The Canon of Scripture

***decrumpit*** · Jun 3rd 2009, 09:44 AM

Hello all,

I've been spending some time researching claims of various Christian groups that do not believe in sola scriptura. These groups will claim that an infallible interpreter (Church, pope, administrative body, etc.) is needed to determine what the canon of scripture should be.

Protestant theologians such as RC Sproul have noted that what constitutes scripture is indeed fallible. This is surprising, like telling one to go to Houston but to stay out of Texas. In the case of what constitutes scripture, it turns out the the Bishop of Alexandria Athanasius, who was a fallible individual, made a correct choice.

In most reformed traditions, it could simply be countered that there is no scriptural evidence for a Pope, nor for LDS style leadership, or whatever. Thus the fallible individual is faced with a choice to put his or her trust in the Bible alone, or in a man-made (or Sprit-made, they would counter) institution.

But when one notices that there is no demand for sola scriptura in the Bible, and that those groups or individuals who claim infallibility are making a positive claim, it makes the Protestant position seem impossibly difficult.

What are your thoughts on this matter? I'm in a real theological pickle and would appreciate any help! I've been thinking about an objection, and in the mean time I will continue to search.

Thanks!

***dworthington*** · Jun 3rd 2009, 11:23 AM

Would God inspire fallibility? Study the books or letters to Timothy.

**notuptome** · Jun 3rd 2009, 12:38 PM

Well you have wandered into the deep end with this one.

Our adversary has been attacking the validity of the Word of God since the beginning. Eve was pursuaded that God did not really say not to eat. Surely you won't die he said. And the serpent said Ye shall not surely die. Gen 3:4
God places great value on His word. Ps 119:160 Thy word is true from the beginning and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth forever. Jesus in His earthly ministry validated the Word. I am not come to destroy but to fulfill. Search the scriptures for in them ye think ye have eternal life and they are they which testify of me. John 5:39 2 Pet 1:19-21 we have a more sure word of prophecy. Acts 17:10-12 We see the Bereaians searched the scriptures daily to see if things were so and were more noble than those who didn't. The word is foolishness to the natural man. 1 Cor 2:14-16 ...Who hath known the mind of the Lord that he might instruct Him? God has chosen the foolishness of the preaching of the cross.

Did Jesus come to set up an empire on the earth or to seek and save the lost? Man establishes organizations to control his fellow man. Christ birthed an organism a living church composed of believers united in His word and His Spirit. Who is greater? The church visable or Christ?

For the cause of Christ.
Roger

***RabbiKnife*** · Jun 3rd 2009, 01:01 PM

When has RC Sproul said that scripture is fallible?

Last I looked, RC Sproul firmly stands on sola scriptura and for inerrancy.

***Firefighter*** · Jun 3rd 2009, 01:17 PM

For the classic Protestant, though the individual believer has the right to the private interpretation of Scripture, it is clearly acknowledged that the individual is capable of misinterpreting the Bible. He has the ability to misinterpret Scripture, but never the right to do it. That is, with the right of private interpretation the responsibility of correct interpretation is also given. We never have the right to distort the teaching of Scripture. Both [Roman Catholic and Protestant] sides agree that the individual is fallible when seeking to understand the Scripture. Historic Protestantism limits the scope of infallibility to the Scripture themselves. Church tradition and church creeds can err. Individual interpreters can err. It is the Scriptures alone that are without error.

RC Sproul – Scripture Alone p. 43

***grit*** · Jun 3rd 2009, 01:22 PM

Hi decrumpit. I'm a Reformation Protestant who holds to sola Scriptura. If I'm understanding you correctly, I seem to actually agree with what you've found among the non-solascripturaists. Of course it's quite logical that only an infallible determiner of the Christian canon of Scripture can make an determination of the canon that can be completely relied on as infallible. Even the Christian Scriptures bear this out in 2 Peter 1:21 ("...men spake from God, being moved by the Holy Spirit"). The difficulty is in validating such a determiner as infallible, which, despite what some claim, no one has yet been able to confirm.

We are ideally left with a fallible determination of infallible books, and then only as directly written down initially (often referenced as the autographs). And I say "ideally" because this is what God determined for His continuing Church, that we at least more fully recognize our dependence on solo Christo (through Christ alone), to the glory of God alone (soli Deo gloria), by grace alone (sola gratia), through faith alone (sola fide). Otherwise, human religion has consistently proven to adopt scriptures as an idol in place of God.

