Chronological Listing of the New Testament Books

Today I thought I'd do a google search for a chart giving a chronological listing of the New Testament books, according to the date authored. Maybe I'm just a really bad googler or something, but I had a hard time finding something that was (a) easy to read, and, (b) worth looking at.

While there is much debate over the precise dating of several of the NT books, it can be quite helpful, I find, to think through the writing of the NT canonical books in their historical order. Since I couldn't find anything good online, I thought I'd put one up on our church website (you can view the chart here). I have found it quite an interesting and insightful study... hopefully it helps you grow in your understanding of the New Testament as well!

A chart of the New Testament Books in Chronological Order, according to Date Authored

A Far Green Country...: Join a Church Youngin'

A Far Green Country...: Join a Church, Youngin'

David Rainer has some excellent words of wisdom from the Scriptures on the church. Definitely worth the read!

Tertullian and Contemporary Biblical Ethics

Tertullian lived ca.150-ca.225 AD. He was born in Carthage, which is in North Africa (so he was probably a little darker than the picture would suggest). He was a man brilliantly gifted by God for writing. He wrote extensively on things like apologetics and ethics and often wrote polemically against the heretics of his day (eg. Marcion and Praxeas). He ably defended both Scriptures and the Trinity. In his writings--which are easily dated from the end of the second and early third centuries--Tertullian quotes from the New Testament, plainly citing it as being on par with Old Testament Scriptures, thus indicating an already accepted Canon, long before Nicaea.

All that said, Tertullian was not perfect (as no saint has ever been). Tertullian was associated with a movement in his day known as Montanism. Based on the teachings of a 'Prophet' named Montanus, this group believed that the age in which they lived was the dispensation of the Holy Spirit (the Old Testament was the dispensation of the Father, the Gospels were the dispensation of the Son). Since this was the age of the Holy Spirit, they relied heavily on prophecies and other miraculous revelatory gifts for their doctrine and ecclesiastical practice.

Citing John 16.12-13, Tertullian and the Montanists claimed that the ethics Jesus declared were not finally absolute, nor fully developed, but that they were all that the disciples were able to handle at that point in redemptive history. The Holy Spirit, who was to come, would then have the ministry of revealing a heightened ethic to Jesus' followers in the days and years to come.

It is absolutely essential to notice, however, to what end Tertullian and friends used this position. They argued for the insufficiency of Scriptural ethics in several areas: namely, marriage / remarriage, and flight from persecution. Whereas Jesus had made allowances for both of these, the Holy Spirit was now teaching them to advance beyond what Scripture had revealed to a higher ethic.

Why in the world would they choose these areas? Because that's what their culture demanded. Asceticism was the philosophical milk Tertullian had been raised on, and persecution had become the norm for Christians of their day. For Christianity to be consistent, relevant, and morally / ethically contemporary with the philosophical ideals of the day it needed to be advanced from what Scripture had revealed.

The irony, of course, is that looking back from about 1800 years later it seems absurd to us (in a completely removed culture) to suppose the Holy Spirit would counsel against marriage (or even remarriage after one's spouse dies) or that he would specifically command that Christians not flee, but rather, seek persecution.

Since we don't breathe that air, it smells real funny to us.

But here's the thing: People today insist on making the same mistake as Tertullian and the Montanists. No, not with the marriage / remarriage thing or the persecution thing (in fact, we're tempted to loosen the biblical commands here rather than tighten them), but rather, with the ordination of women to the position of elder, or to accept some forms of homosexuality as legitimate lifestyle alternatives.

People argue now, like Tertullian argued then, that the Bible's ethics are unfinished; they merely establish a trajectory that we must follow, and by the guidance of the Spirit (and by finding the 'spirit of the text') we can ultimately determine a better ethic than the one laid out in Scripture.

But it's all hoogly! I would be willing to bet--if any of us could be around--that 1800 years from now people will look back on our times and wonder why in the world we would think the Scriptures were insufficient in these areas.

Just like we look back on Tertullian and see him reading Scriptures and conforming Christianity to his culture, so we must see that we ourselves are always being tempted to do the same. The simple fact is that we live in a profoundly feminist, pro-gay culture. The pressure we face is always to accept these things. We have been raised and educated, indoctrinated from our youth to accept these things. The 'highest' of ethics in our culture is an accepting one that does not place boundaries on other people, especially when it comes to gender or 'sexual preference.'

