Category Archives: Canonicity

Did the Church Create the Bible?

Posted on by
Reply

Michael J. Kruger (original source here: https://www.michaeljkruger.com/did-the-church-create-the-bible/ ):

The perennial question in the debate over sola Scriptura is whether the church is over the Bible or the Bible is over the church.

The latter position is (generally speaking) a Protestant one—the Scriptures, and the Scriptures alone, are the only infallible rule and therefore the supreme authority over the church.

The former position (generally speaking) is a Roman Catholic one—the church decided the canon and also, through the pope, decides how these books are to be interpreted.  In this way, the authority of the Bible rests on the (prior and more foundational) authority of the church.

Of course, Catholics would not word it quite this way.  The Roman church insists that the Scripture is always superior to the Magisterium.  Dei Verbum declares, “This teaching office is not above the Word of God, but serves it” (2.10). However, despite these qualifications, one still wonders how Scripture can be deemed the ultimate authority if the Magisterium is able to define, determine, and interpret the Scripture in the first place.

Regardless, this question of whether the church is over the Bible also comes up in the world of critical scholarship.  Critical scholars will often make the point that, historically speaking, the church essentially created the canon sometime in the fourth or fifth century.  The canon is merely a human product.

So, there is unexpected common ground here between the Roman Catholic view and the historical-critical view.  While the former believes these books are divinely inspired, and while the latter believes they are not, they both agree that the church is the cause of the Bible.

Now, it should be acknowledged that there is a sense in which this is true.  The Bible was written by divinely-inspired individuals who were part of God’s covenant community (i.e., the “church”).  And later Christians (also part of the “church”) recognized these books as from God.

But, we have to be careful not to confuse the proximate “cause” of Scripture (human beings) with the ultimate “cause” (God himself).  From a divine perspective, the church could not in any way be regarded as the cause of God’s divinely-inspired speech.  On the contrary, God’s divinely-inspired speech always stands over the church and governs her.

For more discussion of this important topic, and a very (!) brief defense of the Protestant position, here is a video Michael Kruger filmed with Don Carson

Why you can rely on the canon?

10 Misconceptions About the New Testament Canon

Posted on by
Reply

By Dr. Michael Kruger:

This series exams some common beliefs out there in the academic (and lay-level) communities that prove to be problematic upon closer examination.

1. The Term “Canon” Can Only Refer to a Fixed, Closed List of Books
2. Nothing in Early Christianity Dictated That There Would be a Canon
3. The New Testament Authors Did Not Think They Were Writing Scripture
4. New Testament Books Were Not Regarded as Scriptural Until Around 200 A.D.
5. Early Christians Disagreed Widely over the Books Which Made It into the Canon
6. In the Early Stages, Apocryphal Books Were as Popular as the Canonical Books
7. Christians Had No Basis to Distinguish Heresy from Orthodoxy Until the Fourth Century
8. Early Christianity was an Oral Religion and Therefore Would Have Resisted Writing Things Down
9. The Canonical Gospels Were Certainly Not Written by the Individuals Named in Their Titles
10. Athanasius’ Festal Letter (367 A.D.) is the First Complete List of New Testament Books

At this link.

Why these Books?

Posted on by
Reply

2 Lectures:

1: Who decided which books should make up the New Testament? Are the right books in our Bible? Did the early church suppress other competing gospels? Should books like the Gospel of Thomas be in our Bibles?

This lecture was presented by David White at Grace Reformed Baptist Church in Mebane, NC on October 27, 2013.

2: The Reliability of the New Testament Text

How do we respond to accusations that the Bible has been hopelessly corrupted by centuries of copying and translation? How do we know that the Bible wasn’t altered and corrupted by early church councils who added or suppressed parts of the New Testament? How can we believe that God has preserved His word when the New Testament manuscripts we have are full of textual variants?

This lecture, presented by David White at Grace Reformed Baptist Church in Mebane, NC on April 21, 2013, seeks to answer those questions and give Christians confidence that the English Bibles we have today are the same authoritative Word of God delivered to the apostles and the early church.

The Formation of the Bible

Posted on by
Reply

bibleHere’s a short article by Timothy W. Massaro entitled “6 Things We Need to Know about the Formation of the Bible” – original source these councils affirmed the books they believed had functioned as foundational documents for the Christian faith. The councils merely declared the way things had been since the time of the apostles. Thus, these councils did not create, authorize, or determine the canon. They simply were part of the process of recognizing a canon that already existed.

2. Early Christians believed that canonical books were self-authenticating.
Another authenticating factor was the internal qualities of each book. These books established themselves within the church through their internal qualities and uniqueness as depicting Christ and his saving work. The New Testament canon we possess is not due to the collusions of church leaders or the political authority of Constantine, but to the unique voice and tone possessed by these writings.

3. The New Testament books are the principle Christian writings we have.
The New Testament books are the earliest writings we possess regarding Jesus. The New Testament was completed in the first century. This means the writings include testimonies from eyewitnesses and were written within fifty years of the events, which cannot be said of any of the apocryphal literature often discussed in the news. This is particularly evident when it comes to the four gospels. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are the only gospel accounts that originate in the first century.

4. The New Testament books directly relate to the apostolic testimony.
Unlike any book from that period or the following century, the New Testament books were directly connected to the apostles and their testimony of the resurrected Christ. The canon is intimately connected to their activities and influence. The apostles had the very authority of Christ himself (Matt. 28:18–20). Along with the Old Testament, their teachings were the very foundation of the church. The church is “built on the foundation of the apostles and the prophets” (Eph. 2:20).

5. Some New Testament writers quote other New Testament writers as Scripture.
The belief in new revelation or a testament of books was not a late development. From the days of the apostles themselves, these writings were seen as unique in their authority and witness. This belief seems to be present in the earliest stages of Christianity. In 2 Peter 3:15–16, Peter refers to Paul’s letters as “Scripture,” which would have put them on a par with the books of the Old Testament. This is a significant fact that is often overlooked.

6. Early Christians used non-canonical writings without analogous authority.
Christians often cited non-canonical literature with positive affirmation for edification. Yet, Christians were simply using these books as helpful, illuminating, or edifying texts. Rarely was there confusion as to whether they were on a par with Scripture. These books were eventually disregarded according to the criteria of whether they had general acceptance, apostolicity, and self-authentication.