What is the 'dc' in the dates of the early Fathers?
I think "d.c." means "death circa" for "death about", the approximate time of their death.
Here we go again! One of Dave’s favorite topics, dealing with the canon of Scripture, and church authority. Let’s see if this is such a great apologetic piece for Christianity. Your intention seems to be to cast doubt the Evangelical Protestant position, but you actually end up hurting Christianity as a whole (Both Evangelical and Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism) more by the way you treat this subject.
KT
_____________
Are All the Biblical Books "Self-Attesting" and Self-Evidently Inspired?
Monday, June 19, 2006
This is an excerpt from my book, The One-Minute Apologist; to be published by Sophia Institute Press in Fall 2006.
* * * * *
BIBLE AND TRADITION
We know which books are inspired and belong in the Bible by reading them
Biblical books are self-attesting, so no church is needed to determine the biblical canon.
KT answers:
The position is stated in a simplistic and popular way, but it should not be that limited and simplistic. Better: We have confidence and moral certainty about the canon of Scripture by the combination of many facts, historical, theological, internal evidence in the books themselves, and external evidence from history and the church, and this confidence is confirmed by the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit, who gives assurance, confidence, and peace to His people. "
Initial reply
There are indeed several internal biblical evidences of inspiration and canonicity, yet (despite this fact), there were many differences in the early Church regarding biblical books. Many now-accepted books were questioned,
KT answers:
Only 7 out of 27 were questioned or doubted or struggled over for a time. 7 out of 27 does not qualify as “many”. These 7 are: Hebrews, James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, and Revelation. You are looking at this issue like the person who looks at a glass and says, “it is half empty”, rather than half-full”. Try to focus on the positive historical evidence for the inspiration and reliability of the Scriptures. By focusing on only them, and not affirming the great evidence that there was almost unanimous consensus over the four gospels, Acts, and the epistles of Paul, you miss the great emphasis of history and the wonderful opportunity to witness to the skeptics, atheists, Muslims, and Jehovah’s witnesses about the great unity and agreement that we all have over the canon, even though we confess the historical process of settling those few books took some time to work out."
More to come (smile)
“and many non-biblical books were thought to be canonical.”
KT answers:
You play into the desires of the modern Gnostics and modern scholars like Elaine Pagels, who want to say that the Gnostic Gospels were true and good and teach about the “real Jesus” (in their opinion), and they claim that they were pushed out by persecution and force by a male –dominated clergy and those that had the power, like claiming that Constantine and the bishops had political power to “get rid of the other Gospels and books”.
(Didache, Shepherd of Hermas, the so called, “Epistle of Barnabas”, the Apocalypse of Peter, and the Wisdom of Solomon is only five that you have listed below. Five hardly qualifies as “many”.) Sounds like Dan Brown's claim that 80 gospels were thrown out by Constantine! You inject doubt and skepticism by a bad use of the word “many” and over-play the historical struggle.
There was virtually no struggle over the Gospels, Acts, and the epistles of Paul from the very earliest times that it would have been possible to have any evidence of any kind of “collection of books”.
Even 2 Peter 3:16, written by the apostle Peter himself, gives strong evidence that most of the NT had already been collected into some kind of “canon” in many places. This is very early since this had to be in 65-67 AD, before he was martyred.
By injecting the word, “many”, for the doubts over true books, and over other books that were eventually not included, you give the enemies of all of Christianity (including Roman Catholicism, Protestantism, and E. Orthodoxy) one of their favorite areas to attack.
You do not hurt the real Evangelical Protestant position, which is much more nuanced and careful that what you have written, but you actually hurt Christianity itself more than build a case for the authority of the Roman Catholic Church.
