NT Canon

Please check out the link provided in an earlier post, it claerly shows that Dr Pickering is wrong!

 

It very much saddens me to find such a garbled mess as this posted on the Baptist Board. At no point in the history of the church have all 27 books of our current New Testament been recognized as canonical by all of the religious bodies that make up the Church. And there is absolutely not the slightest hint that any of the apostles considered their own writings to be authoritative Scripture. Indeed, it is highly unlikely that any of them did. If you choose to believe, as most Christians do today, that the 27 books included in the New Testament are all canonical, and that no other first or second century books are canonical, it is certainly your right to have that opinion; but that it is your opinion rather than established fact should not be overlooked.

 

I didn't know anybody read BB Warfield anymore! Interesting quote!

I disagree, the NT scriptures disagree.

"For this reason we also constantly thank God that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it really is, the word of God, which also performs its work in you who believe."
1 Th 2:12 NAS

Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless,
and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you,
as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.
2 Peter 3:13 NAS

Rob

 

Your assumption - "that the Christian church did not require to form for itself the idea of a "canon," ", is incorrect.

The Church, in direct response to a so-called "canon" of New Testament books as produced by the heretic, Marcion (about 140), found it necessary to collate their own official "list of approved books". This was mainly because of the confusion that Marcion was causing, especially by the fact that his own "list" was being accepted by some as though it was sanctioned by the Church itself.

(see, Dr A Souter; The Text and Canon of the New Testament; R Laird Harris; Inspiration and Canonicity of the Bible)

As I have said before, the early Church did not possess all the 27 books on the New Testament in the second century, in one single volume. It was therefore necessary that the Church responded with its "canon", to safeguard the books that the Holy Spirit intedned to include, and to rid the Church of all others.

 

Craigbythesea wrote:

"It very much saddens me to find such a garbled mess as this posted on the Baptist Board. At no point in the history of the church have all 27 books of our current New Testament been recognized as canonical by all of the religious bodies that make up the Church. And there is absolutely not the slightest hint that any of the apostles considered their own writings to be authoritative Scripture. Indeed, it is highly unlikely that any of them did. If you choose to believe, as most Christians do today, that the 27 books included in the New Testament are all canonical, and that no other first or second century books are canonical, it is certainly your right to have that opinion; but that it is your opinion rather than established fact should not be overlooked."

What nonsense!

In 1 Timothy 5:18 the Apostle Paul writes:

"For the Scripture saith, thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And the laborer is worthy of his reward"

The first Scripture quotation is from Deuteronomy 25:4. The second is from Luke 10:7, where the Lord says: "the laborer is worth of his hire". Note, Paul begins by saying "For the Scripture saith", and then joins both quotations by "kai" (and), which means that Paul considered the words of Luke as Scripture, in the same sense as the OT quotation.

We then have Paul again in 1 Corinthians 15:

"For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures" (3-4)

"Christ died for our sins...he was buried, and that He rose again the third day ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES"

The date given for Paul's 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, is about A.D. 54. The date for the Gospel of Mark, as early as A.D.45. The early date of 1st Corinthians confirms an early date for Mark, which Paul here would have been quoting. (see Mark 10:33-34)

 

For those interested in doing some "research" on their own, do a google search. Using "canon of scripture" I got many links that were quite interesting. And apparently the canon was not settled until years after some may think...

 

The canon was settled when God devised His great plan of redemption... before the foundation of the world. It was progressively revealed up until John wrote "The end". It was "recognized" formally by ecumenical council a couple of centuries later... however if I am not mistaken, one of the factors they used for recognizing the canon was a book's acceptance as scripture within the church.

Though some may have wrongly added or rejected one book or another, it is fairly safe to say that the books of the NT were accepted as authoritative scripture from the time of their writing. Both Paul and Peter spend space citing the apostolic authority of their teachings and writings. I believe this represents indirect evidence for their awareness that they were delivering inspired scripture.

 

Paul is writing here about the things that he preached in Thessalonica. Apparently he quoted Old Testament scriptures to these people.

First of all, let’s get the quote accurate,

14. Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless,
15. and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you,
16. as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.

Secondly, it is very unlikely that any of the apostles wrote 2 Peter. Almost all Petrine scholars place the date of this epistle somewhere in the late first century or early second century, a date after the death of the Apostle Peter and most of the other apostles.

Thirdly, even as early as Jerome (340? – 420) we find Christian writers trying to explain why the vocabulary and style of 2 Peter is so very different from the vocabulary and style of 1 Peter. Jerome believed that Peter loosely dictated both of the letters and that two different secretaries produced the two final drafts. Therefore we cannot say that the original author of this epistle meant to suggest that there was such a things as Scripture apart from the Old Testament canon. And even if Peter actually wrote 2 Peter, he does not suggest that his own writings are Scripture (and there is much internal evidence in the epistle to suggest that he did not believe that he was writing Scripture).

Fourthly, the Greek word translated here “Scriptures” was not used exclusively for writing that are now part of our canon. Indeed, even James (4:5) used this word for writings that have since been lost and never were considered to be canonical.

 

Icthus,

I wrote,

“And there is absolutely not the slightest hint that any of the apostles considered their own writings to be authoritative Scripture. Indeed, it is highly unlikely that any of them did.” Paul did not write Luke’s Gospel and there is no evidence of any kind that Paul is quoting Luke’s gospel.

The NASB gives us,

18. For the Scripture says, "YOU SHALL NOT MUZZLE THE OX WHILE HE IS THRESHING," and "The laborer is worthy of his wages."

Their use of upper case letters for the quote from Deut. 25:4 should be carefully contrasted with their use of lower case letters for the second quote (if it is a quote at all) which Paul may very well have known from the same source that Luke did.

