Transcription
Is *solas scriptura* nothing more than just shifting sand, an unbiblical, novel, man-made idea that showed up over a millennium too late from the time of the apostles? Were the Protestant reformers like the foolish man in Jesus's parable who built his house on shifting sand only for it to collapse when the rain and the winds came and blew? Or are the reformers like the wise man in the parable who built his house on the solid, unshakable rock that is God's holy word? Find out today as we put the very foundation of the Reformation to the test. We'll examine the arguments against *sola scriptura* from the book *Rock in Sand*, an orthodox appraisal of the Protestant Reformers and their teachings by Eastern Orthodox priest Father Josiah Trenum and see whether the reformers' house crumbles or stands firm. Stay tuned and find out.
[Music]
Welcome back to the channel, everybody. My name is Javier Purdom. This channel is a place where I like to do theology videos, church history videos, and Reformation apologetics videos. So, before we jump into refuting Father Josiah Trenum's book today, I want to give you a little bit of background on him as an author, as well as give you the stated mission for the book we'll be responding to. So, let's kick off with a little bit of background info on him.
Father Josiah Trenum was originally raised as a Presbyterian and even attended a reformed seminary until he was exposed to Eastern Orthodox claims during his time in college and ended up swimming the Bosphorus, as it were. Father Trenum was ordained an Orthodox priest in 1993. He has pastored St. Andrew Orthodox Church in Riverside, California since 1998. He has a PhD in theology from the University of Durham, England, and has taught theology and history at the university since 2004. He has published numerous articles and two books, and he lectures widely on many theological topics. He is the founder and director of Petristic Nectar Publications and has more than 700 homilies on his audio podcast, *The Arena*, and YouTube channel *Petristic Nectar Films*.
Now, that's a lot of academic and ecclesiastical credentials, and with a Protestant upbringing to boot. All that to say, we're not just responding to a sort of like random nobody today. We're responding to an academic. We're responding to a priest, and one who is trying to accurately respond to the claims of the umbrella category that his prior tradition belonged to. Okay? And this namely, the umbrella category being Protestantism, and the tradition he used to belong to being Presbyterianism or the reformed faith. And in this book, he doesn't just deal with the reformed. He deals with all the major branches of the Reformation: with the reformed, with the Lutherans, and with the Anglicans.
Here is what the introduction to his book states as the mission of the book: "This book has been written for three purposes. First, to provide the Orthodox reader with a competent overview of the history of Protestantism and its major traditions from its beginnings in the 16th century to the present day. Second, to acquaint Orthodox and non-Orthodox readers with a narrative of the historical relations between the Orthodox East and the Protestant West. Finally, to provide a summary of orthodox theological opinion on the tenets of Protestantism."
It is that final portion in which we'll be focusing our time here today, as he tries to make a series of arguments against the Protestant position of *sola scriptura*. And in our video, we'll be refuting those arguments specifically from a confessional Lutheran lens, as that is a tradition that I myself am a part of. So, without any further ado, let's jump in.
We will begin by stating Trenum's core argument against *sola scriptura*. He writes: "*Sola scriptura* by scripture alone is the doctrine of the Bible alone is the only infallible rule for faith and practice, and the Bible alone contains all the knowledge that is necessary for salvation."
The Protestant reformers articulated in their confessions, as we have seen, the foundational tenant that all dogma must rest upon clear and explicit teaching of scripture, and that anything not found in scripture cannot itself be a matter of required belief for Christians. Orthodox Christians respond to this Protestant affirmation with a firm and steady anathema. And we do this for many reasons. The Lord Jesus Christ and his holy apostles did not teach such a thing, but explicitly rejected it in teaching and practice. The scripture itself does not teach that it is *sola*. The Bible itself clearly teaches that it is not a standalone authority.
Here's how I would express Trenum's argument in a syllogism:
Premise one: All doctrines that scripture explicitly contradicts are false doctrines.
Premise two: Scripture explicitly contradicts the doctrine of *sola scriptura*.
Therefore, *sola scriptura* is a false doctrine.
No Protestant, or Christian for that matter, would disagree with the first premise of this argument. So, consider that granted. Our issue will be with premise number two, namely that scripture explicitly contradicts the doctrine of *sola scriptura*. And in this video, we will be refuting every single supporting argument that Trenum makes in favor of that second premise. Another thing I will challenge you to do throughout this video is to consider the question of: Does Josiah Trenum even stick to critiquing the definition of *sola scriptura* that he just provided himself in the passage I just cited you? Because I think you might be surprised by the answer to that.
Before we can evaluate Trenum's arguments in favor of the idea that scripture contradicts *sola scriptura*, it's important to lay out exactly what I, as well as other confessional Lutherans, believe about *sola scriptura* and theology proper for that matter. So, to that end, I thought we'd draw from some Reformation-era Lutheran sources that explain precisely what we believe on those topics.
Johann Gerhard is a third-generation reformer and one of the Lutheran tradition's most robust and important theologians. In his theological commonplace on the nature of theology and scripture, Gerhard provides a pretty solid schema of the different kinds of theology. It might sound like a lot, but stick with me. I promise it'll pay off in the end, especially when we are actually evaluating Trenum's arguments.
