Civil War in the Sublime High-Level Online Anti-Catholic Ranks: Steve Hays and TAO vs. Jamin Hubner and James White (on Israel)

[ source ]

These are always interesting to observe (see the last one I chronicled just before the evidence was removed from sight), but invariably wearisome and boorish in proportion to how long they continue. Anti-Catholics are not renowned for -- shall we say --  intellectual individuality. They tend to be a bunch of clones, at least inasmuch as they are all united against the horrendous Beast and Whore of Babylon: the dreaded "Rome"; the "papists" and "Romanists." But on the rare occasion that they disagree, it is petty and juvenile, like much of the drivel that passes for "discourse" on the Internet these days.

Jamin Hubner is an associate of Bishop James White: the Grand Poobah of online Anti-Catholics and self-proclaimed Unvanquished Slayer of All Catholic Debaters. He has often posted on White's blog. "Turretinfan" (or, The Anonymous One = TAO) has a wordy and influential blog in know-nothing anti-Catholic circles, as does Steve Hays (Triablogue). TAO also frequently writes on White's blog. All of them are Calvinists (or Reformed). White is a Reformed Baptist, however, as opposed to Presbyterians (big difference on adult vs. infant baptism there). TAO in due course sided with Hays against Hubner's position.

All Protestants, anti-Catholic or no, are doomed to engage in endless internal in-fighting. Hays has even dared to commit the unthinkable, unutterable Act of publicly disagreeing with the Grand Poobah! It's almost as momentous as the fall of Soviet communism, or the transition from horses to automobiles. One can scarcely conceptualize such a thing . . . Here is the chronology of this quarrel:

Hubner: A Brief History of Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology (6-7-10)

Hubner: With All Due Respect, Rosenberg’s Latest, Painful Pronouncement On Israel is Wrong (11-6-10)

Hays: Sleeping with the enemy (5-19-11)

Hubner: Steve Hays, Hubbub, and Hamas (5-19-11)

"Steve Hays at Triablogue doesn’t seem to like me. I don’t know why, and I wish that wasn’t the case. But that’s just the way things are. It seems to have begun when I started blogging a lot at AOMin.org. But things were especially tense after a misunderstanding between Paul Manata and a post I wrote on logic (see here). Manata had wrote a rather absurd satire piece in response (here), ridiculing me as “agent 00777 of the Christian Insularity Agency (CIA),” and so forth. Steve Hays linked to it (here) with no issue (and what seems to be excitement, saying “Click here for the juicy details!”). In fact, he even commented on it himself, furthering skepticism about my character: . . . Who is the one “sleeping with the enemy” and who is the “enemy” in the title of your blog post, and why did you see those terms as fitting?"

Hays: Siding with the Enemy (5-20-11)

"If Jamin is that hypersensitive about satire, he’s in the wrong profession. Apologetics is not for hemophiliacs. If you bleed on contact, consider a career change."


Hubner: Steve’s Reply, and My Take On Present-Day “Israel” (5-20-11)

"Until then, I think everyone should be wondering, for a well-known blogger who gives advice on how to do apologetics, why didn’t he just say so? Enough sowing seeds of doubt against another fellow Christian, and making assertions with unstated conclusions. Just be honest and say what you believe. . . . Indeed, publicly calling on the people of God to be on the “alert” for the presuppositions of a certain Christian apologist is a serious charge, and whether anyone likes it or not, it cannot just be brushed aside (though I’d sometimes like to!)."

Hays: Voodoo dolls (5-21-11)

Hubner: Steve Stoops Lower Still (5-21-11)

"Third, as if it even needed to be said, Steve’s entire argument made thus far (if there is one to be identified) is by and large, fallacious. Gary Burge could be the most evil person on the planet, a racist sexist homophobic Marxist Mormon murderer, and none of that would change the facts, or change the legitimacy of the facts if they are spoken by such a person. Steve knows that it doesn’t matter who is making an argument, what matters is what is being said."

Hays: Dupes for Hamas (5-25-11)

"Notice that Jamin isn’t making the slightest effort to be honest. For I specifically distinguished between culpable and inculpable association. Does Jamin interact with that distinction? No. Rather, he ignores it, then acts as if I’m the one who fails to draw distinctions. Go figure."

Hubner: And That Answers That (5-25-11)

". . . answering a whole set of questions from a person who refuses to do the same (only with Steve’s case, he is refusing to answer the most basic questions) is fruitless. It’s like debating the doctrine of atonement with someone who you don’t even know believes the Bible is the Word of God, or discussing inerrancy with an atheist who won’t tell you if he’s an atheist, or what have you. It’s 100% pointless. Until we know where each other is coming from, there can be no progress. And it is by all means clear that Steve does not want to (and perhaps, because he cannot) provide a positive case for his own position, let alone summarize it. He simply wants to criticize without following through and without providing anything more. I refuse to take part in that, as should everyone else."

Hays: Instant-expert syndrome (5-25-11)

TAO: Reviewing a Blog Exchange Between Hays and Hubner (5-25-11)

Hubner: The Questions Never Asked About Israel, Part 1 (9-24-11)

"The last time we addressed this issue was in the lively blog exchange with Steve Hays (Triablogue). Steve tried to make it look like I was supporting anti-Israel sentiment and buying into Palestinian anti-Israel propaganda, primarily on the basis that I cited from a certain source whose author he referred to as “a shill for Hamas.” (That post was entitled “Sleeping with the Enemy; Hays is convinced I’m a wolf in sheep’s clothing – a danger to the body of Christ). I tried to make an effort to avoid fancy rhetoric (to put it mildly again; at one point Steve compared me to Britney Spears and accused me of having a “man-crush” on a NT professor). . ."


Hubner: The Questions Never Asked About Israel, Part 2 (9-27-11)

Hays: Allahu Akbar and Omega Ministries (9-28-11)

"AOMIN teammate Jamin Hubner continues his vendetta against the modern state of Israel: . . . Hubner sounds like one of those CNN reporters (e.g. Christiane Amanpour, Fareed Zakaria) . . . Perhaps AOMIN should team up with CAIR, or maybe change its name to Allahu Akbar and Omega Ministries." 

Combox:

Hays: "What I find curious is the split-personality policy of AOMIN on Islam. What they give with one hand, they take back with the other. On the one hand White debates Muslims and defends Acts17 against persecution. On the other hand, teammate Hubner is constantly reciting the Hamas narrative. What White builds up during the day, Hubner tears down at night. Yes, AOMIN does need to make up its mind about the role of Islam in geopolitics. "


TAO: "Suppose that Hays' analysis is correct - White is building up by day but Jamin is tearing down by night (on some particular issue). Is it not really up to White to decide whether he wants to continue to associate with Jamin? Can't he associate with him without adopting all Jamin's expressed views?"



White: Wednesday Musings (9-28-11) 

"Evidently, some feel that if any of my bloggers express a viewpoint or opinion, even if it is posted on their personal blogs and not at the A&O blog, that I am somehow responsible for it. This "your friends all have to walk lockstep with you" idea is a common one, sadly---and, if it is followed through rigorously, results in folks who are very, very much alone in the cyber realm, and probably in the "real world" as well. Recently Jamin Hubner has raised issues relating to a simple question: is the modern secular state of Israel religiously and theologically significant? Is it "Israel" as in the Israel of Scripture, or Romans 11? And if it is not, is it open to criticism? He is concerned about the strength of the movement, mainly amongst American evangelicals, that has granted to Israel not only a theological position it does not actually hold, but which precludes even the slightest mention of criticism of a secular state. Now, I am not going to re-hash everything here, but he has even been accused of being a "shill for Hamas" due to sources he has cited and issues he has raised (which seems to me to provide strong evidence of the need to raise such issues and challenge the knee-jerk reactions of many in the Evangelical community as a whole). While he has sought fair and non-emotional responses to questions he has raised, his requests have, in the main, fallen upon deaf ears, for I see no evidence that his critics really want to have a give-and-take. . . .  

"Hays is simply unfair in his attempted response to Jamin. It is scatter-gunning, it is not sober, fair, researched writing. It is "you sound like a CNN reporter" rather than "here is a more sound, historical way of seeing those events." I do not find it at all compelling, personally, and I claim no expertise in that period of history of the world! Genetic fallacies and playing to the crowd is not how disagreement between Christians should be handled.. . .

