LDS apologist Hayden Carroll uses a Douglas Wilson quote to debunk Protestants who believe in Sola Scriptura:

“The problem with contemporary Protestants is that they have no doctrine of the Table of Contents. With the approach that is popular in conservative evangelical circles, one simply comes to the Bible by means of an epistemological lurch. The Bible ‘just is,’ and any questions about how it got here are dismissed as a nuisance.”

But those who know the writing of Doug Wilson know that he’s a jolly provocateur. One learns to read on. His point isn’t to deconstruct the infallible, self-attesting canon, to place the Church above Scripture, or to rid us altogether of external infallible authority.

In the sentences preceding the quote, Wilson himself writes,

“The Westminster Confession teaches that the Holy Spirit gives ‘full persuasion and assurance’ concerning Scripture to converted persons. These converted persons are in turn enabled to see the other abundant evidences, which include the testimony of the Church (WCF I, iv.).”

For Wilson, the doctrine of self-attesting, infallible Scripture is coupled with the internal witness of the Holy Spirit. By this, one can appreciate the other abundance of evidences for Scripture, including the testimony of the Church.

That’s historic Protestantism. Wilson’s point is that modern Protestants have a hard time articulating it. We assume it and operate by it, but we should reflect on it. He concludes: “The problem here is with modernity in the Church, and not with classical Protestantism.”

Perhaps Hayden didn’t read the article. Just after it, Wilson proceeds to make his main point:

“[RCC has] the same embarrassed silence so characteristic of evangelicalism… Where is the Table of Contents? Put another way, what are the precise boundaries of the magisterium? … Why has the Church not performed for the magisterium the same service she performed when testifying to the canon of Scripture? Does the magisterium have canonical boundaries, and if so, what are they? Anything with an imprimatur?”

Rome complains that Protestantism lacks an inspired table of contents for the Bible. But then it fails to give us an inspired table of contents for the infallible decrees of its magisterium. The epistemological lurch is relocated. At some point, one has to arrive at self-attestation. Otherwise, there’s an infinite epistemological regress.

I am certain Wilson would say the same thing about Mormonism. It promises us prophets who can give “official” doctrine. But this remains an abstraction.

Regarding official LDS doctrine, Noah Airmet, research assistant for the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship (at BYU) writes,

“‘Doctrine’ can absolutely change– the current definition of the word as ‘unchanging and eternal’ is relatively recent in church history.

“But this is really a semantic issue. Defining doctrine (and therefore whether or not something qualifies as ‘new’ doctrine) is very tricky. There are a ton of proposed models and no official, systematic model. So we don’t have an official system to determine what qualifies as a ‘clarification,’ or an ‘extension,’ or ‘new.’ (contrast this to the incredibly complex Canon Law in catholicism [sic]). This means it’s functionally very relative and people can define things however they want…

“Different [LDS General Authorities] have expressed support for different models in General Conference, but never at any point have we had a full-blown, systematic model approved by all of the Quorum.”

I doubt that Hayden can supply an inspired Table of Contents for official LDS doctrines. The quotation he used is commonly deployed by Roman Catholic apologists out of context, which is likely where he picked it up. I would encourage Hayden to read the full article by Doug Wilson from which the quotation was taken.

Deconstructing Sola Scriptura is a rhetorical lever for Mormonism’s rejection of transcendence and infallible verbal revelation. LDS philosophers (cf. Blake Ostler, Peter Carmack) have argued that not even God himself is logically or essentially infallible; he’s only practically and accidentally infallible. He chooses to be truthful. But not necessarily.

Nor has Mormonism expanded an infallible canon. It doesn’t even have an infallible canon. It has principally emptied the canon of any infallible books. So of course Mormonism doesn’t hold to Sola Scriptura – that Scripture alone is the only infallible authority for the Church. There doesn’t seem to be any external infallible sources of revelation in Mormonism, let alone a Table of Contents for infallible revelation.

Sources

• Hayden Carroll, “Jeff Durbin is clueless about the Jewish canon.” https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Yb5IgHm1GQM
• Douglas Wilson, “From Rome to Geneva With Few Apologies,” Credenda/Agenda 12, no. 1. https://web.archive.org/web/20150919122809/http://www.credenda.org/archive/issues/12-1thema.php
• Noah Airmet, comment on post beginning “We were in Sunday school…,” The Cavalry (Facebook group), December 8, 2025. https://www.facebook.com/groups/135654108405452/posts/1231105378860314/. Screenshot 1. Screenshot 2.

Revelation should frustrate the inner rationalist within us.

It always comes packaged with mystery. It is constantly teaching us what we can know (because God revealed it) and what we can’t know (because God hasn’t revealed it).

“The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law.” (Deuteronomy 29:29)

It raises questions that only God can answer.

It broadens our knowledge, and exposes our ignorance.

It bumps us up against our inability to search out what God hasn’t revealed.

“Great is the Lord, and greatly to be praised,
and his greatness is unsearchable.”
– Psalm 145:3

And it’s all grace. God gives, and we receive. He reveals, we believe.

He accommodates and condescends and “lisps” to us.

Humility is the only right way to receive this. It doesn’t say, “This makes total sense; there isn’t mystery in this.”

It instead says,

“If anyone among you thinks that he is wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise.” (1 Corinthians 3:18)

And,

“If anyone imagines that he knows something, he does not yet know as he ought to know.” (1 Corinthians 8:2)

And,

“For if anyone thinks he is something, when he is nothing, he deceives himself.” (Galatians 6:3)

And,

“Then I saw all the work of God, that man cannot find out the work that is done under the sun… even though a wise man claims to know, he cannot find it out.” (Ecclesiastes 8:17)

And,

“Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high; I cannot attain it.” (Psalm 139:6)

And,

“Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!” (Romans 11:33)

And,

“O Lord, my heart is not lifted up;
my eyes are not raised too high;
I do not occupy myself with things
too great and too marvelous for me.
But I have calmed and quieted my soul,
like a weaned child with its mother;
like a weaned child is my soul within me.”
– Psalm 131:1-2

My friend Bradley once described the incomprehensibility of God like a warm campfire. We can’t touch it, but it provides warmth. So we sleep next to it.

It’s also like the sun. It heats up the earth and illuminates everything in its way. It’s bright and beautiful and clarifying and life-giving.

And yet we can’t stare into it, or see inside it, or pretend that it won’t blind us in our very attempt to. But it burns through the fog and clears a way.

Hence, this should also encourage the inner skeptic within us.

“Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path.” (Psalm 109:105)

Among the most important concepts you’ll ever learn:

Semantic range.

Or: Words are like suitcases.

For example, “light” can mean something that shines, something not heavy, or even a gentle feeling.

Words can carry more than one meaning. The nerds also call this “range of meaning.” It’s the different things a word can mean depending on how it’s used.

Wisdom requires us to slow down and ask how a word is being used. Provocative language often plays with this range, pulling in a curious reader, tickling or even shocking your semantic expectations.

Patience or pride make all the difference. Reflecting on “semantic range” takes humility. Pride chooses to be triggered; humility pauses to troubleshoot a riddle.

“Let a wise person listen and increase learning,
and let a discerning person obtain guidance—
for understanding a proverb or a parable,
the words of the wise, and their riddles.”
– Proverbs 1:5-6

“If one gives an answer before he hears, it is his folly and shame.”
– Proverbs 18:13

“Good sense makes one slow to anger, and it is his glory to overlook an offense.”
– Proverbs 19:11

So, reflect, don’t react.

That’s one reason to read books. Not just for what they say, but for how they train your mind to wait, to wade, and to weigh words.