Hi all,

I've been debating a bit with a friend who's leaning toward Eastern Orthodoxy/Roman Catholicism. One recent argument is that the doctrine of sola scriptura is not actually scriptural. In other words, the bible does not demand that scripture be the sole source of authority for the church.

2 Tim 3:16 is probably the strongest verse, however, it suggests that 'all scripture is ... profitable for doctrine, reproof, etc'

It is argued by Catholic apologists (even one who made James White look bad) that no where does scripture say that it is the ONLY standard of authority.

On the other hand, it is argued that Paul writes in 2Th 2:15 "So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter." This is used as a biblical argument in favour of tradition.

how do reformed apologists respond?

__________________
Dennis Oh
Toronto, Canada
"The gospel is only good news if it gets there in time" -- Carl F. H. Henry

Revelation 22:18

I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

__________________
Pergamum


"If a commission by an earthly king is considered a honor, how can a commission by a Heavenly King be considered a sacrifice?"
-- David Livingstone

Sola Scriptura teaches that with respect to the doctrine, life and worship of the church and believers, scripture has been chosen by God to be the primary source & directive of these things.

Sola Scriptura does not teach, however, that there are no other authorities besides scripture in the church. The elders for example rule by scripture's authority i.e. within its boundaries and under its commands.

In other words when you are debating this point you have to ensure that both parties agree on the definition otherwise arguing the issue is essentially useless.

__________________
Rev. Daniel Kok
Pastor of Grace Reformed Church (URCNA)
Leduc, Alberta CANADA

"What sort of pledge and how great is this of love towards us! Christ lives for us not for himself!"
John Calvin, Commentary on the Hebrews (7:25)

Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

__________________
Bob, elder, RBC Louisville. 1689 LBCF

"... Of such also, or of those who make a credible profession of being such, all those particular churches consist, which constitute our Lord's visible kingdom. ... Consequently, all the subjects of His government must have spiritual dispositions, , and yield spiritual obedience- obedience proceeding from an enlightened understanding, an awakened conscience, and a renewed heart."- Abraham Booth 1788

RE: Tradition - Tradition is fine as long as it falls in the parameter of scripture's authority and instruction i.e. does not contradict it or is in an area of Christian freedom.

It is my understanding that for the Roman Catholic conception of tradition to be true one has to presume upon a continuing apostolic office. Tradition as Paul uses it refers to the teaching of the apostles who themselves formed the foundation of the church, having been appointed by Christ unto that end. (Ephesians 2:20) So unless one can prove that the apostolic ministry/office continues, the RC understanding of tradition fails the test of authenticity.

thanks for the replies.

I think there are contextual issues at play with the Isaiah and Revelation citations. For example, Revelation 22 is likely speaking specifically of the book of Revelation, not the canon in general.

The advice to clarify definitions is noted, as in any theological task. Authority of elders in church matters is certainly assumed. I've always understood sola scriptura as meaning sole authority on all matters of faith, doctrine, practice.

Prima scriptura (or whatever the latin term would be) would certainly be more helpful, but that isn't what the Catholics think we mean by that term.

In their view, the church produced the scriptures, rather than the scriptures producing the church. historically speaking, they may be right. Thus they see scriptures as always having falling within the sphere of church tradition.

In terms of apostolic succession, they do claim that they possess an unbroken chain of tradition that goes back to the apostles.

The principle of sola Scriptura teaches that it is the only infallible authority on all matters of faith, doctrine, and practice. And according to the Westminster Confession of Faith, as well as the London Baptist Confession of 1689, the infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself.

DTK

__________________
Sola Scriptura est norma normans non normata
D. T. King, pastor
Christ Presbyterian Church (OPC)
Elkton, Maryland
Augustine (354-430): Therefore what He [i.e., Christ] has deigned to speak to us, we ought to believe that He meant us to understand. But if we do not understand He, being asked, gives understanding, who gave His Word unasked. NPNF1: Vol. VII, Tractates on John, Tractate XXII, §1.

The arguments against Sola Scriptura are more to provide a false sense of security. It's sort of a "shock and awe" effect to argue for the apparent size and age of the Church against little old me and the Bible.

As popular apologetics go, however, the argument is always against the extreme: defining Sola Scriptura as some country preacher who dances with snakes and drinks poison because it's just him and the Bible and no Church can tell him otherwise.

As DTK noted, Sola Scriptura goes to where your infallible authority for any principle will be found. What is God Breathed? Where can we go to gain clarity about what God has said concerning how man is to be saved, how the Sacraments operate, and how the Church labors to teach, reprove, and exhort God's Truth.

This notion about verbal tradition that the Roman Catholic Church teaches that runs alongside the Written Word is absurd. It's supposedly a 2000 year version of the Secret Game where one guy tells another that the Apostle Paul communicated something that was not recorded. This card is conveniently pulled whenever a completely novel doctrine needs to be credited with validity. The RCC, like the early Heretics, are at least smart enough to try to appeal to Apostolic authority to assert their doctrines. They claim they possess a body of un-Inscripturated tradition. Why, if it is so formative, to the life and doctrine of the Church they unfold some things over long periods of time makes no sense whatsoever but, as long as you ignore the man behind the green curtain, you can have implicit faith that it just must be true because the Church is telling you it is.

I've heard other apologists argue more recently that the Roman Catholic Church teaches the material sufficiency of Scripture but not the formal sufficiency. That is, they believe that all the doctrines for faith and life are in the Scriptures but it takes an infallible interpreter (the Church) to tell you what the Scriptures say. Again, this sounds really cool in theory. Ah, how nice it is to have a body that can, once for all, tell us what the interpretation of Romans 9 is and the controversy ends.

Why don't you ask your friend where the Infallible Commentary on the Scriptures is. In other words, if the Church's infallible ability to interpret the Scriptures prevents the discord that they like to note occurs in Protestantism then surely the Church has produced a Commentary set that will tell their members what the Scriptures teach. I think you realize that no such Commentary set exists and, again, the apologist has a lot of talk but doesn't produce anything meaningful by this infallible interpreter. It's sort of like the Invisible Kid in Mystery Men who had the power of invisibility but it only worked when people weren't looking at him.

In the final analysis, whether the RCC argues for a partum-partum view of infallible teaching (part Scripture, part Tradition) or that they are the infallible interpreter of Scripture, the whole system works itself out into Sola Ecclesia (the Church alone). If the Church says it, then that's the interpretation. You aren't even permitted to check the work. If they claim that the Church has always believed and held things, you aren't even permitted to note the Church Fathers that differed because they determine when and who and which council and which parts of all three are tradition and who and when was speaking Ex Cathedra as a Pope.

As I noted yesterday, you are not even permitted to obey the Apostle Paul in Galatians 1:8-9 who enjoins believers that they are never to depart from the pattern of sound doctrine delivered to them no matter who comes to them with a different Gospel. There is no way to obey this command because there is only one source of authority in the RCC and that is whatever the Church tells you.

Sola Scriptura, very simply, is granting to God alone the authority to tell people who His people are, how they are to form, and what they are to teach. God's Word called Abraham out of Uz and formed a Covenant Community. God's Word called the OT Church around Moses. The Saints in the Sinai desert didn't get together to determine whether or not what Moses was delivering to them was Canonical. God spoke and it was received because the people of God are not given an option otherwise.

Likewise, when the early NT Church was formed it was called out of the world by the Gospel. They didn't authorize the Gospel but the Gospel created the People. As the Apostles moved throughout the world and called out God's Church to Himself they left writings that the Church, which was the Bride of Christ, recognized as being of the Voice of their Bridegroom. They did not authorize the Bridegroom to tell them what they were but received the testimony of God-breathed Truth and the pattern of sound doctrine left behind them.

The doctrine of Sola Scriptura is the recognition that God breathes out and we receive. The Church possesses real authority because it is constituted and authorized by God within the bounds of authority that He has commissioned for it. We are commanded to submit to Elders and to the decisions of Synods as they agree with what God has commissioned them to do. When they come together to ascertain Truth and settle controversy, they go to the only Fount where that Truth resides and exegete the God-breated Word of God.

And because the Church receives the Word of God, a true Church does not hide the doctrines that God would have for His people. As Moses enjoined to the people at Deuteronomy that these Truths are for us and our children. They are not bound up in a secret vault to be sprung upon the people in successive centuries but the pattern of the Scriptures is that the people are to know what God has said. This is why true Churches confess clearly and boldly what God has said. This is why we have Confessions in contrast to the Roman Catholic Church that has no standard exposition of the Scriptures but tomes of Canon Law that obscure and confuse what it is a man must know to be saved.

In the end, when all the shell games cease, ask your friend what man is to know concerning God and salvation and whether the RCC or EO, with all their claims of tradition guiding into Truth, can give a coherent answer or whether they simply tell the man to not worry about such things and to believe that the Church has the answer and it is not ours to know what that answer is.

__________________
Rich
PCA, Northern VA
Student, New Geneva Theological Seminary

WebsiteMaven - Web Hosting Reviews, Guides, and Advice to build and promote your web site.
SoliDeoGloria.com - A Community for Reformed Thought and Discussion

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

thanks for your post. Some excellent and very helpful points!

At this point in time, being a not-yet Catholic, he's leaning toward the authority of the Church, not in terms of Papal infallibility, but what is seen in the ecumenical councils. The finer points of Canon Law and othe RCC heresies aside, let me try to state his position as he understands it.

1. Everyone in the early church was using scripture, even the heretics
2. How one distinguishes truth and error was against the backdrop of orthodox teaching.
3. Heresies, especially Arianism, was prevalent, perhaps the majority position in the 4th century
4. yet, orthodoxy triumphed by virtue of the church's infallible authority, through the spirit's guidance. They would cite the Acts 15 scenario as a parallel event.

thus, he views the councils as an example of the ecumenical church's authority, not only to possess but to rightly interpret scripture.

I completely agree with you on the absurdity of granting infallibility to the pope in subsequent declarations in history. But I'm wondering whether there is any credence to the ecumenical council, eg. Nicea, as authoritative? It is argued that though Trinitarian and Chalcedonian formulations are essential to orthodoxy, but they are not easily deduced from scripture outside of the efforts of the fathers, the tradition, the rule of faih, etc. I have argued that Nicea and Chalcedon are only authoritative in as much as they were in line with reasonable scriptural interpretation, but it is rebutted that reasonable interpretation might also have gone in another direction.

