![\"WittenbergChurch\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2011\/10\/WittenbergChurch.jpg\")
<\/a><\/div>\n\n
\n<\/span>* *\u00a0<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/div>\n
Nathan Rinne<\/a> (words in blue<\/span> in this paper) is a friendly and able Lutheran apologist, with whom I have been having cordial discussions. He first showed up on my blog with a comment under a post of mine about Luther. Nathan then started expressing interest in replying to my (five) critiques of Martin Chemnitz.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n His reply is entitled, My reply to RC apologist Dave Armstrong, regarding his examination of Martin Chemnitz\u2019s Examination<\/a>. In the Introduction, he stated that I \u201cwill be answering it line-by-line on his blog.\u201d <\/span>That was predicated upon his <\/i>being willing to critique my<\/i> papers line-by-line. But he has only selectively <\/i>replied:<\/span> *<\/p>\n Therefore, I trust that I may be excused if I don\u2019t reply to absolutely every jot and tittle<\/i>. I will still likely respond to virtually all of his paper, though, because that is my usual method. I don\u2019t think that his reply is truly a response to these five papers (technically speaking). It is a more wide-ranging and general critique of Catholic distinctives, and defense of the Lutheran worldview. My title reflects this.<\/span> *<\/span><\/p>\n We Catholics agree, since for us, apostolic tradition and Scripture must always be in harmony. The former can never contradict the latter. Note how St. Jerome specifically mentions \u201capostolic\u201d <\/i>tradition, over against false traditions of men (\u201cof their own accord . . . invent and think up\u201d). All he\u2019s saying here is that non-apostolic traditions contradict Scripture. He is not denying that apostolic tradition is also authoritative and a norm of faith. Thus it is no evidence whatsoever of a sola Scriptura <\/i>position (as Chemnitz probably intended it to be).<\/span> *<\/p>\n Irenaeus of Lyons: Contending for the Faith Once Delivered<\/span><\/a> *<\/span><\/p>\n Amen! This expresses the material sufficiency<\/i> of Scripture, that I and most Catholics hold. We deny, on the other hand, the formal sufficiency<\/i> of Scripture, which is sola Scriptura<\/i> as the rule of faith. This was a 16th-century novel innovation that cannot be traced back to the fathers or apostles or the Bible itself.<\/span><\/p>\n *<\/span><\/p>\n Then it shall be very easy going!!! Just<\/i> teasing . . .\u00a0 <\/span> *<\/p>\n Likewise. I look at dialogue as an opportunity for both parties to learn and grow, and follow truth wherever it leads. To me, that is the excitement and utility of it. It\u2019s not a means to belittle and put down the other person,with a goal to \u201cwin at all costs\u201d (including the cost of forsaking truth). So we are on the same page in this respect. I believe that truth has an inherent power, and that those who sincerely seek it will indeed find <\/i>it, by the enabling of God\u2019s grace.<\/span> *<\/span><\/p>\n Amen again! And this immediately brings us to a discussion of what corporate interpretation<\/i> means.\u00a0 Lutherans go back to the authority of their confessions in the Book of Concord. But I say that they, in turn, have to be in line with apostolic (and Catholic) tradition, going all the way back, and that in fact they are not <\/i>in accord with that, where they differ from Catholic teachings and doctrines. Lutherans have enough respect for the fathers to be concerned that their teachings are supported by them. I have not found this alleged patristic support to be the case, however, in my many debates with Lutherans about patristic views.<\/span> The concept of a contemporaneous existence of the Word of God in a corrupted verbal form, and a pure written form, spawned Chemnitz\u2019s explanation of traditiones in the second locus, De traditionibus. Here he lists the first of eight different types of traditiones as Scripture itself, i.e. the things that Christ and the Apostles preached orally and were later written down. Then follows: 2) the faithful transmission of the Scriptures; 3) the oral tradition of the Apostles (which by its very nature must agree with the contents of the New Testament canon); 4) the proper interpretation of the Scriptures received from the Apostles and \u201cApostolic men\u201d; 5) dogmas that are not set forth in so many words in Scripture but are clearly apparent from a sampling of texts; 6) the consensus of true and pure antiquity; 7) rites and customs that are edifying and believed to be Apostolic, but cannot be proved from Scripture. Chemnitz rejects only the eighth kind of tradition: [8] traditions pertaining to faith and morals that cannot be proved with any testimony of Scripture; but which the Council of Trent commanded to be accepted and venerated with the same reverence and devotion as the Scripture. The important element of this last of the traditiones appears not to be the fact that such traditions of faith and morals not provable from Scripture actually existed, but that their status of equality with Scripture was foisted upon the church by the Council of Trent.