Why God Revealed The Bible - Observations With Aid From The 2nd London Baptist Confession 1689

Introduction:

    Recently I have been researching further about the canonization of Scripture. On Sunday nights at our church we are doing a series of sermons on this very subject, entitling the series "How We Got Our Bibles". It is important for Christians to know "how" their Bibles came to be, since critics and opponents of Christianity are all too eager to spin their versions and convoluted histories to discredited Christianity. The matter of "how we got our Bible" is highly important; however, a closely related question, "why the Bible" will be the focus of today's post. 

    In this post I'll lay out the theological and practical reasons why God revealed Himself, His will, and His salvation in the Bible. To achieve this I'll introduce readers to a beloved older Baptist doctrinal confession, the 2nd London Baptist Confession of 1689, since it helpfully discusses this subject in its opening paragraph. 

Why God revealed Himself in a book

    The 2 London Baptist Confession of 1689 here Of the Holy Scriptures — The 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith in its opening article summarizes reasons for why God chose to reveal Himself, His will, and His dealings with His people in the words of sacred Scripture. The article as I read it is divisible into four headings, which I'll supply below with commentary as we work through this question of why God revealed The Bible.

A. The need for saving revelation.

    Firstly, the 2nd London Baptist Confession notes that God's general methods of disclosing Himself in creation and providence proved inadequate to give the most accurate way to lead men to a thorough knowledge of the truth and salvation. It notes,

"The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience, although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men inexcusable; yet they are not sufficient to give that knowledge of God and His will which is necessary unto salvation." (2 Tim. 3:15–17; Is. 8:20; Luke 16:29,31; Eph. 2:20)

B. The need for more reliable revelation.

    The 2nd London Baptist Confession continues,

"Therefore it pleased the Lord at sundry times and in diversified manners to reveal Himself, and to declare (that) His will unto His church; and afterward for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan, and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing" (Rom. 1:19-21, 2:14–15; Psalm 19:1-3; Heb. 1:1)

    Human institutions, miracles, theophanies, traditions, and the frailty of the human will cannot supply what people need to defend against the devices of Satan nor to ever hope in finding an accurate revelation of God, salvation, or preparation for the world to come. God was pleased by His Spirit to provide by Divine inspiration His written revelation over a period of 1500 years through 40 authors on three continents. The words themselves were revealed as sufficient, clear, authoritative, and necessary, infallible, and inerrant. 

C. Need of History for written revelation. 

    It's worth pausing here to inquire of the timing of God's beginning of written Scripture in the days of Moses in the 15th century b.c. following the Exodus of Egypt. Notice again what the 2nd London Baptist Confession states: "Therefore it pleased the Lord at sundry times and in diversified manners to reveal Himself." I call this third reason for God revealing the Scriptures as having to do with meeting the needs of history itself.

    When we turn to Exodus 17:8-16 we find recorded the epic battle between the forces of Amalek and Joshua leading the recently freed Hebrews from bondage in Egypt. As the battle waged in the valley at Rephidim, Moses is atop a small mountain overlooking the scene with two others holding up his hands as he intercedes for victory. 

    It is after this battle we come across the first time anywhere in the Bible of God telling Moses (and anyone for that matter) to write His words in Exodus 17:14-16, a first mention of the nearly 200x in the Old Testament God told the Biblical authors to "write" or made mention of His Word being "written". 

 “’Then the Lord said to Moses, 'Write this in a book as a memorial and recite it to Joshua, that I will utterly blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven.’ 15 Moses built an altar and named it The Lord is My Banner; 16 and he said, ‘The Lord has sworn; the Lord will have war against Amalek from generation to generation.” 

    Why this event? Why did God wait until this point in history to begin the writing of the Biblical Canon? Three answers: power of redemption, preservation of the Gospel, and the political situation of the ancient world in which Moses and the people lived. The battle at Rephidim occurred weeks after the Exodus from Egypt, the greatest act of redemption recorded in the Old Testament. Scholars such as the late Merdith Kline, R. Laird Harris, Gleason Archer, Norman Geisler, and Michael Kruger have all noted how God’s covenantal arrangement with the Hebrew people followed on the heels of a major act of redemption. 

    The second reason for God starting to reveal His Word at this particular moment in history is because the average age of human beings had dwindled and thus a more reliable way of preserving the Gospel was required. 

    The third reason to note about why God revealed His word when He did was a matter of His Sovereignty at work in history. It was the timing of the revelation of Law or “Torah” as the original Hebrew text terms it that followed the pattern of treaties made between nations in the 1800’s-1300’s b.c. (compare scholars George E. Mendenhall’s 1955 essay: “Law and covenant in Israel and the ancient Near East”; Meridith Kline’s “Treaty of the Great King”). 

    Several patterns were at play in that part of the world stretching between the Nile River in Egypt to the Euphrates River and beyond into modern day Persia some several hundred miles East of Israel – what scholars call “The Ancient Near East”. Such conditions were providentially the "right conditions" for the timing of the start of Biblical revelation in writing. 

