The Cannon of Scripture as we may or may not know it...

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Luther also put Hebrews, James & Jude in the same rankings as Revelation.

As do many Bible Scholars in many Christian traditions (they just don't talk about it much) again due to authorship or conflicting contents compared to books that are "Homologoumena". The Catholic Church held this view until the Council of Trent; now their view is that all books are equal in their Canon, and their Canon is closed. Ours is not defined in our Confessions or the the constitutions of our Synods.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I am a traditional 66 book canon Bible guy myself.

The evidences that back up the traditional Bible is enough to make you do backflips through hoops of fire as a poodles bark cheers of joy to your success.
Now, these evidences do not exist for so called other books (in my view).

Anyways, you can check out these evidences at my Blogger article here
(if you are interested):
Love Branch: Evidences for the Word of God

Studying the Bible is great, but without studying Bible History, we do so without context. The Israel and the Church has continued to use these texts in one way or another for the past 2000+ years. Does it not seem a bit foolish to discard them out of hand with not so much as a second thought?

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Anglicans include the epistles of John and Revelation as Scripture in the fullest sense. Although I know that in the east Revelation is not read in the liturgy, I'm actually fairly surprised to read people here suggesting that it shouldn't be relied on to establish doctrine. It presents such a rich and robust Christology!

But if authorship is such an issue, then would the disputed letters "of Paul" also be considered adiaphora? Because if not, that starts to look a tad arbitrary...

Yes they are; Oringen listed 2 & 3 John, 2 Peter, Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation. BTW, it was 1565, 1565 when the Counsel of Trent decreed that these 7 antilogomena books as canonical. (Hallmarks of Lutheran Identity by Schmidt, Concordia; chapter 5 page 74, 75).

In doing so, the Catholic Church broke with tradition; which is held up as a definitive foundational doctrine; Tradition being on equal standing with Scripture for establishing doctrine and dogma.

 

[Paidiske]

Yes they are; Oringen listed 2 & 3 John, 2 Peter, Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation. BTW, it was 1565, 1565 when the Counsel of Trent decreed that these 7 antilogomena books as canonical. (Hallmarks of Lutheran Identity by Schmidt, Concordia; chapter 5 page 74, 75).

In doing so, the Catholic Church broke with tradition; which is held up as a definitive foundational doctrine; Tradition being on equal standing with Scripture for establishing doctrine and dogma.

Yes they are.... adiaphora? Sorry, not sure exactly what you meant there.

Well the Anglican Articles predate Trent (just). I'm not so aware of the history of how we received these texts prior to that, might have to do some research (but not tonight).

But given that we do include those books as canonical, and even if that is a break with Tradition (which would require a longer look at traditions vs. Tradition and which side of that this fell on, and why), on the whole I think I would argue for a larger rather than a smaller canon. (Which is, incidentally, what led to the defining of a canon in the first place; the need to keep particular books in rather than allowing heretics to reject them).

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

If I may ask, which books do Lutherans use for doctrine?

I would agree that Revelation is not for doctrine (maybe the first three chapters though which was the things which 'was') the rest is future.

All but the same books listed by Oringen: 2 & 3 John, 2 Peter, Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation.

These, of course are used to support Doctrine; all, including Revelation are read in our lectionairy in Church. Wile little used, outside of traditional liturgical texts, we have a lectionairy addendum for readings from the Apocrypha that may be used on Sundays; more so in the daily office if I recall.

Most often as a socio-historic resource for context when studying the traditional protestant 66 books; especially, those of the New Testament.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Yes they are.... adiaphora? Sorry, not sure exactly what you meant there.

Well the Anglican Articles predate Trent (just). I'm not so aware of the history of how we received these texts prior to that, might have to do some research (but not tonight).

But given that we do include those books as canonical, and even if that is a break with Tradition (which would require a longer look at traditions vs. Tradition and which side of that this fell on, and why), on the whole I think I would argue for a larger rather than a smaller canon. (Which is, incidentally, what led to the defining of a canon in the first place; the need to keep particular books in rather than allowing heretics to reject them).

Adiaphora, as one is free to accept or reject, but be mindful that these 7 books are widely (just not universally accepted), and in Lutheranism, widely enough that one could say almost universally accepted as Canonical... if we actually had a defined Canon LOL.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I'm aware of that. I think, in both cases, it would be perhaps (we can't be sure) not inaccurate, but certainly insufficient to describe them as Pharisees; clearly their own understanding and practice went beyond that of the Pharisees.

