Chapter 3.3B

The Judge Inside

Private Judgment & the Recognition of Scripture

Overall Objective

To introduce the issues involved in establishing the foundation of the authority we grant to Scripture.

Table of Topics

A) The Problem of the Biblical Canon

B) Private Judgment & the Biblical Canon

C) Objections Regarding Private Judgment & the Biblical Canon

D) Different Approaches to the Biblical Canon

D.1) Human testimony

D.2) God’s sovereignty

D.3) Self-authenticating Scripture

D.4) “Testimony of the Spirit”

D.5) All approaches ultimately depend on private judgment

Primary Points

• The question of “what is the canon?” is the same as asking “where is God’s word to us?” Hardly any question is more important.
• The foremost leaders of the early post-apostolic Church and Martin Luther testified that some of the documents in our current NT do not belong there.
• The best approach Ag to determining the correct NT canon of Scripture is the use of private judgment based on historical research regarding the Church’s testimony to the apostolicity of the documents.
• When God instituted divine revelation through Prophets, He made it clear that private judgment, through human reason, was to dictate and discern whether or not something was divine revelation (cf. Deut 18:20-22).
• Critics of the use of private judgment to determine what is Scripture ask “Whose reason has the right to make such a decision? The answer: Who indeed but the person who is being called upon to obey the revelation, possibly even at the cost of his own life!
• The reason that any Christian will pursue research on the canon of Scripture is to protect and promote its authority, not undermine it.
• If God led the Church in correctly recognizing the canon, then which Church did it lead? The Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Syriac, and Protestant churches differ on what documents belong in the NT. His sovereignty does not dictate or guarantee perfection.
• All of the approaches to establishing the authority of the biblical documents have human private judgment as their foundation.

A) The Problem of the Biblical Canon

The question of how do we know what Scripture says (hermeneutics) is obviously an important one. However, an even more fundamental question is, how do we know that God has spoken in Scripture (canonicity)? In other words, what is the method by which a Christian can know that a document, such as Micah or Matthew is direct divine revelation from God recorded by a man and having divine authority such that if we disregard or disobey it we automatically sin against God?

The question can be asked in another way as well: What is the correct “canon” of Scripture? The word “canon” is not very familiar to people outside the study of the Bible. Bruce M. Metzger, Professor Emeritus of New Testament Language and Literature at Princeton Theological Seminary tells us:

The term “canon” used with reference to the Bible means the collection of books which are received as divinely inspired and therefore [uniquely] authoritative for faith and life. ^[1]

The question of “what is the canon?” is the same as asking “where is God’s word to us?” Accordingly, it would be difficult to imagine a question that is more important. A conviction regarding what are the limits of this “collection” of “divinely inspired” documents is essential if we are to confidently base not only our practice on those writings, but to entrust our eternity to them as well. The information in the biblical canon tells us what is sin and what is not, telling us what our whole lives will be evaluated on by our Maker and Judge.

The significance of our confidence in the canon is well described by the popular theologian, Wayne Grudem:

The precise determination of the extent of the canon of Scripture is . . . of the utmost importance. If we are to trust and obey God absolutely we must have a collection of words that we are certain are God’s own words to us. If there are any sections of Scripture about which we have doubts whether they are God’s words or not, we will not consider them to have absolute divine authority and we will not trust them as much as we would trust God himself. ^[2]

And that is what Scripture is to the Christian. Documents we trust as much as God Himself because we believe them to be His word.

Unfortunately, there has been considerable debate in the early Church as well as today as to the correct canon of particularly the NT. This issue is illustrated in the fact that different branches of Christianity have had different Bibles. A study of the early Church (100-300 A. D.), the Syrian Church (200-present), the Roman Catholic Church (500-present), and the Protestant Church (1525-present) reveal the fact that there is some disagreement in what documents belong in the Bible. ^[3] The most significant difference is perhaps that between Protestants and Roman Catholics, the latter claiming that fourteen additional documents (the Apocrypha ^[4]) should exercise authority over God’s people. That has not seemed to matter much to Protestant Christians whose tradition has rejected these documents as having divine authority, and they have had none for millions of Christians for many centuries.

However, it is not simply the well known differences between Roman Catholics and Protestants concerning the correct contents of Scripture. Up to this point, our insistence on the importance of reason in authenticating divine revelation may seem like merely an academic, philosophical issue. Isn’t the correct canon of Scripture a rather established fact? Some of the most godly and respected men in Church history have thought otherwise.

The Church Father Origen (c. 185-c. 254) was without question the greatest Bible scholar of the third century. His research concerning the correct text of Scripture is well known and resulted in a vast knowledge of the early Church’s Bible. Writing around the year 240 he expressed his learned opinion on the authenticity and authority of certain NT documents and, among other things, wrote:

Peter . . . left us one acknowledged epistle, possibly two—though this is doubtful. ^[5]

Origen was not just sharing his own opinion, but the majority view of Church leaders at the time. Based on his knowledge of the early history and widespread opinion of the NT documents, Origen never treated 2 Peter with the same authority as 1 Peter in his writings. He used reason and historical research to determine what documents were apostolic, and would therefore exercise divine authority in his life. He was not alone.

The widespread doubts regarding the apostolicity of 2 Peter remained 75 years later when Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 260- c. 340), “deemed the father of Church history,” ^[6] and an authority on the history of the early Church second only to Luke himself, embarked on a diligent and wide ranging study of the earliest traditions concerning the authenticity and apostolic authorship of the NT documents. Around the year 315, Eusebius describes the general consensus of the Church at the time when he writes:

Of Peter one epistle, known as his first, is accepted, and this the early fathers quoted freely, as undoubtedly genuine, in their own writings. But the second Petrine epistle we have been taught to regard as uncanonical. . . .

On the other hand, in the case of the “Acts” attributed to him, the “Gospel” that bears his name, the “Preaching” called his, and the so called “Apocalypse” [of Peter], we have no reason at all to include these among the traditional Scriptures . . .

Such are the writings that bear the name of Peter, only one of which I know to be genuine and acknowledged by the ancient elders. ^[7]

Understand that Origen and Eusebius were not the obscure men they may be to modern Christians, but were among the most knowledgeable, respected, and influential Christian leaders in the first 300 years of Christianity. Hopefully, one is beginning to understand the practical importance of the issue of the God-ordained authority of private judgment and the value that God places on our reason. It is so valuable, in fact, that we would suggest that there is sufficient historical evidence for a careful reevaluation of the divine authority of some of the documents of the NT.