Those are our 'hot-button issues', just like Tertullian's were asceticism and persecution. We must not be like him. We must stand firm and stick to the Scriptures. It is them alone which are able to make us wise for salvation, and them alone which equip us for every good work.

The real questions we must ask are not about whether women should be ordained as elders or homosexuality should be accepted; we already have the answers to those questions!

The real question that needs to be asked is this: Am I willing to stand on the authority of the word of God alone? Do I have enough faith in God to base my ethics on it, even when it makes me appear 'morally backward' in a culture of acceptance? Is God's word enough?

-------------------------------------

For a fuller treatment of 'Trajectory ethics', see here.
For another post on the influence of asceticism on Christianity, see here.

Augustine's Love for God

My love of you, O Lord, is not some vague feeling: it is positive and certain. Your word struck into my heart and from that moment I loved you. Besides this, all about me, heaven and earth and all that they contain proclaim that I should love you, and their message never ceases to sound in the ears of all mankind, so that there is no excuse for any not to love you. But, more than all this, you will show pity on those whom you pity; you will show mercy where you are merciful;[1] for if it were not for your mercy, heaven and earth would cry your praises to deaf ears.

But what do I love when I love my God? Not material beauty or beauty of a temporal order; not the brilliance of earthly light, so welcome to our eyes; not the sweet melody of harmony and song; not the fragrance of flowers, perfumes, and spices; not manna or honey; not limbs such as the body delights to embrace. It is not these that I love when I love my God. And yet, when I love him, it is true that I love a light of a certain kind, a voice, a perfume, a food, an embrace; but they are of the kind that I love in my inner self, when my soul is bathed in light that is not bound by space; when it listens to sound that never dies away; when it breathes fragrance that is not borne away on the wind; when it tastes food that is never consumed by the eating; when it clings to an embrace from which it is not severed by fulfilment of desire. This is what I love when I love my God.[2]

---

[1] Ro 9.14

[2] Aurelius Augustine, Confessions (translated by R.S. Pine-Coffin, © Penguin Books, 1961), 211-212.

The Mozambique Christian Book Ministry Fund

It hasn't really hit me until recently just how much of an incredible blessing it is to have access to books. It's something that both as a student, and as a pastoral assistant I take for granted.

Being able to read good books is something that is absolutely essential if we are to safeguard sound doctrine. God only knows what havoc I would wreak on the church if I was left to my own best guesses about what biblical texts mean, without ever having been able to read good books.

But now imagine that you're in Mozambique, one of the poorest countries in the world, and you couldn't afford a book if one was available. You speak Portugese; a language in which not many great theological treatises have been published. But even if there were good books in Portugese, there is no Chapters-Indigo or Amazon.ca to simply order from. There's simply no way to get books, and no way to pay for them.

Imagine the pressure of having to teach God's people week-in and week-out with no books, no resources, no education, no theological training. That is the reality for the pastors of Mozambique.

But there is hope! At Grace Fellowship Church we've been raising money this year for the Mozambique Christian Book Ministry Fund. You can read all about it at the kerux's blog.

If you don't think you can afford to give anything, check out this horrendously convicting post, and then think through your life. What better way to take even a little bit of money and make a huge impact for the gospel efforts in Mozambique? For each book we get into the hands of a pastor, dozens, if not hundreds of people will be blessed for generations!

For more info (including details on how to give to the cause) see kerux noemata: The Mozambique Christian Book Ministry Fund

Doctrine and Love

This morning I was blessed in my reading of 1 Timothy. I was quite refreshed to read Paul's words to Timothy:

The aim of our charge is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith.

When Scripture records for us Paul's letter to this young pastor (the first generation of non-apostolic church leaders), and gives us the apostle's commission for the ministry, I think it is wise (to say the least!) to heed his words.

Paul has told Timothy already that he is to stay at the church in Ephesus and minister there. And what is the aim of that ministry? Love. Paul does not need to go on any more about love... Timothy has been with Paul long enough to know what an essential role love plays in the thought of Paul, and the life of the church.

