Home

† Daily commentary on the News

Forums
† News and Comment
† Free for all
† God talk

Links
• Journeyman Ezine
• The Sola Scriptura Page
• Recommended Reading
• The Cheshire Christ
• My View of …
• My Short Stories
• Theology
• Read Comments
• Send Comments
• Buy a book
@Amazon.com

Other Stuff

News Links
• foxnews.com
• Washington Times
• Washington Post
• Chr. Science Mon.
• BBC News

News Commentary
• Opinion Journal
• Townhall.com

Religion
• The Evangelical Catholic
• First Things
• The Catholic Faith
• Touchstone
• Christianity Today

About "Crowhill"
The System of Dr. Rooster and Mr. Crowhill …
• Part I
• Part II
• Conclusion
The Fall of the House of Crowhill …
• Part I
• Part II
• Part III
• Finale
Greg's Discussion Board
    > God talk
        > The Shape of Sola Scriptura -- Chapter 1		 New Topic    Add Reply

Page 1 2
<< Prev Topic | Next Topic >>
Subject Author
The Shape of Sola Scriptura -- Chapter 1 GregK 
I'm very glad that someone with ties to the Credenda/Agenda tribe has decided to do a book on sola scriptura. Their position is far more reasonable and consistent than most of the nonsense we hear today. Most importantly, they are trying valiantly to assert sola scriptura and the authority of the church, and that is a big step in the right direction.

There's a lot to say about Keith's first chapter, but for now I will mention only a few points. First, the question he has to answer is whether all doctrines received by the church were inscripturated. He seems to think he has answered that question, but I don't believe he has. More on that later.

Keith distinguishes between a one-source and a two-source view of authorty -- that is, (1) that Scripture contains all special revelation (with tradition serving as the interpretive framework for revelation and the church the authoritative interpreter), or (2) that some special revelation is in Scripture and some in tradition.

It is worth pointing out that the RCC has not -- to this day -- ruled on this question. Catholics are free to adopt either position. I tend to prefer the one-source position, but I can understand the church's reluctance to decide, which brings me to my second point.

There is a huge, gaping hole in his analysis of the fathers. He is reading them as if they were articles in a Presbyterian journal -- as if they are precise and careful in their language (lest the wrath of the Truly Reformed fall upon them). But it is quite evident that the fathers frequently spoke hyperbolically.

For example, if someone were to say that the sum total of the Christian faith is contained in Baptism, we should not understand him to mean that Baptism is materially sufficient for the entire Christian faith. We have to understand that he's exaggerating just a little.

To the church fathers, there is no contradiction between saying that the Scriptures are all-sufficient and then saying that some things are not in Scripture. It sounds weird to us, but that's the way they spoke, and Keith seems to miss it.

This is most easily shown by looking at Augustine and Basil. Both of them support position 2 above, but both of them also say things that imply the sufficiency of Scripture. IOW, in their minds there is no contradiction between the sufficiency of Scripture and the existence of extra-scriptural, binding traditions.

A fair analysis of the fathers would have to deal with this rather weird way of talking, and without it, Keith's conclusions are iffy. This is especially true because of the conflict with the Gnostics, which Keith mentions, but he doesn't seem to grasp how it hurts his argument.

If Augustine and Basil can speak of the sufficiency of Scripture and also speak of the necessity of extra-Scriptural traditions, the earlier church fathers might have had the same mindset, and since the Gnostic controversy gave them ample reason to minimize the existence of extra-Scriptural traditions, their seeming assertion of the material sufficiency of Scripture does not contradict a belief in extra-Scriptural traditions.

(I'm going to write this review as if Keith has cited all the relevant patristic data. I have a strong suspicion that there are other quotes from the early church fathers that would contradict material sufficiency.)

The last thing I'll mention is the oddity of material sufficiency in historical context. My first reaction to Keith's first chapter was that he started too late -- with the fathers. He should have started with Jesus' earthly ministry and talked through the shape of NT special revelation as it progressed through Pentecost, through the writing of the NT letters, etc. The modern Christian has to remember that the church existed -- and functioned -- and knew how to worship, and what to believe, and all that -- before the NT existed. So how did they do it, and how does that relate to the subsequent relationship between Scripture and tradition?

Keith seems to assume an identity of content between tradition and Scripture, but does that really make any sense? Where do we get the idea that all of the content of divine revelation was inscripturated?

Again, I prefer the material sufficiency position, but I have a very hard time imagining material sufficiency in the early church -- before there even was a canon. And Keith doesn't even touch on this question.

Greg

Edited by: GregK  at: 6/28/01 9:52:12 am

 ezOP
6/21/01 8:55:14 am

Community Supporter

Re: The Shape of Sola Scriptura -- Chapter 1 StLoukas
Good review. You should post it on RYM for the masses who are most likely to be reading it.

Just a couple of thoughts on what you wrote:

This is most easily shown by looking at Augustine and Basil. Both of them support position 2 above, but both of them also say things that imply the sufficiency of Scripture. IOW, in their minds there is no contradiction between the sufficiency of Scripture and the existence of extra-scriptural, binding traditions.

I think the disconnect that you see there, and it is there, is because the Fathers were not bound by the "sola" paradigm that afflicts Prot/RC relations today. They saw the (holy) Scriptures as being part and parcel of (holy) Tradition, and vice-versa. There was no possibility of setting one against the other. But if we said that one has to be the foundation of the other I think we'd have to say that Tradition is the foundation of Scripture. Tradition can exist without Scriptures, but Scriptures cannot exist without Tradition. The men who wrote the Scriptures had to first know the Tradition they were going to write about. If Bibles had fallen from the sky like manna it would be different, but it didn't happen that way. This is all very bound up with the work of the Holy Spirit in the Body of Christ that, in order to develop an orthodox view of Scripture and Tradition, one must have an orthodox view of the Holy Spirit at the start.

Where do we get the idea that all of the content of divine revelation was inscripturated?

Bingo. I'd say most of it was not. (Acts 1:25)

 Registered User
6/21/01 9:38:16 am

Re: The Shape of Sola Scriptura -- Chapter 1 Keith Mathison
Hey Greg! Greetings again. I was glad to see that you found my book worthy of interaction and discussion. That's all I really hope for it - to move the discussion along in a more productive direction.

I'm very glad that someone with ties to the Credenda/Agenda tribe has decided to do a book on sola scriptura. Their position is far more reasonable and consistent than most of the nonsense we hear today. Most importantly, they are trying valiantly to assert sola scriptura and the authority of the church, and that is a big step in the right direction.

I'm not technically tied to Credenda/Agenda in any formal way. I was simply asked to write this book for them. I am glad to see that you acknoweldge that there is a difference between the view I am trying (however adequately) to express and the typical hyper-individualistic view that dominates evangelicalism. [Which being translated means that I am going to get as much, if not more, flak from certain evangelicals than I will from Roman Catholics]. :)

There's a lot to say about Keith's first chapter, but for now I will mention only a few points. First, the question he has to answer is whether all doctrines received by the church were inscripturated. He seems to think he has answered that question, but I don't believe he has. More on that later.

The fact that I didn't answer the question the way you would doesn't mean I didn't answer it. My answer was yes. That's the whole point of the one-source view of revelation.

Keith distinguishes between a one-source and a two-source view of authorty -- that is, (1) that Scripture contains all special revelation (with tradition serving as the interpretive framework for revelation and the church the authoritative interpreter), or (2) that some special revelation is in Scripture and some in tradition.

Actually the distinction is between a one source and a two source view of revelation, not authority. That might have been a typo on your part, but there's a big difference since I don't deny that the church or the rule of faith operate as sources of authority

It is worth pointing out that the RCC has not -- to this day -- ruled on this question. Catholics are free to adopt either position. I tend to prefer the one-source position, but I can understand the church's reluctance to decide, which brings me to my second point.

I happen to think the RCC did rule on it but that they're not particularly honest about that ruling. That can wait til later though.

There is a huge, gaping hole in his analysis of the fathers. He is reading them as if they were articles in a Presbyterian journal -- as if they are precise and careful in their language (lest the wrath of the Truly Reformed fall upon them). But it is quite evident that the fathers frequently spoke hyperbolically.

I specifically noted at the beginning of this chapter (p. 20) that there cannot be found in the apostolic fathers a formally outlined doctrine of Scripture such as is found in modern systematic theology textbooks. I also noted several times in this chapter the somewhat vague and ambiguous way the fathers used some of these terms. I don't think this particular objection is very accurate or fair considering some of the explicit statements I made.

For example, if someone were to say that the sum total of the Christian faith is contained in Baptism, we should not understand him to mean that Baptism is materially sufficient for the entire Christian faith. We have to understand that he's exaggerating just a little.

And that is why context is so important. To determine what a statement means, it's context must be examined.

