The Limit of the Atonement in Hebrews 9:11-10:18

Introductory Illustration
->Imagine, if you will, a situation in which a headlight on your new car blew and you found that the design of the headlight fixture was so unusual that you needed to consult the owner's manual of the car in order to know how to fix it. Flipping through the owner's manual, you find that the headlights are mentioned in several different sections- sections devoted to topics like "Driving Safety" and "Your Car's Electrical System." Now, reading through these sections might tell you many things about your car's headlights. But if there was a section specifically devoted to the topic "Headlights," then it would make the most sense to turn to this section first to find out the answer to the question, "How do I change my headlights?" Relying on other parts of the owner's manual alone, rather than examining the most relevant section, may actually lead you to wrong conclusions about how to change your headlights and cause great frustration to you and to others.
->In a similar way, when looking to examine a particular doctrine found in Scripture, we should begin by exploring the section of God's Word that is most relevant to the discussion of the teaching in question and not by trying to draw conclusions from various other Bible passages. So that when asking a specific question regarding the atonement made by Christ on the Cross, we must diligently search the Scriptures for sections that explore this doctrine in depth and form our understanding of Christ's work based on these sections and not on isolated verses. In this post it is my intention to briefly examine one passage dealing specifically with the atonement and to demonstrate how this passage presents teachings that are only consistent with a 'limited' view on the intended extent of the atonement.

The Passage in View
->[9:11] But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things to come, He entered through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation; [12] and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption. [13] For if the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling those who have been defiled sanctify for the cleansing of the flesh, [14] how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
->[15] For this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, so that, since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. [16] For where a covenant is, there must of necessity be the death of the one who made it. [17] For a covenant is valid only when men are dead, for it is never in force while the one who made it lives. [18] Therefore even the first covenant was not inaugurated without blood. [19] For when every commandment had been spoken by Moses to all the people according to the Law, he took the blood of the calves and the goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, [20] saying, "THIS IS THE BLOOD OF THE COVENANT WHICH GOD COMMANDED YOU." [21] And in the same way he sprinkled both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry with the blood. [22] And according to the Law, one may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.
->[23] Therefore it was necessary for the copies of the things in the heavens to be cleansed with these, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. [24] For Christ did not enter a holy place made with hands, a mere copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us; [25] nor was it that He would offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the holy place year by year with blood that is not his own. [26] Otherwise, He would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. [27] And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment, [28] so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him.
->[10:1] For the Law, since it has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the very form of things, can never, by the same sacrifices which they offer continually year by year, make perfect those who draw near. [2] Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, because the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have had consciousness of sins? [3] But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins year by year. [4] For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. [5] Therefore, when He comes into the world, He says, "SACRIFICE AND OFFERING YOU HAVE NOT DESIRED, BUT A BODY YOU HAVE PREPARED FOR ME; [6] IN WHOLE BURNT OFFERINGS AND sacrifices FOR SIN YOU HAVE TAKEN NO PLEASURE.
->[7] "THEN I SAID, `BEHOLD, I HAVE COME (IN THE SCROLL OF THE BOOK IT IS WRITTEN OF ME) TO DO YOUR WILL, O GOD.' " [8] After saying above, "SACRIFICES AND OFFERINGS AND WHOLE BURNT OFFERINGS AND sacrifices FOR SIN YOU HAVE NOT DESIRED, NOR HAVE YOU TAKEN PLEASURE in them" (which are offered according to the Law), [9] then He said, "BEHOLD, I HAVE COME TO DO YOUR WILL." He takes away the first in order to establish the second. [10] By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. [11] Every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; [12] but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, SAT DOWN AT THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD, [13] waiting from that time onward UNTIL HIS ENEMIES BE MADE A FOOTSTOOL FOR HIS FEET. [14] For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified. [15] And the Holy Spirit also testifies to us; for after saying, [16] "THIS IS THE COVENANT THAT I WILL MAKE WITH THEM AFTER THOSE DAYS, SAYS THE LORD: I WILL PUT MY LAWS UPON THEIR HEART, AND ON THEIR MIND I WILL WRITE THEM," He then says, [17] "AND THEIR SINS AND THEIR LAWLESS DEEDS I WILL REMEMBER NO MORE." [18] Now where there is forgiveness of these things, there is no longer any offering for sin. [Hebrews 9:11-10:18 NASB]

The Focus of This Passage
->This section of Scripture under consideration, as well as the entirety of God's Word, is focused upon the Person and Work of Jesus- on who He is and what He has done. This is the content of the Gospel- the Good News message of the Bible. It is very important to note that what Jesus has done is a crucial part of this Good News, for there are many teachers today who wish to proclaim that the Gospel message is simply that "Jesus is Lord," so that all people who are willing to affirm these three words- whether Protestant, Catholic, or Greek Orthodox- are thought to be co-laborers in the Gospel, no matter how much these belief systems might differ in answering questions about the work of Jesus. But since this Work is deemed so important to the central message of Scripture in passages such as the one presently under consideration, we must strive for a biblical understanding of what Jesus has done. If anyone strays too far from a biblical understanding of the work of Jesus, then they have truly forsaken the Gospel message itself.
->In the next two sections, it is my intention to briefly summarize what Hebrews 9:11-10:18 has to say about the Person and Work of Jesus.

The Person of Jesus in Hebrews 9:11-10:18
->Several descriptions of who Jesus is are found in this passage. Jesus is named:
1. High Priest (9:11)
2. Mediator (9:15)
3. Sacrifice (9:26)
In addition to the three titles listed above, the name for Jesus used throughout this section- "Christ"- tells us another important fact about who Jesus is, for "Christ" means "Messiah" or "Anointed One."

The Work of Jesus in Hebrews 9:11-10:18
->Inseparably related to the above discussion of the Person of Jesus is the description of what Jesus has done in accordance with each of the names He is given in this passage. Jesus has:
1. Entered the Most Holy Place, as High Priest (9:11)
2. Obtained the promise of the eternal inheritance, as Mediator (9:15)
3. Been offered to obtain eternal redemption, as Sacrifice (9:12)
According to the name "Christ," Jesus was anointed by God for His supreme work in creation and He perfectly fulfilled the Old Testament prophesies concerning the Messiah.

