The Canon of Scripture (3) - The New Testament Canon

One major argument against Christianity is, as I have mentioned before, the idea that the Christian faith as we know it today was the result of Constantine acceding to power in the Roman Empire and changing Christianity to suit his own political agenda.

Central to this charge is the accusation that Constantine in cahoots with controlling church leaders effectively invented the New Testament by imposing on the church a canon of books that suited their own ends.

If for no other reason, therefore, we should be clear as to what is in the New Testament canon, why it is there and how the canon came about.

The Writings of the Apostles

The New Testament scriptures are a collection of the writings of the apostles. Mark, Luke, Acts, Hebrews and Jude, were not written by apostles but by those asscoiated with them and endorsed by them. See Grudem for further comment in these writings.

They record the words and deeds of Jesus and interpret their meaning. Jesus indicates in John 14.26 and John 16.13-14 that the Holy Spirit will give the disciples the ability to remember what Jesus had taught them and will lead them into truth that at that time they had not discovered.

The high level of authority that the apostles held can be seen in scriptures such as 2 Peter 3.2, Acts 5.2-4, 1 Corinthians 14.37, 2 Corinthians 13.3, Galatians 1.8-9.

Apostolic authorship or endorsement meant that a particular writing was accepted as being God's very word.

New Testament writings on a par with the OldTestament scriptures

Peter recognises the writing s of Paul as scripture (2 Peter 3.15-16) and Paul recognises Luke's gospel as scripture (1 Timothy 5.17-18). Here Paul quotes Luke 10.7. The term scripture is a technical term used to refer to God's words, and therefore the Old Testament as we have it today. It is evident then that at a very early stage in the history of the church, the books of the New Testament were considered part of the canon of scripture.

Athanasius' List

The first exact list that we have of the twenty-seven books of the New Testament as we have them today is found in the Thirty-Ninth paschal Letter of Athanasius dated 367 A.D.. This list represented the books accepted as scripture in the Eastern church. In 397 A.D. the Council of Carthage produced a list of the same books which were in use in the Western Church.

How did the canon come about?

It wasn't the case that the church imposed the canon on the church, rather the church gradually recognised the writings that were in use in Christian communities all over the Roman empire.

A formally drawn up canon came about mainly as a result of heretical teaching. Calims made for gnostic works to be recognised as divinely authoritative had to be tested and measures against the original writings of the apostles.

What we might call the formal canon, therefore developed over almost four centuries as a response to religious developments that affected and even threatened the church and her teaching. However, it could be said that an informal canon functioned within the churches from the earlist days of the faith.

Monday Fun

Kop launch new worship song.

Looking for the perfect small group? Try this...

The Canon of Scripture (2) - the Old Testament Canon

A definition

"The canon of scripture is the list of all the books that belong in the Bible"

The word canon comes from a word referring to a measuring rod. The canon of scripture determines what's out and what's in when it comes to what should be included in the Bible or excluded from the Bible.

The Old Testament Canon (Grudem, ch.3., pp.54-59)

The Origins of the canon - the ten commandments

The Old Testament really began with the ten commandments, written by God on tablets of stone and given to Moses for the people of Israel (Exodus 31.18, 32.16)

Moses and others wrote additional words

Moses added to what the ten commandments (31.24-26). This scripture indicates that Moses wrote Deuteronomy and in the light of other references reveal that he wrote the first four books of the Bible as well.

Joshua contributed to the scriptures. As did the prophets (e.g. Isaiah, Jeremiah), kings (e.g David), along with others.

Their writings make up the Old Testament as we know it today.

The close of the Old Testament canon

After 435 B.C. - when Malachi was written - there were no further additions to the Old Testament scriptures. The rebbinic tradition, Josephus and the religious leaders of Jesus day were unanimous that the Old Testament canon closed at the time of Malachi.

The Old Testament Apocrypha - Jewish literature outside of the Old Testament which is not recognised as the Word of God.

• The apocrypha is never quoted in the New Testament as authoritative
• No record of any dispute between Jesus and the Jewish religious leaders about the Old Testament canon
• Early Christian leaders - Melito, Origen, Eusebius and Athanasius excluded the apocrypha from the canon

Roman Catholic Church includes the apocrypha in the canon of scripture. The protestant church excluded the Old Testament apocrypha from the canon of scripture because:

• It wasn't included in the Jewish canon
• It wasn't included by early Christian leaders
• It is of dubious doctrinal value

The above is a brief explanation as to why we accept the thirty-nine books of the Old Testament as we have it today as God's Word and why we don't accept other writings of that era.

