Calvin's 66 book Canon

[Robert R. Higby]

In searching the records of Protestant history, I have come to the firm conclusion that CALVIN HIMSELF was the author of the 66 book high-canon accepted by Protestants and other 'independent' non-Catholics. I do not believe that anyone can dispute this fact. From the French Confession of Faith in A.D. 1559 (which was later plagiarized in the Irish Articles of 1615 and the Westminster Confession of 1646):

We know these {66} books to be canonical, and the sure rule of our faith, not so much by the common accord and consent of the Church, as by the testimony and inward illumination of the Holy Spirit, which enables us to distinguish them from other ecclesiastical books upon which, however useful, we can not found any articles of faith. We believe that the Word contained in these books has proceeded form God, and receives its authority from him alone, and not from men. And insamuch as it is the rule of all truth, containing all that is necessary for the service of God and for our salvation, it is not lawful for men, nor even for angels, to add to it, to take away from it, or to change it. Whence it follows that no authority, whether of antiquity, or custom, or numbers, or human wisdom, or judgments, or proclamations, or edicts, or decrees, or councils, or visions, or miracles, should be opposed to these Holy Scriptures, but, on the contrary, all things should be examined, regulated, and reformed according to them. And therefore we confess the three creeds, to wit: the Apostles', the Nicene, and the Athanasian, because they are in accordance with the Word of God.

So to Calvin; every word enshrined in the books of Esther, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, and James are as sacred and certain as the person and work of Jesus Christ himself. The 3 creeds are exalted to the same level in all practical purpose. The basis: the HOLY SPIRIT told me so! And all of Protestantism follows him. I fully believe that what he formulated here was in vengeance against Luther's demand for an OBJECTIVE standard of canonicity. To defeat Luther, Calvin proposes a 100% SUBJECTIVE standard: the self-authentication of the Holy Spirit as experienced by HIM {Calvin}!

As all of Protestantism follows Augustine and Plotinus on the origin of evil, so all of Protestantism (including all the free-will sects denying Catholicism who claim not to be Protestant) follows Calvin on the high-canon.

I'm sorry, I can't drop this topic because it is so crucial to an examination of what our real basis is for determining and discovering truth! :cool:

[Brandan Kraft]

Thank you brother Bob. I have been greatly helped by your teachings and your research on this vital issue, and have come into full agreement on how the canon should be determined.

I believe our position on this topic is more hated than any other position of ours by those influenced and controlled by churchianity. Many protestants can and will tolerate differing positions on justification, baptism, and other ecclesiastical practices. But they won't tolerate any deviation from their understanding of canonization. The notion of questioning the canon is considered as sacrilegious, and most will not consider it because of the ramifications that it would bring. In other words, men are lacking courage to seek the truth even if it opposes all of what history, tradition, and their respected men believe and teach.

Look at how most people who answered their questions in their profiles, and you will notice that many of those who believe James is canonical answered that 1) It should be canonical because it testifies of Christ and His work or 2) Because it's been accepted as truth throughout history.

The problem with the first answer is it does not testify of Christ and His work. Hopefully in time, these people who answered accordingly will be brought to see that they are indeed holding to tradition because James clearly does not speak of Christ and His atoning work (the Gospel).

Those that answered that James is canonical due to it being held in high esteem throughout the centuries are really taking the roman catholic position. They need a good smack upside the head so that they can see their error. Folks, be brave and examine the Scriptures for yourself instead of depending on someone else to determine canonicity for you! If you are a Gospel believer, remember that you are a PRIEST in God's Kingdom, and you have the authority to judge what is truthful by the Gospel which was handed to you through the Apostles.

Personally, if men want to include James in their canon, that is fine by me. I won't object too loudly. However, they better not include it as proof for their arguments before me, because I won't consider it.

[GraceAmbassador]

I'm sorry, I can't drop this topic because it is so crucial to an examination of what our real basis is for determining and discovering truth! :cool:

Please, don't drop even if you can! I believe I see a calling in your quest!

I could ascribe Calvin's self appointing himself as the "determiner" of the Canon to a firm desire to maintain a certain sense of unity; but that, unfortunately is the excuse of many a denomination to impose themselves as not only the only one who can determine the truth but also to impose their truths upon everybody else.

I said before and I will say it again; God's Sovereignty caused certain things to remain hdden through the ages; then He revealed His Gospel; the the Holy Spirit inspired Paul to reveal to us, or at least to expand to us, on the notion of God's Grace; now I believe God is inspiring some thinkers to review certain notions and, as a good and Supreme Manager, by them, to bring us even more closely to the purity of His revelation. The question is are we going to give the same credit as we gave Calvin, all these years, to the thinkers that God is raising to question lingering unquestioned notions? Well, before we go on defending Calvin against the new thinkers, I propose that we keep ourselves sensitive to the voice of the Spirit because this is always beneficial to us and it will be even more beneficial as we learn to discern that which man made into a Godly truth from what God's ONLY truth.

Note that there were many critics of Calvin in his day. The same is true of Luther and others. Alas if we had shut them off, and if it would not be for God's providence that we would indeed give them credit!

As God was Sovereign to execute His wil through Calvin, can we tell for sure that God is not doing the same now with those who sincerely want to find what He reveals as His word?

At the risk of being told that I am saying that God "kept error" for so long only to honor Calvin, let me tell you that Jesus also did not reveal certain things to the Apostles that they could not endure at the time He was among them. It was not "error" that Jesus kept them under; it was the measure of truth that they could take that was Jesus strategy. Perhaps the doubters and critics will realize that certain things, even judging by the responses in the thread Multi Level Canon, that we were not and perhaps are not capable of withstanding us questioning Calvin, let alone James! Is this evidence that God is "right again" in keeping certain questions away from us for a while? Is now the time to have our eyes opened? I think it is.

Milt

[lionovjudah]

I believe our position on this topic is more hated than any other position of ours by those influenced and controlled by churchianity. Many protestants can and will tolerate differing positions on justification, baptism, and other ecclesiastical practices. But they won't tolerate any deviation from their understanding of canonization.
The notion of questioning the canon is considered as sacrilegious, and most will not consider it because of the ramifications that it would bring. In other words, men are lacking courage to seek the truth even if it opposes all of what history, tradition, and their respected men believe and teach.



Perhaps it is because it completely mirrors the likes of John Shelby Spong and John Dominick Crossan. THese 2 liberals do the exact same thing. You can keep your jehu knife and do what you will. One thing I have learned in life is the more attention and discussion one gives to a false thought, the more credibility you give them.

[Brandan Kraft]

Well the POPE HAS SPOKEN! Thank you Joe!

[Brandan Kraft]

Perhaps it is because it completely mirrors the likes of John Shelby Spong and John Dominick Crossan. THese 2 liberals do the exact same thing. Fallacies in your arguments for the canon....

Appeal to tradition - trying to get someone to accept something because it has been done or believed for a long time.

Example: James has always been regarded as Canonical, therefore we should accept it.Appeal to the popular - the hearer is urged to accept a position because a majority of people hold to it.

Example: The majority of people think James is Canonical. Therefore, James is part of the Canon.Genetic Fallacy - The attempt to endorse or disqualify a claim because of the origin or irrelevant history of the claim

Example: Liberals cut stuff out of the Bible they don't like. Brandan is cutting James out of the Bible just like a liberal (which I guess makes him a liberal - another fallacy). Therefore James is Canonical!

[Eileen]

Those that answered that James is canonical due to it being held in high esteem throughout the centuries are really taking the roman catholic position. They need a good smack upside the head so that they can see their error. Folks, be brave and examine the Scriptures for yourself instead of depending on someone else to determine canonicity for you! If you are a Gospel believer, remember that you are a PRIEST in God's Kingdom, and you have the authority to judge what is truthful by the Gospel which was handed to you through the Apostles



Regarding the answers to your questions, I thought there should have been an opportunity to answer in this way:

"The jury is still out"

Basically because it is a big issue and has taken Bob many years to research and to come to his own conclusions, I haven't had that experience.

This was the first time I had ever heard of this and so it takes time to come to some convictions.

Just my humble opinion! Study, study, study!!

Eileen~

[Brandan Kraft]

What's funny is those "liberals" would kill to keep JAMES in the Canon. Yet I believe James is not canonical. I guess that makes me a liberal according to Joe!

[Brandan Kraft]

Regarding the answers to your questions, I thought there should have been an opportunity to answer in this way:

"The jury is still out"

Basically because it is a big issue and has taken Bob many years to research and to come to his own conclusions, I haven't had that experience.

This was the first time I had ever heard of this and so it takes time to come to some convictions.

Just my humble opinion! Study, study, study!!

Eileen~Eileen, thanks for your comments! Agree STUDY STUDY STUDY!

I want you to know that right now you stand outside of Churchianity as I firmly believe that modern day protestantism would burn you at the stake if possible. To answer "the Jury is still out" would mean that you are actually questioning the Canonicity of James! That is a mortal sin!!!!

Eileen, I will add that answer so you can modify your profile. Thanks for the post.

Brandan

[Robert R. Higby]

Thanks to all of you for your most pertinent obervations!

I do not want to go back to making this a mere 'James' issue; that would be a mistake. I am actually trying to move away from a polemic related exclusively to certain books. My attempt here is to ACTUALLY move the discussion not to an argument over certain books but to a HERMENEUTIC for determining the high canon of scripture! So this thread is not about whether certain books are in or out, it is about the fundamental motif as to WHY certain books are in or out! Liberal skeptics will either accept or reject certain books (such as James) based on their own biases or presuppositions. In actual fact, they accept NO books as the infallible word of God entirely! We do not care about such arguments. We are interested in the basis of why we should or should not include certain writings based on a hermeneutic centered on the person and work and Jesus Christ! No well-published teacher of today 'conservative' or 'liberal' has the SLIGHTEST interest in such matters.

[GraceAmbassador]

What's funny is those "liberals" would kill to keep JAMES in the Canon. Yet I believe James is not canonical. I guess that makes me a liberal according to Joe!

Darth, it is funny, if not tragic that some ot these liberals who'd kill to keep James in the Canon, would live and give a second life, dying to take everything else out of the Bible. To compare us to them is akin to a personal offense, that is, if the source would be one worth giving heed to...

Our motivation to doubting James is because we strive to keep a Christocentric approach and a pure line of biblical revelation without disputes among those who recorded the revealtion through the ages. We indeed want the Word of God and nothing else!

The liberals we could be compared to want nothing of the Word of God! I really resent any hint that my position in James resemble the position of the liberals!

I would rather say that those who support James are, in fact, EQUAL to the liberals in that they seek to water down the Word of God , to a very stale and tasteless and useless broth by adding the need for works in justification.

Milt

[rlhuckle]

I answered James has always been regarded as Canonical, therefore we should accept it, without knowledge of the RCC's take on it. Scripture states that God promised to preserve His word and it is hard for me to contemplate that God would allow so many of the historical elect to be 'deceived' regarding the contents of His Word for so many years. I am leery of 'throwing' out a book that many learned men have honored and cited. Are we not running the risk of adopting humanist attitudes when we begin to think that we are 'more knowledgeable' than the divines that God has gifted to the church through the ages? I am not as studied as most here, but when the foundation of our faith begins to be questioned, I get concerned about turning foundations into shifting sand.

[melted]

My attempt here is to ACTUALLY move the discussion not to an argument over certain books but to a HERMENEUTIC for determining the high canon of scripture! So this thread is not about whether certain books are in or out, it is about the fundamental motif as to WHY certain books are in or out! Hi Bob,

I am interesting in this topic, though probably have little to offer. Over the past year the Lord has graciously led me to the knowledge that truth is only available via propositional revelation, and that by the Holy Spirit through Scripture (Scripturalism). The first principle that the Bible is the inspired Word of God requires that the term "the Bible" be defined. I have accepted the first principle, but apparently with some ignorance as I have yet to define this term sufficiently.

In order to remain a first principle, the terms must be self-justified. This seems to create quite a problem for "the Bible", but not for "God". I am convinced that the answer to the question of the canon must come from the canon, though this seems less than logical.

One might claim that the Holy Spirit will lead us to the true canon by direct revelation, yet this same canon tells us to "test the spirits to see whether they are from God", and the Word of God is that measure. Another problem it seems, as we cannot verify the leading of the Spirit by the object to which we are led.

[Eileen]

I spent 15 years of my Christian life afraid to step out of a box and ask a question. With all humility and awe I don't believe that God is displeased with any who ask hard questions and look further than the norm or tradition!

I look forward to further study and some solid teaching on the hermeneutics that you use Bob in defining the canon.

Eileen~

[GraceAmbassador]

I am not as studied as most here, but when the foundation of our faith begins to be questioned, I get concerned about turning foundations into shifting sand

Hello Brother!

Would you explain to me why (consider it, please, an honest question) to question the book of James a "questioning of the foundations of our faith"?
Please, include in your explanation what faith foundation the book of James proposes. Would you?

I explain:

Show me where James speaks of the doctrine of the Trinity, the Virgin Birth, the Death and Resurrection of Christ, His Divinity and where it speaks of eschatological foundation or anything that you deem to be foundational in our faith.

The answer to the above is REALLY what we question when we dispute James' canonicity. In fact, some of us believe that even if we would remove James from the Bible, none of the accepted foundations of our faith would be affected. We are not saying that this is the meter by which we measure or determine whether a book is canonical or not, but since you mentioned what I quote above, I decided to ask of you these questions.

Milt

[harald]

Look at how most people who answered their questions in their profiles, and you will notice that many of those who believe James is canonical answered that 1) It should be canonical because it testifies of Christ and His work or 2) Because it's been accepted as truth throughout history.

The problem with the first answer is it does not testify of Christ and His work. Hopefully in time, these people who answered accordingly will be brought to see that they are indeed holding to tradition because James clearly does not speak of Christ and His atoning work (the Gospel). (Brandan Kraft)


According to this criterion of Brandan Kraft (et.al.) also other writings of the New Testament will not, in the name of consistency, pass the test of canonicalness, because they neither explicitly testify of "Christ and His atoning work". Such as along with James do not explicitly testify of "Christ and His atoning work" are e.g. Paul's epistle to Philemon, the 2nd epistle of John the apostle, the 3rd epistle of John the apostle, and the epistle of Judas. In fact I spoke respecting this arbitrary criterion in the Canon thread, in post #273, and I think nobody of the multi-level people bothered to answer my words:

>> The book contains no clear teaching on the person and work of Jesus Christ or the way of salvation in him. Yet it is five chapters long. (R R Higby)

This is no valid criterion for excluding from the canon. If following this criterion also Judas epistle would be excluded, because it does not have explicit teaching on e.g.

1. Christ's blood
2. Christ's substitutionary death on the tree
3. Christ resurrection from among dead ones
4. a heavenly hope
5. Christ's impeccable humanity
6. Christ's sitting as permanently risen and enthroned Lord on high at His Father's right hand
7. Christ's being the Son of God
8. Christ as the one Mediator between God and men<<<


These above points are all explicit points of doctrine belonging to the Pauline good message as found in his epistles, which message you apparently acknowledge to be "THE gospel" for today.

In light of this I ask Brandan and those with him, When will you say "We will not allow Philemon, 2John, 3John, and Judas, as canonical because they contain no clear teaching on the person and atoning work of Jesus Christ" ? Would it not be a proper time right now for you to be consistent and in this thread also declare these writings non-canonical? Because according to this your above criterion neither do these pass your test of canonicalness. If you dis-allow James' epistle you will in consistency's name have to do the same with these others. Or else change your criterion for determining canonicalness. And in light of your above criterion, and in light of the Pauline gospel, How many OT books will be unmercifully dis-allowed from your canon if you would be consistent? It seems at least one of you is already dis-allowing Esther, Koheleth, and the Song of Solomon. Be consistent and apply your criterion to every OT book and see how many books you will have remaning after such a procedure. With this in mind I just took a quick look at Numbers, written by Moses, and according to your criterion of canonicalness Numbers is out. No blood of Christ, no death of Christ, no burial of Christ, no impeccability of Christ, nothing about Christ as Son of God, no resurrection of Christ, no heaven mentioned, no heavenly hope, nothing about Christ's third-heavenly enthronement as Lord and Head over one body, nothing about Christ's being the only mediator between God and men. So, Numbers is not according with (nor measuring up to) the Pauline gospel, which gospel you apparently use as "the gospel" when it comes to your standard (clear teaching on the person and atoning work of Christ) of determining canonicalness.

(I have partly spoken as a fool because the situation demands it)

Now, in light of the above impossibility of accepting your proposed criterion for determining canonicalness as valid I would propose another one as more viable. Not that there is really any necessity to propose any criterion. So, a wise criterion would rather be to ask:

Does this writing contain teaching(s) which
a) bear error-free witness concerning the particular good message (in its entirety, or partially) pertaining to that one or those to whom the writing was originally addressed
and/or
b) bear error-free witness concerning the excellency and pertinency of the particular household law of that one or those to whom the writing was originally addressed ?

If some one says this criterion of mine is arbitrary I can say the same applies to that of others. But at least my proposed criterion is closer to what Paul says in 2Tim. 3:16-17. By "my" criterion Numbers will stay in the canon. So will James, Philemon, Judas, 2John, 3John, etc. But if "my" criterion is applied to commonly rejected writings like the epistle of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians it will not let such a writing pass through. It is not error-free. The same applies to Barnabas' epistle, and to others. And "my" criterion rests on the given foundation that the Hebrew canon, the OT, has already been authenticated by Christ Himself in the gospel accounts, so there is no need whatsoever to take any issue with that canon.
When it comes to James' epistle there is nothing in there which conflicts with Israel's household law or good message. It is in complete harmony with Christ's sayings in the gospel accounts and with e.g. the Torah. It does not have to be in 100 per cent agreement with the totality of what Paul sets forth in his epistles, because Paul primarily addressed saints of the Body of the Christ, which organism has another household law and good message, viz. the Pauline ditos. James on the other hand wrote his epistle to the circumcision, not to the Body of the Christ, the uncircumcision. I am pretty convinced by now that James wrote his epistle in 62 or 63 AD, or about the time John wrote his first epistle. Partly to combat the newly risen gnôsis/antinomian faction among the Jewish believers, which faction Peter in 2Peter prophecied about. "The gnôsis/knowledge" faction arose to prominence within Body circles, about 60 AD. A little later it began infecting circumcision circles.

Harald

[rlhuckle]

[Milt] Would you explain to me why (consider it, please, an honest question) to question the book of James a "questioning of the foundations of our faith"?

As others, I adhere to the principle that the Bible is the inspired word of God and is the foundation of a proper world-view. The Bible has been historically defined and used by the faithful for centuries --ostensibly in complete trust and assurance that it is the Word of God. I don't believe any question shakes the foundations; however, the answers one arrives at or promotes might (maybe my initial comment could have been worded better--sorry). To contemplate that God would allow His church to wallow in error in regards to inspired writings does shake the foundations of sola scriptura does it not?

[Milt] Please, include in your explanation what faith foundation the book of James proposes. Would you?

This is more a question of content versus canonicity and seems to imply that inspiration relies upon content. I am not sure I subscribe to this implication (I have not studied the current thoughts and conclusions in these areas). However, James does promote a definition of 'saving faith.' I do believe that some have used James to justify looking at oneself and one's 'apparent good works' for evidence of one's salvation instead of looking solely at Christ, however believers are admonished to examine themselves and James does assist believers in this regard.

[Milt]In fact, some of us believe that even if we would remove James from the Bible, none of the accepted foundations of our faith would be affected.

This may very well be true. However, regardless of the content of any book, I think the issue is one of God's faithfulness to believers in keeping His word--or am I too uninformed on this topic to be making any sense in relation to a pertinant discussion of the issues?

[Brandan Kraft]

This is more a question of content versus canonicity and seems to imply that inspiration relies upon content. Well, why do you reject the Apocrypha? It has been accepted for centuries. Yet the reformers rejected it due to its content. Why were the reformers free to reject the apocrypha due to its content, but others since the reformers are not free to reject other books due to content?

[Brandan Kraft]

I am interesting in this topic, though probably have little to offer. Over the past year the Lord has graciously led me to the knowledge that truth is only available via propositional revelation, and that by the Holy Spirit through Scripture (Scripturalism). The first principle that the Bible is the inspired Word of God requires that the term "the Bible" be defined. I have accepted the first principle, but apparently with some ignorance as I have yet to define this term sufficiently.

In order to remain a first principle, the terms must be self-justified. This seems to create quite a problem for "the Bible", but not for "God". I am convinced that the answer to the question of the canon must come from the canon, though this seems less than logical.

One might claim that the Holy Spirit will lead us to the true canon by direct revelation, yet this same canon tells us to "test the spirits to see whether they are from God", and the Word of God is that measure. Another problem it seems, as we cannot verify the leading of the Spirit by the object to which we are led.I agree with Scripturalism. The problem with how most understand Scripturalism is they don't actually abide by their principles! This is my main problem with Robbins and Co. (I was a member of the scripturalist list for a year or so, so I know how these people think)

What we are proposing is that all of Scripture is judged by the standard of the Gospel. That's all. Nothing more, nothing less. How do we come to a knowledge of the Gospel? Well obviously it is propositional truth communicated through words (either spoken or written). Where did we hear the Gospel? From the Bible.

But there have been many who have never read the Bible, yet they have come to a knowledge of the Gospel through the influence of the Holy Spirit. This is how we all come to a knowledge of the Gospel - by the Holy Spirit. We read of Lydia in Acts - no bible in front of her:



Acts 16:14, (KJV), And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul.

We read of Peter and the Gentiles:

Acts 10:34-45, (KJV), Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: (35) But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him. (36) The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all:) (37) That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached; (38) How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him. (39) And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree: (40) Him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly; (41) Not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead. (42) And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead. (43) To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. (44) While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. (45) And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Here the Gospel was preached, and while it was being preached the Holy Spirit opened the minds of those attending. There was no mention of a canon by the way. :)

When the elect hear the truth of the GOSPEL they will believe it. The Holy Spirit will assure this! At that point in time, all the elect have a base from which to judge all things - yes even the writings of men (such as James). The core canon are the Gospels of Christ and Pauls Epistles and all other books which directly speak of the Gospel. From there we can judge other books to see if they are canonical - to see if they are in line with the core Gospel canon. If they are, we accept and embrace them.

This notion of accepting books just because it's been accepted for centuries is ridiculous because there is no objective base. There is no objective standard for determining if a book should be canonical because many books for example have been accepted by certain groups and rejected by others. Do we simply accept a teaching as inerrant because someone else says so? Of course not! But we do with our Bible. For centuries, men have said that THESE BOOKS are the word of God and nothing else, and if you don't accept our understanding of the canon - anathema on you!

Unfortunately this is the position of John Robbins. He does not use the Scripture to prove his position. Instead he points to the WCF and tradition. He has taken a position of popery. And in his popish responses, he condemns all of us who would dare to judge James by the core Gospel canon. Harald and Joe have both taken this same position. They cannot stand someone questioning their authority. That is why they fight against and condemn our position of a Gospel-centric hermeneutic.

[melted]

Hi Brandan,

I agree with Scripturalism. The problem with how most understand Scripturalism is they don't actually abide by their principles!

Scripturalism seems to require a slight departure from itself. As I posted previously, the terms of a first premise must be defined, and in the case of Scripturalism, this does not seem the case (if we assume that "the Bible is the Word of God" is the first principle of Scripturalism). I agree that it is fallacious to teach that Truth is only available by propositional revelation and then appeal to tradition or history to provide the definition of Scripture. Such an appeal does not adhere to the previously stated first principle.


But there have been many who have never read the Bible, yet they have come to a knowledge of the Gospel through the influence of the Holy Spirit. This is how we all come to a knowledge of the Gospel - by the Holy Spirit.

I also am of the mind that the Word of God is not held in ink blots or audio vibrations, but the essential component is the Holy Spirit and His sovereign will to reveal truth to an individual.


Have you defined a first principle, Brandan? I suppose it would be something along the lines of "the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ is true". The inspiration of Scripture could then be checked against this premise. The contents of the Gospel as directly revealed from the Holy Spirit are the measure of Scripture? Then objective truth (Word/Scripture) is defined subjectively (revelation). One could argue from both Gospel-centric and historicist hermeneutics that the "objective base" is the pen of God, while the measure is subjective (historicism is subjective and claims of revelation are subjective).

I will mention in passing that I am yet unconvinced concerning James, but have little desire to pursue that specific case without having an established first principle from which to judge James. Though, I certainly agree that if literature claims inspiration but contradicts other inspired Scripture, one of them must give so that the law of [non]contradiction is preserved (which we would all agree is of the utmost importance). I'm just not convinced that James contradicts any other inspired author (but we should shelve that discussion for now).


I have some questions I will throw out there:

Is all Truth inspired?
If I write Truth, is it inspired?
Does inspiration transfer from one pen to another? ie: If I write "Jesus is Lord", we all know that to be Truth; does that mean that it is also inspired?
Is this merely reproduction of inspired Truth?


Also, some verses to ponder:

John 10:14 "I am the good shepherd, and I know My own and My own know Me

Hebrews 8:11 And they shall not teach, each one his neighbor and each one his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest.

I find these passages to be interesting, especially the verse from the new covenant. They seem to lend credibility to the idea that the believer (and his revealed knowledge of God) are subjective measures of Truth.

[lionovjudah]

Harald and Joe have both taken this same position. They cannot stand someone questioning their authority. That is why they fight against and condemn our position of a Gospel-centric hermeneutic.


No, No , No Brandan. THis cannot be farther from the truth. Lets face it everything is debatable, but that does not mean everything should be debated. That said, here is the main issue and contention I have with this issue, as well as other issues here, but specifically the canon.

Our Lord does not work with opinions or theories. He works with facts. Is this issue based on fact, or is it only ones opinion, to be answered by his own theory? It is most definately the later. And this is not what our Faith is about. Where is the foundation to be found to stand firm upon when Bob only offers an opinion, then others clap and join in with their theories? Any truth received at all about doctrine has to be based on revealed factual truth witnessed by the Holy Spirit.

I immediately raise objections to Bobs original hypothesis to determine the canon. Because as Harald has CLEARLY stated, with no rebuttal, this would leave many, many more books out of both testaments. Bob has spoken his theory to explain a truth, which has no certainty to begin with. Then continues on with the struggle the canon had for nearly 400 years before being closed. Therefore concludes again that some books that are in should not be and others that are not should be. WHich actually is not a long time since the OT canon took some 1500-2000 years of writings to be compiled and attested as authentic and inspired.


To only use a Christocentric hermeneutic to determine the canonicity of a book limits our basis considerably. THat is why I believe there are 7 criteria combined together to determine if its in or out.

1) Apostolic
2) Orthodox
3) Christocentric
4)Inspiration\
5)Holy Spirit testimony to individual
6)Aithority of the Church
7) The almost unanimous consent of all churches(small c) acceoting the closed canon.


All 7 of these have to be considered in determining the canonicity of a book. Luther perveted his own Christocentric hermeneutic many times in his writings to determine the books canoinicity. But as I read, his main objection of james was because of his inability to reconcile with his revelation of salvation by grace through faith. His stance on Esther, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, James, Hebrews and Revelation was a huge mistake on his part. Luther would rather throw out a whole book, than claim it taught error and kept it in.

I have absolutely no dispute that some books contained in the bounded Bible are more authoritative on subjects compared to others. THis is a truth, a fact that cannot be disputed. My contention lies when one uses theology to determine what belongs in or does not belong in. The irony is even Luther was not consistant in this. For Hebrews and revelations speak more about Christ than books that he did nto dispute. And this same inconsistancy is being used here.

THis does not lead to popery Brandan. It leads back to the veracity of the Holy Spirits witness throughout history of what is or is not canon. You continue to state this about those who object to this whol idea, but this is like stating that our view would put us under the rule of the temple since we believe in the canon of the OT as confessed by history

[Brandan Kraft]

Joe, in your profile, you state that James should be in the canon because it's been recognized by the "churches" throughout the centuries.

How did you determine that these "churches" should be authoritative? What churches are you basing your opinion on? The Roman Catholic Church? The orthodox church? Or are you basing it mostly on the protestant churches?

When do you have the canon being closed? Luther says that the book of James was debated through the fourth century. Why did these churches get to debate it and we don't? Was the issue truly settled after the fourth century? From Luther's works:
Up to the fourth century the Epistle of James was not included in the canon by many Christian leaders, and earlier writers did not quote from it. Cf. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, II, 23, 25Why do you get to determine that these churches have the authority to dictate the canon to me, you, and anyone else? Why can't I choose my churches if the historical method is correct according to you? What is the basis for choosing these churches? What if I want to include the churches that rejected James to determine the canon? Would that be alright?

My question for you Joe is why do you subject me to your standard for canonicity? I don't care what you keep in your canon. You could have "Where's Waldo" sitting smack dab between the old and new testaments for all I care! And don't tell me that you don't have a personal standard for determining the canon. Either you determine a canon based on your own personal study and comparisons or you depend on someone else to determine it for you for whatever reason.

You have determined that you will depend on some vague "churches" to determine the canon for you. You have then set your standard for canonization above mine and trash me because I exercised the same liberty you did. My standard is a Gospel centric hermeneutic. It is an objective standard as the Gospel is clearly defined by God's chief apostle Paul! Yet you have subjectively decided which churches you will depend upon to determine the canon for you. You haven't stated how you subjectively chose these churches. Many churches included the apocrypha, but apparently you don't. I take it's because another group of churches rejected the apocrypha, but you haven't stated which ones. It's all subjective, yet you won't admit it!

I will not bow down to your standard which makes YOUR VIEW of history the judge of things as opposed to the Gospel itself. Either the Gospel (Christ lived and died for His people to accomplish salvation for them. Salvation is all of grace and is experienced through faith alone) is the standard for judging all things or it's not. Deviation from this is not acceptable and will lead to error!

[harald]

What we are proposing is that all of Scripture is judged by the standard of the Gospel.
(Brandan Kraft)

I surmise that Brandan by "the Gospel" here means the gospel according to Paul. If this be so then all of the OT canon goes out. Because no individual book of the OT canon measures up to Paul's gospel as found in its totality in his epistles. Therefore such a standard of judging canonicalness is arbitrary. Some explicit points of doctrine found in Paul's complete gospel as found in his epistles which cannot be found in the writings of the Hebrew OT are, for example, these:

1. Christ as third-heavenly Lord-and-Head of a non-national, non-ceremonial, non-ritualistic (etc.) joint-Body

2. the spiritually prosperous ("blessed") hope of the one body of the Christ, viz. the rapture

3. the Body's eternal third-heavenly hope

4. the supralapsarian pre-demarcation of the Body members to be similitudes of the image of God's very Son

5. the glorious truth of the Body of the Christ as Christ's very fullness

6. the Body's exalted position in Christ above all angelic beings

7. Christ's permanent abolishment of the enmity, viz. the law of commandments with ordinances, when it comes to the body of the Christ

These were some that came to mind.


