Discourse about the canon is inherently theological such that what we say about Holy Scripture reveals what we think about its Author. Scripture is the very speech of God and, as such, we recognize that everything we say about Scripture says something about the One to whom it belongs. We ought to say, first, that God speaks, a reality affirmed in our last several articles. Second, God freely determines not only what He says but how much He says, when He says it, and what He intends to give to His Church. Finally, God is the immediate and active speech agent. The church awaits, anticipates, and receives His word with a simple “Amen!” In this article, we will explain how these truths undergird our doctrine of the canon of Scripture.
When we begin to discuss the canon of Scripture, most people turn their attention to church history. Historical data and debates concerning the canon have their place since Scripture comes to us in history; however, Scripture does not come to us from history. For this reason, historical proofs for the canon are secondary and confirming. Turning to historical discussion without paying proper attention to the doctrine of God runs the risk of giving greater precedence to the ear that hears rather than the mouth that speaks. The hearing ear, then, moves from a passive to an active role, determining either what is said or how one can know what is said. This method can manifest itself in community canonical models.
Community models can be divided into historical and ecclesiastical models. A purely historical model seeks to determine what the ears of early communities heard as their text. Different communities, on this model, had their ears tuned to different texts and a particular set of ears won the day, establishing their canon in 325 AD. This approach is purely historical, functions with a naturalistic methodology, and can be found in the work of Walter Bauer, Bart Ehrman, and the popularized fiction work of Dan Brown, The Da Vinci Code.
The ecclesiastical community model may be found in the Roman Catholic Church and takes on two different forms. The first form argues that the ear of the church hears the voice of God and provides an infallible list of books for the church. The mouth of the church repeats what the ear of the church has heard, and the people of God know what God has said, not through the mouth of God but through the mouth of the Roman Catholic Church, which has infallibly declared what it has heard. The second form argues that the Roman Catholic Church grounds the canon of Scripture. On this model, the mouth of the Roman Catholic Church provides the canon, not merely epistemologically but also ontologically. The canon is not merely known because of the Church but comes from the Church.[1]
These two models err, not because they recognize the role of the hearing ear—an important element in any canonical model—but because the ear becomes preeminent and voices from the creaturely realm determine the contents or what can be known about the canon. Instead, a healthy canonical approach makes the voice and will of God preeminent epistemologically and ontologically. The ear of the church passively receives the self-authenticating voice of her Maker and Redeemer. The sheep, who have not made themselves (Ps 100:3), hear the voice of their Shepherd (John 10:27).
A healthy canonical approach pays careful attention to Biblical Theology, noting elements of covenant, Christology, and structure. But these elements are present because God exists, has spoken, and determines what He will publish for the bride of Christ. A healthy canonical approach also pays careful attention to Historical Theology, noting how Christ’s bride receives the word from and about her Bridegroom, rejecting those who seek to woo her into adultery. These elements are important because God’s speech is received in history, but these elements are not supreme because God’s speech is not derived from history; rather, it is grounded in the One to whom history belongs.
We must pay careful attention to the unfolding nature of Biblical Theology and know the facts present in Historical Theology, but our doctrine of God must be present and preeminent in our canonical approach. This is reflected when we give proper care to God as one who speaks and wills His speech to be given to the church of Jesus Christ. John Owen rightly notes that these elements comprise canonical authority, when he states,
“First, the spring and original of any book, which gives it authority; and, secondly, the design and end of it, which render it canonical. For the first, it is required that it be theopneustos,—given by immediate inspiration from God. Without this no book or writing can by any means, any acceptation or approbation of the church, any usefulness, any similitude of style or manner of writing unto the books that are so, any conformity in matter or doctrine to them, have an interest in that authority that should lay a foundation for its reception into canon. It is the impress of the authority from God himself on any writing, or its proceeding immediately from him, that is sufficient for this purpose. Neither yet will this alone suffice to render any revelation or writing absolutely canonical in the sense explained…But when unto the original of the divine inspiration this end also is added, that it is designed by the Holy Ghost for the catholic standing use and instruction of the church, then any writing or book becomes absolutely and completely canonical,” (Owen, Works, XVII.29).
According to Owen, The origin and goal of a book determine canonical authority.
The approach presented here is an attempt to reflect on the theological reasoning provided in LBC 1.2-3, which reads,
Under the name of Holy Scripture, or the Word of God written, are now contained all the books of the Old and New Testaments, which are these:
Of the Old Testament
Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 & 2 Samuel, 1 & 2 Kings, 1 & 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi.
Of the New Testament
Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philip- pians, Colossians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews, James, 1 & 2 Peter, 1, 2, & 3 John, Jude, Revelation.
All of which are given by the inspiration of God to be the rule of faith and life.
The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon or rule of the Scripture, and, therefore, are of no authority to the church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved or made use of than other human writings.
The Confession explicitly states which books are received and rejected by Protestants. Books are received because they originate in God who speaks. However, the Confession also acknowledges that not all of God’s speech is given to the church in Holy Scripture. God’s will and intention is that these books listed be given to the church as “the rule of faith and life.” By way of contrast, the Apocrypha is rejected because it is not God’s speech and, therefore, cannot be given to the church as a rule since it comes from man and not God. The criteria provided in the Confession for receiving and rejecting books does not merely apply to the Protestant canon and the Apocrypha. Any other book that is not God’s speech or has not been provided to the church as a rule of faith is also rejected.
Much more can and should be said on the topic of canon. This article is a simple attempt to properly initiate conversations about the canon by acknowledging the primacy of the self-authenticating voice of God in Holy Scripture. God is a speaking God who created image bearers to hear and receive His speech as her rule.
[1] Michael Kruger points out the difference in these two Roman Catholic approaches, noting that they are often confused and difficult to discern in the writings of theologians and apologists (Canon Revisited, 41-48).