Showing posts with label STC3. Show all posts
Showing posts with label STC3. Show all posts
Sunday, 14 January 2007
Tuesday, 9 January 2007
Apostles & Prophets
In Ezra & Ephesians Richard raises the question of whether the 'apostles and prophets' in Ephesians 2:20 can refer to the New and Old Testaments.
This is - in my view - unlikely when taking into account 3:5 and 4:11 in the same book which seems to be referring to both apostles and prophets as being current in the life of the church at the time that Paul was writing!!
This is - in my view - unlikely when taking into account 3:5 and 4:11 in the same book which seems to be referring to both apostles and prophets as being current in the life of the church at the time that Paul was writing!!
Sunday, 7 January 2007
Ezra and Ephesians
Thanks, Dad, for your last answer. It is encouraging how much 'historical' evidence there is for the canon we have, and how much power and unity the words themselves bring to persuade us they are God's.
In answer to my own question (!) as to whether there are any Old Testament books that we know weren't written by prophets, it seems to me that Ezra wasn't. In 7:27-28 it looks like Ezra himself is speaking in the first person, so my guess is that Ezra himself wrote the book. While he was a priest descended from Aaron (7:1-5) I don't think he was a prophet. So if there are books in the Old Testament not written by prophets and in the New not written by apostles, can I take the conversation on a brief tangent? In Ephesians 2:19-21 we see the Church is "built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone". What do you think of the idea that "the apostles and the prophets" means the Bible (New and Old Testaments, respectively)?
I'm not sure it's a very important question, so if it seems trivial don't worry about spending a lot of time on it. In the meantime, though, I'm going to start on chapter 4 and see if I can't get a comment on a chapter up before you this time!
In answer to my own question (!) as to whether there are any Old Testament books that we know weren't written by prophets, it seems to me that Ezra wasn't. In 7:27-28 it looks like Ezra himself is speaking in the first person, so my guess is that Ezra himself wrote the book. While he was a priest descended from Aaron (7:1-5) I don't think he was a prophet. So if there are books in the Old Testament not written by prophets and in the New not written by apostles, can I take the conversation on a brief tangent? In Ephesians 2:19-21 we see the Church is "built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone". What do you think of the idea that "the apostles and the prophets" means the Bible (New and Old Testaments, respectively)?
I'm not sure it's a very important question, so if it seems trivial don't worry about spending a lot of time on it. In the meantime, though, I'm going to start on chapter 4 and see if I can't get a comment on a chapter up before you this time!
Saturday, 6 January 2007
Why I believe the Canonicity of Scripture
I wasn't sure whether canonicity was a word but it seemed to do make sense!
In his Replies on Canon, Richard responds to some of my earlier thoughts on chapter 3 and addresses most of them. He is quite right to point out the footnote reference to Donal Guthrie - I had seen it but I think I was looking for a bit more in the main text.
In his last paragraph he asks me why I am convinced that the books we have today are the complete canon - which is a very fair question!
Its not actually something I had thought about much until a few years ago. From before I can remember I was living in an environment where my parents, family and many of the people around me had no doubt that the Bible we read was the complete revealed word of God and so it was an assumption I was brought up with and never really questioned.
It was only a few years ago when in conversation with others who were challenging this that I started looking into it and reading books / articles on the subject. I actually think that the points which Richard towards the end of his reply are key when he refers to the way in which the early church came to a position on the canon. He says that:
'But while the "contents page" of the Bible wasn't written until then, I think the books themselves were widely available which is how we have such a good idea of what the originals say and where and how errors were introduced. Is it also possible that the early church knew which books were Scripture but didn't bother writing the list down?'
I think that the people best placed to determine what was canonical were the early church leaders and congregations and many of these decisions would have been taken based on what became 'accepted' in those first couple of centuries. This is referred to in Grudem's book but it doesn't get the weight that I would have expected.
(My comments above refer to the New Testament books, I think his comments on the Old Testament are very useful).
But going back to my earlier 'easy acceptance' of canonicity, while it wasn't something I had particularly questioned I am also aware that I have been reading this book for nearly 40 years. During that time I have been struck by its consistency and power as in no other book and have heard God speak through it. So, in addition to the position of the early church, my own experience over many years has left me confident that what we have in our current Bible is the complete revealed word of God.
