Dave Armstrong's Blog, page 37
July 2, 2012
Reply to William Goode, Contra Sola Scriptura, Part 4 (Goode Denies the Infallibility of the Church; Is the Bible Its Own Judge, Minus the Church?)
See the Introduction. Goode's words will be in blue. This installment is a response to portions of The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice , Volume Two (1853: second edition: revised and enlarged).
* * * * *
Having thus endeavoured to show, that Holy Scripture is our sole infallible and authoritative Rule of faith, we shall now proceed to prove, in like manner, in opposition to the doctrine that Tradition or the Church is the infallible and therefore authoritative Judge of the meaning of the Divine Rule of faith, that Holy Scripture is the sole infallible Judge of controversies respecting the truths of revelation. . . . By this position, then, we mean, that it is in Holy Scripture only that we can meet with any infallible determination respecting the points in dispute. When controversies arise. Scripture only can decide and terminate them; and if Scripture does not terminate them, it is either because they concern things which are not there delivered, and which, therefore, do not come to us with the authority of divine revelation, or because Scripture is misinterpreted; and in either case there is no further infallible authority on earth to appeal to for judgment. (p. 124)
Goode sets the stage for the next phase of the debate . . . I will be looking to see how much Scripture Goode can produce as supposed proof of his position.
The foundation upon which this truth rests is, as we have seen, briefly this; That as God is the only infallible Judge of controversies in religion, and as his voice can be recognised with certainty only in the Holy Scriptures, those Scriptures are consequently our only infallible Judge of controversies on earth. (p. 126)
Goode then suggests (on p. 127) Isaiah 8:19-20 (RSV, as throughout) as one such instance ("this is the rule by which all other informants are to be tried"):
And when they say to you, "Consult the mediums and the wizards who chirp and mutter," should not a people consult their God? Should they consult the dead on behalf of the living? [20] To the teaching and to the testimony! Surely for this word which they speak there is no dawn.
The problem with this exegesis is that it is not Scripture alone that is being referred to (as several Protestant commentaries will testify). It is, rather, the prophetic word that comes through Isaiah (more analagous -- strictly speaking -- to oral apostolic tradition than to Scripture). We see this from the context of verse 16, where Isaiah is commanded by God to "Bind up the testimony, seal the teaching among my disciples."
Goode then gives examples (p. 127) of Jesus sending the Sadducees and Pharisees to the Scripture for proof of His assertions. But this is not in dispute. Catholics use biblical prooftexts just as Protestants do, and argue on that basis (as a perusal of any papal encyclical or document of an ecumenical council or the Catholic Catechism will quickly prove). The question at hand is, rather, what happens when folks go to the Bible but come up with variant interpretations. What then? Catholics say that the Church and passed-down apostolic tradition (the history of doctrine) and apostolic succession decide. Protestants say that . . . well, they simply repeat that Scripture decides, but this is clearly no solution when men differ in their conclusions: each citing the Bible in his real or alleged behalf. They can say that till they're blue in the face; it won't resolve the practical problem of contradictory conclusions.
Hence it follows, that Scripture may be variously interpreted by men, and yet give in the sight of God an amply sufficient and clear judgment, to bring those in guilty before him who do not interpret it aright. And the reason is plain; because, in all important points, men are prevented only by their own prejudices, corruption, or carelessness, from rightly understanding it. (p. 128)
No doubt sin is often a factor, but this, too, is too simplistic. I call this refrain "the sin argument." Protestants use this whenever someone else interprets the Bible in a way that they think is incorrect. They quickly conclude that it is sin or stupidity that is the cause (in the other guy, of course). This almost mocks entire traditions in Protestantism that disagree with each other. How are these conflicts resolved? By each group accusing the others of sin and intellectual carelessness?
Luther differed with Calvin on the nature of the Eucharist. Both men differed from the Anabaptists, who held to adult believer's baptism only (and were drowned because of it), and disagreed with each other as to what baptism conveyed. Equally brilliant men (equally adept at Bible scholarship) arrive at completely different conclusions. Because of this, we need a final say that is separate from the Bible itself. The logical answer is: the Church: itself mentioned as authoritative in Scripture. And we observe the Church infallibly deciding on a doctrinal issue (whether Gentiles ought to be circumcised or to follow Jewish law in its entirety) in the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15).
Shall we say, then, that the Scriptures containing that word are insufficient, and ill calculated to act as a judge now to us on earth, when we are told expressly, that that word will be our judge at the future day of account? (p. 128)
No. Scripture is sufficient in and of itself to judge between doctrinal truths and falsehoods on almost all matters that come up. What we "shall" say is that fallible, fallen men still clearly need an infallible teaching body, that will prevent the inevitable dissension from arising among men (for whatever reason). Christians need one body, one faith, one voice to keep unity. We've all seen what the Protestant principle has resulted in: many hundreds, if not thousands of competing denominations.
Is it not equally calculated to act as a judge now to us on earth, as it will be at the future day of account at the bar of Christ? And if by that word we are to be then judged, then the statements of that word are clear and determinate, and sufficient of themselves to determine all controversies on the essentials of the gospel at least; and it will be our wisdom to use it now for the same purpose, and "judge ourselves" by it; making that our rule of judgment here, by which we are to be judged hereafter. And if this is done with simplicity and sincerity, and prayer to God for his blessing, we know, from the promises of a faithful God, that such an inquirer shall not err fundamentally. (p. 128)
It's remarkable that Goode can summon up all this sunny, optimistic, idealistic faith in a system that has clearly (in practice; in history) failed to produce doctrinal unity by these principles. A "faithful God" will bring about the attainment truth for the individual. Indeed He can, and does do so. That is not our beef; we say that if Goode has all that faith in God guiding individuals, why does He lack it, with regard to God leading His Church as a whole, and preserving it from doctrinal error? Is God too limited to do that?
Apparently, Protestants think that He is, because they always deny the very possibility of an infallible Church. Catholics have much more faith than that: we believe that God is powerful and good enough to guide His Church (composed of sinful human beings), and through the Church, all Christians, to attain to the highest theological and spiritual truths. We don't tie God's hands, or casually deny that He is able to do what is plainly needed to bring about unity in doctrinal matters.
And is it to be argued, that, because of this, that is, because men cannot be brought to see and confess the truths there revealed, the revelation is insufficient to show men the truth? The question is, not whether men interpret the Bible variously, but whether, that being the case, the fault is not in man, and not in the Bible being fairly open to different interpretations in the essentials of the faith? (p. 139)
This is beside the entire point and the problem. The difficulty is not at all due to the insufficiency of the Bible. The difficulty lies in the fact that a book (even an inspired one) is not automatically self-interpreting, to such an extent that all reasonable and good men will completely, spontaneously agree with the doctrines that it truly teaches. Even reasonable and good men (forget all the sinners and theological ignoramuses!) won't do that.
An authoritative Church is, therefore, necessary because of the frailties, fallibility, and folly of men. We can argue pipe-dream abstracts and unattainable ideals all day long with Protestants (men should come to agreement based on the Bible Alone, so Goode tells us, with all faith and a sparkle in his eye), but the fact remains that this system and rule of faith is not working, and people are being led astray and led down the road to hell every day by virtue of accepting some false doctrine promulgated by the denomination they happen to be in. It's denominationalism and individualistic folly that the Bible never countenanced at all.
If truly the Bible alone was able to put an end to all controversies, why does the Church of England (Goode's denomination) have a creed at all (Westminster Confession), or its 39 articles? Why bother? If authoritative pronouncements are completely unnecessary, since Scripture has all that covered, and all truth is perfectly evident in it to one and all, why have those? But it does, and it does so because it is instinctively realized (by this sect and virtually every other Christian group) that men benefit by creeds and confessions of faith. As soon as one even summarizes Scripture by such means, human involvement or "tradition" if you will, is involved. There is no way out of it.
Again, I stress that the Catholic objection has nothing to do with running down the intrinsic merits of inspired Scripture: God's unique revelation. It has everything to do with how men receive (or don't receive) and interpret that revelation. God has given us the gift of the Church in order to confirm biblical truth and to guide men on the right course. It's not like this is something that the Bible does not refer to. There is such a thing as a Church (!!), and it does have those dreaded, despised attributes of authority and indeed, infallibility!
It is necessary for the well-being of the Church to lay down what it holds to be the doctrines of Scripture as a protest against the misinterpretations of heretics, and to expand that Confession of faith from time to time according as heresies arise, in order to keep her communion as far as possible pure. And this holds good of a particular Church as well as of the whole Universal Church. (p. 155)
Exactly! How this doesn't concur with what I have been arguing, I will let you, the reader, judge. But, as we saw before, Goode can occasionally make a statement like this, but immediately disclaim any strong authority to make a creed binding, or (heaven forbid!) a Church claiming to be infallible: that most dreaded of all scenarios.
When the authorities of any Church separate one who obstinately maintains what they deem to be fundamental error from their communion, they do so, not as persons possessing any infallible guide besides the Scriptures, but in the exercise of the ministerial authority given to them by the Church, and each party is responsible to the great Head of the Church alone for their conduct. (pp. 157-158)
This is what is called "a distinction without a difference." Folks can be removed from a Christian group for denying what that group holds in important particulars; yet everything held by the group is always provisional (never ever ever infallible) and perpetually subject to correction from any individual in the group? Does that mean that a Luther-like individual can be removed from a denomination for being a good Protestant, exercising his conscience and private judgment? It certainly does mean that; once we follow through with the logic involved. That makes no sense at all, but it is an inevitable state of affairs, given the illogical chaos of private judgment, never-ending denominationalism and sola Scriptura.
* * *
Reply to William Goode, Contra Sola Scriptura, Part 3 (Oral Tradition in the NT; Fathers vs. Tradition?)
See the Introduction. Goode's words will be in blue. This installment is a response to portions of
The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice
, Volume Two (1853: second edition: revised and enlarged).* * * * *
Further, it is to be considered, that the gospel was not a revelation altogether new, being, in all its great features at least, only a development of the types and prophecies of the Old Testament, where the language of the inspired writers of the New Testament leads us to recognise a very full adumbration of its whole doctrine. Thus, St. Paul describes himself to Felix as believing all things written in the law and the prophets, with a manifest reference to his Christian faith, (Acts xxiv. 14.), and when arguing with the Jews, he reasoned with them out of those Scriptures, (Acts xvii. 2.), and says, that the revelation of the mystery of God in the Gospel is "by the Scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith." (Rom. xvi. 26.) (p. 74)
This is true. The two Testaments are harmonious: the New being a consistent development of the Old. Sola Scriptura is not observed in either one, as I have been demonstrating.
Consequently, we have, even in the Old Testament, an adumbratory representation of all the great truths of the Gospel. Are we, then, to suppose, that when besides this we have four different accounts of the doctrines and precepts which our Lord delivered while on earth, and above twenty epistles by the Apostles to different churches, that we must still go beyond the Scriptures to find any important truth? (p. 74)
Catholics believe in the material sufficiency of Scripture, too. We deny its formal sufficiency as a rule of faith. It has to be interpreted within the framework of an infallible tradition and Church (it doesn't follow from that, that either is "above" Scripture). Failing that, we get the chaotic situation in Protestantism, with multiple hundreds of contradictory doctrines, and consequently, necessarily much falsehood being believed. That was never God's will, because He is the God of truth. The devil is the one who is the father of lies; hence every falsehood is giving glory to him, not God.
. . . our opponents seem to think, that they have a ready answer, for they say, that Scripture itself is in favour of their doctrine of Tradition. (p. 75)
Indeed it is.
I shall now, then, proceed to consider the passages adduced by them in proof of this assertion, and show how utterly destitute of foundation is the argument so raised. (p. 75)
Excellent!
To sum up all, then, in one word, what Mr. Keble and the Romanists have got to prove, before they can in any way avail themselves of these passages [1 Tim 6:20; 2 Tim 1:14; 2:2], is, (1) that Timothy's deposit embraced something of importance not in Scripture; and (2) that Patristical Tradition is an infallible informant as to what that deposit was; which are precisely the two points "assumed with some confidence," with scarcely an attempt at a proof. (p. 78)
This is a fair and valid point. I would agree that passages of this sort are not strong or definite "proofs" of a precise nature, etc. On the other hand, I would contend that they offer a contextual framework in which the notion of an authoritative tradition makes sense; and is (apart from the questions of particulars and specificity) plausible. Secondly, it is just as difficult (if not more so) to argue that mentions of such oral tradition could not possibly contain anything not explicitly dealt with in Scripture, as it is to positively speculate upon what exactly is being referred to. Because of the lack of particulars, both cases are difficult to make in a compelling fashion (from passages such as these), since both necessarily entail mere speculation.
Another of the passages brought forward by our opponents in support of their views, is that in 2 Thess. ii. 15. "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word or our epistle." And I will venture to say, that, beyond the occurrence of the word "traditions" in it, there is not a pretext for so applying it. The Epistles to the Thcasalonians, we must observe, were, with the exception possibly of St. Matthew's Gospel, the first written of all the books of the New Testament. And St. Matthew's Gospel was written more especially, in the first instance, for the use of the Jewish converts. Consequently the Thessalonians had, at the time when these Epistles were addressed to them, no other books of the New Testament. . . . Much, therefore, at least, that we learn from the Scriptures, must have been communicated orally to the Thessalonians by the Apostle; as, for instance, the ordinances of Baptism and the Lord's Supper. They had no Scriptures professing to give them an account of our Lord's Gospel. And these were traditions which they had themselves received from the mouth of the Apostle himself. And who denies, that the oral teaching of the Apostles was of equal authority with their writings? So that the argument from this passage runs thus, — Because the Thessalonians, when destitute of the Scriptures, were exhorted by the Apostles to observe all things that he had himself delivered to them, either orally or by letter, therefore we, possessing the Scriptures, are to conclude, that there are important points of Apostolical teaching not delivered to us anywhere in all the various books of the New Testament, and are bound to receive Patristical Tradition as an infallible informant on such points. Now the chief question at issue is, whether we have that oral teaching, in any shape in which we can depend upon it, in the writings of the Fathers. (pp. 79-80)
To make this passage at all suitable to their purpose, they must show, that there was something important in the oral teaching of the Apostles, which is not to be found in any of the books of the New Testament; a notion, against which we can array the whole body of the Fathers; (of which it is apparent from Mr. Newman's thirteenth Lecture that our opponents are fully conscious; although they attempt to get over the difficulty, by asserting, that, though all things essential are there, yet they are there so latently, that we cannot find them, until Patristical Tradition has pointed them out ;) or at least they must prove, that the Patristical report we possess of the oral traditions of the Apostles, is an informant sufficiently certain to bind the conscience to belief. The same answer will suffice for a similar passage in a subsequent part of the Epistle, viz., 2 Thess. iii. 6. (p. 81)
My present purpose is not to engage in a patristic debate (I'm sticking to strictly the biblical arguments made on both sides), but in passing I will cite St. Augustine -- held in the very highest esteem by both Catholics and Protestants --, and show how far off the mark Goode is, with regard to patristic thought. Lutheran Church historian Heiko Oberman notes concerning St. Augustine:
Augustine's legacy to the middle ages on the question of Scripture and Tradition is a two-fold one. In the first place, he reflects the early Church principle of the coinherence of Scripture and Tradition. While repeatedly asserting the ultimate authority of Scripture, Augustine does not oppose this at all to the authority of the Church Catholic . . . The Church has a practical priority: her authority as expressed in the direction-giving meaning of commovere is an instrumental authority, the door that leads to the fullness of the Word itself.
But there is another aspect of Augustine's thought . . . we find mention of an authoritative extrascriptural oral tradition. While on the one hand the Church "moves" the faithful to discover the authority of Scripture, Scripture on the other hand refers the faithful back to the authority of the Church with regard to a series of issues with which the Apostles did not deal in writing. Augustine refers here to the baptism of heretics . . .
(The Harvest of Medieval Theology, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, revised, 1967, 370-371)
Likewise, Anglican Church historian J. N. D. Kelly comments on Augustine:
According to Augustine [De doct. christ. 3,2], its [Scripture's] doubtful or ambiguous passages need to be cleared up by 'the rule of faith'; it was, moreover, the authority of the Church alone which in his eyes [C. ep. Manich. 6: cf. De doct. christ. 2,12; c. Faust Manich, 22, 79] guaranteed its veracity.
(Early Christian Doctrines, San Francisco: Harper & Row, fifth revised edition, 1978, 47)
Thus, the two renowned Protestant Church historians above directly contradict Goode's assertion that the Protestant "can array the whole body of the Fathers" against the notion of "an authoritative extrascriptural oral tradition" (Oberman's description of St. Augustine's position). Hence, St. Augustine observed:
As to those other things which we hold on the authority, not of Scripture, but of tradition, and which are observed throughout the whole world, it may be understood that they are held as approved and instituted either by the apostles themselves, or by plenary Councils, whose authority in the Church is most useful, . . . (Letter to Januarius, 54, 1, 1; 54, 2, 3; cf. NPNF 1, I, 301)
I believe that this practice [of not rebaptizing heretics and schismatics] comes from apostolic tradition, just as so many other practices not found in their writings nor in the councils of their successors, but which, because they are kept by the whole Church everywhere, are believed to have been commanded and handed down by the Apostles themselves. (On Baptism, 2, 7, 12; in William A. Jurgens, editor and translator, The Faith of the Early Fathers, three volumes, Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical Press, 1970 and 1979 [2nd and 3rd volumes], Vol. III, 66; cf. NPNF 1, IV, 430)
[F]rom whatever source it was handed down to the Church - although the authority of the canonical Scriptures cannot be brought forward as speaking expressly in its support. (Letter to Evodius of Uzalis, Epistle 164:6; NPNF 1, Vol. I, 516)
But those reasons which I have here given, I have either gathered from the authority of the church, according to the tradition of our forefathers, or from the testimony of the divine Scriptures, or from the nature itself of numbers, and of similitudes. No sober person will decide against reason, no Christian against the Scriptures, no peaceable person against the church. (On the Trinity, 4,6:10; NPNF 1, Vol. III, 75)
For many more similar examples in the fathers, see my book, The Church Fathers Were Catholic: Patristic Evidences for Catholicism and my web page on the Church fathers.
