Question about the Canon being Closed

[Guest shiloh357]

4 hours ago, Judas Machabeus said:

I'm reading Steve Rays book crossing the Tiber. So to help me understand the Protestant point of view I may end up with lots of questions. 

I believe everyone here agrees that the canon of scripture is closed meaning no more books can be added to the bible. 

Heres my question:

where does that teaching come from and is it biblical?

One reason we know the canon is closed and that the  66 books of the Christian Bible are the only correct books that belong in the Word of God is the character of the books. Besides being without error, these 66 books have a unique internal unity that we don't see in any other extra-biblical writings.  The Apocrypha is neither inerrant, nor does it possess the unity of the 66 books.   The Pseudepigrapha  is another example of a collection of sacred writings that do not have inerrancy, or the unique unity of our 66 books of Scripture.

In addition to those things, the 66 books have another characteristic that doesn't exist in any other of these "sacred" texts and that is that all 66 books have redemption, among other things as their overall theme, which I supposed goes back to the unity issue.  The Bible points to Jesus either looking forward to Jesus or looking back at Jesus.   Jesus is the focus of Scripture.  God's promises to and His restoration of Israel is another important theme, missing from the other books.    The Bible  is all about restoring all of mankind back to Himself.  It's all about restoring the relationship that was broken in the Garden.  None of the essential doctrines of Scripture are visible in the other books, as well.   None of the other writings, and none of the newer "revelations"  like the Book of Mormon and other supposed "sacred" writings, possess any of the characteristics of the Bible and the substance of its message.   The Bible is unique to any other sacred writings, at all points of meaningful comparison.

That is important to  why we know the canon is closed.   Nothing else is like it.  Nothing written in ancient times or today comes close to matching the Bible in its message or it's unity.   If all of these new revelations were true, they would all share the same inerrant, redemptive  characteristics that the Bible shares. None of them meet the criteria established to determine canonicity, either and when you read those documents, it is easy to see why they were not included and why the canon is considered closed.

[Deborah_]

The Old Testament canon and the New Testament canon were decided separately.

The New Testament canon was determined by Church councils in the fourth century. By that time the four gospels, the letters of Paul, and a number of other books and letters had been in circulation for over 300 years and there was already widespread consensus over which ones were authoritative/inspired and which ones were not. Although certain heretical groups put forward some other books for consideration, these were rejected because they did not have apostolic authorship or the sanction of continuous use by churches all over the world. 

At this point in history the Church was still united, and so the decision of the Council (I forget which one) was accepted by every orthodox Christian. There has been no significant dispute over the New Testament canon since then (Luther is famous for his dislike of the book of James, but he never attempted to delete it!). The canon is effectively closed, because no new document will ever meet the necessary criteria. 

The Old Testament canon is disputed because its history is very different. The Jews didn't 'fix' their canon until after the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70. Christians were using the Greek translation, the Septuagint, which contained a number of other books (the Apocrypha) that the Jews later rejected as non-canonical. Unfortunately the Church didn't really address the issue until after the Reformation. The Protestants then opted to follow the narrower Jewish canon, while the Catholics decided to keep the Apocrypha as well.

So to answer the question:

No, it isn't 'Biblical' in the sense that the Bible told the Church to fix the canon. But we believe that with the life, death and resurrection of Jesus (recorded and explained for us by the apostles and their associates), God's revelation is complete (Hebrews 1:1,2).  You can't have an open canon under such circumstances.

Edited May 18, 2017 by Deborah_

[Guest Judas Machabeus]

7 hours ago, Deborah_ said:

No, it isn't 'Biblical' in the sense that the Bible told the Church to fix the canon. But we believe that with the life, death and resurrection of Jesus (recorded and explained for us by the apostles and their associates), God's revelation is complete (Hebrews 1:1,2).  You can't have an open canon under such circumstances.

Thank you,

And although I disagree with your summation of the Apocrypha, it was very fair!!

I too believe that the canon was closed at the Council of Chaledon (I think it was that one) 397 AD. 

I didn't know if there was other views held. Like Matrix brought forward scriputre, another the Holy Spirit. 

Edited May 19, 2017 by Judas Machabeus
Changed fare to fair

[OneLight]

3 hours ago, Judas Machabeus said:

Thank you,

And although I disagree with your summation of the Apocrypha, it was very fare!!

I too believe that the canon was closed at the Council of Chaledon (I think it was that one) 397 AD. 

I didn't know if there was other views held. Like Matrix brought forward scriputre, another the Holy Spirit. 

I would say that the Council realized the canon was closed and were not the ones who closed it.  God was.

[enoob57]

When following the hermeneutical process of immediate context; chapter context; book context; then 66 book context= an amazing simplicity of fact arises:
The Bible itself covers the begin and end and eternal state- there is no more to add to what is there. It's almost the addage can't see the forest for the trees...
That is the purpose of God's great seal set upon the Revelation!

