Where Does the Bible End? Part 2

Selected Scriptures

     This morning we're going to be continuing our series.  We began last Lord's Day discussing the current charismatic movement.  I've been interested in the response the last couple of weeks to our discussion relative to the 13th chapter of 1 Corinthians, and then to our message on the last Lord's Day, and I'm very encouraged.  I...I realize that perhaps there would be some people who would not understand our motive and might take issue with us; but that's been very, very minimal; and, on the other hand, there's been much encouragement of folk who are saying that, "We did not understand this, and we're so very grateful for a Biblical look at some of these issues."  So I'm grateful to the Lord for the direction of the elders; and it was, in fact, the elders who unanimously agreed that this should be done; and so we're responding to that, and you're responding to this, and that's good.

     Now, we said last time that we felt it was important to discuss what's wrong in the charismatic movement.  In any given period in church history, there are always those things that seem to be movements on the scene.  Any...any person who is just even a superficial student of church history realizes that, in the flow of the church, there are various and sundry tangents and aberrations and movements that occur; and these can be rather easily charted through the history of the church; but never has there been, in the history of the church, any one single movement that is a tangent biblically, that has had the impact or the devastation that this one has had on the evangelical church.

     This is a tremendously powerful thing.  It carries tremendous weight because of the media of our world currently in the 20th century making the transportation of these ideas so...so easy, and, in fact, so inescapable from the average person.  So it's a very, very dominating thing; and we all know that the charismatic movement, as such, is sweeping the globe.  If you think it's only in America, you're wrong.  It's all over the world.  It's in South America.  It's in the Orient.  It's everywhere where the church exists that this movement is running at a rapid pace.  From 1900, when it began, the Pentecostal movement, as it was defined in the early years, has grown since 1900 outside of the mainstream of evangelical Christianity.  All of the Pentecostal movement, as it was then known, belonged within some denominational lines other than the main line evangelical denominations; but it was in 1960 that a new day was heralded; and the Pentecostal movement broke into mainline denominationalism; and with a beginning here in the Episcopal Church in Van Nuys, the denominational line was cracked and, as John Sherrill says in his book, They Speak With Other Tongues, "The walls came tumbling down."  And into mainline denominationalism, Episcopalian, Methodist, Presbyterian, and Baptist, Lutheran, and so forth, came this movement; and, now, it no longer is really called the Pentecostal movement by the most modern of its proponents, but rather is called the neo-Pentecostal movement, or the charismatic movement; and you can tell the difference.  A charismatic, technically, is somebody after 1960.  A Pentecostal is somebody before 1960.  Or a charismatic is somebody who has had this experience in a mainline denomination or a mainline evangelical church or a Catholic church.  Whereas a Pentecostal is somebody who's attached to the Assembly of God or the Foursquare or the United Pentecostal or some other Pentecostal denomination. 

     But now it's gone right through the entire picture of Christianity.  It's no longer a separate denomination, but an experience that transcends all lines; and there is, in this movement, a certain commonness that is based, not upon theology, because, as we pointed out last week, there isn't any theology, basically; but there...there is a commonness based upon an experience.  For example, there are some churches that would be known as charismatic churches where the only requirement, basically, to be a staff member is to have had the common experience.  There are some colleges where...and seminaries, where the only requirement to be a faculty member is to have had the common experience.  Theology is not a criteria; and so this is happening all around us where there is a common experience creating a network of charismatic people; and some are calling it the greatest revival in the history of the church; and we would be like the ostrich with its head in the sand if we just went around the issue.  We really have to talk about it, especially in the light of our study of 1 Corinthians when we come to chapter 12 to 14, and that's what we're doing.

     Now, I wanna be the first to say that wherever the Gospel is preached, some people will be saved; and, for the most part, people in the charismatic movement love the Lord Jesus Christ and believe salvation by grace through faith, and they proclaim that, and people are saved, and I thank God for that.  I know God could use people who are less than perfect, because He uses me, and He uses you; and so we're all in the same boat.  I'm only trying to point out not that these people are hopelessly, uselessy...uselessly foisted upon the body of Christ, but simply that they are in error at one point; and all of us may find ourselves with equally problematic Achilles heels and should deal with them as such.

