Answering William on Sola Scriptura: A Claim-by-Claim Response
37 min readUpdated 9 October 2026By The Christian King
In a livestreamed debate on the Berean Perspective channel, Roman Catholic apologist William Albrecht argued against sola scriptura, and Kelly Powers, a non-denominational Christian, defended it. This article answers William's claims one at a time, in the order he made them. Each timestamp opens the debate at that moment. Where a Catholic reader might reasonably reply, that reply is answered too, and the sources and quotations behind each answer are given with it.
Part 1 — The Opening Claims
Protestants are selective with the fathers
Response: Selectivity cuts both ways. Rome itself sets aside Jerome on the canon, Augustine on the correctability of councils, Cyprian on Roman supremacy (at the Council of Carthage in 256 he declared that none of the bishops sets himself up as a "bishop of bishops"), Aquinas on the Immaculate Conception, and the earliest fathers who expected a literal thousand-year reign on earth (Papias, Justin, Irenaeus). Everyone weighs the fathers. The only question is by what standard, and the fathers themselves point to Scripture (see the answer at 1:40:05).
This preface to the Scriptures may serve as a helmeted [i.e. defensive] introduction to all the books which we turn from Hebrew into Latin, so that we may be assured that what is outside of them must be placed aside among the Apocryphal writings. Wisdom, therefore, which generally bears the name of Solomon, and the book of Jesus the Son of Sirach, and Judith, and Tobias, and the Shepherd [of Hermes?] are not in the canon.
Note: Catholic writers reply that Jerome still translated Tobit and Judith for the Vulgate and elsewhere deferred to the churches' usage, so this was his own judgment, not a church ruling. See the response at 1:12:41.
Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job … Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias, with Baruch; … two books of the Machabees, the first and the second. … But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema.
Note: The Catholic text that shows the disagreement with Jerome: the books Jerome put outside the canon are defined as canonical under anathema.
the Councils themselves, which are held in the several districts and provinces, must yield, beyond all possibility of doubt, to the authority of plenary Councils which are formed for the whole Christian world; and that even of the plenary Councils, the earlier are often corrected by those which follow them, when, by some actual experiment, things are brought to light which were before concealed, and that is known which previously lay hid
Note: Catholic reply: 'corrected' means fuller light, not reversal of dogma; and 'plenary' councils here may mean regional general councils (e.g. all Africa), not ecumenical ones. See 1:03:14 for the full passage.
For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another.
Note: Usually read as a jab at Pope Stephen during the rebaptism dispute. Rome also rejects Cyprian on the council's actual subject (rebaptizing heretics). Catholic reply: Cyprian elsewhere speaks of the 'chair of Peter' (On the Unity of the Church 4).
not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole church
Note: The Catholic text opposed to Cyprian's 'no bishop of bishops': anathema on anyone who says the Roman pontiff has merely supervision and 'not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole church'.
If the soul of the Blessed Virgin had never incurred the stain of original sin, this would be derogatory to the dignity of Christ, by reason of His being the universal Saviour of all. … But the Blessed Virgin did indeed contract original sin, but was cleansed therefrom before her birth from the womb.
Note: Catholic reply: Aquinas opposed a different sense of 'conception' than the 1854 definition (the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia argues this).
And these things are borne witness to in writing by Papias, the hearer of John, and a companion of Polycarp, in his fourth book; for there were five books compiled (συντεταγμένα) by him. And he says in addition, Now these things are credible to believers.
Note: 'These things' are the elders' sayings about the earthly kingdom's fruitfulness in 5.33.3.
To these belong his statement that there will be a period of some thousand years after the resurrection of the dead, and that the kingdom of Christ will be set up in material form on this very earth. … But it was due to him that so many of the Church Fathers after him adopted a like opinion, urging in their own support the antiquity of the man; as for instance Irenæus and any one else that may have proclaimed similar views.
Note: Eusebius disapproves of Papias' view but confirms that 'so many of the Church Fathers' held it.
