← Back to sermon library

It may seem odd, but we're not 
going to deal with paragraph 1 this morning. Essentially what 
that highlights, however, we may refer to it as we move throughout 
our study this morning, is the necessity of Holy Scripture. 
God has revealed in generally through the created order and 
by virtue of the fact that man is his image-bearer, but God 
reveals Himself specially in a myriad of ways in the Old Covenant 
times and even in the New Testament as well. We see tongues and signs 
and wonders, but in this day, in this age, the special revelation 
of God is the Word of God, the Scriptures, which are indeed 
His infallible and inspired Word. So I want to take up the identification 
of Holy Scripture in paragraphs 2 to 4. So I will read those 
paragraphs now. Paragraph 2, under the name of 
Holy Scripture or the Word of God written are now contained 
all the books of the Old and New Testament, which are these. 
Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, 
Ruth, 1st and 2nd Samuel, 1st and 2nd Kings, 1st and 2nd Chronicles, 
Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Job, Psalms, Proverbs. Ecclesiastes, 
the Song of Solomon, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, 
Daniel, Hosea, Joel. Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, 
Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi. Of the New 
Testament, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, the Acts of the Apostles, 
Paul's epistle to the Romans, 1st and 2nd Corinthians, Galatians, 
Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1st and 2nd Thessalonians, 1st 
and 2nd Timothy, Titus, Philemon, the epistle to the Hebrews, epistle 
of James, the 1st and 2nd epistles of Peter, the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd 
epistles of John, the epistle of Jude, the Revelation. all 
of which are given by the inspiration of God to be the rule of faith 
and life. The books commonly called Apocrypha, 
not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon or rule 
of the scripture, and therefore are of no authority to the Church 
of God, nor to be any otherwise approved or made use of than 
other human writings. The authority of the Holy Scripture, 
for which it ought to be believed, dependeth not upon the testimony 
of any man or church, but wholly upon God, who is truth itself, 
the author thereof. Therefore it is to be received, 
because it is the Word of God." And then one particular passage 
of Scripture in 2 Timothy chapter 3, specifically verses 15 and 
16. 2 Timothy chapter 3 verses 15 and 
16, and that from childhood you have known the holy scriptures 
which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which 
is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration 
of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, 
for instruction in righteousness. Now, as we come to this particular 
section, it highlights the identity of Holy Scripture. And I think 
the tendency or the temptation is, and it's not necessarily 
wrong because we probably have all these memorized, is just 
to skip the listings here. of the Old and of the New Testament 
when it comes to the identity of Scripture. Again, I think 
everybody should have those committed to memory, the 39 books of the 
Old Testament, the 27 books of the New Testament, but most of 
the times we probably don't read that. But we ought not to miss 
the implication, not even an implication, an assertion or 
declaration that these 66 books and no others are the very Word 
of God Himself. Each one indicated here, each 
one highlighted here, each one listed here is underscored by 
the confessional divines that they are indeed the books given 
by inspiration of God for the Church of God to be profitable 
under doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness. 
Now, notice specifically in paragraph 3, it speaks concerning the Apocrypha, 
and we'll deal with this just a little bit as we move through 
our time this morning. But note, the books commonly 
called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part 
of the canon or rule of the Scripture. Now, that word canon is not the 
word with two ends that shoots great big balls in battle and 
kills people. The word canon as we find it 
here in Greek meant a rod, especially a straight rod used as a rule. From this usage comes the other 
meaning which the word commonly bears in English, rule or standard. That's what we mean when we speak 
concerning canon. A famous or a popular Greek lexicon 
says that in the second century in the Christian church, canon 
came to stand for revealed truth. The use of the word in biblical 
studies usually refers to a final closed list of books. So that's what we're dealing 
with this morning, this issue of canon. or canonicity, how 
we received or how we identify or how we recognize these books 
as the Word of God. Kruger says, the question of 
canon, therefore, is at the very center of how biblical authority 
is established. This is a most important subject 
for the believer because it arises in our minds at times How do 
we know that these books are the books that we're supposed 
to have, especially as there's archaeological findings in the 
Gospel of Thomas and, you know, these sorts of foolish books 
that highlight or capitalize on these sort of lost books of 
Jesus? We need to be assured and we 
need to have that confidence that what we are indeed carrying 
in this one-volume collection is indeed the Word of God, as 
well apologetically or polemically. unbelievers really have a struggle 
with the idea that we have or we claim to have the Word of 
God. So it's important for us to understand this issue of canon 
or canonicity, and I would commend highly Michael Kruger's two books 
on this particular subject. One is canon revisited, establishing 
the origins and authority of the New Testament books, and 
the second is the question of canon, challenging the status 
quo in the New Testament debate. And much of what follows here 
is highly indebted to Dr. Kruger's works. He's also got 
a very helpful website called Canon Fodder, which I think he 
gets mad props for being so clever. But on that website, he's got 
several articles dealing with canonicity. He's got several 
things, huge questions that are addressed by both believers and 
unbelievers. So if you want to look into this 
or delve into this further, I would recommend his two books. If you 
don't have the time or the resources right now for books, certainly 
his website is a treasure trove of data concerning the canon 
or canonicity. So I want to look at three things 
this morning. First, the doctrine of, or rather 
the idea of the origins of canon. How was it to be, or how did 
it come to pass that New Testament Christians and the church had 
this desire to collect in one body or one compass these books 
and call them the canon, or a rule, or a standard? So we'll look 
at the origins of canon itself. Secondly, the concept of a self-authenticating 
canon. There are various views as to 
how the church came to have the books of the Bible. And there 
are various and competitive thoughts concerning that. And we'll look 
at just a couple this morning. But what Kruger proposes, and 
what I certainly affirm, is what's called a self-authenticating 
canon. And then thirdly, we'll look 
at the components of the self-authenticating canon. In other words, what things 
ought we to be looking for when it comes to this doctrine of 
canonicity? I hope this becomes clearer as we move through our 
study. But in the first place, the origins of canon can be seen 
in three particulars. First, the eschatological nature 
of early Christianity. Early Christianity had a whole 
book of Old Testament promises. If you just had the Old Testament, 
you would probably end the book of Malachi saying, now what? 