The core canon are the Gospels of Christ and Pauls Epistles and all other books which directly speak of the Gospel. From there we can judge other books to see if they are canonical - to see if they are in line with the core Gospel canon. If they are, we accept and embrace them.

Whatever import you attach to "core canon". Here is the fact. Paul referred to the Hebrew OT as "the sacred letters" (2Tim. 3:15), and of which he further wrote "...every writing God-breathed". This is what counts, GOD-BREATHED. "canonical" may be a valid word/term per se, but GOD-BREATHED is strictly Pauline, scriptural. And Paul declared the OT in its entirety God-breathed. But Higby would dis-allow Esther, Koheleth and Song of Solomon. I rather listen to Paul. Therefore I for one outright reject your above criterion and argumentation when it comes to the Tanakh. That which is God-breathed is automatically belonging to that body of truth which Paul referred to as "the Scriptures". If it belongs to "the Scriptures" it is and must be entirely God-breathed, even to the grammatical forms of the words as they stand down-written in their respective original tongues. There is no in between in this thing. Either each word God-breathed or no word thusly. There are no semi-Godbreathed writings which God will own as His very word.


But we do with our Bible.

Excuse me, but at this moment, what "our Bible" are you precisely referring to? The King Higby Version 62-book canon Bible ??


Unfortunately this is the position of John Robbins. He does not use the Scripture to prove his position. Instead he points to the WCF and tradition. He has taken a position of popery. And in his popish responses, he condemns all of us who would dare to judge James by the core Gospel canon. Harald and Joe have both taken this same position. They cannot stand someone questioning their authority.

Brandan Kraft, slandering me again, calculatedly and wittingly? Well, so be it. First, I have used the Scriptures to prove what I believe re James. Second. I have not resorted to WCF and tradition as Robbins may have. I know nothing of popery in this matter. So the popery-speech is a strawman. If ever I saw a fabricated term it must be your "core Gospel canon". I would love to see a clear definition on it. As for me it is not about my authority, nor about someone questioning some alleged authority of mine.

Harald

[GraceAmbassador]

This may very well be true. However, regardless of the content of any book, I think the issue is one of God's faithfulness to believers in keeping His word--or am I too uninformed on this topic to be making any sense in relation to a pertinant discussion of the issues?

Note that I said that we do not believe that "content" is the only way we measure the canonicity of a book. There are issues in James that are more serious that what is excluded from its content.

Milt

[GraceAmbassador]

Brandan Kraft, slandering me again, calculatedly and wittingly? Well, so be it.

Well, I hate to think so, but Harald must be the worst masochist that I have ever seen! He keeps complaining that he gets slandered here all the time but keeps coming back for more... What is it? 5 Solas withdrawal?

It does seem that at least a couple of people, Harald being one, that just can't live without this forum and keep pouting of being attacked all the time and still returning for more of the same...

Perhaps we should put a disclaimer in the first page of our Forum:

WARNING:
"This Forum is addictive, can be harmful to your pride and any attempt to quit from it or be away from it, even if it is forced, can cause severe withdrawals!"

I wish we would force ourselves into not pouting, especially those who can't live without this Forum. We are not like some women around: bad with them worse without them...

I am getting bored of so much pouting around here...

Although this is a Christian Forum, if the discussion gets heated, let's just put up or find another neighborhood to shed our tears... provided that one even has a neighborhood...

Anyway, I guess everything that could be said about this issue was said in the Multi Level Forum. If we are going to discuss James, I believe I should just refer my right and honorable friends to the Multi Level Canon thread.

Milt

[Brandan Kraft]

I surmise that Brandan by "the Gospel" here means the gospel according to Paul. If this be so then all of the OT canon goes out. Because no individual book of the OT canon measures up to Paul's gospel as found in its totality in his epistles. Therefore such a standard of judging canonicalness is arbitrary. Some explicit points of doctrine found in Paul's complete gospel as found in his epistles which cannot be found in the writings of the Hebrew OT are, for example, these:You misunderstand me either intentionally or unintentionally. I'm not sure, so I will give you the benefit of the doubt. The OT scriptures which teach the Gospel do not teach it in the fullness of Paul, there's no doubt about that for me. But they do not contradict it either (unlike James for instance). They do not contradict the Gospel yet they still teach the Gospel - just not in all its fulness. They are canonical. Paul and Christ quoted them, and they had the authority to declare books as GOD-BREATHED. I do not reject these books.


Whatever import you attach to "core canon". Here is the fact. Paul referred to the Hebrew OT as "the sacred letters" (2Tim. 3:15), and of which he further wrote "...every writing God-breathed". This is what counts, GOD-BREATHED. "canonical" may be a valid word/term per se, but GOD-BREATHED is strictly Pauline, scriptural. And Paul declared the OT in its entirety God-breathed. I don't disagree. What exactly is the OT canon though? Was it defined at that time by Paul? By Christ? By the Pharisees?


But Higby would dis-allow Esther, Koheleth and Song of Solomon. I will let Bob answer this for himself. Do Paul and Christ quote from these books and declare them to be God-Breathed? I myself am challenged by Bob's arguments and in my Christ purchased liberty I am studying to see whether or not Esther is GOD-BREATHED.



But we do with our Bible.

Excuse me, but at this moment, what "our Bible" are you precisely referring to? The King Higby Version 62-book canon Bible ??Careful Harald. This is a deliberate misrepresentation, and I find it insulting. You were banned for a couple weeks, and we won't hesitate to ban you for a month next time. You've been warned. One more comment like this, and we will pull the trigger.


Brandan Kraft, slandering me again, calculatedly and wittingly? Well, so be it. First, I have used the Scriptures to prove what I believe re James. You have done it inadequately in my opinion. You for whatever reason see that James is canonical. You condemn me for not seeing it like you. I do not recant my accusation of popery.

[Gideon523]

Bob i have a honest question for you, and in veiw of your post earlier,
would you be open enough to say what you think of [ 2nd letter of peter],
untill you do and maybe clear up the books you think are in or out,
you cant expect any one to debate you properly. Gideon

[Robert R. Higby]

Melted:
I am convinced that the answer to the question of the canon must come from the canon, though this seems less than logical.

This is not illogical in the slightest; the core of our faith would not exist save God's revelation in the Bible. The trouble is, people here (and everywhere) are trying to deny that the gospel believed unto salvation (that is, the personal experience of salvation) is resident in specific portions of the Bible and not others. God gave the superior revelation of the gospel to Paul; his writings are our starting point in discerning the authoritative canon of scripture. Other scriptures certainly laid the foundation of the full-corn gospel over the ages. The Law, Prophets, and Psalms of the OT (as established by Christ in Luke 24:44) and the Gospels, Acts, and Paul in the NT are the principle canon established beyond dispute: these are accepted by all true believers in all ages. Other books must be judged by an objective gospel standard; not subjective sentimentality.

On Harald's issue of the brief non-systematic letters; we have discussed this before. A lengthy and systematic teaching of many chapters must stand up to a higher doctrinal scrutiny than a passage of a few verses. Plus--the dispensational approach to salvation history is perfectly consistent in defending the theology of James; it is the Reformed approach that is really the main focus in this discussion.

Joe:To only use a Christocentric hermeneutic to determine the canonicity of a book limits our basis considerably. THat is why I believe there are 7 criteria combined together to determine if its in or out.

The Christocentric hermeneutic is all-encompassing; it includes the very reason for the Law, Prophets, and Psalms and why they were given in progressive revelation.

1) Apostolic (excludes Mark, Luke, Acts, Hebrews, James, and Jude at the least).

2) Orthodox (excludes James, Esther, and Ecclesiastes in my view as these contain false teaching).

3) Christocentric (perfect!).

4)Inspiration\
5)Holy Spirit testimony to individual (This is Calvin's subjective criteria that is being challenged here--known as the hermeneutic of self-authentication).

6)Authority of the Church (please give us a list of which church organizations this includes and the basis of establishing such a list).

7) The almost unanimous consent of all churches(small c) accepting the closed canon. (Interesting term; I'll add it to my list of hermeneutics being proposed!)

All 7 of these have to be considered in determining the canonicity of a book. Luther perveted his own Christocentric hermeneutic many times in his writings to determine the books canoinicity. But as I read, his main objection of james was because of his inability to reconcile with his revelation of salvation by grace through faith. His stance on Esther, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, James, Hebrews and Revelation was a huge mistake on his part.


Luther did not reject Ecclesiastes or the Song of Songs; the objections to these date back to ancient Jewish times as documented by Josephus and the meeting at Jamnia.


Luther would rather throw out a whole book, than claim it taught error and kept it in.


Are we reading the same person? Luther included the entire 27 book New Testament in his circulated translation; the canonical objections noted are precisely the latter issue above. In the case of Hebrews it was mainly the question of apostolicity.

Gideon Bob i have a honest question for you, and in veiw of your post earlier, would you be open enough to say what you think of [ 2nd letter of peter], until you do and maybe clear up the books you think are in or out, you cant expect any one to debate you properly.

I answered this in the last study of the canon series thread; please refer to that material. In this thread we are dealing with canon hermeneutics, not the 'list'.

These are the methods of canon hermeneutics that I'm seeing so far:

1. Christocentric (Luther).
2. Self-authentication of the Holy Spirit (Calvin).
3. Dispensational.
4. Almost unanimous consent.

I'll keep building; any of the others are really a variation of the above 4. :cool:

[Robert R. Higby]

After my response to Gideon I went back and checked the Multi-level canon thread; it is so massive that the material I referred to may be difficult to find---it is on page 20. A brief synopsis of my position regarding II Peter:

1. It has the same issue with early authentication as James and 3 John, as testified by scholars almost universally. Many liberal skeptics believe that 2 Peter is a Montanist work.

2. It claims apostolic authorship internally. Therefore, it is either genuine or a fraud--there is no middle ground to stand on (unlike with James).

3. Luther made a good argument for including it (in my opinion).

4. I can see no objections to it except nit-picking of certain verbage, which is not sufficient reason to exclude it.

--Bob

[rlhuckle]

[Brandon}Well, why do you reject the Apocrypha? It has been accepted for centuries.

It is my understanding that the Apocryhpa was not included in the earliest lists of the cannon.

[Brandon] Yet the reformers rejected it due to its content.

I thought it was also rejected because of authorship questions in addition to error initially and only added to the 'canon' after the 'church' became apostate.

[Brandon]Why were the reformers free to reject the apocrypha due to its content, but others since the reformers are not free to reject other books due to content?

The reformers rejected the apochrypha, not the initial canon. In regards to 'which churches' we are to trust, I think the Gospel is the standard. When a church loses (lost) the testimony of a pure gospel message, one can (could) no longer trust it. It is my understanding that the 66 book canon was closed prior to the (roman and orthodox?)church's apostasy.

Again, I ask the question nobody has touched upon:

Why would God let His elect wallow in canonical error for centuries?

[Brandan Kraft]

It is my understanding that the 66 book canon was closed prior to the (roman and orthodox?)church's apostasy.It is my opinion that "the church" you are referring to apostatized before the eyes of the Apostles. The "church" was always apostate.


Why would God let His elect wallow in canonical error for centuries?God has determined all things for His Glory. For centuries, there was almost zero understanding of predestination and sola fide. Yet it was only magnified recently by Luther, Calvin, and the following generations of reformers. Why? Because that is exactly what He wanted. :)

[Gideon523]

After my response to Gideon I went back and checked the Multi-level canon thread; it is so massive that the material I referred to may be difficult to find---it is on page 20. A brief synopsis of my position regarding II Peter:

1. It has the same issue with early authentication as James and 3 John, as testified by scholars almost universally. Many liberal skeptics believe that 2 Peter is a Montanist work.

2. It claims apostolic authorship internally. Therefore, it is either genuine or a fraud--there is no middle ground to stand on (unlike with James).

3. Luther made a good argument for including it (in my opinion).

4. I can see no objections to it except nit-picking of certain verbage, which is not sufficient reason to exclude it.

--Bob Bob thank you for your reply,
but it seems to me after going back over your post's you want to
reclassify by these methods of yours to a Higher and Lower canon,
in your posts you would put Revelation into a Lower canon,
am i correct?, this would surely apply to 2 Peter, unless you have
only one new Testement book James in your Lower canon,
could i ask why you have started with James first to examine,
also you say Luther made a good argument for including 2 Peter
we dont have the 66 book canon because of Luther, or as you said
because of Calvin, we have the 66 books in God being the Author and providentialy providing them to us today, do you think God left the
canon to be decided by Luther or by me or you think again Bob.
Gideon

[jmgipson]

Why would there be a dispute about the brother of Jesus as the author of the book of James? He was an apostle. Following are various writings among many:

The apostle Paul also refers to James as the brother of Jesus in Galatians 1:19: "But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord's brother."
Evidence of the life of James can also be found outside of the Bible, from the historian Josephus. In Antiquities, book 20 chapter 9, he mentions James the brother of Jesus and Annas the High priest:

"Upon the death of Festus ( 62 A.D.), Emperor Nero sent Albinus to be procurator of Judea. But before he arrived, King Agrippa appointed Annas to be High priest. He was the son of the elder Annas. (Note: The elder Annas referred to here is the same Annas of the New Testament Gospels.) The elder Annas had been high priest himself for a time. He had five sons all whom secured the priesthood. Annas the younger, however, was a brute who observed the ways of the Sadducees who are known as being cold-hearted when they sit in judgement. With Festus dead and Albinus still traveling, Annas thought he could have his own way. Calling forth the members of the Sanhedrin, he brought before them a man named James, the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ, and others with him. He accused them of violating the law, and ordered that they should be put to death by stoning."
Although the Bible doesn't mention it, Josephus states that James was martyred by the Sanhedrin.

James was the oldest half-brother of Jesus Christ (Matt. 13:55; Mark 6:3; Gal. 1:19). James did not believe in Jesus during His earthly ministry (John 7:5), but after witnessing Christ's appearance following His resurrection (1 Cor. 15:7), he became a believer. He was among those who assembled together after the ascension of Jesus Christ to heaven (Acts 1:14) and on whom the Holy Spirit was poured out on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1–4). Later he became a leader of the church in Jerusalem (Acts 12:17; 15:13–21; Gal. 1:19) and was regarded as one of the pillars of the Christian Church (Gal. 2:9). He is the author of the Epistle of James (James 1:1) of the New Testament. Some suggest that this book was written around AD 46, others believe it was written shortly before James' martyrdom in AD 62.

James was martyred in AD 62. The story of his martyrdom can be found in Eusebius of Caesarea's work, Church History (AD 325), Book II, Chapter 23: The Martyrdom of James, who was called the Brother of the Lord:

JG

[jmgipson]

What I meant above was I am not sure why this would be a book of question as part of scripture.

[harald]

Thank you jmgipson for the above informative post on James. The date of 62 AD agrees precisely with my present conviction as to when it was written. This is what I had penned down a week ago in my notes on the dates of the writings of the NT canon

James 62 AD, gn&#244;sis influence identified & reproved

If this is correct, and I believe it is, then James wrote after Peter's 2nd epistle, wherein he prophecied about the rise of the gn&#244;sis/antinomian faction among the Jewish believers. I believe 2nd Peter may have been written in 61 AD. I believe Hebrews was written just prior to 2nd Peter. "the gn&#244;sis" faction is for the first time mentioned as such (with the defining article in the Greek) in Ephesians, written in c. 61 AD from Rome. Meaning the gn&#244;sis faction arose to prominence prior to this epistle being written, in Gentile circles, I believe in those regions where Laodikea and Ephesus and Colosse were situated. John wrote 1John, I believe, after James' epistle, perhaps in 63 AD or so. Revelation seems to me in one place to clearly refer to the gn&#244;sis delusion, from which I conclude it was written earliest in 61 or 62, likely not before the rise of gn&#244;sis in Jewish circles. Judas (Jude) was written in about 66 AD, and I believe Revelation had been written then already. Because "the faith once having been handed down to the holy ones" (Jude 3) must have included the eschatology (to a great part contained in the Apocalypse) of those Jewish saints to whom Judas wrote. Therefore I count the traditional 95 AD a false date when it comes to Revelation. Meaning the total canon of the NT was finished by the year 67 AD, and determined by Paul, Timothy, John Mark, and Luke, in that year or the previous. As Mary Kae stated so keenly some weeks ago in the other canon thread. SO, the believers of that era had about 4 or 5 years to determine the God-breathedness of James' epistle, and they deemed it so from the first no doubt.


Harald

[Brandan Kraft]

This thread isn't about what is in or what is not in Scripture. This is about how we came to determine our canon. Bob summed it up quite neatly.

There are four methods here:

1. Christocentric
This is the method that Luther proposed. He was a bit inconsistent with his method. We are simply taking his method and running with it.

2. Self-authentication of the Holy Spirit
This was John Calvin's method which was outlined at the beginning of this thread.

3. Dispensational Method
This is Harald's method. He has been very consistent in defending this. He believes James was written to the Jews and we have to understand it as a Jewish person. He is being consistent in that he thinks James is consistent with the "jewish" gospel.

4. Unanimous Consent / Historical Consent
This is pretty much everybody else's method (Such as Joe's and Jmpgipson's above). They are basing the canon on the consent of others. Harald is also appealing to this method as well for reinforcement surprisingly.

Let's discuss the merits of each method. That is what we've been trying to do. In the meantime, let's drop talk about whether or not James is in the canon or not. Let's talk about the method we use for determining the canon. This is something that really has not been done before online as far as I can tell. It's a unique discussion to 5solas.org, and I think it's time to go forward with it.

Brandan

[lionovjudah]

Joe, in your profile, you state that James should be in the canon because it's been recognized by the "churches" throughout the centuries.
How did you determine that these "churches" should be authoritative? What churches are you basing your opinion on? The Roman Catholic Church? The orthodox church? Or are you basing it mostly on the protestant churches?

All of the above Brandan. AS I have said vefore, compilation does not equal inspiration. God gave us the bible, the "church' did not determine it. This is why I believe as I stated before that the almost unanimous witness by all"denominations" of the canon . This is all done by the power of the Holy Spirit. This 400 years to accept certain books is not a barometer to use. 400 years is nothing. The reason a bound book of 66 was not there in the churches infancy was because ot was not needed. Regardless of what you or others may think, God would not leave His believers destitute for so long completely. You can attribute it to His Sovereignty, but this is a cop out and pat answer. He ALWAYS kept a remnant who did nto bow down to baal.


When do you have the canon being closed? Luther says that the book of James was debated through the fourth century. Why did these churches get to debate it and we don't? Was the issue truly settled after the fourth century? From Luther's works:Why do you get to determine that these churches have the authority to dictate the canon to me, you, and anyone else? Why can't I choose my churches if the historical method is correct according to you? What is the basis for choosing these churches? What if I want to include the churches that rejected James to determine the canon? Would that be alright?


Luther was right, but not only James. Throw in Hebrews 2 peter, revelations also. You may choose as you will brandan, I am not stopping you at all!!!!.






My question for you Joe is why do you subject me to your standard for canonicity? I don't care what you keep in your canon. You could have "Where's Waldo" sitting smack dab between the old and new testaments for all I care! And don't tell me that you don't have a personal standard for determining the canon. Either you determine a canon based on your own personal study and comparisons or you depend on someone else to determine it for you for whatever reason.

I have provided a list where all methonds should be looked at. And if you go along with Bob and Luther and ONLY use a Christocentric approach, then many other books have to be left out. I have no issue with someone telling me what to believe and testing it for myself.


You have determined that you will depend on some vague "churches" to determine the canon for you. You have then set your standard for canonization above mine and trash me because I exercised the same liberty you did. My standard is a Gospel centric hermeneutic. It is an objective standard as the Gospel is clearly defined by God's chief apostle Paul! Yet you have subjectively decided which churches you will depend upon to determine the canon for you. You haven't stated how you subjectively chose these churches. Many churches included the apocrypha, but apparently you don't. I take it's because another group of churches rejected the apocrypha, but you haven't stated which ones. It's all subjective, yet you won't admit it!

I will not bow down to your standard which makes YOUR VIEW of history the judge of things as opposed to the Gospel itself. Either the Gospel (Christ lived and died for His people to accomplish salvation for them. Salvation is all of grace and is experienced through faith alone) is the standard for judging all things or it's not. Deviation from this is not acceptable and will lead to error!


"Pauls Gospel" is NOT the standard for canonical books Brandan. How could it be? What do we do with the OT then? If Paul is the barometer, or hermeneutic, then he had plenty of time to write about the book of James. He had plenty of time to anathamise him, but yet, he gives him the right hand of fellowship. How could this be? Christ is the author and finisher of our faith, not james, paul, esther, not anyone else. He is the law giver, the grace giver, our command giver!!!!! You keep harping on me depending on what churches... Even Luthers own church came to their senses and included the books without question!!!!!! I will mention this again, and you and the crew can deny it al you want, but this mirrors exactly what the perpetrators of higher criticism do BK. Let us cut out of our writ everythign that does not line up with what you believe. Cut it out. Rip it from the binding. Get rid of Matt 5. Get rid of Matt 25, Get rid of everything that has an if clause. Get rid of anything Pauls says about being zealous for good works. Rip out Gods Holy word. GOd will not stop you bk. Even thomas jefferson had no divine barrier against clipping his own bible. I for one trust that our Lord providentailly controoled the situation from beginning to end.

You state deviation from the above statement of yours will lead to error. Well this novel idea is in line with J E D P of wellhaussen/graph error. You have mentioned that this issue is because me and harald do not like authority. Well I have no issue with it. What I have issue with is when NOTHING is left alone. WHat is sacred brandan? What if I came in one day and said "I have seriously studied the issue of the trinity, and we have been lied to for 2000 years!!!!! Away with it, away with it." Then presented my theory and opinions, what would you say? Would you even entertain it?







Just as the OT was closed , so is the NT. IT did nto just drop out of the sky. Christ and the Jewish leaders put their stam of approval on what was in cluded in the old.(Lk.24:25-27,44-45). The tradoitional position has been deabted, but not shaken here. In fact, the NT writers had plenty of time to discard any book in the OT, but they did not.


In closing the words of Ridderbos are aplicable here:\

The Church has dealt with this situation as does one who knows and points to a certain person as father or mother. Such a knowledge rests not on demonstration but upon direct experience; it is most closely connected with one's own identity. In this and no other way must we picture the knowledge and 'decision' of the Church concerning the Canon.48In this way the history of the canon a posteriori supports the redemptive-historical a priori. Yet it remains a confession of faith that the canon of the New Testament corresponds exactly to Christ's canon. Their identity cannot be absolutely established by historical study. Historical evidence and "proofs" take us only so far. As in so many other areas there comes a point where it becomes a matter of faith. Our theological presuppositions and the historical evidence dovetail, but not perfectly. While our view of the canon does greater justice to the historical process than do, for example, the views of Harnack and the Roman Catholic theologians, we do not claim any infallible criteria of canonicity. In the end, with Ridderbos, we must acknowledge in faith that the empirical canon coincides with the canon of Christ. We can be absolutely certain and not just "practically" certain about the status of the canon,49 but our certainty does not depend upon our study of historical data, but it comes from our faith in the sovereignty and providence of God.



If a book does not line up with your doctrine, or some man made "gospel of paul hermeneutic" then it cannot be inspired. Could you imagine the mess if people thought like this? 20 books of the 27 were never questioned. So why were the 7: Revelation, James, Jude, Hebrews, 2 Peter, 2 John, and 3 John always on the fringe? IT just shows the human nature to reject what we do not understand or agree with. Look at Revelation. Many people to this day shy away from the book. Apocalyptic writing is hard to digest. Luther and you perceive Jaems teaches salvation by works, which destroyed his new revelation of Grace through faith. So he rejected it.

WHen you look at why these books were never immediately accepted, I applaud the churches for debating them for so long and questioning them. I aprreciate the fact that the decision was not taken lightly.

The fact that these 7 books, still debated here, are still in, also bears witness to their validity. Men have wanted to throw them out, but yet they remain.


We creatures will never agree unanimously on anything, even the canon of Scripture. You and bob, milt and mike have every right to dispute this, but the fact remains that the canon has been fixed, not by some 4th-century Church Council, but by the witness of history itself.

As Paul Metzger writes: "the canon cannot be remade - for the simple reason that history cannot be remade." The books that made it into the canon did so by means of "survival of the fittest" - it was not a random drawing with all participants beginning on equal footing. The church did not create the canon, "but came to recognize, accept, affirm, and confirm the self-authenticating quality of certain documents that imposed themselves as such upon the Church. If this fact is obscured, one comes into serious conflict not with dogma but with history."(ibid., 286) We may freely learn from the non-canonical literature [MacD.FormCB, 257], and it may be that some of that literature contains authentic strands of teaching by Jesus. Nevertheless, we have our canon. We are each free to take it or leave it; and if it offend thee - take up scissors and paste, and make what thou considerest a better effort than others!

[lionovjudah]

This thread isn't about what is in or what is not in Scripture. This is about how we came to determine our canon. Bob summed it up quite neatly.

There are four methods here:

1. Christocentric
This is the method that Luther proposed. He was a bit inconsistent with his method. We are simply taking his method and running with it.

2. Self-authentication of the Holy Spirit
This was John Calvin's method which was outlined at the beginning of this thread.

3. Dispensational Method
This is Harald's method. He has been very consistent in defending this. He believes James was written to the Jews and we have to understand it as a Jewish person. He is being consistent in that he thinks James is consistent with the "jewish" gospel.

4. Unanimous Consent / Historical Consent
This is pretty much everybody else's method (Such as Joe's and Jmpgipson's above). They are basing the canon on the consent of others. Harald is also appealing to this method as well for reinforcement surprisingly.

Let's discuss the merits of each method. That is what we've been trying to do. In the meantime, let's drop talk about whether or not James is in the canon or not. Let's talk about the method we use for determining the canon. This is something that really has not been done before online as far as I can tell. It's a unique discussion to 5solas.org, and I think it's time to go forward with it.

Brandan


Excellent idea Brandan. I have no issue with this. It all becomes redundant otherwise. I will look at each method, and we should determine its strengths and weaknesses...

I am for it.

[lionovjudah]

[quote=lionovjudah]

[harald]

4. Unanimous Consent / Historical Consent
This is pretty much everybody else's method (Such as Joe's and Jmpgipson's above). They are basing the canon on the consent of others. Harald is also appealing to this method as well for reinforcement surprisingly. (Brandan Kraft)

I cannot recall that I have appealed to the historical consent of post-Pauline "churches" or sects or whatever. I have come to believe there was no writing (of the 66 book "canon") written after 67 AD. I.e. I believe the present 66 book canon was determined by Paul, Timothy, John Mark, and Luke (and possibly by one or a few other "pillars" with them) in 66 or 67 AD, i.e. just prior to Paul's death. I believe these may also have arranged the present order of the NT writings as we know it. And I believe these then handed over the canon, i.e. originals and/or apographa of each writing of "the Scriptures", to the then existing Body of the Christ (and maybe in some degree to circumcision believers still alive then) for safekeeping and further copying and what more needed be done with this sacred trust. So in 66 or 67 AD when these four met to look at "the scrolls" and "the parchments" together I believe their common decisions or conclusions was made known to then existing true assemblies of Christ. So that true assemblies existing around then would all have known which writings were God-breathed. And accordingly true believers in those assemblies would have unanimously accepted all those that had thus been deemed Divinely inspired and authoritative and manifoldly profitable (cp. 2Tim. 3:16).

As for me here in the 2000s I am not dependent on the consensus of post-Paul churches or sects etc., as respects the canon. I see there is a 66 book canon around. I trust it has been God's good will to preserve it to this day. I am able to find it interesting that there has been a consensus of sort in post-apostolic centuries when it comes to the canon. But I do not believe it was post-apostolic churches that determined the 66 book canon. Most such have apparently, for whatever reasons, deemed good not to change it or tamper with it. So it has, in a degree God only knows, been passed down to our day and age also through false churches. I am not able to think so low thoughts of God in this matter as that He may have intended a mere, let's say, 57 book canon, but then has failed all these many hundreds of years to arrive at this amount when it comes to bound "Bibles". So that God is still yearning to one day get this 57 book canon Bible to people and people, and now finally has succeeded to find some who seem intent on fulfilling His purpose in Robert R Higby & Co. I cannot think so low thoughts when it comes to the sovereign God.

When it comes to "my" method, then, which you call the dispensational method. I think "my" method is good, comparatively speaking. It does not want to diminish aught nor add aught when it comes to the canon. It trusts God has passed down THE canon He purposed in eternity. It does not stare itself blind to whatever errorists may have been involved in the processes of passing down, transmission, when it comes to Post-apostolic times. It employs a reasonable criterion, which allows all 66 books of the Holy Scriptures to pass the test. But at the same time this criterion is such that it unmercifully disqualifies each and every writing which is not among the 66. For example if Clement's epistle to Corinthians is run through the dispensational test it does not pass the test, but is reprobated without mercy, because it has so many clear errors which cannot be reconciled however one tries. But for example 3John passes the test without any problem, because it has no errors of whatever sort. The same applies to 2Peter, Judas, 2John, 1John, Hebrews, James, Revelation etc. The dispensational method does not resort to "nitpicking of certain verbiage" (Higby re 2Peter) when it comes to any or whatever writing of the present canon. It does not take issue with words God has breathed out. If Higby deems 2Peter God-breathed he has no reason whatever to even to begin with consider such a profane thing as nitpicking re. some of God's inspired words or expressions in 2Peter. Even hinting at such a thing shows he does not truly believe 2Peter is entirely God-breathed. He seems to hold to some theory of semi-Godbreathedness. Maybe Bob himself will explain himself.

A wise person if he holds a writing to be God-breathed will take none issue whatsoever with any word or expression whatsoever in the original tongue text (This pertains to such cases where the Greek texts (TR tradition, Alexandrian, Byz. MT) read alike.) Because he holds each individual word to be sacred, God-breathed, and thus inviolable. In a God-breathed epistle, for example, there can be no word whatsoever which is not God-breathed. All words without exception in the original tongue are God-breathed, therefore inviolable, and therefore the one who thus esteems the epistle will take no issue with any aspect of the God-breathed wording insofar it is clear to him when viewing all the textual evidence at hand. But a man who may reason as follows, in spite of an unambiguous text, is double-minded:

"Well I believe this epistle to be God-breathed and thus canonical here in the Greek text, but I have a big problem with this "if" clause here in v. 2:3, and I doubt God meant to say thusly. And then there is that verse in chapter 3 with so many subjunctives, surely the author must have meant indicative. And there in chapter 4 is that verse which seems to teach salvation by works, surely this cannot be the true reading...."

And on and on it continues.

