Introduction

The Concep t of Canonicity

The canon of ScripUlre is the
set of writings which bear unique
and divine authority for the
doctrine and life of the Christian
Church.' It has been the Spirit
produced conviction of God's
people for the previous two
millennia that such a regula fidei
exists in the inspired ScripUlres
of the Old and the New
Testaments. Respecting the
latter, it is true that the Church
did not reach immediate
consensus on which
particular books should
be included in that
canon, nor does the text
of the New Testament
itself provide an
. authoritative list of
canonical Scriptures. For
this reason, we are
grateful for the
monumental labors of the
historians of the 19th and 20th
centuries to reconstruct the
history of the canon. The apriori
of faith does not relieve us of the
duty of investigating history nor
give us the right to conclude
without careful research that the
canon of Christ is the canon of
the church'> Yet neither God's
inscrutable providence in the
preservation, recognition, and
compilation of his Word nor the
findings of various historians
have shaken our faith that the
twenty-seven inspired books of
the New Testament are the
Church's only rule of faith and
practice.'
Under the critical
examinations of historians,
sociologists, and theologians of
various persuasions, this
conviction has sustained
continuous assault over the past
two centuries. In a relatively
recent article, Dugan maintained
that these prolonged
investigations may result in "a
massive series of changes
regarding the shape and content
of the Bible which should rival
for creativity the Reformation
period .. ."' This remark, though
often cited in the literaUlre and
usually dismissed as impetuous
enthusiasm, must be taken
seriously by Christ's church and
apologists for the old canonical
orthodoxy. Contrary to Barr's
comments, there is a "direct
correlation between the
self-identity of a church and the
precise boundaries of its canon."5
For men and women who take
their Christian profession
seriously, the content and
authority of the Scriptures they
possess is of fundamental
concern. "For man shall not live
by bread alone, but by every
word that proceeds from the
mouth of God" (Matt. 4:4).
A Brief Survey of Current
Canonical Research
The purpose of this paper is
to establish that the divine
authority of Christ and his
apostles is the only authoritative
grounds for a New Testament
canon. Contrary to this, current
biblical scholarship generally
adopts one of three approaches
to establishing the canonical
authority of the New Testament:
naturalistic development,
authoritarian ecclesiology, or a
hybrid of the two. Either way,
the authority of the New
Testament in general and its
component documents
specifically is located either in
church councils or the random
events of history. God's Word,
however, is never allowed
self-attesting authority by virtue
of its unique inspiration and
divine origin.
Various theories have been
put forward to replace
the old biblical one.
James Barr, David Meade,
Bruce Metzger, and Carl
Sundberg maintain that
the entire Christian
community was inspired
in some general sense to
write and collect those
documents which
justified and explained her
existence and sigrtificance to the
world. This is a radical
departure from the old prophetic
model, the Scriptural view that
God inspired individual men to
write his Word infallibly and
inerrantly. Metzger, for example,
reverses the biblical view of
inspiration and canonicity when
he grounds canonicity ill the
subjective consideration of the
Christian community. "A writing
is not authoritative because the
author was inspired, but rather
an author is considered to be
inspired because what he has
written is reCognized as
canonical, that is, is recognized
as authoritative in the Church.""
A document is "inspired of God"
only if the Christian community
considers it to be so.
On another front, various
February/March, 1998 THE COUNSEL of Chalcedon 25
theologians are advocating a
"canon within the canon"
approach. Kasemann has posited
that conflicting theological
.perspectives in the existing New
Testament canon are the reason
for the disunity that permeates
the modern church? Bultrnann
echoed this when he wrote that
"the canon reflects a multiplicity
of conceptions of Christian faith
or its contents." According to
Campenhausen, "All efforts to
establish a fixed 'apostolic
confession of faith' ... have come
to grief. "9 Hahneman concurs
when he writes that "there was
probably no rigid idea of
'orthodoxy' in the second
century."l0 This conflict,
according to' Kasemann, requires
the creation of a canon within
the canon, i.e., a core set of
doctrines or a hermeneutic "that
enables one to draw a line of
demarcation between what is
authoritative within the canon
and what is not."il Aland clearly
locates the. source of theological
illiferences in the existing New
Testament canon, and calls for an .
immediate remedy. He writes,
"This present state of affairs, of
Christianity splintered into
,different churches and
theological schools, is the wound
in the body. The varietY in the
actual Canon in its different
forms .. is not only the standard
S}'1llptorri, but simultaneously
also the teal cause of the illness.
