Igneous Quill

The following was originally published on my old website, The Christian Independent, before I had a blog. It was largely written in response to things said by a very abrasive convert to Orthodoxy on a Christian e-mail discussion list.
_______________________________
The Canon Of Scripture:
Inspired by God, Collected by the Churches

Adam W. Gonnerman © 2002; 2005
This paper may be freely copied and used for scholarly and educational purposes without the direct consent of the writer, so long as this copyright notice is included in its entirety.

Introduction
Somehow, even after nearly two millennia of debate and study, a pernicious notion has persisted within Christendom. The monarchial episcopacy by way of church councils, so we are told, put the canon of Scripture together. Therefore, the church has authority over the Scripture. The Roman Catholic Church has long made this claim, one that was taken up – though with other motives – in the 19th century by some higher critics of the Scriptural text. A related but distinct doctrine held by Orthodox churches is that the episcopacy (with apostolic succession) and the Scripture belong to one holy tradition. Even in this latter view we can see the Scripture put at a certain disadvantage. In this brief paper it is this writer’s intention to explain in as clear and simple a fashion as possible the errors connected with a canon of Scripture subordinate to human authority, and how history does not defend such a position. Above all, the intention herein is to affirm the authority of God over Scripture, and the Scripture over the church.

Inspired by God
To begin, whether a text of writing is sacred Scripture or not, inspired by God, is a fact independent of any human agency.

“But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God” (2 Peter 2:20-21 Updated NASB).

To any honest student of Scripture, the above passage should make the issue rather clear. No true prophet ever wrote of his own will or dependent upon himself, but rather was “moved by the Holy Spirit” to speak the oracles of God. Thus, even before or without being recognized by men as sacred and from God, it is still God’s Word. Furthermore, it is by this Scripture that we are to recognize the truth and identify error.

“All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:16-17 Updated NASB).

The Scriptural Method
In the first century church, Christians did not have the luxury of leather bound, gilt-edged Bibles complete with maps and concordances (or even chapters and verses). The Old Testament canon was available in a limited fashion, and the apostolic epistles and other writings circulated between the local churches. Often one copy was made by hand for the congregation and the letter was then passed along to another. Aside from these hand-written epistles, those early Christians also had prophets among their number that spoke, from time to time, the word of God to that congregation.

In the case of local prophets, there appears to have been a divinely ordained system in place to safeguard the church from false doctrine spoken by alleged prophets:

“Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others pass judgment”
(1 Corinthians 14:29 NASB).

Whenever a supposed prophet spoke to a congregation the others judged his teaching. Presumably this judgment was based on what the church already knew to be the apostolic teaching. As the apostolic epistles circulated and accumulated in the churches the basis for evaluation increases, but the need for the prophetic office diminished. After all, once the body of Christian teaching was completely delivered (Jude 1:3), what further need could there be for prophets?

In any case, in this process of judging the words of prophets we can see perhaps what was intended to happen over time within the church with regard to the canon of Scripture. As has already been mentioned, religious writings of a wide variety were making the rounds of the churches. Some claimed apostolic origin, others made no such claim but seemed scriptural, and in general some confusion existed as to which writings were authoritative and which were not.

Recognition Happened Naturally
Into the scene now steps a man named Marcion. A wealthy young merchant of Pontus, Marcion fellowshipped with the church in Rome until 144 A.D. when his Gnostic beliefs become public knowledge. At that point he was excommunicated.

“To substantiate his claim to represent pure apostolic teaching, Marcion drew up a list of canonical New Testament books that were genuine Scripture” (North 56).

Marcion’s intention was clearly not merely to identify many Scriptural writings in a definitive fashion, but also to limit claims of inspiration and authority only to those books on his list.

“This list [of Marcion] was fine, except it suggested that they were the only accepted Christian Scriptures. To defend the authority of other writings as well, the Roman church had to come up with its own list to counter the list of Marcion” (North 57).

