The Multi-Level Canon

[Robert R. Higby]

The Biblical Canon Study #4: Identifying the New Testament Canon #1

I. The Epistle to the Hebrews

As we move along in this most important endeavor, a picture is emerging of the difference between the traditional Reformed view, the Roman Catholic position, and the Christocentric view of discerning the canon of scripture. It has already been noted that Protestantism’s dogmatic error about the early closing of the 66-book canon, and its self-authenticating nature from the apostles’ day forward, is a major weapon in the Roman Catholic arsenal. We need to clearly understand the facts on this matter and sort out truth from fiction. Roman Catholicism in general wants to include a broad spectrum of contradictory theology in the canonical writings of ‘the church,’ which accomplishes the purpose of depreciating the authority of high-canon scripture and exalting religious tradition. But the Christocentric hermeneutic of Luther, in contrast to later Reformed views, would in some cases restrict the canon further than the Reformed position. There is a certainly recognition of a universally received core or superior canon by most believers from the first century on--but not an officially ‘closed’ New Testament canon including all of the books after Philemon in the current Bible.

As an introduction to the issue of discerning the New Testament Canon, please read the following Roman Catholic study. A few facts in the history presented need to be disputed. However, the myth of a self-authenticating and closed New Testament canon of 27 books as the faith of all believers since the first century is certainly exposed:


http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm

Roman Catholicism is quick to point out the Protestant errors in general but has typically been even more despising of Luther’s Christocentric position. Strangely, up until Luther’s separation the Catholics were tolerant of those within their own ranks who had doubts about the canonicity of certain books. The evidence for this fact has already been presented in other links.

No New Testament book has endured more controversy from the beginning than the letter to the Hebrews. The following study on this issue is excellent, especially on the refutation of the Hellenistic Jewish theory based on the Dead Sea Scrolls. The arguments based on a comparison of literary structure with other NT books certainly contain good points--but are very weak overall. Most of such arguments are weak in general, as authors of books typically do not use the same literary style and use of sources over the course of a long writing career. In addition, too much is assumed about the ‘implied’ theology of certain arguments made in Hebrews. Such assumptions are typical of scholars.

http://www.abu.nb.ca/courses/NTIntro/Heb.htm

We can see that Hebrews gained slow acceptance in some circles. The Muratorian fragment of the middle 2nd century does not mention it at all. Many ‘fathers’ were reluctant to include it in the higher canon, assuming its non-apostolic origin, and thus relegated it to the lower. Luther followed these arguments and also assumed Hebrews to be less than apostolic: though excellent in its exposition of Christ’s person and work. Of course, this conclusion obviously contradicted his otherwise Christ-centered hermeneutic of discerning scripture! It is critical to realize that from about 60 A.D. and after, false apostles and writings were legion. The task of discerning the true from the false became increasingly difficult, as so many writings came into circulation that claimed apostolic authority. Therefore, the late apostolic writings appeared in direct competition with the writings of the great apostasy. There was no sure and certain network of true believers with an easy communication to assure one another of which writings were genuine! In some cases such word was available, in many others the truth of a book had to be spiritually discerned. This is why the apostolic writings written at a later date have more of a history of controversy.

There is, of course, no way to demonstrate beyond all doubt who the author of Hebrews was. The arguments presented in the book are generally in line with Paul’s theology--but use a different approach and method of presentation. I personally accept the Lukan-Pauline authorship of the book for the following reasons:

1. The contemporary situation addressed by the book would imply a date not too long before the destruction of Jerusalem, probably very late in Paul’s ministry. This important fact, combined with the Pauline character of the teaching advanced, points to an authorship by someone intimately acquainted with Paul and his teaching in the final years before his martyrdom.

2. A comparison of Luke 1:1, 2, the terminology of Acts, and Heb. 2:3, 4 points to Luke as the author.

3. The literary style and structured argument of the book is characteristic of Luke’s other writings. As the study above points out, there is no evidence of Clement’s speculation that Paul originally wrote the book in Hebrew to Jewish Christians. Paul wrote very little from his own hand; even his epistles are mostly dictated. It is very possible that portions of Hebrews were dictated by Paul or contain his arguments as incorporated by Luke. But the writing itself was originally in Greek and addressed to Greek-speaking Jews.

4. The conclusion in chapter 13 is typically Pauline. This might even be the words of Paul appended to Luke’s work--or it might also be Luke’s own conclusion. The two men were constantly together in the late years of Paul’s earthly ministry and taught in the same circle of fellowship of believers (2 Tim. 4:11,12).

5. The conclusion to the letter was probably written from Italy (13:24) where Luke was with Paul in his final days.

6. There is no evidence that Barnabas or Apollos had an intimate acquaintance with Paul in his later years, which makes it unlikely that either of them is the author of the book.

There has been some theological controversy surrounding certain passages in Hebrews, as there certainly has been regarding some parts of the synoptic gospels, Acts, and John’s or Peter’s writings. The existence of such argument in no way constitutes a basis to reduce the canonical status of Hebrews to the lower canon. The book speaks with the same gospel authority as the rest of the apostolic writings.

The present author accepts Hebrews in the high-canon of scripture based on the arguments here presented.

[Robert R. Higby]

Who are the ‘we’ in Hebrews?

For we are not of those who draw back to perdition, but of those who believe to the saving of the soul. Heb. 10:39 NKJV

The epistle named ‘to the Hebrews’ constantly refers to a ‘we’ community that the author is part of. For this reason, some have proposed that Luke could not possibly be the author--since he was a gentile and the book is addressed to a Jewish community. Why do so many assume that the book is addressed primarily to Jews? I would propose that this is a wrong assumption and contrary to the whole emphasis of the book. In fact, the book has been tragically mis-named.

