“To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.”
This is the Scriptural mandate of Sola Scriptura. The prophet Isaiah explained:
Isaiah 8:16-20
16Bind up the testimony, seal the law among my disciples. 17And I will wait upon the LORD, that hideth his face from the house of Jacob, and I will look for him. 18Behold, I and the children whom the LORD hath given me are for signs and for wonders in Israel from the LORD of hosts, which dwelleth in mount Zion. 19And when they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards that peep, and that mutter: should not a people seek unto their God? for the living to the dead? 20To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
And the Psalmist declares:
Psalm 19:7 The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.
As mentioned in my opening essay, there are two main questions to be considered. The first question is whether the Scriptures are an authority – a source to which Christians can turn to settle disputes. The second question is whether there is any other authority of equal or greater dignity in our possession.
We have seen in this debate that it is undisputed that the Bible is God’s Word and that the Bible is a rule of faith. That is to say, the first question has been answered in the affirmative. The only real question that is raised is whether the negative, MB, has identified any other rule of faith besides the Bible. It would be unreasonable to ask the affirmative to prove a universal negative. MB seems, at least implicitly, to have acknowledged this burden to identify at least one additional rule of faith, and has attempted to provide such an alternative rule: the teachings of his church. In other words, the only question left to be decided is whether there is any other authority of equal or greater dignity in our possession.
In the Bible, only the Bible is described as being inspired. Even if MB had claimed inspiration for his church, the Bible only describes Scripture as inspired. That is why Jerome, in his comments on Haggai, wrote: “The sword of God smites whatever they draw and forge from a pretended (quasi) apostolic tradition, without the authority and testimony of the Scriptures.” The sword of God, is (of course) as described by Augustine, in the City of God, “And Scripture says that the word of God is a doubly sharp sword, on account of the two edges, the two Testaments.”
Although MB makes a claim that the extra-Scriptural Traditions of his church (both Hand-Me-Down-Tradition HMDT and Interpretative-Authority-Tradition IAT) are the Word of God, on this point he disagrees with his own pope, who stated (in “The Transmission of Divine Revelation,” written before Ratzinger had been made pope): “It is important to note that only Scripture is defined in terms of what it is: it is stated that Scripture is the Word of God consigned to writing. Tradition, however, is described only functionally, in terms of what it does: it hands on the word of God, but is not the Word of God.”
And in this matter Ambrose (in Cain and Abel) agrees, identifying Scripture and the Word of God: “What is the mark of a Christian? Faith working by charity. What is the mark of faith? A sure conviction of the truth of the inspired words, not to be shaken by any process of reasoning, nor by the alleging of natural requirements, nor by the pretences of false piety. What is the mark of a faithful soul? To be in these dispositions of full acceptance on the authority of the words [of the Scripture], not venturing to reject anything - nor making additions. For, if 'all that is not of faith is sin’ as the Apostle says, and 'faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God’ everything outside Holy Scripture, not being of faith, is sin.” And recall that Augustine made the same identification in the quotation provided above. But MB boldly but wrongly claims “Sacred Tradition is not an addition to Sacred Scripture in as much [sic] as they are both the Word of God.” (Negative Answer to Question 2)
There were ten sections of the Westminster Confession of Father, chapter 1, that were under consideration, as laid out in my opening essay. Section 1 related to the fact that revelation today comes to us through Scripture.
It is similar to what John of Damascus declared when he wrote (in An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith): “Nevertheless, God has not gone so far as to leave us in complete ignorance, for through nature the knowledge of the existence of God has been revealed by Him to all men. The very creation of its harmony and ordering proclaims the majesty of the divine nature. Indeed, He has given us knowledge of Himself in accordance with our capacity, at first through the Law and the Prophets and then afterwards through His only-begotten Son, our Lord and God and Saviour, Jesus Christ. Accordingly, we accept all those things that have been handed down by the Law and the Prophets and the Apostles and the Evangelists, and we know and revere them, and over and above these things we seek nothing else.” Notice that he ends by stating that over and above the Apostles, Evangelists, Law, and the Prophets he states that he seeks nothing else.
Sections 2 and 3 related to the 66 book canon and the rejection of the apocryphal so-called “deuterocanonical” books. MB cannot reasonably dispute the NT portion of that canon, and Jesus’ own testimony in the NT establishes the shorter Jewish canon over the expanded canons held by various churches. It is interesting to note that the “ancient churches” that MB refers to hold to various expanded canons, but the Greek Orthodox have a different canon from the Ethiopian Orthodox who have a different canon from the papists themselves. Furthermore, of course, MB is well aware that notable early Christian writers such as Jerome rejected the deuterocanonicals, and that even up to the council of Trent, there was division at the highest levels of the church of Rome over whether the deuterocanonicals should be considered of binding authority or merely as useful ancient writings, with Cardinal Cajetan taking the latter position.
Section 4 states that the authority of Scripture comes solely from its divine authorship, and not from the testimony of the church. This view is reflected in Augustine’s comment in Of the Unity of the Church, “Let us not hear, You say this, I say that; but let us hear Thus saith the Lord. There are the Dominical books, whose authority we both acknowledge, we both yield to, we both obey; there let us seek the Church, there let us discuss the question between us.” The church gets its authority by following Scripture, not the other way around.
Section 5 relates to the fact that although the Church testifies to the inspiration of Scripture, the final authority and basis for our acceptance of their testimony is not their own word for it, or the inherent beauty of Scripture, but the inward testimony of the Holy Spirit. Augustine’s letter to Paulina reflects this same concept when it declares, “I do not want you to depend on my authority, so as to think that you must believe something because it is said by me; you should rest your belief either on the canonical Scriptures, if you do not yet see how true something is, or on the truth made manifest to you interiorly, so that you may see clearly.”
Section 6 relates to the sufficiency of Scripture. As Athanasius expressed it, “the holy and inspired Scriptures are fully sufficient for the proclamation of saving truth.” Indeed, as pointed out in my opening essay, this is the same point that the earliest fathers had to raise against the heretics who tried to claim apostolic unwritten tradition in order to substantiate their views, accusing the Scriptures of deficiency rather than sufficiency. From what I gather, MB has only attacked this point implicitly, hinting that without HMDT and IAT the Reformed believer has an incomplete picture of the Word of God. In contrast, however, Scripture itself declares that the Scriptures are able to thoroughly furnish the man of God.
Section 7 relates to the perspicuity of Scripture. As William Whitaker in the 16th century noted, even the papists recognize the truth of this principle: “Indeed all the papists in their books, when they seek to prove any thing, boast everywhere that they can bring arguments against us from the most luminous, plain, clear and manifest testimonies of Scripture . . . For in every dispute their common phrases are,—This is clear,—This is plain,—This is manifest in the scriptures, and such like. Surely when they speak thus, they ignorantly and unawares confess the perspicuity of the scriptures even in the greatest questions and controversies.”
Section 8 relates to the fact that the authentic version of Scriptures are the Hebrew and Greek originals. Jerome, Origen, and other church fathers likewise agree to this fact, and MB has not challenged this truth, despite Trent’s seeming view that the authentic version of the Scripture is the “Old Latin Vulgate” version. Possibly this is simply a reflection of the de-latinization of Post-Vatican-2 popery.
Section 9 relates to the fact that Scripture is Scripture’s interpreter. Contrary to the claims of IAT proposed by MB, a consequence of Scripture’s sufficiency is that Scripture is not in need of the interpretation of the church in order to be understood properly. Thus, Jerome could write in a homily on the Psalms, “Some may say: ‘You are forcing the Scripture, that is not what it means.’ Let Holy Writ be its own interpreter … .”
