To Be, or Not to Be, God-Breathed? | 2 Kings 17:13-14

Let us turn now, beloved, to our Bibles, the Old Testament, in the book of 2

Kings, chapter 17. I want to read verses 13 through 14.

2 Kings, chapter 17, verses 13 through 14. While you're turning there,

I want to start out with a few things to call to our attention. We saw in a previous message that I preached that the

New Testament has several synecdoches, or parts that refer to the whole of Scripture, such as the

Law, the Law and the Prophets, the Law and the Prophets and the Psalms, like Jesus said.

And this is not without precedent in the Old Testament, that is, because the

Old Testament is also full of the same synecdoches that we saw in the

New Testament that point to either a larger part or to the whole of the

Old Testament as well. The Law, the Prophets, the Law and the

Prophets and several others, right? So this is a very key synecdoche or device that Scripture uses to refer to the larger part of God's Word.

And this is also very important to consider when it comes to dealing with which books are breathed out by God, as opposed to the

Apocrypha, and whether those books should be regarded as God -breathed Scripture themselves.

So turning now in our Bibles to 2nd Kings chapter 17, beginning in verse 13,

Yet Yahweh warned Israel and Judah by the hand of whom?

All his prophets and every seer, which is another word for a prophet, saying,

Turn from your evil ways and keep my commandments, my statutes, according to all the law, which

I commanded your fathers, and which I sent you by the hand of my slaves, the prophets.

However, they did not listen, but stiffened their neck like their fathers who did not believe in Yahweh their

God. Amen. Those are some sobering words from God's Word. And we're reading here from the

Legacy Standard Bible. And now for our next passage, turn with me to Nehemiah chapter 8.

Nehemiah chapter 8, beginning in verse 1. Here we're seeing how clearly

God emphasizes the word spoken that He gives to His prophets as His words to His people.

Nehemiah chapter 8 as well. So we see there, we saw in 2nd

Kings, the law and the prophets, all the law, all the prophets and seers, every seer.

That's very important to keep in mind. Similarly, in Nehemiah chapter 8 now, verse 1.

And all the people gathered as one man at the square which was in the front of the water gate.

And they said to Ezra the scribe to bring the book of the law of Moses, which

Yahweh had commanded to Israel. Then Ezra the priest brought the law before the assembly of men, women, and all who could understand when listening on the first day of the seventh month.

And he read from it before the square, which was in front of the water gate from early morning until midday, and in the presence of men and women, those who could understand.

And all the ears of the people were attentive to the book of the law. And Ezra opened the book in the sight of all the people, for he was above all the people.

And when he opened it, all the people stood up. And verse 7.

The Levites were providing understanding of the law to the people while the people stood in their place.

They read from the book, from the law of God, explaining and giving insight.

And they provided understanding of the reading. Amen. So here we find yet again similar synecdoches, the book of the law, the law of Moses, the law of God, to refer to a larger whole, a larger whole of scripture.

And if you recall from the previous messages that I've also preached on, this time of Ezra and Nehemiah was around the same time as the prophet

Malachi, the last of the Old Testament prophets, and the closing of the

Old Testament canon. There's many more passages in the Old Testament that use these synecdoches, these parts that refer to a larger whole.

Blessed are those whose way is blameless, who walk in the law of Yahweh.

Right? In Psalm 119, verse 1. Now, remember, too, the unprecedented prophecy of Malachi.

At the very end, God had never before prophesied the return of a prophet who had already come and gone, which was

Elijah. 400 years before the prophet Malachi in the case of Elijah.

Elijah came 400 years prior to Malachi. And Elijah, I forgot to mention this, did not die.

Right? He was taken up to heaven by a whirlwind in a chariot of fire, of horses in the fire, and who did not return until John the

Baptist arose in the spirit and power of Elijah. Amen?

As the voice crying in the wilderness, make straight the way of the Lord. But that wasn't until 400 years of prophetic silence had passed.

400 years. The intertestamental period, as it's also called.

Prior to Malachi, Israel had a continual succession of prophets for over 620 years.

From Samuel to Malachi, and for more than a thousand years from Moses to Malachi.

And all the Apocrypha were written during these 400 years of prophetic silence, after Malachi, when no prophet had spoken or written any more prophecy.

Okay, this is very important to keep in mind as we deal with our subject matter for today. So I wanted to focus on this.

I think this will be the concluding sermon on our series on Scripture alone.

It is written in Scripture alone. And specifically on the use of the Apocrypha in two of the biggest churches who claim to be the one true infallible church of Christ.

And I have to confess, I kind of wrestled with the sermon title for quite a bit. I thought of different names to go with, like, you know, discerning the breath of God, or the book's void of God's breath.

I don't know about that, but, you know, we've also, you may have heard the hymn, This is

My Father's World. And it's a good hymn overall, but there's one line in there that really bothers me.

And it says, It's like, that's not what the

Bible teaches us. That's not correct, right? God speaks to us, but not always and not everywhere.

He doesn't speak through the devil, right? He doesn't speak through false prophets. He denounces them. So it is primarily through his

God -breathed words. That's why scripture is supreme and has a supreme authority, because it is the word of God.

