Scripture?

[Jim Chabot]

None. I'm actually not being obtuse at all, and I don't have other motives behind what I'm doing/saying. Instead, I find Protestant modernism and canon an interesting topic. The Catholic Church and Orthodox Churches have no need of any foundation for their canon other than the Church. They also have developed a specific ecclesiology which allows for this to be a sturdy foundation.

Protestants - like yourself and Jim - claim a diffeerent canon, which is fine, but I've never once seen a theological justification for that canon, and protestantism also lacks the ecclesiology to discuss the issue, from what I've seen.

So I'm asking a question, hoping that what I've seen to be the case, won't be the case, and that I will learn something, if nothing more than just what some people think.

The problem with learning what people think is that you have to take what you get. We are telling you what we think, if you would like better understanding then you need to learn our language, develop a sense of solidarity and more will come out. It's called anthropology, we all do it to some extent.

I have said time and time again, I believe that the canon makes itself known and I believe that the church recognized this. If they didn't then somebody else would have and we could join their church. I give the church no authority in this whatsoever, and no I didn't get my canon from the church. It just is, that's all. I've noticed that Marcus appears to be conveying this dame thought and he's being roundly criticized for it. I've learned to step to the side, I'm not interested in the critics of this view.

But I'll try to give you a little more in the way of helping. Early on I was aware of the Apocryphal books and curious as to why they weren't included. So I read them, and at first couldn't decide. Over the years it has become clearer to me that while I sense no wrong, I'm not hearing the same voice there and I've come to accept the standard 66 book offering. Yes there are a couple of books that I might include that are outside, (possibly Letter to Laodicea and Enoch) but nothing that would really matter, so I'm content.

Yes I've read the nut job books as well. I say this because I've read them, with all of them there is an element whereby the author clearly has an agenda, the writing is pretty poor and there is the stink of imitation in the air. Specifics, I can't help you there unless I go back and revisit, which I have no need. Their best use appears to be use in shock documentaries where a new earth shattering secret is promised each time.

Probably the best help I can be would be to point you to a show I watched last night on PBS. It was a series of Jazz performances by Hugh Laurie, I'm guessing they will show it multiple times so heads up! Another show that may be of interest to help with withdrawal is "Doc Martin" also on PBS, no fancy hospital or miraculously complicated cures, yet the doctor appears to be even quirkier than house.

[Jim Chabot]

If I'm not correct about your position, let me know! My only point was to try and draw out the fact that Jim's "that was easy" doesn't actually apply, because he doesn't actually agree with your foundation.

Not so fast, I'm not convinced that we are all that far apart. I've found agreement with most of what Hans has writen in this thread.

My point with you, so far, is that, if I know you well, you don't actually have, nor pretend to have some modernist certainty in the correctness of your canon, but instead would be more postmodern in your approach, accepting the canon because of your experience of that canon in a community,

Yes I can pretty much agree with this, we don't develop things in a vacuum, we do exist in community, even if we don't always conform to it.

and ultimately you would submit that the Church is - while always to be judged by God and Scriptures - still that which creates the canon.

And no, I need to get off here. While I have no issue with any church including their vision of canon within their faith statement, I do not submit. I willingly join with folks of like faith, submission isn't part of that picture. Kingdom of priests remember?

[Marcus Kibbe]

And therein is the problem. One can support and defend almost anything if one begins with a presupposition that is a priori assumed to be true without further evidence or testing.

Affirming a position about canon and the authority of Scripture is nowhere close to what either of those verses are about, especially since the NT did not even exist when they were written. Again this is an example of beginning with a presupposition, assuming that it is true, and then filling in with de-contextualized Bible verses to support the presupposition.

In other words, a logical syllogism. Sorry, that approach is notoriously subjective and susceptible to easy manipulation, and has been used for some of the worst theological positions in the Church. 1) the Bible condemns descendants of Ham to be slaves to the descendants of Shem; 2) black Africans are the descendants of Ham; 3) Christians are the descendants of Shem; 4) therefore God has decreed that black Africans serve Western European Christians.

I don't deny my presupposition (faith in Jesus Christ and his delegation of authority to the apostles) - not a novel concept. Don't see the point spending the time to expound that in this thread. If you don't believe this to be true, fine. You seem to imply that you do not bring you're own presuppositions to the discussion and that the correct position requires making one's mind a tabula rasa, free of all bias. It cannot be done, and it's a fallacy to think it can.

[Benjamin Burch]

I don't deny my presupposition (faith in Jesus Christ and his delegation of authority to the apostles) - not a novel concept. Don't see the point spending the time to expound that in this thread. If you don't believe this to be true, fine. You seem to imply that you do not bring your own presuppositions to the discussion and that the correct position requires making one's mind a tabula rasa, free of all bias. It cannot be done, and it's a fallacy to think it can.

What you've said here:

(faith in Jesus Christ and his delegation of authority to the apostles)

Has absolutely nothing to do with canon.

[Marcus Kibbe]

Which canon?

