Audio only:
In this episode Trent responds to Reformed scholar Michael Horton’s critique of Trent’s case against the Church fathers teaching sola scriptura.
Transcription:
Trent:
In today’s episode, I’ll be reviewing Dr. Michael Horton’s criticism of my recent episode on Sola Scriptura and the church fathers. Dr. Horton is a well-known figure in reformed circles and currently teaches at Westminster Seminary in California. To give some background in a recent episode, I posed a dilemma for Protestants who claimed that the church fathers believed in the doctrine of soul of scriptura. First, I noted that Protestant apologists rarely cite the fathers prior to the Council of Nsea in 83 25. As can be seen in my debates with James White and Gavin Orland on Sola Scriptura, the lack of witnesses to the central pillar of Protestantism in the first 300 years of church history is very telling. The other horn of the dilemma, if you will, admits there are testimonies from fathers in the fourth and fifth centuries that exalt scripture use it to settle disputes and teach what Catholics call the material sufficiency of scripture.
This is the idea that the material theology, such as the dogmas God is revealed, can all be found in scripture, at least in an implicit form, but the church is still needed to put that theological material into its final proper form for people to believe. But let’s suppose Christians in the late three hundreds and the four hundreds did believe in sola scriptura. That’s even worse for Protestantism because these same Christians also believed in uniquely Catholic doctrines like the Sattal priesthood, the sacrifice of the mass confession of sins to a priest, baptismal regeneration and infant baptism, purgatory seeking the intercession of the saints, the perpetual virginity and sinlessness of Mary, and the need for bishops and the Pope to oversee the church. If those Christians of the fourth and fifth centuries are role models for Dr. Horton because they allegedly believed in Sola scriptura, then why not follow their example and conclude that Catholic doctrines have a solid biblical foundation. Now in his reply to me, Dr. Horton claims he isn’t trying to engage in a bunch of cherry picking.
CLIP:
That’s another important thing. How did scripture function? It’s not just quotes cherry picking quotes. How did scripture function
Trent:
Except Dr. Horton does just that, especially in the second half of his reply where he just reads off a bunch of citations from post sene fathers like Jerome, Cyril and Augustine that he claims prove these men believed in Sola scriptura. I’m not going to address those citations because Dr. Horton doesn’t address my core objection. Should we believe these fathers when they taught that Catholic doctrine is biblical? And if you Dr. Horton, think they got those Catholic doctrines wrong, how do you know that they got sola scriptura right now when it comes to the other horn of the dilemma, Dr. Horton claimed that there’s plenty of evidence of church fathers before the Council of Nyia affirming sola scriptura.
CLIP:
There’s a lot to respond to here. There’s plenty of pre ine testimony to Solas Scriptura Trent Horn contends that apologists on the Protestant side just really can’t go to pre ine sources. They’re just not, well, that’s not true.
Trent:
Before we get to his examples, though, we need to define Sola scriptura because this will show what’s wrong with Dr. Horton’s response. Traditionally, Sola Scriptura was a doctrine or approach to revelation that claims scripture was the only infallible rule of faith for the church. Dr. Horton also mentions the sufficiency of scripture in his reply and he seems to conflate that with Solas scriptura.
CLIP:
In this video, he’s trying to debunk the notion that the church fathers held to Solas scriptura the sufficiency of scripture.
Trent:
The sufficiency of scripture goes beyond minimal definitions of Sola s scriptura in saying that everything we need to be saved or even everything God wants us to believe can be found by an ordinary person in scripture alone. The 1647 Westminster Confession of Faith, which is the standard for the school where Dr. Horton teaches, puts it this way, the whole council of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man, salvation, faith, and life is either expressly set down in scripture or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from scripture, but where does the Bible say all of that? I’ll get to the church father shortly, but I need to say something about two of the biblical passages Dr. Horton gave in defense of Sola scriptura because they do absolutely nothing to prove sola scriptura. The first is Galatians one, eight.
CLIP:
The first thing we have to recognize is that the apostle Paul in Galatians, his letter to the Galatians said that even he as an apostle is subordinate to the gospel. Even if I or another apostle or an angel from heaven preaches another gospel, then the one I preached let him be anathema. See, what happened was the canon emerged around a gospel. It’s like a pearl in an oyster. It formed, it germinated because of the apostle’s testimony to Jesus Christ that he was risen. The resurrection of Jesus is of course attested very early, probably three years after the crucifixion itself. Paul is saying that there is a tradition already in the church that Jesus was crucified, buried. After three days he rose again and was seen by the apostles and then as one untimely born I saw him on the road to Damascus. So we have the canon of scripture emerging from a gospel from Genesis to Revelation.