For example, 1 Corinthians 13, the passage everyone likes to cite about love, comes right in between chapters 12 and 14, which are all about church life. What is it that is to be the governing rule in the life of a church? Love.

Why love? Because love is the fulfilling of the law. Love for God, first and foremost, and then out of that love flows love for brothers and sisters in Christ, and then love for the rest of the world. This all, of course, comes as no real surprise to us.

What I did find interesting today, however, was to ask myself as I was reading, 'How is it that Timothy is to fulfill his charge, so as to bring about love in the life of the local church where he ministers?'

The answer is not what we would expect.

Timothy is to fulfill his charge to stir his people up to love by protecting sound doctrine.

In our day, in our part of the world, you don't hear that kind of thing very much. Either you get the loosey-goosey kind of theology where we're told 'doctrine divides', so we shouldn't think about it, or else you might get trendy 're-invent, re-think, revise' camp that is more interested in asking questions and pointing out errors than getting answers.

This is not the logic of man, but the logic of God from his inspired word. The verses immediately preceding Paul's statement quoted above insist that Timothy charge people not to teach false doctrines or to focus on side issues, but to stick to the gospel as it had been taught.

Throughout the rest of the book of 1 Timothy (and then again and again in 2 Timothy as well), Paul exhorts Timothy to protect doctrine, to guard the deposit, to rebuke those who contradict sound doctrine, to always preach, always teach the word, always protect the gospel that Paul had taught him.

Why? Why must he protect doctrine? The goal of all that he does is love in his people. There are no fewer than 3 major lessons I need to learn from that.

1. I need to stand fast against all false doctrine.
2. I need to make love the end goal of all ministry.
3. If love is not the result of the doctrine, then either the teaching, the teacher, or those being taught are in the wrong, because the goal of gospel teaching is always love.

In contrast to whatever the pop church culture of our day tells us, it is correct doctrine that will unite God's church, and correct doctrine that will stir Christ's bride up to love in increasing measure. It is only in the true gospel that true love is shown, and only when the true gospel is preached with conviction, and believed on with resolution will men come to love God and love one another from a pure heart.

What's up with that?

For those of you who subscribe to the rss for this site (yes, I know there are at least three of you), you've probably been wondering why it's been going haywire with old articles over the past few days.

I've recently been investing the allotted 'blogging' time from my schedule to bringing over old posts that I wrote on my old blog site into this one. I've also been trying to take advantage of this new blogger software, which allows for posts with labels, so that things can be a tad more organized.

If you scroll down a little bit, you'll see on the sidebar on the right, I now have a section there titled: 'Things I've written about' or something like that. I've never had stuff sorted into categories before, and it has been somewhat tedious and laborious (although it was quite funny to see how the posts from a couple years ago are remarkably different than the ones I'm posting now...), so hopefully it ends up being helpful to someone someday.

A Hockey Post

It's not often I post about sports, but I couldn't resist this time. I came across an article by Dan Wetzel of Yahoo Sports on the topic of Gary Bettman's 15th anniversary as commissioner of the National Hockey League.

In this article, he said everything I've thought about Bettman and the job that he has done better than I ever could. If you're a hockey fan (or even if you're a Sabres fan), this is an important read.

If online petitions were good for anything other than wasting time and filling up people's inboxes with spam, I'd definitely start one to get Bettman out. That guy stinks at his job, and everyone seems to know it except the NHL Board of Governers. What's up with that?

On the 'Inadequacy' of Language

I've often come across (and myself even flirted with) several forms of the notion that language is entirely 'inadequate' to describe God. In fact, I still in many ways find this to be true. No language can exhaustively declare the reality, the beauty, the holiness of our Triune God.

What is unfortunate, however, is how often people in our day will take their queues from neo-orthodoxy and give up on propositional language at all to describe God. God becomes one meant to be experienced rather than spoken of.

I have found some observations from Vern S. Poythress on this topic to be quite helpful, so I thought I'd post them for your pondreing as well.