"But the main reason I am addressing this (Jamin is free to respond to criticisms of his own work) is because Steve Hays chose to drag me into this fight since Jamin is one of my contributors. Despite the fact that I have obviously given clear evidence of allowing differing opinions to be expressed even on the blog, and have never, ever asked any of my bloggers to modify or change what they produce personally on their own blogs, Mr. Hays purposefully titled his entry in such a way as to demand my involvement. You do not make reference to "Allahu Akbar and Omega Ministries" and expect me to just smile and sit idly by. I have not invested the past five plus years of my life in the study of Islam so as to allow the name of my ministry to be besmirched in such a cavalier and, quite honestly, silly fashion. In the main body of his entry he concluded with this incredible statement: "Perhaps AOMIN should team up with CAIR, or maybe change its name to Allahu Akbar and Omega Ministries." We all know Hays has a penchant for over-the-top sarcasm, but this isn't even slightly humorous because it is so far removed from reality as to rob it of any weight it might have had. Remember, this is a blog article allegedly about an article that was not even posted at the A&O website. There is obviously no reason for the inclusion of such a statement outside of "I want to stir the pot and start a war." Sad, very sad, in light of how much Steve could be doing that would be very positive and useful (being the bright guy he is). . . .

"It is absurd to accuse Jamin of being a Hamas shill, first of all. Jamin is not "constantly reciting the Hamas narrative." Let's lay that one aside immediately as it is simply not worthy of further discussion. . . .

"It all boils down to this: Steve Hays doesn't like Jamin Hubner, nor his views (that's obvious). So, for some reason, he is now trying to hold me responsible for the views Jamin expresses on his own blog, as if the foundational assumption has to be that everyone who writes for my blog must walk in lock-step with my views on all things. If I will not publicly excoriate Hubner for taking a position Hays finds to be in error (and evidently to be reprehensible), then I am to be criticized for such a failure. Of course, fair minded folks realize that Christians must associate with people who have differing views on all sorts of things for the obvious reason that none of us agree perfectly on all things! If I were to invest the time (which I promise you I will not) to investigate everything Steve Hays has ever written, would I find differences between him and say Jason Engwer, who also writes on Steve's blog? Is there perfect agreement in all things between all people on Triablogue? If not, why the double standard? I am very disappointed that Steve Hays has chosen to go down this path. I think I have explained why he is in error to do so more than clearly enough. I have set the record straight, and I leave it to truth-honoring and truth-loving folks to decide for themselves."    

Hubner: The Questions Never Asked About Israel – Part 3: What Really Happened From WWI to 1922 (9-29-11)

Hays: The Protocols of Anti-Zionism (9-29-11)

Hays: Cross, Crescent, and Star of David (9-29-11)

Hays: Geisler Syndrome (9-29-11)

"If Dr. White can quote where I suggest that Hubner is a shill for Hamas because Hubner has criticized the Dispensational view of modern Israel, he’s welcome to do so. Otherwise, he’s burning a straw man. . . . Jamin is acting exactly like the average CNN reporter . . . Is Hubner a jihadist? No. He’s just a dupe for the jihadists. . . . Wherever possible, Islam tries to suppress Christian expression. And that agenda is facilitated by willing dupes like Hubner. . . . Once again, White is taking the CAIR line. We mustn’t blame all the “good” Muslims for a few “isolated incidents” perpetrated by a fringe group. Unfortunately, White is suffering from Geisler Syndrome. Geisler syndrome is when a mentor automatically covers for his protégé. White constantly faults Norman Geisler because Geisler automatically covers for Ergun Caner.. . . Because Caner isn’t White’s own protégé, White can clearly see the problem with Geisler. But because Hubner is White’s protégé, he lacks the same objectivity in that case. Taken by itself, that’s simply a common human foible. What’s more unfortunate is that in order to defend his protégé, White is now sticking up for “moderate” Islam." 

Combox:

Hays: "Actually, White is now dragging the rest of AOMIN into this issue. What's more, he's playing the "moderate Muslim" card, which undercuts what he's been doing for the past 5 years."

TAO: "I suspect that there is some degree of "talking past each other" going on here, since I get the feeling that Dr. White is starting to think that your position is that "all Muslims inherently hate and want to kill all Jews," which surely is not your intent. Of course, I'm not sure you've expressed what your view is. Perhaps if you did, it would open the door for Dr. White to agree with it."

White: Steve Hays Replies: Well Worth Reading (9-29-11)  

[complete]: "Here is his reply accusing me of doing what Norman Geisler has done in perpetuating the Great Evangelical Cover-up regarding the many myths and lies of Ergun Caner. The ability to not only disregard the obvious meaning of my words, but to stretch to this incredible length, speaks so loudly to the length to which Mr. Hays is willing to go in the prosecution of his case against those he personally dislikes that I truly need to make no further comment. I simply ask the reader to compare what I wrote to his response, see how the substance of my reply was ignored, and that what he does say in response ignores my clear intent and purpose, and make your decision on the basis of the facts. I pray the Lord's blessings on Steve, and on the whole Triablogue team. I simply pray he will recover his balance and seek fairness in his future efforts."

Hays: Trusting the Enemy (10-1-11)

Hays: Geostrategic Morality (10-1-11)

"Since Jamin Hubner lacks the moral discernment to properly frame the Arab-Israeli conflict, we need to walk him through the process."

Hays: Them thar knee-jerk Bahble thumpers (10-1-11)


TAO: Supporting the Arabs With Unsound Arguments (10-1-11)



***

Antidote to William Whitaker's Sola Scriptura Arguments, Part 16: The Protestant Perspective on the Church Fathers

.
.

See the introductory post, New Upcoming Project: Refutation of William Whitaker's Disputation on Holy Scripture on Sola Scriptura.

I am utilizing a copy of the book available at Internet Archive.

Whitaker's words will be in blue. Page numbers will correspond to the above book version.

* * *

Neither in this, nor in any other controversy, can they possibly prevail against us by the scriptures; (p. 565)

Right. I humbly submit that this series demonstrates otherwise; and it is systematically the case that Catholicism is more "biblical" than any form of Protestantism. See, e.g., my "Biblical Evidence" series. Whitaker is confident in his position, as he should be; we are also quite confident in ours, when it comes to biblical evidences for Catholicism.

and therefore they press us as closely as they can with the authority of the fathers. Indeed, even though the fathers were opposed to us, and we could give no answer to the arguments drawn from them, this could inflict no real damage upon our cause, since our faith does not depend upon the fathers, but upon the scriptures. (p. 565)

This is a roundabout way of saying that Protestant is a-historical: it cares not a whit in the final analysis, what fathers (even the apostolic fathers) held about anything. That is glaringly obvious, once one starts seeing what the fathers held on various issues. They are uniformly Catholic in outlook, and not even remotely Protestant. I've shown this over and over in my own apologetics. See my book: The Church Fathers Were Catholic: Patristic Evidences for Catholicism, and Church Fathers web page.

Nevertheless, I am far from approving the opinion of those who think that the testimonies of the fathers should be rejected or despised. Whether we regard then the weakness of our brethren, or the confidence of our adversaries, we should answer these testimonies also, nor deem our pains ill expended upon such a task. However, we must take heed that we do not, with the papists, ascribe too much to the fathers, but use our rights and liberty when we read them; examining all their sayings by the rule of scripture, receiving them when they agree with it, but freely and with their good leave rejecting them whenever they exhibit marks of discrepancy. (p. 565)

In English: "yes, we give lip service to the fathers and act like we respect their teachings -- especially when around papists -- but in the end, we care little what they think, and disagree whenever we as individuals deem that they are too opposed to the Bible. It always comes down to private judgment and the individual." The Protestant system in the final analysis isn't even sola Scriptura, but rather, sola persona.