And so therefore, that brings me to the sermon title for today.

To be or not to be God -breathed. To be or not to be

God -breathed. And that is the church's question. A play on Shakespeare's play there from Hamlet.

But that is the church's question. Because you recall, there's three divine canons of scripture.

There is the divine canon of God, of all the books he wrote. And there is the church's canon, which has two canons.

The Old and the New Testament, right? And so much of the controversy in the history of the church surrounds the

Old Testament, as well as the New, but especially the Old, and whether the apocryphal books are scripture or not.

And also because the issues surrounding the apocrypha include their content, what they say and teach, but especially on how they are regarded and used by religious traditions and churches, even today.

The canon of scripture and biblical authority and ultimate infallible authorities and the apocryphal books are all tied to the same foundational issues.

Ultimate issues, which identify and distinguish us as Protestants from everything and everyone else.

And everyone else, right? This is where it's important for us to consider these things carefully.

And keep in mind, also, we do not have any copies of the original books that the apocryphal books are based on.

None. And most of the apocrypha were originally written in Greek, which is not the case with the

Hebrew Old Testament books, right? So we have to be very mindful of these things.

Most of the apocrypha are not like the rest of the Old Testament books. They contradict each other.

They contradict the Old Testament, which is truly historical and God -breathed.

And to kind of help cement this point, I want to read from a very helpful section from the

Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, Article 13. It says this, We affirm the propriety, the properness, of using inerrancy, and to which

I would add infallibility as well, as a theological term or terms with reference to the complete truthfulness of scripture and the fact that they cannot err.

That's what infallible means, right? They cannot err in anything. We deny that it is proper to evaluate scripture according to standards of truth and error that are alien to its usage or purpose, any unbiblical philosophies, methods, standards, etc.,

whether it's science or any other philosophy contradicting scripture. We further deny that inerrancy is negated by biblical phenomena such as a lack of modern technical precision, irregularities of grammar or spelling, observational descriptions of nature, the reporting of falsehoods, and the use of hyperbole and round numbers, the topical arrangement of material as opposed to chronological, like in the

Gospels, variant selections of material in parallel accounts, or the use of free citations or paraphrases, in other words.

They're not direct quotes all the time from the Old Testament, for example, right? None of these biblical phenomena contradict the inerrancy and infallibility of scripture.

They can all be consistently taught and explained logically because God is not the author of confusion, but of peace and love and a sound mind.

So now this brings us to another brief recap of the

Jews, the Pharisees, and Josephus, whom I've alluded to before. Recall from a previous message that I preached on Matthew 23 regarding the chair or seat of Moses, right?

That Jesus said, he spoke to the crowds and to his disciples saying, the scribes and the

Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses. Therefore, all they tell you do and keep, but do not do according to their deeds.

For they say things and do not do them. They preach, but they do not practice what they preach, right?

And incidentally, it's interesting because the Pharisees did not regard these apocryphal books as scripture.

And none of the Jews did, in fact, really none of them did. And there is a great deal of historical evidence to support that.

And I wanted to quote from Josephus. He has a very good statement that he says in his book against Apion, regarding their canon, the

Jewish canon. He says, for we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another as the

Greeks do, but only 22 books. Remember that number, 22, 24 books, which contain the records of all the past times, which are justly believed to be divine, right?

And only those. And of them, five belong to Moses, the Torah, right? The law of Moses, Genesis through Deuteronomy, which contain his laws and the traditions of the origin of mankind till his death.

This interval of time was little short of 3 ,000 years. But as for the time from the death of Moses to the reign of Artaxerxes, king of Persia, who reigned after Xerxes, the prophets who were after Moses wrote down what was done in their times in 13 books.

The remaining four books contain hymns to God, the Psalms, the writings.

He's referring to the third category, right? The writings, the law, the prophets and the writings.

Hymns to God and precepts for the conduct of human life. And the book of Psalms is the first book listed in the writings, the writings, the third category.

He continues, It is true, our history has been written since Artaxerxes very particularly, but has not been esteemed of the like authority with the former by our forefathers because there has not been an exact succession of prophets since that time.

He's referring to the time of Malachi and after the intertestamental period. He's referring to the apocryphal books.

So the Jews were aware of these books, but they did not regard them as scripture very clearly. And how, and by the way,

Josephus himself was a Pharisee. He was a Pharisee who lived shortly after the time of Christ's resurrection.

And how firmly we have given credit to these books of our own nation as evident by what we do.

For during so many ages as have already passed, no one has been so bold as either to add anything to them or to take anything from them or to make any change in them.

But it has become natural to all Jews immediately and from their very birth to esteem these books to contain divine doctrines, the word of God, so to speak, and to persist in them, and if occasion be willingly, to die for them.

Okay? Very important there. Very important stuff. Now he doesn't list the books by name, but you can deduce the books that he's referring to, especially by his reference to the 22 books.

That only refers to one list of books according to the Jews. And it's the same 39 books of the

Old Testament of the Protestant canon. And biblical scholars like Roger Beckwith affirm the same fundamental thing.