Thls illness-which is in blatant
conflict with the unitywhich is
fundamental to its nature-cannot
be tolerated."12
McDonald adopts an even
more radical outlook on the
formation of the New Testament
canon. He maintains that the
problem of canonicity is
particularly acute in our age
because "historical-critical
methods of assessment enable
the scholar to question whether
most of the literature of the NT
was in fact written by apostles."I'
Those who finally wrote the
books we now designate as
components of the New
Testament were historically
removed fromJesus and limited
to their own particular outlooks.
Hence, it is questionable at best if
we' can attribute canonical
authority to their writings.
While McDonald assures us that
"his aim has not been to destroy
the church's Bible,"H heat the
same time. has gutted its
authoritative foundations.
Presuppositions and
Canonical ConfuSion
The previous brief su=ary
of modern canonical
investigation produces little to
warm the heart of the average
Christian, and it fails to provide
an authoritative foundation for
the New Testament Scriptures as
we now possess them. There is
one fundamental reason for this.
The majority of modem scholars
fail to distinguish the objective
grounds of canonical authority
from the subjective recognition
of that authority by the Church.
Reformed theology, on the other
hand, has always "placed a strong
emphasis upon the objective
significance of the word of God,
in contradistinction to any
subjective acceptance of it."15
The canonical defmitions offered
by Campenhausen, Sundberg,
Barr, and others assume that the
writings of the New Testament
do not possess intrinsic authority
by nature of their divine origin
26 '" .THE COUNSEL of Chalcedon '" FebruarylMarch, 1998
and apart from any subjective
recognition by the church in her
developing history. Hence, they
limit their investigations to the
historical compilation of the New
Testament canon and devote very
little energy to the exegetical
demonstration of an authoritative
New Testament canon in the

words of Christ and his apostles.
Moreover, by abandoning
belief in a sovereign God who
fully controls history, speaks
objectively and understandably
in history, and who has given a
clear wimess to his redemptive
plan in the propositional
revelation of the Old and New
Testaments, critics have largely
abandoned Scripture in favor of
historical reconstrUction,
exegesis for natural development.
They have thereby rejected
Christian theism and have
abandoned the only foundation
for the concept of canonicity.
Without this foundation, it is
impossible to conceive of a God
who speaks authOritatively in
history, and controls history in
order to preserve what he has
once spoken.
16
Their
conclusions are not surprising.
"If one begins with the
presuppositions of unbelief, he
will end with unbeliefs
conclusions:
17
In this paradigm,
the faith of the church is
ultimately grounded upon
historical investigation rather
than upon the authority of the
voice of God speaking in his
Word. Stonehouse summarizes
the Reformed positionby saying,
"It is our conviction that the idea
of canonicity has meaning.and
Validity only if Christian theism,
the theism of the Bible, is true.
Implicit in the idea of a divinely .
authoritative Scripture is the
thought of God as self-existent
and self-sufficient, the creator
and ruler of the universe. His
works necessarily constitute a
disclosure of his mind and
purpose. And in order that
sinful men, darkened in their
understanding and at enmity
with God, might receive
knowledge of their true
condition and of the divine
remedy for that condition with a
view to their glorification of God,
it was necessary tha t God should
reveal himself directly in history
by word and deed. That special
and direct revelation in history,
which found its center and goal
in the history of Jesus Christ,
possesses an objective, final
character, of pennanent validity
and significance for men. The
inscripturation of that revelation
through the agency of the Holy
Spirit was due precisely to the
need that a permanent and
truSTWorthy record should be
provided of the fact and the
meaning of the divine action in
history."l8
Modem criticism of the
Scriptures, in its multitude of
forms, is fatally flawed because it
is not performed with faith in the
Creator's Word. Scripture is
commonly viewed as the word of
man, culturally conditioned, and
ecclesiastically determined. The
unbelieving presuppositions of
recent studies have truncated the
entire affair, and instead of
considering themselves the
humble students of God's
inspired text, biblical scholars
have sat in judgment not only of
the text but of history as well.