     We're only trying to point out where the error lies, and that's why we've been entitled it "What's Wrong in the Charismatic Movement?"  Not that everything in it is wrong, for it's not wrong to lift up Jesus Christ.  It's not wrong to believe in the Bible, as they say they do, although how they work that out sometimes is a little less than we would hope; and so we are thankful to God that, by His grace and the true preaching of salvation in the Lord Jesus Christ, people are being saved; and I think maybe there are some Christians who are coming to the place of recognizing a certain new reality in Christ and making some commitments that maybe they had never made before; but in spite of the good that is done, in spite of the thing that seems to be so positive, there is some glaring error in the movement, and the error is running at an unchecked rate; and it is resulting in some very confused Christians and some very intimidated saints and some churches that are being fractured. 

     Now, the problems, as we've begun to look at them, are serious enough that we feel we have to deal with them in some detail.  I think I mentioned to you last time that we'll be looking at about 20 of these problems, but this first problem is so basic, that we're spending a couple of weeks just laying it out, because it's this one that I feel is the crux of the issue; and, as far as I can tell in all the books that I've read, it's never been dealt with; and that is the issue of revelation. 

     The first problem that we noted for you last time in the charismatic movement is the question of do they accept the absolute authority of the Biblical revelation.  This completed Word of God, once for all delivered to the saints; but, beyond that, all of the other things also must be brought to the light of the Word of God, and that's why we have to establish the authority of this Book in the beginning.  The charismatic hysteria, as it seems to be running rampantly across the world, needs to stop and examine the Word of God and not just run on in an unchecked fashion, because the Scripture is the test of everything. 

     Now, if the Scripture is the test of everything, then that assumes something basic; and that is that the Word of God is believed to be the standard; and that's what we're trying to lay out clearly and carefully.  We're convinced, as we saw last week, that God has given us the completed canon.  From the Greek word "canon" which means rule or standard.  It originally came from a root word that had to do with a reed; and this reed was used to measure things; and it became common to call anything that was a measuring rod a canon.  The standard, then, of the Word of God is right here.  This is the canon, the measuring rod.

     Now, we believe that it has been established.  That God has completed it.  That the Bible is finished.  That Scripture is done.  That that's His revelation, and there isn't any more.  It is complete.  It is efficient.  It is sufficient.  It is inerrant.  It is infallible.  It is authoritative, and it is binding, and it is determinative in evaluating any other thing.  When we have the Bible, we have the Old Testament written by the prophets.  We have the New Testament written by the apostles, and those closely associated with them; and the Bible makes claims for itself that that is its completeness...

     Now, I hasten to add that all throughout the history, even of the writing of the Bible, there have been spurious books offered as if they were Scripture...In fact, if you have been in the Catholic church, you know that in the middle of the Catholic Bible is a section of books called the Apocrypha.  The Apocrypha claims to be Scripture.  It is very clear that it was not Scripture.  It has errors in it, historic errors, geographical errors, theological errors.  It does not claim and does...nor does it support, nor is it at all apostolic in its authorship.  It doesn't belong to the New Testament era.  It doesn't belong to the Old Testament era, because it is not written by the prophets and those recognized as the messengers of God. 

     Only the Roman Catholic church has accepted the Apocrypha as that which is belonging to the Scripture.  The church itself had not done that, never did that in its history until such an adaptation by the Roman church, because it is so very clear of the difference.  The distinction is so obvious.  During the writing of the New Testament, there were many books that were supposedly foisted upon the church.  Now all different kinds:  the Gospel according to Peter and on and on.  The Coptic legends and many, many false books; but the church never had any stumbling block, never had any problem, never had any decision to make.  It was so very apparent what was inspired of God and what was not...

     Now, the Old Testament canon closed about 400 BC, about 400 years before Christ.  The people knew clearly which books were inspired by God.  That was easy, because, in the first place, they claimed to be inspired by God, and so those were the ones they looked at; and, as they looked at the ones that claimed to be inspired by God, they found there were no errors in them.  They found that they fit history, and they fit theology, and they fit geography, and they fit everything that they knew to be that which was determinative; and so it was known to everybody what the Old Testament canon was.  The other books were rejected, and Jewish tradition says that the great synagogue, the school of the scribes that was founded by Ezra, finally put the canon together; and, incidentally, history since has verified it.  There are no books that can stand up to the quality of Scripture.  None.

