James White & Michael Kruger on the Biblical Canon
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 9 июл 2024
- At the 2018 G3 Conference, Michael Kruger and James White discussed issues related to the biblical canon and it was quite practical and theologically rich at the same time.
these types of conversations should be the meat of the discussions going on within local churches amongst all the people - not how well your favorite basketball team is doing.
Is it in your church?
@@benhail3624 i dont really care anymore hah when it comes it comes, so be it.
Go Warriors!!!
@@jackoneill8654 Stephen Curry ! sorry...
@@benhail3624 Nope.
Can't explain how grateful I am for RUclips and that these conversations are accessible online today ! Praise God
The internet is a double-edged sword
Hallelujah thankyouabbafot yourwordand men like thesethank you my elohah
I spent ten years doubting the authority of scripture because my pastors couldnt answer the questions you have addressed in this video. This has given me a renewed confidence in God's word and his purpose in preserving his word for us. Thank you!
Yes the Catholic Church did a great job preserving the Bible
@@dman7668 Yes, the Catholic cult did a great job distorting and twisting the bible.
Great to hear.
@@dman7668lol
Glory to God
James continues to be one of my modern day heroes of the Christian faith, thank the Lord He’s gifted members of His church with such phenomenal minds that bring clarity to the minds of those in the pew. I’m glad I’ve now been introduced to Michael Kruger he’s clearly another gift to the church. This is such a well structured discussion, thank you gentlemen your laying up for yourselves treasures in heaven.
HeWhoHasTheSon
Beautiful
James white introduced me to Michael Krueger.
James is a lost dispensationalist, who agrees with The father of dispensationalism John Darby. White got waxed by the narrow path host Steve Gregg on Whites view of Christ’s teaching. So you dispensationalists, go read the Darby bible he wrote just like Joe Smith bible1820. They read the same. Darby father of dispensationalism and joe Smith still want your ignorant souls. Sorry this is straight up study it out in your mind then ask the Logos truth from error and it will given to you. 📜👍🏻🙏
@@doctorotis3743
Wow... James White is a Dispensationalist? Slander-much? That's absolute baloney.
@@doctorotis3743 who cares even if this was true, as if it's a salvation issue. It has no bearing on salvation. That's like people fighting over when the rapture will happen.. its decision talk, it has no bearing on salvation.
Why divide people over something that doesnt really matter in the grand scheme of things?
Thank you, Dr. White and Dr. Kruger, for a fascinating discussion. Many "sheep" out there in the pews thirst for these kinds of conversations. btw...I ordered the book "The Heresy of Orthodoxy"...hope I have the discipline to read it. :-)
This discussion really warmed up. The first 10 mins were kind of vague, but if you get past that, the meat was incredibly enlightening and thought-provoking. Thanks gentlemen!
I really needed this comment, I was about to leave the video.
Outstanding discussion. Both of these men have a passion for the scripture that has resulted in great work for the Kingdom.
Dr. Kruger is the best on this topic, period!
In his book, Kruger says that the “canon chose itself.” He then says, “it may sound like circular reasoning to some” (because it is), but explains it doesn’t matter in this instance apparently. Then entire book was whack.
@@truthnotlies One of God’s purgatives is to authenticate Himself by Himself, this follows His word does this too.
This has been useful. Thank you very much G3. As always for everything you do.
I just listened to James White's lecture on the Ergun Caner deception, a thoroughly engaging presentation. Well researched, and factual.
Few more facts about Bible.
ruclips.net/video/fVcriboH1ws/видео.html
Home run discussion. Loved the reference/ comparison to the Roman Empire. Regarding the bulk of information; it’s almost impossible for the average person to sort through all the disinformation. It’s so important that these discussions make it to pulpit and classroom.
Home run? These men are the most dangerous Christians around..... They profess to believe things they really don't believe....
Really enjoyed this conversation
Thank you both for your excellent kingdom work.
I found this channel
...very glad that it's happened!🙌🏻
This will surprise you
ruclips.net/video/fVcriboH1ws/видео.html
@@jetsonjose i knew this, whats your point?
16:54 great point. this is much more important and fundamental vs the discussion of prophetic thinngs
Grateful for this serious scholarship
WHAT?
These lost carnal men dandy say ONE thing the Apostle taught.
this was garbage .
Dr James White always cracks me up🤣 all glory to the Holy Spirit for such wisdom.
He is quite goofy!
Wisdom? Certainly not from the God of the King James Bible.....
@@philjackson5387 What are you saying, Mr. Jackson? I’m trying to figure out if I’m in agreement with you or not..
Go Bulls.
@@philjackson5387 make this make sense and I’ll reply.
Excellent…so clarifying
When Brother James says, "the Canon, as Known †o GOD", that really was Powerful!
And God works his agency through men; the list of what books are scripture is not found in scripture, neither for the Old or New Testaments. Christ did as he promised, he led His Church to ALL truth by the working of the Holy Spirit. The very first time we have a listing of what is the New Testament canon of scripture, 27 writings, no more, no less, out of 300+ early Christian writings is in 367 ad by the Catholic Bishop of Alexandria, St Athanasius. Catholic Bishops subsequently meet in what is today Tunisia in the 390's to affirm this list and those very same Bishops declared the OT to have 46 writings, not 39. The canon as known to God became affirmed in his Church. Some 1,100 years later, errant Catholic men with no authority would say that they error'd, getting the NT right but the OT wrong. It makes Christ out to be a liar. HE failed to lead his Church to ALL truth .. in fact, he allowed it to error for a millenia.
Love your videos guys.
This is so great, thank you so much!
Thank you so much for this. This is exactly what I'm looking for. :)
James White is my hero. God bless this man.
Jesse Walsh one of mine also bro
@@dennis1662
"He does however, have the arrogance to believe that he has the divine authority to question the teaching authority of the Church who chose the 73 books that make up the Holy Bible. The Church with Peter as its earthly head."
Show me in scripture where it talks about pope Peter. I'd even settle for a verse where it mentions pope or papacy. If you can't.... well, there goes the authority of the Roman Church. Open your eyes or die in your sins. Read your bible.
@@rickdavis2235Nobody’s going to hell over being confused about the canon of scripture. Relax, brother. Stop attacking people in anger who you’re commanded by God to love.
We really need these books and discussions for the Hispanic community!
Yes sir
Why. We are all one in christ there is no jew or Greek, free or slave, Roman or barbarian. Race doesn't matter. That is one of the key points of this conference.
@@kyledawson4535 you're not understanding what I'm saying lol. I'm saying we need a Spanish translation of their books and talks because these issues are also within the Hispanic community.
@@josuepizarro5721 that's right.
ruclips.net/video/fVcriboH1ws/видео.html
Bible facts that will blow your mind
This is super helpful!
Great subject and greatly needed. Awesome.
Great stuff!
Awesome content!
I was today years old when I realized that a theological paradigm for canon vs purely historical is pretty profound. The church does not license inspiration it only receives and to an extent identifies it.
What an awesome presentation. Dr.'s White and Kruger are both so important to the modern church.
At about 21:42, Dr. White says, "...you have the laying up of the books in the Temple..." what exactly does that even mean? Anyone have a link or a short answer with resources I can look up?
MrAntiOrdinary he's referencing the 2nd century church father Mellito of Sardis.
He is referingto Josephus who said the Hebrew canon was the same number as there alphabet 22 or 24 letters and that they were laid up in the temple
2 Kings 22:8-10
.And Hilkiah the high priest said to Shaphan the secretary, “I have found the Book of the Law in the house of the LORD.” And Hilkiah gave the book to Shaphan, and he read it. 9And Shaphan the secretary came to the king, and reported to the king, “Your servants have emptied out the money that was found in the house and have delivered it into the hand of the workmen who have the oversight of the house of the LORD.” 10Then Shaphan the secretary told the king, “Hilkiah the priest has given me a book.” And Shaphan read it before the king.
