Anthony Rogers is Wrong about Sola Scriptura

Reformed apologist Anthony Rogers recently gave a presentation defending sola scriptura from a Reformed Protestant perspective, similar to chapter 1 paragraph 6 of his subordinate standard of faith (the 1689 London Baptist Confession):

 

The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down or necessarily contained in the Holy Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelation of the Spirit, or traditions of men. Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word, and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.

 

Anthony Rogers Discusses Sola Scriptura

 

 

 

 

The standard proof-texts are used (e.g., Rogers using Psa 119 to prove that "scripture" is "sufficient"; John 5:39 and Jesus' statement that the "scriptures" testify of him, etc). To see why Rogers and other Protestants are guilty of eisegesis and fallacious argumentation (e.g., question begging), see:

 

Not By Scripture Alone: A Latter-day Saint Refutation of Sola Scriptura

When one engages in historical-grammatical exegesis, the Bible is not formally sufficient. The fact that "scripture" is spoken highly of and it a source of truth does not mean "scripture" is formally sufficient, let alone that "scripture" is exhausted by the 66 books of the Protestant canon. For instance, it is stupid (to be nice) for him to claim that Acts 8 and Peter providing the interpretation of Isa 53 as proof of "scripture interpreting scripture"--when Peter told the Ethiopian eunuch the interpretation of who the suffering Servant was it was done orally--it would not be inscripturated later, and Peter did not use scripture to interpret scripture, he used teaching that was only in oral form at that time to interpret it (i.e., the early Christian Kerygma). If, as Shamoun says, Rogers is one of the best apologists he knows, that speaks volumes about how poor Protestant apologetics is today.

Let me address the question of whether Cyril of Jerusalem and Irenaeus held to the formal sufficiency of the Bible (something Rogers claimed during the Q&A session).

Cyril of Jerusalem

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. Even to me, who tell thee these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures. (The Catechetical Lectures, Lecture IV section 17)

Firstly, in the source (the Catechetical Lectures), Cyril endorses doctrines that White et al. would view to be heresy, such as baptismal regeneration and an ordained, ministerial priesthood, doctrines which most Protestants would claim are not supported by the Bible. Consequently, any Protestant apologist endorsing the snippet from his lectures quoted above who wish to present him to be a defender of sola scriptura must present Cyril as a very errant proponent thereof, extrapolating doctrines from the Bible which are actually, in their view, anti-biblical(!)

For instance, in Lecture I:4 in the same work, Cyril wrote the following which refutes the concept of eternal security and its variants (e.g., the Reformed doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints):

Thou art made partaker of the Holy Vine. Well then, if thou abide in the Vine, thou growest as a fruitful branch; but if thou abide not, thou wilt be consumed by the fire. Let us therefore bear fruit worthily. God forbid that in us should be done what befell that barren fig-tree, that Jesus come not even now and curse us for our barrenness.

This, of course, ties in with another problem with Protestants appealing to Patristic-era authors to support sola scriptura--absolutely --NONE-- of the individuals they wrench out of context (see here and here to see C. Michael Patton's utter abuse of the Patristics) held to their theology on core, essential doctrines (e.g., none rejected baptismal regeneration). There are no true proto-Protestants among the Patristic authors.

Secondly, the context of the comment by Cyril is not one where he is pitting authoritative tradition and authoritative, binding teachings of the Church vs. Scripture but idle theological speculations vs. Scripture. In IV:16, we learn that he is speaking of the nature of the Holy Spirit and attempting to refute errant views of the Holy Spirit contemporary with his day:

Believe thou also in the Holy Ghost, and hold the same opinion concerning Him, which thou hast received to hold concerning the Father and the Son, and follow not those who teach blasphemous things of Him. But learn thou that this Holy Spirit is One, indivisible, of manifold power; having many operations, yet not Himself divided; Who knoweth the mysteries, Who searcheth all things, even the deep things of God: Who descended upon the Lord Jesus Christ in form of a dove; Who wrought in the Law and in the Prophets; Who now also at the season of Baptism sealeth thy soul; of Whose holiness also every intellectual nature hath need: against Whom if any dare to blaspheme, he hath no forgiveness, neither in this world, nor in that which is to come: "Who with the Father and the Son together" is honoured with the glory of the Godhead: of Whom also thrones, and dominions, principalities, and powers have need. For there is One God, the Father of Christ; and One Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son of the Only God; and One Holy Ghost, the sanctifier and deifier of all, Who spake in the Law and in the Prophets, in the Old and in the New Testament.

