← Back to sermon library

As Pastor Cam mentioned, we're 
going to look specifically at the issue of cannon. The word 
cannon doesn't mean a big metal thing that you put a ball in 
and shoot and blow people up. This is a different type of cannon 
that we will explain in just a moment. But this is a very 
important issue, whether you're a PhD atheist or you're a child 
in Sunday school. How do we know that the books 
we're going to be dealing primarily with the New Testament today, 
how do we know that those books are, in fact, the word of God? 
Because you have to remember that with these 27 books of the 
New Testament, we are making a statement that these are the 
word of the living God. But we're also making a statement 
of exclusion. No others are the word of God. So it's not only a positive affirmation, 
these 27, but it's a negative affirmation and no more. And 
our confession deals with this particular issue very clearly 
in Chapter 1, paragraphs 2 and 3. Now, I realize that at times 
we don't read paragraph 2. We simply skim over it. We know. We've been taught from 
our youth we could probably sing a song that tells us what books 
are in the Old and what books are in the New Testament. But 
in terms of the confession of faith, it's very important that 
we identify the books of the canon. So in paragraph 2, it 
says, under the name of Holy Scripture or the Word of God 
written are now contained all the books of the Old and New 
Testament. And then it lists them. both 
old and new. And at the end of paragraph two, 
it says, all of which are given by the inspiration of God to 
be the rule of faith and life. Paragraph three is a statement 
of exclusion. It says specifically, 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." So the 
apocryphal books are some books that are contained in Roman Catholic 
versions or editions of the Bible. Protestants have rejected the 
apocrypha and we'll get to that perhaps in a little bit more 
detail later on. As well, there are other books 
that have made challenges to the canon of scripture very popular 
in our day. I think the Da Vinci Code dealt 
with that sort of thing. The Gospel of Thomas, all of 
these purported gospel accounts that were written and were excluded, 
not because the church didn't recognize the divinity or the 
origin of those books, but because of political concerns. There's 
a great big theory out there. Conspiracy theorists love the 
whole doctrine of the canon, because the big report is that 
the canon was not early recognized by the church. Rather, in the 
fourth century, it was a political decision to make these books 
the Word of God, which really doesn't have any tap roots in 
history or in what happened, and that's why I wanted to address 
this subject this morning. So just a bit of a statement 
concerning some introductory thoughts. The books are identified 
as we've seen in paragraph two, and while we may pass through 
that list without giving it due consideration, we should recognize 
the importance of this assertion. We are saying, or we are confessing 
along with the church as a whole for these 20 centuries that these 
are the books that God himself gave by inspiration to his church. I mean, there are other religions 
out there that have a claim to the Word of God. We think of 
Islam, we think of the Book of Mormon, we think of some others 
where they say they have the Word from God. This is a huge 
claim, and we need to put our money where our mouths are. If 
we make this confession, we need to be able to back it up. These 
66 books, as we confess and no others, are the very Word of 
God Himself. Now, when we use the word canon, 
The word canon 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. So when we speak of the canon, 
Popularly, we mean that collection of books that make up the New 
Testament, in this instance, that are in fact the Word of 
God. A famous lexicon of the Greek language for its third 
definition gives this, for the word canon, and it's canon in 
Greek, just so you know. Canon in English transliterates 
and translates canon in Greek, probably conon in Greek. Anyways, 
it says, in the second century, I like the way This lexicon does 
this. The second century. Remember, 
that's the 100s. There's a big difference between 
the 100s and the 300s. If you look at the early literature 
of the church, We can say confidently that in the second century, in 
the 100s, they recognized the New Testament canon already. 
It wasn't a fourth century political machination that thrust these 
books upon the church. Anyways, Bagot says, 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, those books 
identified as the Word of God. Now Michael Kruger, whose two 
books on this subject I highly recommend. Basically what I'm 
gonna do in this morning session is give you a digest of Michael 
Kruger. I want to make that known at 
the outset, so if anybody out there is listening and they hear 
this, they're going to say, hey, he ripped off Michael Kruger. 
It would be ripping off Michael Kruger if I didn't give him credit. 
