NoWelch'sPlease
New Member
From what I understand, Bibles used by various protestants in the late 1880s had more than 66 books. So, when did your denomination decide how many books are in the Bible which was given to us by God?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Baptists: When did your denomination decide the canon?
- Thread starter NoWelch'sPlease
- Start date
For the first 1500 years of the history of Christianity, those books cut out of the bible were always included. Even the sects Baptists hitch their wagons to used those books. Quite simple really…primarily, the early reformers had issues with what the Catholic Church taught. In order to make Protestantism more to their liking, and couldn’t justify eliminating/changing some things while they remained in the Bible. That’s why Maccabees 1 and 2 came out and was included up to this time (big chunk of purgatory doctrine). Luther also wanted the Letter of James taken out (shows that works and faith go hand-in-hand), as well as the Book of Revelation (because he knew a large chunk of it correlates with the Catholic Mass)…but alas, was unsuccessful in doing so.
Baptists often try to point out the differences in the number of books between the Catholic Bible and the Protestant Bibles, insinuating that the Catholic church has ADDED books. They have in the backs of their minds scripture warning not to add or take anything away from God’s word…yet fail to realize that it was the heretics who founded Protestantism that removed these books. I respect another’s opinion and am in no way calling all Protestants heretics…only those who split and began teaching their own doctrine. Protestants who’ve been raised in these churches, I don’t see as being heretics, (I was one) only lacking exposure to the full truth not by their own fault. And to be fair…there have been MANY heretics in the Catholic church who had warped ideas of what the church is about/teach. I have come across Catholics who believe we worship Mary (ignorantly), and all of the other stereotypes you hear about Catholics. But the truth is, that is NOT what the Church teaches. These ‘Catholics’ whom actually believe these things, I’ve found are often the ones which seriously lack faith formation, don’t read scripture, and have never picked up a Catechism.
Baptists often try to point out the differences in the number of books between the Catholic Bible and the Protestant Bibles, insinuating that the Catholic church has ADDED books. They have in the backs of their minds scripture warning not to add or take anything away from God’s word…yet fail to realize that it was the heretics who founded Protestantism that removed these books. I respect another’s opinion and am in no way calling all Protestants heretics…only those who split and began teaching their own doctrine. Protestants who’ve been raised in these churches, I don’t see as being heretics, (I was one) only lacking exposure to the full truth not by their own fault. And to be fair…there have been MANY heretics in the Catholic church who had warped ideas of what the church is about/teach. I have come across Catholics who believe we worship Mary (ignorantly), and all of the other stereotypes you hear about Catholics. But the truth is, that is NOT what the Church teaches. These ‘Catholics’ whom actually believe these things, I’ve found are often the ones which seriously lack faith formation, don’t read scripture, and have never picked up a Catechism.
Last edited:
The KJV had more than 66. To this day Anglicans include these books in their reading during their services.
NoWelch'sPlease
New Member
As a Catholic, I agree with what you are saying, I wanted a Baptist's viewpoint. For example, what Bible did John Smyth use? The Geneva Bible? From what I understand, it wasn't until fairly recently that they have been using 66 books.
So, who, and when did they decide the canon?
NoWelch'sPlease
New Member
I'll check into it, thanks!
NoWelch'sPlease
New Member
Me too! And if you have any other thoughts on this subject, feel free to share as I am pretty sure I will not get answers from Baptists. Not only because they do not know the answer off hand, but also because the information is scarce in their circles.
We used Bibles translated by English speaking Reformed Believers living in exile in Geneva, hence the Geneva Bible and the final translation authorized by the Church of England aka the Authorized Version of 1611. We Baptists just bought what was sold at the booksellers.
London Baptist Confession (1689):
"The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon or rule of the Scripture, and, therefore, are of no authority to the church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved or made use of than other human writings."
John Smythe (1608):
books.google.com/books?id=qDQ9AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA280
"No writinges of ordinary men how holy or good soever are given by inspiration, & therefore are subject to error & imperfect & so Apocrypha."