In order to advance personal theological agendas, heretics generally realize that the most direct route is to attempt to hijack the Scriptures. Joseph Smith, Jr. tried as much with his Book of Mormon and later “prophecies.” The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of the Jehovah’s Witnesses took a different but similar route to corrupting the Scriptures by mistranslating specific passages that reflect poorly on its present doctrine. These and other modern examples are repetitious of what has been done since ancient times.

The reaction of the early church to this challenge was relatively prompt. The church at Rome composed its own list, one that did not include all 27 of the books that we generally accept nowadays, but certainly one that was more complete than that of Marcion. In fact, it actually included three books that the present canon does not: Revelation of Peter, Wisdom of Solomon and The Shepherd of Hermas (though this last book was indicated for private use and not public worship) [Shelley 67].

“This development [Marcion’s list and that of Rome] led to the creation of numerous lists, as Christians in various places began the serious task of coming to a consensus as to which books were to be considered scriptural” (North 57).

Someone once commented that were it not for error, believers could be lax in their study of the truth. Whether or not this is correct, it is clear that the threat of falsehood has frequently and fortunately spurred believers to action, forcing them to think deeply on the faith they claim.

The early churches – local congregations – undertook the daunting but necessary task of perceiving which writings were truly of divine origin, and which were not.

“The NT canon was formed spontaneously, not by the action of church councils. The inspiration and intrinsic authority of each individual book were the determining factors in their eventual recognition and canonization. By A.D. 200 the NT contained essentially the same books as we have today. These were regarded with the same authority and finality by Christians then as they are now” (Unger 684).

Possibly someone might argue that this process of recognition constitutes the church as a whole “creating” the canon. Certainly there seems to be someone willing enough to defend even the most unusual positions these days. On the contrary, that groups of Christians spread far apart from one another, living in an age without rapid communication or travel, could reach such a close consensus on which books belong in the canon only demonstrates the correctness of the universal recognition. The evaluation and listing of scriptural books by individual, autonomous churches (prior to the proclamation of any church council) bear witness both to the veracity of the present canon and the sanctity of the independent congregation.

“In one sense, of course, Christians created the canon. Their decisions concerning the books were a part of history. In another sense, however, they were only recognizing those writings that had made their authority felt in the churches. The shape of the New Testament shows that the early churches’ aim was to submit fully to the teachings of the apostles. In that purpose they shaped the character of Christianity for all time. The faith remained catholic precisely because it was apostolic” (Shelley 66).

Those books which were Scriptural were recognized not only by relationship with an apostle, but also by direct experience. The writings that agreed with the known apostolic teaching and which demonstrated dynamic, transforming power in the life of the congregation were separated out from the chaff of uninspired works.

“It was, then, by the slow consensus of the Church that the New Testament was assembled and accorded recognition as especially inspired. It was not merely supposed actual apostolic authorship which ensured for a book inclusion in the New Testament. This had an important place. It was also by the test of experience through long use that the Christian community came to recognize the writings which were admitted to the accepted canon a quality which distinguished them from those books which were rejected, a quality which to the Christian mind was and continues to be evidence of a peculiar degree of divine inspiration, the crown of the process of revelation recorded in the Old Testament” (Latourette 135).

It is thus that we see that a pattern similar to the practice of judging prophecies in the first century local church that the Word of God for New Covenant times was identified and accepted. It is interesting to note the emphasis and importance that this places upon the local church over and against ecclesiastical structures exterior to it and foreign to the apostolic teaching.

The Ecumenical Council Myth
Putting it plainly, it is a myth that the church councils selected the books to include in the canon.

“Not until the close of the 4th cen. did any council make any pronouncement on the subject” (Unger 682).

Did the church simply struggle by for nearly 400 years before a church council declared which books were scriptural? Hardly. As we have seen above, local churches had long created and refined their own lists of authoritative books.

