Calvin contra Rome on Scripture (Part 1)

Reformation21 ^ | March 10, 2015 | Aaron Denlinger

[Gamecock]

For an explanation of what follows, see the previously posted introduction to this series.

Calvin discerned four basic claims in Rome's teaching on Scripture as discovered in the canons and decrees of the Council of Trent. The first claim was comprised in the opening sentence of the first decree of that Council's fourth session (the 'decree concerning the canonical scriptures'). That sentence reads:

The sacred and holy, ecumenical, and general Synod of Trent -- lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost, the same three legates of the Apostolic See presiding therein -- keeping this always in view, that, errors being removed, the purity itself of the Gospel be preserved in the Church; which (Gospel), before promised through the prophets in the holy Scriptures, our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, first promulgated with His own mouth, and then commanded to be preached by His Apostles to every creature, as the fountain of all, both saving truth, and moral discipline; and seeing clearly that this truth and discipline are contained in the written books, and the unwritten traditions which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ himself, or from the Apostles themselves, the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down even unto us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand; (the Synod) following the examples of the orthodox Fathers, receives and venerates with an equal affection of piety, and reverence, all the books both of the Old and of the New Testament--seeing that one God is the author of both--as also the said traditions, as well those appertaining to faith as to morals, as having been dictated, either by Christ's own word of mouth, or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved in the Catholic Church by a continuous succession.

That sentence is a bear by anyone's reckoning. Calvin helpfully and accurately summarizes it thus: "First, they ordain that in doctrine we are not to stand on Scripture alone, but also on things handed down by tradition."

In responding to Rome's teaching, Calvin -- interestingly -- doesn't bother defending the authority of Scripture from Scripture. Presumably that's because he realizes that Protestants and Roman Catholics actually agree that Scripture constitutes the "Word of God" rather than the "word of man" (1 Thess. 2.13), and is therefore inspired and authoritative (cf. 2 Tim. 3.16). The Roman decree cited above, after all, acknowledges that "saving truth" is contained in the "written books" of Scripture, which books are thus deserving of our affection and reverence. Protestantism, of course, stops there. Rome carries on, and makes a positive claim about another source of "saving truth" -- namely, "unwritten traditions ... which have come down even to us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand."

The burden of proof that something other than Scripture constitutes a source of "saving truth" -- whether that something be "unwritten traditions" or Chinese fortune cookies -- rests entirely with those making such claims. This is often overlooked by would-be Roman apologists who require Protestants to defend from Scripture their principle that Scripture alone is authoritative, and fail to realize that sola Scriptura is not a positive claim per se, but a denial of the positive claim that "unwritten traditions" or anything else deserve the moniker "Word of God."

Calvin could, then, have simply highlighted the failure of Rome to prove that "unwritten traditions" constitute a source of "saving truth" and called it a day. But he does one better. Drawing upon his extensive knowledge of the Church Fathers, he points out that the earliest Christian thinkers themselves recognized no infallible authority but Scripture. In other words, he argues from tradition against the view that tradition constitutes an authoritative word on par with Scripture: "In regard to Traditions," he writes, "I am aware that [frequent] mention of them is made by ancient writers, though not with the intention of carrying our faith beyond the Scriptures, to which they always confine it." Calvin supports this claim with a quote from the prince of Church Fathers himself: "We must ever adhere to Augustine's rule, 'Faith is conceived from the Scriptures.'"

For what it's worth (which is quite a lot, actually), Calvin's reading of the Church Fathers is supported by the best of recent Patristic scholars. So, for instance, J.N.D. Kelly notes that up until the fourth century, the Fathers were univocal in affirming Scripture as the exclusive source of Christian doctrine. The words of Cyril of Jerusalem in the fourth century might be taken as representative: "With regard to the divine and saving mysteries of faith, no doctrine, however trivial, may be taught without the backing of the divine Scriptures." Athanasius put it this way: "The holy and inspired Scriptures are fully sufficient for the proclamation of the truth."

When the Fathers did speak of tradition (as Calvin acknowledges they did), they typically understood it not as a source of unique Christian doctrine, but as the Church's universal interpretation of Scripture's most fundamental teachings, handed down from one generation of believers to the next. To put it another way, traditional teachings were considered necessary to be believed not because they were traditional, but because they were Scripture's teachings. It wasn't until the late fourth century, in fact, that Christian thinkers began to toy with the possibility that certain truths or (more commonly, at least early on) customs could be traced back to the Apostles even if they weren't reflected in Scripture. In the medieval period the notion of extra-scriptural apostolic truths became more common (though many medieval thinkers retained the earlier, Patristic perspective of Scripture as the solitary source of saving truth, and tradition as the means by which Scripture's truth is transmitted through the centuries).

