Adam Gonnerman                                                                                                                                             IgneousQuill.

com

The Canon Of Scripture:

Inspired by God, Collected by the Churches

Adam W. Gonnerman © 2002; 2005

This paper may be freely copied and used for scholarly and educational purposes without the direct consent of the
writer, so long as this copyright notice is included in its entirety.

Introduction
Somehow, even after nearly two millennia of debate and study, a pernicious notion has persisted
within Christendom. The monarchial episcopacy by way of church councils, so we are told, put the
canon of Scripture together. Therefore, the church has authority over the Scripture. The Roman
Catholic Church has long made this claim, one that was taken up – though with other motives – in the
19th century by some higher critics of the Scriptural text. A related but distinct doctrine held by
Orthodox churches is that the episcopacy (with apostolic succession) and the Scripture belong to one
holy tradition. Even in this latter view we can see the Scripture put at a certain disadvantage. In this
brief paper it is this writer’s intention to explain in as clear and simple a fashion as possible the
errors connected with a canon of Scripture subordinate to human authority, and how history does not
defend such a position. Above all, the intention herein is to affirm the authority of God over Scripture,
and the Scripture over the church.

Inspired by God
To begin, whether a text of writing is sacred Scripture or not, inspired by God, is a fact independent of
any human agency.

“But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, for no
prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from
God” (2 Peter 2:20-21 Updated NASB).

To any honest student of Scripture, the above passage should make the issue rather clear. No true
prophet ever wrote of his own will or dependent upon himself, but rather was “moved by the Holy
Spirit” to speak the oracles of God. Thus, even before or without being recognized by men as sacred
and from God, it is still God’s Word. Furthermore, it is by this Scripture that we are to recognize the
truth and identify error.

“All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in
righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy
3:16-17 Updated NASB).

The Scriptural Method

Adam Gonnerman                                                                                                                                             IgneousQuill.com

In the first century church, Christians did not have the luxury of leather bound, gilt-edged Bibles
complete with maps and concordances (or even chapters and verses). The Old
Testament canon was available in a limited fashion, and the apostolic epistles and other writings
circulated between the local churches. Often one copy was made by hand for the congregation and
the letter was then passed along to another. Aside from these hand-written epistles, those early
Christians also had prophets among their number that spoke, from time to time, the word of God to
that congregation.

In the case of local prophets, there appears to have been a divinely ordained system in place to
safeguard the church from false doctrine spoken by alleged prophets:

“Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others pass judgment”
(1 Corinthians 14:29 NASB).

Whenever a supposed prophet spoke to a congregation the others judged his teaching. Presumably
this judgment was based on what the church already knew to be the apostolic teaching. As the
apostolic epistles circulated and accumulated in the churches the basis for evaluation increases, but
the need for the prophetic office diminished. After all, once the body of Christian teaching was
completely delivered (Jude 1:3), what further need could there be for prophets?

In any case, in this process of judging the words of prophets we can see perhaps what was intended
to happen over time within the church with regard to the canon of Scripture. As has already been
mentioned, religious writings of a wide variety were making the rounds of the churches. Some
claimed apostolic origin, others made no such claim but seemed scriptural, and in general some
confusion existed as to which writings were authoritative and which were not.

Recognition Happened Naturally

Into the scene now steps a man named Marcion. A wealthy young merchant of Pontus, Marcion
fellowshipped with the church in Rome until 144 A.D. when his Gnostic beliefs become public
knowledge. At that point he was excommunicated.

“To substantiate his claim to represent pure apostolic teaching, Marcion drew up a list of canonical New Testament books that were 
genuine Scripture” (North 56).

Marcion’s intention was clearly not merely to identify many Scriptural writings in a definitive fashion,
but also to limit claims of inspiration and authority only to those books on his list.

“This list [of Marcion] was fine, except it suggested that they were the only accepted Christian Scriptures. To defend the authority of other 
writings as well, the Roman church had to come up with its own list to counter the list of Marcion” (North 57).
Adam Gonnerman                                                                                                                                             IgneousQuill.com

In order to advance personal theological agendas, heretics generally realize that the most direct
route is to attempt to hijack the Scriptures. Joseph Smith, Jr. tried as much with his Book of Mormon
and later “prophecies.” The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of the Jehovah’s Witnesses took a
different but similar route to corrupting the Scriptures by mistranslating specific passages that reflect
poorly on its present doctrine. These and other modern examples are repetitious of what has been
done since ancient times.

