![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2021\/02\/Cover-551x833.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
Matt Hedges is a Reformed Protestant apologist. He took issue with my paper,<\/span>\u00a0St. John Chrysostom (d. 407) vs. Sola Scriptura<\/em> as the Rule of Faith<\/a> (8-1-03), in his counter-reply:<\/span>\u00a0St. John Chrysostom and Sola Scriptura<\/a> (2-22-21). His words will be in<\/span> blue<\/span>:<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n He presents for his readers two of my citations of St. John Chrysostom:<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cSo then, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye were taught, whether by word, or by Epistle of ours.\u201d\u00a0Hence it is manifest, that they did not deliver all things by Epistle, but many things also unwritten, and in like manner both the one and the other are worthy of credit. Therefore let us think the tradition of the Church also worthy of credit. It is a tradition, seek no farther. Here he shows that there were many who were shaken.\u00a0<\/span>(On Second Thessalonians<\/a><\/i>, Homily IV)<\/span><\/p>\n Not by letters alone did Paul instruct his disciple in his duty, but before by words also which he shows, both in many other passages, as where he says, \u201cwhether by word or our Epistle\u201d (2 Thess. ii. 15.), and especially here. Let us not therefore suppose that anything relating to doctrine was spoken imperfectly. For many things he delivered to him without writing. Of these therefore he reminds him, when he says, \u201cHold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me.\u201d<\/span>\u00a0(Homily III on 2 Timothy<\/a>\u00a0<\/i>\u2013 on 2 Tim 1:13-18)<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n If one thinks these quotes somehow \u201cdebunk\u201d\u00a0Sola Scriptura<\/i>, it is quite clear that they did not grasp a clear definition of what\u00a0Sola Scriptura\u00a0<\/i>actually is!<\/span><\/p>\n Sola Scriptura\u00a0<\/i>simply says that everything that is needed for salvation is contained in the written Word.<\/span><\/p>\n I fully agree that one must have a firm grasp of the definition of anything, in order to refute it (or defend it). Unfortunately, Matt falls short in this respect \u2014 thus immediately putting himself in a very precarious position in our little debate. The \u201cdefinition\u201d he provides is actually the definition of \u201cmaterial sufficiency of Scripture.\u201d The latter is defined as follows:<\/span><\/p>\n The actual<\/em> definition of sola Scriptura<\/em>, as held by historic Protestantism is: \u201cHoly Scripture is the only final<\/em> and infallible<\/em>\u00a0and binding<\/em> authority for the Christian.\u201d Expanding upon that, the converse is also true: \u201cNo Church or council or tradition or single figure in Christianity (be he the pope or anyone else) can lay claim to this level of sublime authority in Christianity\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n Hence, Joel Beeke, whom Matt himself cites, notes in a different article:<\/span><\/p>\n Sola Scriptura<\/em>\u00a0at its heart was an assertion of the sufficiency of the Bible for the faith and practice of the church. In the Smalcald Articles, Luther wrote, \u201cThe Word of God\u2014and no one else, not even an angel\u2014should establish articles of faith\u201d (Part 2, Art. 2, Sec. 15). The Geneva Confession (1536\/37) declares in its first article,\u00a0\u201cFor the rule of our faith and religion, we wish to follow the Scripture alone, without mixing with it any other thing which might be fabricated by the interpretation of men apart from the Word of God; and we do not pretend to receive any other doctrine for our spiritual government than that which is taught us by the same Word, without addition or reduction, according to the command of our Lord.\u201d . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n As God\u2019s Word, the Bible is the only book characterized by infallibility and inerrancy. Every word of every sentence is there by God\u2019s determination (2 Tim. 3:16\u201317). As the Word of God, the Scripture is pure truth without any assertions of error (Prov. 30:5). Thus, Luther said, quoting Augustine, \u201cI have learned to hold only the Holy Scripture inerrant\u201d (What Luther Says: An Anthology<\/em>, ed. Ewald M. Plass [St. Louis: Concordia, 1959], 1:87). . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n This authority is not dependent upon the testimony of mere men, or the judgment of the church, but arises from the certainty produced by the Spirit who bears witness to the Word (1 Thess. 1:5). . