The Relevance of Canon

[Mitex]

Here is the full post that Barry quotes in part. Note the author. I'll let you boys read the entirety and then hash it out among yourselves.

Relevance of the Canon

by William Kincaid

The Canon issue is relevant because:

1. It is our DEFINITION of ?Scriptures.? Every time you use the word ?Scripture? (you know, like ?KJVO is unscriptural,? etc.), you DEPEND upon CANON. Canon is the foundation. All other ?faith? is built upon it.

2. New Testament Canon is NOT established by any apostle. No apostolic author gave us any help in establishing any New Testament book as canon. Even when a book contains a NAME of an apostle it does not establish that it is a genuine apostolic book, as many forgeries testify.

3. The concept of a CLOSED CANON is never broached in Scripture either, that definition of ?Scriptures? we all agree on. No one wrote ?This is the last inspired book,? or ?This is the third Gospel, and four should be enough.?

4. There is no significant dispute about New Testament CANON. Everyone here on this board KNOWS which books are supposed to be in all Bibles. We have their names and their order memorized. (If the Roman Church established the Canon, why does the Greek Church have the same one, and why do Protestants and Anabaptists and Millerites agree as well?

5. All attempts to change the CANON are deemed HERESY by all of us. Luther?s frustration with, and hasty words about James is one of his biggest errors (and he had a number of whoppers). If CANON were debatable, Lutherans would have a different one than we do today. The Koran, the Book of Mormon, The Spirit of Prophecy, The Pearl of Great Price, and any other book that even APPEARS to compete with the CANON is labeled heretical.

6. Yet not ONE SINGLE Modern Version User or Textual Critic on this board will touch the issue of CANON with lead gloves and a four-mile laser. You will use the word, build an illusion about it, accuse it of irrelevance, but you will not EXPLORE your personal reasons for ACCEPTING it, exactly it, nothing more than IT.

7. This is because the moment you explore the fact that you accept the foundation of a 27 book New Testament CANON as FINAL, you will have to admit things you can?t afford to admit on your side of the aisle. For one, you admit there IS final authority besides the Holy Spirit. (Although, I think you already quasi-admitted that.)

8. You admit that decisions made by our forefathers in the faith are BINDING upon us. We don?t allow, we don?t need to, and we CANNOT remake those decisions. It is DONE. FINAL AUTHORITY. You claim it is final, so do I. (But I thought JESUS was our final authority? :rollin )

9. You admit that REVELATION and INSPIRATION are not enough for the concept of Scripture to exist. ?All Scripture is given by inspiration? is just so much useless information if you don?t know, and CANNOT know, what ?Scripture? is. ?Sola Scriptura? is a load of pumpkins after Halloween if there is any serious dispute over CANON.

10. THE AUTHORITY OF CONSENSUS (of spirit-filled, born-again, blood-bought saints), binding on dependents, is THE scriptural concept that kindles KJVO, and that burns your conscience, if not the seat of your pants. Feigning surprise is DENIAL, and frankly, it is your best strategy. The question, ?how is CANON relevant? is your ONLY answer. Whatever you do, DON?T WALK TOWARD THE LIGHT.

 

[Mitex]

1.  It is our DEFINITION of ?Scriptures.?

Canon
...
6.  the books of the Bible recognized by any Christian church as genuine and inspired.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/canon?s=t

Canon
...

3. The genuine books of the Holy Scriptures, called the sacred cannon, or general rule of moral and religious duty, given by inspiration.

http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/Canon

Canon
...

2. A collection or list of sacred books accepted as genuine: the formation of the biblical canon

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/canon?q=Canon

 

[FSSL]

Yep! As all can see, my use of the quote was correct and not misleading.

No matter how many snail trails you follow, you cannot end up by saying that a consensus has authority and call yourself a Baptist.

Those familiar with canonicity will find this to be an awful, misguided piece.

 

[bgwilkinson]

Me thinks Mitex is a closet Catholic, certainly not a convinced Baptist.

 

[FSSL]

Me thinks Mitex is a closet Catholic, certainly not a convinced Baptist.

You won't find any writings on the Baptist principle of soul liberty on either Mitex or Kincaid's site.... or even the word "Baptist."

 

[Mitex]

No matter how many snail trails you follow, you cannot end up by saying that a consensus has authority and call yourself a Baptist.

I don't and won't. I know and have read about many great Christians who call themselves Baptists, however, I'm not a sectarian nor a denominationalist (1Cor 1:12-13, 1Cor 3:3-4). I am a born again Christian who believes the Scriptures. We are to do all things in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. (Col 3:17)

Those familiar with canonicity will find this to be an awful, misguided piece.