Such a one as I gave in the example does not really understand what God-breathed means or entails. He is "intruding into things he has absolutely not understood, being puffed up by the mind of his flesh". He does not hold God's words to be inviolable. Rather he has become God's Judge, who presumes to sit in judgment over God's very inspired words and inspired expressions.


Harald

[jmgipson]

Were not the books cannonized because the writers were apostolic writers and leaders of the church? Is this the understanding of all how these books were selected?
By F. F. Bruce

The corpus Paulinum, or collection of Paul's writings, was brought together about the same time as the collecting of the fourfold Gospel. As the Gospel collection was designated by the Greek word Euangelion, so the Pauline collection was designated by the one word Apostolos, each letter being distinguished as 'To the Romans', 'First to the Corinthians', and so on. Before long, the anonymous Epistle to the Hebrews was bound up with the Pauline writings. Acts, as a matter of convenience, came to be bound up with the 'General Epistles' (those of Peter, James, John and Jude).

The only books about which there was any substantial doubt after the middle of the second century were some of those which come at the end of our New Testament. Origen (185-254) mentions the four Gospels, the Acts, the thirteen Paulines, 1 Peter, 1 John and Revelation as acknowledged by all; he says that Hebrews, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, James and Jude, with the 'Epistle of Barnabas', the Shepherd of Hermas, the Didache, and the 'Gospel according to the Hebrews', were disputed by some. Eusebius (c. 265-340) mentions as generally acknowledged all the books of our New Testament except James, Jude, Peter, 2 and 3 John, which were disputed by some, but recognised by the majority. Athanasius in 367 lays down the twenty-seven books of our New Testament as alone canonical; shortly afterwards Jerome and Augustine followed his example in the West. The process farther east took a little longer; it was not until c. 508 that 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude and Revelation were included in a version of the Syriac Bible in addition to the other twenty two books.

For various reasons it was necessary for the Church to know exactly what books were divinely authoritative. The Gospels, recording 'all that Jesus began both to do and to teach', could not be regarded as one whit lower in authority than the Old Testament books. And the teaching of the apostles in the Acts and Epistles was regarded as vested with His authority. It was natural, then, to accord to the apostolic writings of the new covenant the same degree of homage as was already paid to the prophetic writings of the old. Thus Justin Martyr, about AD 150, classes the 'Memoirs of the Apostles' along with the writings of the prophets, saving that both were read in meetings of Christians (Apol i. 67). For the Church did not, in spite of the breach with Judaism, repudiate the authority of the Old Testament; but, following the example of Christ and His apostles, received it as the Word of God. Indeed, so much did they make the Septuagint their own that, although it was originally a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek for Greek-speaking Jews before the time of Christ, the Jews left the Septuagint to the Christians, and a fresh Greek version of the Old Testament was made for Greek speaking Jews.

It was specially important to determine which books might be used for the establishment of Christian doctrine, and which might most confidently be appealed to in disputes with heretics. In particular, when Marcion drew up his canon about AD 140, it was necessary for the orthodox churches to know exactly what the true canon was, and this helped to speed up a process which had already begun. It is wrong, however, to talk or write as if the Church first began to draw up a canon after Marcion had published his.
Other circumstances which demanded clear definition of those books which possessed divine authority were the necessity of deciding which books should be read in church services (though certain books might be suitable for this purpose which could not be used to settle doctrinal questions), and the necessity of knowing which books might and might not be handed over on demand to the imperial police in times of persecution without incurring the guilt of sacrilege.

One thing must be emphatically stated. The New Testament books did not become authoritative for the Church because they were formally included in a canonical list; on the contrary, the Church included them in her canon because she already regarded them as divinely inspired, recognising their innate worth and general apostolic authority, direct or indirect. The first ecclesiastical councils to classify the canonical books were both held in North Africa -- at Hippo Regius in 393 and at Carthage in 397 -- but what these councils did was not to impose something new upon the Christian communities but to codify what was already the general practice of those communities.

[Brandan Kraft]

Jmpgipson, the early church you are referring to was composed of apostate free willers. There is absolutely no evidence that they believed and taught salvation by free and sovereign grace. In fact, there is a boat load of evidence that points in the exact opposite direction. If you are going to use the "early church" to bolster your claims, then at least show me that they believed the Gospel that you and I both confess.

Brandan

[lionovjudah]

This thread isn't about what is in or what is not in Scripture. This is about how we came to determine our canon. Bob summed it up quite neatly.

There are four methods here:

1. Christocentric
This is the method that Luther proposed. He was a bit inconsistent with his method. We are simply taking his method and running with it.

2. Self-authentication of the Holy Spirit
This was John Calvin's method which was outlined at the beginning of this thread.

3. Dispensational Method
This is Harald's method. He has been very consistent in defending this. He believes James was written to the Jews and we have to understand it as a Jewish person. He is being consistent in that he thinks James is consistent with the "jewish" gospel.

4. Unanimous Consent / Historical Consent
This is pretty much everybody else's method (Such as Joe's and Jmpgipson's above). They are basing the canon on the consent of others. Harald is also appealing to this method as well for reinforcement surprisingly.


Brandan

Let me clarify one pertinent issue with #4. THis by no means implies that this method says the church gave us the bounded book of 66. They did not decide, but the faithfull were led by the Holy Spirit to finally close the issue once and for all. Acceptance of the 27 books does not guarantee an orthodox understanding of the writ. THis is obvious considering some groups who consent to the 27 NT scriptures are apostate. BUt they do agree on the 27 books. And this is due to the influence of the Holy Spirit and not just a mere trivial coincidence. Now this does not put one back under the umbrella of Rome, it only goes to show the power of Gods providence to care and retain His word in spite of what tey believe.

GOd never gave individuals a mixed up bag of scriptures like a puzzle that are to be pieced together and randomly looked at. We are given the whole book of 66 inspired writings. And when we study it, the Holy Spirit then confirms to us what has already been given from the beginning. We look at whole books as divinely inspired, not only bits and pieces of them.


Brandan will argue that predestination or Sovereign grace was not taught by the early church. This has absolutely nothing to do with compiling a bounded book of 66. For if it did, one would HAVE to argue that Pauls letters would not be in. So this method is extreemely weak. JEws argued about scripture, but yet consented on what books they would argue from . Articles of faith do not determine authority to decide the canon. If this is the case, then Paul would have anathamised James!!!!!! WHy will noone comment on this? If PaUL USED "HIS" GOSPEL AS THE BAR, THE RULE, THE "KANON", he had plenty of time to anathemise peter and james. Again this unanimous consent is only witness to the power of God to preserve His word and making it recognizable even to the apostates.


WHy would you run with a method, that has grave consequences to it? WHy make this exclusive to all the rest? Philemon would have to be thrown out for sure then.

[jmgipson]

Jmpgipson, the early church you are referring to was composed of apostate free willers. There is absolutely no evidence that they believed and taught salvation by free and sovereign grace. In fact, there is a boat load of evidence that points in the exact opposite direction. If you are going to use the "early church" to bolster your claims, then at least show me that they believed the Gospel that you and I both confess.

Brandan

Brandan, One thing I have noticed about the early church writers is the lack of material on anything except false doctrine they were writing against. For example, I can't find anything on the free willers before Augustine. Please refer me to writings before this if you have them. I will read even a boat load if I have to.

JG

[Brandan Kraft]

There is a thread on this forum that has dealt with this before John. Bob and I have quoted many of the early church "fathers" (as determined by the Reformers) that outlines that they believed and taught the false gospel of auto-salvation. I'll find it for you and point you to it.

[mybigGod]

Thank you brother Bob. I have been greatly helped by your teachings and your research on this vital issue, and have come into full agreement on how the canon should be determined.

I believe our position on this topic is more hated than any other position of ours by those influenced and controlled by churchianity. Many protestants can and will tolerate differing positions on justification, baptism, and other ecclesiastical practices. But they won't tolerate any deviation from their understanding of canonization. The notion of questioning the canon is considered as sacrilegious, and most will not consider it because of the ramifications that it would bring. In other words, men are lacking courage to seek the truth even if it opposes all of what history, tradition, and their respected men believe and teach.

Look at how most people who answered their questions in their profiles, and you will notice that many of those who believe James is canonical answered that 1) It should be canonical because it testifies of Christ and His work or 2) Because it's been accepted as truth throughout history.

The problem with the first answer is it does not testify of Christ and His work. Hopefully in time, these people who answered accordingly will be brought to see that they are indeed holding to tradition because James clearly does not speak of Christ and His atoning work (the Gospel).

Those that answered that James is canonical due to it being held in high esteem throughout the centuries are really taking the roman catholic position. They need a good smack upside the head so that they can see their error. Folks, be brave and examine the Scriptures for yourself instead of depending on someone else to determine canonicity for you! If you are a Gospel believer, remember that you are a PRIEST in God's Kingdom, and you have the authority to judge what is truthful by the Gospel which was handed to you through the Apostles.

Personally, if men want to include James in their canon, that is fine by me. I won't object too loudly. However, they better not include it as proof for their arguments before me, because I won't consider it.

As you know i think you are misrepresenting Calvins position. First of all to understand the authenticty of the scriptures and the 66 included in the cannon we must appeal to the Soveriegnty of God. If God is either absolutely soveriegn or He is not. The truth is that these NT. 27, we always accepted as part of the cannon from the early church. The word of God is a spoken word. It is the absolute rule of life. God the Holy Spirit moved in men to mark the books from the time of the early church. King James appointed scholars to attest to what was already aggreed to. God put His stamp on the end of the cannon in Revelation. He means what He says. Questioning whether the cannon has every yot and tittle as the complete 66 is questioning the God who has spoken it into time. If you question its authenticity you question the power of God, which was in Christ in the ressurrection and is in the Word left to us as the means of the Holy Spirits regenerating power!

[Brandan Kraft]

As you know i think you are misrepresenting Calvins position.No, I don't know. Go back and read the first post of this thread.


First of all to understand the authenticty of the scriptures and the 66 included in the cannon we must appeal to the Soveriegnty of God.We are. We're appealing to the Gospel.


If God is either absolutely soveriegn or He is not. I believe He is absolutely sovereign.


The truth is that these NT. 27, we always accepted as part of the cannon from the early church. So, freewillism has always abounded since the Apostles also. Does that make it right?


The word of God is a spoken word. It is the absolute rule of life.No argument from me here.


God the Holy Spirit moved in men to mark the books from the time of the early church. How do you know?


King James appointed scholars to attest to what was already aggreed to. SO?????


God put His stamp on the end of the cannon in Revelation.The end of Revelation is not referring to the Canon. Book Chapter Verse?


Questioning whether the cannon has every yot and tittle as the complete 66 is questioning the God who has spoken it into time. This would be true if everyything you said was true up to this point. Unfortunately, it's just a bunch of subjective assumptions you've put forth.

[mybigGod]

No, I don't know. Go back and read the first post of this thread.
I dissagree with how the Holy Spirit was presented as seperated from the Trinitarian counsel.
We are. We're appealing to the Gospel
The gospel is the power of God unto salvation. The power of God is in the word of God.The seed of the word is planted in the heart and takes root. The receiving of that word is dependent apoun accepting its authenticity.
I believe He is absolutely sovereign.
But you do not believe that james is part of the cannon so obviously He made a mistake. If james is not part of the cannon which is His spoken word, that is His revelation of Himself then who is to decide what is revealed ? How are you going to trust any thing that He has revealed about Himself? Has He decreed that the cannon is complete with James or not?
So, freewillism has always abounded since the Apostles also. Does that make it right?
Men were directed in every movement of the incorporation of the cannon. Their thoughts were known by God in eternity andthey were moved to think them before they thought them.Yet they did these things that they desired to do.
No argument from me here.
Except James?

The end of Revelation is not referring to the Canon. Book Chapter Verse?
So you are saying that the whole does not have the approval that the book does. The last verse is the breathe of God as the whole is. I guess by your logic God made a distinction about the authenticity of His revelation in that revealed warning.

[GraceAmbassador]

So you are saying that the whole does not have the approval that the book does. The last verse is the breathe of God as the whole is. I guess by your logic God made a distinction about the authenticity of His revelation in that revealed warning.

Let's start by the assumption that you are right and God put James in the canon... Now, how can we possibly know that objectively? How can you deal with James real problematic texts? Do you really believe that all that is in the book of James was written by the "half brother of Jesus"? What about interpolation? Do you believe there is no interpolation in the book of James?

You see, I don't know if you read the thread Multi Level Canon, but we discuss this entirely in there. I will talk with the other moderators and decide if we should pose as a condition for one to post in this thread about the canonicity of the book of James that he/she would read the Multi Level Canon thread first. Otherwise we will be ringing the same bells of argumentation without getting anywhere. Every new guy/girl that shows up in this forum and reads anything about James in this thread will immediately make assumptions that this issue is a novel issue and that we are a bunch of novices seeking novelties here...

I don't expect you to answer the questions I asked above. They are just an appetizer for you to be fair minded enough to read the Multi Level Canon thread. Then perhaps you can tell us if you believe or not whether James contradicts Paul or you also subscribe to the hybrid notion of "justification before men" in chapter 2 of James.

I wish we would stick here on the questions Brandan proposed; at least as a courtesy for the person who grants all the privilege to post here, to wit, Brandan, or Darth Gill...

Please, no new member should post in this thread about the book of James without reading beforehand the thread Multi Level Canon. That is a minimum display of courtesy here so we don't have to repeat the same old same old over and over again!

Milt

[Robert R. Higby]

rlhuckle:
It is my understanding that the 66 book canon was closed prior to the (roman and orthodox?)church's apostasy.

This is the very ‘fact’ assumed by so many that we have opposed here. First of all, the timing of the great apostasy is a major issue. I have often presented my conviction that it started in the first century, not in the 5th or 6th century as affirmed by most Protestants. Secondly, I do not believe that the exact 66-book canon list affirmed by Reformed teachers as self-authenticating can be found prior to Calvin. I’m still looking for an earlier occurrence. The canon of Athanasius (in my view, an apostate on the gospel in spite of his work defending Christology) is the closest list; he omitted Lamentations and included Baruch. Yet his list was by no means universally accepted as we have seen in the canon studies. Some branches of the ‘church’ added more apocryphal books, others omitted some and sometimes added a ‘few’ others.

Why would God let His elect wallow in canonical error for centuries?

Brandan has already answered this. Why does God allow ANY truth to be hid for centuries? If this hiding of certain truths from many was not a part of his purpose, there would never have been a great apostasy!

Gideon: Bob thank you for your reply, but it seems to me after going back over your post's you want to reclassify by these methods of yours to a Higher and Lower canon, in your posts you would put Revelation into a Lower canon, am i correct?, this would surely apply to 2 Peter, unless you have only one new Testement book James in your Lower canon,
could i ask why you have started with James first to examine, also you say Luther made a good argument for including 2 Peter we dont have the 66 book canon because of Luther, or as you said because of Calvin, we have the 66 books in God being the Author and providentialy providing them to us today, do you think God left the canon to be decided by Luther or by me or you think again Bob.

Please provide me with the quote where I stated that Revelation should be re-classified into the lower canon. I never said that! On the issue of who should discern the canon, of course this cannot be done by one person for all believers–so the issue of who should decide it is a red herring. We are discussing here the correct HERMENEUTIC for discerning the canon, not the one person that should decide it for all or whether all believers must accept the exact same high-canon.

JG:Why would there be a dispute about the brother of Jesus as the author of the book of James? He was an apostle. Following are various writings among many: The apostle Paul also refers to James as the brother of Jesus in Galatians 1:19: "But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord's brother."

We are not debating the person of James the brother of Jesus here; that is a different discussion. If you believe that he was an apostle, you deny that an apostle had to be chosen and commissioned by Jesus Christ himself. The disciples cast the lot on Matthias to fill the missing slot of Judas, yet we hear nothing of Matthias beyond that point. God chose Paul as the 12th apostle–that is clear. And God chose ONLY 12 apostles; the foundation of the people of God is built on the 12 apostles and the lamb (Rev. 21:14). The claim that James the brother of Jesus was an apostle is false. Some no doubt tried to promote him to such a status, just as the lot was cast on Matthias. But Paul is not saying that James is an apostle in this passage. He is simply saying that he say none of the other apostles, ONLY James the Lord’s brother; i.e., James was the only other leader of Christian repute that Paul saw on this particular trip to Jerusalem. Paul does not contradict John or Christ himself who chose 12 apostles and that’s all.

Harald: I have given my evidence why I believe the epistle of James is not 1st century at all, if anyone cares to go back and read it. But your date in the 60's A.D. is denied by all except those of the dispensational hermeneutic–for obvious reasons.

Lion:The reason a bound book of 66 was not there in the churches infancy was because ot was not needed. Regardless of what you or others may think, God would not leave His believers destitute for so long completely. You can attribute it to His Sovereignty, but this is a cop out and pat answer. He ALWAYS kept a remnant who did nto bow down to baal

If the 66 book canon was not needed in the infancy of the ‘church’, why in the flaming barbecue is it needed now? Did the early believers need less scripture than US? I guess they did not bow down to Baal because they did not know of certain books to criticize that we now have! Also, I guess they were ‘not left destitute completely’ for some reason--what reason who knows? You certainly did not make the reason plain in what you said above! Certainly they did not have all of the books we have–were they BETTER OFF or WORSE because of this?

On Ridderbos, he plain out lied on this issue just like he lied and mocked our sovereign God (on the doctrine of election) in "Paul, an Outline of his Theology".

"Pauls Gospel" is NOT the standard for canonical books Brandan. How could it be? What do we do with the OT then? If Paul is the barometer, or hermeneutic, then he had plenty of time to write about the book of James.

There was no book of James at that time. There were some sayings of James that he uttered at the temple in circulation called the "ascents of James."

He had plenty of time to anathamise him, but yet, he gives him the right hand of fellowship. How could this be?

Irrelevant COMPLETELY! He also gave Demas, Alexander, Hymaneus, and Philetus the right hand of fellowship at one point in his ministry. And we really do not know where James the brother of Jesus stood on these issues; the epistle of James is attributed to him by tradition only. Part of it may be his writing.

Christ is the author and finisher of our faith, not james, paul, esther, not anyone else. He is the law giver, the grace giver, our command giver!!!!! You keep harping on me depending on what churches... Even Luthers own church came to their senses and included the books without question!!!!!!

This took a long time; we posted evidence in the canon thread of how long it took the Lutherans to fully canonize these books. It was long after Calvin gave us the current canon.

Christ gave Paul the final revelation of the gospel which is to judge everything. Either you accept Paul’s own testimony in Galatians or you deny it. I do not believe that we would even have the writings of John except for Paul’s testimony, for the gospel of Paul tore him away from the Jerusalem perverts claiming to follow James (Ebionites); after meeting Paul and hearing his testimony John saw the true meaning of Christ’s words that he had previously recorded.

I will mention this again, and you and the crew can deny it al you want, but this mirrors exactly what the perpetrators of higher criticism do BK. Let us cut out of our writ everythign that does not line up with what you believe. Cut it out. Rip it from the binding. Get rid of Matt 5. Get rid of Matt 25, Get rid of everything that has an if clause. Get rid of anything Pauls says about being zealous for good works. Rip out Gods Holy word. GOd will not stop you bk. Even thomas jefferson had no divine barrier against clipping his own bible. I for one trust that our Lord providentailly controoled the situation from beginning to end.

Joe, if you believe this you have no reason to be here! Go join the threads of the liberal skeptics since you believe we are the same as them. You might be happier!

You state deviation from the above statement of yours will lead to error. Well this novel idea is in line with J E D P of wellhaussen/graph error. You have mentioned that this issue is because me and harald do not like authority. Well I have no issue with it. What I have issue with is when NOTHING is left alone. WHat is sacred brandan? What if I came in one day and said "I have seriously studied the issue of the trinity, and we have been lied to for 2000 years!!!!! Away with it, away with it." Then presented my theory and opinions, what would you say? Would you even entertain it?

Go join the deniers of the Trinity and those who believe in J E D P, since you believe that we are the same as them! I can give you recommendations of message boards if you like! This accusation is so outrageous that I will not attempt to answer it; it does not deserve an answer.

Harald: The dispensational method does not resort to "nitpicking of certain verbiage" (Higby re 2Peter) when it comes to any or whatever writing of the present canon. It does not take issue with words God has breathed out. If Higby deems 2Peter God-breathed he has no reason whatever to even to begin with consider such a profane thing as nitpicking re. some of God's inspired words or expressions in 2Peter. Even hinting at such a thing shows he does not truly believe 2Peter is entirely God-breathed. He seems to hold to some theory of semi-Godbreathedness. Maybe Bob himself will explain himself.

Firstly, I was not referring to the dispensational method at all when discussing 2 Peter. Show me the evidence that I was! Secondly, I was criticizing the LIBERAL SKEPTICS WHO DENY 2 PETER when I referred to "nitpicking of certain verbage." If the fact that I even brought it up shows that I am a skeptic, well, that is for all to judge! Nonetheless, my faith does not rise or fall based on the authenticity of 2 Peter.

jmgipson:
One thing I have noticed about the early church writers is the lack of material on anything except false doctrine they were writing against. For example, I can't find anything on the free willers before Augustine. Please refer me to writings before this if you have them. I will read even a boat load if I have to.

Go read the first apology of Justin Martyr, he is the author of the ‘christian baptized’ free-will theology of Plato! Every time ‘Arminian’ is used in ChristenDUMB it should be replaced with ‘Justinian’!

[Brandan Kraft]

Bob, that was an AWESOME POST! THank you! I normally don't congratulate people for their posts (other than Noteworthy Post awards), but that was great. Thank you brother!

[GraceAmbassador]

Bob, that was an AWESOME POST! THank you! I normally don't congratulate people for their posts (other than Noteworthy Post awards), but that was great. Thank you brother!

ECHO, ECHO, ECHO, ECHO, ECHO, echo...

Milt

[jmgipson]

Well, I have to be honest and say I do not have enough background to contribute to this thread. I will have to read the large thread “The Multi-level Canon” , the writings of Justin Martyr, and any others you might suggest. I must confess though it is not high on my priority list being that I do not really use James as support for any of my theology. I think for now I will just agree to disagree with you brothers and jump into the multi-level thread. Thanks for your comments.

John

[mybigGod]

Hey GraceAmbassador (http://www.predestinarian.net/member.php?u=1018) http://www.predestinarian.net/images/statusicon/user_offline.gif
Thanks for your diss. You are really hard headed. So you use other sources to make your point. It sounds like from your confident to foolish post that you actually handled the dead sea scrolls.I would think that you have gone to heaven and got a special revelation from God. Look, I have more reformers on my side than any of your fanciful imaginations can dream up. I will start a thread about the real truth of the cannon by people who actually hold to a consistent and historical view point on the authority of scripture. I know guys like you ,they ignore the facts. Its a free country there buddy, and i am free to post my sources. Hey also i am not a canon expert but i have done much exegetical work. I still don't understand how a person can diss the soveriegnty of God. I will guarantee you that my spirit is closer to a proper understanding of this issue than yours is. Thanks.

[Brandan Kraft]

Hey GraceAmbassador (http://www.predestinarian.net/member.php?u=1018) http://www.predestinarian.net/images/statusicon/user_offline.gif
Thanks for your diss. You are really hard headed. You're right, Milt is hard headed. I like him that way! Thanks brother Milt for being a hard headed pit bull guardian of Grace!


So you use other sources to make your point. You are a walking paradox, aren't you?


Look, I have more reformers on my side than any of your fanciful imaginations can dream up.We know you do. We really don't care though. That's the point we've been trying to make!


I will start a thread about the real truth of the cannon by people who actually hold to a consistent and historical view point on the authority of scripture. No you won't! Why? Because I said so.


I know guys like you they ignore the facts. I know guys like you too.


Hey also i am not a canon expert but i have done much exegetical work. I still don't understand how a person can diss the soveriegnty of God. Thanks.This is laughable. I'm glad for you. Now please, don't post in this thread unless you've read the other related thread.

Brandan

[mybigGod]

Ok i will make this a matter of prayer. As you know i am a warrior. Hey really i will be back to post what i want . Thanks. You think your hard headed, you dont know me!

[GraceAmbassador]

Hey GraceAmbassador (http://www.predestinarian.net/member.php?u=1018) http://www.predestinarian.net/images/statusicon/user_offline.gif
Thanks for your diss. You are really hard headed. So you use other sources to make your point. It sounds like from your confident to foolish post that you actually handled the dead sea scrolls.I would think that you have gone to heaven and got a special revelation from God. Look, I have more reformers on my side than any of your fanciful imaginations can dream up. I will start a thread about the real truth of the cannon by people who actually hold to a consistent and historical view point on the authority of scripture. I know guys like you they ignore the facts. Its a free country there buddy, and i am free to post my sources. Hey also i am not a canon expert but i have done much exegetical work. I still don't understand how a person can diss the soveriegnty of God. I will guarantee you that my spirit is in closer to a proper understanding of this issue than yours is. You need to repent of your pride.Thanks.

I have no idea where you get your ideas about me or my thinking from... I certainly proposed some honest questions to you and you chose to use a bad taste dose of sarcasm but not even adventured to answer them... Oh, by the way, there is a lot of heretics out there that also have a lot of reformers on their side... that does not impress me! Gurus cannot determine anything on my end!

You say we ignore the facts? That's hopeless!

So, your spirit is closer to the issue than mine (ours) is? Great! Perhaps we found the fountain of wisdom if you pardon my own dose of sarcasm...

Young novice, you don't even know me and hopefully never will and never will tread the terrains that I did and still do in God's vinyeard... If you did know me you would probably realize that perhaps, in terms of your assumed over-spirituality, you have just shown some very youthful and even childish way to face issues...

God's Sovereignty? I propose that you know nothing of it! Arguments here have been presented that God was Sovereign over errors that remained for ages for His own purpose... But why I still give heed to a youthful mouthed person?

Please, return to whatever hint of adulthood you have left on you and answer the questions I asked and PLEASE, follow the SUGGESTION I proposed about reading the other thread. Kiddish behavior does not suit those who really wish to make their point across here. We already have a couple of court jesters here and there is no more job openings for such in this Forum.

Finally, if what I said (anything I said) came through as a diss, perhaps your pride is the one that needs to be watched. What is the matter? You cannot be asked to reply a few questions or read a few articles before you make your propositions? Why is this too much to ask you you?

Again, PLEASE, regain composure, act like an adult and just say that you are not interested in answering the questions and do not wish to read the other thread because you simply decided that you will not change your mind! That's perfectly all right! It will not make anyone here think any less or any more of you. It will only lead us to believe that you are parroting traditions without thinking, perhaps even the traditions of the many reformers you have on your side!

By the way, I am not your buddy! If anything I am your Brother in Christ, most likely, judging by the way you write, your elder. Follow James, since you believe it to be inspired and fulfill all that is in it so you can justify your faith "before men" lest I think that your faith is dead... I know, you don't care what I think but then again, if you don't care what I think, who do you care what they think to "justify your faith before them"? If you don't care to justify your faith before men as some of your reformers "buddies" purport, then I have to count you as a hypocrite who believes in something inspired that he is not willing to obey.

In case you don't believe that James in chapter 2, the one that contradicts Paul, does not speak in "justification before men" but really "justification before God" join the club of those who believe that James contradicts Paul which makes his canonicity doubtful. If you do believe that James speaks of justification before men, please, justify your faith before us with works in context with James 2, again, lest we think your faith is dead!

In all, please, GROW UP!

Milt

[GraceAmbassador]

Ok i will make this a matter of prayer. As you know i am a warrior. Hey really i will be back to post what i want . Thanks. You think your hard headed, you dont know me!

No, I don't think you are hard headed and really does not take much to know you! I think you are unpolite, unclassy, not very bright, a hypocrite who knows not whereof he speaks, who can not even follow simple instructions or requests made with honesty and courtesy, a prideful youngster who just saw the ocean and now try to teach his buddies about oceanography, a child who just learned how to read time and now wants to teach his playmates how to build a watch, who drops foolish phrases such as "I have reformers on my side" as if this would scare anyone here as the bully who says "You shouda seen my gang"...

I could go on but I am not stooping to this foolishness!

I will allow you to make a fool of yourself a couple of more times; when no one else has any doubt of your folly I will spit you out of this Forum as one spits out sour milk after a careless sip!

If you wish to prove yourself as someone worth debating with, please, present arguments as we did; so far you have posted none other than being foolish...

Milt

[mybigGod]

Obviously since you have taken the high road and you think you are rite i must be a young infant compared to you. Look i am used to arguing a point and if i want to read what you ask me its my decision . i have a rite to reject that proposal. One thing i do not do is parrot by threats. I do not know who you are and i do not care about your education. I consider this issue of the book of James as a life and death struggle for the soul of christian civilation. Ive spent more time in meditation in the spiritual warfare for the local church through memorization of the book of Psalms that you will ever do in a life time. You think this is an intellectual exercise. This battle runs through my blood. I morn and groan for these spiritual things.You can throw me out i believe that i am rite about the book of James. You are wrong. You can throw me out or give me a chance to post my reformers. Its up to you. I will give you a run for your money. You have got my spiritual blood flowing.

[Robert R. Higby]

jmgipson: I must confess though it is not high on my priority list being that I do not really use James as support for any of my theology.

Good, what a relief! You will have much peace of mind, body, and soul because of this!

Mybiggod, you are wasting your time unless you throw out the cheap polemics and begin to dialog on the issues with us.

To all: Which of the 4 canon hermeneutics do you support and why? This question goes to all contributors. Discard all arguments over certain books for 10 minutes and tell us why you support a particular canon hermeneutic. It can even be one that hasn't been stated yet IF it is truly unique and not a different version of the four. Don't try and say that you support more than one, however--for the positions on this are mutually exclusive by very definition!

[lionovjudah]

Lion:The reason a bound book of 66 was not there in the churches infancy was because ot was not needed. Regardless of what you or others may think, God would not leave His believers destitute for so long completely. You can attribute it to His Sovereignty, but this is a cop out and pat answer. He ALWAYS kept a remnant who did nto bow down to baal

If the 66 book canon was not needed in the infancy of the ‘church’, why in the flaming barbecue is it needed now? Did the early believers need less scripture than US? I guess they did not bow down to Baal because they did not know of certain books to criticize that we now have! Also, I guess they were ‘not left destitute completely’ for some reason--what reason who knows? You certainly did not make the reason plain in what you said above! Certainly they did not have all of the books we have–were they BETTER OFF or WORSE because of this?

They did not need a bound book of 66 because they were closer to the living time of Christ Bob. Do not forget that everythng was not written down. Oral teachings were also predominant, if not more so than written. This is nt to be confused with the rcc thought of oral traditions. This is what the Lord spoke Himself that was passed down; ie the paradosis. So no, God saw fit not to have a compilation of all inspired writings at the infancy of the church.