This is a tragic and dangerous
development in the history of
biblical scholarship. Though
these men are gifted and have
expended numerous lifetimes in
pursuit of truth, not grounding
that pursuit in the fear of the
l.ordand submission to his
Word, their legacy is one of
skepticism, and their efforts, if
not continually frustrated by the
living God, would undermine the
church's faith in the Scriptures of
the Old and New Testament.
Washburn writes, "It is, indeed,
our starting point as Christian
scholars, that the sacred books
are supreme and sole authority in
matters of faith, and "contain all
truth necessary to salvation."
Nor when we speak of criticism,
do we at all imply that a mere
scientific or literary study can
give us that deeper knowledge of
the divine truth, which alone can
make it the Word of God. This
Word may speak to the mind
and heart of a Christian reader,
although he knows nothing of
the methods of exact learning;
and if the keenest criticism do
not approach it with special
reverence for a book, which has
fed the spiritual life of men as no
other has done, it will be barren
indeed for the scholar."19
The Authoritative Foundation of
the New Testament Canon
Where then shall we tum to
establish the authority of the
New Testament canon and avoid
the TWin pitfalls of popedom and
skepticism? It is my contention
that the ultimate authority for the
New Testament canon we now
possess is the person and work of
Jesus Christ. His divine
messiahship is the basic fact
behind the formation of the New
Testament and the only sufficient
authority for a binding New
Testament canon. He is the first
link in the chain of authoritative
tradition.
20
As Ridderbos has
stated,"ln conclusion we can only
say that the deepest foundation
of the canon can only lie in
Christ himself, and in the nature
of his corning and work. The
very basis or ground for the
recognition of the canon is,
therefore, in principle
redemptive-historical, i.e.,
Christological. For Christ is not
only himself the canon in which
God comes to the world, and in
which he glorifies himself in
contrast to the world, but Christ
establishes the canon and gives it
concrete historical form."21
Moreover, to his apostles
Christ promised the unique
guidance and inspiration of his
Holy Spirit and entrusted them
with the authorship, formation,
and sanctiOning of the New
Testament canon. It is upon
these TWin pillars, the divine
messiahship ofJesus Christ and
the delegated authority of his
apostles, that we must base the
authority of the New Testament
canon, or we will inevitably
surrender the faith of the church
to the vicissitudes of history,
create a canon with a canon, or
fall back upon human tradition.
Either way, man, not God,
establishes the authority of the
canon, and the church is left
without a divinely authoritative
foundation for her life and
doctrine.
The Authority of Christ over
the New Testament Canon
Christ's Divine Authoriry
Throughout this section of my
paper, it will be my pUrpose to
show that "because Jesus Christ
FebruarylMarch, 1998 THE COUNSEL of Chalcedon 27
stands behind the 27 books of
the New Testament canon, the
Church in faith acknowledged
and accepted these books as the
embodiment of the history of
tradition. '22 It is only when we
entertain biblical conceptions of
Christ's divine authority and his
unique relationship to the canon
that we will properly conceive of
the significance of the apostolate
for the formation and closing of
the New Testament canon.
Scripture teaches that Jesus
Christ is the eternal Son of God,
of one substance, power, and
eternity with the F ather and the
Spirit (WCF 2:3; Matt. 28:19; 2
Cor. 13:14; Phil. 2:9-11;John
1:1-3). As such, Jesus pOSsesses
full and absolute authority over
all things (Matt. 28:19; John
3:35; 5:27). This authority was
fully recognized iIi the early
church. As Martin has noted,
It is not surprising that the
earliest confession of faith known
in the N.T. Church, proclaims
this fact of the unrivaled lordship
of Christ, both in personal
allegiance (Rom. 10:9; 1 Cor.