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n The Reformation brought a renewed emphasis upon the Bible\u2019s sufficiency as special revelation in opposition to Roman Catholic claims to supplement the Bible with additional revelation passed down in tradition. Calvin said, \u201cAll our wisdom is contained in the Scriptures, and neither ought we to learn, nor teachers to draw their instructions, from any other source\u201d (Commentary on\u00a02 Tim. 4:1). The Westminster Confession of Faith (1.6) offers a helpful summary of the doctrine: \u201cThe whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man\u2019s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit or traditions of men.\u201d . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n [T]he\u00a0sola<\/em>\u00a0of\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/em>\u00a0means that the Bible alone is the fountain and touchstone for all authoritative teaching and tradition. . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Nor is it right to appeal to the decisions of the church\u2019s synods and councils as if they were as authoritative as Scripture. In Roman Catholicism, much is made of the decrees of the \u201cEcumenical Councils\u201d of the ancient church, as though the authority of such assemblies were infallible and absolute. The Westminster divine did not reject the decisions of these bodies outright, but sounded a warning: \u201cAll synods or councils since the apostles\u2019 times, whether general or particular, may err, and many have erred; therefore, they are not to be made the rule of faith or practice, but to be used as an help in both\u201d (21.4). . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n [T]he Bible does contain all things that God willed to function as the rule of faith and obedience for His people. (\u201cThe Sufficiency of the Bible Contra Rome\u201d<\/a>, Reformation21<\/em>, 10-5-17)<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Beeke has done a very good job of definition and clarification. There are plenty of Protestants who don\u2019t understand the subtleties involved here, just as (unfortunately) even more Catholics do not. I\u2019m not among them. I fully accept that this is the definition of sola Scriptura<\/em>, a thing I used to firmly believe but now (upon much further study) reject as unbiblical, and this is the definition I have used in my three books on the topic (one<\/a> \/ two<\/a> \/ three<\/a>). In the first, I cited in the Introduction<\/a> James R. White and Keith A. Mathison (both Reformed), providing the same essential definition of sola Scriptura<\/em>. I also cited the late Protestant apologist Norman Geisler (not Reformed) who agreed. <\/span><\/p>\n Beeke also correctly defines and clarifies biblical [material] \u201csufficiency\u201d:<\/span><\/p>\n Most Catholics (including myself) agree<\/em><\/strong> with the notion of material sufficiency of Scripture. It\u2019s not<\/em> <\/strong>identical to sola Scriptura<\/em>, but rather, one of several\u00a0premises<\/em>\u00a0behind it that many (if not most or nearly all) non-Protestant Christians also accept<\/em>. As Matt put it:<\/span> \u201ceverything that is needed for salvation is contained in the written Word.\u201d Yes! Absolutely<\/strong><\/em>! I would only add John MacArthur\u2019s further elaboration, cited by Matt: \u201call truth necessary for our salvation and spiritual life is taught either explicitly<\/em> or implicitly<\/em> in Scripture\u201d [my italics]. I believed that as a Protestant and do now as a Catholic, these past thirty years. So this is not at issue. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n At least half of my fifty books<\/a> use a methodology whereby I set out to prove Catholic doctrines by recourse to the Bible only (which was oftentimes the method of the Church fathers, without denying the authority of Church, councils, and tradition, or apostolic succession). What we dispute is the formal sufficiency<\/em> of Scripture as the rule of faith in Christianity, which is basically the same as sola Scriptura<\/em>: that is, that an authoritative, infallible Church and tradition are ruled out, and only Scripture functions as the final authority. No one ever believed that in the first 1500 years of Christianity.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n So now that we\u2019re on the same page as to definitions (or should<\/em> be), I proceed. In light of the above, the quotations of Beeke and John MacArthur produced by Matt, preceded by: \u201cThis common Roman Catholic misunderstanding has been addressed multiple times\u201d<\/span> are non sequiturs<\/em> in our discussion. Joel Beeke writes about tradition as a useful but not infallible or final authority in Protestantism (yep; already knew that, and believed it when I was an evangelical Protestant). Matt echoes this aspect by writing: \u201d \u2018tradition\u2019 is not a dirty word (to use<\/span>\u00a0Dave\u2019s own language<\/a>) as long as it is not elevated to or above the authority of the Bible.