The New Testament Canon

[NickHassan]

Hi,
As Robyn has pointed out this matter needs further discussion.
I will post one view that I have not yet read but do so to start discussions.
Canon of The NewTestament
by W. Hartono

Most of us take it for granted to have a copy of Bible and do not bother to know how we got it. The question why the New Testament has twenty seven books, not more and not less, hardly comes to our mind. While all of us are unlikely to think that they just simply dropped from the sky, we may not realize the long process which took place before those twenty seven books were finally selected.

In the first place Jesus wrote no book and did not give any commandment to write down his teaching as testified by the four Gospels. Neither He nor His apostles (including Paul) gave us the list and approved any of the twenty seven New Testament books. They neither used nor introduced the terms Old and New Testaments. Those unbiblical terms were first used by Tertullian (c 170 CE). In fact our Lord’s and the later apostolic teachings were first transmitted and taught orally. Bear in mind that the first Christians did not consider this oral transmission as inferior. In Gal 4:20, Paul wrote that he wished to be with Galatians, so they could hear his tone. Because it was impossible then a letter from him would be sufficient. In other occasion, Paul judged that a written communication would be more effective than anything he could say (2 Cor 1:23-2:4). In short both oral and written forms were considered authoritative by the first Christians and are known to them as tradition (the Greek word translated as “tradition” comes from the verb which means “to deliver”). When Paul and others mentioned Scripture what they meant exactly is the Old Testament books. For example, the scripture known to Timothy (2 Tim 3:15) since his childhood definitely refers to Old Testament books. The first Christians did consider Jesus’s unwritten word as authoritative as Scripture. Thus in 1 Tim 5:18, Paul quoted as scripture, both Deut 25:4 and Jesus word, which now recorded in Luke 10:7 (note Gospel of Luke was written after Paul’s epistles). In the same way, early Christian writers like Clement of Rome (c. 96 CE), Ignatius, bishop of Antioch (c. 110 CE), Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna (c 110-120 CE) considered Jesus word as equal to those of Scriptures (Old Testament).

The word Gospel might be first used by Ignatius, bishop of Antioch in his letter to the Smyrnaeans (5:1 and 7:2). Papias, bishop of Hierapolis (c 125 CE) was known to know at least two Gospels (Matthew and Mark). A generation after Papias, Justin Martyr mentioned about memoirs of Peter (possible Gospel of Mark) and memoirs of the apostles, both of them he called as Gospels. His disciple, Tatian introduced Diatessaron, which are the four Gospels combined into one in a chronological order with Gospel of John as framework. Yet he quoted from Gospel according to the Hebrews when he referred to a light which shone around at Jesus baptism. This Diatessaron was in use in Syrian church until early fifth century when they gave up (reluctantly) for the four separate gospels. Among the four Gospels, that according to John took longer time to win acceptance, the earliest known quotation from it comes in the gnostic writer Basilides (c 130 CE). On the other hand, among Paul’s 13 epistles (Hebrews not included), the three pastoral letters (Titus and 1 & 2 Timothy) were accepted later. The four Gospels and Paul’s epistles were the first books of our present New Testament to be accepted.

The first collection of New Testament books was made by Marcion (c 150 CE). His “canon” consisted of Gospel of Luke and 10 Paul’s epistles which he referred as Gospel and Apostle. However, he mutilated many of them to suit his belief. He declared that God of Old Testament was different with the One whom Jesus spoke. For this reason he rejected all Old Testament books. He broke away from Rome and established his own church. His counterpart, Valentinus also broke away from Rome and founded a gnostic school. He wrote The Gospel of Truth, which is not a rival gospel but a mediation on the true gospel of Christ. It alludes to Matthew and Luke (and possibly Acts), Gospel and first epistle of John, 10 Paul’s epistles (minus the three Pastorals), Hebrews and Revelation. Both Marcion and Valentinus prompted the Church to define what belonged to written apostolic teaching, thus starting the collection of New Testament books.

