A Convicted Evangelical (Church of Christ)

[andrewstx]

OK, I cannot lie, you are smarter than me!

You must not be watching my spelling and grammar well.

I had a stroke 7 years ago, and since I have been intelectually challenged. Came from cigarettes, which both my parents smoked,all the time putting down churches that don’t condemn smoking.

And where does the NT mention tobacco supposedly the only thing “cofc” members are supposed to follow?

 

[andrewstx]

Dear friend, I remember you sharing this some time ago, in another thread / context.

How ironic in this context that you ended up among the Antiochian Orthodox. Of course, the Bible tells us that “in Antioch the disciples were for the first time called Christians”. [Acts 11:26] I suppose that adds some holes in this particular cheese, at least from what has been shared here.

To be honest I did not choose Antioch on purpose. it was the only expression of Eastern Christianity available to me.

I would prefer to be Ruthenian, but they have no parishes for nearly 400 miles, so I make do.

 

[bwmnstar]

Since you reference the Dicache–have you read what is tells us about the practice of baptism in the early church (see 7)? So why is it you practice only submersion baptism? (and please don’t say scripture because scripture is silent on that).

Peace of Christ,
Mark

Mark,

I don’t hold that the Didache is an infallible document that has to be followed in everything it teaches. For instance, it is not necessary to be baptized in living or running water. The meaning of baptism is to plunge, or immerse. The Eastern Orthodox has held on to this tradition. The RCC baptizes adults by immersion, but children by pouring water on the head.

Not only do I find infant baptism problematic, but the image of a burial is significanctly diminished when alternative methods are introduced. We see an excellent depiction of baptism in Romans 6. Also noteworthy is that John baptized where water was plentiful. See also how the Philip and the eunuch came up out of the water in Acts 8.

The Church of Christ teaches baptism via immersion because it is an acceptable and ecumenical practice. Virtually no church, not even the RCC, would deny an individual baptism by submersion. Several churches, however, including the EOC, Baptists, etc, would object to baptism by other methods. Do you think it’s wrong to baptize only by immersion? If so, why?

Also, it seems as if you consider the Didache to be binding in all that it teaches. The Didache made exceptions for extreme cases. “If you do not have running water, baptize in warm. If you do not have either, pour out water three times on the head…” Can any church in America claim to have an insufficient water supply to immerse? I don’t think so.

Blessings, bwmnstar

 

[ByzCathCantor]

To be honest I did not choose Antioch on purpose.

… making it that much more ironic!

Blessings to you - I hope you are doing well!

 

[bwmnstar]

Let us make this easy on you. Simply provide a list of writers from the end of the 1st century through to Campbell/Stone that preserved the faith as told by the “church of Christ.” If you are correct, then there will be a historical record everyone can follow throughout history. Make sure you cover every century and make sure that they faithfully taught only what you believe.

While you are at it, please show us any historical canonical listing of the exact 66 books in your protestant bible before the 16th century. This listing must be a historical record listing only the exact 66 books in your bible, no more and no less.

Since there are so many who responded, I can only focus on the latter portion of your question at the moment. But if you give me time, I will answer the first portion also.

You asked for a list of books.

Melito of Sardis:

After a request from his brother Onesimus to accurately record the OT books, he writes:
[To Onesimus] “Therefore, when I went to the east and reached the place where these things were preached and practiced and learned accurately the books of the Old Covenant, I set them down.” He goes on to list all of the Old Testament books with the exception of Esther, and he excludes the Apocryphal books. Melito gives the earliest known listing of an OT canon.

Origen:

He lists 22 books, including Esther. Scholars have suggested that the book of the 12 (which is the only one missing from Origen) has accidentally dropped out as some point during transmission of the text. He specifically states that the certain books are excluded. “Outside of these are the Maccabees, which are entitled Sar beth sabanai el.” (Eusebius, Church History 6.25.1-2). However, he does included the Epistle of Jeremiah in his list.

Athanasius lists 22 books, excluding Esther. He, like Origen, includes the Epistle of Jeremiah. But about certain books he says, “But for greater exactness I add this also, writing of necessity; that there are other books besides these not indeed in the canon, but appointed by the fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness. The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. But the former, my brethren, are included in the canon, the latter being merely read…” (Letter 39.3-4, 7).