. . . it may be doubted whether these epistles, which are said to be Ignatius' are his or not. . . . What we should determine about the rest, whether they are Ignatius' or some other writer's, is far from clear . . . (pp. 571-572)

We can give Whitaker a pass for the relative textual ignorance of his time over 400 years ago, but it is still fun to see Protestants disparage the earliest apostolic fathers. Calvin held the same mistaken opinion regarding the letters of St. Ignatius of Antioch (d. c. 110), as I have documented. I wrote in that paper:

A recent book on the apostolic fathers reiterates not only Calvin's, but general Protestant opposition to the authenticity of the seven Ignatian letters now generally accepted:

Catholic scholars generally defended the authenticity of the letters because of the obvious polemical value of Ignatius's early date and emphasis on the monepiscopal form of church structure, while Protestants generally denied their authenticity for similar reasons. . . .

Not until the independent work of Theodor Zahn (1873) and J. B. Lightfoot (1885) was general recognition of the authenticity of the seven letters contained in the middle recension attained. Recent challenges to the current consensus have not altered the situation.

(The Apostolic Fathers, second edition, translated by J. B. Lightfoot and J. R. Harmer, edited and revised by Michael W. Holmes, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1989, p. 83)

Presbyterian W. D. Killen -- following Calvin -- was still opposing the Ignatian epistles as late as 1886. He stated: "Calvin knew that an apostolic man must be acquainted with apostolic doctrine, and he saw that these letters must have been the production of an age when the pure light of Christianity was greatly obscured" (p. 493 ).

Augustine's name stands high in the church, and deservedly: yet we must remember that he was a man, and therefore might err. And although he seems in this place to favour traditions, yet in others he defends the perfection of scripture with the utmost earnestness, as shall afterwards be more conveniently shewn. He was most clearly of opinion, that no dogma ought to be received which does not rest upon scripture. Either, therefore, he here speaks of traditions which are not necessary, or he is at variance with himself. (pp. 605-606)

This is very typical Protestant "patristic posturing" and special pleading, based on the mindset of false dichotomies that is another pervasive error of Protestant thought.  Whitaker is dead-wrong about St. Augustine, as many Protestant scholars can testify. For example:

Augustine's legacy to the middle ages on the question of Scripture and Tradition is a two-fold one. In the first place, he reflects the early Church principle of the coinherence of Scripture and Tradition. While repeatedly asserting the ultimate authority of Scripture, Augustine does not oppose this at all to the authority of the Church Catholic . . . The Church has a practical priority: her authority as expressed in the direction-giving meaning of commovere is an instrumental authority, the door that leads to the fullness of the Word itself.

But there is another aspect of Augustine's thought . . . we find mention of an authoritative extrascriptural oral tradition. While on the one hand the Church "moves" the faithful to discover the authority of Scripture, Scripture on the other hand refers the faithful back to the authority of the Church with regard to a series of issues with which the Apostles did not deal in writing. Augustine refers here to the baptism of heretics . . .

(Heiko Oberman, The Harvest of Medieval Theology, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, revised edition of 1967, 370-371)

Augustine, therefore, manifestly acknowledges a gradual advancement of the church doctrine, which reaches its corresponding expression from time to time through the general councils; but a progress within the truth, without positive error, for in a certain sense, as against heretics, he made the authority of Holy Scripture dependent on the authority of the catholic church, in his famous dictum against the Manichaean heretics: "I would not believe the gospel, did not the authority of the catholic church compel me." . . . The Protestant church makes the authority of the general councils, and of all ecclesiastical tradition, depend on the degree of its conformity to the Holy Scriptures; while the Greek and Roman churches make Scripture and tradition coordinate.

(Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol. III: Nicene and Post-Nicene Christianity: A.D. 311-600, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1974; reproduction of 5th revised edition of 1910, Chapter V, section 66, "The Synodical System. The Ecumenical Councils," pp. 344-345)

See also my papers,

Answers For An Inquiring "Bible Christian" on Bible and Tradition Issues (Particularly St. Augustine's Position)

Reply to Jason Engwer's Catholic But Not Roman Catholic Series on the Church Fathers: Sola Scriptura (An In-Depth Analysis of Ten Church Fathers' Views Pertaining to the Rule of Faith) (vs. Jason Engwer) [section VII. St. Augustine]


***

Antidote to William Whitaker's Sola Scriptura Arguments, Part 15: Is All of Jesus' Teaching and Apostolic Tradition in Scripture? / Authoritative "Necessary" Extra-Biblical Tradition

See the introductory post, New Upcoming Project: Refutation of William Whitaker's Disputation on Holy Scripture on Sola Scriptura.

I am utilizing a copy of the book available at Internet Archive.

Whitaker's words will be in blue. Page numbers will correspond to the above book version.

* * *

The second place of scripture cited by the Jesuit is contained in the last chapter of John, in the closing words, where the evangelist writes thus: "There are also many other things which Jesus did, the which if they should be written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written." Therefore, says Bellarmine, there are many things unwritten, since even a single hand can contain all the books that have been written. I answer, that there are many errors in this argument. Firstly, John does not there speak of Christ's doctrine, but of his acts, that is, of his signs and miracles. For he says, "which Jesus did," . . . not, "which he said." This place is therefore irrelevant to the question before us. For we do not say that all the miracles of Christ were committed to writing, since they were too many and great to be contained in any books: but we affirm that the whole doctrine of Christ, so far as it is necessary to our salvation, is written in these books. To this effect is what we read in John xx. 30, where the evangelist writes thus: "And many other signs did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book." Thus it is manifest, that the evangelist speaks of his signs and miracles, not of his doctrine. Is, then, anything wanting, because his miracles are not all written? By no means: for all Christ's miracles had this scope, to prove the divinity of the Son, to seal his doctrine, and finally, to shed a lustre round his person. Now this "those miracles" which are related in scripture do most evidently; nor could these things be more firmly established, even if all Christ's miracles were described in writing. . . . John here obviates a scruple which some, who prosecuted their inquiries with a greater desire to gratify their curiosity than any prudent care for edification, might raise: did Christ live so long, and yet do nothing more than these things which are related by the evangelists? John answers, that he did many other things, which are not written. Yea, even all the words of Christ are not related one by one severally, but only in general. The second error is no less glaring. All things are not written: therefore, all necessary things are not written. The argument is inconsequential. We confess that all things are not written, but yet contend that all necessary things are written. (pp. 545-546)

There are plenty of Scriptures where Jesus is teaching, where we don't have recorded exactly what He taught. Whitaker somehow believes that none of all of this is "necessary" or a tradition otherwise not present in Scripture (either not at all or not explicitly):

Matthew 4:23 And he went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and preaching the gospel of the kingdom and healing every disease and every infirmity among the people.

Matthew 9:35 And Jesus went about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every disease and every infirmity.

Matthew 26:55 At that hour Jesus said to the crowds, "Have you come out as against a robber, with swords and clubs to capture me? Day after day I sat in the temple teaching, and you did not seize me."

Mark 2:13 He went out again beside the sea; and all the crowd gathered about him, and he taught them. 

Mark 4:33 With many such parables he spoke the word to them, as they were able to hear it;

Mark 6:6 . . . And he went about among the villages teaching.

Mark 6:34 As he went ashore he saw a great throng, and he had compassion on them, because they were like sheep without a shepherd; and he began to teach them many things.

Mark 14:49 "Day after day I was with you in the temple teaching, and you did not seize me. But let the scriptures be fulfilled."

Luke 4:15 And he taught in their synagogues, being glorified by all.


Luke 5:3 . . . And he sat down and taught the people from the boat.

Luke 13:22 He went on his way through towns and villages, teaching, and journeying toward Jerusalem.

Luke 19:47 And he was teaching daily in the temple. . . .

Luke 21:37 And every day he was teaching in the temple, . . .

John 7:14 About the middle of the feast Jesus went up into the temple and taught.

John 8:2 Early in the morning he came again to the temple; all the people came to him, and he sat down and taught them.

John 18:20 Jesus answered him, "I have spoken openly to the world; I have always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where all Jews come together; I have said nothing secretly." 

If even some -- even a tiny portion -- of all this unknown teaching was passed down in apostolic tradition, the Catholic view is established and the Protestant sola Scriptura position overthrown; for Whitaker's view requires that there be no teaching whatsoever necessary to salvation present in non-biblical traditions. That's a pretty tough hill to climb.


