Inspiration and the Canon of Scripture

How do we know for sure that the right folks got into the Bible when there were over 2000 books that were pretenders for biblical authority and you end up with what 27. The New Testament how we know we have the right 27 have you confronted by doubts about the diving someone question your faith, claiming that the Bible is simply words and opinions written by men today on Renewing Your Mind, Dr. RC Sproul defends the reliability of Scripture and strengthens our confidence that each book in the Bible is indeed the very word of God in Paul's second letter to Timothy, all made the statement, all Scripture is given by inspiration noticed that he didn't simply say Scripture is given by inspiration but use the term fall as if to indicate that there would be more than one Scripture well literally in the Greek all the draw. Fay means all of the writings were all of the sacred writings gives us our first clue that the Bible is really not a Bible in the sense that the Bible is not a goodly lots but we all which we get the word Bible which means book.

It's not a book.

What is a book but it's not a book. Not not speaking in contradictions here playing games with you but we realize that the Bible is not simply one block.

It is a collection of books. It's more of a library than a single volume because actually, the Bible has this volume that I hold in one hand here, is made up of a total of 66 individual books, so I will talk about the book of John under the book of Matthew or the book of Romans, meaning an individual entity that together added to each other, comprises this vast collection of 66 books that we publish .2 covers air a course the books of the Bible were written by many many different authors, humanly speaking, and over literally hundreds and hundreds of years of time between the time the Genesis was written and the time that Revelation was completed presumably towards the end of the first century.

Now how is it that all of these individual books ever got together to form one single big book that we call the holy Bible that raises an extremely important question that has an indirect reference to our confidence in the authority of the Bible identify can go back to my friend Martin Luther in the 16th century, when he was insisting on the doctrine of justification by faith alone. Those who were opposing Martin Luther Quoting to him some statements that James makes in his epistle about justification and after Ohio. Luther became more and more upset with these analysts citations from James and made the observation that is been repeated 10 million times since he made it but James is an epistle of straw for another way of translating it a right straw a epistle now since the 20th century conflict in the church over the doctrine of Scripture and its authority. Some have argued that the 16th century reformers as much attention as they gave the Scripture did not really believe that the Bible was inspired of God because if, for example, Luther believed that the Bible was inspired by God.

How can he possibly say that James was an epistle of straw wouldn't say that something of which God was the author was right straw a or an epistle of straw there.

When people make that observation.

They confuse a couple of issues that need to be distinguished and need to be distinguished carefully and I have to confess to some people find it difficult to make this distinction. Indeed, confusion about this point is rife, even among professional academicians and so that calls for even greater caution and care to understand if anyone ever believed in the full authority, sacred Scriptures, Martin Luther, Martin Luther made the comment. The Scriptures never are never yet there was a period in his life which she changed his mind on later when he had real questions about James Luther's question was not about whether the Bible was inspired but Luther's question was is James properly to be included in the Bible see the difference in that question for Luther, all of the Bible is inspired and all of the Bible is true. But now he's asking the question, what are the books that make up the Bible and that is a question of what we call Canon. Some people like to refer to the Bible is the sword of the Lord.

I prefer to think of it as a Canon more modern form of weaponry if you will, the word Canon comes from the Greek, known, which means a measuring rod or a ruler or a norm. Remember earlier on in our series. Here I mentioned above that I read in college out of the title by what standard what's with the word Canon means a norm or a standard by which other things are measured or judged. And so, historically, the collection of books that together make up the Bible is called the canon of sacred Scripture, the question of Canon is how and by what process did the individual books that make up the Bible come to be collected input into the Bible.

I heard one critic current read one critic who made the observation that the church of Christ didn't really have a Bible until 500 years after Jesus was gone. Now that's a long time is so the church didn't have a Bible until 500 years after Jesus only tell you how some people come up with numbers like that the church in the first four centuries, had a series of synods and councils that met to discuss questions about which documents should be included in sacred Scripture. The final meeting of those discussions took place in the year 397. At the third Council of Carthage's really a small Council, but significant church history. Now that's 397.

That does take place approximately 370 years or 365 years after the death of Jesus, but why would somebody say 500 years there's a way worse. This is the end of the fourth century so somebody could say, well the church didn't finally have their final decision on what books belong to Canon until the beginning of the fifth century and you know how we messed that up.

The 20th century of the 1900s the 19th century.

The 1800s the 18th century is something that is a word the beginning of a percent reduction euros 500 year Bible.

