If the Bible has the primary position in the hierarchy of information then it trumps all other writings when there is a disagreement. That is acceptable to me. There is still the problem of what to do when Christians disagree concerning interpretations particularly when the conclusion must be applied in some practical way e.g. should wine or grape juice be used for communion. Then there is the problem of people who are not competent to understand the Bible for one reason or another. They can read cartoons but they cannot concentrate on any difficult writing.

We should also keep in mind that God is alive today, if you don’t understand pray to him for guidance. This is what Emilio Knechtle did when he had difficulty accepting EGW. He had a dream in which Jesus appeared to him and said: Ellen is my child. The Bible says, cursed be the man that trust in man and makes flesh his arm, and you shall seek me and fine me, when you search for me with all your heart.

David, this is such an important point, it deserves our contemplation:

"We should let the ancients say what they did without necessarily feeling that we must agree in every detail. If we insist that we must always concur, we might read our own convictions into the ancient texts so as to avoid any uncomfortable difference."

The practical application of so many proscriptions and rituals observed by those ancients, evades us at times. How can we apply the larger principles, while rejecting the explicit manner in which the people of Bible times practiced them? How much of our own reasoning ability can we use in interpreting the Bible? We all do it, it's in the variety and methods where the trouble lies.

An excellent observation, but hardly one to cool any heads. Tom

An excellent observation, but hardly one to cool any heads. Tom

JB

Your observations underscore for me the importance of distinguishing what the text meant to the ancients and what it should mean for us today.

In principle all qualified scholars should be able to come to close agreement about the first, though in fact this is difficult.

It is much more difficult in some cases to figure out the second. That's why we need all the help from every quarter we can get!

I'm less than enthusiastic about deciding issues merely on the basis of dreams, visions or ecstatic experiences and so forth. The trouble is that they are so private that no one else can critique their content. I much prefer public evidence and reasoning.

Elaine

Thanks for all the reading you are doing. Your more-than-usual theological knowledge is blessing us all even when it causes a little discomfort.

I think we should use all the reasoning ability we can muster when studying Scripture. And we should hope and pray for even more.

If we think secularists have misconstrued a passsage, I think we should demonstrate this on the basis of more adequate understandings of the relevant evidence. Silencing discussions with "I believe the Bible and you don't" doesn't help.

Besides it is so boring! Whenever someone says something with which I disagree, I can just tell them that they don't really revere Scripture but I do.

Where's the fun in that?

Tom

Thanks for the encouragment! I've been reading your comments on the other threads. We've got to record the stories! The ones about your WWII service are especially moving.

By the way, where is it written that one can be belong to only one Christian denomination?

My Dean pastored a Presbyterian church for a while in Huntsville while they were between ministers and he was teaching religion at Oakwood.

Dave

Excellent article outlining the general duties of exegesis and systematic theology thanks, Dave.

Thank you, Arlyn!

"It is better to let them [Bible writers/ancients] say what they did and for us to say what we must, always insisting that these maintain a constant and mutually beneficial dialogue with the overarching themes of scripture primary."

A dialogical engagement with the text means understanding, and interpreting, the biblical account in light of its cultural setting and our own contemporary life situation. Dialogical also means contextual and historical, IOW.

The Belgic Confession article #7 says it this way:

"We believe that this Holy Scripture contains the will of God completely and that everything one must believe to be saved is sufficiently taught in it. For since the entire manner of service which God requires of us is described in it at great length, no one-- even an apostle or an angel from heaven, as Paul says--^2 ought to teach other than what the Holy Scriptures have already taught us. For since it is forbidden to add to or subtract from the Word of God,^3 this plainly demonstrates that the teaching is perfect and complete in all respects.
Therefore we must not consider human writings-- no matter how holy their authors may have been-- equal to the divine writings; nor may we put custom, nor the majority, nor age, nor the passage of time or persons, nor councils, decrees, or official decisions above the truth of God, for truth is above everything else.

For all human beings are liars by nature and more vain than vanity itself.

Therefore we reject with all our hearts everything that does not agree with this infallible rule, as we are taught to do by the apostles when they say, "Test the spirits to see if they are of God,"^4 and also, "If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house."^5 ^2 Gal. 1:8 ^3 Deut. 12:32; Rev. 22:18-19 ^4 1 John 4:1 ^5 2 John 10."

So it is not that many other things can not be useful or good in general revelation.

However, in a rising dispute scripture is not just "primary" it is the "only" final authority for faith and practice.

regards,

pat

PS.

Likewise, Salvation is not primarily by grace,faith,or Christ but alone by these.

Dave
Isn't it a bit more complex than that? The first and second centuries saw the emergence of a number of Christian groups with some scriptures in common and some peculiar to their "denomination." These scriptures grew out of clusters of believers with different spin on the Jesus-event but ultimately, the Establishment Church (Eastern and Western)sorted out the confusion of competing books and established for all time the Christian canon.

