I subscribe to Table Talk, a monthly devotional published by R.C. Sproul’s Ligonier Ministries. Each month the magazine focuses on a theme, and this month that theme is “The Canonicity of Scripture”.
In the openeing column, Burk Parsons, the editor, captures the gist of the issue. The Bible is the Word of God, and canonization was simply the church receiving God’s Word as His Word. Canonization was not a process whereby the Church invented Holy Scriptures. Here’s how Buck said it:
The Bible is not a cleverly contrived collection of fanciful tales of mythical gods and prophets, sorcerers and goblins, hobbits and elves. It is not a Judeo-Christian anthology of sixty-six ancient books that were deemed politically and ecclesiastically correct by influential Christians of the early church who coveted worldly acceptance and prestige. On the contrary, the Bible is the book of the Lord God Almighty. It is the authoritative, inerrant, and infallible Word of God, and, as Jesus taught us in His prayer to the Father: His “Word is truth.” It doesn’t merely contain truth or speak about truth; it is truth “” it defines truth (John 17:17). We must, therefore, regard it as such.
Go on and read Buck’s entire article. Some of the other columns are also available online here.
I’ll add a quick programming note to this post. I’ll be away from the blog for a few days, returning Monday.
That works well devotionally, but it’s far more complicated then that. The difficulty is in figuring out how the church ‘received God’s Word as His Word.’ The primitive church was not unamimous on what was God’s word and what wasn’t, and some documents were considered inspired but non-canonical.
Thanks for stopping by Vlad. Another article (not available online) in that magazine says it this way. The books eventually canonized were canonized because nobody could stop them from being recognized as authoritative. They had the ring of truth and were self-attesting. Some books were accepted and passed around as devotionally helpful, similar to the OT Apocrypha. There are various factors that play into this, yes. But eventually there was great agreement on which books indeed are Bible.
Just a correction, His name is Burk not Buck.
Oops! Thanks for pointing out my mistake, Aaron. I must have been thinking Buck Rogers of the 24th century! 😉
Bob, you’re probably thinking of “buck,” as in the “bucks” that American businesses will be taxed if Obama becomes president.
Questions on the subject.
Where does Scripture teach that God would canonize 66 books? I’m not saying He didn’t. I believe He did. But what is our basis for believing God canonized in particular 66 books of the Bble? If we had only 65 of the books that had sufficient truth for salvation, or even all the doctrines of Scripture, should we call or consider a canon of 64 or 65 inerrant?
Nice one Kent, lol (scary really)..I was thinking of the bucks some of the men in my church shot during bow season last week (they gave me and Sara some heart and liver that we grilled w/ onions…yay free meat!) However, I don’t want a hand out from the government, I want to work for what I earn. Why should I be a burden on someone when I can work?
But to the topic…These are good questions…I need to study more about church history. Wasn’t there some council of believers that evaluated the evidence about the canonicity of God’s Word and made these decisions based on the texts and the leading of the Spirit? I want to know.
What about the other letter from Paul to the Corinthians, why wasn’t that in the canon. Did they lose it? What made it not inspired. How can we know?
Not that I am in doubt about my Bible, I’m not…Just want to be able to answer the unbelievers in an informed way.
BTW, have a nice trip, Bob!
I know what Kent is trying to imply here. The churches agreed on which books are genuine. God guided his followers to receive the Bible in all its 66 books.
Now since that is a conservative, orthodox view of canonicity, it follows that the churches agreed on the words of the canon too. And words are as important as books.
No verse says 66 books, but God guided his people to accept 66. No verse says which words, but God guided his people to accept the words that make up the Textus Receptus (Greek) and Masoretic Text (Hebrew) as the definitive words of God.
That is Kent’s argument. I don’t buy it completely. It’s easier to demonstrate that God’s people accepted 66 books then it is to demonstrate that God’s people accepted the exact wording of the TR and MT texts. I do believe we accept and receive the Bible as God-given and we don’t pick and choose. But God gave us the Bible as it is, in all its textual varieties. The time period of creating the TR text was just a first step not the final step of God’s people recognizing and accepting which words are God’s words. Today the majority of God’s people accept the conservative standard modern translations as God’s word.
How do we demonstrate that God’s people accepted 66 books, Bob? If God’s people did accept the Words as perfect for hundreds of years, were they just led of their flesh or of their own pride, or was the Holy Spirit leading them? Did those men apostatize on the doctrine of preservation, the true doctrine that we won’t have all the Words available? Or is the doctrine that we don’t know what the Words are the doctrine of Scripture?
You didn’t answer this, Bob. If we had only 65 of the books that had sufficient truth for salvation, or even all the doctrines of Scripture, should we call or consider a canon of 64 or 65 inerrant?
Don’t come over to my blog and demand I answer your question. Your angle is off topic. This thread is not on preservation. I’ve addressed what you brought up, enough for this post. Further discussion from you on this topic in this post is not going to fly here.
Calm down, Bob. By any definition of “demand,” I wasn’t demanding anything. I said you didn’t answer one of my questions. I believe it is on topic. Canonicity of Scripture, right? John S. said “these are good questions.” I don’t know who he is and he said, “Good question.” The article you posted starts with “The Bible is,” not “the Bible was.” When we talk about the canon, we’re talking about a certain number of books. I was wondering if it was still inerrant if it had only 64 books in it. I think it is an important question.
Wow, Bob. I’ve always answered your questions. Feel free to come over to my blog and ask a question any time and I’ll be glad to answer it. They can be as tough as you want them to be.
The Bible contains all we need for LIFE AND GODLINESS….not everything of truth in the world. There are things we accept on FAITH, because without it, it is impossible to please God.
The church was given the Holy Spirit at Pentecost without which we would be in a nebulous state of wonder and unable to understand the things Jesus spoke to us…
John 14:26(English Standard Version)
26But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.