![\"Chrysostom\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2016\/04\/Chrysostom.jpg\")
<\/div>\nThis is the same old same old: historical revisionism and anachronism galore: a tired attempt to make the Church fathers into something they were not, simply so the distinctives of Protestantism can be shored up and given a sophistical semblance of historical continuity that they (quite glaringly and obviously) do not possess.<\/span><\/p>\n I\u2019ve written about sola Scriptura<\/span> about 5,834 times. One tires of it. But what the heck: one more time won\u2019t hurt, I reckon, in light of deluded confident assertions from a person who, time and again, refuses to defend his arguments. I highly doubt that this time will be any different, but you never know. There is always a first for everything.<\/span><\/p>\n My standard approach to this business of: Church Father X believes in sola Scriptura<\/span>, because, look, see!: he praises<\/span> Scripture in this place and this, and the other over there, and says that Christians ought to read<\/span> the Bible to learn theology! Obviously, then, he agrees with the formal Protestant principle of sola Scriptura<\/span>! Who could possibly doubt<\/span> it?<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n . . . is the following (I cite my paper about St. Athanasius\u2019 view of authority, of my 5,834 on this topic):<\/span> We\u2019ll look to see if the person thinks Scripture is formally sufficient for authority without the necessary aid of Tradition and the Church, or if he does not, as indicated in other statements. A thinker\u2019s statements must be evaluated in context of all of his thought, rather than having pieces taken out and then claiming that they \u2018prove\u2019 something that they do not, in fact, prove at all.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n In other words, even if you find a quote where a Father seems<\/i> (at first glance) to be stating something akin to sola Scriptura<\/span> (since he is writing about the Bible without immediate reference to Church or Tradition), one must examine what the same person believes about Tradition, Church, and apostolic succession, because the very question at hand (what is the rule of faith?) has to do with the relation<\/span> of all those things. For that reason, all three (or four) have to be examined in his writing, to understand properly how he views their relationship vis-a-vis each other.<\/span><\/p>\n The Protestant always puts the Bible above Church and Tradition, and denies that the latter two can be infallible. Catholics and Orthodox believe in a three-legged stool, where, practically-speaking, Church and Tradition have equal authority with Scripture, because they are the necessary framework and interpretive grid through which Scripture can be properly interpreted in an orthodox sense.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Pastor King\u2019s words will be in<\/span> blue<\/span>; St. John Chrysostom\u2019s (c. 347-407) in<\/span> green<\/span>. St. Irenaeus\u2019 (c. 130-c. 200) words will be in<\/span> purple<\/span>.<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cTarry not, I entreat, for another to teach thee; thou hast the oracles of God. No man teacheth thee as they; for he indeed oft grudgeth much for vainglory\u2019s sake and envy. Hearken, I entreat you, all ye that are careful for this life, and procure books that will be medicines for the soul. If ye will not any other, yet get you at least the New Testament, the Apostolic Epistles, the Acts, the Gospels, for your constant teachers. If grief befall thee, dive into them as into a chest of medicines; take thence comfort of thy trouble, be it loss, or death, or bereavement of relations; or rather dive not into them merely, but take them wholly to thee; keep them in thy mind.<\/span><\/p>\n This is the cause of all evils, the not knowing the Scriptures. We go into battle without arms, and how ought we to come off safe? Well contented should we be if we can be safe with them, let alone without them.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Source: NPNF1: Vol. XIII, Homilies on the Epistle of St. Paul to the Colossians, Homily 9.