So, as Gerhard explains, first, there is archetypal theology, which is a theology that is in the mind of God, by which he perfectly knows himself and knows everything outside himself through himself by an indivisible and immutable act of knowing. This theology of the Creator is uncreated. It is essential. It is infinite and pattern-setting.
Now, when God wishes to communicate some of his infinite knowledge to his creatures, he does so via grace through what we call ectypal theology. Ectypal theology is derived from archetypal theology and is not as infinite and complete as archetypal theology, precisely because it's being communicated to finite creatures. So, broadly speaking, there are two different kinds of ectypal theology: ectypal theology of the blessed and ectypal theology of the wayfarers. In short, ectypal theology of the blessed simply refers to the clear and intuitive knowledge of God that is communicated to angels and the saints in eternal life. This is the special and sort of more perfected sort of knowledge that creatures have when they see God face to face in the beatific vision.
Our focus in this video is not in the theology of the blessed, but it will be in the ectypal theology of the wayfarer. This ectypal theology, the ectypal theology of the wayfarers, can be defined as the wisdom and knowledge of divine matters that God communicates to humans in this life. God communicates his divine wisdom and knowledge to humans in this life through two distinct avenues: natural theology and supernatural theology. Natural theology is acquired from looking around at creation, considering the works of God, and deriving conclusions about God from it, such as the fact that God exists and created all things, for example. However, much more detailed and informative than this is what we call supernatural theology, by which God reveals himself through extraordinary means by the immediate illumination and inspiration of creatures, as in the case of the prophets and apostles, or by the immediate communication of his word through the afore-mentioned divine inspired messengers to other non-inspired creatures.
Here's how Gerhard puts it: "the external word by which he speaks to man in time. At times God does this by an internal breathing on or inspiration that includes immediate illumination. At times God does this through external speech, and this is published immediately or immediately by angels and humans as his heralds and ministers, or it is put into writing, and this we call the written word of God, or holy scripture."
"These distinctions, however, do not create any essential difference within the word of God that is communicated to humans. Instead, they express merely different means of communication and revelation. After all, it is one in the same word and counsel of God regarding our salvation that was revealed and communicated to the prophets and apostles by immediate illumination and inspiration, which was communicated to those whom the prophets and apostles taught while they were still alive on earth through oral preaching, which is communicated to us today through our reading of and meditation on the scripture."
So, to summarize that, right? So, Gerhard is abundantly clear that whether the word of God is being orally proclaimed, orally preached, or whether it is being written down, it is the same word of God. It has, in Aristotelian terms, all the same causes when it comes to whether it is written or whether it is spoken. It is not a difference in the essence of the word of God. It is simply a difference in the accidents of it. Okay? It's just a difference in the mode of communication by which it is being conveyed. So, it is again, one and the same, whether it is being orally proclaimed or whether it is being written down by the inspired prophet or apostle, it is the same word of God, equally authoritative. Okay?
For a more detailed deep dive into Gerhard on *sola scriptura*, see my video with Dr. Steve Parks. But this theological framework should be enough for us to then consider why it is that Lutherans see the scriptures in a special way. Like, why do we place such an emphasis on the written word of God if the spoken word is equally authoritative as the written word? Well, the easy answer to that is that we believe that the prophets and apostles committed the core content of their oral teachings to writing. In other words, the writers of the New Testament recorded all that was necessary for salvation and dogma in their written works. And we have ample reason for believing so.
So, for example, take for instance what John says in his letter, 1 John 1:1-4, where he says: "that which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life—that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you too may have fellowship with us. And indeed, our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ. And we are writing these things so that our joy may be complete."
So, here we have an example of a New Testament writer saying that they have proclaimed that which they have seen and heard concerning Jesus Christ. And how are they bringing that proclamation to its completion? By putting it in writing. By putting it in writing. Okay? So, this is how the apostles ensured their teachings were safely recorded for posterity, and we have strong support for this thesis in the early church.
So, for instance, let us consider a quote from St. Irenaeus, an incredibly important church father who is the student of Polycarp, who was believed to be a student of the Apostle John. Here's what Irenaeus has to say about scripture: "We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they at one time proclaimed in public and at a later period by the will of God handed down to us in the scriptures to be the ground and pillar of our faith. For after our Lord rose from the dead, the apostles were invested with power from on high when the Holy Spirit came down upon them, were filled from all his gifts, and had perfect knowledge. They departed to the ends of the earth, preaching the glad tidings of the good things sent from God to us, and proclaiming the peace of heaven to men, who indeed all equally and individually possess the gospel of God. Matthew also issued a written gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome and laying the foundations of the church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon his breast, did himself publish a gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia. These have all declared to us that there is one God, creator of heaven and earth, announced by the law and the prophets, and one Christ, the son of God. If anyone do not agree to these truths, he despises the companions of the Lord. Nay more, he despises Christ himself, the Lord."
So, what did we see from Irenaeus there, right? So, we saw that the apostles proclaimed these things in public. They preached these things orally, but later on, they wrote these down. Whether they were writing them down themselves or whether they were writing it down in a way immediately through one of their companions. Okay? And we see also the instance here in Irenaeus of the phrase "handed down to us" in reference to writing. That's going to be really important later, because Father Josiah Trenum, as you guys will hear, will make a really big deal of this handing down, this traditioning, as it were. But again, flag that, keep an eye on that for later.
