The Ass Speaks!

Salvation and righteousness - by Faith

2011-06-14T00:45:00.000-07:00

. . . in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: "The righteous will live by faith."
(Romans 1:17)

Forgiveness through faith, resulting in changed lives

2011-04-20T00:40:00.001-07:00

Thd idea that Paul preached a gospel of grace regardless of our actions, is not quite correct.

According to Paul, we can be saved by faith in Jesus, and this is a gift from God, not the result of any work we may have accomplished or be in the process of accomplishing. We place our confidence in the sacrifice of Jesus, because he told us to trust him, to believe in him. We trust that he will vouch for us before God, that he took our place on the cross, that he died instead of us, so we can know God, be reconciled and enter into an eternal relationship with him.

All of this by faith, dependant on God's grace. We can't earn nor affect this salvation, this gift of God.

However, Paul makes it quite clear virtually every time he talks about the fact that God has saved us by his grace, when he place our faith and confidence in him; that following on from this intervention of God in our lives, our behaviour and general living reveals what has taken place.

So he says in Acts 26 while talking to Agrippa :

"I preached that they should repent and turn to God and prove their repentance by their deeds." (Acts 26:20)

For Paul, the deeds do not save, they don't gain us any merit with God, they don't earn us credit in heaven, they are merely the proof that we have repented of our former lives and turned to God.

Repent: Our deeds reveal that we have recognised that our way of living, our way of choosing for ourselves apart from God, believing that we knew better than God, that we could do without God; in this we were wrong.

Turn to God: Which is why we turned to God. We recognise that we need him, that he knows best how we might live best, for our own good and for his glory, for our peace, for our joy. We are created to be in relationship with him, living apart from this relationship is existing, at best it is living only a part of what we were created for. So we turn to God, we trust in his wisdom, his grace. We seek to listen to his instruction, his teaching, his voice.

Thus our deeds reveal this ; that we recognise that we cannot live to our best when we live apart from God, so we have turned to God in order to truly live, so we are goverened by God, not by ourselves.

But no-where does Paul indicate that our way of living is what gains our salvation, our peace with God. It is upon our faith in Jesus, our trust in God, that God enters into our lives and fills us with his grace and peace and joy and light. Which itself results in changed lives, acts, deeds and behaviour.

What if there is no change in a person? What if there behaviour sees no significant modification? Perhaps the question is better asked of oneself. If I see no change in me, if I continue to behave selfishly, proudly, without compassion, without love I must ask myself the question: am I really trusting in Jesus ? Am I really putting my confidence in him and his teaching? Do I realy recognise that basing my life and choices on my own opinions instead of the opinions of Jesus is a negative way of living?

By the same score, we need to remember too that living our lives according to God's will, is sometimes a struggle. Somewhere, a part of us continues to rebel against God's rule, and that provokes an inner struggle, between that part of us that wants to live according to God's design and that part that wants no part of God's plan. The struggle is real, and sometimes the results that we see in our behaviour are not those which make us most proud. But that does not negate what God has done and is doing in our lives.

Salvation is given by God's grace, when we place our faith in him, and faith hopes and looks forward to the accomplishment of God's work. For now we continue on the road, sometimes stumbling, but with God at our side to help us back up and to continue the way.

Forgiveness through faith in Jesus

2010-11-10T12:21:00.000-08:00

. . . nous avons compris que l'on est déclaré juste devant Dieu, non parce que l'on accomplit les oeuvres que commande la Loi, mais uniquement par la foi en Jésus-Christ. C'est pourquoi nous avons, nous aussi, placé notre confiance en Jésus-Christ pour être déclarés justes par la foi et non parce que nous aurions accompli ce qu'ordonne la Loi. Car, comme le dite l'Ecriture : Personne ne sera déclaré juste devant Dieu parce qu'il aura accompli ce qu'ordonne la Loi. . . Ainsi, je ne rejette par la grâce de Dieu en revenant à la Loi. En effet, si c'est l'obéissance à la Loi qui permet d'être déclaré juste, alors le Christ est mort pour rien!
(Galates 2:16,21)

Or, nous le savons, ce que l'Ecriture dit dans la Loi, elle l'adresse à ceux qui vivent sous le régime de la Loi. Il en est ainsi pour que personne n'ait rien à répliquer et que le monde entier soit reconnu coupable devant Dieu. Car personne ne sera déclaré juste devant lui parce qu'il aura accompli les oeuvres demandées par la Loi. En effet, la Loi donne seulement la connaissance du péché. . . Dieu déclare les hommes juste par leur foi en Jésus-Christ . . .
(Romains 3:19-20,22)

Forgiveness through Jesus

2010-11-04T01:33:00.000-07:00

I read this today, and it seemed pertinent to post it on this blog concerning what different confessions might suggest for forgiveness.

"Therefore my brothers, I want you to know that through Jesus the forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you. Through him everyone who believes is justified from everything you could not be justified from by the law of Moses."
(Acts 13:38-39 NIV)

"Sachez-le donc, mes frères: c'est grâce à lui que nous pouvons vous annoncer le pardon de vos péchés. Par la Loi de Moïse, vous n'avez jamais pu être acquittés de toutes vos fautes. Par contre, tous ceux qui croient en Jésus sont acquittés et considérés comme des justes aux yeux de Dieu."
(Actes 13:38-39 Parole Vivante)

"Frères, vous devez le savoir: c'est par Jésus que le pardon des péchés vous est annoncé; c'est par lui que quiconque croit est libéré de tous les péchés dont la loi de Moïse ne pouvait vous délivrer."
(Actes 13:38-39 Bible Français Courant)

"Sachez-le donc, mes frères, c'est grâce à lui que le pardon des péchés vous est annoncé ; c'est par lui que tout homme qui croit est acquitté de toutes les fautes dont vous ne pouviez pas être acquittés par la Loi de Moïse."
(Actes 13:38-39 Bible du Semeur)

What's interesting here is that the text demonstrates that the Law of Moses was not able to justify believers of everything. Yes it was God's Law, but it had limits. We find echoes here of Romains and also Hebrews. (For example Hebrews 10:1-4 regarding the limits of the Law)

However, Jesus has no limits in terms of offering forgiveness and justifying those who believe. The text says that we can be forgiven and justified of everything, including that for which the Law was unable to justify us, through believing in Jesus.

Which leads to perhaps the most important point, for this blog anyway, that forgiveness and justification come through believing in Jesus-Christ. Not through accomplishing anything, not through sacrifice, not through anything apart from believing in Jesus.

