1An axiom is a statement, postulate, or presupposition that is taken as true and that serves as the premise or starting point for further reasoning and arguments. The New Testament word for axioms or “presuppositions” is στοιχεια. This word was used in classical Greek and by the Church fathers to mean the elementary or fundamental principles.

In geometry it was used for axioms, and in philosophy for elements of proof or the πρωτοι συλλογισμοῖ of general reasoning (Liddell and Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, s.v. ). Both of these definitions are synonyms for “presuppositions.”

The New Testament teaches that the στοιχεια are the “foundation” upon which our faith and practice rests (Heb. 5:12-6:3). We find our στοιχεια in the Word of God (Heb. 5:12) and most specifically in the person of Jesus Christ (Col. 2:8-10; Heb. 6:1) revealed in them. The στοιχεια of the world are the foundation of the non-Christian “philosophy” (Col. 2:8) and are diametrically opposed to the στοιχεια of Christ the God-Man (Col 2:8-10). Our thoughts and actions are a logical outworking of these στοιχεια in everyday life (Col. 2:20ff). We must recognize that the superstructure of our world-and-life view is antithetical to the superstructure of the heathen’s world-and-life view, not because the superstructures do not have any things in common, but because of the way in which these superstructures are completely committed to their foundation or presuppositions. Paul gives us an example of this concept when he vigorously opposed the Galatians’ succumbing to pressure to be circumcised and observe “days and months and times and years” (Gal. 4:10). Though the physical act of circumcision was not wrong (cf. 1 Cor. 7:19; Acts 16:3), the idea that lay behind it was destructive and led to syncretism, a denial of their presuppositions, and an unintentional reversion to weak and pathetic presuppositions (Gal. 4:9). ↩

2As the Westminster Confession of Faith words it,

The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself; and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.” The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture. (WCF I.ix-x)

As we will see, this is just as true of the doctrine of canonicity as it is any other doctrine.↩

3“Canon” is a term that refers either 1) to a rule of faith and truth or 2) to the list of books which are considered to be part of Holy Scripture. In this book I will be using the latter definition. The canon of Scripture is the authoritative list of books that are considered to be Scripture. The Westminster Confession of Faith insists that God alone can determine canon. Otherwise man is the judge of God’s revelation. While there are many circumstantial evidences that God has orchestrated, “our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts” (I.v). It is God who determines the canon of Scripture.↩

4Greg L. Bahnsen, “The Concept and Importance of Canonicity,” an unpublished paper given to the author by Greg. L. Bahnsen. This seminal paper triggered a desire in me to be totally consistent with my presuppositional starting point of Scripture. Bahnsen has also applied this presuppositional approach to the question of whether the Bible is inerrant in, Greg. L. Bahnsen, “Inductivism, Inerrancy, and Presuppositionalism,” in The Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, volume 20, 1997. This is a brilliant response to opponents of inerrancy.↩

5Any number of quotes could be given to demonstrate this: John Calvin said, “God alone is a fit witness of himself in his Word… Scripture is indeed self-authenticated” (John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960), 1.7.4–5). Francis Turretin said, “Thus Scripture, which is the first principle in the supernatural order, is known by itself and has no need of arguments derived from without to prove and make itself known to us” (Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, trans. George Musgrave Giger, ed. James T. Dennison Jr., 3 vols. (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 1992–1997), 1:89 (2.6.11)). Herman Bavink expresses the historic view of the fathers as corresponding to that of the Protestants: “In the church fathers and the scholastics… [Scripture] rested in itself, was trustworthy in and of itself (αὐατοπιστος), and the primary norm for church and theology.” (Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, vol. 1, Prolegomena, ed. John Bolt, trans. John Vriend (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003), 452). Therefore, Bavinck argues that an ultimate authority like Scripture (a “first principle”) must be “believed on its own account, not on account of something else… Scripture’s authority with respect to itself depends on Scripture.” (p. 458).↩

6Westminster Larger Catechism #3, emphasis mine.↩

7For a presuppositional approach to textual criticism, see my book, Has God Indeed Said?: The Preservation of the Text of Scripture, available for free download from https://kaysercommentary.com/booklets.md↩

8Karl Keating represents Roman Catholicism when he says that “an infallible authority is needed if we are to know what belongs in the Bible and what does not. Without such an authority, we are left to our own prejudices, and we cannot tell if our prejudices lead us in the right direction… [The authority needed is] an infallible, teaching Church… The same Church that authenticates the Bible, that establishes inspiration, is the authority set up by Christ to interpret his word” (Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1988), pp. 132-133).↩

9Bishop Kallistos (Timothy Ware) states the Eastern Orthodoxy position this way: “It is from the Church that the Bible ultimately derives its authority, for it was the Church which originally decided which books form a part of Holy Scripture” (Timothy Ware, The Orthodox Church (New York: Penguin Books, 1997), p. 199).↩

10James Packer, God Speaks to Man: Revelation and the Bible, Christian Foundations, 6 (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1965), p.81↩

11Calvin, Luther, Mornay, and many other Reformers demonstrated that Rome had abandoned the catholic faith on this and many other doctrines. When I deal with Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox objections to the Reformation view of the canon later in this book, I will document the pervasive belief in the doctrine of Sola Scriptura in the church of the first millennium. Cyril of Jerusalem (AD 313-386) is representative of many when he says,

For concerning the divine and sacred Mysteries of the Faith, we ought not to deliver even the most casual remark without the Holy Scriptures: nor be drawn aside by mere probabilities and the artifices of argument. Do not then believe me because I tell thee these things, unless thou receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth: for this salvation, which is of our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings, but by proof from the Holy Scriptures. (Cyril of Jerusalem, The Catechetical Lectures IV.17 in A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford: Parker, 1845)).

↩

12For example, conservative scholar, Roland Kenneth Harrison, in his excellent book, Introduction to the Old Testament, agrees with the Protestant principle that the Scriptures are “self-authenticating” and “do not derive their authority either from individual human beings or from corporate ecclesiastical pronouncements” (p. 263). He rightly rejects the Roman Catholic assumption that the church is the “mother of the Bible” and denies that the church has authority to determine the canon (see p. 262). Yet he admits that he cannot defend this assertion from the Bible: “While the Bible legitimately ought to be allowed to define and describe canonicity, it has in point of fact almost nothing to say about the manner in which holy writings were assembled, or the personages who exercised an influence over the corpus during the diverse stages of its growth” (Roland Kenneth Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969), p. 262). This major gap in understanding of the Bible’s self-referential statements is common among Protestants and leaves them vulnerable to the Roman Catholic apologetic. It is the purpose of this book to show that the Bible is actually full of self-referential information that speaks directly to the issue of canonicity.↩

13According to ancient Greek legend, the great warrior, Achilles, had been dipped in magical waters as a baby that would make him invulnerable to attack. Since Achilles was held by the heel, the heel was not immersed, and therefore the heel alone was vulnerable to wounds. That one weakness would be exploited near the end of the Trojan War by Paris. As the story goes, he shot Achilles in the heel with an arrow, killing his seemingly invincible foe. Thus, to have an “Achilles’ heel” is a metaphor of having a weak point in our defenses. Many Roman Catholic apologists claim that Sola Scriptura is not Protestantism’s greatest strength, but its greatest weakness. ↩

14What the Confession calls “good and necessary consequence” ( Westminster Confession of Faith, I.6)↩

15Just as J.C. Keister, “Math and the Bible,” in The Trinity Review
(No. 27/Sept/Oct, 1992) has shown the axioms of mathematics to be embedded in the Scripture, John Robbins and others have demonstrated that all the axioms of logic are used in Scripture and thus show the divine warrant for a complete system of logic. Some might ask, “Which system of logic?” Actually there are not truly different systems of logic. Gordon Clark has shown that there is a problem with Bertrand Russell’s modification of Aristotelian logic, and cautions against it, However, the basic structure of logical thinking cannot be different. For proof of where Russell went wrong, see Clark’s book, Logic, pp. 83ff. For a marvelous college level course on logic using the Bible as the source, write to the Trinity Foundation in Jefferson, MD. This is currently also available on Youtube, with lecture one being here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hllEWx-khWo ↩

16For example, the Larger Catechism sees as a violation of the third commandment not only faulty exegesis (“misinterpreting” Scripture), but also faulty deductions (“misapplying” Scripture and theology) (LC. 113). It treats as a violation of the first commandment the following: “ignorance, forgetfulness, misapprehensions, false opinions…vain credulity, unbelief, heresy, [and] misbelief” (LC 105). In other words, these writers saw any form of irrationality as both a theological problem and an ethical problem. The irrationality may be deliberate rebellion or may be the secondary effects of Adam’s fall (noetic effects of the Fall). It is clear that the Westminster Assembly believed that irrationality led to having other gods than the rational Jehovah (first commandment) and that irrationality led to inconsistencies with wearing the name of God as His followers (third commandment). If we are to think God’s thoughts after Him, then our thoughts will be and must be rational thoughts. Anything else does dishonor to God.↩

17John Frame, The Doctrine of The Knowledge of God (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing Company, 1987), pp. 251-254.↩

18See for example Gordon Clark’s discussion in A Christian Philosophy of Education (Jefferson, MD: The Trinity Foundation, 1988), pp. 129-140.↩

19Which has in its meaning both logic and discourse. Christ is the Word of God. He is also the Logic of God.↩

20This of course does not mean that we do not need to study language, but linguistic analysis has demonstrated that children from every language group use the same “rules” to make sense out of the patterns of words that they hear. There is something innate (God-given) that enables them to learn a language. See Gordon Clark, Religion, Reason and Revelation. In the same way, God’s people must study logic to improve their understanding of Scripture. This study is simply seeking to make our thoughts more and more consistent with the logic of Scripture and the God who gave Scripture and logic.↩

21Circular reasoning (sometimes called the fallacy of the petitio principii) is the fallacy of assuming what it is attempting to prove. It is a use of reason in which the premises depend on or are equivalent to the conclusion, a method of false logic by which “this is used to prove that, and that is used to prove this.” When it comes to the Reformation approach to canonicity, even Protestants have sometimes mistakenly claimed that the Reformation approach of using the Scriptures to establish the canon is the fallacy of petitio principii. For a Roman Catholic example of this accusation, see https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/according-to-scripture↩

22As William Alston words it, “There is no escape from epistemic circularity in the assessment of our fundamental sources of belief” (William Alston, “Knowledge of God,” in Faith, Reason, and Skepticism, ed. Marcus Hester (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1992), 41).↩

23Greg L. Bahnsen says, “The ‘circularity’ of a transcendental argument is not at all the same as the fallacious ‘circularity’ of an argument in which the conclusion is a restatement (in one form or another) of one of its premises. Rather, it is the circularity involved in a coherent theory (where all the parts are consistent with or assume each other) and which is required when one reasons about a precondition for reasoning. Because autonomous philosophy does not provide the preconditions for rationality or reasoning, its ‘circles’ are destructive of human thought – i.e., ‘vicious’ and futile endeavors” (Greg Bahnsen, Van Til’s Apologetics: Readings and Analysis (Phillipsburg, Presbyterian and Reformed, 1998), 518).↩

24There are two forms of Presuppositional Apologetics that (while competing with each other) have both offered very helpful insights about the nature of presuppositional reasoning. An excellent introduction to Van Tillian apologetics can be found in Greg L. Bahnsen, Always Ready: Directions for Defending the Faith (Texarkana, AR: Covenant Media Foundation, 1996). The second form of presuppositionalism can be found in the brilliant writings of Gordon H. Clark. An excellent and brief introduction to Clarkianism can be found in Gary W. Crampton, The Scripturalism of Gordon H. Clark (Jefferson, MD: Trinity Foundation, 1999). This book contains a comprehensive bibliography of all of Dr. Clark’s writings.↩

25I should clarify that while some of the criteria have validity (for example, agreement with the Torah, unity and self-testimony, preservation, etc.), it is the purpose of this book to show that the Scripture has given us everything that we need to determine the canon of the Old and New Testaments. One Scriptural rule that will be used in the second half of this book is the Biblical doctrine of inerrancy. This rule will primarily be used in an ad hominem way. We will introduce a few other Biblical rules by which other literature (such as the Koran) can be judged, but the first half of this book will restrict its discussion to the Biblical proofs for the Protestant canon. ↩

26Though many people believe that Paul wrote Hebrews, there is abundant evidence that Luke wrote Hebrews. For an introduction to this subject, see David L. Allen, Lukan Authorship of Hebrews, (Nashville: B&H Publishing, 2010).↩

27See for example, the books written by prophets and that contained “prophecies” and “visions” in 2 Chron. 9:29. Other prophetic books include the Book of The Wars of Jehovah (Numb. 21:14), the Book of Jashar (Josh. 10:13; 2 Sam. 1:18), another Book of Samuel on the Kingdom (1 Sam. 10:25), the Book of the Chronicles of David (1 Chron. 27:24), the Book of the Acts of Solomon (1 Kings 11:41), Solomon’s three thousand proverbs and 1005 songs (1 Kings 4:32), the book of Solomon’s Natural History (1 Kings 4:32-33), the Book of Shemaiah the Prophet (2 Chron. 12:15), the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite (2 Chron. 9:29), the Visions of Iddo the seer (2 Chron. 9:29; 12:15), “the annals of the prophet Iddo” (2 Chron. 13:22), a full history of king Uzziah written by Isaiah (2 Chron. 26:22), the Book of Jehu the Son of Hanani (2 Chron. 20:34), and an extrabiblical (but reliable) history of the Kings (1 Kings 14:19,25; Chron. 20:34; 33:18).↩

28Though this is contested by some scholars, I believe the evidence favors the view that the Saduccees did not accept any books as authoritative beyond the Pentateuch. Since they were literalists in their interpretation, it is almost certain that they would have believed in the resurrection and in spirits (contra Matt. 22:23; Acts 23:8) if they took the rest of the Old Testament as authoritative.

Likewise, it seems unlikely that Christ would have appealed to such an obscure passage in the Pentateuch when arguing with them (Matt. 22:32 quotes Ex. 3:6), if the Sadducees had been willing to accept the authority of much more obvious texts on the resurrection, such as Isaiah 26:19; Job 19:25-26; Dan. 12:2; etc. Hippolytus of Rome (170-235 AD) said that the Sadducees “do not, however, devote attention to prophets, but neither do they to any other sages, except to the law of Moses only.” Origen also claimed that “the Samaritans and Sadducees … receive the books of Moses alone.” I do grant that some scholars have concluded differently. For example, F.F. Bruce states,

It is probable, indeed, that by the beginning of the Christian era the Essenes (including the Qumran community) were in substantial agreement with the Pharisees and the Sadducees about the limits of the Hebrew scripture. (F.F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1988), p. 40).

↩

29Though this conclusion is not shared by scholars such as F.F. Bruce, who says,

Philo of Alexandria (c 20 BC-AD 50) evidently knew the scriptures in the Greek version only. He was an illustrious representative of Alexandrian Judaism, and if Alexandrian Judaism did indeed recognize a more comprehensive canon than Palestinian Judaism, one might have expected to find some trace of this in Philo’s voluminous writings. But, in fact, while Philo has not given us a formal statement on the limits of the canon such as we have in Josephus, the books which he acknowledged as holy scripture were quite certainly books included in the traditional Hebrew Bible … he shows no sign of accepting the authority of any of the books which we know as the Apocrypha. (Bruce, The Canon of Scripture, pp. 29-30)

Beckwith says,

It is difficult to conceive of the canon being organized according to a rational principle, or of its books being arranged in a definite order, unless the identity of those books was already settled and the canon closed, still more is it difficult to conceive of those books being counted, and the number being generally accepted and well known, if the canon remained open and the identity of its books uncertain. Even if there were not (as in fact there is) evidence to show which books it was that were counted, sometimes alphabetically as 22, sometimes more simply as 24, the presumption would still hold good that the identity of the books must have been decided before they could be counted, and that agreement about their number implies agreement about their identity. And such agreement, as we have now seen, had probably been reached by the second century BC. (Roger Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985), pp. 262-263).

↩

30This too has been disputed by many. See chapters referenced in previous footnotes from F.F. Bruce and Roger Beckwith. ↩

31The Reformers did not disagree with the statement that the church is the pillar and ground of the truth, but they insisted that the church has failed to be the pillar and ground of the truth when it fails to derive 100% of its teachings from the truth of the Bible. As Paul elsewhere stated, “that you may learn in us not to think beyond what is written” (1 Cor. 4:6). This phrase, “the pillar and ground of the truth,” does help to distinguish between the errant deviation from Sola Scriptura sometimes known as Solo Scriptura. Solo Scriptura isolates the individual from the body of Christ and the growing body of information that God has enabled the church to mine from the Bible over the centuries. Solo Scriptura is sometimes facetiously described as “only me, the Bible, and the Holy Spirit.” The word “only” in that phrase disobeys the many Biblical commands to listen to teachers (Matt. 10:24; Rom. 12:7; 1 Cor. 12:28-29; Eph. 4:11; 2 Tim. 4:2; Titus 2:3; Heb. 5:12; etc.). while being a Berean who checks their interpretations against the Bible (Acts 17:11; 1 Thes. 5:21; etc.). Historical Theology (the study of how the church has gradually developed doctrinal ideas from the Bible) is a helpful corrective to an anarchical approach to Scripture. Where Sola Scriptura takes seriously God’s providential work through the church to preserve His doctrines, Solo Scriptura is so radically individualistic that it wants each individual to reinvent the wheel in every generation and fails to honor the teachers that God has given to the church. We believe that historical theology is a necessary check and balance to our exegetical and systematic theology. If no one in the church has ever held to our doctrine, it is likely that our new doctrine is wrong. We will be devoting an entire chapter to the Historical Theology of canon to show that our approach is consistent with the teachings of the church of the first millennium and that the Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodoxy have left catholic doctrine behind and embraced what the early church considered heresy.↩

32For a a thorough rebuttal of the Roman Catholic interpretation of that verse, see J.N.D. Kelly, A Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981), p. 88. He writes, “We should note (a) that buttress is probably a more accurate rendering of the Greek heraioma (nowhere else found) than ‘foundation’ or ‘ground’ (AV), and (b) that the local church is described as a pillar, etc., not ‘the pillar, etc.’, because there are many local churches throughout the world performing this role.” In effect Paul was saying that the church should be a Scriptural church. Paul is not contradicting himself when he said in 2 Timothy 3:16-17 that the Scriptures are “profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.” If there is even one good work that Roman Catholic tradition gives to us that is not found in the Bible, then the Bible is not sufficient to make us thoroughly equipped for every good work. Paul’s charge to Timothy was to “Preach the Word” (vv. 18-19), not something beyond the Word. The church should support the Word (pillar), not undermine it. The church should promote the Word (buttress), not go beyond it. ↩

33In 1546 (at the Council of Trent) Rome officially added the following books (or portions of books) to the canon: Tobit, Judith, the Greek additions to Esther, the Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, Baruch, the Letter of Jeremiah, three Greek additions to Daniel (the Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Jews, Susanna, and Bel and the Dragon), and I and 2 Maccabees.↩

34The Greek Orthodox Church added 1 Esdras, the Prayer of Manasseh, Psalm 151, and 3 Maccabees to the books accepted by the Roman Catholic Church.↩

35The Slavonic (Russian) Orthodox Church adds to the Greek Orthodox canon the book of 2 Esdras, but designates 1 and 2 Esdras as 2 and 3 Esdras.↩

36The Coptic Church adds the two Epistles of Clement to the Protestant canon.↩

37The Ethiopian Orthodox Church has the largest canon of all. To the apocryphal books found in the Septuagint Old Testament, it adds the following: Jubilees, I Enoch, and Joseph ben Gorion’s (Josippon’s) medieval history of the Jews and nations. To the 27 books of the New Testament they add eight additional texts: namely four sections of church order from a compilation called Sinodos, two sections from the Ethiopic Book of the Covenant, Ethiopic Clement, and Ethiopic Didascalia. It should be noted that for the New Testament they have a broader and a narrower canon. The narrower canon is identical to the Protestant and Catholic canon.↩

38The Armenian Bible includes the History of Joseph and Asenath and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, and the New Testament included the Epistle of Corinthians to Paul and a Third Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians.↩

39Some Orthodox churches add the book of 4 Maccabees as well.↩

40Pope Gregory the Great said, “We shall not act rashly, if we accept a testimony of books, which, although not canonical, have been published for the edification of the Church.” Moral Treatises 19.21, citing a passage from Maccabees.↩

41As Kim Riddlebarger puts it so clearly: “If true, this forces us to conclude that “the Word of God is both temporally and regulatively prior to the church,” no small point in such discussions. An important argument raised by Protestants based on the clear biblical statements about the inspiration of Scripture, and therefore the priority of the Word of God, is that the Holy Spirit moved the biblical writers, not the church (not even the “Spirit-led” church), to produce holy Scripture. Inspired Scripture, then, is the basis for the authority of the church, but only as the church is faithful to that inspired Word… The church has no authority apart from the prior written Word and no authority at all apart from a faithful proclamation of that Word - a standard that I as a Protestant would argue Rome cannot meet!” (Kimm Riddlebarger, “No Place Like Rome?” in John Armstrong (ed), Roman Catholicism: Evangelical Protestants Analyze What Divides and Unites Us. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1994), p. 236).↩

42This does not deny that men can “know” things beyond the Scripture (such as the identity of their wife, an airplane taking off, etc.), but denies that such knowledge can be justified. It also denies that anything can be rightly interpreted without a Biblical worldview. Since the “fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge” (Prov. 1:7; cf. 2:5) and since the “fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom” (Prov. 9:10) and since the Scriptures are “the key of knowledge” (Luke 11:52), no fact of this universe is rightly known as God would have us know it outside of a Biblical worldview since God created all things by, for and through Christ (Col. 1:16) and since He sustains all things (Col. 1:17; Heb. 1:3) it would be (as Cornelius van Til worded it) “impossible to interpret any fact without a basic falsification unless it be regarded in its relation to God the Creator and to Christ the Redeemer.” Humanists and Biblicists look at a tree (and every cell of that tree) in an entirely different way. The humanist might see the tree as evolved and even as planted by random chance, whereas the Christian sees it as predestined, created, sustained, and serving a perfect purpose in God’s plan. Thus, what is known about the tree is quite different in each person.↩

43I especially recommend his, An Introduction to Christian Philosophy, Three Types of Religous Philosophy, and A Christian View of Men and Things. His overview of the history of philosophy, Thales to Dewey, is useful reading for those who want to dig deeper.↩

44Gordon H. Clark, Religion, Reason and Revelation (Jefferson, MD: Trinity Foundation, 1986), p. 152.↩

45John M. Frame, “Cornelius Van Til,” Handbook of Evangelical Theologians, ed. Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993), p. 163. ↩

46For example, Catechism of the Catholic Church #182 says, “We believe all ‘that which is contained in the word of God, written or handed down, and which the Church proposes for belief as divinely revealed’” (Paul VI, CPG, § 20). Emphasis mine. This is a call for implicit faith in both Scripture and all church dogma.↩

47In the early AD 300s, Cyrile of Jerusalem said, “We ought not to deliver even the most casual remark without the Holy Scriptures; nor be drawn aside by mere probabilities and the artifices of argument. Do not then believe me because I tell you these things, unless you receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth…” Cyril of Jerusalem, The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril (Oxford; London: John Henry Parker; J. G. and F. Rivington, 1838), 42. He is interpreting 1 Corinthians 4:6 in exactly the same way that I did - “that you may learn in us not to think beyond what is written.” Is that not a statement that apostolic tradition did not deviate in the smallest iota from Scripture? In fact, Cyril’s whole essay was defending this teaching that he had no authority and that no other human had authority beyond the Scripture. That is a Protestant view of tradition. William Webster said, “the Fathers rejected the teaching of an apostolic oral tradition independent of Scripture as a Gnostic heresy. For the church fathers, apostolic tradition or teaching was embodied and preserved in Scripture” [McGrath, Brown, et al, Roman Catholicism, p. 273).

Ireneaus is often appealed to as supporting the Roman Catholic view of tradition, but Ireneaus was clear that 100% of apostolic tradition was committed to writing in the New Testament. For example, he said, “The apostles at that time first preached the Gospel but later by the will of God, they delivered it to us in the Scriptures, that it might be the foundation and pillar of our faith… Since, therefore, the tradition from the apostles does thus exist in the Church, and is permanent among us, let us revert to the Scriptural proof furnished by those apostles who did also write the Gospel, in which they recorded the doctrine regarding God, pointing out that our Lord Jesus Christ is the truth, and that no lie is in Him.” Irenaeus of Lyons, The Writings of Irenæus, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, trans. Alexander Roberts and W. H. Rambaut, vol. 1, Ante-Nicene Christian Library (Edinburgh; London; Dublin: T. & T. Clark; Hamilton & Co.; John Robertson & Co., 1868–1869), 266.↩

48I will seek to demonstrate this point more fully in chapter 10, but the following four quotes from the fathers will give the sense of that age. Saint Vincent of Lerins (AD 450) said, “the canon of Scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient.” Vincent of Lérins, “The Commonitory of Vincent of Lérins,” in Sulpitius Severus, Vincent of Lérins, John Cassian,** ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. C. A. Heurtley, vol. 11, *A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1894), 132. Athanasius said, “The holy and inspired Scriptures are fully sufficient for the proclamation of the truth” (Athanasius; Against the Heathen, I:3). Chrystostom said, “Regarding the things I say, I should supply even the proofs, so I will not seem to rely on my own opinions, but rather, prove them with Scripture, so that the matter will remain certain and steadfast.” (John Chrysostom, Homily 8 On Repentance and the Church, p. 118, vol. 96 TFOTC).

Augustine said, “If anyone preaches either concerning Christ or concerning His church or concerning any other matter which pertains to our faith and life; I will not say, if we, but what Paul adds, if an angel from heaven should preach to you anything besides what you have received in the Scriptures of the Law and of the Gospels, let him be anathema.” Augustine, Contra litteras Petiliani, Bk 3, ch. 6, as translated by James White, “Chapter Two: Sola Scriptura and the Early Church,” in Sola Scriptura: The Protestant Position on the Bible, ed. Don Kistler (Lake Mary, FL: Reformation Trust Publishing, 2009), 25. William Cunningham spoke of “the constant maintenance, during the first three centuries, of the supremacy and sufficiency of the sacred Scriptures, and the right and duty of all men to read and study them. There is no trace of evidence in the first three centuries that these scriptural principles were denied or doubted, and there is satisfactory evidence that they were steadily and purely maintained… and the same may be said of the writings, without exception, of many succeeding centuries - there is not the slightest traces of anything like that depreciation of the Scriptures, that denial of their fitness, because of their obscurity and alleged imperfection, to be a sufficient rule or standard of faith, which stamp so peculiar a guilt and infamy upon Popery and Tractarianism. There is nothing in the least resembling this; on the contrary, there is a constant reference to Scripture as the only authoritative standard” William Cunningham, Historical Theology: A Review of the Principal Doctrinal Discussions in the Christian Church since the Apostolic Age., vol. 1 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1863), 185-186. See also quotes in the previous footnote.↩

49Cyril of Jerusalem said, “For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell thee these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures.” Cyril of Jerusalem, “The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril, Archbishop of Jerusalem,” in S. Cyril of Jerusalem, S. Gregory Nazianzen, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. R. W. Church and Edwin Hamilton Gifford, vol. 7, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1894), 23.
Anastasius of Antioch said, “It is manifest that those things are not to be inquired into, which Scripture has passed over into silence. For the Holy Spirit has dispensed and administered to us all things which conduce to our profit” Anagog. Contemp. in Hexem. lib 8 init. As quoted by John Henry Newman, The Via Media of the Anglican Church, vol. 1 (London: Basil Montagu Pickering, 1877), 319. Athanasius said, “Scripture is of all things most sufficient for us” Athanasius of Alexandria, “To the Bishops of Egypt,” in St. Athanasius: Select Works and Letters, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. Miles Atkinson and Archibald T. Robertson, vol. 4, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1892), 225.“the holy and inspired Scriptures are sufficient of themselves to make known the truth” (Contra Gentiles, 1:1). As quoted by William Goode, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice, Second Edition, Revised and Enlarged, vol. 3 (London: John Henry Jackson, 1853), 239. Athanasius also said, “These [canonical books just cited] are the fountains of salvation, that he who thirsteth may be satisfied with the wordsf they contain. In these alone is proclaimed the doctrine of godliness. Let no man add to them, neither let him take ought from them.” Athanasius of Alexandria, The Festal Epistles of S. Athanasius, trans. Henry Burgess (Oxford; London: John Henry Parker; F. and J. Rivington, 1854), 139. He also said, “divine Scripture is sufficient above all things.” Athanasius of Alexandria, “Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia,” in St. Athanasius: Select Works and Letters, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. John Henry Newman and Archibald T. Robertson, vol. 4, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1892), 453.↩

50E.O. Scholar, Timothy Ware (Bishop Kalistas) says, “Orthodox are always talking about Tradition. What do they mean by the word? … It means the books of the Bible; it means the Creed; it means the decrees of the Ecumenical Councils and the writings of the Fathers; it means the Canons, the Service of Books, the Holy Icons - in fact, the whole system of doctrine, Church government, worship, spirituality and art which Orthodoxy has articulated over the ages” (Timothy Ware, The Orthodox Church, New Edition [New York: Penguin Books, 1997], p. 196).

The Second Vatican Council declared that tradition “includes everything which contributes towards the sanctity of life and increase in faith of the People of God; and so the Church, in her teaching, life and worship [the Creeds, the Sacraments, the Magisterium, and the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass], perpetuates and hands on to all generations all that she herself is, all that she believes” (http://www.ewtn.com/library/councils/v2revel.htm).

The same text indicates that this body of information keeps growing as God opens the church’s eyes to tradition more and more - “For as the centuries succeed one another, the Church constantly moves forward toward the fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach their complete fulfillment in her.”↩

51Augustine said, “it is only to the canonical Scriptures that I owe such a willing submission that I follow them alone…” as “not in error anywhere” (Augustine of Hippo, Letters [1–82], trans. Wilfrid Parsons, vol. 1, The Fathers of the Church [Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1951], 411). In the same letter he said “if an angel from heaven should preach to you anything besides what you have received in the Scriptures of the Law and of the Gospels, let him be anathema” (Augustine, Contra litteras Petiliani, Bk 3, ch. 6) translated from Latin by James White, “Chapter Two: Sola Scriptura and the Early Church,” in Sola Scriptura: The Protestant Position on the Bible, ed. Don Kistler (Lake Mary, FL: Reformation Trust Publishing, 2009), 25. In his Preface on the Trinity, Augustine said, “Do not follow my writings as Holy Scripture. When you find in Holy Scripture anything you did not believe before, believe it without doubt; but in my writings, you should hold nothing for certain.” ↩

52Karl Keating, Roman Catholic apologist, wrote: “The Bible actually denies that it is the complete rule of faith… the Bible is not the sole rule of faith and that nothing in the Bible suggests it was meant to be… The true rule of faith is Scripture plus…” (Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1988), p. 134,136). The Second Vatican Council said, “the Church does not draw her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Hence, both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal feelings of devotion and reverence” (Austin P. Flannery, ed., Documents of Vatican II (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), p. 755).