The doctrine of sola scriptura and other doctrines solidified in the Reformation were polemical, and necessarily so. But the counter charge is that we've thrown out the baby with the bath water. I suppose it would be more easily settled if there was a once-for-all takedown argument from scripture demanding that it was the only way the Spirit guided the church.

I have heard from Reformed thinkers that not only is the bible infallible, but the logical deductions from scripture (theology). This makes things complicated as much as clear. Even within logic, the question is: which system of logic? does that mean "sola scriptura, et logia (or whatever the latin would be)?

Suppose I translate the bible into a tribal language of the Amazon and set the church free to interpret it. Will they arrive at the doctrine of the Trinity, or substitutionary atonement as hoped? If I declare that trinity and substitutionary atonement are the correct interpretations of scripture, have I not done what we denounce the Roman church of doing?

I believe in sola scriptura, please don't be put off at my playing devil's advocate, but I guess I've taken much of it for granted and haven't realized how complicated the implications can be.

any thoughts?

Well, remember, you need to keep the boundary of speculation within what Rome claims for herself. Wisely, they don't claim that the Spirit grants the Church new infallible teaching. In fact it was early Heretics that really underlined for the Church what the Canon was because folks like Marcion were claiming an abbreviated Canon.

Ironically, then, if you go to the early Ecumenical councils you can see what the Church claims for itself and it's not the exalted position of infallibility. At Nicea, for instance, they have a list of Canonical books and the Apocrypha is not in this list.

As for the syllogism that the fellow presented to you:

1. Everyone in the early church was using scripture, even the heretics
2. How one distinguishes truth and error was against the backdrop of orthodox teaching.
3. Heresies, especially Arianism, was prevalent, perhaps the majority position in the 4th century
4. yet, orthodoxy triumphed by virtue of the church's infallible authority, through the spirit's guidance. They would cite the Acts 15 scenario as a parallel event.


Why does 4 necessarily follow? In fact, Arianism would have triumphed if it is assumed that the Church's infallible authority was the guard for the Church. Athanasius was kicked out of Alexandria 5 times for upholding Nicene orthodoxy and even the Bishop of Rome was Arian as was much of the Church. Athanasius confidence was not in the infallability of the Church but the promise of Christ that He would preserve the Church and so he stood firm on the Sciptural teaching concerning the nature of God. The Church didn't create the Trinity but exposited it from the Word.

Well, I sure do TRY to be Scriptural. But I'm not perfect you know.

__________________
Ben
Chaplain, US Army
Ft. Riley, KS
TE Ohio Valley Presbytery, PCA

Yes.

The alternative is atheism.

__________________
Chris
Presbyterian Reformed Church of Charlotte (PRC)
Student, Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary
SC

...hope is nothing but the nourishment and strength of faith.
~ Calvin's Institutes III.ii.43

I hope the following will be helpful as a guide for your careful reflection on these issues. The Belgic Confession, Article 7 has this to say:

As Guido de Bres infers from scripture we are commanded to test all things and to reject false teaching. For Protestants the final word is God's Word (scripture). It is the final arbiter of all teaching and preaching.

At the same de Bres noted that the councils and writings of men have value, just not equal value to scripture. The council's weight and authority, if they spoke truthfully, is based upon scripture. The value of the work of our forebears is to weighed in the balance of ultimate value (scripture) but not to be rejected out of hand as the mere words of men either.

With respect to your question about giving a Bible to a tribe and seeing what doctrine develops, this would actually be against scripture's commands and examples: Jesus directs His apostles to 'make disciples' through, among others things, teaching (Matthew 28:19-20)/ Paul says we need someone to preach the gospel to us in order that we may have faith (Romans 10:14ff.) and the Ethiopian eunuch needed Philip to explain the scriptures to him that he might see his need for Christ (Acts 8:27ff).

Philosophically speaking, we can easily believe that scripture (the autographa) is inerrant and infallible, but practically we certainly don't give this much thought, nor really live it out, wouldn't you say? The moment an interpretation, or translation, or doctrine is exposited, regardless by whom, a commitment is made to it as tradition. It seems so, anyway. I'm just saying that a part of us is constantly giving assent and allegiance to some form of tradition. No one is living a pure form of sola scriptura.

This is another case where we might teach according to scripture, yes, but also according to our reformed tradtion, or particular corporate understanding of scripture, be it from notable authors/theologians, etc. It might be argued that the gospel we preach in 21st century Reformed context might sound very different to what they heard in the East prior to Anselm.

confessional statements are another thing. though the scripture is inerrant and infallible, it seemed good to many to write confessions that lays out the correct interpretation of scripture for doctrine.

Again, I completely resonate with you guys on the reformed position, but in practical terms, how very different are we in our methodology than the ancient church?

Is there a need to be so "different" in our methodology?

They appealed to the Scriptures. And so do we. They were able to point to a more unified church structure as perhaps a secondary argument of strength for their argument. However, when the church was being torn literally in half over the Arian controversy, or the Eastern and Western churches were being torn asunder (for various reasons), just to pick a side and say "they must be right because they are older, or bigger, or ... whatever" is just nonsense.

We can point to God's preservation and strengthening of the Protestant church in the same way. Their organic connections and claims are paper claims. The proof is in fidelity to the Apostle's teaching, not to a proposed, fixed institutional structure, which is susceptible to being compromised by heresy.

We believe in the ancient church's teaching when it is biblical. Whether or not we can hear the Voice of the Good Shepherd in the preaching and teaching of the church. And whether we can or not is a direct product of whether we have been given ears to hear, and a heart to believe. The facts have NEVER been otherwise.

__________________
Rev. Bruce G. Buchanan
ChainOLakes Presbyterian Church, CentralLake, MI


When posting friends, kindly bear those words of earthly wisdom in mind:
Oh, that God the gift would give us
To see ourselves as others see us.
--Robert Burns, 1786 (modernized) ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions? --

Dennis:

You may be correct that we don't always live according to the principle of Sola Scriptura but we don't always live by every commandment that God has given either. In other words our lack of consistency does not negate the principle.

At the same time I would say that, at the very least, we are encouraged to pursue this principle every time the scriptures are exposited. (see Acts 17:11)

Well put Rich, to put it in Athanasius' own words...

Athanasius (297-373): For if ever God shall give back the churches (for we think He will) yet without such restoration of the churches the Faith is sufficient for us. And lest, speaking without the Scriptures, I should [seem to] speak too strongly, it is well to bring you to the testimony of Scriptures, for recollect that the Temple indeed was at Jerusalem; the Temple was not deserted, aliens had invaded it, whence also the Temple being at Jerusalem, those exiles went down to Babylon by the judgment of God, who was proving, or rather correcting them; while manifesting to them in their ignorance punishment [by means] of blood-thirsty enemies. And aliens indeed had held the Place, but knew not the Lord of the Place, while in that He neither gave answer nor spoke, they were deserted by the truth. NPNF2: Vol. IV, Letters of Athanasius, I. Festal Letters, fragment.

DTK

-----Added 7/1/2009 at 02:39:38 EST-----

While not contending that there was always uniformity in the church's witness to the gospel, nor would I disagree that there are other of aspects of truth that need to be emphasized as much as penal satisfaction, nonetheless I don't know how any eastern father could have expressed penal satisfaction as an element of the atonement, and did so even clearer (I think) than Anselm himself, than the ancient witness of Eusebius of Caesarea. Now, to be sure, Eusebius may not have had the best understanding of the Trinity, but the following are specimens of his witness to penal satisfaction as an element of the gospel...

Eusebius of Caesarea (260/263-340): He then that was alone of those who ever existed, the Word of God, before all worlds, and High Priest of every creature that has mind and reason, separated One of like passions with us, as a sheep or lamb from the human flock, branded on Him all our sins, and fastened on Him as well the curse that was adjudged by Moses’ law, as Moses foretells: “Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree.” This He suffered “being made a curse for us; and making himself sin for our sakes.” And then “He made him sin for our sakes who knew no sin,” and laid on Him all the punishments due to us for our sins, bonds, insults, contumelies, scourging, and shameful blows, and the crowning trophy of the Cross. And after all this when He had offered such a wondrous offering and choice victim to the Father, and sacrificed for the salvation of us all, He delivered a memorial to us to offer to God continually instead of a sacrifice. Eusebius, The Proof of the Gospel, Vols 1 and II, ed. and trans. W. J. Ferrar (Eugene: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2001), Book 1, Chapter 10, p. 59.

Eusebius of Caesarea (260/263-340) commenting on Isaiah 53:3-8: In this he shews that Christ, being apart from all sin, will receive the sins of men on Himself. And therefore He will suffer the penalty of sinners, and will be pained on their behalf; and not on His own. And if He shall be wounded by the strokes of blasphemous words, this also will be the result of our sins. For He is weakened through our sins, so that we, when He had taken on Him our faults and the wounds of our wickedness, might be healed by His stripes. And this is the cause why the Sinless shall suffer among men: and the wonderful prophet, in no way shrinking, clearly rebukes the Jews who plotted his death; and complaining bitterly of this very thing he says: “For the transgressions of my people he was led to death.” And then because total destruction overtook them immediately, and not a long time after their evil deed to Christ, when they were besieged by the Romans, he does not pass this over either, but adds: “And I will give the wicked for his tomb, and the rich for his death.” Eusebius, The Proof of the Gospel, Vols 1 and II, ed. and trans. W. J. Ferrar (Eugene: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2001), Book 3, Chapter 2, pp. 113-114.