White is such a debater that when they give him an hour for a conference session he does EXACTLY an hour 🤣
Months after converting from agnostic I took the simple approach mentioned briefly here in determining the canon for myself 35 years ago. I read a number of the excluded books, starting with the first book of Adam and Eve, through such as Tobit and such as the Apocalypse of Peter. There was no question in my mind. Just as the Bible was so obviously different than the Upanishads, Ramayana, Koran and so many others I had read; the excluded books are so obviously different there was no question for me. Though I do admit Revelations is a bit weird.
Revelation* singular. :D It is different in that its near-entirety describes a vision- and dream-like experience, similar to elsewhere in the Bible. Even then, there's a lot of truth that's weird to us.
The problem with Revelation is that it is written in a genre that we don’t use anymore - called “Apocalyptic” (the English word Apocalypse comes from the Greek word that means ‘revelation’). At the time it was written that style of writing was reasonably well known. Imagine how difficult psalms would be to read if poetry had died out 1700 years ago and all language today was strictly literal, and you have an idea of why Revelation is so confusing to people of our day.
Recommended Reading to aid your study of Revelation
The Theology of the Book of Revelation by Richard Bauckham
Reading Revelation Responsibly: Uncivil Worship and Witness: Following the Lamb Into New Creation by Michael Gorman
Mr. Fixit It's not like it holds an important part of Jewish history or anything.
Intoxicated Gray Hulk aka Mr. Fixit : Please read random parts of such as 1st and 2nd books of Adam and Eve or any of the pseudoepigrapha such as the much heralded gospel of Thomas and draw your own conclusions.
Some books of the Apocrypha such as 1st & 2 Maccabees are almost on a par with books such as Numbers or Chronicles but then turn to Tobit or Judth with their horrendous historical errorsand again, draw your own conclusions.
Then we have the 2 books that struggled to be recognized into the NT: James and Revelation. I first read Revelation as a nonbeliever looking to disprove the Bible and it was part of the reason I became one. It was quite clear to me as a nonbeliever with zero understanding of Christian eschatology that this book speaks of a very near future: a cashless society enforced via an implanted chip, an army from the east of 200 million (same number China claims to have), a flaming mountain hitting the sea which turns blood red (most asteroids are nickel iron which oxidize into black and red) and then 3 days of the sun blotted out from the atmospheric debris. That such would be forecast 2K years ago as a possibility made me a believer that Revelation is about the future, and the word of God. I have read many other ancient books, none comes close to it. I suggest you actually READ the material, as I have, and compare it yourself.
Very Very Great Discussion
ruclips.net/video/fVcriboH1ws/видео.html
James wears the bow tie well. 😊
Now to listen .. 👂
This is what heroes do, talk Canon.
But where does God even say that the He has orchestrated collecting the correct books in what we call the New Testament? Yes He could have done that but did He even say He did that? In other words, what is the * foundation of the theological concept that the New Testament has been orchestrated by God* ?
It would be great if Dr. White and Dr. Kruger works on a series on this topic.
I just heard the part wher they mention that most people who ask about apocryphal books have never read them, or the Bible for that matter, and thought "bingo, its that simple".
I am a new Christian and I have the NASB also the KJV which one do I use and I can trust to be the word of God ?
Read both.
"The Canon of Scripture" by F.F.Bruce is a great resource as well. Dr. Bruce presents a well documented history of how each Testament came to be constructed as we know them. The thing, he says, about apocryphal and other books is that they were never accepted as canonical by the early church (or by the Hebrews in the case of old Testament questions). The early church looked at gnostic books and did not accept them as being truthful, in addition to their sourcing out of heretical sects.
I question the book of Esther and what about Enoch and Jubilees?
Kruger made a valid point about what the viewpoint is of the person trying to explain the reasons behind the canon of the Bible. We must first look at what the speaker's religious philosophy is. My dad has studied the Bible very closely for many years, and almost every time he hears a new theory or any theory, he always asks "who said this". He needs to know who the person is and what they believe before he can even comment on the content of their argument is. It's like philosophical profiling. Yes stereotypes are more often accurate than not.
Jesus Christ our great and kind God and savior, built His Church on Peter the rock, way before the new testament was even written or that later determined which of the over 75 letters written were to be included in the new testament and which were not. The same Church authority in Peter that stood up and put an end to all the debating at the council in Jerusalem, since Scripture alone could not. Peace always in Jesus Christ, He whose Flesh is true food and blood true drink! You are in my prayers as you journey toward Truth! God bless you!
What did Peter use to "put an end to all the debating at the council in Jerusalem"? What did he appeal to?
@@sukka4pain Peter was given final authority by Jesus Christ to bind and loose on earth and in Heaven by alone being given the keys in Matthew 16, and yet, even though Genesis 17 says that circumcision is to continue throughout all generations, Peter declared circumcision was no longer necessary. Peace always in Jesus Christ our great and kind God and savior, He whose Flesh is true food and blood true drink! You are in my prayers! God bless you!
The OT canon preceded Peter and Peter based his teaching on the Law and the Prophets in his public sermons in Acts. Therefore Scriptures precedes the Apostles and the Church and is the foundation on which the Church is build. God bless.
@@felixguerrero6062 the “church “ is the final authority.
@@felixguerrero6062 the New Testament scriptures did not preceded the apostles.
I wish more pastors would teach us how the bible came to be.
They avoid it .. because it lands right in the authority of the Catholic Church to have decided. Well at least the New Testament having 27 books, no more, no less, out of 300+ early Christian writings. 16th century Catholic's with no authority, led by a Central European priest, would say that those Catholics 1,100 years earlier error'd on the Old Testament having 46 books not 39, and thus Christendom error'd and didn't know it for over a Millenia.
You would become Catholic if they teach you the real story. Do your own research Ang Ramp. Don't believe your anti-Catholic leaders. Check out Douglas Beaumont a former assistant of the late Norman Geisler became catholic his issues with canon of scriptures/sola scriptura.
Yeah really most pastors want to avoid this subject because it goes back to the Catholic Church. They want you nice and dumb.
Krugers reasoning on authenticating Scripture, is an excellent example of putting the cart before the horse.
His faith in Christ is the horse, which is from the scripture. Where else?
@@billbuyers8683 Why would you base your faith on scripture that was born from a church that you reject?
Great topic. Christ’s prefiguration in Tobit was one of the blessings that helped me. The healing power of Christ Matthew12,2 and Tobit 8,3. And Christ restoring sight to the blind in the gospels and to Paul in Acts 9,17. Then to read Tobit 11,7-8 as Tobits sight is restored from the medicine from the fish or ΙΧΘΥΣ.
Ιησού Jesus
Χριστού Christ
Θεον God
Υιός Son
Σωτήρ Savior
Praise be to you Lord Jesus Christ.
ruclips.net/video/fVcriboH1ws/видео.html
You are well versed..
Love james
The oldest complete codex of a Bible we have is the Codex Amiatinus with 72 books. Later the Book of Baruch was added, giving the 73 books found in the Gutenberg Bible. That 66-book compilation is merely a pseudobible.
At 39:00, Kruger/White point out that Ehrman and the RC Church make essentially the same argument - that early Christianity was chaotic, with many different creeds/books, which required an authoritative figure (ie. the Pope) to sort out the chaos. I suggest that, in keeping with the Kruger theme of canon as a theological issues, these two narratives operate according to separate theological presuppositions. The Kruger/Ehrman narrative places a strongly Calvinist emphasis on God's active, sovereign superintendency of the process of Scripture revealing itself to the early Christian community. The process is a closely guided process - sort of like God himself is the reliable skipper steering his ship through stormy seas. By contrast, the RC Church approach is to say that from the chaos and anarchy of the early Church, God placed iHis authority in the heart of 'one man' (i.e. the Pope) who delivered the Church from chaos - sort of like saying God sent the Coast Guard in to pluck his people out of the storm.
