Debates, Conundrums, and Essential Principles

An axiom is a statement, postulate, or presupposition that is taken as true and that serves as the premise or starting point for further reasoning and arguments. The New Testament word for axioms or “presuppositions” is στοιχεια. This word was used in classical Greek and by the Church fathers to mean the elementary or fundamental principles.

In geometry it was used for axioms, and in philosophy for elements of proof or the πρωτοι συλλογισμοῖ of general reasoning (Liddell and Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, s.v. ). Both of these definitions are synonyms for “presuppositions.”

The New Testament teaches that the στοιχεια are the “foundation” upon which our faith and practice rests (Heb. 5:12-6:3). We find our στοιχεια in the Word of God (Heb. 5:12) and most specifically in the person of Jesus Christ (Col. 2:8-10; Heb. 6:1) revealed in them. The στοιχεια of the world are the foundation of the non-Christian “philosophy” (Col. 2:8) and are diametrically opposed to the στοιχεια of Christ the God-Man (Col 2:8-10). Our thoughts and actions are a logical outworking of these στοιχεια in everyday life (Col. 2:20ff). We must recognize that the superstructure of our world-and-life view is antithetical to the superstructure of the heathen’s world-and-life view, not because the superstructures do not have any things in common, but because of the way in which these superstructures are completely committed to their foundation or presuppositions. Paul gives us an example of this concept when he vigorously opposed the Galatians’ succumbing to pressure to be circumcised and observe “days and months and times and years” (Gal. 4:10). Though the physical act of circumcision was not wrong (cf. 1 Cor. 7:19; Acts 16:3), the idea that lay behind it was destructive and led to syncretism, a denial of their presuppositions, and an unintentional reversion to weak and pathetic presuppositions (Gal. 4:9).↩︎

As the Westminster Confession of Faith words it,

The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself; and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.” The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture. (WCF I.ix-x)

As we will see, this is just as true of the doctrine of canonicity as it is any other doctrine.↩︎

“Canon” is a term that refers either 1) to a rule of faith and truth or 2) to the list of books which are considered to be part of Holy Scripture. In this book I will be using the latter definition. The canon of Scripture is the authoritative list of books that are considered to be Scripture. The Westminster Confession of Faith insists that God alone can determine canon. Otherwise man is the judge of God’s revelation. While there are many circumstantial evidences that God has orchestrated, “our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts” (I.v). It is God who determines the canon of Scripture.↩︎

Greg L. Bahnsen, “The Concept and Importance of Canonicity,” Antithesis 1, no. 5 (Sept./Oct. 1990), available as Covenant Media Foundation article PT093, https://thebahnsenbibleacademy.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/PT093-Concept-and-Importance-of-Canonicity.pdf. I originally received this essay as an unpublished paper from Bahnsen himself; it was subsequently published in Antithesis. This seminal paper triggered a desire in me to be totally consistent with my presuppositional starting point of Scripture. Bahnsen has also applied this presuppositional approach to the question of whether the Bible is inerrant in Greg L. Bahnsen, “Inductivism, Inerrancy, and Presuppositionalism,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 20, no. 4 (December 1977): 289–305. This is a brilliant response to opponents of inerrancy.↩︎

Any number of quotes could be given to demonstrate this: John Calvin said, “God alone is a fit witness of himself in his Word… Scripture is indeed self-authenticated” (John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960), 1.7.4–5). Francis Turretin said, “Thus Scripture, which is the first principle in the supernatural order, is known by itself and has no need of arguments derived from without to prove and make itself known to us” (Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, trans. George Musgrave Giger, ed. James T. Dennison Jr., 3 vols. (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 1992–1997), 1:89 (2.6.11)). Herman Bavink expresses the historic view of the fathers as corresponding to that of the Protestants: “In the church fathers and the scholastics… [Scripture] rested in itself, was trustworthy in and of itself (αὐατοπιστος), and the primary norm for church and theology.” (Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, vol. 1, Prolegomena, ed. John Bolt, trans. John Vriend (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003), 452). Therefore, Bavinck argues that an ultimate authority like Scripture (a “first principle”) must be “believed on its own account, not on account of something else… Scripture’s authority with respect to itself depends on Scripture.” (p. 458).↩︎

Westminster Larger Catechism #3, emphasis mine.↩︎

For a presuppositional approach to textual criticism, see my book, Has God Indeed Said?: The Preservation of the Text of Scripture, available for free download from https://store.biblicalblueprints.com/products/has-god-indeed-said↩︎

Karl Keating represents Roman Catholicism when he says that “an infallible authority is needed if we are to know what belongs in the Bible and what does not. Without such an authority, we are left to our own prejudices, and we cannot tell if our prejudices lead us in the right direction… [The authority needed is] an infallible, teaching Church… The same Church that authenticates the Bible, that establishes inspiration, is the authority set up by Christ to interpret his word” (Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1988), pp. 132-133).↩︎

Bishop Kallistos (Timothy Ware) states the Eastern Orthodoxy position this way: “It is from the Church that the Bible ultimately derives its authority, for it was the Church which originally decided which books form a part of Holy Scripture” (Timothy Ware, The Orthodox Church (New York: Penguin Books, 1997), p. 199).↩︎

James Packer, God Speaks to Man: Revelation and the Bible, Christian Foundations, 6 (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1965), p.81↩︎

Calvin, Luther, Mornay, and many other Reformers demonstrated that Rome had abandoned the catholic faith on this and many other doctrines. When I deal with Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox objections to the Reformation view of the canon later in this book, I will document the pervasive belief in the doctrine of Sola Scriptura in the church of the first millennium. Cyril of Jerusalem (AD 313-386) is representative of many when he says,

For concerning the divine and sacred Mysteries of the Faith, we ought not to deliver even the most casual remark without the Holy Scriptures: nor be drawn aside by mere probabilities and the artifices of argument. Do not then believe me because I tell thee these things, unless thou receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth: for this salvation, which is of our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings, but by proof from the Holy Scriptures. (Cyril of Jerusalem, The Catechetical Lectures IV.17 in A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford: Parker, 1845)).

