Rome and Sola Scriptura

[RamistThomist]

I have always found arguing with Catholics to be the most frustrating. It is like pinning a needle on a marble. If you appeal to Scripture, they try to trump that with the magisterium. Then of course, their tradition is always more accurate than yours. So, it gets frustrating after a while.

However, I came across this James White quote and it looks pretty sharp. What do yall think of it?

"If Rome determines the extent of both Scripture and tradition, and the meaning of both Scripture and tradition, how can she logically be subservient to two things that she in fact defines and interprets?" Have fun with that.

 

[fredtgreco]

Jacob,

Get David King and William Webster's three volumes Holy Scripture. It is the best extensive modern treatment of the subject. You have seen how knowledgable David is on the board. Webster is a first rate apologist against Rome, and a former RC.

 

[SRoper]

I don't know, don't we do something similar? Do we not also define the extent of Scripture?

 

[LarryCook]

Originally posted by SRoper
I don't know, don't we do something similar? Do we not also define the extent of Scripture?

SR,
In all humility and with due respect, isn't the the canon, having been determined complete and not since revised, a lot different than a continually changing and utterly unanchored tradition? I don't see the similarity.

Larry

 

[Contra_Mundum]

We (the church) don't "define the limits of Scripture," at least not in the way that Rome does. Rome claims that the church made the Bible, established its authority, etc. They claim special Holy Spirit power and gifts to do it, but they claim it nonetheless. This is why at Trent they could just do it again, and include more stuff, and add or subtract from the "authority" in the future. According to them, it's just another extraordinary work of the Spirit, part of her regular, ongoing miracles. ROME is the final authority.

Our view is very different. We declare that in the pages of the 66 books that we know and are familar with, we hear the authoritative Voice, the Word of the Lord. That we hear that Voice the same place, and only that place that the father's heard it, is corroborative of it's authority, but not determinative. We argue, then, exegetically, from the text itself to make our claims. We appeal for further corroboration to the history of theology, to faithful teachers down through the centuries who also read out the same truths. The issue is not "majority" but "harmony." God speaks with but one Voice.

On these issues the church of Rome lost the Reformation. They lost completely and utterly. They resorted to secular armies in conjunction with their spiritual jihadists--primarily Jesuists--who worked like the ancient Judaisers of Paul's day to chain back up vast swaths of territory. So, Bohemia and Poland for example were taken back. So they also lose the battle today, wherever the playingfield is not subject to their tiltings and adjustments.

 

[Scott]

"If Rome determines the extent of both Scripture and tradition, and the meaning of both Scripture and tradition, how can she logically be subservient to two things that she in fact defines and interprets?"

It is interesting that this could be flipped against an individual too.

"If the individual determines the extent of both Scripture and tradition, and the meaning of both Scripture and tradition, how can the individual logically be subservient to two things that she in fact defines and interprets?"

Just an observation. Withou careful qualification, these kinds of criticisms naturally apply to whatever locus of interpretation one uses. (Of course I disagree with RC views of authority).

[Edited on 8-29-2005 by Scott]

 

[Contra_Mundum]

If the individual determines who his mayor, congressman, president, or king is (not by voting for him, but by investigating the fact) and then submits to him because of who they are, is he being submissive in fact? He certainly may, provided he does not reserve the right to autonomy if they tell him something he does not like.

There are a lot of jurisdictions out there. A lot of competing authorities. Why don't you or I submit to the King of Jordan if he claims authority over us? Because, if we search out the lines of authority he does not have that authority. We haven't fixed the limit of his authority, simply by defining ourselves inside or outside it.

 

[DTK]

Originally posted by Scott
"If Rome determines the extent of both Scripture and tradition, and the meaning of both Scripture and tradition, how can she logically be subservient to two things that she in fact defines and interprets?"

It is interesting that this could be flipped against an individual too.

"If the individual determines the extent of both Scripture and tradition, and the meaning of both Scripture and tradition, how can the individual logically be subservient to two things that she in fact defines and interprets?"