The second known collection of New Testament books is 2nd century Muratorian canon, named after L.A. Muratori who published the list, copied from 7th century codex. The manuscript is mutilated in the beginning, but we can conclude that it has four Gospels, Acts, 13 Paul’s epistles, Jude, 2 of John’s letter, Apocalypse of John (Revelation) and of Peter, and Wisdom of Solomon. Apocalypse of Peter now does not belong to our New Testament, while Wisdom of Solomon is now part of (Catholic) Old Testament. The compiler mentioned about Shepherd of Hermas which can be read but not to be given to people. He also wrote about Paul epistle to Laodicean (Col 4:16) and to Alexandrines which he claimed to be forged. Interestingly, Iranaeus, bishop of Lyon (c. 170 CE) quoted Shepherd of Hermas as scripture. In his two literary works (against Heresies and Demonstration of Apostolic Preaching), Iranaeus quoted from 1 and 2 John, 1 Peter and most likely knew all 13 Paul’s epistles (except Philemon), and maybe James and Hebrews and Revelation. Close to the end of 2nd century, Tertullian of Carthage in his work mentioned the four Gospels, Acts, 13 Paul’s epistles, 1 Peter, 1 John, Jude and Revelation. He mentioned Hebrews as the work of Barnabas and in his judgment was worthy to be included in the canon. Origen (185 – 254 CE) distinguished the undisputed and the disputed books of New Testament. The former consisted of the four gospels, Acts, Pauline epistles, 1 Peter, 1 John and Revelation. The latter consisted of 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, James, Jude, Didache and he referred Epistle of Barnabas as Catholic epistle (a term now applied to all non Pauline seven epistles). He was the first known Christian writer to mention 2 Peter. He also considered Shepherd of Hermas as scripture and mentioned about Gospel according to Hebrews and Acts of Paul and some other books. Cyprian in the third century listed four Gospels, Acts, 9 Paul’s epistles (minus Philemon), 1 Peter, 1 John and Revelation. He also cited Shepherd of Hermas as scripture and recognized Didache as apostolic quotations.

Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea in Palestine (314 – 339 CE) divided New Testament books into three categories: universally acknowledged, disputed and spurious. The first consisted of the four gospels, Acts, Pauline 14 epistles (including Hebrews), 1 John, 1 Peter and Revelation. The second category included James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John; while books like Acts of Paul, Shepherd of Hermas, Apocalypse of Peter, Epistle of Barnabas, Didache, but also Revelation belonged to the third category. Note that Revelation was listed both as the first and the third category. It shows the two different opinions of the canonicity of Revelation, which was especially true among the eastern churches. He also mentioned Gospel of Peter, which was read and appreciated by Christians in the second century and quoted by Justin Martyr. Eusebius also mentioned as heretical books like Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Matthias and groups of books of Acts bearing names of apostles (Paul, Peter, Andrew, John and Thomas). All these books and others which do not belong to our present New Testament canon are now known as New Testament apocrypha.

In 367 CE, Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria gave the list of 27 New Testament books, for the first time without making any distinction of them and which now becomes our New Testament. Around the same time, Council of Laodicea (c 363 CE) gave the list of 26 New Testament books (Revelation was not included). The same list of 26 books was given by Cyril of Jerus
alem (died 386 CE) and by Gregory of Nazianzen. At the same time, Amphilochius of Iconium gave the 27 books but mentioned that some of them (Hebrews, 2 and 3 John, 2 Peter, Jude and Revelation) as spurious. John of Chrysostom, bishop of Constantinopel from 397 to 407 CE gave list which excluded 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude and Revelation. He appeared to be the first who used the phrase “the books” (which later became “the Bible”) to refer to both Old and New Testaments. The Syriac church’s earliest canon of New Testament consisted of either 4 gospels or Diatessaron, Acts and 14 Paul’s epistles. From early fifth century it included also James, 1 Peter and 1 John. Not until 508 CE, the monophysite branch of Syriac church finally included the other five books while the other branch, Nestorians accepts only 22 books to this day.

