Answers to objections regarding the Bible

Deuteronomy 4:2 say that we are to add nothing to what God has commanded. Therefore, the Bible
is all we need.
by Gary Hoge
If we take this verse hyper-literally, then we must assume that the canon of Scripture should end with Deuteronomy. (I believe that
was the attitude of the Sadducees in Jesuss day. Thats why He only quoted from the first five books of the Bible when He debated
with them). However, the obvious meaning of this verse, and similar verses throughout the Bible, is that man is not to add anything to
Gods word. God Himself is free to do so at any time, of course, and He is not limited to revealing Himself only in writing.
God revealed the gospel to the apostles, and they in turn taught it faithfully. But they wrote very little. As far as we know, nine of the
twelve never wrote a word. They simply lived in an area for a period of time, often for years, and taught the people personally. On
occasion, it became necessary to write to those communities, and some of those writings have been preserved in the New Testament.
However, not all of Gods revelation to the apostles was reduced to writing; some of it was passed on orally. This is whats called
Tradition (with a capital T). Just a few years after the New Testament was canonized, John Chrysostom wrote,
[Paul commands:] Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the Traditions which you have been taught, whether by
word or by our letter [2 Thess. 2:15]. From this it is clear that they did not hand down everything by letter, but there
is much also that was not written. Like that which was written, the unwritten too is worthy of belief.1

Nowhere does the Bible claim that it contains everything the apostles were given to reveal. If anyone says that it does, the burden is
on them to prove it.

End Notes
1 John Chrysostom, Homilies on 2 Thessalonians, A.D. 402.

The Bible is the standard by which all other things, including church teachings, must be measured.
by Gary Hoge
It might surprise you to learn that the Catholic Church pretty much agrees with this. But the question is, whos to do the measuring?
We should all read the Bible for ourselves, of course, but who is to have the final say on matters of doctrine the Church, or the
individual Christian? Protestants have opted for the latter, and the result has been centuries of doctrinal confusion and chaos, leading
to endless fragmentation and schism, which the Bible rejects as gravely sinful. It should be obvious by now that private interpretation
of Scripture doesnt work. If you let a hundred people interpret the Bible for themselves, and define their own doctrines, youll soon
have a hundred denominations.
Please dont misunderstand me. When I refer to private interpretation, Im not referring to the mental process by which we try to
understand what we read. Obviously, in that sense we cannot help but interpret what we read, whether it be the Bible or the
newspaper. What I mean by private interpretation is the authority of the individual to formulate his own doctrines, and the rejection
of the Churchs authority to do so. This practice has been an unqualified disaster, leading to rampant doctrinal chaos and the spiritual
pride whereby every little sect and splinter-group thinks that it alone teaches the truth, and it alone knows how to read the Bible
properly. This bitter fruit of private interpretation began to flourish even during the Reformers lifetimes. Martin Luther wrote,
There are almost as many sects and beliefs as there are heads; this one will not admit baptism; that one rejects the
Sacrament of the altar; another places another world between the present one and the day of judgment; some teach
that Jesus Christ is not God. There is not an individual, however clownish he may be, who does not claim to be
inspired by the Holy Ghost, and who does not put forth as prophecies his ravings and dreams.1

If the world lasts a long time, it will again be necessary, on account of the many interpretations which are now given
to the Scriptures, to receive the decrees of the councils, and take refuge in them, in order to preserve the unity of the
faith.2

Only the Catholic model, in which ultimate interpretational authority is vested in the Church, not the individual, makes possible the
kind of doctrinal unity that Jesus commanded. However, the Church is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant.3 The
Church accepts the Scriptures as the supreme rule of faith, since, as inspired by God and committed once and for all to writing, they
impart the Word of God Himself without change, and make the voice of the Holy Spirit resound in the words of the prophets and
Apostles. Therefore, like the Christian religion itself, all the preaching of the Church must be nourished and regulated by sacred
Scripture.4 Note that the teaching of the Church is to be regulated by sacred Scripture, the very thing the Catholic Church is
accused of not doing!
 End Notes
1 Quoted in Leslie Rumble, Bible Quizzes to a Street Preacher, (Rockford, IL: TAN books, 1976), 22.
2 Martin Luther, Epistle Against Zwingli.
3 Vatican II, Dei Verbum, 10.
4 Vatican II, Dei Verbum, 21.

Dialogue: Is Scripture Clear Enough to Be the Basis of Christian Unity?

by Gary Hoge

The following is a dialogue between myself and Presbyterian apologist Tim

Enloe. Tim is the webmaster of Grace Unknown, a Reformed Protestant
apologetics website. He is also a very articulate, intelligent, and charitable
Christian, with whom it is a pleasure to debate.

My words are in black, and Tims are in blue.

Sometimes we commit formal fallacies that are easy to spot and correct. Other times we
commit esoteric informal fallacies like ignoratio elenchi or ad verecundiam or petitio principii,
which are not always easy to spot and correct. Still other times our formal logic is correct, but
the premises we use in it are incorrect and we dont see that.
This is how I look at the controversy among Protestants over infant baptism (and other issues,
too). People of equal faithfulness and love for God approach the same Scriptures (which say
what they say regardless of anyones biases), use the same logical principles, construct similar
formal arguments, and yet come to different conclusions.
I think Protestant disagreements are caused by more than just a failure to rigorously apply the rules
of logic. If proper biblical interpretation were merely a matter of dispassionately applying fixed
rules of logic to a fixed text, we could create a computer program to analyze the text and tell us
what it really means.
No, I think the reason Protestants misunderstand Scripture is because they start with the false
premise that Scripture contains within itself all thats needed for its proper interpretation. That
might be a reasonable assumption if Scripture had been written to unbelievers who had to have
everything spelled-out for them, but, as you know, Scripture was written to people who were
already Christians. For that reason, its not always very specific, because its authors and its audience
already shared the same theological worldview, and the same basic understanding of the faith.
Thats why Scripture never directly tells them or us to baptize babies. It didnt have to, because
they already knew that.
Now obviously, someone has to be wrong in the controversy (noncontradiction still reigns
supreme), and both sides believe it is the other party who is wrong. And both sides may say
that Scripture clearly supports their position.
Thats true, and its exactly why the Protestant system doesnt work. A book (even an inspired one)
cant sit up and tell us which side has misinterpreted it. Thats why the Protestant system has never
been able to resolve any of the myriad controversies of religion its caused. Instead, the
controversies invariably lead to divisions, and the divisions invariably lead to new churches being
formed, and the only thing the Protestant system can do is tell both sides to go back and read their
supreme judge again for the zillionth time.
This is just part of normal human discourse in the world that God made.
It is indeed, and thats precisely why He also made an authoritative Church to settle such disputes.
Otherwise, as history has repeatedly shown, they dont get settled at all. Instead, the various parties
separate and form new churches, and this has the effect of institutionalizing and perpetuating those
disputes.
As 1 Corinthians 11:19 says, There have to be differences among you in order to see which of
you have the Lords approval. The presence of multiple, conflicting interpretations in the
Church is a good thing nay, a necessary thing for it forces the Church to wrestle with
revelation and grow in her understanding of it.
I think youre reading this passage anachronistically. Paul wasnt talking about multiple,
conflicting interpretations of Scripture in the Church. He was contrasting those who celebrated the
Eucharist according to the apostolic practice with those who didnt. But about divisions, in the
previous sentence, he wrote, In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church,
there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it (1 Cor. 11:18). That doesnt sound as
if he thought division was a good thing, except that when people were forced to take sides, it
showed who was faithful and who was not.
Paul clearly wanted everyone to be faithful, and for there to be no divisions in the Church. In this
very same letter, he wrote, I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all
of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be
perfectly united in mind and thought (1 Cor. 1:10). In another place, he wrote, I urge you,
brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary
to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them (Rom. 16:17). I think he would have had
harsh words for anyone who claimed that division in the Church was a good and necessary thing.
Without heresy there can be no orthodoxy.
That statement makes no sense to me. Would you also say, Without evil there can be no good?
Alas, the Reformed church, broadly considered, is not immune to [division]. We have our
share of true schismatics who take their stand against everyone else simply because they
personally believe Scripture clearly supports them against the majority.
But, Tim, that is exactly what Martin Luther and John Calvin did. They took their stand against
everyone else because they personally believed Scripture clearly supported them against the
majority, did they not? If you approve of what these men did to my Church, I dont see how you can
criticize others for doing exactly the same thing to yours.
But the existence of such divisive spirits in no way militates against the idea that Scripture is
clear in all essential matters.
No, what militates against the idea that Scripture is clear in all essential matters is the fact that
plenty of intelligent people who arent divisive spirits disagree about what Scripture teaches about
those essential matters. They cant even agree on which matters are essential.
Non-Reformed Baptists generally approach the Bible as if it was a book written to modern,
individualistic Americans and interpret practically everything in it according to that unstated
and unexamined presupposition.
Perhaps, but this is just a species of the general Protestant error of assuming that Scripture contains
within itself all that is necessary for its proper understanding. Clearly, it doesnt, and therefore,
different groups supply the required theological subtext according to their own (often unconscious)
cultural and theological presuppositions. Again, thats why Tradition is so important: it supplies the
correct subtext. Even some Baptists are beginning to understand that:
But appealing to the Bible alone and the personal enabling of the Holy Spirit, however
central these are, do not insure orthodoxy (they never have!), since these cannot
function in isolation from their reception and development within the ongoing life of the
 church. Dividing Scripture from Tradition or from the church creates an artificial
distinction which would have been completely alien to the earliest generations of
Christians. (D.H. Williams (ordained Baptist minister), Retrieving the Tradition and
Renewing Evangelicalism : A Primer for Suspicious Protestants, (Wm. B. Eerdmans
Publishing Co., 1999), 14).