Dan Brown’s book, The Da Vinci Code, the apostate scholars who have no real faith in Christ like John Shelby Spong, John Dominic Crossan, and the late Robert Funk of the Jesus Seminar, Muslims, Atheists, Secular skeptics, and Jehovah’s Witnesses all use the historical facts that a few books were doubted and questioned and yet they expand the numbers and exaggerate; and they combine that with the fact that Athanasius’ canon list was 367 AD, and they combine that with mis-understandings and falsehoods about the council of Nicea in 325 and Constantine,(which was not about the canon of Scripture, but about the Deity of Christ, and the Deity of Christ is clearly taught way before that in John 1, Col. 1, Heb. 1, and Phil. 2 and other non-canonical books like Ignatius' letters, written in 117 AD); and they say general statements like, “The Bible was not even around until 325 or about 400 AD”, etc., so how can you trust it?”
Extensive reply
Internal evidences for inspiration vary greatly. For example, the author of Hebrews doesn't identify himself,
KT responds:
(This part is true, he does not directly or explicitly identify himself. But it is clear that he knew Timothy (Hebrews 13:23), who was part of Paul’s missionary (apostolic) team. Also, he may be hinting at who he is by verse 22, calling his letter, a “word of exhortation”, since in Acts 4:36, he is called by the apostles “Barnabas”, which translated means, “son of Encouragement”. He is a Levite, which gave him special insight and emphasis on the Old Testament Levitical priesthood and the temple details, which is the main content of Hebrews chapters 7, 8, 9, and 10.
Dave wrote: (the author of Hebrews)
and denies being an apostle (Heb. 2:3).
KT responds:
This is not true, the author of Hebrews does not “deny being an apostle”, but only indicates that he was not one of the twelve apostles who were eye-witnesses of Jesus’ ministry. Hebrews 2:3 says, “After it was first spoken through the Lord, if was confirmed to us by those who heard . . .”.
To say that this is a denial of all kinds of Biblical apostleship, would also deny that Paul is an apostle, which we know you do not believe. So, if Tertullian (On Modesty, 20) was right, which I think he was, that Hebrews was written by Barnabas, the church planting evangelist fellow missionary of the apostle Paul, and called an “apostle” in Acts 14:4, 14, then your statement is not true.
Dave again:
The latter is also true of the author of the book of James,
KT responds:
This is not true either, where does James directly deny being an apostle? Since silence does not mean “denial”, then this is not true. Actually, Galatians 1:19 indicates that James, the half-brother of Jesus, was indeed an apostle!
Dave again:
and the former of the author of 2 and 3 John.
KT responds:
This is not true either, the author of 2 and 3 John identifies himself as “the elder” or “the presbyter”. The internal content and similarities with I John make it clear that the apostle John wrote it.
It is a better apologetic for Christianity to emphasize the positive points toward inspiration and canonicity rather than doubting them and giving ammunition to the enemies of the gospel.
Dave wrote:
Jude was questioned because it cited the Book of Enoch (Jude 14-15) and possibly the Assumption of Moses (Jude 9).
KT responds:
Yes, it was questioned, for those reasons, but, eventually, the witness of the Spirit with the people of God overcame those doubts. Jude may have been the last canonical book written, because he writes that “the faith” was “once for all time delivered to the saints” (verse 3). And he exhorts his readers “to remember the words that were spoken beforehand by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ”. (verse 17)
There is nothing wrong with Jude quoting or alluding to other material, as Paul quotes from the pagan Greek poets without ascribing to them inspiration (I Cor. 15:33, Acts 17:28, and Titus 1:12); and Jude does not say the whole books of Enoch or the Assumption of Moses are Scripture.
They are not part of the “Apocrypha” either (the group of books the Roman Catholic Church calls, “Deutero-canonical”), though sometimes called “apocryphal”. (note difference between the Apocrypha, a specific group of Jewish books, written during the Inter-testamental period, roughly 450 to 100 BC; and “apocryphal” a description of other books, meaning “not canonical”, or “spurious”.)
Dave wrote:
Only the author of Revelation claims direct inspiration.
KT responds:
Paul and Peter claim inspiration in their writtings. I Corinthians chapter 2, 7:1, 40, 2 Peter 1:12-21, 3:1, 3:16
Dave wrote:
But nothing illustrates the falsity of the claim of "self-attesting" books better than the history of the process of canonization itself.