What's going to happen? What's going to become of all 
these things that were spoken of this seed of the woman that 
was told to us in Genesis 3.15? So the early Christians had this 
concept of a desire to answer the questions proposed or set 
forth by the Old Testament scriptures. And what we find in the New Testament 
is fulfillment, realization. All of the promises of God are 
yea and amen in the Lord Jesus Christ. They saw that play out. The apostles were appointed to 
write or inscripturate those things. There was this expectation 
within early Christianity of eschatology, the reality of God 
coming into this world to bless, to save, and ultimately to judge 
those who oppose. And what we find in the New Testament 
is very similar to what we find in the Old Testament. In the 
Old Testament, you find the redemptive act and then the revelatory word. In other words, God brings his 
people out of Egypt, that is the redemptive act, and then 
the revelatory word follows on the heels of that. It explains 
that particular activity. You see the same motif in the 
Scriptures. We find in Matthew, Mark, Luke, 
and John, the redemptive act of our Lord Jesus Christ in terms 
of His life and His death and His resurrection. And certainly 
the gospel writers give us exposition or interpretation of that fact, 
but as well, look at the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 15. He 
takes the reality of the death and the burial and the resurrection 
of the Lord Jesus Christ, he interprets that, he expounds 
on that, and he tells us that it was for us and for our sins. So we have the act and then we 
have the revelation. You see that in Luke chapter 
24, verse 46, it says, Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary 
for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third 
day. That's the redemptive act. And here is his commission to 
his apostles. Verse 47, And that repentance and remission of sins 
should be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at 
Jerusalem. And you are witnesses of these 
things. Behold, I send the promise of 
my Father upon you, but tarry in the city of Jerusalem until 
you are endued with power from on high." Now, there are many 
passages in the New Testament, specifically in the gospel records, 
that we like to try and lift out of context and apply to our 
particular situations. Now, it's not the case that we 
don't have the power and the presence of the Spirit in our 
lives. But Christ promised the power and the presence of His 
Spirit to His apostles in a way that does differ to some degree 
than us. They were His representatives. 
They were His spokesmen. They were the preachers and the 
writers of the written Word to publish throughout the nations 
for the history of the church itself. So yes, we have the Spirit. Yes, we are given things to say 
based on the Word of God and the Spirit's activity in us. 
But many of the things that we'll look at this morning are specific 
promises by Christ to the apostles as His authoritative representatives 
for the church or to the church and for the church throughout 
its history. So there was this expectation 
among the early Christians as well. They had a concept of covenant 
in early Christianity. It's interesting. There's a book 
by Meredith Klein called The Structure of Biblical Authority. 
This is also pointed out by Ritterbos and to a degree Michael Kruger. The concept of covenant goes 
a long way to helping with the concept of canon. Consider that 
Old Covenant Israel knew that they were in a covenant. New 
Covenant Israel, the church, knew that they were in a covenant. 
This was not something strange or perplexing to them. The federal 
theology or the covenant theology of the Apostle Paul underscores 
that. They were not as unawares of 
the things that oftentimes take people today By surprise, 2 Corinthians 
3, for instance, Paul just speaks of this covenantal significance. 
Hebrews 7, 8, and 10 speaks of old covenant termination, new 
covenant reality. As well, they would associate 
the covenant with written texts. When you look at the Old Covenant, 
what accompanied God's revelation in terms of His speech? What 
accompanied it were written texts securing, confirming, and validating 
that there was indeed a covenant. Notice that the placement of 
the covenant or the testimony was in the ark. Why do you think 
the ark contained those two tablets? Yes, for a whole host of reasons, 
but one of them was the safe deposit of the covenant documents 
that God and these men had entered into. Klein says the origin of 
the Old Testament canon coincided with the founding of the Kingdom 
of Israel by covenant at Sinai. The very treaty that formally 
established the Israelite theocracy was itself the beginning and 
nucleus of the total covenant cluster of writings which constitutes 
the Old Testament canon. As well, Paul understood this 
covenantal connection with written texts, 2 Corinthians 3. For until 
this day, the same veil remains unlifted in the reading of the 
Old Testament because the veil is taken away in Christ. And 
then when you look at the Old Covenant and you compare the 
New Covenant, you see some things that are interesting with reference 
to covenantal texts. that underscore the reality of 
the covenant in play. In both Deuteronomy 4 and in 
Revelation 22, you have an inscriptional curse. Men are cursed if they 
add to or they take away from the covenant documents. It would 
be akin to you making an agreement at a car dealership, signing 
on the dotted line along with the manager, going home, adding 
things to it, and then trying to go in court and say, here's 
what this covenant says. You're not supposed to do that. 
There is an inscriptional curse placed upon any additions to 
the covenant documents, both in Deuteronomy and in Revelation. 
As well, you find in the Old Covenant and in the New a demand 
for public reading. What do you think that is? Yes, 
for the edification of the saints. Yes, for the encouragement of 
the people of God. Yes, for their instruction. But 
every public reading in one sense or other is a renewal ceremony 
of the covenant that is binding. You see this in Deuteronomy 31. 
All Israel is gathered together for the reading of the covenant 
documents. You see this in the book of Colossians. Paul tells the believers to read 
these documents publicly. 1 Thessalonians 4, the same emphasis. 1 Timothy 4.13. When Paul tells 
Timothy in 1 Timothy 4.13 to give attention to reading, do 
you think he means his private devotional reading? Well, certainly 
I think so. Timothy was to be a man studied 
in Holy Scripture. But when he says give attention 
to reading, he means the public reading of the covenant documents. 
