Wednesday, July 2, 2008
No Other Word of God than Scriptures (AR)
Introduction
Now that MB’s constructive argument has been made, we are
able to reduce the scope of the debate significantly.
MB’s argument had two main parts. The first part was what
we would call in debate terms a “counterplan” in which he
presents what he feels is an alternative to the Reformed
position, and the second part addresses a few objections
to the Reformed position. Once you have read the response
to the counterplan, I hope you will recognize that there
has been no significant case made for any other Word of
God than Scriptures. Thus, I trust that the reader will
rightly conclude that the burden of proof and persuasion
has not moved, but remains on the advocate of this
alleged further source of authority.
MB’s Counterplan: Papist Tradition
MB’s counterplan is really the primary way that he
attempts to refute the Reformed position, and occupies
about 75% of his constructive essay. There are several
fundamental problems with the counterplan.
MB’s View of Tradition is seemingly not Fully Consistent
with the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC).
Critical planks upon which the counterplan is built are
not well accepted, even among papists. For example, MB
claims “Many seem to understand Tradition as being an
addition to the Sacred Scriptures. This however is an
incorrect, or incomplete way to view it.” In contrast,
however, CCC 78 states: “This living transmission,
accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition,
since it is distinct from Sacred Scripture, though
closely connected to it.” Likewise CCC 82 states: “As a
result the Church, to whom the transmission and
interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not
derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the
holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must
be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion
and reverence."”
Thus, while MB may have an opinion about the relation
between Scripture and Tradition, the official teachings
of the papists are somewhat at variance with at least
some of MB’s comments. That is to say, “Scripture” and
“Tradition” are distinct and Tradition is additional to
Scripture, such that the papists do not derive their
certainty about all revealed truths from the Scriptures
alone but from Scriptures Plus.
MB’s Tradition is Warrantless
Oral Torah Analogy
No good reason has been given for this distinct source of
revelation. MB provides an analogy to the Rabbinical
traditions, but acknowledges that the Rabbis were not
inspired, but were fallible men. Thus, the Rabbinical
traditions fail MB. If fallible traditions were ok for
the Jews, the analogy would suggest that they would also
be ok for the nations.
Patristic Citations
Further, MB cites Basil who makes mention of traditions
handed from the Apostles via mysteries. While a more
thorough discussion of what Basil meant by “mysteries”
would be interesting, ultimately what Basil is
referencing is not helpful to MB’s counterplan, because
Basil is not speaking of an interpretative authority (the
same problem arises when MB tries to rely on Chrysostom
and Saint Epiphanius).
You see, we can divide tradition into at least two
categories: IAT – Interpretative Authority Tradition (by
which councils and popes are supposedly endued with
authority to speak dogmas that are to be accepted by all
Christians) and HMDT – Hand-Me-Down Tradition (by which
unwritten traditional teachings of the apostles are
carried down to us). HMDT is more easily testable
historically. If someone claims there was an unwritten
tradition of doctrine “X,” we can make an historical
investigation to see if Christians or their critics
throughout history ever mentioned holding such doctrines.
We can test the HMDT of which Basil, Chrysostom, and
Epihpanius seem to be speaking in the citations MB
provided.
That’s not what MB is claiming, though – as demonstrated
by his comment that “Tradition is not just quoting Church
Fathers. Yes, they can provide evidence of what the
Church believed throughout history, but we cannot rely on
these writings, and Scripture alone either.” MB is
claiming something for his position: something that gives
exclusivity of interpretation to the Vatican: he’s
claiming IAT.
In short, MB is claiming that his church has the ability
to provide teachings in the form of IAT that are of the
same authority as the Scriptures, because both are the
“Word of God,” and the “Gospel.” There is, however, no
reason to accept these claims. Unlike the prophets and
apostles who had revelation from God, the popes and
councils do not perform signs and wonders testifying to
their gifts. When is the last time a pope raised a man
from the dead? When is the last time the shadow of a
council caused cripples to walk? God gave the prophets
and apostles signs that confirmed their prophetic gifts.
The church of Rome does not have such tokens.
New Testament Citation
There is an additional problem with MB’s contention,
stemming from an attempt to bolster his position by
appeal to the New Testament. MB claims that “In reading
the NT we must understand [the] NT does not understand
itself to be Scripture in its own text. In other words,
when the term Scripture is used in the NT it is always
referring to the OT….” In fact, 2 Peter 3:16 describes
Paul’s epistles as Scripture, stating – after discussing
Paul’s epistles – “as … also the other scriptures ….”