    So, we have noted three main reasons why God revealed Himself through a book, the Bible,

A. The need for saving revelation.

B. The need for more reliable revelation.

C. The need of history for written 

    revelation.

D. The need for Divinely authoritative revelation. 

     The 2nd London Baptist Confession closes its opening paragraph closes is first section in its article "Of The Holy Scriptures" with these words, 

"which makes the Holy Scriptures to be most necessary, those former ways of God's revealing His will unto His people being now completed." (Prov. 22:19-21; Rom. 15:4; 2 Pet. 1:19–20.)

    The Westminster Shorter Catechism in its Question 2 summarizes well our whole discussion with the following question and answer,

"Q. 2. What rule hath God given to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy him?

A. The Word of God, which is contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, is the only rule to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy him."

    We need an authoritative, infallible, and inerrant standard to root our dependence, glorying, and enjoyment of God. 

Closing thoughts

    These are reasons for why God revealed Himself in "The Book", "The Bible",

1. The need for saving revelation.

2. The need for more reliable revelation.

3. The need of history for written 

    revelation.

4. The need for Divinely authoritative  

    revelation. 

P3 The relevance of canonicity and how we got our New Testament: Defending the 27 Book New Testament Canon

Introduction:

    In today's post I intend to conclude our brief survey on the canonicity of the New Testament and the historical process of its formation. We noted in the first post here Growing Christian Resources: P1 The relevance of canonicity and how we got our New Testament the practical importance of such a subject. In the last post here Growing Christian Resources: P2 The relevance of canonicity and how we got our New Testament  I outlined and cited early records from the church fathers that traced the canonization of the New Testament. In today's post we will attempt to give the reader a completed account of the timeline of the New Testament's canonization, along with a defense. 

 Questions surrounding the exact numbers of the books

    Many within the world of liberal, critical scholarship claim that the N.T Canon was invented or put together in 325 A.D at the Council of Nicaea under the watchful eye of Emperor Constantine. This was the thesis of the wildly popular "Davinci Code" that was in vogue in the early 2000's. 

    Yet testimony from the early church fathers and early lists of New Testament books demonstrate that the acceptance and use of the New Testament books as God's Word was far earlier. Critics who persist in denying this point purposefully ignore the evidence below.

a). Papias was a student of Polycarp, who in turn had been a student of the apostle John. Eusebias, the first church historian, notes that Papias acknowledged the authority of the four gospels as early as 135 A.D, only 40 years after the apostolic age.[1]

b). As already mentioned, Polycarp, Papias mentor, had been himself a student of the apostle John. Polycarp in his book entitled “First Apology” asserts the authority of the four gospels and Pauline epistles while sharply distinguishing them from the then popular but non-canonical books of “The Shepherd of Hermas” and “Apocalypse of Peter”.[2] Polycarp is dated 115 A.D, some 25 years after the close of the apostolic age.

c). Ireneus, Bishop of Lyons, wrote his work “Against Heresies” to record and critique the growing Gnostic threat that was attempting to undermine the orthodox, Bible believing church of his day. Irenaeus not only mentions almost all of the 27 books of the New Testament but effectively denounces all of the Gnostic gospels. Iranaeus wrote his work in 180 A.D, some 85 years after the apostolic age.

d). The Muratorian Fragment, the earliest list we have of the New Testament books outside the apostolic era, can be dated to 170 A.D. In it we have almost a complete record of all the New Testament books except two. This canonical list represents a good portion of the early church’s opinion of what constituted the New Testament and shows that all 27 books were virtually all but universally recognized, with the entire collection uncontested by the third century (200's).[3]

The length of time it took for the early church to acknowledge the New Testament Canon?

       The point is that even though the Gnostic gospels had begun to be written by 150 A.D, yet a core of 20 of the 27 books were universally recognized and in use well beforehand, with 2nd Peter, 2nd and 3rd John, Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation recognized and in use by large segments of the church by the end of the second and into the third centuries (see endnote #3 below for more details that I just referenced above). Some further confirmation of these points can be noted below.

    For instance, in a recent discussion I listened to between Professors Ben Laird of Liberty University and Greg Lanier of Reformed Theological Seminary, they noted how the New Testament books were used in sub-collections: The four Gospels, Paul's letters, the General Epistles in individual or sub-collections of their own, and John's Apocalypse (the whole discussion is at the link here Interview: Ben Laird and the modern state of NT canon studies  

    P.R. Ackroyd, a New Testament scholar writes:[4]

“While there was some considerable dispute over some of the N.T books, the major writings were accepted by almost all Christians by the middle of the 2nd century (150 A.D).”

