Are these authentic? Are they the only books which are authoritative? How come we have four books all telling the life of Christ?

We are accustomed to quote the books of the Bible as finale authority on pertinent questions, -- but by what authority did the books come to be in the Bible – this one sacred collection of works which is known as "the Book"?

Canon = rule or standard of measurement. As applied to the Bible: "The collection or list of books which are received as genuine and inspired holy Scriptures, called the sacred canon, that is, the general rule of moral and religious duty; the canonical books."

McGarvy’s Evidences of Christianity (p. 59-177) give voluminous evidence from early catalogues, early Christian writers, and councils on the canon of the Gospels.

McGarvy was fighting the attack upon CERTAIN books – the denial that they were originally in the canon. Since then the fight has shifted. Now the infamous ‘they’ have decided that in the beginning NONE of the books were considered inspired and that no canon existed UNTIL late in the 2^nd century.

Actually there are two parallel modern theories that both demand a long development time. First, there is the idea that the gospels ‘developed’ from source materials. Second, there is the concept of a a long development of the attitude of the church towards the gospels until FINALLY the ‘church’ concluded they were inspired and canonized them. These theories both fall shipwreck upon the rocks when it is observed that the dates for these gospels is commonly held to be pre AD70 (for the synoptics). This leaves less than forty years for the ‘gradual’ development of the gospels from various sources and, having been developed, for them to be recognized by Christians (the church) as inspired and authoritative in their lives.

Which came first – scripture or the church? Part of the problem would seem to be the concept of ‘scripture’. Scripture is the written word of those who were inspired. The inspiration came FIRST – it was upon the teachings of these inspired men that the church came into existence. It is through THEIR word that we believe. It is the APOSTLES TEACHING that started and nourished the church. Both the church and the scriptures were brought about by the Holy Spirit. The NT was "written to form and correct the faith of the church".

The various ‘books’ (letters / epistles) were accepted as the miraculously inspired Word of God immediately when they were received from the hands of the apostles and leaders whom the early Christians knew to be inspired.

Corinth, begun by Paul because they perceived that he was an inspired spokesman for God – an apostles of God – one sent by God with a message from / of God. In both letters Paul spends time affirming his apostleship – which was then taken to mean that they should continue to hear him. Hence – ‘the things I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord’.

The church in Ephesus also had in its beginnings an association with the apostle Paul. They perceived, as did the Corinthians, that he was ‘sent from God’ and that his message was inspired. Thus, when they received a letter from him, it was so that they ‘could understand his insight into the mystery of God’. Their reading a letter from him would have been received in the same light and with the same weight as if he were there in person. Why would they accept his spoken word as inspired – but then receive a letter from him as if it were of no more weight than of any other common book?

Or, with the Thessalonians Paul could write that they received the ‘word of God’ when they received his teaching. Would they have differentiated between that which he spoke to them and that which he wrote to them? Why would they have considered one to be inspired and authoritative in their lives while holding the other to be just ‘a common writing’? No, they received his TEACHING (both written and spoken) as the word of God – as inspired of God and authoritative in their lives.

The same can be shown concerning the Galatians. They HAD received him – they had accepted his teaching about Christ and begun following it. They HAD begun well – but now were being ‘hindered from obeying the truth’. What truth?? The REVEALED truth that they had received from him. To quit obeying what he had taught them orally would be disobedience. To not obey what he was teaching them in his written word would also be disobedience. If not – why not?

Such would be the case in all their writings! "The part which the church played in the formation of the canon was twofold:

1. the immediate acceptance by the church or churches or individual Christians of a book as the authentic work of an inspired writer;
2. the gradual transmission through the testimony of this fact to the other churches and individuals which as yet knew nothing concerning this inspired book since it had been received by one section of the church.

Thus, when the churches of Philippi or Ephesus learned of the letters to the other churches – they would as readily be received as the letters written directly to them for they acknowledge the writer. It might be readily then argued that the ‘canon grew by immediate acceptance and gradual transmission’. As these churches learned about the other writings it would be a question of ‘did the original recipient receive it from an inspired writer’? If so, then they would also received the letter. In this manner the letters were received and then spread to all the congregations.

The other concept concerning the canon has the idea that these letters were all received as ‘common books’ with little or no divine authority. After they had been collected (along with other uninspired books) – the ‘church’ came together in a ‘council’ and then ‘decided’ (voted on) whether or not these were to be considered inspired.

Example of Tertullian

Living from a.d. 160-240, he wrote against the ‘heretic Marcion. Marcion rejected Matthew, Mark, and John, and freely changed Luke. Tertullian writes concerning these as inspired books – books that were indeed to be accepted as authoritative for Christians. His answer is to point out that these books were in fact received from ‘the very beginning’..’from the apostles’ and had been held as sacred Scripture by those that received them (and the other churches which verified such authorship).

He then make reference to the writings of Paul, Peter, and John. In writing about the gospel of Luke he states: "The same authority of the apostolic churches will afford evidence to the other Gospels also". (Against Marcion, v. 186, 187). The concept, as viewed by Tertullian, was simple – go to the various churches which originally received the autograph copies from the hands of the inspired writers as the proof of their canonicity.

Yes, Tertullian was fighting the heretics that would dismember the NT – who would deny the authority and inspiration of the writings. But he does NOT seek to form a sacred canon in order to combat these heresies. He calmly points out that the canon has already been in existence from the very days of the apostles and their inspired companions who had first given the sacred documents, and that in the case of each of the New Testament writings their canonicity may be confirmed by conferring with the churches which originally were established or taught by the apostles and received these sacred documents from their hands."

Again, this can be seen the writings of Clement of Rome in his Epistle to the church in Corinth, A.D. 96.

1. Paul’s letters were treasured in the church by the close of the first century.
2. They were read in the public service – were written to the whole ‘church’.
3. They were held written under the direct guidance of the Holy Spirit – (inspired) - by the church in Rome also!