The Protestant canon of course, which is included in every other canon. Since there is no objection from any faith tradition regarding any of the books presently in the Protestant canon, the only question seems to be whether there exists any strong candidates (ie. with divinely authored characteristics) for addition to it. There isn't any, as far as I can tell. Maybe you can enlighten me?

[Benjamin Burch]

The Protestant canon of course, which is included in every other canon. Since there is no objection from any faith tradition regarding any of the books presently in the Protestant canon, the only question seems to be whether there exists any strong candidates (ie. with divinely authored characteristics) for addition to it. There isn't, as far as I can tell. Maybe you can enlighten me?

That's exactly what I'm talking about. Can you provide some - any - strong foundation for your belief that there isn't any, aside from your a priori commitment to protestant theology?

[Marcus Kibbe]

What you've said here:



Has absolutely nothing to do with canon.

Of course it does. For a book to belong in the canon, it is absolutely necessary that the book have divine authorship. If a writing can be shown to be by an apostle, then its absolute divine authority is automatically established. This of course doesn't mean everything an apostle wrote would be considered Scripture, but those writings done when acting in the role of an apostle and giving apostolic instructions to churches and to individual Christians (Timothy and Philemon) would be. And for those not authored by apostles (Mark, Luke, Acts, Hebrews, Jude), the early church had the task of recognizing which writings had divine characteristics. But even then, for some books, the personal testimony of living apostles would have affirmed authenticity. Paul would have affirmed the authenticity of Luke and Acts, and Peter would have affirmed the authenticity of Mark as containing the gospel which he himself preached. The early church automatically accepted as part of the canon the written teachings of the apostles which the apostles wanted preserved as Scripture.

[Benjamin Burch]

Of course it does. For a book to belong in the canon, it is absolutely necessary that the book have divine authorship. If a writing can be shown to be by an apostle, then its absolute divine authority is automatically established. This of course doesn't mean everything an apostle wrote would be considered Scripture, but those writings done when acting in the role of an apostle and giving apostolic instructions to churches and to individual Christians (Timothy and Philemon) would be. And for those not authored by apostles (Mark, Luke, Acts, Hebrews, Jude), the early church had the task of recognizing which writings had divine characteristics. But even then, for some books, the personal testimony of living apostles would have affirmed authenticity. Paul would have affirmed the authenticity of Luke and Acts, and Peter would have affirmed the authenticity of Mark as containing the gospel which he himself preached.

Sounds good, Marcus.

[Billy Cox]

Agreed. Also, you would say that, for you, your commitment to the Church of the Nazarene creates a responsibility to their canon, instead of another canon, which may be equally as valid a canon?

And that doesn't even scratch the surface of the functional canon. I wager that Romans 9 gets far more airtime at Marcus' church than it would at just about any Nazarene church. How about 3 John, Lamentations or Zephaniah? Is it really part of the canon nobody bothers to read/study it?

[Marcus Kibbe]

That's exactly what I'm talking about. Can you provide some - any - strong foundation for your belief that there isn't any, aside from your a priori commitment to protestant theology?

Does the book attest a divine origin? If the answer is no (as is the case with the apocryphal books), it's not a candidate. I know of no strong candidates for addition to the Protestant canon. Maybe there are some. If you do, please share.

[Benjamin Burch]

Does the book attest a divine origin? If the answer is no (as is the case with the apocryphal books), it's not a candidate. I know of no strong candidates for addition to the Protestant canon. If you do, please share.

Again, you're simply asserting something. You're not providing any foundation or reasoning. That's fine if it is what you believe, but it hardly addresses the question. Thanks for your answer so far. That's good for now.

[Hans Deventer]

Hans, I'm speaking in a redemptive historical sense, not a literal/linear one. The canonical books do not derive their power of authority from the church. The church possesses no authority over Scripture, not does Scripture require the church to confer authority on it. As to canonicity, the church did not establish, create, or determine the canon of Scripture, it merely recognized and affirmed it, and is thereby established on the foundation of it.

Marcus, I was only talking about facts, I wasn't working from various angles etc. And the fact is that people believed in God before they started writing stuff down, inspired by the Holy Spirit. I think you are diminishing the human element in the entire process of the creation and recognition of the Scriptures, thus running into one of the extremes I wrote we should avoid.

Perhaps you should try another angle. Not start with the NT or Jesus and the apostles, but there where the Scriptures actually started being written and later on, recognized. If you speak in redemptive historical sense (which I think is a good approach), I'd say you should start where redemption starts, historically, and how it was recorded, recognized, canonized etc.

[Dennis Bratcher]

Sure Marcus is presupposing, as are all of us.

I assume this is mostly TIC.

Yet, it is a serious mistake to assume that everything that anyone thinks is all a matter of presuppositions, or that all opinions are equally valid since they are all self-determined (a nice post-modern assertion).