But let us, in the meantime, zoom in for a case study on two of the examples provided by Irenaeus in that quote that I just read you: Mark and Luke. So, we can see in scripture itself that Peter was passionate about reminding his audience of the contents of his oral gospel preaching. And he does this act of reminding through writing. For example, 2 Peter 1:12-15: "Therefore, I intend always to remind you of these qualities, though you know them and are established in the truth that you have. I think it right, as long as I'm in this body, to stir you up by way of reminder, since I know that the putting off of my body will be soon, as our Lord Jesus Christ made clear to me. And I will make every effort so that after my departure you may be able at any time to recall these things."
Let's skip forward a couple chapters. In chapter 3, he says: "Beloved, I now write to you the second epistle. In both of which I stir up your pure minds by way of reminder, that you may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets and the commandment of us, the apostles of the Lord and Savior."
So, like I said, what we see from Peter here is that he wants to remind people of his preaching. In fact, he wants to make it so that long after he's gone, because his time on earth is short, that people will be able to bring to mind the things that he has preached. And so, how does he do this? Well, he's reminding these people by writing the epistle of 2 Peter to them. And so, in line with this desire of Peter, let us then read the following accounts from Eusebius, the first ever church historian, and of Papius, who was a companion of Polycarp and a hero of John the Evangelist, regarding why it is that things were set to writing in regards to Peter's preaching and how that happened in the first place.
So, let's listen to Eusebius in book two of his *Ecclesiastical History*. Here's what he says: "And so greatly did the splendor of piety illuminate the minds of Peter's hearers that they were not satisfied with hearing once only, and were not content with the unwritten teaching of the divine gospel, but with all sorts of entreaties they besought Mark, a follower of Peter and the one whose gospel is extant, and he would leave them a written monument of the doctrine which had been orally communicated to them. Nor did they cease until they had prevailed with the man and had thus become the occasion of the written gospel which bears the name of Mark."
Listen to this quote from Papius: "Then this also the presbyter John said. Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not in order, whatsoever he remembered the things said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord's discourses, so that Mark committed no error while he thus wrote some things as he remembered them. For he was careful of one thing, not to omit any of the things which he had heard, and not to state any of them falsely."
And so, we see from Papius here saying, right, that Peter, the reason why the Gospel of Mark exists is because the people that heard Peter's preaching were not satisfied with just hearing the oral preaching, but they wanted a written record. And in fact, they wanted it so much they bugged Mark until Mark said, "Fine, fair enough," and then he wrote it down. According to Papius, he heard this from the presbyter John, which seems to be the Apostle John himself that Papius is talking about here. And Papius says that Mark was careful not to omit any of the things that he had heard preached from Peter. And so, that's what we have for the Gospel of Mark.
Now, let's look at our second case study, because we can also see the same sort of reality reflected in the fact that Luke, a traveling companion of the Apostle Paul, was eager to assemble an orderly written account of the apostolic preaching and eyewitness testimony to Christ, which he actually tells us openly in the opening of his gospel. He says in chapter 1 of the Gospel of Luke: "Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught."
And so, what do we see from Luke himself in the gospel? He's saying that he wants to put together an orderly account based on all the things that he has seen and heard, specifically so that you, most excellent Theophilus, right, may have certainty concerning the things that you have been taught. Okay? So that the reader, the person to whom, again, it's debated whether Luke wrote this specifically to like one guy named Theophilus or if Theophilus is like a title generally of those who would read this account. But in any case, so that we may have certainty concerning the things that have been orally taught. Really interesting.
Well, let's listen to what Eusebius says about this in book three of his *Ecclesiastical History*: "Luke, who was of Antiocian parentage and a physician by profession, and who was especially intimate with Paul and well acquainted with the rest of the apostles, has left us in two inspired books proofs of that spiritual healing art which he learned from them. One of these books is the gospel, which he testifies that he wrote as one who, from the beginning eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, delivered unto him, all of whom, as he says, he followed accurately from the first. The other book is the Acts of the Apostles, which he composed not from the accounts of others, but from what he had seen himself. And they say that Paul meant to refer to Luke's gospel wherever, as if speaking of some gospel of his own, he used the words 'according to my gospel.'"
So, let us sum up the points that we've discussed thus far:
1. The oral and written word of God from the apostles are one in essence. It is the same word of God regardless of whether it is proclaimed by speech or whether it is written down. They are both to be equally followed and they are equally binding.
2. As people in the apostles' own day remarked, written documents are generally more stable and reliable than oral transmission. Hence why they were not content to simply remain without any written account of these things and why they wanted an everlasting monument of the apostles' message to remain after them in order to have certainty regarding the contents of the apostolic preaching.
3. The apostles and their companions were willing, and some might even say eager, to record their eyewitness testimony of Christ and their gospel message in written documents for posterity.