At the order of pope Damasus I, Jerome translated the 27 books into Latin (Vulgate). Augustine in the fifth century listed the 27 books in his work, “On Christian Learning”. Those 27 books were later declared at the Council of Hippo in 393 CE and at Third Council of Carthage in 397 CE. The same councils also declared the list of Old Testament books which now become Catholic Old Testament. The sixth Council of Carthage in 419 CE repromulgated the (same) canon of Bible. It can be said that the 27 books of New Testament (together with Catholic Old Testament books) were determined in the fourth century. Among the 27 books, seven (James, Jude, Hebrews, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John and Revelation) books entered the list after some disputes. They are more or less the same as “deuterocanonical” books of Catholic Old Testament (which were dropped from most of Protestant Old Testament). The above councils also show the authority of the Church to define which books belong to Old and New Testaments. It is true that those councils were not ecumenical councils, hence they did not speak for the whole church. This fact was shown by the existence of different list of books in some of early manuscripts made in and after 4th century. The reason why no ecumenical council decided the canon in and before 4th century is because the issue of canon of scripture is not an issue which divided Christianity (compare to Arianism which prompted ecumenical council of Niceae in 325 CE).

There are a number of surviving manuscripts of early New Testament books. Codex Sinaiticus (4th Century) has all 27 books of our present New Testament, but also includes Epistle of Barnabas and Shepherd of Hermas. Codex Vaticanus (4th century) was torn at the end, so does not reveal the whole list; the existing part consists of 21 books and part of Hebrews of our present New Testament. On the other hand Codex Alexandrinus (5th century) has the 27 books plus 1 and 2 Clement. Codex Claromontanus (6th century) has no Phil, 1 and 2 Thes and Heb but includes Epistle of Barnabas, Shepherd of Hermas, Acts of Paul and Revelation of Peter. Another 4th century list, now known as Cheltenham list has only 4 gospels, 13 Pauline epistles (minus Hebrews), Acts, Revelation, 1 John and 1 Peter.

The different status of some New Testament books resurfaced again during Reformation in sixteenth century. Martin Luther, although he included James, Jude, Hebrews and Revelation in his list of New Testament, he considered them to have inferior status. He particularly disliked James which he labeled (in his 1522 German translation of New Testament) as “Epistle of Straw”. In addition, he added the word “only” in Rom 4:28 to support his doctrine of “sola fide” or “salvation by faith alone”. As a response to Reformation, Catholic Church reaffirmed the canonicity of 27 books of New Testament (and 45 books of Old Testament) at ecumenical Council of Trent. For Catholics, council of Trent gave the final list of books of the Bible; no one (not even Pope) can add or drop any book into or from the Bible.

Looking back at the long process (around three hundred years after our Lord’s ascension) which took place to define what belongs to our New Testament, one may ask: what is the criteria of canonicity? Several criteria have been proposed, among them: apostolic authority (was it written by one of the apostles?), Antiquity (was it written in the first century?), orthodoxy (does it teach apostolic faith?), inspiration (did the writer claim inspiration?). Yet none of the above criteria can judge absolutely the canonicity of particular book. Unless the original manuscript of the book can be found (and be verified) no one can absolutely proof that it was written by the Paul or others. Some books like Acts and the third gospel are anonymous. By tradition most of us believed that they were written by Luke, a Syrian from Antioch mentioned in Col 4:14. Note that he is not one of the apostle and was not first generation of Christian. He composed the third Gospel from tradition he received from others (Luke 1:2). Even those bearing the name of the writer like 2 Peter and Revelation, may not be written by actual person. 2 Peter may be written in the second century. As for orthodoxy, Jude 9 and 14 quote from uncanonical Old Testament books. Revelation claims inspiration, yet it is one of the disputed books which entered the canon later. On the other hand, Philemon which does not claim inspiration and contains no prophecy was accepted earlier. Uncanonical book, 1 Clement claims inspiration (1 Clem 63:2) and was believed to be written by Clement, bishop of Rome in the first century and together with 2 Clement were included in 5th century Codex Alexandrinus. Thus by itself, none of New Testament books cannot prove its canonicity and if we rely on the testimony of the Christians in the first and second century, they too may have different opinion on particular book. As mentioned earlier, some (7 books) were accepted as canonical after some dispute. Thus we need the other and final criteria, the authority of the Church who has the final say regarding which book belongs to our Old and New Testaments. Catholics have no problem to accept this criteria, which is a historical fact and is even supported by a testimony of Paul himself, recorded in 1 Tim 3:15 which says: the Church is the foundation and pillar of truth.