He means the written testimony of God's Word to his new covenant 
Israel. And then if you look at both 
Testaments, Old and New, there are parallels. The function, 
the structure of Old and New Testaments, the Pentateuch is 
similar to the Gospels. It provides the historical background 
for God's dealings with His people. The historical books show a parallel 
with the Book of Acts. After the giving of the Gospels, 
we have the Book of Acts. It is the testimony of the early 
church going into the land in order to conquer it for the Lord 
Jesus Christ. And then the prophets and the 
epistles are similar. What do the prophets do? They 
come to Old Covenant Israel and they prosecute the covenant. 
That is what the apostles are doing, perhaps in different language 
and maybe in softer, nicer, kinder ways. but they are nevertheless 
doing the essential thing. And then as well we see all of 
this serving to illustrate that the early Christians not only 
had an eschatological expectation in terms of realization, but 
they had a working assumption of what covenant was all about. 
And then thirdly, with reference to the origins of canon, is the 
role of the apostles in early Christianity. Again, I don't 
think we estimate properly the role of the apostles. I think 
there is within Protestantism, or at least to a degree, this 
sort of a resistance to a papal hierarchical structure And so 
we just see everybody on the same playing field. I'm not suggesting 
that Paul and Peter were made of better stuff than us. They 
had the same flesh. They had the same blood. But 
in terms of their function, in terms of their office, in terms 
of their authority, they were much better than us. And if that's 
offensive to you, I apologize, but I have no doubt whatsoever 
that we need to appreciate, again, not on the same level as Jesus, 
but Jesus gave them this authority to not only preach his word, 
but to write his word for the propagation of that word, not 
simply in the first century, but throughout the entirety of 
the church's life here on earth. We see this apostolic authority 
highlighted in several places. Notice in Matthew chapter 10. 
Matthew chapter 10, the calling of the apostles themselves. And 
when He had called His 12 disciples to Him, He gave them power over 
unclean spirits to cast them out and to heal all kinds of 
sickness and all kinds of disease. Remember that in chapters 8 and 
9, the Lord Jesus Christ goes about exercising His power, His 
miracles, His excellence, His signs. Chapters 5 to 7 underscore 
the authority of Christ's words in the Sermon on the Mount. Matthew 
chapters 8 and 9 underscore the authority of Christ's work. works, 
in terms of his ability to heal and in terms of his ability to 
raise from the dead and to do a whole host of wonderful things. 
Well, here he is depositing that authority in the Twelve so that 
they can in turn go out beyond the confines of Israel to the 
nations of the earth and to exercise this power and this authority. 
As well, I think if you understand the biblical concept of the apostleship, 
it will help make heads or tails of the whole discussion concerning 
signs and wonders. They were given the ability to 
do signs and wonders because they were authenticating the 
revelation of God. We're not given signs and wonders 
because the canon is closed. When you look at the Bible from 
Genesis to Revelation, there are certainly a whole host of 
miracles in that book, isn't there? But if you look from Genesis 
to Revelation and you look at the timeline, it's not a continuous 
display of the miraculous. Do you know that miraculous displays 
come at times of revelation? In other words, God speaks through 
Moses. Moses has signs and wonders. God speaks through prophets. Prophets display signs and wonders. God speaks through Jesus Christ, 
the Incarnate Word. Guess what He does? Signs and 
wonders. God speaks through the apostles. Look at what they do in the New 
Testament. Signs and wonders. Signs and 
wonders never existed as a magical display of, you know, this God 
of Israel who can do neat and nifty things. They came alongside 
of the revelation of God to confirm and authenticate that indeed 
this was the Word of God. The argument is that when the 
New Testament canon is closed, we ought not to be looking for 
these signs and wonders. We ought not saying God can't 
do signs and He can't do wonders. The fact that He saves a sinner 
is wonder above wonders. I don't know why tongues and 
prophesying are the benchmark of God's power in the church. 
The fact that He pulls a miserable dead sinner out of his deadness 
of sin and brings him into the light and shining power of Christ 
is a great display of that miraculous power. But the revelatory word 
is accompanied by these signs and wonders to authenticate to 
the people of God that the apostle, that the prophet is from God. So if you get this idea, then 
I hope that you will appreciate that the apostles did have an 
authority, and they did have power, and they did have a role 
in the church that's more important than ours. Again, it doesn't 
mean you're a miserable slob. Don't do anything for Jesus. 
No, it just means that in the packing order, God uses Paul 
more than He'll probably use all of us combined. And that's 
okay. It's the division of labor. The 
Apostle Paul was a man created for such things. Notice as well 
in John 13, 20. the upper room discourse, the 
Lord Jesus equipping His church, equipping His disciples, His 
apostles for the work that lay before them. John 13, 20, most 
assuredly I say to you, he who receives whomever I send receives 
me, and he who receives me receives him who sent me. Now again, we 
can generalize this and say, I come in the name of Jesus. 
If you receive me, you receive Jesus. But the primary emphasis 
in the context is to these apostles that are going to go out after 
Christ's death and resurrection and His ascension on high, and 
they're going to go into cities largely populated by unbelieving 
Jews and preach the gospel to them. They're going to go into 
cities largely populated by unconverted Roman Gentiles to preach the 
gospel. It's a question of authority. 
