Luther: The Bible is clearer, simpler, and more reliable than any other writings

What is the easiest book to understand? According to an advocate of Eastern Orthodoxy I've been interacting with, Luther claimed it was the Bible.  He points to Luther stating,  

Holy Scripture must necessarily be clearer, simpler, and more reliable than any other writings. Especially since all teachers verify their own statements through the Scriptures as clearer and more reliable writings, and desire their own writings to be confirmed and explained by them. But nobody can ever substantiate an obscure saying by one that is more obscure; therefore, necessity forces us to run to the Bible with the writings of all teachers, and to obtain there a verdict and judgment upon them. Scripture alone is the true lord and master of all writings and doctrine on earth. If that is not granted, what is Scripture good for? The more we reject it, the more we become satisfied with men’s books and human teachers.5 

5. Martin Luther, Luther’s Works, Vol. 32: Career of the Reformer II, ed. Jaroslav Jan Pelikan, Hilton C. Oswald, and Helmut T. Lehmann, vol. 32 (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1999), 11–12.

This person argued Luther was absolutely wrong that the Bible is simpler and clearer than any other writing.  On the face of it, it does certainly seem like Martin Luther made a logical blunder. Isn't a children's book much "simpler" than the Bible? I suspect there are many books in my own personal library that are "clearer" than the Bible as well.  Did the great Martin Luther have a misguided zeal in his claims about the Bible?  Sure, the Bible is a great book, but is it "clearer, simpler, and more reliable than any other writings"? Let's take a closer look.

Documentation

Even though the quote is found precisely in LW 32:11-12, this does not necessarily mean the person using it read LW 32 and mined it out; a simple Google search of the formatted reference ("5") suggests this quote was probably taken from R. Scott Clark's blog article, Was Sola Scriptura A Reformation Slogan And Doctrine?  Also, the bolding in the quote does not appear in Clark's blog article, nor in LW 32. 

The quote comes from Grund und Ursach aller Artikel D. Martin Luthers so durch römische Bulle unrechtlich verdammt sind, 1521 (Defense and Explanation of All the Articles). While this treatise is found in its original German from Luther's actual manuscript in WA 7, 308- 457 (with the quote appearing on page 317), the English translation this particular quote is based on primarily comes from O. Clemen, Luthers Werke in Auswahl, 11.  In Clemen, the quote is found on page 64: 

The English rendering of LW 32 is a revision of this treatise found in the Philadelphia Edition of Luther's Works vol. 3 (with the quote occurring on p. 16, found below).  Ewald Plass also includes an English translation of the quote in What Luther Says, Vol. 1, 74 (see below). 

Context

This is my answer to those also who accuse me of rejecting all the teachers of the Church. I do not reject them; but everyone knows that they have erred at times, as men will, I am willing to put confidence in them only so far as they give me proofs for their opinions out of the Scriptures, which never yet have erred. This St Paul commands me in 1 Thessalonians, the last chapter, where he says, “First prove and confirm all doctrines; hold fast that which is good.” St Augustine writes to St Jerome to the same effect: “I have learned to do only those books that are called the Holy Scriptures the honor of believing firmly that none of their writers has erred; all others I so read as not to hold what they say to be the truth, unless they prove it to me by the Holy Scriptures or by clear reason.”

The Holy Scriptures must needs be clearer, easier of interpretation and more certain than any other scriptures, for all teachers prove their statements by them, as by clearer and more stable writings, and wish their own writings to be established and explained by them. But no one can ever prove a dark saying by one that is still darker; therefore, necessity compels us to run to the Bible with all the writings of the doctors, and thence to get our verdict and judgment upon them; for Scripture alone is the true over-lord and master of all writings and doctrines on earth. If not, what are the Scriptures good for? Let us reject them and be satisfied with the books of men and human teachers.

Conclusion

As the contextualist I strive to be, I try to read materials according to their written and historical context. The quote being cited is from Luther's introductory general statement from his preface to a 1521 document in which he was responding to the papal bull Exsurge Domine. Luther's contention was that the Papal church was teaching errors not in accord with Scripture. A cursory reading of LW 32 demonstrates Luther's argument is partly in regard to the hierarchy of authority. Luther is simply saying the Bible is the final authority which determines the veracity of secondary authorities, particularly "all the teachers of the Church." In that sense, if the Bible is the final authority that judges secondary authorities, it is simpler and clearer, able to be judge and jury of lesser authorities. In practice: if one picks up any volume of Christian theology, however old or new, its veracity is determined by whether or not it can be substantiated by the ultimate authority of sacred scripture.

In this early period of Luther's fight with Rome, when the papists cited decrees, councils, fathers, etc. against him, his response was to counter with Scripture. As an experiment, if one reads LW 32: 12-19, "The First Article," Luther called out the Papal church for saying the sacraments give grace to anyone without almost any qualifications. Read Luther's answer and ask if the Papal church in the year 1521 was teaching something simpler and clearer than the Scriptures were teaching (Note also, Luther includes citations from Augustine in his answer). Luther's answers in the entirety of the Defense and Explanation of All the Articles demonstrates exactly what his preface alluded to: that the Scriptures gave infallible clarity on issues that had been obscured by the Papal church. The Bible was clearer, simpler, and more reliable than what the Papal church was saying. 

Luther did not adhere to Scriptura Nuda. Luther says specifically in the introduction of the work cited that he does not reject "all the holy teachers of the church." He says, "...everyone, indeed, knows that at times they have erred, as men will; therefore, I am ready to trust them only when they give me evidence for their opinions from Scripture, which has never erred." He then goes on to cite 1 Thes 5:21 and... Jerome! Luther therefore did not reject all authority of the church or tradition. He rejected the church and tradition as... infallible ultimate authorities. Luther's point is that one must take all theological documents and church tradition and judge them by their adherence to the Scriptures.

Addendum #1 Other English Renderings

Other English versions of this quote can be found here and here, Ewald Plass translates the quote as follows: 

"Holy Scripture must certainly be clearer, plainer, and more explicit than the writings of all others, because by it, as by a writing clearer and more reliable, all teachers prove their statements; and they want their writing to be confirmed and clarified by it. But surely no one can prove an obscure statement with a more obscure statement, Therefore we must needs turn to Scripture with the writings of all teachers and from that source get our judgments and verdict concerning them. For Scripture alone is the true lord and master of all writing and teaching on earth. If this is not to be. of what use is Scripture to us? Then we had better reject it and be satisfied with men's books and human teachers."

Addendum #2 Roman Catholic historian Hartmann Grisar

In his massive biography of Luther, Roman Catholic historian Hartmann Grisar says, 

Thus the Bible, according to a further statement, is "clearer, easier and more certain than any other writing." "It is in itself quite certain, quite easy and quite plain; it is its own explanation; it is the universal argument, judge and enlightener, and makes all clear to all." 

Later, however, the idea that Holy Scripture was obscure preponderated with him. Two days before his death Luther wrote in Latin on a piece of paper, which was subsequently found on his table, his thoughts on the difficulty of understanding Scripture : "No one can understand the Bucolics of Virgil who has not been a herdsman for five years; nor his Georgics unless he has laboured five years in the fields. In order to understand aright the epistles of Cicero a man must have been full twenty years in the public service of a great State. No one need fancy he has tasted Holy Scripture who has not ruled Churches for a hundred years with prophets like Elias and Eliseus, with John the Baptist, Christ and the Apostles." In all likelihood his experiences with the sectarians in his own camp led him towards the end of his life to lay more stress on the difficulty of understanding the Bible.

A first response to Grisar is based on a textual consideration. What's being cited from Luther (that the Scriptures are "obscure") is not something Luther actually wrote. Grisar is citing Table Talk utterance 5677. Second, this second-hand comment from Luther does not say that the Bible is obscure. The text says, "Let nobody suppose he has tasted the Holy Scriptures sufficiently unless he has ruled over the churches with the prophets for a hundred years (LW 54:476). The Table Talk also records Luther saying that since the Bible is the word of the Holy Spirit it's depth cannot be completely plumbed (utterance 1205, cf. What Luther Says, entry 212).  This sentiment makes more sense in regard to "tasting" the Scriptures rather than a despondent Luther declaring the Scriptures obscure two days before he died.

Addendum #3 William Whitiker 

In his book, A Disputation on Holy Scripture: Against the Papists, Especially Bellarmine and Stapleton,

William Whitiker uses Luther's argument here. 

