what do Baptists believe

[P_G]

Well Bleecher my brother you could say that about all of the New Testement if you wanted to if you were basing cannonicity on the Tanach.

Since I am currently teaching a course in theology and we just went over this yesterday here are the classic tests for New Testement cannonicity.


1 Intrinsic content (Does this teach what the Bible as a whole teaches)
2 Moral Effect (Does this line up with the moral intent of Gd)
3 Apostolic Authorship (Was this written by an apostle or a close associate of an apostle)
4 Acceptance of the Early Church (Did the early church accept this as valid)


The old testement rules were easier in that the Tanach was well known by the time Y'shua was born. The Apocryphal writings as well as the Pseudographica and deutrocannonical works had all long before that rejected for one reason or another. As GEL said this is not to say they are without merrit for surely they are meritorious. But in a post crucifixion world they could not be considered cannonical even by the broadest understanding of the same.

Blessings

Pastor George

 

[bleechers]

Well Bleecher my brother you could say that about all of the New Testement if you wanted to if you were basing cannonicity on the Tanach.

My point is that canonicity does not require the approval of man. So, in fact, I do say that about the New Testament. Wheras Nicea and Hippo are interesting studies, the "hands up" (which never really happened anyway) is not where I base my eternal security.

Acceptance of the Early Church (Did the early church accept this as valid)

The first 3 are fine... this last can be dangerous. (see Acts 20:29-30). By the time of Paul's death, false doctrine was rampant.

As GEL said this is not to say they are without merrit for surely they are meritorious.

So are Aesop's fables, but I wouldn't put them in my Bible.

Tobit teaches salvation by works... 2 Maccabees, praying to the dead... The other historical books contain verifiable errors (leading Rome to conclude that the Bible is not inerreant in terms of its historicity)... Not much "merit" there.

 

[P_G]

My point is that canonicity does not require the approval of man. So, in fact, I do say that about the New Testament. Wheras Nicea and Hippo are interesting studies, the "hands up" (which never really happened anyway) is not where I base my eternal security.



The first 3 are fine... this last can be dangerous. (see Acts 20:29-30). By the time of Paul's death, false doctrine was rampant.



So are Aesop's fables, but I wouldn't put them in my Bible.

Tobit teaches salvation by works... 2 Maccabees, praying to the dead... The other historical books contain verifiable errors (leading Rome to conclude that the Bible is not inerreant in terms of its historicity)... Not much "merit" there.

Typically Bleechers Point 4 is used to shore up point 3.
Acceptance as to authorship by the early church.

This is where things like "The Gospel of Thomas" fall apart. It was never accepted as an apostolic writing. It even kept the antilogomina out of the loop for some time because authorship was not generally accpeted early on.

And yes something which contains items that did not meet the other points would be considered meritorious works take Flavius Josephus for instance. Meritourius yes? Scripture no!

We are on the same side of the coin here bro I would never teach from them because they are not cannonical by these standards.

Much Love to you my brother

Pastor George

 

[Iollain]

1548 is hardly Early Church Fathers, i mean come on that is ridiculous.

 

[BT]

1548 is hardly Early Church Fathers, i mean come on that is ridiculous.

LOL! Pretty hard to argue with that statement I would say.