This letter is addressed to the Christian community everywhere, which certainly included a large number of Greek-speaking Jews at that time. So in reality it is a General Epistle, not an epistle written to Hebrews. The primary focus of the book is to exalt Christ in opposition to heresies of Talmudic and Hellenistic Judaism that constantly tortured the Christian community. It is because of the prominence of those heresies at the time that this book on the theme of Christ is superior was written.

There were at least four major Judaistic heresies spreading like wildfire in the early 60's A.D., which together constituted the major part of the mystery of iniquity at that time:

1. Talmudic Judaism. This is the Judaism that rejected the Lord Jesus Christ to teach and believe more and more fables about the Law, which we still have with us today in the three major sects of 21st century Judaism. It was not the Judaism of the Old Testament prophets in any sense, but a revisionist and sectarian religion of will-worship teaching justification by character and works. The religion claimed the great heritage of God’s past election and taught that the Way was a Johnny-come-lately sect on the lunatic fringe-- practicing a distorted worship of a man who was not due such honor. Some of the Talmudic Jews might have hailed Jesus as a great prophet (as some do today) and a few might even have believed that he rose from the dead. None believed that he was God the Son, the son of man (Dan. 7:13,14), or the Messiah.

2. Judaistic Christianity. This is what Paul opposed in Galatians, the notion that Christians must become Jews as a part of their obedience to God and obey the laws given to Israel in the Old Testament. Paul is very clear in his teaching that acceptance of such religion is apostasy from the grace of Christ and a denial of the Christian gospel (Gal. 1:8,9; 2:17,18; 4:8-10; 5:1-4).

3. Synchronism. The heresy opposed by Paul in Colossians was basically a Gnostic synthesis of Christian, Jewish, and Greek philosophy. It was an attempt to re-stage Judaistic Christianity with a different and more appealing face. The same Jewish laws were taught as the essential means to self-improvement along with other ascetic practices. In addition, a respect and worship of certain angels (principalities) was urged as the means to personal peace and fulfillment. These angels were believed to have certain powers and control over destiny that Christ was not sovereign over; hence the need to grant them worship in addition to Jesus.

4. Hellenistic Judaism. The religious differences between Greek-speaking Jews and those in Judea have been extremely over-emphasized by scholars. In reality, there is a huge overlap in the Judaism of the Talmud and that of Philo. The dogmatic free-will philosophy of the Pharisees and Sadducees comes straight from Platonic Greek philosophy. Closely related, though not accepted by all legalistic Jews, is the philosophy of Gnosticism. Although the Pharisees believed the doctrine of a resurrection, it is doubtful that many of them believed it according to the prophets. For many it was a doctrine of ‘afterlife’ that consisted of an eschatology of pure spirit. The resurrection became increasingly associated with the entry of the soul into the world of ideas at death, nothing more.

‘Christianized’ Gnosticism had its roots in Hellenistic Judaism. The doctrine in its very essence is a denial of the Christ of gospel revelation, since it denies that God can become incarnate in human flesh or that anyone can be resurrected in an immortal material body. But as to the external glories and correctness of Judaism in this life, Hellenistic Judaism was in agreement with Talmudic Judaism.

To believe and cherish any of these four prominent heresies was apostasy from Christ. For this reason, the epistle proclaiming Christ is superior was written to combat all Judaic heresy threatening the gospel of Jesus Christ. The mis-naming of the book as Hebrews was a historical blunder and led to doubt as to its author and canonical status. We do not know how this mistake originally happened. However, from the internal evidence of the epistle itself, we can see that it was a most unfortunate and tragic event.

[Robert R. Higby]

To those who have no works-phobia, I will state that you are not trembling before the gospel!

LOJ: Biblical compassion is not subjective to what we determine it is, but what God says it is. It is not a socialist system, true biblical compassion goes to the root of the issue.

If it is not socialist then it is discriminatory. You cannot have it both ways. Either the community of believers is responsible toward the gospel-believing poor or they are responsible to help ALL poor, it has to be one or the other.

It is not a feel good self imposed system to ease our guilt, scripture commands us to discern who is really in need vs those who are their for the free ride. But because we cannot always determine this, it is better to help both until we can know the truth.

Those in need who are BELIEVERS. The 'discernment' issue is often cited; the notion that we cannot USUALLY discern a liar who claims need is ridiculous.

Paul commands the church to care for "those widows who are really in need" (1 Tim. 5:3), but says that even in the body of Christ not every widow qualifies for church support.

Of course! He even says to give nothing to those under 60 years old, who are responsible to support themselves and their children by diligent labor!

God is the rescuer of the poor (Job 29:12; Psalm 35:10; Jer. 20:13).

Luke also quotes Christ in his gospel as teaching "blessed are ye poor"! But this is not ALL poor! It points out that the poor are often saved in greater numbers than the rich. And no one was more diligent in helping the POOR WHO BELIEVED THE GOSPEL than Dr. Luke!

So in regards to your story Bob, perhaps Luke has not seen the plight of the needy, perhaps like us he has isolated himself from the destitute, perhaps like some he has left part of the Gospel out, because if he had known the WHOLE council of God, he would have answered much differently.

Are we talking about the same person? Obviously not!

[lionovjudah]

To those who have no works-phobia, I will state that you are not trembling before the gospel!

I do not know what this means

If it is not socialist then it is discriminatory. You cannot have it both ways. Either the community of believers is responsible toward the gospel-believing poor or they are responsible to help ALL poor, it has to be one or the other.

I disagree. We help one at a time. To excuse ourselves because the mountain appears insurmountable is weak. And to limit this to some arbitrary gospel believing poor is exactly the opposite of what Christ exemplified.

Did he not die for us while we were enemies? He loved people who hated Him.

Those in need who are BELIEVERS. The 'discernment' issue is often cited; the notion that we cannot USUALLY discern a liar who claims need is ridiculous.

Bob, you can discern a free loader.

Of course! He even says to give nothing to those under 60 years old, who are responsible to support themselves and their children by diligent labor!