For example, conservative scholar, Roland Kenneth Harrison, in his excellent book, Introduction to the Old Testament, agrees with the Protestant principle that the Scriptures are “self-authenticating” and “do not derive their authority either from individual human beings or from corporate ecclesiastical pronouncements” (p. 263). He rightly rejects the Roman Catholic assumption that the church is the “mother of the Bible” and denies that the church has authority to determine the canon (see p. 262). Yet he admits that he cannot defend this assertion from the Bible: “While the Bible legitimately ought to be allowed to define and describe canonicity, it has in point of fact almost nothing to say about the manner in which holy writings were assembled, or the personages who exercised an influence over the corpus during the diverse stages of its growth” (Roland Kenneth Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969), p. 262). This major gap in understanding of the Bible’s self-referential statements is common among Protestants and leaves them vulnerable to the Roman Catholic apologetic. It is the purpose of this book to show that the Bible is actually full of self-referential information that speaks directly to the issue of canonicity.↩︎

According to ancient Greek legend, the great warrior, Achilles, had been dipped in magical waters as a baby that would make him invulnerable to attack. Since Achilles was held by the heel, the heel was not immersed, and therefore the heel alone was vulnerable to wounds. That one weakness would be exploited near the end of the Trojan War by Paris. As the story goes, he shot Achilles in the heel with an arrow, killing his seemingly invincible foe. Thus, to have an “Achilles’ heel” is a metaphor of having a weak point in our defenses. Many Roman Catholic apologists claim that Sola Scriptura is not Protestantism’s greatest strength, but its greatest weakness.↩︎

What the Confession calls “good and necessary consequence” ( Westminster Confession of Faith, I.6)↩︎

Just as J.C. Keister, “Math and the Bible,” in The Trinity Review
(No. 27/Sept/Oct, 1992) has shown the axioms of mathematics to be embedded in the Scripture, John Robbins and others have demonstrated that all the axioms of logic are used in Scripture and thus show the divine warrant for a complete system of logic. Some might ask, “Which system of logic?” Actually there are not truly different systems of logic. Gordon Clark has shown that there is a problem with Bertrand Russell’s modification of Aristotelian logic, and cautions against it, However, the basic structure of logical thinking cannot be different. For proof of where Russell went wrong, see Clark’s book, Logic, pp. 83ff. For a marvelous college level course on logic using the Bible as the source, write to the Trinity Foundation in Jefferson, MD. This is currently also available on Youtube, with lecture one being here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hllEWx-khWo↩︎

For example, the Larger Catechism sees as a violation of the third commandment not only faulty exegesis (“misinterpreting” Scripture), but also faulty deductions (“misapplying” Scripture and theology) (LC. 113). It treats as a violation of the first commandment the following: “ignorance, forgetfulness, misapprehensions, false opinions…vain credulity, unbelief, heresy, [and] misbelief” (LC 105). In other words, these writers saw any form of irrationality as both a theological problem and an ethical problem. The irrationality may be deliberate rebellion or may be the secondary effects of Adam’s fall (noetic effects of the Fall). It is clear that the Westminster Assembly believed that irrationality led to having other gods than the rational Jehovah (first commandment) and that irrationality led to inconsistencies with wearing the name of God as His followers (third commandment). If we are to think God’s thoughts after Him, then our thoughts will be and must be rational thoughts. Anything else does dishonor to God.↩︎

John Frame, The Doctrine of The Knowledge of God (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing Company, 1987), pp. 251-254.↩︎

See for example Gordon Clark’s discussion in A Christian Philosophy of Education (Jefferson, MD: The Trinity Foundation, 1988), pp. 129-140.↩︎

Which has in its meaning both logic and discourse. Christ is the Word of God. He is also the Logic of God.↩︎

This of course does not mean that we do not need to study language, but linguistic analysis has demonstrated that children from every language group use the same “rules” to make sense out of the patterns of words that they hear. There is something innate (God-given) that enables them to learn a language. See Gordon Clark, Religion, Reason and Revelation. In the same way, God’s people must study logic to improve their understanding of Scripture. This study is simply seeking to make our thoughts more and more consistent with the logic of Scripture and the God who gave Scripture and logic.↩︎

Circular reasoning (sometimes called the fallacy of the petitio principii) is the fallacy of assuming what it is attempting to prove. It is a use of reason in which the premises depend on or are equivalent to the conclusion, a method of false logic by which “this is used to prove that, and that is used to prove this.” When it comes to the Reformation approach to canonicity, even Protestants have sometimes mistakenly claimed that the Reformation approach of using the Scriptures to establish the canon is the fallacy of petitio principii. For a Roman Catholic example of this accusation, see https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/according-to-scripture↩︎

As William Alston words it, “There is no escape from epistemic circularity in the assessment of our fundamental sources of belief” (William Alston, “Knowledge of God,” in Faith, Reason, and Skepticism, ed. Marcus Hester (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1992), 41).↩︎