Section 10 relates to the fact that the supreme arbiter among men is not the church but the Word of God in Scripture. Gregory of Nyssa recognized the need for this doctrine, when he wrote, “We do not think that it is right to make their prevailing custom the law and rule of sound doctrine. For if custom is to avail for proof of soundness, we too, surely, may advance our prevailing custom; and if they reject this, we are surely not bound to follow theirs. Let the inspired Scripture, then, be our umpire, and the vote of truth will surely be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words.”
This summary of doctrines was defended not only on the basis of its footnoted prooftexts from Scripture, but also from the testimony of the writers of the early church. In addition, a positive presentation from Holy Scripture itself was presented, and was addressed by MB not with a contrary exegesis, but simply with handwaving, asserting that “TF then quotes the Scriptures out of context …” without substantiating this claim.
MB’s own positive presentation is rather lacking. Although MB attempts to set forth his church’s position on the issue of Scripture, we discovered that MB has made some errors in his presentation, not following the teachings of his church fully. Part of the problem is that even now, MB’s church is internally divided over the issue of whether the correct view is “partim partim” or rather a view of material sufficiency should be adopted. While MB wants to claim that his position is the correct one, we have seen his position contradicted by the statements of his own popes. Either way, however, we have seen MB try to claim that the rule of faith is not Scriptures alone but Scriptures Plus, despite his attempted denial of this logical consequence of asserting that HMDT and IAT are also a rule of faith, in addition to Scripture.
MB makes an argument from what he thinks are the teachings of “the Church,” but as Augustine put it, in his essay on Church Unity: “Whoever dissents from the sacred Scriptures, even if they are found in all places in which the church is designated, are not the church.”
MB’s attempt to appeal to the Jews fell short. As MB himself admitted in his opening statement, the Rabbis did not have the guidance of the Holy Spirit that MB believes that “Jesus guaranteed we would have” (MB has failed to recognize that this guarantee is met in Scripture).
Likewise, MB’s attempt to attack the authority of the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) was lacking. The WCF does not claim to be self-authoritative, but derives its authority from its agreement with Scripture. Unfortunately, MB seems to have interpreted the WCF through the lenses of his own church’s method of asserting authority for itself. MB fails to recognize that the WCF is more like Augustine who wrote, in his treatise on the Trinity: “So to the latter I say, Do not correct my writings according to the standard of your own opinion or argument, but according to that of the divine Scriptures or irrefutable reason, But if you find anything in them that is true, this is not mine by the mere fact that it is there, and by understanding and loving it, it will become yours as well as mine; but if you find anything false, then the error was mine, but if we avoid it, it will be neither yours nor mine.”
Or, as Jerome put it, “For all questions, let us seek for suitable beams from the testimonies of the Scriptures, and cut them down, and build the house of wisdom within us,” in his comments on Haggai. And again, in his commentary on Matthew, “That which does not have authority from the Scriptures, we may as readily despise (contemn), as well approve.” Jerome clearly saw the unique position of Scripture in establishing doctrines.
MB claims that “we can find ample evidence proving that the Deuterocanonical books were considered Scripture by most Christians for the first 300-400 years,” but MB’s claim is based on focusing on those Christians unfamiliar with the difference between the Jewish canon and the canon of the so-called Septuagint. MB argues from the most ignorant against the most educated of the early church fathers.
MB also presents the issue of contraception. However, as already noted, MB does not and cannot provide a Scriptural case for his position in this regard, leaning instead on the traditions of the men of his church. Meanwhile, during the debate MB complains about the cursory treatment I give to contraception while he provides no treatment at all of the much more relevant innovation of papal infallibility. MB is simply either unwilling or (as seems more probably) unable to provide any defense for this innovation of his church in creating a new rule of faith unknown to even the medieval period.
Throughout the debate, MB is unable to substantiate either HMDT or IAT. IAT is particularly troubling for MB, because not only Scripture but also the early Christian writers are completely silent on this category. HMDT is not so bad, but MB overlooks that all the patristic references to HMDT are either to Scripture (which was handed down from the apostles. For example, in Basil’s Morals, he states: “What is the mark of a Christian? That his justice abound in all things more than that of the scribes and Pharisees, according to the rule of the doctrine which has been handed down in the Lord's Gospel.”) or to customs, such as infant baptism, the celebration of Easter, and the like.
MB seems to fail to appreciate that the only doctrines we can definitively say were handed by the Apostles are those found in Scripture. If one could establish that, for example, that the blanket prohibition on contraception or the view of papal infallibility were the teachings of the apostles, who would refuse to accept them? However, one cannot establish those things as a matter of historical fact. In fact, history does not support such claims, with history only evidencing (and powerfully evidencing) the apostolicity of the New Testament.
As noted above, MB appeals to the “unanimous clear witness of every ancient church before the Reformation” as allegedly denying Sola Scriptura. Unfortunately for MB’s claim, however, MB is not referring to the ancient statements of these “ancient churches” but modern statements of these churches. Furthermore, even if these “ancient churches” are united against Sola Scriptura, they are also (excepting MB’s own church) united against the unscriptural and unhistorical claim of papal infallibility. MB does not listen to them on the latter issue, so why does he expect us to listen to them on the former issue?
We see this same inconsistency in MB’s presentation over and over again. No source that MB relies upon fully agrees with him – even his own pope (in writings from his pre-papal days) denies that Tradition is the Word of God, contrary to MB’s dogmatic assertions. MB appeals to the Jews for the concept of an “Oral Torah” (the very “traditions of men” rejected by Jesus) but then refuses to accept their canon of the Old Testament. Most of all, though history and the fathers are referenced by MB, it is history and the fathers that demonstrate the fact that the general consensus among the educated church fathers was Sola Scriptura.
MB asks whether “we [are] to assume that the Church that Jesus Christ is the head of gives us false doctrine?” Let us simply ask him who gave the church fathers their doctrine? Was it from “the Church” or from Scripture or from where? Since their agreement with the doctrine of Sola Scriptura has been shown, let MB blush to call them all heretics for asserting the same doctrines as we do.
In this debate, MB’s five answers to the five questions really demonstrate why Sola Scriptura has prevailed.
To the many quotations demonstrating that it was common for the ECFs to define the church in terms of believers (rather than defining the church in terms of communion with Rome), Mr. Bellisario asserted “selected emphasis” on my part and claimed he reads the fathers “in their complete context” but couldn’t even produce a single quotation to suggest that anyone defined the church in terms of communion with Rome. Instead, MB provides a quotation from Irenaeus allegedly demonstrating apostolic succession through bishops and the idea that people can appeal to the ancient churches, a questionable quotation from Cyprian of Carthage that Cyprian that he either did not write or later repudiated on the primacy of Peter, and a quotation from Ephraim of Syria on the primacy of Peter.
To the demonstration of the “two sources” position in official Catholicism demonstrating that “Scripture Plus” is an accurate characterization, MB appealed to mystery to solve the contradiction between his explanation and the explanation in the official sources. Furthermore, he went on to insist that Tradition (specifically IAT, if he was answering the question asked) is a form of Divine Revelation, despite the fact that Catholicism teaches that public revelation ceased with the death of the last apostle. “. The term “public Revelation” refers to the revealing action of God directed to humanity as a whole and which finds its literary expression in the two parts of the Bible: the Old and New Testaments.” (theological commentary on Fatima by Ratzinger) Furthermore, MB claimed that Tradition like Scripture is “the Word of God,” contrary to the teachings of Cardinal Ratzinger (now Benedict XVI) (quotation provided earlier in this essay). He provided some quotations regarding how in Catholicism it is believed that Tradition and Scripture cannot stand without each other, but this – of course – in no way denies that Catholicism teaches that Tradition is an authority that is additional to Scripture.