In his Replies on Canon, Richard responds to some of my earlier thoughts on chapter 3 and addresses most of them. He is quite right to point out the footnote reference to Donal Guthrie - I had seen it but I think I was looking for a bit more in the main text.
In his last paragraph he asks me why I am convinced that the books we have today are the complete canon - which is a very fair question!
Its not actually something I had thought about much until a few years ago. From before I can remember I was living in an environment where my parents, family and many of the people around me had no doubt that the Bible we read was the complete revealed word of God and so it was an assumption I was brought up with and never really questioned.
It was only a few years ago when in conversation with others who were challenging this that I started looking into it and reading books / articles on the subject. I actually think that the points which Richard towards the end of his reply are key when he refers to the way in which the early church came to a position on the canon. He says that:
'But while the "contents page" of the Bible wasn't written until then, I think the books themselves were widely available which is how we have such a good idea of what the originals say and where and how errors were introduced. Is it also possible that the early church knew which books were Scripture but didn't bother writing the list down?'
I think that the people best placed to determine what was canonical were the early church leaders and congregations and many of these decisions would have been taken based on what became 'accepted' in those first couple of centuries. This is referred to in Grudem's book but it doesn't get the weight that I would have expected.
(My comments above refer to the New Testament books, I think his comments on the Old Testament are very useful).
But going back to my earlier 'easy acceptance' of canonicity, while it wasn't something I had particularly questioned I am also aware that I have been reading this book for nearly 40 years. During that time I have been struck by its consistency and power as in no other book and have heard God speak through it. So, in addition to the position of the early church, my own experience over many years has left me confident that what we have in our current Bible is the complete revealed word of God.
Wednesday, 3 January 2007
Replies on the Canon
I suppose the easiest thing will be for me to discuss your six points one by one, so here goes:
If I'm right, the only books where apostolic authorship is disputed (other than those five) are John's epistles and Revelation, so his statement doesn't lose too much weight if we don't accept the traditional views. And as he says in note 23, the traditional authorship is defended by Donal Guthrie in his book. I wonder whether Gruden thought that particular argument was too off-topic or too boring to include here?
I think that the main argument he makes for Hebrews inclusion is that it has divine authorship. Of course, this isn't something that can be measured directly but Christians should be able to tell the difference. If any piece of writing truly is the word of God, then it is "living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart." (Hebrews 4:12, ignoring the circular logic of quoting Hebrews here!) There is something about reading the Bible than reading anything else, so doesn't it seem reasonable that early Christians - confronted with many letters from various church leaders - would be able to see which ones were dual authored with God? I'm not sure that I made much sense, sorry 'bout that.
I thought that as an apostle, Paul could do pretty much whatever he wanted! Seriously, though, does he have to have been at the events written about to confirm that the text was divinely authored? Some of the things that he wrote about he'd never seen. (We could, of course, cheekily dodge the topic by saying that in 1 Timothy 5 both Paul and God are affirming Luke as Scripture - and God was there!)
Halfway though. This is fun, though! One minor quibble, the 397AD you've quoted is when the Council of Carthage (whoever they are) wrote their list of the canon, on the previous page it says we have this list from 367. That doesn't change your point, though. But while the "contents page" of the Bible wasn't written until then, I think the books themselves were widely available which is how we have such a good idea of what the originals say and where and how errors were introduced. Is it also possible that the early church knew which books were Scripture but didn't bother writing the list down? This would be similar to how Jesus' divinity was not officially voted on until Nicea in 325, but this wasn't when the doctrine was formed, it was just a clarification of what had always been taught.
I had a look in the index. For "faith", "works" and "righteousness" in James and Paul we'll have to wait until chapter 36.
Finally, you said that these arguments wouldn't have convinced you, if you didn't already agree with the conclusion. So can I ask what is it that has convinced you?
If I'm right, the only books where apostolic authorship is disputed (other than those five) are John's epistles and Revelation, so his statement doesn't lose too much weight if we don't accept the traditional views. And as he says in note 23, the traditional authorship is defended by Donal Guthrie in his book. I wonder whether Gruden thought that particular argument was too off-topic or too boring to include here?
