Faith alone, faith plus works? Something is missing in this discussion

Great! I don't care about "Church History" that people adhere to and believe in more than the actual word of God, or the so-called "Church Fathers" meaning those subsequent to the original apostles and their teachings captured in scripture. You can follow and believe whatever doctrine you like, distorted, manipulated, and rewritten by man over time, but personally, I'll adhere only to the original scriptures.

The Didache is an early handbook of an anonymous Christian community, likely written before some of the New Testament books were written. It spells out a way of life for Jesus-followers that includes instruction on how to treat one another... It was and is authoritive as a work of history. Not all things written is Scripture, but many like the Didache and Early Church Fathers are authoritive. like it or not, The fact that the cannon was not defined until 400 AD does matter a lot.

Those like the Baptist, who are very late comers are prone to theological errors because each individual sets themselves up as defining what Scripture teaches. Those who use historical sources like historical Christians tends to avoid teaching errors. A magor difference Scripture is interpreted by a community, not by one person like yourself, brother, friend. It is because of American indivitualism that we have the theological cults like the Jehovah's Witnesses, International Bible Students, Christadelphians, The Way International, Christian Science, mind science cults and many more. Yes, the late definition of the canon of Scripture around 400 AD does matter because it was defined by the Church in Council. Most Protestants accept the first 8 Councils as authoritive. Those who fall into the errors of individualism and ignore the authority of History goes into serious doctornal errors. We know they are cults first by History (Arianism condemed by a Church Council) and only then from Scripture.

The 27 books were canonized in the council of Hippo in year 393. This was later affirmed in the council of Carthage in year 397 and 419. To my knowledge the only place lists of authoritive books were written down before the councils was in the Church Fathers. No Baptist or Protestant Church even existed back then to define the canon.

If it's unknown in origin and contradicts, changes, or ammends actual scripture, it ain't good and shouldn't be considered.

From these we can identify five principal "fringe" books later omitted from the canon proper. They are: the Didache (or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles), the Shepherd of Hermas, the Apocalypse of Peter, the Epistle of Barnabas and the Epistle of Clement.
Googled authoritive christain books before the councils

I'll stick to the original which I know ti be sound and which don't need any man created supplements.

Those writings which possessed the unmistakable stamp and guarantee of Apostolic origin must from the very first have been specially prized and venerated, and their copies eagerly sought by local Churches and individual Christians of means, in preference to the narratives and Logia, or Sayings of Christ, coming from less authorized sources. Already in the New Testament itself there is some evidence of a certain diffusion of canonical books: 2 Peter 3:15-16 supposes its readers to be acquainted with some of St. Paul's Epistles; St. John's Gospel implicitly presupposes the existence of the Synoptics (Matthew, Mark, and Luke). There are no indications in the New Testament of a systematic plan for the distribution of the Apostolic compositions, any more than there is of a definite new Canon bequeathed by the Apostles to the Church, or of a strong self-witness to Divine inspiration. Nearly all the New Testament writings were evoked by particular occasions, or addressed to particular destinations. But we may well presume that each of the leading Churches--Antioch, Thessalonica, Alexandria, Corinth, Rome--sought by exchanging with other Christian communities to add to its special treasure, and have publicly read in its religious assemblies all Apostolic writings which came under its knowledge. It was doubtless in this way that the collections grew, and reached completeness within certain limits, but a considerable number of years must have elapsed (and that counting from the composition of the latest book) before all the widely separated Churches of early Christendom possessed the new sacred literature in full. And this want of an organized distribution, secondarily to the absence of an early fixation of the Canon, left room for variations and doubts which lasted far into the centuries. But evidence will presently be given that from days touching on those of the last Apostles there were two well defined bodies of sacred writings of the New Testament, which constituted the firm, irreducible, universal minimum, and the nucleus of its complete Canon: these were the Four Gospels, as the Church now has them, and thirteen Epistles of St. Paul--the Evangelium and the Apostolicum.
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm

Historic Canons of synods and councils:

1. The Muratorian Canon

2. The Canon of Origen (A.D. C. 185-254)

3. The Canon of Eusebius of Caesarea (A.D. 265-340)

4. A Canon of Uncertain Date And Provenance Inserted In Codex Claromontanus

5. The Canon of Cyril of Jerusalem (C. A.D. 350)

6. The Cheltenham Canon (C. A.D. 360)

7. The Canon Approved By The Synod of Laodicea (C. A.D. 363)

8. The Canon of Athanasius (A.D. 367)

9. The Canon Approved By The `Apostolic Canons' (C. A.D. 380)

10. The Canon of Gregory of Nazianzus (A.D. 329-89)

11. The Canon of Amphilochius of Iconium (D. After 394)

12. The Canon Approved By The Third Synod of Carthace (A.D. 397)

By Bruce M. Merger

A conservative, bible believing perspective!

1. 100AD: All 27 books of the New Testament were in circulation and all but Hebrews, 2 Peter, James, 2 Jn, 3 Jn, Revelation were universally accepted.

2. 100-400 AD: 6 "disputed" books accepted. A number of other books were read in a few churches at various times: Shepherd of Hermas, 1 Clement, Didache, Epistle of Barnabas, Wisdom of Solomon, Apocalypse of Peter.
https://www.bible.ca/canon.htm

Early canonical lists

The Festal Letter of Athanasius from 367 AD contains the earliest known list of all 27 New Testament books, and only those books. But it is far from being the earliest canonical list.

Origen, writing over a century earlier around 250 AD in his typical metaphorical style, compared the apostles to priests blowing trumpets around Jericho to herald the Gospel. In the course of his fanciful description, he appears to cite all 27 books of the New Testament, with the possible exception of Revelation.

