The Canon of Scripture

The Doctrine of the Canon — A Position Paper

Bruce Mitchell

❖   ❖   ❖

A Brief Statement

I hold that the canon of Scripture is the collection of sixty-six books — thirty-nine in the Old Testament and twenty-seven in the New — which God has given as His written Word, and which the church does not create but receives. The word canon means a rule or measuring standard; these books are the canon because they are the inspired and inerrant Word of God, and as such, they bear within themselves the authority of the God who spoke them. The church’s part was never to confer authority upon them, but to recognize the authority they already possessed.

This canon is closed and complete: God’s special revelation in writing is finished, the foundation laid once for all, so that no new Scripture is being given and none is needed. Being God’s Word, it is self-authenticating, recognized rather than validated by the church; authoritative, standing above every rival voice; sufficient, furnishing all that is needed for faith and life; and final, admitting no addition. From this flow two convictions that run through the whole of my theology: that revelation ceased with the closing of the canon, so that the Spirit now illumines the Word He has given rather than adding to it; and that Scripture alone — sola Scriptura — is the final court beneath which every other authority must bow.

❖   ❖   ❖

A Detailed Exposition

What “Canon” Means

Our word canon comes from the Greek kanōn, meaning “reed” or “measuring rod,” and thus a rule or standard. Applied to Scripture, it came to mean both the standard by which faith and life are measured and the authoritative list of books that constitute that standard.¹ The crucial point — and the one most often confused — is why a book belongs to the canon. A book is not the Word of God because it stands in the canon; it stands in the canon because it is the Word of God. Canonicity, in other words, is not a status the church bestows but a property the book already possesses by virtue of its inspiration. God breathed it out; that is what makes it canonical. The church’s role was to recognize and receive what God had given — much as a man recognizes the sun by its light rather than conferring light upon it.²

Inspiration and Inerrancy: The Ground of Canon

Because canonicity rests on inspiration, the doctrine of the canon stands upon the doctrines of inspiration and inerrancy, which I have treated more fully elsewhere (see my paper on Bibliology). Here it is enough to say that Scripture is God-breathed — “All Scripture is breathed out by God” (2 Timothy 3:16, theopneustos) — given as “men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:21); and that, being God’s own Word, it is wholly true and without error in all that it affirms, in the original autographs. This is the ground of everything that follows. If God has given inspired and inerrant writings, then there is a definite body of such writings — a canon — and the question of its extent and authority becomes unavoidable. The canon is simply the inevitable corollary of inspiration: God did not breathe out His Word into a boundless and indeterminate mist, but into a finite collection of books that He intended His people to have.³

The Self-Authenticating Word

How, then, do we know these books to be the Word of God? Not, finally, on the authority of the church, nor on the verdict of scholarship, but on the authority of the Word itself, which authenticates itself. The Reformers spoke of Scripture as autopistos — self-attesting, believed on its own account — and Calvin rightly grounded our certainty not in human proofs but in the internal witness of the Holy Spirit (the testimonium Spiritus Sancti internum), by which the Spirit who inspired the Word persuades our hearts that it is indeed from God. “My sheep hear My voice,” said our Lord (John 10:27); and Paul gave thanks that the Thessalonians received his message “not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God” (1 Thessalonians 2:13; see my paper on Pneumatology).⁴ This is not to say the recognition of the canon was arbitrary or merely mystical. The early church discerned the Word by real marks — the divine quality of the writings themselves, their apostolic origin, and their reception across the whole people of God — and I am glad to affirm those marks. But I would not have us mistake the marks for the ground. They were the means by which the church recognized the canon; they were never what made it canonical. The church’s authority here is ministerial, not magisterial: a servant receiving her Master’s letters, not a sovereign deciding which shall count.⁵

The Closed and Complete Canon

I hold, further, that the canon is closed — that God’s special revelation in writing is complete, and that no book is now being added to Scripture, nor ever will be. This conviction rests not on a date fixed by a council but on the nature of revelation itself. The Scriptures were given through a redemptive history that has reached its climax in Christ, and through apostles and prophets who were the unrepeatable foundation of the church (Ephesians 2:20) — and a foundation, by definition, is laid but once. The faith was “once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3); that phrase, once for all, marks it as finished and not to be supplemented. The solemn warning that closes the Apocalypse, against adding to or taking from its words (Revelation 22:18–19), though spoken first of that book, expresses a principle that guards the whole: God’s completed Word is not ours to enlarge.⁶ The canon is therefore not merely closed but complete — lacking nothing, wanting no sequel. What God purposed to reveal in Scripture, He has revealed.

