Antidote to William Whitaker's Sola Scriptura Arguments, Part 15: Is All of Jesus' Teaching and Apostolic Tradition in Scripture? / Authoritative "Necessary" Extra-Biblical Tradition

See the introductory post, New Upcoming Project: Refutation of William Whitaker's Disputation on Holy Scripture on Sola Scriptura.

I am utilizing a copy of the book available at Internet Archive.

Whitaker's words will be in blue. Page numbers will correspond to the above book version.

* * *

The second place of scripture cited by the Jesuit is contained in the last chapter of John, in the closing words, where the evangelist writes thus: "There are also many other things which Jesus did, the which if they should be written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written." Therefore, says Bellarmine, there are many things unwritten, since even a single hand can contain all the books that have been written. I answer, that there are many errors in this argument. Firstly, John does not there speak of Christ's doctrine, but of his acts, that is, of his signs and miracles. For he says, "which Jesus did," . . . not, "which he said." This place is therefore irrelevant to the question before us. For we do not say that all the miracles of Christ were committed to writing, since they were too many and great to be contained in any books: but we affirm that the whole doctrine of Christ, so far as it is necessary to our salvation, is written in these books. To this effect is what we read in John xx. 30, where the evangelist writes thus: "And many other signs did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book." Thus it is manifest, that the evangelist speaks of his signs and miracles, not of his doctrine. Is, then, anything wanting, because his miracles are not all written? By no means: for all Christ's miracles had this scope, to prove the divinity of the Son, to seal his doctrine, and finally, to shed a lustre round his person. Now this "those miracles" which are related in scripture do most evidently; nor could these things be more firmly established, even if all Christ's miracles were described in writing. . . . John here obviates a scruple which some, who prosecuted their inquiries with a greater desire to gratify their curiosity than any prudent care for edification, might raise: did Christ live so long, and yet do nothing more than these things which are related by the evangelists? John answers, that he did many other things, which are not written. Yea, even all the words of Christ are not related one by one severally, but only in general. The second error is no less glaring. All things are not written: therefore, all necessary things are not written. The argument is inconsequential. We confess that all things are not written, but yet contend that all necessary things are written. (pp. 545-546)

There are plenty of Scriptures where Jesus is teaching, where we don't have recorded exactly what He taught. Whitaker somehow believes that none of all of this is "necessary" or a tradition otherwise not present in Scripture (either not at all or not explicitly):

Matthew 4:23 And he went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and preaching the gospel of the kingdom and healing every disease and every infirmity among the people.

Matthew 9:35 And Jesus went about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every disease and every infirmity.

Matthew 26:55 At that hour Jesus said to the crowds, "Have you come out as against a robber, with swords and clubs to capture me? Day after day I sat in the temple teaching, and you did not seize me."

Mark 2:13 He went out again beside the sea; and all the crowd gathered about him, and he taught them. 

Mark 4:33 With many such parables he spoke the word to them, as they were able to hear it;

Mark 6:6 . . . And he went about among the villages teaching.

Mark 6:34 As he went ashore he saw a great throng, and he had compassion on them, because they were like sheep without a shepherd; and he began to teach them many things.

Mark 14:49 "Day after day I was with you in the temple teaching, and you did not seize me. But let the scriptures be fulfilled."

Luke 4:15 And he taught in their synagogues, being glorified by all.


Luke 5:3 . . . And he sat down and taught the people from the boat.

Luke 13:22 He went on his way through towns and villages, teaching, and journeying toward Jerusalem.

Luke 19:47 And he was teaching daily in the temple. . . .

Luke 21:37 And every day he was teaching in the temple, . . .

John 7:14 About the middle of the feast Jesus went up into the temple and taught.

John 8:2 Early in the morning he came again to the temple; all the people came to him, and he sat down and taught them.

John 18:20 Jesus answered him, "I have spoken openly to the world; I have always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where all Jews come together; I have said nothing secretly." 

If even some -- even a tiny portion -- of all this unknown teaching was passed down in apostolic tradition, the Catholic view is established and the Protestant sola Scriptura position overthrown; for Whitaker's view requires that there be no teaching whatsoever necessary to salvation present in non-biblical traditions. That's a pretty tough hill to climb.