    Thus, despite the claims of radical critics of the Bible like Elaine Pagels and Bart Ehrman (two authors who have written material attempting to discredit the Bible and its history), the New Testament canon as we know it was well on its way by 150 A.D. By the time we arrive in the fourth century, various church fathers (like Athanasius of Alexandria) and certain church councils (Hippo in 393 A.D and Carthage in 397 A.D) did nothing more than affirm what was already generally acknowledged by all Christians everywhere – namely the canonicity of the 27 New Testament Books.

Constructing a Timeline for history’s account of the story of the N.T canon

   

      With the major evidence for the development of the N.T Canon considered, it is now time to see how all of this evidence lays out in a time-line. This timeline gives a three-part account of how our New Testament came to be recognized as the canon.

CHURCH HISTORY’S RECKONING OF THE N.T CANON 

 Part 1: Apostles, Post-Apostolic/Pre-Nicaean Church Fathers 

 1 & 2 Peter 3:14-16 & 1 Timothy 5:18 mention the early Christian's recognition of the a good portion of the New Testament books well within the days of the Apostles or about three-quarters of the way through the 1st century. The Muratorian Canon (170 A.D) mentions every New Testament book but three, indicating that the early church within a century after the passing of the Apostle John. By 200 A.D. the Latin church father Tertullian states his refusal to use any other gospels other than the four. This indicates his awareness of the Gnostic Gospels and the early Christians' immediate rejection of them.

50 -----100 A.D-------------------------150 A.D----------------200 A.D------------>>

Epistle of Barnabas (120 A.D), Papias (120 A.D), Irenaeus (180 A.D) quote or refer to almost all the 27 New Testament books.                

Part 2: Nicaean and Post-Nicaean Church Fathers (Nicaea refers to Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D)

<<-----300A.D-------------------------------------------------400 A.D

Athanasius “Festal Letter” Council of Carthage listing all 27 books 367 A.D recognizes canon

Part Three: Ancient New Testament Translations that testify of the recognition of the 27 N.T Books as being Canonical
Ancient translations Athanasius “Festal Letter” Council of Carthage of Greek originals listing all 27 books 367 A.D recognizes canon N.T writings (Itala, for whole church 397 Syriac, Coptic) verify unanimity of 27 books from 200-300 A.D

200 A.D-----------300 A.D-----------350 A.D------------------------400 A.D

Church is being persecuted. Council of Hippo agrees on 27 books 393 A.D, reaffirming what church generally had believed since shortly after the days of the Apostles.

    The above chart gives a realistic picture to the development of the canon. The problem among radical critics of the Bible today is their purposeful disregard of the testimony of history. No greater New Testament scholar than Kurt Aland has commented on this error of judgment among modern New Testament scholarship:

“These insights gained from the history of the canon are fundamental and of vital significance for the history of the text – New Testament textual criticism has traditionally neglected the findings of early church history, but only to its own detriment, because the transmission of the N.T text is certainly an integral part of that history”.[5]

Closing thoughts
    

    It must be remembered that the church did not create the Bible, but rather the Holy Spirit, through the scriptures, began, shaped, and guided the church. My hope is these last few posts have given readers a bird's-eye view of the relevance and overall process of the New Testament Canon. To God be the glory!

Endnotes:

[1] Bettenson, Henry. Documents of the Christian Church.

[2] McDowell, Josh. Evidence that demands a verdict. Volume One. Page 37.

[3] It is worth noting that the first century entailed God's giving of the 27 books and the early church receiving them and using them as Divinely revealed, authoritative revelation. As I've noted in the prior two posts, scholars who specialize in the field of "canonics" (the particular study of the development of the New Testament canon, men such as the late R.L. Harris, Roger Beckwith on the Old Testament side and Michael Kruger and Greg Lanier on the New Testament side) have noted how in both canons, books circulated in sections and clusters among God's people. With the New Testament we find the four Gospels came to be used as a group, Paul's letters were copied as a group, with our earliest manuscripts attesting to the eventual bounding together of these core books. 

    The remainder (Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and Revelation) were individually used and became solidly universally recognized by the third century or 200's A.D. The above sources (Muraturian fragment) demonstrate that the consensus on all 27 books was on a practical level all but locked in within the first 300 years of church history. 

[4] Ackroyd, P.R and C.F Evans. The Cambridge History of the Bible

[5] Aland, Nestle and Barbara Aland. The Text of the New Testament.

P2 The relevance of canonicity and how we got our New Testament

Introduction:

 

    In the last post here Growing Christian Resources: P1 The relevance of canonicity and how we got our New Testament we began to look at the importance of canonicity and how we got our New Testament canon. Today's post will continue our brief survey. 

