"Canon", from the Greek word KANON, means "a rule, a standard (of faith and practice), or a boundary". When Christians refer to the "canon of Scripture" we are referring to the books of the Bible we commonly accept as authoritative and from God.

     Let's break that statement down a little further. Shortly after the formation of Israel and the Church God led certain men to write His Word as He led them. The Lord did this so we'd have a written record of His will and leading, a written Word that we as believers could study and apply to our lives. God led prophets, priests, and apostles to write Scripture. This was not a work "of" man, but a work that God did "through" man.

     But for everything God does, Satan often offers a counterfeit. In the Old Testament era there were spurious writings that were obviously not God inspired, and men attempted to intermix these works with God's Word. In the New Testament era men rose up and "wrote Scripture", again trying to infiltrate the words of man into the Word of God. There are numerous alleged "lost books of the Bible" that were introduced in the Church Age, books not of God but entirely of man. A tremendous amount of heretical writings were introduced from 1-3 AD, so many that eventually the Church was forced to regard all the writings and establish a "canon" or standard of what we would accept as truly God inspired.

     If you were going to try and survive in the forest you'd want to have some time-tested field guide that would tell you what wild foliage and berries were edible, and which ones were poisonous. It would be foolish to just eat any old thing on the basis that it could be chewed and swallowed, or because it was pretty. Sometimes the prettiest berries are the deadliest, and the most innocuous animals are the most poisonous. You'd want to choose a field manual that others had used, and proven, not some new publication written by someone who had never been in the forest. In the same way, as Christians we needed to carefully examine all things that called themselves "Scripture" then, as God led, choose only that which was time-tested and proven to be Scripture.

     Believers needed a written revelation from God that was trustworthy. We needed a Word that we could rely on. We also, as God led us, needed to separate the "wheat from the chaff", and preserve God's Holy Writings from the infiltration of Satanic corruption. These reasons drove the Church to establish which writings were considered Scriptural and which were "heretical" or "spurious".

     When the Church examined the Old Testament writings to determine canonicity, our job was relatively simple. The nation of Israel were the custodians of the Old Testament, and its Scribes jealously guarded these writings. Scribes were so zealous that they often used a different pen to write the sacred name of God, YHWH, and religiously guarded each word as holy from Him.

     The division of the Old Testament canon was also relatively easy. The Scribes divided the writings from God as:

     What principles of canonicity were applied to our Old Testament? First, as we said before, we trusted the stewardship of Israel in preserving the Old Testament. Every extant book of Scripture that had an "acknowledged messenger of God" commissioned by God to write it was immediately accepted.

     For books where there was some doubt, other standards were applied. For instance, did the Book itself "claim" that it was from God? Did the book contain a "historical record" that was accepted by Israel as God's Word (Deu 31.24-26; Neh 8.1-8; Josh 1.8; Judg 3.4; Dan 12.2; 9.2; Jer 36)? Did our "Lord Jesus", who is our Savior and God, "quote" from these Old Testament Books (Mat 22.29; John 5.39; 10.35, et al)? If so, the Book was immediately recognized as Scripture by the Church. Did some historical figure in Israel's history affirm the Book as canon, from God (Neh 8.5; 2 Kings 22-23)?

     After the Babylonian captivity many of the leaders of Israel (Zerubbabel, Esther, Haggai, Ezra, Joshua) recognized the canon as those books of Scripture carefully guarded by Israel. The canon of the Old Testament was recognized complete by Israel in 425 BC. The Talmud, the writings of a number of Hebrew Scholars (400 AD - 500 AD) recognized those writings guarded by Israel as canon. Eusebius and Josephus, both ancient historians, recognized the Old Testament that we accept today as canon.

     There are a series of books called the Apocrypha that are "accepted as canon by the Roman Catholic Church but rejected by the Protestant Church". Even among Catholics, there is still debate over whether these books should be recognized as fully canonical (Scripture) or only "deutero-canonical" (historically accurate only). I am not Catholic, so I cannot give you their reasons for accepting these books as canon (either in whole or in part), but I can relate why the Protestant Church rejected these books as Scriptural.

1. The books have no "external" historical witness as to their canonicity. Every catalogue of Scriptures of the ancient world excluded the Apocrypha from the Old Testament canon. In the first four centuries of the Church Age the Apocryphal writings were  excluded from acceptance as canon, and only after the 5th century AD did Catholicism finally accept these works. Jesus Christ "never quoted" from these books, nor did any of the New Testament authors ever quote from them. Josephus, the ancient historian, excluded these books from his list of "known Scripture", and even recognized the Apocryphal writings as attempts at infiltration of error into God's Word.