If I give him credit, he's probably okay with me doing this, because 
hopefully it will pique your curiosity, and you'll go buy 
Michael Kruger's books. But he has two books that are 
especially helpful, and he has a website that has a lot of articles 
there that you can look at. It's called Canon Fodder. I think 
it's michaelkruger.com. Great name, Canon Fodder. I just 
think that's awesome. Anyways, his two books that are 
foundational in this study is Canon Revisited and the subtitle 
there is Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New Testament 
Books. Again, this is such a fundamental 
concern in biblical religion that we need to have something 
of a handle on it. His second book, now he's got 
other books, I'm talking about these ones specifically on canon, 
The second one is the question of canon, challenging the status 
quo in the New Testament debate. That's his most recent book. 
So the first one deals with issues of canonicity, which we will 
look at this morning. How do we know which books are 
supposed to be in the New Testament canon? The second book, The Question 
of Canon, deals with especially that. He says, today, with scholarship, 
the issue isn't so much how do we know which books, but the 
issue has become, is there even a need for, or did the church 
ever even recognize a canon? So the debate has shifted to 
the point where the whole issue of canon itself has to be validated. Anyways, in one of the books, 
Canon Revisited, he says this. The question of canon, therefore, 
is at the very center of how biblical authority is established. So it's no small thing. As I 
said, we read through paragraph two, and we realize or we see 
something we would see in the table of contents, of all of 
our Bibles, but it's a huge statement to say that First Corinthians 
is a book of the Bible, a canonical book that God the Lord inspired, 
whereas the Gospel of Thomas isn't. How do we come to make 
such assertions, or how do we come to confess that along with 
the church? That's what I hope we can cover 
this morning. So there are two broad things 
I want to do, or two things I want to do. First, the origins of 
canon. And secondly, the concept of 
a self-authenticating canon. And I'll explain all this as 
we go along. Do not get afraid of big words. Big words, if they're undefined, 
are scary. But if big words are defined, 
they're not scary. They ought to be our friends. 
So anyways, the origins of canon. And this comes out of Kruger's 
most recent book, The Question of Canon. How do we know or why 
should we say that there was even a canon to begin with? And 
he argues in three ways that the New Testament era was right 
for this whole issue of canon. It was right for this whole issue 
of a revelation from God inscripturated. That means being put into texts, 
written texts, to provide for the church the word of the living 
God. He gives three reasons why the 
New Testament church was right for such a thing. And the first 
is the eschatological nature of early Christianity. I have 
a friend, he's a pastor in Vancouver, his name is Mark Jones. He says 
that he does not think that pastors should ever use the word eschatology 
or eschatological in preaching. He thinks it confuses the people 
of God. I like to think that the people 
of God can handle a new word here or there, especially when 
it's defined. Eschatology means the study of 
or the doctrine of last things. So when we use the word eschatological, 
the idea of last, or final ought to be in view. And what Kruger 
means here is that based on Old Testament promises, the people 
of God knew there was supposed to be fulfillment. We have Old 
Testament promise in the Old Testament. We have New Testament 
fulfillment in the New Testament. There was an expectation. There 
was a bulk of promises. Deuteronomy 18, for one instance, 
God would raise up a prophet like Moses to speak to the people 
of Israel. Lo and behold, we get to the 
life and ministry of our Lord Jesus Christ and He is that prophet. So there was this anticipation 
or this expectation. The church realized that they 
played a part in the prophetic plan of Almighty God. And as 
well, the Old Testament sets forth a pattern that is carried 
forth in the New Testament. God engages in a redemptive event. He liberates the children of 
Israel from bondage in Egypt. And then God issues a revelatory 
word. There's event, there's word. 
There's act, and then there's correspondence. So He redeems 
the children of Israel, and then so much of the Old Testament 
alludes to that particular event, and it reveals it to us, it expounds 
it for us, and it reports on what God is doing. The same thing 
is true in the New Testament. We have redemptive event in the 
Gospel records. We have explanation and interpretation 
and application throughout the rest of the New Testament documents. 
The Old Testament even says that the New Covenant realities would 
be accompanied by divine revelation. I mentioned Deuteronomy 18.18. 
I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brethren 
and will put my words in his mouth and he shall speak to them 
all that I command him." So the early church was cognizant of 
the fact that God was going to do something in terms of fulfilling 
the promises that he made and accompanying those fulfillments 
with the revelatory word. So that's one aspect. Secondly, 
the concept of covenant in early Christianity. The Old Testament 
people of God knew something about the covenant, didn't they? 