\u201d P. Strawn, Cyril of Alexandria as a Source for Martin Chemnitz, in Die Patristik in der Bibelexegese des 16. Jahrhunderts, Wolfenbu\u201dttleler Forschungen, Bd. 85, Hrsg. v. David C. Steinmetz, Wiesbaden 1999, p. 213-14.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n *<\/p>\n We contend that all Catholic doctrines (including even the dreaded Marian ones) are present in Scripture, explicitly, implicitly, or clearly able to be deduced from either sort of evidence (material sufficiency).<\/span> I will continue returning to this theme throughout my paper, because I think this is the central point.<\/span><\/p>\n *<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Then I will expect you to give individual examples of doctrines supposedly entirely missing from the Bible, and then you\u2019ll have to interact with my arguments that they are<\/i> present. It\u2019s not enough to merely make the assertion. Now you will have to demonstrate<\/i> it and interact with rebuttals. Protestants make the bald claims all the time, but when asked or challenged to defend <\/i>their assertions, oftentimes it is a far<\/i> different story, with much less confidence exhibited, for some reason.<\/span><\/p>\n In a nutshell, here is my contention: The best and most faithful of the Apostolic Fathers (i.e. the most Apostolic among them) believed that all essential doctrines \u2013 for all practical purposes, the Rule of Faith \u2013 could be proven with Scripture, even if they did hold to other (non-binding) teachings as well.<\/b> \u00a0<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n *<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Again, it all comes down to what you mean by \u201cproven with Scripture,\u201d and how you arrive at this determination; then it is a matter of examining relevant patristic passages. You may assume this means sola Scriptura<\/i>, which we reject, while I would argue that it is material sufficiency<\/i>, which we accept.<\/span> For example, Irenaeus essentially says that the Rule of Faith is \u201cin agreement with the Scriptures\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n *<\/p>\n<\/div>\n He does not<\/i>! To say that true doctrine agrees with Scripture does not contradict the Catholic position at all. This is what he believed (see my three links above). He doesn\u2019t make sola Scriptura<\/i> (Scripture as the only infallible norm and standard of faith or belief) the rule of faith: that is a whole \u2018nother ball of wax. This is a factual matter, and it is easy to prove that St. Irenaeus held a thoroughly Catholic view, not proto-Lutheran or any kind of proto-Protestant view. I\u2019ve already provided several proofs of that, and I have more in my third critique of Chemnitz and also some twenty pages in my book, Catholic Church Fathers\u00a0<\/i>(I will send you a free e-book copy via e-mail).<\/span> We must take very seriously these own men\u2019s words about the primacy and centrality of Scripture for those legitimately ordained men holding to the true Rule of Faith.\u00a0 Forgiveness, life, and salvation are at stake.<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n *<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Yes, we must \u2014 rightly interpreted. We can\u2019t simply anachronistically read in our views. I shall cite two prominent Lutherans with regard to this general point:<\/span> As regards the pre-Augustinian Church, there is in our time a striking convergence of scholarly opinion that Scripture and Tradition are for the early Church in no sense mutually exclusive: kerygma, Scripture and Tradition coincide entirely. The Church preaches the kerygma which is to be found in toto<\/i> in written form in the canonical books.<\/span><\/span>The Tradition is not understood as an addition to the kerygma contained in Scripture but as the handing down of that same kerygma in living form: in other words everything is to be found in Scripture and at the same time everything is in the living Tradition.<\/span><\/span> It is in the living, visible Body of Christ, inspired and vivified by the operation of the Holy Spirit, that Scripture and Tradition coinhere . . . Both Scripture and Tradition issue from the same source: the Word of God, Revelation . . . Only within the Church can this kerygma be handed down undefiled . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n (Heiko Oberman, The Harvest of Medieval Theology<\/i>, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, revised 1967, 366-367)<\/p>\n Clearly it is an anachronism to superimpose upon the discussions of the second and third centuries categories derived from the controversies over the relation of Scripture and tradition in the 16th century, for \u2018in the ante-Nicene Church . . . there was no notion of sola Scriptura<\/i>, but neither was there a doctrine of traditio sola<\/i>.\u2019. . . (1)<\/span>The apostolic tradition was a public tradition . . . So palpable was this apostolic tradition that even if the apostles had not left behind the Scriptures to serve as normative evidence of their doctrine, the church would still be in a position to follow \u2018the structure of the tradition which they handed on to those to whom they committed the churches (2).