The Limit of Jesus' Work in This Passage
->That Jesus is the focus of this passage necessitates that topics other than who He is and what He has done will not be directly expounded upon in the text. So that the answer to the question, "who was Jesus' work intended to benefit- each and every individual in world history or only a certain portion of the total world population as determined by God?"- a question which focuses on the beneficiaries of what Jesus has done rather than on Jesus Himself- can only be obtained from this passage on the atonement by reasonable inferences drawn from specific phrases as defined by their overall context- that is, by letting Scripture interpret Scripture.
->The Work of Jesus is exalted in this section of Scripture as obtaining a new and better covenant of eternal redemption. This Work is presented as perfect and finished, not needing any addition or repetition. The limit of Jesus' work can be ascertained through the understanding that this work is declared to accomplish certain effects in the lives of a particular group of individuals. This group of individuals is referred to as "those who have been called" in 9:15. According to this verse, these called ones are those who actually benefit from the redemption and "receive the promise of the eternal inheritance." In 9:28, the "called ones" are mentioned as the "many" whose sins Jesus bore on the Cross. And in verse 10:14 this same group is named as "those who are sanctified"- "sanctified" meaning "set apart"- which group "He has perfected." Notice that the past tense, "has perfected," is used to indicate the certainty that the sanctified ones will be made complete by the power of Jesus' atonement.
->The Called. The Many. The Set Apart. These are the collection of individuals for whom Jesus' atonement was intended to benefit with eternal blessings. In being limited to this certain group, the work of Jesus is magnified, bringing Him glory, in that the intention of His Work is demonstrated as having been fulfilled. That those for whose sins Jesus died will also be eternally perfected is a glorious inevitability. That God has set apart certain individuals and called them to Himself, needing no other power than Jesus' sacrifice on the Cross to obtain their perfection, indicates that the atonement is limited to the kind intention of God, who works everything according to the counsel of His will (Ephesians 1:11).

Glory to God alone!

That ‘Limited Atonement’ is a Biblical Doctrine Rather Than a Philosophical Conclusion

Limited Atonement is a philosophical not a Biblical point. If one is JUST GOING BY THE TEXT, then it is clear Jesus died for the sins of the world.
I believe in Substitutionary Atonement and am a bit offended that one would suggest my SCRIPTURAL / NON PHILOSOPHICAL position makes "a mockery". I preach II Corinthians 5:17-21 w/ passion.

Introduction
->The above quote was provided to me by my dad in an email correspondence that we were having concerning the doctrine of ‘limited atonement.’ Apparently, Dad let a Baptist minister friend of his read an email that I sent to him on this subject and the outcome was the statements that you read at the top of this post. I have no knowledge of the identity of this anonymous Baptist minister, and so the following observations are unencumbered by personalities, but are rather an examination of the meaning of the assertions shown above. It is my desire to examine this quote in the light of Scripture to the best of the ability that God has given me and to publish my beliefs on this issue for the edification of anyone who reads these words as well as for my own edification, that I might be open to reproof if I have indeed erred in my reading of God’s Word.

‘Limited Atonement:’ A Brief Definition
->‘Limited Atonement’ is the teaching that addresses the question, “What was God’s design in sending Christ to the Cross?”
->The ‘unlimited atonement’ or ‘general redemption’ answer to this question would assert that God sent His Son to the Cross to die under His just wrath as the payment for each and every sin (save, perhaps, the ‘sin of unbelief’) of each and every individual sinner who has ever lived or will ever live.
->The ‘limited atonement’ or ‘particular redemption’ answer to the above question would assert that God sent His Son to the Cross to die under His just wrath as the payment for each and every sin of only the elect- those whom God has chosen from eternity to be the recipients of His mercy (cf. Romans 9:6-18).
->The entire point of this post will be to challenge the first sentence in the quote at the head of this post- that “Limited Atonement is a philosophical not a Biblical point”- in order to do this, I will examine each of the other sentences of this quote sequentially.

“If one is JUST GOING BY THE TEXT, then it is clear Jesus died for the sins of the world.”
->This statement is based upon passages such as John 1:29, “ The next day [John the Baptist] saw Jesus coming to him and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!” (NASB) and I John 2:2, “He’s the propitiation for our sins and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world” (ESV). The question here that must be answered concerns what John means by the word “world” in these passages. For it is obvious that John uses the word “world” to mean different things in different passages. If you doubt this, I invite you to look at I John 2:15 and compare it with John 3:16.
->I John 2:15 reads: “Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him.”(ESV)
->And John 3:16, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”(KJV)
->In the first of these verses, believers are commanded to NOT love the world with the warning that love for the world proves an absence from our lives of the Father’s love. In the second verse, God’s giving of His Son is said to be based on His love for the world. Under close inspection of these verses in their contexts, it is obvious that I John 2:15 is speaking of a system of thought that is prevalent throughout the sinful people of the world, which system is against God, whereas John 3:16 is speaking about the people themselves.
->Now many would have us to understand the word “world” in verses such as John 1:29, John 3:16, and I John 2:2 to indicate every individual person in the world. But this idea ignores certain contextual elements that are crucial to understanding John’s soteriology- his teaching about spiritual salvation. For John is writing primarily to a Jewish audience who had been expecting a Messiah to save them from the Gentile oppressors and establish His mighty kingdom on earth based in Jerusalem. So one of John’s inspired goals in his Gospel account and his epistles was to help his readers understand that Jesus Christ is the Savior not only of the Jews, but of the Gentiles too- people all over the world. And so John records passages such as the following:

But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, You know nothing at all. Nor do you understand that it is better for you that one man should die for the people, not that the whole nation should perish. He did not say this of his own accord, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but also to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad. (John 11:49-52 ESV)

And they sang a new song, saying: "You are worthy to take the scroll, And to open its seals; For You were slain, And have redeemed us to God by Your blood out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation, (Revelation 5:9 NKJV)

->In the John 11 passage quoted above, a major point is that Jesus was not only going to die for national Israel, but He would also by His death gather in people from all over the world. Similarly, the Revelation 5 passage speaks of people from all over the world- from “every tribe and tongue and people and nation.” But it is clear (in this last passage especially) that Christ’s redemption was particular- He redeemed (or made payment for) “us”- the elect- those who would come to believe in Jesus- who were chosen “out of” the general population of all the people in the world. With this understanding we come to realize that the word “world” in passages such as John 1:29, John 3:16, and I John 2:2 is given to indicate what Revelation 5:9 declares- people “out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation” and not just the Jews. It is a stretch of the Biblical use of the term to claim that the word “world” indicates every individual person ever to live.

