Where did God ever say he wanted scripture canonized?

[SummaScriptura]

Hmm?

 

[calluna]

He didn't. It is the church, the pillar and foundation of truth, that decides that there is Scripture, decides what it is, and decides its interpretation.

 

[SummaScriptura]

He didn't. It is the church, the pillar and foundation of truth, that decides that there is Scripture, decides what it is, and decides its interpretation.

Chapter and verse for the Church commissioned to canonize God's word?

 

[calluna]

Chapter and verse for the Church commissioned to canonize God's word?

The church doesn't need that. It is the pillar and foundation of the truth.

 

[beamishboy]

The church doesn't need that. It is the pillar and foundation of the truth.

May I know what your definition of "church" is?

 

[calluna]

May I know what your definition of "church" is?

Those born again of the Holy Spirit.

 

[beamishboy]

Those born again of the Holy Spirit.

Amen. I believe in that too. The church is not an institution under one supreme human leader who is infallible. The church is those who are born again who accept the teachings of Jesus as taught to us by the Apostles and NOT those who claim to succeed the Apostles. There is no such thing as apostolic succession.

 

[SummaScriptura]

So, this is wonderful! We're all in agreement! God NEVER said, "I need the Church to establish a Biblical canon!" Thanks guys!

 

[calluna]

So, this is wonderful! We're all in agreement! God NEVER said, "I need the Church to establish a Biblical canon!" Thanks guys!

It's a pleasure.

 

[Zstar]

That Jesus did not write anything speaks volumes to me. I don't think any type of Bible is what he would have invisioned - maybe some key teachings or something from a scroll of Daniel or Isaiah but nothing one could not know in thier heart without referring to written texts - Jesus summed up the whole law and the prophets in one statement.

 

[calluna]

That Jesus did not write anything speaks volumes to me. I don't think any type of Bible is what he would have invisioned - maybe some key teachings or something from a scroll of Daniel or Isaiah but nothing one could not know in thier heart without referring to written texts - Jesus summed up the whole law and the prophets in one statement.

Jesus confirmed the eternal and absolute nature of the whole Hebrew Scripture, from Genesis to Malachi. It would be strange if the goal of those books, the coming of the Messiah, the teachings of his disciples, were not also committed to the written word.

 

[artybloke]

Jesus confirmed the eternal and absolute nature of the whole Hebrew Scripture, from Genesis to Malachi.

He did? Where?

 

[SummaScriptura]

He did? Where?

Hopefully, they will reply to you sometime.

I think what you'll find is when it comes to people speaking about which canon of the scripture is the correct one, they will come down to 2 premises; one, "my canon is the correct one" and two, "I know this is the correct one because its the correct one".

Hardly a scriptural basis for deciding what goes into a canon of scripture.

Few want to face the fact, there is no doctrine of the canon of scripture in the scriptures.

 

[wayseer]

So, these seems to be agreement that having a 'canon' of scripture is not doctrinal - that is, unsupported by scripture.

First - this argument is an appeal to the very 'canon' that is subject of the premise.

The Bible says nothing about establishing a canon of scripture.
Therefore there can be no canon of scripture.

This argument fails because the second line makes an appeal to the first line, the premise. If there is nothing to appeal to, no 'canon', there can be then, logically, be no such appeal.

Second - this then means that any appeal has to be to either some 'authority' or to an individual's beliefs. There is nothing wrong in this - we do this more consistently than we may realise. This thread demonstrates that appeal to 'authority' - in this case a consensus of the contributors.

The direction of this thread seems to suggest a doctrine of solo scriptura - scripture alone. Martin Luther wrestled with this issue. If this is the case then the only scripture we have is what we call the OT. And it was to this scripture that Jesus made continual reference - which indicates the importance the OT played in Jesus' teaching.

So, we have an authority for using scripture - Jesus.

Having come to this conclusion we come to something of a quandary - how do we fit the NT into the premise?

It is perhaps appropriate to re-look at the how the present NT is presented. The Gospels are followed by the Letters. It is helpful to realise that Pauls' letters were written before any Gospel. We should read the Letters first rather than the Gospels and in doing so I suggest a somewhat different perspective might be realised.

It is more than probably that the writers of the Gospels had access to these Letters when composing their Gospels. If such might be accepted it would seem that Paul becomes more significant to our discussion. Paul becomes almost as 'authoritive' as Jesus. In fact, I would go so far to suggest that Jesus was not necessarily trying to establish a new church - he was trying to rescue Israel from their bondage of the old convenant. Paul's mission was to establish that church - to fill the vacuumn left after the death of Jesus. Paul's letter to the Romans is indicative of his mission.

If Paul saw fit to commit his vision of the Church to writing then it would seem we have something which we might seriously consider as an embryotic 'canon' - the beginnings of what was to become the NT.