While that is a gross oversimplification of what actually happened in the early church. As I mentioned in our last lecture together, the sum of the biblical writers themselves make reference to the other writings of the apostles so that their recognizing even at that point but they belong to the status or to the level of Scripture. Now another one of the disputes that arose out of the Reformation was on this question of what belongs in the canon and how things got in the canon.

If you are Roman Catholic, or if you have Roman Catholic friends of you ever seen a Roman Catholic Bible you know that there are certain books of net Bible that are not found in Protestant Bibles. For example, Roman Catholic Church includes a segment of literature that was written in the so-called inter-test of mental. Between the close of the Old Testament canon with Malachi and the opening of the New Testament Canon with Matthew and at 400 year.

There were some books of great historical value written by Jewish historians and wisdom people and so on that are called the Apocrypha and for the most part Protestant Christianity has not recognized the books of the Apocrypha as being part of the Bible, whereas the Roman Catholic Church does recognize the Apocrypha as being part of sacred Scripture that the Roman Catholic Church might say the Bible says and then give a quotation from the book of Maccabees or from second as dresser somebody like that where Protestant would not quote those sources and say the Bible says we recognize the Apocrypha to be what we call to Toronto canonical Deuteronomy is at a secondary level, not primary or primary canon or the books of the Old Testament books of the New Testament Apocrypha advanced second-level is very important historical but we don't carry any brief, the claim that the Apocrypha is inspired or is the word of God, or anything like that.

But why this difference houses come the pass. While there's a difference in the view of the whole process we know as I mentioned earlier that several meetings took place in the first four centuries within the church to discuss questions about what books belong in the Bible and the crisis was provoked in the middle of the second century by a fellow by the name of Marcy and how many of you ever heard of this fella. Marcy and O most of you haven't okay will usually pronounces a Martian buddies, not from another planet, Marcy, and lived in the second century and he was heavily influenced by a group of heretical thinkers who were called gnostics, and so on. But here was the interesting view that Marcy and hand Marcy and hated the God of the Old Testament. He believed that the God of the Old Testament, the God of wrath and judgment and all that sort of thing was a God that was not worthy of Marcy in his adoration and worship in respect and he didn't believe that Jehovah in the Old Testament was really God. He believed that he was the creator of the world of Marcy and believed that the Old Testament deity Jehovah was not the high God the most high God was sort of a second-level God that understands something of Neoplatonic philosophy to understand these different levels of deities, but in any case, his conviction was that the God of the Old Testament was what was called a demo. I urge for the den, my God, a semi God Junior grade deity, not the full-blown thing and Jesus in the New Testament reveals the high God and rescues the earth from the clutches of this second grade deity this demo. I urge to so mean and nasty that we made in the Old Testament, but the true God is a higher God than Jehovah and he's a God of love and kindness and mercy, not like the one who's drowning people with a flood, didn't so on. In the Old Testament.

So in order to communicate his theology to the masses. This fella Marcy and produced the first official canon of the New Testament, but it was Marcy and's expurgated version of the Bible. He only included books in the New Testament that fostered and championed his idea of a distinction between the loving God of the new covenant and the mean and nasty God of the Old Testament. So, for example, Matthew wouldn't be included because Massey was always quoting from the Old Testament, and even workshop out passages from Luke and other Gospels were anytime the gospel writer would have Jesus say something complementary about Jehovah in the Old Testament that had to go so Marcy and gave us the first scissors and paste conversion of the Bible were they actually try to play around with the writings of the apostles and dismiss what he didn't like it and keep what he did like the doctor up the sources that the crisis theologically, that force the church in the second century to say wait a minute, we're going to draw up a list that we recognize of the true and complete books of the New Testament. Now even this is not to suggest to you, ladies and gentlemen that the church didn't have a Bible until the middle of the second century already pushed it back now from 500 years back to hundred 50 A.D., but want to push it further than that. There is no doubt historically, the from the moment. For example, Paul wrote Romans, and it circulated in the early church that the church recognized Romans is the word of God as sacred Scripture, there is no question as we read the people who were living and writing at the end of the first century, the so-called sub- apostolic fathers as they quote the writings from the New Testament from the Gospels. From Paul's writings.

