Without mentioning the details of early church “fathers” and early manuscript collections that affirm the 27-book collection to have existed before the 4th century, the Bible overwhelming shows that the Apostles oversaw the collection of the New Testament writings. Paul instructed the sharing of His writings in Colossians 4:16, and warned against false writings in 2 Thessalonians 2:1–2 and 3:17.
In short, 2 Peter 3:16 shows that all of Paul’s epistles were collected as Scripture and spread into lands not specifically addressed. Paul quoted Luke 10:7 as “Scripture” along with Deuteronomy in 1 Timothy 5:18. With the Gospel of Luke confirmed as Scripture, then the book of Acts is certainly Scripture along with the written Gospels mentioned by Luke in Luke 1:1–3 are too. Second Peter 1:16–21 shows that the writings of the Apostle John and Peter were already Scripture. John also affirmed inspired Scripture written by the Apostles in 1 John 1:1–4. The Apostles did oversee the collection. Read more here “The Formation of the New Testament.”
Some false teachers will affirm the inspiration of the Scriptures, and yet undermine the authority of the Scriptures by teaching that the New Testament Scriptures were collected in a 4th century council. These teachers would have you believe that the writings of the New Testament were not intended for all Christians.
Many false teachers even many conservative assume that men gathered the New Testament together in the 4th century, and many of them would even hide this belief from their fellowship. From this presumption, some say that 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus are not inspired or even written by Paul. Some may refer to Clement of Rome’s letter to the Corinthians or to other spurious “gospels” written in other centuries as though these have been cut out while never added or inspired in the first place. Such is bias. Many simply want to encourage doubt to persuade people to be cynical towards the reliability of even Jesus’s own words. This doubt undermines the infallibility of Christ, God’s providence in preserving Scripture, and denies that the Bible is complete in beliefs and practices. This allows the false teachers to assume an authority that is not theirs.
Such doubt disregards God and His ability to providentially sustain the words of Christ especially those words given to the Apostles and prophets. There is nowhere else to find Jesus’ words but in the Bible. Jesus said that His words will never pass away (Matt 24:35; Mark 13:31; Luke 21:33). Do not doubt that the most profound and sublime words ever written are in pristine and pure order being preserved by God.
The Breath of God 
The English word, “church”, is an erroneous translation of the Greek word, “ecclesia’, which only means a group or assembly. It carries NO religious connotation what-so-ever. To single out a descriptive term, and use it as a title, is to give God’s called out people a title that He did not authorize. Many Church of Christ members try to evade the issue by using the lower case “c” in “church of Christ’. This is a well known fact, not something meant to be offensive. Most all conservative Church of Christ churches use “c” – least the ones I know.
I agree with this man that church means “assembly” in Greek, but that does not make “church” an incorrect translation. The word “church” does have unscriptural connotations from the world. “Assembly” is better than “church”, but “congregation” is the best in showing the meaning of “ekkleisia”. Disagreeing over these terms is nothing short of word-wrangling. As soon as, terms are changed then so will meaning, so lets stick with the Bible. “Assembly” (ekkleisia) does have religious meaning. It is used in the Bible as such. Acts 19 does show the pagan use of the term, “ekkleisia”, lawful and unlawful assemblies of the pagan world.
Lower case “c” is used for congregations and the capital “C” for the “Church”. This is very legalistic conclusion reached right here by this person. Who would be offended by the lowercase “c”? “coC” is offensive. It is classifying us apart from our identity.
Also, pronouncing “ekkleisia” as “ecclesia” show ignorance of the language to those who read ancient Greek.
— “Disagreeing over these terms is nothing short of word-wrangling. As soon as, terms are changed then so will meaning, so lets stick with the Bible.” —
I agree, but I didn’t start this, you did. I was simply attempting to show you respect, as other people in the “CoC” have asked to be abbreviated as “coC.”
If you want to be really “legal” about it, the bible never says “Church of Christ” it only says “churches of Christ.”
But again, I don’t really care. It’s not important, beyond not offending you, which I never intended to do.
— “Also, pronouncing “ekkleisia” as “ecclesia” show ignorance of the language to those who read ancient Greek.” —
Are you implying that you read Greek? I was under the impression that “ekklesia” was the proper transliterated spelling, not “ekkleisia”
Why even make comments like this? Are you trying to put him down or “offend” him?
Your missing “s” on “shows,” in a sentence meant to put someone down, show”s” your ignorance of the English language.
See how useful that is?
Interesting, that you have left this comment alone. . .
If I was trying to be offensive I wouldn’t have prefaced the entire statement with:
“First let me state that if I am wrong about something you believe please forgive me.”
I promise you, were I trying to be offensive it would be clear.
——–
Regarding the Laodicean letter. From the text it seems the most likely explanation that it was letter written by the person speaking to the Laodicean Church.
I have heard before that it may be the book of Ephesians, however there is one, fundamental flaw with this theory.
The epistle to the Ephesians was written AFTER Colossians.
——–
Regarding the canon. You said “There is no manuscript evidence to present a canon other than the 27 books.”
That’s not what I asked you though is it?
The book of Jasher is referenced by the apostles twice in the bible. It obviously was at least of some merit for them to do so.
