Closing Affirmative Essay
by Turretin Fan
“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