Expert: Marvin Howard - 6/6/2006

Question
Ok, if you believe in Sola Scriptura, then how do you know exactly which books belong in the "Bible", both the Old and New Testaments?

Answer
Hi!

Joe, this is an excellent question. Thank you for the opportunity to attempt an answer. I wish to state, from the beginning, I'm not an expert in the field of archeology, and in this area, history, theology and archeology go pretty much hand in hand. The only answer I can supply heavily leans on the decisions of those experts, most of whom were extant not long after the completion of scripture. Before we can turn to your question, we must set a proper, spiritual stage, if you'll allow me that expression.

Hebrews 1:1-5, "God who at sundry times and in divers manners spake IN TIME PAST unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath IN THESE LAST DAYS SPOKEN UNTO US BY HIS SON, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?" (Emphasis mine, MRH)

Before the time of Christ, God spoke through many people. In contrast to this, He would speak, in the last days, only through Christ. In addition, notice that the days of this writing were, in fact, the last days. Therefore, any writing which purports to be the Word of God, MUST be something spoken by the Christ, regardless of whether it's written in red letters in translations that offer such a distinction.

John 14:15-31, "If ye love me, keep my commandments. And I will pray the Father, and he shall give YOU another Comforter, that he may abide with YOU forever; Even the Spirit of truth; whom THE WORLD CANNOT RECEIVE, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you. Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also. At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you. He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him. Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world? Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me. These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you. But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach YOU all things, and BRING ALL THINGS TO YOUR REMEMBRANCE, WHATSOEVER I HAVE SAID UNTO YOU. Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid. Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I. And now I have told you before it come to pass, that, when it is come to pass, ye might believe. Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me. But that the world may know that I love the Father; and as the Father gave me commandment, even so I do. Arise, let us go hence." (Emphasis mine, MRH)

This passage continues the context from chapter 13, which is in the setting of the last supper, where Jesus was present alone with the twelve. There are many switches in the Lord's use between "you" and "he," contrasting those commands and promises made only to the twelve, and those that would be for all followers. One of these promises, which was solely for the twelve, was that they would be the ones guided by the Spirit to remember everything spoken by the Christ.

John 16:13, "Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will show you things to come."

When the Spirit revealed all truth (Jesus, c.f., John 14:6) the Apostles would be guided into it. This indicates more than just a possession of knowledge. There was something they would do with it.

2nd Peter 3:1-4, "This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance: That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Savior: Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation."

The Apostles had the remembrance of things which Christ said. In order for anyone else to have this remembrance, it was necessary for the Apostles to write it for them (including us).

The Bible claims for itself to be the Word of God. It claims there is no other method of revelation for us. Therefore, there are only two cases possible: "Sola Scriptura," or "Sin Scriptura." The only possibilities are "Only Scripture," or "No Scripture." There is no "happy medium" where revelation by Scripture and by another means are mixed. Since the idea of "apostolic succession" is extra-Biblical (originating in the days of Iraneus, some 95 years too late to be Biblical and Christian), you can either accept the idea and thereby reject all Scripture, or you can accept Scripture and thus necessarily reject "apostolic succession." Other than Judas Iscariot (where there was a prophecy to fulfill) none of the Apostles were replaced when they died. If it were so, it would be recorded.

If there's no uniform standard of authority (i.e., if every person claims that his/her teaching came from God directly regardless of contradictory content of other self-styled prophets) then all we have is confusion. If such is the case, and it is within all denominationalism which began with the church of Peter (still in existence today) in 1st Corinthians 1:12, then we have assurance that all denominationalism is foreign to God because He didn't author confusion (1st Corinthians 14:33).

Since it's now proven that the many extra-Biblical "revelations" are NOT from God, and Scripture IS from God, we can now turn our attention to your question.

We have already shown that each of the eleven (after Judas Iscariot left) had the ability and authority to write Scripture. Does there yet remain any room for other authors? This's the crux of your question.

2nd Peter 3:15-16, "And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures, unto their own destruction."

In the same context of his own writings being scripture, Peter acknowledged the writings of Paul. If they were unauthorized, this would have been the ideal time to so state.

Galatians 2:11, "But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed."

In these writings of Paul, equal authority with Peter was claimed. It wasn't later refuted by anyone.

Acts 1:13-22, "And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James. These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren. And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about a hundred and twenty,) Men and brethren, this Scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus. For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry. Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out. And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood. For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishopric let another take. Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, BEGINNING FROM THE BAPTISM OF JOHN, UNTO THAT SAME DAY THAT HE WAS TAKEN UP FROM US, MUST ONE BE ORDAINED TO BE A WITNESS WITH US OF HIS RESURRECTION." (Emphasis mine, MRH)

In the selecting of Matthias as an Apostle to replace Judas, the requirements for an Apostle are plainly given:

1. The person MUST be a witness to the ministry of Jesus, which began at His baptism by John the Immerser.

2. The person MUST be a witness to the resurrection of Jesus.

None of the twelve ever deny that Paul met the requirement of witnessing the beginning of the ministry. Paul was raised at the feet of Gamaliel, being groomed for (if not attaining) a seat on the Sanhedrin. The attitude of the council was such that they wanted to "stamp out the Jesus movement." When removing the head failed, surely they went after the body. This is exactly what Saul of Tarsus was trying to accomplish. The council was both a religious and legal body. They wouldn't take action without witnesses, even if they were false; twisting what was said. That Saul was chosen to spearhead this effort (Acts 9:2) is indicative that he's one of these witnesses.

