Purpose: We will look at two objections against the Biblical view of canon.
- Objection 1: Atheists who say there are missing books in the Bible
- Objection 2: Someone who say their church established the canon and their canon is the right one
Objection 1: Atheists who say there are missing books in the Bible
What they say:
- “Book X is missing from the canon”
- “Book Y should not have been in the Bible”.
The nature of the canon would be different than that of the Christian:
- Canon would be determined by religious group vs. Canonicity because it is God’s Word
- The Canon reflects beliefs of only a certain time period and location of a certain religious group vs. the Canon containing books that gives timeless truth from God.
- The content within the canon is limited in its application only to its adherents vs. the content of the canon includes the objective demand of God upon all.
In essence, the nature of the canon as mentioned above is nothing more than sociological in nature.
Question: Is it possible that there are missing/extra books in the Christian canon according to anti-supernatural presuppositions?
- The following is in an internal critique of the anti-super naturalists argument in light of their presuppositions.
- Answer: No, since anti-supernatural presuppositions means that the Canon are determined by religious group
- It is categorically impossible to say that books are missing if the religious group as the final arbitrator of the canon didn’t accepted the book in question.
- It is categorically impossible to say a book should not have been added if the religious group does not want it as part of their canon since they are the final authority of their own canon.
- With anti-supernatural presuppositions, there are no higher principles to invoke for a group not to add or subtract from their canon since the religious group are the highest authority to establish their own religious canon.
- Answer: No, since anti-supernatural presuppositions means that the Canon only reflect beliefs of only a certain period and location of a certain religious group.
- To say a book is ‘missing’ implies that a book ought to be in the canon of a certain religion
- Yet if the canon only reflects the group’s beliefs and values of a certain time period and location, there can be no missing books, just only irrelevant books that are removed by the group when the times changes.
- To say a book is an ‘extra addition’ implies that a book ought not to be in the canon of a certain religion
- Yet if the canon only reflects the group’s beliefs and values of a certain time period and location, there can be no extra books unnecessarily added, since all books added by the religious group reflects its belief in their time and location.
- Arguments that an old book ought to be added to the canon of a religious group make no sense if the group of another time period does not believe it reflects their current values.
- Remember, it is the religious groups that determine the Canon in light of anti-supernatural presuppositions.
- Answer: No, since anti-supernatural presuppositions makes the content within the canon limited to only its adherents.
- If the canon is only applicable to a certain religious groups, what place does an outsider have to force their agenda of adding/subtracting someone else’s canon?
- Outsiders who engage in such pursuit are unwittingly forcing their canons upon those who does not adhere to them and is futile since each group lists their own canon.
- There are no standards of the canon which transcend beyond the autonomy of each religious group according to anti-supernatural presuppositions.
Conclusion
- Therefore, arguments constructed from anti-supernatural presuppositions against the Christian Canon makes no sense within their own presuppositions.
- The Christian ought to not fear the nature of such objections.
- Christians must continually grow in their trust in God concerning the Christian canon and ensure in their confidence of the Biblical approach to the Canon.
Objection 2: Someone who say their church established the canon and their canon is the right one
There are religious bodies that assert that it is the authority within their ecclesiastical bodies and traditions which establish what books are canonical in the Bible.
- In various forms, these groups include but are not limited to:
- Roman Catholicism
- Various Eastern Orthodoxy
- Various unorthodox cults
- These groups will try to argue that establishing the canon require their authoritative traditions
- They say that there needs to be an infallible authority to establish canonicity.
- Their ‘true church’ is the infallible source that answers the question of the canon.
- Without the sole magisterial authority of their organization, they argue that there will be undesired theological chaos not only concerning the Canon but other areas as well.
Response
- Be aware that these arguments often occur in an atmosphere that attempt to provide substance to the claim that their religious group is the true infallible and authoritative church.
- They often are arguing that the Canon one can only come about because of their organization’s authority. The appeal from them would be, ‘Why not come to terms with our church since you accept ‘our’ Canon?’
- Hence, Christians must be aware of such scheme and be on guard with the Word of God.
- The greater issue of the debate must also be dealt with at its proper time (“Is this the church, the true infallible church?”), and ultimately it comes down to the question: “Are the doctrines of this church Biblically sound or unsound?”
- Listen to this exhortation from the Word of God: “Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.” (1 John 4:1)
- Ramification: Prophets claim to speak for God (similar to the infallible authorities in a religious organization) and must be tested. This outline will test their claim to see if it is from God.
- Claim 1 examined: There needs to be an infallible authority outside of the Bible to establish canonicity.
- But that infallible authority can be found internally within the self-authorizing, self-attesting infallible Word of God itself.
