Question for Protestants: How do you interpret John 3: 4-5?

[light1house]

Maybe considering the fact that the flesh is contrary to the Spirit will bring a light to the difference in the two. Their is no union between them that is why we will be given a new body one that is not in contrast to the spirit.

THE WAR WITHIN: FLESH vs. SPIRIT
(Galatians 5:16-18)
But I say, walk by the Spirit, and do not gratify the desires of the flesh. For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh; for these are opposed to each other, to prevent you from doing what you would. But if you are led by the Spirit you are not under the law.

The connection is that the way one acts is a product of the way one thinks which itself is a product of what one is! This is true both for those “in the flesh” and those who are “in the Spirit.” This is why Jesus was able to say in Matthew 7:20, “By their fruits ye shall know them.”

This is vitally important because, as verse 6 states, the end result of having a mind of the flesh is death! The end result of a having the mind of the Spirit is life and peace!

Romans 8:6 “For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace”.

The law shows us that we are under the control of sin and points us to Christ, the only one who can save us.

Romans 8:3-4 “For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh, that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the spirit”.

11 And I, brethren, if I still preach circumcision, why do I still suffer persecution? Then the offense of the cross has ceased. 12 I could wish that those who trouble you would even cut themselves off!
13 For you, brethren, have been called to liberty; only do not use liberty as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. 14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 15 But if you bite and devour one another, beware lest you be consumed by one another!

 

[kobudodave]

Catholic view seems more bap. than bap.Plus your Church of Christ back ground heavy into bap.Jesus was fullfiling all Gods requirments when He was bap
Faith plus works is what you are preaching that you NEED to be bap
You NEED to be born of the spirit then come to be bap Jesus did all kinds of works to make way for us to do what God demands then sins were placed on Him
But when you say got to have faith but then do something to prove yourself to God all you prove is sin work it is like water and oil unmixable
THE WORK of God is to belive in his Son John5/6 that is what pleases God that is the KEY He will cause new life to be ours when we belive (that faith you use to belive is from God)
He is sourse not Bap.the whole NT is command so really is bap equal to whole NT and all it teaches (God prefers obediance to sacrifice) why is bap/com more important than all NT
Bap is easy one time act com is easy do as often
Now do all other things in NT not to easy in fact Jesus compares to caring cross daily

bap is to help me with walk with God 20 yrs after fact I forgot what did yesterday
pouring water or walking daily
God wants us to do that bap/com no doubt but need to do to be saved ?

God says add vertues to faith in 2 nd Peter in other words grow in faith
Heb 11 All about faith Faith is key faith /spirit causes growth

Any way Bro I guess thats lot of diff between cath/protestor anyway i see cath channel i learn alot like Jesus said if not against me then for me there is lot on both sides to learn

Answer me one question here, my friend. Why do the apostles tell ALL whom they convert to be baptized? Is it because it is unnecessary to their salvation?

The whole point of the NT is to bring us to salvation. If baptism wasn’t necessary, and required, why would it be stressed so much? It wouldn’t be necessary to include such a detail, so many times, if it wasn’t necessary.

Sure, baptism is easy. So is communion. But that doesn’t make it any less important, or any less of a requirement. Accepting God’s grace is the easy part, it is the life that you live afterward that is the difficult part. But you have to accept that grace first. Part of that grace is being baptized. James tells us that we will be known by our works. Not that we should boast, but that we can show the light of Christ to those who lack faith.

 

[steveleeder]

Hi guys, Bless you all!
A great question!, and I’d like to have a shot at explaining how I’ve understood and heard taught what this passage means.

I firmly believe Jesus here is talking about baptism, not natural birth-that just wouldnt make any sense in the context of the whole passage.