Obviously, the term "believing in Jesus" implies more than just believing that Jesus exisited once upon a time. Paul was talking to people who could even have seen or heard Jesus speak. Proving the existence of a man named Jesus is never a concern of the Biblical writers, it was an evidence. So whenever they talk about believing in Jesus, it means more than acknowledging that he existed. It implies believing what he taught, what he said, what he did. It implies believing and trusting that he told the truth. It means placing ones faith in the person of Jesus.

This verse is actually quite specific, it says "Through him, everyone who believes is justified". If we want to be forvigen of all the wrong we have done, against God and others; if we want to be purged of the feelings of guilt and shame resulting from our past, and maybe even our present; we need to believe. We need to believe that God can and will give us these things, because of Jesus, his life, his death, his ressurection.

We don't have to go on a pilgrimage.
We don't have to take the bread and wine of communion.
We don't have to live a perfect life.
We don't have to go to church.
WE HAVE TO BELIEVE JESUS AND TRUST HIM, which does of course imply that we will act on what he says.

Not that any of these other things are necessarilly bad. Some of them are even asked of us by Jesus himself. But it is not in doing any of them that we can be forgiven and justified. Only by believing him, and putting our faith in him.

On who's authority pt 2

2009-05-11T00:10:00.000-07:00

I was reading 1 Thessalonians the other day and a couple of passages stood out to me, in connection with this discussion regarding the apocrypha.

The first is the versets 19-22 of chapter 5:

Do not put out the Spirit's fire; do not treat prophecies with contempt. Test everything. Hold on to the good. Avoid every kind of evil.
(1 Thessalonians 5:19-22)

What struck me is that this verse, in the very least, encourages believers to not despise prophecies, revelations from God, but it also encourages them to test what is said. Paul encourages the believers to listen to what someone passes on as a word from God, but not just to accept it without examination and questioning.

God speaks, he longs to speak to us and communicate with us. He uses men and women to do so, this is how the Bible came to us, through God using his children to write things down for us. But not all prophecy nor all so-called revelation is from God. It's important to examine what is being said, to discern that which is in agreement with the character of God, and that which is not. With the help of the Holy Spirit, we are called to discern, to hold on to that which is good, and to avoid all sorts of evil.

This has echoes of the Bereans who studied the Scriptures dilligently to verify what was being said to them.

With the help of the Holy Spirit and the God breathed Scriptures, we should be able to discern what is from God and what is not, and hence live a life pleasing to him.

We are not called, as Christians, to just accept blindly all that is said to us, all that is taught to us, all that is claimed to be revelation.

The other passage which struck me was 1 Thessalonians 4:15-18 where Paul says :

According to the Lord's own word, we tell you . . .
(1 Thessalonians 4:15)

One or two commentators have pointed out that the Gospels contain no record of the following words being pronounced by Jesus. So it would seem that Paul was passing on teaching received from Jesus, but which was not recorded in the Gospels nor the beginning of Acts.

The teaching given in the following verses and the next chapter draws on teaching found in Matthew 24 and 24 concerning the return of Jesus and the final judgement.

What struck me particularly, was the fact that Jesus said many other things which are not recorded in the Gosples. John admits as much in the last verse of his Gospel :

Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.
(John 21:25)

So Jesus said and did many other things which God in his widsom decided to allow to not be recorded in the New Testament for us.

The Apocryphal books may or may not have been written by godly men, they may even have been written by prophets, but if they have never been accepted by the whole of the community of God, why should they be included as inspired Scripture, as not even all the words of Jesus have been included ?

The writer's of the Gospels had intentions when they wrote, they wanted to communicate something about Jesus. God, in bringing about the writing and compilation of the Bible, wanted to communicate something.

The Bible is not just a collection of all the holy writing of the Jews, or of God's people. It is a work which has a purpose, the purpose of it's author, who is God. The Bible describes to us and show us God's desire to be in communion with his creation, it shows us what God has done to reach out to us, to repare our mistakes, to give us his love.

The purpose of the Bible is not that we become clever people, or knowledgable people, it is that we might know that we are the beloved creation of God, and that he seeks to be in relationship with us, he wants to reestablish the relationship for which we were created.

My Bible does not contain the Apocrypha, but neither does it contain a record of the first 12 years of the life of Jesus, nor does it contain a record of all the other things Jesus said or did. But I am none the poorer, because in the Bible I have all that God deemed necessary to know him, to put my faith in him, to enter into a relationship with him.

Sola scriptura

2009-04-15T03:03:00.000-07:00

I came across this quote in The Early Centuries and the Truth by Stuart Allen recently, once again demonstrating the belief that our faith should be based on the Scriptures. I include it, because it predates Luther, thus giving more evidence that Luther was only one in a long line of believers who based their faith primarilly on the written word of God, not traditions of the church.

. . . Marsilius of Padua (1270-1342), a physician by profession. He maintained that the supreme standard was the Bible and protested against the power of the papacy and the priests. William of Occam (1280-1347) took much the same line.
(The Early Centuries and the Truth by Stuart Allen, p29 The Berean Publishing Trust 1969; ISBN 0 85156 120 9)

On church councils pt.2

2009-03-26T03:22:00.000-07:00

A number of books rely on church councils to prove the Roman Catholic canon. What follows are a couple of articles regarding some of these canons that I discovered while following a post on a Baptist internet notice-board concerning the same subject. The argument proposed is that the church used and accepted the deuterocanonical books from the early days of the church, as demonstrated in certain councils. The articles on this page were used to dipsute this. (The original thread can be found here : http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=28368 - the later pages have the most pertinent arguments and information).

It would appear that around the year 360 there was a church gathering in Laodicea which prescribed that only the 'canonical books of the Old and New Testaments' should be read in the church. This is found in what is called 'canon 59' and then followed by 'canon 60' where a list of these books is given. (The term 'canon 59' and 'canon 60' should not be understood as canon of scripture, they are more akin to article 59 and article 60.) Here are the two articles taken from the New Advent online Roman Catholic Encylopedia which are significant in the exclusion of the majority of Apocryphal books :

Canon 59:
No psalms composed by private individuals nor any uncanonical books may be read in the church, but only the Canonical Books of the Old and New Testaments.