Furthermore, the Revelation of John the Apostle is
evidently self-aware as a book of prophecy (see, for
example, Revelation 22:18-19). Likewise, Paul in I
Corinthians 14:37 provides as a litmus test for anyone
who claims to have the Holy Spirit that they recognize
that his writings are the “commandment of the Lord.”
Paul, Peter, and John were not awaiting recognition by a
future council of their inspiration: they were writing
divinely inspired Scripture by the authority of the Holy
Spirit.
Dramatic Claims
Another problem stems from dramatic claims that MB is
forced to make in order justify a second source of divine
revelation. For example, MB claims, “As we see in Rom
10:14-15, the Word is heard, preached, and not read.” The
cited passage, though, does not say “not read.” In fact,
in the immediate context Paul himself (in the writing he
is providing) cites to earlier writings: “as it is
written” verse 15. He even cites to Isaiah’s writing
using spoken terminology, “For Esaias saith, Lord, who
hath believed our report?” Thus, we can see that Paul
does not mean to distinguish between the Gospel message
as being somehow spoken as distinct from written.
Indeed, such a distinction is absurd. Human communication
is verbal: it’s made up of words. Words can be written
down. While written words may not have the same emotional
impact as the same words spoken dramatically, the same
information is conveyed.
Another such extreme claim is the claim that “the Word is
not a written Word, but a living one that cannot be
contained in a written source.” To say that the Word of
God cannot be contained in a written source is simply to
limit God’s ability to communicate himself. While such a
claim has a patina of piousness, it is at its core a
denial of God’s omnipotence: a claim that Scriptures
cannot possibly be sufficient. Yet Scriptures are
sufficient, as they claim, and as already set forth in my
constructive essay.
Contraception
MB makes reference to the issue of contraception,
something that is a hot topic in papist circles. The
problem with this argument is that one has to first
assume that the papist position (contraception is evil)
in order to see acceptance of contraception by
non-Catholics as a problem. Furthermore, the strength of
the papist argument against contraception is very tenuous
from Scripture. That’s why, perhaps, one does not see MB
providing a Scriptural case. Instead, the prohibition is
an unscriptural prohibition intended to bind men’s
consciences, but lacking authority to do so.
Ultimately there is enormous irony in selection of that
topic. Papist European nations, such as Spain and Italy
have an enormous problem with non-reproduction. Their
national birth rates are quite low, which is strong
evidence that they are employing contraceptives and/or
abortives. That’s not to say that the less-papist nations
are better: simply that this supposed tradition actually
provides no significant benefit to those associated with
the church that claims it is from God.
Non-Acceptance of IAT by Church Fathers
An even greater problem for MB is history. Although there
may be a handful of patristic quotations that suggest a
belief by some church fathers in HMDT, there are at least
an equal number that suggest a lack of belief by the
church fathers (including some of the same ones) in IAT –
the kind of tradition that MB needs, or who would simply
not accept MB’s dramatic claims regarding the non-written
nature of the Gospel, or the non-verbalizable
characteristics thereof.
For example, Turtullian thought that the Lord’s Prayer
could epitomize the entire Gospel: “… in the Prayer [i.e.
the Lord’s Prayer] is comprised an epitome of the whole
Gospel.” (The Writings of Quintus Sept. Flor.
Tertullianus, Volume 1, Section VII, Chapter 1, p. 180,
Roberts et al. ed.)
Likewise, Irenaeus essentially equates the Gospels and
the Gospel in responding to Marcion (at the same time
recognizing the true number of inspired gospels, before
any “council” or “pope” had spoken on the matter):
9. These things being so, all who destroy the form of the
Gospel are vain, unlearned, and also audacious; those, [I
mean,] who represent the aspects of the Gospel as being
either more in number than as aforesaid, or, on the other
hand, fewer. The former class [do so], that they may seem
to have discovered more than is of the truth; the latter,
that they may set the dispensations of God aside. For
Marcion, rejecting the entire Gospel, yea rather, cutting
himself off from the Gospel, boasts that he has part in
the [blessings of] the Gospel. (Irenaeus Against
Heresies, Book III, Chapter XI, Section 9)
Moreover, Basil (cited by MB) has this to say about
following tradition:
What our fathers said, the same say we, that the glory of
the Father and of the Son is common; wherefore we offer
the doxology to the Father with the Son. 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.