<\/span><\/p>\n This source is<\/span> available online<\/a>. Fellow anti-Catholic apologist Jason Engwer suggested a similar passage, for the same purpose:<\/span><\/p>\n Let us not therefore carry about the notions of the many, but examine into the facts. For how is it not absurd that in respect to money, indeed, we do not trust to others, but refer this to figures and calculation; but in calculating upon facts we are lightly drawn aside by the notions of others; and that too, though we possess an exact balance, and square and rules for all things, the declaration of the divine laws? Wherefore I exhort and entreat you all, disregard what this man and that man thinks about these things, and inquire from the Scriptures all these things. \u00a0<\/span>(Homilies on Second Corinthians, 13, c. 7, v. 1)<\/span><\/p>\n So the great Father loves Scripture. Amen! Of course, King assumes that anyone who loves Holy Scripture must believe that it is the only<\/span> binding, infallible authority and must accept the formal principle of sola Scriptura<\/span>. But this is clearly a logical fallacy. There are number of different positions one can take with regard to the relationship of Scripture, Church, Tradition, and apostolic succession.<\/span><\/p>\n St. John Chrysostom\u2019s own position is not<\/span> sola Scriptura<\/span>, and this can easily be shown. He also accepts an authoritative oral tradition that isn\u2019t (by definition) even written; therefore, the furthest thing from sola Scriptura <\/span>and the Bible alone as ultimate authority. Furthermore, he grounds such authority in the testimony of Scripture itself (just as I, as a Catholic apologist and critic of sola Scriptura<\/span>, have done, and would do). To show this is a rather easy matter. In fact, it can be demonstrated from St. John Chrysostom\u2019s homilies on other epistles of Paul (i.e., of the same sort as the present one \u2014 or two, including Engwer\u2019s prooftext \u2014 under consideration).<\/span><\/p>\n Let\u2019s assume for the sake of argument that King\u2019s and Engwer\u2019s citations above indicate (or prove?) St. John Chrysostom\u2019s belief in a key plank of sola Scriptura<\/span>: the ability of the individual to interpret for himself without necessary aid from some semblance of binding corporate Christian authority. Now, assuming that, how does a person holding to his alleged beliefs on the subject explain the following<\/span> \u201ccounter-evidence\u201d from the same<\/span> writer?:<\/span><\/p>\n Since then he had already admonished them concerning these things when present, and some perhaps listened to him and others disobeyed; therefore in his letter also again, he foments the place, like a physician, by his mode of addressing them, and so corrects the offence. For that he had heretofore admonished them in person is evident from what he begins with<\/span>. Why else, having said nothing of this matter any where in the Epistle before<\/span>, but passing on from other accusations, doth he straightway say, \u201cNow I praise you that ye remember me in all things, and hold fast the traditions, even as I delivered them to you?\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n . . . \u201cThat ye remember me in all things, and hold fast the traditions, even as I delivered them to you.\u201d It appears then that he used at that time to deliver many things also not in writing<\/span>, which he shows too in many other places. But at that time he only delivered them, whereas now he adds an explanation of their reason: thus both rendering the one sort, the obedient, more steadfast, and pulling down the others\u2019 pride, who oppose themselves.\u00a0(Homily XXVI on 1 Corinthians<\/a>; commenting on 1 Cor 11:2)<\/span><\/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<\/span><\/p>\n Hence 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,<\/span> Homily IV<\/a>)<\/p>\n Likewise:<\/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\u00a0<\/span>(Homily III on 2 Timothy<\/a> \u2013 on 2 Tim 1:13-18)<\/span><\/p>\n He even appeals to an apostolic unwritten tradition of intercessory prayers for the dead (mentioning also the Sacrifice of the Mass:<\/span> . . . Not in vain did the Apostles order that<\/span> remembrance should be made of the dead<\/span> in the dreadful Mysteries. They know that great gain resulteth to them, great benefit; for when the whole people stands with uplifted hands, a priestly assembly, and that awful Sacrifice<\/span> lies displayed, how shall we not prevail with God by our entreaties for them? And this we do for those who have departed in faith<\/span>, . . .<\/p>\n [NPNF Editor\u2019s note: \u201cThe reference doubtless is to the so-called \u2018Apostolical Constitutions,\u2019 which direct the observance of the Eucharist in commemoration of the departed\u201d]\u00a0<\/span>(On Philippians,<\/span> Homily 3<\/a>)<\/p>\n This is no Protestant, since they\u00a0don\u2019t pray for the dead, and don\u2019t even have a Mass, let alone a Sacrifice of the Mass. Concerning the \u201csacred writers\u201d he stated:<\/span><\/p>\n . . . it was no object with them to be writers of books: in fact, there are many things which they have delivered by unwritten tradition.