I grant that the strongest argument against my position is the infamous canon argument. It basically says that in order for sola scriptura to be true, one must have knowledge of what the canonical books are, i.e. what the scriptura is. Since Scripture itself does not give a list of canonical books, then one is forced to appeal to extra biblical resources in order to establish the canon, and thus sola scriptura is forfeited. This argument has been a stumbling for many, and it appears convincing on the outset. But as Proverbs 18:17 says “The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him”. I will tackle this argument by offering a few responses:
[Note: This issue is closely related to how we know Scripture to be authoritative in general, and thus I will be dealing with that issue in this section as well].
[1]. This argument rests on the epistemological presupposition that one must have absolute infallible certainty in order for one to be justified in what they believe. I don’t know of many serious epistemologists today who would accept such an idea. If this presupposition is true, it leads to many falsehoods. For example, while I have reasonable certainty that the sun is going to rise tomorrow morning, I do not have absolute infallible certainty that the sun will rise tomorrow morning. It is possible that Christ will return or some sort of astronomical anomaly will take place. Thus, if we accept the Papist presupposition, I am not justified in believing the sun will rise tomorrow. The absurdity of such an idea is manifest.
[2]. It is false to say that Scripture nowhere confirms itself or declares other books to be canonical or inspired. The Old and New Testaments confirm one another. For example, Christ divides the OT into Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms in Luke 24:49. In Luke 16:29, in the parable of the Rich man and Lazarus, Abraham replies “They have Moses and the prophets, let them hear them”, thus teaching that the Torah and the Prophets were authoritative. In John 10:35, the Lord Jesus says “the Scripture cannot be broken”, the “Scripture” no doubt referring to the Old Testament. Christ confirms the Mosaic law throughout His disputes with the Pharisees, as contained in the gospel narratives (for example, see his dispute with the Pharisees about divorce and marriage in Matthew 19). See also Augustine, Tractate 48 on John.
Christ also confirms the historical books of the OT in Matthew 12:42, where he mentions the story of Solomon’s visit from the Queen of Sheba. Similarly, He mentions the story of the widow of Sarepta in Luke 4:26.
In Hebrews 11, a multitude of Old Testament figures are mentioned. This confirms many of the historical parts of the OT.
The apostle Paul over and over cites the OT as Scripture throughout his letters, and views it as binding and authoritative
In 2 Peter 3:16, the apostle Peter refers to Paul’s letters as “scripture” (γραφὰς).
The books of the NT are also confirmed by the OT scriptures. Moses prophesied a prophet to come in Deut. 18, threatening those who did not listen to Him. This is none other than Christ (Acts 7:37), thus the words of Christ are authoritative. And where else are the words of Christ contained than in the books of the New Testament?
It might be objected that other books such as Ezra, Nehemiah, Hebrews, the epistles of Peter, the letters of the apostle John cannot be known to be canonical since nowhere else in Scripture are they referenced or seen as authoritative.
I respond, that there are many internal testimonies in Scripture which manifest its divine authority, such as the purity of the style of writing used in the books, as well as the many prophecies which were confirmed in books. These things give Scripture more support than an ecclesiastical institution ever could.
Objection: “If it is the case that the canonical books of Scripture bear the marks of inspiration and divine origin, then why were some of these books received later than other ones?”
Response: Some are given more spiritual illumination than others. Also, some of these marks of divine origin might be clearer in some books of Scripture than in others.
[3]. There was no official canon list in the church until the decree of Pope Damasus in the 4th century. Thus, if the Papist argument is correct, they are in the same boat that they accuse of being in for the first few centuries of church history.
[4]. The immediate reason for our reception of Scripture as the Word of God is the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit. The properties that Scripture attributes to itself (which no doubt is the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) show this. It is called a “light” (Proverbs 6:23), and a “lamp unto my feet” (Psalm 119:105). This evinces its self-authenticating nature as the written Word of God. As John Owen said “that which is light, may discover itself. He that needs another to tell him what is light, does not have eyes.”
[5]. “The church is built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets” (Ephesians 2:20), not the other way around as the Papists would have it.
It may be objected that when the verse here speaks of “the apostles and prophets”, it is in reference to their preaching, not their writings. I answer that this in no way argues against us, for the preaching and writings of the apostles and prophets is essentially the same in its material, being different only in the means in which it is delivered (one being oral, the other being written).
[6]. In the Old Testament church, on what authority did Adam, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, and the other patriarchs receive the word of God? Surely no Romanist would dare to say that it was by the authority of a council or assembly. Rather, it is beyond doubt that the word of God was sufficient in and of itself to evince its own authority.
