Theological Term of the Week

 

canon of scripture

The collection of writings that are divinely inspired and therefore authoritative, sacred, and binding; the list of books that are inspired Scripture.

• From The Belgic Confession, Articles 4 and 5: 

We believe that the Holy Scriptures consist of two parts, namely, the Old and the New Testament, which are canonical, against which nothing can be alleged. These books are listed in the church of God as follows.

The books of the Old Testament: the five books of Moses, namely, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings, 1 and 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther; Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs; Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi.

The books of the New Testament: the four gospels, namely, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; the Acts of the Apostles; the thirteen letters of the apostle Paul, namely, Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon; the letter to the Hebrews; the seven other letters, namely, James, 1 and 2 Peter, 1, 2 and 3 John, Jude; and the Revelation to the apostle John.

We receive all these books, and these only, as holy and canonical, for the regulation, foundation, and confirmation of our faith. We believe without any doubt all things contained in them, not so much because the church receives and approves them as such, but especially because the Holy Spirit witnesses in our hearts that they are from God, and also because they contain the evidence thereof in themselves; for, even the blind are able to perceive that the things foretold in them are being fulfilled.

•  From In Understanding Be Men by T. C. Hammond:

We need to remember that the books were canonical (by reason of their own intrinsic nature or in virtue of the authority of the writers) before they were collected into a Canon as we know it. The production of a list of ‘official’ writings does not make those writings any more ‘official’ than they were originally. Similarly, it is necessary to keep distinctly in mind that whereas ‘inspiration’ relates to the divine control of the writers, the Canon relates to the number of such writers which were admitted to be ‘inspired’. One writer has aptly remarked, ‘The Bible is not an authorized collection of books, but a collection of authorized books.’

• From J. I. Packer in Truth and Power:

To see the canonizing process, as some seem to do, as the postapostolic church meeting its own felt need of a court of appeal, and to consider on that basis how providence, the Spirit, study and church authority combined to give us the books we now have, is to miss the essence of what went on. Essentially, what was happening was this: the apostolic message about redemption, which was and is part of the saving fact of Christ, was authenticating itself from God in its written form, just as it had authenticated itself when first preached in Jerusalem, Samaria, Corinth and Rome. Christ had authorized the apostles to declare this message with his authority, and so by the Spirit they did, both orally and in writing. The church’s historic recognition of written apostolic witness as the New Testament canon means essentially that the church acknowledges it to be God’s word of salvation. Inquiry into the pedigree, use and contents of particular books can make it seem reasonable to accept them as authentic and unreasonable not to, but ultimately the church’s acceptance of them in each generation is because they impose themselves — because, that is, the church hears in them the saving word of God.

Learn more:

1. Blue Letter Bible: The Canon of Scripture
   
2. Got Questions.org: What is the canon of Scripture?
3. ESV Study Bible: The Canon of Scripture
   
4. Michael J. Kruger: Definitions of the Term Canon (pdf) and How Did the New Testament Canon Develop? (video)
5. Michael J. Kruger: The Definition of ‘Canon’: Exclusive or Multi-Dimensional?, The Origins of Canon: Was the Idea of a New Testament a Late Ecclesiastical Development?, The Artifacts of Canon: Manuscripts as a Window into the Development of the New Testament, The Messiness of the Canon: Do Disagreements Amongst Early Christians Pose a Threat to Our Belief in the New Testament? (mp3s)
6. Wayne Grudem: The Old Testament Canon, The New Testament Canon (mp3)
7. Bible Research: A collection of articles

Related terms:

• authority of scripture
• inerrancy of scripture
• infallibility of scripture
• inspiration of scripture

Filed under Scripture.

Have you come across a theological term that you don’t understand and you’d like to see featured here as a Theological Term of the Week? If you email it to me, I’ll seriously consider using it, giving you credit for the suggestion and linking back to your blog when I do.

Sunday's Hymn: Penal Substitutionary Atonement

I’m continuing with the theme of teaching one another with hymns, based on Colossians 3:19. That means the Sunday hymn will be chosen because it teaches us something about a particular doctrine of the faith.

 

This week’s teaching is the doctrine that Christ, in his atoning work, paid the penalty that was rightfully ours by taking our place, and it’s found in this hymn by Philip P. Bliss.

Hallelujah! What a Savior

 

Man of Sorrows! what a name
For the Son of God, who came
Ruined sinners to reclaim.
Hallelujah! What a Savior!

Bearing shame and scoffing rude,
In my place condemned He stood;
Sealed my pardon with His blood.
Hallelujah! What a Savior!

Guilty, vile, and helpless we;
Spotless Lamb of God was He;
“Full atonement!” can it be?
Hallelujah! What a Savior!

Lifted up was He to die;
“It is finished!” was His cry;
Now in Heav’n exalted high.
Hallelujah! What a Savior!

When He comes, our glorious King,
All His ransomed home to bring,
Then anew His song we’ll sing:
Hallelujah! What a Savior!

We were “guilty, vile, and helpless,” but Christ, the “spotless Lamb of God,” stood condemned in our place. You’ll find scriptural evidence for the substitutionary nature of the atonement in this old post: Purposes of Christ’s Death: 2 Corinthians 5:14-15, 21. You can hear this hymn here.

 

Other hymns, worship songs, etc. posted today:

• How Lovely Is Thy Dwelling Place at joythruChrist
• The Collect for the Twentieth Sunday After Trinity at Magic Statistics
• How Deep the Father’s Love for Us at The Happy Wonderer
• Lord’s Day 42, 2007 at The Thirsty Theologian
  
• Though Troubles Assail Us at Hiraeth
• Christ is Made the Sure Foundation at Seasoning of the Heart
• The Church’s One Foundation at Lux Venit
• There’s a Fountain Flowing at Thoughts from the Teahouse
• All Things Bright and Beautiful at Whatever Things…
  

Have you posted a hymn this Sunday and I missed it? Let me know by leaving a link in the comments or by emailing me at the address in the sidebar and I’ll add your post to the list.

Book Review: Rethinking Worldview

Learning to Think, Live, and Speak in This W0rld by J. Mark Bertrand

I grew up in a Christian household that analyzed everything. We analyzed ideas in conversations at the dinner table, during chats in the car on the way to town, and in visits with friends in the living room. During these discussions, a belief would be held up to the light, so to speak, and turned over, examined, to see where (or if) it fit into our system, as if it were a puzzle piece that may or may not fit into a half-done jigsaw puzzle. If the discussions in the living room carried on after I was sent upstairs to bed, I’d listen in from the top of the stairs, following the reasoning as well as I could.

So although we never used the term worldview, since it was not commonly used in Christian circles then, I grew up with a basic concept of worldview thinking. When the Christian worldview bandwagon came along and I read a little about it, my first thought was  “ho-hum.” I’d been examining other people’s worldviews and finding them wanting for years, and I wasn’t afraid to ask the sort of questions that showed the incoherence of their systems. Yet, while the exercise was helpful in firming up my own faith, I couldn’t point to one person who had come over to my worldview, even when answering my questions tied them up in knots as they tried to make a coherent system out of their incoherent one. And as I understood it from my surface level reading on the concept of worldview, the whole point was to show how my faith made more sense than their ideology in order to bring them over to my side. Well, it hadn’t proved to be  a sure-fire weapon for me!

Click to read more ...