Transcription
The challenge is often made by non-Protestants to Protestants that without the church and its authority, the Bible cannot be identified. In other words, that the method by which inspired writings were recognized and differentiated from non-inspired writings was one of discussion within the early church. And so, therefore, because the early church recognized and compiled the canon of scripture, then Protestants like me have a problem when we say that we have an inspired and infallible collection of books that was compiled by a non-inspired, fallible process. When I accept the Bible, am I really accepting the authority of the church, even if I don't admit it? No. And let me explain why.
The church is not the origin of scripture. God is. When I say that scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith and practice for the church, what I'm making there is a statement on the origin of scripture. The origin of scripture is divine. And to a degree, the Roman Catholic position can agree with the origin statement, although clearly disagreeing with that being the sole infallible rule. In so far as Vatican I states that these books the church holds to be sacred and canonical not because she subsequently approved them by her authority, but because, being written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and were as much committed to the church.
The early church did not invent the Bible. They merely recognized the inspiration the books already possessed and formally identified them as such. As J.I. Packer put it, "The church no more gave us the New Testament canon than Sir Isaac Newton gave us the force of gravity." Newton did not create gravity but recognized it.
Can we just also say we don't actually need gravity? Like, we actually don't need it? What do you mean that we don't need gravity? What if it was never invented? Invented by who? Sir Isaac Newton. Isaac Newton created gravity.
By the time the church was having discussions of canon lists and what books did or didn't possess the mark of inspiration, the books of inspired scripture had already been written, read, copied, passed around, and disseminated for some time. Paul is already being recognized as scripture within the first century by Peter in 2 Peter 3:16. And Paul himself is quoting Luke as scriptural alongside Deuteronomy in 1 Timothy 5. And let's not forget that the Christians in the first century had a Bible. We call it the Old Testament. When Paul says "all scripture is God-breathed" in 2 Timothy, no one is confused about what Paul means when he uses the term scripture. And just because the books existed as independent documents in the form of physical scrolls or books separate from one another prior to the 4th century, with them being codified all in one single unit, then doesn't mean that they weren't the Bible prior to that point. We need to be careful not to read back an anachronistic perspective due to our modern privilege of being able to easily have all the biblical books in a single bound volume. This is largely due to the amazing and streamlined process of publishing that we have today.
This is my facsimile copy of Codex Sinaiticus. The first few major codices, like the original, this is a photocopy of, are the very first versions of what we would today consider a Genesis to Revelation copy of the Bible. Codex Vaticanus took upwards of 400 sheep to make and would have cost the equivalent of hundreds of thousands of dollars in today's currency. By the 4th century, when this was made, the perspective would have been that it contained scripture more than it was scripture. All of the major early codices operated as mini ancient libraries, and all of our earliest examples of them, whether that's Codex Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, etc., have Christian books included within the contents of their covers that we today do not consider scripture. So, it is completely incorrect to claim that the early church's inclusion in a codex equates to scriptural reception. That's just not necessarily true. Unless you're willing to argue that books like 4 Maccabees, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Epistle of Barnabas, and First and Second Clement, that no church today accepts as scriptural, should be included within your Bible.
Likewise, the church recognizing books does not mean that their ability to do so gives them the authority. To say that the church gave us our Bible is kind of like saying the postal service gave you your mail. Your letter carrier is not the progenitor of the mail you receive. Those were written prior to and even despite your mailman or woman eventually getting them to your mailbox. The church is the servant and subsidiary of scripture, not the origin. This is why I've said in the past that the Bible made the church. The church didn't make the Bible.
Now, I can anticipate many hearing that and saying, "Okay, Wes, but Jesus told us that he would build his church, not give us his book, and the gates of Hades would not prevail against it." Amen. And the reason we know that statement to be true is because of the divinely inspired and faithful preservation of words that Jesus said in the Gospel of Matthew chapter 16 that we have. We can point to the text and argue against erroneous notions like that of the Latter-day Saint idea of a great apostasy and complete falling away of the church at some point in history, precisely because God's word within scripture testifies to the truth of Jesus's statement there to begin with. The authority of knowing Jesus's words to be true comes from the fact that scripture is the divinely inspired, breathed-out words of God.
Listen to the way my friend Gavin Ortlund put it in his video on the topic. When Moses is at the burning bush and he hears God, he doesn't need a secondary voice whispering in his ear confirming some kind of infallible reception of this voice. When the prophets receive words from God, when Adam hears God in the garden, you don't need to be infallible to recognize God's voice for what it is.
Protestants have often compared the church's role in the process of canonization to that of John the Baptist as a necessary witness unto Christ. They speak of it as a ministerial role of testimony or witness. But in that, the church is no more infallible parallel to the scripture than John is divine parallel to Christ. The one testifying, though it's a necessary testimony, remains subordinate to that which receives the testimony. The early church got the canonization process right, not because they're infallible, but because we can trust the Holy Spirit in his act of leading, and because God's word is self-authenticating.
Even Roman Catholicism, which holds to holy tradition as infallible, has no formal infallible list of infallible traditions. There is no reference source a modern Roman Catholic can cite or source from, say the Vatican or a church council somewhere, that infallibly lists the infallible traditions that all Roman Catholics must adhere to. But neither of us need such a source. I can say that 2 + 2 is four, not because I'm infallible, but because I have a reasonable confidence to ground the truth of that statement in. And even more so, I can ground the truth of the statement that the early church got the right books within the canon of scripture, both due to reasonable confidence and due to the theological reality that I trust the Holy Spirit's guidance for them to do so.
Even amongst the disagreements of various groups holding to different lists, the point stands. And the disagreements of modern Protestant, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo churches all having different scriptural canons doesn't mean that none of them are right. It simply testifies to the conversations that took place, particularly within those early four centuries of church history, concerning what should or shouldn't be recognized. All of these traditions have at least some historical precedence to hold on to in terms of the reason why their Bible includes more or less books, and all of these groups adhere to the core of the 66 found within the Protestant canon, just differ on additions to that core.
I personally hold to the Protestant canon out of convictional confidence, not out of convenience or simply growing up within Protestantism. I believe that the canon of scripture to be 66 books and only 66 books. And I think the reasons for that are reasonable, ancient, and ultimately true. Scripture is the norm that norms all norms. That is why it is the sole infallible rule of faith and practice for the church. It does not mean that tradition is not important. It does not mean that church councils are not important. It does not mean that experience is not important. As my old systematic theology professor back in grad school would always say, "Tradition and emotion have a voice and a vote, but scripture is the only unique source that has the veto."
This is why the Bereans in Acts 17:11 are commended as being more noble because when they received Paul's message, they immediately tested it by the solid and unshakable standard of scripture. Scripture and scripture alone was their discerning authority. The early church held a pivotal role in the ultimate coming together of what we now call the Bible. But the church, then, today, and for all time, stands under the authority of scripture. Paul tells us that the church is built on the foundation of the apostles and the prophets, those who communicated the word of God, with the cornerstone being Jesus himself.
As the 4th-century theologian Cyril of Jerusalem wrote, "Not even a casual statement must be delivered without the holy scriptures, nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility or artifices of speech. Even to me who tell you these things, don't give absolute credibility, unless you receive the proof of these things which I am announcing to you from the divine scriptures themselves."