Discussions over the canon have often pertained to surveying patristic evidence for the process and completion of canonization. These traditional pursuits have been aimed at answering important historical questions more than thorny epistemological ones. Yet in Reformed circles there seems to be a renewed interest in the theology of the canon and a deeper appreciation for the premise that answering when and how the canon process was completed is insufficient to establish whether the church most likely got it right. Accordingly, a fresh cumulative approach to canon studies is advancing in an effort to justify our belief that we have the canon. With this approach comes the acknowledgement that any criteria for identifying canonical books that is not grounded in Scripture opposes Scripture’s authority and proper place of canonical influence.
The more recent epistemologically self-conscious approach identifies specific complementary attributes that books of the Bible must contain as prescribed by Scripture itself. (It also wards off erroneous charges of circular reasoning by establishing certain unique features of epistemic commitment.)
The basics:
If the church has received the canon, then obviously she was exposed to the books that would comprise the canon. (The former presupposes the latter.) Furthermore, if the church has received the canon flawlessly, we would expect that she universally and over time responded favorably to marks of divinity that would have come by way of Scripture’s inspired and authoritative authors. Does this mean, however, that our confidence in the sixty-six books of the Bible (and none other) rests upon (a) the historic church’s fallible discernment of the divine qualities of scripture and (b) its historical evaluation of apostolicity that would have resulted in corporate reception?
Although I believe Scripture affords us even greater assurance – assurance that affords us access to the ultimate justification for our belief that we have the canon – the current trend robustly affirms and happily complies with the Reformed tenet that “our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts”. (WCF 1.5) In other words, the Confession is not addressing how we can know that the church received the canon but instead is teaching us how we know we are reading God’s word when we read the Bible.
A distinction is in order:
Apprehending the divine qualities of Scripture is to hear the voice of God therein. The Holy Spirit’s witness entails our being struck by the profundity of doctrine and experiencing the wisdom and blessedness of its teaching and practical application. Although we are sometimes unjustified in our discernments, knowledge can obtain when we are not. (Internalist-infallibilism leads to epistemological skepticism.) Notwithstanding, assurance through the consensus of the church and confidence in the historical assessment of authoritative origins of canonical books is not on par with hearing God’s voice in Scripture. That is to say, complementary attributes of canonicity aren’t necessarily equivalent attributes. For instance, all believers, to one degree or another, receive testimony of the Holy Spirit in accordance with the teaching of Scripture; yet perhaps most who hear the voice of God in Scripture do so without (ever) considering the corroborating evidence of corporate reception and prophetic origins. Moreover, it is difficult to understand how (a) fallible corporate consensus and (b) historical evidence for authoritative origins can persuade in the same way or on the same order of the direct testimony of the Holy Spirit that accompanies the infallible word of God (or even non-discursive properly basic beliefs that are immediately obtained through sensory experience).
At the very least, fallible corporate consensus about apostolicity culminating in the catholic reception of canonical books would be a byproduct of the church having already discerned the divine qualities of Scripture by the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit. (Another case of the former presupposing the latter.) In the former case the Holy Spirit’s internal witness would work in conjunction with his inspired Word that is spiritually discerned and applied by the church. Whereas in the latter case persuasion would be corroborative in nature, according to legitimate beliefs in reasons for believing the church has corporately heard the voice of her Shepherd. And although reasoned belief in authoritative origins would certainly pave the way to attentive consideration of a message from a perceived authoritative source, certain Jews were more “fair-minded” than those in Thessalonica because they did not rely upon apostolic credentials but on the analogy of faith (comparing Scripture with Scripture). Even the Thessalonians received the Word not because of its human source, but as the word of God through the full persuasive power of the Holy Spirit. (Acts 17:11; 1 Thessalonians 1:5)
Divine inspiration is both sufficient and necessary for ancient writings to be authoritative. Consequently, the church’s reception of the canonical books is not a condition for their intrinsic authority otherwise canonical books would not have been sacred Scripture until they were recognized and received as such. However, in a technical and qualified sense, after the universal church’s reception of the canon, the received canon does become sufficient for inspiration and ecclesiastical authority. The condition in view is not a causal condition that makes the canon inspired and authoritative over the church, but rather it is a situational conditional (“state of affairs”) that gains its conditional status from the decretive intent. (If that’s not grasped, just skip it!) The key takeaway is, without first establishing the theological certainty of the divine intent of the corporate reception of the canon, corporate reception loses its most persuasive epistemic force. Gratefully, belief in the expectation of corporate reception of the apostolate’s sound pattern of words can be grounded in special revelation. (2 Timothy 1:13) This is no mere inference. Again, we have access to the justification for our belief that the church received the intended canon.
The grounding of the expectation of corporate reception:
As a matter of divine providence, initial ecclesiastical reception of Scripture was accompanied by additional churches attending to and receiving the same writings until the catholic recognition of the entire canon was consummated. However, without grounding our expectation of a catholic reception of the canon in Scripture itself, our confidence that the church received the canon aright can become more psychological than epistemologically-theological. Although such corroboration of the marks of divinity can be helpful, given the biblically revealed precedent of the covenantal and global nature of redemption through the means of special revelation we might reasonably expect that the canonical books would have been received by the universal church of Jesus Christ without fail. But things are even better than that!