To the request that MB identify patristic teachings of infallible IAT, MB provided five quotations from three early Christian writers, but none of them made mention of infallible IAT. Instead, the first mentioned the idea that Orthopraxy accompanies Scripture, its orthodox interpretation, and “the truth … of all the Christian traditions,” the second and third identify the practice (i.e. custom) of infant baptism as allegedly an apostolic tradition (its unclear whether MB acknowledges that infant baptism is taught in Scripture or whether this is supposed to be HMDT), the fourth and fifth were presented to allegedly show that Athanasius thought that the Church’s interpretation was an infallible one. Athanasius, of course, explicitly affirmed Sola Scripture even in the face of a corrupt church that was promulgating heresy (“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.”)
Furthermore, MB’s misuse of the quotations is an example of the very “selected emphasis” error he attempts to assert against others. In the quotation from Athanasius, the “they do not rightly know them nor their power” is a reference to Scriptures (i.e. the opinions handed down) not to the “traditions of men” from which Athanasius distinguishes them. MB even goes so far as to falsely claim that Athanasius “does not appeal to Sacred Scripture outside of this understanding,” which we have already shown is false with explicit quotations affirming Sola Scriptura in Athanasius. Thus, Athanasius wrote to Alexander of Constantinople saying of the Arians, “They are not ashamed to oppose the godly clearness of the ancient scriptures.”
To the question of how believers can judge whether their teachers are false (as commanded in Scripture, such as in 1 John 4:1), MB was unable to answer. Instead, MB presented arguments that, just because believers must judge their teachers, doesn’t mean that they can only refer to Scripture. Furthermore, MB is unable to explain why he argues the opposite of Augustine. The reader can see that the reason is that unlike Augustine, MB must rely on the self-proclaimed authority of his church, rather than on the authority of Scriptures alone.
Where do you see the Sola Scriptura humility of Augustine in Catholicism? Augustine wrote, “I do not want you to depend on my authority, so as to think that you must believe something because it is said by me; you should rest your belief either on the canonical Scriptures, if you do not yet see how true something is, or on the truth made manifest to you interiorly, so that you may see clearly,” but one does not see MB’s church making that claim.
Chrysostom, commenting on John’s gospel, explained the answer that MB should have realized was true: “With good reason did He call Scripture a 'door.' For it leads us to God and opens to us the knowledge of God; it makes us His sheep; it guards us; and it does not permit the wolves to enter. Indeed, just as a door provides security, so Scripture prevents the entrance of heretics, places us in safety with regard to all our desires, and does not permit us to go astray. If we do not remove it, we shall not easily be overcome by our enemies. By means of it we shall be able to discriminate between all men: both the true shepherds and those who are not.”
MB was also unable to answer the question of the canon of IAT and HMDT. This naturally takes away all the force of his canon argument against Sola Scriptura since he is unable to provide a canon for his counter-plan of Scripture Plus. Amazingly, MB further concedes that “Tradition does not produce any new content in regards [sic] to the Word of God.” Of course, if that is true, then Scriptures, which are without doubt the Word of God, already have all the content of the Word of God including the canon of Scripture (if that is indeed a part of the Word of God). Of course, on this, MB disagrees with Cardinal Ratzinger as already quoted in Question 2.
In the second phase of cross-examination, MB provided several questions. His first question related to the alleged disuse of sola scriptura by the Jews. It was an odd question, since it was premised on facts that MB himself rejected as untrue in his opening statement. The Jewish traditions were fallible, not infallible. So, whether Jewish writers (“scholars”) today think otherwise is really a moot point.
Besides, there is a limit to what trust one must place in Jewish traditions. As Chrysostom wrote against Judaizing Christians, “Finally, if the ceremonies of the Jews move you to admiration, what do you have in common with us? If the Jewish ceremonies are venerable and great, ours are lies. But if ours are true, as they are true, theirs are filled with deceit. I am not speaking of the Scriptures. Heaven forbid! It was the Scriptures which took me by the hand and led me to Christ.”
MB’s second question related to the perspicuity of Scripture. Here MB (apparently for the first time) attempted to challenge the doctrine taught by the Early Church Fathers and the WCF that the necessary things for salvation are clearly taught in Scripture.
As Lactantius declared in the Divine Institutes, however, “For, being accustomed to sweet and polished speeches or poems, they despise the simple and common language of the sacred writings as mean. For they seek that which may soothe the senses. But whatever is pleasant to the ear effects persuasion, and while it delights fixes itself deeply within the breast. Is God, therefore, the contriver both of the mind, and of the voice, and of the tongue, unable to speak eloquently? Yea, rather, with the greatest foresight, He wished those things which are divine to be without adornment, that all might understand the things which He Himself spoke to all.”
MB’s third question demonstrated his apparent lack of historical knowledge of the church. Apparently imagining that Christendom 1000 years ago looked something like Christendom today, he asked for evidence of something like the Westminster Confession and some group of Christians before the 16th century who believed what we do. Then, he insisted that I not cite the Early Church Fathers in my defense. There’s an obvious reason why he asked for that: because all that the WCF has to say on Sola Scriptura can be found in the ECFs, and MB knows that. This is adequately evidenced above.
MB’s fourth question regarding the Nicene Creed has already been thoroughly addressed in the cross-examination portion. One might simply add to that discussion the testimony of Niceta of Remesiana, who wrote: “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.”
MB’s fifth question largely repeated earlier themes, and has been adequately and thoroughly rebutted in the answer portion of the cross-examination section.
Thankfully, MB did not appeal to the so-called “unanimous consent of the fathers.” As Fitzmyer explains: “No one can ever tell us where such a ‘unanimous consent of the Fathers’ is to be found, and Pius XII finally thought it pertinent to call attention to the fact that there are but few texts whose sense has been defined by the authority of the Church, ‘nor are those more numerous about which the teaching of the Holy Fathers is unanimous.’” (Scripture, the Soul of Theology, p. 70)
Has the burden been met? It has been demonstrated that Scripture speaks only of itself as inspired, that Scripture thoroughly (completely) furnishes the man of God, and that the bulk of the educated church fathers held to Scripture as the sole infallible rule of faith.
What is left? There is nothing but the sole rule of faith – even that commended by Jesus who commanded us to Search the Scriptures.
Basil, in his treatise on Baptism, wrote: “You could find many passages of this sort in the writings of the evangelists and the Apostle. Now, then, if a command be given and the manner of carrying it out is not added, let us obey the Lord, who says: 'Search the Scriptures.' Let us follow the example of the Apostles who questioned the Lord Himself as to the interpretation of His words, and learn the true and salutary course from His words in another place.”
Or to put it otherwise, as Basil of Caesarea declared (in Of Virtue and Life), “All the commands of the Savior are written.”
-TurretinFan
(written without the benefit of MB’s conclusion)
Monday, December 1, 2008
Affirmative Concluding Essay
Negative Closing Essay
Sola Scriptura Closing Essay Negative
By Matthew James Bellisario 2008
Summary
I will close by summing up the failure of Turretin Fan to prove his position of Sola Scriptura beyond a reasonable doubt. Turretin Fan agreed to the task of proving the affirmative position of the doctrine Sola Scriptura. That means he must provide a solid case to prove his premise. I propose that not only did he not do this, he did not even come within a stones throw of doing so. It is clear that there is more clear evidence for Scripture in Tradition than for Scripture Alone.
