Gospel of Mark study part 1

The audio is a little low I promise to try and have this corrected by the next installment. I hope you are blessed and encouraged by what you receive from this video.

Review of Crazy Love

It is rather hard for me to admit that at this point in my academic career I have never written a book review/report. So please bear with me as I try to give a balanced review of Francis Chan’s Crazy Love.

In this book Chan tries to bring us closer to Jesus by showing that it is not a lack of love on His part but on our own. Throughout the book he speaks of us living a Christian life of mediocrity and refers to the church in Laodicea in the book of Revelation to draw comparison to today. Chan uses chapter one to paint a portrait of Heaven and how it should be viewed. He uses the descriptions that are found in the books of Isaiah and Revelation. He summarizes his views this way, “Both of these serve a purpose. John’s helps us imagine what the throne room of God looks like while Isaiah’s reminds what our only response to such a God should be.”

A useful tool that Chan uses to draw in the modern reader is a set of videos found here http://crazylovebook.com/videos.html they cover and give an overview of each chapter. Crazy Love is written in Chan’s trademark style, it is very conversational in feel while being very thought provoking and informative. He strings together stories from his own life, scriptural references, and also includes a chapter full of biographical sketches of those who pursued to love God the same way he loves us.

In regards to our busyness of life Chan says, “Most of us have too much in our lives. As David Goetz writes, “Too much of the good life ends up being toxic, deforming us spiritually.” A lot of things are good by themselves, but all of it together keeps us from living healthy, fruitful lives for God.”  Throughout chapter four he draws conclusions and gives some very specific examples of what lukewarm people look like. Some of them that stand out to me are, “Lukewarm people choose what is popular over what is right when they are in conflict.” “Lukewarm people don’t really want to be saved from their sin; they want to only to be saved from the penalty of their sin.” The one thing that stood out to me the most was, “Lukewarm people probably drink and swear less than average, but besides that, they really aren’t any different from your typical unbeliever. They equate their partially sanitized lives with holiness, but they couldn’t be more wrong.” This last quote came like a shot across my bow, because there are times when I look back over may past and live like this.

Chan does implicitly say that he does not want true believers to read this book and doubt their salvation. He points out that our lives as a whole should be in pursuit of God not just merely the scraps we feel we can spare. Francis declares, “Following Christ isn’t something that can be done halfheartedly or on the side. It is not a label we can display when it is useful. It must be central to everything we do and are.”

Do you often feel like you should feel differently about your faith? If you do you are not alone, I often feel like my faith is inadequate. The only way to solve this is to love God more; nothing else is acceptable to him. Chan says the best way to achieve this is by, “It is a remarkable cycle; our prayers for more love result in love, which naturally causes us to pray more, which results in more love…”

As you grow in this love of God, I hope as Francis does that you would become more obsessed about Him. Have you ever noticed anyone who is obsessed about a specific thing they are fully consumed by it, this is what God wants from us. Francis does a very good job painting the picture of the love God has for us and those who loved him fully and unabashedly. In the end while he tried to answer the questions of how do we apply it to ourselves I felt like I was left with more questions than answers.

I would recommend this book to new believers as well as those who have been in the faith for awhile each should find something to encourage, or discourage (the negative parts of being lukewarm).

After reading this book he has helped me remember my first love, and keep watch over the things that could hurt me. I pray you all would get something out of this book as well.

A Look At The Crusades

Introduction

Like many things in modern times the Crusades have become overly romanticized by some. When they reference the Crusades they speak of it in this light and fluffy manner as though it were almost a fairy tale like time in the history of Christendom. When in all actuality it is one area in Christian history we would erase if we could. The Crusades were not a time of joy in the world, but a horrific time of war under the guise of God.

The Crusades are spoken of in the plural because there were seven major campaigns along with multiple minor ones. Throughout the entirety of the Crusades there were several major reasons given as the driving forces behind the battles; they included taking back Jerusalem from the infidels, converting the Muslims, and rejoining the eastern and western church under one head. By the end of the Crusades none of the original goals that had been laid out were accomplished and the church was in a declining state.

