I am not “down” on the canonization process.
The Bible is not “God’s word” because it never claims to be and actually claims to be written by humans.
And I respect the Bible and value it for the same reason Bruce Metzger explains:
“In short, the Scriptures, according to the early Fathers, are indeed inspired, but that is not the reason they are authoritative. They are authoritative, and hence canonical, because they are the extant literary deposit of the direct and indirect apostolic witness on which the later witness of the Church depends.”
Excerpt From
The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance
Bruce M Metzger
I asked why Mark said “take nothing…except a staff”
And
Luke said “take no staff.”
Pretending those don’t contradict is simply denying the text. Is that what a Bible-believing Christian should or would do?
If you think this is unclear in Koine Greek, you are wrong. The gentleman who wrote the textbook used by students learning Greek comments on the text here:
“Jesus accepted the Hebrew Scriptures as the word of God and frequently argued from them in his teaching and controversies.”
from The Canon of the New Testament
Because I believe the Bible is special revelation and my blog post is not. I have a pretty standard Protestant doctrine of revelation. I think the Church would be fine without my blog post. The Church would not exist without the Bible. So I believe God willed and acted more directly and intentionally to bring about and preserve Scripture. I think it involves much more divine intervention in human history than just a different “vetting process.”
I believe that Irenaeus made a “list” — not necessarily official – in the 2nd century. It included most of what is now considered the NT, though not the Book of Revelation. Will have to look into this Council of Carthage…
Interesting, though very lengthy, quote from Metzger. I have read his Text of the NT…would have to consider more on this…but inspiration is one thing for a writer or thinker – quite another if one believes the inspiration from God… I think the very last sentence quoted explains what is now meant when people say inspired, that is “the extant literary deposit of the direct and indirect apostolic witness on which the later witness of the Church depends/.” Does not the NT refer to various apostles as being moved by God in what they did?
Shawn…there is no channeling here. There is the Holy Spirit, Who is the third member of the Trinity.-- in other words, God…That is the One to Whom Jesus referred in the remarks you quoted in John…Channeling generally refers to occult activities, and there is perhaps a spirit heard through :“channeling” but it is not a, or the, spirit of truth.
In the fourth century many things happened, just as in the fifth century and the twentieth. But the canon was closed long ago, Those are other subjects altogether.
Dear Robin,
Did you know that Joshua was present in the tabernacle with Moses when God spoke to him? It was Joshua who led those who followed God’s Word into the promised land. Moses and the others who did not follow the Word channeled through Joshua were not allowed!
The fear of Channelling the Holy Spirit is deeply set in Christianity, yet many claim to be inspired by Holy Spirit. Channelling the Holy Spirit, for everyone to hear, would expose all of the false claims that religious leaders make. And like Moses, they too would be ostracized. It is the meek who inherit the Kingdom.
Best Wishes, Shawn
Christy, I think the difference in our views is that I recognize the scriptures record and include special revelation, and the Bible never presents itself, in its entirety, as a special revelation.
To call the entire Bible, every word, a special revelation is not supported by scripture itself and is just a man-made philosophy.
For example, Paul wrote a letter to a church including the statement listing some people that he baptized and adding that he could not remember who else he baptized. Do you think it was a special revelation that Paul could not remember who he baptized? If not, the Bible is not, in its entirety, a special revelation.
Yes, that verse is part of the unit that as a whole gets designated special revelation. Special revelation, Scripture, and God’s word are labels for the Bible as a whole, not philosophical claims about each individual sentence.
We disagree. I can’t see how Paul’s forgetting who he baptized as a special revelation from God.
Your position seems to be that anything in the Bible, even if it was not revealed by God and even it is an error from the human who wrote the original text, is a special revelation from God. I find that quite unreasonable and completely unsubstantiated in scripture.
This reminds me of the OT laws concerning purification. Something that has been ritually purified did not impart that purification on anything it touched. And special revelation from God does convert anything written along side it into special revelation.
This is what I don’t get. It’s not something that as Christians we get to make personal assessments about. The Bible is God’s revelation. That is a Christian doctrine. It doesn’t really matter what you personally “see.” Christianity is a confessional religion, not a smorgasbord like Buddhism or Hinduism where you get to pick your favorite parts and practice it any way you see fit.
Nope that is you imposing your view and idiosyncratic definition of special revelation on everyone else. “My view” is the standard Christian affirmation that the Bible as a whole is God’s word, special revelation. Revelation is an assessment of the function of the whole, not an evaluation of the content of individual sentences.
Jesus was special revelation. That doesn’t mean everything Jesus ever said or did was a message directly from God.
.