangelical in the same sense that you are? Does your definition of "Evangelical" include accepting Protestant Canon? Does your definition of "Christian" include the same?
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Canonicity (protestant perspective only please) - 1/27/2009 10:39:29 PM
|
|
|
BookerG
Posts: 165
Status: offline
|
Would it be okay with me? Well, as I said, I am confident that the canon of 66 books is correct. They are the Word of God, so I can't just say, sure, go ahead, cut them out and throw them away. But would you be an Evangelical without those books? I would say, absolutely yes, unless you excluded them for ulterior motives, such as a liberal bias and modern historical criticism that seeks to undermine the whole concept of inspiration and the authority of God's Word.
These books are absolutely in harmony with the rest of Scriptures and they contain much that is edifying, so that the church would be the poorer for their absence, but there is no doctrine of our salvation that is found only in the disputed books. I say that not to suggest they're expendable or in any doubt, but to insist that such questions about the canon do not threaten our confidence.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Canonicity (protestant perspective only please) - 1/28/2009 1:52:28 PM
|
|
|
Ross.Lang
Posts: 462
Joined: 1/28/2009
Status: offline
|
Walk down to Barnes and Nobel and buy Alister McGrath's "Christianity's Dangerous Idea." This should give you most of the hisorical tools you need to get going.
-Ross
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Canonicity (protestant perspective only please) - 1/28/2009 2:49:35 PM
|
|
|
rhpmike
Posts: 196
Joined: 7/26/2005
Status: offline
|
Drmark,
I'm not sure if you are intentionally trying to be hostile and unhelpful, but I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you simply misunderstood me.
When I asked for a Protestant Perspective Only, I meant that I did not Roman Catholics coming in and telling me "Yep! You're right. This is a Problem and this is why you need the True Church to explain it! Etc. Etc.
I DID NOT MEAN that every Protestant Assumption must be assumed. If that were the case, there would be no question. Hopefully you can see this.
Furthermore, Last I checked, the Initiator of the Protestant Reformation did not have 66 books in his Bible, so even in that case, we still need to determine How I can know that a particular book should or should not be in the canon.
So if you can answer any of my questions without your circular logic "Protestants believe this and (since you want a protestant answer) they must be correct," then that would be helpful. Otherwise, feel free to refrain.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Canonicity (protestant perspective only please) - 1/28/2009 11:36:44 PM
|
|
|
Ezra
Posts: 1712
Status: offline
|
quote:
The question is, How do I know that a book belongs in the Canon?
Mike:
You have made this far more complicated than it is. The answer is quite simple and can be put in the form of three questions:
1. What books did Christ -- the Word of God -- hold as canonical?
2. What books did the apostles hold as canonical?
2. What books did the earliest churches hold as canonical?
1. Christ held the entire OT as canonical -- the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms (the Hebrew Tanach). See Luke 24:26,27, 44-48. He never quoted from the Apocrypha.
2. The apostles quoted exclusively from the Old Testament, Peter recognized all of Paul's epistles as Scripture and also stated that his own epistles were inspired, Paul acknowedged Luke as Scripture and also stated that his epistles were inspired. John stated that his writings were also inspired. Thus the bulk of the Bible was already canonical before it was completed.
3. The earliest churches held to the same canonical books that we do, since before 200 A.D. the Muratori Canon listed all the books of the NT that we hold to be canonical other than Hebrews and James.
However, Hebrews and James have the marks of Divine inspiration within themselves, therefore we should be content that the Protestant Bibles we hold in our hands are indeed the Word of God.
_____________________________
And whosoever will, let him take the Water of Life freely. Revelation 22:17
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Canonicity (protestant perspective only please) - 1/29/2009 1:35:00 AM
|
|
|
rhpmike
Posts: 196
Joined: 7/26/2005
Status: offline
|
Thank you Ezra. Allow me to interact with your comments:
quote:
1. Christ held the entire OT as canonical -- the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms (the Hebrew Tanach). See Luke 24:26,27, 44-48. He never quoted from the Apocrypha.
Jesus quotes mostly from the LXX, which includes the apocrypha. It seems like the weight is on the person who claims that some of those books don't count. You make a claim that seems accurate to me, "He never quoted the apocrypha." However, there are some other OT books that he also does not quote. If that is the grounds by which we can remove the apocrypha, can we remove the other books that are not quoted (if you need an example, Esther will suffice.)
quote:
2. The apostles quoted exclusively from the Old Testament, Peter recognized all of Paul's epistles as Scripture and also stated that his own epistles were inspired, Paul acknowedged Luke as Scripture and also stated that his epistles were inspired. John stated that his writings were also inspired. Thus the bulk of the Bible was already canonical before it was completed.
Paul himself quotes from 2 secular philosophers on Mars Hill. This quotation doesn't seem to mean that he believes it is Scripture. Certainly somebody can quote something without believing it is Scripture. Furthermore, Jude quotes a Deuterocannonical book. Does this make it Scripture? Also, you are correct that the author of II Peter calls Paul's writings Graphe (which is a semi-technical term for Scripture). I'm willing to say that whoever the author is (90% of Scholars say it is not Peter) did believe that whatever Epistles of Paul that they had (certainly possible they did not have them all already) were Scripture. Therefore, as long as II Peter should be considered scripture (which I'm not sure that we can assume) then some of Paul's writings should definitely be canonical.
"3. The earliest churches held to the same canonical books that we do, since before 200 A.D. the Muratori Canon listed all the books of the NT that we hold to be canonical other than Hebrews and James. "
You are correct. That list holds most of our NT books. However, we also see other lists that include more or less books. In fact, a lot of lists include the Didache and the Shepherd of Hermes, and quote a few books do not include Hebrews, Revelation, etc. Furthermore, in the 4th century, we do see our list of 27NT books, unfortunately, quite a few of those lists also include the apocrypha.
quote:
However, Hebrews and James have the marks of Divine inspiration within themselves, therefore we should be content that the Protestant Bibles we hold in our hands are indeed the Word of God.