(Basil, Of the Spirit, Chapter VII)
Again, Basil claims that Scripture alone (i.e. without
IAT) is sufficient for one who has the Holy Spirit:
Enjoying as you do the consolation of the Holy
Scriptures, you stand in need neither of my assistance
nor of that of anybody else to help you to comprehend
your duty. You have the all-sufficient counsel and
guidance of the Holy Spirit to lead you to what is right.
(Letter 283 - To a Widow (Basil))
Likewise Ambrose sets up Scripture as the rule of faith
and life:
102. Men of the world give many further rules about the
way to speak, which I think we may pass over; as, for
instance, the way jesting should be conducted. For though
at times jests may be proper and pleasant, yet they are
unsuited to the clerical life. For how can we adopt those
things which we do not find in the holy Scriptures? (On
the duties of the Clergy, Chapter 23)
And Ambrose equates the Gospel and the Scriptures:
131. But that very thing is excluded with us which
philosophers think to be the office of justice. For they
say that the first expression of justice is, to hurt no
one, except when driven to it by wrongs received. This is
put aside by the authority of the Gospel. For the
Scripture wills that the Spirit of the Son of Man should
be in us, Who came to give grace, not to bring harm. (On
the duties of the Clergy, Chapter 28)
Consider also Clement of Alexandria’s words about the
role of Scripture:
“But those who are ready to toil in the most excellent
pursuits, will not desist from the search after truth,
till they get the demonstration from the Scriptures
themselves” (Mis. B. vii. c. 16).
Finally, consider the declaration of Cyril of Jerusalem
(as reported by J.N.D. Kelly in “Early Christian
Doctrines”): “with regard to the divine and saving
mysteries of faith no doctrine, however trivial, may be
taught without the backing of the divine Scriptures ..
For our saving faith derives is force, not from
capricious reasonings, but from what may be proved out of
the Bible.” (Cat. 4, 17.)
Further Problems for “Tradition”
We frequently hear questions about canon problems with
Sola Scriptura. Where is the canon of tradition? When a
large council met several decades before what is referred
to as the Seventh Ecumenical Council (SEC), it issued
decrees that would seem to be the decrees of “the
church.” Nevertheless, the SEC reversed the previous
council’s decisions.
Likewise, there have been at many times disputes over who
is the pope. While this was less significant before the
doctrine of papal infallibility was invented, it is
significant both then and now. If the teachings of the
pope are part of the canon of Tradition, how is one to
know what teachings are in and which are out,
particularly when the papal throne is contested.
Let’s focus on the Bible itself. It’s seemingly claimed
by MB that the only way to resolve the canon is by appeal
to “tradition.” But can tradition provide us the canon?
Tradition is mixed on the issue of the canon, if we mean
by tradition the historical record. Even with respect to
the issue of interpretative tradition, there is still
dispute today over whether the Council of Trent closed
the canon or passed over certain potentially
authoritative works in silence.
But we can dig further. For you see, the traditions of
Rome have been unable not only to maintain the correct
canon: they have been unable to maintain the correct text
of the books of the canon. We must grant, of course, that
for the most part the text has been preserved.
Nevertheless, it has been preserved fallibly. We see
implicit acknowledgment of these defects in the recently
promulgated Nova Vulgata, which differs at many places
from Vulgate editions of the Bible promulgated by
previous popes.
In short, there’s no reason to think that “tradition” is
an infallible source of authority. On the other hand,
Scripture is an infallible source of authority, something
that even the papists must concede, as evidenced in MB’s
essay with various quotations from popes and the CCC.
Response to Objections
Having addressed the counterplan, which is at variance
with reason, Scripture, and many of the sayings of the
fathers, (and which also has problems standing on its
own) let us turn to the criticism MB provides of Sola
Scriptura. A first criticism of the Sola Scriptura
position that MB provides is to question the issue of
whether they can be known to be the complete revelation
of God.
Completeness of Scripture
MB admits that the Scriptures are revelation from God,
but questions how we may know that they are, in essence,
complete. The answer is already given, to a degree, in
the constructive essay. The answer is process of
elimination. We know that the Scriptures are God’s word,
and we have no reason to believe that the papist’s
traditions are God’s word.