And so, it is with these aforementioned realities in mind that the reformers argue for the supremacy of scripture. As such, let us conclude this section with a Lutheran definition of *sola scriptura*. The *Book of Concord* is the official collection of Lutheran confessional documents. And here's a succinct definition that it provides of what would later come to be called *sola scriptura*:
The *Book of Concord* says in the *Formula of Concord*, the Epitome: "We believe, teach, and confess that the sole rule and standard according to which all dogmas together with all teachers should be estimated and judged are the prophetic and apostolic scriptures of the Old and of the New Testament alone. Other writings, however, of ancient or modern teachers, whatever name they bear, must not be regarded as equal to the holy scriptures, but all of them together be subjected to them, and should not be received otherwise or further than as witnesses, which are to show in what manner after the time of the apostles, in what places this pure doctrine of the prophets and apostles was preserved. And because directly after the times of the apostles, and even while they were still living, false teachers and heretics arose, and symbols, i.e., brief, succinct, categorical confessions were composed against them in the early church which were regarded as the unanimous, universal Christian faith and confession of the orthodox and true church, namely the Apostles' Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed, we pledge ourselves to them and hereby reject all heresies and dogmas which contrary to them have been introduced into the church of God."
So, we see from this brief passage of the Lutheran confessions that we stand by the supremacy of the scriptures as the sole and ultimate rule of faith for our day. However, it should be clear that while the scriptures are the ultimate authority in the church, that does not make them the only authority. In fact, we also pledge ourselves to derivative authorities such as the ecumenical creeds, as well as confessional documents such as the *Book of Concord* itself, which we believe accurately describe the doctrines contained in scripture.
So, because today we don't have any living apostles walking around giving oral preaching, we choose to stick to the one thing which we believe, trusting in the testimony of the people of the apostles' very day. We trust in the thing that they left behind for us to have certainty concerning our faith, for us to know what the apostolic preaching was, and that is the written documents of scripture.
So, with our terms clearly defined and a working Reformation framework in mind, let's jump into Father Trenum's supporting arguments against *sola scriptura*.
Let's begin by analyzing Trenum's first supporting argument against *sola scriptura*, namely that tradition is attested to in the New Testament, meaning like the word and concept "tradition." Trenum writes: "The New Testament itself affirms that the foundational authority for the Christian and the church is the apostles' teaching. The teaching of the apostles is itself called tradition in the New Testament. A word commonly used for this is the Greek word *paradosis*, meaning teachings or commandments that are handed over or down. Tradition is the Christian way of life or life in the Holy Spirit. Tradition is the Bible rightly interpreted."
As illustrative biblical examples of this, Trenum points us to verses like 2 Thessalonians 3:6, which says: "But we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which you received from us." 1 Corinthians 11:2, which says: "Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you." 1 Corinthians 15:3, which says: "For I delivered, i.e., traditioned to you first of all that which I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures," and goes on from there. Jude 3, which says: "Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered, i.e., traditioned, to the saints."
Trenum sums up the Orthodox view of divine revelation in this way. He says: "The teaching of the apostles, what we know as holy tradition, is expressed in the church in two forms: in oral form and in written form. There is oral apostolic teaching and there is written apostolic teaching, and both are equally authoritative. This is, of course, the expressed teaching of the holy apostles themselves. Listen to St. Paul in his second letter to the Thessalonians: 'So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.'"
In contra distinction to the Orthodox view, here's how Trenum critiques what he claims is the Protestant view: "The Protestant proponents of *sola scriptura* would have us believe that there is only one binding source of apostolic authority, the written scriptures. This is a direct contradiction to the Apostle Paul's teaching to the Thessalonians. Imagine you are a Christian in Thessalonica and you have received the apostolic teaching and are living the holy tradition of the church. Are we to suppose, as the *sola scriptura* theory would have it, that you were only to obey the apostolic teachings and injunctions that St. Paul wrote down and not those that you heard from his own mouth? Are we to imagine that after the holy apostles martyred them in Rome, the Christians in Thessalonica disregarded the oral apostolic traditions and only followed what had been written down? Such conclusions are untenable."
So, that seems like a pretty decisive and devastating critique, right? Just not of the Protestant view, not of the classical *sola scriptura* view that we've laid out earlier. If you paid any attention to our opening section, then you know that Trenum has built up and demolished nothing but a flimsy straw man. A straw man which is not at all representative of the true Reformation position. So, Trenum accuses us of denying the authoritative, infallible nature of the apostles' oral teaching, which is just categorically false, as we heard from Gerhard earlier. We uphold the written word and the spoken word as being of one essence and therefore sharing the same authority. It is this same misunderstanding of *sola scriptura* which leads Trenum to harp on the word "tradition" in scripture as though it's some sort of defeater of the Reformation. But we have no problem with oral tradition as Lutherans for the reasons explained earlier. Namely, we believe the things which were originally traditioned or handed down by the apostles orally were later summarily traditioned or handed down to us through their writings or the writings of their companions. They were authoritative when they were orally preached, and they are authoritative after being written down because it's all the same word of God. Our only contention as Protestants is regarding which of the two methods is the most reliable and available for Christians today, being that the last apostle died almost two millennia ago and we don't have a tape recording of their oral preaching. The best safeguard that we have, in light of that, when something comes into dispute, is to turn to what they have written down for us as the very monument of their teaching.
So, at this point, you may be wondering, well, do the scriptures include anything about traditions which were not written down? And that takes us to Trenum's second supporting argument.