While Faith certainly comes into play, and presuppositions can define Faith, there is no necessary correlation between the two. Presuppositions that are not properly recognized as such and submitted to evidence are little more than forms of circular reasoning in which the desired conclusion is posited as a beginning unchallengeable assumption. That's why Wesley, and Church tradition before him, allowed a place for Reason to interpret Scripture and to evaluate and order Tradition.

Grace and peace,

Dennis B.

[Dennis Bratcher]

I don't deny my presupposition (faith in Jesus Christ and his delegation of authority to the apostles) - not a novel concept. Don't see the point spending the time to expound that in this thread. If you don't believe this to be true, fine. You seem to imply that you do not bring you're own presuppositions to the discussion and that the correct position requires making one's mind a tabula rasa, free of all bias. It cannot be done, and it's a fallacy to think it can.

But that was not what you said. You stated that your assumption was that Jesus gave authority to the apostles to write foundational documents that created the Church. I pointed out that this is nowhere mentioned in Scripture. Neither has it been a central feature of Church tradition. It is the kind of presupposition that, as I mentioned to Jim, "is little more than [a form] of circular reasoning in which the desired conclusion is posited as a beginning unchallengeable assumption." It is convenient. And it positions a personal belief so that it is not accountable to any kind of contrary evidence. But it is neither logical nor necessarily true. It is a way to state "I just believe it" in a manner that seems legitimately grounded in something beyond personal opinion, yet remains without support and contrary to evidence.

No, I do not begin with that kind of assumption. You’re arguing against a straw man.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[Dennis Bratcher]

Of course it does. For a book to belong in the canon, it is absolutely necessary that the book have divine authorship.

I was not aware that God authored any of the books of the Bible. And the Church has never made this a criteria for canonicity.

If a writing can be shown to be by an apostle, then its absolute divine authority is automatically established.

And how exactly do you determine this? Most of the books of the Bible we do not know the authors (not even considering the problem that the while concept of authorship as authority is a fairly modern invention). Hebrews made it into the canon on the belief that it was written by Paul, but even the most conservative Biblical literalists do not believe that today. We do not even know with any certainty who wrote the Gospels. If apostolic authorship is a proof of divine authorship, and divine authorship (whatever that means) is a criterion for admission to the canon, then we have a very small canon.

This of course doesn't mean everything an apostle wrote would be considered Scripture, but those writings done when acting in the role of an apostle and giving apostolic instructions to churches and to individual Christians (Timothy and Philemon) would be.

Why not? And exactly how would one determine when they were meeting these criteria? And exactly who would decide that? The Church?

And for those not authored by apostles (Mark, Luke, Acts, Hebrews, Jude), the early church had the task of recognizing which writings had divine characteristics.

You seem to be assuming that the canon is only the NT. How would you apply the criterion of apostolic authorship when speaking ex cathedra to the OT? Or would you embrace supercessionism?

But even then, for some books, the personal testimony of living apostles would have affirmed authenticity. Paul would have affirmed the authenticity of Luke and Acts, and Peter would have affirmed the authenticity of Mark as containing the gospel which he himself preached.

And what evidence is there for this? Or is it another logical rationalization, "it could have happened"?

The early church automatically accepted as part of the canon the written teachings of the apostles which the apostles wanted preserved as Scripture.

What does "automatically" mean here? And again, what evidence is there for this scenario beyond logical necessity?

I understand that you believe this. But that does not make it valid, especially when there is substantial evidence to the contrary from Church history as well as Scripture. And none of this has much bearing on the OT as canon.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[Marcus Kibbe]

No, I do not begin with that kind of assumption. You’re arguing against a straw man.

I don't think so. I do believe the words of Scripture are self-attesting. And you may object on the basis of circular argument. I admit, it is a kind of circular argument. However, that doesn't necessarily make it invalid. All arguments for an absolute authority must ultimately appeal to that authority for proof: otherwise the authority would not be an absolute or highest authority. Everyone either implicitly or explicitly uses some kind of circular argument when defending his or her ultimate authority for belief (ie. reason is the ultimate authority because it seems reasonable to make it so; church tradition is the ultimate authority because church tradition says so; there can be no ultimate authority because i don't know of any such ultimate authority; the Wesleyan Quadrilateral is the ultimate authority because I'm convinced that it is, etc). Hidden beneath your lengthy critique, there is sure to be the same element of circularity that you apparently are in denial about.

You stated that your assumption was that Jesus gave authority to the apostles to write foundational documents that created the Church. I pointed out that this is nowhere mentioned in Scripture. Neither has it been a central feature of Church tradition.

I never said that Scripture explicitly mentioned it - you keep saying that. It has, however, been a central feature of Church tradition though. The oral and written apostolic witness to Christ was that from which the primitive church drew its life. Broadly stated, the church regarded apostolicity as the qualifying factor for canonical recognition. In every case the principle on which a book was accepted, or doubts against it laid aside, was based on the historical tradition of apostolicity. Check your history. If you don't believe it, I doubt any "evidence" I provide will convince you.

[Hans Deventer]

Hidden beneath your lengthy critique, there is sure to be the same element of circularity that you apparently are in denial about.