The point really was just that Anglicans, at least, put that selection of books in a separate category to the rest of Scripture, which is seen as less reliable for establishing doctrine.

As do we; between the OT and NT. It is nice to see that we again have available an ESV Bible with the Apocrypha by Oxford Press:

 

[GreekOrthodox]

Adiaphora, as one is free to accept or reject, but be mindful that these 7 books are widely (just not universally accepted), and in Lutheranism, widely enough that one could say almost universally accepted as Canonical... if we actually had a defined Canon LOL.

I remember reading years ago about an LCMS pastor (around 1870, yes, eighteen seventy) refused to accept Revelation as canonical. As I recall, the Synod scratched its collective head and finally said something along the lines of "that's your opinion and while we disagree, no action can be taken against you since Revelation is a disputed book".

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I remember reading years ago about an LCMS pastor (around 1870, yes, eighteen seventy) refused to accept Revelation as canonical. As I recall, the Synod scratched its collective head and finally said something along the lines of "that's your opinion and while we disagree, no action can be taken against you since Revelation is a disputed book".

You are correct.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

homologumena
pl n
(Bible) Bible formal those sections of the New Testament that have been accepted since the early Christian era as being part of the body of sacred or officially recognized writings

antilegomena
(ˌæntɪlɛˈɡɒmɪnə)
pl n
the books of the New Testament which have been excluded from the canon of Scripture

I did not know the words, so looked them up and posted definitions in case others don't know the terms.

Not sure where you got your definition of antilegomena from, but it does not mean excluded.

Antilegomena, a direct transliteration of the Greek ἀντιλεγόμενα, refers to written texts whose authenticity or value is disputed.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Also, it takes common sense to to figure out that many of the apocryphal books, or gnostic gospels is silly at best when it comes to their narratives or doctrines. Hence, why certain churches do not take them literally but they take them more in a metaphorical way. That to me is like grasping at straws. Either it is 100% true or it is not. If a text contradicts the Bible and or goes against the character of our Lord and His followers, it is a pretty safe bet it is false. Then there is the lack of evidence that they are divine like the Bible, as well. So that's two strikes right there.

Historically, evidence is lacking, hence the distinction.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Another point to be taken from this discussion and the history of the Bible is that until Trent, the view of Homo- vs. Anti- was universally held in the Church. Following Trent the 66 books of the Protestant Bible and the select books of the Apocryphy were declared "equal" by the Roman Catholic Church; so all Protestants that accept the 66 books as all being equal and fully Divinely inspired have accepted the authority of the Catholic Church to set the canon of Scripture; and reject the wisdom of the Early Church and the ECF to study and question.

Most protestants don't realize how much they hold as protestant truth is attributable directly to the Catholic Church; not only regarding Scripture, but in ideas such as cooperating in one's own salvation by earning merits through works.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Another point to be taken from this discussion and the history of the Bible is that until Trent, the view of Home vs. Anti was universally held in the Church. Following Trent the 66 books of the Protestant Bible and the select books of the Apocryphy were declared "equal" by the Roman Catholic Church; so all Protestants that accept the 66 books as all being equal and fully Divinely inspired have accepted the authority of the Catholic Church to set the canon of Scripture; and reject the wisdom of the Early Church and the ECF to study and question.

Most protestants don't realize how much they hold as protestant truth is attributable directly to the Catholic Church; not only regarding Scripture, but in ideas such as cooperating in one's own salvation by earning merits through works.

A bit of controversy is good for discussion.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

BTW, if I don't reply for a while, I am going to be away fishing for a few days; not for men (although that may happen) but just for Muskie, Pike, Pickerel, Bass and Perch. LOL

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Studying the Bible is great, but without studying Bible History, we do so without context. The Israel and the Church has continued to use these texts in one way or another for the past 2000+ years. Does it not seem a bit foolish to discard them out of hand with not so much as a second thought?

