Keep sharing good news without ads.
No description available
Last week we noted a cult, and we mentioned this earlier before watching the video today, a cult is a group that would claim to be Christian, but would deny orthodox Christianity. The video, The Marks of a Cult, it's talking about the four mathematical symbols that can be used to remind us the marks of a cult.
And tonight we looked at the plus sign, which was adding to the Bible. Now, it's interesting, as you watched in the video, I'm sure that you noted in watching the video how each group in its own way adds something to the scripture.
And then at the same time, not only do they add to the scripture, but they have to say that because what they're adding to the scripture doesn't agree with what the scripture says, they have to say that the Bible itself is wrong.
For instance, they went through talking a great deal about the Mormon Church and they said that the Mormon Church has three additional books outside of the Bible. Does anybody remember what those three are?
Yeah, Book of Mormon. Yeah, so it's the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price and the Book of Mormon itself. Now, the one that they didn't spend a lot of time with, and I want to mention this one to you because they talked about the Mormons, they talked about Sun Yung Moon and his teachings.
They talked about the United Pentecostal Church, which adds the 1914 prophecies, things like that. They talked about Ellen G. White and Christian science. But the one that I don't remember them mentioning in the video, at least not much on this particular aspect, was the Jehovah's Witnesses.
They talked about Charles Taze Russell, and they talked about what? They talked about the Watchtower tracts and books, the Watchtower magazines. We understand about that. But, and I stepped out of the room for a second, did they mention the New World Translation?
OK, that's one thing I want you to just make note of in your mind. Not only did the Jehovah's Witnesses have the Watchtower tract and Bible Society, but they also have their own translation of the Bible.
If you ever come across a translation that is called the New World Translation, that is a translation that was translated by the Jehovah's Witnesses for the Jehovah's Witnesses kind of thing. The New World Translation.
And what's bad is that that one is very close. It sounds a lot like, you know, a lot of the ones that we have, the New American Standard Bible, the New Living Translation, the New International Version, New World Translation.
It seems to fit right in there. So it could easily become something that you pick up or see or read and not realizing that what you're reading is a, and I'm just going to say, a mistranslation of the Bible.
For instance, in your Bible, in John chapter one and verse one, it says, in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. You all know that verse? That is one of the clearest testimonies to the deity of Christ, that not only was he with God the Father.
And when you look at the two uses of the word God there, when it says he was with God and he was God, there's a reference to a definite article when it talks about him being with God. And actually, it's prostanteon.
He is with the God. He is with the Father. And at the same time, he is God. He shares the nature of deity. But in the New World translation, this is what it says in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was a God.
And they add the indefinite article a and many gallons of ink have been spilled on the issue or have been used, not spilled, but have been used, writing on the issue as to whether or not there should be an article on the noun God there, whether whether it is, in fact, an anarthous noun.
That's what they would call one that need an article. So I don't have a lot of time to spend on that tonight, but I just wanted to reference that in the book, the New World translation, there are total mistranslations of the text, the original Greek.
And so as such, it is not a righteous translation. OK, now, because we're talking tonight about the subject of the Bible being the only inspired, infallible text, it's the only light that we have from God that we are to live by and that we're not supposed to add to the Bible.
And that's what a cult does is like the Mormons. They add the Book of Mormon or the Jehovah's Witnesses add the Watchtower Facts and their their magazine or the or the the Ellen T. White adds her prophecies or whatever, because we know that that's what creates a cult.
We have to step back and ask the question, how do we know that the Bible is it? How do we know that there's not other books that need to go into the Bible? How do we know that there wasn't a time when books were left out of the Bible?
How do we know this? The answer to this question. This is why I pulled from my archives a lesson on what is called canonicity. And that's what you have in your hand, canonicity, determining and discovering the God inspired books.
When I a few years ago taught on the subject of the history of the text of the Bible, this was one of the most important lessons that I did. I have a feeling I'm not going to have time to get all the way through it tonight, but I want to make sure that I say a few very important things about the canon so that you understand some of the important truths and know why we believe them.
The first thing I want to look at is what does canon mean? We talk about under Roman numeral one there under letter A. What does canon mean? As they may know, it is it does mean a measuring rod or a measuring stick.
It's a it's a unit of measurement. It's the rule of measurement is what it is. And it's traced to the ancient Greeks who used the term in a literal sense. To them, a canon was a rod, a ruler, a staff or a measuring stick.