Canon and the Cessation of Revelation

This closing of the canon is the doctrinal hinge on which much of my theology turns, for it bears directly on the question of revelation today. If the canon is closed, then God is no longer giving new, normative revelation to His church, and the foundational and revelatory gifts — apostle and prophet in their revelation-bearing office — have served their purpose and ceased (see my paper on Spiritual Gifts). I hold this with the openness I have explained there: I do not deny that God remains sovereign and may yet work as He wills, but I deny that any fresh word now stands beside Scripture as its equal or its rival. Here, a vital distinction must be kept between revelation and illumination. Revelation is the giving of new truth from God; that has ceased with the canon. Illumination is the Spirit’s opening of our minds to understand the truth already given (1 Corinthians 2:12–14; Ephesians 1:17–18); that continues, and we ought earnestly to seek it. The Spirit today shines upon the Word He once inspired; He does not inspire a new one. This is why I regard the confident “God told me” of much contemporary religion with caution: whatever subjective leadings we may experience, none carries the authority of “Thus says the Lord,” for that voice now speaks to us in the completed Scripture, and there alone.⁷

The Authority, Sufficiency, and Finality of the Canon

Three properties follow from the canon’s being the Word of God. First, authority: because Scripture is God speaking, it carries the very authority of God and stands above every other voice — above tradition, church, conscience, reason, and experience alike. What Scripture says, God says; and where God has spoken, the matter is settled.⁸ Second, sufficiency: the canon contains all that is needed for salvation and godliness, “that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:16–17). We need no supplement — no second source of revelation, no tradition of equal authority, no living oracle — to complete what God has given; the Scriptures are enough. This is the heart of sola Scriptura (see my paper on Bibliology).⁹ Third, finality: nothing is to be added to the canon, and nothing taken away. Here I differ, irenically but firmly, with two parties — with those who would set an authoritative church tradition or magisterium alongside Scripture, and with those who would add fresh revelations to it; in both cases, the sufficiency and finality of the written Word are compromised. The canon is the last word, because in it God has spoken His.¹⁰

The Unity of the Canon

Finally, I would have us see that the canon, for all its diversity — sixty-six books, written across many centuries by many hands in three languages — is one Book, because it has one divine Author. It tells a single unfolding story: creation, the fall, the long preparation through Israel, the coming of Christ, the church, and the consummation to come. Its revelation is progressive, given by stages and unfolding across the dispensations of God’s dealing with men (see my papers on Dispensationalism and the Covenants), yet never contradictory, for the God who spoke in the prophets and the God who spoke in His Son are one (Hebrews 1:1–2). The unity of the canon is thus no human achievement of editors but the fingerprint of its Author. To read it whole — each part in the light of the whole, and the whole as it centers upon Christ — is to read it as it was given.¹¹

❖   ❖   ❖

Practical Implications

Ministry Emphasis: A People Anchored to a Sufficient Word

First, because the canon is complete and sufficient, the great task of ministry is not to seek or supply new revelation but to preach the Word that has been given (2 Timothy 4:2). This both frees the minister and binds him: he need not strain after novelties, for he has in his hands all that God has said; and he dare not preach anything else, for he is a herald of another’s message, not the author of his own.

Second, there is deep rest for the soul in a finished and sufficient Word. To the anxious believer tossed about by every new teaching, every claimed prophecy, every voice promising a fresh word from heaven, I would say: be still. God has spoken, fully and finally, and what He has said is enough for your every trial. This is a special mercy to the hurting, who are so often preyed upon by those claiming a private line to God; I would shield them from such manipulation and point them, again and again, to the sure Word that cannot fail (see my papers on Spiritual Gifts and Prayer).

Third, a people anchored to the canon will guard its sufficiency against all that would rival or supplement it — whether the accumulated weight of tradition, the shifting authority of the culture, the sovereign self that bows to no text, or the steady traffic in new “words from the Lord.” I would cultivate the Berean spirit, which received the Word eagerly yet “examined the Scriptures daily” to test all things by them (Acts 17:11).

Finally, because the canon is closed but never dead, I would teach my people to come to it praying for the Spirit’s illumination — not for new content, but for new sight of the inexhaustible riches already there. We do not need God to speak again; we need eyes to see what He has already spoken. The canon is a lamp to our feet and a light to our path (Psalm 119:105), and it will be enough — until faith gives way to sight, and we behold unveiled the Word made flesh.

God has spoken — fully, finally, and sufficiently. The canon is closed not because God has fallen silent, but because in His Word He has said all we need until we see His face.