\u201d<\/span> This is included in the definition of sola Scriptura<\/em>: rightly understood.<\/span><\/p>\n But John MacArthur repeats the same error that Matt parrots: a false equivalency of material sufficiency with sola Scriptura<\/em>. Both Matt and Pastor MacArthur (whose books I used to read and radio talks I enjoyed) need to read Beeke more closely and work out their internal confusion on this matter. Matt also cites the Westminster Confession of Faith, but concerning a different aspect of sola Scriptura<\/em>: perspicuity (clearness) of Scripture. That\u2019s a different discussion and not related to what St. John Chrysostom has to say about tradition, so I bypass it, too.<\/p>\n Not all of the teachings of Jesus and the apostles are contained in the Bible (John 21:25).\u00a0 That is all that Chrysostom is saying here. This is not an issue at all for those who are committed to\u00a0Sola Scriptura<\/i>.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Well, this is untrue, as I will now show. What\u00a0<\/span>St. John Chrysostom in the first quotation above is in conflict with the correct definition of sola Scriptura<\/em> and causes massive self-contradiction for the Protestant if he or she attempts to \u201cco-opt\u201d it. The second one, I grant, is not \u201cdefinitive\u201d enough in and of itself<\/em> (I grant) to prove that he denied sola Scriptura<\/em>, but the first one is, because of the clause: \u201clet us think the tradition of the Church also<\/em> worthy of credit. It is a tradition, seek no farther<\/strong><\/em>\u201d (my bolding and italics).<\/span><\/p>\n In saying this, the great Church father (who was also very pro-papal and pro-Rome, but I digress) proves that he thought (very much like St. Augustine, who thought this about, e.g., infant baptism) that tradition was sufficient<\/em> in and of itself as an indicator of true, orthodox doctrine, precisely because he says no one need seek any more to verify it. If he had believed in sola Scriptura, he would have had to qualify with \u201cprovided it is verified by Sacred Scripture\u201d or some such. It would have to be shown as qualitatively inferior to Scripture, according to sola Scriptura<\/em>. Thus it contradicts Matt\u2019s own statement: \u201d \u2018tradition\u2019 is not a dirty word . . .<\/span>\u00a0as long as<\/strong><\/em> it is not elevated to<\/em><\/strong> or above the authority of the Bible\u201d (my italics and bolding). <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n By saying \u201cseek no farther\u201d Chrysostom makes tradition authoritative, binding, and sufficient (in effect, infallible) in a way that is utterly anathema to sola Scriptura<\/em> and Protestantism. Matt says he doesn\u2019t<\/em> contradict sola Scriptura<\/em>, but he clearly does<\/em>. He also contradicts many statements made by Joel Beeke in his excellent clarification of the nature of sola Scriptura<\/em>:<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n The Word of God\u2014and no one else, not even an angel\u2014should establish articles of faith (Martin Luther)<\/span><\/p>\n [W]e do not pretend to receive any other doctrine . . . than that which is taught us by the same Word (Geneva Confession)<\/span><\/p>\n [T]he Bible is the only book characterized by infallibility and inerrancy. (Beeke)<\/span><\/p>\n I have learned to hold only the Holy Scripture inerrant (Martin Luther)<\/span><\/p>\n All our wisdom is contained in the Scriptures, and neither ought we to learn, nor teachers to draw their instructions, from any other source (John Calvin)<\/span><\/p>\n [T]he Bible alone is the fountain and touchstone for all authoritative teaching and tradition (Beeke)<\/span><\/p>\n All synods or councils since the apostles\u2019 times, whether general or particular, may err, and many have erred; therefore, they are not to be made the rule of faith or practice (Westminster Confession)<\/span><\/p>\n [T]he Bible does contain all things that God willed to function as the rule of faith (Beeke)<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n All of that expressly contradicts<\/span>\u00a0St. John Chrysostom\u2019s \u201cIt is a tradition, seek no farther\u201d. Therefore, Matt\u2019s argument collapses through the weight and burden of its own vicious incoherence and internal contradictoriness.<\/span><\/p>\n Conclusion:<\/span>\u00a0St. John Chrysostom rejected sola Scriptura<\/em> and held to the Catholic rule of faith: the \u201cthree-legged stool\u201d of Bible-Tradition-Church: all harmonious with each other and all protected by the Holy Spirit as infallible and therefore capable of producing binding \u201cdecrees\u201d for all Christian believers, just as the infallible Jerusalem Council did (see Acts 16:4).