On what basis are we to make judgments about adequacy and inadequacy ... ? What could we mean by saying that human language is inadequate to talk about God ... ? In what way is it "inadequate"? And what do we expect talk about God ... to be like? Our expectations and definitions of "adequacy" ... are themselves shot through with values, with preferences, desires, standards, and perhaps disappointments at goals that we set but are not reached. Where do these values come from? If God is Lord, we ought to conform our values to his standards. Hence there is something intrinsically rebellious about negatively evaluating biblical language [for its adequacy as "God talk"].[1]

He continues, pointing out the self-defeating nature of these notions of the uselessness of language to speak of God:

How does the objector obtain the necessary knowledge about God, truth, and cultures in order to make a judgment about the adequacy of language for expressing theology and truth, and for achieving cross-cultural communications? How does he do this when he himself is largely limited by the capabilities of his own language and culture?[2]

So, what can we say to all these things? Is language enough to speak of God sufficiently? Absolutely not. But at the end of the day, I think it's safest to land where Augustine does, after spending a page of small print describing some of the glorious mysteries of God:

You are my God, my Life, my Holy Delight, but is this enough to say of you? Can any man say enough when he speaks of you? Yet woe betide those who are silent about you!

I may never be able to describe God completely, but may that never stop me from spending every last breath he gives me declaring his goodness and his glory!

---

[1] Vern S. Poythress, “Adequacy of Language and Accomodation,” in Hermeneutics, Inerrancy, and the Bible, ed. Earl D. Radmacher and Robert D. Preus (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), 353.

[2] Ibid., 354.

Gleanings on the Spirit from Acts

I don't know if you're anything like me, but if you are, then you probably wonder from time to time why you have to learn something so many times before it finally sinks in. This morning, as I was reading through Acts, I couldn't help but be struck with the reality of my need to regularly read big chunks of Scripture at a single sitting.

This is true for lots of reasons. For one thing, it's the way Scripture was meant to be learned. Luke didn't write Acts in handy little chapters and verses so that we could read a little bit each day. He wrote it as one story to be read aloud or to oneself in one sitting. If we want to understand a book of the Bible, we need to read it like it was meant to be read.

Following on that reason, it brings out a lot of the bigger themes that you're so prone to miss in a book if you don't see them repeated over several chapters. Call me an idiot, but it blew my mind to see this time through the book just how big a role the Holy Spirit plays in this book. It's plain to see, I know, but our need of the Spirit, the necessity of the Spirit going where the gospel goes, the sovereignty of the Spirit in determining where the gospel goes, the role of the Spirit in guiding and protecting believers, the role of the Spirit in redemptive-history, the necessity of the filling of the Spirit for any effective ministry... over and over and over again the Holy Spirit (or 'the Spirit' or 'the Spirit of Jesus') is emphatically spoken of as essential to the gospel-cause.

That's something that I need to hear more of. In the cessationist circles I've always moved in the Spirit is viewed with a funny kind of suspicion--as if he really actually did have something to do with those whacko tv-preachers. Obviously that's not who he is. But the temptation, of course, is to swing the pendulum so far in the other direction that we leave the Spirit no room in our lives or churches.

In fact, I dare confess that there have been times in my life when in my own theology I have made the Spirit out to be a sort of demi-God, under the Father and Jesus who are truly God. I mean, I would never have said this, but it seems to be the way I viewed the world. I looked at God working in this world as if the Father could or would do anything without doing it through his Holy Spirit.

Free Online Don Carson Sermons

Les Jumeaux posted this link a little while ago, and I immediately checked it out. It was only on my second or third perusal of the list that I realized just how much of an awesome resource this is.

Here is a listing of all the free online D.A. Carson sermons that these guys have found. They're broken up under categories, such as 'The New Perspective on Paul', 'The Emerging Church', 'Eschatology', 'The Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament', etc. There is even this message here, in which D.A. Carson declares what Toronto needs the most.

Thanks to the twins for this head's up!

The Past Weekend

This past weekend I was extremely humbled and blessed to be invited to preach at the Winter Retreat for the Nipissing University / Canadore College Christian Fellowship. We gathered on Friday evening at Camp Kahquah in Magnetawan, ON.

As a group, they're studying The Pursuit of Holiness by Jerry Bridges this year, so they asked me to come and preach on the topic of holiness. I was asked to preach on Friday night, twice on Saturday, and again on Sunday morning.

To be honest, I really wasn't sure what to expect from this group. Some campus ministry groups I've known have been pretty flaky, so I was suspicious. But when I got there, I was pleasantly surprised.

