How Do We Know What Books Belong in the Bible?

God didn't "list" his canon in the sense that he inspired a 67th book of the Bible called "Canon" that was inspired just like the books of the Bible. Instead, God's canon was an artifact of inspiration--the act of inspiring the books in the Bible created the canon (which is infallible because it is God's canon).

On the other hand we have man's fallible canon. Man's canon is not inspired, so it is not infallible.

I believe what R.C. Sproul and Dr. John Gerstner have said, "The Bible is a fallible collection of infallible books." The canon, because it is not inspired, is fallible, but the Bible itself is infallible.

Do I think Rome got the New Testament right? Yes. I recognize that when Rome wrote down what she thought the Canon was, she was fallible. It was a historical process. Now it's one thing to say the church could have erred with respect to the canon, and another thing to say the church did err. I think Rome got the NT canon correct, but I admit there is room for error in the NT canon--because the canon isn't inspired. I also believe it is correct because I believe God would have reason to give us a correct canon.

Now some may object that they find it scary that we don't have an infallible Canon.

It didn't seem to scare Jesus in Matthew 22:23-32 where Jesus held the Sadducees accountable to the Scriptures. He says "You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God...But about the resurrection of the dead--have you not read what God said to you...".

Jesus quotes Exodus 3:6 and holds the Sadducees accountable to it, who, I might add, did not have an infallible canon. How would the Jew in Jesus' day know the canon infallibly?

The Sadducees didn't say, "Hey no fair, that Scripture isn't binding on us, because we don't infallibly know if Exodus is canonical or not!" Jesus never told them, "Hey, in order for you to follow the teachings in Exodus, I also use my infallible powers to declare Exodus canonical so that you may follow the teachings in it."

It's also no scarier than what the Christian had always had up until 1546, when Rome "infallibly" defined the canon. Until then, there was no way to know the canon "infallibly."

So, I have sufficient knowledge of the canon. Not infallible knowledge of it. And I'm not "scared" because Jesus seemed to think that sufficient knowledge of the canon was all I needed.

But how can you say the Bible is infallible when you don't even know if the books in your Bible are correct?

This is a little like saying "I can't use my computer since I don't know exhaustively how it works."

Look, I don't need to know exhaustively how my computer works in order to claim to say that it works (although as a Computer Engineer I have a pretty good idea what's going on in there).

You may feel that Rome has some "advantage" concerning infallibility--the Church and the Canon are both infallible, in your eyes. Of course you have a problem--how do you know Rome is infallible? How do you know that the Mormons, who claim to have an "infallible magisterium" aren't the true church? On the other hand, how about the Jehovah's Witnesses who also have an "infallible magisterium"--are they the true church? Or maybe you looked at the Seventh-Day Adventists, whose "infallible interpreter" is Ellen G. White? Or perchance you looked into the Way International whose "infallible" founder's interpretation you need before you can understand the Scriptures correctly?

The bottom line is (1) you fallibly decided that there should be an infallible interpreter. (2) you fallibly used private interpretation of the Scriptures and history to conclude that there is an infallible interpreter. (3) you fallibly decided that Rome is that infallible interpreter while rejecting the tens of thousands of other competing authorities.

Now, is your canon infallible? Nope--and neither is mine.

But the Pope is Infallible!

Now herein lies the rub. A Roman Catholic has absolutely no problem accepting that the Pope is infallible when speaking on matters of faith and morals, yet when asked to show how they know this infallibly they respond with silence.

If you say that the Protestant must have an infallible list of books in order to say that the Bible is infallible, you'd better be prepared to provide an infallible list of Popes in order to say that the Pope is infallible.

Last modified about 10 months ago.