Gonzalez points out, “Among the many ideals that captivated the imagination of Western Christendom during the Middle Ages, no other was as dramatic, as overwhelming, or as contradictory as was the crusading spirit.”[1] The point Gonzalez is making is that as “Christians” the crusaders felt so strongly that they never took a moment to stop and reason whether what they were doing was truly in the will of God.

Out of all seven of the major Crusades, I intend to examine the first three a little more thoroughly than the rest. It has been said that out of them all the only one with any real sense of victory was the first.

The First Crusade (1095-1099)

The first Crusade originally began as a mission of help. Shelley tells us, “In 1095, after the Eastern Emperor Alexius I sent out an urgent appeal for help, Pope Urban II proclaimed the First Crusade to regain the Holy Land.”[2] The Crusades would begin and end with the initiative of France. Urban II would preach at the Council of Clermont making declaration about the people and the need to regain the land so it may provide more space to live and more food to sustain the rising population. The people who were in attendance became so impassioned “a roar rose from the multitude: Deus Volt! God wills it! So there on the spot Urban declared that Deus Volt! would be the crusader battle cry against the Muslim enemy.”[3]

With the First Crusade there was a multitude of lives lost, Schaff says, “These preliminary expeditions of the first Crusade may have cost three hundred thousand lives.”^[4] This is a fact that can either be confusing or amazing considering the fact the Shelley says, “The First Crusade was the most successful of the seven; with not more than 5,000 knights and infantry, it overcame the resistance of the Turks, who were no longer united. Above all, it captured the Holy City—Jerusalem.”[5]

The city of Jerusalem was captured from the Turks on July 15, 1099. However hard fought it was to win the city back it did not last long because the crusaders were unable to hold the city for a hundred years. When the Crusades originally began it was to regain Jerusalem, as they progressed they became known for their brutality. For this to be a “Christian” war, “Such a slaughter of the pagans had never been seen or heard of. The number none but God knew.”^[6] This was not showing the mercy of God that was to be extended to men, especially those who follow Christ. While there was some relative peace for a short period, in 1144 with the fall of Edessa came the call for the Second Crusade.

The Second Crusade (1144-1148)

While the First Crusade may have had some good points, by the time of the Second Crusade the effects of mans sinful nature were beginning to show themselves. Shelley expounds on the matter telling us,

“The original frenzy had clearly cooled, and the signs of corruption of the holy cause were apparent. The popes needed money to meet such obligations as providing legates for the new Christian lands in the East. So they turned spiritual benefits into money-making advantage.”[7]

Of all the flaws that arose in Christendom during the Middle Ages, the practice of indulgences must be the most abhorrent. The church completely disregarded the doctrine of grace through faith and the propitiation of Christ on the cross. During the Crusades the church would allow a man to pay his penance for his sins by choosing to go forth into battle out of a “pure heart”. They even went as far as to allow men to pay financially to send another man in his stead to be his substitute.

The man who spearheaded this venture was St. Bernard of Clairvaux, he was a fervent preacher who opposed the idea that Jews should be exterminated; while seeking to organize a military response to help Jerusalem and slow the rush to Jerusalem.[8] Even though this was a Crusade it ended in defeat and reaping no real benefit.

The Third Crusade (1189-1192)

This Crusade was full of very powerful men, Emperor Frederick Barbarossa of Germany, Richard the Lion-Hearted of England, and Phillip Augustus of France. The major goal of the Third Crusade was to regain Jerusalem after it had been taken by Saladin the sultan of Egypt in 1187. Because of the men attached to this crusade it has been one of the more widely celebrated out of the seven. It is a shame however that before Frederick Barbarossa made it to Jerusalem he drowned “on June 10 in the waters of the Kalycadnus River into which he had plunged to cool himself.”^[9] Something that is quite interesting is that “The famous Saladin tax was levied in England, and perhaps also in France, requiring the payment of a tithe by all not joining the Crusade.”^[10] Which some today might consider a legal form of racketeering.