The question for personal reflection then is, how does one view God? Is he the God who at some point sends an emissary to pluck his people to safety out of chaos (the RC approach); or is he the God who Himself carries his people safely through all weather, fair or foul? (the Calvinist approach).
Stephen Notman you're taking the Bahuer hypothesis as a given.... which has problems in of itself.
If your starting point has problems, then everything else is questionable.
You mention problems. Twice. Do tell. Explain your own starting point.
Why cant it be both the "RC approach" and "the calvinist approach" as you've stated? After all the prophets and apostles were only vessels
@@StephenNotmanlogosinliterature
Kruger/Ehrman ???? Surely this is a typo?
You said
By contrast, the RC Church approach is to say that from the chaos and anarchy of the early Church, God placed iHis authority in the heart of 'one man' (i.e. the Pope) who delivered the Church from chaos -
If this is your view, it historically inaccurate and Biblical wrong
1. The early church was not in chaos in terms of how it thought about the canon. By the end of the second century the church recognized most of the books of the NT as genuinely canonical
Ireneaus quotes from most of the books of the NT in 180 Ad and does so authoritavily. He does not doubt the books
2. The pope did not decide the canon. The council of Rome in 382 did not decide the canon. The council was only a regional council which (according to RCC) rules does not bind ll Chrisitans. What the council did was more like giving approval to the list that was already recognized. For examle, Athanasius published the whole list in 367 AD in hisn festal letter 39. He did not consult with the pope before publishing the list
Biblically, the RCC has no special authority to declare anything on the canon
"God placed iHis authority in the heart of 'one man'"
That's not what the Church teaches. James Wh and Michael Kr both believe that THEY are RIGHT. They believe that they each have the authority to decide how scripture should be interpreted - even saying that Christendom universally error'd for the first 1000+ years on multiple doctrines.
42:15 The "White Question" - nailed it! I have yet to get a straight answer from a Catholic that actually addresses this question in proper context. This is the silver bullet to the issue of the canon of Scripture that Rome simply cannot defend. Nice job, James!
Roman Catholic here, I wouldn't hang your hat on that question, as it is not all that. The Jews did not have a closed and declared canon of scripture 50 years before Christ, they also didn't have one at the time of Christ. There were numerous Jewish sects and their canons differed. Read more history.
Joe Keenan...although it is true that Jews - as a whole - did not have a set canon then, the point is that Jesus still held them accountable for knowing what it was, including what it did not contain. In fact, when Jesus spoke specifically to the Pharisees, He acknowledged their canon by saying “they HAVE Moses and the Prophets” (Luke 16:16), meaning not just part of it or most of it, but ALL of it. Catholic Answers senior apologist, Jimmy Akin, even affirms that the Pharisaic canon was identical to the Protestant OT. Plus, Dr. White’s point is that Metatics can’t say “Jewish Magisterium” for the reason you pointed out, and even if there was an established Jewish canon back then, they would not have espoused to the Catholic OT in its entirety. That’s the point he is making by bringing it up. So, yes, it’s a safe place to hang your hat. BTW, former Catholic here.
@@BornAgainRN great response
@@Ggeg0000 thanks, I just completed a book on the OT canon using these, and other defenses, for the Protestant OT canon. Look for it later in the year on Amazon & elsewhere. It's going to be titled "Why Protestant Bibles are smaller."
@@BornAgainRN Great! I will look for it
NICE
Melito (170 C.E.), in agreement with the original Jewish reckoning, gave the number of Old Testament books as 22.
2) Origen (210 C.E.) also gave the same numbering: “It should be stated that the canonical books, as the Hebrews have handed them down, are twenty-two; corresponding with the number of their letters.” 3) Hilary of Poitiers (360 C.E.): “The Law of the Old Testament is considered as divided into twenty-two books, so as to correspond to the number of letters.” 4) Athanasius (365 C.E.): “There are then of the Old Testament twenty-two books in number ... this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews.”
Why do you view these church fathers as authoritative on canon, but then reject their catholic views. Seems like a glaring inconsistency. If they had a charism to get the canon right; why isn’t the remainder of their doctrines right?
@@catholictruth102 “Why isn’t the remainder of their doctrines right?” There is no agreement on many of their doctrines, your premise is incorect.
@@tricord2939 There is though, they all believed in real presence in the Eucharist, baptismal regeneration, apostolic succession, etc.
@@catholictruth102 Incorrect, they all didn’t believe in Romes version of transubstantiation, and many of Romes required dogmas.
The Septuagint which was mostly quoted by Jesus and friends contained what books exactly? More books than your Old Testament probably contains.
"More books than your Old Testament probably contains."
Chaos. Confusion. Saying that the Church error'd on the Old Testament canon in the 390's but somehow got the New Testament canon right (27 writings out of 300+ early Christian writings), then needed a Catholic priest 1,100 years later to set the record straight. This is to believe in an inconsistent Holy Spirit. It is to believe that Jesus Christ was not powerful enough nor dependable enough to keep his promise, that the Holy Spirit would lead his Church to ALL TRUTH (Jn 16:13)
@@TruthHasSpoken The Septuagint which Jesus quoted from contains more books than the bibles used today by most protestants. Which church are you referring to exactly? I assume by the "390's" date, you are Catholic? But then your later disdane for the Catholic priests makes it confusing. I suppose a good question would be, who, if not Jesus and company, are you having add and subtract books from your scripture base? I think it was John Calvin's brother in law who first left the Apochapha out of the Geneva version of the Bible in 1557. Was that the date and he instrument of God's ruling on scripture? Seems a little late. I understand your desire to not be in confusion and chaos, but I don't understand how you will get there unless you think through the problem. Send me your top three reasons for concluding that a book is scripture. That would probable be a good jump off point for any real discussion.
Hence, The Scriptures are the anthology of Canonical books recognized and received as authentic by a consensus of born-again Spirit-filled believers in the vulgar language of every nation and generation unto which they have come; they are the very word of God in a written form given by inspiration of God - true in all its parts, perfect, pure, inerrant, infallible, etc. and the final authority in all matters of faith and practice.
And of course you are referring to the Catholic Bishops that canonized the books.
@@patrickdillon9188 No, I am not. I'm referring to the books recognized and received as authentic by a consensus of born-again Spirit-filled believers. Books recognized by the Church of God (the body of Christ) as genuine and inspired.
@@BrentRiggsPoland there is recorded historical documentation to back up my point of view, what can you recommend that supports your point of view?
there is recorded historical documentation to back up my point of view, what can you recommend that supports your point of view?@@patrickdillon9188
34:26 is basically describing what Paul faced in Acts 17: 21.
Obviously Scripture, if Scripture, is part of the “ontological canon,” but the question isn’t ontological, it’s epistemological: how do Sola Scripturists know what constitutes Scripture if Scripture itself does not say?
How do Catholics know?
Creating an ontological canon solves nothing. How do we know that the ontological and historical canon are the same?
Jaime Arviso because Catholics formed it
@@ashleyjuliet100 I eat Catholics for breakfast!
Jaime Arviso sounds un-Christ like to say that.. if the fact that the Catholic Church is the true church bothers you then it seems you need to pray for discernment. Praying for your conversion Jaime❤️
This addresses Apocryphal books. I’m a little disappointed it doesn’t address Dueterocanonical books that have been in canon until Luther and the reformers came along. This video doesn’t really answer any question of value that would be helpful to understand why Protestants got rid of books already recognized as canon in the first 500 years
I agree with what they were saying but it took forever for them to get to the point!
nice
They didn’t address anything of the problems that come up today. All they did was raise the issues and then tell people to go read my book, if you want to know the answers.
I was 20 minutes into this and started to suspect this was the case. thanks for your comment and for saving me 40 minutes.
