The following are excerpts from:
Robert
A. Sungenis, "A Critique of Keith Mathison's book: 'The Shape of Sola
Scriptura,'" URL:
https://www.robertsungenis.org/2020/09/a-critique-of-keith-mathisons-book.html
Tertullian:
Mathison claims that Tertullian believed that
"the oral preaching of the Apostles was written down in Scripture"
(p. 25). Mathison does not tell us where Tertullian makes such a claim, rather,
he cites J.N.D. Kelly as his source. Pay close attention. You will learn what
happens when an author depends on secondary sources for his support rather than
researching the original source himself. We will find that J.N.D. Kelly exhibits
one of the most blatant distortions of Tertullian's writings ever perpetrated on
the public, and Mathison, without checking the quote, falls right into the trap
of accepting it carte blanche.
Mathison cites Kelly's work Early Christian
Doctrines on page 39 to back up the claim that Tertullian believed
"the oral preaching of the Apostles was written down in Scripture."
Turning to Kelly's book we find the following statements: "...for the
apostles subsequently wrote down their oral preaching in epistles (n. 7). For
this reason Scripture has absolute authority; whatever it teaches is
necessarily true, (n. 8) and woe betide him who accepts doctrines not
discoverable in it (n. 9)." In "n. 7," Kelly tells us that the
statement from Tertullian comes from "De praescr. 21" This is
an abbreviation for the work De praescriptione haereticorum, or more commonly
"The prescription against the heretics." Here is what
Tertullian actually said in section 21 of that work:
"But what they preached, that is, what Christ had
revealed to them - - and here again I must enter a demurrer - - can be proved
in no other way except through the same Churches which the Apostles founded, preaching
in them themselves viva voce as they say, and after wards by their Epistles.
If these things are do, then it follows that all doctrine which agrees with
the apostolic Churches, those nursuries and original depositories of the
faith, must be regarded as truth, and as undoubtedly constituting what the
Churches received from the Apostles, what the Apostles received from
Christ, and what Christ received from God. And indeed, every doctrine must
be prejudged as false, if it smells of anything contrary to the truth of the
Churches and of the Apostles of Christ and God. It remains, then for us to
demonstrate whether this doctrine of ours, of which we gave the rule above,
accords with the tradition of the Apostles, in which case all other doctrines proceed
from falsehood..."
Now, does Tertullian say anywhere in this paragraph
that the Apostles "wrote down their oral preaching in epistles"? No,
not at all. Rather, Tertullian says "preaching in them themselves viva
voce as they say, and afterwards by their Epistles." They preached in two
ways, by their voices and by their epistles, but nowhere is it said that the
message of their "voices" was written down in their epistles.
Granted, there may have been much oral teaching that contained the same message
as that eventually found in Scripture, but there is no hint here that the
Apostles had a determined mission to confine either part or all of their oral
message to the written word. Yet Mathison, through Kelly, wants to give the
reader the distinct impression that the Apostles made a concerted effort to
confine their oral preaching to Scripture.
Mathison is not so bold to say that "ALL the oral
preaching of the Apostles was written down in Scripture," for he knows
that would be a blatant falsehood which would be shot down rather easily.
Instead, Mathison leaves out the word "all," but by the same token
the sentence still strongly implies that he means "all," and that is precisely
the intended impression with which Mathison wants to leave the reader - - that
the Apostles confined all their oral preaching to Scripture, and thus
there was/is no need to search for additional truth outside of Scripture.
Upon close examination, however, Tertullian does not
claim Scripture is the judge of doctrine in the above passage. He refers to
"...follows that all doctrine which agrees with the apostolic
Churches..." and to "constituting what the Churches received from the
Apostles..." and "every doctrine must be prejudged as false, if it
smells of anything contrary to the truth of the Churches..." Hence, for
Tertullian it is the "Churches" which are the judge of doctrine,
since the Churches received the teaching from the Apostles, both from oral
preaching and written word, as noted above. We cannot depart from this matter
without noting the additional falsehoods J.N.D. Kelly has created about
Tertullian.
The next sentence on page 39 of Kelly's book states:
"For this reason Scripture has absolute authority; whatever it teaches is
necessarily true (n. 8)."
The preceding sentence stated: "Indeed it was
enshrined in Scripture, for the apostles subsequently wrote down their oral
preaching in epistles (n. 7)."