They are invested with it by Christ Himself. Notice in John 
20, 21. John 20, 21. This is a sampling. We could do many more texts here, 
but note the direct connection. So Jesus said to them, again, 
peace to you. As the Father has sent me, I 
also send you. Again, there's a general sense 
that when we go talk to a sinner, we've been sent by the Lord himself. But it's not the same as what 
he's talking about. As the Father sent me as His 
designated representative and His authoritative spokesman, 
so I am sending you as my designated representative and authoritative 
spokesman to preach the Word, to inscripturate the Word, not 
only for this generation, but for the entirety of the church 
that is to come. As well, look at John 15, verses 
26 and 27. But when the Helper comes, whom 
I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, 
who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me, and you 
also will bear witness, because you have been with Me from the 
beginning." Again, we can generalize that and say, well, that's true 
of me. I'm able to bear witness because I've been with Jesus, 
but we can't say we've been with Him from the beginning. But they 
could, because Jesus selected these men from the outset of 
his public ministry. It's a unique promise to unique 
people in a unique situation to bear the authority of Christ, 
to inscripturate that revelatory word, and to get it out to the 
church throughout the ages. Notice in 16, 12, and 13. 16, 
12, and 13. I still have many things 
to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. However, when 
He, the Spirit of truth, is come, He will guide you into all truth. Again, we can generalize that 
and trust that the Spirit will lead us and guide us into all 
truth. But these are the interpreters of the divine Word itself. And so they have promise of the 
Spirit to guide them into all truth. For He will not speak 
on His own, but whatever He hears, He will speak. And He will tell 
you things to come." Again, is the Spirit telling us things 
to come? No, the Spirit has told us of 
things to come in the written word that the apostles set their 
seal to in their writing. Ritterbaugh says that for the 
communication and transmission of what was seen and heard in 
the fullness of time, Christ established a formal authority 
structure. Again, as Protestants, I think 
we recoil at the thought of such things because it sounds or it 
feels popish. The thought that there's a formal 
authority structure scares many of us. We want to run and hide. 
If we're in Judea, we would want to run to the mountains because 
the Pope and his bishops and his cardinals and the red hat 
wearing weirdos are coming to get us. There is this resistance 
to a formal authority structure. But the apostles were a formal 
authority structure. It is said of them that they 
are foundational in the book of Ephesians. Christ is the cornerstone. Guess who is the foundation? 
It's the apostles, because Christ robed them with that authority. 
He declared to them or gave them these promises and sent them 
to do what he has called them to do. He goes on to say, Christ 
established a formal authority structure to be the source and 
standard for all future preaching of the gospel. From the beginning 
of His public ministry, we see Jesus' intent on sharing His 
own power with others so that His authority would take visible, 
tangible shape for the foundation and extension of the church on 
earth. So with reference to the origin 
of canon, there was an eschatological nature of early Christianity, 
expected fulfillment, as well they had a concept of covenant 
in early Christianity. And then the role of the apostles 
themselves argue that there was this understanding of a formal 
authority structure that would write the sacred writings, the 
church would gather the sacred writings, and the church would 
then be kept holy and pure and righteous. Well, not necessarily. 
They will be by the power of Jesus and the sanctifying power 
of the Spirit, but there is a reason for inscripturation. Paragraph 
1 deals with that. Notice specifically, for the 
preservation and propagation of the truth. Right in the middle 
of paragraph 1, it pleased the Lord at sundry times and in diverse 
manners to reveal Himself and to declare that His will unto 
His church. And afterward, for the better 
preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure 
establishment and comfort of the church against the corruption 
of the flesh and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit 
the same holy unto writing. which maketh the Holy Scriptures 
to be most necessary, those former ways of God's revealing His will 
unto His people being now ceased." You see, there was a purpose 
for this formal authority structure to write the redemptive acts 
of God on paper to inscripturate it. That's what the divines recognize 
in this particular paragraph. So, those are some reasons for 
the origins of canon. Now, with reference to the concept 
of a self-authenticating canon, I mentioned that there were other 
models. There is what's called the community-determined model. The community-determined model. There's a big difference between 
Romanism and Protestantism with reference to this issue of canonicity. For the Roman Catholic, they 
believed the church determined what was canonical. The church 
determined what was canonical. Do you see that? The church stands 
over the Word of God, stands over the writings of the apostolic 
authors, and says, well, this one should be, and this one shouldn't 
be. These ones should be, and these 
ones ought not to be. The church becomes the determining 
factor with reference to this particular model. Kruger notes 
that the idea here is that canonicity is not intrinsic to the books, 
but rather is something imposed on the books by the community. 
Protestantism does not say that the church determined. Protestantism 
teaches that the church recognized. You see there's a difference 
there. between me determining that Paul's letter to the Romans 
is indeed the Word of God, or me, by the power of the Holy 
Spirit, recognizing that it is indeed the Word of God. So that's 
the community-determined model. And then there's one called the 
historically-determined model, and Kruger defines that this 
way. The historically determined models deny that the Christian 
community's reception of the canon is definitive in establishing 
its authority, and instead seek to establish it by critically 
investigating the historical merits of each of the canonical 
books. It's not the case that we don't 
look at history. It's not the case that we don't 
take into consideration what the churches at large were doing 
at this particular time. But this is a theory that really 
falls short. And part of it is seen in the 
very list or the canon of the New Testament scripture. Some 
posit that the winners of the Nicene debate got to call what 
books would be in the canon. In other words, it was the winners 
in theological debate that made the determination, or it was 
because of that that those books made it in the debate. That's 
where all these lost Gospels, they were just as authoritative, 
but because the winners excluded that, that didn't make it into 
the canon. Well, that's not accurate. And 
as Kruger says, the peculiar bent of the scholar goes a long 
way in determining what is canonical. In other words, as we read history, 
and as we look at the debates going on in the church, and as 
we look at things that jive with our understanding, then we might 
conclude, well, you know, that one shouldn't be there. There's 
got to be something more substantial than, well, we don't think that 
should be there. You're all familiar with Luther 
with reference to James. Luther had a problem with James. 
He didn't think it savored of Christ. And as a result, he didn't, 
I mean, he didn't throw it out of the canon, but he certainly 
made no bones about his, you know, reservations concerning 
it. So you see, Luther had this idea, 
and it's a good idea, that every scripture, every text should 
lead us to Christ and Him crucified. James doesn't do that. Ergo, 
James isn't on the same level with those other books, you see. 
That's the historically determined model, and some of that too is 
community determined. But what Kruger proposes and 
what I think we ought to look for, especially as confessional 
Christians, notice paragraph 4. It says, the authority of 
the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, dependeth 
not upon the testimony of any man or church, but wholly upon 
God, who is truth itself, the author thereof. Therefore, it 
is to be received because it is the Word of God. This is what 
he calls the self-authenticating model. We don't look to history. We don't look to communities. 