RighteousnessTemperance&
Well-Known Member
AFAIK, virtually all of Christendom (and Judaism as well) accepts the 39* OT books as canonical, but there is not universal agreement historically on the status and extent of the Aprocrypha, including the Catholic Church with the Constantinian Church. It would seem that the modern Catholic position was not made official until 1546 at the Council of Trent.
*Evidently the Book of Esther has a bit of shaky history.
Protestant churches have never had more than 66 books in their canon. Here is Article VI of the XXXIX Articles of the Church of England, dated 1553, sixty years before the KJV.
VI. OF THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES FOR SALVATION
HOLY Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of the holy Scripture we do understand those Canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.
Of the Names and Number of the Canonical Books
Genesis Exodus Leviticus Numbers Deuteronomy Joshua Judges Ruth The First Book of Samuel The Second Book of Samuel The First Book of Kings The Second Book of Kings The First Book of Chronicles The Second Book of Chronicles The First Book of Esdras The Second Book of Esdras The Book of Esther The Book of Job The Psalms The Proverbs
Ecclesiastes or Preacher Cantica, or Songs of Solomon Four Prophets the greater Twelve Prophets the less
And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine [boldening mine. M.M.]; such are these following:
The Third Book of Esdras The Fourth Book of Esdras The Book of Tobias The Book of Judith The rest of the Book of Esther
The Book of Wisdom Jesus the Son of Sirach Baruch the Prophet The Song of the Three ChildrenThe Story of Susanna
Of Bel and the Dragon The Prayer of Manasses The First Book of Maccabees The Second Book of Maccabees
N.B. The 'First and Second Books of Esdras' are what we today call Ezra and Nehemiah.
All the translators of the KJV were Anglicans and agreed with this O.T. canon. The Apocrypha was included in the KJV for reference purposes, but was not regarded as part of the Canon, as stated above.
NoWelch'sPlease
New Member
Thanks for the information! And I think it is Smyth, isn't it?
Of course Baptists are Protestants! Here is what a Baptist historian who at one time believed (as I once did) that Baptists were not products of the Reformation learned as he tried to prove Nap Successionism:
'Thankfully intellectually honest Baptists, such as James McGoldrick who was once himself a believer in Baptist successionism are conceding that this "trail of blood" view is, frankly, bogus. McGoldrick writes:
Extensive graduate study and independent investigation of church history has, however, convinced [the author] that the view he once held so dear has not been, and cannot be, verified. On the contrary, surviving primary documents render the successionist view untenable. . . . Although free church groups in ancient and medieval times sometimes promoted doctrines and practices agreeable to modern Baptists, when judged by standards now acknowledged as baptistic, not one of them merits recognition as a Baptist church. Baptists arose in the 17th century in Holland and England. They are Protestants, heirs of the reformers.' (Baptist Successionism: A Crucial Question in Baptist History [1994], 1–2)
This is NOT a Catholic historian, my brother in Jesus, this is one of your own!
I am very happy to call myself a Protestant as well as a Baptist. The Baptists completed the Reformation by casting out the last remnant of Romanism, infant baptism.
There were certainly baptistic movements before the Baptists. One of them was the Petrobusians, named after a guy called Peter de Bruys. There distinctives were, SFAIK:
1. They denied infant baptism, baptizing only those who made a profession of faith.
2. They denied the holiness of church buildings and altars.
3. They refused to venerate the sign of the cross.
4. The denied the doctrine of Transubstantiation and the sacrifice of the mass.
5. They denied that prayers or good works done on earth could help those who had already died.
6. They opposed the celibacy of the clergy.
Of course, Peter de Bruys was burned at the stake and his followers persecuted to death, and we do not have sufficient information to say whether the Petrobusians were 32 carat Baptists.
He is a FORMER Baptist successionist. I was too! Gloat all you want, but there are a lot of us EX-Baptists around!
Protestants were burned at the stake and Catholics we're hung/drawn & quartered, etc. Very sad that they thought it was necessary to preserve the true faith.
Not by Baptists
But we've been here before.