While the remaining men in charge were unable to retake Jerusalem they did manage to take Acre, and according to Schaff, “Acre, or Ptolemais, under Mount Carmel, had become the metropolis of the Crusaders, as it was the key to the Holy Land.” ^[11] For most the gaining of Acre would not be considered a victory, but in Phillip’s eyes enough must have been enough. Shortly after taking control of Acre he returned home with the motive to try and gain as much of Richard’s lands as possible. Richard on the other hand had reached a point where he was willing to negotiate with Saladin. “Richard and Saladin finally agreed to a three year truce and free access to Jerusalem for Christian pilgrims. Since Saladin would have granted this concession at anytime, the truce scarcely compensated for the cost of such an expensive crusade.”[12] On his return trip home he would be taken hostage until a large ransom was paid, this would not be his first time dealing with this situation, “A dark blot rests upon Richard’s memory for the murder in cold blood of twenty-seven hundred prisoners in the full sight of Saladin’s troops and as a punishment for the non-payment of the ransom money.”^[13]

Conclusion

In later Crusades some crusaders would actually invade Constantinople and for a short period rejoin the East and West churches, but in the end there would be a divide that seems irreconcilable. While there have been a lot of negatives focused on there were several good points that emerged from the Crusades, one of them being the uniting of the European states which have not divided much since that period. Schaff sums up the Crusades wonderfully when he says, “In this case, as in the other Crusades, it was not so much the Saracens, or even the splendid abilities of Saladin, which defeated the Crusaders, but their feuds among themselves.”^[14]

So before we go off waging anymore holy wars, let us check our motives and be assured from God that it is his plan; always keeping ourselves accountable before more lives are lost because of man’s greed and trying to hide under the guise of fighting for God.

Bibliography

Cross, F. L., and Elizabeth A. Livingstone, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 3rd ed. rev. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.

Gonzalez, Justo L. The Story of Christinaity- Volume 1. New York: Harper Collins, 2010.

Hill, Jonathan. Zondervan Handbook to the History of Christianity. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006.

Johnson, Paul. A History of Christianity. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1976.

Schaff , Philip and David Schley Schaff, History of the Christian Church Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997.

Shelley, Bruce L. Church History in Plain Language. Nashville: Nelson, 1995.

---

[1] Justo L. Gonzalez, The Story of Christinaity- Volume 1. (New York: Harper Collins, 2010) 345.

[2] Bruce L. Shelley, Church History in Plain Language. (Nashville: Nelson, 1995)187.

[3] Ibid, 187.

^[4] Philip Schaff and David Schley Schaff, History of the Christian Church (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997).

[5] Shelley, History, 188-89.

^[6] Philip Schaff and David Schley Schaff, History of the Christian Church (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997).

[7] Shelley, History, 189.

[8] Gonzalez, Christianity, 350.

^[9] Philip Schaff and David Schley Schaff, History of the Christian Church (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997).

^[10] Ibid.

^[11] Ibid.

[12] Shelley, History, 190.

^[13] Philip Schaff and David Schley Schaff, History of the Christian Church (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997).

^[14] Ibid.

