Why These 66 Books?

Have you ever looked at your Bible and wondered, “Why do we regard these 66 books, and no others, as comprising the inspired Word of God?”

That is a critically important question, since there are many today who would deny that these 66 books truly make up the complete canon of Scripture.

The Roman Catholic Church, for example, claims that the Apocryphal books which were written during the inter-testamental period (between the Old and New Testaments) ought to be included in the Bible. Cult groups like the Mormons want to add their own books to the Bible—things like the Book of Mormon, The Doctrines and Covenants, and The Pearl of Great Price. And then there are popular books and movies, like The Da Vinci Code from several years back, that claim later Christians (like Constantine) determined what was in the Bible centuries after these books were written.

So, how do we know that “all Scripture” consists of these 66 books? How do we know that the Bible we hold in our hands is the complete Word of God?

There are a number of ways we could answer such questions; in fact, we could spend weeks studying the doctrine of canonicity, carefully walking through all of the relevant biblical and historical details. And there are many wonderful books available that can guide you through that wealth of information.

But in this post, I want to give you a simple answer that I think will be helpful – because it gets to the heart of the whole matter. This answer takes less than 30 seconds to articulate, yet I have found it to be the ultimate answer for just about every question related to the doctrine of canonicity.

We believe in the 39 books of the Old Testament, because the Lord Jesus Christ affirmed the Old Testament. And we believe in the 27 books of the New Testament, because the Lord Jesus Christ authorized His apostles to write the New Testament.

The doctrine of canonicity ultimately comes back to the Lordship of Jesus Christ. If we believe in Him and submit to His authority, then we will simultaneously believe in and submit to His Word. Because He affirmed the Old Testament canon, we also affirm it. Because He authorized His apostles to write the New Testament, we likewise embrace it as well.

Thus, it was not the Catholic church that determined the canon. Constantine did not determine the canon. Joseph Smith certainly did not determine the canon. No, it is the authority of Christ Himself, the Lord of the church and the incarnate Son of God, on which the canon of Scripture rests.

When it comes to the Old Testament, Jesus Christ affirmed the Jewish canon of His day—consisting of the very same content that is in our Old Testaments today.

He affirmed the Law, the Writings, and the Prophets and all that was written in them; clearly seeing the Old Testament Scriptures as the Word of God (Matt. 15:16; Mark 7:13; Luke 3:2; 5:1; etc.).

Significantly, the first century Jews did not consider the Apocryphal books to be canonical. And neither did Jesus. He accepted the canon of the Jews as being the complete Old Testament. He never affirms or cites the Apocryphal books – and neither do any of the other writers of the New Testament.

(Now, I’m sure some of you are immediately wondering about Jude’s reference to the Book of Enoch … but the Book of Enoch is not part of the Apocrypha. It was simply a well-known piece of Jewish literature at that time period, which Jude cited for the purpose of giving an illustration, just like Paul cited pagan poets on Mars Hill in Acts 17.)

But if you are ever wondering, “Why don’t Protestants accept the Apocrypha?” the ultimate answer is that Jesus never affirmed it as being part of Scripture. And neither did the apostles.

Many of the early church fathers did not regard the Apocryphal books as being canonical either. They considered them to be helpful for the edification of the church, but they did not see them as authoritative. Even the fifth-century scholar Jerome (who translated the Latin Vulgate — which became the standard Roman Catholic version of the Middle Ages) acknowledged that the Apocraphyl books were not to be regarded as authoritative.

So we accept the canonicity of the Old Testament on the basis of our Lord’s authoritative affirmation of it. And we reject the canonicity of the Apocryphal books based on the absence of His affirmation of those inter-testamental writings.

What about the New Testament? Well, the same principle applies. Our Lord not only affirmed the Jewish canon of the Old Testament, He also promised that He would give additional revelation to His church through His authorized representatives—namely, the Apostles.

Jesus made this point explicit in John 14–16. On the night before his death, Jesus said to His disciples:

John 14:25–26 – “These things I have spoken to you while abiding with you. But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.”

