Logic and the Question of Canonicity

Rome and Geneva have been debating the question of just which books properly belong in the canon -- the rule of faith and conduct God expects all men to heed -- for some time now. But it isn't as complicated as some would have us believe. In truth, the question was settled almost two thousand years ago. The early Christian Church used some books as the focal point of sermons on the Lord's Day; and because of the rise of many false teachers and prophets -- who also had their writings (Paul even mentioned a pseudonymous letter sent to the Thessalonians (as "a letter as if from us"), they deliberately shunned other books, not allowing them for use in preaching.

By the time of Jesus and the apostles, the Old Testament canon was well fixed. Josephus described the books of the The LXX, as the same as those the Jews accept today - and those affirmed by the council of Jamnia (ca AD 100). The simple fact is, that the Jews never accepted the OT apocryphal books. And the Church followed this lead. This does not, in the ordinary canonical sense, "prove the point," but it does illustrate well what may be proven from the Word.

The New Testament self-refers in a number of places. Peter cites Paul's heavenly wisdom as having some things in his letters hard to understand (meaning that Peter had read ALL of Paul's letters. This was the standard practice of the churches, and Colossians 4 has Paul telling the Colossians to circulate the epistle sent to them. The apostles knew each other (from their earliest acquaintances described in the Gospels, and it was the duty of each to know what the others taught (throughout their ministries), and see to it that each maintained an orthodox position. The earliest church council of Acts 21 makes this all the more obvious.

Paul recounts a visit to Jerusalem he took (in following the rabbinic practice to place one's self under the authority of the "multitude of counselors" (i.e. presbytery)) where he met with two other apostles. Paul wrote to the Galatians, "Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother."

This means they all knew and acknowledged the teachings and writings of the others and their compatriots (i.e. Luke wrote under the authority of Paul, recognised as a prophet and "beloved physician."). Paul cites Luke 10:7 as Scripture in 1 Timothy 5, and every indication by statement and inference, suggests that the full body of the canon developed very early under the watchful eye of the apostles, ever on the lookout for false teaching.

This is also implied in that Paul says that all the "churches of God" have the same liturgical "practice." This could not be so unless each of the apostles and prophets responsible for them, conveyed not only the same liturgies, but also the same theology, or pattern of sound words (confession is the modern expression). Each was in submission to the local presbytery, as with the seven churches of Asia Minor mentioned in the johannine Revelation.

The early church already knew what the canon was, and thus, it churches having been developed from it, a conflict between the confession and liturgy or these churches would necessarily arise if any new book were added. Thus, the apostolic structuring of the early Church, in conformity with the dominical deposit entrusted to them, would serve (and did serve) as a limit on the well-known, and well-circulated canon.

The apostles were not above reproving each other, as indicated by Paul's rebuke of Peter, and Barnabbas (the prophet) entering into sharp dispute (which no doubt involved quoting Scripture) over John Mark. Recall that the apostles AND prophets form the foundation of the Church (Eph. 2:20). I do not accept that this reference names only one group as is commonly held. It names rather, the men who were prophets in the NT era (but not apostles, like Agabus and Luke), as well as the twelve. All Evangelists were prophets also (Philip, Timothy, Epaphroditus, and Titus).

The reference of Eph. 2 is to those apostles and prophets responsible for writing what became canon, for the canon still forms the foundation of the Church. And not all the canon was written by the twelve. Timothy most likely wrote Hebrews (which is why it has Paul's theology and a strong show of facility in Koine -- Timothy was raised in a Greek home -- and Luke certainly wrote the Gospel bearing his name and Acts.

The most obvious feature of the canon, its universal rule in the Church, necessarily leaves out all but the 66 books of the present "Protestant canon," because factually the Church has used only those books -- on everyones view -- at least most of the time. If if had been otherwise, there would have been no dispute over it. This means that if the canon contains more than these, that the Lord Jesus has failed to rule well in His Church.

The apocryphal books, moreover at times impugn themselves. Greg Bahnsen notes [I found this humorous] "the insecure tone of the author of II Maccabees: [who wrote] 'if it is poorly done and mediocre, that was the best I could do' (15:38)."
Besides noting the insecure tone, we wish to add that 1 Peter 1, and 2 Peter 1, both indicate that the prophets who wrote Scripture knew what it was which they wrote, and knew it was the Word of God, and thus anything but mediocre.

When a book of the apocrypha tell us, "I am not a canonical book," that may be the one place at which we ought to give it heed. The canon is certain and sure, the Bible tells us. But how could it make an audience "sure" when the author himself is worried?

Moreover, it is manifestly obvious to those who know the theology of the Bible, that the best confessions by far have developed the biblical system of theology without the help of the apocrypha, which shows these books unncessary. And if they are not necessary, they are not canon. Thus, the very existence of the Westminster Confession of Faith, since its theology may be shown from the impossiblity of the contrary, proves also that its list of canonical books derives from the real canon itself.

The tendency to confuse the books of the canon, with the lists of books that developed later (allegedly describing that canon), mistakenly conflates what was practiced early in all the churches, with what was formally acknowledged only much later.

The canon, in the nature of the case, carries its own authority. This means that the books which managed to end up in the canon - preached in Christian Churches having the best doctrine (which can be discerned from logic as well as the Word) -- are in fact those alone which are canonical.

The contrary supposition has Christ (blasphemously) mismanaging both the Church - for it says, "Do not add to the word of the Lord, lest he rebuke you, and prove you a liar." -- and His Word. For the canon is preached in the Church.

The truth is that God superintends both His church and His Word with special, providential care. This means that the canon longest recognized by the Church is actually the canon which the apostles knew. The early Church fathers tell us which those are, and it is no secret. And these books just happen to be the ones, which when exegeted carefully, yield that system of theology for which the contrary turns out to be logically impossible. This proves that the early fathers got it right, and that the Westminster divines were right to follow their lead in this regard.

Concluding non-scientific post-script.

The canon itself contains a systematic theology of logic, and a system of logic within its pages. When worked out in terms of its propositions and rules (where the propositional relationships of each of its major and more minor parts are made clear) -- and sooner or later they will be -- This logical system will yet will show its canonical borders, even more clearly and well-defined, according to the conclusions reached above.