"Sufficiency of Scripture"

I am in a rather unfortunate position, in so far that lots of people pray for me to get confronted with certain themes, without checking first whether I actually already adressed them, i e by writing me.

This could otherwise be arrange in different ways. On Latest on Antimodernism you have a widget to the right, it says "Formulaire de contact" and I believe any English speaker could figure out it means "contact form". On my correspondence blog, right up, you have a tab saying If you wish to correspond with me, which you click to get to a page of same title. Right on top of that page, I give a current email. Btw, if I should ever no longer have the lowest of the email adresses, the one not crossed over, accessible either, it probably means I haven't been able to update the blog after changing email, and might mean I am in captivity. So far, the email noted there (right now it is hgl@dr.com, sometime else it was hgl@voila.fr, but there are no more emails with adress voila.fr, if mail.com goes down - dr.com is an alias of them - it may be sth else in the future), works, I am getting spam, both scams and threats of exposing what needs no exposing because it is not true, but I am not getting mails of the type "I read you believe papacy was instituted by Christ, do you mean Christ wants us to bow down to a man who kissed the Koran" which I would obviously answer "Wojtyla was not a Pope, since he was not a Catholic". Instead, I am getting each day some new challenge which is very usually an old challenge. Something I already answered before. And so I spend time answering theology questions of diverse types 3, 4, 5 or even ten times over and over again, get a reputation for voluntarily concentrating on theology, while I am simply priorising that, if I get challenged, my faith, a gift from God, gets insufficient credit for my theological position being coherent, since man after man thinks it is incoherent and thinks he has the key to making it coherent by challenging me with one little detail and if he would win (which he usually wouldn't, I usually have already answered it), all the rest I wrote would fall down as a house of cards, if you remove one card strategically placed. Rather it is a well rooted tree. Now, one more item where you could challenge me in person instead of praying to God (or scheming with discrete trolls among FB friends or those able to recommend youtubes to me), that would be comment section under any given post.

But it seems some have colluded to try to give me the impression no one is reading me (which will not work when stats for blogs put together in all time say close to two million page views, which will not work when multiples of 21 are very frequent among the statistics, either for a post or for readers from a particular country), and directly adressing me would admit one is admitting I know I have readers. Some guys want that fun to go on.

However, today I actually got a challenge which is a bit new. II Timothy 3:17, last word in the Greek text. The word which translates "fully instructed" or "having finished instructions".

Therefore, I find it reasonable to do a fresh essay on Sufficiency of Scripture.

Now, C. S. Lewis once said, "grace vs works is a red herring, the real issue is the sacrifice of the Mass" or words to that effect. I'll be checking the exact wording with William O'Flaherty. I'd venture to add, "sufficiency" vs "insufficiency" of Scripture is a red herring.

First of all, while Trent condemned Sola Scriptura (Scripture without Tradition, Scripture without Magisterium) the words used are not saying "bc tradition contains salvific topics not covered at all in Scripture". Second, because Scripture being sufficient for one thing does not mean it is sufficient for another thing. Third, because Scripture being sufficient conditionally does not mean it is so absolutely, and fourth because Scripture being sufficient for one type of person doesn't mean it is so for another one.

Session IV. Concerning the Canonical Scriptures. First Decree. Celebrated on the eighth day of the month of April, in the year 1546.

And I am quoting the base line of Scriptures vs other authority, skipping the ensuing list of canonic writings:

The sacred and holy, ecumenical, and general Synod of Trent,--lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost, the Same three legates of the Apostolic See presiding therein,--keeping this always in view, that, errors being removed, the purity itself of the Gospel be preserved in the Church; which (Gospel), before promised through the prophets in the holy Scriptures, our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, first promulgated with His own mouth, and then commanded to be preached by His Apostles to every creature, as the fountain of all, both saving truth, and moral discipline; and seeing clearly that this truth and discipline are contained in the written books, and the unwritten traditions which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ himself, or from the Apostles themselves, the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down even unto us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand; (the Synod) following the examples of the orthodox Fathers, receives and venerates with an equal affection of piety, and reverence, all the books both of the Old and of the New Testament--seeing that one God is the author of both --as also the said traditions, as well those appertaining to faith as to morals, as having been dictated, either by Christ's own word of mouth, or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved in the Catholic Church by a continuous succession.