For example, they quote them as biblical authorities, so we know as a matter of historical record that the bulk of the New Testament literature is found in the canon of the New Testament functioned as sacred Scripture from the very beginning in the life of the church. It's very important for us to understand and about the vast majority of the books in the New Testament, there was never any question in the mind of the church as to whether or not these books belonged in sacred Scripture, but the facts of history make it clear that there were a few books in the New Testament about which at various points in history, the church had questions about whether or not these books really belong in the canon. Questions were raised about the book of Jude makes up less than one page of the New Testament. Questions arise about second Peter questions arise about first second third John Muniz are very tiny with smallest portions of the New Testament.

Questions were raised about the book of Hebrews.

The reason being that the book of Hebrews in Hebrews chapter 6 seems to suggest that people can lose their salvation and that seem to be so strange from everything else the Bible taught about it that people began to raise question really is. This book, the law and so the councils were called in the Simmons met and they examined and they sorted and they sifted and I've heard another scholar say how do we know for sure that the right books got into the Bible when there were over 2000 books that were pretenders for biblical authority and you end up with what 27. The New Testament how we know we have the right 27. Odds are pretty strong against that right thing. Surely if there were 2000 contenders. Only 27 made it very possible that some of God in him should live in those that were left out for a minute love it if you look at the historical process of these 2000 box there were 2 to 3 books that were ever given the slightest serious consideration for inclusion in the canon, the Shepherd of Hermas first climate books were written at the end of the first century in their magnificent literature and basically sound theologically and the reason why those two books were not included in the New Testament is because the authors themselves indicate a clear difference in the authority that they had and the authority of the apostles. In other words, they disqualified themselves from inclusion but the rest of the 1898 or 1998 plays in general were never considered for a moment because they were pure Gnostic frauds and everybody knew it. There were a few of the books that did end up in the New Testament Canon about which there were questions so the question were left with malice how we know that this is the right Bible, how we know that the books that are in their following their Roman Catholic Church has a somewhat sessile solution to the problem since the church is infallible and the church made the decision as to what books are in the canon and don't have to worry. We know for sure that the right books are there because Rome approaches this by saying that only confuse anybody here that the canon is an infallible collecting of infallible books say forget this is like this the church as we know that there's 2027 are so many manuscripts out there and some of them are inspired word of God and some of them are how we come to find which ones are truly the word of God. We go to collect the ones that are infallible.

Romans is infallible because it's the word of God. We know that matters infallible, giving the word about someone using the word art will find the ones that are inspired and separate them from the ones are inspired in Rome says that there process by which they made that sifting and sorting evaluation was an infallible work of the church so that the collecting process itself was infallible to see that classic Protestantism would say no. The compilation of the canon was infallible, collecting of infallible box thing the church was try to be diligent church was trying to be obedient church prayed for providential help and support with the church didn't claim to be infallible. Here we just had the best of our knowledge of the best of our ability best of our judgment. These are the books that we believe and we received to be sacred Scripture, we could be wrong. This is is not day you asked me as a possible RC scroll that there's a book in the New Testament doesn't belong there.

So, yes, possible. These are the mirrors 40 think it's possible that there is books of a written like the first climate, the didn't get in the should get in there possible. You asked me then to give you the probability quotient in my judgment as I wouldn't give you one in 10 Julian chances. There's no work of the church and counsel in the history of the church, about which I have more confidence than the church made the right decision on recognizing the Scripture is clear and it really wasn't that hard a task is a historical process process led certainly by the province of God, and one that I don't think any Christian to be concerned about because I think we have every reason to believe that the fullest possible conference with the right box. By the grace been delivered safely through the ages. That confidence was the foundation of everything Dr. RC scroll taught. In fact everything he did. Our message today here on Renewing Your Mind is from RC series, hath God said Satan tempted Eve in the garden with that very question. And as we look at the world around us we see that first seed of doubt has only grown. That's why we think it's important for believers to be able to defend the authority of God's word, you can request Dr. Spruill six part series on two DVDs when you contact us today with your donation of any amount to find us online@renewingyourmind.org or you can call us at 800-435-4343 and to study this topic further, you'll find many resources on our mobile app you can read articles, watch videos and listen to audio teaching series.

When you download the app to your phone or tablet. If you're looking to grow in your understanding of what you believe in what you believe it.

We hope you'll spend some time there, you'll find it by searching for ligand here in your app store. As I mentioned earlier, we are living in a time when the authority and trustworthiness of Scripture been questioned by many. Even many in the church tomorrow. Dr. Spruill will reinforce what Christians historically have believed about the inspiration fallibility and inerrancy of Scripture, so we hope you'll join us Thursday for Renewing Your Mind