Thus, a canon was the standard of measurement. This literal meaning provided the basis for a later extended use of the term. The word eventually was extended to mean a rule or standard for anything. To say it's the canon means it's the standard.
Yes, but we're just talking now about what the definition of canon, why do we call it the canon of scripture? It's the rule. It's the standard. It's the it's the measuring rod. In theological uses, canon, and this goes to what you're saying, canon refers to the authoritative scripture.
I want to read what F .F. Bruce says about the canon. If you're not familiar with F .F. Bruce, I would appeal to you to get his books, at least some of his books. Some of the introduction to the text of scripture and things like that.
Fantastic information. This is what he says. When we speak of the canon of scripture, the word canon has a simple meaning. It means the lists of book or the list of books contained in scripture. The list of books recognized as worthy to be included in the sacred writings of a worshiping community in a Christian context.
We might define the word as the list of the writings acknowledged by the church as documents of divine revelation. The first clear application of this term to the scriptures is attributed to Athanasius in A .D. 367.
That's the first time we hear the word canon used to describe the Bible. So canon, it's the list of the books. When you open up your Bible, there are 66 books in your Bible if you're Protestant, right?
And when you open up your Bible and you have your Protestant Bible, there are 39 books in the Old Testament. There are 27 books in the Old Testament. And those books we would call the canon, the list.
That's what the canon is. Now, letter B, I want to mention this to you because I think it's very important. There is a difference between inspiration and canonicity. Let me read it to you. Inspiration indicates how the Bible received its authority, whereas canonization tells how the Bible received its acceptance.
It is one thing for God to give the scriptures their authority and another for men to recognize that authority. Inspiration, God inspires the books to be written. Canonization, men recognize that this is from God.
You see, one is a giving, the other is a receiving. So you have two doctrines. The doctrine of inspiration is how God gave it. The doctrine of canonization is how men received it, how the church received the word.
You see, so you have to look at it from both aspects and you have to see it from both sides. All right, finally, in letter C, the significance of canonicity. If the scriptures are indeed inspired by God, then a significant question arises, which books are inspired?
Historically, it was important for the people of God to determine which books God had inspired and which ones were recognized as authoritative. That's a pretty important question when you say if God has inspired books, then we need to know what they are.
If God has inspired books, then we need to know what those books are. If he's gone through the trouble of inspiring his word, then we need to know what his word is. Now, I'm going to say something and I'm not sure if this is in your notes.
Yes, it is. It is in your notes. I want to read it from your notes because this is something that it took me a while to grab a hold of. I hope I hope that you can grab a hold of this tonight. But if you don't, that's cool.
Hopefully, maybe maybe it'll it'll sink in over time. But this is important. The canon itself, what's the canon? The list of the books, the canon itself is not an object of revelation. The canon is an artifact of revelation.
The canon is not an object of revelation. The canon is an artifact of revelation. What do I mean by that? Where has God inspired men or any man to sit down and write the list? Did Paul write a list? Did Peter write a list?
Did Isaiah write a list? Did Moses write a list? So when we say that the book of Mark is inspired by God, or when we say that the book of First Thessalonians is inspired by God, what we mean is that came from God through the mediator of the person.
But it came from God. Holy men were moved or carried along as they were moved by the Holy Spirit, as it says in the epistles of Peter. So we understand that that is revelation, that is an object of revelation, that scripture.
However, never was anyone given a list from heaven. Never did an angel come down from heaven and say, here is the infallible list. Sixty six books, right? In fact, when you open up your Bible, the very first page you come to, usually after the publisher information and the copyright dates and all that stuff, is you come to a list of books, but you know that that list wasn't in the original.
You know that that list wasn't given to us by an apostle or a prophet. So why then do we trust the list? That's an important question. If the list didn't come from an apostle, if the list didn't come from a prophet, if the list didn't come by virtue of revelation, why do we trust the list?
That's an important question. But not one that goes without an answer. Something I wish I had my board in here for, but I don't have it, so I have to paint a picture in your mind. I can do that. I'm a wordsmith, so I'll paint a picture in your mind.
I want you to think about this. I want you to ask this question. Does God or first of all, has God inspired every book that was ever written? And by that, what I mean is every book that's ever written, is it revelation from God?
Is it scripture? No, the answer is obviously no. I'm going to build on this, OK? I just want to get everybody to understand. All books are not scripture, right? All books are not scripture. So only certain books come from the mouth of God.