Canon 60:
These are all the books of Old Testament appointed to be read: 1, Genesis of the world; 2, The Exodus from Egypt; 3, Leviticus; 4, Numbers; 5, Deuteronomy; 6, Joshua, the son of Nun; 7, Judges, Ruth; 8, Esther; 9, Of the Kings, First and Second; 10, Of the Kings, Third and Fourth; 11, Chronicles, First and Second; 12, Esdras, First and Second; 13, The Book of Psalms; 14, The Proverbs of Solomon; 15, Ecclesiastes; 16, The Song of Songs; 17, Job; 18, The Twelve Prophets; 19, Isaiah; 20, Jeremiah, and Baruch, the Lamentations, and the Epistle; 21, Ezekiel; 22, Daniel.

And these are the books of the New Testament: Four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; The Acts of the Apostles; Seven Catholic Epistles, to wit, one of James, two of Peter, three of John, one of Jude; Fourteen Epistles of Paul, one to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, one to the Galatians, one to the Ephesians, one to the Philippians, one to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, one to the Hebrews, two to Timothy, one to Titus, and one to Philemon.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3806.htm

Concerning the importance of of church councils, according to the Roman Catholic Church :

Although it is in the nature of councils to represent either the whole or part of the Church organism yet we find many councils simply consisting of a number of bishops brought together from different countries for some special purpose, regardless of any territorial or hierarchical connection. They were most frequent in the fourth century, when the metropolitan and patriarchal circumscriptions were still imperfect, and questions of faith and discipline manifold. Not a few of them, summoned by emperors or bishops in opposition to the lawful authorities (such as that of Antioch in 341), were positively irregular, and acted for evil rather than good. Councils of this kind may be compared to the meetings of bishops of our own times; decrees passed in them had no binding power on any but the subjects of the bishops present, they were important manifestations of the sensus ecclesiae (mind of the Church) rather than judicial or legislative bodies. But precisely as expressing the mind of the Church they often acquired a far-reaching influence due, either to their internal soundness, or to the authority of their framers, or to both.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04423f.htm

And particulary as pertaining to the council of Hippo and Carthage :

At the Synod of Hippo (393), and again at the Synod of 397 at Carthage, a list of the books of Holy Scripture was drawn up. It is the Catholic canon (i.e. including the books classed by Protestants as "Apocrypha"). The latter synod, at the end of the enumeration, added, "But let Church beyond sea (Rome) be consulted about confirming this canon".
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01199a.htm

A similar quote in French concerning the council of Laodicea (le concile de Laodicée) :

Ce concile prescrit (canon 59) que ne doivent être lus dans l'Eglise que "seuls les livres canonique du Nouveau et de l'Ancien Testament". Il énumère ensuite (canon 60, dont l'authenticité est suspectée) la liste des livres canoniques, ce qui a pour but de couper court à toute discussion. Pour le nombre de ses livres au moins, l'Ancien Testament reflète le recueil palestinien : il y manque Judith, Tobie, Ecclésiastique et Macchabées. Par contre, Baruch est cité avec Jérémie et, à la suite des Lamentations, on signale des "lettres", qui correspondent certainement à la Lettre de Jérémie. Et l'ordre : Jérémie, Baruch, Lamentations et Letrres est celui de la Septante. Dans le Nouveau Testament, il manque l'Apocalypse.

Bien que d'authenticité douteuse en son dernier canon, ce texte de Laodicée est d'une grande importance pour l'histoire du canon biblique. Il s'accorde avec d'autres témoins contemporains et des mêmes régions d'Asie, pour l'exclusion des Deutérocanoniques.
(Cahiers Evangile : L'inspiration et le canon des ecritures, Histoire et théologie, Editions du Cerf, p52)

What is particularly convenient in this French article is that although canon 59 is recognised as authentic, canon 60 which excludes the Apocrpyhal books is cited as suspect, which is found in other Roman Catholic literature. For me this is a little too convenient. Particularly as there are records of earlier Christians excluding the Apocryphal books.

Melito, bishop of Sardis - AD 170

2009-03-26T01:46:00.000-07:00

The following is cited as being the earliest Christian list of the books of the Old Testment. The quotation is from Melito, the bishop of Sardis who wrote around AD 170 (as quoted in Eusebius: The Ecclesiastical History).

When I came to the east and reached the place where these things were preached and done, and learnt accurately the books of the Old Testament, I set down the facts and sent them to you. These are their names: five books of Moses, Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Joshua the son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kingdoms, two books of Chronicles, the Psalms of David, the Proverbs of Solomon and his Wisdom, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, Job, the prophets of Isaiah, Jeremiah, the Twelve in a single book, Daniel, Ezekiel, Ezra.
(Esusebius: The Ecclesiastical History, Heinemann, 1975; translation by Kirsopp Lake)

Wayne Grudem, in his book Systematic Theology: An Introductino To Biblical Doctrine, points out the following:
"four books of Kingdoms" refers to 1 & 2 Samuel, 1 & 2 Kings
"Proverbs of Solomon and his Wisdom" refers not to the apocryphal book entitled Wisdom but is a more complete description of the book of Proverbs.
"Ezra" refers to the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, this was the Jewish way of referring to these books.

"the Twelve in a single book" would then refer to Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habbakuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi

This leaves the only books form the Old Testament unmetioned as being Esther and Lamentations (unless Lamentations, is included in the book of Jeremiah as he is quoted as the author of Lamentations).

Grudem goes on to say:

It is noteworthy here that Melito names none of the books of the Apocrypha . . .
(Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine by Wayne Grudem, Inter-VarsityPress 1994, p58)

The following is the quote from Melito in French (Méliton) taken from a Roman Catholic booklet:

Etant donc allé en Orient et ayant été jusqu'à l'endroit où a été préchée et accomplie l'Ecriture, j'ai appris avec exactitude les livres de l'Ancien Testament et j'en ai établi la liste que je t'envoie. En voici les noms : de Moïse cinq livres : Genèse, Exode, Nombres, Lévitique, Deutéronome, Jésus Navé (= Josué), Juges, Ruth ; quatre livres des Rois, deux des Paralipomènes ; Psaumes de David; Proverbes ou Sagesse de Salomon (= Proverbes) ; Ecclésiaste, Cantique des Canitques ; Job ; Prophètes : Isaïe, Jérémie, les Douze en un seul livre ; Daniel, Ezéchiel, Esdras. De ces ouvrages j'ai fait des extraits que j'ai répartis en six livres.
(Cahiers Evangile : L'inspiration et le canon des ecritures, Histoire et théologie, Editions du Cerf, p44)

Quotations and their weight

2009-03-23T02:39:00.000-07:00

I've quoted several sources so far while looking at this subject, some of them Protestant, some of them Roman Catholic. But quoting a source does make it correct, it is merely a support to an argument. Just because I quote from a certain writer does not mean that I necessarilly agree with all that he or she has written.

