The Canon of Scripture

Well, indeed, it is a joy to be here. And I express again my gratitude and my great appreciation, not only for the opportunity, the invitation to come, but for the warm reception that I've had and the encouragement. It's just been a wonderful time, a real delight to be with brothers and sisters of like precious faith and to know the Lord has brought us from different backgrounds to the same place in our understanding and our preaching and teaching of Scripture and our fellowship around those things that we hold dear. I grew up in a very strong fundamental separatist background. And for many years, I thought all Southern Baptists were apostates. And I began to realize I met pastors who, Southern Baptist pastors who knew the Lord and loved his word, that that was definitely not true. And then as I came to the Doctrines of Grace and began to find others in the Southern Baptist Convention who had come to the Doctrines of Grace, I found that we actually had more in common with one another than I did with many of my independent Baptist brethren. Whom I love dearly. And I thank God for the background that I have. The Lord used that in my life tremendously. And I have no regrets at all concerning the paths of which the Lord took me. And I'm grateful to see what the Lord is doing in those circles, even as Among Southern Baptists, God is doing a great work. So God is doing a work among independent Baptists as well. And it's encouraging to see. It's wonderfully encouraging to see. But I thank the Lord for this opportunity. I had such a wonderful time with Rob Stovall and his church a couple of years ago. And that's when he first mentioned the Evangelical Forum. I hadn't heard about it before that. And now to have the opportunity to be here, it's really just a delight. And again, I'm just amazed that I would be on the same program with a man like Dr. Michael Haken. He really brings history alive, doesn't he? I don't remember how many years ago it was that I first came into possession of his volume entitled, what I thought was called, Kiffin, Nollies, and Keech. Now today I know that was Kiffin, Nolls, and Keech. But a great little book to bring out the origins of English Baptists. In fact, I found it so profitable that we used it one year as our study book for our elders and deacons. Each year we go through some book. And that was one one year, one year we went through who are the Puritans by Errol Hulls. That was also very, very helpful. to try to get our people to understand something of their heritage. And sometimes we do theological books. One year we did John Murray's book, Redemption Accomplished and Applied. Some books are more theologically dense than others, but we try to do that every year to go through something. And this year we're actually going through the 1689 Confession together. We want to adopt that as an additional confession of faith for our congregation. And so this has been good, been very good. The hymn we sang a moment ago, How Sweet and Awful is the Place, I don't remember when I first became acquainted with that hymn. It's been a number of years ago, but it was at least two or three years that I could never sing that hymn without crying. What a reminder of the sovereign grace of God and the personal effects, the personal results of that grace in my life. Well, I have been assigned the canon of Scripture. And that's even more challenging than the inspiration and infallibility of Scripture for someone who's accustomed to doing exposition. But obviously, if we believe in the inspiration and fallibility of scripture at some point, the question comes up, what is scripture? What is what? What are the limits? What are the confines? What is included in that body of writings that we call scripture and believe are inspired and infallible and which which writings are excluded from that? You have to get around to that at some point. And so when we're dealing with the canon of Scripture, what we're talking about is which books should our Bible contain? I begin with a brief definition. The word canon is from a Greek word, kanon, which originally meant a reed. and came to mean a rod, a ruler, and then a rule. But a ruler, a standard for measuring. And it's passed into theology to refer to the rule, the standard, the norm, and eventually the normative writings that we have in our Bible. And so that's what we're talking about when we're talking about the canon of Scripture. The Baptist confession. has something to say about the issue of Canon. First of all, positively and secondly, negatively. In that first chapter, in the second paragraph, we read the Holy Scripture or the Word of God written consists of the following books which make up the Old and New Testaments, and then it lists the 39 books of the Old Testament and the 27 books of the New Testament that we all have in our Bibles, and then it says all these books are given by the inspiration of God to be the rule or standard of faith and life. That's synonyms for the word canon, the rule or standard, the canon of faith and life. And then it goes on in the third paragraph to say the books commonly called the Apocrypha were not given by divine inspiration and are not part of the canon or rule. You see the The parallel there, the synonymous use of those terms, not part of the canon or rule of scripture. Therefore, they do not possess any authority in the church of God and are to be regarded and used in the same way as other writings of men. Well, that's what our Baptist forebears believed, and of course, in this they were in perfect harmony with the Presbyterians and the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Congregationalists and the Savoy Confession as well. I'm basically going to attack this from two directions. First of all, biblical evidences for the canon. And secondly, and very briefly, the history of the recognition of our present canon, since history is not my Strong point, I should turn that part of it over to our brother here. But anyway, I will be happy to do what I can. First of all, biblical evidences for the canon, the Protestant canon, if you want to call it that, the book that we call the Bible. And we need to realize that Christ validated the Old Testament canon. That makes the Old Testament part pretty simple, really. Christ validated the Old Testament canon. He did so in a number of ways. I'll give you several scriptures and then what I would consider to be the final and crowning one of them all. But as we know, Christ quoted the Old Testament scriptures extensively throughout his earthly ministry. We could start with the wilderness temptation in Matthew chapter four. Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights afterward, he was hungry. Now, when the tempter came to him, he said, If you are the Son of God, command that these stones become bread. But he answered and said, It is written. Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God. It is written. It has been written and stands written. And Christ did that three times, as you know, Satan came back with another temptation. Satan himself even quoted scripture, misusing it. And Christ came right back and quoted again all of his quotations from the book of Deuteronomy, Deuteronomy 8.3, Deuteronomy 6.16 and Deuteronomy 6.13. Satan, by the way, quoted from the Psalms, Psalm 92, I believe. But every time Jesus says, it is written, and He went back to the Old Testament Scriptures, back to the written Word of God as the superior truth that would defeat the lies of Satan. This is Jesus Christ. Anything Christ said would be Scripture, but what did He do? He quoted the Scripture written by Moses. Quoting the words that were written by a man, but validating them as the word of God. It is written and stands written and therefore quoted the words of Moses as the words of God and at least equal to anything that he could have said himself. which would have been the word of God. It must be very obvious that he was deliberately doing it in this way in order to put his stamp of authentication upon the Old Testament scriptures and upon the words of Moses as being the very word of God. You can't really talk about the canon without the overlap, of course, between inspiration and infallibility. And we see it very much here in play. Jesus did not choose on this occasion to give a fresh word of inspiration, which, of course, if anything he said would have been exactly that. He didn't receive a word on the spot, though he could have, of course, but he quoted, quoted the word of God. If that doesn't validate the Bible, the Old Testament scriptures as the word of God, I don't know what would. And he did that over and over and over again. And interestingly, so many of his quotations directly speak to the questions that have been raised by critics in our day. And I'm going to concentrate on some of those. Did Jesus believe in the Genesis account of creation? Evidently he did. We read in Matthew chapter 19, the Pharisees came to him, testing him and saying to him, is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife and for just any reason? And he answered and said to them, have you not read that he who made them in the beginning made them male and female and said, for this reason, a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife and the two shall become one flesh. Evidently, Jesus believed that God made Adam and Eve as real persons. at the beginning of creation and that the account that Moses gives of creation is an accurate account and that the words that Moses records in Genesis chapter 1 of God speaking to Adam and Eve and saying, therefore shall a man leave father and mother and cleave unto his wife and they shall be one flesh. Evidently, Jesus considered all of that to be exactly accurate, exactly valid. Moses wrote what is true. Moses quoted the word of God. Moses wrote about real historical people, and he validated all of that when he quoted from Genesis chapter one. Well, surely Jesus, the Son of God, didn't believe that that story about a universal flood at Noah's day is really historical, that this really is true. Well, then why did he say in Matthew 24, 37, but as the days of Noah were, so also will be the coming of the Son of Man or so also will the coming of the Son of Man be? Yes, that was an incredible story, an incredible account. But it is as much true as the second coming of Christ is true. If you don't believe in the Genesis flood in the days of Noah, then perhaps you don't believe in the second coming of Christ. But one is as valid as the other, according to the words of Christ, as he quotes them here. Well, of course, account in the days of Abraham about the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, that surely must be a some kind of a myth that we can draw some lessons from. But surely nobody believes that those cities were actually destroyed by fire falling from heaven. I mean, really now, isn't that a bit much? Well, evidently, Jesus believed it, he said in Matthew 11, 23. And you, Capernaum, who are exalted to heaven, will be brought down to Hades, for if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. It's gone now, but it was there, and if God hadn't destroyed it in this way, it would still be here today. But I say to you that it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and the day of judgment than for you. Evidently, the inhabitants of Sodom are somewhere waiting that day of judgment. They were real people in a real city. They were actually destroyed by the judgment of God, which fell from heaven, and Jesus believed that and he validated that account in the book of Genesis. Well, of course, the Old Testament is bigger than just the book of Genesis. A lot of other things are