Paraphrasing the chapter;
Nicodemus comes to Jesus by night and says “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher from God”…then Jesus says, “unless one is born again, he cannot see the Kingdom of God-
then Nicodemus asks “well how can someone be born again when they’re old?”
and then Jesus replies " most assuredly, I say to you unless you are born of water and the Spirit you cannot enter the Kingdom of God”…

So clearly in this passage Jesus and Nicodemus are talking about 2 things;

1. the kingdom of God
2. and how to enter it

The answer that Jesus gives to the question of how one enters the Kingdom of God is by being born again and that consists of 2 things;

1. being born of water AND
2. being born of the spirit
   (its very important to remember that its not just being born of water)

Now the very intersesting thing here is the manner in which Jesus is talking to Nicodemus, as opposed to say someone like the rich young ruler who enquired about how to get everlasting life (Luke 18:18) or the Pharisees of the Gospels who continually tested Jesus-these people were SELF RIGHTEOUS (I shall come back to this very important point)

Nicodemus HUMBLES himself and comes before Jesus acknowledging that Jesus is from God,and so Jesus gives him the good news of the Kingdom of God, and the Gospel of Peace.

Similarly when peope were HUMBLED such as the woman caught in adultery (John 8)
or the Samaritan woman (John 4) Jesus showed them His grace.
These people were humble because of their awareness of their sinfulness, and their lack of righteousness, and their desperate need for the saviour (like the Apostle Peter in Luke 5:8)

When someone in the Gospels humbled themselves; Jesus in turn would give them the good news of the Kingdom of God, and show them Gods offer of Grace and forgiveness…
but when anyone came to Jesus who was SELF RIGHTEOUS, Jesus Used the LAW OF GOD to try and break their self righteousness and show them their true condition, and their need for the Saviour
(the LAW OF GOD-the 10 Commandments; Exodus 20,aka the Royal Law -James 2:8 )

Gods perfect Law is there to show us how sinfull we really are, without it we cannot truely know the “exceeding sinfulness of sin” (Romans 7:13)
the Apostle Paul says he wouldnt have known what sin was, unless the Law of God had told him, (Romans 7:7)
We will not cry out for a saviour, unless we first see that we need saving- that is the purpose of Gods Law, to drive us to Christ (Galatians 3:24)

Once we have seen that we are not only sinners,but completely and utterly lost without Christs redemption,and then COMPLETELY stripped of our self righteosness,and cried out to God for His forgiveness, then we will be born of the Spirit.

to be continued…

 

[steveleeder]

Part 2…

We cannot be born of the Spirit while holding onto our own Righteousness-
that is all the things that we think we can do for God, i.e. doing good deeds, or going to this or that church, or being Baptised, or taking communion etc etc etc…
-There is nothing wrong with any of those things, but none of them can save us!!!

We can only be saved when we truely repent of not only our sin, but also our self Righteousness- and turn to Christ and Accept HIS Righteousness imputed to us!

the bible makes it clear that there are 2 types of repentance

1. repentance from Sin
2. repentance from Self Righteousness
   both are Imperative in true saving faith

(read what the Apostle Paul says in Philipians 3:1-10…he says I did this, and I did that, but it was all GARBAGE compared to being found in Christ and not having a Righteousness of my own… )

the Prophet Isaiah said the same thing "But we are all like an unclean thing, and all our Righteousnesses are like filthy rags…Isaiah 64:6

once we truely repent from our sin and Self righteousness, Gods Holy Spirit will then come into our lives and teach us how to live a life that is pleasing to God, not because of anything we have done, but because we have put our faith in Christs Righteousness not in our own.

Baptism is symbolic of us dying to our old self and our own righteousness, and putting our trust in Jesus Perfect life.
this is being “born again” into the new life thats in Christ,but it isnt baptism that saves us, but rather an outward sign of what God has already done in us internally.
Without repentance any Christian who puts their trust in their own baptism to save them, is just like the Jews who trusted in their circumcision to save them.

Circumcision was an outwards sign of Gods Covenant to Abraham-but God isnt interested in the outward appearance of obedience, He wants a people who worship Him in Spirit and in Truth, (remember Jesus said to the Pharisees-you Pharisees wash the outside of the cup…Luke 11:39)
Under the new covenant God wants to write His Laws on our hearts.

