I recently posted an article, “Why RC Apologists Will Never Be Exegetes” at my blog briefly critiquing the first principles behind a debate between Protestant Randy Blackaby and Roman Catholic Apologist John Salza on the subject of the Marian Dogmas of the Roman Church, which was documented by RC Apologist Robert Sungenis. I did not interact much with the actual topic (the Marian Dogmas) but chose to pick apart those sections which dealt with the foundations for both positions: the principles of Sola Scriptura and Sola Ecclesia. Salza made many mistakes in his presentation by assuming and asserting the Roman view and then anachronistically reading it back into Church history. For instance, he calls the Marian Dogmas a “2,000 year old tradition” but does not give us the slightest bit of evidence to support such a claim. His assumption is that the Roman Church equals the first century church, and from that basis he makes fallacious argumentations for his position.
However, I received a comment on that post from “Bob” who stated this:
***QUOTE***
Of course, Catholic scholars know that some popes made mistakes, but have many ways to explain them away — otherwise no one would be Catholic. Look into the explanations; some are convincing.
It’s funny to say the early church believed in Sola Scriptura. None of those quotes say “scripture alone.” Rather, they say “scripture is important.” In other places in their writing, they also affirmed “tradition is important.” I mean, just because I write to my son, “Obey your father,” doesn’t mean I want to say “Obey ONLY your father.”
Augustine, for instance, had a robust view of the infallible authority of tradition, as well as scripture:
“[T]he custom [of not rebaptizing converts] . . . may be supposed to have had its origin in apostolic tradition, just as there are many things which are observed by the whole Church, and therefore are fairly held to have been enjoined by the apostles, which yet are not mentioned in their writings” (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 5:23[31] [A.D. 400]).
“But the admonition that he [Cyprian] gives us, ‘that we should go back to the fountain, that is, to apostolic tradition, and thence turn the channel of truth to our times,’ is most excellent, and should be followed without hesitation” (ibid., 5:26[37]).
“But in regard to those observances which we carefully attend and which the whole world keeps, and which derive not from Scripture but from Tradition, we are given to understand that they are recommended and ordained to be kept, either by the apostles themselves or by plenary [ecumenical] councils, the authority of which is quite vital in the Church” (Letter to Januarius [A.D. 400]).
(I’m not Catholic nor Protestant, so don’t care either way…but y’all have to admit the evidence is firmly on the Catholic side)
***END-QUOTE***
Let’s deal with is comment part by part:
Of course, Catholic scholars know that some popes made mistakes, but have many ways to explain them away — otherwise no one would be Catholic. Look into the explanations; some are convincing.
This was really more of a response to a comment that Gene Bridges had made on the post than it was to my actual post. Gene had pointed out the inconsistency of the popes on certain matters and even showed how early church history is against the modern Roman position. In any case, we note that Bob does not actually interact with the information that Gene posted but instead assures us that RC scholars have “many ways to explain them away.” Well Bob, I’m sure that the Roman position makes an effort to defend itself, but since you have not offered anything in favor of its defense, we cannot interact with it.
It’s funny to say the early church believed in Sola Scriptura. None of those quotes say “scripture alone.” Rather, they say “scripture is important.” In other places in their writing, they also affirmed “tradition is important.” I mean, just because I write to my son, “Obey your father,” doesn’t mean I want to say “Obey ONLY your father.”
It is obvious that Bob completely missed the point of the citations that I enlisted in my post. They affirm that Scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith for the believer. That is Sola Scriptura. It will be evidenced further on in this comment that Bob does not know the correct definition of Sola Scriptura.
Augustine, for instance, had a robust view of the infallible authority of tradition, as well as scripture:
From the citations that follow we will find out two things:
1. That Bob does not understand the correct definition of Sola Scriptura
2. That Bob believes that a support of tradition is “a robust view of the infallible authority of tradition.”
Definitions are half of the battle when it comes to this debate. We affirm Sola Scriptura, not Solo Scriptura. That is, we affirm that Scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith for the believer, not that Scripture is the only means that truth can be learned. Tradition is absolutely important, and no protestant with a correct understanding of Sola Scriptura denies this. However, tradition is to be subjected and compared to the infallible authority of the Holy Scriptures.