But I and others, who are right-minded Christians on all points, are assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years in Jerusalem, which will then be built, adorned, and enlarged, [as] the prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah and others declare. … there was a certain man with us, whose name was John, one of the apostles of Christ, who prophesied, by a revelation that was made to him, that those who believed in our Christ would dwell a thousand years in Jerusalem
Note: In the same chapter Justin grants that 'many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise', so the millennium was held by several early fathers, not all of them.
it behooves the righteous first to receive the promise of the inheritance which God promised to the fathers, and to reign in it, when they rise again to behold God in this creation which is renovated, and that the judgment should take place afterwards.
Note: Irenaeus devotes AH 5.32-36 to the earthly kingdom of the righteous before the final judgment.
the Church has rejected even modified forms of this falsification of the kingdom to come under the name of millenarianism
Note: The Catholic text opposed to the chiliast fathers. Catholic reply: CCC 676 targets claims to realize the messianic hope 'within history', and some argue the patristic view differs; still, 'even modified forms' is broad. Modern copyrighted text: short quote only.
Private judgment disqualifies the Protestant
Response: Catholics rely on private judgment at every step as well. They use it to identify which church is infallible (see the answer at 19:15), to interpret the great majority of Bible verses the magisterium has never defined (see the answer at 56:10), and to interpret the magisterium's own documents (see the answer at 1:02:15). Private judgment cannot disqualify one side if both sides depend on it.
You need the Church to know what Scripture is
Response: This is a category error. Sola scriptura is a claim about the rule of faith after the apostles: that Scripture is the only infallible norm. It is not a claim about how the table of contents was assembled. Recognizing which books are God-breathed and submitting to them as the final norm are two different acts. Even if the Catholic Church had handed down the list, that would make her a witness to the canon, not the judge over its contents, just as of the Jews it is written, "unto them were committed the oracles of God" (Rom 3:2), without that making the Sanhedrin infallible.
Response: The objection depends on defining the doctrine correctly. Sola scriptura means that Scripture is the only infallible rule, sufficient for faith and practice. It does not require a verse that says "Scripture alone." It requires that Scripture be the only thing God calls God-breathed, and that Scripture be sufficient. Both are taught in 2 Timothy 3:16–17 (see the answer at 49:50).
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
Local councils were elevated by magisterial authority
Response: William did not say which council he had in mind. If he meant the Council in Trullo (692), whose canon 2 received the Carthage canons in the East, the claim works against him. Trullo also received the Apostolic Canons, whose list differs from Carthage and includes 3 Maccabees and 1–2 Clement. It ratified conflicting lists side by side, which shows there was no single binding canon. The same canon also ratified the Council of Laodicea and the canonical letters of Athanasius, Gregory Nazianzen, and Amphilochius, several of which give short Old Testament lists. And Rome never accepted Trullo as ecumenical.
It has also seemed good to this holy Council, that the eighty-five canons, received and ratified by the holy and blessed Fathers before us, and also handed down to us in the name of the holy and glorious Apostles should from this time forth remain firm and unshaken … But we set our seal likewise upon all the other holy canons … those too at Laodicea in Phrygia … In like manner those of Sardica, and those of Carthage
Note: The same canon also ratifies Laodicea and the canonical letters of Athanasius, Gregory Theologus (Nazianzen) and Amphilochius, several of which give short Old Testament lists, so Trullo endorsed several conflicting lists at once. It did reject the Apostolic Constitutions, which Apostolic Canon 85 lists.
of Ezra, two; of Esther, one; [some texts read of Judith, one;] of the Maccabees, three; … But besides these you are recommended to teach your young persons the Wisdom of the very learned Sirach. … Two Epistles of Clemens, and the Constitutions of me Clemens, addressed to you Bishops, in eight books
Note: Confirms 3 Maccabees and 1-2 Clement. Also worth knowing: the NT list omits Revelation, and Sirach is only recommended for teaching the young, not listed as canonical.
A Protestant cannot infallibly identify the canon
Response: The argument proves too much: it refutes Rome. William demands an infallible way to know the canon. But how does he know Rome is the infallible church? By reading history and Scripture with fallible private judgment. Every Catholic's infallible authority rests on a fallible identification of that authority. If "fallible knowledge of the canon" sinks Protestantism, "fallible knowledge of the church" sinks Catholicism by the same logic. William never addressed this.