\u00a0<\/span><\/span>(On Acts of the Apostles,<\/span> Homily 1<\/a>)<\/p>\n Pastor King accepts none of these things. He would consider them outrageous. They are no different than what I and other orthodox Catholics believe. Yet King looks down as us as non-Christians and pretends that St. John Chrysostom (who agrees with Catholics on this and lots of other things) is a wonderful man of God and supposed quasi-Protestant. Look at the very sub-title of his book, after all:<\/span> \u201cThe Writings of the Church Fathers Affirming the Reformation Principle of Sola Scriptura.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n But if this is one example of many supposed \u201cproofs\u201d, and it is radically taken out of context with the rest of the Church Father\u2019s thoughts, so that it amounts to little more than a gross misrepresentation and falsehood. St. John Chrysostom casually assumes an existing tradition, when he states, for example:<\/span><\/p>\n Ver. 8. \u201cNow as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Who are these? The magicians in the time of Moses. But how is it their names are nowhere else introduced? Either they were handed down by tradition, or it is probable that Paul knew them by inspiration.\u00a0<\/span>(Homily VIII on 2 Timothy<\/a>)<\/p>\n For, \u201cremember,\u201d he says, \u201cthe words of the Lord which he spake: It is more blessed to give than to receive.\u201d (v. 35.) And where said He this? Perhaps the Apostles delivered it by unwritten tradition; or else it is plain from (recorded sayings, from) which one could infer it.\u00a0<\/span>(Homily XLV on Acts 20:32<\/a>)<\/p>\n But back to David King. After he gives his prooftext, he attempted to defend it as proving that Chrysostom held to sola Scriptura<\/span>, as follows:<\/span><\/p>\n Anyone who understands the distinction between the material and formal sufficiency of Holy Scripture can readily see that Chrysostom\u2019s quote here assumes the basic perspicuity (formal sufficiency) of Holy Scripture, as he urges his readers not to wait \u201cfor another to teach thee.\u201d <\/span><\/p>\n This doesn\u2019t follow at all. What St. John Chrysostom asserts is material<\/span> sufficiency (all that is necessary to be believed by the Christian is present in Scripture, either explicitly or indirectly, or deduced from clear scriptural teaching). Catholics readily agree with that. It is not a Protestant distinctive at all. <\/span><\/p>\n Formal sufficiency of Scripture, on the other hand, is the notion that Scripture is the only final infallible authority, and that no tradition, Church, council or teaching passed down by apostolic succession is sufficient to be infallible, as Scripture is. This is sola Scriptura<\/span>, and Chrysostom clearly rejects that<\/span>, since I have already shown how much non-biblical tradition (i.e., tradition not based solely in the biblical text) he accepts (he was also a very strong supporter of the papacy and strong central papal authority).<\/p>\n His quote also assumes the availability of the NT scriptures for his audience, and its sufficiency to meet the needs of those who read them. Chrysostom here does not, as you suggest, treat Scripture as one would \u201cvitamin supplements,\u201d but as utterly essential for he says that the ignorance of Holy Scripture \u201cis the cause of all evils.\u201d <\/span><\/p>\n So what? The Bible itself says that the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil. So if ignorance of Scripture is so bad that we must adopt Scripture alone in order to avoid all evil; likewise, by analogy, if money is a similar cause of lots of evil, then if Scripture Alone is the solution to the one problem, Poverty Alone and no money at all must be the solution to the other. This is the absurdity of King\u2019s exclusivist reasoning. I just did a reductio ad absurdum<\/span> on his view.<\/span><\/p>\n The logic is impeccable. I challenge anyone to show how it is not. The reasonable person would conclude that, just as it doesn\u2019t follow that Scripture is the only infallible authority, it also doesn\u2019t follow that the only solution to the temptations of riches is to have no money at all. Both are extreme, illogical solutions to the problem.<\/span><\/p>\n The failure to take vitamin supplements is not the cause of all bad health in the physical realm. His analogy is clear for anyone to see, i.e., unless someone is determined not to see it.