Ad Hominem Question of Authority
Next, MB criticizes the confession with an ad hominem. He
claims it holds no authority from God to make this
factual claim. First of all, we must provide turnabout to
demonstrate the absurdity of this criticism. One wonders
whether MB himself has the authority to make that factual
claim. Is MB one of the prophets? Certainly not – he
doesn’t even claim to be. But if MB can make that factual
claim without special authority, why cannot the
confession make the claim without special authority?
Thus, the ad hominem collapses. Second, it is not the
confession speaking for itself, the confession is the
testimony of the Reformed churches in the Scottish
tradition. It is a summary of shared beliefs, not a
document carrying or asserting intrinsic authority.
Finally, we (the Reformed) do have the authority to make
such a claim. Scripture gives us the authority in, for
example, I John 4:1 (“…believe not every spirit, but try
the spirits whether they are of God…”).
MB claims that providing an interpretation of Scripture
or an identification of Scripture is a usurpation of the
authority of Scripture when the Reformed do it, but not
when the papists do it. The double standard could not be
plainer. MB attempts to escape from this obvious fallacy
by claiming that he has authority given by Jesus “through
His apostles guided by the Holy Spirit.” That is our
claim as well, though. We have been given authority by
Jesus to believe the Word of God to be such and not the
word of men (1 Thessalonians 2:13). Furthermore, we have
the Holy Spirit (Ephesians 1:13).
Straw Man – Scriptures the “Only Authority”
MB’s assertion that “one cannot say that Scriptures are
the only authority,” employs the straw man fallacy. It is
not our position that Scriptures are the only authority:
but that they are the rule of faith: that they are the
Word of God. Our interpretations are fallible, but
Scripture is infallible. That does not mean that the
elders do not have authority (or even that individual
believers do not have authority of some kind), it just
means that they have subservient authority. In scholastic
terms the other authorities are derivative authorities.
Apocrypha
MB claims that canon is a problem negatively as to the
Apocrypha. MB notes correctly that we can “find many
different opinions throughout history” regarding the
canonical status of the Apocrypha, then goes on to argue
that there is evidence that “most Christians” accepted
them for the first 300-400 years, and finally asks us to
demonstrate that they were “all” wrong.
Of course, the answer to the question is that the WCF
explains the matter. The Apocrypha are not part of
Scripture, because they are not inspired. How we
determine whether something is inspired is ultimately a
matter of the Holy Spirit persuading us to accept His
word by faith. Nevertheless, there are various reasons to
reject the Apocrypha.
First, the Apocrypha were not written in Hebrew. From a
textual critical standpoint, this helps to establish that
they are not original, with respect – for example – to
those portions of the Apocrypha that claim to be the work
of ancient Jews or parts of other books (books that are
otherwise in Hebrew/Chaldee).
Second, the Apocrypha were not part of the Hebrew canon.
This is implicitly recognized even by the scholar MB
cites in the portion that MB cites, where Bruce Metzger
distinguishes the Greek and Latin fathers who did not
know Hebrew from those who did. As Jerome testified when
he was presented with the issue, the Apocrypha were no
part of the Hebrew canon. We can also find confirmation
elsewhere among the ancients.
Third, and connected with the second part, Jesus
implicitly endorsed the Hebrew canon in his catch-all
condemnation of the Pharisees, in which he stated:
Matthew 23:35 That upon you may come all the righteous
blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous
Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom
ye slew between the temple and the altar. (Luke 11:51
From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which
perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say
unto you, It shall be required of this generation.) By
this Jesus begins with the first murder of a godly man in
the Tanakh (the Hebrew Scriptures) and ends with the last
murder of a godly man in the Tanakh (2 Chronicles
24:20-21 20And the Spirit of God came upon Zechariah the
son of Jehoiada the priest, which stood above the people,
and said unto them, Thus saith God, Why transgress ye the
commandments of the LORD, that ye cannot prosper? because
ye have forsaken the LORD, he hath also forsaken you.
21And they conspired against him, and stoned him with
stones at the commandment of the king in the court of the
house of the LORD.)
The interesting issue of why Zechariah is called both
"the son of Jehoiada the priest" and "the son of
Barachias" is an interesting discussion, upon which
further presentation could be had, if there is any doubt
that the two are not the same.
Concluding Thoughts
The bulk of MB’s essay is an exposition of his view of
Rome’s view. An exhaustive explication of every point of
error or difference would seem unnecessary. I have
addressed the issue under several heads and simply
summarize some of the important points below.
