Talk:Scripture

Michael Kruger’s self-authenticating canon model

The outline for Kruger's self-authenticating canon model is:

• Providential exposure
• Attributes of canonicity
  • Divine qualities
  • Apostolic origin
  • Corporate reception
• Internal testimony of the Holy Spirit

I don’t have enough header levels to match this outline exactly within my article.

Testimonium spiritus sancti internum (internal testimony of the Holy Spirit)

Michael Kruger:

Of course, once we start talking about these divine qualities contained in the canonical books, we must also discuss the means God has provided that allows them to be reliably recognized. After all, if these marks are really there in the canonical books, then how is it that so many people do not receive them or acknowledge them? If they are objectively present, why do so many reject the Bible? The answer is that, because of the noetic effects of sin, the effects of sin on the mind (Ro 3:10–18), one cannot recognize these marks without the testimonium spiritus sancti internum, the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit not only is operative within the canonical books themselves (providing the “marks” of divinity noted above), but also must be operative within those who receive them. The testimonium is not a private revelation of the Spirit or new information given to the believer—as if the list of canonical books were whispered in our ears—but it is a work of the Spirit that overcomes the noetic effects of sin and produces the belief that the Scriptures are the word of God. The reason some refuse to believe the Scriptures is not that there is any defect or lack of evidence in the Scriptures (the indicia are clear and objective) but that those without the Spirit do not accept the things from God (1Co 2:10–14).

Jesus himself affirmed this reality when he declared, “My sheep [i.e., those with the Spirit] hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me” (Jn 10:27). Likewise, he said of his sheep, “A stranger they will not follow, but they will flee from him, for they do not know the voice of strangers” (Jn 10:5). Put simply, canonical books are received by those who have the Holy Spirit in them. When people’s eyes are opened, they are struck by the divine qualities of Scripture—its beauty, harmony, efficacy—and recognize and embrace Scripture for what it is, the word of God. They realize that the voice of Scripture is the voice of the Shepherd.

It is here that we see both similarities and differences with a number of the community-determined models above. The self-authenticating model is similar to these models in that they all recognize a legitimate place for the subjective response of Christians in the authentication of the canon. The difference, however, is that the community-determined models make the subjective response foundational to the canon’s authority and, in some instances, that which constitutes the canonical authority. For example, in the existential/neoorthodox model the Scripture does not bear divine qualities in and of itself, but functions as the Word of God only when the Spirit decides to use it. In this sense, the authority of Scripture is utterly contingent on the subjective experience of those who receive it. The Spirit becomes the grounds of the canon’s authority, not the means to recognizing it. In contrast, the self-authenticating model understands the testimonium not as something that stands by itself, but as something that always stands in conjunction with the objective qualities of Scripture noted above. The two always go together. Indeed, they are two aspects of the same phenomenon, not to be unduly separated. Bavinck notes, “Scripture and the testimony of the Holy Spirit relate to each other as objective truth and subjective assurance . . . as the light and the human eye.” Thus, when a Christian embraces the Scriptures as the word of God, his actions are fully rational and warranted because they rest on the most sure basis possible—the divine attributes of Scripture. So, while there is a subjective aspect to the self-authenticating model, it is not subjectivism.

Of course, some may still object: “But how do I know I am experiencing the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit? How do I know it isn’t, say, heartburn?” The problem with this objection is that it assumes we can only know that the Scriptures are from God if we can properly identify the testimonium. But this would be true only if the testimonium were itself the grounds for our belief—as if we argued to ourselves, “Because I am having this experience of the Spirit, therefore, on that basis, the Scripture is true.” But as we have maintained, the ground for our belief is the apprehension of the divine qualities of Scripture itself, not the testimonium or our experience with it. Thus, we need not be consciously aware of the work of the Spirit for the Spirit to be, in fact, working. It seems, then, that our belief in the truth of Scripture via the work of the Spirit is best construed not as an inductive inference from some aspect of our experience (whether the Spirit or something else), but, as Jonathan Edwards noted, as a more “immediate” or “intuitive” belief.^[1]

Bavinck (cited by Kruger above):

Given these distinctions, also the charge of circular reasoning usually advanced against the testimony of the Holy Spirit is invalidated. For, strictly speaking, the testimony of the Holy Spirit is not the final ground but the means of faith. The ground of faith is, and can only be, Scripture, or rather, the authority of God, which comes upon the believer materially in the content as well as formally in the witness of Scripture. Hence the ground of faith is identical with its content and cannot, as Herrmann believes, be detached from it. Scripture as the word of God is simultaneously the material and the formal object of faith. But the testimony of the Holy Spirit is “the efficient cause,” “the principle by which,” of faith. We believe Scripture, not because of, but by means of the testimony of the Holy Spirit. Scripture and the testimony of the Holy Spirit relate to each other as objective truth and subjective assurance, as the first principles and their self-evidence, as the light and the human eye. Once it is has been recognized in its divinity, Scripture is incontrovertibly certain to the faith of the believing community, so that it is both the principle and the norm of faith and life.^[2]

