Walking in Faith

Canon is a term describing the collection of books called Scripture.

Whether the canon is closed or not is an argumentative point; however, for sake of argument, I hold to the view that the canon is currently closed. God has the ability to open that back up whenever He desires though. As is, the message of salvation has been captured and there is no need for further Scriptures to validate God or Christ’s message.

If you are interested in the Old Testament canonization notes, please refer to this link.

Development of the NT Canon

The Scripture was authored (Formation) between AD 40 and (roughly) AD 100. The NT Scripture was then recognized (Recognized) between AD 100 and AD 300. The Scripture was then declared (Declaration) between AD 300 and AD 400.

Formation Period (AD 40 – AD 100)

1. NT presents words of the apostles as being on par with that of God (2 Thes 2:15, 1 Cor 14:37, Gal 1:8-9, 1 Thes 2:13). Did the apostles know that they were writing Scripture? While they were speaking with the authority of the Lord, they most likely didn’t realize they were writing the letter assuming people would be reading the letter hundreds (even thousands) of years later.
2. NT attests to the acceptance of other NT books as Scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16, 1 Tim 5:18, Rev 1:3)Are there books that are more application to our situation today than other books? Certainly. Romans as compared to Philemon, as an example. The books still carry the same authority, but they do not have the same application in modern day society.

Recognition Period (AD 100 – AD 300)

1. Writings of early church fathers attest to the acceptance of many NT books
   • Quote them as Scripture
   • Draw a clear distinction between writings and that of Scripture
   • Marcion (c. 140), a Gnostic heretic, created his own canon — created a “different” view that was not accepted
   • Important because early church fathers were close to Christ (less important) and they were discipled by the apostles. They also set precedence (similar to a George Washington situation).
2. Origen (185-254 AD) writes commentaries on many of the NT books commenting on their inspiration.
3. Muratorian Canon (170 AD) attests to the canonization of all NT books except Hebrews, James, and 1 & 2 Peter.

Declaration Period (AD 300 – AD 400)

1. Diocletian persecutions (c. 302-305) — Christians were killed for possession of Scriptures
2. Eusibius (fourth century Church historian) speaks about condition of canon. Agreed upon books were Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Letters of Paul (including Hebrews), 1 Peter, 1 John and Revelation (Homologoumena). Mostly agreed upon books, but controversial to some were James, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John and Jude (Antilogomena). Books that were not agreed upon where Acts of Paul, the Didache and the Shepherd of Hermas (Pseudepigrapha).
3. Athanasius (fourth century bishop of Alexandria) affirms the 27 books of NT (AD 367).
4. Council of Hippo (AD 393) and Council of Carthage (AD 397) both affirmed canon of NT.

Translation Theories

• Formal equivalence (word for word)
• Dynamic equivalence (thought for thought)
• Paraphrase

All translations are interpretations. The language does not translate word for word so every translation will have some level of interpretation (e.g. the “long nose” of the Lord instead of the anger of the Lord).

Study Bibles are closer to the original. The more literal translations, instead of the paraphrasing translations, are “better” for studying the Bible and memorizing Scripture. We should study (and memorize) the text closest to the original content.

A good site to read for more information can be found here.

Jason Worthen Apologetics, Bibliology & Hermenuetics, Quiet Time, The Theology Program (bible.org), Theology

(information is gathered from the bible.org theology program)

Sola Scriptura — belief that the Scripture is the final and only infallible authority for the Christian in all matters of faith and practice

Point #1: Scripture implicitly and explicitly speak of its sufficiency
Scripture to support:

• 2 Tim 3:14-17 – Scripture sufficient for salvation, sanctification and uniquely God-breathed; tradition is never mentioned
• Psalm 119 – Scriptures presented as totally sufficient in all matters pertaining to instruction, training and correction; no mention of tradition
• Acts 17:10-11 – Jews at Berea were open minded and examined the Scriptures carefully, not traditions

Point #2: Scripture explicitly states that no one should take away from the Word of God.
Scriptures to support:

• Deut 4:2
• Revelations 22:18-19

Westminister Catechism states that everything is included in scripture or may be deduced from scripture; however, nothing is to be added by new revelations of the Spirit or traditions of men.

Point #3: “Vicar of Christ” (or the Magisterium) is going to speak on behalf of Christ, they must show signs of one who speaks for God as prescribed in Scripture.
Scriptures to support:

• Deut 18:20-22
• 2 Cor. 12:12 – Signs of an apostle were performed among people with great perseverance by signs and wonders and powerful deeds

It is very serious to speak on behalf of God.  This is a major deal.  That is heresy.