Which begs the question what is canonical?
My question still remains, being that Jesus nor the apostles ever laid out an index of the books of the bible for us, how are we to know what books belong there?
———
If I offended you for using the abbreviation “coC” to refer to the “church of Christ” I’m truly sorry. There was no malice intended. I was under the impression after speaking with others in the Church of Christ that the c in church is not meant to be capitalized.
Scott:
Thanks for your responses.
Very enlightening and useful.
Keep posting, I’ll keep reading.
~Ekta
“in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets:”, Ephesians 3:5.
First let me state that if I am wrong about something you believe please forgive me. As your church has no definitive and indexed set of beliefs for me to refer to outside of interpretations of the bible I cannot be sure.
I am hoping you can clear a few things up for me.
Firstly. The very notion that nothing has been omitted or added to the bible implies that we have some sure fire way of knowing what exactly the bible is.
To my knowledge Christ nor any of his apostles ever said: “these are the books of the bible” or anything of that fashion.
Where does the coC believe that the decision of what went in the bible and what did not come from?
Secondly in one of the very verses you point out: Col. 4:16.
It is referring to a book that is in the bible and an epistle that as far as we and historians can tell is not in the bible.
What makes this interesting is that Paul without question places equal importance on both writings.
Beyond that there are other references to other books or writings not found in the bible.
The book of Jasher for example.
What are your views on these subjects?
Who is the coC? I assume you are trying to be offensive. Whose fault is it if someone’s interpretation and understanding differs from Christ’s meaning?
You are assuming that the letter from the Laodiceans is another letter and not just a letter from the Laodiceans and was written to another church. You are also have suppose that it is not already a letter in the Bible specifically the letter to the Ephesians. There is nothing for historians to tell us further about this.
There is no manuscript evidence to present a canon other than the 27 books.
Paul mentions 2 other books he wrote to the church at Corinth. The first Paul called an “epistle” which has since been lost. (I Cor. 5:9) The second was an angry letter Paul wrote to the Corinthian church prior to writing 2 Corinthians. That letter has not been preserved. (2 Cor. 2:3, 4)
If the books were lost, how can you or anyone else say they were “inspired” or not? Paul took his 2 lost letters seriously — so did the Corinthians.
And what of Paul giving his “opinon” when writing? Was Paul’s opinon inspired even though Paul says he has “no commandment” concerning the matter?
I appreciate the peaceful discussion. Your approach is very welcoming to those who may be in error to correct themselves. You make rational points directed toward knowing the truth. You are either seeking truth and, or correcting me in the kindest way. That I respect. Allow me to address your points.
Peter said that all of his epistles were given to all. Paul’s prior epistle to the Corinthians contain things covered in 1 Corinthians. Though the thoughts were from the Spirit, to consider the epistle was added to the collection is to conjecture and reject any providence of God in this happening. This epistle is lost to us in one sense and still given in a way in 1 Corinthians. It would be speculation to say that the letter was taken and thus lost from Bible. Because of a number passages affirming the collection in the article, I understand that “all” of Paul’s writings that Peter mentioned have been kept and not lost.
The letter that Paul referred to that he gave in affliction and tears (not anger) is clearly 1 Corinthians see that Paul mentions the discipline of the man in 1 Cor. 5 just have after these verses in 2 Cor. 2.
Paul’s opinion was guided by the Spirit (1 Cor. 7:40, “think” means “know” in Greek). “I give judgment as one whom the Lord in His mercy has made trustworthy” (1 Cor. 7:25). Paul’s opinion did not have to be a command. His words were of permission, concession for confidence in “the present distress” (1 Cor. 7:26). His words were of the promises of God and instruction of the identity of God too.
Since you are not allowing our comments here, we will post at Bondservants blog and ours.
Its 6am, time for me to get some rest. ttyl
I’m sorry, but that’s why I said “judging fro this single post” — I haven’t read all of your others – yet.
Thing is, the writers of scripture do mention “lost” or “other” books which we don’t have — both in the OT and NT.
I challenge you on the reference to “lost” books that are inspired. Jude may refer or better yet confirm the words of Enoch also in the Book of Enoch. Paul does warn of false letters in 2 Thessalonians 2. The Old Testament mentions books within the books (2 Chron. 20:34). I’ll go with the OT collection that Christ accepted (Luke 24:44).
This is exactly the point of past articles. Nothing has been ignored but supplemented by this later article. This article is about whether books were lost or added to the Bible. There is no evidence that such has occurred. The Bible supports this. Those who speculate about such does so prejudice.
I am certainly not calling myself a heretic nor am I relegating myself when I have addressed the manuscripts. That is not the subject of this post. The existence of variants does not undermine the words of Christ anymore than differing English translations and so-called “translations”.
Wow. You are ignoring a lot of documented history, manuscript evidence and internal & external evidence that the current NT scriptures were, for the lack of a better term, altered, by accident and on purpose.
Judging from this single post, you are relegating anyone who studies the actual transmission of the scriptures, from person to person, place to place, copy to copy, century to century, language to language, as a “heretic” or a “skeptic”, when really, all we want to know the truth…and to “see if these things are so…”