Your reference to the Founders of the US is illustrative. First there was a community, then came the scriptures (Declaration of Independence and the Constitution). Legally these documents established the Nation, but the community which created them came first.

When modern Christians seeks to settle theological and cultural issues on basis of the Bible, they invariably pay hommage to the community that created it (and which disposed of many more)--i.e. the Greek Orthodox and Roman Catholic Church (to which it also owes the doctrine of the Trinity and other basic dogmas).

So the question is, were the church fathers such as Tertullian and the early church councils "inspired"? If not, we're essentially arguing on basis of an arbitrary collection of early documents that may or may not be trustworthy. If they had chosen to drop the book of Revelation (which they almost did) from the Canon, just imagine the implications for Adventists.

Aage, the problem I see with the "new Atheists" and those putting their logic and their "science" ahead of scripture, is that they want to ignore scriptures they don't like, or are too bloody, or don't meet their "love" standard they have set for God. Isaiah 55: 8,9

8 "For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways,"
declares the LORD.

9 "As the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts.

This doesn't mean we can't understand His words or ways, but we better stay close to the His version of what the plan of Salvation is, whether our human logic follows it or not, right?

Aage, how true that we accept without question, the decisions made on the incorporation or elimination of the many books that make up our Bible today. While Adventists have long eschewed "tradition," especially from the one catholic church that was the ONLY church until the Reformation, they usually ignore that most of their major doctrines: the nature of God and Christ and their relationship: the Godhead or Trinity; and the inspiration of scripture was defined by that church while ignoring whether inspiration was not merely used by the writers, but all those who copied, recopied, and selected or eliminated the books to be incorporated into the NT canon.

How many are aware of the long and sometimes violent arguments on some of the issues; issues that were never satisfactorily solved? Yet, if we accept their conclusions, do we believe that they all were "inspired" in deciding these vexing questions? And that at times, differing sides were "approved" and the leader was declared a heretic, then later reinstated when another answer was chosen. Who had the cover of inspiration then? Is it not a word loosely used that we have been recluctant to define? Remember the demise of Alden Thompson's book on this subject a few decades ago (also his "Openness of God). Dangerous territory. Just ask Ballenger, Preston, Ford, and many others who dared to ask questions.

Elaine shouldn't you make some distinction from the church and RCC, the Bishop of Rome and the other Bishops in the early church councils?

The canon was selected because of it's own internal witness that moved the early church to recognize it's inspired nature.

David rightly describes the exclusivistic limitation of 'sola', yet the introduction of 'prima' creates as many problems as it solves.

The admission of extensions or additions to 'scriptura' brings one full circle to canonisation by traditon and the potential for legitimating secondary and tertiary scripture. This may be convenient (particularly for Adventists) but would, I suspect, serve to aggravate multiple orthodoxies.

Sola Scriptura needs to be held in tension with the 4 other 'solas'. Maybe 'sola' in the context of the reformation was always a misnomer.

Pat, you asked:

"Elaine shouldn't you make some distinction from the church and RCC, the Bishop of Rome and the other Bishops in the early church councils?"

Please tell me where and how you can make that distinction. The early church fathers: Clement, Polycarp, Ignatius, Justin Martyr and others all held the respect of the early Christians when there was only one church from the first century until the 15th. Adventists have been so innoculated with fear of anything "Romish" that they are reluctant to acknowledge that the initial and early growth of the church prospered under these "bishops."

These early churches used many of the writings which were later rejected when the final canon was assembled. Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, has been recorded as the first to list all 27 of the writings now present in the NT, and it wa not until the North African Council of Carthage (397 A.D.) that these 27 were approved. Many writings not chosen claimed inspiration but "Inspiration--a criterion for canonization...was not a factor" (Luke Timothy Johnson, "The Writings of the New Testament").

While there has always been dissent and disagreemet among the very earliest church "fathers"--Peter, James, and Paul, that has been the rule rather than the exception.

Whether these men were inspired to choose these books is a statement of faith, not evidence that it was other than many other determining factors; among which were those that these writings gave commentary on the Torah, the scriptures that they all used.

The canon we have now is not the canon of the whole church, but only of a victorious segment of that church. All human decision making involves politics and power.

As to my question is Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria the same as the Bishop of Rome and the later RCC? That was my point.

pat

Pat,

No, Athanasius was originally an assistant to the Bishop of Alexandria, and later became Bishop of Alexandria, but never became pope. In fact, the pope exiled Athanasius for heresy. He was a fighter (later sainted by the church) who had his opponents excommunicated and anathematized, beaten, kidnapped, imprisoned, and exiled. He was condemned by Church councils and exiled from Alexandria no less than five times, pursued on several times by troops dispatched by a Christian emperor to secure his arrest.

The conflict between Arius and Athansius, both from Alexandria, is a most interesting story demonstrating the long (three or more centuries) history of doctrinal conflict that eventually led to Constantine's Council at Nicea that he hoped would unite the two church factions, and the empire. Because of his civil power, he also exercised the final authority on church decisions within the empire. Fascinating reading into early church history.