Edwards (cited by Kruger above):

It seems to me, that in many instances, when the glory of christian truths has been set before persons, and they have at the same time as it were seen, and tasted, and felt the divinity of them, they have been as far from doubting their truth, as they are from doubting whether there be a sun, when their eyes are open in the midst of a clear hemisphere, and the strong blaze of his light overcomes all objections. And yet, many of them, if we should ask them why they believed those things to be true, would not be able well to express or communicate a sufficient reason to satisfy the inquirer; and perhaps would make no other answer but that they see them to be true. But a person might soon be satisfied, by a particular conversation with them, that what they mean by such an answer is, that they have intuitively beheld, and immediately felt, most illustrious and powerful evidence of divinity in them.^[3]

Calvin (cited by Kruger in a footnote near where he said, “The testimonium is not a private revelation of the Spirit or new information given to the believer”):

But in promising it, of what sort did he declare his Spirit would be? One that would speak not from himself but would suggest to and instill into their minds what he had handed on through the Word [John 16:13]. Therefore the Spirit, promised to us, has not the task of inventing new and unheard-of revelations, or of forging a new kind of doctrine, to lead us away from the received doctrine of the gospel, but of sealing our minds with that very doctrine which is commended by the gospel.^[4]

Kruger also quotes Ned Stonehouse on the testimonium operating corporately:

Although the church lacks infallibility, its confession with regard to the Scriptures, represents not mere opinion but an evaluation which is valid as derived from, and corresponding with, the testimony of the Scriptures to their own character. The basic fact of canonicity remains, then, the testimony which the Scriptures bear to their own authority. But the historian of the canon must recognize the further fact that the intrinsic authority established itself in the history of the church through the government of its divine head.^[5]

Inerrancy of

Need to add this new section to the topic.

Thinking about inerrancy

I’ve seen various authors argue that text variants aren’t an issue because they don’t make any material doctrinal difference.

The variant readings in the manuscripts are not of such a nature that they threaten to overthrow our faith. Except for a few instances, we have an unquestioned text; and even then not one principle of faith or command of the Lord is involved.^[6]

The overwhelming majority of the text of the Greek New Testament is firmly established. Where uncertainties remain, it is important to recognize that in no case is any doctrinal matter at issue.^[7]

The variant readings about which any doubt remains among textual critics of the New Testament affect no material question of historic fact or of Christian faith and practice.^[8]

Where real discrepancies and doubts remain as to the authenticity of certain sayings, on the basis of textual-critical rather than higher-critical analysis, they do not affect any point of the church’s faith and practice.^[9]

Do we need to have absolute 100 percent certainty about every single textual variant for God to speak authoritatively in the Scriptures? Not at all. When we recognize not only how few unresolved variants exist but also how little they impact the overall story of the New Testament, then we can have confidence that the message of the New Testament has been sufficiently preserved for the church. All the teaching of the New Testament—whether regarding the person of Jesus (divinity and humanity), the work of Jesus (his life, death, and resurrection), the application of his work to the believer (justification, sanctification, glorification), or other doctrines—are left unaffected by the remaining unresolved textual variations.^[10]

But what exactly would make a material doctrinal difference? Are there any known variant examples that could contradict the claim? The omission of 1Jn 5:7 comes to mind, but isn’t a good example. How about the change in Jn 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; 1Jn 4:9 of monogennetos to monogenēs? This has obvious implications for the doctrine of personal properties and relations of origin and, if I’m not mistaken, is one of the catalysts of the egalitarian movement in Trinity debates. Was it ever actually monogennetos in any Greek manuscript, though, or did the English “only begotten” creep in through a bad translation into Latin and then into English? No, I don’t think it was ever monogennetos in any Greek text and, at any rate, Charles Lee Irons has argued persuasively that monogenēs does in fact mean “only begotten”.

Is a doctrinally material variant even possible? Can we imagine a change to any single passage that would drastically alter an essential doctrine? Carson and Moo don’t seem to think so:

Of course, textual variants may raise the question as to whether a particular doctrinal stance or historical datum is or is not supported in this or that passage, but inevitably one can appeal to parallel passages where the text is secure to address the larger doctrinal or historical issues.^[11]

On the essential doctrines, the Bible is redundant enough that none of these doctrines hang on any one passage. But is this a case of circular reasoning? Since we define our essential doctrines as those that have redundant scriptural support, by definition any change to a single passage can't constitute a change in an essential doctrine. So is all this moot anyway?