"I believe in Substitutionary Atonement and am a bit offended that one would suggest my SCRIPTURAL / NON PHILOSOPHICAL position makes 'a mockery'."
->The doctrine of ‘Substitutionary Atonement’ mentioned above is the Biblical teaching that Jesus died as a substitute for sinners. That is, whereas we deserved God’s judgment of death and Hell for breaking His Law, Jesus died in our place, making payment for our sins on the Cross.
->The above statement in bold print is given in response to something that I wrote to the affect of, “The ‘general redemption’ position makes a mockery of the doctrine of Substitutionary Atonement.” Upon review, I should have chosen my words more carefully. The word “mockery” would seem to indicate a willful ridicule of that which is mocked. No one that I know personally who holds to either the limited or the unlimited atonement view would actually wish to ridicule the doctrine of Substitutionary Atonement. What I should have said is, “The ‘general redemption’ position makes nonsense out of the doctrine of Substitutionary Atonement.”
->Just think about what the word “substitute” means- “someone that takes the place of another,” right? If I, as a teacher, have a substitute for my class, then that means that I am not doing the work of teaching for that day. The substitute does the work for me. There is no situation in which I would first call for a substitute and then I would also show up and we would both do the exact same work (unless the substitute was grossly incompetent and failed to teach the assigned lesson so that I had to repeat his or her lesson the next day).
->In a similar way, if Christ has been the effective substitute for an individual in providing payment for their sins, then the individual sinner for whom our Lord had provided payment would not then be able to pay for his or her own sins. Therefore, if someone believes that Jesus was a substitute for each and every individual sinner, then he or she would have to conclude that each and every individual sinner will escape God’s wrath. And as the Bible is clear in teaching that there will be sinners who suffer the wrath of God against there sins (cf. Revelation 20:15), then the belief that Jesus was not a substitute for each and every person- that the intended benefit of His atonement is limited- inevitably follows.

->As Phil Johnson, an elder at Grace Community Church, has noted,

If the atoning work of Christ is substitutionary it must be limited to those whom Christ actually redeems. The substitutionary aspects of it dictate that. In other words when you understand that the atonement is substitutionary you must see that in a certain way it applies to particular people. That is the inevitable ramification of vicarious atonement. I’m not sure why this doctrine of the extent of the atonement is such a controversial doctrine. It’s a point that certainly doesn’t warrant all the debate and bickering that it generates. In fact I’m sure that if people truly appreciated the substitutionary nature of the atonement they would not stumble so badly over the particularity of the atonement. It’s a simple matter really.
Here’s another way to say it. The aspects of the atonement that are substitutionary are inherently efficacious. The very reason I don’t have to fear condemnation in the final judgment is that Christ has already paid the price of my sin in full as my Substitute. And if He substituted effectually in that same sense for everyone then everyone would be saved. The atonement of Christ did not just make salvation possible. It actually purchased redemption for those who will be saved. And His dying on the cross made their ultimate salvation an absolute certainty, a done deal, because He paid the price of their redemption in full. He actually bought them. Paid their debt. Wiped it off the ledger. Sealed their pardon. Assured their eternal salvation. He didn’t merely put them in a position where salvation was possible if they made the right choice, He accomplished their salvation. He even graciously provides the faith that is the instrument by which the atonement is applied to them. He stood in their place and bore their sins. They’ll never have to pay a second time for what has been paid in full.

->And Charles Spurgeon also declared,

To think that my Saviour died for men who were or are in hell, seems a supposition too horrible for me to entertain. To imagine for a moment that He was the Substitute for all the sons of men, and that God, having first punished the Substitute, afterwards punished the sinners themselves, seems to conflict with all my ideas of Divine justice. That Christ should offer an atonement and satisfaction for the sins of all men, and that afterwards some of those very men should be punished for the sins for which Christ had already atoned, appears to me to be the most monstrous iniquity that could ever have been imputed to Saturn, to Janus, to the goddess of the Thugs, or to the most diabolical heathen deities. God forbid that we should ever think thus of Jehovah, the just and wise and good!

->And lest this teaching be called philosophical rather than Biblical, consider the following phrase from Hebrews:

Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. (9:28a, emphasis added)

->Verses such as this limit the extent of the atonement and show that the verses containing phrases like “[Jesus] takes away the sin of the world” must be understood in the sense that I have explained above.

"I preach II Corinthians 5:17-21 w/ passion."
->This sentence is in reference to a statement I made asserting that the doctrine of double imputation, found particularly in II Corinthians 5:21, is supportive of the ‘limited atonement’ view.
-> The doctrine of ‘double imputation’ is a name given to the teaching in the verse just mentioned:

For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.(KJV)

This verse (and many others like it) teaches that our sins were credited- or imputed- to Christ as He died on the Cross, and that His righteousness was imputed to us as He rose from the dead. As the Apostle elsewhere declares:

[Jesus] was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification.(Romans 4:25 HCSB)

->My point in raising the issue of double imputation is that both aspects of imputation are wedded together in the text. The New Testament knows of no ‘single imputation.’ The ‘unlimited atonement’ or ‘general redemption’ teaching would assert that each and every individual who has ever lived or will ever live has had his or her sins imputed to Jesus as He died on the Cross. But due to the fact that imputation is double, then the conclusion, from this perspective, would have to be that each and every individual who has ever lived or will ever live has also had the righteousness of Christ imputed to his or her account before God. Again, this conclusion is plainly contrary to Scripture.

