Thursday, May 26, 2016

Everything needed was written down; and the promises to the apostles imply this; and the Rule of Faith in the early church also shows this

In order to understand all of this post, it is important to read the two links at Apologetics and Agape,


1.  The Defining Question on Sola Scriptura and Tradition
https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2016/05/25/the-defining-question/

2.  The Rule of Faith in the Early Church
https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2016/05/24/the-rule-of-faith-in-the-early-church/



 and also view and listen to the debate on Sola Scriptura between Dr. James White and Mitch Pacwa.

In response to my article on Rod Bennett's recent appearance on Marcus Grodi's The Coming Home Network,
a Roman Catholic who goes by Arvinger, wrote:  (see more details leading up to this in the combox)


I think you have missed my point, Ken - I did not argue that the doctrine of Trinity is not explicitly taught in Scripture and we rely on authority of the Council, I agree with you that it is based on sound exegesis of Scripture. Scripture explicitly teaches deity of the Father, deity of the Son and deity of the Spirit, there is no question about it. However, specific Christological teachings like two wills of Christ, condemnation of monoenergism and condemnation of monotheletism byt Third Constantinople are not provable from Scripture alone (especially in the case of monoenergism, which, as I said, was deliberately vaguely defined to provide a compromise between Chalcedonians and non-Chalcedonians), thus these teachings are relying on authority of the Council.

This (above) was his response to my first response (below in blue) about the implication of Scripture passages that imply everything we need will be written down:
I wrote:

In the debate linked to below, from around the 1 hour mark to 1 hour and 8 minutes, Dr. White's questions to Mitch Pacwa answer your first objection. 
When I have time I will flesh it out more. the fact that the RCC has never dogmatically declared any words of the apostles that are not in Scripture shows that all that we needed was written down. (which Pacwa admitted was true - that there are no apostolic oral traditions that have been dogmatically defined as words of the apostles) 
What Pacwa is trying to say is that centuries later interpretations are "traditions" that are developed as new issues and questions are raised, and he tries to carefully parallel those RC doctrines and dogmas with the doctrine of the Trinity. But Pacwa admitted that the doctrine of the Trinity is based on sound exegesis of Scripture. 

My main point was to point Avinger to the debate between Dr. White and Mitch Pacwa and the question that Dr. White posed to Mitch Pacwa, and Pacwa's answer that he admitted that the RCC has not infallibly defined any extra-biblical statement as coming from the apostles, which is not already written down in Scripture.  Arvinger mostly went to the last part of my response, about the development of doctrine and the doctrine of the Trinity.  

I have decided to embed the debate between Dr. White and Mitch Pacwa again here.  




My response to Arvinger's second response, which is now edited and expanded upon.  See the combox for my original answer.

I confess I don't know much about "mono-energism" - I need to study that. 

But I know about Mono-theletism (the heresy that Jesus has only one will). That seems easy, along with the 2 persons of Christ, that He had two wills, because He surrendered and submitted His human will in the Garden when He prayed, "Not My will, but Thy will be done" (Luke 22:42) That is clear enough in Scripture, in my opinion. 


Monotheletism was an attempt to win the Monophysites to the Chalcedonian Creed of 451 AD.

I think that the Byzantine Emperors Justinian (527-565 AD) and Heraclius (Emperor 610 to 641 AD) (and probably others between them) were too harsh against the Copts, Monophysites, Jacobite-Syrians and Armenians, (those groups that disagreed with the Chalcedonian Creed of 451 AD), and that created a bitterness among those groups with the unfortunate result that they at first welcomed the Arab Muslims when they invaded the Byzantine Empire and fought the Chalcedonian Creed Byzantine troops quartered there, but the people were mostly Monophysite. when Islam conquered in 636 AD onward.

That is one of the big mistakes of the early church - the complete unity between religion and politics and military might.


My main point was about those verses that seem to imply that everything the church needs for ministry will be written down.  See the first article linked below for the Scripture passages.  