<\/span><\/p>\n There is a specimen example of someone [Jonathan Prejean] <\/span>who is determined not to see it. All things are clear and open that are in the divine Scriptures; the necessary things are all plain. Remember the eunuch of the queen of Ethiopia. Since therefore, while he had no man to guide him, he was thus reading; for this reason he quickly received an instructor. God knew his willingness, He acknowledged his zeal, and forthwith sent him a teacher. But, you say, Philip is not present with us now. Still, the Spirit that moved Philip is present with us. Let us not, beloved, neglect our salvation!<\/span><\/p>\n This makes little sense.<\/span> \u201cNecessary things are all plain\u201d<\/span> in Scripture (perspicuity), but the eunuch<\/span> \u201chad no man to guide him.\u201d<\/span> Why did he need a guide at all, then, if it was so plain? But King says that God knew he was willing<\/span> to learn, and so He sent an instructor. But that\u2019s already another proposition. Here are the two different ideas:<\/span><\/p>\n 1) Scripture is plain in its main teachings; plain enough for anyone to understand (Luther\u2019s famous \u201cplowboy\u201d) and sufficient in order to obtain salvation.<\/span> Only the first is truly perspicuity in the classic sense. Only the first is a situation in which nothing else is needed except Scripture. The second concedes that something else is necessary in order to properly understand Scripture in the first place. Now, either proposition can be defended or disputed, but they are different<\/span> propositions from the outset. King has switched horses in midstream, hoping that the reader wouldn\u2019t notice the shift.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n In any event, he doesn\u2019t defend either proposition above by simply presenting them both, jumbled together. Once he concedes that a reliable instructor is necessary, however, then he has already given up 75% of the argument, and opens the door for the possible authority of the Church, Tradition, apostolic succession, bishops, councils, and popes. It\u2019s a loophole a mile wide.<\/span><\/p>\n 1) We do not quote the ECFs to prove sola Scriptura<\/span>. We quote them to prove that they do not represent the modern day Roman position with respect to the material and formal sufficiency of Scripture. In other words, we quote them to show that it is Rome that has departed from the ancient church\u2019s view of Holy Scripture, not Protestants.<\/span><\/p>\n If that is so, then Pastor King has failed in this instance. Jason Engwer failed to defend his claim that ten different Fathers believed the same sort of thing. I thoroughly refuted him on the CARM board (he left the much-anticipated and advertised debate after having replied on four of the ten Fathers I dealt with). Separately I have shown that this myth of \u201cproto-Protestantism with regard to sola Scriptura<\/span>\u201d didn\u2019t apply to St. Athanasius or St. Gregory of Nyssa, either. It\u2019s always the same. This claim is pure fiction. King then cites St. Irenaeus:<\/span><\/p>\n Irenaeus (c. 130-c. 200):<\/b> We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be <\/span>the ground and pillar of our faith<\/b>. For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed \u201cperfect knowledge,\u201d as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles. <\/span>ANF: Vol. I, Against Heresies<\/i>, Book 3:1:1.<\/span><\/p>\n To claim him as supposedly an adherent of sola Scriptura<\/span> is miles beyond absurd, since he was one of the Fathers who particularly espoused and developed the idea of apostolic succession: which itself runs counter to sola Scriptura<\/span>. John Calvin expressly repudiated apostolic succession:<\/span><\/p>\n But by what arguments do they prove their possession of the true Church? They appeal to ancient records which formerly existed in Italy, France, and Spain, pretending to derive their origin from those holy men who, by sound doctrine, founded and raised up churches, confirmed the doctrine, and reared the edifice of the Church with their blood; they pretend that the Church thus consecrated by spiritual gifts and the blood of martyrs was preserved from destruction by a perpetual succession of bishops. They dwell on the importance which Iren\u00e6us, Tertullian, Origen, Augustine, and others, attached to this succession (see sec. 3). How frivolous and plainly ludicrous these allegations are, I will enable any, who will for a little consider the matter with me, to understand without any difficulty.