Article 5: What Makes a Book “Canonical”? (WCF 1.2)
Having examined the tension between tradition and Scripture (Article 4), we now turn to a closely related issue: how the Reformed tradition, and particularly the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF 1.2), defines and recognizes the boundaries of the biblical canon. The question “What makes a book canonical?” underlies centuries of church history, from the early fathers to the Reformation era, and has direct bearing on how we understand inspiration, authority, and the reliability of Scripture. In this article, we explore the definition of “canon,” the criteria historically employed to discern which writings belong in Holy Scripture, the particular influence of William Whitaker and the broader Reformed consensus, and the philosophical-theological assumptions that support the confessional stance.
1. Definition of “Canon”
1.1. Etymology and Theological Significance
The term “canon” derives from the Greek word kanōn (κᾰνών), meaning a reed or measuring rod, used metaphorically to refer to a rule or standard. In the theological context, a “canonical book” is one recognized as authoritative, divinely inspired, and thus the standard for faith and practice. Scripture as “canon” implies that it functions not merely as inspirational literature but as the normative rule by which believers measure doctrine, morals, worship, and church governance.
1.2. Canon vs. Other Church Writings
WCF 1.2 identifies the canonical books specifically, distinguishing them from other ecclesiastical writings that, however edifying, do not partake of the unique, God-breathed status of Holy Scripture. Consequently, the act of “canonization” involves the church recognizing—not conferring—divine inspiration upon certain books. The Confession emphasizes that these canonical texts “are all given by inspiration of God to be the rule of faith and life.” They are, in essence, the constitution of the church universal, endowed with an authority that transcends local tradition or provisional custom.
2. Historical Formation of the Canon
2.1. The Old Testament Canon
By the time of Christ, the Hebrew Scriptures were already recognized among the Jewish community as comprising the Law (Torah), the Prophets (Nevi’im), and the Writings (Ketuvim). Although some historical debates lingered about specific books like Esther or the Song of Songs, the mainstream Jewish consensus was largely fixed. Jesus Himself authenticated this tripartite structure (Luke 24:44), and the early church, following the apostolic precedent, inherited this Hebrew canon.
However, in the Greek-speaking Diaspora, the Septuagint (LXX) included additional writings now called the “Apocrypha” (or “Deuterocanonical books” by the Roman Catholic Church). While these might have circulated in some Christian communities, the mainstream of both Judaism and the earliest church fathers did not confer upon them the same authority as the Hebrew canon. Hence, for Protestant confessions like Westminster, these writings remain “no authority in the Church of God” (WCF 1.3).
2.2. The New Testament Canon
In the New Testament era, apostolic authorship—or close apostolic influence—was the linchpin for canonical recognition. The Gospels attributed to Matthew, Mark (under Peter’s influence), Luke (under Paul’s influence), and John gained early and widespread acceptance, as did Paul’s epistles. Debate arose around certain “antilegomena” or “disputed books” (e.g., Hebrews, 2 Peter, James, Jude, Revelation), but by the 4th century, church leaders like Athanasius (Festal Letter 39, AD 367) and councils in Hippo (393) and Carthage (397) solidified the 27-book New Testament canon.
It is crucial to note that these councils did not create the canon; they recognized the apostolic authority that was already widely acknowledged by the faithful. The Confession, by explicitly listing the 66 canonical books (39 OT + 27 NT), stands firmly within this historical trajectory, denying any later expansions such as the Apocrypha.
3. Distinguishing Attributes of Canonical Writings
3.1. Inspiration
The core mark of a canonical book is its origin in divine inspiration, often summarized by 2 Timothy 3:16 (“All Scripture is given by inspiration of God”). WCF 1.2 ties canonicity to this inspired quality, noting that these specific writings have God as their ultimate author. No ecclesiastical pronouncement can make a text “inspired”; rather, the church discerns which texts bear the hallmarks of God’s speech through human authors.
3.2. Apostolicity and Propheticity
For the Old Testament, the Jewish and early Christian communities recognized the role of prophetic endorsement. For the New Testament, apostolic authorship or endorsement became the key test. Books like Luke and Mark were accepted because of their direct connection to Paul and Peter, respectively; 2 Peter, though disputed, eventually gained recognition due to internal and external testimonies that linked it to the apostle Peter.
This principle directly opposes any Apocryphal or pseudepigraphal texts that lacked genuine prophetic or apostolic sanction. The WCF’s explicit mention of “the books commonly called Apocrypha” as non-canonical (WCF 1.3) rests partly on the argument that these do not derive from prophets or apostles recognized by the true covenant community.
3.3. Ecclesial Reception
While the ultimate ground of canonicity is divine inspiration, the church’s historical reception is not irrelevant. The historical process—local usage, patristic citations, and synodal pronouncements—revealed that certain writings consistently proved themselves to be of God. Thus, even though the church’s role is ministerial rather than magisterial, the consistent recognition across orthodox communities is a vital witness to the Spirit’s work in guiding believers to discern God’s Word.
4. William Whitaker on Canon Identification
4.1. Polemic Against Roman Claims
In A Disputation on Holy Scripture, William Whitaker addresses the question of the canon extensively, refuting the Roman Catholic contention that the church, through councils like Trent, effectively established which books are authoritative. Whitaker’s stance aligns with the broader Reformed principle: the church does not endow books with authority but discovers and confesses that authority which God has already given.