The Eastern Orthodox have a slightly different take. Rather than seeing tradition and Scripture as two streams of revelation, they see Scripture as one part of Tradition. Within tradition, the highest value is given “to the Bible, to the Creed, to the doctrinal definitions of the Ecumenical Councils: these things the Orthodox accept as something absolute and unchanging, something which cannot be cancelled or revised. The other parts of Tradition do not have quite the same authority. The decrees of Jassy or Jerusalem do not stand on the same level as the Nicene Creed, nor do the writings of Athansius, or as Symeon the New Theologian, occupy the same position as the Gospel of St. John” (Timothy Ware, The Orthodox Church, New Edition (New York: Penguin Books, 1997), p. 197). I should note that Timothy Ware is much more conservative (as a Protestant convert) than most Eastern Orthodox that I have read.↩

53As noted earlier (see footnote 49), Athanasius said, “the holy and inspired Scriptures are fully sufficient for the proclamation of the truth.” Augustine said, “in the plain teaching of Scripture we find all that concerns our belief and moral conduct.” As quoted by J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, Fifth, Revised (London; New Delhi; New York; Sydney: Bloomsbury, 1977), 43. This church historian, J.N.D. Kelly, said, “almost the entire theological effort of the Fathers, whether their aims were polemical or constructive, was expended upon what amounted to the exposition of the Bible. Further, it was everywhere taken for granted that, for any doctrine to win acceptance, it had first to establish its Scriptural basis.” (Ibid., p. 46)↩

54Roman Catholic apologist, Karl Keating, said, “the Bible is not the sole rule of faith and that nothing in the Bible suggests it was meant to be… The true rule of faith is Scripture plus…” (Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1988), p. 134,136).

The Second Vatican Council said, “the Church does not draw her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Hence, both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal feelings of devotion and reverence.” Austin P. Flannery, ed., Documents of Vatican II (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), p. 755.

Bellarmine states, “We assert that the whole necessary doctrine either concerning faith or manners is not contained explicitly in the Scriptures; and that consequently beyond the written word of God is required also the unwritten word of God, that is, the divine and apostolical traditions…They (i.e. the Protestants) think that if there were any apostolical traditions they do not know exist, that is, that there cannot be any certain proof had of any apostolical tradition…We, on the contrary, assert that there are not wanting certain ways and methods by which apostolical traditions may be manifested…If the authority of an apostle when giving an oral precept is not less than when giving a written one, there certainly is no temerity in considering any thing unwritten equivalent to the written word…I assert that Scripture, although not composed principally with the view of its being a rule of faith, is nevertheless a rule of faith, not the entire rule but a partial rule. For the entire rule of faith is the word of God, or God’s revelation made to the Church, which is distributed into two partial rules, Scripture and tradition” (De Verb. Dei, lib. iv. c. 3, c. 12. Cited by William Goode, Vol. I, pp. 73, 77–78).↩

55Melanchton: Selected writings, Baccalaureate thesis, 1519, tr. C.L. Hill, Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1962, p. 18.↩

56Defence of the Gospel in the New Testament. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959), p. 80.↩

57The following is a brief list of famous churchmen who clearly stood against Rome’s views on the apocrypha: Melito of Sardis (died 180 AD), Origen (184-254), Athanasius (296-373), Cyril of Jerusalem (313-386), Gregory of Nazianzus (329-390), Hilary of Poitiers (310-367), Epiphanius (310-403), Basil the Great (330-379), Jerome (347-420), Rufinus, Primasius (died 560), Gregory the Great (590-604), The Venerable Bede (673-735), Agobard of Lyons (779-840), Alcuin (735-804), Walafrid Strabo (808-849), Haymo of Halberstadt (died 853), Ambrose of Autpert (730-784), Radulphos Flavicencius (1063-122), Hugh of St. Victor (1096-1141), Richard of St. Victor (died 1155), John of Salisbury (1120-1180), Peter Cellensis (1115-1183), Rupert of Deutz (1075-1129), Honorius of Autun (1080-1154), Peter Comestor (died 1178), Peter Maritius or Peter the Venerable (1092-1156), Adam Scotus (1140-1212), Hugo of St. Cher (1200-1263), Philip of Harveng (died 1183), Nicholas of Lyra (1270-1340), William of Ockham (1287-1347), Antoninus (died 1459), Alanso Tostado (1414-1455), Dionysius the Carthusian (1402-1471), Thomas Walden (1375-1430), Jean Driedo (condemned Luther’s teachings in 1519), Jacobus Faber Stapulensis (1455-1536), and John Ferus (1495-1554) could all be cited as contradicting Trent’s claim to represent tradition on the apocrypha.

Rome appeals to the local councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397) as proof that the apocrypha were accepted by the early church, but those councils prove too much since they included books that both Rome and the Eastern Orthodox church reject as canonical. It is better to take Jerome’s and Cajetun’s interpretations of those councils and treat them as having two levels of canon - a church canon of books acceptable to read, and God’s canon of books that are inspired and part of Scripture.↩

58Roman Catholic apologists frequently cite St. Vincent of Lerins’s definition of “catholic” as being an adequate definition. Lerins said,

In the Catholic Church itself we take the greatest care to hold that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all. That is truly and properly Catholic, as is shown by the very force and meaning of the word, which comprehends everything almost universally. We shall hold to this rule if we follow universality, antiquity, and consent. We shall follow universality if we acknowledge that one Faith to be true which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is clear that our ancestors and fathers proclaimed; consent, if in antiquity itself we keep following the definitions and opinions of all, or certainly nearly all, bishops and doctors alike. http://www.ancient-future.net/vcanon.html

↩

59Even the New Catholic Encylopedia agrees that this was the case, stating, “St. Jerome distinguished between canonical books and ecclesiastical books. The latter he judged were circulated by the Church as good spiritual reading but were not recognized as authoritative Scripture. The situation remained unclear in the ensuing centuries…For example, John of Damascus, Gregory the Great, Walafrid, Nicolas of Lyra and Tostado continued to doubt the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books. According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Church at the Council of Trent. The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent” (The Canon, The New Catholic Encyclopedia).↩

60There were numerous church fathers from the second through fourth centuries who endorsed the shorter Protestant canon, and even Jerome (the translator of the Latin Vulgate used by Rome) agrees book-for-book with the Protestant canon; there is no document during the same period that matches the canon of Trent book-for-book. Roman apologists continually appeal to the late fourth-century councils of Hippo and Carthage as including some apocryphal books, but those two councils only list 43 of the 46 books of Trent. They omit Lamentations and Baruch and mention five books of Solomon (which Trent excludes). Those councils were not ecumenical councils, but local, and as Cajetun mentions, used the term “canon” in two senses - a church canon of books approved for reading and God’s canon of books inspired and part of Scripture.↩

61The Prologue to the Glossa ordinaria (1498 AD), states,

Many people, who do not give much attention to the holy scriptures, think that all the books contained in the Bible should be honored and adored with equal veneration, not knowing how to distinguish among the canonical and non-canonical books, the latter of which the Jews number among the apocrypha. Therefore they often appear ridiculous before the learned; and they are disturbed and scandalized when they hear that someone does not honor something read in the Bible with equal veneration as all the rest. Here, then, we distinguish and number distinctly first the canonical books and then the non-canonical, among which we further distinguish between the certain and the doubtful.

The canonical books have been brought about through the dictation of the Holy Spirit. It is not known, however, at which time or by which authors the non-canonical or apocryphal books were produced. Since, nevertheless, they are very good and useful, and nothing is found in them which contradicts the canonical books, the church reads them and permits them to be read by the faithful for devotion and edification. Their authority, however, is not considered adequate for proving those things which come into doubt or contention, or for confirming the authority of ecclesiastical dogma, as blessed Jerome states in his prologue to Judith and to the books of Solomon. But the canonical books are of such authority that whatever is contained therein is held to be true firmly and indisputably, and likewise that which is clearly demonstrated from them. For just as in philosophy a truth is known through reduction to self-evident first principles, so too, in the writings handed down from holy teachers, the truth is known, as far as those things that must be held by faith, through reduction to the canonical scriptures that have been produced by divine revelation, which can contain nothing false. Hence, concerning them Augustine says to Jerome: To those writers alone who are called canonical I have learned to offer this reverence and honor: I hold most firmly that none of them has made an error in writing. Thus if I encounter something in them which seems contrary to the truth, I simply think that the manuscript is incorrect, or I wonder whether the translator has discovered what the word means, or whether I have understood it at all. But I read other writers in this way: however much they abound in sanctity or teaching, I do not consider what they say true because they have judged it so, but rather because they have been able to convince me from those canonical authors, or from probable arguments, that it agrees with the truth. Translation by Dr. Michael Woodward, Biblia cum glossa ordinaria et expositione Lyre litterali et morali (Basel: Petri & Froben, 1498), in British Museum IB.37895, Vol. 1, On the canonical and non-canonical books of the Bible.

↩

62Cajetan writes: “Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the Bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the Bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage” (In ult. Cap. Esther. Taken from A Disputation on Holy Scripture by William Whitaker (Cambridge: University, 1849), p. 48). See also Cosin’s A Scholastic History of the Canon, Volume III, Chapter XVII, pp. 257-258 and B.F. Westcott’s A General Survey of the Canon of the New Testament, p. 475.↩

63The “Apocryphal Books in Eastern Bibles” chart at the end of this chapter shows division of opinion on which apocryphal books were sufficiently beneficial as to include for the edification of the church. The fact that some apocryphal books were included in various editions of Eastern Bibles no more proves that they were treated as Scripture than the Protestant Bibles with the apocrypha proves that Protestants believed they were Biblical. Nevertheless, for purposes of argument, notice the variations of which apocryphal books were included.↩

64See the following articles and books:
Vreg Nersessian, The Bible in the Armenian Tradition, (Los Angeles, The J. Paul Getty Musuem, 2001).
Michael E. Stone, “Armenian Canon Lists: The Council of Partaw [768 C.E.]”, Harvard Theological Review 66 (1973): pp. 479-486.
Michael E. Stone, “Armenian Canon Lists: the Stichometry of Anania of Shirak.”, Harvard Theological Review 68 (1975): pp. 253-260.
Michael E. Stone, “Armenian Canon Lists III: the Lists of Mechitar of Ayrivank [c. 1285 C.E.].”, Harvard Theological Review 69 (1976): pp. 289-300.
Michael E. Stone, “Armenian Canon Lists IV: The List of Gregory of Tat’ew [14th Century].”, Harvard Theological Review 72 (1980): pp. 237-294.
Michael E. Stone, “Armenian Canon Lists V: Anyonymous Texts.” Harvard Theological Review 83 (1990): pp. 141-161.
The previous five articles can be purchased at https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/harvard-theological-review/article/armenian-canon-lists-ivthe-list-of-gregory-of-tatew-14th-century/549FA7C411E0B0338C479589937027EC
Michael E. Stone, Selected Studies in Pseudepigrapha and Apocrypha With Special Reference to Armenian Tradition, (New York: E. J. Brill, 1991).↩

65As will be seen in the second half of this book, this was also the position of the early church and of pre-Christian Jews.↩

66See also Matt. 26:56; Luke 18:31; John 6:45; Acts 3:18,21; 10:43; 26:27; Rom. 1:2; 16:26; Heb. 1:1.↩

67See chapter 8 for a critique of the charismatic assertion of the opposite.↩

68F. F. Bruce states, “Any inspired writer was ipso facto a prophet” (Canon of Scripture, p. 71). The Jewish Encylopedia states, “Every word of Holy Writ was inspired by the Divine Spirit… Every Biblical book was said to have been written by a prophet… There is thus an unbroken chain of prophets from Moses to Malachi… Only words regarded as having been inspired by the Holy Spirit were included in the canon” (Jewish Encylopedia, volume 3, p. 147).↩

69See Appendix B for a demonstration of prophets quoting prophets as Scripture.↩

70Harrison and Robinson say that Zechariah 7:12 is the “locus classicus in the OT, teaching the inspiration of the prophets; it is the OT parallel to 2 Tim. 3:16” (R.K. Harrison, & G.L. Robinson, “Canon of the Old Testament,” G.W. Bromiley, gen.ed., International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, revised, Vol. 1. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979, p.593).↩

71The murder of Zechariah is recorded in 2 Chron. 24:20-21, the last book in the Jewish arrangement. This is clearly a reference to the order of canon found in the Hebrew canon since Uriah was chronologically the last to be murdered (cf. Jer. 26:23), but Zechariah is the last to be mentioned in the Jewish canon. Just as we cover all 39 books of the Old Testament with the phrase “from Genesis to Malachi,” Jesus covered the same books with the phrase “from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah.”↩

72The books in the Hebrew canon pre-date the apocrypha, and if inspired revelation ceased in the Ezra/Malachi period (see proof of this below), then ipso facto, the apocrypha are excluded from the canon. Josephus represents the almost universal view among Jews that the Old Testament canon was closed in the time of Malachi (445-432BC). G.L. Robinson and R.K. Harrison, in commenting on the Josephus passage, said, “It is the uniform tradition of Josephus’ time that prophetic inspiration had ceased with Malachi (ca. 445-432 B.C.)… [for Josephus] …Prophecy had ceased, and the canon was accordingly closed” (International Standard Bible Encylopedia: Fully Revised (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), volume 1, p. 598).↩

73In a Journal article, Robert Thomas points out that “apostolicity cannot account for the inspiration of all the books that the church eventually recognized as part of the NT canon” (p. 8) and “to limit the determination of canonicity to apostolic authorship alone is precarious” (p. 6). He adds, “The first test a work had to pass to gain recognition as inspired, then, was either apostolicity or propheticity” (p. 24). In Robert L. Thomas, “Correlation of Revelatory Spiritual Gifts and NT Canonicity,” The Master’s Seminary Journal 8, no. 1 (Spring 1997). We will deal with this subject in much more detail on chapter 8.↩

74This could be rendered “a prophet or inspired” or possibly “a prophet or spiritually gifted” (NIV; Weymouth; God’s Word; see TNIV) or “a prophet or to have the Spirit” (BBE), or “a prophet, or to have spiritual powers” (NRSV). The amplified version renders this verse: “If anyone thinks and claims that he is a prophet [filled with and governed by the Holy Spirit of God and inspired to interpret the divine will and purpose in preaching or teaching] or has any other spiritual endowment, let him understand (recognize and acknowledge) that what I am writing to you is a command of the Lord.”↩

75We will delve into this important subject in much more detail in part 2.↩

76Ernest L. Martin, The Original Bible Restored, unpublished class notes, 1984, p. 16.↩

77See my detailed treatment of Revelation’s closing of the canon later in this book.↩

78Leon Morris summarizes the overwhelming historical evidence when he says,

The church never attempted to create or confer canonicity. The decrees of the councils dealing with the matter, never run in the form: ‘This Council decrees that henceforth such and such books are to be canonical.’ The decrees rather run in the form: ‘This Council declares that these are the books which have always been held to be canonical.’ The Synod always contents itself with saying which books are already accepted as canonical. It often speaks of the accepted books as those which have been ‘handed down.’ It never attempts to confer canonicity on a book which lacked it, nor to remove from the list a book which was agreed to have had it… Canonicity is something in the book itself, something that God has given it, not a flavored status the church confers upon it. The church made no attempt to do more than to recognize canonicity and it could do no more. (Leon Morris, “The Canon of the New Testament,” Encyclopedia of Christianity, volume 2, edited by G.G. Cohen, Marshallton, Delaware: The National Foundation for Christian Education, 1968, pp. 337-338, as quoted by Dr. Robert Fugate in his doctoral thesis: The Bible: God’s Words to You (unpublished doctoral thesis at Whitefield Theological Seminary, 2008))

↩

79I give detailed proof of this point later in the book.↩

80The word “Pentateuch” comes from the two Greek words: penta (meaning “five”) and teuchos (meaning “implement” or “book”), and refers to the first five books of the Bible: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy.↩

81Greg L. Bahnsen points out the canonical significance of this fact, saying that the book of the covenant “was placed in the ark of the covenant in the Holiest Place of the tabernacle, thus setting it apart from the words and opinions of men. Moreover, the notion of a canon is at the theological foundation of the Christian faith. Without revealed words available to God’s people, there would be no exercise by God of Lordship over us as servants, and there would be no sure promise from God the Savior to save us as sinners” (Greg L. Bahnsen, The Concept and Importance of Canonicity, pp. 3-4).↩

82See for example the extensive personal possession of Scriptures mentioned in 1 Macc. 1:56-57. Josephus alludes to this extensive possession of Scriptures in Antiquities of the Jews, 12:5:4 (the reference is 3:182 in William Whiston’s edition). After examining various lines of evidence, C.F. Keil says, “we find such an exact knowledge of the law, and so many references to it, that we must assume a great diffusion of the book of the law among the people. Nor can the writings of the prophets have been less widely spread, since we find those who lived later making so many references to the predictions of those who had lived before them.” Carl F. Keil, Manual of Historico-Critical Introduction, in Dr. Hermann Schultz, Introduction to the Old Testament, 2 vols. (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1869), vol. 2, p. 134).↩

83Note that we have already demonstrated that the corpus of Genesis-Deuteronomy was called “the book of the covenant” (Ex. 24:7; 2 Kings. 23:2,21; 2 Chron. 34:30), “the book of the Law” (Deut. 28:61; 29:21; 30:10; 31:26; Josh 1:8; 8:34; 2 Kings 22:8,11; 2 Chron. 34:15; Neh. 8:3; Ga. 3:10), “the book of Moses” (2 Chron. 25:4; 35:12; Ezra 6:18; Neh. 13:1; Mark 12:26), “the book of the Law of Moses” (Josh. 8:31; 23:6; 2 Kings 14:6; Neh. 8:1), “the book of the Law of the LORD” (1 Chron. 17:9; 2 Chron. 34:14; Neh. 9:3), “the book of the law of God” (Josh. 24:26; Neh. 8:18) or simply “the book” (Exodus 17:14; Neh. 8:8 in context of 8:18). To write in the book meant directly adding to those books.↩

84R. K. Harrison comments, “The catch-line attempted to insure the continuity of the narrative by repeating the first few words of the following tablet at the end of the previous tablet, so that, if a series of tablets became disarranged, there could be no doubt as to which word or words were to be read immediately after the conclusion of a tablet” (R. K. Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969), p. 544).↩

85The traditional view of the Jews and early Christians was that Ezra wrote both Chronicles and Ezra. I hold to that view, but do not want to get sidetracked into authorship debates.↩

86I am using the words “chapter” and “verse” loosely, as versification and chapter divisions did not occur until after the canon was closed. The ancient Hebrews did recognize distinct pericopes and units of thought long before versification was formalized. A study of the massive amount of quotations of one Scriptural book from another shows that any word or sentence was considered Scripture.↩

87As E. J. Young said,

Now men are commanded to read… the writing that is found upon the book. The immediate reference is to this particular prophecy. In commanding men to search the writing he desires that they look at the writing to see whether this prophecy is true. At the same time, in speaking of the writing or book of the Lord, as several commentators have pointed out, Isaiah has more in mind than this particular prophecy. He is in effect referring to this prophecy as part of a whole. It is part of an actual Scripture, of a book written down, so that men may turn to it and find therein the reference to this prophecy. Isaiah appeals to written words of God as the authority by which men are to judge the truthfulness of God as the authority by which men are to judge the truthfulness of His message. (E. J. Young, The Book of Isaiah, vol. 2, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969). P. 442)

↩

88See the excellent discussion in R. K. Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969), pp. 543-551. He argues that Genesis 1:1–37:2 is taken from “a series of tablets whose contents were linked together to form a roughly chronological account of primeval and patriarchal life written from the standpoint of a Mesopotamian cultural milieu… Such a view is based upon the conviction that this approach alone does the fullest justice to the literary phenomena of much of Genesis” (p. 548). The eleven sources are described by Harrison as follows:

1. Tablet 1: Gen. 1:1–2:4. The origins of the cosmos
2. Tablet 2: Gen. 2:5–5:2. The origins of mankind
3. Tablet 3: Gen. 5:3–6:9a. The histories of Noah
4. Tablet 4: Gen. 6:9b–10:1. The histories of the sons of Noah
5. Tablet 5: Gen. 10:2–11:10a. The histories of Shem
6. Tablet 6: Gen. 11:10b–11:27a. The histories of Terah
7. Tablet 7: Gen. 11:27b–25:12. The histories of Ishmael
8. Tablet 8: Gen. 25:13–25:19a. The histories of Isaac
9. Tablet 9: Gen. 25:19b–36:1. The histories of Esau
10. Tablet 10: Gen. 36:2–36:9. The histories of Esau
11. Tablet 11: Gen. 36:10–37:2. The histories of Jacob

↩

89Ecclesiastes 12:9 says that “he pondered and sought out and set in order many proverbs.”↩

90Proverbs 25:1 says, “These also are the proverbs of Solomon which the men of Hezekiah king of Judah copied…” The Hebrew word for “copied” (עתק) can mean “collected” or arranged.↩

91Many scholars conclude that this editing process was the work of David (1 Chron. 15:16), Hezekiah (2 Chron. 29:30; Prov. 25:1), and Ezra (Nehemiah 8). This editing work may have included the addition of inspired superscriptions as well as the notes of how a book of Psalms has just ended (see Psalm 72:20). Ezra also wrote the books of Ezra, Chronicles, and Psalm 119.↩

92William Hendriksen comments on the phrase, “from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar”, saying:

The reason why Jesus says “from Abel to Zechariah” is that according to the arrangement of the books in the Hebrew Bible Genesis (hence “Abel”) comes first, Chronicles (hence “Zechariah”) last. (William Hendriksen, The Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1975), p. 838).

↩

93Nathan Wells gives examples of potential edits when he says,

Examples of possible modernization include the use of “Chaldees” in regard to Ur (Gen. 11:28, 31), and an update to the city name of Laish to Dan (Gen. 14:14). Possible explanatory glosses include the addition of “Damascus” to clarify Eliezer’s place of origin (Gen. 15:2), and the parenthetical comment that equates Israel’s dispossession of the land to the people of Esau’s dispossession of land of the Horites (Deut. 2:10-12), a fact that had yet to occur. Transitional updates include such as the death of Moses (Deut. 34), the death of Joshua (Josh. 24:29-33), as well as the arrangement and transitional verses between the books of the Psalms (Ps. 41:13; 72:19; 89:52; 106:48), including the phrase, “The prayers of David the son of Jesse are ended” (Ps. 72:20). Apologetic commentary is seen in the text where an editor inserted information so as to prove the validity of the narrative or the continuing impact of an event. Examples include the previously mentioned archeological explanation regarding Og (Deut. 3:11), as well as the plentiful occurrences of the phrases, “until this day,” “to this day” and other variations (Gen. 32:32; Deut. 3:14; 10:8; 29:28; Josh. 7:26; 8:28; 9:27; et al.). (From an unpublished paper, A Defense of Textual Updating) I personally do not see the need for such explanations, but neither do I see them as out of accord with the prophetic crafting of the canon by God’s authorization.

↩

94When Moses forbade anyone from adding to the law in Deuteronomy 4:2 and 12:32, he was not saying that Scripture could not be added to the canon. Otherwise he would have disobeyed his own injunction when adding several chapters to the end of Deuteronomy. God was forbidding any additions to the moral code laid down in the Pentateuch. Thus Jews held that the Pentateuch was a complete moral code, and that the Writings and Prophets merely applied that law rather than adding to it. If Ezra did indeed add inspired notes to the Pentateuch (a point still in question), it is clear that he did not add to the moral code of the Pentateuch, since no new laws were given by Ezra.↩

95Ezra’s last act was to form a group of 120 priests who would be responsible for reproducing authorized copies of the Bible, carefully counting each letter, and matching the copies to the authorized manuscripts stored in the temple.↩

96See the quote in the heading, taken from Benjamin B. Warfield, The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible (Philadelphia, PA: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1948), p. 411.↩

97A good start for seeing these allusions is G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson’s massive book, Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. The clear allusions they draw out on each book of the New Testament illustrate how every fiber of the New Testament is intertwined with the Old. Van der Waal’s commentary has demonstrated about 1000 Old Testament allusions to the Old Testament in the book of Revelation alone (see his Openbaring van Jezus Christus, 1971), and if parallels are included, some recent computer research shows upwards of 1500 parallels and allusions. The point is, that unlike conjoined twins (who can sometimes be surgically separated), separating the Old Testament from the New Testament kills both because of the myriad “blood veins” that pump between each Testament.↩

98http://www.openbible.info/blog/2010/04/bible-cross-references-visualization/↩

99Ned B. Stonehouse, “The Authority of the New Testament,” in The Infallible Word, eds., N.B. Stonehouse and Paul Wooley, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1946), p. 109.↩

100Bruce, F.F., The Defence of the Gospel in the New Testament, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959), p. 80↩

101For example, Cyril of Jerusalem said, “In regard to the divine and holy mysteries of the faith, not the least part may be handed on without the Holy Scriptures. Do not be led astray by winning words and clever arguments. Even to me, who tell you these things, do not give ready belief, unless you receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of the things which I announce.” (Catechetical Lectures 4,17) Anastasius of Antioch said, “It is manifest that those things are not to be inquired into, which Scripture has passed over into silence. For the Holy Spirit has dispensed and administered to us all things which conduce to our profit.” (Anagog. Contemp. in Hexem. lib 8 init.) Hundreds of others could be cited.↩

102For example, Saint Vincent of Lerins said, “the canon of Scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient…” (On Discerning the Apostolic Faith).

William Cunningham spoke of “the constant maintenance, during the first three centuries, of the supremacy and sufficiency of the sacred Scriptures, and the right and duty of all men to read and study them. There is no trace of evidence in the first three centuries that these scriptural principles were denied or doubted, and there is satisfactory evidence that they were steadily and purely maintained… and the same may be said of the writings, without exception, of many succeeding centuries - there is not the slightest traces of anything like that depreciation of the Scriptures, that denial of their fitness, because of their obscurity and alleged imperfection, to be a sufficient rule or standard of faith, which stamp so peculiar a guilt and infamy upon Popery and Tractarianism. There is nothing in the least resembling this; on the contrary, there is a constant reference to Scripture as the only authoritative standard” (Historical Theology, vol. 1. Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1979), pp. 185-186).↩

103Though there is debate on the dating of some of Paul’s epistles, my dating of the books shows Paul as having quoted Luke 8 years after Luke was written. If Robinson is correct, Paul quotes Luke either the same year or the year after Luke was written. See John A.T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2000). My dating of the books is: 1 and 2 Thessalonians were written in AD 51, 1 Corinthians in 54, 2 Corinthians and Romans in 55, Luke was written in AD 57, Philippians, Philemon, Colossians, and Ephesians in 58, 1 Timothy and Titus in 65, and 2 Timothy in 66. Robinson places 1 Timothy in either AD 57 or 58. Either way, Luke is quoted as Scripture by Paul shortly after it was written.↩

104For a detailed discussion of all views of the big scroll of Revelation 5, see my sermon The Identity of the Scroll. Though there is obviously controversy on the identity of this scroll, the parallels with Ezekiel 2 make it clear that it is the heavenly basis for the earthly Scriptures. Both scrolls are written on front and back - such an unusual thing, that the connection with Ezekiel 2 is strong. Both scrolls involve revealing something to a prophet rather than hiding information, and thus they better reflect the idea of revelation rather than God’s secret decrees. Both scrolls were written revelation, and point to the inscripturation process.↩

105See exegetical studies on these sections at https://revelation.biblicalblueprints.org↩

106The parallels are as follows:

• Both books were delivered by an angel.
• Both prophets are commanded to eat the little book that is given to them.
• Both books taste sweet and yet afterwards produce bitter judgments
• Both books are connected with a commission to prophesy judgments
• Both scrolls were written on the inside and outside
• Both scrolls are little in comparison to the big scroll they are being added to.

↩

107The exegetical basis for this cessation of revelation will have to wait for chapters 7 and 8. For more information on both Revelation 10 and 11, see the sermon transcripts at https://revelation.biblicalblueprints.org/sermons↩

108The origins of this word are debated. The English word is a transliteration of the Greek word ἀπόκρυφος, which means secret or hidden. There is debate on whether this originally was used to describe Gnostic books since they claimed secret knowledge and secret books or whether this refers to fathers who kept these books separate from the Biblical books so as not to confuse Christians. For Protestants, it has come to mean books that are not part of the canon. Thus, the Roman Catholics prefer to call the apocryphal books in their Bible, “deutero-canonical” (or belonging to the later-defined canon of Trent). Thus they have proto-canonical (the Protestant books) and deutero-canonical (equally authoritative books that were later canonized by the church). ↩

109Pseudepigraphal books are those books that make a false claim to be written by an author who is not the true author. The English word comes from two Greek words: ψευδής, meaning false and ἐπιγραφή, meaning name, inscription, or ascription. Though this definition could technically be used to call all apocryphal books pseudepigraphal (with the exception of Ecclesiasticus), since the apocryphal books also pretend to be authored by Biblical characters who died long before the books were written, the term is usually reserved for those books claiming to be Scripture which have not been included in any of the main churches’ canons.↩

110Such as negative testimony of hundreds of church fathers, its exclusion from the Hebrew canon, Christ’s endorsement of the Hebrew canon, the failure of Jesus and apostles to quote from the apocrypha, heretical doctrines contained in these writings (such as justification by works, merits of saints, prayers for the dead, purgatory, magical rites to drive away demons, prayers to the saints, worship of angels, etc.), historical errors of great magnitude, chronological errors that contradict the Scripture, unbiblical ethics (such as cruelty to slaves, hatred of Samaritans, commending suicide, etc.), self-contradictions, no internal claim to prophetic inspiration, etc. ↩

111William Whitaker, A Disputation on Holy Scripture, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, M.DCCC.XLIX), pp. 49-50.↩

112Geisler says that the Apocrhyphal books “lack any claim to divine inspiration… There is indeed a striking absence in the Apoc of the ‘thus saith the Lord’ found hundreds of times in the prophetic books of the Hebrew canon. Indeed, there is neither an explicit nor implicit claim to inspiration in any of the apocryphal books” (Norm Geisler, “Extent of OT Canon,” in Gerald F. Hawthorne (ed), Current Issues in Biblical and Patristic Interpretation (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), pp. 42ff.).↩

1131 Macc. 9:27 acknowledges that the succession of Old Testament prophets had already ceased. 1 Macc. 4:46 says that Israel was waiting until the Messiah when a prophet might arise to tell them what to do with the heap of stones. Apparently no prophet was in existence at the time of the writing. The absence of prophets can be seen in 1 Macc. 14:41; 2 Esdras 14:45; etc. Thus, in the Prologue to Sirach, the grandson makes clear that Sira was simply a wise man and he was simply translating. See the apology of the author in 2 Macc. 15:38 - “And if I have done well, and as is fitting the story, it is that which I desired: but if slenderly and meanly, it is that which I could attain unto.” ↩

114See the discussion in Ludwig Blau, “Bible Canon,” Jewish Encyclopedia, Isidore Singer (ed), 12 volumes (New York: KTAV, 1901-1906), volume 3, p. 147. Edward J. Young has an extended discussion of the meaning of the Hebrew term for “prophet” (נְבִיא) in his book, My Servants the Prophets (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), pp. 56-66. ↩

115He said “every one is not permitted of his own accord to be a writer, nor is there any disagreement in what is written; they being only prophets that have written the original and earliest accounts of things as they learned them of God himself by inspiration; and others have written what hath happened in their own times, and that in a very distinct manner also” (Flavius Josephus and William Whiston, The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1987), p. 776). Thus, it is no surprise to find Josephus rejecting the apocrypha and only accepting the books of the Bible that are found in the Protestant canon. However, to be fair to the evidence, Josephus seems to contradict himself when he sees John Hyrcanus (who died 105 BC) as a man who had “the gift of prophesy, for the Deity was with him and enabled him to foresee and foretell the future” (Antiquities 13:299-300 and paralleled in Jewish Wars. 1:68-69).↩

116Ludwig Blau, “Bible Canon,” Jewish Encyclopedia, Isidore Singer (ed), 12 volumes (New York: KTAV, 1901-1906), volume 3, p. 147.↩

117F. F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1988), p. 71.↩

118On David as a prophet, see commentators on the language in 1 Chron. 14:14; 2 Sam. 23:2; Matt. 22:43; Mark 12:36; Acts 2:25-31; etc. Though he is not explicitly called a prophet, it is clear that he prophesies.↩

119Milton C. Fisher, “The Canon of the Old Testament,” in F.E Gaebelein, Expositor’s Bible Commentary, volume 1, p. 389. For the exact wording of Josephus, see Apion 1:40-46.↩

120See G. L. Robinson and R.K. Harrison, “Canon of the Old Testament,” International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, revised, volume 1, p. 598.↩

121David G. Dunbar, “The Biblical Canon,” in Hermeneutics, Authority, and Canon, by D.A. Carson and John D. Woodbridge (eds), (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986), p. 315. Roger Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985), pp. 369-376.↩

122The Talmud taught that prophecy ceased after Malachi. See “Baba Bathra,” Babylonian Talmud, 12a, 12b, 14b-15c; “Sanhedrin,” 11a.↩

123The New American Commentary says, “The prophecy that they would seek “David their king” is messianic. The phrase does not mean simply that the Israelites would again submit to the Davidic monarchy and so undo Jeroboam’s rebellion. Had that been the point, we would expect the text to say that they would return to the “house of David.” Instead we see “David their king” set alongside of Yahweh as the one to whom the people return in pious fear. This “David” cannot be the historical king, who was long dead, but is the messianic king for whom he is a figure” (Duane A. Garrett, Hosea, Joel, vol. 19A, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1997), 104).