The third passage of scripture cited by the Jesuit is from the beginning of Acts i. [1:2-3], where Luke writes that Christ conversed with his disciples during forty days after his resurrection, and said many things to them, and taught them many things concerning the kingdom of heaven. Then, doubtless, says Bellarmine, Christ told his disciples what he would not tell them before; as, for instance, concerning the sacrifice of the mass, the institution of the sacraments, the ordination of ministers, etc. etc., which they delivered to the church. I answer: I readily confess that the apostles did deliver, with the utmost fidelity, to the church what they had received from Christ. But I can perceive no consequential force in this argument. For how will he prove the very thing which he makes the basis of his reasoning, — that it was his traditions which Christ taught at that time? He says that this is undoubtedly true. But we cannot take his assertion for an argument: we want reasons, not asseverations. (pp. 547-548)

It's true that Bellarmine's argument here (at least how Whitaker presents it: assuming that is even accurate) is not a proof. It's a plausible speculation. Perhaps he over-argued it a bit. But then, so is Whitaker's argument.  It's an argument from plausibility on both sides (thus the discussion is about comparative plausibility), but I would contend that it is far more likely that there were legitimate (technically) "non-biblical" apostolic traditions contained in all these unknown teachings, than that no such traditions were present (a universal negative, which is extremely difficult to establish or posit at all, let alone prove).

Now where is the consequence in this reasoning? Christ, after his resurrection, often conversed with his disciples, (not indeed conversing with them constantly, but at intervals . . . and it is plain from John xx. 26, that he was for eight days together absent from the disciples,) and spake unto them many things concerning the kingdom of God: therefore, he delivered to them those things which are not written. I confess that Christ said many things about the kingdom, but of the popish traditions not a word. (p. 548)

Now, how could Whitaker possibly know (with such apparent certainty) that Jesus spoke "not a word" of any distinctive Catholic teaching, during these forty days, and during all the unspecified teachings that He gave during His earthly life? Of course he has no basis whatsoever for asserting such an absurd thing; but he has made it a fine art, arguing for perfectly groundless and ridiculous things, throughout his book, so yet another of the innumerable instances ought not surprise us at all.

We shall much better understand what it was he said, by consulting the scriptures, so that we have no ground for inventing any unwritten verities. (p. 548)

We have even less than no ground for asserting a universal negative: that not one word of all this unknown material has the slightest fragrance of "Catholic" in it.

From Matt, xxviii., Mark xvi., John xx. and xxi., Luke xxiv., and Acts i., we may gather the nature of his discourses. He expounded to them the scriptures; he gave them authority to cast out devils, to retain and remit sins; he attested his resurrection to them; he bade them preach the gospel to all nations, and said other things of the same kind, which we can read in scripture, so that we have no need of such conjectures as the papists rely upon in this question. (p. 548)

Of course, we can learn from all the instances of teaching, where the content appears in Scripture. It doesn't follow, however, that therefore Jesus could have never taught anything in addition to what we have in the Bible. It's simply wishful thinking to claim that this is the case. It's an example of the usual Protestant polemical mentality: "x [something Catholic] simply can't possibly be [because we don't want it to be]; therefore it is not." But this is an exercise of prejudice and foregone, predetermined conclusions, not reason.

I (and most Catholics) agree with Whitaker that all that is necessary for salvation is in Scripture (in some form or other); i.e., material sufficiency. I do not agree that all of apostolic tradition whatsoever is in Scripture, let alone necessarily in Scripture. I am disputing the latter view, not the former.

The second testimony of scripture cited by the Jesuit is taken from certain words of the apostle, in 1 Cor. xi., where Paul handles two questions, — one concerning the manner of prayer, the other concerning the mode of receiving the eucharist. He commences (says Bellarmine) both from tradition. (p. 548)

Remember that Whitaker (as we have seen before) assumes that the Eucharist is not necessary to salvation. In other words, he assumes the usual relatively indifferent, symbolic Eucharist. Our Lord Jesus teaches the exact opposite: that partaking of the Eucharist (His flesh and blood) is directly connected with salvation and the attainment of eternal life

John 6:50-58 This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die. [51] I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh." [52] The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" [53] So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; [54] he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. [55] For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. [56] He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. [57] As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. [58] This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever." 

St. Paul in 1 Corinthians also strongly alludes to the bodily presence of Jesus in the Eucharist (11:27; cf. 10:16), and (possibly) to loss of salvation insofar as one rejects the Holy Eucharist (11:28-31). In the previous chapter Paul teaches about the Sacrifice of the Mass (10:17-21).