The Rise of the Papacy

Introduction

If you are anything like me when you hear the term “Pope” you think of an old guy in a dress with a pointy hat. However, around 1500 years ago when someone heard the term “Pope” they began to think of the Bishop of Rome. Surprisingly Shelley points out that,

“The term pope itself is not crucial in the emergence of the doctrine of papal primacy. The title “papa” originally expressed the fatherly care of any and every bishop of his flock. It only began to be reserved for the bishop of Rome in the sixth century, long after the claim of primacy.”[1]

Even though the definition points out that the root word for pope started with the term papa and was used of every bishop, how did we ever reach a place where one man would claim to have all authority over the church? There are many factors that lead up to the Rome playing an important part in the church and Hill points out,

“The Council of Chalcedon had decreed that there were five dioceses with special authority, the seats of the patriarchs—Rome, Jerusalem, Alexandria, Antioch, and Constantinople. But apart from Rome, all of these cities were in the eastern half of the empire. So from the fourth century onwards, as the two halves became increasingly politically and culturally distinct, the easterners had four apostolic sees to appeal to, while the westerners had only one. Rome inevitably became more and more theologically important to the West.”[2]

After Constantine moved the capital city out of Rome in the west and into Constantinople, the bishop of Rome began to sense the shift taking place and in effort to stop it exerted his belief of apostolic succession. These three men, Damasus, Leo I, and Gregory I (also known as the Great) all played a pivotal part in shaping the role of the papacy during the Middle Ages.

Damasus (366-384)

Damasus is a very interesting character; he started out as a deacon under Pope Liberius and served under him until his death. According to the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church,

“On Liberius’ death (24 Sept. 366), a fierce conflict broke out between the supporters of Damasus and those of his rival, Ursinus (or Ursicinus). Ursinus was elected Pope in the basilica of Julius (S. Maria in Trastevere), while Damasus was chosen by the great majority of the clergy and people of Rome in S. Lorenzo in Lucina.” ^[3]

It would be Emperor Valentinian who would step in and settle the argument choosing Damasus as the successor of Liberius. After taking his place Damasus would become an excellent ally of St Basil of Caesarea in the fight against Arianism.

Damasus would also go on to make some very significant contributions to the church by commissioning artist to create ornate copies of the scriptures, building larger basilicas, and one of his most important contributions would be to commission his secretary Jerome to copy the Bible into Latin (known as the Vulgate). He is also given credit for making mass Latin and moving it from the Greek which it had been in until then.[4]

Damasus is also credited as the first to call the see of Rome the “Apostolic See”, in an attempt to show its authority over the other sees. Hall states, “…Damasus was the first to argue that in giving Peter this authority, Jesus also intended it to pass to Peter’s successors.”[5] Several historians also note that Damasus was known to live at a level that almost rivaled that of the emperor. He would dress lavishly and even ride around in fancy carriages like royalty.

Leo I (440-461)

While Damasus was the first to push for the authority of the Roman see it would be Leo I (sometimes called the Great) who would be considered the first true Pope of the Roman church. While the claims of primacy were slowly gaining ground Shelley explains that, “Leo is a major figure in that process because he provides for the first time the biblical and theological bases of the papal claim. That is why it is misleading to speak of the papacy before his time.”[6]

Leo showed his orthodoxy because,

“…he opposed the period’s major heresies, Manicheanism, Pelagianism, Priscillianism, Leo unhesitantly utilized imperial criminal prosecution and banishment. More positively, Leo’s finest achievement was probably the formation and acceptance he gained for orthodox Christological dogma.” ^[7]

While Leo I knew no Greek or Hebrew he wrote numerous sermons and letters, but one of his greatest contributions to the Christian faith is the Tome of Leo which he defends the dual natures of Christ, and it would be used to help solidify the work of the Council of Chalcedon.

Leo also became powerful in the sense that when Attila and the Huns were threatening to invade Rome, it was Leo I who was able to dissuade him from it. He also encouraged their retreat well past the Danube River. Within three years it would be Leo and not the Emperor who would have to step up and attempt to save the city again, this time it was against the Vandals and Geneseric. Leo I was able to keep the Vandals from destroying the city but they looted the city for fourteen days straight before boarding their boats and leaving. Schaff tells us,

“The first Leo and the first Gregory are the two greatest bishops of Rome in the first six centuries. Between them no important personage appears on the chair of Peter; and in the course of that intervening century the idea and the power of the papacy make no material advance.”^[8]

When Leo I was Pope the papacy was on the rise, taking more control over the religious culture and gaining more political power in the empire. It would not be until Gregory I that the papacy started making even larger strides in power.