Thus, Kelly is making a conclusion that because the
oral tradition of the Apostles was "enshrined" in Scripture, then it
follows (i.e., "for this reason") "that Scripture has absolute
authority." It is assumed by the use of the word "absolute" that
Kelly means Scripture has authority over Tradition and the Church, otherwise it
would not be absolute. But is that what Tertullian says? Kelly cites "De
carne Chr. 3" as his reference supporting his conclusion that
Tertullian believed Scripture to be of absolute authority because the Apostles
wrote down their oral preaching in Scripture. The reference is to De carne
Christi, more commonly known as "The Flesh of Christ." In
chapter 3 of this work, the only time Tertullian mentions Scripture is in the following
sentence:
"If you had not purposely rejected in some
instances, and corrupter in others, the Scriptures which are opposed to your
opinion, you would have been confuted in this matter by the Gospel of John,
when it declares that the Spirit descended in the body of a dove, and sat upon
the Lord."
It is beyond belief how a supposedly erudite scholar
such as J.N.D. Kelly can conclude from this statement that Scripture has
"absolute" authority. At the least, it simply cannot be concluded,
contrary to what Mathison is portraying Tertullian to be, that Tertullian
anywhere in these series of quotes is advocating that Scripture is the supreme
authority above Tradition or the Church, or that Tradition is used merely as a
help to interpret Scripture.
Furthermore, if we investigate more deeply into the
writings of Tertullian, the following is how he regards Tradition:
"And how long shall we draw the saw to and fro
through this line, when we have an ancient practice, which by anticipation has
made for us the state, i.e., of the question? If no passage of Scripture has
prescribed it, assuredly custom, which without doubt flowed from tradition, has
confirmed it. For how can anything come into use, if it has not first been
handed down? Even in pleading tradition, written authority, you say, must be
demanded. Let us inquire, therefore, whether tradition, unless it be written,
should not be admitted. Certainly we shall say that it ought not to be
admitted, if no cases of other practices which, without any written instrument,
we maintain on the ground of tradition alone, and the countenance thereafter of
custom, affords us any precedent. To deal with this matter briefly, I shall
begin with baptism....If, for these and other such rules, you insist upon
having positive Scripture injunction, you will find none. Tradition will be
held forth to you as the originator of them, custom as their strengthener, and
faith as their observer. That reason will support tradition, and custom, and
faith, you will either yourself perceive, or learn from some one who has.
Meanwhile you will believe that there is some reason to which submission is
due. I add still one case more..." (On
the Crown, Ch 3-4).
Notice here how Tertullian upholds the Catholic belief
that just because something is not found in Scripture does not mean it is
either untrue or cannot be practiced. Not only does this show us that
Tertullian does not believe Scripture to be the ultimate authority, more
importantly it shows us, contrary to Mathison's thesis, that Tertullian viewed
Tradition as a separate and additional authoritative source to Scripture. In other
words, like Irenaeus, Tertullian believed in Tradition 2, not Tradition 1. (pp.
11-14)
we cannot let pass up commenting on the irony in
Mathison's settling on Cyprian as one of his examples of Tradition 1, since
Cyprian believed in baptismal regeneration (that the waters of baptism are the
means of justification), whereas Mathison does not. Here's what Cyprian says on
the subject:
"...the sacrament of the divine tradition. The
sacrament of which unity we see expressed also in the Canticles, in the person
of Christ, who says, "A garden enclosed is my sister, my spouse, a
fountain sealed, a well of living water, a garden with the fruit of
apples." But if His Church is a garden enclosed, and a fountain sealed,
how can he who is not in the Church enter into the same garden, or drink from
its fountain? Moreover, Peter himself, showing and vindicating the unity, has commanded
and warned us that we cannot be saved, except by the one only baptism of one
Church. (Epistle 73, 11).
If, as Mathison claims, Cyprian believed only in the
kind of tradition which gave proper interpretation to Scripture, then Mathison
would have to claim that the tradition circulating in Cyprian's time was
diametrically opposed to the "Tradition 1" believed by Mathison
today. Perhaps Mathison didn't think far enough about this when he wrote his
book and settled on the concept of "Tradition 1," but inadvertently,
he has created a theological quicksand for himself. For every Father that he
claims believed in "Tradition 1," he has to face the fact that those
Fathers believed things about Scripture which are opposed to what Mathison
believes today. (p. 17)
Mathison then raises what appears to
be a persistent objection in his book:
"A major problem, again, is that Rome has never been able to
provide anyone with any complete and definite statement of what all of these
necessary oral traditions are which she claims to have preserved." (The
Shape of Sola Scriptura, p. 172).
