How do you determine which NT-era books are authoritative?

[Floatingaxe]

God chose to use Godly men, not necessarily "apostles" to preserve His Word. Godly scribes, translators, churchmen, etc. All these people were used by God to keep His Word intact and pure. Anything other than what we see written within the 66 books of the canon, which is superfluous to the written Word, is not to be adhered to as the Word is. That is my point.

[Kansasdad]

God chose to use Godly men, not necessarily "apostles" to preserve His Word. Godly scribes, translators, churchmen, etc. All these people were used by God to keep His Word intact and pure. Anything other than what we see written within the 66 books of the canon, which is superfluous to the written Word, is not to be adhered to as the Word is. That is my point.

Do you understand what Apostolic Tradition is?

The question is how did this group of men, several hundred years after the Apostles, decide which writings were included. How did they decide from hundreds of writings which ones made up the canon. why not 67 books or 55 books. How did these men know what was authentic and what was not. Apostolic Tradition says that the Apostles taught people in the ways of Christ, and they put certain people of whom they taught in charge to teach the next generation, who in tern taught specific people for the next generation. We find this very example in the Bible. Apostolic Tradition says that God protected this process so that his word would not get changed. He protected it, even though these men were flawed. The rub is that there were other men teaching things differently. Other men that were not taught by the Apostles. These writings and teachings circulated all over the place. Therefore it is imperative that we can trace the teachings to the Apostles and not some other source. ie, Apostolic Tradition. If the tradition (teaching) did not have a line that could be traced back to the Apostles it was not considered authentic.

If you reject this method of authentication then you have no criteria for accepting the Bible.

[Floatingaxe]

I do accept that is the way God preserved His Word for us. However, I reject receiving as important those writings which are extra-biblical by these so-called "apostles" who were successors. If God wanted us to heed them, He would have included their writings.

[Kansasdad]

I do accept that is the way God preserved His Word for us. However, I reject receiving as important those writings which are extra-biblical by these so-called "apostles" who were successors. If God wanted us to heed them, He would have included their writings.

Well at least we are making some progress here. So we clearly know that the books of the Bible are indeed scripture, (the words of God) because we know these men were taught by the Apostles and therefore knew what the Apostles taught, and could recognise false teachings. We also know that it is through this line of teaching that God protects his Word. If we have books or writings that have been "approved" from someone outside of the apostolic line of teaching we know it does not have the promise of protection from God. So the answer to the OP is, the only authority for the canon of the Bible flows through Apostolic Tradition because of the promise from God. All the books and writings that he is trying to introduce do not fall within this guideline, and therefore can not be considered scripture.

If we do not recognise Apostolic Tradition we have no basis to reject the extra-Biblical writings the OP is trying to introduce. That is the danger in rejecting this truth. It opens the door to this exact type of thinking.

But this can cause quite a problem for some people. We have a deciple of an Apostle who determined the canon of the Bible and has the protection of God in recognising scripture from non scripture. Then this same person tells us what this very scripture means and we don't agree with what he says. How can we reject it with out also negating his ability to recognise true words of God from false.

God Bless,

K.D.

[Floatingaxe]

So we clearly know that the books of the Bible are indeed scripture, (the words of God) because we know these men were taught by the Apostles and therefore knew what the Apostles taught, and could recognise false teachings.

Scripture is scripture, and the apostles who wrote it are the apostles we need to heed. None others.

We can trust only that God preserved His word throught the work of valuable, yet fallible individuals, just like you and I. that is the miracle of God's Word.

It is getting rather grating to read the phrase, "Apostolic Tradition" over and over like it was some sort of mantra. Is there another song in your repertoire?

[Kansasdad]

So we clearly know that the books of the Bible are indeed scripture, (the words of God) because we know these men were taught by the Apostles and therefore knew what the Apostles taught, and could recognise false teachings.

Scripture is scripture, and the apostles who wrote it are the apostles we need to heed. None others.

We can trust only that God preserved His word throught the work of valuable, yet fallible individuals, just like you and I. that is the miracle of God's Word.

It is getting rather grating to read the phrase, "Apostolic Tradition" over and over like it was some sort of mantra. Is there another song in your repertoire?

Ok how about Apostolic teaching.

And you have once again side stepped the question at hand. If you continue to say what they taught about scripture was false then you can not turn around and say they had the protection of God to recognise true scripture from false. You cannot have it both ways. If they were not capable of recognising the Words of God then they were not capable of putting together the Bible. Which puts you back to the same delima. You can not claim that the books in the Bible are in fact the only accurate words of God in print with out also recognising the men who made that determination. If you denounce one you have to denounce the other. If you recognise one you must recognise the other. I know this puts you in a real difficult position. However if you maintain your position then the OP has a legitimate claim and you have no basis to refute him.