\u2019 This was, in fact, what the church was doing in those barbarian territories where believers did not have access to the written deposit, but still carefully guarded the ancient tradition of the apostles, summarized in the creed . . .<\/span> \u00a0<\/span> The term \u2018rule of faith\u2019 or \u2018rule of truth\u2019 . . . seems sometimes to have meant the \u2018tradition,\u2019 sometimes the Scriptures, sometimes the message of the gospel . . .<\/span> In the . . . Reformation . . . the supporters of the sole authority of Scripture . . . overlooked the function of tradition in securing what they regarded as the correct exegesis of Scripture against heretical alternatives.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n (Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine<\/i>: Vol.1 of 5: The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600)<\/i>, Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1971, pp. 115-17, 119; citations: 1. In Cushman, Robert E. and Egil Grislis, editors, The Heritage of Christian Thought: Essays in Honor of Robert Lowry Calhoun<\/i>, New York: 1965, quote from Albert Outler, \u201cThe Sense of Tradition in the Ante-Nicene Church,\u201d p. 29. 2. St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies<\/i>, 3:4:1)<\/span><\/p>\n It should be unnecessary to accumulate further evidence.<\/span><\/span>Throughout the whole period Scripture and tradition ranked as <\/span>complementary authorities, media different in form but <\/span>coincident in content. To inquire which counted as superior or <\/span>more ultimate is to pose the question in misleading terms. If<\/span> Scripture was abundantly sufficient in principle, tradition was <\/span>recognized as the surest clue to its interpretation, for in <\/span>
\n
\n<\/span><\/p>\n
\n
\n<\/span>I appreciate Nathan\u2019s kind words at the beginning of his reply. I, too, have enjoyed our interactions a lot, and have respect for his work and his demeanor. It\u2019s a true pleasure to take part in a non-acrimonious dialogue, in good faith, with two parties confident and secure in their positions (which generally means there is no need for desperate, evasive personal attacks; charges of lying, etc.). Such a phenomenon seems to be as rare as a square circle anymore online.<\/span>
\n
\n<\/span><\/p>\n
\n
\n<\/span>The same St. Jerome also wrote: <\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n\n
\n<\/span><\/div>\n
\n<\/span>Of course<\/i> they are in agreement with the Bible. That is the Catholic position of the three-legged stool: Bible-Tradition-Church: all harmonious: all of a piece. Few fathers talked more about the sublime authority of apostolic succession and apostolic tradition than St. Irenaeus. He was no advocate of sola Scriptura<\/i>. I maintain that it is special pleading to contend that any<\/i> major Church father was such. I\u2019ve never seen any evidence of it. For much more on St. Irenaeus\u2019 view of authority and the rule of faith, see two papers from an Orthodox writer, Robert Arakaki:<\/span>
\n
\n<\/span><\/p>\n
\n
\n<\/span>Response to Robin Phillips \u201cQuestions About St. Irenaeus and Apostolic Succession\u201d<\/span><\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/span> Many patristic passages where Scripture is extolled are falsely interpreted<\/i> as proclaiming sola Scriptura<\/i> (whole books have been put together on these lines), but it is not the case. To have a high view of Scripture is not the equivalent of making the Bible the sole infallible rule of faith.<\/span>
\n
\n<\/span><\/p>\n
\n
\n<\/span><\/p>\n
\n
\n<\/span><\/p>\n
\n
\n<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/span>This hinges on what is meant by \u201cproved\u201d from Scripture, and the criterion of \u201cclearly demonstrable.\u201d Those things are subjective, and reasonable men can disagree. The nature and scope of \u201cproof\u201d cannot simply be some tradition of men, itself unattached to biblical criteria. It seems to me that it has to be in harmony with biblical thought. Likewise, clarity or perspicuity is often arguable, concerning particular doctrines and how \u201cproved\u201d they are. I\u2019ve written two books critiquing sola Scriptura<\/i> (the latest one to be published by Catholic Answers next year). I haven\u2019t seen any<\/i> biblical proof at all of that<\/i> doctrine. And I have seen much scriptural disproof<\/i> of it and also an important component of it: perspicuity of Scripture. As I argued in my \u201cReply to Dr. Gene Veith on Catholic Mariology\u201d: <\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n
\n
\n<\/span>There are different levels of such evidence. The Virgin Birth has but a few support passages. Original sin also has only a few. Yet both are firmly believed by Christians of all stripes. Original sin isn\u2019t even mentioned in the Nicene Creed, and Cardinal Newman noted that there was far more support for purgatory in the fathers than for original sin. <\/span>
\n
