Originally posted by rwingett
I'm sure the Catholic church has no provision for the inclusion of more books because it is opposed to the inclusion of more books.

Well, if there were powerful figures within the hierarchy who were impressed by the case for the new book then opposition to its inclusion could conceivably be relegated and "provision" could be made. ATY mentioned Vatican 2, for example. Before "Vatican 1" and "Vatican 2", countless millions of Catholics no doubt would have assumed that reforms such as those enacted after these ecumenical councils were inconceivable and that the possibility of them being adopted "did not exist".

Originally posted by FMF
Why not just post normally if you decide you made a mistake or if you change your mind?

Because its so much more fun editing the cannon after all the Churches have agreed upon it.

Any additions to 'the cannon' would result in a split between those denominations that accept the new book(s), and those that do not. I actually find it amazing that practically all denominations today accept the current set of books. I suspect it has more to do with tradition, and the fact that most Christians are totally ignorant of its origin, than any logical reason.

Originally posted by FMF
If someone were to have a dream or vision similar to the one[s] that gave rise to the Book of Revelation, how would they go about getting it added to the New Testament canon?

If someone were to have a dream or vision similar to the one[s] that gave rise to the Book of Revelation, how would they go about getting it added to the New Testament canon?

There is nothing the author could do to accomplish "getting it added to the New Testament " aside from how God Himself guided the Christians to recognize the divine authority upon the writing.

This is not one post intend to cover the whole subject of the history of the NT canon. This is just a post to deal with the underlying assumption I think is in your question. That is that man, alone, can "audition" or democratically elect some writing to be part of the New Testament.

I realize that the typical secularist or agnostic / atheist would [edited] view the compiling of the New Testament as arbitrary and manmade. And yes, I know, you may point out this or that dispute about early disputed or rejected books. But God guided both the writing of the Bible and the recognition by the believers of the Bible.

If God does not will to add to the New Testament or guide His people to add to it, there is nothing any seer, visionary, "prophet" true or false, genuine of phony, could do to get his or her writing into the New Testament.

It's inspiration, writing, and recognition was a process somehow guided by God Himself.

Originally posted by jaywill
If God does not will to add to the New Testament or guide His people to add to it, there is nothing any seer, visionary, "prophet" true or false, genuine of phony, could do to get his or her writing into the New Testament.

What if God willed it? How would the new book get added? How would it work?

Originally posted by FMF
What if God willed it? How would the new book get added? How would it work?

What if God willed it? How would the new book get added? How would it work?

The question is like "How would God lead people through the Caspian Sea? We know He lead people through the Red Sea." God lead Israel through the Red Sea. He could do it again elsewhere. How He might do it, we cannot know for certain.

I cannot tell exactly how God would lead the guiding process in every detail. I can only assume some aspects MIGHT be similar as in the 27 New Testament books.

I don't think anyone can give you a flowchart. At best I could point to some similarities with how the NT canon came to be.

Do you understand that ? I cannot give you a predictive flowchart.

For example, who [edited] would have thought that the preasure of political persection would have been sovereignly used by God to force the Christians to HAVE to sift through and sort out the inspired books from the multitudes of spiritual / religious writings ?

The persecutions of Emporer Diocletian about 302 / 303-5 AD provided forceful motivation for the church to have to settle the matter of the content of the New Testament. Christians risked their lives for certain books which were considered sacred them.

Eusebius writes in his Ecclesiastical History the following:

". . . an imperial letter was everywhere promulgated, ordering the razing of the churches to the ground and the destruction by fire of the Scriptures, and proclaiming that those who held high positions would lose all civil rights, while thowse in households, if they persisted in their profession of Christianity, would be deprived of theur liberty."

Because of this kind of extreme persecution the books recognized as the most profitable were copied more deliberately. Ie. this letter to Eusebius to preseve the most needful writings:


Victor Constantinus, Maximus Augustus, to Eusebius

" ... I have thought it expedient to instruct your Prudence to order fifty copies of the sacred Scriptures, the provision and use of which you know to be most needful for instruction of the Church, to be written on prepared parchment in a legible manner, and in a convenient, portable form, by professional transcribers thoroughly practiced in the art. The catholicus of the diocese has also received instructions from our Clemency to be careful to furnish all things necesary for the preparation of such copies; and it will be for you to take special care that they are completed with as little delay as possible."