Eusebius of Caesarea (260/263-340): And in that He made our sins His own from His love and benevolence towards us, He says these words, adding further on in the same Psalm: “Thou hast protected me because of my innocence,” clearly shewing the impeccability of the Lamb of God. And how can He make our sins His own, and be said to bear our iniquities, except by our being regarded as His body, according to the apostle, who says: “Now ye are the body of Christ and severally members?” And by the rule that “if one member suffer all the members suffer and sin, He too by the laws of sympathy (since the Word of God was pleased to take the form of a slave and to be knit into the common tabernacle of us all) takes into Himself the labours of the suffering members, and makes our sicknesses His, and suffers all our woes and labours by the laws of love. And the Lamb of God not only did this, but was chastised on our behalf, and suffered a penalty He did not owe, but which we owed because of the multitude of our sins; and so He became the cause of the forgiveness of our sins; because He received death for us, and transferred to Himself the scourging, the insults, and the dishonour, which were due to us, and drew down on Himself the apportioned curse, being made a curse for us. And what is that but the price of our souls? And so the oracle says in our person: “By his stripes we were healed,” and “The Lord delivered him for our sins,” with the result that uniting Himself to us and us to Himself, and appropriating our sufferings, He can say, “I said, Lord, have mercy on me, heal my soul, for I have sinned against thee,” and can cry that they who plot against Him, not men only but invisible dæmons as well, when they see the surpassing power of His Holy Name and title, by means of which He filled the world full of Christians a little after, think that they will be able to extinguish it, if they plot His death. Eusebius, The Proof of the Gospel, Vols 1 and II, ed. and trans. W. J. Ferrar (Eugene: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2001), Book 10, Chapter 1, pp. 195-196.

Eusebius of Caesarea (260/263-340): His Strong One forsook Him then, because He wished Him to go unto death, even “the death of the cross,” and to be set forth as the ransom and sacrifice for the whole world, and to be the purification of the life of them that believe in Him. And He, since he understood at once His Father’s Divine counsel, and because He discerned better than any other why He was forsaken by the Father, humbled Himself even more, and embraced death for us with all willingness, and “became a curse for us,” holy and all-blessed though He was, and “He that knew no sin, became sin, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.” Yea more—to wash away our sins He was crucified, suffering what we who were sinful should have suffered, as our sacrifice and ransom, so that we may well say with the Prophet, He bears our sins, and is pained for us, and he was wounded for our sins, and bruised for our iniquities, so that by His stripes we might be healed, for the Lord hath given Him for our sins. So, as delivered up by the Father, as bruised, as bearing our sins, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter. With this the apostle agrees when he says, “Who spared not his own Son, but delivered him for us all.” And it is to impel us to ask why the Father forsook Him, that He says, “Why hast thou forsaken me?” The answer is, to ransom the whole human race, buying them with His precious blood from their former slavery to their invisible tyrants, the unclean demons, and the rulers and spirits of evil. Eusebius, The Proof of the Gospel, Vols 1 and II, ed. and trans. W. J. Ferrar (Eugene: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2001), Book 10, Chapter 8, pp. 220-221.

Even the concept of imputation of our sins to Christ is there, even though the explicit language thereof is not.

DTK

thanks DTK for the detailed post.

I'm not sure if the Eastern tradition views Eusebius as one of its fathers. It's a funny thing, the almost-arbitrariness of the way they choose which church theologians they want to draw their theology from. I'm only beginning to learn a bit more about the eastern tradition, but from what I understand theosis (divinization of man) is at the heart of their views on atonement.

Now I do know that rather early on, (2nd century?) Irenaeus made the point that along with scripture, the church needs tradition in order to establish right doctrine.

It does seem clear to me that the very fact that the church produced a canon, as distinct from other cherished Christian writings like Didache and Shepherd of Hermas, shows that it began very early to view scripture on a higher plane than tradition and other writings. there may not even need to be a debate between protestants and RCC/EO on sola scriptura if they were to view Scripture as primary in importance and authority.

The problem lies at the fact that they view scripture as equal to, or sometimes less authoritative than tradition. But on this point, I think there is no consensus among them either.

-----Added 7/1/2009 at 10:36:33 EST-----

speaking of methodology, here's the issue.

Did the Reformers derive the doctrine of sola scriptura through a fair exegesis of scripture, in the same way that they derived sola fide? or was the doctrine derived as a reactionary response to the RC church?

I'm not a historical theologian, but it seems the latter is true, and I can't help but find that ironic and possibly a touch embarrassing (?).

Now, it may be that theologies arising from polemics, reactions, and safeguards are normal, valid and true - the Trinity being a fine example, but it seems it is difficult to build a theology of sola scriptura from the Bible alone.

Granted, Jesus did have his reservations about oral/rabbinic tradition, but only in as much as it directly contradicted written scripture. In and of itself, it seems the bible encourages tradition. Matt 23:23, "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former.

Might Jesus' words here suggest that some nuancing may be in order when we think of the Scripture-Tradition controversy?

Dennis,
What exactly do you think Jesus is endorsing here? The law of Moses called for various tithes. The Pharisees were full of vanity regarding their scrupulosity. OK, well if they were THAT concerned about it (making sure they tithed ten grains of salt for every ninety they put on their eggs, or something), then they could have given an extra sheep or something to make sure they were "over" on the value of their tithe, however...

That wasn't Jesus point. It was that they were meticulous about the "less weighty" matters of THE LAW (not traditions), like tithing; and unconcerned about the matters of the heart--the things (of the LAW) that really mattered. They should be concerned about the "less weighty" matters of the LAW, but not to the degree that they failed in the primary matters of the same LAW.

In other words, better to forget to tithe that mint, than neglect justice.

Where in this passage do you read Jesus endorsing man-made tradition? What about elsewhere where he condemns their man-made traditions for nullifying the Law, and elsewhere still for "teaching as doctrines the commandments of men"?


By nature, men are forever trying to come up with ways to be religious. There are a host of justifications, some more "pious" than others. But the only real question is: what has God asked for?

If Mom, all sick in bed, asked for a warm bowl soup, and you brought her a beer because you thought "You know, I think Mom needs a beer; that soup she asked for, well that's 1) not good enough for her, 2) not worth my time to make it, 3)..."

Well, what should she say? "Thanks!"?
"Oh, you knew better than me what I needed!"?

There is no "tradition" of human origin that may bind anyone's conscience. None. As long as you submit to human authority, that authority can only bind your conscience (forbidding to contradict what they say do or not do on the pain of entering sin) as far as God has permitted. Worship is no place for introducing "house rules." Besides, for every second we spend on giving God something he didn't ask for, we are neglecting to do something he did ask for.



If you want to know the Reformers arguments and derivations for proving Scripture as the final, and only infallible authority, then may I suggest reading one of their books? If the Confessional statements, and prooftexts offered aren't sophisticated enough for you, then read the Reformers own exegesis (assuming you don't care to read anything more fresh).

One of the best books is William Whittaker's Disputations on Holy Scripture. Its been recently republished. If you care, you can get it and read it.

Otherwise, it just sounds to me like you're being lured (or already netted) by the simplistic mesmerizing of the authoritarians.

i'm willing to stand corrected on the Matthew passage. Thanks for that.

Would you say that Jesus was always against tradition, or only where it was contradicting scripture? I haven't done a thorough study, but I'd say off the cuff that he didn't a big problem with tradition unless it was subverting scripture or enslaving people unnecessarily.

I do find it a little ironic that the places being cited as the strongest arguments for sola scriptura are to be found in Confessions and books. I am personally a lover and proponent of the Reformed tradition, but doesn't it seem like we hang on to it in a way that is analogous to how the RCC hold to their traditions and the writings of their doctors? To say that we are not bound to or pay allegiance to ANY tradition is naive.

If I'm being lured or netted into heretical teaching, then may God have mercy, however I don't see it as being that serious. Remember that is consistent with our tradition to be reformed and be always reforming.

But this was not the point you raised. You said “It might be argued that the gospel we preach in 21st century Reformed context might sound very different to what they heard in the East prior to Anselm.” And I simply pointed out that Eusebius is an eastern Father and he said something very similar to 21st century proclamations of the gospel, no matter what Eastern Orthodox today are willing to affirm. But the same can be found in someone like Chrysostom as well…

Chrysostom (349-407): As then both he who hanged on a tree, and he who transgresses the Law, is cursed, and as it was necessary for him who is about to relieve from a curse himself to be free from it, but to receive another instead of it, therefore Christ took upon Him such another, and thereby relieved us from the curse. It was like an innocent man’s undertaking to die for another sentenced to death, and so rescuing him from punishment. For Christ took upon Him not the curse of transgression, but the other curse, in order to remove that of others. For, “He had done no violence neither was any deceit in His mouth.” (Isaiah 53:9; 1 Peter 2:22.) And as by dying He rescued from death those who were dying, so by taking upon Himself the curse, He delivered them from it. NPNF1: Vol. XIII, Homilies on Galatians, Chapter 3, v. 13.

I disagree with that claim made for Irenaeus. Irenaeus was simply making the point that the tradition (i.e., the message being proclaimed by churches in various geographical areas) was the same. He wasn’t using “tradition” in the same sense that the Eastern Orthodox attach to his words.

Irenaeus (c. 130-c. 200): When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but viva voce: ANF: Vol. I, Against Heresies, Book 3:2:1.

The Romanists and the EO deny the formal sufficiency of Scripture, whereas virtually all the ancient fathers affirmed it, both in the east and in the west, which a friend and I have demonstrated elsewhere. The ancient fathers affirmed Scriptura ex scripturim explicandum esse (Scripture is to be explained by Scripture). Such expressions abound profusely in the extant writings of the early church fathers.

Well, there is surely a consensus among the early church fathers in both the east and the west concerning scripture as the infallible and ultimate authority in all matters relating to doctrine. Again, the extant evidence of their writings witnesses against modern EO claims.

Unlike sola fide, sola Scriptura is a first principle. As Basil expressed it…

Basil of Caesarea (Ad 329-379): That therefore which our fathers said, that also we say. . . . But it is not sufficient for us, that this is the tradition of the Fathers; for they also followed the mind of Scripture, taking their first principles from those testimonies which we just now placed before you from the Scripture. Trans. by William Goode, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice, 2nd ed., 3 Vols. (London: John Henry Jackson, 1853), Vol. 3, p. 6.
Greek text: Ὅπερ ἔλεγον τοίνυν οἱ πατέρες ἡμῶν, καὶ ἡμεῖς λέγομεν,...Ἀλλʼ οὐ τοῦτο ἡμῖν ἐξαρκεῖ, ὅτι τῶν πατέρων ἡ παράδοσις• κὰκεῖνοι γὰρ τῷ βουλήματι τῆς Γραφῆς ἠκολούθησαν, ἐκ τῶν μαρτυριῶν, ἅς μικρῷ πρόσθεν ὑμῖν ἐκ τῆς Γραφῆς παρεθέμεθα, τὰς ἀρχὰς λαβόντες. Liber De Spiritu Sancto, Caput VII, PG 32:96.

