Before we understand how we can know we have God’s Word and understand the history behind it, we must first examine many of the common but false understandings that have been posited throughout history on how we can know we have the canon. How we think we know shows the ultimate authority that we are placing our knowledge in, and sometimes that authority rests on very shaky ground. Here, we will examine the common Catholic and Evangelical understandings of this issue, and the foundational errors that both of them make.
#1: Roman Catholic Model
According to Roman Catholics, ultimate authority to decide what the canon is rests in the Church itself, and ultimately in the Pope. Current Catholic doctrine states that the Church doesn’t make a book canonical; it simply has the authority to affirm the canonicity of book. Dr. Kruger writes, “The fundamental challenge from Roman Catholicism is that in order have a infallible Scripture, we need to have an infallible guide…to tell us what is, and what is not, Scripture.”1
This then raises the question – Where does the Catholic Church get its authority to determine what books are canonical and which ones are not? One could argue that it is supported by Scripture, but this is ultimately circular. Alternatively, one could argue that there is a basis for authority given the history of the Church, but even the most faithful Catholic would admit that its history has been checkered by numerous controversies, which color its claims of authority. Ultimately, this leaves the Church with only one option – simply declaring itself to be the infallible authority. Ironically, despite all the criticism heaped on the Reformers for saying that the Bible was the de facto infallible authority, they’ve simply traded it for another in the Church.2
When brought to its logical conclusion, the Catholic model is on a foundation of sinking sand. Even they would admit the Bible is the Word of God. Instead of resting in the authority they admit is God-given, they instead place the authority in sinful man, which is very foolish indeed.
#2: Evangelical Model
Although the Catholic model may be easily rejected by Christians, evangelicals frequently make their own errors in the authority that they set up. Generally, they will evaluate a book and look to see if it meets the following criteria:
- Apostolicity and date of authorship
- Usage dating back to the early church
- Orthodoxy
Through a neutral, historical investigation, the evangelical will evaluate each book to see if it meets these criteria. If it meets them, then it is canonical; if it does not, then it is rejected. Although this is much closer to the truth than the Catholic understanding (especially given its reliance on apostolic authorship), the evangelical model still misses the mark.
First, the concept of a neutral examination of the facts is deeply problematic, as ultimately, it is impossible for one to be truly neutral. If the person examining a book is not a Christian, they are by default going to be hostile to the message in it. Similarly, a Christian will be receptive to the message in the book under examination and will be willing to accept it as being from God. Thus, a neutral investigation is ultimately impossible.
Second, there are also problems with the criteria themselves. When we look at the early church, there is not a shred of evidence that these criteria were the standard by which they received a book as God’s Word. Additionally, some of the books that are in the New Testament do not even meet the criteria themselves. Although many theorize that the Apostle Paul wrote Hebrews, authorship is still hotly debated today and still unknown. There were also many orthodox, non-canonical books that were extremely popular in the early church, while other canonical books were not as widely circulated, such as 2 and 3 John.3 Although the practice of the early Church shouldn’t, by default, be our standard, it should definitely give us great pause, given how this was not their understanding of the issue.
If these problems weren’t enough, the fundamental issue with the evangelical model is this – What are the criteria for the criteria? On what basis are they determined? One could argue that these are valid given that they seem reasonable, both logically and through historical investigation into the book, but as we’ve determined, the spiritual state of the person is going to greatly influence what is believed to be reasonable and historically acceptable. This ultimately leaves us with an argument of probability, that we cannot prove that these books are God’s Word, but that the weight of the evidence makes it most likely, which is very shaky ground for one’s faith.4 Finally, support for using these criteria cannot be found in Scripture, which should lead the Christian to reject this model as the basis for knowing the canon.
Knowing how we should not be thinking about the canon, we will next begin to explore what Dr. Kruger calls the Self-Authenticating Model, one that is rooted in the authority and testimony of Scripture.