Point 1. Scripture does not provide any substance for the Doctrine of Sola Scriptura
Turretin Fan started off by using passages of Scripture to try and prove his position. In my opening rebuttal I went through almost every Biblical verse he provided and proved that they did not address Scripture as being the only rule of faith. In fact every verse he cited never proposed such a teaching. Turretin fell into the logical fallacy of Petitio Principii. He wants us to believe that every Biblical reference to the profitability and importance of Sacred Scripture means that it proves his position of Scripture Alone, when in fact none of the passages do so. As I pointed out in my opening rebuttal, just because the Scriptures are spoken of as being profitable, and should be held in high regard does not mean it is the sole substance of the Gospel separated from Sacred Tradition. He has to prove this first before he can use any of the Scripture verses he provided, for none of them say anything even close to substantiating Scripture alone.
Point 2. Sacred Scripture and the early Church writings substantiate Scripture in Tradition as well as the authority of the Church.
The Sacred Scriptures do give testimony to both written and unwritten forms of Divine Revelation and testify to the authority of the Church. The Sacred Scriptures tell us in I Tim 3:15, “But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.” Ephesians 3:10-13 tells us, “That the manifold wisdom of God may be made known to the principalities and powers in heavenly places through the church, According to the eternal purpose, which he made, in Christ Jesus our Lord: In whom we have boldness and access with confidence by the faith of him. Wherefore I pray you not to faint at my tribulations for you, which is your glory.”
I provided a source from Saint John Chrysostom which was never refuted which proves a Catholic interpretation of 2nd Thessalonians proving that not all Christian teaching was given to us in written form. Saint Chrysostom in his homily on the Second Letter to the Thessalonians speaks on the 2nd Chapter and 15th verse, “So then, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye were taught, whether by word, or by Epistle of ours. ”Hence it is manifest, that they did not deliver all things by Epistle, but many things also unwritten, and in like manner both the one and the other are worthy of credit. Therefore let us think the tradition of the Church also worthy of credit. It is a tradition, seek no farther. Here he shows that there were many who were shaken.” We can see Saint John interpreted this verse as Catholics do, and not as Tf does. This is also a clear example of Tradition in action regarding proper interpretation of Scripture.
I quoted Saint Irenaeus proving that he also perceived the Church as being the primary authority. Saint Irenaeus (c202AD) also tells us in Against Heresies, the 3rd book, 4th Chapter that the Church gives us all things pertaining to the truth, “1. Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth: so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. 17. For she is the entrance to life; all others are thieves and robbers. On this account are we bound to avoid them, but to make choice of the thing pertaining to the Church with the utmost diligence, and to lay hold of the tradition of the truth. For how stands the case? Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question Latin, “modica quæstione.” among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches?”
I also quoted Saint Epiphanius of Salamis who wrote in his Panacea against all heresies, “It is needful also to make use of Tradition; for not everything can be gotten from Sacred Scripture. The holy Apostles handed down some things in the Scriptures, other things in Tradition.” Thus I provided a substantial argument for my position from both Sacred Scripture and early Church sources that Turretin Fan could provide not in his affirmative position.
Point 3. All Ancient churches profess Scripture in Tradition.
I provided several sources from other ancient churches other than the Catholic church regarding Sacred Tradition. I provided several sources including the Coptic Church. When I asked Turretin Fan to give me a profession of a “church” before the “Reformation” the best he could offer was the Waldensian confession, which was not from a “church” at all. In fact the Church's bishops rejected their errors. Secondly it appears that Turretin Fan did a quick search on the internet for his date of this “confession” because he provided an incorrect date of 1120. All real scholars and historian agree that the movement didn't even begin until 1170. I did a little research and found that only a couple of websites gives a date of 1120. They are questionable sources at best. It so happens that if you go to Google and type in Waldensian confession, the first website that comes up says the confession is from 1120. Upon real research however I discovered that real scholars from Cambridge, Oxford and the like put a date of 1170 for the earliest beginning of the movement. Secondly this tiny schismatic group is far from “reformed” since they too believed in doctrines such as Transubstantiation as well as most of the Catholic teachings. The fact is their first confession written in 1180 and was seeking the establishment and approval from the Catholic Church for his group called the Poor of Lyons, and it spoke nothing of Scripture Alone in it. It wasn't until much later that the group would start rejecting Church teachings. If this is the best Turretin has to offer for a church document proving Sola Scriptura then we have nothing to worry about. This group during the early period 1180-1200s) never established their own “church”. They were in fact excommunicated as schismatics in 1184 by the bishops of the Church, and were not formally anathematized until 1215. This is clearly a poor example given by TF in a desperate attempt to find a church profession like his existing before the “Reformation.” It obviously was not.
Point 4 Proper Interpretation of Scripture abandoned in favor fallible tools?
I asked TF why we should believe that his interpretation of Sacred Scripture is the correct one. He gave us a circular answer by stating, “ compare my interpretation to the infallible rule of faith (Scripture), pray to God for wisdom, use the fallible tools that you have (whether that be lexicons, church teachings, etc.), and see whether my interpretations are correct.” So now TF wants us to incorporate fallible rules of faith to establish what the real interpretation of Scripture is? I find this reasoning quite off balance, since we can obviously never obtain a proper interpretation with fallible tools . This is precisely why you need the Church which is infallible, and not fallible man made confessions to arrive at proper exegesis. Every single “Protestant” denomination uses this faulty method, and that is why they all believe something different.
Point 5 Necessary teaching, is not necessary to know?
I am completely amazed by this statement to my question on defining what and what is not necessary regarding doctrine. This is the answer Tf gave me. “First, knowing what is necessary (or not) to salvation is not itself necessary to salvation.” Tf is completely lost at this point. He is using faulty logic and cryptic reasoning to give you the impression he has an argument. For example, “We are not claiming that Scripture clearly delineates each of the necessary from all the unnecessary, but that Scripture clearly teaches those things that are themselves necessary (such as, for example, theism).” Does any rational person use reasoning like this? We as Catholics know, what is necessary for salvation, and what is necessary as Church doctrine period. We don't have to dance around the issue like he does. It is clear that he must moves clam shells around to avoid answering the question.
Point 6 The Church: When you cant win, use selective emphasis.
I pointed out the characteristics of the true Church, and TF decided to selectively quote church fathers to back up his deficient definition of Church. I then took the same Church fathers he quoted and demonstrated how his view of the Church was an incomplete one by quoting other writings which gave us a more complete picture of what they believed. This is important because we can see that the Church itself is infallible, contrary to the statements of TF.
Point 7 The Jews and Scripture Alone
I pulled from two Jewish scholars and proved that the ancient Jewish faith did not believe in Scripture Alone. Tf never refuted with any substantial evidence from any source other than his own opinion. He thinks his own opinion and expertise on the Jewish religion is superior to the two scholars I provided. I find that amusing, and quite absurd. Secondly he confuses divine revelation before and after Christ by trying to pin me down to the Jewish Canon of Scripture. We all know that there was not a real Jewish canon until after Christ came. This is not even rational argumentation. We know the Church would decide what would be the final biblical canon, not the Jews, nor TF. This is just poor argumentation. He is not even equating apples to apples here. He then continued to show his ignorance by equating Jewish practices with Jewish oral Tradition, which are two different matters. He quoted Chrysostom out of context. Chrysostom was talking about incorporating Jewish practices into Christian worship and the like, which I never even addressed. I clearly compared oral Torah to written Torah. It is clear that the Jews did not hold to Scripture Alone. That is my point. I don't care about incorporating Jewish practices into Christianity. Why Tf feels the need to bring something into the argument that isn't even being addressed is obvious. He needs to deflect the obvious fact the the Jews never held to Scripture Alone. This is a fact. They believed that there was oral and written divine revelation, just as the Church now does. Sacred Tradition was never condemned by Christ as Tf declares. He rejected traditions of men.