Greg L. Bahnsen says, “The ‘circularity’ of a transcendental argument is not at all the same as the fallacious ‘circularity’ of an argument in which the conclusion is a restatement (in one form or another) of one of its premises. Rather, it is the circularity involved in a coherent theory (where all the parts are consistent with or assume each other) and which is required when one reasons about a precondition for reasoning. Because autonomous philosophy does not provide the preconditions for rationality or reasoning, its ‘circles’ are destructive of human thought – i.e., ‘vicious’ and futile endeavors” (Greg Bahnsen, Van Til’s Apologetics: Readings and Analysis (Phillipsburg, Presbyterian and Reformed, 1998), 518).↩︎

There are two forms of Presuppositional Apologetics that (while competing with each other) have both offered very helpful insights about the nature of presuppositional reasoning. An excellent introduction to Van Tillian apologetics can be found in Greg L. Bahnsen, Always Ready: Directions for Defending the Faith (Texarkana, AR: Covenant Media Foundation, 1996). The second form of presuppositionalism can be found in the brilliant writings of Gordon H. Clark. An excellent and brief introduction to Clarkianism can be found in Gary W. Crampton, The Scripturalism of Gordon H. Clark (Jefferson, MD: Trinity Foundation, 1999). This book contains a comprehensive bibliography of all of Dr. Clark’s writings.↩︎

I should clarify that while some of the criteria have validity (for example, agreement with the Torah, unity and self-testimony, preservation, etc.), it is the purpose of this book to show that the Scripture has given us everything that we need to determine the canon of the Old and New Testaments. One Scriptural rule that will be used in the second half of this book is the Biblical doctrine of inerrancy. This rule will primarily be used in an ad hominem way. We will introduce a few other Biblical rules by which other literature (such as the Koran) can be judged, but the first half of this book will restrict its discussion to the Biblical proofs for the Protestant canon.↩︎

Though many people believe that Paul wrote Hebrews, there is abundant evidence that Luke wrote Hebrews. For an introduction to this subject, see David L. Allen, Lukan Authorship of Hebrews, (Nashville: B&H Publishing, 2010).↩︎

See for example, the books written by prophets and that contained “prophecies” and “visions” in 2 Chron. 9:29. Other prophetic books include the Book of The Wars of Jehovah (Numb. 21:14), the Book of Jashar (Josh. 10:13; 2 Sam. 1:18), another Book of Samuel on the Kingdom (1 Sam. 10:25), the Book of the Chronicles of David (1 Chron. 27:24), the Book of the Acts of Solomon (1 Kings 11:41), Solomon’s three thousand proverbs and 1005 songs (1 Kings 4:32), the book of Solomon’s Natural History (1 Kings 4:32-33), the Book of Shemaiah the Prophet (2 Chron. 12:15), the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite (2 Chron. 9:29), the Visions of Iddo the seer (2 Chron. 9:29; 12:15), “the annals of the prophet Iddo” (2 Chron. 13:22), a full history of king Uzziah written by Isaiah (2 Chron. 26:22), the Book of Jehu the Son of Hanani (2 Chron. 20:34), and an extrabiblical (but reliable) history of the Kings (1 Kings 14:19,25; Chron. 20:34; 33:18).↩︎

Though this is contested by some scholars, I believe the evidence favors the view that the Saduccees did not accept any books as authoritative beyond the Pentateuch. Since they were literalists in their interpretation, it is almost certain that they would have believed in the resurrection and in spirits (contra Matt. 22:23; Acts 23:8) if they took the rest of the Old Testament as authoritative.

Likewise, it seems unlikely that Christ would have appealed to such an obscure passage in the Pentateuch when arguing with them (Matt. 22:32 quotes Ex. 3:6), if the Sadducees had been willing to accept the authority of much more obvious texts on the resurrection, such as Isaiah 26:19; Job 19:25-26; Dan. 12:2; etc. Hippolytus of Rome (170-235 AD) said that the Sadducees “do not, however, devote attention to prophets, but neither do they to any other sages, except to the law of Moses only.” Origen also claimed that “the Samaritans and Sadducees … receive the books of Moses alone.” I do grant that some scholars have concluded differently. For example, F.F. Bruce states,

It is probable, indeed, that by the beginning of the Christian era the Essenes (including the Qumran community) were in substantial agreement with the Pharisees and the Sadducees about the limits of the Hebrew scripture. (F.F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1988), p. 40).

Though this conclusion is not shared by scholars such as F.F. Bruce, who says,

Philo of Alexandria (c 20 BC-AD 50) evidently knew the scriptures in the Greek version only. He was an illustrious representative of Alexandrian Judaism, and if Alexandrian Judaism did indeed recognize a more comprehensive canon than Palestinian Judaism, one might have expected to find some trace of this in Philo’s voluminous writings. But, in fact, while Philo has not given us a formal statement on the limits of the canon such as we have in Josephus, the books which he acknowledged as holy scripture were quite certainly books included in the traditional Hebrew Bible … he shows no sign of accepting the authority of any of the books which we know as the Apocrypha. (Bruce, The Canon of Scripture, pp. 29-30)

Beckwith says,

It is difficult to conceive of the canon being organized according to a rational principle, or of its books being arranged in a definite order, unless the identity of those books was already settled and the canon closed, still more is it difficult to conceive of those books being counted, and the number being generally accepted and well known, if the canon remained open and the identity of its books uncertain. Even if there were not (as in fact there is) evidence to show which books it was that were counted, sometimes alphabetically as 22, sometimes more simply as 24, the presumption would still hold good that the identity of the books must have been decided before they could be counted, and that agreement about their number implies agreement about their identity. And such agreement, as we have now seen, had probably been reached by the second century BC. (Roger Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985), pp. 262-263).