Point #4: Scriptures speak explicitly against the “traditions of men” as misleading or opposing God’s Word.
Scriptures to support:

• Matthew 15:2-6

Point #5: Early & early medieval church supported unarticulated and undeveloped doctrine of Sola Scriptura.
Sources to support:

• Irenaeus (ca. 150) – Against Heresies 3.1.1
• Clement of Alexandra (d. 215) – The Stromata, 7:16
• Gregory of Nyssa (d.ca 395) – “On the Holy Trinity,” NPNF, p.327
• Athanasius (c.296-373) – Against the Heathen, 1:3
• Basil the Great (ca. 329-379) – On the Holy Spirit, 7.16
• Ambrose (AD 340-397) – On the Duties of the Clergy, 1:23:102
• St. Augustine (AD 354-430) – De unitate ecclesiae, 10
• Thomas Aquinas (AD 1225-1274) – Summa Theologiae, Question 1, art. 8

Point #6: By the process of eliminiation, one must come to the conclusion that Scripture is the final and only infallible authority available to us.

What sola Scriptura does not mean?

• No other sources of authority in the life of a Christian
• Each Christian is an autonomous interpreter
• Tradition is not valuable
• No institutional authority

Jason Worthen Apologetics, Bibliology & Hermenuetics, The Theology Program (bible.org), Theology

(information is gathered from the bible.org theology program)

Sola Ecclesia — belief that the Roman Catholic Church is infallible and equal to Scripture as a basis for doctrine

Point #1: Scriptures say that there were other things Christ did that weren’t written down
Scripture to support:

• John 21:25

Scripture contains sufficient information to bring an individual to salvation and to live a life in Christ.  It does not contain all information of Christ.

Scripture to dispute:

• John 20:30-31

Note: Initially, Pope of Roman Catholic Church did not begin creating Papal bulls until 13th century.  Before then, he did not have this authority. 

Point #2: NT speak about importance of tradition
Scripture to support

• 2 Thes 2:15
• 1 Cor 11:2
• Jude 1:3

The traditions that Paul was referencing was the gospels or the regula fidei.  Canon was pretty much solidified around 150 AD.  Not because an infallible authority came in and declared it, but because people recognized the Word of God. 

Point #3: Christ gave infallible authority to the Church and the apostles
Scripture to support

• John 20:23: apostolic succession – not only did Apostles replace themselves, they replaced themselves with another Apostle (with authority)
• Matthew 18:18
• Matthew 16:17-19: Peter confesses Christ as the Son of God; established as “the rock”

Who knew Christ better?  John or us?  John because he had a direct relationship with Christ.  John discipled a man named Polycarp.  Who knew more about Christ — Polycarp or us?  What Polycarp wrote was accurate, meaningful and important.  It doesn’t mean that he knew more or less.  He have additional data that Polycarp did not have; Polycarp had more details than we have.  Irenaeus was discipled by Polycarp.  Who knew more about Christ — Irenaeus or us?

We, as believers, being in apostolic succession because we believe that we are still teaching and practicing the tradition which was the gospel (similar to giving oldest child the ability to babysit younger siblings, but they are not a parent). 

There is no explicit or implicit teaching that authority was passed on through apostolic succession.  To find doctrine of infallible apostolic succession must be eisegetical theology (reading your theology into the text rather than deriving your theology).

The Great Schism occurred in 1054 which was an argument over papal authority.   The theory of papal infallibility can’t be found in the Church until 1870.

Point #4: Without the infallible declaration of the Church, there would be no way of knowing what books belong in the canon of Scripture.

There is not an inspired “table of contents”.  We look for a recognition which produces moral certainty (evidence is overwhelming).  An example of something similar would be that the sun is going to rise tomorrow. 

Point #5: Without the infallible authority of the Church, there would be major division on matters of doctrine and morals.
Scripture to support:

• John 17:22-23

Christ did not pray for organizational unity but functional unity (baptism by the Holy Spirit into one body).  Catholicism is just one denomination among thousands. 

Jason Worthen Apologetics, Bibliology & Hermenuetics, The Theology Program (bible.org), Theology

The below are notes from an Intro to Theology class that really struck me and stood out to me. This will be part 1 of several parts.

• Naturalistic: all has existed without a beginning, has taken shape through random processes
• Deistic: a powerful, intelligent agent created all, but is not involved now
• Formative: God organized existing material (made order out of chaos)
• Creationist: God created all out of nothing for His purposes, and it exists and is sustained through His involvement

I don’t think I need to spend much time talking about these points but I fall squarely in the Creationist category. God created everything from nothing and is still involved today in directing man.

The Hebrew word used in Genesis 1:1, word 1 is b’reshith. The translation for this word can be slightly, if not greatly, controversial. An article in the Anglican Theological Review makes sure to muddy the waters on this topic:

A Closer Look at B’reshith

B’reshith has its share of problems. Advanced students of Hebrew have likely encountered “other” translations for this word than the run-of-the-mill “in the beginning.” Even among leading English translations of the Bible, there tends to be ample disagreement.8 In fact, an old joke has arisen in some circles: “Where is the first place that scholars disagree over the translation of a passage in the Bible?” The answer is a sobering: “Genesis one, verse one, word one!” But why?