While virtually most of Christians accept the same New Testament, they have different opinion of its relation with the Church. Anti Catholic writers try to reject Church authority in defining the books of the Bible. Former Catholic James McCarthy in his book, the Gospel according to Rome, page 348-349, wrote that the Bible was given by the Holy Spirit, not by the Church. It is not a big problem because Catholics believe through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the Church becomes the foundation and pillar of truth (not by human power) and thus defined the books of the Bible. Then he tried to proof that the process of writing and recognizing New Testament books began long before Catholic Church existed, by quoting John 15:26-27 and John 16:12-14. Yet those verses do not give any commandment to write, it is a promise that the Holy Spirit will be sent to guide Jesus disciples. He also argued that councils of Hippo and Carthage were not ecumenical councils, thus they did not have authority to speak for the whole 4th century church. Then why he accepts those 27 books?

Dave Hunt in his controversial book, A Woman Rides the Beast, page 335-336, wrote that council of Laodicea in 363 CE did not list the New Testament books. In fact, this council listed both Old and New Testament books; unfortunately (for him) their New Testament books did not include Revelation, the book which becomes the background of “A Woman Rides the Beast”. He then tried to show that before 4th century, some Christians (i.e. Polycarp) quoted from most books of New Testament (page 336) and that Christians already accepted all 27 books since apostolic age (page 340). This is a typical example of anti Catholic writers who try to twist historical events to suit their needs. For obvious reason, he and other anti Catholic writers did not mention the different list of books and that some books like Shepherd of Herma
s were once considered as scripture.

Former Catholic Robert M. Zins, also twisted history in his book (page 39-41) when he wrote that early Church fathers were in agreement in deciding which books belong to canon. To support his statement, he cleverly listed some statements from Church fathers which have the word “scripture”, without bothering to define what they meant by scripture. Quoting from another anti Catholic writer (White) he claimed that the Christians already accepted most of 27 books as inspired before any councils and that the participants of Hippo and Carthage councils were not Catholics. The former claim is true, yet he forgot that it was the Church through the councils who had the final say to all disputed books (both Old and New Testaments). The second claim is false as Augustine who was behind those councils (and the councils themselves) gave the list of (Catholic) Old Testament books. He is also well known for his statement: “Rome has spoken, the dispute is at an end” and “I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so”. Other than Catholics, who would bother to say these words? “

[david]

The Roman Catholic Church claims responsibility for the decision as to which books should be included in the Bible canon, and reference is made to the Council of Carthage (397 C.E.), where a catalog of books was formulated. The opposite is true, however, because the canon, including the list of books making up the Christian Greek Scriptures, was already settled by then, that is, not by the decree of any council, but by the direction of God’s holy spirit—the same spirit that inspired the writing of those books in the first place. The testimony of later noninspired catalogers is valuable only as an acknowledgment of the Bible canon, which God’s spirit had authorized.

A number of fourth-century catalogs of the Christian Scriptures, dated prior to the above-mentioned council, agree exactly with our present canon, and some others omit only Revelation. Before the end of the second century, there is universal acceptance of the four Gospels, Acts, and 12 of the apostle Paul’s letters. Only a few of the smaller writings were doubted in certain areas. Likely this was so because such writings were limited in their initial circulation for one reason or another and thus took longer to become accepted as canonical.