Here political actions prompted the careful examination and scrutiny of the vast amounts of religious literature. Those which truly authoritative were given high and possibly only priority. In this century of Diocletian's persecutions and Constantine's letter official recognition of the 27 NT books took place in A.D. 363 at Laodicea and in A.D. 397 at Carthage.

My point is that if God sovereignly used this political persecution (in addition to other factors) for form the NT canon, it is difficult to know what means of circumstancial motivation He could use again.

Originally posted by jaywill
My point is that if God sovereignly used this political persecution (in addition to other factors) for form the NT canon, it is difficult to know what means of circumstancial motivation He could use again.

So you don't know, and you have no suggestion to make either, that's what you're saying?

Originally posted by jaywill

If someone were to have a dream or vision similar to the one[s] that gave rise to the Book of Revelation, how would they go about getting it added to the New Testament canon?

There is nothing the author could do to accomplish "getting it added to the New Testament " aside from how God Himself guided the Christians to recognize the divi ...[text shortened]...
It's inspiration, writing, and recognition was a process somehow guided by God Himself.

If I remember correctly Jaywill, you once either stated or implied that the words of the New Testament are not conclusive or final, and that doctrines are being modified and improved upon. You said this in response to my insisting that your beliefs are not in line with those of Christ and Paul, particularly regarding the importance of good works and this 'once-saved-always-saved' doctrine.

You even went so far as to say that you or your group are re-writing the teaching of Paul to make it more understandable.

Surely [and judging from your posts] you must think that you and your group are inspired and you deserve to have your version of 'salvation' in the NT.

Book of Jaywill 3:21 Your sins past, present and future are washed away by the blood of Christ. You cannot lose your salvation. Forget about good works which is just boasting. Just shiver and sing an pray and clap, roll on the floor and receive the 'holy spirit' ..

Originally posted by FMF
So you don't know, and you have no suggestion to make either, that's what you're saying?

So you don't know,

That's right. And if you wish to quote me accurately, I WROTE that I could only give some similarities and not provide a flowchart.

and you have no suggestion to make either,

Now you are going beyond what I said. So this part I do not concur with.

that's what you're saying?

What I am saying I thought was clear. Don't expect an infallible flowchart. I might suggest some similarities. For length's sake mostly, I did not include too many of these in that post.

And I spent some space to show how situations beyond human control were used by God to complete the process. That could happen again. How can I know the specific details of it?

Now a question for you. Is there an issue behind why you ask this question? I mean is what you are getting at an attempt to show the process of canonization of the NT is arbitrary and rather random ?

Is that what you are disquising here in the form of a question about how canonization would occur today ? Are you lined up with many fault finding observations to prove that the formation of the New Testament was arbitrary ?

Originally posted by jaywill
Is that what you are disquising here in the form of a question about how canonization would occur today ? Are you lined up with many fault finding observations to prove that the formation of the New Testament was arbitrary ?

If you want to start a thread about fault finding observations on the formation of the New Testament, then please feel free to do so.

Originally posted by Rajk999
If I remember correctly Jaywill, you once either stated or implied that the words of the New Testament are not conclusive or final, and that doctrines are being modified and improved upon. You said this in response to my insisting that your beliefs are not in line with those of Christ and Paul, particularly regarding the importance of good works and this 'on t shiver and sing an pray and clap, roll on the floor and receive the 'holy spirit' ..[/i]

If I remember correctly Jaywill, you once either stated or implied that the words of the New Testament are not conclusive or final, and that doctrines are being modified and improved upon.

Without me seeing the quotation from which this paragraph is based I cannot agree that I EVER stated such a concept.

What sounds like something I would write is that the light on the settled words of the New Testament may shine in the hearts of Christians some here more, some there more.

This is illumination changing with the need of God's people as the ages change. Now I may have said something like that.

The church may go back and ask itself "What was really SAID in Scripture here about this ? What did it really SAY."