As a group, they were attentive to the word being preached (which is saying a lot, given the preacher!), they were eager to think through the hard issues brought up, challenge each other through discussions in small groups, and were full of questions for me on practical issues of holy living that each of them were facing in their own lives.

I was truly blessed to have spent this time with these dear brothers and sisters, and have been truly humbled by the invitation to come and teach the word of God to them.

I would like to give special thanks to Nathan for putting my name forward as a possibility to come and preach. If it weren't for his recommendation I wouldn't have had the chance to be encouraged by these believers in North Bay. This was a weekend for which I am truly thankful to God.

Desperate Need of Jesus

This morning I found myself finishing up the last few chapters of Luke and realizing again just how desperately I need Jesus.

I confess that for much of my Christian life I have seen my need of Jesus mainly in a soteriological sense (i.e. I need his vicarious death to accomplish forgiveness of my sins and so that I can be clothed with his righteousness). To be sure, that need is the burden of these chapters in Luke. Jesus himself, we are told, explained to his disciples 'that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations'. This is why Jesus died, and this is what we need from him, first and foremost. That's what Scriptures testify, and that's what I believe.

But there's more than that, though. I have so much more need of Jesus that I can see even just from these few chapters.

At the beginning of chapter 22 we are told that Satan enters into Judas. Half way through the chapter, Jesus says these words to Peter: 'Behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail.' Wow. God ordained that Jesus would be betrayed by Judas, who gave himself over to Satan, but when Satan wanted Peter, Jesus said no.

What stands between Satan and me? What stops Satan (or one of his workers) from entering me and working in me to do his bidding? What holds Satan back from causing my faith to fail? The will of God and the prayers of Jesus. I have great need of Jesus to pray for me and be merciful to keep me.

In a similar vein, I need Jesus to remember me. This was the request of the thief on the cross, that when Jesus would come into his kingdom, that he would remember--be favourable to, merciful to--this thief who was guilty of sin and crime and deserved nothing but death and punishment. How am I any different than the thief? I need Jesus to remember me, too.

In these chapters is recounted the literal, historic events of Jesus' death and resurrection. As Paul would teach later (Rom 6), we have need of Christ's death becoming our death to sin (and to the law). In this way, we die to sin and to the law, and are no longer held captive by it, to do its will. Rather, all who have baptized into Christ, having been unified with him in his death, have been made alive with him in his resurrection. I have great need of Christ's resurrection, which makes me alive to God. Though formerly I was dead in transgressions and sins, now through Christ's resurrection, I have been made alive to God, that I might do his will.

In the last chapter of Luke we read of the two walking to Emmaus, who meet up with Jesus, but can't figure out that it's him. Jesus describes himself as the fulfilment of everything that has come before (Moses and the Prophets), but they still don't get it. It wasn't until he broke bread with them that their eyes were opened. I have great need of Jesus to open my eyes to see him for who he is. I am foolish and slow of heart to believe the word of God, but his grace is sufficient to enable me to see with the eyes of faith.

The disciples (and the rest of humanity since!) are no different than the two on the road. When Jesus comes to them they don't know what to make of him. They think all kinds of wrong thoughts about him (like, 'Maybe he's just a spirit or something?'). It wasn't until Jesus opened their minds to understand the Scriptures that they could understand Jesus.

I have great need of Jesus opening my eyes to understand the Bible, in order for me to know him. Unless Jesus grants that my eyes be opened I can read the Bible till I die (or not read the Bible till I die) and I will never know Jesus. The only way to know him is from his word, and the only way to understand his word is if he opens our minds.

Man, am I needy!

And to think, that's from only a few chapters...

It's Dumb to be a Hypocrite

I know it's true, because Jesus said so.

And yet, the sad reality is that this truth is one I need to continually be preaching to myself and my foolish heart.

This morning as I was reading through a portion of Luke's gospel I came across these verses:

In the meantime, when so many thousands of the people had gathered together that they were trampling one another, he began to say to his disciples first, “Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy. Nothing is covered up that will not be revealed, or hidden that will not be known. Therefore whatever you have said in the dark shall be heard in the light, and what you have whispered in private rooms shall be proclaimed on the housetops.