None of the deuterocanonical books or apocryphal books are ever quoted with an introductory formula. It is written, or thus saith the

Lord. The allusions are never marked as scripture, and in many cases the New Testament authors appear to be drawing upon common

Jewish wisdom traditions rather than citing an actual text, a fixed text.

Right? And so remember, remember also what was the greatest advantage that the

Jew had. First of all, first and foremost, that the

Jews received as a whole and were entrusted with the oracles of God, like Romans 3 .2

says, right? The Tanakh, the Old Testament, the

Torah, the Nevi 'im, the Ketuvim, the Law, the Prophets, and the

Writings. So that being established now, to help give us some context once again,

I want to focus now on what this looked like in the history of the

Church, and specifically with the Roman Catholic Church state. There's a bull by Pope Boniface VIII, which was promulgated in November 18, 1302, okay, 1302, called

Unum Sanctum. We declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the

Roman Pontiff, be subject to the Pope, in other words. Necessary for salvation, absolutely necessary for salvation to be subject to the

Roman Pontiff, the Pope of Rome, okay? So they obviously claimed to be the one true

Church of Christ, and the Pope is the one head of Christ, of the Church on the earth.

Now this is another quote from the 1997 official Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 816,

The soul, the only Church of Christ, is that which our Savior, after his resurrection, entrusted to Peter's pastoral care, commissioning him and the other apostles to extend and rule it.

This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in the

Roman Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter, and by the bishops in communion with him, in other words, by the

Pope of Rome. The Second Vatican Council's Decree on Ecumenism explains, For it is through Christ's Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help toward salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained.

In other words, you cannot obtain salvation except and apart from the Roman Catholic Church.

Their claims are very clear. This is, by the way, claims from 1302 and from 1997.

So, nothing has changed in that respect, really. The Roman Church State, remember, because the

Roman Catholic Church is not just a church, it's also a papal state. It is a state in Italy, the

Vatican State, claims to be also the one true Church, and claims to be the one true

Church that determined what the canon of Scripture was, and dogmatically condemned any and all who disagreed with her in the

Council of Trent, in 1546, as we will see shortly.

This, however, is a historical anachronism. You'll often find the

Eastern Orthodox Church and the Church of Rome refer to themselves in the early Church when they did not exist.

They did not even look anything like the early Church did. Also, because the

Roman Catholic Church did not even begin to exist, did not even begin to resemble what it looks like now until the very late 300s

A .D. Now, it looks almost nothing like what it appeared to look like in the previous centuries, because many of the dogmas that they declared were much later in the late medieval ages and onwards.

So this brings me now, beloved, to a public service announcement. Many churches, including

Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox churches, and even some Protestants, they will claim that the early

Church resembles their own respective traditions and churches. You'll often find them claim this.

Well, the early Church, they believed in the papacy, and they were Catholic. They were

Roman Catholic. The Eastern Orthodox would claim the same thing. They were Catholic and all that, or Eastern Orthodox.

And this reminds me of a quote from John Henry Cardinal Newman. Cardinal Henry Newman, excuse me.

He was an Anglican who converted to Catholicism, and he said, to go deep into history is to cease to be

Protestant. But we're going to find, beloved, that this is just a small sample of how false that claim really is.

Because the reality is that the early Church was highly varied and extremely diverse.

It was not monolithic. The Church was not monolithic by any means. And in many ways, the early

Church was unlike any of the major denominations we see today, whether it's

Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and even Protestant, to some extent. The early

Church, in essence, was really neither Roman Catholic nor Eastern Orthodox, and in some respects, it wasn't

Protestant either. Because most of the distinctives of Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and even

Protestantism were not defined and cemented until the medieval period.

Until the medieval period. This was after the 400s and on. The medieval period spanned a thousand years.

So, however, this is important to understand as well.

Because you will always find Roman Catholics or Eastern Orthodox and even some Protestant trying to spin the early

Church to conform it to their views. And that's often a dishonest handling of early

Church leaders and Christians in the past. But there is a sense in which the

Protestant faith and churches can more easily identify with the early Church in many ways.

More so than the other two. Because, and including, their doctrine of Scripture as the ultimate infallible authority.

I've quoted some early Church leaders that very much resemble the Protestant view of Scripture alone as the ultimate authority.

And also because Protestantism does not hold to these extra -biblical and even contra -biblical traditional baggage that has replaced the authority of God and His Word.

That's very important to keep in mind. Much of that baggage accumulated over centuries and centuries and centuries to look like what they look like today in the

Church of Rome or the Eastern Church. Now, the Roman Catholic canon of Scripture of the

Old Testament includes the apocryphal books of Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, or Ecclesiasticus in the

Greek, Baruch, which includes the Letter of Jeremiah. None of these books were written by the prophets, by the way, or by Solomon.

First and second Maccabees plus additions to the book of Esther and Daniel which includes the

Prayer of Azariah, the Song of the Three Holy Children, Susanna, and Bell and the Dragon. None of these books were written by the prophets or by Solomon.