there. Now, there's certainly one story in the Old Testament that none of none of us believe, none who are who are really intelligent and intellectual couldn't believe that that whale actually swallowed Jonah. Couldn't believe that, could you? Well, evidently Christ did. Matthew 12.40, For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. If you don't believe that a whale swallowed Jonah, then maybe you don't believe that Jesus was buried and rose again from the dead. And there goes your Christian faith. But probably the crowning quotation from the words of Christ is in Luke chapter 24 regarding his validation of the Old Testament scriptures. And Luke chapter 24, after his resurrection, we read in verse 27, of his talking with the disciples on the Maas Road, and beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. He expounded to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. And, of course, historically, we all understand that that word scripture, as it was understood in this first century, meant the Jewish canon, the Old Testament scriptures. what we have as the 39 books of the Old Testament. And Jesus expounded himself out of these books, these scriptures. And if that were not enough, you drop down to verse 44. Then he said to them, these are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the law of Moses and the prophets and the Psalms concerning me. And again, anyone who knows anything about the Jewish canon realizes that's the three divisions of the Jewish canon as it was received and accepted in that day. And though their canon had 24 books, I understand, because they combined first and second Kings and first and second Chronicles and so forth and the minor prophets. So they ended up having 24 books and they were in a different order than ours. This is the order that theirs were in, the Law of Moses, the Pentateuch, the Prophets, and then the Psalms, the poetical books, and some they put in that category. We might not consider poetical books, but that was their canon, and it constituted exactly the same Old Testament canon that we have today, and Jesus validated it all right here. The Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms. That was Scripture in Christ's day. That's what the Jews considered to be Scripture, and Jesus makes it very clear that's what he considered to be Scripture. So there's the Old Testament canon. That one's not so difficult. Our Lord makes it very simple for us. You know, it's interesting that Probably on the layman's level, most people, if they had any questions about the Bible, which parts were the word of God, they would be more quick to accept the New Testament or portions of the New Testament and maybe question the old. But actually, as far as the biblical evidence is concerned, the evidence for the Old Testament is certainly as strong as and probably stronger than the evidence for the new, though there's plenty for the new, as we shall see. In other words, the Old Testament The Old Testament is every bit as much the Word of God as the New, and our Lord and the Apostles certainly thought so. So, Christ validated the Old Testament Scripture. Secondly, we might say that Christ pre-validated the New Testament Scriptures. And I'm referring, of course, to what he said in John 14 and then in John 16 about how his Apostles would be guided and led into all truth. He was speaking ahead of time, validating ahead of time what they would say, what they would write, which has become what we call the New Testament. And that's John 14, 26. 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 things that I said to you. And this is obviously spoken to the apostles of Christ. These words are not to be taken by all believers, but this is a specific promise to the apostles of Christ that the Holy Spirit was going to guide them into truth. And in two areas, actually. Number one, will teach you all things. And number two, bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you. Will teach you all things. And again, obviously not all there is to know, not all trigonometry and calculus and chemistry. Another reminder that the alls of the Bible mean all of a particularly prescribed group. It took me a while to learn that in my early days. I'm glad I learned that along the way, and it's very obvious in the Scripture again and again and again. And here it's obvious. This all means all of something, and what it means, of course, is all the truth, all the Scripture that God intends to deliver to mankind, to complete the Scripture. We have the Old Testament Scriptures. Now, we're getting ready to have the New Testament Scriptures delivered, and Jesus says the Holy Spirit is going to guide you men into an understanding of all that truth, all the remaining inscripturated communication that God is going to give to man. And so He's going to teach you new things that I didn't have time to teach you while I was upon the earth. But a lot of what's going to be in this New Testament Scripture is the Holy Spirit enabling you to recall what I taught you. He shall bring to remembrance all things that I said to you. And Christ did teach a great deal to the apostles while they were upon the earth that they didn't remember immediately. We see references to that throughout the New Testament, how dull they were, how slow of understanding and how even Christ expresses his disappointment on occasions that they couldn't remember what he said. But you see, later they remembered it all perfectly. Perfectly. because of the Holy Spirit. Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. So that's John 14. And again, we have something similar in John 16. Verse 12, Jesus said, I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. However, when he, the Spirit of truth has come, he will guide you into all truth. For he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears, he will speak. And he will tell you things to come. He will glorify me, for he will take of what is mine and declare it to you. All things that the Father has are mine. Therefore, I said that he will take of mine and declare it to you. And here's Christ validating ahead of time what these apostles were going to say and write the New Testament scripture. So Christ validated the Old Testament scriptures. Christ validated, prevalidated the New Testament scriptures. And then we have some understanding of the apostles view of their own New Testament writing. Well, there there's another New Testament writings. Some of those we looked at last night. Let me call your attention to a couple of others. Second Thessalonians, 215. Here's what Paul said. Therefore, brethren, stand fast. And hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle. Stand fast. You don't talk about the uninspired comments of men in this way, that you hold those fast and don't let them go. This is what you must cling to at all costs. And what is that? Well, the traditions or teachings, the things you were taught, whether by word or our epistle, whether the apostles were preaching or whether they were writing and delivering their epistles, that is the truth that must be believed and maintained at all costs. Why? Because it's the Word of God. We find a very interesting statement in 1 Timothy chapter 5 that tells you the apostles view of the New Testament. This is the section where Paul is Instructing Timothy regarding the care of elders in the New Testament churches, and he says in verse 17, let the elders who rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in the word and doctrine for. And notice these words very carefully for the scripture says there's that word scripture again. That would have been. Initially, the Hebrew Scriptures, the Jewish Old Testament, the same use of the word that Christ gave in Luke chapter 24 out of the Scriptures. For the Scripture says, you shall not muscle an ox while it treads out the grain, and the laborer is worthy of all his wages. Now, this is very interesting because calling both of these quotations Scripture Paul quotes first from the Old Testament, Deuteronomy. Secondly, from what we find in Luke chapter 10, verse 7, the words of Christ. And he quotes them both, calls them both Scripture, ties them both together, says they're both Scripture, they're both on the same ground, they're equally Scripture, they're equally the Word of God. One from the Pentateuch, the books of Moses. The other, the words of Jesus, which we wouldn't have any trouble accepting that as Scripture, but of course the words of Jesus as recorded by Luke. That's Scripture. Just as much as what Moses wrote a scripture. So you see how we're bringing together the Old Testament canon and the New Testament canon in this way, recognizing here the writings of Luke that helps us get over the hump of whether it's only the apostles. But there were some others as well who were involved in in the work of bringing together the scriptures that constitute the New Testament canon. And, of course, we're all familiar with that statement by Peter in 2 Peter 3, verses 15 and 16. Peter says, And considered that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation, as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles Paul has written to you according to the wisdom given to him. You see that in the light of what's being said here, we realize that is talking about the Holy Spirit giving Paul God's word. The wisdom given to him has written to you in all his epistles. He's basically validating anything that Paul wrote. All his epistles. Speaking in them of those things in which some things are hard to understand, for sure, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction as they do also the rest of the scriptures. That same word, scripture, 39 books of the Old Testament canon, but also includes New Testament writings, the epistles of Paul in particular, that's as much Scripture as what Moses wrote. And if you don't accept what Paul wrote, you are rejecting the Word of God as much as if you reject what Moses wrote. So don't do that. Don't twist to your own destruction the Scripture, whether Old Testament Scripture or New Testament Scripture, whether the Old Testament canon or the now being formed New Testament canon. So that's how the apostles viewed the New Testament writings. That's the biblical evidences for the Protestant canon, now a little bit of the history of the recognition of the canon out of my field entirely. The Old Testament canon, by the time of Christ, as we've already seen, was pretty well settled. There were some debates, apparently, over which books should be included, and there were five disputed books, apparently, by the Jews in the Old Testament canon somewhere along the way. The Antilogomena of the Old Testament, the constituted Song of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Ezekiel, Proverbs, we could probably I see some reasons for questions and all of that. But by the by the first century, it was well settled that all of these writings were included in the Old Testament canon that was called the scriptures and all authenticated by Christ, as we've seen in Luke 24, 44. Some have thought that in the first century, there was actually some dispute between the Pharisees and the Sadducees regarding the limits of the canon. And that the Sadducees only accepted the five books of Moses in their canon, and the Pharisees accepted what we call the 39 books of the Old Testament in their canon. And that may be true. I'm not brilliant enough or learned enough to be able to remark on that one way or another, except just to point out that when I was reading through F.F. Bruce's book on the canon of the scripture, as I was trying to prepare myself for this assignment, He calls that sort of commonly accepted viewpoint into question. He's