Note: The translation of the NPNF2, Vol VIII, The Book of Basil on the Spirit, Chapter 7 is not the most accurate translation as reflected by the Greek text itself: “But we do not rest only on the fact that such is the tradition of the Fathers; for they too followed the sense of Scripture, and started from the evidence which, a few sentences back, I deduced from Scripture and laid before you.” The word only (μόνος) is not in the text as the NPNF2, Vol VIII infers, but rather the construction οὐ… ἐξαρκεῖ (it is not sufficient, i.e. does not suffice).”

The tithe is not an unwritten tradition.

DTK

-----Added 7/2/2009 at 01:09:35 EST-----

You're raising a straw man argument that no one here has broached. No one is contending that tradition is not useful. But tradition is to be weighed in the balances of Scripture, and if found wanting to be rejected. Jerome expressed it in this manner...

Jerome (347-420): The sword of God smites whatever they draw and forge from a pretended (quasi) apostolic tradition, without the authority and testimony of the Scriptures. From Jerome’s Commentary on Haggai, Chapter 1 as cited in Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, trans. George Musgrave Giger, ed. James T. Dennison (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1992), Vol. 1, p. 143.
Latin text: Sed et alia quae absque auctoritate et testimoniis Scripturarum quasi traditione apostolica sponte reperiunt atque confingunt, percutit gladius Dei. Jacques Paul Migne, Patrologiae Latinae, Commentariorum In Aggaeum Prophetam,1:11, 25:1398 (Paris: J.-P. Migne, 1857-87).

Dennis,
ISTM you are equivocating on the meaning of "tradition." Is tradition just an established way of doing things? Or is it the ONLY way it may be done because its old, and its ours?

These are two radically different ways of understanding the term. In the first case, a tradition might be good, bad, or indifferent in a general sort of estimate; but we need a standard by which to judge it, and a place to stand. We should use caution in deciding to remove it.

If the second case obtains, then we better run away. Better to avoid that tradition, and bring it back later if it can be established on better grounds.

Everyone has "traditions" of one kind or another. Yes, the issue is can they be defended as biblical, and therefore atemporal and universal.



Correlative to abusing the term "tradition" would be when philosophical naturalism plays "evolution equivocation", and tries to make creationists look like rubes too stupid to breed animals (equating denial of macro-evolution with a denial of any changes within kinds). Of course, they are assuming they can get from the one piece no one denied even in the days of creation-taught-in-schools days, to a new organism (via mutation).


So, to go back to your statements regarding "tradition," are you prepared to accept a Tridentine or Orthodox claim concerning "tradition" that sweeps any and all ideas about human treatment of divine things, history of interpretation, and worship practice under the rubric of "tradition"?

Because if this is acceptable to you, then what meaningful distinction can we make? If EVERYTHING is tradition, then fine: pick the biggest, baddest tradition on the block. Because if there's nothing more fundamental than "tradition", then the most impressive tradition to the most people "wins." hooray.



Don't play the Confessions vs. the Bible game. The starting points for our discussions around this board are that the Confessions accurately sum certain biblical doctrines. This isn't a board for determining the validity of those statements of faith. And you agreed to play by those rules when you became a member.

The Confessions come with prooftexts. Read and study them. The books that are recommended contain copious exegetical material. If you don't have time to read the labors of better teachers than we have here, what good are we?

Can we lay out a 500 page treatment of the Protestant doctrine of Scripture on this board? Can we do it in 5 pages? This is a web-board. Its for answering questions in bite sized pieces. You have been given Scripture passages, and the outlines of arguments based on the Scripture. The most succinct forms of those arguments are already printed in our Confessions, but they don't do it for you?


Since you seem to be rejecting the Scriptural basis for our confessed position (apparently you don't think enough of it to study how it comes from the Bible even after pointed to the biblical grounds), then you may well be "reforming" yourself right out of the Reformation-tradition, and into a different "tradition"--not as much Scripture, and lots more "say-so".

Dennis,

As I noted about "Tradition" claims for clarity, they are nice for polemical discussions but they actually don't produce any clarity. What is the formal interpretation of Romans 9?

The strange part about arguments against Sola Scriptura is that it is assumed that the person who wants to claim that only the God-breated Words of God should be exalted to the status of infallible, authoratative Truth that he has something to prove.

Must I really prove to you that whatever God has said is authoratatively True? If we both agree that God breathed out the Scriptures and that the Scriptures are authoratative for life and Godliness (as the Scriptures testify to both) then can we first agree that the Scriptures have to be accepted as an infallible, authoratative Truth because it proceeds from the mouth of God? If not, then I'm afraid that we have nothing else to discuss.

If, however, you wish to proceed, then you have to establish that another authority can come alongside God's Word and claim the same authority as the Speaker.

In other Words, it's not up to me to scour the world and try to find every religious body that claims infallible authority and demonstrate to you that their claims to infallibility are repudiated by a specific Scripture verse. Rather, if the religious body is going to claim the same authority as the Word of God then they need to build their case. Keep in mind, however, that I'm going to test this claim against what God has already said.

In fact, the Word is the only place we can go to find out if there is any basis to a claim of authority that is equivalent to the Word. If the Word vests this kind of authority in the Church of God then that is something else. If Christ or the Apostles promise that the Holy Spirit will grant to the Church this capacity and this authority then that's something else.

Nobody is denying that the Church has authority. You're a Baptist, the answerers are Presbyterians and we have a much higher view of Church authority than your tradition but that higher view is because we believe that Christ has commissioned the Church with the amount of authority it has. It sins if it neglects the responsibility it has from that authority by doing less than it should but it also sins if it tries to claim more from the authority vested. I'm a Commissioned Officer in the Marine Corps and have a certain amount of authority commensurate with my rank. Yet, at best, my authority (like the Church's) is always derivative from the granter of that authority.

Thus, although I very much appreciate the work DTK has done to demonstrate that the early Church Fathers understood the limits of their authority and always finally appealed to the Word, even if we found that Church history universally testifies to an understanding of authority that exceeds what the Word teaches, we would still have to agree that God's Word is authoratative and somebody has to do the work to demonstrate that the words of men (and their traditions) agree with what God has already recorded.

In fact, if you read Deuteronomy 18 on the nature of Prophets, God required consistency with previously revealed testimony. As I've already noted, under inspiration Paul requires Apostles and the Church to teach in a way consistent with the previously revealed Gospel (Gal 1:8-9) and even reproves Peter to his face (story recounted in Gal 2) for acting in a way that taught otherwise.

Thus, Dennis, instead of asking for more Scriptural proofs that the Word of God is authoratative, I believe it is time for you to convince us, through exegesis that either the RCC or the EO is infallible or whether any Church is infallible. By the way, which are you going to choose because the RCC and the EO cannot both be?

Remember, Sola Scriptura was a return to a default position - that the Word of God is that which is God breathed. The irony, of course, is that when a man has a tradition he always wants you to prove to him that his tradition is not infallible but it is the blindness of indwelling sin and idolatry that causes men to assume that anything that man writes could be of the same nature as God to begin with. Thus, when the Reformers went back to the Word, the RCC didn't soul search and try to prove, from the Word, that their authority structures were infallible but (and they continue to do so today) they merely assert it. The shoe is not on our foot in terms of who has the burden of proof in this matter.

Finally, as DTK has said, the Early Church Fathers were unanimous in asserting that only the Word had infallible authority. If you wish to grant to them infallible authority then you need to conclude that they were correct and that the Word is the only infallible authority we possess.

Friends, first, I guess I need to apologize about the way I'm posting my comments, which seem to be producing some tension. Please don't get me wrong. I am in no way rejecting the Reformed tradition or being seduced into possibly becoming an RC or EO. I'm merely a young student of Reformed theology and have been debating with someone who's asking some questions that I'm trying to relay to your expertise on his behalf, as "devil's advocate". Sure, I do have questions of my own and having not personally pored over confessions and ancient writings, your responses have been extremely helpful, but there is no need to get your guard up or get personal with your words. We're all on the same side, I assure you.

Now, in terms of the ancient fathers on tradition, I have heard that in the patristic era there were at 7 distinct definitions of tradition - you're right Bruce about the importance of defining terminology.

I'm certainly willing to agree that the ancient fathers viewed scripture as infallible, but did they appeal to it as being altogether sufficient?
Irenaeus wrote: Everyone who wishes to perceive the truth should consider the apostolic tradition, which has been made known in every church in the entire world. We are able to number those who are bishops appointed by the apostles and their successors in the churches to the present day, who taught and knew nothing of such things as these people [heretics] imagine."

It seems here that an appeal is being made to apostolic succession, implying that the writings were accompanied by an authoritative tradition. But I'm not sure if this is the correct interpretation of Irenaeus.

Tertullian wrote similar: if any of these [heresies] dare to trace their origins back to the apostolic era, so that it might appear that they had been handed down by the apostles ... let them therefore show the origins of their churches; let them unfold the order of their bishops, showing that there is a succession from the beginning, so that their first bishops had as his precursor and predecessor an apostle or some apostlic man who was associated with the apostles."

The RC and EO claim to be able to perform this check of apostolic authenticity. The logic goes: that which is appealed to to make a check of authenticity is in itself authentic and therefore authoritative. Out of this line of reasoning, it is understandable that the ancient church viewed doctrine as having decended from an organic unity of scripture and succession.

Now, it could very well be that this had to be the case prior to canonization, and after scripture is settled, the procedure becomes obsolete. Perhaps that's where the principle of sola scriptura ought to have been born?

any thoughts?

Think of the logical inconsistency that argument brings.

If we say there are several sources of primary authority yet accept that Revelation does say you can't supplant its authority we would be saying... There are several primary sources of authority except in the case of the Book of Revelation.

Is that the internal witness of the whole of Scripture, authored as it is, by a God who does not contradict Himself? (Not at all...)