From my perspective and what I believe, I do not think that such a statement that says, "Studying the Bible is great" is sufficient. It is more than great, it is essential to one's faith and transformation by God. It is our new birth and lifeline. When I accepted Jesus as my Savior based on what Scripture said and I regarded those words as divine words from God Himself, I was born again by the Spirit, and I was born again by water (i.e. the Scriptures - See John 3:16, Ephesians 5:25-27, John 15:3, and 1 Peter 1:23-25). I was changed forever in that moment. The Scriptures had a powerful impact in my life in that God used them to change my heart, mind, and soul. I had a peace, a love, and a joy that I had not known before. His words were not just great to me, but they were life changing for me. His Word touched me in a way that was beyond great. I see His Word (the Bible) as the very words of God Himelf because I was touched by them, transformed by them, and look to them as a means to guide my life, and as a means to build up my walk with God after having been born again by Him and His Word. Once a person has this experience with God's Word (i.e. to be born again and to study His Word by the Spirit), they know that the Bible is divinely inspired and it is without error. They know that there is no other book like it and no other so called holy book or added works of canon, visions, prophecies are needed. Perhaps, it is a lack of knowledge or experience by some. Perhaps for some, they need to look at the evidences that back up God's Word to show to you that they are divine words of God that are perfect and without error. If one does not care to look at such evidences or if one does not believe such evidences, it only means that they did not have the same experience that I had with God's Word.

As for history written by men:

While history can sometimes be helpful, it should not be believed as if it was the Word of God (i.e. the Bible). Men are flawed and they have agendas. Some men even can lie to protect these agendas that is not in line with the truth. I really cannot confirm man made history in the same way as the Bible. Such words are clearlly not divine. The Bible talks about how men can lie. So taking history as a building of one's faith should be taken with a grain of salt. This is why I am not a big fan of reading the Bible in light of history always. For history is written by the victors. For what if a particular church had re-written history making you believe the canon of Scripture was formed in a certain year? People today can make excellent forgeries of documents. I am sure they had that capability even in the past, as well.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

...

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Historically, evidence is lacking, hence the distinction.

I am talking about Observable Evidence or Observable Science, and not Historical Evidence or Historical Science. Check out my Blogger Article here to learn about the Observable Evidences that back up the Bible as being the divinely inspired Word of God:

Love Branch: Evidences for the Word of God

 

[AlexDTX]

Not sure where you got your definition of antilegomena from, but it does not mean excluded.

Antilegomena, a direct transliteration of the Greek ἀντιλεγόμενα, refers to written texts whose authenticity or value is disputed.

First, here is where I got the definition.
antilegomena

Second, it seems to me that you are splitting hairs. The way you have it defined, and I am not saying you are wrong, it sounds like you want to argue for disputed documents excluded from the cannon.

Third, I don't care. I am not part of this discussion because I see it as a waste of time.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

From a link within the link you provided below:

Antilegomena

Antilegomena, a direct transliteration of the Greek ἀντιλεγόμενα, refers to written texts whose authenticity or value is disputed.[1]

Eusebius in his Church History (c. 325) used the term for those Christian scriptures that were "disputed," literally "spoken against," in Early Christianity before the closure of the New Testament canon. It is a matter of categorical discussion whether Eusebius divides his books into three groups of homologoumena ("accepted"), antilegomena, and 'heretical'; or four, by adding a notha ("spurious") group. The antilegomena or "disputed writings" were widely read in the Early Church and included the Epistle of James, the Epistle of Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, the Book of Revelation, the Gospel of the Hebrews, the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Apocalypse of Peter, the Acts of Paul, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Epistle of Barnabas and the Didache.[2][3] The term "disputed" should therefore not be misunderstood to mean "false" or "heretical." There was disagreement in the Early Church on whether or not the respective texts deserved canonical status.​

First, here is where I got the definition.
antilegomena

Second, it seems to me that you are splitting hairs. The way you have it defined, and I am not saying you are wrong, it sounds like you want to argue for disputed documents excluded from the cannon.

Third, I don't care. I am not part of this discussion because I see it as a waste of time.

As understood by theologians; that definition is wrong. BTW, I got mine from Wiki as well, but I checked a bunch of others, and all were in agreement with the one I posted.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I am talking about Observable Evidence or Observable Science, and not Historical Evidence or Historical Science. Check out my Blogger Article here to learn about the Observable Evidences that back up the Bible as being the divinely inspired Word of God:

Love Branch: Evidences for the Word of God

While it is easier to concentrate on one's path with blinders on, it is also very easy to miss one's destination. You can not know where you are going if you don't know where you are coming from. Do you use a GPS? It does not just know where you are, it has to calculate where you are based on triangulation with satellites (an external source); once it has done that, then it can direct you to where you want to go. 3 satellites are OK but it can be hit or miss; 12 satellites, and you are within inches.

Regarding the NT; certainly those books that are positively attributable to the Apostles, should take precedence over the others. Historically they have; why is now different than the last 2000 years?