As to your very first point that you make about the issue of questioning that everything we need for ministry, doctrine, etc. was written down, and those verses I supplied seem to imply that. That point is strengthened when we understand the promise to the disciples in John 14 and 16 - "the Spirit will lead you into all the truth" and "the Spirit will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you", etc. 


Notice the promise is to the disciples/ apostles.  This is not a general promise of guidance for the church for the rest of history, although that is certainly an application of the promise, but the specific promise here is to give the disciples/apostles the rest of revelation ("all the truth", "all things", John 16:12 - "I have many more things to tell you, but you cannot bear them now", etc.).  This promise was extended to the apostle Paul later, and would include the other writers of NT books who were writing under apostolic authority.  Mark writing for Peter; Luke interviewing the other apostles and Mary and other eyewitnesses, and under apostolic authority as the fellow-missionary on Paul's team; James and Jude as half-brothers of Jesus, and James is specifically called an apostle in Galatians 1:19 and 1 Corinthians 15:7, and who saw Jesus in His resurrection body.  The book of Hebrews, though Luke and Silas and Apollos have also been suggested, seems to have been written by Barnabas, who is also called an apostle in Acts 14:4 and 14:14.   Tertullian thought Barnabas wrote Hebrews.  (On Modesty, 20)   The other NT books were all written by apostles themselves, John, Matthew, Peter, and Paul.  

These 2 articles linked to below, at my other blog, "Apologetics and Agape", flesh that out more, as we see that the RCC has never infallibly defined any words as coming from the apostles that is not already in Scripture (Dr. White's question to Mitch Pacwa in the debate on Sola Scriptura, see in first link), and the rule of faith that functioned in the early church was a doctrinal statement, organized around the 3 persons of the Trinity, per Matthew 28:19, and whenever it is fleshed out and explicated in the early church (see in second article) it is always a doctrinal creed in content that is all Biblical truth. There is nothing in these lists of "the rule of faith" or "the tradition of the apostles" that is a particular doctrine or seed of a later Roman Catholic particular doctrine that Protestantism disagrees with. The context, especially in Irenaeus and Tertullian is against Gnosticism, which Protestantism also agrees that Gnosticism is heresy and wrong.  The context of Athanasius is mostly against Arians (in his other writings, and where he writes, "Scripture is fully sufficient" (Against the Gentiles 1:3; and de Synodis 6), etc. see in this previous article)  and the Tropici (who denied the Deity of the Holy Spirit), which Protestantism agrees with the early fathers that these were heresies and unBiblical. These early fathers and writers may have mentioned other things in other contexts (like the "Mary as the New Eve" statements), 
but those peculiar pious beliefs are not part of the rule of the faith, when it is explicated. 

Things like Ignatius and the Didache and others using the word Eucharist, or the word "cath- holic" are not bad in themselves in their original context.  The problem is that Roman Catholicism takes centuries later meanings of these terms and reads them back into the first or second century usage of them.   

The Defining Question on Sola Scriptura and Tradition
https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2016/05/25/the-defining-question/

The Rule of Faith in the Early Church
https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2016/05/24/the-rule-of-faith-in-the-early-church/

Addendum:
Also, Irenaeus' wrote that it was the Gnostics who pointed to a living voice and living oral tradition outside of Scripture, and this is what Roman Catholics attempt to do by pointing back to 2 Thessalonians 2:15 and John 20:30 and 21:25 - and then reading centuries later doctrines, practices, or "seeds" of those concepts back into those verses - this is what the Gnostics were doing in Irenaeus' day, in order to try and establish an authority from the apostles outside of written Scripture.  See Against Heresies 1:8:1

Such, then, is their [Gnostics] system, which neither the prophets announced, nor the Lord taught, nor the apostles delivered, but of which they boast that beyond all others they have a perfect knowledge. They gather their views from other sources than the Scriptures . . . 

and 3:2:1.  

When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but vivâ voce ("living voice") . . .   

This is exactly what Roman Catholics all the time when attacking Sola Scriptura.