The earliest records that bear witness to the development of the New Testament Canon

    Church historian Everett Harrison cites the letters of Paul, Peter, and John as the first immediate evidence of the early church’s recognition of the inspired texts of those apostles.[1] 

    In more recent evangelical scholarship, Michael Kruger of Reformed Theological Seminary has noted in his lectures how the New Testament canon had a consistent "core" of twenty books (four Gospels, thirteen of Paul's letters, James, 1 Peter, 1 John) with seven discussed and weighed in certain quarters of the early church throughout the second century or 100's A.D. (Hebrews, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and Revelation.)2 

    With all of these New Testament texts dated between 50-95 A.D, we can safely acknowledge that recognition of what constituted inspired Scripture from the hands of the Apostles were virtually established for the most part by the end of the third century, with virtually every quarter of the church using all of them as authoritative Scripture.  Let me comment on what I just wrote "virtually established". 

    

    There was a core of 20 books that were already agreed upon well before the end of the apostolic era. The other remaining seven (Hebrews, James, 2nd Peter, 2nd and 3rd John, Jude, and Revelation) were held by the majority of the early church fathers to be divinely inspired and authoritative texts. The church historian Eusebius lays out three categories where he gives an overall summary of the canonization process by the end of the second century and into the third century in which he was writing. Interested readers can read what he wrote in the endnote below at the end of this post.[4] As I've noted in more detail in the endnotes and in general in this post today, the circulation, copying, and translation of the 27 books of the New Testament testify to their tacit acceptance by the church at large. Even those books which were briefly disputed were disputed by few and then readily accepted upon further inspection. Documents such as the mid second century Muriturian fragment and Athanasius' Easter letter of 367 A.D. give a public account of these books.  

What criteria did the early Christians look for when recognizing a book as inspired?

    Some church historians have recognized certain so-called "criteria" or principles that we can glean from reading the records of church history of how the early Christians recognized the New Testament documents as they were written, copied, and spread.  Everett Harrison notes three tests used by the early church in determining which books were canonical:[5]

a). Was it of apostolic origin or authority?

b). Was it received by the earliest churches and in use?

c). Was it consistent with the teaching of the already established norm of the Old Testament?”

    Between the principles employed by the early church in identifying which books were divinely inspired and the records showing us how the canonization process went from the end of the first century to the beginning of the third century, we have evidence to show that the early Christians had a handle on knowing which books belonged and which ones did not. 

    This flies in the face of skeptics who tout the notion that the early church had no idea which books belonged in their canon and thus picked and chose the books at random, or that the church didn't make a final decision until the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D. Any student of church history reading the documents of the Council of Nicaea will acknowledge that canonicity was not at issue in that meeting, but rather disputes over the deity of Christ and the public censure of the Arian heresy. "As a general observation, canonicity was not about selecting a few books out of hundreds for the canon. Rather, canonicity was a reception and recognition of an already established set of books from the inception of the Christian movement, with exclusions of other books that were never serious candidates.  

    No doubt God in His providence guided the process. It wasn't the case of the New Testament canon being a by-product of the early church as it was those individual books shaping and molding the early church to discern and identify them. I'll close for now from 1 Thessalonians 2:13, which proves this final thought very well:  

"For this reason we also constantly thank God that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it really is, the word of God, which also performs its work in you who believe."

Endnotes:

[1] Harrison, Everett. Introduction to the New Testament.

He cites 1 Thess 5:27, Colossians 4:16; 1 Timothy 4:13; and passages throughout the Book of Revelation as evidence for there being at least a beginning point of a formation of the Canon.

[2] About New - Canon Fodder. Dr Michael Kruger's website where readers can find out more information. Let me comment here about how Dr. Kruger lays out the process of canonization of the New Testament. 

    To begin, we can trace the process of canonization from citations of the church fathers to aid us in tracing how often a given book of the Bible was cited and used with Scripture. All twenty-seven books enjoyed universal acceptance by the mid-second century. Kruger lays out a helpful three-step process for looking at New Testament canonization in the first three centuries:

A. God revealed the 27 New Testament books or gave them to the early Christians through the hands of the Apostles in the first century. Kruger refers to this stage of the canon as the revealed books themselves or what he called "the ontological canon", with "ontological" meaning the very existence of the books were by nature revealed literature from God, with no church body determining which were inspired and which were not.

B. The second stage of canonization is what Dr. Kruger calls "the reception stage" or "received canon", which has to do with the early Christians receiving them, using them, and regarding them as Divinely inspired literature. We see this almost immediately after their writing. The Apostle Peter for instance cites all of Paul's letters as "Scripture" in 2 Peter 3:16, writing only a few years after Paul had completed them. Paul cites Luke 10:7 in 1 Timothy 5:18 as "Scripture" alongside a quotation from Deuteronomy, equating both as equally authoritative and inspired. For the most part, all of the books, but especially 20 of the 27 were regarded as Divinely authoritative by the end of the first century and well into the second century.

C. Kruger's third and final stage for defining the process of New Testament canonization is the "public recognition stage", wherein whatever hesitations some in the church may have had with the remaining seven books of the New Testament (2 Peter, 2,3 John, James, and Revelation) were ironed out by the end of the third century (200's A.D.). 

[3] CHURCH FATHERS: Church History, Book III (Eusebius)

[4] Eusebius. Ecclessiastical Church History. Book 3, chapter 25, sections 1-5. 