KT responds:
[The history of the process does not give overwhelming weight to your argument against the “self attesting” nature of the books, but rather the historical process adds to the reality of the nature of the way the books were revealed and written, that God never sent them down in one session or under one cover in the first place.
Also the difficulty of travel and communication in those days and the persecutions added to the difficulties.
The discovery or discerning of which books were canon, of all the books in all the churches under one cover only testifies that they were not all at once written to every church, and that there was persecution and the burning of the many of the Scriptures for the first 311 years(off and on), and that it took time for all the churches to get all the books under one cover, so to speak.
They were written over a period of several decades, say from 49 AD to 70 AD, and a few maybe in 80 AD (Jude), and possibly John’s writings in 90-96 AD. However, I believe that John’s writings were also written before 70 AD, based on good evidence within Revelation itself. (see Kenneth Gentry’s, “Before Jerusalem Fell”, and R.C. Sproul’s “The Last Days According to Jesus”. )]
Dave wrote:
Church authority was needed to establish the canon once and for all.
KT responds:
John says, in I John 2:27, "you have no need for anyone to teach you", in an infallible church authority kind of way, that the RCC claims.
But we are grateful for the secondary sense in which the church authorities confirmed the reality of the canon that already existed, right when it was written, whether by Paul or Matthew or John or Luke or Peter. " All Scripture is inspired by God" 2 Timothy 3:16
If it was inspired by God, it was canon automatically, at the time written, no matter how long it took for the church leaders to discern and recognize that fact.
Church authority was used by the providence of God in history and was profitable to confirm, discover, and discern what inspired books were already in existence, from AD 49-70 AD, or those few that were possibly written in 80-96 AD.
Dave wrote:
If everything were so obvious, how could there be so many differences?
KT responds:
Again, writing “so many differences” plays into the hands of skeptics and enemies of all of Christianity, both Protestant and Roman Catholic, so it would better to be more accurate and admit that there were some doubts and differences of opinions about some books, but to always emphasize the positive agreement on most of the books of the NT, even long before Athanasisus’ time.
Dave wrote:
The awareness of a canon itself didn't even become prominent until the end of the 2nd century.
KT responds:
What are you referring to here? The Muratorian Canon? Not true, there are other earlier indications of some kind of "corpus" or "collection" or "canon". (see below)
But even before then, even in Peter’s second epistle, written in 67-68 AD, before he was martyred, he indicates a kind of “canon”, or collection of all of Paul’s letters and the rest of the Scriptures.
Jude implicitly also teaches the same thing in Jude 3, “contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.”
Dave wrote:
St. Athanasius was the first person to list our present 27 New Testament books, in the year 367: more than 300 years after the death of Jesus.
KT responds:
That is true, technically, but would it not be a better apologetic for the truth of all of “catholic” Christianity (Roman, Protestant, and Eastern Orthodoxy) to emphasize this issue the way I have, speaking the truth to those who have not faith, or want to use that large gap of 300 years as somehow, some kind of an argument against the Bible ?
In my experience of ministry with Muslims for the past 23 years, they use these statements similar ones to your emphasis on the 300 year old gap; and which is emphasized by those skeptics and unbelieving scholars to doubt all of the NT and they fail to recognize that most of the NT was not questioned and was received by all the historical churches.
The Jehovah’s Witnesses do the same thing when they come to my door over the past 30 years or so. The mix up Nicea and the Deity of Christ with the canon and Constantine’s power and put it all under one bullet attack against the Bible, Christianity and the Trinity.
Dave wrote:
Many other "anomalous" facts indicate the numerous substantial difficulties of canonicity.
KT responds:
They are not so numerous as you make them out to be; and they are not that substantial. Rather they are small compared to all the positive issues that I have already pointed out.
Dave again:
It is historical fact that many biblical books were slowly accepted.
KT:
NO! It is a historical fact that some, a few, biblical books were slowly accepted.
Dave asserts:
St. Justin Martyr (d.c. 165) didn't recognize Philippians or 1 Timothy.
KT responds:
Does he clearly reject them, or did he just fail to mention or quote them? If he merely does not mention them, then that does nothing for your argument.