Our eighth argument is to this effect: The fathers proved their opinions out of the scriptures. Therefore the scriptures are clearer than the writings and commentaries of the fathers: for no one proves what is unknown by what is still more unknown. Luther hath this argument in the Preface of his Articles condemned by Leo X. The Jesuit answers, that the scriptures are indeed, in respect of their truth, clearer and more open than the writings of the fathers, but not in respect of the words. Which surely is a foolish answer: for to say that the scriptures are clearer than the fathers in respect of their truth, is nothing more than saying that they are truer. But what sort of a distinction is this? If the truth of scripture be clearer, how can the words be more obscure? For it is from the words that the truth arises. If therefore he confess that the scriptures are plainer than the commentaries of the fathers, in respect of their truth, then he concedes that the truth is plainer in the scriptures than in the writings of any father; which is sufficient. And doubtless if we will compare the scripture with the writings of the fathers, we shall generally find greater obscurity and difficulty in the latter than in the former. There is no less perspicuity in the Gospel of John or in the Epistles of Paul, than in Tertullian, in Irenæus, in certain books of Origen and Jerome, and in some other writings of the fathers. But in all the schoolmen there is such obscurity as is nowhere found in scripture. “The words of scripture,” says he, are more obscure than the words of the fathers.” Even if there were some obscurity in the words of scripture greater than in those of the fathers, it would not nevertheless be a just consequence, that the scriptures were so obscure that they should not be read by the people. This should rather rouse men to an attentive reading than deter them from reading altogether. Besides, the scriptures speak of necessary things no less plainly than any fathers, or even much more plainly, because the Holy Spirit excels in all powers of expression. Where has Augustine or Chrysostom, or any father, written more plainly that Christ hath delivered men from their sins and from eternal punishment, than the evangelists, than Paul, than Peter, than the rest of those whose ministry the Holy Ghost hath used in writing the scriptures? Surely all necessary things are so plainly set forth in the scripture, that he who does not understand them in scripture will never be instructed by any commentaries of the fathers.

Overview of Luther on the Clarity / Obscurity of Scripture by William Whitaker

The following is an overview by William Whitaker of a section of Luther's argumentation from The Bondage of the Will. This passage is from William Whitaker's Disputations on Holy Scripture.

Luther, in his assertion of the articles condemned, by Leo X., in the preface, says that the scripture is its own most plain, easy, and certain interpreter, proving, judging, and illustrating all things. This is said by him most truly, if it be candidly understood. The same author, in his book of the Slavery of the Will against the Diatribe of Erasmus, writes almost in the beginning, that in the scriptures there is nothing abstruse, nothing obscure, but that all things are plain. And because this may seem a paradox, he afterwards explains himself thus: he confesses that many places of scripture are obscure, that there are many words and sentences shrouded in difficulty, but he affirms nevertheless that no dogma is obscure; as, for instance, that God is one and three, that Christ hath suffered, and will reign for ever, and so forth. All which is perfectly true: for although there is much obscurity in many words and passages, yet all the articles of faith are plain. Stapleton, Lib. x. cap. 3, interprets these words of Luther, as if he said, that all the difficulty of scripture arose from ignorance of grammar and figures; and he objects to us Origen and Jerome, who certainly were exquisitely skilled in grammar and rhetoric, and yet confess themselves that they were ignorant of many things, and may have erred in many places. We answer, that what he blames in Luther is most true, if it be rightly understood: for he who can always arrive at the grammatical sense of scripture, will, beyond all doubt, best explain and interpret the scriptures. But hitherto no one hath been able to do this every where and in all places. Certainly the grammatical meaning of scripture, as it is ever the best and truest, so is it sometimes the hardest to be found; so that it is no wonder that Origen and Jerome himself, although both of them most skilful grammarians, may have erred in the interpretation of scripture. Luther adds besides, that the things themselves are manifest in scripture; and that therefore we need not be put to much trouble, if the words be sometimes in many places less manifest. His words are these: "The things themselves are in light; we need not care, therefore, though some signs of the things be in darkness 1." But some persons complain greatly of the obscurity of the things also, so that this distinction of Luther's between the things and the signs of the things may seem to be idle. Luther answers that this occurs, not from the obscurity and difficulty of the things themselves, but from our blindness and ignorance. And this he very properly confirms by the testimony of Paul, 2 Cor. iii. 14, 15, 16, where Paul says that "the vail is placed upon the hearts of the Jews until this very day, which vail is done away in Christ;" and from 2 Cor. iv. 3, where the same apostle says, "If our gospel be hid, it is hid to them which are lost:" and he illustrates the same thing by the similitude of the sun and the day, both of which, although very clear in themselves, are invisible to the blind. "There is nothing," says he, "brighter than the sun and the day: but the blind man cannot even see the sun, and there are some also who flee the light 2." Stapleton endeavours to take this answer from him. He says that Luther, in this way, condemns all the fathers, and so all antiquity, of error and blindness. But I answer, that Luther is speaking of things, that is of the nature of the doctrine and of the articles of the christian religion: the truth of which (though not of all, yet of those which are necessary to salvation), it is manifest from their writings, was thoroughly seen by the fathers. He is not speaking of the several words and passages wherein they might sometimes easily err, without, nevertheless, in the least incurring the blame of blindness on that account.

But Erasmus, in his Diatribe, contends that even some dogmas are obscure, as the doctrine of the Trinity, of the distinction of Persons, of sin against the Holy Ghost, and such like; and to this sense he tortures that passage which is contained in Rom. xi. 33, where Paul says that the "judgments of God are unsearchable, and his ways past finding out." Luther answers, that these doctrines are indeed obscure in themselves; but that they are plain so far forth as they are proposed in scripture, if we will be content with that knowledge which God hath propounded and conceded to his church in the scripture, and not search into every thing more curiously than becomes us. But as to the passage from Paul, he answers, that indeed the things of God are obscure, but that the things of scripture are clear; that the judgments of God concerning the number of the elect, the day and hour of the judgment, and such-like, are unknown and inscrutable; but that those things which God hath revealed in his word are by no means inscrutable to us; and that Paul in that place spoke of the things of God, not of the things of scripture. Furthermore he says, that the reason why so many dispute about the things of scripture is to be found in the perversity and depraved desires of men, especially the sophists and schoolmen, who, not content with the simplicity of scripture, have rendered every thing obscure and intricate by their traps and devices; but that the scripture must not be falsely blamed on account of men's abuse of it. Luther uses another distinction also in that place. He says that the perspicuity or obscurity of scripture is either internal or external; the internal is that of the heart itself, the external is in the words. If we speak of the internal obscurity or perspicuity of scripture, he says that not even one jot is in this way clear in the scripture without the internal light of the Holy Spirit; for that all things in this view and respect are obscure to the fleshly understanding of men, according to that which is said in Ps. xiv.: "The fool hath said in his heart, that there is no God." But if we understand the external clearness or obscurity of scripture, he says that all doctrines are in this way clear, and brought to light in the ministry of the word. And this distinction is very necessary: for although, in the external way, we perfectly hold all the doctrines of religion, we yet understand nothing internally to salvation, nor have learned any dogma aright, without the teaching of the Holy Spirit.

Assuredly, this is the difference between theology and philosophy: since it is only the external light of nature that is required to learn thoroughly the arts of philosophy; but to understand theology aright, there is need of the internal light of the Holy Spirit, because the things of faith are not subject to the teaching of mere human reason. We may, in a certain manner, be acquainted with the doctrines of scripture, and obtain an historical faith by the ministry of the word, so as to know all the articles of faith, and deem them to be true, and all without the inward light of the Spirit, as many impious men and devils do; but we cannot have the irXtipocpop'iat that is, a certain, solid, and saving knowledge, without the Holy Spirit internally illuminating our minds. And this internal clearness it is, which wholly flows from the Holy Ghost. Other arts serve our purpose when only externally understood; but this is of no avail unless understood internally. Meanwhile Luther was far from such madness as to say, that there was nothing difficult in scripture, or that it did not need an interpretation. Yea, on the contrary, in the preface to his Commentary upon the Psalms, he acknowledges that there are many obscurities and difficulties in the scripture, which God hath left us, as if on purpose to keep us constantly scholars in the school of the Holy Spirit. And in the same place he affirms, that a man must be impudent who would say that he understood even any one book thoroughly: and the same hath ever been the opinion of us all.

The state of the question, therefore, is not really such as the papists would have it appear; but our fundamental principles are these: First, that the scriptures are sufficiently clear to admit of their being read by the people and the unlearned with some fruit and utility. Secondly, that all things necessary to salvation are propounded in plain words in the scriptures. Meanwhile, we concede that there are many obscure places, and that the scriptures need explication; and that, on this account, God's ministers are to be listened to when they expound the word of God, and the men best skilled in scripture are to be consulted. So far concerning the state of the question.