Wow, that's strong argument! "You must be doing the same thing as I do, though I have no clue where." Quite convincing.

Check your history.

Always the same problem with OT professors, they just have no clue of history.

[Jim Chabot]

I assume this is mostly TIC.

Yes it was intended to be somewhat tongue in cheek, yet nevertheless the NT does bear marks indicating that what is written here is above human authority. There are statements given that make human authority over Scripture problematic.

Now lest you think that I disagree with you, I don't think that is the case. I'm quite in agreement with your initial post here especially this;

That means a certain degree of ambiguity on some things, which I understand does not sit well with people who want all the answers in a concise list. It also calls for a willingness to revisit doctrine as perhaps needing new articulation. It is not that the truth changes, but that we change. That is the greatest problem I see with both forms of infallibility, that it asserts fallible human judgment as infallible, and asserts conditioned expressions of truth as absolute Truth.

What I cannot get my mind around is Ben's bent toward church authority over Scripture, i.e. "the church gave us the canon" or something like that. If we believe that Scripture is given by way of divine inspiration, then the church must bend it's knee and "affirm" what it has found, as opposed to "approving" and granting authority.

Yet, it is a serious mistake to assume that everything that anyone thinks is all a matter of presuppositions, or that all opinions are equally valid since they are all self-determined (a nice post-modern assertion).

Agreed, yet you seem to be hammering the presupposition drum pretty hard here. Perhaps too hard?

While Faith certainly comes into play, and presuppositions can define Faith, there is no necessary correlation between the two. Presuppositions that are not properly recognized as such and submitted to evidence are little more than forms of circular reasoning in which the desired conclusion is posited as a beginning unchallengeable assumption. That's why Wesley, and Church tradition before him, allowed a place for Reason to interpret Scripture and to evaluate and order Tradition.

Grace and peace,

Dennis B.

Interesting, can you point me to a resource on this? My take has been that we start with Scripture, we then examine tradition to gain insight into how others before us interpreted. Reason then comes in to assess tradition and finally our experience should validate. Rinse and repeat as necessary. In any case I would like to read a little more on it, I'm not confident that I'm willing to agree, more that I don't wish to wrongly attribute Wesley.

[Jim Chabot]

I don't think so. I do believe the words of Scripture are self-attesting.


The oral and written apostolic witness to Christ was that from which the primitive church drew its life. Broadly stated, the church regarded apostolicity as the qualifying factor for canonical recognition. In every case the principle on which a book was accepted, or doubts against it laid aside, was based on the historical tradition of apostolicity.

I think you are on pretty solid ground here. Scripture does self attest, I'm thinking of a couple of places where it is Jesus who does so. I've given one where He grants Paul authority to speak for Him, and there is at least one place where he tells the Apostles that whatever they bind or loose here will be ratified in heaven.

To conserve on words and time. The long and the short of it appears to be that "these are the guys, so listen to them" and that the "make it up as you go" phase is over with the passing on of the Apostles(12).

[Dennis Bratcher]

I think you are on pretty solid ground here. Scripture does self attest, I'm thinking of a couple of places where it is Jesus who does so. I've given one where He grants Paul authority to speak for Him, and there is at least one place where he tells the Apostles that whatever they bind or loose here will be ratified in heaven.

To conserve on words and time. The long and the short of it appears to be that "these are the guys, so listen to them" and that the "make it up as you go" phase is over with the passing on of the Apostles(12).

Except that the initial statements were about written Scripture. Again, I affirm that nowhere in the NT does Jesus tell the disciples to write authoritative documents for the Church, as was claimed. Making general statements about testimony is not the same thing. Either what Marcus said is be found in Scripture or it is not. It's that simple. Tweaking other statements to make them about Scripture when they are not is a distortion.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[Jim Chabot]

Except that the initial statements were about written Scripture. Again, I affirm that nowhere in the NT does Jesus tell the disciples to write authoritative documents for the Church, as was claimed. Making general statements about testimony is not the same thing. Either what Marcus said is be found in Scripture or it is not. It's that simple. Tweaking other statements to make them about Scripture when they are not is a distortion.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

I didn't tweak anything. Jesus gives the Apostles authority to set things up, bind and loose. He gives Paul the authority to speak for Him. What are they supposed to do, eat from the tree of life and hang around forever? They wrote it down, the church recognized it done deal.

If you would like to get sticky about the specifics of your statement, yes you are right there is nothing instructing, the Apostles to produce written documents. You would be correct and Marcus would be wrong. Why this is important is beyond me. They were given authority, I have shown that, and they wrote it down since there was no other readily available medium.

Granted I was speaking somewhat tongue in cheek, but then again, I'm not joining in as a subject of the inquisition as Marcus has.

[Dennis Bratcher]

i didn't tweak anything. Jesus gives the apostles authority to set things up, bind and loose. He gives paul the authority to speak for him. What are they supposed to do, eat from the tree of life and hang around forever? They wrote it down, the church recognized it done deal.