12:3; cf. Acts 8:31 which
contains the Western reading)
and in his cosmic authority over
all created things (Phil. 2 :9-11;
Rom. 14:9; Rev. 5:6-14).23
Throughout his earthly
ministry, Jesus self-consciously
claimed this authority. Viewing
himself as the Divine-Mediator
whose sale purpose was to do
the will of his Father and to
finish his Messianic work Oohn
4:34; 5:33; 10:30; 17:1-4), he
demanded absolute submission
to his words (Matt. 7:24ff; Luke
6:47). He claimed that the one
who heard his words was hearing
the Father's words Oohn
14:23,24). As such, heaven and
earth could pass away, but his
words could not (Matt. 24:35;
Mark 13:31; Luke 1:33). Jesus
made it clear that while his
words were spirit and life to all
those who would receive them,
those same words would
pronounce condemnation upon
all unbelievers Oohn 6:33;
12:48). He did not hesitate to
call his words the words of God
Oohn 3:34,35}.
The exercise of this power is
compelling to watch as Jesus'
ministry unfolds. He claimed
full power on earth to 'forgive.
sins (Matt. 9:2; Mark 2:5,10;
Luke 5:24). He proclaimed
himself Lord of the Sabbath, i.e.,
the One who by his own
example defined the proper
observance of this holy day
(Matt. 12:8; Mark 2:28). He had
the audacity to say that no one
knows the Father except the Son,
and the one to whom the Son
chooses to reveal him (Matt.
11:21; Luke 10:22). The
demons he exorcised were
compelled to admit that in the
humble man standing before
them, they were confronted with
the itresistible power of the Son .
of God (Matt. 8:29; 10:1). Full
of unrestrained awe, his disciples
recognized and submitted to his
authority (Luke 5:8; Matt. 14:33;
16:6; John 20:28). In the
Garden of Gethsemane before a
band of soldiers, he momentarily
lifted the veil of his glory and
revealed himself as the great I
AM,JehovahJesus Oohn 18:6).
Asked by the high priest if he
was the Christ, the Son of the
Blessed One,Jesus again
responded, I AM, and then
28 :j: THE COUNSEL of ChaIcedon :j: FebtuarylMarch, 1998
claimed to be the rightful heir of
the throne at God's right harid,
the Davidic King, the Danielic
Son of Man (Mark 14:62).
After his resurrection, the
Church continued to recognize
Christ's divine authority. His
resurrection served to vindicate
his claims to divine-Messiahship
(Rom. 1:4; 1 Tim. 3:16). The
apostles presented Jesus of
Nazareth as presently enthroned
at the right hand of God the
Father Almighty, from which
position he rules over history,
builds his church, and defeats
Satan (Acts 5:31; 7:56; Rom.
8:34; Eph. 1:19; 5:23; Col. 3:1;
1 Tim. 6:15; Heb. 1:3; 10:12;
12:2; 1 Peter 3:22; Rev. 17:14).
The constant use of the phrase
"the Lord" in reference to Christ
bears perpetual wimess to their
confidence that he was the divine
Lord (Roin. 10:13; Phil. 2:11; 1
Cor. 1:31; 10:17; 2 TimA:1'!;
Eph.4:18). He was the Mosaic
Prophet of Deuteronomy 18, and
to refuse to listen to his words, as
they have come with greater
finality and fullness than those of
Moses, brings devastating
consequences (Acts 3:19-23;
Heb. 2:1-4; 10:28-29). As such,
the Christian must allow Christ's
words to live in him (Col. 3:16).
For Christ promised to send the
Holy Spirit to guide the church
into all truth, and to build his
church into the pillar and ground
of the truth as she submits to his
Word (Matt. 16:18; John 16:13;
1 Tim.3:15).
This biblical evidence is
highly significant for the
formation of the Christian canon.