Saul may not have believed when Jesus' ministry began, but that he changed horses in midstream proves he witnessed the resurrection. No one will suffer the persecution he did for something they believe false. Paul believed Jesus was raised because he saw it with his own eyes. Paul met the qualifications to be an Apostle, and though able to refute it if necessary, none of the other Apostles are recorded anywhere as doing so.

1st Corinthians 16:21, "The salutation of me Paul with mine own hand."

Galatians 6:11, "Ye see how large a letter I have written unto you with mine own hand."

2nd Thessalonians 3:17, "The salutation of Paul with mine own hand, which is the token in every epistle: so I write."

Philemon 1:19, "I Paul have written it with mine own hand, I will repay it: albeit I do not say to thee how thou owest unto me even thine own self besides."

Four times, the most prolific author in the New Testament acknowledged that he only wrote portions of the writings attributed to him. Most of the time, it was simply dictated by him to another. This is where I must begin to lean so heavily upon the work of earlier scholars, and so my answer is nearly complete.

It's recognized by the early historians and scholars that the usual penman of Paul was none other than Luke. It's also thought that Mark was writing for him in his earlier days.

Colossians 4:14, "Luke, the beloved physician, and Demas, greet you."

That Luke was beloved by the early church indicates that he, and his works with him, was well known by its members. It's recorded many times that Luke and/or Mark were with Paul. Either man would've been familiar with the teachings and writings of Paul. Their writings (Mark, Luke, and Acts) are in perfect harmony with the apostolic writings, and the early church historians accepted them as authoritative.

Likewise, close associates of the Apostles wrote the books of James and Jude, and their writings were accepted as authoritative by the early church.

Of all the remaining writings, only Hebrews has an authorship which remains in question. Much of its style is that of Paul, and as such authorship is usually attributed to him. Paul was sent to the Gentiles, by his own admission. However, it's recorded that initially he went to the Jews. The differences in style, which cause people to question his authorship of this book, are easily explained by knowing the possibility of two penmen for Hebrews; Mark when it began, and Luke as it was completed.

Anything else discovered so far, is either non-apostolic, or even if it meets the criteria by which the five non-apostolic books were written, it is still contradictory (e.g., the gospel of Barnabas). Paul plainly stated in Galatians 1:8-9 that even the Apostles and angels weren't allowed to present anything different.

The canon was settled in 367 A.D., long before 533 A.D. when catholicism completely broke from Christianity. Justinian was renamed "John II," and was declared to be "Lord of the church," in place of Jesus. There is no wonder the church recognizes the same New Testament cannon as catholicism.

Jesus set the Old Testament canon, and as such, it isn't in question by Christians, even if other groups add to it.

Matthew 23:35, "That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zechariah son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar."

Luke 11:51, "From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation."

The Hebrew Bible has the same 39 books as do we. They may have different names, and they're in chronological order rather than being grouped by type, but they're all there. It begins with Genesis, and ends with Zechariah. The writings of the Apocrypha were around, and rejected both by the Jews, and by Jesus' canon. Thus, they're rejected by the church, and were rejected by everyone else until catholicism arbitrarily decided to accept them as authoritative at the Council of Trent in 1546. Since catholicism broke from Christianity over 1000 years prior to this, it wasn't the church which decided to use them, and therefore, we still accept the same Old Testament canon recognized by the first century church.

The New Testament canon was written, in its entirety, in the first century, and was widely circulated among the congregations of the church within 200 years. Denominationalism, initially being associated and meeting with Christianity, naturally had the same books at its beginning. That they accepted more, even some of the writings of their leaders to this day, doesn't reflect on the church in any way. The idea of elevating the writings and traditions of others to an equal status with the Word of God (contrary to the warning not to do so in Galatians) wasn't made official until 1545 (earlier during the Council of Trent), and was used to pave the way for the inclusion of the Apocrypha as "canonical."

I'm afraid you'll have to copy and paste these into separate browser windows due to a lack of linking capability in this forum, but here are some useful web addresses with further information on the subject:

http://www.ccel.org/contrib/exec_outlines/bible/bible_02.htm

http://www.ccel.org/contrib/exec_outlines/bible/bible_03.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocrypha

http://www.geocities.com/preacherman_1962/ChurchHistory.html

I pray that I have answered your question satisfactorily. I am afraid that, pitiful though it may be, it's the best of my ability. Should you have any other questions, related or not, I hope you'll give me a chance to answer. Perhaps it will be one where you can get a better answer.

In His Service,
Marvin Howard