Watched the whole thing. Sooooooo.... how do we know which books are scripture??
We trust in God's providence.
@@frisb.7948
I do too, but Kruger just presented a mish mash of a theory. I just finished his book "Canon Revisited" and he never tells us how we know for sure and if we don't know for sure every book now becomes suspect.
@@omarvazquez3355
Apostolic authority
Recognition by the early church
Self-authenticating. If the Bible is written by the HS, the HS in us should be capable of seeing it. Jesus said my sheep hear my voice and they follow me. How did his sheep recognize his voice.?
I watched this video recently. And he does well to actually explain it.
ruclips.net/video/Bkb35MfKNrA/видео.html
I don't agree with a couple of their conclusions, but mostly I agree.
But how does man know which books God gave to the church and which one's He didn't?
You asked the right question.
ruclips.net/video/fVcriboH1ws/видео.html
They never explain the qualifications of the Canon... I respect both of these individuals but I am at the 30ishmin mark and the prevailing question has not been answered.
Yes, he does. Re-listen. Meantime, read an apocryphal book, then read one of the Gospels. You’ll see immediately what they’re saying about the text being obviously different in worldview and feel,
@@KristiLEvans1 "qualifications of the Canon"
They are not found in scripture anywhere. They were determined by the late 4th c Catholic Church. Not 21st c protestant men.
@@TruthHasSpoken I don’t even know where to start with this hodgepodge of historical ignorance.
@@KristiLEvans1 Hmm. Well I can cite the councils and synods that listed the canon of scripture. All Catholic. I can refer too, to the criteria that they used.
Questions for you:
1. Who first listed the canon of scripture exactly as you have it, for both your Old and New Testaments. Just provide the reference.
2. What was their criteria. Again, just cite the reference.
"hodgepodge of historical ignorance"
Doing 1 and 2 above indeed removes the historical ignorance that many have. And, it can very much be a hodgepodge. I've heard all kinds of responses from protestants on the topic.
Note, the canon of scripture is not found in .... scripture. Sola Scriptura fails right at the table of contents.
@@TruthHasSpoken you are citing men. Councils. Do you know why the canon was never mentioned in councils of men until the late 4th C., and it was to list the books we have? And why it WAS mentioned at that time? And by the way, there was no “infallible” canon defined by Rome until 1546, so let’s leave Rome for the moment.
Great conversation, why do we feel the Bible is important, and what about the books left out? This is a question only asked by someone that hasn't even begun to analyze the history, but it's the most common attack on biblical authority, we have to have the answers to these questions cause I get hit with them all the time and I'm not a pastor, I'm an ironworker, I'm welding and on construction sites talking about and trying to repair the misconceptions.
ruclips.net/video/fVcriboH1ws/видео.html
Let's try to clear misconceptions
The Bible is authoritive because the Catholic Church said it was. Not because the Bible. It does not self authenticate itself. The Catholic Church did that.
8:29 "If God's word really is God's words, it really is inspired scripture that actually affect how you authenticate those books". Yes, and why would we allow Wescott and Hort authenticating manuscripts to deliver a new "God's Word" and accuse the other as defective?
Good to ask two questions of these men and anyone who holds to a "reformed" view of scripture:
1. Can you identify the covenant community from which these scriptures were received?
2. Did that same covenant community maintain the theological views that you, as a "reformed" Christian hold?
What... I'm not sure if you're just throwing out argument points you've hear before, or it's just a bad description of what you meant, but whatever you're trying to get at here, I'd like to play the game. Are you asking me to name the tribes of Israel for which the NT was given to, or are you asking which Jewish people, after hearing, chose to deny Jesus? You're not saying that Moses regarded himself infallible like the stone tablets God gave him, are you? So, Moses received and expounded God's word, but still fell short and was not able to enter the promise land. Surely you would agree that the stone tablets inscribed by God hold more authority than Moses.
Then your second point, leads me to think you do not have a basic understanding of reformed theology, or you don't read the Bible. One of the two. Reform from lies to truth. I would hope you're not relying on the pope and mary to play Jesus in your life.
Here's a question for you; was there a roman catholic church before Jesus came? I would hope you believe the OT to be God-breathed.
Tell me, where in the Bible does it say that a fallen human has more authority than God's word?
@@SolaScriptura94 I recommend engaging with the questions and dropping the gaslighting.
@@Silverhailo21 You're caught! Only liberals make broad sweeping statements and then put blame on the one who calls them out. Did you not start with "Good question to ask reformed believers", as though they have a blind spot and these questions will silence them and bring them to your thinking? Honestly, I've only studied for under a year, and was hoping to have good debate with you. But you being offended after you made the first condescending comment.... Either a liberal or don't have anything to respond with.... I was honestly hoping you'd have receipts to show me why and how I was wrong. Cause for the small amount of time I have been studying theology and history, I would only assume someone who makes comments like yours is easily able to dispute me.
@@SolaScriptura94 The reformationist position is not that complicated, it's definitely not more difficult to understand than scripture.
@@Silverhailo21 I'm confused. Honest questions: So you're catholic? Or you don't believe the New Testament is God's word?
From what I understand, you're saying that apostles and the early church do not line up with reformed theology? Is this what you're saying: that if any Christian denomination differs from the 1st century church, then it's not Christianity ?
Because if that's what you're saying, then you're implying that there was no differences or disputes between the early churches.
We can certainly dig into this, but your charge was that reformed theology is not biblical. Would you please explain to me how the 5 solas are not biblical? Or how the differences from catholisism are not biblical?
Inshallah west will embrace Islam... you guys are blessed with kind heart...
The religion of a horny pedophile? Never!
There are 20000 or more Christian denominations based on a dozen or more Bible translations. Some of them are are more interpretations rather than accurate translations. Our doctrine and christology should be based on scripture, not the other way around.
We often hear protestants claim "salvation by faith alone". But where do we only find the words Faith alone in scripture? James 2 24 You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and NOT by faith alone.”
@@Gericho49 Classic Catholic misreading of James 2.
James is drawing a distinction between someone who claims to have faith but doesn't act like it, and someone who claims to have faith and does act like it.
His whole point is that someone that HAS faith WILL do good works, not that someone that has faith MUST do good works.
What is the fulfillment in Jesus of the Urim and the Thummim?
The closed and sufficient 66 books of the canon.
17:20 james white doesn't have an agreed upon text. It changes every few years
Does anyone know of books that discuss how theologians decided what was written in the first century vs what was written after?
Interestingly Joey, one won't find in scripture, a criteria for canonicity that a writing had to be in the first century, or even written by an apostle. That this IS a criteria, was determined not by scripture, but by the Church itself.
Joey... no church or council had anything to do with which scriptures were canonical or inspired. When they were written, they were inspired. There's a lot of information on this as long as you don't use a Catholic source because they falsely claim to be the ones who decided. They base their entire church on the apostle Peter being the first pope but there is nothing in scripture that would lead to that conclusion. We do have contemporary historians writing of both Peter's and Paul's martyrdom in Rome by Nero so it stands to reason that if Peter was the pope, Rome wouldn't have murdered him, not to mention the fact that Peter never mentioned the word pope or papacy nor did any of the other apostles. The church in Rome was a pagan church that mixed paganism, Christianity and the Roman government. It's all in the history books--just not in the Catholic history books.
@@rickdavis2235 “no church or council had anything to do with which scriptures were canonical or inspired”
Evidence is against you. No list of New Testament Scripture exactly as you have it before 367 by St Athanasius, Catholic Bishop of Alexandria. You believe he was a pagan. And the Church would meet to affirm his listing not until 393 at Hippo and 397 at Carthage, for the Old Testament too. Both in what is today, Tunisia. That’s to say nothing of the Council Rome saying the same in 382 ad.