Conclusion
->The exact phrase “Jesus is God” is never found in the Bible. There are some instances like John 1:1 in which the text uses phrases almost identical to those three words, but the exact manner in which the Son is identical to the Father and in which the Son is also distinct from the Father is not easy to discern from a casual reading of the New Testament. Doubters can always point to the supposed difficulty of translating John 1:1 and can raise the issue of verses such as John 14:28, which contains Jesus’ statement, “My Father is greater than I”- or the fact that Jesus prayed to the Father- in order to question the belief that Jesus is Divine.
->Likewise, the word “Trinity” is nowhere to be found in the Bible and many people bring similar objections to this doctrine as well.
->My point in bringing up the Divinity of Jesus and the doctrine of the Trinity is that these doctrines are truly Biblical- and not merely philosophical- although the exact phrase “Jesus is God” and the word “Trinity” is never found in the New Testament. We know that these teachings are Biblical because when we look at the Scriptures as a whole we find that any alternative views of the person of Christ and relationship of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are fatally defective. These views are defective because:
1. They fail to take clearly taught doctrines into account [such as the Unity of God and that God alone is Lord and Savior]
2. They do violence to the plain meaning of the sense of the words used in these doctrines [if God alone is Lord and Savior and Jesus is declared to be Lord and Savior, then it is erroneous to try and change the meaning of these words with each usage]
3. They overlook the implications of specific verses when examining the question at hand [verses like John 1:1 and Colossians 1:15, just to name two].

->In the same way, the doctrine of ‘limited atonement’ is shown to be Biblical and not merely philosophical, even though we must look for more than one phrase or one verse to see this doctrine in full. We know that this teaching is Biblical because when we look at the Scriptures as a whole we find that the alternative view on the extent of the atonement is defective. This view- ‘unlimited atonement’- is defective from a Biblical standpoint because:
1. It fails to take clearly taught doctrines into account, such as the Substitutionary Atonement and Double Imputation.
2. It does violence to the plain meaning of the sense of the words used in these doctrines. If the atonement is truly substitutionary and imputation is truly double, then the atonement must be limited to the elect.
3. It overlooks the implications of specific verses when examining the question at hand- verses such as Hebrews 9:28, mentioned above, and also Isaiah 53:5-

But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was upon him,
and by his wounds we are healed.

In this verse, the Messiah is shown to be pierced, crushed, punished and wounded for our transgressions and iniquities. Who does “our” refer to in this passage? It is clear- “our” refers to “we” who have been brought peace and are healed. The atonement of the Messiah is thus limited to the elect alone from the Biblical text itself.

Righteous Abraham

By faith Abraham, when he was called, obeyed by going out to a place which he was to receive for an inheritance; and he went out, not knowing where he was going. By faith he lived as an alien in the land of promise, as in a foreign land, dwelling in tents with Isaac and Jacob, fellow heirs of the same promise; for he was looking for the city which has foundations, whose architect and builder is God By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was offering up his only begotten son; it was he to whom it was said, "IN ISAAC YOUR DESCENDANTS SHALL BE CALLED." He considered that God is able to raise people even from the dead, from which he also received him back as a type. (Hebrews 11:8-10; 17-19 NASB)

->I love the above passages as they marry both the New Testament accounts from other books that examine the most relevant facts of the life of Abraham in relation to the issue of justification by faith. These accounts are recorded for us in Romans chapter 4 and James 2:21-23.
->Romans 4 is written in defense of the doctrine of justification by faith alone, which is proven to be the only way of salvation for the whole world, both Jew and Gentile, by the example of Abraham. Abraham was justified by faith before circumcision, later becoming circumcised out of obedience to God.
->James 2 is written in defense of the concept of living faith, proving that a faith that saves is a faith that never fails to result in good works.
->In the past, some Christians- even some great thinkers in the Church history- have failed to take the contexts of Romans chapter 4 and James chapter 2 verses 21 through 23 into account and have imagined that these passages contradict one another. But upon careful reading, the Church has come to understand that these passages are guarding against two opposite deviations from the narrow path of the Christian faith. Because it is faith alone that justifies sinners before God, but the faith that justifies never remains alone, but is always accompanied by good works.

->In thinking about the biblical view of the relationship between faith and works, I have found the following teaching of R.C. Sproul to be especially helpful:

The difference between Rome and the Reformation can be seen in these simple formulas:
Roman view: Faith+Works->Justification
Protestant [biblical] view: Faith->Justification+Works
Neither view eliminates works. The Protestant view eliminates human merit [so that justification is "by grace through faith"]. It recognizes that though works are the evidence of true faith they add or contribute nothing to the meritorious basis of our redemption. [Quoted by John MacArthur, Faith Works: The Gospel According to the Apostles, 1993. Emphasis added.]

->Once again, when examining the biblical texts on these issues, context is key. This is a consideration that will save us a lot of headaches as we read through our Bibles. When we come to a certain Bible passage, we must be very careful to discern the overall intended point of the passage.

A Thanksgiving Song

Give thanks with
a greatful heart,
Give thanks to the
Holy One,
Give thanks because
He's given Jesus Christ,
His Son.

And now let the weak
say I am strong,
Let the poor
say I am rich,
Because of what the
Lord has done for us.

Give thanks.