Dave writes:
The Muratorian Canon (c.190) excluded Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, and 2 Peter.
KT responds:
It needs to be pointed out that the Muratorian Canon is sometimes dated earlier at 170 or 180 AD; and that the text was corrupted when found, so that it starts with “but at some, he was present” (referring to Mark and the fact that he was probably at some of the events in the life of Jesus) and then it has the phrase, “. . . The third book of the gospel, according to Luke . . . “
This shows that the rotten part of the parchment included Matthew and Mark, and also opens the possibility that the end of the list was also corrupted and could have included at least I Peter, if not the others also.
But, as many scholars, point out, including one of your favorites, J. N. D. Kelly, about the Muratorian Canon: “The text is very corrupt, and emendations have been proposed restoring a mention of the Petrine epistles, or at any rate of I Peter.” ( “Early Christian Doctrines”, p. 59, see also, Henry Bettenson, Documents of the Christian Church, p. 29, )
Also, Clement, written about 95 AD, quotes from the epistle to the Hebrews.
J.N.D. Kelly, citing Justin Martyr as testimony of a growing “corpus of Scripture” in about 150 AD, writes, “If it is too much to say that they already formed a “corpus”, they were well on the way to doing so.” (p. 58.) As to a fixed “collection” of Paul’s epistles, Kelly asserts, “There are numerous apparent echoes of then in Clement which perhaps indicate that he was acquainted with the nucleus of one [a corpus or collection of them] as early as 95.
When referring to Marcion, the heretic’s “canon”, Kelly writes, “It is altogether more probable, therefore, that when he formulated his Apostolicum, as when he singled out the Third Gospel [Luke], Marcion was revising a list of books currently in use in the Church than proposing such a list for the first time.” (ibid, p. 58.) Marcion’s time dates at 144 AD, when he separated from the catholic (universal) church in Rome.
I think this man far outwrites me when he puts his mind to it! LOL
Dave writes:
The Council of Nicaea in 325 questioned the canonicity of James, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, and Jude. Even up to the late 4th century, the book of James had not even been quoted in the west. The books of Hebrews, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Revelation were still being disputed at that late date. Revelation was rejected by St. Cyril of Jerusalem (d. 386), St. John Chrysostom (d. 407), and St. Gregory Nazianzen (d. 389). None of this is consistent with the notion that it is easy to determine a biblical book (i.e., an inspired book) simply by reading it."
KT responds:
As pointed out several times, no one that understands these historical realities claims that it is easy to determine a biblical book by merely reading it once or lightly. We realize we have lots of history and tradition behind us to help us discern and understand. The “self-attesting” character of the canonical books are not pure subjectivity, but the quiet confidence of the internal witness of the Holy Spirit, based on good objective evidence, both Biblical and historical. Faith is based on evidence, not just on an internal “burning of the bosom”.
Dave writes:
" Believers in the early Church (such as St. Athanasius or St. Augustine) were just as zealous for the Bible and Christian truth as Christians today. Yet they often disagreed on this score."
KT responds:
But Athanasius and Augustine were agreed with each other in their understanding of the NT canon, and Athanasius and Jerome were basically agreed on the OT canon. (The only confusion was because some texts in Greek has additions to Daniel and Jeremiah, (as opposed to the Hebrew originals) and sometimes Esther was not mentioned, probably because it did not have the word, “God” in it.
Using “often”, again, weakens the case for the super naturalness of the Scriptures, when your emphasis is trying to show the authority of the Roman Catholic Church as “declaring” or “authoritatively deciding which books belong in the canon. This leads unbelievers and skeptics to doubt Christianity more, for in their minds, a church council or bishop is “human”, and less important than the testimony and evidence of the Scriptures themselves as to their inspiration and infallibility and inerrancy.