In order for the New Testament
canon to carry unquestionable
authority over the faith and life
of the church, it must proceed
"from some authorized exponent
of the divine authority, and
expounder of the divine will. "4
In the God-man Jesus Christ, and
in him alone, we have such an
authority. And from the very
beginning, the church has
recogrrized no other. Ridderbos
has appropriately concluded that
Christ was the church's first
canon." He is the bearer of
absolute, divinely given authority
who came down from heaven to
"exegete" the Father, to reveal the
glory of the Father through his
own person and work 00hn
1:18). To receive his Word is to
receive that of the living God
himself. This is the principle,
according to Dunbar, that
"would ultimately come to
fruition in the church's
recognition of the New
Testament canon. From their
conviction of the sovereign
lordship of the resurrected Jesus
and His presence with them in
the ministry of the Holy Spirit
came the confidence with which
they asserted their christological
interpretation of the Old
Testament. This conviction also
ensured that the words of and
about Jesus would be given the
highest esteem, whether in oral
or written fonn.'
26
Christ's EschatolOgical Significance
It is now necessary for us to
demonstrate that Jesus of
Nazareth, the bearer of divine
authority over the life and
doctrine of his church,
commissioned the writing and
compilation of the New
Testament. This will take us into
the next section of this paper
dealing with the apostolate.
First, however, we must clear the
way by showing that Christ's
redemptive-historical significance
necessitates the writing and
collection of a corresponding
new word declaring and
interpreting his person and
work. This view is disputed by
Barr. He (tenies that Jesus ever
sanctioned a written New
Testament or that he would have
chosen writing as a trustworthy
medium of transmission for the
original kerygma. He makes the
following comments to support
his views. "Jesus in his teaching
is nowhere portrayed as
commanding or even sanctioning
the production of a written
Gospel, still less a written New
Testament. He never even
casually told his disciples to
write anything down, nor did he
even, short of writing, command
them to memorize his words
exactly for future committal to
the medium of writing ... There is
not a single point at which Jesus
commands that an event or a
teaching should be written down
so that it would be accurately
remembered. The probability
lies in the opposite direction:
that, in spite of the Old
Testament (as we now call it), the
cultural presupposition
suggested that committal to
writing was an unworthy mode of
transmission of the profoundest
truth.1I27
In so writing, Barr fails to
recognize the significance of
Jesus Christ for the history of
redemption and for the New
Testament canon. Throughout
the old coveriant age, great
periods of historical development
in God's redemptive plan were
always accompanied by new
divine revelation interpreting and
indeed creating those events.
When Israel was established as
God's people at Sinai, Moses was
commissioned by God to write
the Pentateuch. When the
monarchy was established, a
regular prophetic ministry was
raised up to instruct the kings in
the law of God and warn Israel
against apostasy. As God's
people went into exile, he sent
more prophets to them to
explain the purpose of their
captivity, promise them
restoration, and point them to
the coming Messiah. The cycle
of redemptive acts accompanied
by authoritative redemptive
words interpreting those acts is
indelibly fixed upon the pages of
Scripture. As Young wrote,
"Historical events are of no
significance to man unless they
are interpreted in words."'
The entrance of Jesus Christ
upon the scene of human history
2,000 years ago is the focal point
of God's redemptive program
(Luke 1:68-79; 2:29-32;1 Cor.
10:11; Gal. 4:4; Eph. 1:10). It is
the fulfillment of everything
written in the Old Testament.
Christ's coming marks the end of
the old age of redemption
promised and the beginning of
the new age of redemption
accomplished (Acts 2:17ff; Heb.
9:26; 1 Peter 1:20). Hence, if
God is to continue the precedent
set throughout the Old
Testament, we should expect a
corresponding revelation from
him bearing wimess to this fact,
and calling upon all men to
repent and believe in his Son.
This is exactly what we find in
the Scriptures of the New
Testament. "In identifying its
own history with the promised
1998 :j: THE COUNSEL of Chalcedon :j: 29
messianic age, Christianity
inevitably gave expression to its
consciousness of constituting the
new order which was to be
brought into being by new divine
action and speech."' The New "
Testament rnust be viewed as the
divine wituess to the new
eschaton inaugurated by the
authoritative person and
redemptive work ofjesus Christ
(Acts 1:8; Heb. 2:1A; 12:28,29).
