LIBERTY BAPTIST THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

SOLA SCIPTURA: THE ONLY VIEW FOR THE EARLY CHURCH

A RESEARCH PAPER SUBMITTED TO: PROFESSOR TAE JUN SUK IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE COURSE CHURCH HISTORY 520

BY

JONATHAN E. HARRIS

WAPPINGERS FALLS, NY MARCH 2013

TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface............................................................................................................................................iv Abstract............................................................................................................................................v Definitions........................................................................................................................................1 The Process of Canonization........................................................................................................1-7 What The Bible Says About Itself................................................................................................7-9 The Church Fathers Speak..........................................................................................................9-14 Conclusion.....................................................................................................................................14

iii

PREFACE

In an age of rampant skepticism and misinformation concerning the origin of the Bible, it is of vital importance for the church to understand not only the process of canonization, but the early churchs view on the authenticity of the books canonized. There is no doubt that any believer who interacts on any level in the world today will sooner or later be asked the question, Where did we get the Bible? The modern assumption held by most individuals as a result of pop-fiction and modern academia is that the church itself simply chose through councils to arbitrarily compile the books we know today as the Old and New Testaments. This of course destroys the authenticity of the foundation of Christianity itself, making it equivalent to every other manmade deviation, and therefore subject to the nefarious nature of men of ill character. It is a little more than ironic that the stalwarts of the Christian faith in the early church (the very group of men accused of tampering and/or choosing the text of Scripture) were the very ones opposing this viewpoint and instead pointing to what has come to be known since the reformation as sola sciptura. This work is dedicated to vindicating the doctrine for which they stood thereby arming the modern Christian with an answer for those who would harbor such faulty assumptions in asking any question concerning the sacred canon.

iv

ABSTRACT

It is a fact that the canon of Scripture was not determined authoritative by a more authoritative establishmentnamely the churchbut was confirmed by the church as an entity already possessing supreme authority over the institution that verified its reliability. The Scriptures, in their original characteristic, are not made a standard by any humanly devised system of veracity, but are in judgment themselves over any such system. Therefore, the Scriptures are selfconfirming and have been treated as such by Christians universally, including the Christians of the early and patristic periodsthe periods of time directly after which the canon was complete. It is my aim to prove, using historical evidence, that the early and patristic church believed in a self-confirming and authoritative canon that they themselves sat in judgment under. The early church believed in sola scriptura.

DEFINITIONS In order to be clear about the subject at hand we must first establish what is meant by the terms that will be used. There are certain words commonly thrown around concerning the issue of canonicity and the early church that are unfortunately defined poorly or not defined at all. In order for a proper understanding to be in place Christians must understand the proper definitions of the terms commonly used. Only then can they combat the errors so frequently leveled. The term canon transliterates the Greek (kanon), which in turn derives from a Semitic word for reed (used to measure length by).1 The Greek word is used in Galatians 6:16 to refer to the rule2 of faith in Jesus Christ. A canon is the closed list of books that was officially accepted retrospectively by a community as supremely authoritative and binding for religious practice and doctrine.3 The Christian canon therefore is codified in the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments that convey the rule of faith in Jesus Christ. The term Scripture simply refers to the written word4 and parallels this definition. For the purposes of this work the word canon, Scripture, and Biblewhich literally means bookwill be used synonymously.

THE PROCESS OF CANONIZATION

P. Flint and J. VanderKam. The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Their Significance For Understanding the Bible, Judaism, Jesus, and Christianity. (Bloomsbury, 2005.) 155.
2

Gal 6:16 NASB Flint and Vanderkam, The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 156.

3 4

Brighenti et al. The Catholicism Answer Book: The 300 Most Frequently Asked Questions. (Sourcebooks, Incorporated, 2007.) 37.