    The church historian Eusebius records the situation surrounding the canonization process of the New Testament books by first noting those accepted by all or what is called "homolegoumena" (Greek "homo" meaning "whole, all" and "legomena" meaning "spoken of or regarded") in his "Ecclesiastical Church History, Book 3, chapter 25, sections 1-2: 

"Since we are dealing with this subject it is proper to sum up the writings of the New Testament which have been already mentioned. First then must be put the holy quaternion of the Gospels; following them the Acts of the Apostles."

Eusebius continues:

"After this must be reckoned the epistles of Paul; next in order the extant former epistle of John, and likewise the epistle of Peter, must be maintained. After them is to be placed, if it really seem proper, the Apocalypse of John, concerning which we shall give the different opinions at the proper time. These then belong among the accepted writings."

   Eusebius then later mentioned two other categories of books. There were what he called "antilegomena" or those spoken against by some. He wrote these words in section 3 of the above cited section of his "Church History":

"Among the disputed writings, which are nevertheless recognized by many, are extant the so-called epistle of James and that of Jude, also the second epistle of Peter, and those that are called the second and third of John, whether they belong to the evangelist or to another person of the same name."

    Eusebius doesn't go into detail about who opposed these remaining books. As noted already, the opposition was by outlier church fathers and a handful of churches. By the end of the second century or beginning of the third century A.D, such opposition quelled and those five books came to be accepted by all with the other 22 book noted earlier. Eusebius then mentioned a third category of spurious or immediately rejected books or what we call today "New Testament pseudepigrapha", mainly the Gnostic literature I referenced in the last post.

[5] Harrison, Everett. Introduction to the New Testament 104-106

P1 The relevance of canonicity and how we got our New Testament

Introduction:

     Today's post considers a subject that is vital in any discussion about the Bible - namely the issue of canonicity. Let's note two Biblical texts that set the tone for today's post.  Proverbs 30:6 "Do not add to His words or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar." Revelation 22:18 "I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book."

    When we talk about the "canon of scripture", we're not talking about armaments used in physical warfare (i.e. "cannon"). Strictly speaking, the term "canon" comes from a word meaning "standard", "measuring rod" or "measuring stick". To say that the Bible is composed of "canonical writings" simply means that the 66 books and no other set constitute the "standard" or "measuring rod" of God's truth. 

    The practicality of the question of canon touches upon the daily Christian life and the life of the local church. If I do not know which books are to be believed, preached, and heeded as God's authoritative Divine revelation, living the Christian life or even proclaiming the Gospel will be jeopardized. Furthermore, Christians ought to know reasons how they can know that the books in our Bibles today are the right books, as well as knowing how they came to be revealed, inspired, recognized, used, and publicly endorsed as God's collection of authoritative Divine revelation. 

People who tried to "add" to God's Word or replace it

    The practicalities of the subject of the canon of Scripture have their historical illustrations in church history. As early as the days of the apostles, Paul wrote in 2 Thessalonians 2:1-2 of a group who were forging his letters: 

"Now we request you, brethren, with regard to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, 2 that you not be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by a spirit or a message or a letter as if from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come."

    Throughout the history of the church there have been groups inside the church, as well as outside, who attempted to "add" to the 27 books of the New Testament canon. One group, called the "Gnostics", lived and taught in the 2nd and 3rd centuries (100-200 years after Jesus and the Apostles). We won't go into all the details surrounding what the Gnostics taught but suffice it to say, they combined elements of pagan thought, Jewish mysticism, a smattering of Greek philosophy, and vestiges of Christianity in their worldview. 

    Awareness of the Gnostics' attempts to attack early Christianity and the New Testament Scriptures (as well as the Old Testament) is an important piece to the fascinating story behind the canon of scripture. To spread their heresies, the Gnostics used a method that was popular in the ancient world of attaching famous names to documents (called "pseudepigraphy). 

    Sometimes such a practice would reflect whatever theological portion of Scripture the writer relied in conveying their work (for example, the Old Testament Apocryphal letter of Baruch, which tried to reflect the canonical book of Jeremiah). 

    The Gnostics decided that in order to get their works to circulate, they would  attach names of apostles or prophets to their writings and thus pass them off as genuine writings (books such as "The Gospel of Peter", "The Gospel of Thomas" and others). 

    The rise of Gnosticism forced the early church to publicly clarify what they had already understood among themselves regarding the revelation, inspiration, and authority of the books comprising the New Testament. 