Trent:
What does any of this have to do with soul of scriptura? Seriously, what does this even have to do with scripture? I have no idea how Dr. Horton got from Paul saying, believe the gospel I preach to you and not any other gospel. Even if I were to preach a false gospel, how did he get from that to the claim that scripture is the completely sufficient only infallible rule of faith for the church? Once again, nothing in this passage is even talking about scripture. Dr. Horton makes the unwarranted assumption that the gospel, the good news of salvation, Jesus Christ is a reference to all of inspired scripture. Galatians one, eight is just saying you must never reject the gospel that the apostles preached even if an angel or another apostle preaches a false gospel. Once again, this isn’t about scripture. Paul even wrote in one Thessalonians two 13, when you receive the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as what it really is the word of God, which is at work in you believers, this shows the word of God is not confined to the written word alone or that scripture is the only infallible authority.
Next, Dr. Horton cites one Corinthians four, six
CLIP:
And then Paul instructs in one Corinthians four, six that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying. Do not go beyond what is written, so there’s already a saying in the church, I like tradition. This is a good tradition. There’s already a tradition in the church of saying, do not go beyond what is written then you will not be puffed up in being a follower of one of us over against the other. See, you’d pick out an apostle, I really side with Peter or I really side with James, or I really saw I’m of Paul or Apollo. No, actually it’s solo scripture that creates unity rather than division.
Trent:
This is a terrible verse to ground the doctrine of so s scriptura because scholars don’t even know what Paul is referring to here. Don’t go beyond what is written where in all human writing, in all Christian writing, in all scripture in the Old Testament, don’t go beyond just what is written in one Corinthians once again. Here’s the verse. Every man will receive his commendation from God. I have applied all this to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brethren, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another. Dr. Horton quoted the verse as saying so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, do not go beyond what is written, but I’ve only found this rendering in the Christian standard Bible and the new international version or the NIV.
The NIV is also notorious for translations that undermine Catholic doctrine. For example, most Bibles translate second Thessalonians two 15 as stand firm and hold fast to the traditions handed on to you whether by word of mouth or by letter, but the NIV renders the Greek word posis as teachings rather than tradition because tradition apparently is a bad thing to many evangelicals. The phrase meaning of the saying is not found in the Greek of one Corinthians four six. It may have been a saying, Paul’s quoting, but scholars don’t agree on what it means. Ronald Tyler says, it may refer to the practice of school children who were taught to trace letters as they learned to write and were told to not go beyond what was written in imitation of learning how to write properly. This makes sense in Paul’s context where he is trying to teach to the Corinthians to follow his example just a few verses later.
Paul speaks of being a father to his children in the Corinthian church and he implores his children to be imitators of him or the phrase could be a warning to not go beyond the five Old Testament passages quoted in the previous chapters of one Corinthians, which is a view John Calvin held of the passage in his commentary on one Corinthians Protestant scholar Anthony Thistleton offers seven possible interpretations of this phrase, none of which correspond to the modern doctrine of soul scriptura according to Bradley Bitner and his study of one Corinthians. In many ways the history of scholarship on this verse resembles a demolition zone littered with the debris of collapsed and tottering hypotheses. The phrase not beyond what is written is surely the stone over which most interpreters have stumbled and the one that has crushed the most hypotheses in the history of scholarship. If your plan to prove so scriptura is to cite a verse that baffles Protestant scholars and doesn’t even mention scripture at all, then all I can say is not a great plan. Okay, so now let’s go through Dr. Horton’s survey of the church fathers before the Council of Nsea in 83 25 and see if he can show that any of them taught Sola scriptura. First he starts with Clement of Rome writing in the first century.
CLIP:
Clement I referred to Clement in his letter to the, so the Corinthians were still a mess just as they were in Paul’s day. Clement is writing really on the heels of Paul and he is up braiding the Corinthians now because a bunch of young guys in the church have overthrown the presbytery, the elders, the ruling council of elders that they have deposed them illegally contrary to the word of Christ. So it’s a disciplinary letter and here he says, let us put aside empty and vain cares and let us come to the glorious and venerable canon of our tradition. He doesn’t say canon and tradition, he says the canon of our tradition.