See above. But not all poor are able to help themselves. Again the cliche' "GOd helps those who help themselves" which is 100% anti Christ/ Anti Gospel, is used as a cloak for our apathy. Am I to ask, "Excuse me sir, I will help you if you believe the Gospel" This again is not expressed in the writ. Go to a family who does nto ave any idea where their next meal is coming from and they do not want to hear about limited atonement without feeding them. We are commanded to do both. Talk to them about Christ and help them.

The fallacy of liberation theology is to say praxis is the way. To speak of corporate sin instead of salvation of individuals. I am not condoning anything of the sort. Salvation is NOT the liberation from the oppressors, or forms of exploitation. We must proclaim the Gospel to them and not only feedthem, but wqe cannot forget the latter.

Are we talking about the same person? Obviously not!

I thought your story was fictional.. Did something like this actually happen?

[Robert R. Higby]

The 'remembering the poor' that Paul was exhorted to by the Jerusalem elders was in reference to the believing community at Jerusalem--they were in poverty due to persecution from the Jews. The Bible records Paul's gathering of offerings from the gentiles on their behalf. I know of nowhere where Christ ever stated that we are responsible for the masses of poor of the world. We are commanded to do good to all men--but that is not the same thing as a command to indiscriminately feed the poor everywhere. Certainly we are not obligated to give to ministries that feed the poor while teaching them a false gospel--and that is the point of the story.

The characters in the fictional story are real biblical characters.

Nowhere does the Bible say feed first, then teach the gospel. We are commanded to proclaim the truth first and foremost. We can certainly feed while teaching! But if an unbeliever indicates that their primary interest is economic aid we are not obligated to provide it.

[Robert R. Higby]

TIME: 67 A.D on a Saturday afternoon in November.

KNOCK, KNOCK, KNOCK on Dr. Luke’s front door.

Luke gets up from his favorite chair and slowly walks to the window beside the door. He sees Matthias Ben Jonas with whom he had exchanged a heated argument four weeks earlier. He makes his way to the door and opens it.

Matt: Good afternoon, Dr. Luke. Even though you will find it hard to believe after our last meeting together, I’m very glad to see you!

Luke: I’m glad that you came back Matt. What is on your mind today?

Matt: Luke, something terrible has happened. My soul is enduring a measure of sorrow that I cannot express adequately in words. After visiting you a month ago and returning to Jerusalem, I received word from James that Rabbi Paulus, the enemy of all Christians who maintain the Law of Moses is still in force, was killed in Rome by direct order from wicked Caesar Nero. Many of my colleagues were celebrating his death as the downfall of an enemy. They drank wine to excess at their parties and proudly shouted : "I’m exuberant that the bastard son of heathen Rome is gone!" I have resigned my position as head of Whole Earth Vision. After witnessing their reaction to Paul’s death, in conscience I can have no part in continuing any kind of work with these men--no matter how much I have disagreed with Paul’s teaching in the past and still do in the present. I’m coming to you not because we agree--but simply because I have no friends left on earth! My wife and children have also left me--insisting that if I would not repent of my errors and plead for my job to be re-instated, they would have to cast me out as an enemy of God and his Law.

Luke: Matt, God certainly works in mysterious ways! I’m persuaded that He has taken you through these experiences to prepare your soul for the GREATNESS of the gospel. I certainly did not expect to see you this soon after the nature of our last visit. Are you willing to listen to a story, my story, which is something amazing and mighty in testimony of God’s grace the such of which you have never heard before?

Matt: Well, Luke, I would not have listened to you at all a month ago but now I’m all ears!

Luke: Well, as a humble start, James found out about Paul’s death from me. I’m sure that he was the one who sent you to me a month ago. Apparently, after you talked to him about your experience here, he decided to come and visit me personally. What you probably did not know is that I have only been back in Syria four months now. I was gone for five years traveling with Paul before that! Paul had sent for me when he was informed of his pending release in six months from his house-arrest in Rome. At that time I was here finishing up my second book to Theophilus, governor of this region, on the history of events since the resurrection of Jesus. Theo became a Christian while I was gone and now fellowships with the believers here in Antioch. Oh what a joy it was to share with him when I returned! Although I had known him for 30 years prior, it was the first time that we interacted as fellow-believers!

After I traveled to Rome almost 6 years ago, I had several months of sweet fellowship with Paul before he was released from house arrest. He was staying at the home of his brother Rufus the senator and preaching to the masses in Rome from there!. After Paul gained his freedom, we prepared and embarked on his fourth and final missionary journey to the countries west of Italy. Paul preached the gospel as faithfully in Spain, England, Germany, and France as he had everywhere else in the former years here in Asia. And the message of Christ was more readily received in the West than anywhere else! I cannot begin to explain in words the joy in Christ that we experienced together. Those were the very best years of my life!

It took Nero’s army two years to find Paul after the order was given to arrest him. They finally apprehended us at Lyon in southern France. I was with Paul at every moment from then on up until witnessing his death. Matt, a large number who saw him executed committed to lifelong faith in Jesus Christ on the spot! Although we cannot expect that such miracles will always happen, it is fitting that such great wonders did occur at the death of Christ’s greatest human teacher other than himself!

Matt: I’m stunned and amazed, Luke. What a story! I am conscious of my great sin this day; always pursuing great programs to help the poor and not thinking through WHY I’m doing it and whether it is for the right reasons.

Luke: Well, Matt, I have good news for you! I’m inviting you to stay with me here for as long as you like. I have just resumed my medical practice a few months back and I need another assistant. Business is going better than I had planned. When I returned here I was broke except for still owning this property; I had expended all of my means on the needy believers in Rome and Europe and in supporting Paul’s ministry!

Matt: Oh, Luke, that would be great! I accept! I so apologize for the great sin of naming you a cruel and heartless man at our last meeting. At least the Lord has shown me the awful thing I did then, even though I still don’t agree with what I have been told about the teaching of you and Rabbi Paul.

