Reply to William Goode, Contra Sola Scriptura, Part 5 (Perspicuity; Goode's Logic & Standards for All Doctrines [Minus SS] Self-Destruct)

 Page from the famous (Catholic) Gutenberg Bible, c. 1455.
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).

* * * * *
Among the various objections brought against the views for which we here contend, it is urged, that Scripture is too obscure to be able to sustain the character we attribute to it, for that, even in the fundamental points of faith and practice, it needs an interpreter to point out its meaning ; and that in "Tradition" we have such an interpreter, and one "practically infallible," demanding our faith as a witness of the oral teaching of the Apostles.
Now, that we have not in Tradition any certain witness of the oral teaching of the Apostles, nor (in whatever light it be viewed) a divine or practically infallible interpreter of Scripture, has been, I hope, already proved; and consequently it follows, (as far as our opponents' views are concerned,) that Holy Scripture is our only divine and infallible Teacher. Whatever obscurity, then, there may be in the revelation there made to us of the Christian religion, it is the only revelation of it we possess. Whatever difficulties or obscurities may have been left by God in the Scriptures, there is no authoritative interpretation of them demanding our belief. He who is plain beyond that which is written, goes beyond his authority, i. e. beyond that for which divine inspiration can be claimed. And consequently the argument against Scripture being our sole Rule of faith, derived from its alleged obscurity falls to the ground. (p. 439)
How, then, can sola Scriptura logically (let alone biblically) survive, given the above stated position, and Goode's rather striking free admission earlier in this volume?:

. . . 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 . . . (Vol. II, p. 70; my bolding)

. . . there is no direct testimony in the Old Testament to its perfection as the sole infallible Rule of faith . . . (Vol. II, p. 73; my bolding)

. . . nothing can be a fundamental point of faith or practice which is not plainly revealed therein. For, if Scripture is our sole divine informant, and was written for the instruction of men generally, it seems far from consistent with the gift of such a Rule of faith, that it should be so obscure in the very fundamental points as to oblige us to depend upon human teachers to know what it means. (p. 440)
Exactly! Hence, we reject sola Scriptura, since Goode himself, after all, has informed us that it has no precise "passage" in the New Testament in its support, and "no direct testimony" in the Old Testament, either -- thus necessitating a dependence "upon human teachers to know what it means": a thing he rejects as an altogether unacceptable state of affairs. Therefore, by Goode's own criteria, that he repeats endlessly in the present chapter, it is unfit for belief.

. . . all the fundamental and essential points of faith and practice are clearly and plainly delivered in the Scriptures. . . . all the doctrines of the Christian faith are as plainly delivered there as, to our knowledge, they are revealed. (p. 440)
Except for sola Scriptura, which  (so Goode is good enough to tell us) has no precise "passage" in the New Testament in its support, and "no direct testimony" in the Old Testament, either . . . but (no matter; come hell or high water) Protestants make it their fundamental pillar, anyway. Who needs mere biblical proof?

. . . when we speak of all the essential doctrines of Christianity being clearly revealed to us in the Scriptures, we are not affirming that the truths themselves so revealed are cleared from all mysteriousness, and made obvious to the understandings of men, for many of them are, and ever will be, to our finite understandings. mysterious and obscure; but, that they are plainly, openly, and undeniably delivered there, that is, that the sacred writers have delivered, in the plainest terms, the revelations of divine truth vouchsafed to them, and consequently, that all which God purposed to reveal to the world by them is so expressed, that not even the Apostles themselves could declare it more clearly. (pp. 440-441)
We maintain, then, that what was intended to be understood by all, is expressed in the Scriptures so as to be understood by all. The divine revelation vouchsafed to mankind, is conveyed to us in the Scriptures as clearly and plainly, as far as that revelation goes, as human language will permit. (pp. 447-448)

. . . if Scripture contains all the fundamental and essential doctrines of religion, all those truths which were intended to be understood by all, then it follows, from the mode of writing adopted by the sacred penmen, that all those truths are delivered as clearly and plainly as they are intended to be understood. (p. 448)

