·
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.
·
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).
·
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.
Now I’d like
to fill in some of the flesh on these outlines.
Providential Exposure to the Books of the
Canon
A question
was brought up the other day about the “lost” letter from Paul to the
Corinthians (see 1 Cor 5:9). Kruger says, “to state the obvious, the church
cannot respond (positively or negatively) to a book of which it has no
knowledge. Christ’s promise that his sheep will respond to his voice pertains
only to the books that have had their voice actually
heard by the sheep (John 10:27, pgs 94-95).
Books must
be known to be corporately recognized (see “Corporate Reception” below), and so
Kruger notes that “the self-authenticating model we are putting forth here can
only be used to evaluate books that God has allowed the collective church to be
exposed to” (95). Regarding the “lost” books, he says, “it seems best to refer
to these lost apostolic writings as ‘inspired books’ or even perhaps as ‘Scripture’”,
creating a kind of distinction between “canon” and “scripture”. However, “this
distinction is only applicable to the narrow foundational and
redemptive-historical period of the apostles and driven by their God-given
function as caretakers and founders of the church”:
During this unique apostolic phase,
canonicity was a subset of Scripture—all canonical books were Scripture, but
not necessarily all scriptural books were canonical.
Given this distinction, the term canon
may be used for books before they are
corporately recognized (e.g., John ten minutes after it was written), but not
for books that were never corporately
recognized (e.g., lost letters of Paul). Such terminological distinctions, of
course, are inevitably retrospective in nature. John was really canon when the
ink was still wet on the autograph, but the church would have realized this
only at a later point, after being exposed to John and recognizing it as
canonical. The church could then look
back, as we do, and realize that a canon really did exist in the first
century even though at the time the church was not yet fully aware of it.
Likewise, Paul’s other Corinthian letter was not canon in the first century,
but this would not have been known at the time by the limited groups acquainted
with it. Only later, when it was lost or forgotten, would it become clear that
it was not canonical.
Therefore, canonical books, as we have
defined them here, cannot be lost … (96-97).
Attributes of Canonicity and the Holy
Spirit: 1. Divine Qualities
“John Murray
reasons, ‘if … Scripture is divine in its origin, character, and authority, it
must bear the marks [“indicia”] or
evidences of that divinity’” (98) Kruger continues to cite him later, “‘If the
heavens declare the glory of God and therefore bear witness to their divine
creator, the Scripture as God’s handiwork must also bear the imprints of his
authorship’” (99).
“As the
Westminster Confession of Faith notes, these divine qualities are considered to
be objective means ‘whereby [Scripture] doth abundantly evidence itself to be
the word of God’” (98).
There are,
of course, some critical models of canonicity which do not allow for God, and
thus, they would not accept this aspect of Kruger’s argument as evidence. But
for those who do believe in God, for those who have “prior theological
convictions” about what Scripture is, - if God is speaking, then one could not
expect otherwise than that he created an “ear to hear” what he is saying. That’s
the point of this section.
On the other
hand, it may be asked, if God is reliably speaking, “how is it that so many
people do not receive” what he is saying?
The answer is that, because of the
noetic effects of sin, the effects of sin on the mind (Rom. 3:10-18), one
cannot recognize [the divine imprint] without the testimonium spiritus sancti internum, the internal testimony of the
Holy Spirit (Calvin’s Institutes, 1.7.4-5; 3:1.1-3; 3.2.15, 33-36). The Holy
Spirit not only is operative within the canonical books themselves (providing
the “marks” of divinity noted above), but also must be operative within those
who receive them. The testimonium is
not a private revelation of the Spirit or new information given to the believer
– as if the list of canonical books were whispered in our ears – but it is a
work of the Spirit that overcomes the noetic effects of sin and produces the
belief that the Scriptures are the word of God. The reson some refuse to
believe the Scriptures is not that there is any defect or lack of evidence in
the Scriptures (the indicia are clear
and objective) but that those without the Spirit do not accept the things from
God (1 Cor 2:10-14, pgs 99-100).
