Re: [asa] Bible Authority

Debbie -

Some quick comments on points you raise:

A good resource on the histort of the canon is F.F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture (IVP, 1988). Bruce was a respected British evangelical NT scholar & gives, I think, a quite fair presentation here.

Luther did separate the Apocrypha & designated them as "books which are not held equal to holy scripture but are useful & good to read." Jewish attitudes about these writings weren't his only reason. There had been debates about the status of these books from the time of the early church. The Anglican tradition took essentially the same position on this as Luther - see Article 6 of the 39 Articles. (Thus the inclusion of the Apocrypha in the KJV.)

In spite of the emotion that some Christians invest in question of whether or not the Apocrypha are canonical, they don't really end up making that much difference doctrinally.

Luther also has questions about the status of some books of the NT about which there had been debate - Hebrews, James, Jude & Revelation. He didn't want to "remove" them (as is sometimes claimed) but didn't consider them among the primary writings of the NT. Unfortunately not enough attention has been paid to his reasons for doing this. What he was really arguing for (though he didn't work it out in detail) was a christological & evangelical criterion for canonicity. This really needs more consideration today when it's become clear that the idea of all the NT books having been written by apostles or their immediate companions can hardly be maintained.

While Luther thought that the realm of authority of scripture was matters of faith & morals, he also believed that the early chapters of Genesis (& a great deal else) were historical accounts. In modern terms he was a young earth creationist. But of course evaluating him, as well as others of the 16th century, in light of our 21st century scientific knowledge is hardly fair.

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Debbie Mann
  To: Asa
  Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2006 9:57 AM
  Subject: [asa] Bible Authority

  I've been researching why the Bible has the books in it that it does. It appears that the only reason for the Jews excluding most of the Apocrypha was because they chose the year 400BC as the last year that could be included. It appears that Martin Luther separated out, but did not exclude the Apocrypha, because the Jews had excluded it in 98 BC. Ironically, it seems that the Jews excluded it largely as a knee jerk reaction to Christianity - nothing within 400 years of the life of Christ could be inspired.

  Martin Luther believed that the Bible was the only ultimate authority in matters of faith and practice.

  The Catholic church has a broader sense of what constitutes authority. Of course, we know that their heirarchy led to sometimes extreme corruption.

  The books which were gathered into the New Testament seem to have been chosen as inspired separately by different groups in different geographical locations.

  Several points:
  1. What is the ultimate authority in matters of faith and practice? 'Canon' comes from a word that means 'measure'. I have been taught to pray and to use the Bible as a measure of whatever answer I receive, or think that I receive. The ultimate authority should be God through answered prayer. The Bible is a measure of whether I can trust what I believe to be the answer - a verification of the identity of the source, or at least a protection against bad results from any alternative.
  2. Faith and Practice were Martin Luther's beliefs of areas where the Bible holds authority. Not history or science.
  3. Books of the Bible were chosen by whether or not they were perceived to be inspired. Someone made a judgement call.

  Protestants frequently believe that Catholics are 'out there' in terms of their blind faith. However, the Catholic Bible clearly states in front of many of the books that they are not to be taken as historical. The books are fiction in a historical setting.

  The Catholics accepted the Bib Bang theory while many Protestants were still debating whether it was a challenge to their theology.

  The Atheist websites nitpick the Bible to death. I wonder at the time they put into it.

  My points have been made before:

  1. Faith in God is FAITH in God - not proof of God.
  2. The Bible is to give us a measure of good and evil, of faith and practice. It is in a historical setting, and very much of it has been verified. The minimalist view gets broadened decade by decade as more is discovered and more can be verified with history.

  One thing that gets me is, if I haven't lied to you and I have told you the truth - some amazing truths - and have been correct again and again - then why would you not believe me? Maybe I have some issues as a human and you know that I tend to say, slant international politics. So, if I am saying something about international politics, you take it with a grain of salt and look it up. But, when it is in an area where I have been correct 20 times, you should believe me. Why are people so hypercritical about the Bible?

  Pascal said it is because they are afraid it may be right.

  And I think that is the point - there are those who do not believe that man has been to the moon. That kind of stubborness cannot be defeated with reason.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Jun 27 15:39:17 2006