This too has been disputed by many. See chapters referenced in previous footnotes from F.F. Bruce and Roger Beckwith.↩︎

The Reformers did not disagree with the statement that the church is the pillar and ground of the truth, but they insisted that the church has failed to be the pillar and ground of the truth when it fails to derive 100% of its teachings from the truth of the Bible. As Paul elsewhere stated, “that you may learn in us not to think beyond what is written” (1 Cor. 4:6). This phrase, “the pillar and ground of the truth,” does help to distinguish between the errant deviation from Sola Scriptura sometimes known as Solo Scriptura. Solo Scriptura isolates the individual from the body of Christ and the growing body of information that God has enabled the church to mine from the Bible over the centuries. Solo Scriptura is sometimes facetiously described as “only me, the Bible, and the Holy Spirit.” The word “only” in that phrase disobeys the many Biblical commands to listen to teachers (Matt. 10:24; Rom. 12:7; 1 Cor. 12:28-29; Eph. 4:11; 2 Tim. 4:2; Titus 2:3; Heb. 5:12; etc.). while being a Berean who checks their interpretations against the Bible (Acts 17:11; 1 Thes. 5:21; etc.). Historical Theology (the study of how the church has gradually developed doctrinal ideas from the Bible) is a helpful corrective to an anarchical approach to Scripture. Where Sola Scriptura takes seriously God’s providential work through the church to preserve His doctrines, Solo Scriptura is so radically individualistic that it wants each individual to reinvent the wheel in every generation and fails to honor the teachers that God has given to the church. We believe that historical theology is a necessary check and balance to our exegetical and systematic theology. If no one in the church has ever held to our doctrine, it is likely that our new doctrine is wrong. We will be devoting an entire chapter to the Historical Theology of canon to show that our approach is consistent with the teachings of the church of the first millennium and that the Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodoxy have left catholic doctrine behind and embraced what the early church considered heresy.↩︎

For a a thorough rebuttal of the Roman Catholic interpretation of that verse, see J.N.D. Kelly, A Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981), p. 88. He writes, “We should note (a) that buttress is probably a more accurate rendering of the Greek heraioma (nowhere else found) than ‘foundation’ or ‘ground’ (AV), and (b) that the local church is described as a pillar, etc., not ‘the pillar, etc.’, because there are many local churches throughout the world performing this role.” In effect Paul was saying that the church should be a Scriptural church. Paul is not contradicting himself when he said in 2 Timothy 3:16-17 that the Scriptures are “profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.” If there is even one good work that Roman Catholic tradition gives to us that is not found in the Bible, then the Bible is not sufficient to make us thoroughly equipped for every good work. Paul’s charge to Timothy was to “Preach the Word” (vv. 18-19), not something beyond the Word. The church should support the Word (pillar), not undermine it. The church should promote the Word (buttress), not go beyond it.↩︎

In 1546 (at the Council of Trent) Rome officially added the following books (or portions of books) to the canon: Tobit, Judith, the Greek additions to Esther, the Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, Baruch, the Letter of Jeremiah, three Greek additions to Daniel (the Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Jews, Susanna, and Bel and the Dragon), and I and 2 Maccabees.↩︎

The Greek Orthodox Church added 1 Esdras, the Prayer of Manasseh, Psalm 151, and 3 Maccabees to the books accepted by the Roman Catholic Church.↩︎

The Slavonic (Russian) Orthodox Church adds to the Greek Orthodox canon the book of 2 Esdras, but designates 1 and 2 Esdras as 2 and 3 Esdras.↩︎

The Coptic Church adds the two Epistles of Clement to the Protestant canon.↩︎

The Ethiopian Orthodox Church has the largest canon of all. To the apocryphal books found in the Septuagint Old Testament, it adds the following: Jubilees, I Enoch, and Joseph ben Gorion’s (Josippon’s) medieval history of the Jews and nations. To the 27 books of the New Testament they add eight additional texts: namely four sections of church order from a compilation called Sinodos, two sections from the Ethiopic Book of the Covenant, Ethiopic Clement, and Ethiopic Didascalia. It should be noted that for the New Testament they have a broader and a narrower canon. The narrower canon is identical to the Protestant and Catholic canon.↩︎

The Armenian Bible includes the History of Joseph and Asenath and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, and the New Testament included the Epistle of Corinthians to Paul and a Third Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians.↩︎

Some Orthodox churches add the book of 4 Maccabees as well.↩︎

Pope Gregory the Great said, “We shall not act rashly, if we accept a testimony of books, which, although not canonical, have been published for the edification of the Church.” Moral Treatises 19.21, citing a passage from Maccabees.↩︎

As Kim Riddlebarger puts it so clearly: “If true, this forces us to conclude that “the Word of God is both temporally and regulatively prior to the church,” no small point in such discussions. An important argument raised by Protestants based on the clear biblical statements about the inspiration of Scripture, and therefore the priority of the Word of God, is that the Holy Spirit moved the biblical writers, not the church (not even the “Spirit-led” church), to produce holy Scripture. Inspired Scripture, then, is the basis for the authority of the church, but only as the church is faithful to that inspired Word… The church has no authority apart from the prior written Word and no authority at all apart from a faithful proclamation of that Word - a standard that I as a Protestant would argue Rome cannot meet!” (Kim Riddlebarger, “No Place Like Rome?” in John Armstrong (ed), Roman Catholicism: Evangelical Protestants Analyze What Divides and Unites Us. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1994), p. 236).↩︎