[1 Nihil refert, si res sit in luce, an aliquod ejus signum sit in tenebris.— Opp. Witeberg. T. n. p. 459. 2.]

[2 Eadem temeritate solem obscurumque diem culparet, qui ipse sibi oculos velaret.—Ibid. p. 460.]

The Vulgate Blues

Here's another Called to Communion tidbit on the textual errors in the Latin Vulgate:

A reader might wonder how the Church could determine whether the text lacked errors pertaining to faith and morals. The Church determined this in the same way that she partially confirmed that she was receiving the correct books from God in the canon: by comparing the contents of those books to that which had been received by the other mode of revelation’s transmission, namely, Sacred Tradition. In this way, Tradition and Scripture purify and clarify each other’s transmission of the deposit of faith. The Vulgate, even with the scribal errors, said nothing which contradicted the faith. It was an adequate translation of Scripture even if its reading of this or that verse needed updating. This is a great benefit of the Catholic teaching concerning the unity of Scripture and Tradition, such that even if one part of Scripture is unclear due to manuscript variants, we will not lose anything essential to the Faith because of the transmission of the same Faith through Tradition.

Calvin:

In the first chapter of the Romans the translator calls Christ “the predestinated Son of God.” Those not acquainted with Greek are at a loss to explain this term, because, properly speaking, only things which do not yet exist are predestinated; whereas Christ is the eternal Son of God. There is no difficulty in the Greek word, which means “declared.” I have given one example. It were needless labor to give others. In one word, were this edict of the Council sanctioned, the simple effect would be, that the Fathers of Trent would make the world look with their eyes open, and yet not see the light presented to them.

Whitaker:

The Latin Vulgate Version Only Controversy

A few days ago I posted some excerpts from William Whitaker's Disputations on Holy Scripture. One of the major arguments during his time period was over what exactly constituted the authentic text of Scripture. Whitaker states, "Our adversaries determine that the authentic scripture consists not in the Hebrew and Greek originals, but in the Vulgate Latin version. We, on the contrary side, say that the authentic and divinely-inspired scripture is not this Latin, but the Hebrew edition of the old Testament, and the Greek of the new."

Whitaker then states actual Roman Catholic arguments as espoused by Bellarmine in favor of the Vulgate Latin being the actual authentic text of the Scriptures: "He proposes his First argument in this form: For nearly a thousand years, that is, from the time of Gregory the Great, the whole Latin church hath made use of this Latin edition alone" (p. 135). Bellarmine goes on to make a number of arguments in favor of the Latin text, all responded to by Whitaker.

One of the arguments from Bellarmine that Whitaker examined bears a striking resembelance to today's "King James Only" controversy. Consider the following:

"The Third argument is this: The Hebrews had the authentic scripture in their own language, and the Greeks in theirs; that is, the old Testament in the Septuagint version, and the new Testament in the original. Therefore it is fit that the Latin church also should have the authentic scripture in its own language."

Whitaker responds,

I answer, first, by requiring to know in what sense it is that he makes the Septuagint version authentic. Is it in the same sense in which they make their Latin text authentic? If so, I deny its authenticity. For Augustine, who allowed most to the authority of the Septuagint version, yet thought that it should be corrected by the originals. But the papists contend that their Latin text is authentic of itself, and ought not to be tried by the text of the originals. Now in this sense no translation ever was, or could be, authentic. For translations of scripture are always to be brought back to the originals of scripture, received if they agree with those originals, and corrected if they do not. That scripture only, which the prophets, apostles, and evangelists wrote by inspiration of God, is in every way credible on its own account and authentic. Besides, if the Septuagint was formerly authentic, how did it become not authentic? At least in the Psalms it must continue authentic still, since they derive their Latin version of that book from no other source than the Greek of the Septuagint. Even in the other books too it must still be authentic, since it is plain from the commentaries of the Greek writers that it is the same now as it was formerly.

Secondly, I would fain know how this argument is consequential,—God willed his word and authentic scripture to be written in Hebrew and Greek; therefore also in Latin. The authentic originals of the scripture of the old Testament are extant in Hebrew, of the new in Greek. It no more follows from this that the Latin church ought to esteem its Latin version authentic, than that the French, or Italian, or Armenian churches should esteem their vernacular versions authentic. If he grant that each church should necessarily have authentic versions of its own, what are we to do if these versions should (as they easily may) disagree? Can they be all authentic, and yet disagree amongst themselves? But if he will not assign authentic versions to all churches, upon what grounds will he determine that a necessity, which he grants to exist in the Latin church, hath no place in others? Cannot the churches of the Greeks at the present day claim their version likewise as authentic?

Thirdly, I know not with what truth they call theirs the Latin church. For it does not now speak Latin, nor does any one among them understand Latin without learning that language from a master. Formerly it was, and was called, the Latin church. Now it is not Latin, and therefore cannot truly be so called, except upon the plea that, though not Latin, it absurdly uses a Latin religious service.

The Divine Nature of Scripture and the Magisterium

Whitaker comes to the defense of four arguments from Calvin, which Stapleton attempts to refute, the first of which is (in the words of Calvin, not the summary Whitaker provides) as follows (emphasis mine):

A most pernicious error has very generally prevailed; viz.,that Scripture is of importance only in so far as conceded to it by the suffrage of the Church; as if the eternal and inviolable truth of God could depend on the will of men. With great insult to the Holy Spirit, it is asked, who can assure us that the Scriptures proceeded from God; who guarantee that they have come down safe and unimpaired to our times; who persuade us that this book is to be received with reverence, and that one expunged from the list, did not the Church regulate all these things with certainty? On the determination of the Church, therefore, it is said, depend both the reverence which is due to Scripture, and the books which are to be admitted into the canon. Thus profane men, seeking, under the pretext of the Church, to introduce unbridled tyranny, care not in what absurdities they entangle themselves and others, provided they extort from the simple this one acknowledgement, viz., that there is nothing which the Church cannot do. But what is to become of miserable consciences in quest of some solid assurance of eternal life, if all the promises with regard to it have no better support than man's judgement? On being told so, will they cease to doubt and tremble? On the other hand, to what jeers of the wicked is our faith subjected - into how great suspicion is it brought with all, if believed to have only a precarious authority lent to it by the goodwill of men?¹

Yet what is Stapleton's reply? He claims that the Magisterium's judgment is not merely human, but really is both divine and infallible, therefore Calvin's argument fails to be of relevance.

Here Whitaker raises a point I would raise as well, one that is equally relevant today: "But what is the meaning of this assertion, that the church's judgment is not merely human? Be it so. But is it merely divine? For surely it is requisite that the truth of the promises of eternal life should be propped and supported by a testimony purely divine."²

What, exactly, is meant by saying that the nature by which the Magisterium has come to identify the canon for us is not just human opinion, but is divine and infallible, yet not totally divine and infallible? Scripture, we would say, has been inspired by God in a completely and totally divine manner, therefore it is binding and authoritative. The Holy Spirit superintended the writing of the Scriptures such that in no way did any of it originate or arise through human wisdom, creation, thought or contribution (even if human means--learning, intelligence, writing ability, etc.--were still used). It is completely and totally the intentions, thoughts, words, etc. of God toward humanity, therefore we should respect it as if God himself were speaking directly and presently to us.

But does the Magisterium, in its judgment that Scripture is really the Word of God, claim to be inspired, superintended, etc. by the same process as that which the Holy Spirit used to write inspired Scripture? I don't see how that's the case. Consider CCC #66 where the revealing of revelation proper is considered to have ended in the Apostolic era:

The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ.

And since the infallible identification of the canon within Roman Catholicism first occurred at Trent, it cannot be said that this proclamation was purely divine. And if it is not purely divine, why is it ultimately binding?

Only the thoughts of God are infallible. These can be expressed through various means (the burning bush, dreams, written Scripture, etc.), yet all are categorized as revelation. If Roman Catholicism denies that the Magisterium has received additional revelation by which to identify the canon for believers, it is difficult to see how the pronouncements of Trent would be authoritatively binding in any real sense. Where in Scripture are the words of the uninspired ever held to the same authoritative standard as those who said or wrote inspired material? For Scripture there are two categories: inspired and uninspired. By placing itself in the latter camp, the Magisterium has denied itself access to binding, infallible authority.

But, returning to the line of argumentation provided by Whitaker, let us suppose it is divinely inspired in the same manner Scripture is divinely inspired. If it is divine, then it carries the same nature and authority as Scripture. But if that is the case, why do we need the former to know the latter? Cannot the divine nature of Scripture speak to us directly, just as the divine nature of the pronouncements of the Magisterium speaks to us directly? What is preventing us from accessing the authoritative of Words of God in Scripture directly?