The synthesis between oral tradition, the teaching authority of the Church, and Scripture in the epistemology of Cyril can be seen V:17:

But in learning the Faith and in professing it, acquire and keep that only, which is now delivered to thee by the Church, and which has been built up strongly out of all the Scriptures. For since all cannot read the Scriptures, some being hindered as to the knowledge of them by want of learning, and others by a want of leisure, in order that the soul may not perish from ignorance, we comprise the whole doctrine of the Faith in a few lines. This summary I wish you both to commit to memory when I recite it, and to rehearse it with all diligence among yourselves, not writing it out on paper, but engraving it by the memory upon your heart, taking care while you rehearse it that no Catechumen chance to overhear the things which have been delivered to you. I wish you also to keep this as a provision through the whole course of your life, and beside this to receive no other, neither if we ourselves should change and contradict our present teaching, nor if an adverse angel, transformed into an angel of light should wish to lead you astray. For though we or an angel from heaven preach to you any other gospel than that ye have received, let him be to you anathema. So for the present listen while I simply say the Creed, and commit it to memory; but at the proper season expect the confirmation out of Holy Scripture of each part of the contents. For the articles of the Faith were not composed as seemed good to men; but the most important points collected out of all the Scripture make up one complete teaching of the Faith. And just as the mustard seed in one small grain contains many branches, so also this Faith has embraced in few words all the knowledge of godliness in the Old and New Testaments. Take heed then, brethren, and hold fast the traditions which ye now receive, and write them and the table of your heart.

At the end of this passage, Cyril is paraphrasing 2 Thess 2:15, which reads:

Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold to the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

Thirdly, note the following from, again from the very same work, which further refute the claim that he held to the formal sufficiency of the Bible:

Study earnestly these only which we read openly in the Church. Far wise and more pious than thyself were the Apostles, and the bishops of old time, the presidents of the Church who handed down these books. Being therefore a child of the Church, trench thou not upon its statutes. (IV:2)

These mysteries which the Church now explains to thee who art passing out of the class of the Catechumens, it is not the custom to explain to heathen. (VI:29)

Now thee things we teach, not of our invention, but having learned them out of the divine Scriptures used in the Church . . . And that this kingdom is that of the Romans, has been a tradition of the Church's interpreters. (XV:13)

[Y]et the arrangement of the articles of Faith, if religiously understand, disproves the error of Sabellius also. (XVII:34)

Having been sufficiently instructed in these things, keep them, I beseech you, in your remembrance; that I also, unworthy though I be, may say of you, Now I love you, because ye always remember me, and hold fast the traditions, which I delivered unto you. And God, who has presented you as it were alive from the dead, is able to grant unto you to walk in newness of life: because His is the glory and the power, now and for ever, Amen. (Catechetical Lectures, Mystagogical Catechesis, 2:8)

Hold fast these traditions undefiled and, keep yourselves free from offence. Sever not yourselves from the Communion; deprive not yourselves, through the pollution of sins, of these Holy and Spiritual Mysteries. (Catechetical Lectures, Mystagogical Catechesis, 5:23)

Protestant apologists are guilty of gross eisegesis of Cyril of Jerusalem when they attempt to use him as support for sola scriptura.

Irenaeus of Lyons (taken from Not By Scripture Alone)

In his article Did the Early Church Fathers Believe in Sola Scriptura? Evangelical C. Michael Patton used the following from the voluminous works of Irenaeus of Lyons to support his case that Sola Scriptura can be found among the patristic literature:

“They [heretics] gather their views from other sources than the Scriptures. 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 the ground and pillar of our faith.

For they [the Apostles] were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon to the Church, but if they should fall away, the direst calamity. Proofs of the things which are contained in the Scriptures cannot be shown except from the Scriptures themselves.”  (Against Heresies, 1:8:1, 3:1:1, 3:3:1, 3:12:9)

Firstly, one should notice what Patton conveniently leaves out. As one commentator ("Basilio") notes, when one examines the entirety of the texts referenced by Patton, it refutes, not supports, his egregious assertion Irenaeus held to sola scriptura; I will reproduce Bailio's comments in full:

Went through Irenaeus as quoted by the blog. I found that the blogger concatenated four verses (Against Heresies, 1:8:1, 3:1:1, 3:3:1, 3:12:9) into 2 continuous paragraphs – without showing in-between chapters and verses. In effect he made it look like Irenaeus was teaching sola scriptura when in actuality he wasn’t.

1:8:1 for example was not about using scriptures alone – it was about ‘How the Valentinians Pervert the Scriptures to Support Their Own Pious Opinions’.

3:1:1 wa not about using scriptures alone – it was about how ‘The Apostles Did Not Commence to Preach the Gospel, or to Place Anything on Record, Until They Were Endowed with the Gifts and Power of the Holy Spirit. They Preached One God Alone, Maker of Heaven and Earth’.

In fact the next chapter was about how ‘The Heretics Follow Neither Scripture Nor Tradition’.

3:3:1 actually spoke about tradition: “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”

3:12:9 Actually did not start with

“Proofs of the things which are contained in the Scriptures…”

but rather

“But while I bring out by these proofs the truths of Scripture, and set forth briefly and compendiously things which are stated in various ways, do thou also attend to them with patience, and not deem them prolix; taking this into account, that proofs [of the things which are] contained in the Scriptures cannot be shown except from the Scriptures themselves.”