Having said that I believe Baptism is an integral part of Salvation, as it requires us to obey what Jesus asked us to do, and to beleive Him by faith. (how can anyone be saved if they refuse to obey what Jesus plainly commanded us to do?)
“without faith it is impossible to please God” Hebrews 11:6

So in conclusion we are to trust in Christs Righteousness to save us from our sins,not our own Righeousness or in our baptism.
" seek first the Kingdom of God, and HIS Righteousness" (not our own righteousness)
“Blessed is he that hungers and thirsts after Righteousness”…
…no one hungers and thirsts for something they already have!!
(Matthew 5-the sermon on the mount )

I put the challenge out to anyone to listen to 2 excellent sermons which have really encouraged me and helped me to better understand the good news of the gospel!..

*‘A Tale of two Sons’ by Pastor John MacArthur-
Very applicable to this topic, and especially challenging to Catholics who put their faith in their baptism-especially the SECOND son who stayed at home…I really encourage you to listen to this one to the end…

sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=9908135378

*and ‘Hells best kept Secret’ By Ray Comfort;
Which teaches How Gods Law is Perfect and coverts the soul (Psalm 19:7)
livingwaters.com/learn/hellsbestkeptsecret.htm

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ!!

 

[afriendofGod]

Perhaps I’m mistaken. I’ve been a baptist for 13 years, with the vacation of about 2 years in the United Penetcostal Church, I’ve dealt with only Southern Baptists and Fundemental Baptists, and as I recall, there has not been a service where an alter call was always given, the only exception being the primitive baptists who subscribe to Sola Gracia, or Predestination, and teach that people will come when God calls them. As you may remember, Baptists are an autonomos church organization, each member is responsible before God for knowing and believing, and that is why there is no central authoritative body nor creed, nor statement of Faith that is accepted by all. Each individual pastor is required at his ordination council to answer questions about what he believes, and if the council is in agreement on his answers as orthodox, he is ordained. You will also remember that within any of the 30 plus Baptists bodies, there is a huge amount of room for divergent beliefs about non-essentials, and the alter call is not an essential to faith, simply a tradition that we follow.
Blessings.
Bibleman47

A. Your post reminds me of Karl Barth’s saying that “Christians are all the same, but they worship differently” (I took this quote from my yesterday readings of John Paul II’s Traccia, Insegnamento di Giovanni Paolo II). How one worship is secondary, but one’s worship must never conflict with the spirit of Christianity, which is Christ! In Christ we are all one in spirit and in truth! We must be one; we better be one! Karl Barth, of course, was a great apologist for Protestantism, but also a great theologian. When Christians are in Christ, divisions are impossible, unthinkable! Christ is the sole Model for Christianity!

 

[Bastoune]

Incidentally, I have heard some Protestant (usually the cult-like ones) pastors say that the “water” in John 3 refers to “the Word of God” – or more specifically, “the Bible.”

That is: you get saved through being born againt through the Holy Spirit and through the Bible (the sole rule of faith).

They justify this position by quoting Ephesians 5:25-27, which states, “…just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless.”

They think you are washed by the Word, but this text totally contradicts the very position they are trying to justify since: a) it is clear that the “water” and the “word” are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS so the Word of God is not “water.”; b) because they are two things, we see that the water is used THROUGH the word (some texts give the preposition “with” – in any case, the water is used in accordance with the Word and they are two different things working together – the power of God coming upon the people, burying the old person and giving new birth using water to do this).

But the notion that the “water” here is really “the Bible” that you have to believe in to be born again is also an interpretation some pastors use.

 

[selah603]

Incidentally, I have heard some Protestant (usually the cult-like ones) pastors say that the “water” in John 3 refers to “the Word of God” – or more specifically, “the Bible.”

That is: you get saved through being born againt through the Holy Spirit and through the Bible (the sole rule of faith).

They justify this position by quoting Ephesians 5:25-27, which states, “…just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless.”