If you would like to get sticky about the specifics of your statement, yes you are right there is nothing instructing, the apostles to produce written documents. You would be correct and marcus would be wrong. Why this is important is beyond me. They were given authority, i have shown that, and they wrote it down since there was no other readily available medium.

Granted i was speaking somewhat tongue in cheek, but then again, i'm not joining in as a subject of the inquisition as marcus has.

ok.

Db

[Marcus Kibbe]

Again, I affirm that nowhere in the NT does Jesus tell the disciples to write authoritative documents for the Church, as was claimed

If you would like to get sticky about the specifics of your statement, yes you are right there is nothing instructing, the Apostles to produce written documents. You would be correct and Marcus would be wrong.

Again, I never made this claim.

[David Graham]

Of course it does. For a book to belong in the canon, it is absolutely necessary that the book have divine authorship. If a writing can be shown to be by an apostle, then its absolute divine authority is automatically established. This of course doesn't mean everything an apostle wrote would be considered Scripture, but those writings done when acting in the role of an apostle and giving apostolic instructions to churches and to individual Christians (Timothy and Philemon) would be. And for those not authored by apostles (Mark, Luke, Acts, Hebrews, Jude), the early church had the task of recognizing which writings had divine characteristics. But even then, for some books, the personal testimony of living apostles would have affirmed authenticity. Paul would have affirmed the authenticity of Luke and Acts, and Peter would have affirmed the authenticity of Mark as containing the gospel which he himself preached. The early church automatically accepted as part of the canon the written teachings of the apostles which the apostles wanted preserved as Scripture.

Marcus, you and I are mostly in agreement, even though I would probably have stated things a little differently.
eg

Of course it does. For a book to belong in the canon, it is absolutely necessary that the book have divine authorship

Since the Christian Canon IS (IMHO) the word of God, than, yes God is the ultimate author, who inspired people to teach, preach and eventually to write down those things which THEY believed came to them from God. (I'm sure that Paul would have first preached many of the things he later wrote about to the churches.)

If a writing can be shown to be by an apostle, then its absolute divine authority is automatically established.

Hmmmm, not completely, but nonetheless what the Apostles taught and wrote carried a lot of weight. One of the criteria used by the early church in determining the canonicity of a piece of literature was a positive affirmation to the question: "Was this written by an apostle or by some-one whose source of information was an apostle". I would also add to this list those "schools of Redactors/copiests" that were influenced by particular apostles....

Paul would have affirmed the authenticity of Luke and Acts, and Peter would have affirmed the authenticity of Mark as containing the gospel which he himself preached.

Certainly in their orignal forms this would have been the case (and to your list I would also include Hebrews, for even though, we have no proof that Paul wrote it, there are "marks" about the text which indicate that Paul's thought influenced what was written.
However, we have no idea how different our presnt scriptural texts are to the originals that were produced. Yet, by the time of the Marcion controversy and the doctrinal conflicts with the Gnostics, the New Testament as we now know it had largely been accepted as authoritative for the church. (The previous sources of "authority", i.e. the Apostles and disciples of the Apostles had all died.) It was this canon that later councils accepted as authoritative.

[Benjamin Burch]

ok........ so I've gotten my answer. K, thanks!

[Jim Chabot]

Again, I never made this claim.

Sorry about that. My mistake. I did recall that Dennis had offered this as a challenge, I should have followed your answer more closely.

[Dennis Bratcher]

Again, I affirm that nowhere in the NT does Jesus tell the disciples to write authoritative documents for the Church, as was claimed.

Again, I never made this claim.

Perhaps, then, you could parse the meaning of this statement for us to explain how it does not really say what it appears to say.

Jesus Christ authorized the apostles to be his witnesses and to write the authoritative foundational documents on which the church was founded . . .

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[Jim Chabot]

Perhaps, then, you could parse the meaning of this statement for us to explain how it does not really say what it appears to say.



Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

It appears that the difference lies between two words. You specified that nowhere does Jesus "tell" or instruct the disciples to write these documents. And in strict definition, yes you are correct, He does not "tell" them.

Marcus claim is that the Apostles were "authorized" to write them and while I missed this distinction, it becomes clear on second examination. Yes Jesus did "authorize" them. Did he specifically "authorize" them to write these documents, no there is nothing specific. However I'm convinced that the general authorization to bind and loose and Paul's authorization specific to himself cover the writing of documents.

Another minor difference I see and it may be nothing is that you are using the term "disciple" while Marcus chooses the term "Apostle." My thinking is that the term Apostle perhaps may better include Paul. Perhaps another subject entirely, I have noticed that folks who eschew the authority of church tradition also tend to eschew the thought of Apostolic succession as well.

[Hans Deventer]

Jim, bind and loose is a technical phrase that relates to "halachic" decisions. Decisions about "the way to walk", about how a Christian is supposed to live, very practically.

Though of course that too can be found in the NT, it's not quite the core message of the gospel, but rather the practical outworking. I don't think that Jesus words in this regard were meant as to authorize the writing of canonical books.