-by Henry Smith, 1978
(Matt. 5:3; Jn. 3:16; II Cor. 12:10; Phil. 4:6-7)

From Righteous Abel to Righteous Zechariah

Then the LORD said to Noah, "Enter the ark, you and all your household, for you {alone} I have seen {to be} righteous before Me in this time. (Genesis 7:1 NASB)

->Verses like the one above have inflicted anxiety over many beginning Bible students. How can God declare Noah to be righteous and reward him on the basis of his righteousness? Aren't we all sinners, deserving God's wrath?
->But here it must be noted that an absolutely crucial aspect of proper biblical interpretation- as I have mentioned before- is the literary genre in which a particular passage is written. When we come to a book of the Bible, we must ask ourselves, ‘what kind of literature is this book intended to be?’ ‘Is it a book of history, wisdom, doctrine, etc?’ Some books have a mixture of these and we must read carefully to understand the transition in literature types.
->In Genesis, which records events taking place before the giving of the Law, the literary genre is ‘history’ (as demonstrated by- among other things- the presence of integrated genealogies). God has condescended to give us a book containing the history of the earliest times, written from a human point of view for our understanding. Even small children can be told stories from Genesis and gain a foundation of understanding, which may be added to as they are instructed in the message of personal faith. Children accept the stories of Genesis in a way that is sometimes harder for adults. This can be seen in the example of Genesis 6:6, “And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved Him at His heart” (KJV). A child can be told this verse in the context of the story it is given and simply accept it, while to an adult, this may challenge their entire concept of God- ‘how can God repent?’ ‘How could it have grieved God that He made people?’ ‘Didn’t God know that people were going to sin?’ As mature believers, we must understand that this verse certainly does say something about the heart of God concerning His sorrow over sin, while we also understand that it is conveying history in anthropomorphic language. Baker’s Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology defines “anthropomorphism” as “assignment of human attributes to non-human things.” And notes, “The use of human terminology to talk about God is necessary when we, in our limitations, wish to express truths about the Deity who by his very nature cannot be described or known.” Passages that are doctrinal in nature should compel us to this conclusion as they affirm “God is not a man, that He should lie, nor a son of man, that He should change His mind. Does He speak and then not act? Does He promise and not fulfill?” (Num. 23:19 NIV).

->A similar phenomenon is taking place in the above passage.

->This account of history from a human perspective is examining the fruit of justification in a similar way as James 2. Noah is said to have been allowed to enter the ark because God found him to be righteous. But this does not mean that he was perfect in and of himself- we can see an example of Noah’s shortcomings in passages such as Genesis 9:18-27 which records a time that Noah got himself drunk.
->But this is the answer to the difficulty posed in the above passage and all passages where the Bible speaks of righteous men: That all of those who have been saved by faith have been placed by God “in Christ Jesus,” the only One who has truly fulfilled the Law by His own righteousness (Matthew 5:17). So that when God looks at anyone with true faith, He views us -in Christ- as having kept His requirements, His decrees, His commands, and His laws perfectly, as His holiness demands. As the Bible declares, “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus” (Romans 8:1)

->And as Bible teacher R.C. Sproul also helps to explain:

Like it or not, God did not save Noah because Noah was good. If He did, then Noah didn't receive grace, he received justice, didn't he? But instead he received grace. And it is true that the Bible frequently speaks of good people- righteous people- and that's- you have to understand, in the context of Scriptures- comparatively speaking. And yet, when push comes to shove [in the doctrinal, rather than historical, passages], they remind you that there's none righteous- no, not one(Romans 3:10)- not Noah, not Abraham, not Paul- no, not one. The only righteousness that Noah had in his account was the righteousness of Christ. Noah was saved the same way you were saved- through the merit of Christ.
[Sproul, R.C. Put On the New Man. Audio recording. St. Andrew’s Chapel, Sanford, FL]

->This explanation of Noah's righteousness -that he was considered righteous and his works were considered good only by our righteous Lord covering over his sins- is also consistent with the whole counsel of God's Word, as reflected in the 1689 Baptist Confession:

We cannot, even by our best works, merit either the pardon of sin or the granting of eternal life at the hand of God, for those works are out of all proportion to the glory to come. And furthermore, there is infinite distance between us and God, and no works of ours can yield Him profit or act as payment for the debt of our former sins. Indeed, when we have done all that we can, we have done but our duty and remain unprofitable servants. We are also to remember that, so far as our works are good, they are produced by His Spirit. As far as they are our work they are marred, and mixed with so much weakness and imperfection that they fall utterly to meet the searching requirements of God's standards.

Nevertheless, since believers as to their persons are accepted by God through Christ, their works also are accepted as being wrought in Christ. Not as though they were, during this life, beyond reproach and unreprovable in the sight of God, but that, as He looks upon them in His Son, He is pleased to accept and reward that which is sincere, even though it is accompanied by many weaknesses and imperfections.
(Ps. 143:2; Isa. 64:6; Luke 17:10; Rom. 3:20; 4:6; Gal. 5:22,23; Eph. 2:8,9;
Matt. 25:21,23; Eph. 1:6; Heb. 6:10; 1 Pet. 2:5) ["Good Works" #5-6]

->God our Father looks lovingly upon His children, accepts our good yet always imperfect works as righteous and pleasing to Him, and even grants us blessings in accordance with our good works. But our good works and the fact that we are counted as righteous bring glory to God alone, for it is only by God's mercy and grace that we are given spiritual life and enabled to do good works. As Scripture plainly declares:

But God, who is abundant in mercy, because of His great love that He had for us, made us alive with the Messiah even though we were dead in trespasses. By grace you are saved! He also raised us up with Him and seated us with Him in the heavens, in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages He might display the immeasurable riches of His grace in His kindness to us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you are saved through faith, and this is not from yourselves; it is God's gift-- not from works, so that no one can boast. For we are His making, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared ahead of time so that we should walk in them. (Ephesians 2:4-10 HCSB)

That 'Free-Will' Philosophy Leads To Unbiblical Pride

I am very thankful to be a member of a church congregation that is associated with the Southern Baptist Convention. I am thankful for this because the Southern Baptist Convention (both historically and currently) has been devoted to proclaiming that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. I am thankful that we are associated with the Southern Baptist Convention because the SBC has done much work for the kingdom of God throughout the world through the International Mission Board. And I am thankful because the SBC is the convention of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, where I someday hope to attend.