_____________________________


1. Henry Beveridge, trans., Institutes of the Christian Religion, I.7.1.

2. William Whitaker, Disputations on Holy Scripture (Cambridge: Parker Society, 1894; reprint, Orlando: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 2005), 340.

Whitaker's Eighth Argument

Whitaker's eighth argument defending Sola Scriptura can be summarized (with a small amount of liberty) as follows:

P₁. The oral revelation given to the patriarchs did not require the authority of the Church to authenticate it; the patriarchs believed it upon receiving it by virtue of hearing God speak.

P₂. The written revelation of the canon is of the same kind and authority as the oral revelation given to the patriarchs.

Therefore,

C. The canon does not require the authority of the Church to authenticate it to us; it should be received in the same manner as the patriarchs received oral revelation.

Whitaker seems to draw additional support for the immediate reception of God's words in P₁. from an appeal to Romans 2:15, where Paul says that God's law is written on our hearts. This belief in the law comes, therefore, not from the testimony of the Church. (I would add that this is especially the case since the subject of Romans 2:15 is gentiles who have never heard the law before.) But if the law, which is natural, can be discerned without the Church, how much more the Gospel, which "transcends all nature, and therefore needs some greater kind of confirmation" (the greater confirmation, according to Whitaker, being the Holy Spirit).

I'd add my own support for P₂. by noting that God communicates his Words through ordinary means. The patriarchs either audibly heard God speak to them or used the mind's "ear." In either case, physical processes (for even the latter arguably required some level of brain function) were utilized to obtain mental understanding. There doesn't seem to be a significant or functional difference between this and reading or hearing the Words of God in the written canon. If this process of knowing God's Word was valid for the patriarchs, why would it be invalid for Protestants?

Whitaker's Seventh Argument

Whitaker's seventh argument in defense of Sola Scriptura needs no additional commentary:

Our seventh argument is taken from 1 Thess. ii. 13, where Paul addresses the Thessalonians thus: "We give thanks to God always, because that, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but (as it is in truth), the word of God [Greek text omitted] which also worketh effectually in you that believe." From this place I argue thus: If the Thessalonians, when they only heard Paul, received the doctrine of scripture as divine, and so embraced it, then, without the judgment of the church, the scripture ought to have a divine authority with us. But the former is true; for the Thessalonians had then heard of no prophecy or testimony of any church, but had only received the word from the lips of Paul: therefore also the latter. Ambrose writes thus upon that place: "They received the word with such devotion as to prove that they understood it to be the word of God." But whence could they understand it to be such? Certainly from the doctrine itself, and the testimony of the Holy Spirit; not from the authority of any church, or of the apostle himself. For what church could persuade the Thessalonians by the weight of its testimony to receive Paul, or assent to his discourses as divine? The apostle himself was unknown to them, and had nowhere any authority but on account of that doctrine, the minister and herald of which he was. Therefore, the doctrine itself gained for him all his credit and authority...So Acts xvii. 11, the Bereans, when they heard Paul, examined his teaching not by the judgment of the church, but by the standard of the scripture itself. It appears, therefore, that scripture of itself, without the testimony and authority of the church, hath a divine, canonical and authentic authority even in respect of us.

The Vicious Circle

Roman Catholics will tell us that we need to consult the Magisterium in order to know what Scripture is, to understand it and to settle the various debates over its meaning and interpretation. But when we ask them why we should believe the Magisterium has the authority to establish the canon and produce the correct interpretations of Scripture, we are often treated to a series of Scriptural proofs, which presuppose the Scriptures are clear and authoritative. Whitaker observed this in his own day, and noted how this kind of argumentation is viciously circular (emphasis mine):

For I demand, whence it is that we learn that the church cannot err in consigning the canon of scripture? They answer, that it is governed by the Holy Spirit (for so the council of Trent assumes of itself), and therefore cannot err in its judgments and decrees. I confess indeed that, if it be always governed by the Holy Spirit so as that, in every question, the Spirit affords it the light of truth, it cannot err. But whence do we know that it is always so governed? They answer that Christ hath promised this. Be it so. But where, I pray, hath he promised it? Readily, and without delay, they produce many sentences of scripture which they are always wont to have in their mouths, such as these: "I will be with you always, even to the end of the world." Matth. xxviii. 20. "Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there I will be in the midst of you." Matth. xviii. 20." I will send to you the Comforter from the Father." John xv. 26. "Who, when he is come, will lead you into all truth." Johnxvi. 13. I recognise here the most lucid and certain testimonies of scripture. But now from hence it follows not that the authority of scripture depends upon the church; but, contrariwise, that the authority of the church depends on scripture. Surely it is a notable circle in which this argument revolves! They say that they give authority to the scripture and canonical books in respect of us; and yet they confess that all their authority is derived from scripture. For if they rely upon the testimonies and sentences of these books, when they require us to believe in them; then it is plain that these books, which lend them credit, had greater authority in themselves, and were of themselves authentic.¹

Some Catholics, such as John Salza, have attempted to avoid this vicious circle by countering that such an appeal to Scripture is spiral, not circular:

When Catholics explain that we believe in the Bible on the authority of the Catholic Church, Protestants accuse us of circular reasoning. They say we get this information from the Bible and so the Bible, not the Church, is the final authority. This argument, while clever, is incorrect. The Catholic argument is what we would call spiral, not circular. First, the Catholic approaches the Scriptures as historical books only, but not inspired. Based on the historical evidence, the Catholic establishes the Scriptures are authentic and accurate documents. Second, the historically accurate Scriptures reveal that Jesus established an infallible Church based on texts like Matthew 16:18 and 1 Timothy 3:15. Third, this infallible Church has determined which Scriptures are inspired and which ones are not. Based on the authority of the infallible Church, the Catholic believes in the inspired Scriptures. This is the only logical and rational approach to accepting the inspiration of the Scriptures, and this is John Salza with Relevant Answers.²

As I understand it, Salza wants to move from demonstrating the Scriptures as historically accurate to demonstrating that these Scriptures attest to an infallible Magisterium. We then turn to this Magisterium to know that the Scriptures are inspired:

historically accurate Scriptures --> infallible Magisterium --> inspired Scriptures

Salza's reply is interesting, but there are a number of problems:

i) There's nothing intrinsic to historical cases for the historical accuracy of Scripture that limits such an appeal to Catholics only; Protestants are free to make the same historical case as well.

ii) Apropos, the move from historical accuracy to inspiration is exceptionally short. The difficult components of any external demonstration of inspiration are in establishing the historical accuracy of the New Testament documents. But once that is accomplished, it is a much simpler matter to move from the historical fact of the Resurrection, which establishes Jesus as God, to the ministry of the Holy Spirit, which gives inspiration to the Scriptures. If the Magisterium isn't needed to demonstrate the much harder case of historical accuracy, it's hardly required to demonstrate the much easier case of inspiration.

iii) I don't even know how, in principle, you can divorce historical accuracy from inspiration. A good deal of the data contained in Scripture cannot be both accurate and uninspired, e.g. various prophecies, knowledge impossible to discern in any natural method (what someone or some group was thinking in their hearts at one time or another), what God was doing, thinking or intending, etc. And some data, even if they are knowable through natural methods, carry a certain theological significance that could not be accurately known (as truth) by the authors of Scripture without inspiration.

This is also why there is generally a correlation between denying historical accuracy and denying inspiration. The two go hand-in-hand.

iv) How can Salza establish the Scriptures as authentic and accurate documents if we need the Magisterium to interpret those very documents for us? If the Scriptures are unclear or difficult to understand, as Catholics often assert, this would apply whether or not they were inspired.

v) If we can properly interpret all of the passages required to make a case for the historicity of Scripture (e.g. the Resurrection being supported by 1 Corinthians 15) before we establish the Magisterium as authoritative, why do we need the Magisterium to properly interpret all of Scripture once we learn that it is inspired? If we were competent enough to interpret the Scriptures before we discovered their historical accuracy, we should be competent enough to interpret them afterward.

vi) His appeal to Matthew 16:18 and 1 Timothy 3:15 is dubious (see here for a short, but devastating critique of appealing to 1 Timothy 3:15; the comments section also contains links to discussions of Matthew 16:18).³ So even if the circularity is avoided by this argument, the Scriptures still do not establish an infallible, authoritative Catholic Magisterium.

_____________________________

1. William Whitaker, Disputations on Holy Scripture (Cambridge: Parker Society, 1894; reprint, Orlando: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 2005), 334-335.

2. John Salza, "Relevant Answers Transcripts," Scripture Catholic. http://www.scripturecatholic.com/rradiotran.html (accessed July 19, 2010).