The fathers agree on transubstantiation, baptismal regeneration, priesthood
Response, transubstantiation: The fathers used strongly realist language about the Eucharist, and also symbolic language: Tertullian ("this is the figure of my body," Against Marcion 4.40), Augustine (On Christian Doctrine 3.16, calling the eating "a figure"), and Clement of Alexandria. The philosophical doctrine of transubstantiation, with its substance and accidents, comes from the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) and Aquinas. "The fathers believed in the real presence" is defensible; "the fathers believed in transubstantiation" is not.
Response, baptismal regeneration: Most of the fathers did teach that God regenerates in baptism. Justin Martyr (1 Apology 61) calls it the washing of regeneration, and Tertullian wrote a whole treatise On Baptism. This should be granted, because it does nothing for William's case, for three reasons.
It isn't uniquely Catholic. Lutherans (Augsburg Confession art. 9; Luther's Small Catechism) and classic Anglicans (the 1662 Book of Common Prayer calls the newly baptized child "regenerate") teach baptismal regeneration while holding sola scriptura. So a father who taught it is not evidence against sola scriptura or for Rome. William claimed "uniquely Catholic non-negotiables" (8:56); this is not one.
The fathers argued it from Scripture. Their texts are John 3:5, Titus 3:5, Acts 2:38, and 1 Pet 3:21, not an unwritten tradition. That makes it an argument over what the text means, which is exactly the method sola scriptura uses. No father is known to have defended baptismal regeneration from an oral tradition instead of from those verses.
The fathers' practice varied, and even Rome does not make the rite absolute. Tertullian (On Baptism 18) urged delaying the baptism of young children. Ambrose, Basil, Gregory Nazianzen, Chrysostom, and Augustine each had a Christian parent, yet all were baptized as adults. The 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia calls Ambrose's delay "a misguided reverence," and such delays were a custom rather than a doctrine, but they show that the 4th-century church did not treat early baptism as indispensable. Rome's own Catechism says God "has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments" (CCC 1257), and it accepts baptism of blood and baptism of desire (CCC 1258–1260). Scripture shows the same freedom: the thief on the cross was promised paradise without baptism (Luke 23:43), and Cornelius' household received the Spirit before they were baptized (Acts 10:44–48).
Christians who hold that baptism signifies regeneration rather than causing it point to 1 Peter 3:21, where baptism saves, "not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God," "by the resurrection of Jesus Christ." That question can be left aside here, because the issue in this debate is authority, not baptism.
Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, This is my body, that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body.
Note: Catholic reply: Tertullian is arguing against Marcion that Christ had a real body, and in his Latin 'figura' need not mean a mere symbol.
Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, says Christ, and drink His blood, you have no life in you. … This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share [communicandem] in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory [in memoria] of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us.
Note: The text is about John 6:53, not the words of institution; Catholics will cite Augustine's realist statements elsewhere. New Advent numbers it Book 3, ch. 16, sect. 24.
The flesh figuratively represents to us the Holy Spirit; for the flesh was created by Him. The blood points out to us the Word … Thus in many ways the Word is figuratively described, as meat, and flesh, and food, and bread, and blood, and milk. The Lord is all these, to give enjoyment to us who have believed on Him.
Note: In the page these two sentences come in reverse order (the 'many ways' sentence is earlier); the '…' marks a skipped stretch, not adjacency.
There is one Universal Church of the faithful, outside of which there is absolutely no salvation. In which there is the same priest and sacrifice, Jesus Christ, whose body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the forms of bread and wine; the bread being changed (transsubstantiatio) by divine power into the body, and the wine into the blood
Note: First conciliar use of the transubstantiation vocabulary.
for the whole substance of the bread is changed into the whole substance of Christ's body, and the whole substance of the wine into the whole substance of Christ's blood. Hence this is not a formal, but a substantial conversion; nor is it a kind of natural movement: but, with a name of its own, it can be called "transubstantiation."
