Refuting Douglas Beaumont On New Testament Canon Formation

• Discussion:

          -This piece examines several flaws in Douglas Beaumont’s reasoning in critiquing a book by Michael J. Kruger about the formation of the New Testament canon, highlighting how rhetorical maneuvering and imprecise distinctions repeatedly substitute for substantive engagement with the issues at hand:

          “Kruger begins his survey of the Community‑Determined model by looking at the Historical‑Critical approach… He then turns to the Catholic view which he says shares a common methodology. This smacks of well‑poisoning.”

          Beaumont calls it “well‑poisoning” simply because he dislikes the comparison, not because Kruger misrepresented anything. The Catholic model does involve communal reception. His accusation is nothing more than a rhetorical flinch disguised as insight.

          “Nor is the Catholic view that canonicity is ‘imposed’ upon the writings.” 

          This is Beaumont trying to dodge the obvious. If the church declares which books belong in Scripture, then it is imposing canonical status in the straightforward sense of the term. His attempt to redefine “imposed” so that it excludes the very act he is defending is a transparent evasion.

          “A book can be one without the other.” 

          This line is part of his long, unnecessary lecture on canon versus inspiration. He treats this elementary distinction as if he discovered it yesterday. Worse, he never shows a single place where Kruger confuses the two. It is a lecture delivered to no one who needed it, padding out an argument that lacks substance.

          “Kruger believes there is a second model within Catholicism that is often ‘bundled together without distinction.’” 

          Beaumont tries to refute this by saying “the church that produced the biblical writings are not the same [members of] the church who determined the canon.” This is not a refutation. It is an admission that Kruger’s observation is correct. Beaumont agrees with Kruger while pretending to disagree, which is one of his recurring habits.

          “The different affirmations Kruger lists, however, do not necessarily constitute a second model.” 

          Douglas Beaumont’s defense here is simply hand‑waving. He never explains why the distinctions he admits do not amount to separate conceptual models. He just asserts it. His argument is little more than “I don’t like the conclusion, therefore it’s wrong.”

          “The fact that a 28th book “would never satisfy Catholic concerns” is not a Catholic problem though, because it is not Catholics who require the canon to be revealed in Scripture."

          Even if that were true, it would be irrelevant. Kruger did not say that it was a Catholic problem. Beaumont is arguing with a phantom because he cannot land a punch on the actual argument. His response is a deflection, not a rebuttal.

          “Either way, the canon is never just a ‘given’ as a starting point.” 

          This is one of Douglas Beaumont’s more ironic lines. He states a truth that undermines his own attempt to portray the Catholic position as immune to the very difficulty he admits. If the canon is never “just a given,” then the Catholic model faces the same epistemic question Kruger raises. Beaumont simply refuses to acknowledge it.

          “Paul says the church was built on the foundation of apostolic people – not apostolic teachings.” 

          This is semantic gymnastics. Apostolic people taught apostolic teaching. The distinction is so thin it collapses under its own weight. Beaumont’s argument here is the kind of thing one writes when one has run out of substantive points and begins slicing theological hairs to avoid conceding anything.

          “The fact remains, then, that the New Testament… was dependent on the church, but not vice‑versa.” 

          This is Douglas Beaumont’s attempt to turn chronology into authority. The New Testament being written within the church does not magically grant the church epistemic primacy. His conclusion simply does not follow from his premise.

          “First, we see from the New Testament itself that at the time of Christ, there was no single, authoritative canon.” 

          This is historically selective. It only shows that canon formation can be messy. Beaumont’s conclusion does not follow from his own evidence.

          “Presumably, had the OT canon been seen as a big issue, one of [the prophets] could have spoken up about it.” 

          This is one of the weakest lines in the entire piece. Beaumont imagines prophets as if they were modern bloggers who would “speak up” if something mattered. It is theology by presumption, not argument, and it betrays a shallow grasp of Second Temple Judaism.

          “Thus, Israel’s relation to the Old Testament is much like the church’s relation to the New Testament for the first 1,500 years of its existence.”

          This analogy is strained. Israel’s canon debates were not structurally identical to Christian canon debates, and Beaumont provides no evidence that they were. He simply asserts the parallel and hopes the reader will not notice the lack of support.

          “Kruger asks whether the church had a canon for the 1,500 years prior… He then states… that the church did, in fact, have a functioning canon long before Trent.” 

          Douglas Beaumont tries to refute this by saying Trent was the first dogmatic definition. Kruger never claimed otherwise. Beaumont even admits, “no one disputes that the church had ‘functional’ (if unsettled) lists.” He is refuting a claim Kruger did not make.

          “Statements marshaled to prove the contrary are being misread – probably due to the ‘canon / inspired’ confusion noted above.” 

          This is Beaumont’s fallback explanation for everything: accuse the other side of confusion. Yet he never demonstrates the confusion. He simply repeats the accusation until he hopes it sticks.

          “The Catholic church recognizes these distinctions and often uses them in its explication of doctrine.” 

          This is Beaumont congratulating Rome for being nuanced while ignoring the fact that his own argumentation is not. He invokes scholastic categories without actually applying them rigorously. It is the intellectual equivalent of name‑dropping.

          “The church does not ground its infallibility on the Bible… nor does the church tell people to believe it is infallible based on its own infallible authority.” 

          This is Douglas Beaumont trying to dodge the circularity problem by asserting that the Roman Catholic Church’s claims are not circular. But his own explanation of infallibility is circular: the church is infallible because Christ made it infallible, and we know Christ made it infallible because the church teaches that Christ made it infallible. He has not escaped the circle; he has simply drawn it more gently.

          “There cannot actually be a conflict between them.” 

          This is Beaumont’s claim about Scripture and creation. It is a charming sentiment, but demonstrably false. His analogy is wishful thinking masquerading as argument, and it does nothing to support his claim that the church and Scripture share authority in a way that avoids Kruger’s dilemma.