When Trent, then, affirmed that "saving truth" is contained in both Scripture and "unwritten traditions," it canonized a view on the source(s) of Christian doctrine which was an aberration from the understanding of the earliest Christians.

Calvin's argument from tradition against tradition (understood as a source of unique Christian doctrine) constitutes a case of rather clever argument. He takes Rome to task on its own turf (tradition) and shows how un-traditional Rome's teaching is. But in the process Calvin also demonstrates his own profound appreciation for tradition properly understood; indeed, Calvin honors tradition much more than his Roman counterparts by actually following the Fathers in their own insistence upon the ultimate authority of Scripture alone to define Christian beliefs. The champion of sola Scriptura proves, ironically, to be the traditionalist, to be more catholic than his Roman Catholic counterparts.

As Reformed Protestants today, we would do well to take a page from Calvin's apologetic in defending Scripture as the sole infallible norm of Christian beliefs. We would likewise do well to follow his lead in listening carefully to the Church Fathers and letting their engagement with Scripture and theological reflection inform our own convictions -- not least on the matter of how much, or rather what kind of, authority ought ultimately to be imputed to the Fathers themselves and other saints who have gone before us. 

[one Lord one faith one baptism]

See post #8

Please feel free to post all the biblical verses that tell us what books are Scripture..............

[Tao Yin]

For my part, I should not believe the Gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church. So when those on whose authority I have consented to believe in the Gospel tell me not to believe in Manichæus, how can I but consent?" (St. Augustine, "Against the Fundamental Epistle of Manichaeus"; 5,6)

Luther answers your Augustine quote...

Even if Augustine had used those words, who gave him authority, that we must believe what he says? What Scripture does he quote to prove the statement? What if he erred here, as we know that he frequently did, as did all the fathers? Should one single sentence of Augustine be so mighty as to refute all the texts quoted above [Luther had quoted a variety of texts proving the supreme authority of Scripture]? That is not what God wills; St. Augustine must yield to them.

[paladinan]

Within the last week I read a Romanist writer refer to himself as a papist.

I have, too... but in an obviously sardonic way which poked fun at those who used the term "papist" as a derogatory epithet (which, will all due respect, is how a great many American Evangelical Revivalist-types mean it, in my experience--they certainly don't seem to mean it as a positive or as a neutral descriptor!).

Just for reference: I'm not offended (I have a fairly thick skin); I just like rules of discourse to be observed evenly on both sides; it gets tiresome to have one side use derogatory and dismissive terms, while the other tries mightily to take the high road. Plus, it makes them sound like ad hominem-flinging trolls.

I have heard it a number of times, so I don’t consider that a slur at all.

That doesn't exactly follow, you know. I've heard cuss words and derogatory slurs lots of times, too... but that doesn't make them less (or more) than what they are.

I’m sorry if you do.

And again: I didn't take it personally. (I've heard it hundreds of times... and every time, it's been used in an anti-complimentary manner toward Catholics, when used by Evangelicals and other Calvin-minded non-Catholics. I've gotten used to it, while still seeing it for what it is.)

I said it because it is a shorthand way of referring to people who belong to your church.

:) Er... we *do* have a short word, already: "Catholic". You could also use "Roman Catholic", or "RC's", if you want something shorter. More on that, below.

I don’t use catholic because that word refers to the universal church,

I'm afraid that just won't do; many Protestants seek to co-opt the term "catholic" (usually with a lowercase "c") to apply to themselves... but a simple test will show the flaw in that idea: walk up to any local on the street, and ask him where the nearest Catholic Church is; if he points you to a Baptist or Lutheran or other non-Roman-Catholic Church, then come back and tell me.

But any unbiased reading of history and culture will tell you that the terms "Romanist", "Papist", etc., all came from Protestants who were none too fond of the Catholic Church, and who wanted their listeners to know it.

not the religion headquartered in the City on Seven Hill.

Geography check: the Vatican is not situated on any of the seven hills of ancient Rome. That's an old and silly canard of anti-Catholics from the previous 2 centuries.

The papacy is a central tenet of your religion, so papist fits.

Um... that doesn't make much sense, I'm afraid. It's a bit like saying, "African-Americans are dark, so 'darkie' fits!"

