Tom,
I do agree Hippo and Carthage were instrumental in fixing NT and OT scripture as Gods word. But why did God not let the Christians before the fourth century KNOW which writings were inspired by him?
How do you know God didn't let the Christians know? This we do know:
In speaking of the books of the Old Covenant (OT) and New Covenant (NT), F F Bruce wrote:
The former collection came into being over a period of a thousand years or more; the latter collection has a more inaugural character. Its various parts were written within a century from the establishment of the new covenant; they may be regarded as the foundation documents of Christianity. It was not until the end of the second century AD that the two collections began to be described, briefly, as the Old Covenant (or Testament) and the New Covenant (or Testament). These short titles are attested in both Greek and Latin almost simultaneously - in Greek, in the works of Clement of Alexandria, ca AD 150-215, [The Stromata, 1.9; 3.13; 4.21; 5.13]; in Latin, in the works of Tertullian of Carthage, ca 155-240, [Against Marcion 4.1; Against Praxeas 14, 15]' (Bruce 1988:21-22).
We know that the
Muratorian Canon (MC), the oldest known list of NT books, was available from about AD 170 - the traditional date (Bruce states the date of the MC being drawn up is disputed but he dates it around the end of the 2nd century) [Bruce 1988:158]. This was a list that included 22 NT books that excluded the Book of Hebrews, James, 1 & 2 Peter, and 1 of John's epistles.
However, the compiler accepts the Apocalypse of Peter, He regarded the Letter to the Laodiceans, the Letter to the Alexandrians as spurious, but he considered the OT apocryphal book,
Wisdom of Solomon, as canonical. So as early as the late 2nd century, the MC lists 22 of the 27 books that have been accepted in the NT canon. The MC link that I have given here is to Bruce Metzger's translation of the MC where he states, 'Owing to the wretched state of the Latin text, it is sometimes difficult to know what the writer intended; several phrases, therefore, are provided with alternative renderings (enclosed within parentheses)'.
I don't know the mind of God to the extent you want us to know: '
why did God not let the Christians before the fourth century KNOW which writings were inspired by him?' That's in his sovereign will and if he wanted me to know, he would have revealed it somehow. He hasn't, so you seem to be asking a question for which we have no answers.
Also, if Hippo and Carthage canonized the NT scripture why doesn't everyone accept the OT books they canonized? If those men were inspired by the Holy Spirit to canonize the NT how did they get the OT wrong?
For the same reason fallible, sinful human beings have contrary opinions today about which books should be in the OT canon. You have a premise with which I do not agree. I do not have the evidence that the men who canonised the OT and NT were 'inspired by the Holy Spirit to canonize the NT'. You claim they got the OT wrong. That would not be accepted as a true statement by a large chunk of people around the world today who call themselves Christians.
For almost 400 years Christians were reading (possibly hundreds) different writings from different people they thought were inspired by God. Why did God not reveal to them his true word? If he waited 400 years to reveal his true word who is to say he won't wait to reveal more of his word at a time when humanity needs it most? I believe all things are possible with God? Don't you? It would have been a lot easier if Jesus would have told us which books belong in the bible 
Again you have a premise for which you have not provided any documentation, of people reading hundreds of documents that they thought were inspired. From where did you obtain that information? You provided not one piece of documentation to affirm what you stated. Are you guessing with that kind of statement?
What was the level of literacy in the first 400 years of the church's existence? What was the availability of codices and papyri to the general populace? There are lots of unknown factors regarding reading ability. Do you accept '
The Importance of Oral Tradition' in early Christian propagation of the Gospel and Bible content?
And yes, I know Paul was "considered" an apostle but generally when one refers to "the apostles" they think of the original twelve which is what I meant and you should have inferred.
No, Paul was not 'considered' an apostle. He
was an apostle. I provided the biblical evidence in my last post and I'm not repeating it. If one eliminates Paul from the list of NT biblical apostles, he/she is going counter to Scripture.
Don't go gettin' all book smart and scholarly on me otherwise we will start confusin' each other!!
Nice try!
opcorn:
Oz
Works consulted
Bruce, F F 1988.
The Canon of Scripture. Glasgow: Chapter House / Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press.