For purposes of evangelism to unbelievers, it is better to emphasize the inspiration of Scripture (2 Timothy 3:16 and 2 Peter 1:20-21), the infallibility and inerrancy of Scripture (Titus 1:2 “God cannot lie”, John 10:35 “The Scripture cannot be broken”) and carefully and more accurately admit the historical realities of the process of recognizing canonization, but also to point out all the positive evidence for the Scriptures earlier from 68 AD to 96 AD, and 140, 150,180-220 AD) etc.
(Clement, Marcion’s as a reaction to something already there, and Justin, Tertullian, and Ireneaus’ are all positive evidence for most of the NT books. All of those earlier evidences are more positive, and more truthful, than general statements that jump from Jesus to 367 AD.
Dave wrote:
Moreover, we observe that many non-Scriptural books were regarded as Scripture by many important people and lists of canonical books in the early Church."
KT responds:
Again, “many” is not true. “some” is more accurate, or “a few”.
Dave again:
The Gospels of St. Justin Martyr contained apocryphal materials. The Epistle of Barnabas and the Didache were regarded as Scripture by St. Clement of Alexandria (d.c. 215) and Origen (d.c. 254);
KT responds:
Both Clement of Alexandria and especially the heretic Origen have many problems in their doctrines, and the internal evidence against the Didache and the Epistle of Barnabas can be clearly discerned, even though they did not.
The Didache has much good in it; but maybe the fact that it rejected Jewish legalism regarding fasts, and then added another legalistic rule for the early church is clear evidence, it seems to me, that it is not inspired, and one of the early signs of the church emphasizing works in addition to faith as having merit, or at least an emphasis on moralistic, legalistic piety, rather than the freeing message of the gospel in Romans and Galatians. (Didache 8.)
Also, the Epistle of Barnabas’ allegorical method of interpreting OT law texts proves it is not inspired. For one example, see 10:7-8, where he makes gross scientific and biological errors. “because this animal (the hyena) changes its nature from year to year, and becomes male one time and female another.” And Psuedo-Barnabas says about the weasel, “for this animal conceives through its mouth.”
Now, I can confidently say that these are clear “self attesting” evidences that these books are not inspired, and that Origen and Clement of Alexandria were just wrong and “goofy”; and that it is not arrogant to see this, even though they lived back in the second and third century.
Dave wrote:
so was the Shepherd of Hermas, by St. Irenaeus (d.c. 200), Tertullian (d.c. 225), Origen, and St. Clement of Alexandria. The Muratorian Canon of c. 190 included the Apocalypse of Peter and Wisdom of Solomon. The well-known Codex Sinaiticus of the late fourth century still included the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas.
Objection
The existence of disagreements on the canon doesn't prove that it was unable to be determined by a close study of the biblical books. "
KT responds:
This is better, because now you are presenting that case more careful by writing, “by a close study of the Biblical books.” But the case also includes an accurate and realistic look at the historical issues also.
Dave wrote:
All this shows is that Church fathers were fallible men, just like everyone else. The more the Bible was studied, the more men came to understand which books were truly inspired and which were not, by the clear indications in the books themselves.
(more to come)
Dave wrote:
Reply to Objection
It's very easy to make such (somewhat logically circular) claims, and "hindsight is 20-20"; however, there is no way to test or disprove (or, for that matter, prove) them other than by looking at what actually happened in history. "
KT responds:
We can be honest about the historical process and the doubts about some books, without going over-board, as you did, which I showed previously.
Also, we can show all the positive history for at least most of the NT books, 20 out of 27 makes the case positively as testifying that there was almost unanimous consensus over the 4 gospels, Acts, and Paul’s letters.
This shows that the “self attesting” nature of at least 20 of the 27 was indeed, self attesting and clear for the early church.
Dave again:
Are we to believe that the same people in the early Church who developed doctrines like the Holy Trinity, didn't understand which books belonged in the Bible as well as we do today, because they were poor readers or slow to comprehend the relatively obvious?
KT responds:
When you frame the issue in a sentence like that, that they “didn’t understand which books belonged in the Bible”; you tend to sweep all of the NT books into the issue, when the issue is only the “anti-legomena” (those that are spoken against by some, and it was only a few).
