Very clear exposition on what really matters concerning the writings of the gospels and the implicit and intern coherences of that four gospels as canonisation-criteria during the first century...
Thank you Don Carson and whoever posted this video. This was exactly the question I was seeking to answer and exactly the trusted man I wanted the answer from. I recently made a new Catholic friend and these questions loomed large haha. I see now why its really not that big of a conundrum for the Church today. although I still need to find a couple more answers.
"The church merely came to recognize a packet of documents that GOD HIMSELF HAD GIVEN" That's how the N.T. canon was formed? That statement is entirely vague and totally unsubstantiated. These scholars obviously don't have much to go on... and then presume to know what is "distorted history"??
Rather ..."if its New it can't be True"...The history is actually very clear... One time, and from all around the Mediterranean World, the early Church, which was not at all monolithic doctrinally, began to acknowledge a packet of documents as authoritative...and the Books "accepted" was almost universal...the same is true today..."christian" groups as widely diverse doctrinally as Roman Catholics, Baptists, Amish, Jehovah's Witness, Russian Orthodox, Quakers, Armenian Apostolic, 7th day Adventists and Oneness Pentecostals, all accept the same Canon as ancient proto-Orthodox, Arians, Montanists, Donatists, Pelagians and Monophysites...rather than the early Christological Church Councils conspiring to establish a canon based on narrow Orthodox doctrine ..the Canon was narrowed by the Books determined authoritative by all for the wider doctrinal debates ...it was in fact the very narrowly accepted, and later sectarian works such as Gnostic gospels or the Book of Mormon that were and still are universally rejected....."if its New it cannot be True"...Jesus put it this way ..."...the sheep follow Him, for they know His voice. Yet they will by no means follow a stranger, but will flee from him, for they do not know the voice of strangers.” (John 10:4)...
why in the hell did not the apostles, who could do miracles, write a book...how come we have no authors on these gospels...no dates....How are paul letter apostolic..he did not even know them....where is jesus...supposed to be back 2,000 years ago...they copied each other until john gospel who was on LSD when he wrote it...
The guy in this video contradicts himself. He says that in order to be canonical, a book has to be apostolic - and, strictly speaking, an apostle is a direct, flesh and blood disciple of Jesus, who studied with the Master personally during his lifetime. The only problem is that Paul, the author of many canonical books, does not, strictly speaking, meet that criterion. Paul was never a direct disciple of Jesus, who studied with Jesus while he was alive. And so, a large portion of the New Testament canon does not meet this first criterion. When I saw "The Ehrman Project" as the producers of this video, I thought that it was connected with the biblical scholar and author Bart Ehrman, whose views would be more historically accurate and in line with my own; I was sorely disappointed when I found out that this was just another propaganda video by Christian orthodoxy.
@@codymarkley8372 And I repeat: Paul was never a direct, personal disciple of Jesus; so therefore, in the strict sense of the term, he is not a direct apostle of Jesus either.
@@codymarkley8372 Either you clearly do not understand the whole point of the comments I've posted and are blind to this obvious truth, or you are just making fun of me for want of a better way to respond.
@@naiman4535 oh I understand you, I'm just calling out the fact that you willingly cut the rest of his qualifying statement off after he said something that confirmed your own bias. He said apostolic or linked to the apostles within a a generation or so apart basically. He isnt speaking strictly off denotation, he is speaking off of how it was factually compiled and the rationale behind it. You just disingenuously cherry picked his statements to point out a false contradiction.
I. Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men unexcusable;[1] yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of His will, which is necessary unto salvation.[2] Therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manners, to reveal Himself, and to declare that His will unto His Church;[3] and afterwards for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the Church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing;[4] which makes the Holy Scripture to be most necessary;[5] those former ways of God's revealing His will unto His people being now ceased.[6] II. Under the name of Holy Scripture, or the Word of God written, are now contained all the books of the Old and New Testament, which are these: Of the Old Testament: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, I Samuel, II Samuel, I Kings, II Kings, I Chronicles, II Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, The Song of Songs, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi. Of the New Testament: The Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, The Acts of the Apostles, Paul's Epistles to the Romans, Corinthians I, Corinthians II, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Thessalonians I , Thessalonians II , To Timothy I , To Timothy II, To Titus, To Philemon, The Epistle to the Hebrews, The Epistle of James, The first and second Epistles of Peter, The first, second, and third Epistles of John, The Epistle of Jude, The Revelation of John. All which are given by inspiration of God to be the rule of faith and life.[7] III. The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon of the Scripture, and therefore are of no authority in the Church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings.[8] IV. The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, depends not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.[9] V. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture.[10] And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it does abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God: yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.[11] VI. The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.[12] Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word:[13] and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.[14] VII. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all:[15] yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.[16] VIII. The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical;[17] so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them.[18] But, because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them,[19] therefore they are to be translated in to the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come,[20] that, the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship Him in an acceptable manner;[21] and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.[22] IX. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.[23] X. The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.[24]
The speaker talks about Paul warning about using his name to claim authority to argue authentication was important to the early church. But the vast majority of scholars say that 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus and Ephesians are falsely attributed to Paul, and yet they made it in to the NT Canon. And don't Paul's authentic letters reference letters that didn't make it? And aren't there nearly a dozen non-canonical writings that didn't make it into the NT but claim to have been written by Paul? Doesn't it strain credulity to think that a Canon could possibly be trustworthy under these circumstances? (leaving aside all the other issues with authenticity)
Thanks for some true fundamentalism! BTW - sometime note that the word "godly" (in the Greek) is ONLY in 1, 2Tim, Tit - but NO WHERE ELSE in the Pauline epistles.
While I have no scholarship regarding the letters of 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, or Ephesians, there's no claim anywhere that *everything* an apostle wrote is canon. There is no issue with fitting in that universally the early church recognized one letter over another as being truly Godly and God-inspired. The inspiration of the Holy Spirit to write scripture wasn't an aura that turned everything you touched into scripture. There's nothing to indicate that everything any apostle wrote should be considered scripture or had the same importance, even in the mind of the person writing it. It seems to be an assumption you are making that is entirely unnecessary. While it would be of interest to read other letters Paul wrote, it hardly strains any credulity unless you already come with assumptions that it must.
How ineffective god is at clearly communicating with people he supposedly so loved he supposedly gave his supposedly only supposed son. The bible was written by men and collected by men. Other writings were rejected by men. Thats what one would expect from a human writing or collecting process. Not a godly one.
There are very few scholars today who believe that the gospels were written by people who were with Jesus. Even in the traditional ascriptions to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, Mark was NOT a disciple of Jesus, he was a companion of Peter. Luke was not a disciple of Jesus, he was a traveling companion of the apostle Paul. Matthew (allegedly) was the tax collector with Jesus, and John (allegedly) was the beloved disciple,... -(that's the TRADITIONAL view). Most critical scholars DON'T BELIEVE THAT anymore. The gospels were not written by eyewitnesses and the first point to stress is that, they don't claim to be. Matthew does not claim to be written by somebody named Matthew, Mark does not claim to be written by somebody named Mark. These ascriptions of authorship were added later,... much later,... decades later. The original authors wrote ANONYMOUSLY. The ONE thing we know about these authors is that they were highly educated Greek speaking Christians who were rhetorically trained in Greek composition, following Greek rhetorical strategies. The disciples of Jesus were neither Greek speaking nor highly educated. According to the book of Acts chapter 4, John and Peter were, 'agrammatoi' which is the word for illiterate (they were, 'unlettered') but, of course, very few people in the ancient world were educated. At this time in Palestine, the best estimates indicate that only 3% of the population could read, far fewer could actually write and nobody that scholars know of (with the exception of Josephus) could write in Greek. Jesus's disciples were not well educated Greek speaking Christians, they were lower class Aramaic speaking peasants from rural Galilee so whoever wrote these books were later Christians living somewhere else who were not disciples of Jesus.👈 Dr. Bart Ehrman Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
...modern Critical Scholars are critical by nature...it doesn't make them correct, only skeptical critics... on the other hand if they accept apostolic authorship "prima facia", they are left with very little they can be critical of ...the earliest attestations of Authorship are generally very clear, consistent and accepted by all ancient authorities.. even today one generally accepts a modern book's authorship simply based on the author named on the title page..so unless these modern Critical Scholars have other works by the same apostolic Authors to compare the Gospels to ... it's largely chasing after wind ...and secular denial...