In a
footnote, Kruger notes that there has been confusion on this point. “For this
reason the term testimony has been
confusing and led some to think that the Spirit is telling us some new
revelation. Aquinas uses the more helpful “inward instigation” of the Holy Spirit, and refers the reader to Plantinga’s
discussion in Warranted Christian Belief, pgs 249 ff.
Attributes of Canonicity and the Holy
Spirit: 2. Corporate Reception
“In all of
this discussion, we would be mistaken to think of the recognition of the canon
as happening only on a personal and individualistic level (which is perhaps
partly why it has seemed subjective to some)” (103).
Kruger says “there
are good biblical reasons to think that the testimonium
would result in a corporate, or covenantal, reception of God’s word”. This
would not – and did not – lead to absolute
unity regarding the canon. But throughout the ages, he says, there likely would
be – and there has been – “predominant”
unity. And he gives three reasons why we should expect that this should be so:
1. God’s redemptive pattern has not
simply to redeem individuals, but to redeem a people, a church for himself. And
when God, by his redemptive activity, creates covenant community, then he gives
them covenant documents that testify to that redemption.
2. “If we affirm the efficacy of the testimonium on an individual level, why
should we be less willing to affirm its efficacy on the corporate-covenantal
level?” That is, God is not the author of confusion. We should expect that, if
he is adequately leading the individuals in his community then the community as
a whole ought to be moving in the right direction. (This works in reverse,
too).
3. Quoting Stonehouse, “although the
church lacks infallibility, its confession with regard to the Scriptures
represents not mere opinion but an evaluation which is valid as derived from,
and corresponding with, the testimony of the Scriptures to their own character.
The basic fact of canonicity remains, then, the testimony which the Scriptures
bear to their own authority. But the historian of the canon must recognize the
further fact that the intrinsic authority established itself in the history of
the church through the government of its divine head”. That would be Christ
leading the church. More on this “evaluation” later.
“The role of
the church is like a thermometer, not a thermostat. Both instruments provide
information about the temperature in the room – but one determines it and one
reflects it.”
Attributes of Canonicity and the Holy
Spirit: 3. Apostolic Origins
“In regard to the establishment of the
new covenant, the message of redemption in Jesus Christ was entrusted to the
apostles of Christ, to whom he gave his full authority and power”. So the apostles
are “the link between the redemptive events themselves [Christ’s life, death,
and resurrection] and the subsequent announcement of those events. … Thus, the
New Testament canon is not so much a collection of writings by apostles, but a
collection of apostolic writings – writings that bear the message of the
apostles and derive from the foundational apostolic era” (109).
The books of
the New Testament, thus, are “not only about Christ’s redemptive work in
history … but that these books are the product of Christ’s redemptive work in
history – that they are the outworking of the authority Christ gave to his apostles
to lay down the permanent foundation for the church” (110).
Roman
Catholics link apostolic succession with canonicity (see, for example, then Fr
Joseph Ratzinger’s 1962 article
Primacy,
Episcopacy, and Successio Apostolica, in the recently reprinted
God’s
Word: Scripture, Tradition, and Office, but the writings of the Apostles
came during the first century, and
the
concept of apostolic succession came during the second century. It’s
important to state clearly here that, once a foundation is set and fixed, then
anything built on top of it is no longer foundation. This is, of course a
metaphor, but it is an adequate one here to say that, while the Apostolic
writings (the New Testament) were “foundational”, it has largely been agreed
that the concepts of “monarchical bishop” and “
apostolic
succession” were second century developments and not a foundational part of
the church.
* * *
These, then,
are the criteria that Kruger lays out as criteria for canonicity for the New
Testament books, according to what he calls “the self-authenticating model”.
This is a positive statement of his views; he provides greater detail into all
these elements, and responds to objections, in other parts of the book.
