TurnTheTide1611
New Member
To me, it seems hard to imagine a Fundamental Baptist would give any answer other than the first answer above, but I am curious to see if that is really the case.
Last edited:
-
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!
Do you believe God today recognizes 66 (and only 66) books in the canon of scripture?
- Thread starter TurnTheTide1611
- Start date
The real issue is not the number of books, but whether it can be soundly determined if any book or writing is actually given by inspiration of God.
The twenty-two books or twenty-four books of the Jewish canon [depending on how the books are divided or united] are the same as the thirty-nine books of the Old Testament so the number of books is not actually the issue.
Do you try to suggest that the Scriptures do not teach how to know which words [or which books] are the words of God?
Do you try to suggest that the Scriptures do not teach how to know whether a prophet is a true prophet of God or a false prophet?
Do you try to suggest that the Scriptures do not teach how to know whether someone is an apostle or is not an apostle?
The apostles had to have seen Christ and been eye witnesses of what they testified (John 15:27, Acts 1:21-22, 1 Cor. 9:1, 1 John 1:1, Gal. 1:11-12, Acts 10:39-43, 2 Peter 1:16-19). God bore witness to the inspiration of the words revealed to and recorded by the apostles and prophets by signs, wonders, and miracles (Heb. 2:3-4, 2 Cor. 12:12). The church is built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets and not on the KJV translators (Eph. 2:20). The apostles like Paul received the gospel “by the revelation of Jesus Christ” (Gal. 1:12). Was not every word and doctrine necessary to salvation already delivered by God to the prophets and apostles before A. D. 100 so why was additional revelation needed in 1611?
No more revelation and inspired Scripture have been given since the giving of the book of Revelation to the Apostle John (Rev. 22:18). The giving and writing of the Scriptures were finished with the completion of the New Testament (Rev. 22:18, Rom. 15:4, John 20:31). After the New Testament was completed, no further need for the gift of apostles and prophets existed (Rev. 22:18, 1 Cor. 13:10, Eph. 2:20, Eph. 3:5).
The twenty-two books or twenty-four books of the Jewish canon [depending on how the books are divided or united] are the same as the thirty-nine books of the Old Testament so the number of books is not actually the issue.
Do you try to suggest that the Scriptures do not teach how to know which words [or which books] are the words of God?
Do you try to suggest that the Scriptures do not teach how to know whether a prophet is a true prophet of God or a false prophet?
Do you try to suggest that the Scriptures do not teach how to know whether someone is an apostle or is not an apostle?
The apostles had to have seen Christ and been eye witnesses of what they testified (John 15:27, Acts 1:21-22, 1 Cor. 9:1, 1 John 1:1, Gal. 1:11-12, Acts 10:39-43, 2 Peter 1:16-19). God bore witness to the inspiration of the words revealed to and recorded by the apostles and prophets by signs, wonders, and miracles (Heb. 2:3-4, 2 Cor. 12:12). The church is built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets and not on the KJV translators (Eph. 2:20). The apostles like Paul received the gospel “by the revelation of Jesus Christ” (Gal. 1:12). Was not every word and doctrine necessary to salvation already delivered by God to the prophets and apostles before A. D. 100 so why was additional revelation needed in 1611?
No more revelation and inspired Scripture have been given since the giving of the book of Revelation to the Apostle John (Rev. 22:18). The giving and writing of the Scriptures were finished with the completion of the New Testament (Rev. 22:18, Rom. 15:4, John 20:31). After the New Testament was completed, no further need for the gift of apostles and prophets existed (Rev. 22:18, 1 Cor. 13:10, Eph. 2:20, Eph. 3:5).
TurnTheTide1611
New Member
That is true, the issue is not the number of books per se, but you can't really put all that explanation you provided above in a poll question can you?
The point of the poll is to question whether folks believe that the books, which are divided today into 66 books, represent the God ordained canon. I suspect that was clear to most. (Should I do a poll to see who understood my point?)