Note: The substance/accidents framework comes in q.75 a.5 and q.77 (accidents remain without a subject).
Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, Unless you be born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Note: In this translation ch. 61 says 'regenerated'; the closest wording to 'washing of regeneration' is ch. 66, 'the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration'. Note Justin grounds it in John 3:5.
Of Baptism they teach that it is necessary to salvation, and that through Baptism is offered the grace of God, and that children are to be baptized who, being offered to God through Baptism are received into God’s grace.
Note: Art. 9 does not use the word 'regeneration'; it says baptism is necessary to salvation and conveys grace, and condemns those who say 'children are saved without Baptism'. For the word itself use the Small Catechism. (The page prints paragraph numbers inside the sentence; they are omitted here.)
It works forgiveness of sins, delivers from death and the devil, and gives eternal salvation to all who believe this, as the words and promises of God declare. … But with the word of God it is a baptism, that is, a gracious water of life and a washing of regeneration in the Holy Ghost, as St. Paul says, Titus, chapter three
Seeing now, dearly beloved brethren, that this Child is regenerate and grafted into the body of Christ's Church, let us give thanks unto Almighty God for these benefits
Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
And so, according to the circumstances and disposition, and even age, of each individual, the delay of baptism is preferable; principally, however, in the case of little children.
Note: Catholic reply: Tertullian's advice presupposes that infants were already being baptized, and his stated reason is the risk to sponsors, not doubt about the rite.
Strange to say, like so many other believers of that age, from a misguided reverence for the sanctity of baptism, he was still only a catechumen, and by a wise provision of the canons ineligible to the episcopate. … The Saint finally acquiesced, received baptism at the hands of a Catholic bishop, and eight days later, 7 December 374, … was consecrated bishop. He was now in his thirty-fifth year
Note: The same article describes his widowed mother as 'saintly' and his sister Marcellina as a consecrated virgin, so a Christian household. It calls the delay 'a misguided reverence': a custom, not a doctrine, but a common one.
Fortunately, Basil came again in contact with Dianius, Bishop of Caesarea, the object of his boyish affection, and Dianius seems to have baptized him, and ordained him Reader soon after his return to Caesarea.
Note: Basil was 'Born probably 329' and was baptized after returning from his studies in Athens (mid-350s), so in his mid-to-late twenties. His father married Emmelia, 'the daughter of a martyr'.
He had certainly not been baptized in infancy, though dedicated to God by his pious mother; but there is some authority for believing that he received the sacrament, not on his voyage to Athens, but on his return to Nazianzus some years later.
Note: His father was Gregory, Bishop of Nazianzus, and his mother Nonna was 'a daughter of Christian parents'.
It was a very decisive turning-point in the life of Chrysostom when he met one day (about 367) the bishop Meletius. … He studied Holy Scripture and frequented the sermons of Meletius. About three years later he received Holy Baptism and was ordained lector.
Note: Born c. 347, so baptized at about 23. His mother Anthusa 'instructed her son in piety'.
His mother had him signed with the cross and enrolled among the catechumens. Once, when very ill, he asked for baptism, but, all danger being soon passed, he deferred receiving the sacrament, thus yielding to a deplorable custom of the times. … Towards the beginning of Lent, 387, he went to Milan and, with Adeodatus and Alypius, took his place among the competentes, being baptized by Ambrose on Easter Day, or at least during Eastertide.
God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.
Note: Same paragraph opens by saying Baptism is necessary for salvation 'for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament', so William may lean on that. Modern copyrighted text: short quote only.
This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.
Note: 1258 is baptism of blood; 1259 covers catechumens who die before baptism (desire); 1260 extends to those ignorant of the Gospel who seek the truth. Short quote only.
While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.
Response: This should be granted, and once it is, the argument loses its force. Apostolic oral teaching was binding while the apostles were speaking. Sola scriptura has always said that during the apostolic era, revelation came through living apostles. The doctrine concerns the church after the apostles. So 2 Thessalonians 2:15 proves apostolic authority, which no Protestant denies.
Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
Note: The traditions are ones the apostles themselves taught, "whether by word, or our epistle", which supports the point that the verse concerns apostolic authority.
The Orthodox are bound to the Catholic canon
Response: This is false. The Synod of Jerusalem (1672) affirmed the deuterocanon, but the Eastern Orthodox canon includes 3 Maccabees, Psalm 151, 1 Esdras, and the Prayer of Manasseh, books Trent did not receive. The Orthodox canon is not Trent's canon, which was Kelly's original point: these churches do not share one binding list.
we call Sacred Scripture all those which Cyril … collected from the Synod of Laodicea, and enumerated, adding thereto those which he foolishly, and ignorantly, or rather maliciously called Apocrypha; to wit, “The Wisdom of Solomon,” “Judith,” “Tobit,” “The History of the Dragon,” “The History of Susanna,” “The Maccabees,” and “The Wisdom of Sirach.”
Note: The Synod names only these books; it does not mention Baruch, 1 Esdras, 3 Maccabees, Psalm 151 or the Prayer of Manasseh, and "The Maccabees" is left unnumbered. So it does not reproduce Trent's list, and it does not fully define the Orthodox list either. William may point to its phrase "Following the rule of the Catholic Church", but there "Catholic Church" means the Orthodox Church.
3Maccabees Psalms (151 in number) … * Includes the Prayer of Manasseh **Also known as 1 & 2 Esdras
Note: In the table the Orthodox column lists 1 Ezra, 2 Ezra (Ezra) and Nehemiah separately, adds 3 Maccabees and Psalm 151, and places the Prayer of Manasseh with 2 Chronicles. The Roman Catholic column has none of these. Copyrighted modern work, so only a short excerpt is quoted.
However, because the Jerusalem Council was a regional council and neither ecumenical nor pan-Orthodox, its decrees were not obligatory unless accepted by all Orthodox Churches.
Note: The same page says Greek Orthodox Bibles include Psalm 151, 1 Esdras and 3 Maccabees, with 4 Maccabees and the Prayer of Manasseh often in an appendix. It is a wiki, so treat it as a secondary source.
Trent only repeated Florence; binding since Agatho
Response: Kelly's point was mostly right. The 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia ("Canon of the Old Testament") itself describes Trent's decree as the first infallible and effectually promulgated pronouncement on the canon. H.J. Schroeder's standard Catholic translation of Trent says the same in its footnote to Session 4.
Florence needs more care. The same encyclopedia article says Florence's decrees are infallible "according to the common teaching of theologians," and that Trent's fathers thought the books had been "virtually canonized" by Florence. Its point is narrower: Florence "taught the inspiration of all the Scriptures, but did not formally pass on their canonicity," and its list of books in Cantate Domino avoids the words "canon" and "canonical." The stronger argument is what happened next. After Florence, Cardinal Cajetan and Erasmus still openly questioned the deuterocanon, and Cajetan wrote that the words of councils and doctors "are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome." If the list had been binding since 680, or even since 1442, it is hard to see how a cardinal could write that in the 1530s. A Catholic may reply that Cajetan allowed these books to be called "canonical" in a looser sense, as a rule for edification. That is true, and it confirms the point: a leading cardinal still did not treat them as Scripture for confirming matters of faith.
On Agatho, William gave no citation. Agatho's letter to the Sixth Council (680) affirms Scripture and the prior councils, but it contains no list of books. William asked Kelly to produce Josephus on paper, and the same standard applies to his own claim. If the claim really refers to the Council in Trullo, see the answer at 17:08.
But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema.
The Tridentine decrees from which the above list is extracted was the first infallible and effectually promulgated pronouncement on the Canon, addressed to the Church Universal.
Note: The same article says Florence's bulls are infallible 'according to the common teaching of theologians', but that Florence 'did not formally pass on their canonicity', and that Trent's fathers saw the books as 'virtually canonized' by Florence.
The Tridentine list or decree was the first infallible and effectually promulgated declaration on the Canon of the Holy Scriptures.