We look to the Scriptures itself. And Kruger points this out, these 
other models never ask the Bible, what do you say about yourself? 
You see, even in a corrupt age like ours, if we're caught and 
prosecuted for a crime, we get to take the witness stand, or 
we should get to take the witness stand. We should get to give 
our side of events. We ought to be tried in a manner 
consistent with due process. Do you know how many people exclude 
the Bible as a witness to itself? How many people say, well, we 
don't want to listen to the Bible, because the Bible is going to 
tell us things we don't want the Bible to tell us. So we're going to 
exclude the Bible from the doc, and we're going to go ahead and 
look at history. We're going to look at Constantine. We're 
going to look at Popery. We're going to look at all this 
stuff, and then we're going to be the arbiters and final determiners 
of what books ought to be there or not. We just excluded the 
primary witness itself, and you're not supposed to do that. Does 
the Bible itself provide for us this self-authentication? So, the biblical witness we've 
read, 2 Timothy 3, 15 and 16. There is a confessional statement 
here in 2 London Confession, chapter 1, paragraph 4. Now, 
what are the components of the self-authenticating canon? Certainly, 
we do ask the Bible. And we also look at history. 
So by pointing out these community-determined models and the historical models 
doesn't mean we don't look at history. And one very helpful 
thing is the providential exposure of the books themselves. These 
early books, they didn't just consolidate or localize in one 
small sphere, but they indeed covered or encompassed the churches. Kruger makes this observation, 
if God intended to give a canon to his corporate church and not 
just an isolated congregation for a limited period of time, 
then we have every reason to believe that he would providentially 
preserve these books and expose them to the church so that, through 
the Holy Spirit, it can rightly recognize them as canonical. And you see this evidence in 
the New Testament. Paul is telling the churches 
to exchange letters in Colossians chapter 4. Paul understands, 
I believe fully, he understood his position. That's why he says, 
not the Lord, but I command in 1 Corinthians. He's not saying 
he's a second-tier authority figure. He's saying the Lord 
didn't speak to the whole subject of mixed marriages, and Paul's 
not speaking about black and white. He's speaking about believer 
and unbeliever. The Lord in His earthly ministry 
never addressed that, but Paul is going to address that. That's 
the juxtaposition, not the Lord but me. It's not this greater 
authority and this lesser authority. This greater authority didn't 
speak to this in His earthly ministry, but the designated 
authority of Paul does speak to it, and it's on par with the 
Word of God. It's the same thing as if it 
were the words of Jesus. It's one of the problems with 
a red-letter edition. I think sometimes we think the red letters 
are just a wee bit more important, aren't they? No! The black letters 
in Numbers 8 are as authoritative as are the red letters in John's 
Gospel. The black letters in Leviticus 
12 are on the same level as the red letters in the gospel records. The red letters is not saying, 
well, this is an extra tier of authority here for you Christians. 
You get this with people. Well, I know that Paul says this, 
but Jesus says this. If you posit a distinction between 
Jesus and Paul, you are running against both Jesus and Paul, 
because that's not the distinction you're supposed to be making. 
You're not supposed to say, I know that Paul says we're supposed 
to condemn this particular type of living, but Jesus was so nice. 
Brethren, you can't do that. Paul was an authoritative representative 
of Christ the Lord Almighty. And Paul's words, inscripturated 
by the Holy Spirit, are as authoritative and binding for us as is John 
15. So please understand that. But 
with reference to this providential exposure of the books, when we're 
looking back in history, we ought to ask the question, did these 
books prevail within the churches? And the books that we have in 
the New Testament canon did, in fact, prevail among the churches. So the providential exposure 
of the books, these are components of self-authenticating canon. 
Secondly, the attributes of canonicity. This is where we put the Bible 
on the witness stand and we say, okay, tell us about yourself. 
Tell us what you want us to know in terms of your own being and 
witness. John Murray says, if scripture 
is divine in its origin, character, and authority, it must bear the 
marks or evidences of that divinity. Do you get that? It's very important. 
This is absent from the other models, this whole idea of the 
attributes of canonicity. If scripture is divine in its 
origin, character, and authority, it must bear the marks or evidences 
of that divinity. So if Moses speaks for Yahweh, 
he must bear the marks or evidences of one who speaks for Yahweh. 
If the prophets speak for Yahweh, then they must bear the marks 
or evidences of speaking for Yahweh. If Christ comes to exegete 
the Father, then he must bear those characteristics, those 
attributes. And in the same token, if the 
Bible If it is the case that it's divine in its origin, if 
its character is that it's the God-breathed Word, then it must 
bear the marks or evidences of that divinity. And the confession 
is beautiful here. In chapter 1, paragraph 5, it 
speaks of the beauty and excellency of Scripture. These are its divine 
qualities. Notice. Paragraph 5, we may be 
moved and induced by the testimony of the Church of God to an high 
and reverent esteem of the Holy Scriptures, and the heavenliness 
of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of 
the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole, 
which is to give all glory to God, the full discovery it makes 
of the only way of man's salvation, and many other incomparable excellencies 
and entire perfections thereof are arguments whereby it doth 
abundantly evidence itself to be the word of God." You see, 
the 17th century divines asked the Bible itself, tell us about 
you, tell us about you, tell us what kind of a book you are. 