Lange quotes Keil: “Seeking Jehovah their God is connected with seeking David their king. For as the apostasy of the ten tribes from the kingdom of David was only the consequence and result of its inner apostasy from Jehovah, so the true return to God could not take place without a return to their king David, since God had promised the kingdom to David forever in his seed (2 Sam. 7:13,16); thus David is the only true king of Israel—their king” (Keil).

Lange then agrees and says, “The family of David is probably primarily meant, and more strictly, a king of that family. The conclusion, ‘at the end of the days,’ alludes to the Messianic period, according to prophetic usage elsewhere; hence we are justified in assuming the Messiah to be also meant here” (John Peter Lange, Philip Schaff, et al., A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: Hosea (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2008), 47).↩

124Teraphim were household idols that were consulted by people for guidance/revelation. The New Bible Dictionary states, “These objects are mentioned in every OT period: the Patriarchs (Gn. 31:19); the judges (Jdg. 17:5–18:30); early and late Monarchy (1 Sa. 15:23; 19:13–16; 2 Ki. 23:24; Ho. 3:4; Ezk. 21:21; and post-exile (Zc. 10:2). When mentioned in Israelite contexts they are almost always condemned, directly (1 Sa. 15:23; 2 Ki. 23:24) or indirectly (Jdg. 17:6; Zc. 10:2). In their use, they are mostly associated with DIVINATION: note the pairing of ephod and teraphim in the idolatrous religion of Micah (Jdg. 17:5, etc.); the association with divination by arrows and hepatoscopy (Ezk. 21:21), and with spiritist practices (2 Ki. 23:24). Nowhere are we told how they were consulted, nor even what their appearance was” (J. A. Motyer and M. J. Selman, “Teraphim,” ed. D. R. W. Wood et al., New Bible Dictionary (Leicester, England; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996), 1163).↩

125For an extended discussion of the dating of Jesus’ birth, see Phillip Kayser, December 25 Jewish Style (Omaha: Biblical Blueprints, 2018), available as an ebook at https://leanpub.com/december-25-jewish-style/↩

126F. David Farnell, “The Gift of Prophesy in the Old and New Testaments,” Bibliotheca Sacra, (October-December 1992): 389.↩

127That this is a reference to a pagan sacrifice and a pagan sacred pillar can be seen by the fact that this is a good thing to be “without” (parallel with Gomer leaving temple shrine and former lovers behind).↩

128David Baron, The Ancient Scriptures and the Modern Jews (Hodder and Stoughton, 1900), p. 26.↩

129“Apart from our passage there are only seven other scriptures in the Hebrew Bible where the teraphim are introduced, but these suffice to show that they were not only idols, the use of which is classed together by God with “witchcraft, stubbornness, and iniquity” (i Sam. xv. 23), but that they were a peculiar kind of idols, namely, those used for oracular responses” (David Baron, Ibid.).↩

130Schoville states, “The reference here (and in the parallel passage in Neh 7:65) suggests that a high priest and sacred breastplate were lacking when the list was made. Since no further reference is made to Urim and Thummim in the Bible, we are left to wonder if or when these unrecognized priests ever had the opportunity to be proven legitimate” (Keith N. Schoville, Ezra-Nehemiah, The College Press NIV Commentary (Joplin, MO: College Press, 2001), 61). John Gill states, “as yet there was not any priest that had them; they were not to be found at the return from Babylon; the governor might hope they would be found, and a priest appear clothed with them, when it might be inquired of the Lord by them, whether such priests, before described, might eat of the holy things or no; but since the Jews acknowledge that these were one of the five things wanting in the second temple; it is all one, as the Talmudists express it, as if it had been said, until the dead rise, or the Messiah comes; and who is come, the true High-priest, and with whom are the true Urim and Thummim, lights and perfections to the highest degree, being full of grace and truth; of the Urim and Thummim, see the note on Exod. 28:30” (John Gill, An Exposition of the Old Testament, vol. 3, The Baptist Commentary Series (London: Mathews and Leigh, 1810), 106).↩

131The Talmud says, “These five things [distinguish] between the first and second temple: the ark, the ark cover, the cherubim (which all count as one), the fire [from heaven], the Shekinnah, the spirit of holiness (i.e., of prophecy), and the urim and thummim” (TB Yoma 21b). ↩

132J. David Bleich, With Perfect Faith: The Foundations of Jewish Belief (New York: KTAV Publishing, 1983), p. 684. ↩

133The Concise Oxford English Dictionary defines an interregnum as the period “between successive reigns or regimes” (Catherine Soanes and Angus Stevenson, eds., Concise Oxford English Dictionary (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004)). In the case of Biblical theology, it is the time between the last Davidic king of Israel and Jesus, the final Davidic King.↩

134That this rebuilding of the tabernacle of David occurs during New Covenant times is proved by James’ use of the phrase in Acts 15. For a detailed exegesis of this, see Phillip Kayser, Musical Instruments in Worship (Omaha: Biblical Blueprints, 2018). This can be purchased as an ebook at https://leanpub.com/musical-instruments-in-worship/↩

135Fred Carnes Giblert, From Judaism to Christianity and Gospel Work Among the Hebrews (Lancaster, MA: Good Tidings Press, nd), p. 347.↩

136Hans Wolff comments, “If the intention here were to delimit the boundaries of Palestine, one would not expect ‘from the north to the east’ in the parallel colon. One must rather think here of the vast regions into which the people of God were scattered. The peculiar combination of north and east is most easily understood in this way” (Hans Walter Wolff, Joel and Amos (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977), p. 331). Douglas Stewart, in the Word Bible Commentary on Amos, says, “the mention of the other directions—north and east—in 12a completes the compass, saying in effect that people will wander/stagger “everywhere” without success.”↩

137Norm Geisler, “Extent of OT Canon,” in Gerald F. Hawthorne (ed), Current Issues in Biblical and Patristic Interpretation (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), pp. 42f.↩

138Norm Geisler, “Extent of OT Canon,” in Gerald F. Hawthorne (ed), Current Issues in Biblical and Patristic Interpretation (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), p. 39.↩

139Bruce M. Metzger, “Apocrypha,” in James Hastings (ed), Dictionary of the Bible, revised, p. 40. ↩

140For example, in a pastoral letter he said, “Let her avoid all apocryphal writings, and if she is led to read such not by the truth of the doctrines which they contain but out of respect for the miracles contained in them; let her understand that they are not really written by those to whom they are ascribed, that many faulty elements have been introduced into them, and that it requires infinite discretion to look for gold in the midst of dirt” (Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, eds., Jerome: Select Works and Letters, NPNF-2 VI; Accordance electronic ed. 14 vols.; (New York: Christian Literature Publishing, 1890), paragraph 34691).

In a Preface he said, “we may be assured that what is not found in our list must be placed amongst the Apocryphal writings. Wisdom, therefore, which generally bears the name of Solomon, and the book of Jesus, the Son of Sirach, and Judith, and Tobias, and the Shepherd are not in the canon. The first book of Maccabees I have found to be Hebrew, the second is Greek…” (Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, eds., Jerome: Select Works and Letters, NPNF-2 VI; Accordance electronic ed. 14 vols.; (New York: Christian Literature Publishing, 1890), paragraph 41512).

On Daniel, Jerome said, “in Hebrew contains neither the history of Susanna, nor the hymn of the three youths, nor the fables of Bel and the Dragon… such deeds were more the results of an able man’s forethought than of a prophetic spirit…” In another place he says, “As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it read these two volumes for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the Church” (Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, eds., Jerome: Select Works and Letters, NPNF-2 VI; Accordance electronic ed. 14 vols.; (New York: Christian Literature Publishing, 1890), paragraph 41529).↩

141N. Schmidt, ed., Ecclesiasticus, The Temple Bible (London; Philadelphia: J. M. Dent & Co.; J. B. Lippincott Co., 1903), 2.↩

142Melito of Sardis (2nd century), Augustine (c. 397 AD), and Pope Innocent (AD 405). Most fathers thought of it as worth reading or as an ecclesiastical book rather than as a Scriptural book.↩

143Though most church traditions treat this as a pseudepigraphal book, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church does accepted it as part of their secondary Scriptures.↩

144The Ethiopic version (መጽሐፈ ሄኖክ) has been preserved in 29 manuscripts. Though the Ethiopian Orthodox Church claims that Enoch prophesied in Ethiopic, there is no evidence for that, and it appears that the book of Enoch was translated into Ethiopic from the Greek long after Jude was written. Indeed, most scholars believe that Ethiopic (Ge’ez) did not emerge as a written language until the 4th century AD, and literary Coptic did not emerge till the 2nd century AD at the earliest. ↩

145Though there is a fragment of Enoch that is preserved in Michael the Syrian’s Chronicle, several scholars have shown that Michael’s source was a 5th century Greek book written by Annianus of Alexandria. Thus, Milik observes that there was no version of Enoch in the Syriac language. J. Milik, The Books of Enoch, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1976), 83. ↩

146Milik makes a similar conclusion with respect to the possibility of a Latin version of 1 Enoch: having reviewed all the known Patristic Latin quotations of 1 Enoch, he observes “there is no irrefutable evidence for the existence of a Latin version of the Enochic writings.” Ibid., 81. Pseudo-Cyprian references Enoch 1:9 in Latin and Pseudo-Vigillus quotes Enoch 106:1-18. Whether these are quotes or translation is debated.↩

147As constructed by Peter H. Davids, The Letters of 2 Peter and Jude, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 2006), 78.↩

148Islam is basically a Christian cult. Initially it accepted the Old and New Testaments, but later Muslims ignored it or destroyed it. This is typically what happens when anything is added to God’s word - the new addition supersedes the old. Yet early on, Islam accepted the whole Bible. Surah 5:46-48 says, “And in their footsteps we sent Jesus the son of Mary, confirming the Law that had come before him: we sent him the Gospel: therein was guidance and light, and confirmation of the Law that had come before him; a guidance and an admonition to those who fear Allah…. To thee we sent the Scripture in truth, confirming the scripture that came before it, and guarding it…” Surah 5:68 says, “Say: ‘O People of the Book! Ye have no ground to stand upon unless ye stand fast by the Law, the Gospel, and all the revelation that has come to you from Your Lord.’ It is the revelation that cometh to thee from thy Lord…” See also Surah 5.44.↩

149“He will be a sanctuary, but a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense to both the houses of Israel, as a trap and a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem. And many among them will stumble; they shall fall and be broken, be snared and taken.”↩

150“Here am I and the children whom the LORD has given me! We are for signs and wonders in Israel from the LORD of hosts, who dwells in Mount Zion.”↩

151“They will pass through it hard pressed and hungry; and it shall happen, when they are hungry, that they will be enraged and curse their king and their God, and look upward. Then they will look to the earth, and see trouble and darkness, gloom or anguish; and they will be driven into darkness.”↩

152“And when they say to you, ‘Seek those who are mediums and wizards, who whisper and mutter, should not a people seek their God? Should they seek the dead on behalf of the living?”↩

153Many Hebrew dictionaries show this range of meaning. The Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament says, > The verbal root ṣrr I is probably related to ṣwr I1 and derives from the Akkadian, where ṣarāru means “to wrap.”2 This group also includes Arab. ṣarra, “tie up, bind,”3 and OSA ṣr IV, “attack, advance,”4 while Ugar. ṣrrt (ṣpn)5 is extremely uncertain. In Hebrew, ṣrr I constitutes two semantically different qal formatives. The first is transitive, means “wrap up, envelop,” and seems commensurate with the etymological findings; the second is intransitive, means “be cramped for space, restricted,” and is semantically somewhat more removed from that etymology. Moreover, the intransitive form has generated a pual form meaning “patched together” and a transitive hiphil meaning “harass” (Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament).↩

154I. Swart / Robin Wakely, New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis, s.v. “צ,” 3:851.↩

155Compare Mark 13:14 with Luke 21:20-24 for a clear case that this is referring to the past casting away of Israel (just as in Isaiah 8) rather than some speculated future war against Jerusalem. On the phrase, “shall destroy the city and the sanctuary see Matt. 22:2,7; 23:38; 24:2; Mark 13:2; Luke 19:43-44; 21:6,24; Acts 6:13-14. On verse 26b-27 see Matt. 23:38 (“behold your house is left to you desolate”); Luke 21:20 (“But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near”). See Matt. 24:15; Mark 13:14 which quotes Daniel and applies to 70 AD. See Luke 19:43-44 for the embankments brought against Jerusalem. See also Luke 21:24.↩

156From the day the temple was burned, hostilities would continue against the Jews throughout the entire empire for 1290 days. After that, the only hostilities against Jews anywhere would be Rome’s continuing war against the tiny group of Jews in Massada (See next footnote). The Hebrew date for the burning of the temple was Ab 9, 4070 AM. The Seleucid date is Loos 9, 381 SE. The Gregorian date was August 3, 70. Josephus records continuing hostilities after that date as Jews were sold into slavery, the fortresses of Machaerus and Herodian were conquered, the massacres of Jews in Alexandria, Cyrene and other cities were carried out, the Jewish temple in Egypt was looted and demolished, 3000 wealthy Jews were slain in Libya, the massacre of the last of the Sicarii took place, and other hostilities were carried out that “completely shattered” the Jews. Note that Gaalya Cornfeld, Josephus: The Jewish War, p. 505, note 409[a] shows that the massacre of the Sicarii occurred in late 73 AD rather than after the fall of Masada.↩

157

The date given by Josephus for the fall of Masada was Xanticus 15. The most recent scholarship dates the fall of Masada to 74 AD rather than to the traditional 73 AD. See Gaalya Cornfeld, Josephus: The Jewish War, p. 505, note 409[a]. He says, “According to most modern Israeli scholars, among them the late M. Avi-Yonah (Atlas CartaII) and B. Mazar, the siege and fall of Masada took place in AD 74 and not in 73, as believed heretofore…” See also p. 502, note 401 [d]. See also the notes in the Anchor Bible Dictionary under “The Jewish War.” Xanticus 15 in the year 74 fell on March 30-31 (Hebrews noted time from sunset to sunset thus making a difference of a day depending on which portion of the day is being considered. From Loos 9 of 70 to Xanticus 15 of 74 is exactly 1335 days.) ↩

158See previous footnote. Of course, many scholars have ways in which they separate the “command” of verse 23 from the “command” of verse 25, and start the countdown under a later emperor.↩

159Jeremiah consigned Israel to 70 years of exile because there were seventy Sabbath years that Israel had failed to let the land lie fallow (see 2 Chron. 36:21; Jer. 25:9-12; 27:6-8; 29:10). It is clear to all scholars that there were gaps in Israel’s earlier seventy Sabbathless weeks of years. This means seventy Sabbath years had been violated (with gaps of faithfulness here and there), and now God is predicting another seventy Sabbaths that would be violated before they are cast out of the land. If the seventy weeks deals with seventy violated Sabbaths, then there is no reason why they need to be without gaps.↩

160For a detailed analysis of this, see the sermon series by Phillip Kayser on Daniel.↩

161Whether this is a reference to the massive numbers of demons that Christ cast out, we are not sure. It is significant that during the war against Jerusalem (66-73 AD) that is described in the first chapters of Revelation, millions of demons are once again released from the pit (Rev. 9:1-21). It may be that many of those demons had been consigned to the pit during the ministry of Jesus.↩

162See the discussion of Matthew 7:15-20 in the next chapter. Christ warns his disciples how to recognize false prophets: if they have any bad prophetic fruit whatsoever they are false. The reason is because New Testament prophets are just as inspired and inerrant as Old Testament prophets. Likewise, Christ calls for those false prophets to be executed (v. 19). ↩

163“the LORD will be zealous for His land…satisfied…be glad and rejoice…the LORD has done marvellous things… rejoice in the LORD your God… He has given you…vats shall overflow with new wine and oil…So I will restore to you…the LORD your God, who has dealt wondrously with you, and My people shall never be put to shame. Then you shall know that I am in the midst of Israel…” etc.↩

164For example, 2 Corinthians 12:11-12 speaks of miracles as being “signs of an apostle” precisely because they were “unusual miracles” (Acts 19:11). If they had not been “unusual,” how would they have authenticated Paul as an apostle when some miracles, healings and tongues followed those who believe and thus could have been considered signs of a believer (Mark 16:17)? The phrase “unusual miracles” seems to be differentiating itself from “ordinary miracles.” Likewise, Scripture seems to distinguish between extraordinary apostles of Christ who were inspired and carried the authority of Christ, and apostles of the church like Barnabas (Acts 14:14) and Epaphroditus (Phil. 2:25 Gk). Though there is much debate about miracles, this brief discussion should at least show that one of the functions of miracles (or at least unusual miracles) was to authenticate apostles and prophets.↩

165As Warfield worded it, “The authoritative teachers sent forth by Christ to found His church, carried with them, as their most precious possession, a body of divine Scriptures, which they imposed on the church that they founded as its code of law… The Christian Church was never without a ‘Bible’ or a ‘canon’” (Benjamin B. Warfield, The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible, (Philadelphia, PA: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1948), p. 411). ↩

166See chapter 1, footnote 27 for several examples. ↩

167καταργέω means “to come to an end or to be no longer in existence, abolish, wipe out, set aside” (BDAG).↩

168The more literal translation of Augustine’s “Novum Testamentum in Vetere latet, Vetus in Novo patet,” is “The New Testament is in the Old concealed, the old is in the New revealed.” For Latin, see Al Wolters, “The History of Old Testament Interpretation: An Anecdotal Survey,” in Hearing the Old Testament: Listening for God’s Address, ed. Craig G. Bartholomew and David J. H. Beldman (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2012), 26.↩

169In Ezekiel 10 the Spirit leaves the temple proper, goes over the threshold (10:18) and moves to the south side of the temple’s outer court (10:3-5,18), and then goes out of the East Gate (10:19; 11:1ff.) and moves away from Israel (which would be east) into the remnant of Israel in Babylon making a new sanctuary not of brick and mortar but of Spirit and people (11:16 calls that His “little sanctuary,” or as the margin says, “little holy place”). So even though the temple was about to be destroyed in Ezekiel’s day, God comforts them by saying that the remnant of Israel would become the new Israel and as they walked in the Spirit He would make a spiritual temple among them. Interestingly, just as the Spirit later fell upon believers at Pentecost, the Spirit fell upon Ezekiel at that time, and in the vision, made him prophesy to the crowds in the temple. So this first time that the Spirit leaves the temple is in chapters 10 and 11. It parallels the second time in many details.

The second time Ezekiel describes a future reconstructed temple and the Spirit being poured out it does so in much the same way, but it is clearly a reference to Pentecost. It mentions the upper rooms and then in chapter 44 says that after the God of Israel walks through this gate, it will be sealed up. In the next chapters Ezekiel continues to describe this temple and in chapter 47 says that the Spirit, symbolized by a river of water poured out, would leave the temple once again. The water starts as a trickle on the south side of the altar, but then flows out of the East gate and grows over time into a huge river that eventually brings healing to the world. This is exactly what happened at Pentecost. God took the Spirit from the temple and made the remnant of Israel into His tabernacle (as He promised in Ezekiel 37). Whether you hold that the house that Acts 2 refers to is the entire temple (as in Ezekiel 44:7), or a meeting place on the inner walls, or the Southern Porticos, it was on the south side of the temple. As the Spirit-filled Christians left the temple, the trickle gradually grew deeper and deeper as the church grew, and it is destined to become a river so great that no one can cross it, and eventually so great that it brings healing to the whole world. ↩

170That the selection of Matthias was proper can be seen from the following considerations:

• Peter was following the Scripture’s authority - “this Scripture had to be fulfilled” (v. 16). Based on Psalm 109:8 Peter says, “therefore… one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection.” This would be a witness against Israel by the new Israel, and the symbolism needed to be present when Pentecost came.
• There is not the slightest hint from Luke that what they did was wrong.
• Luke refers to Peter being “with the eleven” (2:14) after this. Compared with the same language in 1:26 it is clear that Luke considers Matthias to be part of the twelve.
• Luke refers to “the twelve” (6:2) long before Paul’s conversion.
• Paul was unique in his apostleship as one appointed “out of due time” (1 Cor. 15:8-9). He sees his apostleship as being on a different plane than the others, though of equal authority.
• The lack of mention of Matthias later in Acts is immaterial since the only mention of any apostles after this are Peter, James, John, and Philip.

↩

171Consider Revelation 7:4, which describes the first century church as being (either literally or symbolically) composed of 144,000 Jews, twelve thousand from each tribe: “One hundred and forty-four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel were sealed.” Thus James writing to the “brethren” (see 1:2,9,16; 2:1,5,14-15; 3:1,10,12; etc.) can address them as “the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad” (James 1:1). Paul says, “not all Israel is Israel.” This is why Revelation 2:9 says, “I know the blasphemy of those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan.” That’s why Revelation 3:9 says, “Indeed, I will make those of the synagogue of Satan, who say they are Jews and are not; but lie…” We need to get used to realizing that God does not have two brides, but one bride. He has one people, one temple, one olive tree, one vineyard, one field, one Israel, one church. Galatians can speak of the church as “the Israel of God.”↩

172See Peter R. Jones, “1 Corinthians 15:8: Paul the Last Apostle,” in Tyndale Bulletin 36 (1985), pp. 3-34 for an excellent discussion of this being an eschatological “last.” He states that Paul “is conscious of being called to bring the apostolic gospel to completion.… The closure with Paul of the apostolic circle” reflects “a solemn claim concerning his apostolic ministry that is grounded … in revelation.…” (pp. 28,33).↩

173That the “last days” ended with the destruction of Israel in AD 70 can be seen by my detailed analysis of “last days” references at https://kaysercommentary.com/Blogs/Last%20Days%20BeginBC.md The chart on that page shows four different interpretations of “last days,” but also shows how only one can account for the numerous references to “last days” events that preceded the birth of Jesus. The following prophecies of things that would happen in the last days absolutely rule out the last days beginning at the birth of Jesus, the death of Jesus, or even beginning in AD 70. They had to begin earlier, and thus refer to the last days of Israel as a nation and the last days of the temple, and the Levitical ceremonies: 1) Both Deuteronomy 31:29 and Deuteronomy 32:20 refer to events in 605 BC. 2) Jeremiah 23:20 refers to an event in 586 BC. 3) Jeremiah 30:24, 48:47; 49:39 all refer to events in 539 BC. 4) Ezekiel 38:14,16 refers to 511 BC. 5) Daniel 11:20 refers to an event in 187 BC. Certainly the following verses show that the first century AD was in the last days:

God who at various times and in different ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son. (Heb. 1:1)

Christ’s ministry was in the last days: “But this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel: ‘And it shall come to pass in the last days, says God, that I will pour out of My Spirit on all flesh” (Acts 2:16-17).

Peter lived in the last days: “He indeed was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you” (1 Pet. 1:20). This indicates that Christ was born and lived in the last times.

James, rebuking the rich Jews who were persecuting the Jewish Christians predicts the destruction of their gold in 67-70 AD. In the middle of his denunciation he says: “Your gold and silver are corroded, and their corrosion will be a witness against you and will eat your flesh like fire. You have heaped [notice the past tense, they have already done it] up treasure in the last days” (James 5:3).↩

174As pointed out earlier, Peter R. Jones demonstrates that this was an eschatological “last” rather than a least.↩

175This conclusion is further strengthened when the Sheliach nature of apostleship is understood. An apostle was a Sheliach who was directly commissioned and spoke in the name of and with the full authority of the one who sent him (Luke 10:16; John 13:20; Gal. 4:14). There are many apostles of the church, but there were only 12 + 1 apostles of Christ (parallel to the 13 tribes). This is necessarily so since in Hebrew thought, because a Sheliach could not commission another Sheliach to take his place. There can be no apostolic succession in Hebrew thought. Furthermore, the qualifications for being the twelfth apostle are given in Acts 1:21-26.

1. had to have witnessed Christ’s resurrection
2. had to have been with Christ
3. had to have been trained by Christ
4. had to have been with the other apostles

Paul recognized that the last qualification was not met by him and even though he vigorously defends his apostleship, he says that he was one “born out of due time” and therefore “the least of the apostles and not worthy to be called an apostle” (1 Cor. 15:8-9). Nevertheless, in a miraculous way, God helped Paul meet the other qualifications and to be counted as an apostle “born out of due time.”

1. Paul was a witness of the resurrected Christ: “After that he was seen by James, then by all the apostles. Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time” (1 Cor. 15:7-8).
2. Before Paul met with the other apostles, he went to Arabia where he was with Christ for three years (Gal. 1:16-18).
3. During those three years Paul is jealous to defend his position that he was not taught by any man but by Christ Himself over that three year period (Gal. 1:12,16-17).
4. Thus Paul received his apostleship from Christ, not from apostolic succession (Rom. 1:5; Gal. 1:1,12,15-16).

↩

176Some of the differences of interpretation revolve around whether the reflexive verb for “will cease” that is used for tongues indicates a gradual cessation of tongues over time, or whether it is a co-terminus cessation with prophecy and knowledge. Likewise there are differences of opinion on whether the three gifts cease or whether the in-part-ness of the gifts ceases. Some see the “perfect” as the terminus point for the gifts, and others strongly disagree. There are certainly differences of opinion about the meaning of “that which is perfect.” Some say the “perfect” has reference to the death of the believer and his transfer to heaven, others insisting that it is the Second Coming, still others the maturity of the church, others the maturity of the church in a given region (concentric Cessationism), and others to the completion of the New Testament canon. There are also differences on the linear relationship of faith, hope, and love to the gifts. Do faith, hope, and love all outlast the gifts, or does only love outlast the gifts? What is the point of Paul’s example of immaturity in verse 11? Is prophecy and tongues an evidence of immaturity, or is immaturity only a metaphor for the great difference between our in-part revelation and the great revelation we will receive in heaven? What point is Paul making with the unclear mirror metaphor? Is it a reference to the unclarity of God’s revelation or the unclarity we have without revelation? What connection is there (if any) between “putting away childish things” doing away with that which is in part (v. 10), and the ceasing of prophecy, tongues, and knowledge (v. 8)? It is beyond the scope of this book to argue these and other such questions.↩

177

Some Cessationists have agreed with Charismatics that the terminus point for the charismatic gifts of verse 8 is the “perfect” of verse 10, but they argue that the “perfect” is either 1) the maturity of the church universal, 2) the maturity of the church in a region, 3) the completion of the canon, or 4) a cessation of the partial knowledge of first century Charismatics when they die and go to heaven.↩

178While the Greek word for “perfect” can technically be interpreted in the ways listed in the previous footnote, for the sake of the argument, the author of this book is quite willing to concede the point that the “perfect” is the Second Coming (whether that is true or not). However, he ties the “done away” of verse 10 only with the “partial” of all revelation in verse 9, whether that revelation is oral or Scriptural. However, it should be pointed out that the conclusions of this book are not dependent upon taking any position on “perfect.” I am indebted to my friend Dr. Robert Fugate for bringing to my attention that almost all scholars take the word “perfect” as a reference to the Second Coming:

• Donald A. Carson, Showing the Spirit (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1987), p. 71
• F. F. Bruce, 1 & 2 Corinthians, NCB, p. 128
• Gordon Fee, 1 Corinthians, NIC, pp. 643, 646, 649
• Craig Blomberg, 1 Corinthians, pp. 260, 262f
• Archibald T. Robertson and Alfred Plummer, 1 Corinthians, ICC, p. 297
• George G. Findlay, St. Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians, EGT [n.d.; reprinted, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1970], 2:900
• Charles K. Barrett, 1 Corinthians, HNTC, p. 306
• Frederic L. Godet, 1 Corinthians, pp. 678, 680
• David E. Garland, 1 Corinthians, pp. 662f.
• Henry Alford, Alford’s Greek Testament [Alf], 4 vols. (1844–1877; reprinted, Grand Rapids, MI: Guardian Press), 2:588
• Charles J. Ellicott, St. Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians (1887; reprinted, Minneapolis, MN: James Family Christian Publ.), p. 259
• Clarence T. Craig, 1 Corinthians, IB, ed. George A. Buttrick, 12 vols. (New York, NY: Abingdon, 1953), 10:188, 193
• Heinrich A. W. Meyer, Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the Epistles to the Corinthians (New York, NY: Funk & Wagnalls, 1884), p. 305
• F. W. Grosheide, Commentary on The First Epistle to the Corinthians, originally in NIC (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1953), pp. 309f
• R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul’s First & Second Epistles to the Corinthians (1937; reprint, Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg, 1963), pp. 565f
• Charles Hodge, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Geneva, p. 272
• John Calvin, Commentary on The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians, 2 vols. (reprint, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1984), 1:428
• Leon Morris, The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, TNTC (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1958), p. 7:187.

