Transcription
In his defense of the reformation doctrine of solos scriptura, Protestant divine William Whitaker said that the greatest issue between Protestants and Roman Catholics had to do with the authority of the Bible. He wrote, "The subject is difficult and perplexed, nor do I know whether there is any other controversy between us of greater importance."
Recently, Roman Catholic apologist Trent Horn released a video critiquing the Protestant understanding of scripture as the word of God. I've watched several of Trent's videos over the years, and I want to start off by saying that I typically enjoy his content. I found him to be knowledgeable, respectful, and gracious. So, I hope I can offer a fair critique of someone I admire, but have obvious differences with. I'm a reformed pastor, and I want to respond to some of the arguments in his video titled "The Protestant Word of God Fallacy." Let's dive in.
In his video, Trent begins by stating that Protestants have shifted from using Bible verses to defend solos scriptura to arguing on the basis of scripture's ontological uniqueness. That's referring to the idea that scripture is unique as God's only infallible revelation. What is soloscriptura? Well, it's Latin for "scripture alone," and it's a key tenet of Reformation theology highlighting the primacy of the Bible in and for the life of the church.
Professor Richard Müller writes about the Protestant understanding of soloscriptura: "Quote, 'It ought to be noted that soloscriptura was never meant as a denial of the usefulness of Christian tradition. The views of the reformers developed out of a debate in the late medieval theology over the relation of scripture and tradition. One party viewing the two as co-equal norms, the other party viewing scripture as the absolute and therefore prior norm, but allowing tradition a derivative but important secondary role in doctrinal statement. The reformers and Protestant Orthodox held the latter view.'" This difference becomes clear throughout Trent's video.
Now, Trent notes that Protestants believe in scripture's uniqueness as the word of God. Since the Bible alone is the word of God, there are no other infallible guides for the church. Now, according to Trent, there is a fatal flaw with this argument. The first premise in this argument, that scripture is the direct speech of God, is either assumed to be true or it's defended with irrelevant examples.
For Trent and the Roman Catholic Church, scripture is a part of the word of God, along with what is called sacred tradition. Now, what is sacred tradition? Well, in the Catholic understanding, it's a part of the apostolic tradition that is transmitted to the church by the Holy Spirit. And according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, there are two distinct modes of transmission: sacred scripture, defined as "the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit," which, by the way, is what Protestants mean when we call the Bible God's word; and holy or sacred tradition, which are the unwritten traditions of the church handed down by the apostles to their successors.
Now, one of the key questions Trent asks is, "How do we know scripture has this quality?" i.e., how do we know it's God's word? "If we know this apart from the scriptures themselves, like through the church, then there must be an additional infallible authority that helps us grasp scripture's divine status." By divine, I mean inspired by God. And this, of course, would completely undermine the doctrine of soloscriptura, which posits that the scriptures are the only ultimate and infallible authority for faith and life.
Now, Trent speculates that a Protestant might answer this question by saying scripture is the word of God because scripture tells us it's the word of God. And he says there are two problems with this: one, it's circular reasoning; and two, no passage in scripture identifies human writings as the "word of God."
From here, Trent goes into the meat of his critique, which is to do something of an overview of how that phrase, "the word of God," is used throughout the Old and New Testaments. He argues that, contrary to how the phrase is commonly used by Protestants, the Bible uses the phrase "word of God" to refer to all sorts of things except the written word. Here, we can think of the utterances of the prophets or the preaching of the apostles. According to Trent, and I actually don't have any problem with this at all, the phrase "word of God" is most often used to describe the charismatic ministry of the church. Hence, he concludes, "word of God" is never used in either the Old Testament or the New Testament in reference to a particular human writing, even though that term is used to describe particular human speech.
Now, Trent anticipates one potential objection, noting that some might try to argue that the Bible refers to scripture as God's word in places like Mark 7, Matthew 15, John 10, and Hebrews chapter 4. I wasn't really convinced with his handling of those texts. For example, he said that the word of God in Matthew 15 refers to the oral tradition as opposed to the written word. But, of course, "word of God" could just as easily refer to the texts in Deuteronomy, which the Pharisees had violated. After all, Jesus immediately goes on to quote the written text of Isaiah.