We see the whole issue of covenant begin way back in Genesis. We see the word formally used 
initially with Noah. We see a covenant made with Abraham. We see a covenant made with the 
nation of Israel. We see a covenant made with David, 
king of Israel. The people of God in the Old 
Testament knew something of covenant. Well, the New Testament saints 
knew the very same thing. What does Jesus do in Matthew 
chapter 26? He inaugurates the New Covenant 
in his blood. The Apostle Paul in 2 Corinthians 
chapter 3 can define himself and his ministry along with his 
companions. They are ministers of the New 
Covenant. the new covenant people of God 
realized that they too were part of the covenant promises of God 
Most High. Now that is important for this 
particular purpose. Covenant was always accompanied 
by, get this, written texts. Okay? When you look at the Old 
Testament in Israel and you see the two tables of the law, commonly 
we think that the first four commandments are on table one 
and the last six are on table two. That's probably not the 
way it was. It's probably ten here and ten 
here. One copy given to the people, 
one copy given to the Lord. Both of those deposited into 
the Ark of the Covenant. Not only in Old Covenant Israel 
did treaties have written texts, but also other nations surrounding 
Israel at the time. The Hittites specifically had 
treaties where those treaties were established through written 
texts. There were two copies maintained 
between the one who initiated the covenant and the one who 
was a participant of the covenant and these things stood as a standing 
reminder that you are in covenant relationship with this party. 
You ought not to mess it up. The placement of the covenant 
or testimony in the Ark is listed in Exodus 25, Deuteronomy 10, 
Deuteronomy 31, Joshua 24. Meredith Klein said 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. I've already alluded to 2 Corinthians 
3, wherein Paul says that we are ministers of the new covenant. 
He also makes this statement concerning the Old Testament 
or the Old Covenant concerning the nation of Israel. He says, 
for until this day, the same veil remains unlifted in the 
reading of the Old Testament. So the Old Covenant was accompanied 
by covenantal texts. As we approach the New Testament, 
and there is abundant evidence that this is the case, the New 
Testament authors, and we ought to suppose the churches as a 
whole, would have understood the place of covenantal texts. to accompany God's redemptive 
activity. This is not a new thing in the 
history of redemption. As well, the features of covenantal 
texts. We see an inscriptural curse. What do we find in Deuteronomy 
4? Do not add to my word, and do not take away from my word. 
What do we find in the book of Revelation? Probably specifically 
with the book of Revelation, but by virtue of the fact that 
it's the final book in the New Testament canon, what we find 
there is similar in nature. Do not add to, and do not take 
away. Because if you add to or take 
away from my covenant, then there will be curses that come upon 
your head. There was a demand for the public 
reading of covenantal texts, Old Covenant Israel. What were 
the people of God to do? They were to be assembled together 
so that this law could be read to them. Have you ever considered 
the same thing is true with Paul? In Colossians 4, he wants his 
letters to be read in the churches? That would be quite an arrogant 
statement if he was not conscious of the reality that he was operating 
as an agent of Jesus Christ, as a delegate or an apostle of 
Jesus Christ, to write scripture for the people of God. You simply 
didn't bring human authors into corporate worship. It'd be akin 
to... I mean, we're not talking about 
a quote. It's legit to quote a man in preaching, but to read 
that man's text as if it's somehow authoritative. Paul is able to 
say, note those who do not obey our words in this epistle and 
separate yourselves from them. 1 Thessalonians chapter 5 verse 
27 the same thing. Revelation chapter 1 verse 3 
pronounces a benediction or blessing upon those who hear the words 
of this prophecy. So the same sort of emphasis 
in Old Covenant written texts, read these to the people of God, 
stands true in the New Covenant. Klein recognizes a similar function 
in the structure of the Old Testament and the New Testament. The Pentateuch 
reveals the work of God. The Gospels reveal the work of 
God. The historical books, the Book 
of Acts answers to the historical book. The prophets come and indict 
the nation of Israel. for their having broken the covenant 
with God. What do the New Testament epistles 
do? They do the very same thing for the new covenant people of 
God. There is a structure and an order and a similarity between 
these two that genuinely bespeaks that the early church was in 
fact ripe and receptive for this concept of covenant. So we've 
got eschatological nature of early Christianity, the concept 
of covenant in early Christianity, and the role of the apostles 
in early Christianity. The prophets of old knew they 
spoke from God. You cannot miss that. Thus says 
the Lord through Moses. Thus says the Lord through Isaiah. Thus says the Lord through Amos. Thus says the Lord through all 
those men. Well, the New Testament authors are conscious of that 
very same thing as well. Matthew chapter 10, verses 1 
to 4. What does Jesus do? He selects 
