Scripture Alone review Ch 10-11

In Chapter 10, James White discusses charismatic “the Lord told me” situations. I will leave it aside as it does not directly concern me here.

In Chapter 11, Dr White embarks on the attempt to make the early Church Fathers to be sola scripturalists. This kind of reminds me of Roman Catholic prooftexting to make the early fathers believe in an infallible papacy. The snippets sound good when you are preaching to the faithful. But once you read the fathers in their entirety it doesn’t look like the prooftexts. And as we shall see, even turning White’s limited list of Fathers into sola-scripturalists is far far away from an accurate representation of them.

One of the Fathers Dr White mentions is Basil the Great of Caesaria. But Basil gives the clearest and most outspoken defences of tradition among the Fathers, as we shall see.

Here is the quotation as it appears in Dr White’s book:

“We ought carefully to examine whether the doctrine offered us is conformable to Scripture, and if not, to reject it. Nothing must be added to the inspired words of God; all that is outside Scripture is not of faith, but is sin.” – Prologomena 2, work 3 Ascetic.

Now, there’s something very interesting about this citation. Basil never wrote any work called prologomena. This prologomena is actually the Schaff prologue to Basil’s works, where he gives a one sentence quotation from a work called The Moralia (τὰ ἠθτκά). Apparently White didn’t have access to this work, so he relied on this acontextual Schaff quote.

Isn’t Dr White here conforming to comical stereotype of protestants who quote the fathers, but haven’t read them? Here we have a proof positive case where White is quoting a work of Basil, but clearly hasn’t read the work, since his citation is second hand.

As for the quote itself, we shouldn’t take it too seriously since we don’t have the context. But the first thing we should note is that the context is sin. The immediately prior sentence (the only context Schaff provides us with) is: “Sins into which we feel ourselves drawn against our will are the results of sins to which we have consented. Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost consists in attributing to the devil the good works which the Spirit of God works in our brethren.”

Is the “doctrine” which is spoken of doctrine in general, or doctrine concerning sin? Without more context it’s hard to say.

The next thing to note is that it talks of doctrine being “conformable” to scripture. Not whether the doctrine comes from scripture, but whether it is conformable to scripture. Of course, Orthodox can easily agree with this. If you can’t conform a teaching to scripture, it is wrong. Next it says that nothing must be added to the inspired words of God. Again, nothing controversial here. It’s only the last phrase which is slightly more problematic. But I suspect it must be interpreted or translated in light of the first phrase. Outside scripture means not conformable to scripture.

Lest anyone thing I am trying to special plead Basil’s meaning, remember that Basil has explicitely supported the authority of Tradition. I for one want to interpret Basil according to his overall writings, not prooftexting from a document I haven’t even read. Here are the Basil quotes supporting Tradition:

“The one aim of the whole band of opponents and enemies of “sound doctrine”is to shake down the foundation of the faith of Christ by levelling apostolic tradition with the ground, and utterly destroying it. So like the debtors, — of course bona fide debtors. — they clamour for written proof, and reject as worthless the unwritten tradition of the Fathers.” Basil the Great, Chapter X, Oration on the Holy Spirit,

“In the same manner the Apostles and Fathers who laid down laws for the Church from the beginning thus guarded the awful dignity of the mysteries in secrecy and silence, for what is bruited abroad random among the common folk is no mystery at all. This is the reason for our tradition of unwritten precepts and practices, that the knowledge of our dogmas may not become neglected and contemned by the multitude through familiarity.” Chapter XXVII, ibid

“Time will fail me if I attempt to recount the unwritten mysteries of the Church. Of the rest I say nothing; but of the very confession of our faith in Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, what is the written source? If it be granted that, as we are baptized, so also under the obligation to believe, we make our confession in like terms as our baptism, in accordance with the tradition of our baptism and in conformity with the principles of true religion, let our opponents grant us too the right to be as consistent in our ascription of glory as in our confession of faith. If they deprecate our doxology on the ground that it lacks written authority, let them give us the written evidence for the confession of our faith and the other matters which we have enumerated. While the unwritten traditions are so many, and their bearing on “the mystery of godliness is so important, can they refuse to allow us a single word which has come down to us from the Fathers; — which we found, derived from untutored custom, abiding in unperverted churches; — a word for which the arguments are strong, and which contributes in no small degree to the completeness of the force of the mystery?” ibid