And this is what moved them to produce this statement, the divine 
qualities. Turretin says, thus Scripture, 
which is the first principle in the supernatural order, is 
known by itself and has no need of arguments derived from without 
to prove and make itself known to us. In other words, we ask 
it, and it authenticates itself. You understand that if we have 
this out here that argues for the validity of this, this is 
more authoritative? This is the whole idea behind 
what's called presuppositional apologetics. If there's something 
that we argue from to get to God, then that from is more authoritative 
and more of a first principle than God Himself. If we look 
at communities or we look at history, then we must posit that 
communities and history are more important than God Himself. Because 
God Himself, through His Word, has said, this is my Word. You 
need to heed it, you need to obey it, you need to understand 
it and live accordingly. So the divine qualities that 
the scripture manifests evidences, or gives the marks of evidence 
with reference to its origin and character. As well, with 
reference to the attributes of canonicity, we've got divine 
qualities, and what's called corporate reception. Corporate 
reception. Kruger says there is a predominant 
unity concerning the New Testament books and the church. There were 
some differences in terms of canonical lists in the early 
church, but there was a predominant unity. And when you look at those 
few differences, and you realize that we're not perfect men. We're 
not infallible men. We're sinful men. We've got a 
real devil. We've got a real world to contend 
with. We've got our own flesh to contend with. We ought to 
expect that there would be some differences, and we ought to 
expect that there would be some resistance to certain books in 
the scripture. I would argue that if we look 
back at history and there was never a problem with James, if 
this canon was produced and it was never challenged and no one 
ever had a problem with it, that would bear the marks to me of 
being engineered by man. It's like in the gospel records 
in Matthew 28. After his resurrection, Jesus 
appears to his disciples and it says, and some doubt it, We 
can't have that. Oh, yes, we can. That's a mark 
of the divinity of Scripture, the divine inspiration of Scripture. 
God has nothing to hide. He's going to tell us that there 
were people that doubted. Men would smooth that out. Men 
would get rid of that. Men recording the life and the 
exploits of David would certainly not include his adultery with 
Bathsheba and his murder of Uriah. Men have an interest in trying 
to protect things and to smooth out any things that may look 
a bit contrary. So these early disputes concerning 
these canonical books ought not to cause us to say, well, there 
must be no canon. No, there's a world, there's 
a flesh, and there's the devil, and there's these issues of resistance 
with reference to certain books. But however, there is a predominant 
unity. And as well, John 10, have you 
ever considered Jesus says in John 10, 27, my sheep hear my 
voice. That's not just for private persons, 
that's for the church too. The church has heard the voice 
of Christ through the canon of scripture. The church has heard 
the voice of Christ in our corporate reception. We're not a bunch 
of individuals. Jesus told me that. Well, Jesus 
told me that. Well, Jesus told me that. Well, Jesus, no. Jesus 
has spoken to the church, and we have heard the voice of the 
master through that word. Boving says the testimony of 
the Holy Spirit is not a private opinion, but the witness of the 
church of all ages, of Christianity as a whole. And then Kruger responds 
to the claim that the canon wasn't in place until the 4th century. 
Some say there was no canon until the 4th century. That means the 
300s, okay? That's relatively late after 
the life and ministry of our Lord Jesus Christ. But when we 
look at the church fathers, which we're going to look at a couple 
of quotes in just a moment, they lived before that time and they 
speak of these things. But Kruger responds to this whole 
idea that the canon wasn't in place until the fourth century. 
He says, contrary to these claims, however, we shall argue that 
there is evidence for the emergence of the canon that precedes the 
end of the second century. Now, the end of the second century 
would be in the 100s, OK? That's the time frame. We hear 
second, we think 200 probably, or sometimes. At least I do. 
I got to stop and think and adjust my BCs and ADs. make sure I'm 
trafficking properly. But the end of the second century 
is in the 100s, okay? Look at 2 Peter 3.16, some internal 
evidence in terms of corporate reception of these New Testament 
or canonical books. 2 Peter 3.16. Well, let's just start at verse 
14. Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent 
to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless, and 
consider that the long suffering of our Lord is salvation, as 
also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given 
to him, has written to you. Now, this is an evidence for 
the Pauline authorship of Hebrews. Who's Peter writing to? He's 
writing to Jews, Jewish believers, and he says to these Jewish believers 
that Paul has written to you, Jewish believers. Now, we know 
Paul wrote a lot of letters to Gentile churches, but he also 
wrote to Jews, and probably this is a reference to the book of 
Hebrews. According to the wisdom given to him has written to you. 
Now, if that was all we had, I think that would be powerful 
in and of itself, but know what he says in verse 16, as also 
in all his epistles. Peter recognized there was a 
collection of the epistles of Paul. At this stage of the game, 
Peter recognized there was a collection of the epistles of Paul, such 
that he could say, as also in all his epistles, speaking in 
them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, 
which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, 
as they do also the rest of what? The scriptures. So Peter recognizes 
three things that Paul wrote the book of Hebrews. Secondly, 
that Paul had a collection of epistles that persons were aware 
of, that Peter just says it as also in all his epistles. He 
doesn't say, let me spend five verses to tell you there's a 
fellow named Paul, and he's written these epistles, and as you're 
able, you should make yourself... No, no, he just assumes that 
as all of his epistles, and he equates them to scripture. He 
tells us, as they do also the rest of the scriptures. Now, 
notice what he says, which I'm taught an unstable people twist 
to their own destruction. So if you twist Paul's epistles, 
it ends in destruction. I may send you an email, or I 
may write you a letter, but if you disagree, it doesn't end 
in your destruction. Unless I'm accurately preaching 
the gospel, but if I'm talking about, you know, I bought a Jetta, 
and you should buy Jettas, and if you don't, you're going to 
end up in bad shape. You don't twist that and end 
up in destruction. It's pretty epic language to 
apply to the writings of the Apostle Paul. Not if you know 
what covenant is, and not if you know what canon is, and not 
if you've listened to the Lord Jesus and you've received authority 
from Him and He sent you out to do these particular things. 
These weren't surprising concepts in this situation. Notice as 
well, 1 Timothy chapter 5, verse 18. First Timothy chapter 5, verse 
18. Verse 17, let the elders who 
rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those 
who labor in the word and doctrine for the scripture says, you shall 
not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain. The laborer is 
worthy of his wages. Paul quotes Luke's gospel. I think this all fits in with 
that theory that Matthew wrote first, then Luke. Mark is Peter's 
preaching in Rome. So these are early documents, 
the gospel records. Paul quotes from Luke in this 
passage and equates it with Deuteronomy and says that this is the scripture. 