I would dare to argue that Jesus actually authorized LIVES as a witness to the gospel. Don't think Scripture was on His mind at all. Otherwise He would have written them Himself.

[Dennis Bratcher]

It appears that the difference lies between two words. You specified that nowhere does Jesus "tell" or instruct the disciples to write these documents. And in strict definition, yes you are correct, He does not "tell" them.

Marcus claim is that the Apostles were "authorized" to write them and while I missed this distinction, it becomes clear on second examination. Yes Jesus did "authorize" them. Did he specifically "authorize" them to write these documents, no there is nothing specific. However I'm convinced that the general authorization to bind and loose and Paul's authorization specific to himself cover the writing of documents.

Another minor difference I see and it may be nothing is that you are using the term "disciple" while Marcus chooses the term "Apostle." My thinking is that the term Apostle perhaps may better include Paul. Perhaps another subject entirely, I have noticed that folks who eschew the authority of church tradition also tend to eschew the thought of Apostolic succession as well.

Do you really want to reduce the discussion to word games?

OK, to the claim that the Apostles were "authorized" by Jesus to write foundational documents for the Church, I again assert that nowhere does the New Testament ever record such a thing. It is only by adding to the text and reading into it prior assumptions do you get anything close to that. That lack of support for such a claim was and has remained my main point throughout the discussion.

OK, add Paul. Where in the New Testament does it record that Jesus "authorized" Paul to write foundational documents for the Church? In the eagerness to substantiate an assumption, and support a personal opinion, the simple fact is getting lost: Marcus' claim that Jesus authorized anyone to "write foundational documents for the Church" cannot be substantiated from any evidence, and is therefore bogus. That raises wider question about his claim that Scripture created the Church, especially in light of contrary evidence from the New Testament and Church History.

That doesn't take anything away from the authority of Scripture, and certainly does not, as has been claimed, place human authority above God's authority. But it does force us to conceptualize "authority" in a different manner than just asserting "God said it."

The reality is that there is a human dimension to Scripture, from writing to canon, even as George Eldon Ladd acknowledged when he described Scripture as "the word of God given in the words of men in history." Failing to recognize that leads to just as much perversion in one direction as assuming that the primary authority lies in the Church above Scripture does in the other direction.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[Marcus Kibbe]

Perhaps, then, you could parse the meaning of this statement for us to explain how it does not really say what it appears to say.

The statement in context was:

My position presupposes a faith in Jesus Christ and his delegation of authority to the apostles (and prophets), the foundation of his church (Matt. 16:18, Eph. 2:20). From this presupposition flows the christological and apostolic priority in discussions of the canon: Jesus Christ authorized the apostles to be his witnesses and to write the authoritative foundational documents on which the church was founded - thus the church itself is the product of the canon.

Again, for the 3rd time, never did I make the assertion that the NT explicitly records that the "apostles were authorized by Jesus to write foundational documents for the church." My premise (presupposition) all along has been that Jesus delegated authority to the apostles (and prophets) to be the foundation upon which the church was built. It is primarily the apostles who are given the ability to recall accurately the words and deeds of Jesus and to interpret them rightly (John 14:26, 16:13-14). Peter encourages his readers to remember "the commandment of the Lord and Savior through your apostles" (2 Peter 3:2). And to lie to the apostles (Acts 5:2) is equivalent to lying to the Holy Spirit (Acts 5:3) and lying to God (Acts 5:4). By virtue of their apostolic office, the apostles had authority to speak/write words that were God's own.

Marcus' claim that Jesus authorized anyone to "write foundational documents for the Church" cannot be substantiated from any evidence, and is therefore bogus.

If you believe that Scripture is self-attesting, there is indeed evidence. Jesus spoke to John at Patmos saying: "To the angel of the church in Ephesus write..." (Rev. 2:1); "And to the angel of the church in Smyrna write.." (Rev. 2:8); "And to the angel of the church in Pergamum write..." (Rev. 2:12). "All Scripture is God-breathed" is referring to written words. Paul tells the Corinthians, "If any one thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that what I am writing to you is a command of the Lord" (i Cor. 14:37). He is claiming that his directives to the church at Corinth are not merely his own but from the Lord. Later, in defending his apostolic office, Paul says that he will give the Corinthians "proof that God is speaking in me" (2 Cor. 13:3). Several other examples could be given.

[Jim Chabot]

Do you really want to reduce the discussion to word games?

Not my intent at all, I was trying to show you where you misunderstood what Marcus was saying. It seemed clear enough to me and I was trying to help you. Sorry if you read this differently. Hopefully between this and what Marcus has said in reply, you will now see where he was/is coming from.

OK, to the claim that the Apostles were "authorized" by Jesus to write foundational documents for the Church, I again assert that nowhere does the New Testament ever record such a thing. It is only by adding to the text and reading into it prior assumptions do you get anything close to that. That lack of support for such a claim was and has remained my main point throughout the discussion.

