Where did God ever say he wanted scripture canonized?

[TimRout]

He did? Where?

I covered this issue here:

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=6821653&page=3

See "Biblical Inerrancy - Section II - Internal Evidence".

 

[SummaScriptura]

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.

In an effort to centralize and homogenize the Church, Church leaders decided a canonical list of recognized scripture was necessary. To accomplish this they declared as scripture that which was already accepted and used by the Church. The Church already had a de facto "canon" and I do not believe we needed an edict from Church leaders.

So then, the purpose of issuing a decree to all churches as to what was the recognized list of canonical books can be viewed as a method for throwing out certain books that were also in use in the churches.

It was certainly not necessary to tell churches to keep on using that which they were already using, was it? Rather, it was done to eliminate books which had become unacceptable to the rulers of the Church.

In this light the canonical list of books issued for the Church by council can be seen as NOT for the purpose of establishing what books the churches were to use, but rather to eliminate certain books in use in parts of the Church which had become unacceptable to Church leaders. In other words they removed books from that which had already become the "practical canon" of the Church.

 

[wayseer]

The Q, as I understand it, is not about what books make up the canon - it's about the authority under which the task was undertaken. It would seem conclusive that an appeal to the canon itself cannot satisfy that question.

 

[SummaScriptura]

The Q, as I understand it, is not about what books make up the canon - it's about the authority under which the task was undertaken. It would seem conclusive that an appeal to the canon itself cannot satisfy that question.

Perhaps it is semantics.

In history the term canon when used to refer to the books people call The Bible refers not to the books themselves as authoritative but the authoritative list as the "cane" itself.

The cane or canon then, is a rule, an authoritative list of which books should be judged as scripture in the churches.

Imo, no cane was needed then when the Church was already in possession and use of her scriptures.

 

[beamishboy]

Perhaps it is semantics.

In history the term canon when used to refer to the books people call The Bible refers not to the books themselves as authoritative but the authoritative list as the "cane" itself.

The cane or canon then, is a rule, an authoritative list of which books should be judged as scripture in the churches.

Imo, no cane was needed then when the Church was already in possession and use of her scriptures.

What's a Chiliast?

 

[GBTWC]

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.

 

[GBTWC]

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

good thing your not in charge

 

[GBTWC]

Perhaps it is semantics.

In history the term canon when used to refer to the books people call The Bible refers not to the books themselves as authoritative but the authoritative list as the "cane" itself.

The cane or canon then, is a rule, an authoritative list of which books should be judged as scripture in the churches.

Imo, no cane was needed then when the Church was already in possession and use of her scriptures.

maybe Im misunderstanding you it sounds like your suggesting that b-4 the cannon as we know it there was no cane? if so thats not completely true they obviously used some sort of measurment or else it wouldve been like the new age churches of today where they use anything they like as an oracle of God

 

[SummaScriptura]

maybe Im misunderstanding you it sounds like your suggesting that b-4 the cannon as we know it there was no cane? if so thats not completely true they obviously used some sort of measurment or else it wouldve been like the new age churches of today where they use anything they like as an oracle of God

Abuses come and go. Regardless if the true folks abide by a formalized cane or rule, there will be abusers who add unscriptural stuff. Therefore, formalizing a cane for the true folks becomes unecessary, indeed unhelpful. Take a look at some of the Orthodox communions, without issuing a cane, they've done fine without one for millenia.

On a related note, I believe the handing down of a rule from the top to the localities has hurt the witness of the Church in the West. After all, thanks to Ehrmann, Pagels and Dan Brown, we all know that Constantine gathered together a bunch of repressive white men, who then met in a smoke-filled room, behind closed-doors and decided what would be in the Bible, right?

 

[SummaScriptura]

What's a Chiliast?

A Chiliast is one who subscribes to chiliasm, or a chiliast view of the Eschaton.

Chiliasm is the belief in the yet future 1,000-year earthly reign of Jesus Christ on this earth. Chiliasm was anathematized as heresy in the early centuries of the Church. Today chiliasm has made a decidedly popular comeback and also goes by the terms millenialism and pre-millenialsim.

http://chiliasm.wordpress.com/2008/06/07/the-nicene-council-endorsed-chiliasm/