Just an observation. Withou careful qualification, these kinds of criticisms naturally apply to whatever locus of interpretation one uses. (Of course I disagree with RC views of authority).

[Edited on 8-29-2005 by Scott]

With all due respect, this is equivalent to saying, "Rome is wrong, and I believe Rome is wrong, but the Protestant view is open to the same criticism." This is not how the historical Reformed position views this dispute.

William Whitaker: Therefore...I answer, that it is false to say as he [Stapleton] does, that no authority is more certain than that of the church: it is a mere begging of the question. For greater and more certain is the authority of God of the Scriptures themselves, and of the Holy Spirit, by whose testimony the truth of Scripture is sealed in our minds, and without which all other testimonies are utterly devoid of strength. But God (says he) teaches us through the church, and by no other medium: therefore there is no more certain authority than that of the church. I answer: For the authority of him who teaches is greater than that of him through whom one is taught. God teaches us through the church: therefore the authority of God is greater than the church. I am surprised that Stapleton should have been so stupid as not to see that, if it be God who teaches through the church, the authority of God must be greater than that of the church. He confesses that we are taught by God through the church: therefore, since God is the prime and highest teacher, it is evident that his authority and trustworthiness is the chief. William Whitaker, A Disputation on Holy Scripture Against the Papists, Especially Bellarmine and Stapleton, trans. and ed. William Fitzgerald (Cambridge: University Press, reprinted 1849), p. 286.

William Whitaker: The second argument wherewith Stapleton confirms the assumption of the preceding syllogism is this: All other mediums that can be attempted are insufficient without making recourse to the judgment of the church; and then he enumerates the mediums upon which we rely. For as to the style (says he) and phraseology, and other mediums, by which the scripture is usually distinguished,"”these the church knows best, and is best able to judge aright. There, &c. I answer: If by the church he understand the pope and the bishops (as the papists always do), I deny that they are best able to distinguish the style and phraseology of scripture; I deny that this is the true church of Christ which knows the voice of Christ. But if he speaks of the true church, this fallacy is that called ignoratio elenchi, and the state of the question is changed. For before this he had been speaking of the external judgment of scripture, which perhaps may properly belong to the bishops: but here he understands the internal judgment, which is not only proper to the pastors, but common to all Christians: for all Christ´s sheep know his voice, and are internally persuaded of the truth of scripture. Secondly, although we should concede all this to him, yet where will be the coherence of his reasoning,"”The church knows best the voice of the spouse, and the style and phraseology of scripture; therefore its authority is the most certain? For what though the church know? What is that to me? Are these things therefore known and certain to me? For the real question is, how can I know it best? Although the church know ever so well the voice of its spouse, and the style and phraseology of scripture, it hath that knowledge to itself, not to me; and by whatever means it hath gained that knowledge, why should I be able to gain it also by the same? Thirdly, from what he says, the contrary of his conclusion might much more correctly be inferred, namely, that the authority of scripture is more certain than that of the church. For if the authority of the church be therefore most certain, because it knows best the style of scripture, and judges by the style of scripture, it is plain that the authority of scripture itself is far more certain, since it indicates itself to the church by its style. But I (you will say) should not know that this was the voice of the spouse, that this was the style of scripture, unless the church were to teach me. This, indeed, is untrue, since it can be known that this is the voice of Christ and true and genuine scripture without the judgment of the church, as shall hereafter be shewn more at large. But, although we were to grant him this, that it could not be known otherwise than through the church, that these were the scriptures, yet even so the argument would be inconsequential. For many would not have known Christ, if John had not taught them, pointed him out, and exclaimed, "œBehold the Lamb of God, who taketh away the sin of the world!" Was then the authority of John more certain than that of Christ? By no means. For John brought many to Christ, who afterwards believed much more on account of Christ himself, than on account of the preaching and testimony of John. So many through means of the church believe these to be the scriptures, who afterwards believe still more firmly, being persuaded by the scriptures themselves. Besides, Paul and Peter and the other apostles best knew the voice of Christ; must therefore their authority be rated higher than that of Christ himself? Far from it. It does not therefore follow that because the church knows very well the voice of Christ, the authority of the church is greater than that of Christ. But as to his pretence that because the church delivers the rule of faith, it must therefore be the correctest judge of that rule; we must observe that the terms deliverer and judge are ambiguous. The church does indeed deliver that rule, not as its author, but as a witness, and an admonisher, and a minister: it judges also when instructed by the Holy Spirit. But may I therefore conclude, that I cannot be certain of this rule, but barely by the testimony of the church? It is a mere fallacy of the accident. There is no consequence in this reasoning: I can be led by the church´s voice to the rule of faith; therefore I can have no more certain judgment than that of the church. William Whitaker, A Disputation on Holy Scripture Against the Papists, Especially Bellarmine and Stapleton, trans. and ed. William Fitzgerald (Cambridge: University Press, reprinted 1849), pp. 286-288.

