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.



* * *