Infant baptism is a ludicrous concept to them because everybody knows that Christianity is all
about the individuals personaldecisiontomakeJesustheirLordandSavior, and this can only
happen in someone who is able to think rationally and use that beautiful gift of God called the
autonomous free will to fulfill all the conditions for achieving justification so that God is
obligated to reward them with the new birth.
The Baptists arent the only ones who read Scripture through the lens of their own presuppositions.
For example, regenerative baptism is a ludicrous concept to you because everybody knows that
regeneration precedes faith, which at least for an adult precedes baptism. It doesnt matter that
Christianity from its inception unanimously believed and taught that baptism regenerates, your
Reformed presupposition to the contrary outweighs all of that.
Reformed Baptists, on the other hand, are more concerned with exegeting the doctrine of
baptism from the Scriptures rather than from such modern-day American prejudices.
If thats the case, and if the Scriptures are so clear, why dont the Reformed Baptists agree with
you? See, once again your theories go down in flames when you apply them to real people. The fact
is, no one exegetes the Scriptures in a state of pure objectivity, with no biases and prejudices at all.
The Reformed Baptists simply have a different set of prejudices than the non-Reformed Baptists do.
The trick isnt to get rid of all prejudices (which is impossible), its to have the right prejudices.
Again, thats why Tradition is important. It tells us what prejudices were supposed to have.
Like Presbyterians, many Reformed Baptists talk about baptism in the same basic covenantal
terms that the Bible does, and attempt to derive their understanding of the covenant and its
administration from the Bible. Ive seen some decent defenses of credobaptism by RB writers,
and to some degree, I respect their position. At least they are grappling with the text of
Scripture, unlike their Fundamentalist brethren who are content to mindlessly accept the
literal interpretation of baptism (read: the modern American individualists interpretation of
baptism).
The Fundamentalists, too, grapple with the text of Scripture; they just dont do it the same way you
do. And if they have the modern American individualists interpretation of baptism, what do you
have but John Calvins medieval interpretation of baptism? Neither of you accepts the apostles
interpretation of baptism, which was carefully preserved and unanimously proclaimed in the ancient
Church.
But look at what just emerged in the preceding paragraph. Despite the fact that the Reformed
camp is divided into Presbyterian and Baptist factions (each of which says the Scriptures
clearly teach their view of baptism), the two factions are nevertheless fundamentally
united on (a) the existence of baptism as one of two divinely-ordained rites and (b) basic
Reformed covenantalism. The differences center on the meaning of the term new covenant
in both the OT and NT and, therefore, on how and to whom the covenant sign of baptism is to
be administered.
So you guys agree on some things, and you disagree on other things. This I knew.
There have to be differences among you so that the ones with the Lords approval may be
made manifest. Ah, the foolishness of God is wiser than the wisdom of man, is it not?
The differences between you and the Baptists have existed for nearly 500 years now. Have they
made it manifest yet which of you has the Lords approval? If so, is it you, or is it the Baptists?
What a marvelous catholicity of both doctrine and practice is demonstrated in the
Presbyterian / Baptist difference over baptism!
How sad. Has Protestantism really devolved to the point where it happily embraces error along with
truth and calls it catholicity? Maybe Im just a perfectionist, but I dont think true Christianity
welcomes heterodoxy and glories in the sheer diversity of contradictory teachings its able to
embrace. But if thats what Protestantism has come to, why stop there? What a marvelous
catholicity of both doctrine and practice is demonstrated in the Arian / Trinitarian difference over
the deity of Christ! What a marvelous catholicity of both doctrine and practice is demonstrated in
the Arminian / Presbyterian difference over grace!
Unlike the stagnant, monolithic doctrine of Roman Catholicism, which has never advanced a
millimeter beyond the primitive understandings of the Church Babies, er, Fathers.
Truth is monolithic, but there sure seems to be no limit to the diversity of error.
Now, its pretty obvious that John Doe Baptist thinks his views are what Scripture clearly
teaches he doesnt think Scriptures teaching on baptism is unclear. The same goes for John
Doe Presbyterian. But what is not obvious (despite your insistence that it is blindingly
obvious) is that this difference of viewpoint arises from problems in the text.
And what is even less obvious (again, despite your insistence that it logically follows) is that
the difference of viewpoint can only be solved by appeal to an infallible interpreter.
Okay, how would you solve it?
By the long-term process of exegetical wrestling with the text, performed by representatives
from every Protestant tradition working in conjunction with each other under the common
principle that Scripture is the final arbiter of all truth and that its meaning is clear.
If its meaning is clear, how come you guys have spent centuries doing your exegetical wrestling
with the text and you still cant agree on what that meaning is? Seems to me it must not be all that
clear.
And in the whole history of Protestantism, has this dispute-resolving method ever actually resolved
a dispute? Has your common submission to the authority of Scripture ever enabled you guys to
settle an argument, or end a division? Offhand, I cant think of even one dispute thats been settled
by following Protestant principles (though I can think of several that have been started by following
them). Instead, to the best of my knowledge, you guys have the same doctrinal disputes youve had
since the Reformation began, and you debate them endlessly, generation after generation. Id sure
hate to see what the situation would be like if Scriptures meaning werent clear.
This is not nearly as cut-and-dried as your system, but its far more realistic and biblical.
You think your system is biblical? You think the Bible tells us to resolve our differences by dividing
into autonomous sects, insisting that Scripture is clearly on our side, and then arguing with each
other till the Second Coming? We must not be reading the same Bible, because mine presents a
different model. In my Bible the way to resolve a dispute is for the leadership of the Church to meet
in council (Acts 15:6), make a decision with the guidance of the Holy Spirit (Acts 15:28), and
impose it on the rest of the Church (Acts 16:4). If the apostolic Church did things your way, wed
still be arguing about whether circumcision was necessary for salvation.
Im even more perplexed that you think your approach is more realistic than ours is. Apparently,
realism is another word for which you have your own secret definition, because my dictionary
defines it as rejection of the impractical and visionary. You guys have a dispute-resolving system
thats completely incapable of resolving disputes. If thats not impractical, I dont know what is.
You seem to imagine such a situation can only end in bitter feuding and continual visible
splintering.
When in Protestant history has a doctrinal dispute ever ended any other way?
But that is not true. I have nothing but respect and admiration for my Reformed Baptist
brethren and they for me. We continue to embrace each other as brothers and continue to
mutually wrestle with the text we both commonly accept and submit our consciences to.
Im glad you get along, but God wants more than that. He wants you to agree with one another so
that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and
thought (1 Cor. 1:10). Its a pity He didnt give you some way of achieving that goal. You say you
have the common principle that Scripture is the final arbiter of all truth, but I cant think of a
single dispute in Protestantism that Scriptures been able to arbitrate, can you? Instead, you continue
to debate today however cordially the same disagreements you debated 450 years ago.
I dont know why you imagine that your ecclesial community is in any better shape than ours.
Thats easy. Were in better shape than you are because we have a system that naturally produces
unity of faith among those who follow it, and you dont. We have one Church and one faith. Anyone
who wants to be embrace the Catholic faith can easily discern what it is, and having embraced it, he
will be in agreement with, and in fellowship with, his brothers and sisters all over the world. But the
Protestant system is incapable of producing unity, even among those who follow it in good faith.
The Roman community is so full of factions and feuding parties that it isnt funny.
When I say that Catholicism has an essential unity that Protestantism lacks, Im comparing faithful
Catholics to faithful Protestants, because I think thats the only fair comparison. I dont deny that
there are Catholic dissenters out there who refuse to follow Catholic principles, and Im sure there
are Protestant dissenters who refuse to follow Protestant principles, too. But so what? You cant
judge the effectiveness of an ecclesiastical system by those who dont follow it. What Im interested
in is the results our respective systems produce among those who follow them faithfully, because
thats the only real test of whether any system works.
The Catholic system of authority can be summarized in one sentence, and its an affirmation that
every adult who wishes to enter the Church is required to make: I believe and profess all that the
holy Catholic Church believes, teaches, and proclaims to be revealed by God. Heres a picture of
me making that affirmation as I was received into the Church:

I made that affirmation because I believe the Church was created and commissioned by Christ to
teach in His name. Therefore, like all faithful Catholics, I accept those teachings as coming from
Him (He who hears you hears me). Any Catholic who can still honestly make that affirmation is a
valid subject for your critique of the effectiveness of the Catholic system. Any Catholic who cant,
isnt.
The Protestant system, on the other hand, operates on the principle that the Scripture alone is our
authority1. In order for this principle to work, its also necessary to assert that all things necessary
for salvation and concerning faith and life are taught in the Bible clearly enough for the ordinary
believer to find it [sic] there and understand2. Clearly, this system has not led to unity of faith
among those who follow it, nor has it been able to resolve disagreements among those people.
Thats because it proposes a completely impractical and circular principle for resolving such
disagreements. It asserts that Scripture itself is the supreme judge by which all controversies of
religion are to be determined3, even though most of those controversies are the result of
conflicting interpretations of Scripture in the first place. Clearly, pointing the disputants back to the
same Scripture from which their disagreements arose only perpetuates the problem and solves
nothing.
I dont have to go any farther than Steve Rays Message Board to watch the lot of you
pointing fingers at each other and claiming true Catholicism for your own preferred
factions, and engaging in disputes more bitter and divisive than any Reformed Baptist and
Presbyterian ever dreamed of devising.
Please. If youre really having trouble discerning which faction represents true Catholicism, Ill
give you a hint: Its headquartered in Rome, and is currently led by an elderly Polish gentleman
named Karol. Youd know him if you saw him.
I consider it to be self-evident that the Catholic Church has the right to define her own ecclesiology,
and to say who is in her communion and who is not. Rebellious factions like the Lefebvrites or
Call to Action can call themselves Catholic if they want to, but they have no more right to
define true Catholicism than you do.
I dont buy for a minute the spin control image that is put forth by the masses of Karl
Keatings, Mark Sheas, Dave Armstrongs, Steve Rays, Scott Hahns, and so forth. Indeed, I
cant even understand why I ought to believe that this faction is accurately representing true
Catholicism to me rather than the Traditionalists that regularly harass it with annoying
historical, philosophical, and theological arguments.
As I said, the Catholic Church has the right to define her own ecclesiology. She has done so, and
she requires her members to affirm that they believe and profess all that the holy Catholic Church
believes, teaches, and proclaims to be revealed by God. The schismatic Traditionalists cant say
that. Neither can the liberal dissenters like We Are Church and Call to Action. They can make
whatever arguments they want, but the fact remains that they have no more right to define true
Catholicism than you do.
You guys in the conservative faction may fool yourselves into thinking youve got greater
unity than we do, but you certainly arent fooling us.
Tell you what: When you guys who faithfully follow Protestant principles are able to come together
in one visible Church, embrace one faith, worship at one table, and assent to the teachings of a
comprehensive Catechism of the Protestant Church, then you can talk to me about unity.
To us, your much-trumpeted visible unity looks like a Band-Aid covering a cancer of division
and incipient schism.
I have never claimed that the Catholic Church is able to prevent people from rebelling against its
authority. I have claimed that submitting to the Catholic system of authority produces unity. This is
the crucial distinction you routinely fail to make when you lump the dissenters in with the faithful.
You cant judge the effectiveness of a theological system by looking at people who dont follow that
system. Therefore, I cant validly include non-sola Scriptura groups like the Mormons and the
Jehovahs Witnesses in my critique of your system, and you cant validly include dissenters like the
Lefebvrites and Call to Action in your critique of ours.
And its interesting how each of your little factions claims to be following the same grand,
unified Tradition! Looks like you need an infallible interpreter of your infallible interpreter,
because none of you can agree on what the first one really means.
On the contrary, all sides agree on what the Church really teaches, but some people dont like
what the Church teaches, and they want it to teach something else. This isnt a failure of the
intellect; its a failure of the will. Its not a failure to understand; its a failure to submit. Being a
faithful Catholic means assenting to the teachings of the Church, regardless of ones personal
feelings, and that is something the dissenters are unwilling to do.
*****
In this case, your perspicuity doctrine actually works against you, because the louder you insist that
Scripture is clear, the harder youll make it for John Doe Baptist to entertain the idea that he and his
fellow Baptists have badly misunderstood it for the past 400 years.
You say this because you (seemingly) ignore how Protestants generally treat each other in
their disagreements,
I dont really care how you treat each other in your disagreements. Its the existence of your
disagreements that undermines your claim that Scriptures meaning is clear, and that its able to
function as the final arbiter of truth among you. So far, it hasnt been able to arbitrate anything,
and thats because Scripture isnt an arbitrator. It cant tell you which Protestant group is
interpreting it correctly, and which isnt.
To continue the courtroom analogy, Scripture isnt the judge; its the evidence. The various judges
in Protestantism have weighed this evidence and they all think its clear, but theyve reached
different conclusions about what it means. And thats as far as their system can take them, because
it has no Supreme Court to which they can appeal. So theyre stuck endlessly arguing about what
the evidence shows, with each side insisting that its right, and clearly so.
and you dont (seemingly) have any faith that God is sanctifying us progressively by the
means of the washing of the water of the Word. You (seemingly) want the eschaton right here
and right now or else you dont want anything.
When the apostle said, I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of
you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be
perfectly united in mind and thought (1 Cor. 1:10), that was a command for right here and right
now, not for the eschaton. And when Jesus said, May they be brought to complete unity to let the
world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me (John 17:23), that,
too, was a prayer for right here and right now. At the eschaton, itll be too late to show the world
anything.
Im sorry you feel that way and that you conceive of the Christian faith in such impatient and
unrealistic terms.
I conceive of the Christian faith as having an established doctrinal content that has been revealed,
that has been handed down from one generation to the next since apostolic times, and that can be
known with certainty. I conceive of it as one faith, one Church, one altar. I do not conceive of it as a
conglomeration of independent sects that teach contradictory things, that worship in contradictory
ways, that deny what the others affirm, and affirm what the others deny. I dont think God
conceived of it that way, either, and if you think Im impatient because I insist that Christians be
united in one faith, then you must think God is impatient, too, because He demands the same thing.
And its only unrealistic to expect that kind of unity in your system; it already exists in ours.
As for me, Im content where I am. He who started a good work in Protestantism 450 years
ago will be faithful to complete it on His own schedule and time.
God is not the author of confusion. Therefore, I question whether Hes the author of Protestantism,
because Protestantism has proven itself to be incapable of producing one faith among those who
follow its principles. Thats because those principles are inherently divisive, and because
Protestantism lacks a mechanism for resolving the divisions that inevitably arise therefrom. In fact,
the Protestant willingness to fragment into autonomous sects has the effect of setting those divisions
in concrete.
On Steve Rays board you asked, Does [Protestant divisiveness] show something inherent in
Protestant ecclesiology, or does it show that there are lots and lots of immature people in
Protestant circles? Actually, it shows both. Protestant ecclesiology specifies that the teachings of
the Church are to be judged by Scripture, the ultimate arbiter of truth. But Scripture is a book; it
doesnt judge anything. Its all those immature people reading Scripture who have to make the
judgment. Theyre the ones who have to compare the teachings of your church with what they think
Scripture clearly teaches. This is why I say that your system doesnt work in the real world. Real
people are immature, and rebellious too. Thats why your ecclesiology is inherently unstable and
divisive.
You may insist that someday your system will work, but thats just whistling past the graveyard. It
didnt work in the past, and it doesnt work now. I see no reason to think itll suddenly work
someday in the future.

End Notes
1Robert Godfrey, Sola Scriptura! The Protestant Position on the Bible, (Morgan, PA: Soli Deo
Gloria Publications), 1995, p. 1
2 Ibid, p. 3
3 Westminster Confession of Faith, 1:10

| Home | Scripture and Tradition |

Copyright 2001 by Gary Hoge

Dialogue: Is the Church Superior to Scripture?

by Gary Hoge

The following dialogue took place between myself and a friendly Protestant
on a public message board. His words appear in blue.

The argument goes something like this

1 - The magesterium defines Scripture and Tradition
2 - The magesterium then infalliblly interprets Scripture and Tradition
3 - So ultimate authority would then lie with the magesterium and not Scripture and Tradition
on which authority is said to rest.
Now just substitute Protestant X for magisterium:
1 - Protestant X defines Scripture (meaning, hell decide which books he accepts)
2 - Protestant X then interprets Scripture
3 - So ultimate authority would then lie with Protestant X and not Scripture on which authority is
said to rest.
Not exactly, my friend. Protestant X doesnt claim infallibility.
So? He claims the authority to interpret Scripture. Therefore, according to the bogus argment above,
the ultimate authority lies with him and not with Scripture.
We all believe our interpretations are correct; otherwise we would not hold to them, right?
Precisely my point. Everyone believes himself to be inerrant. If we thought we had misinterpreted
some passage of Scripture, obviously wed adopt a different interpretation. So both Rome and
Protestant X believes its interpretation is correct, but neither believes it is superior to the Scripture it
interprets.
I believe my interpretation are correct and yes I believe the Holy Spirit guides me and give me
understanding. This is clearly biblical ( according to my interpretation :-) ). However, neither
Protestant X or I would claim infalliblilty.
Again, so what? That just means you think the Holy Spirit approves of your interpretation, but
youre not sure. We think the same thing, only were sure.
Rome is superior to Scripture, because she determines what Scripture is and she alone can
infallibily interpret Scripture. How can Scripture be considered on equal par with that?
Pretend for a moment that the Holy Spirit made me, Gary Hoge, an infallible interpreter of Jesus
words. Whenever Jesus said something, I would understand what He meant. Would that make me
superior to Jesus?
Theres still a difference. Authority does not mean infallibility. Therefore, Protestant X can be
corrected by Scripture. However, the RCC can never be corrected, because it is a law unto
itself.
If you get it right the first time, you dont need to be corrected. This doesnt mean youre superior to
Scripture, it just means you understood it correctly the first time.
As the argument says, if Rome alone infallibily defines both Tradition and Scripture, if Rome
alone can infallibily interpret both Tradition and Scripture, then how can they be equal?
Non-sequitur. Both Rome and Protestant X interpret Scripture. Both believe they are inerrant (i.e.,
they havent erred). The only difference is that Protestant X believes he hasnt erred because hes
smart; Rome believes it hasnt erred because God wont let allow it to.
If you determine what Scripture is, what Tradition is, and you alone can only infallibiliy
interpret them both how is Scripture equal to that?
Im afraid youve lost me. How does the ability to know what Scripture is, and to understand its
message, make one superior to Scripture?
I heard many RCs refer to Scripture many times as only a dead book, without an interpreter.
Ive also been told by RCs on this board that Scripture is not an authority. Do you agree with
that assessment?
Scripture is a book. It is words on paper. Clearly, unless you read it, it wont do you any good.
Obviously, when you read it, you interpret it. If you didnt read it or interpret it, what good would it
do you?
As for Scripture not being an authority, I disagree. Of course its an authority. But its an authority
that presents its teaching exactly the same way every time, and it cant sit up and say, Hey, youre
misinterpreting me!
Rome believes more than inerrancy she believes in infallibility.
Infallability guarantees inerrancy. If you cant err, then it follows that you havent erred.
Furthermore, I dont think Protestant X believes he hasnt erred in anything.
Really? If you asked him to complete this sentence: I believe I am currently misinterpreting the
following passages of Scripture _________ which parts do you think hed say hes gotten wrong?
Well, when I say superior Im talking about superior in authority.
Rome specifically denies that it is superior to Scripture. It says, Yet this Magisterium is not
superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the
divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with
dedication and expounds it faithfully (Catechism of the Catholic Church, para. 86). I hope youre
not going to try to tell the Church what it really believes.
Rome claims that she determines what is Scripture, therefore Scripture is whatever Rome
says it is.
Okay, how do you know what Scripture is? None of the New Testament books (except Revelation)
claim to be the Word of God, so how do you know they are? How do you know that God inspired
Pauls private letter to Philemon, for example, and that He intended for you to be reading it today as
the Word of God?
I have a number of reasons for believing the Bible is the Word of God.
And because you use these reasons to determine what Scripture is, does that make you superior to
Scripture?
I use history, tradition, and the internal witness of the Scriptures themselves. I believe God
guided the Church to recognize what he determine was the Scriptures.
But when Rome claims exactly that that God guided her to recognize His writings you say
Rome is superior to Scripture. I dont get it.
However, Rome claims that she determines what is Scripture, not that God determines it and
the Church only recognizes it.
Not true. God determined the canon of Scripture when He inspired certain men to write certain
books. Rome only claims that her decision recognizing those books was protected by the Holy
Spirit and was therefore not wrong. The First Vatican Council specifically said:
These books the church holds to be sacred and canonical not because she subsequently
approved them by her authority after they had been composed by unaided human skill,
nor simply because they contain revelation without error, but because, being written
under the inspiration of the holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and were as such
committed to the church (Vatican I, Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith,
chapter 2, paragraph 7, July 18, 1870).