Closing remarks.
Even though I have a 5000 word limit in this closing essay, I don't feel the need to use them. Turretin was defeated because he could not provide one Scripture passage that tells us that Scripture Alone is the sole rule of faith. He failed because the constant universal testimony of the Church testifies to Scripture in Tradition. This includes every ancient church in the world including those not in communion with Rome. Tf resorted to the fallacy of selective emphasis on many occasions rather than presenting the full story, whether it be from the Church Fathers or the Sacred Scriptures.
I demonstrated the fact that Sacred Tradition indeed is a testimony of the Church. The witness of the living Church in her Liturgies, her writings, and Scripture attest to this fact. In my essays I provided a detailed source list for further reading as well as providing a basis for my arguments. It is clear that Turretin Fan has not won the affirmative position of this debate.
Sources from all of my essays.
Ariel, David S. What Do Jews Believe. New York: Schocken Books, 1995.
Ratzinger, Joseph. God's Word. San Francisco: Ignatius P, 2008.
Hahn, Scott. Letter and Spirit. New York: Doubleday, 2005
Fagerberg, David. The Liturgical Mystery and the Mystery of God (Letter and Spirit Journal Vol2) Steubenville, Saint Paul Center for Biblical Theology 2006
Provan, Charles D. The Bible and Birth Control. Monongahela PA: Zimmer Printing 1989
Steinsaltz, Adin. The Essential Talmud. New York: Basic Books, 2006.
Lossky, Vladimir. In the Image and Likeness of God. Crestwood NY: St Vladimir's Seminary Press, 2005
Fortescue, Adrain. The Early Papacy. San Francisco: Ignatius Press 2008
Metzger, Bruce M., and May, Herbert G., New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha Expanded Edition RSV. New York: Oxford UP, 1977.
Catechism of the Catholic Church, Libreria Editrice Vatican 1997
Holy See, ed. "Catechism of the Catholic Church." Vatican.Va. Vatican/Holy See. .
Dei Verbum, Second Vatican Council
Fr. George Florovsky, Bible, Church, Tradition: An Eastern Orthodox View, pp. 48-49
http://www.copticchurch.net/topics/thecopticchurch/church3-3.html)
Gordon-Conwell Seminary
Saturday, November 1, 2008
Answer 5 from Affirmative
MB: “God has always put forth His authority in a living entity.”
MB: “In the Old Covenant He gave the Jews the living Levitical priesthood to interpret the Living Tradition and the Sacred Scriptures put forth by God as Divine Revelation. There was a visible authority for the Jews to follow. Judaism was never a Scripture alone faith.”
See Answer 1. Additionally, the Levitical priesthood’s primarily purpose was carrying out the sacrificial system, not serving as lawyers.
MB: “We see a continuation of this with Jesus, the Word of God coming in the flesh to become the high priest who gave us a Church as "the pillar and foundation of truth" (1 Tim. 3:15).”
The church can have the purpose of being “the pillar and foundation of truth” without always achieving that objective to the highest degree. Recall that the Sanhedrin had the Mosaic legislative role, but poorly executed it.
MB: “He also gave us a living Sacred Tradition and the Sacred Scriptures within this structure (2 Thess. 2:15, 1 Cor. 11:2).”
The prooftexts don’t support MB’s claim.
MB: “The Church structure is visible ("I will build my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it" Matt. 16:18), it is passed down through apostolic succession.”
The comment about building His church doesn’t imply a “visible structure.” Jesus was a carpenter, but the church He built didn’t come from a lumberyard. Likewise, the gates of hell are metaphorical, not literal.
MB: “Christ told the disciples: "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me" (Luke 10:16)”
That proves the authority of the Scriptures those disciples passed down.
MB: “and the Church maintains a character of authority (Matt. 18:18),”
We agree that the church has authority, derivative authority.
MB: “just as the Nicene Creed also professes.”
Not true, see Answer 4.
MB: “By this Church entity given to us by Christ we can know the correct interpretations of Sacred Scripture and what the full deposit of Divine Revelation is.”
Even prooftexting fails MB, since Scriptures are unaware of the theology of Vatican II.
MB: “The chair of Saint Peter (John 21:15–17 "Feed my sheep . . . ", Luke 22:32 "I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail", and Matthew 16:18 "You are Peter . . . ") was given to us just as the Jews had the chair of Moses (Matt. 23:2) as the uniting visible head of the Church, although Jesus Christ remains the true head of the Church (Hebrews 2:17) , he also gave us the Holy Spirit to guide it infallibly as well (John 16:13).”
The Bible doesn’t mention a “chair of Peter.” The passages cited don’t stand for the idea of Petrine primacy. Interestingly, MB decided to make a presentation for Petrine primacy in the fathers.
MB provided a quotation from Ambrose that Peter was the rock and foundation of the church. Despite insistence that Sola Scriptura advocates must find “alone” in their texts, Ambrose doesn’t say that Peter “alone” is the foundation. Furthermore, Ambrose himself goes on to say in book 5 that “the Person of Christ” “is the foundation of all and is the head of the Church,” having already said in book 2, “Nor was Paul inferior to Peter though the latter was the foundation of the Church.”
MB provided a quotation from Augustine that actually undermines his “Peter alone” theory, since Augustine states, “Some things are said which seem to relate especially to the apostle Peter, and yet are not clear in their meaning unless referred to the Church, which he is acknowledged to have represented in a figure ….”
MB provided a quotation allegedly from the Council of Ephesus, but in fact the simply the statement of Philip, a presbyter from
MB: “You said in your rebuttal, ‘Our interpretations are fallible, but Scripture is infallible.’”
Yes, because it is the Word of God: the only infallible Being.
Isaiah 40:6-8
6The voice said, Cry. And he said, What shall I cry? All flesh is grass, … surely the people is grass. 8The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.
1 Peter 1:24-25
24For all flesh is as grass … The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: 25But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.
MB asked, “If all interpretations of the Sacred Scriptures are fallible as you claim, then how can anyone know for sure what the correct interpretation is without an authority higher than the Scriptures themselves?”
Man can wish otherwise, but it is intrinsic to mankind in this life to fallibly interpret. There’s no way around it. The appropriate mechanism for understanding Scripture is comparing Scripture to Scripture, asking the Holy Spirit for assistance, and utilizing the subservient tools God has given us.
MB secondly asked, “Should we believe you just because you say so, or some confession says so?”
No. See Answer 4.
MB: “Of course one would answer with “the Holy Spirit tells us”, but every one of the 9000 denominations all tell us this as well.”
With respect to the counterplan – one is in the same boat: “my church tells me,” is the same thing that all the denominations that reject Sola Scriptura likewise say.
MB thirdly asked, “My question is, who can interpret the Sacred Scriptures infallibly, and how can we know for sure without a visible God breathed Church entity as the one I have pointed out above?”
God alone is infallible. The only God-breathed entity described in Scripture is Scripture itself. If MB wishes to claim that his church is inspired, he steps not only beyond Scripture and the early church, but even beyond the teaching authority of his own church.
-TurretinFan
Answer 4 from Affirmative
MB’s next questions relate to the Nicene Creed, which he thinks is: “professed by every ancient Christian church in existence as containing a sound foundation to Christianity.”
The two Councils (respectively composing and revising it) provided a creed: a short recital of important Scriptural doctrines not the foundation itself.