<\/span><\/p>\n ***<\/span><\/p>\n Matt made a \u201cCounter-Counter Response\u201d<\/a>. In this, the gist of his argument was to claim that the \u201ctradition\u201d St. John Chrysostom referred to in the passage I highlighted was only practice and not doctrine. This was his way of trying to escape my argument. He contended:<\/span><\/p>\n This quote is insufficient to argue against Sola Scriptura, since it never mentions any sort of infallible magisterium that we must have for interpreting Scripture, much less defining\u00a0new<\/i>\u00a0articles of faith . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n This is completely irrelevant to our discussion: being an entirely distinct topic. All we have to do to prove that\u00a0St. John Chrysostom rejected sola Scriptura is to show that he accepted any teaching not itself the Bible as authoritative and binding for the believer. He did so in saying that if one had \u201cthe tradition of the Church\u201d which is \u201calso worthy of credit\u201d on any given topic, they need \u201cseek no farther.\u201d That defeats sola Scriptura<\/em> because it doesn\u2019t say that such a tradition must immediately be weighed by Scripture (though I would argue that the Catholic and patristic view holds tradition, Church, and Scripture in self-consistent harmony with each other).<\/span><\/p>\n Another thing . . . is what Chrysostom means by \u201ctradition\u201d in the first place. Take a look at his commentary on 2 Thessalonians 3:6 (which also uses the word \u201ctradition\u201d):<\/span><\/p>\n Ver. 6.\u00a0 That is, it is not we that say these things, but Christ, for that is the meaning of\u00a0 Here, Chrysostom clearly views \u201ctradition\u201d as being a part of the way in which one lives, rather than some sort of new doctrine (like the Bodily Assumption of Mary, as I mentioned above). Thus, the very idea of \u201ctradition\u201d at all in this quote from Chrysostom is primarily with the Apostle Paul. . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n *<\/p>\n Then he starts on another topic in 3:6, commanding that the recipients of his letter \u201ckeep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us\u201d (RSV, as I use throughout). This topic (Catholic Bible exegetes would readily agree, I think) does indeed have to do with behavior, as Matt argues. His only mistake is arguing that in 2:15 the same sort<\/em> of \u201ctradition\u201d referred to (i.e., behavior, not doctrine). 3:6 forward is clearly all about behavior. 3:7 has \u201cimitate us\u201d and \u201cwe were not idle when we were with you.\u201d 3:8 is about Paul paying for food, toiling and laboring so as not to be a \u201cburden.\u201d 3:9 is about\u00a0Paul and his companion(s) providing \u201cin our conduct an example to imitate.\u201d 3:10 is the famous injunction that if anyone doesn\u2019t work, he shouldn\u2019t eat. 3:11 refers to laziness. 3:12 is about earning a proper living, 3:13 about \u201cwell-doing.\u201d So this is all behavior. No one disagrees.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n *<\/p>\n\n
Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother that walks disorderly and not after the tradition which they received of us.<\/q><\/span><\/p>\n
in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ<\/q>; equivalent to\u00a0
through Christ.<\/q>\u00a0Showing the fearfulness of the message, he says, through Christ. Christ therefore commanded us in no case to be idle.\u00a0
That you withdraw yourselves,<\/q>\u00a0he says,\u00a0
from every brother.<\/q>\u00a0Tell me not of the rich, tell me not of the\u00a0poor, tell me not of the holy. This is disorder.\u00a0
That walks,<\/q>\u00a0he says, that is, lives.\u00a0
And not after the tradition which they received from me.<\/q>\u00a0Tradition, he says, which is through works. And this he always calls properly tradition. (On Second Thessalonians<\/i>, Homily 5,<\/span>\u00a0source<\/a>)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n
\n*
\nFirst, let\u2019s dispose of Matt\u2019s attempted connection to 2 Thessalonians 3:6 as his own \u201ckey\u201d to interpreting what Chrysostom is referring to in 2:15. It\u2019s true that it\u2019s only eight verses later than 2:15, but Paul makes a break in the subject matter. The original New Testament didn\u2019t have chapters or verses<\/a>. Chapters for the New Testament were first created in 1205 and not used in Bibles until the 16th century. Verse numbers began in 1551 (1571 in the Old Testament). St. Paul seems to be writing either a \u201csub-letter\u201d or a portion of a larger one in 2 Thessalonians 2:1-17 (the whole chapter) through to 3:1-5, where he wraps up his thoughts.<\/span><\/span><\/div>\n