Sometimes it may seem difficult to sort through several solas, several "alones", but one ought best to understand them as applicable in context. God is our rest of worship and authority. Scripture is His written revelation for our faith and practice, and it quite frankly DOES demand the Reformation concept of sola Scriptura, that NO other Gospel apart from what it presents is valid, and that the Scriptures themselves infallibly point to Jesus the Christ as the Source of Life (John 5:39).

This Protestant position is the most conforming to what we find in the Scriptures themselves, especially in view of the great variety of canon recognitions and changes in canon recognitions, not just among individuals, but throughout the great variety of Christian institutions.

***grit*** · Jun 3rd 2009, 01:25 PM

Originally Posted by RabbiKnife

When has RC Sproul said that scripture is fallible?

Last I looked, RC Sproul firmly stands on sola scriptura and for inerrancy.

Yes, I think Sproul is still quite on board with the concept of "a fallible collection of infallible books", when it comes to Christian Scriptures.

***decrumpit*** · Jun 3rd 2009, 02:18 PM

We are ideally left with a fallible determination of infallible books, and then only as directly written down initially (often referenced as the autographs).

My own question would be "what it is that is declaring the books to be infallible?"

The Catholics (or whoever) have an easy escape clause - the Church declares what is and what is not fallible.

In my own life, I am moved by the authority of scriptures. But I have essentially placed my trust in others to determine what is scripture, seeing as though history cannot provide a standard as to what is scripture - only the Holy Spirit can inspire. The scriptures (NT, at least) were declared canon by the early church. So I could say that the Church (ekklesia) would determine truth, although in the end, I am left with a non-Biblical arbiter of truth, albeit moved through the Holy Spirit.

Now, here is where I am doing some thinking - we can declare to be the ultimate expression of faith to be the person and life of Jesus. But everything that we know of Jesus comes through the scriptures. Anything that I believe must be traced back through the "church".

My question is this, does anyone see how the church (ekklesia) can have authority to declare a canon of scripture (seeing as though their declaration was necessary) and have authority in other matters. Paul even calls the church the "pillar and foundation of truth".

How can I understand all of this while still affirming sola scriptura?

Thanks for helping me out, I know I'm getting into difficult stuff here!

**Jesusinter** · Jun 3rd 2009, 03:27 PM

Originally Posted by decrumpit

Hello all,

I've been spending some time researching claims of various Christian groups that do not believe in sola scriptura. These groups will claim that an infallible interpreter (Church, pope, administrative body, etc.) is needed to determine what the canon of scripture should be.

Protestant theologians such as RC Sproul have noted that what constitutes scripture is indeed fallible. This is surprising, like telling one to go to Houston but to stay out of Texas. In the case of what constitutes scripture, it turns out the the Bishop of Alexandria Athanasius, who was a fallible individual, made a correct choice.

In most reformed traditions, it could simply be countered that there is no scriptural evidence for a Pope, nor for LDS style leadership, or whatever. Thus the fallible individual is faced with a choice to put his or her trust in the Bible alone, or in a man-made (or Sprit-made, they would counter) institution.

But when one notices that there is no demand for sola scriptura in the Bible, and that those groups or individuals who claim infallibility are making a positive claim, it makes the Protestant position seem impossibly difficult.

What are your thoughts on this matter? I'm in a real theological pickle and would appreciate any help! I've been thinking about an objection, and in the mean time I will continue to search.

Thanks!

As far as I know, the earliest canon of the Bible is the Muratorian List.

http://everything2.com/title/Muratorian%2520canon

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10642a.htm

Some date it to 180AD, possibly earlier. As far as is generally known, it is the list of books closest to the early church fathers who should have had more information.

***grit*** · Jun 3rd 2009, 04:44 PM

Originally Posted by decrumpit

My own question would be "what it is that is declaring the books to be infallible?"

The Catholics (or whoever) have an easy escape clause - the Church declares what is and what is not fallible.

In my own life, I am moved by the authority of scriptures. But I have essentially placed my trust in others to determine what is scripture, seeing as though history cannot provide a standard as to what is scripture - only the Holy Spirit can inspire. The scriptures (NT, at least) were declared canon by the early church. So I could say that the Church (ekklesia) would determine truth, although in the end, I am left with a non-Biblical arbiter of truth, albeit moved through the Holy Spirit.

Now, here is where I am doing some thinking - we can declare to be the ultimate expression of faith to be the person and life of Jesus. But everything that we know of Jesus comes through the scriptures. Anything that I believe must be traced back through the "church".

My question is this, does anyone see how the church (ekklesia) can have authority to declare a canon of scripture (seeing as though their declaration was necessary) and have authority in other matters. Paul even calls the church the "pillar and foundation of truth".

How can I understand all of this while still affirming sola scriptura?

Thanks for helping me out, I know I'm getting into difficult stuff here!