One of the greatest sources of confusion in modern times is the difference between the process of canonization and the authority of the canon itself. If an individual is exclusively informed by liberal theologians they may think that the process is what gave rise to the authority, when in reality its the other way around. The church did not grant the Scriptures their authority by compiling them. Rather, the authority of the Scriptures themselves legitimized the process the church took in recognizing them as such. The early church believed the Bible existed independent from and over the church, not vice-versa. Still, it is helpful in our study to gain some background information as to how the process of canonization was completed before proceeding. The first century church, as evidenced by numerous quotations both in the New Testament and among the early church fathers, already possessed the Old Testament Scriptures. In Acts Paul commends the Bereans for examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.5 The only source of Scripture readily available to the Bereans would have been the Hebrew Old Testament in the form of the Septuagint (a Greek translation dating from 100-250 B.C.6). Jesus and the apostles both repeatedly cited the Law and the Prophets7 as the standard of faith. Christianity was a continuation of Judaism, and therefore held to the sacred writing of the Jews hence rejecting the apocryphal writings of the intertestamental periodan issue we will further expound on. The Old Testament canon was closed after the prophecy of Malachi (433-424 B.C.8)

Acts 17:11

E. Caner, The Popular Encyclopedia of Apologetics: Surveying the Evidence for the Truth of Christianity. (Harvest House Publishers, 2008.)108.
7

Matt 7:12, 22:40; Acts 24:14, etc. J. MacArthur, The MacArthur Bible Commentary. (Thomas Nelson, 2005.) 1077.

and affirmed by the Jewish community when in 164 B.C. Judas Maccabeus compiled a list of canonical books.9 Due to groups such as the Masoretes meticulous and careful scribal practices ensured that the received text of the Old Testament was handed down almost unchanged.10 While the veracity of the Law and the Prophets are attacked in modern media, they are not generally thought to have been manipulated by the early church like the New Testament is commonly thought to have been. Therefore, the transmission and affirmation of the New Testament Scriptures is where we now turn our attention. It should be noted first that none of the original documents of New Testament Scripture are still in existence, at least if any of them are, they are not known to us. What we do have are nearly 25,000 manuscripts or fragments of manuscripts . . . among these are nearly 5,800 Greek manuscripts . . . which is over three times as many as for the Iliad.11 Just the sheer volume of such a number can give a Christian much confidence in the New Testament simply for the fact that if variation does exist in a particular text there are always other texts, and many times earlier texts, to compare it with. Another significant point that should be made is the fact that no church counseldue to the geographical spread and abundance of manuscriptscould have physically eradicated a biblical text with which there was a disagreement. There are four basic groups of New Testament fragments organized based on the material which they were written on: The papyri, the uncials, the minuscules, and the lectionaries. The
9

S. B. Chapman, The Law and the Prophets: A Study in Old Testament Canon Formation. (Mohr Siebeck GmbH KG, 2000.) 58.
10 11

Caner, Encyclopedia of Apologetics, 108.

J. and S. McDowell. The Bible Handbook of Difficult Verses: A Complete Guide to Answering the Tough Questions. (Harvest House Pub, 2013.) 18.

papyri were written in Greek and date from the 2nd through 7th centuries (there are currently ninety-nine fragments in existence); there are three hundred uncials dating from the 3rd to 11th centuries; 2,800 minuscules (the earliest of which date from the 9th century); and 23,000 lectionaries dating from the 6th century and later.12 These texts have been broken down into more or less significant manuscripts and through the process of compare and contrast have been used by modern translators to gain an accurate depiction of the originals. The early church was nothing like the modern Roman Catholic establishment and cannot be compared with it. Christians were undergoing the waves of persecution and heresy on an everyday basis. The religion was spreading so fast that it can be better compared to the awkward staggering of a young adolescent rather than the oiled machinery of a corporate hierarchy. The church was certainly a grassroots endeavor being controlled by the Holy Spiritnot a group of men in closed-door meetings. (It wasnt until the 5th century that Rome consolidated real power: in part because Rome was the political capital and in part because other regions of Christendom were in turmoil13). Interestingly enough, it was these two situations (persecution and heresy) that drove the church to attempt to recognize the cannon in its early days. The rise of Gnosticism was the churchs chief threat in its infant years. Valentinuss heretical teaching on the Trinity14 left many in the church wondering how the Bible ought to be interpreted. In Rome toward the middle of the second century Marcion, who was raise in

Corley et al. Biblical Hermeneutics: A Comprehensive Introduction to Interpreting Scripture. (Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 2002), 221.
13

12

J. Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion. (Hayes Barton Press, n.d.) 997.

P. Voerding, The Trouble With Christianity: A Concise Outline of Christian History: From the Traditional Western Birth of Christ to Contemporary American Evangelical Fundamentalism. (AuthorHouse, 2009). 39.

