Authority and the Inspiration of Scripture

[Ernie]

Which early church list do you accept? They don’t all have the same books listed.

The books that were generally accepted by the churches. Origen seems to be the first one to identify these 27.

Do you accept the book of Barnabas as Scripture? Origen did.
Do you accept the book of Sirach as Scripture?
What about the first and second Clement? This was also regarded as Scripture.

Many books were accepted by some but not accepted by all. I am under the impression (perhaps wrongly) that the ones that were commonly accepted were the ones that made into the canon without question. Other books were included in the canon or "scriptures" that were considered helpful but were not considered at the same level as the ones that made up the 66 books. Again I refer you to viewtopic.php?p=183365#p183365

It is not a big deal to me if some people think Barnabas and Sirach should be treated equally with the 66 books, as long as they don't introduce any additional doctrine as authoritative from any of those books.

[Soloist]

Many books were accepted by some but not accepted by all. I am under the impression (perhaps wrongly) that the ones that were commonly accepted were the ones that made into the canon without question. Other books were included in the canon or "scriptures" that were considered helpful but were not considered at the same level as the ones that made up the 66 books. Again I refer you to viewtopic.php?p=183365#p183365

It is not a big deal to me if some people think Barnabas and Sirach should be treated equally with the 66 books, as long as they don't introduce any additional doctrine as authoritative from any of those books.

Well, looking at the early church it wasn't as united as we'd like to believe it was. Just take a look at this, we have a great deal of this data because of the Catholic church.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developme ... ment_canon This read I would take with a grain of salt though. My primary point is that when we speak of these 66 books or the 27 books as inspired but no other books, the question is why? and if like you, we simply say its fine as long as it doesn't teach doctrine, well... can you see an issue here when we are discussing commonly accepted books during our era?

By the early 3rd century, Origen of Alexandria may have been using the same 27 books as in the modern New Testament, though there were still disputes over the canonicity of Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Revelation

If you were to sit down with someone arguing over the validity of Hebrews and they said "we can accept it if it doesn't teach new doctrine" how would you respond to this?
I don't have any particular objection to the books we commonly accept as canon today with the exception of the apocrypha, but I'm not sure how far I'm willing to stand on those books. I don't personally view the book of Barnabas as canon and I can't recall reading it with detail. I rejected the Shepherd of Hermas for clear heresy contradicting the words of Jesus our Lord and I would view the writings of Polycarp as of value for application to life. I don't know that I'm saying its Scripture, but I can't find fault with it.

[Josh]

The simple fact is that we are descendants of Catholics, so we follow their canon. We also seem to believe we should follow Calvin and Luther who decided to axe the apocrypha. I have no idea why Conservative Anabaptists are so keen to allow their persecutors to tell them what should be in their bibles.

[MaxPC]

The simple fact is that we are descendants of Catholics, so we follow their canon. We also seem to believe we should follow Calvin and Luther who decided to axe the apocrypha. I have no idea why Conservative Anabaptists are so keen to allow their persecutors to tell them what should be in their bibles.

Two thoughts occur to me here:
#1 It is my understanding that there are Anabaptists who do accept the Apocrypha (Deuterocanonical) books. Some of them use a KJV with Apocrypha edition.
#2 I would hazard that the various fellowships recognise the two millenia of scholarship that has filtered, parsed, and discerned which books of the Bible should be studied as a part of the OT/NT canon. Perhaps they realise that the scholars were not necessarily accessories to the persecutors?

[Josh]

The simple fact is that we are descendants of Catholics, so we follow their canon. We also seem to believe we should follow Calvin and Luther who decided to axe the apocrypha. I have no idea why Conservative Anabaptists are so keen to allow their persecutors to tell them what should be in their bibles.

Two thoughts occur to me here:
#1 It is my understanding that there are Anabaptists who do accept the Apocrypha (Deuterocanonical) books. Some of them use a KJV with Apocrypha edition.

Anabaptists who still have German Bibles and German or Pa. Dutch preaching services generally accept the apocrypha too, which would be most of the old orders. I have yet to run across a KJV with Apocrypha. When one is in Amish country, one can look at Bibles for sale; the Lutherbibels contain the apocrypha and the KJVs don't.