The Church of God, which is familiar with the Canon, knows that sectarian, peculiar, private and individually preferred opinions contrary to the established Canon are heretics or apostates.  Your alleged "soul liberty" does not give you license to change the Canon, established by the faith of God's elect, because of your sectarian, peculiar, private or individually preferred opinion. If you attempt to do so, the authoritative voice of the Church of God will rightly label you as heretic or apostate. 

Is it your reasoned opinion that the collective voice of the Church of God, the pillar and ground of the truth, is wrong on the Canon?

 

[FSSL]

The Canon was not established by a collective voice of the created. It is only RECOGNIZED as God's Word. But, here you go too far, and say that it has authority because of a council.

You take this misguided idea of canonicity and try to apply it to a particular Standard translation. An error begets multitude of errors.

You can call yourself whatever you want to call your self. You don't have to be a "Baptist" to believe in soul liberty. That is not the issue. The issue is why you don't believe in it!

 

[Mitex]

The Canon was not established by a collective voice of the created. It is only RECOGNIZED as God's Word. But, here you go too far, and say that it has authority because of a council.

You take this misguided idea of canonicity and try to apply it to a particular Standard translation. An error begets multitude of errors.

You can call yourself whatever you want to call your self. You don't have to be a "Baptist" to believe in soul liberty. That is not the issue. The issue is why you don't believe in it!

The collective voice of the Church of God most certainly did establish the Canon by their recognition, belief, use, etc. of the Canon. Your sectarian, peculiar, private or individually preferred soul liberty does not have more authority than that collective voice Any voice contrary to the established Canon is rightly labeled by the Church of God as heretical or apostate.

If you don't agree state your case, prove it from Scripture and without the collective voice of the Church of God.

P.S. Not a "council" as you deceptively state, but the collective voice of Baptists, Southern Baptists, Northern Baptists, National Baptists, North American Baptists, International Baptists, American Baptists, Mexican Baptists, General Baptists, Regular Baptists, Missionary Baptists, Conservative Baptists, Freewill Baptists, Hard-shell Baptists, Primitive Baptists, Landmark Baptists, Old German Baptists, 7th Day Baptists, 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Baptists, Union Baptists, Independent Baptists, Particular Baptists, Bible Baptists, Bible Believing Baptists, Fundamental Baptists, and all the other Baptists, all branches of Mennonites, Lutherans, Methodists, Congregationalists, Pentecostals, Anglicans, Presbyterians, Moravian Brethren, Open Brethren, Closed Brethren, Evangelical Free, non-denominationalists, etc. which recognized the English Authorized Version of the Holy Scriptures as the Standard in English.

 

[FSSL]

Not all of those groups believe...

... that all of the 66 are God's word.
... that the KJV is the Standard.

Next!

 

[FSSL]

Not a "council" as you deceptively state...

They were called the "Council of Hippo" and "Council of Carthage." You are so enamored with a historical revisionism to exalt the KJV that your basic lack of understanding of history is showing.

Those who ignore history are bound to repeat the mistakes of it!

 

[Mitex]

Not all of those groups believe...

... that all of the 66 are God's word.
... that the KJV is the Standard.

Next!

Please tell the Reader which of these groups don't believe our 66 book Canon:

Baptists, Southern Baptists, Northern Baptists, National Baptists, North American Baptists, International Baptists, American Baptists, Mexican Baptists, General Baptists, Regular Baptists, Missionary Baptists, Conservative Baptists, Freewill Baptists, Hard-shell Baptists, Primitive Baptists, Landmark Baptists, Old German Baptists, 7th Day Baptists, 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Baptists, Union Baptists, Independent Baptists, Particular Baptists, Bible Baptists, Bible Believing Baptists, Fundamental Baptists, and all the other Baptists, all branches of Mennonites, Lutherans, Methodists, Congregationalists, Pentecostals, Anglicans, Presbyterians, Moravian Brethren, Open Brethren, Closed Brethren, Evangelical Free, non-denominationalists, etc.

 

[Mitex]

Not a "council" as you deceptively state...

They were called the "Council of Hippo" and "Council of Carthage." You are so enamored with a historical revisionism to exalt the KJV that your basic lack of understanding of history is showing.

Those who ignore history are bound to repeat the mistakes of it!

You stated, "The Canon was not established by a collective voice of the created. It is only RECOGNIZED as God's Word. But, here you go too far, and say that it has authority because of a council."

That is your deceptive statement not mine. The Synod of Hipp (393?) and the Synod of Carthage (397?) did not determine the Canon, the Canon had already been established by the collective voice of the Church of God.

The collective voice of the Church of God, the pillar and ground of the truth, has established that the Canon is limited to 66 books. You are bound by that collective voice, your opinion to the contrary is considered heresy by the collective voice of the Church of God.