[Jorge S]

Hi, Hatsoff. Glad to meet you again.

Taking the church fathers at their word about issues related to history and textual origins would be ill-advised, given that they were prone to both religious bias and scholarly error. Simply speaking, they deserve great attention, but little trust.

Are you not worried about shooting your own foot with that statement? If historic figures who lived closer than us to the events they are relating cannot be trusted, how can the conclusions of modern critics be more reliable? Is a hypothetic document Q to be trusted more than real documents from the past? Are historians to create history or to reconstruct history from the available sources?

Now let me ask you a couple of questions:

1- Do you credibly esteem that God could have inspired certain individuals to write down His Word?

2- Within a scenario of proliferating spurious and heretic works, tell me which criteria would you use to determine what is Scripture and what is not?

Thanks in advance.

[Floatingaxe]

So we clearly know that the books of the Bible are indeed scripture, (the words of God) because we know these men were taught by the Apostles and therefore knew what the Apostles taught, and could recognise false teachings.

Scripture is scripture, and the apostles who wrote it are the apostles we need to heed. None others.

We can trust only that God preserved His word throught the work of valuable, yet fallible individuals, just like you and I. that is the miracle of God's Word.

It is getting rather grating to read the phrase, "Apostolic Tradition" over and over like it was some sort of mantra. Is there another song in your repertoire?

Ok how about Apostolic teaching.

And you have once again side stepped the question at hand. If you continue to say what they taught about scripture was false then you can not turn around and say they had the protection of God to recognise true scripture from false. You cannot have it both ways. If they were not capable of recognising the Words of God then they were not capable of putting together the Bible. Which puts you back to the same delima. You can not claim that the books in the Bible are in fact the only accurate words of God in print with out also recognising the men who made that determination. If you denounce one you have to denounce the other. If you recognise one you must recognise the other. I know this puts you in a real difficult position. However if you maintain your position then the OP has a legitimate claim and you have no basis to refute him.

Didn't I just communicate that God used fallible men in the process? It isn't their own minds that were at work in the "project". It was the supreme mind of God. His intelligence, His Spirit, His decision-making all filtered through fallible , weak gray matter.

I am not in any difficult position and I do not have any illusions about these men.

[CSLewis]

Kansasdad I have to disagree about something. In the early church there was alot of disagreement about the trinity and dual nature of Christ. Hence the need for the Nicean creed and Apostles creed. It took bishops over fifty years to settle the issues surrounding the Nicence Creed. It was much a product of compromise than orthodox definition. When the christians fell into theological debate they looked first to scripture and tradition, then to exegesis and reason. However the true teachings of the apostles were consistent across all the diverse Christian comunities. When we confess a catholic and apostolic faith, we embrace the historical strength of the core inheritance (the Gospel, sacraments) and the breadth of its rich variations. Roman christianity was essential to apostolic tradition but it should not overrule scripture or override local custom. Rome, and not the reformers was the one guilty of theological innovation, though the reformers were guilty of annulment of the scriptures based on doctrine.

Tradition by itself should not be the foundation of church practice, noting the differences in the early churches (though the sacraments were same throughout). Liberty from dogmatic authority as well as veneration of the past is integral to use of tradition. Scripture and tradition have lived out of critical thinking.

Embrace the authority of tradition but declare only scripture is necessary for salvation.

[hatsoff]

Hi, Hatsoff. Glad to meet you again.

You, too.

Are you not worried about shooting your own foot with that statement? If historic figures who lived closer than us to the events they are relating cannot be trusted, how can the conclusions of modern critics be more reliable? Is a hypothetic document Q to be trusted more than real documents from the past? Are historians to create history or to reconstruct history from the available sources?

Modern critics are not comparable to ancient authors. A person is not automatically more qualified to judge certain issues simply because he lives chronologically closer to the issue at hand.

Now let me ask you a couple of questions:

1- Do you credibly esteem that God could have inspired certain individuals to write down His Word?

2- Within a scenario of proliferating spurious and heretic works, tell me which criteria would you use to determine what is Scripture and what is not?

Thanks in advance.

Borrowing my lingo, are we? I'm flattered.

1. Anything is possible, but I don't think that God protecting a certain document is a reasonable expectation, no. When we look at the books of the Bible, it is clear that, while they are much better-preserved than most ancient literature, the texts have been irreparably corrupted at least to some degree. More importantly, the canonization process failed, pure and simple. The shapers of the New Testament chose their authorities based on false pretenses.

2. As an unbeliever, I don't think I can satisfactorily answer that question. However, I would begin by throwing out the idea of inerrancy. I would next take a more historical approach, separating the authentic letters of Paul, and dividing the rest of the early Christian writings according to topic and time period. I would then treat each work with varying authority. But, that is only my opinion.