“Is answer to the objection that the doxology in the form “with the Spirit” has no written authority, we maintain that if there is no other instance of that which is unwritten, then this must not be received. But if the greater number of our mysteries are admitted into our constitution without written authority, then, in company with the many others, let us receive this one. For I hold it apostolic to abide also by the unwritten traditions. “I praise you,” it is said, “that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances as I delivered them to you;” and “Hold fast the traditions which ye have been taught whether by word, or our Epistle.” One of these traditions is the practice which is now before us, which they who ordained from the beginning, rooted firmly in the churches, delivering it to their successors, and its use through long custom advances pace by pace with time. If, as in a Court of Law, we were at a loss for documentary evidence, but were able to bring before you a large number of witnesses, would you not give your vote for our acquittal? I think so; for “at the mouth of two or three witnesses shall the matter be established.” And if we could prove clearly to you that a long period of time was in our favour, should we not have seemed to you to urge with reason that this suit ought not to be brought into court against us? For ancient dogmas inspire a certain sense of awe, venerable as they are with a hoary antiquity. I will therefore give you a list of the supporters of the word (and the time too must be taken into account in relation to what passes unquestioned). For it did not originate with us. How could it? We, in comparison with the time during which this word has been in vogue, are, to use the words of Job, “but of yesterday.” I myself, if I must speak of what concerns me individually, cherish this phrase as a legacy left me by my fathers. It was delivered to me by one who spent a long life in the service of God, and by him I was both baptized, and admitted to the ministry of the church. While examining, so far as I could, if any of the blessed men of old used the words to which objection is now made, I found many worthy of credit both on account of their early date, and also a characteristic in which they are unlike the men of today — because of the exactness of their knowledge. Of these some coupled the word in the doxology by the preposition, others by the conjunction, but were in no case supposed to be acting divergently, — at least so far as the right sense of true religion is concerned.” – Chapter XXIX ibid

“Had I not so done, it would truly have been terrible that the blasphemers of the Spirit should so easily be emboldened in their attack upon true religion, and that we, with so mighty an ally and supporter at our side, should shrink from the service of that doctrine, which by the tradition of the Fathers has been preserved by an unbroken sequence of memory to our own day.” Chapter XXX ibid

I think any honest person reading the above quotes can see that at best, Dr White is grossly distorting the overall picture of Basil’s position. Isn’t White always the first one to bleat when someone misrepresents his position? Doesn’t he always want people to actually read the works he has written on a topic, rather than taking a snippet out of context? But his is exactly what White does to Basil.

Another Father that is given the treatment is of all people, Augustine. White gives the following quotes:

“I must not press the authority of Nicaea against you, nor you that of Ariminum against me; I do not acknowledge the one, as you do not the other; but let us come to ground that is common to both—the testimony of the Holy Scriptures.”

Of course, Augustine is debating someone who has received some different traditions than himself. No doubt if he was debating someone who had received a different canon of scripture, Augustine would have debated him using what books they had in common too.

But that doesn’t answer the question of Augustine’s approach to traditions that are catholic and common to all:

” the custom, which is opposed to Cyprian, may be supposed to have had its origin in apostolic tradition, just as there are many things which are observed by the whole Church, and therefore are fairly held to have been enjoined by the apostles, which yet are not mentioned in their writings.” – Augustine on baptism, against the Donatists.

Here Augustine says that it is fair to assume that some things were enjoined by the apostles, even though they are not mentioned in their writings. His criteria is that they are “observed by the whole church”. This is the very criteria that Orthodox espouse.

or another quote:

“As to those other things which we hold on the authority, not of Scripture, but of tradition, and which are observed throughout the whole world, it may be understood that they are held as approved and instituted either by the apostles themselves, or by plenary Councils”. – Augustine, Letter LIV.

How much clearer does it get? Augustine was no sola scripturalist. This is as clear as day. Is it really honest to try and present Augustine as a sola scripturalist? Is that really standing for truth?

Here’s another of White’s quotes:

“Neither dare one agree with catholic bishops if by chance they err in anything, but the result that their opinion is against the canonical Scriptures of God.”

As Orthodox, I couldn’t agree more! Bishops are judged by the scriptures. They are also judged by the Holy Tradition of the Church. But does this make Augustine a sola scripturalist?

I think the point is made. While Dr White can find some quotes that seem to sound vaguely like sola scriptura in the Fathers, once you read the Fathers in context they don’t look very sola scripturaish at all. If we used the prooftexting methodology of White, we should all accept the papacy now, since this method has been used to equal effect by Rome.

Dr White’s presentation of the Fathers has been shown to be less than honest.