Trustworthiness of the Bible Canon?

[Seraph]

We all know that the Bible canon is the set of books regarded by Christians to be inspired by the Holy Spirit and thus true. The modern Bible canon was assembled by the early church fathers, who determined which books were inspired and which ones were not. Earlier forms of it were determined by the Jewish leaders of the given time periods.

My question is, how do we know that the canonnical books were inspired? What standard did the church fathers use for determining which ones were and which ones weren't? How can we know that the assemblers weren't politically motivated in their decisions? How can we know that the current Bible consists of the books that God wanted and not what the rulers of 200-1000AD wanted?

I've been unsure about the this question lately because looking at the timeline of the Bible, its development seems somewhat unstable, with leaders of different time periods constantly debating which books should be considered truth. Shouldn't it have been completely indisputable to these leaders as to which books were holy and which ones were frauds?

What say you?

[Seraph]

I feel the need to bump this old thread and get it some exposure.

[jlay]

I would recommend Josh McDowell's "The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict."

This is one of many topics that is thoroughly tackled.

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

My question is, how do we know that the canonnical books were inspired?

God himself, in the person of Jesus, assured us of the inspiration of what we call the Old Testament in several ways. In Matthew 23:35, Jesus is berating the Pharisees and says ''... And so upon you will come all the righteous blood which has been shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah...'' Now, Genesis has the story of Abel and the very last book of the Tanach (OT or Hebrew Bible) is what we call ''2 Chronicles'', and 2 Chronicles 24:20-22 carries the story of Zechariah's assassination, so - in effect - Jesus has just set the limits of what is Inspired in the OT: Genesis to Chronicles, the Tanach. Furthermore - albeit symbolic - the Tanach contains 24 books, the same number as there are letters in the Hebrew alphabet. All of the ''Protestant'' OT is represented in the Tanach, no more, no less; only the order of the books is changed. Christian Bibles have 39 books because some longer books were split (1 & 2 Kings, 1 & 2 Chronicles are examples), and the Tanach groups into a single book some of what we call the Minor Prophets. *

Another way Jesus confirmed the canon of the Tanach by saying such things as ''all the Scriptures'' and ''I came not to abolish the Law or the Prophets'' and ''not one jot or tittle of the Law will ever change'' and so on, indicating that He accepted the same closed/inspired canon that the Pharisees did.

That's it for the OT. I'll get to the NT later.

FL

*''Catholic'' Bibles have more books because they have added some deuterocanonical works but these are usually grouped in a separate section of ''Catholic'' Bibles, at the end of the OT. Canonical books are identical, be they Christian or Jewish.

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

As I was reading my Bible this morning, I came across another one of Jesus' oblique references to the completedness and inspiration of the Tanach: Luke 16:29. The term Moses and the Prophets is akin to us saying ''From Genesis to Revelation.''

If you tune your mind to what to look for, it will jump off the page and into your spirit.

FL

[Seraph]

It's actually more the New Testament that I have trouble with. Jesus affirmed the Old Testamant but the New Testament seems to be where we run into books that didn't make the cut or books being assembled by people who may or may not have had political motivations and whatnot. It feels like with the New Testament, you really need to just trust that those men were guided by the Holy Spirit, which I often have trouble doing since people are people with their own motivations and agendas.

I'll definitely have to check out Josh Mcdowell's book though, thanks jlay.

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

You can get the book jlay suggested, or you can just look into a Bible dictionary under canon and the information will be there. The information you seek is also in the pages of the NT but you must be willing to dig. Essentially, Jesus promised a fixed canon and accomplished this by leaving the teaching up to the apostles only (an apostle was an eyewitness), insuring that these would remember all He said (Jn 14:26) and promised that the Holy spirit would guide them in all truth (Jn 16:13). The church is built on the foundation of the apostles and the prophets with Jesus Christ as cornerstone (Eph 2:20) so, again, this verse makes it clear that any book not written by an apostle is bunk.

So, forget about the Gnostic Gospels. Forget about the Koran. Forget about Joseph Smith, Charles Taze Russel, Mary Baker Eddy and all the other imposters (2 Cor 11:13). All the apostles were handpicked by Jesus, commissioned by Him, and all died by the turn of the first century, so no other book can even make it into the canon.

Briefly, you need to know this. Get jlay's book and study it from another angle for yourself.

FL

[Graceismine]

It's actually more the New Testament that I have trouble with. Jesus affirmed the Old Testamant but the New Testament seems to be where we run into books that didn't make the cut or books being assembled by people who may or may not have had political motivations and whatnot. It feels like with the New Testament, you really need to just trust that those men were guided by the Holy Spirit, which I often have trouble doing since people are people with their own motivations and agendas.

I'll definitely have to check out Josh Mcdowell's book though, thanks jlay.

Perhaps this will help

A primary attack against divine Bible origin is that the books of the New Testament were agreed upon (canonized) by men hundreds of years after the books were written. Actually, the fathers of the early Christian church reveal that most of the New Testament books were accepted as scripture almost immediately. For instance, in 2 Peter 3:16, the writer takes for granted that Paul's letters were already considered inspired scripture on the same level as the Old Testament. In 1Timothy 5:18, Paul joins an Old Testament reference and a New Testament reference and calls them both Scripture. The need for official canonization of the New Testament scriptures only came about because of certain heresies that were being spread throughout the church starting in the mid to late second century. For instance, Marcion created his own religion by only teaching from ten of Paul's letters and certain portions of Luke. In addition, the Gnostics, especially in Alexandria, were introducing new "secrets" to the standard Christian doctrine, including new gospel accounts altogether.