The truth about the development of the New Testament Canon

    So, did the early church wait nearly 300 years to pick its own books for the New Testament to the exclusion of the Gnostic gospels? When we read history and the Bible, we discover that canonicity was not something that the church decided to make up to suit its own political interests. Norman Geisler, a late evangelical scholar wrote in his book (co-edited with William Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible):

Inspiration determines canonicity. If a book was authoritative, it was so because God breathed it and made it so. How a book receives authority, then, is determined by God. How men recognize that authority is another matter altogether (see discussion in chap.13 ). As J. I. Packer notes, 'The Church no more gave us the New Testament canon than Sir Isaac Newton gave us the force of gravity. God gave us gravity, by His work of creation, and similarly He gave us the New Testament canon, by inspiring the individual books that make it up.' [1]

    Since the New Testament books were immediately recognized by God’s people within or shortly after the apostolic age, then from a historical standpoint, the early church was already using many of the Books of the Bible even before the apostles died out. 

More next time....

Endnotes:

[1] Geisler, N. L., & Nix, W. E. 1996, 1989. A General Introduction to the Bible. Includes a short-title checklist of English translations of the Bible

Can there ever be any such thing as a lost book of the Bible?

Introduction: What is canon?

    Whenever we study the subject of Biblical canonicity, we are exploring the following:

1. Which books were revealed by God through a prophet or apostle. 

2. Recognition and use by God's people as God's authoritative words. 

3. Such books functioning as a closed collection of authoritative, divine revelation for all time. 

    Theologian Wayne Grudem notes of what we mean by a book of the Bible being canonical on page 1502 of the second edition of his "Systematic Theology":

"A term describing the preserved writings that are deemed to have divine authorship and therefore which are to be included in the canon of Scripture as God's authoritative words in written form."

    The term "canon" itself derives from a Hebrew noun "qaneh" and a similar sounding Greek noun "kanon" meaning "measuring rod". The term came into use by Jews and Christians as they recognized which books were Divinely inspired and considered Divinely authoritative. 

    The canon in the formal sense came into existence as soon as each book was revealed and written down under Divine inspiration. The designation, use, and recognition of the books as a collection came over a period of time, with almost immediate recognition in virtually all cases as soon as the book or books were revealed by God through a given prophet (Old Testament, example Joshua 8:32-35) or apostle (New Testament, example 1 Thessalonians 2:12-13).  

    Even in our secular culture this term "canon" is used when determining whether a given scene or character in a movie is "canon", following the sequence and storyline in whatever book the movie was based. For the sake of this post, I'll use the definition of "canon" set forth in John MacArthur's and Richard Mayhue's "A Systematic Summary of Bible Truth - Biblical Doctrine", page 926:

"Canon. The collection of books accepted by the church as authoritative".

An interesting set of verses that mention books that never made it into our Old or New Testament canons.

    Readers may find it interesting that through the Bible there are quotations or allusions to at least seven or eight books that we do not find in our Bibles. 

1. The Book of the Wars of the Lord. Numbers 21:14

2. The Book of Jasher. Joshua 10:13; 2 Samuel 1:18

3. The Book of Enoch. Jude 1:14-15

4. Jude 1:9 makes reference to Satan and Michael the Archangel disputing over the body of Moses, which derived likely from the Pseudepigraphical "Assumption of Moses".

5. Paul three times cites various secular philosophers (Epimenedes in Titus 1:12; Aratus' work "Phaenomena" in Acts 17:28; and Menander's Thais 218 in 1 Corinthians 15:33). 

    There are other places in the Bible that make references to what sound like non-canonical books or records composed by a prophet or apostle, yet would quite likely using different titles to refer to books already in our Bibles. Take for example "The Book of the Acts of Solomon" mentioned in 1 Kings 11:41. This is likely referring to the canonical account of Solomon's reign we read in 1 Kings 1-11. Other examples we find seem to refer to material already found in the books of Samuel, Kings, or Chronicles (1 Kings 14:29; 1 Chronicles 29:29; 2 Chronicles 9:29; 12:15; 13:22; 20:34; and 24:27). 

    As I read the verses I listed above, it got me to thinking about a book I remember seeing as a young man entitled "The Lost Books of the Bible". Over the years various volumes have been published bearing similar titles. Depending on which of those sorts of books one reads, some contain what Protestants would call "The Apocryphal books" found in Roman Catholic Bibles but not found in Protestant ones, such as the Book of Judith. Other sorts of these so-called "lost books" volumes included what are called by scholars today "Second Temple literature" or "Pseudepigrapha", with the book of 1 Enoch being the most popular example. Still others include the Gnostic literature of the second century A.D. which allege various infancy narratives about Jesus (example the protoevangelium of James), assorted gospels (such as The Gospel of Phillip), alleged activities of the Apostles (Acts of Paul and Thecla, for example), and apocalyptic literature imitating John's Apocalypse, such as the "Apocalypse of Peter". 

Why this question about so-called lost books is important.