Mr. [John] Keble [see biography] proceeds to cite two other passages in support of his view.
Much later, we find St. Peter declaring to the whole body of Oriental Christians, that in neither of his Epistles did he profess to reveal to them any new truth or duty, but to 'stir up their minds, by way of remembrance of the commandment of the Apostles of the Lord and Saviour.' (2 Pet. iii. 1.) St. John refers believers for a standard of doctrine, to the word which they had heard from the beginning, (1 John ii. 24,) and intimates, that it was sufficient for their Christian communion, if that word abode in them. If the word, the commandment, the tradition, which the latest of these holy writers severally commend in these and similar passages, meant only or chiefly the Scriptures before written, would there not appear a more significant mention of those Scriptures: something nearer the tone of our own divines, when they are delivering precepts on the Rule of faith? As it is, the phraseology of the Epistles exactly concurs with what we should be led to expect; that the Church would be already in possession of the substance of saving truth, in a sufficiently systematic form, by the sole teaching of the Apostles. (pp. 22, 23.) (pp. 81-82)
These are two excellent biblical indications of a robust oral apostolic tradition. St. Augustine refers back to such things and gives them the utmost respect, but Goode proceeds to mock Keble's sensible application of them:
I have given the passage in full, to show the reader precisely Mr. Keble's mode of reasoning upon these texts; and one is almost tempted to ask. Can the writer be serious in making these observations, or is he sarcastically showing how utterly destitute of evidence is the cause he professes to defend? St. Peter and St. John (says Mr. Keble) refer Christians of their age to the commandments and instructions which they had received orally from the Apostles, and did not say to them, directly one or two books of Scripture had been written, (which they might or might not possess,) you must forget all which the Apostles told you, and be careful to believe nothing but what you find written in one or two books which have been published by the Apostles, which you must get if you can; and therefore we, who have all the books of the New Testament, including four accounts of the Gospel, who have never had any instructions from the Apostles, and are at the distance of eighteen centuries from them, are to take the Patristical report of their oral traditions as binding our consciences to belief. Such an argument, I must say, carries with it much more than its own refutation. (p. 82)
Goode caricatures Keble's argument, then shoots down the straw man (the oldest "sophist's trick" in the book). Keble (in the latter portion) is making an argument from plausibility, as I have done in previous installments. Goode admits that there is no express statement of sola Scriptura in the entire Bible. Keble, for his part, argues (quite sensibly and rationally) that if Scripture alone were in mind in these passages, that it is probable Bible passages would have been mentioned, since they so often are. Therefore, failing that, it is reasonable to conclude that tradition is solely or primarily in mind.
As to the "either/or" mentality that Goode's caricature presents: it isn't present in Keble's own words and argument. But Goode (note carefully) apparently must conclude that any deference to tradition at all has to be in some extreme exclusivistic / dichotomous sense that would exclude Scripture, and bind consciences. Keble (far as I can tell) is simply noting that there is reference to an authoritative oral tradition. Goode is incorrect in imagining that Keble is trying to prove anything more than that. He can legitimately quibble about content and application, but the presence of such tradition in the New Testament is beyond argument. Its repeated presence runs contrary to sola Scriptura. Goode can try to laugh that off and war against straw men, but such tactics won't advance his burden of proof at all.
There remain a few other passages, which are sometimes adduced by the Romanists on this subject, which it may be well to notice before we pass on; but they are precisely similar in character to that given above from the Epistle to the Thessalonians, and need no other explanation than what has been given for that. Thus, the Apostle says to the Corinthians, ''I praise you brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, . . . as I delivered them to you." (1 Cor. xi. 2.) Well; what were these traditions? Were they anything more than what we have in Scripture; and if they did include more, where is the informant who will certify us of them? Resolve these two questions, and then proceed to apply the passage accordingly; but until these questions are satisfactorily resolved, the passage will prove no more than that the Corinthians did right in following the precepts which the Apostle had given them, which nobody doubts. And we may observe, that the Apostle has told us, in a subsequent part of the same chapter, what one of these traditions was, viz., the institution of the Lord's Supper (See ver. 23 et seq.); and thus we see, that the only one of these traditions which is mentioned, we have (as we might expect) in the Scriptures of the Evangelists. (pp. 82-83)
Lack of specificity in these passages is far less a "difficulty" for us than lack of any statement at all in favor of sola Scriptura is a difficulty for the Protestant, who insists on making a biblically vacant notion (i.e., a purely man-made tradition) their very pillar of authority. Any authoritative tradition at all is fatal to the sola Scriptura position. but lack of specificity in many biblical passages referring to tradition is simply that: lack of specifics. It doesn't prove that such tradition doesn't exist, because we don't know all the particulars of it from Scripture alone. As Goode alludes to: we can reasonably deduce some of that content by the treatment of it in the fathers (as my Augustine example illustrated).
Both sides, therefore, deduce and make indirect arguments to some degree, from the biblical data. But it is a question of no direct biblical evidence (the sola Scriptura position) -- remember, Goode already conceded that -- vs. numerous biblical evidences, albeit of a usually vague and general nature. The former is a much greater difficulty than the latter. And it's only one of many internal difficulties in the Protestant view, that taken together, prove altogether fatal to it.
* * *
July 1, 2012
Reply to William Goode, Contra Sola Scriptura, Part 2 (Concession That the Bible Contains No Precise Statement of SS; OT Jews Accepted SS?; Jesus vs. Tradition?)
See the Introduction. Goode's words will be in blue. This installment is a response to portions of
The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice
, Volume Two (1853: second edition: revised and enlarged).* * * * *
Let it be observed, then, first, that it is not affirmed by us, that we have, in the Holy Scriptures, every thing that our Lord and his Apostles uttered; nor that what the Apostles delivered in writing, was of greater authority than what they delivered orally. It is undeniable, that we have not all that they delivered. St. Paul, in his Second Epistle to the Thessalonians, appears to allude to information which he had given them orally, and which he does not state in his writings. (2 Thess. ii. 5, 6.) It is likely that this might have been the case in some minor points. Nay, it is possible, that the Apostles may have given to some of their converts, on some occasion, a more full and luminous exposition of this or that doctrine, than what we find in Scripture. I will even add, that it is possible, that, as there has been a succession of God's people from the beginning, so the substance, or at least a portion of such additional matter, may have been propagated from one to another, and have thus come to the children of God of our own day, commended to the spiritual mind by its own light; but as far as regards any direct proof, or external evidence, of its Apostolical origin, utterly destitute of any such claim upon us; though I should rather, with Theodoret, attribute any similarity of sentiment that has prevailed among the children of God on such points, to their having all been partakers of the influences of the same Spirit. (p. 64)
We say not, that it embraces everything which God might have revealed, nor even all which the Apostles did actually deliver, but that it includes all which we can know to be of divine revelation. (pp. 65-66)
Sensible qualifications . . .
(1) Let us observe the arguments and objections derived from Scripture itself on this point. (p. 70)
Finally! Now we are to the necessary heart of the argument: proving it from Holy Scripture, and not some mere arbitrary assertions of men.
Now, here I admit at once, that there is no passage of the New Testament precisely stating, that the Christian Rule of faith is limited to the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament; and for the best of all reasons, viz., that such a statement would, at that time, (i. e., during the publication of the books of the New Testament,) have been utterly inapplicable to the circumstances of the infant Church, and untrue. For a little time there were no Scriptures of the New Testament, and the Scriptures which we possess were gradually written, and did not at once find their way into the whole Christian Church, and no one ever dreamed that the oral instructions of the Apostles were not, to those who heard them, as authoritative as their writings. (p. 70; my bolding)
This is nuanced and refreshing to see; however, it doesn't erase the self-defeating difficulties inherent in sola Scriptura. It creates even more, because the inspired writers could have easily made a general statement of the principle of sola Scriptura, to be fully implemented later. God is, after all, behind inspired writings. He knew that the New Testament was to be a known entity by the 4th century (just as inspired prophets in the Old testament knew the future: since God was guiding them with their prophecies). He could have led the Bible-writers to state that when Scripture was finally canonized and determined, once and for all, that it was to be the sole rule of faith.
Why in the world would He not do so? Why leave the so-called "pillar" principle to the fallible speculations and ruminations of men, rather than the authority of inspired Scripture itself? After all, the New Testament was already categorizing Paul's writings as Scripture (2 Pet 3:16). It could have, therefore, easily made a statement of this nature about Paul's writings, and also ( I would contend, as a plausibility argument) about the gospels, which were very well-established early on. That is the great bulk of the New Testament.
Thus, Protestants (by Goode's free concession) are forced to speculate in an extrabiblical fashion, as to the Bible being the supposed sole rule of faith? This has been my strong criticism all along: sola Scriptura (with the greatest irony) is a man-made unbiblical tradition. Goode is losing this debate by default: by his own fatal admission. Sola Scriptura is, I reiterate, by Goode's criterion, literally a tradition of men, since it's not in the Bible (so he says). Thus, it is subject to the same withering criticisms that Goode subjected all tradition whatsoever to in hundreds of pages in his first volume (we can't possibly trust it, etc.); where he argued that only the Bible can be such a guide.
If sola Scriptura is simply yet another fallible tradition of men, what good is it? To apply it to Scripture is to do exactly what Goode excoriates the Catholic Church for doing: applying authoritative interpretations to Scripture and demanding obedience to her authority in doing so. Thus, the Protestant must apply a very unProtestant principle (binding authority of a non-biblical principle) in order to make sola Scriptura their fundamental principle, which is utilized in constructing everything else in their theology. How odd, and how viciously self-defeating . . .
Goode freely admits that there is no such statement. Thanks, Mr. Goode! That saves me a ton of trouble proving that it doesn't exist (proving a negative always being difficult or impossible). My opponent graciously grants it. It may be his own death-blow, though . . .
They among whom the Scriptures were originally promulgated had been themselves hearers, — that is, very many of them, — of our Lord and his Apostles, and, to them, the unwritten word was as authoritative as the written. Consequently such a statement could only have been made as a prospective announcement, applicable only to a subsequent period of the Church. Was it, then, to be expected, was it, indeed, possible, that the Apostles should precisely fix the period at which, or the persons to whom, their writings would be the sole infallible Rule of faith, when, with the earliest Christians, it would evidently depend very much upon situation and circumstances, how far this was the case? (p. 70)
Of course it is entirely possible, plausible, and to be fully expected, if indeed sola Scriptura were true. Goode just finished, in the lengthy preceding section, showing how Scripture is inspired; i.e., God-breathed. Inspired Scripture includes infallible prophetic analysis of future events. The book of Revelation plainly does this. The mention of some supposed principle of sola Scriptura doesn't have to be date-specific, only content-specific (referring to the NT canon, as later to be determined).
St. Paul himself refers prophetically to future events:
Acts 20:29-31 I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; [30] and from among your own selves will arise men speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them. [31] Therefore be alert, . . .
So what is the great difficulty / impossibility of Paul or someone else clearly stating the principle of sola Scriptura: a thing that Protestant like Goode devotes three volumes and over 1000 pages explaining? Goode is straining at gnats.
But though we have not, and were not likely to have, such an announcement in Scripture, we have there what may answer as well, the determination of a parallel case, viz., that of the Jews at the time of our Lord's incarnation. We learn clearly from Scripture, that the Canon of the Old Testament was to them at that time (the divine voice being no longer heard among them) the sole Rule of faith; and that the traditions of the Fathers, notwithstanding their pretended divine origin, were not worthy of being considered the Word of God. (p. 71)
This is simply untrue. If Goode is relying on this argument, he will fail miserably. For one thing, the Pharisees, who were the mainstream Jewish group at the time of Christ, and the primary tradition from which developed Christianity, believed in the oral Torah. Moreover, the New Testament on several occasions, refers to extrabiblical tradition as authoritative ("Moses' Seat": Matt 23:1-3; a rock that followed Moses in the desert: 1 Cor 10:4; cf. Ex 17:1-7; Num 20:2-13; Jannes and Jambres: 2 Tim 3:8; 1 Pet 3:18-20 draws directly from the noncanonical book of 1 Enoch 12-16; Jude 9, 14-15 cites 1 Enoch 1:9; etc.).
That is only the beginning of the arguments against the Jews as allegedly sola Scriptura advocates. I've devoted two lengthy posts to these considerations:
The Old Testament, the Ancient Jews, and Sola Scriptura
Biblical Evidence for the Oral Torah (Hence, by Analogy, Oral Apostolic Tradition)
That the Scriptures of the Old Testament were to the Jews of that period the sole authoritative Rule of faith, we have, I conceive, very sufficient testimony in Scripture. In the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, our Lord himself evidently refers to them as bearing that character, when he makes Abraham reply to the rich man begging for some messenger to be sent to instruct his brethren on earth; " They have Moses and the prophets, let them hear them." (Luke xvi. 29.) And still more clearly, in his reply to the lawyer who asked him, "Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?" "He said unto him. What is written in the law? How readest thou?" (Luke X. 25, 6.) And so in the scene of temptation in the wilderness, he meets the tempter at every turn with the written word as his guide and rule. (Matt. iv. 1 — 10.) (p. 71)
All this proves is that Scripture is materially sufficient: a thing that Goode himself says is an agreement between Catholics and Protestants. Scripture is the most readily quotable source of authority, and used as such by Jesus (and by myself and Catholics all down through history). It doesn't follow that it is the only such source.
Further; to them and to them alone our Lord constantly appealed, in proof of the truth of his doctrine, as the rule of judgment. (p. 71; my bolding)
This is untrue. I already stated the example of "Moses' Seat" above. That is not an Old Testament terminology; it is straight from rabbinical tradition. After appealing to this, Jesus told His followers: "so practice and observe whatever they tell you" (Matt 23:3). Thus, He grounded pharisaic authority on a non-biblical principle, and then advised His followers to follow their teaching.
Moreover, Jesus cited or at least strongly alluded to -- dozens of times -- deuterocanonical texts (as is true of the entire NT), as we see in lists of such proposed references (such as Jimmy Akin's). Here are two examples:
1a) Mark 9:48 where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.
1b) Judith 16:17 Woe to the nations that rise up against my people! The Lord Almighty will take vengeance on them in the day of judgment; fire and worms he will give to their flesh; they shall weep in pain for ever.
2a) Luke 12:20 But God said to him, `Fool! This night your soul is required of you; and the things you have prepared, whose will they be?'
2b) Wisdom 15:8 With misspent toil, he forms a futile god from the same clay -- this man who was made of earth a short time before and after a little while goes to the earth from which he was taken, when he is required to return the soul that was lent him.
Goode is thoroughly mistaken, if he thinks that the New Testament writers never cited anything as trustworthy tradition beyond the Old Testament.
"Search the Scriptures." (John v. 39.) "Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures." (Matt. xxii. 29.) (p. 71)
Of course; proves nothing, however, of the truth of sola Scriptura. And so far from appealing to or even recognising any "tradition," he (as we have seen) only mentions traditions in the way of rebuke. See Mark vii. 1—13, where the "commandment of God" and "the word of God" are identified with Scripture, and put in opposition to the "traditions" of the Pharisees, which are called without distinction "the commandments of men." (p. 71)
This very common myth promulgated by Protestants, is also a falsehood. Jesus contrasted true apostolic tradition with the false traditions of men (false tradition is italicized; true tradition bolded):
Matthew 15:3 He answered them, “And why do you transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?”
Matthew 15:6 So, for the sake of your tradition, you have made void the word of God.
Matthew 15:9 “In vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.”
Matthew 16:23 But he turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me; for you are not on the side of God, but of men” (cf. Mk 8:33).
Mark 7:8-9, 13 You leave the commandment of God, and hold fast the tradition of men.” And he said to them, “You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God, in order to keep your tradition! . . . thus making void the word of God through your tradition which you hand on. And many such things you do.”
Now, if Goode and other Protestants want to quibble and say that Jesus doesn't use the specific word "tradition" (paradosis) positively, I retort that the usages above are (in context) equivalent. I showed this in my book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism :
It is obvious from the above biblical data that the concepts of Tradition, Gospel, and Word of God (as well as other terms) are essentially synonymous. All are predominantly oral, and all are referred to as being delivered and received:
1 Corinthians 11:2: "Maintain the traditions . . . . even as I have delivered them to you."
2 Thessalonians 2:15 "Hold to the traditions . . . . taught . . . by word of mouth or by letter."
1 Corinthians 15:1 ". . . the gospel, which you received . . ."
Galatians 1:9 ". . . the gospel . . . which you received."
1 Thessalonians 2:9 "We preached to you the gospel of God."
Acts 8:14 "Samaria had received the word of God."