An early Church authority no less than St. Augustine (354-430) agreed. Augustine, leading the Western Church in the fifth century, seemed to recognize this authority of private judgment concerning the canon as well. He was well aware of the concerns that some early Church leaders had regarding a few NT documents, based on the kind of historical evidence that Origen and Eusebius had provided. Although he himself had sanctioned the current Protestant NT canon and the current Roman Catholic OT canon (including the Apocrypha), he recognized both the right and the responsibility for particularly Christian Teachers to exercise reasonable private judgment regarding the authority of individual documents. As a preface to his own listing of the biblical canon in his On Christian Doctrine he writes:

Among the canonical scriptures he [the interpreter of them] will judge according to the following standard: to prefer those [documents in the Bible] that are received by all the catholic churches to those which some of them do not receive. Again, among those which are not received by all, let him prefer those which are sanctioned by the greater number of churches and by those of greater authority to those which fewer and less authoritative churches hold. ^[8]

Understand that this very knowledgeable and widely respected leader of a massive region of Christian churches was writing this after the NT documents had been in existence for well over 300 years. It is clear that even at this “late” date, after official councils had even decreed what they thought to be the limits of the biblical canon, that individual churches were exercising their private judgment themselves in regard to what was Scripture. Far from criticizing such an attitude, Augustine accepted it and even encouraged others to heed it in their own evaluations of the authenticity, and subsequent authority, of the NT documents. In addition, Augustine’s opinion of what documents should be in the Bible was significantly different than the contents of our Bible today. ^[9]

When we fast forward to the Reformation, we see the practice of private judgment in how Martin Luther (1483-1546), the founder of Protestantism, handled the NT canon. Luther flat out rejected the idea that determining the limits of Scripture depended on anything but the God-ordained place of private judgment. Subsequently, due to his own historical and literary research, he rejected four documents from the traditional NT canon and rejected the Roman Catholic Apocrypha as well.

Luther’s concerns regarding the traditional canon are a well known piece of Reformation history. His views were first made public in his 1522 German translation of the New Testament. In the Table of Contents, he listed 23 books and assigned each a number. This list was followed by a blank space and then Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation are listed without numbers. In the Prefaces to these books, Luther describes his justification for separating these four from the others. In general it can be said that he relegated them to something less than Romans or 1 Peter because of his doubts that they were authored or authorized by Apostles.

Throughout Luther’s arguments he uses evidence from early Church history to evaluate the authenticity of these NT documents. In fact he begins his discussion of the four doubted books by saying:

Up to this point we have had [to do with] the true and certain chief books of the New Testament. The four which follow have from ancient times had a different reputation. ^[10]

Likewise, in his opening statement regarding James he states “this epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients.” ^[11] In the same way he says of James:

I praise it and consider it a good book, because it sets up no doctrines of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God. However, to state my own opinion about it, though without prejudice to anyone, I do not regard it as the writing of an Apostle. . . . I cannot include him among the chief books, though I would not thereby prevent anyone from including or extolling him as he pleases, for there are otherwise many good sayings in him. ^[12]

The underlined statement above is an excellent demonstration of human private judgment. And contrary to popular belief, Luther did not reject James based on his own doctrinal convictions. He said “it sets up no doctrines of men.” He rejected it because “it was rejected by the ancients [Christians]” which is historically accurate.

While many would wish to relegate Luther’s thinking to the pagan rationalism of the Enlightenment period, Luther lived a hundred years before that and opposed traces of it in the humanism of Erasmus (1466-1536) in his own day. Luther was not a rationalists, but simply and honestly recognized the God-ordained authority granted to human private judgment.

Some might even like to accuse Luther of sin for questioning what documents really belong in the NT. But the fact that he was not, and should not, demonstrates the recognized authority of private judgment in something even as vital as deciding the canon of Scripture.

As we fast-forward to 19^th and 20^th century liberal NT scholarship, we encounter what we believe are illegitimate challenges to the NT canon. In addition to the ancient questions about the documents noted above, it was popularly claimed that Ephesians, Colossians, and the Pastoral Epistles were not authored by the Apostle Paul. Liberal scholars generally don’t have much of a problem with this, because they think these documents remain divinely authoritative even if their origin is not apostolic. Unfortunately, they don’t take seriously enough their accusation that these documents were written by someone who lied about their authorship. Should we really trust someone who claims in a document to be a miraculously authenticated and divinely appointed Apostle, but was actually trying to deceive people about this so that his writing would have more authority? We think not.

We are somewhat reluctant to introduce such an important and potentially controversial topic without being able to finish it here with a thorough study of the historical credentials of the NT documents. We understand that these are serious matters that must be investigated with the greatest care, as we do elsewhere. ^[13]

While the above may at first seem to throw the whole NT canon up in the air, anyone who has studied this issue knows that most of it settles back to firm earth immediately. For example, not even the most critical, unspiritual, and unreasonable liberal scholars deny that the Apostle Paul wrote Romans, as the historical evidence in the early Church for its authenticity and apostolic authority is undeniable to any reasonable person. The same is true for the vast majority of biblical documents.

However, contrary to many conservative scholars today, we do not simply brush aside the testimony of the early Church regarding the divine authority of some of the NT documents, and we suggest there is a place for a possible reevaluation of a few of them. Nonetheless, even if historically doubted documents like 2 Peter and James were excluded from the canon, it would not affect a single doctrine of the historical, orthodox, Christian Church. However, as noted above, we believe canonical issues demonstrate that this doctrine of private judgment is not simply an academic, philosophical issue, but rather, a very important and practical one.

B) Private Judgment & the Biblical Canon

In chapter 3.1 we wrote a great deal in support of the use of private judgment in determining and authenticating divine revelation. We will add additional support here. We have already noted that from the very beginning of God’s communication with His people, God made it clear that private judgment, through human reason, was to dictate and discern whether or not something was divine revelation. We read of both the authority of Prophets and their recognition when God says:

[A] Prophet who presumes to speak in My name anything I have not commanded him to say . . . must be put to death. You may say to yourselves, “How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the LORD?” If [a prediction] a Prophet proclaims in the name [and authority] of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That Prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him [or believe his words or writings represent the word of God]. (Deut 18:20-22; cf. 13:1-3)

In other words, anyone speaking directly for God must miraculously and convincingly authenticate themselves as possessing such authority. And such authentication was delegated by God to the people to use their private judgment to evaluate someone claiming to have divine revelation. In the case of God’s Prophets, they would be given the ability to supernaturally predict the future (cf. the NT Prophet Agabus, Acts 11:28; 21:10-11, 27ff.). ^[14] Therefore, “If what a [self-proclaiming] prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken.” And how else would the people make such a determination apart from their reasoning and right of private judgment? Indeed, God’s word was to possess ultimate authority for His people. Nonetheless, it was to be a human’s reasoning that determined whether or not a person was God’s messenger, or their statement was God’s word.