To me the canon is representative of the range of material that the earliest Christians, especially the ones who had the most power, found helpful.

Even today some may wish that something had not been included and others would like to add something. That's OK because the boundaries are neither firm nor final.

One value of the canon as we now have it is that it does contain a variety of perspectives. Perhaps we can iron out the apparent differences between James and Paul on faith and works; however, it seems to me that they framed the quesion differently and came up with different answers. I think we benefit from this diversity.

I'm hesitant to say that what is in our canon was inspired by God and what isn't there was not inspired. God is at work everwhere and everywhere we seem perfectly capable of not getting things entirely right.

Somewhere in the government of the United States, and in other governments, there is a "standard" for "one meter." This is not the only meter in the world; however, it does suggest in general what other meters will look like.

If we make scripture a part of tradition, then perhaps we should specify that any aspect of tradition should be free to challenge all the others. The refusal to allow scripture to challenge the church is what bothered the reformers, I believe.

In one of my earlier lives I built fences along the boundaries of pastures. I noticed that if I lined up each next post with all the preceding ones it was more possible to keep the fence straight. But if I lined up each new post only with the one immediately preceding it all kinds of swerve occurred. I think there is a lesson here!

Thanks!

Dave

Elaine

The following wiki reference to the late Bruce Metzger (Bart Erhman's mentor at Princeton) seems relevant:

"Metzger argues that the early church which assembled the New Testament did not consider divine inspiration to be a sufficient criterion for a book to be canonized. Metzger says that for the early church, it was very important that a work describing Jesus' life be written by a follower of or an eyewitness to Jesus, and in fact considered other works such as The Shepherd of Hermas and the Epistles of Clement to be inspired but not canonical."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Metzger

Just a silly question: Given Dave's hypothesis what do you make of a weekly Sabbath Morning Memory Verse? Tom

The Bible we have today is the end result of a second, third and fourth century consensus. As far as I know, none of the documents in the New Testament, perhaps with the exception of the Epistle of James and Jude, were written by people who knew Jesus. The "church" wrote the Gospels and the others books of the NT--or more correctly, the Establishment Church (which Adventists and other restaurationists used to see as the perpetrators of the Great Apostasy)selected the writings that had the widest appeal to their own community, and banishing in the process the writings that emmanated from other Christian communities, such as the Gospel of Thomas and Peter.

If the Establishment Church in the fourth century had included the Gospel of Thomas, conservative SDAs would now have defended it with the same vigour they now expend on the Gospel of John. And if the community which wrote the Gospel of Thomas had become the Establishment Church, they would have had an entirely different NT. Historical happenstance easily becomes sacrosanct. What we think are a principled stand often is nothing more than a defense of the status quo.

Aage, astute observation. What was once declared to be the canon, has since then, become inviolable, no questions allowed.

Joselito, you said:

"Metzger says that for the early church, it was very important that a work describing Jesus' life be written by a follower of or an eyewitness to Jesus" is true insofar as it goes.
Are we followers of Jesus today? We claim to be.

There is no irrefutable evidence that any of the NT writers ever were eyewitnesses to Jesus. Paul, the earliest of all the NT writers, never saw Jesus; nor did Matthew, Mark, or Luke.

That inspiration was not a factor to be considered when compiling the canon, also agrees with Karen Armstrong and J.N.D. Kelly.

Dave,

I am astonished in your view of scriptures inspiration and authority but somehow not surprised. I do appreciate and admire your honesty,which is often rare among "liberal theological SDA's" in openly denying it is the inspired word of God for believers final authority for faith and practice.

I would prefer my children take a "comparative religion and ethics course" with a believer in the inspiration of scripture teaching the Christian position. I would not choose to have them think you represent our Christian heritage however.

Dave, I too have put out fence post for a horse pasture. I found you must have an origin boundary marker and a finishing boundary marker or your fence "may be straight" but way off the mark.

The OT is the initial boundary and fence line and "Daniel and Revelation" offer us a "view" (though not as precise as we sometimes as SDA's pretend) of the last boundry marker with the rest of the NT aligning the post. The continuum being Christ the faithful fulfiller of the covenant promises beginning with being the blood of the covenant in our behalf and to redeeming us not only presently but in consummation at His second coming.

Tom, As to your question...why bother with the book, just process the experience and examples of present members?

Regards,

pat

Pat

Forgive me> I thank God for my memories verses. There have been many nights in fox holes when they were the only thing my mind could focus on. My question was just retorical. I understand, in part, what David is saying but I would hate not to have the beauty of the King James right at hand.

It certainly is a present help in trouble. Tom

P.S. There were some great poems of American and English authors that kept me rational also. I guess that is David primary point. Tom

Tom,

I cherish the Bible and memory verses that my mother and the Holy Spirit instilled in me.