↩

179It should be noted that the Greek word translated “So” (ESV), “And” (NKJV, NIV), and “But” (ASV, NASB) is the mild contrastive, δὲ. It puts what follows in contrast to what has been discussed.↩

180James Moffatt, The Moffatt New Testament Commentary (New York: Harper and Brothers Publishers, 1932), 133.↩

181Knox Translation, Westminster Diocese (2013).↩

182More and more scholars are seeing that the evidence is overwhelming for a pre-70 dating of all the books of the New Testament. A conservative work that demonstrates this is Ken Gentry’s book, Before Jerusalem Fell: Dating the Book of Revelation (Tyler, TX: ICE, 1989). But even many liberals (who have tended to date all New Testament books very late) have conceded that the evidence is forcing them to a pre-70 AD dating for all the New Testament books. For a liberal work that demonstrates this quite convincingly, see John A.T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1976).↩

183For his views on New Testament prophecy being different from Old Testament prophecy and Apostles being equivalent to Old Testament prophets, see Wayne A. Grudem, The Gift of Prophecy in 1 Corinthians, (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 1999); Wayne A. Grudem, The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today, (Westchester, IL: Crossway Books, 1988, 1990); Wayne A. Grudem (ed.), Are Miraculous Gifts for Today: Four Views, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996); Wayne A. Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine, (Leicester, England; Grand Rapids, Michigan: Inter-Varsity Press; Zondervan Pub. House, 2004); Grudem, “A Response to O. Palmer Robertson, The Final Word (Edinburgh, Scotland and Carlisle, Pennsylvania: Banner of Truth, 1993)” (unpublished paper); “1 Corinthians 14:20-25: Prophecy and Tongues as Signs of God’s Attitude,” in Westminster Theological Journal 41:2 (Spring, 1979), pp, 381-396; “Prophecy, Prophets,” in New Dictionary of Biblical Theology (2000); “Why Christians Can Still Prophesy,” in Christianity Today 1988-09-16.↩

184This pastor pointed to Paul’s Macedonian call and claimed that Paul made an error in thinking it was a man who called him to Macedonia rather than the woman, Lydia. He also said that Jonah made a mistake. This strikes at the inerrancy of Scripture.↩

185Another prominent charismatic pastor held to this particular heresy, claiming that because Scripture is prophecy, it must include both fallible man’s reasoning and the infallible word of God. Thus he held to limited inerrancy - that Scripture is only inerrant on what God intends to say through fallible humans who also communicate truth but also communicate error. His faulty view of prophecy led to a faulty view of Scripture.↩

186Grudem, The Gift of Prophecy, p. 40.↩

187This claim is repeated over and over in his books. As one example, Grudem says, “So it seems that the prophecy uttered by women at Corinth could not have claimed the extremely high authority of speech with a ‘divine authority of actual words’. Thus, 1 Corinthians 11:5 is one more indication that prophets at Corinth were not thought by Paul to speak with a divine authority of actual words” (Grudem, The Gift of Prophecy, p. 87).↩

188For example, Grudem says, “the prophet could err, could misinterpret, and could be questioned or challenged at any point.” Grudem, The Gift of Prophecy, p. 87.↩

189Grudem, The Gift of Prophecy, p. 87.↩

190Grudem, The Gift of Prophecy, p. 87.↩

191Wayne Grudem, The Gift of Prophecy, pp. 3-5, 110-113.↩

192Grudem, The Gift of Prophecy, pp. 63-64.↩

193Old Testament saints were constantly being referred to accurate information in other inspired (but non-canonical) books. Until the canon was finished they not only needed supplemental revelation by way of dreams, visions, oral prophecies, etc. (see Heb. 1:1), but they were also given temporary (non-canonical) books that were written by prophets. Scripture refers contemporary readers to the following non-canonical (though inspired) books as being trustworthy for further research by contemporaries. See, for example, the books written by prophets and that contained “prophecies” and “visions” in 2 Chron. 9:29. Other prophetic books include Book of The Wars of Jehovah (Numb. 21:14), Book of Jashar (Josh. 10:13; 2 Sam. 1:18), another Book of Samuel on the Kingdom (1 Sam. 10:25), Book of the Chronicles of David (1 Chron. 27:24), Book of the Acts of Solomon (1 Kings 4:32; 11:42), Book of Solomon’s Natural History (1 Kings 4:32-33), History of the Kings (1 Kings 9:1; 2 Chron. 20:34; 33:18), Book of Samuel the Seer (1 Chron. 29:29), Book of Nathan the Seer (1 Chron. 29:29; 2 Chron. 9:29), Book of Shemaiah the Seer (2 Chron. 12:15), Book of Gad the Seer (1 Chron. 29:29), Book of the Sayings of the Seers (2 Chron. 9:29), Book of Ahijah the Shilonite (2 Chron. 9:29), Book of the Visions of Iddo (2 Chron. 9:29; 12:15), Book of Jehu the Son of Hanani (2 Chron. 20:34).

Why were those inspired books not included in the canon? Scripture indicates that the canon was being developed to give the Kingdom generation (our generation) all the information they would need until eternity. Scripture explicitly affirms this: (“Now all these things… were written for our admonition, on whom the ends of the ages have come” (1 Cor. 10:11; cf. 9:10 and Rom. 15:4). Peter says, “To them it was revealed that, not to themselves, but to us they were ministering the things which now have been reported to you through those who have preached the gospel” (1 Pet. 1:12). Or to use Old Testament language, “This will be written for the generation to come, that a people yet to be created may praise the Lord” (Psalm 102:18). Though the Old Testament saints were commanded to live by the progressively unfolding Scriptures (as well as by other revelation from God [cf. Heb. 1:1]), God always had in mind His purpose for a completed canon when he inspired and gave Scripture.↩

194Grudem, The Gift of Prophecy, p. 45.↩

195Grudem, The Gift of Prophecy, p. 104.↩

196Godet points out, “these writings are represented as the means of propagating a new revelation, and should consequently designate new prophetical writings. I think that the only explanation of this term in harmony with the apostle’s thought is got from the passage which we have already quoted, Eph. 3:3–6: “For God by revelation made known unto me the mystery, as I wrote afore in few words, whereby when ye read ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ, which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto His holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit, that the Gentiles are fellow-heirs, and of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ by the gospel.” The apostles are here called prophets, inasmuch as they are bearers of a new revelation. What then are their writings, if not prophetical writings?” Frédéric Louis Godet and Alexander Cusin, Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, vol. 2 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1890), 416–417.

C.K. Barrett points out, “the combination of ‘now’ and ‘prophetic writings’ is curious in itself” if those prophetic writings refer to the Old Testament since it was precisely Paul’s point that the revelation of the mystery was now, not then. “The following people believe the “prophetic Scriptures” was NT Godet, 504–5; Corssen, “Überlieferungsgeschichte,” 33–34; Schmithals, Römerbrief, 121–22; Lührmann, Offenbarungsverständnis, 123–24; Schlier, 454; Wilckens, 3:150, referring to 2 Pet 1:19, which speaks of Christian writings as “the prophetic word” (τὸν προφητικὸν λόγον). See also Horst Balz and Gerhard Schneider, eds., “προφητικός,” EDNT 3 (1993) 186. See Clement of Alexandria Stro. 5.14.126.3; Clement of Alexandria Ex. The. 3.50.3.4; Justin Martyr 1 Apol. 32.2.10f. According to Clement of Alexandria Pro. 8.77.1, the expression προφητικαὶ γραφαί can also refer to pagan hexametric oracles; see also Stro. 1.21.148.1” Robert Jewett and Roy David Kotansky, Romans: A Commentary, ed. Eldon Jay Epp, Hermeneia—a Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2006).↩

197Robert L. Saucy, “Prophecy Today? An Initial Response,” in Sundoulos [Spring 1990]. p. 5.↩

198Sharp stated the rule this way:

When the copulative και connects two nouns of the same case, [viz. nouns (either substantive or adjective, or participles) of personal description, respecting office, dignity, affinity, or connexion, and attributes, properties, or qualities, good or ill], if the article ὁ, or any of its cases, precedes the first of the said nouns or participles, and is not repeated before the second noun or participle, the latter always relates to the same person that is expressed or described by the first noun or participle: i.e. it denotes a farther description of the first-named person . . .
(Granville Sharp, “Remarks on the Uses of the Definitive Article in the Greek Text of the New Testament: Containing many New Proofs of the Divinity of Christ, from Passages which are wrongly Translated in the Common English Version,” 1st American ed. from the 3d London ed. (Philadelphia: Hopkins, 1807), 3). Out of circulation for years, this book has recently been reprinted by Original Word Publishing, ISBN: 0962654442.

↩

199Wayne Grudem, The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today (Westchester, IL: Crossway Books, 1988), pp. 53-63.↩

200Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), p. 272. If one examines Wallace’s detailed list of Scriptures where the Granville Sharp Rule does indeed appear, the stark difference between those examples and the one Grudem gives becomes quickly apparent.↩

201Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, p. 272. ↩

202Grudem, The Gift of Prophecy, p. 53.↩

203In a Journal article, Robert Thomas points out that “apostolicity cannot account for the inspiration of all the books that the church eventually recognized as part of the NT canon” (p. 8) and “to limit the determination of canonicity to apostolic authorship alone is precarious” (p. 6). He adds, “The first test a work had to pass to gain recognition as inspired, then, was either apostolicity or propheticity” (p. 24). In Robert L. Thomas, “Correlation of Revelatory Spiritual Gifts and NT Canonicity,” The Master’s Seminary Journal 8, no. 1 (Spring 1997). ↩

204Grudem, The Gift of Prophecy, p. 54.↩

205Grudem, Gift, p. 55.↩

206Recent studies in Luke and Acts shows that the Hebraisms of those two books are not borrowed from the Septuagint, but rather show an author who was thoroughly Hebrew in his thinking and background. Consider the following points:

Paul said that all Scriptural revelation was given through the Jews (Romans 3:12).

Luke appears to have been an eyewitness of Paul’s last trip to Jerusalem and of his arrest in the temple. Paul was arrested because they thought he had brought Trophimus into the temple as a Gentile. When the Jews accuse Paul, why do they use Trophimus as evidence rather than Luke (if Luke was a Gentile)?

Luke shows intimate knowledge of the temple and its liturgy and of its liturgical priests. In fact, his descriptions are so vivid, that many have assumed that Luke was a Levite.

Luke was so close to Mary that he knows that she “hid these things in her heart” (Luke 2:19,51)?

Some early church fathers thought that Luke wrote Hebrews. Anyone who wrote Hebrews was clearly Jewish. David L. Allen, dean of the school of theology at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Fort Worth, Texas, has written a book defending the Lukan authorship of Hebrews.

It is generally recognized that Luke used Jewish time in describing the Passion week (along with Matthew and Mark), whereas John (writing to Gentiles) used Roman time. Many other indicators show that he was writing to Jews with their methods of calculating in mind. For example, in Acts 1:12 he refers to the distance they traveled as “a Sabbath day’s journey.” It wasn’t on the Sabbath. The point of the reference is to precisely indicate distance, a measurement method that would have been totally lost on a Gentile audience. The fact that Luke was writing with the Jewish mind in view shows that Theophilus must have been a Jewish reader. In any case, Luke is writing with a Jewish mindset.

Luke uses many Hebraic forms of speech known as Semitisms that a non-Hebrew Greek speaker simply would not use. Some examples of Semitisms follow:

• redundant uses of “saying” (Luke 14:3; 24:6-7)
• On “contrast by extremes,” Hebraic scholar Michael D. Marlowe said, “Luke’s version preserves the Hebraic style, Matthew’s the Greek
• Another idiom, “the use of positive adjective for the comparative or superlative” in Luke 5:39 (“good” = “better”)
• on the introductory, “it came to pass,” Marlowe says, “This Semitism appears far more frequently in Luke’s writings than elsewhere (Mark has only four examples of it). An example is Luke 2:6, “And it came to pass (egeneto de) that while they were there, the days were completed for her to give birth.” Recognizing the unnaturalness of the expression, most modern translations begin simply, “While they were there” (see GNB, NIV, JB, NEB, RSV). For other examples of this idiom, see Luke 2:1, 2:6, 2:15, 3:21, 5:1, 5:12, 5:17, 6:1, 6:6, 6:12, 7:11, 8:1, 8:22, 9:18, 9:28, 9:37, 9:51, 11:1, 11:27, 14:1, 17:11, 18:35, 20:1, 22:24, 24:4
• Adjectival substitutes (Luke 10:6)
• Future indicative used as an imperative (Luke 1:13)
• verb and cognate noun expressing emphasis (Luke 22:15)
• Parallelism (Luke 1-2 – though this could simply be an example of faithful reporting of Hebraism)
• the use of idou (behold) in Luke 1:20,31,36; 2:25; Acts 12:7)
• the use of pleonasms (Luke 15:18; Acts 5:17)
• transliterations

So clear is the Hebrew thinking of the person writing Luke-Acts, that those who think Luke was Gentile have to scramble to explain the Jewishness. One explanation is that Luke was so used to reading the Septuagint, that Hebraisms began to affect his speech and writing unconsciously. Though J. Munk claims that the Semitisms in Luke-Acts are actually Septuagintisms, R. Steven Notley (of the Jerusalem School) responded by saying, “If the Semitism of Luke 11:20 is a result of Luke’s imitation of the Septuagint’s style, as most scholars claim, then how is it that Luke’s idiom is more Hebraic than the Septuagint upon which he supposedly relies? The evidence suggests that this is not a Septuagintism but, in Blass and Debrunner’s words, a “translation-Semitism.” Luke’s text seems to rest upon a literal translation of a Hebrew source.” Another writer said, “Their only argument against the plethora of Semitisms in Luke is that Luke is “Septuagintalizing” his Greek, never mind the fact that many of the Semitisms don’t even occur once in the Septuagint.”

There are fascinating grammatical and stylistic similarities between the book of Hebrews and Luke-Acts. Westcott remarks, “It has been already seen that the earliest scholars who speak of the Epistle notice its likeness in style to the writings of St Luke; and when every allowance has been made for coincidences which consist in forms of expression which are found also in the LXX. or in other writers of the N. T., or in late Greek generally, the likeness is unquestionably remarkable. No one can work independently at the Epistle without observing it” (Brooke Foss Westcott, ed., The Epistle to the Hebrews the Greek Text with Notes and Essays, 3d ed., Classic Commentaries on the Greek New Testament (London: Macmillan, 1903), lxxvi).

The point is that if Luke wrote Hebrews, he was clearly a Jew.↩

207Grudem, the Gift of Prophecy, p. 56.↩

208F.F. Bruce, 1 & 2 Corinthians, NCB (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971), p. 134.↩

209Grudem, the Gift of Prophecy, pp. 94-95.↩

210Wayne Grudem, The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today, (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2000), p. 72.↩

211The following are the three most common interpretations:

1. The interpretation I have given.
2. The interpretation that says that the Spirit did indeed tell Paul to go to Jerusalem but then gave another prophecy not to go to see if Paul would be steadfast to his previous revelation. In other words, this is a kind of “Word test” to see if Paul will begin to question the previous clear revelation. This interpretation is ethically difficult for me to accept because it appears to make the Holy Spirit contradict himself just to test (confuse?) Paul.
3. The Spirit did not want Paul to go to Jerusalem and Paul disobeyed an explicit order of God.

↩

212Grudem, The Gift of Prophecy, p. 96.↩

213Grudem, Bible Doctrine, p. 409↩

214Grudem, The Gift of Prophecy, p. 110.↩

215Grudem, The Gift of Prophecy, p. 89.↩

216Grudem, The Gift of Prophecy, p. 110.↩

217Grudem, The Gift of Prophecy, chapter heading on p. 67.↩

218As an example, John B. Pohill says, “In a symbolic act much like the acted-out prophecies of the Old Testament prophets, Agagus predicted Paul’s coming arrest in Jerusalem” (The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman Press, 2001), p. 435).

F. F. Bruce says, “The mode of his prophecy is reminiscent of much Old Testament prophecy: it is conveyed in action as well as in word. As Ahijah the Shilonite tore his new cloak to show how Solomon’s kingdom would be disrupted (1 Kings 11:29–39), as Isaiah went about naked and barefoot to show how the Egyptians would be led into captivity by the Assyrians (Isa. 20:2–4), as Ezekiel mimicked the Babylonian siege of Jerusalem by laying siege himself to a replica of the city (Ezek. 4:1–3), so Agabus foretold the binding of Paul by tying himself up with Paul’s girdle. The action was as much part of the prophecy as the spoken word: both together communicated the effective and self-fulfilling word of God (cf. Isa. 55:11)” (F. F. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1988), 401).

Fitzmyer says, “As did certain OT prophets, Agabus acts out his message” (Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Acts of the Apostles: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, vol. 31, Anchor Yale Bible (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2008), 689).

Barrett says, “Agabus, binding himself hands and feet, performs an acted parable, a prophetic sign comparable with those of the OT prophets” (C. K. Barrett, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2004), 995).

Numerous others make the same point.↩

219Marshall says, “Thus says the Holy Spirit corresponds to ‘Thus says the Lord’ on the lips of Old Testament prophets” (I. Howard Marshall, Acts: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 5, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1980), 359).

Bruce says, “The action was as much part of the prophecy as the spoken word: both together communicated the effective and self-fulfilling word of God (cf. Isa. 55:11)” (F. F. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1988), 401).

Fitzmyer says, “Agabus … introduces his warning with a borrowed OT phrase; compare ‘Thus says Yahweh’ (Ezek 14:6)” (Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Acts of the Apostles: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, vol. 31, Anchor Yale Bible (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2008), 689).

Polhill says, “Then, just like an Old Testament prophet, he gave the interpretation of the act, introduced by the usual, ‘Thus says the Lord,’ here expressed in terms of revelation through the Holy Spirit… This was all the more certain when one considers the nature of such prophetic acts in the Old Testament. The act itself set into motion the event it foretold. It established the reality of the event, the certainty that it would occur.” John B. Polhill, Acts, vol. 26, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1992), 435.↩

220Grudem, The Gift of Prophecy, p. 74-78.↩

221Matt. 7:15; 24:11,24; Mark 13:22; Luke 6:26; Acts 13:6; 2 Pet. 2:1; 1 John 4:1; Rev. 16:13; 19:20; 20:10. Grudem does say, “the possibility of false prophets coming and speaking under the influence of some demonic spirit certainly existed (cf. 1 Jn. 4:1,3). Though Paul did not discuss such a possibility explicitly in 1 Corinthians, it is fair to conclude from what Paul does say that he no doubt expected that false prophets would have been detected by those with the ability to distinguish between spirits (1 Cor 12:10), and they would have betrayed themselves by their blatantly aberrant doctrine (1 Cor. 12:3; 1 Jn. 4:2-3)” (p. 78). ↩

222Garnet Howard Milne, The Westminster Confession of Faith and the Cessation of Special Revelation: The Majority Puritan Viewpoint on Whether Extra-biblical Prophecy is Still Possible (Waynesboro, GA: Paternoster, 2007).↩

223Those who agree with Grudem would include: Barrett, C. K. A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, Harper‘s New Testament Commentaries, ed. by Henry Chadwick. New York: Harper & Row, 1968; Fee, Gordon D. The First Epistle to the Corinthians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament, ed. by F. F. Bruce. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987; Kistemaker, Simon J. Exposition of the First Epistle to the Corinthians,. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1986.↩

224Thiselton, Anthony C. The First Epistle to the Corinthians, The New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000.↩

225Godet, F. L. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. Translated by A. Cusin. 1886. Reprint. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1971; Morris, Leon. The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians. 2d ed. The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985.↩

226Findlay, G. G. St. Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians, In the Expositor’s Greek Testament, ed. by W. Robertson Nicoll. Vol. 2. 1900. Reprint. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970.

Lenski, R. C. H. The Interpretation of St. Paul’s First and Second Epistles to the Corinthians. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1963.

MacArthur, John. 1 Corinthians. MacArthur New Testament Commentary. Chicago: Moody, 1984.

Grosheide, F. W. Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament, ed. by F. F. Bruce. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953.

Alford, Henry. The Greek Testament. Vol. 2. 1865. Revised by Everett F. Harrison. Chicago: Moody, 1968.

Meyer says, “We see from this that the charisma of judging the spirits was joined with that of prophecy, so that whoever could himself speak prophetically was qualified also for the διάκρισις; for οἱ ἄλλοι (comp. ἄλλῳ, ver. 30) cannot be taken (with Hofmann) universally, without restriction to the category of prophets, seeing that in fact the διάκρισις was no universal χάρισμα. The article is retrospective, so that it is defined by προφήται. At the same time, however, it must not be overlooked that even such persons as were not themselves prophets might still be endowed with the διάκρισις (12:10), although not all were so” (Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer, ed. William P. Dickson, trans. D. Douglas Bannerman and David Hunter, Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1879), 27–28). ↩

227One commentary that takes this view is that of Oster. While holding to the absolute authority of the prophecies, he believes everyone was responsible to evaluate or be Bereans:

Paul’s imperative to weigh carefully what these two or three prophets spoke is certainly no indication that these prophecies were just pious insights granted to particular believers. Neither Luke nor Paul believed that Paul’s gospel was merely the result of spiritual insight. Rather both Luke and Paul affirmed that Paul’s message was a result of direct revelation and had the imprimatur of God himself, yet both acknowledged that Paul’s preaching should be evaluated (Acts 17:11; Gal 1:8–9). John Calvin addressed this theological and exegetical issue by noting “that the teaching of God is not subjected to the judgment of men, but their [i.e., the others] task is simply to judge, by the Spirit of God, whether it is His Word, which is declared or whether, using this as a pretext, men are wrongly parading what they themselves have made up.

There are two main schools of thought in the matter of identifying “the others” (οἱ ἄλλοι, hoi alloi). Some scholars identify these as the other prophets or saints with the gift of the discernment of spirits (1 Cor 12:10). The other school of interpretation concludes, in my opinion, correctly, that “the others” refers to the collective congregation” (Richard Oster, 1 Corinthians, The College Press NIV Commentary (Joplin, MO: College Press Pub. Co., 1995), 1 Co. 14:29).

↩

228John Maynard, The Beauty and Order of the Creation (London: Henry Eversden, 1668), pp. 208,209, as cited in the text of Milne, p. 185, and in footnote 46, p. 185.↩

229Garnet Howard Milne, The Westminster Confession of Faith and the Cessation of Special Revelation: The Majority Puritan Viewpoint on Whether Extra-biblical Prophecy is Still Possible (Waynesboro, GA: Paternoster, 2007), pp. 156-157.↩

230See especially his Systematic Theology.↩

231Modern Roman Catholic apologists (especially debaters from Catholic Answers in California) recognize that this doctrine is critical to the divide between the Protestant faith and the Roman Catholic Church. Most of the debates that Catholic Answers has sponsored with Protestants has been on the question, “Are the Scriptures sufficient for faith and practice?”↩

232The bulk of this paper has dealt with the issue of whether continuing prophecy exists, but here I am addressing simply the question, “Do we need such prophecy?” Charismatics often imply that we need new revelation, an assertion that logically contradicts the sufficiency of Scripture.↩

233All that is needed for understanding the Scripture is the Holy Spirit’s illumination. To suggest an easy channel to revelation that bypasses study seems to promote further laziness in studying Scripture. We are commanded to “Search the Scriptures,” to seek for wisdom in Scripture “as for hidden treasures.” Proverbs speaks of those who neglect the word as “the simple” and gives no shortcut to Spirit illumined study of the Bible.↩

234Romans 10 indicates that without preachers they will not receive revelation. “…how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach unless they are sent?… So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” (Rom. 10:14,17). Paul did not consider an ongoing third way by which people could come in contact with the Gospel.↩

235That again can be the role of illumination.↩

236The doctrine of sufficiency teaches that Christian living is Biblical living. Since Scripture gives us “all things that pertain to life and godliness” and everything we need to know to glorify and enjoy God forever, then it seems that anything beyond Scripture is not really distinctively Christian living. We need to know specifics of when additions to Scripture are helpful for Christian living, and what makes them helpful. Further, we need to reconcile this statement with the commands not to add to Scripture or to take away, not to go to the right hand or to the left hand.↩

237It might be objected that the need to follow such prophecy flows out of Scripture (1 Cor. 14:1; etc.), and therefore, even though it is an ethical need, it is an ethics of the Scripture. Of course, all interpreters recognize the nature of time-bounded commands (like Christ’s command to fetch a donkey), and whether the commands to seek prophetic gifts fall into that category. We must also distinguish between a view that says prophecy only brings old revelation (Scripture) to our mind (a view of prophecy that is similar to illumination) and a view that says prophecy is new propositional truth. The objection in the text is directed to those who say we need more propositional truth than Scripture provides, or we need to follow such propositional truth when it is given to us.↩

238Grudem, Gifts, p. 100.↩

239Grudem, Ibid.↩

240Grudem, Ibid., p. 98.↩

241Wayne Grudem, The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today (Westchester, IL: Crossway Books, 1988), p. 97.↩

242Grudem, The Gift of Prophecy, p. 97-98.↩

243See Grudem, The Gift of Prophecy, chapters 4 and 5. Sam Storms says, “We must avoid prefacing our prophetic utterances with ‘Thus saith the Lord,’ a declaration which implies infallibility and morally obligatory revelation.”↩

244Grudem, The Gift of Prophecy, p. 100. Note that though he gives three possible interpretations, he rejects the other two as being improbable and says, “After considering the three solutions I tend to think the second is most likely” (p. 102).↩

245Grudem, The Gift of Prophecy, p. 101.↩

246See chapter 1, footnote 27 for a long list of inspired books that were excluded from the canon at the time they were written. ↩

247N.L. Geisler and W.E. Nix, General Introduction to the Bible, (Chicago: Moody, 1986), p. 301.↩

248The full quote is “Wherefore they are not to be placed even among the rejected writings, but are all of them to be cast aside as absurd and impious. Let us now proceed with our history” (3 Eusebius 25:7 EUSEB-E).↩

249If we believe the doctrine of Providence to be true, then we cannot believe the apocryphal additions to chapters in the Bible to be Scripture. This includes the apocryphal additions to chapters of Esther, the Prayer of Manassess, Bel and the Dragon, The Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Holy Children, or the History of Susanna were chapters lost for centuries and then added back into the canon by Rome in 1546 at the Council of Trent.↩

250For a detailed presuppositional defense of every word of Scripture having been preserved in every age, see Phillip G. Kayser, Has God Indeed Said? (Omaha: Biblical Blueprints, 2018). It can be purchased at https://leanpub.com/has-god-indeed-said/↩

251The word is πιπτω, and is defined as to fall, to fall away, to fall down, to experience a loss of status, to be destroyed (see BDAG).↩

252Francis X. Glimm, “The Letter of St. Polycarp To The Philippians,” in The Apostolic Fathers, trans. Francis X. Glimm, Joseph M.-F. Marique, and Gerald G. Walsh, vol. 1, The Fathers of the Church (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1947), 139.↩

253Massuet’s rendering of his Latin in footnote 8 page 508. “True knowledge consists [in] a very complete tractatio of the Scriptures, which has come down to us by being preserved (‘custoditione’ being read instead of ‘custodita’) without falsification” (Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, eds., The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885)).↩

254Metzger. The Text of the New Testament, p. 21.↩

255As cited by Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, p. 195↩

256Cited by Metzger in Ibid., p. 196.↩

257It doesn’t take much reading in the pseudepigrapha to discover that they contain the heretical teachings of docetics, ebionites, gnostics, and other heretical groups. These writings contradict the established Scriptures. They have historical errors and even nonsensical statements. Metzger says, “The most cogent proof that these books are intrinsically on a different plane from the books of the New Testament is afforded merely by reading them side by side with the books of the New Testament and allowing each to make its own impression. Then, in the words of M.R. James, ‘It will very quickly be seen that there is no question of anyone’s having excluded them from the New Testament: they have done that for themselves” (Bruce M. Metzger, Canon of the New Testament: It’s Origin, Development, and Significance, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987), p. 262. The quote he gives is from M.R. James, Apocryphal New Testament, pp. xi-xii).↩

258Richard A. Muller, Holy Scripture: The Cognitive Foundation of Theology, vol. 2 of Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993), p. 373.↩

259A “see” (Latin sedes) is equivalent to a modern presbytery. Thus, Revelation was written to seven presbyteries or sees. Each see had a bishop who acted as a moderator just as modern presbyteries do.↩

260Cyril of Jerusalem, The Catechetical Lectures IV.17, V.12, XII.5, in A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford: Parker, 1845). Emphasis on this and subsequent quotes have been supplied by me to highlight certain statements that might otherwise be overlooked.↩

261R.P.C. Hanson, Tradition in the Early Church (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1962), p. 125.↩

262J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1978), p. 46.↩

263These were customs or conventions similar to Roberts Rules of Order used in many churches. ↩

264William Webster, “Did I Really Leave the Holy Catholic Church,” in John Armstrong (ed), Roman Catholicism: Evangelical Protestants Analyze What Divides and Unites Us. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1994), pp. 273-274.↩

265Ellen Flesseman-Van Leer, Tradition and Scripture in the Early Church (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1953), p. 133.↩

266Brian Tierney, Origins of Papal Infallibility 1150-1350 (Leiden: Brill, 1972), pp. 16-17.↩

267F.F. Bruce, Tradition Old and New (Paternoster: Devon, 1970), pp. 117–118.↩

268J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, Fifth, Revised (London; New Delhi; New York; Sydney: Bloomsbury, 1977), 39.↩

269Heiko Oberman, The Harvest of Medieval Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1967), pp. 366–367.↩

270Ellen Flesseman–van Leer, Tradition and Scripture in the Early Church (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1953), p. 128↩

271R.H. Fuller and R.P.C. Hanson, The Church of Rome: A Dissuasive (Greenwich: Leabury, 1948), p. 69↩

272George Tavard, Holy Writ or Holy Church (London: Burns & Oates, 1959), p. 20.↩

273G.L. Prestige, Fathers and Heretics (London: SPCK, 1958), p. 14.↩

274William Webster, “The Church Fathers and the Authority and Sufficiency of Scripture,” unpublished essay. ↩

275Irenaeus of Lyons, “Irenæus against Heresies,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 326.↩

276Irenaeus of Lyons, “Irenæus against Heresies,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 414.↩

277Irenaeus of Lyons, “Irenæus against Heresies,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 415.↩

278Ellen Flesseman-Van Leer says, “The entire book of Adversus Haereses is broadly speaking but a demonstration from Scripture that the Church doctrine is right and the gnostic doctrine false…If Irenaeus wants to prove the truth of a doctrine materially, he turns to Scripture, because therein the teaching of the apostles is objectively accessible. Proof from tradition and Scripture serve one and the same end: to identify the teaching of the Church as the original apostolic teaching. The first establishes that the teaching of the Church is the apostolic teaching, and the second, what this apostolic teaching is” (Ellen Flesseman–Van Leer, Tradition and Scripture in the Early Church (Assen:Van Gorcum, 1953), p. 130, 144). Kelly says, “His real defence of orthodoxy was founded upon Scripture” (J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines (San Francisco: Harper, 1960), pp. 38–39). Hanson says, “The whole purpose of Irenaeus, at least, as we can reliably collect it from the prefaces and endings of each of the books of Adversus Heareses, was to refute the Gnostics from Scripture…Irenaeus will allow Scripture alone as his source of information about God, and if Scripture tells us nothing, then we can know nothing” (R.P.C. Hanson, Tradition in the Early Church (Westminster: Philadelphia, 1962), pp. 109, 119).↩

279Hippolytus of Rome, “Against the Heresy of One Noetus,” in Fathers of the Third Century: Hippolytus, Cyprian, Novatian, Appendix, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, trans. S. D. F. Salmond, vol. 5, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1886), 227.↩

280Tertullian, “Against Praxeas,” in Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, trans. Peter Holmes, vol. 3, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 605.↩

281Tertullian, “On Monogamy,” in Fathers of the Third Century: Tertullian, Part Fourth; Minucius Felix; Commodian; Origen, Parts First and Second, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, trans. S. Thelwall, vol. 4, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 62.↩

282J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines (Harper: San Francisco, 1960), p. 39.↩

