The Divine Nature of Scripture and the Magisterium

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

_____________________________


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

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

Whitaker's Eighth Argument

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

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

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

Therefore,

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

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

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

Whitaker's Seventh Argument

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

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

The Vicious Circle

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

_____________________________

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is the first of the pair:

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

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

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

And here is the second (emphasis mine):

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

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

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

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

_____________________________

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

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

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

An Appeal to Augustine

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

_________________________

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To this Whitaker issues three responses:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Whitaker's second point is as follows:

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

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

Finally, Whitaker argues:

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

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

_____________________________

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

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

3. William Whitaker, Disputations, 296.

4. Ibid.

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

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

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

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

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

Scripture as the Recognizable Voice of God

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

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

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

The Internal Testimony of the Holy Spirit

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

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

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

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

External Testimony

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

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

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

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

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

5. The prodigious miraculous accounts contained in Scripture.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A useful reminder for those of us involved in apologetics.

_____________________________

1. Whitaker, Disputations, 288-289.

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

3. Whitaker, Disputations, 289-290.

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

5. Whitaker, Disputations, 290.

6. Ibid. 293-294.

7. Ibid., 294.

8. Ibid., 294-295.

Whitaker's Disputations: A Refutation of Stapleton's Arguments on the Authority of the Church (Part 2)

We are continuing our series on Whitaker's Disputations. This post will look at Stapleton's second argument defending the assertion that we need the Church, specifically the Catholic Magisterium, to identify the canon for Christians, and that this identification gives the Church the most "certain" authority possible.

(For those interested in the earlier sections of Disputations, Green Baggins has begun analysis on the first chapter--the number of books contained in the canon.)

Stapleton's Second Supporting Argument

Stapleton's second argument¹ can be summarized as follows:

P₁ The canon cannot be discerned by appealing to style, phraseology and other criteria without the additional judgment of the Magisterium.
P₂ The Magisterium knows best how to judge style, phraseology and other criteria.

C₁ Therefore, we need the Magisterium to identify the canon.

A Simple Reply

Whitaker levels three counter-arguments, but only the second (and a directly related part of the third) will be discussed here, perhaps because it is the most practical and powerful:

Secondly, although we should concede all this to him, yet where will be the coherence of his reasoning,— The church knows best the voice of the spouse, and the style and phraseology of scripture; therefore its authority is the most certain? For what though the church know? What is that to me? Are these things therefore known and certain to me? For the real question is, how I can know it best? Although the church know ever so well the voice of its spouse, and the style and phraseology of scripture, it hath that knowledge to itself, not to me; and by whatever means it hath gained that knowledge, why should I be able to gain it also by the same?²

This argument is further supplemented:

But as to his pretence that because the church delivers the rule of faith, it must therefore be the correctest judge of that rule; we must observe that the terms deliver and judge are ambiguous. The church does indeed deliver that rule, not as its author, but as a witness, and an admonisher, and a minister: it judges also when instructed by the Holy Spirit. But may I therefore conclude, that I cannot be certain of this rule, but barely by the testimony of the church? It is a mere fallacy of the accident. There is no consequence in this reasoning: I can be led by the church's voice to the rule of faith; therefore I can have no more certain judgment than that of the church.³

Two observations for now:

1. The point is well-received. If the Church gives us the canon and we cannot come to know it any other way, what of it? How does it logically follow that the Church is now the most authoritative body in the life of the believer? How does it follow that we should now submit our interpretations of Scripture to the Magisterium?

Whitaker uses an analogy to shore up this point (which I have slightly tweaked): There were Jews who could not have known (intellectually or by faith) Christ as the Messiah had not John the Baptist revealed him to them. Does it therefore follow that John the Baptist was the best interpreter of Christ's commands? Should these Jews have submitted their interpretations of Christ's words and commands to John's first and foremost? It's not obvious how that would be the case.³

2. It is also instructive for Whitaker to remind us that however the Church gains knowledge of the canon, laypersons should also have access to those means. If the Church identifies the canon through historical inquiry, why are we not allowed to engage the same texts with the same tools and come to the same conclusions independently? What, specifically, is it about the Magisterium that allows it identify the canon? Should the methods and reasons used to arrive at this knowledge remain inaccessible to everyone outside of the Magisterium? It's not obvious why this should be the case.