So, three authorities are enumerated, Scripture, Tradition of the Church, Magisterium of the Church, all coming from Apostles.

Does it say three are needed because one of them covers too little? No. And one of them, magisterium, is explicitly stated to be interpreting one of the others Scripture. That means, it is not covering different topics.

The decree concludes with one anathema:

But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, these same books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately despise the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema.[5] Let all, therefore, understand, in what order, and in what manner, this said synod, after having laid the foundation of the confession of faith, will proceed, and what testimonies and defences it will mainly use in confirming dogmas, and in restoring morals in the Church.

The anathema is against those not receiving "the traditions aforesaid" on top of Scripture, but on those knowingly despising them, as per "and knowingly and deliberately despise the traditions aforesaid;" while it seems "and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition;" is to be taken with some latitude, since Vulgate has a Masoretic chronology, while Roman Martyrology for Christmas day had a mainly LXX based one, which is as the relevant parts of Scripture are contained in another edition, namely LXX.

Now, the second reason was ... Scripture being sufficient for one thing does not mean it is sufficient for another thing. Giving the finished instruction for all good works doesn't mean giving the basics, to get the basic dogmas right. As Newman observed, Scripture was not used to instruct in, but to confirm dogma. The point is, we do not think the Holy Ghost adressed a love letter in very simple words to the least of us in the totality of Scripture, we think He rather gave heretics who would not listen to the Church "sufficient rope to hang themselves" as the saying goes - but He also gave the Church sufficient proof the heretics had hung themselves. This means, the Bible is not suitable for beginners, some parts are, some parts definitely are not.

The third reason being because Scripture being sufficient conditionally does not mean it is so absolutely, the condition here being: if you comply with the Church as it has been around, if you have received instruction from the Church. Which brings us to fourth because Scripture being sufficient for one type of person doesn't mean it is so for another one. A "man of God" has been singled out for "every good work" and not just for the good works of believing, praying, receiving sacraments, doing your business in respect of ten commandments and love of God and neighbour. This ties in with the condition, since before you are singled out for every good work, you need to know the faith. St Ambrose was not yet baptised, as far as we can say, when he was elected bishop of Milan, but he was a very well instructed catechumen, not one who had just taken the first lessons.

But while this may be sufficient on the topic as such, I came across a blog post dealing with it. From the opposite point of view. Let me present what I am going to refute in some detail:

He Lives : Lesson 30: Trent’s Anathema on Sola Scriptura
http://helives.blogspot.com/2005/10/lesson-30-trents-anathema-on-sola.html

I will first quote the Westminster confession point quoted and say where precisely we differ:

The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's 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.

• 1) "either expressly" - we agree some things are expressly set down, but differ on which ones,
• 2) "or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced" - we say rather a probable consequence is sufficient, if the point be confirmed by tradition, though for some the necessary consequences are also available,
• 3) "unto which nothing at any time is to be added," - we agree totally as to God's counsel, only pastoral can be actually added, the depositum fidei is finished,
• 4) "whether by new revelations of the Spirit," - this is why Private Revelations are strictly subsidiary, must be checked with theologians to contain no Scriptural or doctrinal errors and can only be used as reminders or as special more specific pointers about current or (not always other thing) end times events;
• 5) "traditions of men" - we totally differ on Apostolic Tradition (singular, a corpus, to which the Bible belongs) being either "additions" or equivalent to "statutes of men" as Christ denounced some bad statutes of Pharisees, for which they set the law aside.

The analysis of II Tim 3, first text, then each verse analysis:

15 and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. (2 Tim. 3:15-17, NIV)

Verse 15 tells us that scripture is what we need to be "wise for salvation".

Scripture and nothing else? Actually not. It rather tells that (Old Testament) Scripture (the one familiar to Timothy from his infancy) is only conditionally able to make him (not necessarily everyone else directly, by the way, St Paul is noting a competence St. Timothy had) wise for salvattion, namely through faith in Christ Jesus. Rabbinic Jewry has basically the same Scriptures as St Timothy had known (leaving aside whether St Timothy knew II Maccabees or other), but it is not capable to make people wise for salvation if they do not have the faith in Christ Jesus.

