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.
* * *
When, therefore, they prove that the difficulty of understanding scripture is great, they dispute not against us, who confess that what they conclude from argument, is affirmed and determined by us already. What our adversaries ought to have proved was, either that all was obscure, or so few things plain in the scriptures, that the people ought not to meddle with them. (p. 380)
Catholics don't think Scripture is utterly obscure, as I have reiterated again and again. But traditionally, we have thought it was far more obscure and difficult to interpret than Protestants have. For them, it is far more "plain and clear": so much so that they have hundreds of competing denominations, all based on Scripture Alone (yes, that makes no sense to me, either). The truth obviously lies in the middle. We don't say it is an utter mystery (the Protestant caricature of our view); nor do thoughtful, educated Protestants hold that there are no difficulties whatever (too often the Catholic caricature of their view). The truth lies in the middle, and it is a matter of degree. But the fathers (whom Whitaker cites quite a bit) certainly were closer in opinion to the Catholic view. For example, St. Augustine:
To be sure, although on this matter, we cannot quote a clear example taken from the canonical Scriptures, at any rate, on this question, we are following the true thought of Scriptures when we observe what has appeared good to the universal Church which the authority of these same Scriptures recommends to you; thus, since Holy Scripture cannot be mistaken, anyone fearing to be misled by the obscurity of this question has only to consult on this same subject this very Church which the Holy Scriptures point out without ambiguity.
(Against Cresconius I: 33; in Eno, Robert B. Eno, Teaching Authority in the Early Church, Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1984, .134)
[L]et the reader consult the rule of faith which he has gathered from the plainer passages of Scripture, and from the authority of the Church . . .
(On Christian Doctrine, 3,2:2; NPNF 1, Vol. II, 557)
Note how Augustine never pits the authoritative guidance of the Church in matters of scriptural interpretation, against the individual. he doesn't have to say that the Bible is absolutely obscure; a closed book. Hence, he can speak of "plainer passages" in it. But the rule of faith involves the Church as well as Scripture. It is not Scripture alone. In fact, he is so far from saying that Scripture is absolutely necessary for every Christian that he could write the following (that, it seems to me, no Protestant would ever write):
And thus a man who is resting upon faith, hope and love, and who keeps a firm hold upon these, does not need the Scriptures except for the purpose of instructing others. Accordingly, many live without copies of the Scriptures, even in solitude, on the strength of these three graces.
(On Christian Doctrine, 1, 39, 43)
Joe Gallegos' marvelous website Corunum, has a great page on it with many papers detailing the views of the Church fathers on the rule of faith and this general topic. Here are excerpts from his collection on "Private Interpretation":
True knowledge is [that which consists in] the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient constitution of the Church throughout all the world, and the distinctive manifestation of the body of Christ according to the successions of the bishops, by which they have handed down that Church which exists in every place, and has come even unto us, being guarded and preserved without any forging of Scriptures, by a very complete system of doctrine, . . .
(St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4,33:8, in ANF, I:508)
For those are slothful who, having it in their power to provide themselves with proper proofs for the divine Scriptures from the Scriptures themselves, select only what contributes to their own pleasures. And those have a craving for glory who voluntarily evade, by arguments of a diverse sort, the things delivered by the blessed apostles and teachers, which are wedded to inspired words; opposing the divine tradition by human teachings, in order to establish the heresy.
(St. Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, 7:16, in ANF, II: 553-554)
When heretics show us the canonical Scriptures, in which every Christian believes and trusts, they seem to be saying: 'Lo, he is in the inner rooms [ie., the word of truth] ' (Matt 24.6). But we must not believe them, nor leave the original tradition of the Church, nor believe otherwise than we have been taught by the succession in the Church of God."
(Origen, Homilies on Matthew, Homily 46, PG 13:1667)
[A]ll heresies, that they evermore delight in profane novelties, scorn the decisions of antiquity, and ...make shipwreck of the faith. On the other hand, it is the sure characteristic of Catholics to keep that which has been committed to their trust by the holy Fathers....
(St. Vincent of Lerins, Commonitory, 24:63, in NPNF2, XI: 150)
Also from his page, Interpreting Scripture with the eyes of the Church:
It behoves us, therefore, to avoid their doctrines, and to take careful heed lest we suffer any injury from them; but to flee to the Church, and be brought up in her bosom, and be nourished with the Lord's Scriptures.