“When they were written, they were inspired”
No disagreement, but God never gave us a list of what books belong in scripture, in scripture. And there were over 300 early Christian writings.
“There's a lot of information on this as long as you don't use a Catholic source”
Simple then cite as evidence for your “history” who first wrote the list of New and Old Testament scripture, EXACTLY as you have it, 27 writings, no more, no less and 39 writings, no more, no less.
When did they do so?
Where?
Who were they, what authority did they have to decide?
What was their criteria?
What did they use the canon for?
Note, this shouldn’t be a jumping jack exercise and not a jigsaw puzzle of confusion. It should be clear and easy to do so if you are right.
“They base their entire church on the apostle Peter being the first pope”
No, we base the Church on it being established by Jesus himself, with Christ as the head. He promised :
to lead it to ALL truth
The gates of hell would not prevail
It is the bulwark of truth
It is the pillar of truth
It is where the manifold wisdom of God is made known.
@@rickdavis2235 "Peter being the first pope but there is nothing in scripture that would lead to that conclusion."
First, even if there was NOTHING in scripture to lead to that conclusion this shouldn't be a problem. The bible doesn't teach that all of what Christians are to profess and believe is found in scripture alone. You come to that conclusion based on 16th century error by Catholic men in Central Europe . .. promulgated by a Catholic priest with no authority whatsoever to say Christendom had error'd. And keep in mind, the table of contents .. is not in scripture. So be consistent, not inconsistent. That said .... read on. ...
www.scripturecatholic.com/the-primacy-of-peter/#The_Primacy_of_Peter_in_Scripture
To conclude that there is NOTHING in scripture is to be led by protestant, man-made doctrine, taking a Catholic book and decapitating it from the very faith from which it came. It's part of the sola scriptura sickness, who's fruit immediately was chaos and confusion, which has just gotten worse, and worse, and worse, over time. As our Director of Religious Education at our parish told me, himself being an ex-Protestant having attended over 10 differing denominations, "protestantism wore me out."
It truly is exhausting. Yet every one of them tacitly trusts in the authority of Catholic's to have decided their canon of scripture. The 4th century Church to have decided the NT canon being 27 books, and 16th century Catholic men in central Europe who said the Old Testament was 39 books, and that the Church had error'd for over 1,100 years. It made Christ out to be undependable and a liar. He failed... to lead His Church to ALL Truth. The gates of hell prevailed. The Church was NOT where the manifold wisdom of God was made known.
@TruthHasSpoken
The facts of history prove that the Roman Catholic Church did not come into existence until several hundred years after the New Testament was written. Therefore, the Roman Catholic Church could not, in point of fact, be “the mother of the New Testament” nor could it have “existed before the New Testament.” Therefore, the writers of the New Testament could not have been Roman Catholics!
And here is where the deliberate deception enters. The claim is made about the “Catholic Church” not the “Roman Catholic Church” as most readers would assume. The word “catholic” simply means “universal.” So in that sense, it could be argued that the writers of the New Testament were of the “universal” body of believers which did, in fact, exist, before New Testament times. However, the implication that it is only the declaration of the Roman Catholic Church “that the books of the New Testament are all inspired by God constitutes the sole authority for the universal belief of both Catholics and Protestants in their inspired character” is both incorrect and blasphemous.
Such a statement weakens the authority of the Bible and places the Roman Catholic Church in a position superior to Scripture. If the Word of YAHWEH is holy only because the pope declares it to be so, that places the pope in a more important position than Yahweh Himself, the divine Author.
When viewed in the light of the documented facts of history, such bold claims are revealed to be nothing more than audacious, deceptive boasts.
The idea that the Roman Catholic Church is solely responsible for providing the world with the Holy Bible comes from, not surprisingly, the Roman Catholics themselves.
Four criteria were broadly used to determine whether the various writings were inspired by the Spirit of YAH and should be included in the sacred canon:
1 The author was either an apostle, closely connected with an apostle or first-hand witness to the events described.
2 The book was widely accepted by the body of early believers as being true.
3 The doctrines taught were consistent with that taught in other inspired works.
4 The writing bore evidence of moral superiority and spiritual values as demonstrated by the work of the Holy Spirit upon the heart in response to what was taught in the book.
It is important to understand that no church and no action of men are responsible for Holy Scripture. No council somehow made a book “inspired.” The various statements of the councils merely recognized what the body of believers had already established as inspired writ. Michael J. Kruger, author of The Question of Canon, observes:
"When people discover that Nicea did not decide the canon, the follow up question is usually, “Which council did decide the canon?” Surely we could not have a canon without some sort of authoritative, official act of the church by which it was decided. Surely we have a canon because some group of men somewhere voted on it."
This whole line of reasoning reveals a fundamental assumption about the New Testament canon that needs to be corrected, namely that it was (or had to be) decided by a church council. The fact of the matter is that when we look into early church history there is no such council. Sure, there are regional church councils that made declarations about the canon (Laodicea, Hippo, Carthage). But these regional councils did not just “pick” books they happened to like, but affirmed the books they believed had functioned as foundational documents for the Christian faith. In other words, these councils were declaring the way things had been, not the way they wanted them to be.
Thus, these councils did not create, authorize, or determine the canon. They simply were part of the process of recognizing a canon that was already there.
Yahweh alone is responsible for providing the world with inspired writings, writings of which He alone is the author. “All scripture is given by inspiration of Yahweh, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of Yahweh may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” (2 Timothy 3:16 and 17)
Study sacred Scripture. Entrust your mind to your Creator. He has pledged to lead you into all truth. “If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of Yahweh, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.” (James 1:5 and 6)
Accept with confidence that the Bible is the Word of the Omnipotent One to you, personally. Wisdom and understanding will be given to all who commit themselves to know Yahweh through His Word.
Take a shot every time they say canon
An external authority called yextual croticism determines the canon??? 8:23
In Acts 15, when James declared the findings of the Church, did he rely on Scripture?
I really enjoyed this discussion although the 'answer' was not decisive. I'm disappointed that the Holy Spirit was never mentioned for discernment and understanding of God's Word. The Holy Spirit of God inspired the writing of the Holy Scriptures and is also the One who will guide you into ALL TRUTH (if you Love God with all you heart and desire Him and His Truth, He will be your guide!). Another criticism I have is that they claim in the beginning that they are looking at 'the canon' from a scriptural standpoint, but never reference any scriptures in support of, or to clarify that there is, or should be a 'canon', and who should decide this? I'm still waiting for them to share such scriptures, but I know they do not exist. There is NO MAN who shall decide what is God's Word, and what is not God's Word; the Holy Spirit will guide you in ALL wisdom and understanding when you are willing to give up your own understanding and interpretations, and begin to trust in God and let Him lead you in all things! I don't need any man or church or scholar to tell me what is God's word, God will do that Himself through the Loving Grace of His Holy Spirit! May He bless you who read this, and may the Holy Spirit guide you!
The Bible is self affirming. It's the living word of God so what you just said doesn't make a whole lot of sense. I understand that the Holy spirit is the key to understanding the word of God, what these men are dealing with IS that process. In other words these men are being lead by the Holy spirit as were the men that concluded the canon.
17:36 The Textus Receptus and the Masoretic Text??? 18:12
200 years ago, not a single Bible in the whole world had just 66 books in it!
Lol
2000 years ago, not a single bible I'm the world. What's your point?
@Billy Reuben
Well first of all you would have to tell me "whose" authoritative canon you are referring to - as defined by whom? East/west? and when was it defined as such? and in which language/translation? What is specifically wrong with the canon containing 66 books? and what is being omitted that is critical and why is it so?
And if the alleged "authoritative" canon which contains more than 66 books contains books that were not really promoted and considered authoritative in the earlier church, then why would said authority override the earlier church authority?
And what about when there was no "authoritative" definition of a "canon" at one time? As in it did not exist in the 1st an 2nd centuries at ALL.