This means basically all of the Old Orders use the apocrypha and none of the conservative Anabaptists do.

#2 I would hazard that the various fellowships recognise the two millenia of scholarship that has filtered, parsed, and discerned which books of the Bible should be studied as a part of the OT/NT canon. Perhaps they realise that the scholars were not necessarily accessories to the persecutors?

Calvin and Luther were the specific scholars who agitated against the apocrypha, and they also were directly involved with persecuting Anabaptists. Conservative Anabaptists rejecting the apocrypha makes literally no sense at all - unless one accepts that Conservative Anabaptists are actually just garden-variety evangelicals who insist on wearing special clothes.

[MaxPC]

Anabaptists who still have German Bibles and German or Pa. Dutch preaching services generally accept the apocrypha too, which would be most of the old orders. I have yet to run across a KJV with Apocrypha. When one is in Amish country, one can look at Bibles for sale; the Lutherbibels contain the apocrypha and the KJVs don't.

This means basically all of the Old Orders use the apocrypha and none of the conservative Anabaptists do.

I have come across some Hutterite colonies who use a KJV with Apocrypha Bible. I seem to recall that the original KJVs did include that section. Of course at my age, my memory may be proving to be unreliable.

[RZehr]

Anabaptists who still have German Bibles and German or Pa. Dutch preaching services generally accept the apocrypha too, which would be most of the old orders. I have yet to run across a KJV with Apocrypha. When one is in Amish country, one can look at Bibles for sale; the Lutherbibels contain the apocrypha and the KJVs don't.

This means basically all of the Old Orders use the apocrypha and none of the conservative Anabaptists do.

I have come across some Hutterite colonies who use a KJV with Apocrypha Bible. I seem to recall that the original KJVs did include that section. Of course at my age, my memory may be proving to be unreliable.

I have a KJV with apocrypha. But it’s an older version with what looks like f for the letter s. But otherwise its font is not the old English, and it is quite readable.

[joshuabgood]

The books that were generally accepted by the churches. Origen seems to be the first one to identify these 27.

Do you accept the book of Barnabas as Scripture? Origen did.
Do you accept the book of Sirach as Scripture?
What about the first and second Clement? This was also regarded as Scripture.

Many books were accepted by some but not accepted by all. I am under the impression (perhaps wrongly) that the ones that were commonly accepted were the ones that made into the canon without question. Other books were included in the canon or "scriptures" that were considered helpful but were not considered at the same level as the ones that made up the 66 books. Again I refer you to viewtopic.php?p=183365#p183365

It is not a big deal to me if some people think Barnabas and Sirach should be treated equally with the 66 books, as long as they don't introduce any additional doctrine as authoritative from any of those books.

The things is, there are already doctrines in the 66 that describe the opposite sides of things and embrace a contradicting tension...or a oxymoronic truth. For instance, faith v works. Because of this apparent contradiction, some like Luther, felt like James probably should be out of the canon. Others like free will versus determinism, Proverbial wisdom around righteousness and riches versus Job's great uncovery..etc etc. So I don't really feel like some "opposite tension/doctrine teaching" really would be outside of what already exists. If one though embraces Christocentrism as a hermeneutic then it relieves most of the tension. Other places we can just life with the tension.

[Josh]

Anabaptists who still have German Bibles and German or Pa. Dutch preaching services generally accept the apocrypha too, which would be most of the old orders. I have yet to run across a KJV with Apocrypha. When one is in Amish country, one can look at Bibles for sale; the Lutherbibels contain the apocrypha and the KJVs don't.

This means basically all of the Old Orders use the apocrypha and none of the conservative Anabaptists do.

I have come across some Hutterite colonies who use a KJV with Apocrypha Bible. I seem to recall that the original KJVs did include that section. Of course at my age, my memory may be proving to be unreliable.

Most Hutterite colonies still preach in German and have German Bibles with an ancient translation. The Christian Communities group had garden-variety KJVs, NIVs, and so forth (or at least they did the last time I went there).