My point was with your comment, "Given Dave's hypothesis what do you make of a weekly Sabbath Morning Memory Verse? Tom

Why bother? You see if we decide which parts are "valid and invalid" then we decide scripture. We judge it rather than it judging us through the Holy Spirit.

Regards,

pat

PS. For me this is the core of "Liberal Apostate Protestantism"

Agreed Pat

I still see parts darkly. But in the main clear enough to pin my hopes on nothing less. Tom

Pat
You say:"You see if we decide which parts are "valid and invalid" then we decide scripture. We judge it rather than it judging us through the Holy Spirit."

I suppose people of faith would argue that the one does not exclude the other. But my main point is that you too sit in judgment on the Bible when you choose to disregard large chunks of the Old Testament without any scriptural justification. The legislation about not mixing different fabrics and seeds and regulations on mold on houses etc are set aside on basis of rational judgment.

Everybody sits in judgment on scripture but not everybody is willing to admit it.

Aage,

Which large chunks of OT and NT are you referring to that I disregard?

I accept the instruction to me a gentile, Acts 15:10,11,24,29 as the "starting point for we gentiles."

Your premise is that I exclude part of the 66 of canon because you don't understand my hermeneutic. The 66 remain though there can be differing interpretive conclusions. Those conclusions are "subject to" the 66.

regards,

pat

Hi Pat!

I like your addition to my fence-building analogy. Without knowing our destination, we could have a straight fence but one that is way off course. Well Said!

I deny neither the inspiration nor the primacy of Scripture; however, I do say that not everyone whom God has inspired has writings in the canon.

Also, if we say that "sola" means that we can consider nothing but scripture, we misunderstand the Reformers and frustrate our own attempts to understand.

Finally, with Aage, Elaine and others in this thread, I agree that we all sift and sort when trying to discern how to apply Scripure to our lives today, even if we deny it.

I hope that we will not discard any of Scipture, however. This is because all of it has value in some way. What and how is the quesiton, and by what standard(s) do we figure this out.

More generally, I have had very little theological stress and strain with the more than 10,000 students I have taught at LLU since 1974.
Every now and then I am intensely censured by very extreme fundametalists. But this is unusual.

I have found it best just to give them a session or two of the course to spell out their alternative point of view with no interference or objection from me.

Without exception, the rest of my students are shocked and appalled by what they hear. This serves my purposes well!

Tom

I think the memorization of Scripture is of inestimable value. Perhaps we do less of it today because in English we no longer have "an authorized version." This is a down side of having so many good translations.

Again, as you say, there are other things worth memorizing too. I wish I had done more of both!

Thanks!

Dave

Dave,

What does this mean to you and what might it mean to me...that's ok because the boundries are neither firm or final? What part of the present 66 of canon is not final?

Your comment..."Even today some may wish that something had not been included and others would like to add something...That's OK because the boundaries are neither firm nor final."

pat

PS. Read again a previous post in which I said nothing says that we can not read all types of information etc. "sola" is referring to all tradition, other works etc. is "subject" to scripture in dispute.

"So it is not that many other things can not be useful or good in general revelation.

However, in a rising dispute scripture is not just "primary" it is the "only" final authority for faith and practice."

"The true rule is this: God's Word shall establish articles of faith, and no one else, not even an angel can do so." (Smalcald Article II, 15 - Martin Luther). (See Galatians 1:8).

To add to the fence analogy I would give the experience with straight lines and corners I have as a mason. The corners are measured, set, and leveled then the wall is filled in using a line stretched between the corners (much like in getting a striaght fence). If the masonry units are placed to far from the line you will have a close wall but it will have a lot of ins and outs. Worse is if you "push" the line or get units touching the line. Very quickly you have no line as a guide and the wall is random. Now, before that is used as a metaphor to not "push" the line there is another factor taught by experience with reality. Sometimes the corners are, even if they were carefully checked, off! Or sometimes the corners are on but other factors call for adjustments along the wall. Often corrections can be made as the wall proceeds up. Sometimes there is reason to add a control point along the wall and sometimes to do it right sections have to be tore out and corners rebuilt.

Did anyone ever plow a straight furrow? If so. where your your eyes set? On the ground beneath your feet or at a a spot and the end of the field? Tom

Pat

I'm afraid I do not understand the gist of your reservations. Sorry!

I believe that discussions of the inspiration and authority of scripture are less valuable than some may think. It is a good idea to do as well as we can on these topics; nevertheless, the practical payoff often strikes me as disappointing.

I noitice that people who agree 100% on their doctrines of the inspiration and authority of scripture sometimes disagree intensely about the meaning and applicability of some passsage. Their methodological agreement did not prevent substantive disagreements.

On the other hand, I have also noticed that people who disagree intensely regarding the inspiration and authority of scripture sometimes agree about the meaning and applicability of some passage. In this case, the methodological disagreement did not prevent substantive agreement.