We see the same authority of reason and private judgment being called for when the King says:

Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By [observing and evaluating with human reason] their fruit [life, effects] you will recognize them (Matt 7:15-16).

Likewise, the Apostle commands in the context of discerning whether or not a prophetic utterance is from God: “Examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good” (1 Thess. 5:21). And no doubt the Apostle’s reference to “everything” included not just people claiming divinely authoritative revelation, but documents as well, as it was this very church that would appear to have been duped by a false apostolic revelation (cf. 2 Thess 2:1-3).

Evidently, the Thessalonians needed such an exhortation to engage their reason in authenticating revelation, as we read in Acts:

Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true” (Acts 17:11).

Here we see another important test that reason must use in deciding whether or not to accept something as coming from God, namely, comparing it with previously authenticated revelation. Accordingly, the respected Reformed teacher A. W. Pink (1886-1952) observes on this passage:

Those Bereans sat in judgment upon the teaching of the Apostles! They are commended for doing so! Not only was it their privilege and duty, but it is recorded to their honour. ^[15]

We find additional support for our approach of applying private judgment to determining divine revelation in the writings of the Christian philosopher John Locke (1632-1704). He was very respected in his day by theologians such as Jonathan Edwards for his defenses of the authority of human reason even in spiritual matters, and is famous for such writing even today. Accordingly, he wrote in his An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, “Reason must be our last judge and guide in everything.” ^[16] More concerning our current point, Locke wrote: “To know that any revelation is from God, it is necessary to know that the messenger that delivers it is sent from God, and that cannot be known but by some credential given him by God himself.” ^[17]

Locke developed this perspective in more detail in a rather famous statement:

Whatever God hath revealed is certainly true; no doubt can be made of it. This is the proper object of faith; but whether it be a divine revelation or no, reason must judge. . . .

God when he makes the prophet does not unmake the man. He leaves all his faculties in the natural state, to enable him to judge of his inspirations, whether they be of divine original or no. When he illuminates the mind with supernatural light, he does not extinguish that which is natural. If he would have us assent to the truth of any proposition, he either evidences that truth by the usual methods of natural reason, or else makes it known to be a truth which he would have us assent to by his authority, and convinces us that it is from him, by some [supernatural] marks which reason cannot be mistaken in. Reason must be our last judge and guide in everything.

I do not mean that we must consult reason, and examine whether a proposition revealed from God can be made out by natural principles, and if it cannot, that then we may reject it; but consult it we must, and by it examine whether it be a revelation from God or no; and if reason finds it to be revealed from God, reason then declares for it as much as for any other truth, and makes it one of her dictates.

Every conceit that thoroughly warms our fancies must pass for an inspiration, if there be nothing but the strength of our persuasions, whereby to judge of our persuasions; if reason must not examine their truth by something extrinsical to the persuasions themselves, inspirations and delusions, truth and falsehood, will have the same measure, and will not be possible to be distinguished. ^[18]

In the same vein, Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758) described eight vital functions of human reason, the fifth being, “reason must verify any revelation as genuine.” ^[19] In relating the view of Edwards, the influential Reformed theologian John Gerstner agreed that our position regarding the authority of human reason has been the historical Christian position, even though it is waning. Dr. Gerstner, an expert on Edwards, relates that the theologian believed:

To be sure, once the Bible by argument [or reason] is proven to be the Word of God there can be no more argument about the infallible authority of all of its message. Anyone at any time may return to the argument for biblical inspiration and the argument must be vindicated in the arena of debate or withdrawn. So said Jonathan Edwards and so said and says, (with a very weak voice today), the general historic Christian tradition. . . . Men receive things as truth purely because God has revealed them, yet . . . it is by the faculty of reason that men know it to be a revelation and by that faculty that they know that a divine revelation is to be depended on. ^[20]

In Charles Hodge’s mind, the human reason behind the use of private judgment was to be used to establish the canon of Scripture through historical research. Accordingly, he wrote:

The principle on which the canon of the New Testament is determined is equally simple. Those books, and those only, which can be proved [by historical research accepted by private judgment] to have been written by the apostles, or to have received their sanction, are to be recognized as of divine authority. The reason of this rule is obvious. The apostles were the duly authenticated messengers of Christ, of whom He said, “He that heareth you heareth me.” ^[21]

Likewise, the Reformed theologian B. B. Warfield (1851-1921) reflected the essence of private judgment when he insightfully wrote:

It is easy of course to say that a Christian man must take his standpoint not above the Scriptures, but in the Scriptures. He very certainly must. But surely he must first have Scriptures, authenticated to him [and accepted and approved by him] as such, before he can take his standpoint in them. ^[22]

More recently, William Abraham, Professor of Philosophy and Theology at SMU has written:

The fact is, revelation does not wear its authenticity on its face. We have to live in a situation where various religious traditions equally, sincerely, and confidently claim to speak definitively for God. Even within the Christian tradition the exact locus of revelation is disputed. This being so, we have to use our minds to decide between the options available. Once we commit ourselves, then revelation acts as a crucial criterion in our theology. ^[23]

Finally, we will quote the Christian apologist Norm Geisler on the relationship between reason and Scripture:

Of course, God’s Word is ultimate and speaks for itself. But how do we know the Bible, as opposed to the Qur’an or the Book of Mormon is the Word of God? One must appeal to evidence to determine this. No Christian would accept a Muslim’s statement that “the Qur’an is alive and powerful and sharper than a two-edged sword.” We would demand evidence. . . . Without evidence to establish one’s claim to authority, there is no good reason to accept that authority. ^[24]

And contrary to the popular idea of the “testimony of the Spirit” apart from evidence, ^[25] God has intended to authenticate His revelation with objective evidence. God’s desire to have human reason determine the authenticity of divine revelation is consistently demonstrated in His practice of always supernaturally authenticating His appointed messengers, as briefly discussed in an earlier chapter (section 3.1.D). Accordingly, we wrote:

If God does in fact ultimately leave the decision to us as to whom or what will exercise authority in our lives, then it is important to ask what credentials do the above authorities [i.e. God the Father, the King, Apostles, etc.] possess in order to rightfully demand and expect our obedience? Briefly stated, God has ordained that God-like deeds are the required authentication of anyone or anything claiming God-like authority. . . .