On Ridderbos, he plain out lied on this issue just like he lied and mocked our sovereign God (on the doctrine of election) in "Paul, an Outline of his Theology".

Where is his lie? He speaks truth in the statement I posted. As far as his other writings, I am not familiar with it. But just as you have quoted apostates in the MLC thread, this does not disqualify a person when they speak a truth.


There was no book of James at that time. There were some sayings of James that he uttered at the temple in circulation called the "ascents of James."

According to you.


Irrelevant COMPLETELY! He also gave Demas, Alexander, Hymaneus, and Philetus the right hand of fellowship at one point in his ministry. And we really do not know where James the brother of Jesus stood on these issues; the epistle of James is attributed to him by tradition only. Part of it may be his writing.

Not irrelevant at all. A question that has been asked repeatedly but not answered. The james mentioned by Paul is the James who penned the epistle, that is a fact and not a theory. Paul also openly dismissed these others, he would have done the same to james since he wrote after james did.


Christ gave Paul the final revelation of the gospel which is to judge everything. Either you accept Paul’s own testimony in Galatians or you deny it. I do not believe that we would even have the writings of John except for Paul’s testimony, for the gospel of Paul tore him away from the Jerusalem perverts claiming to follow James (Ebionites); after meeting Paul and hearing his testimony John saw the true meaning of Christ’s words that he had previously recorded.


Where is it to say to judge everything bob? Where is this Pauls Gospel hermeneutic claimed by his pen to judge eerything, included what is inspired? Please show me. Believe as you will about John, but Revelation to him was the last revelation, the last book written. And there is really nothing in there that speaks of Paul or his gospel as being the rule of faith. John was not some jeruselem pervert, my goodness, the beloved of Christ? The only one at the cross was some backslider needed to be put in line by Paul? THis is new to me. John never even mentions anything about this. Such a grandoise theory would have most certainly been penned or spoken about.


Joe, if you believe this you have no reason to be here! Go join the threads of the liberal skeptics since you believe we are the same as them. You might be happier!

This is not nice bob!!!! I am not unhappy at all. Not mad either. Just perplexed and saddenned.(sp)

But just to show you why I state this, I will print what some speak of this way everyone who reads here, will see I do not speak amis. Now read closely please: I will add in paranthesis

this conclave of radicals has declared that 82% of Christ’s “sayings” were inventions of the early church, which Jesus actually never uttered.( Bob, you have said the same about scriptures before, you guys call them interpolations right?)

Finally, this body of skeptical “scholars” intends to redefine the canonical books of the New Testament record.(Again exactly what is happening here)


The first two allegations were addressed in our previous discussion. Attention is now directed to the matter of the New Testament canon.
The Jesus Seminar has begun a dramatic alteration of the documents which compose the New Testament. In an incredibly arrogant assertion, Robert Funk, head of the Seminar’s Westar Institute in Sonoma, California, charges that the Christian movement “hasn’t seriously examined the question of canon since the 15th century” (Sheler, Nov. 8, p. 75). And so, ignoring 1,900 years of Christian history, and pretending that conservative scholarship does not even exist, these modernists will bequeath to society a revised New Testament.( WOW!!!!!!!!!!! Maybe it is the first name!!)



The word “canon” derives from the Greek word kanon, which originally was a measuring reed. The term then was used to signify any sort of “rule” (cf. Gal. 6:16). Eventually, it was applied to that “standard” a document would be expected to meet in order to be considered inspired of God, and thus authoritative. And so, ultimately, it came to denote that collection of writings venerated as Holy Scripture, in contrast to a variety of apocryphal or spurious works. Origen (c. 185-253) spoke of the “canonized Scriptures.”
It is sometimes asserted by uninformed people that the Catholic Church, near the end of the 4th century A.D., decided which books would constitute the New Testament. Nothing could be further from the truth. There was a recognition of the inspiration of the New Testament books as they were being produced in the first-century.
For example, Paul quoted from Luke’s Gospel and acknowledged it as “scripture” (1 Tim. 5:18); similarly, Peter recognized Paul’s writings as “scripture” (2 Pet. 3:15-16), even though he and his fellow-apostle had clashed over the matter of Gentile fellowship (cf. Gal. 2:11).
While it is true that in the post-apostolic age there were some disputes over the genuineness of certain New Testament documents, the pristine character of the books, undergirded by solid evidence, finally led to their universal acceptance. And so, as Thiessen notes,


“it is a remarkable fact that no early Church Council selected the books that should constitute the New Testament Canon. The books that we now have crushed out all rivals, not by any adventitious authority, but by their own weight and worth” (p. 25). But what are the criteria by which the inspiration of a book is determined. In brief, these areas are involved:

Primary Evidence

The primary factor in identifying the nature of a divine book is the information that is contained within the book itself. Here are some of the elements which may, in part or in whole, be involved.
Does the book claim, or disclaim, inspiration (cf. 1 Cor. 14:37)? Some of the apocryphal books actually disclaim inspiration (cf. the Prologue of Ecclesiasticus; see also Price, p. 42).
Did the original recipients acknowledge that it came from an inspired person (cf. 1 Thes. 2:13)? Does it speak authoritatively (2 Thes. 3:6)? Is it characterized by an exalted theme? Is it honest in its dealings with both its friends and foes? Is it factually accurate in terms of history, geography, science, etc.? Does it reflect a lofty sense of morality? Is it internally consistent? Does it harmonize with other inspired writings?

Secondary Evidence

By secondary evidence we mean evidence which corroborates the principles outlined above. This sort of evidence is not conclusive in and of itself, but it lends its support to the primary material.
For example: Biblical revelation is designed to transform lives (Rom. 12:1-2); does the narrative possess that kind of power? After it has been tested, debated, etc., has it won the approval of honest and reasonable people? Has it survived the test of opposition?
It has been said that “Homer must be handled with care.” The biblical documents glow all the brighter the more they are attacked, and the more vicious the persecution becomes (as in the present case of the Jesus Seminar assault).




As observed earlier, the Jesus Seminar wants to overturn almost 2,000 years of history and revise the catalog of books contained in the New Testament. Let us consider two examples of their work in this area.
It is claimed that the Book of Revelation should be removed from the canon. Does the final book of the Bible pass the test that would be expected of an inspired narrative? Yes, it does. For example:


It was written by John (1:1,4,9; 22:8), and the early church writers (e.g., Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, etc.) identify this John as the Lord’s apostle. Additionally, vocabulary studies reveal similar word patterns in the Book of Revelation and John’s other writings. For example the term “Word” (logos) is used in a personal sense only in John 1:1,14; 1 John 1:1, and in Revelation 19:13.
The Book of Revelation has a very exalted theme; it proclaims the victory of God’s people over their persecutors by means of the Lamb who was slain, and who is now reigning (cf. 5:9-10; 6:12-17; 11:15; 12:11-12).
The document speaks with authority. The author is placed in the category of a prophet (1:3,11; 22:9), and the book is characterized by prophetic injunctions which must be obeyed (1:3; 22:7,10,18-19).
The record is doctrinally consistent with information presented elsewhere in the Bible (e.g., the divine nature of Christ, and the concept of the atoning blood of Jesus). Too, the fact that Revelation so wonderfully complements the Book of Daniel, which Jesus Christ endorsed as scripture (Mt. 24:15), also argues for its divine inspiration (cf. Dan. 7; Rev. 13).
There is thus no valid reason for the Jesus Seminar to remove the Book of Revelation from the sacred canon. Their biased inclination against the possibility of prophecy is at the base of this reckless action. We must remind ourselves that there is a curse pronounced upon those who tamper with the words of this book (22:18-19).
Not only does the Jesus Seminar propose to “take away” from the words of the Bible by the removal of the Book of Revelation, these renegades intend to “add to” the Word of God by the inclusion of spurious works, such as the so-called Gospel of Thomas, which they have characterized as “a fifth Gospel.”( You have claimed the same for enoch and another am I right?)


The Jesus Seminar is not a reflection of serious and devout scholarship. How can one legitimately be called a “scholar” when every syllable of instruction that he or she issues is erroneous? Is a man a “mechanic” if he doesn’t know the first thing about an automobile engine? This panel represents the meanderings of a group of confused theologians who have lost their faith but who, for reasons known perhaps only to them and God, desire to cling to some remnant of religiosity. Pity their blighted souls.



the Jesus Seminar proposes, with its literary surgery, to expunge from the Gospel accounts all of those sayings of the Lord and other books which are not authentic. By what authority do they assume this role?
These modernistic “scholars” will reevaluate which books really belong in the New Testament. They will remove some material, and add additional writings. They will give the world a new New Testament. What justification is there for such a high-handed procedure?(Amazing reflection no?)


you once stated:

I do not propose that the canon needs to be expanded. Never! The rejection of the apocraphyl books is completely and totally a work of the Holy Spirit. I'm suggesting that the true canon should possibly be smaller than what we have thought, not larger.

At the inaugural meeting of the Jesus Seminar in 1985, Robert Funk said, "We are about to embark on a momentous enterprise. We are going to inquire simply, rigorously, after the voice of Jesus, after what he really said. In this process, we will be asking a question that borders the sacred, that even abuts blasphemy, for many in our society."(sounds very similiar)


Go join the deniers of the Trinity and those who believe in J E D P, since you believe that we are the same as them! I can give you recommendations of message boards if you like! This accusation is so outrageous that I will not attempt to answer it; it does not deserve an answer.

See above please bob.

As you can see, When I make these statements, they are not unfounded.

[GraceAmbassador]

Obviously since you have taken the high road and you think you are rite i must be a young infant compared to you. Look i am used to arguing a point and if i want to read what you ask me its my decision . i have a rite to reject that proposal. One thing i do not do is parrot by threats. I do not know who you are and i do not care about your education. I consider this issue of the book of James as a life and death struggle for the soul of christian civilation. Ive spent more time in meditation in the spiritual warfare for the local church through memorization of the book of Psalms that you will ever do in a life time. You think this is an intellectual exercise. This battle runs through my blood. I morn and groan for these spiritual things.You can throw me out i believe that i am rite about the book of James. You are wrong. You can throw me out or give me a chance to post my reformers. Its up to you. I will give you a run for your money. You have got my spiritual blood flowing.

Do not resort to the "spiritual" only because you cannot deal with the intellectual!

Read my profile and you will see that I know a bit about spirituality and have lived with people like you who (apparently) gravitate among some charismania... This is an intellectual issue and a spiritual one. I don't suppose you know anything about spiritual warfare either. You are totally self deceiving and self contradicting. Are you telling me that you know James is right because of some special "spiritual" knowledge? If so, FINE! I want to see some of that; you don't have to present any arguments any longer, please, I beg of you: show me one spiritual reason, from your spiritual blood as to why you believe James is inspired...

In the process, please, do not talk to me about reformers that have sold out to the Roman Catholic Church and now preach salvation by works using the book of James; reformers that have surrendered to the whore of Romanisn, whose names we list in some of our threads; it does not suit a veritable Reformed Baptist as you identify yourself to be in your profile; unless you misrepresent yourself!

Believe me, you will not give me a run for my money, not even the least of it! Now, would you please show me how that which runs in your blood can prove to us that James is inspired?

Milt

[GraceAmbassador]

By the change of style of some writers here; by the way they appear in the "current users" link to be responding to a thread, and judging by the content of their replies and the time it takes for the reply to be published I really think we are having people "coached" here like calling someone or researching the Internet before they publish their answers with no real convictions of what they are saying, and are only doing so to annoy us...Therefore I really think that if we continue to discuss James here again, we are going to waste our time...

I believe as Bob said before, some of the propositions and comparisons are so odious that they no longer deserve any answer.

I think anyone who can't stick to what Brandan proposed, should not attempt to make this thread a back door continuation of the Multi Level Canon thread. I think the moderators should consider deleting threads that are in fact an attempt to continue the Multi Level Canon thread...

Milt

[mybigGod]

Do not resort to the "spiritual" only because you cannot deal with the intellectual!

Read my profile and you will see that I know a bit about spirituality and have lived with people like you who (apparently) gravitate among some charismania... This is an intellectual issue and a spiritual one. I don't suppose you know anything about spiritual warfare either. You are totally self deceiving and self contradicting. Are you telling me that you know James is right because of some special "spiritual" knowledge? If so, FINE! I want to see some of that; you don't have to present any arguments any longer, please, I beg of you: show me one spiritual reason, from your spiritual blood as to why you believe James is inspired...

In the process, please, do not talk to me about reformers that have sold out to the Roman Catholic Church and now preach salvation by works using the book of James; reformers that have surrendered to the whore of Romanisn, whose names we list in some of our threads; it does not suit a veritable Reformed Baptist as you identify yourself to be in your profile; unless you misrepresent yourself!

Believe me, you will not give me a run for my money, not even the least of it! Now, would you please show me how that which runs in your blood can prove to us that James is inspired?

Milt
You are the one who is bragging about all of the education and the works you have done in the past in peoples personal lives. I dont understand your hatred for James. You obviously do not understand how your own standard of conduct in reasoning out your disagreements with me agrees with the book of James. If it was all of grace and no works then why are you so upset at my challenging your christian standards? You are so confused about the place the law has in your life that you do not understand grace.Please lets have a conversation here without deciding to pull the plug.I am going to bed i will discuss this tommorrow. And if i gather information it is my business.

[GraceAmbassador]

You are the one who is bragging about all of the education and the works you have done in the past in peoples personal lives. I dont understand your hatred for James. You obviously do not understand how your own standard of conduct in reasoning out your disagreements with me agrees with the book of James. If it was all of grace and no works then why are you so upset at my challenging your christian standards? You are so confused about the place the law has in your life that you do not understand grace.Please lets have a conversation here without deciding to pull the plug.I am going to bed i will discuss this tommorrow. And if i gather information it is my business.

One last chance:

Place your "spiritual" arguments here as to why you think James is inspired... Also, would you please write in a more organized way? You are wasting everyone's time as spoken by another moderator. Also your assertion about my "hatred for James" is a slander; I am not pouting, though; I expect nothing more from you. In fact, I don't mind at all. You already have proven that you are unclassy and unpolite as I SAID clearly a few posts before.

What Christian standards are you challenging? You are completely ignorant of even what you say...

Please, I always say please:

PLACE YOUR ARGUMENTS, defend your points with some reasoning. Start by

"point 1 - I think James is thus and such because..." then

"point 2 - I believe that James is this and that person, then

"point 3 - I believe that the Greek says this and that about chapter 2:24 and according to the interpretation of this and that this is what it means... then

"point 4 - I believe that James is part of the canon because of this and that

(replace "thus and such", "this and that person" by your points; then we will have grounds of debate)

But do so ONLY when you know our arguments based upon reading the "Multi Level Canon thread". There you will find arguments in favor and against James being in the canon. You may learn something...


etc.

Do that in an organized way; If you want to claim some spiritual power and a higher understanding, FINE, but POST HERE YOUR ARGUMENTS.

This is your LAST CHANCE!

If you don't want to read the Multi Level Canon thread, and refute our arguments either intellectually or "spiritually" AS YOU SAID YOU ARE CAPABLE OF, then please, swallow your pride and admit that you don't have an argument and that you lied. For the sake of not being counted as a babbler, place your arguments against our points so we can give you some credit.

I will not warn you anymore. I have given you instructions teaching you to write and debate properly; there is nothing else I can do. Don't mind what I said anymore about you, just be rational and show yourself a man of his word and place your arguments against our points in the other thread. Is this too much to ask? Is this too hard for you? Or you just can't do it for some character or intellectual flaw?

We don't have to prove anything to anyone here. We place our opinion corageously based upon facts, history, commonly accepted hermeneutics, Biblical language and, although we don't believe in gurus, we use the testimony of past God's Servants; we do so knowing that we will be attacked for it. If you don't have the same courage or knowledge to place your arguments and debate with us, go look for some teenage forum where you can discuss video games or whatever you want to discuss with them but leave us alone! Stop saying that you have these arguments "spiritually" and not posting them here because it sounds like a bluff and a lie!

LAST WARNING.

Milt

[GraceAmbassador]

Not irrelevant at all. A question that has been asked repeatedly but not answered. The james mentioned by Paul is the James who penned the epistle, that is a fact and not a theory. Paul also openly dismissed these others, he would have done the same to james since he wrote after james did.

This is unsettling!

This question was answered numerous times!

First Paul does not have to mention the name what heretic or false teacher he is refuting in order for us to know that he is indeed refuting someone. That is, of course, assuming that there was some of James sayings prior to the said (or SAD) epistle. Paul writes about the fact that "we have forgiveness", we have been "quickened" that justification is evidenced by faith alone, and in many other instances he refutes James' concepts including but not limited to when you compare Acts 15 where James instructs, rather, imposes Gentiles not to eat meats sacrificed to idols and Paul says in 1 Corinthians 8 that this is not that important anyway...

Also compare how Paul treated the sick of his party and of his friends and what James teaches about the sick on chapter 5...

This was said NUMEROUS times throughout this Forum in different threads.

Should Paul mention James name to be refuting some of his teachings, or sayings, or oral traditions existing in their contemporary ministry?

(By the way, if I am up this late 4:13AM is because I have a major sinus congestion, I can't breath which does not let me sleep so I am waiting for the Roto Rooter emergency truck to come in with the 150 feet sewer unclogging snake to open me up!)

Milt

[Ugly_Gaunt_Cow]

This is probably all I can offer to this discussion, so it's a little short... But it's sweet. :)

Christ did not found a ekklesia based on a foundation of 'the bible' but built on a foundation of those to whom divine truth had been imparted to.

[Mat 16:13-18] "... And coming into the parts of Caesarea Philippi, Jesus asked His disciples, saying, Who do men say Me to be, the Son of Man? And they said, Some say, John the Baptist; some, Elijah; and others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets.

He said to them, But who do you say I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.


Jesus answered and said to him,

You are blessed, Simon, son of Jonah, for flesh and blood did not reveal it to you, but My Father in Heaven. And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

I don't know how this fits into the thread but I think it's something that has been erroneously over-looked.

ps - please ignore the "my church" mistranslation in the text. Sadly, people still had their head stuck up their butt at the time of publication of this translation.

Scott.

[M.K. Nawojski]

R.R. Higby wrote: “We are not debating the person of James the brother of Jesus here; that is a different discussion. If you believe that he was an apostle, you deny that an apostle had to be chosen and commissioned by Jesus Christ himself. The disciples cast the lot on Matthias to fill the missing slot of Judas, yet we hear nothing of Matthias beyond that point. God chose Paul as the 12th apostle–that is clear. . . .”

In evaluating these words of Mr. Higby, please consider the inspired, infallible record of events which occurred BEFORE Matthias was chosen:

1. During His earthly ministry, Christ had promised to give Peter, individually, the “keys” to the kingdom of heaven. Based on that divine promise, Peter would personally have power to authoritatively declare who or what had been “bound” (forbidden, prohibited, declared illicit) or “loosed” (“unbound”) in regards to the “kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 16:15-19).

2. Christ had promised to give His disciples, corporately, the power to authoritatively declare who or what had been “bound” or “loosed.” Moreover, Christ had assured His disciples that the Father would bring about all things which they (i.e., two or more) agreed on and requested (Matt. 18:18-19).

3. After His resurrection, Christ began to fulfill these promises to His disciples. The Scriptures tell us that He imparted spiritual gifts to them, to the extent that they could even declare sins remitted or retained (John 20:22-23, cf. Acts 5:1-11).

4. After His resurrection, Christ supernaturally opened the eyes of His disciples that they might understand the Scriptures (Luke 24:45). Then He commissioned them to preach “repentance and remission of sins,” to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem -- where, as commanded, they were to wait until they were “endued with power from on high” before beginning this (Luke 24:47-49).

5. Before His ascension, Christ taught His apostles personally for 40 days concerning the kingdom of God (Acts 1:3).

6. After Christ’s ascension, the Scriptures tell us the disciples continued as Jerusalem, with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren (Acts 1:14).

7. As regenerate Jews, Peter and the other disciples had the divine assurance that “The lot is cast into the lap; but the whole disposing thereof is of the LORD” (Proverbs 16:33).

These seven points comprise but a miniscule portion of the background that led up to (and undergirded) the events that occurred immediately before and during and after the Day of Pentecost:

Acts 1:15-2:4: “And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said . . . Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus. For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry. . . . For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take. WHEREFORE OF THESE MEN WHICH HAVE COMPANIED WITH US ALL THE TIME THAT THE LORD JESUS WENT IN AND OUT AMONG US, BEGINNING FROM THE BAPTISM OF JOHN, UNTO THAT SAME DAY THAT HE WAS TAKEN UP FROM US, MUST ONE BE ORDAINED TO BE A WITNESS WITH US OF HIS RESURRECTION. And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen, That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place. And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles. And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.”

Now, given the inspired, infallible record of the clear promises made to the disciples, the personal instruction by the Lord Himself, the disciples’ supernatural empowerment that caused them to understand the Scriptures, their unity in purpose and prayer, and (after Matthias was chosen) the manifest sanction of the Holy Spirit, i.e., the discernable “filling” of the house where they were -- who would dare to question that Peter had the God-given authority, as well as the clear guidance of the Spirit, when He stood up in the midst of the other God-ordained and Spirit-empowered disciples and called for one of the two qualified men to be officially installed as a replacement for Judas before the Day of Pentecost. And in the face of the scriptural evidence, who would dare suggest that the appointment of Matthias was a mistake!

But that’s not all. To state further that, in fact, Paul and not Matthias was God’s choice for the twelfth disciple merely serves to compound the errors which Mr. Higby has advanced in this forum. Read the inspired account of Peter’s own words on the Day of Pentecost. He said unequivocally concerning the events of that day: “This is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel” (Acts 2: 14-16). Did you get that? Peter said by inspiration that what was occurring (e.g., his Jewish message and the manifestation of the Jewish sign gifts) on that Jewish feast day had been foretold by one of the Jewish prophets. Could anything be more contrary to what Paul wrote in his epistles to the Body of Christ? Eph. 3:4: “ . . . the mystery of Christ, Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit”; Eph. 3:8-9: “Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ; And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ.”

Furthermore, what about the Lord’s promise to Peter and the other disciples in Matt. 19: 27-28: “Then answered Peter and said unto him [Christ], Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore? And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” How does that square with Paul’s declaration that, in the Body of Christ, there is neither Jew nor Greek (Gal. 3:28-29, et. al.)? And how does it jive with his assurance in Phil 3:20-21, that “. . . our conversation [citizenship, seat of authority] is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself”?

Finally, the Almighty God of Scripture is faithful. He keeps His Word: you can count on it. So, it’s a certain fact that Peter will one day sit on one of the twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. Just as it’s a certain fact that the Body of Christ will sit in the third-heavens, judging angels (I Cor. 6:3, cf. Eph. 1:3, et. al).

Things that aren’t the same are different.

MK

[harald]

What are we to think of Brandan's seeming double standard with respect to the criterion of determining canonicalness. I mean he is quick to point out that "the early churches" or "the church fathers" which some may have referred to in this thread were "free willers" and what more. But then again Brandan himself has adopted his "Gospel-centric" criterion apparently from another false teacher and errorist, Martin Luther. If the referring/appealing to "the early churches" and/or "church fathers" is wrong then it must be equally wrong to refer/appeal to Luther. Because he was no better in his soteriology. I mean neither did he hold to a gospel of "free and sovereign grace". Evidenced from these sayings of his from his Galatians commentary. Such sayings are basically legion in this commentary, here a few:

>In the sight of God, Abraham was a condemned sinner. That he was justified before God was not due to his own exertions, but due to his faith. <

>When we pay attention to reason, God seems to propose impossible matters in the Christian Creed. To reason it seems absurd that Christ should offer His body and blood in the Lord's Supper; that Baptism should be the washing of regeneration; that the dead shall rise; that Christ the Son of God was conceived in the womb of the Virgin Mary, etc.<

>Faith truly honors God. And because faith honors God, God counts faith for righteousness. Christian righteousness is the confidence of the heart in God through Christ Jesus. Such confidence is accounted righteousness for Christ's sake. Two things make for Christian righteousness: Faith in Christ, which is a gift of God; and God's acceptance of this imperfect faith of ours for perfect righteousness. Because of my faith in Christ, God overlooks my distrust, the unwillingness of my spirit, my many other sins. Because the shadow of Christ's wing covers me I have no fear that God will cover all my sins and take my imperfections for perfect righteousness. God "winks" at my sins and covers them up. God says: "Because you believe in My Son I will forgive your sins
until death shall deliver you from the body of sin."<

>Learn to understand the constitution of your Christian righteousness. Faith is weak, but it means enough to God that He will not lay sin to our charge. He will not punish nor condemn us for it. He will forgive our sins as though they amount to nothing at all.<

>To realize that one is ill is a step, and a very necessary step, toward recovery. "But how will I get rid of my sin?" he will ask. I answer: See the heavenly Physician, Christ, who heals the broken-hearted. Do not consult that Quackdoctor, Reason. Believe in Christ and your sins will be pardoned. His righteousness will become your righteousness, and your sins will become His sins.<

>Do you now see how faith justifies without works? Sin lingers in us, and God hates sin. A transfusion of righteousness therefore becomes vitally necessary. This transfusion of righteousness we obtain from Christ because we believe in Him.<

>Let us begin with Abraham and learn how this friend of God was justified and saved. Not because he left his country, his relatives, his father's house; not because he was circumcised; not because he stood ready to sacrifice his own son Isaac in whom he had the promise of posterity. Abraham was justified because he believed.<

>The world was promised to Abraham because he believed. The whole world is blessed if it believes as Abraham believed.<

>The blessing is the promise of the Gospel. That all nations are to be blessed means that all nations are to hear the Gospel. All nations are to be declared righteous before God through faith in Christ Jesus.<

>To bless simply means to spread abroad the knowledge of Christ's salvation. This is the office of the New Testament Church which distributes
the promised blessing by preaching the Gospel, by administering the sacraments, by comforting the broken- hearted, in short, by dispensing the benefits of Christ.<

>But because He took the sins of the world His sinlessness was defiled with the sinfulness of the world.<

>What a relief for a Christian to know that Christ is covered all over with my sins, your sins, and the sins of the whole world.<

>The sins of the whole world, past, present, and future, fastened themselves upon Christ and condemned Him. But because Christ is God He had an everlasting and unconquerable righteousness. These two, the sin of the world and the righteousness of God, met in a death struggle. Furiously the sin of the world assailed the righteousness of God.<

>When we hear that Christ was made a curse for us, let us believe it with joy and assurance. By faith Christ changes places with us. He gets our sins, we get His holiness. By faith alone can we become righteous, for faith invests us with the sinlessness of Christ.<

>To become a blessing unto all nations Christ had to be made a curse to take away the curse from the nations of the earth. The merit that we plead, and the work that we proffer is Christ who was made a curse for us. Let us become expert in the art of transferring our sins, our death, and every evil from ourselves to Christ; and Christ's righteousness and blessing from Christ to ourselves.< (can you believe your eyes on that last sentence ?? )

>The business of the Gospel, on the other hand, is to quicken, to comfort, to raise the fallen. The Gospel carries the news that God for Christ's sake is merciful to the most unworthy sinners, if they will only believe that Christ by His death has delivered them from sin and everlasting death unto grace, forgiveness, and everlasting life.<

>Moses led the people out of their tents to meet God. But they ran away. That is how good a mediator Moses was.< (utterly unfounded slander of Moses, God's servant, the people were afraid of God's manifest holiness)

>The Law does not justify a person before God; it increases sin. The Law does not secure righteousness; it hinders righteousness.<

>Although the Law kills, God brings good out of evil. He uses the Law to bring life. God saw that the universal illusion of self-righteousness could not be put down in any other way but by the Law. The Law dispels all self-illusions. It puts the fear of God in a man.<

>Talk to your conscience. Say: "Sister, you are now in jail all right. But you don't have to stay there forever. It is written that we are 'shut up unto faith which should afterwards be revealed.' Christ will lead you to freedom. Do not despair like Cain, Saul, or Judas. They might have gone free if they had called Christ to their aid.<

>The Law is such a schoolmaster. Not for always, but until we have been brought to Christ. The Law is not just another schoolmaster. The Law is a specialist to bring us to Christ.<

>The Law cannot beget children of God. It cannot regenerate us. It can only remind us of the old birth by which we were born into the kingdom of the devil. The best the Law can do for us is to prepare us for a new birth through faith in Christ Jesus. Faith in Christ regenerates us into the children of God.< (Luther teaching the free-willian heresy of faith-regeneration)

>In the Apostolic Creed we confess: "I believe in the holy Christian Church." That means, I believe that there is no sin, no curse, no evil in the Church of God. Faith says: "I believe that." But if you want to believe your eyes you will find many shortcomings and offenses in the members of the holy Church. You see them succumb to temptation, you see them weak in faith, you see them giving way to anger, envy, and other evil dispositions. "How can the Church be holy?" you ask. It is with the Christian Church as it is with the individual Christian. If I examine myself I find enough unholiness to shock me. But when I look at Christ in me I find that I am altogether holy. And so it is with the Church.<


END OF QUOTES


In light of this I suggest Brandan, if he still would have a "Gospel-centric" criterion for determining canonicalness, goes to the NT writings to see if any penman there suggests such a gospel-centric criterion as the standard of judging God-breathed or non-God-breathed. Let him not go to such heretics as Luther, who apparently (seen from his Galatians commentary) was utterly "reprobate as touching the faith", knowing and mastering absolutely nothing when it comes to e.g. Paul's doctrine of justification before God. Rather let him be noble and go straight to the inspired penmen of the NT, and from them learn if God has proposed any criterion which must be used when judging the authoritativeness of writings purporting to the lofty epithet of "Scripture". If God at all has in writing commanded such to be done by individuals naming the name of Christ.