That last line is especially significant for the doctrine of canonicity. What did Jesus promise His apostles? That the Holy Spirit would help them remember all the things that Jesus had said to them.

That is an amazing promise! And where do we find the fulfillment of that promise? We find it in the four gospel accounts—where the things that our Lord did and said are perfectly recorded for us.

Two chapters later, in the same context, our Lord promises the apostles that He will give them additional revelation through the Holy Spirit:

John 16:12–15 – “I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak of His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you. All things that the Father has are Mine; therefore I said that He takes of Mine and will disclose it to you.”

Where is that additional revelation found? It is found in the New Testament epistles, wherein the Spirit of Christ guided the apostles to provide the church with inspired truth.

The New Testament, then, was pre-authenticated by Christ Himself, as He authorized the Apostles to be His witnesses in the world (Matthew 28:18–19; Acts 1:8). We embrace and submit to the New Testament writings, then, because they were penned by Christ’s authorized representatives, being inspired by the Holy Spirit in the same way as the Old Testament prophets.

With that in mind we could go book-by-book through the New Testament, and we will find that it meets this criteria.

• The Gospel of Mark is a record of the memoirs of the Apostle Peter, written by Mark under Peter’s apostolic authority.

• The Gospel of Luke (and the book of Acts) were both the product of a careful investigation and eyewitness testimony (Luke 1:2), research that would have included Apostolic sources. Moreover, as the companion of the Apostle Paul, Luke wrote under Paul’s Apostolic oversight. (Paul even affirms Luke 10:7 as part of the Scripture in 1 Timothy 5:18.)

• The Pauline Epistles (Romans–Philemon) were all written by the Apostle Paul.

• The authorship of Hebrews is unknown, but many in church history believed it to have been also written by Paul. If not penned by Paul himself, it was clearly written by someone closely associated with Paul’s ministry—and therefore, by extension, under his apostolic authority.

• The General Epistles (the letters of James, Peter, and John) were all written by Apostles.

• The Epistle of Jude was written by the half-brother of Jesus (Matthew 13:55; Mark 6:3) who operated under the apostolic oversight of his brother James (cf. Jude 1).

For every book of the New Testament, we can demonstrate that the book was written under apostolic authority—either by an apostle or someone closely linked to their apostolic ministry. Thus, we submit to these books because they come from Christ’s authorized representatives. In submitting to them, we are submitting to the Lord Himself.

The reason the canon is closed is because there are no longer any apostles in the church today, and have not been since the end of the first century.

So … why these 66 books? Because God inspired them! They are His divine revelation. And Christ confirmed that fact. He affirmed the Old Testament canon, and He authorized the New Testament canon (cf. Hebrews 1:1–2).

The authority of the Lord Jesus Himself, then, is the basis for our confidence in the fact that the Bible we hold in our hands is indeed “All Scripture.”

Actually, you dodged my questions completely.

I certainly did not intend to dodge your questions completely. So let’s take them one at a time?

Question (Q): What level of authority, exactly?

Response (R): The authority to build His Church. The keys to the kingdom. The power to bind and to let loose.

Q: Please define what it is . . .

R: By giving Peter the keys to the kingdom, Jesus gave Peter authority over the heavenly city itself. The ability to open and close, just as the Lord gave Eliakim the key to the house of David in Isaiah 22:22, “what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.” Even more so, Jesus gave Peter the authority to say who could not (bind) or who could (loose) enter the kingdom.

Q: . . .and why it makes a difference.

A: This made a big difference in Peter’s relationship with the other apostles. When John arrived at the tomb before Peter in John 20, John did not go in until Peter arrived and went straight in. When Peter went fishing in John 21, the six who were there together went with him. It was also in John 21 that Jesus gave His flock to Peter. It was Peter in Acts 1 who stood up and said it was necessary to choose a replacement for Peter. While all the apostles spoke at Pentecost, it was Peter’s words that are recorded in Acts 2. Peter worked the first miracle in Acts 3:1-7.

