Proof for the NT canon

Status
Not open for further replies.
Patrick, specifically in light of the objections I raised to my own points above, I guess I'm still not clear on just [i:07125d8fa9]how[/i:07125d8fa9] we know that "the NT is the fulfillment of it, and that fulfillment is self-attested in the NT." Perhaps the passages you give later will help clarify that.
 
Chris,

Here is the shortcut:

the issue of inspiration and inerrancy is not one of theoretical theology. It is one of relationship and submission. What Owen points out (brilliantly) is that you cannot doubt inerrancy and inspiration without casting aside your relationship with Christ. Because Christ is THE prophet.

The argument here is not so much with the atheist, but with the "Christian" theologian who says that "inerrancy does not matter, it is enough that I have Jesus." What Owen says is that you must have either BOTH or NEITHER.
 
[quote:b8ae2d2c32="Me Died Blue"]Patrick, specifically in light of the objections I raised to my own points above, I guess I'm still not clear on just [i:b8ae2d2c32]how[/i:b8ae2d2c32] we know that "the NT is the fulfillment of it, and that fulfillment is self-attested in the NT." Perhaps the passages you give later will help clarify that.[/quote:b8ae2d2c32]

What Fred said :bs2:

Also, look at how the Gospels were written. Certainly we could comb through the gospels for this data but will stick to a few for now.

Matthew begins by identifying Christ, claiming Christ to be the promised Messiah from the OT and ends his gospel with the great commission "teaching them to observe all things I have commanded you..." emphasising that he is a witness and messenger of Christ to accomplish this purpose.

Mark opens with "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. As it is written in the prophets..." He grounds his gospel as well in the self-attesting prophecies of the OT, essentially making his work an extension of those prophesies, or the fulfillment of them.

Luke does the same format in 1:1-4, referencing those who were "eyewitnesses and ministers of the [i:b8ae2d2c32]word[/i:b8ae2d2c32] delivered to them."

And John of course opens his gospel account with Christ as the preincarnate Word and as the One who "declared" the Father. And he concludes his account with "these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and believing that you may have life in His name." He further concludes that his "testimony is true" essentailly self-attesting that what he is proclaiming is necessary for you to believe to have eternal life.

So the gospels in essence aren't self-attesting to be the "scriptures", but they are self-attesting to be the revelation of Christ, and the fulfillment of previous self-attesting prophecies.

With the gospels then claiming to be the revealed word and work of Christ, We then turn to the claim of Christ that the Spirit would come and grant them further revelation and power to help them bear further witness of Christ, hence establishing the apostles and giving them the job of teaching these new revelations from the Spirit to the church. Hence, Paul and Peter always introducing themselves as an "apostle of Jesus Christ," or a messenger of Christ.

So as Fred said, Christ is THE Prophet. To deny the message of Christ's messengers, is to deny the word or revelation of Christ, hence you deny the entire person and work of Christ. You can't have Jesus and discard his revelation to the apostles. They are tied together.

Enough for now. I'm still thinking through this myself so please feel free to probe further.
 
[quote:c19f2b2281="puritansailor"]With the gospels then claiming to be the revealed word and work of Christ, We then turn to the claim of Christ that the Spirit would come and grant them further revelation and power to help them bear further witness of Christ, hence establishing the apostles and giving them the job of teaching these new revelations from the Spirit to the church. Hence, Paul and Peter always introducing themselves as an "apostle of Jesus Christ," or a messenger of Christ.

So as Fred said, Christ is THE Prophet. To deny the message of Christ's messengers, is to deny the word or revelation of Christ, hence you deny the entire person and work of Christ. You can't have Jesus and discard his revelation to the apostles. They are tied together.[/quote:c19f2b2281]

Thanks for summing that up. I understand that principle and how it is the essence of what you, Fred, Thomas and Owen were talking about. But the only "brick" still standing in the way per se is the fact that Jesus only promised that the Spirit would give fullness of knowledge to know and proclaim Christ to the apostles themselves. Indeed, that promise is the ground for our knowledge that the Apostolic writings as a whole contain the full revelation and counsel of God for the New Covenant age. But on what ground do we know that the post-Apostolic church council gathered up the right combination of works from the bulk of Apostolic work as a whole?

Indeed, we know that the latter (the bulk of Apostolic writings) [i:c19f2b2281]contains[/i:c19f2b2281] the full word of God for us, on the basis of Christ's promise that all truth would be revealed to the Apostles for the spreading of the truth. But how do we know that the former (the canonical selection among the bulk of Apostolic writings) is right on? For Christ did not make a promise that the truth would be revealed to the post-Apostolic churchmen for the distinguishing of the full truth contained in the Apostles' writings.
 
Blue,
Lets pretend just a minute that TODAY, you and I have no Bibles printed up together in 66 books. No one before us has bothered to list up the "authentic" books of the Bible. We have all the individual books (plus the OT) and a few "questionable" ones. So now, for some reason, WE have been asked to join a church council to declare where our church believes God has spoken. How do we do that?

We do NOT appeal as a final authority to the Church before us. We DO acknowledge that down through the ages--from the days of the Apostles until now--we see how that the Church has consistently recognized the Voice of the Savior, the Word, in these 27 books. But WE acknowledge them because WE hear the Voice of the Word in them.