Harald

[harald]

Irrelevant COMPLETELY! He also gave Demas, Alexander, Hymaneus, and Philetus the right hand of fellowship at one point in his ministry. And we really do not know where James the brother of Jesus stood on these issues; the epistle of James is attributed to him by tradition only. (Robert Higby)

First of all, "the right hands of fellowship" in Gal. 2 was in fact the right hands of partnership, ministerial partnership. No general "fellowship" handshake.
Then. In light of this fact your above statement that Paul had shook right hands (of partnership) with Alexander the coppersmith, Hymenaeus, and Philetus, at some point in his ministry, is a figment of your imagination. It cannot be backed up by scripture. Paul gives no such record. He may have done so with Demas. There is evidence that Demas had been a co-worker of Paul in the gospel he was preaching. But of the three others Paul intimates no such thing.
And. To say we really don't know where James of Jesus stood is to lie. We know from what NT penmen state about him and his convictions. And their testimony is God's truth concerning James. God-breathed testimony concerning James of Jesus. No hints from them that there was something obscure about James' christianity. And Paul himself says in Gal. 2 that after James and Peter and John had recognized the distinct grace having been given to Paul they extended to him and Barnabas the right hands of partnership. The verb there being ginooskoo, applied also to James. I.e. James recognized from close observation, just as Peter and John, that God had given a specific grace to Paul. John in 1John 4:2 says to Jewish believers, "in this you are recognizing from close observation (ginooskoo) the Spirit of God" (primarily in "prophets", which Paul also was). This is what happened with James. He recognized from close observation that the Spirit of God was with Paul and in Paul, that God had given to Paul a specific grace (lit. "the grace the having been given ...", note the double articular construct) as it related to his ministry in relation to "the Gentiles", viz. "the Body of the Christ".
Then. The epistle of James is attributed to him by himself in the intro. The thrust of his epistle shows it to be written just after gnôsis-antinomianism had arisen in circumcision circles. Many expressions witness to the fact James was writing Scripture, a God-breathed document. For example the saying in one place which literally states the permanent indwelling of the Spirit in Jewish saints. Cp. James use of the verb katoikeô. This doctrine was under attack from the gnôsis faction, cp. 1John. John in 1John sought to console his Jewish brethren, testifying to them the sure fact of the Spirit's abiding presence. James of all was given to write down the very word, "permanently dwelling", katoikeô. James highly honours Jesus Christ by calling him "the glory", see v. 2:1 in the Greek, no "Lord" in the Greek. Strictly in accord with Paul, Judas and John and maybe other NT penmen as well, who also honoured Christ by calling him "the glory". James was no less led along by the Spirit than the others when it came to exalting Lord Jesus Christ.


Christ gave Paul the final revelation of the gospel which is to judge everything. Either you accept Paul’s own testimony in Galatians or you deny it. I do not believe that we would even have the writings of John except for Paul’s testimony, for the gospel of Paul tore him away from the Jerusalem perverts claiming to follow James (Ebionites); after meeting Paul and hearing his testimony John saw the true meaning of Christ’s words that he had previously recorded.

Your above words evilly imply John was in some sense affiliated with the judaizers which came "from James". Can you show proof from Acts that John actually was one with them in their judaizing stratagems? Or from Paul? And can you prove Paul's gospel in some sense "tore away" John from this alleged affiliation? And what's this "Ebionites" doing here. James was no such. Nor was John. And the Jerusalem judaizers were "APO" the Pharisees. The Pharisees was a distinct sect from Ebionites, unless I misunderstand. So I see no Scripture record that the judaizers were Ebionites. They were former members of the Pharisees' sect who now later were hangarounds (possibly "members") of the Jerusalem assembly of which James apparently was the chief pillar. But these folks came judaizing on their own accord, not having received any such charges from the pillars.
Then. Do you mean John when he wrote the gospel of John did not understand the truths he wrote down, that Paul had to come along and expound to him? Can you show some hints from John's gospel itself to this import, or from Acts or Paul? Secondly, this presupposes John's gospel was penned down before Galatians. And the event depicted in Gal. 2 no doubt took place before 55 AD. Can you give some evidence that John's gospel was written this early?



Harald

[Brandan Kraft]

Here's a thread with some heretical quotes from the early "church fathers."

http://www.5solas.org/forums/showthread.php?t=1506

[GraceAmbassador]

Acts 1:15-2:4: “And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said . . . Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus. For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry. . . . For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take. WHEREFORE OF THESE MEN WHICH HAVE COMPANIED WITH US ALL THE TIME THAT THE LORD JESUS WENT IN AND OUT AMONG US, BEGINNING FROM THE BAPTISM OF JOHN, UNTO THAT SAME DAY THAT HE WAS TAKEN UP FROM US, MUST ONE BE ORDAINED TO BE A WITNESS WITH US OF HIS RESURRECTION. And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen, That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place. And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles. And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.”

M.K.

I am not in the least interested in discussing Matthias, but let me point out that I am glad that you consider the portion of the Bible quoted above as one that remained even after Paul's ministry and it is still in force today. I explain: You can't attempt to prove that Matthias remained the 12th Apostle using the text above and throw away the rest of the text as something that was only good for the days of the Apostles, to wit, the miraculous occurrences of Acts 2 because they are nor at all separated. So I gather that you still speak with other tongues, not as learned from men but as the Spirit gives you utterance.

I am glad that you quoted scriptures, since now, who can prove that one portion of the text was good for then and the other is not good for now?

I believe that in 1 Cor. 9 Paul establishes his apostleship even by declaring that he has seen the Lord. So, assuming that Paul is also inspired, we must have to believe that there are 13 original Apostles...

The new profile questionnaire gives us a lot of enlistment; I read yours and you believe that God has two wills. That means a lot to most of us here as to how you see scriptures. Earlier in the questionnaire you say that salvation is NOT offered to all men when they hear the Gospel. To me, the two wills teaching and the non-offered of the Gospel to all who hear it is contradictory.

I believe that God has ONE will and that he does not offer the Gospel to all who hear since he has no desire to save the reprobate and has not decreed to save the reprobate. So, if you are wrong in that one, in my view, you may be wrong in your defense of Matthias as what the ek-klesia of today should call the 12th Apostle, unless of course you are willing to say that there were 13 with the addition of Paul (that is fine with me, by the way).

In other texts of your post, you sound very much as a Roman Catholic; then I went back to your profile (what a great idea this profile is!) and found out that you believe that our righteousness is both imputed and imparted. That is indeed half Roman Catholic as the word they use for "imparted" is "infused" which can be two different words but with no distinction form their meaning in RCC doctrine.

Well, I don't want to get off the topic, I just wanted to make the point that based on the profile of people we can easily predict what they will defend here and I am glad that at least in your case, which is a gladly received exception, you are consistent with it...

If Matthias is to be deemed as the 12th Apostle today as Paul was because of the events narrated under God's inspiration in Acts 1 and 2, then you must consider everything else in that text as truth for today.

Now, just a closing note: It was also inspired for God to tell the Hebrews to kill animals in sacrifice for their sins; but that ended with the fullest revelation of His plan, did it not? I believe this to be true about Matthias and Paul.

Just my humble opinion.

Milt

[Brandan Kraft]

What are we to think of Brandan's seeming double standard with respect to the criterion of determining canonicalness. I mean he is quick to point out that "the early churches" or "the church fathers" which some may have referred to in this thread were "free willers" and what more. But then again Brandan himself has adopted his "Gospel-centric" criterion apparently from another false teacher and errorist, Martin Luther.Oh Harald Harald Harald! What Luther believed and taught really has no bearing on my hermeneutic. I don't agree with all Luther believed and put forward. I simply use him as a demonstration to show that this position is not new. Not that it matters to me, but it matters to some who depend upon the men they have grown up listening and learning about. Some might be more inclined to investigate the truth if they were to know that a man as highly esteemed as Martin Luther differed from the majority of protestantism on this important issue.

SO let me repeat. Martin Luther has no bearing whatsoever on my belief concerning this topic. The fact that you have resorted to bashing Luther in hopes of crushing my propositions shows how desperate you really are! It is pretty pathetic of you Harald, and from my experience with you in the past, I expected more from you. It's sad to see that you have fallen into dispensationalism and in many ways don't differ from the men and institutions you condemn in wholesale.


In light of this I suggest Brandan, if he still would have a "Gospel-centric" criterion for determining canonicalness, goes to the NT writings to see if any penman there suggests such a gospel-centric criterion as the standard of judging God-breathed or non-God-breathed. Let him not go to such heretics as Luther, who apparently (seen from his Galatians commentary) was utterly "reprobate as touching the faith", knowing and mastering absolutely nothing when it comes to e.g. Paul's doctrine of justification before God. Oh Harald! Please will you stop your incessant babbling against Luther? We know where you stand concerning Luther, and it really is getting old. I didn't even read all the quotes you posted because I'm sure it's the same old stuff you've posted before. Luther has absolutely no bearing on my belief concerning the canon.


Rather let him be noble and go straight to the inspired penmen of the NT, and from them learn if God has proposed any criterion which must be used when judging the authoritativeness of writings purporting to the lofty epithet of "Scripture". If God at all has in writing commanded such to be done by individuals naming the name of Christ. Either you believe the Gospel delivered to Paul is to be the judge of all things or you don't. There is no way around it.

Do you Harald believe the Gospel is the judge of all things? Can you answer yes?

If so, then you must judge the writings of men by THE GOSPEL! PERIOD! YOU CANNOT ESCAPE THIS WITHOUT BEING A WALKING PARADOX!

If you can't answer, "yes", then so be it. You do not esteem the Gospel of Christ like you ought, and I hope for your sake that you repent of your wickedness.

Brandan

[GraceAmbassador]

Brandan:

Why do some members only show up when we are discussing something like the "canonicity of James"?

Should I assume that in general they agree with everything else we defend here? Or that anything that it is not obviously controversial, but highly intellectual is too much for them? Or is it that there is a host of people out there that are set off by some "trigger happy" person in his "own" web site to come here and purposefully attack and annoy us? Are we THAT important?

Eerie!

Milt
I find this intriguing

[Brandan Kraft]

Brother Milt:

I myself am thankful for them and their "contributions". They help to prove to God's people that the truth can stand up to a constant barage of babbling!

Brandan

[GraceAmbassador]

Brother Milt:

I myself am thankful for them and their "contributions". They help to prove to God's people that the truth can stand up to a constant barage of babbling!

Brandan

...and indeed it has for centuries!

Milt

[GraceAmbassador]

As it is always common among heated discussions, the "private messages" are flying. I just want to remind those who resort to PM's to pout or backbite that there is no guarantee in this Forum that PM's are private. In fact in the rules we warn that they are NOT. The administration has the right and privelege to scrutinize them and find out what kind of gossip is going on.

I really don't care about what is said about this Forum in private, but I believe that it is not wise in the least to use the PM's in this Forum for reasons other than clarifying particular points, presenting apologies and appeasing hot tempers. In the past I was the recipient of PM's that had the sole intention of backbiting and probing my loyalty to my convictions. Please, do not resort to that! You can have your PM published here. That's all I can say!

Let's dispute all we can here and only use PM's to its purposed end.

This is ONLY a suggestion and a reminder...

Milt

[Mickey]

Why do some members only show up when we are discussing something like the "canonicity of James"?

I am back! I had to erase my hard drive because I got a virus.

I have to catch up on this thread, but from what I have read it is more of the same with the usual foolish zeal of a new member.

One thing I have noticed is that when we are discussing grace with a 'free-willer' we all band together and our posts are full of well thought out, sound, logical, factual arguments and the 'free-willers' flee to appeals to emotion, tradition, and popularity. This of course comes to us as no surprise (such as mybigGod's posts). But when it comes to the issue of the canon, those that are defending James flee to the very same tactics as the 'free-willer' does!

[harald]

The fact that you have resorted to bashing Luther in hopes of crushing my propositions shows how desperate you really are! (BK)

Basically I posted the Luther quotes to alert you to your using a double standard. I had not thought of crushing your "Gospel-centric" proposition. I would be interested to see you be able to support it from the NT scriptures. To this import I also spoke at the end.


Luther has absolutely no bearing on my belief concerning the canon.

Fine, fine. Then perhaps you are ready to show support from the NT when it comes to the criterion you hold to, the "Gospel-centric" test for determining God-breathedness.



Either you believe the Gospel delivered to Paul is to be the judge of all things or you don't. There is no way around it.

Do you Harald believe the Gospel is the judge of all things? Can you answer yes?

The gospel was not "delivered" to Paul, but directly revealed (apokalupsis, apokaluptô), see Gal. 1. "delivered" hearkens back to paradidomi, which has to do with the method of transmission (paradosis), i.e. to hand down or over from man to man.
Having said this. The gospel which Christ directly revealed to Paul is not the judge of all things. One example, it is not the judge of God-breathed writings such as Numbers, 2John, 3John, Judas' epistle, James' epistle, Revelation. If Paul's distinct good message would be the judge of these they would have to be declared non-God-breathed. This they are not.
So, are you charging me with wickedness now because I won't judge said writings by Paul's gospel. If you do so judge then you will have to fetch the scissors and cut these writings, and maybe others, out of whatever bound Bibles you have in your house. Otherwise you are guilty of admitting the stamp of "Holy Bible" on writings which you reprobate as non-God-breathed.
(not that your potential private reprobation of canonical/God-breathed writings matters any to me)


Harald

[Mickey]

As it is always common among heated discussions, the "private messages" are flying. I just want to remind those who resort to PM's to pout or backbite that there is no guarantee in this Forum that PM's are private. In fact in the rules we warn that they are NOT. The administration has the right and privelege to scrutinize them and find out what kind of gossip is going on.

This is true! We have teamed up with President Bush to tap into your PM's to find out which of you are terrorists to the gospel of grace.

[harald]

Milt,

I know Mary Kae is fully able to answer for herself. But nonetheless I feel like addressing some things you spoke to her.


So I gather that you still speak with other tongues, not as learned from men but as the Spirit gives you utterance. (MA)

This is far fetched, impertinent. You could have let it remain in your head.


I believe that in 1 Cor. 9 Paul establishes his apostleship even by declaring that he has seen the Lord. So, assuming that Paul is also inspired, we must have to believe that there are 13 original Apostles...

I know Mary Kae is not questioning Paul having been an apostle. Paul alludes to James (Gal. 1) as an apostle, and says James personally saw Lord Jesus. So by this criterion James was an apostle prior to Paul. You really do not get it that Paul was not of the circumcision apostleship, but of the uncircumcision's dito. Read Gal. 2, maybe you will learn. The Twelve (Judas replaced by Matthias) were of the circumcision's apostleship. An elementary piece of knowledge.


I read yours and you believe that God has two wills. That means a lot to most of us here as to how you see scriptures. Earlier in the questionnaire you say that salvation is NOT offered to all men when they hear the Gospel. To me, the two wills teaching and the non-offered of the Gospel to all who hear it is contradictory.

I know Mary Kae does not hold to the offer heresy. I know to a degree her convictions and can testify she is "higher" a calvinist than you've ever been. While myself answered "one will" I can well understand why she answered the way she did. Your questionnaire was poorly formulated especially on this point. Because of the fact that in the Greek text the word which is rendered "will", THELEMA, in some contexts in Paul when with the article, i.e. "the will", refers to God's revealed will in the Tanakh primarily. See in Romans 2 when Paul addresses the Jew. OTOH in some other context Paul uses the articular THELEMA, i.e. "the will", to indicate God's decretive will. See Ephesians chapter 1 where he addresses the body of the Christ. In light of this there is no reason whatever for you to attack Mary Kae and how she chose to answer. Your own fault that you were not clearer in formulation. But since I know you are ignoring the Greek of Paul I answered "one will", lest you'd maliciously carp at me. But the fact is that "the will" in Paul's epistles is used of both the revealed will in the Scriptures as well as of the hidden decretive will which was never made known in the OT canon. SO, I suggest you speedily alter the questionnaire at this point to more reflect Paul's theology in his epistles. Or else you risk to be looked upon as such as are but bound by men's theological traditions and who do not care for what the Word of God says in the epistles of the chief apostle Paul's writings. Yours is the ball, folks.


In other texts of your post, you sound very much as a Roman Catholic; then I went back to your profile (what a great idea this profile is!) and found out that you believe that our righteousness is both imputed and imparted. That is indeed half Roman Catholic as the word they use for "imparted" is "infused" which can be two different words but with no distinction form their meaning in RCC doctrine.

Another cheap shot against one who you don't know, and on whom you have absolutely nothing at all. It is possible to answer "both imputed and imparted" without being "Roman Catholic" or otherwise unorthodox at that. I knew what you sought so I answered "imputed". Because I surmised you referred to a righteousness that justifies a person before God. But not having this exclusively in mind it is possible to say "both imputed and imparted" without it implying heterodoxy. Mary Kae no doubt means by her answer that a justifying righteousness (Christ's) is imputed, but that a non-justifying righteousness, i.e. "the righteous new nature" commonly called, is imparted.


Harald

[GraceAmbassador]

Milt,

I know Mary Kae is fully able to answer for herself. But nonetheless I feel like addressing some things you spoke to her.


So I gather that you still speak with other tongues, not as learned from men but as the Spirit gives you utterance. (MA)

This is far fetched, impertinent. You could have let it remain in your head.


I believe that in 1 Cor. 9 Paul establishes his apostleship even by declaring that he has seen the Lord. So, assuming that Paul is also inspired, we must have to believe that there are 13 original Apostles...

I know Mary Kae is not questioning Paul having been an apostle. Paul alludes to James (Gal. 1) as an apostle, and says James personally saw Lord Jesus. So by this criterion James was an apostle prior to Paul. You really do not get it that Paul was not of the circumcision apostleship, but of the uncircumcision's dito. Read Gal. 2, maybe you will learn. The Twelve (Judas replaced by Matthias) were of the circumcision's apostleship. An elementary piece of knowledge.


I read yours and you believe that God has two wills. That means a lot to most of us here as to how you see scriptures. Earlier in the questionnaire you say that salvation is NOT offered to all men when they hear the Gospel. To me, the two wills teaching and the non-offered of the Gospel to all who hear it is contradictory.

I know Mary Kae does not hold to the offer heresy. I know to a degree her convictions and can testify she is "higher" a calvinist than you've ever been. While myself answered "one will" I can well understand why she answered the way she did. Your questionnaire was poorly formulated especially on this point. Because of the fact that in the Greek text the word which is rendered "will", THELEMA, in some contexts in Paul when with the article, i.e. "the will", refers to God's revealed will in the Tanakh primarily. See in Romans 2 when Paul addresses the Jew. OTOH in some other context Paul uses the articular THELEMA, i.e. "the will", to indicate God's decretive will. See Ephesians chapter 1 where he addresses the body of the Christ. In light of this there is no reason whatever for you to attack Mary Kae and how she chose to answer. Your own fault that you were not clearer in formulation. But since I know you are ignoring the Greek of Paul I answered "one will", lest you'd maliciously carp at me. But the fact is that "the will" in Paul's epistles is used of both the revealed will in the Scriptures as well as of the hidden decretive will which was never made known in the OT canon. SO, I suggest you speedily alter the questionnaire at this point to more reflect Paul's theology in his epistles. Or else you risk to be looked upon as such as are but bound by men's theological traditions and who do not care for what the Word of God says in the epistles of the chief apostle Paul's writings. Yours is the ball, folks.


In other texts of your post, you sound very much as a Roman Catholic; then I went back to your profile (what a great idea this profile is!) and found out that you believe that our righteousness is both imputed and imparted. That is indeed half Roman Catholic as the word they use for "imparted" is "infused" which can be two different words but with no distinction form their meaning in RCC doctrine.

Another cheap shot against one who you don't know, and on whom you have absolutely nothing at all. It is possible to answer "both imputed and imparted" without being "Roman Catholic" or otherwise unorthodox at that. I knew what you sought so I answered "imputed". Because I surmised you referred to a righteousness that justifies a person before God. But not having this exclusively in mind it is possible to say "both imputed and imparted" without it implying heterodoxy. Mary Kae no doubt means by her answer that a justifying righteousness (Christ's) is imputed, but that a non-justifying righteousness, i.e. "the righteous new nature" commonly called, is imparted.


Harald

Harald

Thanks for your clarification. I simply (ximply with no animosity) disagree with M.K. and had no intention of throwing cheap shots at her. I do believe, though, that the new profile is very enlightening but do acknowledge that some questions for some fair minded people would require more lengthy elaboration.

I wanted to point out in my post that, different than many others who have gone before and not soon enough in this Forum, M.K. profile is consitent with her writing. I thought that was good!

Milt

[Robert R. Higby]

Lion:

They did not need a bound book of 66 because they were closer to the living time of Christ Bob. Do not forget that everythng was not written down. Oral teachings were also predominant, if not more so than written. This is nt to be confused with the rcc thought of oral traditions. This is what the Lord spoke Himself that was passed down; ie the paradosis. So no, God saw fit not to have a compilation of all inspired writings at the infancy of the church.

What? Second, third, and fourth century believers did not need the ENTIRE written Word because they were closer to the living time of Christ? The great apostasy started early–clearly evidenced by Justin who wrote things that are as opposed to the Christian gospel as any that have been written in history!

Where is this Pauls Gospel hermeneutic claimed by his pen to judge eerything, included what is inspired? Please show me.

Gal. 1 & 2. Read it over and over and over until you get it!

Believe as you will about John, but Revelation to him was the last revelation, the last book written. And there is really nothing in there that speaks of Paul or his gospel as being the rule of faith. John was not some jeruselem pervert, my goodness, the beloved of Christ? The only one at the cross was some backslider needed to be put in line by Paul? THis is new to me. John never even mentions anything about this. Such a grandoise theory would have most certainly been penned or spoken about.

You are putting words in my mouth like usual. What I am talking about is progressive revelation, not a conversion of John from a backslidden Jerusalem pervert to the true gospel. The gospel starts with the seed, then the plant, then the ear, then the full corn in the ear. Once the full corn has come, he who wishes to go back to preaching the seed is then (only then) proclaiming a false gospel, since he does not perceive the full corn in the seed but thinks the seed means something different.

John heard Paul’s testimony at the Jerusalem meeting and gave him the right hand of fellowship. His doctrine entrance to eternal life by believing alone is the same as Paul’s doctrine of justification by faith without the deeds of the law. The law came through Moses, grace and truth came through Jesus Christ (John 1:17). It was John who took up the torch of the apostle of grace after Paul and Peter died; hence his gospel, epistle, and apocalypse which magnify the true gospel beyond measure!

this conclave of radicals has declared that 82% of Christ’s "sayings" were inventions of the early church, which Jesus actually never uttered.( Bob, you have said the same about scriptures before, you guys call them interpolations right?) Finally, this body of skeptical "scholars" intends to redefine the canonical books of the New Testament record.(Again exactly what is happening here) The first two allegations were addressed in our previous discussion. Attention is now directed to the matter of the New Testament canon. The Jesus Seminar has begun a dramatic alteration of the documents which compose the New Testament. In an incredibly arrogant assertion, Robert Funk, head of the Seminar’s Westar Institute in Sonoma, California, charges that the Christian movement "hasn’t seriously examined the question of canon since the 15th century" (Sheler, Nov. 8, p. 75). And so, ignoring 1,900 years of Christian history, and pretending that conservative scholarship does not even exist, these modernists will bequeath to society a revised New Testament.( WOW!!!!!!!!!!! Maybe it is the first name!!)

Joe, if you insist on continuing these lies and slander against the moderators of this forum--you do not belong here and you will not be able to continue posting here. I have not espoused any of these positions; I condemn them to the same extent that I condemn Satan himself! Anything that I have said about interpolation has nothing to do with the Jesus seminar, J E D P source theory, or the arguments of liberal skeptics in general. What I have said is that early attestation of the core canon (the Gospels, Acts, and Paul) is evidence that those writings do NOT contain interpolation of a significant nature that would alter their basic meaning.

MK:
In evaluating these words of Mr. Higby, please consider the inspired, infallible record of events which occurred BEFORE Matthias was chosen:

1. During His earthly ministry, Christ had promised to give Peter, individually, the "keys" to the kingdom of heaven. Based on that divine promise, Peter would personally have power to authoritatively declare who or what had been "bound" (forbidden, prohibited, declared illicit) or "loosed" ("unbound") in regards to the "kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 16:15-19).

2. Christ had promised to give His disciples, corporately, the power to authoritatively declare who or what had been "bound" or "loosed." Moreover, Christ had assured His disciples that the Father would bring about all things which they (i.e., two or more) agreed on and requested (Matt. 18:18-19).

3. After His resurrection, Christ began to fulfill these promises to His disciples. The Scriptures tell us that He imparted spiritual gifts to them, to the extent that they could even declare sins remitted or retained (John 20:22-23, cf. Acts 5:1-11).

4. After His resurrection, Christ supernaturally opened the eyes of His disciples that they might understand the Scriptures (Luke 24:45). Then He commissioned them to preach "repentance and remission of sins," to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem -- where, as commanded, they were to wait until they were "endued with power from on high" before beginning this (Luke 24:47-49).

5. Before His ascension, Christ taught His apostles personally for 40 days concerning the kingdom of God (Acts 1:3).

6. After Christ’s ascension, the Scriptures tell us the disciples continued as Jerusalem, with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren (Acts 1:14).

7. As regenerate Jews, Peter and the other disciples had the divine assurance that "The lot is cast into the lap; but the whole disposing thereof is of the LORD" (Proverbs 16:33).

These arguments are the same as those of the Papacy, which support a doctrine of apostolic succession. I’m not saying that you are defending the Papacy–but I am saying that whatever doctrine you are trying to defend, you are clearly using Papal arguments.

The apostles did not have the power to confer the gift of apostleship on others. If they did, the recipients of such a gift would then have the power to confer it to yet others–and so it goes on to infinity. There are only 12 apostles directly called by the Lamb; if we deny this--anyone can claim the gift of apostleship and infallible utterance.

The ability to proclaim forgiveness of sins to those who believe the gospel and non-forgiveness to those who reject it was certainly given to the apostles, however, these ‘keys’ are also given to all believers of all time. The gift of apostleship and the gift of the keys are not one and the same. All apostles had the keys as promised; not all who have the keys are apostles.

To Harald: You proclaim a lot of dogmatics and ask us to prove otherwise. We ask you to provide evidence of your assertions, i.e., one of them being that the epistle of James is a first century writing at all. I have provided in the "James" thread my reasons for believing that it is not.

To ALL: I’m still waiting for anyone to actually start talking about the topic of this thread. Which of the 4 canon hermeneutics do you defend and why? Until that is settled these other arguments will not mean much.

[Brandan Kraft]

I am back! I had to erase my hard drive because I got a virus. It's about time you got here Brother! You need to do like I'm planning, and that is buy an APPLE!

[M.K. Nawojski]

Milt wrote: “I am not in the least interested in discussing Matthias . . . . “

MK responds: I thought the matter was perhaps a bit off-topic myself but, since it was introduced by one of the moderators (R.R. Higby), I assumed it was alright to respond to his remarks.

Milt wrote: “ . . . I am glad that you consider the portion of the Bible quoted [from Acts 1 & 2] as one that remained even after Paul's ministry and it is still in force today.”

MK responds: Did you understand me to say that? Would you mind providing a quote to that end?

Milt wrote: “I believe that in 1 Cor. 9 Paul establishes his apostleship even by declaring that he has seen the Lord. So, assuming that Paul is also inspired, we must have to believe that there are 13 original Apostles...”

MK responds: I assume you’re referring to Paul’s statement regarding his apostleship, in I Cor. 15:1-10. And yes, the Scriptures are clear there and elsewhere that Paul was most certainly an apostle:

“ . . . I Paul am made a minister; Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body’s sake, which is the church: Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God; Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints: To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:” (Col. 1:23-27).

“For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles, If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward: How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ) Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit; That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel: Whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power. Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ; And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:” (Eph. 3:1-9).

But since Paul, by inspiration, goes to such great lengths in his epistles to emphasize the distinctiveness of his apostleship, I don’t see how one would/could conclude that -- if Paul is acknowledged to be an apostle at all -- then he must necessarily be regarded as “one of the twelve” or, even worse, the “thirteenth” (see passages above, cf. Gal. 1 & 2, et. al.).

Milt wrote: “I explain: You can't attempt to prove that Matthias remained the 12th Apostle using the text above and throw away the rest of the text as something that was only good for the days of the Apostles, to wit, the miraculous occurrences of Acts 2 because they are nor at all separated. . . .”

MK responds: I thought I made it clear that I view the events which occurred on the Jewish Feast Day of Pentecost as entirely distinct from the Body of Christ. Here’s the exact quote from my post:

“Read the inspired account of Peter’s own words on the Day of Pentecost. He said unequivocally concerning the events of that day: “This is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel” (Acts 2:14-16). Did you get that? Peter said by inspiration that what was occurring (e.g., his Jewish message and the manifestation of the Jewish sign gifts) on that Jewish feast day had been foretold by one of the Jewish prophets. Could anything be more contrary to what Paul wrote in his epistles to the Body of Christ? Eph. 3:4: “ . . . the mystery of Christ, Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit”; Eph. 3:8-9: “Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ; And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ.”

And in case anyone should have missed my point, I closed the post with the statement that “Things that are not the same are different.”


Milt wrote: “In other texts of your post, you sound very much as a Roman Catholic; then I went back to your profile (what a great idea this profile is!) and found out that you believe that our righteousness is both imputed and imparted. That is indeed half Roman Catholic as the word they use for "imparted" is "infused" which can be two different words but with no distinction form their meaning in RCC doctrine.

MK responds: Well now, your opinion that I sound very much as a Roman Catholic could be because I have very poor communications skills OR it could be because you have poor reading comprehension. Only God knows. And in any case, I can draw comfort from the fact that, regardless of your opinion, “ . . . the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. . . .” (II Tim. 2:19)

But since you bring up the subject of the new in-depth profile questionnaire, I myself tend to think the concept is a good one. However, whether intentionally or not, the version you are using is confusing and inadequate as currently worded. It needs to offer more explicit details regarding the information being sought . . . so individuals from diverse backgrounds and with various levels of understanding can make their positions clear. The multiple-choice answers need to be expanded, and they should include, at the very least, an opportunity to check “none of the above” or even a limited space for the individual to explain his position in his own words. And would it be a problem to make the text a little larger?

Milt wrote: “The new profile questionnaire gives us a lot of enlistment; I read yours and you believe that God has two wills.”

MK responds: Here’s an example of what I mean about making the questionnaire clearer. I do believe God has two wills. I believe He has a revealed will (i.e., the Scriptures) and also a hidden will (His unrevealed decree which, coincides with and reflects His “desire”). Deut. 29:29: “The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever. . . .” So, at 2:00 a.m., when I was completing the questionnaire, I checked the answer that I thought would make that position clear, and now -- in the light of day --- I learn that I am “on record” as holding the ridiculous Arminian position that God’s desire and decretive will are somehow in conflict.

By the way, how does one edit his profile . . . because now that I (think) I see what is meant by the question regarding “justification from eternity,” I’m sure my actual position is misrepresented there, as well.

Milt wrote: “Earlier in the questionnaire you say that salvation is NOT offered to all men when they hear the Gospel.”

MK responds: This is true. In the Scriptures I see the gospel declared and obedience commanded, but I don’t see the gospel “offered.” (I see the gospel “offered” only in groups where man is thought to have a free will and the ability to “accept” or “reject” Christ.)

Milt wrote: “Well, I don't want to get off the topic, I just wanted to make the point that based on the profile of people we can easily predict what they will defend here and I am glad that at least in your case, which is a gladly received exception, you are consistent with it...”

MK responds: I guess we all tend to have personal/private estimations of our ability to “predict” what another individual will say or do, but in your case (if indeed you spoke for yourself alone in your post, i.e., that you used the term “we” in the editorial sense and not as a “plural of majesty” or a collective term indicating the full 5solas moderator board or membership list) I don’t recall so much as one time when your expressed opinion of my doctrinal position and/or my anticipated expression/clarification of it has been correct.