Verse 16 tells us that Scripture is inspired (which implies inerrant).

Catholics agree. That is why I am Young Earth Creationist and Geocentric, believing in angelic movers. That is also why those not believing some of the more obvious ones, like Young Earth or Heaven being a place, are not Catholics, even if socially accepted as "Catholic clergy" : social acceptance is not everything, and definitely does not trump Biblical inerrancy.

Verse 17 tells us that it renders us thoroughly (not partially) equipped.

Not "us" in general, but our clergy, St Timothy being bishop of Ephesus. And thoroughly is correct, but on condition of having the right base. Human DNA will certainly lead to a man in a fertilised egg, which is within the mother's womb, but human DNA is not sufficient, the body plan, for example, is not in the DNA. One needs a human soul before the human DNA will make one human. Similarily, one needs a Christian (and not heretical) doctrine, before Scriptures will make one a thoroughly well equipped Christian (whether one has to be as "a man of God" or wants to be out of geeky interest, as I have in apologetics).

In Jude it is written:

Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints. (Jude 3, NIV)

The saints do not have to wait for further revelation. All that we need has been entrusted once and for all.

Meaning, it was delivered to his friends before that letter, as an oral tradition, right? Bc, if not, how can they consider the faith as being already before the writing delivered "once and for all"? But sure, we do agree on the once and for all part. We just differ on WHAT it was that was so delivered.

Here our scientific friend on "He Lives" blog continues:

Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written. (John 21:25, NIV)

This verse is sometimes used to argue against Sola Scriptura. It is useless in that regard. I would love to know what Jesus did that was not recorded, but I don't need to know it. And if I did need to know it, all would be lost; for no council, synod, or pope will ever be able to tell me what these unrevealed acts were.

It does not state the acts were unrevealed. It states the acts were not written. The acts were part of the continuous revelation Christ was Himself in His Person to the Apostles and they are available, not by reconstruction, not by decision (though these may defend the availability) but by tradition.

Presenting Christ as a proponent of Sola Scriptura:

3 The tempter came to him and said, "If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread." 4 Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.'" 5 Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. 6 "If you are the Son of God," he said, "throw yourself down. For it is written: " 'He will command his angels concerning you, and they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.'" 7 Jesus answered him, "It is also written: 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test.'" 8 Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. 9 "All this I will give you," he said, "if you will bow down and worship me." 10 Jesus said to him, "Away from me, Satan! For it is written: 'Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.'" (Matt. 4:3-10, NIV)

Here is the reasoning:

When refuting Satan, Jesus didn't appeal to tradition, or to the Pharisees, or even His own deity and infallible reason. Each and every time He quoted scripture. Even when Satan also used scripture (v 6), Christ trumped him with more relevant scripture.

That Satan used Scripture should warn us, in order to refute Him from Scripture, we need either very thorough knowledge of it or faith in Christ or both. Things St. Timothy had, and an umpteenth generation Protestant layman has not. Bc. Protestantism is not "faith in Christ". While we acknowledge private revelations given to individuals who themselves were ill equipped to refute Satan had it been he (yesterday we celebrated St. Bernadette Soubirous, the date on which the Blessed Virgin promised to make her happy in the next life, i e to make sure she came to Heaven), (and she was an illiterate girl of 14), we only accepted these after vetting by far weightier theologians than the ones given the privilege of seeing.

But more, this argument is in fact pretending to summarise an induction by a one instance incomplete induction.

The inductive conclusions ("what but Scripture can decide, for Jesus?") is as absent from NT as another one, by Pharisees ("who but God can forgive sins?") is absent from Old Testament. Yes, in each instance where sins are forgiven in the Old Testament, God is the one who forgives, and also the one who promises future forgiveness. But this forgiveness came through Jesus, and Jesus on the occasion when confronted with the said inductive conclusion specified, "the Son of Man can forgive sins". Using an inductive conclusion from Scripture is a dangerous thing.

But also, Jesus confronted with Satan, Jesus confronted with Pharisees and so on ... yes, He often appealed to Scripture. But he also appealed to tradition about the meaning of Scripture, even if that tradition happened to be already encoded in what belonged to OT canon as Scripture.

