Yesterday I wrote a post briefly discussing my problem with how some people present Sola Scriptura (which is essentially Solo Scriptura). To summarize, I am not sure how some restorationist types (e.g. some “emerging” church groups; some forms of Pentecostalism, especially the Oneness sect) act as if anything post-the-death-of-the-apostles is suspect at best, corrupted at worse, yet have no qualms with the canon. Wouldn’t it follow that if we cannot trust the church of the second through fourth centuries in their doctrinal decisions the formation of the canon would be one of those things?

In other words, I am interested in hearing how the uber-skeptical of the early church’s evolution justify accepting the canon. For those who think that a Jewish faith was corrupted once it became “paganized” in the Greco-Roman world, why do you accept the canon? For those who reject the doctrine of the Trinity or the Christological interpretations of the early church, why do you agree with their selection of books?

(For those that do not think that the canon is authoritative this is a whole different discussion. You are at least consistent in my mind.)