The Christian faith was “once for all delivered to the saints”, and what the apostle declared was “the while counsel of God”. The Scripture as God’s Word has a definite content, given by God through people God ordained in ways God controlled. This “special/extraordinary” revelation is distinguished from the “general/ordinary” revelation of God: the former being intermittent, the latter being continuous; the former being at major events of redemptive history, the latter being at all times; the former was mediated through prophetic/apostolic authority, the latter was directly given to mankind in general; the former being verbal, the latter being phenomenal. This distinction is fundamental to the Christian understanding of God and God’s works. Before the next major event in redemptive history dawns, there will be no new revelation in the category of Scripture, and there is no need. Again, God continues to work, the Spirit continues to indwell in Christians, but a special type of God’s work, and a special kind of spiritual gift has ceased. In this sense, the Scripture is a closed canon. However, many throughout church history have argued against the definite content of Scripture, instead they advocate an open canon, an open Scripture in one way or another. Gnosticism found secrete knowledge in a synthesis with pagan philosophy; Roman Catholicism established a tradition nominally parallel to Scripture; Pentecostalism and charismatics sought divine revelation in dreams, voices, and signs; for old liberalism, there was no such thing as divine revelation, thus futile to discuss a canon; for new liberalism in the form of neo-orthodoxy, there is no such thing as a definite divine revelation, since true revelation is always ongoing. Their problem is not to claim a knowledge outside the texts of Scripture (which everyone agrees), their problem is that they claim a knowledge that is equal to Scripture or even Scripture, a knowledge that bears the same divine authority and quality as Scripture.
Why is an open canon so attractive? Why do so many “Christians” want pseudo-canonical revelation? What does an open canon mean to the Christian faith and Christian life?
On the surface, some of the arguments for an open canon appear noble, if not plausible: God does not cease to work, if God revealed to prophets and apostles, why could not He reveal to us today? Scripture could not record everything Christ had taught, why could not there be an oral tradition? The same Spirit indwells in us as in apostles, why could not I possess the same gifts as apostles? Behind such reasonings are many strands of reasoning: there was the pietistic strand seeking a closer relationship with God, and what can be closer than hearing God speaking directly to you; there was the apologetic strand seeking a mechanism to defend the Christian faith against heresies, and what can be more powerful than having a tribunal to adjudicate the debates; there was the contextual strand seeking the application of the faith, and what can be more fitting than a faith freshly evolving at the moment for the moment. I would doubt that all these ideas originated from an evil motive, at least most did not. Church history showed that most advocators of an open canon were sincere, serious, and good-will. They wanted good for the faith, for Christians, and for the church. But all these without exception ended to undermine Christianity. Because in the effort to maintain or create an open canon, they have opened the floodgate of errors; because when you say there is direct revelation from God when there is none, you are essentially making yourself as God (since you claim your words/opinions/feelings to be God’s word); when you say you need directly revelation from God when you do not, you are making yourself smarter than God. An open canon shifts the authority from God who closed the canon to the one who opens the canon. For a definite canon, the authority to define both Scripture and its meaning resides in God; for an open canon, the authority resides in man. A definite canon was completed by and closed by prophets and apostles ordained by God directly and miraculously; an open canon has to be opened and kept open by a man or a group of men, self-claimed and self-perpetuated. The above good-will of man is coupled with a low view of God, thus a false view of God. It appears that an open canon supports piety, apologetics, church unity, and Christian testimony. But it only “appears” to be so, as their logic is a worldly logic, not a biblical logic. It sounds good, but it is not sanctioned by God. It is a strong will, but man’s will, not God’s will.
An open canon appeals to human pride, the cardinal sin. Who can resist the pleasure and privilege of hearing verbally from God? Who can resist the thrill of having a secrete knowledge about God? Who can resist the power to dictate the thoughts and deeds of millions of Christians? Who can resist the cheer of the world when you talk to their delight? Who can deny the success of evangelism when you remove the stumbling blocks of Christ? He errs because he is drunk with pride. He does not see what the Scripture teaches because he is blinded by pride. A subtle pride: he does not have to worry about what God says, as long as he is thinking about God. It is enough to think about God, to seek after God, to try to obey God. To will is to obey, to try is to succeed. Man has this “leap” of faith in his mind, from a mere notion of God to actually pleasing God, from him being pleased to God being pleased. He regards his previous problem as not knowing God; now he knows God, so all resolved. This is a superficial view of sin and a superficial solution. Knowing God is not just about knowing an idea of God (the fallen Adam did not lose this idea), knowing God is to know Him as He reveals (the fallen Adam denied this). To obey God is not just about a will to obey, it is about obeying Him as He defines, in body, mind, heart and strength. To find an intimate relationship with God, to experience the presence of God, what to do? To learn and practice what He has taught in Scripture. To defend the truth and to expose heresy, what to do? To follow what He has prescribed in Scripture. To communicate with unbelievers in the contemporary world, what to do? To mature and to sanctify in God’s Word. Leaving the definite content of the Scripture is dead ended. This is not about worshipping Scripture; this is about worshipping God in the way He defines in Scripture. We do not wish or dare to deviate from Scripture, because in it and only in it, we know God’s will infallibly and sufficiently.
The most dangerous moment of a Christian is not when he thinks he disobeys God (though this is indeed dangerous), but when he thinks he is obeying God. Some of the most evil committed by man were done in the name of God. Some of the most notorious heresies in the church were invented for the glory of God. One is so easily carried off by a zeal to obey God that he is so contempt of checking exactly what is to truly obey God, that he is so defensive of any self-reflection or criticism. He is so noble to be humbled; he is so passionate to be stopped; he is like an off-railed training running in full steam. The true obedience is of a saintly spirit, but this false obedience is of a fanatical spirit. The former thinks, the latter only wills.