One of the most interesting early catalogs is the fragment discovered by L. A. Muratori in the Ambrosian Library, Milan, Italy, and published by him in 1740. Though the beginning is missing, its reference to Luke as the third Gospel indicates that it first mentioned Matthew and Mark. The Muratorian Fragment, which is in Latin, dates to the latter part of the second century C.E. It is a most interesting document, as the following partial translation shows: “The third book of the Gospel is that according to Luke. Luke, the well-known physician, wrote it in his own name . . . The fourth book of the Gospel is that of John, one of the disciples. . . . And so to the faith of believers there is no discord, even although different selections are given from the facts in the individual books of the Gospels, because in all [of them] under the one guiding Spirit all the things relative to his nativity, passion, resurrection, conversation with his disciples, and his twofold advent, the first in the humiliation arising from contempt, which took place, and the second in the glory of kingly power, which is yet to come, have been declared. What marvel is it, then, if John adduces so consistently in his epistles these several things, saying in person: ‘what we have seen with our eyes, and heard with our ears, and our hands have handled, those things we have written.’ For thus he professes to be not only an eyewitness but also a hearer and narrator of all the wonderful things of the Lord, in their order. Moreover, the acts of all the apostles are written in one book. Luke [so] comprised them for the most excellent Theophilus . . . Now the epistles of Paul, what they are, whence or for what reason they were sent, they themselves make clear to him who will understand. First of all he wrote at length to the Corinthians to prohibit the schism of heresy, then to the Galatians [against] circumcision, and to the Romans on the order of the Scriptures, intimating also that Christ is the chief matter in them—each of which it is necessary for us to discuss, seeing that the blessed Apostle Paul himself, following the example of his predecessor John, writes to no more than seven churches by name in the following order: to the Corinthians (first), to the Ephesians (second), to the Philippians (third), to the Colossians (fourth), to the Galatians (fifth), to the Thessalonians (sixth), to the Romans (seventh). But though he writes twice for the sake of correction to the Corinthians and the Thessalonians, that there is one church diffused throughout the whole earth is shown [?i.e., by this sevenfold writing]; and John also in the Apocalypse, though he writes to seven churches, yet speaks to all. But [he wrote] out of affection and love one to Philemon, and one to Titus, and two to Timothy; [and these] are held sacred in the honorable esteem of the Church. . . . Further, an epistle of Jude and two bearing the name of John are counted . . . We receive the apocalypses of John and Peter only, which [latter] some of us do not wish to be read in church.”—The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, 1956, Vol. VIII, page 56.

Origen, about the year 230 C.E., accepted among the inspired Scriptures the books of Hebrews and James, both missing from the Muratorian Fragment. While he indicates that some doubted their canonical quality, this also shows that by this time, the canonicity of most of the Greek Scriptures was accepted, only a few doubting some of the less well-known epistles. Later, Athanasius, Jerome, and Augustine acknowledged the conclusions of earlier lists by defining as the canon the same 27 books that we now have. (The Books and the Parchments, 1963, F. F. Bruce, page 112.)

The majority of the catalogs in the chart are specific lists showing which books were accepted as canonical. Those of Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and Origen are completed from the quotations they made, which reveal how they regarded the writings referred to. These are further supplemented from the records of the early historian Eusebius. However, the fact that these writers do not mention certain canonical writings does not argue against their canonicity. It is just that they did not happen to refer to them in their writings either by choice or because of the subjects under discussion.

But why do we not find exact lists earlier than the Muratorian Fragment?

It was not until critics like Marcion came along in the middle of the second century C.E. that an issue arose as to which books Christians should accept. Marcion constructed his own canon to suit his doctrines, taking only certain of the apostle Paul’s letters and an expurgated form of the Gospel of Luke. This, together with the mass of apocryphal literature by then spreading throughout the world, was what led to statements by catalogers as to which books they accepted as canonical.

A – Accepted without query as Scriptural and canonical

D – Doubted in certain quarters

DA – Doubted in certain quarters, but cataloger accepted it as
Scriptural and canonical

? – Scholars uncertain of the reading of the text or how a
book mentioned is viewed

– A blank space indicates that the book was not used or
mentioned by that authority

Name and Place

Muratorian Irenaeus, Clement of Tertullian,
Fragment, Asia Minor Alexandria N. Africa
Italy

Approximate
Date C.E. 170 180 190 207

Matthew A A A A

Mark A A A A

Luke A A A A

John A A A A

Acts A A A A

Romans A A A A

1 Corinthians A A A A

2 Corinthians A A A A

Galatians A A A A

Ephesians A A A A

Philippians A A A A

Colossians A A A A

1 Thessalonians A A A A

2 Thessalonians A A A A

1 Timothy A A A A

2 Timothy A A A A

Titus A A A A

Philemon A A

Hebrews
D DA DA

James ?