For example, in the last post I quoted from the book Canon des Ecriture (for which I still have to discover the author) but there are other places in the pages I have read from this book where his arguments are based more on assumption than proof. He makes statements as if they were proven when in fact they are only his opinion or that of others, often regarding things where there is an evident lack of proof.

And I got to wondering, the fact that a certain book is quoted, does this necessarilly give any weight to the authority of the book, the correctness of the book, the truthfulness of the book, etc.

And can we ask this question regarding Jesus and his quotation of the Old Testament?

Often when Jesus quotes the Old Testament, or when the disciples quote it after he has returned to Heaven, it is to demonstrate that Jesus is the Messiah, it is to demonstrate that what God said to the Jewish people in the past has finally come true in the person of Jesus, it is to reveal that what God said in the past was so that the Jews might recognise the Messiah, Jesus, when he arrived.

Obviously I'll need to check the references, but it seems to me that Jesus and the disciples quote the Old Testament, in order to clarify who he his, what God expects of the people of Israel, what he has asked of them, etc.

Granted, if Jesus accepted these books as true and as the word of God, so should we, so when he quotes Scripture, it does give additional weight to Scripture. But I just wanted to point out that it was not the reason that he quoted it.

In the Old Testament as in the New Testament, there is no discussion of which books should be understood as being received from God. The absence of any argument seems to imply that everyone accepted the same books as Scripture.

10th to 15th century discord

2009-03-22T12:28:00.000-07:00

Here's a quote from from a Roman Catholic book on the Canon of Scripture, once again highlighting that the apocryphal/detuerocanonical books were not accepted by everyone in the church, even before the arrival of the Reform and Martin Luther.

The author gives a selection of writers from the 10th to the 15 centuries who did not accept these extra books as Scripture. He tries to imply that the position of each of them is due to what Jerome himself said. But no proof is given of this statement. The author also comments on some of the names, to indicate why their point of view need not be accepted, but again without giving any reference for proof. What we have here then is a list of Christians who did not accept these books, for a variety of reasons. Of particular interest is the last name, who I believe was an opponent of Luther, and was maybe even on the Concile de Trent. (Need to check that out.)

One other point is that although the following Christians rejected as Scripture the apocryphal/deuterocanonical books, they maintained that they were useful books and chose to keep them in the same book which contained Scripture, as did Luther by placing the apocryphal/deuterocanonical books together in a separate section of his translation of the Bible.

Ecrivains du Xème au XVème siècle - La plupart admettent simplement et sans distinction tous les livres de l'Ancien testament . . . Quelques-uns cependant, sous l'influence de ce qu'avait dit saint Jérôme, semblent attacher trop d'importance aux distinctions de ce Père. L'auteur de la célèbre Historia scholastica, Pierre Comestor (+.1178), appelle "apocrpyhes" les livres de la Sagesse, de l'Ecclésiastique, de Judith, de Tobie et des Machabées ; mais que c'est "parce qu'on ignore quels en sont les auteurs", - ce qui est inexact pour l'Ecclésiastique, - et que "l'Eglise les reçoit parce qu'il n'ya pas de doute sur leur véracité". . . Rupert de Deutz (+ 1135) . . . Hugues de Saint-Victor (+1141) . . . Pierre le Vénérable, abbé de Cluny (+1185), s'expriment avec peu d'exactitude. Jean de Salisbury (1110-1180) . . . Hugues de Saint-Cher (+1263) . . . rappelle les disctinctions de saint Jérôme, mais il admet néanmoins les deuteréocanoniques comme vrais, quoiqu'il les place hors du canon : . . . Nicolas de Lyra (vers 1270-1340) partage la même opinion, de même que Saint Antonin, archevêque de Florence (1389-1459) . . . Alphonse Tostat, évêque d'Avila (1412-1455) . . . le cardinal Cajetan (1469-1534).
Encyclopédie de la Bible Catholique, Canon des Ecritures, p161-162

Interesting in that it proves there were others similar to Martin Luther who were not prepared to accept the apocryphal/deuterocanonical books as Scripture.

And although the author goes on to describe these men as the "rare" occurences of discord, it's a significant number all the same given that it was mainly the clergy who had access to the Bible, and also given the position in the church of some of those quoted.

The author goes on to mention Luther stating that in rejecting the apoc./deutero. books he separated himself from the tradition of the church, and that the Council of Trent simply reaffirmed, despite the reticence of certain Christians, what had always been believed in the church, (i.e. the tradition of the church), in it's Canon of Holy Books which was published the 8th April 1546.

Luther, en rejetant ces livres, se sépara donc de la tradition, et le concile de Trente ne fit qu'affirmer ce qu'on avait toujours cru dans l'Eglise, malgré l'hésitation de quelques-uns, dans la promulgation de son Canon des Livres Saints, qui eut lieu le 8 avril 1546.
Encyclopédie de la Bible Catholique, Canon des Ecritures, p162 (Emhpasis mine)

When was the first "infallible" pronouncement on the Canon?

2009-03-19T02:20:00.000-07:00

I add this post, because Roman Catholicism seems to continue to falesly imply that Martin Luther excluded books from the established canon. Roman Catholicism seems to state that the Church alone establishes canon. However the following article, again from New Advent, makes it clear that the Roman Catholic version of the canon was not even officially defined and pronounced until as a response to Martin Luther and the Reform.

The most explicit definition of the Catholic Canon is that given by the Council of Trent, Session IV, 1546. For the Old Testament its catalogue reads as follows:
The five books of Moses (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy), Josue, Judges, Ruth, the four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, the first and second of Esdras (which latter is called Nehemias), Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, the Davidic Psalter (in number one hundred and fifty Psalms), Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias, with Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel, the twelve minor Prophets (Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggeus, Zacharias, Malachias), two books of Machabees, the first and second.
The Tridentine decrees from which the above list is extracted was the first infallible and effectually promulgated pronouncement on the Canon, addressed to the Church Universal.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm (Emphasis mine)

The point here is that Roman Catholicism must admit that until this decree, the canon had never been officially pronounced as "Received Canon", so it was impossible for Luther to tamper with the canon. Up until this point, there was still debate concerning which books should truly be included in Holy Scripture.