As Augustine, in sermon 212, explained:
“We call it Creed or symbolum, transferring the term by a kind of simile, because merchants draw up for themselves a syrnbolum by which their alliance is held bound as by a pact of fidelity. Your union, moreover, is a spiritual fellowship, so that you are like traders seeking a valuable pearl, that is, the charity which will be poured forth in your hearts by the Holy Spirit who will be given to you. One makes progress toward this charity by faith in what is contained in the Creed: that you believe in God the Father Almighty, the invisible, immortal King of ages, the Creator of things visible and invisible; and in whatever else either sound reason or the authority of holy Scripture worthily tells us about Him.”
John Cassian, in Book VI, Chapter III, explained:
“For as you know a Creed (Symbolum) gets its name from being a collection. For what is called in Greek σίμβολο is termed in Latin “Collatio.” But it is therefore a collection (collation) 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 fulness 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.”
Cassian described the Creed of Antioch, and Augustine apparently the so-called Apostle’s creed, but both explain that creeds were derived from the foundation of Scripture, Cassian more explicitly and Augustine less explicitly.
MB asked (first question), “Why does this Creed not profess Scripture Alone, and instead focuses on the Church?”
Only once does the creed mention why the miraculous is believed: the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. The one reason for believing: Scripture. Furthermore, discussing how the Holy Spirit speaks, the creed mentions only that the Holy Spirit is he “Who spake by the prophets.” The word “spake” (λαλησαν) is aorist (perfect in Latin: “locútus est”), indicating something already completed, as opposed to an ongoing process. This too is refers to Scripture, the prophets metonymically representing the inspired writings (cf. Matthew 22:40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.). The creed does not “focus on the Church.”
Toward the end, the Creed lists “[and] (in) one holy, catholic, and apostolic church … ” (Greek version using square brackets, Latin in parentheses). Only such a church’s existence is mentioned. In contrast, the creed refers twice to Scripture, and the creed itself simply summarizes Scriptural doctrine. When it refers to Scripture explicitly, it for establishing the matter, and when it refers to Scripture indirectly (as “the prophets”) it for explaining their authority, namely that God spoke by them. In contrast, the church is not identified in the Nicene Creed as the foundation for anything.
MB continues, “Notice the Creed also does not mention Tradition either, since it is obvious that it resides in the structure of the Church.” “Either”? It seems MB has gone from missing one of the two references to Scripture in the creed to imagining that Scripture is not mentioned at all. In fact, “tradition” is not mentioned at all – but to suggest that this is because “it resides in the structure of the Church,” doesn’t explain the silence. The Scripture, being itself within Tradition (according to MB) would likewise “reside in the structure of the Church,” but it is explicitly mentioned. So, MB’s explanation of the silence isn’t and shouldn’t be persuasive.
Secondly, MB asks, “My question is, why when this Creed was written was the emphasis put on believing in the Catholic Church, rather than a profession of following the Sacred Scriptures alone?”
a) False dichotomy. We too believe in the one holy, catholic, and apostolic church.
b) Fallacy of selected emphasis. MB’s emphasis is on that clause, but that clause was not the emphasis of the drafters of the creed. It was only added in the revision to the creed at
c) Fallacy of Non Sequitur. Although MB may wish that the creed suggested that men should believe what the “Catholic Church” says, that’s not what the creed says. Instead, the emphasis in the creed is on the unity, universality, and historicity of the church.
Thirdly, MB asked: “After all, if this (Sola Scriptura) is the bedrock of Christianity as you have been trying to prove, then why did this ancient council in the midst of heavy controversy neglect to include this in its Creed?”
Even the Arians were not so foolish as to deny that Scripture is the sole rule of faith; the issue that was being addressed was not the rule of faith, but the divinity of Christ; and they already addressed it as discussed above.
MB finally asked, “An inadvertent omission or error perhaps?” Already answered above.
-TurretinFan
Answer 3 from Affirmative
Question 3 Where is your church and its confession in the world before the 16th century?
Answer: My church is not defined by walls. Instead, my church is defined by faith in the Christ of the Scriptures (as the ECFs taught as already pointed out to you in my first question). As Jesus said:
Matthew 18:20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.
The confession is simply a summary of Scriptural teachings. It does not replace or substitute the Scriptures.
MB claimed, “Your beliefs and opinions regarding Sacred Scripture are found in no church in existence before the … 16th century.” That assertion is not true. Even if it were true, however, it is irrelevant to this debate. That’s not a standard that MB’s counter-plan can stand up to.
MB then identified the statements from my opening post on the canon, the sufficiency of Scripture, and the perspicuity of Scripture. MB acknowledged that, “There are more teachings that I can list, but I will use these for my question.” Picking and choosing teachings is an interesting way to evaluate the matter. Nevertheless, these are what he picked.
MB continued, “In fact whether the church be Syrian, Maronite, Syro-Malankara, Coptic, Ethiopic, Byzantine, Chaldean, Syro-Malabar or Armenian, they all reject your 66 book Canon and they all reject Sola Scriptura.”
It’s interesting that MB tries to use them as a guide. They cannot agree among themselves on the canon or on whether the pope’s ex cathedra statements are part of the rule of faith. They may all wish to add to the Bible in one way or another (as also others do), but their testimony is at odds, one with another. Even within Romanism, there are some who argue that the number of the books in the canon has not been definitively fixed by
MB acknowledged that, “Everyone of these different churches claim and can historically trace their existence back to the apostles themselves.” So can, in the same sense, every church (including the many Reformed churches). The Jews (whether Pharisee, Sadducee, or modern Kabbalist) historically trace themselves back to Moses. But unless MB wants to say that the apostles were divided over papal infallibility and the canon of Scripture, the ability to trace one’s genealogy is simply a Jewish genetic fallacy.
MB claimed, “They all attest to Sacred Scripture within Sacred Tradition.” They themselves cannot agree what the bounds of either Scripture or Tradition are. This actually undermines the counter-plan. One cannot use this genetic fallacy that because these churches can somehow trace themselves back to ancient times, consequently they are right – because they disagree with one another on the very issues that MB tries to make important. Likewise, the exact relationship between Scripture and Tradition is not defined outside of Romanism by the equivalent of Trent and Vatican II. And, of course, before the 16th century there was not even an equivalent to
MB claimed, “All of these Rites exist within the Catholic Church and in the Eastern Orthodox, and hail from all over the world, established by different apostles, yet they all hold to the Catholic teaching of Sacred Tradition.” In fact, however, it’s hard enough for members only of Romanism (whether of the Latin or other rite) to agree on what the teaching of “Sacred Tradition” is. It is the height of naiveté to suppose that all of the listed churches hold to “the Catholic teaching” of the matter.
MB asserted, “If your claim of Sola Scriptura is true, we should see these claims made somewhere among the ancient churches as well.” MB anachronistically calls these modern churches ancient, and ignores the fact that in ancient times these churches did not resort to anything but Scripture as a rule of faith. We have shown that from the writings of the Early Church Fathers.
MB asked, “My question is, where is your
That, again, is two questions (and the third of this round). The answer to the former would include, for example, the Waldensian Confession of 1120. The answer to the latter question may be answered by the simple liturgy of the Waldensians as well. Certainly there have been some questions raised about the historicity of these Waldensian documents, but even those who claim that the Waldensian materials are fake, admit that the Waldensians existed as a group before the 16th century. Ultimately, the problem with the question can be seen from MB’s own caveat:
MB insisted, “Please do not quote Church Fathers individually, since all of the Church Fathers belonged to one of the above groups and all celebrated one of their ancient Liturgies.” It is interesting how quick MB is to try to silence the testimony of the Fathers, and to make unsupported assertions regarding their beliefs/worship. There is no reason for MB to ask that they not be quoted “individually,” except that MB already knows what their testimony would be. For example, MB surely knows that Cardinal Cajetan (writing before
-TurretinFan
Answer 2 from Affirmative
I had written: “(VII) Not all of the teachings of Scripture are equally clear, but the things necessary to be known for salvation are clearly taught, so that even uneducated people can understand them.”