Only certain books are Theanistas, right? Which the Bible says God breathed, only certain books are. The first question then I would ask is, does God know what he wrote? Does God know what he inspired?
Does God know that he inspired first Corinthians and that he didn't inspire the shepherd of Hermes? Does God know that he inspired the epistle to the Corinthians, the first epistle of the Corinthians, and that he did not inspire the epistle of Barnabas?
Does God know? He knows everything, right? That's pretty easy answer. God knows what he inspired. So here's the second question. And then I would say the more important question, does God want us to know?
Does God want us to know? If God went through the trouble of writing it and God went through the trouble of inspiring it, having it inspired and he knows what it is, would not he then want his people to know what it is?
Absolutely. In fact, I would appeal to the scripture at this point to read a few verses. I want you to hear these because the Bible tells us that God's purpose in giving his word will not fail. Just a few verses for you to think of.
Isaiah 55, 8, verse 8 through 11. Isaiah 55. For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, my thoughts higher than your thoughts.
For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven and do not return there, but water the earth, making it bring forth and sprout, giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater, so shall my word be that goes out of my mouth.
It shall not return to me empty. Another word is void, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it. God said, I sent my word into the world and my word will not return to me void.
I have a purpose for sending it. I have a purpose for giving it to the world. As such, it will not return void. I know what it is. My people are going to know what it is. My people are going to get it and use it.
Number two, Romans chapter 15 and verse four. For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, that through endurance and through the encouragement of the scriptures, we might have hope.
If the Bible was written for us, then isn't God going to ensure that we know what it is? Again, this is not a historical question. This is not a practical question. This is a theological question. If God is sovereign and God has written the word of God, if he's had his word inscribed, is he not going to then ensure that his people know what it is?
First Corinthians chapter 10 and verse 11. Now, these things happen to them as an example, but they were written down for our instruction. This is talking about the situation that happened in the wilderness.
Paul is talking about the situation of wilderness. And he says he said it happened to them, but it was written down for us. He said they received a blessing and they received it says now these things happen to them as an example and was written down for us on whom the end of ages has come.
Finally, First Sympathy 316, we all know First Sympathy 316, it's sort of become the hallmark verse for our church. All scripture is breathed out by God and it is profitable for reproof, for teaching, for correction, for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent and equipped for every good work.
How can we be competent and equipped if we don't know what it is? As such, if it is God's will, if it is God's will, let me say it again, it is God's will that his word be known by his people because he has a purpose in giving it.
And if God has this purpose and it and what God's purpose is always comes to pass, then we can trust that the scripture that we possess has been supernaturally and providentially preserved by him. So ultimately, when we say that we believe we have the scripture, we say we have the scripture because we trust that God has ensured that his people have his word.
Yes, I must have. Yeah, I'm sorry. Second, Timothy 316, we're going to talk that one up to my bad. Thank you. Yeah. Second, Timothy 316. I had it written as first. I can't believe I missed that one. But yes, it was Second Timothy 316.
All right. Now, all that is well and good, but that does create a foundation that does create a foundation because we have to move on from there. All right. If it's God's purpose to have his word be what undergirds his people and God's going to ensure that his people have his word, that still doesn't answer the question.
How do we get it? It still doesn't answer the question. How is it recognized? It only takes us to the point of faith. It only takes us to the point that if we believe God did do it, how to do it. And that's the second part that I think we need to understand, because the second part is determining the canon.
Determining the canon. Who determined the canon? God. God determines the canon. God determines what he wrote. And this is important. And you might want to put a little note down. A book is not inspired because men made it inspired or men added it to the canon.
It is inspired because God wrote it or God breathed it out, God superintended it, however you want to write that. A book is not inspired just because somebody put it on the list. Thus, canonicity is determined by inspiration.
And there is a distinction, letter B, between determination and discovery. Understanding canonicity involves two related but separate issues. Canonicity is determined by God. Canonicity is discovered by man.
And if you wanted to write there, you could write the church. Canonicity is discovered by God's people. The church. A failure to keep this distinction leads to confusion. How a book received its authority is determined by God.
How men discover and recognize that authority is another matter altogether. Letter C. Important points to remember about the canon. Letter A. God determines whether a book is inspired and thus canonical.
