Sola Scriptura debate: second rebuttal

Rhology quotes from Psalm119 about God’s “word," "commandments," and "precepts." His quotations do nothing to negate my claim that David is speaking glowingly about Scripture but nowhere indicating a belief in Sola Scriptura. In addition, Rhology is assuming what he wants to prove, namely, that David's references here refer only to the written words of God.

Rhology dismisses the numerous extra-biblical references in the NT. I agree with him that these references show only that certain extra-biblical traditions were approved of, but they also show that the NT authors were not Sola Scripturists. They handled extra-biblical tradition in the same way Orthodox continue to; they, as with Orthodox today, accepted those extra-biblical traditions that were trustworthy and consonant with Scripture, and rejected those that were not.

Rhology misunderstands Christ’s word in Mark7, confusing the issue here as being one of oral versus written, while it is a conflict between the “commandments of God” and the “traditions of men;” Rhology has yet to prove that all “commandments of God” are written and has already admitted that not all traditions are “traditions of men.”

In response to my presentation of the fact that Christ celebrated Hannukah, which Rhology must admit is an extra-biblical tradition, he dismissively says “so what,” refusing to draw the logical conclusions. In 1Corinthians11:1 Paul tells us: “imitate me, just as I imitate Christ.” As we have seen, both Christ and Paul observe and believe in a great many extra-biblical traditions. Why, then, does Rhology refuse to follow extra-biblical traditions of a like nature to Hannukah, such as feasts of the Church calendar? Where does Rhology derive his right to refuse to imitate Christ and Paul and do away with observing extra-biblical traditions that don't conflict with Scripture?

Rhology also questions my comments on 2Timothy3, saying that I have “shoehorned” Tradition into it. Rhology’s claim that “it is perfectly likely that ‘in the things you have learned and been assured of’ is encompassed entirely in the NT” is so weak as to hardly merit a response. He claims that “apostolic and authoritative oral tradition that was theopneustos and necessary for the church unto perpetuity became enscripturated.” What evidence does Rhology present to back up these statements? Absolutely none; Rhology seems not have observed his own advice to avoid unsupported dogmatic statements. Rhology is essentially trying to set up his own extra-biblical tradition, in this case one that is most certainly a “tradition of men.” The Orthodox, on the other hand, “take all of what Scripture says and … submit [our] doctrine to it.” We don’t try to add to the text or make up answers to questions that don’t exist.

He claims that I have “assume[d]” 2 Thessalonians 2:15 refers to oral traditions, but it is he who is making the assumptions. Where in Scripture does it indicate that all apostolic oral tradition was eventually written down in the NT? Nowhere; the NT itself assumes the exact opposite. If everything was eventually to be written down, Paul must have been very foolish to dangerously commend us to oral traditions here. Rhology’s problem is with the Bible, not with me.

Rhology then mischaracterizes my statements about his quote of Athanasius. Rhology has proven apt during this debate at mischaracterizing the positions of Scripture, the Fathers, and now even me! He claims that I attempted to disown this statement by Athanasius and claimed it wasn’t part of Holy Tradition; my words were the exact opposite! “Let the reader judge,” as Rhology says. In fact, I challenge Rhology to find any Orthodox writer or Church Father who wrote against Athanasius’ statements here.

Rhology continues to misunderstand what Athanasius was saying; perhaps he should start reading the Fathers for himself and not rely on James White to do so for him. Rhology asserts that either Athanasius was a Sola Scripturist or he was inconsistent. As the first option is anachronistic, it can be automatically discounted; Athanasius’ statement has never been understood this way until James White & Co. decided to try to shoehorn this statement into their own presupposed worldview. The second option makes no sense considering that the two apparently contradictory sentences by Athanasius occur one after the other in the same writing! The obvious third option, which Rhology is loathe to admit, is that Rhology is misunderstanding Athanasius as he tries to shoehorn the Fathers into his own preconceived notions. I have posted a link to a webpage containing the entire writing which Rhology proof-texted from in the comment repository for this debate; I encourage all to read it for themselves.

Rhology continues to claim that groups like Mormons and JWs have as much claim to being the true Church as the Orthodox. To adapt his statements on Scripture in answer to why we reject these groups, and Protestantism as a whole: We believe the Orthodox Church over other “churches” for lots of reasons, not least of which is that the ones he cited claim to be revivals of or supplements to the early Church, yet contradict it (and its Scripture) at key points, thus proving inconsistent and untrustworthy.

Now I’ll address the points which Rhology claims I've left unaddressed; I’ve numbered them here for easier reference.

1. Absolutely nothing; but Rhology has yet to provide evidence for his claim that everything God ever said that’s worthwhile is contained in Scripture. We’ve already covered that the majority of times the phrase “word of God” is used even within Scripture itself it refers to oral communication.

2. My exegesis of 2 Thessalonians 2:15 still stands; I’m not going to read things into it that aren’t there or try to interpret it away.

3. What else might the man of God need that teachers, prophets, apostles, evangelists, and pastors can’t provide from the list I made of their provisions in Ephesians 4:11-13?

4. How does Rhology “define how we know what is good [Scripture] and bad [scripture] without a circular, question-begging appeal to the Church”? In the end, we’re both relying on the Church to make the decision about what is and isn't the word of God.

I’ll point out here that I’ve asked this question several times and Rhology has consistently refused to answer. The fact is that we need an organization (and that’s what Christ gave us, according to Scripture, in the Church) that can make authoritative decisions whenever any communication, written or oral, claims to come from God. Rhology’s understanding of the nature of the Church is so different from that of Scripture and the Fathers, though, as to be completely unrecognizable to either (and completely lacking in fulfillment of any of Christ’s promises to or expectations of said Church).

5. I don’t have to “prove” anything here; the word “or” between “word of mouth” and “our epistle” does that for me.

6. Rhology’s citation of 1Corinthians11:18-19 is more damning for him than for me. Paul here assumes a visible unity which faces occasional division (“that those who are approved may become evident”); sounds a lot like the Orthodox Church. His claimed “spiritual unity” amongst Protestants is so vague and impractical as to be meaningless.

[word count: 1185]

Click here to go to the comment thread for the debate.

Click here to read past entries in the debate.