But let us grant that necessary doctrine is here denoted by the term tradition; and indeed, for my own part, I think that the whole teaching delivered by the apostle is meant, . . . he speaks of the whole sum of his teaching, wherein some things were necessary and perpetual, some things left free, which (specifically, though not generally) might be altered and changed. (p. 549)

Whitaker smuggles in unproven assumptions: he goes right back to his non-established premise that traditions only have to do with unimportant, non-necessary things. If anything necessary is in tradition, Whitaker holds (without any biblical support) that it must also have been recorded in Scripture. Then he makes a logical mistake (in relation to the coherence of his own position) of granting that Paul may be referring in part to some necessary tradition (alongside non-necessary).

This grants too much to the Catholic position, since Whitaker's task is to prove that no traditions can be necessary ones. He had just argued the latter concept a page or two before, but now concedes what earlier he had disputed; either not being aware that he has done so, or hoping that his readers won't notice that he has backed off of his original contention, under the pressure of clear biblical counter-example (1 Corinthians 11).

Paul is, as usual, very straightforward, and doesn't appear to make the serious qualifications that Whitaker reads into his statements. He writes: "I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Cor 11:2), and "I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you . . ." (1 Cor 11:23). Whitaker is quite willing to apply his own arbitrary, unwritten, non-biblical tradition of men to the text of Holy Scripture itself: all the while virtually condemning the very notion of tradition.

What then follows from all this? We confess that the whole doctrine of the apostle was not then written, when that epistle to the Corinthians was written: does it follow from this that it is not even now written? Surely, by no force of this place or argument. We allow, indeed, that all things were not written immediately; but we say that afterwards, when all the sacred books were published, all things were abundantly contained in them. If, then, this place be understood of doctrine, we say that it is now fully written, although it was not so then. . . . (p. 549)

It's incredible how Whitaker can make these absolutely groundless assertions. Scripture nowhere asserts that all traditions would "afterwards" be written in Scripture. Yet somehow he believes this, because, well, he has to: by the illogical demands of his false sola Scriptura position. He'll pull anything out of thin air; a rabbit out of a hat, in the service of his own tradition of man. Yet at the same time he'll condemn Catholics, the minute they utter anything that can't be proven in the most explicit detail from the Bible.

Thus we see the papists have no grounds for "justly thinking" that it is their traditions which the apostle here tacitly implies. But mark, upon what a noble foundation rest the popish dogmas, and those not the slighter ones, but the most weighty of all, the sacrifice of the altar, the form and matter of the sacraments; . . . This is to suspect, to guess, to wish; not to believe, to prove, to argue. Teach, shew, demonstrate to me, that these things were instituted by Paul. — You cannot do it, and you own you cannot do it. (p. 551)

Detailing biblical evidence for all seven sacraments is too much of an aside to fully delve into here, so I'll refer interested readers to the abundance of biblical evidence detailed in many papers on my Baptism and Sacramentalism index page.Likewise, for articles about biblical support for the Mass, see the appropriate section in my Eucharist and Sacrifice of the Mass index page. Whitaker says we can't trace the Mass to Paul. I say we certainly can (right in 1 Corinthians 10), and that I myself have done so, and that he is full of hot air.

The Jesuit's third testimony is taken from 2 Thess. ii. 15, where the apostle says, . . . "Therefore, brethren, stand fast," hold firm, keep your ground, . . . and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by our word or epistle." From these words, say our adversaries, it is plain that all things are not written: and indeed the papists find no more plausible passage than this in scripture. I reply: Various answers are given to this testimony. Some suppose that Paul speaks only of certain external rites and ceremonies of no great moment: but the scope of the epistle and the context refutes that opinion. For Paul, having mentioned the horrible devastation which was to be occasioned by the coming of antichrist, immediately subjoins, "Stand fast, and hold the traditions, etc." Therefore his doctrine is rather to be understood as designated by the term 'traditions.' The apostle Paul had founded the church of the Thessalonians, and had both taught them orally, and written an epistle to them. Now, therefore, he exhorts them to hold fast his whole teaching, as well what he had when present delivered by word of mouth, as what he had committed to writing. So that some things were delivered in discourse orally, and others written in an epistle. Does not then this place establish traditions? Nay, our writers have returned a twofold answer to this testimony. First, that the things which Paul delivered orally were not different from, but absolutely the same with, those which were written. (pp. 551-552)

The proposed "explanation" in the last sentence is the same utterly groundless, special pleading non-answer that Whitaker has given over and over. It doesn't become any more true by repeating it (the way that mere propaganda succeeds). If it is groundless stated once, it is, stated a thousand times. He never proves it from Scripture itself, and failing that, he has no case whatever that it is true, or should be held by anyone even tentatively, let alone dogmatically, and as a foundation for an entire false system of sola Scriptura.