14

Christianity, came up with his own cannon in which he excluded the Law and the Prophets as well as three out of four of the gospels themselves. The church needed to respond somehow to these errant teachings. Then on February 23, 303 . . . [Rome] posted an edict banning Christian worship . . . [and] church officials were ordered to hand over their sacred books for burning.15 Not only did the church need to defend the word of God, but they needed to preserve it. The informed Christian should know that the New Testament was not accepted in one moment as a finished work. This is obvious simply from the construction of the canon itself. Each book was written for a different reason, a different audience, a different location, and over a span of time (A.D. 44-49 to A.D. 94-96)16. For instance, Luke wrote the Gospel of Luke (A.D. 60-61)17 and Acts (A.D. 62)18 to Theophilus as a history, Matthew wrote to a Jewish audience (A.D. 50-60)19, Paul, the apostle to the gentiles, wrote many personal and corporate letters much of the time in reaction to issues individuals and churches were having (A.D. 49-50 to A.D. 6667)20 , etc. It should never be assumed that the Canon came from heaven in a pristine form encased by steal and glass. This was not Gods method of preservation. Instead, he used fallible men to accomplish His perfect purpose both in authoring the Scripture and in preserving it. The majority of the Canon was actually received and accepted by the church very early on,

R. E. Rubenstein, When Jesus Became God: The Epic Fight over Christs Divinity in the Last Days of Rome. (Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2000.) 33.
16

15

MacArthur, Bible Commentary. (Thomas Nelson, 2005.) 1094. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid.

17

18

19

20

but because the church was so spread out and because the circulation of different letters made their way to different regions at different times, there were some books that were contested. One of the earliest lists of Canonical books is referred to as the Muratorian Fragment and was written in about 170. [It] lists the four Gospels, Acts, the Pauline epistles, I and II John, Jude, and Revelation. Hebrews, James the two epistles of Peter, and III John are not included.21 In the fourth and fifth centuries there came to be general agreement in the Greek and Latin churches about the extent of the New Testament canon.22 The final expression of canonical reception came when Athanasius, the Bishop of Alexandria in A.D. 367, published the Canon containing the same books used today by protestant churches (and Catholic up until the Council of Trent in A.D. 1545). Three key councils around the time of Athanasiuss publication worked to confirm and solidify the books contained in the New Testament. The Council of Laodicea in A.D. 363, The Council of Hippo in A.D. 393, and the Council of Carthage in A.D. 397, all worked to apply what are commonly called the tests of canonicity to demonstrate what was of God and what wasnt. The first test was that of orthodoxy. Did the book or group of books contradict the rule of faith? The second test is referred to as Apostolicity. Can the work be traced back to an Apostle or someone connected to the Apostles? The third test is called the test of universality. Does the work apply to the church as a whole? It is because of these tests that the books commonly referred to as the Apocrypha failed to make their way into the Biblical Canon. As Athanasius stated:

21

H. R. Boer, A Short History of the Early Church. (Eerdmans, 1976). 72. Everett Ferguson. Church History. (Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan, 2005.) Kindle Locations 2255-2256

22

There are other books outside these, which are not indeed included in the canon, but have been appointed from the time of the fathers to be read to those who are recent converts to our company and wish to be instructed in the word of true religion. These are the Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom of Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobit, the so-called Teaching of the Apostles [Didache] and the Shepherd. But while the former are included in the canon and the latter are read, no mention is to be made of the apocryphal works. They are the invention of heretics.23 As will be demonstrated, the men involved in these councils were not seeking to establish a Canon of their own, but rather to recognize a Canon that had already been given.

WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS ABOUT ITSELF It may seem so far that there has been little said regarding the early churchs belief in sola scriptura, but upon a deeper reflection it should be noted that this is precisely what we have been discussing. The process of canonization is a testimony to the early churchs incapability of strong-arming itself into a position of acting as the Bibles authority. There was no way the early church could eradicate texts it thought undesirable, and there was no way, in the fractured world of early Christianity, a solid consensus could be built around a controllable group of leaders. This was also not the desire of the early church as we have seen in their canonicity tests. They viewed themselves as ones affirming a truth already granted by God. In this next section we will continue this vein to find out what the Biblethe compilation venerated and affirmed by the churchsays about itself. The most common passage quoted when discussing biblical authority is 2 Timothy 3:16-17 which states, All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for

23

Ibid., Kindle Locations 2272-2275.

