Canon of Scripture

[TruelightUK]

I have a question for those of you who hold to the sola scritura belief, that the bible contains all that is needful for doctrine, and no authority outside of Scripture is to be taken as authoritative in such matters, including the teachings of the Church.

Surely the only reason you have these 66 books of the Bible to guide your doctrine etc. is because the Church recognised their authenticity and authority?  In particular, the 27 books of our modern New Testament were only formally recognised as the definitive NT Scriptures in 397 by the Council of Carthage.  Until at least the time of Athanasius, writing in 367, various of the Epistles (notably Hebrews) and Revelation were quite contentious - and 2nd Century writers seemed to vary considerably in their opinions of various books, with apparently only around 16 books being unanimously recognised as apostolic in origin.  So why exactly, if the post-apostolic Church's pronouncements hold no authority, do we choose to recognise the books of James, Hebrews and Revelation (for example), but reject the Gospel of Thomas and the Apocalypse of St Peter?  There is no canon of Scripture given within Scripture, so how can the sola scritura 'fundementalist' be sure of what truly is authoritative Scripture!

 

Anthony

 

[Reformationist]

Originally posted by TruelightUK
Surely the only reason you have these 66 books of the Bible to guide your doctrine etc. is because the Church recognised their authenticity and authority?

There is nothing that in my life, to include what is in my Bible, that is there because man deemed it was worthy and productive.  You see, man is just a creation.  They are not an autonomous collective that exists apart from God.  The things that are brought about are brought about because God deemed that they would produce in me the things He felt was necessary to develop a godly character in me.  He has decided that different people need different things to be purified by the Refiner's fire.  I know that God is sovereign and that anything that I experience is a result of His unyielding love for me.  I also understand that it is only God's grace that keeps me from being as bad as I could possibly be.

So why exactly, if the post-apostolic Church's pronouncements hold no authority, do we choose to recognise the books of James, Hebrews and Revelation (for example), but reject the Gospel of Thomas and the Apocalypse of St Peter?

Well TruelightUK, I believe if God had wanted me to take as Gospel the books that you mention then He would have made sure that they were in my Bible.  You can continue to attribute the things that are or are not part of your life to man's doing but I'll stick with Him who is unchanging.  I don't credit man with bringing God's Word into existence.  If He used the Catholic church to do so then, in His sovereignty, He deemed it appropriate.  I don't question that.  I do not, however, credit any council of man for the Words of God.  They might have been the tool God used for His purpose but that in no way implies that they are the "keeper of the faith."

God uses all of His creations to bring about His Will, including the ungodly (not talking about the RCC).  It is by the depravity of man that we learn how to have compassion and respond in love to others.  The sinfulness of the ungodly does not constitute God's favor though.

There is no canon of Scripture given within Scripture, so how can the sola scritura 'fundementalist' be sure of what truly is authoritative Scripture!

First you must believe that God is sovereign and that He works "all things" to the good of His children.  The RCC might very well believe that the books you mention should be part of the Bible.  However, that poses only a few options.  First, either they are wrong, or secondly, they are right.  Either way, it is God's sovereign control of His Plan that determines the outcome, not man's ability to determine what is or is not the true Word of God.

God bless.

 

[eldermike]

Reformationists,

Our view of this is the same. This is a trust issue. I trust that God used imperfect humans to give us a perfect book. He's God, what more would be needed to make this happen?

Blessings

 

[Julie]

"I have a question for those of you who hold to the <I>sola scritura</I> belief, that the bible contains all that is needful for doctrine, and no authority outside of Scripture is to be taken as authoritative in such matters, including the teachings of the Church. "

&nbsp;

What is the question?

 

[Reformationist]

Originally posted by Julie
What is the question?

I think these were Truelight's main questions:

"So why exactly, if the post-apostolic Church's pronouncements hold no authority, do we choose to recognise the books of James, Hebrews and Revelation (for example), but reject the Gospel of Thomas and the Apocalypse of St Peter?&nbsp; There is no canon of Scripture given within Scripture, so how can the <I>sola scritura</I>&nbsp;'fundementalist' be sure of what truly <B>is</B> authoritative&nbsp;Scripture!"

