Sunday, July 01, 2012

Does Paul Refer to Ongoing Authoritative Extra-Biblical Tradition in 2 Timothy?

What constitutes the ongoing infallible authority for the church? Roman Catholic apologists say it consists of Scripture + Tradition +  a Church magisterium (often referred to as"three-legged stool" model of authority).
Protestant  limit the infallible rule of faith to sacred Scripture. Two key passages relied on by Protestants are as follows:
2 Timothy 3:14-17
14 You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them, 15 and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.
Romans 16:25-27
25 Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery which has been kept secret for long ages past, 26 but now is manifested, and by the Scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the eternal God, has been made known to all the nations, leading to obedience of faith; 27 to the only wise God, through Jesus Christ, be the glory forever. Amen.
In his book, Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith, Volume I: A Biblical Defense of the Reformation Principle of Sola Scriptura, David King has commented,
Sola Scriptura functions as the authoritative norm for the people of God, and therefore stands as the only existing source of the deposit of faith that special revelation has disclosed. This is one reason why Paul wrote as he did in his closing remarks in Romans. He spoke of 'the revelation of the mystery kept secret since the world began but now has been made manifest, and by the prophetic Scriptures has been made known to all nations, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, for obedience to the faith' (Rom 16:25-26). According to the testimony of the Apostle Paul, Scripture has manifested this mystery, and this mystery is authoritatively interpreted by the epistles of the New Testament.
Scripture is therefore authoritatively specified (via apostolic sanction) as the God-ordained means for the manifestation of this mystery, the purpose being 'for obedience to the faith.' If unwritten tradition was to be regarded as a reliable means and/or source for the preservation of binding revelation beyond the time of the apostles, and intended to function perpetually as an authoritative norm alongside Scripture, why did Paul fail to mention such a concept when speaking of 'the revelation of the mystery kept secret since the world began?' (p.44)
Some Roman apologists claim Paul did not omit ongoling oral tradition as an authoritative norm alongside Scripture that was to function as an infallible rule of faith for the church. The most typical verse cited is 2 Thessalonians 2:14-15. I've dealt with that argument elsewhere, as have much abler writers (see David King's treatment on pages 119-121). I recently saw another proof offered for the Roman "three-legged stool" paradigm coming from one on the chief chapters Protestants rely on for sola scriptura, 2 Timothy 3.
2 Tim. 3:10; 14
10 Now you followed my teaching, conduct, purpose, faith, patience, love, perseverance, 11 persecutions, and sufferings, such as happened to me at Antioch, at Iconium and at Lystra; what persecutions I endured, and out of them all the Lord rescued me! 12 Indeed, all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will be persecuted. 13 But evil men and impostors will proceed from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. 14 You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them,
Here Paul is said to be teaching an ongoing infallible extra-biblical tradition as a norm along side of sacred Scripture. But, as David King has pointed out above, saying such exists and proving it are two very different things. David rightly asks of any Roman apologist claiming such:
In the end, the matter of authoritative revelation boils down to a question of preservation. Regardless of the assertions of Roman apologists, when the dust settles, there is one question they cannot answer. Can you name one oral, extrabiblical tradition, demonstratively traceable to the apostolic age, which is necessary for the faith and practice of the Church of Jesus Christ? No verifiable example has been or can be offered. We affirm with the Apostle Paul, 'that according to the Way which they call a sect (or heresy), so I worship the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the Law and in the Prophets' (Acts 24:14).
Certainly we can agree with Rome's apologists that previous to the completion of the New Testament and the deaths of the apostles and New Testament writers, the Word of God had an oral dimension. We can certainly agree that Paul taught Timothy in an oral nature, and that teaching was the word of God (2 Timothy 1:13-14, What you heard from me, keep as the pattern of sound teaching, with faith and love in Christ Jesus. Guard the good deposit that was entrusted to you—guard it with the help of the Holy Spirit who lives in us). David King though rightly states that "In the end, the matter of authoritative revelation boils down to a question of preservation." It certainly does. If extra-biblical infallible oral revelation intended for the Church exists,  where is it, and what is it? What did Paul teach Timothy other than what we have in the Bible, and where is it? As King said above, "If unwritten tradition was to be regarded as a reliable means and/or source for the preservation of binding revelation beyond the time of the apostles, and intended to function perpetually as an authoritative norm alongside Scripture, why did Paul fail to mention such a concept when speaking of 'the revelation of the mystery kept secret since the world began?" As the old TV commercial goes, the question Rome's apologists need answer is where's the beef?