TurnTheTide1611
New Member
I did not suggest this at all. I should have created the poll differently; then you could have seen that I selected the first option on the poll. Then again, I thought my first post would have made it clear that I believe we can know which books are the books of God.
I don't believe the Bible itself directly tells us which books belong in it. (Meaning there is no verse that says, "Thus saith the Lord, my Bible consists of the following 66 books, Genesis, Exodus...")
I am assuming you believe we can know which books are the books of God. How do you know the Gospel of Thomas, for instance is not a God ordained part of the canon?
No and no.
Agreed.
All scripture is given by inspiration of God. If we have scripture in English, it is given by inspiration of God. Are you suggesting we do not have scripture in English? Or are you suggesting there is a category of scripture that is not given by inspiration of God?
I don't believe there have been any new books, verses or words written since Revelation was finished. But I believe that God can and has preserved his scripture in English, and that this scripture in the English Bible retains God's inspiration.
I don't think apostles are needed to know God's inspired word exists in English.
Do you think we need apostles performing signs to confirm to us which books are in the canon of scripture, when there are conflicting claims being made by many as to which books are in the canon?
Last edited:
Perhaps you are trying to read something into 2 Timothy 3:16 that the verse does not actually say. You also do not seem to suggest that the pre-1611 English Bibles retained inspiration so that the Church of England makers of the KJV would be wrong to change their inspired words, suggesting that your claim may be inconsistent.
According to the Scriptures themselves, it could be soundly concluded that inspiration would be a term for the way, method, or process by which God directly gave the Scriptures to the prophets and apostles or for the way that the words proceeded from the mouth of God to the prophets and apostles (2 Tim 3:16, 2 Pet. 1:21, Matt. 4:4, Eph. 3:5).
Jim Taylor defined the term inspiration as follows: “A process by which God breathed out his very words through holy men in order that his very words could be recorded’” (In Defense of the TR, p. 328). Taylor noted: “As a theological definition, inspiration is a process” (p. 33). Jim Taylor asserted: “Inspiration is a process which was completed when the last New Testament writer wrote the last word” (p. 34). Charles Kriessman wrote: “Inspiration is a process by which God breathed out His Words from Genesis to Revelation” (Modern Version Failures, p. 46). Kriessman quoted Thomas Strouse as stating: “Inspiration is a process whereby the Holy Spirit led the writers of Scripture to record accurately His very Words; the product of this process was the inspired originals” (p. 47). Irving Jensen noted: “We cannot explain the supernatural process of inspiration, which brought about the original writings of the Bible. Paul refers to the process as God-breathing” (Jensen’s Survey of the OT, p. 19). This verse in 2 Timothy does not actually assert nor infer that there is a giving or re-giving of the Scriptures by inspiration of God each time it was copied or each time it was translated into a different language.
This verse does not assert nor teach that the process or method for the making of Bible translations is by inspiration. It has not been soundly demonstrated from the Scriptures that inspiration would be a correct term for the way, method, or process by which the original-language Scriptures are copied or are translated into other languages.
The sixteenth verse in 2 Timothy in the KJV stated “all Scripture is given by inspiration of God,” but the verse does not actually say or assert that it would be later translated by inspiration. There is no mention of the process of translating in the verse. It has not been soundly demonstrated from the Scriptures that inspiration is a quality that is transferred during the process of translation. Inspiration is the term for the way that the Scriptures were given to the prophets and apostles.
By definition of the term "original-language text of Scripture" and of the term "Bible translation" and by the laws of causality and of non-contradiction, a Bible translation would be in a different state, classification, category, or order of thing or being than the untranslated original-language text of Scripture. By definition, a Bible translation is not the source or cause of itself. By definition, the term translation would maintain that there is both a difference and a relationship between the translation and its source or sources. A Bible translation obtains its proper derived authority from the greater authority of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages. A Bible translation can be called Scripture because it is a translation of the original-language Scriptures, but that does not prove that a Bible translation is given by inspiration of God.
Last edited:
TurnTheTide1611
New Member
Logos.