With this sentiment, Metzger concurred...

Bruce M. Metzger: There are, in fact, no historical data that prevent one from acquiescing in the conviction held by the Church Universal that, despite the very human factors (the confusion hominum) in the production, preservation, and collection of the books of the New Testament, the whole process can also be rightly characterized as the result of divine overruling in the providentia Dei. Bruce M. Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance, third, enlarged ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997), p. 285.

Bruce M. Metzger: The distinction between the New Testament writings and later ecclesiastical literature is not based upon arbitrary fiat; it has historical reasons. The generations following the apostles bore witness to the effect that certain writings had on their faith and life. The self-authenticating witness of the word testified to their divine origin of the gospel that had brought the Church into being; such is the implication of Paul´s words to the Thessalonians: "˜We thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of any human being but as what it really is, the word of God which is at work in you believers´ (1 Thess. ii. 13). During the second and succeeding centuries, this authoritative word was found, not in utterances of contemporary leaders and teachers, but in the apostolic testimony contained within certain early Christian writings. From this point of view the Church did not create the canon, but came to recognize, accept, affirm, and confirm the self-authenticating quality of certain documents that imposed themselves as such upon the Church. If this fact is obscured, one comes into serious conflict not with dogma but with history. Bruce M. Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance, third, enlarged ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997), pp. 286-287.

Both the ancient church fathers, Chrysostom and Salvian, were of the same mind on this issue...

Chrysostom (349-407): In order to learn another reason why the teaching of the prophets is more worthy of belief than the report of those who rise from the dead, consider this fact, that every dead person is a servant, but what the Scriptures utter, the Master has uttered. So even if a dead person rises, even if an angel descends from Heaven, the Scriptures are more worthy of belief than any of them. For the Master of the angels, the Lord of the dead and the living, Himself has given the Scriptures their authority. Cf. Catharine P. Roth, trans., St. John Chrysostom On Wealth and Poverty, 4th Sermon (Crestwood: St. Vladimir´s Seminary Press, 1984), p. 85.

Salvian the Presbyter (5th century): I need not prove by arguments what God Himself proves by His own words. When we read that God says He perpetually sees the entire earth, we prove thereby that He does see it because He Himself says He sees it. When we read that He rules all things He has created, we prove thereby that He rules, since He testifies that He rules. When we read that He ordains all things by His immediate judgment, it becomes evident by this very fact, since He confirms that He passes judgment. All other statements, said by men, require proofs and witnesses. God´s word is His own witness, because whatever uncorrupted Truth says must be the undefiled testimony to truth. FC, Vol. 3, The Writings of Salvian, The Presbyter, The Governance of God, Book 3.1 (New York: CIMA Publishing Co., Inc., 1947), pp. 68-69.
Latin text: Neque enim necesse est ut argumentis a me probetur quod hoc ipso quia a Deo dicitur comprobatur. Itaque cum legimus dictum a Deo quia aspiciat jugiter omnem terram, hoc ipso probamus quod aspicit quia aspicere se dicit; cum legimus quod regat cuncta quae fecit, hoc ipso approbamus quod regit, quia se regere testatur; cum legimus quod praesenti judicio universa dispenset, hoc ipso est evidens quod judicat quia se judicare confirmat. Alia enim omnia, id est, humana dicta, argumentis ac testibus egent. Dei autem sermo ipse sibi testis est, quia necesse est quidquid incorrupta veritas loquitur, incorruptum sit testimonium veritatis. Sancti Salviani Massiliensis Presbyteri De Gubernatione Dei, Liber Tertius, I, PL 53:1567.