Athanasius did not list the book of Enoch, nor Maccabees, yet these were "added" to the Catholic canon. Why should I consider their Western 16th century declaration to render all previously and parallel held "canons" and parallel canons?
In other words, the authority card leads nowhere. The church knows what scripture is with or without authoritative definitions. The concept of a "canon" was entirely foreign to the Jews - it's unnecessary for faith, but useful in a codex.
@Billy Reuben
Thats why I asked you, which canon in what century as defined by whom. You didn't answer the question.
If you are claiming the Roman Catholics are authoritative, then the Orthodox didn't get the memo and they are just as ancient in terms of their historical claims, so no dice there.
Again, the assertion being levelled is that the church "must" have an authorised canon of scripture. This is being used to justify the "authority" of said church. However, in logical terms it actually undermines their authority since the early church did not have a canon, they would have no idea what you were talking about, so you are essentially saying that the early church had no authority either.
You are also saying that when Athanasius compiled his list in his letter, that he had a deficient view of scripture since his list more closely aligns to the scripture which is recognised in common and not the Apocryphal works.
The reason Roman Catholic claims make such a mess of history they claim they own, cannot pass basic logic tests, is that their arguments are arbitrary at specific points in time and not authoritative. If what they said was true, it should be equally true in the 1st century as it is today - and thank the Lord that we KNOW today so many of their claims are false.
The Jews did not have a defined canon either, so the claim that it is "necessary" is again lost when benchmarked against. In fact, the ONLY reason that the Jews started to define a canon Ecclesiastical Council style, is because the Christians were using scripture they didn't like. So the authoritative and traditional control of canon, actually was used to SUPRESS knowledge. No surprise that the book of Daniel is not highly regarded by Jews today since it was the very basis of their expectation Messiah was coming in the 1st century. See how that works?
And no surprise that the Roman Catholic church tried to suppress knowledge through Latin and legal control of who could and could not read scripture. And EVEN when they did permit a common man to read scripture it was often restricted to the Psalms - so pray tell what use was the authoritative definition of a canon the Catholic church did not even want the "laiety" to read?
The "church" is the people of God, not some Ecclesiastical hierarchy who do all your thinking and drinking the Eucharist "for" you. The church know scripture.
@Billy Reuben
Why would I be upset to be able to speak the truth based on actual evidence?
With respect for you, you as a Catholic attempt to engage in debate and then having fielded the question you retreated to the same position as every other Catholic.
Simply asserting an authority doesn't make it an authority - it's just .... asserting. The Apostles did not just assert their authority, they were given signs.
Likewise, you should know that I do not acknowledge an office of "Pope" within the church - there is no such office - so claiming that I am trying to make myself the same is untrue. And the office of an Apostle is not the same as "Pope", so why equate them?
1) You cannot prove that "apostolic succession" is an office conferred upon one man and passed down through generations. I can disprove it by pointing out that you are only concerned about the office of Peter and not that of other apostles. Your church does not represent the council of all 12 apostles - so by your own standard your doctrine collapses.
2) You have no evidence whatsoever that your Pope was passed on this "succession" or "office" even if it did exist. And then we would have to explain how the office collapses upon itself by virtue of the doctrine of Papal Infallibility. Do we really need to go there? Should we just ignore that the office and succession of the Pope would most certainly have been disrupted by the insertion of a worldly, fornicating, politically ambitious, devious, manipulative nepotist like Rodrigo Borgia who himself acquired the position through known nepotism? Once again, proof that this form of apostolic succession is meaningless as is infallibility.
The Pope's claims to authority are also false at the foundation of the earliest church - historically and scripturally - I can prove it, but the question for Catholics is, do you want to hear the truth?
If you have the truth and authority as you claim, then why is it so so difficult for you to prove it and answer simple questions? The Apostles and early true Christians did not behave in this way, simply because they did not believe the same things that you do today about "the church", by which you mean the Ecclesiastical Authority, rather than the Ekklessia.
I can prove that Catholicism is false. I can prove it from many angles. I can prove it from history, from early Christian anti-Nicene writings. I can prove it from the existence of the Orthodox East/West schism. I just proved it by disarming your claims about canon being a basis for requiring authority - which even if it were true would not prove that authority to be the Catholic church and logically invalidates that churches authority by virtue of inconsistency.
Faith is not blind - faith is ASSURANCE of things even when unseen and truth will survive questions, whereas lies will be exposed and burned up.
and I don't believe in fortune - just in Gods sovereign will ;)
WOW!!!🫂
I got my answer around the 28 to 29 minute mark. Michael Kruger said, even the American scholar Bart D. Ehrman knows that everyone of the apocrypha gospels were written from the 2nd Century or later. Not one in the first century.
"Bart D. Ehrman knows that everyone of the apocrypha gospels were written from the 2nd Century or later. Not one in the first century."
No one does scripture state that one of the criteria for canonicity is when a book was written. Nor does it say who had to write it. Both criteria come from the Church. Sola Scriptura fails right at the table of contents.
@@TruthHasSpoken
Well, that's a great point but is it still a credible point nowadays? Meaning, I totally understand why more than one person decided what scripture is, but so many years later does it still matter?
I guess what I'm getting at, is take some lone individual who finds a Bible and then comes to Christ, would'nt that person have been saved through his or her understanding of scripture "alone"? Just curious..
@@geico1975 "but so many years later does it still matter?"
It does which is why Michael Krueger tries so hard to develop an alternative scenario than the canon coming from the Catholic Church. If the Catholic Church is the one who decided on the canon, that means it was led by the Holy Spirit to do so. Christ *promised* to send the Holy Spirit to lead his Church to ALL truth (16:13). Christ said that his Church was the pillar of truth (1 Tim 3:15), the bulwark of truth (1 Tim 3:15), and where the manifold wisdom of God is made known (Eph 3:10). Christ promised, that the gates of hell would not prevail (Mt 16), meaning, he will protect it from teaching doctrinal error. So,
if Catholic Bishops decided the canon, the implications are enormous, including but not limited to:
- being the Church Christ established and to which his promises apply
- the same 4th c Church that said the New Testament was 27 writings, said at the same time, the Old Testament was 46.
- Those meeting in the 4th c were all Catholic Bishops. They all believed that through their words of consecration, the bread and wine transformed into the resurrected body and blood of Jesus Christ, a means of receiving his Grace. Christ said:
_53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; 54 he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him._ (Jn 6)
Those same Bishops held to all the Sacraments. This includes baptism (sanctifying, regenerative, how one is Born Again scripturally, and salvific (1 Pet 3:21). Because those very same Bishops believed in the salvific affect of baptism, they ALL baptized infants. No exception. No argument.
And none of those men who decided the canon of scripture, held to Sola Scriptura or Faith Alone. Both of the latter didn't come onto the Christian scene for another 1,100 years.
"would'nt that person have been saved through his or her understanding of scripture "alone"?"
First, scripture never teaches on any page, scripture alone. Yes, it is profitable for teaching, correction, and training in righteousness. As St Paul says, God is my judge (1 Cor 4:4). God will judge fairly based on one's conscience and how they lived their life. To have "faith" is not just the intellectual ascent, the I Believe, it is to be *faithful,* in love of God and neighbor.
_21 _*_Was not Abraham our father justified by works,_*_ when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? 22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and _*_faith was completed by works,_*_ 23 and the scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness”; and he was called the friend of God. 24 _*_You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone._* (Ja 2)
With regard to the idea that "God knows what the canon is because He knows what He has revealed". I would take that one step further and say that God knows what the canon is before He even revealed it. It's often very difficult for us to put this in perspective, but we have to remember that God is beyond time. From God's perspective there is no boundary of what He has or hasn't "revealed yet". Therefore, just as with all things, His knowledge of the canon, or you could say of His revelation to us, including everything we would do with it, precedes even the foundations of the earth. The full canon of God's revelation to man, and when we would receive it (in our terms), was fully established before any man ever had a single thought about it. This is what makes the Roman Catholic argument of "well we gave you your bible", so absurd. If that were true than that "bible" ceases to be scripture. Their bad theology has unfortunately backed them into the corner of having to argue that scripture isn't scripture. By its very nature, it cannot be scripture and also be subordinate to the will of man.