3. Steve Hays also writes on Matthew 16:18:

A direct appeal to Mt 16:18 greatly obscures the number of steps that have to be interpolated in order to get us from Peter to the papacy. Let’s jot down just a few of these intervening steps:
a) The promise of Mt 16:18 has reference to “Peter.”
b) The promise of Mt 16:18 has “exclusive” reference to Peter.
c) The promise of Mt 16:18 has reference to a Petrine “office.”
d) This office is “perpetual”
e) Peter resided in “Rome”
f) Peter was the “bishop” of Rome
g) Peter was the “first” bishop of Rome
h) There was only “one” bishop at a time
i) Peter was not a bishop “anywhere else.”
j) Peter “ordained” a successor
k) This ceremony “transferred” his official prerogatives to a successor.
l) The succession has remained “unbroken” up to the present day.

Lets go back and review each of these twelve separate steps:

(a) V18 may not even refer to Peter. “We can see that ‘Petros’ is not the “petra’ on which Jesus will build his church…In accord with 7:24, which Matthew quotes here, the ‘petra’ consists of Jesus’ teaching, i.e., the law of Christ. ‘This rock’ no longer poses the problem that ‘this’ is ill suits an address to Peter in which he is the rock. For that meaning the text would have read more naturally ‘on you.’ Instead, the demonstrative echoes 7:24; i.e., ‘this rock’ echoes ‘these my words.’ Only Matthew put the demonstrative with Jesus words, which the rock stood for in the following parable (7:24-27). His reusing it in 16:18 points away from Peter to those same words as the foundation of the church…Matthew’s Jesus will build only on the firm bedrock of his law (cf. 5:19-20; 28:19), not on the loose stone Peter. Also, we no longer need to explain away the association of the church’s foundation with Christ rather than Peter in Mt 21:42,” R. Gundry, Matthew (Eerdmans 1994), 334.
(b) Is falsified by the power-sharing arrangement in Mt 18:17-18 & Jn 20:23.
(c) The conception of a Petrine office is borrowed from Roman bureaucratic categories (officium) and read back into this verse. The original promise is indexed to the person of Peter. There is no textual assertion or implication whatsoever to the effect that the promise is separable from the person of Peter.
(d) In 16:18, perpetuity is attributed to the Church, and not to a church office.
(e) There is some evidence that Peter paid a visit to Rome (cf. 1 Pet 5:13). There is some evidence that Peter also paid a visit to Corinth (cf. 1 Cor 1:12; 9:5).
(f) This commits a category mistake. An Apostle is not a bishop. Apostleship is a vocation, not an office, analogous to the prophetic calling. Or, if you prefer, it’s an extraordinary rather than ordinary office.
(g) The original Church of Rome was probably organized by Messianic Jews like Priscilla and Aquilla (cf. Acts 18:2; Rom 16:3). It wasn’t founded by Peter. Rather, it consisted of a number of house-churches (e.g. Rom 16; Hebrews) of Jewish or Gentile membership—or mixed company.
(h) NT polity was plural rather than monarchal. The Catholic claim is predicated on a strategic shift from a plurality of bishops (pastors/elders) presiding over a single (local) church—which was the NT model—to a single bishop presiding over a plurality of churches. And even after you go from (i) oligarchic to (ii) monarchal prelacy, you must then continue from monarchal prelacy to (iii) Roman primacy, from Roman primacy to (iv) papal primacy, and from papal primacy to (v) papal infallibility. So step (h) really breaks down into separate steps—none of which enjoys the slightest exegetical support.
(j) Peter also presided over the Diocese of Pontus-Bithynia (1 Pet 1:1). And according to tradition, Antioch was also a Petrine See (Apostolic Constitutions 7:46.).
(j)-(k) This suffers from at least three objections:
i) These assumptions are devoid of exegetical support. There is no internal warrant for the proposition that Peter ordained any successors.
ii) Even if he had, there is no exegetical evidence that the imposition of hands is identical with Holy Orders.
iii) Even if we went along with that identification, Popes are elected to papal office, they are not ordained to papal office. There is no separate or special sacrament of papal orders as over against priestly orders. If Peter ordained a candidate, that would just make him a pastor (or priest, if you prefer), not a Pope.
(l) This cannot be verified. What is more, events like the Great Schism falsify it in practice, if not in principle.

These are not petty objections. In order to get from Peter to the modern papacy you have to establish every exegetical and historical link in the chain. To my knowledge, I haven’t said anything here that a contemporary Catholic scholar or theologian would necessarily deny. They would simply fallback on a Newmanesque principle of dogmatic development to justify their position. But other issues aside, this admits that there is no straight-line deduction from Mt 16:18 to the papacy. What we have is, at best, a chain of possible inferences. It only takes one broken link anywhere up or down the line to destroy the argument. Moreover, only the very first link has any apparent hook in Mt 16:18. Except for (v), all the rest depend on tradition and dogma. Their traditional support is thin and equivocal while the dogmatic appeal is self-serving.
The prerogatives ascribed to Peter in 16:19 (”binding and loosing” are likewise conferred on the Apostles generally in 18:18. The image of the “keys” (v19a) is used for Peter only, but this is a figure of speech—while the power signified by the keys was already unpacked by the “binding and loosing” language, so that no distinctively Petrine prerogative remains in the original promise. In other words, the “keys” do not refer to a separate prerogative that is distinctive to Peter. That confuses the metaphor with its literal referent.

Regarding Isa 22:22—as E.J. Young has noted,
“This office is not made hereditary. God promises the key to Eliakim but not to his descendants. The office continues, but soon loses its exalted character. It was Eliakim the son of Hilkiah who was exalted, and not the office itself. Eliakim had all the power of a “Rabshakeh,” [the chief of drinking], and in him the Assyrian might recognize a man who could act for the theocracy…Whether Eliakim actually was guilty of nepotism or not, we are expressly told that at the time (”in that day” when they hang all the glory of his father’s house upon him he will be removed. Apparently the usefulness of the office itself will have been exhausted…The usefulness of Eliakim’s exalted position was at an end: were it to continue as it was under Eliakim it would not be for the welfare of the kingdom; its end therefore must come,” the Book of Isaiah (Eerdmans 1982), 116-18.

More generally, every argument for Petrine primacy is an argument against papal primacy since the more that Catholicism plays up the unique authority of Peter, as over against the Apostolic college, the less his prerogatives are transferable to a line of successors. There’s a basic tension between the exclusivity of his office vis-à-vis the Apostolate and the inclusivity of his office vis-à-vis the Episcopate.

Whitaker's Arguments for the Authority of Scripture over the Church (Part 1)

The following series of posts will (briefly) examine some of Whitaker's arguments where he proves that the binding authority of God's Word on us does not depend on any declaration ("judgment and authority") of the Church. He makes at least nineteen such arguments (although it is unlikely we will examine all of them).

The first, a conditional argument, I have paraphrased as follows (all material from Whitaker in this post can be found on pages 332-334):

If Scripture was divinely authoritative before the Church declared it to be so (e.g. at a local or ecumenical council),

Then Scripture has an intrinsic authority over us that does not depend upon the decrees of the Church.

Whitaker thinks the antecedent "is manifest" and I see no reason to disagree. I am not aware of any Catholic apologists who argue that the Magisterium made Scripture authoritative and inspired; they instead seem to argue that Scripture is inspired by God, but the recognition of it being inspired comes through the Magisterium. For example, Madrid asserts that:

The Church did not make those books [of Scripture] inspired; God did. Similarly, the Catholic Church did not make them 'canonical'; God did, by the very fact that He revealed them.¹

As for the consequent, Whitaker gives four supporting reasons. I've decided to limit this post to the second and fourth reasons, which I found to be the most reasonable and least confusing.

Here is the first of the pair:

The judgment of fathers, councils, and the church, is but recent, if we respect the antiquity of scripture. If therefore the authority of scripture depend upon the public judgment of the church, then doubtless for many centuries there was no certain canon of scripture. Fathers, indeed, and councils enunciate the canonical books; but those books both were, and were esteemed, previously authentic, and canonical, and sacred, as is plain from those fathers and councils themselves. Let them produce any public judgment of the church, and it will readily appear that the scriptures were deemed canonical before that judgment.

i) Someone might object that the lists given by church fathers and local councils were not the same as the canon we have today. That is true in some respects, but in general we are dealing with a few books difference here and a few books difference there. That is rather difficult to reconcile with the Catholic claim that we need the Magisterium to recognize the canon at all, that without it we wouldn't be able to know any of the books of the canon. (I have heard some arguments to this effect which challenge Protestants to sort through all of the ancient literature available during the Apostolic age and decide what is and isn't the Word of God.)

ii) This is also functions as a useful historical observation. The early church did not approach the canon as something that could only be truly known through the decrees of councils. This is yet another disconnect between the modern Roman Catholic denomination and the early church.