And so affirmed Calvin...

John Calvin: But a most pernicious error widely prevails that Scripture has only so much weight as is conceded to it by the consent of the church. As if the eternal and inviolable truth of God depended upon the decision of men! For they mock the Holy Spirit when they ask: Who can convince us that these writings came from God? Who can assure us that Scripture has come down whole and intact even to our very day? Who can persuade us to receive one book in reverence but to exclude another, unless the church prescribe a sure rule for all these matters? What reverence is due Scripture and what books ought to be reckoned within its canon depend, they say, upon the determination of the church. Thus these sacrilegious men, wishing to impose an unbridled tyranny under the cover of the church, do not care with what absurdities they ensnare themselves and others, provided they can force this one idea upon the simple-minded: that the church has authority in all things. Yet, if this is so, what will happen to miserable consciences seeking firm assurance of eternal life if all promises of it consist in and depend solely upon the judgment of men? Will they cease to vacillate and tremble when they receive such an answer? Again, to what mockeries of the impious is our faith subjected, into what suspicion has it fallen among all men, if we believe that it has a precarious authority dependent solely upon the good pleasure of men! Institutes of the Christian Religion, Vol. 1, ed. John T. McNeill and trans. Ford Lewis Battles, (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, reprinted 1977), Book I.7.1, p. 74.

And so says the Westminster Confession...

WCF 1:5: We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to a high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture. And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man´s salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evi-dence itself to be the Word of God: yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.

Scott, it's not what you affirm so much that I find troubling, but rather your proficiency at raising an issue like this as if there is no adequate answer on the part of the Reformed to respond to Rome, in suggesting that the same criticisms can be leveled against the an individual, which tends to be a straw man in the context of Dr. White's position. The Reformers were of a different persuasion, as were the Westminster divines. I'm not convinced that you share their sentiments. The substitution of the word "church" with the word "inidividual" is a rather interesting straw man that the proponents of Rome love to plead by way of a red herring. It is not the individual who makes such a determination, but God who by his own word and Spirit persuades individuals to recognize the Scriptures for whose word they are.

The Westminster divines were convinced that "our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts," and that work of God takes place in our hearts individually as well as collectively. Now, I understand that you mentioned the need of "careful qualification," perhaps you could help us all by offering it rather than simply mentioning it. I know I would be very pleased to see it. In other words, please show us how this issue is to be resolved, if indeed you have a better way of resolving the issue.

Blessings,
DTK

[Edited on 8-29-2005 by DTK]

 

[Scott]

David: You misunderstood what I was saying. I was simply responding to the wording that Jacob posted, not to the Reformed position. You will note that I wrote: "Without careful qualification, these kinds of criticisms naturally apply to whatever locus of interpretation one uses." The bolded language implies that such qualifications exist (as I believe they do). Of course Rome is wrong. The papacy is a usurper.

 

[DTK]

Originally posted by Scott
David: You misunderstood what I was saying. I was simply responding to the wording that Jacob posted, not to the Reformed position. You will note that I wrote: "Without careful qualification, these kinds of criticisms naturally apply to whatever locus of interpretation one uses." The bolded language implies that such qualifications exist (as I believe they do). Of course Rome is wrong. The papacy is a usurper.

Scott, perhaps I have misunderstood you. But I would still like for you to elaborate on what these "qualifications" are. Since you believe that these "qualifications exist," then they must be something that you can identify for us and explain to us. It would help us all for you to offer these for us.

Blessings,
DTK

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by Draught Horse
"If Rome determines the extent of both Scripture and tradition, and the meaning of both Scripture and tradition, how can she logically be subservient to two things that she in fact defines and interprets?" Have fun with that.

Bingo. I once heard someone call their doctrine "sola ecclesia". I about cracked up. But it is a pretty accurate description of their belief!