God bless.

 

[Julie]

When the apostles wrote their letters, the congregations received them. They read them. They spread them. They copied them for other brethren in Christ Jesus. And they recognized their authority in the Christian's life. So the Scriptures were produced by men of God, not by "the church." But they were produced FOR the church.

The last book of the Bible was Revelation, written about 96 AD, just before the apostle John died around 100 AD. After the apostles died, the churches continued to collect the letters they did not have, to read them and understand the authority under God by which they wrote.

But no one else shared that place. There is an "epistle of Barnabas" (which bears no proof it was written by Barnabas), which many think was penned in the first century. But the difference between its message of salvation and of the apostolic writings is too easy to see. If you believe the Scriptures, you cannot believe the so-called "epistle of Barnabas."

by David W. Daniels

 

[TruelightUK]

If I've understood you right, Reformationist (I confess I found one or two bits of your post hard to follow), you seem to be saying something very close to what I myself would say. But you are clearly NOT arguing from Scripture to reach your conclusion.

You accept that God used the Church to produce an authoritative canon of Scripture, in order to bless you etc. Yet you (presumably) reject other pronouncements of the same Church (even when they are not contrary to anything in Scripture) on the assumption that they are not designed by God for your good. Some 'fundementalists' would go so far as to reject the Church's teachings on the Trinity as mere 'doctrines of men', yet do so on the basis of their own interpretations of the Scriptures which God used that same Church to establish and authorise. So my question remains; on what basis are you/they making that decision to accept one Chruch dogma (which has no direct scriptural basis) while rejecting others on the grounds that they are not Scripturally 'sound' (even when other sections of the Church would argue a clear case&nbsp;from Scripture for their validity)?

Anthony

PS Before anyone gets offended, let me say I am not trying to undermine the Bible, or even to 'push' any Catholic/Protestant/Orthodox/Sectarian church tradition, just genuinely trying to get to the bottom of a position which I find mystifying (if not actually contradictory) - and in the process, hopefully, to bring us all to a better understanding of the Truth: any belief which is worth holding will bear questioning!

 

[TruelightUK]

Julie

While I am in broad agreement with what you say, your reply is somewhat over-simplified: as I pointed out in my original post, it took almost 400 years for the canon of NT Scripture as we know it today to be finally settled beyond dispute. The 'validity' of certain books - such as Revelation - was questioned for most of that time. While other writings that we now consider 'apocryphal' were considered by some major figures to be on a par with some of those we now recognise as authoritative - i.e., to borrow your phraseology, the church received and spread a considerable number of writings intended for their benefit, but which we do not now consider Scripture.

What I am pushing for is criteria for fixing the canon which is consistent with the sola scritura position. All you seem to be offering so far is a judgement based on (a) Church tradition and (b) a rather subjective 'feeling' of what sounds authentic and what does not (tho', from the various pseudepigraphical writings I have read I would agree with you - and the early church fathers - that they bear little comparison with the recognised canonical Scriptures). Certainly, the principle of rejecting anything that cntradicts Scripture is a good one - yet Jewish Bible scholars would claim that the whole of the NT is contrary to the OT Scriptures!Even within protestant circles, over a millenium after the canon became fixed, Luther famously questioned the authority of James' 'epistle of straw' based on just such a 'feeling' that it didn't 'line up' with Paul's writings. Yet I think most of us would agree that James does belong in the Bible, and is just as authoritative as Romans.

Would anyone care to suggest a definitive list of criteria for recognising truly Scriptural writing which does not depend to some extent upon the tradition of the Church?

Anthony

 

[Fr. Rob]

Truelight:

Per the 39 Articles, I do believe that the Scriptures contain all things necessary for salvation. That does not mean that there isn't more that's worth knowing about the faith, but that the Scriptures contain the basic deposit of the faith that is needed to be saved.