- There is no reason why the infallible and self-evidencing Word of God can not enjoy the same epistemological status as the ecclesiastical authority since the Scriptures is greater than the church
- Groups that appeal to traditions as infalliable authority over the Canon of God’s Word has the problem of making traditions above the Word of God.
- Do these same traditions elsewhere contradict the Authoritative Word of God? If so, there is a problem:“Thus, you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition.” (Matthew 15:6b)
- It really should be the Bible as authoritative over traditions and judging traditions instead of the other way around.[1]
- Claim 2 examined: Without the sole magisterial authority of their organization, they argue that there will be undesired theological chaos not only concerning the Canon but other areas as well.
- Note: This is a common argument used to convince Christians to reject Sola Scriptura (Scripture as the sole final authority) because it results in divisive chaos of various opinions without the ‘true’ church’s authority.
- The Canonical lists of various religious groups conflicts and contradict one another.
- The argument from disunity provides us still with the problem: Which religious organization then, has the true sole magisterial authority?
- There are competing groups for this position and disunity between the various groups that claim infallibility.
- Is the Greek Orthodox right? Is it the Roman Catholics? Is it the Egyptian Coptic Church?
- Using their line of reasoning, this self-defeats the argument itself: With the theological chaos that arises from the principle of sole magisterial authority, one should thus reject the sole magisterial authority because of undesired theological chaos and confusion of who’s right.
- Claim 3 examined: The ‘true church’ is needed as the infallible source that answers the question of the canon.
- This is not true, as the Old Testament Canon was recognized even without it being established by a religious organization’s authority.
- Remember that Jesus used canonical books to give a theological lesson about Himself after His resurrection: “And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning Himself.”(Luke 22:27)
- Jesus used canonical books before any Jewish council met to officially announce the Canon.
- Note that as Jesus went through the Canon, there was no dispute of the canonicity of the books He cited that day. The Canon was recognized in absence of a council or organization that established the canon by its own authority.
- The list of these religious groups are not infalliable, as there are internal contradictions within the religious groups authority.
- For example with the Catholics, Popes have established different books as canonical.
- Since the Bible is inerrant, there’s also the tests if a book agree with the other canonical books
- Since the doctrine of Inerrancy is true[2], and truth is not self-contradicting, this has ramification in the area of the Canon.
- The entire true Canon from God can not be self-contradicting.
- If there are any controversial writing asserted to be canonical, yet it contradicts other portion of established Scripture, the literature in question can not be the Word of God.
- Thus, the doctrine of Inerrancy gives us a test to rule out a heretical work not only as unbiblical, but non-Canonical.[3]
- For example: Does the Book of Tobit contradict Scripture?
- Short Background
- The Book of Tobit is part of the Roman Catholic Canon and not in Protestant Canon.
- It is also written in Greek instead of Hebrew.
- “Prayer and fasting are good, but better than either is almsgiving accompanied by righteousness. A little with righteousness is better than abundance with wickedness. It is better to give alms than to store up gold; for almsgiving saves one from death and expiates every sin. Those who regularly give alms shall enjoy a full life” (Tobit 12:8-9)[4]
- Is there another way, specifically through alms giving, which expiates for our sins?
- “In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.” (Hebrews 9:22)
- Alms giving does not concern with blood, and therefore can not expiates every sin
- Does our righteousness accompanying almsgiving saves one from death and expiates every sin?
- Alms giving to expiates for every sin is already shown to be unbiblical in the above.
- “I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!” (Galatians 2:21)= Our righteousness (as measured by the Law) will not saved us and if it can save us, Christ doing for sinners would not make sense.
- Short Background
- For example: Does 2nd Maccabees contradict Scripture?
- Short Background
- This is a book in the Roman Catholic Canon but not in the Protestant Canon.
- It is also written in Greek instead of Hebrew.
- “Turning to supplication, they prayed that the sinful deed might be fully blotted out. The noble Judas warned the soldiers to keep themselves free from sin, for they had seen with their own eyes what had happened because of the sin of those who had fallen. He then took up a collection among all his soldiers, amounting to two thousand silver drachmas, which he sent to Jerusalem to provide for an expiatory sacrifice. In doing this he acted in a very excellent and noble way, inasmuch as he had the resurrection of the dead in view; for if he were not expecting the fallen to rise again, it would have been useless and foolish to pray for them in death. But if he did this with a view to the splendid reward that awaits those who had gone to rest in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Thus he made atonement for the dead that they might be freed from this sin.” (2 Maccabees 12:42-46)
- Context: This is about a Jew name Judas who led an army to fight for the Jews, and in the course of slain soldiers, was led to pray for them.
- Is there atonement through alms giving? See the above concerning Tobit and alms giving.