@@anarchorepublican5954 you express your disdain and confusion for the term, "critical scholarship" and seem to regard it in the pejoritive but it's simply an academic methodology. Those using the process approach their research with a distinguishing characteristic: the scientific concern to avoid dogma and bias by applying a neutral, non-sectarian, reason-based judgment to the study of the Bible. You, on the other hand, are a believer with a strong emotional connection to the subject matter. In other words, you begin, 'a priori' with the presumption that the bible (every word and story) must be true and then select for any 'evidence' that seems to confirm your presumption while editing out, ignoring or discarding any evidence that is critical of this conclusion (look up confirmation bias and circular reasoning). Most reasonable truth seekers understand the weakness and flaws of having a strong emotional stake in an answer/outcome before setting out to investigate any claim or assertion. You use the legal term, "prima facia" (the first impression) in your response, so I'll continue with your legal theme. No judge would ever hear a murder case where the defendant is HER OWN SON. Why?... I won't insult your intelligence by explaining the concept of, 'conflict of interest' to you. I'm not sure you're even aware of the depth of your religious/emotional connection to the subject matter but it's exposed in your comment, "if they accept apostolic authorship, "prima facia" they are left with very little they can be critical of"🤣 That's like saying, "if they accept that it's the truth there's very little reason to think it's not true"! Uh,... O.K.? 🤦♂️ Secular denial, eh?... Far more likely that we're dealing with a powerfully emotional religious delusion.
@@davidlenett8808 ..Thanks for the lengthy response David...you clearly put a lot of yourself into it...but unfortunately its based on a lot of prejudice about "believers'; assumptions about my emotional state (what I wrote wasn't the least bit emotional)...and presumptions about "truth"...none of which are very accurate…but what it doesn’t do is provide any evidence for your assertions against “apostolic “ authorship... I'm a curious sort so I've spent decades exploring the exotic world of liberal biblical critical scholarship...its kind of a hobby of mine..so forgive me, if I'm skeptical of all the Skeptics...I've attended "Jesus Seminars" by Erhman, Pagels, Funk, Robertson, Tabor, Sprong, Borg, Crossan, Levine, Fredricksen...asked them pointed questions face to face...my library is filled with their autographed books...I enjoy their UA-cam lectures and podcasts...and once in a while they even have a plausible insight (even a blind pig roots up an acorn once in awhile).. But I'll let you in a little secret...they don't agree on much...and there is no objective methodology...pay very close attention...and you will witness them abandon "multiple sources" in a heartbeat... they each pick and choose the parts of the Bible (or even 3rd century apocrypha), if it happens to agree with their personal doctrinal agenda..Then they speculate on and overly exaggerate the inaccuracy of the parts they don't like...and as far as denying traditional "apostolic" authorship goes... that's probably the weakest link of all...like I said this been greatly attested since antiquity...and only denied by modern skeptical scholars...and always with no good (usually none) historical reasons at all...other than it pours cold water all over their criticisms..
1 Clement, Shepherd of Hermas, Barnabas, ignatian epistles, didache, apostolic constitutions, polycarp epistles, St Paul’s 3rd letter to the Corinthians mentioned in NT, Revelation, Hebrews, 1-3 John, 1-2 Peter, Jude, etc, etc, etc In the New Testament alone, all these books were contested well into the 4th century within The Church. This is documented in a very detailed manner by Eusebius, among others. To insinuate that the clear cut closed canon of the NT was already formed long before the mid 4th century is plainly inaccurate, and potentially delusional. It is easily refuted by the comprehensive witness of the fathers. This is a common distorted narrative from Protestants: “the canon already existed, they just acknowledged what it clearly was” ^ this is just false. The Orthodox Catholic Church ratified the council of Carthage 397 in the subsequent ecumenical councils.
I think, ultimately, Protestants can't get around the main issue, that is the Church. Scripture may not have been "created" by the Church. How ever it was written by Churchmen and for the Church. The Fathers recognised the canonical books, often against competing writings. If they could recognise what books were apostolic, then they must have known something about the text and something about apostolic teaching. You can't get around that.
