Evidence That Demands A Verdict

Chapter 2: How We Got the Bible

Tests for Inclusion in the Canon

Test 1: Was the author a prophet?

This argument is significantly undeveloped. Who decides the criteria for being a "prophet of God" or a "spokesman for God"? Would this prophet speak in a similar manner to the Old Testament prophets, or would they "announce a new covenant," (p.27) for which there was no doctrinal precendent? What messages were they expected to have shared? There are simply too many variables to consider this a strong test.

Test 2: Was the writer confirmed by acts of God?

This is the strongest criteria for canonical inclusion in my opinion. There are still many variables (What is a miracle of God? Can false prophets do miracles? Who determines whether it is a miracle? What if the miracles are written about but never seen?) but I think it is fair to grant that most people generally have an idea of what a miracle from God would look like.

Test 3: Did the message tell the truth about God?

The evidence behind this test is fallacious. The authoritative evidence that McDowell presents is from the canon of scripture, yet that is the very thing in question. We cannot use 2 Corinthians and Hebrews as evidence to assert that "no book with false claims can be the word of God," because that very statement may or may not be true. McDowell and his sources are begging the question here. He should have used Numbers 23:19 instead: "God is not a man, that he should lie..."

Additionally, this test implicitly brings up the issue of contradictions in the Bible, of which I think there are many. For example, the author of the Gospel of John writes that "no man has ever seen God at any time" (Jn 1:18), yet Jacob saw God face to face and lived (Gen. 32:30). I suppose the early church fathers did not see this to be an issue.

Test 4: Did it come with the power of God?

I think the Outsiders' Test for Faith would be great here, but I will leave that for another chapter. I will grant that if people's lives are changed, the likelihood of the text being inspired by God is increased. I don't think that this test makes it absolutely certain whether a book is or is not inspired by God, but it increases the probability in my opinion.

Test 5: Was it accepted by the people of God?

I want to agree with the premise behind this test, but I can't. The popularity of a particular text does not necessarily mean that it is accurate in its claims, consistent in its theology, and trustworthy in its instruction. It simply means it was popular and accepted by the community. There are a range of other reasons why a text could be circulated and accepted broadly. These might include instructions to share the message in the text itself (consider the Great Commission in Mt. 28:19-20), spiritual repercussions of not circulating ("My Father will deny you" in Mt 10:32-33; "Woe to me!" in 1 Cor 9:16), varying access to means of circulation (rich vs. poor), close relationships with "prophets," and individual spiritual proclivities (love/mercy vs. justice/judgment).

So which tests work?

In total, I believe that 2 out of the 5 tests are more reasonable than not for discerning whether a text is divinely inspired: Test 2 and Test 4. Both tests rely on the subjective nature of spiritual experiences, however, which can be unreliable. In that sense, they are not perfect, but they could present issues that are not explained away easily by naturalistic principles. Hopefully I have been charitable in my analysis.

I think the early church fathers who canonized the scriptures relied on a majority vote for many of the issues. I am not well-read on the history of such councils, but it seems reasonable that whatever the majority decided was true, this was what was implemented. Can God use a majorite vote to canonize His scripture? Sure—anything is possible if you grant that God was superintending the process. Without the superintending of God, however, the opinion of the majority could easily have made a mistake.