Movies Out There

A new movie about the early years of Billy Graham is to be released soon. Not sure when it hits these shores, but it is due to be released in America in October. For more covereage take a look at Christianity Today .

And check out the trailer:

Another release which a friend alerted me to is called The Boy In The Striped Pyjamas. It's about the son of a Nazi officer who befriends a Jewish boy in a concentration camp. The Evangelical Alliance are promoting it as a tool that can be used in schools to provoke discussion about themes such as prejudice, respect etc. You can find out more here

I think this is well worth a look. It went on release on 12th September. According to the website, it is showing in Crawley.

The Canon of Scripture (1)

You probably wouldn't fill the 02 Arena if you were organising a conference the theme of which was The Canon of Scripture. For many the term might well be associated with dusty old tomes of theology, dates that hardly anyone can remember and DWEMs (Dead white European males). Incidentally, some of the greatest theologians of the early church were neither white nor European. Athanasius, for example, was an African, as was Augustine. Some of the strongest centres of early Christianity were to be found in North Africa.

Back to the canon of scripture. This topic is one which underlies many of the questions about the authority of the Bible and why we should accept the Bible as we have it. The criticism is usually that the church invented the Bible as we have it and therefore we should see it for what it is - a piece of literature compiled for political purposes. Critics claim that the writings rejected by the church, like the gnostic scriptures, are actually the real Christian scriptures which were suppressed by Constantine and the Catholic Church. That's the kind of thinking behind the (fictional) storyline of The DaVinci Code.

Understanding how the canon of scripture came together is important in our dialogue with people who have questions about the Bible's reliability.

Blogging through Grudem

A few weeks ago a church member and I set ourselves the task of reading through Grudem's Systematic Theology by Christmas. Whether we'll get there or not, I don't know, but we'll try!

Anyway, I thought it would help me if I blogged my way through some parts of the said work (as opposed to blagged). It might help to introduce any readers out there to biblical doctrine in a simple way. I'm sure there'll be all sorts of attemtped humorous feedback - "You're too blogmatic", "Spare us the blogmatism" etc. But hey!

So here we go. I'll give you headings based on Grudem and some scriptures.

The Word of God (chapter 2, pp.47-53)

What do we mean by "the Word of God"?

"The Word of God" can refer to Jesus Christ

Scriptures: John 1.1, Revelation 19.13. See also 1 John 1.1.

The above scriptures are the only ones that refer to Jesus Christ as the Word of God.

In describing Jesus as the Word of God, the Bible is drawing attention to Jesus' role within the Trinity as the one who reveals God to us. In His person and words He communicates God's character to us and God's will for us.

"The Word of God" is used of speech by God

(i) The Word of God as God's decrees

Scriptures: Gen 1.3, 1.24; Psalm 33.6; Hebrews 1.3

Decree: God's spoken word causing something to happen. Creation is the most obvious example of God's speech causing things to happen or come into being.

(ii) The Word of God as God speaking directly to human beings

Scriptures: Genesis 2.16-17, 3.16-19; Exodus 20.1-3; Matthew 3.17

The above scriptures are examples of what we mean by God speaking directly to human beings. He spoke to Adam directly. He spoke directly to the people of Israel. He spoke about Jesus at His baptism.

(iii) The Word of God as God speaking through human beings

Scriptures: Deuteronomy 18.18; Jeremiah 1.9; Isaiah 30.12-14; 2 Chronicles 20.20, 25.15-16.

The scriptures above relate to Old Testament prophets. They spoke the Word of God. Anyone who claimed to be speaking a word from God, but was speaking falsely was severely punished (See Deuteronomy 18.18-22).

(iv) The Word of God as the written words of scripture

Scriptures: Exodus 31.9-13, 18, 32.16; Joshua 24.26; Isaiah 30.8; Jeremiah 30.2; John 14.26, 1 Corinthians 14.27.

Some of God's servants wrote down God's words. Moses, Joshua, Isaiah and Jeremiah are all recorded as having written down God's words. The ten commandments were actually writtend by the finger of God, in other words they were divinely scripted. In the New Testament, Jesus promises the disciples that the Holy Spirit will remind them of what He taught them. And Paul claims that his writings are words from God.

