Blog

In keeping with the thesis delineated in this series’ introductory article, we will now turn our attention to unpacking the first premise contained therein:

As decreed from eternity past, the canonicity of the New Testament writings was inextricably linked to the redemptive-historical inauguration of the New Covenant in Jesus Christ’s blood (Luke 22:20; 1 Cor. 11:25; Heb. 8:6-13; 9:15).

 Because the doctrine of God lies at the heart of all biblical and theological investigation,[1] our convictions about the New Testament canon[2] must be a consistent byproduct of our convictions about the nature, character, and purposes of the Most High.[3] Over the scope of this series, we will presuppose that the most biblically faithful and theologically robust understanding of God is encapsulated in the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith (1689).[4] It is our contention that any understanding of God that is inconsistent with the theology proper of the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith (1689) is sub-biblical at best, and heretical at worst.[5] And what distinguishes the conception of God within the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith (1689) from less biblical alternatives? Among other traits, it is that God “hath decreed in himself, from all eternity, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably, all things, whatsoever comes to pass” (3.1), and that “although [He] knoweth whatsoever may or can come to pass, upon all supposed conditions… [God did] not decree anything, because he foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions” (3.2).[6]

 In the final analysis, the most biblically and theologically cogent understanding of God is to recognize that He has immutably determined everything that would ever transpire in redemptive history (Rom. 11:36; Eph. 1:11). He is absolutely sovereign over everything that He has created and has an infinitely good purpose for all that He has ordained to unfold (Ex. 4:11; Isa. 46:10; Rom. 8:28-30; 9:15-24). By good and necessary consequences, this means that the canonicity of the New Testament writings was pre-ordained by God from before the foundation of the world (Job 14:5; Ps. 119:89; 139:16; Jer. 1:5). If Christians embrace the biblical reality about the absolute sovereignty of God, then they must likewise come to the realization that every book within the New Testament was written and preserved to accomplish God’s eternal purpose of having it within the Bible.[7] Therefore, the reality of the absolute sovereignty of God—and the reality of His eternal decree—is the greatest argument against the notion that there was no concept of a New Testament canon until the fourth century.[8] Indeed, the concept of the New Testament canon goes back far beyond the fourth-century church; it extends into the unsearchable depths of eternity within the very being of God Himself (John 17:4-8).

Having examined the biblical-theological basis of God’s eternal decree, absolute sovereignty, and intentionality to preserve His Word for every generation of church history, we can now effectively transition into an examination of the redemptive-historical evidence for a pre-fourth century conception of the New Testament canon. As postulated in the first premise of this article’s thesis, the canonicity of the New Testament writings was inextricably linked to the inauguration of the New Covenant in Jesus Christ’s blood (Luke 22:20; 1 Cor. 11:25; Heb. 8:6-13; 9:15). To adequately surmise the strength of this argument for a pre-fourth century conception of the New Testament canon, one must (1) understand what is meant by “the inauguration of the New Covenant in Jesus Christ’s blood” and (2) have a working knowledge of the reciprocity between canon and covenant.[9] When speaking of the New Covenant being “inaugurated in Jesus Christ’s blood,” we are referring to the moment in which the New Covenant was formally established in redemptive-history. Throughout the Old Testament, it was prophesied that God—through the seed of Eve—would provide a redeemer for sinful humanity (Gen. 3:15; Num. 24:17; 2 Sam. 7:12-13; Ps. 22:1-31; 110:1-7; Isa. 9:1-7; 7:14; 53:1-12; Jer. 31:31-37; Micah 5:2; Zech. 9:9; 12:10; Mal. 4:5-6; etc). Some 2,000 years ago, Jesus Christ claimed to be the direct fulfillment of those Old Testament prophecies and performed many acts that bore witness to the authenticity of His declarations (Luke 4:14-32; John 21:24-25). Based on the testimony of the New Testament, the earliest Christians, and Jesus Himself, one of the most noteworthy prophecies that was said to be fulfilled through the death of Christ was the prophecy of the New Covenant (Jer. 31:31-34; Ezek. 36:26-27).[10]

The divinely inspired account of Hebrews 8:6-13 declares that all prophetic details pertaining to the New Covenant were fulfilled in the substitutionary atoning death of Jesus Christ at Calvary. Given our unashamed belief in the identity of Jesus Christ as the eternal son of God and the Messiah promised throughout the Old Testament, we can now thoughtfully interact with the idea of reciprocity between canon and covenant. Said differently, how does the Bible portray canon and covenant as being inherently correlative, and what implications should this relationship have for our view of the New Testament writings? Michael J. Kruger masterfully addresses these concerns in his treatise, Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New Testament Books.