Gregory I (590-604)

Apart from Leo I, Gregory I (also known as Gregory the Great) is the greatest Pope of the Middle Ages. He would reluctantly take the role thrust upon him, at first he tried to run from the role and live a life of asceticism. The role of bishop of Rome had been left vacant for upwards of six months, and “While Gregory regarded his elevation to the papacy as a punishment, he immediately threw himself into the struggle for order in the midst of chaos.”[9]

Gregory I was a man who enjoyed the life of asceticism, he would be the first bishop to put monasticism in a role of power. He was not one that wanted to use the title of universal bishop,

“In that controversy, Gregory does not allege that he is deprived of a right which belonged to him, but he strongly insists that the appellation is profane, nay, blasphemous, nay the forerunner of Antichrist. “The whole Church falls from its state, if he who is called universal falls” (Greg. Lib. 4 Ep. 76). ^[10]

While he would deny using the title of universal bishop, he would call himself “the servant of the servants of God”. During Gregory’s rule the church in Rome would be in control of almost 1,800 square miles of land making it the largest land owner in Italy. [11]

Gregory had many good points, but the one thing he introduced and promulgated dealt with sin. His teaching would say that a person would have to make penance for their sins and that the price paid by Christ on the cross was not sufficient. Gregory’s position is that, “Sin might be forgiven on condition of repentance, which involved contrition, confession, and satisfaction. Satisfaction included penance, and the penance was in proportion to the sin.”^[12] It would later be these ideas that would cause Luther to write the 95 thesis.

Conclusion

While everyone has an opinion about the Pope and the Catholic Church we can all be grateful in one degree or another for the things of the past. We can all be appreciative of Damasus for commissioning Jerome, or Leo I’s input on the nature of Christ, and even Gregory with his teaching on penance and purgatory. Had the papacy allowed itself to come under scrutiny, and be subject to review it may have been able to stay away from the corruption that would soon take hold, and lead to one of the most spiritually enlightening periods since the time of the Apostles called the Reformation.

Bibliography

Bryer K.J., "Leo I" In , in Who's Who in Christian History, ed. J.D. Douglas and Philip W. Comfort Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House, 1992.

Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997.

Cross, F. L., and Elizabeth A. Livingstone, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 3rd ed. rev. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.

Gonzalez, Justo L. The Story of Christinaity- Volume 1. New York: Harper Collins, 2010.

Hill, Jonathan. Zondervan Handbook to the History of Christianity. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006.

Johnson, Paul. A History of Christianity. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1976.

Schaff , Philip and David Schley Schaff, History of the Christian Church Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997.

Shelley, Bruce L. Church History in Plain Language. Nashville: Nelson, 1995.

---

[1]Bruce L Shelley, Church History in Plain Language. (Nashville: Nelson, 1995) 133.

[2] Jonathan Hill, Zondervan Handbook to the History of Christianity. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006) 167.

^[3] F. L. Cross and Elizabeth A. Livingstone, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 3rd ed. rev. (Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), 451.

[4] Paul Johnson, A History of Christianity. (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1976) 101.

[5] Hill, Christianity, 168.

[6] Shelley, Histroy, 133.

^[7] Bryer K.J., "Leo I" In , in Who's Who in Christian History, ed. J.D. Douglas and Philip W. Comfort (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House, 1992), 419.

^[8] Philip Schaff and David Schley Schaff, History of the Christian Church (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997).

[9] Shelley, History, 166.

^[10] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997).

[11] Shelley, History, 167.

^[12] D.S. Cushman and J.D. Douglas, "Gregory I (The Great)" In , in Who's Who in Christian History, ed. J.D. Douglas and Philip W. Comfort (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House, 1992), 286.