This does not deny that men can “know” things beyond the Scripture (such as the identity of their wife, an airplane taking off, etc.), but denies that such knowledge can be justified. It also denies that anything can be rightly interpreted without a Biblical worldview. Since the “fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge” (Prov. 1:7; cf. 2:5) and since the “fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom” (Prov. 9:10) and since the Scriptures are “the key of knowledge” (Luke 11:52), no fact of this universe is rightly known as God would have us know it outside of a Biblical worldview since God created all things by, for and through Christ (Col. 1:16) and since He sustains all things (Col. 1:17; Heb. 1:3) it would be (as Cornelius van Til worded it) “impossible to interpret any fact without a basic falsification unless it be regarded in its relation to God the Creator and to Christ the Redeemer.” Humanists and Biblicists look at a tree (and every cell of that tree) in an entirely different way. The humanist might see the tree as evolved and even as planted by random chance, whereas the Christian sees it as predestined, created, sustained, and serving a perfect purpose in God’s plan. Thus, what is known about the tree is quite different in each person.↩︎

I especially recommend his, An Introduction to Christian Philosophy, Three Types of Religous Philosophy, and A Christian View of Men and Things. His overview of the history of philosophy, Thales to Dewey, is useful reading for those who want to dig deeper.↩︎

Gordon H. Clark, Religion, Reason and Revelation (Jefferson, MD: Trinity Foundation, 1986), p. 152.↩︎

John M. Frame, “Cornelius Van Til,” Handbook of Evangelical Theologians, ed. Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993), p. 163.↩︎

For example, Catechism of the Catholic Church #182 says, “We believe all ‘that which is contained in the word of God, written or handed down, and which the Church proposes for belief as divinely revealed’” (Paul VI, CPG, § 20). Emphasis mine. This is a call for implicit faith in both Scripture and all church dogma.↩︎

In the early AD 300s, Cyrile of Jerusalem said, “We ought not to deliver even the most casual remark without the Holy Scriptures; nor be drawn aside by mere probabilities and the artifices of argument.  Do not then believe me because I tell you these things, unless you receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth…” Cyril of Jerusalem, The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril (Oxford; London: John Henry Parker; J. G. and F. Rivington, 1838), 42. He is interpreting 1 Corinthians 4:6 in exactly the same way that I did - “that you may learn in us not to think beyond what is written.” Is that not a statement that apostolic tradition did not deviate in the smallest iota from Scripture? In fact, Cyril’s whole essay was defending this teaching that he had no authority and that no other human had authority beyond the Scripture.  That is a Protestant view of tradition. William Webster said, “the Fathers rejected the teaching of an apostolic oral tradition independent of Scripture as a Gnostic heresy. For the church fathers, apostolic tradition or teaching was embodied and preserved in Scripture” [McGrath, Brown, et al, Roman Catholicism, p. 273).

Ireneaus is often appealed to as supporting the Roman Catholic view of tradition, but Ireneaus was clear that 100% of apostolic tradition was committed to writing in the New Testament. For example, he said, “The apostles at that time first preached the Gospel but later by the will of God, they delivered it to us in the Scriptures, that it might be the foundation and pillar of our faith… Since, therefore, the tradition from the apostles does thus exist in the Church, and is permanent among us, let us revert to the Scriptural proof furnished by those apostles who did also write the Gospel, in which they recorded the doctrine regarding God, pointing out that our Lord Jesus Christ is the truth, and that no lie is in Him.” Irenaeus of Lyons, The Writings of Irenæus, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, trans. Alexander Roberts and W. H. Rambaut, vol. 1, Ante-Nicene Christian Library (Edinburgh; London; Dublin: T. & T. Clark; Hamilton & Co.; John Robertson & Co., 1868–1869), 266.↩︎

I will seek to demonstrate this point more fully in chapter 10, but the following four quotes from the fathers will give the sense of that age. Saint Vincent of Lerins (AD 450) said, “the canon of Scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient.” Vincent of Lérins, “The Commonitory of Vincent of Lérins,” in Sulpitius Severus, Vincent of Lérins, John Cassian,* ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. C. A. Heurtley, vol. 11, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1894), 132. Athanasius said, “The holy and inspired Scriptures are fully sufficient for the proclamation of the truth” (Athanasius; Against the Heathen, I:3). Chrystostom said, “Regarding the things I say, I should supply even the proofs, so I will not seem to rely on my own opinions, but rather, prove them with Scripture, so that the matter will remain certain and steadfast.” (John Chrysostom, Homily 8 On Repentance and the Church, p. 118, vol. 96 TFOTC).

