How Do We Determine Which Books Are Inspired?

We welcome your comments in the Reasonable Faith forums:

[igorgomez]

The fact of the matter is that all of Jesus followers including most of the writers of the New Testament were willing to endure torture and shame for testifying about His resurrection

Martin Luther did not like the book of James. He said:

"Therefore St James’ epistle is really an epistle of straw, compared to these others, for it has nothing of the nature of the Gospel about it." (Luther’s Works 35, 362)

"I almost feel like throwing James into the stove, as the priest in Kalenberg did." (Luther’s Works 34, 317)

"We should throw the epistle of James out of this school [i.e. Wittenburg], for it doesn’t amount to much. It contains not a syllable about Christ. Not once does it mention Christ, except at the beginning. I maintain that some Jew wrote it who probably heard about Christian people but never encountered any. Since he heard that Christians place great weight on faith in Christ, he thought, ‘Wait a moment! I’ll oppose them and urge works alone.’ This he did." (Luther’s Works 54, 424)

He also deprecated Hebrews, Jude, and Revelation in his translation of the Bible. Ironically, while Martin Luther developed the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, he believed it was his duty to decide what constituted "Scriptura".

[evolutionsfake]

For lack of guidance, a nation falls, but with many counselors comes deliverance. Proverbs 11:14

[theflashdcuniverse]

Love the response about the Christians sensing the spirit speaking to them from the words of the so called disputed books.

[evolutionsfake]

I'm rather surprised that Dr. Craig does not outline a school taught methodology for how Scholars approach canon:

1. Historicity
2. Patterns
3. Textual criticism
4. Scholarship
5. Doctrinal consistency

Through the centuries mostly heretical movements were the reason for canonical correction or consolidation, these are clearly sprung up by God To protect his Word.

[timmears]

How soon after the writing of the Gospels (and other books in the new testament) were they widely available to other Christians?

[dumbidols]

What about OT? There is disagreement between Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox and pre-Christian Judaism on the canon. The first authoritative list given at the council of Rome in 382 does not match modern Protestant canon.

[martyfromnebraska]

Gonna miss Craig when he goes to the Father.

[thetotalvictoryofchrist]

Typically Apostolic authority. As far as 2nd Peter, which scholars all know wasn't written by Peter, I see great value in that book in that it serves as an early witness to the authenticity of 1st Peter.

[jfrontier]

It is possible that the pastoral letters are not canaliculi and do not belong in the NT. Read some of the questions surrounding them. .

[leonardu]

Man, i love Dr Craig but i don't think I've ever heard a more incoherent response on this question in my life. There are numerous issues with what he said but let me point just one out; starting at 0:20 he basically said "_In the new testament already, we see parts of the new testament(4 gospels & acts) were accepted as authoritative scripture_" So basically he's saying at least some of the books in the new testament present themselves as inspired & that apparently seems to be good enough for him. But this is circular reasoning because he's assuming the very thing he's supposed to be proving.

Don't get me wrong; I believe all the books in the canon are divinely inspired, I just don't think his reasons are sound.

[DarylSpano]

I truly admire Dr. Craig, but I should add that even though written early (roughly the end of the first century), the New Testament wasn't canon until the late 300s. The whole bible was actually consolidated in 382 at the Council of Rome. It was in use for another 1000 years until people decided to question its contents.

[INRIVivatChristusRex]

min 1:20 Is that right? What do you do with James 2:24 ““{2:24} Do you see that a man is justified by means of works, and not by faith alone?”
The Catholic Church decides which books are in the Bible. It was decided and promulgated by Pope Damascus I in 382 AD in the Council of Rome. Now you know the rest of the story.
The Bible is a Catholic Book.
Viva Cristo Rey!

[tookie]

Have yet to find a Protestant who doesn’t use circular reasoning to define the canon

[unsightedmetal]

I'm a Christian. Is there any verse other than 2 Timothy 3:16 that says all Scripture is I can only find verses that say *God's words* are true.

[ThomasEWalker]

The boundaries are blurry??? Are you kidding me??? This stuff is a giant excuse to make believe you know something you genuinely don't know.

[junacebedo]

Who compiled the books of the Bible? The Catholic church

[simonjurado]

Goodness
First time I hear a weak answer from him.
One needs an apostolic successive Church to guarantee the canon, of course
;)

[thevulture]

Search for "Isaiah Mini Bible"

66 Chapters of Isaiah match the 66 Books

[michelangelope]

The origin of life is God because from non existence can not be created existence. Atheism is a logical fallacy that assumes God is the religious idea of the creator of the creation to conclude wrongly that no creator exists because a particular idea of God doesn’t exist. The atheist logical fallacy would test your IQ and if you don't understand it children would explain it to you because it is easy to understand being honest and impossible lying to oneself. Atheists believe God is sky daddy and don't believe God exists and they are wrong because they believe. I know because I was atheist. Atheism only have arguments to debunk the religious idea of God and reject the logic that concludes the creation, or what has a beginning of existence, was created by the creator with nonsensical remarks like "you assume the creation", "who created God?" and many others. I have lived enough to know humanity would not say the truth to save oneself, let alone their own innocent and vulnerable children's lives. Humanity are cowards dying in war for lies. Christians say that the martyrs who died for the idea that Jesus resurrected is proof that the ressurection happened and I say that a martyr would not say the truth under torture to save his own life. Are you open minded enough to change your mind on being proven wrong? The proof that atheism is a logical fallacy is that atheists consider debunking the religious idea of God proof that God doesn’t exist. Would you admit atheism is a logical fallacy to honour the truth and not lie to innocent and vulnerable children? One of the innumerable examples of the atheist logical fallacy is the quote by Jules Renard "I don't know if God exists, but it would be better for His reputation if He didn't". Jules address God as "His" because he assumes God is the religious idea of the creator of the creation to conclude God doesn’t exist because he is not perfect, in fact he thinks the creator of the universe did a poor job. If you don't know why the universe can not be eternal is because atheists want you ignorant and asking foolishly "who created god?". The discovery that atheism is a logical fallacy would end the war in Ukraine on being news, and if not at least the truth can not do harm.