Nevertheless, there are some significant problems that are common to a great number of Southern Baptist churches- problems that have led many within the Southern Baptist Convention to recognize the need for reform. Among these problems is the tendency of many pastors in the SBC to neglect the thorough preaching of certain teachings in the Bible- teachings that are deemed to be too difficult to understand or too controversial within Christian circles. Chief among these neglected teachings of the Bible is the teaching of predestination. Great Bible passages dealing with this teaching, such as Ephesians chapter 1, Romans chapter 9, and the last section of John chapter 6, are either entirely ignored or only touched very lightly in all too many Southern Baptist Churches. This fear of causing controversy over the teaching of predestination is so prevalent that in the responsive reading selection # 603 of the 1975 edition Baptist Hymnal published by Convention Press Romans 8:29-30, which speaks of predestination, is systematically skipped over.

As should be expected, the willful neglect of passages that are so rich in teaching from God has led to discernable negative consequences in many areas of Southern Baptist life. In the majority of Southern Baptist churches, the teaching of God's sovereign predestination of individuals to eternal life in Christ has been replaced with 'free-will' philosophy. Teachers of 'free-will' assert that an individual's salvation is ultimately dependent upon their own choice- a choice, according to this philosophy, which is not predetermined by God.

Bible teacher R.C. Sproul (a Presbyterian pastor) explains how Bible students impacted by 'free-will' philosophy are negatively impacted by this teaching:

Any Christian who wants to be biblical knows that they have to have some doctrine of election- some doctrine of predestination- because its on every page. So you gotta deal with it. So then the question is, 'How do you understand election?' And the way that this is usually done is that they say, -"Well, yes God elects people but He elects them on the basis of what they do. And He knows in advance- from all eternity- what they're going to do when they come to certain crossroads. And on the basis of that foreknowledge- or prescience- then He issues His election."
But election, then, is rooted and grounded in the work of the individual.
To get this very simple- down and dirty- I say, "OK, are you a Christian?"
-"Yes"
"Do you have a family member or friend who's not a Christian?"
-"Yes."
"Please tell me why you are a Christian and that other person isn't."
-"Well, I believed and the other person didn't."
And I say, "I understand that, but why did you believe- why did you say 'yes' to the Gospel- when your friend said 'no' to the same Gospel? Is it because you're better than they are?"
And what do they say, a hundred times out of a hundred?
-"No! Of course not!" They know they can't say that.
I say, "Is it because you're smarter?"
-"No."
"Let me ask it again, when you're neighbor said 'no' to the offer of the Gospel, is God pleased with that?"
-"No."
"Is that the right decision?"
-"No."
"Is that the wrong decision?"
-"Yes."
"Is that a bad decision."
-"Yes."
"Is it a sin to say 'no' to God?"
-"Yes."
"Well, you didn't commit that sin, you did the right thing, the good thing, and the virtuous thing. So, in reality, you're telling me that the reason you're a Christian and that your neighbor is not is because you did the right thing, and they did the bad thing. And so, though you protest as loudly as you can, if you really believe what you're telling me, you're trusting in your ultimate salvation in your good behavior. You may say, 'Well I couldn't have done it except for the grace of God!' But its the same grace He gave to your neighbor. In the final analysis, there was some 'island of righteousness' in you that caused you to say 'yes' to that grace where you wicked neighbor said 'no'. You have something of which to boast. Not to mention how Paul not only destroys that position, but wipes off the spot where it stood in Romans 9 when he makes it emphatically clear that it is 'not of him who runs, not of him who wills, but of God who shows mercy'(Romans 9:10)."

[from Sproul, R.C. Put on the New Man. Audio recording. St. Andrew’s Chapel, Sanford, FL. October, 2001.]

So the philosophy of 'free-will' subtly influences many Christians with a 'works-righteousness' mentality- a mindset that distorts the truth of Scripture about the utter sinfulness and hatred toward God naturally present in every human heart by imagining that there is something that we offer to God for which salvation is received. This thinking is not only found among church members, but among pastors as well. So there are Southern Baptist pastors who proclaim the inerrancy of God's Word and yet go outside the clear teaching of the Word of God to institute man-centered worship styles and programs that were never dreamed of by the apostles in order to try and influence the will of spiritually lost individuals to "accept Jesus." Pastors who are both culturally savvy and full of charisma cause the number of people in their congregations to grow tremendously with these methods, while pastors who lack one or both of these characteristics anguish over what change they must institute in their ministries so that they can lead more people to "choose Christ."

What is needed in the SBC is a wholesale return to the biblical understanding of God- that He is absolutely Sovereign and therefore ordains all that comes to pass so "that nothing happens by chance, but everything befalls us by absolute necessity" and a biblical understanding of Man- that he is utterly sinful, so that every part of Man after the Fall recorded in Genesis chapter 3 is in bondage to sin and therefore "since the Fall of the first man free choice has been a reality in name only, and... we can of ourselves do nothing but sin." Only when these truths are embraced will there be real humility in the SBC, which is the key to this convention being favored by God, for "God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble" (James 4:5b NIV).

Jesus' View of Scripture Revisted

Introduction
"How do we know the Bible is the inspired Word of God? Is it because the Bible claims to be the Word of God? The Koran and the Book of Mormon also make the same claim. What other source can we rely upon to prove the inspiration of the Bible? The answer is simple: Jesus tells us the Bible is God's Word. But is this circular reasoning to use Jesus, whom the Bible speaks of, as evidence that the Bible is the Word of God? Aren't we using the Bible to prove the Bible?"
(from The introduction to "Is the Bible Inspired by God?" radio broadcast of Ligonier Ministries, 10/26/2005)

In the radio broadcact quoted above, the late Dr. John Gerstner explains how the authority of Jesus can be properly invoked to authenticate the Bible as the Word of God with the following four propositions, to which I will add some commentary and evidence that Gerstner was not able to present under the time constraint of the program.

Proposition One: "There was a being called Jesus of Nazareth as a matter of historical fact."
Even nonChristian historians recorded facts concerning the life of Christ. The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus (born A.D. 37) wrote,

At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good, and (He) was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned Him to be crucified and to die. And those who became his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that He had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that He was alive; accordingly, He was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders. [from Kitab Al-Unwan Al-Mukallal Bi-Fadail Al-Hikma Al-Mutawwaj Bi-Anwa Al-Falsafa Al-Manduh Bi-Haqaq Al-Marifa]

The Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus (born circa A.D. 53) in addressing the subject of Christians persecuted by Nero wrote,

Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through Rome also. [Annals XV.44]

[The above quotes are found in Evidence That Demands A Verdict by Josh McDowell.]