     They were right, and, even when we find other books of ancient character, we know that they can't stand equal to Scripture.  The New Testament was the same.  Very clearly they knew what were the books that were to be accepted as the New Testament.  Now lemme give you the tests that the New Testament church used to determine that.  No. 1, they would evaluate a book on the basis of its apostolic authorship.  The New Testament books had to be written by an apostle or a close associate of the apostles.  For example, in the case of Mark, who was not an apostle, his source was Peter, closely working with him.  Luke, who was not an apostle was very close, not only to the Lord, but was very close to the great Apostle Paul, who was an apostle. 

     The New Testament books written by apostles or associates of the apostles.  Now, Jesus Himself makes this clear in a couple of passages that I would point to you - John 14:26 being the first, says this - and here the Lord is in the upper room the night before His betrayal and the night of His betrayal and before His crucifixion.  It says this, "But the Comforter...the karaklaytas, the one called alongside to help, the divine advocate, the Holy Spirit...who is the Holy Spirit whom the Father will send in My name.  He shall teach you all things and bring all things to your remembrance, whatever I have said unto you."

     Now, primarily, people, and you have to understand that.  That verse is not written to all Christians.  That is a statement of Jesus given to the people who will be the writers of the New Testament, and He is saying to them, watch it again, "He will teach you all things and bring all things to your remembrance, whatever I have said unto you."  How do you think those men who wrote the Gospels could recall all those incidents and all those conversations that Jesus had, and give us an authoritative, infallible, inerrant set of four Gospels.  Only one way, and that is because the work of the Holy Spirit fulfilled the promise of Jesus in John 14:26.  They had the divine agency of the Spirit of God giving them remembrance; and the same is true of the Apostle Paul who again and again is quoting Jesus as he writes his epistles.  We saw it even in the 7th chapter of 1 Corinthians, and because of the Spirit's ministry, he had absolute and total accurate recall. 

     Look at the 16th of John and the 13th verse; and, again, it is the same thing said to the same special group of men.  "Nevertheless, when He, the Spirit of Truth is come, He will guide you into all truth."  Now, there again is the indication of the Lord that they who were writing the New Testament would write it without error.  "He will guide you into all truth.  He will not speak of Himself, whatever He shall hear, that shall He speak; and He will show you things to come.  He'll glorify Me, for he shall receive of Mine, and show it to you."  In other words, God will give the Holy Spirit.  The Holy Spirit will give the writer, and what is written will be the divine Word of God.  ...So it is then that the apostles are the Bible writers.  Jesus said that when He commissioned them in these two Scriptures.  That is reaffirmed incidentally in 2 Peter chapter 3 and verse 2; and this is what Peter says, beginning in verse 1, "This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you, in both of which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance."  Then he says this, 2 Peter 3:2, "That you may be mindful...now watch...of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets."...

     Now, I take that as an indication of the Old Testament.  "Spoken before by the holy prophets," the writers of the Old Testament.  "And of the commandments of us, the apostles of the Lord Jesus, for the Lord and Savior."  Now notice, here Peter categorizes two sets of Bible writers:  the holy prophets, Old Testament; the apostles of the Lord and Savior, New Testament.  So you can see that what Jesus said in John is confirmed by Peter - that New Testament authorship was related to the apostles, either by the direct writing of the apostle or by one who was closely associated with and working alongside an apostle...and so we see that there was very clear indication as to the fact that when the apostles ceased, so did the writing of Scripture; and that's what it means in Ephesians 2:20 when it says, "The church is built upon the foundation of the apostles and the prophets."  They were foundational.  They don't keep on going.  We've said this before.  When you build a building, you just put a foundation down once.  You don't keep putting the foundation all the way up to the 20th story.  You put it once, and you build from there.  Once there were apostles and prophets.  Once they wrote.  Once it was delivered to the saints, and the Scripture was then complete. 

