Freethought & Rationalism Archive

CJD · 05-23-2005, 06:18 AM

The general (and common-sense) idea is that by the time of the council's (by which I mean Hippo or Carthage, not Nicea) delineation of the canon, a 'canon' was already in circulation, and the council was simply giving it its stamp of approval. This reverses the oft-supposed notion that the church at large was reacting to 'heretics' like Marcion (and his 'canon') — Marcion instead was reacting to an already-circulating 'canon'.

'Christians' (as some kind of monolith) hardly claim divine inspiration for the actual formation of the canon, though Catholics are kind of forced to in this matter.

Best,

CJD

Wallener · 05-23-2005, 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CJD

'Christians' (as some kind of monolith) hardly claim divine inspiration for the actual formation of the canon...

It would seem divine inspiration would be a requisite for anyone professing sola scriptura since nowhere in the canon is there a list of what is supposed to be in the canon.

cognac · 05-23-2005, 03:31 PM

FWIW, some Xn theologians will argue that inspiration means that the Canonical books chose themselves. At some point in my past, when I was a theology student, I seem to recall this being pushed down my throat. It goes like this: Because they were inspired, they were recognized as being the Canon. Of course, there've been too many drunken stupors between then and now to remember who exactly said that. :Cheeky:

John A. Broussard · 05-23-2005, 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by artdude

FWIW, some Xn theologians will argue that inspiration means that the Canonical books chose themselves. At some point in my past, when I was a theology student, I seem to recall this being pushed down my throat. It goes like this: Because they were inspired, they were recognized as being the Canon. Of course, there've been too many drunken stupors between then and now to remember who exactly said that. :Cheeky:

I'll drink to that, though I've never heard it before.

It seems a step up from saying we know that the bible is divinely inspired because it says so, to it's divinely inspired because it is the bible.

If the fog clears, I'd like to find out the origin of that claim. It's an intriguing one. Some sort of double circular argument. Maybe a spherical one.

Wallener · 05-23-2005, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by artdude

Because they were inspired, they were recognized as being the Canon.

Oh my. You could push a cruise ship through the holes in that argument.

Quote:

Originally Posted by John

Some sort of double circular argument. Maybe a spherical one.

Klein bottle.

Jon Promnitz · 05-23-2005, 04:38 PM

Thanks for the great links!

CJD · 05-24-2005, 07:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John A. Broussard

I'll drink to that, though I've never heard it before.

It seems a step up from saying we know that the bible is divinely inspired because it says so, to it's divinely inspired because it is the bible.

If the fog clears, I'd like to find out the origin of that claim. It's an intriguing one. Some sort of double circular argument. Maybe a spherical one.

It's simply a typical, conservative, modern Protestant argument. My best guess would find its articulation among the 'old Princetonians' (Warfield, Hodge, et al.).

John A. Broussard · 05-24-2005, 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CJD

It's simply a typical, conservative, modern Protestant argument. My best guess would find its articulation among the 'old Princetonians' (Warfield, Hodge, et al.).

Thanks for the tip. I'll do some searching there.

cognac · 05-24-2005, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John A. Broussard

Thanks for the tip. I'll do some searching there.

The fog has become a permanent fixture. And I've burned all my seminary notes and books during evil satanic rituals, so I'm not likely to recover any of those memories. It's possible that my prof (Frank Tupper) pulled it out of his ass after swallowing too much conservative __________.

CJD · 05-25-2005, 06:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John A. Broussard

Thanks for the tip. I'll do some searching there.

Found this in Warfield's "Authority and Inspiration of Scripture" (Selected Shorter Writings, vol. 2, p. 538):

Quote:

It will be observed that their [the NT writings] does not rest exactly on apostolic authority. The point is not that the apostles wrote these books … but that they imposed them on the Church as authoritative expositions of its divinely appointed faith and practice. Still less does the authority of the Scriptures rest on the authority of the Church. The Church may bear witness to what she received from the apostles as law, but this is not giving authority to that law but humbly recognizing the authority which rightfully belongs to it whether the Church recognizes it or not. The puzzle which some people fall into here is something like mistaking the relative 'authority' of the guide-post and the road; the guide-post may point us to the right road but it does not give its rightness to the road. It has not 'determined' the road — it is the road that has 'determined' the guide-post; and unless the road goes of itself to its destination the guide-post has no power to determine its direction. … the Scriptures are the authority which founded the Church [not vice versa].

Turretin (1623–87) says as much, only far more exhaustively (see his Elenctic Theology, vol 1., Second Topic, Sixth Question, pp. 85ff [P&R Publishing]). I am sure it goes back to the earliest Reformers too.

Best,

CJD

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-23-2005, 06:18 AM	#11
CJD Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: greater Orlando area Posts: 832	The general (and common-sense) idea is that by the time of the council's (by which I mean Hippo or Carthage, not Nicea) delineation of the canon, a 'canon' was already in circulation, and the council was simply giving it its stamp of approval. This reverses the oft-supposed notion that the church at large was reacting to 'heretics' like Marcion (and his 'canon') — Marcion instead was reacting to an already-circulating 'canon'. 'Christians' (as some kind of monolith) hardly claim divine inspiration for the actual formation of the canon, though Catholics are kind of forced to in this matter. Best, CJD

05-23-2005, 03:31 PM	#13
cognac Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Why am I still up? It's way past my bedtime. Posts: 508	FWIW, some Xn theologians will argue that inspiration means that the Canonical books chose themselves. At some point in my past, when I was a theology student, I seem to recall this being pushed down my throat. It goes like this: Because they were inspired, they were recognized as being the Canon. Of course, there've been too many drunken stupors between then and now to remember who exactly said that. :Cheeky:

05-23-2005, 04:38 PM	#16
Jon Promnitz Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: USA Posts: 60	Thanks for the great links!

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.