(St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 5, 20:2, in ANF, I: 548)
Now the cause, in all the points previously enumerated, of the false opinions, and of the impious statements or ignorant assertions about God, appears to be nothing else than the not understanding the Scripture according to its spiritual meaning, but the interpretation of it agreeably to the mere letter. And therefore, to those who believe that the sacred books are not the compositions of men, but that they were composed by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, agreeably to the will of the Father of all things through Jesus Christ, and that they have come down to us, we must point out the ways (of interpreting them) which appear (correct) to us, who cling to the standard of the heavenly Church of Jesus Christ according to the succession of the apostles.
(Origen, First Principles, 4,1:9, in ANF, IV: 357)
But in learning the Faith and in professing it, acquire and keep that only, which is now delivered to thee by the Church, and which has been built up strongly out of all the Scriptures....Take heed then, brethren, and hold fast the traditions[ie. The creed] which ye now receive, and write them an the table of your heart.
(St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 5:12, in NPNF2, VII: 32)
But beyond these [Scriptural] sayings, let us look at the very tradition, teaching and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning, which the Lord gave, the Apostles preached, and the Fathers kept.
(St. Athanasius, Four Letters to Serapion of Thmuis,1:28)
But those reasons which I have here given, I have either gathered from the authority of the church, according to the tradition of our forefathers, or from the testimony of the divine Scriptures, . . .
(St. Augustine, On the Trinity, 4, 6:10, in NPNF1, III: 75)
How are they to distinguish truth from falsehood in the sacred Scriptures? They must be very careful to pursue that course which, in the beginning of this Commonitory, we said that holy and learned men had commended to us, that is to say, they must interpret the sacred Canon according to the traditions of the Universal Church and in keeping with the rules of Catholic doctrine, in which Catholic and Universal Church, moreover, they must follow universality, antiquity, consent.
(St. Vincent of Lerins, Commonitory, 70, in NPNF2, XI: 152)
And moreover, from his page, Sola Scriptura in the early Church:
Our appeal, therefore, must not be made to the Scriptures; nor must controversy be admitted on points in which victory will either be impossible, or uncertain, or not certain enough. But even if a discussion from the Scriptures should not turn out in such a way as to place both sides on a par, (yet) the natural order of things would require that this point should be first proposed, which is now the only one which we must discuss: 'With whom lies that very faith to which the Scriptures belong. From what and through whom, and when, and to whom, has been handed down that rule, by which men become Christians?" For wherever it shall be manifest that the true Christian rule and faith shall be, there will likewise be the true Scriptures and expositions thereof, and all the Christian traditions.
(Tertullian, Prescription Against the Heretics, 19)
Putting aside all Greek literature, they [St. Basil and St. Gregory] are said to have passed thirteen years together in studying the Scriptures alone, and followed out their sense, not from their private opinions, but by the writings and authority of the Fathers.
(Rufinus, Church History, 2:9)
It's always the same. The more one studies the fathers, the more one sees this theme over and over again: not sola Scriptura, but the "three-legged stool" of Scripture-Tradition-Church. That is the rule of faith.
Our opinion is, that the scriptures are not so difficult, but that those who read them attentively may receive from thence advantage and the greatest edification, even laymen, plebeians and the common mass of mankind. (p. 381)
Yes, of course. No one is denying this. But they may also interpret the Bible wrongly, and that is why the Church and apostolic tradition are necessary: to make boundaries of orthodoxy that restrict heretical lines of thought. Once Protestants rejected the infallible, profound authority of Church and apostolic tradition, then the chaos of denominational relativism and discord was inevitable.