They were written during the intertestamental period after Malachi. Now, that being said, note this carefully.

The first time that the Roman Catholic Church defined her canon of the

Bible dogmatically, universally and dogmatically was during the

Council of Trent in 1546. 1546.

Session 4 of that canon of the Council of Trent on the decree concerning the canonical

Scripture says this, Let him be anathema.

Let him be eternally condemned. That's what anathema means. Excommunicated and eternally condemned.

Okay? So, this is a very revisionistic view of history because we've seen, as I've preached on before, that the early church had two major competing views of the

Old Testament. The view that the canon of the Jews was the authoritative one and the apocryphal were merely books to be read but not considered

Scripture and the other view which is that the books that were read in the churches were also considered to be canonical.

There were competing views. There was not one view. But the view that the canon was from the

Jews had the older precedent and it had more biblical grounding than the other one.

So, that itself is a misrepresentation. Again, you're going to find this in these traditions.

They will rewrite history or impose themselves on the early church when that's not the case. Now, the

Roman Catholic Church condemns everyone who agrees with the oldest and the most attested and established and, in some sense, the most prominent view in the history of the professing church, including numerous prominent

Roman Catholic authorities. Okay? So, in condemning this view, they condemned

Roman Catholic authorities that came before. Over 76 of them, whether it's leaders, councils, bishops, prelates, all kinds of authorities that have been documented thoroughly in John Cosen's book, which

I highly recommend to you all, is Scholastical History of the Canon of the Holy Scripture. Those who knowingly and deliberately rejected the traditions that Trent declared as dogma in every century prior to Trent who did not believe the

Apocrypha to be God -breathed Scripture. Okay? This is how serious this matter is.

They condemned their own bishops, their own councils, their own people, leaders because of this.

Now, there's a very well -known English bishop and scholar, biblical scholar, by the name of Brookfoss Westcott of the

Westcott and Hort. He helped to translate the American standard, the revised version of Scripture in the late 1800s,

I think, and early 1900s. Now, he was a theologian as well, and he had this to say on the

Council of Trent's decision to canonize the Apocrypha. This fatal decree in which the

Council of Trent gave a new aspect to the whole question of the canon was ratified by, was confirmed, established by 53 prelates.

A prelate is a high -ranking bishop in the Church of Rome. Among whom there was not one scholar distinguished for historical learning.

Not one. And for the examination of a subject in which the truth could only be determined by the voice of antiquity, the past.

How completely the decision was opposed to the spirit and letter of the original judgments of the

Greek and Latin churches. So he's saying this judgment contradicted the vast majority of the historical testimony of the church, the

Greek and the Latin church, Eastern and Western churches. How far in the doctrinal equalization of the disputed and acknowledged books of the

Old Testament it was at variance with, at odds with, with the traditional opinion of the

West. And how absolutely unprecedented was the conversion of an ecclesiastical usage, a church usage of the

Apocrypha books into an article of belief, into a dogma. Such that you are condemned if you don't agree with them.

Will be seen from the evidence which has already been adduced. So thank you for that, Westcott. Why don't you tell us how you really feel about this decision, right?

And we should heartily agree because that judgment is false and it contradicts the testimony of the early church and what the scriptures themselves teach regarding God's truth and God's word, right?

This is very important things that we need to consider and not allow ourselves to be deceived by these false traditions from false churches.

Even if they claim to be the one true church, right? The one true church is the one that conforms to God's holy word.

Amen? So now the Eastern Orthodox Church, this is the other, the other one true church and her

Bibles, plural. Notice I said Bibles, okay? The Eastern Orthodox traditions like the

Roman Catholic Church similarly claim to be the one and only holy Catholic and apostolic church that the

Nicene Creed refers to. And in some cases they go further to deny the doctrine of the universal invisible church, okay?

They claim that the Eastern Church is the one and only true church and institution.

And some Eastern Orthodox Bibles, not all, but some include all the

Roman Catholic Deuterocanonical books that I listed earlier. But other versions of the

Eastern Orthodox Bible include more. They include 1 Ezra's, 3

Maccabees, the prayer of Manasseh and Psalm 151, which is a summary of David's dealing with Goliath.

And sometimes, again, there's yet another version, 4 Maccabees and 2

Ezra's. So there's a lot of variants in the Eastern tradition. And some

Eastern Orthodox churches claim that their entire canon is divinely inspired, but certain books have more or less authority for their church.

Now, Deuterocanonical for them, or second canon, that's what that means, Deutero, like Deuteronomy, second law, second canon, means that for them is a part of the book of the

Old Testament. So it is part of the Old Testament. It is read during services, but has lesser or secondary authority.

In other words, Deutero applies to authority or witnessing power. Whereas in Roman Catholicism, Deuterocanonical refers to when books were considered scripture.

The fact that the books were canonized, but canonized later. And they are all, but they are all nevertheless equally authoritative with the rest of the

Old Testament. Okay? So now, the history of the Eastern Orthodox Church has very divergent and contradictory paths.

Because the universally accepted Synod or Council of Jerusalem in 1672, which condemned the

Reformation, the Protestant Reformation and teaching, only mentioned the Roman Catholic books.