Further evidence of this can be found in the post entitled "10th to 15th century discord" which contains the following quotation (in French) concerning the Council of Trent:

. . . la promulgation de son Canon des Livres Saints . . . eut lieu le 8 avril 1546.
Encyclopédie de la Bible Catholique, Canon des Ecritures, p162

Another quote concerning the Council of Trent as the defining moment for the canon in Roman Catholic history can be found in a French Roman Catholic booklet on the Scriptures :

Il a fallu trois siècles à l'Eglise pour instituer le mot "canon" dans ce sens biblique . . . Néamoins, il faudra attendre bien des siècles pour que, répondant aux assauts culturels de la Renaissance et aux cassures doctrinales de la Réforme, le concile de Trente propose une définition dogmatique du canon des Ecritures.
(Cahiers Evangile : L'inspiration et le canon des ecritures, Histoire et théologie, Editions du Cerf, p39)

I just need to add here, that I am not in agreement with the afore-mentioned booklet when it discusses what it the definition of 'inspiration' of Scripture. Mainly because he seems to present the idea that the men God used to write Scripture were 'taken over' by the Holy Spirit, that they wrote as if possessed by the Holy Spirit, so without any control over what they wrote. This is contrary to all the evidence in Scripture. A major part of the propehcies given in the Old Testament were relayed to the prophet by God, which he then relayed to the people. Some prophets were even told to write down what they saw or heard. Even in the New Testament Paul states that a prophet has control over what he says (1 Corinthians 14:29-33).

Another quote from this booklet demonstrating that according to Roman Catholic litrature, the Apocrypha was determined as canon/scripture from the Council of Trent :

A la différence du Protestantisme, l'Eglise romaine a inclus dans son canon, et considère comme livres canoniques à part entière, les "Apocrpyhes de l'Ancien Testament" : elle les appelle pour sa part les "Deutérocanoniques". Le concile de Trente, à l'encontre des Réformateurs, a fait figurer ces livres dans la liste des "Livres saints", canoniques et inspirés. Il adoptait ainsi définitivement l'antique tradition de l'Eglise d'Occident défendue par Augustin.
(Cahiers Evangile : L'inspiration et le canon des ecritures, Histoire et théologie, Editions du Cerf, p47)

Et encore :

Il fallut attendre le concile de Trente, en sa IVème session, pour que la question de la canonicité des Livre saints fût abordée directement et traitée dogmatiquement . . . c'est le concile de Trente qui aborda et posa dogmatiquement la question du canon des Ecritures . . . il le fit dans le cadre de son immense tâche dogmatique . . . dès lors, le concile déclara quels livres rentraient dans le corps des Ecritures . . . et il adjoignit à son décret un cataologue des Livres canoniques.
(Cahiers Evangile : L'inspiration et le canon des ecritures, Histoire et théologie, Editions du Cerf, p52,53)

Philo

2009-03-19T02:02:00.000-07:00

I came across this interesting statement on New Advent which again gives weight to the fact that the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical books should not be considered in the same way as those included in the Hebrew canon. (Philo was apparently a Jewish philosopher and exegete from Alexandria, who lived around the time of Christ) :

Philo, a typical Alexandrian-Jewish thinker . . . while indicating acquaintance with the deutero literature, nowhere cites it in his voluminous writings. True, he does not employ several books of the Hebrew Canon; but there is a natural presumption that if he had regarded the additional works as being quite on the same plane as the others, he would not have failed to quote so stimulating and congenial a production as the Book of Wisdom. Moreover, as has been pointed out by several authorities, the independent spirit of the Hellenists could not have gone so far as to setup a different official Canon from that of Jerusalem, without having left historical traces of such a rupture. So, from the available data we may justly infer that, while the deuterocanonicals were admitted as sacred by the Alexandrian Jews, they possessed a lower degree of sanctity and authority than the longer accepted books, i.e., the Palestinian Hagiographa and the Prophets, themselves inferior to the Law.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm (Emphasis mine)

Josephus

2009-03-19T01:16:00.000-07:00

Numerous authors quote Josephus when discussing the canon of the Old Testament. He was the Jewish historian who gave us Antiquities of the Jews and War of the Jews. Boettner suggests :

Josephus, the noted Jewish historian, about 90 A.D., gave a list of the books of the Jewish law and prophets, but he did not include the Apocryphal books. Other Jewish sources support Josephus.
(Roman Catholicism, by Loraine Boettner, p82; ISBN: 0-87552-130-4; The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company)

The opinion of Josephus is rejected by the Roman Catholic Church, as far as I can tell, because he was a Jew and was hence against Christianity. He did not recognise Christ so he was not enlightened by the Holy Spirit. His choice reflects his desires to re-establish Judaism and the Jewish aspects of the faith.

But this doesn' t really hold much water.

Why?

Because the Apocrpyhal books, the Deuterocanonical books, pertain to the Old Testament. They do not talk of Christ. They do not add to the work of Jesus at the cross, they do not give insight into the life of Jesus, nor that of the early church. These books relate to the Jewish people and Jewish history. Particularly as they were written, apparently, during the period of Jewish history leading up to the birth of Jesus.

So the question of the validity of these books, surely it is a matter of whether they were recognised by Jews or not. They were not written by members of the early church. They were not written by disciples of Jesus. They were not written after the birth, death and resurrection of Jesus.

They existed before Christ. So they were available to Jews before Christ. And there seems to be no evidence whatsoever to indicate that they were ever accepted as part of the Hebrew canon.

Another interesting point with regards to Josephus is seen in this article about him from New Advent, the online Roman Catholic encylopedia :

Jewish historian, born A.D. 37, at Jerusalem; died about 101. He belonged to a distinguished priestly family, whose paternal ancestors he himself traces back five generations; his mother's family claimed descent from the Machabeans. He received a good education, and association with distinguished scholars developed his intellectual gifts, more especially his memory and power of judgment. He also made himself fully acquainted with and tried the leading politico-religious Jewish parties of his age -- the Essenes, Pharisees, and Sadducees.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08522a.htm

It seems strange that a Jew who claims descent from the Machabeans does not include the very books about the Machabean revolt in his list of the Hebrew canon (1 & 2 Macabees), unless of course his concern was to accurately portray history, and not glorify his own family background.

