How Can Protestants Trust The Canon Of Scripture?

HOW CAN PROTESTANTS TRUST THE CANON OF SCRIPTURE? Introduction We live in a day that tends to shrug its shoulders when confronted with error. Instead of asking, like Pilate, “What is truth?” postmodern man says, “Nothing is truth” or perhaps “There is truth, but we can’t know it.” We’ve grown accustomed to being lied to, and many people seem comfortable with the notion that the Bible contains errors, too. The doctrine of Biblical inerrancy is an extremely important one because the truth does matter. This issue reflects on the character of God and is foundational to our understanding of everything the Bible teaches. The reliability and trustworthiness of Scripture in its legitimate canonical composition is an important article of the Christian faith. As F.F. Bruce asserts, Christianity is a historical religion. Our article of faith traces our faith as Christians on the doctrine of the Son of God becoming part of historical mankind, and our Scripture necessarily must, even as a record of history be a reliable inerrant record and guidance that we can trust.1 Survey of Various Positions We shall discuss two alternative views to the belief in the trustworthiness of the Christian canon. These alternative views include the following: 1. The opinion that the Bible is not the Word of God. 2. The view that the Protestant canon is corrupted and/or lacking in the inspired books. 1. The Bible is Not the Word of God 1

F.F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? 5th ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1960), [online], accessed March 20, 2009, http://www.bible.ca/b-new-testament-documents-f-f-bruce.htm; Internet.

1

2 To declare that a particular book is a part of the canon, or that a book is the Word of God, is a declaration that the book is inerrant and infallible. Practically all religions in the world have scriptures that these religions proclaim as divinely inspired. For example, Muslims also proclaim the Qur’an as the “locked” divine revelation – the Scripture, handed down to the Prophet Muhammad by the angel Gabriel. In fact Muslims accept the “authenticity of divine revelations” in the Judeo-Christian Scripture. The only Muslim reservation against the Bible is that it has been “corrupted” by translational errors.2 To nonbelievers, Catholics and Protestants both proclaim their Scripture as the Word of God. However these two major Christian groups differ in their respective canons – the list of recognized books in the Scripture. Each side says that their canon is the true and God-given Scripture and each side presents “proof” of their view. A very confusing, and oft times irreconcilable, dichotomy exists for the nonbeliever to wade through. Without help, it is almost natural for someone to adopt the view that either all are right or all are wrong in their assertions. Among these many and conflicting claims of divine authenticity, can there be just one divine revelation that was handed down to mankind in the form of a book? Or should a detached scholar view all these claims with objectivity and consider all these claims as no more than religious claims? How can God entrust his teachings only to those who can read and write? These questions clearly imply a negative answer, which sweeps the Bible under the rug, as one of the scriptural traditions that deserved to be lumped with other scriptures pretending to be divinely inspired.

2. The Protestant Canon is Corrupted and/or Lacking in the Inspired Books 2

Canon Of The Bible, [online], accessed March 18, 2009, http://www.islamic-awareness.org/ Bible/Text/Canon; Internet.

3 This alternative view believes that the canon as Protestants or early Christians held them is corrupted. As indicated above, the corruption of that Judeo-Christian Scripture is the reason why, from the point of view of the Muslims, the Qur'an was divinely revealed to the Prophet Muhammad. The Muslims in this case are referring not just to the Protestant canon, but to the entire scriptural tradition of Christendom in its entirety, which includes the Catholic canon of scripture. From the point of view of the Catholic Church, the Protestant canon omitted certain books in the Old Testament that the Church considered and held as divinely inspired. Though the Catholic branches of Christianity also hold differences with each other on their Old Testament canons, all Christian religions agree on the constitution of the New Testament canon.3 The Catholic Canon contains fifteen more books in their Old Testament than the Protestant canon. These books are collectively called the Apocrypha from the Greek word “άπόκρυφα” meaning “those having been hidden away.” The Protestant canon accepts sixty-six books, of which thirty-nine came from the Jewish Old Testament written primarily in Hebrew but with some minor portions in Aramaic, and twenty-seven originally written in Greek forming the New Testament. While Protestants consider the interpretation of scripture to be open to each person, though with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, the Catholic Church is on the opposite side of the interpretational spectrum. At the Council of Trent, the Catholic Church decreed that no one, in matters of faith and morals, should interpret Scripture contrary to official church interpretation, backing up this warning with threats of penalty.4 3