And here is the second (emphasis mine):

If the church be gathered together to consign the canon of scripture, it must needs be so by some authority. I demand, therefore, by what authority it is so collected? If they answer, by some internal impulse or revelation of the Spirit, we entirely reject such revelations which are besides the word, as fanatical and anabaptistical and utterly heretical. If they say that it is collected by the authority of scripture, then they concede that which we demand: for it will thence follow, that the scripture had a canonical authority before it was confirmed by the judgment of the church. If they allow only this part of scripture which gives such an authority to the church to have been previously canonical, but deny the rest to have been so, they do this without any certain reason.

This is an interesting dilemma, and I'm not sure if there's a way out for the Roman Catholic. It seems rather powerful.

I do know that modern Roman Catholics tend to take the latter option and argue for the authority of the Magisterium from Scripture (e.g. arguments from Matthew 16:18). But the epistemic dilemma Whitaker is driving at cannot be avoided. If I, as a Protestant, need the Magisterium to know that Scripture is authoritative and binding, of what use is it to quote Scripture to me in order to prove the authority of the Roman Catholic denomination? If I take the Roman Catholic assertion on this point seriously, then I am in no place to rely on Scripture to prove any doctrine or position, let alone that the Magisterium has the authority to identify Scripture.

In other words, if Catholics want to use Scripture to prove the authority of the Magisterium to Protestants, they admit that it is already binding on the consciences of Protestants before they come to believe that the Magisterium is authoritative. But if Scripture is already binding before it is known that the Magisterium is authoritative, why do we need the Magisterium to show us what is and isn't Scripture?

_____________________________

1. Patrick Madrid, Answer Me This (Huntington, IN: Our Sunday Visitor Publishing Division, 2003), 128.

Whitaker's Disputations: A Refutation of Stapleton's Arguments on the Authority of the Church (Part 5)

This is the last of Whitaker's responses to Stapleton's positive arguments for the authority of the Magisterium that we will review. (While there are more arguments than what we've addressed here, they did not seem relevant enough to discuss in their own posts. Interested readers can begin following these arguments on pages 316, 323 and 327, respectively.) After this post, we will begin looking at Whitaker's positive arguments for the authority of Scripture. As with any good theologian, Whitaker is not merely a reactionary. He does not define his views soley in relation to the errors of Catholicism, but carves out his own position on the scope and authority of the Scriptures.

An Appeal to Augustine

In this argument, Stapleton appeals to one of the most popular early church father quotations used by Catholics against Protestants today, where Augustine claims:

I would not believe the gospel, if the authority of the catholic church did not move me.¹

Interestingly enough, it seems the quotation was quite popular in Whitaker's day as well (and in Calvin's, as we will see):

These words of Augustine, says Stapleton, have distressed the protestants. Doubtless they have, and no wonder, since, as he confesses, in the same place, they have deceived even some of the schoolmen also. They are indeed special favourites, and always in the mouths of the papists generally; so that a papist can scarce exchange three words with you without presently objecting this testimony of Augustine.²

(We would do well to remember Ecclesiastes 1:9. Many of the arguments we have with Roman Catholics today are merely recycled from earlier generations. This should remind us of the benefit of consulting historical theology; chances are that some far greater thinker has already considered the general form of any particular Roman Catholic argument we are trying to answer.)

Whitaker's response is to cite Calvin, who had already dealt with the same quotation in the Institutes. His citation leads to the following passage, where Calvin argues that Augustine is being ripped out of context:

I am aware it is usual to quote a sentence of Augustine in which he says that he would not believe the gospel, were he not moved by the authority of the Church, (Aug. Cont. Epist. Fundament.c. 5.) But it is easy to discover from the context, how inaccurate and unfair it is to give it such a meaning. He was reasoning against the Manichees, who insisted on being implicitly believed, alleging that they had the truth, though they did not show they had. But as they pretended to appeal to the gospel in support of Manes, he asks what they would do if they fell in with a man who did not even believe the gospel - what kind of argument they would use to bring him over to their opinion. He afterwards adds, "But I would not believe the gospel," &c.; meaning, that were he a stranger to the faith, the only thing which could induce him to embrace the gospel would be the authority of the Church. And is it any thing wonderful,that one who does not know Christ should pay respect to men?

Augustine, therefore, does not here say that the faith of the godly is founded on the authority of the Church; nor does he mean that the certainty of the gospel depends upon it; he merely says that unbelievers would have no certainty of the gospel, so as thereby to win Christ, were they not influenced by the consent of the Church. And he clearly shows this to be his meaning, by thus expressing himself a little before: "When I have praised my own creed, and ridiculed yours, who do you suppose is to judge between us; or what more is to be done than to quit those who, inviting us to certainty, afterwards command us to believe uncertainty, and follow those who invite us, in the first instance, to believe what we are not yet able to comprehend, that waxing stronger through faith itself, we may become able to understand what we believe - no longer men, but God himself internally strengthening and illuminating our minds?"

These unquestionably are the words of Augustine, (August. Cont. Epist. Fundament. cap. 4;) and the obvious inference from them is, that this holy man had no intention to suspend our faith in Scripture on the nod or decision of the Church, but only to intimate (what we too admit to be true) that those who are not yet enlightened by the Spirit of God, become teachable by reverence for the Church, and thus submit to learn the faith of Christ from the gospel. In this way, though the authority of the Church leads us on, and prepares us to believe in the gospel, it is plain that Augustine would have the certainty of the godly to rest on a very different foundation. At the same time, I deny not that he often presses the Manichees with the consent of the whole Church, while arguing in support of the Scriptures, which they rejected. Hence he upbraids Faustus (lib. 32) for not submitting to evangelical truth - truth so well founded, so firmly established, so gloriously renowned, and handed down by sure succession from the days of the apostles. But he nowhere insinuates that the authority which we give to the Scriptures depends on the definitions or devices of men. He only brings forward the universal judgement of the Church, as a point most pertinent to the cause, and one, moreover, in which he had the advantage of his opponents. Any one who desires to see this morefully proved may read his short treatises De Utilitate Credendi,(The Advantages of Believing,) where it will be found that the only facility of believing which he recommends is that which affords an introduction, and forms a fit commencement to inquiry; while he declares that we ought not to be satisfied with opinion, but to strive after substantial truth.³

David King also discusses this passage from Augustine. After quoting some of the same material from Calvin (although a different translation), King adds:

Augustine often spoke of the illuminating ministry of the Holy Spirit, revealing truth directly to human hearts independent of human aid:

...we may continue to know what we believe by the inward illumination and confirmation of our minds, due no longer to men, but to God Himself.⁴

So, then, it is the Reformed position, and not the Roman Catholic, that expresses the Augustinian perspective. Augustine's epistemology regarding spiritual truth is rooted in the immediate and eternal influence of light that only God can give. Yet, it is the practice of today's Roman apologists to dismiss the supernatural work of the Holy Spirit in confirming the heart of believers, or say it was a novel concept initiated by the Reformers.

We acknowledge with Augustine that the Church is most often the initial and outward means by which men are called to faith in Christ. With respect to the above quote from Augustine, Heiko Oberman explains that he never exalted the authority of the Church over the Scriptures:⁵

While repeatedly asserting the primacy of Scripture, Augustine himself does not contrast this at all with the authority of the Catholic Church [as Roman apologists assert]: '...I would not believe the Gospel unless the authority of the Catholic Church moved me.' The Church has a practical priority; her authority as expressed in the direction-giving meaning of commovere, to move, is an instrumental authority, the door which leads to the fullness of the Word itself.⁶

_________________________

1. Whitaker cites contra Epist. Fund. c. 5. The equivalent passage can be found in Schaff's collection here.

2. William Whitaker, Disputations on Holy Scripture (Cambridge: Parker Society, 1894; reprint, Orlando: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 2005), 319-320.

3. John Calvin, The Institutes of Christian Religion, 1.7.3.

4. NPNF1: Vol. IV, Against the Epistle of Manichaeus Called Fundamental, Chapter 14. King, in his footnote, cites a number of other passages from Augustine supporting his interpretation.

5. David T. King, Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol. 1 (Battle Ground, WA: Christian Resources, 2001), 80-81.

6. Heiko Oberman, "Quo Vadis? Tradition from Irenaeus to Humani Generis," Scottish Journal of Theology 16 (1963): 234-235.