So we have a Jewish historian, who most people recognise as being an authority on Jewish history, who claims descent from the Machabeans who suggests that the accepted Hebrew canon around the time of Jesus is that which Protestant use for their Old Testament, rejecting the Apocrpyhal/Deuterocanonical books which relate to the history of the Jews and which were written before the birth of Jesus.

Apocrpyha vs Deuterocanonical (2)

2009-03-13T23:17:00.000-07:00

According to Loraine Boettner, author of the book Roman Catholicism:

The word Apocrypha is from the Greek apokrupha, meaning hidden things, and is used by ecclesiastcal writers for matters which are, (1) secret or mysterious; or (2) unknown in origin, forged, or spurious; or (3) unrecognized, or uncanonical. It is primarily in the sense of spurious or uncanonical that we use the term. The [deuterocanonical] books had this name before they were officially approved by the Council of Trent, and so it is not a name given them by Protestants.
(Roman Catholicism, by Loraine Boettner, p80; ISBN: 0-87552-130-4; The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company)

An article in Wikipedia, the free online encylopedia,suggests the following:

Deuterocanonical is a term first coined in 1566 by the theologian Sixtus of Siena, who had converted to Catholicism from Judaism, to describe scriptural texts of the Old Testament whose canonicity was explicitly defined for Catholics by the Council of Trent, but which had been omitted by some early canon lists, especially in the East. Their acceptance among early Christians was not universal, but regional councils in the West published official canons that included these books as early as the fourth and fifth centuries. The canon of Trent confirmed these early western canons.^{(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterocanonical_books#cite_note-cathenOT-1)}

This would confirm the statement of Boettner concerning the use of the word Apocrypha.

Another source which backs up the statement of Boettner and the Wiki article concerning the use of the term Deuterocanonical is found in the online Catholic Encyclopedia where we read :

It should be noted that protocanonical and deuterocanonical are modern terms, not having been used before the sixteenth century . . . Protocanonical (protos, "first") is a conventional word denoting those sacred writings which have been always received by Christendom without dispute. The protocanonical books of the Old Testament correspond with those of the Bible of the Hebrews, and the Old Testament as received by Protestants. The deuterocanonical (deuteros, "second") are those whose Scriptural character was contested in some quarters, but which long ago gained a secure footing in the Bible of the Catholic Church . . . (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm)

The article raises a number of points.

1. The suggestion by Roman Catholicism that Protestants use the term Apocrpyha as a perjorative term to describe the additional books, instead of the correct terminology of Deuterocanonical books is wrong. The term Apocrypha seems to be the historical term used for these books. Therefore there is nothing perjorative nor disrespectful in using this term. It is the term Deuterocanonical which is misleading, this term adding force to the idea that these books have always belonged to some sort of canon, which is evidently not the case.

2. The article also points out that some books in the Old Testament have always been received by Christendom as a whole, whereas other books (the Apocrpyhal or Deuterocanonical books) have continued to inspire debate.

3. This suggests that the Protestants accept only those books of which they are sure of the authenticity, which have always been accepted as canon, where there has been no disagreement; whereas Roman Catholics accept also those books which have been continuallly treated with significant doubt and incited debate and uncertainty.

So the term Apocrypha is a historical term used to describe those books not belonging to the Hebrew canon, or the original canon. The term Deuterocanonical is a Roman Catholic term used to describe the same books, and that only since the 16th century.

What I find interesting is that the very fact that the Roman Catholic Church uses the terms Protocanonical and Deuterocanonical is an admission of a distinction between the books which are referred to by each term.

P.S. I want to include here a quotation in French which states the same thing regarding these terms protocanonical and deuterocanonical :

C'est en 1556 que Sixte de Sienne a le premier utilisé les mots protocanonique et deutércanonique pour distinguer deux catéogries d'écrits de l'Ancien et du Nouveau Testament. C'est dans cette affirmation : "La première est formée par les livres que l'on peut appeler protocanoniques et au sujet desquels il n'y a jamais eu doute ni discussion dans l'Eglise catholique ; la seconde contient les livres qu'on déignait jadis sous le nom d'ecclésiastiques et qui maintenant sont appelés deutérocanoniques" (Bibliotheca sancta, I, 1).
(Cahiers Evangile : L'inspiration et le canon des ecritures, Histoire et théologie, Editions du Cerf, p46)

Apocrpyha vs Deuterocanonical

2009-03-12T01:52:00.000-07:00

Not a long post here, just a quickie to ask a question which is bothering me of late.

Why does the Roman Catholic Church give the additional books the title Deuterocanonical instead of just calling them canon?

Who decides what is "Scripture"?

2009-03-12T01:40:00.001-07:00

Peraps a delicate or thorny issue, but I pose the question because I came across the following quote on an orthodox churches web-site :

The Church decides what is Scripture, not any individual, nor any denomination or other religion -- not even Judaism.
http://www.st-anthony.org/our_faith/misc/misc.php?subaction=showfull&id=1141937559&archive=&start_from=&ucat=2

But actually God decides what is Scripture. The afore-mentioned quote is actually nonsensical and contradictory.

The suggestion is that no "individual, nor any denomination or other religion" decides what is Scripture. Only the Church. Well, which church ? The Orthodox church? The Roman Catholic church? The Protestant Church? Whether orthodox christianity likes it or not, sure they too are a denomination of the Church.

The Church being the community of the believers and followers of Christ. Every person who has accepted Christ and places their faith in him and his teaching is part of the Church. Without this faith in Christ, we cannot belong to the Church. At least not as she is portrayed in the New Testament by Jesus and his disciples.

Perhaps what the quote is suggesting is that the 'recognised' church determines what is Scripture. Or as the Roman Catholic church does, it determines certain wrtings as 'canon', or holy in a sense.

But it is God who spoke through the prophets, it is he who knows what he has said. The best we can do is recognise Scripture. Eventually this will lead us to decide for ourselves what we believe to be inspired Scritpure, according to certain criteria and hopefully lead by the Holy Spirit who has been given to every believer.

For the statement quoted above to make any real sense, it would need to clarify what it meant by the word 'Church'.

Not By Bread Alone - Steven W. Waterhouse

2009-03-09T05:05:00.000-07:00

The following extract is from Not By Bread Alone by Steven W. Waterhouse, pp8-9, where he discusses the canon of the Old Testament.

Canonicity

From theGreek word canon we derive the word cane. By the terms canon of Scripture one refers to the books by which Christians are supposed to rule or measure their lives. Canonicity takes up the issue of which books belong in the Bible.