The question of certainty:
Even if the contemporary Christian church knew that the historical Christian church strived to implement solely an inspired “criteria” for identifying and receiving canonical books, we would still be left with questions of whether she acted flawlessly in her attempt to discern the canon. For instance, although “Barnabas’ epistle” was not received by the universal church, could a fallible church have discerned any writing of a “close association” to an apostle incorrectly? Given the Protestant confession of a fallible church, is there a place to revisit the church’s criteria for canonization, if not the canon itself? Must individuals seek the testimony of the Holy Spirit in accordance with every utterance of Scripture in order to know we have the canon? Even if we could gain such confidence, what about the possibility of the church’s culpability for not discerning discarded books correctly? Might a canonical Reformation be in order, or at least permissible? Conversely, is there a theological basis for not going back to check the work of the early church?
So, what is the basis for our confidence that (a) God providentially exposed the catholic church to the canonical books and (b) she recognized and received only the intended authoritative writings that had the marks of divinity as testified to by the Holy Spirit?
Our confidence in the revealed divine intent:
The means by which the church ascertained and received the canon must be distinguished from the basis for our confidence that the church actually discerned the canon flawlessly and received it accordingly. The epistemic environment of the attributes of canonical books can be undergirded by a revelation of divine intent that the church would receive the canon according to God’s implicit promises and meticulous providence. Indeed, even if a revealed criteria for mindfully receiving (not determining!) the canon according to biblical rationale was employed by the early church when seeking to settle on canonicity, we would still be left with canonical questions as they might relate to flawless historical interpretation (apostolicity) and spiritual discernment (marks of divinity).
Thankfully, even a biblically inspired approach to identifying canonical books is not the ultimate basis for our assurance that the church got it right. I would go so far as to say that if our ultimate confidence rests upon the early corporate church having identified the divine qualities of Scripture and the evidence for apostolicity aright, we’ve misplaced our confidence if not cracked open Pandora’s box. Yet, and somewhat paradoxically, with Scripture as our guide there is no reason to doubt even one iota that the church did not err in her fallible deliberations. And, herein lies the tension. Our confidence is not to rest ultimately upon the fallible church, yet simultaneously we need not doubt even a wee bit the church’s absolute success in her endeavor! Our confidence must be in the fulfillment of the divine intent, the prophecy of the New Covenant’s international people of God. It’s in that revealed context that corporate reception, authoritative origins and marks of divinity are profoundly synergistic in our confidence in the canon.
Divine intent and fulfillment:
Jesus and the New Testament writers placed their imprimatur upon the Jewish canon (and not the apocrypha). (Matthew 5:17,18; 7:12; 22:40) Accordingly, that should take care of the first thirty-nine books of the Bible. (It also deals a lethal blow to the apostate communion of Roman Catholicism.)
Furthermore, Jesus promised to build his church and told his apostles that those who received them were receiving Him. (Matt. 10:40; Matt. 16:18) The implication is that the building project of the Lord was to be founded upon the message of the apostles and prophets with Christ Jesus being the chief cornerstone. (Eph. 2:20) Consequently, the words of the apostles and Christ (whether penned by them or not) had to be preserved and received without error because Jesus promised to build his church upon them, which is now a matter of history given the passing of the apostles and the historical establishment of the New Testament church. That should take care of the remaining twenty-seven books of the Bible! Therefore, the canon is both closed and received, lest the 2,000 year ecclesiastical edifice has no foundation, leaving no pillar and buttress of the truth. (1 Timothy 3:15)
Finally, the apostolic tradition was both oral and written (II Thess. 2:15) but only the written tradition has been providentially preserved. (Sorry Rome.) Accordingly, Scripture alone is what the church is built upon, which must have been God’s intention all along since Scripture alone is all that is left in keeping with Christ Jesus’ promise to build his church.
For illustrative purposes we might take a bit of polemical liberty by taking the church’s recognition of the canon out of the equation in order to underscore the point. Even had the church been filled with undiscerning devils, she could not but have received the canon given the divine intent. Given the divine intent, if the church were to have casted lots or even wanted to get it wrong she couldn’t! (Of course, Jesus’ intention was that the church would be guided by the voice of God testifying in Scripture by the Holy Spirit.)
Closing:
In the final analysis, our ultimate confidence should not be in the church’s discernment and employment of a biblical criteria in her effort to identify and receive the canon, although by revelation we can know she was faithful with the oracles that came before her. For if that is where our final confidence must rest, then the church may humbly and prayerfully reassess the canon on the basis of the church’s progressive illumination and fallibility. Gratefully, the church need not question the canon; nor may she question lest she neglects to rest in the promises of God contained in the canon of the church. In a word, the church may not always be reforming when it comes to the canon!
I dare say, the universal church of Jesus Christ, which is founded upon one unified and catholic confession of the Protestant canon, is the single most visual and perpetual fulfillment of prophecy on earth today. When accompanied by the power of the Holy Spirit, the testimony of the received canon by the one holy catholic and apostolic church is a profound confirmation to the Christian, the church and the world of the truth it contains.
Here is a Sunday school class on the canon.
Philosophical Theology 
You must be logged in to post a comment.