Scripture is Scripture not because the Church declares it to be so, but because it has God as its
author.
Therefore, I ask is Scripture what Rome determined it would be or is Scripture what God
determined it be with the Church recognizing it?
The latter. God inspired certain books, and with the authority given to it by God the Church
identified those books. We believe that God did not allow the Church to screw that up and identify
the wrong books.
Rome claims that she infallibly interpret Scripture, therefore Scripture means whatever Rome
says it means.
Sounds a lot like whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven" (Matt. 16:19).
Rome claims the same things in reference to Oral Tradition. Now maybe you can tell me what
authority Scripture has and how is it equal to that of the RCC?
Scripture is the inspired Word of God. The Church is the servant of the Word, not its master. The
Church was created by God and was entrusted with the task of proclaiming the Gospel to the world
and making disciples of all nations until her Lord returns.
I agree that the words [of Scripture] have to be read, but at that point they are not just
ordinary words wouldnt you say?
Quite.
It seems to me that youre leaving out the fact that the Word of God is active, alive, and Spirit.
Yes, its the same Words everytime, but you can read the same Scripture and get a different
perspective. Also you can read another part of the Scriptures that can shed light on a previous
perspective and in that way show you that you are indeed misinterpreting.
Sure, but that obviously hasnt been sufficient to bring about the unity for which Christ prayed, has
it?
Neither has the infallible Bishop in Rome been able to bring the unity about and that is one of
the reasons the charism was supposedly given to the Pope, correct? If so, it seems that the gift
is not working out as God planned wouldnt you say?
In what way is unity lacking among faithful Catholics? We belong to the same visible Church,
worship at the same Table, and assent to the same teachings.
Well, the unity our Lord prayed for was not just faithful Catholics but all true believers.
And the means He instituted for achieving that unity was an authoritative Church to which He
commanded His followers to listen, unless they wanted to be treated as tax collectors and sinners
(cf. Matt. 18:17).
Therefore, unless you believe only faithful Catholics are true believers there has been a lot of
disunity among believers. Furthermore, this disunity occurred in spite of the fact that charism
of infallibility was supposedly given to maintain the purity and the unity of the church.
Infallibility only guarantees that the teaching of the Church is true; it cant guarantee that people
will submit to it. My point is that there is unity among those who submit to the Church, and disunity
among those who dont. To say that this disunity proves that the Catholic system doesnt work is
like saying that seatbelts dont work because people who dont wear them get hurt.
I agree infallibility guarantees inerrancy, however inerrancy does not guarantee infallibility.
Of course. On occasion even I have been inerrant, but I would laugh heartily if anyone suggested I
was infallible.
Therefore, that was my point, that is infallibility is more than inerrancy.
I never disagreed with that.
Hmmm ... you didnt really tell me what authority Scripture has and how is it equal to all that
you have claimed for Rome above? Youve mentioned some of the great authority that the
Church has above, however all you have said about the Scriptures is that it is the Word of
God. What authority does the Scripture has that makes it equal in authority to Rome?
Im sorry, I thought it was clear that if Scripture is the Word of God which it is it has complete
authority. Whatever it says is true; whatever it commands must be obeyed; whatever it forbids must
be avoided. God instituted the Church in order to safeguard and proclaim this message throughout
history.
Now here is where I think your theory will disagree with your practice, because infallible
Rome has made statements that dont jive with infallible Scripture.
Thats a charge that is ever so much easier to make than to prove. Im sure that Rome has said
things that conflict with your interpretation of Scripture, but can you prove that your interpretation
is the correct one?
Maybe you can show me where Im wrong. Rome tells you that you cannot use your private
judgement on matters she has dogmatically defined. However, in Galatians 1 we have the
Scriptures telling us to not only reject the message of an Apostle, but also the message from an
Angel from heaven if it does not agree with the Gospel.
In light of this verse, do you use your private judgment to evaluate Pauls teachings, or do you
automatically accept all of them?
Furthermore, you have 1 Thess. 5:21 tell you to test all things and hold on to the good. How
can these things be accomplished with using private judgement? In the end, whom do you
submit to Rome or the Scriptures.
I submit to both.
Thanks for the dialogue, its a pleasure to have discussion with you.
Same here.
I see why Tim Enloe thought so highly of you. I tend to easily get a little upset or disgusted on
this board, but all of my dialogue with you so far has been extremely pleasant, even though we
disagree a lot.
I agree. See? We dont always disagree. :-) I guess it seems like we disagree a lot because we only
talk about the things we disagree on. But I always try to remember that youre my brother in Christ
and that we have so much more in common than the few (but important) things that separate us.
Also, I may sometimes say things in reference to the RCC that may not be exactly correct and
instead of you biting my head off, you correct me in a respectful way. Thanks a lot!
Youre welcome. Its easy to take that approach with you because its obvious that youre a good
and sincere person whos just been misinformed about a few things.
Well as you can probably tell, I was assuming the RCC holds a position that you deny the
Church holds. That is the RCC determines what is Scripture and not that she only witnesses
to what Scripture is.
Im glad I was able to clear that up.
Ive heard this argument so many times from RCs I assumed that is what you believed.
Terminology might be tripping you up here. When you say the RCC determines what is Scripture
you apparently mean the RCC, rather than God, decides which books will be considered
Scripture. But when a Catholic says the RCC determines what is Scripture, he means, the
Church identifies which books God inspired, and declares with authority that these books are
Scripture.
I wasnt claiming that Rome recognizes Scripture, but that she determined what was and was
not Scripture.
Right, and I assumed you were using determined as a synonym for discerned, but apparently
were werent. Im glad we got that cleared up.

| Home | The Church |

Dialogue on the Apocrypha

by Gary Hoge

The following dialogue took place between myself and two Protestant friends,
early in my investigation of Catholicism. I had concluded that the Reformers
acted improperly when they removed the so-called Apocrypha from the Old
Testament canon, and I was arguing this point with my friends. My words are
actual (with some slight editing), but my friends words, in blue, are
sometimes paraphrased.