The reality is, though, the whole of the argument doesn't even hinge on this myopic reading of the phrase "word of God." In fact, Trent himself affirms that the biblical books are the written word of God. So, a lot of what he's saying feels unnecessary. The reality is, both Protestants and Roman Catholics believe the written scriptures are the word of God. And they both believe that the words of the prophets or preaching of the apostles were also called the word of God. In fact, as Protestants, we can even go a step further and affirm that all biblical preaching today can be called the word of God.
One 16th-century reformed confession, the Second Helvetic Confession, put it like this: "The preaching of the word of God is the word of God. Wherefore, when this word of God is now preached in the church by preachers lawfully called, we believe that the very word of God is proclaimed and received by the faithful, and that neither any other word of God is to be invented, nor is to be expected from heaven, and that now the word itself which is preached is to be regarded not the minister that preaches. For even if he be evil and a sinner, nevertheless, the word of God remains still true and good."
Now, why is this significant? Well, Trent's video makes it sound like Protestants get the phrase "word of God" all wrong. Since often in scripture, it refers to things like apostolic preaching, when in reality, Protestants affirm that apostolic preaching and even the faithful preaching of God's word today is God's word. And Roman Catholics affirm that the written scriptures are also, in fact, God's word. Trent acknowledges that even a cursory reading of some of the later church fathers finds them speaking in this way. And so, there is no "Protestant Word of God Fallacy."
The problem is that he wants to elevate the Catholic Church's sacred tradition, that is, their view of the unwritten word, to the infallible level of holy scripture. And this is where we have to part ways. It seems to me that in focusing so much on the phrase "word of God," Trent misses the forest for the trees. Surely, when Paul calls scripture "God-breathed," he's referring to the written word. And he doesn't need to use the precise phrase "word of God" in order for us to see it as such. And again, here Trent and the Catholic Church agree with Protestants, although we could have a separate discussion about the canonical books.
But to his more pressing question, "How do we know that the Bible is the word of God?" I want to give a different answer than the one he suggested. It's not merely that there are, in fact, passages that identify the written word with God's speech, but that the Holy Spirit testifies to their inspiration. Now, this is key. For Roman Catholics, that which confirms that the Bible is God's word is the testimony of the church. For Protestants, it's actually an even higher testimony: it's the testimony of the Holy Spirit.
Here's what John Calvin said: "But a most pernicious error widely prevails, that scripture has only so much weight as is conceded to it by the consent of the church, as if the eternal and inviolable truth of God depended upon the decision of men. For they mock the Holy Spirit when they ask, 'Who can convince us that these writings came from God?'" In other words, Calvin is arguing that there is something ontologically distinct or different about this word. So different, in fact, that to claim that it needs the testimony of fallible men to buttress it is absurd. When God is speaking in scripture, you know it by the testimony of the Spirit.
Calvin continued, "As to their question, 'How can we be assured that this has sprung from God unless we have recourse to the decree of the church?' It is as if someone asked, 'Whence will we learn to distinguish light from darkness, white from black, sweet from bitter?' Indeed, scripture exhibits fully as clear evidence its own truth, as white and black things do of their color, or sweet and bitter things do of their taste."
God spoke through the prophet Jeremiah and said, "Let the prophet who has a dream tell the dream, but let him who has my word speak my word faithfully. What has straw in common with wheat? Declares the Lord. Is not my word like fire, declares the Lord, and like a hammer that breaks the rock in pieces?" You see, there is something qualitatively different about the word of God, written or proclaimed, and that was apparently self-evident to the prophet Jeremiah.
Now, does that mean we cast aside the testimony of the church? Absolutely not. We receive it, but it remains subordinate to God's voice, which speaks from heaven. William Whitaker said, "We do not, therefore, as the papists falsely say of us, refuse the testimony of the church, but embrace it. But we deny that we believe the scriptures solely on account of this commendation of them by the church. For we say that there is a more certain and illustrious testimony whereby we are persuaded of the sacred character of these books, that is to say, the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit, without which the commendation of the church would have with us no weight or moment."
