In a radio debate on Mary’s role in salvation, Matt Slick was questioned by Catholic apologist, Mark Bonocore, on how Slick knows the Gospel of Matthew is divinely-inspired Scripture:
Bonocore: Why do you believe that Matthew is the inspired word of God?
Slick: Because Matthew is inspired and because the church . . . recognises the voice of God because Jesus says in John 10:27-28, "My sheep hear my voice and they follow me." So the inspired word of God came down through Matthew and we know it is the inspired word of God.
Firstly, one cannot help but be amazed at the circular reasoning from Slick—Matthew is scripture because Matthew is scripture. Slick would (correctly) not accept a Muslim saying “The Qur’an is the Word of God as the Qur’an is the Word of God, ergo, the Qur’an is the Word of God,” but Slick, as a presuppostionalist, accepts circular reasoning as valid when it comes to his flavour of Reformed theology.
Secondly, Slick has to appeal to the authority of the Church (whether it be the early Church or the Protestant churches Slick recognises as "true" churches) and its recognition of Matthew as inspired scripture as one basis of his acceptance of the Gospel of Matthew. However, such is antithetical to sola scriptura as Slick has to privilege this recognition as being authoritative en par with Scripture itself, a violation of sola scriptura which teaches all other authorities are subordinated to the Bible.
Thirdly, John 10 is not about the scope and limits of the biblical canon, so Slick is engaging in gross eisegesis. However, such is the solution forced upon Slick and other Protestants--they have to argue that the Bible determines itself (again, circular reasoning). The context is not speaking about esoteric subjects such as how one determines the extent of the biblical canon. Instead, it is speaking about simple obedience to Jesus' commands. Further, since Jesus never says what constitutes the canon in this passage (an impossibility, anyway, as Jesus and the New Testament church lived during a time of inscripturation!), how can one expect His listeners to "hear his voice" on that specific issue? Again, as with his botched interpretation of 1 Cor 4:6 to support sola scriptura, Slick is again guilty of further misinterpretation ("cultic eisegesis" if you will, as he is fond of the "cult" term).
Lastly, in this debate, Slick tells Bonocore that, if God wanted to, He would have impregnated Mary without her permission. As I said before—the “god” of Calvinism is a divine rapist and author of sin. As Clark Pinnock once said, "[Calvinism makes] God some kind of a terrorist who goes around handing out torture or disaster and even is willing people to do things the Bible says God hates"