[7]. Though John the Baptist testified of Christ that He was the Messiah, the Lamb of God, and Savior of the world, this was not the principal or immediate reason why Christ was received as such, especially since the Lord Jesus had “greater witness than that of John” (John 5:36). In the same way, while the church’s confirmation of Scripture is certainly true, it is not the immediate cause for its reception among the people of God. It has a “greater witness”, namely the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit of God. Similarly, in Acts 2:41, the people to whom Peter was preaching “gladly received the word”, not waiting around for an ecclesiastical assembly or council to tell them it was true. A similar argument can be made from 1 Thessalonians 2:13
[8]. The authority of the church is not greater than Scripture’s authority and it also does not grant us greater certainty than Scripture’s authority.
“If from any thing else, it must either be from the testimony of those that are out of the church; but they know not the church, nor any authority it hath: or from the scripture; but then the authority of the scripture must be more known than that of the church: or from the Spirit; but how will they make it out that they have the testimony of the Spirit for them, otherwise than by the scripture, in and by which he is wont to bear witness? If they say [ that ] the Spirit witnesseth to the authority of the church inwardly , so as to persuade the minds of dissenters that the church is the church of God; this is merely begged and not proved , and yet will not satisfy, neither . For we ask not, “What is the efficient cause of men believing the authority of the church?” but, “What is the argument whereon that belief is grounded , and whereby the church persuades men of its own authority?” Or else, on the other side , if the church proves its authority from itself , then the same thing shall be proved by itself. But yet I ask, What judgment of the church is it whereby its authority is proved? They say, “Both the testimony of the ancient and of the present church.” But how can the testimony of the ancient church be known, but by the writings of those that formerly lived , the books of fathers, and decrees of councils? But we would know how we shall have greater assurance that those books were written by those fathers whose names they bear , and those decrees made by those councils to which they are ascribed, than that the scripture is the word of God. How came we to be more certain that Cyprian's or Austin's works were written by them, than that the four Gospels were written by the four evangelists, or Paul's Epistles by him? And if the present church prove its authority by the ancient church, it must prove it but to very few: for they are but few that ever saw, and yet fewer that ever read, the writings of the ancients; and many perhaps have never heard of them. And besides, the ancient church was some time the present church; and when it was so, from whence might it prove its authority? From something more ancient, no doubt, according to our adversaries' discourse, it must be . But from whence did the first church prove its authority, (for we must come to first,) when there was none before it to prove it by?” (John Owen)
[9]. It is a sin not to believe in Scripture even without the authority of the church (Acts 13:46), thus showing that Scripture does not receive its authority from the church. If someone objects that Paul’s testimony in this chapter was the testimony of the church, I answer that the Jews to whom Paul was preaching did not recognize Paul’s authority in the first place, though they did recognize the authority of Scripture. We also have no record of any miracles that Paul did before the Jews there to prove his apostleship. He used only the Scriptures, and some people did believe because of this (Acts 13:41-42).
[10]. If the authority of the church is the chief and principal reason for our reception of the Bible as the Word of God, then the Bible’s authority rests merely on human opinion.
Objection: “The testimony of the church is itself the testimony of God.”
Response: First, we confess that the testimony of the church is indeed the testimony of God, but only in so far as it is in agreement with Scripture. Secondly, before the testimony of the church can be viewed as the testimony of God, it must be proved by the Romanists that the church is infallible. If they attempt to prove this from Scripture, they implicitly acknowledge that Scripture is of greater authority than the church. If the church is ultimate authority, then appealing to something other than the church shows that it is not the ultimate authority, since it has a judge over it.
Objection: “The authority of the church is self-authenticating”
Response: If they grant that the church is self-authenticating, then surely they have no grounds to object to us saying that the authority of Scripture is self-authenticating (a point which I proved above).
[11]. If Scripture possessed authority before the Church’s judgment, then it follows that it possesses authority not based off of the judgment of the Church. Even the papists teach that the Church only declares Scripture’s divine authority, it does not make Scripture divine.
[12]. Scripture has such authority of persuasion in and of itself of its divine inspiration, then it shows that it is αυτοπιστον, and not dependant on the authority of the church. This is confirmed by many passages of Scripture, e.g. Luke 24:32; 1 Corinthians 2:4; 1 Peter 1:23; Hebrews 4:12.
[13]. In John 5:34, the Lord Jesus says “I receive not the witness of men” (ἐγὼ δὲ οὐ παρὰ ἀνθρώπου τὴν μαρτυρίαν λαμβάνω), and therefore neither does Scripture, since it is the word of Christ.