not certain that that is valid, that the Sadducees rejected the rest of the Old Testament as scripture. So anyway, I'll leave the scholars to battle that out, because obviously many scholars accept that. I've been taught that all of my life. I've always thought that. And when I read that in Bruce, I was a bit surprised. All that to say that maybe all of the Jews, all the religious Jews in the first century accepted the entire Hebrew canon as their scripture. Certainly the Pharisees did, certainly Christ did, certainly the Christians did. So it's only the New Testament canon about which there is any particular concern. And how was it that the books of the New Testament, the 27 that we have, came to be recognized as the canon of Scripture? Well, I think there were a number of influences, apparently. Number one, only Scripture should be read in the meetings of the church. When the church gathers to worship God, only Scripture should be read. And originally, the Old Testament Scriptures, of course. That was their Bible. The apostles preached Christ out of the Old Testament Scriptures. They didn't have any trouble with that. We shouldn't. They didn't. We shouldn't. They had no trouble with that. But you see, the apostles, as they wrote their epistles and sent them to the churches, they directed that those be read in the churches. We're all familiar with that. Paul, for example, in Colossians 4.16 says, Now when this epistle is read among you, see that it is read also in the church of the Laodiceans, and that you likewise read the epistle from Laodicea. Paul was instructing that his epistle be read in the churches right alongside the Old Testament scriptures. This wasn't private devotions. Most people didn't have copies of these, you understand. Until the printing press was developed, copies of the Bible were exceedingly expensive. It would cost the equivalent today, I suppose, of 20, $30,000. So most people didn't have their own Bible. The church had a Bible. Hopefully the church had a Bible. I'm sure not even all the churches had an entire Bible. all the time, but that would be the goal that a church, each church would have at least one copy of Scripture and the Scriptures would be read in the meetings of the church so that people could learn the Bible. That's the only way they could find out what it said. I keep telling my people over and over from time to time, you can never know what the Bible means until first you know what it says. So read it, read it, read it, read it, read it. Thank God we can. We have copies of the Bible. All of us have in our homes shelves with Bibles, all different Bibles, versions, whatever. They're all there. Don't let them go to waste. Read them, read them, read them, read them. You'll never understand what the Bible means until first you know what the Bible says. So it was very important in the early churches that the Scriptures be read. The Scriptures be read. I don't think they probably read prayer letters from missionaries and thank you notes and cards from other people that would not have been suitable reading in the meeting of the church, as sometimes we might do today in various settings. But they were very careful to only publicly read scripture. That's scripture included. The epistles of the apostles. So in this way, the early church was beginning to already show that they accepted this as scripture. You know, the idea of when did the canon officially become the canon? Well, we can tell you when it officially sort of officially became the canon. I guess you want to use that word. But I think it's pretty clear that the canon was basically already in place. Nobody called it that. And probably nobody wrote down all the books, made a list of it, but the churches accepted these writings as scripture and read them from the very beginning. Furthermore, I am told that the 27 books of the New Testament that we call the New Testament canon, every one of these books were quoted as scripture by second century church leaders, except for third John and maybe even third John. I don't know, but that's what I read. All of them quoted by one or more of the early church leaders in the second century. Now, that's pretty early. John didn't die until the end of the first century. So some of these men could have known John, at least, and maybe possibly some of the other apostles, probably not the others, but at least John. So that's how close they were to the apostles. And they, therefore, had a pretty clear idea of what was scripture. And they quoted scripture, and they quoted 26 of the 27 New Testament books. Another influence on the recognition of the canon, of course, was the rise of heresies in the second and third centuries. And that's when the attack upon various portions of what we call the New Testament scripture began to happen. Up until then, Nobody had been disputing it, but now the Gnostics and other heretics were beginning to throw out certain books and certain portions of books. We'll accept this, but not that, beginning to chop it up. That's not new. We thought it was just the modern day liberals and modernists who did that. But that was going on clear back in the second century with the The heresies that arose in the church, they began to reject certain writings because they, of course, disproved what they were teaching. And so they couldn't accept that as the Bible. And so that's really when the issue began to be thrashed out. And it did take quite a while, I guess, to thrash it out to everyone's satisfaction. But it was this attack, this questioning that caused much of that. And so what we see, what we often call the development of the canon, the official recognition of the canon is really a record of how these battles with the heretics came to a conclusion. And I don't know that it's accurate to say that the New Testament canon was finally recognized in 397 A.D. at