Trent:
This is a very confused response. I think Dr. Horton is conflating Clement’s use of the Greek word for rule or canon with the entire canon of scripture for the New Testament. He seems to be saying that Clement was identifying the canon of scripture with tradition as if the two things, the canon of scripture and tradition were synonymous. This wouldn’t be surprising because many Protestants claim without evidence that the unwritten traditions Paul mentions in Second Thessalonians or the traditions mentioned in the fathers are all identical to scripture. So appeals to tradition don’t disprove soul s scriptura in their paradigm, but there is no way Clement was talking about the canon of scripture. The Greek word canon just means rule and it can refer to the rule of sacred writings, the canon of scripture or to many other rules of faith. Here’s the passage in Clement. Wherefore let us give up vain and fruitless cares and approach to the glorious and venerable rule of our holy calling. The original Greek says Paron canna literally rule tradition of us. Clement was not saying the canon of scripture and the rule of tradition were the same thing. Clement doesn’t even testify to the existence of a New Testament canon of writings, which contradicts what Dr. Horton says next. He
CLIP:
Doesn’t say canon and tradition. He says the canon of our tradition, the canon of the Christian faith. He exhibits this by drawing support from Matthew, Luke one Corinthians, Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians Titus one Timothy and Hebrews with allusions to acts calling them scripture and again, this is in the late first century.
Trent:
This is absolutely false. Clement only ever calls the Old Testament scripture. He never calls the New Testament writings scripture and he never introduces a New Testament passage with the formula. It is written like he does for the Old Testament and his use of the New Testament is very limited according to Andrew Gregory and his article one Clement and the writings that later form the New Testament, the author of one Clement used one Corinthians and very likely indeed that he used Romans and Hebrews. He appears also to have drawn on Jesus traditions but not in the form preserved in the synoptic gospels. Beyond this, no firm conclusions may be drawn on the basis of evidence from the text of one Clement. He also writes in another article, the author of one Clement appeals to words that he ascribes to Jesus, but he seems more likely that he draws on oral tradition than on a written source.
Clement quotes the words of the Lord Jesus, but he never says that those words come from a piece of scripture or even a written document. For Clement of Rome, the source of apostolic authority wasn’t found in apostolic scriptures. It was found in the people the apostles chose to carry on their ministry. Clement writes in section 44 of his letter, our apostles also knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife on account of the office of the Episcopate for this reason. Therefore, in as much as they had obtained a perfect foreknowledge of this, they appointed those ministers already mentioned and afterwards gave instructions that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry. Clement of Rome is a horrible witness for Protestants to call upon in defense of sola scriptura because Clement never attributes the revelation of the new covenant to any form of writing.
Instead, the authority of the new covenant lies with the very spoken words of Jesus Christ and the teachings of those who were the successors of the apostles. We see something similar with Ignatius of Antioch writing in ad 1 0 7 who I described in a previous episode as the church father Protestants fear the most. Dr. Horton doesn’t bother citing him and with good cause because instead of telling his audience to go to the scriptures, Ignatius of Antioch tells them to follow the bishop even as Jesus Christ does. The father and the press bittery as you would the apostles and reverence the deacons as being the institution of God, let no man do anything connected with the church, without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist which is administered either by the bishop or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear there, let the multitude of the people also be even as wherever Jesus Christ is. There is the Catholic church.
CLIP:
I can move on to the moratorium fragment in one 70 ad which provided a list of canonical scripture allowed to be read in church. Now there was no reason for a list until Heretics came along and liked to add their own cartoonish versions of the gospel and so now churches had to say no. Those have never been allowed to be read in church, allowed to be read in church in public worship was a sign that it’s the word of God. Remember, Paul told Timothy not only to preach the word but to read the scriptures and so the public reading of the scriptures was a very important part of the liturgy and that already is a canon. It’s a working, functioning canon.
Trent:
Defining what scripture is doesn’t mean a church father or the entire church at a point in history believed in sola scriptura. This is a problem that will come up again and again in Dr. Horton’s critique. Anytime he finds in the church fathers a mention of scriptura, he assumes the person endorses sola scriptura. The argument goes like this, Hey, this church father said, go to the scriptures for truth, or even this church father called a New Testament writing scripture, therefore he believed in sola scriptura. I mean look what Dr. Horton says about St. Polycarp.
CLIP:
Polycarp disciple of John quotes many passages of scripture, especially Ephesians and the Psalms as equal Ephesians, new Testament Psalms, of course, old Testament quotes them as scripture. The same is true in the letters of Clement.