We are so used to simply accepting the (Protestant!) Bible [i:34c4cf0bff]as is[/i:34c4cf0bff] because (we think) that the work has already been done for us. And to some extent it has. The Spirit of God has already worked mightily in the Church. But we err if we rest upon the testimony and councils of the Church as if they were finally authoritative. The work is CONTINUAL, not DEFINITIVE.
 
I agree with Bruce. There are several reasons, as listed above in the WCF why we can be certain of the NT authenticy, but ultimately, the proof that the Scriptures are the Word of God is the testimony of the Spirit. Some may think this too subjective, but it is the testimony of God himself convincing our hearts that the Scriptures are indeed His Word.
 
Well, if it's [i:3aca5a096f]ultimately[/i:3aca5a096f] dependant upon the heart, what could you say to a man who feels moved and increasingly aware of God's truth, and thinks that he now sees an even greater consistency in the rest of Scripture, in response to reading the Gospel of Thomas?

A divine promise is fully and ultimately reliable; our own hearts, while they can be corroborative, are simply not.
 
Blue,
I'm not speaking here from a supercilious attitude, but I would direct your attention to the Confession at this point, ch. 1, para. 5, the last full clause [quote:5049afb29e]...yet notwithstanding, 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.[/quote:5049afb29e] And note the Scripture proofs.

As for the hypothetical guy above who is "moved" by the pseudo-"Gospel of Thomas" all we can say/ask are:

1) What does it mean that he was moved/made more aware of God's truth, etc? Is he moved to add this work to his accepted Authority?

2) Assuming he does embrace the G.o.T.--as those who positively [i:5049afb29e]reject[/i:5049afb29e] that work as undevotional and even opposed to the rest of Scripture, we have to say he is confused at best (like a wandering sheep), or not of this flock (Jn. 10:26; 8:47; 1 Jn 4:6; cf. Jn. 10:5). He's definitely hearing something "funny" that the rest of us aren't. Why is that? Is he under attack, or does he belong elsewhere?

3) Assuming then that he refuses to be corrected, he's determined to "listen" to the voice of his private siren. He is asserting a false autonomy, exhibiting a hyper-individualist streak (where he ought to be submissive). He is a "lone ranger," claiming something outside of the consistent witness of the Church in history. If he tries to gather a following, he fits the spiritual pathology (given in Scripture) of a false teacher.
We do not [i:5049afb29e]ignore[/i:5049afb29e] the testimony of the Church, but we don't accept it without reflection, or as if it were of such a character as that the RCC demands that we believe of it.

Reflect some more on my scenario above. You and me--at a church council. How are we (together with all the congress) going to come up with a list of the Word of Christ? I suggest that the answer to that question is not [i:5049afb29e]substantively[/i:5049afb29e] different from the answer to how we know the same thing today.
 
[quote:18b35c6588="Me Died Blue"]Well, if it's [i:18b35c6588]ultimately[/i:18b35c6588] dependant upon the heart, what could you say to a man who feels moved and increasingly aware of God's truth, and thinks that he now sees an even greater consistency in the rest of Scripture, in response to reading the Gospel of Thomas?

A divine promise is fully and ultimately reliable; our own hearts, while they can be corroborative, are simply not.[/quote:18b35c6588]
You are right, the heart is not reliable. But you will notice I didn't say it depends on the heart, but on the testimony of the Spirit. They are two different things. Our hearts follow the lead of the Spirit as He opens our minds to understand the written Word. This is true of all believers. Hence, the consistent testimony of the Church throughout all ages recognizing the Word. All believers have been drawn in because they hear the voice of the Shepard calling them through the Scriptures. The Word of God cuts to the heart. The other apocriphal writings do not share this power or have this effect.
And again it kind of a two pronged approach of the testimony of the Christ's Spirit working in our hearts, and the self-attesting testimony of the written Word without. There should be no conflict between the two since both are the voice of Christ to His people.
Again, more to ponder....
 
[quote:2b1a821397="puritansailor"]And again it kind of a two pronged approach of the testimony of the Christ's Spirit working in our hearts, and the self-attesting testimony of the written Word without. There should be no conflict between the two since both are the voice of Christ to His people.[/quote:2b1a821397]

Yeah, I'm seeing your point here. And Bruce, I'll go back and review the Scripture proofs for WCF.I.

[quote:2b1a821397="puritansailor"]Again, more to ponder....[/quote:2b1a821397]

Indeed. I'm thinking of buying this book soon and reading it at the recommendation of a fellow Puritanhead, since it supposedly approaches the subject from a presuppositional perspective, which basically seems to be what I'm searching for at this point.
 
Thanks for the book recommendation. IS there a connection between redemptive historical hermeneutics and presuppositional thinking? Indeed, that is m ore to ponder... :think:
 
For more (!) reading,
see Calvin's Institutes, Book 1, ch. 7, especially sections 4 & 5 (the 2nd half).
Then, read ch. 8, section 1 and compare to section 5 to WCF 1.5.
(oooooh! those plagiarizers!!!!) :bs2:
 
Thanks, Bruce and Patrick. I already own the [i:b1b4e2685f]Institutes[/i:b1b4e2685f], so I might just have to ask for Owen's complete works for Christmas!
 
surprise surprise, of the six volumns I have of John Owen, I have 16! I'll have to read up on what he said.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top