Churches and councils do not. There is a myth in the Roman Catholic Church. Well, there's quite a few, but there is a very prominent myth and it has it has gained notoriety in the last, I would say, the last 15 years specifically with the rise of groups like Catholic Answers, which is a radio call in program that people call to ask questions about the Catholic faith.
And they have men like Tim Staples and used to be Jerry Matics, but he's not a part of the group anymore. But people that are Catholic scholars who's there to answer the questions about why do we pray to Mary or why do we do this or why do we do that?
And they're there to answer those all important questions that even Catholics have because they don't find those things in the Bible. But the one myth that has been perpetuated in the Roman Catholic Church is that the Roman Catholic Church determined which books went in the Bible and which ones did not.
That is not the case. The canon of scripture. What is the canon mean? The list, the list of books, the list of books began to show up very early on in the church as the body of Christ began to recognize authoritative writing.
How did they recognize authoritative writing specifically by apostolic power or what we would call apostolic authority? All of Paul's books very early on were codified together as a group and considered to be inspired writing.
In fact, they were so early considered to be inspired that when Peter was writing in his epistles, he considered Paul's writings to be scripture because he said people are often twisting the words of Paul as they do the other scriptures, indicating other as that his scripture as well.
So the books of the apostle Paul, the 13 New Testament books that bear out his name, were very early recognized by the church to be authoritative. The four gospels were very early on considered to be authoritative.
Who are the four gospel writers? Matthew, who himself is an apostle and would have apostolic authority. Mark, who is Mark? Mark is writing from the memory of Peter. A lot of people don't know that Mark is really the epistle of Peter.
It's the gospel of Peter. It's Peter's expression of the gospel. That is why in the book of Mark, we see things about the situation between Peter and Jesus and the betrayal of Peter that we don't find in the other gospels.
Luke, who is Luke? Luke is the associate of Paul, the apostle. So we could rightly call the gospel of Luke. It could be rightly called the gospel of Paul. It's it's very much Pauline in its foundation.
I wouldn't call it that. I'm just giving you an idea. There's apostolic authority here. And of course, John, writing the last of the books, the last gospel, he, of course, is the one whom Jesus loved.
He's the apostle. We know who John is. Right. And Luke wrote Acts. And then you begin with Paul's writings. You have 13 books in Paul's writings. And then you get to what are called the general epistles.
Right. Who wrote Hebrews? No one knows. We can debate it all night long. No one knows who wrote Hebrews. Some people argue it was Paul. Some people are dead set that it wasn't Paul. Some people just are satisfied to not know.
So here's the point. It was very early accepted by the church as scripture. The church recognized its authority. Now, the one book, oh, but let's go to James, who is James, half brother of the Lord and the elder of the Church of Jerusalem, the first elder, the leader of the Church of Jerusalem.
We see that in Acts 15, right? He is a leader in the church. He's under apostolic authority. Peter is there doing the work of the ministry along with him. And as he writes, he writes under that authority.
In fact, James is one of the earliest books of the New Testament. Depending on how you date him. So he's definitely writing under apostolic authority. So you have Hebrews, James. Then who else? First and second, Peter.
Who is Peter? Peter is an apostle. First, second, third, John. Who is John? John is an apostle. The book. Well, let me back up because I want to make sure I say this correctly, particularly because being recorded and I don't want somebody out in the world to hear this and want to argue.
There were two books in the New Testament that took the longest to receive canonization. They took the longest for the church to recognize their authority. One was Hebrews because it was uncertain as to who wrote it.
Hebrews was Hebrews took longer because of the recognition of who wrote it. The other one was Revelation. And I honestly appreciate that it took him a little longer to accept Revelation because, I mean, it's got ten headed dragons and all kinds of stuff.
I mean, you figure when they picked it up to read it, they said this is quite different than all the other books. This one here, this one doesn't read like the Gospel of John, you know. So it takes it took time for the church to recognize, OK, it was written by John.
It was written while he was exiled on Patmos. And it gained that acceptance, didn't gain inspiration. It was inspired as soon as it was written. That's the thing we need to understand. Inspiration comes from God.
Recognition or canonization comes from the church. God inspired us as soon as he inspired it. It's the Bible, but the church recognizes it over time. Now, the earliest canon that we have, the earliest canon, meaning the earliest list of books, it's called the moratorium fragment, and it is a fragment that dates.
I don't have this in my notes. I'm doing this one from memory, but I believe it dates mid second century, sometime around 150. I know it well predates the Council of Nicaea, because there are people who argue that Constantine came into the Council of Nicaea and he's the one who brought the books together and he put out the Gospel of Thomas and all this.