Such is the case with the King as well. He did not expect someone to grant Him God-like authority without believing He had done God-like deeds. . . . Christ’s miraculous abilities were specifically to authenticate His divine authority to God’s people. . . . How then do we know that this same authority was passed on to the Apostles and Prophets as they claim? Once again, God authenticated their God-like authority by giving them the ability to perform God-like deeds. ^[26]

Therefore, regarding the NT, the manner in which its authoritative contents are established in Knowing Our God is through historical research into the early Church’s testimony regarding their apostolic authorship and sanction. We believe only writings that have been written or endorsed by miraculously authenticated Apostles constitute NT documents that deserve to be elevated to the level of God-like authority. God expects us to use our private judgment in gaining a conviction on the unique divinity of such documents, and historical research is specifically how this is accomplished. Accordingly, if there is convincing historical evidence that the early Christians believed a holy, God-sent miracle worker like the Apostle Paul wrote The Epistle to the Romans then it deserves a place above all the writings of men, and should be accepted as the written word of God.

C) Objections Regarding Private Judgment & the Biblical Canon

The suggestion of the use of human private judgment regarding the canon of Scripture is admittedly a serious one. Accordingly, Alister McGrath, Professor of Theology at both Oxford and Regent, questions the authority of reason on such an issue and asks, “What logic is to be allowed this central role? Whose rationality provides the basis of scriptural authority?” ^[27]

Along the same lines, Paul Helm, among a collection of entries by some of the most respected biblical scholars of our day, claims that reason is no guide for evaluating the authenticity of a divine revelation. He labels such an approach as “externalism” and writes:

A more general defect of externalism is the supposition that there is some a priori standard of reasonableness that the Scriptures must meet and do meet. But who is to decide what this standard is? ^[28]

Who indeed but the person who is being called upon to obey the revelation, possibly even at the cost of his own life! This is precisely how Scripture has functioned for martyred saints throughout the ages. And God Himself has given the freedom, responsibility, and standards by which we are to judge the truth or divinity of a revelation.

Nonetheless, our application of the God-ordained place of human private judgment to the canon of Scripture requires several clarifying statements. First, we claim that a critique of the canon of Scripture is not a critique of the rightful place of God’s authority in our life, but rather, a critique of decisions made by men in the early Church. Because God has told no one the correct contents of Scripture, it is open to debate. As we have discussed more fully elsewhere:

Thankfully, God does not expect humans to recognize or respect divine revelation without divine authentication. One is reminded of Gideon who after receiving a divine mandate from an angel, repeatedly asked for confirmation of the source of the message (cf. Judg 6). And as we demonstrate elsewhere, God was never offended in the least with Gideon’s requests, and even provided an additional miraculous authentication of the revelation that Gideon didn’t ask for (cf. Judg 7:9-16). Like Gideon, we are not questioning God’s authority, but simply where that authority can be found. In other words, the suggestion that our reason must be used to recognize and interpret revelation from God does not usurp the authority of God.

For example, one may think of a captain in the army who receives written orders that claim to be from his general, commanding him to advance against the enemy and risk the lives of his men. No one would question the captain’s right and even responsibility to authenticate such a message, especially in a time of war when the enemy is constantly working to deceive (cf. 2 Cor 11:14). Far from showing disrespect for the authentic commands of his superior, the captain’s inquiry would actually show a great regard for that authority. ^[29]

Secondly, we insist that a God-honoring evaluation of the biblical canon requires a great deal of research that not all Christians are able and willing to do. We are not suggesting that Christians have the God-given right to reject documents that have been long and widely held to be Scripture on a mere whim. The issue must be their studied conviction regarding the historical evidence for whether or not the document was written by a divinely sent and authenticated individual. The reason that any Christian will pursue research on the canon of Scripture is to protect and promote its authority, not undermine it. Along these lines, the NT scholar William Sanday (1843-1920) wrote:

The certainty which springs from the absence of questioning and of search is a different thing from the certainty which comes after search and enquiry. And the latter kind of certainty is, we may be sure, the higher and better of the two. Belief which rests on grounds such as I have been describing touches the bottom; it feels the solid rock. Belief which rests upon [mere] authority [i.e. testimony/opinion of someone else] has always a certain amount of scaffolding between it and the base on which it stands; and the mind cannot help being haunted by the doubt whether that scaffolding is strong and firm enough to bear the weight thrown upon it. Will the authority itself bear the solvents of criticism?

But belief which has been itself tested by criticism–which comes out as the result of a critical process–cannot have any further solvent applied to it. Its anchor cannot drag. Its roots go down into the very constitution of the human mind. And the faith which springs from it has all that buoyancy and sense of freedom which comes from having no reserve–no weak place which one shrinks from putting to the proof.

The confidence which comes from the rigorous exclusion of opposing forces is one thing; that which comes from having met and fought and conquered them is another. The last alone is a healthy confidence; it alone carries with it the true assurance and elation of victory. ^[30]

While the average Christian need not be overly concerned with a thorough understanding of the issues surrounding the biblical canon, a Teacher and Bible scholar does.

However, the respected Reformed theologian Abraham Kuyper (1837–1920) wrote concerning the kind of harmful intellectual pride that can surround such matters:

[It is] not as though critical and historical examination were prohibited. Such endeavor for the glory of God is highly commendable. But as the physiologist’s search for the genesis of human life becomes sinful if immodest or dangerous to unborn life, so does every criticism of Holy Scripture become sinful and culpable if irreverent or seeking to destroy the life of God’s Word in the consciousness of the Church. ^[31]

Therefore, while questions regarding the biblical canon are acceptable, the unnecessary undermining of the authority of Scripture is sin.

Finally, anyone questioning the traditional biblical canon of a person belonging to a particular branch of Christianity (e.g. Romanism) must be very careful to exercise humility and love. Someone researching the topic may come to conclusions that differ from the tradition they have grown up in. Nonetheless, they must not prematurely press this matter, and they surely must not arrogantly flaunt their own freedom and conscience on this matter. This is the kind of “knowledge [that] puffs up” (1 Cor 8:1) if humility and love are not exercised. Many Christians will not be helped by insisting it is their individual responsibility to evaluate the canon of Scripture. If they are content to trust the beliefs of their spiritual tradition, then no one should deride their conscience on the matter.

Teachers of Scripture, however, need to study this topic more thoroughly as St. Augustine suggested. We believe they are expected to have a good understanding of the historical background of especially the NT documents and to come to their own conclusions regarding their apostolicity, and subsequent unique divine authority, especially for the purpose of defending their rightful authority.

D) Different Approaches to the Biblical Canon

If one is still unconvinced that the use of private judgment through historical research, is the foundational method of establishing the divine authority of the biblical canon, it may be helpful to discuss the other approaches that are suggested, noting their weaknesses.

D.4) Human testimony

First we will discuss the manner in which the vast majority of Christians come to believe that their Bible is the Word of God: people they trust have told them so. In other words, most Christians simply accept the testimony of their branch of Christianity without question. As discussed above, this is both understandable and acceptable as such Christians are simply responding to the God-ordained value and authority of human testimony ^[32] and have used their own private judgment to evaluate the opinion of their respected peers and decided to adopt it.