To the church fathers, there is no contradiction between saying that the Scriptures are all-sufficient and then saying that some things are not in Scripture. It sounds weird to us, but that's the way they spoke, and Keith seems to miss it.

I didn't miss it, I just deny the RCC explanation. First of all, we have to take into consideration the formative period when the Canon was still rather loose. Second, we have to take into account that the first time you really start to see statements like the above is in the writings of Basil, Augustine, and Chrysostom. Third, it isn't all that clear that Basil or Augustine ever intended to say that some doctrines were not inscripturated. Chrysostom seems to hold to Tradition 2 pretty clearly, but Basil and Augustine are more questionable. But again my argument here would be that it is impossible for an RC to honestly examine these texts because he is forced by his convictions to come to them with the conclusion already in hand. In other words, part of the context you insist that I bring to my reading of the fathers is the conclusion that Rome's interpretation of them is correct. What then would be the point of examining them at all?

This is most easily shown by looking at Augustine and Basil. Both of them support position 2 above, but both of them also say things that imply the sufficiency of Scripture. IOW, in their minds there is no contradiction between the sufficiency of Scripture and the existence of extra-scriptural, binding traditions.

I'll let the readers of the book decide whether the assertion that both held to Tradition 2 is unquestionable. It's possible, as I stated in the book, but no where near absolutely certain.

A fair analysis of the fathers would have to deal with this rather weird way of talking, and without it, Keith's conclusions are iffy. This is especially true because of the conflict with the Gnostics, which Keith mentions, but he doesn't seem to grasp how it hurts his argument.

To me, what you are saying is that unless I deal with the fathers by starting with the assumption that Rome's interpretation of them is correct, then my interpretation of them is "iffy." Of course you have to say this because of your prior commitment to Rome, but why should I start with the conclusion that Rome's interpretation is right when the point of my inquiry is to discover if Rome's interpretation is right? I think I did deal with them fairly. I pointed out as many places where I think Protestants have overstated their case as I did places where I think the RCC has overstated her case.

If Augustine and Basil can speak of the sufficiency of Scripture and also speak of the necessity of extra-Scriptural traditions, the earlier church fathers might have had the same mindset, and since the Gnostic controversy gave them ample reason to minimize the existence of extra-Scriptural traditions, their seeming assertion of the material sufficiency of Scripture does not contradict a belief in extra-Scriptural traditions.

First of all, again, it remains questionable whether either of them held Tradition 2. I dealt with this at some length - especially in conection with Basil since he is cited most often. If you are going to assert that Basil holds Tradition 2 (which he may have), you need to answer the specific arguments that weigh against that conclusion.

(I'm going to write this review as if Keith has cited all the relevant patristic data. I have a strong suspicion that there are other quotes from the early church fathers that would contradict material sufficiency.)

I cited as much as possible within the space constraints of the book. That chapter alone could be an entire book, or set of books, all by itself. So it isn't exhaustive by any stretch, but every attempt was made to be fair with the evidence. In addition, I had to depend to a degree on the work of others who have written entire volumes on this one subject. Unless they are all incompetent liars (J.N.D. Kelly, A.N.S. lane, H. Oberman, etc.), then there isn't much evidence that the fathers of the first three centuries said anything that would contradict material sufficiency.

The last thing I'll mention is the oddity of material sufficiency in historical context. My first reaction to Keith's first chapter was that he started too late -- with the fathers. He should have started with Jesus' earthly ministry and talked through the shape of NT special revelation as it progressed through Pentecost, through the writing of the NT letters, etc. The modern Christian has to remember that the church existed -- and functioned -- and knew how to worship, and what to believe, and all that -- before the NT existed. So how did they do it, and how does that relate to the subsequent relationship between Scripture and tradition?

I started where I did because it is the interpretation of these Scriptural documents that is the issue in question. If I start with an interpretation of them, the RCCs would have cried foul. But those issues you raised are discussed in several places in the book.

Keith seems to assume an identity of content between tradition and Scripture, but does that really make any sense? Where do we get the idea that all of the content of divine revelation was inscripturated?

From the fathers of the first three centuries. Not modern Roman teaching for sure.

Again, I prefer the material sufficiency position, but I have a very hard time imagining material sufficiency in the early church -- before there even was a canon. And Keith doesn't even touch on this question.

Why would you prefer it if you don't believe it was the position of the early church? I don't know if you've read the rest of the book yet, but I did touch on that question.

Thanks for the helpful interaction. I look forward to further discussion on this crucial topic.

Keith :hat

Registered User
6/21/01 10:01:27 am

Revelation, inspiration, tradition. DavidScherer
The men who wrote the Scriptures had to first know the Tradition they were going to write about. If Bibles had fallen from the sky like manna it would be different, but it didn't happen that way.

This seems to ignore, or at least minimize, the doctrine of inspiration. The biblical authors did not merely record the current traditions using their own powers of observation and description. But the doctrine of inspiration teaches that these books were breathed by God ... that the very words used were arranged and guided by him. In a sense, the Bible can be viewed as akin to manna-- a direct gift of God, but provided by means. (The manna metaphor is particularly interesting, since there are a number of theories that explain the source of this food as providential rather than miraculous.)

Where do we get the idea that all of the content of divine revelation was inscripturated?

Other than Barthians, few people take that position. General (or natural) revelation is generally acknowledged. However, scripture is unique in that it is the inspired, verbal revelation of God intended to guide mankind to salvation. Where do we get that idea? First, from 2 Tim 3:16-17. Then from examining other suggested sources of verbal revelation, whether ancient tradition or contemporary prophecy (as 1 Cor 14:29 and 1 Jn 4:1 tell us to) and finding them wanting. The point of Keith's thesis (as I understand it from second-hand reports) is that tradition is helpful without rising to the level of divine revelation.

Dave

Registered User
6/21/01 10:57:12 am
Welcome to Crowhill Manor. Please sit in this comfy chair. GregK 
Just kidding. It's an inside joke.

Thanks for taking the time to reply to my post. I am taking your book a chapter at a time and commenting as I go. That may not be the best, since you may clear things up in later chapters, but otherwise I suspect I'll be stuck with a huge writing project at the end, and I want to avoid that. :-)

It seems rather inconsistent to claim that the fathers are "vague and ambiguous" in the way they use the terms and also to claim that they believed the one-source theory. My point is that they are vague and ambiguous, so let's not jump to any conclusions.

You said, "my argument here would be that it is impossible for an RC to honestly examine these texts because he is forced by his convictions to come to them with the conclusion already in hand."

You are claiming that this is a settled matter of RC dogma, but lots of people dispute that. See, for example, Yvevs Congar's book on Tradition, where he seems to vascilate back in forth. Further, are you saying that RCs can't be honest because (you say) this is settled dogma, but Protestants can be honest despite the fact that it is settled dogma for them?

You ask why I prefer material sufficiency despite the fact that I have a hard time seeing it in the early church. That's easy. Because I believe material sufficiency -- if it is true -- is a kind of accident of history. It seems almost certain that the apostles taught more doctrine than is recorded in Scripture, but it is hard, today, to point to any other reliable source than Scripture. So I would suspect that material sufficiency was not reasonable in the early church, since they still had reliable access to other instruction from the Lord and from the apostles, but it became reasonable as access to that extra-Scriptural material became less reliable.

Greg



 ezOP
6/21/01 11:02:09 am

Community Supporter

Re: Welcome to Crowhill Manor. Please sit in this comfy chai beckmn1 
I've previously discussed these same issues with Keith. He is of the mind that the "partim ... partim" (revelation is found partly in Scripture and partly in Tradition) position is the established dogma of the Catholic Church.

In my mind, there really is little difference in essence between the material sufficiency viewpoint and the partim partim viewpoint. It seems more like semantics. Both **RELY** on Tradition as the interpretive key to Scripture.

I gave this quote from Cardinal Newman earlier to Keith ... who Keith seems to think is just compromising Catholic teachings to find a "via media" to unite the Anglican and Catholic churches.