Proposition Two: The Gospel accounts offer (at least) basically reliable information about Jesus of Nazareth.
This is clear especially from the Gospel account of Luke, as Luke is writing as an historian. As an historian, Luke makes record of geographic locations and political events that can be examined through archaelogical examination and Roman governmental records. On the reliability of the geographic and political information presented by Luke, Sir William Ramsay (who is regarded as one of the greatest archaelogists ever to have lived) has written,

Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy...this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians. [Quoted in McDowell, Josh. Evidence That Demands A Verdict. San Bernardino: Here's Life Publishers, Inc, 1979. 71.]

Together with Luke, the other Gospel accounts give similarly verifiable historical information. And there is no reason to suspect that the Gospel writers become any less reliable when relating information about Jesus, especially as their writings on the Person and Work of Jesus Christ are based on direct eyewitness accounts.

Proposition Three: The Gospel accounts present persuasive evidence that Jesus is the Son of God.
If the Gospel accounts offer (at least) basically reliable information about Jesus of Nazareth, then we can be certain that Jesus claimed to be the Son of God. This is obvious from the record of Jesus' testimony at His trial (Mark 14:61-62), from the record of Jesus' acceptance of worship as the Son of God from His disciples (Matthew 14:33), and from the record of Jesus' testimony concerning Himself (John 3:16-18).
But how can we know that Jesus' testimony is true?
Again, taking the proposition that the Gospel accounts offer (at least) basically reliable information, we have all the support we need to verify Jesus' claims to deity (and thus ulitimate authority) in the account of His resurrection.
Christianity is not just a religion of ideas, but an account of God's activity in the actual world in which we live. God has created the world that we live in and has impacted the world in concrete historical events. The Gospel writers understood the importance of establishing verifiable truth claims in order to persuade their readers that they were not just trying to spread some new myth that could be equated with other ancient beliefs or new mystery religions. This is why Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are so very careful to base their report of the most import events that they record- the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus- on eyewitness testimony.
In the resurrection of Jesus in particular, the Gospel writers appeal heavily to historical evidence to verify that Jesus did, in fact, rise from the grave. They seem especially sensitive to the doubts of their listeners on this point and so they give the names and testimonies of several people who actually saw and spoke with Jesus after He was risen from the dead. These witnesses include Mary Magdalene (Matthew 28:1-10, Mary the mother of James and Salome (Mark 16:1-8), Joanna (Luke 24:1-11), Cleopas (Luke 24:13-35), as well as the Eleven apostles, as declared by all the Gospel writers. The Apostle Paul also, in his letter to the Corinthian church, which was probably written down before the Gospel accounts were written, mentions that after His resurrection Jesus "appeared to over 500 brothers at one time, most of whom remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep" (I Corinthians 15:6 HCSB). By this statement the Apostle demonstrates that there were many living witnesses to the resurrection at the time he wrote his letter.
Again, one outcome of Jesus' resurrection is that His self-testimony was validated- Jesus is the Son of God (as He testified numerous times) and as the Son of God, He has ultimate authority in whatever pronouncements that He makes.

Proposition Four: "Jesus taught that the Bible (the Old Testament canon completed and the New Testament canon that He was going to bring about by His inspired apostles) Jesus taught that the Bible is the Word of God."

Conclusion
This is not circular reasoning, but rather a linear, progressive argument: "Proposition Two" is that the Bible is basically reliable; "Proposition Three" is that the Bible offers reliable, convincing proof that Jesus is the Son of God and is therefore Himself authoritative; "Proposition Four" is that on the basis of Jesus' authority, the Bible is supremely reliable as the Word of God.

The New Testament Canon

How did the New Testament itself as a collection of writings come into being? Who collected the writings, and on what principles? What circumstances led to the fixing of a list, or canon, of authoritative books ? (from "The Canon of the New Testament" in The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? by F. F. Bruce)

It is especially important that followers of Jesus Christ be able to answer the questions posed above at this time, as the upcoming Da Vinci Code movie will soon come to theatres across the land. The Da Vinci Code movie is based on the novel of the same name by Dan Brown. Dan Brown has repeatedly and publicly stated that this novel is based upon what he considers to be historical facts. This novel contains quotes such as the following:

"The Bible is a product of man, my dear. Not of God. The Bible did not fall magically from the clouds. Man created it as a historical record of tumultuous times, and it has evolved through countless translations, additions, and revisions. History has never had a definitive version of the book. (231)

Understandably, His life was recorded by thousands of followers across the land… More than eighty gospels were considered for the New Testament, and yet only a relative few were chosen for inclusion—Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John among them.
“Who chose which gospels to include?” Sophie asked.
“Aha!” Teabing burst in with enthusiasm. “The fundamental irony of Christianity! The Bible, as we know it today, was collated by the pagan Roman emperor Constantine the Great.” (231)

[The above quotes from The Da Vinci Code are provided by Alpha and Omega Ministries.]

