The entirety of the Bible was written by Man's hand, but given by God.
Why are certain books canonized and others, like the gnostic books, rejected?
This is research that every Christian must do in ...
@Laser you still haven't answered the question, I asked how do you know the Bible you have in your home are the correct books?
Since you posted Kruger's book (again), I'm going to presume this was somehow the answer to my question (it's not) and find his approach the most reasonable way of finding canon. HOWEVER:
The Church corporately did not agree on a 66-book Bible. The Church corporately agreed on a 73-book Bible. Virtually every western Christian used the Latin Vulgate, and it had 73 books.
Kruger argues that the core canon was settled early and peripheral disputes were resolved by the late third and early fourth centuries. But when those disputes were resolved, they were resolved in favour of 73 books at Hippo and Carthage. Kruger wants credit for, early consensus, while ignoring what the final consensus actually was.
You cannot say "the Holy Spirit is leading the Church collectively into the truth" and also say "the Church collectively got the canon wrong and it needed reformation."
Either the corporate leading of the Holy Spirit is reliable, in which case the answer is 73 books, or it isn't reliable, in which case Kruger's entire framework collapses and you're back to the individual, where Calvin's version already failed because the Reformers all arrived at different answers. (See point 1 above)
So if you're a fan of Kruger, answer my question (if you can) did you arrive at your Bible based on "the Holy Spirit is leading the Church collectively into the truth" (Kruger), if so, why not 73 books?
Try and answer the questions, actually answer them directly. Not some hand-wavy "...every christian must do this" (Which begs the question, why does everyone not just go back as far as the 300s, and pick and choose amongst all the contested books/letters etc of the time?
Since you posted Kruger's book (again), I'm going to presume this was somehow the answer to my question (it's not) and find his approach the most reasonable way of finding canon. HOWEVER:
The Church corporately did not agree on a 66-book Bible. The Church corporately agreed on a 73-book Bible. Virtually every western Christian used the Latin Vulgate, and it had 73 books.
Kruger argues that the core canon was settled early and peripheral disputes were resolved by the late third and early fourth centuries. But when those disputes were resolved, they were resolved in favour of 73 books at Hippo and Carthage. Kruger wants credit for, early consensus, while ignoring what the final consensus actually was.
You cannot say "the Holy Spirit is leading the Church collectively into the truth" and also say "the Church collectively got the canon wrong and it needed reformation."
Either the corporate leading of the Holy Spirit is reliable, in which case the answer is 73 books, or it isn't reliable, in which case Kruger's entire framework collapses and you're back to the individual, where Calvin's version already failed because the Reformers all arrived at different answers. (See point 1 above)
So if you're a fan of Kruger, answer my question (if you can) did you arrive at your Bible based on "the Holy Spirit is leading the Church collectively into the truth" (Kruger), if so, why not 73 books?
Try and answer the questions, actually answer them directly. Not some hand-wavy "...every christian must do this" (Which begs the question, why does everyone not just go back as far as the 300s, and pick and choose amongst all the contested books/letters etc of the time?