Athanasius is a fine example of this. Before any council met to recognize (or "determine" as some Catholics would argue) the canon, the famous father had successfully identified the New Testament canon:

...it seemed good to me also, having been urged thereto by true brethren, and having learned from the beginning, to set before you the books included in the Canon, and handed down, and accredited as Divine; to the end that any one who has fallen into error may condemn those who have led him astray; and that he who has continued stedfast in purity may again rejoice, having these things brought to his remembrance...Again it is not tedious to speak of the [books] of the New Testament. These are, the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Afterwards, the Acts of the Apostles and Epistles (called Catholic), seven, viz. of James, one; of Peter, two; of John, three; after these, one of Jude. In addition, there are fourteen Epistles of Paul, written in this order. The first, to the Romans; then two to the Corinthians; after these, to the Galatians; next, to the Ephesians; then to the Philippians; then to the Colossians; after these, two to the Thessalonians, and that to the Hebrews; and again, two to Timothy; one to Titus; and lastly, that to Philemon. And besides, the Revelation of John.⁴

If Athanasius was able to identify the canon without recourse to the determination of the Magisterium, why are Protestant Christians any different?
_____________________________

1. William Whitaker, Disputations, 286-287.

2. Ibid., 287.

3. Ibid., 288.

4. Athanasius, Festal Letter 39.

Whitaker's Disputations: A Refutation of Stapleton's Arguments on the Authority of the Church (Part 1)

Preliminary Remarks

(For those with limited time, I suggest skipping down to "Whitaker's Refutation of Stapleton's First Supporting Argument" near the bottom of this post. Future entries will likely be significantly shorter.)

We live in an age where Roman Catholic apologists aggressively attempt to convert Protestants to Catholicism. Not only are Protestants in general targeted, but some groups, such as Called to Communion, work to bring Reformed Protestants in particular into submission to Rome.¹

Whitaker lived in a similar age. The Catholic Church, reeling as it did from the initial blast of the Reformation, eventually rallied and issued, among other courses of action, an intellectual response to Protestantism through the Counter-Reformation. As far as Whitaker is concerned, Bellarmine and Stapleton are useful representatives of this effort. Their works set out to refute the distinctive Protestant beliefs and doctrines that Luther and Calvin had developed and refined, and to defend and promote the authority and authenticity of the Magisterium of Rome to define the limits of the canon and to officially interpret Scripture.

It must be noted that the debate has changed in some respects since Whitaker, Stapleton and Bellarmine. There have been a series of Catholic ecumenical councils and authoritative documents produced since the sixteenth century and these have some bearing on the official position of Catholicism since the Counter-Reformation. I do not wish to suggest that Disputations serves as a definitive work on contemporary challenges to Sola Scriptura, even if some of its arguments and discussions will be rather instructive and helpful in addressing them. (Indeed, it seems a variety of the Catholic arguments of the Counter-Reformation have merely been recycled, instead of improved or reformulated in any meaningful sense.)

Yet far from rendering Disputations obsolete in any way, these differences serve an unique purpose in critiquing modern Catholicism. Catholics like to claim a continuous succession from the Apostolic tradition of the Scriptures and early church, yet those readers intimately familiar with the post-Vatican II theological landscape might notice some significant differences between modern, liberal Catholicism and the rather conservative positions of Stapleton and Bellarmine as expressed in Disputations.

With that said, let us look at a dispute Whitaker considers to be not only "difficult and perplexed," but so critical that he does not "know whether there is any other controversy between [Papists and Protestants] of greater importance."²

(Readers will discover that clicking the previous footnote hyperlink will direct them to the location of this quote in the Google version of Disputations. I have endeavored to do this with all relevant footnotes. I hope this will encourage both Protestants and Catholics alike to further research this work of Whitaker.)