Somewhere along the lines people like me were nicknamed Baptists because baptism of believers by immersion is a central tenet of what we believe.

But your denomination has incorporated that term into its very name for ITSELF; the Catholic Church has nowhere applied the words "papist" or "romanist" or "romish" to itself in any capacity. Face it: you're using a slur... though it's one which may be tossed about thoughtlessly, in some circles.

Maybe Romanists aren’t all that proud of the papacy.

And maybe Protestants shot JFK on the grassy knoll... :)

Come on, now! ("If you don't like the word 'darkie', you must not be very fond of your skin color, Mr. Negro!") Have some sense.

If so, I can certainly understand why.

I can only imagine what you mean by that.

Christians are regenerated by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. It’s an act of God, not the sinner.

Right... but the human needs to *cooperate*, yes?

That’s why I said salvation is all of grace.

And that's why I said that I agreed with you, on that specific point.

He initiates faith and He completes faith. He draws, He teaches, He protects. He’s the author and the finisher. It’s all about HIM.

Of course. But your commentary above (which is correct, and even beautiful) says NOTHING which supports anti-Catholic-Church ideas; any faithful and well-informed Catholic could say them with ease, and mean them completely.

That’s not rhetorical flourish, that’s what the Bible teaches.

Yes, and no. Yes, the Bible teaches it... but it's so vague that it could be used by almost ANYONE of any denomination; and so, I'm left scratching my head as to why this idea would be any sort of "indictment" of Catholic Rome...

Don’t let manmade mumbo jumbo take away from the simplicity of the gospel.

:) Don't worry: I never let "sola Scriptura", "sola fide", "once saved, always saved", and any other man-made mumbo-jumbo from getting in the way of the simplicity of the Gospel (love Jesus, and do what He tells you through His Bride, the Church).

I hope you have a great day!

You, too!

[paladinan]

PLEASE FEEL FREE TO USE NORMAL-SIZED FONT AND REGULAR TYPEFACE, TOO.

...and please explain why references to “Scripture” translate to “Scripture ALONE” (which I don’t see *anywhere* in your long list).

[RnMomof7]

besides, last week I was called Goebbels like, so being called a papist is mild.

Papist is a reformation word...just like the curses from Trent it stands

[RnMomof7]

Bingo

[RnMomof7]

It hinges on whether you believe in Apostolic succession or not. The lead off is that and only that. If you don’t it will never make sense, if you do, then you see it for what it is.

Indeed it does... and seeing there is no indication of "apostolic" succession"...that leaves Rome in a bind

[one Lord one faith one baptism]

No apostolic succession?

News to Paul.

Titus 1:5

Paul laid hands on Titus, who then laid hands on elders in Crete, who then laid hands on other men, etc etc.

Been happening now for close to 2,000 years.......after all, Jesus promised to be with the Church ALWAYS, even to the end of the world.

[paladinan]

[St. Augustine]
For my part, I should not believe the Gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church. So when those on whose authority I have consented to believe in the Gospel tell me not to believe in Manichæus, how can I but consent?" (St. Augustine, "Against the Fundamental Epistle of Manichaeus"; 5,6)

[Tao Yin]
Luther answers your Augustine quote...

:) Hm. More in a moment...

Even if Augustine had used those words, who gave him authority, that we must believe what he says?

FRiend, sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander; who gave Luther authority, that we must believe what HE says?

But you may not have caught the main point: the OP (and the article being quoted) was making a claim that "the Church Fathers taught Sola Scriptura"... and my example was to give at least one case where the claim was nonsense. Other examples from the other Church Fathers abound.

What Scripture does he quote to prove the statement?

Surely you realize that "demanding Scripture alone as proof" to prove that "demands for Scripture alone as proof" is INVALID is utterly illogical? The whole POINT is that Scripture is not MEANT to be used ALONE, no does it make that claim for itself, nor would it be logically valid if it did.

What if he erred here, as we know that he frequently did, as did all the fathers?

Let's suppose he did, for the sake of argument. Isn't it still quite clear that, since St. Augustine is definitely a Church Father and since St. Augustine explicitly REJECTED 'sola Scriptura', it follows that St. Augustine DISPROVED the original claim of "the Church Fathers taught 'sola Scriptura', in general? Those who supply plentiful quotes of the Fathers (usually about "how authoritative Scripture is"--which no sane Catholic would reject) are forced into the most crass type of cherry-picking in order to make the Church Fathers look favorable toward "sola Scriptura".