    Recently as I have been preaching a series on "How We Got Our Bibles" I have begun preparing a message which will deal with the Apocryphal books (or what Roman Catholics call "The Deuterocanonical Books". It got me to thinking about whether there can ever be such a thing as "a lost book of the Bible"? Take for instance 1 Corinthians 5:9 "I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people." Much discussion has ensued over whether Paul had written a letter prior to 1 Corinthians that is now "lost" to us; or whether perhaps that prior letter is perhaps embedded in the last few chapters of 2 Corinthians (particularly chapters 10-13). For reasons I won't get into now, the grammar of 1 Corinthians 5:9 would suggest that Paul's letter in 1 Corinthians 5:9 is actually the very letter He was writing at that moment - 1 Corinthians. Such questions are far beyond just intriguing inquiries, since if there are really "lost books of the Bible" that were "lost" for a period of time and then resurfaced or are re-revealed (such as the claims of the Book of Mormon), then it would cause us to question God's providence in preserving His Word.

Eight categories or possible scenarios that involve books, prophets/apostles, and the question of canon. Showing why there cannot be any genuine lost books of the Bible.

    As I've thought through this question, "can there ever be any such thing as a lost book of the Bible?", I came up with eight combinations that involve three components relevant to the discussion of canon: books, prophets/apostles, and canon/non-canonical. Let's be reminded of our definition of canon we said we would use for this post: "Canon. The collection of books accepted by the church as authoritative". 

1. Books revealed through a prophet or apostle and canonical. Example: The Book of Isaiah.

2. Books not revealed and not written by a prophet or apostle, and thus are non-canonical. Example: Gospel of Thomas.

3. Books not revealed, written by a prophet or apostle and mentioned in a canonical book. Example: Some would say 1 Corinthians 5:9 and "Paul's prior letter" is an example of this third category.

4. Books not revealed to a prophet or claimed to be a prophet or apostle and non-canonical, mentioned in the Canon. Example: Assumption of Moses cited in Jude 1:9

5. Books that recorded accurate history in conjunction with a canonical book, not written by a prophet, and not part of our canon. Example: The Book of Jasher cited in Joshua 10:13; 2 Samuel 1:18.

6. Books never considered for the canon: Example: The Gospel of Judas.

7. Books temporarily considered canonical by individuals (such as church fathers) which were then later seen as non-inspired, non-canonical, and yet never were in serious consideration by the Church at large. Example: Shepherd of Hermas.

8. Finally, books considered canonical by segments of the church during a portion of church history and yet were never considered canonical by the Jews nor by the church as a whole in the early centuries of church history. Example: The Ethiopic Tawedo Orthodox Church regards 1 Enoch as part of its canon, however no other branch of Christendom regarded this book as canonical.  

Conclusions:

    As I sift through the above eight possibilities of books, prophets / apostles, and canonical / non-canonical, there is no scenario in the literature, church history, or in the theological consideration of Biblical canonicity that would allow for a "lost book" of the Bible. If we think about it, such a book would need to have been revealed to a prophet/apostle, used and recognized by God's people as such, and to have had public and formal recognition in a canon list or historical reference. Again, this is an important point, since otherwise organizations such as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints can claim their "Book of Mormon" is simply a re-revelation of a collection of revealed books lost for centuries. Such a category would undermine the authority of the Bible, not to mention spawn heretical teachings that run contrary to the uniform revelation of the sixty-six books of the canon.

    The Westminster Confession of Faith, Article I, section 6, remarks on the importance of noting the completion and closure of the canon of the sixty-six books:

"The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men."

    In short, there can be no so-called "lost books of the Bible" that could otherwise be brought forth and added to our Bibles. Four times the Scripture itself expresses this principle of not adding nor deleting from the words of God (Deuteronomy 4:2; 12:32; Proverbs 30:6; Revelation 22:18-19). Let us rest assured that there are no lost books of the Bible. All the sixty-six books in our Bibles are the books God intended for every generation of God's people and by His Spirit, to bring to salvation lost sinners in need of the Savior. 

Why I Affirm The 2026 SBC Resolution "On the Office and Function of Pastor/Elder/Overseer"

Introduction:

    In my last post I wrote about what Scripture teaches on male headship and the equality of men and women here Growing Christian Resources: What Does Scripture Teach On Male Headship and Equality of Men and Women? 

    In this post I want to narrow down the overall Biblical worldview I presented last time to one singular subject: the affirmation of Biblical teaching about male-only Pastors and Elders at the recent 2026 SBC in Orlando, Florida. I then will summarize why I hold to that position. 

The recent discussion and debate about the offices of pastor /elder and men and women in the SBC

    We travel back to the 2022 SBC convention in Anaheim, California, where discussion ensued over whether women ought to be ordained as staff pastors. A proposal to censure Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church was discussed over his May 2021 ordination of three women on his staff. After much discussion, the issue was tabled until the 2023 convention. Consequently, Saddleback (along with a handful of SBC churches) were expelled by the Convention, however the discussion was far from over.

    We fast forward to this year's Southern Baptist Convention, wherein Al Mohler presented what he called "The Truth and Unity Amendment" here Truth and Unity Amendment - AlbertMohler.com. 