The First Controversy: Concerning the Authority of Scripture

The whole of the third section of Disputations deals with the single question of whether the church or Scripture enjoys more authority. This question finds itself fleshed out in whether we need the church to know the canon. If we do, then the Papists will be free to claim that Protestants need the Catholic Church, and specifically the Magisterium, to identify the source of all doctrine. Whitaker summarizes all of this as follows:

The state of the controversy, therefore, is this: Whether we should believe that these scriptures which we now have are sacred and canonical merely on account of the church's testimony, or rather on account of the internal persuasion of the Holy Spirit; which, as it makes the scripture canonical and authentic in itself, makes it also appear such to us, and without which the testimony of the church is dumb and inefficacious.³

As to which document or apologist best represents Catholicism on this point, Whitaker selects Stapleton⁴ and summarizes his assertion as follows:

To have a certain canon of scripture is most necessary to faith and religion. But without the authority of the church it is impossible to have a certain canon of scripture; since it cannot be clear and certain to us what book is legitimate, what supposititious, unless the church teach us.⁵

Stapleton is referring here to the difficulty Christians might have in knowing the canon of Scripture without reference to some body identifying it for them. There is some power in this argument. Indeed, forms of Stapleton's argument are still popular, although its particulars and consequences are drawn out in greater detail in our present day than by either Stapleton or Whitaker. While our contenders seem content to merely discuss the truthfulness of the question rather than what effects it has on the Christian (perhaps because all parties already understood what was at stake), modern Catholic apologists assert or suggest that the identification of the canon by the Catholic Church carries with it a validation of the Magisterium as the official interpreter of that canon:

I can show you plenty of [required extra-scriptural traditions which refute Sola Scriptura], but the one that's most likely to get your attention is the canon of the New Testament. That's part of God's revelation to the Church that comes down to us entirely outside of the Bible...Think about it: You must rely on that Tradition to know what the New Testament itself is, and you do accept it, by virtue of the fact that you have a Bible...And remember, too, that those epistles and Gospels are inspired by God himself and were given to the Church through revelation...The Church did not make those books [of the canon] inspired; God did. Similarly, the Catholic Church did not make them 'canonical'; God did, by the very fact that He revealed them. But it's no less true that the Catholic Church received this revelation from God and that the Church – which, don't forget, had been commissioned by Christ to authoritatively teach the meaning of the Inspired Scriptures – was charged with the twofold task of both interpreting Scripture as well as organizing and perpetuating its existence...under the sola scriptura rubric, Scripture exists in an absolute epistemological vacuum, since it and the veracity of its contents 'dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or church.' If that's true, how then can anyone know with certitude what belongs in Scripture in the first place? The answer is you can't. Without recognizing the trustworthiness of the magisterium, endowed with Christ's own teaching authority, and the living apostolic Tradition of the Church (1 Cor. 11:1; 2 Thes. 2:15; 2 Tim. 2:2), there is no way to know for certain which books belong in Scripture and which do not.⁶

So the argument has some serious consequences. The claimed conclusion is no less than admitting the Magisterium of Rome is the valid interpreter of Scripture.

Whitaker's Refutation of Stapleton's First Supporting Argument

Stapleton adduces three arguments to support his assertion that we need the church to identify the canon, and thus the authority of the church is greater than the authority of the Scriptures. We will look at the first of these three here, and leave the other two for future posts. The first argument can be written as follows⁷:

P₁ Nothing is more authoritative than God's teaching.
P₂ God teaches only through the church.

Therefore,

C₁ There is nothing more authoritative than the teaching of the church.

(It should be noted that Stapleton equates the church with the Magisterium.⁸)

Whitaker makes a variety of responses, some of which will be noted here (these are not in order as they appear in the text):

1. The only way Stapleton's argument can be truly successful is if he proves that "God and the church are the same thing." (It seems this can't be done without some kind of serious doctrinal error, so Stapleton's argument is rendered fallacious.)

2. Whitaker states an obvious truth--"that the authority of him who teaches is greater than that of him through whom one is taught"--and applies it to Stapleton's argument: Since the church is taught by God, the authority of the church is less than the authority of God. Therefore, there is something more authoritative than than the church. The conclusion is shown to be false.