The Bible, if God is the God I think he is, must be consistent, and not contradictory. If that is
a given, then if some passages in the Apocrypha conflict with passages in the rest of the Bible,
one or the other must be wrong.
I agree with you completely that the Bible must not contradict itself. My point was simply that
apparent contradiction is not necessarily the same thing as actual contradiction. James 2:24 is an
excellent case-in-point (which is why I cited it). Martin Luther thought that James and Paul were
irreconcilable. He said he would give his monks cowl to anyone who could reconcile them. In the
end he concluded that James was not apostolic and he removed it to the end of his New Testament
(along with Hebrews, Jude, and Revelation). The point of all this is only that the Apocrypha must
not be rejected solely on the basis of apparent contradiction, lest Luthers error be repeated,
especially given the universal acceptance of these books in the Christian Church up until the
sixteenth century. Also, you said if the conflict were real, one or the other must be wrong. Since
the Apocrypha was accepted by the Church at the same time as the other Scriptures, how would you
know which to discard?
There are some places where the Apocrypha does contradict the rest of the Bible. You will be
able to pick those places out yourself as you read it.
Since you believe that the Apocrypha contains demonstrable errors, do you believe that the Church
in the fourth century was wrong to accept it, and that the Church for the next twelve-hundred years
was wrong to continue to accept it? I assume you must. And if indeed the Apocrypha is erroneous,
its acceptance by the fourth century Church would prove that the Holy Spirit did not guide the
Church in selecting the Canon of Scripture. Do you think then that we should also reevaluate their
decision regarding the New Testament Canon, since theres no divine guarantee that they did any
better in selecting those books? If not, why not?
From my reading of the Apocrypha most of it is on the mark. It is interesting and useful
reading in my opinion. I do not think it should be included as canon, but I think it should be
read by every serious Christian.
Do you not see the inconsistency with which Christians approach the Apocrypha? You said, I do
not think it should be included as canon. So you think its okay to make an individual judgment
regarding the canonicity of the Apocrypha, but for some reason it would never occur to you to do
that to the book of James, for example. Dont you see that we cant have it both ways? Either we
must have some outside authority decide what constitutes the Canon of Scripture, or we must all
decide for ourselves. There is no third option, and it makes no sense to apply one standard to the
New Testament Canon, and another to the Old Testament Canon. They were both decided by the
same Church Councils. Either those councils were guided by the Holy Spirit, or they werent. If
they were, then we should accept their decisions completely. If they werent, then the Canon of
Scripture is purely a matter of opinion and individual judgment. Then whos to say Luther was
wrong to reject Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation? What authority can you cite, other than a
Church Council, to show that Luther was wrong to do that?
You see, this is why I can defend the Apocrypha when I havent even read it. After all, I did not
accept the New Testament because I personally reviewed and approved each book. No, I accepted it
because the Church accepted it. So did you. We both have faith that the Church was guided to select
only the right books. I simply dont believe that the Holy Spirit guided Martin Luther to remove the
Apocrypha from the Canon. His improper removal of the New Testament books is ample evidence
of that.
Apparently then, the people who decided to label Apocrypha as Canon werent correct, as
they included a few clunkers in with the gems. Thankfully, the Holy Spirit acted to keep the
truly inspired books in among those that were most widely accepted as The Word of God, and
later on the Holy Spirit further guided those who decided to chuck the excess baggage and get
down to the sixty-six books that are truly Canon. Praise the Lord.
May I remind you that those who decided to chuck the excess baggage also considered Hebrews,
James, Jude, and Revelation to be excess baggage. And if those in the fourth century who
originally decided that the Apocrypha were Scripture werent correct, how do you know they
were correct about which books belonged in the New Testament? Lucky guess?
To stimulate your thinking, please prove to me, without citing any Church councils, that the book of
3 John is not excess baggage. Prove that it belongs in the New Testament, if you can. And please
do so in a way that could not also be used by a Mormon to prove the canonicity of the Book of
Mormon.
At some point in the past, somebody(-ies) declared the current 66 as The Bible. Thats when
the Holy Spirit finished guiding people to the conclusion that only these comprise inspired
scripture. Isnt faith wonderful?
So you have decided, on your own authority, that the sixteenth century marks the time when the
Holy Spirit finished guiding people as to which books belong in the Bible, and which dont. It
probably would have come as quite a surprise to the people of the fifteenth century, or the
fourteenth century, or the thirteenth century, or the twelfth century, etc. to find out that the Holy
Spirit was letting them wallow in error for all those years.
Let me make sure I understand: In the sixteenth century one man (Luther) decided to remove books
from the Bible, and you just accept that? If someone else did the same thing today, would you
accept it? Why not? Faith is wonderful, and I admit you have more than I do, for I cannot easily
accept late alterations to the Scriptures by one man. I also have to ask how you know when a man
such as Martin Luther is tampering with the Bible under the guidance of the Holy Spirit (and
therefore infallibly), and when a man such as [Mormon founder] Joseph Smith is tampering with the
Bible on his own.
You need to get a copy and read it before you go any further defending it. If you want to
regard it as Canon after you have read it that is fine.
My whole point was that I shouldnt have to do that. What right do I have to decide whether a book
is Scripture or not? Its certainly not a standard I applied to the rest of the Bible. I accepted
Revelation, for example, long before I actually read it. I accepted it, not on its merits (obviously,
since I hadnt read it), but because everyone else accepted it. It was in my Bible, so I assumed it
must belong there. The problem I have now, when I consider the apocrypha, is that for eleven-
hundred years it too was in the Bible, until a handful of men decided to remove it. I Praise the Lord
that, with the exception of the apocrypha, the Canon of Scripture is not still considered open to
debate in Protestant circles (its about the only thing that isnt). Considering the multiplicity of
interpretations of those things that are considered open to debate, can you imagine how many
different canons wed have? Every church would have its own Bible.
Before the sixteenth century there were 73 books in the Bible. It just seems strange to me that we
Protestants have singled out seven of them as being subject to individual judgment, but we continue
to blindly accept the other 66. Why dont we apply the same standard to all 73?
You like to play devils advocate (no pun intended), but you might as well read it unless you
are getting a message from God that you should not . . . in which case you should obey.
I was not playing devils advocate before; I was quite serious. Ive decided that I must be consistent
in my approach to the Bible. Either I must accept all of it (including the Apocrypha) on the
authority of the ancient Church (on the theory that the Holy Spirit guided it to select the correct
books), or I must decide for myself which of the Old and New testament books are truly inspired. In
addition, I must also evaluate each of the New Testament Apocryphal books (The Epistle of
Clement, The Didache, The Shepherd, etc.) to make sure the ancient Church didnt leave one out
that was in fact inspired. Given these two options, my choice is easy. I have neither the right, nor
the capacity to determine what constitutes Scripture. Indeed, how could I? To what would I compare
the teachings of each book to determine their truth? Everything I know about the faith comes from
these books, so I have no objective external standard against which to evaluate them. Therefore, I
will, in faith, believe that the Holy Spirit correctly guided the ancient Church to select the right
books. All of them.
I have asked God what to believe about the Canon of Scripture, and He has given me a satisfactory
answer (at least Im satisfied with it): Neither I, nor Martin Luther, nor any other individual has the
authority, or the ability, to correctly ascertain which books are or are not inspired. We must either
accept the authority of the Christian Church on this issue, or give up the pretense of having any
rational reason for accepting the books we do. (Did that sound harsh? Hope not.)
We dont need the church to tell us that any given book of the Bible is inspired. We can look at
them through the lens of the 66 that are accepted by all Christendom.
But dont you see, that would beg the question by assuming the truth of what Im trying to prove. In
order to prove the truth of one book, I would have to assume the truth of the other 65. Besides, at
best I could only demonstrate that the 66 are consistent with each other, and even that would be
difficult because there are many apparent (but not actual) contradictions between them. Also, even
if they are consistent, that does not necessarily prove that they are true. They might be consistently
wrong. In order to determine their truth, I would need to have an outside, objective standard of truth
to which to compare them. And even if I did have such a standard, the best I could prove would be
that the 66 are consistent with each other and true. But that would still not prove they are inspired. A
non-canonical book like The Epistle of Clement might not conflict with any of the 66 and might not
contain any errors, but its still not inspired.
How, then, can I know whether a book is not only consistent and true, but inspired? As I said
before, the only way I can know this is to trust that the Holy Spirit guided the ancient Church to
select the right books. You described this as a leap of faith, and I suppose it is. But at least its a
faith based on something other than my own feelings. Its based on the promise of Jesus that the
Holy Spirit would teach the apostles all things and guide them into all truth. Its also based on the
Biblical example of the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15). The
alternative is to determine the inspiration of the books based on nothing but my subjective feelings,
and to trust that these feelings are actually the Holy Spirit teaching me personally. That is a much
greater leap of faith, if you ask me.
Why does everything have to be so rational?
Because God is rational. He is not a God of disorder, but of peace (1 Cor 14:33). Faith is above
reason, but not against it. Also, the rationality of our faith is what separates it from that of, say,
Mormons. Ask a Mormon how he knows the Book of Mormon is inspired and hell tell you its
because he feels that it is, and he concludes that his feelings are instilled by the Holy Spirit. If that
is exactly the same way we know our books are inspired, how can we argue with him? If he claims
that the Holy Spirit confirms to him the inspiration of the Book of Mormon, how do we know hes
wrong? No, Human feelings are the least reliable indicator of truth, and I dont see how we can say
with any confidence that the internal assurance we have comes from the Holy Spirit, but the internal
assurance a Mormon has does not. At least I can point to something outside of myself to explain
why I accept the books I do. That still requires faith, as you pointed out, but a whole lot less than
the alternative.
The Spirit of God bears witness with our spirit and that cannot be explained. You just know
that you know that you know that Jesus is Lord and you have the desire to accept Him as
your personal Savior from your sins. There are a lot of mysteries to the Christian faith.
Indeed, but the canon of Scripture is not one of them. If the Spirit guided the ancient Church to
define that canon, then we are no longer free to differ on that issue. Because the Spirit cannot
contradict Himself, it cannot be coherently maintained that He guided the Church to include the
Apocrypha, and that He also guided Martin Luther to remove it. If He guided the Church to accept
the Apocrypha, then we should accept it too, and Luther was wrong to remove it. On the other hand,
if the Spirit guided Luther to remove the Apocrypha, then He cannot have guided the ancient
Church to accept it in the first place, in which case the Spirit did not collectively guide the Church
to form the Bible. We must then assume that the Spirit meant to guide us individually to determine
the canon of Scripture. Does this really seem like an issue the Spirit would have left to His
individual guidance? I dont think so, and in practice no Christian actually tries to determine the
canon of Scripture for himself, with or without the aid of the Spirit. This is not to say that the Spirit
does not confirm to us the inspiration of the Bible, which He guided the Church to form. I do think
He guides us to believe it, but not to form it. And, again, if it be established that He formed it, He
will not guide us to reject any of it, not even the Apocrypha. Any such guidance would not come
from Him.

| Home | Scripture and Tradition |

Copyright 1997 by Gary Hoge

Letter to Dr. D. James Kennedy:

How Sola Scriptura Undermines the Canon of Scripture

Dear Dr. Kennedy,

I just returned from a brief vacation in Florida, where I had the privilege of worshiping our glorious
Savior at Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church. Alas, you were on vacation yourself that weekend, and I
was not able to hear you preach. But I have worshiped at your church several times in years past,
and on some of those occasions I have had the privilege of hearing you preach in person. This
particular visit was different from any of my previous ones, though, because it was the first time I
had been to your church since I converted to Catholicism, or as you call it, "Romanism."
I imagine you find it almost incomprehensible that a Bible-believing Christian would do such a
thing. I understand. And I assure you, I am a Bible-believing Christian to this day. I partly have you
to thank for that because some of the most influential books in my Christian life have been Why I
Believe, and Truths that Transform. Thank you for the very good influence youve had on my faith.
There is one thing I would like to discuss with you briefly, if I may. I know you probably get a
gazillion letters a week and you probably dont have time to read them all, but I hope that whoever
reads this one will find it thought-provoking enough to forward to you.
One cannot read much of your writing, or hear your preaching, without realizing that you regard the
Scriptures as the Word of God. More than that, you apparently regard them as the only revelation
from God to man, outside of which there is only human tradition. In the introduction to Truths That
Transform, you wrote,
Ultimately, we have endeavored to be faithful to the Holy Scriptures, which are the only
infallible rule of faith and practice and which are to be the final authority in all matters
of religion.[1]

Youre obviously very adamant about the Bibles status, and in fact that belief forms the basis for
your whole theology. And yet, it seems to me that if you believe that Gods revelation is confined to
the Bible alone, it actually undermines the objective basis for your belief that the Bible is the Word
of God. Ill explain by asking you a simple question: Why do you believe the New Testament is the
Word of God?[2] Since that belief is one of your core doctrines, it should be very easy to explain
why you believe it, but unfortunately its really not such an easy question to answer, is it?
If we limit ourselves to Scripture alone, lets consider what we know about the New Testament. To
begin with, we know that the New Testament is not just one book, its actually a compilation of
twenty-seven different books, written by a host of different authors. One of the first things we might
notice about those books is that not one of them claims to be inspired.[3] For example, the
beginning of the third gospel simply says, "Many have undertaken to draw up an account . . .
Therefore . . . it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account." Thats hardly a "thus saith the
Lord." So why do we claim for these books what they do not claim for themselves?
Next we might observe that we dont even know who wrote many of these books. All four of the
gospels, the book of Acts, the book of Hebrews, and three of the general epistles are anonymous.
From Scripture alone we have no idea who wrote them. The identification of specific authors for
these books comes from second- and third-century Catholic tradition, and is therefore inadmissible.
(And even if we accept that tradition, we still dont know who wrote Hebrews). Further, how do we
know that those New Testament letters that do bear the name of their authors were actually written
by those people? How do we know, for example, that 2 Peter was written by Peter? Because it says
so? The Protoevangelium of James and the Gospel of Thomas claim to have been written by those
apostles, so why arent they in the New Testament?
To make matters worse, the very idea that there should even be a New Testament is not found in
Scripture. Nowhere in the gospels do we find any indication that there would someday be a set of
new Scriptures that would supplement the Old Testament Scriptures. Jesus himself never wrote
anything, and as far as we know he never instructed his disciples to write anything either. Of the
twelve, nine never wrote a word. Instead, they spread the word of God by preaching it. When you
read the phrase "word of God" in the New Testament, Ill bet you automatically think, "Bible." But
if you check it out, youll see that the phrase "word of God" in the New Testament almost always
refers to the oral proclamation of the gospel, not to any written document. When you read the New
Testament with that in mind, its an eye-opening experience! Further, Paul commanded Timothy to
retain his oral instruction as the "pattern of sound teaching" (2 Tim 1:13) and to propagate it
through the ages (2 Tim 2:2), but he did not mention his writings. So we find, ironically, that the
very idea of a "New Testament" is foreign to the books of the New Testament. On what authority,
then, can we claim that any of these books is inspired? On what basis can we assume (indeed, insist)
that God intended for Matthew, John, Paul, Peter, and some of their proteges (Mark, Luke, James,
and Jude) to write a collection of inspired books and letters that would (centuries later) be compiled
into a "New Testament"? Where do we find any evidence in the Scripture alone that they all did so
at the command of God, and under His inspiration? In short, how do we know that the New
Testament was Gods idea, and not mans?
Even if we conclude (apparently from human tradition) that there is supposed to be a New
Testament, we still have the problem of determining which books belong in it. Unfortunately, God
did not reveal that information anywhere in the New Testament itself. There is no inspired Table of
Contents. Therefore, from Scripture alone, how do we know which books belong in Scripture? How
did we get our list of the twenty-seven books that we say belong in the New Testament? Did God
reveal this list, or is it merely a human tradition? If God revealed it, where can we find this
revelation?
It seems to me that the "Bible only" doctrine is built entirely on sand. It destroys the basis for our
faith in the very Scriptures it seeks to exalt. Unless you are willing to accept extra-Biblical,
apostolic Tradition, and the authority of the Church, you cannot know whether God wanted there to
be a New Testament in the first place, nor can you know what books belong in it, nor can you know
who wrote those books, nor can you know that those books are in fact inspired by God. All of that
information was supplied via the Church, and without it all you have is a series of very large,
completely unsubstantiated assumptions (i.e., that God wanted certain people to write a New
Testament, that the books that are in it actually belong there and others dont, and that those books
are inspired). Unless you can show where God specifically revealed all of these things, it seems to
me that you should not say, "This is the Word of God," but rather, "I hope this is the Word of God,
but I really have no way of knowing."
On the other hand, I have a solid basis for my confidence in the Bible because I accept as a part of
Gods general revelation the unwritten apostolic Tradition, which has been preserved in the Church
by the power of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, I have confidence that God intended for there to be a
New Testament because the apostolic Tradition tells me so. I have confidence that the Biblical
books were written by the authors whose names they bear because the apostolic Tradition affirms
that too. I have confidence that the fourth-century Catholic bishops who drew up the list of books
that belong in the Bible did so under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, because the apostolic Tradition
(and Acts 15) affirms that this is the way God planned to guide the Church into all truth throughout
the ages. And finally, I have confidence that "God chose certain men who . . . consigned to writing
whatever he wanted written and no more" and that "the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and
without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the
Sacred Scriptures"[4] because the apostolic Tradition, as expressed by the teaching authority of
Christs Church, affirms that too.
You may not realize it, but you inherited your belief in the Bible from the Catholic Church and its
apostolic Tradition. After all, the Reformers didnt start with nothing and deduce the inspiration of
Scripture. They started with the authority of both Church and Scripture already firmly established,
and they simply rejected the authority of the Church. Even Martin Luther admitted that "we are
compelled to concede to the Papists that they have the Word of God, that we received it from them,
and that without them we should have no knowledge of it at all."[5]
The "Bible only" doctrine, then, is a branch without a tree, suspended in mid-air and firmly
anchored to nothing. It is belief without evidence, conviction without reason, and faith without
revelation. In contrast, my own belief in the Bible is firmly anchored to the "Church of the living
God, the pillar and foundation of the Truth" (1 Tim 3:15). Sir, you and I believe exactly the same
things about the Bibles inspiration and authority, a belief we inherited from Catholicism, but the
difference is that by accepting apostolic Tradition as a part of Gods general revelation, I can point
out where, when, and how this information was revealed by God, and thus I can show that it is not
merely a tradition of men. Limiting Gods revelation to Scripture alone, can you?
Your brother in Christ,

Gary Hoge

End Notes
1. Truths That Transform, pp. 7-8.
2. I did read your section on the Bible in Why I Believe, in which you mainly relied on predictive
prophecy to establish the truth of the Bible. But such prophecy only proves that those prophetic Old
Testament books were inspired. It proves nothing about the New Testament. The fact that Ezekiel
foretold the fall of Tyre does not establish that Pauls letter to Philemon was inspired by God.
3. The book of Revelation claims to have been written at the command of God, but that does not
necessarily mean it was inspired. Just because God tells someone to write down what they see, that
does not, in and of itself, prove that He planned to inspire them while they wrote.
4. Vatican II, Dei Verbum, 11.
5. Martin Luther, Commentary on St. John.

| Home | Scripture and Tradition |

Copyright 1998 by Gary Hoge

My Reply to Dr. Kennedy:

How Do You Know?