his 12 apostles and he gives them or invests in them authority 
to go out, to teach, to preach, to heal, and to cast out demons. We see later in that chapter 
where he says, if they don't receive you, they don't receive 
me. In the Upper Room Discourse, 
we find that the Spirit teaches and brings to remembrance the 
words of Christ. Now, I understand that as New 
Covenant Christians, that is the reality today. On Thursday, 
if you lose an arm, we can trust it's the Spirit who brings Psalm 
4610 to your mind so that you will be still and know that God 
is God. And while your stump is jettisoning 
blood, you'll be able to remember with fondness the glory and the 
goodness of God. But the primary application in 
the upper room was that God the Lord would teach his disciples 
how to go out and found the early church. It is the spirit who 
would in fact bring to remembrance the words of Christ so that when 
they took pen to paper and wrote scripture they would get it right. It is given by inspiration of 
God. As well The Spirit testifies 
concerning Christ and then the Apostles will bear witness to 
Christ. The Spirit will guide the Apostles 
into all truth. Herman Ritterbaugh says this 
concerning the Apostles. He says, for the communication 
and transmission of what was seen and heard In the fullness 
of time, 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. That is precisely the case. Maybe 
a bit of an illustration might help us at this particular juncture. When I was in high school, I 
used to spend the night at my buddy's house. And we used to, 
I don't think we thought it then, but we would theologize or philosophize 
about the big issues of life. And I remember very keenly us 
suspecting or us speculating or hypothesizing, what if the 
Bible was just a bunch of men who wrote books and buried them 
in the ground, and then people came along and found them and 
said, wow, this is the word of God? There is nothing further 
from the truth than that supposition. When you study the documents 
that make up the Old and the New Testaments, you will not 
find one whiff of that haphazardness. You will find rather a sovereign 
God who in his predestinating grace, according to his decree, 
has ensured that the church would have his revealed word. the reasons why the apostles 
wrote, because they would die. Our confession tells us the very 
specific reasons for inscripturation of the Word of God. It says in 
Chapter 1, Paragraph 1, about midway through, 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 makes the 
Holy Scriptures to be most necessary, those former ways of God's revealing 
his will unto his people being now ceased." So that's just a 
thumbnail sketch with reference to the origins of canon. Now secondly, the concept of 
a self-authenticating canon. And this, again, is Kruger's 
terminology, and I think it's very appropriate. Self-authenticating 
canon. If you remember last week, Pastor 
Cam pointed out paragraph 4 in chapter 1. It says, the authority 
of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, depends 
not upon the testimony of any man or church, but holy upon 
God, who is truth itself, the author thereof. Therefore, it 
is to be received because it is the word of God. Self. authenticating canon. We'll look 
at that in just a moment. But the other models that Kruger 
deals with, other models that have been in existence or that 
are currently in existence in the church today. The first is 
called the community determined model. And as that name might 
suggest, the community determines what books are canonical. You see the difference? Who practices 
this form of canonics, the community determined model? Any famous 
church group practice this that we know of? What's that? Catholicism. That's right. The 
Roman Catholic approach. The Church determines the canon. Protestantism, however, says 
that the Church, well, faithful or consistent Protestantism says 
the Church didn't determine the canon, the Church rather recognized 
the canon. So the community-determined model, 
it's not something we obliterate completely. I'm going to quote 
sources from the early church as we move through our study 
this morning. Those are helps. It is important to see that in 
the second century, brothers were quoting Matthew. That helps 
the church today. It is an affirmation or a confirmation. So the community-determined model 
and the next one, the historically-determined model, it's not as if they have 
no merit. It's just that we ought not to 
put all our eggs in that particular basket. When we say the community-determined 
model to the exclusion of asking the Bible itself, well, then 
we have a problem. So the community-determined model, 
and this is the idea that many today have, that political motivations 
of the fourth century determined which books were canonical. The 
idea is that in the fourth century, the winners in the political 
and religious wars and debates and all those sorts of things 
determined what books were actually in the New Testament. That's 
just not what history tells us. That's not what the early documents 
evidence or indicate. Secondly, another model is the 
historically determined model. I'll let Kruger define this. 
These 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. So this ends up being 
a canon within the canon. And whatever the scholar's particular 
area of emphasis is, oftentimes dictates whether or not he or 
she accepts something as canonical. So those are the other models. 