It is an integral part of his
Messianic work in which as the
final word of God to fallen man,
he authoritatively commissions
and inspires his apostles to write
and sanction that word which
shall forever bear wituess to the,
sigrtificance of redemption
accomplished for the world
Oohn 15:27; Acts 1:22; 4:33;
Heb. 1:1-3). The development of
God's redemptive plan demands
new divine revelation to explain
and interpret the greatest of all
God's redemptive acts, the
salvation of man through the
Messiah.'o
Christ's Affinnatiot! of the
Old Testament Canon
That Christ most certainly did
deem a written revelation,
Scripture, a trustworthy wituess
to these world changirtg events
can be ascertained from his
unequivocal acceptance of the
Old Testament canon. He fully
enforces the divine authority of
the law and the prophets (Matt.
5:17-19; Luke 16:17). Christ's
attitude toward the Old
Testament is stated inJohn
10:35: "The Scripture cannot be
broken." He freely uses the Old
Testament in any given situation,
and a quote from it ends all
controversy (Matt. 4:4,7,10;
Luke 10:26). The limits of
Christ's canon are set
chronologically in Luke
11:50-51: from Abel (Genesis) to
Zechariah (2 Chronicles), the last
martyr mentioned in the last Old
Testament book according to the
Jewish canonical order.'l Its
inspired pages clearly point to
his coming person and work
(Luke 24:27,44; John 5:45;
8:56). It is not surprising,
therefore, that the apostles
viewed the Old Testament as the
inspired word of God (2 Tim
3:16,2 Peter 1:19-21), an
authoritative wituess to the
person and work of the Messiah
(Acts 2:17
c
21,25-28, 34,35;
3:22,23; 4:11,25.,26; 8:32,33;
13;33-35; 15:16,17), and
necessary to the faith and
doctrine of the church (Romans
15:4; 1 Corinthians 9:10; 10:11).
Morris writes, "The apostles
had sat at Jesus' feet...They
looked at Scripture in the same
way as he. We see the same "
unfailing respect for the Bible in
their writings as in his teaching.
They constantly cite Scripture
and whenever they do they cite it
as authoritative. They have the
same readiness as Jesus to see a "
quotation from the Old
Testament as settling a point
under discussion and have the
same unquestioning acceptance
of the view that whatever is
written in the prophets cannot
fail.""
The sigrtificance of Christ and
the apostles' acceptance of the
written Old Testarrient canori has
far reaching implications for the
entire canonical question. It
demonstrates first and foremost
that the "Christian church
possessed from its inception a
canon of sacred books, whose
30 'I' THE COUNSEL of Chalcedoti '" FebruarylMarclt, 1998
authority was unquestioned.""
Against Hahneman's contention
that the Old Testament canon
was in a fluid state in the first
century, I maintain that it is
inconceivable that men who had
such a high regard fot sacred
Scripture would have been in
doubt as to the extent of the Old
Testament canon." As Childs
wrote, "the early church was
never at any period in its history
withouta canon of authoritative"
writings."3
l
In this, they were
following the Old Testiunent,
which by its oWn testimony
prescribes a religion centered
around a growing divine book. 36
The prominent place that
Jesus and the early church gave
to the Old Testament indicates
that Christianity," from its
inception, waS a religion whose
existence and self-identity were
structured (in part) by a canon, a
closed collection of uniquely ,
authoritative wtitings. There
was, thus, a canonical
consciousness in the church from
its very beginning. If this would
not have lead the church
necessarily to expect an
expansion of the canonical
literature, it would surely have
meant that such an expansion
could not have seemed foreign or
inappropriate.
37
Their acceptance of the
written Scriptures as binding
upon the faith and life of the
church provides conclusive proof
that Christ and the apostles
viewed propositional language as
" a trustworthy mode of
transmission for transcendent
truth. They thereby affIrmed the
Christian-theistic worldview: "
God is the sovereign Lord of
human history and intervenes iri
history to communicate his word
to men in both oral and written
form. As Stonehouse put it.
