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 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 move 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