Note: The EWTN page does not name Schroeder, but its notes cite "Schroeder, Disciplinary Decrees of the General Councils", which matches his edition. The same footnote lists Florence among the "earlier lists". Copyrighted, so only one sentence is quoted.
It accepts and venerates their books, whose titles are as follows.
Note: The list that follows matches Trent's (it includes Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch and two books of Maccabees) and gives "Esdras, Nehemiah". Per the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia it avoids the words "canon" and "canonical". Copyrighted translation, so only one sentence is quoted.
we close our commentaries on the historical books of the old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus.
Note: Quoted secondhand from William Whitaker's 1849 English edition. Cajetan goes on to say the books 'may be called canonical' in the sense of a rule 'for the edification of the faithful' (see the response).
how could a knowledge of the Scriptures, in its fullness, be found unless what has been canonically defined by our holy and apostolic predecessors, and by the venerable five councils, we preserve in simplicity of heart, and without any distorting keep the faith come to us from the Fathers
Note: Confirmed: neither Agatho letter in NPNF (to the Emperor, and with the 125-bishop Roman synod) names any biblical book or gives a list. "Canonically defined" refers to the doctrinal definitions of earlier popes and councils, but William may read it as covering the canon too.
Part 2 — Tradition and the Test of the Magisterium
The command is general; Chrysostom reads it this way
Response: Chrysostom's comment deserves to be quoted in full. He says the apostles "did not deliver all things by Epistle, but many things also unwritten," and goes on: "let us think the tradition of the Church also worthy of credit. It is a tradition, seek no farther" (Homily 4 on 2 Thessalonians). Three things follow. First, he names nothing that was delivered only orally, so the passage gives tradition no content. Second, the same Chrysostom says "all things are clear and open that are in the divine Scriptures; the necessary things are all plain" (Homily 3 on 2 Thessalonians). Whatever "seek no farther" covers, it is not something necessary that Scripture leaves out. Third, the burden remains on William to name one dogma that Chrysostom says rests on unwritten tradition alone.
Basil (On the Holy Spirit 27.66) is the stronger Catholic text. He says written and unwritten traditions "have the same force," and he calls them "beliefs and practices." But every example he gives is a practice: signing with the cross, turning east to pray, the words of the epiclesis, blessing the baptismal water, triple immersion. He does use unwritten practice to defend the doxology "with the Spirit," but he argues the Spirit's deity itself from Scripture throughout the same book. Basil would not accept that his unwritten traditions are "not doctrines" at all, and this response does not claim that. The point is narrower: his examples are practices, and none of them is a dogma like the Assumption or papal infallibility. The fathers' "unwritten tradition" is still a world away from Trent's.
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.
Note: Quoted in full, including the line Catholics cite: 'It is a tradition, seek no farther.' Homily 4 covers 2 Thess 2:6 to 3:2.
Wherefore any necessity for a homily? All things are clear and open that are in the divine Scriptures; the necessary things are all plain. But because you are hearers for pleasure's sake, for that reason also you seek these things.
Note: He says it while rebuking hearers who want sermons instead of reading Scripture themselves.
Of the beliefs and practices … which are preserved in the Church some we possess derived from written teaching; others we have received 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. … who has taught us in writing to sign with 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 the prayer? Which of the saints has left us in writing the words of the invocation at the displaying of the bread of the Eucharist and the cup of blessing?
Note: Basil calls these 'beliefs and practices' and gives written and unwritten tradition 'the same force'. His examples are liturgical practices; he also uses unwritten practice to defend the doxology 'with the Spirit'.
Oral and written both binding, no expiration date; Irenaeus used tradition
Response, the content of the traditions: Paul tells the Thessalonians to "hold the traditions which ye have been taught." What were they? In the same chapter he asks, "Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?" (2:5). The oral teaching was the same content as the letter. 1 Corinthians 11:2 and 15:1–3 use the same language for "the gospel which I preached unto you." Every time Paul's "tradition" is given content in the New Testament, it is the gospel and apostolic doctrine, not the Assumption, papal infallibility, or purgatory. The burden is on William to name one dogma that was taught by the apostles orally, is not found in Scripture, and can be traced to them. The Catholic Church's own practice shows the problem: she has defined dogmas (1854, 1870, 1950) that the apostolic fathers never mention.