If you want to read more about that, get Kruger. But he identifies 
what he calls the self-authenticating model. And this jives with scripture. We ask the Bible, what do you 
say about yourself? And 2 Timothy tells us, all scripture 
is given by inspiration of God. It is profitable for doctrine, 
for reproof, for correction, for instruction and righteousness 
that the man of God may be thoroughly furnished unto every good work. See, these other models don't 
ask the Bible. They don't put the Bible on the 
stand and say, what do you say in testimony concerning yourself? 
What defense do you give concerning your historicity, your veracity, 
the evidence that in fact you did come from God? We cannot 
put all our ducks in the basket of the community, and we certainly 
can't put all our ducks in the basket of history, because when 
we do that, we neglect the Bible itself. And our confession, as 
I just read, speaks to that reality of a self-authenticating word 
from God. And so then Kruger deals with 
the components of the self-authenticating canon. In other words, the issue 
of canonicity. If you've done any reading in 
New Testament introduction, you'll note that, for the most part, 
New Testament guys make canonicity to deal in these areas. Let me 
just find out a quote from Carson, Moo, and Morris. They have a 
book on New Testament introduction. And canonicity, that's how we 
know what books belong in the canon, usually go along this 
way. First, conformity to the rule 
of faith. If a book is to be in the canon, 
it's not going to contradict the rule of faith. That makes 
sense. Secondly, apostolicity of author to include those in 
immediate contact with an apostle. Mark and Luke were not apostles, 
but they had immediate contact with the apostles. Who was Mark 
closely connected to? Peter. Who was Luke closely connected 
to? Paul. So when we speak of apostolicity, 
people generally say, well what about Mark and Luke? Apostolicity 
in the New Testament isn't just the reality that the book flowed 
from their pen, but that the apostles watched over, the apostles 
managed, the apostles maintained fidelity in the transmission 
of New Testament texts. So apostolicity does not demand 
that an apostle write the letter, but it demands that an apostle 
approves the letter and make sure that it should be disseminated 
to the churches. And then as well, a document's 
widespread and continuous acceptance and usage by churches. That's, 
again, Carson, Moo, and Morris, their introduction to the New 
Testament, pages 494 and 495. What is canonicity? Now, Kruger does this, but better. Kruger does this in three broad 
categories, in terms of the components of the self-authenticating canon. 
First, the providential exposure of the books. Basically, we can't 
have a canonical book if the church never saw the book. In 
other words, if God has purpose to give Romans to the church, 
churches are going to get Romans. There's going to be providential 
exposure. 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. We need to see the purpose of 
Scripture, Romans 15, it's to be a comfort and encouragement 
to the Saints of God, 2 Timothy 3. It's profitable for doctrine, 
for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. 
And then we need to have a sufficient understanding of the sovereignty 
of God. Our God is in the heavens. He 
does whatever He pleases. He is able not only to use a 
man to write the Word of God, but to preserve that finished 
product for the church to benefit until such time as Jesus returns. So providential exposure of the 
books. Secondly, the attributes of canonicity, 
and this is where we'll spend the rest of our time. But then 
thirdly is the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit. See, Kruger's 
reformed and he understands all too well that every argument 
in the world will not overcome total depravity. Every argument 
in the world will not regenerate a man. If the Spirit does not 
open our hearts, if the Spirit does not overcome total depravity, 
if the Spirit does not give us an understanding into the truth 
as it is in Jesus, then we will remain dead in our trespasses 
and sins. And this is what our confession 
establishes at the end of paragraph 5. 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 in our hearts." We mustn't 
forget that. We mustn't exclude that reality. We can memorize Michael Kruger's 
book. We can go face the unbelieving 
scholars in our day, and we can confront them with these attributes 
of canonicity. But if the sinner is dead in 
his trespasses and sins, he's not going to get it. Now, we 
should still try, we should still oppose arguments, we should still 
win arguments, we should do our task and do our job as efficiently 
and as effectively and for the glory of God as we can, but we 
need to understand that we're dealing in spiritual truth and 
dead men don't get it. So the attributes of canonicity, 
this is where, as I said, we'll spend the balance of our time. 