They think you are washed by the Word, but this text totally contradicts the very position they are trying to justify since: a) it is clear that the “water” and the “word” are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS so the Word of God is not “water.”; b) because they are two things, we see that the water is used THROUGH the word (some texts give the preposition “with” – in any case, the water is used in accordance with the Word and they are two different things working together – the power of God coming upon the people, burying the old person and giving new birth using water to do this).

But the notion that the “water” here is really “the Bible” that you have to believe in to be born again is also an interpretation some pastors use.

Thank you for your reply regarding being washed in the word. It struck a chord with me and I realized something. When St. Paul wrote the letter to the Ephesians, there was NO written word of God that was canonized. The apostles were preaching and writing letters to distant churches when issues developed. When Jesus stated that we must be born through the water and the Spirit. it could not be possible He meant the written word of God. There were no apostles writing anything at that point!
There was NO Bible then!

Those that take one verse out of context and then use it to “prove a point” are using faulty exegesis. The church canonized Scriptures 400 years after Christ’s death. I love the word of God, have taught a lot of Bible studies. I am not anti- Bible! I am pro the Word, written and spoken.

Blessings,
Pam

PS Jesus is also known as the WORD (see John 1).

 

[Marvin_Schmidt]

How do you interpret John 3: 4-5?

Nicodemus said to him, “How can a person once grown old be born again? Surely he cannot reenter his mother’s womb and be born again, can he?”

Jesus answered, "Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit.

Thanks!

Perhaps I am being too simplistic, but I remember that Jesus was baptised in the river ( water) by St John the Baptist. Then the Holy Spirit descended from God in the form of a white dove and God spoke. Here we have the two statements Jesus made regarding salvation, stated simply for simple people.

I believe we all want to show some one, somewhere, how smart and studied we are. The Bible was recorded for simple people.

this is what I have faith in - - -
Yours in Christ,
Marvin Schmidt

 

[Captain_M]

The problem I have with the view that unless you have water sprinkled on you you can’t go to heaven is that how then did the thief on the cross go to paradise? Indeed, is deathbed conversions possible?

Greetings everyone,

My perspective is not protestant per se, but offers a contrasting view from an LDS perspective. Whatever that may connote to others, I offer the following as what I see as a thoroughly Biblical outlook.

Regarding the topic of deathbed conversion, I wouldn’t wonder that the time between death and the resurrection is a continuation of our probationary period of mortality anyway.

Peter seems to say that Christ, being dead with regards to the flesh, but alive in spirit, continued his ministry among those who had previously died in disobedience and were now in “prison” (as opposed to spiritual “paradise”). What would the purpose of ministering to the spirits of the dead be if there were no hope of salvation for them?

1 Peter 3:18 - 20
18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;
20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

I personally believe that the reference to those who died in the days of Noah is related specifically to the metaphor of the flood as baptism (verse 21), but that the principle of preaching to the spirits of those who were disobedient in mortality might be construed more generally.

This view is followed up by Peter in the next chapter where he refers to God as the judge of both quick (living) and dead, and mentions somewhat parenthetically the preaching of the gospel to the dead.

1 Peter 4:4 - 6
4 Wherein they [the Gentiles] think it strange that ye [Christians] run not with them to the same excess of riot, speaking evil of you:
5 Who shall give account to him [Christ] that is ready to judge the quick and the dead.
6 For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.

In other words, the purpose of this preaching to the dead appears to be a way of satisfying both justice and mercy. It is just in the sense of offering an equal opportunity to those who missed that opportunity in life. Thus, they are placed on equal footing with “men in the flesh” though they live “in the spirit”. By the same token, it is merciful because it offers the grace of Christ and salvation to those who are in “prison”.

And what of the requirement of baptism (which is the topic of this thread) as it relates to those who died without it? Paul seems to take for granted that the practice of vicarious baptism for the dead was taking place in the early Christian church, though no elaboration is offered anywhere.

1 Corinthians 15:29
29 Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?

The context of Paul’s statement is his argumentation for the true and tangible resurrection of Christ, which had come into dispute among the Corinthians. After citing many testimonies and rationales for the necessity of believing that Christ was truly resurrected in the flesh, he mentions the practice of baptism for the dead as an additional outgrowth of the logic of the resurrection.