Canon Of The Bible. Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent: Decree Concerning the Canonical Scriptures, [online], accessed March 18, 2009, http://www.bible-researcher.com/trent1.html; Internet. 4

4 Protestants also consider the Bible to be the ultimate pillar of truth and the final authority on all things concerning God. However, the Catholic Church, while respecting the Bible as divine revelation nevertheless regards it as a product of the Church (e.g. the Church produced the Bible, and not the Bible the Church) over which it has the absolute right of interpretation. The Catholic position regards the scripture as one of the sources of revelation, but also respects tradition and the teachings of the Church as part of the divine revelation. In brief, Catholic theologians argue that the Scripture cannot bear witness to itself, and that it is the Church that witnesses as to its authenticity as divine revelation. Church authorities also assert that it was the Church that sifted grain from chaff with regard to the books of the canon, and that the early Christian communities had differing views about what books they regarded as inspired.

Support for Position The term "canon" is used to describe the books that are divinely inspired and therefore belong in the Bible. The difficult aspect of determining the biblical canon is that the Bible does not give us a list of the books that belong in the Bible. Determining the canon was a process, first by Jewish rabbis and scholars, and then later by early Christians. Ultimately, it was God who decided what books belonged in the biblical canon. A book of scripture belonged in the canon from the moment God inspired its writing. It was simply a matter of God convincing his human followers which books should be included in the Bible. This paper presents the position that the Protestant canon, having been based on what the early Christians accepted as legitimate Scripture, is the legitimate canon, and the only inerrant guidance of the Christian faith. It cannot err because the source is inerrant. And as an

5 infallible source of guidance, we can trust our canon. Let us, first, define what saying that Scripture is inerrant means: The inerrancy of Scripture means that Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact.5 When discussing the canon, it is wise to be careful to say that God determined the canon, and the church discovered the canon. The church did not create the canon of Scripture; rather, the church discovered or recognized it. In other words, God's Word was inspired and authoritative from its inception – it is "firmly fixed in the heavens" (Ps. 119:89) – and the church simply recognized that fact and accepted it. Compared to the New Testament, there was very little controversy over the canon of the Old Testament. Hebrew believers recognized God’s messengers, and accepted their writings as inspired of God. While there was undeniably some debate in regards to the Old Testament canon, the only major issue that remained was the Apocrypha, with some debate and discussion continuing today. The vast majority of Hebrew scholars considered the Apocrypha to be good historical and religious documents, but not on the same level as the Hebrew Scriptures. While Jesus and the New Testament authors cited references to almost all the books of the Hebrew canon, they had no references to the Apocrypha. It is also interesting to note that no council of the Christian church in the first four centuries recognized the Apocrypha as inspired.6 The criteria the church used for recognizing and collecting the Word of God were as follows: 1. Was the book written by a prophet of God? 2. Was the writer authenticated by miracles to confirm his message? 3. Does the book tell the truth about God, with no falsehood or contradiction? 5

Wayne A. Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 90. 6 Ibid., 453.

6 4. Does the book evince a divine capacity to transform lives? 5. Was the book accepted as God's Word by the people to whom it was first delivered? Of these criteria, the one of most importance was the first one – was the book written by a prophet? Its corollary, did the book receive apostolic approval, was the chief test of canonicity in the early church. This criterion is a logical result of knowing what an "apostle" was. The apostles were gifted by God to be the founders and leaders of the church, so it is reasonable to accept that through them came the Word governing the church. The apostles were promised the Spirit of Truth who would bring to their remembrance what Christ had said (Jn. 14:26) and guide them into "all truth" (16:13). After the ascension of Christ, the apostles received supernatural gifts to enable their work and confirm their message (Acts 2:4). God's household is " built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets" (Eph. 2:20). Given the apostles' special commission, it only makes sense that the church made apostolicity the number-one test of canonicity. The Westminster Confession, speaking to the infallibility and complete reliance on scripture, states: “Our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our heart.”7

Objections to Position To the Westminster’s representation above that scripture can stand by itself and that we can derive scriptural interpretation ourselves guided by the Holy Spirit, the Catholic perspective will strongly take exception and counter strongly that Westminster may have misrepresented scripture. The Catholic position stands strongly against the claim that Scripture is 7

The Westminster Confession of Faith (Charleston, South Carolina: Forgotten Books, 2007), I.5.