The third passage of scripture cited by the Jesuit is from the beginning of Acts i. [1:2-3], where Luke writes that Christ conversed with his disciples during forty days after his resurrection, and said many things to them, and taught them many things concerning the kingdom of heaven. Then, doubtless, says Bellarmine, Christ told his disciples what he would not tell them before; as, for instance, concerning the sacrifice of the mass, the institution of the sacraments, the ordination of ministers, etc. etc., which they delivered to the church. I answer: I readily confess that the apostles did deliver, with the utmost fidelity, to the church what they had received from Christ. But I can perceive no consequential force in this argument. For how will he prove the very thing which he makes the basis of his reasoning, — that it was his traditions which Christ taught at that time? He says that this is undoubtedly true. But we cannot take his assertion for an argument: we want reasons, not asseverations. (pp. 547-548)

It's true that Bellarmine's argument here (at least how Whitaker presents it: assuming that is even accurate) is not a proof. It's a plausible speculation. Perhaps he over-argued it a bit. But then, so is Whitaker's argument.  It's an argument from plausibility on both sides (thus the discussion is about comparative plausibility), but I would contend that it is far more likely that there were legitimate (technically) "non-biblical" apostolic traditions contained in all these unknown teachings, than that no such traditions were present (a universal negative, which is extremely difficult to establish or posit at all, let alone prove).

Now where is the consequence in this reasoning? Christ, after his resurrection, often conversed with his disciples, (not indeed conversing with them constantly, but at intervals . . . and it is plain from John xx. 26, that he was for eight days together absent from the disciples,) and spake unto them many things concerning the kingdom of God: therefore, he delivered to them those things which are not written. I confess that Christ said many things about the kingdom, but of the popish traditions not a word. (p. 548)

Now, how could Whitaker possibly know (with such apparent certainty) that Jesus spoke "not a word" of any distinctive Catholic teaching, during these forty days, and during all the unspecified teachings that He gave during His earthly life? Of course he has no basis whatsoever for asserting such an absurd thing; but he has made it a fine art, arguing for perfectly groundless and ridiculous things, throughout his book, so yet another of the innumerable instances ought not surprise us at all.

We shall much better understand what it was he said, by consulting the scriptures, so that we have no ground for inventing any unwritten verities. (p. 548)

We have even less than no ground for asserting a universal negative: that not one word of all this unknown material has the slightest fragrance of "Catholic" in it.

From Matt, xxviii., Mark xvi., John xx. and xxi., Luke xxiv., and Acts i., we may gather the nature of his discourses. He expounded to them the scriptures; he gave them authority to cast out devils, to retain and remit sins; he attested his resurrection to them; he bade them preach the gospel to all nations, and said other things of the same kind, which we can read in scripture, so that we have no need of such conjectures as the papists rely upon in this question. (p. 548)

Of course, we can learn from all the instances of teaching, where the content appears in Scripture. It doesn't follow, however, that therefore Jesus could have never taught anything in addition to what we have in the Bible. It's simply wishful thinking to claim that this is the case. It's an example of the usual Protestant polemical mentality: "x [something Catholic] simply can't possibly be [because we don't want it to be]; therefore it is not." But this is an exercise of prejudice and foregone, predetermined conclusions, not reason.

I (and most Catholics) agree with Whitaker that all that is necessary for salvation is in Scripture (in some form or other); i.e., material sufficiency. I do not agree that all of apostolic tradition whatsoever is in Scripture, let alone necessarily in Scripture. I am disputing the latter view, not the former.

The second testimony of scripture cited by the Jesuit is taken from certain words of the apostle, in 1 Cor. xi., where Paul handles two questions, — one concerning the manner of prayer, the other concerning the mode of receiving the eucharist. He commences (says Bellarmine) both from tradition. (p. 548)

Remember that Whitaker (as we have seen before) assumes that the Eucharist is not necessary to salvation. In other words, he assumes the usual relatively indifferent, symbolic Eucharist. Our Lord Jesus teaches the exact opposite: that partaking of the Eucharist (His flesh and blood) is directly connected with salvation and the attainment of eternal life

John 6:50-58 This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die. [51] I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh." [52] The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" [53] So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; [54] he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. [55] For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. [56] He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. [57] As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. [58] This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever." 

St. Paul in 1 Corinthians also strongly alludes to the bodily presence of Jesus in the Eucharist (11:27; cf. 10:16), and (possibly) to loss of salvation insofar as one rejects the Holy Eucharist (11:28-31). In the previous chapter Paul teaches about the Sacrifice of the Mass (10:17-21).

But let us grant that necessary doctrine is here denoted by the term tradition; and indeed, for my own part, I think that the whole teaching delivered by the apostle is meant, . . . he speaks of the whole sum of his teaching, wherein some things were necessary and perpetual, some things left free, which (specifically, though not generally) might be altered and changed. (p. 549)

Whitaker smuggles in unproven assumptions: he goes right back to his non-established premise that traditions only have to do with unimportant, non-necessary things. If anything necessary is in tradition, Whitaker holds (without any biblical support) that it must also have been recorded in Scripture. Then he makes a logical mistake (in relation to the coherence of his own position) of granting that Paul may be referring in part to some necessary tradition (alongside non-necessary).

This grants too much to the Catholic position, since Whitaker's task is to prove that no traditions can be necessary ones. He had just argued the latter concept a page or two before, but now concedes what earlier he had disputed; either not being aware that he has done so, or hoping that his readers won't notice that he has backed off of his original contention, under the pressure of clear biblical counter-example (1 Corinthians 11).

Paul is, as usual, very straightforward, and doesn't appear to make the serious qualifications that Whitaker reads into his statements. He writes: "I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Cor 11:2), and "I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you . . ." (1 Cor 11:23). Whitaker is quite willing to apply his own arbitrary, unwritten, non-biblical tradition of men to the text of Holy Scripture itself: all the while virtually condemning the very notion of tradition.

What then follows from all this? We confess that the whole doctrine of the apostle was not then written, when that epistle to the Corinthians was written: does it follow from this that it is not even now written? Surely, by no force of this place or argument. We allow, indeed, that all things were not written immediately; but we say that afterwards, when all the sacred books were published, all things were abundantly contained in them. If, then, this place be understood of doctrine, we say that it is now fully written, although it was not so then. . . . (p. 549)

It's incredible how Whitaker can make these absolutely groundless assertions. Scripture nowhere asserts that all traditions would "afterwards" be written in Scripture. Yet somehow he believes this, because, well, he has to: by the illogical demands of his false sola Scriptura position. He'll pull anything out of thin air; a rabbit out of a hat, in the service of his own tradition of man. Yet at the same time he'll condemn Catholics, the minute they utter anything that can't be proven in the most explicit detail from the Bible.

Thus we see the papists have no grounds for "justly thinking" that it is their traditions which the apostle here tacitly implies. But mark, upon what a noble foundation rest the popish dogmas, and those not the slighter ones, but the most weighty of all, the sacrifice of the altar, the form and matter of the sacraments; . . . This is to suspect, to guess, to wish; not to believe, to prove, to argue. Teach, shew, demonstrate to me, that these things were instituted by Paul. — You cannot do it, and you own you cannot do it. (p. 551)

Detailing biblical evidence for all seven sacraments is too much of an aside to fully delve into here, so I'll refer interested readers to the abundance of biblical evidence detailed in many papers on my Baptism and Sacramentalism index page.Likewise, for articles about biblical support for the Mass, see the appropriate section in my Eucharist and Sacrifice of the Mass index page. Whitaker says we can't trace the Mass to Paul. I say we certainly can (right in 1 Corinthians 10), and that I myself have done so, and that he is full of hot air.