Luke: Matt, I will continue to pray for you earnestly. My prayers since your last visit have certainly been remarkably answered by the Lord!

[lionovjudah]

Nowhere does the Bible say feed first, then teach the gospel. We are commanded to proclaim the truth first and foremost. We can certainly feed while teaching! But if an unbeliever indicates that their primary interest is economic aid we are not obligated to provide it.

I agree with this Bob. This is what I meant by discerning the persons motives.

Feeding them will not cure the disease of sin, only Christ can. Procalim first and foremost is correct.

[Eileen]

This story is right now the only thing I am reading here so I do hope you continue Bob......it is fascinating!

There are little golden nuggets buried in it and maybe the ones I see are only nuggets for me (the Lord truly does work in mysterious ways) but I look forward to the continuing saga...

Thanks
Eileen~

[Robert R. Higby]

Thanks Eileen, I'm thrilled in the Lord that you have been edified!

I will continue to post additional episodes of Luke vs. Matt. and additional studies on the canon. I'm working on James right now. However, today my priorities have shifted and I'm starting to work on a new lengthy article entitled "The Trinity Foundation: My Joyful Tribute and Bitter Dissension". The article will celebrate all of the past triumphs of the TF and also clearly state all points of my current dissension. This effort is absolutely necessary as a response to recent lies about this forum and must take priority above all other things until I'm finished with it! --Bob

[Robert R. Higby]

Luke vs. Matt, part III
TIME: 67 A.D on a late Sunday night in December
Background: Matt has now worked a month assisting Luke in his medical practice. Luke and Matt have just arrived at Luke’s home to retire for the night--after attending the weekly Christian worship service at Antioch which was a 30-year custom celebrated by believers there.

Matt: Luke, I’m amazed! I cannot explain what I have witnessed these last few weeks in worshiping with the Antioch believers. The teaching goes against almost everything that I have promoted for over 30 years as a member of the party of James (Gal. 2:12a)! Nonetheless, I have a clear and indestructible persuasion that the Holy Spirit of God is present here in a powerful manifestation that he never exhibited among my former Jerusalem sect. Yet I still cannot accept all of your doctrines that promote a total abolition of the law of God given to the ancient Fathers of Israel.

Luke: I completely understand what you are thinking on this matter. Some of your presuppositions are distorted, such as the notion that the former commandments of God are rendered completely useless by the superior command to believe in Jesus Christ. God gave the former law as a necessary schoolmaster to restrain sin--until the time that our God and Savior Jesus Christ came into the world to provide salvation for us in his infinite grace! But I trust and know that he will lead you into this glorious truth in his own time.

Matt: Luke, the crux of the matter is this: I have been torn between two different persuasions ever since Paul came to Jerusalem 18 years ago. Since the Gentile churches claim that Paul is the twelfth apostle, I naturally fought against that notion--since the Jerusalem apostles cast the lot that fell and appointed me as the twelfth. No doubt this attitude may have been selfish. Nonetheless, does God lie and frustrate us in his workings? Up until now, the doctrines of Paul have been perceived as heresy by the party of James and continue to be. Even though I am no longer accepted by them, I certainly do not reject all of their beliefs. Some of them I still consider to be sound.

Luke: Matt, have you ever investigated what really happened in the meetings between Paul and the Jerusalem elders? I know that you felt slighted for not being invited. However, the party you have been associated with has continued to promote falsehoods about the agreement reached there--ever since the day that Peter, John, James, Barnabas, and Paul joined hands in fellowship and commitment to the gospel that Paul was commissioned to (Gal.2:9).

Matt: I don’t know about that. Why hasn’t James ever explained this to me? If he signed on to what Paul was preaching, why has he not explicitly denied the beliefs of his fellow Jewish Christians who teach the necessity of obeying the Torah? It has always seemed to me that James wavers back-and-forth in his convictions. He is a man in torment in his soul. But I have noticed during all the years since that meeting that Peter and John do not agree with him on many things. Peter finally left Jerusalem to promote the same teaching as Paul. John withdrew from us to write his own account of the life and teachings of Jesus. Rumor has it that since Paul was killed, John is ready and willing to teach Paul’s gospel and be another apostle to the Gentiles. I’m really, really confused and disturbed about all of this!

Luke: You are correct in most of your conclusions. James has never consistently defended Paul’s gospel to the nations that he claims to believe, yet unlike the totally unbelieving among your former Jewish associates–due to conscience and conviction he will not deny it. Peter and John have unwaveringly believed the true gospel all these years--but have had a hard time understanding their mission with respect to it. They ultimately left Jerusalem and the fellowship of the party of James because they could no longer continue there in denial of their gospel convictions. In addition, they heeded the warning of our Lord to leave (Mark 13:14), knowing that the destruction of Jerusalem is immanent.

Matt: Well Luke, you seem to present an impregnable argument. But let us get back to the basic question: does God accept and acquit those who despise and trample upon the Law that he gave to his ancient people? That is the real question.

Luke: Your question is asked based on false premises. The law given to Israel was a schoolmaster leading to faith in Jesus Christ–which faith is the only evidence of justification before God. No true believer despises and tramples upon the law given through Moses. However, we need to recognize that God has established a superior means of salvation above law in the atonement of his Son. The law of Moses could protect from destruction IN THIS LIFE those who obeyed it externally, however, that type of obedience can never merit ETERNAL LIFE! To demonstrate that we are heirs of the everlasting kingdom of God initiated in his Son Jesus Christ, we must abandon the merit of our own character and rest solely in the merits of what Jesus has accomplished in his obedience and death!

Matt: You have presented some good notions, Luke. ALMOST I’m persuaded to become a believer in Paul’s gospel, but not yet!

Luke: I’ll continue to pray for you Matt!

