Christians: On what do you base your faith that the New Testament Canon is both complete and accurate?

Question

This is one of those questions to which "Read the Bible!" is not even remotely appropriate. Either do some research or keep quiet.

If you study your history a little bit, you will see that the New Testament Canon was never an undisputed fact - there is still disagreement between the Vatican and most Protestant denominations about which books should be included as the "Word of God". The first Canon was proposed by Marcion, a Gnostic "heretic" who rejected the Old Testament entirely. The Church responded with it's own hastily constructed Canon as a rebuttal to the Marcionites. The first official Bible was written by Eusebius under consignment from Constantine; much of the content was included for political reasons, not historical accuracy.

Considering that the Bible is the source of all your indisputable facts, do you think it's history is kind of important? Or are you willing to trust a bunch of dead guys who said "This is the Word of God because we say so"?

mortgagegirl: I'm not labeling all Christians as Catholics. I'm labeling all Christians as adhering to some version of the Bible, and I'm saying most probably don't know the origins of said Bible. The fact that Catholics and Protestants don't agree on which books to include is but one example of the questionable nature of the New Testament Canon.

don: I think you're nuts, but at least you're well-educated and do your homework.

r_moulton: FYI, nobody accepts evolution because Charles Darwin said so; he was merely the first to say so. The thing with science is that experiments have to be repeatable. If you could repeat the Council of Carthage and get the same results, you'd have something to stand on; otherwise you're just accepting the word of some dead guys as inerrant truth.

Answer 1

I don't think the New Testament was come compiled hastily, but rather was the evolution of what was considered scripture by the early church and what was rejected. There was a lot of blood shed (literally) over this issue. Many early Christians died to protect certain writings.

Certain books were widely circulated, accepted as good doctrine applicable to life, originated from the apostles, and where coherent with one another. These criteria were used to decide what was canon and what was not. The church nailed it down informally after Marcion decided what was canon. It wasn't until sometime later until the canon was decided universally, and even then the issue wasn’t settled.

Additionally, Marcion wasn't the first to deliberate between what books were good and which were not. Ignatius gave credence to some books as scripture while rejecting others that had a more Gnostic persuasion. The apostles gave credence to one another’s writings too to prevent those in the early church from being lead astray be false teachers. Peter's and John's epistles constantly admonish their readers to stick to the truth that they have learned -- through writings and words of the apostles.

I personally have looked into the history of the Christian canon, and really am fascinated by how well preserved the New Testament is. It is hands down the most well preserved ancient document in history. The Iliad is the second most well preserved document, and it only has about an eighth of the number of manuscripts the New Testament has.

It is true that the issue of canonicity isn't settled. The Greek Orthodox Bible is different from the Protestant Bible which is different from the Catholic Bible. But this doesn't mean that we reject the Bible on that basis. There are certain books that all Orthodox Christian persuasion agrees on. There are others, however they do not. These books have all generally been considered periphery. But it doesn't hurt for a Christian to read these books. I am a Protestant, and read the apocrypha because I think it has historical value that allows me to better understand what I'd consider scripture. It is probably certain that the issue of canonicity will never be settled. But I think we should study it and continue to investigate the matter. I think the more we can learn about Scripture, the more evident it becomes that it is truth.

Based on my persuasion about Scriptures though, I believe it is inerrant, but this does not mean I am inerrant. I am prone to misinterpret the Scriptures. It is possible that I could take a particular passage and make it say something it doesn't, and it is possible that I can read my preconceived theology into a passage and make it say something it doesn't. Interpreting the Bible is a tough exercise, and needs to be done with caution and in the light of the culture it was written, so history is of the utmost importance.

Likewise, I agree that "Read the Bible!" is a bad answer. If one wants to use scripture, he or she should cite the passage and expound on the truth in the passage.

Answer 2

Lets see... I'm not sure if you are just a Christian basher or not, but here goes.

1. The Gnostics and their Gospels were generally written much further after the death of Jesus than the Gospels that are in the Bible

2. In terms of history being important, there are many extrabiblical references to biblical events. It is difficult to have a transparent debate on the manner, however, since many non-believers argue that the extrabiblical references were planted by early Christians who were fortunate enough to be able to read and write (and hence translate some of what we read as history)

3. Eusebius did not write the first official bible. It is true that what Christians (myself included) call the early Church had debates over scripture. From what I know, however, nobody at that point actually sat down and wrote a new document, the debates were over inclusion and exclusion.

4. It would be eaiser to have a debate if I knew which version of history you advocate as "truth" For example, I read in a secular history book once that George Washington had wooden teeth. The fact that a source is secular does not make it true.

5. It was women that discovered the empty tomb that had once held Jesus after the crusifiction. If the bible was written in a way that would tend to maximize its credibility, why have women (who were hardly counted as people at the time) make the most important discovery in Christiandom.

6. Read the Bible :) In reality, I am serious. You appear to be well read but your writing suggests that you have rejected the Bible as a potential historical writing before having read it.