It only mentioned the Roman Catholic Deuterocanonical books. However, Orthodox Bibles commonly include, today, the entire

Catholic canon plus these extra ones. 3rd Maccabees, the prayer of Manasseh, Psalm 151 and 1st

Esdras. Yet, to make matters worse, the

Russian Orthodox Catechism of Filaret of Moscow, which was examined and approved by the most holy governing

Synod or Council of the official Russian Orthodox Church. Okay? And published for the use of schools and of all

Orthodox Christians by order of his Imperial Majesty, affirms the

Protestant canon of Scripture. Instead, therefore contradicting the earlier 1672

Council of Jerusalem, even though the Catechism was written in 1830 after the 1672

Council of Jerusalem. And both of these canons contradict the longest

Eastern Orthodox canons. Okay? It's a mess. It's a total mess.

Now, the Russian, now there's Russian Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, Romanian Orthodox, they're all generally considered the same

Orthodox Church. They're just regional, slight regional differences and they have different patriarchs.

Okay? It's not the same thing as a Pope. But, because they're more conciliar, they govern themselves more by councils and patriarchs.

So, now the Russian Orthodox canon of Scripture from the

Russian Orthodox Catechism of Filaret of Moscow makes some of the exact same arguments that Protestants make in favor of the shorter

Protestant canon. Okay? Listen to this. Question 31. How many are the books of the

Old Testament? What is their answer? They say St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St.

Athanasius the Great, and St. John of Damascus, who was one of the most influential, if not the most influential, theologians of Eastern Orthodoxy.

He was in the medieval period. They reckon them at 22 books.

Okay? 22. The same 22 that the Jews held to. Agreeing therein with the

Jews who so reckoned them in the original Hebrew tongue.

Wow. Okay. They sound just like we do. Interesting. Now question 32.

Why should we attend to the reckoning of the Hebrews, of the Jews? Because, as the

Apostle Paul says, unto them were committed the oracles of God.

Romans 3, 2. And the sacred books of the Old Testament have been received from the

Hebrew church of that testament by the Christian church of the new. So the same exact thing that the

Protestant church has claimed historically and today. Question 34.

Why is there no notice taken in the... Oh, I'm sorry. Did I miss something? Yes.

I forgot to mention that the 22 books agreeing therein with the Jews who so reckoned them in the original

Hebrew tongue. Okay? That's also important. They considered those because they were written in Hebrew, like Jerome said.

These other apocryphal books were of uncertain origin and they were obscure in origin. And they were in Greek.

And Augustine, who agreed with that, that the apocryphal were scripture, nevertheless acknowledged their origin as obscure.

Okay? So this is very interesting. Question 34.

Why is there no notice taken in this enumeration of the books of the Old Testament, of the books of the wisdom of the son of Sirach or Ecclesiasticus and of certain others?

So it's talking about the apocryphal books. Because they do not exist in the

Hebrew. Okay? That's just one of the many other reasons that they are not considered canonical by the early church, many in the early church, in the

Protestant churches. Question 35. How are we to regard these last named books?

How do we regard them? Athanasius the Great says that they have been appointed of the fathers to be read by proselytes, new converts who are preparing for admission into the church or new members.

Right? New church members. And to that we can all heartily say, Amen. We can agree with their answers here.

This is very sound reasoning. Historically grounded in the faithful church, traditions of the church, and in scripture.

Now gradually churches encourage everyone to read them, not just the new members. But this is actually very similar how they regard the apocryphal books as to how we regard confessions and catechisms, the reformed confessions and catechisms, like the

Baptist catechisms, the Westminster confessions and standards, the shorter and larger catechisms.

All of these we regard them in a similar way. They are useful in edifying for the church and we give them to members and new members.

We encourage them to read them because they help us to understand the scriptures themselves. That's what they're for.

They are not scripture. They are not authoritatively final like scripture is. They are subject to the final authority of the scriptures.

But they are useful in helping us to understand them. And they are a lesser authority in that sense.

Right? So this is very important. Very fascinating.

And a lot of people are not aware of this. Okay? It's important to understand these things. Notice, too, that the official

Russian Orthodox catechism I just quoted from, cites Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius, and John of Damascus, all of whom were among the many other theologians like Jerome and several others,

Melito, who held to a 22 -book Jewish canon of the Old Testament and further distinguished most of the apocryphal books from the canonical

Old Testament into a separate category. Okay? Therefore, Eastern Orthodox believers who wish to argue for the divine inspiration and canonicity of the apocrypha argue against their own saints, their own synod, but in partial defense of the 1672 synod because they have all contradicted each other.

They're all contradicting each other. So, in sum, we actually agree with the

Russian Orthodox catechism on the canon of scripture which contradicts the longest Eastern Orthodox canons, plural, but that full canon was not affirmed by the official council of 1672 either.

It only affirmed the Roman Catholic canon so much for infallible certainty and authority, right?

Because they claim, the Eastern Orthodox Church claims that their councils are infallible, that they were inspired by God.

