But if “the canon of Scripture was already established long before this by the 4th or 5th century” (typically narrowed down to the councils at Rome 382, Hippo 393 & Carthage 397), by what authority do the Dutch claim that those councils were “right” about the New Testament, but wrong about the Old Testament (all of them had 46 books in the OT)? It seems to me that you’d have to reject the whole list if you thought the council was in error. And if the 4th century councils were in error, what makes the Belgic canon without error? Is it simply because it agrees with their particular theology?

Is it fair to assume that the collective Church just got the canon wrong until the Dutch (with some German help) got it right some thousand years later?

How different is this from the Mormons, who like Protestants claim that the historical Christian Church went astray and fell away from orthodox faith, only to be rekindled by a faithful man thousands of years later?

St. Irenaeus (d. 200) writes of similar claims from the Gnostics…

But, again, when we refer [the heretics] to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth. For [they maintain] that the apostles intermingled the things of the law with the words of the Saviour; . . . It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition.

If the Church erred in so many doctrines and practices, then we have no basis for believing that the Church got the canon right. It would be ad hoc to trust that the Church got the canon right while believing that the Church got so many other things wrong during that same period of time.

Without the historical Christian Church, the Dutchmen of the Reformation (along with all Protestants today), are left to establish the inerrancy and infallibility of the canon through critical scholarship. And as you correctly point out, such a method (however impractical) would certainly not result in even the 27 books of the New Testament, let alone the 39 (or 46) from the Old Testament.

I suppose one is left with taking the canon decision by the Belgic Confession on faith. Which, practically speaking (as opposed to theologically speaking), is not too unlike the Mormons, who also base their theology on reviving orthodoxy from an apostate historical Church.

And lastly, you mention that the 7 books missing from the Protestant canon were always disputed. While there are always dissenters (Christ Himself had one out of twelve), the Septuagint (Greek translation of the OT scriptures in a 46 book canon) was clearly the canon of choice for Jesus and His apostles – as evidenced by quoting the LXX in their OT references. If the 46 book OT canon was good enough for the Son of Man, His apostles, the Church fathers and the historical Christian Church for over a thousand years before the Belgic Confession, then the burden of proof is really on the new revelation that the Dutch Reformers must have received. Which begs the question, did they have an angel from heaven too?

Let me answer your last question first. The Belgic Confession wasn’t so much a synod as it was a statement of faith. It’s similar to the Westminster Confession of Fatih, even though it pre-dates it by about 28 years. It was a document created to govern the doctrine of the European reformed churches in the early 17th century. Combined with the Heidelberg Catechism (a teaching tool used to indoctrinate children in the Christian faith) and the Canons of Dordt (which was a synod convened to re-affirm the so-called “five points” of Calvinism) they form the what is called the Three Forms of Unity. Many reformed churches in North America and Europe still adhere to these documents as their summary of Biblical doctrine (other reformed congregations, such as the Presbyterian Church in America, use the Westminster Standards, which are very similar in scope and doctrine). Anyway, the canon of Scripture was already established long before this by the 4th or 5th century. The Belgic Confession is simply saying that for churches who adhere to this confession, this is the accepted canonical books of Scripture. The only point of contention would be with accepted Roman Catholic teaching which accepts the Apocrypha as canonical (according to the Council of Trent). However, the status of these books has continually been in dispute.

As to your first question, the qualities or criteria of Scripture has generally been boiled down to the following:

1. First and foremost, priority was given to extant writings that can unequivocally attributed to one of the twelve apostles or close associates of the apostles (which is why many of the NT apocryphal writings use apostolic pseudonyms)
2. The writings had to speak with ‘divine authority’
3. The writings had to have wide acceptance in the various churches as Scripture
4. The writings cannot contradict anything that has already been recognized as Scripture

Of the 27 NT books that make up the canon, only Hebrews, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, Jude, Revelation were late (i.e., 4th century) additions to the NT canon. In each case, the primary reason was spurious authorship.

Can you elaborate further on the “qualities [within the canonical books] that make [them] uniquely the word of God”? I’m not aware of any Scripture passages which outline these qualities, nor give a list of the authoritative canon.

What was wrong with the canon that had been used for the prior millennia that moved the Synod to define this new canon? Is it fair to say that the Dutch might have another Synod in another couple hundred years creating yet another canon based on new knowledge or theologies?