And there are three that Kruger deals with, and again, I think 
very excellently. First are divine qualities, secondly, 
corporate reception, and thirdly, apostolic origin. So it's sort 
of along the lines of what we find in Carson Moo and Morris, 
but what Kruger has done I think he has taken it, sharpened it, 
fleshed it out, and hopefully has helped the church appreciate 
just what we have in a rich deposit, or in terms of the rich deposit 
of Holy Scripture. But the first is divine qualities. John Murray says, if Scripture 
is divine in its origin, character, and authority, it must bear the 
marks or evidences of that divinity, right? I mean, that makes perfect 
sense. If scripture is divine in its 
origin, then it must express the character of that divinity 
through its revelation. Our confession speaks to this, 
so we won't spend a lot of time here. Pastor Cam dealt with this 
last week. Divine qualities in 2nd London 
Confession, chapter 1, paragraph 5. Beauty and excellency. The Word of God is beautiful 
and excellent. I mean, it's put together in 
such a way that it woos the heart, it melts the soul. The Law of 
the Lord is good, it converts us, it's good. There's a power 
and an efficacy of His own will. He brought us forth, by what? 
By the Word of Truth. You could read all of the Christian 
biography in the world, if they do not quote scripture, there 
isn't power in those writings to bring the soul into everlasting 
life. It's the gospel of Jesus Christ, 
as Paul says, is the power of God unto salvation for everyone 
who believes. So we've got beauty and excellency, 
we've got power and efficacy, we've got unity and harmony. 
I mean, imagine that. The entirety of the Bible testifies 
of one triune God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This one God 
who makes a promise to Abraham way back in Genesis chapter 12 
and brings it to fruition and fulfillment in the seed of Abraham, 
Galatians 3, which is Jesus Christ. There's a unity throughout, and 
all of it in there gives glory to God Most High. And then the 
confession says, there are many other incomparable excellencies. So you see, with the community-determined 
model and the historically-determined model, even more the historically-determined, 
you don't ask the Bible. You don't see these things, these 
traits, these attributes. Rather, you say, well, this is 
what we're going to do according to our particular whim and will. 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. That's important. Imagine 
if we are trying to prove the authority of God and his word. And we use something outside 
of God to prove the authority of God and his word. What's become 
the overarching standard in that scheme? It's no longer become 
God and his word. It's become that standard by 
which we utilize it to prove. The Bible is self-authenticating. It is self-attesting. The divine 
qualities manifest this. And as we said, ultimately, the 
spirit must give increase in this area. But just this is one 
of the attributes of canonicity. Secondly, corporate reception. corporate reception. Now, if 
you do any reading in the early church, you'll realize that there 
were some books that the church puzzled over for a time. In fact, there are still extant 
denominations today that do not have the exact same New Testament 
list or canon that we have. Martin Luther, a very famous 
character in church history, did not think that James should 
have been a canonical book. So you see, there are differences 
and disagreements But when we consider this idea of corporate 
reception, as Kruger says, there is a predominant unity. And he also points out that we 
ought to expect a bit of disagreement. Because of false teachers, because 
of heresy, because of garden variety sin, We ought not to 
expect just this perfectly smooth process where everybody all of 
a sudden at once accepts the 27 books. He is talking about 
a pre-dominant unity within the life of the church. Remember, 
in terms of this idea of corporate reception, what does Jesus say 
in John 10.27? Does anybody remember that text? My sheep hear my voice. We ought to expect that a collection 
of my sheep will not only have individual attestation to the 
Word of God, but there'll be a corporate attestation to the 
Word of God. Bovey says the testimony of the 
Holy Spirit is not a private witness, I'm sorry, 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 responding 
to the claim that the canon wasn't in place until the fourth century. 
Now, Again, there's a lot of things going on in this discussion, 
in this debate. This is simply a thumbnail sketch. 
He makes this statement. 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. So very 
early on. And the first line of defense 
that he gives is the scriptures themselves. 2 Peter chapter 3. 
2 Peter chapter 3. a passage that not only affirms 
the authority of Paul as an apostle and of Paul's writing as scripture, 
but it seems to imply that Peter knew of more writings of the 
apostle than just one. Notice in 2 Peter 3, verse 16, 
as also in all his epistles, So already in the first century, 
already among the apostolic church, already among the apostles themselves, 
Peter knew that Paul had writings, plural, and he calls them scripture. So already the early church recognizes 
a body of New Testament scripture. We saw a passage a few weeks 
ago in our studies in 1 Timothy chapter 5. When Paul argues that 
elders ought to be compensated, that they ought to be given double 
honor, How does he argue for that? Because they deserve nice 
big houses? Because they've got big families? 