So they understood something as to what was going on. Notice 
2 Peter 3, verse 2. 2 Peter 3, verse 2. Well, verse 1, Beloved, I now 
write to you this second epistle, in both of which I stir up your 
pure minds by way of reminder. Reminder is a good thing. I mean, 
too much repetition in preaching can certainly be a burden, but 
repetition and reminder are necessary because we got hard heads and 
hard hearts at times, so reminder is most essential. But notice, 
that you may be mindful of the words which were spoken before 
by the holy prophets and of the commandment of us, the apostles 
of the Lord and Savior. Isn't that interesting? He equates 
holy prophets of before to the commandments of the apostles. 
Prophets and apostles occupy the same footing as far as Peter 
is concerned. There was this conscious recognition 
going on in the church, not only of covenant, but of canon. The 
authorized disciples or the authorized apostles of Jesus Christ knew 
that when they wrote to churches, the churches ought to exchange 
the letters, the churches ought to obey the letters, the churches 
ought to note those who did not obey and deal with them in a 
manner of discipline. Thessalonians, Paul says that. 
And then as well, the references to public reading of canonical 
books. I've already mentioned Colossians 
4.16, 1 Thessalonians 5.27, 1 Timothy 4.13. And what does the Revelation 
say? Revelation 1.3, blessed is he 
who hears this prophecy, who reads and who hears this prophecy. These things were supposed to 
be read. They were supposed to be heard. And then the testimony 
of the early fathers. the apostolic fathers. Now, perhaps 
you've been scared off by these early church fathers because 
they wore big hats and they carried big clubs. I don't think they 
were clubs, but they didn't beat people up with them. But, you 
know, there's a lot of different things going on in the early 
church. And most people associate anything early church with Roman 
Catholicism, but that's not necessarily the case. And the early church 
are early witnesses to these things. And we ought to listen 
to them. Clement wrote in A.D. 95, take up the epistle of the 
blessed Paul the apostle. What did he first write to you 
in the beginning of the gospel? Truly he wrote to you in the 
spirit about himself and Cephas and Apollos. The Didache, which 
Kruger dates very earlier. Didache simply means the teaching. It was an early Christian manual 
of doctrine, essentially, not only doctrine but life, how to 
live. There's a great and explicit statement in there concerning 
the wickedness of abortion But notice the Didache, and again, 
most place it around A.D. 150, which is still very, very 
early. Others place it even earlier, 
A.D. 120 and even A.D. 100 being an early date for the 
Didache. Nor should you pray like the 
hypocrites. Instead, pray like this, just as the Lord commanded 
in His gospel. He quotes Matthew 6. the Lord's 
Prayer, and He even includes the long ending, for Thine is 
the kingdom, the power, and the glory, now and forever. Amen. So the long ending that's excluded 
in a lot of the manuscripts used today, or the modern versions, 
they say, or they put a bracket, you know, the oldest and best 
manuscripts don't contain this. Well, the Didache, if we put 
it to 8100, had it. So that seems to indicate that it was a very 
early reading. I don't know how you can escape 
the logic of that situation. And then Ignatius, martyred around 
AD 110. Again, you hearing these dates? 
This isn't 4th century. This is early 2nd century. He says, you are the highway 
of those who are being killed for God's sake. For you are fellow 
initiates of Paul, who is sanctified, who is approved, who is deservedly 
blessed. May I be found in his footsteps 
when I reach God, who in every letter remembers you in Christ 
Jesus. just showing, highlighting, that 
the early church fathers saw the authority of the apostles 
and they even distinguished it from what they had. They didn't 
say, we're on par with them, they say, I want to be like him. 
Ignatius, again, this is a man martyred in AD 110, be eager, 
therefore, to be firmly ground in the precepts of the Lord and 
The apostles, this is early witness confirmation to the authority 
of these apostles. Ignatius, again, therefore be 
on your guard against such people and you will be provided that 
you are not puffed up with pride and that you cling inseparably 
to Jesus Christ and to the bishop and to the commandments of the 
apostles. You see, the word bishop there, 
again, we think big hat, authoritarian guy. Well, Paul uses the word 
bishop. We can't recoil against the use 
of a word. Probably it wasn't as good as 
it should have been in this particular instance, but don't just freak 
out when you hear these concepts. You have to get rid of 1 Timothy 
3. If any man desires the office of the bishop, he desires a good 
thing. Now, how that has been applied in the history of the 
church, in terms of the weird hats and whatnot, that's all 
bad, but the concept of an overseer is what the word bishop means 
is not bad. It's what Jesus designed in terms 
of church life. And then polycarp. 8110, I am 
convinced that you're all well-trained in the sacred scriptures and 
that nothing is hidden from you. He goes on to quote Ephesians 
4, verse 26. That's an interesting statement 
from an early witness that he speaks of the sacred scriptures 
and then he quotes Ephesians 4, 26. There was this conscientiousness 
concerning the authority of the New Testament documents. That's 
the point. Now, the Confession speaks of 
the books commonly called Apocrypha. The reason why Protestants do 
not include them is they're not inspired. That's the very quick 
answer. But they're not in the Hebrew 
Bible. The Jews, the Protestant Old Testament parallels the Jewish 
Tanakh. And Tanakh simply means the Torah, 
the prophets, and the writings. That was the division of what 
we call the Old Testament, the same books. It's not different 
books, just a different canonical order. I mentioned before that 
Genesis comes first, Second Chronicles ends the Jewish canon. But everything in between, including 
Genesis and Second Chronicles, word for word, variant readings 
to be taken into account in terms of the Septuagint and Masoretic 
text. But the Protestants have the same canon in the Old Testament 
as the Jews do. Now, you know they don't call 
it the Old Testament. It's not an Old Testament to 
them. It's the Tanakh. It's the Torah, the Navi'im, 
and the writings, the Ketuvim. So that's one of the arguments. As well, the apocryphal books 
are not quoted by our Lord Jesus, and there are errors. There are 
errors in the Apocrypha. Now, that doesn't mean they're 
not worth reading or not worth having. In fact, the Confession 
admits that. It says, and therefore are of 
no authority to the Church, nor to be any otherwise approved 
or made use of than other human writings. You can still read 
them. It's not the case that you can't 
read Maccabees to get a historical report concerning what happened 
during the Maccabean Revolt. It's perfectly legit, but it's 
not on the authority of the inspired scripture. The Apocrypha is excluded 
here. And then with reference to the 
apostolic origins, again, still the attributes of canonicity, 
I feared we'd run out of time. Divine qualities, corporate reception, 
and apostolic origins. The apostles of Christ were conscious 
of the fact that they were used by God to pen Holy Scripture. You see this in Mark 1.1. You 
see this in Luke 1.1-4. You see it in John 21.24, 1 Thessalonians 
2, 1 Corinthians 7. 1 Corinthians 14, 1 John 1, Revelation 
1, the fact that Paul says exchange these letters, the fact that 
Paul says that you note those who disobey these letters, all 
of these things underscore that the apostles weren't wandering 
the countryside like hippies. They knew what they were doing, 
they were commissioned and authorized by Christ, and they went about 
their tasks. They were mindful that they were 
clothed with this authority. They understood the reality such 
that Paul could say, if someone disobeys what I've written to 
you, note that person and do not associate with them. Paul 
could say that you are to read these things in public worship. 