The Jesuit's third testimony is taken from 2 Thess. ii. 15, where the apostle says, . . . "Therefore, brethren, stand fast," hold firm, keep your ground, . . . and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by our word or epistle." From these words, say our adversaries, it is plain that all things are not written: and indeed the papists find no more plausible passage than this in scripture. I reply: Various answers are given to this testimony. Some suppose that Paul speaks only of certain external rites and ceremonies of no great moment: but the scope of the epistle and the context refutes that opinion. For Paul, having mentioned the horrible devastation which was to be occasioned by the coming of antichrist, immediately subjoins, "Stand fast, and hold the traditions, etc." Therefore his doctrine is rather to be understood as designated by the term 'traditions.' The apostle Paul had founded the church of the Thessalonians, and had both taught them orally, and written an epistle to them. Now, therefore, he exhorts them to hold fast his whole teaching, as well what he had when present delivered by word of mouth, as what he had committed to writing. So that some things were delivered in discourse orally, and others written in an epistle. Does not then this place establish traditions? Nay, our writers have returned a twofold answer to this testimony. First, that the things which Paul delivered orally were not different from, but absolutely the same with, those which were written. (pp. 551-552)

The proposed "explanation" in the last sentence is the same utterly groundless, special pleading non-answer that Whitaker has given over and over. It doesn't become any more true by repeating it (the way that mere propaganda succeeds). If it is groundless stated once, it is, stated a thousand times. He never proves it from Scripture itself, and failing that, he has no case whatever that it is true, or should be held by anyone even tentatively, let alone dogmatically, and as a foundation for an entire false system of sola Scriptura.

Paul in this place [2 Thessalonians] mentions both traditive and written teaching, and that justly considering the time: but we have now more books than those Thessalonians had; and therefore it does not follow that all necessary things are not found in the canon as now published. (p. 553)

Same old same old . . . It's funny how it always seems that in Protestant polemics the very weakest arguments are repeated the most.

The Jesuit answers, in the second place, that, even though it were conceded that all is written in other books, yet this would be no objection to believing in traditions also. For (says he) the apostle does not say, I promise that I or the other apostles will commit all the rest to writing, but, "hold the traditions." I answer; Although Paul had never written or made such a promise, does it follow that all the rest were not written by other apostles? (p. 554)

Not necessarily, no, but the contrary opinion (Whitaker's) is a very weak argument from silence, with no positive proof. If Whitaker chides us when we have no absolute proof for something, then he must take his own medicine and concede when he himself does what he condemns.

By no means. For they wrote according as they were commanded by the Holy Ghost. We confess that many things are found in other scriptures, which were not then committed to writing, concerning the birth, death, resurrection, future advent of Christ, and the whole mystery of our redemption by him accomplished. These things the apostle enjoins to be held no less than any of those which he had himself written, because no less necessary in themselves. How does he prove to us that, if these had been then fully, yea, abundantly set forth in writing, the apostle would have made any mention of traditions? (p. 554)

This is an example of a hypothetical that can't be proven either way. Both sides have to work with what we hold and revere in common: Holy Scripture

But it was because he knew that these things had not yet been written, that he admonished the Thessalonians to hold fast the traditions. (p. 554)

Assuming what he is trying to prove . . .  It's clever that Whitaker doesn't deny that traditions exist (he can scarcely do so, given all the biblical indication), but rather, plays all these hypothetical games, pretending they are solid arguments when they are not at all. The main point: that traditions exist and that they are authoritative, is rather plainly established in Holy Scripture. The only way for Whitaker to escape this is to come up with the silly view that all such authoritative traditions had to later be "inscripturated." It's one of the classic Protestant non-arguments: typical of the entire debate over sola Scriptura.

The third place cited by the Jesuit in this fourth testimony is contained in 2 Tim. ii. 2, where Paul thus addresses Timothy: "Those things which thou hast heard of me before many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to instruct others also." These (says Bellarmine) must needs be understood of traditions; for if the apostle had meant the scripture, he would not have said, "what thou hast heard of me before many witnesses," but, what I have written. I answer: Bravely reasoned! The apostle in these words commends sound doctrine to Timothy, and that no other than what is contained in the scriptures. (p. 557)

The same circular reasoning again . . . it is its own refutation.

  

But, in the meanwhile, let Bellarmine shew the consequence of his argument: "What thou hast heard of me commit to faithful men: therefore these things can nowhere be found in scripture." (p. 557)

Here Whitaker constructs a ludicrous straw man. To hold that not all things are in Scripture is not the same as saying that nothing one believes is in Scripture, or that particular things referred to are not.

The Jesuit's fifth testimony is taken from 2 John, verse 12, where John writes thus: "Having many things to write unto you, I would not write with paper and ink; but I trust shortly to see you, and to speak with you face to face, that our joy may be full:" and from 3 John, verses 13 and 14, where he writes in almost the same words: "I have many things to write, but will not write unto you with ink and pen; but I hope to see you shortly, and to speak with you face to face." Therefore, says Bellarmine, John said many things to the disciples which are nowhere found in the scriptures. I answer: I confess that all things are not found in those very brief epistles of John; but are all necessary things therefore not found in the rest of the books of scripture, numerous and large as they are? (p. 558)

Again: the Catholic argument is not necessarily against material sufficiency of Scripture. Our argument is a different notion: that  there is such a thing as authoritative extrabiblical tradition. Both can be held together with no contradiction. Whitaker neglects this distinction, so he thinks (in the usual Protestant dichotomous mode) that every time he mentions the material sufficiency of Scripture for salvation, he therefore refutes all notions of tradition. This is not the case. It's also true that not all things that are necessary to hold in the Christian faith (as part of apostolic tradition) are necessarily tied to salvation.

Let them deliver likewise doctrines according to the scriptures, and we will receive their traditions. (p. 561)

Exactly! Sola Scriptura is nowhere taught or found in Scripture. Whitaker hasn't established this, with all the effort he puts forth. Therefore, we Catholics reject it: as an unbiblical, non-biblical, anti-biblical tradition of men.



***

Fabulous and Insightful Visual Satire on the Folly of Denominationalism

This comes from a great humorous site called St Thomas the Doubter Church (posted on 9-15-11). Whoever came up with this has definitely been around and has observed firsthand various Christian circles, because his analysis is absolutely spot-on. Click on the image to get a larger version. Enjoy!


***

Antidote to William Whitaker's Sola Scriptura Arguments, Part 14: The Nature of Tradition(s), the Immaculate Conception; Gregory the Great and Nicaea II on Images

See the introductory post, New Upcoming Project: Refutation of William Whitaker's Disputation on Holy Scripture on Sola Scriptura.

I am utilizing a copy of the book available at Internet Archive.

Whitaker's words will be in blue. Page numbers will correspond to the above book version.

* * *

Here we have to inquire, whether the scripture contained in the books of the old and new Testaments comprehend a full and perfect body of teaching, or whether unwritten traditions are requisite to complete this necessary doctrine. In this place, therefore, we have to dispute against the popish traditions, about which they are no less anxious than about the scriptures themselves, which they defend with the most eager vehemence, and in which they repose much greater confidence than in the scriptures. (p. 496)

We observe for the thousandth time the usual false dichotomy. Unable to comprehend that the authority of Scripture - Church - Tradition as a "three-legged stool" is upheld by Scripture itself, Whitaker must distort the Catholic (biblical, historical, patristic) view and pretend that we place tradition "much" higher than the Bible. The same thing occurs in the discussion about faith. Since we dare to talk about works organically connected with faith, just as St. Paul incessantly does, we are falsely accused, of course, of believing in works salvation and of being Pelagians.

This is because the classic Protestant mind cannot comprehend biblical paradox and the harmony of all things in Scripture. In the final analysis, faith and works are no more opposed in Scripture than tradition and Scripture are. But when folks start thinking in terms of dichotomy, then it is pretended that opposition exists where there is none. Human traditions trump biblical truth once again.

Assuredly they do find more support in them than in the scriptures. These traditions they call divine, sacred, holy, apostolic, and ecclesiastical; but we style them human, secret, obscure, silent, unwritten. (pp. 496-497)

More dichotomies. Of course, there is indeed such a thing as merely human traditions (ones that oppose true doctrine); we see many of these in Protestantism. Sola Scriptura is one. Faith alone is another; denominations yet another; likewise, a symbolic Eucharist and a baptism devoid of regeneration. All false Protestant doctrines are traditions of men. And there is an altogether true, apostolic tradition, as the Bible frequently alludes to. But for Whitaker, "tradition" seems to be altogether a "dirty word" -- pure and simple. That is simply not a biblical worldview, as I have shown in this series and will continue to demonstrate.

