Question: 27 books...

[BobRyan]

Yeah - they must have been pretty confused for about 300 years 'cause all they had was Paul and Peter to keep them straight on which letters were legit. No actual "Pope" to guide them.

Never thought of that one!

I "love" this topic as you can tell.

 

[NarnianSoldier]

We don't. We have a collection of 27 "books" accepted by a group of early believers using a preset criteria. There may be other "books" but lost to history.

So we may be missing crucial teachings?
What if we have included erroneous teachings?
Do we have no way of knowing?

Peter accounted the writings of Paul as inspired Scripture, and he apparently knew which of those writings were inspired and which were not.

So we know that Paul's writings are scriptural, and probably Peters. What about Matthew, Mark, Luke and John? Especially Mark and Luke who weren't apostles? And like the OP said, why Philemon? It's like half a page long.

Nobody carried a complete N.T. in their back pocket in the early centuries like the one “soul winners” will carry when they door knock.

I've heard it put thusly: How could they?
The first Christians couldn't have relied on the bible only -
1)Books were VERY expensive, costing years of wages to purchase
2)Books were hard to care for - that massive purchase might last only a generation or so in a non-weather-tight house
3)Being very expensive and hard to care for, books were very hard to find.
4)Books in your language were even harder, often.
5)Even if you could find and purchase and keep a book in your language, you were still probably couldn't read it because you - like 98% of the rest of society - were probably illiterate.

Then, of course, there is the aforementioned issue about not having a definite list of books.

There were a ton of early writings. Many claimed to be inspired but weren't.

How did God let us know what books belonged and which books didn't?

It was that the churches that received the letters recognized them as from Paul or not. One of the criteria that F.F. Bruce lists in his wonderful book, is that it had widespread acceptance by the churches.

Other leters had wide-spread acceptance. Letters by bishops like Ignatius of Antioch (who was a diciple of St. John and appointed Bishop by St. Peter) were considered by many to be scripture. Others considered books like Revelation emphatically NOT scripture.

How do you decide who makes the call? Or do we all get to build our own bibles?

Imagine if you were to get a letter from a friend tomorrow, you'd be able to recognize it as genuine or not pretty easy. However, for me to recognize if that letter was genuine would take a lot more work.

Genuinely written by Paul, and inspired by the holy spirit, are two entirely seperate issues. Not all of Paul's letters are in the NT.

If you follow church history, you wills ee that as early as the 2nd century, the churches were reading a set of books.

Which churches? Source?

The beginnings of the canon started in the 2nd century as the early church fathers sorted out which manuscripts concurred with each other in thought and traditional historical facts

But did they have the authority to do that? Sorry, this is all so new to me I don't know what to think. How do we know that they had such authority to decide what was and wasn't canonical?

The first list of the nT books as we know them to-day was in AD397 in a pastoral letter from Athanasius

Why believe some Catholic bishop?

the canon of scripture is based on traditional knowledge passed down through the ages, and originally verified by eye-witnesses of their veracity

So it's not scripture vs. tradition, but rather scripture IS tradition!?

So, yes, there could very well be more books, and there was a set body who decided on the NT canon of scriptures...the early church fathers.

Could the wrong books have been included?

Incidentally, Athanasius included the Apocrapha/Deuterocanonicals...so...should those be accepted too?

It was the Council of Hippo that actually formulized the 27 books as we know them

I've heard that it was actually the Council of Rome in 382 that first decided that.

Some greatly fear any connection with Romanism and fail to appreciate that the church fathers were all "catholic" (using that term loosely).

How "Catholic" is "catholic"?

Did they have the same sacrements? Did they have Priests and Bishops and deacons? Did they believe what Catholis believe today or did they believe other things?

The NT saints did not wait 400 years for the Pope to come along and "tell them" which letters to read.

Probably because most of them couldn't read. Was some stuff passed on that wasn't written down? Or is everything we need in the scriptures - and how do we know that it is?

Well, the people of that time read those, but they also read the Gospels of Peter and Thomas - how do you know they're not part of the NT?

Indeed, how do you know?

 

[NarnianSoldier]

Wow, that was really long...sorry...

 

[pinoybaptist]

Originally posted by riverm:
Thanks guys for the straight scoop, I’ve done a little research and the Council of Hippo was in 393, which you are right, this council approved the NT which was later confirmed at the Council of Trent.

My next question is why is it so hard to get a strait answer from some Baptist in regard to the formulation of the NT? Were these Councils, ummm…Catholic?

Blessings

Be careful, man. I know of some in this board who will jump right in and question your salvation, just like KJVO'S tend to question the salvation of those who do not use KJV only, as if one's salvation depended on one's belief that all scriptures of today are God-breathed and declared to be so by the Bible itself.

 

[pinoybaptist]

By the way, this forum is close to its third page and we have yet to read another post from the OP. Why so ?

 

[riverm]

The OP was banned...

 

[riverm]

Originally posted by pinoybaptist:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by riverm:
Thanks guys for the straight scoop, I’ve done a little research and the Council of Hippo was in 393, which you are right, this council approved the NT which was later confirmed at the Council of Trent.