This is why I think that reducing all other questions about scripture to inquiries about its inspiration and authority doesn't get us very far. It may actually distract us from other things that need our attention even more.

I'm perfectly happy to discuss scripture with someone who views it as nothing more than a cultural classic even though for me it is the religious canon. I often learn from such people. Isn't that OK?

Dick

Your analogies from masonry are so apt! Much more complex and therefore helpful than my single fence one. Its greater complexity is extremely helpful So is the possible need to adjustments and corrections along the way. Thank you!

Dave,

You said, ..."Even today some may wish that something had not been included and others would like to add something...That's OK because the boundaries are neither firm nor final."

What boundaries are neither firm nor final? It implies that some of the canon can be changed today,,does it not?

pat

Pat

Here's a fun game: Ask each member of the group to identify which book of the Bible they would remove if they had to take one out, explain why and respond to objections.

Next time the group is together ask each member what book of all the ones they have read they would add to scripture if they could, and again explain why and respond to objections.

It is fun to hear people argue back and forth as to which should be left out and which should be added. The results are instructive!

Dave

Dave,

I asked a simple question.

"What boundaries are neither firm nor final? It implies that some of the canon can be changed today,does it not?"

Don't mean to be anal. I just would like a simple yes or no answer... not a question to a statement you made.

regards,

pat

Pat
Even exegesis is an exercise in putting human reasoning in judgment on scripture. Any attempt at explaining what the Bible means (e.g. Dan. 8:14)draws upon reason (otherwise all Christians, presumably, would arrive at the same conclusion).

When Adventists determine that the food taboos of the Torah are still valid, they don't rely on inspiration or even scripture. They arbitrarily impose their judgment on the Bible based on arguments of their own devising.

When Christians run into statements in the Bible they don't intend to follow, such as favoring the poor over the rich, or turning the other cheek, or killing the homo-sexual, they impose their own judgment on scripture, even if it comes in the benign form of putting it aside as "puzzling", with the fond hope that God will explain it in Heaven (and in the meantime they don't need to abide by these difficult words.)

Catholics have tried to get around the problem of church tradition being based on human reason by means of their doctrine of papal infallibility, and Adventists for a long time used EGW for the same purpose, as an inspired interpreter of the Bible. Both churches would argue that their dogmatic interpretations of the Bible were not "interpretations" but truths validated by God himself through his designated spokesperson.

It's an illusion to believe that people do not sit in judgment on scripture, whether they believe it is inspired or not. And why not? We do have a brain for a purpose, don't we?

Aage,

You still miss my point. All of "our views" are subject to the 66. They are "firm and final" for the Christian Protestant Faith.

Grant that and we can talk of hemeneutics and exegetical method.

pat

Hi Pat!

I take it for granted that there is nothing fixed or final about the 66 "books" we now have in the canon. Is this what you are asking?

On the one hand, if someone unearthed an ancient gospel that the overwhelming majority of Christians all over the world today deemed to be of the same quality as the four we now have, I should think we would all be happy to bump it up to 67. Why not?

On the other hand, many Christians totday actually function with far fewer than 66 books. In our time and place, the letters of Paul often receive more emphasis. Other eras have focused on other things, as circumstances change.

I feel like I'm stating the obvious. If so, I apologize.

Thank you!

Dave

Tom
I've never done this with horses but I have with tractors. You are right. I'd keep some tree on the edge of the field in view. Farmers today have much more sophisticated resources for keepin on course. Thank you!

Dave

Dave,

You say,"I feel like I'm stating the obvious. If so, I apologize."

I suggest you are not stating the classic Protestant position on the nature of the recognized canon as our final authority for faith and practice.

How different people come to their conclusion as regards to the Gospels or Paul is the different issue of interpretation. It is separate than starting with the premise that the present canon is the inspired word of God and the final authority for faith and practice.

Word games and hypotheticals aside that is my point and should be obvious "firm and final."

regards,

pat

PS. To use a "play" on a SDA author for application, It might as well read...The sriptures are our safeguard but their boundaries are neither firm or final.

Sola Scripture to me mean "only canon! Prima mean of first importance. Obviously those two concepts can and have created a lot of discussion. I read them as follows. Only canon, but with someone wise in languages, customs, and guided by the Hopy Spirit might shed some light on the meaning: Since I cannot read the original. I saw no denegration of the canon intended. Never-the less, I have found great help from men like John R. W. Stott, Edward Heppenstall, Paul Heubach and a legion of others. Even John Milton, John Bunyan, Hans Kung. Certainly they did not take anything way from the Scripture. Naturally, The canon was my last and best reference. I keep eight translations and paraphrases at hand. Tom

The Bible we have today is the end result of a second, third and fourth century consensus. As far as I know, none of the documents in the New Testament, perhaps with the exception of the Epistle of James and Jude, were written by people who knew Jesus. The "church" wrote the Gospels and the others books of the NT--or more correctly, the Establishment Church... Historical happenstance easily becomes sacrosanct. What we think are a principled stand often is nothing more than a defense of the status quo.
Posted by: Aage Rendalen (not verified) | 11 June 2008 at 7:13

That inspiration was not a factor to be considered when compiling the canon...
Posted by: Elaine Nelson (not verified) | 11 June 2008 at 9:34

Aage and Elaine

Insofar as the NT canon was concerned, the early church relied on tradition in their choice of writings that were purportedly apostolic in origin - either authored by one of the apostles (including Paul) and/or one of their associates. The apostles' witness constitute their (the early church's), and our, primary source in regards to the kerygma or proclamation of Jesus. I believe this is what is meant by "prima" scriptura (NT). Inspiration of the written tradition, handed down by the apostles/followers, was assumed.

