THE HOLY SCRIPTURE
2004
LESSON NINE
I. The Witness of History for Scripture (p. 330 et. seq.)
(Homologoumena and Antilegomena)
1. We have Scripture’s own testimony.
2. Also have ample historical testimony.
a. For Old Testament.
(1) Have the testimony of the Jewish Church.
(2) And of Christ and His Apostles.
(3) If the Jews had erred, Christ would not have so unconditionally pointed to the Scriptures in their hands.
(a) Lk 16:29.
(b) Lk 24:44.
(c) Jn 5:39.
(d) Jn 10:35
b. For the Apocrypha of Old Testament
(1) No historical witness.
(2) Neither Jewish Church nor Christ recognized them as canonical. (“canon” from Greek “kanon”: a rule, or a measuring rod) (per Philip W. Comfort, Ph.D).
c. For New Testament, we have the historical witness of the Early Church.
1. Historical witness is unanimous as to:
a. The Four Gospels.
b. Acts.
c. The 13 Epistles of Paul.
d. The First Epistle of John.
e. The First Epistle of Peter.
f. “The homologoumena”.
2. But doubts re: canoncity of “the antilegomena” were entertained, more or less strongly expressed.
a. Hebrews.
b. The Second Epistle of Peter.
c. The Second and Third Epistles of John.
d. James.
e. Jude.
f. Revelation.
3. Eusebius in his Church History.
a. Lists the homologoumena and the antilegomena.
b. Early Church differentiated between them.
c. Luther appealed to Eusebius re: “different reputation” of:
(1) Hebrews.
(2) James.
(3) Jude.
(4) Revelation.
d. Luther was willing to let the early doubt remain.
4. Missouri Synod.
a. “Fathers” recognized the distinction between “h.” and “a.”.
b. Left it to the individuals to form his own views re: the “a.”.
c. They were divided among themselves as to their opinion.
d. Walther called:
(1) The homologoumena: universally accepted books.
(2) The antilegomena: disputed books.
e. Walther said summary decrees of Papists and Reformed are little testimony on the issue.
f. Walther also said the discussion can only serve to arouse Christians to a serious investigation, and thus to deepen and strengthen their knowledge and faith.
g. Chemnitz (in his Examen Concilii Tridentini).
(1) Attacked the Papal decrees on this.
(2) Recognized the Early Church’s distinction.
(a) Re: Old Testament Apocrypha.
(b) And the New Testament antilegomena.
(3) Reasons for the doubt:
(a) Insufficiently certain, firm and consistent testimonies among the ancients.
(b) Did not appear certain from testimony of ancients whether books written by those named, but has been judged to be issued by others in the name of the Apostles.
(c) Some were attributed to Apostles by some ancients while others were disputed by some ancients; therefore doubts.
(4) But do not simply reject and condemn the “a.”.
(a) To be read in the Church for the edification of the people.
(b) But not to prove the dogmas of the Church.
(c) What is said in these books must be explained and understood according to the analogy of what is clearly set down in the canonical books of the “h.”.
II. Does this distinction have any “sweeping dogmatical significance”?
A. We answer: “No”.
1. We observe the distinction.
2. But, we also are convinced the “a.”, even when taken by themselves, neither:
a. Contain false doctrine,
b. nor, contain doctrine which goes beyond doctrine contained in the “h.”.
c. e.g.:
(1) James: is misused to support “works-righteousness” when it speaking of evidencing our faith to men.
(2) Revelation: does not contain an inkling of that chiliasm which disturb the church.
B. It has been correctly pointed out that the Gospel of Matthew contains the entire Christian doctrine.
1. For years, missionaries got along with a translation of only it.
2. Contains all doctrines confessed in Book of Concord of 1580.
3. But, we do thank God for the fuller exposition given in the remaining books of New Testament.
4. Php 3:1.
Copyright © 2005 CrossTies Counseling
Ministries, Inc.
All Rights Reserved