“It may also be important to point out that this is [the decisions of ecumenical church councils] not a case of the church ‘making’ the canon. Later scholars, particularly Roman Catholics, will make the argument that since the church formed the canon, the church is superior to the New Testament in it right to interpret those books as it sees fit. Actually this is not the case. It is not a matter of the church forming the canon. The various books were written well within the apostolic period without any approval by the church as such. Virtually all churches recognized these books as authoritative. Thus, rather than ‘making the canon,’ the church, after a long period of research and consideration, simply came to a unanimous consensus as to which books were to be counted as authentic and of Scriptural import. This places the New Testament over the church, recognizing that New Testament as apostolic in authority, while the church then must constantly refer itself to the pattern of apostolic Christianity” (North 58).

It might not be too much to venture at this point that God acted providentially through His church on the local level to lead Christians towards that which was truly His Word. It is true that human reason is an endowment from God to man, one that – when properly informed and utilized – can lead us to correct and godly conclusions.

Indeed, the churches were not acting entirely alone in their creation of lists. Theologians and churchmen of that early era put together their own lists, the fruit of their study. When there began to be general and ecumenical councils of the church, these leaders in religious thought had their opportunity to debate and formalize their lists.

“The first express definition of the New Testament canon, in the form in which it has since been universally retained, comes from two African synods, held in 393 at Hippo, and in 397 at Carthage, in the presence of Augustin [sic], who exerted a commanding influence on all the theological questions of his age. By that time, at least, the whole church must have already become nearly unanimous as to the number of the canonical books; so that there seemed to be no need even of the sanction of a general council. The Eastern church, at all events, was entirely independent of the North African in the matter” (Schaff Vol. 2:519).

No single council sealed the issue for the entire church. While the Council at Carthage decided the matter for the Western churches, discussion continued on the local, regional and national levels in the East for nearly another century.

“Debate in the East persisted, however, for some time longer. But the example of the West, of Athanasius in Alexandria, and the influence of the Cappodocian fathers, swept away all opposition. With the addition of 2 and 3 John, 2 Peter, Jude and the Revelation to the Peshitta (Syriac Bible), the question of the canon was settled for the East also. Thus the canonicity of the NT was settled, for all practical purposes, in the West around A.D. 400 and in the East by A.D. 500” (Unger 684).

Conclusion
The canon is considered now considered closed by most of Christendom, with the exception of such groups as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and other splinter groups that hold to doctrine quite different from that revealed in the established canon. Reasonably, if any rediscovered ancient writing showing evidence of being Scripture were ever brought forth, or if any new revelation purported to be given, we would have to evaluate these based on that which we have in the present canon. If it gives a different message, we must endeavor to discern which is correct. If it contains the same teaching that we already possess in Sacred Writ, then it can’t be seen to make much of a difference.

“For the Greek and Roman churches the question of the Canon is closed, though no strictly ecumenical council representing the entire church has pronounced on it. But Protestantism claims the liberty of the ante-Nicene age and the right of renewed investigation into the origin and history of every book of the Bible. Without this liberty there can be no real progress in exegetical theology” (Schaff Vol. 2:524).

While this writer wholeheartedly affirms the sixty-six books generally accepted by Protestant churches everywhere as Holy Scripture, it is also understood that lower criticism (but not the rather fanciful higher criticism), church history research and other rational methods of Bible study ought to be applied to make absolutely clear what is and what is not the Word and will of God for this age.

God’s church must be guided at all times by the true, pure and holy Word of God, which is the sword of the Spirit.

To God be the glory.

Works Cited

The Bible. Updated New American Standard Bible.

Latourette, Kenneth Scott. Beginnings to 1500. Vol. 1 of A History of
Christianity.

North, James. A History of the Church: From Pentecost to Present.
Joplin: College Press, 1997.

Schaff, Philip. Ante-Nicene Christianity. Vol. 4 of History of the
Christian Church. 8 vols. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons,
1882.

Shelley, Bruce L. Church History in Plain Language. Dallas: Word, 1995.

Unger, Frederick Merrill. Reviser Gary N. Larson. The New Unger’s
Bible Handbook. Chicago: Moody, 1984.