is the canon infallible

I've been posting some quotes regarding infallibility and inerrancy of Scripture. In that I received an excellent question from Dan Jones. I love how he puts it:

How when asked do you respond to those who basically agree with these passages but then state that for this claim to be 110% true then the canonizing process must also be "unbreakable, irrevocable, final, plenary, and inerrant," and then if that is the case...then scripture isn't exactly the final authority - canonization is. It's a problem I've not resolved, yet.

Good question. I don't think I've resolved it completely either but sadly, I'm not sure I've given it much thought. Phil Miller provides a simplistic response that I agree with (at least for now).

I would say a good analogy would be a scientific law like gravity - Newton wasn't the final authority on gravity, he testified to the truth of gravity.

This fits with Michael Patton's thinking in Why I Believe the Canon of Scripture is Theoretically Open ... And I Am Fine With It (it's worth reading the entire post):

[T]o say that the canon is “closed” needs to be understood more in an observational way rather than an authoritative pronouncement. The term “closed” might not be the best word since it implies a necessary finality concerning the contents of Scripture.

Of course Patton also is fine with the idea that the canon is fallible. James Swan also agrees writing in the Alpha & Omega Apologetics Blog:

The canon list is not revelation, it's an artifact of revelation. It is Scripture which Christians believe inspired, not a knowledge of the canon which is inspired. The church has discovered which books are canon, they haven't infallibly determined them to be canon. For a detailed explanation of this, track down a copy of Dr. White's book, Scripture Alone, chapter five.

Both Patton and Swan reference R.C. Sproul's position that the canon is a fallible collection of infallible books. Swan writes:

The statement itself originates from Sproul's mentor, John Gerstner. This statement is not an admission that there is an error in the canon. It is a statement simply designed to acknowledge the historical selection process the church used in discovering the canon. By God's providence, God's people have always identified His Word, and they didn't need to be infallible to do so. Remember that large set of books in your Bible before the Gospel of Matthew? The church had the Old Testament, and believers during the period in which the Old Testament was written also had God's inscripturated word, this despite a lack of magisterial infallibility.

Technorati Tags: Scripture