I believe, however, that simply looking at the Bible through 21st century eyes leads to dangerous deceptions, a re-writing of morality, and a sense of "archaicism" about the Word that is false. God's word is his word for all times. While circumstances have changed, even teachings of the Church have changed. . . his word has not changed and will not change.

Thus, I look to the Church from the post-Apostolic Era and the world the Bible was written in for information about the manners, customs, etc... of the Bible Days and the way in which the Early Church understood the Bible texts so that I can take the word in context and move on in faith.

If you would like to read more about the approach I subscribe to, Prima Scriptura, please visit:

http://members.aol.com/anglicanfather

and follow the link to Section 2, and click on the tract I have written on the topic entitled Scripture, Tradition, and Reason.

Fr. Rob

 

[Julie]

I thought the "canon" was "fixed" by The Lord God&nbsp;by Inspiration and&nbsp;Preservation?

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

1 Corinthians 14:37
If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.

 

[Reformationist]

Originally posted by TruelightUK
(I confess I found one or two bits of your post hard to follow)

Thanks for confessing this but it seems a bit gratuitious due to not referencing what you found "hard to follow."

But you are clearly NOT arguing from Scripture to reach your conclusion.

If you mean I'm am not pointing out scripture that states that the RCC has books in their Bible that are not ordained by God to be there you're&nbsp;right, I cannot show you that.&nbsp; What I could show you, if you so desired, is the theme throughout the Bible that God is sovereign in all things and His Will&nbsp;shall be done.&nbsp; The basis for my&nbsp;position is nothing but scripture so I don't know where you are coming from with this statement.&nbsp;

So my question remains; on what basis are you/they making that decision to accept one Chruch dogma (which has no direct scriptural basis) while rejecting others on the grounds that they are not Scripturally 'sound' (even when other sections of the Church would argue a clear case&nbsp;from Scripture for their validity)?

Okay.&nbsp; I'll make it less&nbsp;"hard to follow."&nbsp;&nbsp;Those books are&nbsp;not in my Bible.&nbsp; God didn't deem they needed to be there for my salvation.&nbsp; I trust that if He felt they needed to be there for me to be brought to a knowledge of His Will He would have made sure I was Catholic.

I don't want to get into a&nbsp;Protestant/Catholic flame war.&nbsp; I will say that I am sure that there are Catholics who are saved.&nbsp; I have no clue as to&nbsp;what percentage of that church are God's children.&nbsp; I would&nbsp;imagine it is probably no different than any other denomination.&nbsp;&nbsp;To be more personal with my answer to your question, TruelightUK, I believe that the&nbsp;Catholic church has made some erroneous interpretations of scripture.&nbsp; I believe there are too many other portions of the gospel that contradict the Catholic position.&nbsp; I don't believe that a church would approve doctrine that would call their very position into question by so many other Christians.&nbsp; Therefore, I believe the decision as to what was approved was ultimately made by God and is found in the non-Catholic Bible.&nbsp; I do not, however, believe this impedes God's Love from being poured out on someone, be they Catholic or not.

PS Before anyone gets offended, let me say I am not trying to undermine the Bible, or even to 'push' any Catholic/Protestant/Orthodox/Sectarian church tradition, just genuinely trying to get to the bottom of a position which I find mystifying (if not actually contradictory) - and in the process, hopefully, to bring us all to a better understanding of the Truth: any belief which is worth holding will bear questioning!

That is apparant and we appreciate your thought provoking questions.

God bless.

 

[Fr. Rob]

REF:

There is a line of argument that goes like this:

The writers of the New Testament quoted the Old Testament many times. Yet, in our modern Bibles, based upon the Masoretic (Hebrew) text, the quotes from the Old and New Testaments don't line up. . . while the quotes betwen the Septuagint (Greek) OT which includes the Duterocanonicals and the New Testament do. Many use this as their baseline to show that the Gospel writers used the Greek, not the Hebrew, form of the OT. . . thus giving it a level of canonicity.