It's a big bunch of nonsense. Dan Brown, bunch of junk. Greek word is baloney. It ain't true. But I will say this about the moratorium fragment, the moratorium fragment. Does have books that were accepted and books that were not yet accepted.
Like the Shepherd of Hermes. And would not become accepted, but they were listed differently. Here's what's interesting about the moratorium fragment, the earliest list of the books that we have, it included all four gospels that we still use today.
It did not include the Gospel of Thomas. It did not include the Gospel of Mary Magdalene. It didn't include all the rest of these Jesus seminar junkies who go out and try to add stuff to the Bible. It didn't include that.
The four gospels, Acts and I believe all of Paul's writings were in the moratorium fragment, the earliest listing of the books that were recognized as authoritative by the church. That's important information for us to know.
But if you have a computer, look up moratorium fragment. As I said, I could have been wrong about the date. I'll have to check it out. These are important things for us to know, important things for us to seek out, important things for us to learn, because in them we learn how we got the Bible.
Now, again, God has inspired some books, but not all books. By virtue of that, a canon is created. Only he knows infallibly what books he has inspired. But it is he who causes his people to recognize what he has written.
Something important to note, never in the history of the church was there ever a time where a group of men went into a dark room with candles and got in a circle and voted which book should go in the Bible.
That did not happen. That's a myth. Now, there was a council later on, I believe, was in the 400s or maybe the 600s that codified scripture. It was it was a Roman Catholic council. But scripture had long before that been recognized as authoritative by the church.
Yes, sir. I'm not getting ahead of you. We're going to do that. Forgot about you. Do the other brother, Jesus. Not that I forgot that one book. Thank you. Yeah, no. Jude also is the half brother of Jesus.
In fact, in the Gospels, he's referred to as Judas. Then in the book, in either way, is the name saying his name. It's not Judas Iscariot, obviously. Judas is a pretty common name, such as James and others.
There are plenty of people who have these names, but we believe Jude was the half brother of Jesus Christ, along with James. Why do we call him half brother? Because they had a different daddy. That's right.
Jesus had a pretty unique daddy. Yes. And that was a necessary ingredient for the early church to decide which books to give to the council. As they're recognizing it, as the church as a body is recognizing these works as being authoritative and bearing apostolic authority as they're receiving them.
Yes, the Holy Spirit is involved. He's moving on them. He's bringing them. My point, though, is the Holy Spirit never provided them a list. He never wrote it like a grocery list and said, here you go.
Here's the book. Rather, it was received by the people of God to be the word of God. Now, here's an interesting thought. Let's just put something out there. If you've never thought about before, did Jesus, when he was on the earth, did he expect the people to know what the word of God was up until that up until that time?
By the way, it's only the Old Testament because New Testament hadn't been written yet. Right. When Jesus was on the earth, did he expect the people to know what the word was? Yeah, because he said not one jot or tittle will be will fall away from the word will pass away until all these things are fulfilled.
He said, you know, not the scriptures nor the power of God. He said these things indicating that we know what the scripture is. But guess what? Prior to Jesus, there never was a council that came together to decide the people of God recognize what the word of God was.
And when Jesus came, he simply solidified and said, yes, this is the word of God. Jesus never once came out and said, hey, you know, the book of Malachi ain't supposed to be in there. You know, he didn't go and do any of that.
Neither did he say that the book of Maccabees and all these other things that are in the Roman Catholic Bible were supposed to be in there. Because, you know, the Jewish canon never included those books as authoritative.
And you think if Jesus was saying, hey, you guys need to know the scriptures and hey, you're missing some. Jesus would have pointed that out. But he did not, which again testifies to the fact that we do have the correct Old Testament.
And if God was able through his people to recognize the authority of his word and codified a scripture in the Old Testament, does he not also have the power and authority to bring that to pass in the New Testament church?
Absolutely, he does. And that's why we believe that what we have is a scripture. And that's why also we believe that when the last apostle died. It was done, John wrote at the end of Revelation, many man adds to this work.
Now, we can make the argument all day that he was talking about just the book of Revelation because that's the scope of what he's writing. But yet at the same time, could we not also say that Revelation is the last holy book written by an apostle?
If it ends with the words, do not add to this, that that could also apply to the entirety of the canon. I think so. I think we could find the meaning there, because in the book of Hebrews chapter one, it says in the old times, God spoke through his prophets and his apostles.