John Henry Newman writes regarding the differences
between the Anglican and Catholic way of knowing to
his old friend Pusey:
http://www.newmanreader.org/works/anglicans/volume2/pusey/section2.html

"You have made a collection of passages from the
Fathers, as witnesses in behalf of your doctrine that
the whole Christian faith is contained in Scripture,
as if, in your sense of the words, Catholics
contradicted you here. And you refer to my notes on
St. Athanasius as contributing passages to your list;
but, after all, neither do you, nor do my notes,
affirm any doctrine which Rome denies. Those notes
also make reference to a traditional teaching, which
(be the faith ever so certainly contained in
Scripture), still is necessary as a Regula fidei, for
showing us that it is contained there; vid. pp
283,341; and this tradition, I know, you uphold as
fully as I do in the notes in question. In
consequence, you allow that there is a twofold rule,
Scripture and Tradition, and that is all that
Catholics say. How then do Anglicans differ from Rome
here? I beleive the difference is one of words...
Catholics and Anglicans(I do not say Protestants),
attach different meanings to the word 'proof', in the
controversy as to whether the whole faith is or is not
contained in Scripture. We mean that not every article
of faith is so contained there, that it may thence be
logically proved, independently of the teaching and
authority of Tradition; but Anglicans mean that every
article of faith is so contained there, that it may be
thence proved, provided there be added the
illustrations and compensations supplied by Tradition.
And it is in this latter sense that the Fathers also
speak in the passages which you quote from them. I am
sure St. Athanasius frequently adduces passages in
proof of points in controversy, which no one would see
to be proofs, unless Apostolic Tradition were taken
into account, first as suggesting, then as
authoritatively ruling, their meaning. Thus you do not
say, that the whole of revelation is in Scripture in
such a sense that pure unaided logic can draw it from
the sacred text;..." Letter to Rev Pusey

 Registered User
6/21/01 11:52:06 am
I believe there is a difference GregK 
Martin,

Thanks for the quote.

I believe there is an important difference between the partim partim view and the material sufficiency view. Under the partim partim view we would have to have "canonical" sources of doctrine apart from Scripture. I'm not saying we could not have such things -- liturgical formulas might be an example -- but it doesn't seem that the church has defined anything like that, which tends to argue against a partim partim view. IOW, if there is a source of dogma apart from Scripture, what is it?

Just as an aside, Joe Gallegos wrote an interesting piece on the rule of faith in patristic thought. He takes the material sufficiency position.

Greg

 ezOP
6/21/01 12:18:42 pm

Community Supporter

I can't believe I'm ahead of Greg in reading a Serious Book. Goldberry of Withywindle 
I stopped the other night just before getting to Calvin.

Funny you should bring this up, because I was just going to ask any and all of you who subscribe to/surf Catholic and Orthodox publications to let me know when any on-line reviews of the book got published. It should be interesting to watch. OTOH, the howls soon to be emanating from Dallas could be entertaining, as well. Poor Keith is going to get it from all sides, but I for one am extremely thankful this book has been written. It should be required reading for anyone who undertakes to criticize or defend sola scriptura.


~Jane~

Sermons of Rev. H. Leon Ben-Ezra

Registered User
6/21/01 12:27:14 pm
Dallas? Why, what are the Evil People of the East gonna do? Anne 
:evil

I'll believe anything.

I'm farther along than Greg, but not so far as you, BTW.

Anne, ears at the ready

 Registered User
6/21/01 12:32:44 pm

Dallas Theological Seminary DavidScherer
They won't like what Keith has to say. But they haven't thought much of his previous books, either, so they may not even read this one. :)

Dave

Registered User
6/21/01 12:41:03 pm
Just got it, and taking it s-l-o-w-l-y GregK 
Jane,

My reading time has been severely limited lately, so I don't think I'm going to manage better than a chapter a day.

I am also glad that Keith wrote the book. There's far too much foolishness about sola scriptura out there.

Greg

 ezOP
6/21/01 12:48:37 pm

Community Supporter

thank you Keith Mathison
Thanks for taking the time to reply to my post. I am taking your book a chapter at a time and commenting as I go. That may not be the best, since you may clear things up in later chapters, but otherwise I suspect I'll be stuck with a huge writing project at the end, and I want to avoid that. :-)

I think some of the later chapters will clear up some of your current questions (while raising a dozen more of course).

It seems rather inconsistent to claim that the fathers are "vague and ambiguous" in the way they use the terms and also to claim that they believed the one-source theory. My point is that they are vague and ambiguous, so let's not jump to any conclusions.

By "vague and ambiguous" I mean that this chapter is dealing with the early stages in the development of this concept. The same could be said of their Trinitarian dogma. It's a lot more vague and ambiguous than later conciliar formulations, but that doesn't mean they were Arians.

You said, "my argument here would be that it is impossible for an RC to honestly examine these texts because he is forced by his convictions to come to them with the conclusion already in hand." You are claiming that this is a settled matter of RC dogma, but lots of people dispute that. See, for example, Yvevs Congar's book on Tradition, where he seems to
vascilate back in forth.

I had a good discussion with Martin about Congar. Congar seems to me to have originally embraced the interpretation of Trent advocated by Geiselmann. He then seems to have run across material presented by Lennerz that advocates the opposite view. The way he summarizes Lennerz' material on page 167 in points 1 & 2 and then the theological conclusions he draws on pages 167-8 in a further three points leads me to believe he adopted Lennerz' position. I will admit that the way his book is put together doesn't make that abundantly clear. I had to read those pages a number of times before I figured out who was saying what and which position Congar was taking. But Congar isn't the final word on the matter in any case. The evidence Lennerz, Oberman, and others present is what convinces me that this was a settled matter of Roman dogma. It is now being brought into question since Geiselmann, but I do not believe for a minute that Geiselmann's revisionary history is an adequate handling of the evidence. I don't know all the reasons why modern RCs are trying to say this wasn't settled. My hunch is that it has something to do with the general trend towards ecumenicism in the 20th century. I think it also has to do with the RCC move away from both Tradition 1 and Tradition 2 to what Oberman terms Tradition 3. But that's another story, and I can't read people's motives anyway, so there's not much point in trying, is there?

Further, are you saying that RCs can't be honest because (you say) this is settled dogma, but Protestants can be honest despite the fact that it is settled dogma for them?

I would phrase this differently. I think the problem stems from the doctrine of infallibility. That doctrine makes it incredibly difficult to reassess evidence. If you're a faithful RC, you have to come to the same conclusion that Rome comes to. I don't deny that I or any other Protestant comes to these things free of bias (in fact that's one of the basic problems I examine in the book), but knowing that I am fallible allows me at least the theoretical possibility of looking at both sides of the case. If I go in knowing I cannot be wrong, what's the point of going in to determine if I am wrong. That's why I say that those who believe their church is infallible and who go in claiming to be fair and objective with the evidence are being dishonest with themselves and others. I doubt that it is intentional dishonesty. But they cannot really be honest with the evidence presented if they go in knowing without a doubt that their interpretation, because it is Rome's, cannot be the wrong interpretation. Any claim to be objectively and honestly examining evidence in that case seems to be very specious.

You ask why I prefer material sufficiency despite the fact that I have a hard time seeing it in the early church. That's easy. Because I believe material sufficiency -- if it is true -- is a kind of accident of history. It seems almost certain that the apostles taught more doctrine than is recorded in Scripture, but it is hard, today, to point to any other reliable source than Scripture. So I would suspect that material sufficiency was not reasonable in the early church, since they still had reliable access to other instruction from the Lord and from the apostles, but it became reasonable as access to that extra-Scriptural material became less reliable.

I dealt at length with these issues later in the book, so I'll wait til you get there before going into it. Suffice it to say for now that I know the issue is complex, especially when looking at those first decades after the apostles, but it isn't an insurmountable problem for Tradition 1. Many Protestants, however, haven't been all that honest or even clear about this and have spoken too often as if the apostles got together for a beer one afternoon, sat down and wrote the New Testament, had it bound in leather, gave several thousand copies to their followers, and then went on a long vacation to Tahiti from whence they never returned. We both know that isn't what happened and that the historical events and processes were much much more complex. I've tried to point these things out to my fellow Protestants who would like to conveniently ignore them.

But then, that's another reason why I decided to write this book. I'm sick of the overly simplistic treatments put out by proponents of solo scriptura that can't account for anything and are logically and theologically absurd.

I'll try to keep up with the discussion here when I can, but I may have to just pop in now and then. My forumizing has become more limited due to other obligations.

Keith :hat

Registered User
6/21/01 12:50:54 pm

At that rate you shall soon pass me. Goldberry of Withywindle 
We've had it for about 10 days. I don't get to pick it up nearly every day, but I try to read a whole chapter at once, although the break between Luther and Calvin was a convenient stopping point. But that was about 3 days ago now. 8)


~Jane~

Sermons of Rev. H. Leon Ben-Ezra

Registered User
6/21/01 12:56:58 pm
Re: I believe there is a difference beckmn1 
I believe there is an important difference between the partim partim view and the material sufficiency view. Under the partim partim view we would have to have "canonical" sources of doctrine apart from Scripture. I'm not saying we could not have such things -- liturgical formulas might be an example -- but it doesn't seem that the church has defined anything like that, which tends to argue against a partim partim view. IOW, if there is a source of dogma apart from Scripture, what is it?

To me, it seems that the two positions are closer than first appears. Neither position tries to establish doctrine to the exclusion of the other. That, of course, is different than what is insinuated by the people who seek to refute the "partim .. partim" viewpoint.