On top of that you cannot have an ultimate authority by saying two sources are 50/50 authority. One has to "break the tie" or there is no ultimate authority.

The Roman Church does not really say there is more than one equal source of authority... they say, and this is wrong, but not contradictory, that church tradition is authority over Scripture. So their position is more like ultimate iglesia fame (or something like that in latin).

__________________
Scott
PCA
North Carolina


"Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised)"
Hebrews 10:23

Context in these quotes is important. On the one hand you agree that the terms should be defined and then you allow for an unbounded understanding of the term "apostolic tradition" to say whatever Rome or EO says about it now. Of course, they have differing views than one another on this point so which will one choose?

Remember that the Gnostics, Marcionites, and others appealed to Apostolic authority and tradition for their views. Iraneus was not arguing for a hidden corpus of materials that he had that was not available to others. His appeal was to the true nature of that Apostolic tradition.

When a Gnostic claimed that the Apostle's really taught that Christ did not come in the flesh then the appeal was that the pattern of sound teaching that the Church now taught (which was in accord with the Word) had been handed down faithfully from Apostle to the Pastors they Ordained.

In other words, the Gnostics coming from outside the pattern of sound doctrine and claiming fairy tales about what the Apostle's truly taught but, organically, the Early Church Fathers could point to a succession of those who had been taught the pattern of sound doctrine even at Timothy had received it from Paul.

What cannot be explicitly inferred from the quote, however, is that Timothy received one set of doctrines from Paul in the Epistles and a "keep this Secret" set of doctrines. There is simply no record of the Apostolic tradition being described as anything other than the Writings of the Apostles, which is why the Church began collecting Pauline Epistles early and deliberated over the Apostolic authorship of other early Church writings (eventually rejecting the Shepherd of Hermas and the Didache for instance).

At most, then, what can be argued for is what any person would note when they read the Scriptures: that it is important that the Word be handed down from one generation to the next. It was not improper for Iraneus to point out that "...we know these guys are wrong because the Church has never held this..." especially since it was of the nature of Gnostics who would claim that the Apostles had a hidden teaching that only they knew about.

In fact, the current RCC use of Tradition owes much more to the way early Gnostics would appeal to Apostolic tradition because of a need to be "in the know" - no external checks available simply the bare assertion that this is what the Apostles taught. What, precisely, is this mechanism by which these hidden Truths are passed down that nobody can look at?

Consider this:

If anything could be said to destroy the dual nature of Scripture and Tradition the above does. Who was there to witness the Transfiguration but Peter and John? Yet, Peter testifies that we have a surer testimony than Peter and John did because of what we've received from the Prophets and the writings. He clearly testifies that nothing is under a bushel - no Truth hidden for our spiritual good.

If no Truth is hidden then what of this hogwash of a verbal tradition? What is it and why is it simply mysteriously appealed to whenever Rome wants to simply assert they are passing on Apostolic tradition. Peter assures us nothing is hidden. Rome depends upon an un-Scriptural method of over-awing with majesty and mystery where the clarity of Christ shouts down this error throughout the New Testament.

Dennis, though he is a Lutheran, I might recommend finding a copy of Volume 1 of Martin Chemnitz's Examination of the Council of Trent. When I was personally working through these issues, I found his discussion of the topic the most compelling and clear in opposition to the Tridentine position. Also, you may want to look into William Whitaker's Disputations on Holy Scripture who also deals well with these issues (Edit: Oops, I didn't notice Rev. Buchanan had already mentioned this in one of his great posts above. There have been a lot of really good posts in this thread!)

As a quick follow-up, as long as your friend mentioned Acts 15, it's important to note what the council did after making the decision: they committed their conclusions (that is, their apostolic tradition) to writing for its preservation and dissemination, and delivered it in the form of an epistle to the church at Antioch.

__________________
Paul Korte
OPC
Flint, MI

They who perceive in themselves discoveries of the divine goodness, so full and absolutely perfect, and who make them the subject of earnest meditation, will never embrace new doctrines, by which the very grace they feel so powerfully in themselves is thrown into the shade. --John Calvin

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

It's not relevant today, especially since we do not share Irenaeus' close proximity to those churches in time; and that's why Irenaeus cannot be used in this way today. Irenaeus' view of tradition, as well as Tertullian was what some have called the coincidence view, i.e., the content of apostolic tradition coincided with that of Holy Scripture. Such scholars as Ellen Flesseman-Van Leer, Tradition and Scripture in the Early Church (Assen, 1955); Richard Bauckham, Scripture, Tradition and Reason (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1988); and F. W. Dillstone, ed., Scripture and Tradition (London: 1955) have all made this observation. There are others whom I could add to this list. Both Romanists and the Eastern Orthodox have departed from this position on tradition. Both Romanists and the Eastern Orthodox are past masters at assigning the most fluid meaning imaginable to tradition in order to accommodate their view regarding the infallibility of the church. 2 Timothy 3:16 tells us that Scripture is God-breathed (θεόπνευστος). Tradition is never assigned that designation.

Yes, Tertullian goes on in the same treatise to underscore the fact that churches (indeed true churches) were springing up in his day that had neither an apostle for their founder, nor an "apostolic man." Notice how he insists that the true apostolicity of these churches was to be tested...

Tertullian (c. 160-c. 220): Let the heretics contrive something of the same kind. For after their blasphemy, what is there that is unlawful for them (to attempt)? But should they even effect the contrivance, they will not advance a step. For their very doctrine, after comparison with that of the apostles, will declare, by its own diversity and contrariety, that it had for its author neither an apostle nor an apostolic man; because, as the apostles would never have taught things which were self-contradictory, so the apostolic men would not have inculcated teaching different from the apostles, unless they who received their instruction from the apostles went and preached in a contrary manner. To this test, therefore will they be submitted for proof by those churches, who, although they derive not their founder from apostles or apostolic men (as being of much later date, for they are in fact being founded daily), yet, since they agree in the same faith, they are accounted as not less apostolic because they are akin in doctrine. Then let all the heresies, when challenged to these two tests by our apostolic church, offer their proof of how they deem themselves to be apostolic. But in truth they neither are so, nor are they able to prove themselves to be what they are not. Nor are they admitted to peaceful relations and communion by such churches as are in any way connected with apostles, inasmuch as they are in no sense themselves apostolic because of their diversity as to the mysteries of the faith. ANF: Vol. III, The Prescription Against Heretics, Chapter 32.

The test for apostolicity did not rest in a succession of men, but succession of doctrine. As Tertullian said in the 3rd chapter of this treatise,
Tertullian does not cause the Christian faith to rest on the shoulders of men! He knows better, and so ought the Romanists and the Eastern Orthodox, but they only pick and choose from the fathers what they think they can use to make their case plausible, and thus fool those who are unfamiliar with the writers of the ancient church.

Again, it was also the expressed opinion of Gregory of Nazianzus that apostolic succession was to be understood as adherence to apostolic doctrine, and that a breach of doctrine constituted a breach of succession. For while speaking of Athanasius, he wrote:

Gregory of Nazianzus (329/330-389): Thus, and for these reasons, by the vote of the whole people, not in the evil fashion which has since prevailed, nor by means of bloodshed and oppression, but in an apostolic and spiritual manner, he is led up to the throne of Saint Mark, to succeed him in piety, no less than in office; in the latter indeed at a great distance from him, in the former, which is the genuine right of succession, following him closely. For unity in doctrine deserves unity in office; and a rival teacher sets up a rival throne; the one is a successor in reality, the other but in name. For it is not the intruder, but he whose rights are intruded upon, who is the successor, not the lawbreaker, but the lawfully appointed, not the man of contrary opinions, but the man of the same faith; if this is not what we mean by successor, he succeeds in the same sense as disease to health, darkness to light, storm to calm, and frenzy to sound sense. NPNF2: Vol. VII, Oration XXI - On the Great Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, §8.

And in a more cautious frame of mind, Tertullian wrote the following...

Tertullian (c. 160-c. 220): But, that we might attain an ampler and more authoritative knowledge at once of Himself, and of His counsels and will, God has added a written revelation for the behoof of every one whose heart is set on seeking Him, that seeking he may find, and finding believe, and believing obey. ANF: Vol. III, The Apology, Chapter 18.

Don't be seduced by non-Protestant attempts to obscure the history of the church with respect to sola Scriptura. Most of them have never actually studied the writings of the ancient church, and are only able to regurgitate bits and pieces that they themselves have been spoon-fed.

DTK

hi all,

the last response from my friend is that the writings of the fathers, like any quotations, even from scripture, can be prooftexted to prove almost anything. He also has questions as to the interpretations of some of the ancient quotes, claiming that they are found in books written by authors from an anti-Catholic background. While there is much material that can be used as an argument for the primacy of scripture, there are apparently many quotations in favour of the validity of tradition as bearing equal authority. Such quotes are found here:

Rule of Faith in Patristic Thought

he also argues that although some fathers may have held certain views, the majority belief of the Catholic and EO from the early church until until now has favoured a dual-authority approach.

Basically, he remains unconvinced that the early church held to sola scriptura, or even prima scriptura. The councils, for him, are an example of the church speaking authoritatively, with equal weight as the scriptures, in matters of doctrine.

any suggestions on how to answer him on these?

thanks.

Brother Oh,
It would appear as if one or more of us is having a "debate" with someone we are not in actual contact with. This is not a recommended procedure for interchange.

I certainly wouldn't get into an exchange with someone if I wasn't prepared to give them answers, or could find someone with whom they could have direct interaction.

There is already more than enough info here on the PB, and in this one thread, to give yourself a basic education in fundamental facts. You can now take those facts and lay them out as best you can for someone who has genuine questions. Your friend isn't one of those people.

**********************

I don't think there's anything YOU can do for your friend. The Holy Spirit, but not you.

Your friend has already given you all the information you need to recognize that he has "drunk the kool-aid" so to speak. His questions aren't serious questions. His manner of reply tells you that. He has already found a "source" that can reply to cold, hard facts with a stock answer that shouldn't satisfy a 8th grader working on his first term paper.

But it's what he wants to hear, it's what he NEEDS to hear. He needs to hear that the church to which he wants to fit is the "right" church. He has some concerns, but it will be OK once he understands how the "right" church answers those seemingly difficult questions.