So, tell us Barry, how do you know that the Canon is limited to 66 books? How do you know that the Book of Esther is "God-breathed" but the Book of Jasper is not? How do you know the Gospel of Mark belongs in the Canon, but the Gospel of Thomas doesn't? Please explain to the reader how you made your decision. I've repeatedly given my reasons. Don't be shy.

 

[FSSL]

Those who have studied the history of canonicity will find your attempt to argue for an authority of a consensus to be Romish.

Scripture bears witness to its own development and canonicity. Of course, there have been scruples over certain books for various reasons.

Where this whole discussion becomes an absurd, unique doctrine of KJVOism is that it attempts to repaint the history of canonicity and suggest that the canon was determined by an authoritative consensus, therefore an English translation was likewise.

I already showed the forum where your concepts come from. They come from a person dedicated to giving KJVOs a teaching that mimics Roman Catholicism. There is no room for soul liberty among you and your colleagues.

The idea of a standard English translation, established by a consensus, is balderdash of a high degree!

 

[FSSL]

Please tell the Reader which of these groups don't believe our 66 book Canon.

You have not been around here much to see our lively debates on 2 Peter and the ending of Revelation. I also know IFBs who believe that our Bible would have 68 books if the letters to the Laodiceans and Corinthians were found.

But that is not the point... you  attempt to use historical revisionism about canonicity in such a fashion as to bolster the KJV.

 

[Mitex]

Please tell the Reader which of these groups don't believe our 66 book Canon.

You have not been around here much to see our lively debates on 2 Peter and the ending of Revelation. I also know IFBs who believe that our Bible would have 68 books if the letters to the Laodiceans and Corinthians were found.

But that is not the point... you  attempt to use historical revisionism about canonicity in such a fashion as to bolster the KJV.

Consensus of born again Spirit filled Christians doesn?t mean that everyone (absolute unanimity) who professes to be a member of the Church of God agrees or that some particular local church won?t disagree.

Consensus is general agreement, or practical unanimity. A group of 12 might reach literal unanimity but a population of millions cannot in a million years on any of a million subjects. That is why the word ?consensus? has developed in common usage. It indicates practical unanimity, a general agreement reached without force. This should be the goal of ALL Bible texts, and all Bible translations. When it is achieved, real practical authority ensues. Bill Kincaid

Determine means to conclude or ascertain after reasoning, observation, etc. It does not meant "to create" as you fallacious imply.
Establish means to show to be valid or true.

All the groups that I listed have historically believed in a 66 book Canon. Your peculiar friends who disagree with the Canon are rightly labeled heretics or apostates by the Church of God. But thanks for the info, it helps me better understand where you get your animosity and why you refuse to succinctly define your own position. The best you can do is redirect, distort, and use straw man arguments to inflate your ego while searching for gotcha points.

 

[bgwilkinson]

Take a look at the KJV1611 canon.

The Names and Order of all the Books...

http://sceti.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=kjbible&PagePosition=36

 

[FSSL]

It indicates practical unanimity, a general agreement reached without force. This should be the goal of ALL Bible texts, and all Bible translations. When it is achieved, real practical authority ensues. Bill Kincaid

Until this so-called consensus develops, real, practical authority of God's word ensues? THIS is our problem with Bill's theology. It is Roman Catholicism with a KJVO label!

 

[bgwilkinson]

A look at the Bishop's canon.

http://www.bibles-online.net/1568/

 

[bgwilkinson]

Geneva 1583 canon.

http://www.bibles-online.net/1583/

 

[Walt]

No matter how many snail trails you follow, you cannot end up by saying that a consensus has authority and call yourself a Baptist.

I don't and won't. I know and have read about many great Christians who call themselves Baptists, however, I'm not a sectarian nor a denominationalist (1Cor 1:12-13, 1Cor 3:3-4). I am a born again Christian who believes the Scriptures. We are to do all things in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. (Col 3:17)

Those familiar with canonicity will find this to be an awful, misguided piece.

The Church of God, which is familiar with the Canon, knows that sectarian, peculiar, private and individually preferred opinions contrary to the established Canon are heretics or apostates.  Your alleged "soul liberty" does not give you license to change the Canon, established by the faith of God's elect, because of your sectarian, peculiar, private or individually preferred opinion. If you attempt to do so, the authoritative voice of the Church of God will rightly label you as heretic or apostate. 

Is it your reasoned opinion that the collective voice of the Church of God, the pillar and ground of the truth, is wrong on the Canon?

I don't understand any of this... no one has been arguing about changing the Canon... all of this argument has been about how there has been no serious dispute about changing the Canon for over about 1800 years.