Some
have abandoned Sola Scriptura by using additional criteria by which to
reject the apocryphal and pseudepigraphal books
Even those who agree with the
previous paragraphs might still be puzzled about how we know which books are
truly canonical. If archaeologists found the “lost” letter mentioned in 1
Corinthians 5:9, should it be included in the Bible? If so, who would make the
determination? How do we know that Esther is part of Scripture? What should we
think about the Apocryphal books in the Roman Catholic Bible? Is the canon
closed? How do we know? How do we know that any of the books of the Old and New
Testaments are really Scripture?
Some Protestant theologians have
felt the pressure of the questions and have developed elaborate criteria by
which to judge whether a book should be included in the canon, but almost all
of these criteria have come under serious criticism. For example, if the “antiquity”
rule is correct, how could people have accepted the writings of Moses the
moment they were written? Obviously no book of the Bible met the “antiquity”
rule for the first people who used those books as Scripture. Furthermore, this
rule assumes without proof the closing of the canon. While this book will
exegetically defend the closing of the canon in AD 70, it is the Scripture alone
which can grant such an assumption. One arbitrary rule often given is that all
New Testament books must have been written by an apostle or approved by an
apostle, but how can it be proved that the non-apostolic books of Mark, Luke,
Acts, Hebrews, James, and Jude were approved by an apostle? For that matter,
how could the text be said to be inspired if it was uninspired while it was
being written by Luke and then subsequently inspired when the apostle approved
it? The violates the Biblical definition of inspiration that we will look at
later in this book and contradict this book’s evidence that inscripturation was
tightly connected with the prophetic office. Another objection that has been
raised is that it seems strange to apply different criteria of the New
Testament than would be applied to the Old Testament and vice versa. Who has
the right to answer these questions? Why were so many inspired books
excluded from the canon of Scripture during Old Testament times, even though
these books were clearly written by inspired contemporary prophets like Samuel
(1 Sam. 10:25), Solomon (1 Kings 4:32), and many others. Obviously, inspiration
is not the sole criterion for canonicity, or many more books would have been
included in the canon. (Phillip Kayser, The Canon of Scripture: A
Presuppositional Study [Biblical Blueprints, 2021], 12-13)
See for example, the books written
by prophets and that contained “prophecies” and “visions” in 2 Chron. 9:29.
Other prophetic books include the Book of The Wars of Jehovah (Numb. 21:14),
the Book of Jashar (Josh. 10:13; 2 Sam. 1:18), another Book of Samuel on the
Kingdom (1 Sam. 10:25), the Book of the Chronicles of David (1 Chron. 27:24),
the Book of the Acts of Solomon (1 Kings 11:41), Solomon’s three thousand
proverbs and 1005 songs (1 Kings 4:32), the book of Solomon’s Natural History
(1 Kings 4:32-33), the Book of Shemaiah the Prophet (2 Chron. 12:15), the
prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite (2 Chron. 9:29), the Visions of Iddo the seer
(2 Chron. 9:29; 12:15), “the annals of the prophet Iddo” (2 Chron. 13:22), a
full history of king Uzziah written by Isaiah (2 Chron. 26:22), the Book of
Jehu the Son of Hanani (2 Chron. 20:34), and an extrabiblical (but reliable)
history of the Kings (1 Kings 14:19, 25; 2 Chron. 20:34; 33:18). (Ibid., 13 n.
27)
One other objection that has come
up is, “What about the lost books of the Bible?” It is clear that not all the
writings of the apostles and prophets were included in the canon. 1 Corinthians
refers to a previous letter that Paul had written to the Corinthians (see 1
Cor. 5:9-11). 2 Corinthians 10:10-11 refers to “letters” (plural) that Paul had
written, and some believe that 2 Corinthians 2:3-11 and 7:8 may also refer to a
lost letter. The apostles also apparently wrote letters of introduction to
traveling missionaries. We have one recorded in 3 John, but Paul apparently
wrote some as well (2 Cor. 3:1; 1 Cor. 16:3).
Likewise, we have already
mentioned numerous books that were deliberately excluded from the Old Testament
canon by the prophets themselves even though they were written and contained
“prophecies” and “visions” (See 2 Chron 9:29). (Ibid., 173)
In order to defend a complete canon (per tota scriptura, an
important “building block” of sola scriptura), the apologist must argue that,
simply because a book is inspired/θεοπνευστος
does not mean, ipso facto, the book is “canonical”:
Inspiration
alone is not the criteria for canonicity
First, inspiration is not the sole
criterion for canonicity. . . . Otherwise many more books would have been
included in the canon. (Ibid., 174)
Further Reading
Not By Scripture Alone: A Latter-day Saint Refutation of Sola Scriptura