Response, "no expiration date": This cuts the other way. If binding oral teaching has no expiration date, then the apostles' written command to test everything by Scripture (Acts 17:11; Gal 1:8; 1 Thess 5:21; 2 Tim 3:16–17) has no expiration date either. The real question is which wins when a claimed oral tradition and Scripture conflict. Catholicism answers: the church's reading of tradition. Scripture answers:
To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
Response, Irenaeus: Irenaeus invoked succession to show that the churches taught publicly what the Gnostics claimed was secret. The content of that public tradition (Against Heresies 1.10.1) is the creed, all of it found in Scripture, and he says the apostles "handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith" (3.1.1). He used succession to show that the apostolic churches had no secret teaching beyond what was publicly preached and written, not to add to it. A Catholic may cite Against Heresies 3.4.1, where Irenaeus asks, "how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down…?" But that is a hypothetical, and he immediately gives the content of that tradition: "believing in one God, the Creator of heaven and earth," in Christ born of the virgin, who "suffered under Pontius Pilate," and rose again (3.4.2). It is the creed, the same faith the apostles wrote down, not a body of dogma beyond Scripture.
Note: 'These things' are the teaching about the man of lawlessness he has just written in 2:3-4, so this time the oral teaching and the letter cover the same content.
Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
Note: In context (5:20) the testing is of prophecies. The verse names no standard to test by, so it supports the argument only together with the other texts.
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
The Church, though dispersed throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: [She believes] in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh …
Note: The summary goes on to the second coming, judgment and resurrection, and every item in it is taught in 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 did at one time proclaim 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.
Note: See also Against Heresies 3.4.1-2 (next source), which a Catholic may cite.
For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches? … carefully preserving the ancient tradition, believing in one God, the Creator of heaven and earth, and all things therein, by means of Christ Jesus, the Son of God
Note: The Catholic reply answered in the response: the tradition Irenaeus describes is the creed.
The burden is on you to prove it was all written down
Response: The burden runs the other way. Scripture says it makes the man of God "perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works" (2 Tim 3:17). Anyone who says something binding was left out must name it: one dogma that was taught by the apostles orally, is not found in Scripture, and can be traced to them (see the answer at 36:04).
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
Response: "Tell it unto the church" is a procedure for disciplining a sinning brother in a local congregation (Matt 18:15–17). It moves from a private rebuke, to "two or three witnesses," to the gathered church. It is not a doctrine of an infallible magisterium; it is a local church dealing with one of its own members. A Catholic may point to the next verse: "Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven" (18:18). But that promise is spoken in the same setting, about a congregation disciplining a sinning member, not about defining doctrine for the whole church.
Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.
Note: The "two or three witnesses" are the step before "tell it unto the church" (v. 16). Verse 18 ("Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven") is spoken in the same disciplinary setting (see the response at 43:57).
The eunuch needed a guide
Response: Philip "began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus" (Acts 8:35). A teacher is not an infallible magisterium. Every Protestant church has pastors. The eunuch was taught from the text, and Philip was an evangelist, not a pope.
Note: William's text is v. 31 ("How can I, except some man should guide me?"). Philip is called "the evangelist" in Acts 21:8, which supports the point that he was an evangelist, not a pope.
To know what is canonical you need an infallible church
Response: Jesus held people accountable to a canon with no magisterium: "Have ye not read…?" (Matt 12:3), "Search the scriptures" (John 5:39), "Moses and the prophets" (Luke 16:29), "in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms" (Luke 24:44). Jesus, the Sadducees, and the Pharisees all knew what Scripture was without an infallible council. William conceded at 1:24:07 that there was no infallible Jewish canon. That means God's people lived for centuries with a canon that was recognized but never decreed, which is the Protestant position in a sentence.