every good work.24 What is it that makes men equipped for every good work? It is not the church, but rather Scripture itself. The word inspired literally means, god-breathed. The New Testaments authority comes as much from God as the Old Testaments Thus Saith the Lord,25 comes from God. Commenting on this statement Dr. James White explains, It is both a positive statement, asserting the supremacy and uniqueness of the Word, and a negative one, denying the existence of any other rule of authority on the same level.26 The second Scripture for consideration is 2 Peter 1:21 which says, But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of ones own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.27 In context, Peter has just finished explaining his experience on the Mount of Transfiguration. He then switches gears to let his audience know in verse 19 that there is a word made more sure28 than even his own personal experience, and that word is revealed in verse 21 as the Scriptures themselves. The reason the Apostle Peter trusted the Scriptures over his own experience was because the Scriptures were given by God and not subject to ones own interpretation. The men who were used to write the Canon Peter tells us were moved (or carried along) by the Holy Spirit. There are numerous other Scriptures that also attest to what both Peter and Paul confirm in their writingsthat there exists no higher authority than the Word of God. It is this view that was adopted by the early

24

2 Tim 3:16-17 Zech 1:3, Jer. 34:2, 1 Kings 21:19, etc.

25

J. R. W hite, Scripture Alone: Exploring the Bibles Accuracy, Authority and Authenticity. (Baker Publishing Group, 2004). 14-15.
27

26

2 Pet 1:21 2 Pet 1:19

28

church, and because of this view the Scriptures must authenticate themselves, for to put them under the authority of any man or group of men would be to rob them of their very nature.

THE CHURCH FATHERS SPEAK No matter how many issues the church fathers disagreed with each other on, one viewpoint seems to have universal acceptance. The preceding sentence seems almost to be the type of statement a mystery/thriller about the early church would open with but unfortunately, for the conspiracy theorist, the issue being discussed establishes the very opposite of what true conspiracies are made of. The early church believed in sola scriptura and this can be clearly seen when their leaders words are carefully examined. If ever there was a conspiracy in the early Christian period, it was a conspiracy to establish the Bible as the sole authority for faith and practice and the church as its humble servant. Hippolytus of Rome (170 235 A.D.) was the most important third century theologian in the Christian Church in Rome.29 He was the disciple of Irenaeus, who in turn was the disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of the Apostle John. Hippolytus wrote an incredible amount of Christian material most notably the Refutation of All Heresies. He died as a martyr in 235 A.D. under the persecution of Emperor Maximinus Thrax. Hippolytus had this to say about the cannon. There is, brethren, one God, the knowledge of whom we gain from the Holy Scriptures, and from no other source.... Whatever things, then, the Holy Scriptures declare, at these let us look; and whatsoever things they teach, these let us learn.30

29

J. Killian, Truth of Our Faith. (iUniverse, 2011). 179. A. Roberts, The Ante-Nicene Fathers. (Christian Literature Publishing Company, 1888.) 227.

30

The exclusivity of Hippolytuss statement is hard to miss. He doesnt give any credence to the church or extra-biblical tradition. On the contrary, he outlaws them as refuges by which to escape from sola scriptura. Athanasius (ca. 296-298 373 A.D.), mentioned previously in this work for having compiled an accurate list of the canonical books, served as the archbishop of the church in Alexandria and played a leading role at First Council of Nicaea for opposing Arianism. Athanasius was also persecuted in five separate exiles spanning a seventeen year time span. St. Gegory of Nazianzen called him pillar of the Church31 for his invaluable work against heresy. Here is what he had to say about the authority of the Scriptures: The tokens of truth are more exact as drawn from Scripture, than from other sources.32 Obviously it is clear what authority Athanasius stood upon as he fought the heresy of Arianism. It was not in his title of archbishop but rather in his deference to where true exactness comes from. The sacred and inspired Scriptures are sufficient to declare the truth.33 It is more than a bit ironic that someone who took such a prominent role in the First Council of Nicaea likewise had this to say concerning councils. Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faiths sake; for divine Scripture is sufficient above all things.34 By all things it is apparent Athanasius is including councils in his statement.

L. Gambero, Mary and the Fathers of the Church: The Blessed Virgin Mary in Patristic Thought. (Ignatius Press, 1999). 99.
32

31

J. H. Newman. Select Treatises in Controversy with the Arians. (John Henry Parker, 1842.) 57. Athanasius of Alexandria, Against the Heathen. (Fig, n.d.) 1.

33 34

P. Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Second Series Volume IV Anthanasius: Selects Works and Letters. (Cosimo, 2007.) 453.

