The Narrow Path Ministries

I have been a Christian now for over ten years, yet the one thing that continually bugs me is the issue of the Canon of Scripture. To me, this seems like one of the most difficult doctrines (and I would say foundations) of Christianity to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Personally I do believe the Bible is God's word and I read it as such, but there are some presuppositions regarding how we arrive at the Canon that brings questions.

When I refer to the Canon I refer mainly to the New Testament Canon, as I believe it is not too difficult to prove that Jesus believed the Old Testament Canon to be God's revelation, and since Jesus is God, that pretty much settles it.

1. The Criteria - I realize there are criteria that the early church used to determine what books would go in the canon and what books would not. Forgive me if I am straining out a gnat, but... how do we know that the criteria they used was correct? Was it by pure reason that they came up with this criteria? Did the Holy Spirit inspire them with this criteria? (if so, how would we know that?) How do we know God Himself was pleased with the criteria used?

2. Authority - How do we know that the early church got it 100% right when it came to the selection of the Canon? Some could say we know they got it 100% right because the church as a whole decided on the Canon - that the bishops around the fourth century represented the entire church and came to unanimity on what books should be included and what books rejected, and therefore we can trust the NT canon b/c the church as a whole came to agreement on it. More questions come from that:

a. Did the bishops really represent the entire church? (were all of these guys even true Christians?? Which definitely matters, if we're going to say they represented the church)

b. Even if they did, does their unanimous agreement on the canon therefore mean that the canon is correct?

c. How do we know that these bishops had the AUTHORITY to make such a decision? If we say, "because the Bible gives them that authority"...

i. Please show me the verse
ii. Even if you can prove it Scripturally, you still run into the problem of circular reasoning, similar to the problems the Roman Catholics have on this issue. The Church decides what books belong in the Bible, yet they derive their authority to do that from the Bible.

d. What about the books not included in the Canon? Were there no other books written by apostolic associates that could be included in the Canon? I just got done reading Polycarp’s letter to the Philippians and I could imagine someone making a good case for it being apart of the Canon.

In all of these questions I am not asking for empirical evidence, just evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. I don’t want to ask for more than what is possible to give (which “evidence beyond a reasonable doubt” may be as well).

I’m also about to begin working through The Canon of Scripture by F.F. Bruce. I’ve read some of it before, but I wasn’t into the subject enough to continue through. If anyone who has read it can point me to particular areas in his work that would help me answer these questions I would very thankful.

I also do not expect the answers to these questions to be fully answered on this board. Therefore, please feel free to point me to resources online or in print.

Thank you in advance to everyone who helps me work through this.

The church of the first two centuries just read the apostolic writings in the church. The concept of "canon" never entered their heads. If they didn't worry about a "canon" but found truth in the gospels and all of the apostolic writings, why should we?

My "canon" (or measuring rod) of truth under the New Covenant, is first, the recorded words of the Lord Jesus, second, the recorded words of the apostles, and third, the recorded words of the overseers whom they appointed.

In the fourth century, "the canon" was formulated to counteract the fake "gospels" of the gnostics which purported to have been written by various apostles.

Athanasius, in the fourth century, created a "canon" of writings which exclusively were to be read in the churches. He called them "wells of salvation" and applied the words of Revelation to his list ----"whosoever adds to the prophecy of this book, the plagues shall be added to him" and "whoever subtracts from the prophesy of this book, his name will be subtracted from the book of life."

If any church lacked any writing in Athanasius' list, it was to be brought into that church. If any were reading other writings in church, such as Clement's letter to the Corinthians (written shortly after Paul and Peter's deaths), they were to get them out.

I know none of this answers your question. But I just wanted to share my thoughts about the matter.

I know none of this answers your question. But I just wanted to share my thoughts about the matter.

That's no problem. Any insights into this matter whether they answer my questions or not is fine with me. I'm just looking to grow deeper in the understanding of the canon, the history of it, and evidences for my belief in it. I will probably interact with your response and ask further questions sometime this evening. Thanks!