The benefits of having a written word

• God's words are preserved for future generations
• It is easier to study and discuss God's written word
• God's revelation is made more accessible

The benefits of studying of God's written Word

The Bible tells us that when we study and meditate on God's written word we are blessed (Psalm 1.1-2), God grants us success as we study and obey His written revelation (Joshua 1.8)and God's Word teaches us and trains us (2 Timothy 3.16).

Some questions:

How should we approach God's Word? What sort of influence should it have in our lives? How can we get to know it better?

Monday Fun

Two of the most influential pursuits in the world come together.

Online Bible Study Resources

If you know where to look there are some great Bible reading / study resources out there.

The links below will take you to resources that some have found useful.

Many have found a Bible reading plan developed by Robert Murray McCheyne in the 19th century very useful. It helps you to read through the Bible systematically in one year, or if you want to give yourself two years, there is Don Carson's adaptation. You can download the plans here.

If you spend a lot of time travelling or you prefer listening to reading, the Bible on MP3 might be worth a listen. You can download NIV or KJV versions for free. You can find them here .

Bible Gateway and E-Sword sites have a lot of Bible study tools - and it's all free!

Some of the commentaries are dated, though works like Matthew Henry and Keil and Delitzsch are still inspirational and informative. Happy hunting.

Exploitation in the Environment

The the Telegraph Online report about councils using children as young as eight to spy on and report environmentally unfriendly neighbours is a very disturbing story. More disturbing is that local councils and the Local Government Association are not denying this.

Today it's dropping litter. What will they be recruiting children to monitor in twenty years time? You can read the article here .

Monday Fun - making a serious point

Sometimes a humorous sketch can make a point very powerfully. See what you think of the above. (Thanks to Elly Sumner for this one)

Driscoll - A voice that must be heard in our generation?

I'm in danger of contradicting what I said in previous post about celebrity culture and the church.

However, I think we have to recognise that Mark Driscoll has something to say to our generation. It pains me to admit that I have to learn something from someone born in the 70's, but there you have it. I'm sure some of the Pharisees were upset not only by what Jesus said, but by the fact that He was a thirty-something.

Driscoll is certainly a guy who is trying to connect classical orthodox Christianity with his generation. That in itself I find so commendable. Penal substitution and iPods. The two don't always seem to go together, but Driscoll manages to connect them. He has made controversial remarks on controversial subjects, but who hasn't?

What is also very impressive is his candour with denominational leaders, and in fairness their willingness to give him a hearing. He spoke frankly to New Frontiers at their Together On A Mission conference and recently did something similar with the Anglican diocese of Sydney. You can read his points at the Sydney meeting here.

How end time prophecies can motivate you even if they are wrong

I came across a thoroughly useful piece on end time prophecy at Richard Mouw's blog (Mouw is president of Fuller Seminary).

The upshot of the article is that Mouw sang in the choir of a crusade evangelist in the 1950's, who predicted that Christ would return by 1960. Needless to say the predicted parousia hasn't happened. Mouw goes on to point out that, before we are quick to criticise, other Christians have made predictions about the future - he cites those who believed the twentieth century would be the Christian century - which have proved wrong. He also argues that the prospect of Christ returning by 1960 kept Christians on their toes in the fifties!

I have some sympathy with Mouw. There was a lot of end time teaching and predicting when I was growing up which subsequently proved empty. The EEC, as it then was, seemed an ideal candidate for Antichrist's ten horned kingdom (Revelation 13.1) until what had become the EU had a membership larger than ten states!

Whilst some of the predictions and, in my view, some of the principles of interpretation used to formulate such views, appear misguided, the intention was serious. Those preachers really did believe in the return of Christ. They really did believe that the Bible had something to say about life today and the future. And it certainly kept us on our toes.

Mouw's post is a good reminder that even if some people make wild claims about the end times, the reality behind all of the speculation is that Jesus is coming back. And it might just be sooner than you think! You can read the original post here

What's out there

A few eye-catching and thought provoking articles and posts.

For a bit of subversive evangelism, Steve Addison's blog has a great post on coffee and donuts.

An article on George W. Bush's greatness over at the August edition of Prospect must count as subversive.

And you simply have to love the way Man City are subverting the premiership. Many of us, in the words of one of their former managers, would really really love it if they got Ronaldo.