22 comments:

Arvinger said...

Thank you for engaging with my responses under your previews article - I will respond in the commentbox there.

It is very interesting how every single Protestant with whom I engaged in conversation or discussion quotes only St. Irenaeus' Against Heresies 3.2.1, stoping the quotation where you did, without quoting 3.2.2. What is the remedy which Irenaeus suggests agains these heretics described in Aganst Heresies 3.2.1? Does he command to stick to Scripture alone? Not at all:

"3.2.2. But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth. (...) It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition."

St. Irenaeus directs them to tradition which was preserved by means of succession of presbyters. Not only does he teach Apostolic succession (as many other Church Fathers, such as Tertullian, who requires the heretics to prove that they have preserved continuity of bishops up to the time of the Apostles) and that authority of presbyters derives precisely from that Apostolic auccession, and that by this means authoritative tradition was presrved in the Church from the Apostles. Also, Irenaeus holds the heretics accountable for not consenting "neither to Scripture nor tradition". There is no hint of sola scriptura here, quite contrary - the pasage supports Catholic teaching. So you quote from 3.2.1, when taken in context, does not support Protestantism at all.

Algo said...

From William Webster:

Irenaeus and the Gnostics

To understand the appeal of Irenaeus to tradition, it is necessary to have a clear understanding of the circumstances which prompted it. He wrote Against Heresies to counter the heretical teachings of the Gnostics. Generally, the Gnostics did not dispute the authority of the books of Scripture (excepting Marcion). They accepted the entire canon as authoritative, but Irenaeus states that they fell into error on two counts. Firstly, they completely misinterpreted the text by imposing upon it an arbitrary allegorical method of interpretation. And secondly, they supplemented the authority of Scripture with another authority. The Gnostics claimed to have an oral tradition, independent of Scripture, handed down by the apostles which they alone possessed. They sought to blunt the ultimate and final authority of Scripture by claiming that not everything the apostles taught was in Scripture. Irenaeus assesses the Gnostic position in these words:

http://www.christiantruth.com/scriptureandchurchfathers.html#39

Algo said...

See these also:

http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2012/01/visit-to-catholic-answers-forum-part-8_08.html

http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/01/taking-irenaeus-out-of-context.html

Ken said...

Thanks Algo !!

Arvinger,
When I have time, I hope to get to giving you a good response.

Ken said...

Arvinger,
Sorry it took me so long to respond. I hope you are still looking.

Even though I skipped AH 3.2.2, the big question is, "how does Irenaeus himself define what "the tradition of the apostles" is?

He defines it in 3.4.2 and 1.10.1-2

Here is Against Heresies 3.4.2 again:

2. To which course many nations of those barbarians who believe in Christ do assent, having salvation written in their hearts by the Spirit, without paper or ink, and, carefully preserving the ancient tradition, believing in one God, the Creator of heaven and earth, and all things therein, by means of Christ Jesus, the Son of God; who, because of His surpassing love towards His creation, condescended to be born of the virgin, He Himself uniting man through Himself to God, and having suffered under Pontius Pilate, and rising again, and having been received up in splendour, shall come in glory, the Saviour of those who are saved, and the Judge of those who are judged, and sending into eternal fire those who transform the truth, and despise His Father and His advent. Those who, in the absence of written documents, have believed this faith, are barbarians, so far as regards our language; but as regards doctrine, manner, and tenor of life, they are, because of faith, very wise indeed; and they do please God, ordering their conversation in all righteousness, chastity, and wisdom. If any one were to preach to these men the inventions of the heretics, speaking to them in their own language, they would at once stop their ears, and flee as far off as possible, not enduring even to listen to the blasphemous address. Thus, by means of that ancient tradition of the apostles, they do not suffer their mind to conceive anything of the [doctrines suggested by the] portentous language of these teachers, among whom neither Church nor doctrine has ever been established.

I wrote about this in "The Rule of Faith in the Early Church" which I linked to.