Yes, unfortunately the Christian n Church say the words of God , but not, absolutely not Holly Books, just compilation of people heard, thought, inspired, so the truth just they want n like
5 років тому
Early Church? Thought you'd never ask! - earlychurchunderground.com
With due respect to Dr. Carson n all who hv n are studying this topic diligently, there had to be an authority who infallibly told us that these 27 books make up the NT. No more no less. Without the Church there can be no Bible. The Catholic Church canonized scripture. The Church gave the Bible its authority. The Bible derives its authority from the Church and the Church derives it from Jesus. The reason we accept without a doubt the 27 books of the NT is because the Catholic Church, who Jesus established to teach infallible truth, teaches so.
The Roman Catholic Church didn't give the Bible its authority at all and didn't choose which books to be in the canon, the Bible's authority is intrinsic to its very nature as inspired scripture. You only mentioned the N.T books but what about the O.T books? who chose the O.T canon? Where is the Jewish magistrate that picked the books to be in the O.T canon and their canon was different than the Roman Catholic Church O.T canon? How do you know the Roman Catholic Church is the right or correct church established by Jesus? Jesus established a church but how do you know its the RCC?
@@Rhantismos23 thanks for ur reply. In 382 AD at the Council of Rome, the 73 books of the bible, 46 OT n 27 NT were listed for the 1st time. The same list was accepted n ratified by all subsequent councils where the Canon was discussed up until Trent 1546 where it was officially ratified. Before 382 AD, there was no fixed canon, both OT n NT. James, Jude, Hebrews, Revelation, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John were doubted by some local churches. Shepherd of Hermas, Epistle of Barnabas, Clement's letter to the Corinthians , etc were accepted as inspired by some. Same with the OT. Diff groups had diff lists. Yes a book became inspired the moment it was being written but it did not become authoritative until it was part of the canon. Christians had to know if a book was really inspired before he/she can accept its authority in their lives. And we will only know it if someone tells us so. In comes the Church. The Catholic Church, which Jesus established to teach truth without error n with his authority, told us so. And that's how we know what books are in the Bible n what are not. God could hv accomplished all that without the Church but he 'chose' to propagate his truth thru a group of men n we should merely accept it.
@@Rhantismos23 the term 'Roman' Catholic Church is just one of the many rites within the universal church, though it is the largest. The term 'Catholic Church' would be more correct to refer to the church Jesus established. Yes Jesus established a Church we all agree. N he also gave it leaders to govern it with his authority, ...the apostles. N the apostles had successors n they had successors , etc till now in the 21st century. Peter was made the rock n was given the keys to the kingdom, n the power to bind n loose, .. keys meaning succession n authority which would be handed down to his successor. Much like Eliakim was given the keys to the kingdom n the power to close n shut... given by the king Hezekiah. Isaiah 22. N he succeeded Shebna ... n someone else will succeed him, so on.... The Israeli king had a Prime Minister n a group of ministers, Jesus the King of Kings chose the same... Peter and the apostles. So Peter n the Apostles.... the Pope n the Bishops. The royal steward has to look after the kingdom until the return of the king.
Al W if that’s the case why don’t we see disputes about canonization in the gospels? Why is Jesus and the apostles citing scripture as if there was a canon? Jesus said to the Jewish authorities “Have you not read what God said to you” then he quotes Genesis, they didn’t tell him we don’t have a canon. Josephus a 1st century historian says the Jews have 39 books in their canon. So clearly your claim is false
Al W Al W You gave many claims without any evidence, Peter with all the apostles were given the keys and there was no succession after the apostles. Ignatius even said to the Romans “ I do not command you like Peter and Paul they are apostles, i have a slave” also if we look at early christian texts like 1 Clement there is no successor but multiple elders, where was the successor in the Council of Nicea? What is the point of councils and bishops fighting each other if there was a successor?
Um no duh. He is a PhD. Meaning he studies and researches this information. That's how you make a living studying scripture validity. Smh maybe you should study and get one so you can figure out its validity smart guy.
Very clear exposition on what really matters concerning the writings of the gospels and the implicit and intern coherences of that four gospels as canonisation-criteria during the first century...
Thank you Don Carson and whoever posted this video. This was exactly the question I was seeking to answer and exactly the trusted man I wanted the answer from. I recently made a new Catholic friend and these questions loomed large haha. I see now why its really not that big of a conundrum for the Church today. although I still need to find a couple more answers.
I'm a believer in Jesus but I consider this man's argument to be a case study in circular reasoning.
