The Narrow Path Ministries

"IC" will refer to the following statement:
"There exists a Canon of Scripture outside of which there is no inspiration."

1. Suppose IC is true.

2. Those who formed the Canon were either inspired by God to select the books that they chose, or they were not.

3. If they WERE inpired by God to select the contents of the Canon, then there IS inspiration outside the Canon, and IC is therefore false.

4. If those who formed the Canon, WERE NOT inspired by God to do so, then in all probability they DID NOT choose the correct list of exclusively inspired books, and thus IC is false.

IC appears to be false in either case. Seems to be a classic catch 22.

I think we have different types of inspiration since the inspired canon is unique but the Holy Spirit may often inspire people or perhaps influence people into certain decisions. But perhaps the second type of inspiration may be of the less compelling variety.

Thanks for your thoughts, Steve.

Would that mean that under the less compelling type of inspiration, a human error might be made?

Would that mean that under the less compelling type of inspiration, a human error might be made?




Sure and perhaps even in the more compelling variety also. Scriptural contradictions are defended by believers by saying the gospels compliment each other and that is my reponse also but it's possible there may be some errors.

Paidion-

i know you are not asking this, but do we know that number 1 is true? How can we know? Is this just an assumption? I dont think the Bible as we have it can claim it because the books are all independent of each other.

i always wondered what would happen if they found a missing letter of Paul, for example.

TK

Paidion wrote: 2. Those who formed the Canon were either inspired by God to select the books that they chose, or they were not.

Did it require inspiration to formulate a Canon? Or was it a recognition of the inspiration of certain letters, based on the criteria of authorship and overall consistency?

This wouldn't require those who helped form the Canon to be inspired in their choices necessarily, but to know enough about the book to recognize Apostolic authority.

Dave

Okay. I presumed in defining "IC" that it would be understood that its proponents believe that any inspired writing is infallible, that is, without error.

Steve7150 wrote:Sure [the less compelling inspiration may contain human errors] and perhaps even in the more compelling variety also. Scriptural contradictions are defended by believers by saying the gospels compliment each other and that is my reponse also but it's possible there may be some errors.

Okay, Steve. Obviously you don't believe in IC as I defined it, or meant to define it. For IC proponents, there are no errors in Scripture, perhaps in the translations, but not in the original manuscripts.

i know you are not asking this, but do we know that number 1 is true? How can we know? Is this just an assumption? I dont think the Bible as we have it can claim it because the books are all independent of each other.

Thank, TK. That's pretty much how I see it also.

i always wondered what would happen if they found a missing letter of Paul, for example.

I'm almost certain that it wouldn't be added to new Bibles being printed.
In fact we do have a Letter to the Laodiceans which some think is the one to which he referred in Colossians 4:16. I understand the Quakers use it.

You can read the letter here:

Laodiceans

Could it be that God, in his wisdom, arranged things so that the books he wanted to be in the Canon were the ones that were actually solidified? If that is the case, perhaps those books in our Canon are true and earnest but not inspired in some mystical sense. I actually use difficult Bible passages to argue for the truthfulness of the writers when I encounter skeptics.

A person once told me the Roman Catholic church carefully edited out everything they didn't like and only included those verses that supported their teachings. To this I replied, "So you don't believe the bible contains any contradictory passages?" The man said, "Of course it does... it's full of them!"

A very simple person could see that either one or the other is true, but you can't have it both ways. Either the bible was edited and difficult passages were removed or it contains difficult passages because it is unedited. I see the wisdom of God in this. Maybe difficult passages actually prove authenticity, rather than detract from it.

Paidion wrote: 3. If they WERE inspired by God to select the contents of the Canon, then there IS inspiration outside the Canon, and IC is therefore false.

Taking the definition of IC exactly you have defined it, I agree that you found a valid proof the IC is false.

However, I think one could take the position that the Cannon and also the list of Canonical books are the only inspired writings. This would not be subject to the disproof you have given above.

Peter

Could it be that God, in his wisdom, arranged things so that the books he wanted to be in the Canon were the ones that were actually solidified?

In that case, the big question is when were they solidified? There seemed to be ongoing disputes as to which writings were to be included.

Were they solidified as per Athanasius in 367? His NT list is identical to that which we have in our Bibles today. But in the OT, he included Baruch, and the Letter to Jeremiah, but excluded Esther.

For the Roman Catholic Church, the canon was solidified in 1545 at the Council of Trent. Their writings include most of the Apocrypha ,or what the RCs call the Deuterocanonical (second canon) books. It seems that for the RCs, those books are a little less inspired than the Canonical books.

Peter you wrote:However, I think one could take the position that the Cannon and also the list of Canonical books are the only inspired writings. This would not be subject to the disproof you have given above.

I agree, Peter, that one could take this position without logical contradiction, and believe that all that the Canonical books plus the list are infallible. However, such a position still has the problem as to which is, in fact, the infallible list. As you know, the Roman Catholics, who comprise the majority of Christians, hold to a different list, than the Protestant Christians. I think the Orthodox list differs somewhat to that of the Catholics. So it appears that the list has still not been settled for all Christians.