THE NEED OF ORTHODOXY AND CREATING THE CANON

Introduction
In the United States of America alone we have an abundance of Bibles to choose from. We can get it in many different styles, colors and even translations. As a matter of fact this year the King James Version (also known as the Authorized Version) celebrates 400 years in print. When it comes to the Bible in our culture we are spoiled, we want it packaged in a nice way and for it to be super easy to comprehend. And if it’s not we complain because we were expecting something different.

Long before we have the Bible in the form we recognize and agree upon (as protestants), the Jews had to agree upon what they knew to be scripture. Their scriptures which we call the Old Testament took a little while to be formed, while it contains all same books they are arranged in a different order.

Now let us go forward to the times of Jesus. Scripture was not something that every person had in their home, even some of the smaller synagogues did not have a copy of all the scriptures of that time, so the best place to learn from the teachings were the manuscripts found in the temple of Jerusalem. Then fast-forward around a hundred and fifty years and a group of people known as Gnostics began to force the hand of the church. They would claim some materials as authoritative and others were of no value.

With all of these different options how do we even know what we are getting? This is where the study of orthodoxy and the canon take us on a trip, showing where men met heresy with truth and stood toe-to-toe. In the end we have the Holy Bible containing sixty-six books recognized as the inspired word of God, with the power to change lives.

Orthodoxy

What is orthodoxy and how are we supposed to obtain it? In response to this question Gonzalez says,

“… orthodox Christianity began to define itself by reaffirming such elements of its Jewish heritage as the doctrines of creation, of the positive value of the created world, or the rule of God of all of history, of the resurrection of the body—a doctrine learned from the Pharisees—and a coming final reign of God.” [1]

To be orthodox was to be the complete opposite of a heretic. Heretics wanted to go around changing the Word to make it fit their way of life without surrendering to its power. The importance of the canon of Scripture is one thing that must not be taken lightly because if we doubt the Bible we begin to lose the very foundation of our faith. Grudem gives a great explanation for why we should not mess with Scripture,

“To add to or subtract from God’s words would be to prevent God’s people from obeying him fully, for commands that were subtracted would not be known to the people, and words that were added might require extra things of the people which God had not commanded.^[2]”

Many of the first combatants the church had to face were a wide group called Gnostics. The Gnostics were corrupt in their thoughts and provided a perverted gospel. They felt that they had been given direct revelation and were in an elevated place above other men. Shelly informs us, “Orthodox Christians found Gnostics very difficult to combat. In arguments they always claimed that they had some secret information denied their opponent.”[3] It is easy for people of our era to say negative things about the early church because we are not faced with the same issues. While it may sound awkward we should be grateful to the early challengers of the faith, because, “Heretics, in fact, served the church in an unintended way. Their pioneering attempts to state the truth forced the church to shape “good theology”—a rounded, systematic statement of biblical revelation.”[4]

One of the earliest and most well know heretics was Marcion, he felt that the Old Testament God was one of wrath and could have nothing to do with the God displayed in the New Testament writings. After rejecting so much of Scripture, “…he was left with only a mutilated version of Luke’s Gospel (omitting the nativity stories) and ten letters of Paul.”[5] While Marcion was the first to try and put together a New Testament[6], he and other Gnostics would be answered and refuted by the forming of the “Apostles Creed”. The next man to stir things up would be Montanus, he tried to push the idea that the Old Testament era had past along with Jesus’ time and now the Spirit would be in charge for the next era. While Montanus tried to separate the Spirit from all of his work it would be Irenaeus who would go on to prove that the same Spirit was at work in all eras.[7] After dealing with the likes of men like these and others it helped to lead to the creation of the canon of Scripture.