10

Another stalwart against Arianism in the early church was a man by the name of Basil of Caesarea (329 or 330 379 A.D.). Labeled among the Cappadocian Fathers and influential in championing the Nicene Creed, Basil was also involved in making his mark on early monastic life as well as succeeding Eusebius as the Bishop of Caesarea. Although there are no doubt issues which many modern Protestants may disagree with Basil on, he would have no qualms about sola scriptura. We ought carefully to examine whether the doctrine offered us is conformable to Scripture, and if not, to reject it. Nothing must be added to the inspired words of God; all that is outside Scripture is not of faith, but is sin.35 It doesnt get much clearer than that. Not only is Scripture of the highest authority, anything deviating from it is sinful in the eyes of Basil. The very Nicene Creed he forwarded was therefore viewed as a support beam of the Scriptures, not a replacement, or an assistant to them. On a separate occasion, Basil had this to say to a Christian widow. Enjoying as you do the consolation of the Holy Scriptures, you stand in need neither of my assistance nor of that of anybody else to help you to comprehend your duty. You have the all-sufficient counsel and guidance of the Holy Spirit to lead you to what is right.36 This may surprise many modern Catholics. One of the Doctors of their church believes that a bishop in the church itself is of no help in comprehending the Scriptures. On the contrary, it is the responsibility of the Holy Spirit coupled with the illumination of the text of the Scripture itself. Basil did of course believe in the office of a pastor-teacher, but he believed it was the job

35

P. Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Second Series, Basil: Letters and Select Works. (Cosimo,

2007.) Lii. P. Schaff, and H. W ace. A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church: St. Basil: Letters and Select Works. 1895. (Christian literature Company, 1895.) 312.
36

11

of laymen to examine what was being taught and compare it to Scripture. Concerning the Hearers: that those hearers who are instructed in the Scriptures should examine what is said by the teachers, receiving what is in conformity with the Scriptures and rejecting what is opposed to them; and that those who persist in teaching such doctrines should be strictly avoided.37 Let us now turn our attention to another influential bishop, Basils brother Gregory of Nyssa (c. 335 c. 395 A.D.). Gregory was another champion of Trinitarian theology and participated in the synod at Ancyra, the Synod of Antioch, and the First Council of Constantinople. Today he is considered a saint in Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, Lutheranism, and Anglicanism. Gregorys views match those of his brother: We make the Holy Scriptures the canon and the rule of every dogma; we of necessity look upon that, and receive alone that which may be made conformable to the intention of those writings.38 Everything, from Gregorys point of view, must be conformable or made to fit into the intention of the Bible. This would mean everything that deviates from it is illegitimate. Cyril of Alexandria (c. 376 444) was a very influential bishop in the patristic period of the church. Often referred to as Pillar of Faith or Seal of all the Fathers, Cyril served as the Patriarch of Alexandria and was a central figure in the First Council of Ephesus. Cyril, one of the most powerful forces in the Christian world at the time, even rubbing shoulders with the emperor, had much to say about sola scriptura. Let us then speak concerning the Holy Ghost nothing but what is written; and whatsoever is not written, let us not busy ourselves about it. The Holy Ghost Himself spoke

37

J. A. Hardon, The Treasury of Catholic Wisdom. (Ignatius Press, 1987.)

James W hite. Francis Beckwith Begins to Give His Reasons (#3). Alpha and Omega Ministries, June 7, 2007. http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=2033.

38

12

the Scriptures; He has also spoken concerning Himself as much as He pleased, or as much as we could receive. Let us therefore speak those things which He has said; for whatsoever He has not said, we dare not say.39 Notice the humility in which Cyril offers us his statement. He wished to constrain himself to only speaking that which was found in Scripture. Why? Because: Concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell you these things, give not absolute credence, unless you receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures.40 In other words, Cyril sought to restrain himself from dogmatically forwarding any opinion found outside of Scripture for the simple reason that salvation depends on the Scriptures themselves. What else is of importance? Notice also how Cyril places the Scriptures above even human reason! Last, but certainly not least, let us discuss the champion of early ChristianitySt. Augustine himself (354 430 A.D.), perhaps the most respected man in all of church history excluding the Apostles themselves. St. Augustines words ring true to every Christian of every age. Let us treat scripture like scripture, like God speaking; dont ... look there for man going wrong. It is not for nothing, you see, that the canon has been established for the Church. This is the function of the Holy Spirit. So if anybody reads my book, let him pass judgment on me. If I have said something reasonable, let him follow, not me, but reason itself; if Ive proved it by the clearest divine testimony, let him follow, not me, but the divine scripture.41

39

Saint Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures. (OrthodoxEbooks, n.d.) 286.

P. Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Second Series: Cyril of Jerusalem, (Gregory Nazianzen. Cosimo, 2007). 23.
41

40

D. L. Jeffrey,Houses of the Interpreter: Reading Bible, Reading Culture. (Baylor University Press,

2004). 48.

13

Augustine demonstrates a great humility as well. His desire is for Christians to look to Scripture and not him. It is telling what the great theologian says about the relationship of Scripture to the church. The canon has been established for the Church. This statement simply implies that it wasnt the church that established the canon, but rather the other way around. The church would have no authority if it wasnt for the canonthe canon of Scripture given by God.

CONCLUSION As has been demonstrated throughout this work, the church viewed the Scripture as the selfauthenticating word of God relying on no higher power than itself. First we looked at the process of canonization and demonstrated that the early church did not have the option available to itself that would make it possible for it to destroy variations in the text it thought disagreeable. Secondly, we saw that the early churchs goal was to preserve, as instruments of God, what was recognized by God as Scripture. Thirdly, knowing that the church was for the authority of the Canon, we examined what the Canon had to say about itselfhow it states there is no higher authority that exists. Fourthly, we saw that the early and patristic church fathers were unified in extolling the viewpoint Scripture has about itself. They placed themselves under its authority, not the authenticity of Scripture under theirs.

14

WORKS CITED

Alexandria, A. Against the Heathen. Fig, n.d.. Boer, H. R. A Short History of the Early Church. Eerdmans, 1976. Brighenti et al. The Catholicism Answer Book: The 300 Most Frequently Asked Questions. Sourcebooks, Incorporated, 2007. Calvin, J. Institues of the Christian Religion. Hayes Barton Press, n.d. Caner, E. The Popular Encyclopedia of Apologetics: Surveying the Evidence for the Truth of Christianity. Harvest House Publishers, 2008. Chapman, S. B. The Law and the Prophets: A Study in Old Testament Canon Formation. Mohr Siebeck GmbH KG, 2000. Ferguson, Everett. Church History. Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan, 2005. Gambero, L. Mary and the Fathers of the Church: The Blessed Virgin Mary in Patristic Thought. Ignatius Press, 1999. Hardon, J. A. The Treasury of Catholic Wisdom. Ignatius Press, 1987. Jeffrey, D. L. Houses of the Interpreter: Reading Bible, Reading Culture. Baylor University Press, 2004. Jerusalem, S. C. Catechetical Lectures. OrthodoxEbooks, n.d. Killian, J. Truth of Our Faith. iUniverse, 2011. MacArthur, J. The MacArthur Bible Commentary. Thomas Nelson, 2005. McDowell, J., and S. McDowell. The Bible Handbook of Difficult Verses: A Complete Guide to 15

Answering the Tough Questions. Harvest House Pub, 2013. Newman, J. H. Select Treatises in Controversy with the Arians. John Henry Parker, 1842. Roberts, A. The Ante-Nicene Fathers. Christian Literature Publishing Company, 1888. Rubenstein, R. E. When Jesus Became God: The Epic Fight over Christs Divinity in the Last Days of Rome. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2000.. Schaff, P. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Second Series, Basil: Letters and Select Works. Cosimo, 2007. http://books.google.com/books?id=YCcKWmtee5oC. Schaff, P. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Second Series: Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory Nazianzen. Cosimo, 2007. Schaff, P. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Second Series Volume IV Anthanasius: Selects Works and Letters. Cosimo, 2007. Schaff, P., and H. Wace. A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church: St. Basil: Letters and Select Works. 1895. Christian literature Company, 1895. VanderKam, J., and P. Flint. The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Their Significance For Understanding the Bible, Judaism, Jesus, and Christianity. Bloomsbury, 2005. Voerding, P. The Trouble With Christianity: A Concise Outline of Christian History: From the Traditional Western Birth of Christ (Pbuh) to Contemporary American Evangelical Fundamentalism. AuthorHouse, 2009. White, J. R. Scripture Alone: Exploring the Bibles Accuracy, Authority and Authenticity. Baker Publishing Group, 2004. White, James. Francis Beckwith Begins to Give His Reasons (#3). Alpha and Omega Ministries, June 7, 2007. http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=2033.

16