As far as I know, Jerome’s list accurately represents the Palestinian canon. See (Letter 53.8) Important to note: “We may be assured that what is not found in our list must be placed among the apocryphal writings. Wisdom, therefore, which generally bears the name of Solomon, and the book of Jesus the Son of Sirach, and Judith, and Tobit, and the Shepherd are not in the canon. The first book of Maccabees I have found to be Hebrew, the second is Greek” (Helmeted Prologue to his translation of the Books of Samuel and Kings).

It was Augustine who so heavily influenced the canonicity of the Apocryphal books. History, as I have shown, suggests differently.

 

[bwmnstar]

Very simularly to Mormons the hold the total apostacy/restoration dichotomy. The believe the church lost it’s way and became extinct from the very start. They beleive this happened when the church stopped obeying the bible in a very legal fashion. This is supposed to have happened in the first couple of centuries AD. The bible was not completed until the late 4th century. See the holes in the logic?

What do you mean “lost its way and became extinct from the very stary?” “The Bible was not completed until the late 4th century.”

No sir. The Bible was completed by the end of the first century. Virtually all scholars accept that John penned Revelation circa 90 AD. So, what holes in logic are you referring to? But perhaps that’s not what you meant. I’m going to assume that what you meant was that an official list of canonical books was not produced until the fourth century (at Councils Hippo and Carthage).

 

[Jim_Dandy]

Mark,

I don’t hold that the Didache is an infallible document that has to be followed in everything it teaches. For instance, it is not necessary to be baptized in living or running water. The meaning of baptism is to plunge, or immerse. The Eastern Orthodox has held on to this tradition. The RCC baptizes adults by immersion, but children by pouring water on the head.

Not only do I find infant baptism problematic, but the image of a burial is significanctly diminished when alternative methods are introduced. We see an excellent depiction of baptism in Romans 6. Also noteworthy is that John baptized where water was plentiful. See also how the Philip and the eunuch came up out of the water in Acts 8.

The Church of Christ teaches baptism via immersion because it is an acceptable and ecumenical practice. Virtually no church, not even the RCC, would deny an individual baptism by submersion. Several churches, however, including the EOC, Baptists, etc, would object to baptism by other methods. Do you think it’s wrong to baptize only by immersion? If so, why?

Also, it seems as if you consider the Didache to be binding in all that it teaches. The Didache made exceptions for extreme cases. “If you do not have running water, baptize in warm. If you do not have either, pour out water three times on the head…” Can any church in America claim to have an insufficient water supply to immerse? I don’t think so.

Blessings, bwmnstar

The Didache, (full name The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles) was used by the first-century Catholic Church for the instruction of adult pagan converts. It provides an historical record for the practice of the very early Church. The Didache gives the first written instructions for how baptism is to be administered. That’s how the Apostles instructed the Church to baptize then, and the Church follows the same instructions today. The universal (Catholic means universal) Church baptizes in every country of the world, not just in the U.S. There is no scriptural basis for immersion only. Water was not plentiful in any part of the area in which John baptized. John’s baptism was one of repentance only, as the Scriptures make clear. The Baptism taught by Jesus is sacramental – that is, it accomplishes what it signifies**;** it washes away sin, imparts the Holy Spirit, and gives a new birth to the one baptized. Both infusion (pouring) and immersion were practiced in the early Catholic Church, and still are.

QUOTE: The oldest baptistry ever found was in a tiny chapel at Dura Europos, on the Euphrates River in northeastern Syria. The walls of the chapel, which was destroyed in A,D. 258, were covered with biblical scenes, traces of which are still visible. The person to be baptized stood in the shallow pool and had water poured over his head. This chapel was reconstructed in the Yale University Art Gallery, Data Europos Collection. END QUOTE. Source: Understanding the New Testament, Howard Clark Kee, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1983. This was one of my textbooks in the History of the New Testament class at Arizona State University.

Baptism means to wash. As for the baptism of infants and children, the Church follows what she was taught by the Apostles.

Acts 2:38-39 - And Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him.”

There is a very good book written by a former Church of Christ pastor you might wish to read: *Christ in His Fullness - A Protestant Minister Discovers the Fullness of Christ in the Catholic Church *by Bruce Sullivan.

BTW, are your interpretations of the Church’s Scriptures infallible, or is there a chance you could be wrong?

Peace be with you, Jim Dandy

 

[JRKH]

Now begins Battle of the quotes and the long road of “my interpretation is better than your interpretation”…

Sorry - couldn’t pass this up…

But seriously bwmnstar, I can already tell you where this thread is going to go.
It will all come down to authority. Who, according to the Bible, has Christ granted authority to make determination between two or more sincere Christians who disagree on some matter of import to the Truth of the Gospel and the peace of the Church.