7. Finally, your question has a faulty premise. The question was "Christians: On what do you base your faith that the New Testament Cannon is both complete and accurate?" Such a question is circular, however, since our faith is based on the Word of God (which I am sure you know). In other words, any answer that we give that is actually based on faith must be rejected based on the premise of your question. As the person who wishes to engage in debate, it is your responsibility to structure your question in a way that makes debate possible.

Answer 3

Fine question. There are some (I can't say many) within all Christian churches who want the canonical question revisited. Protestants reject the Apocrypha which Catholics regard as canonical, but this isn't in the New Testament.
The difficulty with reopening the canonical question is that the canon, as it came to be formed by the infant and early Church, was a matter of traditional usage: churches used what they had (let's not fool ourselves into thinking tha the ancients possessed books as we have them today). If the only gospel a community had was a gnostic one, that's what they were going to use because that was the legacy of the tradition they revered. The New Testament canon is "accurate" insofar as the letters and gospels most harmonious with the tradition of Jesus as he was remembered by his disciples were the ones most revered by the early Christian communities.
What has to be kept in mind when regarding any book or letter for inclusion into the canon is that is was and is, primarily, the faith record of a people who believed something about Jesus. There were not scribes following Jesus around and writing gospels as they did; this is simplistic and arrogant for us to assume. There is a reason the gospels were not composed for decades after Jesus died; the traditions about Jesus were preserved orally; what we have as far as writings go are the reflections of later generations of disciples.
The canon, for the record, wasn't considered closed until the Reformation for the Protestants and the Council of Trent in 1525 for the Catholics.

Answer 4

Good question. Not sure I can give what you will accept as an answer, but here goes...

You are correct that the canon was/is not undisputed. The Douay (Catholic) Bible includes the Apocrypha, which Protestants do not accept as inspired, although it is informative. Martin Luther was in doubt about the book of James. There are a number of so-called 'lost' books that were never widely accepted. The LDS church, a 'sect' of Christianity, would have us believe that they have a later, more authoratative revelation in the Book of Mormon.

The current NT canon was agreed upon at the Council of Carthage in AD 400. It took that long for the church to collect and evaluate all the contending manuscripts, bearing in mind that multiple copies had to be examined since the originals were not available at that time. The Codexes Sinaiticus and Vaticanus date from this period. Also involved in the process was the determination of what is orthodox belief, i.e. what did Christ and the original apostles teach. Such orthodoxy was of vital importance in determining which works were authentic and which were spurious or even heretical.

That the 'final' decisions about the canon were made by men is not disputed, nor is it disputed that the books of the Bible themselves were written by men. Archeology may yet determine that some NT book (Hebrews maybe, since its authorship is unknown?) does not pass the tests of historicity, and internal and external consistency that earn it a place in the category of 'inspired' writing. We are still finding manuscript fragments from earlier and earlier times.

The operative word here is 'faith'. Christians believe that God has taken some pains to reveal Himself and to cause that revelation to be written down for posterity. In light of that, and the fact that the canonical manuscripts have been preserved so faithfully (far more so than any other documents of antiquity), it seems reasonable and logical to assume that God also had a hand in the preservation of His Word and that the same Spirit which inspired the writings oversaw the discernment process by which some were selected and others discarded.

There is also the practical test. What does faithful, balanced observance of the faith taught in these books generally produce in the individual in terms of moral character. There are, without a doubt, excesses on both the 'liberal' and 'conservative' ends of the spectrum; no one manages to fully and perfectly incorporate all of it. But overall, true belief in the Bible produces a person with a self-esteem grounded in his/her value to God, a person who therefore finds value in others regardless of their race, creed or physical condition and who respects and fights for human rights, who deals with his/her mistakes and sins, a person who is responsible and selflessly compassionate, a person who seeks the truth and the right regardless of personal cost, a person who is trustworthy and equitable in his/her dealings with others. Or at least, we are consciously in the process of becoming people of this nature.

So, in short, yes -- I am willing to trust a bunch of dead guys who said "This is the Word of God", at least as much as others are willing to accept that another dead guy (Charles Darwin) said that everything evolved from the primordial ooze. In the absence of the time and intelligence to reinvent every wheel for ourselves, we accept the words of a lot of dead guys because what they said still works.

Answer 5

Either do some research or keep quiet.

I am not a Protestant nor a catholic.

My BIBLE -The KJV is complete as is.
I am well aware of the, so called, church fathers and their debates.

The KJV is based on the appropriate Scrolls and untouched by the Horte and Westcott catholic team.

Answer 6

First not all Christians are Catholic. I am a Christian and I do not have any thing at all to do with Catholic doctrine and canonical laws. I think Catholicism may as well be paganism since they do so many things which are not biblically based. Some of it is even frowned upon in the bible. Please be careful with the lable Christian in reference to Catholics.

Answer 7

I think you pretty well summed it up. God knows it took me a whole book to make the same statement.

Allan W Janssen is the author of The Plain Truth About God-101 (what the church doesn't want you to know!) at; www.God-101.com
And the petition to have people mind their own business instead of yours at; http://www.petitiononline.com/moses/petition.html

Answer 8

Constantine mixed his Sun
God worship into Christianity , thus Easter Sunrise December 25 and so on and so on,if you choose to be educated you search for the answers

Answer 9

What do you care? Mind your own business, bigot.