Whitaker's Disputations: A Refutation of Stapleton's Arguments on the Authority of the Church (Part 4)

Stapleton's fourth argument is as follows (all material taken from pages 312-316 of Disputations):

The apocryphal books of the second class [the Gospel of Judas, the Gospel of Thomas, etc.] are therefore not divine, because the church hath never chosen to approve them. Therefore, the whole matter (namely, of receiving and rejecting books) depends upon the authority and judgment of the church.

To this Whitaker issues three responses:

1. Since it has the Holy Spirit, the Church does, indeed, distinguish "the true and genuine books from spurious." But how does it then follow that we "judge by no other criterion than the church's determination"?

(Whitaker also suggests that whatever reasons the Magisterium and/or her apologists produce to refuse something like the Gospel to Thomas into the canon, these reasons are also accessible to the Protestant.)

2. Against heretics, the "authority and consent" of the Church on the matter of the canon is a useful and powerful argument. The Church universal is better able to judge the matter of the canon than any private individual (such as a heretic), so its testimony carries a good deal of weight (although Whitaker suggests in the very same sentence that it does not have binding, ultimate authority). The fathers made this argument often enough, yet how does it therefore follow that an appeal to the Church is the only and/or best argument on the subject of the canon? Even some of the fathers Stapleton quotes use other arguments to support the authenticity of the canon.

3. The fathers appealed not just to the authority of the Church, as if it alone were sufficient, but also to "other proofs which were taken and derived out of the books themselves." (Whitaker cites Eusebius and Augustine to support his position. While this testimony is interesting, for the sake of time, I will not address it here.)

Whitaker's response stands on its own, so I only have a few observations to add:

This is a variation of the other canon arguments we've looked at, but I still find it valuable to analyze given my experience over the years on various discussion boards and sites. The argument that the church determines the canon comes in various forms, and I've encountered the one Stapleton uses here often enough. I recall a Catholic once asking how I would show that the Gospel of Thomas should not be considered Scripture (without, I assume, an appeal to the testimony of the Catholic Church). While I am fortunate enough to have the resources at hand to investigate and respond to this kind of challenge, some Protestants don't have these resources and might have to admit they do not know why the Gospel of Thomas might have to be excluded other than it contradicts other Scripture. While this would be a public concession of sorts, I don't think it gives any sort of significant victory to the Catholic position.

The modern versions of these canon arguments stem from an underlying strategy to create epistemological and theological uncertainty in the mind and heart of the Protestant. Consider their similarity to the "33,000 denominations" argument. The (oft-refuted) "fact" of 33,000 denominations within Protestantism is sometimes cited as a means to demonstrate that no lay Protestant could ever hope to determine which one was correct above all others. Therefore (the argument goes) we need some infallible, authoritative body to settle the matter for us. The same reasoning is applied to the canon. There are possibly dozens of documents claiming to be of the Apostles. How will the Protestant ever hope to know which documents are part of Scripture without the help of some authoritative body to tell them?

It's important to recognize this strategy--to create a need where none exist and to quickly fill it with the Magisterium of Rome before any other possible sources are considered--and to deal with it on its own terms. Is the only answer for these kinds of questions to turn to Rome? No, since as noted in the last two posts of the series (see here and here), the Holy Spirit is a valid means by which we can come to know the true extent of the canon (among other items of knowledge). So the question here is not whether we internally--that which is in our hearts and minds--are unable to know the canon. The Catholic can only cast doubt on our external reasons for what we believe. Just as the witness of a parent stands for a child who does not understand the reasons behind it, the testimony of the Holy Spirit stands even if we cannot always explain to someone else why, according to other principles, it does so.

Of course, in this situation we do have recourse to additional evidence and principles (via historical inquiry) to reject books like the Gospel of Thomas as later novelties and to demonstrate the historical reliability of (for example) the Resurrection and the Gospels (thus creating a standard by which the Gospel of Thomas can be judged as heretical). But even if we didn't, it doesn't logically follow that we must turn to Rome to solve the question for us.

Whitaker's Disputations: Stapleton Objects to the Internal Witness of the Holy Spirit

Do Disagreements between Christians Refute an Appeal to the Holy Spirit as Testimony to the Canon?

In Part 3 of this series we looked at Whitaker's discussion of external and internal testimony to the canon. For Whitaker, all external testimony, as useful as it is, cannot bring about much of any true belief without the internal work of the Holy Spirit. On this point, Stapleton issues the following objection:

If it be by the testimony of the Spirit that we know the scriptures, how comes it that churches, which have this Spirit, agree not amongst themselves? For (so he argues) the Lutherans disagree with you Calvinists, because you receive some books which they reject: therefore, either you or they are without the Spirit. This is an objection urged also by Campian and by others.

Stapleton presents quite the dilemma: either we are forced to say the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit is unreliable since it produces contrary beliefs among true Christians (thus abandoning the internal testimony for the canon), or we are forced to say that Christian groups that disagree with ours on smaller points of belief really do not have the Holy Spirit at all.

This is also an objection more generally applied to Sola Scriptura and doctrinal division today, so Whitaker's responses will be useful to analyze.

Whitaker thinks the dilemma is unreasonable, for three reasons, the first of which is as follows:

I answer: In the first place, it does not follow either that they who reject those books, or we who receive them, are without the Holy Spirit. For no saving truth can be known without the Holy Spirit; as for example, that Christ died for us, or any other. This the papists will themselves allow. Yet it does not follow that all who have learned this truth from the Holy Spirit must agree in all other points of faith. Nor does it immediately follow, that all who are in error are without the Holy Spirit, because all errors are not capital. Now the reason why all who have the Holy Spirit do not think exactly alike of all things, is because there is not precisely the same equal measure of the Holy Spirit in all; otherwise there would be full agreement in all points.¹

1. I'm not specifically sure what Whitaker means by "the same equal measure of the Holy Spirit." I assume it is with respect to how much the Holy Spirit is being followed and obeyed, but perhaps he has some other concept in mind, such as some sort of pouring out of the Spirit in different quantities (if that term may be used in this situation) which leads to a greater alignment with God on matters of truth. Either way, the point is useful, for however the spiritual mechanism occurs, it seems reasonable to say that various followers of God will obey the Holy Spirit to greater or lesser degrees.

2. A example of this response is the disagreement between Peter and Paul over the Judiazers. Peter was endowed with the Holy Spirit by direct promise from Jesus in what was a great amount², at it seems equally reasonable (although ultimately irrelevant to the argument) to say that Paul enjoyed a similar endowment. Yet we would not say their disagreement forces us to choose one or the other as having the Holy Spirit. Paul doesn't treat Peter as a non-Christian in his confrontation with him, even if he had fallen into serious error. So Stapleton would have us follow a line of argument that Paul did not believe.

3. I'd also observe that Stapleton's argument wouldn't succeed today. Can you imagine a Catholic bishop arguing that the Eastern Orthodox do not have the Holy Spirit because their canon differs from what was determined at Trent? That would not fit with the ecumenical spirit now present in the post-Vatican II era.

Whitaker's second point is as follows:

Secondly, both we who receive some books not received by the Lutherans, have the precedent of some ancient churches, and the Lutherans also, who reject them. For there were some churches who received these books (that is, the epistle of Jude, the second epistle of Peter, and the second and third of John), and also some who rejected them, and yet all meanwhile were churches of God.³

The appeal to the "ancient churches" is useful here because it plays on the Roman Catholic denomination's claims to being a continuation of the tradition of the early fathers. If disagreement over the canon (or any doctrinal issue) means the Holy Spirit is not present in one (or more) disagreeing parties, then we should also be willing to say that the Holy Spirit was not present in one or more disagreeing early church communities and church fathers. But the theological and historical commitments of Rome in using and approving of the church fathers make this impossible for a Roman Catholic to accept.

Finally, Whitaker argues:

Thirdly, it does not presently follow that all have the Holy Spirit who say they have it. Although many of the Lutherans (as they call them) reject these books, yet it is not to be concluded that such is the common opinion of that whole church. The papists, indeed, understand and denote by the name of the church only the bishops and doctors; but the sentiments are not to be judged of by merely a few of its members.⁴

How many times do objectors to Sola Scriptura uncritically lump all professing Protestants together and assume that we believe the Holy Spirit is leading all of them? Any criticism of this line of argument for the canon must take into account this qualification--that not all who profess the Holy Spirit have it.

_____________________________

1. William Whitaker, Disputations on Holy Scripture (Cambridge: Parker Society, 1894; reprint, Orlando: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 2005), 295-296.

