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!!