1 Peter A? A A A

2 Peter D? A

1 John A A DA A

2 John A A DA

3 John A?

Jude A

Revelation A A A A

Name and Place

Origen, Eusebius, Cyril of Cheltenham
Alexandria Palestine Jerusalem List,
N. Africa

Approximate

Date C.E. 230 320 348 365

Matthew A A A A

Mark A A A A

Luke A A A A

John A A A A

Acts A A A A

Romans A A A A

1 Corinthians A A A A

2 Corinthians A A A A

Galatians A A A A

Ephesians A A A A

Philippians A A A A

Colossians A A A A

1 Thessalonians A A A A

2 Thessalonians A A A A

1 Timothy A A A A

2 Timothy A A A A

Titus A A A A

Philemon A A A A

Hebrews DA DA A

James DA DA A

1 Peter A A A A

2 Peter DA DA A D

1 John A A A A

2 John DA DA A D

3 John DA DA A D

Jude DA DA A

Revelation A DA A

Name and Place

Athanasius, Epiphanius, Gregory Amphilocius,
Alexandria Palestine Nazianzus, Asia Minor
Asia Minor

Approximate

Date C.E. 367 368 370 370

Matthew A A A A

Mark A A A A

Luke A A A A

John A A A A

Acts A A A A

Romans A A A A

1 Corinthians A A A A

2 Corinthians A A A A

Galatians A A A A

Ephesians A A A A

Philippians A A A A

Colossians A A A A

1 Thessalonians A A A A

2 Thessalonians A A A A

1 Timothy A A A A

2 Timothy A A A A

Titus A A A A

Philemon A A A A

Hebrews A A A DA

James A A A A

1 Peter A A A A

2 Peter A A A D

1 John A A A A

2 John A A A D

3 John A A A D

Jude A A A D

Revelation A DA D

Name and Place

Philaster, Jerome, Augustine, Third
Italy Italy N. Africa Council of
Carthage,
N. Africa

Approximate

Date C.E. 383 394 397 397

Matthew A A A A

Mark A A A A

Luke A A A A

John A A A A

Acts A A A A

Romans A A A A

1 Corinthians A A A A

2 Corinthians A A A A

Galatians A A A A

Ephesians A A A A

Philippians A A A A

Colossians A A A A

1 Thessalonians A A A A

2 Thessalonians A A A A

1 Timothy A A A A

2 Timothy A A A A

Titus A A A A

Philemon A A A A

Hebrews DA DA A A

James A DA A A

1 Peter A A A A

2 Peter A DA A A

1 John A A A A

2 John A DA A A

3 John A DA A A

Jude A DA A A

Revelation DA DA A A

[NickHassan]

Hi David,
I am not saying you are wrong but surely you are making a claim here that cannot be substantiated?

“The opposite is true, however, because the canon, including the list of books making up the Christian Greek Scriptures, was already settled by then, that is, not by the decree of any council, but by the direction of God’s holy spirit “

[david]

What I'm saying Nick, is that the Roman Catholic Church did not create the Bible. If I wanted to, I could put down a list of the books I considered to be God's Word. And if that list happens to match the ones people today considers to be inspired, does that mean I am the one who decided which books were Biblical?

You can look at historians yourself and decide whether the Roman Catholic Church is responsible for Bible canon, or whether they were just following what everyone believed at that time, and much earlier.

Quote

I am not saying you are wrong but surely you are making a claim here that cannot be substantiated?