Trenum writes: "St. Paul did not just teach the preservation of the traditions, but he lived it. For instance, we are all no doubt familiar with that beautiful teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ: 'It is more blessed to give than to receive.' Are we not? Where is this found in the Holy Gospels? The answer is that it is not found anywhere in the Holy Gospels. It is recorded in Acts 20:35, where St. Paul says, 'In everything I showed you that by working hard in this manner, you must also help the weak and remember the words of the Lord Jesus, that he himself said, "It is more blessed to give than to receive." How did St. Paul know that Jesus said this if it is not written in the Gospels? He knew because there existed more of Jesus's teaching than was recorded in writings in the canon, and that teaching was authoritative and remains so."
Trenum ironically debunks himself with this example. Okay? So, in order to argue against *sola scriptura*, okay, he produced for us an oral teaching of Jesus which can't be found in the Gospels. So, if it's not in the Gospels, how did Trenum learn about it? Because it was written down. Because it was written down by Luke in the book of Acts. He didn't hear it from an extra-biblical oral line of transmission. Someone didn't whisper it in his ear outside of scripture. He read it in holy scripture, precisely because the writers of scripture took this oral teaching of Jesus and inscripturated it for posterity. They traditioned it. They handed it down through writing. In other words, in an attempt to disprove *sola scriptura*, Trenum here provides an example which actively supports the Protestant claim and shows it in action even within the apostolic age itself.
So, putting this massive blunder aside, allow me to try to steelman Trenum's argument for him. Okay. So, if he truly wanted to make an argument based on things which were not written down in scripture at all, as opposed to something which was initially orally preached and then later written down, he probably should have appealed to passages like John 20:30-31, which says: "And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples which are not written in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name." He also should have appealed to John 21:2, which says: "And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written." Amen.
The unfortunate news, however, even for the steelman version of Trenum's argument, is that in order for this argument to work at all, one must presuppose a faulty definition of *sola scriptura*. A faulty definition, once again, in order for this to work. So, what would that faulty definition be? Well, if, if we were engaging with the faulty definition, the faulty definition would be something like: "Everything that Jesus and the apostles ever said and did has to be found and can be found in scripture." If that's what *sola scriptura* said, that would be laughable. It would be false. It would be wrong. But that is simply not the reformers' claim. Our claim is simply that the apostles wrote down those things which are necessary for salvation, the core of their apostolic teaching.
As first-generation Lutheran reformer Philip Melanchthon put it: "Peter says the interpretation of scripture is not of private, that is, of human exposition. Will we then allow men to establish articles of faith? No. We follow scripture because it leads our way. And as Peter says, it is a light shining in a dark place, especially since the prophet says, 'The morning light will not dawn for those who do not have their foundation in the judgment of the law and the testimony.' Thus, the well-known passage in Isaiah 8:20. The passage in Paul's first letter to the Corinthians also applies here, where Paul asserts concerning Christian doctrine that 'no other foundation can be laid except what has been laid.' That is, there is no doctrine, there are no articles necessary for salvation outside of scripture. The day of the Lord will test, he says, whatever has been added to the foundation of scripture. But if they must be tested on the day of the Lord, why are they accepted as if they were well-established doctrine necessary for salvation?"
As regards the oral exposition of miracles or central teachings, as Johann Gerhard would later put it: "There must be a distinction between the principal points of the divine revelation, which are necessary, essential, etc., and the more detailed explanation of them. The prophets and apostles put down in writing the principal points of their instruction, which all people must know. Yet, we do not deny that they explain these orally in more detail."
Is this idea that the apostles set down in scripture simply the things necessary for salvation? Simply the miracles of Jesus necessary for salvation? Simply the teaching of the apostles that are necessary for salvation? This core of their teaching. This idea that this is what was set down in scripture. Is this an invention of the Lutheran reformers? Is this an invention of the other Protestants? The short answer to that is no. As we can see from the Patristic quotes that we've already produced earlier in this video, but also from some new quotes that I'll present to you at this time.
Let me list quotes from two additional church fathers which say the same thing as Melanchthon, but regarding the steelman passages from the Gospel of John which we just produced earlier. So, Augustine of Hippo writes the following in Tract 849 of the Gospel of John: "For though the Lord Jesus did many such acts, yet all of them are not recorded. Just as this same St. John the Evangelist himself testifies that Christ the Lord both said and did many things that are not recorded, but such were chosen for record as seemed to suffice for the salvation of believers."
So much for St. Augustine there on these steelman passages. Now, let's turn to Cyril of Alexandria, who writes this in his commentary on the Gospel of John: "He sums up the book in a manner and may explain to his hearers the object of the preaching of the gospel. For he says, 'This book was composed that ye may believe, and believing might have eternal life.' He says the signs were many, and does not limit the actions and marvelous works of our Savior to those which were accurately known by him personally and recorded by him, and leaves the other disciples to publish, if they chose, whatever was vividly impressed in their memory. For all the signs, he says, are not written in this book, but those only have been inserted by me which I thought best able to convince my hearers that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God."