If we are to understand the redemptive-historical environment that gave birth to the [New Testament] canon, we must begin with an issue that has too often been neglected in prior studies: the overarching covenantal [Old Testament] backdrop of the New Testament itself… Immediately after the fall, God made a provision to save a particular people for himself by grace through the shed blood of the promised seed who would crush the head of the serpent (Gen. 3:15). Jesus Christ, the second Adam (1 Cor. 15:21-22), acting as the federal representative of this [covenantal] agreement, kept its obligations perfectly and took the curse for disobedience upon himself at the cross, securing blessings for those he represented [i.e., members of the New Covenant]… [Moreover, throughout the Old Testament], God supplies covenant documents to bear witness to the terms of the arrangement between him and his people… In light of such a historical reality, it is clear that canon is inherent and derives its function from the concept of covenant… Canon,       therefore, is the inevitable result of covenant… Thus, there would have been clear expectations [among the first-century church] that the new covenant, like the old covenant, would be accompanied by the appropriate written texts to testify to the terms of the new arrangement that God was establishing with his people… Thus, the New         Testament canon, at its core, is a covenantal document.[11]

In summation, our biblical-theological reflections on God’s absolute sovereignty, the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, and the covenantal macrostructure of Scripture have enabled us to better understand a fundamental expectation during the first-century church: The redemptive-historical institution of a New Covenant would have necessitated the writing of new, authoritative, divinely inspired documents to bear witness to the stipulations of that covenant.[12] Consequently, upon the eventual production of such writings, there are strong reasons to believe that the first-century church would have immediately viewed them as canonical. In the forthcoming article, we will examine salient excerpts from the New Testament that showcase how this mindset was clearly exhibited by the apostles and the earliest followers of Jesus.

---

[1]           Historically, for confessionally Reformed and Particular Baptist Christians, the doctrine of God is paramount to informing one’s convictions about any other tenet of theology. In The Defense of the Faith (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Publishing, 2008), Cornelius Van Til opines on the centrality of theology proper to shaping one’s theological and apologetical commitments: “Naturally in the system of theology and in apologetics the doctrine of God is of fundamental importance. We must first ask what kind of a God Christianity believes in before we can really ask with intelligence whether such a God exists. The what precedes the that; the connotation precedes the denotation; at least the latter cannot be discussed intelligently without at once considering the former… Christianity offers the triune God, the absolute personality, containing all the attributes enumerated [in Scripture], as the God in whom we believe. This conception of God is the foundation of everything else that we hold dear. Unless we believe in this sort of God, it does us no good to be told that we may believe in some other sort of God, or in anything else. For us everything depends for its meaning upon this sort of God. Accordingly we are not interested to have anyone prove to us the existence of any other sort of God but this God. Any other sort of God is no God at all, and to prove that some other sort of God exists is, in effect, to prove that no God exists (Pages 30, 34).

[2]           For a review of the definition of “canon” that will be employed throughout this series, see Footnote 4 in the first article.

[3]           In The Structure of Biblical Authority (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 1997), Meredith G. Kline lucidly depicts how one’s convictions about the New Testament canon must be a consistent byproduct of one’s convictions about the nature, character, and purposes of the Most High: “In the international covenants the providential ordering of the God of the Bible had made available a model most serviceable for the documentary expression of biblical religion. In the case of the New Testament as in that of the Old Testament, acceptance of its own claims as to its primary divine authorship leads to recognition of its pervasively covenantal nature and purpose” (Pages 70-71).

[4]           For portions of the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith (1689) that directly pertain to the nature, character, and purposes of God, see Articles 2-8. The entirety of the confession can be accessed here (along with pertinent Scripture references): https://www.arbca.com/1689-confession.

[5]           It is recognized that there are other historically tried and tested doctrinal statements—such as the Westminster Confession of Faith (1647)—that espouses a very similar understanding of theology proper. Such doctrinal statements would certainly be classified as “consistent” with the doctrine of God articulated in the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith (1689). However, there are many contemporary Christians and evangelical churches whose doctrinal statements either fail to affirm enough about how the Bible reveals the triune God, or they simply articulate heretical positions (in some instances, without having any intention of doing so). For a cautionary tale of how both of these concerns were modeled simultaneously, see the story of Ed Litton and Redemption Church here: https://www.aomin.org/aoblog/theologymatters/about-co-equal-parts/.