It is essentially because of the power of human testimony that Christendom essentially has two different Bibles. Scholars from both main branches of Christianity have studied the literary evidence and testimonies of Jewish and early Christian history to determine which writings our spiritual ancestors believed to be authored by supernaturally authenticated messengers of God. This is the fundamental method of how both Roman Catholic and Protestant Christianity have made the critical epistemological distinction between what documents will exercise divine authority, as opposed to those that have merely been written by humans.

Subsequently, most individual Christians in each branch of Christianity, exercising their God-given right and responsibility of private judgment, have accepted the testimony of their scholars and leaders, therefore granting these documents divine authority in their own lives.

D.2) God’s sovereignty

If people think a little deeper about why they trust the canon of their Bible, God’s sovereignty usually comes to mind. In other words, it is both understandable and popular to believe that God has sovereignly controlled which documents ended up in the Bible and we just need to trust this is so. Along these lines, J. I. Packer, one of our favorite Protestant theologians, writes: “As the Spirit gave the Word by brooding over its human writers [it lead] the church to recognize their books as its canon for belief and behavior.” ^[33]

This is admittedly an attractive approach to our trust in the biblical canon. However, it would seem we need to ask, which Church did God lead? The Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Syriac, and Protestant churches differ on what documents belong in the NT. ^[34] Therefore, it seems misplaced for someone today to claim God has uniquely guided the branch of Christianity they belong to.

In addition, it is not very well known that for many centuries an Epistle to the Laodiceans was printed in Bibles and circulated throughout the Church as written by the Apostle Paul until it was revealed by historical research as a fraud. ^[35] God’s sovereignty did not protect several generations from this human mistake, nor does it promise to protect us from other critical human mistakes.

Finally, we have passages in our NT that most scholars do not believe were in the original, and are therefore not divinely authoritative, including the last twelve verses of the Gospel of Mark and John 7:53-8:11. ^[36]

Of course God has been sovereign over all of these branches of Christianity and their Scriptures, but His sovereignty does not dictate or guarantee perfection. We would also say God has been sovereign over the Church’s copying of biblical manuscripts, the translation of the original languages into modern ones, and even its interpretations and teachings of those translations, but His sovereignty in such realms has not resulted in either unanimity or perfection as biblical manuscripts, translations, and interpretations have significantly differed. ^[37]

It should be recognized that even those who have decided to trust God’s sovereignty over the canonization of the Bible have done so with nothing more than their own private judgment. They of course have the right to do so as God has not directly and objectively prescribed the canon of Scripture. However, it should also be recognized that approaching the recognition of Scripture in this way (or any way) is nothing more than the exercise of the person’s private judgment to value a particular perspective more than others.

D.3) Self-authenticating Scripture

As introduced in chapter 3.1, many theologians claim that the divine authority of Scripture is “self-authenticating.” One of the more influential theologians of “self-authentication” was the founder of neoorthodoxy, ^[38] Karl Barth (1886-1968). In fact, “self-authentication” is perhaps the best one word description of the unique essence of neoorthodox theology. Accordingly, Dr. Barth wrote:

According to Holy Scripture God’s revelation is a ground which has no sort of higher or deeper ground above or behind it, but is simply a ground in itself, and therefore as regards man an authority from which no appeal to a higher authority is possible. ^[39]

Likewise, one of our favorite theologians, the Dutch Reformed Herman Bavinck wrote:

The authority of Scripture rests in itself and cannot be proven. Holy Scripture is self-attested and therefore the final ground of faith. No deeper ground can be advanced. To the question “Why do you believe Scripture?” the only answer is: “Because it is the word of God.” But if the next question is “Why do you believe that Holy Scripture is the word of God?” a Christian cannot answer. ^[40]

Likewise, others speak of the acceptance of Scripture as simply an unbiblical “leap of faith” that apparently doesn’t involve real reasons at all. The central problem with this is that, as we have clearly demonstrated elsewhere, God never expects us to believe anything without evidence, and we actually cannot and do not. ^[41] Faith without evidence is foolishness, not biblical faith, as God gives us sufficient reasons to believe everything He wants us to believe. Nonetheless, many take a fideistic approach to the biblical canon. ^[42]

As William Abraham notes, this epistemological shortcut is tempting:

In these circumstances [of debating our final ground of authority] it is obvious that one way to deal expeditiously with either the secular or Christian epistemologist in search of a criterion of justification is to think of the canon of Scripture as an epistemic norm [i.e. self-authenticating]. . . .

Treating Scripture as an epistemic norm has all the features of a godsend which will not just keep the epistemological watch-dog at bay; it can call up in its favor all the weight of Christian history which has resolutely insisted that Scripture is indeed a canon of the faith. In fact, the opponent may well be perplexed at the dexterity of this challenge, for, as we have seen, canon has an epistemological edge to its meaning, and there is no doubt that this move gives the deep appearance of being profoundly Christian. ^[43]

We would only contend, again, that the biblical canon must be reasonably established rather than blindly accepted. This was the epistemology of such men as Augustine, Luther, Edwards, Hodge, and Warfield as demonstrated above.

Nonetheless, the popular theologian Wayne Grudem writes:

[T]he words of Scripture are “self-attesting.” They cannot be “proved” to be God’s word by appeal to any higher authority. . . . If we ultimately appeal to human reason, or to logic . . . as the authority by which Scripture is shown to be God’s words, then we have assumed the thing to which we appealed to be a higher authority than God’s words and one that is more true or more reliable. ^[44]

What Dr. Grudem appears to be forgetting is that our conviction, understanding, and belief in Scripture comes through our “reason” and “logic.” If Scripture were not reasonable and logical we would rightly reject them as true—which demonstrates that subjectively, reason does exercise authority over Scripture- and anything else claiming the right to be accepted as our authority. Our reason and logic is not simply physical senses like our eyes that merely process the words of Scripture. On the contrary, God made our reasoning faculties to evaluate and judge what our eyes see, including Scripture. Accordingly, even Dr. Grudem ends up recognizing the ultimate authority of our reason when he writes a few sentences later:

How then does a Christian, or anyone else, choose among the various claims for absolute authorities? Ultimately the truthfulness of the Bible will commend itself [to what?] as being far more persuasive [by what means?] than other religious books, or than any other intellectual constructions of the human mind such as logic and human reason. It will be more persuasive [to what besides our reason?] because in the actual experience of life, all these other candidates for ultimate authority are seen to be inconsistent [by our reason] or to have shortcomings that disqualify them, while the Bible will be seen [by what?] to be fully in [logical?] accord with all that we know about the world around us, about ourselves, and about God [all knowledge through what else but reason?]. ^[45]

While Dr. Grudem wishes to denounce “intellectual constructions of the human mind such as logic, human reason” as our ultimate authority, all of his conclusions are based on judgments and evaluations performed by our God-given reason. The God-given place of our reason is simply inescapable.

Other critics of the God-ordained right and responsibility of private judgment over the canon of Scripture include NT scholar J. Ramsey Michaels who writes in a book sanctioned by a number of contemporary Evangelical Bible scholars:

The function of reason in relation to the Bible should not be to assess the ultimate validity of its claims to truth, but rather to discern the former and understand the content of the biblical revelation once its truth has been accepted by faith. ^[46]

In the same vein, I. Howard Marshall, a very respected British NT scholar writes:

Acceptance of the Bible as the inspired Word of God is a matter of faith [not based on reason or evidence]. Therefore, the claim that what the Bible says is true cannot be anything else than a statement of faith, which may or may not be ultimately justified. . . .

Problems particularly arise [when] the authority of Scripture has been placed on a lower level than that of the individual’s Christian judgment or of the Church. . . . [T]hey [should] function as subordinate authorities under the supreme authority of Scripture itself. Otherwise we are at the mercy of subjective opinions. . . . It is the Bible which is the Word of God and not our understanding of it. ^[47]

The question that needs to be asked of such men is this: Did God ever expect His people to heed a Prophet or Apostle simply by some reasonless “faith” without sufficient justification? Unfortunately, Professors Michaels and Marshall and those who would agree with them seem to be neither honest nor right. No one merely accepts without reasons that the Bible is the word of God. Rather, anyone who has any confidence that the Bible is from God has reasons and evidence on which their conviction is based.

This evidence may be merely the opinion of people in their church or family who testify to the divine authority of all the documents in our Bible. Nonetheless, God never expected His people to accept a Prophet or Apostle as genuine without using their reason to assess the ultimate validity of their claims to truth. God does not view the Bible differently and neither should we. As will be demonstrated elsewhere regarding biblical faith, it always has justifiable reasons. ^[48] Trusting the Scriptures is not a blind leap in the dark, but rather, certain evidence has given us reason to trust it. Anything else would be God-condemned foolishness, not God-pleasing faith.

Secondly, if we are speaking of foundational subjective authority, ^[49] that which really exercises influence over our lives, then contrary to Dr. Marshall, Scripture is actually subordinate to “the individual’s Christian judgment” because it must be at least accepted and interpreted by reason. Thirdly, surely Dr. Marshall would admit that we are all “at the mercy of subjective opinions” including himself. For example, one wonders how Dr. Marshall would explain his own interpretation of Scripture in which he believes it teaches that a real born again Christian can lose their salvation? ^[50] In this very case, this rightly respected NT scholar is “at the mercy of subjective opinion,” his “understanding” of Scripture is exercising authority and not Scripture itself, and, in our opinion, he is wrong.

Along the same lines, one could hardly find a greater denial of the God-given authority of private judgment than the following from E. J. Carnell, former Professor of Theology at Fuller:

The first thing to take note of is the fact that the standing witness of the Biblical text itself is that in both part and the whole it is objectively and plenarily [completely] inspired. The writers presume to speak with such commanding authority that to approach their judgment critically through criteria gained on non-Christian presuppositions is itself an act of sin. The conservative accepts the Biblical witness as true until it can be shown to be otherwise. ^[51]

We would agree with Dr. Carnell that to use reason to deny reasonably authenticated revelation is foolish and even sinful. However, it is a virtue rather than a vice to exercise critical judgment on the claim of a person or document to be such authoritative revelation. In addition, Dr. Carnell’s reason for accepting the biblical documents as divine revelation is that, “The writers presume to speak with such commanding authority.” This is terribly inadequate as the writers of many of the spurious documents produced in the early history of the Church made the same claim and impression. Finally, is not Dr. Carnell merely using his own private judgment to come to this conclusion?

The same tendency to deny the authority of reason can be found among presuppositional theologians ^[52]:

According to [Cornelius] Van Til, the proper method of defending the absolute authority of Scripture is that method which incorporates the notion of the absolute authority of Scripture in its foundational premise. Any method which does not proceed from the presuppositional basis of the absolute authority of Scripture involves a presupposition of human autonomy. Scripture must be taken as “self- attesting” if we are to avoid autonomous thinking. ^[53]

It needs to be recognized again that the reason Scripture seems true to anyone, including Dr. Van Til, is because his Spirit-liberated reason has evidences to accept it as such. We would suggest that we arrive at the same place as Dr. Van Til and other presuppositional theologians, but that we are simply more honest about the way we get there. ^[54]

D.4) “Testimony of the Spirit”

A third approach suggested as to how we recognize the divinity of a document is referred to as the “testimony of the Spirit.” This approach also would appear to bypass the need for any objective evidence, and rather, claims that the Holy Spirit directly tells us what documents or writings are divinely inspired. The problems with this approach, as discussed thoroughly in the next chapter (3.4), are that there is no biblical support for the idea, nor does it practically work. While the moral New Nature in us would certainly validate the moral commands of Scripture, how do we validate amoral doctrines such as Christ’s deity? Could an uninformed believer read the Roman Catholic Apocrypha and know by the direct revelation of the Spirit that they are not divinely inspired? It is not because of some lack of a “testimony of the Spirit” that Protestants have rejected the Apocrypha, but because of their exercise of private judgment and historical research.

Likewise, no regard for some “testimony of the Spirit” or God’s providence is recognized when, as mentioned above, NT scholars virtually unanimously agree that the last twelve verses of the Gospel of Mark are not Scripture. ^[55] It is because of research and reason that we can confidently conclude that these words in our Bible were not given by God, and therefore do not have God-like authority over our lives like the rest of Scripture. All of this is why we have insisted, as the Reformed theologian Charles Hodge did, that “it is the prerogative of reason to judge of the credibility of a revelation.”

So once again, we are back to the foundational subjective authority of human private judgment as the final arbiter of what we personally believe is Scripture. And in fact, this is by God’s design.

A related approach to authenticating the correct contents of Scripture to a “testimony of the Spirit” is recognizing their spiritually edifying effect. It is understandable that we would conclude the Bible’s documents as divinely inspired because of their effect on us. However, we would point out that mere affect is not a sufficient way to discern whether a communication is direct divine revelation from God through men, or merely the biblical thoughts of men. Have we not been similarly affected by Spirit-filled sermons and even some Christian books? And what would we do with the less edifying portions of our Bible? Doesn’t Romans feel more like something written by God than the Song of Solomon?

