Issues Inside and Outside the BFM2000: Caveats, Tiers, a “Canon within the Canon” or “Canon” vs. “Apocrypha?” (I)

Well, I never heard anything back from Tim Guthrie by email.  And, Tim, I never could figure out how to get to your blog (assuming you have one).  So, if you responded to my “ground rules” there, and wrote an initial “take” on this subject matter, I apologize and we can still merge this, if you like.

But, if Tim is not going to be involved, I’m going to adjust the subject more to my liking.  Tim wanted to deal with the issue of caveats related to the BFM2000.  I don’t think that’s anywhere close to the main issue in SBC circles right now.  But, it is still worth looking at–and could be easily become significant at some point in the not terribly distant future.  So, I’ll keep it in the mix of things.

 If you read my “Coming Attractions” earlier today, I pledged myself to trying my best to keep these studies: 1) Selective; 2) Simple; and 3) Specific to the SBC context.  I also have said that I’m going try to resist jumping the gun on drawing hard and fast applicational principles for the SBC today before the data has sufficiently clarified (though I will take note of what appears to be promising areas to consider as we move along.)  So, with that having been said, fasten your seat belt and here we go.

What Showeth the Scriptures?

As we begin looking at the New Testament as the biblical “seedplot” for the issues we are facing today in the SBC, a couple of passages in the Pastoral Epistles are very significant.  In 1 Timothy 5:18, the Apostle Paul quotes Deuteronomy 25:4 and Luke 10:7 side-by-side and calls both “Scripture.”  In 2 Timothy 3:16, Paul says “All Scripture is inspired by God, and profitable for teaching…” (HCSB). 

In these two passages, we see: 1) the canon of the NT growing (in this case, Paul’s quotation of Luke’s Gospel, which probably had not been in existence for more than a very few years at the time he wrote 1 Timothy); and 2) not only an early theological impulse, but a clear statement that God intends Scripture to be “mined” doctrinally by His people.

The remainder of my examples in this first installment are going to be taken from 1 Corinthians.  I will lay out the relevant passages, then draw some tentative ideas for reflection.

Moving consecutively, 1 Corinthians 4:6 warns the Corinthians: “Nothing beyond what is written.”  At the point at which 1 Corinthians was written (probably about A.D. 56), this would probably have referred to the canon of the Old Testament.  Paul was warning the Corinthian believers to limit themselves to what they knew to be Scripture–what had Divine authority.

Next in line is 1 Corinthians 5:9.  There Paul speaks of a previous “letter” he had written this church, but which is not preserved today.  When I have taught NT Introduction, I have made it a point of emphasis that the Corinthian church actually received four letters from Paul: two that we have in the NT (which we call 1 and 2 Corinthians) and two which are not Scripture (the one mentioned in 1 Corinthians 5:9 and another spoken of in 2 Corinthians 2:3,4,9).  These passages demonstrate that the process of determining what books were indeed Scripture could be tricky.  In this case, we see that not even everything Paul wrote, even to the same church and in related circumstances, was canonical.

The final passages we will consider in 1 Corinthians are doctrinal in nature.  In 1 Corinthians 12:3, the compressed confession “Jesus is Lord” is stated.  In 1 Corinthians 15:1-11, Paul lays out the historical side of the Gospel message: “You are also saved by [the gospel], if you hold to the message I proclaimed to you”: Christ’s death, burial and resurrection, which was witnessed by well over 500 people between Christ being raised from the dead and ascending to heaven (15:2-6).  These doctrinal “nuggets” reflect the reality that core doctrines were already necessarily being expressed in independent statements during the first generation of the church’s existence, in order to keep the doctrine pure.  The concept of broader doctrinal statements did not emerge until much later in church history.

So, where are we in regard to our areas of interest as we conclude this initial study?

- Caveats: With the very limited and brief doctrinal expressions seen in the NT, any disagreement at all pretty much branded you an unbeliever, or at least a heretic.

Tiers: It is possible that the doctrinal areas which were developed in the earliest confession-like statements in the NT should still be considered the most important/central.  If so, the reference to the nature of Scripture (2 Timothy 3:16), the person and work of Christ (e.g., Philippians 2:6-11; Colossians 1:14-20; 1 Timothy 3:16) and the gospel message (1 Corinthians 15:1-11) are crucial for our consideration in regard to the idea of “tiers.”  We will return to consider this again later in our series.

A Canon within the Canon: Certainly, it way too early to see anything like that in the NT, as it was still being written and would not be formally recognized as a “canon” until the 4th century A.D.  However, the NT’s use of the OT is worthy of note in this area.  Although Jesus effectively said that all parts of the Hebrew Bible were equally authoritative (Matthew 5:17-18), it is known from the OT locations of the quotations in the NT that certain books were used much more often than others (and some not at all, like Esther).  So, the phenomena of OT usage in the NT somewhat resembles the way most SBC pastors employ their Bibles in preaching.  All you have to do is look at their Bibles and note the dirty/wrinkled/used parts and you will see our unadmitted “canon within the canon.”  Almost every SBC pastor, though affirming theologically the equal inspiration of all 66 books of the Bible without hesitation, tends to focus on the NT and only certain books there at that.

Canon vs. Apocrypha: I’m guilty here of reading back these much later terms into the NT.  But, knowing I’m doing that, something useful can still come out of it.  How?  As the NT was being written (and passages like 1 Timothy 5:17-18 and 2 Peter 3:16 reveal that the writers and others were well aware that Scripture was being produced), it would have been easy for other books (such as Paul’s two non-Scripture letters to the church at Corinth) to gain a status that was close to Scripture.  But, the early church would not allow it, which displays great wisdom and is to their everlating credit.  Unfortunately, as church history progressed, the ability to resist the lure of apocryphal books lessened, until things got to a crisis point some time before the Protestant Reformation began.

Vantage point as we end this first stanza: Not much has been seen that can help in understanding the “Caveats” issue yet and the only thing of consequence that might be of benefit in discussing the possibility of doctrinal ”Tiers” is to observe what doctrines crystalized earlies in the NT, assuming that might reflect the most foundational/important/ central theological emphases.  In regard to the “Canon within the Canon” question–which may also have significance for the “Tiers” issue–the use of the OT in the NT may provide some clues worth pursuing.  Finally, the dramatic difference between true inspired/authoritative NT books and all other writings (i.e., “Canon vs. Apocrypha”), even if authored by one of the apostles, has been crystal clear since the NT era. 

As I close, is it just me, or is passing odd that, while even believers in the NT era could see the clear distinction between what has historically been called the authoritative “canon” vs. the non-authoritative writings (which could be referred to as “apocrypha”), the SBC in the early 21st century is currently falling prey to a blurring of these most basic, foundational distinctions?  The authoritative “canon” status of the only “only consensus doctrinal statement” passed by the Convention, the BFM2000, is in the process of being subtly undermined by the non-consensus (and, thus, lacking full authority) “apocyphal” de facto doctrinal guidelines/ policies of some of her entities.  If we open our eyes, is this not a big enough crisis of authority to gain our fully-deserved concern and attention, or will we slumber, only to wake up with a doctrinal statement effectively ”neutered” by all the pseudo-authoritative entity pronouncements that have been encrusted upon it?

Next Time: “The Relevance of the Doctrinal Statements of Earlier Church History for Studying the BFM2000″