[M.K. Nawojski]

Greetings all,

Having spent some weeks, as a “guest,” perusing the information presented/discussed on this site -- and by that means, having made what I thought was a judicious assessment of the standards imposed by the moderators, to ensure acceptable levels of soundness in the material and circumspection in the dialogue -- I recently joined the ranks of the 5solas membership.

Then I stumbled onto this “Multi-Level Canon” discussion.

To launch the thread, R. R. Higby wrote: “If the issue of the canon is to be re-opened and re-studied . . . . The bottom line is this: the notion of a true closing of the canon is historical revisionism. I believe that Luther is correct in defining THE GOSPEL AS THE BASIS OF THE CANON, NOT . . . THAT THE CANON DEFINES THE GOSPEL. The self-authenticating nature (as affirmed by the Holy Spirit) of the apostolic writings rich in THE GOSPEL OF CHRIST provides the standard by which to evaluate the ALLEGED INSPIRATION of other writings [emphasis mine].”

I’ve got to say I was stunned by the subtle circular reasoning thus couched, in words that seem to augur for a desirable Christian pursuit. But surely regenerate individuals should preface the decision to undertake such an exercise with some clear, uncompromising questions. For example, if believers currently have no defined canon, can we be sure of anything? If we currently have no defined canon, how is this “gospel of Christ” (so glibly referenced by Mr. Higby) to be discovered and clarified? If we currently have no defined canon, do we have an unshakeable foundation for ANY of the doctrines we hold and promote? To what specific method does Mr. Higby refer, when he mentions “the self-authenticating nature of the apostolic writings,” as “affirmed by the Holy Spirit”? And who -- among the irreverent theologians who might associate themselves with such a venture! -- would be selected as the “final authority” on the "new" canon? (Even the Roman Pope has not had clear sailing with this type of “speaking ex cathedra” business.)

In Col. 1:25, Paul says it was given to him to fulfill (i.e., to make full, to render full, to make complete) the Word of God. This completion of the Word of God has consequences. It means the sign gifts have now ceased, so believers are no longer given necessary knowledge (or “sermons”) supernaturally, as in Mark 13:11 (“But when they shall lead you, and deliver you up, take no thought beforehand what ye shall speak, neither do ye premeditate: but whatsoever shall be given you in that hour, that speak ye: for it is not ye that speak, but the Holy Ghost.”) It means Truth must be sought via the completed Word, which we have in the historical Protestant canon (Eph. 4:1-6; II Tim. 2:15). And this Truth must be sought by diligent, laborious study – not crafty imaginations, vain fancies, sly inventiveness.

I freely admit to not having read the entire twelve pages of the Multi-Level Canon thread -- I have more worthwhile tasks than that to occupy my mind! – but, after glancing over the first pages, I did scan the final offerings, as well. And I can’t really say I was surprised! On the contrary, it seemed quite fitting that a thread which was launched on the premise that the canon does not define the gospel (but the gospel defines the canon) has now slid to promoting stark, unabashed fables -- and this in the face of Paul’s clear admonition to the Body of Christ in I Tim. 1:1-4; I Tim. 4:1-11; II Tim. 4:1-8; and Tit. 1:1-14.

I close with a reminder that the commission of such profane activities does not fall under the comfortable umbrella of mere “academic exercise” but, on the contrary, it is reminiscent of Lucifer’s dialogue with Eve in the Garden of Eden (“Yea, hath God said . . .”), and it will reap commensurate eternal consequences.

Mary Kae

[Brandan Kraft]

Thanks Mary,

I have a few questions.

Who defined the current canon? (*hint* it wasn't the apostles)

What authority did they have for defining the canon?

Why do you or don't you include the apocrypha in your "canon?"

I find it remarkable that you do not see the circular reasoning of your arguments, yet you unconscionably slam us for "subtly" introducing circular reasoning into our arguments. Apparently it is ok for you to have YOUR canon defined for you by the protestant reformers or the roman catholics, but it's not ok for us to have OUR canon defined by our own understanding of the Gospel.

This is what I hear you saying: We shouldn't be having a discussion over the canon because the canon is quite clear that it is the canon and besides that was taken care for us because I trust that the council knew what it was doing, and apparently I along with you do not have the knowledge or authority to determine for ourselves what is to be included in the canon, and HOW DARE YOU FOR NOT AGREEEING WITH ME!

Now that's circular reasoning!

But that's beside the point. Personally I don't have a problem with circular reasoning; and I also believe that it is necessary to come to an understanding of the truth. Men are dependent upon God for the knowledge of the truth, but how do they come to this understanding? They presuppose that they will depend on God for knowledge of the truth. See, it's circular!

The difference between me and you is I believe present day saints have the authority to determine what is truly God-breathed scripture, and you do not. You believe that ancient councils long after the death of the Apostles had the authority to determine the canon for me, and I don't. You believe that the protestant reformers had the authority to negotiate with the catholics to keep the book of James in the canon, and I don't have the authority to reject it as non-canonical. To me, your position is one of popery and authoritarianism.

But anyway, welcome to 5solas.

Brandan

[GraceAmbassador]

In Col. 1:25, Paul says it was given to him to fulfill (i.e., to make full, to render full, to make complete) the Word of God. This completion of the Word of God has consequences. It means the sign gifts have now ceased, so believers are no longer given necessary knowledge (or “sermons”) supernaturally, as in Mark 13:11 (“But when they shall lead you, and deliver you up, take no thought beforehand what ye shall speak, neither do ye premeditate: but whatsoever shall be given you in that hour, that speak ye: for it is not ye that speak, but the Holy Ghost.”) It means Truth must be sought via the completed Word, which we have in the historical Protestant canon (Eph. 4:1-6; II Tim. 2:15). And this Truth must be sought by diligent, laborious study – not crafty imaginations, vain fancies, sly inventiveness.