After all, if those had been really good answers, why... no one would be a (RCC, EO, fill-in-the-blank), right? They would have all shriveled up and blown away by now, right? But no, they are still here, so these answers MUST be GOOD answers. Yes, Yes, I'm beginning to feel it now. Yes, these ARE good answers! {these aren't the droids you're looking for} Of course! And those "facts" are just misrepresentations. Etc. etc. etc.

Your friend is now backpeddling because you've confronted him with evidence against his claims. Now, he wants to claim that proof-texting can "prove almost anything." Well, he just gave away his (mis)representation of the early church fathers lock, stock, and barrel. Can you not see through this tactic? Now, he wants to dismiss any evidence against his claims as just so much bias and anti-catholic rhetoric. As for the claim of anti-catholic bias of interpretations of ancient quotes, what qualifies his own claims as unbiased? Anyone can make such claims.

Now, as for the link you posted here (whether your friend gave it to you or not), the particular Romanist to which you've pointed on the web is simply trying to refute a a three volume work by Bill Webster and myself that was published in 2001. I've dealt with that Romanist in the past; and frankly speaking, he was begging for his fellow Romanists to come to his aid and give him the proof-texts he needed to refute us a few years ago, all the while claiming his astute acquaintance with the literature of the early church. So your friend claims that proof-texting from Protestants can prove almost anything, while he (or whoever gave you that link) points to more proof-texting. That ought to communicate something to you regarding 1) your friend's sincerity, and 2) the difficulty of ascertaining a rule or rules of faith from the fathers, especially for the one who is as ignorant as your friend apparently is.

I think that, by now, you should see that your friend doesn't know what he's talking about, or else he wouldn't be backpeddling.

DTK

Hi DTK,

the latest development in the discussion is that my friend, whlie having utmost respect for the patristic tradition and the councils, he is beginning to question the idea of innerrancy as a product of fundamentalism. This line of thinking is an attempt to argue that the scriptures are not self-explanatory apart from the authority of the church. Now, I know that the church has always viewed the scriptures as infallible. Does this mean the same thing as innerancy? and are there some clear patristic support for inerrancy?

We've also begun to do a book study of D.H. Williams' Retrieving the Tradition and Renewing Evangelicalism. He's apparently a Baptist scholar calling for a return to the faith of the early church. any thoughts about this book that I need to consider?

thanks.

Please notice what your friend has done. He has now shifted his trust from the word of God to the word of men, with his "utmost respect for the patristic tradition and the councils." If he refuses to trust the word of God, why should he have any good reason to trust the fallible decisions of men as reflected in patristic tradition and councils? If he refuses to accept the inerrancy of the Scriptures, how can he logically justify his trust in the words of men, which are subject to error, to explain what he denies to be without error?

Augustine (354-430): All such matters, therefore, being put out of sight, let them show their Church, if they can; not in the discourses and reports of Africans, not in the councils of their own bishops, not in the writings of any controversialists, not in fallacious signs and miracles, for even against these we are rendered by the word of the Lord prepared and cautious, but in the ordinances of the Law, in the predictions of the Prophets, in the songs of the Psalms, in the words of the very Shepherd himself, in the preachings and labours of the Evangelists, that is, in all the canonical authorities of sacred books. Nor so as to collect together and rehearse those things that are spoken obscurely, or ambiguously, or figuratively, such as each can interpret as he likes, according to his own views. For such testimonies cannot be rightly understood and expounded, unless those things that are most clearly spoken are first held by a firm faith. Trans. by William Goode, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice, 2nd ed., 3 Vols. (London: John Henry Jackson, 1853), Vol. 3, p. 165.
Latin text: Remotis ergo omnibus talibus Ecclesiam suam demonstrent, si possunt, non in sermonibus et rumoribus Afrorum, non in conciliis episcoporum suorum, non in litteris quorumlibet disputatorum, non in signis et prodigiis fallacibus, quia etiam contra ista verbo Domini praeparati et cauti redditi sumus: sed in praescripto Legis, in Prophetarum praedictis, in Psalmorum cantibus, in ipsius unius Pastoris vocibus, in Evangelistarum praedicationibus et laboribus, hoc est, in omnibus canonicis sanctorum Librorum auctoritatibus. Nec ita, ut ea colligant et commemorent, quae obscure vel ambigue vel figurate dicta sunt, quae quisque sicut voluerit, interpretetur secundum sensum suum. Talia enim recte intelligi exponique non possunt, nisi prius ea, quae apertissime dicta sunt, firma fide teneantur. De Unitate Ecclesiae, Caput XVIII, §47, PL 43:427-428.

Augustine (354-430): We ought to find the Church, as the Head of the Church, in the Holy Canonical Scriptures, not to inquire for it in the various reports, and opinions, and deeds, and words, and visions of men . Trans. by William Goode, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice, 2nd ed., 3 Vols. (London: John Henry Jackson, 1853), Vol. 3, p. 165.
Latin text: Ecclesia, quam sicut ipsum caput in Scripturis sanctis canonicis debemus agnoscere, non in variis hominum rumoribus, et opinionibus, et factis, et dictis, et visis inquirere. De Unitate Ecclesiae, Caput XIX, §49, PL 43:429.

Augustine (354-430): Whether they [i.e. the Donatists] hold the Church, they must show by the Canonical books of the Divine Scriptures alone; for we do not say, that we must be believed because we are in the Church of Christ, because Optatus of Milevi, or Ambrose of Milan, or innumerable other bishops of our communion, commended that Church to which we belong, or because it is extolled by the Councils of our colleagues, or because through the whole world in the holy places which those of our communion frequent such wonderful answers to prayers or cures happen. Trans. by William Goode, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice, 2nd ed., 3 Vols. (London: John Henry Jackson, 1853), Vol. 2, pp. 341-342 and Vol. 3, p. 165.
Latin text: Sed utrum ipsi Ecclesiam teneant, non nisi de divinarum Scripturarum canonicis libris ostendant: quia nec nos propterea dicimus nobis credi oportere quod in Ecclesia Christi sumus, quia ipsam quam tenemus, commendavit Milevitanus Optatus, vel Mediolanensis Ambrosius, vel alii innumerabiles nostrae communionis episcopi; aut quia nostrorum collegarum conciliis ipsa praedicata est; aut quia per totum orbem in locis sanctis, quae frequentat nostra communio, tanta mirabilia vel exauditionum, vel sanitatum fiunt . . . De Unitate Ecclesiae, Caput XIX, §50, PL 43:429-430.

The Church has historically believed the Scriptures to be both infallible and without error. Strictly speaking, "infallibility" means incapable of deception.

Here are a few historical witnesses to the inerrancy of Holy Scripture...

Augustine (354-430): On such terms we might amuse ourselves without fear of offending each other in the field of Scripture, but I might well wonder if the amusement was not at my expense. For I confess to your Charity that I have learned to yield this respect and honour only to the canonical books of Scripture: of these alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error. And if in these writings I am perplexed by anything which appears to me opposed to truth, I do not hesitate to suppose that either the MS. is faulty, or the translator has not caught the meaning of what was said, or I myself have failed to understand it. As to all other writings, in reading them, however great the superiority of the authors to myself in sanctity and learning, I do not accept their teaching as true on the mere ground of the opinion being held by them; but only because they have succeeded in convincing my judgment of in truth either by means of these canonical writings themselves, or by arguments addressed to my reason. I believe, my brother, that this is your own opinion as well as mine. I do not need to say that I do not suppose you to wish your books to be read like those of prophets or of apostles, concerning which it would be wrong to doubt that they are free from error. Far be such arrogance from that humble piety and just estimate of yourself which I know you to have, and without which assuredly you would not have said, “Would that I could receive your embrace, and that by converse we might aid each other in learning!” NPNF1: Vol. I, Letters of St. Augustine, Letter 82, Chapter 1, §3.
Latin text: Tum vero sine ullo timore offensionis tanquam in campo luditur; sed mirum si nobis non illuditur. Ego enim fateor Charitati tuae, solis eis Scripturarum libris qui jam canonici appellantur, didici hunc timorem honoremque deferre, ut nullum eorum auctorem scribendo aliquid errasse firmissime credam. Ac si aliquid in eis offendero Litteris, quod videatur contrarium veritati; nihil aliud, quam vel mendosum esse codicem, vel interpretem non assecutum esse quod dictum est, vel me minime intellexisse, non ambigam. Alios autem ita lego, ut quantalibet sanctitate doctrinaque praepolleant, non ideo verum putem, quia ipsi ita senserunt; sed quia mihi vel per illos auctores canonicos, vel probabili ratione, quod a vero non abhorreat, persuadere potuerunt. Nec te, mi frater, sentire aliud existimo: prorsus, inquam, non te arbitror sic legi tuos libros velle, tanquam Prophetarum, vel Apostolorum; de quorum scriptis, quod omni errore careant, dubitare nefarium est. Absit hoc a pia humilitate et veraci de temetipso cogitatione; qua nisi esses praeditus, non utique diceres: Utinam mereremur complexus tuos, et collatione mutua vel doceremus aliqua, vel disceremus. Epistola LXXXII, Caput , §3, PL 33:277.

Ancient witnesses tell us that God alone is infallible...

Augustine (354-430): God alone swears securely, because He alone is infallible. NPNF1: Vol. VIII, St. Augustin on the Psalms, Psalm 89, § 4.
Latin text: Deus solus securus jurat, quia falli non potest. See In Psalmum LXXXVIII Enarratio, Sermo I, PL 37:1122.

Augustine (354-430) written 413/414 AD: Do not doubt that this duty of ours [i.e., to intercede for others] is a part of religion because God, ‘with whom there is no iniquity,’ whose power is supreme, who not only sees what each one is but also foresees what he will be, who alone cannot err in His judgment because He cannot be deceived in His knowledge, nevertheless acts as the Gospel expresses it: ‘He maketh his sun to rise upon the good and bad, and raineth upon the just and the unjust.’ FC, Vol. 20, Saint Augustine, Letters 131-164, Letter 153 – To Macedonius (Washington D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1953), pp. 282-283.
Latin text: Noli ergo dubitare hoc officium nostrum ex religione descendere, cum Deus apud quem nulla est iniquitas, cujus summa potestas est, qui non tantum qualis quisque sit videt, verum etiam qualis futurus sit praevidet, qui solus potest in judicando non labi, quia in cognoscendo non potest falli, facit tamen, sicut Evangelium loquitur, solem suum oriri super bonos et malos, et pluit super justos et injustos. See In Epistola CLIII, Caput II, §4, PL 33:654.