As far as the OT canon is concerned, Jews, Catholics and Protestants don't agree on what should be included.

"Prima scriptura is sometimes contrasted to sola scriptura, which literally translates "by the scripture alone". The latter doctrine as understood by many Protestants—particularly Evangelicals—teaches that the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith and practice, but that the Scriptures' meaning can be mediated through many kinds of secondary authority, such as the ordinary teaching offices of the Church, antiquity, the councils of the Christian Church, reason, and experience.
However, sola scriptura rejects any original infallible authority, other than the Bible. In this view, all secondary authority is derived from the authority of the Scriptures and is therefore subject to reform when compared to the teaching of the Bible. Church councils, preachers, Bible commentators, private revelation, or even a message allegedly from an angel or an apostle are not an original authority alongside the Bible in the sola scriptura approach."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prima_scriptura

Sola scriptura, I suggest, would not hold to Dave's "I take it for granted that there is nothing fixed or final about the 66 "books" we now have in the canon."

If someone doesn't agree that is their right but there is a difference from the reformation view...which obviously one can reject also.

The Belgic Confession article #7 says it this way:

"We believe that this Holy Scripture contains the will of God completely and that everything one must believe to be saved is sufficiently taught in it. For since the entire manner of service which God requires of us is described in it at great length, no one-- even an apostle or an angel from heaven, as Paul says--^2 ought to teach other than what the Holy Scriptures have already taught us. For since it is forbidden to add to or subtract from the Word of God,^3 this plainly demonstrates that the teaching is perfect and complete in all respects.
Therefore we must not consider human writings-- no matter how holy their authors may have been-- equal to the divine writings; nor may we put custom, nor the majority, nor age, nor the passage of time or persons, nor councils, decrees, or official decisions above the truth of God, for truth is above everything else."

pat

ps. sola and prima should be distinguished from solo.

Sola scriptura may be contrasted with "prima scriptura," which holds that even though the Bible is the primary source of doctrine it is improved by reference to other sources.
Yet a second position, often confused with sola scriptura, is that of solo, which is the belief that it is up to the individual to interpret the Bible, discarding all conciliar and ecclesiastical authority.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_scriptura

Pat

Said you:"You still miss my point. All of "our views" are subject to the 66. They are "firm and final" for the Christian Protestant Faith."

I was responding to your complaint that liberals sit in judgment on scripture. My point: everyone does. Even exegesis is driven by human ingenuity, not "inspiration".

As to the Canon my point is that the 66 book canon is the result of early Christian tradition at work. You may think that the establishment Church Fathers and Councils were guided by God and that God wanted 66 books. If so, you should also accept Sunday as day of worship, because it, likewise, grew out of church tradition. There is no Bible support for a 66 book canon nor Sunday as the day of worship. (There is, of course, support for not imposing Sabbath worship on Christians, if you accept that Paul in Galatians freed Christians from adhering to the Torah, which the Sabbath was part of. Or if you follow Acts 15, which you seemed to think Christians should.)

Aage,

The 66 remain and "Sunday" and "Sabbath" are subject to it's guidance...that is the self imposed principle of sola scriptura not that no other sources are useful such as writers or church councils they are just subject to the Holy Scriptures.

Neither Sabbath or Sunday should be "imposed" on Christians is "my understanding" of Paul for one to be a Christian nor "condemnation" of the other view. Disagreement fine.

Aage is right: whether we wish to admit it or not, tradition of the early church made the choice of the NT we have today; they also gave us many other traditions which we have accepted.
Were they misguided on this? If one believes they were inspired in their choice, were they not also inspired not to impose a Sabbath worship on new Christians also? Or that the Law no longer applied to them?

How can it be both acceptance for some of their decisions and rejection on others? Does one's idea of inspiration give them infallible judgment?

My view is that it was providential that God used these early church fathers and councils to "recognize" the internal witness and harmony of the 66 and create our present Holy Bible. I do believe it was the "work of the Holy Spirit" to enlighten these individuals recognition of the internal witness of the books.

They did not impose the books on us. The already circulating books "imposed" themselves on their audience due to their nature and became scripture as we know it for the Christian church.

Interpretation of all aspects of the 66 is a different issue.