Along these lines, a founding theologian of Evangelicalism, Carl F. H. Henry (1913-2003), in his monumental work God, Revelation and Authority has written:

While inner (subjective) evidence for the canonical books may be useful, the question remains whether a sincere Christian left to himself would identify all or only our present twenty-seven New Testament books out of a larger selection of literature. Would he include all the canonical books and exclude all apocryphal books? Even pious men have at times questioned the canonical status of some of these writings. . . . Can the canonical works be discriminated solely in terms of one’s inner spiritual response?

[T]he Bible’s authority does not rest upon our experience of the truth of Scripture. Scripture does, indeed, manifest its power in inner experience, but this experience is not the basis and ground of its claim to be authoritative. Not only does such an appeal by-pass historical concerns [and evidence] crucial for the efficacy of the Bible, but it also confers upon other Christian literature [books, sermons, etc.] through which the Spirit may speak [only to some] a dignity equal to that of the Bible. ^[56]

D.5) All approaches ultimately depend on private judgment

Perhaps then, the value of promoting the God-ordained authority of private judgment in recognizing divine revelation is supported by the inadequacy of other approaches. Nevertheless, it needs to be admitted that these alternative approaches to recognizing divine revelation have been held by many people for a long time. This is why, regarding the use of private judgment on such a matter, the Reformed scholar John Gerstner, in reflecting the view of Jonathan Edwards, remarks:

[N]either Geneva [Calvinism], Canterbury [Anglicanism], nor Rome [Catholicism] likes this view. But what is wrong with a view which says, once the authority of the Bible has been established [by reason], it is to be obeyed [by reason]. ^[57]

Nevertheless, as we have mentioned all along, one thing to notice about all of the approaches to establishing the authority of the biblical documents mentioned above is that the foundation of all of them is private judgment. Even the rather meaningless approach of “self-authentication” is believed because people with reasons have decided that is why the Bible is authoritative for them. Likewise, this is the foundation of a belief that God sovereignly pieced the Bible together, as well. And recognizing the divinity of Scripture by its effects certainly is a matter of reason assessing evidence and making a determination.

Accordingly, the determination of the correct collection of Scripture has not been a matter of direct divine revelation from God, but rather, a matter of careful human research based on the historical evidence God has sovereignly preserved. Accordingly, it is because God has not granted a revelation of what documents are Scripture, that we suggest this is a matter of private judgment conducted by human research through our Spirit-controlled liberated reason.

Pastoral Practices

• Do you have a good and accurate understanding of how we have obtained an OT and NT? Do you know the history of their canonization? These are obviously important for the teacher of the Bible. Do not settle for superficial answers such as “God just gave it to us.” Pastors need to understand how.

Extras & Endnotes

Gauging Your Grasp

1) What does it mean to you that 2 Peter was not widely accepted as a NT document even 300 years after it was supposed to have been written? Or as Luther said, James was “rejected by the ancients”?

2) What is our approach to establishing the canon of the NT? What problems do you see with this approach?

3) What are other approaches to establishing the correct canon of Scripture? What problems do we see in them? Do you agree or disagree?

Recommended Reading

• For a good introductory study to the topic see F. F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture (Intervarsity, 1988).
• For a detailed discussion of the biblical canon see Book 16 of Knowing Our God.

Publications & Particulars

1. Bruce M. Metzger, The New Testament, Its Background, Growth, and Content (Abingdon Press, 1993), 273. Andrew Walls add in an introductory article to the popular Expositor’s Bible Commentary:

   The Greek word kanon means a “measuring rod.” The canon of Scripture thus represents the list of writings accepted as authoritative and binding. Any concept of Scripture (i.e., a recognition of divine revelation in a written form) ultimately implies the concept of a canon that identifies and enumerates those writings. (631) ↑

2. Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Zondervan, 1994), 54. Underlining added. ↑

3. For further discussion of the differences in biblical canons throughout the history of the Church see the forthcoming Book 16. ↑

4. In ancient Greek the word apokryphos originally meant “hidden,” “obscure,” or “secret.” By the second century, the word “apocryphal” was being used by Church Fathers such as Origen to denote religious literature, such as the counterfeit gospels of the Gnostics, which was inferior in authority to the Scriptures. By the time of the Protestant Reformation, the term Apocrypha was used to refer to a specific list of fourteen documents that the Roman Catholic Church appended to the OT at the Council of Trent (1545-1563).

   These documents included 1 and 2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, Additions to Esther, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch with the Letter of Jeremiah, Song of the Three Young Men, Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, Prayer of Manasseh, and 1 and 2 Maccabees. For further discussion see the forthcoming Book 16. ↑

5. Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History, trans. G. A. Williamson, ed. Andrew Louth, (Penguin Books, 1989), VI.25.8. (p. 202). ↑

6. “Eusebius,” in Who’s Who in Christian History, J. D. Douglas and Philip Comfort eds. (Tyndale House, n.d.) ↑

7. Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History trans. G. A. Williamson, ed. Andrew Louth, (London: Penguin Books, 1989), III. 3. (see Louth, 65-66). ↑

8. St. Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, I.22, online at http://www.ccel.org. ↑

9. Augustine accepted not only the twelve books of what we call the OT Apocrypha which is included in Roman Catholic Bibles, but also felt that:

   Two books, one called Wisdom and the other Ecclesiasticus [not our Ecclesiastes], are ascribed to Solomon from a certain resemblance of style, but the most likely opinion is that they were written by Jesus the son of Sirach. Still they are to be reckoned among the prophetical books, since they have attained recognition as being authoritative. (On Christian Doctrine, ii. 13). ↑

10. Luther’s Works, E. Theodore Bachman, ed., Vol. 35 (Concordia, 1960), 395-7. ↑

11. Ibid. ↑

12. Ibid. ↑

13. For a detailed study of the NT canon see the forthcoming Book 16. ↑

14. For further on the biblical authentication of those with the biblical gift of prophecy see chapter 9.11. ↑

15. Arthur W. Pink, Practical Christianity (Baker, 1974), 181. ↑

16. John Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, A. S. Pringle-Pattison ed. (Clarendon Press, 1967), IV.19.14, online at http://www.ilt.columbia.edu. ↑

17. John Locke, The Reasonableness of Christianity with a Discourse of Miracles, I. T. Ramsey ed. (Black, 1958), 80. (online at: http://www.setis.library.usyd.edu). ↑

18. Locke, Understanding, Book 4, ch. 18, part 10; ch. 19, part 14. It is unfortunate, that as William Abraham remarks, such a perspective is rare in Christian scholarship today and one must refer to Locke to find any serious discussion of it. ↑

19. John Gerstner, The Rational Biblical Theology of Jonathan Edwards, 3 vols. (Berea, 1991), I:51. ↑

20. Ibid. ↑

21. Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, 3 vols., reprint (Hendrickson, 2003), 77. ↑