Augustine (354-430): For this is the Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. For it is as man that He is the Mediator and the Way. Since, if the way lieth between him who goes, and the place whither he goes, there is hope of his reaching it; but if there be no way, or if he know not where it is, what boots it to know whither he should go? Now the only way that is infallibly secured against all mistakes, is when the very same person is at once God and man, God our end, man our way. NPNF1: Vol. II, The City of God, Book XI, Chapter 2.
Latin text: Hic est enim mediator Dei et hominum homo Christus Jesus. Per hoc enim mediator, per quod homo; per hoc et via. Quoniam si inter eum qui tendit et illud quo tendit, via media est, spes est perveniendi: si autem desit, aut ignoretur qua eundum sit, quid prodest nosse quo eundum sit? Sola est autem adversus omnes errores via munitissima, ut idem ipse sit Deus et homo: quo itur, Deus; qua itur, homo. De Civitate Dei, Liber Undecimus, Caput II, PL 41:318.

Augustine (354-430): But human authority is very often deceiving. FC, Vol. 5, Saint Augustine On Divine Providence and the Problem of Evil, Book 2, Chapter 9, §27 (New York: CIMA Publishing Co., Inc., 1948), p. 305.
Latin text: Humana vero auctoritas plerumque fallit. De Ordine, Liber Secundus, Caput IX, §27, PL 32:1008.

Augustine (354-430): Let them love Him [i.e., Christ], who Alone doth not deceive, who Alone is not deceived, Alone deceiveth not; let them love Him, for that is true which He doth promise. But because He doth not give at once, faith wavers. Hold on, persevere, endure, bear delay and thou hast borne the cross. NPNF1: Vol. VI, Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament, Sermon 41 (96), §9.
Latin text: Ament eum qui solus non decipit, qui solus non fallitur, solus non fallit: ament eum, quia verum est quod promittit. Sed quia non modo dat, titubat fides. Dura, persevera, tolera, porta dilationem, et tulisti crucem. Sermo XCVI, Caput VII, §9, PL 38:588.

Gregory of Nazianzus (329/330-389): A disagreement arose between Basil and his predecessor in the government of this church. It is better to pass over in silence its origin and character, but the fact remains. Eusebius [i.e., of Caesarea] was in many respects a man not without nobility, and remarkable for piety, as the persecution of that time and the opposition to him clearly indicated, yet he developed a natural antipathy for Basil. Momus [i.e., the Greek god of grumbling and fault-finding] seizes not only upon the common crowd but on the best of men, since it belongs to God alone to be completely infallible [ἄπταιστον, see Monitum in Orationem XLIII, Funebris oratio in laudem Basilii Magni Caeareae in Cappadocia episcope, §28, PG 36:533 i.e., strictly not stumbling; hence, in a moral sense free from offense, without fault – cf. Friberg Lexicon] and uninfluenced by the passions. FC, Vol. 22, Funeral Orations by Saint Gregory Nazianzen and Saint Ambrose, On Saint Basil the Great, Bishop of Caesarea, §28 (New York: Fathers of the Church, Inc., 1953), p. 51.

I have heard of the book, but have not read it. But D.H. Williams is a close friend of Francis Beckwith (both teach at Baylor University) who recently defected back to Rome.

But I repeat, the basic error of your friend is that he would rather place his faith in the words of men, rather than the word of the living God who alone is infallble.

And many witnesses from the ancient church shared with Protestants the belief that the authority of the Scriptures is self-authenticating, quotes for which I'll supply if requested.

DTK

wow, thanks for the remarkable post!

It might be a little off topic, and perhaps he's giving me the round-around, but now the challenge is on the canonicity of the Apocrypha in the early church. He claims that it has always been recognized by the church as canonical scripture and only recently discarded by the Reformers. If the LXX (which contained the apocrypha) was the scripture of the early church, what's the basis of the protestant rejection of it?

Also, how do the modern definitions of "inerrancy" compare with the historic notion of infallibility? Are they the same or different?

Your friend, simply put, is expressing ignorance under the pretense of knowledge. 1) We do not know if the original copies of the LXX contained the apocrypha or not; we only know that the much later copies do. 2) Members of the early church disagreed with one another regarding the apocrypha. I want to offer you quotes from non-Protestant scholars to demonstrate the false claim of your friend historically. The term "Deuterocanonicals" is another name/term for the OT apocrypha...

Demetrios J. Constantelos: The early church as a whole did not take a definite position for or against the Deuterocanonicals. Church leaders and ecclesiastical writers of both the Greek east and Latin west were not in full agreement. Some preferred the Hebrew canon, while others accepted the longer canon that included the Deuterocanonicals. The ambivalence of ecumenical and local synods (Nicea, 325 CE; Rome, 382; Laodicea, 365; Hippo, 393) was resolved by the Trullan Synod (692). It adopted deliberations of councils that had favored the shorter list, and decisions of other synods that had advocated the longer list. See his article “Eastern Orthodoxy and the Bible” in Bruce M. Metzger and Michael D. Coogan, eds., The Oxford Companion to the Bible (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993), p. 174.

Demetrios J. Constantelos: The canonicity of the Deuterocanonical books is still a disputed topic in Orthodox biblical theology. See his article “Eastern Orthodoxy and the Bible” in Bruce M. Metzger and Michael D. Coogan, eds., The Oxford Companion to the Bible (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993), p. 175.

Eastern Orthodox Theologian, John Meyendorff: The Christian East took a longer time than the West in settling on an agreed canon of Scripture. The principal hesitations concerned the books of the Old Testament which are not contained in the Hebrew canon (“shorter” canon) and the Book of the Revelation in the New Testament. Fourth-century conciliar and patristic authorities in the East differ in their attitude concerning the exact authority of Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Esther, Judith, and Tobit. Athanasius in his famous Paschal Letter 39 excludes them from Scripture proper, but considers them useful for catechumens, an opinion which he shares with Cyril of Jerusalem. Canon 60 of the council of Laodicea—whether authentic or not—also reflects the tradition of a “shorter” canon. But the Quinisext Council (692) endorses the authority of the Apostolic Canon 85, which admits some books of the “longer” canon, including even 3 Maccabees, but omits Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus as “admirable,” yet fails to include them in the canon. Therefore, in spite of the fact that Byzantine patristic and ecclesiastical tradition almost exclusively uses the Septuagint as the standard Biblical text, and that parts of the “longer” canon—especially Wisdom—are of frequent liturgical use, Byzantine theologians remain faithful to a “Hebrew” criterion for Old Testament literature, which excludes texts originally composed in Greek. Modern Orthodox theology is consistent with this unresolved polarity when it distinguishes between “canonical” and “deuterocanonical” literature of the Old Testament, applying the first term only to the books of the “shorter” canon. John Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology: Historical Trends and Doctrinal Themes, 2nd rev. ed. (New York: Fordham University Press, 1983), p. 7.

Protestant scholar J. N. D. Kelly is recognized by all sides to be an excellent patristic scholar...

J. N. D. Kelly: Jerome, conscious of the difficulty of arguing with Jews on the basis of books they spurned and anyhow regarding the Hebrew original as authoritative, was adamant that anything not found in it was ‘to be classed among the apocrypha’, not in the canon; later he grudgingly conceded that the Church read some of these books for edification, but not to support doctrine. J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines (San Francisco: Harper, 1960), p. 55.

J. N. D. Kelly: Jerome’s conversion to ‘the Hebrew verity’ [i.e. in contrast to the LXX] carried with it an important corollary—his acceptance also of the Hebrew canon, or list of books properly belonging to the Old Testament. Since the early Church had read its Old Testament in Greek, it had taken over without question the so-called Alexandrian canon used in the Greek-speaking Jewish communities outside Palestine. This had included those books (Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Judith, etc.) which are variously described as deutero-canonical or as the Apocrypha. Around the end of the first century, however, official Judaism had formally excluded these, limiting the canon to the books which figure in English Bibles as the Old Testament proper. Since Origen’s time it had been recognised that there was a distinction between the Jewish canon and the list acknowledged by Christians, but most writers preferred to place the popular and widely used deutero-canonical books in a special category (e.g. calling them ‘ecclesiastical’) rather than to discard them. Jerome now takes a much firmer line. After enumerating the ‘twenty-two’ (or perhaps twenty-four) books recognised by the Jews, he decrees that any books outside this list must be reckoned ‘apocryphal’: ‘They are not in the canon.’ Elsewhere, while admitting that the Church reads books like Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus which are strictly uncanonical, he insists on their being used solely ‘for edifying the people, not for the corroboration of ecclesiastical’. This was the attitude which, with temporary concessions for tactical or other reasons, he was to maintain for the rest of his life—in theory at any rate, for in practice he continued to cite them as if they were Scripture. Again what chiefly moved him was the embarrassment he felt at having to argue with Jews on the basis of books which they rejected or even (e.g. the stories of Susanna, or of Bel and the Dragon) found frankly ridiculous. J. N. D. Kelly, Jerome: His Life, Writings, and Controversies (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2000), pp. 160-161.

Roman Catholic Historian, George Tavard: The question of the “deutero-canonical” books will not be settled before the sixteenth century. As late as the second half of the thirteenth, St Bonaventure used as canonical the third book of Esdras and the prayer of Manasses, whereas St Albert the Great and St Thomas doubted their canonical value. George H. Tavard, Holy Writ or Holy Church: The Crisis of the Protestant Reformation (London: Burns & Oates, 1959), pp. 16-17.

Moreover, the following members of the early church, Melito of Sardis, Hilary of Poitiers, Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius, Epiphanius, Gregory of Nazianzus, Basil the Great, Rufinus, Jerome, Gregory the Great, and John of Damascus all rejected the majority of the deutero-canonical books as inspired Scripture.