I think that the main argument he makes for Hebrews inclusion is that it has divine authorship. Of course, this isn't something that can be measured directly but Christians should be able to tell the difference. If any piece of writing truly is the word of God, then it is "living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart." (Hebrews 4:12, ignoring the circular logic of quoting Hebrews here!) There is something about reading the Bible than reading anything else, so doesn't it seem reasonable that early Christians - confronted with many letters from various church leaders - would be able to see which ones were dual authored with God? I'm not sure that I made much sense, sorry 'bout that.
I thought that as an apostle, Paul could do pretty much whatever he wanted! Seriously, though, does he have to have been at the events written about to confirm that the text was divinely authored? Some of the things that he wrote about he'd never seen. (We could, of course, cheekily dodge the topic by saying that in 1 Timothy 5 both Paul and God are affirming Luke as Scripture - and God was there!)
Halfway though. This is fun, though! One minor quibble, the 397AD you've quoted is when the Council of Carthage (whoever they are) wrote their list of the canon, on the previous page it says we have this list from 367. That doesn't change your point, though. But while the "contents page" of the Bible wasn't written until then, I think the books themselves were widely available which is how we have such a good idea of what the originals say and where and how errors were introduced. Is it also possible that the early church knew which books were Scripture but didn't bother writing the list down? This would be similar to how Jesus' divinity was not officially voted on until Nicea in 325, but this wasn't when the doctrine was formed, it was just a clarification of what had always been taught.
I had a look in the index. For "faith", "works" and "righteousness" in James and Paul we'll have to wait until chapter 36.
Finally, you said that these arguments wouldn't have convinced you, if you didn't already agree with the conclusion. So can I ask what is it that has convinced you?
Tuesday, 2 January 2007
The Canon
There were some things you said here that I wasn't expecting but before I start to discuss as instructed, I'll throw up my initial thoughts from reading the chapter. "The canon of Scripture is the list of all the books that belong in the Bible".
Until reading p55 I hadn't thought through how much of the Old Testament was written by people in the office of prophet. Now I have thought about it, it makes sense. After all, the words of the Old Testament are the voice and words of God and a prophet is the one who communicates God's words to the people so you would expect the Scriptures to have been written by God's prophets. I've been musing, and I can't think of any of the Old Testament that we know wasn't written by prophets. Am I wrong? I realise that if I'm right it's not proof that every word was prophet-written, but I'm curious. It's interesting that the Jews knew that the cessation of prophets meant that God wasn't really speaking any more. It's not surprising they were so eager to find the Prophet Moses had promised them - and a huge shame that so many missed him.
Grudem cites two examples of apostles refering to parts of the New Testament as 'Scripture', so giving their endorsment for it to be canonised. I was aware of the first (2 Peter 3:15-16, refering to Paul's letters), but not the second. In 1 Timothy 5:18 Pauls quotes Luke 10:7 ("the labourer deserves his wages") and refers to it as Scripture. It really is encouraging that Peter and Paul had the same view of these writings as the church does today.
Much of this chapter was interesting, but what struck me most was a sentance near the end. Grudem writes the (obvious, but in my case forgotten) reminder: "The ultimate criterion of canonicity is divine authoriship, not human or ecclesiastical approval" (p68). The 66 books in the canon aren't Scripture because they were approved by the church, or even that they were written by the apostles. They're Scripture because they are, because they were written by God (through humans), because they are God's own voice and it is this rather than any human opinions which make them reliable and give them great power. Praise God that he has spoken to us in his word!
I had a couple of other thoughts but they'll fit better in my answer to what you wrote, so I'll stop this and start that.
Until reading p55 I hadn't thought through how much of the Old Testament was written by people in the office of prophet. Now I have thought about it, it makes sense. After all, the words of the Old Testament are the voice and words of God and a prophet is the one who communicates God's words to the people so you would expect the Scriptures to have been written by God's prophets. I've been musing, and I can't think of any of the Old Testament that we know wasn't written by prophets. Am I wrong? I realise that if I'm right it's not proof that every word was prophet-written, but I'm curious. It's interesting that the Jews knew that the cessation of prophets meant that God wasn't really speaking any more. It's not surprising they were so eager to find the Prophet Moses had promised them - and a huge shame that so many missed him.