Luke1:1. Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us,
2. just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word,
3. it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus;
4. so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.

As for 1 Cor. 15:3-4,

3. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,
4. and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,

It is inconceivable that Paul here was referring to Mark 10:33-34,

10:33. saying, "Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be delivered to the chief priests and the scribes; and they will condemn Him to death and will hand Him over to the Gentiles.
34. "They will mock Him and spit on Him, and scourge Him and kill Him, and three days later He will rise again."

Indeed, there can be no reasonable doubt that Paul is referring to Old Testament Scriptures because at the time of writing 1 Cor. the Gospel According to Mark, if it was even written yet, certainly would have not have carried any weight when compared with the Old Testament Scriptures. And of course Paul’s methodology was to use the Old Testament Scriptures to support his arguments. Or, to put it another way, Paul argued from the Old Testament Scriptures to prove that Jesus was the Christ, that Christians are saved by faith, etc., etc., etc. Paul did not argue from the Gospels.

 

Craigbythesea,

What relegion do you follow, man? I think that the sea breeze is doing your head in, you ought to move inland.

Do you, or do you not accept the 27 books on the New testament canon as being the infallable, inerrant Word of Almighty God? I of course refer to the original writings, but the fact that there are 27 NT books does not change this. If you have doubts about some of the NT books, as seems to be suggested by your posts here, then, would you consider yourself to be a born-again Christian? I say this, because I cannot think how someone who has been saved by the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, and actually have doubts about the authority of the Holy Bible. I am of the opinion that the authority of the Holy Bible, is one of the foremost "doctrines" in the Christian Church. Second only to the doctrine of God, since ALL that we hold to and teach others is based on this most precious gift from our Saviour to us.

I am not judging you, but questioning your motives on this issuem, and to know where you are coming from. I recall another post of yours, where you speak of good "Muslim scholarship", which I found to be very strange coming from one who is supposed to follow Christ. Seeing that they most certainly DO NOT have the Holy Spirit

 

TCassidy, are you in the habit of making silly remarks? I am concerned that guys like you and Pastor Larry are actually Pastor's and Professor's, teaching God's Word of kids, etc.

Will you just quit about the Catholic Church giving us the Canon of the New Testament, as the facts are that they DID NOT. You post your remarks in a couple of lines, and do not back up what you say with hard evidence. Why don't you spend some time researching the facts, and then your response would be probably more accurate.

Whether you like it or not, is not the issue. The plain facts are there and cannot be changed by the likes of you. For the first 300 or so years, though the 27 books of the NT were in circulation, they did NOT form part of the canon of the NT, nor were they available in a single volume as it does today. As I have already said, if you would care to read what I say, the early Church responded to the likes of the heretic, Marcion, who published his own list of NT books, which he pretended were approved by the Church. This was about A.D.140. The Church father Irenaeus (130-202, whether you like him or not does not matter), wss the FIRST to extensively quote from the books of the NT. He quotes from all the books, with the exception of
, Philemon (though Ignatius refers to it around A.D.100); James (though mentioned by Clement of Rome, about 100 A.D.); 2 Peter (again mentioned by Clement); and 3 John, the first reference to this short epistle, was by Cyril of Jerusalem (315-386).

So, though all the books were around, yet all were not known to the main figures in the early Church. It was not till the 4th century, under Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, that the 27 books as we now have it were finally "approved" by the Church in both the East and West, and all other "books" were rejected. Before you come back with some more nonsense, please at least check your facts. If you think that all the 27 books were used without dispute as tho their authority before the time of Athanasius, then please show us by whom, and where. You need to back up your statements. If you want to prove what I've said to be wrong, then you need to get back to me with some solid evidence.

Thanks

 

John Calvin rejected that Peter was the author. This would make him a liberal.

 

Craigbythesea asserted:

Paul is writing here about the things that he preached in Thessalonica. Apparently he quoted Old Testament scriptures to these people.

"Apparently"? In other words, you interpret the facts to suit your presuppositions.

 

Craigbythesea wrote

"Secondly, it is very unlikely that any of the apostles wrote 2 Peter"

says who? I am not too much concerned about modern scholarship, especially when it comes to the authority of the Holy Bible, as most of these "scholars" are way too liberal in their conclusions.

The fact of the matter is, that the early Church agreed that Peter was the author of the second Epistle. Even though Eusebius said that some doubted this, as they do even today, this does not mean that this was the opinion of the Church as a whole. Cyril of Jerusalem (315-386) has no doubt that Peter wrote 2 Epistles. Why should I doubt his word, for that of someone who lived almost 1700 years later?

 

Hogwash! If someone agrees with you, they are a conservative evangelical scholar; if they disagree with you, they are apostate liberals .

The authorship of 2 Peter is not a matter of faith—it is a question historical events. Whether the scholar studying the authorship of 2 Peter is a liberal, a conservative, or an unbeliever is irrelevant. The large majority of scholars specializing in Jude and 2 Peter, or just 2 Peter, believe that the evidence against the Petrine authorship of 2 Peter is convincing. They do not, however, believe that 2 Peter should be removed from the New Testament canon.

Personally, I do not have strong convictions either way. The evidence, as I understand it, points to an author other than the author of 1 Peter. For a good, concise discussion of the evidence, see pages 199 – 247 in the following work,

Charles Bigg. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary of the Epistles of St. Peter and St. Jude. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. 2nd edition, 1902.

Charles Bigg comes to the conclusion that Peter did indeed write 2 Peter.

For a less detailed but more current presentation of the evidence, see pages 131 – 171 in the following work,

Richard J. Bauckham. Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 50, Jude, 2 Peter. Waco: Word Books, 1983.

Richard Bauckham comes to the conclusion that Peter did not write 2 Peter.