Ok, you don't see it the same as I do, no problem. Your looking for a clear foundation in this case, and I'm saying that there is a general authorization and nothing to hinder it as looking toward a written record. It's just a different way of looking at it, nothing nearly as nefarious as you seem to suggest.

OK, add Paul. Where in the New Testament does it record that Jesus "authorized" Paul to write foundational documents for the Church? In the eagerness to substantiate an assumption, and support a personal opinion, the simple fact is getting lost:

No not at all, this was just a side note. Paul was clearly authorized by Jesus to speak for him. Paul chose in part to speak in written form. Paul is clearly covered by Jesus authorization to do so, writing is a form of speech, we are doing it right now. Granted there was no explicit instruction to write, it should be clear by now that no one here is claiming this.

Marcus' claim that Jesus authorized anyone to "write foundational documents for the Church" cannot be substantiated from any evidence, and is therefore bogus.

It should be clear at this point that Marcus has made no such claim, lets stand back from this please.

That raises wider question about his claim that Scripture created the Church, especially in light of contrary evidence from the New Testament and Church History.

That doesn't take anything away from the authority of Scripture, and certainly does not, as has been claimed, place human authority above God's authority. But it does force us to conceptualize "authority" in a different manner than just asserting "God said it."

Your basing this on something that isn't established, Marcus didn't make this claim This then becomes fruit of a poisonous tree. Perhaps there is discussion here, but not as it is tied to a claim that is nonexistent.

The reality is that there is a human dimension to Scripture, from writing to canon, even as George Eldon Ladd acknowledged when he described Scripture as "the word of God given in the words of men in history." Failing to recognize that leads to just as much perversion in one direction as assuming that the primary authority lies in the Church above Scripture does in the other direction.

I think we all agree as to the human element. We have human authors of Scripture who were authorized by Jesus to bind and loose and to speak for him. And we have church officials or whatnot who have recognized this authority and called these works "canon." This does not give the church authority over scripture, conversely it is a recognition of authority by the church.

[Jim Chabot]

Jim, bind and loose is a technical phrase that relates to "halachic" decisions. Decisions about "the way to walk", about how a Christian is supposed to live, very practically.

Yes I understand this. My use of the naked term was based upon a desire to keep the discussion on point. I thought it easier than to widen out to describe the term and run the risk of disagreement on another front.

Though of course that too can be found in the NT, it's not quite the core message of the gospel, but rather the practical outworking. I don't think that Jesus words in this regard were meant as to authorize the writing of canonical books.

Yes you are right, this is not the core message, yet it was needed, the church required a framework to operate from. Can you imagine the level of disagreement that would exist without instruction? We have enough trouble as it is!

I do disagree here. I believe that His authorization to "speak" for Him, included writing should they desire to use this medium. Granted they would have been free to not write and to make use of oral transmission, their choice.

I would dare to argue that Jesus actually authorized LIVES as a witness to the gospel. Don't think Scripture was on His mind at all. Otherwise He would have written them Himself.

He didn't write the Old Testament either, excepting for the ten commandments. It's just speculation on our part, my view is that He did have order on His mind when He chose Paul to speak for Him. Who better to codify, to organize and to give structure to the church. Yes LIVES are the witness to the gospel, I believe this is separate from the issue of church authority or ownership of Scripture.

[Jim Chabot]

If you believe that Scripture is self-attesting, there is indeed evidence. Jesus spoke to John at Patmos saying: "To the angel of the church in Ephesus write..." (Rev. 2:1); "And to the angel of the church in Smyrna write.." (Rev. 2:8); "And to the angel of the church in Pergamum write..." (Rev. 2:12). "All Scripture is God-breathed" is referring to written words. Paul tells the Corinthians, "If any one thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that what I am writing to you is a command of the Lord" (i Cor. 14:37). He is claiming that his directives to the church at Corinth are not merely his own but from the Lord. Later, in defending his apostolic office, Paul says that he will give the Corinthians "proof that God is speaking in me" (2 Cor. 13:3). Several other examples could be given.

Hadn't thought of it in this light before. I suppose then that there is some instruction after all.

[Hans Deventer]

He didn't write the Old Testament either, excepting for the ten commandments. It's just speculation on our part, my view is that He did have order on His mind when He chose Paul to speak for Him. Who better to codify, to organize and to give structure to the church. Yes LIVES are the witness to the gospel, I believe this is separate from the issue of church authority or ownership of Scripture.

Actually, the only way that the concept "authority of Scripture" has any meaning, is when that authority is visible in our lives. All the rest is mere theological abstraction. Which means that Scripture has little meaning outside of it being lived by the Church, understood as all believers. Which means that the discussion here is once again very theoretical. It seems to me Marcus is close to denying any value to humans, be it both in the creation or in the recognition of the Scriptures. The fact is however that it is very hard to separate the two, and to try and do so inevitably distorts.

I see no authorization to write Scripture from Jesus as He walked this earth. People were authorized to share the gospel, and we recognized the Holy Spirit at work in the process and called it Scripture. A process that obviously started way before the NT, I don't understand why the focus is so much on the NT. Seems weird to me.

