Sola Scriptura – Continuing Thoughts

A family member sent an email with a conglomeration of scripture references and issues.  This is part of a response to that email that I may or may not send.  It seemed relevant to what I’ve been writing about here so it seemed fitting to post it.  These are some more of my continuing thoughts about sola scriptura and the Protestant dilemma.

Let me lay out some issues.

  1. Protestants reject any “traditions of man” as being authoritative.
  2. Protestants reject the notion that a human spiritual authority exists that speaks for all of Christianity.
  3. Protestants accept only the Bible as doctrinally authoritative and only our own personal interpretations of what it says as pure, Christian doctrine.

Therefore, Protestants must prove Biblically:

  1. …what books should actually be in the Bible (since no one mere man can decide for me what is in the Bible).
  2. …where the Bible says there is no human spiritual authority that speaks for all of Christianity.
  3. …where the Bible says that the Bible is the sole doctrinal authority in an individual’s life.
  4. …the hermeneutic rules the Bible gives us to properly interpret the Bible (since hermeneutic rules are either “man-made” or “traditionally” accepted.)
  5. …where the Bible says my personal relationship with Jesus and my personal interpretation of the Bible is the foundation of Christian doctrine.

These are the sorts of inconsistencies I’ve come across as a Protestant.


Sola Scriptura – Why not the Apocrypha?

This is the second post on sola scriptura. The first two are here and here. I’d recommend reading them first as I will continue discussion with that assumption.


Before any discussion about using the Bible alone as the sole source of doctrine, don’t we need to first determine what constitutes the Bible and why?

Protestant Bibles have seven fewer books in the Old Testament. We call these the Apocrypha but they are also called the deuterocanonical books. Since I’m technically still a Protestant and speaking to Protestants, I’ll stick to their terms.

So far as I can tell, the Apocrypha was part of the canon of Scripture that the early church used. It was accepted at the councils of Hippo and Carthage and were part of the Bible until the Reformation when the Reformers removed them. Protestants are appalled whenever someone “adds to or subtracts from” the Word of God. But if the Apocrypha had always been part of the Word of God for 1500 years, wouldn’t the rejection of those books be subtracting from the Word of God? Wouldn’t Protestants be doing the very thing they’re appalled at others for doing?

Let’s first look at why Catholics include it.

septuagintThe Bible of the early church was the Septuagint. This was a Greek translation of the Old Testament and most copies included the Apocrypha. In this debate with Kenneth Samples, Fr. Mitch Pacwa stated that out of about 350 quotations of the Old Testament in the New, 300 were direct quotes from the Septuagint. Since the Septuagint was the Bible of the earliest Christians, Pacwa says it’s still the Bible of the Catholic Church today. That makes a lot of sense.

Even Protestants seem to agree that the Septuagint was the Bible of the earliest Christians. James White agrees to that fact in this debate with Mitch Pacwa. Also Protestant-Evangelical scholar F.F. Bruce, in his book “The Canon of Scripture”, attests to this fact. In it he says:

“As soon as the gospel was carried into the Greek-speaking world, the Septuagint came into its own as the sacred text to which the preachers appealed….’Greek Judaism’, it has been said, ‘with the Septuagint had ploughed the furrows for the gospel seed in the Western world’; but is was the Christian preachers who sowed the seed. So thouroughly, indeed, did Christians appropriate the Septuagint as their version of the scriptures that the Jews became increasingly disenchanted with it. The time came when one rabbi compared ‘the accursed day on which the seventy elders wrote the Law in Greek for the king’ to the day on which Israel made the golden calf.” (bolding is mine)

The earliest Christians used the Septuagint so well in defense of Christianity, that the Jews eventually rejected it.

So why do Protestants reject the Apocrypha?

Protestant Arguments for Rejecting the Apocrypha:

One argument in rejecting the Apocrypha as “inspired” is that no New Testament author ever quoted it as “inspired” or “God breathed.” But this quickly falls flat in my mind.