That is simply an assertion, not an argument. Does this mean that each individual Christian gets to decide what a "Divine mark" looks like and then approve books on that basis??? What if I say that I don't think Hebrews has a mark of Divine inspiration??? What if I say Paul's letter to the Laodiceans has a mark of Divine inspiration? Btw, this is not simply an academic question. Martin Luther claimed that James Obviously did not have a mark of divine inspiration.
While I appreciate your answers, the sad reality is that these are the Only answers .... and they are just not convincing. These are the answers that I give to people when they have doubts, but I can no longer do that. Canonicity is a Huge problem for me, and it saddens me that I'm not finding more compelling arguments.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Canonicity (protestant perspective only please) - 1/29/2009 7:53:06 AM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 4627
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Canonicity is a Huge problem for me, and it saddens me that I'm not finding more compelling arguments. Why? You never did answer my questions in post #10. Instead you went off on a Protestant/Catholic tangent which you stated in your OP you wished to avoid. If you cannot identify any contradictions to essential Christian doctrine in the Canon of Scripture nor identify any essential Christian doctrine outside the Bible, then you are making up a "Huge problem" which does not exist in any one else's mind!
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Canonicity (protestant perspective only please) - 1/29/2009 9:39:16 AM
|
|
|
BookerG
Posts: 165
Status: offline
|
Think this through: "Thus saith the Lord" is a matter of faith. You're looking for a higher authority to proclaim, "Thus saith the Bible, 'Thus saith the Lord.'" Whether a church father, or a council, or the pope, or an overwhelming body of evidence that will allow your own reason to be the final authority, no matter who or what convinces you that one book or another belongs in the Bible, it's still going to have to be faith that will lead you to regard these words as not the words of men, but of God. "Thus saith my reason, 'Thus saith the Council of Trent, "Thus saith Tertullian, 'Thus saith Paul, "This is the Word of the Lord."'"'"'"'" Who are you really putting your trust in, the human authorities or the Lord?
As a Lutheran I take the approach of Martin Luther, who did not let any earthly council or church father tell him what is the Word of God, nor did he put it anywhere in the Lutheran Confessions a list of the 66 books we must accept as the Bible. He looked for himself at the reasons why people have accepted or rejected the books, he listened to the church's forefathers but didn't let them dictate what must be, then he left the rest to faith.
The early church was much more concerned that no uninspired book be allowed into the canon, then the possibility of leaving out a book that should have been included. In their caution they raised doubts about some books that gave no major reason for exclusion. But the early church was unanimous, as the church is today, on a central core of books of which no one could raise any doubts. And that central core contains everything we need to know to identify the truth.
The Lutheran church has been careful not to base any core doctrine of our faith solely on passages from disputed books, not because we doubt these books are the Word of the Lord, but so that no one will be able to dispute that what we teach is from the Lord. When I preach from the epistle to the Hebrews or Revelation, I say, Thus saith the Lord, but I won't label someone a heretic if, for acceptable reasons, he says these books are edifying and in harmony with all of Scriptures, but I don't know if they are inspired. ( I won't go into the Apocrypha, which I believe has ample reason for not being Scriptures, but you can research that yourself).
The canon is not an authority higher than the Word of the Lord, the list itself is not an "inspired list" given directly to us by the mouth of a prophet, and the church is not the final authority either. There has to be room for faith. The same faith that believes God has spoken believes God has preserved his Word and his Truth. Saying, "I have a big problem with the canon," is either saying, I have a problem with letting earthly authorities have the final say over God's authority, which is a healthy attitude, or it's saying I have a problem with having nothing but faith for my confidence--I can't be confident without proof. God says Trust me. And it takes trust and faith even to trust that in this book or that book it was God who said Trust me. I don't have a problem with that.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Canonicity (protestant perspective only please) - 1/29/2009 12:08:48 PM
|
|
|
Bluethread
Posts: 2940
Joined: 11/8/2007
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rhpmike
While I appreciate your answers, the sad reality is that these are the Only answers .... and they are just not convincing. These are the answers that I give to people when they have doubts, but I can no longer do that. Canonicity is a Huge problem for me, and it saddens me that I'm not finding more compelling arguments.
Why not accept the bottom up appraoch of starting with Ha Torah and building from there? I presented that option and answered your inquiry regarding Yeshua's "you have heard it said . . . but I say . . ." clarifications.
_____________________________
"Show me wherein I have errored and I will hold my tongue." Iyov(Job)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Canonicity (protestant perspective only please) - 1/29/2009 2:49:43 PM
|
|
|
rhpmike
Posts: 196
Joined: 7/26/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
If you cannot identify any contradictions to essential Christian doctrine in the Canon of Scripture nor identify any essential Christian doctrine outside the Bible, then you are making up a "Huge problem" which does not exist in any one else's mind!
Yes you are right. Nobody else has ever struggled with the issue of canonicity. Thank you for your help.
Furthermore, as I stated before, please tell me how you know what essential Christian doctrine is WITHOUT the canon. Protestants require a canon BEFORE they can decide what essential Christian doctrine is. That is why you will see Bibliology as prolegomena in all Protestant systematic theologies.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Canonicity (protestant perspective only please) - 1/29/2009 2:50:57 PM
|
|
|
rhpmike
Posts: 196
Joined: 7/26/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
Why not accept the bottom up appraoch of starting with Ha Torah and building from there?
I'm still thinking about it. I think that it has some problems, but I like it. I want to think about it more before I discuss it.
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