7 the sole authority on faith, guided by the Holy Spirit. The practical Catholic refutation of this thinking is the argument that not everyone who reads the Bible would understand it in the manner others understood it. This shows in the limitless numbers of Protestant interpretations of the Scripture, as limitless as the numbers of Protestants reading it. The Scripture does not endorse the Westminster view and in fact negates it, according to the Catholic viewpoint.8 Catholics maintain that the true rule of faith as the Bible itself says, is Scripture plus apostolic tradition. This shows in the in the living teaching authority of the Catholic Church, which dutifully guards the teachings of Jesus and the apostles, along with the authority to interpret Scripture correctly. The Second Vatican Council’s document on divine revelation, Dei Verbum (Latin: "The Word of God"), explains the relationship between tradition and scripture: Hence there exists a close connection and communication between sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merges into a unity and tend toward the same end. For sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit. To the successors of the apostles, sacred Tradition holds on its hands in its full purity God’s word, which was entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit.9 The Catholic point of view also offers an explanatory interpretation of the scriptural endorsement in Timothy. The very epistle to Timothy in which the endorsement was made clearly was not yet written at the time. Obviously it was the direct contact between Paul, and the tradition that bound believers to that tradition, as well as the Old Testament scripture, that was the context of that endorsement. There was no New Testament at the very time Paul wrote the epistle to Timothy. As this was true for Timothy, it was as true with the other books of the New Testament. 8

Apostolic Tradition, [online] accessed March 29, 2009, http://www.catholic.com/library/ Apostolic_Tradition.asp; Internet. 9 Apostolic Tradition.

8 The Muslim would say that one of the more incontrovertible issues confronting any serious study of the Bible is the glaring historical vacuum of consensus over what constitutes a legitimate canon. Much like the early theological controversies, the church was plagued from its very infancy with heated debates over what precisely qualified as scripture. Indeed, the widespread division over the most basic elements of Christian faith led each of the major doctrinal factions to champion their own versions of an inspired scripture. The extent of this disagreement was only to intensify with the coming of the Reformation. The ensuing secession by Protestant Christians (themselves later to explode into literally tens of doctrinally distinct denominations) ensured that these major divisions would remain into perpetuity. Perhaps not surprisingly, a Muslim would point out that this less than flattering problem of multiple canons is conveniently exempted from the literature of missionary Christianity.

Defense of Position While Catholics claim they believe that the Bible is the Word of God, their practices say otherwise. They rely on Church tradition and the words of man over and against the Word of God. Protestants believe that the Bible alone is the sole source of God’s special revelation to mankind, and as such it teaches us all that is necessary for our salvation from sin. Protestants view the Bible as the standard by which all Christian behavior must be measured. This belief is commonly referred to as “Sola Scriptura” and is one of the “Five Solas” (sola being Latin for “alone”) that came out of the Protestant Reformation. Theologian Charlie J. Ray explained it thus: “This is not to say that we do not have church tradition and that we can interpret the Bible any way we like. What we mean is that we

9 reject the Roman Catholic position that Scripture is insufficient in itself and needs an infallible interpretation called ‘Holy Tradition.’”10 Again Ray explains that not all traditions are rejected: “What we believe the Catholic error to be is to set Tradition as a revelation from God on equal standing with Scripture. In fact this tradition changes according to changes in papacies.”11 While there are many verses in the Bible that establish its authority and its sufficiency for all matters of faith and practice, one of the clearest is 2 Timothy 3:16 where we see that “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.” Catholics on the other hand reject the doctrine of “Sola Scriptura” and do not believe that the Bible alone is sufficient. They believe that both the Bible and sacred Catholic tradition are equally binding upon the Christian. Many Catholic doctrines, such as purgatory, praying to the saints, worship or veneration of Mary, etc. have little or no basis at all in Scripture, but are based solely on Catholic traditions. Essentially the Catholic Church’s denial of “Sola Scriptura” and their insistence that both the Bible and their “Sacred Tradition” are equal in authority undermines the sufficiency, authority and completeness of the Bible. The view of Scripture is at the root of many of, if not all, the differences between Catholics and Protestants. We also believe in the universal priesthood of believers, which imply the right and duty of Christians to read the Scripture and to read the Bible in his language, and to take part in the public affairs of his faith, as opposed to the hierarchical system which puts the essence and authority of the church in an exclusive priesthood, making ordained priests the mediators between God and his people. 10 11

Ray, What Is Sola Scriptura? Do We Reject All Tradition? Ibid.