Dear Dr. Kennedy,

Thank you very much for your thoughtful response to my letter regarding the canon of the New
Testament. It meant a lot to me that you took time out from your busy schedule to write to me
personally.
Unfortunately, I seem to have given you the impression that I "doubt the New Testament," which
you alleged three times in your response. I assure you that nothing could be farther from the truth. I
accept every word of the New Testament as the inerrant and infallible Word of God, just as you do.
We are in complete agreement on this issue.
What I had wanted to discuss with you was the reasons for your faith in the New Testament,
because I perceive an apparent inconsistency in your stated views. On the one hand, you say that the
Scriptures "are the only infallible rule of faith and practice and . . . the final authority in all matters
of religion,"[1] and, "Any body of tradition . . . stems from the mind of men," but on the other hand,
you regard the canon of the New Testament, which is a fourth-century Church tradition, as if it had
been brought down from the mountain by Moses himself.
It seems to me that you have painted yourself into a theological corner. You want to reject all
tradition, and limit God's revelation to the Bible alone, but if you do then you're stuck with the
obvious fact that the Bible alone does not tell us what books belong between its covers. The Bible
knows nothing of a "canon of Scripture"; it was the Catholic Church that decided, in the late fourth
century, which books belong in the Bible. I would think that this fact alone would cause you to
reject the New Testament canon as being a "man-conceived tradition," yet you accept it as an
"infallible rule of faith." This is what I do not understand. Does not the existence of an extra-biblical
revelation that is an "infallible rule of faith" deal a fatal blow to the theory that God's revelation is
found only in the Bible? I confess that I am unable to reconcile this theory with the fact that God
revealed the canon of Scripture through the Church, not through the Bible alone, and thats why I
wanted to ask you how you reconciled these things.
It seems to me that if you reject the authority of the Church to formulate the canon of Scripture,
then you have no way at all to determine infallibly which books are Scripture. And yet somehow
you do think you know what the canon is, because you wrote that the Catholic Church had added
"apocryphal and pseudopigraphic writings as addenda to God's Word." I assume you are referring to
the seven books of the Old Testament commonly known as the Apocrypha. But how do you know
that those books are "apocryphal and pseudopigraphic"? The same Church councils that gave us the
New Testament canon also acknowledged those books as Scripture. They were a part of the Bible
for over eleven-hundred years before Martin Luther tossed them out.
I have no formal training in theology, as you do, so perhaps I'm missing something obvious here.
Can you help me understand your reasoning? I honestly don't understand by what right you and
Luther make yourselves the judge of what is and what is not the Word of God. If you don't think
you're doing that, then can you point to something other than your own opinion (or that of the
Reformers), some revelation from God, that tells us which books are Scripture? If you can't, and if
you reject the authority of the Church to make that decision, then I don't see how you, or anyone
else, can declare certain books to be inspired, and certain other books to be "apocryphal and
pseudopigraphic."
It seems to me that the fact that the New Testament "table of contents" was compiled by men,
centuries after the death of the last apostle, leads to only two possible conclusions: (1) the list is an
extra-biblical revelation from God, or (2) the list is merely the opinion of the men who drew it up.
Neither conclusion seems very attractive from your perspective. If you select the first conclusion,
then the existence of such an extra-biblical revelation would prove that the sola Scriptura doctrine
is false, because the revelation came through the Church and not through Scripture alone. On the
other hand, if you select the second option, then the list is merely a "tradition of men" and not a
doctrine of God. Thus, even if sola Scriptura were true, it would be impossible to practice it
because it would be impossible to know for sure which books are Scripture.
The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter I, paragraph VI, states,
The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's
salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and
necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time
 is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.

If you accept this statement, then you would seem to have no choice but to conclude that the fourth-
century list of books, being neither "expressly set down in Scripture" nor "deduced from Scripture,"
is merely a "tradition of men." I believe your colleague R. C. Sproul was of this opinion, because he
wrote that all we have is "a fallible collection of infallible books."[2] That conclusion preserves the
doctrine of sola Scriptura, but at the expense of the canon itself. It opens up the possibility that the
list, being man-made, accidentally included some non-inspired writings, or that it accidentally
omitted some inspired ones. Based on what I know of your theology, I assume that you do not admit
this possibility, and that you therefore credit the list itself with at least de facto infallibility.
Which brings us back to where we started. In your letter to me, you wrote that you do not need the
authority of "man-conceived church tradition." I'd like to know, then, how you were able to
determine the canon of Scripture without it. Can you tell me, in a manner consistent with the
doctrine of sola Scriptura and the Westminster Confession (assuming you agree with it), why you
accept the extra-biblical, fourth-century canon of the New Testament as an infallible revelation from
God, and not a "man-conceived church tradition"?
Thank you very much for your time, and may God grant you abundant grace, and continued
wisdom, as you lead the souls entrusted to your care.
Yours in Christ,

Gary Hoge

End Notes
1. Truths That Transform, pp. 7-8.
2. Essential Truths of the Christian Faith, (Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House, 1992), 22.

| Home | Scripture and Tradition |

Copyright 1998 by Gary Hoge

A Refutation of James Whites Golden Index Argument

by Gary Hoge
The Westminster Confession of Faith defines the Protestant doctrine of sola Scriptura this way:
The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, mans
salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and
necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time
is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.1

In other words, God revealed in the Bible alone everything we need to know for our faith. Of
course, in order for this fact to be of any use to us, we first have to know what books belong in the
Bible. So, how, exactly, do we know that? Unfortunately the Bible itself doesnt tell us what books
belong between its covers. The Table of Contents was not itself inspired, and none of the
apostolic writings identifies itself as Scripture except the book of Revelation, which, ironically, was
one of the books whose canonicity was disputed for centuries. Other books were disputed as well,
and the list we have today wasnt finally settled until the late fourth century.
Obviously, the Bibles table of contents is neither expressly set down in Scripture nor can it be
deduced from Scripture, (which would be an exercise in circularity), and so, according to the
Westminster Confession, it must be merely a tradition of men. A fourth-century tradition of men, to
be exact. But from a sola Scriptura perspective, this obviously casts doubt upon the integrity of the
Bible itself, making it debatable whether the Bible contains the books it should. Ironically, then, by
limiting Gods revelation to Scripture alone, sola Scriptura undermines the objective basis for our
confidence in the very Scriptures it seeks to exalt.
In his book The Roman Catholic Controversy, (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 1996), Protestant
apologist James White admits that this is the single best argument presented by Roman Catholics
against the concept of sola Scriptura (p. 92). However, he has proposed an answer to this argument
(pp. 92-95). I will present his answer below, and attempt to show that it does not really answer the
Catholic objection to sola Scriptura. Dr. Whites words will be shown in blue:
The difficulty of the question is that it views the canon as a separate entity from
Scripture. This extrascriptural view of the canon makes it itself an object of
revelation. In other words, we have here what I have called in the past the
golden index syndrome. Unless the Protestant can produce the golden index to
the Scriptures, like what Joseph Smith produced for the Mormons, then we
have here the refutation of sola scriptura. Without such an index, the Protestant
cannot know what the Scriptures actually are.

Actually, the problem isnt that Protestants cant know what the Scriptures are, its that they cant
know what the Scripture are in a way thats consistent with their own basic principles. In real life,
Protestants, like Catholics, simply accept the contents of the book they were handed by their
ancestors, pretty much without question. This handing down from one generation to the next of
some aspect of the faith is what Catholics call Tradition, and this particular Tradition call it the
Tradition of the Table of Contents has trickled down from the Catholic Church through the
various branches of the Protestant Reformation to each Christian community. Protestants
instinctively accept this Tradition as being from God, and as being de facto infallible, as evidenced
by the fact that they would consider it sacriligious and unthinkable to add a book to the canon, or to
remove a book from it. Thats why Catholics and Protestants have exactly the same New Testament.
Clearly, despite their theories, it is through Tradition that Protestants know what books belong in the
Bible, and therefore, when they deny that Tradition is a valid source of revelation, theyre sawing
off the branch upon which theyre sitting. In fact, their sola Scriptura theory cant even get off the
ground, because in order to use it, we first have to use Tradition to know what Scripture is.
Catholics have noticed this inconsistency, and thats why they say, Okay, you say you reject
Tradition. Tell me, then, without referring to Tradition, how you know what books belong in your
Bible. Protestants really have no answer to that question, as Dr. White is about to demonstrate.
But is the canon an extrabiblical revelation? I do not believe it is. The canon is a
function of Scripture, or to be more specific, it is a result of the inspiration of
Scripture itself. It is not an object of revelation separate from Scripture, but is
revealed and defined by Gods action of inspiration. This is a crucial point that I
have rarely heard addressed by Roman Catholic or Protestant apologists.

Then let me address it now. Dr. White argues that the canon is the result of inspiration itself, and
that God defined the canon by inspiring a certain set of books. But that is not in dispute, and it
misses the point of the Catholic objection. We all agree that the canon of Scripture consists of those
books that were inspired by God, and thus its existence is the result of the act of inspiration. But the
question remains: How do Protestants know which books belong to that canon, and which do not,
without relying on Church Tradition?
Dr. White alleges that the canon was revealed and defined by Gods action of inspiration. Well,
hes half right: it was defined by the act of Gods inspiration, but its scope wasnt revealed to
man by that action. The inspired books didnt come with This is an inspired book stamped across
the top, nor was their divine authorship necessarily obvious right off the bat. Thats why it took
Christians almost 400 years to agree on which books were inspired. Obviously, in real life, more
than the mere fact of their inspiration was needed to reveal to Christians the precise extent of the
canon.
The canon is a function of the Scriptures themselves. The canon is not just a
listing of books; it is a statement about what is inspired.

Whats the difference between a listing of inspired books and a statement about which books are
inspired?
The canon flows from the work of the Author of Scripture, God himself. To speak
of canon outside of speaking of what is God-breathed is to speak nonsense.

No kidding. As I said before, we all agree that the canon consists of those books that are God-
breathed. Now, how does a Protestant know, apart from Tradition, that the anonymous book of
Hebrews is one of those books?
Canon is not made by man. Canon is made by God. It is the result of the action
of his divine inspiration. That which is God-breathed is canon; that which is not
God-breathed is not canon. Its just that simple.

Well, there you have it. You want to know which books belong in the canon? Why, the God-
breathed ones, of course. You want to know which ones are God-breathed? Why, the ones that are in
the canon, of course.
Canon is a function of inspiration, and it speaks to an attribute of Scripture. The
canon of Scripture tells us something about Scripture: that is, the canon speaks
to the extent of the work of God in inspiring Scripture. God defines the canon
not by giving some revelation outside of the scriptura but by giving the scriptura
itself!