283This can be found in Kirsopp Lake, “Preface,” in The Ecclesiastical History and 2: English Translation, ed. T. E. Page et al., trans. Kirsopp Lake and J. E. L. Oulton, vol. 2, The Loeb Classical Library (London; New York; Cambridge, MA: William Heinemann; G. P. Putnam’s Sons; Harvard University Press, 1926–1932), 193–197.↩

284Origen, “De Principiis,” in Fathers of the Third Century: Tertullian, Part Fourth; Minucius Felix; Commodian; Origen, Parts First and Second, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, trans. Frederick Crombie, vol. 4, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 349.↩

285Mattheum Commentarium Series 18. V3. Translated by William Goode, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice, vol. 2 (Philadelphia: Herman Hooker, 1842), p. 236.↩

286Cyprian of Carthage, “The Epistles of Cyprian,” in Fathers of the Third Century: Hippolytus, Cyprian, Novatian, Appendix, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, trans. Robert Ernest Wallis, vol. 5, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1886), 379-389.↩

287Eusebius of Caesaria, “The Church History of Eusebius,” in Eusebius: Church History, Life of Constantine the Great, and Oration in Praise of Constantine, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. Arthur Cushman McGiffert, vol. 1, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1890), 309.↩

288As recorded in Athanasius of Alexandria, “Life of Antony,” in St. Athanasius: Select Works and Letters, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. H. Ellershaw Jr., vol. 4, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1892), 200.↩

289FC, Vol. 69, Marius Victorinus, Theological Treatises on the Trinity, Reply of Victorinus, Book IA, p. 165.↩

290Hilary of Poitiers, “On the Trinity,” in St. Hilary of Poitiers, John of Damascus, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. E. W. Watson et al., vol. 9a, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1899), 69.↩

291Psalmus CXXXII Canticum graduum 6 PS 9:749, as translated by John Edmund Cox. The Latin is, “Quae enim libro legis non continentur, ea nec nosse debemus.”↩

292Hilary of Poitiers, “On the Trinity,” in St. Hilary of Poitiers, John of Damascus, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. E. W. Watson et al., vol. 9a, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1899), 53.↩

293Hilary of Poitiers, “On the Trinity,” in St. Hilary of Poitiers, John of Damascus, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. E. W. Watson et al., vol. 9a, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1899), 58.↩

294Hilary of Poitiers, “On the Trinity,” in St. Hilary of Poitiers, John of Damascus, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. E. W. Watson et al., vol. 9a, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1899), 75.↩

295Athanasius of Alexandria, “Against the Heathen,” in St. Athanasius: Select Works and Letters, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. Archibald T. Robertson, vol. 4, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1892), 4.↩

296Athanasius of Alexandria, “Personal Letters,” in St. Athanasius: Select Works and Letters, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. Archibald T. Robertson, vol. 4, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1892), 567,576–577.↩

297Athanasius of Alexandria, “Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia,” in St. Athanasius: Select Works and Letters, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. John Henry Newman and Archibald T. Robertson, vol. 4, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1892), 453.↩

298“The Letters of Saint Athanasius Concerning the Holy Spirit to Bishop Serapion”, Ad Serapion 1.19, Translation by C.R.B. Shapland (Epworth Press, 1951), p. 42. Available here: http://thegroveisonfire.com/books/Athanasius/Athanasius-Letters-to-Serapion-CRB-Shapland.pdf↩

299Athanasius of Alexandria, “Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia,” in St. Athanasius: Select Works and Letters, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. John Henry Newman and Archibald T. Robertson, vol. 4, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1892), 466.↩

300Athanasius of Alexandria, The Festal Epistles of S. Athanasius, trans. Henry Burgess (Oxford; London: John Henry Parker; F. and J. Rivington, 1854), 139.↩

301St Basil the Great, On the Holy Spirit, translated by David Anderson, (Crestwood, NY: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1980), p. 34.↩

302Basil of Caesarea, “Letters,” in St. Basil: Letters and Select Works, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. Blomfield Jackson, vol. 8, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1895), 229.↩

303Basil of Caesarea, Letter 189.↩

304Basil of Caesarea, work 3 Ascetic, as quoted in https://archive.org/stream/St.BasilLettersAndSelectedWorks/St_basil_lettersAndSelected_works_djvu.txt↩

305Basil of Caesarea, Moralia, 72.↩

306Homilia Adversus Calumn. S. Trinitatis. Translation by William Goode, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice, (Philadelphia: Herman Hooker, 1842), vol. 2, p. 297.↩

307Basil of Caesarea, Saint Basil: Ascetical Works, ed. Roy Joseph Deferrari, trans. M. Monica Wagner, vol. 9, The Fathers of the Church (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1962), 57, 59, 63.↩

308Basil of Caesarea, “Letters,” in St. Basil: Letters and Select Works, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. Blomfield Jackson, vol. 8, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1895), 312.↩

309ST BASIL, Basil Reg. Brev. 95, as quoted by Ernest Fredrick Morison, St. Basil and His Rule: A Study in Early Monasticism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1912), p. 72.↩

310Basil of Caesarea, Saint Basil: Ascetical Works, ed. Roy Joseph Deferrari, trans. M. Monica Wagner, vol. 9, The Fathers of the Church (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1962), 203–204.↩

311Cyril of Jerusalem, “The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril, Archbishop of Jerusalem,” in S. Cyril of Jerusalem, S. Gregory Nazianzen, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. R. W. Church and Edwin Hamilton Gifford, vol. 7, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1894), 23.↩

312Ibid., p. 73. Catechetical Lecture 12.5.↩

313Cyril of Jerusalem, “The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril, Archbishop of Jerusalem,” in S. Cyril of Jerusalem, S. Gregory Nazianzen, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. R. W. Church and Edwin Hamilton Gifford, vol. 7, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1894), Ibid., 32.↩

314Cyril of Jerusalem, “The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril, Archbishop of Jerusalem,” in S. Cyril of Jerusalem, S. Gregory Nazianzen, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. R. W. Church and Edwin Hamilton Gifford, vol. 7, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1894), Ibid., 67.↩

315Cyril of Jerusalem, “The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril, Archbishop of Jerusalem,” in S. Cyril of Jerusalem, S. Gregory Nazianzen, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. R. W. Church and Edwin Hamilton Gifford, vol. 7, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1894), Ibid., 115.↩

316Cyril of Jerusalem, “The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril, Archbishop of Jerusalem,” in S. Cyril of Jerusalem, S. Gregory Nazianzen, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. R. W. Church and Edwin Hamilton Gifford, vol. 7, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1894), Ibid., 121.↩

317Catechetical Lectures 4 as translated by Charles Elliott (D.D.) and John S. Stamp, The Delineation of Roman Catholicism (London: John Mason, 1814), p. 49. ↩

318Cyril of Jerusalem, “The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril, Archbishop of Jerusalem,” op cit, p. 32.↩

319The Latin is, “Cum id nullo Scripturæ testimonio fultum sit, ut falsum improbabimus” (De Cognitione Dei, PG 46:1115). Though listed in the Greek Series of fathers, this particular treatise is only in Latin.↩

320Gregory of Nyssa, “On the Soul and the Resurrection,” in Gregory of Nyssa: Dogmatic Treatises, Etc., ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. William Moore, vol. 5, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1893), 439.↩

321Gregory of Nyssa, “On the Holy Trinity, and of the Godhead of the Holy Spirit,” in Ibid., 326–327.↩

322Gregory of Nyssa, “Gregory of Nyssa against Eunomius,” in Ibid., 101.↩

323Gregory of Nyssa, “Gregory of Nyssa against Eunomius,” in Ibid., 129.↩

324Gregory of Nyssa, “On the Soul and the Resurrection,” in Ibid., 439.↩

325Ambrose of Milan, “On the Duties of the Clergy,” in St. Ambrose: Select Works and Letters, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. H. de Romestin, E. de Romestin, and H. T. F. Duckworth, vol. 10, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1896), 18.↩

326Ambrose, Regulae Brevius Tractate Interrogatio et Responsio XCV as translated by Fr. Joseph Gleason of the Western Rite Orthodoxy (https://theorthodoxlife.wordpress.com/about/).↩

327Homilia Adversus Calumn S Trinitatis. V3 as translated by William Goode, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice (Philadelphia: Herman Hooker, 1842), p. 297.↩

328Basil of Caesarea, Saint Basil: Ascetical Works, ed. Roy Joseph Deferrari, trans. M. Monica Wagner, vol. 9, The Fathers of the Church (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1962), 106.↩

329Epiphanius, The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis (Leiden: Brill, 1994), Book II, Section V, “Against Paul the Samosatian,” “Heresy” 65.5,3, p. 213.↩

330Epiphanius, Panarion, B2-3 S6 Heresy 41,2. Translated by Frank Williams, The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, Books II and III. De Fide (Leiden, Netherlands, Brill, 2013), p. 562.↩

331John Chrysostom, The Homilies of S. John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople, on the Statues, or to the People of Antioch, A Library of Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford; London: John Henry Parker; J. G. F. and J. Rivington, 1842), 13–14.↩

332St. John Chrysostom c. 347-407, Homil. xiii. in 2 Cor. As quoted by Adolphe Monod, Lucilla; or, the Reading of the Bible (New York: Thomas Carter, 1843), pp. 138-139.↩

333Traditionally ascribed to St. John Chrysostom, glossa ordinaria 49th Homily, on Mat. 24. Also cited in Chemnitz’ Examen I:156 as belonging to Chrysostom.↩

334John Chrysostom, On Repentance and Almsgiving, ed. Thomas P. Halton, trans. Gus George Christo, vol. 96, The Fathers of the Church (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1998), 118.↩

335John Chrysostom, Homilies on Second Corinthians, Homily 13, in John Chrysostom, The Homilies of S. John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople, on the Second Epistle of St. Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians, A Library of Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford; London: John Henry Parker; F. and J. Rivington, 1848), 171.↩

336John Chrysostom, commenting on Psalm 95. As quoted at http://catholicismhastheanswer.com/quotes-on-sacred-scripture/↩

337John Chrysostom, Father and Doctor of the Church, Epis 2 ad Thess 3,4. As quoted at http://catholicismhastheanswer.com/quotes-on-sacred-scripture/↩

338Original Greek in Epistolarium Lib 4 Epist 114, found in volume 78 of Migne’s Patrologia Graeca. Translated by William Goode, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice (Philadephia: Herman Hooker, 1842), p. 338.↩

339As translated by William Goode from Greek in The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice, vol 2, (Philadelphia: Herman Hooker, 1842), p. 313.↩

340Nicetas of Remesiana, Gerald G. Walsh S.J., Sulpicius Severus, Bernard M. Peebles, Vincent of Lérins, Rudolph E. Morris, FC, Vol. 7, Writings of Niceta of Remesiana, “Explanation of the Creed,” section 13, p. 53. Available as pdf here: https://muse.jhu.edu/chapter/739974.↩

341Niceta of Remesiana et al., “Writings of Niceta of Remesiana,” in Writings; Commonitories; Grace and Free Will, ed. Bernard M. Peebles, trans. Gerald G. Walsh, vol. 7, The Fathers of the Church (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1949), 23.↩

342As translated by William Goode, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice, vol 2, (Philadelphia: Herman Hooker, 1842), p. 310.↩

343As translated by William Goode, Ibid., p. 310.↩

344Commentariorum in Evangelium Matthaei, Liber Tertius, PL 26:173 as quoted by Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, Volume One: First Through Tenth Topics, (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1992), pp. 139-140.↩

345ad Aggai 1, as quoted by Bishop Taylor in Enchiridion Theologicum Anti-Romanum, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, MDCCCXXXVI), p. 211.↩

346Adv. Helvidium as translated by James Ussher, Archbishop Usher’s Answer to a Jesuit, (Cambridge: Cambridge Univesity Press, M.DCCC.XXXV), p. 35.↩

347Epistola XXX Ad Paulum 6, as translated by William Goode, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice, Second Edition, Revised and Enlarged, op. cit., p. 415.↩

348Commentariorum In Epstolam Ad Titum Cap I vs 10,11 as translated by Jeremy Taylor and George Rust, The Whole Works of the Right Rev. Jeremy Taylor, volume II (London: Henry G. Bohn, MDCCCLIV), p. 867.↩

349From Jerome’s Commentary on Haggai, Chapter 1 - Commentariorum In Aggaeum Prophetam 1:11 PL 25:1398 as translated by William Goode in The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice, 2nd ed., (London: John Henry Jackson, 1853), Vol. 3, p. 151.↩

350Jerome, The Homilies of Saint Jerome (1–59 on the Psalms), ed. Hermigild Dressler, trans. Marie Liguori Ewald, vol. 1, The Fathers of the Church (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1964), 205.↩

351Jerome, Homily 43, in The Homilies of Saint Jerome (1–59 on the Psalms), ed. Hermigild Dressler, trans. Marie Liguori Ewald, vol. 1, The Fathers of the Church (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1964), 326.↩

352Salvian, The Writings of Salvian, the Presbyter, ed. Ludwig Schopp, trans. Jeremiah F. O’Sullivan, vol. 3, The Fathers of the Church (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1947), 113.↩

353Augustine, De Doct. Christ, 2,14, as translated by J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, (London & New York: Continuum, [1958], 2000) p. 43.↩

354As translated by the Celtic Orthodox Church. James White translates it, “Neither dare one agree with catholic bishops if by chance they err in anything, with the result that their opinion is against the canonical Scriptures of God” (James White, “Chapter Two: Sola Scriptura and the Early Church,” in Sola Scriptura: The Protestant Position on the Bible, ed. Don Kistler (Lake Mary, FL: Reformation Trust Publishing, 2009), 25).↩

355Augustine of Hippo, “Letters of St. Augustin,” in The Confessions and Letters of St. Augustin with a Sketch of His Life and Work, ed. Philip Schaff, trans. J. G. Cunningham, vol. 1, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1886), 502.↩

356Augustine of Hippo, “Letters of St. Augustin,” in The Confessions and Letters of St. Augustin with a Sketch of His Life and Work, ed. Philip Schaff, trans. J. G. Cunningham, vol. 1, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1886), 358.↩

357John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., The Works of Saint Augustine, Part 3, Vol. 11, trans. Edmund Hill, O.P., Newly Discovered Sermons, Sermon 162C.15 (New York: New City Press, 1997), p. 176.↩

358Augustine of Hippo, “Letters of St. Augustin,” in The Confessions and Letters of St. Augustin with a Sketch of His Life and Work, ed. Philip Schaff, trans. J. G. Cunningham, vol. 1, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1886), 358.↩

359Augustine of Hippo, Augustine of Hippo: Selected Writings, ed. John Farina, trans. Mary T. Clark, The Classics of Western Spirituality (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1984), 366.↩

360Augustine, Of the Good of Widowhood cited by James White, “Chapter Two: Sola Scriptura and the Early Church,” in Sola Scriptura: The Protestant Position on the Bible, ed. Don Kistler (Lake Mary, FL: Reformation Trust Publishing, 2009), 24–25.↩

361Augustine of Hippo, Letters (131–164), ed. Roy Joseph Deferrari, trans. Wilfrid Parsons, vol. 20, The Fathers of the Church (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1953), 173.↩

362Augustine of Hippo, “Letters of St. Augustin,” in The Confessions and Letters of St. Augustin with a Sketch of His Life and Work, ed. Philip Schaff, trans. J. G. Cunningham, vol. 1, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1886), 502.↩

363Augustine of Hippo, “A Treatise on Nature and Grace,” in Saint Augustin: Anti-Pelagian Writings, ed. Philip Schaff, trans. Peter Holmes, vol. 5, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1887), 146.↩

364For trans., See Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 3 Vols., trans. George Musgrave Giger and ed. James T. Dennison (Phillipsburg: reprinted by Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1992), Vol. 3, pp. 109-110. Latin text: Quicumque de ipso capite, ab Scripturis sanctis dissentiunt, etiamsi in omnibus locis inveniantur in quibus Ecclesia designata est, non sunt in Ecclesia. De Unitate Ecclesiae, Caput IV, §7, PL 43:395-396.↩

365Merits and forgiveness of sins Book 2 in Augustine of Hippo, “A Treatise on the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants,” in Saint Augustin: Anti-Pelagian Writings, ed. Philip Schaff, trans. Peter Holmes, vol. 5, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1887), 68.↩

366De Unitate Ecclesiae Caput 19.50 as translated by William Goode, vol. 2, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice, vol. 2 (Philadelphia: Herman Hooker, 1842), p. 322.↩

367Augustine, Letter 82.3.24 in Augustine of Hippo, “Letters of St. Augustin,” in The Confessions and Letters of St. Augustin with a Sketch of His Life and Work, ed. Philip Schaff, trans. J. G. Cunningham, vol. 1, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1886), 358.↩

368Augustine, On Baptism, Against the Donatists 2.3 in Augustine of Hippo, “On Baptism, against the Donatists,” in St. Augustin: The Writings against the Manichaeans and against the Donatists, ed. Philip Schaff, trans. J. R. King, vol. 4, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1887), 427.↩

369“The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture” (WCF I.x). “All synods or councils, since the apostles’ times, whether general or particular, may err; and many have erred. Therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith, or practice; but to be used as a help in both” (WCF XXI.iv).↩

370Augustine, Reply to Faustus the Manichaean 13.5 in Augustine of Hippo, “Reply to Faustus the Manichæan,” in St. Augustin: The Writings against the Manichaeans and against the Donatists, ed. Philip Schaff, trans. Richard Stothert, vol. 4, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1887), 201.↩

371Augustine, Reply to Faustus the Manichaean 23.9 in Augustine of Hippo, “Reply to Faustus the Manichæan,” in St. Augustin: The Writings against the Manichaeans and against the Donatists, ed. Philip Schaff, trans. Richard Stothert, vol. 4, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1887), 315.↩

372Augustine of Hippo, “Letters of St. Augustin,” in The Confessions and Letters of St. Augustin with a Sketch of His Life and Work, ed. Philip Schaff, trans. J. G. Cunningham, vol. 1, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1886), 502.↩

373“God alone is Lord of the conscience, and has left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are, in any thing, contrary to His Word; or beside it, in matters of faith, or worship. So that, to believe such doctrines, or to obey such commands, out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience: and the requiring of an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also” (WCF XX.ii).↩

374Augustine of Hippo, “Reply to Faustus the Manichæan,” in St. Augustin: The Writings against the Manichaeans and against the Donatists, ed. Philip Schaff, trans. Richard Stothert, vol. 4, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1887), 180.↩

375John Cassian, On the Incarnation of Christ Against Nestorius, Book 6, Chapter 3 in John Cassian, “The Seven Books of John Cassian on the Incarnation of the Lord, against Nestorius,” in Sulpitius Severus, Vincent of Lérins, John Cassian, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. Edgar C. S. Gibson, vol. 11, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1894), 592–593.↩

376Glaphyrorum In Genesim, Lib. II, PG 69:53. Translation by William Goode, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice, Second Edition, Revised and Enlarged, Vol. 3, (London: John Henry Jackson, 1853), p. 181.↩

377De SS. Trinitate Dialogus I, PG75:665. Translation by William Goode, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice, Second Edition, Revised and Enlarged, Vol. 3, pp. 281–282. ↩

378Contra Julian, Lib. VII, PG76:852–853. Translation by William Goode, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice, Second Edition, Revised and Enlarged, Vol. 3, pp. 282–283.↩

379Commentary on the Gospel of Saint Luke, trans. R. Payne Smith (Studion Publishers, 1983), Homily 55, p. 240.↩

380Translated by William Goode, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice, vol. 2 (Philadelphia: Herman Hooker, 1842), p. 335.↩

381De SS Trinitate Dialagous 4 in Goode, Ibid., p. 336.↩

382Ad Reginas De Recta Fide Oratio Altera in Goode, Ibid., p. 337.↩

383De Sacrosancta Trinitate Cap 1 in Goode, Ibid., pp. 337-338.↩

384Saint Cyril, A Commentary Upon the Gospel According to S. Luke, Part I, translated by R. Payne Smith, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, M.DCCC.LIX), p. 248.↩

385Doctrinal questions and answers #2 in Cyril of Alexandria, Select Letters Edited and Translated by Lionel R. Wickham (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983). Also available for free here: https://vdocuments.mx/select-letters-oxford-early-christian-texts.html↩

386Cyril of Alexandria, De Sacrosancta Trinitate 1 in Goode, A Divine Rule of Faith and Practice vol. 2, pp. 337-338.↩

387Glaphyra on Genesis, as translated by Yves Congar, Tradition and Traditions: An Historical and Theological Essay, (California: Burns & Oates, 1966), pp. 111-112.↩

388Vincent of Lérins, “The Commonitory of Vincent of Lérins,” in Sulpitius Severus, Vincent of Lérins, John Cassian, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. C. A. Heurtley, vol. 11, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1894), 132.↩

389Salvian, The Presbyter, The Governance of God, Book 3, section 1, in Salvian, The Writings of Salvian, the Presbyter, ed. Ludwig Schopp, trans. Jeremiah F. O’Sullivan, vol. 3, The Fathers of the Church (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1947), 68.↩

390Theodoret of Cyrus, “Dialogues: The ‘Eranistes’ or ‘Polymorphus’ of the Blessed Theodoretus, Bishop of Cyrus,” in Theodoret, Jerome, Gennadius, Rufinus: Historical Writings, Etc., ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. Blomfield Jackson, vol. 3, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1892), 165–166.↩

391Ibid., p. 228.↩

392Ibid., p. 258.↩

393Ibid., p. 278.↩

394Theodoret, Letter 151 in Ibid., p. 327.↩

395Dialogue II in Theodoret of Cyrus, “Dialogues: The ‘Eranistes’ or ‘Polymorphus’ of the Blessed Theodoretus, Bishop of Cyrus,” in Theodoret, Jerome, Gennadius, Rufinus: Historical Writings, Etc., ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. Blomfield Jackson, vol. 3, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1892), 199.↩

396Theodoret of Cyrus, “Dialogues: The ‘Eranistes’ or ‘Polymorphus’ of the Blessed Theodoretus, Bishop of Cyrus,” in Theodoret, Jerome, Gennadius, Rufinus: Historical Writings, Etc., ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. Blomfield Jackson, vol. 3, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1892), 228.↩

397Letter 82 to Eusebius, in Theodoret of Cyrus, “Letters of the Blessed Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus,” in Theodoret, Jerome, Gennadius, Rufinus: Historical Writings, Etc., ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. Blomfield Jackson, vol. 3, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1892), 278.↩

398Topographiae Christianae Liber VII, PG 88:373. Translation by William Goode, op. cit., Vol. 3, p. 208.↩

399Caesarius of Arles, Saint Caesarius of Arles: Sermons (1–238), ed. Hermigild Dressler and Bernard M. Peebles, trans. Mary Magdeleine Mueller, vol. 3, The Fathers of the Church (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press; Consortium Books, 1956–1973), 107.↩

400A Library of Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church, (Oxford: John Henry Parker, 1844), Vol. 2, Morals on the Book of Job: Parts 3 & 4, Book XVI, Chapter 35, p. 252.↩

401Pope Gregory the Great, Book 19, Chapter 34, in Pope Gregory 1, translated by members of the English Church, A Library of Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (London: Oxford, John Henry Parker, J.G.F. and J. Rivington, MDCCCXLV), p. 424.↩

402John Damascene, “An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith,” as cited by St. Hilary of Poitiers, John of Damascus, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. S. D. F. Salmond, vol. 9b, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1899), 1.↩

403Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on John XXI. 24-25, paragraph 2656. See Weiseipl and Larcher, trans., Commentary on the Gospel of John, available at https://web.archive.org/web/20080225165726/http://www.diafrica.org/kenny/CDtexts/SSJohn.htm. The Latin is available at St. Thomas, Super Evangelium S. Joannis Lectura, cap.21, lect.6, n.2656, ed. R. Cai (Turin: Marietti 1952), p. 488 - “Sola canonica scriptura est regula fidei.”↩

404On the history of this fascinating document, see Lesley Smith, The Glossa Ordinaria: The Making of a Medieval Bible Commentary (Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 2009).↩

405Translation by Dr. Michael Woodward of the Latin, (Basel: Petri & Froben, 1498), British Museum IB.37895, Vol. 1, On the canonical and non-canonical books of the Bible.↩

406Ellen Flesseman–van Leer, Tradition and Scripture in the Early Church (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1953), pp. 68–69↩

407J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines (Harper: San Francisco, 1960), p. 39.↩

408William Webster, “Did I Really Leave the Holy Catholic Church,” in John Armstrong (ed), Roman Catholicism: Evangelical Protestants Analyze What Divides and Unites Us. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1994), pp. 273.↩

409Against Heresies II.28.8; I.8.1.↩

410R.P.C. Hanson, Tradition in the Early Church (Westminster: Philadelphia, 1962), pp. 109, 119.↩

411Justin Martyr, “Fragments of the Lost Work of Justin on the Resurrection,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, trans. M. Dods, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 294↩

412Irenaeus of Lyons, “Irenæus against Heresies,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 415.↩

413Adv. H. 3:1, quoted by Chemnitz in Eugene F. A. Klug, From Luther to Chemnitz (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1971), p. 167.↩

414Clement of Alexandria, “The Stromata, or Miscellanies,” in Fathers of the Second Century: Hermas, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, and Clement of Alexandria (Entire), ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 2, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 550.↩

415Tertullian, “On Monogamy,” in Fathers of the Third Century: Tertullian, Part Fourth; Minucius Felix; Commodian; Origen, Parts First and Second, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, trans. S. Thelwall, vol. 4, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 62.↩

416Tertullian, “The Prescription against Heretics,” in Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, trans. Peter Holmes, vol. 3, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 246.↩

417Tertullian, “The Prescription against Heretics,” in Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, trans. Peter Holmes, vol. 3, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 257.↩

418Tertullian, “A Treatise on the Soul,” in Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, trans. Peter Holmes, vol. 3, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 183.↩

419J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines (Harper: San Francisco, 1960), p. 39.↩

420As recorded by Eusebius of Caesaria, “The Church History of Eusebius,” in Eusebius: Church History, Life of Constantine the Great, and Oration in Praise of Constantine, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. Arthur Cushman McGiffert, vol. 1, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1890), 309.↩

421Tract. 26 in Matt. as quoted by Charles Elliott, Delineation of Roman Catholicism, Book I (New York: George Lane, 1841), p. 120.↩

422Origen, “De Principiis,” in Fathers of the Third Century: Tertullian, Part Fourth; Minucius Felix; Commodian; Origen, Parts First and Second, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, trans. Frederick Crombie, vol. 4, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 349.↩

423Mattheum Commentarium Series 18. V3. Translated by William Goode, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice, vol. II (Philadelphia: Herman Hooker, 1842), p. 236.↩

424Cyprian of Carthage, Letters (1–81), ed. Hermigild Dressler, trans. Rose Bernard Donna, vol. 51, The Fathers of the Church (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1964), 286–287, 292.↩

425Cyprian of Carthage, “The Epistles of Cyprian,” in Fathers of the Third Century: Hippolytus, Cyprian, Novatian, Appendix, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, trans. Robert Ernest Wallis, vol. 5, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1886), 389.↩

426Marius Victorinus, Theological Treatises on the Trinity, ed. Hermigild Dressler, trans. Mary T. Clark, vol. 69, The Fathers of the Church (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1981), 165.↩

427Athanasius, Exhort. ad Monachas, Translated by William Goode, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice, vol. 2 (Philadelphia: Herman Hooker, 1842), p. 555.↩

428Athanasius, Festal Letter 39:5-6) in Athanasius of Alexandria, “Festal Letters,” in St. Athanasius: Select Works and Letters, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. Henry Burgess and Jessie Smith Payne, vol. 4, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1892), 552.↩

429Athanasius, De Synodis, 6 in S. Athanasius, Select Treatises of S. Athanasius, Archbishop of Alexandria, in Controversy with the Arians, Translated, with Notes and Indices, Parts 1 & 2, vol. VIII, A Library of Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church, Anterior to the Division of the East and West (Oxford; London: John Henry Parker; J. G. F. and J. Rivington, 1842–1844), 81.↩

430Homilia Adversus Calumn. S. Trinitatis. Translated by William Goode, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice, vol. 3 (Philadelphia: Herman Hooker, 1842) p. 134.↩

431Basil of Caesarea, Moralia, 72.↩

432Basil of Caesarea, Saint Basil: Ascetical Works, ed. Roy Joseph Deferrari, trans. M. Monica Wagner, vol. 9, The Fathers of the Church (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1962), 57, 59, 63.↩

433Basil, Letter 283 in Basil of Caesarea, “Letters,” in St. Basil: Letters and Select Works, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. Blomfield Jackson, vol. 8, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1895), 312.↩

434ST BASIL, Basil Reg. Brev. 95, as quoted by Ernest Fredrick Morison, St. Basil and His Rule: A Study in Early Monasticism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1912), p. 72.↩

435Basil of Caesarea, “Letters,” in St. Basil: Letters and Select Works, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. Blomfield Jackson, vol. 8, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1895), 229.↩

436Cyril of Jerusalem, “The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril, Archbishop of Jerusalem,” in S. Cyril of Jerusalem, S. Gregory Nazianzen, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. R. W. Church and Edwin Hamilton Gifford, vol. 7, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1894), 115.↩

437Cyril of Jerusalem, “The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril, Archbishop of Jerusalem,” in S. Cyril of Jerusalem, S. Gregory Nazianzen, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. R. W. Church and Edwin Hamilton Gifford, vol. 7, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1894), 121.↩

438Cyril of Jerusalem, The Catechetical Lectures IV.17, V.12, XII.5, in A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford: Parker, 1845)↩

439Cyril of Jerusalem, “The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril, Archbishop of Jerusalem,” in S. Cyril of Jerusalem, S. Gregory Nazianzen, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. R. W. Church and Edwin Hamilton Gifford, vol. 7, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1894), 23.↩

440Cyril of Jerusalem, “The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril, Archbishop of Jerusalem,” in S. Cyril of Jerusalem, S. Gregory Nazianzen, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. R. W. Church and Edwin Hamilton Gifford, vol. 7, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1894), 32.↩

441Cyril of Jerusalem, “The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril, Archbishop of Jerusalem,” in S. Cyril of Jerusalem, S. Gregory Nazianzen, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. R. W. Church and Edwin Hamilton Gifford, vol. 7, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1894), 67.↩

442The latin is, “Cum id nullo Scripturæ testimonio fultum sit, ut falsum improbabimus” (De Cognitione Dei, PG 46:1115). Though listed in the Greek Series of fathers, this particular treatise is only in Latin.↩

443Gregory of Nyssa, “On the Soul and the Resurrection,” in Gregory of Nyssa: Dogmatic Treatises, Etc., ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. William Moore, vol. 5, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1893), 439.↩

444Gregory of Nyssa, “On the Holy Trinity, and of the Godhead of the Holy Spirit,” in Ibid., 327.↩

445Gregory of Nyssa, “On the Soul and the Resurrection,” in Ibid., 439.↩

446Ambrose of Milan, “On the Duties of the Clergy,” in St. Ambrose: Select Works and Letters, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. H. de Romestin, E. de Romestin, and H. T. F. Duckworth, vol. 10, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1896), 18.↩

447Homilia Adversus Calumn. S. Trinitatis,. V3 as translated by William Goode, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice (Philadelphia: Herman Hooker, 1842), p. 297.↩

448Basil of Caesarea, Saint Basil: Ascetical Works, ed. Roy Joseph Deferrari, trans. M. Monica Wagner, vol. 9, The Fathers of the Church (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1962), 106.↩

