Bible and the Church: both or neither

Scott Hahn in Rome Sweet Home

I asked [the Harvard protestant theologian] to show me where the Bible taught sola scriptura. I did not hear a single new argument. Instead he posed a question to me. "Scott, if you agree that we now possess the inspired and inerrant Word of God in Scripture, then what more do we need?"

I replied, "Dr. Gerstner, I don't think that the primary issue concerns what we need; but since you ask the question, I'll give you my impression. Ever since the Reformation, over twenty-five thousand different Protestant denominations have come into existence, and experts say there are presently five new ones being formed every week. Every single one of them claims to be following the Holy Spirit and the plain meaning of Scripture. God knows we must need something more.

"I mean, Dr. Gerstner, when our nation's founders gave us the Constitution, they didn't leave it at that. Can you imagine what we'd have today if all they had given us was a document, as good as it is, along with a charge like 'May the spirit of Washington guide each and every citizen'? We'd have anarchy—which is basically what we Protestants do have when it comes to church unity. Instead, our founding fathers gave us something besides the Constitution; they gave us a government—made up of a President, Congress and a Supreme Court—all of which are needed to administer and interpret the Constitution. And if that's just enough to govern a country like ours, what would it take to govern a worldwide Church?

"That's why, personally, Dr. Gerstner, I'm beginning to think that Christ didn't leave us with just a book and his Spirit. In fact, he never mentions a thing about writing to his apostles anywhere in the Gospels; besides, fewer than half of them even wrote books that were included in the New Testament. What Christ did say—to Peter—was, 'Upon this rock, I will build my Church . . . , and the gates of hades will not prevail against it.' So it makes more sense to me that Jesus left us with his Church—made up of a Pope, bishops and councils—all of which are needed to administer and interpret Scripture."

THE PRIMARY ISSUE

Dr. Gerstner gave a thoughtful pause. "That's all very interesting, Scott, but you said that you didn't think it was the primary issue? What, then, is the primary issue for you?"

"Dr. Gerstner, I think the primary issue is what the Scripture teaches about the Word of God, for nowhere does it reduce God's Word down to Scripture alone.

Instead, the Bible tells us in many places that God's authoritative Word is to be found in the Church: her Tradition (2 Th 2:15; 3:6) as well as her preaching and teaching (1 Pet 1:25; 2 Pet 1:20-21; Mt 18:17). That's why I think the Bible supports the Catholic principle of sola verbum Dei, 'the Word of God alone', rather than the Protestant slogan, sola scriptura, 'Scripture alone'."

Dr. Gerstner responded by asserting—over and over again—that Catholic Tradition, the Popes and ecumenical councils all taught contrary to Scripture.
"Contrary to whose interpretation of Scripture?" I asked. "Besides, Church historians all agree that we got the New Testament from the Council of Hippo in 393 and the Council of Carthage in 397, both of which sent off their judgments to Rome for the Pope's approval. From 30 to 393 is a long time to be without a New Testament, isn't it? Besides, there were many other books that people back then thought might be inspired, such as the Epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas and the Acts of Paul. There were also several New Testament books, such as Second Peter, Jude and Revelation, that some thought should be excluded. So whose decision was trustworthy and final, if the Church doesn't teach with infallible authority?"
Dr. Gerstner calmly replied, "Popes, bishops and councils can and do make mistakes. Scott, how is it you can think that God renders Peter infallible?"
I paused for a moment. "Well, Dr. Gerstner, Protestants and Catholics agree that God most certainly rendered Peter infallible on at least a couple of occasions, when he wrote First and Second Peter, for instance. So if God could render him infallible when teaching authoritatively in print, then why couldn't he prevent him from errors when teaching authoritatively in person? Likewise, if God could do it with Peter—and the other apostles who wrote Scripture—then why couldn't he do it with their successors as well, especially since he could foresee the anarchy that would come if he didn't? Besides, Dr. Gerstner, how can we be sure about the twenty-seven books of the New Testament themselves being the infallible Word of God, since fallible Church councils and Popes are the ones who made up the list?"

I will never forget his response.

"Scott, that simply means that all we can have is a fallible collection of infallible documents!"

I asked, "Is that really the best that historic Protestant Christianity can do?"
"Yes, Scott, all we can do is make probable judgments from historical evidence. We have no infallible authority but Scripture."

"But, Dr. Gerstner, how can I be certain that it's really God's infallible Word that I am reading when I open up Matthew, or Romans, or Galatians?"

"Like I said, Scott, all we have is a fallible collection of infallible documents."

Once again, I felt very unsatisfied with his answers, though I knew he was representing the Protestant position faithfully. I sat there pondering what he had said about this, the ultimate issue of authority, and the logical inconsistency of the Protestant position.

All I said in response was, "Then it occurs to me, Dr. Gerstner, that when it comes right down to it, it must be the Bible and the Church—both or neither!"