Matthew 12:[3] But he said to them: Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, and they that were with him: [4] How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the loaves of proposition, which it was not lawful for him to eat, nor for them that were with him, but for the priests only? [5] Or have ye not read in the law, that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple break the sabbath, and are without blame?

So, about the law of "loaves of proposition" He appealed to the traditional example of King David. This as traditional, not original text, example of necessity trumping ceremonial law. Then, if they were to say Sabbath is higher dignity, since in Ten Commandments, He also proposed to them to read in the law ... a concept, which He summarised in words which are not found there. Moses did not verbatim state that priests break the sabbath, and he did also not verbatim state that they are without blame. Both are conclusions, not directly stated in the text. So, the induction actually gives a false conclusion, one not compatible with counterexamples actually found. In appealing to the actions of King David, He is appealing to actions of just men (known as such, in OT case from Scriptures) being a kind of "case law" about the written law of God. Since New Testament has a New Law, the Saints of the past (most of whom lived after NT was written in all books, by now) are also serving as its "case law".

Next, "He Lives" blogger is trying to prove Sola Scriptura from Tradition ... enter Sts Augustine and Cyril of Jerusalem:

In those teachings which are clearly based on scripture are found all that concerns faith and the conduct of life.

As proposed prooftext of sola scriptura, against tradition and magisterium as understood by Trent, fully answered if each teaching of tradition or of magisterium is "clearly based on scripture". Bc, what to a rhetoric mind like St Augustine passes for "clearly" may not imply that they also "by good and necessary consequence may be deduced" in strict logic. It may be sufficient, there is a "clear hint".

The two sentences where St. Cyril seems to endorse Sola Scriptura both show he is not thinking of all alternatives, just the alternative between Scriptural faithfulness and artful dialectic introducing novelty:

For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech.

By the words "drawn aside" aside, we can deduce he is not against all plausibility or all artifices of speech, but against those that draw aside from an indeed very Scriptures centred, but still even so tradition, to which he belonged.

For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures.

Same here. If salvation depended on reasoning, we would obviously be obliged to follow reasoning whereever it currently led us, as most it might be ingenious, but St. Cyril is not banning ingenious reasoning as such. Also, he is saying salvation important topics may be demonstrated (this actually does involve ingenious or less ingenious, as the case may be, reasoning) from Scriptures but since the contrast was with "ingenious reasoning" or "mere plausibility and artifices of speech" he was simply not adressing the question into which you are trying to shoehorn his statement, for the Sola or for Trent.

Also, recall that Reformers made ample use of "mere plausibility and artifices of speech" insofar as they came up with a corpus of doctrine clearly not traditional, and pretended it was, on topic after topic supported by this or that statement in tradition. They, not the Fathers of Trent, were the ones trying to draw us aside.

Also, if we look at ingenious scholasticism (supposing it be faithful to tradition), let's recall, the example of Our Lord trumps a verbally more than substantially coherent conclusion from St. Cyril.

If tradition meant, as the Catholic Church the oral tradition handed down in an unbroken succession from the apostles, then our division would not be as great as it is. We would still argue against such tradition binding the conscience because of the problems associated with proving a claim of a unbroken succession. Nevertheless, I believe our differences would be manageable.

Here "He Lives" blogger touches what was probably also the stumbling block, on one occasion, for C. S. Lewis.

However, before we go into it, there is nothing problematic about proving that there was an unbroken succession of generations in the Church, there is therefore nothing problematic about proving an unbroken apostolic succession, since, whatever problem we may now have in proving who ordained St Irenaeus and how that leads back to Apostles laying hands on someone, this problem was not there to the Church in his time, and the continuity of the Church accepting him as bishop is a standin for the direct documentation he was duly ordained as one.

I have already adressed that one in this post:

Great Bishop of Geneva! : Hunnius Redivivus on Apostolic Succession
https://greatbishopofgeneva.blogspot.com/2019/02/hunnius-redivivus-on-apostolic.html

Speaking of which, that post was sent to "Ask the Pastor" and I have not received any reply mail.