MK

[Robert R. Higby]

I am going to re-post this link as it has become obvious that most have not read it:

http://www.sullivan-county.com/id2/james.htm

As I stated before, the material about the Dead Sea Scrolls is completely off (due to false dating) but the rest of it is very relevant. In spite of all the discussion of James the brother of Jesus in the first 200 years after Christ, there is no mention of him writing any epistle. Yet the epistle written by his brother Jude is freely acknowledged.

[harald]

To Harald: You proclaim a lot of dogmatics and ask us to prove otherwise. We ask you to provide evidence of your assertions, i.e., one of them being that the epistle of James is a first century writing at all. I have provided in the "James" thread my reasons for believing that it is not. (Higby, underlining Harald)

What I here propose may be deemed as evidence by some, but maybe not by others. Nonetheless I shall say something.
In no particular order of importance, only as they come to mind as I write.

1. Clement of Rome (30-100AD), in his epistle to the Corinthians, alludes to some passages in James. This to me seems to suggest, if the commonly available data (when he lived, wrote said epistle) on this Clement is accurate, that the epistle of James existed prior to the 2nd century. Quoting myself .. here's what I wrote in #261 of the old Canon thread:

>> according to Albert Barnes in his intro to James' epistle:

>>It is quoted as of authority by several of the Fathers; by Clement of Rome, who does not indeed mention the name of the writer, but quotes the words of the Epistle Jam_3:13; Jam_4:6, Jam_4:11; Jam_2:21, Jam_2:23; >>

In the same section Barnes also mentions James was included in the old Syriac Peshita version. Translated in the first century, or in the early second.


Harald <<<


2. James is reported to have been put to death in about 62 AD. This means he had to write it before his demise. To this you probably say you believe this may be so, his death date that is, but that it was not James of Jesus who wrote it. Therefore it behooves me to put forth some points which suggest he did write it.

- The writer calls Jesus Christ "the glory" (v. 2:1, Gr. text), a strong pointer of his being indwelt of the Spirit of God. This is in line with Paul, Peter, Judas, John, all of whom called Jesus "the glory" in writing (James of Jesus was Spirit-indwelt) {verbatim quote from own post #265 of old Canon thread}

- The author is the only NT penman which explicitly states the "permanent indwelling" of the Spirit when it comes to believing Jews, Jas. 4:5 (Gr. text) {verbatim quote fr. #265 of old Canon thread} To which I alluded earlier today in a post here in this new thread, cp. the verb katoikeô (to indwell permanently) used by James. Jas. 4:5 is also new scripture written by Spirit inspiration, it cannot be found elsewhere in the Scriptures written prior to this epistle. James' calling God "the Scripture" agrees with Paul's usage.

- these two points strongly suggests the author was a truthful and honest man, being who he claims to be, James, Jesus Christ's bondman.

- they also strongly suggest the God-breathedness of the epistle. The fact of Judas, in 66 AD or thereabout, writing "the faith once having been handed down to the holy ones" bespeaks the fact that no inspired Jewish writings (pertinent to "the faith" of Israel's 2nd generation) were written after this date, i.e. the God-breathed epistle of James was written before 66 AD.


3. In 5:14 there is a reference to Israel's charismata. This quite strongly suggests it is written in the 1st century

4. The fact that it was addressed to "the twelve tribes that (are) in the dispersion" suggests it was written in the 1st century. A purportedly Christian writer who in the 2nd century would have addressed such a group would have been a forger, a jester, a hoax. But many saints of Israel's 2nd generation were still alive and well in 62 AD when James quite likely wrote his epistle. Therefore it was perfectly natural for James to address them as "the twelve tribes that (are) in the dispersion (Gr. diaspora)". The usage of "dispersion" agrees with 1Peter's intro, he also uses DIASPORA in v. 1:1. 1st Peter was most likely written at least a year prior to James.

I believe these points brought should sufficiently prove (to the ones that are among those that can be persuaded) that James' epistle could not have been written after the 1st century. I would like to know the characters and doctrinal integrity of those persons that began this IMO silly claim that James's epistle was written in the 2nd century or after even. I may have missed the names of the such, if names of such have been given by Bob or others.

Harald

[Brandan Kraft]

I stand for the Christocentric Hermeneutic Bob. Why? This is why.

"For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified." - 1 Cor 2:2

"Search the scriptures;.... and they are they which testify of me. " - John 5:39ac

"For all the prophets and the law prophesied (prophesied of who? CHRIST) until John." - Mat 11:13 ----- We must conclude that all the writings AFTER Christ's acsension would testify of CHRIST and His work as well if we are to consider it as GOD-BREATHED.

But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you. - 1Pe.1:25

He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son. (what is that record? Oh yeah, THE GOSPEL) - 1John 5:10

Wherefore I will not be negligent to put you always in remembrance of these things, though ye know them, and be established in the present truth. (what is this "present truth?" Surely you should know by now. - 1Pe 1:12

Jn 15:26, (KJV), But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:

In John 15:16, Christ set forth a FACT. The Spirit of truth will testify of Christ. We cannot separate Christ from His work. That which does not testify of Christ and His work MUST BE REJECTED according to Christ's own words here. "he shall testify of me" WHAT? Not works. Not good deeds. Not justification before men. But HE SHALL TESTIFY OF CHRIST - (The Gospel).

The Gospel is my only guideline for judging as it's the only objective measure that I have. Those who believe the Gospel understand it because they are His sheep, and they hear His voice. God immediately gives all believers a baseline to judge all things. He does not leave His sheep without a compass. They need not depend upon scholars and the historical records kept by the roman church.

[Gideon523]

Bob what do you think of this statement of the early church,
No apocryphal Book can be found in any catalog list of canonical books composed during the first four centuries A.D.
In fact, it was not until 1546, at the Council of Trent, that the Apocrypha was officially recognized by the Roman church and required to be included in the Catholic Bible.
That leaves 66 books—all of which were recognized by the early Church as being the inspired writings of God, all of which have been collected in a sacred library we call the Bible.
Gideon.

[ray kikkert]

In searching the records of Protestant history, I have come to the firm conclusion that CALVIN HIMSELF was the author of the 66 book high-canon accepted by Protestants and other 'independent' non-Catholics.

From what I can research Calvin as other commentators researched the history of the church. That Calvin was the author of the 66 high canon books would directly contradict Calvin in his own works in the Institutes of the Christian religion , Chapter one, and also his beginning arguments with respect to the books that are questioned as James et al.

www.ccel.org (http://www.ccel.org) has many resource materials with respect to this.



I do not believe that anyone can dispute this fact. From the French Confession of Faith in A.D. 1559 (which was later plagiarized in the Irish Articles of 1615 and the Westminster Confession of 1646):

We know these {66} books to be canonical, and the sure rule of our faith, not so much by the common accord and consent of the Church, as by the testimony and inward illumination of the Holy Spirit, which enables us to distinguish them from other ecclesiastical books upon which, however useful, we can not found any articles of faith. We believe that the Word contained in these books has proceeded form God, and receives its authority from him alone, and not from men. And insamuch as it is the rule of all truth, containing all that is necessary for the service of God and for our salvation, it is not lawful for men, nor even for angels, to add to it, to take away from it, or to change it. Whence it follows that no authority, whether of antiquity, or custom, or numbers, or human wisdom, or judgments, or proclamations, or edicts, or decrees, or councils, or visions, or miracles, should be opposed to these Holy Scriptures, but, on the contrary, all things should be examined, regulated, and reformed according to them. And therefore we confess the three creeds, to wit: the Apostles', the Nicene, and the Athanasian, because they are in accordance with the Word of God.

The Belgic Confession does indeed speak to this as does the Heidelberg Catechism. It would not be limited to the 2 confessions you stated.



So to Calvin; every word enshrined in the books of Esther, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, and James are as sacred and certain as the person and work of Jesus Christ himself.

They do speak to Christ, in that Christ is not only mentioned , but the line of promise.... the promise of Christ was not cut off, but maintained by the Lord in His determinate decree and testified in Esther, by Solomon as part of that line of promise, and in James where the name of Christ is mentioned amongst the doctrines put forth. This does have Gospel running through it. From the same author of Proverbs 8 to the authors in Esther and James. Calvin carefully distances himself from determining the authority of the Scripture by what the church has to say(knowing and fighting the dangers within the RC church), which rightfully has also been rejected here as well and rather that it is the inspired by the Lord, testified by the Holy Spirit and speaks to and bares witness to Jesus Christ , the Saviour, the Word as told us in John chapter 1.



The 3 creeds are exalted to the same level in all practical purpose. The basis: the HOLY SPIRIT told me so! And all of Protestantism follows him.

The creeds as expressed in the Belgic Confession are creeds and not canonical, yet do testify to the truth of Scripture. I would not say all Protestantism follow Calvin, some despise Calvin .......... men like Ponter can twist Calvins words.... we are witness to this. Yet , since when should the argument be about a man. You as I testify to Christ, throughout history, and that which militates against Christ we reject.



I fully believe that what he formulated here was in vengeance against Luther's demand for an OBJECTIVE standard of canonicity. To defeat Luther, Calvin proposes a 100% SUBJECTIVE standard: the self-authentication of the Holy Spirit as experienced by HIM {Calvin}!

This is the first time I have heard this line of argumentation to disprove the canonicity of Scripture. I have heard the argument of sorts that Lutheranism rejected that which was Calvinism, but that this extended to the authority of Scripture I have not. Vengeance would be to me far fetched here without some example to the contrary.



As all of Protestantism follows Augustine and Plotinus on the origin of evil, so all of Protestantism (including all the free-will sects denying Catholicism who claim not to be Protestant) follows Calvin on the high-canon.

I'm sorry, I can't drop this topic because it is so crucial to an examination of what our real basis is for determining and discovering truth! :cool:

Discovering truth is admirable, and I understand that you would want to wrestle with this since the answers are at best unsatisfactory of present. But I would not as you would not want ... to be white washed with all freewill sects being protestant based myself. I mean....... at one time our forefathers were barbarians or of the RC church!! So wrestle we will continue to do to find a real basis and foundation.

I admit Bob I am not well versed on all this , but will endeavor to read more of it, since I believe as you to be ready always to give an answer to those of the hope that lies within us..... Jesus Christ and His honor and glory alone forever in every facet of life and doctrine.

To be continued in due course.....

[melted]

This is an honest question -- If Paul's gospel judges everything, then how can it judge a parchment I found in my backyard flower bed to be uninspired if it has such wording as agrees fully with the gospel as presented by Paul? In fact, how can it judge uninspired even my own words if they agree with Paul's revealed gospel?

Would you contend that it was not apostolic? Historic hermeneutic!
Would you use carbon dating? Inductive reasoning!


BTW, I am not defending any specific hermeneutic as I have not yet chosen one (or rather, I've not yet been convicted of one). I am simply probing what has been put forth.

[GraceAmbassador]

MK responds: I assume you’re referring to Paul’s statement regarding his apostleship, in I Cor. 15:1-10. And yes, the Scriptures are clear there and elsewhere that Paul was most certainly an apostle:

“ . . . I Paul am made a minister; Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body’s sake, which is the church: Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God; Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints: To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:” (Col. 1:23-27).


No M.K.! I was refering to this: (and I will respond only to a few points)

1 Cor 9:1-27, (KJV)
1 Am I am not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord?2 If I be not an apostle unto others, yet doubtless I am to you: for the seal of mine apostleship are ye in the Lord.

Of course we are not discussing whether Paul was an apostle or not. My mentioning of Paul as the 13th Apostle is because you insist that Matthias was the 12th and placed your evidence to support your point.

We don't have a disagreement here in my view. I admitted that I was off topic by rhetorically saying "I don't want to get off topic".

Anyway, in my response to Harald's defense of you I admitted that for some fair minded people the questions on the profile should require elaboration rather than a yes or not answer.

I maintain that your arguments are similar to that of a Roman Catholic; however it is up to you to judge whether this is bad or not. If you mention the Trinity, for example, and I say that your argument in favor of the Trinity is a Roman Catholic argument the question would arise such "is anything inherently wrong only because they are taught by the Roman Catholics? If one mentions the Trinity, should we say that the doctrine of the Trinity is bad only because it was developed by what was called the "Roman Catholic Church?"... So, I don't understand all the fuss about the fact that some of us here see in your words arguments that are similar to the arguments made by the Roman Catholic Church since it may not be necessarily a negative comment. What I think is negative is to use the arguments of the Roman Catholic Church as the papacy would use and Bob wisely mentions why is negative. I don't think you would do that because of the things you say you believe in your profile. My mentioning of it was purely to keep things in perspective.


Milt wrote: “I explain: You can't attempt to prove that Matthias remained the 12th Apostle using the text above and throw away the rest of the text as something that was only good for the days of the Apostles, to wit, the miraculous occurrences of Acts 2 because they are nor at all separated. . . .”

MK responds: I thought I made it clear that I view the events which occurred on the Jewish Feast Day of Pentecost as entirely distinct from the Body of Christ. Here’s the exact quote from my post:

“Read the inspired account of Peter’s own words on the Day of Pentecost. He said unequivocally concerning the events of that day: “This is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel” (Acts 2:14-16). Did you get that? Peter said by inspiration that what was occurring (e.g., his Jewish message and the manifestation of the Jewish sign gifts) on that Jewish feast day had been foretold by one of the Jewish prophets. Could anything be more contrary to what Paul wrote in his epistles to the Body of Christ? Eph. 3:4: “ . . . the mystery of Christ, Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit”; Eph. 3:8-9: “Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ; And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ.”

And in case anyone should have missed my point, I closed the post with the statement that “Things that are not the same are different.”

OK! I admit that I did not understand your point, but what this has to do with Matthias apostleship? Perhaps I really did not understand you. Let's not try again, I will take whatever you say about it and move on.

Harald said either on his own or because you communicate with him outside this forum that my points were cheap shots... Unfortunately, perhaps, I have no more "expensive shots" to shoot, but I will try to "up the price" of my shots next time. However believe me, my comments were not intended to be "cheap shots" although if I had "shot" anything it would have been something really "cheap". My disagreement with your points is not loaded with animosity, that's what I mean with this foolishness.


MK responds: I guess we all tend to have personal/private estimations of our ability to “predict” what another individual will say or do, but in your case (if indeed you spoke for yourself alone in your post, i.e., that you used the term “we” in the editorial sense and not as a “plural of majesty” or a collective term indicating the full 5solas moderator board or membership list) I don’t recall so much as one time when your expressed opinion of my doctrinal position and/or my anticipated expression/clarification of it has been correct.

Heh! Heh! Welcome to our world of the "sarcastic". It is ok as long as it is kept in check... since the suffix word "sarc" comes from the Greek for "flesh" sometimes in the in the most negative use of the word "flesh", and "asm" is always the root word for a sudden movement or a twitch of the body; that makes "sarcasm" to be a spasm of the flesh.

Happy New year! I used to say to my buddies in Brazil and confuse the daylights out of them in this time of the year: I wish that your best days of 2005 will be the worst days of 2006. I am sure you will understand quickly!

Milt

[GraceAmbassador]

This thread isn't about what is in or what is not in Scripture. This is about how we came to determine our canon. Bob summed it up quite neatly.

There are four methods here:

1. Christocentric
This is the method that Luther proposed. He was a bit inconsistent with his method. We are simply taking his method and running with it.

2. Self-authentication of the Holy Spirit
This was John Calvin's method which was outlined at the beginning of this thread.

3. Dispensational Method
This is Harald's method. He has been very consistent in defending this. He believes James was written to the Jews and we have to understand it as a Jewish person. He is being consistent in that he thinks James is consistent with the "jewish" gospel.

4. Unanimous Consent / Historical Consent
This is pretty much everybody else's method (Such as Joe's and Jmpgipson's above). They are basing the canon on the consent of others. Harald is also appealing to this method as well for reinforcement surprisingly.

Let's discuss the merits of each method. That is what we've been trying to do. In the meantime, let's drop talk about whether or not James is in the canon or not. Let's talk about the method we use for determining the canon. This is something that really has not been done before online as far as I can tell. It's a unique discussion to 5solas.org, and I think it's time to go forward with it.

Brandan

1. Christocentric
This is the method that Luther proposed. He was a bit inconsistent with his method. We are simply taking his method and running with it.

I believe this method to be safe. It is perhaps (this is an OPINION) the method God used to determine how anything would be sacred: how it speaks of Christ. However we cannot make a reverse argument, such as: Anything that is Christocentric and written in an Christocentric way should be incorporated into the canon. I believe that those who believe that the "revelation" has not ended yet, without so many words, make anything that is "Christocentric" in their opinion to be an "inspired revelation in and of itself". It is not uncommon in charismatic circles for a preacher to preach one, and only ONE, topic all his lifetime and say that such was his "inspired revelation of Jesus Christ". It is usually based on a maximum of 16 verses of the Bible and mostly taken out of context. They call it Christocentric but it is man-centric. Although it is inspired in 16 verses of the Bible (for example) it is not "inspired" and it will not be what Christians of centuries to come will consider canonical.

2. Self-authentication of the Holy Spirit
This was John Calvin's method which was outlined at the beginning of this thread.
A good method if one REALLY is able to identify above and beyond shadow of doubt that the Holy Spirit authenticated the text. I believe that if men decided that the Holy Spirit self authenticated those books, it means that "men authenticated that the Holy Spirit self authenticated those books". It makes the whole thing to be open for discussion and perhaps that is the reason we have this thread. As much regard as I have for Calvin, I cannot ascribe to him such a veneration as to consider him a man who can call authentic something that he says that the Holy Spirit authenticated. It is similar to scientists who say: This fossil is 2 billion years old because it was found in a rock that is 2 billion years old; we know that the rock is 2 billion years old because in it a fossil that is 2 billion years old was found. Noticed? I can cause the mother of all circular reasonings...

3. Dispensational Method
This is Harald's method. He has been very consistent in defending this. He believes James was written to the Jews and we have to understand it as a Jewish person. He is being consistent in that he thinks James is consistent with the "jewish" gospel.

James was Jewish and his book is one of the most Jewish in the N.T. This may justify his concern with the poor, the sick and with social equality, but it cannot justify him teaching a justification outside of what Paul teaches. The Dispensational method, in my view, is the water that we throw away with the baby in. There are certain things that the Bible is clear that God acted upon a time planned basis, and once whatever it was that He wanted was accomplished, He never repeated the same thing. Note the way he dealt with Job, the way He prescribed the sacrifices in the O.T. Those things had a purpose for a time but God never intended to repeat. The funny thing about the dispensational method is that they believe that God will never repeat some things that He did in time because the dispensation of those things is past. However some dispensationalists believe that sometime in the future the sacrifices will be restored and a group of people will have a chance to "get saved" after the rapture... So God will return to a dispensation He used in the past. I prefer to use this method ONLY when it is so clear that the text being interpreted will be better served and exegeted by that method that it is impossible and nonsensical to try to interpret it any other way. To me it does not help us at all in determining James as a canonical book.

4. Unanimous Consent / Historical Consent
Margareth Tatcher said once to George Bush 41st: "The pursuit of consensus indicates lack of leadership." I agree. Unanimous consent mean as much as saying that because something is popular it is Godly. The Roman Catholics in Brazil say: Vox Populi, Vox Dei, or the voice of the people is the voice of God. NO! Popularity and consensus cannot ascribe sacredness to anything. If anyone consent to something it does not mean that that something is right. It is a fallacy that has endured for ages!

The historical consent is also a fallacy. D.A. Carson deals with this in his book "Exegetical Fallacies". No one was in the minds of the people who spoke what they spoke to verify if historically they were thinking what our world view today thinks that they were thinking. If historical consent is a good method, then we have to bow down to the papacy in that they elevate tradition, oral or otherwise, to the level of the Bible. Perhaps I will write further about this point, but if our hermeneutics is based solely upon history, even with the documented testimony of those who were contemporary to the writers we will have some problems understanding certain passages and accept error only because they have been for long ACCEPTED errors. It will be like a man who is so used to parking his car in his garage by maneuvering around a gigantic tree right in the middle of his garage door and when someone suggests to him why he does not have the tree removed so he can be free to enter his garage, he replies: "What tree?" People get so used and complacent with error that they lose the ability of detecting, identifying and correcting errors in a way that they become adapted to the difficulties presented by that error and find solace and comfort in the error.

Well, I hope I gave my share... Note that I prefer to respond to things my way with very little name dropping and reference to other's opinion. I hope no one attempts to answer to these questions referring to their past gurus, simply because we already know what some of those gurus think. The question here in King James version is "What saith thou" about these questions.

Milt

[GraceAmbassador]

The historical consent is also a fallacy.

I want to correct my statement above to this:

The historical consent may also be used as a fallacy.

Milt

[harald]

Brandan,

You brought in and of themselves excellent scriptures. BUT, 1Cor. 2:2 in context does not talk about nor command judging/determining/discerning (Divinely inspired or not) writings by Paul's gospel. Nor does John 5:39. Nor Matt. 11:13. Nor 1Peter 1:25. Nor 1John 5:10. Nor 1Pet. 1:12 (which btw should be 2Peter 1:12). Neither John 15:16.
So, the basic problem is:

1. None of those verses when studied in context touch upon judging or evaluating writings as respects their God-breathedness or not.

2. Nor do any of them command to do such a thing.

3. Neither do any propose that the good message of the uncircumcision is or is to be the standard when it comes to such evaluation of writings.


I propose that if God had ordained Paul's total and complete good message (as it looks like in its finished form when 2Timothy had been written) to be the standard of such evaluation or judging then no non-Pauline writing of the present canon would make it. All would be reprobated without mercy, even Philemon, Paul's own epistle at that. And maybe also other individual Pauline epistles.

You can try explain away my saying. But it is as I say. Paul's gospel taken as the standard of judging canonicalness reprobates all non-Pauline writings and even some Pauline writings. This is the truth, this is a fact that cannot be refuted. Therefore this "Gospel-centric" method of determining "the Scriptures" is invalid, arbitrary, impossible, man-made etc. . It is not found in the NT writings. Its absence therein is outright conspicuous.

If you then say you do not mean Paul's gospel in its entirety then I ask Why not ? If you say you mean only Paul's gospel in a limited measure then I say it behooves you to set the boundaries for others to see that we may know by what kind of limited Pauline gospel you would go about judging the God-breathedness/canonicalness of writings.
So, you see there are problems with proposing a mere general, murky, unspecific, ambiguous, "Gospel-centric" hermeneutic (which seems, from a first glance, to be a context-ignoring hermeneutic) method of determining canonicalness/God-breathedness. It is only natural for others like me to want to see the particulars of it so we can further evaluate the pro's and con's of it.

Harald

[lionovjudah]

One issue that is missing in this discussion is Inspiration of the texts. Can we seperate inspiration from discussing canonicity? I do not believe we can. One thing I have leanred is the men are not inspired, but the text is. So everything Paul says was not inspired, every thing David spoke was not inspired. Only the words tat are included in the "books" are.

I am also getting confused with the "rules" set up by using the term hermeneutic to determine canonicity. Can that "science" be used as such? I always thought there were criteria and not a hermeneutic in the historical decisions. Is not hermeneutic about interpretation? That is why I listed the 7 criteria used in the early discussions of this topic.

[Eileen]

I’m not able at this time to verbalize my own thoughts and beginning convictions on this matter. It is new territory for me and one that I don’t believe will come quickly without much reading and time to digest all the information presented here. Quite frankly, I always assumed #4 without thought on my part.

However, I do have a question.

If asked today, and bound to give an answer to only one, I would have to choose between the first two and that is what my questions entails.


Why is Christocentric and self-authentication of the Holy Spirit totally separated? We know that the Spirit testifies of Christ to us personally and will guide us into all truth, so do they not overlap at all as a hermeneutic or method to consider canon? Or is that only for our own personal interpretation? Christocentric is the most definitive, without taking into consideration man’s doings, opinions and personal leanings, therefore as Milt said….’safe’.Thanks,
Eileen~

[GraceAmbassador]

I’m not able at this time to verbalize my own thoughts and beginning convictions on this matter. It is new territory for me and one that I don’t believe will come quickly without much reading and time to digest all the information presented here. Quite frankly, I always assumed #4 without thought on my part.

However, I do have a question.

If asked today, and bound to give an answer to only one, I would have to choose between the first two and that is what my questions entails.

Why is Christocentric and self-authentication of the Holy Spirit totally separated? We know that the Spirit testifies of Christ to us personally and will guide us into all truth, so do they not overlap at all as a hermeneutic or method to consider canon? Or is that only for our own personal interpretation? Christocentric is the most definitive, without taking into consideration man’s doings, opinions and personal leanings, therefore as Milt said….’safe’.Thanks,
Eileen~

Hi Eileen!

As usual GREAT QUESTION!

This is what I understood to be the difference:

The "Holy Spirit authentication" is correct but what we discuss in my humble view, is "men's determination and authentication of the Holy Spirit authentication being promoted solely as Holy Spirit authentication". That's why I mentioned the mother of all circular reasonings that most scientists use today...

The Holy Spirit authentication, if it can be verified objectively has to do, as you hinted, by how much they point to the promises of the Messiah, His work, passion, suffering, death and resurrection and the establishment of the "people of God", whose heart of stone God would remove and place a heart submissive to Him, and the list of things we know were fulfilled in and by Christ. I would add to this list of Christocentric teachings (again MY OPINION) books and texts where words such as "wisdom", "preacher" "ruler" and acts of supreme and sovereign government can be symbols of Christ, or be subistututed without harm to the context with the name of Christ without any need to stretch their meaning. These "words" and "actions" can be Christocentric in the sense that they exemplify what Christ would be and do.

I hope this helps! Again, I admit that I may have misunderstood the methods but I just placed my OPINION on the face value of the "title" of the methods.

Milt

[Robert R. Higby]

Gideon:
Bob what do you think of this statement of the early church,
No apocryphal Book can be found in any catalog list of canonical books composed during the first four centuries A.D. In fact, it was not until 1546, at the Council of Trent, that the Apocrypha was officially recognized by the Roman church and required to be included in the Catholic Bible. That leaves 66 books—all of which were recognized by the early Church as being the inspired writings of God, all of which have been collected in a sacred library we call the Bible.

It is an entirely false statement. Re-read the following links:

http://www.ntcanon.org/table.shtml (http://www.ntcanon.org/table.shtml)
http://www.bible-researcher.com/carthage.html (http://www.bible-researcher.com/carthage.html)

Answer to Harald’s observation on James:
The snippets from Clement prove nothing. Irenaeus also contains such snippets (different verses than Clement) yet does not recognize James the brother of Jesus as the author. This is especially significant since Irenaeus almost always cites biblical sources when he quotes them. Clement may have been quoting no one; we do not know whether the expressions were original with him and later incorporated into the Epistle of James. It is also possible that they are from verses in a collection of circulated writings. A fragment similar to James 1:23-24 was been found at Qumran; it is probably a saying of Jesus Christ.

It is possible that James was written in the first century, I’m not saying it is impossible. If it was, the theological objections remain–if even an angel from heaven wrote James 2:14-16 it is to be rejected from the canon. But the weight of evidence is against first century authorship for the reasons I have given and that is where I stand.

In my estimation, to be consistent--the dispensational hermeneutic would accept a number of other books in addition to the 66 as there is nothing in those books out of harmony with such a hermeneutic.

Answer to Ray
Belgic and Heidelberg are a few years after the French confession of Calvin so these do not constitute earlier lists. What I am looking for is pre-Calvin occurrences of the ACTUAL LIST OF 66 WITH NO ALTERATIONS–-the list that is proposed by Reformed scholars to have existed from the first century on as the only possible canon authenticated by the Holy Spirit. So far no one has provided me with one. I think that one might exist but it would be post-Luther, not from the early centuries.

Melted:
This is an honest question -- If Paul's gospel judges everything, then how can it judge a parchment I found in my backyard flower bed to be uninspired if it has such wording as agrees fully with the gospel as presented by Paul? In fact, how can it judge uninspired even my own words if they agree with Paul's revealed gospel? Would you contend that it was not apostolic? Historic hermeneutic! Would you use carbon dating? Inductive reasoning!

Inspiration and canonicity are not the same issue. I have stated that I believe the collection termed the Epistle of James contains inspired scripture. To belong in the high canon, however, the entire book must be esteemed as such.

We need no additions to the New Testament canon; the apostolic testimony that we have in the core canon is complete. Other writings that teach apostolic truth can be affirmed to be a gift from the Holy Spirit and used freely for edification of the saints; it is not our worry or responsibility to classify them as high-canon scripture or not.

Brandan and Milt, I agree with you completely (on the Christocentric canon) of course! You are both a blessing.

On Holy Spirit authenticaion, it is relevant to any position. The point is that the Holy Spirit testifies of Christ and his gospel. What Calvin states the Holy Spirit was speaking to his heart when he picked the books that had the 'authority of the church' behind them--that is different than what I hear the Holy Spirit saying in the Christocentric hermeneutic. This is why there has to be an objective standard of true gospel doctrine in addition to claims of Holy Spirit authentication. :cool:

[Robert R. Higby]

Many scholars do not believe that Clement's letter to the Corinthians is a 1st century work; I'll leave it to all to browse the web on this one.

The early date for the Syriac Peshitta is highly disputed.

http://www.bibletexts.com/qa/qa023.htm

[harald]

In my estimation, to be consistent--the dispensational hermeneutic would accept a number of other books in addition to the 66 as there is nothing in those books out of harmony with such a hermeneutic. (Bob Higby)

Could you name one or more of the such "other books" you mention. I would be interested to look at them in light of what you say here.


Harald

[lionovjudah]

Belgic and Heidelberg are a few years after the French confession of Calvin so these do not constitute earlier lists. What I am looking for is pre-Calvin occurrences of the ACTUAL LIST OF 66 WITH NO ALTERATIONS–-the list that is proposed by Reformed scholars to have existed from the first century on as the only possible canon authenticated by the Holy Spirit. So far no one has provided me with one. I think that one might exist but it would be post-Luther, not from the early centuries.



Obviously one does not exist. And I have yet to see anyone, reformed or otherwise say there is a list of 66 from the first century without exception. But this obviously is not needed to "prove" what books are canonical. Again look at the time it took for the OT to be closed. Was it like 1500 or 2000 years? WHat if rabbinicals wanted to stop at the Psalms? AS long as men of God were inspired to speak with God's inspired authority, there was no need to formulate a book of 66 or any other number. WHen Hebrews, James, 2,3 John, Jude, Revelations were questioned, it was done for reasons of style and authorship. This deliberate "inquisition" on these books, the delay proves to me a lot of time was put into this study and scritiny to finally include them.