1 Thessalonians 2:13 "You received the word of God, which you heard from us, . . ."
2 Peter 2:21 " . . . the holy commandment delivered to them."
Jude 3 ". . . the Faith which was once for all delivered to the saints."
In St. Paul's two letters to the Thessalonians alone we see that three of the above terms are used interchangeably. Clearly then, tradition is not a dirty word in the Bible, particularly for St. Paul. If, on the other hand, one wants to maintain that it is, then gospel and Word of God are also bad words! Thus, the commonly asserted dichotomy between the gospel and Tradition, or between the Bible and Tradition is unbiblical itself and must be discarded by the truly biblically-minded person as (quite ironically) a corrupt tradition of men. (pp. 12-13)
Jesus uses "commandment" (singular) in the sense of apostolic tradition, as seen in other similar passages besides 2 Peter 2:21 (1 Tim 6:14; 2 Pet 3:2; 1 Jn 2:7).
Moreover, it is evident from the whole of our Lord's teaching, that in his references to Scripture he appealed to the conscience of individuals as the interpreter of Scripture, and willed them to judge of the meaning of Scripture, not by " tradition," or any other pretended authority, but by their own reason and conscience. (p. 72)
This was not the case with the two disciples on the road to Emmaus, to whom He appeared (Lk 24:13-16). He listened to their messianic interpretation of the events of His own life (24:17-24). But their private judgment was wrong. Jesus rebuked them:
Luke 24:25-27 And he said to them, "O foolish men, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! [26] Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?" [27] And beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.
They needed authority, and the true messianic Old Testament tradition, explained by Himself to them. The same principle is shown in the story of Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch:
Acts 8:30-31, 34-35 So Philip ran to him, and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and asked, "Do you understand what you are reading?" [31] And he said, "How can I, unless some one guides me?" And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.. . . [34] And the eunuch said to Philip, "About whom, pray, does the prophet say this, about himself or about some one else?" [35] Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning with this scripture he told him the good news of Jesus.
Why didn't Philip rebuke the eunuch's Catholic-sounding plea recorded in 8:31? He didn't deny that, and didn't tell him he could understand everything by himself (according to the infallible wisdom of sola Scriptura). Rather, he authoritatively interpreted the passage for him. And it was the same in the Old Testament:
Nehemiah 8:8 And they read from the book, from the law of God, clearly; and they gave the sense, so that the people understood the reading.
And they alone who did so could receive him, for Tradition and the Church, in our opponents' sense of the words, were against him; (p. 72)
This wasn't the case with the two disciples on the road to Emmaus, nor the Ethiopian eunuch. Goode appears to be highly selective in his use of Scripture, and to be prone to excessive claims ("always," "never," :they alone . . ."). This is bad in argumentation, because one is left in a very vulnerable spot when the opponent produces clear exceptions to a supposed universal rule.
We thus find, then, that though there is no direct testimony in the Old Testament to its perfection as the sole infallible Rule of faith to the Jews in the time of our Lord, such assuredly it was, and that for the same reason that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament are so to us, namely, that through the uncertainty of Tradition there was nothing else which had any sufficient evidence of its being the word of God. (p. 73; my bolding)
Excellent. Goode makes the same concession with regard to the Old Testament, so that now he has expressly admitted that both Old and New Testaments do not directly state that they are the sole infallible rules of faith. I commend him for his honesty and transparency. Thus, a clear statement of the essence of sola Scriptura is absent from the entire Bible. This is manna from heaven, for the "best" defender of sola Scriptura to freely grant and concede a central plank in Catholic opposition that I have been stating for over 20 years.
What does the Protestant fall back on, then, given this crucial lack of biblical evidence for one of their two "pillars"? Well, they fall back on the weak and merely rhetorical reed of "not x." Sola Scriptura "must" be true because it ain't tradition! It's the default position. It's not Catholicism, therefore, it's true. Very compelling, isn't it? We always knew that sola Scriptura was a desperate and flimsy rationale, used to reject Catholic authority. That's how Luther and Calvin conceived it, and it has been the same ever since. But it's compelling to see a Protestant champion of it admit so openly that it has no direct biblical demonstration. I contend that -- failing that -- it is viciously circular or self-defeating:
1. It is altogether to be expected that a source that is claimed as the only infallible one, would make the claim in the first place, and not simply assume its own status as self-evident, and thus requiring interpreters to dig deep to find such a supposed teaching only indirectly or by complicated deductions.
2. Such a plain assertion is the only way that the claim can escape vicious self-contradiction:
A) There is but one infallible source of Christian authority (thus saith sola Scriptura).
B) The claim of A is either infallible or fallible.
C) In order to be infallible, by the system's own criteria, it must be in the Bible itself (A).
D) But it is not. Therefore, Protestants are relying on a fallible assertion of men (no different than any other tradition) in order to establish that a document is infallible. This makes no sense. It's thoroughly incoherent and inconsistent. Protestants rail against tradition and then turn around and are forced to use one in order to supposedly overthrow all tradition as authoritative. It's ludicrous.
E) Moreover, Protestants claim (as part and parcel of the myth of sola Scriptura) that all the most essential teachings of the faith are plainly spelled out in Scripture. They make sola Scriptura the pillar and support of their entire system of theology and authority. Obviously, then, it is a supremely important and "essential" principle to them. Therefore, by their own claims for sola Scriptura in this regard, we would fully expect that they could come up with some evidences for it from Scripture: and indeed, direct, explicit, plain ones. But Goode admits (with rather spectacular honesty) that there are none! This is, I contend, a fatal blow to the whole superstructure of sola Scriptura. Protestantism (almost unbelievably so, given all the high and sublime claims) rests entirely on an arbitrary and unbiblical tradition of men. There is no way out of the conundrum.
. . . in the time of our Lord, the Canon of the Old Testament was the sole Rule of faith to the Jews . . . (p. 73)
This is a falsehood. In fact, the Jewish canon was not finally set until after Christ. It was thought for a long time that a supposed "Council of Jamnia" held by the Jews in the late first century closed the Jewish canon, but even this hypothesis is now widely questioned, and the finality of the Jewish canon may have been as late as 200 A. D. See, e.g., "'The Old Testament of the Early Church' Revisited," by Albert C. Sundberg, Jr. See also, Wikipedia, "Council of Jamnia."
***
June 29, 2012
Reply to William Goode, Contra Sola Scriptura, Part 1 (Definitions and Premises; Ezekiel 3)
See the Introduction. His words will be in blue. This installment is a response to portions of
The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice
, Volume One (1853: second edition: revised and enlarged).* * * * *
Note Goode's subtitle: "A Defence of the Catholic Doctrine That Holy Scripture Has Been, Since the Times of the Apostles, the Sole Divine Rule of Faith and Practice to the Church: Against the Dangerous Errors of . . . the Romanists, as, Particularly, That the Rule of Faith is 'Made Up of Scripture and Tradition Together,' Etc." [my bolding]
It's always good to know exactly what a person proposes to defend (matters of definition). For in-depth definitions of sola Scriptura, right from three Protestant advocates today (White, Geisler, Mathison), see the Introduction to my book, 100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura . The idea is that neither the Church nor apostolic tradition can be regarded as infallible. Scripture is, in the Protestant view, the "sole" rule of faith.
But as I will demonstrate for the nth time, Scripture itself teaches no such thing, and I guarantee that Goode won't find it, just as other champions of the false doctrine have failed miserably in their attempt to desperately find something in the Bible to uphold the heart and essence of this man-made tradition. But it's interesting to watch them try, and thus I eagerly look forward to seeing what Goode can come up with, as the supposed "best" defender of sola Scriptura. Can his case withstand the slightest scrutiny? Read on and see!
The great fundamental principles upon which Popery rests arc precisely those here advocated, namely, (1) the interposition of a mediating priest through whose ministrations alone we can hold communion with God, and the consequent denial of the soul's "direct and independent communion" with Him, (2) the denial of the supremacy of "the written word" to the consciences of individuals, and the setting up of another "spiritual authority" in "the teaching and authority of the Church," that is, the clergy, superior to it; and (3) the making the laity of the Church dependent upon the clergy for all spiritual gifts and graces.
As it respects the first and last of these points, I must content myself here with thus pointing them out to the reader's notice. But as it respects the second, which is intimately connected with the subject of this work, there is one remark which I cannot but offer, and that is, that it is a doctrine which, whatever may be its character in other respects, is at least utterly subversive of the very foundation upon which the Reformed Church of England stands. With the doctrine of the Supremacy of Holy Scripture to the consciences of individuals, and the right of private judgment in contradistinction to "the authority of the Church," she stands or falls. For, her Reformation was effected by comparatively a few individuals acting against the authority of the Church both of the East and West, . . .
The very ground, therefore, upon which our Church stands, is that of the right of private judgment; and the question of the justice of her charge of heterodoxy against so large a portion of Christendom she leaves to the judgment of the great day. When, therefore, her ministers advocate the doctrine of "the authority of the Church" over the consciences of men, they are in fact subverting the very foundations on which their Church is built. (Preface to 1853 edition, pp. xli-xliii)
Note the viewpoint here. Church and Bible are pitted against each other: quite unlike what we find in Holy Scripture. It's the usual Protestant "either/or" dichotomous mindset. The very pillar ("stands or falls" . . . "very ground") of Protestantism is a false and unbiblical dichotomy: "the right of private judgment in contradistinction to 'the authority of the Church'" [my italics]. It's a remarkable display of fallacious tunnel-vision. I will be looking to Goode's supposed biblical proofs for these dangerous man-made innovations of the 16th century.
The word of God, however conveyed to us, binds the conscience to the reception of whatever it may deliver. Every statement that has competent evidence of its divine origin, written or unwritten, demands our faith and obedience. There is no room in such a case for doubt or inquiry. All that we have to consider is, What is delivered? And what is delivered is to be received upon the affirmation of its Divine Author. (p. 1; my bolding)
This allows for some semblance of authoritative oral tradition, which ultimately runs contrary to sola Scriptura. We shall see at length how Goode incorporates this into his opinion. My interest in this Part 1 is to document his own definitions and fundamental principles. Then we'll observe how he attempts to defend them from Scripture, insofar as he does that at all.
Moreover, if God has given us a revelation, and requires of us as individuals a reception of the truths and precepts he has revealed for our everlasting salvation, then does it especially concern us as individuals to look to the evidences of that which comes to us with the profession of being his word, that we may separate the wheat from the chaff, and not be misled in matters affecting our eternal interests. This, I say, it becomes us to do as individuals, because we are to be judged by God individually; and if we have possessed the opportunities of knowledge, it will be no plea in bar of judgment that the church or body to which we belonged taught us error, for even death may be awarded us under such circumstances, though our blood be required of those who have misled us. (See Ezekiel iii. 18, 20, &c.)
This our responsibility to God as individuals, it is most important for us to keep in view, because it shows us the indispensable necessity of ascertaining, to the satisfaction of our own minds, that it is divine testimony upon which we are relying in support of what we hold as the doctrines of Christianity. Then only are we safe, for if our reliance is placed upon anything else, we immediately lay ourselves open to error. He who embraces even a true doctrine on insufficient grounds, exposes himself to the admission of false doctrine on similar grounds. And it is more easy and pleasant to build on a false foundation than the true one, for the former has no certain limits, which the latter has. The whole superstructure of Romanism has been erected on a few false principles admitted as the foundation. And belief grounded upon a false foundation or insufficient grounds is generally but weak and wavering; and if it be shaken, true and false doctrines fall together. (pp. 2-3)
In a typically Protestant manner, Goode only sees individualistic and "private judgment" elements in the notion of authority, and completely disregards the legitimacy of God-ordained ecclesiastical authority. This is seen in his casual treatment of Ezekiel 3:18, 20. Goode thumbs his nose at the authority expressed here. It all comes down to the individual. It's true that individuals are judged in the end. We all stand before God alone, and will have to give account of our lives and actions, done with free will. But there is also authority, and we can't simply reject it out of hand. Here is the larger context of Ezekiel 3 (RSV, as throughout):
Ezekiel 3:1, 7, 11, 16-21, 27 And he said to me, "Son of man, eat what is offered to you; eat this scroll, and go, speak to the house of Israel.". . . [7] But the house of Israel will not listen to you; for they are not willing to listen to me; because all the house of Israel are of a hard forehead and of a stubborn heart.. . . [11] "And go, get you to the exiles, to your people, and say to them, `Thus says the Lord GOD'; whether they hear or refuse to hear.". . . [16] And at the end of seven days, the word of the LORD came to me: [17] "Son of man, I have made you a watchman for the house of Israel; whenever you hear a word from my mouth, you shall give them warning from me. [18] If I say to the wicked, `You shall surely die,' and you give him no warning, nor speak to warn the wicked from his wicked way, in order to save his life, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood I will require at your hand. [19] But if you warn the wicked, and he does not turn from his wickedness, or from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but you will have saved your life. [20] Again, if a righteous man turns from his righteousness and commits iniquity, and I lay a stumbling block before him, he shall die; because you have not warned him, he shall die for his sin, and his righteous deeds which he has done shall not be remembered; but his blood I will require at your hand. [21] Nevertheless if you warn the righteous man not to sin, and he does not sin, he shall surely live, because he took warning; and you will have saved your life.". . . [27] But when I speak with you, I will open your mouth, and you shall say to them, `Thus says the Lord GOD'; he that will hear, let him hear; and he that will refuse to hear, let him refuse; for they are a rebellious house.
"Ecclesiastical" authority (highlighted in bolded portions) is all over this passage: it's the very essence of it. The prophet is God's messenger. He brings God's words and revelation and teaching. He is to be obeyed, with dire consequences if his advice isn't heeded. He's the "watchman." All of this is quite analogous to Catholic authority, but Goode can only see individualism. He sees only what he wants to see (i.e., what Protestantism has deemed relevant and important).
Nothing in the passage shows some alleged "right" of every atomistic individual to reject authority as he sees fit; to make determinations of the legitimacy of the authority or its teaching. That's all arbitrary Protestant man-made tradition: superimposed onto the Bible. The Bible teaches no such thing.
The individual Israelite is to "listen" to the prophet (3:7), "hear" his words (3:11) and not be "stubborn" (3:7) and hardhearted (3:7) and "rebellious" (3:27) when he delivers the "word of the Lord" (3:11, 16-17, 27) as God's "watchman" (3:17), who gives "warning" (3:17-21). It's the same exact notion if we substitute "bishop" or "pope" for prophet. Thus we observe a remarkable Old Testament instance of proto-Church authority, but Goode only sees individualism, save one passing concession to the blood of the flock being on Ezekiel's head if he doesn't fulfill his prophetic calling of warning them against doom and rebellion.
What does it mean for Ezekiel to be a "watchman" over Israel (Hebrew, tsaphah: Strong's word #6822)? Lutheran scholars C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, in their massively scholarly ten-volume Commentary on the Old Testament, comment on this role of Ezekiel and its ecclesiological implications:
. . . Ezekiel is like one standing upon a watchtower (Hab. 2:1), to watch over the condition of the people, and warn them of the dangers that threaten them (Jer. 6:17; Isa. 56:10). As such, he is responsible for the souls entrusted to his charge. . . . An awfully solemn statement for all ministers of the word. (Vol. IX, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, rep. 1982, p. 59)
Apostles were the successors of the prophets, and bishops of the apostles. Hence St. Paul warned his followers to exercise their grave responsibilities, similarly to what we see in Ezekiel:
Acts 20:28 Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God which he obtained with the blood of his own Son.
And belief grounded upon a false foundation or insufficient grounds is generally but weak and wavering . . . (p. 3)
I couldn't agree more!
In matters of faith, therefore, the divine rule is our sole authoritative rule; in matters of practice there maybe added to those which are prescribed by the divine rule, by the authority which Christ has left with his church for the direction of its rites and services, such as are necessary to the maintenance of peace and order. (p. 5)
This is a helpful distinction; showing more nuance than some defenders of sola Scriptura (typical of the wider latitude and freedom of thought of Anglicanism). I would note in passing, however, that this tolerance of practice and ecclesiastical tradition in this sub-doctrinal respect, is not consistently granted to the Catholic Church. So, for example, little quarter is given to us if we distribute communion in one form only (as traditionally), or require priestly celibacy: both practices and not dogmas.
All of a sudden, wicked "Rome" is not allowed to make those determinations, and in doing so is exercising arbitrary and indefensible raw power; whereas saintly, sanctified, all-wise Canterbury is freely granted this prerogative. The double standard is (no doubt) never even noticed . . . Such is the fruit of prejudice upon consistent rational thought.
Both for the fact that Scripture is the word of God, and for the correctness of the doctrines we deduce from Scripture, we carefully give both the child and the ignorant man all the proofs their condition renders possible; . . . (p. 6)
Excellent! I'll be perusing these "proofs" very carefully to see if they hold water, as to the notion of sola Scriptura.
. . . while the Romanist demands belief on the authority of what he calls the church, that is, on grounds which the past history and present state of the church show to be a nullity.(p. 6)
No!; we ground it on the testimony of Scripture itself on the authority of the Church (an example of which we saw above, in Ezekiel 3 . . . ). If Scripture teaches about the existence an authoritative and infallible Church, then there is such a thing, and we bow and submit to its authority on the testimony of Scripture (and sola Scriptura crumbles). Which church this described scriptural church is, today, is, of course, a separate issue that has to be determined, on historical and rational grounds.