10 On interpreting the Scripture, the Protestant position does not discard collective interpretation of the Bible. The Protestant view is to place Bible in the hands of every Christian to read and learn from, not so they could re-invent the faith. As Ray put it too clearly: We read the Bible on our own, and the church and church councils were secondary authorities, which could and often did err. This is what differentiates our doctrine from the Catholic dogma of papal infallibility a dogmatic tradition that history has proved to be fallible.12 With regards to a Muslim view of the Bible, it is appropriate to re-emphasize that the books of the New Testament did not become inspired because they were included in a canonical list. On the contrary the church included them in the canon because they were already regarded as divinely inspired. The supposed “incontrovertible issues” are merely exaggerated claims isolated within the history of the church and are not honest representations of historic Christianity. For the New Testament, the process of the recognition and collection began in the first centuries of the Christian church. Very early on, some of the New Testament books were being recognized. Paul considered Luke’s writings to be as authoritative as the Old Testament (1 Tim. 5:18; see also Deut. 25:4 and Lk. 10:7). Peter recognized Paul’s writings as Scripture (2 Pet. 3:15-16). Some of the books of the New Testament were being circulated among the churches (Col. 4:16; 1 Thess. 5:27). Clement of Rome mentioned at least eight New Testament books (A.D. 95).13 Ignatius of Antioch acknowledged about seven books (A.D. 115).14 Polycarp, a

12

Wayne A. Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 597. 13

"Clement of Rome, St.," in The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, ed. F.L. Cross (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), 298. 14 "Ignatius," in The Westminster Dictionary of Church History, ed. Jerald Brauer (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971), 432.

11 disciple of John the Apostle, acknowledged 15 books (A.D. 108).15 Later, Irenaeus mentioned 21 books (A.D. 185).16 Hippolytus recognized 22 books (A.D. 170-235).17 The first “canon” was the Muratorian Canon, which was compiled in (A.D. 170). The Muratorian Canon included all of the New Testament books except Hebrews, James, and 3 John.18 In A.D. 363, the Council of Laodicea stated that only the Old Testament (along with the Apocrypha) and the 27 books of the New Testament were to be read in the churches. The Council of Hippo (A.D. 393) and the Council of Carthage (A.D. 397) also affirmed the same 27 books as authoritative.19 However, possibly the most telling evidence of the Bible’s authenticity, at least for a Muslim, comes from their own Qur’an. They make the claim that the Bible has been corrupted but the Bible couldn’t have been corrupted before or during Muhammad’s time or the Qur’an wouldn’t have commended it: “And We caused Jesus, son of Mary, to follow in their footsteps, confirming that which was (revealed) before him in the Torah, and We bestowed on him the Gospel wherein is guidance and a light, confirming that which was (revealed) before it in the Torah - a guidance and an admonition unto those who ward off (evil)” (Surah 5:46). Since the Bible wasn’t changed before or during Muhammad’s time, the only other possible time for corruption was after the prophet’s death. But scholarly evidence proves that from the 7th to 21st centuries, nothing of doctrinal significance differs in the Hebrew and Greek

15

Maxwell Staniforth, Early Christian Writings (London: Penguin Books, 1987), 115. “Irenaeus of Lyons,” 432. 17 J.B. Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers (Berkeley, California: Apocryphile Press, 1890), 231. 18 Geoffrey Mark Hahneman, The Muratorian Fragment and the Development of the Canon (Oxford: Clarendon, 1992), 21. 19 F.F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? 5th ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1960), [online], accessed March 20, 2009, http://www.bible.ca/b-new-testament-documents-f-f-bruce.htm; Internet. 16

12 texts. Aside from grammar and spelling variation, the Bible today is essentially the same Bible as Muhammad praised (Surah 3:3). 20 Also, by the time Muhammad was born, thousands of Bibles existed around the world in different languages. If Christians did corrupt the Bible, how could they have destroyed all the accurate Scriptures exposing such deceit? Someone audacious enough to corrupt the Bible would likely change any doctrines that convicted him. If Christians really did alter the Bible, they probably would have distorted the facts we read about Thomas’s doubt, Peter’s hypocrisy, and punishments for changing God’s Word. All of this points to the fact that the truth remains; God’s Word is the same. “Every word of God proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Do not add to his words, lest he rebuke you and you be found a liar” (Proverbs 30:5-6).

20

2002), 221.

Norman Geisler, Answering Islam: The Crescent in the Light of the Cross (Ada, Michigan: Baker,