This is not a set up... NT Canon question

[JeffreyLloyd]

How do you know the New Testament canon is really inspired? For example, why do you accept the Acts of the Apostles is scripture while rejecting the Apocalypse of Peter or the Shepherd of Hermas?

 

[Proeliator]

This is what Wikipedia has to say on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon

 

[5solas]

Have a look here


monergism.com

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

How do you know the New Testament canon is really inspired? For example, why do you accept the Acts of the Apostles is scripture while rejecting the Apocalypse of Peter or the Shepherd of Hermas?

The Acts of the Apostles was accepted early on by almost all the Church. The New Testament Books that were questioned the most and adopted the last were II Peter, II & III John.

I recommend reading Bruce Metzger's The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance. I think you will mfind your question answered there. I also recommend The Canon of Scripture by F.F. Bruce.

These are great books and if the question is not a Set up" you can check them out. I am sure you and everyone else will find them interesting.

Hope this helps,
Kenith

 

[ClementofRome]

In fact, The Shephard and 1 Clement almost made it in (and did in some collections). From an objective perspective, I am not totally convinced that the canon should be limited to the collection of 66. However, from a subjective perspective, those writings that have been left out lack the character of those that made it in. I come to this conclusion having studied 1 Clement in detail for a number of years. Additionally, I have spend considerable time in the OT Apocrypha and reach the same conclusion (on the other hand "Wisdom of Solomon" is mighty close).

 

[Jon_]

I think John Calvin really sums this up well. Our assurance of the New Testament canon comes twofold, (1) from the fantastic evidences contained in the Scriptures, and (2) from the testimonium Spiritu Sancti. Calvin's position is that the beauty of the 66 books, their infallible unity of doctrine, their miraculous survival throughout the centuries, their historical place as the 66 recognized books, and other factors all clearly reveal them to us as the only inspired books of the Holy Spirit. Secondly, the Holy Spirit testifies in the hearts of believers when we read the pages of the Scriptures that they are indeed the work of men filled with his breath.

The establishment of the canon is seen to be similarly formed in Calvin's mind, but he more readily attributes the codification of the 66 books as the only infallible, inerrant word of God to the Holy Spirit. His guidance in the early church manifestly led them to compile the present canon and to exclude for purposes of doctrine any other document but the word of God. He did not leave the early church to simply accept this with blind faith, however. The Scriptures themselves are full of historical evidences and testimony to their validity as canonical books of God.

But Calvin most assuredly tells us that the 66 books and only the 66 books are those which the Lord has given us for doctrine.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[JeffreyLloyd]

thank you

 

[Radagast]

How do you know the New Testament canon is really inspired? For example, why do you accept the Acts of the Apostles is scripture while rejecting the Apocalypse of Peter or the Shepherd of Hermas?

From the Belgic Confession of Faith:

"We receive all these books, and these only, as holy and canonical, for the regulation, foundation, and confirmation of our faith; believing without any doubt, all things contained in them, not so much because the Church receives and approves them as such, but more especially because the Holy Ghost witnesseth in our hearts, that they are from God, whereof they carry the evidence in themselves. For the very blind are able to perceive that the things foretold in them are fulfilling."

-- Radagast