MB asked: “My question is, why should anyone believe that your interpretation of Sacred Scripture or any other Protestant group's interpretation is the correct one, and why should anyone believe that you or they can determine what is necessary and what is not?”
That’s (at least) two questions already (more below). The answer to the first should be obvious: compare my interpretation to the infallible rule of faith (Scripture), pray to God for wisdom, use the fallible tools that you have (whether that be lexicons, church teachings, etc.), and see whether my interpretations are correct. As Augustine put it, in his letter (147) to Paulina: “I do not want you to depend on my authority, so as to think that you must believe something because it is said by me; you should rest your belief either on the canonical Scriptures, if you do not yet see how true something is, or on the truth made manifest to you interiorly, so that you may see clearly.”
The answer to the second is two-fold. First, knowing what is necessary (or not) to salvation is not itself necessary to salvation. Second, one must believe that the Scripture is able to make us wise unto salvation. I don’t insist that people have to delineate precisely what is necessary (versus unnecessary) to know to be saved for themselves to be saved. I wonder whether MB simply has misunderstood the WCF and me. We are not claiming that Scripture clearly delineates each of the necessary from all the unnecessary, but that Scripture clearly teaches those things that are themselves necessary (such as, for example, theism).
MB also asked (third question, for those counting): “Why do so many “necessary” teachings regarding salvation differ from each other, when all of these “denominations” are using the same method that you are using, all claiming that these “necessary” doctrines are so easy to arrive at from Sacred Scripture?”
MB cited a seminary web site that identified 9000 denominations. Although MB thinks “they all profess a belief that everything we need to know about salvation is clear in Sacred Scripture,” MB is mistaken. That 9000 number includes plenty of denominations that don’t profess such a belief. I wish that they all did. I’ll further answer this question with the next.
MB asked (fourthly): “If they are so easy to understand then why isn't something such as salvation and justification agreed upon?”
In broad terms there is wide agreement on things like salvation and justification. The more detail you introduce, the less agreement you see. A simple explanation is that a very detailed understanding is not something necessary for a person to know to be saved. That’s something even most of
a) There are many things that prevent people from seeing clear truths. Sometimes it is hardness of heart – sometimes it is blind guides. (See, for example, Matthew 15:14 Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.)
b) More importantly, there is a difference between knowing the things that are necessary for salvation and knowing which things are necessary for salvation. A simple faith may be unable to explain theology well, but it does not mean that the necessary things are unknown to that person. In other words, one can know the necessary things for salvation without being able clearly to distinguish the necessary things from the remaining things.
c) In broad terms there is wide agreement on things like salvation and justification. The more detail you introduce, the less agreement you see. A simple explanation is that a high level of detail is not something necessary for a person to know in order to be saved. That’s something that would even be admitted by your own church. It is not necessary fully to understand
MB brought up the issue of perseverance; I don’t know very many Christians who would consider that knowing whether people can lose their salvation is something that is necessary for salvation. In fact, we also not saved by knowing how we are saved – we are saved by trusting in the finished work of Christ alone for our salvation. MB also brings up predestination, but Catholicism itself permits differences of opinion between Molinists and Thomists on that issue. MB mentions baptism too, but interestingly virtually all the 9000 denominations he identified would practice baptism in some form.
MB claimed, “… among these denominations that hold to Sola Scriptura, many disagree with each other as to what is and what is not, "necessary".” They may indeed disagree about that. I cannot think of any, however, who would say one has to know which things are necessary, in order to be saved.
For the purposes of this debate, though, one wonders why MB does not direct this criticism toward Chrysostom, who (making the same point the WCF and I make) declared, “All things are clear and open that are in the divine Scriptures; all things that are necessary are plain.” Meanwhile, dear reader, keep in mind, as Augustine said (same letter as above): “My reason for inserting these opinions of such great men on such a great subject was not to make you think that anyone's interpretation should be accepted with the authority due to the canonical Scripture, but that those who are otherwise minded may try to see with their mind what is true, and to seek God in the simplicity of their heart, and cease to find fault so rashly with the learned expounders of the divine words.”
- TurretinFan
Answer 1 from Affirmative
MB asked: “My question is, why do you reject the ancient Jewish position of Scripture and Tradition as one living source of Divine Revelation, when I have presented two scholars who attest to it?
My reason for rejecting MB’s scholars is Scripture, as will be explained below.
MB also asked: “I have now provided an additional example presented from Sacred Scripture itself with Jesus Himself clearly referring to an oral Tradition of the Jews. Please explain.”
As best understood, this is supposed to be part of one question, since the rules limit the number of questions for MB to ask. Thus, the explanation is interlaced within the detailed response below. Furthermore, it should be noted that there is an important shift in MB’s claim between saying that Jesus referred to an oral tradition and claiming that oral traditions were infallible. That Jews had oral traditions is undisputed and even if MB’s scholars disagree, one would think that MB would admit that the Jewish traditions were fallible.
For the more detailed reply:
A) As Cyril of Alexandria (5th Century) wrote regarding Isaiah 9:14-16: There were some among the Jews, in fact, who interpreted the Law given through the all-wise Moses, but acted corruptly by unjustly applying to the laws of Moses unwritten traditions, human requirements, and teachings. They led the mass of Jews astray, and caused them to rear their neck proudly against Christ; so since they followed the views of the priests, who acted in the role of a head, he called then the tail, since, as I said, the tail follows the head when we think in terms of a single body. When he refers to them as prophets, however, we shall not take them to be holy and true prophets, since he went on to say that they teach iniquity.”
B) Jesus was able to “make use of an Oral tradition,” but in Scripture He did so only in a critical way (for example he bashes the Jews’ oral tradition in Matthew 15:2-6, Mark 7:3-13, and Luke 6:1-5).
C) Jesus’ comment in Matthew 23:1-3 about the “seat of Moses” and “do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you,” does not support MB’s contention that the “ancient Jewish position” was that “Scripture and Tradition [are] one living source of Divine Revelation.” This can be seen as follows:
i) Jesus’ disciples recognized that Jesus did no mean that the Sanhedrin’s authority was on a par with the Word of God, for when that body of authority contradicted the word of God the disciples violated the teaching that body:
Acts 5:27-29
27And when they had brought them, they set them before the council: and the high priest asked them, 28Saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled
29Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.
ii) The concept of the “chair of Moses” is simply a metonym, like the “seat of the scorner” or the “path of the righteous.” There is no good reason to suppose that the reference to the “seat of Moses” is a reference to anything other than to the role of leadership over
iii) As noted above, no one doubts that the Jews had oral teachings. 1 Corinthians 10:4 (cited by MB) doesn’t prove that, but it is a moot point.
iv) MB seems to fall into the trap of conflating oral (or simply extra-scriptural) tradition with respect to history with oral tradition of the kind needed for his counter-plan.
D) MB states, “I presented evidence from two Jewish scholars in my opening statement, who readily admit that the Jewish faith was not a faith of Scripture alone, yet you never even made an attempt to refute them in your rebuttal.” Jesus himself condemned Jewish scholars who made Scriptures of none effect through their tradition. I don’t have a better answer than His.