The first seven ecumenical ones and these councils are considered infallible according to them. But maybe, just maybe,

Martin Luther was onto something after all when he said during the Reformation that unless I am convinced by the testimonies of the scriptures or by clear arguments and by clear reason, since I believe neither the

Pope nor the councils alone, it being evident that they have often erred and contradicted themselves.

Amen, right? This is one of many examples of how this is the case.

There are so many contradictions within these traditions and we have to be careful to discard them as unbiblical.

They are not infallible. Traditions of men and of councils and of churches are not infallible.

Only the sacred scriptures are because only they have been breathed out by God like 2nd

Timothy says and many other passages say. So now then, beloved, that we have surveyed the two major views of the

Apocrypha throughout the centuries by the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches, this makes more sense now, hopefully, and explains why there were and are divergent paths in these traditions, in all of these traditions.

Partly because of how they interpret the early church writers and who they gave more weight to in addition to what people like Popes and what councils they held as infallibly authoritative, right?

All of that drives their understandings of the Apocrypha. They stem from more foundational issues of authority and infallible authority.

Where does it come from? Does infallible truth and authority come from God alone and his word or from these other sources?

From churches and councils and men and Popes and bishops and patriarchs?

The answer from God's It is written, it is written, it is written, like Jesus said, against the devil, against the scribes and the

Pharisees who held their own traditions, and Jesus rebuked them for replacing the word of God, the law of God, with their own unbiblical traditions which they claimed to have come from Moses, right?

It doesn't matter what you claim. What matters is, do you agree with the ultimate authority of God and his word?

That is what matters. That is how we are to judge. Now, I want to emphasize this more clearly for us to really cement these things in our minds when we interact with these other traditions, to help show them, to help lift the veil of this deception.

The 1672 Eastern Orthodox Council of Jerusalem rejected any further attempts at reformulation and reformation of Orthodox teachings and strengthened

Orthodox beliefs against both the Protestant Reformation and Roman Catholicism, okay?

The Synod produced its own confession, the Confession of Dosotheus, who was the patriarch of Jerusalem at the time, in which point by point it refuted

Cyril Lucaris' 18 points. Cyril Lucaris was a Protestant, he was a

Eastern Orthodox patriarch, okay? That's like the highest office in the Eastern Orthodox Church.

He was a patriarch of Constantinople, high up, and he had several who agreed with him, because he sympathized with the

Reformation and the Reformers and their teachings. He was a Calvinist, okay? And a

Reformer. He was an Eastern Orthodox Reformer. He was the Luther of the East, so to speak.

Fascinating history. But in addition, this

Council and Confession added four catechetical style questions that defended the restriction of reading and study of Scripture to the priests alone, okay?

Take note of that. Defended the role of tradition, as well as a lengthy defense of the veneration of icons and prayers to the saints.

And it defined the canon of Scripture to go against Protestantism, okay?

This is what question three says of this Confession. What books do you call sacred

Scripture, okay? This is an explicit question. Which books do you consider to be

Scripture of their canon? What do they say?

Their answer is, following the rule of the Catholic Church. They don't mean Roman Catholic. They mean their church.

We call sacred Scripture all those which Cyril Lucaris collected from the

Synod of Laodicea and enumerated, adding to Scripture those which he foolishly and ignorantly, or rather maliciously, called

Apocrypha. Specifically, the Wisdom of Solomon, Judith Tobit, the

History of the Dragon, or Belen the Dragon, the History of Susanna, the

Maccabees, 1st and 2nd Maccabees, and the Wisdom of Sirach. Okay? So, for we judge these also to be with the other genuine books of divine

Scripture, genuine parts of Scripture. And that's it. That's it.

They left out the additional books that they claim to be canonical as well, like 3rd

Maccabees and Psalm 150 and the Prayer of Manasseh. They didn't list those. For ancient custom, or rather the

Catholic Church, which has been delivered to us as genuine, the sacred Gospels and the other books of Scripture has undoubtedly delivered these also as parts of Scripture, and the denial of these is a rejection of those other ones.

So they say, if you reject these Apocryphal books, you're rejecting all of them, all the books of Scripture.

And if perhaps it seemed that not always have, not always have all of these have been considered on the same level as others, they, yet nevertheless, also, these also have been counted and reckoned with the rest of Scripture, both by synods and by many of the most ancient and eminent theologians of the

Catholic Church. Again, not true, because they were not considered Scripture by many of, many other of the most ancient and eminent theologians of the

Church. It's not true. All of these we are judged to be canonical books and confessed them to be sacred

Scripture. Okay? Wow. But wait, just wait, just wait, because it gets even worse.

It gets worse. Question 1 of the same Council of 1672.

Should the Divine Scriptures be read in the vulgar tongue, the common language by all Christians? Their answer is no.

No. They say no. Because all Scripture is divinely inspired and profitable, 2

Timothy 3 .16, we know, and necessarily so, that without Scripture it is impossible to be

Orthodox at all. Nevertheless, they should not be read by all, but only by those who with fitting research have inquired into the deep things of the

Spirit, and who know in what manner the Divine Scriptures ought to be searched and taught and finally read.