  • There are a lot of books from the Old Testament that are never quoted, yet Protestants still accept these are “inspired.” Why? If quoting is a requirement, why do they accept Esther or some of the prophets that were also never quoted? This blog lists 10 OT books never quoted in the NT. (I’m sorry I don’t have a more “scholarly” source but I’m still researching. If anyone has better sources please let me know.)
  • In fact, there are other things quoted in the Bible that we reject as “inspired Scripture.” Jude 14-15 quotes from the Book of Enoch saying he “prophesied.” That’s heavy language! He sure sounds like he considers it Scripture, yet no one today accepts the Book of Enoch as Scripture. According to Protestant criteria, it seems we should consider that book as legitimate.

Another argument: Protestants claim the Apocrypha was never put on the same level with other Scripture. That’s tenuous for a couple of reasons.

  • To make that argument is to appeal to Tradition, which Protestants reject in determining doctrine. This is part of the problem I posted about last time. Tradition is needed to determine Scripture, and yet Protestants reject Tradition as a basis for authority.
  • Is it possible to say with certainty that Peter, Paul, and the others rejected the Apocrypha? Because they really didn’t say anything about it. As stated above, they didn’t say anything about several other OT books either. However, since we know the Septuagint was the Bible of Peter and Paul, isn’t it more reasonable to say they accepted the Apocrypha than to say they rejected it? If the apostles rejected those books, why would they have used the Septuagint as Scripture without first making it clear that they rejected certain parts of it?
  • History also shows the acceptance of the Apocrypha. It was included in the councils of Hippo and Carthage in the 390s and early 400s. So it was considered Scripture for 1100 more years until the “Reformers” took them out.

Another argument: Protestants claim the Apocrypha teaches doctrines that are contrary to Scripture. This is probably the worst argument of them all. According to Protestant doctrine, the Bible alone must determine doctrine. And yet when we judge the Apocrypha, we use doctrine to reject its teachings. This is circular reasoning at its finest and I shouldn’t need to expound on it. If we’re only supposed to get doctrine from Scripture, then we can’t use doctrine to determine what Scripture is.  If the Apocrypha is Scripture, then our doctrine should adjust to fit it, not the other way around.

Another argument: Protestants claim to use the Jewish Scriptures, which rejected the Apocrypha. This is also tenuous.

  • The Jews of the first century did not have an official canon of Scripture either. Some only believed in the Torah. Others included the prophets. But there was wide debate. So how could the earliest Christians have only used the Jewish canon when there was no Jewish canon?
  • As Evangelical scholar F.F. Bruce said above, the Jews increasingly rejected the Septuagint the more the Christians used it convincingly. That actually seems like a strong argument in favor of the Septuagint, which included the Apocrypha.

Another argument: Sometimes Protestants try to appeal to the church fathers to show there was not unanimous consensus on the place of the Apocrypha. This is true, as far as I can tell. However, there was not unanimous consensus on NT books like Hebrews, II Peter, or Revelation either. Yet Protestants accept those books. Why those and not the Apocrypha?

Another argument: Sometimes Protestants point to Matthew 23:35 as a case for the Protestant OT. The reasoning goes like this: II Chronicles was the last book of the Jewish canon. Since Abel was the first martyr in Genesis and Zechariah was the last martyr in II Chronicles 24:20, the books from Genesis to II Chronicles is the true canon. However, that doesn’t seem like a legit argument.

  • Which books were in the middle?
  • We also know the Jews didn’t have a definitive canon.
  • The passage in II Chronicles says Zechariah was the son of Jehoiada. Jesus said “Zechariah, the son of Berechiah.” The only Zechariah who was the son of Berechiah was the prophet who wrote the book of Zechariah. Jewish Tradition tells us he was martyred but it’s not in the Bible. (Uh oh…did Jesus appeal to Tradition??) It also wasn’t the last book of the later Jewish canon. I’ve found attempted explanations for this conundrum, but there’s definitely plenty of ambiguity too. It can hardly be used as the “final word” on the OT canon.

So those are some problems I’ve run into trying to explain away the Apocrypha.

Protestants: If there is a “silver bullet” argument in rejecting the Apocrypha, please tell me. The above arguments are the ones I’ve seen. If there are better ones, please tell me.

Catholics: If my understanding of Catholic doctrine needs adjustment, please point out my error.


Disclaimer – This blog post is just that: a blog post with my personal thoughts. I am not a Catholic apologist or theologian. What I say here is not official doctrine of the Catholic Church. I am still learning and am susceptible to error. Don’t take anything here as Gospel. Don’t be stupid. Do your own research and learn for yourself what the Church teaches.