Now, back to "Lesson 30":

In practice, however, sacred tradition is much more. It is whatever the Church says it is. How can one even claim that extra-scriptural Catholic doctrine such as purgatory, The Immaculate Conception, The Assumption, or papal infallibility (just to name a few) arrived as an oral tradition that can be traced back to the apostles?

How do you prove this is extra-Scriptural? How is Purgatory "extra-Scriptural" if there are sins one can be freed from after death, as implied by II Maccabees 12? Or if I Corinthians implies you can build on the right foundation (which would mean you are saved) but still need to feel the heat of a burning flame for having built straw and stubble on it?

How is "Immaculate Conception" extra-Scriptural if strictly implied by Genesis 3:14-15, supposing NT confirms She is the Woman?

How is Papal infallibility extra-scriptural if strictly implied by Papal supremacy (Matthew 16:19 "et dabo tibi claves") along with Church infallibility (1 Timothy 3:15 "the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.")?

If the Assumption is "extra-Scriptural" because it is a historic event after Acts, how are martyrdoms of Sts Peter and Paul not also "extra-Scriptural"? How can we then know they weren't scamming a few Romans and dying from obesity in luxurious retirement? Which would damage credibility of faith quite a lot, right? On the other hand, if we can believe the tradition of the Church they were in fact martyred, we can also believe it on the Assumption. Plus some, if not strict implications, at least very broad hints in Apocalypse 12.

King David eating of the loaves of proposition is similarily extra-Torahic, and while OT Scriptures were added after Torah, since Christ was the fulness of truth, NT Sccriptures are not added after the apostles who had known Christ left earthly existence. This means, we do depend on a Church history which is in one trivial respect in fact technically extra-Scriptural. So, why not for Assumption?

In fact, the only reason why the blogger perceives these as "extra-Scriptural" is, he is living his life and writing his blog from within the Protestant tradition. And, since it clearly traces back to 16th C. and not to Apostles, that one very clearly is traditions of men, or statutes of men.

Another problem is that sacred tradition is not always, well, traditional. For example, In 1559 Pius IV declared that widespread dissemination of the Scriptures is to be avoided in that it causes more harm than good. Vatican II changed this tradition, and now Rome calls for free-access to the Scriptures for all.

First of all, Vatican II is not Catholic.

Second, neither is per se a tradition claiming to be apostolic tradition, both are pastoral. Both are (insofar as Catholic, not the case of the latter) prudential decisions, binding our wills, not our beliefs.

And, unlike some other things from Vatican II, which initiated a Counter-Church, but that is another topic, this one is in the present case defensible.

Pius IV clearly had pastoral care for lots of Catholics who had very little overall education. To whom some basics of Catechism would suffice as Christian doctrine, and adding all of the Bible would have been top heavy, as it turned out with Puritan mentality. This is no longer so. Whoever is the true Pope and whereever the Church is, it contains mostly men who have been exposed to lots and lots of secular education. One can argue that in such a case massive raising of theological competence of Catholic masses, at least via free option, is needed, and this is also how things have been for a long time with English Catholics : since they were anyway obliged to live with people reading most of the Bible (66/72-73 books) and reading it wrong, they were encouraged to have Bibles with Catholic comments helping them to read it right (Challoner, Haydock).

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St. Gabinus of Rome
19.II.2019

PS, due to someone giving me food which smells, I have been writing this getting hungrier and hungrier. God preserve me from being too angry, but somewhat angry I am, if not at the lady, at least those telling her to do so./HGL

PPS, I mentioned "Latest on Antimodernism" - here is an example of how it is useful:



On each widget, to each blog, here the one for this blog is shown, once a new post is published, the latest five links adapt. Here is once again a link to this blog, I also reminded of "contact form":

Latest on Antimodernism
http://l-o-antimodernism.blogspot.com/

PPPS, when I finished a second meal of ratatouille enriched with olives, pickled cucumbers and potatoes, and there is still left, and the fried chicken is left too, I noted there was an extra plastic bag, so things are less smelly now, and I am getting much less angry and hope God blesses my benefactor, still, I am handicapped by getting too much food, too little money, overall. Overeating, which I am basically forced to in order to not waste food, is not quite good for my either spiritual or bodily or even mental health./HGL