But to those who are not so disciplined, or who cannot distinguish, or who understand only literally, or in any other way contrary to Orthodoxy, what is contained in the

Scriptures, the Catholic Church, knowing by experience the damage that can cause, forbids them to be read by these people, okay?

Indeed, it is permitted, okay? So they're giving permission. It is permitted to every

Orthodox to hear the Scriptures, that he may believe with the heart unto righteousness, and confess with the mouth unto salvation,

Romans 10 .10. But to read some parts of the Scriptures, and especially of the Old Testament, is forbidden by them.

For these and other similar reasons. For it is the same thing to prohibit undisciplined persons from reading all the sacred

Scriptures, as to require infants to abstain from strong meats. Wow.

But just wait. It's not over. It gets worse. Question two now says, are the

Scriptures plain to all Christians that read them? Certainly, I'm going to skip a few parts.

Certainly, those that are regenerated in baptism must know the faith concerning the Trinity, the incarnation of the

Son of God, His passion, resurrection, and ascension into the heavens. Yet what concerns regeneration and judgment for which many have not hesitated to die?

It is not necessary. So they're telling you what is and what is not necessary to understand.

It is not necessary, indeed impossible, for them to know what the Holy Spirit has made apparent only to those who are disciplined in wisdom and holiness.

Okay? So even though they reject the Pope, they make very similar claims that the

Pope and the Magisterium of Rome does. They give you permission what you are and not allowed to read in the

Scriptures because you may be too ignorant or too dumb or too foolish. This is utterly and incredibly condescending, just like Rome.

Instead of teaching their people how to read and how to interpret Scripture so they can be more like the noble -minded

Bereans in Acts 17, so that all of you believers, every one of us, and in the case of Paul, the

Colossians, may be filled with the full knowledge of His will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding, not just some parts, but all of them, the whole counsel of God, so that you may walk in a manner worthy of the

Lord to please Him in all respects, including regeneration and the final judgment, in all respects bearing fruit in every good work and multiplying in the full knowledge of God.

Colossians 1, 9 -10. Yet contrary to this, the

Eastern Orthodox Church prohibits them from reading them, the ignorant, from reading them at all, unless you are holy enough, disciplined enough, taught enough, elite enough, basically unless you're a priest, one of their priests, etc.

So what does, again, what does Psalm 19 say? The law of the

Lord is perfect, converting the soul, making wise the who, making wise the simple.

God gave us His words to be read, beloved, and believed, and understood, and while yes, some parts are hard to understand, and they require us to be taught by faithful men, the church, teachers, yet nevertheless, all of us are responsible for reading and believing them, and finding a good local church and pastors and elders to teach it to us.

How many times does Paul and the Apostles say, judge for yourselves, judge for your own selves.

So these matters are critical, beloved, and you see hopefully now more clearly what these one true churches supposedly claim, and the utterly contrary attitude that they maintain of usurping authority over and against God's Word, as to what we are allowed to read and not read, and so on.

That is incredibly disturbing and sad, but we need to be aware, this is why

Jesus warned against these things, because you do many such things as these. That's what he condemned the

Pharisees for. These heirs lead to a multiplicity of other heirs, and their traditions bear that out.

It becomes a slippery slope into heresy, into false teaching, false

Gospels, false traditions, etc. Now this is not to say that we shouldn't read the apocryphal books either.

We should read them, and they are deeply ingrained in the history of the church and its discussions of the canon.

We should familiarize ourselves with them. Not that we need to agree with all of that they say, because they're not

Scripture. They contradict themselves. There's historical contradictions, there's doctrinal contradictions, there's all kinds of contradictions there.

They are edited summaries of other secular works, okay?

There are condensations of other histories that are not infallible and that were not breathed out by God, but we should still read them.

And even the many Christians, theologians, reformers, and councils that rejected them as Scripture often still recommended them to be read, though not as God -breathed

Scripture. Even Luther translated them and provided them with that qualification, and the reformers generally did.

So there has been an overreaction against the apocryphal that we should also be careful to not fall into, and this should be our view as well.

This has a great amount of historical precedent in the faithful church, and the

Jews, the early church, the Christians, the Apostles who wrote the New Testament were also intimately aware of these writings, and they alluded to them in the

New Testament at times, okay? Even though they were not breathed out by God.

So remember then, beloved, as we start wrapping up the series here, remember, do not look to men for what

God alone can provide, and that is infallible truth and authority.

Infallible truth and authority belongs to God alone and His Word, because the only ultimate infallible truth and authorities in the entire universe are

God and His words alone. That is the doctrine of Scripture alone.

That Scripture alone is the sole ultimate infallible and final authority for everyone.

Councils and churches and pastors and teachers and confessions and catechisms, they have authority, but they are subordinate authorities to Scripture.

They are not the final authority at all, by no means. They are subject to Scripture.

They are only authoritative insofar as they agree with the Scriptures, right?

And so I also meant to clarify something that I said in a previous sermon, because I mentioned that our interpretation of Scripture is not the final authority, because it can be wrong or contradictory.