But since he's expressing a personal conviction, how can you possibly say that he is wrong? If I say (sanely or insanely) that I will not believe the woman in my house to be my wife without a DNA test, how could anyone come in and say, "No, you erred, there... you don't really believe that!"...?

Now, if you want to say that St. Augustine is WRONG in rejecting "sola Scriptura", that's fine--and it's a separate discussion. But the original comment of the original post (which claimed support for "sola Scriptura" from the Church Fathers) still lies in ruins.

Should one single sentence of Augustine be so mighty as to refute all the texts quoted above [Luther had quoted a variety of texts proving the supreme authority of Scripture]?

Which texts do you mean? The ones from Elsie, in which none of them claim that Scripture must be used ALONE, as the SOLE standard of faith? Or do you mean other ones? In any case, Luther (et al.) has an additional burden of proof: he needs to prove that his interpretation of Scripture is CORRECT. That, FRiend, is impossible to do with "sola Scriptura"

That is not what God wills; St. Augustine must yield to them.

I'm not quite sure what you mean, here. Do you mean that the fallible St. Augustine should yield to the fallible Scriptural interpretations of Luther (and members of this board)? If so, why?

[paladinan]

Whoops... forgot to ping you on that last one, Elsie; sorry!

[one Lord one faith one baptism]

call me anything you want, just don’t call me late for dinner!

[St_Thomas_Aquinas]

Since Calvin’s not mentioned in the Bible, why should anyone care what he thought?

If you have a Bible, you don’t need human traditions, right?

[Gamecock]

Pope Franky isn’t in there either.

Just sayin’.

[paladinan]

Pope Franky isn’t in there either. Just sayin’.

Just "sayin'", to someone who doesn't believe the false idea of "sola Scriptura", and to whom the standard isn't applicable. Making this comment of yours absolutely irrelevant to the point at hand. Just sayin'.

It never ceases to amaze me: when Catholics challenge "sola Scriptura", an embarrassingly large number of sola-Scriptura defenders immediately trot out at least two of the most mind-bogglingly illogical tropes:

1) "Show me where in Scripture [insert Catholic dogma, doctrine, practice, rumor attributed to Catholicism, urban legend attributed to Catholicism, etc.] appears!" (Um... the whole point is that no one HAS to "obey sola Scriptura in order to refute sola Scriptura" or "obey sola Scriptura in order to prove the Catholic Church's authority"... right? And Scripture itself never makes that claim, anyway. I would be just as entitled to insist that Protestants only use, as proofs, books of the Bible which mention the word "Christian"; that leaves "Acts" and "1 Peter", I think. Why on earth would anyone conjure up an artificial, man-made standard like that?)

2) "Scripture has THOUSANDS of places where people referred to use of the Scriptures!" (*headdesk* Yes, very good. Now, show which ones of these insist that we use Scripture ALONE... much less the 66-book Protestant Bible alone! I'll give you a hint: the number is less than "1".)

[paladinan]

Papist is a reformation word...just like the curses from Trent it stands

So... do you disagree with .45 Long Colt when he says that the word is NOT used disparagingly? Your link of it to the word "curses" is what made me wonder. Maybe the two of you should hash this out, first?

[Gamecock]

**And Scripture itself never makes that claim, anyway.**

There is a far, far, far stronger case in Scripture for Sola Scriptura than 95% (estimate) of Catholic doctrine that y’all claim to have found in Scripture.

Besides, did you see what happened up top? How Calvin didn’t even use Scripture to argue for Sola Scriptura? Care to dissect that?

[RnMomof7]

Show us where Jesus TOLD the apostles they could pass on their special gift and authority... Show me that scripture

Been happening now for close to 2,000 years.......after all, Jesus promised to be with the Church ALWAYS, even to the end of the world.

HIS church is made up of the elect,the saved, not a denomination but by His grace and mercy..

[Elsie]

Please feel free to post all the biblical verses that tell us what books are Scripture..............

Every one the Catholic church says...

[Elsie]

...and please explain why references to “Scripture” translate to “Scripture ALONE” (which I don’t see *anywhere* in your long list).

TRADITION, Tevya; TRADITION!

Post your verses~~~

[Elsie]

Been happening now for close to 2,000 years.......after all, Jesus promised to be with the Church ALWAYS, even to the end of the world.

Except them 7 found in Revelation.

They wuz ALL Catholic; right??