The reaction of the early church to this challenge was relatively prompt. The church at Rome
composed its own list, one that did not include all 27 of the books that we generally accept
nowadays, but certainly one that was more complete than that of Marcion. In fact, it actually included
three books that the present canon does not: Revelation of Peter, Wisdom of Solomon and The
Shepherd of Hermas (though this last book was indicated for private use and not public worship)
[Shelley 67].

“This development [Marcion’s list and that of Rome] led to the creation of numerous lists, as Christians in various places began the 
serious task of coming to a consensus as to which books were to be considered scriptural” (North 57).

Someone once commented that were it not for error, believers could be lax in their study of the truth.
Whether or not this is correct, it is clear that the threat of falsehood has frequently and fortunately
spurred believers to action, forcing them to think deeply on the faith they claim.

The early churches – local congregations – undertook the daunting but necessary task of perceiving
which writings were truly of divine origin, and which were not.

“The NT canon was formed spontaneously, not by the action of church councils. The inspiration and intrinsic authority of each individual 
book were the determining factors in their eventual recognition and canonization. By A.D. 200 the NT contained essentially the same 
books as we have today. These were regarded with the same authority and finality by Christians then as they are now” (Unger 684).

Possibly someone might argue that this process of recognition constitutes the church as a whole
“creating” the canon. Certainly there seems to be someone willing enough to defend even the most
unusual positions these days. On the contrary, that groups of Christians spread far apart from one
another, living in an age without rapid communication or travel, could reach such a close consensus
on which books belong in the canon only demonstrates the correctness of the universal recognition.
The evaluation and listing of scriptural books by individual, autonomous churches (prior to the
proclamation of any church council) bear witness both to the veracity of the present canon and the
sanctity of the independent congregation.

“In one sense, of course, Christians created the canon. Their decisions concerning the books were a part of history. In another sense, 
Adam Gonnerman                                                                                                                                             IgneousQuill.com

however, they were only recognizing those writings that had made their authority felt in the churches. The shape of the New Testament 
shows that the early churches’ aim was to submit fully to the teachings of the apostles. In that purpose they shaped the character of 
Christianity for all time. The faith remained catholic precisely because it was apostolic” (Shelley 66).

Those books which were Scriptural were recognized not only by relationship with an apostle, but also
by direct experience. The writings that agreed with the known apostolic teaching and which
demonstrated dynamic, transforming power in the life of the congregation were separated out from
the chaff of uninspired works.

“It was, then, by the slow consensus of the Church that the New Testament was assembled and accorded recognition as especially 
inspired. It was not merely supposed actual apostolic authorship which ensured for a book inclusion in the New Testament. This had an 
important place. It was also by the test of experience through long use that the Christian community came to recognize the writings 
which were admitted to the accepted canon a quality which distinguished them from those books which were rejected, a quality which to 
the Christian mind was and continues to be evidence of a peculiar degree of divine inspiration, the crown of the process of revelation 
recorded in the Old Testament” (Latourette 135).

It is thus that we see that a pattern similar to the practice of judging prophecies in the first century
local church that the Word of God for New Covenant times was identified and accepted. It is
interesting to note the emphasis and importance that this places upon the local church over and
against ecclesiastical structures exterior to it and foreign to the apostolic teaching.

The Ecumenical Council Myth

Putting it plainly, it is a myth that the church councils selected the books to include in the canon.

“Not until the close of the 4th cen. did any council make any pronouncement on the subject” (Unger 682).

Did the church simply struggle by for nearly 400 years before a church council declared which books
were scriptural? Hardly. As we have seen above, local churches had long created and refined their
own lists of authoritative books.