But now he's actually in the I'm misquoting Hebrews one, one and times past, God spoke through the prophets. But in these last days, he has spoken to us through his son has spoken. It is done. The spoken speaking is it's done.
It's had it. And that is what the New Testament is about. What does the New Testament give us? The New Testament gives us the revelation of Jesus Christ and the interpretation of his works. And when it finalizes with the last work of Christ, which is the redemption of his people and the bringing them into heaven and the judging of the world, it stops and there's no more need for any more revelation.
It tells about who he is, all the epistles interpret what he did and in the book of Revelation says what he's going to do next. And that's what we need. And that's why when Joseph Smith comes along or Mary Baker comes along or Ellen G. White comes along and they add to it, they demonstrate their cultish attitude.
Yes. Yes, sir. Those seven books, you talk about the other that you tell us why they are not biblical. I will say this. They were they were not recognized in the Palestinian canon. They were recognized as as authoritative in, I believe, in the Egyptian area.
And when Jerome was, you know, doing the Vulgate, the Latin Vulgate, he went and visited Jerusalem. He went and visited the Palestinian area, the Jews, and he talked and he and he found out they don't have these books that we have these additional all they are history books, additional history.
You know, the Maccabees, the wars of the Maccabees and the Antiochus Epiphanes and all those wars that happened with the Maccabees. We, you know, well, they do. Yeah. You know, isn't it called Bell and the Dragon is one of them.
There's there's I have to get the list. There are some things. In fact, it's from the it's from the Apocrypha that they would make the argument for the what's called purgatory, which is that holding area that you're supposed to go to after you die.
However, even in the Apocrypha, there's only like one place where they could point to and say, this could sort of be talking about purgatory. There's really purgatory is one of those indefensible doctrines similar to the veneration of Mary and other things like that.
But I'd be happy to get the information on those books and present it when we when we do our textual study in September. I just want to basically to get into an extensive study would be rather time consuming, but I am interested to know maybe I maybe I need to get those books and read them myself.
You know, it's history. We as long as we read them not on par with scripture, I don't have any problem with reading. That's I don't like to I don't like them when they're included in my Bible. I don't like to get a Bible that has them in there.
I think my scriptures, the 66 books would be enough for me to challenge me. Yeah, it's interesting, though, you realize that in 400 years. The people of Israel, you realize how many things changed. You think about it, when Jesus came on the scene, he was talking to scribes, Pharisees and Sadducees, you never read about them in the Old Testament.
You ever read the word Pharisee in the Old Testament? No. These all these bands and political systems and things like that cropped up during what we call the intertestamental period. So it's worth studying how these things occurred and how the religious conservatives, the Pharisees and the religious liberals, the Sadducees and the Herodians, who were followers of Herod and his underlings and how these groups came about.
So it's it's worthy of study, but it's not it's not worthy to ever take place of scripture study. Yes, ma 'am. The church recognized the books as authoritative as they were being written, the canon was the canon was fluid for a time, meaning as new books were written by prophets, like in the Old Testament, Moses is writing as he's writing and he's finishing books that the people of God are recognizing the man of God is speaking the word of God and he's writing it.
Thus, this has authority. Then you have Joshua and then you go on into the judges and then you look at the you know, the thing about it looks like chronicles and stuff like that. Those had multiple writers, but yet it was understood by the people that these this information is being codified to us by God and thus it was recognized.
It wasn't that one person was sitting there and say, this is in and this is out or any group was saying this is in or this is out. It was the people of God recognizing what was authoritative, what was coming from God.
And it was being done by a man of God having that and I'm trying to find the appropriate word, having that authority to provide the the the the ability to say no if something was incorrect. For instance, let's say that in the New Testament, let's say somebody did write a book called the Apostle Keith Fossey or the epistle of Keith Fossey.
Right. You know, somebody wrote that book and somebody tried to bring this to the church and have it read within the churches and have it to be studied by the churches. And the apostles are there to say, no, this is not from God.
This is not something that God has inspired these. Number one, it doesn't include the truth of the history of the Lord Jesus Christ. It doesn't agree with the gospel. It is not authoritative. It's not from God.
The apostles were there as the arm and the mouthpiece of God to provide that authority. If you think about it, the apostles did have a very powerful mandate from Christ. He says he said many things to them.