Grudem makes an interesting claim in his Systematic Theology:

Furthermore, we know where the uncertain readings are (for where there are no textual variants we have no reason to expect faulty copying of the original).^[12]

I got curious about this claim, so I looked up the changes between NA27 and NA28. I wondered if any of them were due to variants in new manuscript discoveries, or were the changes made because the balance in power between already known variants changed in light of new manuscript discoveries? Turns out, every single change did involve an already known variant. So Grudem might be right, which is pretty cool.

So that gets me back to my original question: what kind of variant could wreck our doctrine? Could we discover a manuscript tomorrow that’s older and better than Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus and has significant enough variants that it changes everything? What would those variants have to look like?

P.S. Carson and Moo speculate that if we had the autographs we would idolize them instead of reading them, so maybe we’re better off without them. 😊

Perhaps too, it is worth speculating that, in God’s providence, we are better off without the originals, for we would almost certainly have treated them with idolatrous reverence focused more on the mere artifact than on what the manuscript actually said.^[13]

Mine this for content

Every occurence of γραφή [graphē] (“writing” or “Scripture”)

Mt 21:42; 22:29; 26:54, 56; Mk 12:10, 24; 14:49; Lk 4:21; 24:27, 32, 45; Jn 2:22; 5:39; 7:38, 42; 10:35; 13:18; 17:12; 19:24, 28, 36–37; 20:9; Ac 1:16; 8:32, 35; 17:2, 11; 18:24, 28; Ro 1:2; 4:3; 9:17; 10:11; 11:2; 15:4; 16:26; 1Co 15:3–4; Gal 3:8, 22; 4:30; 1Ti 5:18; 2Ti 3:16; Jas 2:8, 23; 4:5; 1Pe 2:6; 2Pe 1:20; 3:16

“God” or “Lord” within 2 words of “word”

Nu 22:38; 24:4, 16; Dt 5:22; 1Sa 9:27; 2Sa 16:23; 22:1; 1Ki 12:22; 2Ki 6:9; Job 34:37; Ps 5:1; 56:4, 10; 107:11; 119:89; Pr 30:5; Ecc 5:2; Dan 10:12; Mt 15:6; Mk 7:13; Lk 3:2; 5:1; 8:11, 21; 11:28; 24:19; Jn 1:1; 3:34; 8:47; 10:35; Ac 4:31; 6:2, 7; 8:14; 11:1; 12:24; 13:5, 7, 46; 17:13; 18:11; Ro 9:6; 1Co 14:36; 2Co 2:17; 4:2; Eph 6:17; Col 1:25; 1Th 2:13; 1Ti 4:5; 2Ti 2:9; Titus 2:5; Heb 4:12; 6:5; 11:3; 13:7; 1Pe 1:23; 2Pe 3:5; 1Jn 2:14; Rev 1:2, 9; 6:9; 17:17; 19:9, 13; 20:4

Interesting article

• John Piper: Thoughts on the Sufficiency of Scripture

1. Kruger, Michael J. (2012). Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New Testament Books (Kindle Locations 2666-2709). Crossway. Kindle Edition. #
2. Bavinck, H., Bolt, J., & Vriend, J. (2003). Reformed dogmatics: Prolegomena (Vol. 1, pp. 597–598). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic. #
3. Edwards, Jonathan. (2008). The works of Jonathan Edwards (Vol. 1, p. 356). Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software. #
4. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion 1.9.1. #
5. Kruger, Michael J. (2012). Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New Testament Books (Kindle Locations 2751-2755). Crossway. Kindle Edition. #
6. Lightfoot, Neil. How We Got the Bible (p. 103). Baker Book Group. Kindle Edition. #
7. Carson, D. A.; Moo, Douglas. An Introduction to the New Testament (Kindle Locations 413–414). Zondervan. Kindle Edition. #
8. F. F. Bruce. The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? (Kindle Locations 221–222). Kindle Edition. #
9. Horton, Michael. The Christian Faith: A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims on the Way (Kindle Locations 4324–4326). Zondervan. Kindle Edition. #
10. Köstenberger, Andreas J. The Heresy of Orthodoxy: How Contemporary Culture’s Fascination with Diversity Has Reshaped Our Understanding of Early Christianity (pp. 227–228). Crossway. Kindle Edition. #
11. Carson, D. A.; Moo, Douglas J. An Introduction to the New Testament (Kindle Locations 414-416). Zondervan. Kindle Edition. #
12. Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (p. 96). Zondervan. Kindle Edition. #
13. Carson, D. A.; Moo, Douglas J. An Introduction to the New Testament (Kindle Locations 418–420). Zondervan. Kindle Edition. #