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]


***