“[T]he custom [of not rebaptizing converts] . . . may be supposed to have had its origin in apostolic tradition, just as there are many things which are observed by the whole Church, and therefore are fairly held to have been enjoined by the apostles, which yet are not mentioned in their writings” (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 5:23[31] [A.D. 400]).
Does anyone else besides Bob see Augustine here affirming “a robust view of the infallible authority of tradition”? Augustine states that the custom of not rebaptizing converts “may be supposed to have had its origin in apostolic traditions.” Does it immediately follow that Augustine viewed tradition as an infallible authority? Note this: Augustine denies that doctrine can be obtained apart from the infallible authority of Scripture:
“What more shall I teach you than what we read in the apostle? For Holy Scripture fixes the rule of our doctrine, lest we dare to be wiser than we ought. Therefore I should not teach you anything else except to expound to you the words of the Teacher”
This is an incredible statement. First, he asks the rhetorical question, “What more shall I teach you than what we read in the apostle?” In other words, “We have no other doctrine other than what can be read in Scripture.” Can we read about the bodily assumption of Mary in the book of Ephesians? Does Romans cover the Immaculate Conception in the gospel presentation? And surely we can flip open 1 Corinthians and be informed of papal infallibility! Then Augustine takes that rhetorical question and restates it in the declarative: “For Holy Scripture fixes the rule of our doctrine, lest we dare to be wiser than we ought.” According to Augustine, to affirm anything that is not found in the Holy Scriptures is to be “wiser than we ought,” or, more frankly, arrogant. He restates the same concept one last time: “Therefore I should not teach you anything else except to expound to you the words of the Teacher.” Once again, Augustine affirms that nothing that is not found in the Scriptures should be taught by the church.
“But the admonition that he [Cyprian] gives us, ‘that we should go back to the fountain, that is, to apostolic tradition, and thence turn the channel of truth to our times,’ is most excellent, and should be followed without hesitation” (ibid., 5:26[37]).
So Augustine affirms that we should hold to apostolic tradition. Did Augustine, however, believe that the apostolic tradition was anything different than what was found on the very pages of Scripture? Obviously, he did not, given the quote we looked at above. It is simply a misunderstanding of Sola Scriptura to consider an affirmation of tradition to be a denial of the Scriptures as the sole infallible rule of faith for the believer.
“But in regard to those observances which we carefully attend and which the whole world keeps, and which derive not from Scripture but from Tradition, we are given to understand that they are recommended and ordained to be kept, either by the apostles themselves or by plenary [ecumenical] councils, the authority of which is quite vital in the Church” (Letter to Januarius [A.D. 400]).
The nature of these Augustine quotes have not changed. They continue to inform us that Bob 1) misunderstands Sola Scriptura, and 2) believes that an appeal to tradition is placing tradition on the same authority as Scripture. But Augustine is asking us, “What more shall I teach you than what we read in the apostle?” Here he tells us that tradition is to be “recommended and ordained to be kept.” Are we to believe that Augustine has in mind the same traditions that the modern Roman Catholic has in mind when he hears the word “tradition”? Is Augustine alluding to doctrines such as the Immaculate Conception or papal infallibility? He is not.
(I’m not Catholic nor Protestant, so don’t care either way…but y’all have to admit the evidence is firmly on the Catholic side)
Well, for not being Catholic you have surely made the same mistakes that Roman Catholics make. You first misinterpreted the definition of Sola Scriptura. Then you took the Roman concept of tradition and anachronistically read it back into the citations of Augustine. Therefore, I certainly cannot admit that the “evidence is firmly on the Catholic side.” It would simply be untrue.
Evan May.
No comments:
Post a Comment