It pertains to those contained only in scripture – it did not pertain to everything (inculding traditions that Irenaeus spoke of repreatedly).

I encourage everyone to scrutinize what is written in the blog by going through the actual writings of the early Christians. You will find that the blog is actually contrary to what the early Christians wrote.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/irenaeus.html

In addition to this rather devastating revelation of Patton's abuse of Irenaeus (again, one has to wonder if he has actually read the writings of the early Church Fathers as opposed to relying on cutting-and-pasting from Mathison [and perhaps William Webster/David King]?), when one actually reads Irenaeus, we find that he privileged oral tradition and held to an authoritative teaching of the Church which would be beyond what Patton, a Protestant, would hold to:

Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say], by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two more glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolic tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere. (Against Heresies, 3.2.2)

Notice that Irenaeus mentions that ". . . it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of al the Churches . . ." What he means by the phrase, "succession of all the Churches" is explained later in the paragraph by the words "that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organised at Rome by the two more glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops . . ." In other words, the "tradition" is identified by that which is presently held by the "successions of bishops." Thus, the "successions of all the Churches" and the "successions of bishops" are the same. It is within this "succession" that Irenaeus says it would be "very tedious" to "reckon up" (or catalogue) what was contained in that "succession."

Evidently, Irenaeus understood that there was a body of tradition contained in the "succession" which was voluminous. It was so voluminous that it would have been "very tedious" to uncover it all. This volume of knowledge cannot refer merely to Scripture, for that was never considered "very tedious" in discovering or collating. It could only refer to unwritten teachings outside of the Bible.

Contra Mathison and other Protestants who claim the early Christian use of "tradition" simply referred to the correct interpretation of Scripture, Irenaeus never understood such tradition as merely the interpreter of Scripture; instead, such tradition has an authority all its own. We can verify his understanding of tradition by noting the issue which is at stake in the above paragraph. The issue concerns those who "assemble in unauthorised meetings." Apparently, there were those in Irenaeus' day who thought that they could abstain from the established places of meeting set up by the Church. It is equally apparent that these men were also making decisions for the Church that were not sanctioned by either Irenaeus or the other Fathers

In speaking against their unauthorised meetings, Irenaeus appeals to ". . . the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organised at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul" as that which is the established authority and place of meeting.

It is obvious by a perusal of the Bible that Irenaeus cannot be referring to Scripture, since nowhere does the Old or New Testaments mention the Church at Rome as being the one and only established authority or place of meeting. Irenaeus is acquiring this "tradition . . . very great . . . and very ancient" from sources external to the Bible, as it has been passed down by Peter and Paul and to the "successions of bishops." moreover, this "tradition" which Irenaeus appeals to is not a mere matter of the correct interpretation of the Bible, since the Bible offers no instance where Rome and its authority is a matter of interpretation.

Another passage from Against Heresies further refutes the utterly fallacious claim Irenaeus held to sola scriptura:

On this account we are bound to avoid them, but to make choice of the thing pertaining to the Church with the utmost diligence, and to lay hold of the tradition of the truth. For how stands the case? Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches? (3.4.1)

One scholar of early Christianity wrote the following about Irenaeus' attitude towards the binding nature of non-inscripturated traditions he spoke positively about in his writings:

"For Irenaeus of Lyons the canon of the writings of the NT, which had recently been formed in response to Marcion, became the chief weapon in his battle against gnosticism. But he was aware that this weapon, by itself, was not enough. He had to provide proof, moreover, that this canon of the church contained the complete and authentic apostolic tradition and also that this tradition was correctly interpreted in the church. The first proof was supplied, in Irenaeus's eyes, by the uninterrupted succession of the bishops in the apostolic churches (see 'Adv. haer.' III, praef.; 1,1; 2,1-4,1); the second proof is given by the fact that there is a perfect concordance between the 'rule of faith' of the apostolic churches and their interpretation of Scripture."

(W. Rordorf, 'Encyclopedia of Ancient Christianity' 3:821-822)

Another Protestant apologist, Robert Bowman, a friend of Michael Patton, after failing to support the claim Irenaeus of Lyons held to Sola Scriptura after interacting with myself and a friend, Errol Amey (a non-Mormon), admitted that Irenaeus did not hold to this doctrine (emphasis added):

Indeed, Boylan again misrepresent me as claiming that Irenaeus held to sola scriptura . . . since I acknowledged some half a dozen times that Irenaeus did not hold to sola scriptura, an article arguing that “Irenaeus did not hold to Sola Scriptura” obviously is not really an answer to my arguments . . . The rest of Boylan’s post continues to criticize me as if I had argued that Irenaeus held to sola scriptura, which I have already shown is an outright misrepresentation. (source)

Bowman's attempt to spin wheels about his initial claims about Irenaeus notwithstanding, it is refreshing to see such a frank admission that Irenaeus, a leading second century theologian, did not accept the formal sufficiency of the Bible.