God's preservation of certain books versus other inspired writings

[sotzo]

We know that God excluded some inspired writings from the canon, for example the book that Paul refers to when he writes to Corinth. However, as far as timing of preservation is concerned, is there any necessary reason why we would not recognize that extra-canonical book as indeed authoritative (and hence canonical), were it to be found? In other words, just because it was previously excluded from the canon, does that necessarily mean we could in no way accept it because the time has passed for any inspired book to be made part of the canon?

I'm sure the issue of an open canon has been discussed here or elsewhere so feel free to point me there if that is easiest.

 

[larryjf]

Can you be more specific about the book that Paul refers to that you're referencing?

 

[sotzo]

Can you be more specific about the book that Paul refers to that you're referencing?

I probably should have said "letter" rather than "book". I'm referring to the letter he talks about in I Cor 7:8

"Even if I caused you sorrow by my letter, I do not regret it. Though I did regret it—I see that my letter hurt you, but only for a little while"

 

[toddpedlar]

Can you be more specific about the book that Paul refers to that you're referencing?

I probably should have said "letter" rather than "book". I'm referring to the letter he talks about in I Cor 7:8

"Even if I caused you sorrow by my letter, I do not regret it. Though I did regret it—I see that my letter hurt you, but only for a little while"

and on what basis do you think that letter is inspired by God?

 

[nicnap]

Can you be more specific about the book that Paul refers to that you're referencing?

I probably should have said "letter" rather than "book". I'm referring to the letter he talks about in I Cor 7:8

"Even if I caused you sorrow by my letter, I do not regret it. Though I did regret it—I see that my letter hurt you, but only for a little while"

and on what basis do you think that letter is inspired by God?

 

[Prufrock]

Todd Pedlar's post I think is sufficient in itself and should be seriously weighed.

But further, even if they were inspired by God, that does not mean they were inspired with the purpose of being canon, or rule, or norm for the church as a whole: oftentimes prophets were inspired to give very specific message to very specific people in very specific circumstances. The intention of prophecy is not always universal canon. Edit: And if we trust God that he has preserved for his church a rule or canon of faith, I think that in itself is sufficient testimony that such writings are not intended for that purpose.

More importantly, if some document were uncovered that claimed to be a letter of Paul to Corinth, should we automatically assume it is legit, that it is in fact the very letter referred to in 1 Cor. 5:9? Would you truly base your faith upon it if it introduced some new doctrine? And would you hold that those who don't believe it to be denying the word and command of our Lord? Not trying to be harsh, just very realistic questions.

We have scripture. I think speculation as to whether or not there is "more" scripture out there which we are to find or could find is not helpful, or edifying. As I've learned quite bluntly from others at times, even if we might have honest, sincere questions, some things create more doubt and uncertainty in people than the benefit which accrues by asking them.

 

[sotzo]

First, the collective tone / points given so far about warning against idle speculating are well taken. No desire on my part to speculate and I realize there are certain discussions where nothing good can come from them. I hear you and will exercise caution.

and on what basis do you think that letter is inspired by God?

In his article on canonicity Bahnsen states:

"...remember that not all special revelation was given in written form or subsequently committed to writing (e.g., many discourses by Jesus while on earth, John 21:25; private revelations to the apostles, II Cor. 12:4,7; Rev. 10:4; unpublished messages from New Testament prophets, I Cor. 12:28)."

In other words, there was revelation given that has not been included in the canon. So a Venn diagram of all revelation would show a circle that included all canonical writings within the larger circle of all revelation.

The point being, we do not impugn God's character at all, in my opinion, by raising this issue because, contra Prufrock, we should not believe that any of the inspired revelation within the larger circle would contradict what is in the smaller circle since all inspired revelation came from our immutable God.

The question in my OP is trying to get at whether or not the canon is closed due to lack of inspiration oustide the canon or time or something else. Or perhaps it is an article of faith that we simply confess alongside our other articles. In the latter case, I am happy to simply live there on that basis. But, I wanted to see if there are other reasons that are warranted by good and necessary consequence from the foundation of the confession.

So, we know it is not the lack of inspiration that the canon was closed because the Venn contains inspired writings outside the circle of the canon. Did time play a role in that once a particular point in church history was reached, the canon could no longer be added to regardless of the presence of inspired document(s)? Was it something else? Matter of faith alone?

 

[Prufrock]

The point being, we do not impugn God's character at all, in my opinion, by raising this issue because, contra Prufrock, we should not believe that any of the inspired revelation within the larger circle would contradict what is in the smaller circle since all inspired revelation came from our immutable God.

Just for the record, I didn't say that.

 

[DTK]

We know that God excluded some inspired writings from the canon, for example the book that Paul refers to when he writes to Corinth. However, as far as timing of preservation is concerned, is there any necessary reason why we would not recognize that extra-canonical book as indeed authoritative (and hence canonical), were it to be found? In other words, just because it was previously excluded from the canon, does that necessarily mean we could in no way accept it because the time has passed for any inspired book to be made part of the canon?

