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.
So we may be missing crucial teachings?
What if we have included erroneous teachings?
Do we have no way of knowing?
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.
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?
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?
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.
Which churches?
Source?
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?
Why believe some Catholic bishop?
So it's not scripture vs. tradition, but rather scripture IS tradition!?
Could the wrong books have been included?
Incidentally, Athanasius included the Apocrapha/Deuterocanonicals...so...should those be accepted too?
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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,"
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,
In so many words...
All Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for rebuking, for correcting, for training in righteousness,
But how do you know you're supposed to have those 27 books?
But how do you know WHICH books are scripture?
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.
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?