Counter-Counter Response to Dave Armstrong regarding St. John Chrysostom and Sola Scriptura

 

Dave Armstrong has written a reply to my response to him regarding some citations that he used from John Chrysostom as part of an argument against Sola Scriptura. In particular, I thought I would deal with the former of the two quotes (from Chrysostom's homilies on 2 Thessalonians), which Dave Armstrong seemed to build his argument upon. I also will discuss some of the issues regarding the definition of Sola Scriptura that Dave brought up in his response to me. 

First, let's talk about the quote from Chrysostom's commentary on 2 Thessalonians:

“So then, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye were taught, whether by word, or by Epistle of ours.” Hence it is manifest, that they did not deliver all things by Epistle, but many things also unwritten, and in like manner both the one and the other are worthy of credit. Therefore let us think the tradition of the Church also worthy of credit. It is a tradition, seek no farther. Here he shows that there were many who were shaken. (On Second Thessalonians, Homily IV) 

Now, it should be noted that this quote (again) does not help Dave's case. One issue that must be discussed in the Sola Scriptura debate is whether or not divine revelation has ceased. This quote is insufficient to argue against Sola Scriptura, since it never mentions any sort of infallible magisterium that we must have for interpreting Scripture, much less defining new articles of faith (like the Bodily Assumption of Mary, which some many Catholic apologists have admitted there to be no explicit or direct biblical proof of, such as Robert Sungenis in his debate with James White on the issue [at the 11:58 mark])

Another thing (which was pointed out to me in an article by Turretin Fan, who I know Dave Armstrong is quite familiar with, due to the fact the he is on his list of anti-Catholics) is what Chrysostom means by "tradition" in the first place. Take a look at his commentary on 2 Thessalonians 3:6 (which also uses the word "tradition"):

Ver. 6. Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother that walks disorderly and not after the tradition which they received of us.

That is, it is not we that say these things, but Christ, for that is the meaning of in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ; equivalent to through Christ. Showing the fearfulness of the message, he says, through Christ. Christ therefore commanded us in no case to be idle. That you withdraw yourselves, he says, from every brother. Tell me not of the rich, tell me not of the poor, tell me not of the holy. This is disorder. That walks, he says, that is, lives. And not after the tradition which they received from me. Tradition, he says, which is through works. And this he always calls properly tradition. (On Second Thessalonians, Homily 5, source) 

Here, Chrysostom clearly views "tradition" as being a part of the way in which one lives, rather than some sort of new doctrine (like the Bodily Assumption of Mary, as I mentioned above). Thus, the very idea of "tradition" at all in this quote from Chrysostom is primarily with the Apostle Paul. This particular quote does not seem to say anything about an infallible magisterium defining new doctrines (I am not trying to make the argument that these are always out-of-thin air sorts of things when it comes to the Roman Catholic church defining doctrines. Many times, it defines dogmas due to controversy and clarification; the Council of Trent is an obvious example of this.) 

By the way, Dave also cited 2 Thessalonians 3:6 against Sola Scriptura in his book The Catholic Verses on page 37. Thus, he is going against what Chrysostom says here on this verse. 

Now, let's look at the issues regarding the definition of Sola Scriptura, and what is and is not compatible with it (which, in this "dialogue" [as Dave refers to it], should be discussed in light of what Chrysostom said in his homily on 2 Thessalonians). Dave Armstrong's words will be in red. 

The actual definition of sola Scriptura, as held by historic Protestantism is: “Holy Scripture is the only final and infallible and binding authority for the Christian.” Expanding upon that, the converse is also true: “No Church or council or tradition or single figure in Christianity (be he the pope or anyone else) can lay claim to this level of sublime authority in Christianity”.

How does this definition at all contradict what Chrysostom said? Now, Dave would go to the part (as he does later in the article) where Chrysostom spoke of "tradition" as being "worthy of credit", and saying that we should "seek no farther" (bear in mind that this was primarily addressed to the church in Thessalonica). But again, as I pointed out above, Chrysostom's understanding of "tradition" (based off of his commentary on 2 Thess. 3:6 as well as the context of 2 Thess. 2:15 in general) appears to be different from that of Roman Catholic apologists. 

We need to take a step back and first inquire about the meaning of "tradition" in 2 Thessalonians 2:15. I find Gordon D. Fee's comments on this passage helpful here:

"That Paul intends the “traditions” in this case to refer to his own teaching is made certain by his twofold reference to its source: “whether by word of mouth,” thus referring to his own teaching when he was among them, “or by letter,” now referring to our 1 Thessalonians." (Gordon D. Fee, The New International Commentary on the New Testament: The First and Second Letters to the Thessalonians) 

If Dave provides a counter-counter reply to this article (and I am somewhat certain that he will) , I would be interested in knowing if he agrees with what Gordon D. Fee says here. 

It is certainly true that the Bible alone is inerrant. That is the definition of Sola Scriptura in its most basic form. The point of my previous article was to demonstrate that what Chrysostom said was not in any way in contradiction with Sola Scriptura. Here is what Joel Beeke says in the same article which Dave cites: 

"The Bible’s sufficiency should also not be understood to exclude the use of the church’s helps, such as her many teachers past and present, and the writings produced by them. These are not to be rejected, but welcomed as a means that the Holy Spirit has provided in the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:28; Eph. 4:11–13). However, they are subordinated to the Bible in such a way that they have authority to direct our faith and obedience only insofar as they faithfully reproduce and apply the teachings of Scripture. The principle of Scripture alone, rightly understood, does not mean the church of any given time or place operates by the Bible alone without reference to the traditions of the church through the ages. Rather, the sola of sola Scriptura means that the Bible alone is the fountain and touchstone for all authoritative teaching and tradition. This point especially needs to be emphasized in an ahistoric contemporary culture that emphasizes radical individualism and personal liberty. As Peter warns, “No prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation” (2 Pet. 1:20)."

Here is a section from the Geneva Confession, which is cited in Beeke's article:

First we affirm that we desire to follow Scripture alone as rule of faith and religion, without mixing with it any other thing which might be devised by the opinion of men apart from the Word of God, and without wishing to accept for our spiritual government any other doctrine than what is conveyed to us by the same Word without addition or diminution, according to the command of our Lord. (https://www.creeds.net/reformed/gnvconf.htm)

Notice that the Geneva Confession rejects opinions of men "apart from the Word of God". This is not the same thing as the "traditions" of 2 Thessalonians 2:15.

Thus, I am not in any way "contradicting" Sola Scriptura and neither is Chrysostom. I have shown from his commentary on 2 Thess. 3:6 that he views "tradition" more in the sense of a way of life rather than ongoing, infallible, tradition in the way that Roman Catholics think of it today (whether or not this is the meaning of 2 Thessalonians 2:15 is another issue somewhat). Either that, or Chrysostom is too ambiguous on the meaning of "tradition" for either me or Dave to get anywhere in this discussion. 

The traditions, which Chrysostom speaks of as being "worthy of credit", are the oral discourses of the Apostle Paul to the Thessalonians, not some infallible magisterium. Gordon D. Fee, a New Testament scholar, agrees with me on this point in his commentary on 2 Thessalonians 2:15. 

So, based off of Chrysostom's comment on 2 Thessalonians 3:6, "tradition" simply refers to one's way of living, rather than to doctrine. Or, it is indeed referring to doctrine. But the point remains that this isn't referring to anything other than the teaching of Paul in Thessalonica, which Gordon Fee agrees with me upon.

I expect to probably get another response from Dave Armstrong soon, so I look forward to hearing what he has to say regarding these points.