Augustine said, “If anyone preaches either concerning Christ or concerning His church or concerning any other matter which pertains to our faith and life; I will not say, if we, but what Paul adds, if an angel from heaven should preach to you anything besides what you have received in the Scriptures of the Law and of the Gospels, let him be anathema.” Augustine, Contra litteras Petiliani, Bk 3, ch. 6, as translated by James White, “Chapter Two: Sola Scriptura and the Early Church,” in Sola Scriptura: The Protestant Position on the Bible, ed. Don Kistler (Lake Mary, FL: Reformation Trust Publishing, 2009), 25. William Cunningham spoke of “the constant maintenance, during the first three centuries, of the supremacy and sufficiency of the sacred Scriptures, and the right and duty of all men to read and study them.  There is no trace of evidence in the first three centuries that these scriptural principles were denied or doubted, and there is satisfactory evidence that they were steadily and purely maintained… and the same may be said of the writings, without exception, of many succeeding centuries - there is not the slightest traces of anything like that depreciation of the Scriptures, that denial of their fitness, because of their obscurity and alleged imperfection, to be a sufficient rule or standard of faith, which stamp so peculiar a guilt and infamy upon Popery and Tractarianism.  There is nothing in the least resembling this; on the contrary, there is a constant reference to Scripture as the only authoritative standard” William Cunningham, Historical Theology: A Review of the Principal Doctrinal Discussions in the Christian Church since the Apostolic Age., vol. 1 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1863), 185-186. See also quotes in the previous footnote.↩︎

Cyril of Jerusalem said, “For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell thee these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures.” Cyril of Jerusalem, “The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril, Archbishop of Jerusalem,” in S. Cyril of Jerusalem, S. Gregory Nazianzen, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. R. W. Church and Edwin Hamilton Gifford, vol. 7, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1894), 23.
Anastasius of Antioch said, “It is manifest that those things are not to be inquired into, which Scripture has passed over into silence. For the Holy Spirit has dispensed and administered to us all things which conduce to our profit” Anagog. Contemp. in Hexem. lib 8 init. As quoted by John Henry Newman, The Via Media of the Anglican Church, vol. 1 (London: Basil Montagu Pickering, 1877), 319. Athanasius said, “Scripture is of all things most sufficient for us” Athanasius of Alexandria, “To the Bishops of Egypt,” in St. Athanasius: Select Works and Letters, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. Miles Atkinson and Archibald T. Robertson, vol. 4, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1892), 225.“the holy and inspired Scriptures are sufficient of themselves to make known the truth” (Contra Gentiles, 1:1). As quoted by William Goode, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice, Second Edition, Revised and Enlarged, vol. 3 (London: John Henry Jackson, 1853), 239. Athanasius also said, “These [canonical books just cited] are the fountains of salvation, that he who thirsteth may be satisfied with the wordsf they contain. In these alone is proclaimed the doctrine of godliness. Let no man add to them, neither let him take ought from them.“ Athanasius of Alexandria, The Festal Epistles of S. Athanasius, trans. Henry Burgess (Oxford; London: John Henry Parker; F. and J. Rivington, 1854), 139. He also said, “divine Scripture is sufficient above all things.” Athanasius of Alexandria, “Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia,” in St. Athanasius: Select Works and Letters, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. John Henry Newman and Archibald T. Robertson, vol. 4, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1892), 453.↩︎

E.O. Scholar, Timothy Ware (Bishop Kalistas) says, “Orthodox are always talking about Tradition. What do they mean by the word? … It means the books of the Bible; it means the Creed; it means the decrees of the Ecumenical Councils and the writings of the Fathers; it means the Canons, the Service of Books, the Holy Icons - in fact, the whole system of doctrine, Church government, worship, spirituality and art which Orthodoxy has articulated over the ages” (Timothy Ware, The Orthodox Church, New Edition [New York: Penguin Books, 1997], p. 196).

The Second Vatican Council declared that tradition “includes everything which contributes towards the sanctity of life and increase in faith of the People of God; and so the Church, in her teaching, life and worship [the Creeds, the Sacraments, the Magisterium, and the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass], perpetuates and hands on to all generations all that she herself is, all that she believes” (http://www.ewtn.com/library/councils/v2revel.htm).

The same text indicates that this body of information keeps growing as God opens the church’s eyes to tradition more and more - “For as the centuries succeed one another, the Church constantly moves forward toward the fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach their complete fulfillment in her.”↩︎

Augustine said, “it is only to the canonical Scriptures that I owe such a willing submission that I follow them alone…” as “not in error anywhere” (Augustine of Hippo, Letters [1–82], trans. Wilfrid Parsons, vol. 1, The Fathers of the Church [Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1951], 411). In the same letter he said “if an angel from heaven should preach to you anything besides what you have received in the Scriptures of the Law and of the Gospels, let him be anathema” (Augustine, Contra litteras Petiliani, Bk 3, ch. 6) translated from Latin by James White, “Chapter Two: Sola Scriptura and the Early Church,” in Sola Scriptura: The Protestant Position on the Bible, ed. Don Kistler (Lake Mary, FL: Reformation Trust Publishing, 2009), 25. In his Preface on the Trinity, Augustine said, “Do not follow my writings as Holy Scripture.  When you find in Holy Scripture anything you did not believe before, believe it without doubt; but in my writings, you should hold nothing for certain.”↩︎

Karl Keating, Roman Catholic apologist, wrote: “The Bible actually denies that it is the complete rule of faith… the Bible is not the sole rule of faith and that nothing in the Bible suggests it was meant to be… The true rule of faith is Scripture plus…” (Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1988), p. 134,136). The Second Vatican Council said, “the Church does not draw her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone.  Hence, both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal feelings of devotion and reverence” (Austin P. Flannery, ed., Documents of Vatican II (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), p. 755).