A. Old Testament Canon

The Roman Catholic Church recognizes eleven more books and the Eastern Orthodox Church four more books in the Old Testament canon than do Protestants or Jews. Protestants and Jews recognize the same material as belonging to the Old Testament although they count and order the books differently. The important issue for Christians ought to be which books did the Lord Jesus Christ recognize. It is clear that He adhered to the Jewish (and hence the Protestant) canon of the Old Testament.
"You worship that which you do not know; we worship that which we know, for salvation is from the Jews." [John 4:22]
The Samaritans in the Lord's day rejected all of the Old Testament except the Law of Moses. By saying, "Salvation is of the Jews", Jesus sides with the Jews in the debate against the Samaritans. Part of that debate was over which books belonged in the Old Testament.
"From the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who perished between the altar and the house of God; yes, I tell you, it shall be charged against this generation" [Luke 11:51]
(See parallel passage Matt 23:35)

To appreciate this verse we will have to know that the Hebrew canon begins with Genesis and closes with 2 Chronicles. Abel's death is recorded in Gen 4:8. Zechariah's death is recorded in 2 Chron 24:21. Abel was the first man of God to be slain. Zechariah, in the order of the Hebrew Old Testament, was the last man of God to be slain. Jesus is saying, "From Genesis to Chronicles you are guilty of killing the prophets." Therefore, Jesus delineates and implicitly endorses the limits of the Jewish Old Testament canon.
". . . These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and Psalms must be fulfilled . . ." [Luke 24:44]
There is some evidence that the modern three-fold division of the Hebrew canon predated Christ. If we remember that Psalms was the largest and probably the first of the section called "The Writings", then Jesus is perhaps referring to the three Jewish sections of the canon: the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings. In the modern Hebrew Bible, the Kethubim, "The Writings", begins with Psamls.
Jesus answered them, "Has it not been written in your Law, 'I said, you are gods'? If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken . . . )''[John 10:34-35]
In these verses Jesus refers to "your law", meaning the official law of the Jews. He also calls this law "the Scripture". At no time did Jesus debate with the Jews over the books in the Old Testament. He accepted and used the Jews' authoritative books.

Extract of Not By Bread Alone by Steven W. Waterhouse, pp8-9.
ISBN 0-9702418-2-8; Westcliff Press 2000, Revised Edition 2003
For more information : www.webtheology.com

On church councils and truth

2009-03-07T02:40:00.000-08:00

While reading around the internet, I came upon a forum discussing the deuterocanonical books.

One interesting statement compared the doctrine of the trinity and it's 'official acceptance' by the church. The point was made that, even if the catholic canon was not accepted until after Martin Luther, usually the church only rules on things because they are being challenged.

However, it is not the ruling of the church which makes something true or not. We don't accept the idea of the trinity because the church accepted it. We accept it because it is true, and this evidently from reading the Bible.

So it is not any particular council which determines the truthfulness of something. A thing is true or it is not. Particulary when considering doctrine.

Does this apply to the canon?

Regardless of the councils decisions on the matter, what is the truth concerning the extra books?

The same article said that these extra books were excluded because they went against Protestant theology. The problem is that they also went against Biblical theology. There are some major doctrinal problems in the deuterocanonical texts. This leads one to imagine that the Church at the time could not reform their idea on these books because it needed them, based on previous tradition. Also, one must admit that the Church at this time did not have a great deal of integrity when one considers that she was selling salvation, via relics, etc.

How can one accept the decision of a Church who encourages pratcises completely in opposition with the teaching of Christ and his disciples? Obviously I'm speaking about the Church as it was at the time of the Reformation.

The Importance of the Hebrew canon

2009-03-05T02:53:00.000-08:00

I mentioned in the last post that one of the reasons against inlcuding the deuterocanoncial books is that they were not accepted in the Hebrew canon.

This is not a question of language. The issue is not whether the Hebrew version of the Old Testament is more valid than the Greek version.

What is of interest, is that it seems that Jesus recognised, (whether he used the Hebrew version of the Greek version), the order of books and only those books which were in the Hebrew canon.

We need to bare in mind that the Hebrew canon included three sections.
The Law, the Prophets, the Writings. The order of the Hebrew canon was (and still is to my knowledge)
Genesis
Exode
Leviticus
Numbers
Deuteronomy

Joshua
Judges
Samuel (1 & 2)
Kings (1 & 2)
Isaiah
Jeremiah
Ezekiel

Psalms
Proverbs
Job
Song of songs
Ruth
Lamentations
Esther
Ecclisastes
Daniel
Ezra-Nehemiah
Chronicles (1 & 2)

Now, in Luke 24 verses 44 and 45 we read:

He [Jesus] said to them, "This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms." Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures.

The Greek version of the Hebrew did not follow the same order. So whichever "Old Testament" Jesus used, he was clearly arguing from the order of the Hebrew "Old Testament".

In Luke 11 verses 50 and 51 we read:

Therefore this generation will be held responsible for the blood of all the prophets that has been shed since the beginning of the world, from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the sanctuary.

The importance here in this verse is that the killing of Abel is found in Genesis, the first book of the Hebrew canon, and the killing of Zechariah in the book of Chronicles, the last book of the Hebrew canon. This certainly seems to imply once again that Jesus was familiar with the ordering of the books as presented in the Hebrew canon, and probably even that it is the canon he recognised as containing the Words of God. It suggests too, that Jesus may even have used the Hebrew canon. Again, the importance is not the language in which it was written, but the order and choice of books which made up this canon.

The fact that Jesus deliberately speaks of all the prophets and goes no further than Zechariah, implies also that there were no prophets after his time. So the Hebrew canon can be seen as giving a complete view of God's dealing with the Jewish people, until the New Testament and the arrival of John the Baptist who is the forerunner of the Messiah, Jesus.

This is also important, in that if God sent no prophet to Israel between the last recorded prophet of the Hebrew canon, then anyone who was writing during this time was not speaking on behalf of God, nor under the inspiration of God as did the prophets of old.

Reasons for inclusion or exclusion of deuterocanonical books

2009-03-03T09:38:00.000-08:00

So what are the reasons given for the inclusion or exclusion of these additional books in the canon of Scripture, or in any given translation of the Bible ?