I thought I “substantiated” it quite nicely. Can you substantiate that I haven't substantiated it? Just kidding. I'm in a weird mood.

david

[NickHassan]

Hi david,
If you can prove the Holy Spirit has defined the canon I would like to see that proof as I wonder if we are robbed by not including some others.

[david]

Oh, is that what you are disagreeing with? So you don't think that God's spirit had a part in defining the conon of “God's Word.” I guess you woudn't, would you? Otherwise, why would these non-biblical books that you rely on not be included?
My point was not to “prove” that the holy spirit had defined the canon, but rather to point out that Catholicism only stated what was already generally believed, regarding canon.

david

[david]

From elsewhere, in the “Gerneal questions” section:

Quote

Hi david, Is the canon chosen by catholicism chosen also for you?

I see. You actually do think that the Bibles we have today are Catholic Bibles, or the Canon anyway. I disagree.

david

[NickHassan]

Hi david,
So no evidence?

[david]

Quote

Hi david, So no evidence?

Well I do have evidence that the canon of today was not “chosen” by catholicism as you say. See above, for example.

As for the canon being the product of the holy spirit, what would you like as evidence? The Bible doesn't contradict itself, as you know. If we try to add another book to the mix, it would have to agree completely with what “God's Word” says, right? It would have to have the same general theme that runs throught the Bible, from beginning to end. Wouldn't it?

I haven't really stated that my aim was to prove that the holy spirit defined canon. And I don't have to “prove” that the holy spirit has “defined” the canon to know that “Alice in Wonderland” isn't a part of the Bible, do I? It would be much easier to find all the ways it contradicts the Bible, wouldn't it? And if it doesn't contradict the Bible at all, then maybe it might have some claim to make. But if, on the other hand, that book doesn't have the same character or spirit as the Bible or blantently disagrees with some aspects of the Bible, then there is no need to prove that the spirit has defined the canon in order to disprove that some book, such as Enoch is Biblical.

david

[NickHassan]

Hi david,
I agree in principle. We develop this bias. We just do not read other books enough to let the Spirit show us if they are true do we?

[david]

ECCLESIASTES 12:12-13
“….take a warning: To the making of many books there is no end, and much devotion [to them] is wearisome to the flesh. The conclusion of the matter, everything having been heard, is: Fear the [true] God and keep his commandments. For this is the whole [obligation] of man.”

[NickHassan]

Hi mercy,
You may find interest here.

[NickHassan]

Hi lop,
another thread of interest

[NickHassan]

For Bob.

[bob]

Thanks for freshening this topic for me, Nick.

Perhaps you all will indulge me as I frame this topic to meet my own needs:

What has biblical inerrancy got to do with following Jesus? I want to follow him and consider myself among his followers. I feel that I was called by Jesus while meditating on his words in the four gospels. But the later books do not move me like the words of Jesus.
How do I really know that I can trust Paul, let alone the unknown author of Hebrews, for example. Christian doctrine seems to imply that the “good stuff” came after Jesus death and resurrection, as most doctrine has its roots in the letters of Paul and others. I wonder if that is when the “human stuff” entered into the church. I know this is threatening, to chip away at the foundation. But if biblical inerrancy is true (and I am not entirely sure one way or the other), then one should not have any fear that a little respectful exploration of the foundation will cause the house to fall. Let us begin:
Sincerely, how can we trust in writings written by man?

[NickHassan]

Hi Bob,
Can you see God working with the apostles in Acts?

The apostles are the new manifestations of Jesus as Spirit on earth, and we can be as a continuance of that work.

Jesus came primarily into a Jewish mileau and spoke to various different groups. He spoke to the Jews about the Law when they questioned him. He spoke certain matters only to his followers. He spoke to individual needs and healed individuals. But the practical working out of the details of this beauty into the lives of gentiles was done through Christ in the apostles.

Seek the Spirit and he will show you all these matters.

[bob]

I do seek the Spirit, and yet I have had no resolution on this issue for nearly twenty years. It is usually presented as something on the other side of the leap of faith. I must leap first, then I will see.