\n<\/span>Other things have to be (mostly or largely) deduced. Under this category would come things like the Two Natures of Christ. It\u2019s in Scripture, assuredly, but has to be \u201cteased\u201d out of it by an examination of many passages together. Even the Holy Trinity is mostly of that nature. I have papers giving many hundreds of biblical proofs for the Trinity, but they are not always evident at first glance. As a result, Christology developed in the early Church for about 600 years: . . . <\/span>
\n
\n<\/span>Other things are totally<\/i> absent in Scripture, yet believed by Protestants, who claim to be \u201cScripture Alone\u201d (as infallible authority). The canon of the Bible is the best and most undeniable example of that. Protestants are forced to accept a \u201cfallible list of infallible books\u201d \u2014 as R. C. Sproul has candidly admitted. And they have to rely on the (Catholic) Church authority that proclaimed the canon (minus the deuterocanon). Sola Scriptura<\/i> is another. It\u2019s found nowhere in Scripture.<\/span>
\n
\n<\/span>. . . Nowhere does it say in Holy Scripture that the Bible only is the infallible guide and rule of faith, to the exclusion of an infallible Church or infallible apostolic tradition (which is precisely what the Protestant contention is). And the Bible contradicts it all over the place. But that doesn\u2019t stop Protestants from believing it and basing their entire system of authority and method of theology on it: castles made of sand, like the old Jimi Hendrix song . . .<\/span>
\n
\n<\/span>Denominations are nowhere found in the New Testament, which everywhere refers to one Church with one solid set of beliefs, that are non-negotiable. This is beyond all dispute. Many Protestant thinkers readily concede this, and lament it. Yet all Protestants live with the tension of the very existence of denominations being dead-set against what the Bible teaches about ecclesiastical authority and belief-systems of theological truth. . . .<\/span>
\n
\n<\/span>Now, all that was my roundabout way of addressing the criticism that our Marian doctrines are supposedly not \u201cin\u201d the Bible. They certainly are: just not (usually) explicitly, or sometimes (as in the Assumption) not implicitly, either, and able only to be deduced from other things. But this shouldn\u2019t pose any problem for the Protestant (unless we adopt double standards) because, as I\u2019ve shown, they believe many things that are only infrequently indicated in the Bible or not at all. Neither the canon issue nor the denominational scandal ever seem to cause any Protestants to reject their own system.<\/span>
\n
\n<\/span>So that is one reply: we reject the double standard whereby you guys believe all that (and other things, too) with small or no biblical support, while at the same time demanding hyper-biblical-support for every one of our doctrines, as if we don\u2019t have it and you do<\/i> for absolutely everything you believe and even make a \u201cpillar\u201d of your system.<\/span>
\n
\n<\/span>The second answer is that explicit support is not required anyway, because the Bible never teaches that: that every doctrine must be explicitly<\/i> indicated in the Bible and nowhere else. If we are fully \u201cbiblical\u201d that notion is completely absent. So why follow it? Well, because it is an entrenched, arbitrary tradition of man, is what it amounts to. [last italics added presently]<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/span>I add now, that this notion Chemnitz has, that a doctrine more explicitly indicated in Scripture is automatically superior to one that is less explicitly or only implicitly\u00a0 indicated (or, as he would say, absent altogether, when often this is debatable), is itself a concept that Scripture (to my knowledge) never asserts. So where does it come from? Well, it is a deduction of a notion that is itself not able to be proved from Scripture: sola Scriptura<\/i>. Chemnitz is thus relying heavily on an arbitrary, unbiblical notion of men that is based on another presupposition that is an arbitrary, unbiblical notion of men. If anyone doubts this, then I would challenge him to find where in Chemnitz he explains and defends the rationale or basis for this notion; on what basis <\/i>does he hold it in the first place? Where is his biblical proof?<\/span>
\n
\n<\/span>What Catholics would regard as perfectly harmonious with Scripture; therefore, \u201cbiblical\u201d; Chemnitz would reject as \u201cunbiblical.\u201d It comes down to a matter of definition and criteria for levels of \u201cproof\u201d or demonstration. In the end, each doctrine will have to be gone through individually, to establish if it is sufficiently \u201cbiblical.\u201d That is my apologetic specialty, so I\u2019d be glad \u2014 more than happy \u2014 to do that. Every time I\u2019ve set out to find biblical indication of a Catholic doctrine, I\u2019ve found it. Relative strength or weakness may be debated, but I found something<\/i> every time.<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/span><\/p>\n
\n
\n<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/span>Likewise, Anglican church historian J. N. D. Kelly:<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n