This we establish by the following arguments, whereof the first is taken from Deut. xxx. 11, where we read it thus written: "This commandment which I command thee this day is not hidden from thee, nor far from thee: It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall ascend for us into heaven, and take it for us, and tell it unto us that we may do it? Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall pass over for us beyond the sea, and take it for us, and tell it unto us that we may do it? But this word is very nigh thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it." From which words it is evident that the scriptures may be easily understood. (p. 381)
It's only evident that this follows for those who already believe it, and do so in the face of other passages that show otherwise. All this proves is that the Law was openly proclaimed and presented to the Jews; not that all the Law (let alone all of Scripture!) is therefore easy and "plain from the words themselves." The latter is a gratuitous assumption smuggled into the text from prior presuppositions (which is what we call eisegesis, or "reading into Scripture" what isn't there). It is clear that the Law was not self-evident, but had to be authoritatively interpreted:
Nehemiah 8:7-8 Also Jesh'ua, Bani, Sherebi'ah, Jamin, Akkub, Shab'bethai, Hodi'ah, Ma-asei'ah, Keli'ta, Azari'ah, Jo'zabad, Hanan, Pelai'ah, the Levites, helped the people to understand the law, while the people remained in their places. [8] And they read from the book, from the law of God, clearly; and they gave the sense, so that the people understood the reading.
There is no question here (in an obvious, unambiguous passage directly on the topic) that it wasn't understood in and of itself. It only was after it was interpreted for the people by the Levites (appointed as teachers, "who taught the people" -- 8:9), "so that" they "understood" it. They didn't understand it merely upon hearing it, but after authoritative interpretation. What could be more plain than that? It's plain and undeniable Scripture, teaching that not all Scripture is so plain at all. King David had to ask for the same understanding:
Psalm 119:34 Give me understanding, that I may keep thy law and observe it with my whole heart.
He didn't have enough knowledge to "keep" it upon merely hearing or reading it. He required a further understanding to be able to fully comprehend it. it was not just a matter of power and ability, but the mental, intellectual aspect of understanding it in the first place. That's what we saw in the Nehemiah passage above, and the very purpose of the Levites. Hence we see elsewhere:
2 Chronicles 17:7-9 In the third year of his reign he sent his princes, Ben-hail, Obadi'ah, Zechari'ah, Nethan'el, and Micai'ah, to teach in the cities of Judah; [8] and with them the Levites, Shemai'ah, Nethani'ah, Zebadi'ah, As'ahel, Shemi'ramoth, Jehon'athan, Adoni'jah, Tobi'jah, and Tobadoni'jah; and with these Levites, the priests Eli'shama and Jeho'ram. [9] And they taught in Judah, having the book of the law of the LORD with them; they went about through all the cities of Judah and taught among the people. (cf. 2 Chron 35:3)
Deuteronomy 33:10 They shall teach Jacob thy ordinances, and Israel thy law; . . .
[cf. Ezra 7:10: "teach his statutes and ordinances in Israel"; 7:25: "those who do not know them, you shall teach"]
The same was spoken by God to Aaron, Moses' brother:
Leviticus 10:11 and you are to teach the people of Israel all the statutes which the LORD has spoken to them by Moses.
[being "spoken", i.e., read, was not enough in and of itself. It had to be taught to them]
Moses was the lawgiver; the very person who gave the Law to Israel, and he, too, says that he taught it to them, as opposed to simply reading it:
Deuteronomy 4:1 "And now, O Israel, give heed to the statutes and the ordinances which I teach you . . ."
Deuteronomy 4:5 Behold, I have taught you statutes and ordinances, as the LORD my God commanded me . . .
Deuteronomy 4:14 And the LORD commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and ordinances . . .
Deuteronomy 5:1 And Moses summoned all Israel, and said to them, "Hear, O Israel, the statutes and the ordinances which I speak in your hearing this day, and you shall learn them and be careful to do them.
[the Law was not understood simply by hearing it, but had to be learned]
Deuteronomy 5:31 But you, stand here by me, and I will tell you all the commandment and the statutes and the ordinances which you shall teach them, that they may do them in the land which I give them to possess.
[note how God "tells" Moses the laws, but he doesn't merely "tell" the people, as Whitaker would have it; he "teaches" them]
Deuteronomy 6:1 Now this is the commandment, the statutes and the ordinances which the LORD your God commanded me to teach you . . .(cf. Ex 18:16, 20)
We have only to see whether it can be concluded from this place that the scripture is easy: which indeed is plain from the words themselves; first, because it says, that "the commandment is not hidden" . . . (p. 381)
The phrase "not hidden from thee" in KJV and whatever translation Whitaker was using, is rendered "not too hard for you" in RSV. Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament defines the Hebrew word for "hidden" here, pala (Strong's word 6381) as "to be arduous, to be difficult to be done". In other words, it means in this passage that the Law is not too difficult to keep, or too hard to live by or to observe. The meaning is not that it is readily easy to understand without teaching aids. Thus, Whitaker has wrongly interpreted the meaning and his prooftext fails for its purpose of bolstering the notion of perspicuity, since understanding and doing are two different notions.