Please go here, and read my friend Bill Webster's articles on the apocrypha,
Untitled Document

So, in short, your friend is either expressing his ignorance regarding the apocrypha, or he is simply regurgitating the same propaganda we hear all the time from both Romanists and the Eastern Orthodox.

They are both similar and different. The Oxford English Dictionary gives us the following definition for infallibility...
The Oxford English Dictionary informs us that it was not until 1837 that the English [word] inerrant was used in the modern sense of "exempt from error, free from mistake, infallible." For current usage the Oxford English Dictionary defines inerrancy as "the quality or condition of being inerrant or unerring; freedom from error." See p. 1424.

I would encourage you to research for yourself the meaning of these two terms as they were used historically. If you're going to continue to debate your friend, you need to do a great deal more study yourself. I'll recommend a couple of books for the historical view of biblical authority, 1) Douglas Moo, ed., Biblical Authority and Conservative Perspectives (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1997) and 2) John D. Woodbridge, Biblical Authority: A Critique of the Rogers/McKim Proposal (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1982).

If you're going to debate sola Scriptura in depth with your friend, it would help you to purchase the books I've co-authored with William Webster,
Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith, Vols. 1-3 - By: William Webster, David T. King - Christianbook.com

DTK

Just wondering what you think of D.H. Williams' arguments, in his book Retreiving the Tradition and Renewing Evangelicalism. To summarize, he says.

There are 3 problems with suggesting the Early church had a view of sola scriptura.

First, the aposolic tradition had choronological and logical precedence over the texts would eventually become the New Testament.

Second, inculcating a theory of sola scriptura in early christian thinking introduces a false dichotomy between scripture and tradition which did not exist.

Third, sola scriptura would have been deemed by patristic christians as doctrinally hazardous to one's health. He argues that Augustine asserted the necessity of the Rule of Faith in order to properly interpret scripture.


I'm thinking that, If it's true that Reformed christians cannot adaquately argue for sola scriptura in the early church, then should the doctrine be thought of more as a post-canon phenomenon that safeguards excesses that climaxed in the middle ages? In other words, we would accept that this is a farily new and recent doctrine, but one that is necessary due to human and ecclesiastical frailty, as evidenced in history.

What is your definition of adequate? And which definition of sola scriptura are you using, and are you conflating that definition with a doctrine of interpretation?

The first "problem" is, at best, a tendentious caricature of sola scriptura, if we assume that by "apostolic tradition" DHW is refering to inspired words (i.e. teaching) of the apostles. Because all we know of what they taught is presently inscripturated.

Further, the doctrine of sola scriptura is as valid in 2000 BC as it is in AD 2000 (and any other time). If it isn't, then it hasn't been put into a proper form that an advocate of sola scriptura recognizes as his doctrine. IOW, its a straw-man and not a real argument.

Isaiah cries out, "To the law and the testimony: if they speak not accordig to this word, it is because they have no light in them." And we are all familar with the Berean example, by which they put even the words of the apostle himself to the test of Scriptural fidelity.

So, the second "problem" is fictitious because no sola scriptura advocate would recognize his position as setting previously inspired revelation against new revelation.

The third "problem" only carries weight with "me-and-my-Bible" yahoos, who don't believe in any continuity of church in history, and who do not care to evaluate their own positions against the history of interpretation. This isn't the magesterial Reformer's position.

So, who is DHW writing against? At best, it sounds like he's opposing a non-Reformed stream of evangelicalism. Too bad he's apparently unfamilar with the Reformation. Because he seems to be trying to bring a non-Reformed segment of the church into rapproachment with Rome or EO tradition, at the expense of any tenuous ties they once had to the Reformation.


John Fesko made a great observation on doctrine generally in comments he made during a conversation on his Justification book. The gist of it gets down to this question: was there no Trinitarian doctrine before Nicea? How about the hypostatic union? Of course there was, even though there could not possibly have been the explicit and precise statements of those doctrines delivered by church councils after three to four hundred years of NT church history.

We can say similar things about the doctrine of Scripture. In this thread, there are dozens of patristic statements clearly defending the supremacy and primacy of Scripture.

There is no question as to whether an Apostle's (or a Prophet's) inspired statements are on par with Scripture. The same Spirit gave the utterance. The bald assertion of the ecclesiastical demagogues (e.g. RCC, EO) is that THEY are as inspired as the Apostles, and as authoritative as the Bible. Are these people an inspired repository of NON-inscripturated tradition? Those are nothing but pompous and insufferable poses.

The church has real authority, and real interpretive heft. But it is ministerial and declarative, not a license to legislate the truth.

There is a difference between making canon and recognising canon. I don't believe any evidence can be produced which establishes the early church created the canon. In so far as confessional churches also undertake to recognise the canon there is no real difference between the early church and reformed churches on this matter (WCF 1:2). The reformed churches willingly acknowledge their debt to catholic tradition in "recognising" the authority of God's word (WCF 1:5).

The early church simply provided contemporary explanation of Scripture. "Tradition" is man's word for acknowledging that what they handed down was Scriptural. The subordination of tradition to the Scriptures is inherent in the process.

The Rule of Faith is scriptural. Hence the appeal to the rule of faith is not extra-scriptural and does not negate the principle of sola scriptura.

__________________
Yours sincerely,


"Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."

Excellent point, the early "rule of faith" (or the creed) was simply derived from Holy Scripture itself. The following four early church fathers affirmed that.

Cyril of Jerusalem (318-386): But in learning the Faith and in professing it, acquire and keep that only, which is now delivered to thee by the Church, and which has been built up strongly out of all the Scriptures. For since all cannot read the Scriptures, some being hindered as to the knowledge of them by want of learning, and others by a want of leisure, in order that the soul may not perish from ignorance, we comprise the whole doctrine of the Faith in a few lines. This summary I wish you both to commit to memory when I recite it, and to rehearse it with all diligence among yourselves, not writing it out on paper, but engraving it by the memory upon your heart, taking care while you rehearse it that no Catechumen chance to overhear the things which have been delivered to you. I wish you also to keep this as a provision through the whole course of your life, and beside this to receive no other, neither if we ourselves should change and contradict our present teaching, nor if an adverse angel, transformed into an angel of light should wish to lead you astray. For though we or an angel from heaven preach to you any other gospel than that ye have received, let him be to you anathema. So for the present listen while I simply say the Creed , and commit it to memory; but at the proper season expect the confirmation out of Holy Scripture of each part of the contents. For the articles of the Faith were not composed as seemed good to men; but the most important points collected out of all the Scripture make up one complete teaching of the Faith. And just as the mustard seed in one small grain contains many branches, so also this Faith has embraced in few words all the knowledge of godliness in the Old and New Testaments. Take heed then, brethren, and hold fast the traditions which ye now receive, and write them an the table of your heart. NPNF2: Vol. VII, Catechetical Lectures, Lecture V, §12.

Niceta of Remesiana (335-415): These things beings so, beloved, persevere in the tradition which you have learned. Be true to the pact you made with the Lord, to the profession of faith which you made in the presence of angels and of men. The words of the Creed are few—but all the mysteries are in them. Selected from the whole of Scripture and put together for the sake of brevity, they are like precious gems making a single crown. Thus, all the faithful have sufficient knowledge of salvation, even though many are unable, or too busy with their worldly affairs, to read the Scriptures. Fathers of the Church, Vol. 7, Writings of Niceta of Remesiana, Explanation of the Creed, §13 (New York: Fathers of the Church, Inc., 1949), p. 53. Thus the tradition that has “sufficient knowledge of salvation” is that which is inscripturated.

Augustine (354-430): Receive my children, the Rule of Faith, which is called the Symbol (or Creed). And when ye have received it, write it in your heart, and be daily saying it to yourselves; before ye sleep, before ye go forth, arm you with your Creed. The Creed no man writes so as it may be able to be read: but for rehearsal of it, lest haply forgetfulness obliterate what care hath delivered, let your memory be your record-roll: what ye are about to hear, that are ye to believe; and what ye shall have believed, that are about to give back with your tongue. For the Apostle says, “With the heart man believeth unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.” For this is the Creed which ye are to rehearse and to repeat in answer. These words which ye have heard are in the Divine Scriptures scattered up and down: but thence gathered and reduced into one, that the memory of slow persons might not be distressed; that every person may be able to say, able to hold, what he believes. For have ye now merely heard that God is Almighty? But ye begin to have him for your father, when ye have been born by the church as your Mother. NPNF1: Vol. III, On the Creed: a Sermon to the Catechumens.

John Cassian (360-430s?): For, as you know, a Creed Symbolum) gets its name from being a “collection.” For what is called in Greek σύμβολος is termed in Latin “Collatio.” But it is therefore a collection (collatio) because when the faith of the whole Catholic law was collected together by the apostles of the Lord, all those matters which are spread over the whole body of the sacred writings with immense fullness of detail, were collected together in sum in the matchless brevity of the Creed, according to the Apostle’s words: “Completing His word, and cutting it short in righteousness: because a short word shall the Lord make upon the earth.” This then is the “short word” which the Lord made, collecting together in few words the faith of both of His Testaments, and including in a few brief clauses the drift of all the Scriptures, building up His own out of His own, and giving the force of the whole law in a most compendious and brief formula. Providing in this, like a most tender father, for the carelessness and ignorance of some of his children, that no mind however simple and ignorant might have any trouble over what could so easily be retained in the memory. NPNF2: Vol. 11, On the Incarnation of Christ Against Nestorius, Book 6, Chapter 3.

DTK

I think what Williams did was perhaps to confuse sola scriptura with solo scriptura ie. the practice of those "me and my bible yahoos" (haha!), which he does not see in the practice of the early church - fair enough. It's true that the apologists did not merely turn to scripture alone when refuting the beliefs of heretics, but cited the rule of faith, creeds, baptismal catechisms, etc.

He goes to great lengths to distinguish between Tradition (capital T) and tradition (small t), the former as defined as the great deposit of faith that came prior to and forms the basis of New Testament teaching.

His main argument seems to be that scripture was not clear enough to derive the essential doctrines of orthodoxy. The Fathers vested authority in various external sources to supplement their charge against the heretics. it was simply not enough to argue from the Bible, for that was exactly what the heretics did as well. Implied in this is a challenge against the clarity and perspicuity of scripture.

how would we answer this charge?