Ryan

That's no problem. Any insights into this matter whether they answer my questions or not is fine with me. I'm just looking to grow deeper in the understanding of the canon, the history of it, and evidences for my belief in it. I will probably interact with your response and ask further questions sometime this evening. Thanks!


I think it was simply a matter of confirming which writings were from the actual Apostles or were writings approved by apostles. For example Hebrews took awhile to be accepted because the authorship was unclear but eventually it became evident that Paul either wrote or at least contributed to the letter.

Ryan, here is a site which I found imparts excellent information about the origin and development of "the New Testament Canon"

http://www.bible-researcher.com/canon1.html

I think it was simply a matter of confirming which writings were from the actual Apostles or were writings approved by apostles. For example Hebrews took awhile to be accepted because the authorship was unclear but eventually it became evident that Paul either wrote or at least contributed to the letter.

Steve7150,

But how do we know that the Apostles writing something to a particular church or group of churches means that it is therefore instruction for the entire human race to believe as words from God? Where do we find Jesus giving the Apostles and their close companions that type of authority? I believe He gave them authority, but I don't see where He gave them the kind of authority that said that whatever they write to the church is God-breathed.

The church of the first two centuries just read the apostolic writings in the church. The concept of "canon" never entered their heads. If they didn't worry about a "canon" but found truth in the gospels and all of the apostolic writings, why should we?

Paidion (how do you pronounce that, by the way? ), your answer in that first paragraph is good enough for me, but I'm not sure it would work for those having doubts about the Scriptures. Just because the church of the first two centuries just read the apostolic writings in the church does not mean they were right to do so, and someone wanting to know how we know for sure Jesus has given the Apostles that type of blanket authority when they write are matters to still left to be resolved.

My "canon" (or measuring rod) of truth under the New Covenant, is first, the recorded words of the Lord Jesus, second, the recorded words of the apostles, and third, the recorded words of the overseers whom they appointed.

You obviously tier the different categories of writings, so does this mean that The Gospels are more important than the apostolic writings? If so, in what way? If it is all from God, shouldn't it all be obeyed equally? Also, I believe the apostolic writings are binding on the believer as commands from God. Would you say the same thing about the words of the overseers they appointed?

Thanks for the website by the way, I had actually seen that link elsewhere on the forum and quickly bookmarked it. I realize I have much personal study to do on this issue and certainly don't expect it all to by answered right here, but it can be helpful and encouraging to interact with the body on what you are working through.

But how do we know that the Apostles writing something to a particular church or group of churches means that it is therefore instruction for the entire human race to believe as words from God? Where do we find Jesus giving the Apostles and their close companions that type of authority? I believe He gave them authority, but I don't see where He gave them the kind of authority that said that whatever they write to the church is God-breathed.


My default position is that the apostles words are for the entire world unless the context makes it clear that the comments are meant just for that culture.
Jesus said "the one who receives whomever i send receives me , and the one who receives me receives him who sent me." John 13.20

The Development of the Canon of the New Testament, by Glenn Davis . . . has been a handy reference for me the last few years (see, links there also)

Rick

But how do we know that the Apostles writing something to a particular church or group of churches means that it is therefore instruction for the entire human race to believe as words from God? Where do we find Jesus giving the Apostles and their close companions that type of authority? I believe He gave them authority, but I don't see where He gave them the kind of authority that said that whatever they write to the church is God-breathed

It seems evident that those holding the verbal inspiration theory of the Bible do not necessarily accept all apostolic writings as verbally inspired.
What about Paul's letter to the Laodiceans? Paul mentions this letter in Colossians 4:16.

There is extant a letter which is thought by many to be that very letter.
But even if there were proof that the existing letter is the genuine letter of Paul to the Laodiceans, I would be willing to bet that there would be no move to add it to the "canon".

Paidion (how do you pronounce that, by the way?)

pie dee ən

It is a Greek word that originally meant "trained little child". It is my desire to be child-like and trained by the Lord.

Just because the church of the first two centuries just read the apostolic writings in the church does not mean they were right to do so, and someone wanting to know how we know for sure Jesus has given the Apostles that type of blanket authority when they write are matters to still left to be resolved.