For Whitaker, the Apocrypha exemplifies ecclesiastical overreach. Because certain writings (Tobit, Judith, Ecclesiasticus, etc.) were never part of the Hebrew canon recognized by Christ or the apostles, no subsequent council can retroactively invest them with divine inspiration. Whitaker cites early fathers—Jerome in particular—who labeled these books “ecclesiastical” but not “canonical.” His robust exposition of patristic sources informs the WCF’s own crisp delineation in sections 1.2 and 1.3.
4.2. Evidence-Based Criterion
Whitaker’s method involved collating evidence from Scripture itself (internal marks of divine authority), from apostolic usage (e.g., how the New Testament cites specific Old Testament books), and from the consensus of the earliest councils or fathers. He insisted that no single, monolithic decree invented the canon but rather that various lines of testimony converge, all of which are subordinate to God’s self-authenticating Word.
In modern parlance, one could say Whitaker championed a “historical-canonical” approach: examine the historical fruit (how the church used and preserved these books), confirm alignment with apostolic teaching, and demonstrate the text’s unique ability to edify believers in saving faith. This approach subsequently influenced the Puritans’ confessional stance in the 1640s.
5. Scriptural Self-Attestation
5.1. Inherent Authority and the Witness of the Spirit
The Westminster Confession underscores that Scripture bears intrinsic marks of divine truth. WCF 1.5 remarks on “the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, [and] the consent of all the parts” as indicators that Scripture is self-evidently from God. Alongside these rational or literary evidences, the Confession also highlights “the testimony of the Holy Spirit” who inwardly convinces believers of Scripture’s authenticity and authority.
This double witness—Scripture’s internal coherence and the Spirit’s inward confirmation—correlates with John Calvin’s argument in the Institutes (1.7) that the ultimate persuasion of canonicity arises not from the church’s pronouncement but from God Himself. Because the Word is God-breathed, it resonates with the Spirit who dwells in believers, prompting a supernatural recognition of its authenticity.
5.2. Resistance to Ecclesial Derivation
Because Scripture is self-attesting, Reformed theology insists that it does not derive its authority from an external body—whether that be a council, pope, or venerable tradition. This claim was central to Whitaker’s disputation with Roman apologists who contended that the church’s authority to compile the canon necessarily placed the church “above” or “prior to” the Bible. According to Whitaker, WCF 1.2, and the entire Reformed consensus, this reverses the true order, making the effect (church recognition) the cause. Instead, Scripture stands self-attested; the church merely acknowledges what God has already wrought.
6. Philosophical and Theological Intersections
6.1. Ontological vs. Epistemological Questions
In canonical debates, Reformed theologians often distinguish between ontological and epistemological dimensions. Ontologically, a book is canonical if it is inspired by God, full stop. Epistemologically, the church arrives at the knowledge of that fact through historical evidence, consistency with apostolic teaching, and the Spirit’s inward illumination. This distinction is critical for refuting the notion that a book’s status changes over time or that the church can “upgrade” a text to canonicity.
6.2. Relation to Confessional Bibliology
Modern adherents of “confessional bibliology” underscore that if God has inspired these 66 books, He has also preserved them “pure in all ages” (WCF 1.8). Thus, canon identification logically dovetails with textual transmission. Garnet Howard Milne’s Has the Bible Been Kept Pure? illuminates how the Westminster divines confidently listed the canonical books, convinced that God’s providential care prevented the Bible from undergoing irretrievable corruption or from losing any canonical text. The assuredness about which books belong in the canon parallels the assuredness about the textual authenticity of those books.
6.3. Hermeneutical and Doctrinal Consequences
Once the boundary of the canon is set, the church can proceed with the interpretive principle known as “Scripture interprets Scripture” (WCF 1.9). The coherent unity of the 66 books allows for doctrinal formulations that rest upon the entire biblical witness, unencumbered by the Apocrypha or uncertain writings. It also safeguards believers from straying into teachings that might claim biblical weight while arising from non-canonical sources. Indeed, many medieval errors the Reformers protested—purgatory, indulgences, certain Marian dogmas—were propped up by Apocryphal texts (e.g., 2 Maccabees) or church traditions lacking firm canonical basis. Thus, ensuring a correct canon is not an academic matter alone but intimately shapes worship, piety, and theology.
Conclusion
In WCF 1.2, the Westminster Assembly names the specific “canonical books” recognized by Protestant churches, thereby codifying a principle centuries in the making. The Reformed tradition teaches that a book is canonical if (1) it is divinely inspired, (2) it bears apostolic or prophetic authority, (3) it has consistently proven itself within the orthodox community under the Spirit’s leading, and (4) it evinces intrinsic signs of God’s authorship, resonating with believers through the Spirit’s inward witness.
William Whitaker’s extensive work in A Disputation on Holy Scripture showcased the patristic basis for excluding the Apocrypha and challenged Roman appeals to a two-source approach (Scripture plus tradition). The Westminster Confession formalizes these claims: the church’s role is to receive these books as canon, not create or elevate them. Moreover, the Reformed notion of confessional bibliology, shaped by Garnet Howard Milne’s scholarship, reinforces the conviction that the text of these canonical books has been providentially preserved.
Hence, to answer “What makes a book canonical?” from a Westminster standpoint is to affirm that canonicity is a divine property recognized by the covenant community rather than a status conferred by ecclesiastical decree. The outcome is a stable, well-defined canon through which believers can be thoroughly furnished unto all good works (2 Tim. 3:17). That stability, recognized through history and guarded by God’s providence, underpins the next aspects of WCF 1—namely, the apocryphal books’ exclusion (1.3), the authority of Scripture (1.4), and its sufficiency (1.6), all of which revolve around the question of how the church knows and lives by the Word God has indeed inspired.