     Now, there are many examples of New Testament writers referring to each other as having the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in writing God's Word.  Lemme show you what I mean.  Look at 1 Timothy 5:18.  There was a...there was a comradery among these writers in the New Testament.  There was a unity.  There was a oneness.  There was a sensitiveness to the fact that they were doing something that had never been done and would never be repeated.  There was a uniqueness, but I think it most interesting...where you read in 1 Timothy 5:18 these words.  Now watch.  "For the Scripture said...the Scripture said."  Now watch.  "Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treads out the grain."  Now that Scripture is from Deuteronomy 25:4.  Now watch - 25:4, don't look it up.  Says the same thing.  It means pay the preacher.  Sometime I'll preach on that.  "For the Scripture says, 'Thou shalt not muzzle the ox while he treads out the grain,' and...notice here's another Scripture...'The laborer is worthy of his reward.'"  You know what that's a quote from?  Listen to this one, Luke 10:7.

     You say, "What's so significant about that?"  What's significant is that Paul is claiming equal right to Scripture for Luke as he is for Moses who wrote Deuteronomy, see.  That's one New Testament writer authenticating the other New Testament writer at the point of calling it Scripture.  It is just as much Scripture when Luke writes as it is when Moses writes, and so the New Testament is authenticating itself.  Here is Paul authenticating Luke; and if Luke is authentic, then Luke is authentic and Acts are authentic, right?  'Cause he wrote a book.  Paul calls Luke Scripture.

     Look with me at 2 Peter again, chapter 3 verse 15 - 2 Peter 3:15, and Peter is closing out his second epistle.  He says, "Account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation."  Almost the same as the 9th verse there.  The reason the Lord tarries is because of salvation, not impotence.  "Even...now watch this...even as our beloved brother Paul also, according to the wisdom given unto him, hath written unto you...now watch...as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable steal away, as they do also the other...what?...Scripture."  Now do you notice something there?  Peter is talking about Paul and all his epistles as Scripture... just like the other Scripture.  So you have Paul accrediting Luke.  You have Peter accrediting Paul.  Now we've already solved the problem.  The Bible consists, we know, of Luke and Acts and, actually, you can throw all of the Gospel records in there, 'cause Luke is one of the Gospels; and if Luke is authenticated, so are the others, because they're commenting on the same material.  So we have the Gospels in Acts.  Now we have the 13 epistles of Paul that are called Scripture right there in verse 16...and the Apostle Paul testifies to that in Galatians 1 when he says, "That which I wrote, that which I've learned, and that which God has given me did not come from man, but from Him directly." 

     Look at Jude verse 17.  This is interesting.  You got Paul corroborating the Gospels in Acts.  You've got Peter corroborating Paul, and now you've got Jude corroborating Peter.  Jude 17, "But, beloved, remember ye the words spoken before by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ, how they told you there should be mockers in the last time who should walk after their own ungodly lusts."  That, friends, comes from 2 Peter.  Jude authenticates Peter. 

     You can see, then, that there is an apostolic comradery.  Now, the only other James we...we didn't take time to develop that, but the only other major New Testament writer would be John, wouldn't it?  The Gospel of John, 1, 2, 3 John, Book of Revelation.  You say, "Is that authenticated?"  Yes, in the Book of Revelation chapter 2 and 3, you have seven letters to the churches.  Now don't bother to look them up, but at the end of each of those letters, it says this, "These things saith He," and it's referring to Jesus Christ.  "These things saith He," and then it also says, "Let Him hear what the Spirit says."  So John says, "I am recording what Christ says, transmitted to me by the Spirit."  So John is claiming to have received the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.  Later on, in the Book of Revelation, 21:5 is it?  "He sat on the throne, said, 'I make all things new.'  And He said unto me, 'Write, listen, for these words are true and believable.'"  Revelation 19, you also have it.  "He said to me, 'Write:   'Blessed are they who called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb.'  And He says unto me, 'These are the true sayings of God.'" 

     So John is reinforced as an inspired writer.  Peter is reinforced as an inspired writer.  So is Luke.  So is Paul, and, as you see, there is this whole self-authenticating of the New Testament writers.  There was an apostolic band and associates of that band who are responsible.  The fraternity of New Testament writers, and, beloved, those are the limits.  Those are the limits of the Scripture.  When they were done, it was done, and that's it.  The key then is apostolic authority, apostolic authorship.