Paul in this place [2 Thessalonians] mentions both traditive and written teaching, and that justly considering the time: but we have now more books than those Thessalonians had; and therefore it does not follow that all necessary things are not found in the canon as now published. (p. 553)

Same old same old . . . It's funny how it always seems that in Protestant polemics the very weakest arguments are repeated the most.

The Jesuit answers, in the second place, that, even though it were conceded that all is written in other books, yet this would be no objection to believing in traditions also. For (says he) the apostle does not say, I promise that I or the other apostles will commit all the rest to writing, but, "hold the traditions." I answer; Although Paul had never written or made such a promise, does it follow that all the rest were not written by other apostles? (p. 554)

Not necessarily, no, but the contrary opinion (Whitaker's) is a very weak argument from silence, with no positive proof. If Whitaker chides us when we have no absolute proof for something, then he must take his own medicine and concede when he himself does what he condemns.

By no means. For they wrote according as they were commanded by the Holy Ghost. We confess that many things are found in other scriptures, which were not then committed to writing, concerning the birth, death, resurrection, future advent of Christ, and the whole mystery of our redemption by him accomplished. These things the apostle enjoins to be held no less than any of those which he had himself written, because no less necessary in themselves. How does he prove to us that, if these had been then fully, yea, abundantly set forth in writing, the apostle would have made any mention of traditions? (p. 554)

This is an example of a hypothetical that can't be proven either way. Both sides have to work with what we hold and revere in common: Holy Scripture

But it was because he knew that these things had not yet been written, that he admonished the Thessalonians to hold fast the traditions. (p. 554)

Assuming what he is trying to prove . . .  It's clever that Whitaker doesn't deny that traditions exist (he can scarcely do so, given all the biblical indication), but rather, plays all these hypothetical games, pretending they are solid arguments when they are not at all. The main point: that traditions exist and that they are authoritative, is rather plainly established in Holy Scripture. The only way for Whitaker to escape this is to come up with the silly view that all such authoritative traditions had to later be "inscripturated." It's one of the classic Protestant non-arguments: typical of the entire debate over sola Scriptura.

The third place cited by the Jesuit in this fourth testimony is contained in 2 Tim. ii. 2, where Paul thus addresses Timothy: "Those things which thou hast heard of me before many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to instruct others also." These (says Bellarmine) must needs be understood of traditions; for if the apostle had meant the scripture, he would not have said, "what thou hast heard of me before many witnesses," but, what I have written. I answer: Bravely reasoned! The apostle in these words commends sound doctrine to Timothy, and that no other than what is contained in the scriptures. (p. 557)

The same circular reasoning again . . . it is its own refutation.

  

But, in the meanwhile, let Bellarmine shew the consequence of his argument: "What thou hast heard of me commit to faithful men: therefore these things can nowhere be found in scripture." (p. 557)

Here Whitaker constructs a ludicrous straw man. To hold that not all things are in Scripture is not the same as saying that nothing one believes is in Scripture, or that particular things referred to are not.

The Jesuit's fifth testimony is taken from 2 John, verse 12, where John writes thus: "Having many things to write unto you, I would not write with paper and ink; but I trust shortly to see you, and to speak with you face to face, that our joy may be full:" and from 3 John, verses 13 and 14, where he writes in almost the same words: "I have many things to write, but will not write unto you with ink and pen; but I hope to see you shortly, and to speak with you face to face." Therefore, says Bellarmine, John said many things to the disciples which are nowhere found in the scriptures. I answer: I confess that all things are not found in those very brief epistles of John; but are all necessary things therefore not found in the rest of the books of scripture, numerous and large as they are? (p. 558)

Again: the Catholic argument is not necessarily against material sufficiency of Scripture. Our argument is a different notion: that  there is such a thing as authoritative extrabiblical tradition. Both can be held together with no contradiction. Whitaker neglects this distinction, so he thinks (in the usual Protestant dichotomous mode) that every time he mentions the material sufficiency of Scripture for salvation, he therefore refutes all notions of tradition. This is not the case. It's also true that not all things that are necessary to hold in the Christian faith (as part of apostolic tradition) are necessarily tied to salvation.

Let them deliver likewise doctrines according to the scriptures, and we will receive their traditions. (p. 561)

Exactly! Sola Scriptura is nowhere taught or found in Scripture. Whitaker hasn't established this, with all the effort he puts forth. Therefore, we Catholics reject it: as an unbiblical, non-biblical, anti-biblical tradition of men.



***