the Council of Carthage when they officially listed the 27 books of the New Testament. But that's a nice, tidy point in history to say, OK, now the battle's over. We all agree, all Orthodox Christians agree that this is it. But that doesn't mean I don't think that most Christians didn't have a pretty clear idea of what were the scriptures, the inspired words of God from the very beginning, from actually the first century. Many doctrines are that way, the doctrine of the Trinity. When did that become officially recognized? Well, when it was officially recognized is not the same as when Christians believed it. If they believed the Bible, they believed it all along. The doctrine of the Trinity is interwoven in all the New Testament scriptures, but it wasn't called Trinity. And it really didn't get clarified until heresies attacked it. And then the battles went on and the clarifications and the refinements and the Holy Spirit used all of that. And finally, there came out a very clear understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity. But that doesn't mean that first century Christians didn't believe in the triune Godhead. Of course, they did. And the fact that the canon didn't become officially clarified until the fourth century It doesn't mean that 1st century and 2nd and 3rd century Christians didn't have essentially the same canon that we have and the same understanding of scripture that we did. It just means that it took this battle to clarify it in a final and historical way. I remember a number of years ago, I can't remember how long ago, Modern Reformation magazine had an issue called Our Debt to Heresies. What is our debt to heresies? Makes us think, makes us wrestle, makes us put in writing and in clear statements of doctrinal confessions what exactly we believe. If nobody's questioning it, we all believe it. But sometimes it is a little bit fuzzy. It needs to be crystallized, defined more clearly. We probably don't do that until we're made to by people attacking it. So our debt to heresies. And I think it's the same thing with the canon. So the rise of heresies forced thoughtful examination of which books are included in the canon persecution. And there's a lot of persecution, as you know, from the first century onward until the fourth century. And persecutions helped to clarify the issue, which books are scripture and which are not, because it really boiled down to, in many cases, which books are you willing to die for? Well, that cuts through the issue pretty, pretty nicely, doesn't it? Are you going to die for the Shepherd of Hermes? Are you going to die for the Gospel of Peter? Are you going to die for some of these books, the Gospel of Thomas, some of these Gnostic writings? I think not. You're willing to give those up. You can have that. Take it away. I don't want it. I don't want to see it anymore. This one? I'll die for that. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts and Romans. I'll die for that. I don't clarify what is scripture and what is not. And then another influence on the recognition of the canon was the shift from the scroll to the codex. Which I won't try to explain, I don't know if I can exactly, but I can a little bit. But anyway, what it basically did was allow there to be a collection of several books into one volume. Up until then, every book was its own scroll. You saw that in the Jewish synagogues when Christ came to read in the synagogue at Nazareth, or was it Capernaum? Anyway, they handed him the scroll of Isaiah. In fact, they would have unscrolled it to the proper place for the reading for that day and handed it to him. like that, and he would have read it, and so Isaiah would be one scroll, and Jeremiah would be one scroll, and so forth. And in the New Testament, it started out that way, too. Romans would have been one scroll, and 1 Corinthians another scroll, and 2 Corinthians another scroll, and this is the way they were. And so it was pretty hard to have your Bible all together, unless you had a pretty good box to put it in. And so all of these different books, as we would call them, kind of floating around independently. I've got the Gospel of John. Oh, good. I've got I've got Romans. Let's get together and share. You know, we've got all these different books floating around and then came along the development of the Codex and. With the refinement of that production, you could start to collect books. And eventually, of course, what you wanted to do is put together the collection of books that you considered to be the word of God. And eventually we've got to the 27 books of the New Testament. And we can put it all together in one volume. I've got now I've got a New Testament. Now I've got a Bible in one volume. I don't know. where they could have got a whole Bible in one of those or not until the printing press came along, because they were still writing it by hand, you know. It's handwritten. All right. There is some history in the recognition of the canon. From what I can tell, the four Gospels were never in dispute. And two of those, two were written by apostles and two were written by men who were not apostles. but were closely associated with apostles and would fall into the category of a New Testament prophet. And those were accepted by God's people right from the beginning, never in dispute. The epistles of Paul don't seem to have ever been in dispute. There were seven disputed books, Hebrews, James, Second Peter, First and Second John, Jude and Revelation. And there were different reasons for different ones of them. But a lot of that had to do with regional issues, just whether those books had gotten circulated into all the areas where the churches were or not. Again, because they came from different authors and were circulated at different times and had to be hand copied and on scrolls and sent out to other places. So some of