Since the latter half of the tenth century B.C.E., scholars have recognized that Hebrew words are composed of triliteral roots-that is to say, every Hebrew word has a three-letter, consonantal root that is the “backbone” of its very essence.9 Given this, it seems plausible to suggest that b’reshith follows similar grammatical rules. The stock understanding of b’reshith is that its root is rosh (possibly reshith10), which often has the meaning of “head” or “first” once it is brought over from the Hebrew into the English.11 If the b of b’reshith is understood as a simple preposition-usually meaning “in”-then it would be reasonable to suggest that b’reshith means “in the first” or possibly “in/at the head of,”12 which of course would make better sense in English as the traditional “in the beginning.” Yet the Jewish scholar Nahum Sarna13 offers an alternative to this translation, based upon other ancient Near Eastern sources.

Sarna proposes translating Genesis 1:1 as “When God began to create.”14 This translation may seem rather mundane at first, but the subtle nuance created by this rendition has theological implications that are titanic. Briefly, if we stay with the traditional “in the beginning” we are forced to accept that prior to creation, there was nothing-nothing, save God.15 If we accept Sarna’s translation, however, then we might ponder whether there was something before the creation of the “heavens” and the “earth” as we now know them.16 Furthermore, Sarnas translation makes sense in light of other ancient Near Eastern creation myths.

There is a tendency among Near Eastern creation tales to begin their texts with “when” as opposed to “in the beginning.” For example, the Babylonian creation story, Enuma Elish,17 begins with “when.” Enuma Elish means “when on high,” which is the first line of this mythic poem.18 Also, a number of scholars have noted that the root rosh for b’reshith is but a guess; the true meaning of the word is a mystery. Thus, we might agree with Sarna that b’reshith should be understood as “when” and not as “in”; but our agreement with this should go beyond the evidence from the Enuma Elish, for the Bible itself is aware of something being in existence prior to the creation of the “heavens and the earth.”

The implications of “When” v. “In” are fairly significant. Now, I am certainly no Greek scholar but it seems to me that there will never be a definitive answer to this question. At this point, I believe every person should stop and pray for discernment. If it is critical to your faith or understand of the Lord, He will make it clear. Whether something existed before and “When God began to create the heavens and the earth” is the accurate translation does not change the core doctrine of the Scriptures.

Jason Worthen Apologetics, Theology

The Bible is certainly a book unlike any other work in our society. In the Christian faith, the Bible is the means for God communicating with people on the earth and giving them insight into the character of God, the way we should live our lives, etc. Through the Bible, God reveals Himself to man. He reaches out to us and tells us (and shows us) His various attributes/characteristics as well as the purpose that He has for each one of us. While there is a large debate among Christians as to who ultimately chooses who, I am a firm believer that God reaches out to us and pulls us closer to Him. This is called a Calvinistic perspective. The opposing argument is referred to as Arminian. I believe that God reaching out for us is Biblical. Romans 3:10-11 tells us:

There is none righteous, not even one; There is none who understands, There is none who seeks for God,(NIV).

If Scripture is accurate, I can’t really see how this is my choice, but let me not digress. God chooses to whom He will share “special revelations” (such as Daniel, John, etc.) but He certainly shows all man many things as well. Psalm 19:1-4 talks about the heavens and the skies declaring the glory of God, speaking to all mankind. This is a statement that creation is proclaiming the existence of an ultimate creator. Another example is Romans 1:19-20 which states:

since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them (NIV)

God isn’t trying to hide anything from us — that doesn’t make logical sense. He wants to know everything possible — everything that we can understand.

Another key belief of Christians is that the Bible is God-breathed. This means that all Scripture is inspired by the Lord, is infallible and was given to man through the Holy Spirit. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 is very clear on this topic:

¹⁶All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, ¹⁷so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. (NIV)

A few other examples would be 1 Cor 2:13 and 1 Thes 2:13. The Scripture is clear that God is the force behind the words. He is the instructor/author of the books, regardless of the man that penned the book. Based on Scripture being God-breathed, the next logical step is that the Bible is infallible and without error. This becomes a heated topic as you look at some of the denominations within Christianity and all religions outside of the Christian faith. Can a person prove it? No, but the evidence is fairly overwhelming. Of course, if you are a skeptic, you can always go really read the book and come tell me where there are holes and give me proof that the Bible is wrong. Thus far, I have not found anything inaccurate, but that doesn’t mean much — I am still new in the faith and growing every day!

Another key about the Bible is that it is not meant to be a complete history of the world, it is a thematic work where God has chosen what pieces to include and communicate to us. The books each have a specific purpose and agenda — they have a theme. All of the books fit together to reveal God and His plan. These books are written in different formats and styles but perfectly convey the message to the reader. The theme throughout the Old Testament is Christ, from beginning to end. Christ confirms this theme in Luke 24:44. The New Testament identifies Jesus as the Messiah and the one that the Lord promised for eternal salvation and the Saviour of His nations.

Jason Worthen Apologetics, Theology