[GraceAmbassador]

I edited the post above from LOJ to correct a broken code.

Milt

[Eileen]

The "Holy Spirit authentication" is correct but what we discuss in my humble view, is "men's determination and authentication of the Holy Spirit authentication being promoted solely as Holy Spirit authentication". That's why I mentioned the mother of all circular reasonings that most scientists use today...

I believe that if men decided that the Holy Spirit self authenticated those books, it means that "men authenticated that the Holy Spirit self authenticated those books".


Thanks Milt, I get it now, I am truly slow when it comes to new thoughts. Guess I must not be very good at circular reasoning either.......:)

Eileen~

[wildboar]

The Holy Spirit authentication, if it can be verified objectively has to do, as you hinted, by how much they point to the promises of the Messiah, His work, passion, suffering, death and resurrection and the establishment of the "people of God", whose heart of stone God would remove and place a heart submissive to Him, and the list of things we know were fulfilled in and by Christ. I would add to this list of Christocentric teachings (again MY OPINION) books and texts where words such as "wisdom", "preacher" "ruler" and acts of supreme and sovereign government can be symbols of Christ, or be subistututed without harm to the context with the name of Christ without any need to stretch their meaning. These "words" and "actions" can be Christocentric in the sense that they exemplify what Christ would be and do.


This method is just as circular as any other method proposed and just as subjective.

[wildboar]

Jerome did not regard the apocyrpha as inspired but did regard the rest of the 66 books as so.

[wildboar]

Also, the 1120 Waldensian Confession lists the 66 book Protestant Canon.

[Brandan Kraft]

I cannot find a copy of the 1120 Waldensian confession online that lists the books. All I can see is that someone inserted that it exactly mirrors today's protestant canon. Do you have a copy of this confession Charles which lists the books?

http://www.pb.org/articles/walden.html


3. We acknowledge for sacred canonical scriptures the books of the Holy Bible. (Here follows the title of each, exactly conformable to our received canon, but which it is deemed, on that account, quite unnecessary to particularize.)

[GraceAmbassador]

This method is just as circular as any other method proposed and just as subjective.

Thanks! This is exactly what my point was. Read the previous post which originated Eileen's question.

The Christocentric method at least guarantees a line of interpretation, to wit, Christ as the center.

Milt

[GraceAmbassador]

Brandan:

This is taken from this link:

http://www.carm.org/creeds/waldensian.htm

III. That we ought to receive this Holy Scripture (as we do) for divine and canonical, that is to say, for the constant rule of our faith and life: as also that the same is fully contained in the Old and New Testament; and that by the Old Testament we must understand only such books as God did entrust the Jewish Church with, and which that Church has always approved and acknowledged to be from God: namely, the five books of Moses, Joshua, the Judges, Ruth, I and II Samuel, I and II of the Kings, I and II of the Chronicles, one of Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Job, the Psalms, the Proverbs of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, the four great and twelve minor Prophets: and the New Testament containing the four gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, the Epistles of St. Paul - 1 to the Romans, 2 to the Corinthians, 1 to the Galatians, 1 to the Ephesians, 1 to the Philippians, 1 to the Colossians {2 to the Thessalonians, 2 to Timothy, 1 to Titus, 1 to Philemon}, and the Epistle to the Hebrews; 1 of St. James, 2 of St. Peter, 3 of St. John, 1 of St. Jude, and the Revelation.


I will request my friend Dan Bonavich a copy of the Waldensian confession still in Old English. He sent me one when I belonged to his list but I lost. If I can get it, I will publish in my Web Site and send you the link if you wish.

Milt

[Robert R. Higby]

Charles:This method is just as circular as any other method proposed and just as subjective.

Well, every theological 'method' might be proposed to be subjective simply because man's interpretation is involved. But if there is no objective standard of truth by which we may judge errant claims to canonicity, everything is 'in'.

[Robert R. Higby]

the four great and twelve minor Prophets:
This 'four great prophets' is not an explicit confession of Lamentations. It might just be following Athanasius who also put Baruch in the canon.

[Robert R. Higby]

It has become clear to me that the 'majority rules' hermeneutic is the predominant one amongst those who deny the Christocentric hermeneutic. Keep in mind that when it comes to those who profess Christianity itself, the majority have never been right. If we combine Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, that body in and of itself constitutes a seemingly impregnable majority. Plus a large portion of those who claim to be Protestants have gone off into skepticism and a denial of the authority of scripture (even a 60 or 62 book canon scripture!). The conservatives have used this 'majority rules' argument to defend many positions:

1. AT LEAST ONE OR SEVERAL of the existing denominations are confessionally right on almost all counts and we must therefore choose to submit to one!
2. Free-will is true and predestination is false (since 95+ percent of those who claim to be Protestant today believe in free-will).
3. We must submit to either paedobaptist or submersionist doctrine on water baptism, since it is unthinkable that God would not lead some large group of people into the truth (whichever one it is).
4. Conservatives must unite politically to establish a state honoring God's historic principle of the correct hierarchy of authority in the world. NOTE: This leads to the horrific notion of American politicians honoring certain denominations ONLY in the damnable 'faith-based initiative' program--which amounts to state-sanctioned religion imposing truth upon the conscience).
5. Many doctrines that have been agreed to by the majority are binding on the conscience (i.e., the Platonic view of the origin of evil, etc.)

That is all that I have to say about this for now.

[GraceAmbassador]

Brandan:

This is taken from this link:

http://www.carm.org/creeds/waldensian.htm

III. That we ought to receive this Holy Scripture (as we do) for divine and canonical, that is to say, for the constant rule of our faith and life: as also that the same is fully contained in the Old and New Testament; and that by the Old Testament we must understand only such books as God did entrust the Jewish Church with, and which that Church has always approved and acknowledged to be from God: namely, the five books of Moses, Joshua, the Judges, Ruth, I and II Samuel, I and II of the Kings, I and II of the Chronicles, one of Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Job, the Psalms, the Proverbs of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, the four great and twelve minor Prophets: and the New Testament containing the four gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, the Epistles of St. Paul - 1 to the Romans, 2 to the Corinthians, 1 to the Galatians, 1 to the Ephesians, 1 to the Philippians, 1 to the Colossians {2 to the Thessalonians, 2 to Timothy, 1 to Titus, 1 to Philemon}, and the Epistle to the Hebrews; 1 of St. James, 2 of St. Peter, 3 of St. John, 1 of St. Jude, and the Revelation.


I will request my friend Dan Bonavich a copy of the Waldensian confession still in Old English. He sent me one when I belonged to his list but I lost. If I can get it, I will publish in my Web Site and send you the link if you wish.

Milt

Here is what Dan sent me (apparently he no longer has the one with Old English)

http://embassyofgrace.net/Waldensian.htm

I hope it helps but I doubt:D !

Milt

[Brandan Kraft]

Milt, the waldensian confession you have quoted isn't from 1120. Charles says that the 66 book canon predates Calvin and he uses the 1120 version as proof. Yet I can't find a copy that lists the books.

It certainly doesn't matter to me though as I have a christocentric hermeneutic as opposed to one that is based on the majority acceptance.

I agree with Bob. The majority position is the "majority rules" canon. It's becoming increasingly clear to me that this is nothing more than tyranny over the conscience.

Brandan

[GraceAmbassador]

Brandan:

I requested a copy of the 1120 Waldensian Confession; Dan sent me this but I wrote him again and let's see if I can get it. It is in old English and I remember perfectly that I had in my computer, but I don't...

Milt

[GraceAmbassador]

Here is another "ridiculous" edition or the 1120 Waldensian Confession:

Find it here:

http://www.apuritansmind.com/Creeds/WaldensianConfession1120.htm

They will not list the books. They only refer to the books that are the same as we "received".

OH mine!

Milt

[Robert R. Higby]

Yes indeed, what has been presented so far does not meet the test of an actual and detailed list before Calvin's French Confession. As I said before, I'm not denying that such a list could exist--anyone who has found it please post the ACTUAL CONTENT and not a link that we have to muddle through!

[samohtwerdna]

Dear Bob and Brandan,

Your work on the Canon question is developing - but I fear it is developing in the wrong way. It is admirable to question the majority position (it takes guts) and quite consistent with the vein of Reformed thinking in History. After all when the Catholic Church asked Calvin "Which Text is Canon" - they certainly where of the majority position then. It is unfortunate that there is no copy of "Disputations on Holy Scripture" by William Whitacker on the internet so that it could be amply quoted from. Then you might see that your arguments and way of thinking are very similar to the RCC - You might also understand better that the Redemptive Historical and the Self Attesting Hermeneutics are not at all majority rules. The fact that many resort to using that line of argumentation with you is in no way a proof that you are right and they are wrong. Even if the textus-receptus is the majority position - that in itself neither vindicates nor disqualifies the truth of its canonicity. You seem to be more concerned with defying the majority than you do with the truths of scripture. be careful lest your good be evil spoken of.

Some problems with your view:

No new arguments - All of the argument you have brought forth have been dealt with historically by men of renown. Whenever their names are mentioned you have some pat answer for not trusting them - Even Gill whose name you bare.
Gospel inconsistency - You claim a gospel hermeneutic but in your "Good News" we do not have a sure word of prophecy! The mass of God's people are confused and believe lies more than truth - which Christ said "my sheep hear my voice" (great verse for the self attesting folks) so either Christ sheep are a tiny minority since the death of Christ, or Christ was mistaken? This confusion plays great havoc on ones eschatology (future hope) which will inevitably effect ones soteriology.
Historic inconsistency - You use history wily-nilly. If James has no early attestation then it's out you say, then you say the great apostasy was early (even after clear evidence that Polycarp and others where firm in the Gospel of Grace) nullifying the need for that precious early attestation. You criticize the 66 book list because of your perception that it has not had historic favor, but your view has never had historic favor. Your mistrust in Christ's work through the church (those identified as Christians) over the centuries also - gives the impression of a dismal theology for the believer with nothing to trust and little to glory in. The traditional view is that of growth in Christ. The Church as the bride is more and more being conformed to the image of Her husband (corporately). That the Old Testament was less clear and less desirable than the New - but you would say that when God used to speak through the Prophets that was more reliable than how He now speaks to us through His Son? Making revelation not only less frequent (assuming that you hold to a closed canon - though I admit that you might not) but also less potent.
Calvinistic inconsistency - The first point of Calvinism stands strong against your claim to discern canonicity. The construct of everyman for himself - what ever is canon in your eyes (even if the best criteria is enforced) denies your total depravity. The RH and SA hermeneutics' both have scripture determined and attested to by God not man. Your view has man test what is of God - if it passes the test then it's in, which makes the one testing the authority and not the one revealing, but also places the peccable above the impeccable. Unless of course you deny the "T" in the "Tulip". One could also see damage done to the last point of Calvinism as well - since "man may persevere - but scripture cannot". The Scripture clearly states that His Word will endure forever, but you have argued that part of God's Word have been lost? The good thing about your position is that it is a challenge to all believers to examine their faith and reaffirm their convictions. I pray that the more vehemently you hold to these questions and suppositions now - the more firm and resolute your conviction will be when you see the error of them. Lord willing.

Andrew T. Adcock

[rlhuckle]

The Church as the bride is more and more being conformed to the image of Her husband (corporately). That the Old Testament was less clear and less desirable than the New - but you would say that when God used to speak through the Prophets that was more reliable than how He now speaks to us through His Son?

As I view those who profess Christianity, more and more separation is beginning to manifest itself between those who adhere to the high grace doctrines than those who adhere to semi-pelagian error. Is not this evidence that the church (invisible) IS being more and more 'corporately' conformed to the image of Christ?

I have finally waded through both of these threads on the canon and I must thank all who have diligently debated this issue. The discussion has been very enlightening.

As one who previously accepted the canon in the spirit of:

Phi 2:3 Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves.
1Th 5:13 And to esteem them very highly in love for their work's sake. And be at peace among yourselves.

until I read these threads and happened to run accross these verses:

1Co 4:5-7 Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts: and then shall every man have praise of God.
And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another.
For who maketh thee to differ from another? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive? now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it?

Consequently, I have come to form the opinion that God has preserved His word in the canon, but that the entire canon may contain more than just God's inspired words. What better way for the enemy to infect the church than to include documents that may contain kernals of truth merely to lend false credibility to the whole? Did not Christ say that tares would mingle with the wheat (the councils could not have been totally free from tares)?

I am not saying I am convinced this is so, I am merely admitting to the possibility that God may have ordained these kinds of things in order to accomplish the fulfillment of Scripture (i.e.--the deception of the elect were it possible). If one looks at the fruit (which takes much time to ripen in some cases), one must question what the book of James has contributed to in regards to doctrinal error (or purity as opinions vary).

I saved some quotes as I was reviewing this thread and I will probably have more to say regarding some of them later. Once again, I thank all of you who have dialogued on this issue. All have raised points that require examination, prayer, and the seeking of the Holy Spirit's guidance. My hat is off to your scholarship.

[Brandan Kraft]

Thank you Roger for looking at this issue objectively and thinking "outside the box."


As I view those who profess Christianity, more and more separation is beginning to manifest itself between those who adhere to the high grace doctrines than those who adhere to semi-pelagian error.yes, I see the same thing as well. The differences are quite contrasting in more ways than one.

Brandan

[lionovjudah]

Here is a question.

Why is James in then? Why do we have the 66 boks of scripture?


You must come up with another answer than some "great apostacy" or to support the works salvationists of the rcc.

If the reason James is in is because of this, then many of Pauls writings should have been excluded or questioned also that speak of election/predestination.

[Spanky]

I just dont think that those who think James is uncanonical really think it is. Why? Because I think any one who really thinks it is, will have done ripped it out of their bible. Maybe some other books that they think are not true, they will have ripped out as well. It is hypocritical to think that a book is uninspired, not Godbreathed and still keep it in their bible. I think they should show an example and rip James out of the cover if they think it is not Godbreathed. What would it hurt to do so, if the Book of james is heretical?

[samohtwerdna]

rlhuckle,

Thank-you for your contribution and the demeanor of it!

I have a quick question for you concerning your post. You admitted the possibility that Satan could get false words into the received canon. Would you also say that Satan had such power when Jeremiah spoke? - or Isaiah? - when the prophet said "Thus saith the Lord" - did he only intend to communicate that somewhere in the verbiage was the true and undefiled Word of God, but it might be surrounded by falsehood?

OK so those were a few quick questions. ;) The point I'm after is whether or not God's revelation is now less trust worthy, and if so why?

Andrew T. Adcock

[Brandan Kraft]

Your work on the Canon question is developing - but I fear it is developing in the wrong way. It is admirable to question the majority position (it takes guts) and quite consistent with the vein of Reformed thinking in History.
Well, it's not admirable unless we're right! :) We are not non-conformists for the sake of non-conformity, but only because of our interest in the truth.

It is unfortunate that there is no copy of "Disputations on Holy Scripture" by William Whitacker on the internet so that it could be amply quoted from. Then you might see that your arguments and way of thinking are very similar to the RCC - You might also understand better that the Redemptive Historical and the Self Attesting Hermeneutics are not at all majority rules.
I do not see how our position of Gospel authentication is anything like the Roman Catholic position which is based totally on apostolic succession and totalitarian rule over thought and conscience. We believe men are free to recognize that which is truth by the Gospel alone. This is in direct opposition to the RCC position.

The fact that many resort to using that line of argumentation with you is in no way a proof that you are right and they are wrong.
Of course, and we never suggested that either. But the "historical-redemptive" method basically states that this is what has developed over the decades and God would never allow his elect to wallow in canonical error for this long. Therefore according to this assumption, we must accept the currently present canon. Unfortunately, this position is based on a faulty presupposition that God would not determine for His elect to live in canonical darkness for centuries. We believe that this is exactly what God intended.

Even if the textus-receptus is the majority position - that in itself neither vindicates nor disqualifies the truth of its canonicity. You seem to be more concerned with defying the majority than you do with the truths of scripture. be careful lest your good be evil spoken of.
Again, I must state that this is not what we are interested in. I personally don't care what the majority thinks because they are not Gospel believers. I care only for the truth, and if some agree with me, that's great! If not, oh well. I won't lose any sleep at night after trying to convert people to my position. Men can have whatever canon they desire. Like I said to Joe, if they so desire, they can slap whatever it is they want in their "bible."

No new arguments - All of the argument you have brought forth have been dealt with historically by men of renown.
This is not a valid objection. Just because something is not new does not mean it is incorrect.

Whenever their names are mentioned you have some pat answer for not trusting them - Even Gill whose name you bare.
Like I said, we authenticate via the Gospel, not by other men. If an angel came to me and said James was in the "canon", I would reject that as well.

Gospel inconsistency - You claim a gospel hermeneutic but in your "Good News" we do not have a sure word of prophecy!
We have the revelation of Paul and Christ along with the entire Old Testament to back them up. That's good enough of a prophecy for me.

The mass of God's people are confused and believe lies more than truth
Are you sure? Why do you say that?

which Christ said "my sheep hear my voice" (great verse for the self attesting folks) so either Christ sheep are a tiny minority since the death of Christ, or Christ was mistaken?
I believe there has always been a tiny minority of Gospel believers.

This confusion plays great havoc on ones eschatology (future hope) which will inevitably effect ones soteriology.
What confusion? I don't see how it has affected my eschatology one whit.

Historic inconsistency - You use history wily-nilly. If James has no early attestation then it's out you say,
No, not at all. Even if it had early attestation, then I believe it still should be out.

then you say the great apostasy was early (even after clear evidence that Polycarp and others where firm in the Gospel of Grace)
Scripture attests of this apostasy. You can see in Scripture that it was occuring during the lives of the apostles. 2 Tim 1:15, (KJV), This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me; of whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes.

nullifying the need for that precious early attestation.
There is no need for early attestation as the Scriptures are SELF attesting. This is a cardinal rule of Sola Scriptura.

You criticize the 66 book list because of your perception that it has not had historic favor, but your view has never had historic favor.
No we don't. We criticize the list because of the method used to attain it. And actually, yes our view has had historic favor by certain individuals such as Luther, but like I said, that is of no matter to me.

Your mistrust in Christ's work through the church (those identified as Christians) over the centuries also
I do not mistrust Christ's work in anything including the demons. Are not all things Christ's work?

- gives the impression of a dismal theology for the believer with nothing to trust and little to glory in.
Huh? The believer can glory in all things knowing that everything is going according to God's Sovereign plan, including those things which are evil.

The traditional view is that of growth in Christ. The Church as the bride is more and more being conformed to the image of Her husband (corporately).
????

That the Old Testament was less clear and less desirable than the New - but you would say that when God used to speak through the Prophets that was more reliable than how He now speaks to us through His Son?
The Lord HAS spoken through His Son over 2000 years ago, and we know this through the testimony of the apostles - not "the church."

Making revelation not only less frequent (assuming that you hold to a closed canon - though I admit that you might not) but also less potent.
The apostles are dead.

Calvinistic inconsistency - The first point of Calvinism stands strong against your claim to discern canonicity. The construct of everyman for himself - what ever is canon in your eyes (even if the best criteria is enforced) denies your total depravity. The RH and SA hermeneutics' both have scripture determined and attested to by God not man. Your view has man test what is of God - if it passes the test then it's in, which makes the one testing the authority and not the one revealing, but also places the peccable above the impeccable. Unless of course you deny the "T" in the "Tulip". One could also see damage done to the last point of Calvinism as well - since "man may persevere - but scripture cannot". The Scripture clearly states that His Word will endure forever, but you have argued that part of God's Word have been lost?
Whoah. We do not deny total depravity and cannot see how it has been affected whatsoever. We don't have a construct of every man for himself. We have a construct of God's Gospel for every believer! God's people do not remain totally depraved after Gospel knowledge is imparted to them. They have a guideline that they did not have before. They have awoken to Gospel truth, and as SONS can judge all things.

The good thing about your position is that it is a challenge to all believers to examine their faith and reaffirm their convictions. I pray that the more vehemently you hold to these questions and suppositions now - the more firm and resolute your conviction will be when you see the error of them. Lord willing.
I'm glad that we have been helpful to you Andrew

[Brandan Kraft]

I just dont think that those who think James is uncanonical really think it is. Why? Because I think any one who really thinks it is, will have done ripped it out of their bible. Maybe some other books that they think are not true, they will have ripped out as well. It is hypocritical to think that a book is uninspired, not Godbreathed and still keep it in their bible. I think they should show an example and rip James out of the cover if they think it is not Godbreathed. What would it hurt to do so, if the Book of james is heretical?We also alow heretics and people who disagree with us like you to post on this board. So does that make us hypocrites? It's just as easy to skip over a book as it is to rip it out. Before you post in this thread, please read through the rest of the corresponding threads along with this one. - Brandan

[samohtwerdna]

(all quotes by BK)


But the "historical-redemptive" method basically states that this is what has developed over the decades and God would never allow his elect to wallow in canonical error for this long. Therefore according to this assumption, we must accept the currently present canon. Unfortunately, this position is based on a faulty presupposition that God would not determine for His elect to live in canonical darkness for centuries. We believe that this is exactly what God intended.

BK - If you believe that God intended His bride to wallow in canonical darkness for centuries - where did you get this doctrine? From Scripture?? - Also what support does this position have from Paul or the New Testament - Save the warnings against anti-Christ and false teachers (wolves) which history has born out to be ample in any generation?? (BTW, RH method is a little more refined than your statement)



Like I said, we authenticate via the Gospel, not by other men. If an angel came to me and said James was in the "canon", I would reject that as well.

An angel OK - but what about Christ? - Hebrews clearly states that God now speaks to us through His son - not through angels. You reject James based on a construct created out of self made criteria. Many of Christ parables would not stand up to your construct yet you wont throw them out (I hope) ?


Scripture attests of this apostasy. You can see in Scripture that it was occurring during the lives of the apostles. 2 Tim 1:15, (KJV), This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me; of whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes.

This is certainly no proof of a "Great Apostasy" - an apostasy, yes - but that is a far cry from what is commonly known as a "Great Apostasy".


There is no need for early attestation as the Scriptures are SELF attesting. This is a cardinal rule of Sola Scriptura.

Yes indeed BK and you are now siding with Calvin? I'm confused, first scripture must conform to what you determine is Gospel, now scripture is self attesting?? BK I'm sorry but you are not for "Sola Scriptura" you are for "Sola Evangelica" - not exactly the same thing!


No we don't. We criticize the list because of the method used to attain it. And actually, yes our view has had historic favor by certain individuals such as Luther, but like I said, that is of no matter to me.

Even if Luther could be considered "Historic Favor" by himself - you still have the problem of his recanting later concerning the Book of James, and his own gross inconsistency with books of favor. It seems you and Bob have differing arguments here so I will not press it with you.


Whoah. We do not deny total depravity and cannot see how it has been affected whatsoever. We don't have a construct of every man for himself. We have a construct of God's Gospel for every believer! God's people do not remain totally depraved after Gospel knowledge is imparted to them. They have a guideline that they did not have before. They have awoken to Gospel truth, and as SONS can judge all things.

So who determines what is "Gospel"? (On a side note, I believe you said that you don't care at all what others consider the Bible and that they can slap anything in it they want - Sound a lot like every man form himself) The second part of your statement reveals a difference with Calvinistic understanding of "Total depravity" - The statement you made supports an attainable perfection this side of the resurrection. Calvinism denies such a possibility. Even the believer is still plagued with the "Old Man" of sin (see Rom 7) - your own admission testifies to this. You have said you once believed error, and I'm sure you don't believe that your theology is now with out error? Please understand that to purpose that you are able to perfectly discern what is God's word by yourself - is exactly what the RCC states except they divide up the ability amongst themselves. And that is exactly what you are purposing - when you say that James is out because "you" don't think it comports with the "Gospel" - even after Gill - Calvin and many others explain from scripture how James does not conflict with Paul at all.

And yes you are helping me, but I pray you are not hurting others! To be on the side that constantly says: "Did God really say?" - Must be less desirable than the side saying: "thus saith the Lord!"

Andrew T. Adcock

[Brandan Kraft]

BK - If you believe that God intended His bride to wallow in canonical darkness for centuries - where did you get this doctrine? From Scripture?? - Also what support does this position have from Paul or the New Testament - Save the warnings against anti-Christ and false teachers (wolves) which history has born out to be ample in any generation?? (BTW, RH method is a little more refined than your statement)Oh, come on Andrew. Surely you should know this. If something occurs in time, then surely the Lord intended it. For example, the Lord intended that the Gospel would be hidden throughout the centuries. He intended that the Roman Empire would fall. He intended that the nuclear bomb would be developed and He intended for the holocausts of WWII and Stalinism to occur during the 20th century. He also intended that we have this conversation. We can look on the past and know that all things were intended by God as He is the determiner of all things. This is elementary. Now, if His elect have wallowed in canonical darkness for centuries, then I must conclude through logic that this is what God has intended. If He did not intend it, then it never would have happened. :)

An angel OK - but what about Christ? - Hebrews clearly states that God now speaks to us through His son - not through angels. You reject James based on a construct created out of self made criteria. Many of Christ parables would not stand up to your construct yet you wont throw them out (I hope) ?Andrew, I have made the work and life of the SON as the basis for rejecting James because James is in direct opposition to Christ. Christ HAS spoken. James HAS spoken. I now look at what they both have said, and if James is not in subjection to Christ's spoken word, then I must reject.

This is certainly no proof of a "Great Apostasy" - an apostasy, yes - but that is a far cry from what is commonly known as a "Great Apostasy".Whatever. This is leading us off topic, so let's drop it.

Yes indeed BK and you are now siding with Calvin? I'm confused, first scripture must conform to what you determine is Gospel, now scripture is self attesting?? BK I'm sorry but you are not for "Sola Scriptura" you are for "Sola Evangelica" - not exactly the same thing!Yes they are! ALL OF SCRIPTURE attests of Christ! Christ clearly said so Himself!

Even if Luther could be considered "Historic Favor" by himself - you still have the problem of his recanting later concerning the Book of James, and his own gross inconsistency with books of favor. It seems you and Bob have differing arguments here so I will not press it with you.Like I said before, what Luther believed has no bearing whatsoever on my position. I have stated this numerous times, so it's pointless for you to point out Luther's inconsistency to me. I use him only for historical demonstration, not as authentication. Like I stated before, I look to the Gospel for authentication.

So who determines what is "Gospel"? (On a side note, I believe you said that you don't care at all what others consider the Bible and that they can slap anything in it they want - Sound a lot like every man form himself) The Apostles clearly delivered the Gospel to His elect. It is clearly outlined in Paul's epistles. The elect rejoice in this message because the Spirit testifies to their souls the truth of this message. The believer has no need of men or any other teacher to lead them into truth. The Gospel is all they need!
(1 John 2:20-27) But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things (what are "all things"? We can judge all things by the Gospel). I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth....(27)But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

The second part of your statement reveals a difference with Calvinistic understanding of "Total depravity" - The statement you made supports an attainable perfection this side of the resurrection. Whatever... I said no such thing, but that's ok. Look the elect do not stay totally depraved as they come to life in Gospel truth. If that's against "calvinism", then so be it.

You have said you once believed error, and I'm sure you don't believe that your theology is now with out error? Well that's funny. If I believed I was in error, I woudn't believe it. But I know what you mean. I do come more and more to a knowledge of God as each day comes and goes.

Please understand that to purpose that you are able to perfectly discern what is God's word by yourself - is exactly what the RCC states except they divide up the ability amongst themselves. And that is exactly what you are purposing - when you say that James is out because "you" don't think it comports with the "Gospel" - even after Gill - Calvin and many others explain from scripture how James does not conflict with Paul at all.1 Pet 2:9, (KJV), But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;

And yes you are helping me, but I pray you are not hurting others! To be on the side that constantly says: "Did God really say?" - Must be less desirable than the side saying: "thus saith the Lord!"We are not asking "Did God really say?" This is another fallacy - an easy strawman.

[lionovjudah]

I will ask this again in case it was overlooked.


Why was James finally accepted? What reason would a book that was not universally accepted, all of a sudden find its home in our bounded Bible?

[melted]

I could probably still be accused of fense-sitting on this matter, as I've not come to a full conviction concerning a hermeneutic, but I've at least come closer. Thanks much to the contributors to this thread and the previous one concerning the canon.

I cannot subscribe to a Gospel only hermeneutic for determining God-breathedness. The following are some of my reasons:

1) The hermeneutic must stand alone as a valid means of verifying all Scriptural integrity. If the gospel-centric hermeneutic can attest to a book being God-breathed, then it must also attest to a chapter; even a verse; even a word. The gospel-centric hermeneutic is unable to verify the authenticity of any single word - it works on a macro scale, not a micro scale. Therefore, I must conclude that it is unable to attest to the God-inspiration of "the smallest letter or stroke".

2) The hermeneutic to determine Scripture should be objective. The Gospel is objective truth, but it takes a subjective, imperfect mind to apply this truth in order to judge Scripture. Flawed reasoning should not be the sole judge of perfection.

3) The gospel-hermeneutic cannot be self sufficient. It must appeal to some other means of receiving the canon from which one is to judge God-breathedness. One cannot judge a book to be Scripture without first having that book in hand. This appeal is to providence, historicism, empiricism - take your pick.


I am not one to throw out the baby with the bath water though. I believe the gospel-centric hermeneutic is essential for assisting in determining Scripture, but cannot stand alone. There is a "first source" of the canon that must be considered prior to the gospel-centric approach. I believe this is providence.

We have received our canon by God's providence. We then can verify and affirm this canon by:

- Non-contradiction with the gospel (absolutely essential)
- Spirit attestation (could be considered the same as above)
- Induction (historicism, archeology, etc)

These approaches verify and affirm to us that our canon is true, but none of them can stand alone in my opinion. They all are dependant on God's providence, therefore I believe providence is where we must begin in considering the inspiration of the canon we have been given. Providence is objective, it can verify every jot and tittle, and it is under the complete control of God.

I am sure that this position will be well rebutted, and I look forward to reading further!

[ray kikkert]

I will ask this again in case it was overlooked.


Why was James finally accepted? What reason would a book that was not universally accepted, all of a sudden find its home in our bounded Bible?

I found this interesting research today on the canons of Scripture......

http://www.biblefacts.org/bible/cannon.html

[Brandan Kraft]

Thanks for the link Ray.

[Robert R. Higby]

I don't have much more to answer in response; we have given a rational position based on objective standards according to Luther's method (which, I believe, is more objective than Calvin's or the Reformed on this issue). Calvin had the same 'total depravity' as the rest of us and he did not give an objective basis for determining the canon.

My personal rejection of Esther, Ecclesiastes, and James is the false doctrine that they contain; the same reasons for rejecting other apocryphal works. I have talked to many pastors who have their doubts about these--but don't dare express them. The issue of lack of early attestation, etc. is significant but it is not the kingpin of nor core reason for our position. Luther, for instance, realized that 2 Peter lacked early attestation but still accepted it.

