The Canon Quiz (not the Cannon!)

Welcome to No Compromise Radio, a ministry coming to you from Bethlehem Bible Church in West Boylston.

No Compromise Radio is a program dedicated to the ongoing proclamation of Jesus Christ, based on the theme in Galatians 2, verse 5, where the

Apostle Paul said, But we did not yield in subjection to them for even an hour, so that the truth of the gospel would remain with you.

In short, if you like smooth, watered -down words to make you simply feel good, this show isn't for you.

By purpose, we are first biblical, but we can also be controversial. Stay tuned for the next 25 minutes as we're called by the divine trumpet to summon the troops for the honor and glory of her

King. Here's our host, Pastor Mike Abendroth. Welcome to No Compromise Radio ministry. My name is

Mike Abendroth, and it is June, nope, it's

January 14th. I still have a little bit of COVID fog here, but we are marching to Zion, are we not?

You can always write me, Mike, at NoCompromiseRadio .com. At NoCoRadio is

Twitter, at NoCoRadio is Gitter, and Facebook is,

I think, No Compromise Radio. But NoCompromiseRadio .com, if you like to go, there's all kinds of shows there, probably 3 ,000 old shows.

And I'm feeling well enough that we're trying to do three new shows a week now. Monday's is a replay of the sermon

I preached on Sunday here at Bethlehem Bible Church. We're going through the book of Ephesians right now. Two sermons a chapter, so a brief 12 -week overview.

I'm sticking to my guns, 12 weeks. And Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, usually have

Tuesday Guy on Tuesday. That's kind of an odd day to have Tuesday Guy, don't you think? He will be back recording next week with me.

So that's in two weeks from today, it'll start airing. And what else?

Wednesday, Thursdays. I haven't really interviewed people on Wednesdays like I used to.

I had Luke in last week and Ryan Jack in, which played this week in real time.

But anyway, we're glad to have you listen. The show has been a blessing to me. Hopefully it's been a blessing to you.

We've changed from kind of attack mode, looking at everybody who compromises mode.

My breathing's better than this, but I don't know why I have a frog in my throat. Usually first show I do, first shoe

I do, riding the bike some, feeling better, going to the gym. But anyway, we switched to talk about Jesus a lot.

I was on the phone with Todd Freel last night and I talked about the evolution of No Compromise Radio in a good way, maturation, maybe

I could say it that way, to talk about the one who never compromised. Instead of exposing compromisers all the time, let's talk about the one that never compromised.

So typically that's what we do here. I have certain hobby horses, Jesus, assurance, law gospel distinction, theological covenants, a redemptive historical preaching, preaching not sharing, no fill in the blanks from an outlines, don't mess around with justification, i .e.

Doug Wilson, don't capitulate to the culture, Tim Keller.

So that's what the show sees, that's what we're known for. I found something interesting and I'd like to talk about it today on the show.

I found an examination book for New Testament introduction, instructor Dr. Robert Thomas.

This is the final, dated April 30th, 1996.

Okay, I wonder what I wrote in this. This was my lowest grade,

I received it seminary and I received a C, 81%. That's a

C. In the old days, 80 to 90 was a B, but not in Dr. Thomas' breakout.

The first question I wrote here was, number one, yes. So I guess that's, did you read everything?

Secondly, it says John's gospel. I'm just going to read this. If I think the show is going well, I'll keep going. If I don't think it's going well, we'll switch up to something else.

And I'm not going to read the whole test, but I'll read part of the test and then we'll talk about it. So this is about the gospel of John and its authenticity or lack thereof.

The conservatives believe that John the apostle wrote the book of John. Some more liberal commentators believe that John the elder wrote it and other even more extremely liberal scholars believe that a

Palestinian or another John wrote the fourth gospel. Raymond Brown wrote a thesis on the authorship of John.

And since he's a very influential scholar, Roman Catholic, by the way, many believe or are swayed by his way of thinking.

He believed that John originally wrote the gospel. Then it was shaped by other writers from a

Johannine school. Then it was put in the proper sequence, material was added to it and it was edited or redacted.

And finally we have what we currently have today known as the gospel of John. I thought, you know what?

Too bad we can't remember things like that, right? How many things have we learned about the Bible that are true that we've forgotten?

Some things I learned about the Bible weren't true and I'm glad I forgot them. And of course in heaven, we won't forget anything good, anything true, anything right that we've learned about the

Lord and actually as finite glorified beings in heaven, we'll still learn much about the infinite thrice holy

God. So we get to keep learning in heaven, that's good. But on earth, what's the old slogan? We tend to remember what we're supposed to forget and we tend to forget what we're supposed to remember.

Anyway, I just was talking to a friend today who was feeling anxious and depressed and just reminded him of the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man.

