Board index ‹ Bible

[Johnny O]

Many new and important books have been written since the Bible was compiled. Perhaps some of these were divinely inspired too. Why not incorporate them into scripture? Or would that be more trouble than it's worth?

[jimwalton]

Ah, the key word is "perhaps." Only the books that are truly inspired were affirmed as Scripture. "Perhaps" isn't good enough. The criteria is "God-breathed." The end of the Bible (at the end of Revelation) teaches that the era of such inspiration is over. That's why newer books, even good and important ones, don't achieve the level of "Scripture."

[Johnny O]

How is it determined which books were "truly inspired"?

[jimwalton]

There were several gatherings of Christian leaders, not to vote on which books to accept, but to affirm which books were obviously inspired and easily recognized as such. The deliberations of the church during this time involved recognizing the books given by God to His people rather than deciding what books to include in the Bible. The difference is a subtle but important one. The books of the New Testament are not Scripture because the church said they were, but are Scripture because from the time of their composition they bore the mark of divine authority. The New Testament, and in fact the Bible as a whole, is thus a list of authoritative writings rather than an authoritative list of writings.

There is no dispute (nor are we aware that there was ever a dispute) about which books belonged in the Old Testament as inspired. Every list is the same, and there is no contention about it recorded anywhere in history.

The criteria for the books of the New Testament is that they were written by one of the apostles, someone who saw Jesus after the resurrection, or by someone who had information directly from the apostles. Other criteria were truthfulness and agreement with previously canonized writings. That was the criteria by which they could affirm that the author had first- or second-hand, reliable and trustworthy information. In other words, they insisted that it came "from the horse's mouth," true, and concordant with what had already been affirmed as true.

[Johnny O]

So a book is determined to be divinely inspired if it "obviously...bears the mark of divine authority" and "concordant with what had already been affirmed to be true"? I'm sorry but that doesn't answer my question.

[jimwalton]

Your question was, "How is it determined which books were 'truly inspired'?" I did answer that.

1. Jesus said that the Holy Spirit would help the apostles remember the truth about what Jesus said and did. Therefore any book written by an apostle was divinely inspired.

2. Therefore, any book written by someone who got their story directly from the apostles, whom the Holy Spirit guided in their remembrance, is also divinely inspired.

3. Any book written by the apostles and those who got their story directly from the apostles, that was in total agreement with previously affirmed divinely-inspired works, is divinely inspired.

4. Therefore the books of the NT bear the mark of divine authority and are concordant with what had already been affirmed to be true, and consequently are divinely inspired.

Does that answer your question?

[Johnny O]

No. Because the only reason we have to think Jesus said that the holy spirit would inspire people to write other books is because it says he did in one of those books.

[jimwalton]

That's a different issue. The issue you want to talk about then is whether or not Jesus was God, not how it is determined which books were truly inspired.

[Johnny O]

Then do you have any criteria that make sense?

[jimwalton]

The criteria are still the same. Assuming that Jesus is God, which is what the Bible teaches and what the evidence supports, then the criteria of what constitutes divinely-inspired writings is as I already said. If you're questioning whether Jesus is God, that's a different discussion. If you're not questioning that Jesus is God, then the criteria make sense.