The latter tradition (that there are four gospels and no more) does not rest merely upon unwritten teaching: for the books themselves indicate that they were written by divine inspiration; (p. 502)

But that tells us exactly nothing about whether there are four gospels or not.

and if these men seek to obtrude upon us more gospels, such gospels we can refute out of the scriptures. (p. 502)

How would one go about doing that? In the end, the canon was determined by tradition and Church authority. There is no way out of it. This has always been a thorny difficulty for the sola Scriptura position. I think it was the anti-Catholic Presbyterian luminary R. C. Sproul who was honest enough to admit that Protestants are necessarily left with a "fallible collection of infallible books."

But the papists affirm that the church can now prescribe some new article of faith, which had not been esteemed in former ages as a necessary dogma. That the virgin Mary was conceived without original sin, was formerly thought a free opinion, not a necessary part of faith: . . . But, at present, it is not permitted amongst papists to retain the ancient liberty of opinion upon this subject; and he is hardly deemed a catholic, who ascribes any even the slightest taint of sin to Mary. The university of Paris admits no one to any of the higher degrees in divinity, who does not solemnly swear both that he believes that Mary was conceived in immaculate purity, and that he will constantly persevere in the assertion of the spotless conception of the virgin. So Canus informs us, Lib. i. c. 7 (de Maria Deipara Virgine); which custom he says is also received and tenaciously adhered to in Spain and in other popish universities. This then is at the present day one great article of the popish faith; and it is a new article, because no such formerly was publicly received. (pp. 504-505)

Note that the Immaculate Conception of Mary is (rather fascinatingly) described as a view considered to be binding among Catholics. Whitaker's book was written in 1588. This is proof from a hostile witness that there are varying levels of infallible authority in Catholicism short of ex cathedra definition (which in this instance occurred in 1854). Less informed anti-Catholics will argue that the Immaculate Conception was invented out of whole cloth in the 19th century. It's not so. I have shown the same about the doctrine of papal infallibility, as reported by St. Francis de Sales in roughly the same time period (it was defined ex cathedra in 1870). This has to do with slow development of doctrine and the deliberation of centuries on doctrines. Likewise, the doctrines of the Holy Trinity and of Christology developed for several centuries in the early Church.

The fourth rule is not more certain than the rest, and is to this effect: When the doctors of the church, whether assembled in council, or writing it in their books, affirm something to have descended from apostolical authority, it is to be held apostolical. He gives, as an example of the former sort, that the fathers assembled in the second council of Nice taught the worship of images to be an apostolical tradition. . . . For Gregory the great, in the ninth Epistle of his seventh book of Epistles 3, says that, although images should not be broken, yet the people should be carefully taught and admonished not to worship them; as, indeed, many churches to this day retain images, but worship them not. However, it is much more prudent and safe to remove them altogether. Thus the worship of images is not an apostolic, but an antichristian tradition, if we believe pope Gregory the first. (p. 509)

Whitaker distorts what was decreed, and Gregory's opinions. What was sanctioned was veneration of images, not worship of them in the sense of adoration (reserved for God alone). Thus, Gregory defends the same thing. He wrote to an iconoclast bishop, Serenus of Marseilles, who had had images destroyed:

For indeed it had been reported to us that, inflamed with inconsiderate zeal, you had broken images of saints, as though under the plea that they ought not to be adored . And indeed in that you forbade them to be adored, we altogether praise you; but we blame you for having broken them. Say, brother, what priest has ever been heard of as doing what you have done? If nothing else, should not even this thought have restrained you, so as not to despise other brethren, supposing yourself only to be holy and wise? For to adore a picture is one thing, but to learn through the story of a picture what is to be adored is another. For what writing presents to readers, this a picture presents to the unlearned who behold, since in it even the ignorant see what they ought to follow; in it the illiterate read. Hence, and chiefly to the nations , a picture is instead of reading. And this ought to have been attended to especially by you who livest among the nations, lest, while inflamed inconsiderately by a right zeal, you should breed offense to savage minds. And, seeing that antiquity has not without reason admitted the histories of saints to be painted in venerable places, if you had seasoned zeal with discretion, you might undoubtedly have obtained what you were aiming at, and not scattered the collected flock, but rather gathered together a scattered one; that so the deserved renown of a shepherd might have distinguished you, instead of the blame of being a scatterer lying upon you. But from having acted inconsiderately on the impulse of your feelings you are said to have so offended your children that the greatest part of them have suspended themselves from your communion.

(Epistles, Book XI, Letter 13)

Furthermore we notify to you that it has come to our ears that your Fraternity, seeing certain adorers of images, broke and threw down these same images in Churches. And we commend you indeed for your zeal against anything made with hands being an object of adoration; but we signify to you that you ought not to have broken these images. For pictorial representation is made use of in Churches for this reason; that such as are ignorant of letters may at least read by looking at the walls what they cannot read in books. Your Fraternity therefore should have both preserved the images and prohibited the people from adoration of them, to the end that both those who are ignorant of letters might have wherewith to gather a knowledge of the history, and that the people might by no means sin by adoration of a pictorial representation.

(Epistles, Book IX, Letter 105)

There is no contradiction here. Both the council and the pope upheld veneration but not idolatrous adoration of images. Gregory the Great was also a great advocate of devotion to relics (even more objectionable to Protestants than images):

[W]e have handed over, according to your Excellency’s request, with the reverence due to them, certain relics of the blessed apostles Peter and Paul. But, that laudable and religious devotion may be more and more conspicuous among you, you must see that these benefits of the saints be deposited with reverence and due honour, . . .

(Epistle L. To Queen Brunichild, Queen of the Franks; NPNF 2, Vol. XII)

Here is what the Second Council of Nicaea (787) decreed about veneration of images and icons, according to Protestant Church historian Philip Schaff:

The Nicene Council nullified the decrees of the iconoclastic Synod of Constantinople, and solemnly sanctioned a limited worship (proskynesis) of images.

Under images were understood the sign of the cross, and pictures of Christ, of the Virgin Mary, of angels and saints. They may be drawn in color or composed of Mosaic or formed of other suitable materials, and placed in churches, in houses, and in the street, or made on walls and tables, sacred vessels and vestments. Homage may be paid to them by kissing, bowing, strewing of incense, burning of lights, saying prayers before them; such honor to be intended for the living objects in heaven which the images represented. The Gospel book and the relics of martyrs were also mentioned among the objects of veneration.

The decree was fortified by a few Scripture passages about the Cherubim (Ex. 25:17–22; Ezek. 41:1, 15, 19; Heb. 9:1–5), and a large number of patristic testimonies,. . . 


(History of the Christian Church, Vol. IV, Ch. X, § 102. The Restoration of Image-Worship by the Seventh OecumenicalCouncil, 787)

Schaff informs the reader of the important fact of the Greek term used (proskynesis). This has a biblical pedigree. So does use of images in worship. The ancient Hebrews utilized the pillar of cloud as a worship tool (to worship God, not a cloud):

Exodus 33:8-10 (RSV) Whenever Moses went out to the tent, all the people rose up, and every man stood at his tent door, and looked after Moses, until he had gone into the tent. [9] When Moses entered the tent, the pillar of cloud would descend and stand at the door of the tent, and the LORD would speak with Moses. [10] And when all the people saw the pillar of cloud standing at the door of the tent, all the people would rise up and worship, every man at his tent door. [see more on this; cf. 2 Kings 19:14-15; 1 Chronicles 16:1-2, 4]

Joshua prayed to God using the devotional aid of the ark of the covenant:

Joshua 7:6-7 Then Joshua rent his clothes, and fell to the earth upon his face before the ark of the LORD until the evening, he and the elders of Israel; and they put dust upon their heads. [7] And Joshua said, "Alas, O Lord GOD, why hast thou brought this people over the Jordan at all, to give us into the hands of the Amorites, to destroy us? Would that we had been content to dwell beyond the Jordan!"

See also my paper: Explicit Biblical Evidence for the Veneration of Angels and Men as Direct Representatives of God for much more along these lines. Also, for a great historical treatment, see: History of the Iconoclastic (Image Breaking) Heresy (Phil Porvaznik). Where Whitaker sees conflict, there is none, neither in fathers and councils, nor in Catholic teaching, in relation to biblical revelation. According to the Bible and Catholic tradition, veneration of images is good and to be encouraged. But Whitaker (in fine Protestant anti-traditional form) knows better: "it is much more prudent and safe to remove them altogether."