Myself, I follow the stand of the 39 Articles . . . the Apocrypha of the Old Testament is useful for lessons in the manners and customs that existed in the Intertestamental Period. . . they help to illustrate the frustration and humiliation that the Jews faced at the time of Jesus, but they are NOT used to estsblish doctrine.

Fr. Rob

 

[Reformationist]

Originally posted by Fr. Rob
Myself, I follow the stand of the 39 Articles . . . the Apocrypha of the Old Testament is useful for lessons in the manners and customs that existed in the Intertestamental Period. . . they help to illustrate the frustration and humiliation that the Jews faced at the time of Jesus, but they are NOT used to estsblish doctrine.

Fr. Rob

You are obviously more learned about spiritual matters than I so I ask that you break it down into layman's terms.&nbsp; What are the "39 Articles?"

God bless.

 

[Fr. Rob]

REF- The Articles of Religion (or The 39 Articles) are the official confessional statement of the Primitive Episcopal Church (and, in other forms are also documents from the Church of England, etc...)

You can read them here:
http://www.primitive-episcopal.org
Follow the button marked RESOURCES.

The Articles lay out the basic doctrine of the Church, and the one on the Scriptures is found fairly early in the list.

Fr. Rob

 

[Reformationist]

Originally posted by Fr. Rob
REF- The Articles of Religion (or The 39 Articles) are the official confessional statement of the Primitive Episcopal Church (and, in other forms are also documents from the Church of England, etc...)

You can read them here:
http://www.primitive-episcopal.org
Follow the button marked RESOURCES.

The Articles lay out the basic doctrine of the Church, and the one on the Scriptures is found fairly early in the list.

Fr. Rob

So, does this mean that you don't believe the Apocrypha are not on the same authoritative level as the rest of the Bible?

God bless.

 

[TruelightUK]

Fr. Rob:

I agree thoroughly with what you are saying. What I am trying to gfind out is why those who reject the authority of Church pronouncements such as the Ecumenical Counciols, or 39 Articles follow Church tradition on the canon of Scripture!



Julie:

I thought the "canon" was "fixed"[/i] by The Lord God&nbsp;&nbsp;by Inspiration and&nbsp;Preservation?

&nbsp;


What makes you think that? (Not saying you're wrong, just pushing you to clarify WHY you come to that conclusion)

Surely many other writings have been preserved (by God?) which are not recognised as Scriptural, even tho' they may even have been inspired in some measure at least?&nbsp; So what makes these 27 (or, indeed, 66) so special?



Reformationist:

My question wasn't really to do with the Apocrypha specifically.&nbsp;However, as Fr Rob has said, the position of most Chruches on this is that (whether or not it is printed with the rest of the Bible) these books are 'less authentic and less authoritative' than the main Canon of Scripture; they are interesting, inspiring (inspired?)&nbsp;and worthy of study - but not sufficient alone to establish doctrine.

Neither am I seeking a Protestant-Catholic divide on this one. I am trying to find out how those who see Scripture as their only authority come to the conclusion that the 66 books in our (protestant) Bibles are ALL truly authoritative Scriptures to the exclusion of any other writings. Scripture does not contain a 'canon of scripture' - this (the recognition of what was truly apostolic scripture, not the writings themselves) was formed by the consensus of the Church (tradition) over 3 centuries or so, under the inspiration, I would say, of the same Holy Spirit who himself inspired the writers. But the sola scriturist would not (in any opther area, at least) recognise the authority of that tradition, yet apparently come to the same conclusion on this point: on what grounds?

(BTW I only mentioned my&nbsp;slight confusion with your post&nbsp;in case I had mis-represented what you were saying - evidently I got it right anyway! &nbsp;And thanks for the kind words re; the question&nbsp;- my remarks were a caveat for certain members who have found certain of my posts 'subversive' or 'offensive' in the past; glad to hear they are, as I suspected, in the minority!)