That is not changing the Scripture. That is applying perhaps greater focus where it was not applied before. What did it REALLY say here ? Let's look very carefully.

We're not changing the word of God. We're paying closer attention to exactly what was said.

You said this in response to my insisting that your beliefs are not in line with those of Christ and Paul, particularly regarding the importance of good works and this 'once-saved-always-saved' doctrine.

This thread of FMF is on another subject.

The word "SAVED" or "SALVATION" has a number of different conatations in the Bible.

"Once Saved Always Saved" may make a good short car bumper sticker. Or it may be a nice way for you to simplify what you think is my position on the assurance of eternal redemption.

The nuances of the word "saved" are a little more involved. I tried in the past to show you that. I think you received NOTHING. So I don't think you can lure me into another fruitless discussion with you on that matter.

But this would not be the place to discuss it again with you if I wanted to.

You even went so far as to say that you or your group are re-writing the teaching of Paul to make it more understandable.

I don't think I said that. There are many, many, many good English translations of the New Testament. I have a number of good English translations.

At this time my favorite is the Recovery Version because of the extensive helpful footnotes and study notes.

There are other versions of study bibles with some good footnotes as well. Ie. Ryrie, Emphasized, Amplified, Darby, and that is just in English.

Then there are some paraphrases like J.B Phillips or "Good News for Modern Man" or "the Living Bible".


In earlier days I used paraphrases, when I was a relatively new Bible student. I don't use paraphases much anymore.

Surely [and judging from your posts] you must think that you and your group are inspired and you deserve to have your version of 'salvation' in the NT.

A number of posters have tried to discuss these matters with you. I don't recall you getting much help from anyone on this.

I am probably not going to re-argue with you about salvation and its various aspects in the Bible. I find that you have a kind of short attention span and a myopic view like a frog looking up at the sky from a hole in the ground.

I don't think you have the capacity to see the fuller picture of God's economy in the NT. Sorry.

Now I get back to the topic of this thread.

Book of Jaywill 3:21 Your sins past, present and future are washed away by the blood of Christ. You cannot lose your salvation. Forget about good works which is just boasting. Just shiver and sing an pray and clap, roll on the floor and receive the 'holy spirit' ..

You get the last little entertaining word in this post.

Originally posted by jaywill

If someone were to have a dream or vision similar to the one[s] that gave rise to the Book of Revelation, how would they go about getting it added to the New Testament canon?

There is nothing the author could do to accomplish "getting it added to the New Testament " aside from how God Himself guided the Christians to recognize the divi
It's inspiration, writing, and recognition was a process somehow guided by God Himself.

This depends on whether getting added to the canon is seen as a humanly ordained event only, or is seen as a divinely ordained event.

There is nothing the author could do to accomplish "getting it added to the New Testament " aside from how God Himself guided the Christians to recognize the divine authority upon the writing.

You speak as though getting Christians to recognize divine authority is the essential element, but as you are a Christian, do you not think that God could recognize/authorize a new text as being part of the canon, whilst Christians erred or refused to recognize this fact?

In other words, isn't the essential element, that God recognize the new text as part of the canon?

You might say God would not leave this essential belief to our free will.

There are disagreements at present between denominations of massive size, on what texts belong to the canon. So, of course, to a Christian, either (a) god sees at least one of these denominations as being in incorrect free will choice, or (a) God has ordained two differing canons as acceptable. Doesn't this suggest that getting people to agree on what is in the canon, is not the essential step [edit: to a Christian] in getting something into the canon?

In short, shouldn't you say that the important step would be to have God's blessing, and whether people agree, is only as important as God deems it to be?

Originally posted by JS357
This depends on whether getting added to the canon is seen as a humanly ordained event only, or is seen as a divinely ordained event.

There is nothing the author could do to accomplish "getting it added to the New Testament " aside from how God Himself guided the Christians to recognize the divine authority upon the writing.

You speak as have God's blessing, and whether people agree, is only as important as God deems it to be?

This depends on whether getting added to the canon is seen as a humanly ordained event only, or is seen as a divinely ordained event.