Hi Pat

I hope that someday you can play the two games I earlier suggested.

It is very difficult to find one book in Scripture that everyone is willing to delete and it is very difficult to name one book outside of
scripture that everyone is willing to add.

That should tell us something!

All the best!

Dave

Thanks Dave,

I like them all and I like to attempt the game of finding the continuity between the books. The best answer I have found in the apparent difficult discontinuities is the continuity of covenant theology and God's faithfulness in fulfilling covenant promises in Christ.

Thanks for your time and conversation Dave. Iron sharpens Iron.

Regards,

Pat

Dave,

The one book in the Bible I would delete is Songs of Solomon. The Book I would add would be the Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings by Edwin R. Thiele. I would place it at the end of II Kings.

JB

Song of Solomon? NO WAY! Without that collection of poems we would have very little erotica in Scripture and that would be intolerable! :)

I might go along with you on Thiele's book. I haven't read it but I understand that it remains the definitive reconstruction of that chronology and this would be very valuable indeed. A question: How well does it preach? I don't prejudge the answer either way.

These are VERY difficult choices; however, this time around I think I would delete Leviticus.

Partly for the fun of watching the intensely negative reactions of some of my friends, I would suggest adding "Steps to Christ" by Ellen White [and her sources and helpers]. Either that or "The Courage to Be" by Paul Tillich.

This is fun! Many thanks!!

Dave

error

It really doesn't make sense to change the canon which is already part of the past. More important is to understand the history surrounding its formation by the community that compiled it. Apocryphal and pseudepigraphal writings that were composed about the same period, immediately preceding and following, provide valuable supplemental material for study, like other historical artifacts.

As far as Ellen White is concerned, at least in my case, I've decided there are some basic writings I'd like to keep; needless to say it's not because they're canonical, but for their usefulness in understanding the movement that I've chosen to be part of.

The Song of Solomon has more Gospel in it than any other of the writing attributed to Solomon.

The King finds a sun burned country girl with worn hands and dirty feet. He brings her into his banqueting house and his banner over her is love.

Can the Gospel be more beautiful than that? Tom

Question: seems that the assertion that none of the NT writers had any actual first hand connection to Jesus is being taken as a given on this blog. Is that correct? What evidence is there that John, Matthew or Peter didn't write the original thoughts that ended up labled as their gospels or letters? If they didn't write them, who did? If we don't know who wrote them, how are we convinced they didn't?
thank you,
Gerhard

Follow up to my prior question - in order to limit my question-- (as it's a getting off the main point of David's article); Is the question of the authorship of the NT undisputed in all academic circles, or do differences of opinion remain?
thanks again

Gerhard, it is unlikely that all biblical scholars will ever agree on anything! However, there does appear to be a consensus that Mark was the first Gospel written (ca 70 A.D.) and was used by the other Gospel writers, but we do not know who wrote them. It was common in that time, to give the name of a known and respected figure to one's writing, but they did not claim to have been eyewitnesses, only that they had been told about the events, as all were orally transmitted earlier.

They were not written as historical accounts, but each had a theological agenda and thus they report differently, even contradict in many places. We also have no original autographs, but only copies of copies.

The first record of anyone cledarly associating the names of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John with these books was Irenaeus in 180 A.D., a century and a half after the reported events. So, we really have no reliable early evidence of who wrote them.

They cannot be verified by secular history; they are a unique account written for a specific purpose. Many of the events recorded in the Gospels: A magical star over Bethlehem;Herod's order to kill all two-year-olds is mentioned ONLY by the Gospel writers; there is no secular record of an earthquake occurring at Jesus' death nor of many other dead being resurrected. Such a miraculous phenomenon surely would have captured the historians of that era. Nor did Paul, the earliest NT writer, know anything of these events, nor was he an eyewitness of Jesus.

The Gospels were written as apologetics to influence the Jews that Jesus was the promised Messiah; and in doing that, they misquoted and re-interpreted the Hebrew Scriptures to support that premise.

One should read the Gospels as they were intended--as faith enhancing, not historical accounts.

If one is going to rank Scripture as apposed to other writings. Then I would like to give my testimony. The Gospel according to John, The letters of Paul to the Churches, The Letter to the Hebrews. Then the Psalms, and Isaiah--these I can read and find rest for my soul. I don't read to find fault, debating points, or doctrinal issues. I read for the assurance that God is in charge of the world,my soul, and my loved ones. Praise be to God.

I thank God for men and women who can write from the heart to the heart. But, I still cling to the primary source. That is what Dave is teling me also. Tom

Gerhard

"Q" is something we might want add to Elaine's and Joselito's reconstruction of how the gospels came into being. It is the hypothetical source of the material that is common to Matthew and Luke. Ron Joliff at Walla Walla College is one of the world's leading experts on "Q.

Tom

Thanks for the testimony! That would be an even better game: rank the three most important books in Scripture for you and explain your choices!