Other Spurious Examples of Infallible Extra-Biblical Tradition
Along with 2 Tim. 3:10;14, a Roman apologist may put forth Jannes and Jambres in 2 Timothy 3:8-9 as an example of infallible extra-biblical tradition:
8 Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men of depraved mind, rejected in regard to the faith. 9 But they will not make further progress; for their folly will be obvious to all, just as Jannes’s and Jambres’s folly was also.
David King points out,
Roman apologists insist that the names of Jannes and Jambres would be unknown to us had they not been preserved by means of oral tradition. But this does not prove extrabiblical tradition, only inscripturated tradition. More importantly, the knowledge or ignorance of these names has no bearing on one's eternal destiny. This is not a matter of de fide even within the Church of Rome. Additionally, we draw from the witness of the Church father, Chrysostom, who said, 'Who are these [i.e., Jannes and Jambres]? 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.' Theodore of Mopsuestia (350-428) wrote that, 'A great deal of foolishness has been written about how Paul could have known the names of these two men who resisted Moses.' Theodoret of Cyrrhus (393-466) stated that, 'Paul takes the story of Jannes and Jambres not from holy Scripture but from unwritten Jewish tradition.'Instances of Alleged Support for Extra-Biblical Tradition. These examples demonstrate that there was a diversity of opinion among the early Church fathers themselves, thereby proving that there was no objective tradition current in their time. Perhaps, Theodore of Mopsuestia gave the best summation of speculative arguments over Paul's source when he spoke of the 'foolishness' that had been written about it. (p. 123).
Another popular argument using 2 Timothy against sola scriptura comes from 2 Timothy 2:1-2
You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. 2 And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable people who will also be qualified to teach others.
David King points out,
While the defenders of Rome quote this passage in support of extra-biblical traditions, we know that this was no secret deposit or esoteric oral tradition. Tertullian wrote:

What is this deposit? Is it so secret as to be supposed to characterize a new doctrine? or is it a part of that charge of which he says, 'This charge I commit unto thee, son Timothy?' and also of that precept of which he says, 'I charge thee in the sight of God, who quickeneth all things, and before Jesus Christ who witnessed a good confession under Pontius Pilate, that thou keep this commandment?' Now, what is (this) commandment and what is (this) charge? From the preceding and the succeeding contexts, it will be manifest that there is no mysterious hint darkly suggested in this expression about (some) far-fetched doctrine, but that a warning is rather given against receiving any other (doctrine) than that which Timothy had heard from himself, as I take it publicly: 'Before many witnesses' is his phrase. Now, if they refuse to allow that the church is meant by these 'many witnesses,' it matters nothing, since nothing could have been secret which was produced 'before many witnesses.' Nor, again, must the circumstance of his having wished him to 'commit these things to faithful men, who should be able to teach others also,' be construed into a proof of there being some occult gospel. For, when he says 'these things,' he refers to the things of which he is writing at the moment. In reference, however, to occult subjects, he would have called them, as being absent, those things, not these things, to one who had a joint knowledge of them with himself. (emphasis mine).

According to Tertullian, Paul committed to 'faithful men,' who in turn passed on this deposit of truth, the things of which 'he is writing at the moment.' It had nothing to do with extrabiblical traditions. It was a succession of apostolic teaching, not a succession of men.