[6]           Chapter 3 of the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith (1689) excludes all room for Semi-Pelagian/Arminian frameworks of God’s eternal decree, as well as any form of Open Theism or Theistic Mutualism.

[7]           Michael J. Kruger argues for an ontological definition of canon in his book, The Question of Canon: Challenging the Status Quo in the New Testament Debate (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2013), Pages 40-45. According to Kruger, the ontological definition of canon “focuses on what the canon is in and of itself, namely the authoritative books that God gave his corporate church” (Page 40). Kruger goes on to say that “the limits [of the New Testament canon] are determined by the purpose for which they were given, apart from the actions of the church. [Since] God really gave certain books to serve as a permanent guide for the church—as the ontological definition maintains—then there is nothing incoherent about arguing that those limits are already there in principle. The ‘canon’ is always the books God intended as a permanent foundation for his church; no more and no less. In this sense, the canon is ‘closed’ as soon as the last book is given by God.” It is the contention of this article that if one takes Kruger’s ontological definition of canon to its logical conclusion, then it is appropriate and accurate to regard the New Testament canon as an eternally established reality in the mind of God. Despite the New Testament writings not formally coming into existence until their authorship in the first century, God had eternally solidified every parameter associated with the New Testament canon. In an analogous way, the same can be said about the salvation of God’s elect. Although God’s elect are not justified (declared righteous) in the sight of God until the moment that they come to saving faith in history, God has nevertheless set His redeeming love upon them from eternity past. As such, from before the foundation of the world, God has ordained the end (salvation) and every means that would ultimately accomplish that end at the appointed time. The argument being presented throughout this article attempts to accentuate the interrelatedness between how God’s eternal decree—and providence—work to eventually enable the New Testament writings to come into being and be preserved for the universal church until the return of Jesus Christ.

[8]           As indicated in the antecedent footnote, Kruger’s explication of the ontological definition of canon is a helpful launching point into the eternal implications associated with God’s absolute sovereignty and the guaranteed redemptive-historical institution of the New Testament canon. “[The ontological definition] looks at canon from a divine perspective, rather than from only an ecclesiological perspective. Books do not become canonical—they are canonical because they are the books God has given as a permanent guide for his church,” The Question of Canon: Challenging the Status Quo in the New Testament Debate, Page 40.  

[9]           In his work, The Mystery of Christ: His Covenant and His Kingdom (Cape Coral, FL: Founders Press, 2019), Samuel D. Renihan offers a clear definition of how Particular Baptists have traditionally understood the Bible’s portrayal of covenant: “A covenant in Hebrew [and] in Greek is a guaranteed commitment. Two parties make commitments to one another. Their commitments are often summed up in ‘I will, you will statements.’ Different covenants have different kinds of commitments, and the varying kinds of commitments in these covenants result in different kinds of covenants… A commitment, in and of itself, however, is not a covenant. Sanctions or threats must be put into place to guarantee the fulfillments of the parties’ commitments. This adds a degree of legality and formality that a generic commitment would not carry… In summary, a covenant is a… sanctioned commitment defining the relationship between [two or more parties]” (Pages 40-41, 55). For the sake of being as transparent as possible throughout the duration of this series, we have chosen to define covenant—in the broad sense of the term—as “an oath-bound relationship between two or more parties, with blessings for faithfulness to the stipulations of the covenant and penalties for unfaithfulness to the stipulations of the covenant.”

[10]         Perhaps the clearest recording of this prophecy is found in Jeremiah 31:31-34. According to the prophet Jeremiah, this prophecy foretold that God would accomplish three profound works when the New Covenant was inaugurated in human history- (1) God would put His law within the hearts of those who were members of the New Covenant (Jer. 31:33); (2) God would enable every member of the New Covenant to genuinely love Him from their heart (Jer. 31:34); (3) God would grant that every member of the New Covenant would have their sins eternally forgiven (Jer. 31:34).

[11]         Michael J. Kruger, Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New Testament Books (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2012), Pages 162-163, 165-167.

[12]         F.F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 1988), Pages 19-23.