I'm sure the issue of an open canon has been discussed here or elsewhere so feel free to point me there if that is easiest.

I would be inclined to agree with Bruce Metzger on this issue...

Bruce Metzger: It may be concluded, therefore, that, while the New Testament canon should, from a theoretical point of view, be regarded as open in principle for either the addition or the deletion of one or more books, from a practical point of view such a modification can scarcely be contemplated as either possible or desirable. To say that the canon may be revised is not the same as saying it must be revised. The canon by which the Church has lived over the centuries emerged in history, the result of a slow and gradual process. To be sure, in this canon there are documents less firmly attested by external criteria than others. But the several parts have all been cemented together by usage and by general acceptance in the Church, which has recognized, and recognizes, that God has spoken and is speaking to her in and through this body of early Christian literature. As regards this social fact, nothing can be changed; the Church has received the canon of the New Testament as it is today, in the same way as the Synagogue has had bequeathed to it the Hebrew canon. In short, the canon cannot be remade—for the simple reason that history cannot be remade. Bruce M. Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance, third, enlarged ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997), p. 275.

Bruce M. Metzger: The distinction between the New Testament writings and later ecclesiastical literature is not based upon arbitrary fiat; it has historical reasons. The generations following the apostles bore witness to the effect that certain writings had on their faith and life. The self-authenticating witness of the word testified to their divine origin of the gospel that had brought the Church into being; such is the implication of Paul’s words to the Thessalonians: ‘We thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of any human being but as what it really is, the word of God which is at work in you believers’ (1 Thess. ii. 13). During the second and succeeding centuries, this authoritative word was found, not in utterances of contemporary leaders and teachers, but in the apostolic testimony contained within certain early Christian writings. From this point of view the Church did not create the canon, but came to recognize, accept, affirm, and confirm the self-authenticating quality of certain documents that imposed themselves as such upon the Church. If this fact is obscured, one comes into serious conflict not with dogma but with history. Bruce M. Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance, third, enlarged ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997), pp. 286-287.

DTK

 

[Prufrock]

What I am saying is that the question is purely a hypothetical one. We don't have to doubt that Romans or 1 Timothy or Philemon is really what Paul wrote, or authentic. It was preserved for us. We've always had it. We know it's scripture. But what if we unearth something from 2000 years ago which claims to be another letter from Paul? We don't have that assurance regarding this: at the very least we'd have to treat it subordinately to received scripture -- if it agreed with what we already know from scripture, we could at least say that it speaks truth; if it adds something we didn't already know from scripture (note, not necessarily contrary to scripture), we'd have a problem: do we add that addition to the necessary articles, or do we treat it with suspicion?

As you stated, it's not inspiration that determines whether something is canonical for the whole church or not. Providence and the Spirit have shown to us that which is canonical; other things might surely be valuable, but they are not our canonical scripture.

-----Added 1/8/2009 at 01:31:33 EST-----

Also, point of clarification from your post: we, the church, do not add things to the canon or make them canonical; it is God who makes a canon. The most we can do is to recognize it.

-----Added 1/8/2009 at 01:41:33 EST-----

For what it's worth, what makes something canonical was always one of the things which it was hard to wrap my mind around. I finally just had to resign myself and say, "Okay, God promised to abide with his church in his word; he has left us that which we need, and this is preserved in the scriptures: these 27 books form our New Testament scriptures. That's that." I realize that's an absurdly simple statement, but at the same time I think that it pretty much covers it.

 

[sotzo]

The point being, we do not impugn God's character at all, in my opinion, by raising this issue because, contra Prufrock, we should not believe that any of the inspired revelation within the larger circle would contradict what is in the smaller circle since all inspired revelation came from our immutable God.

Just for the record, I didn't say that.

Then I made a poor inference from what your statement: "As I've learned quite bluntly from others at times, even if we might have honest, sincere questions, some things create more doubt and uncertainty in people than the benefit which accrues by asking them." I presumed that what you were saying here was that the cause of the doubt or uncertainty would be having doubt that God gave us all of the necessary revelation.

-----Added 1/8/2009 at 01:52:17 EST-----

The Metzger quotes were great. thanks

 

[larryjf]

I've heard a hypothetical that goes somewhat like this..."If we found a letter written by Jesus Himself wouldn't it be put into our Bible?"

If we consider the Scripture to be sufficient, then not even a letter from Christ would add to its sufficiency.

In other words, even if there were other inspired writings outside of the canon of Scripture, they couldn't add anything to the Bible that isn't already there.

 

[Whitefield]

When one poses a general and hypothetical question, one should expect nothing more than general and hypothetical answers.

 

[sotzo]

When one poses a general and hypothetical question, one should expect nothing more than general and hypothetical answers.

Why?

And how does that apply to this thread?