Protestants, how do we know without extra-biblical authority what books go in the bible?

Question

Why does this, or does this not, undermine "sola scriptura"?

CJ: Of course your opinion is interesting to me, but could you answer the question? I did not ask who the primary author of scripture is, nor did I express (nor to I feel) any distrust of God. My question is simply this: How do you know what goes in there?

Answer 1

I don't think they will even answer, because they can't.

Answer 2

Great question, it is from these questions or similar ones that the reason for putting a canon together was a must. Because in the early Church there was division due to which scripture to accept as inspired and which not to. The early fathers, did just that, reviewed all the writings and this started in the early 2nd century and didn't get put together as one bound copy until early in the 4th century. But reference to the Gospels and the letters as being inspired can be found in the Scripture itself, and these references and the fact that they were again scrutinized made for the decision. So it wasn't taken lightly and it wasn't something that was just done.
Then in the 15th century we get the reformation of Martin Luther, who bythe way was a Catholic monk and believes in his heart that there was no way that he could be saved, and decided to eliminate some texts from the Bible, which he called not inspired because they weren't in the original Hebrew but Greek, when it came to the OT writings. This is ironic because all of the NT writings were in Greek yet these sufficed for him.
He later went on to state that the Church was not a necesity Scripture was the only key to salvation. The leaders of the Church in his day needed reforming, it was run by people out for themselves and this is agreed upon by the Catholics of today as well, but he wanted to reform the Chruch as a whole, stating things that are traditional and scriptural as not being from these. This led to further deception, since it does not state anywhere in the Bible that a man cannot have two wives, and Luther conceded to this in a prince of the region, and the people revolted against the reformer.
It is sad that from such needed change to those who ran the Church, something of such seperation happened, and ever the more reason we need to pray all the harder.
So sola scriptura is a text from the Bible, Romans 10:9-10 taken out of context, becuase all throughout the Bible it clearly states otherwise. It takes much more than just reading a bunch of words to live and love God, know Jesus and know what it is truly be Christian, it takes Tradition, Scripture, Works and the notion that all these are done with Christ at the head of all our decisions, this is Biblical and truth.
God bless and Raven I thought I might commend you on your answer as well.

Answer 3

Those smart mouths (above) who say that protestants cannot answer apparently do not know themselves where the "cannon" comes from.

And, BTW, I think that you misunderstand the idea of "sola scriptura" if you think that it means that extra Biblical authority is evil, corrupt, or is good for nothing.

Without getting too theological, let's use some common sense. How do we know that someone was a prophet who spoke to God personally, and was inspired by him to write scripture? You do realize that the Bible itself tells you.

As pointed out by both Moses and Paul, a prophet who came from God, first of all, had to work miracles. Second of all, he had to give some prophecy about the future that had to come true. Third of all, a true prophet of God would not contradict another prophet of God, because God does not contradict himself.

Using these criteria, all of the books of the Bible, except from maybe a few like Esther, are self authenticating, even without tradition.

BTW, sola scriptura does NOT mean that tradition is always wrong; it simply means that gody tradition cannot contradict God's word, since God cannot contradict God.

Once again, sola scriptura is based on common sense. It is not some mystical thing that is hard to understand.

-------------------------------------------------
...You can hear the confusion already – “Wait! Are you trying to tell me that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura holds a certain view of tradition within it? Are you saying that Sola Scriptura rests on some kind of church tradition as well?” Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. Tradition, when used by the orthodox Christian church through the centuries, simply designates the complete corpus of “truth” as the inclusive set of Christian beliefs or the whole of “the faith” given to the saints (Jude 3) in which the Church contends for as orthodoxy. This kind of tradition is either verbal (such as the teaching that came verbally from the Apostles) or written (such as any of the books of the Bible that were penned). This does not incur “secret” traditions that were handed down to the church that are shrouded in some mysterious unwritten or secret documents that only a select few recognize (which is Rome’s position). Rather, Scripture and tradition are paralleled ideas that mean the same thing in orthodox Christianity...


====edit====

Sorry if my answer seems a little blunt; I was not trying to be rude; I'm just short on time because I am at work and don't have the time to politely pick and choose my words.

Answer 4

The Bible was not put under one cover until 397 AD at the Council of Carthage. It took a monk 10 months to hand copy the Bible. Prior to the Bible being put under one cover, who was the authority figure for the early church? Remember, the Bible did not exist as we know it today. There is NO denying the fact that the authority was the church--not the Bible.


The Catholic Church thoroughly examined all the books that were in question to be used in the New Testament and it was the Catholic Church that decided what books were inspired and which were not. Catholic monks spent their lives copying scripture over and over again until printing was developed in 1440 AD. So this means that for over 1,400 years the Church taught her members by tradition. Even after the invention of printing, it was far too expensive for every member of a household to own a Bible. John Gutenberg printed the first edition of the Catholic Bible. It wasn't until 1534, that Luther's translation of the Bible appeared.


What is said to be the pillar and foundation of truth in
1 Tim 3:15? Some of you may be surprised to find out!


God bless...

Answer 5

I'm a Proestant, but I do not think the canon is closed. I believe some of the Apocrypha is as inspired as the New Testament is. Then again, I deny biblical inerrancy. Because of my beliefs, I cannot answer your question effectively.

Answer 6

Bible makes referrence to the missing books. The bible tells us which ones to use. Remember, He makes all things happen.

Book of the Wars of the Lord Numbers 21:14
Book of Jasher Joshua 10:13;2 Samuel 1:18
Book of the acts of Solomon 1 Kings 11:41
Book of Samuel the seer 1 Chronicles 29:29
Book of Gad the seer 1 Chronicles 29:29
Book of Nathan the prophet 1 Chronicles 29:29;2 Chronicles 9:29
Prophecy of Ahijah 2 Chronicles 9:29
Visions of Iddo the Seer 2 Chronicles 9:29;12:15; 13:22
Book of Shemaiah 2 Chronicles 12:15
Book of Jehu 2 Chronicles 20:34
Sayings of the Seers 2 Chronicles 33:19
An epistle of Paul to the Corinthians,
earlier than our present 1 Corinthians 1 Corinthians 5:9
An earlier epistle to the Ephesians Ephesians 3:3
Epistle to the Laodiceans Colosians 4:16
Prophecies of Enoch,
known to Jude Jude 1:14
Book of the covenant Exodus 24:7
(may/may not be included in the current book of Exodus)
The Manner of the Kingdom,
written by Samuel 1 Samuel 10:25
Acts of Uzziah, written by Isaiah 2 Chronicles 26:22
The “Acts of Abijah…
in the Story of the Prophet Iddo” 2 Chronicles 13:22
(seems to not be the same as the Prophecy of Ahijah or the Visions of Iddo)

Answer 7

Anything left out tended to disagree with the things kept in. Mostly this turned out well. The people who decided were good people. God though was in control.

Answer 8

God is the Author of the Bible, and will put it together as He wants. Too bad you don't trust God with His own Word.

Catholics are not saved and are not Christians. Catholics believe a false gospel of works that leads to eternal hell.

Bible teachers that said that the Vatican and the catholic cult are an antichrist: John Bunyan, John Huss, John Wycliffe, John Calvin, William Tyndale, John Knox, Thomas Bacon, John Wesley, Charles Spurgeon, Samuel Cooper, John Cotton, and Jonathan Edwards

Answer 9

You're right! It does challenge the veracity of Bible only.

In Christ
Fr. Joseph

Answer 10

They don't think. Here's a star for you, and the rants your going to get from them.