The alternative seems to suggest we would have to deny the work and words of Paul - I am not prepared to go to that extreme. Those who do wish to go to these lengths are not alone. Messianic Judaism follows this concept while embracing conventional Jewish life in light of the new convenant. But they too have difficulties with the NT and the writings of Paul.

I raise these matters to domonstrate a progression of thought. If we reject a 'canon' of scripture we seem to left with no Church - just lots of individuals espousing what they think. Which seems to go nowhere.

We could follow the Messianic Judaism path - many do. But this seems to contradict much of what Paul taught.

So - we are left with what we have - a canon of scripture for better or worst.

 

[GBTWC]

He did? Where?

I believe He confirmed them by quoting them and refering to them in the Gospels

 

[GBTWC]

Hmm?

Im not sure what your asking are you lokking for an answer in scripture or a historical event like God ripping open the sky and telling us "I want a cannon" ? and if He did could anyone prove it ?

 

[GBTWC]

So, these seems to be agreement that having a 'canon' of scripture is not doctrinal - that is, unsupported by scripture.

First - this argument is an appeal to the very 'canon' that is subject of the premise.

The Bible says nothing about establishing a canon of scripture.
Therefore there can be no canon of scripture.

This argument fails because the second line makes an appeal to the first line, the premise. If there is nothing to appeal to, no 'canon', there can be then, logically, be no such appeal.

Second - this then means that any appeal has to be to either some 'authority' or to an individual's beliefs. There is nothing wrong in this - we do this more consistently than we may realise. This thread demonstrates that appeal to 'authority' - in this case a consensus of the contributors.

The direction of this thread seems to suggest a doctrine of solo scriptura - scripture alone. Martin Luther wrestled with this issue. If this is the case then the only scripture we have is what we call the OT. And it was to this scripture that Jesus made continual reference - which indicates the importance the OT played in Jesus' teaching.

So, we have an authority for using scripture - Jesus.

Having come to this conclusion we come to something of a quandary - how do we fit the NT into the premise?

It is perhaps appropriate to re-look at the how the present NT is presented. The Gospels are followed by the Letters. It is helpful to realise that Pauls' letters were written before any Gospel. We should read the Letters first rather than the Gospels and in doing so I suggest a somewhat different perspective might be realised.

It is more than probably that the writers of the Gospels had access to these Letters when composing their Gospels. If such might be accepted it would seem that Paul becomes more significant to our discussion. Paul becomes almost as 'authoritive' as Jesus. In fact, I would go so far to suggest that Jesus was not necessarily trying to establish a new church - he was trying to rescue Israel from their bondage of the old convenant. Paul's mission was to establish that church - to fill the vacuumn left after the death of Jesus. Paul's letter to the Romans is indicative of his mission.

If Paul saw fit to commit his vision of the Church to writing then it would seem we have something which we might seriously consider as an embryotic 'canon' - the beginnings of what was to become the NT.

The alternative seems to suggest we would have to deny the work and words of Paul - I am not prepared to go to that extreme. Those who do wish to go to these lengths are not alone. Messianic Judaism follows this concept while embracing conventional Jewish life in light of the new convenant. But they too have difficulties with the NT and the writings of Paul.

I raise these matters to domonstrate a progression of thought. If we reject a 'canon' of scripture we seem to left with no Church - just lots of individuals espousing what they think. Which seems to go nowhere.

We could follow the Messianic Judaism path - many do. But this seems to contradict much of what Paul taught.

So - we are left with what we have - a canon of scripture for better or worst.

good point except Jesus didnt leave a vaccum filled by Paul, He sent the Holy Spirit

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Hmm?

I don't even really know how to respond to this thread LOL.

Why would the LORD tell his people to write stuff in scrolls if He didn't want people to read it

Exodus 17:14 And YHWH is saying to Mosheh "Write thou! this memorial in a scroll and place! in ears of Y@howshuwa` that to wipe out I shall wipe out the remembrance of `Amaleq from under the heavens.

Reve 1:11 saying: "which thou are beholding, Write! into a scrollet and send it to the seven out-calleds. Into Efeson, and into Smurnan, and into Pergamon and into Quateira and into Sardei and into Filadelfeian and into Laodikeian"

 

[wayseer]

good point except Jesus didnt leave a vaccum filled by Paul, He sent the Holy Spirit

Exactly - and was it not the workings of the Holy Spirit that directed Paul?Having been so directed, as were the authors of the Gospels, then it would appear that we have our 'authority' for a canon of scripture.

 

[beamishboy]

Im not sure what your asking are you lokking for an answer in scripture or a historical event like God ripping open the sky and telling us "I want a cannon" ? and if He did could anyone prove it ?

I'm sure our God does not want a cannon!!! Osama bin Laden's god might want lots of cannons but surely not ours!!!