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!
So we may be missing crucial teachings?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 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.Peter accounted the writings of Paul as inspired Scripture, and he apparently knew which of those writings were inspired and which were not.
I've heard it put thusly: How could they?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.
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.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.
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.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.
Which churches? Source?If you follow church history, you wills ee that as early as the 2nd century, the churches were reading a set of books.
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 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
Why believe some Catholic bishop?The first list of the nT books as we know them to-day was in AD397 in a pastoral letter from Athanasius
So it's not scripture vs. tradition, but rather scripture IS tradition!?the canon of scripture is based on traditional knowledge passed down through the ages, and originally verified by eye-witnesses of their veracity
Could the wrong books have been included?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.
I've heard that it was actually the Council of Rome in 382 that first decided that.It was the Council of Hippo that actually formulized the 27 books as we know them
How "Catholic" is "catholic"?Some greatly fear any connection with Romanism and fail to appreciate that the church fathers were all "catholic" (using that term loosely).
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?The NT saints did not wait 400 years for the Pope to come along and "tell them" which letters to read.
Indeed, how do you know?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?
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.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.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
No, they weren't, not in the sense that we use "Catholic" today as a reference to Roman Catholicism.Were these Councils, ummm…Catholic?
Was there a pope then? Did the Bishop of Rome have any kind of authority?No, they weren't, not in the sense that we use "Catholic" today as a reference to Roman Catholicism.
Independent Fundamentalist BaptistOriginally posted by NarnianSoldier:
what's an IFB? I_____ Fundamentalist Baptist?
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.They’re ... really a “non-denominational” church, only they adhere to the Baptist distinctives,
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.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
Were the NT churches autonomous?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.
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.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.
Because we have them, that's how.How do we know he wanted us to have any books?
This might be your view, but it's not God's view.And this still doesn't seem to account for how we know 27 books are correct and non are erroneous or lacking.
In so many words... 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?"
Who cares?And what happened to that early church, also?
But how do you know you're supposed to have those 27 books?Because we have them, that's how.
But how do you know WHICH books are scripture?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.In so many words... All Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for rebuking, for correcting, for training in righteousness,
I do.Who cares?
How do you know that Peter, James, Paul, John etc all left the NT saints "in the dark" about those letters?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]
But by 100 AD there was not clear consensus on what books comprised the NT, was there?The "27" were all finished by the death of John. Remember?