We say, in the first place, that every thing which the apostles either taught or did is not contained in the books of the old and new Testaments. We allow besides, that Christ said and did many things which are not written. Out of twelve apostles seven wrote nothing, who yet orally taught, and did many things in many places; for they were commanded to go into all the world, and preach the gospel to all nations: which command they sedulously performed. Indeed, it is plain from the last chapter of John, that all the things which Christ did are not committed to writing. (p. 513)

This is a significant admission, that allows the door of tradition to open wide indeed. Yet in every particular, Whitaker will back away from it. His view is ultimately incoherent.

But we say that all things that are necessary, whether they regard either faith or practice, are plainly and abundantly explained in the scriptures. (p. 513)

Yet sola Scriptura (the very subject of his book) is not (it's not found at all; I contend); nor is sola fide (faith alone). And these are the two infamous "pillars" of the so-called "Reformation." Ironies and radical inconsistencies always abound whenever a Protestant condemns traditions (actually or allegedly) not found in the Bible.

Hence we say that the sum of our religion is written, being precisely the same as the teaching of those apostles who wrote nothing. For those who wrote not taught absolutely the same gospel as those who wrote: all preached the same Christ, and the same gospel, and the same way of salvation. (p. 513)

But that is a bald assumption with no proof. It is basically believed in faith, but is not consistent with the Protestant outlook against extrabiblical tradition. This is more akin to Catholic thought (same Christ, same gospel), though Whitaker seems to be unaware of that as he writes it.

Although indeed the precise words which they spoke are not extant, yet, as far as the thing itself and subject-matter is concerned, that same unwritten preaching of the apostles is found in scripture: all the words, indeed, of Peter, John and the rest, are not written down, yet the substance of that teaching which those apostles delivered is found in the scriptures. (pp. 513-514)

Catholics agree that unwritten tradition is harmonious with Scripture (same in substance); we deny, however, that it is identical to it and never goes beyond it, in content. This is the present disagreement. It seems rather obvious that the apostles were not "Scripture machines" whose every word was either Scripture or the same exact thoughts that are found in Scripture. The latter notion can't be proven and is an unsubstantiated assumption: yet another tradition of men. It certainly isn't taught in Scripture. Protestants simply "came up with" it because they can't comprehend or imagine an extrabiblical authentic Christian tradition (even though sola Scriptura is exactly that: it is in fact extrabiblical, but they erroneously regard it as authentic "biblical" teaching).

Thus, although Christ said and did many things which are not written, yet the sum of all Christ's words and works is consigned in the monuments of scripture. . . . although every single thing they said and did be not written (for which no books would have been sufficient), yet nothing necessary hath been omitted; and, when the chief heads and doctrines are written so clearly, it might be said with perfect truth that all is written. He who compares these unwritten things with the written, does only in other words praise the written teaching. (p. 514)

None of this can be proven at all; Scripture never states any of this. It's special pleading of the worst and most insubstantial sort. Whitaker simply grabbed it out of thin air. Therefore, it is itself an unbiblical tradition, and for the Protestant, such utterances carry no infallible authority; thus, Whitaker cuts the limb off that he was sitting on.

But if he [Bellarmine] mean under the term expressly to include what is inferred and deduced by necessary argument from the scriptures, we accept his statement. For if that which is directly laid down in scripture be true, then that also which is deduced from it by necessary consequence must needs be true also. (p. 514)

This is not unlike a statement of material sufficiency of Scripture, that I and many Catholics wholeheartedly accept. That is: all Christian, Catholic doctrines can be found in Scripture, explicitly, implicitly, or deduced from same. And all Catholic doctrines are certainly harmonious with Scripture. My apologetics career has this very emphasis.

Thus, to comprise the whole matter in a few words, we say that all things appertaining to faith and morals may be learned and derived from scripture, so as that traditions are in no way requisite. (p. 515)

This is exactly why I vigorously reject sola Scriptura, sola fide, denominationalism, symbolic-only sacraments, and other false Protestant doctrines.




***

Antidote to William Whitaker's Sola Scriptura Arguments, Part 13: More Logically Circular Subjectivism and "Co-Opting" the Holy Spirit as the Supposed "Final Judge" for All Interpretation Disputes

See the introductory post, New Upcoming Project: Refutation of William Whitaker's Disputation on Holy Scripture on Sola Scriptura.

I am utilizing a copy of the book available at Internet Archive.

Whitaker's words will be in blue. Page numbers will correspond to the above book version.

* * *

His fourth and last argument is drawn from the reason of the thing. God, says he, was not ignorant that there would be in his church at all times many controversies and difficult questions concerning the faith. Therefore he would not have well provided in things necessary for his church, if he had not established and left to it some judge of those controversies. But God hath excellently well provided for his church always, especially in respect of things necessary. Therefore he hath left some judge. I answer; God hath, indeed, left his church a judge; but the question now is, who is that judge? upon which a controversy is raised between us and the papists. We say that the judge is the Holy Spirit speaking in the scriptures. (pp. 444-445)

Now we're back to radical subjectivism and the resulting endless divisions again. Each party claims to be following the Holy Spirit, but they don't agree. The truth is not various and self-contradictory. Therefore, one party or both in a disagreement must be teaching falsehood, which is from the devil, not God. But how do we decide who is right? We can't appeal to Scripture (under Protestant assumptions) because each claimed to have a direct line to the Holy Spirit, and already did so. That doesn't resolve it.  We can't appeal to an infallible Church guided by the Holy Spirit, whose duty it is to guard a sacred deposit passed-down, because that is precisely what Protestantism rejected. So there is no solution. It is talking a good game, with the result being chaos and confusion and lots of people being taught falsehood (and having it called truth).

But the Jesuit draws up three assertions upon this subject. First, he says that this judge is not some spirit of private revelation. I answer; We concede this. The authority of such a spirit is secret, hidden and private; but the judge sought should possess a public, open, and universally notorious authority. (p. 445)

But that can't possibly be the Church! That would never do! He precludes as a possibility the only thing that can reasonably offer a solution to his literally mindless, viciously circular subjectivism.

Secondly, the Jesuit affirms that this judge is no secular prince. I answer: We concede this also. For we ascribe the supreme decision solely to the scripture and the Holy Spirit; . . . (p. 445)

Oh, that makes a lot of sense, for an Anglican, of all persons to state: the system that made the king the head of the Church, with the result being a wholesale slaughter of Catholics who dared to disagree with his opinions, on pain of treason, hanging, drawing, and quartering (hearts savagely cut out of live persons, intestines slowly drawn out, to prolong agony), women being crushed under rocks, etc. (see many documented examples).

Apparently, Whitaker feels no compunction to avoid saying anything whatever that sounds good, no matter how obviously non-factual or logically absurd it is. All for the "cause" . . . I guess since Henry VIII, Queen Elizabeth et al were the head of the Anglican "Church" then all their despicable persecuting actions were all led by the Holy Spirit. And it started (as we all know) because the butcher Henry VIII couldn't keep his size 60 waist red velvet robe on . . . very spiritual stuff, and a bit much to be suffered in a comparative analysis such as this.

. . . we say that the scripture itself publicly set forth and propounded is its own interpreter. (p. 445)

Scripture teaches that it is not (as shown in previous installments); therefore, if the Bible itself informs us that it needs an authoritative interpreter, then the position that Whitaker stakes out necessary collapses. His is a mere tradition of men without support in Scripture; ours is the scriptural one: always accepting biblical teachings as authoritative: not just when they are congenial to our prior biases and conceptions.