 

[Scott]

David: I am rather plain vanilla Westminster Confession on these issues. The WCF I think has the right balance of an individual's accountability to God and an individual's accountability to secondary authorities, including parents, the Church, and the civil government. You cited a relevant portion, Ch. 1.5. I would also add chapters 20 and 31, among others.

Also, please understand that my post did not address James' views as a whole, as you seemed to believe in your post. It simply addressed the wording from the quote Jacob forwarded.

The issue of how authoritites relate to one another repeats itself in many places. It repeats itself in the home (eg. the relation of a child's duty to parental teaching about God), government, etc.

Outside fo strictly religious matters, this same type of issue comes up in law. There are different views on the relation of the authority of the Constitution to the authority of the courts in general and the Supreme Court in particular. Many of the arguments made against the RC view are similar to arguments made against judicial abuse (and I typically agree with both by the way). In the same way a civil court encroaches on the authority of the constitution by wrongly adding to it (eg. the right to privacy, Roe v. Wade, etc.), so do erring church courts (Roman or otherwise) encroach on the authority of scripture by adding to it or misinterpreting it. Still, there are general duties to obey the courts and the courts do have a legitimate interpretive function. And civil courts of course are reformable, as are church courts (or as they should be).

Scott

 

[DTK]

Originally posted by Scott
David: I am rather plain vanilla Westminster Confession on these issues. The WCF I think has the right balance of an individual's accountability to God and an individual's accountability to secondary authorities, including parents, the Church, and the civil government. You cited a relevant portion, Ch. 1.5. I would also add chapters 20 and 31, among others.

Thanks Scott, this helps.

Also, please understand that my post did not address James' views as a whole, as you seemed to believe in your post. It simply addressed the wording from the quote Jacob forwarded.

OK Scott, I appreciate this. But this is the third time that I can recall on this board that when the name of James White was invoked in connection with sola Scriptura, you have either responded critically of his position, or unfavorably of it. I wanted to see if you have something better to offer in place of his defense besides such expressions. I know for a fact that he does not believe that the Bible's authority is contingent upon an individual's reception of it. Moreover, I know from personal acquaintance that he agrees with the WCF on this issue.

The issue of how authoritites relate to one another repeats itself in many places. It repeats itself in the home (eg. the relation of a child's duty to parental teaching about God), government, etc.

Outside fo strictly religious matters, this same type of issue comes up in law. There are different views on the relation of the authority of the Constitution to the authority of the courts in general and the Supreme Court in particular. Many of the arguments made against the RC view are similar to arguments made against judicial abuse (and I typically agree with both by the way). In the same way a civil court encroaches on the authority of the constitution by wrongly adding to it (eg. the right to privacy, Roe v. Wade, etc.), so do erring church courts (Roman or otherwise) encroach on the authority of scripture by adding to it or misinterpreting it. Still, there are general duties to obey the courts and the courts do have a legitimate interpretive function. And civil courts of course are reformable, as are church courts (or as they should be).

Agreed, and I thank you for your response.

Blessings,
DTK

 

[Denny]

The Shape of Sola Scriptura

Originally posted by Draught Horse
I have always found arguing with Catholics to be the most frustrating. It is like pinning a needle on a marble. If you appeal to Scripture, they try to trump that with the magisterium. Then of course, their tradition is always more accurate than yours. So, it gets frustrating after a while.

However, I came across this James White quote and it looks pretty sharp. What do ya ll think of it?

"If Rome determines the extent of both Scripture and tradition, and the meaning of both Scripture and tradition, how can she logically be subservient to two things that she in fact defines and interprets?" Have fun with that.

I have read portions of Mathison's book,and it is good,I hope to read all of it, and I think the modern day version of SS really is deficient in many ways,and Catholics will use this deficiency against us.

In some ways I think Mathison is playing the devil's advocate in this,by saying that we shouldn't't do away with Tradition all together,and emphasises the importance of The Historical Creeds and Confessions of the Church.

[Edited on 9-5-2005 by Denny]