\u00a0<\/span>(Inst<\/span>.,<\/span> IV, II, 2<\/a>)<\/span> But St. Irenaeus expressly states and holds over and over what Calvin and subsequent Protestants repudiated (it is directly contradictory to the formal principle of sola Scriptura<\/span> and formal sufficiency of Scripture). I dealt with his views at length in my 40% debate with Jason Engwer (before he decided to flee for the shelter of the hills), but here are a few highlights:<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n As I have already observed, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although scattered throughout the whole world, yet, as if occupying but one house, carefully preserves it. She also believes these points [of doctrine] just as if she had but one soul, and one and the same heart, and she proclaims them, and teaches them, and hands them down, with perfect harmony, as if she possessed only one mouth. <\/span>(Against Heresies<\/span>,<\/span> 1, 10, 2<\/a>)<\/p>\n . . . Hyginus, who held the ninth place in the episcopal succession from the apostles downwards.<\/span><\/p>\n . . . those apostles who have handed down the Gospel to us . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/span>(Against Heresies<\/span>,<\/span> 1, 27, 1-2<\/a>)<\/p>\n The Universal Church, moreover, through the whole world, has received this tradition from the apostles.\u00a0<\/span><\/span>(Against Heresies<\/span>,<\/span> 2, 9, 1<\/a>)<\/p>\n . . . the only true and life-giving faith, which the Church has received from the apostles and imparted to her sons. For the Lord of all gave to His apostles the power of the Gospel, . . .\u00a0<\/span>(Against Heresies<\/span>,<\/span> 3, Preface<\/a>)<\/p>\n But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth . . . It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition.\u00a0<\/span>(Against Heresies<\/span>,<\/span> 3, 2, 2<\/a>)<\/p>\n It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about.\u00a0<\/span>(Against Heresies<\/span>,<\/span> 3, 3, 1<\/a>)<\/p>\n
\n<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/span><\/p>\n
\nThus, St. John Chrysostom is stating that some of these \u201ctraditions\u201d St. Paul refers to and that which he delivered to his charges, were<\/span> \u201cnot in writing.\u201d<\/span> And the Bible says we are to \u201chold fast\u201d to them. This is impossible in a sola Scriptura<\/span> view because it would be considered \u201cunbiblical\u201d by definition and therefore not binding (not being in Scripture itself, according to that view); therefore one could not \u201chold it fast.\u201d Conclusion: he cannot possibly believe in sola Scriptura<\/span> if this is his opinion. He comments in similar fashion on the related verse, 2 Thessalonians 2:15:<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
\n
\nMourn for those who have died in wealth, and did not from their wealth think of any solace for their soul, who had power to wash away their sins and would not. Let us all weep for these in private and in public, but with propriety, with gravity, not so as to make exhibitions of ourselves; . . . Let us weep for these; let us assist them according to our power; let us think of some assistance for them, small though it be, yet still let us assist them. How and in what way? By praying and entreating others to make prayers for them<\/span>, by continually giving to the poor on their behalf.<\/span><\/p>\n
\n
\n<\/span>2) God will send an instructor to anyone who is willing to be willing to follow Scriptural teaching wherever it leads. If no instructor is present, the Holy Spirit will suffice.<\/span><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n
\n<\/span>We (say they) are the pillars of the Church, the priests of religion, the vicegerents of Christ, the heads of the faithful, because the apostolic authority has come to us by succession. As if they were speaking to stocks, they perpetually plume themselves on these absurdities. Whenever they make such boasts, I, in my turn, will ask, What have they in common with the apostles? We are not now treating of some hereditary honour which can come to men while they are asleep, but of the office of preaching, which they so greatly shun. In like manner, when we maintain that their kingdom is the tyranny of Antichrist, they immediately object that their venerable hierarchy has often been extolled by great and holy men, as if the holy fathers, when they commended the ecclesiastical hierarchy or spiritual government handed down to them by the apostles, ever dreamed of that shapeless and dreary chaos where bishoprics are held for the most part by ignorant asses, who do not even know the first and ordinary rudiments of the faith, . . .\u00a0<\/span>(Inst<\/span>.,<\/span> IV, V, 13<\/a>)<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n