Q: Why couldn’t Peter be given the keys, but the Church still be based on Christ as the foundation rock in the parables of Mt.7.24-25 and Lk.6.48?

A: The Church is based on Jesus Christ as the foundation rock, and as the cornerstone. And as the foundation rock, Jesus did indeed give the keys to Peter.

Q: Or are you saying that Peter is the foundation rock in the parables of Mt.7.24-25 and Lk.6.48?

A: Not at all. Jesus is the foundation rock. But He knew He would be going to the Father, and accordingly would need someone to lead his disciples in the building of his Church. So the foundation Rock gave the keys to the rock whom He named in John 1 to build His kingdom on earth, His Church.

Q: Then please also explain why it is Christ that is called petra in Ro.9.33, 1Co.10.4 and 1Pe.2.8 and not Peter.

A: Because Jesus is the Foundation Rock and Cornerstone and Peter is not. Peter is a rock only because Jesus chose him to be a rock.

Now, I repeat my question which you have not answered. Do you have a better explanation?

>Now, I repeat my question which you have not answered. Do you have a better explanation?<

Actually, I agree with your explanation to the extent of Peter's role in creating the Church. But that is where his authority ended. Peter, like all of the apostles, then began teaching an erroneous Law-based gospel for the first two decades of the Church. Only when Paul addressed the council in Acts 15 was the true grace-based gospel fully accepted by the apostles in Jerusalem. Peter during those two decades was not even the leader of the Church in Jerusalem. James was. This is why I entered this thread delineating that the epistle of James is not canonical - it was written during this two-decade period and teaches in stark black and white that to be saved one must keep the O.T. Law (I suggest you go back and read my first two posts in this thread - 57 and 72). Peter had proved to be wholly unreliable in leading the early Church. His successor, James, was no better. Up until the council of Acts 15 Paul was the only one who really knew what was going on. Peter was a little stone. He played his part - and was then surpassed. Now there is only the massive, unmovable rock of Christ - the foundation rock in the parables of Mt.7.24-25 and Lk.6.48.

I wonder, do you know what adequacy conditions are? They are defined principles for reaching a goal. Our goal is religious truth. For instance, the first adequacy condition of Roman Catholicism is that truth comes from the church's interpretation of the Bible - it must be defended at all cost, even at a cost to one's own integrity.

My first adequacy condition is this: Approach scriptural explanations with an attitude of cautious skepticism toward what others teach about it, and begin your own examination with minimal presumption.

This adequacy condition preserves my integrity in my own mind. Unlike you, I make no presumption that others have authority to interpret Scripture for me that I do not have.

Here is my fifth adequacy condition: Scripture is never vague about that which God considers important for us to understand, and is its own best confirmation and commentary on itself. Crucial doctrines are never based on interpretations of nebulous Scripture, nor nebulous interpretations of any passage.

If God had wanted us to to be under the authority of the Roman Catholic church, the New Testament would be full of confirmations. Instead all we have are a few nebulous and highly arguable interpretations of Scriptures (like Mt.16.18). That is not how Biblical truth works.

(If you are interested in reading about all ten of my adequacy conditions for understanding Scripture they can be found in my ebook, MetaChristianity I - How To Unlock Bible Mysteries. It's free - just Google it at Smashwords. You can read it online or as an epub, or any other format - I suggest PDF. Before I settled on what I believed about Scripture, I first spent years researching how to understand Scripture - how it works, the pitfalls, the nuances, etc. My ten adequacy conditions are the result of that research. Following them ferrets out error and reveals the answers to previously unanswered mysteries.)

Christmas, good Friday and Easter Sunday are errors in teachings..

those days are found nowhere in scripture,.

My guess is they are probably found in the catholic catechism..

Those catholic holy days are substitutes for genuine Holy Days in scripture.

I doubt Protestants have much issue with those errors since they share in them.

Probably why Catholics don’t get challenged on those roman teachings scripture proves are wrong..

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.