As Algo also gave us good quotes and links, (one of them is one of my own old articles) it shows that at the time of Irenaeus, when he defined what the "tradition" or "the Faith" or "the tradition of the faith" or "the preaching" is, it is always an Anti-Gnostic thing he starts with "believing in One God, the Father, the Creator of all things. . . " etc. - the Gnostics believed the God of the OT was an evil "demi-urge" - and the body is evil, etc.

Tertullian, Origen, and Athanasius wrote the same basic thing - the tradition of the apostles was a basic doctrinal outline that became the main points of the creeds. These were preserved by the presbyters in the churches. This "faith" or "tradition" functioned as the rule of faith and teaching that they taught orally to people who did not have Scriptures yet, or places where there they may have only had some of the canonical books. Since those doctrinal points of "the tradition" are also all Scriptural, you don't have a point.

They (those 4 writers, who are probably the main ones who explain the rule of faith in the first 350 years) never add other Roman Catholic dogmas or practices into the explication of "the rule of faith" or "the tradition of the apostles". They may mention some aspect of some other RC believe that developed centuries later, but they are not in the specific list when they explicate what the rule of faith exactly is. And protestants agree fully with the early creeds, because they are all Biblical - the derive from Holy Scripture. So Sola Scriptura still stands.

De Maria said...

Ken's addendum says:

Addendum:
Also, Irenaeus' wrote that it was the Gnostics who pointed to a living voice and living oral tradition outside of Scripture,
and this is what Roman Catholics attempt to do ....See Against Heresies ....3:2:1.

When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but vivâ voce ("living voice") . . .

This is exactly what Roman Catholics all the time when attacking Sola Scriptura.


Why didn't you go to the next paragraph from St. Irenaeus?

3.2.2 But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition,....

This is what Protestants do. They object to the Tradition which was passed down from the Apostles through Apostolic Succession.

.... saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth. For [they maintain] that the apostles intermingled the things of the law with the words of the Saviour; and that not the apostles alone, but even the Lord Himself, spoke as at one time from the Demiurge, at another from the intermediate place, and yet again from the Pleroma, but that they themselves, indubitably, unsulliedly, and purely, have knowledge of the hidden mystery: this is, indeed, to blaspheme their Creator after a most impudent manner! It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition.

And there you have it. In the last phrase. Scripture does not teach Sola Scriptura. Scripture does not teach Sola Fide. Scripture does not teach OSAS. But Protestant believe all those things which Scripture does not teach and deny the Traditions which were passed down by the Apostles through the Catholic Church.

Ken said...

De Maria,
See my above comment to Arvinger.

Even though I skipped AH 3.2.2, the big question is, "how does Irenaeus himself define what "the tradition of the apostles" is?

He defines it in 3.4.2 and 1.10.1-2
Its all Biblical doctrinal content that is very similar to the early creeds.
read the above comment.

De Maria said...

Ken said,
Ken said...
De Maria,
See my above comment to Arvinger.

Even though I skipped AH 3.2.2, the big question is, "how does Irenaeus himself define what "the tradition of the apostles" is?

He defines it in 3.4.2 and 1.10.1-2
Its all Biblical doctrinal content that is very similar to the early creeds.
read the above comment.


You've put the cart before the horse. Let's look at what St. Irenaeus says in Book 1 chapter 3.2

2. 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 pre-eminent authority, ....

Therefore, Apostolic Tradition is contained in the Teachings of the Catholic Church whose See is in Rome.

De Maria said...

And ask yourself, Ken, "Do I agree with this Church?"

Ken said...

At the time of Irenaeus (180-200 AD), the tradition of the apostles that Irenaeus is saying is reflected there in the church at Rome - that is, doctrines that are against Gnosticism and affirms the Father God of the OT as the one true God, and Jesus as eternal Son, etc. - we Protestants agree with those doctrines of the early creeds early centuries. (those sections I already showed you; and Algo did also in the links to his articles)

But there is nothing Roman Catholic in Irenaeus' explanation of what the tradition of the apostles is, at that time.