For some straightforward common sense from techie world see our own Graeme Arthur's post Confessions of a Church Tech Director.

And finally a short video from Tim Keller for any pastors who happen to be reading.

Healer 2

I said I'd follow up the Healer post with another one.

I don't want to do a commentary on the scenarios related in the last post. I think, however, there are currents in Western uncivilization that are helping to bring about some of the difficulties and pain the church in our culture is at present experiencing.

The term postmodernism has almost become as empty as the unreality that it is supposed to describe. Nevertheless, it does help us to understand something of what is happening around us.

One of the features of postmodern culture is the rise and rise of the celebrity. Some have said we no longer have heroes any more, just celebrities. The difference in a hero and a celebrity? Hard to define, but try this: a hero denies self in the pursuit of something noble, a celebrity promotes self in the pursuit of fame.

There are hundreds of thousands of heroes in our churches. People who fight the good fight every day. Who deny self for the wellbeing of others. They'll never be on tv. They'll never become household names, but they are heroes, nonetheless.

Unfortunately, the church - evangelical and charismatic - has, to some extent, bought into the celebrity culture. And sometimes the celebrity is considered to speak with authority simply because he or she is famous. It is a reflection of postmodern culture in secular society - think pop stars / movie stars being ambasssadors for the U.N..

The rise and rise of the celebrity is bolstered by rampant consumerism in the West. We look for the best deal in every area of life, and as we all know, the customer is king (or queen, I guess).

Consumerism affects the church because the church is made up of people who have been schooled in consumerism by the media from childhood. So we end up assessing churches and church meetings in terms of what it did for us or what we got out of it. And church leaders have to face the pressure of that kind of consumerist mentality.

Symptomatic of this kind of outlook is the emphasis on story. Because postmodernism denies that there is one grand narrative explaining all of life - whether it be Christianity or secular equivalents like evolution or Marxism - the alternative is to tell our personal story. Obviously to be a celebrity, you can't just have an ordinary story, because the customers won't buy an ordinary story. And if you only have an "ordinary" story and you are a leader, might you feel the pressure to invent a more colourful story? And are church leaders vulnerable to this kind of subtle pressure? Or is it that we are just desperate for affirmation and confuse it with attention?

No doubt, one of the main reasons I was so impressed with Healer, was that it was sung by someone I thought was battling cancer. Had I known his condition was actually something more like Munchausen's Syndrome, I think I would have been less enthusiastic about the whole thing. That says a lot about the celebrity / consumer relationship.

Having read loads of posts on Healer I cannot help but pick up the cynicism that is colouring much of what has been written. One common line is, "Did no-one ask to see his medical records?" What? Have we really got to the place in our society that when someone says they are ill, we question it? Do we now have to verify illness as well as healing?

I hope that when things have settled down and there is a bit more space between us and summer 2008, that we might hear in the song Healer the cry of a broken society. A cry for the real healing that we need from the effects of a confused culture.

To find out more about postmodern culture check out Jerram Barrs' lectures. I listened to some of them recently when travelling to Ireland. Not as complicated as you might think! You can find them here

Healer

Back in mid July I bought my wife the latest Hillsong DVD, This is Our God. It included one of the most powerful songs and one of the most powerful peformances I have heard for a long time.


The song was entitled Healer. The performer was someone I'd never heard of before, Michael Guglielmucci. What helped make it so powerful was his testimony about his struggle with cancer and how he was on oxygen as he peformed. It was, forgive the pun, breathtaking.


What was even more breathtaking was the revelation that the performer wasn't actually ill. He had pretended for two years that he was terminally ill with cancer. He faked the symptoms, the doctors' appointments, the lot.


I couldn't believe it when I heard that it was all an act. Staggered.


I don't want to use this blog as a platform to pass judgment on others' ministries or actions. However Healer and to some extent the circumstances surrounding Todd Bentley's difficulties reveal so much about life in the twenty-first century Western world. It tells us much about the context in which we do ministry and how ministry can be affected by our culture.


I intend to submit another post on this. Before I do, I want to commend both MG and TB for holding up their hands and seeking the healing that they sung and preached about so passionately. For some, the preceding statement will be too lacking in severity. However, let's not allow disappointment to obscure our vision of God's redemptive objectives for damaged people. And, after all, that's what we all are.

Monday Fun

The Mayor of London in top form in Beijing.