Jesus gave his disciples this promise:

I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. John 16: 12-13

You obviously tier the different categories of writings, so does this mean that The Gospels are more important than the apostolic writings? If so, in what way?

Our faith rests upon our Saviour and chief apostle, Jesus Christ. It's all about HIM!!! We must accept His words first.

It is true that Jesus said the Spirit would lead the disciples into all truth. But they had not reached the place our Lord reached when He said He did nothing from Himself, but only what the Father told Him to do. The disciples, on the other hand, sometimes acted from selfish motives, as Peter, when He denied Christ. Also Paul and Barnabus had a sharp dispute concerning John Mark (As was evidenced later, Barnabus was right and Paul was wrong). Nevertheless, when the apostles spoke truth, that truth was on the same level as the truth that Jesus spoke. But the question arises, "Did they sometimes have the truth interspersed with that which served their own ends?" That was never the case with our Lord. He served His Father --- not Himself. But that was not always the case with the apostles. Another example: Peter acted insincerely when certain Judaising Christians came along, and he wouldn't eat with the Gentile Christians.

Now the elders that the apostles appointed were one step away from the apostles. So they were less likely to hold to the teaching of Christ in its entirety than were the apostles. Yet, they were taught by the apostles and thus were reliable witnesses to the truth.

So to "tier the different categories of writings" makes sense. Of course, it doesn't make sense if we hold to the concept of a canon of scripture given by God Himself, which is free from all error, and outside of which there is no inspiration.

If it is all from God, shouldn't it all be obeyed equally?

I would have to say "yes", of course, to this hypothetical quesiton. But I have to admit that I can't accept that every word of the Bible is from God.
For example, Paul left some things at Troas which he wanted. So in a letter to Timothy, he asked him to bring them along, just as any one of us might in similar circumstances:

2 Timothy 4:13 When you come, bring the cloak that I left with Carpus at Troas, also the books, and above all the parchments.

Were these words inspired by God? Or were they just a simple request Paul made of Timothy?

Do they have a deep spiritual meaning to the spiritually discerning?

I have a pastor friend who preached a whole sermon on the theme "Bring the books and parchments when you come"!

I think one of the reasons we have so many bizarre interpretations of the Bible is that people often look for a deep, spiritual meaning when there is none.

Also, I believe the apostolic writings are binding on the believer as commands from God. Would you say the same thing about the words of the overseers they appointed?

Insofar as they teach the law of Christ, yes. But both apostles and overseers may come up with their own ideas. Do you remember that Paul said, "This is what the Lord said, but the following is what I say, and not the Lord". In another place, Paul suggested that his readers should pay attention to his ideas becasue "I think I have the Spirit of God."

So that's where I stand. I don't think it's all as cut and dried as the proponents of verbal inspiration believe.

Even if the verbal inspiration theory were true, those holding it have as varied intepretations as anyone else. So what purpose is there of having a verbally inspired Bible if there is not a common understanding of it.

Furthermore, they say that the New Testament was verbally inspired only in the original manuscripts. But we do not have any of the original manuscripts. And when the original manuscripts did exist, the New Testament was not compiled into a single book. So at no time, did a verbally inspired New Testament exist.

Also, proponents of verbal inspiration don't follow the commands of Christ any more closely than disciples who do not hold to that theory. For example, Jesus asked his followers not to take an oath, but to let their answer be a simple "yes" or "no". How many Christians do you know who refuse to take an oath when asked to do so in court?

Some take seriously Paul's instruction for sisters to have their heads covered when praying or prophesying. Many Christian sisters do so, but probably more than 90% don't. They find a way to explain away that instruction.

The bottom line of what I am trying to say, is that Christians who believe in verbal inspiration are not necessarily obeying the instructions of Christ and his apostles, in a greater measure than Christians who don't.

Ryan,

You asked:

Paidion (how do you pronounce that, by the way?

Here's a neat resource: www.studylight.org/lex/grk/

Go there, type in "paidion" in the spot for a search. Then you will get the definition and there will be a small "speaker" icon at "phonetic spelling"you can click on and hear the Greek word pronounced.