You reject James based on a construct created out of self made criteria. Many of Christ parables would not stand up to your construct yet you wont throw them out (I hope) ?

This statement, more than any other, shows that our position has not been properly analyzed for understanding its objective basis. We have discussed no parables in this exchange, however, there is no parable--inclulding the sheep and goats (the one most used to teach justification by works) that comes close to the theology of becoming the friend of God by a measure of living works added to dead faith.

[rlhuckle]

LOJ} Here is a question.
Why is James in then? Why do we have the 66 boks of scripture?

That is precisely the issue under discussion in these threads. I have received the 66 books without question until now. However, what I received was merely received by others’ definition of what Scripture is (unquestioned)--in seeming contradiction to the example of the Bereans--whom AFTER receiving Paul’s words with gladness (as I have done)--proceeded to check them against the Scriptures.


[LOJ] You must come up with another answer than some "great apostacy" or to support the works salvationists of the rcc.

Obviously this is true. That is precisely what I (and I presume others here, also) are attempting to quantify.

[LOJ] If the reason James is in is because of this, then many of Pauls writings should have been excluded or questioned also that speak of election/predestination.

Exactly, one must be very careful in this endeavor, attempting to study to show oneself approved, rightly dividing the truth.

[lionovjudah]

LOJ} Here is a question.
Why is James in then? Why do we have the 66 boks of scripture?

That is precisely the issue under discussion in these threads. I have received the 66 books without question until now. However, what I received was merely received by others’ definition of what Scripture is (unquestioned)--in seeming contradiction to the example of the Bereans--whom AFTER receiving Paul’s words with gladness (as I have done)--proceeded to check them against the Scriptures.


[LOJ] You must come up with another answer than some "great apostacy" or to support the works salvationists of the rcc.

Obviously this is true. That is precisely what I (and I presume others here, also) are attempting to quantify.

[LOJ] If the reason James is in is because of this, then many of Pauls writings should have been excluded or questioned also that speak of election/predestination.

Exactly, one must be very careful in this endeavor, attempting to study to show oneself approved, rightly dividing the truth.


Ron: I am nto asking why some here "believe" it was included, I cannot find anything in hisptory to show why it was included. Other than finally concluding it was the Lords brother, or James of the Jeruselem church. Content does nto appear to come up in my research, just authorship

[rlhuckle]

[Andrew] Thank-you for your contribution and the demeanor of it!
I have a quick question for you concerning your post. You admitted the possibility that Satan could get false words into the received canon. Would you also say that Satan had such power when Jeremiah spoke? - or Isaiah? - when the prophet said "Thus saith the Lord" - did he only intend to communicate that somewhere in the verbiage was the true and undefiled Word of God, but it might be surrounded by falsehood?

Satan only has the power God gives him. I fully believe that all scripture is God breathed. Satan DID get some of his words recorded in the Scriptures--and they were false in at least in one sense were they not?

Do I have some irrational fear about Satan doing something he shouldn’t? That would be against God’s sovereignty. Do I think he could have infiltrated the early church with false professors? If God allowed him to, yes--in fact, Jesus warns his disciples about that very thing in parables and clear admonitions. The Apostle’s whose writings exalt the Lord also had numerous things to say about false teachers and professors--and the judging of them and their works.

Has God preserved His word? If He hasn’t, my faith is vain. Has God given His elect admonitions regarding the works of men? I believe He has.

[Andrew] OK so those were a few quick questions. The
point I'm after is whether or not God's revelation is now less trust worthy, and if so why?

God’s revelation is the ONLY thing that IS trustworthy. The question is what does God’s revelation contain? Obviously, this has been in dispute for centuries in regards to the New Testament--and with good reason it appears. What is our responsibility in this regard--especially given the rampant error in the visible church? I believe Scripture admonishes us to receive the words with gladness and then check them against the Scriptures. I have received the canon with gladness--I am merely attempting now to do the latter by the power of the Holy Spirit.

Are we willing in the Spirit to travel to the mountain and sacrifice our Isaac? If we offer up the Book of James in the spirit of obedience to the Lord’s commands, is God able to restore it? Does not James say our works give evidence to our faith? He said Abraham was justified by his efforts to offer Isaac, do James’ words have no application in this regard?

[samohtwerdna]

Are we willing in the Spirit to travel to the mountain and sacrifice our Isaac? If we offer up the Book of James in the spirit of obedience to the Lord’s commands, is God able to restore it? Does not James say our works give evidence to our faith? He said Abraham was justified by his efforts to offer Isaac, do James’ words have no application in this regard?
Interesting point...I'm not sure.

I wrote out a great long response to you about an hour ago, but when I tried to post it my computer crashed. Anyway, the gist of it was concerning the power of God and the Character of God. It is very easy for us to forget one of God's attributes when considering another. So If we where to ask the question of possibility with God - one might say that nothing is impossible with God - but that then brings up the same old paradoxical questions - is God not strong enough to bind Himself?

From studying scripture we develop systematic and progressive (unfolding historically) theologies. We see that God has bound Himself in "covenants" both inter-trinitary and with/for man. If we can trust the Book of Hebrews and 1 Peter then we see that God has built the NT on better promises and that we have a more sure word of prophecy than even the best of saints in the OT. Therefore, my questions aimed at the heart of these statements. Are they true? Can we trust them? If we take the line of thinking that God has enough power to decree that His people would wallow in canonicle darkness, we go beyond making a statement about the extent of Gods power, and begin to make a statement about His character. Never mind that we make Him a liar. But we also discount the whole covenant structure and promise which God says is better than the OT and that the prophecy (Word from God) is more sure. So you see I am after a simple comparison contrast. How sure a testimony did Israel have when Moses said "Thus saith the Lord"? - was it inerrant and fully trustworthy? Or was it mixed with Satan's lies? - To make the point even stronger - when Peter was on the mount of transfiguration with the Son of God and the voice of the Father and the presence of Moses and Elijah - was the word spoken to Peter more reliable than what we have?? - Peter says no! The whole bible testifies to the fact that God is drawing closer to us covenantly - not further from us. To use your illustration would it have been possible that Satan was telling Abraham to sacrifice Issac and not God? Sure we now have hind sight - but how did Abraham know that the Word's where God's? They certainly did not seem Christo-Centric from the outside. Was God's Word self attesting then?

If we say that James is false teaching and that the Bible may contain the word of God but it may also contain the word of fallible man - we must admit that we do not have a more sure word than Peter on the mount, or Abraham, or Moses or really any in the OT to the time of Malachi. We must be starting with the idea that God's Covenant is not what He said it is or would be, and because of the book of Hebrews we must also be declaring that Christ is not a better prophet than the OT prophets. It doesn't matter if James was writing out of good legalistic zeal or under Satan's direct influence, the co-mingling obliterates the trustworthiness - no matter what. If we take the high ground that all of God's word is maintained and kept pure, only some text in our bibles are not the Word of God and therefore not protected by His providence - then how do we know what those text might be? Who determines? - What ever our criteria it still cannot stand up to the surety of a direct Word from God and thus we fail Peter's test and question Hebrews grand declarations.

The a-priori approach to canonicty may seem like the easy way out at first, but I am convinced that after all is said and done - it is the only approach when dealing with the Trinitarian God of Scripture - After all he is the Alpha and Omega :D

[Robert R. Higby]

A-priori means tradition, so how can you say that tradition is wrong on anything where the majority ended up hardening into a position?

If we say that James is false teaching and that the Bible may contain the word of God but it may also contain the word of fallible man - we must admit that we do not have a more sure word than Peter on the mount, or Abraham, or Moses or really any in the OT to the time of Malachi.

So you are willing to stake the very existence on the surety and eternal Word of God on James 2:14-26? Your Bible is the one that Calvin settled upon. It is very dangerous to make the legitimacy of the core canon of revelation dependent on a passage containing false teaching.

We must be starting with the idea that God's Covenant is not what He said it is or would be, and because of the book of Hebrews we must also be declaring that Christ is not a better prophet than the OT prophets. It doesn't matter if James was writing out of good legalistic zeal or under Satan's direct influence, the co-mingling obliterates the trustworthiness - no matter what. If we take the high ground that all of God's word is maintained and kept pure, only some text in our bibles are not the Word of God and therefore not protected by His providence - then how do we know what those text might be? Who determines? - What ever our criteria it still cannot stand up to the surety of a direct Word from God and thus we fail Peter's test and question Hebrews grand declarations.

Hebrews and Peter were not talking about James 2:14-26! Who determines it? Christ and the apostles themselves; the pure doctrine of the gospel taught by them must judge all things.

This will be my last post on this thread as we are not communicating. All there is here is continued bold and unproven assertions that I reject the word of God.

[Brandan Kraft]

I'm done with this thread as well. I'm reminded by my objectors of the movie and musical Fiddler on the Roof....

Tradition!

In the middle of the opening act, the main character comments on why his traditions are observed. He says, "I'll tell you.... I really don't know. But it's a tradition."

Tradition! Tradition! Tradition! That is the theme I hear. Now my objectors will probably object, but that's alright. I'm done. I'm out of this thread as well. Any new comments will not be replied to by me.

You can have your canon for whatever reason. I don't care if it's tradition. Just don't enforce your traditions upon me.

Good night!

[samohtwerdna]

Wow, I never supposed that I was forcing traditions - merely asking for a legitament comparison and application to theology. Perhaps Peter and Hebrews where only referencing the apostolic age and there message was not intended to continue for believers in the New Covenant. That would be very strange since Hebrews is talking about the whole of the New Covenant as compared to the whole of the Old - but perhaps it is limited to such a small time in history (e.g. several thousand years of the OT compared to 100 or so of the NT)

BTW, a-priori does not mean tradition! A-priori means "what goes before" it is related to cause and effect. It deals with world views and presupositions. A-priori would be the cause - a-posteriori would be the effect. A-priori means a truth that holds others up but is not held up or dependent itself. Often times religious traditions are built upon A-priori truths, but the traditions are always themselves a-posteriori. A-priori in terms of canonicity means that the Bible selected itself - that the providence of God to deliver a sure Word to His people overrides man or Satan's attempts against it. It means that the canon is not dependent on the decisions of man - their councils and decisions about the bible are all a-posteriori (This is sometimes called the transcendental argument).

Bob, I do not say that you reject the word of God , but that your theology concerning James is not consistent with your theology of the superiority of the NT. I am saying that your questioning is fine (though dangerous) as looking from the outside. Obviously Gill saw difficulties when examining James 2 - that is why he places the warnings against interpreting in a works (our works) righteous type of way. Why after seeing such danger did he not condemn the passages? Perhaps because He saw the a-priori truth concerning the canon first and then did His exegesis based on that - That is all I'm asking for.

BK,
Sorry your out of this thread - you certainly have a positive wit.

Calvin,
When he defended what contains the Word of God, replied the received text. He meant what was always by all Christians understood to be the canon, though there where of course struggles. He did in no way invent the current 66 books we have.

More on this later...

[rlhuckle]

Sam] I wrote out a great long response to you about an hour ago, but when I tried to post it my computer crashed. Anyway, the gist of it was concerning the power of God and the Character of God. It is very easy for us to forget one of God's attributes when considering another. So If we where to ask the question of possibility with God - one might say that nothing is impossible with God - but that then brings up the same old paradoxical questions - is God not strong enough to bind Himself?

This is an anthropomorphism which creates a logical contradiction--the question alone denies all of God’s attributes. It is impossible for God to act against His own nature (i.e.: commit sin; lie, etc..).--in this sense, your rhetorical question is founded upon false premises--which I‘m sure you are aware of. I have found others who really have a tough time with it, however.

[Sam] From studying scripture we develop systematic and progressive (unfolding historically) theologies. We see that God has bound Himself in "covenants" both inter-trinitary and with/for man.

Yes, all things depend upon God and His promises and His promise of keeping His word in His covenants with man/men (and with ‘Himself‘).

[Sam] If we can trust the Book of Hebrews and 1 Peter then we see that God has built the NT on better promises and that we have a more sure word of prophecy than even the best of saints in the OT.

2Pe 1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:

It is my understanding that this verse means that Christ, in his incarnation, is a more sure testament to the veracity of Scripture than men speaking as the Spirit carried them along and testified by signs. We have the words of God incarnate now in addition to the words of men attested to by the Spirit and signs. If ALL of scripture is God breathed--how can any one part of it be “more sure” in a sense of “better authenticity” or “more true” if it is ALL the word of God? In this respect, the entirety of Divine Revelation carries equal weight--although many take Jesus words as supposedly being ‘better’ than say, Paul’s or Peter’s--or Isaiah’s, for that matter. This is why I am looking at this issue in a new light and examining all of what men have said is Scripture -in regards to it.

[Sam] Therefore, my questions aimed at the heart of these statements. Are they true? Can we trust them? If we take the line of thinking that God has enough power to decree that His people would wallow in canonicle darkness, we go beyond making a statement about the extent of Gods power, and begin to make a statement about His character. Never mind that we make Him a liar.

Your viewpoint here was the foundation of my ‘kneejerk’ reaction to this issue. I said much the same thing in my first post on this thread. However, looking at the temporal realities that surrounded the assemblage of the canon, examining what has been said about the standards by which the canon was adopted (and the various lists and beliefs of the various assemblies-yesterday and today), one is left with questions--especially given the nature of the decisions coming from the various ’so-called’ ecclesiastical assemblages in our current day and age.

I am not questioning the veracity of God’s word, I am questioning the actions and words of men--not just those who made the choices of canon, but also those that wrote the words. How can I ignore clear instructions of Scripture in regards to all things--yesterday and today?

After re-examining my beliefs regarding this issue, I came to the conclusion that I subscribed to the tacit belief that the Holy Spirit of God must have worked in the lives of the men of history in a ‘more sure manner’ than He does today. Is this belief founded on sound Scriptural principles? Today, do I merely accept the obviously heretical statements and doctrinal positions that have been produced by some convocations of leaders in contemporary churches without measuring them by some objective standard? These men all profess Christ also, do they not? What makes some of their positions heretical? This is serious business here, not a mere ‘intellectual’ exercise.

[Sam] But we also discount the whole covenant structure and promise which God says is better than the OT and that the prophecy (Word from God) is more sure. So you see I am after a simple comparison contrast. How sure a testimony did Israel have when Moses said "Thus saith the Lord"? - was it inerrant and fully trustworthy? Or was it mixed with Satan's lies? - To make the point even stronger - when Peter was on the mount of transfiguration with the Son of God and the voice of the Father and the presence of Moses and Elijah - was the word spoken to Peter more reliable than what we have?? - Peter says no!

Once again, the issue in my mind is not the veracity of God’s word--it is the veracity of the faith and testimony of the men who met and decided what God’s word contains (or should contain, as the case may be). Obviously, God has ordained error and blindness regarding the understanding of His word in the entirety of earthly history. What evidence do I possess that the men who decided the canon were not affected in the same manner as some today (including myself--as the case may be)? Shall I wait until the end of my life and look to time as a testimony of their and my veracity or do I look to Christ immediately? What do the Scriptures require of me in this regard?

[you] The whole bible testifies to the fact that God is drawing closer to us covenantly - not further from us. To use your illustration would it have been possible that Satan was telling Abraham to sacrifice Issac and not God? Sure we now have hind sight - but how did Abraham know that the Word's where God's? They certainly did not seem Christo-Centric from the outside. Was God's Word self attesting then?

I am not sure what you mean here by God ‘drawing closer;‘ He is within us (I cannot understand how He might be ‘closer’ than this) and we (if our faith is true) are within Him. If we are in the ‘New Covenant’--should not these words apply:

Heb 8:10-11 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.

I realize that some (dispensationalists--of which I call myself, but need more study) understand this to mean that God will fulfill this in the Jewish nation at some point in the future, however it is my current understanding that the reformed view takes this to be in effect today. I believe the NT believer to be grafted in and an heir to this promise regardless of which theological position one believes espouses it properly. Do not all true believers know God regardless, by the power of the indwelling Holy Spirit?

[Sam] If we say that James is false teaching and that the Bible may contain the word of God but it may also contain the word of fallible man - we must admit that we do not have a more sure word than Peter on the mount, or Abraham, or Moses or really any in the OT to the time of Malachi. We must be starting with the idea that God's Covenant is not what He said it is or would be, and because of the book of Hebrews we must also be declaring that Christ is not a better prophet than the OT prophets. It doesn't matter if James was writing out of good legalistic zeal or under Satan's direct influence, the co-mingling obliterates the trustworthiness - no matter what. If we take the high ground that all of God's word is maintained and kept pure, only some text in our bibles are not the Word of God and therefore not protected by His providence - then how do we know what those text might be? Who determines? - What ever our criteria it still cannot stand up to the surety of a direct Word from God and thus we fail Peter's test and question Hebrews grand declarations.

This position appears to presuppose that history is the ‘sure testimony’---that tradition is the judge, not the testimony of the Spirit in the heart of man according to the ‘more sure word’ of prophecy that we have received, does it not? As I said earlier, should I merely accept the actions of these men because of the passage of time and the ‘lording’ of a professional laity--in seeming contradiction to some of the same scriptures you have mentioned:

1Pe 5:2 -3 Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock.

What is their example? Did they not gather together and discuss these very matters in the power of the Holy Spirit or did they merely come together at the behest of worldly authority? Did those men merely accept the words and choices of others who went before them? By what measure can I be assured (if, in fact, I can be by the testimony of men --apart from some kind of Gospel standard) that the Holy Spirit worked in them infallibly to compose an inerrant canon? Is the mere passage of time and the lordship of a ‘professional’ laity good standards by which I should judge? Were these men free from heresy and false profession themselves? How do I, personally, ascertain these things?

In regards to some of James’ words being non-inspired, I find myself quoting James all the time in my conversations. His admonition to be quick to listen and slow to speak happens to come up quite frequently. Do I believe all of James is God-inspired? This is what I am attempting to discern by the power of the Holy Spirit. Does the general truth of some of James words indicate inspiration? Do I accept that James’ admonition has any more Gospel authority than say “a penny saved is a penny earned,” and by what standard do I judge--its mere traditional presence? This is the issue in my mind. There is a difference between a God-breathed instruction and a general truism and it is my desire to be convinced of it.

Isa 1:18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.

[Sam] The a-priori approach to canonicty may seem like the easy way out at first, but I am convinced that after all is said and done - it is the only approach when dealing with the Trinitarian God of Scripture - After all he is the Alpha and Omega.

I have accepted the words (canon) with gladness and studied them as a means to know my Lord and Savior to the best of the abilities that He has given me. I must trust that He will work in me and as the author and finisher as I continue in my walk by faith.

[Sam] A-priori in terms of canonicity means that the Bible selected itself - that the providence of God to deliver a sure Word to His people overrides man or Satan's attempts against it. It means that the canon is not dependent on the decisions of man - their councils and decisions about the bible are all a-posteriori (This is sometimes called the transcendental argument).

Maybe if the canon was selected by lot it would have more sure testimony in this regard;---just a quick observation.

[Robert R. Higby]

Thanks so much rlh!

My recommendation is that we alter this discussion to move away from the canon itself (which has become repetitous of the same arguments over and over). We need to discuss instead the nature of genuine faith, which I have tried to do introduce in the "Notitia, Assensus, and Fiducia" thread. This is the real conflict in James 2:14-26 vs. the rest of the apostolic testimony.

[samohtwerdna]

Hi rhuckle!!

Thanks for your response again.


It is my understanding that this verse means that Christ, in his incarnation, is a more sure testament to the veracity of Scripture than men speaking as the Spirit carried them along and testified by signs. We have the words of God incarnate now in addition to the words of men attested to by the Spirit and signs. If ALL of scripture is God breathed--how can any one part of it be “more sure” in a sense of “better authenticity” or “more true” if it is ALL the word of God? In this respect, the entirety of Divine Revelation carries equal weight--although many take Jesus words as supposedly being ‘better’ than say, Paul’s or Peter’s--or Isaiah’s, for that matter. This is why I am looking at this issue in a new light and examining all of what men have said is Scripture -in regards to it.

You mentioned that you might be dispensational in you theology, so I'm not sure how much you will agree with me here. Never-the-less, I totally agree with your question about the difference between scripture and mere truism. When Peter talks about a more sure word of testimony and Hebrews argues for the superiority of Christ and the New Covenant neither are pitting truth against truth - but relationship against relationship. The relationship God Had with his people in the OT was good, but the relationship in the NT is better! As to the word of prophecy being more sure, I take from this that Peter is telling us that revelation is progressive and cohesive so that even if you were to have the experience of standing with Christ on the mount of transfiguration and hearing God the Father speak directly to you - you still would do better to have the scriptures with the Apostolic revelation. Just as when you first meet your wife, your conversation may have been entirely true and sincerer with her, but now it's more! Why? Because the relationship is more!

As a covenant theologian I am careful not to see a discontinuity in the OT - but a continuity, yet I would never say that God's relationship to His people has digressed, but rather progressed. I glory in the anticipation of the consummation of human history when we will all sit at the marriage supper of the lamb and move into the final eschatalogical glory of the relationship that God so wonderfully designed. So we do not pit one portion of scripture against another, but we do not long to return to the immature days of our relationship after now being brought to the mature.

Now to the point about men selecting verses God selecting what is canon. You and I obviously agree that God clearly selected what words to use when inspiring the penmen of the NT. (I think every one agree here?) So where we may differ is in the subsequent history. I deny that any man or men ever got to choose what constituted God's word. From the men He first inspired to all the subsequent men that handled His Word through out history. I confess that many have tried to destroy it - many have tried to manipulate it. But in the end there efforts all come to naught, as God protects His Word as part of His bond and as part of His character. To me, to confess a good understanding of inspiration and the infallibleness of God's Word as originally given, but then to obscure that confession with the fear of man or Satan makes no sense. Why did God go through the trouble to Perfectly and with out error inspire men, If He was going to take no care to preserve that Word? Or preserve it but also hide it amongst the lies of men and Satan? So now our theology of God and His relationship comes into play. If God was not going to care for His people - then of course its possible that He would hide His Word. After all Christ spoke in parables so that the crooked generation would NOT understand. But if God, by the blood of His own Son was bringing His people to an entirely new and wonderful covenant relationship - then how could the testimony be less sure?? Another point worth observing is that of monorgism in history. Almost all here hold tenaciously to God monorgistic work in salvation. We rightly confess that we contribute nothing and that God CHOSE us we did not CHOOSE Him. The Redemptive Historical understanding of the canon is just like this. The Canon selected itself , we did not select it!

[rlhuckle]

Hello Sam, thank you for your comments, they are interesting and add to the relevance of the discussion.

[Sam] You mentioned that you might be dispensational in you theology, so I'm not sure how much you will agree with me here. Never-the-less, I totally agree with your question about the difference between scripture and mere truism. When Peter talks about a more sure word of testimony and Hebrews argues for the superiority of Christ and the New Covenant neither are pitting truth against truth - but relationship against relationship. The relationship God Had with his people in the OT was good, but the relationship in the NT is better! As to the word of prophecy being more sure, I take from this that Peter is telling us that revelation is progressive and cohesive so that even if you were to have the experience of standing with Christ on the mount of transfiguration and hearing God the Father speak directly to you - you still would do better to have the scriptures with the Apostolic revelation. Just as when you first meet your wife, your conversation may have been entirely true and sincerer with her, but now it's more! Why? Because the relationship is more!

I understand what you are saying--that the ‘more sure’ means ‘fuller’ or ‘more complete’ in the progressive nature of the unfolding of God’s complete revelation, and I agree.

[Sam] As a covenant theologian I am careful not to see a discontinuity in the OT - but a continuity, yet I would never say that God's relationship to His people has digressed, but rather progressed. I glory in the anticipation of the consummation of human history when we will all sit at the marriage supper of the lamb and move into the final eschatalogical glory of the relationship that God so wonderfully designed. So we do not pit one portion of scripture against another, but we do not long to return to the immature days of our relationship after now being brought to the mature.

I take this to mean that we are to weigh all things against scripture ala the Berean example EXCEPT what has been handed down as Holy Writ. This has been my historic position.

[Sam] Now to the point about men selecting verses God selecting what is canon. You and I obviously agree that God clearly selected what words to use when inspiring the penmen of the NT. (I think every one agree here?)

Yes. I subscribe to verbal plenary inspiration.

[Sam] So where we may differ is in the subsequent history. I deny that any man or men ever got to choose what constituted God's word. From the men He first inspired to all the subsequent men that handled His Word through out history. I confess that many have tried to destroy it - many have tried to manipulate it. But in the end there efforts all come to naught, as God protects His Word as part of His bond and as part of His character. To me, to confess a good understanding of inspiration and the infallibleness of God's Word as originally given, but then to obscure that confession with the fear of man or Satan makes no sense.

I understand. This has been my historic position--that no matter what evidence that has been passed down regarding the men, who they were, their character, etc., that God worked in them to pass down a proper version of His word. In regards to this, I have been in study and prayer to verify that this is indeed a biblically supportable position. AT this point, I am not so sure--as I have indicated. I am not as well-studied as some here and I think it wise to look at things historically taken for granted---one must know why one believes what one believes and then be able to give a ready defense for the hope that lies within.

[Sam] Why did God go through the trouble to Perfectly and with out error inspire men, If He was going to take no care to preserve that Word?

I do not doubt that God HAS preserved His word. One might ask the question why God preserved his word but then allows people to misinterpret it and teach others by those misinterpretations thereby endangering their very souls (I speak as a fool).

[Sam] Or preserve it but also hide it amongst the lies of men and Satan?

It would appear He hides it within the halls of buildings and from the minds of men supposedly devoted to His worship.

[you] So now our theology of God and His relationship comes into play. If God was not going to care for His people - then of course its possible that He would hide His Word.

God cares for His people by the power of the Holy Spirit working within and testifying to Christ.

[Sam] After all Christ spoke in parables so that the crooked generation would NOT understand.

Who opened the minds of those who did understand?

[you] But if God, by the blood of His own Son was bringing His people to an entirely new and wonderful covenant relationship - then how could the testimony be less sure??

It isn’t!

[Sam] Another point worth observing is that of monorgism in history. Almost all here hold tenaciously to God monorgistic work in salvation. We rightly confess that we contribute nothing and that God CHOSE us we did not CHOOSE Him.

I wholeheartedly agree!

[Sam] The Redemptive Historical understanding of the canon is just like this. The Canon selected itself , we did not select it!

Thank you for your insights. I fully understand your position--as it has historically been my own. It is good to examine oneself in the light of progressive revelation and the process of spiritual maturation. The various hermeneutical methods proposed here deserve further study by all as they are led by the Holy Spirit in their walk with the Lord.

[whs1]

I hope it will not be off the topic to ask a question here at this point. I wonder if when reading God's word and studying it; is anyone asking: what is God's point in inspiring the 66 books of the Bible. Or to phrase it another way:

What is God's purpose and theme of the entirety of Holy Scripture?

What I am not asking is: "What do WE think it is?" But What is God's intention? I don't think I have ever heard anyone discuss this anywhere.

Bill

[M.K. Nawojski]

Bill wrote: “. . . what is God's point in inspiring the 66 books of the Bible. Or to phrase it another way: What is God's purpose and theme of the entirety of Holy Scripture? What I am not asking is: "What do WE think it is?" But What is God's intention? I don't think I have ever heard anyone discuss this anywhere.”

It’s been my experience that, when individuals phrase a question in this manner, they generally already have (or believe they have) the “answer,” and they’re merely creating an opportunity to proclaim their views. Nonetheless, the question’s a good one . . . and fundamental. So, here’s my position:

I believe God’s objective in inspiring the 66 books of the Bible is twofold. His intent is (1) to reveal Himself to humankind and (2) to inform such of His “eternal purpose” in Christ. Indeed, I believe this twofold intention is accomplished in the Holy Scriptures in language which mankind – through tireless and diligent study – can comprehend and for which they will therefore be accountable.

On the first point, the revelation of God of necessity takes into account the fact that He is a triune being, eternally existing in the persons of the Father, Son, and Spirit. In addition, the Holy Bible identifies Him as the Creator, Sustainer, and Sovereign Lord of the created order. It sets forth His non-transferable attributes, which include (but are not limited to) omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence, immutability, and impassability. It references – among other infinite and praiseworthy attributes – His absolute holiness, as exemplified in the righteous laws He has established for His elect Households; His grace and mercy, as exemplified in His dealings with the Households; His justice and wrath, as exemplified in His dealings with those outside the Households, i.e., the reprobate among mankind.

On the second point, God’s eternal purpose in Christ can be briefly stated as follows: “That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him” [Eph. 1:10, 3:11]). The Scriptures inform us that God’s eternal purpose comprises His dealings with three elect Households: the Gentiles, the Jews, and the Body of Christ. These Households are identified in the Scriptures by their distinctive Commissions and Hopes, as follows in brief:

Gentiles – Elect Tribes/Nations
Commission: (1) to “replenish the earth,” i.e., to fill the land with righteous offspring; (2) to have dominion” over other sentient life, i.e., to “reign” over lesser created beings in the earth, such as fish, fowls, animals; (3) to subdue the earth, i.e., to maintain and bring man’s natural surroundings (non-sentient life) into subjection and order (Gen. 1:26-28, 9:1).
Hope: as individuals specifically identified with particular tribes/nations in the eternal kingdom, to fulfill their God-given commission regarding the earth, and to submit themselves in righteousness to Israel, the “chosen” nation (Isa. 60:1-3; Amos 9:11-12; Rev. 21:22-26).

Israel – God’s Chosen Nation (comprising 12 tribes)
Commission: to govern the nations and be a channel of blessings to them (Gen. 12:2-3; Heb. 11:8-10; Isa. 60:1-3; Amos 9:11-12; Matt. 28:19; Acts 3:13-26; Rev. 21:1-27).
Hope: in the eternal kingdom (beginning with the Millennial phase), as a nation of priests and kings (Ex. 19:6; cf. Rev. 1:6, 5:10), headed by David (Eze. 34:23-24, 37:24-25), to possess and rule the Gentiles in righteousness.

Body of Christ – No Tribal Nor National Distinctions
Commission: to make all see what is the fellowship of the mystery (Eph. 3:9), to govern the elect angels (I Cor. 6:3), who govern Israel, who govern the Gentiles (Rev. 21:9-14).
Hope: as joint-members of One Body (Rom. 8:16-17), under Christ, the One Lord and Head (Eph. 1:20-23), to rule the created order, including the holy angels (see scriptures immediately above, et. al.).

When these God-given divisions are observed, the clarity, accuracy, and uniformity of the Scriptures will be apparent. When they’re blurred or ignored, the Bible will seem to be anecdotal, contradictory, and generally hard to understand. But in such cases, as always, the difficulty is not with God’s Word, which is flawless – but with man, who is flawed.

MK