I really appreciate your zeal for the canon and the Word of God, but allow me to propose to you a few comments and questions based upon your statement quoted above:

On this first quote you must show undeniable and indisputable proof that Paul had in mind the "canon" as we had today and since you are so zealous for the canon, please also show us in the canon where it says above and beyond shadow of doubt that the gifts have ceased. Show me a scripture that says "Yea, behold, lo, I now cease my gifts...". It is easy to defend the canon and it is also commendable and we all appreciate one who defends it, but it is very hard to stick to it as strongly as one defends it. If you can't show a scripture that says something above and beyond any shadow of doubt in your canon and maintain that that canon is "sacred" (although you did not use the word "sacred"), to me is a contradiction and the allegiance to such a canon is not as strong as it may be purported.

I freely admit to not having read the entire twelve pages of the Multi-Level Canon thread -- I have more worthwhile tasks than that to occupy my mind! – but, after glancing over the first pages, I did scan the final offerings, as well. And I can’t really say I was surprised! On the contrary, it seemed quite fitting that a thread which was launched on the premise that the canon does not define the gospel (but the gospel defines the canon) has now slid to promoting stark, unabashed fables -- and this in the face of Paul’s clear admonition to the Body of Christ in I Tim. 1:1-4; I Tim. 4:1-11; II Tim. 4:1-8; and Tit. 1:1-14.
I close with a reminder that the commission of such profane activities does not fall under the comfortable umbrella of mere “academic exercise” but, on the contrary, it is reminiscent of Lucifer’s dialogue with Eve in the Garden of Eden (“Yea, hath God said . . .”), and it will reap commensurate eternal consequences.

Condescending remarks aside, how can you equate a fair assessment of what has been presented to us as The Canon to the dialogue Lucifer had with Eve?
How are we disputing the Word of God and how are we saying "Has not God said, as we discuss the canon that was dished out to us by an agreement of those interested in maintaining certain books in it for reasons that we cannot even fathon other than "religious convenience"? Do you really think we are questioning the Word of God if we feel that there are interpolations and portions of the books contained in the scriptures that could possibly not be "inspired" by God but placed in there by translators and so called "church fathers"? Let me know if I am as Lucifer for quesitioning James 2, a few of its verses. It would be interesting to know if I am reminiscent of Lucifer's dialogue with Eve for presenting my questions and points of view.

Again, I appreciate your zeal, but your zeal cannot respond to you who decided on the canon and why we have unquestionably to accept what they have decided as canon. Were the men who decided on the canon as we have it today "holy" and infallible man? If yes, then you are a reminiscent of the papacy infalibility dogma. You probably would better say: Rome sweet Rome! If not, then, why not debate what "not so holy man" have decided if the core message of the Gospel will remain intact?

Milt

[M.K. Nawojski]

Hello Brandan,

I was a bit disappointed that your response to my post assigned errors to me which I do not hold. I was more disappointed, however, that you completely side-stepped my central question, i.e., “If we currently have no defined canon, how is this “gospel of Christ” (so glibly referenced by Mr. Higby) to be discovered and clarified?”

Ah well, I’m an old lady and well used to disappointments. So be it. Nonetheless, I will sweep aside the “apocrypha” diversion of your post, and reply to what I perceive to be the central questions.

You wrote: “Who defined the current canon? (*hint* it wasn’t the
apostles)”

And you asked: “What authority did they have for defining the
canon?”

The canon of the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) was defined and validated by Christ in Luke 24:44-48: “And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that ALL THINGS MUST BE FULFILLED, WHICH WERE WRITTEN IN THE LAW OF MOSES AND IN THE PROPHETS, AND IN THE PSALMS CONCERNING ME. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. And ye are witnesses of these things [emphasis mine].” In the Hebrew Scriptures, the portion of text which Christ here calls the “Law of Moses,” i.e., Torah, includes Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. The portion of text which He here calls the “Prophets,” i.e., Nebi’im, includes Joshua, Judges, Samuel [I & II], Kings [I & II]”, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi. The portion of text which He here calls the “Psalms,” i.e., Kethubim/Writings, includes the Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Canticles [Song of Solomon], Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah, and Chronicles [I & II]. Thus, in one brief statement, the Lord Jesus confirms the OT canon which we recognize and use today (although the various books are not necessarily arranged in that order).

The canon of the Greek Scriptures (New Testament) is comprised of “gospels” (i.e., inspired historical accounts, including the book of Acts) and epistles. These were written by apostles of Israel’s dispensation (i.e., Matthew, Mark, Luke [a proselyte of the gate], John, James, Peter, Jude [Judas], and the author of Hebrews [possibly Appolos]) -- and by Paul, whose epistles, in many cases, were co-authored by secondary Body apostles. In other words, the entire corpus of the Greek New Testament was written by either apostles of Israel’s dispensation or apostles of the Body dispensation. Moreover, in Galatians 2:1-10*, we have the inspired record of these two groups’ official recognition of each other’s apostleship, ministry, and message. And we have representative apostles from each group giving the “right hand of fellowship” to the other, in confirmation of this solemn acknowledgement. Since recognition of an apostle’s divine calling and commissioning necessarily entails recognition of the inspiration of his preserved writings – the Gal. 2:1-10 record serves as a definition and validation of the New Testament canon. (Also, please note that James, whose epistle is currently being called into question on the 5solas “Multi-Level Canon” thread, was present at this meeting and participated in the mutual giving and receiving of the right hand of fellowship.)

*Gal. 2:1-10: “Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also. And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain. But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised: And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage: To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you. But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man’s person for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me: But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles And when James, Cephas [Peter], and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision. Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.”