However, when our interpretation of Scripture is correct, and you know when it's correct because it's logically consistent with Scripture and doesn't contradict

Scripture. It is consistent with the whole counsel of God. When our interpretation is correct, then that interpretation is binding on all our consciences.

That is what good traditions come from. The good traditions from the church, from the early church on, are preserved in these faithful interpretations of Scripture that help us to understand

Scripture rightly, right? This is where good tradition comes from, that we should hold fast to, and so is the faithful preaching and teaching of God's Word and of sound doctrine, beloved.

This was a Reformation principle, and it was in the early church as well, but the Reformation helped to bring it to light again, and that is, when you preach the

Word of God, you are preaching the Word of God. It is not some secondary thing.

When the Word of God is being faithfully preached and taught, it is as if God is speaking

Himself. This is a Reformation belief, but only in so far as it agrees with Scripture.

That is, but that is, these are the truths that we need to maintain. In our perspective, and that is what the

Apostles told the Thessalonians. You accepted our Word, not as the Word of men.

It didn't come from them. It didn't come from the Apostles. It came from God, and it was the

Word of God that they accepted it as, because it was God's Word, not man's Word, not the

Apostles' words, but God's words, ultimately. So there are good and bad traditions.

We saw many, we've seen many good ones and many bad ones in the history of the church. There are both.

Good traditions uphold the truth of God and His Word, and they maintain it as the final authority.

They are consistent with what is written, and do not go beyond what is written, like 1st

Corinthians 4, 6 says, and do not go against what is written, like Jesus rebuked the

Pharisees for doing, for contradicting Scripture or replacing it, or usurping it.

They do not replace what is written, right? We must embrace and preserve the good traditions of the faithful Church of God, which includes the good, true, and faithful interpretations of God's Word that have been handed down to us by faithful believers and churches throughout the centuries, including the early churches, medieval churches,

Protestant churches, and so on. That includes the catechisms, beloved. The Reformed catechisms, confessions, they are faithful interpretations of Scripture that help us to understand

Scripture, not because they are infallible, but because they accurately teach and reflect the infallible ultimate authority of Scripture themselves, and that is what the very first chapter of our confession states.

The sole final infallible authority is the Word of God, because it was given and authored by God Himself, and is therefore self -attesting.

It doesn't need a church to validate it. It doesn't need men or popes to declare it to be the

Word of God. It is the Word of God because it is breathed out by God, and the church receives it as the

Word of God, and only those books which God authored. So then, beloved,

I hope this series has been a blessing to you. I hope it is edifying, and that it helps us to dive deeper into this all -important foundational truths and doctrines.

Let us live in light of these truths, beloved, in light of God's assurances of the sole infallible truths and authorities of God Himself alone, and His words alone.

Amen? Amen, beloved. Let us bow our heads in a closing word of prayer now.

Our precious Lord and Heavenly Father, we thank you for your amazing truths,

Lord, of the objectivity and the truthfulness of your words, of your scriptures, your sacred holy writings,

Father, that you have given us, your people. We thank you, Lord, for giving us your voice in these words, and your people in your words, because we know that your sheep hear your voice, and they follow you, they follow after you, and you will not allow them to stay in deception, even though we may fall into error and into misunderstandings and into deceptions, because we may struggle with ignorance or with a lack of knowledge and understanding.

Yet, Father, you never leave us to utterly perish in our ignorance of the foundational truths of who you are, who we are as sinners, redeemed by your grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, based on the ultimate authority of your words alone, and for your glory alone,

Father. We thank you for these principles and these truths that you have preserved through your people, the

Church of the Living God, which is the buttress and the support of the truth of your words, not because the church herself is the truth, but because we as your church preserve and uphold the truth in society in every century that you have provided us your guidance, your spirit, and your means of grace in the word of God preached and taught and confessed and professed and in the sacraments of the

Lord, your supper and the baptism of faith and through faith alone,

Lord. We thank you, Father, for these precious things. We ask that you help us, Lord, to internalize them and to recognize, to prioritize where and to identify what truly is infallible truth and authority.

Help us to not be swayed by the spirit of this age, by these false traditions, Lord, that have swayed many and continue to sway many.

Help us to stand as pillars of light in this last and evil day of deception and of the enemy's fiery darts and of the confusion and the blindness of many.

Help us, Lord, to declare your truths, the word of your words, alone, faithfully, as the ultimate standards of truth for all men.

And we ask because we know, Father, that in him, in your Son, are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.

Help us to live in light of these realities, Lord. In Jesus, your Son's name we pray.

Amen. Amen. Thank you for listening to the sermons of Thorn Crown Covenant Baptist Church, where the

Bible alone and the Bible in its entirety is applied to all of faith and life. We strive to be biblical, reformed, historic, confessional, loving, discerning

Christians who evangelize, stand firm in, and earnestly contend for the Christian faith.

If you're looking for a church in the El Paso, Texas area or for more information about our church, sermons, and ministries, such as Semper Reformanda Radio and Thorn Crown Network Podcast, please contact us at thorncrownministries .com.