Just kidding. No, I reminded him that God is his father.

And if he, this man, is not going to kick out his children when they do something wrong,

I think the heavenly father, he's not going to do that either. He might chase disobedience and often does, but he doesn't kick us out of the family.

Anyway, today we're back to this test. I just off on a little rant, off a ramp into a rant.

The only good part about this theory is that it does attribute some of John's gospel to John. Unfortunately, this theory has many problems.

Primarily, it does not allow enough time to let all the shaping, sequencing, redacting to take place. Secondly, how does this theory reconcile all of the

Johannine words and syntax that currently exist? When the redaction style words become prevalent?

Hmm. I think what I meant to say is that if you look at the five Johannine books, it shouldn't surprise us that the gospel of John, according to John, 1

John, 2 John, 3 John, and the book of Revelation, Jude and Revelation, it shouldn't surprise us that there are many similarities in the way things are written, right?

We have writers who write in a unique way, and if you study 1 Peter and 2

Peter, you can see some of that. Or if you hear some of Peter's sermons in Acts, you say, oh yeah, that's

Petrine. What else would I say here? Tertullian, Irenaeus, and Clement all affirmed that John the

Apostle wrote John. He made a little red note here. Papias.

What about the Papias statement? I don't know. What about it? Some reasons supporting the

Apostle John's writing are that he was a Jew. He quoted the Hebrew Old Testament, not the Septuagint, like most non -Jews.

Secondly, he was very familiar with Palestine, as the writer John was. The gospel records many geographical locations, like the

Pool of Siloam, etc. Thirdly, John's account of Christ were that of an eyewitness. Fourthly, he was definitely an insider, the disciple whom

Jesus loved. This book was written by someone, all of the above, not an elder or redactor.

Time of writing, 80 to 85 AD. Then we had to chronologize.

We had to give a chronology of the sequence of Paul's writings off the top of our head. That's interesting.

I don't think I could do this today, but I could do it then. So 1 Thessalonians, written from Corinth.

What are the circumstances, or is it second missionary journey? And then the date, 51. 2

Thessalonians, same, 51. 1 Corinthians, written in 55 AD, etc. What I do find interesting with that, because there's a list of 12 or 13 books there, is that as time goes on, when you look at the

New Testament canon, you're seeing a dimming of supernatural gifts.

There are four books in the New Testament that talk about spiritual gifts. 1

Peter 4, Ephesians 4, so we've got a 4 and a 4, and then we've got two 12s, 1

Corinthians 12 and Romans 12. And the lists aren't the same, which is of no big surprise.

But if you combine all those gifts, you can understand a little bit about what God does as He equips

His church, and the spiritual gifts given by the Spirit of God at salvation, sovereignly, tell us much.

Well, here's one thing that infers. If I ask you the question, which one of those books or chapters, 1

Corinthians 12, Romans 12, Ephesians 4, 1 Peter 4, which one has sign gifts like miracles and tongues and healings?

Those kind of things. Well, you would say 1 Corinthians 12. Which one do you think was written first?

What's the earliest of those four? And isn't it interesting that 1

Corinthians, written in 55 AD, and according to my notes, Ephesians written in 61

AD, and then you've got 1 Peter, and what's the other one?

Romans. Romans written in 56 AD. Isn't it interesting that as time goes on, we don't have those gifts listed, and it's as if as the canons coming together, the sign gifts pointing to the true canon are no longer needed.

So, my name is Mike Ebendroth. This is No Compromise Radio Ministry. This is a test I took in New Testament introduction back in 1996.

I still believe that John wrote John. How about that? You don't even have to go to liberal seminary now to figure that out.

Romans. Who wrote Romans? Paul said he wrote it, so he did. Problem of introduction.

Some of the manuscripts, not the best ones, do not contain in Rome, verse 7 and verse 15 of chapter 1.

This has caused some scholars to question its authenticity. Second problem, the doxology problem.

There are currently four different doxologies in the book of Romans. Does it end after chapter 15, verse 20?

After chapter 16, verse 24? After chapter 16, verses 25 to 26? The best answer is that 1624 is excluded, and that 1625 to 26 is the true

Pauline doxology. So let's talk about that for a second. And when you think of manuscript evidence, there are many manuscripts, and we say to ourselves, the oldest ones, closest to the time of the

New Testament being written, are the best ones. The problem is, the farther you go back, the fewer you get.

In other words, you've got a lot of manuscripts around the 900 AD, and you've got a few from 600

AD, and so do you go for the bulk or do you go for the earliest? And we think, at No Compromise Radio, we plural, we royal, we, that you go for the earliest.

Even though Muslims and others destroyed a lot of those 7th century, 6th century manuscripts, we still have some, and they are the closest to the original, therefore we'll keep those.