But I have committed to Jesus! It seems that my leap was not as large as some. I probably should put the issue behind me. But if I must resolve this issue in order to do so, it might sadden you to know that I am leaning away from literal inerrancy. Jesus preached to masses of illiterate peasants who never had the benefit of clarifying exposition by the apostles. I cannot believe that he left them without the tools to respond to his message, the very message which God sent him to deliver.

[NickHassan]

Hi Bob,
Annoy God in prayer for if he has become your new father through your repentance and rebirth by water and the Spirit then this scriptural promise is your right.

Lk 11
“5And he said unto them, Which of you shall have a friend, and shall go unto him at midnight, and say unto him, Friend, lend me three loaves;

6For a friend of mine in his journey is come to me, and I have nothing to set before him?

7And he from within shall answer and say, Trouble me not: the door is now shut, and my children are with me in bed; I cannot rise and give thee.

8I say unto you, Though he will not rise and give him, because he is his friend, yet because of his importunity he will rise and give him as many as he needeth.

9And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.

10For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.

11If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent?

12Or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion?

13If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him? “

Sadly the problem many have is that of hearing a false gospel such as
” believe and you are saved”,
or” invite Jesus into your heart”,
or “be reborn only of the Spirit”
or “try to please God by works”

and their growth is lacking the possibility of development as they are not planted correctly.

[NickHassan]

Quote (bob @ Jan. 25 2007,20:34)

I do seek the Spirit, and yet I have had no resolution on this issue for nearly twenty years. It is usually presented as something on the other side of the leap of faith. I must leap first, then I will see. But I have committed to Jesus! It seems that my leap was not as large as some. I probably should put the issue behind me. But if I must resolve this issue in order to do so, it might sadden you to know that I am leaning away from literal inerrancy.  Jesus preached to masses of illiterate peasants who never had the benefit of clarifying exposition by the apostles. I cannot believe that he left them without the tools to respond to his message, the very message which God sent him to deliver.

Hi Bob,
Reading Acts you must decide whether or not God was inspiring the words and actions of Paul. If they were not of God then who or what were they of? If you can accept that Paul was inspired in Acts to speak the Words of God then in what way are his words any different in his letters? Was he a spring that poured fresh and stale water?

[bob]

I have had the pleasure and nourishment of hearing many committed Christians speak of their faith and help me grow in mine. Yet every one of them has been human – I had no sense that I was receiving direct revelation from God. That is not to say that I do not respect and value their input. As to whether Paul poured out fresh or stale water, I would ask why it must be one or the other. Could any man other that Jesus pour out perfect revelation? Apparently, Paul and Peter had some heated disagreement, thus one must logically conclude that human error contaminated the message promulgated by at least one of them after Jesus' departure.

Yet I realize that even if I where to rely solely on the “red letters” of Jesus in the gospels, that also would be putting my faith in the ability of the gospel authors to faithfully and completely record the teachings of Christ. There will always be a human element. The Holy Spirit is an interesting way around this, but I have encountered prayerful, godly men and women who claim the Holy Spirit as their guide on doctrinal issues, yet they differ among themselves. Are you saying that anyone who disagrees with you has not sought and received the Holy Spirit? I doubt it – you would not so generously engage the members of this forum if you felt that way. I can only conclude that, once again, the limitations of human discernment on spiritual matters can cloud the truth, even when we sincerely seek it from God. Why should I expect my experience with the Spirit to lead me any closer truth than theirs? Perhaps the Spirit applies more to the heart and soul than to the mind.

But who ever said it would be easy? Just because most of us can read and have access to the Bible, is truth really any closer to us than to an illiterate peasant in tenth century Europe? We all must sniff our way through obstacles to the truth, whether it be the corruption and vanity of the church during that time, or something more technical today, as we are presented with real, scholarly questions as to what exactly the four gospels are – how they came to exist if they are not independent, eyewitness accounts. Surely you are aware of the “synoptic problem”, etc.

Jesus said: Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. (Mt 22:37)

We should not discount the role of the mind in this important trinity of human assets (gifts from God). I mean no disrespect to your kind replies to my questions.

Thanks! Keep posting!

[Author]

Posts