    The goal was to add the amendment to the constitution of the SBC. Its addition would reinforce the convention's position on the matter as spelled out in the Baptist Faith and Message 2000. Further, the amendment would give a mechanism for holding churches accountable that ordain or appoint women to the office of pastor / elder or any ordained staff positions. 

    The Baptist Faith and Message 2000 in Article VI on "The Church" states the following on this subject:

"Its two scriptural offices are that of pastor/elder/overseer and deacon. While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor/elder/overseer is limited to men as qualified by Scripture."

    With these things in mind, the convention convened last week in Orlando Florida, approving Mohler's proposal. According to convention by-laws, anytime a change to the constitution is proposed, passage requires two successive convention meetings to make it permanent. 

    Consequently, from that discussion came forth a resolution which spells out the details about male-only pastors / elders here On the Office and Function of Pastor/Elder/Overseer - SBC.net  I would encourage readers to read over the resolution. According to the SBC, a resolution "has traditionally been defined as an expression of opinion or concern, as compared to a motion, which calls for action. A resolution is not used to direct an entity of the Southern Baptist Convention to specific action other than to communicate the opinion or concern expressed." This resolution on male-only pastors and elders, coupled with Mohler's "Truth and Unity Amendment" brought forth this year clearly states where Southern Baptists land on this subject. 

    The resolution as I read it is clear, concise, and provides a good summary of what I would affirm myself as an SBC pastor holding to this Biblical position.

Why I advocate male-only pastoral leadership

    Over the years I've tried to read books and journal articles by those who promote men and women equally serving in the roles of pastors and elders. In reading the literature, the basis for both genders serving in pastoral / eldership roles (called “egalitarianism”) arises from pragmatic, rather than theological considerations. 

    When I say “pragmatic”, I mean churches that avow female pastoral leadership for sake of perceived beneficial outcomes for the church and for women. Pragmaticism as an approach to church ministry suffers from the weakness of “the ends justifying the means”, rather than starting out with sound, Biblical principles. 

Those who argue for the Biblical and historic case for male-only pastoral/eldership are called “complementarians”. This position states that men and women are equal in God's sight as His image bearers while having distinct roles assigned to achieve God-ordained functions in the family and church. I’ll list four reasons below why I affirm this view as it relates to male-only Pastors/Elders.

1. Pastors/elders are men because the pattern in creation involved male headship. Genesis 1:26-28.

2. Pastors /elders are men because the pattern of redemption involved Christ becoming the second Adam.  Romans 5:12-21; 1 Corinthians 15:45-47. 

3. Pastor/elders are men because the pattern of the church involves Christ’s Lordship over the church. Ephesians 5:22-33.

4. Pastor/elders are men because the pattern of the new heavens and earth will involve Christ as head of His kingdom. 1 Corinthians 15:20-28; Revelation 21-22.

The above reasons fit along similar lines I argued for in the last post. There are four key doctrines represented by the above four points represent: creation, redemption, church, kingdom. These four key doctrines are expressed by the complementarity and biologically-based binary genders and the specific way Scripture lays out men as the only office holders of the ordained positions of pastor and elder.

    Observe also that male-only pastoral leadership stems from Divinely ordained “patterns” we see in these doctrines, rather than human preferences or pragmatic reasons. When we blur the truth, whether purposefully or unwittingly, the net effect is the same – decline. 

    We note how this pattern of equality of dignity and distinctiveness of position is revealed by God through Jesus Christ. With reference to His position of authority as Lord over His Church, Jesus Christ as God-in-the-flesh exercises authority by His Word and Spirit to nourish, love, preserve, and unify His Church (Ephesians 5:22-33). The Lord revealed that men are to occupy the Pastoral office to remind themselves and the church body of Christ's Lordship (Ephesians 5:22-26; 1 Timothy 2:11-15; 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9).

     Simultaneously, with respect to equality of dignity shared by men and women, the church is a coheir with Jesus Christ in union with His humanity. She as His bride, composed of those adopted and regenerated in saving faith (Romans 8:14-17, 28-29; Galatians 4:4-6; Ephesians 2:8-9) will reign alongside Christ in His Kingdom (Revelation 20:1-3) and for eternity (Revelation 21-22). 

    This second principle of "equality of dignity" reminds each local church of the invaluable way God has gifted women to serve in the church (with the exception of the pastoral and elder offices, along with the office of Deacon, with which I take 1 Timothy 3:8-13 to speaking of "deacon's wives" rather than "deaconesses). In all, the complementarian understanding of male leadership is grounded in the God of the Bible revealed in Christ, for His church. 

Final thought: What I hope will happen at the 2027 SBC Convention

    As I close this post, my affirmation of male-only pastoral / elder leadership is meant to express my desire to see the SBC Convention approve once and for all the measure set forth by Dr. Mohler and expressed in the above linked resolution. As an SBC pastor, it is vital for churches to hold to the pattern clearly set forth by Scripture for the sake of fidelity to the Gospel and the Biblical teaching on the office of the Pastor / Elder in the local church.