The "Partim .. partim" viewpoint doesn't try to establish doctrine on the basis of *solo* tradition to the exclusion of Scripture ... just as the "Material sufficiency" viewpoint does try to take the *solo* scriptura route to the exclusion of Tradition.

I'm as confortable with one as with the other.

Borrowing from one of my posts on the RYM forum: (where I was trying to clarify Cardinal Congar's viewpoint).

"At the bottom of pg 166 of "Tradition and Traditions",
Congar writes: "Fr. Lennerz queries the following
statements or suggestions:" ..... then he summarizes
Lennerz's statements or suggestions at the top of pg
167 with items (1) and (2). This is what you [Keith] quoted in
your book. Congar appears to give his thoughts in
items (1), (2), and (3) immediately following Lennerz
statements or suggestions. .....

Congar notes that a number of theologians
before and at the time of the COuncil affirmed
Tradition I.]

(3) "It is best to extricate oneself from the far too
narrow and rather polemic question of Scriptura sola.
.... there is, one might say, not a single point of
Christian doctrine which is based exclusively on the
Bible: both Scripture and tradition are involved
simulataneously .... In actual practice, the Church
holds no truth in virtue of Scripture alone, and none
by virtue of tradition alone. Even in the case of
those dogmas where no formal attestation by Scripture
exists, the magisterium affirms they have rapport with
Scripture."

[Martin: Congar seems to be saying not to get too
pinned in an extreme way on this other question. He
explicitly denies Tradition 0, and then goes on to
affirm basically what the Council said, Scripture (et)
and Tradition. He denies that **ANY** doctrine is
based on Tradition alone ... which is the assumption
that many non-Catholics have of Catholic doctrines.
This would discount the view that doctrines such as
the "Assumption of Mary" are based on Tradition alone.
In the discussion between Tradition I and Tradition
II, the view that Tradition II (partim .. partim)
includes doctrines based on **solo** Tradition, Congar
explicitly denies this.]

Registered User
6/21/01 2:44:59 pm
As far as reviews, responses, etc. StLoukas
You aren't likely to ever read anything in Orthodox publications about a book on sola scriptura. It's not an issue. Orthodox theologians and writers are mostly concerned with theology and issues within Orthodoxy. You're much more likely to hear Catholic opinions of it. As far as Orthodox opinions, well, me and Joe and a few others around here is the best you'll likely do.

Registered User
6/21/01 3:37:36 pm
I don't doubt that's generally true, but... Goldberry of Withywindle 
I also know that Clark Carlton has addressed the issue, and Keith directly addresses some of Carlton's criticisms, so perhaps something might be heard from him.


~Jane~

Sermons of Rev. H. Leon Ben-Ezra

Registered User
6/21/01 8:13:12 pm

This is truly amazing! RRP
Until I read this thread, I never guessed that there were modern-day conservative Calvinists who had read Yves Congar.

Edited by: RRP at: 6/21/01 8:33:59 pm

 Registered User
6/21/01 8:33:18 pm
In fact... StLoukas
I did find something in my archives. Pedro Vega, an Orthodox layman, wrote The Witness of the Liturgy, which offers what may be a unique perspective for you guys. It was from Frank Schaeffer's Christian Activist e-zine which is unfortunately no longer available. I've done some re-formatting so I hope it's easy enough to read.

Keith addresses Clark Carlton? Cool. Maybe he'll respond.

Registered User
6/21/01 10:52:16 pm

Response to Greg, Kevin, and Beckmn1 IShawnM
I'm not technically tied to Credenda/Agenda in any formal way. I was simply asked to write this book for them. I am glad to see that you acknoweldge that there is a difference between the view I am trying (however adequately) to express and the typical hyper-individualistic view that dominates evangelicalism.[Which being translated means that I am going to get as much, if not more, flak from certain evangelicals than I will from Roman Catholics].

Among my Reformed sparring associates, the ones that are fans of Credenda/Agenda tend to have more substantial arguments than those who are not fans of CA. That alone says a lot about CA in my view. It also says a lot about you since they asked you to write a book for them.


Keith distinguishes between a one-source and a two-source view of authorty – that is, (1) that Scripture contains all special revelation (with tradition serving as the interpretive framework for revelation and the church the authoritative interpreter), or (2) that some special revelation is in Scripture and some in tradition.

Actually the distinction is between a one source and a two source view of revelation, not authority. That might have been a typo on your part, but there's a big difference since I don't deny that the church or the rule of faith operate as sources of authority

The problem with all Protestant models of authority is that they end up at some point becoming arbitrary. It seems to me to be a case of ‘we do not deny that the church or rule of faith operate as sources of authority. However, if WE think they are wrong than we are not bound to obey them’. That is how it seems to come across to me in my dialogues with Protestants of all stripes including those of the confessional mould.

It is worth pointing out that the RCC has not -- to this day -- ruled on this question. Catholics are free to adopt either position. I tend to prefer the one-source position, but I can understand the church's reluctance to decide, which brings me to my second point.

I happen to think the RCC did rule on it but that they're not particularly honest about that ruling. That can wait til later though.

Brace yourself Greg ;-) I agree with Keith that the Catholic Church HAS ruled on this and that she sided with the one source theory of revelation. (The dishonesty acusation I will deal with briefly.) As evidence I present part of the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation (Dei Verbum) from Vatican II. I will bold the parts where a clear judgment on the matter is made and buttress this contention with clear proof:

PREFACE

1. Hearing the Word of God with reverence and proclaiming it with faith, the sacred Synod takes its direction from these words of St John: "We announce to you the eternal life which dwelt with the Father and was made visible to us. What we have seen and heard we announce to you, so that you may have fellowship with us and our common fellowship be with the Father and His Son Jesus Christ" (1 John 1:2-3). Therefore, following in the footsteps of the Council of Trent and of the First Vatican Council, this present Council wishes to set forth authentic doctrine on divine revelation and how it is handed on, so that by hearing the message of salvation the whole world may believe, by believing it may hope, and by hoping it may love [1]…

CHAPTER II
HANDING ON DIVINE REVELATION

7. In His gracious goodness, God has seen to it that what He had revealed for the salvation of all nations would abide perpetually in its full integrity and be handed on to all generations. Therefore Christ the Lord in whom the full revelation of the supreme God is brought to completion (see 2 Cor. 1:30; 3:15; 4:6), commissioned the Apostles to preach to all men that Gospel which is the source of all saving truth and moral teaching [1], and to impart to them heavenly gifts. This Gospel had been promised in former times through the prophets, and Christ Himself had fulfilled it and promulgated it with His lips. This commission was faithfully fulfilled by the Apostles who, by their oral preaching, by example, and by observances handed on what they had received from the lips of Christ, from living with Him, and from what He did, or what they had learned through the prompting of the Holy Spirit. The commission was fulfilled, too, by those Apostles and apostolic men who under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit committed the message of salvation to writing [2].

But in order to keep the Gospel forever whole and alive within the Church, the Apostles left bishops as their successors, "handing over" to them "the authority to teach in their own place" [3]. This sacred tradition, therefore, and Sacred Scripture of both the Old and New Testaments are like a mirror in which the pilgrim Church on earth looks at God, from whom she has received everything, until she is brought finally to see Him as He is, face to face (see 1 John 3:2).

8. And so the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved by an unending succession of preachers until the end of time. Therefore the Apostles, handing on what they themselves had received, warn the faithful to hold fast to the traditions which they have learned either by word of mouth or by letter (see 2 Thess. 2:15), and to fight in defense of the faith handed on once and for all (see Jud.
3) [4]. Now what was handed on by the Apostles includes everything which contributes toward the holiness of life and increase in faith of the People of God; and hands on to all generations all that she herself is, all that she believes.

This tradition which comes from the Apostles develops in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit [5]. For there is a growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been made by believers, who treasure these things in their hearts (see Luke 2:19, 51), through a penetrating understanding of the spiritual realities which they experience, and through the preaching of those who have received through episcopal succession the sure gift of truth. For as the centuries succeed one another, the Church constantly moves forward toward the fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach their complete fulfillment in her.

The words of the holy Fathers witness to the presence of this living tradition, whose wealth is poured into the practice and life of the believing and praying Church. Through the same tradition the Church's full canon of the sacred books is known, and the sacred writings themselves are more profoundly understood and unceasingly made active in her; and thus God, who spoke of old, uninterruptedly converses with the bride of His beloved Son; and the Holy Spirit, through whom the living voice of the Gospel resounds in the Church, and through her, in the world, leads unto all truth those who believe and makes the Word of Christ dwell abundantly in them (see Col. 3:16).