Here's another quote from him as well, from Cyril of Alexandria: "Very great, then, says the apostle, will be the number of the miracles that God hath wrought, and altogether without number will the list of his deeds be seen to be, and out of many thousands of these that are recorded, been taken, as not being inadequate to profit to the uttermost those who read them. We maintain that even as it is, the power of the word has been displayed more than abundantly. For it is open to everyone to observe that a thousand miracles were performed by the power of our Savior. The preachers of the Gospels, however, have recorded the more remarkable of them in all probability, and such that their hearers could best be confirmed by them in incorruptible faith and receive instruction in morality and doctrine. So that, conspicuous for the orthodoxy of their faith and glorified by manifold works that make for righteousness, they might meet at the very gates of the city above, and being enjoined unto the church of the firstborn in the faith, might at length attain unto the kingdom of heaven in Christ."
So, what do we see here from Cyril of Alexandria and Augustine? That even for these steelman passages that I read earlier, talking about miracles and works of Jesus which are not recorded in the scriptures, the ones that were recorded were recorded as sufficed for the building up of the faith, for the building up of an incorruptible faith, and for the salvation of believers, that people might be saved, which is in perfect accord with what Melanchthon and Gerhard and the other reformers say about everything that is necessary for salvation being contained in scripture. Thus, this supporting argument of Trenum fails.
This takes us to Trenum's third and final supporting argument for his thesis. And this final argument doesn't really fit his "scripture explicitly contradicts *sola scriptura*" sort of talking points, since it's not really an argument from scripture, but we will address it nonetheless.
Trenum writes: "The Christian faith was once for all delivered to the saints. According to the Apostle Jude, Christ delivered the faith to the apostles, and the apostles delivered the faith to the church. It is a passing of the baton of truth. Each generation receiving the unchanging Christian faith from the previous generation as we all run the race set before us. This is why the Orthodox Church refers to the teaching of the Holy Fathers so often. This canon of faith, this touchstone of theological certainty we have called the consensus of the fathers, was common parliament in the church from the second century, expressing the universal Christian sense of being heirs of the pristine faith of our fathers. This is why theological innovation is so despised by the church. Innovation is a break and alteration of the sacred passing on of truth. Truth does not need to be improved, but preserved."
Trenum also writes: "Oral apostolic tradition is lived in the church and evidences herself in universal customs such as the making of the holy cross, baptism by triple immersion and immersion, prayer facing the east, and many more things. St. Basil the Great lists some of the content of oral tradition in a famous passage in his text on the Holy Spirit. The church herself is the guardian of the sacred deposit of all apostolic tradition."
And one final quote: He says, "The innovations of the scholastic papacy and the post-schism Latin church fallen into heresy make the Protestant embrace of the *sola scriptura* doctrine and its concomitant rejection of holy tradition more understandable, but no more correct. The Protestant reformers threw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater."
It must be noted here that Trenum makes the exact same mistake as the papists at the time of the Reformation. Namely, he commits the word-concept fallacy. He sees the scriptures as well as the earliest fathers utilizing the word "tradition" and then proceeds to assume that since they're utilizing the same word as the Eastern Orthodox Church utilizes today, they must be referring to his complete Eastern Orthodox concept of that same word. So, everything that his church would see as the consensus of the fathers on every point. And this is something that he merely asserts, really, without any demonstration. The closest thing he gets to is with his quote that he alludes to from St. Basil talking about tradition and speaking of some of its contents. So, I thought I would read the whole quote out for you guys, and then we can dissect the quote, see what it's talking about, see what the reformers would think of the contents of this tradition of St. Basil.
So, St. Basil writes in his work on the Holy Spirit: "Of the beliefs and practices, whether generally accepted or publicly enjoined, which are preserved in the church, some we possess derived from written teaching, others we have been delivered to us in a mystery by the tradition of the apostles. And both of these, in relation to true religion, have the same force, and these no one will gainsay, no one at all events, who is even moderately versed in the institutions of the church. For were we to attempt to reject such customs as of no written authority on the ground that the importance they possess is small, we should unintentionally injure the gospel and its very vitals, or rather should make our public definition a mere phrase and nothing more. For instance, to take the first and most general example, who is then who has taught us in writing to sign the sign of the cross, those who have trusted in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ? What writing has taught us to turn to the east at prayer? Which of the saints has left us in writing the words of the invocation of the displaying of the bread of the Eucharist and the cup of blessing? For we are not, as is well-known, content with what the apostle or the gospel has recorded, but both in preface and conclusion, we add other words as being of great importance, the validity of the ministry, and these who derive from unwritten teaching. Moreover, we bless the water of baptism and the oil of the chrism. And besides this, the catechumen who is being baptized. On what authority do we do this? Is not our authority silent and mystical tradition? Nay, by what written word is the anointing of oil itself taught? And whence comes the custom of baptizing thrice? And as to the other customs of baptism, from what scripture do we derive the renunciation of Satan and his angels? Does not this come from that unpublished and secret teaching which our fathers guarded in a silence out of the reach of curious meddling and inquisitive investigation? Well, had they learned the lesson that the awful dignity of the mysteries is best preserved by silence? What the uninitiated are not even allowed to look at was hardly likely to be publicly paraded about in written documents."
