These sound like some of the questions I have had. What about the fact that there are about 40 gospels? Of course many of them are written by the Gnostics and don't follow Biblical thought but how many Christians have read them? Who's to say only the four we have are the only ones that were inspired?
Also, just for the sake of argument what about this passage?
2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
2Ti 3:17 so that the man of God may be perfected, being fully furnished for every good work.
Clearly there was no New Testament when this was written so it must have been about the Old Testament. Who's to say that all of the what we know as the New Testament is truly inspired? Why not other books and writings written after Malachi?
The Early Church had over 300 book and letters circulating around being used and read at The Mass and many were being treated as "Inspired". Things like 'The Gospel of Judas' and 'The Gospel of Thomas'. It got so bad that The Church finally had to do something about it. They held councils that stretched for almost 40 years and finally came to the Canon that we now have.
That verse speaks about "the man of God" (the clergy) and says that Scripture is "profitable". Yes...at that time and place...they were speaking about The Old Testament.
Christ left His Church everything they needed to "know" in order to "go to the ends of the world and teach". Christ also left them The Holy Spirit to ensure inerrancy did not happen.
At the time of the Councils...all the Church did was compare what was in those Books and Letters with what they knew to be Truth and decide!
The Holy Spirit made sure that they did not make any incorrect decisions.
The answer is historical. There have been many reasons given by the people who chose the 66 books. Most of that was already established by the time of Christ for the Old Testament. Jesus spoke from a canon of scripture called the Septuagint. There were many prophets and kings who we hear little about back then. The ones, who were written most about, had to be the most inspired by God. The reason is how difficult it was for scribes to copy these documents by hand. The witness of the authors of the books of the Bible, had to bear witness and agree with the spirits of the scribes, and the spiritual leaders of the day.
Matthew 18:16
But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
So, the Word of God has been authorized by the court of opinion of people who have an ear to hear truth, have the spirit of God directing and inspiring them, and is validated by other holy men and women of God. Keep in mind that it is also sealed by the blood of the martyrs, who not only worked tirelessly for God, were shuned by the world, and gave their lives for truth.
John testified to this principle in his letter:
1 John 5:6-8 (King James Version)
6This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.
7For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
8And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
It reminds me of how when I'm praying and studying the Word of God, that when the Holy Spirit speaks to my spirit, and shows me truth. He often speaks to me through scripture. Most of the time when I look for the words He is giving me, I find them often in the King James and New King James versions of the Bible. Both of those texts are based on the Textus Receptus. This is the manuscript which 95% of all other manuscripts agree with most. I'm not KJV only, but it helps to know the differences in translations, also.
Quote: "Clearly there was no New Testament when this was written so it must have been about the Old Testament. Who's to say that all of the what we know as the New Testament is truly inspired? "
Response: 1) All eight writers (or nine) of them were either apostles or associated with the apostles as eyewitnesses and/or contemporaries: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, James, Peter and Jude. These were al men who held the highest standards of ethics and were willing to die for their beliefs as most of them did.
2) These writers were credible as indicated by:
a) their tendency to doubt whether Jesus rose from the dead -Matt 28:17, Mark 16:3, Luke 24:11 John 20:24-29
b) the inclusion of material that reflected badly on themselves - Matt 16:23, Mark 14:47
c)the multiple accounts - Matt Mark Luke John etc - that establish their words by two or three witnesses as the court required - Deut 17:6
3) the divergence in accounts that reveals they were not in collusion - Matt 28:5 John 20:12
4) confirmation of the accounts through hundreds of archeological finds
5) the evidence for early dates for the basic material about Jesus death & resurrection by A.D. 55-60 (ie C Hemer confirmed that Luke wrote Acts by A.D 62) but Luke wrote the gospel of Luke which says the same basic things about Jesus that Matt & Mark says before he wrote Acts (by AD 60). Bible critics adimit that Paul wrote I Cor 15:1-6 which tells of the death & ressurection of Jesus by about AD 55. This was only 22 yrs after Jesus death while more than 250 witnesses of his resurrection were still alive (15:6)
Quote: Why not other books and writings written after Malachi?
Response: The 27 books of the NT are the only authentic record of apostolic teaching in existence. All other books that claim inspiration come from the second century or later. These books are known as the New Testament Apocrypha and re clearly not written by apostles since the apostles all died before the end of the first century. The only question is whether all of the apostolic writing from the 1st century have been preserved. If they have then these 27 books complete the canon of Scriptures and anything written after them cannot be a revelation of God to the church. So have all the apostolic & prophetic writings been preserved in the NT? Yes,.... why?
1) God is all-knowing (Ps 139:1-6; 147:5)
2) all good - ps 136:1
3)all powerful - gen 1:1 - Matt19:26
so it follows that He would not inspire books for the faith and practice of believers for ages and then fail to preserve them. Lost inspired books would be a lapse in Gods providence. God who has preserved his general revelation in nature - Rom 1:19-20 would not fail to preserve his special revelation in Scripture - Rom3:2 - God inspired them and God will preserve them - God completes what God begins (Phil 1:6)
4) The church has preserved the whole NT:
- a collection of these books was made from the earliest times even within the NT itself this preservation process was put into action. Luke refers to other written records - Luke 1:1-4 - possible Matt & Mark
In Pauls first letter to Timothy 5:18 he quotes the gospel of Luke - 10:7
Peter refers to a collection of Pauls letters - 2 pet 3:15-16
Paul charged that his letter of 1 Thess be read to all the brothers 5:27
Paul commanded the church at Colosse "After this letter has been read to you see that it is also read in the church of the Laodiceans - Col 4:16
Jude :6-7 - apparently had access to Peters second letter - 2 peter 2:4-6)
Johns book of Revelation was circulated to the churches of Asia Minor (Rev 1:4) - so the apostolic church itself was involved by divine imperative in the preservations of the apostolic writings
5) the contemporaries of the apostles themselves showed an awareness of their mentors writings, quoting from them prolifically. Following them the church fathers of the 2nd - 4th centures made some 36,289 citations from the NT including every verse except for eleven of them. This included 19,368 citations from the Gospels, 1,352 from Acts, 14.035 from Pauls epistles, 870 from the general epistles and 664 from Revelation. The church fathers from the 2nd century alone cited from every major book of the NT and all but one minor one (3 John) which they simply may have had no occasion to cite. This reveals not only their great respect for the writings of the apostles but also a great desire to preserve their written words.
6) when challenge by heretical teachings such as that of Marcion the Gnostic who rejects all of the NT except part of Luke and 10 of Pauls letters, the church responded by officically defining the extent of the canon. Some Protestants agree that the canon is closed.
I am in agreement with you. But, my question still lies unanswered, where in Scripture are the names (Canon) of the books and letters that were to go into The New Testament?
My Point being that if you were to Only Use what was in Scripture...how did The Catholic Church decide or what did they use to decide The New Testament?
The question is rethorical. The Catholic Church used what Christ gave Her...The Full Deposit of Faith (All His Teachings and Commandments) to compare the letters and books against and then She used The Authority given Her by Christ to decide if they were Inspired or not.
It was The Church...not Scripture only...that was used. Scripture was never intended to be the "Sole" means of Salvation. The Only Revelation from God. Their is also The Oral Revelation which became Tradition. Their have been No New Revelations from God since Apostolic Times. But The Church has "held fast" and kept "True" the Written Revelation and Oral Tradition...which along with The Magisterium (Teaching Church) ensure that nothing is added or changed and that The Faith is taught correctly.
