Canon: closed, open, other?

[glad4mercy]

Yes... the Bible is complete enough to accomplish this...

2 Tim 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

I can give a hearty amen to that!

[glad4mercy]

I have absolutely no doubt that God's word will be superintended and preserved forever. But, (you knew there'd be a but, didn't you!), the word of the Lord is primarily, first and foremost, the Christ. I'm not sure our references to the scriptures as the word of God is what was in view in 1 Peter 1:25. Those who preached the word preached Christ. Am I making myself understood clearly?

blessings,

Watchman

Yes, I proclaim the Christ as well. The same Christ that was proclaimed to me by the Apostles of the Lord who were eyewitnesses of His majesty!

1 John 1:1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard , which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon , and our hands have handled , of the Word of life; 2 (For the life was manifested , and we have seen it, and bear witness , and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us 3 That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.

I too have experienced and become an eyewitness of the Grace of God in Christ, but it was the testimony of the apostles that made it possible for us to hear the Gospel in the first place. We preach the same Gospel that was once delivered to the saints. ( Jude 3).

2 Timothy 2:1Thou therefore, my son, be strongin the grace that is in Christ Jesus. 2 And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.

[jesse]

I listed some assumptions earlier in the thread. Here's another one. From where do we get the idea that God wanted all the different writings compiled into a book? Have we assumed such?

W

It may be an assumption but can you think of any reason not to compile them into one book?

[Watchman]

It may be an assumption but can you think of any reason not to compile them into one book?

Given the amount of reverence given to the compilation, I'd think there would be a command somewhere. The compilation brings about many assumptions...such as the one from Revelation re: adding to and taking away from the words of prophecy of THIS book. That has been stretched to cover the entire Bible...which was never commanded to be compiled.

W

[Watchman]

Wasn't there a reply to my last post that contained some links re: the canonization? If it was deleted, then whichever poster posted (I think it was either jesse or glad4mercy), would you please send me those links in a PM? I'd like to read them. Thanks a bunch!

ybiC,

W

[Watchman]

It may be an assumption but can you think of any reason not to compile them into one book?

My baggage is showing! I love having the scriptures in one binding...but (you knew there'd be a but, eh?) can you think of some implications of having them all in one place that could lead to errors in understanding and application?

W

[divaD]

Given the amount of reverence given to the compilation, I'd think there would be a command somewhere. The compilation brings about many assumptions...such as the one from Revelation re: adding to and taking away from the words of prophecy of THIS book. That has been stretched to cover the entire Bible...which was never commanded to be compiled.

W

As far as your example in Revelation, I think it's just a matter of some folks ignoring context when they apply that to all 66 books of the Bible. But it's a good point tho. But since context is supposed to determine meaning, then it wouldn't matter that the book of Revelation is one of many books that have been compiled into one single book. And besides, that passage mentions prophecy. Not all passages in the Bible contain prophecies.

[glad4mercy]

Wasn't there a reply to my last post that contained some links re: the canonization? If it was deleted, then whichever poster posted (I think it was either jesse or glad4mercy), would you please send me those links in a PM? I'd like to read them. Thanks a bunch!

ybiC,

W

I'll go ahead and repost them. I was the one who posted then deleted them, because I wasnt fully comfortable with the way some things were worded, but the basic idea of canonization is represented here.

One of the things that caused me pause was point 2, which stated that accompanying miracles were one way to determine canonicity. I do recognize that the message of Jesus and the apostles were accompanied by signs and wonders, and I agree with this statement in the context of the first century, but I don't think miracles necessarily confirm a message today or in the future, because the Bible says that satan will bring counterfeit miracles. So while the Gospel was confirmed by signs and wonders in the past, in these last days the presence of apparent signs and wonders do not necessarily mean that a message is from God. The message of the preacher in these last days is confirmed by the scriptures. This is another reason why I believe the canon of scripture is completed and closed.

So this was one of the reasons I originally deleted the articles, not because I disagree with Dr. Geisler, but because I was afraid that his words might be misunderstood by some.

http://www.johnankerberg.org/Article...y/TD1W0402.pdf

http://www.johnankerberg.org/Article...y/TD3W0402.pdf

http://www.johnankerberg.org/Article...y/TD1W0502.pdf

[shepherdsword]

Given the amount of reverence given to the compilation, I'd think there would be a command somewhere. The compilation brings about many assumptions...such as the one from Revelation re: adding to and taking away from the words of prophecy of THIS book. That has been stretched to cover the entire Bible...which was never commanded to be compiled.