9. Hence there exists a close connection and communication between sacred tradition and sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. For sacred Scripture is the Word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, while sacred tradition takes the Word of God entrusted by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, and hands it on to their successors in its full purity, so that led by the light of the Spirit of truth, they may in proclaiming it preserve this Word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known. Consequently it is not from sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred tradition and sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence [6].

10. Sacred tradition and sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the Word of God, committed to the Church. Holding fast to this deposit the entire holy people united with their shepherds remain always steadfast in the teaching of the Apostles, in the common life, in the breaking of the bread and in prayers (see Acts 2:42, Greek text), so that holding to, practicing and professing the heritage of the faith, it becomes on the part of the bishops and faithful a single common effort [7].

But the task of authentically interpreting the Word of God, whether written or handed on [8], has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church [9], whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the Word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit; it draws from this one deposit of
faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed.

It is clear, therefore, that sacred tradition, sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God's most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others, and that all together and each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.

PREFACE/CHAPTER I


[1] Cf. St. Augustine, DE CATECHIZANDIS RUDIBUS, C.IV, 8: PL. 40,316.

CHAPTER II

[1] Cf. Matt. 28:19-20, and Mark 16:15; Council of Trent, session IV, DECREE ON SCRIPTURAL SANONS: Denzinger 783 (1501).

[2] Cf. Council of Trent, loc. cit.; First Vatican Council, session III, DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CATHOLIC FAITH, Chap. 2, "On Revelation:" Denzinger 1787 (3006).

[3] St. Irenaeus, AGAINST HERETICS III, 3, 1: PG 7, 848; Harvey, 2, p. 9.

[4] Cf. Second Council of Nicea: Denzinger 303 (602); Fourth Council of Constance, session X, Canon 1: Denzinger 336 (650-652).

[5] Cf. First Vatican Council, DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CATHOLIC FAITH, Chap. 4, "On Faith and Reason:" Denzinger 1800 (3020).

[6] Cf. Council of Trent, session IV, loc. cit.: Denzinger 783 (1501).

[7] Cf. Pius XII, apostolic constitution, MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS, Nov. 1, 1950: AAS 42 (1950) p. 756; Collected Writings of St. Cyprian, Letter 66, 8: Hartel, III B, p. 733: "The Church [is] people united with the priest and the pastor together with his flock."

[8] Cf. First Vatican Council, DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CATHOLIC FAITH, Chap. 3 "On Faith:" Denzinger 1792 (3011).

[9] Cf. Pius XII, Encyclical Letter HUMANI GENERIS, Aug. 12, 1950: AAS 42 (1950) pp. 568-569: Denzinger 2314 (3886).


I fail to see why Keith claims that ‘they are not very honest about that ruling’. The two source theory of Revelation was given the definitive axe at Vatican II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church incorporated this definitive ruling of the Council within its texts as doctrine of the faith:

II. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TRADITION AND SACRED SCRIPTURE

One common source. . .

80 "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal." [40] Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own "always, to the close of the age".[41]

. . . two distinct modes of transmission

81 "Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit."[42]

"And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching."[43]

82 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 honoured with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."[44]

Apostolic Tradition and ecclesial traditions

83 The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus' teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit. The first generation of Christians did not yet have a written New Testament, and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Tradition.

Tradition is to be distinguished from the various theological, disciplinary, liturgical or devotional traditions, born in the local churches over time. These are the particular forms, adapted to different places and times, in which the great Tradition is expressed. In the light of Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified or even abandoned under the guidance of the Church's Magisterium.

In Brief:

97 "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture make up a single sacred deposit of the Word of God" (DV 10) in which, as in a mirror, the pilgrim Church contemplates God, the source of all her riches.

Footnotes:

40 DV 9.

41 Mt 28:20.
42 DV 9.

43 DV 9.

44 DV 9.


Let me see, in a Dogmatic Constitution of a General Council, judgment is expressedly made on what was up to that time a controversy between one or two sources. That ruling is likewise incorporated into the Universal Catechism, which was promulgated to the whole church via solemn Apostolic Constitution. How on EARTH Keith can make the claim he has is beyond me. The Church has been QUITE forthright about it. Since prima scriptura is a position gaining support in theological circles, there is not really a need to trumpet the single source theory. Dei Verbum declared that scripture and tradition are equally revered; this prevented the potential theological problem as espoused by some theologians before Vatican II of a ‘prima traditio’ view that would have undermined Scripture’s authority. There was a tendency between some theologians before the Council towards this view. Trent NEVER espoused a partim partim view (check the decrees Keith: the word ‘partim’ was not used anywhere). However, Trent’s delineation was not a precise one and Vatican I was suspended before most of the agenda outlined was tended to. This is why Vatican II issued 2 DOGMATIC Constitutions: to complete the work of Vatican I on Divine Revelation and the never-released Second Constitution on the Church of Christ (which is what Lumen Gentium from Vatican II is in essence).

There is a huge, gaping hole in his analysis of the fathers. He is reading them as if they were articles in a Presbyterian journal -- as if they are precise and careful in their language (lest the wrath of the Truly Reformed fall upon them). But it is quite evident that the fathers frequently spoke hyperbolically.

I specifically noted at the beginning of this chapter (p. 20) that there cannot be found in the apostolic fathers a formally outlined doctrine of Scripture such as is found in modern systematic theology textbooks. I also noted several times in this chapter the somewhat vague and ambiguous way the fathers used some of these terms. I don't think this particular objection is very accurate or fair considering some of the explicit statements I made.

I have not read Keith’s book but I will say this: Greg is not one to seek to misrepresent people’s positions. Therefore Keith, if Greg has done so with a position of yours, it is certainly not intentional. The Fathers were vague because the very notion of separating Scripture from its coordinative Tradition was an unheard of proposition. Or to quote one of the most respected twentieth century Protestant Patristics scholars on the matter:

"Throughout the whole [Patristics] period Scripture and tradition ranked as complementary authorities, media different in form but coincident in content. To inquire which counted as superior or more ultimate is to pose the question in misleading terms. If Scripture was abundantly sufficient in principle, tradition was recognized as the surest clue to its interpretation, for in tradition the Church retained, as a legacy from the apostles which was embedded in all the organs of her institutional life, an unerring grasp of the real purport and meaning of the revelation to which Scripture and tradition alike bore witness". [JND Kelly: Early Christian Doctrines, pages 47-48 (c. 1978)]


And from the ex-Lutheran scholar Jaroslav Pelikan (a scholar as acclaimed as Kelly and possibly more so) noted the following important tidbit:

"The specific content of the Apostolic tradition had to remain secret because so much of it, in the precredal traditionary system, received from the first age of the Church had been not dogmatic, but liturgical in its form. [Pelikan] explains this in the sense that much of tradition was not intended for those outside the Church, but for the ‘insiders’". [Jaroslav Pelikan: Taken from the following Orthodox site The place of Scripture in Orthodox theology]


This is why I find the notion of sola scriptura so ridiculous. In my studies of the Fathers, I have seen no a hint of indication that they exalted Scripture over Tradition or even over the authority of the Church in settling issues. What seems rather obvious is that the Fathers used whichever source they felt best suited them at a given point in time.


For example, if someone were to say that the sum total of the Christian faith is contained in Baptism, we should not understand him to mean that Baptism is materially sufficient for the entire Christian faith. We have to understand that he's exaggerating just a little.

And that is why context is so important. To determine what a statement means, it's context must be examined.

A point Keith to which I am sure Greg would agree. As do I.

To the church fathers, there is no contradiction between saying that the Scriptures are all-sufficient and then saying that some things are not in Scripture. It sounds weird to us, but that's the way they spoke, and Keith seems to miss it.

I didn't miss it, I just deny the RCC explanation. First of all, we have to take into consideration the formative period when the Canon was still rather loose.

Okay.

Second, we have to take into account that the first time you really start to see statements like the above is in the writings of Basil, Augustine, and Chrysostom.

Let us not forget Athanasius, Hilary of Poiters, and Jerome also (not to mention Gregory of Nyssa and Gregory of Nazanzen).

Third, it isn't all that clear that Basil or Augustine ever intended to say that some doctrines were not inscripturated.

It is not clear that any of the Fathers held that all doctrines were inscriptured either.

Chrysostom seems to hold to Tradition 2 pretty clearly, but Basil and Augustine are more questionable.

Neither Augustine or Basil can be shown to have held to the view of sola scriptura. The best you can do is prima scriptura or material sufficiency and neither of these constitute sola scriptura. (Indeed these are acceptable Catholic positions to hold.)

But again my argument here would be that it is impossible for an RC to honestly examine these texts because he is forced by his convictions to come to them with the conclusion already in hand. In other words, part of the context you insist that I bring to my reading of the fathers is the conclusion that Rome's interpretation of them is correct. What then would be the point of examining them at all?