"Chri<;tianity began as a religion
of a divine book. as a religion of
authority which definitely
acknowledged a book as an
objective expression of the divine
mind and will. 3. Moreover. in
accepting the Old Testament
revelation. which was itself
incomplete. Christ and the
apostles were laying the
foundation for a new written
record which would culminate
God's salvation word and
provide an authoritative wimess
to all the world. From all the
available evidence. we must
conclude that the concept of
canonicity was not foreign to the
early church but was
foundational to the preaching of
Jesus Christ and the apostles. and
that the New Testament canon is
formed in a community of
believers which expects to live by
a closed collection of
authoritative. inspired writings?9
According to Warfield. "The
Chri<;tian church did not require
to form for itself the idea of a
"canon." - or. as we should more
commonly call it. of a "Bible," -
that is. of a collection of books
given of God to be the
authoritative rule of faith and
practice. It inherited tlris idea
from the Jewish church. along
with the thing itself. the Jewish
Scriptures. or the "Canon of the
Old Testament." The church did
not grow up by natural law: it
was founded. And the
authoritative teachers sent forth
by Chri<;t to found His church.
carried with them. as their more
precious possession. a body of
divine Scriptures. which they
imposed on the church that they
founded as its code oflaw." 40
Christ's Establishment
of the Apostolate
So far. we have seen that the
New Testament presents Christ
to us as the divine Messiah. the
authoritative wimess of the
Father. He is. moreover. the
pivotal eschatological figure in
the history of redemption. the
One who fulfills all God's
promises to his people and
ushers in the new age of
redemption accomplished. In
fulfllling his Messianic office
committed to him by the Father.
Chri<;t unhesitatingly reaffirmed
the divine authority of the Old
Testament Scriptures. We may
conclude from these three facts
that Christ possesses the
authority to establish a New
Testament candn. His person
and work have the unique
redemptive significance to
warrant a New Testament canon.
His commitment to a closed
collection of authoritative.
divinely inspired writings is
consistent with the idea of a New
Testament canon. The question
remains. "Did Christ sanction
additional written SCriptures
which would serve as the
authoritative canon of the
church?" In answering that
question affirmatively. two issues
must be clearly kept in mind.
Christ certainly understood the
significance of his saving work
(Mark 14:49; Luke 4:21; 24:44;
John 13:3; 19:28) and desired
an authoritative wimess of it to
be propagated to the ends of the
earth (Matt. 28:19; Luke 24:48).
It is to his apostles that Christ
committed this work. and it is to
their office and testimony that we
must tum to determine the
authoritative foundations of the
New Testament canon. With
McPheeters. we must say that in
organizing the Church under the
new covenant dispensation.
Christ "appointed a committee of
her members. authorized them to
act as His agents. vested them
with his authority. and instructed
them to draw up a constitution
for His Church. 41 The
apostolate is thus the final link in
the chain of authority
establishing the New Testament
canon.42
Fisher correctly summarizes
this when he writes. "The
church's concept of canon.
derived first of all from the
reverence given the Old
Testament Scriptures. rested in
the conviction that the apostles
were uniquely authorized to
speak in the name of the One
who possessed all au thority - the
Lord Jesus Christ. This
development from there is logical
and straightforward. Those who
heard Jesus in person were
innnediately subject to his
authority. He personally
authenticated his words to the
believers. These same believers
knew that Jesus authorized his
disciples to speak in his name.
both during and (more
significantly) after his earthly
ministry.1l<t3
'Greg L. Bahnsen, "The Concept and
Importance of Canonicity," Antithesis. 1
(1990), p. 43.
'Hennan Ridderbos, The Authority of
the New Testament Scriptures
(Philadelphia: Presbyterian and
Reformed, 1963), p. 39.
"William M. McPheeters, "Apostolic
Origin or Sanction, the Ultimate Test of
Canonicity," The Presbyterian and
Reformed ReView, 3 (1892). p. 253.
FebruarylMarch. 1998'l' THE COUNSEL of Chalcedon ;. 31
'David L. Dugan, "The New
TestameJ;1t Canon in Recent Study,"
Interpretation, 29 (1975), p. 339.
:James Barr, Holy Scripture: Canon,
Authority and Criticism (Philadelphia:
Westminster, 1983), p. 42.
'Bruce Metzger, The Canon of the New
Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1987), p.
257.
7Ernst Kasemann, Essays on New
Testament Themes (philadelphia: Fortress
Press,1982), pp. 103-4.
'Rud?lf Bultmann, Theology of the
New Testament (New York: SCribners,
1955), p. 141.