"The church merely came to recognize a packet of documents that GOD HIMSELF HAD GIVEN"
That's how the N.T. canon was formed? That statement is entirely vague and totally unsubstantiated. These scholars obviously don't have much to go on... and then presume to know what is "distorted history"??
So you’re just gonna ignore the criterion mentioned in the video? Seems fair.
I think he was just speaking generally. And generally speaking, I think it's true.
Rather ..."if its New it can't be True"...The history is actually very clear... One time, and from all around the Mediterranean World, the early Church, which was not at all monolithic doctrinally, began to acknowledge a packet of documents as authoritative...and the Books "accepted" was almost universal...the same is true today..."christian" groups as widely diverse doctrinally as Roman Catholics, Baptists, Amish, Jehovah's Witness, Russian Orthodox, Quakers, Armenian Apostolic, 7th day Adventists and Oneness Pentecostals, all accept the same Canon as ancient proto-Orthodox, Arians, Montanists, Donatists, Pelagians and Monophysites...rather than the early Christological Church Councils conspiring to establish a canon based on narrow Orthodox doctrine ..the Canon was narrowed by the Books determined authoritative by all for the wider doctrinal debates ...it was in fact the very narrowly accepted, and later sectarian works such as Gnostic gospels or the Book of Mormon that were and still are universally rejected....."if its New it cannot be True"...Jesus put it this way ..."...the sheep follow Him, for they know His voice. Yet they will by no means follow a stranger, but will flee from him, for they do not know the voice of strangers.” (John 10:4)...
why in the hell did not the apostles, who could do miracles, write a book...how come we have no authors on these gospels...no dates....How are paul letter apostolic..he did not even know them....where is jesus...supposed to be back 2,000 years ago...they copied each other until john gospel who was on LSD when he wrote it...
The guy in this video contradicts himself. He says that in order to be canonical, a book has to be apostolic - and, strictly speaking, an apostle is a direct, flesh and blood disciple of Jesus, who studied with the Master personally during his lifetime. The only problem is that Paul, the author of many canonical books, does not, strictly speaking, meet that criterion. Paul was never a direct disciple of Jesus, who studied with Jesus while he was alive. And so, a large portion of the New Testament canon does not meet this first criterion. When I saw "The Ehrman Project" as the producers of this video, I thought that it was connected with the biblical scholar and author Bart Ehrman, whose views would be more historically accurate and in line with my own; I was sorely disappointed when I found out that this was just another propaganda video by Christian orthodoxy.
He said apostolic or linked to the apostles. Geesh
@@codymarkley8372 And I repeat: Paul was never a direct, personal disciple of Jesus; so therefore, in the strict sense of the term, he is not a direct apostle of Jesus either.
@@naiman4535 linked to the apostles lol
@@codymarkley8372 Either you clearly do not understand the whole point of the comments I've posted and are blind to this obvious truth, or you are just making fun of me for want of a better way to respond.
@@naiman4535 oh I understand you, I'm just calling out the fact that you willingly cut the rest of his qualifying statement off after he said something that confirmed your own bias. He said apostolic or linked to the apostles within a a generation or so apart basically. He isnt speaking strictly off denotation, he is speaking off of how it was factually compiled and the rationale behind it. You just disingenuously cherry picked his statements to point out a false contradiction.
Look up Arrius Piso, did he write the Gospels?
So we can trust the canon created by the early church because... reasons?
I. Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men unexcusable;[1] yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of His will, which is necessary unto salvation.[2] Therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manners, to reveal Himself, and to declare that His will unto His Church;[3] and afterwards for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the Church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing;[4] which makes the Holy Scripture to be most necessary;[5] those former ways of God's revealing His will unto His people being now ceased.[6]
II. Under the name of Holy Scripture, or the Word of God written, are now contained all the books of the Old and New Testament, which are these: Of the Old Testament: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, I Samuel, II Samuel, I Kings, II Kings, I Chronicles, II Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, The Song of Songs, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi. Of the New Testament: The Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, The Acts of the Apostles, Paul's Epistles to the Romans, Corinthians I, Corinthians II, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Thessalonians I , Thessalonians II , To Timothy I , To Timothy II, To Titus, To Philemon, The Epistle to the Hebrews, The Epistle of James, The first and second Epistles of Peter, The first, second, and third Epistles of John, The Epistle of Jude, The Revelation of John. All which are given by inspiration of God to be the rule of faith and life.[7]
III. The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon of the Scripture, and therefore are of no authority in the Church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings.[8]
IV. The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, depends not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.[9]
V. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture.[10] And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it does abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God: yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.[11]
VI. The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.[12] Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word:[13] and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.[14]
VII. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all:[15] yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.[16]
VIII. The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical;[17] so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them.[18] But, because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them,[19] therefore they are to be translated in to the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come,[20] that, the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship Him in an acceptable manner;[21] and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.[22]
IX. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.[23]
X. The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.[24]
The speaker talks about Paul warning about using his name to claim authority to argue authentication was important to the early church. But the vast majority of scholars say that 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus and Ephesians are falsely attributed to Paul, and yet they made it in to the NT Canon. And don't Paul's authentic letters reference letters that didn't make it? And aren't there nearly a dozen non-canonical writings that didn't make it into the NT but claim to have been written by Paul? Doesn't it strain credulity to think that a Canon could possibly be trustworthy under these circumstances? (leaving aside all the other issues with authenticity)
Thanks for some true fundamentalism! BTW - sometime note that the word "godly" (in the Greek) is ONLY in 1, 2Tim, Tit - but NO WHERE ELSE in the Pauline epistles.
While I have no scholarship regarding the letters of 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, or Ephesians, there's no claim anywhere that *everything* an apostle wrote is canon. There is no issue with fitting in that universally the early church recognized one letter over another as being truly Godly and God-inspired.
The inspiration of the Holy Spirit to write scripture wasn't an aura that turned everything you touched into scripture. There's nothing to indicate that everything any apostle wrote should be considered scripture or had the same importance, even in the mind of the person writing it. It seems to be an assumption you are making that is entirely unnecessary.
While it would be of interest to read other letters Paul wrote, it hardly strains any credulity unless you already come with assumptions that it must.
How ineffective god is at clearly communicating with people he supposedly so loved he supposedly gave his supposedly only supposed son.
The bible was written by men and collected by men. Other writings were rejected by men. Thats what one would expect from a human writing or collecting process. Not a godly one.
Except you are refusing to see that the godly book was given to humans through humans in a fallen world. What were you expecting?
There are very few scholars today who believe that the gospels were written by people who were with Jesus. Even in the traditional ascriptions to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, Mark was NOT a disciple of Jesus, he was a companion of Peter. Luke was not a disciple of Jesus, he was a traveling companion of the apostle Paul. Matthew (allegedly) was the tax collector with Jesus, and John (allegedly) was the beloved disciple,... -(that's the TRADITIONAL view).
Most critical scholars DON'T BELIEVE THAT anymore. The gospels were not written by eyewitnesses and the first point to stress is that, they don't claim to be. Matthew does not claim to be written by somebody named Matthew, Mark does not claim to be written by somebody named Mark. These ascriptions of authorship were added later,... much later,... decades later. The original authors wrote ANONYMOUSLY. The ONE thing we know about these authors is that they were highly educated Greek speaking Christians who were rhetorically trained in Greek composition, following Greek rhetorical strategies. The disciples of Jesus were neither Greek speaking nor highly educated. According to the book of Acts chapter 4, John and Peter were, 'agrammatoi' which is the word for illiterate (they were, 'unlettered') but, of course, very few people in the ancient world were educated. At this time in Palestine, the best estimates indicate that only 3% of the population could read, far fewer could actually write and nobody that scholars know of (with the exception of Josephus) could write in Greek. Jesus's disciples were not well educated Greek speaking Christians, they were lower class Aramaic speaking peasants from rural Galilee so whoever wrote these books were later Christians living somewhere else who were not disciples of Jesus.👈
Dr. Bart Ehrman Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Most scholars believe they were amanuensis.
@@codymarkley8372 are you making the claim that most critical scholars 'believe' the writers received dictation from actual disciples or eyewitnesses?