My next question is why is it so hard to get a strait answer from some Baptist in regard to the formulation of the NT? Were these Councils, ummm…Catholic?

Blessings

Be careful, man. I know of some in this board who will jump right in and question your salvation, just like KJVO'S tend to question the salvation of those who do not use KJV only, as if one's salvation depended on one's belief that all scriptures of today are God-breathed and declared to be so by the Bible itself. </font>[/QUOTE]I was raised an IFB, I’m now considering Methodist and have been studying Wesleyan Theology.

My parents are IFB and KJVO, but I have never been KJVO. My parents actually believe that God has preserved the KJV and if you ain’t a IFB, you’re probably lost. They already believe that I’m a lost sinner for leaving the Baptist denomination. To them there’s no salvation outside the Baptist church. Unfortunately, that kind of attitude that has left a bad taste in my mouth in regard to the Baptist faith.

I know not ALL Baptist are like that, but the majority I have experienced do have an holier than thou attitude.

Blessings

 

[NarnianSoldier]

what's an IFB? I_____ Fundamentalist Baptist?

 

[Pastor Larry]

Were these Councils, ummm…Catholic?

No, they weren't, not in the sense that we use "Catholic" today as a reference to Roman Catholicism.

 

[NarnianSoldier]

No, they weren't, not in the sense that we use "Catholic" today as a reference to Roman Catholicism.

Was there a pope then? Did the Bishop of Rome have any kind of authority?

 

[riverm]

Originally posted by NarnianSoldier:
what's an IFB? I_____ Fundamentalist Baptist?

Independent Fundamentalist Baptist

They’re separated and are really a “non-denominational” church, only they adhere to the Baptist distinctives, so they take on the name “Baptist”.

 

[Pastor Larry]

They’re ... really a “non-denominational” church, only they adhere to the Baptist distinctives,

That's contradictory. Being that they adhere to the Baptist distinctives, they are Baptist by denomination. They are not apart of a convention, which is what "independent" addresses. They are, like the churches of the NT, autonomous.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I realise I don't moderate this forum, but what does IFB have to do with "27 books?"

 

[webdog]

Originally posted by Jim1999:
We don't. We have a collection of 27 "books" accepted by a group of early believers using a preset criteria. There may be other "books" but lost to history.

Cheers,

Jim

None of God's Word has been "lost". The reason we have 27 books in the New Testament is because God had it planned that way through the early writers and churches. God would not allow His Word to get lost. Maybe there are letters not inspired by God, though, that were lost.

 

[NarnianSoldier]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
They are not apart of a convention, which is what "independent" addresses. They are, like the churches of the NT, autonomous.

Were the NT churches autonomous?

They had "overseers" or "bishops". And in Acts 15, we even see a church council of a sorts in Jerusalem which was binding wasn't it?

What's the purpose of having bishops?

 

[NarnianSoldier]

Originally posted by webdog:
None of God's Word has been "lost". The reason we have 27 books in the New Testament is because God had it planned that way through the early writers and churches. God would not allow His Word to get lost. Maybe there are letters not inspired by God, though, that were lost.

How do we know he wanted us to have any books? And this still doesn't seem to account for how we know 27 books are correct and non are erroneous or lacking.

Does the bible say "I'll compose a book of 27 letters - keep an eye peeled for it,"? Does it say "the following books are inspired?" or even "the early church will decide which books you should read,"

And what happened to that early church, also?

 

[webdog]

How do we know he wanted us to have any books?

Because we have them, that's how.

And this still doesn't seem to account for how we know 27 books are correct and non are erroneous or lacking.

This might be your view, but it's not God's view.
2Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for rebuking, for correcting, for training in righteousness,

Does the bible say "I'll compose a book of 27 letters - keep an eye peeled for it,"? Does it say "the following books are inspired?"

In so many words... All Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for rebuking, for correcting, for training in righteousness,

And what happened to that early church, also?

Who cares?

 

[NarnianSoldier]

Because we have them, that's how.

But how do you know you're supposed to have those 27 books?

All Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for rebuking, for correcting, for training in righteousness,

But how do you know WHICH books are scripture?

In so many words... All Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for rebuking, for correcting, for training in righteousness,

But where does it say WHICH books are scripture? I agree that what is scripture is, by definition " inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for rebuking, for correcting, for training in righteousness,", but that doesn't answer my question.

Who cares?

I do.

Well, Jesus said he was founding a church, and we can see that church in action. Jesus didn't say "write this in memory of me" but "do this in memory of me". He gave commands for actoins and gave to some men authority...what happened to them? What happened to this visible institution founded by the Son of God?

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Well, the people of that time read those, but they also read the Gospels of Peter and Thomas - how do you know they're not part of the NT? [/QB]

How do you know that Peter, James, Paul, John etc all left the NT saints "in the dark" about those letters?

The "27" were all finished by the death of John. Remember?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[NarnianSoldier]

The "27" were all finished by the death of John. Remember?

But by 100 AD there was not clear consensus on what books comprised the NT, was there?