Posted on 02/28/2015 5:16:22 PM PST by RnMomof7
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.
It is simply this:
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.
The Old Testament Canon
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.
A study of the gospels shows that, throughout His ministry, Jesus affirmed the Old Testament in its entirety (Matthew 5:17–18)—including its historical reliability (cf. Matthew 10:15; 19:3–5; 12:40; 24:38–39), prophetic accuracy (Matthew 26:54), sufficiency (Luke 16:31), unity (Luke 24:27, 44), inerrancy (Matthew 22:29; John 17:17), infallibility (John 10:35), and authority (Matthew 21:13, 16, 42).
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.
The New Testament Canon
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 Gospels of Matthew & John were both written by Apostles.
• 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).
• And finally, the book of Revelation was written by the Apostle John.
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.”
To make the New Testament, works had to pass four tests: authored either by an apostle or by someone of close association with the apostles . . . correspond with the elements of other canonical books and hold no trace of opinions not recognized in Scripture . . . universally accepted . . . inspiration
I don't know whether the Gospel of Thomas would have passed the authorship test, since authorship would have been questioned even back then due to the absence of reference to those writings in the commentaries of Polycarp, Clement, Irenaeus, and others. This writing would then have failed on the correspondence with other books and universal acceptance tests, with no need to consider inspiration. Perhaps someday the Vatican will release the deliberations on this issue, but I think my guess is probably pretty close to accurate. The fact that no church leader before Origen (after 220 AD) mentions the Gospel of Thomas concerns me, as does its repeated reference to the "hidden words" of Jesus. The rest of the New Testament seems quite open, and hidden words strike me as out of character for Jesus and for authentic scripture.
How about GLBTXYZ were invented to rule the world?
Mrs Revrunt Al Sharpton wants to add the books of First and Second Lebesians
“Ya know what is really funny is that right before I reverted to the Catholic Church I used to say stupid stuff like this all the time.”-
Quoting the Word of God is stupid? Does that mean reading the Word of God is stupid?
“Praying for you and the rest of the fallen.”-
Does the Catholic Church decide whom is upheld or whom is fallen? Or does that decision rest solely with God? Is the Catholic Church claiming to be higher that God?
” If you want to understand Satan and how the world system operates, study Job.”
True.
Job also gives us great insight on God’s view of us. Job is a beautiful book from many insights!
Um, sorry.
It was the Bishop of Alexandria, the tradition of Mark not of Rome or Peter, that sent forth the 27 books of the New Testament. In his Easter letter of 367, Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, gave a list of exactly the same books that would formally become the New Testament.
Because the Gospel of Thomas is a Gnostic text.
Or, why not the Gospel of Mary Magdalene?
Ditto, Maudeen. Left that other site’s post are a joy to each day.
Yeah. The author was way off base to throw the Catholic Church in with the Mormons or the Gnostics. I don’t think 1 Maccabees is quite the same thing as some creative writing by Joseph Smith.
Job is a very interesting book. I have read it and marvel at it. Reputed to be one of the oldest books of the Bible, it has a reference to dinosaurs. Ecclesiastes and Job are enigmatic, books that do not make sense due to subject matter and their authors. But hey, what do we mere mortals know? Deut. 29; 29: The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.
It appears we were not to know all things, just be happy we know what we know, and from the looks of history and the status quo, we are not.
LOL your keyword stalker is back again.
I have read through the Bible once a year for many years. The Spirit speaks to me through most of the Bible, but a few of the books feel “dead” to me - Song of Solomon, for example. I’ve read the Apocrypha as well, and they also feel “dead”. On the other hand, I learn new stuff every time I read through Isaiah.
Well thank you to the OP. Very interesting post.
Here’s a little story: As kid I often took care of my elderly grandmother (believe it or not-i was daycaring at a very tender age). She was an Irish old school catholic from upstate NY. She wasn’t feeble but had a hard time getting around and didn’t cook to much & relied on her daughters to do that- but I was there during the day . There wasn’t much in the fridge except for some cheese slices, eggs & prune juice. There was always a loaf of bread and a box of gingersnaps (i hated those things).
On her bookshelves were many many books including the Bible.
Because there was no television I generally turned to the books on the shelves and regularly read the Bible.
I distinctly remember reading The Book of Jubilees.
I would go back to it time & again & thought “this was really exciting”! and there were other books in this Bible,too. I know that Gram wouldn’t have a un-sanctioned Catholic Bible in her home so to me at one point a change was made and in my later years perusing a Catholic Bible these books no longer are included.
As far as the Gospel of Thomas never being included I’m short on facts but I do believe The Catholic CHurch wanted to seperate itself from Gnosticism so as to present to people a unmitigated version of the New Testament that would not conflict with what the current belief system in the Catholic Church was at whatever time they decided to eliminate this and create a “canon” of sorts. Cut out all the middlemen and there is no room for discussion nor opinion.
I found the Gospel of Thomas, Mary Magdalen, Judas, and studies of the Nag Hammadi,etc... very valuable not only understanding history but how the Catholic Church has repressed these writings
In my opinion, you could say that the old testament is the history of our beginnings, our fall from grace, Gods plan to deliver us back into his kingdom. The people he chose were not the Jews. They were the descendants of Abraham. Abraham was not a Jew. He was a Chaldean from the ancient city of UR. One of his descendants would eventually give birth to the Savior of Souls - Jesus Christ.
The New Testament is to prepare us for his return!
“But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes...”
Truth is important.
So what exactly did the Apocryphal book add to Salvation or any thing else in the OT or NT? The only thing I have found was that from one single verse your denomination made a completely false doctrine on purgatory. As far as other changes please enlighten me as the Bible I use and your denominations Bible are for the most part word for word.
She has done a fantastic job. I have learned a lot.
It is one of my favorite books. No matter how bad I think my situation was, I knew others had/have it much worse. We just have to stay the course. God knows what He is doing.
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.