The PuritanBoard - View Single Post

Contra_Mundum · #3 (**permalink**) 07-11-2007, 12:08 AM

I am more and more convinced, as years pass, that the WCF statement regarding our "full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts," is of vastly greater importance than 100 scholarly defenses and 10,000 evidences for the canon.

WHY was James first included in the inspired corpus? Because God's people heard the Voice of the Shepherd speaking therein. "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me" (Jn. 10:27). And though some one, here and there, has raised this or that question about the book down through the years--for he had some personal difficulty hearing the clear Voice of the Shepherd in those Words--yet even most of them have been persuaded that the fault was more likely in them, and they submitted to the consent of the church.

The same could be said of the "pericope adulterae", the story of the woman caught in adultery, today found in most Bibles, Jn. 8:2-11. Is it John's? Luke's? Some other writer's? All those options have been suggested. But clearly it has defied any effort at its removal from the canon, whether that was because it stood alone at some point, or whether its removal was sought on the basis that "Jesus couldn't have done/said something like that!"

Ultimately why? Because for most of us, the Spirit of Jesus breathes in that passage, just as he does in James, and in the rest of the Scripture. One thing we don't have to do is SIFT the writings of the day for the Spirit's words. But back in the days of counterfeits and gnostics, the church had to do that very thing. Today, junk like the "Gospel of Thomas" is having a "resurrection" of popularity. But just try reading GT, and you will see immediately that to the Christian (and most honest secularists) the writings are nothing alike. (CS Lewis had something similar to say in his day about pseudo-scholars who knew next-to-nothing about ancient literature as a whole, but opining about the formation of the NT as though their opinions had an ounce of respectability). In the end, the NT was formed the same way the OT was: by acknowledging "Thus saith the Lord."

I would like to suggest an experiment, one that is seldom performed, largely because it really is so unnecessary. But play the "detective", and go back and gather a slew of ancient texts along with your Bible. Try to be "objective". Choose criteria such as nothing written after the apostolic period can possibly be authentic. Try to read these texts as though YOU have to do what the 2nd and 3rd century fathers had to do, namely preserve your biblical, apostolic heritage and resist the corruptions. Could you do it? Could you do it alone? Be a "conservative" and if you have any doubts, set the text aside. It cannot be authoritative unless you believe it is God speaking without a doubt. Etc. Etc.

I could be wrong, but I think you'd come up with either 1) Today's NT, or 2) some subset of the NT. After all, the history of canonics shows that the church east and west trusted substantially the same books, and in the end came to their own general consent over the last 5-6 books, Hebrews and Revelation prominent (the former universally accepted in the east, the latter universally in the west, and both were finally accepted by all).

My point: if we had to do it all over again, and thankfully we don't, but even if we did--so what? I tell you the truth, we would still end up with the same 66 books. Even if the whole history of canonics was lost in toto, in one fell swoop, and we were cut off from ANY meaningful interaction with the labors of the past. Why? Because we can't be cut off from Christ and his Spirit. It's impossible.