New Testament Canon

Now with the understanding of what orthodoxy means lets tackle the issue of canonicity. First what does the word “canon” mean? According to Schmid, “A canon is an infallible rule or measure by which no means allows that anything maybe added to it or taken from it.”[8] This begs the question of how do we know what books then belong in the canon and how do we decide? Generally there are three rules that need to be met, first did the book conform to orthodoxy?, was the writer an apostle or someone closely associated to an apostle?, and was it recognized widely throughout the church as Scripture?[9]

The first books accepted into the New Testament were the four gospels, and the Pauline Epistles. According to Reid,

“But towards the end of the second century the canonical minimum was enlarged and besides the Gospel and Pauline Epistles, unalterably embraced Acts, I Peter, I John (to which II and III John were probably attached), and Apocalypse. Hebrews, James, Jude and II Peter remained hovering outside the precincts of universal canonicity and the controversy about them and the subsequently disputed Apocalypse form the larger part of the remaining history of the Canon of the New Testament.”[10]

The issue concerning the New Testament was not considered resolved until very close to the middle or end of the fourth century. According to Driscoll,

“In the fourth century the church moved to settle the issues of the New Testament canon. In the East, it was done by the Thirty-Ninth Paschal Letter of Athanasius in AD 367. In the West the canon was not fixed until the council of Carthage in AD 397.”[11]

So what about the books that don’t qualify as Scripture? These are commonly referred to as the Apocrypha. According to the Westminster Confession of Faith we are to view them as, “…no part of the canon of Scripture, and therefore of no authority in the church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings.”[12] However not everyone holds to that view because the Catholic Church as we know it today has allowed these materials to be used as scripture.

Conclusion

In the end everyone should be grateful for the men who chose to be obedient to the leading of the Holy Spirit, and compiling the greatest best-seller there has ever been. We would be wise to trust the Scriptures as they have been presented to us and head their instructions, listen to the warning John provides,

“I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, ¹⁹ and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.” (Rev 22:18-19, ESV).

May this help you come to a deeper understanding of Scripture and help you to hold it ever more dear to you and the life you lead.

Bibliography

Driscoll, Mark, and Gerry Breshears. Doctrine: What Christians Should Believe. Wheaton: Crossway, 2010.

Gonzalez, Justo L. The Story of Christinaity- Volume 1. New York: Harper Collins, 2010.

Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Inter-Varsity Press, 1994.

Reid, George. "Canon of the New Testament." The Catholic Encyclopedia. 1908. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm (accessed June 4 , 2011).

Schmid, Heinrich. "Doctrinal Theology- Of the Canon and the Apocryphal Books." Christian Classics Ethereal Library. 1889. http://www.ccel.org/print/schmid/theology/iii.iv.vii (accessed June 4, 2011).

Shelley, Bruce L. Church History in Plain Language. Nashville: Nelson, 1995.

The Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms. Lawerenceville, GA: Christian Education and Publications, 2005.

---

[1] Justo L. Gonzalez, The Story of Christinaity- Volume 1. (New York: Harper Collins, 2010) 69.

^[2] Wayne A. Grudem, Systematic Theology : An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Leicester, England; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Inter-Varsity Press; Zondervan Pub. House, 1994), 54.

[3] Bruce L Shelley,. Church History in Plain Language. (Nashville: Nelson, 1995) 54.

[4] Ibid, 47.

[5] Ibid, 63.

[6] Gonzalez, Christianity. 75

[7] George Reid, "Canon of the New Testament." The Catholic Encyclopedia. 1908. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm (accessed June 4 , 2011) 5.

[8] Heinrich. Schmid, "Doctrinal Theology- Of the Canon and the Apocryphal Books." Christian Classics Ethereal Library. 1889. http://www.ccel.org/print/schmid/theology/iii.iv.vii (accessed June 4, 2011).

[9] Mark Driscoll, and Gerry Breshears. Doctrine: What Christians Should Believe. (Wheaton: Crossway, 2010)54 .

[10] Reid, "Canon” 5.

[11] Driscoll, Doctrine. 53-54.

[12] The Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms. (Lawerenceville, GA: Christian Education and Publications, 2005) 4.

Technorati Tags: Christian History,Creating the New Testament,Orthodoxy