So what was their solution to the question about how we know which books should be included in the Canon?
The only solution is the Catholic Church's decisions back in the late 4th century. If one rejects the authority of the CC then one is left floundering and guessing based on the latest thought that pops up in your head.
They didn't come up with a solution. They stated repeatedly that Scripture was from God, and so therefore it is inspired and trustworthy, yet they never stated HOW Christians new, FOR CERTAIN, which books were from God. Obviously, God knows which books are truly inspired, but how do we know? Saying it's self-evident doesn't work, because not all Christians agree on which Scriptures are truly from God. They just kept saying, "God knows..." which doesn't answer the question, "how did we end up with the Bible we have today?" Even Catholics believe the Bible is God's inspired word, and acknowledge that Scripture was present and in use before an official canon was created (canon just means list or criteria). The canon was formed to solve the dispute about which Scriptures were inspired, and that process was guided by the Holy Spirit.
Here's the reason people struggle with the canon in the pew: The Catholic asks questions deserving of answers.
To answer Catholics, Michael Kruger has come up with a new criteria in deciding which books of scripture are and are not the Written Word of God.
Michael is proposing a "new" to history, subjective "feeling" to determine what is and is not scripture, one that can't be consistently applied and that would lead to further division upon division. One wonders if Michael has applied his self-authenticating criteria to each of the 27 New Testament books as well as the other 300+ early Christian writings? And if he hasn't, who's to say that there are writings excluded that should be included? And can others consistently apply Michael's "Self Authenticating" criteria and come to the same conclusions as to what is and is not scripture? Who has the authority to decide then if and when there is disagreement? And if one believes that the canon is in error, how is it that Christianity error-ed for over 1,100 years? Did Christ promise, or not promise to lead his Church to ALL Truth? Doesn't scripture say that the manifold wisdom of God is known through the Church, and that the Church is the pillar and bulwark of Truth?
The Catholic questions, not answered by Michael include :
Who decided what books belong in the New Testament?
Where did they do so?
When did they do so?
What basis did they use in deciding?
What authority did they have?
Were they guided by the Holy Spirit on these repeated decisions, or did mere men get 27 books right out of 300+ early Christian writings on their own?
What else did these same (Catholic) Christians profess and believe?
Note: first, these same Christians, 4th century Catholic Bishops, professed the OT to have 46 books, not 39; and two, they all brought this bible into Church where they read it at Mass where they presided, all believing that the bread and wine becomes the resurrected Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.
If one can't trust these 4th century Catholic Bishops on the Mass, on Baptism being regenerative, on their proclamation that the OT consists of 46 books, why should one trust them that the NT consists of 27 books, no more, no less?
And that is precisely why people struggle with the canon in the protestant pew.
You said
Who decided what books belong in the New Testament?
Where did they do so?
When did they do so?
What basis did they use in deciding?
What authority did they have?
Were they guided by the Holy Spirit on these repeated decisions, or did mere men get 27 books right out of 300+ early Christian writings on their own?
What else did these same (Catholic) Christians profess and believe?
ME: It was certainly not the RCC if that is where you're going with this. Kruger has addressed this. But it doesn't even take Kruger to see the holes in the RCC story. The RCC would have us believe we need it to tell us what books are in the canon. But who gave the RCC the authority to decide the canon? Mt 16 you say? So you use Mt 16 to legitimize the church and the church to legitimize the canon? Your arguments are circular
Athanasius had the same list of books of the NT we have today and he did not get permission from a pope to give his list and use scripture as an authority.
Ireneaus in the second century did not need the bishop of Rome to tell him what was scripture . He quoted scripture all over his Against Heresy.
So the RCC definitely did not decide the canon. It was certainly not a regional council like Rome in 382 or Carthage which Rome likes to appeal to since they were only regional councils and were not ecumenical which according to RCC rules do not apply to the whole church. The RCC only declared the canon at Trent in the 16 century
Can you list the 300 books you are talking about. This is great disinformation. As if there were really 300 books competing for canonicity, when all the lists we have from the early church lists mostly the same books. You are undermining trust in the word of God by writing all this because you want to make us run to the "security" of Rome, a security that does not exist
I can assure you I don't struggle with the canon in the Protestant pew.
The RCC view is self-authentication so it cannot work. The RCC has to authenticate the canon and the Bible and also tradition, but then the Bible and tradition is what authenticates the RCC. This is circular reasoning--Sola Eklesia
Jesus said
27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand John 10:27-30 English Standard Version (ESV)
How do the sheep hera his voice? Explain what Jesus meant? This is not what you accuse of, some subjectivism that is based completely on feeling a la Mormonism.
i am suppose to accept james white over the roman carholic magisterium? jesus founded His church.. james white founded his.. no question no comparison and you christians say you're just after my soul... let me be the judge to that .. you don't know me well enough to judge me!! so no thanks!!! i can't even finish 5 minutes from this video sorry!!
@@Ggeg0000 "Athanasius had the same list of books of the NT"
Right. He is the very first one - to have a list of the New Testament, exactly as you have it in your bible. James and Michael are unable to cite anyone before him that had this canon exactly. This canon was not yet universal in the Church. And just who was this man? The Catholic Bishop of Alexandria. And you must believe that he was a pagan !!!
_“You will see the Levites bringing the loaves and a cup of wine, and placing them on the table. So long as the prayers and invocations have not yet been made, it is mere bread and a mere cup. _*_But when the great and wonderous prayers have been recited, then the bread becomes the body and the cup the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ…When the great prayers and holy supplications are sent up, the Word descends on the bread and the cup, and it becomes His body.”_* Athanasius, Sermon to the Newly Baptized, PG 26, 1325 (ante A.D. 373).
Such is the confusion and chaos of White and Kruger. Trusting that St Athanasius got the NT canon right, but believing he error'd greatly on his belief, that the bread and wine through his words of consecration as a priest became the resurrected Christ. Just as as Jesus says "this is my Body."
So too, those Catholic Bishops who would affirm the this list of books for the Church some 25 years later, 27 writings, no more, no less, ALL believed the same as St Athanasius. The bread and wine becoming the resurrected body and blood of Christ. Somehow .. they ALL knew what books were scripture, yet didn't know even how to interpret the books correctly. They were ALL pagans !! And Christianity needed two Catholic priests and a Catholic lawyer in central Europe 1,100 years later to set the record straight. Yet, though, even these three men all disgreed with each other. Chaos. Confusion.
@@theajoymanalo8015 "i am suppose to accept james white over the roman carholic magisterium? "
The Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ. He promised to lead it to ALL truth and that the gates of hell would not prevail. His repeated promises protect it from teaching what is false as true. James White came along some 1900+ later and reads a Catholic book on his own, decapitating it from the same faith from which it came, believing that he knows best how to interpret it. There are countless James Whites, all believing the same, all believing that they are right and the other person down the street is wrong. Such is the fruit of the 16th century man-made construct, Sola Scriptura. Chaos. Confusion.
Wish James would have let Kruger talk more, and not dominate the conversation.
get to the point,,,,,,,,who picked the books? and how do we know they are right?
25:54 bookmark
There were morsels of great information in this dialogue but there was a lot useless bantor. If Dr. White would focus on the subject matter and less on jokes he could get more across.
You want a video on Cannonicity? Try this one: ruclips.net/video/Bkb35MfKNrA/видео.html
Which translation do we actually memorise?