Many thanks

Dave

Dave,

A teacher in Israel that has never read Thiele! How can these things be! Say it ain’t so Joe!

My top three books:
1. Ecclesiastes
2. Job
3. Leviticus

My Dear,

let me stimulate another - an other look on the issue : II. Tim. 3, 16. reads according to Luther :

All scripture, inspired by God (this can be understood that every writing, as long as it is inspired - - )

according to KJV and followers : All scripture is inspired by God (this is read as every Scripture is inspired - - )

Both translations are correct. The difference is also in the undestandig, what meaning "scripture" and "Scripture" has in this or that language since centuries.

Or : There is a tradition in Central Europe to hold the "Person" as the object of dignity, protection, rights, values - -
There is a tgradition in America to hold the "Personality" as the object of dignity, value, protection, rights, values - - -

Both preassumptions are the basics for morals, regulations, rules, laws, ethics, guidelines - - - here and there.

The expeert in court nowadays has to deal with both of those, since for instance in international lawsuits on compensation
the one party claims according to the principles of this law and the other only feels obliged in the framework of the others complex of values, rights and duties.

And there are "Statements, Guidelines and Other Documents" of the GC you better hide for not embarrassing the public (!) here while otherwere they are highly appreciated.

Remember : While the ones derive their esteem for "person"
from the Bible, the others find "personality" biblebased.

So it seems that we have to meet each other with very careful respect. I. Cor. 13. 9. : Out of the part we gain our knowledge and out of the poart we prophesy -

Dave

The Gospel of John

The Letter to The Church At Rome

The Letter to the Church At Ephesus

I must add the Psalms,

the Letter to the Church at Philippi and finally I Cor. 15

The most beautiful collection is found in the Messiah.

Tom

My Dear,

after maybe having shocked you a little with my post on June 14th I now comment "sola scriptura" : Martiun Luther for example was liable to an educational system that had been developed through the mediaeval centuries, teaching him how to read, how to spell, how to write, how to think, the system that had preserved Mediterreanean culture in the moist and cold wilderness of Central Europe. This system was cultivated up to the 1960ies in the middle of Europe, always keeping up with the new Jesuite concept ("Having a better educational system you will influence the better ones of the generations to come.") He never denied it or opposed to it,neither did the Protestant world. Did Luther oppose to this system, asking for models from "Bible times" ?

The vassal system, including loyality and the sacredness of oaths, vows and pledges to the patron or the landlord or the sovereign was ancent Germanic virtue of pagan times (The Saxons king got baptized - all the Saxons got baptized.) Bonhoeffer not only argued against the "cheaop grace", he also discussed the vow and the loyality, which still then (in WW II ) had bound the Protestant general and the Protestan private. Did Luther instead argue with questions about "Bible times" ?

Read the CC arguments Luther objected to : "The teachings of the Church and the teachings of the Fathers and the Tradition
of the Church tell - - " . The same argument continuously was used in Tridentinum I : "Opposing the Reformers we say according to the Teachings - - " (See any manual of Catholic
dogmatics still today.)

Here Luther insisted on "Sola scriptura".

Luther had his background, we have this or that background.

I would say it is an abuse of Luther taking his "Sola scriptura" and applying it anywhere, not questioning what Luther meant.

Cheers, greetings G.

gerhard,

"The true rule is this: God's Word shall establish articles of faith, and no one else, not even an angel can do so." (Smalcald Article II, 15 - Martin Luther). (See Galatians 1:8).

I guess gerhard we are back to the postmodern concept of what "is" means.

pat

Dave’s Statement:

Your observations underscore for me the importance of distinguishing what the text meant to the ancients and what it should mean for us today. In principle all qualified scholars should be able to come to close agreement about the first, though in fact this is difficult. It is much more difficult in some cases to figure out the second. That's why we need all the help from every quarter we can get!

Dave,

When I open the Bible the first thought that occurs to me is this is no ordinary book written by ordinary men. The information recorded here was carefully selected by God to be incorporated for the benefit of succeeding generations. Wise men make wise plans and by deeds they stand. Wise men look beyond appearances perceiving something fundamental in simple acts. If wise men, the product of a wise God, operate this way, how much more their Creator.

If we profess to be believers in the true God then we are the spiritual descendants of former believers. They had the same frame work of mind, body, and environment as we have. They faced the same basic problems of food, shelter, lifework, education, marriage, friends, enemies, war, peace and politics. They gained valuable experience and insight, many times superior to our own, which they have passed down to us, to our advantage, if we perceive in their illustrations the principles they convey.

No succeeding generation is bound by the wisdom of their spiritual forefathers. We are, however, bound to consider whether the purposes they had in mind still merit spiritual respect and moral obedience. Historical continuity with the past is a necessity because it ties truths to concrete men at a particular time and clarifies friends from enemies. If we do not practice the exact same behavior as former generations we should be able to explain why. There should be a chain of custody of the truth which we can clearly identify. This will give us certainty, continuity and unity with former generations and future generations.