Among the things Paul conveyed, in this epistle, was his own instruction regarding the sufficiency of holy Scripture. Thus, this 'proof' text does not support the Roman contention regarding an oral deposit of doctrine passed down through successive generations in the Church. (pp.122-123).
Conclusion
These few examples demonstrate that David King's book, Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith, Volume I: A Biblical Defense of the Reformation Principle of Sola Scriptura, is of immense value in dealing with Roman apologists.  To this date, no Roman Catholic apologist has offered any sort of meaningful comprehensive counter-response. Those that have made attempts typically start, but give up. I can think of at least two Roman Catholic apologists that guaranteed full rebuttals, but quickly gave up. Some actually make arguments against King's book, not even realizing he's already answered their argument. For instance, one Roman apologist mentions Jannes and Jambres in 2 Timothy 3:8-9 as an example of infallible extra-biblical tradition that refutes King, apparently not even realizing King's book included a section on Jannes and Jambres.

12 comments:

Nick said...

I agree with King's thesis: "In the end, the matter of authoritative revelation boils down to a question of preservation."

The options on the table to that question are these:

(1) All Oral Apostolic Teaching was eventually enscripturated.

(2) At least some Oral Apostolic Teaching was forever lost.

(3) At least some Oral Apostolic Teaching was neither enscripturated nor lost, but preserved to this day.

The problem is Option 1 is self-refuting, since the sole source of inspired teaching for Protestants (the 66-Book Bible) leaves out that crucial detail. To go around Assuming that crucial detail (i.e. enscripturation) does one no good and holds as much weight as assuming the Canon of Scripture.

To go around asking "If extra-biblical infallible oral revelation intended for the Church exists, where is it, and what is it?" is to miss the real point. Even if I nor anyone else can answer that question does not make Option 1 true by default.

Option 1 even results in absurd exegesis, such as Paul telling Timothy to simultaneously follow Scripture Alone (2 Tim 3:16f) as well as Oral Teaching (2 Tim 1:13f).

John Bugay said...

Option 1 even results in absurd exegesis, such as Paul telling Timothy to simultaneously follow Scripture Alone (2 Tim 3:16f) as well as Oral Teaching (2 Tim 1:13f).

Cullmann's got an answer for that:

http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/10/oscar-cullmann-on-relationship-between.html

http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/10/oscar-cullmann-on-relationship-between_09.html

And to your "problem" that Option 1 is "self refuting", Michael Kruger's work Canon Revisited argues at length why that's not the case.

Nick said...

John,

What verse(s) does Kruger appeal to in support of Option 1? If none, then I'm not sure how it's possible to get around the self-refuting dilemma.

As for Cullmann's links you posted, the first doesn't address the logical dilemma at all. It says nothing in specific of enscripturation. All it did was make the claim that Papias was unreliable. But that line of thinking doesn't prove Option 1, instead it means Option 2 is a possibility.

The part 2 of Cullmann continues to miss the point. It simply says "oral tradition was no longer reliable" - which says nothing directly about enscripturation.

Cullmann's thesis is even weaker when you consider that there is no historical evidence of the Protestant Bible being solidified in the earliest centuries. So what he is stuck saying is that from 90AD or so until 350 or so there was neither oral teaching nor a definitive 66 book canon, which translates into a period of relative darkness succeeding the Apostles. He only further discredits his thesis when he says the Apostolic Church Fathers were untrustworthy, for then to which historical witness do Christians consult? So when you say "The church of 150 AD consciously set about to formulate a canon"...it seems you're speaking out of both sides of your mouth.

RPV said...

Nick,
You need to be able to cite the argument if your criticisms are going to be taken as anything more than flailing at a pinata.

1. All of the essential apostolic oral tradition was inscripturated.

Yeah, I know 2 Thess. 2:15. The problem with that is - in that I did learn something about diagramming sentences from the 4th grade nun - the subject of the same is "traditions" which are the same - whether received by word or letter.

IOW no matter how much the obscurantists try to befuddle the matter, there is no contradiction between the two subordinate subjects, the spoken and written word.

Scripture is the Apostolic tradition written down. And if one doesn't obey it, one is unfaithful to 2 Thess. 2:15.

IOW Rome would be better off just ignoring any claim to Scripture for her authority and just try to brass it out on antiquity and casuistry.

Wait a minute, that's all she essentially does anyway.

Never mind.

James Swan said...

1) All Oral Apostolic Teaching was eventually enscripturated.