But of course a Calvinistic approach has to deny any value in people and has to highlight Gods sovereignity. It shines through once again and we inevitably end up at the same place in any discussion. No surprises here. It's just not Wesleyan.

[Jim Chabot]

Actually, the only way that the concept "authority of Scripture" has any meaning, is when that authority is visible in our lives. All the rest is mere theological abstraction. Which means that Scripture has little meaning outside of it being lived by the Church, understood as all believers. Which means that the discussion here is once again very theoretical. It seems to me Marcus is close to denying any value to humans, be it both in the creation or in the recognition of the Scriptures. The fact is however that it is very hard to separate the two, and to try and do so inevitably distorts.

I see no authorization to write Scripture from Jesus as He walked this earth. People were authorized to share the gospel, and we recognized the Holy Spirit at work in the process and called it Scripture. A process that obviously started way before the NT, I don't understand why the focus is so much on the NT. Seems weird to me.

But of course a Calvinistic approach has to deny any value in people and has to highlight Gods sovereignity. It shines through once again and we inevitably end up at the same place in any discussion. No surprises here. It's just not Wesleyan.

This is a different conversation than we have been having, or at least it's different than what I've been thinking here. My thoughts have been focused on the "chicken and the egg" question that Ben proposes. Ben has of late become an avid proponent of tradition and church authority and all of that. My thoughts admittedly are all about the folly of such thinking.

I hope this explains the focus on the NT Scriptures as we wrestle with whether the Scripture gives us the Church or whether the church gives us Scripture.

I think that Marcus is giving full value to humans here, this hasn't been the question. The question is rather "which humans" do we credit. And your right, the authority of Scripture has no meaning apart from that which is visible in our lives. And yes as you speak of the Church, as properly interpreted as universal, I'll say Amen! As to the church particular, not so much, I don't believe that there is one true church to which we should submit, rather that as we are moved by the Spirit we seek out those of like faith.

[Marcus Kibbe]

Actually, the only way that the concept "authority of Scripture" has any meaning, is when that authority is visible in our lives. All the rest is mere theological abstraction. Which means that Scripture has little meaning outside of it being lived by the Church, understood as all believers. Which means that the discussion here is once again very theoretical.

You seem to be ignoring the connection between inspiration and authority. These are two distinct, but inseparable, truths. The authority of Scripture proceeds from their inspiration, and their inspiration establishes their authority. If "the authority of Scripture" has no meaning apart from us, then "inspiration" also has no meaning apart from us. The notion of "authority of scripture" is merely a shorthand expression for God's authority - far from meaningless "theological abstraction."

It seems to me Marcus is close to denying any value to humans, be it both in the creation or in the recognition of the Scriptures. The fact is however that it is very hard to separate the two, and to try and do so inevitably distorts.

No, not at all. This is what you're looking for but it has nothing to do with anything I've said.

I see no authorization to write Scripture from Jesus as He walked this earth. People were authorized to share the gospel, and we recognized the Holy Spirit at work in the process and called it Scripture. A process that obviously started way before the NT, I don't understand why the focus is so much on the NT. Seems weird to me.

You're a big fan of NT Wright, right? Read the section: Old Testament, New Testament. http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_B...horitative.htm

But of course a Calvinistic approach has to deny any value in people and has to highlight Gods sovereignity. It shines through once again and we inevitably end up at the same place in any discussion. No surprises here. It's just not Wesleyan.

The Calvinist card is worn out, Hans. Can you explain how anything I've said is not Wesleyan? The point I was making in this thread is that Scripture established the Church, the Church did not establish Scripture. Here's what NT Wright has to say in the article linked to above:

in order that the church may be the church—may be the people of God for the world—God, by that same Holy Spirit, equips men in the first generation to write the new covenant documentation. This is to be the new covenant documentation which gives the foundation charter and the characteristic direction and identity to the people of God, who are to be the people of God for the world. It is common to say in some scholarly circles that the evangelists, for instance, didn’t know they were writing scripture. One of the gains of modern scholarship is that we now see that to be a mistake. Redaction criticism has shown that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were writing what they were writing in order that it might be the foundation documentation for the church of their day and might bear God’s authority in doing so. And a book which carries God’s authority to be the foundation of the church for the world is what I mean by scripture. I think they knew what they were doing.

[Ian Gentles]

When we use the word "Scripture" of what is it that we speak?

Which books?

On what grounds do we make the distinction to include these books, and to exclude other books?

The whole of the cannon of scripture. I dont exclude any, dont add any. I have faith, trust, that God the Holy Spirit led church to include in cannon the books we have in the Bible.

[Billy Cox]

The whole of the cannon of scripture. I dont exclude any, dont add any. I have faith, trust, that God the Holy Spirit led church to include in cannon the books we have in the Bible.

So, 1st Maccabees gets your juices going? ...or is it Baruch?

[Ian Gentles]

So, 1st Maccabees gets your juices going? ...or is it Baruch?

They were excluded from cannon, though interesting in themselfs.