The Roman church centuries later added false doctrines and dogmas that were wrong and drifted from sound doctrine.

De Maria said...

All you're doing is picking choosing that with which you agree in St. Irenaeus teaching and ignoring that in which you don't agree.

For example:

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.vii.iii.html

Against Heresies, Book V, Chapter II.—When Christ visited us in His grace, He did not come to what did not belong to Him: also, by shedding His true blood for us, and exhibiting to us His true flesh in the Eucharist, He conferred upon our flesh the capacity of salvation.

2. But vain in every respect are they who despise the entire dispensation of God, and disallow the salvation of the flesh, and treat with contempt its regeneration, maintaining that it is not capable of incorruption. But if this indeed do not attain salvation, then neither did the Lord redeem us with His blood, nor is the cup of the Eucharist the communion of His blood, nor the bread which we break the communion of His body....He has acknowledged the cup (which is a part of the creation) as His own blood, from which He bedews our blood; and the bread (also a part of the creation) He has established as His own body, from which He gives increase to our bodies.4461

And about Baptism, he says:

Book III, chapter 17,para 1-2

And again, giving to the disciples the power of regeneration into God, He said to them, “Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” (Matthew 28:19) … “The Lord also promised to send the Comforter, who should join us to God (St. John. 16:7). For as a compacted lump of dough cannot be formed of dry wheat without fluid matter, nor can a loaf possess unity, so, in like manner, neither could we, being many be made one in Christ Jesus without the water from heaven. And as dry earth does not bring forth unless it receive moisture, in like manner we also, being originally a dry tree, could never have brought forth fruit unto life without the voluntary rain from above. For our bodies have received unity among themselves by means of that laver which leads to incorruption; but our souls by means of the Spirit. Wherefore both are necessary, since both contribute towards the life of God.

So, he teaches more than just the substance of the Creeds which you pulled out and imbued with your own presuppositions. The fact is that St. Irenaeus was a priest and a Bishop and confected the Eucharist and believed in the Apostolic Succession and the Sacred Traditions which were passed down by Jesus Christ. He lived his life as a Catholic with all that entails. But you want to pull out some of his teachings, out of context, and imply that he didn't believe all the other Catholic Doctrines. But that is false. It is merely your "spin" on his teachings. St. Irenaeus was a consummate Catholic and he proves it in the manner in which he lived his life and by his writings.

De Maria said...

The Catholic Church is protected from error by the Holy Spirit. It is not the Catholic Church which has drifted, but all those who follow the Protestant rebellion.

Algo said...

So, tradition, as defined by Irenaeus, is equivalent to the faith handed down from the apostles, which he often refers to as ‘the rule of faith.’ This rule has a very specific content, all of which is contained in Scripture. He makes no mention of other and purely oral doctrines that are essential for the faith.33 Â Every doctrine of the rule is derived from Scripture. Tradition, therefore, is the rule of faith expressly taught in Scripture. We have already seen that Irenaeus believed that what was initially taught orally by the apostles was later committed to Scripture, and that it was through Scripture that the apostolic tradition was transmitted to the Church. In other words, the apostolic teaching did not remain oral in nature. It was inscripturated. Thus, the content of the apostolic tradition preserved and preached (orally) in the Churches by the presbyters is identical in content with the teaching of Scripture. CONTINUED

Algo said...

Tradition is verified by Scripture; they are one and the same. Contrary to Sungenis’ assertion, there is no other body of doctrine, oral in nature and independent of Scripture. The tradition of the Church is simply that teaching which is grounded upon and derived from Scripture. According to Irenaeus, apostolic tradition reaches us by two means: Scripture and the preaching and teaching of the Church, preserved in purity by the succession of her bishops. Did Irenaeus believe this rendered Scripture insufficient? By no means, because oral proclamation of the truth is simply the public proclamation of the teaching of Scripture. It is Scriptural truth presented orally, just as the present day preacher preaches a message derived from Scripture. He is passing on truth orally. He is ‘'traditioning,’ that is, handing on truth. But the actual content of that teaching is the same as that which is found in Scripture. As A.N.S. Lane has observed: CONTINUED

Algo said...