W

Hi Watchman!

How could the whole counsel of God be expressed without a compilation of inspired writings? What is Romans without James? By a direct command do you believe that there should be a scripture that commands this somewhere? How do you reconcile this belief( if it be so) with a leading of the Spirit that isn't documented?

Blessings!

[Brother Mark]

I've read through most of this thread but not all of it. It grew too fast for me to keep up with over the weekend. But here's a thought I haven't yet seen addressed.

2 Thess 2:15
15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.
NASU

What traditions do you think were taught? Are the traditions in this verse narrow, i.e. only those taught by apostles? What is the measuring stick for traditions of men and traditions of God?

What role do traditions play in the church today?

Why do I ask this? Well, it goes to the heart of the thread. Traditionally, the canon of scripture is closed. However, that does not mean that God doesn't speak to us today. He can and does still speak, but does that mean He is speaking scripture?

Finally, if traditions matter, then why must we use scripture to prove everything? Can the scriptures instead be used as a measuring stick? For instance, there are many things we do "as unto the Lord" that are not found in the scriptures, but we would argue are the will of God. Who did you marry? Has God called you to be a computer programmer? Where's that in the word? See what I mean?

[Saved7]

But, we do not need new words or terms to define things that God has already established words for, such as:
"five fold ministry" to say gifts of the spirit or "___" to say "___" when God has already given His choice of words to define those things.





To me there is a reason men will change God's terminologies and or definitions, and none of those reasons have ever turned out to be good, period.
I[COLOR=#008000]f no one that I have been communicating with on this thread will acknowledge that this is my point then I have nothing left to share here, and will dust my feet.



Father have mercy on all of us.

I wouldn't get too upset about the use of terminologies that the Bible doesn't use but man has created to explain the same things. I mean, after all, Trinity isn't exactly in the Bible, but it gets used all the time. And there are people who would disagree on the Trinity doctrine as well. Should we divide over the use of words if when the individual using those terms isn't intent to use them as a means of lifting others above the rest?

Just my

[Watchman]

Hi Watchman!

How could the whole counsel of God be expressed without a compilation of inspired writings? What is Romans without James? By a direct command do you believe that there should be a scripture that commands this somewhere? How do you reconcile this belief( if it be so) with a leading of the Spirit that isn't documented?

The NT writings were written to specific groups of people, with the exception of the gospels and the Revelation. Romans without James is every bit as effective as Romans with James. Paul said he'd spoken the whole counsel of God to the Ephesian saints, yet Ephesians is one of the shorter letters in the NT. I do not consider that the whole counsel of God is purported to be found in scripture...at least, I don't recall a passage that states such. I do not reconcile the direct command comment with undocumented leading of the Spirit...which is why I previously made the statement, "My baggage is showing." I've spent a great deal of time studying with the very legalistic group in which I was raised. That is a question I often posit to them, and they cannot answer it...but they also, for the majority, deny the direct leading of the Holy Spirit nowadays.

W

[Watchman]

I wouldn't get too upset about the use of terminologies that the Bible doesn't use but man has created to explain the same things. I mean, after all, Trinity isn't exactly in the Bible, but it gets used all the time. And there are people who would disagree on the Trinity doctrine as well. Should we divide over the use of words if when the individual using those terms isn't intent to use them as a means of lifting others above the rest?

Just my

.................................................. ............................................

There is a huge difference between the freedom we have in Christ and in taking license! I don't believe, for the most part, that descriptors that are not found in scripture are automatically disqualified from use because they change God's words.

blessings,

W

PS: However, I do appreciate and understand the zeal and passion some have for using biblical terminology...as well as the concept of 'the camel's nose under the tent'!

[Saved7]

the concept of 'the camel's nose under the tent'!

huh???? You're just gonna have to pm me and explain this to me, because I've never heard of this phrase. I don't want to derail the thread.

[Indueseason]

huh???? You're just gonna have to pm me and explain this to me, because I've never heard of this phrase. I don't want to derail the thread.

Tell me when you find out!! I'm way confused

blessings to you