Because they've got hungry wives? No, because the scripture says 
you're not to muzzle an ox while it threshes out the grain and 
A laborer is worthy of his wages. He quotes from Deuteronomy and 
he quotes from Luke chapter 10. So the Apostle Paul recognizes 
there's authoritative scripture in the New Testament setting 
that's on par with the book of Deuteronomy. So there are those 
specific references. There is as well a reference 
to a bi-covenantal canon. 2 Peter chapter 3, while you're 
there, look at 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, that you 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. You see, for the apostle 
Peter, the authoritative apostles are on par with the authoritative 
prophets of the Old Testament scriptures. As well, and we've 
already touched on this, so we won't again, the references to 
public reading of the canonical books. Colossians chapter 4, 
1 Thessalonians chapter 5, and I would argue 1 Timothy 4. And 
I preached it this way. When Paul says, give attention 
to reading, Paul, I think, in that context, is highlighting 
to Timothy that he needs to read scripture to the churches of 
our Lord Jesus Christ. Kruger also has a fascinating 
discussion on that passage in 2 Timothy 4, where Paul tells 
Timothy to bring the books, especially the parchments. He argues that 
Paul is telling Timothy, bring my books. not my copy of Calvin's 
Institutes and John Gill's commentary, bring the books that I've written. Bring the books, especially the 
parchment, the things that the Apostle Paul has written, so 
that he could go over these things and use on them as the word of 
God themselves. Very compelling, the way that 
Kruger deals with this particular argument. But then as well, and 
this is where the early church helps us, the apostolic fathers. When I mention the apostolic 
fathers, we're talking about those men who came right after 
the apostles. This is just a sampling of passages. 
There are many, many of these. Get Kruger, and he will show 
you more. You can get the church fathers. You can look at them yourselves. 
You can read books that were written in AD 95, things outside 
of scripture. First Clement, in 1895 is when 
he wrote this, 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. And it's interesting, 
as you move through the quotes of these apostolic fathers, they 
see a difference between the apostles and them. They do not 
put themselves on the same line, or on the same place, or in the 
same vein or trajectory as the apostolic men themselves. The 
Didache was an early manual for the Christian faith. It was a 
written document to instruct believers. It wasn't a catechism 
in the sense of question and answer. That was the function. 
It was a means by which people were taught the truth. Didache 
was from the great teaching. The Manual of Christian Doctrine. That was composed about A.D. 100. Again, let's just suppose 
for a moment that all the New Testament books are written by 
A.D. 70. Some disagree, some say that Revelation was written 
in about 94, 95, or 96. Be that as it may, we're dealing 
with a document that was written in A.D. 100. So it's very close, 
okay? It says, nor should you pray 
like the hypocrites. Instead, pray like this, just 
as the Lord commanded in his gospel. It then goes on to quote 
Matthew 6, 9 to 13, the Lord's Prayer. Incidentally, it includes 
the longer ending. For thine is the kingdom, the 
power, and the glory. That's in the Didache. So there's 
evidence of a Byzantine reading very early on in AD 100. And 
if you just missed all that, that's OK. Ignatius, he was martyred 
around AD 110. Now sometimes Protestants hear 
these names and they think about Catholic churches that are called 
St. Ignatius' Catholic Church. And we think of St. Ignatius, 
or we think of Ignatius as just some papist dog that we shouldn't 
pay attention to. The papacy wasn't existent at 
this time. There was no Roman Catholic Church 
at this time. Ignatius wrote this in his letter 
to the Ephesians. You are the highway of those 
who are being killed for God's sake. You are fellow initiates 
of Paul, who was sanctified, who was 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. See, by the end of the first 
century, the four Gospels were solidified, Matthew, Mark, Luke, 
and John, and the letters of the Apostle Paul. So when somebody 
says, well, the fourth century church just determined, that's 
just not accurate. Don't let them have that over 
you. The Da Vinci Code, the Gospel 
of Thomas, whatever these things are, they're not canonical. The 
early church didn't recognize them, there's no reference to 
those things. Ignatius to the Magnesian says, be eager therefore 
to be firmly grounded in the precepts of the Lord and the 
Apostles. Ignatius to the Trallians, 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. And then Polycarp, you've probably 
heard his name before. He was a famous martyr in the 
early church. Do you know how early? Polycarp, 
A.D. 110. He wrote this to Philippi. For I am convinced that you are 
all well trained in the sacred scriptures and that nothing is 
hidden from you. He goes on to quote Ephesians 
4, verse 26. Be angry and do not sin. So you 
see, very early on, the apostles' writings are being appealed to 
on par with or being stated as sacred scriptures, being the 
commandment of the Lord and his apostles. The books commonly 
called apocrypha that we find in paragraph three, as we consider 
this whole idea of corporate reception. The books commonly 
called apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, 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, excuse me, than other human writings. That's 
a great statement. Essentially, the argument goes 
this way. First, they weren't in the Hebrew 
Bible. The Jews didn't accept those 
books commonly called Apocrypha. Secondly, they were never quoted 
by Jesus and his apostles. You can go through the New Testament, 
see how Jesus and the apostles deal with the Old Testament scriptures. 