The two bodies that exist today with the longest pedigree - both agree that is is NOT “Sola Scriptura” understood by locally independent faith communities.

They both agree - and this is 1500 years of history before the protestant reformation - that it is “The Church” Which is the pillar and bulwark of Truth (1 Tim 3:15)
That when we have issues we are to “Tell it to the Church” and Listen to the Church which has the authority to “Bind and Loose” - “Whatever” (Mt 18:15-18)
That local communities are not doctrinally “independent” but are subject to the universal Church (Acts 15).

A quick look at the Protestant model after 500 years shows that it is completely unable to protect the Gospel from error. The protestant cannot “tell it to the Church” nor does the protestant have to “listen to the church” if he chooses not to. he can just head down the road to another “church” that agrees with him or - not finding one - he can always start his own. “Bible based” church.

Ultimately - you can say that our understanding is wrong - and we can say yours is wrong - but unless you are willing to submit the question to a higher “Church” authority we will come to an impasse. And because you as a protestant, are unable to appeal to higher Church authority, you are unable to fulfill the instruction of Jesus in Mt 18:15-18…
Nor any of the appeals by Jesus, Peter, and Paul who all appeal and exhort us to being of “one mind” in Christ.

Anyways - don’t let my prediction or my logic stop you and others from trading ECF quotes…Ya gotta do what ya gotta do…

Peace
James

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Hello bwmnstar,

1. What readings from the ECF and the NT are you referring to? and What is the “right claim” to the “true faith” instituted by Christ?
2. In what sense are you discerning true and genuine believers in the RCC and EOC?
3. How exactly have the RCC and the EOC departed in large from a true Orthodox view? and more importantly: How is your Church holding to them and what exactly are they?

Thanks,

Jose

 

[Patavium]

1 Samuel 15:22-23

22 So Samuel said:

“Has the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices,
As in obeying the voice of the Lord?
Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice,
And to heed than the fat of rams.
23 For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft,
And stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry.
Because you have rejected the word of the Lord,
He also has rejected you from being king.

Who founded your church? Can you trace its apostolic lineage and provide proof?

Your church can only trace its lineage from the Reformation, or as someone posted, from the Restoration movement of the 1800s, same with the JWs, the Mormons, the SDA.

So your church came from disobedience…which as the verse above, the Lord does not look to kindly on and equates it with the sin of witchcraft…and idolatry.

 

[JRKH]

What do you mean “lost its way and became extinct from the very stary?” “The Bible was not completed until the late 4th century.”

No sir. The Bible was completed by the end of the first century. Virtually all scholars accept that John penned Revelation circa 90 AD. So, what holes in logic are you referring to? But perhaps that’s not what you meant. I’m going to assume that what you meant was that an official list of canonical books was not produced until the fourth century (at Councils Hippo and Carthage).

This is incorrect.

The books that would eventually become the bible (biblia - collection) were completed by the end of the first century. But there were many other books and letters that entered circulation over the next 2 centuries as well and many/all claimed apostolic origin and or “inspiration”…I once heard the number as high as 250 different manuscripts in circulation by the time of the councils you mention above. Here is one listing of the many “books” in circulation by the time of the councils.
Plus the distribution and acceptance of the various texts was not uniform either. So while one can say that the 27 “books” that would eventually make up the NT were written by the end of the 1st century - in no way can one reasonably conclude from that fact that the “bible” was complete, and accepted church wide by then.

And while we are on the topic of councils…

Something that I have always thought interesting…
The first Church council was in Jerusalem and is recorded in Acts. So certainly councils were viewed by the Apostles as the way to go - and, so did the Holy Spirit who, a) spoke through said council and b) caused this council to be recorded in the Sacred Word of God. You mention two more councils above. The Church can count any number of local regional and ecumenical councils down through the centuries…all dealing with various issues relating to the universal Church and all of which prayed fervently for the promised protection of the Holy Spirit.

So tell me ----

When was the first council of the “Protestant”, or “Reformed” Church leadership? Where did they meet and what were the doctrinal decision that they made which were binding on all members of the new “reformed” and “reconstituted” Church?
How many councils - using the biblical model - have been held to resolve doctrinal issues for the universal reformed church?
Why dear sir - is there more than one or two “reformed” churches?