...modern Critical Scholars are critical by nature...it doesn't make them correct, only skeptical critics... on the other hand if they accept apostolic authorship "prima facia", they are left with very little they can be critical of ...the earliest attestations of Authorship are generally very clear, consistent and accepted by all ancient authorities.. even today one generally accepts a modern book's authorship simply based on the author named on the title page..so unless these modern Critical Scholars have other works by the same apostolic Authors to compare the Gospels to ... it's largely chasing after wind ...and secular denial...
@@anarchorepublican5954 you express your disdain and confusion for the term, "critical scholarship" and seem to regard it in the pejoritive but it's simply an academic methodology. Those using the process approach their research with a distinguishing characteristic: the scientific concern to avoid dogma and bias by applying a neutral, non-sectarian, reason-based judgment to the study of the Bible.
You, on the other hand, are a believer with a strong emotional connection to the subject matter. In other words, you begin, 'a priori' with the presumption that the bible (every word and story) must be true and then select for any 'evidence' that seems to confirm your presumption while editing out, ignoring or discarding any evidence that is critical of this conclusion (look up confirmation bias and circular reasoning).
Most reasonable truth seekers understand the weakness and flaws of having a strong emotional stake in an answer/outcome before setting out to investigate any claim or assertion. You use the legal term, "prima facia" (the first impression) in your response, so I'll continue with your legal theme.
No judge would ever hear a murder case where the defendant is HER OWN SON. Why?... I won't insult your intelligence by explaining the concept of, 'conflict of interest' to you. I'm not sure you're even aware of the depth of your religious/emotional connection to the subject matter but it's exposed in your comment, "if they accept apostolic authorship, "prima facia" they are left with very little they can be critical of"🤣
That's like saying, "if they accept that it's the truth there's very little reason to think it's not true"! Uh,... O.K.? 🤦♂️
Secular denial, eh?... Far more likely that we're dealing with a powerfully emotional religious delusion.
@@davidlenett8808 ..Thanks for the lengthy response David...you clearly put a lot of yourself into it...but unfortunately its based on a lot of prejudice about "believers'; assumptions about my emotional state (what I wrote wasn't the least bit emotional)...and presumptions about "truth"...none of which are very accurate…but what it doesn’t do is provide any evidence for your assertions against “apostolic “ authorship...
I'm a curious sort so I've spent decades exploring the exotic world of liberal biblical critical scholarship...its kind of a hobby of mine..so forgive me, if I'm skeptical of all the Skeptics...I've attended "Jesus Seminars" by Erhman, Pagels, Funk, Robertson, Tabor, Sprong, Borg, Crossan, Levine, Fredricksen...asked them pointed questions face to face...my library is filled with their autographed books...I enjoy their UA-cam lectures and podcasts...and once in a while they even have a plausible insight (even a blind pig roots up an acorn once in awhile)..
But I'll let you in a little secret...they don't agree on much...and there is no objective methodology...pay very close attention...and you will witness them abandon "multiple sources" in a heartbeat... they each pick and choose the parts of the Bible (or even 3rd century apocrypha), if it happens to agree with their personal doctrinal agenda..Then they speculate on and overly exaggerate the inaccuracy of the parts they don't like...and as far as denying traditional "apostolic" authorship goes... that's probably the weakest link of all...like I said this been greatly attested since antiquity...and only denied by modern skeptical scholars...and always with no good (usually none) historical reasons at all...other than it pours cold water all over their criticisms..
1 Clement, Shepherd of Hermas, Barnabas, ignatian epistles, didache, apostolic constitutions, polycarp epistles, St Paul’s 3rd letter to the Corinthians mentioned in NT, Revelation, Hebrews, 1-3 John, 1-2 Peter, Jude, etc, etc, etc
In the New Testament alone, all these books were contested well into the 4th century within The Church. This is documented in a very detailed manner by Eusebius, among others.
To insinuate that the clear cut closed canon of the NT was already formed long before the mid 4th century is plainly inaccurate, and potentially delusional. It is easily refuted by the comprehensive witness of the fathers.
This is a common distorted narrative from Protestants: “the canon already existed, they just acknowledged what it clearly was”
^ this is just false.
The Orthodox Catholic Church ratified the council of Carthage 397 in the subsequent ecumenical councils.
I think, ultimately, Protestants can't get around the main issue, that is the Church. Scripture may not have been "created" by the Church. How ever it was written by Churchmen and for the Church. The Fathers recognised the canonical books, often against competing writings. If they could recognise what books were apostolic, then they must have known something about the text and something about apostolic teaching. You can't get around that.