Somewhat more elaborated I would argue that if the dead will someday rise in the resurrection just as Christ did, at which point they enter into an eternal, immortal state (John 5:29), then prior to the resurrection the dead must still be in a state of probation that is similar or parallel to the probationary state that we are in while still living in mortality.

While this may be seen to fundamentally alter the traditional view of heaven and hell, I believe it only offers greater clarity to the architecture of mortality and our eternal destiny. Eternal punishment and reward are still the guiding principles by which we live out our eternal existence.

At the same time, I do not see that this view suggests that our decisions in life become irrelevant or that salvation can be casually postponed until some later period of existence. If we leave this life having harbored lusts, resentments, dishonesty, etc., they must surely still be a part of our personality beyond this life and will continue to be a liability to us. Furthermore, I am not suggesting that a person does not immediately enter a state of punishment upon death if they have lived wickedly.

I would suggest, however, that the challenges to repentance and faith in the realm of the spirits of the dead may not be any easier than they are here. The notion of spiritual blindness may turn out to be more real than metaphorical, as the disobedient dead are blind to spiritual realities, and so must still learn trust and faith.

All I am suggesting is that our probationary period may continue beyond death, and that the truly penitent (whether early or late in life) have access to Christ’s mercy. And those who did not have the opportunity, or perhaps even a sufficient understanding of the gospel of Christ, will be offered that opportunity beyond this life and be subject to the same requirements, including the necessity of baptism. And into this picture, the practice of baptism on behalf of the dead fits naturally.

 

[Captain_M]

One final qualification: Those who describe the LDS practice of baptism of the dead as “posthumous Mormon baptism” fail to recognize the doctrine, intent, or implications of the practice. We view the dead just like the living in the sense that they are conscious individuals with an independent will and freedom to choose. The baptism we perform is only an offering, not something that we view as forced upon them. If such a baptism is performed on behalf of a Jew or a Baptist or an atheist or whatever, that individual is the only person who can decide if they accept that baptism as their own personal expression of faith before God. From our perspective, it is an expression of love and a desire to extend by our actions the mercy of Christ to others, just as a person might do in sharing their spiritual convictions with a friend or acquaintance in this life. Our record keeping is only to prevent unnecessary duplication in a global collaborative effort. It in no sense implies membership or affiliation with the church.

 

[awantz]

In my church water baptism is a requirement.

 

[kobudodave]

In my church water baptism is a requirement.

What church do you go to, if you don’t mind me asking?

 

[awantz]

What church do you go to, if you don’t mind me asking?

I’ve been a member of a Missionary church, Assembly of God church, and a independent church. They all believed in water baptism as a requirement.

 

[Jerry_Marino]

How do you interpret John 3: 4-5?

Nicodemus said to him, “How can a person once grown old be born again? Surely he cannot reenter his mother’s womb and be born again, can he?”

Jesus answered, "Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit.

Thanks!

That is the trouble with some believers; interpretation!

the key here is born again, Jesus gives the answer of water and Spirit. now some would say baptism but that is not true is it? cause one would have to look at what baptism signifies, no interpretation.

first question to you is, what must happen in order for a person to be born again?

 

[kobudodave]

That is the trouble with some believers; interpretation!

the key here is born again, Jesus gives the answer of water and Spirit. now some would say baptism but that is not true is it? cause one would have to look at what baptism signifies, no interpretation.

first question to you is, what must happen in order for a person to be born again?

While I am not Belinda Parsons, I would say that you have to die. We are to signify death with Christ, and “New Life” through Him, in essence dead to the old life, and born again in the new life. I think there is a gospel song like that.

 

[Jerry_Marino]

AMEN!

 

[light1house]

Thank you for your reply regarding being washed in the word. It struck a chord with me and I realized something. When St. Paul wrote the letter to the Ephesians, there was NO written word of God that was canonized. The apostles were preaching and writing letters to distant churches when issues developed. When Jesus stated that we must be born through the water and the Spirit. it could not be possible He meant the written word of God. There were no apostles writing anything at that point!
There was NO Bible then!