So the end of the book of Romans, how does it end? I mean, sometimes we talk about the end of Mark, sometimes we talk about John 8.

What about the book of Romans chapter 16? In my ESV study

Bible that I have here, it has verse 23 of chapter 16, "...Gaius, who is host to me and to the whole church, greets you.

Erastus, the city treasurer, and our brother Quartus greet you."

That's verse 23. Then verse 24 is gone. There's no verse 24. That's crazy.

There's not even a note in the ESV study Bible about verse 24. Hmm. By the way, when you go to Corinth, and I've been to Corinth, you see a little pavement, a little stone there, probably limestone, and it says, "...Erastus,

in return to his aedleship, laid the pavement at his own expense."

Someone that oversees finances is an aedle, according to the ESV study Bible. And it's kind of interesting that you've got this

Erastus there. But anyway, what about verse 24? Then we have verse 25.

"...Now to him who was able to strengthen you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery that was kept secret for long ages, but has now been disclosed and through the prophetic writings has been made known to all nations, according to the command of the eternal

God, to bring about the obedience of faith to the only wise God, be glory forevermore through Jesus Christ."

Amen. Well, what did I say in the notes? The reason for this is that chapters 15 and 16 must be taken as a complete unit for it to make sense.

The typical Pauline doxology is 16 verses 25 to 26.

So basically, I said, I don't know the answer. Well, I was younger in the faith.

How many years ago was that? Four, 22, 26 years ago.

What did I know then? The Marcion canon, he did not include chapters 15 or 16 of Romans.

This was due to the fact that Marcion rejected all Old Testament laws. He just axed out the final two chapters.

Conclusion, there's only one true doxology from Paul. Marcion canon muddled, is that a word?

The waters and subsequent manuscripts became mixed up with earlier manuscripts and then resulted in a hodgepodge of four possible doxology.

He gave me 75 % for that lame answer. Well, the easiest way to go about this is

Matthew wrote Matthew, Mark wrote Mark, Luke wrote Luke, and John wrote John. That just makes it the easiest.

If you want to debate a particular author, maybe we should just save our time for the book of Hebrews, but since Paul wrote it, did

Paul write it? You know, that's a real hard one. I want Paul to have written it, but some of the language is difficult.

All right, Petrine authorship, 2 Peter, that's a good one. Sometime, if you want to study the canon, right,

C -A -N -O -N, the measuring stick, which books are in the canon, which ones aren't, remember that the key word is not created.

The church didn't create the canon. We're not Roman Catholics. The church recognized the canon.

Now, that makes sense because the Holy Spirit who dwells in us, who illumines, would work in the eastern parts of the church back then, the western parts of the church back then, and amazingly, by coinkydink, they both recognized similar canons.

And people somehow want it to be,

I can't even talk now, oh, we'll tell you which one's in the canon. No, no, we'll recognize which one's in the canon.

One's a very passive way to understand, and the other's like, we'll tell you which one's in and which one's out.

I think it was Robert Raymond who said, it's interesting, if you were going to put together a canon, how would you do it?

Well, you'd make sure it was fixed and immovable, and you would have some gold plates come down from an angel to make sure that this is the canon, which obviously, that's

Mormonism. But the way the Lord did it is providentially, working behind the scenes, having his men write by inspiration, by God -breathing,

Theopneustos, and then the church recognizes these as canonical. And we have certain tests, apostolic or closely related, etc.

Petrine authorship, though, 2 Peter, that's a tough one, because it is attacked the most.

So I wrote on my test in 1996, 2 Peter is the most widely criticized

New Testament epistle. Boy, my printing was bad, and my grammar wasn't very good either, but you have to write super fast because you only have

X amount of time with this exam. It has been attacked in every front. History does show us, history shows us that.

That's probably what I should have said. Origin accepted it as canonical, and that it was later affirmed as canonical by the counsel of Athanasius and Laodicea, 397.

Question mark by Athanasius, he knew I was wrong on that.

The book claims that Simon Peter is the author, and it also gives many other personal allusions to Petrine authorship.

Peter was there at the Transfiguration when he was on the Holy Mount, and he alluded to other passages of Scripture that we would take as being in Mark's Gospel, because Mark's Gospel, we think, was influenced by Peter.

Historically, Peter is also the author, your apostle, what? Peter also is the author, historically, okay.

Your apostle allows for his authorship, eyewitness to Transfiguration makes Peter a candidate.

In regards to literary areas, the common bond to Jude has always surfaced.

Why are the two books so similar? Which came first? I believe the problem is settled when you look at the verb tenses in Jude and 2

Peter. In Jude, the tenses regarding false teachers are present. They're here. Remember that old

Poltergeist movie, that little girl sitting there by the TV, or was she in the TV, looking at the TV? They're here.