For the church leaders in the mid second century, the four Gospels were baseline authority in their teachings. In about 170 AD, Irenaeus cited 23 of the 27 New Testament books, omitting only Philemon, James, 2 Peter and 3 John. The Muratorian fragment, written about the same time, attests to the widespread use of all the New Testament books except Hebrews, James, 1 Peter and 2 Peter. However, other church fathers had already cited those omitted books in various writings defending against Gnostic doctrines. The Codex Barococcio from 206 AD includes 64 of the 66 books of today's Bible. Esther and Revelation were omitted, but they had already been declared as inspired scripture by Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clement, Tertullian and the Muratorian Canon. In 230 AD, Origen declared that all Christians acknowledged as scripture the four Gospels, Acts, the epistles of Paul, 1 Peter, 1 John and Revelation.

By the early 300's, all of the New Testament books were being used in the mainstream church body. In 367 AD, Athanasius formally circulated the Easter Letter that listed all 27 books as canonical. The Synod of Hippo (393 AD) and the third Synod of Carthage (397 AD) also recognized these 27 books as canonical. In addition, during this time, the highly influential church fathers, Jerome (340-420 AD) and Augustine (354-430 AD) published their lists of 27 books completing the New Testament.

It's important to remember that the canon of the New Testament was not the result of any pronouncement by any official of the church or any organizational body. Rather, the canon was determined by the authoritative use of these books right from the start by the rapidly expanding church of the first and second centuries. The New Testament canon was merely a process of formal recognition of already recognized scripture, to defend against the various forms of Gnosticism and heresy that were starting to creep throughout the ever-expanding church.

http://www.allabouttruth.org/bible-origin.htm

My best advice is that you pray and ask God for wisdom and discernment. The Holy Spirit will lead you into all truth

Joh 16:13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

That is if you can trust that Jesus actually said these words. I do! I hope you get the right answers.

Blessings, Grace

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

My best advice is that you pray and ask God for wisdom and discernment. The Holy Spirit will lead you into all truth

Indeed, Graceismine has given the best advice!

FL

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

My best advice is that you pray and ask God for wisdom and discernment. The Holy Spirit will lead you into all truth

Indeed, Graceismine has given the best answer!

FL

[Byblos]

It's important to remember that the canon of the New Testament was not the result of any pronouncement by any official of the church or any organizational body. Rather, the canon was determined by the authoritative use of these books right from the start by the rapidly expanding church of the first and second centuries. The New Testament canon was merely a process of formal recognition of already recognized scripture, to defend against the various forms of Gnosticism and heresy that were starting to creep throughout the ever-expanding church.

God forbid they give credit where credit is due.

[PaulSacramento]

I recall reading once that the canon was a collection of authoritative books and not an authoritative collection of books.
By the time they become "canon" the books of the NT were already authoritive.
Of course the earliest MS we have- codex sinaiticus and vaticanus may have some extra ones, the epistle of Barnabas for example, but if we were to look at what was there we can see that they didn't really add any more than we we currently have now.
I recall that Revelation was a bit of an issue, but I think that was more because of the very nature of its content as opposed to it's lack of authority, but that is simply my opinion.
Can we trust the Bible canon?
Trust it for what?
Can we trust that what we have was close enough to what was really written? Yes I believe so.
Can we trust that the books are inspired?
That would depend on the definition of inspired I guess.

[Graceismine]

It's important to remember that the canon of the New Testament was not the result of any pronouncement by any official of the church or any organizational body. Rather, the canon was determined by the authoritative use of these books right from the start by the rapidly expanding church of the first and second centuries. The New Testament canon was merely a process of formal recognition of already recognized scripture, to defend against the various forms of Gnosticism and heresy that were starting to creep throughout the ever-expanding church.

God forbid they give credit where credit is due.

Sorry, I don't understand your comment.

Actually there is no argument about the inspiration or trustworthiness of the "Bible Canon"to Christians. We believe Scriptures like 2Tim 3:16 and it is settled. Unbelievers have to work it out for themselves They after all, will use every excuse under the sun to resist the call of the Lord on their lives.

[Byblos]

It's important to remember that the canon of the New Testament was not the result of any pronouncement by any official of the church or any organizational body. Rather, the canon was determined by the authoritative use of these books right from the start by the rapidly expanding church of the first and second centuries. The New Testament canon was merely a process of formal recognition of already recognized scripture, to defend against the various forms of Gnosticism and heresy that were starting to creep throughout the ever-expanding church.

God forbid they give credit where credit is due.

Sorry, I don't understand your comment.

Actually there is no argument about the inspiration or trustworthiness of the "Bible Canon"to Christians. We believe Scriptures like 2Tim 3:16 and it is settled. Unbelievers have to work it out for themselves They after all, will use every excuse under the sun to resist the call of the Lord on their lives.

The sole purpose of the entire paragraph I quoted was precisely to deny the fact that the Catholic Church and its councils are responsible for the compilation of the NT canon. I happen to believe that process itself was guided by inspiration but that is besides the point (maybe). Whether or not one agrees with the RCC today is irrelevant. To deny the fact that the canon was compiled by her, however, is to deny history.

[PaulSacramento]

The canon was compiled and "closed" by what WOULD BECOME the RCC.
There was no RCC as we know it TODAY or even 1000 years ago.
I must confess that I prefer the RCC Canon to the protestant one, I like the books of the "Apocrypha".
I also like reading the "Apostolic fathers" too.