From the small amount of reading I've done so far, here are a few of the reasons that have been put forward for not considering these books as God-breathed, divinely inspired words of God, and so not part of the canon of Scripture:
1. The books themselves claim no divine authorship
2. The books contain theological, historical and geographical errors
3. Jesus never quotes from them, nor alludes to them
4. The disciples neither quote nor allude to them
5. They were not part of the Hebrew canon
6. Martin Luther did not accept them as part of the canon
7. Jerome did not accept them as part of the canon
8. . . .

Some reasons given to include them in the canon of Scripture:
1. They have been used by various figures throughout Church history
2. They were officialised as canon of Scripture at the Council of Trent as a response to the Reformation.
3. . . .

Canonical and non-canonical books

2009-03-03T04:20:00.000-08:00

It is interesting that there seems no disagreement about which books belong to the canon of the New Testament.

Each Christian profession seems to recognize the 27 divinely inspired books of:
1. Matthew
2. Mark
3. Luke
4. John
5. Acts
6. Romans
7. 1 Corinthians
8. 2 Corinthians
9. Galatians
10. Ephesians
11. Philippians
12. Colossians
13. 1 Thessalonians
14. 2 Thessalonians
15. 1 Timothy
16. 2 Timothy
17. Titus
18. Philemon
19. Hebrews
20. James
21. 1 Peter
22. 2 Peter
23. 1 John
24. 2 John
25. 3 John
26. Jude
27. Revelation

This is significant and important, as Christians are by definition followers of Christ. We can be assured then that what we have in the New Testament is the teaching of Jesus; either from his own mouth, as found in the Gospels (transcribed by his disciples and followers), or transmitted by his aposltes and disciples, as found in the Letters. Obviously without forgetting the vision of John, given to him by the Lord Jesus, as recorded in Revelation.

However there is still not complete agreement on the Old Testament.

All Protestant Churches recognise 39 inspired books in the Old Testament, based on the Herbew Bible.
1. Genesis
2. Exodus
3. Leviticus
4. Numbers
5. Deuteronomy
6. Joshua
7. Judges
8. Ruth
9. 1 Samuel
10. 2 Samuel
11. 1 Kings
12. 2 Kings
13. 1 Chronicles
14. 2 Chronicles
15. Ezra
16. Nehemiah
17. Esther
18. Job
19. Psalms
20. Proverbs
21. Ecclesiastes
22. Song of Songs
23. Isaiah
24. Jeremiah
25. Lamentations
26. Ezekiel
27. Daniel
28. Hosea
29. Joel
30. Amos
31. Obadiah
32. Jonah
33. Micah
34. Nahum
35. Habakkuk
36. Zephaniah
37. Haggai
38. Zechariah
39. Malachi

These books are not arranged in alphabetical order (obviously!) nor are they in chronological order. They are arranged in the following order : The Law, History, Poetry, Prophecy.

The Roman Catholic versions of the Bible contain additional books, called either Apocryphal by Protestants, or Deuterocanonical by Roman Catholics. These include( to the best of my knowledge and based on the collection in the French Traduction Oecuménique de la Bible):
1. Esther (From the Greek version)
2. Judith
3. Tobias
4. 1 Macabees
5. 2 Macabees
6. Wisdom
7. Sirach
8. Baruch
9. Epistle of Jeremiah

So far, to explore the various reasons for the inclusion or exclusion of these books, I've been reading Vine's Expostitory Dictionary of Biblical Words by W.E.Vine, Systematic Theology by Wayne Grudem, The Lion Encyclopedia of the Bible, notes and introductions from the Traduction Oecuménique de la Bible, Not By Bread Alone by Steven W. Watherhouse.

According to the Traduction Oecuménique de la Bible these additional books were not officially recognised as part of the canon until after the reformation, at the council of Trent in the 16th century.

Ces livres font partie du canon officiellement fixé dans l'Eglise catholique depuis le concile de Trente. . . Les réformateurs protestants du XVIe siècle, sans les considérer comme canoniques, les ont placés en appendice de la Bible, estimant qu'ils ne pouvaient servir à fonder la foi, mais demeuraient utiles pour nourrir la piété des chrétiens.

My own belief at this time is that the Deuterocanonical books are not divinely-inspired, and so are of limited value. I do not recognise them as Scripture, and so they do not come under the scope of 2 Timothy 3:16-17.

But it's not my intention to just try and prove my own point of view. The point of this blog is to delve a bit deeper into how the Bible came to us, why it is trustworthy as the Word of God. Also I want to look at why it would be important to include or disclude the Deuterocanonical books.

The Bereans or On Who's Authority ?

2009-03-02T07:02:00.000-08:00

Another point I want to make before starting this 'exploration' is the issue of authority.

Acts 17 verses 10-11 says this:

As soon as it was night, the brothers sent Paul and Silas away to Berea. On arriving there, they went to the Jewish synagogue. Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.

What is interesting in this verse is the implication that examining the Scriptures, to verify what Paul was saying, was considered noble.

Why is this interesting ?

Because this means that the Bible encourages us to not base our faith on what any one person says, regardless of who they might be, but to base our faith on the Scriptures, the Word of God.

With regards to the extra books in some Bibles, and with regards to the canon, what's important is what the Scriptures say, not what individuals say, nor even the Church. The Church can make mistakes, people can get it wrong. This verse encourages us to verify any teaching, any doctrine against the Scriptures, regardless of who is doing the teaching.

And this surely must apply to the canon of the Bible. We should not accept that the deuterocanonical or apocryphal books should or should not be considered as divinely insipired solely on the basis of what any one person says. Whether that be Martin Luther, a Pope, or anyone else.

What is important is whether what we are being told agrees with what the Scriptures say.

The Bible

2009-03-01T06:01:00.000-08:00

I've been chatting with a friend about the Bible lately, particularly concerning the additional books which can be found in Roman Catholic Bibles.

So I'm going to be using this blog to help me think through certain issues, and examine some of the reasons for the differences in content.

In the Bible I use, there are 66 books. 39 in the Old Testament, 27 in the New Testament. (Easy to remember because 3 x 9 = 27.

Perhaps some would suggest that what I'm considering is a waste of time.

But I don't agree. In 2 Timothy 3, verses 16 and 17 we read :

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

I suppose what I'm looking at is whether the additional books found in some Bibles, (called either Aprocphyal books or Deuterocanonical books) come within the scope of this verse; i.e. are they God-breathed and hence useful for all that is mentioned, or only human writings which should not be used as a basis for faith, and have only a limited use for the man (or woman) of God.