Reddit reviews Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New Testament Books
We found 12 Reddit comments about Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New Testament Books. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.
If you want a Conservative Scholarly treatment of the problem of the Canon, I'd suggest reading Canon Revisited by Michael Kruger. He also has a series of lectures on the Reformed Theological Seminary (RTS) mobile app called "The Origin and Authority of the New Testament Canon" that are really good (here is the course syllabus: PDF warning. This is a tough subject, but if you really want to dig deep into it Michael Kruger is the go-to scholar for a Conservative Reformed approach to the Canon of scripture.
I would recommend the work of Michael
Kruger like Canon Revisited or The Question of Canon.
Beyond that, a classic is Warfield's The Authority and Inspiration of the Bible. Maybe even Blomberg's The Historical Reliability of the Gospels.
Tanhan, seriously?
There was no council that decided it. Hippo simply affirmed what was already in use. Kruger is literally the guy on the canon right now. He has written several books on the subject.
Good books on the development of NT canon:
The Question of Canon: Challenging the Status Quo in the New Testament Debate
Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New Testament Books
An interesting program refuting common objections to Sola Scriptura: Dr. Michael Kruger on the Dividing Line
A lot of good comments here. I suggest you read a good book on the history of the canon, though. You’re operating with a few misconceptions.
Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New Testament Books https://www.amazon.com/dp/1433505002/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_b8YnDbAKH12AB
The Canon of Scripture by F.F. Bruce. Can't go wrong with anything by F.F. Bruce imo hahah.
Metzger has a book on the subject that I haven't read yet but what to. He's one of the best scholars of the last 50 years.
Kruger is a prof at RTS so this is one that probably has a reformed bent to it. Haven't read this one yet either, but it is suppose to be good.
That's a lot of questions! I'll try to provide some answers, but obviously they will be brief and just starting points. I'll point you to resources/books that will answer your questions more exhaustively when I can, since some of your questions have been answered in many books.
First, I would expand a little bit on your definition of Sola Scriptura. It means that Scripture and Scripture alone is our final authority in the church. (Note: it is not the only authority. We value tradition, experience and reason as well, but they are not the final authority.)
>What is the historic evidence of Sola Scriptura?
Not sure what you mean by historic evidence, but I would take the writings of the early church fathers, where they would appeal to the Scriptures as final authority. It's very hard to answer such a broad question on a medium like this. Now, if you want an early church father explicitly defending this doctrine, then there is none, as far as I know. This is simply because it was not a doctrine that was fought over, hence not a lot of the early church fathers wrote explicitly on this. (This applies to heaps of other doctrines.)
>How do advocates of Sola Scriptura answer the charge of knowing the canon of Scripture while the canon not being listed (explicitly) in Scripture?
See Michael Kruger's book, Canon Revisited.
>Does the Bible say that it is sufficient to be the rule of Christian faith and practice? It seems that the verses: 1 Timothy 3:15, 2 Timothy 3:16–17, 2 Thessalonians 2:15 and many others seem to indicate that not only does Scripture not mention self sufficiency but rather as a practical guide, with Tradition being on equal par as an inspired pair with Scripture.
In these passages, why would you take the word "tradition" as how the Roman Catholic church would define it? I would read "tradition" as Paul's teaching as passed on to them, which is then enscripturated in the Bible. There's nothing in those passages that requires Tradition being on equal par with Scripture. It is only that if you have already assumed the meaning of the word "Tradition" as only how the RC church would define it.
>How do advocates of Sola Scriptura answer Cardinal Newman's argument against Sola Scriptura on the basis that pulling from some of the Pauline Epistles proves to much: "Now, a good part of the New Testament was not written in his boyhood: Some of the Catholic epistles were not written even when Paul wrote this, and none of the books of the New Testament were then placed on the canon of the Scripture books. He refers, then, to the scriptures of the Old Testament, and, if the argument from this passage proved anything, it would prove too much, viz., that the scriptures of the New Testament were not necessary for a rule of faith."