The Eastern Orthodox have a slightly different take. Rather than seeing tradition and Scripture as two streams of revelation, they see Scripture as one part of Tradition. Within tradition, the highest value is given “to the Bible, to the Creed, to the doctrinal definitions of the Ecumenical Councils: these things the Orthodox accept as something absolute and unchanging, something which cannot be cancelled or revised. The other parts of Tradition do not have quite the same authority. The decrees of Jassy or Jerusalem do not stand on the same level as the Nicene Creed, nor do the writings of Athansius, or as Symeon the New Theologian, occupy the same position as the Gospel of St. John” (Timothy Ware, The Orthodox Church, New Edition (New York: Penguin Books, 1997), p. 197). I should note that Timothy Ware is much more conservative (as a Protestant convert) than most Eastern Orthodox that I have read.↩︎

As noted earlier (see footnote 49), Athanasius said, “the holy and inspired Scriptures are fully sufficient for the proclamation of the truth.” Augustine said, “in the plain teaching of Scripture we find all that concerns our belief and moral conduct.” As quoted by J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, Fifth, Revised (London; New Delhi; New York; Sydney: Bloomsbury, 1977), 43. This church historian, J.N.D. Kelly, said, “almost the entire theological effort of the Fathers, whether their aims were polemical or constructive, was expended upon what amounted to the exposition of the Bible.  Further, it was everywhere taken for granted that, for any doctrine to win acceptance, it had first to establish its Scriptural basis.” (Ibid., p. 46)↩︎

Roman Catholic apologist, Karl Keating, said, “the Bible is not the sole rule of faith and that nothing in the Bible suggests it was meant to be… The true rule of faith is Scripture plus…” (Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1988), p. 134,136).

The Second Vatican Council said, “the Church does not draw her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone.  Hence, both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal feelings of devotion and reverence.” Austin P. Flannery, ed., Documents of Vatican II (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), p. 755.

Bellarmine states, “We assert that the whole necessary doctrine either concerning faith or manners is not contained explicitly in the Scriptures; and that consequently beyond the written word of God is required also the unwritten word of God, that is, the divine and apostolical traditions…They (i.e. the Protestants) think that if there were any apostolical traditions they do not know exist, that is, that there cannot be any certain proof had of any apostolical tradition…We, on the contrary, assert that there are not wanting certain ways and methods by which apostolical traditions may be manifested…If the authority of an apostle when giving an oral precept is not less than when giving a written one, there certainly is no temerity in considering any thing unwritten equivalent to the written word…I assert that Scripture, although not composed principally with the view of its being a rule of faith, is nevertheless a rule of faith, not the entire rule but a partial rule. For the entire rule of faith is the word of God, or God’s revelation made to the Church, which is distributed into two partial rules, Scripture and tradition” (De Verb. Dei, lib. iv. c. 3, c. 12. Cited by William Goode, Vol. I, pp. 73, 77–78).↩︎

Melanchton: Selected writings, Baccalaureate thesis, 1519, tr. C.L. Hill, Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1962, p. 18.↩︎

Defence of the Gospel in the New Testament. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959), p. 80.↩︎

The following is a brief list of famous churchmen who clearly stood against Rome’s views on the apocrypha: Melito of Sardis (died 180 AD), Origen (184-254), Athanasius (296-373), Cyril of Jerusalem (313-386), Gregory of Nazianzus (329-390), Hilary of Poitiers (310-367), Epiphanius (310-403), Basil the Great (330-379), Jerome (347-420), Rufinus, Primasius (died 560), Gregory the Great (590-604), The Venerable Bede (673-735), Agobard of Lyons (779-840), Alcuin (735-804), Walafrid Strabo (808-849), Haymo of Halberstadt (died 853), Ambrose of Autpert (730-784), Radulphos Flavicencius (1063-122), Hugh of St. Victor (1096-1141), Richard of St. Victor (died 1155), John of Salisbury (1120-1180), Peter Cellensis (1115-1183), Rupert of Deutz (1075-1129), Honorius of Autun (1080-1154), Peter Comestor (died 1178), Peter Maritius or Peter the Venerable (1092-1156), Adam Scotus (1140-1212), Hugo of St. Cher (1200-1263), Philip of Harveng (died 1183), Nicholas of Lyra (1270-1340), William of Ockham (1287-1347), Antoninus (died 1459), Alanso Tostado (1414-1455), Dionysius the Carthusian (1402-1471), Thomas Walden (1375-1430), Jean Driedo (condemned Luther’s teachings in 1519), Jacobus Faber Stapulensis (1455-1536), and John Ferus (1495-1554) could all be cited as contradicting Trent’s claim to represent tradition on the apocrypha.

Rome appeals to the local councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397) as proof that the apocrypha were accepted by the early church, but those councils prove too much since they included books that both Rome and the Eastern Orthodox church reject as canonical. It is better to take Jerome’s and Cajetun’s interpretations of those councils and treat them as having two levels of canon - a church canon of books acceptable to read, and God’s canon of books that are inspired and part of Scripture.↩︎

Roman Catholic apologists frequently cite St. Vincent of Lerins’s definition of “catholic” as being an adequate definition. Lerins said,

In the Catholic Church itself we take the greatest care to hold that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all. That is truly and properly Catholic, as is shown by the very force and meaning of the word, which comprehends everything almost universally. We shall hold to this rule if we follow universality, antiquity, and consent. We shall follow universality if we acknowledge that one Faith to be true which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is clear that our ancestors and fathers proclaimed; consent, if in antiquity itself we keep following the definitions and opinions of all, or certainly nearly all, bishops and doctors alike. http://www.ancient-future.net/vcanon.html

Even the New Catholic Encylopedia agrees that this was the case, stating, “St. Jerome distinguished between canonical books and ecclesiastical books. The latter he judged were circulated by the Church as good spiritual reading but were not recognized as authoritative Scripture. The situation remained unclear in the ensuing centuries…For example, John of Damascus, Gregory the Great, Walafrid, Nicolas of Lyra and Tostado continued to doubt the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books. According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Church at the Council of Trent. The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent“ (The Canon, The New Catholic Encyclopedia).↩︎