He said things to them that a lot of us probably don't even understand. Whatsoever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and what shall whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
There was a certain authority that was given to the apostles. They had the authority to speak and people would rise and walk. Silver and gold have I none, but this I have to you that I say to you this day, rise and walk in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.
But the church from the very earliest time were recognizing these books as having authority. And if the book came from an apostle, this is why I said it took so much time for revelation to be accepted, because it took time for the church to recognize that this is actually from the pen of John when he was exiled to Patmos.
This is from him. It's not some crazy, whacked out person who used a pseudonym, but this is actually from John himself and thus has the apostolic authority. Apostolic authority is very important in understanding the New Testament concept of canonization because the apostles are there to stop the influx of false teaching and to confirm that which is true.
Is it easy to understand? Not necessarily. But at the same time, we recognize going back to the very beginning of what I said, if God knows what he wrote and God wanted us to know what he wrote, then certainly he would ensure that we would know what he wrote.
Well, the apostle for one thing had to have a direct relationship with Christ himself. Sure. Who lived with him and worked with him for almost all of his time on earth. Well, to be among the twelve. Yes.
Paul would be the only exception. Paul's ministry was not one of having walked with Christ, but rather one having been specifically called by Christ with a physical revelation of himself. Yes. You know, Paul didn't walk with Christ when the apostles lost Judas.
They replaced him with which one? Remember? Mathias. That's right. Yeah. We replaced him with Mathias. What was the one record? The one requirement had to have been there from the beginning. Right. That was what you're just talking about.
Yes, because he fulfilled that 12th place because it was very important that they had that those 12 men, because that that that number of men was very important. But Paul comes along as one. What did he call himself?
Born out of season. I wasn't brought up and born with the rest of the apostles. I'm the odd man out, but I have a purpose, and that's to take the gospel to the Gentiles. So I'm just saying just to just make the point, there's scripture that's authoritative by Paul, by his writings, and we don't want to leave him out as having that authority.
And it was affirmed by who? What would have happened if Paul would have affirmed himself as an apostle and he went to the other apostles and they said, no, you're not. What if I mean, have you ever considered that one of Paul would have said, hey, I saw Jesus on the road to Damascus and all the other apostles said, no, you didn't.
There was questions. There were questions. Yes, but but did they recognize him as authoritative or not? Absolutely, they did. There was questions, wouldn't you be? Sure. Oh, it's all about canonization, understanding what books are supposed to be.
There's all about faith. But again, if you think about it in sort of just a practical way, and I'm sorry for those of you who are needing to leave, I know I'm gone way over time. But if you think about it just from a strictly practical standpoint, New Testament is written between the time of forty five and ninety, depending on where you date Revelation could be as early as 70, could be as late as 90.
It depends on how you date Revelation, the books of John, but giving it as long as do you looking at forty five years where in the New Testament is written, it is written under the authority or by the authority of the apostles.
Any books that were written after 90 are not accepted. The church never recognized anything after 90 as being authoritative. This is why books that try to add anything like the Book of Mormon or even the Book of the Gospel of Thomas, which is written around 150, the Gospel of Mary Magdalene, sometime in the 300s.
These books were never recognized authoritative because there was no apostle there to give it the stamp of approval. There was no one there to say this is from God or this is not. That's a very practical way to look at it.
And I think it easier. Yes. And then if you think about the Old Testament, the Old Testament has the greatest affirmation of any book in the world. Jesus Christ said this is scripture. The same list that we have now is the same list he had then.
They had 24, we had 39. Oh, that's confusing. Why do they have 24 and we have 39? Because they numbered them different and they ordered them different. That's all. Wasn't a different group of books. They had we have 12 minor prophets.
They had one book. We have. First and second Chronicles, they had the Chronicles. It's easy to whittle 39 to 24 when you when you number them differently. It's about not understanding them. Yeah, because they had them.
He said, you have them, but you don't understand. Yeah. All right. I hope this was beneficial. I hope it helps to add to your understanding of what we're studying tonight. Let's pray. Father, we thank you for this opportunity to look at the canon of scripture.
We thank you for this video and wonderful teachers like Dr. White and these other men who spent so much time, obviously, in putting their heart and soul into teaching us about these the marks of the cult.
And we just pray, oh, Lord, that as we go into this week and we we go into Sunday, that we just come to church with a heart ready and excited. We love you, Lord. We praise you in Jesus name. Amen.