2. The books have no "internal" witness that they are canonical. Unlike the true Old Testament canon, "none" of these books ever claim to be divinely inspired. The "authors of these books were neither prophets nor apostles", nor did any hold the office of prophet. Furthermore, the books contain a number of historical, geographical, and chronological errors that mark them as being of human origin. There are so many distortions of the truth in these books that you nearly have to reject the Old Testament canon as we hold it in order to accept these books as canon. The Apocrypha teaches doctrines that are patently against other known doctrines of the Bible (murder is justified, hating the Samarians is acceptable, suicide is acceptable, prayers for the dead, magic, etc.). If you would like a more complete, detailed study on the Apocryphal writings then click here!.

     When the Church decided to examine the various "writings" that claimed to be Scripture and set a New Testament canon, we used the following standards:

1. Every book of our New Testament was "written by either an Apostle, or someone who was closely associated with an Apostle". The Apostles were ordained to their office by Jesus Christ Himself, and wrote as He led and inspired them. Mark and Luke were not Apostles, but Mark wrote under the direction of Peter (an Apostle) and Luke wrote under the direction of Paul (again, an Apostle).

2. The New Testament canon had to reflect the pre-published truths of God. Since God is one, and does not change, we know that He would not change in His Word. If a book claimed to be Scripture but violated the truths that God established in the Old Testament, or if the alleged Scripture mis-portrayed God in His being, then that book was rejected as canon.

3. A canonical book had to give either "internal" or "external" evidence that it was divinely inspired (2 Pet 3.16-17; Col 4.16; 1 Thes 5.27; 1 Tim 4.13). If the book was not regarded as canonical by the Church Fathers (the early pastors) it was regarded as suspect. If the book failed to claim divine authorship, it was suspect.

     Between 70 to 170 AD the books of the New Testament were collected, bound together, and were informally circulated as canon.

     Between 170-303 AD these books were seriously researched by the Church to determine if they met the strict standards of canonicity.

     Between 303-397 AD the Church held a number of "councils" where books were rejected, and the New Testament you see today was universally recognized as "Scripture". At first the books of 2 John, 3 John, Jude, and James were disputed as canon, but were finally accepted as God's Word.

     The books that were rejected were The Gospel of Mary, The Protevangelion, The First Gospel of the Infancy of Christ, Thomas's [sic] Gospel of the Infancy of Christ, The Gospel of Nicodemus, The Epistle of Paul to the Laodiceans, The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to Seneca, The Acts of Paul and Thecla, The Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, The General Epistle of Barnabas, The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians, The Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians, The Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans, to name a few.

     All of the rejected books showed "some" merit, but fell short, in the Churches estimation, of being canonical. Several of the books are still disputed today. For instance, the "Epistle of Paul to the Laodiceans is highly esteemed by our Quaker brethren" and they pled for its inclusion as canon (Poole's annotations on Col vi. 16). However, the Church rejected these writings as "spurious" or forgeries, works that would not be accepted into the canon of known Scripture.

     The decision to exclude books from the canon was not taken lightly. The Councils of Laodicea (363 AD), Damascus (382 AD), Carthage (397 AD) and Hippo (North Africa, 419 AD) all examined and then, after much prayer, accepted or rejected books as New Testament canon. The Church has always believed two things:

1. That God left us a written Word, truly from Him though He wrote it through men, and

2. That God the Holy Spirit indwells and guides the Church through each age of man.

     Though some of the books rejected from the canon were not seemingly destructive, great care was taken to insure that only God's Word was left after the writings were sifted through. This sifting was not done out of prejudice, or hatred, but by Godly men who were prayerfully following the leading of God the Holy Spirit.

     The Bible you have before you today is a result of that painstaking research. We know it is Scripture, God's Word, because it has stood the test of time. The other books (Apocryphal and "Lost Books of the New Testament"), though fascinating reading, though ancient and perhaps historical, do not bear the fingerprint of God as does our Bible today - the canon of Scripture.

---

Basic Training Systematic Theology Statement of Faith Our Mission Link To Us Heaven?

---

Send E-mail to Russ:
webslave for Christ
( Click Here )
with questions or comments about this web site and it's content.
Last modified: 4/9/2007