     Secondly, the second test of the early church applied to this was content.  They...they not only wanted to know if an apostle or an associate that they knew to be an associate of an apostle wrote it, but they wanted to know its content.  For example, in Acts 2:42, the first time the church ever met.  The first time the church ever met, it says, "They gave themselves to prayer and to fellowship and to the breaking of bread and to the...what?...apostles' doctrine."  Their second test was content.  Did the writing square with apostolic doctrine?  Because maybe there could be something come along, could be written, and it could seem to be from Paul and claim to be from Paul, but some heretic was trying to worm in, and it was really a phony thing; and so they would check its doctrine; and if it didn't square with apostolic doctrine, it didn't pass the test.  And how marvelous to note that, as we study the early canons, there is no occasion in those early canons of ever finding a book that was accepted at all other than a legitimate New Testament book.  It took them a while to get all of them in, but they never got wrong ones in.  It was too clear what the doctrinal aberrations were, because you can believe that when Satan wants to get one in, it isn't gonna be like it oughta be.

     Third, the third test that the early church applied to canonical books of the New Testament was:  was it read in the churches.  Was it read in the churches?  This was emphasized repeatedly in the early church fathers, the first generation after the church.  In other words, did the people of God accept it, read it in their worship, make it a part of their life, indicate the Spirit of God had blessed it in their church, and that the people were being taught by it and being blessed by its teaching?  If it had that stamp on it, then it was all right.  So you've got apostolic authority.  You've got absolutely consistent apostolic doctrine, and you've gotta have something that's been read in the church and proven by the church in testing to be the Word of God that goes forth with power and penetrates the heart.

     And the fourth test was recognition and use by the next generation after the early church, the church fathers.  When they saw it, and they evaluated it, and they had judged it, that settled it; and, of course, by the time you get to 383 and the Latin Vulgate is printed, and that was...vulgar meant the language of the people, common language.  The Bible was codified, as it were, and put in the hands of the people, and every book was there, and only the right ones were there.  It was obvious.  That settled it.  The canon was closed.

     You say, "Yes, but maybe we can add to it."  Well, Revelation 22 says, "I testify unto every man that hears the words of the prophecy of this Book.  If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add to him the plagues written in the Book."  People say, "Yeah, but that means add to the Book of Revelation."  Well, of course.  The Book of Revelation's the last book in the Bible.  If you add to the Book of Revelation, you've added to the Bible, haven't you?  The Book of Revelation was the last one ever written.  You can't add to this.  If anybody adds to it, shall be added to him the plagues that are written in it.

     You say, "Well, why are you going on and on about this, John?"  Because I believe it is precisely at this vital point that the charismatics err.  What is the revelation of God?  This is a major flaw in the movement.  These dear people, and I love these people, they claim to love the Bible, to defend the Bible, to study the Bible, and...but they also claim that they go beyond the Bible; and therein lies a cardinal error.  "It's fine," they say, "as far as it goes."  One pastor said, "You know," I heard this on a tape.  He said, "All we did was just teach the Bible, and God never did anything supernatural in our church, until one day the Spirit of God broke through."  And I thought, "Well, what does that mean?"  Does that mean that just the Bible isn't good enough?  You gotta have whatever the Spirit of God broke through means?  Who's to guarantee it was the Spirit of God?...

     What about further revelations?  Is the Bible enough, or do we need more?  Well, as I pointed out to you last week...charismatics claim that God is continuing to reveal Himself.  You know, this isn't anything new, incidentally.  The Roman Catholic church has claimed this for centuries, centuries.  Wanna read an interesting book?  They have it in the bookstore.  Get Benjamin Warfield's book on Counterfeit Miracles.  It's a knockout punch.  Fantastic book.  Get ready for some heavy stuff.  He just catalogues, for the entire history of the church, the visions and revelations and so forth and so on that built Roman Catholicism; and, today, the charismatic movement is much a parallel, claiming visions and so forth.  One of our elders was telling me this morning that the tennis player, Margaret Court, who is an avid Catholic, very devout, recently had an appearance of the Virgin to her in a miraculous fashion. 

     So, you see, that isn't anything that's common just to the charismatics.  Roman church has been claiming that for centuries, and that further revelation that they've been getting is the thing that has built up and built up and built up this stack of tradition that goes alongside the authority of the Word of God and confuses the issue; and, of course, we saw that in the...even from Rodman Williams, who's the president of Melodyland Seminary, th