This is an interesting discussion, and Lord willing, I will answer the points you brought up regarding inspiration, translations, etc.
But the topic of this thread is the canon. So do you, Mr. Logos, believe God today recognizes 66 (and only 66) books in the canon of scripture? And if so, how do you know the Gospel of Thomas, for instance is not a God ordained part of the canon?
This is an interesting discussion, and Lord willing, I will answer the points you brought up regarding inspiration, translations, etc.
But the topic of this thread is the canon. So do you, Mr. Logos, believe God today recognizes 66 (and only 66) books in the canon of scripture? And if so, how do you know the Gospel of Thomas, for instance is not a God ordained part of the canon?
37818
Well-Known Member
This is an important topic. First what is Holy Scripture was Holy Scripture upoo being written. Second, those documents were received by God's people when they were given.
Now the primary way we know anything is by our personal experience. And most of what we know is by the witness of others. Now while our personal experience and logical deduction comes in to play, our primary way of knowing those 66 books are exclusively the written word of God is the witness of others before us. And the written word of God itself.
Now the primary way we know anything is by our personal experience. And most of what we know is by the witness of others. Now while our personal experience and logical deduction comes in to play, our primary way of knowing those 66 books are exclusively the written word of God is the witness of others before us. And the written word of God itself.
The canon is inseparably tied to inspiration since it is the books or writings given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles or the writings that were God-breathed to the prophets and apostles that belong in the canon. The matter of inspiration cannot be separated from the matter of the canon.
The New Testament indicates that the Lord Jesus Christ recognized the Jewish canon so He may have counted the Old Testament as 24 books instead of as 39 books. The point is not into how many books the Old Testament Scriptures are divided, but which actual writings belong in it.
There is no sound evidence that the so-called "Gospel of Thomas" was actually written by the apostle Thomas and no sound evidence that it was God-breathed.
The 66 books are what we (believers) have decided are the inspired works of God. We do not know if other inspired works have been lost. We believe the writings that
have been excluded from our list (canon) failed one or more of the tests we devised to establish which writings are the word of God.
To say God's view is this or that without support is like claiming we can read God's mind. Twaddle
have been excluded from our list (canon) failed one or more of the tests we devised to establish which writings are the word of God.
To say God's view is this or that without support is like claiming we can read God's mind. Twaddle
GoodTidings
Well-Known Member
Citation of noncanonical writings does not confer "divine inspiration" on those noncanonical writings.
Then you're saying some parts of the canonical writings-- like what I cited-- are uninspired though within the canon.
GoodTidings
Well-Known Member
No. What I am saying is that when the Bible quotes a noncanonical writing, it is not attributing divine inspiration to that particular writing that it is quoting.
For example, when Jude quotes from the book of Enoch, that doesn't mean that Enoch, or even the portion from Enoch that is referenced, is inspired by God. What Enoch said in Jude was true, but that does not make it "divinely inspired."
Paul quotes from secular, pagan poets, but that doesn't confer divine inspiration on what those poets said in those quotes.
37818
Well-Known Member
Ah, it is being cited by the Holy Spirit because what is cited is true, even though the whole of the work it is cited from, is not from God.
So divinely inspired writing says a prophecy was fulfilled that was not divinely inspired. Perhaps the fulfillment thereof was divinely inspired, but the canonical writings still contain a noninspired declarative statement? Ok
GoodTidings
Well-Known Member
The example you gave about what is says in Matthew about Jesus being a Nazarene isn't quoting an extra biblical source, as there is no written source for that statement. Matthew was inspired to include that information, even if the information is, itself, from a non-inspired source. In that particular case, it is like that it came from an oral tradition. He says it was spoken, not that it was written.
It is also possible, as I have read elsewhere, that "Nazarene" was a by-word at that time for someone who was an object of contempt and rejection. By referring to Jesus as residing in Nazareth as a young boy, Matthew may have been using a play on words that kind of goes under our radar in reference to the rejection of Jesus by His own, particularly those in Nazareth..
GoodTidings
Well-Known Member
Precisely!