3. And "it will more correctly follow from this reasoning, that nothing is more certain than the word of God and the scriptures, because it is God who addresses us in his word, and teaches us through his word." Not only is there something more authoritative than the church, but this Authority speaks to us directly through the Scriptures.

4. From this it follows that "we are not bound absolutely to receive whatever the church may teach us, but only whatever it proves itself to have been commanded by God to teach us, and with divine authority." In other words, the church is never free to claim that its doctrinal conclusions are absolute by virtue of its authority. It must demonstrate that it has successfully related the doctrine of God.

And how else could it do this but through Scripture?

Whitaker's counter-argument may be summed as follows:

P₁ The one who teaches is greater in authority than the one who is taught.
P₂ God instructs the church through Scripture.

C₁ Therefore, Scripture is more authoritative than the church.

Here Whitaker accomplishes what Stapleton could not. Stapleton wished, in some sense, to equate the authority of God with the authority of the church. Yet if that relationship belongs to anything, it belongs first and foremost to Scripture. Scripture is God-breathed; the church enjoys no such status.

I suspect this can be considered a critical underlying aspect of any defense of Sola Scriptura: The source of God's specific and explicit instructions to His people is the God-breathed Scripture, not the church.

_____________________________

1. "Our aim is to effect reconciliation and reunion between Catholics and Protestants, particularly those of the Reformed tradition." Called to Communion, "What is the Purpose of Called to Communion?", http://www.calledtocommunion.com/about/ (accessed May 22, 2010).

2. William Whitaker, Disputations on Holy Scripture (Cambridge: Parker Society, 1894; reprint, Orlando: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 2005), 275. Readers will find that the pagination of this version matches the Google books version.

3. Ibid., 280.

4. Ibid. Whitaker remarks, "Of all the popish authors, Stapleton hath treated this question with greatest acuteness: we shall, therefore, examine him specially in this debate."

5. Ibid., 285.

6. Patrick Madrid, Answer Me This (Huntington, IN: Our Sunday Visitor Publishing Division, 2003), 127.

7. Whitaker, Disputations on Holy Scripture, 285-286. Unless otherwise noted, all of the material in this section is drawn from these pages.

8. "Meanwhile let us see what they mean by this word, the 'church.' Now, under the name of the church the papists understand not only that church which was in the times of the apostles (for Thomas of Walden is blamed on that account by Canus, Loc. Comm. Lib. n. c. 8, and also by Stapleton, Doctrin. Princip. Lib. ix. c. 12, 13), but the succeeding, and therefore the present church; yet not the whole people, but the pastors only. Canus, when he handles this question, understands by the church sometimes the pastors, sometimes councils, sometimes the Roman pontiff. Stapleton, Lib. ix. c. 1, applies this distinction: The church, as that term denotes the rulers and pastors of the faithful people, not only reveres the scripture, but also by its testimony commends, delivers down, and consigns it, that is to say, with reference to the people subject to them : but, as the church denotes the people or the pastors, as members and private persons, it only reveres the scripture. And when the church consigns the scripture, it 'does not make it authentic from being doubtful absolutely, but only in respect of us, nor does it make it authentic absolutely, but only in respect of us.' Hence we see what they understand by the term the church, and how they determine that the scripture is consigned and approved by the church." Ibid., 279.

Whitaker's Disputations on Holy Scripture: An Introduction

William Whitaker (1547-1595) was an Oxford-trained theologian of significant influence and prestige.¹ One of his most important treatises was Disputations on Holy Scripture (hereafter Disputations), a work that set out to explain and defend the principle of Sola Scriptura over and against the arguments of Rome's foremost apologists. Whitaker's Disputations served not only to influence the formulation of the Westminster Confession of Faith, but continues, due in part to the unchanging nature of the debate, to be an important text in the modern controversies between Catholics and Protestants. This series will outline some of the major arguments Whitaker tackled in Disputations, with particular attention paid to those relevant to the present day.