The Bible says about itself that the Scriptures are ordained by God. That is what I believe. That is what Christ also believed.

Me:
There is nothing the author could do to accomplish "getting it added to the New Testament " aside from how God Himself guided the Christians to recognize the divine authority upon the writing.

js357:
You speak as though getting Christians to recognize divine authority is the essential element,

Essential to what ? I don't think its is essential to salvation that a believer have absolutely no questions or doubts about portions of the Bible.

I don't think it is essential to salvation that a new believer know that much about the New Testament canon.

When Christ became real to me I still had many a doubt about major parts of the Bible. God received me with my doubts. I believed that Jesus was alive and submitted to Him as Lord.

He did not wait for me to be thoroughly verses in the history of the formation of the NT canon. He is still not waiting for that in order for me to have an intimate fellowship with Him.

but as you are a Christian, do you not think that God could recognize/authorize a new text as being part of the canon, whilst Christians erred or refused to recognize this fact?

I doubt that there is going to be anything ADDED to the 66 books of the Bible. To me, everything else about the hows and who does what, is a moot point.

There have plenty opportunities for someone to submit that his vision/s, prophecies, teachings, alledged communications from God - real or unreal, genuine or fake, should also be considered on the same level as the Bible.

How many writings in the first four centries envied the position ? I think the sifting and sorting has already been guided by God and completed.

Writings of the early centries were probably far more likely to be qualified. And they were NOT.

In my lifetime one David Wilkerson had a prophetic vision about working with teens in New York come true. Some years latter he has what was published on tape and in book form as David's Wilkerson's Second Vision.

He had some genuine clout. He had had some prophecy like visions actually come true. Much of what he wrote in his "Second Vision" was couched in language which SOUNDED very much like some Old Testament prophet.

It was not added to the Bible, thankfully. Neither the writings of Mary Baker Eddy or Joseph Smith added to the New Testament. Neither Kathryn Kulman or A.A. Allen or Oral Roberts, in spite of some arguably impressive possible miracles done, were able to get their words inserted into the New Testament.

Having said that, I add - it is not NECESSARY that some helpful spiritual writings be ADDED to the New Testament in order to be benefitial to the believers.

Put aside the questionable things by questionable preachers. Just take what is genuinly helpful, edifying, spiritually nourishing, true and with a real ring of God's anointing upon it. It is not necessary that such genuine spiritual messages HAVE to be added to the New Testament.

They can still be helpful and a blessing to millions of people. It is not necessary that even a real vision from God (if one existed now) attain the status of being part of the New Testament in order for it to be used by God to bless people.

Stop here.

Originally posted by jaywill

This depends on whether getting added to the canon is seen as a humanly ordained event only, or is seen as a divinely ordained event.

The Bible says about [b]itself that the Scriptures are ordained by God. That is what I believe. That is what Christ also believed.

[quote]

Me:
There is nothing the author could do to acco of the New Testament in order for it to be used by God to bless people.

Stop here.[/b]

js357:
You speak as though getting Christians to recognize divine authority is the essential element,

jw: Essential to what ?

To the thread's title subject.

edit: here is my statement entire: You speak as though getting Christians to recognize divine authority is the essential element, but as you are a Christian, do you not think that God could recognize/authorize a new text as being part of the canon, whilst Christians erred or refused to recognize this fact?

Originally posted by FMF
Sorry if my OP was not clear. I had the conventional canon of books included in the Bible in mind - the 27 books that are recognized by almost all Christian traditions as constituting the New Testament. How would one go about adding a second "Revelation' type book, what would be the requirements and obstacles, how long might it take etc.

no, your question was clear. perhaps my response wasn't. you can't add any more books to the canon. the only way to do so is to start a new religion, like mormonism which added the books of the "latter day" saints.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Because its so much more fun editing the cannon after all the Churches have agreed upon it.

Any additions to 'the cannon' would result in a split between those denominations that accept the new book(s), and those that do not. I actually find it amazing that practically all denominations today accept the current set of books. I suspect it has more to do ...[text shortened]... and the fact that most Christians are totally ignorant of its origin, than any logical reason.

I think the current canon was determined before the different churches split from one another.