I would be interested in knowing exactly who argues such a point. I certainly never have, nor am I familiar with any major Protestant work on sola scriptura that has ever presented this argument.

(2) At least some Oral Apostolic Teaching was forever lost

I've never read a meaningful treatise on sola scriptura that claims everything Jesus or the Apostles taught is preserved in Scripture. what was necessary, God the Holy Spirit, preserved.

(3) At least some Oral Apostolic Teaching was neither enscripturated nor lost, but preserved to this day.

Why, point 3 smells like....Romanism.

How about we add a conclusion that's not a misrepresentation of sola scriptura, or blantant Romanism?

(4)Everything necessary, everything binding on our consciences, and everything God requires of us has been given to us in the Scriptures, because God is the ultimate author of the Bible.

To go around asking "If extra-biblical infallible oral revelation intended for the Church exists, where is it, and what is it?" is to miss the real point.

No, it doesn't miss the point, at all. If you want to convince me of Romanism, don't you think you would need to show me the goods Romanism is supposed to have?

Even if I nor anyone else can answer that question does not make Option 1 true by default.

Option 1 is a false option, as stated above.

Option 1 even results in absurd exegesis, such as Paul telling Timothy to simultaneously follow Scripture Alone (2 Tim 3:16f) as well as Oral Teaching (2 Tim 1:13f).

Option 1 was absurd to begin with, hence it doesn't surprise me that it leads to other absurdities.

Nick, I think you should heed the words of RPV:

"You need to be able to cite the argument if your criticisms are going to be taken as anything more than flailing at a pinata."

James Swan said...

Nick, here's a little thought experiment for you to see if you really understand where I'm coming from.

Based on my comments thus far, how do you think I would react to a historical discovery of a "lost letter" of the Apostle Paul? Let's assume that the letter dates from the time of Paul, and it has a high likelihood that it may in fact be from Paul.

How would you respond, and how do you think I would respond?

John Bugay said...

Nick, you said: Cullmann's thesis is even weaker when you consider that there is no historical evidence of the Protestant Bible being solidified in the earliest centuries. So what he is stuck saying is that from 90AD or so until 350 or so there was neither oral teaching nor a definitive 66 book canon.

Leaving aside the question of the Old Testament canon, which is very attested here in a very thorough way, Kruger notes describes the process by which the letters of Paul, already of "divine qualities", and "apostolic origin", became collected into a "canonical core" before, say, the conscious setting about" to create a canon.

You write: So when you say "The church of 150 AD consciously set about to formulate a canon"...it seems you're speaking out of both sides of your mouth

Kruger speaks about a "canonical core" which contained (for example, the gospels and Paul's letters), almost from the moment they were written. There is no contradiction at all in saying (a) there was a de-facto "canonical core" and (b) the church, in 150, decided to to "consciously set about to formulate" a canon. The decision to "formulate a canon" was a direct result of the realization that "oral tradition" was becoming more and more unreliable with the distance from the "eyewitnesses".

Nick said...

James,

I first said: 1) All Oral Apostolic Teaching was eventually enscripturated.

You responded: I would be interested in knowing exactly who argues such a point. I certainly never have, nor am I familiar with any major Protestant work on sola scriptura that has ever presented this argument.

Then what is the point of Apostolic NT Teaching starting off oral if none of that oral NT teaching was eventually inscripturated? The point of the term "inscripturation" is that something oral eventually got written down. If the preaching was the Word of God, then the doctrines preached either were lost, found their way into Scripture, or remained orally passed on. The Westminster Confession even says after the period of God delivering things orally He wanted "to commit the same wholly unto writing".


You said: "I've never read a meaningful treatise on sola scriptura that claims everything Jesus or the Apostles taught is preserved in Scripture."

I'm speaking of essential oral teachings, i.e. oral teaching that was the Word of God before the Apostles ever wrote a single page of Scripture.

You gave a 4th option saying:
"(4)Everything necessary, everything binding on our consciences, and everything God requires of us has been given to us in the Scriptures, because God is the ultimate author of the Bible."