I answer: Scripture, as we have already said, hath one simple meaning, which may be clearly gathered also from the scriptures themselves: and although the scripture hath not voice and speech like a man, yet does it speak plainly as a law; and God himself speaks in the scripture, and scripture is on that account styled the word of God. With no less certainty, therefore, may we elicit a true meaning from scripture, than if God himself were to address us with an audible voice. Do we then desire a better judge and interpreter than God himself? He who reads the letter of a friend, does he fail to understand his friend's meaning, because the letter itself does not speak, or because he does not actually hear his friend speaking to him? No man in his senses would say that. Since the scriptures, then, are as it were a letter sent to us from God, we can from them understand the will of God, although they do not speak to us. "The heavens" (says the prophet, Ps. xix.)" declare the glory of God;" and yet they speak not: the scriptures have a yet more glorious and distinct utterance. (pp. 445-446)

Here is a prime example of Whitaker expressing a view that is almost purely "non-biblical" and a mere tradition of men. The only scriptural support is psalm 19, mentioned at the end, but that is hardly compelling for his particular purpose. So why should we believe him, even granting his own sola Scriptura false assumptions? Whitaker is more fun when he actually attempts an exegetical argument (something that is not a strong suit of his). Then at least we have something objective that we can wrangle over, and actually get somewhere with third-party observers. The way Whitaker often argues is the equivalent of, "I like vanilla ice cream; therefore, it is definitely the best ice cream flavor!" Who can rationally argue with that? Yet this is what he does with the Holy Spirit, Who is smuggled in as a pretense and supposed support for every contradictory human opinion.

Whitaker "reasons": "if the heavens declare the glory of God, surely it follows that men en masse can interpret  the [gratuitous, unproven premise] self-interpreting Holy Scripture without the necessary aid of an authoritative teaching Church." Anyone who thinks that the latter proposition follows from the former is, I submit, truly beyond rational discussion. Professor Kingsfield (John Houseman) of the old TV series, The Paper Chase (that I love) talked about "skulls full of mush" that he would mold into lawyers' minds. Whitaker gives us "exegesis full of mush." It's like trying to grab and dissect a cloud or a fragrance. No one can do it! It is outside the purview of reason from the outset.

Yea, unless that inward persuasion of the Holy Spirit be superinduced, the mind can never securely and resolutely acquiesce in any interpretation. . . . Our opinion is, that the supreme decision and authority in the interpretation of scripture should not be ascribed to the church, but to the scripture itself, and to the Holy Spirit, as well speaking plainly in the scriptures as also secretly confirming the same in our hearts. (p. 447)

More subjective mush . . . but Whitaker claims to have "some arguments" in favor of this, so let's see what he comes up with (and I am especially interested in biblical arguments).

For if scripture cannot otherwise be known but by scripture and the Holy Spirit, which was the conclusion we have arrived at already, in the third question; then certainly neither should we seek the sense of scripture from any other source than from scripture and the Holy Spirit speaking in scripture. For the sense of scripture is the scripture itself. (p. 447)

This is an absolutely classic, textbook illustration of circular reasoning; also known as "begging the question." The only good thing about it is that Whitaker at least realizes that sola Scriptura requires internal verification from Scripture for its essential principles. So far he has come up with nothing; a big zero. He keeps presenting the same recycled fluff over and over; it would be superfluous and boring to recount the innumerable instances in his book. But hope springs eternal. The Detroit Lions, after all, may win the Super Bowl one day. Likewise, before I die, I may actually witness a cogent, coherent, biblical argument for sola Scriptura. The universe could also come to an end tomorrow, or the Second Coming occur. Anything is possible! So we barge ahead, with that fervent hope, seeing what ol' Whitaker can give us.

Finally, councils, fathers, popes, are men; and scripture testifies that all men are deceitful. How then shall I acquiesce in their sentence? (pp. 449-450)

Finally, William Whitaker is a man; and scripture testifies that all men are deceitful. How then shall I acquiesce in his relentlessly eisegetical and logically bankrupt defense of sola Scriptura?

For I believe what God says to be true, because he says it, and seek no other reason; but when I hear scripture saying that "all men are liars," I dare not ascribe so much to man, lest I make him equal to God. (p. 450)

For I believe what God says to be true, because he says it, and seek no other reason; but when I hear scripture saying that "all men are liars," I dare not ascribe so much to William Whitaker's lies about Scripture and the rule of faith, lest I make him equal to God.



***

Clarification Regarding Calvin's Remarks on Public Repentance and "Symbolic" Absolution

[John Calvin] I will speak briefly of the rite of the early Church, . . . By the order observed in public repentance, those who had performed the satisfactions imposed upon them were reconciled by the formal laying on of hands. This was the symbol of absolution by which the sinner himself regained his confidence of pardon before God, and the Church was admonished to lay aside the remembrance of the offence, and kindly receive him into favour. . . . I consider that ancient observance of which Cyprian speaks to have been holy and salutary to the Church, and I could wish it restored in the present day. (Institutes, IV, 19:14)

[found in my paper, The "Catholic" John Calvin: 50 Areas Where His Views Are Harmonious With Catholic Teaching,  #49, and in my book, Biblical Catholic Answers for John Calvin, p. 388]

I simply presented this as evidence of common ground, as far as it goes. Perhaps it is necessary to look at the larger context in my own papers and books, to clarify what I was doing here. Note the title of the paper where I used this quotation (and especially the use of quotation marks):
The "Catholic" John Calvin: 50 Areas Where His Views Are Harmonious With Catholic Teaching 


The quotation in question is #49 (of 50). The title I used to describe it was: "Approximation of the Catholic Sacrament of Penance." That gives a big indication of what was in my head. The paper includes a disclaimer at the beginning (after giving the source info. on the version of the Institutes I used, and providing the link to the entire online version -- so people can check any quote in full context):

Note: I don't intend to imply that Calvin agrees with Catholics in every jot and tittle of all the following categories. What is agreed-upon is what is actually stated in these particular comments, which may be just a part of a doctrine or practice, not all of it. Two parties can agree, for example, on the basic fundamentals of a question, and then go on to differ on more minute particulars that each feels are a logical extension of the premises.

That said, the areas of agreement are voluminous and extraordinary, and my hope is that this compendium will give both Catholics and Calvinists a feel for how close we really are in many respects, despite our many honest, serious differences.

All the citations below were included in the extensive, 66-page compilation at the end of my book, Biblical Catholic Answers for John Calvin. That section thus accounts for about 18% of the 388 pages (minus the introductory sections).

This should be quite sufficient to clear up any misconceptions regarding the quote (that were brought up by an anti-Catholic apologist). I posted the entirety of my replies to Calvin's Institutes, Book IV (listed at the top of my John Calvin: a Catholic Appraisal web page). I made very little comment on the section where this quotation occurred. All I stated was: "We can be thankful, however, that Calvin retains some remote notion of formal penance and absolution." Obviously I wasn't equating his notion with the Catholic one at all.

Furthermore, I have a section in my book on Calvin, entitled, "Absolution and Forgiveness of Sins by the Clergy" (pp. 164-167).  In it I stated, concerning Calvin's conception of these notions (p. 166):

Calvin intends more or less a preaching function (which is classic "low church" Protestantism): tell people the message of reconciliation and they (by God's grace and His will) will receive it of their own accord without need of sacramental absolution or even baptismal regeneration.

Calvin neglects to also include the transactional element of forgiveness of sins, through a priest, acting as the representative of God, as opposed to a mere declaration of the same (the preaching of the gospel of forgiveness). Calvin wants to spiritualize all this away, just as he (largely) does with baptism and the Eucharist. Binding and loosing are not merely the equivalent to the gospel: another way of saying "gospel."

The priest does not only, merely declare (by preaching or evangelizing) the availability of forgiveness and reconciliation through God's grace, to be subjectively appropriated by the individual; he also brings it about as a sacramental agent. Calvin apparently rejects this latter element.

I am quite aware that Calvin believed in two sacraments. That's why I described his citation in my book and a paper based on it, "Approximation of the Catholic Sacrament of Penance."

Laying on of hands was a sacramental gesture. Calvin lies about what the early Church believed. For them, it was not merely a "symbol," but an actual transactional absolution: granting of forgiveness by God through the priest. I was well aware of all this, and wrote about it; nevertheless the similarities at least in outward form and general concept, remain, and that was all I was highlighting, per the disclaimer in the paper.
There is outward similarity in the laying on of hands, having to do with some semblance of absolution for sin (which is merely symbolic for Calvin). It's why I called it  an "approximation" in my book and "'Catholic' Calvin" paper, and "some remote notion of formal penance and absolution" in my critique-paper for this section of the Institutes. I never argued for more than limited, qualified similarity and harmony: in some respects, not all.



***