Why this focus on Rome alone??? What of the many areas where ALL Apostolic Churches hold in common (even the Nestorian and Monophysite churches)???

This is most easily shown by looking at Augustine and Basil. Both of them support position 2 above, but both of them also say things that imply the sufficiency of Scripture. IOW, in their minds there is no contradiction between the sufficiency of Scripture and the existence of extra-scriptural, binding traditions.

I'll let the readers of the book decide whether the assertion that both held to Tradition 2 is unquestionable. It's possible, as I stated in the book, but no where near absolutely certain.

There is some room for debate certainly. But in a spirited exchange with my friend Edwin Tait a couple of years ago, he made the same claims as Keith seems to be making and I showed him (via copious citations from Augustine and Basil) that both held to the material sufficiency and formal insufficiency of Scripture simultaneously. Since that time Edwin has dropped the notion that the Fathers supported any kind of sola scriptura. The closest anyone can get to making that assertion is asserting a form of material sufficiency which is NOT sola scriptura. (William Webster does this.) Catholics after all, CAN endorse material sufficiency also as I happen to do (and I think Greg does also). That is not sola scriptura though which involves more than mere material sufficiency – regardless of which theory of it you embrace.

A fair analysis of the fathers would have to deal with this rather weird way of talking, and without it, Keith's conclusions are iffy. This is especially true because of the conflict with the Gnostics, which Keith mentions, but he doesn't seem to grasp how it hurts his argument.

To me, what you are saying is that unless I deal with the fathers by starting with the assumption that Rome's interpretation of them is correct, then my interpretation of them is "iffy."

Why do you and CA point to ‘Rome’ as if somehow the interpretation is solely a Catholic one??? Need I point out that the Eastern churches ALSO take this view which has the Fathers taking a position of Scripture and Tradition as (my analogy here) "the blood and breath of the body of Revelation".

Of course you have to say this because of your prior commitment to Rome, but why should I start with the conclusion that Rome's interpretation is right when the point of my inquiry is to discover if Rome's interpretation is right?

Maybe the focus should be less on ‘Rome’ and more on Apostolic Churches in general. (Which would include the High Church Anglicans btw even though they are not strictly speaking ‘apostolic’.)

I think I did deal with them fairly. I pointed out as many places where I think Protestants have overstated their case as I did places where I think the RCC has overstated her case.

I have not read your book yet Keith so you may differ from what I see as the Protestant norm on these matters. But I should state that when I hear a Protestant say what ‘the RCC position’ is on a point, it is almost always presented through a lens of anachronistic Protestant presuppositions. In doing this the Protestant reads far too much into what they call the ‘RCC position’ than is really there. This is most notably the case with secondary truths or derivatives of more fundamental truths in antiquity (transubstantiation, papal infallibility, purgatory, indulgences) rather then focusing on the core doctrines which ARE reflected in the writings of the Fathers from which secondary truth are thereby logical extensions of (real presence, papal primacy/authority, prayers for the dead, remission of afterlife sanctification, etc). Often what a Protestant says is the ‘RCC overstating their case’ is nothing more than a Protestant projecting THEIR view of what Rome is saying rather than what is actually said by Rome. Now to some extent this will be due to unfamiliarity with our conventions of course so please do not assume that I am making an accusation of deliberately unfair tactics here. I tend to reserve those for individuals and organizations that I am virtually certain engage in this practice and I do not consider CA to be one of them.

If Augustine and Basil can speak of the sufficiency of Scripture and also speak of the necessity of extra-Scriptural traditions, the earlier church fathers might have had the same mindset, and since the Gnostic controversy gave them ample reason to minimize the existence of extra-Scriptural traditions, their seeming assertion of the material sufficiency of Scripture does not contradict a belief in extra-Scriptural traditions.

First of all, again, it remains questionable whether either of them held Tradition 2. I dealt with this at some length - especially in conection with Basil since he is cited most often. If you are going to assert that Basil holds Tradition 2 (which he may have), you need to answer the specific arguments that weigh against that conclusion.

When you say ‘Tradition 2’ are you referring to the formal insufficiency of Scripture (as opposed to material sufficiency of Scripture)??? The Fathers from about Irenaeus of Lyons onward tend to emphasize the existence of Tradition more and more because as Greg noted, the Gnostics were a major problem at that time. The Gnostics emphasized secret traditions that only the enlightened (i.e. them) possessed. Irenaeus and company insisted that if Jesus or the Apostles had any secrets they would have disclosed them to the churches they founded. His whole argument in essence was ‘we have a tradition and it is not secret. All churches possess it most notably the Church of Rome of which all churches must be in accord with as the tradition is the same in all places’. Tying the transmission of the tradition to the succession of the episcopate was the definitive refutation of the Gnostics. Tertullian likewise used this form of argument as did Cyprian and numerous others. By the fourth century it had become basically an immediate notion of sorts.

(I'm going to write this review as if Keith has cited all the relevant patristic data. I have a strong suspicion that there are other quotes from the early church fathers that would contradict material sufficiency.)

I cited as much as possible within the space constraints of the book. That chapter alone could be an entire book, or set of books, all by itself. So it isn't exhaustive by any stretch, but every attempt was made to be fair with the evidence. In addition, I had to depend to a degree on the work of others who have written entire volumes on this one subject. Unless they are all incompetent liars (J.N.D. Kelly, A.N.S. lane, H. Oberman, etc.), then there isn't much evidence that the fathers of the first three centuries said anything that would contradict material sufficiency.

You realize that material sufficiency is an acceptable Catholic position right Keith???

The last thing I'll mention is the oddity of material sufficiency in historical context. My first reaction to Keith's first chapter was that he started too late -- with the fathers. He should have started with Jesus' earthly ministry and talked through the shape of NT special revelation as it progressed through Pentecost, through the writing of the NT letters, etc. The modern Christian has to remember that the church existed -- and functioned -- and knew how to worship, and what to believe, and all that -- before the NT existed. So how did they do it, and how does that relate to the subsequent relationship between Scripture and tradition?

I started where I did because it is the interpretation of these Scriptural documents that is the issue in question. If I start with an interpretation of them, the RCCs would have cried foul. But those issues you raised are discussed in several places in the book.

Okay. You could have escaped the cry of ‘foul’ by proposing a paradigm of interpretation at the outset before interpreting them. Then at least the reader – if they disagree with your view – can know from where you are coming from. Just a suggestion though so take it for what it is worth.

Keith seems to assume an identity of content between tradition and Scripture, but does that really make any sense? Where do we get the idea that all of the content of divine revelation was inscripturated?

From the fathers of the first three centuries. Not modern Roman teaching for sure.

This is a rather deceptive notion Keith. However, I will not assume that you did it on purpose. It DOES seem to me though to be a Reformed cop-out. Here is why:

As long as there were Apostles and Apostolic men still living, there would be no need to resort to tradition since there was a living Apostle there to teach them. Since revelation was still being given until the close of the first century and the Apostle John’s death (a TRADITION by the way: Scripture says nothing about an end to Revelation), we cannot apply this standard to the first century when Revelation was still being given. Therefore the earliest we could apply it (if we accept the TRADITION of no revelation since John’s death of course – a very arbitrary move by Reformeds to say the least) would be the second century. That cuts your window down from 300 years to 200 years.

In the second century there were still men living who either knew the Apostles themselves or were disciples of Apostolic men. Ignatius, Polycarp, and Papias are examples of the latter. Justin Martyr, Aristides of Athens, Athengoras of Athens, Irenaeus of Lyons, Theophilus of Antioch (and possibly Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Minucius Felix, or Hippolytus) would be examples of the former. (There are a few other examples of note but these are the primary ones.) Only with the death of the Apostolic Fathers and the succession to the positions of authority of the Ante-Nicene Fathers would the third generation of Fathers such as Irenaeus have recourse to Apostolic Tradition in arguments and only then from positions of necessity (to refute the Gnostics who claimed to possess a ‘secret tradition’ of their own).

However, the Ante-Nicene Fathers are not firmly entrenched in positions of authority until the dawn of the third century. This is when a whole host of works pop up from Irenaeus’ ‘Against Heresies’ (authored in the late second century), to Tertullian’s ‘Demurrer Against Heretics’, to Hippolytus’ work ‘The Apostolic Traditions’ to Origen’s "The Fundamental Doctrines" among other writings. So examples of what these authors mean by ‘tradition’ should be considered along with the very narrow (150 years or less) window of which we speak (150 AD-300 AD). I will limit myself to a few citation at this time since this post is rather long.

