How the Canon of Scripture Undermines Sola Scriptura (Part 2)

A letter to Presbyterian minister D. James Kennedy

Gary Hoge

 

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 that’s 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,

Part 1, Part 2