I'm not exactly sure what he means. If you would rephrase it, it would be helpful. But if I'm reading him correct, he seems to say that it's too much to base our doctrine of Sola Scriptura on the writings of Paul. Well, we don't just rely on Paul's writings to defend the doctrine. In fact, I would argue that if properly defended, Sola Scriptura can be defended from the whole Old Testament all the way to the New.
Penal Substitution
>If Christ's death was efficacious for the removal of the punishment of sin of human beings, being fully of God, why wouldn't everyone be saved?
Good question! That's why Calvinist do not believe that Christ death was efficacious for the removal of the punishment of all human beings, but only for the elect. This is the "L" (Limited Atonement) in TULIP, although I prefer the term "Particular/Definite Redemption". To sum that doctrine up - "Sufficient for all, efficient for the elect."
>Why should we think that it is even possible for Christ to take on moral responsibility for our current and past sins?
On the one hand, why is it up to us? We believe Scripture says so, and thus we believe it. On the other hand, you can point to the doctrine of union with Christ - we become one with Christ, or united with Christ when we believe in him. Because of that, he is able to take on moral responsibility for our sins. What is ours are his, and what is his is ours. It's like in a marriage. When you marry someone, everything that he/she has is yours, and everything that is yours is hers/his, and that include things like debt.
Justification by Faith
>What Biblical basis is there that it is only by faith we are justified?
Heaps. Romans 3:21ff, Romans 4 (where Abraham is used as an OT example), Ephesians 2:1-11, Galatians, etc. Now, just in case you don't know, the RC notion of justification is different from the Protestant doctrine of justification. So, before you go any further, I think it's best that you know that first.
>Does the act of believing, or baptism, show a correspondence of works and faith?
Not sure what you mean by this. Please elaborate.
>What is the historic evidence of Sola Fide?
See answer above on historic evidence of Sola Scriptura. It's there in the writings of the early church fathers, but it is not explicit, since it was not something the church fought over. The early church fought over other things (Trinity, Christology), and that's why you see their writings focusing so much on those things. Sola fide was really only seriously fought over during the Reformation, that's why there are numerous writings on this during that time. This doesn't mean that it's not there in the early church, it definitely is. But it is inchoate.
I love Micheal Kruger's books Canon revisited and The question of Canon. If you really want to dive into the subject D.A. Carson's The Enduring Authority of the Christian Scriptures is an amazing resource.
I like the method presented in Michael Kruger's book Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New Testament Books. He calls it the self-authenticating method (by listening to some of what you mentioned you might have heard of it). It is essentially this: canonical books must meet four criteria – 1. Providntial Exposer 2. Divine Qualities 3. Corporate Reception and 4. Apostolic Origins.
There is a ton of nuance there, but I think that the method he presents is the best considering the alternatives. This method makes a case for Revelation as canon and perhaps Enoch as scripture (again, a lot of nuance, and in his book he talks about books that were Scripture but are not canon, such as Paul's lost letters).
Overall, the canon must be self auhthenticating, and a lot of methods we use to argue for canonical books rely on authority that rests outside of God and his Word. I highly suggest reading his book. If you want a free .mobi or .epub copy direct message me.
I think there is a vast difference between claiming someone has a view you disagree with and claiming someone is being purposely and nefariously dishonest. I've read and interacted with Kruger's writings, namely (as it is related to this issue) his book Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New Testament Book. Kruger does a great job fairly presenting and countering some of the contemporary claims presented by critical scholars regarding canonicity and the first two centuries of the church. For what it's worth, I don't at all get the impression that he is lying. He believes what he is saying.
I've heard good things about Michael Kruger, you should check him out. You can try the OPC Q&A if you want a short treatment of the topic, to begin with. They answer a lot of questions like this one about canonicity, in that Q&A section.
Grace and peace.
Hey there brother, I would encourage you to do a little more research into how canon was established.
A few points:
Further light reading:
More reading: