The Canon Question

“I would not have believed the gospel, unless the authority of the Church had induced me.” (St. Augustine, Contra Ep. Fund., V, 6.)

I. THE CANON QUESTION.

As Christians, how is it that we know we are saved by the death and resurrection of the incarnate Son of God? For those raised as Christians, the Sunday School sing-song answer “for the Bible tells me so” may come to mind, and this fairly well summarizes the Protestant teaching on the communication of saving truth. The Belgic Confession, an historical expression of the Reformed faith used widely in Dutch denominations, asserts that we know God by the beauty of creation, and “more openly by his holy and divine Word.” Continue reading...

Authority, Authority, Authority, Part II

2) The sola Scriptura position appears to have been reached by post hoc rationalization.

In my previous post, I discussed the difficulty I have in articulating a principled distinction between the Biblicist position and the confessional Reformed position vis-à-vis subjective interpretations of scripture. In this post I will consider another intellectual difficulty I face in remaining in the confessional Reformed camp.

Even if there is a principled distinction between the Biblicist and the confessional Reformed methods of interpreting Scripture, the latter position still seems to require post hoc rationalization to conclude that all revealed truth has been inscripturated into 66 books in the Bible.

Notice the two integral claims of the confessional sola Scriptura position, that a) all revealed truth has been inscripturated, and b) our confessions have the proper listing of books (i.e., canon). These are the sine quibus non of the Reformation -- that is, without these two claims being true, the Reformers would be mere dissidents, with no unifying claim to the possession of truth or authority. If these two truth-claims are to be the foundation of the believer's authority structure, binding his conscience above all else, they must be demonstrable and supportable. If they cannot be demonstrated, or are unsupported, then the entire system fails for want of authority to bind the conscience.

Complete Inscripturation.

To maintain the reformational position, the confessional Reformed must be able to articulate that God's revelations of absolute truth have been completed (i.e., have ceased), have been recorded in writing, and are to be reliably found no where else but the Bible. I have previously described why I see circularity in this position. Briefly stated, the critique with which I wrestle goes something like this: only Scripture contains revealed truth, but the claim that 'revealed truth is only in Scripture' is itself not in Scripture, so that claim is not a revealed one. The confessional Reformed may respond that this is a problem only for the Biblicist view. They may say (though I disagree that this is the Westminster Confession-al position) that their claim is actually that the early Church was reliable to determine truth, and it determined that only what is in the Bible is revealed truth, so that claim is reliable.

However, the early Church was far from clear on this matter of revealed truth having been completely inscripturated (see my reply to Keith Mathison's claim about this seminal matter here). Scripture itself seems to point in another direction (e.g., 2 Thes. 2:15, "So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings [traditions] we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter."). The irony, then, is that complete inscripturation is the opposite conclusion of what one might reach from a plain reading of Scripture.

Canon.

The Canon Question seems like a deeper example of the problem of necessary extra-biblical truth claims in the sola Scriptura paradigm. Obviously, the 66-book canon is not revealed within a book of the Bible, so one must look to an external, or extrabiblical source of truth to determine which books contain revealed Truth.

When I first heard the Catholic critique of sola Scriptura, I was intrigued by the claim that without a visible Church possessed of divinely-granted authority, the canon could not reliably be defined. My intrigue turned to dismay when I could not get a uniform answer from Reformed pastors and scholars as to why we have the 66 books we have. I was not dismayed that there were no answers, but rather that there were a variety of theories explaining why the 66-book canon is right. That rationales have been derived from a common conclusion (i.e., our particular 66 books) evidences post hoc rationalization.

Here are various rationalizations of the common conclusion with which I am familiar:

1. Our 66 books are in the Bible because the inward work of the Holy Spirit bears witness in “our” hearts (WCOF).


2. Our O.T. books are those which were accepted by the Jews in Hebrew in the early Church era.


3. Apostolic authorship determines N.T. canonicity.


4. Our N.T. books are those which received widespread acceptance by the early church, which was divinely reliable in its conclusions until the 4th century.


5. Under the Lutheran variant of #4, we have a homolegoumena (universally accepted books) for establishing dogma , and an antilegoumena (disputed books, e.g., Jude or Revelation) to corroborate disputed dogmatic claims.

I believe that each of these variants has problems and inconsistencies (i.e., that each one might not reach the same 66-book conclusion under its own terms if strictly applied). However, the larger point to make here is that the use of a plurality of rationales (justifications) evidences that a bedrock reformational truth-claim (that our 66 books contain revealed truth and none others) -- the only truth-claim able to bind the Protestant's conscience -- is reached through post hoc rationalizations. Why is it that we can debate infant baptism under the terms of sola Scriptura, but not debate whether Jude belongs in the Scripture's corpus? Why is the meaning of communion open for discussion, but not the placement of Ecclesiastes in Holy Writ? What is the principled distinction between a debate over the truth of a doctrinal matter, and a debate over the truth of the listing of canon?

If the rationale that informs us that we have 66 books containing the complete inscripturation of God's revelations cannot bind our consciences (because there isn't one rationale at all), then neither can the conclusion. And if the conclusion can't bind our consciences, then the matter of canonicity seems like Protestant fair game for debate.

(To be continued...)

Authority, Authority, Authority

Zrim and I recently interacted in some posts at De Regnis Duobus. We got to discussing authority and the church, at which point he asked about my wrestling with a particular Protestant via media, "yours is a more specific quest to find the via media between T0 and T2/3? Is it that T1 is not good enough or that you are trying to unpack T1 in order to understand it?" I replied in part, but would like to do so more fully here.

The "T0", "T1", and "T2/3" scheme to which Zrim refers is that presented by Keith Mathison in his The Shape of Sola Scriptura (I have previously discussed that book in a series here, here, here, and here). Stated simply, "Tradition Zero" is shorthand for the Biblicist position on revelation and authority, and "Tradition Two" is shorthand for Catholic and Orthodox positions allowing for two repositories ("sources") of revelation, one the Scriptures, and one the Church's Tradition (T3 is a later variant of T2). "Tradition One" is the magisterial Reformed position that strikes the proper middle way (via media), the argument goes, on authority and revelation.

I have had (now years) of ongoing difficulty defending that there is this logical middle way between individualism and authoritarianism in church structure. The following are my thoughts:

1) I find it difficult to articulate a principled distinction between the confessional (magisterial) Reformed position and the Biblicist position.

I previously described the Biblicist position as a belief that all revelation is contained within the Bible, and that there is no authority apart from the good Book itself. This is a subjective system that says "no creed but Christ, no book but the Bible" (which, as I have previously noted, is itself a creed).

While it has several variations, I will address the confessional (magisterial) Reformed position as articulated by Mathison, as I believe it is a fair archetype. This position is a belief that "Scripture was the sole source of revelation; that it was the final authoritative norm of doctrine and practice; that it was to be interpreted in and by the Church; and that it was to be interpreted according to the regula fidei [(rule of faith)]" (Mathison at 256).

I think the claimed distinction, which is necessary to avoid the criticism of individualism, is this: the Biblicist reads his Bible subjectively and individualistically, so making up his own interpretation as he goes, whereas the confessional Reformed reads the Bible in the light of Reformed teaching, giving himself over to its tenets. I will examine this distinction in practice and in theory.

In practice, this seems like a fair distinction. The Reformed man teaching his family the Gospel will do so generally in accordance with the Reformed faith whereas the Biblicist will feel at liberty to handle the texts of Scripture as seems fitting to him (subjectively). However, my experience with "Biblicists" has been that they do actually submit themselves to a tradition (something objective) when handling the Bible, often the Baptist free-church position. This tradition has a feel to it that is often characteristic of "unaffiliated" Christian charitable and missionary organizations. When one is with these Christians, there is a certain presumptive way to discuss the faith and to handle the Scriptures. They may have a lesser quantum of deference to objective materials (like formal confesssions or the opinions of venerable scholars), but they still do not pick up their Bible with a traditionless tabula rasa. They are not the proverbial man isolated on a tropical island, never having seen a Bible until one washes up on the beach. Their objective standard is simply less articulated, historical and rigorous.

And on the other side of this 'in practice' coin, I observe a lack of Reformed-minded people reading their Scriptura with much deference to the objective distinctives of the Reformed faith. Individualism seems the norm in American Reformed churches. I know of one (non-PCA) pastor teaching on "the five points of Calvinism" receiving almost no interest from the congregation. I remember visiting one PCA church where I was asked by a regular, "what's the PCA?" I was once a member of another that had baptistic (Baptist?) elders. I doubt those of the larger PCUSA are more commonly found reading their Bibles "with the Church" under a confessional Reformed light. The Tradition One-er may be partly in the imagination. At any rate, while I am comfortable granting that the confessional Reformed are less (or even much less) subjective in their handling of the Bible, this is not a distinction of principle, so much as one of degree. And the degree may not be so large.

In theory, the distinction between the two camps is harder for me to see. Today's Reformed subscriber may read his Bible with deference to an objective system (the Reformed confessions and scholarly teachings), but that system lacks an objective lineage. Just because many today give deference to opinions of the past does not mean those opinions were not reached individualistically. (A claim of a Holy gift of truth given to historical consensus or to present majority consensus would make for a conversation worth holding.) Using Mathison's verbiage, I would say the Reformed version of the regula fidei, by which Scripture is to be interpreted, is not an originally objective criterion, but an originally subjective one, having been made the subject of opinions five centuries ago. It is thus an objective system subjectively reached. If that is so, while we are many generations removed from the problem, we are no different in principle from the hypothetical Biblicist. I should note that something being "subjective" does not make it inherently bad, just as something that is "objective" is not inherently good. But for comparison purposes, if one is characterized by subjectivism (so individualism), so is the other, at least at its roots.

Take an example: if the Jimmy Stewart Fan Club only listened to music that Mr. Stewart is known to have admired, we would have an objective system subjectively reached. Anyone picking tunes for a fan club meeting knows what tunes are approved for listening (so objective), but the tunes that Mr. Stewart liked were textbook subjective matters of his taste. The tunes wouldn't be inherently good, only inherently tunes Jimmy Stewart liked. Likewise, while I may subscribe to a clearly articulated system, and may allow that system to inform my reading of Scripture, someone at some point in history had to have created such a system from their subjective (individualistic) reading of Scripture (e.g., "Calvinism" and "Lutheranism"). However, there's a big "or" that could go here: or the confessional Reformed has to claim that their reading of the Bible, their objective system, is the true and original (objective) regula fidei from Christ that had been lost from about the year 400 until 1520 or so. I believe that the Reformed system contains at least some novelty by Calvin and his peers (e.g., Calvin thought that he was taking Augustine's views on Predestination to their natural conclusions), so it does not have objectively evidenced objective lineage throughout the history of Christianity -- it contains at least some subjective conclusions.

I see another point of commonality between the confessional Reformed position and the Biblicist position in their theories. This commonality is that the individual believer is ultimately (not penultimately) bound to his conscience's interpretation of Scripture. So his deference to an objective system reaches its limit when the reader's conscience conflicts. To put it another way, the confessional Reformed system is objective until its subjective limit (or trump, or governor, etc.) has been reached. In that case, subjectivism necessarily prevails (though one could go a lifetime without this happening, of course). If the subjective conscience of the believer does not hold a trump over the Reformed articulation of the regula fidei, one has to contend with one's justification for the Reformation itself. That is because the Reformation was built on the sentiment ascribed to Luther at the Diet of Worms, "Unless I am convicted by Scripture and plain reason--I do not accept the authority of popes or councils, for they have contradicted each other--my conscience is captive to the Word of God." Clearly conscience, the conscience of each individual, holds the trump.


Those are my thoughts on the lack of principled distinctions. The Biblicist does not read the Bible without his own "Tradition", the confessional Reformed often reads his Bible without deference to his own "Tradition", these traditions are not without subjective, individual interpretations of Scripture at their origins (unless you grant that the Reformed regula fidei is what was delivered by Christ), and in either case, the individual's conscience holds the ultimate trump over allegedly objective doctrines which demand deference. For these reasons, the confessional Reformed position seems to lack a principled distinction from the Biblicist 'Tradition Zero' position.

(To be continued...)

Protestant Conversions Critique: Sola Scriptura

[This continues a previous post.] Mr. Hagopian continues his efforts at helping "Protestants to come to grips with the reasons why [ ] Neocatholics have set their compasses toward Rome" (internal citations omitted), by turning to the relation of tradition to Scripture.

Sola scriptura. Mr. Hagopian's says that "Neocatholics not only appeal to apostolic succession and to the antiquity of the Roman Catholic Church; they also claim that Scripture was never intended to be the believer's sole guide for all of faith and practice"; they claim they need Scripture and tradition. Christ left a church, not a book, their argument goes, and the very act of defining a canon "requires and presupposes an infallible church."

While the Canon Question shook me from my Sola Scriptura upbringing more than any other, Hagopian dismisses it in two sentences which each repeat the same thought: "The church didn't create Scripture; it simply recognized" its divine character. The Neocatholics are guilty of failing to distinguish between recognition of Holy Writ and its creation.

Frustratingly, he offers no explanation of why this distinction is relevant. It is not evident why an infallible church, which would be required to produce infallible Writ, would not also be required to produce an infallible identification of Holy Writ. Would Mr. Hagopian agree with Reformed theologian R.C. Sproul's conclusion that the Bible is a "fallible collection of infallible books"? Would he agree with Protestant Keith Mathison's view that the church was authoritative to define canon, but only until the 4th century (see The Shape of Sola Scriptura)? In terms of needing an infallible authority, I think writing Scripture and recognizing it is a 'distinction without a difference.' I discussed various Protestant views on the Canon Question here.

Having summarily dismissed that the Church was needed to identify canon infallibly, he turns to the need for the church as an interpretive authority. A Neocatholic analogy here, that the church is needed to interpret something as complex as the Bible because even our simple Constitution needs a Supreme Court to interpret it, is also summarily dismissed. The Supreme Court has "arrogated" (assumed without justification) powers to itself, and become a judicial tyrant. He then implies that the Catholic Church has done the some, and become an ecclesial tyrant. Besides his curt dismissal of one analogy, he does not take up the Neocatholic belief that the Church is somehow needed to interpret Scripture. This is unfortunate. What is one to do when one's interpretation of a biblical text, say on a matter like divorce, does not line up with that of his church? Change churches? Sit unhappily in dissent?

Finally, he takes up the charge of the Neocatholic that "the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura leads necessarily to an "incipient subjectivism"" (citation omitted) because each man becomes his own individual interpretive authority. This position "is riddled with error", I am reassured, because it relies on the "fallacious assumption that a plurality of interpretations necessarily entails subjectivism." The "many interpretations competing in the Protestant marketplace of ideas" are not all false. Indeed, "[t]hey can't all be false, since we know that Christianity is true."

Mr. Hagopian is certainly right that some individual Protestants' interpretations of Scripture are objectively true, even if subjectively derived. I believe his implication is that a group of people (in this democracy of ideas) will be able to corporately identify an objective truth. But this is of little moral comfort for the millions of Protestants whose individual interpretations of Scripture lead them, say, to use contraception or have themselves sterilized. Does the open marketplace of ideas excuse their morally erroneous conclusions? (Note: I am assuming ex arguendo that contraception is objectively immoral.)

He next denies that there is objectivity in Tradition. Rather, he says, Catholicism is at best a system of replacing the individual's subjective views with the subjective views of one man, the Pope, or perhaps a few men, the Magisterium. This, of course, presupposes that the Catholic claims of receiving infallible direction and guidance from the Holy Spirit are false. With the likes of John 14:26 in mind ("But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you"), I wonder if this is a completely fair denial to make.

Mr. Hagopian's discussion on Sola Scriptura continues, but I will wrap it up by noting that without his admitting the possibility that the Holy Spirit could preserve a visible, actual Church, the conversation is a bust. He rejects the Sacred Tradition of Catholicism because it invariably tends to displace Scripture. By displacing Scripture with Tradition, the Neocatholics have accepted that Scripture is not necessary. But this position falls apart if one accepts that the Holy Spirit may work within a Church in ways other than through Scripture alone, if one accepts that Christ's authority could have passed to a visible, actual Church, and not to certain preserved writings alone.

This serves as yet another reminder to me of how vital it is that ecumenical discussions burrow down into the foundational layers of dispute. To bash our opponent-brothers over our surface differences may be to aggravate our divisions, and further offend the will of Christ expressed in John 17: "I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me."

Mathison on the Church Fathers

Much has been written about Keith A. Mathison's The Shape of Sola Scriptura (for example, one blogger wrote this). I previously noted that Mathison describes one of five theories I've heard of the canon rationale churches follow to reach a 66-book canon. Mathison expresses that the church was authoritatively (though not infallibly) reliable in identifying canon, but only until the fourth century, at which point it become corrupt. Thus the Reformation, properly understood, merely recaptured the early church's purity.

I am struck by the fact that his work has been so well received and highly praised within my Reformed circle. Indeed, the book was given to me by a Reformed pastor as an antidote to the confusion I experienced from the likes of Catholic apologists (I noted this in a recent comment). It is striking simply because his theory may not be in conformity with the Westminster Confession. The Confession notes that while "[w]e may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture," "our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit..." (Chapter 1, Section V). Contrariwise, Mathison relies on the true church abiding under the regula fidei to determine canon and articulate the doctrines relating thereunto.

Admittedly, it is difficult to sum up his book so briefly, and I've probably done a poor job of it. He covers a great deal of territory and makes many controversial claims (what isn't controversial within Christianity?). I do recommend that you read him before you accept any of my compliments or criticisms. That said, I'd like from time to time to post on his interpretation and analyses of certain Church Fathers, and will refer back to this as a prefatory post. If you have read it, I hope some subsequent posts can spark fruitful discussion on the merits of his analysis.

The Canonicity of Esther

Taylor Marshall over at Canterbury Tales has a challenge for Protestants: why is Esther Canonical? A better than average discussion follows (for Blogs touching on Catholic-Protestant debates).

I have been re-reading R. Laird Harris' Inspiration and Canonicity of the Scriptures: An Exegetical and Historical Study. I believe it expresses a normative PCA view, as it is written by an ordained PCA minister and career Covenant Theological Seminary (PCA) professor, who was also a charter member of the NIV translation committee. From his discourse, I have not been persuaded that there is a good reason to include Esther in the Canon.

I believe the party line is as follows: 1) what was considered to be canon at the Temple in Jerusalem would be normative/definitive for all Jews at the time of Christ, 2) the Jewish canon at the time of Christ should be our O.T. canon, 3) omissions of Esther from the oldest extant list of canon (Melito) was possibly by mistake, 4) the later testimony of Josephus (Jewish scholar), Jerome and Origen (both of whom studied under Jewish scholars) indicates Esther was accepted with the "Prophets" texts in the Jewish canon, so 5) Esther is canonical. As reinforcement (or a substitute argument), 6) those books referred to directly or by category by Christ in the N.T. are canonical, 7) and since Christ referred to the "Prophets" category, and Esther is likely in that category, it is canonical.

I really struggle with his reasoning and these arguments overall, and would appreciate hearing from anyone who can back it up.

First, this suggests that the Jews at the Temple in 90 A.D. [for the canon was not actually formed at Christ's arrival even in Jerusalem, but was only later settled] have the authority to definitively define canon. Since the Protestant says we cannot trust (or do not need) Christian authority to define canon, why am I to trust the Jews of Jerusalem after Christ's death?

Second, I fail to grasp why we should accept the rule I've given under #6 and #7 above over a rule that says 'if Christ and the Apostles quoted the N.T. in Septuagint, then the Septuagint is more reliable than what the Temple Jews of 90 A.D. thought'. [The Septuagint has the Apocrypha/Deuterocanon - think about that!]

Third, Harris leans very much on early writing by those who studied under Palestinian Jews, so were naturally persuaded by their view of canon, and denies that other early church fathers' testimony points otherwise than the accounts of Origen, Jerome and Josephus (re: their not including the Apocrypha/Deuterocanon). One doesn't have to search far on Google to find evidence to the contrary.

This is a complex issue, so I am amply prepared for reproof.

Lutheran Canon

I am enjoying an excellent discussion with Josh S. over at Return of the Prodigal Blogger (the author of which is going on hiatus). Do check it out.

Josh gave a brilliant explanation of the Lutheran approach to canon, saying they follow "the old scholastic rule of establishing dogma on the homolegoumena (universally attested books), only corroborating it with antilegoumena (books disputed in the early church, such as Revelation and Jude), and reading the Apocrypha as useful histories and moral examples rather than chief source of dogma..." He juxtaposes this view with "Trent's "flat canon," which is perpetually cracking under the stress of historical investigation and required the invention of papal fiat in order to buttress it.""

My interpretation of Josh's explanation of Lutheran Canonicity, in terms of authority, goes as follows: 1) we are bound to follow the writings of the Apostles, 2) we accept those writings that the early church universally accepted as Apostolic, such that we can form dogma from them, and 3) what some early churches did not acknowledge, we will not use in the formation of dogma.

My thoughts and remaining questions on this are posted in the comments string as linked above. I hope the richness of Josh's knowledge keeps unfolding there!

Reformed Answers To Discernment Q's

As promised, this is what I believe to be the Reformed answer to the discernment questions posted below. I am most open to correction. WCOF is short for the Westminster Confession of Faith, the confessional standard of Presbyterian churches in this country, at least historically. I'm curious how Pentecostal, Baptistic and other denominational churches would answer these questions.

1) Is there authority or not within the church?
Christ has given the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God to the visible church, which consists of all those throughout the world who confess the true religion, and their children. He gave this power for the gathering and perfecting of the saints. Outside the church visible there is no salvation. This church is under Christ alone, and not the Pope (WCOF, Ch. XXV).

Church officers are appointed by Christ to govern the church. To them are committed the keys of the kingdom; they can shut out those who do not belong. They can censure, discipline, and excommunicate to seek purity within the church (WCOF, Ch. XXX). The strongest authority exists within the church.

2) If so, who gave the church that authority? If not, where then lies the rule of faith?
That authority comes to the church officers from Christ, through the words of scripture (WCOF, Ch. XXX).

3) Was authority with the Apostles, and did they pass on this authority?
The Apostles were granted authority by Christ in the way that today’s church officers are granted authority. There's was not a continuing office, but a special foundational one. The apostles passed on no authority; all authority is with Christ.

4) If so, did they pass it to men or to their written words?
They did not have authority to pass on. Christ and the Holy Spirit hold Authority, and with authority God breathed the Scriptures through the Apostles, as well as other men, to be the Rule of Faith for those church officers who today are appointed by Christ to govern the church.

5) What authority permitted a definition of Canon, and why are the books therein contained beyond question?
No earthly authority was needed to permit the canon’s definition. Rather, the books in the Bible are beyond question because the Westminster Divines considered the matter and concluded that those 66 books in the Protestant bible are canonical. They noted that while the 66 books’ many perfections, excellencies and consistency are evidence enough, their "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 [their] hearts” (WCOF Ch. I.5).

In questions of interpreting scripture, the infallible rule of interpreting scripture is scripture itself (WCOF Ch. I.9).

What Authority Permitted Canon Formation?

This is the final answer to my five questions, as I answered it a while ago in my discernment. I will soon try to give Reformed answers to these questions as best as I am able.

5) What authority permitted a definition of Canon, and why are the books therein contained beyond question? Here is an exhausting topic.

The Catholics and Orthodox simply answer that the Church has the authority to define canon. It is interesting to note that the various Orthodox churches have varied canons.

The Protestant churches have used several explanations. I know of four methods (i.e., canon rationale) for arriving at the Protestant list of 66 books.

1) The Westminster Confession of Faith states that "our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority [of Scripture], is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts." This is the reformation's canon rationale; we know Scripture when we see it. I sheepishly admit that when I read Revelation and Ecclesiastes, I tend to doubt this inner-testimony doctrine.
2) Prof. R. Laird Harris of Covenant Theological Seminary, in his book Inspiration and Canonicity of the Bible, downplayed the reformation claim as described in The Westminster Confession of Faith, and instead promotes a theory of historical-critical analysis to determine which texts belong in the Bible. Suffice it to say that Canon has been so hotly contested throughout church history that it is not self-evident or even self-identifying. It is not clear what the Jews had for a Canon at the time of Christ’s birth (if such a notion even clearly existed), nor is it clear that Josephus and early Hebrew scholars of the church were not heavily influenced by anti-Christian sentiment within Judaism, particularly against the Christian use of the Septuagint to prove that Christ is the Messiah.
3) Prof. Harris also promotes a view, and I don't know if it is better to refer to this as a complementary or a fall-back argument, that canonicity is determined by Apostolicity. Mark and Luke wrote for Peter and Paul, the argument goes, so are also Apostolic, and thus canonical. James could have been written by the Apostle himself, or by the "brother" of Jesus who is given a special status as an Apostle, the argument goes, such that either way this epistle also should be canonical.
4) Keith A. Mathison, in The Shape of Sola Scriptura, argues that the church was authoritatively reliable in choosing a canon, but only until the fourth century, at which point corruption made it unreliable.

We must concede either that some visible Church authority is responsible for defining a Canon for Christians, or that each individual has to read and reflect upon candidate Holy Books and the history of their acceptance to determine which he might choose as his own rules for normative and moral faith. Authority rests either with the church or the individual. A properly constituted and commissioned Authority is required to define canon, or else we are left with the depressing tailspin noted by R.C. Sproul, that the Bible is a "fallible collection of infallible books." Try explaining that to our relativistic world.

Since the Apostles themselves were not around to define the list of books to be included in Sacred Scriptures, their successors must have. I am loathe to admit this.

However, remember my earlier comment on the Sherlock Holmes inverse analysis. Even if all arguments cut in Catholicism's or Orthodoxy's favor but one, and that one is clearly wrong, those Churches must be wrong. It must mean I've been mistaken about everything else.

Authority: Does the Buck Stop There?

When my efforts at discernment began over three years ago, no single argument rocked my deep-seated confidence in the claims of Reformed Protestantism as did an argument on Authority, and particularly the Authority to identify Scripture as canonical. Three pages written on this topic by a convert to Catholicism have been more compelling than several books I have read to date by Protestant theologians . In an effort to keep clear that which I was trying to discern, I developed the questions posted yesterday, which I felt all Christians should be able to answer with a clear conscience.

This sequence of thought seems to be the requisite starting point for any ecumenical Christian theological discussion. Those Catholic doctrines that are more commonly, if not hotly, debated, such as the Marian Doctrines, Transubstantiation, Purgatory, Indulgences, Prayers to the Saints, etc., are merely subordinate to the primary debate of reliable Authority.

I would qualify this, however, by quoting Sherlock Holmes, "Watson, as I have said, whenever all other possibilities have been ruled out, the improbable, however unlikely, must be the truth." Applying an inverse of this logic, I remember that even if all arguments cut in Rome's favor but one, and that one is clearly wrong, Catholicism must be wrong. It must mean I've been mistaken about everything else.