I don't think Esther is either, but the Apocrypha is never quoted. And then thirdly, there's errors. 
There's troubles. There's not a conformity unto 
the analogy of faith in those books commonly called apocrypha. So the attributes of canonicity, 
divine qualities, corporate reception, thirdly and finally, apostolic 
origins. The apostles of Christ were conscious 
of the fact that they were used by God to pen Holy Scripture. That's just the way it is. When 
Paul says in 1 Corinthians chapter 7, I give command, not the Lord, 
He is not suggesting there's a two-tiered structure. Jesus 
speaks to something, you really gotta do it. If Paul speaks to 
something, then it's a good suggestion and you probably should do it. 
Paul says that because Jesus never commented on the issue 
of mixed marriage. I don't mean black and white. 
I mean believer and unbeliever. That's why Paul is giving his 
advice, giving his preset, giving his command as a spirit-filled 
man. It isn't that there's somehow 
less authority in his word. Paul, as I've already mentioned, 
says that the churches should read his letters, the churches 
should exchange his letters, the churches should obey his 
letters, and the people within the churches who do not obey 
those letters, they should be disciplined as a result. So the 
apostles themselves knew what they were doing. And then Ritterbos 
on this whole idea of apostolicity says that the apostolicity of 
a book is determined by whether its content embodies the foundational 
apostolic tradition, not whether it was written by the hand of 
the apostle. Again, the fact that Mark and 
Luke wrote shouldn't throw us off track. The apostles managed 
the process. When somebody does something 
stupid, or let's say that a car comes off the production line, 
and it's missing something very valuable. Who gets the blame? Is it the guy standing on the 
production line? Probably. But it's the CEO. That's 
the same sort of a mindset. The apostles managed the process. Kruger puts it this way. 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 authoritative message of the apostles and derive from 
the foundational apostolic era, even if not directly from their 
hands. Justin Martyr, he lived in about 
AD 100 to 165, so the mid second century. 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. He knew that 
Mark and Luke were not apostles. He didn't say, I don't know how 
to explain this. He ascribes to them apostolicity. Irenaeus, who lived 130 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 or handed down to us in the scriptures 
to be the ground and pillar of our faith. And again, those are 
just a couple of samples on this particular subject. I'm sure 
that you can find the Apostolic Fathers at CCEL, which is the 
Christian Classic Ethereal Library. Is that what it is? Okay, you 
can click there, ccel.org, I think, or com, just try one of them, 
and you'll find a great resource of lots of stuff. So that, as 
I said, is a thumbnail sketch of Kruger's work, and I hope 
he wouldn't get mad at me if I did this. It's kind of like 
me telling you why you should get this book. an extended version 
of such a thing, but you see how it jives with what our Confession 
of Faith says and how paragraph two in chapter one is as important 
as the rest. Even if you learn to recite the 
Old Testament and New Testament books when you were two, you 
need to understand how important such a recitation is. We are 
affirming and confessing with the Church that these and these 
alone are the Word of God Most High. Well, let us pray. Our 
Father, we thank You for Your Word, and we thank You that You've 
given it to us, and this rich deposit in Old and New Testaments. 
I pray that You would fortify us, that You would stabilize 
us, that You would grant us grace to see, Father, what a rich resource 
that we have, and cause us to be faithful defenders of Your 
truth, cause us to be faithful proclaimers of Your Gospel, and 
even now, God, grant us grace to be faithful worshipers as 
we close this time As we enter into public worship, may you 
come down, may you bless, strengthen, and encourage your people that 
we may worship you in spirit and in truth. And we pray through 
Christ our Lord. Amen.