22. Quoted by Norm Geisler in Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (BECA) (Baker, 1999), 336. ↑

23. William Abraham, An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion (Prentice-Hall, 1985), 83. ↑

24. Geisler, Apologetics, 38. ↑

25. For further discussion regarding the popular but unsubstantiated theory of a “testimony of the Spirit” to the authentication of Scripture see the next chapter, 3.4. ↑

26. Section 3.1.D. ↑

27. Alister McGrath, A Passion For Truth: The Intellectual Coherence of Evangelicalism (Intervarsity, 1999), 170. ↑

28. Paul Helm, “Faith, Evidence, and the Scriptures” in Scripture & Truth, D. A. Carson and John D. Woodbridge, eds. (Baker, 1992), 306. ↑

29. 3.1.D. ↑

30. William Sanday, The Oracles of God (Longmans, Green, 1891), 45, 81. ↑

31. Abraham Kuyper, The Work of the Holy Spirit, trans. By Henri De Vries, (Eerdmans, 1946), 64. ↑

32. For further discussion on the place of human testimony as a source for the evidence of our beliefs see section 2.5.D. ↑

33. J. I. Packer, Knowing Christianity (Harold Shaw, 1995), 37-8. ↑

34. For further discussion of this see Book 16. ↑

35. For further discussion on the Epistle to the Laodiceans see forthcoming Book 16. ↑

36. See D. A. Carson, Douglas Moo, and Leon Morris, Introduction to the New Testament (Zondervan, 1992), 102-04. ↑

37. This again brings up the important topic of God’s controlling sovereignty and His consenting sovereignty. The former are things which God directly dictates, causes, controls, and guarantees, the latter are things that He simply allows because they do not alter His ultimate plans. For example, Acts 17:26 indicates that God dictated, caused, controlled, and guaranteed when, where, and to whom we would be born, illustrating His controlling sovereignty. But God gives us the freedom to sin against His perfect will, coming under His consenting sovereignty. Even so, God will not allow our freedom, or something occurring under His consenting sovereignty, to thwart His ultimate purposes, or that within His controlling sovereignty. Not only is He big enough to know and plan for the choices we make, He is big enough to alter our choices so that while we may not act according to His perfect will, we will act according to His perfect plan. ↑

38. Neo-orthodoxy is a relatively complex theological perspective best known as the position Karl Barth (1886-1968) promoted. R. V. Schnucker relates in the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (EDT):

    Neo-orthodoxy . . . does not have the popularity it enjoyed earlier in the [20^th] century. Certain inherent elements have precluded its continuing influence. For example . . . its view of Scripture, “The Bible is God’s Word so far as God lets it be his Word” (Barth, Church Dogmatics, I/2, 123), has been seen as a rejection of the infallible sola Scriptura of conservative Protestantism. . . .

    Perhaps the greatest weakness within the movement has been its pessimism concerning the reliability and validity of human [even Christian] reason. [Its critics claim] If human reason cannot be trusted, then it follows that since neo-orthodoxy relied on human reason, it could not be trusted. (“Neo-orthodoxy,” [Baker, 1994], 756)

    Which is the same inevitable result of any philosophy or theology that degrades the God-given place of especially Spirit-liberated reason. ↑

39. Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, 5 vols., (T & T Clark, 1936-1977), vol. I, pt. 1, p. 350. ↑

40. Bavinck, 589. ↑

41. For further discussion of the fact that biblical faith is based on evidence and reason see chapter 6.12. ↑

42. For further discussion of fideism which is “faith” without reason see chapter 2.10. ↑

43. William J. Abraham, Canon and Criterion in Christian Theology: From the Fathers to Feminism (Clarendon, 1998), 102. ↑

44. Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Zondervan, 1994), 78. ↑

45. Ibid., 79. ↑

46. J. Ramsey Michaels, “Inerrancy or Verbal Inspiration?” in Inerrancy and Common Sense, Roger R. Nicole and J. Ramsey Michaels eds. (Baker, 1980), 68. ↑

47. I. Howard Marshall, Biblical Inspiration (Eerdmans, 1983), 51, 120-1, 124. ↑

48. For further discussion of the fact that biblical faith is based on evidence and reason see chapter 6.12. ↑

49. For further discussion of the concept of final subjective authority see section 3.1.C.1. ↑

50. See I. Howard Marshall, Kept by the Power of God: A Study of Perseverance and Falling Away, 2^nd ed. (Bethany House, 1974). ↑

51. E. J. Carnell, An Introduction to Christian Apologetics (Eerdmans, 1956), 196. ↑

52. For further discussion regarding presuppositional theology see section 2.12.D. ↑

53. R. C. Sproul, “The Case for Inerrancy: A Methodological Analysis” in God’s Inerrant Word, John Warwick Montgomery ed. (Bethany Fellowship, 1974), 246. ↑

54. Similar critiques could be made of other presuppositional theologians other than Van Til. For example, John Frame, in his Doctrine of the Knowledge of God (Presbyterian and Reformed, 1987), takes the presuppositional shortcut to establishing Scripture’s authority on pages 247-77, but had earlier recognized the importance of reason in receiving Scripture on page 71 where he writes:

    We must insist also that human interpretation [which depends on reason] is involved in any knowledge of facts [including those in Scripture]. We can have no knowledge of facts devoid of human interpretation, for knowing itself is interpretation. We have no access to reality apart from our interpretative faculties. To seek such access is to seek release from creaturehood.

    Likewise, Robert Reymond criticizes a reasoned approach to the authentication of Scripture by espousing a view that ultimately leads to full blown skepticism regarding all knowledge of humans (A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith [Thomas Nelson, 1998], 111-116). However, he admits elsewhere that, “men through the utilization of “ordinary means” may come to a knowledge of the truth of Scripture. What are these “ordinary means”? Simply the reading, hearing, and study of the Word” (88). While Dr. Reymond may disagree, we would suggest that here he is essentially saying that human reason is our subjective authority that at least dictates the interpretation of the truth we will receive from Scripture. ↑

55. See D. A. Carson, Douglas Moo, and Leon Morris, Introduction to the New Testament (Zondervan, 1992), 102-04. ↑

56. Carl F. H. Henry, God, Revelation and Authority (GRA), 6 vols. (Word, 1979), IV.420, 421, 423, 436-7. Underlining added. ↑

57. John Gerstner, The Rational Biblical Theology of Jonathan Edwards, 3 vols. (Berea, 1991), I.51-2. It is interesting to note that Dr. Gerstner is known to have been a very important mentor in the education of R. C. Sproul. However, while Dr. Gerstner seemed to advocate the right of private judgment as supported by Jonathan Edwards, Dr. Sproul endorses Mathison’s book which criticizes such an approach. ↑