The doctrine of the Trinity was fully taught in the 4 Gospels, Acts, and Paul’s letters, and they are all agreed upon much earlier than the 7 books in which some people were not sure about.
Athanasius backs up his doctrine of the Trinity by appeal to Matthew 28:19 ( and many other verses), and Matthew was written around 50-57 AD. Origen taught the Trinity, and yet doubted a few, or reported that they were doubted, like 2nd Peter.
No, we can admit that given the time and circumstances, and the fact that they wanted to be careful about books that they were not sure about, it is understandable that they had concerns about some of them.
DA:
The fact remains that there were disagreements because some books were not all that clearly inspired
KT:
Only comparatively, when compared to the 4 Gospels, Paul’s letters, and Acts.
DA:
(and other non-biblical books seemed to be).
Indeed, we expect men to disagree; all the more reason to need an authority.
KT:
That authority and historical witness is a great help to us, in adding to the internal evidence and the internal witness of the Spirit as to the truth of the canon. They are wonderful men who we can look to help, Athanasius, Jerome, Augustine, and the church councils and decisions. Just because there was a process of discernment and/or discovery of what was already there, does not lessen the self-attesting nature of the canonical books. They do not “self-attest” in a vacuum. We appreciate their work and history, and Protestants can be “ deep in history” also, contra Newman’s false and over board claim.
DA:
Thus, the Church decided on the issue of the canon in the councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397): both influenced heavily by St. Augustine.
KT:
The church did not “decide” or even “create canon”, rather the church discerned, and discovered which books were inspired and had apostolicity behind them, and thus based on their inspiration, and inherent canonicity, (nature of being a law, a standard, a measuring rule, a criterion to measure other things by); make a list of the books. The word “ canon” later came to mean “a list”. Some even communicate this issue in such a way so as to give the impression that the Church just decided or “created” by decree which books were written by apostles or which were canon based on a supposed infallible authority to just make it so. Al Kimel, in his blog “Pontifications” even communicated it in that way. ( I will have to find that later.)
But Jerome disagreed with Augustine on the Apocrypha, as did Athanasius (agreeing with Jerome), and their discernment was better than Augustine’s on that issue. But they were agreed on the NT.
DA:
It is sometimes objected that these were merely local councils. But they were preceded by a Roman Council (382) of identical opinion, and were ratified by Popes Innocent I (405, 414) and Gelasius I (495). The 6th Council of Carthage (419) also concurred.
KT:
The first two were indeed local councils, and the question of the apocryphal books was not settled until the Council of Trent, from the RCC position.
Many other catholics, earlier writers (Athanasius, Jerome); and Roman Catholics (Cardinal Cajetan), even a pope (Gregory the Great, 601 AD) all the way up until the Reformation, dispute those claims, especially about the Apocrypha books, that it is clearly from history that that question was not ‘authoritatively settled” from the RCC viewpoint until the Council of Trent.
Dave:
F.F. Bruce (Protestant Bible scholar)
When we think of Jesus and his Palestinian apostles, then, we may be confident that they agreed with contemporary leaders in Israel about the contents of the canon. We cannot say confidently that they accepted Esther, Ecclesiastes or the Song of Songs as scripture, because evidence is not available. We can argue only from probability, and arguments from probability are weighed differently by different judges."
KT:
Yes, but Bruce goes on to write, “But when in debate with Jewish theologians Jesus and the apostles appealed to ‘the scriptures’, they appealed to an authority which was equally acknowledged by their opponents. This near-unanimity might suggest that some widely acknowledged authority had promulgated a decision on the matter . . . it is probable that, when the canon was closed in due course by competent authority, this simply meant that official recognition was given to the situation already obtaining in the practice of the worshipping community.” (p. 41- 42)
Dave, quoting F. F. Bruce:
While the New Testament writers all used the Septuagint, to a greater or lesser degree, none of them tells us precisely what the limits of its contents were . . . We cannot say with absolute certainty, for example, if Paul treated Esther or the Song of Songs as scripture any more than we can say if those books belonged to the Bible which Jesus knew and used. . ." (p. 50)
KT:
Except that Josephus and Philo and many of the Rabbis of that era confirm that the 3 fold division of the OT was evidently the same that Jesus taught in Luke 24:44 and Matthew 23:35 and Luke 11:51-52. There is no reason or evidence to show that these books were not part of this canon, which Josephus lists for us in Against Apion 1:8 and Against Apion 1:41.