Trent:
I quote lots of things as scripture, but that doesn’t mean I believe in soul of scriptura just because I believe in scriptura. Aside from that, in my book the Case for Catholicism, I argue that the moratorium fragment probably comes from the fourth century, but even if it’s earlier, it lacks James first and two Peter and Hebrews. It also includes the wisdom of Solomon from the Catholic Old Testament as well as the apocalypse of Peter, noting there was a debate over whether it should be read in churches. One Clement itself was read in the churches, so there was no universal on the cannon in the second century. For Protestants to go back to show our knowledge of the cannon does not require binding church authority. This is why when he was a Lutheran, the scholar ya pelican said in the anti-icing church there was no notion of souls scriptura. What about St. Eu who writes at the end of the second century? I showed him my original episode that IUs says the apostles preserved the true gospel and this is found in scripture, but Ieu never said doctrine is only found in scripture. Neither did he articulate anything resembling solo s scriptura. Here’s what Dr. Horton said in his reply.
CLIP:
In fact, EU goes on to say it’s Gnostics who proffer oral tradition. Jesus spoke to our favorite Apostle Mary Magdalene or Judas or Peter and we have this oral tradition. Iranis says There is no we have the scriptures. Now the tradition is laid down in the written word, the holy scriptures and don’t go beyond that. So we have the canon of scripture emerging from a gospel from Genesis to Revelation. That’s what EU emphasizes more than anything else that the whole Bible he says is a mosaic. He also uses the analogy of a symphony, whereas gnostics, all they do is a cacophony. The whole Bible from Genesis to Revelation, you piece it together and it’s a mosaic of Christ
Trent:
Except St. Eu said that the heretics were really good at taking scripture and rearranging it to mean something else. In the same way that a vandal can rearrange a sacred mosaic, here’s what EU wrote. By transferring passages and dressing them up anew and making one thing out of another, they succeed in diluting many through their wicked art in adapting the oracles of the Lord to their opinions, their manner of acting is just as if one when a beautiful image of a king has been constructed by some skillful artist out of precious jewels should then take this likeness of the man all to pieces should rearrange the gems and so fit them together as to make them into the form of a dog or of a fox. Es to not believe that Christians should follow scripture alone as their ultimate authority. He said that the gnostic heretics consent neither to scripture nor to tradition, and we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles and which is preserved by means of the successions of presbyters and the churches. S then tells his readers it is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the church. Those who as I have shown possess the succession from the apostles, those who together with the succession of the episcopate have received the certain gift of truth according to the good pleasure of the Father. The historian Ellen f Erman, van Lear, who is often quoted by Protestant apologists says that for eu, quote, tradition and scripture are both quite unproblematic. They stand independently, side by side, both absolutely authoritative, both unconditionally true, trustworthy and convincing.
CLIP:
Clement of Alexandria in the second century said, the ecclesiastical cannon is the concord and symphony of the law and the prophets in the covenant delivered at the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Trent:
Here’s what Clement of Alexandria wrote. You may take music in another way as the ecclesiastical symphony at once of the law and the prophets and the apostles along with the gospel. Yeah, the Bible is music to my ears too, but that isn’t sos scriptura. In fact, Clement of Alexandria said it was necessary to ascertain by way of demonstration by the scriptures themselves how the heresies failed and how in the truth alone and in the ancient church is both the exact knowledge and the truly best set of principles.
CLIP:
Even origin, not my favorite theologian says we understand the truth if we listen to Paul’s words as the very words of God and he says, do not go beyond the canon even through teachers like me. If I stray from the canon, then I stray from the rule of faith and that’s the thing, rule of faith. It was like an early creed, a summary of the Bible. It wasn’t another authority alongside the Bible. It was only authoritative because it was the consensual reading of the Bible by the church over against the heresies who were contradicting it. The fact that the Bible is so clear that it can be summarized
Trent:
By the
CLIP:
Whole
Trent:
Church. Ironically, Dr. Horton exalts the early creeds in the church and he even wrote an entire book on the apostles creed called we believe recovering the essentials of the Apostles Creed, but while the Apostles Creed mentions the necessity of believing in the Holy Catholic church, the Apostles creed never mentions believing in scripture, which is strange if the apostles thought that scripture was the church’s ultimate rule of faith, origin, and the early church valued scripture, but in first principles, origin also said this, the teaching of the church transmitted in orderly succession from the apostles and remaining in the churches to the present day is still preserved. That alone is to be accepted as truth which differs in no respect from ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition, and he wrote, we must point out the ways of interpreting them, the scriptures which appear correct to us, who clinging to the standard of the heavenly church of Jesus Christ according to the succession of the apostles.