Irenaeus of Lyons is sometimes referred to as ‘the Father of Tradition’. The reason is because his writings offer the first systematic treatments on the concept. As a disciple of Polycarp (who was taught by the Apostle John and later Ignatius of Antioch), Irenaeus was among the first of the Ante-Nicene Fathers properly so-called. As a third generation Father (unlike Justin, Ignatius, and Polycarp who were second-generation) he was a Bishop in the Church at the point when the Apostolic Fathers had passed on and their followers were being challenged by Gnostics who claimed to possess the ‘authentic teachings of the Apostles’. According to the respected mid-twentieth century non-Catholic writer John Lawson (whose work ‘The Biblical Theology of Saint Irenaeus’ I will cite):

"According to S. Irenaeus, the available authentic information from the Apostles regarding the life, teaching, and saving work of the Lord was not wholly written. There was also an oral tradition handed down by the Apostles and their successors. We may most accurately describe this tradition as the unwritten New Testament. It will be seen in the system of Irenaeus it occupies a position of dogmatic value akin to the Epistles, save that the ink and paper is absent." (pg. 87)


As the Canon and interpretation of the written tradition is to be determined by authority, so also is the unwritten in the mind of St. Irenaeus. Mr. Lawson notes this stating:

"Once granted that there was such a thing as unwritten information to which valid appeal could be made, the only answer to the heretic was the plain assertion that true oral tradition was the exclusive possession of the Church, just as was the written tradition. This was seconded by the assertion that that, as the Church as alone competent to expound the scripture, so she alone could determine the meaning of that which was not written" (pg. 91)


In other words, to Saint Irenaeus the witness to tradition is collective and by its inherent nature universal. Individualism after all was the mark of heresy. Mr. Lawson noted also on page 103 of his work that:

"To enquire whether tradition or Scripture is the primary authority is to obscure the mind of S. Irenaeus by asking the wrong question. To him both are manifestations of one and the same thing, the apostolic truth by which the Christian lives."


Tertullian was a late second early third century Father (actually Ecclesiastical Writer is a better term for him technically) who was a contemporary of Irenaeus. One of the arguments he faced with the complaint that there had been error in the churches. His response was as follows:

Error of doctrine in the churches must necessarily have produced various issues. When, however, that which is deposited among many is found to be one and the same, it is not the result of error, but of tradition. Can any one, then, be reckless enough to say that they were in error who handed on the tradition." [Prescription against the Heretics, 28]


And again notice how he follows the exact pattern that Mr. Lawson outlined for Irenaeus when it comes to tradition and how to determine whose teachings were authentic:

"But if there be any (heresies) which are bold enough to plant themselves in the midst Of the apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the apostles, because they existed in the time of the apostles, we can say: Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [that first bishop of theirs] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men,--a man, moreover, who continued stedfast with the apostles. For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter. In exactly the same way the other churches likewise exhibit (their several worthies), whom, as having been appointed to their episcopal places by apostles, they regard as transmitters of the apostolic seed. Let the heretics contrive something of the same kind. For after their blasphemy, what is there that is unlawful for them (to attempt)? But should they even effect the contrivance, they will not advance a step. For their very doctrine, after comparison with that of the apostles, will declare, by its own diversity and contrariety, that it had for its author neither an apostle nor an apostolic man; because, as the apostles would never have taught things which were self-contradictory, so the apostolic men would not have inculcated teaching different from the apostles, unless they who received their instruction from the apostles went and preached in a contrary manner. To this test, therefore will they be submitted for proof by those churches, who, although they derive not their founder from apostles or apostolic men (as being of much later date, for they are in fact being founded daily), yet, since they agree in the same faith, they are accounted as not less apostolic because they are akin in doctrine. Then let all the heresies, when challenged to these two tests by our apostolic church, offer their proof of how they deem themselves to be apostolic. But in truth they neither are so, nor are they able to prove themselves to be what they are not. Nor are they admitted to peaceful relations and communion by such churches as are in any way connected with apostles, inasmuch as they are in no sense themselves apostolic because of their diversity as to the mysteries of the faith." [Tertullian: On the Prescription Against the Heretics 32]


I could have quoted much more but in the interest of brevity I kept it to a minimum. The test of authenticity was not merely an appeal to Scripture (as anyone can do) but whether a give interpretation of Scripture (or a doctrine) was ‘apostolic’. A test I might add which Reformeds are incapable of passing in the areas where they differ from Apostolic churches ;-)

Again, I prefer the material sufficiency position, but I have a very hard time imagining material sufficiency in the early church -- before there even was a canon. And Keith doesn't even touch on this question.

Why would you prefer it if you don't believe it was the position of the early church? I don't know if you've read the rest of the book yet, but I did touch on that question.

Maybe because Greg was subconsciously accepting the ‘Roman’ position as set forth at Vatican II without knowing it ;-) And maybe because it is a position with a fair amount of Patristic support after the canon was settled. We have no reason to presume that the Fathers in the period before the canon was settled thought that what they accepted as Scripture did not materially contain to some extent all of Revelation – at least implicitly. Oh, that ends the first post but there is one more paragraph from a more recent post from Keith that I want to address (words in italics are from Greg):

Further, are you saying that RCs can't be honest because (you say) this is settled dogma, but Protestants can be honest despite the fact that it is settled dogma for them?

I would phrase this differently. I think the problem stems from the doctrine of infallibility.

Considering that the Church in every age has proclaimed that she alone possessed the truth and heretics were those who disagreed with her (and thus were in error) the doctrine of infallibility of the church is ancient and attested to throughout church history from the earliest of times. I go over this in detail in an essay on Christian unity where I trace out the development of the papal primacy in the early church.

That doctrine makes it incredibly difficult to reassess evidence.

No it does not. There have been a host of brilliant non-Catholics who have come into the Catholic Church (or some form of Apostolic Church ala Pelikan) from the study of history without being ‘constrained’ to view things as Rome does. (Whatever that means. I have yet to see the magisterium place any dampers on MY understanding of history one way or another.)

If you're a faithful RC, you have to come to the same conclusion that Rome comes
to.

In what sense are you referring??? If you refer to a declaration of dogma or doctrine than yes you are right. (Obviously as that is the entire point of an authoritative magisterium to begin with.) But if you are talking about how to read history in different spheres I am not COMPELLED to think that Rome herself did everything right over the centuries viz policy. I am not COMPELLED to think that her prudence in any particular circumstance was perfect nor is anyone else who is Catholic. I think Protestants put far too much into the authority of the magisterium than Catholics do. I see the authoritative church as a stimulus to theological speculation and intellectual cultivation. So too did great minds such as Soloviev, Newman, Knox, Chesterton, Manning, Waugh, and countless others (not that I belong in their company of course).

I don't deny that I or any other Protestant comes to these things free of bias (in fact that's one of the basic problems I examine in the book), but knowing that I am fallible allows me at least the theoretical possibility of looking at both sides of the case.

I submit that Reformed theologians are incapable of getting outside the box and looking at both sides. Thus virtually everyone was simply ‘in error’, and all was askew until the great Calvin and Luther came along (particularly Calvin). The presumption a priori with all Reformeds is that the ‘reformation’ WAS a reformation rather than a Deformation. The presumption a priori with all Reformeds is that any Patristic evidence that weighs heavily against Reformed positions (when taken literally: and there is TONS of it) is simply ‘Rome’s opinion’ even when they are positions that all Apostolic churches hold in common. (Some examples include prayers for the dead, Roman primacy/authority, apostolic succession, real presence, doctrine on the Mass/Divine Liturgy, salvation by grace alone working in love, theology of sacraments, communion of saints, etc.) It is not possible for Reformeds to get outside their confessional boxes in my view on all of these issues which Apostolic Christianity professes and Reformeds deny. (When I say deny I mean deny in the sense generally understood by all the apostolic churches in areas where there is remarkable unanimity.)

If I go in knowing I cannot be wrong, what's the point of going in to determine if I am wrong. That's why I say that those who believe their church is infallible and who go in claiming to be fair and objective with the evidence are being dishonest with themselves and others.

Well there is the same argument with regards to the Bible. A non-Christian could say "those who believe their holy book is infallible and who go in claiming to be fair and objective with the evidence are being dishonest with themselves and others". The argument applied consistently undermines Christianity in general – a point I made in my essay on Christian unity viz Reformed theology in general (though I have benefitted personally in some areas of my theology from Reformed viewpoints so certainly I am not condemning the entire thing).

I doubt that it is intentional dishonesty. But they cannot really be honest with the evidence presented if they go in knowing without a doubt that their interpretation, because it is Rome's, cannot be the wrong interpretation. Any claim to be objectively and honestly examining evidence in that case seems to be very specious.

Loukas on this board is not Catholic. He does however profess (to my knowledge) belief in the Real Presence, that the Divine Liturgy is a sacrifice, in Apostolic Succession, prayers for the dead, he professes 7 sacraments, and of course devotion to Theotokos and other saints. This is why the Reformed overemphasis on Rome is amusing because the Orthodox hold so many of the same doctrines we do. Often the difference is merely one of emphasis or outlook (such as with papal primacy). And the Orthodox at times accuse ROME of being too ‘juridical’ on some issues of dispute (i.e. the extent of papal primacy). Considering the theology as outlined in The Institutes I find this accusation hurdled towards Rome to be more than a wee bit amusing to put it plainly.