Just another reason I believe that the RC/EO are by far, more biblical than the reformed or “protestant” communions.

Peace
James

 

[Linda_Marie]

A better question perhaps: Did the Eastern Orthodox and RCC remain faithful to the apostolic teaching. My answer is “No.”

No protestant/evangelical church can trace its history further back than Luther, less than 500 years ago. This makes them all recent inventions.

It is not logical to believe that someone founding a church 2000 years after the Resurrection has stumbled on the Truth while the Church which has been around since Christ founded Her on Peter has gotten it wrong, in spite of the promise of the Christ that the Holy Spirit would protect His Church.

If the Catholic Church has gone astray, then Christ’s promise to protect His Church is empty.

If Christ’s promise was empty, then He does not exist and the whole of Christianity is a myth and no amount of reinventing Christ through new churches will make Him real.

If you believe that He abandoned His Church and allowed it to go astray, how can you believe any of His promises?

He also promised eternal life. If the Church has gone astray, contrary to His promise, then eternal life is also an empty promise and faith in Christ is futile.

 

[Keith_W_OR_USA]

As my title indicates, I am a committed and active member within the circle of Churches of Christ. I am convinced (through reading the earliest Fathers and New Testament) that the Church of Christ, (and not the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox) has a right claim to the true faith instituted by Christ. As a disclaimer, I do not consider the RCC and EOC to be devoid of true and genuine believers. I do, however, believe that these churches have in large part departed from what I would consider to be a truly Orthodox view.

That being said (and keeping in mind that I am a minority voice in this forum), I would like this particular blog to center on:

1. How you came to the conclusion that whatever religious body you are a part of is in fact the one true church?
2. Why you feel/don’t feel that the Church of Christ is the one true church.
3. Are there eternal consequences for being outside the true church? (Here I am not talking about the post-Vatican II view that considers Evangelicals to be separated brethren that are in some form or fashion mystically part of the RC faith. Rather, my inquiry is mean to be taken thusly: If RC is true, will Evangelicals go to heaven since they are not true Catholics? And if Evangelicalism is true, will Roman Catholics go to heaven since they are not true “Protestants?”
4. Based on your answer to (3) If both groups have the same eternal destiny, why does it matter if one is Protestant or Catholic?

Oh my goodness. I guess all 1 billion Catholics should renounce the Church and convert immediately?! NOT!

 

[Nigel7]

Wow. Reading this thread, all I can say is that I am so very glad and thankful to have finally found and become Roman Catholic. Praise Christ.

 

[bwmnstar]

Oh my goodness. I guess all 1 billion Catholics should renounce the Church and convert immediately?! NOT!

In all seriousness, I’m sincerely trying to find out in what way your response has advanced the discussion. You didn’t even really engage the bulk of my post (It almost seems like you stopped after reading question 1).

Blessings bwmnstar

 

[andrewstx]

What do you mean “lost its way and became extinct from the very stary?” “The Bible was not completed until the late 4th century.”

No sir. The Bible was completed by the end of the first century. Virtually all scholars accept that John penned Revelation circa 90 AD. So, what holes in logic are you referring to? But perhaps that’s not what you meant. I’m going to assume that what you meant was that an official list of canonical books was not produced until the fourth century (at Councils Hippo and Carthage).

I was pointing out the logical holes in the “apostacy/restoration” dichotomy which the “cofC” holds along with the mormons.

The church had supposedly apostacized it’self out of existence, long before the bible was canonised by the Catholic/Orthodox church millenia before the “cofC” was invented is ludicrous.

And of course some places had some books and other places other books. Most were illiterate and the press was not invented for many centuries.

There is no trace in history that tells of a clergyless church that beleived the Eucharist was only symbolic.

The idea of the first Christians pouring over their edited bibles to “see if it is so” is more fantasy. How could they have before the bible was cannonised, most were ilIiterate, and the overwheming majority could not afford a bible

Remember I wasa campbellite and you can’t fool me.

 

[Patavium]

How do we know that that are only thirty-nine books in Old Testament and only twenty-seven books in New Testament? There is no single verse in the entire Bible, whether that of Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Ethiopian Orthodox and Protestant, states which books belong to the Bible. This should pose a serious problem to Protestants and “Bible only” Christians who declare that (their) Bible is the only and highest authority. Unknowingly to them, the number of books of their Bible depends on their church statement of faith, or on their presumption, or their church councils, or, perhaps, “because my pastor told me so”. In other words they depend on authority outside the Bible to determine which books belong to the Bible. Then they make the Bible, with those predetermined books, the only and highest authority. This should imply we cannot have authority outside the Bible to determine which books belong to the Bible! This is a self-contradicting circular argument! Well, do Catholics have the same reason to know which books belong to the Bible, i.e. they were decided by the Catholic Church?