“It may also be important to point out that this is [the decisions of ecumenical church councils] not a case of the church ‘making’ the 
canon. Later scholars, particularly Roman Catholics, will make the argument that since the church formed the canon, the church is 
superior to the New Testament in it right to interpret those books as it sees fit. Actually this is not the case. It is not a matter of the church 
forming the canon. The various books were written well within the apostolic period without any approval by the church as such. Virtually 
all churches recognized these books as authoritative. Thus, rather than ‘making the canon,’ the church, after a long period of research 
and consideration, simply came to a unanimous consensus as to which books were to be counted as authentic and of Scriptural import. 
This places the New Testament over the church, recognizing that New Testament as apostolic in authority, while the church then must 
constantly refer itself to the pattern of apostolic Christianity” (North 58).
Adam Gonnerman                                                                                                                                             IgneousQuill.com

It might not be too much to venture at this point that God acted providentially through His church on
the local level to lead Christians towards that which was truly His Word. It is true that human reason
is an endowment from God to man, one that – when properly informed and utilized – can lead us to
correct and godly conclusions.

Indeed, the churches were not acting entirely alone in their creation of lists. Theologians and
churchmen of that early era put together their own lists, the fruit of their study. When there began to
be general and ecumenical councils of the church, these leaders in religious thought had their
opportunity to debate and formalize their lists.

“The first express definition of the New Testament canon, in the form in which it has since been universally retained, comes from two 
African synods, held in 393 at Hippo, and in 397 at Carthage, in the presence of Augustin [sic], who exerted a commanding influence on 
all the theological questions of his age. By that time, at least, the whole church must have already become nearly unanimous as to the 
number of the canonical books; so that there seemed to be no need even of the sanction of a general council. The Eastern church, at all 
events, was entirely independent of the North African in the matter” (Schaff Vol. 2:519).

No single council sealed the issue for the entire church. While the Council at Carthage decided the
matter for the Western churches, discussion continued on the local, regional and national levels in
the East for nearly another century.

“Debate in the East persisted, however, for some time longer. But the example of the West, of Athanasius in Alexandria, and the 
influence of the Cappodocian fathers, swept away all opposition. With the addition of 2 and 3 John, 2 Peter, Jude and the Revelation to 
the Peshitta (Syriac Bible), the question of the canon was settled for the East also. Thus the canonicity of the NT was settled, for all 
practical purposes, in the West around A.D. 400 and in the East by A.D. 500” (Unger 684).

Conclusion
The canon is considered now considered closed by most of Christendom, with the exception of such
groups as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and other splinter groups that hold to
doctrine quite different from that revealed in the established canon. Reasonably, if any rediscovered
ancient writing showing evidence of being Scripture were ever brought forth, or if any new revelation
purported to be given, we would have to evaluate these based on that which we have in the present
canon. If it gives a different message, we must endeavor to discern which is correct. If it contains the
same teaching that we already possess in Sacred Writ, then it can’t be seen to make much of a
difference.

“For the Greek and Roman churches the question of the Canon is closed, though no strictly ecumenical council representing the entire 
church has pronounced on it. But Protestantism claims the liberty of the ante­Nicene age and the right of renewed investigation into the 
origin and history of every book of the Bible. Without this liberty there can be no real progress in exegetical theology” (Schaff Vol. 2:524).
Adam Gonnerman                                                                                                                                             IgneousQuill.com

While this writer wholeheartedly affirms the sixty-six books generally accepted by Protestant
churches everywhere as Holy Scripture, it is also understood that lower criticism (but not the rather
fanciful higher criticism), church history research and other rational methods of Bible study ought to
be applied to make absolutely clear what is and what is not the Word and will of God for this age.

God’s church must be guided at all times by the true, pure and holy Word of God, which is the sword
of the Spirit.

To God be the glory.

Works Cited

The Bible. Updated New American Standard Bible.

Latourette, Kenneth Scott. Beginnings to 1500. Vol. 1 of A History of

Christianity.

North, James. A History of the Church: From Pentecost to Present.

Joplin: College Press, 1997.

Schaff, Philip. Ante-Nicene Christianity. Vol. 4 of History of the

Christian Church. 8 vols. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons,
1882.

Shelley, Bruce L. Church History in Plain Language. Dallas: Word, 1995.

Unger, Frederick Merrill. Reviser Gary N. Larson. The New Unger’s

Bible Handbook. Chicago: Moody, 1984.