“I tell you, my friends, do not fear those who kill the body, and after that have nothing more that they can do. But I will warn you whom to fear: fear him who, after he has killed, has authority to cast into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him! Are not five sparrows sold for two pennies? And not one of them is forgotten before God. Why, even the hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear not; you are of more value than many sparrows.

I take this to be showing me that hypocrisy is dumb. Here's why:

1. It's dumb to try to keep your sin secret when nothing's going to stay secret forever. When we hide things we're hiding them from men because we want to impress (we're afraid of) men. But what we try to hide won't remain hidden forever anyway. So even the things we can keep hidden for now won't remain 'our little secret' for good. If you're a Christian who's tried to live in sin you know this to be true. Your sins will always find you out.
2. It's dumb to fear people when all they can do is kill you. That may seem like a big deal, but think about it. For those of us who have access to computers and the internet, the chances of actually being martyred for our faith are pretty ridiculously small. But even if it were a real and pressing danger (as it was for the man speaking these words), so what? It's not like you weren't going to die anyway. If you fear men, you'll die one way or another and then you'll be out of their reach. But there's something way worse than death, and that's hell. Jesus won't settle with people being wishy-washy with him. You either fear men or else you fear God. There's no middle ground.

So which would you rather have? A little bit of comfort here and now in the presence of men--until they figure out who you really are and realize you're a hypocrite--and then an eternity of torment in hell, or some persecution and hardship now, with a clean conscience and full assurance of an eternity of unimaginable joy to come?

You're telling me it's not dumb to be a hypocrite?

Gnosticism: A Very Brief Introduction

In our times Gnosticism has had a startling revival. It continues to pop up in popular books, magazines, news articles, etc. Where did this thing called Gnosticism come from? Who were some of the key players?

What follows is a very brief introduction to the second-century Gnosticism engaged by early Christians like Irenæus (c.130-c.202).

The Gnostics were individuals who belonged to various religious movements, who believed that people could be saved only by their knowledge (gnosis). This knowledge was secret—known only by those to whom it had been revealed by God. Though Gnostics were involved in a variety of religions and sects, they particularly flourished through their association with the fringes of Christianity.

Gnosticism is known widely for its particularly sharp dualism: that which is “spiritual” is good, but that which is physical is bad. This influenced everything they thought and taught. For example, creation was the result of the fall of “wisdom.” Thus, even the very act of the creation of the physical was a result of sin. The one sent by God to be the redeemer of the universe, then, is sent so as to bring a “secret knowledge” to God’s people by which they may be saved.

Also as a result of this sharp dualism morals of Gnostics varied. Some believed that since knowledge of the spiritual was all that was required for salvation how one behaved physically was of no relevance, and thus rampant immorality was encouraged. Others argued that since the physical was bad, it should not be indulged in any sense. This latter group was the more common position and resulted in drastic asceticism. Under this view marriage, sexuality, wine in the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, and many other things essential to the Christian life had to be abandoned.

The Christology of Gnostics was affected drastically by the idea that anything physical is evil. They were forced to hold to a Docetic view of Christ, insisting that he was not human, nor physical, nor were his sufferings real. Rather, all of these were mere apparitions.

The Gnostics were also dualists in their view of God. They saw a sharp contrast between the God of the Old Testament and the God and Father of Jesus Christ. The God of the Old Testament was a God of justice and anger, committed only the nation of Israel, willing to destroy all the nations of the world for their sake. The God of the New Testament, they argued, is much more merciful and loving. The God of the Old Testament created the world which is physical and therefore evil, but the God of the New Testament is spiritual and is concerned with saving people through a secret knowledge of the spiritual which is revealed in Jesus.

The Gnostics were prolific writers and produced many works still extant even now. The Mandaean communities currently living in modern day Iraq and Iran are the only remnant of Gnosticism in today’s world. Even this sect, however, did not come into existence until at least the second century ad and thus had no influence on the world of Christ or the writing of the New Testament.

It is argued that Simon of Acts 8 was a prototype which later Gnostics would follow and modify. Several other key Gnostic figures and teachers include Cerinthus, Marcion, Basilides, Carpocrates, and the most prominent teacher, Valentinus.