Gesenius gives as examples of the same word with the same meaning, Genesis 18:14 ("Is anything too hard for the LORD?") and 2 Samuel 13:2 ("it seemed impossible to Amnon to do anything to her"). The clincher is that he lists other passages (Prov 30:18; Job 42:3) where the word is used in a different sense, "to be hard to be understood" (my italics). But that was not the case in Deuteronomy 30:11 (Whitaker's proposed passage). Thus, his little sub-argument completely fails.
next, because it says that there is no need that any one should ''ascend into heaven and declare it unto us, or that we should pass over the sea " and seek it in foreign regions: whereby the sacred writer takes away the excuses which men are wont to make; and concludes that this word is near, in the mouth and in the heart: therefore, it was not unknown. Thus the meaning is, that the will of God was so opened to them in the scriptures, that they could not be ignorant of it, or allege any excuse of ignorance. (pp. 381-382)
This is a rather silly argument, and a classic, textbook case of runaway eisegesis. Deuteronomy 30:11 reads: "neither is it far off" (RSV; NEB has "not too remote"). In other words, the law was in close proximity to the Jews, having been delivered to them, not that it is necessarily "easy to understand." It was easily accessible to read. Hence, the contextual passages, "It is not in heaven" (30:12), and "Neither is it beyond the sea, that you should say, 'Who will go over the sea for us, and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?'" (30:13). But Whitaker rushes right in, imposing onto Scripture what is not there, rationalizing it to mean perspicuity, and also ludicrously expanding what is said here of the Law alone, to all of Scripture, which would include the New Testament: at that time more than a thousand years away, in the future.
For if the commandments of God can be easily obeyed, then certainly they can more easily be understood. (p. 382)
This doesn't follow logically; it is two different things. It is common sense to grasp the notion that something might need to be fully explained or understood before it is observed as a law, and that this has no necessary relation to how difficult it would be to do, once understood. A person who had never played Monopoly may think it is very difficult to play because he doesn't yet understand it. He learns it by being taught the rules; after which he discovers that it is easy to play the game. Conversely, something may sound very easy in description, but difficult to do (e.g., walking a tightrope or riding a unicycle or juggling).
The point is that there is no necessary relation. The application of this point in the present instance is to say that the Mosaic Law is not the simplest thing in the world to understand merely by reading it; but that it could still be easy to observe once it has been learned. Scripture shows us that it had to be taught to the people, as we have seen, but Whitaker appears to want to deny all that plain biblical evidence, for the sake of his lost cause.
For it is much more easy to understand God's precepts than to fulfil them; and one cannot possibly do that which he does not understand. (p. 382)
I don't disagree with the broad principle here, but we have to take all the relevant biblical passages together, and it remains established by the same Holy Scripture (as I showed above) that the Law had to be taught; that authoritative teachers needed to interpret it to the people; the masses. The analogy, therefore, is to an authoritative teaching Church; i.e., the Catholic Church, not to a supposed perspicuous Scripture that is readily understood by virtually anyone without need of such teaching.
It is certain that Moses is there speaking of the whole will of God, which is declared in the whole of the word and scriptures, and so that this place relates to the entire scripture. For he carefully exhorts the people to walk in all the ways of the Lord, and keep all his precepts, ceremonies and judgments. (p. 382)
The conclusion doesn't follow. At that time, the Jews had no Bible at all. Even the Pentateuch or Torah (first five books) were only in an oral stage. Therefore, the intention of the author (Moses) at the time he spoke them to his people could not possibly refer to all of Scripture. At best they could only refer to the Law itself, as proclaimed to the people, but in any event, nothing of any of this leads us to believe that Scripture is easy to understand as a general rule. The evidence for that assumption has been lacking in Whitaker's argument, from the start. He is merely assuming what he needs to prove, and utilizing relentless eisegesis (which is standard practice in the inevitably, abominably weak Protestant biblical defenses of sola Scriptura).
***
.jpg)