First, the issue of the Holy Spirit. There is a dominant
theme in the essay that “the Church” is guided by the
Holy Spirit, with the apparent argument being that
because it is guided by the Holy Spirit its teachings are
also part of the whole Word of God. There are a number of
rebuttals that present themselves.
Believers have the Holy Spirit. Scripture clearly
indicates this, and it does not seem likely that MB would
deny it. Nevertheless, believers are not infallible by
virtue of having the HS. Not everyone who has the Holy
Spirit is consequently infallible in view of having the
Holy Spirit.
Furthermore, a church has the Holy Spirit not as church
but by virtue of being composed (mostly) of believers who
have the Holy Spirit. Furthermore, there is no guarantee
that the papist assembly is such a church. The papists’
refusal even to consider reforming their doctrines to the
Word of God weighs against a conclusion that they have
the Spirit that inspired the Scripture.
A second issue is Tradition – particularly tradition of
the IAT sort. While tradition may be helpful (either in
reality or in the abstract), that does not imply as a
matter of logic that extra-Scriptural tradition, and
especially infallible extra-Scriptural tradition, is
necessary. MB’s appeal to Jewish tradition falls short
because he admits that it was fallible. There’s no
particular reason to think that Christian tradition would
not be similarly fallible. Indeed, Christ not only
corrected some of the traditions of the Jews, he heavily
criticized them for the imposition of their traditions,
which he said made void the word of God.
A third issue is papal infallibility. Is this tradition
secret or not? There’s no real evidence for such a
doctrine for over a thousand years – arguably there’s no
significant evidence of such a doctrine until immediately
preceding its dogmatic declaration at Vatican I. MB
claims that the traditions of his church are not like
those of the Gnostics, but for papal infallibility to be
something handed down from the apostles, it would have
had to have been handed down in secret for many of those
years.
With all the foregoing, let us not be afraid to heed the
words of Gregory of Nyssa who said:
They allege that while we confess three Persons we say
that there is one goodness, and one power, and one
Godhead. And in this assertion they do not go beyond the
truth; for we do say so. But the ground of their
complaint is that their custom does not admit this, and
Scripture does not support it. What then is our reply? 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. (On the Holy
Trinity)
The Holy Scriptures are the sufficient, inspired, Word of
God: let us heed them without adding to them the
traditions of men.
As it is written:
Deuteronomy 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I
command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it,
that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God
which I command you.
And again:
Deuteronomy 12:32 What thing soever I command you,
observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor
diminish from it.
Let those be our guiding principles. Since the traditions
of the papists are not and cannot be shown to be the Word
of God, or the commandments of the LORD our God, let us
not contradict Scripture by adding them to Scripture, as
though they were also God’s word.
Post Script
Much to my chagrin, I seem to have conflated Wycliffe and
Tyndale in my opening essay. I apologize to the readers
for this mistake on my part, which demonstrates
(inadvertently) the fallibility of men.
I wrote: "The first English Bible was not published until
the time of Wycliffe in the 14th century. Wycliffe
received martyrdom for his troubles, and the papist
authorities sought to destroy the copies of the Bible
that he printed."
The Wycliffe Bible was hunted by authorities, but while
the papists dug up Wycliffe's bones and burnt them, it
was technically Wycliffe's assistant Purvey (who
completed the work) who ended up being martyred, Wycliffe
himself dying apparently of natural causes (1384).
Printed is also not be quite the right word. For, you
see, the Wycliffe Bible had to be published by
handwriting. Printed suggests mechanical reproduction.
Tyndale, on the other hand, provided the first truly
printed English Bible. He was martyred in 1536 by
strangling. His body was then, like that of Wycliffe his
predecessor, burnt (in the case of Tyndale it was burnt
at a stake).
The followers of Wycliffe, known as the Lollards, are a
fascinating case study for those who vainly imagine that
reformation of the Western church started in 1517 with a
German monk complaining about abuse of indulgences.
Nevertheless, I somehow managed mentally to conflate
Wycliffe and Tyndale in my opening post, much to my
shame, and so I hereby publicly retract that erroneous
passage in favor of:
"The first English Bible was not published until the time
of Wycliffe/Purvey in the 14th century. WycliffePurvey
received martyrdom for his troubles, and the papist
authorities sought to destroy the copies of the Bible
that he printedpublished."
Sola Deo Gloria,
-TurretinFan
Posted by Turretinfan at 3:38 AM