Those that take one verse out of context and then use it to “prove a point” are using faulty exegesis. The church canonized Scriptures 400 years after Christ’s death. I love the word of God, have taught a lot of Bible studies. I am not anti- Bible! I am pro the Word, written and spoken.

Blessings,
Pam

PS Jesus is also known as the WORD (see John 1).

Heres the verse “bottom John 15” I added to show that the word has a “cleansing” property which baptism is symbolic of the cleaning of your conscience. (Peter 3) (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God) True their were no written NT text, the written word always comes after the fact, the only exception is the 10 commandments. Just how do you expect to disregard the word because it was not written yet. The canonization had nothing to do with writing it down, it had to do with determining the authenticity of the letters they possess. The early Christians used the letters long before they were canonized.

Isaiah 40:8 The grass withers, the flower fades,
But the word of our God stands forever.”

Mt 24:35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away.
Also Mark 13:31… Luke 21:33 …Many other OT passages reflect the same.

You dont think that after writing the OT that God would allow the NT letters “word of God” to depart at the most critical junction do you. And please spare me the catholic church gave then to us, the Spirit inspired writers would not so much as claim they gave them to us! It was God threw them, no one knew that better than they did, it was not their words to start with. Minimizing the word is a mistake they will out last heaven and earth.

John 15
1 “I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser. 2 Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit He prunes, that it may bear more fruit. 3 You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you. 4 Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in Me.

 

[kobudodave]

John 15
1 “I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser. 2 Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit He prunes, that it may bear more fruit. 3 You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you. 4 Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in Me.

The word clean here, literally means pruned, if you take it in context of the passage. The same word karthos is used in verse 2, twice. This may or may not correspond to being “cleaned”.

It all still remains, that there is to be a washing of sins. This is generally signified in the NT to be done with water. Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38, Acts 10:47, Titus 3:5-7, Heb. 10:22, 1 Peter 3:21, Col. 2:11-12, all taken together as an explanation of baptism, gives us the answer we need as to WHAT baptism we are to undergo. It is obvious water baptism is the prescribed baptism, which washes away our sins, and “now saves” us, as Peter said, just as Noah and his family were saved through water on the Ark.

How ironic that the MOST destructive force we know of on Earth to be water, and it is by that VERY thing, that we are to be saved through.

 

[kobudodave]

And further more, it was a belief of the 1st century Church that water was salvific.

“‘I have heard, sir,’ said I [to the Shepherd], ‘from some teacher, that there is no other repentance except that which took place when we went down into the water and obtained the remission of our former sins.’ He said to me, ‘You have heard rightly, for so it is’” (The Shepherd 4:3:1–2 [A.D. 80]).

 

[selah603]

Heres the verse “bottom John 15” I added to show that the word has a “cleansing” property which baptism is symbolic of the cleaning of your conscience. (Peter 3) (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God) True their were no written NT text, the written word always comes after the fact, the only exception is the 10 commandments. Just how do you expect to disregard the word because it was not written yet The word was preserved by the early christians… The canonization had nothing to do with writing it down, it had to do with determining the authenticity of the letters they possess. The early Christians used the letters long before they were canonized. That is exactly what I am saying. The thing to think about, however is that there had to be an authority that actually decided which letters were inspired and which were not. Who was that authority? The Church… there are many letters and documents that were good teaching but were not added into the canon as scripture. We wouldn’t have a Bible if it were not for the Catholic Church.

All Christians realize that if God has revealed Himself by communicating His will to man, man must be able to know with assurance where that revelation lies. Hence the need for a list (i.e. canon) of books of the Bible. In other words, man needs to know without error (i.e. infallibly) what the books of the Bible are. There must be an authority which will make that decision. “Canon” means straight rod or ruler as in measuring stick. There had to be something and people to determine which were infallible and which were just good letters. God did not specifically say in each letter…“hey, this is an inspired one” It took discernment and a lot of knowledge to pull together the gift we have today, The Holy Word of God.