❖   ❖   ❖

Biblical, Exegetical, Theological, and Historical Notes

1. The term canon derives from the Greek kanōn (κανών), originally a reed or measuring rod, hence a rule or standard (cf. Galatians 6:16). Applied to Scripture by the early church, it denoted both the rule of faith and the authoritative list of inspired books that comprise it. The Protestant canon comprises sixty-six books: thirty-nine in the Old Testament and twenty-seven in the New.
2. Canonicity is a property grounded in inspiration, not a status conferred by the church. A writing is canonical because God breathed it out (2 Timothy 3:16); the church recognizes, rather than creates, this quality. As the older divines put it, the books possess their authority from God and in themselves (autopistos), the church’s reception being the acknowledgment of a fact, not the granting of a privilege. To reverse this — making the canon depend on the church’s authority — is the error I would carefully avoid.
3. On inspiration and inerrancy, treated more fully in my paper on Bibliology: Scripture is theopneustos (θεόπνευστος), “God-breathed” (2 Timothy 3:16), given through human authors borne along by the Spirit (2 Peter 1:21), and therefore wholly true and without error in all it affirms, in the original autographs. The doctrine of the canon presupposes these: a definite body of inspired writings necessarily exists wherever God has inspired writings at all.
4. The self-authenticating character of Scripture (autopistos, αὐτόπιστος, “self-attested”) was a Reformation emphasis, as opposed to grounding the canon in the church’s authority. Calvin located the believer’s certainty in the testimonium Spiritus Sancti internum, the internal witness of the Holy Spirit (Institutes I.7), whereby the Spirit who authored the Word confirms it to the heart (John 10:27; 1 Corinthians 2:12–14; 1 Thessalonians 2:13). External evidences confirm; the Spirit convinces.
5. The recognition of the canon, though not the ground of canonicity, was not arbitrary. The church discerned the inspired books by such marks as their intrinsic divine quality, their apostolic origin or authorization, and their widespread reception among the churches. These were instruments of recognition, not criteria that conferred authority. The church’s role was ministerial (receiving and acknowledging God’s Word) and not magisterial (ruling over it). I have deliberately kept this historical question brief; my concern in this paper is the doctrine of the canon, not the history of its recognition.
6. The canon is closed because special revelation is complete. The apostles and prophets form the church’s foundation (Ephesians 2:20), and a foundation is laid once; the faith was “once for all (hapax) delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). Revelation tracked the progress of redemptive history, which has reached its climax in Christ and the apostolic testimony to Him. The warning of Revelation 22:18–19, though directed first to that book, voices a principle protective of the whole completed Word. No council created this closure; the councils acknowledged a canon already given.
7. The closing of the canon entails the cessation of new normative revelation, and with it, the foundational and revelatory function of the apostolic and prophetic gifts (see my paper on Spiritual Gifts, where I hold to cessationism that nonetheless leaves room for God’s sovereign working). Crucial is the distinction between revelation (the impartation of new divine truth, now complete) and illumination (the Spirit’s enabling of believers to understand the truth already revealed, 1 Corinthians 2:12–14; Ephesians 1:17–18; Psalm 119:18), which continues. Subjective impressions, however valuable as promptings, never carry canonical authority; “Thus says the Lord” now meets us in the completed Scripture.
8. Scripture’s authority is the authority of God Himself, for it is His speech (the prophetic “Thus says the Lord”; cf. Matthew 4:4–10, where our Lord settles every issue with “it is written”). It therefore stands above all competing authorities — tradition, ecclesiastical office, human reason, conscience, and experience — which are to be judged by it, and not it by them.
9. The sufficiency of Scripture is asserted in 2 Timothy 3:16–17: the God-breathed Scriptures make the man of God “complete, equipped for every good work.” Scripture contains all things necessary for salvation, faith, and life, requiring no supplementary revelation or coordinate tradition. This is the material principle of sola Scriptura (see my paper on Bibliology), and the necessary practical consequence of a closed and complete canon.
10. The finality of the canon — that nothing may be added or removed — distinguishes my position, irenically, from two others: the Roman Catholic, which sets an authoritative tradition and magisterium alongside Scripture (so that the canon is, in practice, not materially sufficient); and the continuationist or restorationist, which expects ongoing revelation that would, if genuinely revelatory, augment the canon. I hold both to compromise the sufficiency and finality of the written Word, while gladly recognizing as brethren many who differ here. The canon is God’s last word, for in it He has spoken His.
11. The unity of the canon rests on its single divine Author (2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 1:21). Its revelation is progressive — unfolding by stages across redemptive history and the dispensations (see my papers on Dispensationalism and the Covenants) — yet internally coherent, since “God … spoke … by the prophets” and “in these last days has spoken to us by His Son” (Hebrews 1:1–2). The proper reading of Scripture, therefore, interprets each part by the whole, with Christ as its center and goal (Luke 24:27, 44).

❖   ❖   ❖

Select Bibliography

Beckwith, Roger T. The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Bruce, F. F. The Canon of Scripture. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press.

Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Book I. Philadelphia: Westminster.

Geisler, Norman L., and William E. Nix. A General Introduction to the Bible. Chicago: Moody Press.

Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

Kruger, Michael J. Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New Testament Books. Wheaton: Crossway.

Packer, J. I. “Fundamentalism” and the Word of God. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Ridderbos, Herman N. Redemptive History and the New Testament Scriptures. Phillipsburg: P&R.

Ryrie, Charles C. Basic Theology. Wheaton: Victor Books.

Warfield, B. B. The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible. Phillipsburg: Presbyterian & Reformed.