There were numerous church fathers from the second through fourth centuries who endorsed the shorter Protestant canon, and even Jerome (the translator of the Latin Vulgate used by Rome) agrees book-for-book with the Protestant canon; there is no document during the same period that matches the canon of Trent book-for-book. Roman apologists continually appeal to the late fourth-century councils of Hippo and Carthage as including some apocryphal books, but those two councils only list 43 of the 46 books of Trent. They omit Lamentations and Baruch and mention five books of Solomon (which Trent excludes). Those councils were not ecumenical councils, but local, and as Cajetun mentions, used the term “canon” in two senses - a church canon of books approved for reading and God’s canon of books inspired and part of Scripture.↩︎

The Prologue to the Glossa ordinaria (1498 AD), states,

Many people, who do not give much attention to the holy scriptures, think that all the books contained in the Bible should be honored and adored with equal veneration, not knowing how to distinguish among the canonical and non-canonical books, the latter of which the Jews number among the apocrypha. Therefore they often appear ridiculous before the learned; and they are disturbed and scandalized when they hear that someone does not honor something read in the Bible with equal veneration as all the rest. Here, then, we distinguish and number distinctly first the canonical books and then the non-canonical, among which we further distinguish between the certain and the doubtful.

The canonical books have been brought about through the dictation of the Holy Spirit. It is not known, however, at which time or by which authors the non-canonical or apocryphal books were produced. Since, nevertheless, they are very good and useful, and nothing is found in them which contradicts the canonical books, the church reads them and permits them to be read by the faithful for devotion and edification. Their authority, however, is not considered adequate for proving those things which come into doubt or contention, or for confirming the authority of ecclesiastical dogma, as blessed Jerome states in his prologue to Judith and to the books of Solomon. But the canonical books are of such authority that whatever is contained therein is held to be true firmly and indisputably, and likewise that which is clearly demonstrated from them. For just as in philosophy a truth is known through reduction to self-evident first principles, so too, in the writings handed down from holy teachers, the truth is known, as far as those things that must be held by faith, through reduction to the canonical scriptures that have been produced by divine revelation, which can contain nothing false. Hence, concerning them Augustine says to Jerome: To those writers alone who are called canonical I have learned to offer this reverence and honor: I hold most firmly that none of them has made an error in writing. Thus if I encounter something in them which seems contrary to the truth, I simply think that the manuscript is incorrect, or I wonder whether the translator has discovered what the word means, or whether I have understood it at all. But I read other writers in this way: however much they abound in sanctity or teaching, I do not consider what they say true because they have judged it so, but rather because they have been able to convince me from those canonical authors, or from probable arguments, that it agrees with the truth.

Biblia cum glosa ordinaria et expositione Lyre litterali et morali, vol. 1, “De canonicis et non canonicis libris” (On the canonical and non-canonical books of the Bible) (Basel: Petri and Froben, 1498), British Museum IB.37895, trans. Michael Woodward, quoted in William Webster, Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith, vol. 2, An Historical Defense of the Reformation Principle of Sola Scriptura (Battle Ground, WA: Christian Resources, 2001), 400–401.↩︎

Cajetan writes: “Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the Bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the Bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage” (In ult. Cap. Esther. Taken from A Disputation on Holy Scripture by William Whitaker (Cambridge: University, 1849), p. 48). See also Cosin’s A Scholastic History of the Canon, Volume III, Chapter XVII, pp. 257-258 and B.F. Westcott’s A General Survey of the Canon of the New Testament, p. 475.↩︎

The “Apocryphal Books in Eastern Bibles” chart at the end of this chapter shows division of opinion on which apocryphal books were sufficiently beneficial as to include for the edification of the church. The fact that some apocryphal books were included in various editions of Eastern Bibles no more proves that they were treated as Scripture than the Protestant Bibles with the apocrypha proves that Protestants believed they were Biblical. Nevertheless, for purposes of argument, notice the variations of which apocryphal books were included.↩︎

See the following articles and books:
Vreg Nersessian, The Bible in the Armenian Tradition, (Los Angeles, The J. Paul Getty Musuem, 2001).
Michael E. Stone, “Armenian Canon Lists: The Council of Partaw [768 C.E.]”, Harvard Theological Review 66 (1973): pp. 479-486.
Michael E. Stone, “Armenian Canon Lists: the Stichometry of Anania of Shirak.”, Harvard Theological Review 68 (1975): pp. 253-260.
Michael E. Stone, “Armenian Canon Lists III: the Lists of Mechitar of Ayrivank [c. 1285 C.E.].”, Harvard Theological Review 69 (1976): pp. 289-300.
Michael E. Stone, “Armenian Canon Lists IV: The List of Gregory of Tat’ew [14th Century].”, Harvard Theological Review 72 (1980): pp. 237-294.
Michael E. Stone, “Armenian Canon Lists V: Anyonymous Texts.” Harvard Theological Review 83 (1990): pp. 141-161.
The previous five articles can be purchased at https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/harvard-theological-review/article/armenian-canon-lists-ivthe-list-of-gregory-of-tatew-14th-century/549FA7C411E0B0338C479589937027EC
Michael E. Stone, Selected Studies in Pseudepigrapha and Apocrypha With Special Reference to Armenian Tradition, (New York: E. J. Brill, 1991).↩︎