449Ambrose, Regulae Brevius Tractate Interrogatio et Responsio XCV as translated by Fr. Joseph Gleason of the Western Rite Orthodoxy https://theorthodoxlife.wordpress.com/about/↩

450Epiphanius, The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis (Leiden: Brill, 1994), Book II, Section V, “Against Paul the Samosatian,” “Heresy” 65.5,3, p. 213.↩

451Epiphanius, Panarion, B2-3 S6 Heresy 41,2. Translated by Frank Williams, The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, Books II and III. De Fide (Leiden, Netherlands, Brill, 2013), p. 562.↩

452John Chrysostom, The Homilies of S. John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople, on the Statues, or to the People of Antioch, A Library of Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford; London: John Henry Parker; J. G. F. and J. Rivington, 1842), 13–14.↩

453St. John Chrysostom c. 347-407, Homil. xiii. in 2 Cor. As quoted by Adolphe Monod, Lucilla; or, the Reading of the Bible (New York: Thomas Carter, 1843), pp. 138-139.↩

454Traditionally ascribed to St. John Chrysostom, glossa ordinaria 49th Homily, on Mat. 24. Also cited in Chemnitz’ Examen I:156 as belonging to Chrysostom.↩

455John Chrysostom, “Homilies on Second Corinthians, Homily 13”, in John Chrysostom, The Homilies of S. John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople, on the Second Epistle of St. Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians, A Library of Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford; London: John Henry Parker; F. and J. Rivington, 1848), 171.↩

456Original Greek in Epistolarium Lib 4 Epist 114, found in volume 78 of Migne’s Patrologia Graeca. Translated by William Goode, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice (Philadephia: Herman Hooker, 1842), p. 338.↩

457Epistola 96; PL 22:778 as translated by William Good, Ibid, p. 313.↩

458Niceta of Remesiana et al., “Writings of Niceta of Remesiana,” in Writings; Commonitories; Grace and Free Will, ed. Bernard M. Peebles, trans. Gerald G. Walsh, vol. 7, The Fathers of the Church (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1949), 23.↩

459Commentariorum In Epstolam Ad Titum Cap I vs 10,11 as translated by Jeremy Taylor and George Rust, The Whole Works of the Right Rev. Jeremy Taylor, volume II (London: Henry G. Bohn, MDCCCLIV), p. 867.↩

460As translated by William Goode, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice, (Philadelphia: Herman Hooker, 1842), p. 310.↩

461As translated by William Goode, Ibid., p. 310.↩

462Commentariorum in Evangelium Matthaei, Liber Tertius, PL 26:173 as quoted by Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, Volume One: First Through Tenth Topics, (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1992), pp. 139-140.↩

463Jerome, The Homilies of Saint Jerome (1–59 on the Psalms), ed. Hermigild Dressler, trans. Marie Liguori Ewald, vol. 1, The Fathers of the Church (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1964), 205.↩

464Jerome, “Homily 43”, in The Homilies of Saint Jerome (1–59 on the Psalms), ed. Hermigild Dressler, trans. Marie Liguori Ewald, vol. 1, The Fathers of the Church (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1964), 326.↩

465Augustine of Hippo, Christian Instruction; Admonition and Grace; The Christian Combat; Faith, Hope and Charity, ed. Roy Joseph Deferrari, trans. John J. Gavigan et al., Second Edition, vol. 2, The Fathers of the Church (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1950), 58.↩

466Augustine of Hippo, Augustine of Hippo: Selected Writings, ed. John Farina, trans. Mary T. Clark, The Classics of Western Spirituality (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1984), 366.↩

467Letter CXLVIII 15 in Augustine of Hippo, “Letters of St. Augustin,” in The Confessions and Letters of St. Augustin with a Sketch of His Life and Work, ed. Philip Schaff, trans. J. G. Cunningham, vol. 1, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1886), 502.↩

468Augustine of Hippo, “Letters of St. Augustin,” in The Confessions and Letters of St. Augustin with a Sketch of His Life and Work, ed. Philip Schaff, trans. J. G. Cunningham, vol. 1, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1886), 358.↩

469Augustine of Hippo, “Reply to Faustus the Manichæan,” in St. Augustin: The Writings against the Manichaeans and against the Donatists, ed. Philip Schaff, trans. Richard Stothert, vol. 4, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1887), 339.↩

470Augustine of Hippo, “Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel according to St. John,” in St. Augustin: Homilies on the Gospel of John, Homilies on the First Epistle of John, Soliloquies, ed. Philip Schaff, trans. John Gibb and James Innes, vol. 7, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1888), 53.↩

471John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., The Works of Saint Augustine, Part 3, Vol. 11, trans. Edmund Hill, O.P., Newly Discovered Sermons, Sermon 162C.15 (New York: New City Press, 1997), p. 176.↩

472As quoted by J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, Fifth, Revised (London; New Delhi; New York; Sydney: Bloomsbury, 1977), 43.↩

473Augustine of Hippo, “Letters of St. Augustin,” in The Confessions and Letters of St. Augustin with a Sketch of His Life and Work, ed. Philip Schaff, trans. J. G. Cunningham, vol. 1, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1886), 358.↩

474Augustine, Of the Good of Widowhood cited by James White, “Chapter Two: Sola Scriptura and the Early Church,” in Sola Scriptura: The Protestant Position on the Bible, ed. Don Kistler (Lake Mary, FL: Reformation Trust Publishing, 2009), 24–25.↩

475Augustine of Hippo, Letters (131–164), ed. Roy Joseph Deferrari, trans. Wilfrid Parsons, vol. 20, The Fathers of the Church (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1953), 173.↩

476Augustine, Reply to Faustus the Manichaean 13.5 in Augustine of Hippo, “Reply to Faustus the Manichæan,” in St. Augustin: The Writings against the Manichaeans and against the Donatists, ed. Philip Schaff, trans. Richard Stothert, vol. 4, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1887), 201.↩

477Augustine of Hippo, “A Treatise on Nature and Grace,” in Saint Augustin: Anti-Pelagian Writings, ed. Philip Schaff, trans. Peter Holmes, vol. 5, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1887), 146.↩

478For trans., See Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 3 Vols., trans. George Musgrave Giger and ed. James T. Dennison (Phillipsburg: reprinted by Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1992), Vol. 3, pp. 109-110. Latin text: “Quicumque de ipso capite, ab Scripturis sanctis dissentiunt, etiamsi in omnibus locis inveniantur in quibus Ecclesia designata est, non sunt in Ecclesia” (De Unitate Ecclesiae, Caput IV, §7, PL 43:395-396).↩

479Augustine of Hippo, “Letters of St. Augustin,” in The Confessions and Letters of St. Augustin with a Sketch of His Life and Work, ed. Philip Schaff, trans. J. G. Cunningham, vol. 1, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1886), 502.↩

480De Unitate Ecclesiae Caput 19.50 as translated by William Goode, vol. 2, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice, vol. 2 (Philadelphia: Herman Hooker, 1842), p. 322.↩

481Glaphyrorum In Genesim, Lib. II, PG 69:53. Translation by William Good, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice, vol. 3 (Philadelphia: Herman Hooker, 1842), p. 181.↩

482Commentary on the Gospel of Saint Luke, trans. R. Payne Smith (Studion Publishers, 1983), Homily 55, p. 240.↩

483Ad Reginas De Recta Fide Oratio Altera in William Goode, op. cit., p. 337.↩

484Doctrinal questions and answers #2 in Cyril of Alexandria, Select Letters Edited and Translated by Lionel R. Wickham (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983). Also available for free here: https://vdocuments.mx/select-letters-oxford-early-christian-texts.html↩

485Cyril of Alexandria, De Sacrosancta Trinitate 1 in Goode, A Divine Rule of Faith and Practice vol. 2, op. cit., pp. 337-338.↩

486Glaphyra on Genesis, as translated by Yves Congar, Tradition and Traditions: An Historical and Theological Essay, (California: Burns & Oates, 1966), pp. 111-112.↩

487Vincent of Lérins, “The Commonitory of Vincent of Lérins,” in Sulpitius Severus, Vincent of Lérins, John Cassian, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. C. A. Heurtley, vol. 11, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1894), 152.↩

488Vincent of Lérins, from chapter 4 of Commonitorium, ed., Moxon, Cambridge Patristic Texts. From Internet Ancient History Sourcebook, https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/434lerins-canon.asp↩

489Topographiae Christianae Liber VII, PG 88:373. Translation by William Goode, Vol. 3, p. 208↩

490Caesarius of Arles, Saint Caesarius of Arles: Sermons (1–238), ed. Hermigild Dressler and Bernard M. Peebles, trans. Mary Magdeleine Mueller, vol. 3, The Fathers of the Church (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press; Consortium Books, 1956–1973), 107.↩

491John Damascene, “An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith,” as cited by St. Hilary of Poitiers, John of Damascus, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. S. D. F. Salmond, vol. 9b, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1899), 1.↩

492Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on John XXI. 24-25, paragraph 2656. See Weiseipl and Larcher, trans., Commentary on the Gospel of John, available at https://web.archive.org/web/20080225165726/http://www.diafrica.org/kenny/CDtexts/SSJohn.htm.↩

493See http://lollardsociety.org/?page_id=409 Also see http://glossae.net/↩

494From paragraph four of the short statement in the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy.↩

495See context of verses 14-18 to see that He is referring to Scripture.↩

496Examples of the tense of a verb being considered authoritative include Matt. 22:31ff.//Mark 12:26ff. — present tense “I am” proves the dead will be raised ; John 8:58 — “before Abraham was I AM.”↩

497passive versus active in Gal. 4:9 — “now after you have known God, or rather are known by God.”↩

498For example, Galatians 3:16 bases a doctrine on a uni-plural to show that all those saved must be united to one seed, Jesus: “Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, ‘And to seeds,’ as of many, but as of one, ‘And to your Seed,’ who is Christ.”↩

499In Romans 4:10ff Paul bases the doctrine of justification by faith alone apart from works on the historical sequence of events when God justified Abraham. He was justified before he was circumcised. This assumes the accuracy of the historical record. Likewise, 1 Timothy 2:13 bases the doctrine of male headship within marriage on the fact that “Adam was formed first, then Eve.” This assumes the accuracy of the historical record of the creation week.↩

500Note the significance of small phrases of Scripture in the argumentation in the following passages: Ac 15:17 — “and all the Gentiles who are called by my name”; Ro 4:3 — “Abraham believed God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness”; Heb 12:27 — “yet once more.”↩

501Note the significance that a single word has in the following passages. Matt. 22:43–45 — David calls the Messiah “Lord”; John 10:35 — Scripture calls judges “gods”; Matt. 4:10//Luke 4:8 — worship and serve God “only”; Heb 2:11ff. — “my brethren.”↩

502Matthew 5:18 upholds the jots and tittles of individual letters. Luke 16:14-18 bases the doctrine of divorce and remarriage on the fact that every letter of the Old Testament had binding authority on Christ’s hearers.↩

503It can be read for free at https://kaysercommentary.com/Booklets/Objections-to-Inerrency.md↩

504Vatican I defined papal infallibility this way: “it is a dogma divinely revealed: that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed for defining doctrine regarding faith or morals; and that therefore such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church. But if any one—which may God avert—presume to contradict this our definition: let him be anathema.” (Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, with a History and Critical Notes: The Greek and Latin Creeds, with Translations, vol. 2 (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1890), 271). This definition gives three criteria: 1) It must be the official teaching of the pope to the whole church, not some private conversation. 2) It must be concerning faith and morals. 3) It must be stated in a final and irrevocable way.↩

505For church councils to make infallible decisions, the council must be sanctioned, promulgated, and confirmed by a pope and have the three characteristics of papal infallibility listed in the previous footnote.↩

506The episcopal college is the body of bishops. When they speak in union with the pope and having the same three criteria listed above, they too are considered infallible.↩

507Timothy Ware (or Bishop Kalistos of Diokleia), The Orthodox Church, (NY,NY: Penguine Putnam, 1997), p. 248.↩

508The Latin could be loosely translated this way. The quote in my translation says, “Still, as I said awhile ago, it is only to the canonical Scriptures that I owe such a willing submission that I follow them alone, and believe of them that their authors were not in error anywhere at all in them, nor did they set down anything so as to deceive.” (Augustine of Hippo, Letters (1–82), trans. Wilfrid Parsons, vol. 1, The Fathers of the Church (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1951), 411).↩

509Augustine, Contra litteras Petiliani, Book 3, Chap. 6. Migne provides the text: “Proinde sive de Christo, sive de ejus Ecclesia, sive de quacumque alia re quæ pertinet ad fidem vitamque vestram, non dicam nos, nequaquam comparandi ei qui dixit, Licet si nos; sed omnino quod secutus adjecit, Si angelus de cælo vobis annuntiaverit præter quam quod in Scripturis legalibus et evangelicis accepistis, anathema sit” (PL 43:351). as translated by Don Kistler, ed., Sola Scriptura: The Protestant Position on the Bible (Lake Mary, FL: Reformation Trust Publishing, 2009).↩

510Theodoret of Cyrus, “Dialogues: The ‘Eranistes’ or ‘Polymorphus’ of the Blessed Theodoretus, Bishop of Cyrus,” in Theodoret, Jerome, Gennadius, Rufinus: Historical Writings, Etc., ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. Blomfield Jackson, vol. 3, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1892), 165–166.↩

511William Webster, The Church of Rome at the Bar of History, (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1996), pp. 67-68.↩

512Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on John XXI. 24-25, paragraph 2656. See Weiseipl and Larcher, trans., Commentary on the Gospel of John, available at https://web.archive.org/web/20080225165726/http://www.diafrica.org/kenny/CDtexts/SSJohn.htm.↩

513Kelly, Early Christian Doctrine, p. 39.↩

514Origen said, “It is necessary to take the Holy Scriptures as witnesses; for our comments and statements without these witnesses are not trustworthy” (Jerem., Homily 1.7 as quoted by John Henry Newman, The Via Media of the Anglican Church, vol. 1, (London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1895), p. 314).↩

515Athanasius said, “the tokens of truth are more exact as drawn from Scripture, than from other sources” (S. Athanasius, Select Treatises of S. Athanasius, Archbishop of Alexandria, in Controversy with the Arians, Translated, with Notes and Indices, Parts 1 & 2, vol. VIII, A Library of Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church, Anterior to the Division of the East and West (Oxford; London: John Henry Parker; J. G. F. and J. Rivington, 1842–1844), 57).↩

516Irenaeus of Lyons, “Irenæus against Heresies,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 326.↩

517For example, Ernest Sandeen claims that Hodge and Warfield invented the idea of the inerrancy of Scripture - Ernest Sandeen, The Roots of Fundamentalism: British and American Millenarianism 1800– 1930 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970). Likewise, Jack Rogers and Donald McKim have had enormous influence in modern times in convincing people that the ancient church had no conception of the inerrancy of Scripture. Jack Rogers and Donald McKim, The Authority and Interpretation of the Bible: An Historical Approach (New York: Harper Collins, 1980). However, as we will see, nothing could be further from the truth.↩

518B.B. Warfield, Inspiration and Authority of the Bible, (Philadelphia, PA: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1948), p. 112.↩

519Geoffrey Bromily, Historical Theology: An Introduction (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 1978), 27.↩

520Gregg Allison, Historical Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing, 2011), 103.↩

521Hans Küng, Infallible? An Enquiry (London: Collins, 1972), 174.↩

522Herman Sasse, “The Rise of the Dogma of Holy Scripture in the Middle Ages,” Reformed Theological Review 18:2 (June 1959): 45.↩

523R. Laird Harris, Inspiration and Canonicity of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing, 1969), 72.↩

524J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines [New York: HarperCollins, 1978], 61.↩

525Bruce Vawter, Biblical Inspiration (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1972), 132–33.↩

526Harold Lindsell, The Battle for the Bible, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976), p. 69. ↩

527William G.T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, 3 volumes, (reprint, Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1980), vol. I, p. 72f.↩

528John D. Woodbridge, Biblical Authority: A Critique of the Rogers/McKim Proposal, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1982), p. 141.↩

529J.T. Forestall, “Bible (Inspiration),” New Catholic Encylopedia (NCE), 15 vols + 2 suppls. (NY,NY: McGraw-Hill, 1967), p. 384.↩

530Clement of Rome, “The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians,” in The Gospel of Peter, the Diatessaron of Tatian, the Apocalypse of Peter, the Visio Pauli, the Apocalypses of the Virgil and Sedrach, the Testament of Abraham, the Acts of Xanthippe and Polyxena, the Narrative of Zosimus, the Apology of Aristides, the Epistles of Clement (Complete Text), Origen’s Commentary on John, Books I-X, and Commentary on Matthew, Books I, II, and X-XIV, ed. Allan Menzies, trans. John Keith, vol. 9, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1897), 242.↩

531Justin Martyr, “Dialogue of Justin with Trypho, a Jew,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 230.↩

532Justin Martyr, “The First Apology of Justin,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 175.↩

533Theophilus of Antioch, “Theophilus to Autolycus,” in Fathers of the Second Century: Hermas, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, and Clement of Alexandria (Entire), ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, trans. Marcus Dods, vol. 2, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 97.↩

534Theophilus of Antioch, “Theophilus to Autolycus,” in Fathers of the Second Century: Hermas, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, and Clement of Alexandria (Entire), ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, trans. Marcus Dods, vol. 2, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 108.↩

535Theophilus of Antioch, “Theophilus to Autolycus,” in Fathers of the Second Century: Hermas, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, and Clement of Alexandria (Entire), ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, trans. Marcus Dods, vol. 2, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 116.↩

536Irenaeus of Lyons, “Irenæus against Heresies,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 399.↩

537Clement of Alexandria, “The Stromata, or Miscellanies,” in Fathers of the Second Century: Hermas, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, and Clement of Alexandria (Entire), ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 2, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 349–350.↩

538Clement of Alexandria, “The Stromata, or Miscellanies,” in Fathers of the Second Century: Hermas, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, and Clement of Alexandria (Entire), ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 2, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 409.↩

539Clement of Alexandria, “Exhortation to the Heathen,” in Fathers of the Second Century: Hermas, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, and Clement of Alexandria (Entire), ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 2, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 195.↩

540Clement of Alexandria, “The Stromata, or Miscellanies,” in Fathers of the Second Century: Hermas, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, and Clement of Alexandria (Entire), ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 2, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 349.↩

541Tertullian, “A Treatise on the Soul,” in Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, trans. Peter Holmes, vol. 3, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 202.↩

542Tertullian, “The Prescription against Heretics,” in Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, trans. Peter Holmes, vol. 3, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 262.↩

543Tertullian, “Against Praxeas,” in Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, trans. Peter Holmes, vol. 3, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 613.↩

544Eusebius of Caesaria, “The Church History of Eusebius,” in Eusebius: Church History, Life of Constantine the Great, and Oration in Praise of Constantine, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. Arthur Cushman McGiffert, vol. 1, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1890), 248.↩

545Origen, “Origen’s Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew,” in The Gospel of Peter, the Diatessaron of Tatian, the Apocalypse of Peter, the Visio Pauli, the Apocalypses of the Virgil and Sedrach, the Testament of Abraham, the Acts of Xanthippe and Polyxena, the Narrative of Zosimus, the Apology of Aristides, the Epistles of Clement (Complete Text), Origen’s Commentary on John, Books I-X, and Commentary on Matthew, Books I, II, and X-XIV, ed. Allan Menzies, trans. John Patrick, vol. 9, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1897), 413.↩

546Jerem., Homily 1.7 as quoted by John Henry Newman, The Via Media of the Anglican Church, vol. 1, (London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1895), p. 314.↩

547Origen, “De Principiis,” in Fathers of the Third Century: Tertullian, Part Fourth; Minucius Felix; Commodian; Origen, Parts First and Second, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, trans. Frederick Crombie, vol. 4, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 252.↩

548Ibid., p. 253.↩

549Ibid., p. 358.↩

550Origen, “De Principiis,” in Fathers of the Third Century: Tertullian, Part Fourth; Minucius Felix; Commodian; Origen, Parts First and Second, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, trans. Frederick Crombie, vol. 4, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 355.↩

551Novatian, “A Treatise of Novatian Concerning the Trinity,” in Fathers of the Third Century: Hippolytus, Cyprian, Novatian, Appendix, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, trans. Robert Ernest Wallis, vol. 5, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1886), 642.↩

552Dionysius of Alexandria, “The Epistle to Bishop Basilides,” in Fathers of the Third Century: Gregory Thaumaturgus, Dionysius the Great, Julius Africanus, Anatolius and Minor Writers, Methodius, Arnobius, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, trans. S. D. F. Salmond, vol. 6, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1886), 94.↩

553Hilary of Poitiers, “On the Trinity,” in St. Hilary of Poitiers, John of Damascus, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. E. W. Watson et al., vol. 9a, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1899), 80.↩

554S. Athanasius, Select Treatises of S. Athanasius, Archbishop of Alexandria, in Controversy with the Arians, Translated, with Notes and Indices, Parts 1 & 2, vol. VIII, A Library of Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church, Anterior to the Division of the East and West (Oxford; London: John Henry Parker; J. G. F. and J. Rivington, 1842–1844), 57.↩

555Athanasius of Alexandria, “Festal Letters,” in St. Athanasius: Select Works and Letters, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. Henry Burgess and Jessie Smith Payne, vol. 4, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1892), 546.↩

556Basil of Caesarea, “Letters,” in St. Basil: Letters and Select Works, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. Blomfield Jackson, vol. 8, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1895), 145.↩

557Cyril of Jerusalem, “The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril, Archbishop of Jerusalem,” in S. Cyril of Jerusalem, S. Gregory Nazianzen, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. R. W. Church and Edwin Hamilton Gifford, vol. 7, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1894), 84.↩

558Gregory Nazianzen, “Select Orations of Saint Gregory Nazianzen,” in S. Cyril of Jerusalem, S. Gregory Nazianzen, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. Charles Gordon Browne and James Edward Swallow, vol. 7, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1894), 225.↩

559Gregory of Nyssa, “Gregory of Nyssa against Eunomius,” in Gregory of Nyssa: Dogmatic Treatises, Etc., ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. William Moore et al., vol. 5, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1893), 195.↩

560John Chrysostom, “The Homilies on the Statues,” in Saint Chrysostom: On the Priesthood, Ascetic Treatises, Select Homilies and Letters, Homilies on the Statues, ed. Philip Schaff, trans. W. R. W. Stephens, vol. 9, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1889), 352.↩

561John Chrysostom, The Homilies of S. John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople, on the Gospel of St. John, vol. 2, A Library of Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford; London: John Henry Parker; F. and J. Rivington, 1848), 601.↩

562As translated by Bishop Newman in his works, volume 1, lecture 13 at http://www.newmanreader.org/works/viamedia/volume1/lecture13.html

The full quote is: “Behold the evidences of a robber; first, that he enters not openly; next, that he enters not by the Scriptures, for this is meant by not entering in at the door. Here Christ alludes to those before Him, and to those who were to come; Antichrist, and false Christs. Judas and Theudas, and such like. He suitably calls the Scriptures the door; for they bring us to God, and open upon us the knowledge of Him. They make the sheep, guard them, and fence off the wolves. As a trusty door, Scripture shuts out heretics, securing us from error, in whatsoever we desire; and, unless we damage it, we are unassailable by our enemies. By means of it we shall know who are pastors and who are not.”↩

563John Chrysostom, Homilies on Genesis 1–17, ed. Thomas P. Halton, trans. Robert C. Hill, vol. 74, The Fathers of the Church (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1986), Homily 13, p. 195.↩

564John Chrysostom, The Homilies of S. John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople, on the Statues, or to the People of Antioch, A Library of Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford; London: John Henry Parker; J. G. F. and J. Rivington, 1842), 167.↩

565I have not been able to track down the original source of this quote. This appears to be Bavinck’s translation of Jerome in Herman Bavinck, (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003), p. 405. ↩

566The Latin is “Ergo nec parentum nec majorum error sequendus est: sed auctoritas Scripturarum, et Dei docentis imperium” (Commentariorum in Jeremiam, Liber Secundus, Cap. IX, v. 12, PL 24:743).↩

567Jerome, “To Pope Damasus,” in “The Letters of St. Jerome,” in St. Jerome: Letters and Select Works, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. W. H. Fremantle, G. Lewis, and W. G. Martley, vol. 6, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1893), 22.↩

568Jerome, “The Letters of St. Jerome,” in St. Jerome: Letters and Select Works, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. W. H. Fremantle, G. Lewis, and W. G. Martley, vol. 6, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1893), 44.↩

569Jerome, “The Letters of St. Jerome,” in St. Jerome: Letters and Select Works, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. W. H. Fremantle, G. Lewis, and W. G. Martley, vol. 6, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1893), 62.↩

570Jerome, “The Letters of St. Jerome,” in St. Jerome: Letters and Select Works, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. W. H. Fremantle, G. Lewis, and W. G. Martley, vol. 6, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1893), 173.↩

571Augustine of Hippo, Letters (1–82), trans. Wilfrid Parsons, vol. 1, The Fathers of the Church (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1951), 411.↩

572Augustine of Hippo, “The City of God,” in St. Augustin’s City of God and Christian Doctrine, ed. Philip Schaff, trans. Marcus Dods, vol. 2, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1887), 206.↩

573Augustine of Hippo, “The City of God,” in St. Augustin’s City of God and Christian Doctrine, ed. Philip Schaff, trans. Marcus Dods, vol. 2, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1887), 315.↩

574Augustine of Hippo, “Letters of St. Augustin,” in The Confessions and Letters of St. Augustin with a Sketch of His Life and Work, ed. Philip Schaff, trans. J. G. Cunningham, vol. 1, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1886), 251–252.↩

575Augustine of Hippo, “Letters of St. Augustin,” in The Confessions and Letters of St. Augustin with a Sketch of His Life and Work, ed. Philip Schaff, trans. J. G. Cunningham, vol. 1, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1886), 350.↩

576Augustine of Hippo, Letters (131–164), ed. Roy Joseph Deferrari, trans. Wilfrid Parsons, vol. 20, The Fathers of the Church (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1953), 181.↩

577Augustine of Hippo, “Letters of St. Augustin,” in The Confessions and Letters of St. Augustin with a Sketch of His Life and Work, ed. Philip Schaff, trans. J. G. Cunningham, vol. 1, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1886), 502.↩

578Augustine of Hippo, “Reply to Faustus the Manichæan,” in St. Augustin: The Writings against the Manichaeans and against the Donatists, ed. Philip Schaff, trans. Richard Stothert, vol. 4, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1887), 339.↩

579John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., The Works of Saint Augustine, Part 3, Vol. 11, trans. Edmund Hill, O.P., Newly Discovered Sermons, Sermon 162C.15 (New York: New City Press, 1997), p. 176.↩

580Augustine of Hippo, “Letters of St. Augustin,” in The Confessions and Letters of St. Augustin with a Sketch of His Life and Work, ed. Philip Schaff, trans. J. G. Cunningham, vol. 1, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1886), 252.↩

581Augustine of Hippo, “The Confessions of St. Augustin,” in The Confessions and Letters of St. Augustin with a Sketch of His Life and Work, ed. Philip Schaff, trans. J. G. Pilkington, vol. 1, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1886), 185.↩

582Augustine of Hippo, “Reply to Faustus the Manichæan,” in St. Augustin: The Writings against the Manichaeans and against the Donatists, ed. Philip Schaff, trans. Richard Stothert, vol. 4, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1887), 180.↩

583Augustine of Hippo, “Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament,” in Saint Augustin: Sermon on the Mount, Harmony of the Gospels, Homilies on the Gospels, ed. Philip Schaff, trans. R. G. MacMullen, vol. 6, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1888), 359.↩

584John Cassian, “The Seven Books of John Cassian on the Incarnation of the Lord, against Nestorius,” in Sulpitius Severus, Vincent of Lérins, John Cassian, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. Edgar C. S. Gibson, vol. 11, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1894), 579.↩

585Glaphyrorum In Genesim, Lib. II, PG 69:53. Translation by William Goode, Vol. 3, op cit., p. 181.↩

586Commentary on the Gospel of Saint Luke, trans. R. Payne Smith (Studion Publishers, 1983), Homily 55, p. 240.↩

587Glaphyra on Genesis, as translated by Yves Congar, Tradition and Traditions: An Historical and Theological Essay, (California: Burns & Oates, 1966), pp. 111-112.↩

588Why God Became Man, in Anselm of Canterbury: The Major Works (Oxford: Oxford Univer- sity Press, 2008), 298.↩

589The Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas, part. 1, question 1, article 10 (New York: Benziger Brothers, 1948), 7↩

590The Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas, part. 1, question 1, article 10 (New York: Benziger Brothers, 1948), a5, 3↩

591Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province (London: Burns Oates & Washbourne, n.d.).↩

592See http://lollardsociety.org/?page_id=409 Also see http://glossae.net/↩

593Austin P. Flannery, ed., Documents of Vatican II (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), p. 755.↩

594Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1988), p. 134.↩

595Philip Blosser, Not By Scripture Alone (NBSA), pp. 66–67, 83, 74.↩

596For example, Calvin says, “Moreover, they unjustly set the ancient fathers against us (I mean the ancient writers of a better age of the church) as if in them they had supporters of their own impiety. If the contest were to be determined by patristic authority, the tide of victory—to put it very modestly—would turn to our side…With a frightful to do, they overwhelm us as despisers and adversaries of the fathers! But we do not despise them; in fact, if it were to our present purpose, I could with no trouble at all prove that the greater part of what we are saying today meets their approval” (Institutes of the Christian Religion (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960), Vol. I, Prefatory Address to King Francis 4, p. 18).↩

597William Cunningham, Historical Theology: A Review of the Principal Doctrinal Discussions in the Christian Church since the Apostolic Age., vol. 1 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1863), 185-186.↩

598Archibald T. Robertson, “Prolegomena,” in St. Athanasius: Select Works and Letters, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, vol. 4, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1892), lxxiv.↩

599H.E.W. Turner, The Pattern of Christian Truth (London: A.R. Mowbray, 1954), pp. 297-300↩

600William Webster, “The Church Fathers and the Authority and Sufficiency of Scripture,” unpublished essay.↩

601Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, eds., The Apostolic Fathers With Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ANF I; Accordance electronic ed. 9 vols.; (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1885), paragraph 5683 and 5699.↩

602Irenaeus of Lyons,* The Writings of Irenæus,* ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, trans. Alexander Roberts and W. H. Rambaut, vol. 1, Ante-Nicene Christian Library (Edinburgh; London; Dublin: T. & T. Clark; Hamilton & Co.; John Robertson & Co., 1868–1869), 31.↩

603He said:

If, therefore, even with respect to creation, there are some things [the knowledge of] which belongs only to God, and others which come within the range of our own knowledge, what ground is there for complaint, if, in regard to those things which we investigate in the Scriptures (which are throughout spiritual), we are able by the grace of God to explain some of them, while we must leave others in the hands of God, and that not only in the present world, but also in that which is to come, so that God should for ever teach, and man should for ever learn the things taught him by God?…

If, for instance, any one asks, “What was God doing before He made the world?” we reply that the answer to such a question lies with God Himself. For that this world was formed perfect2 by God, receiving a beginning in time, the Scriptures teach us; but no Scripture reveals to us what God was employed about before this event. The answer therefore to that question remains with God, and it is not proper3 for us to aim at bringing forward foolish, rash, and blasphemous suppositions [in reply to it]; so as, by one’s imagining that he has discovered the origin of matter, he should in reality set aside God Himself who made all things…

But we shall not be wrong if we affirm the same thing also concerning the substance of matter, that God produced it. For we have learned from the Scriptures that God holds the supremacy over all things. But whence or in what way He produced it, neither has Scripture anywhere declared; nor does it become us to conjecture, so as, in accordance with our own opinions, to form endless conjectures concerning God, but we should leave such knowledge in the hands of God Himself.

