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.”
Yeah since the Catholics were here first, their interpretation has more validity than the newbies that want to limit the Bible to 66 books.
The Book of Job enrages me with its inequity.
What inequality/inequity?
Job gets everything back at the end because he didn’t coplain.
Baptists, at least Southern Baptists believe they go back to very early times. I think I have heard Moses but am not really up on the church’s history.
I do know my Father’s WWII dog tags had a “B” for Baptist instead of a “p” for Protestant.
Just curious, what is the difference between Hebrew and Jew since Abram was called a Hebrew in Genesis 14:13? I always thought them to be the same thing.
The question is, Why did Luther THROW OUT books of the Bible that had been part of the canon for 1500 centuries?
Because they were incompatible with his new heresy, Protestantism.
That’s 1500 years.
He is supposed to be a God of righteousness and justice. That’s what He says anyway.
Rome had an open Canon until Trent. btw Jerome did not believe that the apocryphal writings were inspired. He placed them out of the OT scriptures
The question is why some FRoman Catholics continue to assert something that they have been shown time and again is a blatant falsehood!? I'm curious, what did these extra-Biblical/Deuterocanonical/Apocryphal books contain that would have been "incompatible" with the doctrines of Luther?
For probably the twentieth time, let me refer you to some facts about that spurious charge so maybe you might think twice before trying to slip it in again:
From Luther and the Canon:
Even after Luther finished his translation, he never ceased revising it. Phillip Schaff has pointed out, “He never ceased to amend his translation. Besides correcting errors, he improved the uncouth and confused orthography, fixed the inflections, purged the vocabulary of obscure and ignoble words, and made the whole more symmetrical and melodious. He prepared five original editions, or recensions, of his whole Bible, the last in 1545, a year before his death. This is the proper basis of all critical editions.”[10] Great care and work went into Luther’s Bible. This means that every book in the Bible was given great concern and attention. No book of the Bible was left un-translated. As Catholic writer John Todd observed, “The work was done with great method…”[11] Todd then relates this famous description:
“Dr. M. Luther gathered his own Sanhedrin of the best persons available, which assembled weekly, several hours before supper in the doctor’s cloister, namely D. Johann Burgenhagen, D. Justus Jonas, D. Creuziger, M. Philippum, Mattheum Aurogallum; Magister Georg Roerer, the Korrektor was also present…M. Philipp brought the Greek text with him. D Creuziger a Chaldean Bible in addition to Hebrew. The professors had their rabbinical commentaries. D. Pommer also had the Latin text…The President submitted a text and permitted each to speak in turn and listened to what each had to say about the characteristics of the language or about the expositions of the doctors in earlier times.”[12]
Thus, Luther’s Bible is not simply the result of Martin Luther: “Especially in his work on the Old Testament, Luther considered himself to be only one of a consortium of scholars at work on the project. He was convinced a translator should not work alone, for as he said, ‘the correct and appropriate words do not always occur to one person alone.’”[13] Rather than Luther expressing authoritarian power over the translation or removing books from the Bible by fiat, the facts of history show Luther involved other capable scholars. They worked throughout their lives to translate every book of the Bible, and even those books which “are not held equal to the Scriptures, but are useful and good to read.”
Those who assert Luther took books out of the Bible sometimes wrongly use this sentiment interchangeably with “Luther removed books from the canon.” For an example of such confusion, see the claims of this Catholic apologist here. If indeed Luther took books out of the Bible, then one expects to open Luther’s Bible and find certain books missing. One does not. Catholic apologists that equivocate in such a way should either define their arguments more carefully, or account for the fact that Luther included all the books in his Bible.
Yeah, they kinda do...no, they aren't a higher authority than God, but they are here on Earth and have been assigned the task, by God, to be the teaching authority for Christianity....The Magesterium of the church pretty much has the authority of God to proclaim the Gospel and the truth that is Christianity......you didn't think that He would leave it up to individuals to interpret the Bible as each saw fit did you???
They have handled that task quite successfully for 2,015 years and were promised that they would do so until the end of time.....hang tight!!
Yup, that's what the Holy Spirit had in mind when He made the Magesterium of the Catholic church the arbiter of what went in and what went out....He did a MARVELOUS job....
The twentieth time? I thought it was about 3,975 times by now. 😄😃😃😊
Now that's funny....you did some research on a 2,000 year old religion and decided that 1,600 years AFTER the fact...someone threw out parts of that religion and you think that it was the right thing to do........O.K...chuckle
1609....John Smythe...Amsterdam
Accepting and defending only the 66 book Anti-Christ Pharisee Approved Luther Subset rather than the entire Bible that includes the entire Old Testament is nothing less than asserting that the Holy Spirit is imperfect because the Holy Spirit cannot and did not protect His Holy Word from including error for over fifteen hundred years.
"And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but he that shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in the world to come."