E) MB repeats the two modern Jewish sources from his opening essay. I certainly agree that like Catholicism, Judaism cannot justify itself from Scripture alone, and consequently must deny Sola Scriptura. I also agree that consequently the claims of modern Judaism are very similar to the claims of
F) MB argues that according to his Jewish sources, the ancient Jewish Oral Tradition held the same weight as the written.
i) Yes – they said so, but MB claimed that the Oral Traditions were fallible. MB contradicted his own evidence. MB was right in saying that they were fallible, for Jesus condemned them. I have a standard to determine whether MB or the Jews are right, the infallible standard of Scripture.
ii) But now it seems to be the case that MB wants to adopt the position of his Jewish sources. MB states, “This means that they are Divine Revelation from God Himself.” If that is so, why does MB not obey them? In particular, on the issue of the canon, why does MB reject their testimony? Furthermore, why does MB accept Jesus’ claim to be divine, since Jesus contradicted the oral traditions of the Jews?
G) As Chrysostom (4th to 5th centuries) declared against Judaizing Christians, “Finally, if the ceremonies of the Jews move you to admiration, what do you have in common with us? If the Jewish ceremonies are venerable and great, ours are lies. But if ours are true, as they are true, theirs are filled with deceit. I am not speaking of the Scriptures. Heaven forbid! It was the Scriptures which took me by the hand and led me to Christ.
-TurretinFan
Monday, October 6, 2008
Question 5 from Negative
Question 5 Fallible and Infallible Interpretations
by Matthew Bellisario
God has always put forth His authority in a living entity. In the Old Covenant He gave the Jews the living Levitical priesthood to interpret the Living Tradition and the Sacred Scriptures put forth by God as Divine Revelation. There was a visible authority for the Jews to follow. Judaism was never a Scripture alone faith. (1995 Ariel)
We see a continuation of this with Jesus, the Word of God coming in the flesh to become the high priest who gave us a Church as "the pillar and foundation of truth" (1 Tim. 3:15). He also gave us a living Sacred Tradition and the Sacred Scriptures within this structure (2 Thess. 2:15, 1 Cor. 11:2). The Church structure is visible ("I will build my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it" Matt. 16:18), it is passed down through apostolic succession. Christ told the disciples: "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me" (Luke 10:16), , and the Church maintains a character of authority (Matt. 18:18), just as the Nicene Creed also professes. By this Church entity given to us by Christ we can know the correct interpretations of Sacred Scripture and what the full deposit of Divine Revelation is. The chair of Saint Peter (John 21:15–17 "Feed my sheep . . . ", Luke 22:32 "I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail", and Matthew 16:18 "You are Peter . . . ") was given to us just as the Jews had the chair of Moses (Matt. 23:2) as the uniting visible head of the Church, although Jesus Christ remains the true head of the Church (Hebrews 2:17) , he also gave us the Holy Spirit to guide it infallibly as well (John 16:13).
Saint Ambrose of Milan rightly wrote, "[Christ] made answer: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church. . . .’ Could he not, then, strengthen the faith of the man to whom, acting on his own authority, he gave the kingdom, whom he called the rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the Church [Matt. 16:18]?" (The Faith 4:5 [A.D. 379]).
Saint Augustine also correctly wrote, "Some things are said which seem to relate especially to the apostle Peter, and yet are not clear in their meaning unless referred to the Church, which he is acknowledged to have represented in a figure on account of the primacy which he bore among the disciples. Such is ‘I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ and other similar passages. In the same way, Judas represents those Jews who were Christ’s enemies" (Commentary on Psalm 108 1 [A.D. 415]).
Finally the Council of Ephesus in 431 stated, "Philip, the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See [Rome] said: ‘There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors’" (ibid., session 3).
You said in your rebuttal, “Our interpretations are fallible, but Scripture is infallible.” If all interpretations of the Sacred Scriptures are fallible as you claim, then how can anyone know for sure what the correct interpretation is without an authority higher than the Scriptures themselves? Should we believe you just because you say so, or some confession says so? Of course one would answer with “the Holy Spirit tells us”, but every one of the 9000 denominations all tell us this as well. My question is, who can interpret the Sacred Scriptures infallibly, and how can we know for sure without a visible God breathed Church entity as the one I have pointed out above?
Ariel, David S. What Do Jews Believe. New York: Schocken Books, 1995
Question 4 from Negative
Question 4 The Nicene Creed Omission.
by Matthew Bellisario
The Nicene Creed is professed by every ancient Christian church in existence as containing a sound foundation to Christianity. It was composed in the 4th century (381) and is generally referred to as the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. Why does this Creed not profess Scripture Alone, and instead focuses on the Church? The Creed specifically says , “I believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church” and never refers to Scripture alone. In fact it refers only once to Sacred Scripture regarding the resurrection and never implies a Scripture alone position. The reason to me is obvious in that if one rested on the foundation of the Church, then they would be taught correct doctrine, and would also have the fullness of Divine revelation which includes Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Notice the Creed also does not mention Tradition either, since it is obvious that it resides in the structure of the Church. The Creed also professes the Catholic doctrine on Baptism as well, but that is for another time and place. My question is, why when this Creed was written was the emphasis put on believing in the Catholic Church, rather than a profession of following the Sacred Scriptures alone? After all, if this (Sola Scriptura) is the bedrock of Christianity as you have been trying to prove, then why did this ancient council in the midst of heavy controversy neglect to include this in its Creed? An inadvertent omission or error perhaps?
Question 3 from Negative
Question 3 Where is your church and its confession in the world before the 16th century?
by Matthew Bellisario
There is a glaring reality staring you in the face which you fail to acknowledge. Your beliefs and opinions regarding Sacred Scripture are found in no church in existence before the the 16th century. Let me be more specific. You made these claims among others in your opening statement,
“We have sixty-six books of Scripture.
We reject as authoritative the Apocrypha – those additional books and parts that are not inspired, but which have sometimes been called Deuterocanonical. They are of historical interest – and they are of grammatical interest, since they are ancient books written in Greek. Nevertheless, since they are not inspired, they do not have any more authority than any other human writings.
The Bible is a complete document. It is sufficient. It contains everything that we need to know for faith and life in general, in order to glorify God and in order to be saved. Nevertheless, the illumination of the Holy Spirit – who persuades us of the truth of inspiration of Scripture – is necessary for anyone to obtain a saving knowledge of God, even from Scripture. It is complete – but it is not exhaustive.
Not all of the teachings of Scripture are equally clear, but the things necessary to be known for salvation are clearly taught, so that even uneducated people can understand them.”
There are more teachings that I can list, but I will use these for my question. There is no church in existence before the 16th century that ever made these false claims. In fact whether the church be Syrian, Maronite, Syro-Malankara, Coptic, Ethiopic, Byzantine, Chaldean, Syro-Malabar or Armenian, they all reject your 66 book Canon and they all reject Sola Scriptura. Everyone of these different churches claim and can historically trace their existence back to the apostles themselves. They all attest to Sacred Scripture within Sacred Tradition. All of these Rites exist within the Catholic Church and in the Eastern Orthodox, and hail from all over the world, established by different apostles, yet they all hold to the Catholic teaching of Sacred Tradition.
We have all of these ancient churches which attest to Sacred Tradition in their Liturgies, as well as in their church writings and councils. If your claim of Sola Scriptura is true, we should see these claims made somewhere among the ancient churches as well. My question is, where is your Westminster confession equivalent, proving Sola Scriptura among any ancient church group before the 16th century, and where is the your equivalent Liturgy of the Eucharist proving these beliefs in practice. Please do not quote Church Fathers individually, since all of the Church Fathers belonged to one of the above groups and all celebrated one of their ancient Liturgies. Show us where there is a whole church group professing your Westminster faith in some documented form in some ancient church before the 16th century.