Actually your arguments are pretty flimsy
Yes, unfortunately the Christian n Church say the words of God , but not, absolutely not Holly Books, just compilation of people heard, thought, inspired, so the truth just they want n like
Early Church? Thought you'd never ask! - earlychurchunderground.com
I think he’s just inadvertently dismantled Sola Scriptura
With due respect to Dr. Carson n all who hv n are studying this topic diligently, there had to be an authority who infallibly told us that these 27 books make up the NT. No more no less. Without the Church there can be no Bible. The Catholic Church canonized scripture. The Church gave the Bible its authority. The Bible derives its authority from the Church and the Church derives it from Jesus. The reason we accept without a doubt the 27 books of the NT is because the Catholic Church, who Jesus established to teach infallible truth, teaches so.
The Roman Catholic Church didn't give the Bible its authority at all and didn't choose which books to be in the canon, the Bible's authority is intrinsic to its very nature as inspired scripture. You only mentioned the N.T books but what about the O.T books? who chose the O.T canon? Where is the Jewish magistrate that picked the books to be in the O.T canon and their canon was different than the Roman Catholic Church O.T canon?
How do you know the Roman Catholic Church is the right or correct church established by Jesus? Jesus established a church but how do you know its the RCC?
@@Rhantismos23 thanks for ur reply. In 382 AD at the Council of Rome, the 73 books of the bible, 46 OT n 27 NT were listed for the 1st time. The same list was accepted n ratified by all subsequent councils where the Canon was discussed up until Trent 1546 where it was officially ratified. Before 382 AD, there was no fixed canon, both OT n NT. James, Jude, Hebrews, Revelation, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John were doubted by some local churches. Shepherd of Hermas, Epistle of Barnabas, Clement's letter to the Corinthians , etc were accepted as inspired by some. Same with the OT. Diff groups had diff lists. Yes a book became inspired the moment it was being written but it did not become authoritative until it was part of the canon. Christians had to know if a book was really inspired before he/she can accept its authority in their lives. And we will only know it if someone tells us so. In comes the Church. The Catholic Church, which Jesus established to teach truth without error n with his authority, told us so. And that's how we know what books are in the Bible n what are not. God could hv accomplished all that without the Church but he 'chose' to propagate his truth thru a group of men n we should merely accept it.
@@Rhantismos23 the term 'Roman' Catholic Church is just one of the many rites within the universal church, though it is the largest. The term 'Catholic Church' would be more correct to refer to the church Jesus established. Yes Jesus established a Church we all agree. N he also gave it leaders to govern it with his authority, ...the apostles. N the apostles had successors n they had successors , etc till now in the 21st century. Peter was made the rock n was given the keys to the kingdom, n the power to bind n loose, .. keys meaning succession n authority which would be handed down to his successor. Much like Eliakim was given the keys to the kingdom n the power to close n shut... given by the king Hezekiah. Isaiah 22. N he succeeded Shebna ... n someone else will succeed him, so on.... The Israeli king had a Prime Minister n a group of ministers, Jesus the King of Kings chose the same... Peter and the apostles. So Peter n the Apostles.... the Pope n the Bishops. The royal steward has to look after the kingdom until the return of the king.
Al W if that’s the case why don’t we see disputes about canonization in the gospels? Why is Jesus and the apostles citing scripture as if there was a canon? Jesus said to the Jewish authorities “Have you not read what God said to you” then he quotes Genesis, they didn’t tell him we don’t have a canon. Josephus a 1st century historian says the Jews have 39 books in their canon. So clearly your claim is false
Al W Al W You gave many claims without any evidence, Peter with all the apostles were given the keys and there was no succession after the apostles. Ignatius even said to the Romans “ I do not command you like Peter and Paul they are apostles, i have a slave” also if we look at early christian texts like 1 Clement there is no successor but multiple elders, where was the successor in the Council of Nicea? What is the point of councils and bishops fighting each other if there was a successor?
We know that Carson makes a living based on all this stuff - therefore any credibility he has is seriously suspect.
Um no duh. He is a PhD. Meaning he studies and researches this information. That's how you make a living studying scripture validity. Smh maybe you should study and get one so you can figure out its validity smart guy.