What was supposed to be read in public worship? Not devotionals, 
but rather the Scriptures, the Old Testament in that time frame. And he equates his writings with 
such and tells them to write. And then with reference to the 
whole subject of apostolicity, not everyone who wrote in the 
New Testament was an apostle. You all remember that or you 
realize that, right? Mark wasn't an apostle. Luke wasn't an apostle. James wasn't an apostle. Luke 
wrote Luke and Acts. So there's a man who wasn't an 
apostle who wrote two books in the books. Ritterbosch makes 
this observation. He says, the apostolicity of 
a book is determined by, quote, whether its content embodies 
the foundational apostolic tradition, not whether it was written by 
the hand of the apostle. I was thinking about this in 
terms of a real practical explanation. If somebody preaches in our pulpit 
that isn't Pastor Cameron myself, we're responsible for what they 
say. If they preach heresy, then we have to give an account, discipline, 
do whatever to deal with that. That pulpit is under the authority 
of the elders here, and obviously the authority of Christ and all 
that sort of thing. But there's an apostolicity, 
so that Mark and Luke were not apostles, but they were under 
the direct supervision and spoke consistently with the apostles 
they were close to. Luke and Paul were close friends. Mark and Peter were close friends. Kruger says, the New Testament 
canon is not so much a collection of writings by apostles, but 
a collection of apostolic writings, writings that bear the authoritative 
message of the apostles and derive from the foundational apostolic 
era, even if not directly from their hands. He quotes Justin 
Martyr in AD 100 to 165. That's when he lived. for the 
apostles in the memoirs composed by them, which are called gospels, 
have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them." He knows 
that two of them were not apostles. He knows that Mark and Luke are 
not apostles, and nevertheless, he says, for the apostles in 
the memoirs composed by them, which are called gospels, have 
thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them. Irenaeus, 
who lived 8130 to 202, we have learned from none others the 
plan of our salvation than from those through whom the gospel 
has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public 
and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed to us in 
the Scriptures to be the ground and pillar of our faith. You 
see, early on, this is prior to the fourth century, these 
men had a collected body of writings that were circulated and used 
in the church. They recognized the authority 
of the apostles themselves. In fact, when you look at early 
lists, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are the gospels referred 
to. It's not Thomas. It's not, you 
know, the lost gospel of Billy the prophet. It's Matthew, Mark, 
Luke, and John. That's what they recognized. 
Those things forced themselves on the churches. By virtue of 
their authority, by virtue of their origin, by virtue of what 
they were, they forced themselves. It's not even so much the church 
recognized it, they forced themselves on the church because it was 
from God Almighty Himself. And then the confession ends 
with this statement that we ought to Confirm and affirm. Specifically in paragraph 5, 
we'll end here, after giving us those divine qualities, after 
highlighting those manifold evidences, after showing us the beauties 
and the excellencies of the Word of God, it ends by saying, yet 
notwithstanding 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 and excuse 
me, in our hearts. So it's the internal testimony 
of the Holy Spirit. Certainly we have all those evidences, 
certainly we can point that out to sinners, but if anyone's ever 
going to change their mind about the written record or the written 
revelation of God, it's going to come through a heart change, 
it's going to come through regeneration, it's going to come through the 
power of the Holy Spirit. Now that doesn't mean we don't 
present this material, doesn't mean we don't show people this 
material, It's, you know, some think that this faith, we just 
take this leap of faith. No, it's not a leap of faith. 
There's a great body of objective data that our faith holds on 
to. It's not a leap. It's not a blind 
leap. It's not just, you know, like believing in a rock or something 
like that. There is a great body of objective 
data that our faith latches on to. That's why, for unbelievers, 
it's so important to read the Scripture. You know, what is 
faith? Well, I know this, faith lays 
hold of the truth. And if you're not reading the 
truth, then there's nothing for faith to lay hold of. So that's 
my best encouragement to unbelievers is that they read Matthew, Mark, 
Luke, John. Read the memoirs of the apostles. Read the written revelation concerning 
Jesus Christ and His redemptive acts. Well, let us pray. Father, 
we thank you for this time to spend concerning this particular 
subject. It is a weighty one, an important 
one. I pray just these samplings of 
texts and historical references will just again confirm in our 
hearts and minds what a beautiful thing we have in both the Old 
and the New Testaments. How we thank you that you've 
given us the written Word. How we thank you that you have 
done so for the preservation of your truth and for the propagation 
of your truth and for the safety and protection of your people. 
We ask that you would go with us now into the next hour of 
worship and help us to glorify and honor you, and we pray through 
Christ our Lord. Amen.