In other words, God creates the canon by creating the canon. Swell. But at the risk of getting
tedious, how do we know, apart from Tradition, which books belong in that canon? How do we
know that Pauls epistle to the Ephesians is inspired, but Ignatiuss epistle to the Ephesians isnt?
The Roman error lies in creating a dichotomy between two things that cannot be
separated, and then using that false dichotomy to deny sola scriptura. Often two
separate but related issues get confused when this topic is discussed: (1) the
canons nature, and (2) how people came to know the contents of the canon.

The canons nature is not in dispute. We all agree that the canon consists of those books that were
inspired by God. But granted that God inspired some books, how do Protestants know, apart from
Tradition, which books He inspired? Thats the question.
An illustration might help. I have written eight books. The action of my writing
those books creates the canon of my works. If a friend of mine does not have
accurate knowledge of how many books I have written, does that mean there is
no canon of my books?

Of course not, but thats irrelevant because no ones claiming that the canon of Scripture doesnt
exist if we dont know what it is. All were asking is, assuming it exists, how do you know what it
is? Its easy to identify the canon of Dr. Whites books: his names on each one of them. Identifying
the canon of Scripture is a bit trickier.
 No, of course not. In fact, if I was the only one who knew how many books I had
written, would that mean that the canon of my books does not exist?

Uh, no.
The point is clear.

Im afraid the only thing thats clear is that Dr. White doesnt seem to understand the question.
Were not questioning the existence of the canon. We agree that it exists, we simply want to know
how Dr. White knows which books are part of it.
The canon is one issue, and it comes from Gods action of inspiring the
Scriptures. Our knowledge of the canon is another.

Precisely. Now if only he could tell us how he knows, apart from Tradition, what the canon is.
Our knowledge can grow and mature, as it did at times in history. But the canon
is not defined by us nor is it affected by our knowledge or ignorance.

All true, but it still doesnt answer the question. How do Protestants know which books are inspired
without relying on Church Tradition?
While the Roman Catholic argument about the canon might appear to have
some validity with reference to the New Testament, it falls apart when applied to
the Old Testament. I have often asked Roman Catholics, How did a Jewish
man who lived fifty years before the time of Christ know that Isaiah and 2
Chronicles were Scripture?

Most likely, he simply accepted the testimony of the Jewish community that those two books were
Scripture. But what does that have to do with anything? Were not asking an ancient Jew how he
knew, apart from Tradition, that those books were inspired, because he wouldnt claim to know it
apart from Tradition. The Jews accepted Tradition as a source of revelation. Protestants claim not
to. Therefore, the question applies to them, but it doesnt apply to the ancient Jews. Apart from
Tradition, how do Protestants know those two books are inspired?
The question is meant both to define their particular viewpoint as well as
illustrate a point. If it is asserted that one must have an infallible knowledge of
what Scripture is and what it is not, then how did a Jewish man attain this kind
of infallible knowledge back then?

What is asserted (by Protestants) is that Gods revelation is confined to Scripture alone, and that
Tradition is not a valid source of revelation. The Jews didnt have that attitude, so the comparison
between them and Protestants is invalid. Further, its not asserted that Protestants must have an
infallible knowledge of what Scripture is and what it is not, rather, its observed that they already
act as if they do have this knowledge. Ive never met a single Protestant who had the slightest doubt
about which books were Scripture and which were not. My question, again, is, Where did you get
that knowledge and that certainty, if not from Tradition?
If the answer is that he gained such knowledge from the Jewish leadership,
then one has to wonder why we no longer follow that particular guide if indeed
God had an infallible guide on earth fifty years before Christ.

The Jews didnt have a fixed canon of Scripture before the time of Christ. In fact, they continued to
debate the canonicity of some books (e.g., Ecclesiastes) well into the Christian era. By the time they
got around to settling on a canon of Scripture, their temple had been destroyed, and the Christian
Church had been spreading the Gospel throughout the world for decades. In other words, by that
time, the rabbis had long since lost their authority to speak for God. As Christians, it seems to me
that we ought to follow the judgment of the Christian Church, not that of the post-apostolic rabbis.
And yet, the Protestant Reformers rejected the Old Testament canon that was accepted by the early
Christian Church, and accepted that of the post-apostolic Pharisees instead. Thats why Protestant
Bibles have fewer books in their Old Testament than Catholic Bibles do.
When did this guide become fallible?

It always was. And, again, this guide did not attempt to settle the canon of Scripture until well
into the Christian era, when they no longer had the authority to do so.
What is more, the corban rule we spoke of earlier in our discussion of Matthew
15 came from the same source, and yet Christ rejected it as a tradition of men
that contradicted the Scriptures.

Actually, He rejected the abuse of it, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic at hand.
And finally, the same source would say that Rome has erred in its Old
Testament canon, since it is quite obvious that the Jewish people did not hold to
the canon Rome has infallibly defined! So it will not do to go that direction.

As I said, by the time the Jewish people got around to settling their canon of Scripture, the mantle
of divine authority had long since passed from them to the Christian Church. Therefore, if were
Christians, it seems to me we ought to reject the canon that was adopted by the post-apostolic
Pharisees and accept the one that was adopted by the early Christian Church. You see, contrary to
the revisionist Protestant mythology, it is a fact of history that the Christian Church, as a whole,
accepted the so-called Apocrypha as Scripture. The post-apostolic Jews rejected it, and the
Reformers rejected it because the Jews did. Let me quote from a Protestant source, the
International Bible Commentary:
Even if one holds that Jesus put His imprimatur upon only the 39 books of the Hebrew
OT . . . he must admit that this fact escaped the notice of many of the early followers of
Jesus, or that they rejected it, for they accepted as equally authoritative those extra
books in the wider canon of the LXX . . . Polycarp [one of Johns disciples], Barnabas,
Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Cyprian, Origen--Greek and Latin Fathers
alike--quote both classes of books, those of the Hebrew canon and the Apocrypha,
without distinction. Augustine (A.D. 354-430) in his City of God (18.42-43) argued for
equal and identical divine inspiration for both the Jewish canon and the Christian
canon.2

Elsewhere, the International Bible Commentary says, The apocryphal books were excluded from
the Hebrew canon at least from A.D. 90 on, but included in the canon of the Christian church.3
The Christian canon has always included the Apocrypha. Whenever the Church officially set
forth a list of the scriptural books, those books were listed among the other biblical books, without
distinction. It is thought that the first such list was drawn up at a synod in Rome in the year 382
under the direction of Pope Damasus I. The same list was reaffirmed by the Synods of Hippo (A.D.
393), Carthage (A.D. 397, 419), and the Ecumenical Councils of Florence (1442), Trent (1546), and
Vatican I (1869).
Some have replied that our Jewish man living fifty years before Christ couldnt
infallibly know that Isaiah and 2 Chronicles were Scripture. And yet, as we have
seen, Jesus held men responsible for the Scriptures and their teachings
(Matthew 22:31). To say that such a person did not need to have an infallible
knowledge, but only a sufficient knowledge--based upon the overall acceptance
of Gods people and the internal consistency and integrity of the Scriptures as a
 body--is to say nothing more than what Protestants say about all the Bible. It
admits there is no need for the golden index in this case, or any other.

But we dont accept the Bible because of the internal consistency and integrity of the Scriptures as
a body, rather we accept it in spite of the apparent lack of such internal consistency. I have a book
several inches thick devoted entirely to attempting to explain all of the apparent conflicts and
inconsistencies in the Bible. As the International Bible Commentary again says,
Only those books can be judged canonical that are free from contradictions,
inaccuracies, inconsistencies, peculiar practices, etc. . . . [But] had the question of [the
Hebrew Bibles] canonicity rested purely upon standards such as this it is impossible to
see how the Jews could ever have come to accept the OT books as being of divine
authority.4

The fact is, Protestants accept the Bible without question, in spite of its apparent contradictions and
inconsistencies, because that is their Tradition, and its a Tradition they inherited from us.
I close with the observation of the Psalmist recorded in Psalm 119, Forever, O
Lord, Your word is settled in heaven (v.89). How did the Psalmist know this?
His entire psalm is a long tribute to the worth and power of the Scriptures, but
how could he write such a psalm centuries before there was a bishop in Rome
to tell him that the Scriptures were inspired, or which books belonged to the
canon?

Notice that Dr. White thinks the phrase Your word in the psalm must automatically refer to
Scripture alone. Thats a supposition he makes quite naturally because hes a Protestant. But the
psalmist was a Jew. He didnt think the word of God was confined to Scripture alone. In fact, if you
take out a concordance and look up the word word, youll see that in the vast majority of
occurrences in both testaments the phrase word of God does not refer to Scripture. Try it; its
an eye-opening experience.
In conclusion, I must point out that Dr. White never answered the question Catholics posed. He
never told us how he, as a Protestant, knows which books belong in the Bible. I think the reason he
cant tell us how he knows what the canon of Scripture is apart from Tradition, is because he
doesnt know what the canon of Scripture is apart from Tradition. Like every other Christian, he
accepted the Bible he was handed, and the only way he knows what books belong in the canon of
Scripture is to open that Bible to page one and read the Table of Contents. In other words, he
accepts the witness of the Church and the Tradition that was handed down to him, and the only
reason he knows that books like Ecclesiastes and 2 Peter are inspired is because theyre in his Bible.

End Notes
1 Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter I, paragraph VI.
2Gerald F. Hawthorne, Canon and Apocrypha of the Old Testament, International Bible
Commentary, ed. F.F. Bruce, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1986), 37, 35.
3 Hawthorne, Commentary, 34.
4 Hawthorne, Commentary, 37.

| Home | Scripture and Tradition |

Copyright 2001 by Gary Hoge