The sum of our opinion is that scripture is *autotopistos*, that is, hath all its authority and credit from itself, is to be acknowledged, is to be received not only because the church hath so determined and commanded, but because it comes from God, and that we certainly know that it comes from God not by the church but by his Holy Ghost. You see, it's not that Protestants deny that there is something external to scripture that testifies to its veracity, but that we claim it's higher than the testimony of fallible men. The Spirit bears witness that this is, in fact, the word of God, just as he bears witness with our spirits that we are indeed the sons of God (Romans 8:16). In this way, the scriptures are self-authenticating.
Now, here I imagine that he'd bring up his other objection, and that's that this is a circular argument. To say that scriptures are self-authenticating or that we know the scriptures are God's word because of the testimony of the Holy Spirit is to argue in circles or to subjectivize the whole pursuit. Years ago, when I was exploring Catholicism, I wrestled with this. But at the end of the day, I felt like the Protestant approach made more sense of what we see in the New Testament than the Catholic position. And that the circular argument objection could have been made against Jesus or the Apostle John.
Jesus said of the good shepherd, "The sheep hear his voice, and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. And when he has brought out all his own, he goes before them, and the sheep follow him, for they know his voice. A stranger they will not follow, but they will flee from him, for they do not know the voice of strangers." My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. How did the sheep know the voice of the shepherd? The same way an infant knows the voice of its mother. It's self-evident.
It was Jesus who said later in John's gospel that the Holy Spirit was coming to lead the disciples into all truth. And in his first epistle, John said, "I write these things to you about those who are trying to deceive you. But the anointing that you received from him abides in you, and you have no need that anyone should teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about everything, and is true and is no lie, just as it has taught you, abide in him." There, John is echoing the words of Jeremiah regarding the promise of the new covenant: "And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more."
Now, ask yourself whether the Apostle John's arguments sound like the arguments of the Roman Catholic Church or the arguments of the Protestant reformers. The sheep know the voice of God. The Spirit infallibly bears witness to the authority of that sacred voice. And as such, we receive the words of scripture not as the words of men, but as the very words of God. John doesn't say, "There are people trying to deceive you. Be sure to follow the magisterial teaching of the church." Rather, he emphasizes the Spirit's role in directing the church. And I don't think he's making a false dichotomy here. Catholics and Protestants agree that the Spirit works through church structure and governance. But here, the apostle emphasizes the authority of God's Spirit, God's word, over the fallible authority of the church.
Now, in a recent debate, Trent responded to this point about scripture's self-authenticating nature by saying, "If this were true, then why were there debates about certain books like the book of Revelation? Why was Luther anxious about the book of James?" But I imagine that Trent would want to affirm that we can still have doubts as Christians about whether or not we are, in fact, the children of God, even though the Spirit bears witness with our spirits that that is the reality. The problem isn't with the word as self-authenticating or with the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit, but with our own hearts and thinking.
In response to this, Calvin wrote, "We need not wonder if there are many who doubt as to the author of the scripture. For although the majesty of God is displayed in it, yet none but those who have been enlightened by the Holy Spirit have eyes to perceive what ought." Additionally, the fact that Jesus, in his ministry, points to other signs like his miracles besides his self-authenticating word is not to deny that scriptures are self-authenticating, but to demonstrate God's generosity in giving us additional evidences in support of the truth.
The Westminster Confession of Faith highlights several of these in its chapter on holy scripture, including the testimony of the church, the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole, and the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, and many other incomparable excellencies. But at the end of the day, our full persuasion rests on the inward work of the Holy Spirit. The infallible word is confirmed by the infallible Spirit, not by the fallible voices of men.
Really, all of this boils down to: Whose word reigns supreme? Is scripture the ultimate and sole infallible authority in the life of the church, by which we judge all controversies? Or is there an additional voice, beside the voice of the Spirit speaking in and through the scriptures, that is equal with the written word? Here, the Roman Catholics would say, "Yes, there is. It's the voice of God speaking through sacred tradition." And while the phrase "word of God" often does refer to the oral speeches of the prophets and apostles, many of which were written down, it's a leap to go from that to making the church's living voice today on par with scripture. The Protestant reformers emphasized the written word precisely because the medieval church's voice had grown corrupt and confused. And today, just as in all ages, we need to recover the pure preaching of that holy word.