So this is what the fuss is all about? Let's answer this question
by turning the tables on Mathison. Mathison claims that the early Fathers
believed in "Tradition 1," which, briefly stated, means that Tradition
only provides, or is only used, to determine the proper interpretation of
Scripture, not to add more revelation to Scripture, which is what
"Tradition 2" does, according to Mathison. If that is Mathison's
belief, then let's ask him the fair question: Where does "Tradition
1" contain the information we need for the proper interpretation of
Scripture? This is an earth-shattering question for Mathison, for whatever
answer he gives he is going to trap himself.
(A) He can't say that the proper interpretation of Scripture is
contained within Scripture, for that would put him on the side of the
"Tradition 0" crowd, who believe Scripture is formally sufficient and
able to "interpret itself," the very idea of Scripture and
interpretation that Mathison condemned.
(B) He can't say that the proper interpretation of Scripture is
contained in the writings of the Fathers (or anything subsequent to the
Apostles), since that will mean that the Fathers obtained the correct interpretation
of Scripture from the Apostles through a vehicle outside of Scripture.
For the only way the Fathers could receive information concerning the proper
interpretation of Scripture would be through an alternate vehicle of
transmission, outside of Scripture, which passed it down to them from the
Apostles. And thus Mathison has trapped himself, for then it is equally valid
for the Catholic Church to say, in accordance with the stipulation in 2
Thessalonians 2:15, that the Fathers could receive oral revelation from the
Apostles, in addition to Scripture, passed down to them through the same
transmission vehicle by which they received the information concerning the
proper interpretation of Scripture that Mathison holds to. Since A or B are the
only two answers that Mathison can give to this all important question (unless
he wants to try to invent a third option, as he did by inventing
"Tradition 1"), then his whole thesis falls dead in its tracks, never
to be resurrected again. (pp. 50-51)
Note precisely what Mathison says
above: "whether through verbal or written communication. The body of doctrine, however, was essentially
identical regardless of how it was communicated. This is important in
terms of evaluating the accuracy of Sungenis' critique." (emphasis mine). What does "essentially identical" mean? Does it
mean that everything in Scripture was in Tradition? Does it mean that 99% of
everything in Scripture was in Tradition? You see the problem is that Mathison
has a sneaking suspicion that although Scripture and Tradition are almost the
same, he knows he cannot say they are absolutely the same, and thus he uses the
term "essentially identical." Maybe he means that their
"essential" points are identical, but what Catholic would argue with
that? But here is the conundrum that Dr. Mathison has gotten himself into:
Since Scripture and Tradition are not "absolutely identical" that
means there are things in Tradition that are not in Scripture. In fact, if
there is just one fact of Christianity in Tradition that is not in Scripture, then
that means Tradition and Scripture are not identical, and therefore Tradition
is another source of Revelation in addition to Scripture, and thus it teaches Tradition
2, not Tradition 1. We made this same point in Not By Scripture Alone, but apparently
Dr. Mathison missed it. (pp. 67-68)
Let's take Mathison's suggestion and
read a Father. Let's use Irenaeus I just quoted
above. Here it is again:
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 most 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 apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those
[faithful men] who exist everywhere"
Can Mathison tell us anywhere in
Scripture where the list for the succession of bishops is located? Come to
think of it, Mathison's religion doesn't believe in apostolic succession, so he
doesn't even believe that it can be found in the Bible. How do I know this?
Because if Mathison did believe in apostolic succession he would submit himself
to the nearest bishop who has succeeded the apostles from an unbroken line of
previous successors. Until he does, Mathison doesn't believe in "succession,"
yet here we find Irenaeus speaking about it as the very Tradition of the Church.
Like genealogies were to the Jews, the lists of succession of bishops were very
important, since they verified who was a legitimate successor of the apostles. That
is why the Catholic Church's list of Popes is so important, since it shows, by Tradition,
that there is an unbroken line of succession, and therefore, the present Pope
is the legitimate heir of the papacy.
Now, since Mathison does not believe
the "succession of bishops" is not taught in Scripture, where is
Irenaeus getting this idea of "succession"? Apparently, this is an important
belief for Irenaeus, since without it there would be no church for him. Thus,
if its not in Scripture, then it must be coming from another source, no? If the
issue of "succession" was only a "mode of communication"
(Mathison's word) then Mathison would have to admit that "succession"
is taught somewhere in Scripture. Since he can't find it in Scripture, then it
can't be a "mode," rather, it must be a "source." And if
Mathison were so lucky as to find "succession" in Scripture, then he couldn't
remain in his present Church, for they have no unbroken line of succession. Poor
Mathison. He's stuck any which way he turns. (pp.
90-91)