Grudem cites two examples of apostles refering to parts of the New Testament as 'Scripture', so giving their endorsment for it to be canonised. I was aware of the first (2 Peter 3:15-16, refering to Paul's letters), but not the second. In 1 Timothy 5:18 Pauls quotes Luke 10:7 ("the labourer deserves his wages") and refers to it as Scripture. It really is encouraging that Peter and Paul had the same view of these writings as the church does today.
Much of this chapter was interesting, but what struck me most was a sentance near the end. Grudem writes the (obvious, but in my case forgotten) reminder: "The ultimate criterion of canonicity is divine authoriship, not human or ecclesiastical approval" (p68). The 66 books in the canon aren't Scripture because they were approved by the church, or even that they were written by the apostles. They're Scripture because they are, because they were written by God (through humans), because they are God's own voice and it is this rather than any human opinions which make them reliable and give them great power. Praise God that he has spoken to us in his word!
I had a couple of other thoughts but they'll fit better in my answer to what you wrote, so I'll stop this and start that.
The Canon of Scripture
While I agreed with the conclusion I wasn't overly convinced by some of the arguments put forward to support the claim that we have the right books in the canon (particularly in the New Testament).
On page 62, the basis for all but 5 books is stated as being written by apostles but it is acknowledged that this depends on accepting the arguments for the traditional view of authorship. For people who don't accept that there would be a problem!
The argument for Hebrews being in the canon seems to be based on it feeling right and for what it says about the 'majestic glory of Christ'. I absolutely agree that it is a great book but there doesn't seem to be a strong argument made for its inclusion here.
On page 63 it is stated that Paul would have affirmed the authenticity of Luke and Acts. While he was qualified to talk about Acts it is unclear how Paul could have affirmed the authenticity of Luke as the events recorded there happened before Paul was a follower of Jesus.
I do like the argument made on page 65 that as God loves us and it is important to God for us to have his word then he would ensure that it is made available to us in its entirety. However, it does refer to God would not allow the church to be deprived of his word for almost 2000 years. However, on page 64 it is recognised that the earliest list available of the full canon is from 397AD. It is not clear to me that 400 years is significantly different than 2000 years in the timetable of God!
There is then the interesting claim on page 67 regarding resolving the apparent doctrinal differences between Paul and James in that it is necessary to understand that they used the terms "justification", "faith" & "works" in a different sense. However, no explanation is given regarding what these differences are.
As stated at the beginning of this post I do agree that the canon we have now is complete but do not think that if I hadn't started from that position that I would have been convinced by the arguments here.
Discuss!!
On page 62, the basis for all but 5 books is stated as being written by apostles but it is acknowledged that this depends on accepting the arguments for the traditional view of authorship. For people who don't accept that there would be a problem!
The argument for Hebrews being in the canon seems to be based on it feeling right and for what it says about the 'majestic glory of Christ'. I absolutely agree that it is a great book but there doesn't seem to be a strong argument made for its inclusion here.
On page 63 it is stated that Paul would have affirmed the authenticity of Luke and Acts. While he was qualified to talk about Acts it is unclear how Paul could have affirmed the authenticity of Luke as the events recorded there happened before Paul was a follower of Jesus.
I do like the argument made on page 65 that as God loves us and it is important to God for us to have his word then he would ensure that it is made available to us in its entirety. However, it does refer to God would not allow the church to be deprived of his word for almost 2000 years. However, on page 64 it is recognised that the earliest list available of the full canon is from 397AD. It is not clear to me that 400 years is significantly different than 2000 years in the timetable of God!
There is then the interesting claim on page 67 regarding resolving the apparent doctrinal differences between Paul and James in that it is necessary to understand that they used the terms "justification", "faith" & "works" in a different sense. However, no explanation is given regarding what these differences are.
As stated at the beginning of this post I do agree that the canon we have now is complete but do not think that if I hadn't started from that position that I would have been convinced by the arguments here.
Discuss!!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