[Guest Judas Machabeus]

2 hours ago, enoob57 said:

When following the hermeneutical process of immediate context; chapter context; book context; then 66 book context= an amazing simplicity of fact arises:
The Bible itself covers the begin and end and eternal state- there is no more to add to what is there. It's almost the addage can't see the forest for the trees...
That is the purpose of God's great seal set upon the Revelation!

I'm not sure it was that cut and dry. Different regions accepted different books and rejected others. If it was  that cut and dry, they wouldn't have needed 3 regional councils and than a final one up holding the 3 as binding. 

thats of course if you hold to the Coucil of 397AD as when the canon closed. 

[Guest Judas Machabeus]

3 hours ago, OneLight said:

I would say that the Council realized the canon was closed and were not the ones who closed it.  God was.

Ultimately it would have been done under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. But the vessel He would have used would have been men. 

[enoob57]

Just now, Judas Machabeus said:

I'm not sure it was that cut and dry. Different regions accepted different books and rejected others. If it was  that cut and dry, they wouldn't have needed 3 regional councils and than a final one up holding the 3 as binding. 

thats of course if you hold to the Coucil of 397AD as when the canon closed. 

The canon was already accepted by the early churches and circulated letters and changed lives the proof so to speak in the pudding... all the councils did was to recognize what already was! Jm you have placed your faith in a great many things outside of Scripture... Scripture itself does not condone this -in fact- it warns against such activity. Jesus said it susinctly at His temptation

Matthew 4:4 (KJV)

[4] But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

This being God Breathed Scriptures not church traditions, not clergy, not popes etc. but Scripture alone throught the power of The Holy Spirit can we expect to be in reason with God...
Love, Steven 

 

[Guest Judas Machabeus]

8 hours ago, enoob57 said:

The canon was already accepted by the early churches and circulated letters and changed lives the proof so to speak in the pudding... all the councils did was to recognize what already was! Jm you have placed your faith in a great many things outside of Scripture... Scripture itself does not condone this -in fact- it warns against such activity. Jesus said it susinctly at His temptation

Matthew 4:4 (KJV)

[4] But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

This being God Breathed Scriptures not church traditions, not clergy, not popes etc. but Scripture alone throught the power of The Holy Spirit can we expect to be in reason with God...
Love, Steven 

 

I disagree with you, it wasn't settled. But I'm okay to agree to disagree. 

I do agree that all the letters and books where being passed around. But some were being contested as not scripture. The Book of Revelation was the last to be accepted as scripture by all Churches. So there was no canon. 

You say I believe things outside of scripture, yet you adhere to a canon that's not scriptural and place your entire belief in it. Glass houses my friend. 

I put my faith in the deposit of faith that Jesus Christ left the Apostles. 

[enoob57]

56 minutes ago, Judas Machabeus said:

I disagree with you, it wasn't settled. But I'm okay to agree to disagree. 

I do agree that all the letters and books where being passed around. But some were being contested as not scripture. The Book of Revelation was the last to be accepted as scripture by all Churches. So there was no canon. 

You say I believe things outside of scripture, yet you adhere to a canon that's not scriptural and place your entire belief in it. Glass houses my friend. 

I put my faith in the deposit of faith that Jesus Christ left the Apostles. 

I know you do... the place where you are demands this of you! Faith is unique in that we place our weight of being completely upon it; mine being very simplistic= it is upon The Scripture alone! I am promised by God, 2Tim 3:15-17, that it is sufficient in every area of being and will enable me to please Him in my life... It really is simple-> I, as to my being, am solely responsible for and God says where exactly my trust / faith is to lie in that responsibility

Proverbs 3:5 (KJV)

[5] Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.

[6] In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.

As with all the Words of God they can be adhered to or ignored ... but not forever! As soon as this life is over the individual responsibility with what was done with those Words will become the utmost concern for the eternity ahead.

 

This that I have highlighted in your quote above is the begin of true departure of the pure faith that God forms solely from His Word

Romans 10:17 (KJV)

[17] So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

The Bible is replete with warnings about idolitry ... which is taking the created thing and placing it before God  'as to importance'. Simple right? So when the heart has taken literally everything created and placed it as that which is not being kept- it becomes easier to search out the s/Spiritual essence of the keeping!  This the requirement of being with God forever

John 4:24 (KJV)

[24] God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

It was the Word God placed in the Apostles the very same Word we have in our possession written (66 canonical books of Genesis-Revelation); these Words alone by The power of The Holy Spirit places faith to let go of all created essence we have began in and embrace that which those same Words promise  The famous quote of John Elliot from his notes "He is no fool to give up what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot loose"
Love, Steven