Bruce also writes, “The collection was complete in principle, according to Josephus, when ‘the exact succession of prophets’ came to an end in Israel.” (Ibid, p. 280, quoting Against Apion, 1:41)
KT, providing the sentence of F. F. Bruce before Dave's cut off, after the word, "although": (Nothing wrong with that, you are choosing material that supports your positioin)
“Christians have been right in discerning the Holy Spirit similarly at work in the New Testament Scriptures, although (as has been said)
DA:
. . . only one book of the New Testament explicitly claims prophetic inspiration . . .
(p. 280-281)
KT, providing some of the F. F. Bruce in between Dave's quote:
. . . the Holy Spirit is not only the Spirit of prophesy; he is also the witnessing and interpreting Spirit. In fulfillment of Jesus’ promise that the Spirit would be the disciples’ teacher and bring his own words (with their significance) to their remembrance, the scriptures have been, and continue to be, one of the chief instruments which the Spirit uses. That the promise was not understood as applying only to those who were actually present with Jesus in the upper room is plain from I John 2:20, 27, where Christians of a later generation are assured that the ‘anointing’ which they received from the Holy One’ teaches them about everything (guides them into all the truth’, in the sense of John 16:13).” (Ibid, p. 281)
Dave, quoting F. F. Bruce more:
It is unlikely, for example, that the Spirit's witness would enable a reader to discern that Ecclesiastes is the word of God while Ecclesiasticus is not . . .
KT, providing more of F. F. Bruce:
“But it is not mere hindsight to say, with William Barclay, that the New Testament books became canonical because not one could stop them doing do, or even, in the exaggerated language of Oscar Cullman, that ‘the books which were to form the future canon forced themselves on the Church by their intrinsic apostolic authority, as they still do, because the Kurios Christ speaks in them.” (Ibid, p. 282)
(The Canon of Scripture, Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988, 41, 50, 280-282)
END
“. . . God’s household, having been built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone . . . “ (Ephesians 2:19-20)
“Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things freely given to us by God.”
“But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no man. . . But we have the mind of Christ.” I Corinthians 2:12, 15-16)
As we have said, these verses along with I John 2:20, 27, and others, teach that believers, because they have the Holy Spirit, can discern the truth and discern truth from error. Most of the books were immediately and self-evidently known from the very earliest evidence in the first and Second century. Some, as we admit, those 7, were not as easily discerned, but eventually they were recognized. It is better to frame the argument this way and promote an apologetic to the unbelieving world, and agree that all three major branches of Christianity, as far as history goes, are catholic with a small “c”.
There was no need for an infallible kind of church ruling, “you have no need for anyone to teach you” (in an infallible sense the way the RCC sees church authority) as if we would not have know the way of salvation or sanctification without it; but the canon process was a real historical and human drama that confirmed the supernatural and inspired canon that already existed.
“But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you all know.” I John 2:20
“And as for you, the anointing which you received from Him abides in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you, but as His anointing teaches you all things, and is true and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you abide in Him.” I John 2:27
I was finally able to answer one of your papers, "point by point" , not avoiding anything", which you constantly say.
Yeah, I was wondering if you actually did that this time. Congratulations! It's too late tonight to answer (I was watching the NBA Finals till 12:30), but I'll probably do it tomorrow. Perhaps you proved me wrong on a few things (?). We'll see!
I posted this in part because I thought it would fire you up to make a vigorous response. That "strategy" clearly worked! In fact, I always get good response whenever I post on the Bible / Tradition issue. I've written so much on it that I am personally bored with much of that discussion, but this was different enough (as one important aspect of canonicity) to generate what could be a good and helpful exchange. Thanks for your lengthy reply.
Commenting by HaloScan