That's Jude. In 2 Peter, they're future. Be careful. These people are coming.

There are two words that only appear in 1 Peter and 2 Peter. 2 Peter could also have been written by Immanuensis.

In other words, there are a lot of words that John uses in all his books, but Peter doesn't have similar words in verses, in chapters one to five of 1

Peter and chapters one to three in 2 Peter. So maybe in Immanuensis, maybe his secretary wrote it.

Yes, he was dictating. False teachers warned about Peter are actually among the readers of Jude. Doctrine is also no problem for 2

Peter. Yes, it has a different focus on the parousia, the second coming, but this can be accounted for by the context and specific points that Peter wants to bring out.

1 Peter, the eminent return, 2 Peter, the delayed return, question mark, and he said stylistic.

All right, what else do I have on here? That's all I have. That was the test. No wonder I got a C. I'll never forget,

I had to go to a business meeting and so I asked if I could have those two classes of that particular week off.

And I said to Dr. Thomas, like I said to all my professors, I understand that I'm going to miss this class and that if I have to be docked in a grade,

I understand asking for mercy and if you want me to do any extra work,

I'll be glad to do it just so I don't have to lose any points. And then Dr.

Thomas said, no problem, he'll be excused. And then a couple of weeks later, in the announcements at the beginning of class, he said, and Mike Ebendroth, because he would just make these announcements before the class, before we prayed.

Mike Ebendroth, by the way, I looked at the handbook of the Master's Seminary and your days off are unexcused.

I said, okay. And I just had to take it.

Well, the good news about that class, there's lots about that class that I may, if I was teaching

NTI, I would teach it differently, New Testament introduction. But I did come out of that class knowing that the

New Testament was recognized by the church and that from Matthew to Revelation, I could trust it as the

Word of God. And isn't that important? I mean, that's probably affected everything in my life since as a pastor, because if certain things aren't scripture, then why preach them?

If certain things are just men's opinions, why bother? I just was listening to a chapel message yesterday and I don't think the guy opened up his

Bible. So what does he have to tell me? I can have better speakers in TED Talks, you know,

I'd rather listen to Jocko or Joe Rogan than somebody stand up in a

Christian chapel and just run their mouth. I mean, who cares? But now, since we do have a canon and we can see how accurate it is, then let's let that do its work.

Let's preach. Let's just, when you're a Bible teacher, when you're a Sunday school teacher, when you're a preacher, when you're on the radio, you just open up the

Bible and let the Bible do its work. And it can do its work in ways that are much more powerful than we could come up with, our best persuasions and arguments and pleadings and beggings and exhortations and threatenings.

Those are just our words, but the Word of God is powerful. It's wonderful, and it does its work, and it shows us as we see the

Scriptures unfold the glories of Christ, both in the Old Testament and in the New Testament.

Anyway, it would be good for you to pick up a book on the canon or on how the

Scriptures are sufficient, authoritative, how did the Church recognize these books to be in the canon, not determine, but recognize.

And so that's really the watchword for today. The Church recognized, not determined, the canon.

And it's not C -A -N -N -O -N. How was Diane Cannon's name spelled?

I remember seeing her all the time on the floor of the Laker games. Diane Cannon, Jack Nicholson, who else?

One time I went to a Laker game and walked right past Mr. T, and I thought, I'm so much taller than he is, maybe

I could take him. Well, that's all

I have today for No Compromise Radio. I have some song sheets in front of me, and one of the songs is

Jacob's Ladder. We are climbing Jacob's Ladder, we are climbing Jacob's Ladder, we are climbing Jacob's Ladder, soldiers of the cross.

I think Michael Horton loves that song. Climbing up from earth to heaven, climbing up from earth to heaven, climbing up to earth to heaven, soldiers of the cross.

Every round goes higher, higher, every round goes higher, higher. Every round goes higher, higher, soldiers of the cross.

Sinners do you love my Jesus? Sinner do you love my Jesus? Sinner do you love my Jesus? Soldiers of the cross.

Anyway, that's the way the song goes. That's not how the song ends, but I wish it ended sooner than later.

You can write me, Mike, at NoCompromiseRadio .com. Thanks for listening. Tell your friends.

No Compromise Radio with Pastor Mike Abendroth is a production of Bethlehem Bible Church in West Boylston.

Bethlehem Bible Church is a Bible teaching church firmly committed to unleashing the life -transforming power of God's Word through verse -by -verse exposition of the sacred text.

Please come and join us. Our service times are Sunday morning at 1015 and in the evening at 6. We're right on Route 110 in West Boylston.

You can check us out online at bbchurch .org or by phone at 508 -835 -3400.