We also ground the notion, additionally, on the universal testimony of the Church fathers, just as Goode unsuccessfully attempts to base the legitimacy and truthfulness of sola Scriptura on their testimony as well. But patristic testimony is beyond our present purview. Both sides appeal to Scripture. The question is which has a better, more consistent, plausible case: taking into account all of Scripture: not just carefully selected "prooftexts." I'm focused like a laser beam on those arguments, in this critique.
We have, then, to determine the limits of the divine revelation we can ascertain to have come down to us from them.
Here, again, it is generally admitted, that the most sacred record of this revelation is to be found in the Holy Scriptures.
But it cannot be denied, that when the apostles were delivering to men that divine revelation with which they were charged, they delivered it by word of mouth as well as in the writings that have come down to us, and that they first delivered it orally, and afterwards penned the writings they have left us. The question, then, for our determination is this, Whether we have any record or witness of their oral teaching, such as can be received by us as a divine revelation supplementary to, and interpretative of, the writings they have left us. (p. 7)
Good presentation of the true issues at stake. All proponents of sola Scriptura have to grapple with the question of the relation of authoritative apostolic oral pronouncements and Scripture. If any of these oral teachings were preserved alongside Scripture, without particular reference in the latter (or at least not explicit reference), then it seems that sola Scriptura, as defined, cannot stand.
The Protestant defender has to find some way to argue that all such beliefs made their way into Scripture ("inscripturation") and that none whatsoever survived apart from Scripture. That's pretty difficult to do, and I have as yet seen no biblical indication of such an idea. I contend that it is yet another man-made tradition, arbitrarily invented "on the spot" out of the need to bolster the larger man-made tradition of sola Scriptura as a principle of authority.
We hold also that the consent of many of the most able and pious ecclesiastical writers of antiquity (and what is called catholic consent is nothing more than this) in favour of any particular view of divine truth, is an argument of great force in defence of that view, not from the improbable possibility of such consent having been derived from the oral teaching of the apostles, but rather from the probable evidence afforded by such consent, . . .
Further, we do not deny, that any man who differs from the true catholic church of Christ in fundamental points must be in fatal error, and that the faith of that church in such points must in all ages be the same; we do not deny, that there may have been fuller communications made by the apostles to some of their first followers on some points than we find in the Scriptures they have left us; we do not deny the possibility that interpretations of Scripture brought to us through the Fathers may have originally emanated from the apostles; we do not deny, but on the contrary firmly maintain, that the true orthodox faith, in at least all fundamental points, is to be found in the writings of the primitive Fathers, and therefore that it is very necessary, as a matter of evidence, that in all such points our faith be such as can find some testimony for it in their writings: . . . (p. 19)
Good statement of commonly held elements . . .
Speculative arguments have been adduced on the question on both sides, which, however plausible they may appear to the general reader, are far from being trustworthy. Thus, the advocates for the exclusive authority of the Holy Scriptures have often urged, that the Scriptures being given by God for the instruction of mankind in religion, they must be perfect for the accomplishment of the purpose for which they were given, and therefore must contain all that has been revealed for that purpose. But it does not follow that, because the Scriptures were given for that purpose, they are necessarily all that has been given. (p. 20)
True and helpful qualification . . .
The great object of the following work, then, is to demonstrate, . . . that there is nothing of which we have sufficient evidence that it is Divine or inspired testimony but the Holy Scripture; and consequently that the Holy Scripture is our sole and exclusive Divine Rule of faith and practice. (p. 21)
There is some clever wordplay here and failed attempted parallelism of non-equivalent notions. Goode confuses inspired works (Scripture) with infallible or binding authority, as if the latter is not a present and necessary category, or as if the only authority we can have must be inspired ("God-breathed" or theopneustos). Catholics and Protestants agree that Scripture is inspired. That is not where the dispute lies; therefore all arguments devoted to proving that are entirely beside the point in the debate over the rule of faith.
The problem lies in assuming what one needs to prove. It is illogical and not reasonably demonstrated that the only authority must be inspired. Therefore, Goode has no basis for moving from stating that Scripture is inspired, to concluding, "consequently that the Holy Scripture is our sole and exclusive Divine Rule of faith and practice." He merely assumes that all carriers of the rule of faith are inspired as well as infallible. But there is also such a thing as an infallible Church or tradition that is not inspired, yet still has binding and (possibly) infallible authority. Goode's task is to disprove the latter categories, and from Scripture; rather than to casually assume -- with no argument or proof -- that they are impermissible aspects of the rule of faith.
We shall see that much of the argumentation in favor of sola Scriptura is simply circular argument or begging the question; assuming what one needs to prove. This is always the case; I've never seen a single exception, in my twenty years of active Catholic apologetics.
* * *
June 27, 2012
Goode Defense of Sola Scriptura the Best? We Shall Examine It and See!
In my eternal and perpetually disappointing search for Protestants who actually try to make a serious rational defense of the Protestant doctrine of sola Scriptura from Scripture itself, I have now (almost desperate to find something; anything!) arrived at William Goode (1801-1868): an English evangelical Anglican. His relevant work is, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice , originally two volumes in 1842, and then revised and enlarged to three volumes in 1853. I have located them online (Vol. 1 / Vol. I [alt] / Vol. II / Vol. III), and of course they are in the public domain.
Recently, I was crushed yet again when I discovered that David T. King, despite the title of his book ( A Biblical Defense of the Reformation Principle of Sola Scriptura ), did not make such a case from Scripture, apart from a few (very weakly argued) instances, which I replied to.
I've already done an 18-part reply to the work of William Whitaker, a highly-touted 16th century advocate of sola Scriptura. Possibly we have a book in the offing at some future date: my replies to both Whitaker and Goode. As we would expect, Goode, like Whitaker -- both Protestant "champions" over against the lowly, wicked papists -- , receives glowing accolades from today's Protestants (particularly the fringe anti-Catholic ones) who follow sola Scriptura, and/or seek to justify it themselves:
But of all the treatments dealing with sola Scriptura, the work of William Goode, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice, has never been surpassed. (David T. King, ibid. [2001], p. 17)
. . . classical works on . . . sola scriptura, such as William Whitaker’s late 16th century classic, Disputations on Holy Scripture, or William Goode’s mid 19th century work, Divine Rule of Faith and Practice. (James White, blog post, 8-18-10)
I heartily commend to your reading William Goode's The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice . . . a genuinely scholarly work on sola scriptura. . . . Everywhere I turn, William Goode is referenced in the literature. (D. Phillip Veitch, Anglican message board, 3-20-09)
I will be examining these volumes specifically to see how Goode makes his case from Scripture . That is my sole interest. I will offer up rebuttals to any significant biblical argument that actually deals with the heart and stated definition or essence of sola Scriptura: the notion that only Scripture is the sole infallible guide for the Christian: to the exclusion of an infallible tradition or infallible Church (the latter two notions both accepted by Catholics). I have no interest in arguments for inspiration or material sufficiency or other relative side issues, because Catholics already agree with those.
Future installments of this series will be listed below:
* * *
June 26, 2012
Rebuttal of David T. King's Defense of Sola Scriptura from Romans 16:15-16 and 2 Timothy 3:16-17
.
.
Pastor King's words from his book will be in blue.
* * * * *
My normative policy of time-management or stewardship of my time under God, and maintenance of sanity for nearly five years now is to refuse to waste time debating theology with the small fringe group of anti-Catholic Protestants (i.e., those who deny that Catholicism as a system of theology and spirituality is Christian, and who claim that in order to be a good Christian, one must reject quite a few tenets of Catholicism). I do, however, make exceptions on rare occasions.
I have continued to interact with historic Protestant anti-Catholic works, and I did, e.g., in the case of William Whitaker, a prominent 16th century advocate of sola Scriptura (18-part reply). I also have lots of material (including two books) concerning major Protestant figures Luther, Calvin, Chemnitz, Zwingli, Bullinger, and others.
The self-published, three-volume set (one / two / three) on sola Scriptura by David T. King and William Webster (2001) is clearly relevant in relationship to my current book, 100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura . Volume One (A Biblical Defense of the Reformation Principle of Sola Scriptura) is virtually a polar opposite of my title. I say the Bible opposes the notion; he maintains that it supports it. That makes for some good debate (and as anyone who knows me is aware, I immensely enjoy debate). It's stimulating and fun, and educational, all at the same time.
I had originally intended to do a multi-part rebuttal, as I did with Whitaker, but I have discovered that King scarcely makes any arguments from the Bible, for the purpose of establishing sola Scriptura proper; thus this will be my sole reply. I will have to seek out another work that actually tries to prove the doctrine from Scripture. That is what interests me: not more circular logic and man-made traditions spewed endlessly.
Pastor David T. King is a Presbyterian, and graduate of Reformed Theological Seminary in Jackson, Mississippi. He is pastor of Christ Presbyterian Church (OPC) in Elkton, Maryland, and was formerly affiliated with PCA.
Unfortunately, most of the books that deal with this topic in the greatest depth (e.g., others by Keith A. Mathison, Bishop "Dr." James R. White, and R. C. Sproul), come from anti-Catholics. Be that as it may, we can handily refute these arguments from a Catholic and thoroughly biblical perspective.
Now onto King's few biblical arguments in favor of sola Scriptura:
If unwritten tradition was . . . intended to function perpetually as an authoritative norm alongside Scripture, why did Paul fail to mention such a concept when speaking of 'the revelation of the mystery kept secret since the world began?' (p. 44) [see Rom 16:25-26]
He doesn't have to, anymore than he can write the following extended treatment of many important aspects of the Christian life without ever mentioning Scripture:
I stated along these lines in my book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism (2003):
We can play this word game with Pastor King further, if he insists (since he wants to make an issue of it). It so happens that I did an exhaustive study of St. Paul's word usage in his epistles, comparing his mentions of Scripture with those pertaining to Church authority and tradition. The results were quite fascinating, and devastating to any notion that Paul subscribed to sola Scriptura, or had Scripture always in the forefront of his mind at all times, over against apostolic tradition and the authority of the Church. Here are just a very few highlights from the lengthy article:
We can argue in this fashion if someone wants to, but I can assure readers that it will not go well for the sola Scriptura position. It's not how it is "supposed" to be according to that man-made tradition.
Moreover, why would he omit extrabiblical tradition as a norm when addressing Timothy on the sufficiency of Scripture in his second epistle? (p. 44) [see 2 Tim 3:16-17]
The answer is that he didn't omit it in the overal (even immediate) context. He referred to authoritative tradition in the immediately preceding context, in 2 Timothy 3:10, 14:
Of course, the person Timothy learned it from was Paul himself: passing down oral tradition, as seen in the previous two chapters also:
Paul also casually refers to the extrabiblical tradition Jannes and Jambres in 3:8. He casually assumes that such oral (or at least non-biblical) traditions possess authority. Thus, there is no particular need to mention tradition again in 3:16-17. He already had done so, at least five times, in a short letter. King's demand is unreasonable and irrational: not everything has to be discussed at all times. But the data is completely consistent with a Catholic Scripture + Tradition + Church "three-legged stool" model of authority. All King and other sola Scriptura defenders can fall back on is the notion (never biblically established) that the tradition shall cease as soon as Scripture is complete. Thus King states:
Did you notice the curious absence of any scriptural verification for such a notion? Yes, so did I . . . Just a minor quibble . . .
King notes on pp. 82-83 that 2 Timothy 3:16-17 reveals Scripture to be "profitable" in the areas of:
Quite true; we agree. But, none of these things are exclusive to Scripture (including several instances in both letters to Timothy):
Doctrine
Reproof
Correction
Instruction in Righteousness
Even if Scripture were the only source of all these things, it's still a far cry from that to assert that it is the only infallible authority today. None of this proves that at all, even granting King's false premise. But as we have seen, his premise is untrue in the first place. Remember, this text is almost universally considered the very best prooftext for sola Scriptura. But King can't even remotely prove or even support the notion from it. It's downright embarrassing to observe. And this is always the case, as I've observed in over 21 years of active Catholic apologetics. It's always special pleading from the get-go.
Ever see that soup commercial where they say, "it's in there!"? Well, in this case, sola Scriptura ain't in this verse or any other that can be brought to bear. It's completely absent from Scripture, which has, however, many counter-indications and refutations of it.
* * *
As for the clause, "that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work" (2 Tim 3:17), this is not exclusive to Scripture, either:
King offers up a clever, but nevertheless rather tame and fallacious rationale to explain away these parallels:
. . . with respect to each occurrence of 'every good work' in the Pastoral Epistles (or elsewhere in Scripture for that matter), it needs to be noted that these passages are all Scripture, and as such form and norm moral behavior . . . we find Scripture fulfilling the very purpose for which it was given as described in 2 Timothy 3:16-17, namely, informing and norming for us 'instruction for righteousness . . . for every good work.' The question is not whether these disciplines are necessary, but what is the source of revelation which reveals them as necessary? (pp. 85-86)
This is true insofar as Scripture is sufficient to teach these things (which no one denies); however, it misses the present point altogether, and in a rather striking fashion. The argument at the moment is not about whether we can accept and abide by anything that Scripture teaches us, but rather, whether it exclusively does so, and whether it points to other sources outside of itself that do some things that it itself does (including sacred tradition and the Church). We have seen in the outlining of the four elements above that there are many other sources of that which is described as attributes of Scripture in 2 Timothy 3.
Whether Scripture is the source that informs us of this is irrelevant to the discussion about sola Scriptura; the relevant thing is that there are indeed other sources. Holy Scripture, as inspired, can be trusted absolutely in terms of confirming that this is the case, but it is not absolutely necessary even in that respect.
The Bible was clearly not necessary for men to be able to do "every good work"; that is, to achieve goodness; to be good men, or righteous, to obtain grace and exercise true faith, or to be saved in the end, since we know from the Bible itself that some men were good, after the fall (by God's grace, as always) before there ever was a thing as the Bible at all (i.e., before Moses). Moreover, this could be discerned before there was a Bible; the knowledge didn't have to be confirmed by Scripture (seen especially in Hebrews 11:4 below):
None of this righteousness came about due to a "norm" of Scripture. It was within these people as a result of God's grace and revelation of Himself to them. This was before the Bible was known, but the same also remains true today in cases of cultures that are ignorant of the Bible or true Christian teaching:
* * *
.
Pastor King's words from his book will be in blue.
* * * * *
My normative policy of time-management or stewardship of my time under God, and maintenance of sanity for nearly five years now is to refuse to waste time debating theology with the small fringe group of anti-Catholic Protestants (i.e., those who deny that Catholicism as a system of theology and spirituality is Christian, and who claim that in order to be a good Christian, one must reject quite a few tenets of Catholicism). I do, however, make exceptions on rare occasions.
I have continued to interact with historic Protestant anti-Catholic works, and I did, e.g., in the case of William Whitaker, a prominent 16th century advocate of sola Scriptura (18-part reply). I also have lots of material (including two books) concerning major Protestant figures Luther, Calvin, Chemnitz, Zwingli, Bullinger, and others.
The self-published, three-volume set (one / two / three) on sola Scriptura by David T. King and William Webster (2001) is clearly relevant in relationship to my current book, 100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura . Volume One (A Biblical Defense of the Reformation Principle of Sola Scriptura) is virtually a polar opposite of my title. I say the Bible opposes the notion; he maintains that it supports it. That makes for some good debate (and as anyone who knows me is aware, I immensely enjoy debate). It's stimulating and fun, and educational, all at the same time.
I had originally intended to do a multi-part rebuttal, as I did with Whitaker, but I have discovered that King scarcely makes any arguments from the Bible, for the purpose of establishing sola Scriptura proper; thus this will be my sole reply. I will have to seek out another work that actually tries to prove the doctrine from Scripture. That is what interests me: not more circular logic and man-made traditions spewed endlessly.
Pastor David T. King is a Presbyterian, and graduate of Reformed Theological Seminary in Jackson, Mississippi. He is pastor of Christ Presbyterian Church (OPC) in Elkton, Maryland, and was formerly affiliated with PCA.
Unfortunately, most of the books that deal with this topic in the greatest depth (e.g., others by Keith A. Mathison, Bishop "Dr." James R. White, and R. C. Sproul), come from anti-Catholics. Be that as it may, we can handily refute these arguments from a Catholic and thoroughly biblical perspective.
Now onto King's few biblical arguments in favor of sola Scriptura:
If unwritten tradition was . . . intended to function perpetually as an authoritative norm alongside Scripture, why did Paul fail to mention such a concept when speaking of 'the revelation of the mystery kept secret since the world began?' (p. 44) [see Rom 16:25-26]
He doesn't have to, anymore than he can write the following extended treatment of many important aspects of the Christian life without ever mentioning Scripture:
Ephesians 4:11-16 (RSV) And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, [12] to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, [13] until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ; [14] so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles. [15] Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, [16] from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by every joint with which it is supplied, when each part is working properly, makes bodily growth and upbuilds itself in love.
I stated along these lines in my book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism (2003):
The "exclusivist" or "dichotomous" form of reasoning employed by Protestant apologists here is fundamentally flawed. . . . Note that in Ephesians 4:11-15 the Christian believer is "equipped," "built up," brought into "unity and mature manhood," "knowledge of Jesus," "the fulness of Christ," and even preserved from doctrinal confusion by means of the teaching function of the Church. This is a far stronger statement of the "perfecting" of the saints than 2 Timothy 3:16-17, yet it doesn't even mention Scripture.