these books didn't arrive in certain places for a long time. And so there would be some question about them. It was in A.D. 367 that Athanasius of Alexandria, Egypt, declared the present list of 27 books we have in our canon. And this, of course, was to answer the disputes. It was in his festal letter on Easter in A.D. 367. And he says, but since we have referred to the heretics as dead, You see, it was an issue with the heretics. That was the only reason there was there was really much dispute at all about what constitutes the canon. But since we have referred to the heretics as dead and to us as having the divine scriptures unto salvation. And as I fear, as Paul wrote to the Corinthians, lest some few of the simple may be led astray by deceit from simplicity and purity by the wiles of men. And finally, may begin to read the so-called Apocrypha delivered by the likeness of the names to those of the true books. You notice so many of those spurious books. Had names that they attach the names of the apostles to them in one way or another, they were they were deliberately trying to be deceitful, these these Gnostic writings and other heretical books. He says that some since some have turned their hands to draw up for themselves the so-called apocrypha and to mingle these with the inspired writ. See, Athanasius knew the difference between which were the inspired writings and which were the were the heretical books. But there were people trying to to mingle them together to confuse the issue. Concerning which we are fully informed as those handed down to the fathers who were from the beginning directly seers, that is, prophets and servants of the word. It seemed good also to me, urged by true brethren, having learned from time gone by to set forth in order from the first the books that are canonized. That may be the first official use of that word, the way we use it, the books that are canonized and handed down and believed to be divine. So that each, if he has been deceived, may detect those who have misled him, and the one remaining pure may rejoice at being put in mind of it again. And he lists the books, the twenty-seven books of the New Testament. These are the wells of salvation so that he who thirst may be satisfied with the sayings of these. And these alone is a teaching of godliness heralded. Let no one add to these, but nothing be taken away from these. Athanasius Thirty-Ninth Festal Letter, Easter 8367. And as I already mentioned, then the Council of Carthage in 397 did this in a more official way. So that's kind of the history of it all, and we see that our Baptist forefathers thought it was very important that we not only name exactly which 66 books we consider scripture, but state specifically that the Apocrypha, which by this time, of course, would be considered the Roman Catholic Apocrypha. The one that Athanasius referred to would be other books, but now we have specifically a Roman Catholic Apocrypha. And our Baptist forefathers are specifically excluding that from the canon. These books are not inspired. Don't anybody think that they are? These books are not inspired. OK, in conclusion, what do I say about the canon of Scripture? Number one, the church did not produce the canon. The church recognized the scriptures that were inspired by God and were led by the Holy Spirit of God to do so. Jesus promised that his word would be preserved. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all be fulfilled. And so the same Holy Spirit who wrote the scriptures, who inspired holy men of God to speak as they were moved by the Holy Ghost, also guided in the recognition of these scriptures. Ultimately, I suppose it comes down to a matter of faith. God has spoken and the words commuting that communicating divine truth and power are the inspired word of God. You have to there is some mystery and there's some question about some of the details. And in this, as in many areas, you have to you look at the facts. You see that the facts support the canon that we have today. Historical facts, as much evidence for it. But really, in the final analysis, if you're going to be real nitpicky about it, You're going to be convinced if you are a born again believer and have the Holy Spirit of God within you, you're going to be convinced that these books that we call the Bible are indeed the inspired word of God because they've spoken powerfully to your soul. And you're going to be convinced that God has providentially led in this collection of books and have to be satisfied with that. Sometimes we want to figure everything out individually, and God in many cases has done things through the church collectively, and we're going to have to accept that. This is one of those. I think there is a bit of a modern parallel going on today in the version debate. And some people want to have. What they think can be a very detailed, traceable lineage from the pen of the Apostle Paul right down to the King James Version or whatever. In most cases, that seems to be the one. And they're not going to accept anything else. Well, the matter of fact is their line of lineage is not the clear line that they have been led to believe and misled to believe that it is. A little reading will make that very clear, kind of like Trail of Blood Baptist. It's not quite as clear as they'd like to think it is. The line from Paul to the KJV isn't quite as clear as they think it is. But you see, the problem is, I think, not being willing to accept that God has providentially preserved his word through many people, even in various manuscripts and versions, and yet he's brought it to us and we have it. Well, in some ways it's like that with the canon. This is what the church has been led to accept. Are we going to reinvent the wheel or are we going to say, thank God it was settled long ago? All right. Pastor Bartman, I think we can all agree that he has