Matthew 12:32
Anyone who falls for and repeats the lie (in any of the many forms it takes) that the anti-Christ Pharisees and/or Martin Luther are perfect but the flawed, imperfect, Holy Spirit cannot and did not protect His Holy Word from the inclusion of error is proving they're under the strong delusion that will lead them to their own destruction.
Their being under a strong delusion in no way mitigates their blaspheming of the Holy Spirit.
Even though James is considered the earliest book written in the contemporary N.T., it was one of last accepted as canonical, and was taken in and out a number of times over the centuries. Some eastern countries have never accepted James (traditional Indian Christian communities, for example). In fact, James in many ways proves itself non-canonical, but only one example is necessary to draw doubt from any open mind. The following is from my book, MetaChristianity VI - Unlocking James Bible Mysteries:
quote==>
Ja.2.21 Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar?
James made this claim to justify his works-righteousness gospel:
Ja.2.22-24 You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. 23 And the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,” and he was called God’s friend. 24 You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.
But Abraham was credited as righteous (Ge.15.6, Ga.3.6) ten years before the incident with Isaac in Ge.22. There is nothing about Abraham being considered righteous because of the incident with Isaac. This incident with Isaac was about Abraham’s obedience to God’s specific instructions and subsequent earthly blessings bestowed on him, not his righteousness. “Now I know that you fear God...I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and the sand on the seashore.” Abraham’s righteousness was “fulfilled” when “he believed God” in Ge.15. Between these two events God instructed Abraham to institute circumcision as part of His covenant with Abraham (Ge.17). Why would James not site this as the “fulfillment” of Abraham’s righteousness? Was it not enough works? Paul explains:
Ro.4.9-11a Is this blessedness only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We have been saying that Abraham’s faith was credited to him as righteousness. 10 Under what circumstances was it credited? Was it after he was circumcised, or before? It was not after, but before! 11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised.
Paul confirms that Abraham was credited with “righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised.” Here’s the timeline:
1) faith/righteousness = Ge.15
2) circumcision = Ge.17
3) Isaac incident = Ge.22
But, presuming James is correct, how does James know that the Isaac incident was enough? And how are we to know when we have done enough works so that our own righteousness is “complete” as James attributed to Abraham? Must we offer up our sons as well? What if we don’t hear God say “stop!”? And just what are we to make of the statement of Ge.15.6 “Abraham believed the LORD, and he credited it to him as righteousness”? If Abraham, without sufficient works, was not “completely” credited as justified for the ensuing ten years, what did Moses think he was doing declaring that God credited Abraham as righteous just for believing?
Ja.2.24 You see that a person is [being] justified by what he does and not by faith alone.
James here illustrates that not only does he not understand justification, but he is not even consistent in what he espouses. In verse twenty one he claimed that Abraham “was considered righteous for what he did”. He also claims in verse twenty two that “his faith was made complete by what he did.” So Abraham had accomplished righteousness according to James. But then James in an about face claims that justification is an ongoing process - “a person is [being] justified by what he does”. (Even though the “being” is excluded from most translations it is correct based on the Greek grammar.) James now claims that justification is an open-ended proposition. In other words, James insists that justification is a continually on-going process - a complete contrast with what he claimed about Abraham.
The answer to James’ original question is NO, Abraham was NOT considered righteous “for what he did.” Paul confirms this in Romans:
Ro.4.1-5 What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, discovered in this matter? 2 If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works [or as James put it, “what he did”], he had something to boast about—but not before God. 3 What does Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”
4 Now to the one who works, wages are not credited as a gift but as an obligation. 5 However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness.
If Paul had agreed with James he would have confirmed what James said. But he did not - he contradicted James in stark black and white. Paul and Moses agree, and James is the odd man out. James tried to pull a fast one, and even if this were the only evidence against the canonicity of James, it would be enough by itself.
<==/quote
As a side note, Mid-Acts Dispensationalism does not explain this blatant contradiction between James, and Mose and Paul.
This is just one of many evidences that I explore in my book that leads the conclusion that the epistle of James is not inspired of God and not canonical.
Good for you that you accept whatever the Catholic Church has to dole out to convince people of the worthiness. If whatever you believe provides you comfort more power to you.
Don’t you think that the Council of Carthage in AD 397 deserves at least a mention?
Once someone insists the Holy Spirit is imperfect and incapable of keeping His Word free from error there's no real limit on what alterations to Scripture they'll advocate because they've elevated their Self above the Holy Spirit.
Throwing Scripture into the garbage and defaming what Scripture clearly teaches should be sacred is an example of how right Bishop Fulton Sheen was when in 1931 in response to non-Catholics accepting contraception he said,
"Since a week ago last Saturday, we can no longer expect them to defend the law of God. These sects will work out the logic of their ways and in fifty or a hundred years there will be only the Church and paganism. We'll be left to fight the battle alone and we will."
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.