The Muratorian Fragment, dated to about 180 AD, is the earliest known canonical list of New Testament books, affirming 22 of the 27. These include the four Gospels, Acts, all 13 of Paul’s letters, Jude, 1 John, 2 John (and possibly 3 John) and Revelation.

Even earlier witnesses to the authority and canonicity of the Gospels include Papias (c. 125 AD) a disciple of John; Justin Martyr (c. 150 AD) who wrote of the Gospels “drawn up by [Jesus’] apostles (Matthew, John) and those who followed them (Mark, Luke)”; and his pupil Tatian’s Diatessaron (c. 170 AD), one of the earliest harmonies of the four Gospels.

Irenaeus, writing around 180 AD and contemporary with the Muratorian Fragment, stated that there could be no more and no less than four Gospels, just as there are four winds and four corners of the earth.

Finally, one of the most useful keys to understand how the canon developed was provided by the church historian Eusebius in the early 4th century. He laid out four categories of books that were available in the early church, in descending order of value:

Recognized books had been universally accepted since earliest times and there had never been any serious dispute over them. These include 22 of the 27 New Testament books: the four Gospels, Acts, Paul’s 13 letters (plus Hebrews), 1 John, 1 Peter and Revelation.

Disputed books had been subject to some early debate but were still considered canonical. These are the five shorter NT books: James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 John and 3 John. Together, these first two categories make up the canon of the New Testament.


https://www.focusonthefamily.ca/content/the-new-testament-canon-why-these-27-documents

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/nicaea-canon/
https://www.gotquestions.org/canon-Bible.html
https://www.gotquestions.org/New-Testament-canon.html
Irenaeus elsewhere indicates why these four gospels, and none other, are canonical. He affirms the four Gospels’ because they alone are backed by apostolic authority, while the others were written by second century Gnostics. Given that he was a disciple of Polycarp who knew the apostle John personally, his knowledge of their authorship carries significant weight.
https://crossexamined.org/did-we-really-not-have-a-new-testament-canon-till-the-fourth-century/

At first a local church would have only a few apostolic letters and perhaps one or two Gospels. During the course of the second century most churches came to possess and acknowledge a canon which included the present four Gospels, the Acts, thirteen letters of Paul, I Peter, and I John. Seven books still lacked general recognition; Hebrews, James, II Peter, II and III John, Jude, and Revelation. It is hard to say if this was the cause or the effect of the divergent opinions concerning their canonicity.
https://www.theologymatters.com/articles/scripture/2014/the-formation-of-the-new-testament-canon/

Only disagrees with individuals interpretation of Scripture.

Examples:

Chapter 7. Concerning Baptism
And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Matthew 28:19 in living water.

An individual quotes from chapter 9:

"they who have been baptized into the name of the Lord; "
then
Acts 2:38
Easy-to-Read Version
38 Peter said to them, “Change your hearts and lives and be baptized, each one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ. Then God will forgive your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

It was clear that he was an UPC Jesus only cultist to claim that Matthew got it wrong.

If all NT Manuscripts were destroyed, we can recover around 99.999 percent of the NT from their writtings. What does that tell you?

Regarding baptism. Must be by immersion because that's what the Greek word means, not sprinkle, pour, etc.

And regarding Matt 28:19 vs Acts 2:38, since scripture cannot contradict itself, either/or are acceptable. In reality, when you say "in the name of", such as in the name of the king, or crown in non secular terms, what you are saying is that it's by the authority of; no different when considering Mat 28:19," in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost", or "in the name of Jesus Christ". It's simply saying it's by the authority of, so if you confess your belief in Jesus as the Christ as did the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8, which is consistent with tge requirement of Rom 10:9, there's nothing at all more that needs to be said. The oness is on the one being baptized not the baptizer to make the confession of belief, ad opposed to saying the "correct" words during baptism by the one who is baptizing. Nothing needs to be said nu the baptizer, only the confession by the baptizee. Nothing was ever said in the scriptural records by the baptizer prior to the actual immersion.

And how does this negate the need for the remission of sins in the gospel?

Remmision of sin comes from Blood (the cross) not water

You will nto find remission of sin by having some sinner baptise you in water. You need to be baptized BY GOD into his death

Not that it matters but can you prove this?

My origianl source is Josh MacDonald.

Follow the various indexes:
https://st-takla.org/books/en/ecf/111/index.html
https://www.reddit.com/r/OrthodoxChristianity/comments/pzc50a "
Strategies for Finding Historical Commentary on Scripture
There are three main strategies for finding historical commentary on Scripture: two are targeted, and the third exploratory.

• Strategy #1: Search by Passage
  • Start with a question like, "What commentaries exist on the parable of the prodigal (Luke 15:11-32)?"
  • Use the tools in the first column on the guide: these include commentary series that attend to reception history (organized by book of the Bible), as well as databases like BiblIndex that organize entries by Scripture passage.
• Strategy #2: Search by Figure
  • Start with a question like, "What does Martin Luther say about the parable of the prodigal?"
  • Use the tools in the second column; these exist to help index and navigate the figure's (often broad) body of writings.
• Strategy #3: Go Exploring
  • Start by not knowing where to start.
  • Use the tools in the third column to browse "what's out there." These include research tools like the Encyclopedia of the Bible and its Reception, which can be searched by keyword. There are also series that publish sermons, commentaries, and treatises by various figures: follow the links to browse by title!
  • There are also loads of stand-alone books and articles in the library's collection that will help you in this work! See the section at the bottom of this guide for tips and tricks that will help you search the library catalog or Atla for works that engage historical interpretation of the Bible."
  • https://guides.library.duke.edu/historicbiblecommentary
  • https://guides.library.duke.edu/historicbiblecommentary