The birthday of the Church was the day of Pentecost when the Holy Spirit descended, as recorded in the book of Acts (Acts 2:1-4), which was not written in that time. We cannot know for sure when each book of New Testament was written. According to scholars the first one (2 Thessalonians) was written, perhaps, in c. 50 or 51 AD and the first Gospel was written after 70AD. This means the Church had been in existence for around two decades before we had the first written New Testament book; and around four decades before the first Gospel was written and, as we will see later, before the Jews closed the canon of their Scripture.

Christ’ words were first circulated orally and later, some were put in written form in the Gospels. Thus from the Gospel according to Matthew we know that Christ intended to give His apostles authority over His Church. He gave Peter (Matthew 16:19) and later all apostles (Matthew 18:18) the authority to bind and to loose. Whatever they bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatever they loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. In Greek “bound and loosed in heaven” is in (passive) perfect tense, while “bind and loose on earth” is in (active) aorist tense. Unlike that of English, Greek perfect tense indicates continuity of completed past action. This means what Peter and the apostles bind or loose shall follow the ones that have already been bound or loosed in heaven, obviously by God – it is not in reverse as some might think.

Catholics believe that the apostles passed the same authority to their successors, the bishops – the so called apostolic succession. Both (Western) Catholic and (Eastern) Orthodox Churches claim apostolic succession. Apostolic succession belongs to what is known as Tradition (with capital T) – you cannot find it in the Bible. But we know Christ promised His apostles to be with them to the end of age (Matthew 28:20), to send the Holy Spirit to be with them forever (John 14:16), to teach them all things and to remind them whatsoever He said to them (John 14:26); and that the gates of Hades shall not prevail against His Church (Matthew 16:18). New Testament nowhere says those divine promises are valid only in the first three hundred years, i.e. until Roman emperor Constantine legalized Christianity in 313 AD or in the first fifteen centuries, i.e. until Reformation. Having the same authority, the Pope and the bishops (in union with Him) have the power to bind and to loose and whatever they bind or loose does not come from themselves but it has been already bound and loosed in heaven. No wonder Paul referred the Church as the pillar and bulwark of truth (1 Timothy 3:15) – certainly he was not writing about church (or churches) that came into existence in sixteenth century or later. This is the reason why Catholics believe it is the Church with the apostolic origin has the power to determine which books belong to the Bible. The Church is not above the Bible but is under the guidance of Holy Spirit promised by Christ Himself!

Why it took the Church sixteen centuries to promulgate Canon (list of inspired books) of the Bible? The same canon was declared in provincial council in Hippo, North Africa in 393 AD, reaffirmed at Councils of Carthage, also in North Africa, in 397 AD and in 419 AD. Christians in the first three centuries did not have closed canon – they disagree with each other on which books belong to the Bible, both Old and New Testaments. The so-called disputed books of Old Testament were Esther and deuterocanonical books while those of New Testament were Hebrews, James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John and Revelation. The earliest list with the same twenty-seven books as in present day Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Protestant’ New Testament appeared in 367 AD [7]. List of Old Testament books which agrees with Catholic Bible appeared in 382 AD [8] while the one that agrees with Protestant Old Testament appeared in 391 AD [9]. Council of Trent in 1546 is the ecumenical council that explicitly promulgated canonicity of seventy-three books of Catholic Bible, though the same list of Old Testament books also appeared in ecumenical council of Basel-Ferrara-Florence-Rome (Session 11 on 4 February 1442). The Eastern Orthodox Church declared their canon of Bible in their synod held at Jerusalem in 1672. For Protestants who belong to Reformed Church, Belgic Confession Article 4 (in 1561) and Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter 1 (in 1647), declared canonicity of sixty-six books of their Bible.

vivacatholic.wordpress.com/2012/02/05/who-has-the-correct-number-of-books-in-the-bible/

 

[CopticChristian]

As my title indicates, I am a committed and active member within the circle of Churches of Christ. I am convinced (through reading the earliest Fathers and New Testament) that the Church of Christ, (and not the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox) has a right claim to the true faith instituted by Christ. As a disclaimer, I do not consider the RCC and EOC to be devoid of true and genuine believers. I do, however, believe that these churches have in large part departed from what I would consider to be a truly Orthodox view.

