By Keith Thompson
One of the most common
arguments against sola scriptura
raised by Catholics is: if Scripture is the only authority, how do you know
which books are inspired seeing as Scripture itself does not tell you? Or: if
you hold to sola scriptura, why do you
hold to a New Testament canon which the authority of the Roman Catholic Church
recognized? Is that not violating sola
scriprtura? As Catholic apologist Patrick Madrid argues, “There is no
‘inspired table of contents’ in Scripture that tells us which books belong and
which ones do not” (Patrick Madrid, Sola
Scriptura: A Blueprint for Anarchy, ed. Robert Sungenis, Not by Scripture Alone, [Queenship
Publishing Company, 1997], p. 22). This
is a common argument from Catholic apologists and has been used by them to
stump many Protestants on the issue of sola scriptura.
However, there are
serious problems with this argument.
(1) It only applies to solo scriptura, that is the belief the
Bible is the only authority, and not to sola
scriptura which says Scripture is the ultimate authority. In sola scriptura there is nothing wrong
with holding to outside authorities like the church as long as what it declares
does not contradict and is consistent with Scripture at least implicitly (Westminster
Confession of Faith, 1:6-7; 1:10). Thus, there is no problem with a sola scripturist affirming the church’s affirmation of the canon
since the criteria the church used to recognize the canon in the fourth century
can be validated biblically, at least implicitly. For instance, the church used
the criteria of apostolicity to decide if a New Testament book was Scripture
(i.e., if a book was written by an apostle or companion of an apostle). Any
good conservative New Testament introduction will give the internal arguments
that a book was written by an apostle or someone close to one (e. g. Donald
Guthrie’s, D. A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo’s etc). In regards to the criteria
of antiquity the church used, we can look at the book’s internal content to
discover if it was written in the first century, or if it is a second century
work. New Testament commentaries and introductions do this regularly. In
regards to the criteria of orthodoxy the church used, we can see which books
are internally consistent and which are not. So there is nothing inconsistent
about a sola scripturist affirming
the authority of the church in recognizing the canon, since when we go to the
books it recognized, we see that its determination is consistent with Scripture
at least implicitly.
(2) When making this
argument Catholic apologists assume those at those fourth century councils who
recognized the canon were Roman Catholics or were part of a Roman Catholic
Church. However, no one at those councils believed what modern Rome claims one
has to believe in order to be a Roman Catholic, i.e., teachings Romanism claims were
always believed by the church (e.g. private and frequent confession to a priest
over both venial and mortal sins, papal infallibility, the Assumption and
Immaculate Conception of Mary, the mass as the same propitious sacrifice of
Christ re-presented, the idea the pope alone has the authority to interpret
Scripture, etc.). Hence, it is erroneous for modern Catholics to claim those at
those councils which dealt with the canon were part of their modern religious
system. It was the Christian church, not the papal system, which discerned the
canon in the fourth century.
(3) Protestants are much
like the early church Christians prior to the Council’s of Hippo and Carthage.
They held to certain books as inspired without a council being their ultimate
authority on the issue. Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Athanasius, etc., all held to
canonical books as inspired long before Carthage and Hippo were convened. They
did not have a pope or council dictating to them what books must be accepted
and rejected. If modern Romanists are going to condemn Protestants for doing
this, then they must also condemn these earliest church fathers for doing it as
well if they are going to be consistent.
Now, Rome falsely claims
her tradition is the basis for the establishment of the biblical canon by the
church in the 4th century when the Council of Hippo and Third
Council of Carthage spoke on the list of books (Robert Sungenis, Point/Counterpoint: Protestant Objections
and Catholic Answers, Not by
Scripture Alone, [Queenship Publishing, 1997], p. 270). Rome’s views of
tradition are (1) the idea the apostles handed on a body of oral teaching
containing doctrine not always found in Scripture; and (2) the idea that the tradition
of the church clarifies the true meaning of Scripture.
However, the Council of
Hippo and Third Council of Carthage from the 4th century which dealt
with the canon never stated they knew what the canon was because they had
teachings or traditions from the mouths of the apostles stating which biblical
books were canon. Nor can we say they had a historic interpretation of the
content of scripture and therefore came to the realization of the canon by that
means. That makes no sense. Thus, Rome’s definitions of tradition can not be
appealed to as the basis for the determinations of these councils concerning
the canon. The councils did not use any so-called apostolic tradition for this.
Instead, they used various criteria in order to discern the canon. They did not
claim they had an oral teaching from the apostles stating which books were
true. Their criteria for canonicity they used included: apostolicity (if the
writer was an apostle or connected to an apostle), orthodoxy (if the content of
the book was orthodox theologically), antiquity (if the book was early enough)
and usage (if the book was used widely in the church prior to the council) (The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown: An
Introduction to the New Testament, eds. Andreas J. Kostenberger, L. Scott
Kellum, Charles L. Quarles, [B&H Publishing Group, 2009], p. 13).
In light of the
aforementioned facts, it is completely erroneous for the Roman Catholic to
claim the Roman Catholic Church gave Protestants the Bible, and that without
Romanism or her alleged apostolic tradition, Protestant sola scripturists
couldn’t discern the canon of Scripture.
No comments:
Post a Comment