In response to these claims made by The Da Vinci Code and to questions that many have concerning the New Testament Canon, I would like to make the following assertions:

1. The Bible is a "product" of God, not man.
This is clear (most importantly) from Jesus' teaching on Scripture and also from the recorded teaching of all the prophets and apostles. Now, some may object, "The teaching of Jesus, the apostles, and the prophets mentioned above all refer to the Old Testament, not the New Testament."
But as B.B. Warfield has noted:

The Old Testament books were not the only ones which the apostles (by Christ's own appointment the authoritative founders of the church) imposed upon the infant churches, as their authoritative rule of faith and practice. No more authority dwelt in the prophets of the old covenant than in themselves, the apostles, who had been "made sufficient as ministers of a new covenant"; for (as one of themselves argued) "if that which passeth away was with glory, much more that which remaineth is in glory." Accordingly not only was the gospel they delivered, in their own estimation, itself a divine revelation, but it was also preached "in the Holy Ghost" (I Pet. i. 12); not merely the matter of it, but the very words in which it was clothed were "of the Holy Spirit" (I Cor. ii. 13). Their own commands were, therefore, of divine authority (I Thess. iv. 2), and their writings were the depository of these commands (II Thess. ii. 15). "If any man obeyeth not our word by this epistle," says Paul to one church (II Thess. iii. 14), "note that man, that ye have no company with him." To another he makes it the test of a Spirit-led man to recognize that what he was writing to them was "the commandments of the Lord" (I Cor. xiv. 37). Inevitably, such writings, making so awful a claim on their acceptance, were received by the infant churches as of a quality equal to that of the old "Bible"; placed alongside of its older books as an additional part of the one law of God; and read as such in their meetings for worship -- a practice which moreover was required by the apostles (I Thess. v. 27; Col. iv. 16; Rev. i. 3). In the apprehension, therefore, of the earliest churches, the "Scriptures" were not a closed but an increasing "canon." Such they had been from the beginning, as they gradually grew in number from Moses to Malachi; and such they were to continue as long as there should remain among the churches "men of God who spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."

2. The Bible, indeed, did NOT "fall magically from the clouds."
Brown provides a gross caricature of the actual Christian position concerning the inspiration of the Bible. As noted above, the Christian faith concerning the authorship of the Bible is that "men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke [and, subsequently, wrote] from God." (II Peter 2:21).
So, as the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy proclaims:

We affirm that inspiration was the work in which God by His Spirit, through human writers, gave us His Word. The origin of Scripture is divine. The mode of divine inspiration remains largely a mystery to us.
We deny that inspiration can be reduced to human insight, or to heightened states of consciousness of any kind. (Article VII)

We affirm that God in His Work of inspiration utilized the distinctive personalities and literary styles of the writers whom He had chosen and prepared.
We deny that God, in causing these writers to use the very words that He chose, overrode their personalities. (Article VIII)

We affirm that inspiration, though not conferring omniscience, guaranteed true and trustworthy utterance on all matters of which the Biblical authors were moved to speak and write.
We deny that the finitude or fallenness of these writers, by necessity or otherwise, introduced distortion or falsehood into God's Word. (Article IX)

3. God "created" the Bible as a testimony to the person and work of Jesus Christ.

4. The Bible that we have possess IS the definitive version of the book.
It is indeed true that there was a time when the Church struggled to comprehend exactly which books were to be accepted as Scripture. But with God's help, this situation was far from insurmountable. As Warfield again has explained:

The Bible was circulated only in handcopies, slowly and painfully made; and an incomplete copy, obtained say at Ephesus in A.D. 68, would be likely to remain for many years the Bible of the church to which it was conveyed; and might indeed become the parent of other copies, incomplete like itself, and thus the means of providing a whole district with incomplete Bibles. Thus, when we inquire after the history of the New Testament Canon we need to distinguish such questions as these: (1) When was the New Testament Canon completed? (2) When did any one church acquire a completed canon? (3) When did the completed canon -- the complete Bible -- obtain universal circulation and acceptance? (4) On what ground and evidence did the churches with incomplete Bibles accept the remaining books when they were made known to them?

The Canon of the New Testament was completed when the last authoritative book was given to any church by the apostles, and that was when John wrote the Apocalypse [that is, Revelation], about A.D. 98 [I would argue for an earlier date for the writing of Revelation]. Whether the church of Ephesus, however, had a completed Canon when it received the Apocalypse, or not, would depend on whether there was any epistle, say that of Jude, which had not yet reached it with authenticating proof of its apostolicity. There is room for historical investigation here. Certainly the whole Canon was not universally received by the churches till somewhat later. The Latin church of the second and third centuries did not quite know what to do with the Epistle to the Hebrews. The Syrian churches for some centuries may have lacked the lesser of the Catholic Epistles and Revelation. But from the time of Ireanaeus down, the church at large had the whole Canon as we now possess it. And though a section of the church may not yet have been satisfied of the apostolicity of a certain book or of certain books; and though afterwards doubts may have arisen in sections of the church as to the apostolicity of certain books (as e.g. of Revelation): yet in no case was it more than a respectable minority of the church which was slow in receiving, or which came afterward to doubt, the credentials of any of the books that then as now constituted the Canon of the New Testament accepted by the church at large. [emphasis added]

5. The four gospel accounts have been accepted since the time of the apostles.
Brown's assertion that "[Jesus'] life was recorded by thousands of followers across the land" is simply ridiculous, as James White of Alpha and Omega ministry explains:

We need to realize how utterly outside the realm of any kind of published scholarship this perspective is. Thousands of literate, writing followers of Christ recording His ministry? Where is the historical evidence for this? There is none, of course.

Likewise, there is absolutely no historical evidence for the claim that "more than eighty gospels were considered for the New Testament." In fact, the historian W.H.C. Frend has found that the collection of the four gospel accounts and the Apostle Paul's epistles were commonly used in Church worship- being understood to have divine authority- by A.D. 80. The dozens of gospel accounts to which Brown refers are obviously the Gnostic "gospels," which written in the second century A.D., and were rejected by the Church as a whole as being false.

6. The Bible as we know it today was not "collated" by Constantine at the Council of Nicea [as Brown asserts].
In fact, as James White points out in his article "What Really Happened at Nicea", "The Council of Nicea did not take up the canon of Scripture" this is simply a historical fact. The Council of Nicea was called to defend the biblical understanding of the divinity of Christ against the Arian heresy.
To quote White again, "The New Testament canon developed in the consciousness of the church over time"- as explained by the writings of Warfield, quoted above.

It is crucial that followers of Jesus Christ know how to answer attacks that skeptics make against the New Testament canon, for it is in these writings that we have the only sure knowledge of Jesus, the Lord of all creation and our only Savior from God's wrath against sin:

I passed on to you as most important what I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that He was buried, that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, (I Corinthians 15:3-4 HCSB)