This dodges the original point under consideration: "In the end, the matter of authoritative revelation boils down to a question of preservation." The issue here is of preservation. So was the essential oral teachings of the Apostles preserved? If yes, then Options 1 or Option 3 is all you have. Your Option 4 is in no way in conflict with Option 1 or Option 3 since your option tells us nothing as to how inspired Oral Teaching was preserved.

This goes right back to my question: Was Paul telling Timothy to engage in Sola Scriptura in 2nd Timothy 3:16? If yes, then why was Paul telling Timothy earlier on in the same Letter that Timothy should hold onto the inspired oral teaching of Paul?

You asked me:
Based on my comments thus far, how do you think I would react to a historical discovery of a "lost letter" of the Apostle Paul? Let's assume that the letter dates from the time of Paul, and it has a high likelihood that it may in fact be from Paul. How would you respond, and how do you think I would respond?

I would respond as a Catholic by saying such a 'Lost Letter' has never been testified to by any Father or Council and thus Tradition has never considered it canon and thus it is not inspired. Paul and the Apostles very well could have written non-inspired material, as James and Peter and Jude surely wrote more than the small amount of writing we have today.

I would say that you as a Protestant would be in some level of trouble, since you'd have no way of knowing one way or the other. The Lost Letter sounds a lot like Paul and likely repeats stuff he has said, so it surely radiates of his writing style, fits the timeframe of enscripturation, as well as contains orthodox theology. You could not appeal to a 'closed canon' nor a Church Father nor even any book of Scripture to tell you one way or the other.

Nick said...

John,

I don't want to go off topic from King's summary of the problem: "In the end, the matter of authoritative revelation boils down to a question of preservation." So I'm principally interested in what verses Kruger appeals to in support of Option 1.

As for your link claiming the OT canon was very attested to in a thorough way, I saw very little actual proof. First the author dodges the Septuagint all together, and in quoting Josephus the author even mistakenly thinks that references to "22 books" undoubtedly means the Protestant canon, when it is a fact that Church Fathers who made reference to "22 Books" included Deuterocanonical books within it (esp Baruch with Jeremiah). Aside from Josephus, he mentions Clement, but misses the fact Clement saw Judith as Scripture. It seems the author wasn't intending to be "thorough" here at all, since he says they will continue on next time and even says "There is some truth to the claim that the canon as we know it was not finished until the fourth century."

I agree there is no contradiction in saying there was a 'canonical core' extremely early on and that canonical lists were being formed early on. The contradiction rests in assigning the start of this to the post-Apostolic age when oral tradition was unreliable. At that point you have a canon being assembled with unreliable oral teaching as a guide by Christian laymen with no true ecclesial authority.

RPV said...

Nick,
What is the purpose or meaning of the apostle John, when he says:

 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:

And then goes on to immediately say:

 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

Any clue?

Scripture is a sufficient record of what Christ did and taught, personally and through his disciples, that we may run the race set before us, the reward of which is life eternal in Christ.

IOW Scripture is neither an exhaustive nor redundant record of everything Christ or his apostles taught yet it is still perfect/complete and sufficient.

That is the protestant position.
IOW your latest continues to ignore your error in presenting what you presume to have categorically defeated - all the while you can't get the categories straight to begin with.

Have fun, but don't expect anybody to really listen.

Nick said...

RPV,

You asked what I thought of "But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name."

Simply stated, the teachings recorded in John are sufficient to bring one to saving knowledge of Christ. But a saving knowledge of Christ is not the entirety of Christian revelation and doctrine.

As for the rest of what you said: Saying Scripture is sufficient is an assertion, not proven from Scripture. More specifically saying Scripture is sufficient isn't the same as saying Scripture is Formally Sufficient and says nothing about what happened to the Apostolic Oral preaching.

I can say a scientific Calculator is sufficient to do some math problem, but that doesn't make the Calculator formally sufficient nor does it mean other math solving tools are unavailable.

RPV said...

2 Timothy 3:17  That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto ALL good works.

Checkmate.

FTM that you have left off flogging 2 Thess 2:15 is duly noticed.