9Hans von Campenhausen, The
Formation of the Christian Bible
(Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1972), p.
105.
IOGregory Hahneman. The Muratorian
Fragment and the Development of the
Canon (Oxford: Clarendon, 1992), p. 44.
lIMetzger, op. cit., p. 276,
"Kurt Aland, The Problem of the New
Testament Canon (London: Mowbray &:
Co. Umited, 1962), p. 31.
I3Lee McDonald, The Formation of the
Christian Biblical Canon (Peabody:
Hendrickson, 1995), p. 230.
"Ibid., p. 257.
"Ridderbos, op. cit., p. 9.
l'Edward]. Young, Thy Word is Truth
(Edinburgh: Banner ofTruth, [19571
1991), p. 185-6.
l'Ibid., p. 187.
I'Ned B. Stonehouse, "The AuthOrity
of the New Testament," The Infallible
Word (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and
Reformed, 1946), pp. 99-100.
I'Washburn, op. cit., p. 29.
"Simon]. Kistemaker, "the Canon of
the New Testament," Journol of
Evangelical Theological Society, 20 (1977),
6.
llRidderbos, op. cit., p. 40.
UKistemaker, op. cit., p. 1l.
"Ralph p, Martin, "AuthOrity in the
Ught of the Apostolate, Tradition and the
Canon," The Evangelical Quarterly, 40
(1968),66.
"McPheeters, op. cit., p. 247.
"Ridderbos, op. cit., p. 14.
"David G. Dunbar, "The Bibli",l
Canon," Hermeneutics, Authority. and
Canon, ed. D.A. Carson and John D.
Woodbridge (Grand Rapids: Baker,
(1986) 1995), p. 320.
"Barr, op. cit., p. 12.
cp. cit., p. 220.
"Stonehouse, op. cit., p. 108.
"Kistemaker, op. cit., p. 11.
'I Bahnsen, op: cit., p. 44.
31Leon Morris, I Believe in Revelation
(Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, 1976), pp.
59,60.
"F.F. Bruce, "Some Thoughts on the
of the New Testament
Bulletin of the John Rylands University
Library, 65 (1983), p. 37.
"Hahneman, op. cit., p. 80.
"Op. cit., p. 31.
"The follOwing Old Testament
citations reveal that the Old Testament
was a religion centered around a growing
collection of sacred Scripture which were
to be the people's final rule of faith and
practice. They also contradict
McDonald's statement: "Almost nothing
32 '" THE COUNSEL Qf ChalcedQn '" February/March, 1998
Non-Profit Org.
U.S. Postage
PAID
Permit # 1553
Greenville, SC
29602
in the Old Testament suggests that there
were sacred scriptures to turn to when
guidance was needed." (Op. cit., p. 8.)
Exodus 7:14; 24:7; Numbers 5:23;
Deuteronomy 17:18; 28:58; Joshua 1:8;
8:31; 23:6; 24:26; 1 Samuel 10:25; 1
Kings 11:41; 14:19; 2 Kings 14:6; 22:8;
23:2; 1 Chronicles 9:1,29; 2 Chronicles
17:9; 25:4; 34:14,30,31; 35:12; Ezra
6:18; Nehemiah8:1;Job 19:23; Psalm
40:7; Isaiah 30:8; 34:16; Jeremiah 25:13;
30:2; 36:2,4,8,11; 51:60,63; Daniel 12:4;
Nahum 1:1.
"Dunbar, op. cit., p. 319.
38StQnehouse, op. cit., p. 107.
39Frank Thielman. "The New
Testament Canon: Its Basis for
AuthOrity," Westminster TheolOgical
Journol, 45 (1983), p. 403.
"Benjamin Warfield, "The Fonnation
of the Canon of the New Testament," The
WorksofBenjaminB. Waifield, vol. I,
Revelation and Inspiration (Grand Rapids:
Baker, 1991 [1927]), p, 451.
'lOp. tit., p. 249.
"Thielman, op. cit., p. 404.
.f3Milton 'Fisher, "The Canon of the:
New Testament, The Origin of the Bible
'ed. Philip W. Comfort (Wheaton:
Tyndale, 1992), p. 76,