Anthony

 

[Reformationist]

Originally posted by TruelightUK
Reformationist:

My question wasn't really to do with the Apocrypha: as Fr Rob has said, the position of most Chruches on this is that (whetehr or not it is printed with the rest of the Bible) these books are 'less authentic and less authoritative' thazn the main Canon of Scripture; they are interesting, inspiring and worthy of study - but not sufficient alone to establish doctrine.

Got it.&nbsp; Sorry for the misunderstanding.&nbsp; I was, however, under the impression that the books being questioned are part of the Catholic bible as Scripture.&nbsp; I must be mistaken.&nbsp;

I am trying to find out how those who see Scripture as their only authority come to the conclusion that the 66 books in our (protestant) Bibles are ALL truly authoritative Scriptures to the exclusion of any other writings.

Well, I would have to say that alot of this, at least initially, is due to how we are raised.&nbsp; As I am Protestant, I obviously don't believe that the controversial teachings of the Catholic church, at least those that always seem to be being questioned, are providentially placed there by God.&nbsp; My parents are Methodists, though not very religous at all.&nbsp; Their church endorses a lot of the same things the Catholic church espouses from what I understand.&nbsp; Ironically, I am a reformed believer.&nbsp; I think most of my family's&nbsp;beliefs,&nbsp;despite the&nbsp;miniscule place&nbsp;their beliefs&nbsp;play in their lives, are due to their ignorance of His Word and what they hope God is like because of the way they catagorize good and evil and, as such, the box in which God must fit, i.e. if God didn't desire the salvation of all mankind then He can't really be a benevolent, caring God.&nbsp; He would then just be a spiteful, mean spirited totallitarian because a loving God could never withhold His grace from anyone.

So, in answer to your question, I don't give authority to those books and&nbsp;traditions that are not endorsed in Protestant&nbsp;Bibles because I believe if God had wanted that to be part of my spiritual journey then He would have arranged it so it was, or at least will be.&nbsp; I can't see myself ever not believing what I do now but, of course, I don't know the future.

God bless.

 

[isshinwhat]

Reformationist,

We Catholics have the same 27 books of the New Testament, the only difference comes in the Old Testament. The Gospel of Thomas and the Revelation of Peter are not in the Catholic Canon. The Gospel of Thomas I don't believe was ever considered a part of the Canon by anyone, but the Revelation of Peter was considered canonical by some early Churches before the Canon was set. The Revelation of Peter says that all sinners will eventually see Heaven through the Mercy of Christ, but that the Angels are still eternally damned. That is obviously not orthodox, but at the time there was no official Scripture to compare it to and very few ( I would venture to say nearly none) of the Churches had the entire collection of works we hold as canonical today. In the end, most agreed with the Council, and those who didn't fell to the wayside and no longer exist.

Fr. Rob. The Orthodox still don't read from the Apocolypse in their Divine Liturgy, do they? You will occasionally hear an Orthodox Christian refer to Revelations as non-Canonical, but that refers to its use in the Canon of the Liturgy and not its inclusion in the Canon of Scripture, I believe. Anyway, that's just an FYI for when one reads the Early Church Fathers.

Anyway, God Bless you all on this feast day of the Assumption.

Neal

 

[TruelightUK]

Aha, reformationist, so you agree that your belief also owes a lot to church tradition - just not Catholic church tradition (except, perhaps, by way of reaction!)?

Anthony

 

[Wolseley]

If I recall correctly, the only difference between Catholic and Orthodox Bibles is that the Greek Orthodox accept the books of 3 and 4 Maccabees as canonical; the Russian Orthodox do not. How the other various Orthodox bodies break down, I don't know.

Protestant Bibles do not include 1 and 2 Maccabees, Judith, Tobit, Wisdom, Sirach, and Baruch, as well as several chapters in both Esther and Daniel. Catholic Bibles include all of these.