The first clear attitude to emerge on the relation between Scripture, tradition and the church was the coincidence view: that the teaching of the church, Scripture and tradition coincide. Apostolic tradition is authoritative but does not differ in content from the Scriptures. The teaching of the church is likewise authoritative but is only the proclamation of the apostolic message found in Scripture and tradition. The classical embodiment of the coincidence view is found in the writings of Irenaeus and Tertullian.

34 Vox Evangelica IX, Donald Guthrie, Ed. (London: London Bible College, 1975), A.N.S. Lane, Scripture, Tradition and Church: An Historical Survey, p. 39.

SOURCE: http://www.christiantruth.com/scriptureandchurchfathers.html#39

Cletus Van Damme said...

Irenaeus doesn't get you SS, nor does material sufficiency get you to formal sufficiency - this was already covered in an exchange between White and a layman decades ago concerning many of the fathers purported to advocate SS - Irenaeus is the first discussed - http://cin.org/users/jgallegos/fathers.htm

and Webster's mischaracterization was similarly dealt with at http://cin.org/users/jgallegos/web.htm

De Maria said...

St. Irenaeus was a priest of the Catholic Church. Do you think he denied the Priesthood?
St. Irenaeus was a Bishop of the Catholic Church. Do you think he denied Apostolic Succession? Do you think he would have denied Catholic Church authority?
St. Irenaeus confected the Eucharist and expressly stated that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of the Lord. Do you think he would have denied Transubstantiation?
St. Tertullian was also a priest of the Catholic Church, with all that entails. He had to be ordained by a Bishop with proper Apostolic Succession and thus would have accepted the authority of the Catholic Church. He confected the Eucharist and believed in the Real Presence.

What makes anyone think that these men would deny the Traditions of the Catholic Church? Those people who do are taking their writings out of context with the way they lived their lives.

Algo said...

From Cletus: "and Webster's mischaracterization was similarly dealt with at http://cin.org/users/jgallegos/web.htm"

From JGallegos: "In order for Mr. Webster to make his case for sola Scriptura he must prove that the Fathers affirmed the formal sufficiency of Scripture."

How about if we let TurretinFan and David T. King respond to that:

Part 1 http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2010/10/formal-sufficiency-of-scripture.html
Part 2 http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2010/10/formal-sufficiency-of-scripture_29.html
Part 3 http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2010/11/formal-sufficiency-of-scripture-early.html
Part 4 http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2010/11/formal-sufficiency-of-scripture-third.html
Part 5 http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2010/11/formal-sufficiency-of-scripture-fourth.html

Algo said...

Part 6
http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/search/label/Formal%20Sufficiency

Cletus Van Damme said...

Algo, that's nice. You were focusing on Irenaeus. There were 4 citations of Irenaeus offered in your shotgun linking. None demonstrate formal sufficiency or are incompatible with his statements elsewhere denying FS and affirming the necessary and coordinate authority of Tradition and the church, as the 2 links I provided go over in discussing him.

Algo said...

In 1999 Gallegos wrote:
"Perhaps Mr. Webster can answer the above challenge of St. Irenaeus and Tertullian, reject sola Scriptura and turn to the very Tradition referred to by St. Irenaeus and Tertullian."
http://cin.org/users/jgallegos/web.htm

In 2001 Webster responded to this and other arguments with 40 plus pages just on Irenaeus and Tertullian (not counting pages of End Notes).
https://www.amazon.com/Holy-Scripture-Historical-Reformation-Principle/dp/1893531031/ref=sr_1_2?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1466027594&sr=8-2&keywords=holy+scripture+the+ground+and+pillar+of+our+faith

Ken said...

Thanks Algo for all the links and quotes and interaction here.

The Anthony Lane article on Tradition is very important. glad you quoted from that.

I read that a while back (in the last 2-3 years ?) and was impressed. I need to read it again.