That being said (and keeping in mind that I am a minority voice in this forum), I would like this particular blog to center on:

1. How you came to the conclusion that whatever religious body you are a part of is in fact the one true church?
2. Why you feel/don’t feel that the Church of Christ is the one true church.
3. Are there eternal consequences for being outside the true church? (Here I am not talking about the post-Vatican II view that considers Evangelicals to be separated brethren that are in some form or fashion mystically part of the RC faith. Rather, my inquiry is mean to be taken thusly: If RC is true, will Evangelicals go to heaven since they are not true Catholics? And if Evangelicalism is true, will Roman Catholics go to heaven since they are not true “Protestants?”
4. Based on your answer to (3) If both groups have the same eternal destiny, why does it matter if one is Protestant or Catholic?

Wow,

I am so grateful for your posting. Someone with convicted beliefs. I am all for that. You know I have been a member of the OHCAC all my life and it is rare to see someone so convinced. This is admirable. Maybe I need to rethink things as to where I belong. This of course would require some dialogue. With that in mind may I ask a few questions?

I need to know what Church Fathers you read and what New Testament parts you read that convinced you to believe that the “Church of Christ” is the one true Church.

Please tell me what the difference is between “Churches of Christ” and “Church of Christ” as you use both terms.

I appreciate that you are concerned with eternal consequences.

I am getting old and I just want to be sure of what I should believe. I wait patiently with anticipation of your guidance and response.

Thank you…

 

[Nicea325]

What do you mean “lost its way and became extinct from the very stary?” “The Bible was not completed until the late 4th century.”

No sir. The Bible was completed by the end of the first century. Virtually all scholars accept that John penned Revelation circa 90 AD. So, what holes in logic are you referring to? But perhaps that’s not what you meant. I’m going to assume that what you meant was that an official list of canonical books was not produced until the fourth century (at Councils Hippo and Carthage).

The Bible was completed by the first century? In terms of what? Complete in the written form? Yes! But if you believe it was canonzied by the first century you are dead wrong! If the Bible was canonized by the first century,please tell me the name of the council which ratified it and the year…please.

 

[Nicea325]

Since there are so many who responded, I can only focus on the latter portion of your question at the moment. But if you give me time, I will answer the first portion also.

You asked for a list of books.

Melito of Sardis:

After a request from his brother Onesimus to accurately record the OT books, he writes:
[To Onesimus] “Therefore, when I went to the east and reached the place where these things were preached and practiced and learned accurately the books of the Old Covenant, I set them down.” He goes on to list all of the Old Testament books with the exception of Esther, and he excludes the Apocryphal books. Melito gives the earliest known listing of an OT canon.

Origen:

He lists 22 books, including Esther. Scholars have suggested that the book of the 12 (which is the only one missing from Origen) has accidentally dropped out as some point during transmission of the text. He specifically states that the certain books are excluded. “Outside of these are the Maccabees, which are entitled Sar beth sabanai el.” (Eusebius, Church History 6.25.1-2). However, he does included the Epistle of Jeremiah in his list.

Athanasius lists 22 books, excluding Esther. He, like Origen, includes the Epistle of Jeremiah. But about certain books he says, “But for greater exactness I add this also, writing of necessity; that there are other books besides these not indeed in the canon, but appointed by the fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness. The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. But the former, my brethren, are included in the canon, the latter being merely read…” (Letter 39.3-4, 7).

As far as I know, Jerome’s list accurately represents the Palestinian canon. See (Letter 53.8) Important to note: “We may be assured that what is not found in our list must be placed among the apocryphal writings. Wisdom, therefore, which generally bears the name of Solomon, and the book of Jesus the Son of Sirach, and Judith, and Tobit, and the Shepherd are not in the canon. The first book of Maccabees I have found to be Hebrew, the second is Greek” (Helmeted Prologue to his translation of the Books of Samuel and Kings).

It was Augustine who so heavily influenced the canonicity of the Apocryphal books. History, as I have shown, suggests differently.

You are dead wrong! Augustine is not the one who heavily influenced the deutorcanonical books,not apocryphal books as Protestants mistakenly claim. By the way, even Luther included the deutorcanonical books.