If, then, the writings of this Apostle and his brethren contain all the essential truths of the Gospel, (as it is admitted they do,) surely men who felt thus, would take care, that in such documents more especially those truths should be clearly and fully expressed, . . . All that God sees fit to reveal is, as far as it was intended to be known, stated clearly and plainly on all occasions by those whom he uses as instruments to deliver his word. And therefore certainly the fundamentals of religion are never obscurely stated in any Divine declaration respecting them. (p. 451)

Hence they are written so that all may learn the truths of which they speak, from them. They are written in a style adapted to the instruction of every, even the humblest, member of society. They address each individual as one who is responsible to God for receiving and obeying that which they have thus delivered.

True, the persons so addressed had some previous knowledge of the truths of Christianity; but this, in no respect, diminishes the force of the argument. For if any truths were passed over on this account, they would only be the most plain and simple; but these, it is conceded, are contained in Scripture. And in whatever matters the persons so addressed needed instruction, they needed it in the most plain and clear form, brought down to the comprehension of mankind in general. So that, in whatever point instruction is given by the Apostles, it seems evident, from the way in which they address themselves to all mankind, that such instruction must be given in the plainest and clearest form. (p. 452)

They had, for the most part, simple and ignorant men to deal with, and they wrote so as to be understood by them. . . . Can it be denied, that the statements of the New Testament are couched in terms the most simple, and phrases the most perspicuous, that the subject would admit of? Can it be denied, that, instead of
any air of mystery or concealment being adopted with regard to all the great fundamental articles of the faith, there is, on the contrary, every appearance of an endeavour to state them in the most plain and intelligible manner? (p. 453)

. . . all the doctrines of the Christian faith are as plainly delivered in the Scriptures as, to our knowledge, they are revealed.

Assuming that the arguments adduced on our last head have been satisfactory, and that the reader is disposed to admit, that all the essential and fundamental points of faith are clearly and plainly delivered in the Scriptures, we have here only to consider the case of those which are not to be classed among the fundamental points of faith. (p. 456)
Yet sola Scriptura (so Goode confesses) -- one of the two pillars of the so-called "Reformation" --, is not supported by any precise "passage" in the New Testament, nor any "direct testimony" in the Old Testament. But it will be firmly believed anyway as a sort of sui generis /  "practically infallible but actually fallible tradition of men." How very odd . . .

And St. Paul, when speaking of himself as a minister of the New Testament, says, "Seeing, then, that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech, and not as Moses, who put a veil over his face," &c. (2 Cor. iii. 12.) (p. 450)
Amen! All the more reason that a plain declaration of sola Scriptura would certainly be present in Scripture, if it were a true and scriptural doctrine. But such is not the case, and Goode knows it; therefore freely admits that no plain passage can be found in favor of it. Because it's not the case, by Goode's own consistent logic (except for sola Scriptura), it is revealed to be a false doctrine. Nor does 2 Corinthians 3:12 have to do with Scripture only, since "speech" is referred to.

And again, a little further on, he says, — "By manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God;" (2 Cor. iv. 2;) a testimony remarkably forcible in proof of our position, that the Apostle always delivered the truths with which he was entrusted as clearly as language would permit, and so as to commend the instructor to every mans conscience, and thus teach every man the truth in the most forcible manner, and therefore certainly so expressed himself, when delivering those truths in his Epistles to the Churches. (p. 450)
This is all well and good, but it is "remarkably forcible in proof" not of sola Scriptura, but rather, of Paul's overall message, which we know (by common sense and his own frequent report) was not confined to what he wrote that later was recognized as Scripture. In the immediate context it is also evident that more than Scripture is being referred to. Oral proclamation is indicated by the descriptions, "we preach" (4:5; RSV) and "we speak" (4:13). Therefore, it is no proof of sola Scriptura. It proves too much, in relation to what Goode is trying to establish.

This is the sum total of Goode's own scriptural arguments in his three volumes, and so concludes my critique. He cited others who made some arguments, but I have confined my replies to his own arguments.


***