2. Cf. John 16, esp. v. 13. The Apostles were to be led by the Spirit "into all truth" (NIV).

3. William Whitaker, Disputations, 296.

4. Ibid.

Sneaking in Formal Sufficiency & Redefining Material Sufficiency

Sometimes Roman Catholics will argue using formal sufficiency without admitting to it.

William Whitaker (1547-1595):

Indeed all the papists in their books, when they seek to prove any thing, boast everywhere that they can bring arguments against us from the most luminous, plain, clear and manifest testimonies of Scripture . . . For in every dispute their common phrases are,—This is clear,—This is plain,—This is manifest in the scriptures, and such like. Surely when they speak thus, they ignorantly and unawares confess the perspicuity of the scriptures even in the greatest questions and controversies.

See: A Disputation on Holy Scripture Against the Papists, Especially Bellarmine and Stapleton, trans. and ed. William Fitzgerald (Cambridge: The University Press, reprinted 1849), p. 401. See also, this link.

Keep in mind as well, some Romanists will redefine Biblical material sufficiency to mean "Every true doctrine must be in harmony with it. That is not the same as saying that every doctrine must have explicit biblical proof."

In both instances, one needs to be aware of the double standard and redefinition of terms. You'll save yourself a lot of time in dialogue by exposing these presuppositions.

Whitaker's Disputations: A Refutation of Stapleton's Arguments on the Authority of the Church (Part 3)

The Internal Testimony of the Holy Spirit and External Testimony to the Veracity of the Canon

Stapleton's third argument is that Scripture cannot be proved from Scripture; therefore, we need the Magisterium to identify Scripture for us. He explains this in more detail, using an example I've seen in various forms online discussion boards over the years:

Should any one, [Stapleton] says, deny Paul's epistles to be canonical, it cannot be proved either from the old Testament, or from the gospel, because there is nowhere any mention there made of them. Then he goes on to say that neither the whole scripture, nor any part of it, can be proved from scripture itself, because all proof is drawn from things better known than the thing to be proved. Therefore (says he) to one who denies or knows not either the whole scripture or any part of it, nothing can be proved from scripture itself. But here, according to him, the church comes to our help in both cases. For, should any one deny a part of scripture, the church persuades him to receive these books upon the same ground as he hath received the others: he who is ignorant of the whole scripture, it persuades to accept the scripture in the same way as he hath accepted Christ.¹

Whitaker's response contains too much material to effectively summarize all of it, so it seemed best to draw out just a few relevant points--that we can recognize Scripture as God's voice through the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit and that there are external testimonies available to prove the canon as well (although to a lesser, different degree than the certainty provided by the Holy Spirit).

Scripture as the Recognizable Voice of God

Whitaker describes Scripture as recognizable, as one voice is recognizable from another or from other sounds:

From these² and similar passages, we reason thus: There is the greatest perspicuity and light in the scriptures: therefore the scripture may be understood by the scripture, if one only have eyes to perceive this light. As the brightest light appears in the sun, so the greatest splendour of divinity shines forth in the word of God. The blind cannot perceive even the light of the sun; nor can they distinguish the splendour of the scriptures, whose minds are not illuminated. But those who have eyes of faith can behold this light. Besides, if we recognize men when they speak, why should we not also hear and recognise God speaking in his word? For what need is there that another should teach that this is the voice of somebody, when I recognize it myself; or should inform me that my friend speaks, when I myself hear and understand him speaking?³

So the identification of Scripture for Whitaker is much like being able to discern between external stimuli using the relevant sense. If presented with a variety of sounds, people with proper hearing will be able to distinguish between the various noises and identify which is someone speaking and which is, say, merely the sound of the wind blowing through trees.

The Internal Testimony of the Holy Spirit

Now, it seems Stapleton and other Catholics objected to this position because Scripture is not like hearing someone else speak. Yet Whitaker here says that the Holy Spirit gives an internal witness to the believer so that he may understand that God is speaking through Scripture (emphasis in original):

But they object that we cannot recognize the voice of God, because we do not hear God speaking. This I deny. For those who have the Holy Spirit, are taught of God: these can recognise the voice of God as much as any one can recognize a friend, with whom he hath long and familiarly lived, by his voice. Nay, they can even hear God. For so Augustine (Ep. III.), "God addresses us every day. He speaks to the heart of every one of us."⁴ If we do not understand, the reason is because we have not the Spirit, by which our hearts should be enlightened. With respect to us, therefore, the authority of scripture depends upon, and is made clear by, the internal witness of the Holy Spirit; without which, though you were to hear a thousand times that this is the word of God, yet you could never believe in such a manner as to acquiesce with an entire assent.⁵

This seems reasonable enough. If, indeed, the Holy Spirit is real, then its internal testimony is valid enough for individual Christians to know that Scripture is true.

And if the Holy Spirit testifies to the truthfulness of Scripture, the role Stapleton wishes for the Magisterium to play is no longer appropriate or even possible.

External Testimony

Now, the testimony of the Holy Spirit might very well be sufficient for the individual Christian, but how would an external case be made for the truthfulness of Scripture? Whitaker's reasons can be summarized as follows⁶:

1. The majestic and unique nature of the doctrines of Scripture as compared with the writings of the greatest of pagan philosophers or Christian theologians. This is true even for those works that were doubted by some early Christians, such as Jude, 2 Peter, 2 John and 3 John.

2. The "simplicity, purity, and divinity of the style" in which Scripture is written as compared with the philosophers Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, etc.

3. The fact that the books of Moses are older than any other work, containing the oldest and purest of all historical knowledge, giving it more authority than any other work.

4. The fulfillment of prophecies such as 1 Kings 13:2, Isaiah 44:28, etc.

5. The prodigious miraculous accounts contained in Scripture.

6. The repeated and failed attempts of God's enemies to destroy the documents (perhaps copies) of Scripture. These enemies sometimes came to see that God wrote Scripture after suffering punishments for attempting to destroy them.

7. The blood and confessions of martyrs to its truthfulness.

8. The changed or unexpected character of many of the authors of Scripture:

Who was Moses, before he was called by God? First, a courtier in Egypt, then a shepherd, finally, endued with the richest outpouring of the Spirit, he became a prophet, and the leader of the people of Israel. Who was Jeremiah? A man, incapable, as himself testifies, of any eloquence. Who was David? A youth and a shepherd. Who Peter? A fisherman, an ignorant and illiterate person. Who John? A man of the same low rank. Who was Matthew? A publican, altogether a stranger to holy things. Who was Paul? An enemy and persecutor of that doctrine which he afterwards professed. Who was Luke? A physician. How could such men have written so divinely without the divine inspiration of the Holy Ghost? They were, almost all, illiterate men, learned in no accomplishments, taught in no schools, imbued with no instruction; but afterwards summoned by a divine call, marked out for this office, admitted to the counsels of God: and so they committed all to writing with the exactest fidelity; which writings are now in our hands.⁷

While the list contains some rather valid reasons, not all of these will be acceptable to all persons (for example, the third is, perhaps, a fallacious appeal to antiquity), and we might very well employ refined versions of these arguments (or different ones altogether) should we be pressed to make our own attempt at the question of external verification.

However, if any readers wish to object to this list, it would be best to recognize that Whitaker seems to be making a cumulative case. All the various reasons must be considered together and in relation to one another. We cannot, as some skeptics do with respect to the Resurrection, object to, for example, the seventh reason by noting that many people have died for beliefs we know to be false, therefore, the seventh reason is completely worthless and may be discarded as such. No, the purpose of the seventh reason does not seem to be merely to say that martyrdom proves that a position is true. Rather, it seems to suggest that martyrdom demonstrates the sincerity of those who die for their cause, making it more likely that the position to which they attest and willingly die is true.

All this to say that this is an effective list, but we are cautioned still:

These topics may prove that these books are divine, yet will never be sufficient to bring conviction to our souls so as to make us assent, unless the testimony of the Holy Spirit be added. When this is added, it fills our minds with a wonderful plenitude of assurance, confirms them, and causes us most gladly to embrace the scriptures, giving force to the preceding arguments. Those previous arguments may indeed urge and constrain us; but this (I mean the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit) is the only argument which can persuade us.⁸

A useful reminder for those of us involved in apologetics.

_____________________________

1. Whitaker, Disputations, 288-289.

2. 2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 1:12, 19; Psalm 119:105-112.

3. Whitaker, Disputations, 289-290.

4. The citation for this quote is "Ep. 137. Opp. T. II. 528. Bassan. 1797." If anyone knows where to find this in a modern work, I would be grateful to read it in its fuller context.

5. Whitaker, Disputations, 290.

6. Ibid. 293-294.

7. Ibid., 294.

8. Ibid., 294-295.