Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
When it comes to the question of Canon, the Scripture itself provides grounds for considering external data: the apostolicity of books, the testimony of the church, and so forth. In essence, to say that the Canon is self-authenticating is simply to recognize that one cannot authenticate the Canon without appealing to the canon. It sets the terms for its own validation and investigation. A self-authenticating Canon is not just a Canon that claims to have authority, nor is it simply a Canon that bears internal evidence of authority, but one that guides and determines how that authority is to be established.
Even though the Scripture does not directly tell us which books belong in the New Testament canon (i.e., there is no inspired “table of contents”), we can account for that knowledge if we apply Scripture to the question. When we do apply the Scripture to the question of which books belong in the Canon, we will see that it testifies to the fact that God has created the proper epistemic environment wherein belief in the New Testament canon can be reliably formed. This environment includes three components:
1. Providential exposure. In order for the church to be able to recognize the books of the canon, it must first be providentially exposed to these books. The church cannot recognize a book that it does not have.
2. Attributes of canonicity. These attributes are basically characteristics that distinguish canonical books from all other books. There are three attributes of canonicity: (1) divine qualities (canonical books bear the “marks” of divinity), (2) corporate reception (canonical books are recognized by the church as a whole), and (3) apostolic origins (canonical books are the result of the redemptive-historical activity of the apostles).
3. Internal testimony of the Holy Spirit. In order for believers to rightly recognize these attributes of canonicity, the Holy Spirit works to overcome the noetic effects of sin and produces belief that these books are from God.
The Canon was received by the church. When the Bible uses "scripture" it means that deposit of the faith so existing at the time. Our Lord had no problem quoting from what He expressly called "scripture" when he walked the earth. After the crucifixion, the Apostle's referred to one another's written works as "scripture".
Rome contends no such deposit existed until they declared it so well over a thousand years later (1546 AD). History and God disagrees with them. Are we to believe that the church had no Canon for over fifteen hundred years, until the Council of Trent? The history of the church makes it clear that the church did, in fact, have a functioning canon long before the Council of Trent (or even the fourth-century councils). For example, Origen (died in 254 AD), well before Athanasius (died in 373 AD), is the earliest extant source to advocate the twenty-seven-book New Testament canon. Yet, this in no way means the early church was not using books known to be Scripture.
The question of the Canon is about whether the Christian religion provides sufficient grounds for thinking that Christians can know which books belong in the Canon and which do not. History alone cannot answer the question of what the Canon finally is; theology alone can do that. We must not ground the New Testament canon in an external authority (Rome), but seek to ground the Canon in the only place it could be grounded, its own authority. After all, if the Canon bears the very authority of God, to what other standard could it appeal to justify itself? Even when God swore oaths, “he swore by himself” (Heb. 6:13). Thus, for the Canon to be the Canon, it must be self-authenticating. Rather than looking only to its reception (community determined), or only to its origins (historically determined), we must let the canon have a voice in its own authentication.
Beloved, rabid Romanists show themselves time and again incapable of interacting substantively to answer the many cross-examinations put before them. Instead they merely tee up Rome's usual mythological tales of its history, rely upon anachronistic interpretations of the Early Church Fathers, and declare victory.
AMR
Even though the Scripture does not directly tell us which books belong in the New Testament canon (i.e., there is no inspired “table of contents”), we can account for that knowledge if we apply Scripture to the question. When we do apply the Scripture to the question of which books belong in the Canon, we will see that it testifies to the fact that God has created the proper epistemic environment wherein belief in the New Testament canon can be reliably formed. This environment includes three components:
1. Providential exposure. In order for the church to be able to recognize the books of the canon, it must first be providentially exposed to these books. The church cannot recognize a book that it does not have.
2. Attributes of canonicity. These attributes are basically characteristics that distinguish canonical books from all other books. There are three attributes of canonicity: (1) divine qualities (canonical books bear the “marks” of divinity), (2) corporate reception (canonical books are recognized by the church as a whole), and (3) apostolic origins (canonical books are the result of the redemptive-historical activity of the apostles).
3. Internal testimony of the Holy Spirit. In order for believers to rightly recognize these attributes of canonicity, the Holy Spirit works to overcome the noetic effects of sin and produces belief that these books are from God.
The Canon was received by the church. When the Bible uses "scripture" it means that deposit of the faith so existing at the time. Our Lord had no problem quoting from what He expressly called "scripture" when he walked the earth. After the crucifixion, the Apostle's referred to one another's written works as "scripture".
Rome contends no such deposit existed until they declared it so well over a thousand years later (1546 AD). History and God disagrees with them. Are we to believe that the church had no Canon for over fifteen hundred years, until the Council of Trent? The history of the church makes it clear that the church did, in fact, have a functioning canon long before the Council of Trent (or even the fourth-century councils). For example, Origen (died in 254 AD), well before Athanasius (died in 373 AD), is the earliest extant source to advocate the twenty-seven-book New Testament canon. Yet, this in no way means the early church was not using books known to be Scripture.
The question of the Canon is about whether the Christian religion provides sufficient grounds for thinking that Christians can know which books belong in the Canon and which do not. History alone cannot answer the question of what the Canon finally is; theology alone can do that. We must not ground the New Testament canon in an external authority (Rome), but seek to ground the Canon in the only place it could be grounded, its own authority. After all, if the Canon bears the very authority of God, to what other standard could it appeal to justify itself? Even when God swore oaths, “he swore by himself” (Heb. 6:13). Thus, for the Canon to be the Canon, it must be self-authenticating. Rather than looking only to its reception (community determined), or only to its origins (historically determined), we must let the canon have a voice in its own authentication.
Beloved, rabid Romanists show themselves time and again incapable of interacting substantively to answer the many cross-examinations put before them. Instead they merely tee up Rome's usual mythological tales of its history, rely upon anachronistic interpretations of the Early Church Fathers, and declare victory.
AMR