And finally, there’s the inspired statement by Paul, the primary apostle of the Body of Christ, regarding the fact that he himself had been personally commissioned by the risen Lord to complete the Word of God. In Col. 1:25-27, he writes: “Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil (i.e., to make full, to complete) 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:” If this inspired statement regarding Paul’s God-given commission is compared with his virtual “death-bed” testimony, recorded in II Tim. 3:16-4:18 (noticing particularly what he says about the “books” [i.e., the scrolls, the books of the OT] and “especially” the “parchments” [i.e., the gospels and epistles that comprise the NT] -- can any believer doubt that his purpose in having Timothy gather all these manuscripts together and bring them along for their final meeting was for the purpose of officially validating and arranging the books of both the Old AND New Testaments for the Body of Christ -- and to hand this completed and authenticated canon over to Body apostles and assemblies, for safekeeping, BEFORE his (i.e., Paul’s) fast-approaching final “hearing” at Caesar’s judgment seat and his subsequent execution. In the mouth of “two or three witnesses,” i.e., Paul and Timothy, every word would be (and was) established (cf. II Cor. 13:1b). Thus, members of the Body of Christ can rest in the knowledge that the God of Scripture is not malicious, nor is He the author of confusion -- but He is the all powerful and faithful Father Who has most assuredly given us His infallible, authoritative, and exhaustive Word, to guide our steps in this evil age.

I close with the referenced death-bed testimony of Paul, in context: “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry. For I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand. I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith: Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing. Do thy diligence to come shortly unto me: For Demas hath forsaken me, having loved this present world, and is departed unto Thessalonica; Crescens to Galatia, Titus unto Dalmatia. Only Luke is with me. Take Mark, and bring him with thee: for he is profitable to me for the ministry. And Tychicus have I sent to Ephesus. The cloke that I left at Troas with Carpus, when thou comest, bring with thee, and the books, but especially the parchments. . . . At my first answer no man stood with me, but all men forsook me: I pray God that it may not be laid to their charge. Notwithstanding the Lord stood with me, and strengthened me; that by me the preaching might be fully known, and that all the Gentiles might hear: and I was delivered out of the mouth of the lion. And the Lord shall deliver me from every evil work, and will preserve me unto his heavenly kingdom: to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.”

Mary Kae

[M.K. Nawojski]

Greetings All,

I'm sorry to see that the program which uploads posts to the 5solas forum has created happy faces out of two of the parentheses in my second post.

In future, I hope I may come to understand enough about this system to avoid such glitches.

Especially in a post where I'm not attempting to make jokes or to generate levity of any kind.

MK

[Robert R. Higby]

Answers to MK:

I’ve got to say I was stunned by the subtle circular reasoning thus couched, in words that seem to augur for a desirable Christian pursuit.

It is the opposite view that is based on circular reasoning: the notion that we FIRST have to define and accept a CLOSED and SELF AUTHENTICATING canon as a basis of faith and only THEN believe the gospel that is within that canon. This would mean that belief in the scriptures is a CONDITION or PRECEDENT to genuine faith. Our view:

1. The Holy Spirit seals the gospel of Christ within the canon into our hearts.
2. Based on the preciousness of the gospel, the canon mediating Christ to our souls becomes clear.
3. We accept the true canon of scripture.

But surely regenerate individuals should preface the decision to undertake such an exercise with some clear, uncompromising questions. For example, if believers currently have no defined canon, can we be sure of anything? If we currently have no defined canon, how is this “gospel of Christ” (so glibly referenced by Mr. Higby) to be discovered and clarified? If we currently have no defined canon, do we have an unshakeable foundation for ANY of the doctrines we hold and promote?

We have a clearly defined core canon; I have established this again and again. To state that I have proposed otherwise only shows ignorance of the position that I have set forth on the doctrine of the core canon. I have challenged but a few books in the commonly accepted Protestant canon (for legitimate reasons) and also pointed out the illogical method used to exalt certain books while trampling down others that testify to Christ.

[GraceAmbassador]

Mk:

Your response is the same we have had for ages and clings to traditional thinking. I wish I had a nickel for every time I heard this explanation.

I still do not know how can people possibly infer or accept that when Paul spoke of "all scriptures are inspired by God" he was thinking about the writings of James and every single book and knew how to exclude the apocrypha.

Your answer was very good but a repetition of the same arguments we attempt to politely and fairly question here. The fact that is a repetition does not make something necessarily wrong, but it certainly does not make it right either.

How can Paul stating that "all scriptures are inspired by God" be equal to the "deciding" of the canon by the so called "church fathers"? I don't see the connection here.

Paul could be speaking of "all the scriptures of the Old Testament, his writings, and the early apostles writings if one is to believe that Paul considered the early apostles writings as "scriptures". One thing is certain though: Paul would not call scriptures which contradict his teachings lest he would make his own teaching not inspired. That's why we question a few scriptures, including but not limited to James.

There is no reason for scandal and offense in discussing the authenticity of certain texts and even books and to imply that such a discussion is reminiscent of Lucifer; In fact, to keep people in darkness and pose sensationalist arguments as if wanting to scare people away from questioning certain writings thus maintaining one blinded by shady concepts is not only reminiscent of Lucifer but it is his work and it has been his poorly creative tactic since the world began.

For a long time theologians have disputed the authenticity and inspiration of portions of Mark 16. It has been OK for many because Mark 16 speaks of things that for many denominations notions spoken in Mark 16 are nothing but anathema. I, and other moderators here believe that questioning portions of what has been given to us as "canon" is nothing new, nothing wrong and to our advantage we don't have an agenda to prove that the "other guys" are anathema.

Milt

[M.K. Nawojski]

Hello Milt,

In response to my original post, you wrote:

“ . . . since you are so zealous for the canon, please also show us in the canon where it says above and beyond shadow of doubt that the gifts have ceased. Show me a scripture that says ‘Yea, behold, lo, I now cease my gifts...’.”

As I do not have unlimited time and energy, I will leave your challenge regarding the “sign gifts” for another day.