Irenaeus of Lyons, The Writings of Irenæus, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, trans. Alexander Roberts and W. H. Rambaut, vol. 1, Ante-Nicene Christian Library (Edinburgh; London; Dublin: T. & T. Clark; Hamilton & Co.; John Robertson & Co., 1868–1869), 221,222,225.↩

604Irenaeus of Lyons, “Irenæus against Heresies,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 414. ↩

605Hippolytus of Rome, “Against the Heresy of One Noetus,” in Fathers of the Third Century: Hippolytus, Cyprian, Novatian, Appendix, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, trans. S. D. F. Salmond, vol. 5, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1886), 227.↩

606Tertullian, “Against Praxeas,” in Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, trans. Peter Holmes, vol. 3, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 605.↩

607Prescription Against Heretics 20, 19↩

608Mattheum Commentarium Series 18. V3. Translated by William Goode, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice, vol. 2 (Philadelphia: Herman Hooker, 1842), p. 236.↩

609Cyprian of Carthage, “The Epistles of Cyprian,” in Fathers of the Third Century: Hippolytus, Cyprian, Novatian, Appendix, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, trans. Robert Ernest Wallis, vol. 5, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1886), 389.↩

610Cyprian of Carthage, “The Epistles of Cyprian,” in Fathers of the Third Century: Hippolytus, Cyprian, Novatian, Appendix, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, trans. Robert Ernest Wallis, vol. 5, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1886), 379-389.↩

611Anagog. Contemp. in Hexem. lib 8 init. As quoted by John Henry Newman, The Via Media of the Anglican Church, vol. 1, (London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1895), p. 319.↩

612Athanasius of Alexandria, “Life of Antony,” in St. Athanasius: Select Works and Letters, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. H. Ellershaw Jr., vol. 4, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1892), 200.↩

613Marius Victorinus, Theological Treatises on the Trinity, ed. Hermigild Dressler, trans. Mary T. Clark, vol. 69, The Fathers of the Church (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1981), 165.↩

614Hilary of Poitiers, “On the Trinity,” in St. Hilary of Poitiers, John of Damascus, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. E. W. Watson et al., vol. 9a, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1899), 75.↩

615Hilary of Poitiers, “On the Trinity,” in St. Hilary of Poitiers, John of Damascus, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. E. W. Watson et al., vol. 9a, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1899), 69.↩

616Psalmus CXXXII Canticum graduum 6 PS 9:749, as translated by John Edmund Cox. The Latin is, “Quae enim libro legis non continentur, ea nec nosse debemus.”↩

617Hilary of Poitiers, “On the Trinity,” in St. Hilary of Poitiers, John of Damascus, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. E. W. Watson et al., vol. 9a, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1899), 53.↩

618Hilary of Poitiers, “On the Trinity,” in St. Hilary of Poitiers, John of Damascus, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. E. W. Watson et al., vol. 9a, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1899), 69.↩

619Athanasius of Alexandria, “Against the Heathen,” in St. Athanasius: Select Works and Letters, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. Archibald T. Robertson, vol. 4, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1892), 4↩

620Athanasius of Alexandria, “Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia,” in St. Athanasius: Select Works and Letters, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. John Henry Newman and Archibald T. Robertson, vol. 4, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1892), 453.↩

621“The Letters of Saint Athanasius Concerning the Holy Spirit to Bishop Serapion”, Ad Serapion 1.19, Translation by C.R.B. Shapland (Epworth Press, 1951), p. 42. Available here: http://thegroveisonfire.com/books/Athanasius/Athanasius-Letters-to-Serapion-CRB-Shapland.pdf↩

622Ad Epis Aeg 4. Athanasius of Alexandria, “To the Bishops of Egypt,” in St. Athanasius: Select Works and Letters, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. Miles Atkinson and Archibald T. Robertson, vol. 4, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1892), 225.↩

623Athanasius of Alexandria, “Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia,” in St. Athanasius: Select Works and Letters, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. John Henry Newman and Archibald T. Robertson, vol. 4, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1892), 453↩

624Athanasius of Alexandria, “Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia,” in St. Athanasius: Select Works and Letters, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. John Henry Newman and Archibald T. Robertson, vol. 4, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1892), 466.↩

625Athanasius, Festal Letters 39 in Athanasius of Alexandria, The Festal Epistles of S. Athanasius, trans. Henry Burgess (Oxford; London: John Henry Parker; F. and J. Rivington, 1854), 139.↩

626Homilia Adversus Calumn. S. Trinitatis. Translation by William Goode, Vol. 3, p. 134.↩

627Basil of Caesarea, “Letters,” in St. Basil: Letters and Select Works, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. Blomfield Jackson, vol. 8, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1895), 229.↩

628Regulae Brevius Tractate, Interrogatio et Responsio XCVIII. PG 31:1149-1152. Translation by William Goode, Vol. III, p. 132.↩

629Basil of Caesarea, Saint Basil: Ascetical Works, ed. Roy Joseph Deferrari, trans. M. Monica Wagner, vol. 9, The Fathers of the Church (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1962), 185–186.↩

630Basil of Caesarea, Saint Basil: Ascetical Works, ed. Roy Joseph Deferrari, trans. M. Monica Wagner, vol. 9, The Fathers of the Church (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1962), 106.↩

631Basil of Caesarea, Saint Basil: Ascetical Works, ed. Roy Joseph Deferrari, trans. M. Monica Wagner, vol. 9, The Fathers of the Church (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1962), 57,59,63. ↩

632Basil of Caesarea, Moralia, 72.↩

633Basil of Caesarea, “Letters,” in St. Basil: Letters and Select Works, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. Blomfield Jackson, vol. 8, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1895), 312.↩

634ST BASIL, Basil Reg. Brev. 95, as quoted by Ernest Fredrick Morison, St. Basil and His Rule: A Study in Early Monasticism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1912), p. 72.↩

635William Webster, “The Church Fathers and the Authority and Sufficiency of Scripture,” unpublished essay.↩

636Cyril of Jerusalem, “The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril, Archbishop of Jerusalem,” in S. Cyril of Jerusalem, S. Gregory Nazianzen, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. R. W. Church and Edwin Hamilton Gifford, vol. 7, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1894), 23.↩

637Ibid., Catechetical Lecture 12.5.↩

638Cyril of Jerusalem, “The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril, Archbishop of Jerusalem,” in S. Cyril of Jerusalem, S. Gregory Nazianzen, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. R. W. Church and Edwin Hamilton Gifford, vol. 7, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1894), 32.↩

639Cyril of Jerusalem, “The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril, Archbishop of Jerusalem,” in S. Cyril of Jerusalem, S. Gregory Nazianzen, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. R. W. Church and Edwin Hamilton Gifford, vol. 7, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1894), 67.↩

640Cyril of Jerusalem, “The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril, Archbishop of Jerusalem,” in S. Cyril of Jerusalem, S. Gregory Nazianzen, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. R. W. Church and Edwin Hamilton Gifford, vol. 7, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1894), 115.↩

641Cyril of Jerusalem, “The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril, Archbishop of Jerusalem,” in S. Cyril of Jerusalem, S. Gregory Nazianzen, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. R. W. Church and Edwin Hamilton Gifford, vol. 7, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1894), 121.↩

642The Latin is, “Cum id nullo Scripturæ testimonio fultum sit, ut falsum improbabimus.” (De Cognitione Dei, PG 46:1115. Though listed in the Greek Series of fathers, this particular treatise is only in Latin.↩

643Gregory of Nyssa, “On the Soul and the Resurrection,” in Gregory of Nyssa: Dogmatic Treatises, Etc., ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. William Moore, vol. 5, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1893), 439.↩

644Gregory of Nyssa, “On the Holy Trinity, and of the Godhead of the Holy Spirit,” in Gregory of Nyssa: Dogmatic Treatises, Etc., ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. Henry Austin Wilson, vol. 5, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1893), 326–327.↩

645Gregory of Nyssa, “Gregory of Nyssa against Eunomius,” in Gregory of Nyssa: Dogmatic Treatises, Etc., ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. William Moore et al., vol. 5, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1893), 101.↩

646Gregory of Nyssa, “Gregory of Nyssa against Eunomius,” in Gregory of Nyssa: Dogmatic Treatises, Etc., ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. William Moore et al., vol. 5, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1893), 129.↩

647Gregory of Nyssa, “On the Holy Trinity, and of the Godhead of the Holy Spirit,” in Gregory of Nyssa: Dogmatic Treatises, Etc., ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. Henry Austin Wilson, vol. 5, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1893), 327.↩

648Gregory of Nyssa, “On the Soul and the Resurrection,” in Gregory of Nyssa: Dogmatic Treatises, Etc., ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. William Moore, vol. 5, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1893), 439.↩

649Ambrose of Milan, “On the Duties of the Clergy,” in St. Ambrose: Select Works and Letters, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. H. de Romestin, E. de Romestin, and H. T. F. Duckworth, vol. 10, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1896), 18.↩

650The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis (Leiden: Brill, 1994), Book II, Section V, Against Paul the Samosatian, Heresy 65.5,3, p. 213.↩

651John Chrysostom, The Homilies of S. John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople, on the Statues, or to the People of Antioch, A Library of Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford; London: John Henry Parker; J. G. F. and J. Rivington, 1842), 13–14.↩

652St. John Chrysostom c. 347-407, Homil. xiii. in 2 Cor. As quoted by Adolphe Monod, Lucilla; or, the Reading of the Bible (New York: Thomas Carter, 1843), pp. 138-139.↩

653Traditionally ascribed to St. John Chrysostom, glossa ordinaria 49th Homily, on Mat. 24. Also cited in Chemnitz’ Examen I:156 as belonging to Chrysostom.↩

654John Chrysostom, On Repentance and Almsgiving, ed. Thomas P. Halton, trans. Gus George Christo, vol. 96, The Fathers of the Church (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1998), 118.↩

655John Chrysostom, Homilies on Second Corinthians, Homily 13, in John Chrysostom, The Homilies of S. John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople, on the Second Epistle of St. Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians, A Library of Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford; London: John Henry Parker; F. and J. Rivington, 1848), 171.↩

656John Chrysostom, Father and Doctor of the Church, Epis 2 ad Thess 3,4. As quoted at http://catholicismhastheanswer.com/quotes-on-sacred-scripture/↩

657John Chrysostom, homily 8, provided at https://catholicquotations.blogspot.com/2008/07/on-sacred-scripture.html↩

658Original Greek in Epistolarium Lib 4 Epist 114, found in volume 78 of Migne’s Patrologia Graeca. Translated by William Goode, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice (Philadephia: Herman Hooker, 1842), p. 338.↩

659As translated by William Goode from Greek in The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice, vol 2, (Philadelphia: Herman Hooker, 1842), p. 313.↩

660Niceta of Remesiana et al., “Writings of Niceta of Remesiana,” in Writings; Commonitories; Grace and Free Will, ed. Bernard M. Peebles, trans. Gerald G. Walsh, vol. 7, The Fathers of the Church (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1949), 23.↩

661As translated by William Goode, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice, vol 2, (Philadelphia: Herman Hooker, 1842), p. 310.↩

662As translated by William Goode, Ibid., p. 310.↩

663Commentariorum in Evangelium Matthaei, Liber Tertius, PL 26:173 as quoted by Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, Volume One: First Through Tenth Topics, (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1992), pp. 139-140.↩

664adv. Helvidium juxta finem, Tom. IV. Part II. As translated by James Ussher, Archbishop Usher’s Answer to a Jesuit, (Cambridge: Cambridge Univesity Press, M.DCCC.XXXV), p. 35.↩

665adv. Helvidium juxta finem, Tom. IV. Part II. As translated by James Ussher, Archbishop Usher’s Answer to a Jesuit, (Cambridge: Cambridge Univesity Press, M.DCCC.XXXV), p. 35.↩

666Jerome, The Homilies of Saint Jerome (1–59 on the Psalms), ed. Hermigild Dressler, trans. Marie Liguori Ewald, vol. 1, The Fathers of the Church (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1964), 205.↩

667Jerome, Homily 43, in The Homilies of Saint Jerome (1–59 on the Psalms), ed. Hermigild Dressler, trans. Marie Liguori Ewald, vol. 1, The Fathers of the Church (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1964), 326.↩

668Salvian, The Writings of Salvian, the Presbyter, ed. Ludwig Schopp, trans. Jeremiah F. O’Sullivan, vol. 3, The Fathers of the Church (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1947), 113.↩

669Augustine of Hippo, “On Christian Doctrine,” in St. Augustin’s City of God and Christian Doctrine, ed. Philip Schaff, trans. J. F. Shaw, vol. 2, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1887), 539.↩

670Augustine, Contra litteras Petiliani, Book 3, Chap. 6. Migne provides the text: “Proinde sive de Christo, sive de ejus Ecclesia, sive de quacumque alia re quæ pertinet ad fidem vitamque vestram, non dicam nos, nequaquam comparandi ei qui dixit, Licet si nos; sed omnino quod secutus adjecit, Si angelus de cælo vobis annuntiaverit præter quam quod in Scripturis legalibus et evangelicis accepistis, anathema sit” (PL 43:351). As quoted in Don Kistler, ed., Sola Scriptura: The Protestant Position on the Bible (Lake Mary, FL: Reformation Trust Publishing, 2009).↩

671Augustine of Hippo, Augustine of Hippo: Selected Writings, ed. John Farina, trans. Mary T. Clark, The Classics of Western Spirituality (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1984), 366.↩

672Augustine of Hippo, “A Treatise on Nature and Grace,” in Saint Augustin: Anti-Pelagian Writings, ed. Philip Schaff, trans. Peter Holmes, vol. 5, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1887), 146.↩

673De Unitate Ecclesiae Caput 19.50 as translated by William Goode, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice, vol. 2 (Philadelphia: Herman Hooker, 1842), p. 322.↩

674Glaphyrorum In Genesim, Lib. II, PG 69:53. Translation by William Goode, Vol. 3, op cit., p. 181.↩

675De SS. Trinitate Dialogus I, PG75:665. Translation by William Goode, Vol. 3, pp. 281–282.↩

676Contra Julian, Lib. VII, PG76:852–853. Translation by William Goode, Vol. 3, pp. 282–283.↩

677Commentary on the Gospel of Saint Luke, trans. R. Payne Smith (Studion Publishers, 1983), Homily 55, p. 240.↩

678Ad Reginas De Recta Fide Oratio Altera in Goode, Ibid, p. 337.↩

679De Sacrosancta Trinitate Cap 1 in Goode, Ibid., pp. 337-338.↩

680Commentary on the Gospel of Saint Luke, trans. R. Payne Smith (Studion Publishers, 1983), Homily 55, p. 240.↩

681Doctrinal questions and answers #2 in Cyril of Alexandria, Select Letters Edited and Translated by Lionel R. Wickham (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983). Also available for free here: https://vdocuments.mx/select-letters-oxford-early-christian-texts.html↩

682Glaphyra on Genesis, as translated by Yves Congar, Tradition and Traditions: An Historical and Theological Essay, (California: Burns & Oates, 1966), pp. 111-112.↩

683Vincent of Lérins, “The Commonitory of Vincent of Lérins,” in Sulpitius Severus, Vincent of Lérins, John Cassian, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. C. A. Heurtley, vol. 11, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1894), 132.↩

684Theodoret. Eran. Dialogue 1. Translated by William Goode, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice, vol. 2 (Philadelphia: Herman Hooker, 1842), p. 451. The Greek is Μη μοι λογισμους ανηθρωπινους προσενεγκης εγω γαρ μονη πειθομαι τη θεια γραπφη.↩

685Theodoret of Cyrus, “Dialogues: The ‘Eranistes’ or ‘Polymorphus’ of the Blessed Theodoretus, Bishop of Cyrus,” in Theodoret, Jerome, Gennadius, Rufinus: Historical Writings, Etc., ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. Blomfield Jackson, vol. 3, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1892), 165–166.↩

686Theodoret of Cyrus, “Dialogues: The ‘Eranistes’ or ‘Polymorphus’ of the Blessed Theodoretus, Bishop of Cyrus,” in Theodoret, Jerome, Gennadius, Rufinus: Historical Writings, Etc., ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. Blomfield Jackson, vol. 3, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1892), 228.↩

687Theodoret of Cyrus, “Letters of the Blessed Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus,” in Theodoret, Jerome, Gennadius, Rufinus: Historical Writings, Etc., ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. Blomfield Jackson, vol. 3, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1892), 278.↩

688Theodoret of Cyrus, “Letters of the Blessed Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus,” in Theodoret, Jerome, Gennadius, Rufinus: Historical Writings, Etc., ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. Blomfield Jackson, vol. 3, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1892), 258.↩

689Theodoret of Cyrus, “Letters of the Blessed Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus,” in Theodoret, Jerome, Gennadius, Rufinus: Historical Writings, Etc., ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. Blomfield Jackson, vol. 3, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1892), 327.↩

690Theodoret of Cyrus, “Dialogues: The ‘Eranistes’ or ‘Polymorphus’ of the Blessed Theodoretus, Bishop of Cyrus,” in Theodoret, Jerome, Gennadius, Rufinus: Historical Writings, Etc., ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. Blomfield Jackson, vol. 3, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1892), 199.↩

691Salvian, The Presbyter, The Governance of God, Book 3, section 1, in Salvian, The Writings of Salvian, the Presbyter, ed. Ludwig Schopp, trans. Jeremiah F. O’Sullivan, vol. 3, The Fathers of the Church (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1947), 68.↩

692Salvian, The Writings of Salvian, the Presbyter, ed. Ludwig Schopp, trans. Jeremiah F. O’Sullivan, vol. 3, The Fathers of the Church (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1947), 68.↩

693Caesarius of Arles, Saint Caesarius of Arles: Sermons (1–238), ed. Hermigild Dressler and Bernard M. Peebles, trans. Mary Magdeleine Mueller, vol. 3, The Fathers of the Church (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press; Consortium Books, 1956–1973), 107.↩

694Caesarius of Arles, Saint Caesarius of Arles: Sermons (1–238), ed. Hermigild Dressler and Bernard M. Peebles, trans. Mary Magdeleine Mueller, vol. 3, The Fathers of the Church (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press; Consortium Books, 1956–1973), 107.↩

695Topographiae Christianae Liber VII, PG 88:373. Translation by William Goode, Vol. 3, p. 208.↩

696A Library of Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church, (Oxford: John Henry Parker, 1844), Vol. 2, Morals on the Book of Job: Parts 3 & 4, Book XVI, Chapter 35, p. 252.↩

697John Damascene, “An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith,” as cited by St. Hilary of Poitiers, John of Damascus, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. S. D. F. Salmond, vol. 9b, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1899), 1.↩

698John Damascene, Writings, ed. Hermigild Dressler, trans. Frederic H. Chase Jr., vol. 37, The Fathers of the Church (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1958), 168.↩

699Leon Morris, “Canon of the New Testament,” Encyclopedia of Christianity↩

700F. F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1960, p. 27.↩

701Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, vol. 1, Prolegomena, ed. John Bolt, trans. John Vriend (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003), 452↩

702Justin Martyr, “Fragments of the Lost Work of Justin on the Resurrection,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, trans. M. Dods, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 294.↩

703Tatian, “Address of Tatian to the Greeks,” in Fathers of the Second Century: Hermas, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, and Clement of Alexandria (Entire), ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, trans. J. E. Ryland, vol. 2, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 77.↩

704Princ. 4.1.6 as quoted in Gerald Lewis Bray, ed., 1–2 Corinthians, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1999), 223.↩

705Clement of Alexandria, “Exhortation to the Heathen,” in Fathers of the Second Century: Hermas, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, and Clement of Alexandria (Entire), ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 2, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 196.↩

706Mattheum Commentarium Series 18. V3. Translated by William Goode, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice, vol. 2 (Philadelphia: Herman Hooker, 1842), p. 236.↩

707In Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, eds., Fathers of the Third Century: Hippolytus, Cyprian, Novatian, Appendix, vol. 5, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1886), 419.↩

708John Chrysostom, Homilies on Genesis 1–17, ed. Thomas P. Halton, trans. Robert C. Hill, vol. 74, The Fathers of the Church (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1986), Homily 13, p. 195.↩

709Augustine of Hippo, “Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel according to St. John,” in St. Augustin: Homilies on the Gospel of John, Homilies on the First Epistle of John, Soliloquies, ed. Philip Schaff, trans. John Gibb and James Innes, vol. 7, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1888), 53.↩

710John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., The Works of Saint Augustine, Part 3, Vol. 11, trans. Edmund Hill, O.P., Newly Discovered Sermons, Sermon 162C.15 (New York: New City Press, 1997), p. 176.↩

711See http://lollardsociety.org/?page_id=409 Also see http://glossae.net/↩

712Some of the English translations are beginning to be made available at https://sites.google.com/site/glossaordinariaproject/home↩

713See http://lollardsociety.org/?page_id=409 Also see http://glossae.net/↩

714In ult. Cap. Esther. Taken from A Disputation on Holy Scripture by William Whitaker (Cambridge: University, 1849), p. 48. See also Cosin’s A Scholastic History of the Canon, Volume III, Chapter XVII, pp. 257-258 and B.F. Westcott’s A General Survey of the Canon of the New Testament, p. 475.↩

715https://www.the-highway.com/scripture1_Webster.html#18↩

716The Maccabees anticipated a time when the Messiah would come and when “a prophet should arise” (I Macc. 4:46; cf. 9:27; 14:41), but in the meantime, 1 Macc. 9:27 acknowledges that the succession of Old Testament prophets had already ceased. 1 Macc. 4:46 says that Israel was waiting till the Messiah when a prophet might arise to tell them what to do with the heap of stones. Apparently no prophet was in existence at the time of the writing. The absence of prophets can be seen in 1 Macc. 14:41; 2 Esdras 14:45; etc. Thus, in the Prologue to Sirach, the grandson makes clear that Sira was simply a wise man and he was simply translating. See the apology of the author in 2 Macc. 15:38 - “And if I have done well, and as is fitting the story, it is that which I desired: but if slenderly and meanly, it is that which I could attain unto.” No inspired prophet could have such a low view of what he was writing.↩

717New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. I (Washington D.C.: Catholic University, 1967), p. 390.↩

718Norman L. Geisler and William Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible (Chicago: Moody Press, 1971, rev. 1986), p. 173.↩

719http://www.studytoanswer.net/rcc/rvb_apocrypha.html↩

720R. Laird Harris, Inspiration and Canonicity, p. 190.↩

721William Whitaker, A Disputation on Holy Scripture Against the Papists (Cambridge: University Press, M.DCCC.XLIX).↩

722Ibid., pp. 41-43.↩

723Roman Catholics often quote the threefold test of catholicity given by Saint Vincent of Lérins. He said, “Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all” (Commonitory ch. II, §6; NPNF Series II Vol. XI p. 132). In other words, the three tests are 1) it was held in every portion of the church geographically, 2) it was held throughout the history of the church, and it was held to by all (all councils? all fathers?).↩

724http://www.studytoanswer.net/rcc/rvb_apocrypha.html↩

725Of course, neither does the Protestant one-canon theory. However, if the two-canon theory is held to, there was unanimity all through church history. Even Protestants have affirmed the value of the apocrypha as interesting historical and devotional documents.↩

726Samuel Waldron, The Canon of Scripture, Kindle book.↩

727Dr. C. Matthew McMahon, “Apocrypha Article 3 - Church Fathers and Councils Reject It,” at http://www.apuritansmind.com/apologetics/apocryphamainpage/apocryphaarticle3/↩

728Samuel Macauley Jackson, ed., The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge: Embracing Biblical, Historical, Doctrinal, and Practical Theology and Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Biography from the Earliest Times to the Present Day (New York; London: Funk & Wagnalls, 1908–1914), 215.↩

729For example, in one letter Jerome says, “Let her avoid all apocryphal writings, and if she is led to read such not by the truth of the doctrines which they contain but out of respect for the miracles contained in them; let her understand that they are not really written by those to whom they are ascribed, that many faulty elements have been introduced into them, and that it requires infinite discretion to look for gold in the midst of dirt” (Jerome, “The Letters of St. Jerome,” in St. Jerome: Letters and Select Works, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. W. H. Fremantle, G. Lewis, and W. G. Martley, vol. 6, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1893), 194).↩

730https://www.jashow.org/articles/general/the-apocrypha-and-the-biblical-canonpart-6/↩

731See my comments in this chapter with regard to the two canons - a list of authoritative teachers and a list of authoritative inspired Scripture. Many scholars contest the typical quotes that these authors allegedly made from the apocrypha, and contest whether the authors saw these writings as having equal authority with Scripture. Dr. Beckwith summarizes the evidence saying, “When one examines the passages in the early Fathers which are supposed to establish the canonicity of the Apocrypha, one finds that some of them are taken from the alternative Greek text of Ezra (1 Esdras) or from additions or appendices to Daniel, Jeremiah or some other canonical book which… are not really relevant; and that others of them are not quotations from the Apocrypha at all; and that, of those which are, many do not give any indication that the book is regarded as Scripture” (Quoted in Norman L. Geisler and William Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible (Chicago: Moody Press, 1971, rev. 1986), p. 268).↩

732He says, 37. Of the Old Testament, “therefore, first of all there have been handed down five books of Moses, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Then Jesus Nave, (Joshua the son of Nun), The Book of Judges together with Ruth; then four books of Kings (Reigns), which the Hebrews reckon two; the Book of Omissions, which is entitled the Book of Days (Chronicles), and two books of Ezra (Ezra and Nehemiah), which the Hebrews reckon one, and Esther; of the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel; moreover of the twelve (minor) Prophets, one book; Job also and the Psalms of David, each one book. Solomon gave three books to the Churches, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles. These comprise the books of the Old Testament. Of the New there are four Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John; the Acts of the Apostles, written by Luke; fourteen Epistles of the Apostle Paul, two of the Apostle Peter, one of James, brother of the Lord and Apostle, one of Jude, three of John, the Revelation of John. These are the books which the Fathers have comprised within the Canon, and from which they would have us deduce the proofs of our faith. 38. But it should be known that there are also other books which our fathers call not ‘Canonical’ but ‘Ecclesiastical:’ that is to say, Wisdom, called the Wisdom of Solomon, and another Wisdom, called the Wisdom of the Son of Syrach, which last-mentioned the Latins called by the general title Ecclesiasticus, designating not the author of the book, but the character of the writing. To the same class belong the Book of Tobit, and the Book of Judith, and the Books of the Maccabees. In the New Testament the little book which is called the Book of the Pastor of Hermas, [and that] which is called The Two Ways, or the Judgment of Peter; all of which they would have read in the Churches, but not appealed to for the confirmation of doctrine. The other writings they have named ‘Apocrypha.’ These they would not have read in the Churches” (Rufinus of Aquileia, “A Commentary on the Apostles’ Creed,” in Theodoret, Jerome, Gennadius, Rufinus: Historical Writings, Etc., ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. William Henry Fremantle, vol. 3, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1892), 557–558). ↩

733David Oritz, unpublished comments.↩

734Translation by Dr. Michael Woodward of Latin text (Basel: Petri & Froben, 1498), British Museum IB.37895, Vol. 1, On the canonical and non-canonical books of the Bible).↩

735“These are the books that are not in the canon, which the church includes as good and useful books, but not canonical. Among them are some of more, some of less authority. For Tobit, Judith, and the books of Maccabees, also the book of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, are strongly approved by all. Thus Augustine, in book two of De Doctrina Christiana, counts the first three among canonical books; concerning Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, he says they deserved to be received as authoritative and should be numbered among the prophetic books; concerning the books of Maccabees, in book 18 of the City of God, speaking of the books of Ezra, he says that, although the Jews do not consider them canonical, the church considers them canonical because of the passions of certain martyrs and powerful miracles. Of less authority are Baruch and Third and Fourth Ezra. For Augustine makes no mention of them in the place cited above, while he included (as I have said) other apocryphal works among the canonical. Rufinus as well, in his exposition of the creed, and Isidore, in book 6 of the Etymologies, where they repeat this division of Jerome, mentioned nothing of these other books. And that we might enumerate the apocryphal books in the order in which they appear in this Bible, even though they have been produced in a different order, first come the third and fourth books of Ezra. They are called Third and Fourth Ezra because, before Jerome, Greeks and Latins used to divide the book of Ezra into two books, calling the words of Nehemiah the second book of Ezra. These Third and Fourth Ezra are, as I have said, of less authority among all non- canonical books. Hence Jerome, in his prologue to the books of Ezra, calls them dreams. They are found in very few Bible manuscripts; and in many printed Bibles only Third Ezra is found. Second is Tobit, a very devout and useful book. Third is Judith, which Jerome says in his prologue had been counted by the Nicene Council in the number of holy scriptures. Fourth is the book of Wisdom, which almost all hold that Philo of Alexandria, a most learned Jew, wrote. Fifth is the book of Jesus son of Sirach, which is called Ecclesiasticus. Sixth is Baruch, as Jerome says in his prologue to Jeremiah. Seventh is the book of Maccabees, divided into first and second books…Further, it should be known that in the book of Esther, only those words are in the canon up to that place where we have inserted: the end of the book of Esther, as far as it is in Hebrew. What follows afterward is not in the canon. Likewise in Daniel, only those words are in the canon up to that place where we have inserted: The prophet Daniel ends. What follows afterward is not in the canon (Biblia cum glosa ordinaria et expositione Lyre litterali et morali” ((Basel: Petri & Froben, 1498), British Museum IB.37895, Vol. 1. Translation by Dr. Michael Woodward). See also Walafrid Strabo, Glossa Ordinaria, De Canonicis et Non Canonicis Libris. PL 113:19-24↩

736See a facsimile of the commentary on Judith, see: http://lollardsociety.org/glor/Glossa_vol2h_Tobias.pdf↩

737For a fascimile of the commentary on Judith, see: http://lollardsociety.org/glor/Glossa_vol2i_Iudith.pdf↩

738The vote was 24 in favor, 15 opposed, and 16 uncertain and abstaining. So 24 voted in favor and 31 did not vote in favor. ↩

739For a heavily footnoted analysis of Origen’s canon, see http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.xi.xxv.html↩

740Canon 60 says, “60. It is proper to recognize as many books as these: of the Old Testament, 1. the Genesis of the world; 2. the Exodus from Egypt; 3. Leviticus; 4. Numbers; 5. Deuteronomy; 6. Joshua the son of Nun; 7. Judges and Ruth; 8. Esther; 9. First and Second Kings [i.e. First and Second Samuel]; 10. Third and Fourth Kings [i.e. First and Second Kings]; 11. First and Second Chronicles; 12. First and Second Ezra [i.e. Ezra and Nehemiah]; 13. the book of one hundred and fifty Psalms; 14. the Proverbs of Solomon; 15. Ecclesiastes; 16. Song of Songs; 17. Job; 18. the Twelve [minor] Prophets; 19. Isaiah; 20. Jeremiah and Baruch, Lamentations and the Epistle [of Jeremiah]; 21. Ezekiel; 22. Daniel.” For the Greek and English, see http://www.bible-researcher.com/laodicea.html↩