The Bible is clear in many parts, but it also lacks clarity on very important questions. For example, are we obligated as Christians to baptize infants? Protestants don’t agree, which shows the Bible is not clear on this important issue, but Orgen had clarity because he did not rely on the Bible alone as his ultimate authority. Orgen writes, the churches received the tradition from the apostles to give even to little children for they to whom the secrets of the divine mysteries were committed. Were aware that in everyone was original sins, innate defilement which needed to be washed away through water and the spirit
CLIP:
Tullian says that scripture itself is not obscure. Here’s what he says. When you read talking to laypeople, when you read, you can have my same level of understanding of the mystery of Christ. We have, however, put these opinions of the heretics to the test, both of the arguments which sustain them and of the scriptures which are appealed to, and this we have done abundantly. Notice both the Orthodox and the heretics appealed to the scriptures. Even the heretics had to appeal to the scriptures in order to twist them. The scriptures had a place in the true church that was so distinct from any authority that even the heretics had to use Bible verses to try to prove their theories.
Trent:
Of course they did, and that’s the problem with sola scriptura. Just because you have the Bible doesn’t mean you have a complete theology because a heretic can just manipulate the Bible to say all kinds of nutty stuff. That’s why Turian also said, when debating heretics, our appeal therefore must not be made to the scriptures. Andy said, we without the scriptures prove that these heretics have nothing to do with the scriptures. The Protestant historian j and d Kelly said Troian did not confine the apostolic tradition to the New Testament, this unwritten tradition he considered to be virtually identical with the rule of faith, which he preferred to scripture as a standard when disputing gnostics the problem of heretics twisting scripture and thus the need for an ultimate authority beyond scripture comes up all throughout church history. There’s the mosaic example from EU that I mentioned earlier, but also consider this quote from St.
Jerome on debating the Luciferian heretics. He wrote, let them not flatter themselves if they think they have scripture authority for their assertions since the devil himself quoted scripture and the essence of the scriptures is not the letter but the meaning in the 16th century. Johan Eck who debated Martin Luther at Leipzig told Luther Martin, there is no one of the heresies which have torn the bosom of the church, which has not derived its origin from the various interpretation of the scripture. The Bible itself is the arsenal. Each innovator has drawn his deceptive arguments. This is why in the fifth century, St. Vincent of Lorenz wrote the following. Therefore, it is very necessary on account of so great intricacies of such various error that the rule for the right understanding of the prophets and apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard of ecclesiastical and Catholic interpretation. And while Dr. Horton cites Jerome in favor of so scriptura, consider this passage from St. Jerome about the authority, the universal church and matching the authority of scripture. Jerome wrote, even if it did not rest on the authority of scripture, the consensus of the whole world in this respect would have the force of a command for many other observances of the churches which are due to tradition have acquired the authority of the written law. Finally, Dr. Horton makes this analogy to the US Supreme Court that completely undermines his case for Sola Script Torah.
CLIP:
So you have a teaching authority, it’s ministerial and you have a canonical authority. It’s like the Constitution in the courts in our country, we have courts that consider cases actual cases of challenges to the constitution. It’s the Constitution that literally constitutes the people and then the courts don’t make up the Constitution. The courts interpret the Constitution and apply it, and that’s what we have church courts doing. It’s not like everybody, each one of us running around deciding what we’re going to believe, how we’re going to live.
Trent:
Have you seen modern Protestantism? This analogy would only work if we said the Constitution is alone, the ultimate authority for our country and no institution has a unique authority to interpret it. So yeah, under that view, maybe the Supreme Court says, the Constitution means this, but my state or even my household says the Constitution means that instead, and so we’re just going to ignore what the Supreme Court said and follow our own court’s interpretation of the document. You’d have absolute chaos if the founding fathers gave us a constitution but did not delegate who had the unique authority to interpret the Constitution. Likewise, we agree that Catholic church did not create scripture, but the Catholic church does authoritatively declare what is scripture and it declares which doctrines, cohere or contradict scripture. That’s why going all the way back to the third century, you have Saint Cyprian of Carthage proclaiming the necessity of the church, not just for personal affirmation but for salvation because it is through the church that the deposit of faith is safeguarded and the sacraments that nourish our souls like the Eucharist are communicated.
Cyprian writes the following, whoever is separated from the church and is joined to an adulterous is separated from the promises of the church. Nor can he who forsakes the Church of Christ attained the rewards of Christ. He’s a stranger. He’s profane, he’s an enemy. He can no longer have God for his father who has not the church for his mother. I hope this episode was helpful for you today. If you’d like more resources on souls scriptura, I recommend the anthology not by scripture alone and Sola Scriptura doesn’t work, and hopefully in the future I can sit down with Dr. Horton and maybe we can have an in-person chat to explore the doctrine of Sola Scriptura as well as our disagreements and maybe some surprising agreements on this issue. Thank you so much for watching and I hope you have a very blessed day.