Therefore, the Protestant interpretation of 2 Timothy 3:16-17 proves too much, since if all nonscriptural elements are excluded in 2 Timothy, then, by analogy, Scripture would logically have to be excluded in Ephesians. It is far more reasonable to synthesize the two passages in an inclusive, complementary fashion, by recognizing that the mere absence of one or more elements in one passage does not mean that they are nonexistent. Thus, the Church and Scripture are both equally necessary and important for teaching. This is precisely the Catholic view. Neither passage is intended in an exclusive sense. (pp. 15-16)
We can play this word game with Pastor King further, if he insists (since he wants to make an issue of it). It so happens that I did an exhaustive study of St. Paul's word usage in his epistles, comparing his mentions of Scripture with those pertaining to Church authority and tradition. The results were quite fascinating, and devastating to any notion that Paul subscribed to sola Scriptura, or had Scripture always in the forefront of his mind at all times, over against apostolic tradition and the authority of the Church. Here are just a very few highlights from the lengthy article:
The words "Scripture" or "Scriptures" appear 51 times in the New Testament. Yet in eight of his thirteen epistles (2 Corinthians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, Titus, Philemon) St. Paul (it may be surprising to learn) never uses either of these words. He uses it only 14 times altogether: in Romans (6), 1 Corinthians (2), Galatians (3), 1 Timothy (2), and 2 Timothy (1).
Likewise, "word of God" appears 43 times in the New Testament, and many of these (as in Old Testament prophetic utterances) are intended in the sense of "oral proclamation" rather than "Scripture" (especially apart from the Gospels). St. Paul uses the phrase only ten times, in nine different epistles. And it is by no means certain that any individual instance refers without question specifically to Holy Scripture, rather than to oral proclamation of apostolic tradition. I suspect that it is much more likely the latter sense in most or all cases. . . .
If we survey "Body (of Christ)" in Paul we find 19 appearances . . . And . . . "Church" / ekklesia (in more than merely a local sense of congregation or building) in his epistles (20 total times) . . .
Colossians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, Titus, and Philemon neither mention "Scripture" nor cite the OT, and Philippians doesn't mention the word and makes just one OT citation. . . . even in Romans, Church /tradition notions appear eight times, which is more than "Scripture" / OT citations appear in nine epistles, and tied with 2 Corinthians.
We can argue in this fashion if someone wants to, but I can assure readers that it will not go well for the sola Scriptura position. It's not how it is "supposed" to be according to that man-made tradition.
Moreover, why would he omit extrabiblical tradition as a norm when addressing Timothy on the sufficiency of Scripture in his second epistle? (p. 44) [see 2 Tim 3:16-17]
The answer is that he didn't omit it in the overal (even immediate) context. He referred to authoritative tradition in the immediately preceding context, in 2 Timothy 3:10, 14:
Now you have observed my teaching . . . [14] But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it
Of course, the person Timothy learned it from was Paul himself: passing down oral tradition, as seen in the previous two chapters also:
2 Timothy 1:13-14 Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus; [14] guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us.
2 Timothy 2:2 and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.
Paul also casually refers to the extrabiblical tradition Jannes and Jambres in 3:8. He casually assumes that such oral (or at least non-biblical) traditions possess authority. Thus, there is no particular need to mention tradition again in 3:16-17. He already had done so, at least five times, in a short letter. King's demand is unreasonable and irrational: not everything has to be discussed at all times. But the data is completely consistent with a Catholic Scripture + Tradition + Church "three-legged stool" model of authority. All King and other sola Scriptura defenders can fall back on is the notion (never biblically established) that the tradition shall cease as soon as Scripture is complete. Thus King states:
. . . Protestant Evangelicals do affirm the binding authority of apostolic tradition as delivered by the apostles. What they preached and taught in the first century Church was authoritatively binding on the consciences of all Christians. However, we reject Roman Catholic claims that extrabiblical, apostolic traditions have been preserved orally apart from the Scriptures. (pp. 55-56)
Non-Protestants assume (without proof) that what the apostles taught orally differed substantively from that which was later inscripturated. (p. 59)
. . . Protestants have always accepted apostolic teaching that was oral in nature and which preceded its inscripturation. But apostolic revelation which God desired to preserve has been inscripturated in its entirety. (p. 71)
Did you notice the curious absence of any scriptural verification for such a notion? Yes, so did I . . . Just a minor quibble . . .
King notes on pp. 82-83 that 2 Timothy 3:16-17 reveals Scripture to be "profitable" in the areas of:
1. 'For doctrine'
2. 'For reproof'
3. 'For correction'
4. 'For instruction in righteousness'
Quite true; we agree. But, none of these things are exclusive to Scripture (including several instances in both letters to Timothy):
Doctrine
Romans 16:17 . . . the doctrine which you have been taught . . . [no mention of Scripture; it likely refers either to Paul, or Paul and other local teachers]
1 Timothy 1:3-4 As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine, [4] nor to occupy themselves with myths and endless genealogies which promote speculations rather than the divine training that is in faith; [Timothy passes on and authoritatively enforces Paul's "doctrine" and "divine training" (i.e., tradition); Scriptural reference is absent]
1 Timothy 4:6 If you put these instructions before the brethren, you will be a good minister of Christ Jesus, nourished on the words of the faith and of the good doctrine which you have followed. ["word of God": not necessarily Scripture, is mentioned in the preceding verse, yet the "doctrine" or tradition here seems to refer to a general body of teaching received: not only from Scripture]
Titus 1:7, 9 For a bishop, as God's steward, . . . [9] he must hold firm to the sure word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to confute those who contradict it. [bishops; magisterial authority of the Church, which is alongside Scripture]
Titus 2:1, 7-8, 10 But as for you, teach what befits sound doctrine. . . . [7] Show yourself in all respects a model of good deeds, and in your teaching show integrity, gravity, [8] and sound speech that cannot be censured, so that an opponent may be put to shame, having nothing evil to say of us. . . . [10] nor to pilfer, but to show entire and true fidelity, so that in everything they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior. [Titus as teacher; no mention of Scripture here or anywhere in the letter]
2 John 1:9-10 Any one who goes ahead and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God; he who abides in the doctrine has both the Father and the Son. [10] If any one comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into the house or give him any greeting; [a generally received (by Christians) "doctrine"; cf. "the truth" (1:1-2, 4); "commandment[s]" (1:5-6) ]
Reproof
Proverbs 1:23 Give heed to my reproof; behold, I will pour out my thoughts to you; I will make my words known to you. [King Solomon]
Proverbs 9:8 Do not reprove a scoffer, or he will hate you; reprove a wise man, and he will love you. [anyone]
Proverbs 24:25 but those who rebuke the wicked will have delight, and a good blessing will be upon them. [anyone]
Proverbs 29:15 The rod and reproof give wisdom, but a child left to himself brings shame to his mother. [parents]
1 Timothy 5:20 As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear. [Timothy]
2 Timothy 4:2 preach the word, be urgent in season and out of season, convince, rebuke, and exhort, be unfailing in patience and in teaching. [Timothy]
Titus 1:13 This testimony is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith, [Titus]
Titus 2:15 Declare these things; exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no one disregard you. [Titus]
2 Peter 2:16 but [Balaam] was rebuked for his own transgression; a dumb ass spoke with human voice and restrained the prophet's madness. [a donkey]
Correction
2 Timothy 2:24-25 And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kindly to every one, an apt teacher, forbearing, [25] correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant that they will repent and come to know the truth, ["the Lord's servant"]
Instruction in Righteousness
Proverbs 1:1-3 The proverbs of Solomon, son of David, king of Israel: [2] That men may know wisdom and instruction, understand words of insight, [3] receive instruction in wise dealing, righteousness, justice, and equity;
John 16:8-10 And when he comes, he will convince the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment: [9] concerning sin, because they do not believe in me; [10] concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you will see me no more; [the Holy Spirit]
Hebrews 12:9-11 Besides this, we have had earthly fathers to discipline us and we respected them. Shall we not much more be subject to the Father of spirits and live? [10] For they disciplined us for a short time at their pleasure, but he disciplines us for our good, that we may share his holiness. [11] For the moment all discipline seems painful rather than pleasant; later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it. [God and earthly fathers]
Even if Scripture were the only source of all these things, it's still a far cry from that to assert that it is the only infallible authority today. None of this proves that at all, even granting King's false premise. But as we have seen, his premise is untrue in the first place. Remember, this text is almost universally considered the very best prooftext for sola Scriptura. But King can't even remotely prove or even support the notion from it. It's downright embarrassing to observe. And this is always the case, as I've observed in over 21 years of active Catholic apologetics. It's always special pleading from the get-go.
Ever see that soup commercial where they say, "it's in there!"? Well, in this case, sola Scriptura ain't in this verse or any other that can be brought to bear. It's completely absent from Scripture, which has, however, many counter-indications and refutations of it.
* * *
As for the clause, "that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work" (2 Tim 3:17), this is not exclusive to Scripture, either:
2 Corinthians 9:8 And God is able to provide you with every blessing in abundance, so that you may always have enough of everything and may provide in abundance for every good work. [God; no mention of the Bible necessarily being the means of this]
2 Timothy 2:21 If any one purifies himself from what is ignoble, then he will be a vessel for noble use, consecrated and useful to the master of the house, ready for any good work. [self-discipline]
King offers up a clever, but nevertheless rather tame and fallacious rationale to explain away these parallels:
. . . with respect to each occurrence of 'every good work' in the Pastoral Epistles (or elsewhere in Scripture for that matter), it needs to be noted that these passages are all Scripture, and as such form and norm moral behavior . . . we find Scripture fulfilling the very purpose for which it was given as described in 2 Timothy 3:16-17, namely, informing and norming for us 'instruction for righteousness . . . for every good work.' The question is not whether these disciplines are necessary, but what is the source of revelation which reveals them as necessary? (pp. 85-86)
This is true insofar as Scripture is sufficient to teach these things (which no one denies); however, it misses the present point altogether, and in a rather striking fashion. The argument at the moment is not about whether we can accept and abide by anything that Scripture teaches us, but rather, whether it exclusively does so, and whether it points to other sources outside of itself that do some things that it itself does (including sacred tradition and the Church). We have seen in the outlining of the four elements above that there are many other sources of that which is described as attributes of Scripture in 2 Timothy 3.
Whether Scripture is the source that informs us of this is irrelevant to the discussion about sola Scriptura; the relevant thing is that there are indeed other sources. Holy Scripture, as inspired, can be trusted absolutely in terms of confirming that this is the case, but it is not absolutely necessary even in that respect.
The Bible was clearly not necessary for men to be able to do "every good work"; that is, to achieve goodness; to be good men, or righteous, to obtain grace and exercise true faith, or to be saved in the end, since we know from the Bible itself that some men were good, after the fall (by God's grace, as always) before there ever was a thing as the Bible at all (i.e., before Moses). Moreover, this could be discerned before there was a Bible; the knowledge didn't have to be confirmed by Scripture (seen especially in Hebrews 11:4 below):
Genesis 5:24 Enoch walked with God; and he was not, for God took him. (cf. 5:21;
Genesis 6:8-9 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD. [9] These are the generations of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation; Noah walked with God.
Genesis 7:1 Then the LORD said to Noah, "Go into the ark, you and all your household, for I have seen that you are righteous before me in this generation.
Genesis 15:6 And he [Abraham] believed the LORD; and he reckoned it to him as righteousness.
Genesis 18:19 . . . I have chosen him, that he may charge his children and his household after him to keep the way of the LORD by doing righteousness and justice; so that the LORD may bring to Abraham what he has promised him.
Job 1:1 There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was blameless and upright, one who feared God, and turned away from evil.(cf. 1:8)
Hebrews 11:1-4 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. [2] For by it the men of old received divine approval. [3] By faith we understand that the world was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was made out of things which do not appear. [4] By faith Abel offered to God a more acceptable sacrifice than Cain, through which he received approval as righteous, God bearing witness by accepting his gifts; he died, but through his faith he is still speaking.
Hebrews 11:5 By faith Enoch was taken up so that he should not see death; and he was not found, because God had taken him. Now before he was taken he was attested as having pleased God.
Hebrews 11:7 By faith Noah, being warned by God concerning events as yet unseen, took heed and constructed an ark for the saving of his household; by this he condemned the world and became an heir of the righteousness which comes by faith.
Hebrews 11:8 By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to a place which he was to receive as an inheritance; and he went out, not knowing where he was to go. [cf. Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, and Rahab in subsequent verses of this chapter]
None of this righteousness came about due to a "norm" of Scripture. It was within these people as a result of God's grace and revelation of Himself to them. This was before the Bible was known, but the same also remains true today in cases of cultures that are ignorant of the Bible or true Christian teaching:
Romans 2:5-16 But by your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God's righteous judgment will be revealed. [6] For he will render to every man according to his works: [7] to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; [8] but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury. [9] There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, [10] but glory and honor and peace for every one who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. [11] For God shows no partiality. [12] All who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. [13] For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. [14] When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. [15] They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them [16] on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.
* * *
Rebuttal of David T. King's Defense of Sola Scriptura, Part 1 (Rom 16:15-16; 2 Tim 3:16-17)
.
.
See the introductory post. Pastor King's words from his book will be in blue.
* * * * *
If unwritten tradition was . . . intended to function perpetually as an authoritative norm alongside Scripture, why did Paul fail to mention such a concept when speaking of 'the revelation of the mystery kept secret since the world began?' (p. 44) [see Rom 16:25-26]
He doesn't have to, anymore than he can write the following extended treatment of many important aspects of the Christian life without ever mentioning Scripture:
I stated along these lines in my book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism (2003):
We can play this word game with Pastor King further, if he insists (since he wants to make an issue of it). It so happens that I did an exhaustive study of St. Paul's word usage in his epistles, comparing his mentions of Scripture with those pertaining to Church authority and tradition. The results were quite fascinating, and devastating to any notion that Paul subscribed to sola Scriptura, or had Scripture always in the forefront of his mind at all times, over against apostolic tradition and the authority of the Church. Here are just a very few highlights from the lengthy article:
We can argue in this fashion if someone wants to, but I can assure readers that it will not go well for the sola Scriptura position. It's not how it is "supposed" to be according to that man-made tradition.
Moreover, why would he omit extrabiblical tradition as a norm when addressing Timothy on the sufficiency of Scripture in his second epistle? (p. 44) [see 2 Tim 3:16-17]
The answer is that he didn't omit it in the overal (even immediate) context. He referred to authoritative tradition in the immediately preceding context, in 2 Timothy 3:10, 14:
Of course, the person Timothy learned it from was Paul himself: passing down oral tradition, as seen in the previous two chapters also:
Paul also casually refers to the extrabiblical tradition Jannes and Jambres in 3:8. He casually assumes that such oral (or at least non-biblical) traditions possess authority. Thus, there is no particular need to mention tradition again in 3:16-17. He already had done so, at least five times, in a short letter. King's demand is unreasonable and irrational: not everything has to be discussed at all times. But the data is completely consistent with a Catholic Scripture + Tradition + Church "three-legged stool" model of authority. All King and other sola Scriptura defenders can fall back on is the notion (never biblically established) that the tradition shall cease as soon as Scripture is complete. Thus King states:
Did you notice the curious absence of any scriptural verification for such a notion? Yes, so did I . . . Just a minor quibble . . .
King notes on pp. 82-83 that 2 Timothy 3:16-17 reveals Scripture to be "profitable" in the areas of:
Quite true; we agree. But, none of these things are exclusive to Scripture (including several instances in both letters to Timothy):
Doctrine
Reproof
Correction
Instruction in Righteousness
Even if Scripture were the only source of all these things, it's still a far cry from that to assert that it is the only infallible authority today. None of this proves that at all, even granting King's false premise. But as we have seen, his premise is untrue in the first place. Remember, this text is almost universally considered the very best prooftext for sola Scriptura. But King can't even remotely prove or even support the notion from it. It's downright embarrassing to observe. And this is always the case, as I've observed in over 21 years of active Catholic apologetics. It's always special pleading from the get-go.
Ever see that soup commercial where they say, "it's in there!"? Well, in this case, sola Scriptura ain't in this verse or any other that can be brought to bear. It's completely absent from Scripture, which has, however, many counter-indications and refutations of it.
* * *
As for the clause, "that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work" (2 Tim 3:17), this is not exclusive to Scripture, either:
King offers up a clever, but nevertheless rather tame and fallacious rationale to explain away these parallels:
. . . with respect to each occurrence of 'every good work' in the Pastoral Epistles (or elsewhere in Scripture for that matter), it needs to be noted that these passages are all Scripture, and as such form and norm moral behavior . . . we find Scripture fulfilling the very purpose for which it was given as described in 2 Timothy 3:16-17, namely, informing and norming for us 'instruction for righteousness . . . for every good work.' The question is not whether these disciplines are necessary, but what is the source of revelation which reveals them as necessary? (pp. 85-86)
This is true insofar as Scripture is sufficient to teach these things (which no one denies); however, it misses the present point altogether, and in a rather striking fashion. The argument at the moment is not about whether we can accept and abide by anything that Scripture teaches us, but rather, whether it exclusively does so, and whether it points to other sources outside of itself that do some things that it itself does (including sacred tradition and the Church). We have seen in the outlining of the four elements above that there are many other sources of that which is described as attributes of Scripture in 2 Timothy 3.