I have to say it's always seemed an envigorating dialog for the Church, and like you and most of us I suppose, I am both grateful for and reliant on the valuable wisdom and/or earnestly meticulous research of devout Christians and/or qualified scholars who have provided scutiny and approval of Biblical texts.

I've recently had opportunity in reviewing predestination apologetics to focus again on some important language distinctions in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, and English. When it comes to canon, even more than an assignment of authoritative investiture, which even the Roman Catholic Church would have ultimately vested in God, I find it most important to distinguish nuances between a recognition of canon, a decree (or "declaration") of canon, and a determination of canon.

Certainly God knows what is inspired Scripture, has communicated that there IS inspired Scripture (cf. Lk. 16:29-31; 24:44), and with some assurances even validated much of the Old and New Testament as Scripture. Ultimately ONLY God can decree Scripture, since as His revelation it must come from Him to qualify as revelation from God - the decree of God. The Church, or any one of us, might appear to decree canon by declaration, but effectually this can only at best be secondary to God's decree. What a church or an individual might best hope for is a proper recognition of canon, not a primary decree of it; even though it's not uncommon for us to speak of canon in terms of determination by either an individual or a church. The fact that there are varying recognitions within the whole Church is all that is needed to qualify that some part or all of us is faulty in our disparate recognitions.

This does not in any way lessen the divine authority of Scripture as from God. It only punctuates the human side of the equation in recognition.

Now, while it's true that just as God inspired the writers and framers of His Scriptures, so too His Spirit could authorize our recognition of Scripture. I would even argue that He DOES, but in the same sentence I must acknowledge, as history bears out, that this recognition of canon among all Christians has never come near to displaying the same consistency of uniform truth and inspiration witnessed of Scripture itself. Even those who claim a perfect preservation from Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, through Latin tradition, to present-day English usage must acknowledge discrepancies of variation between various English copies of the same translation, as well as nuance of differences between both ancient and modern languages in which the Scriptures have been preserved.

Again, we are not led to doubt the Scriptures, nor their authority in such circumstance, but rather are humbled to the necessary submission of our human processes to the One True Living God who alone authorizes His Scripture and His Canon of Scripture in our hearts.

A church's declaration, if we are to call it so, remains of great value, whether it be of Protestant, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Coptic, Armenian, or other designation. The fact that the books of Maccabees, Tobit, the Letters of Clement, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Apocalypse of Peter, or even the generally recognized canonicity of the book of James have variously made it into certain lists and out of others should not detract us from the sanctity of the Christian Scriptures, nor from the value of canon recognition. But to buckle under some claim of infallible authority in the Church is to put the Church on God's throne and to seek to deny God what He alone is sovereign over. Roman Catholics, of course, would not frame it as such, just as neither do those who assert human free-will over the same sovereignty of God. God cannot yield ultimate authority. He certainly delegates authority, but as in all things He alone remains sovereign over His Holy Word.

The Church may appear to tell us what God's Word is, even as we rightly ought to each so appear as God's living letters to all who witness us, but this appearance remains fraught with the inevitability of variation, even as we tend to see through a glass darkly and only are of true clear sightedness when face-to-face with God Almighty.

I would assert that a proper odering of authority must be: God => Scripture (God's Revelation) => Church (God's Institution) => Man (God's vessel)

**notuptome** · Jun 3rd 2009, 05:24 PM

Romans 1:19-23 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shown it unto them. For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made even His eternal power and Godhead, so they are without excuse;...Professing themselves to be wise they became fools...
Gnostics have long attempted to undermine sola scriptura by undermining the infallibility of God. As God has declared they are without excuse. No honest doubters only those who seek to make God smaller vs 23.

For the cause of Christ.
Roger

**Jesusinter** · Jun 3rd 2009, 06:41 PM

Cancelled idea!

**John27** · Jun 4th 2009, 02:01 AM

Sorry if this statement will cause a war, but I think Scripture alone teaches us that traditions need to be followed. The scripture reports to us the ways of the priests under Moses with detail of how they did things. I feel more connected to god by taking the eucharist than just reading about it. In the scriptures one finds truths but not because of what others did, but if one does as those others did, even symbolically. I do not believe that one must follow an organizations view on things, however I believe everyone should have the ability to come into communion with god by reading scripture, interpreting scripture, doing as Jesus did in the texts, taking communion getting baptised be good to thy nieghbor.

Canon and who says what I take the canon of the God inspired Bible as it is with its texts. I understand the diferences between bibles but I think one should see all an come to conclusion. If one read apocryphical texts they will know that they are not God inspired as compared to the Bible itself.