However, I feel that your work Keith for the most part will be a tremendous service in weeding out a number of very bad evangelical approaches taken towards history. Much as Catholics have to at times police their own when it comes to poor arguments (and yes ALL sides have them) it is important for Protestants to do this also. And an Evangelical who would not look twice at a Catholic or Orthodox source, which does this would consider the work of a fellow Protestant such as yourself. In that spirit I wish your work success though of course if Greg brings up stuff of questionable accuracy in his review, I will ring in of course. At the very least so that you can clarify yourself on certain points. Sometimes nuanced arguments are not done a service when they are summarized. Of this I am sure you would agree.

Shawn

PS The following is from Beckmn1’s post

I've previously discussed these same issues with Keith. He is of the mind that the "partim ... partim" (revelation is found partly in Scripture and partly in Tradition) position is the established dogma of the Catholic Church.

If Keith can show us where partim partim is used in a magisterial document that would be a first step. If it was dogma than it would not have been a debatable topic between Trent and Vatican II as it was. The Council of Trent did not use ‘partim partim’ terminology at all. First of all, absent defining terminology, the teaching would be at best doctrine and not dogma. From the Decree on the Canonical Scriptures (none of which was reaffirmed in solemn form I might add) we read the following:

"The sacred and holy, ecumenical, and general Synod of Trent,--lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost, the Same three legates of the Apostolic See presiding therein,--keeping this always in view, that, errors being removed, the purity itself of the Gospel be preserved in the Church; which (Gospel), before promised through the prophets in the holy Scriptures, our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, first promulgated with His own mouth, and then commanded to be preached by His Apostles to every creature, as the fountain of all, both saving truth, and moral discipline; and seeing clearly that this truth and discipline are contained in the written books, and the unwritten traditions which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ himself, or from the Apostles themselves, the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down even unto us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand; (the Synod) following the examples of the orthodox Fathers, receives and venerates with an equal affection of piety, and reverence, all the books both of the Old and of the New Testament--seeing that one God is the author of both --as also the said traditions, as well those appertaining to faith as to morals, as having been dictated, either by Christ's own word of mouth, or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved in the Catholic Church by a continuous succession.


Since Trent was the first Council to directly address the issue of tradition since Nicaea II and since the popes did not deal specifically in this matter before Vatican II (and since Vatican I did not deal with this particular issue), the issue remained one of legitimate theological speculation before Vatican II. No longer as partim partim was given the axe in Council and the single source theory was declared in a Dogmatic Constitution and followed up in the Catechism as doctrine of the faith. A General Council specifically passes judgment contra partim partim and the catechism which relied so heavily on the documents of Vatican II incorporated the contra partim partim position as doctrine…I fail to see where Keith is getting his presumptions from. He should focus on what the Catholic Church teaches and not merely the speculations of theologians. There are dissident theologians in the Catholic Church as there are in all churches who are out of sync with what the respective churches and ecclesial bodies teach. When in doubt, go to the sources I always say. The sources vindicate Greg’s position (and mine) quite nicely.

"[F]or it is enough for proof of our statement, that the Tradition has come down to us from our fathers, handled on, like some inheritance, by succession from the apostles and the saints who came after them. They, on the other hand, who change their doctrines to this novelty, would need the support of arguments in abundance, if they were about to bring over to their views, not men light as dust, and unstable, but men of weight and steadiness: but so long as their statement is advanced without being established, and without being proved, who is so foolish and so brutish as to account the teaching of the evangelists and apostles, and of those who have successively shone like lights in the churches, of less force than this undemonstrated nonsense?" [Gregory of Nyssa: Against Eunomius, 4:6]

 Registered User
6/22/01 12:47:49 am
One point (to Loukas)... IShawnM
Pedro Vega is no longer an Orthodox layman. From what I have heard he reverted to the Catholic Church in 1998.

Registered User
6/22/01 12:51:34 am
One other quick point. Keith Mathison
Because I simply do not have the time to rewrite the entire book in response to all the posts here (not to mention feedback and questions from Protestant adherents of Tradition 0 elsewhere), I can only make some quick points here and there.

1). I would like to quickly point out the reason I said one thing that seems to be raising a lot of fuss. The reason I said that Rome dogatized Tradition 2 at Trent is simply because I believe the historical evidence presented by Lennerz (cited in Congar), Oberman, and others is more persuasive than the evidence cited by Geiselmann and his followers. I think they clearly show that partim partim was the intent of Trent and that partim partim was the way Trent was understood and explained for centuries. You are more than welcome to side with Geiselmann's interpretation of Trent. I don't. I also think Shawn is right about Vatican II not teaching a partim partim view. Because I disagree with Geiselmann, I see this as an implicit change, whereas I'm sure the RCs see it as a legitimate development. IT's an interesting point of historical debate that deserves further exploration IMO.

2). I would also like to point out that I am aware that most modern Roman Catholics do not adhere to a partim partim, 2 source theory. I said as much in the book, and many other Protestants have noticed it as well. I do think there are some popular RC apologists who seem to still hold to a partim partim view (Sungenis says things at times in his 700 page book that seem to be in line with a partim partim view).

3). I appreciate the feedback. If the book encourages more fruitful discussion among us, then it will have acheived one of my primary goals. I'm tired of being stuck in the same argumentative rut we've been in for 500 years.

Thanks,

Keith :hat

Registered User
6/22/01 7:18:22 am

Page 1 2 << Prev Topic | Next Topic >>

Replies
The Shape of Sola Scriptura -- Chapter 1 GregK  6/21/01 8:55:14 am
    One other quick point. Keith Mathison 6/22/01 7:18:22 am
       Here's why you're wrong on "partim...partim" RRP 6/24/01 1:13:18 pm
          Re: Here's why you're wrong on "partim...partim" Keith Mathison 6/24/01 8:08:34 pm
             I was a bit over-simplistic. RRP 6/24/01 10:21:27 pm
                Re: I was a bit over-simplistic. Keith Mathison 6/25/01 12:40:59 pm
          It is a good book Rob... IShawnM 6/24/01 6:23:46 pm
    One point (to Loukas)... IShawnM 6/22/01 12:51:34 am
    Response to Greg, Kevin, and Beckmn1 IShawnM 6/22/01 12:47:49 am
       I think the issue is material sufficiency, not two sources GregK  6/22/01 9:12:27 am
          Interesting... IShawnM 6/24/01 1:18:07 am
    This is truly amazing! RRP 6/21/01 8:33:18 pm
    I can't believe I'm ahead of Greg in reading a Serious Book. Goldberry of Withywindle  6/21/01 12:27:14 pm
       As far as reviews, responses, etc. StLoukas 6/21/01 3:37:36 pm
          I don't doubt that's generally true, but... Goldberry of Withywindle  6/21/01 8:13:12 pm
             In fact... StLoukas 6/21/01 10:52:16 pm
       Just got it, and taking it s-l-o-w-l-y GregK  6/21/01 12:48:37 pm
          At that rate you shall soon pass me. Goldberry of Withywindle  6/21/01 12:56:58 pm
       Dallas? Why, what are the Evil People of the East gonna do? Anne  6/21/01 12:32:44 pm
          Dallas Theological Seminary DavidScherer 6/21/01 12:41:03 pm
    Re: The Shape of Sola Scriptura -- Chapter 1 Keith Mathison 6/21/01 10:01:27 am
       Welcome to Crowhill Manor. Please sit in this comfy chair. GregK  6/21/01 11:02:09 am
          thank you Keith Mathison 6/21/01 12:50:54 pm
          Re: Welcome to Crowhill Manor. Please sit in this comfy chai beckmn1  6/21/01 11:52:06 am
             I believe there is a difference GregK  6/21/01 12:18:42 pm
                Re: I believe there is a difference beckmn1  6/21/01 2:44:59 pm
    Re: The Shape of Sola Scriptura -- Chapter 1 StLoukas 6/21/01 9:38:16 am
       Revelation, inspiration, tradition. DavidScherer 6/21/01 10:57:12 am
          Re: Revelation, inspiration, tradition. StLoukas 6/24/01 10:21:21 pm


Email This To a Friend Email This To a Friend
Topic Control Image Topic Commands (Moderator only)
Subscribe Click to receive email notification of replies
Unsubscribe Click to stop receiving email notification of replies
jump to:

- Greg's Discussion Board - God talk - crowhill.net -




Powered By ezboard® Ver. 6.4 b8
Copyright ©1999-2001 ezboard, Inc.