Whether Scripture is the source that informs us of this is irrelevant to the discussion about sola Scriptura; the relevant thing is that there are indeed other sources. Holy Scripture, as inspired, can be trusted absolutely in terms of confirming that this is the case, but it is not absolutely necessary even in that respect.
The Bible was clearly not necessary for men to be able to do "every good work"; that is, to achieve goodness; to be good men, or righteous, to obtain grace and exercise true faith, or to be saved in the end, since we know from the Bible itself that some men were good, after the fall (by God's grace, as always) before there ever was a thing as the Bible at all (i.e., before Moses). Moreover, this could be discerned before there was a Bible; the knowledge didn't have to be confirmed by Scripture (seen especially in Hebrews 11:4 below):
None of this righteousness came about due to a "norm" of Scripture. It was within these people as a result of God's grace and revelation of Himself to them. This was before the Bible was known, but the same also remains true today in cases of cultures that are ignorant of the Bible or true Christian teaching:
* * *
.
See the introductory post. Pastor King's words from his book will be in blue.
* * * * *
If unwritten tradition was . . . intended to function perpetually as an authoritative norm alongside Scripture, why did Paul fail to mention such a concept when speaking of 'the revelation of the mystery kept secret since the world began?' (p. 44) [see Rom 16:25-26]
He doesn't have to, anymore than he can write the following extended treatment of many important aspects of the Christian life without ever mentioning Scripture:
Ephesians 4:11-16 (RSV) And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, [12] to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, [13] until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ; [14] so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles. [15] Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, [16] from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by every joint with which it is supplied, when each part is working properly, makes bodily growth and upbuilds itself in love.
I stated along these lines in my book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism (2003):
The "exclusivist" or "dichotomous" form of reasoning employed by Protestant apologists here is fundamentally flawed. . . . Note that in Ephesians 4:11-15 the Christian believer is "equipped," "built up," brought into "unity and mature manhood," "knowledge of Jesus," "the fulness of Christ," and even preserved from doctrinal confusion by means of the teaching function of the Church. This is a far stronger statement of the "perfecting" of the saints than 2 Timothy 3:16-17, yet it doesn't even mention Scripture.
Therefore, the Protestant interpretation of 2 Timothy 3:16-17 proves too much, since if all nonscriptural elements are excluded in 2 Timothy, then, by analogy, Scripture would logically have to be excluded in Ephesians. It is far more reasonable to synthesize the two passages in an inclusive, complementary fashion, by recognizing that the mere absence of one or more elements in one passage does not mean that they are nonexistent. Thus, the Church and Scripture are both equally necessary and important for teaching. This is precisely the Catholic view. Neither passage is intended in an exclusive sense. (pp. 15-16)
We can play this word game with Pastor King further, if he insists (since he wants to make an issue of it). It so happens that I did an exhaustive study of St. Paul's word usage in his epistles, comparing his mentions of Scripture with those pertaining to Church authority and tradition. The results were quite fascinating, and devastating to any notion that Paul subscribed to sola Scriptura, or had Scripture always in the forefront of his mind at all times, over against apostolic tradition and the authority of the Church. Here are just a very few highlights from the lengthy article:
The words "Scripture" or "Scriptures" appear 51 times in the New Testament. Yet in eight of his thirteen epistles (2 Corinthians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, Titus, Philemon) St. Paul (it may be surprising to learn) never uses either of these words. He uses it only 14 times altogether: in Romans (6), 1 Corinthians (2), Galatians (3), 1 Timothy (2), and 2 Timothy (1).
Likewise, "word of God" appears 43 times in the New Testament, and many of these (as in Old Testament prophetic utterances) are intended in the sense of "oral proclamation" rather than "Scripture" (especially apart from the Gospels). St. Paul uses the phrase only ten times, in nine different epistles. And it is by no means certain that any individual instance refers without question specifically to Holy Scripture, rather than to oral proclamation of apostolic tradition. I suspect that it is much more likely the latter sense in most or all cases. . . .
If we survey "Body (of Christ)" in Paul we find 19 appearances . . . And . . . "Church" / ekklesia (in more than merely a local sense of congregation or building) in his epistles (20 total times) . . .
Colossians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, Titus, and Philemon neither mention "Scripture" nor cite the OT, and Philippians doesn't mention the word and makes just one OT citation. . . . even in Romans, Church /tradition notions appear eight times, which is more than "Scripture" / OT citations appear in nine epistles, and tied with 2 Corinthians.
We can argue in this fashion if someone wants to, but I can assure readers that it will not go well for the sola Scriptura position. It's not how it is "supposed" to be according to that man-made tradition.
Moreover, why would he omit extrabiblical tradition as a norm when addressing Timothy on the sufficiency of Scripture in his second epistle? (p. 44) [see 2 Tim 3:16-17]
The answer is that he didn't omit it in the overal (even immediate) context. He referred to authoritative tradition in the immediately preceding context, in 2 Timothy 3:10, 14:
Now you have observed my teaching . . . [14] But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it
Of course, the person Timothy learned it from was Paul himself: passing down oral tradition, as seen in the previous two chapters also:
2 Timothy 1:13-14 Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus; [14] guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us.
2 Timothy 2:2 and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.
Paul also casually refers to the extrabiblical tradition Jannes and Jambres in 3:8. He casually assumes that such oral (or at least non-biblical) traditions possess authority. Thus, there is no particular need to mention tradition again in 3:16-17. He already had done so, at least five times, in a short letter. King's demand is unreasonable and irrational: not everything has to be discussed at all times. But the data is completely consistent with a Catholic Scripture + Tradition + Church "three-legged stool" model of authority. All King and other sola Scriptura defenders can fall back on is the notion (never biblically established) that the tradition shall cease as soon as Scripture is complete. Thus King states:
. . . Protestant Evangelicals do affirm the binding authority of apostolic tradition as delivered by the apostles. What they preached and taught in the first century Church was authoritatively binding on the consciences of all Christians. However, we reject Roman Catholic claims that extrabiblical, apostolic traditions have been preserved orally apart from the Scriptures. (pp. 55-56)
Non-Protestants assume (without proof) that what the apostles taught orally differed substantively from that which was later inscripturated. (p. 59)
. . . Protestants have always accepted apostolic teaching that was oral in nature and which preceded its inscripturation. But apostolic revelation which God desired to preserve has been inscripturated in its entirety. (p. 71)
Did you notice the curious absence of any scriptural verification for such a notion? Yes, so did I . . . Just a minor quibble . . .
King notes on pp. 82-83 that 2 Timothy 3:16-17 reveals Scripture to be "profitable" in the areas of:
1. 'For doctrine'
2. 'For reproof'
3. 'For correction'
4. 'For instruction in righteousness'
Quite true; we agree. But, none of these things are exclusive to Scripture (including several instances in both letters to Timothy):
Doctrine
Romans 16:17 . . . the doctrine which you have been taught . . . [no mention of Scripture; it likely refers either to Paul, or Paul and other local teachers]
1 Timothy 1:3-4 As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine, [4] nor to occupy themselves with myths and endless genealogies which promote speculations rather than the divine training that is in faith; [Timothy passes on and authoritatively enforces Paul's "doctrine" and "divine training" (i.e., tradition); Scriptural reference is absent]
1 Timothy 4:6 If you put these instructions before the brethren, you will be a good minister of Christ Jesus, nourished on the words of the faith and of the good doctrine which you have followed. ["word of God": not necessarily Scripture, is mentioned in the preceding verse, yet the "doctrine" or tradition here seems to refer to a general body of teaching received: not only from Scripture]
Titus 1:7, 9 For a bishop, as God's steward, . . . [9] he must hold firm to the sure word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to confute those who contradict it. [bishops; magisterial authority of the Church, which is alongside Scripture]
Titus 2:1, 7-8, 10 But as for you, teach what befits sound doctrine. . . . [7] Show yourself in all respects a model of good deeds, and in your teaching show integrity, gravity, [8] and sound speech that cannot be censured, so that an opponent may be put to shame, having nothing evil to say of us. . . . [10] nor to pilfer, but to show entire and true fidelity, so that in everything they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior. [Titus as teacher; no mention of Scripture here or anywhere in the letter]
2 John 1:9-10 Any one who goes ahead and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God; he who abides in the doctrine has both the Father and the Son. [10] If any one comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into the house or give him any greeting; [a generally received (by Christians) "doctrine"; cf. "the truth" (1:1-2, 4); "commandment[s]" (1:5-6) ]
Reproof
Proverbs 1:23 Give heed to my reproof; behold, I will pour out my thoughts to you; I will make my words known to you. [King Solomon]
Proverbs 9:8 Do not reprove a scoffer, or he will hate you; reprove a wise man, and he will love you. [anyone]
Proverbs 24:25 but those who rebuke the wicked will have delight, and a good blessing will be upon them. [anyone]
Proverbs 29:15 The rod and reproof give wisdom, but a child left to himself brings shame to his mother. [parents]
1 Timothy 5:20 As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear. [Timothy]
2 Timothy 4:2 preach the word, be urgent in season and out of season, convince, rebuke, and exhort, be unfailing in patience and in teaching. [Timothy]
Titus 1:13 This testimony is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith, [Titus]
Titus 2:15 Declare these things; exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no one disregard you. [Titus]
2 Peter 2:16 but [Balaam] was rebuked for his own transgression; a dumb ass spoke with human voice and restrained the prophet's madness. [a donkey]
Correction
2 Timothy 2:24-25 And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kindly to every one, an apt teacher, forbearing, [25] correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant that they will repent and come to know the truth, ["the Lord's servant"]
Instruction in Righteousness
Proverbs 1:1-3 The proverbs of Solomon, son of David, king of Israel: [2] That men may know wisdom and instruction, understand words of insight, [3] receive instruction in wise dealing, righteousness, justice, and equity;
John 16:8-10 And when he comes, he will convince the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment: [9] concerning sin, because they do not believe in me; [10] concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you will see me no more; [the Holy Spirit]
Hebrews 12:9-11 Besides this, we have had earthly fathers to discipline us and we respected them. Shall we not much more be subject to the Father of spirits and live? [10] For they disciplined us for a short time at their pleasure, but he disciplines us for our good, that we may share his holiness. [11] For the moment all discipline seems painful rather than pleasant; later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it. [God and earthly fathers]
Even if Scripture were the only source of all these things, it's still a far cry from that to assert that it is the only infallible authority today. None of this proves that at all, even granting King's false premise. But as we have seen, his premise is untrue in the first place. Remember, this text is almost universally considered the very best prooftext for sola Scriptura. But King can't even remotely prove or even support the notion from it. It's downright embarrassing to observe. And this is always the case, as I've observed in over 21 years of active Catholic apologetics. It's always special pleading from the get-go.
Ever see that soup commercial where they say, "it's in there!"? Well, in this case, sola Scriptura ain't in this verse or any other that can be brought to bear. It's completely absent from Scripture, which has, however, many counter-indications and refutations of it.
* * *
As for the clause, "that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work" (2 Tim 3:17), this is not exclusive to Scripture, either:
2 Corinthians 9:8 And God is able to provide you with every blessing in abundance, so that you may always have enough of everything and may provide in abundance for every good work. [God; no mention of the Bible necessarily being the means of this]
2 Timothy 2:21 If any one purifies himself from what is ignoble, then he will be a vessel for noble use, consecrated and useful to the master of the house, ready for any good work. [self-discipline]
King offers up a clever, but nevertheless rather tame and fallacious rationale to explain away these parallels:
. . . with respect to each occurrence of 'every good work' in the Pastoral Epistles (or elsewhere in Scripture for that matter), it needs to be noted that these passages are all Scripture, and as such form and norm moral behavior . . . we find Scripture fulfilling the very purpose for which it was given as described in 2 Timothy 3:16-17, namely, informing and norming for us 'instruction for righteousness . . . for every good work.' The question is not whether these disciplines are necessary, but what is the source of revelation which reveals them as necessary? (pp. 85-86)
This is true insofar as Scripture is sufficient to teach these things (which no one denies); however, it misses the present point altogether, and in a rather striking fashion. The argument at the moment is not about whether we can accept and abide by anything that Scripture teaches us, but rather, whether it exclusively does so, and whether it points to other sources outside of itself that do some things that it itself does (including sacred tradition and the Church). We have seen in the outlining of the four elements above that there are many other sources of that which is described as attributes of Scripture in 2 Timothy 3.
Whether Scripture is the source that informs us of this is irrelevant to the discussion about sola Scriptura; the relevant thing is that there are indeed other sources. Holy Scripture, as inspired, can be trusted absolutely in terms of confirming that this is the case, but it is not absolutely necessary even in that respect.
The Bible was clearly not necessary for men to be able to do "every good work"; that is, to achieve goodness; to be good men, or righteous, to obtain grace and exercise true faith, or to be saved in the end, since we know from the Bible itself that some men were good, after the fall (by God's grace, as always) before there ever was a thing as the Bible at all (i.e., before Moses). Moreover, this could be discerned before there was a Bible; the knowledge didn't have to be confirmed by Scripture (seen especially in Hebrews 11:4 below):
Genesis 5:24 Enoch walked with God; and he was not, for God took him. (cf. 5:21;
Genesis 6:8-9 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD. [9] These are the generations of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation; Noah walked with God.
Genesis 7:1 Then the LORD said to Noah, "Go into the ark, you and all your household, for I have seen that you are righteous before me in this generation.
Genesis 15:6 And he [Abraham] believed the LORD; and he reckoned it to him as righteousness.
Genesis 18:19 . . . I have chosen him, that he may charge his children and his household after him to keep the way of the LORD by doing righteousness and justice; so that the LORD may bring to Abraham what he has promised him.
Job 1:1 There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was blameless and upright, one who feared God, and turned away from evil.(cf. 1:8)
Hebrews 11:1-4 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. [2] For by it the men of old received divine approval. [3] By faith we understand that the world was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was made out of things which do not appear. [4] By faith Abel offered to God a more acceptable sacrifice than Cain, through which he received approval as righteous, God bearing witness by accepting his gifts; he died, but through his faith he is still speaking.
Hebrews 11:5 By faith Enoch was taken up so that he should not see death; and he was not found, because God had taken him. Now before he was taken he was attested as having pleased God.
Hebrews 11:7 By faith Noah, being warned by God concerning events as yet unseen, took heed and constructed an ark for the saving of his household; by this he condemned the world and became an heir of the righteousness which comes by faith.
Hebrews 11:8 By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to a place which he was to receive as an inheritance; and he went out, not knowing where he was to go. [cf. Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, and Rahab in subsequent verses of this chapter]
None of this righteousness came about due to a "norm" of Scripture. It was within these people as a result of God's grace and revelation of Himself to them. This was before the Bible was known, but the same also remains true today in cases of cultures that are ignorant of the Bible or true Christian teaching:
Romans 2:5-16 But by your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God's righteous judgment will be revealed. [6] For he will render to every man according to his works: [7] to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; [8] but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury. [9] There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, [10] but glory and honor and peace for every one who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. [11] For God shows no partiality. [12] All who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. [13] For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. [14] When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. [15] They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them [16] on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.
* * *
Multi-Part Rebuttal of David T. King's Book, Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith, Vol. I: A Biblical Defense of the Reformation Principle of Sola Scriptura
.
.
My normative policy of time-management or stewardship of my time under God, and maintenance of sanity for nearly five years now is to refuse to waste time debating theology with the small fringe group of anti-Catholic Protestants (i.e., those who deny that Catholicism as a system of theology and spirituality is Christian, and who claim that in order to be a good Christian, one must reject quite a few tenets of Catholicism). It has always been a futile exercise in my experience (I tried for twelve years online). I do, however, make exceptions on occasion (one so far in five years, in order to try to help a friend who was being negatively influenced by one anti-Catholic apologist).
This seems to be a sensible second exception. I have continued to interact with historic Protestant anti-Catholic works, and I did, e.g., in the case of William Whitaker, a prominent 16th century advocate of sola Scriptura (18-part reply). I also have lots of material (including two books) concerning major Protestant figures Luther, Calvin, Chemnitz, Zwingli, Bullinger, and others.
The self-published, three-volume set (one / two / three) on sola Scriptura by David T. King and William Webster (2001) is clearly relevant in relationship to my current book, 100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura . This particular volume is virtually a polar opposite of my title. I say the Bible opposes the notion; he maintains that it supports it. That makes for some good debate (and as anyone who knows me is aware, I immensely enjoy debate). It's stimulating and fun, and educational, all at the same time.
Pastor David T. King is a Presbyterian, and graduate of Reformed Theological Seminary in Jackson, Mississippi. He is pastor of Christ Presbyterian Church (OPC) in Elkton, Maryland, and was formerly affiliated with PCA.
Judging by past "interaction" with Pastor King (the nature of which is -- shall we say -- quite beyond description), there is almost no chance whatsoever that he will ever respond to my critiques (or at least not substantively), so I am able to avoid the ugliness of attempted "discussion" with a theologically and personally hostile anti-Catholic, while at the same time I can demonstrate the biblical and logical bankruptcy of the arguments used, and the vast superiority of the Catholic positions on authority in general and Scripture in particular. The best of both worlds . . .
