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."


***