- Is there hope of sin being blotted after death? “Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment” (Hebrews 9:27). There is only judgment after death.
- Short Background
- Since the doctrine of Inerrancy is true[2], and truth is not self-contradicting, this has ramification in the area of the Canon.
- Remember that Jesus used canonical books to give a theological lesson about Himself after His resurrection: “And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning Himself.”(Luke 22:27)
- This is not true, as the Old Testament Canon was recognized even without it being established by a religious organization’s authority.
- The greater issue of the debate must also be dealt with at its proper time (“Is this the church, the true infallible church?”), and ultimately it comes down to the question: “Are the doctrines of this church Biblically sound or unsound?”
[1] Please consult Part VI in this systematic theology outlines titled, “The Authority of the Bible Part V: Objections to Culture and Traditions Authority”
[2] Please consult Part XII in this systematic theology outlines series titled, “Doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy Part I”
[3] This shows yet another reason why systematic theology is important. Those who are well versed with what the Scripture teaches will be able to apply this test more readily than those who are less knowledgeable.
[4] Quoted from the New American Bible, accessed online from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops website at http://www.usccb.org.
Hi brother. Excellent insight.
BTW – You may want to consider fixing the formatting. For much of it, there is only one word on each line. That part was hard to follow although I did make it through to the end.
Blessings.
I agree I need to fix this after work today l
Need to fix it
From the post: “Book X is missing from the canon”
I immediately thought that this challenge/statement asserts the very thing needing resolution, namely answering/establishing ‘What defines the Canon?’ By analogy, this reminded me of some commentaries regarding NT Greek textual criticism on disputable passages which assert something to the effect Manuscript ______________ omits the article. Better would be Manuscript _______________ lacks the article.
Are you saying it can be circular?
Yes; but, I think I may need to qualify that, for I’ve a feeling you may be misunderstanding my point.
My comment is in agreement with your post. When others asserting a different Canon claim “Book X is missing”, they’ve implicitly asserted the very thing needing proving. It’s a circular argument. “Book X is missing from your Canon because it’s on our canon, ‘cause we say it is.”
Yet, I’ll go a bit further. While I agree with the presuppositional position that the Bible is self-authenticating, I see this stance as being circular. I’ve heard R. C. Sproul admit this in a talk (on YouTube), but he qualified that with his opinion that this position is not viciously circular. I disagree. Part of the premise is in the conclusion.
Thanks for these lessons in logic injected with God’s Word.
YW! Thanks for reading this
People raising themselves above God and judging His word rather than allowing it to show their need for Him. Atheists want to destroy the corner stone of western civilization while the religiously powerful want to seize control. The Holy Spirit reveals the validity of the canon over the other books not included, which read something like what I write, like modern religious books that have value but aren’t the inspired Word of God.
Well said especially this part: “The Holy Spirit reveals the validity of the canon over the other books not included, which read something like what I write, like modern religious books that have value but aren’t the inspired Word of God.” To that I say “Amen!”
Shhhh…people don’t know that you have to believe first and then grow to understand, under the personal tutelage of the Holy Spirit. Without Him it scripture can’t be understood.
Thanks for this excellent post on the Biblical canon. I especially appreciate that you point out that the RCC sets itself up as the arbiter of the canon.
Thanks! I hope you see I don’t mind tackling Romanism on this blog when the opportunity arises!
I truly appreciate that you take a stand regarding the RCC. As you know, most Christian leaders and teachers either misguidedly believe the RCC is “close enough” or shy away from directly criticizing it.
The most damaging attacks on the canon come from within, from those who accept the specific books of the canon, but then change the meaning of what is written in certain books to justify their own presuppositions.
For example, some people accept Genesis as part of the canon, but then reject Genesis 1-11 as history. One can find similar problems with anti-trinitarian positions, woke feminism, woke social justice, and rejection of gifts of the Holy Spirit to pick out some that come to mind.
All of these positions favor either church traditions or secular philosophies over what is in the books of the Bible. After accepting what books are in the canon, one has to take those books seriously as God’s Word.
I think you make a good point that the danger sometimes most greatest is those from “within”
One can find similar problems with…rejection of gifts of the Holy Spirit.
Amen to this! I’ve read/heard the arguments for cessationism and I don’t find them persuasive. And I’m certainly not what anyone would call a ‘charismatic’.
One can find similar problems with…rejection of gifts of the Holy Spirit
Amen to this! I’ve read/heard the arguments for cessationism and I don’t find them persuasive. And I’m certainly not what anyone would call a ‘charismatic’.
This is very much needed especially in our context here in the PH.
Wow! May there be such teaching in PI!!
[…] 11.) Objections to Biblical view of the Canon […]
This is helpful for my own questions
[…] Objections to Biblical view of the Canon […]