Anti-Catholic Protestants do, in any event, share basically the same opinion concerning sola Scriptura as the rule of faith in Protestantism, with other Protestants. This is a common characteristic, whether a Protestant regards Catholics as brothers in Christ; fellow Christians (as most do), or do not (as anti-Catholics hold). Therefore, it is worthwhile to tackle some of the more vigorous efforts to defend sola Scriptura, and this book (if nothing else) certainly does fit in that category. Unfortunately, most of the books that deal with this topic in the greatest depth (e.g., others by Keith A. Mathison, Bishop "Dr." James R. White, and R. C. Sproul), come from anti-Catholics. Be that as it may, we can handily refute these arguments from a Catholic and thoroughly biblical perspective.
All future installments of this series will be listed below, as they come out.
* * *
.
My normative policy of time-management or stewardship of my time under God, and maintenance of sanity for nearly five years now is to refuse to waste time debating theology with the small fringe group of anti-Catholic Protestants (i.e., those who deny that Catholicism as a system of theology and spirituality is Christian, and who claim that in order to be a good Christian, one must reject quite a few tenets of Catholicism). It has always been a futile exercise in my experience (I tried for twelve years online). I do, however, make exceptions on occasion (one so far in five years, in order to try to help a friend who was being negatively influenced by one anti-Catholic apologist).
This seems to be a sensible second exception. I have continued to interact with historic Protestant anti-Catholic works, and I did, e.g., in the case of William Whitaker, a prominent 16th century advocate of sola Scriptura (18-part reply). I also have lots of material (including two books) concerning major Protestant figures Luther, Calvin, Chemnitz, Zwingli, Bullinger, and others.
The self-published, three-volume set (one / two / three) on sola Scriptura by David T. King and William Webster (2001) is clearly relevant in relationship to my current book, 100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura . This particular volume is virtually a polar opposite of my title. I say the Bible opposes the notion; he maintains that it supports it. That makes for some good debate (and as anyone who knows me is aware, I immensely enjoy debate). It's stimulating and fun, and educational, all at the same time.
Pastor David T. King is a Presbyterian, and graduate of Reformed Theological Seminary in Jackson, Mississippi. He is pastor of Christ Presbyterian Church (OPC) in Elkton, Maryland, and was formerly affiliated with PCA.
Judging by past "interaction" with Pastor King (the nature of which is -- shall we say -- quite beyond description), there is almost no chance whatsoever that he will ever respond to my critiques (or at least not substantively), so I am able to avoid the ugliness of attempted "discussion" with a theologically and personally hostile anti-Catholic, while at the same time I can demonstrate the biblical and logical bankruptcy of the arguments used, and the vast superiority of the Catholic positions on authority in general and Scripture in particular. The best of both worlds . . .
Anti-Catholic Protestants do, in any event, share basically the same opinion concerning sola Scriptura as the rule of faith in Protestantism, with other Protestants. This is a common characteristic, whether a Protestant regards Catholics as brothers in Christ; fellow Christians (as most do), or do not (as anti-Catholics hold). Therefore, it is worthwhile to tackle some of the more vigorous efforts to defend sola Scriptura, and this book (if nothing else) certainly does fit in that category. Unfortunately, most of the books that deal with this topic in the greatest depth (e.g., others by Keith A. Mathison, Bishop "Dr." James R. White, and R. C. Sproul), come from anti-Catholics. Be that as it may, we can handily refute these arguments from a Catholic and thoroughly biblical perspective.
All future installments of this series will be listed below, as they come out.
* * *
June 25, 2012
Reply to the Arguments of a (Protestant) Negative Amazon Review of my Book, 100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura (Especially Regarding Gal 1, 2 Tim 3 and Jn 20:30-31)
This one-star review on Amazon was posted by a Matt, or Matthew (safely semi-anonymous, of course, so I can learn nothing else about the person). But we do know that he is a Protestant and proponent of sola Scriptura. The review is much more like a "limited rebuttal" of a few of the book's arguments. His words will be in blue. I shall cite the entirety of his review in my counter-reply.* * * * *
Truly a very confusing work.
Truly a very confused and fallacious review . . .
I bought this mainly due to the fact that Mr. Armstrong actually list the position of Sola Scriptura with its true definition. Unfortunately his arguments didn't reflect that.
This is important, because oftentimes, the sola Scriptura advocate will resort to the charge that the Catholic critic of it is merely fighting a straw man and has no clue whatsoever what he is talking about (and sometimes this is correct, but usually not). Matt takes a (rare) middle position: according to him I provided a correct definition in the Introduction (utilizing Protestants James White, Norman Geisler, and Keith Mathison), but failed to abide by or follow through with my own correct definition, in the subsequent arguments; so he thinks.
If I may list a few examples for the sake of review.
I'm delighted that he does, since it provides me with an opportunity to interact with his criticisms and show that they miss the mark. For that I thank Matt, and appreciate it very much. A previous three-star review gave me very little I could interact with at all: just mushy generalities. Specifics in argument are great: get right down to brass tacks . . .
1.) His treatment of Galatians 1:8-9 totally missed the use of this verse. He says "In appealing to this verse, Protestants assume that the gospel received was in written form only; therefore, sola scriptura is normative." This isn't even remotely how the argument goes (Unless he received this information from laymen apologist).
But he neglects to inform the reader that I also note three sentences later a second, more nuanced version of an argument from this passage, used by Protestants:
A more sophisticated version would contend that the gospel was originally preached, but later inscripturated in Paul’s letters, and that this would preclude Catholic traditions that are not explicitly (or, they say, implicitly) taught in the Bible. (p. 123)
The Argument is not to prove what armstrong claims but rather it is to show a clear example of Private interpretation rather than Rome's claim to full submission of fallible Judgement to its pope and bishops.
Clever. Sometimes it may be or is used in that particular form, sometimes not. The problem here is that there is no one set way that all these various prooftexts are used by Protestants. There may be a dozen significant variations for any one text used. No rule that gives the "official" gold-star interpretation or use a a sola Scriptura prooftext for any given one. The fact is that they are utilized variously, and the critic must necessarily narrow down a bit.
Thus I can accept that this other variation is out there, and needs to also be refuted. But it doesn't affect the rightness or wrongness of the counter-argument that I made. I happened not to deal with that specific slant in my treatment, because I can't do everything in this regard. Matt's "demand" here is unreasonable. Surely it can't be expected that I would deal with every conceivable variation of use of prooftexts in the Protestant world. They are innumerable. We Catholics have to confront them all (good, bad, or in-between arguments), when used against our positions.
But in any event, as an apologist I must deal with different uses in argument simply because they are "out there" and causing Catholics and Protestants to be wrongly persuaded in some respects. As it is, the reply to Protestant prooftexts was only a small portion and emphasis of the book: only 14 of the 100 arguments, and a mere 12 1/2 pages. The book of mine where the main purpose is to face Protestant arguments head-on are The Catholic Verses and Biblical Catholic Answers for John Calvin ; not this one.
I also did an 18-part critique of that exact sort, of William Whitaker (1548-1595). Yet all of Matt's examples come from this section. That's fine; he can write whatever he likes, and it is part of the book. I'm simply noting that this section is not by any means the main thrust of my book. It was almost an "addendum."
Matt claims that this passage refutes the idea of "submission of fallible Judgement to its pope and bishops." It does not, but I approached it from a different angle, as he notes. The vast majority of my book is devoted precisely to showing biblical indications for the binding authority of Church and tradition: i.e., those elements that Matt flatly denies above: especially in #61-83. I also wrote a separate book devoted to biblical arguments for an infallible Catholic Church and papacy. So I have done what he requires: just not in my reply to this particular Protestant prooftext.
Lastly, having clarified all these things, I will note an actual example of a prominent use of the text of Galatians 1:8-9 in a way contrary to how he claims it is normatively or usually used in Protestant circles (and in a fashion not unlike what I describe in my section on the passage). Even better, it comes from a source that he himself likes and recommends. In a panning review (one star again) of a book that actually defends sola Scriptura (but does so badly, according to Matt), he writes:
For those who are looking for a book that will teach you how to defend sola scriptura are best looking at books by Dr. James White, William Webster ect [sic] . . . Best critique of Not by Scripture Alone [by Robert Sungenis] is found in David T King and William Webster's book Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of our Faith Vol 1-3 and Keith Mathison's Shape of Sola Scriptura. [bracketed sections and italics and some capitals added]
I cite White and Mathison (along with Geisler) in my Introduction, for definitional purposes, which is why Matt liked that part of my book. But he likes Webster and King as well. I think they are both atrocious debaters when it comes to Catholicism (complete with many basic factual / historical errors), and I've refuted Webster twice (one / two) and King with regard to Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman's supposed "modernism" that he ridiculously alleged (all three critiques unanswered, of course).
But I happen to own the self-published King / Webster three-volume series (a former evangelical anti-Catholic, now atheist gave them to me). Vol. 1, written by David T. King deals with Galatians 1:8-9. Note how what he argues is almost exactly the position I was arguing against, and not the argument as Matt presents it:
Each [Chrysostom and Aquinas] restricts the gospel of Jesus Christ to that which is contained in Scripture. The theologians who constituted what is known as Tradition from the patristic and middle ages teach us that Scripture alone is the source of all truth. (p. 259; bracketed clarification mine)
The fact of the matter is that St. John Chrysostom is not a proponent of sola Scriptura at all, as I have shown in a refutation of King's reasoning on that very point. Nor is St. Thomas Aquinas. Two pages later King says that Protestants teach that the Bible is "the ultimate source of appeal for all religious controversies."
But Matt, on the other hand, goes on to claim regarding Galatians 1 that:
The argument is actually as follows: Paul tells us in this passage not to believe anyone who comes preaching a gospel that is different than that contained in the original apostolic deposit (Oral or Written is irrelevant for this argument). All we need to do is compare the original apostolic deposit to the teaching of any supposed religious authority to see if the message is the same.
That's not how King argued it. He doesn't include authoritative oral tradition at all in his analysis. He is so radically "Scripture alone" that he claims (and absurdly contends that Aquinas claims) that Scripture Alone is the course of "all truth" -- not merely the only infallible authority for Christians, which is what sola Scriptura means. This he shows himself to be an extremist and not a mainstream expositor of the sola Scriptura position. Yet Matt thinks he is one of the best defenders of it.
Paul is not asking us to submit our fallible judgement to the teachings of a magisterial religious authority, by using the phrase "even if we" paul places even the apostles themselves in the category of those to be rejected if their message does not match the original deposit. It is clear that paul assumes here that we would be engaging in private judgement and interpretation of the original gospel to test the authenticity of any rival gospel that may come along.
Matt is eisegeting here and projecting and superimposing his subjective Protestant traditions onto Scripture. Here is how Galatians 1:6-9 actually reads (RSV):
I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and turning to a different gospel -- [7] not that there is another gospel, but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. [8] But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed. [9] As we have said before, so now I say again, If any one is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed.
Paul says nothing about "private judgment" in the sense that Matt and Protestants mean. He says nothing about a scenario in which mere laymen judge apostles and reject them. He simply says that if anyone preaches a different gospel (even supposed apostles or angels: since if they preached a false gospel, it would prove -- strongly implied -- they they were false apostles and demons), that they should be "accursed" for doing so.
None of this undermines Catholic authority or apostolic succession. Paul doesn't say (as Protestants would love to be the case), "even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be judged by you and rejected as authorities." None of that element is present at all. He simply places a curse on false prophets.
The rest of the idea of supposedly judging the very apostles is smuggled into the text and is nowhere present. It's a typical piece of Protestant polemical eisegesis and man-made tradition, desperately utilized in order to oppose the Catholic and straightforward interpretation of the text and the slightest "Catholic" implication or conclusion. There was a hierarchy in the Church, and (binding, infallible) Church authority, though, that Paul references in the next chapter, where he recorded James, Peter, and John confirming the legitimacy of his apostolic calling and extending to him and to Barnabas "the right hand of fellowship" (2:1-10; cf. 1:18-19).
Thus I submit that Matt's analysis of Galatians 1 and criticism of my treatment of Protestant use of it as a prooftext for sola Scriptura falls flat in multiple respects.
His treatment of 2 Timothy 3:16-17 will speak for itself. His argument is essentially that if Paul was actually making reference to sola scriptura then he contradicts himself in several places because he cites "oral tradition" three times to timothy throughout this letter.
That's just a part of it. I mention several other factors, too, so I don't quite buy that the "essence" of my argument was as he portrayed it. But what I stated in that respect was true: if Paul states that oral tradition is just as binding, that is already foreign to sola Scriptura; runs counter to it, since the view is that there is or can be no binding, infallible tradition or Church authority. A straightforward reading of Paul simply doesn't give such an impression. But if people see only what they want to see, then it may appear (by viewing texts through that filter) that it does.
He list[s] three examples.
First is 2 timothy 1:3 [Dave: should be 1:13-14] "Follow the pattern of the sound words that you have heard from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. By the Holy Spirit who dwells within us, guard the good deposit entrusted to you." Here's the problem, this argument doesn't contradict what Paul is saying in 2 Timothy 3:16-17.
I agree! They are perfectly harmonious, as I argue. What is contradictory, is smuggling in a meaning of sola Scriptura into the letter that isn't there. It's eisegesis (i.e., literally reading "into" Scripture rather than "out of" it). In other words,. oral tradition and written, biblical tradition are harmonious. The problem comes when Protestants try to deny authoritative, binding oral tradition as a category altogether. It's impossible to read Paul's letters as a whole and do such a thing. It amounts to radically selective acceptance, and making oneself the judge rather than accepting Paul's entire teaching as it is.
Its important to note armstrong's admission in the beginning that Sola Scriptura is not a denial that God's word was at times Orally proclaimed (Him quoting Dr. James white)
That's correct. But this is a different thing from claiming that oral tradition is now null and void altogether as a legitimate carrier of apostolic truth. Protestants (including White, Mathison, and others who argue like them) want to claim that the category ended at some point in history and now we go by the Bible alone as the onl;y infallible authority. But that notion itself is not in the Bible, as I will show further below. It's an arbitrary tradition of men.
If Paul's words and writings are both the words of God (When under the inspiration of the holy spirit) (1 Thessalonians 2:13 and2 peter 3:16) then paul's instruction would be synonymous with 2 timothy 3:16.
His teaching is self-consistent; however, it is not synonymous with, or exclusively contained by that portion of it that later became Scripture (as determined by the Church and Tradition, in figuring out what was inspired and what wasn't). The hidden assumption that Matt and Protestants make, is that all of what Paul taught by mouth was later included in Scripture. But they never prove this from the same Scripture. They simply assume it with no proof.
This is a very important point. What Catholics contend is that there are quite possibly other elements in tradition that are not explicitly laid out in Scripture. It doesn't mean that they contradict Scripture (not at all); only that they are sources of binding authority that are separate from Scripture and not necessarily explicitly spelled out there. But Protestants want to argue (on no basis in Scripture) that this is not the case.
I quoted James White in my Introduction along these lines:
It is vitally important that the reader recognize that the Protestant position insists that all God intends for us to have that is infallible, binding, and authoritative today, He has already provided in the certain, clear, understandable, and reliable Scriptures. (The Roman Catholic Controversy; Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1996, p. 58)
This is simply not true, and is nowhere stated in Scripture. If it were, we can be sure that sola Scriptura proponents would cite a verse where this was taught, but they never do. It just doesn't fly. Yet this is a key plank of the more "sophisticated" version of sola Scriptura that Protestants mistakenly think clears up all the biblical and logical difficulties inherent in the incoherent position.
So with that said paul's focus is on the content of his words not the oral nature of them.
That's true (but for different reasons than Matt supposes), because for Paul (unlike Protestants) whether his authoritative teaching came through preaching, talking, or writing, is absolutely irrelevant as to its truthfulness and binding nature.
The only way Mr. Armstrong Would have a point is if he can prove that the Oral Teaching that Paul is referring to is separate from what one finds from Holy Scripture.
That's obvious by common sense and logic, since whenever Paul refers to oral teaching, it is quite clear that this would include some teaching that did not later make it into Scripture. In one long night of discussion with Paul, he would probably say at least five times more words than what is included from him in Scripture. According to Paul, they would still carry the same authority. So to argue that Paul could never have taught anything in discussion -- any idea or doctrine -- that isn't in the Bible or isn't explicitly there, is, frankly, absurd and ridiculous. I submit that no one can possibly consistently defend such a hyper-implausible view. Therefore, there is oral teaching not contained in the New Testament. And it was binding and apostolic. But this is precisely what sola Scriptura (any form of it, including the most scholarly, nuanced, and sophisticated) denies.
When the Protestant thinks about teaching "separate" from Scripture he concludes that it is usually or often, "contradictory" to Scripture. Catholics think of it, on the other hand, as "twin fonts of the same divine wellspring": harmonious with Scripture: just from a different source, as to how it was first received and passed down. This is in perfect accord with how Paul presents the matter. There is such a thing as an extrabiblical tradition that is in line with biblical teaching.
This is what the Church fathers taught. My book devoted to them has over 150 pages devoted to Bible, Tradition, and Church authority: mostly consisting of quotes from the fathers. They assuredly did not believe in sola Scriptura. Nor do King and Webster prove that they do. n Vol. III of the aforementioned set, they devote 130 pages devoted to the fathers and material sufficiency of Scripture.
But this is all beside the point, because most Catholics accept the notion (including myself, and e.g., St. Thomas Aquinas and Cardinal Newman), and are perfectly permitted to do so, though it is not a formal dogma. And it is not the main aspect of sola Scriptura, which is, rather, the formal sufficiency of Scripture. So Webster and King (almost humorously so) major on the non sequitur "minor" of material sufficiency, while devoting all of 14 pages to "the ultimate authority of Scripture": which is still logically distinct from "formal authority": the central, fundamental issue in the discussion.