When I memorize scripture, I use the ESV. It's a good word for word translation and most reformed theologians use it in their sermons. The Ligonier app uses the ESV and I use the audio and read my Bible at the same time. It is also easy for a non-believer to understand.
I would never use the KJV to witness to a non-believer! They won't understand!
ruclips.net/video/fVcriboH1ws/видео.html
Why weren't they given 2 hours! 😡
How is a talking cross more redicoulous than a talking burning bush?
Thanks to the
Catholic Church ...it was guided by the Holy Spirit for giving us the Bible. -blessings!!!
Hmm
Calvary Chapel has been the only evangelical church that touches these subjects.
The Bible:
Understand what it is and it’s authority.
Read it in it’s entirety.
Study it soundly.
That we may be able to interpret it correctly.
"That you may be able to interpret it correctly."'
John 6 :
_52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” 53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; 54 he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him._
How could ALL of Christianity, all over the world, error on the Words of Jesus Christ for over 1500 years?
Jesus said what he meant, and meant what he said: This is my body
We receive the resurrected Christ in the Eucharist. His body, blood, soul, and divinity. A means of receiving his Grace.
St Ignatius of Antioch was a disciple of the very same St John. His words below:
_“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.”_ Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Smyrnaeans, 7,1 (c. A.D. 110).
Justin Martyr writes a few years later, still very close to the apostolic age.
_“For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.”_ Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66 (c. A.D. 110-165).
St Athanasius, the very first person to have a list of the New Testament canon, exactly are you have them in your bible writes:
_“You will see the Levites bringing the loaves and a cup of wine, and placing them on the table. So long as the prayers and invocations have not yet been made, it is mere bread and a mere cup. But when the great and wonderous prayers have been recited, then the bread becomes the body and the cup the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ…When the great prayers and holy supplications are sent up, the Word descends on the bread and the cup, and it becomes His body.”_ Athanasius, Sermon to the Newly Baptized, PG 26, 1325 (ante A.D. 373).
"Study it soundly. That you may be able to interpret it correctly."
When one decapitates the bible from the faith from which it came, all kinds of error occurs.
Fortunately, Dr Kruger was able to get some useful information out regardless of the constant interruptions of irrelevant, self-aggrandizing stories and comments by that other guy.
"rabid cyclist" 😂 thank you so much for talking about this, im struggling wihh answering a Sister of mine that is Reading the New New Testament.
I've watched 4 LONG videos about the canon, and NONE of them even began to explain what it is. This is a major problem
It’s the 66 books of the modern Bible. Confessed in historical creeds and confessions.
The New Testament canon that almost every bible has, was decided by the late 4th c Catholic Church, Bishops meeting in what is today, Tunisia. They said it was 27 writings, out of 300+ early Christian writings. And those very same Bishops said the Old Testament was 46 writings. Catholic men in central Europe, who had no authority, said 1,100 years later that the 4th c men got the NT right while error'ing on the OT. These 16th c Catholic men said the OT was 39 writings.
Note, no where does scripture lists what books belong in either the OT or NT. Sola Scriptura fails at the table of contents - and the various Jewish religious sects at the time of Jesus did not agree to an OT inspired canon. This includes the Diaspora Jews using the Septuagint, mirroring an OT canon used by the Orthodox, longer than 46 writings. They were no less Jews than those in the Holy Land, and Jesus and the Apostles used this Greek written collection of writings.
@@TruthHasSpoken
ruclips.net/video/5hItK8IY-Us/видео.html
@@rybojames4111 ruclips.net/video/i9fHd86-jYU/видео.html
@@TruthHasSpoken I am not sure what you are getting at. You seem to be attacking sola scriptura , or the number of books in the Bible? The books have been organized differently in church history at times, but the content was the same. By the time of the Council of Nicaea the canon was pretty much settled. Some factions included the pseudepigrapha and/or the apocrypha. Some of these extra biblical books can be useful and contain some insights to historical events or other things, but just as the Encyclopaedia Britannica has some truth in it, it is not an inspired text. The Gnostic texts can often be immediately disregarded by simply reading through them and comparing them to true scripture.
Ancient Christian truths about the scriptures as told by the Ancient Churches.
1. At first, Christianity was illegal, punishable by death. Christ continued to ask people not to speak of the mysteries, giving the Christian Church a chance to grow roots.
2. Christians worshiped. From the very beginning, Christians adopted Christ’s habit of praying every three hours. These prayers were not ad lib, but rather the adoption of the "prayers of the hours" in the synagogues, who held fast to the prayer rule of King David, (“Seven times a day will I pray to thee O Lord”) and was taught to David “by the Lord”. “Christ, even before his birth, is the source of the Psalms.” This is the “prayer life” that was held as so valuable. The rudder of everyday life. The glue that kept everyone coming together, to take care of one another as Christ taught.
3. Before ascending into heaven Christ imparted a special service to the Apostles, around which all others would revolve. This was the service that would tell the story of HIS death and resurrection. This is the "Eucharistic" service, the service of thanksgiving, adapted from HIS last supper, a 'chaburah' meal among friends. It is known today by its descriptive term, “The Divine Liturgy”, which literally means the holy “work” of the Christian people.
4. Christ made it very clear that the Eucharistic service required spiritual cleaning in preparation. Namely baptism, by a formula of his own design. Giving the new members the right to partake in the service and a visual confirmation to the existing body that these new members believed as they do. This became known as “being in communion”. When the epistles in the New Testament mention “returning to your first works” to a congregation, it is this service, prayer life and taking care of one another, that is being spoken of.
5. In the early life of the Church, the Eucharistic service was very guarded. See #1. Teachings of the specifics of Christianity (partaking of the body and blood of Christ was called cannibalism by the local governments) was reserved for after baptism. The only requirement for baptism at the time was the verbal confession that “Jesus Christ is the Son of God”.
6. The “worship” was the reason for gathering the New Testament texts. (They were substitutions for the apostles' actual presence.) Gathering them was not an attempt to create a book of all Christian truths. (John told us at the end of his Gospel that it could not be done.) Each book of the Bible, except for Revelation, as it arrived too late, had been and was to always be, read “in the services” of every Church “everywhere, by the same calendar” since the close of the first century. If we were to travel from Antioch to Alexandria in that time, we would not miss a service (part of the story), as everyone would be using the same text on the same cycle. Such was the unity of prayer for the one Church, dividing a very long story into many parts to be repeated systematically through the years.
7. The Bible “does not” contain everything that a Christian would want to know about Christianity. This does not negate biblical truths. Keep in mind that these texts themselves are central to the services mentioned. Rather we find these texts more fully explained by participating in the services. Reading the bible without attending the services is akin to reading a book about the Christians without partaking in their substance. We would get the idea, but we would not be fully fed, and perhaps become the seed that fell by the wayside or on the stone. (Matthew 13)
8. The book of Revelation was not included for its prophecies, but rather because it contained views of Heavenly worship. It was held as an example of what Earthly worship should look like as it attempts to join itself the Heavenly worship. Reading the book of Revelation to obtain knowledge of the second coming of Christ is folly. It sets up unreal expectations that upon “failure in our own minds” causes doubts about the whole of Christian teaching on HIS coming of which the Angels themselves do not know.
Paul Sudduth
Well thats a nice story... fact is though that the West accepted Revelation and the East didn't know what to do with it. The unity of understanding canon and universal liturgy you describe as being from the time of the Apostles is a fairy tale made up by your church or by yourself.
The pilgrims brought over the Geneva Bible. It has 80 books in it. So does the original KJV 1611.
Orthodox Bible 81 books
Catholic Bible 73
Protestant Bible 66
Scripture was given to man by ADONAI… it was not given to man by committee… it was not given by people claiming to have more authority than other people… in other words, what is and what is not Scripture is evident in Scripture…
So God knows what He wrote through the Holy Spirit..
But how do we know?
God knows allot of stuff we don’t..
Hmm
Exactly, thank you.