You also wrote:

“If you can't show a scripture that says something above and beyond any shadow of doubt in your canon and maintain that that canon is ‘sacred’ (although you did not use the word ‘sacred’), to me is a contradiction and the allegiance to such a canon is not as strong as it may be purported. . . . Condescending remarks aside, how can you equate a fair assessment of what has been presented to us as The Canon to the dialogue Lucifer had with Eve? How are we disputing the Word of God and how are we saying ‘Has not God said, as we discuss the canon that was dished out to us by an agreement of those interested in maintaining certain books in it for reasons that we cannot even fathon other than ‘religious convenience’? Do you really think we are questioning the Word of God if we feel that there are interpolations and portions of the books contained in the scriptures that could possibly not be ‘inspired’ by God but placed in there by translators and so called ‘church fathers’? Let me know if I am as Lucifer for quesitioning James 2, a few of its verses. It would be interesting to know if I am reminiscent of Lucifer's dialogue with Eve for presenting my questions and points of view. . . . Were the men who decided on the canon as we have it today ‘holy’ and infallible man? If yes, then you are a reminiscent of the papacy infalibility dogma. You probably would better say: Rome sweet Rome! If not, then, why not debate what ‘not so holy man’ have decided if the core message of the Gospel will remain intact?”

I believe the original autographs were perfect, and -- having come from the pen of the original (fallible) human authors under inspiration and oversight of the Holy Spirit (II Pet. 1:19-21) -- that they contained the perfect Word (and words) of God. Moreover, I believe that perfect Word was and is robust enough to be recoverable today, if the available manuscripts are diligently compared, and their words translated into the various languages of the world by the normal rules of grammar (i.e. by the grammatical-historical or “normative” hermeneutic). But on the subject of the second chapter of James, are you telling me that there is text inserted into that portion of Holy Writ without support from the available Greek manuscripts?

In response to my second post, you wrote:

“One thing is certain though: Paul would not call scriptures which contradict his teachings lest he would make his own teaching not inspired. That's why we question a few scriptures, including but not limited to James.”

Individuals whose theological stance causes them to imagine contradictions between the epistle of James and Paul’s epistles need to correct their theology -- not to go looking for ways to eliminate the book of James from the New Testament canon.

You also wrote:

”There is no reason for scandal and offense in discussing the authenticity of certain texts and even books and to imply that such a discussion is reminiscent of Lucifer; In fact, to keep people in darkness and pose sensationalist arguments as if wanting to scare people away from questioning certain writings thus maintaining one blinded by shady concepts is not only reminiscent of Lucifer but it is his work and it has been his poorly creative tactic since the world began. . . . For a long time theologians have disputed the authenticity and inspiration of portions of Mark 16. It has been OK for many because Mark 16 speaks of things that for many denominations notions spoken in Mark 16 are nothing but anathema. I, and other moderators here believe that questioning portions of what has been given to us as ‘canon’ is nothing new, nothing wrong and to our advantage we don't have an agenda to prove that the ‘other guys’ are anathema.”

I do not deny that there are mistranslations and mistakes in every English translation of the Holy Scriptures (e.g., insertions of words and/or phrases that are absent from all Greek manuscripts). I cannot comment on translations in any other languages. But the “Multi-Level Canon” thread is discussing -- not the duty of believers to use all available tools to identify and correct these mistakes and/or mistranslations! – but rather is promoting the elimination of whole books, based on the arbitrary assumption that they contradict other books.

And now I have a question for you: if I continue to post in this forum, can I expect my words to be always read and restated in a manner which guarantees that any minor imperfection in my communication will lend itself to the most radical and ridiculous interpretation possible?

MK

[Mickey]

Individuals whose theological stance causes them to imagine contradictions between the epistle of James and Paul’s epistles need to correct their theology -- not to go looking for ways to eliminate the book of James from the New Testament canon.

I guess I have to correct my theology now because I believe that we are justified by the blood of Christ alone, but James teaches that we are justified by works. So tell me how I am to understand James' teaching on 'Justification' and how my understanding of Justification is wrong.

Also if you say that James is not speaking of Justification before God then you have to prove that he is not. If you can do this then I will change my view on the book of James.

[GraceAmbassador]

Individuals whose theological stance causes them to imagine contradictions between the epistle of James and Paul’s epistles need to correct their theology -- not to go looking for ways to eliminate the book of James from the New Testament canon.

Dear M.K.:

I believe that the burden of proof is on those who defend James does not contradict with Paul to show us how his defense of Salvation by works, so clearly stated there, or at least a combination of works/faith, is not what he, James, is saying. I heard all kinds of theological gymnastics explaining that text, but, nay, as of yet none of them match:

1. The context
2. the target audience to whom James wrote

It is possible that Erasmus interpolated (either him or someone else) portions of chapter 2 in James, but it is no surprise to me that the most Jewish of all the apostles wrote himself his problem with salvation by justification by faith alone.

I don't want to get a side issue, but do you "anoint the sick with oil believing that the prayer of faith shall save the sick and if he (either the sick person or the praying person) has committed any sin, such ritual will save him from his sins"? James teaches that. If you partially believe in what James said, either because of its timing (...it must have been for "those days"...) or because of any other reason, how does that differ from us disputing the authenticity of and inspiration of James? Believing partially one text because of its timing and progressive revelation (for example: the progression from killing lambs to believing the Lamb of God) may be fair and correct as much as disputing the authenticity and canonicity of certain texts, either the same texts or other ones.

As to the gifts, I suggest you to search the forum (provided you find time and energy to reply and research as well as propose) and find my position in the issue.

And now I have a question for you: if I continue to post in this forum, can I expect my words to be always read and restated in a manner which guarantees that any minor imperfection in my communication will lend itself to the most radical and ridiculous interpretation possible?

Sister. we quote exactly to avoid ridiculous interpretations. Please, do continue to post in this Forum, but understand that we quote by clicking in the icon "quote". Please, show me where I lend a most radical and ridiculous interpretation on what you said and then used such a ridiculous interpretation here in public and I will be glad to give my hand to the spankers...

Milt