They entitle their second section "The Formal Sufficiency of Scripture," but they deal with secondary issues of perspicuity (clearness) and the alleged self-interpreting nature of Scripture: important components of sola Scriptura, but not in and of themselves proof that God intended the Bible to be the sole infallible authority. Besides, Catholics often agree in particulars that Scripture is clear and/or self-interpreting to a large extent, so many of those arguments carry no weight against our position.
The context of 2 timothy 3:16 is clear that this is an instruction relating to the context of the future (After Paul's soon departure) when false teachers will arise ( 2 timothy 3:1-13) paul at this moment is giving an instruction for that time.
Ah; now we're getting to the real heart of the discussion. Here is a claim that Paul is allegedly previewing or foreseeing a time when infallible oral proclamation will cease and no longer be binding, while Scripture will henceforth be the sole infallible authority in Christianity. This is exactly what needs to be established from Scripture, and never is. Let's look closely and see if the text actually teaches what Matt claims, or if this is merely more eisegesis and wishful thinking.
Yes, St. Paul talks about false teachers and decadence in 2 Timothy 3:1-9 but he never says that they should be opposed by the Bible as the only infallible authority, to the exclusion of oral authority (which is the claim, after all). He simply says "avoid such people" (3:5). He doesn't say (anymore than in Galatians 1) that each atomistic Christian individual with Bible in hand will determine who is a heretic or not. None of this undermines Church authority or establishes sola Scriptura private judgment.
He mentions Jannes and Jambres as an authoritative piece of tradition in verse 8, which is fascinating, since this is not an Old Testament reference. I dealt with this passage in argument #13 in the book. So now Paul is supposedly making an (ultimately) "anti-traditional" argument in 2 Timothy 3:1-9, yet cites a prominent oral tradition in order to do so? That's pretty odd, isn't it? In 2 Timothy 3:14, he states:
But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it
See the "continue"? This doesn't imply some radical change in the future in the principle of authority, but rather, the same as what was before. Timothy, and by extension, all Christians, are to "continue" to abide by the apostolic tradition that was received from St. Paul ("from whom") as an oral proclamation. Paul is talking about what Timothy already knew before this letter. He is to continue in that tradition. He goes on to say that Scripture is part of that (of course it is), but it is not in a sense of being exclusively so, as if nothing besides Scripture is also authoritative. Paul in the same passage thought a Jewish tradition not recoded in the Old Testament was authoritative, and so he casually mentioned it as a fact.
(SInce Sola Scriptura is not a position that applies during times of new revelation but to the normative conditions of the church) the same thing can be applied to the other two verses he cites (2 timothy 2:2 and 3:14).
Is that so? We have seen how nothing Matt cited has established his premise in the first place: that once Scripture arrives, it is the sole infallible authority. That's all man-made tradition. He then takes the false tradition and uses it to interpret other equally clear Bible passages (2 Timothy 2:2 and 3:14). But 1:13-14, 2:2, and 3:14 -- all mentioned by me in the book as counter-texts to sola Scriptura all neglect to reference Scripture at all in the context of what true teaching consists of. 2 Timothy 3:16 does. All that proves is that both the Bible and Tradition have authority. Paul doesn't pit them against each other as Protestants do. Sometimes one is mentioned; sometimes the other is. What it doesn't prove is that only Scripture possesses such infallible authority.
I conclude that the entire argument falls to pieces, since it is radically circular:
1. After the apostolic period, the Bible alone is the only infallible authority. [Matt's contention]
2. This notion is not in the Bible itself, as shown; thus it is a man-made tradition.
3. Moreover, if it is not in the Bible, it isn't infallible, since only the Bible is that, according to sola Scriptura.
4. If it's not infallible, any Christian believer has the perfect right and duty to reject it, by private judgment.
5. Only things that are clearly taught in the Bible, the sole infallible authority, are binding upon Christians.
6. If indeed it can't be established by this criterion that the Bible alone is the only infallible authority after the apostolic period, then one is equally justified (from a consistent Protestant perspective) in holding the opposite, fallible position that tradition or the Church are also authoritative (since neither is proven in the Bible, according to the Protestant view). If views are constructed without biblical sanction, then one is as good as the other.
Etc., etc. One could attack it from any number of angles, but it is always -- always -- the case that the Protestant employs circular and self-defeating reasoning where sola Scriptura is concerned. One simply has to analyze it deeply enough.
His treatment of john 20:30-31 is probably the best example of his lack of dealing with the actual arguments.
Excellent! So if I dismantle his criticism of supposedly my worst argument, and if even my "worst" can't be defeated by his analysis, then I'm in great shape!
He says the following "The Bible communicates the gospel that saves. This doesn't prove the principle of sola scriptura. It doesn't exclude the Church or Tradition (or any Catholic distinctive)." Again Mr. Armstrong does not understand the argument. Protestants use John 20:30-31 to prove the material sufficiency (The bible contains all NECESSARY doctrine for salvation) since John himself says "But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, So by believing you may have life in his name." If what was contained in John was sufficient for salvation then how much more is for the rest of the NT? For the record Mr. Armstrong does not deny the material sufficiency of Scripture.
Fair enough. Indeed, this is one way to go about it. But as noted above, Catholics have no dogmatic beef with material sufficiency, so this particular tack doesn't oppose us in any serious sense: to assert it of one Bible passage or many. One can be saved (in the end) as a result of reading the truths of Scripture and accepting them and deciding to be a true follower of the Savior and redeemer Jesus. No Catholic would disagree with this.
But note that saying, "one can be saved by Bible-reading" or "all that is necessary for salvation is in Scripture" does not logically contradict or preclude a possibility of being saved in some other way. This is why the prooftext fails. One could become a serious Christian and undergo conversion of heart and life as a result of a vision from an angel or a tragedy that makes them reach out to God, or the sharing or example of a Christian friend, or an uplifting Christian movie; any number of things. To assert that "x can be achieved as a result of y": where y is the Bible and x, salvation, is not to also assert, "x can only be achieved as a result of y". This is the fallacy. The Bible asserts the former, but not the latter, and the latter is what it would have to teach in order for Matt's argument to succeed in the way he wishes.
My friend Lane Core, in an excellent critique of sola Scriptura, makes other interesting observations about the passage:
First, verse 30 specifically refers to “this book.” Centuries would go by before the New Testament scriptures were all assembled in a single compilation, so “this book” refers only to the Gospel of John. Therefore, those who appeal to John 20:30-31 as a definition of the rule of faith [or as an example of material sufficiency] must take the Gospel of John alone as their rule of faith — lest they be violating the very scripture they are quoting.
Second, verse 31 specifically mentions the purpose of what is written: that we may believe that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ, the Son of God. Therefore, those who appeal to this passage as a mandate of Sola Scriptura must restrict their beliefs to nothing more than “Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God” — lest, again, they be violating this scripture to which they appeal. [bracketed comment added presently]
In one sense it is a distinction without a difference. The whole end-purpose of the Christian life is to be saved and to go to heaven.The Protestant asserts two things:
1. Scripture is the only infallible source of authority in the Christian life [sola Scriptura].
2. Scripture is materially sufficient for the purpose of salvation [material sufficiency].
But what is the goal of the Christian life? Salvation, of course. If Matt claims that John 20:30-31 is used primarily for the purpose of proving material sufficiency of Scripture (that most Catholics agree with), it's still not that different from proposition 1 above. Catholics agree with #2 as well (in terms of revelation; salvation technically comes through Jesus and grace, regeneration, justification, etc.). All we disagree on is whether the Bible is exclusively sufficient for that purpose. It's the same argument regarding #1. We deny the exclusivity of Scripture in both senses, and Protestants largely disagree.
As an example of how the two notions are closely related, note how anti-Catholic polemicist Michael Scheifler argues, after stating that "the Bible contains everything you need to come to a saving faith":
John speaks of some of what Jesus did as being unrecorded, signs, miracles, etc., but does not even hint at unrecorded doctrines essential for salvation, in fact he adequately refutes such a notion. So, rather that having a hole (21:25) big enough to drive a truck through (filled with unbiblical doctrines), the book of John completely closes off any attempt to introduce spurious doctrines under the guise of Tradition (20:30-31).
In other words, "no extra-biblical tradition allowed." Scripture is the only infallible authority, or sola Scriptura, as opposed to material sufficiency alone. Insofar, then, as #2 is not all that different from #1, specifically in terms of what the discussion is with regard to the truth or falsity of sola Scriptura, to say that John 20:30-31 only has to do with #2 within the framework of the overall Protestant polemic, is not to assert anything all that different from #1, once the background premises are taken into account. It's the "either/or" or "dichotomous" or "exclusivistic" mindset that Catholics (and the Bible) oppose.
This is only a small example of the errors in this book.
Please, Matt, show us more, if your arguments are as easy to disprove as these were! I hope you will emerge and show yourself and continue the discussion.
It is obvious that Mr. Armstrong did not deal with the best works on the subject in writing this book.
Really? Mathison, White, Geisler, Webster, King, William Whitaker, Chemnitz, Luther, Calvin, were not enough? I have read them on this topic, and sometimes (with, e.g., Whitaker) engaged them at great length. I did not intend to refute them; it wasn't the purpose of the book. But I know the arguments, having written about and debated this topic far more than any other for 21 years now, and with two books devoted to it, and one-third of yet another book of mine, as well as portions of several others.
This Books would get two stars for effort if there was any effort put into this book unfortunately that doesn't seem to be the case.
I'll be glad (as always) to let fair-minded readers decide where the truth lies in this debate. I do thank Matt for this opportunity to construct a number of arguments: some of them ones I haven't thought of before. I think it's wonderful. The case against sola Scriptura gets stronger every time one deals with the topic.
* * *
June 23, 2012
On Violence in Films and Whether Young Teens Should View It (The Book of Eli as an Example)
Recently, my wife Judy and I decided that our 15-year-old son shouldn't watch the movie, The Book of Eli (rated R) at a "movie night" with his friends. We came to that conclusion after reading a Christian movie review. Many Christians seem to think it is okay for viewing, presumably because of the strong Christian themes (also praised in this same film review). That may be for adults, but with young teens I think it is a different story. We cannot agree that such an amount of violence, sex, and language in a film is appropriate for a 15-year-old.
The review, even after praising Christian elements in the film, notes:
Regrettably, extreme caution is advised for the movie’s excessive amount of extreme, brutal violence as well as some scenes of implied rape and attempted rape, and an unnecessary amount of foul language. It may be difficult for many viewers to sit through a few of the scenes because the violence is at times so abrupt and unexpected, almost shocking. Please see the content section for a more complete explanation of the objectionable material.
Personally, I don't think these things need to be included. It could easily have been a PG-13 without all this explicit stuff. It's not necessary. But that's my opinion from an artistic perspective, of how to do a film. I know that reasonable and good folks can differ on that. The question comes down to what is gratuitous, unnecessary sex, violence, and language in a movie.
Even Hollywood recognizes that there is an appropriate age differential for movies (hence the rating system); it's not like it is some novel concept. Nor do we apply it absolutely or legalistically. Our son has seen The Passion of the Christ; I have no problem with him watching For Greater Glory, or the older Glory; possibly even Saving Private Ryan, if he can stomach it: all R-rated. I don't think those have gratuitous violence or sex or bad language. That's the key to the discussion. Those movies are also all about real events, and a discussion can be had about the propriety of showing things as they really occurred.
If The Book of Eli had been made in 1960 it could have been just as good without the foul language, sexual innuendoes, gory violence, etc. That's unnecessary to the plot or the impact, in my opinion. The movie doesn't have to be made that way. I could construct a reductio ad absurdum argument about a film about the woman caught in adultery in the Bible or Bathsheba, which includes a half-hour scene of graphic intercourse, in order to show "realistically" what these women (or their lovers) went through. I think that illustrates the flaws in that sort of reasoning.
There are lines that can be drawn, in rational Christian (or even purely secular) argument, and opposition to such things is not mere (or necessarily) prudery or excessive "puritanical" legalism. Beyond this, I would contend that our culture continues to become more and more coarse and permissive as to what is fit in public. We've seen that in all these ways: language, sexuality, and portrayals of violence. It's not silly or "old-fashioned" to engage in sensible philosophical, Christian-influenced discussion as to how far is too far. It's not about "censorship"; it's about intelligent and moral choices concerning how we spend our time with entertainment or reading / viewing materials. Reasonable and good people can differ (very good friends of ours do). I'm just saying that a discussion about it is helpful and should take place, and that my view on this can be fully defended on several levels.
I don't think The Passion has gratuitous violence. I think a cogent argument can be made for that, and I agree with it. The same applies to Saving Private Ryan. It was, I think, necessary to the plot to give viewers a jarring idea of the actual traumatic, horrifying experience of D-Day. Thus, we can experience in some sense "exactly" what Jesus went through and what the brave soldiers in Normandy endured, in order to preserve our freedoms. I personally appreciated that very much, for the purpose of empathy and better understanding. Schindler's List falls into this category, too, though bottomless scenes in Auschwitz were gratuitous, in my opinion, and I remember a single friend of mine objecting strongly to that at the time (with full justification, I think).
My wife Judy would never watch The Passion (nor The Book of Eli) because she is too sensitive to that. She'd have nightmares for weeks. I'm not sensitive or opposed in that sense (squeamishness or "fragility"); I'm simultaneously making both an artistic (filmmaking philosophies and techniques) and "parental" argument.
Here's a second evangelical review of The Book of Eli with the same sorts of concerns:
It's got loads of violence, and we know violence isn't exactly the healthiest stuff to consume in a media diet. But evangelicals have always been a bit more at peace with violence in film than, say, bare bosoms, . . .
And I understand the appeal: Washington's Eli is, literally, on a mission from God—protecting the last Bible on earth with all the vim and vigor his gun-toting, blade-thwacking self can muster. It's got just scads of really powerful, really positive messages and lots of ideas to discuss. . . .
It has the sort of spiritual themes I'd love to show and discuss with my teenage kids—if it wasn't for all the flying blood and hacked limbs and cannibalism and such.
In my review, I essentially said that Eli's violence doesn't nullify Eli's message. But neither does Eli's message excuse its violence. The tension between these two elements made it a particularly tricky film for me to review.
Another one praises the Christian theme, details the violence to the nth degree, and concludes:
Despite the heavy violence, mature thematic content, and offensive language, “The Book of Eli” is a thought-provoking film that has much to offer mature audiences, as it asks viewers to reflect upon their own commitment to Christ. [my bolding]
Exactly, "mature" audiences . . . he doesn't get into my more philosophical argument about how much violence is necessary in a film to get the point across, but does recognize that it is for "mature" viewers.
I saw a reference where Steven Greydanus, the respected Catholic reviewer, simply called the film a "dim-witted quasi-religious apocalyptic thriller . . ."
Common Sense Media offers parental reviews, and notes that out of 21, 81% thought language was an issue, and violence, 67%. One says that it is "certainly not appropriate for younger children and younger teens." Another called his review, "17 and up." A parent of a 15-year-old wrote:
I made the mistake of going into this movie without checking the reviews and I regret taking my son to it. He kept his eyes covered and 30 minutes into it, asked if we could leave. I completely agreed. Extreme violence/gore, nudity, vulgar language, etc. As much as I love Denzel Washington and Gary Oldman, I really couldn't stomach this one.
Wikipedia notes that reviews were highly mixed. Entertainment Weekly , e.g., rated it as a "D" -- without any overt anti-Christian bias that I could see.
I've gone back and forth as to whether I will watch The Book of Eli myself. At first I was inclined to; now I am leaning against watching it, based on several reviews I have read. But I haven't fully decided yet. If someone says that it is silly to judge a movie without watching it (should I decide not to), I reply that this is what movie reviews (like book or music album reviews) are for: to help potential customers make an intelligent choice as to how to spend their time, up to and including a refusal to watch / read / listen.
I'm not a big fan of "action" flicks, anyway (what I derisively refer to as "cars overturning and flying around every minute" movies). A product has to earn the "right" (so to speak) to be experienced: for folks to spend money enjoying it. Otherwise, who cares about a review, if it has no effect on our decision, pro-or con? They would be perfectly irrelevant: like one person preferring vanilla in ice cream, and another chocolate (me!).
I agree that it is quite obvious that a person will know more about a film by watching it rather than not doing so, but I disagree with some who think that it is irrational to refrain from watching, based on reviews, or to come to a negative conclusion based on same; because this is the purpose of a review: to help people make wise choices as to how to spend their time.
As an author myself, I have to do my best and work hard in order to write a book that earns a good review (and I do get good reviews most of the time on amazon and elsewhere), thus causing relatively more people to purchase and buy. I can't just sit here and say that everyone must read my book to have any informed opinion about it at all (if reviews exist and can be accessed), if it is not a quality work. No! Quality and worthwhile (in my case, educational and edifying) material has to be present, and that comes by hard work and earning approval. It's not automatic. No one is required to read any of my books anymore than I am "required" to watch The Book of Eli.
* * * * *
Dave Armstrong's Blog
- Dave Armstrong's profile
- 20 followers
Dave Armstrong isn't a Goodreads Author
(yet),
but they
do have a blog,
so here are some recent posts imported from
their feed.