So, how should we understand what St. Basil is saying here about these traditions, their relation with the written documents of our faith? Well, before we get to any sort of Protestant understanding of these sorts of traditions, let's look at what Orthodox priest, theologian, and historian George Florovsky says concerning this passage from Basil. And this is from his work *Bible, Church and Tradition: An Eastern Orthodox View*. He says: "In any case, one should not be embarrassed by the contention of St. Basil. The dogmata were delivered or handed down by the apostles and mysterio. It would be a flagrant mistranslation if we render it as 'in secret.' The only accurate rendering is 'by the way of mysteries.' That is, under the form of rites and liturgical usages or habits. In fact, it is precisely what St. Basil says himself. Excuse my bad pronunciation here, *to graphos*. Most of the mysteries are communicated to us by an unwritten way. The term *to musta* refers here obviously to the rites of baptism and Eucharist, which we, or which are for St. Basil of apostolic origin. Indeed, all instances quoted by St. Basil in this connection are of ritual or liturgical nature."
Fast forwarding a little bit in that same work, Florovsky continues: "St. Basil is referring here to what is now denoted as *disciplina arcani*, the discipline of secrecy. In the 4th century, this discipline was in wide use, was formally imposed and advocated in the church. It was related to the institution of the catechumenate and had primarily an educational and didactic purpose. On the other hand, as St. Basil says himself, certain traditions had to be kept unwritten in order to prevent profanation at the hands of the infidel. This remark obviously refers to rites and usages. It may be recalled at this point that in the practice of the 4th century, the Creed and also the Dominical prayer were a part of this discipline of secrecy and could not be disclosed to the non-initiated. The Creed was reserved for the candidates for baptism at the last stage of their instruction, after they had been solemnly enrolled and approved. The Creed was communicated or traditioned to them by the bishop orally, and they had to recite it by memory before him. The catechumens were strongly urged not to divulge the Creed to outsiders and not to commit it to writing. It had to be inscribed in their hearts."
And then one final quote here from Florovsky: "Fast forwarding a tiny bit, he says, 'The only difference between dogma and charisma was in the manner of their transmission. Dogma is kept in silence, and charismata are publicized, but their intent is identical. They convey the same faith, if in different manners. Thus, the unwritten tradition in rites and symbols does not actually add anything to the content of the scriptural faith. It only puts this faith in focus. St. Basil's appeal to unwritten tradition was actually an appeal to the faith of the church. He pleaded that apart from this unwritten rule of faith, it was impossible to grasp the true intention and teaching of the scripture itself. St. Basil was strictly scriptural in his theology. Scripture was for him the supreme criterion of doctrine.'"
So, according to this eminent Eastern Orthodox scholar, Basil here is not adding things to scripture, okay, uh, that are this additional rule of faith, delivering dogma in a way that is adding unique content to the scriptures. It is simply putting the
Scriptures and their content in focus. Now that being said, Trenum accused the Protestant reformers of throwing the baby out with the bathwater in a supposed blanket rejection of holy tradition. Thus then trying to put them in conflict with St. Bosel, even if Bosel is just speaking about these secret uh rights uh that were passed on with the written scriptures. So is this characterization of Trenum's true?
Well, let us turn to yet another of the most influential theologians in all of Lutheranism, second generation reformer Martin Kemnets. What you find when you look at Kemnet's work is a much more refined and sophisticated approach to this issue than Trenum himself employs. In the first volume of his multi-olume work entitled Examination of the Council of Trent, Kenets identifies eight different uses of the word tradition among the fathers, only one of which the reformers object to.
These eight kinds of tradition include:
Number one, truth initially preached orally and later written down.
Number two, oral testimony concerning the canon of scripture.
Number three, oral summary of the written revelation.
Number four, the interpretive conclusions of the church.
Number five, necessary inferences from scripture.
Number six, the Catholic consensus of the church fathers.
Number seven, rights and ceremonies handed down by the apostles.
And number eight, unwritten dogmas which cannot be proven from scripture.
It is only this final and eighth tradition which the Lutheran reformers objected to on the basis of the scriptures containing all things necessary for salvation. As we discussed earlier, so let's look at the examples of tradition which Trenum alludes to from Basel. You will see that the traditions that Basel is appealing to fall into category seven, the category of rights and ceremonies handed down by the apostles. Meaning that as Lutherans, we do not object to these. In fact, one of the key distinctives of the Lutheran reformers which delineated them from the radical reformers is that the Lutheran retained many such historic customs of the ancient church.
That being said, the Lutheran reformers are also careful to point out that not all of these customs are made equal. Some of these customs are found directly in scripture or can be indirectly deduced from scriptural principles still rightly called apostolic while others yet were simply established by the church over the ages. Some for good and some for ill. Some of these ancient customs were meant to be permanent whilst others in their specifics were time or culture bound and have morphed over the ages. We are to judge these traditions in accordance with the sure testimony of scripture, retaining those which are edifying to faith and good church order whilst abregating those which run counter to the scriptures or which have proven harmful to the faithful in our day.