741“The reason for reckoning twenty-two books of the Old Testament is that this corresponds with the number of the [Hebrew] letters. They are counted thus according to old tradition: the books of Moses are five, Joshua son of Nun the sixth, Judges and Ruth the seventh, first and second Kings 1 the eighth, third and fourth [Kings] 2 the ninth, the two of Chronicles make ten, the words of the days of Ezra the eleventh, 3 the book of Psalms twelfth, of Solomon the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Songs are thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth, the Twelve Prophets sixteenth, then Isaiah and Jeremiah (with Lamentations and the Epistle) 4 and Daniel and Ezekiel and Job and Esther complete the number of the books at twenty-two. To this some add Tobit and Judith to make twenty-four books, according to the number of the Greek letters, which is the language used among Hebrews and Greeks gathered in Rome.” The original Latin from Migne can be seen at http://www.bible-researcher.com/hilary.html↩

742Athanasius of Alexandria, The Festal Epistles of S. Athanasius, trans. Henry Burgess (Oxford; London: John Henry Parker; F. and J. Rivington, 1854), 139.↩

743Cyril of Jerusalem, “The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril, Archbishop of Jerusalem,” in S. Cyril of Jerusalem, S. Gregory Nazianzen, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. R. W. Church and Edwin Hamilton Gifford, vol. 7, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1894), 26, 27.↩

744The Greek text and translation can be read at http://www.bible-researcher.com/gregory.html.↩

745For the Greek as given in Migne’s Patrologia Graeca, see http://www.bible-researcher.com/amphilocius.html.↩

746From Pararion viii.6 - “By the time of the captives’ return from Babylon these Jews had acquired the following books and prophets, and the following books of the prophets: 1. Genesis. 2. Exodus. 3. Leviticus. 4. Numbers. 5. Deuteronomy. 6. The Book of Joshua the son of Nun. 7. The Book of the Judges. 8. Ruth. 9. Job. 10. The Psalter. 11. The Proverbs of Solomon. 12. Ecclesiastes. 13. The Song of Songs. 14. The First Book of Kings. 15. The Second Book of Kings. 16. The Third Book of Kings. 17. The Fourth Book of Kings. 1 18. The First Book of Chronicles. 19. The Second Book of Chronicles. 20. The Book of the Twelve Prophets. 21. The Prophet Isaiah. 22. The Prophet Jeremiah, with the Lamentations and the Epistles of Jeremiah and Baruch. 23. The Prophet Ezekiel. 24. The Prophet Daniel. 25. I Ezra. 26. II Ezra. 2 27. Esther. These are the twenty-seven books given the Jews by God. They are counted as twenty-two, however, like the letters of their Hebrew alphabet, because ten books which (Jews) reckon as five are double. But I have explained this clearly elsewhere. And they have two more books of disputed canonicity, the Wisdom of Sirach and the Wisdom of Solomon, apart from certain other apocrypha. All these sacred books taught (them) Judaism and Law’s observances till the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.” From Panarion lxxvi.5 - “If you had been begotten by the Holy Spirit and instructed in the prophets and apostles, you must have gone through (the record) from the beginning of the genesis of the world until the times of Esther in twenty-seven books of the Old Testament, which are (also) numbered as twenty-two, also in the four holy Gospels, and in fourteen epistles of the holy apostle Paul, and in the writings which come before these, including the Acts of the Apostles in their times and the catholic epistles of James, Peter, John and Jude, and in the Revelation of John, and in the Wisdom books, I mean those of Solomon and of the son of Sirach — in short, all the divine writings.”↩

747Rufinus of Aquileia, “A Commentary on the Apostles’ Creed,” in Theodoret, Jerome, Gennadius, Rufinus: Historical Writings, Etc., ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. William Henry Fremantle, vol. 3, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1892), 557–558.↩

748Jerome, “The Letters of St. Jerome,” in St. Jerome: Letters and Select Works, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. W. H. Fremantle, G. Lewis, and W. G. Martley, vol. 6, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1893), 194.↩

749Jerome, “Prefaces to the Books of the Vulgate Version of the Old Testament,” in St. Jerome: Letters and Select Works, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. W. H. Fremantle, G. Lewis, and W. G. Martley, vol. 6, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1893), 490. ↩

750Jerome, “Prefaces to the Books of the Vulgate Version of the Old Testament,” in St. Jerome: Letters and Select Works, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. W. H. Fremantle, G. Lewis, and W. G. Martley, vol. 6, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1893), 493.↩

751Jerome, “Prefaces to the Books of the Vulgate Version of the Old Testament,” in St. Jerome: Letters and Select Works, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. W. H. Fremantle, G. Lewis, and W. G. Martley, vol. 6, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1893), 492.↩

752Augustine of Hippo, The City of God, Books XVII–XXII, ed. Hermigild Dressler, trans. Gerald G. Walsh and Daniel J. Honan, vol. 24, The Fathers of the Church (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1954), 432.↩

753Augustine of Hippo, The Retractations, ed. Roy Joseph Deferrari, trans. Mary Inez Bogan, vol. 60, The Fathers of the Church (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1968), 43.↩

754Commentary on Job, Book 19, Chapter 34. Can be read here: http://www.lectionarycentral.com/GregoryMoralia/Book19.html↩

755Basel: Petri & Froben, 1498), British Museum IB.37895, Vol. 1. Translation by Dr. Michael Woodward. See also Walafrid Strabo, Glossa Ordinaria, De Canonicis et Non Canonicis Libris. PL 113:19-24).↩

756See a facsimile of the commentary on Judith, see: http://lollardsociety.org/glor/Glossa_vol2h_Tobias.pdf↩

757For a fascimile of the commentary on Judith, see: http://lollardsociety.org/glor/Glossa_vol2i_Iudith.pdf↩

758He said, “it is necessary that the prophetic charisma be in all the Church until the final coming.” Against Alcibiades in Eusebius, Church History, V,17,4 (PNF, 2nd ser., 1, p. 234.↩

759Aune said of the very early church, “Two basic types of charges, often combined, were used to discredit prophets regarded as a threat: they were deceivers or they were possessed by evil spirits. The charge that false prophets were mediums through which evil spirits spoke accounted for the fact that both true and false prophets claimed inspiration for their utterances. Prophets who were illegitimate were shown to be such through their behavior, their teaching, and their prophetic protocol” (Aune, Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean World, 229).↩

760See Panarion 48:8 and compare to 48:2.4. He gives the fulfillment of Agabus’s predictions of a famine in Acts 11:27–28 as clear demonstration that true prophecies always came true.↩

761F. David Farnell, “Is the Gift of Prophecy for Today?” BSac 149 (1992), 294.↩

762F. David Farnell, “Is the Gift of Prophecy for Today?” BSac 149 (1992), 291-292.↩

763Dialogue 82 reads, “For the prophetic gifts remain with us, even to the present time. And hence you ought to understand that [the gifts] formerly among your nation have been transferred to us [the church].” Whether the prophetic gifts that remain to the present time refers to ongoing prophecy or simply the New Testament books that the church continued to use is debated.↩

764F. David Farnell, “Is the Gift of Prophecy for Today?” BSac 149 (1992), p. 292. ↩

765F. David Farnell, “Is the Gift of Prophecy for Today?” BSac 149 (1992), 294.↩

766Fredrick Charles Klawiter, “New Prophecy in Early Christianity” 84-85. Quoted in F. David Farnell, “The Montanist Crisis: A Key to Refuting Third-Wave Concepts of NT Prophecy,” Master’s Seminary Journal 14, no. 2 (2003): 258.↩

767David Hill, New Testament Prophecy (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1979), p. 190.↩

768Everett Ferguson gives extended treatment of 1 Clement and shows that Clement has a very traditional view of prophecy and Scripture. “Of the apostolic fathers 1 Clement offers the fullest doctrine of Scripture. The sacred and authoritative character of the OT books is affirmed both by introductory formulas (“The Holy Spirit says,” 1 Clem. 13.1, quoting Jer 9:23–24; 1 Clem. 16.2, quoting Is 53:1–12) and by descriptions (“the holy word,” 1 Clem. 13.3, introducing Is 66:2, and 1 Clem. 56.3, introducing Ps 117:18 LXX; and “sacred Scriptures … and oracles of God,” 1 Clem. 53.1). A particularly strong statement occurs in 1 Clement 45.2–3: “You searched deeply into the sacred Scriptures, which are true and given by the Holy Spirit. You know that nothing unjust or counterfeit is written in them.” … 1 Clement, in warning against opposition to the righteous, appeals in sequence to “the sacred Scriptures” (the OT, 1 Clem. 45.2), “the words of Jesus our Lord” (1 Clem. 46.7) and “the epistle of the blessed Paul the apostle” (1 Clem. 47.1). The order may not be important, but it corresponds to the triad of prophets, Lord and apostles frequently found in works of the early writers” (Everett Ferguso, “Old Testament in Apostolic Fathers,” ed. Ralph P. Martin and Peter H. Davids, Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its Developments (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1997), 830).↩

769Ignatius of Antioch, “The Epistle of Ignatius to the Philadelphians,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 82.↩

770J. H. Srawley with St. Ignatius, The Epistles of St. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, Second Edition, Revised, vol. 1 & 2, Early Church Classics (London; Brighton: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1910), 12.↩

771J. H. Srawley with St. Ignatius, The Epistles of St. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, Second Edition, Revised, vol. 1 & 2, Early Church Classics (London; Brighton: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1910), 64.↩

772Justin Martyr, “Dialogue of Justin with Trypho, a Jew,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 221.↩

773Justin Martyr, “Justin’s Hortatory Address to the Greeks,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, trans. M. Dods, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 277–278.↩

774Thomas B. Falls with Justin Martyr, The First Apology, The Second Apology, Dialogue with Trypho, Exhortation to the Greeks, Discourse to the Greeks, The Monarchy or The Rule of God, vol. 6, The Fathers of the Church (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1948), 159–160.↩

775Justin Martyr, “Justin’s Hortatory Address to the Greeks,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, trans. M. Dods, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 289.↩

776The Muratorian Fragment can be read here http://www.bible-researcher.com/muratorian.html↩

777Ronald E. Heine, “The Role of the Gospel of John in the Montanist Controversy,” The Second Century 6 (Spring 1987-88), pp. 12-13.↩

778Translated by Bruce Metzger, in The Canon of the New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987), pp. 305-307. For a discussion of this manuscript, see pp. 191-201. This is translated from the latin in Ludovico Antonio Muratori, ed., Antiquitates Italicae Medii Aevi, v. 3 (ex typographia Societatis palatinæ, Mediolani, 1740). Reprinted in Bologna, 1965. The phrase, “very recently, in our own times” has recently been disputed by G. M. Hahneman, The Muratorian Fragment and the Development of the Canon (Oxford: Clarendon, 1992), 34–72. But for a response, see Charles E. Hill, “The Debate over the Muratorian Fragment and the Development of the Canon,” WTJ 57 (1995): 437–52.↩

779See discussion in Michael J. Kruger, Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New Testament Books (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2012), 282.↩

780Theophilus of Antioch, Pascal Letter 401 as translated by the Celtic Orthodox Church at http://www.celticorthodoxchurch.com/lectio2.html↩

781In Lake Kirsopp, “Preface,” in The Ecclesiastical History and 2: English Translation, ed. T. E. Page et al., trans. Kirsopp Lake and J. E. L. Oulton, vol. 1, The Loeb Classical Library (London; New York; Cambridge, MA: William Heinemann; G. P. Putnam’s Sons; Harvard University Press, 1926–1932), 473.↩

782I too do not number Hebrews with the Pauline epistles. I believe Luke wrote it. For an introduction to this subject, see David L. Allen, Lukan Authorship of Hebrews, (Nashville: B&H Publishing, 2010).↩

783Eusebius An Ecclesiastical History, Book VI, Chapter XX, paragraph 3 (Aeterna Press, 2016)↩

784Irenaeus of Lyons, “Irenæus against Heresies,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 531–532.↩

785Irenaeus of Lyons, “Irenæus against Heresies,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 559.↩

786Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, eds., The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885).↩

787“Now God shall be glorified in His handiwork, fitting it so as to be conformable to, and modelled after, His own Son. For by the hands of the Father, that is, by the Son and the Holy Spirit, man, and not [merely] a part of man, was made in the likeness of God. Now the soul and the spirit are certainly a part of the man, but certainly not the man; for the perfect man consists in the commingling and the union of the soul receiving the spirit of the Father, and the admixture of that fleshly nature which was moulded after the image of God. For this reason does the apostle declare, “We speak wisdom among them that are perfect,” terming those persons “perfect” who have received the Spirit of God, and who through the Spirit of God do speak in all languages, as he used Himself also to speak. In like manner we do also hear many brethren in the Church, who possess prophetic gifts, and who through the Spirit speak all kinds of languages, and bring to light for the general benefit the hidden things of men, and declare the mysteries of God, whom also the apostle terms “spiritual,” they being spiritual because they partake of the Spirit, and not because their flesh has been stripped off and taken away, and because they have become purely spiritual.

“For if any one take away the substance of flesh, that is, of the handiwork [of God], and understand that which is purely spiritual, such then would not be a spiritual man, but would be the spirit of a man, or the Spirit of God. But when the spirit here blended with the soul is united to [God’s] handiwork, the man is rendered spiritual and perfect because of the outpouring of the Spirit, and this is he who was made in the image and likeness of God. But if the Spirit be wanting to the soul, he who is such is indeed of an animal nature, and being left carnal, shall be an imperfect being, possessing indeed the image [of God] in his formation (in plasmate), but not receiving the similitude through the Spirit; and thus is this being imperfect.

“Thus also, if any one take away the image and set aside the handiwork, he cannot then understand this as being a man, but as either some part of a man, as I have already said, or as something else than a man. For that flesh which has been moulded is not a perfect man in itself, but the body of a man, and part of a man. Neither is the soul itself, considered apart by itself, the man; but it is the soul of a man, and part of a man. Neither is the spirit a man, for it is called the spirit, and not a man; but the commingling and union of all these constitutes the perfect man. And for this cause does the apostle, explaining himself, make it clear that the saved man is a complete man as well as a spiritual man; saying thus in the first Epistle to the Thessalonians, “Now the God of peace sanctify you perfect (perfectos); and may your spirit, and soul, and body be preserved whole without complaint to the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ.” Now what was his object in praying that these three—that is, soul, body, and spirit—might be preserved to the coming of the Lord, unless he was aware of the [future] reintegration and union of the three, and [that they should be heirs of] one and the same salvation? For this cause also he declares that those are “the perfect” who present unto the Lord the three [component parts] without offence.

“Those, then, are the perfect who have had the Spirit of God remaining in them, and have preserved their souls and bodies blameless, holding fast the faith of God, that is, that faith which is [directed] towards God, and maintaining righteous dealings with respect to their neighbours. 2. Whence also he says, that this handiwork is “the temple of God,” thus declaring: “Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man, therefore, will defile the temple of God, him will God destroy: for the temple of God is holy, which [temple] ye are.” Here he manifestly declares the body to be the temple in which the Spirit dwells. As also the Lord speaks in reference to Himself, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. He spake this, however,” it is said, “of the temple of His body. And not only does he (the apostle) acknowledge our bodies to be a temple, but even the temple of Christ, saying thus to the Corinthians, “Know ye not that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot?” He speaks these things, not in reference to some other spiritual man; for a being of such a nature could have nothing to do with an harlot: but he declares “our body,” that is, the flesh which continues in sanctity and purity, to be “the members of Christ;” but that when it becomes one with an harlot, it becomes the members of an harlot. And for this reason he said, “If any man defile the temple of God, him will God destroy.”

“How then is it not the utmost blasphemy to allege, that the temple of God, in which the Spirit of the Father dwells, and the members of Christ, do not partake of salvation, but are reduced to perdition? Also, that our bodies are raised not from their own substance, but by the power of God, he says to the Corinthians, “Now the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. But God hath both raised up the Lord, and shall raise us up by His own power.””

Irenaeus of Lyons, “Irenæus against Heresies,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 531–532.↩

788J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines (Harper: San Francisco, 1960), p. 39↩

789Irenaeus of Lyons, “Irenæus against Heresies,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 326.↩

790Against Heresies II.28.8; I.8.1.↩

791R.P.C. Hanson, Tradition in the Early Church (Westminster: Philadelphia, 1962), pp. 109, 119.↩

792Irenaeus of Lyons, “Irenæus against Heresies,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 428.↩

793Origen, Tractates in Matthew, 26, in Charles Elliott, Dilineation of Roman Catholicism (New York: George Lane, 1841), volume 1, p. 120.↩

794Origen, “Origen’s Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew,” in The Gospel of Peter, the Diatessaron of Tatian, the Apocalypse of Peter, the Visio Pauli, the Apocalypses of the Virgil and Sedrach, the Testament of Abraham, the Acts of Xanthippe and Polyxena, the Narrative of Zosimus, the Apology of Aristides, the Epistles of Clement (Complete Text), Origen’s Commentary on John, Books I-X, and Commentary on Matthew, Books I, II, and X-XIV, ed. Allan Menzies, trans. John Patrick, vol. 9, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1897), 420.↩

795Anagog. Contemp. in Hexem. lib 8 init. As quoted by John Henry Newman, The Via Media of the Anglican Church, vol. 1, (London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1895), p. 319.↩

796Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum (Vindobonae: C. Geroldi filium, (1866-1913), 49, p. 90.↩

797Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, eds., Eusebius: Church History, Life of Constantine the Great, and Oration in Praise of Constantine, vol. 1, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1890).↩

798Athanasius of Alexandria, “On the Incarnation of the Word,” in St. Athanasius: Select Works and Letters, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. Archibald T. Robertson, vol. 4, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1892), 57–58.↩

799Basil of Caesarea, Saint Basil: Ascetical Works, ed. Roy Joseph Deferrari, trans. M. Monica Wagner, vol. 9, The Fathers of the Church (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1962), 203–204.↩

80048.3.4 Text can be found at https://archive.org/stream/EpiphaniusPanarionBksIIIII1/Epiphanius%20-%20_Panarion_%20-%20Bks%20II%20&%20III%20-%201_djvu.txt↩

801Ibid., 48.10.1-2.↩

802John Chrysostom, The Homilies of S. John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople, on the First Epistle of St. Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians, A Library of Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford; London: John Henry Parker; J. G. F. and J. Rivington, 1839), 395.↩

803Augustine of Hippo, “The City of God,” in St. Augustin’s City of God and Christian Doctrine, ed. Philip Schaff, trans. Marcus Dods, vol. 2, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1887), 390.↩

804Augustine of Hippo, “On the Trinity,” in St. Augustin: On the Holy Trinity, Doctrinal Treatises, Moral Treatises, ed. Philip Schaff, trans. Arthur West Haddan, vol. 3, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1887), 218.↩

805Augustine of Hippo, “On the Catechising of the Uninstructed,” in St. Augustin: On the Holy Trinity, Doctrinal Treatises, Moral Treatises, ed. Philip Schaff, trans. S. D. F. Salmond, vol. 3, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1887), 309.↩

806John Cassian, “The Seven Books of John Cassian on the Incarnation of the Lord, against Nestorius,” in Sulpitius Severus, Vincent of Lérins, John Cassian, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. Edgar C. S. Gibson, vol. 11, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1894), 592.↩

807Glaphyrorum In Genesim, Lib. II, PG 69:53. Translation by William Goode, Vol. 3, op cit., p. 181.↩

808Ad Reginas De Recta Fide Oratio Altera in Goode, Ibid, p. 337.↩

809De Sacrosancta Trinitate Cap 1 in Goode, Ibid., pp. 337-338.↩

810Doctrinal questions and answers #2 in Cyril of Alexandria, Select Letters Edited and Translated by Lionel R. Wickham (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983). Also available for free here: https://vdocuments.mx/select-letters-oxford-early-christian-texts.html↩

811Glaphyra on Genesis, as translated by Yves Congar, Tradition and Traditions: An Historical and Theological Essay, (California: Burns & Oates, 1966), pp. 111-112.↩

812Vincent of Lérins, “The Commonitory of Vincent of Lérins,” in Sulpitius Severus, Vincent of Lérins, John Cassian, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. C. A. Heurtley, vol. 11, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1894), 132.↩

813Anagog. Contemp. in Hexem. lib 8 init. As quoted by John Henry Newman, The Via Media of the Anglican Church, vol. 1, (London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1895), 319.↩

814For example, Ronald A. N. Kydd, Charismatic Gifts in the Early Church::, (Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendriksen Publishers, 1984, 2014); Stanley M. Burgess, The Holy Spirit: Medieval Roman Catholic and Reformation Traditions::, (Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendriksen Publishers, 1997).↩

815A.C. Sundberg, “The Biblical Canon and the Christian Doctrine of Inspiration,” Int 29 (1975): 352–371.↩

816Lee Martin McDonald, The Formation of the Biblical Canon, two volumes:: (T&T Clark, 2017).↩

817“For you will give us great joy and gladness if you obey what we have written through the Holy Spirit and root out the unlawful anger of your jealousy, in accordance with the appeal for peace and harmony that we have made in this letter” (1 Clement 63:2).↩

818Clement of Rome, “The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 17.↩

819For a later third to early fourth century dating, see Neil Godfrey’s discussion at http://vridar.org/2013/11/13/the-late-invention-of-polycarps-martyrdom/. For a late third century dating, see Peter Kirby’s discussion at http://peterkirby.com/martyrdom-polycarp-third-century.html.↩

820Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, eds., “The Encyclical Epistle of the Church at Smyrna,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 40.↩

821Quoted by Eusebius. See Lake Kirsopp, “Preface,” in The Ecclesiastical History and 2: English Translation, ed. T. E. Page et al., trans. Kirsopp Lake and J. E. L. Oulton, vol. 1, The Loeb Classical Library (London; New York; Cambridge, MA: William Heinemann; G. P. Putnam’s Sons; Harvard University Press, 1926–1932), 383.↩

822Garnet Howard Milne, The Westminster Confession of Faith and the Cessation of Special Revelation with foreward by Joel Beeke. (Waynesboro, GA: Paternoster, 2007).↩

823Though I acknowledge that Rutherford and others used the term “prophecy” to describe experiences that I and others have had of the Spirit’s guidance, I believe it is an unbiblical use of the term “prophecy.” This book argues exegetically that all prophecy of any sort has ceased. This does not deny the reality of rather remarkable guidance that the Holy Spirit may have given to some charismatics, but it is a denial that they should use the term “prophecy” to describe it. I would refer readers to the earlier pages of this book to see the case for the cessation of prophecy and apostleship. Nevertheless, I present the material in this chapter because it parallels the same variety of beliefs that one sees in the early church. The Confession and the early church did not deny that the Holy Spirit can bring “inward illumination” (WCF I.6) by which He is “bearing witness by and with the Word of God in our hearts” (WCF I.5), or that their might exist personal guidance (see “private spirits” in I.10), or that God can use means or be “free to work without, above, and against them, at His pleasure” (WCF V.3). However, they insisted that the Bible alone is authoritative, “unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether be new revelations of the Spirit or traditions of men” (WCF I.6), and that the authoritative revelation given to prophets “at sundry times, and in diverse manners” in Biblical days was committed “wholly unto writing” and “those former ways of God’s revealing His will unto his people being now ceased” (WCF 1.1.). The Confession is thus the catholic doctrine, and the new revelations that Rome and Eastern Orthodoxy claim to be authoritative are an abandonment of the catholic faith. The quotations from church fathers in chapter 10 shows that (whatever differences of terminology that may be present) the catholic church sides with Protestantism and disagrees with the modern Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches.↩

824Garnet Howard Milne, The Westminster Confession of Faith and the Cessation of Special Revelation: The Majority Puritan Viewpoint on Whether Extra-biblical Prophecy is Still Possible (Waynesboro, GA: Paternoster, 2007), pp. 113-114.↩

825Milne, p. 117.↩

826Milne, p. 145. See also p. 128.↩

827For one example, see Milne, p. 200.↩

828Milne, pp. 196-197.↩

829William Strong would be one example, stating that “the gifts did cease with the office,” yet able to affirm at the same time that Luther and others had predictive prophetic abilities that were something quite different from the extraordinary offices. See Milne, p. 198. Milne says, “This was further evidence that Westminster divines accepted the validity of predictive prophecy which fell outside the definition of prophecy by immediate revelation. The latter was a New Testament miraculous gift which had now ceased and yet a gift that effectively fulfilled a similar function continued” (Milne, pp. 198-199).↩

830As cited from the Minutes of the Sessions of the Assembly of Divines, from August 4^th, 1643, to March 25^th, 1652”, in Milne, p. 193.↩

831Milne, p. 189. Milne points out that this viewpoint is very similar to that articulated by Vern Poythress.↩

832Milne, p. 50,154.↩

833Milne cites Lightfoot’s Journal to demonstrate this. See Milne, p. 190.↩

834Milne, p. 216.↩

835Milne, pp. 50ff.)↩

836Milne comments on these commissioners saying, “A detailed analysis of the writings of the Westminster divines reveals that these churchmen possessed both a strong desire to maintain the unity of Word and Spirit and a concern to safeguard the freedom of the Holy Spirit to speak to particular circumstances through the language and principles of Scripture. God still enabled predictive prophecy and spoke to individuals in extraordinary ways, but contemporary prophecy was held to be something distinct from the extraordinary prophecy of New Testament figures” (Milne, p. xvi). He says, “Even George Gillespie, who argues for the continuation of a form of extraordinary prophecy, avoids using this text [Acts 2] to sanction it, for he understands Acts 2:17-18 to be a record of the fulfillment of Joel 2:28 on the day of Pentecost. Gillespie distinguishes between the prophesying referred to in these texts and ‘[e]xtraordinary prophesying from immediate and miraculous inspiration’, thus departing somewhat from the standard exegesis” (Milne, p. 137). See pages 160-166, 224-247 for an in depth discussion.↩

837Cited in Milne, p. 191.↩

838Transcribed Minutes, vol. 1, f. 190, pp 373-374. See Milne, p. 194.↩

839Milne, p. 180.↩

840Milne, p. 184.↩

841See Milne, p 185, for a more detailed description of how Spurstowe uses faculty psychology to explain how these suggestions of angels move into the imagination of man and are received.↩

842As cited in Milne, p 186 in text, and in footnote 47.↩

843John Maynard, the Beauty and Order of the Creation (London: Henry Eversden, 1668), pp. 208,209), as cited in the text of Milne, p 185, and in footnote 46, p. 185.↩

844See Milne, p. 198.↩

845The context of the quote from William Strong is, “[F]or the Churches’ sake they have many discoveries made to them; that they might also teach them to us; they receive a spirit of Prophecy from Christ for the Churches’ sake, Rev. 19:10. the god of this world blinds the eyes of men, and the Angels that are imployed by the Spirit of God do inlighten them” (William Strong, A Discourse of the Two Covenants: Wherein the Nature, Differences and Effects of the Covenant of Works and of Grace are Distinctly, Rationally, Spiritually and Practically Discussed (London: Francis Tyton, 1678), p. 401, as cited by Milne, p. 184).↩

846Milne, p. 187.↩

847Though William Carter could speak of “Those wayes of speaking now are ceased since God hath spoken to us by His Sonne,” (see citation in Milne, p. 130), yet he did not want to absolutely close to the door to God’s freedom to use dreams (p. 148).↩

848Milne, p. 156-157.↩

849Milne, p. 157.↩

850Milne, p. 149.↩

851Milne, pp. 152-153.↩

852Milne, p. 149. See pages 149-153 for how Johnston squared this belief with his rejection of immediate revelation and his embracing of mediate revelation.↩

853Milne, p. 153.↩

854Milne, p. 160.↩

855Milne, p. 161. It should be noted that what many Puritans meant by astrology was different from classical astrology. Nevertheless, notions of “cosmic sympathy” did allow astrology in the back door.↩

856Cited in Milne, p. 161.↩

857For example, Bridges says, “Nay, says Luther, but there is such a sufficiency in the Scripture, that though some men should have visions, dreams and voices; yet the Scripture is so full, that nec curo, nec desidero, I neither care for nor desire them.” The Works of William Bridge, vol. 1, pp. 422-423, as cited by Milne, p. 164.↩

858Transcribed Minutes, vol. 1, f190, pp 373-374. See Milne, p. 194.↩

859Milne, p. 147.↩

860Milne, p. 147.↩

861Milne, p. 182. Also, see discussions on pages 61,92,93,94,108,143,199,203,287.↩

862Milne, p. 182.↩

863Milne, p. 151.↩

864Milne, p. 195.↩

865Cited in Milne, p. 193.↩

866Milne, p. 241.↩

867Milne, p. 242.↩

868For example, contemporary scholar Robert Fleming (1630-94) accepted angelic visitations, the revelation of secrets through dreams, and healing miracles, yet he also made clear statements in the same book that apostolic miracles had ceased. Milne says, “It is very difficult to reconcile Fleming’s appeal to the miraculous on the one hand and his Cessationist stance on the other” (p. 252).↩

869Joseph B. Flatt, Jr., David Curtis, William Bell, Sam Frost, Don Preston, and Ed Stevens would be among those who deny the presence or need for any gifts of the Holy Spirit, whether ordinary or extraordinary.↩

870B.B. Warfield, J. Gresham Machen, and Francis Nigel Lee seem to argue this position.↩

871John MacArthur and Richard Gaffin have argued for what is becoming known as “classical Cessationism.” This does not necessarily rule out miracles, but it does rule out apostleship and signs of an apostle (which they would see as including prophecy, tongues, gift of healing, and the gift of miracles).↩

872Vern Poythress has argued this position.↩

873Daniel Wallace says, “This is what I would call concentric Cessationism, as opposed to linear Cessationism. That is, rather than taking a chronologically linear approach, this kind of Cessationism affirms that as the gospel moves, like the rippling effect of a stone dropping into a pond, in a space-time expanding circle away from first century Jerusalem, the sign gifts will still exist on the cutting edge of that circle. Thus, for example, in third world countries at the time when the gospel is first proclaimed, the sign gifts would be present. This view, then, would allow for these gifts to exist on the frontiers of Christianity, but would be more skeptical of them in the ‘worked over’ areas.”↩

874Greg Barrow argues for something akin to this and claims that this was the Scottish view. Greg Barrow, “A Reformation Discussion of Extraordinary Predictive Prophecy Subsequent to the Closing of the Canon of Scripture,” Prepared for the Session of the Puritan Reformed Church of Edmonton, 1998. Available here http://www.reformedpresbytery.org/books/prophecy/prophecy.pdf↩

875This seems to be the conclusion of Wayne Grudem. Though he labels himself a Continuationist, and indeed is, he is still a Cessationist on the kind of prophets found in the Old Testament and on the office of Apostle. He claims that Old Testament prophecy was equivalent in authority to New Testament apostles, but that New Testament prophecy was of a lower level of revelation, and not inerrant.↩

876Phillip Kayser, Esther Series sermons, https://biblicalblueprints.com/list/series/Esther.↩

877Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset, and David Brown, Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible, vol. 1 (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997), 414–415.↩

878John MacArthur, “The Rape of Solomon’s Song, Part 3,” https://www.gty.org/library/articles/A398/the-rape-of-solomons-song-part-3.↩

879Robert E. Fugate, Ph.D., The Bible: God’s Word to You; A Presuppositional Guide to the Reformed Doctrine of Scripture (Omaha: Lord of the Nations LLC, 2012), 577-578.↩