The excellent reputation of Whitaker as a debater and the quality of his Disputations is difficult to deny. Disputations has been "shown by Dr. Wayne Spear to be an important source for the theology of the [Westminster Confession of Faith], particularly the chapter on Holy Scripture."² Furthermore, even Whitaker's theological enemies considered him to be a formidable, even respectable opponent (emphasis and repetition of "I have" in original):

[Whitaker's books] gained for him in his life-time a high character, not only with friends, but with enemies also. 'I have,' says the writer of his life, in Lupton's Protestant Divines, 'I have heard it confessed of English Papists themselves, which have been in Italy with [Cardinal and apologist] Bellarmine himself, that he procured the true portraiture and effigies of this Whitaker to be brought to him, which he kept in his study. For he privately admired this man for his singular learning and ingenuity; and being asked of some of his friends, Jesuits, why he would have the picture of that heretic in his presence? he would answer, Quod quamvis haereticus erat et adversarius, erat tamen doctus adversarius: that, 'although he was a heretic, and his adversary, yet he was a learned adversary'³

This "singular learning and ingenuity" shines forth throughout the text. Whitaker has incisive analytical skills; his application of razor-sharp logic is demonstrated both in his ability to properly represent his opponents' arguments and in his ability to refute them. He also employs sound reasoning in selecting the strongest forms of his opponents' arguments to refute, having no interest in refuting weak versions and claiming an empty rhetorical victory.

Perhaps the most remarkable features of Disputations is its timelessness. A brief scan of Rowland Ward's summary⁴ of the various arguments in Disputations shows its relevance to modern disputes with Roman Catholic apologists:

a. whether or not we should believe the Scripture is canonical solely because of the authority of the church rather than the internal testimony of the Spirit

b. there are obscure places in Scripture, but Scripture is sufficiently clear on the main matters related to salvation, whereas Rome wants to exaggerate the obscurities of the Scriptures so as to keep them from the common people

c. Rome claims interpretation of Scripture is the privilege of the church and that the true interpretation agrees with "the fathers"; we say that an external persuasion arises from Scripture itself but that full assurance comes through the Holy Spirit as the supreme interpreter. The means to be used: Prayer, knowledge of the original texts, nature of the language being expounded, context, comparing the obscure with the plainer passages, comparison with other passages, the analogy of faith, reference to the more skilled

d. whether the books of the OT and NT are a complete and perfect rule of faith or whether unwritten traditions are necessary as well

e. all things necessary to faith and morals may be collected or inferred from Scripture, but Rome denies this

f. the number of canonical books, the claims of the Apocrypha considered and shown to be without canonicity in the strict sense

g. Rome sets up the Latin Vulgate as the authentic version whereas the Protestants affirm the Hebrew and Greek originals

Most of these topics will be covered in the series. Since Whitaker in each topic interacts with multiple arguments, and levels multiple counterarguments of his own, there will be plenty of material to draw from. (I will do my best to make one post a week.)

If you would like to read and search it for yourself, the full English translation of Disputations can be found here.

I've also been informed by John Bugay that Green Baggins will soon discuss and analyze the content of Disputations.

_____________________________

1. A very short biography of Whitaker can be found in the preface to his Disputations.

2. David Coffin, Jr., "The Teaching of the Westminster Confession on the Cessation of Special Revelation," http://www.newhopefairfax.org/files/coffinconfessiononcessation.pdf (accessed May 19, 2010). In his footnotes, Coffin cites a chapter from To Glorify and Enjoy God. A Commemoration of the 350th Anniversary of the Westminster Assembly (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1994). I had hoped to verify the citation before this post, but I was unable. However, the dust jacket of my version of Disputations asserts the same relationship between chapter one of the WCF and Whitaker's work.

3. William Fitzgerald, introduction to Disputations on Holy Scripture, by William Whitaker (Cambridge: Parker Society, 1894; reprint, Orlando: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 2005), x.

4. Ibid., iii-vi. For the sake of brevity, this list is not given in exact form. Neither is it strictly in the same order.