Kemnets writes the following: "Quote the seventh kind of traditions is that where the ancients make mention of the unwritten traditions. They do not actually understand dogmas of faith without, beside, and beyond scripture which are to be accepted even though they cannot be proved by any testimony of scripture. But they speak of certain ancient rights and customs which they traced back to the apostles because of their antiquity. Thus, Bosel calls them unwritten dogmas received from tradition. But he enumerates not articles of faith but only certain rights that the apostles instituted for the churches certain rights is firmly established from their own writings. And it is likely that also certain other external rights which are not mentioned in the scripture were handed down by the apostles. Also there is no doubt that the church after the apostles added certain other rights for the purpose of edification, order and decorum. It can indeed not be proved with sure and firm testimonies which rights were certainly delivered by the apostles. Although they cannot be shown from scripture, we can nevertheless have a sure apostolic approach to the evaluation and use of all traditions to rights or external ceremonies regardless where they have may have their origin. And this is more sure and more useful than to carry on uncertain quarrels regarding the authors. Accordingly, that the traditions concerning external rights may not in the absence of some sure apostolic rule fluctuate now in this direction, now in that, or roam on endlessly. Certain sure rules are gathered from those institutions or external rights concerning which it is known from their own writings that the apostles handed them down. And according to these rules, one should and can judge in the manner of the apostles concerning any and all rights or ceremonies. There are some rights which can be proved from the scripture because they contain the use, exercise, and profitable explanation of that doctrine which is divinely revealed in the scripture. Such rights we rightly love and retain as the confession of faith, the renunciation of Satan, and other rights in the act of baptism, which explain and illustrate the doctrine concerning baptism which is delivered in the scripture as profitably for edification. Such are also those ecclesiastical customs of which Augustine believes that they have their origin from the tradition of the apostles concerning the baptism of infants and about not rebaptizing such as had received baptism from heretics according to the form instituted by Christ. For these customs teach the exercise and use of that doctrine which is contained in the testimonies of scripture that such rights should be called apostolic. We do not oppose since in this way as has been said they have testimony in the scripture itself. I judge that such rights should certainly be retained and preserved which are as has been well said inducements and aids to piety. That is according to Paul's rule which first of all make for edification that men may be invited to the word to the sacraments and to other exercises of piety that the doctrine may be more aptly set forth valued more received more eagerly and better retained and that penitence faith prayer piety and mercy may be kindled and cherished etc. Secondly those which serve good order for it is necessary that in the public meetings of the church there be order worthy of churchly dignity. Thirdly those which make for decorum. Now by the quorum we understand not theatrical pomp or courtly splendor, but such the quorum as shows by means of external rights the honor in which we hold the word, the sacraments, and the remaining churchly functions, and by which others are invited to reverence toward the word, the sacraments, and the assemblies of the church. Christian liberty places a limit on apostolic rights. Namely, that ceremonies may be according to their nature at AAFA, few in number, good and profitable for edification, order, and decorum, and that this whole kind, except in the case of offense, should be observed in freedom, so they can be instituted, changed, or done away with for reasons of edification, place, time, persons, etc. End quote."
So much from Martin Kemnets. In summary, even on this final point, the Lutheran Reformation faces no threat from the fathers. If we are talking about customs which are meant to aid the believer in edification, that are meant to help the church in keeping good order in our services uh that is meant to highlight things from the scripture. We do not oppose these traditions and it is not what solos scriptor is talking about. Solos scriptor is simply objecting to that eighth kind of tradition that keenets was talking about namely unwritten dogmas which cannot be proven from scripture. Okay. So again from St. Basel as explained by George Florovski what Basel is talking about we do not object to. We just do not okay as Lutheran.
Now that being said, uh while not a Lutheran work, if you guys want a modern uh case for uh solos scriptor, I will recommend the shape of solos scriptor by Keith Mat as it provides a great modern account of the different kinds of tradition one can find among the fathers. And for an in-depth video on my channel making the case for solos scriptor utilizing mat's work, see my interview with historian Eddie Rodriguez.
In conclusion, I hope it is clear from the evidence presented in this video that while Father Josiah Trenum promised us the theological equivalent of a championship boxing match with the reformers and their theology, what he delivered when it comes to solos scriptor was nothing more than a shadow boxing session with fantasms of his own devising. If you take anything from this video, let it be this: Do not blindly trust hostile testimony against the reformation. Do your own research and actually take the time to read the reformers for yourself, lest you be duped by misrepresentations and straw men of their teachings.
And because I'm familiar with the way that these conversations tend to go, I know that some Eastern Orthodox objectors will retreat to calling the scriptures obscure and ridicule the idea that scripture can be used to interpret scripture and assert that the oral tradition is the only way to rightly interpret the Bible. If you would like to see a video addressing arguments against the idea that scripture interprets scripture, check out this video right here where I review Roman Catholic apologist Joe Heshmire on that very point.
That being said, let me know what you guys think about this video in the comments down below. If you found it helpful, please make sure to let me know. If you would like for me to tackle Trrenam's other arguments in the book, like I said earlier, his historic misrepresentations of the uh reformers were just remarkable uh in the Lutheran section, which is what I focused on uh uh for for the sake of this video and future videos. Um if you guys want me to address that, let me know. If you guys want me to address his section on the filioquay and on ecclesiology, let me know. And then I will work on videos doing so from the reformers. And ultimately what I'm doing here and hopefully you guys can see that's why I I cited so many quotes from the reformers is I'm letting the reformers refute these guys from the grave or rather from glory. Okay, the reformers are refuting these guys and they're refuting them in defense of the unshakable foundation the rock that is God's word which is what solos scriptor ultimately beckons us toward. So with that guys let me know what you think and I'll see you next time. I am out.
[Music]
[Music]