And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
Response: The point is the order. The Bereans heard an apostle, a man with more authority than any pope, and still checked him against Scripture, and Luke calls that noble. If the standard for judging an inspired apostle was Scripture, then Scripture outranks every claimed authority after the apostles. Yes, they accepted Paul, but only after Scripture confirmed his message. The verification is the norm. William's reading keeps the acceptance and drops the verification. Nor does the passage need to say "sole rule"; it shows it. There is no Berean magisterium in Acts 17, only Scripture, examined daily, by ordinary people.
These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews. These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few.
Note: William is right that the passage has no “sole rule” statement; the argument is from what the Bereans did (no other norm appears in the passage).
"All, not only" / theopneustos / Luther's "alone"
Response, "all" versus "only": The argument for sola scriptura is not that 2 Timothy 3:16 contains the word "only." It rests on verse 17: Scripture makes the man of God "perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." If Scripture furnishes him unto all good works, nothing is lacking that an oral tradition must supply. And nothing else in the Bible is called theopneustos, God-breathed. Scripture alone carries that quality. "All versus only" answers an argument no one is making.
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
Response, theopneustos: William offered no citation for this claim. The strongest example he could have given is Gregory of Nyssa, who calls his brother Basil's study of creation "that God-breathed study" (τὴν θεόπνευστον ἐκείνην… θεωρίαν, PG 44.61), and later writers occasionally used the word of holy men. That should be granted: it is praise, the way someone might call a sermon "anointed." But a few pages later in the same work, Gregory says Basil's views should "take second place to the God-breathed Testament alone" (μόνης τῆς θεοπνεύστου Διαθήκης τὰ δευτερεῖα φερέσθω, PG 44.68). Even this father keeps Scripture in a class by itself. No father ever treated Basil's homilies as a norm that could correct the church's faith. In the fathers, the word in its full sense, the infallible norm, belongs to the Scriptures. And the question is not how a 4th-century bishop used the word, but what Paul means by it in 2 Timothy 3:16.
Response, Luther and Romans 3:28: The comparison fails, though the fact behind it is true. Luther himself admits "the letters s-o-l-a are not there." He defended "alone" as the plain German sense of "apart from works of the law," and added, "I am not the only one, nor the first, to say that faith alone makes one righteous" (On Translating: An Open Letter, 1530). Even Cardinal Bellarmine, Rome's great controversialist, gathered ten earlier writers who used "faith alone" (sola fide) language (De justificatione 1.25): Origen, Hilary, Basil, Ambrosiaster, Chrysostom, Augustine, Cyril of Alexandria, Leo, Theophylact, and Bernard. He concluded that "faith alone sometimes justifies, but never in the sense" Protestants mean ("fidem solam aliquando justificare, sed numquam in eo sensu, quo id accipiunt adversarii"). The Jesuit Joseph Fitzmyer's Romans commentary (Anchor Bible, on 3:28) reprints eight of Bellarmine's names and adds Theodoret and Aquinas from Lyonnet. Luther was not inventing; he was summarizing. Not every name is equally strong (Leo's "sola fides Catholica," for example, means "only the Catholic faith"), but Hilary, Basil, Ambrosiaster, Theophylact, and Bernard plainly use the phrase.
A Catholic will reply that these writers meant something narrower than Luther did. That is Bellarmine's own answer: he reads "alone" as excluding the Mosaic law, works done before grace, or heretical faith, but never charity. Yet Paul's own contrast in Romans 3:28 is between faith and "works of the law," and that is enough to show that "alone" is not a Lutheran invention.
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
Note: Checked in the Greek PDF: θεόπνευστον describes Basil's study (θεωρίαν), not a book. The next source shows Gregory ranks Basil's work below Scripture.
Gregory of Nyssa, Apologia in Hexaemeron, PG 44.68 (TLG 2017.078, lines (00058)-(00059)) · Greek text: TLG digital text (Migne PG 44 base) via Documenta Catholica Omnia. Literal gloss: 'Let me declare before I begin that we make no counter-doctrine to holy Basil ... but let his views prevail, and let them take second place to the God-breathed Testament alone.'
Of the passages cited by Dr. Cremer there remain only the two he derives from Wetstein, in which qeo,pneustoj appears as an epithet of certain men. To these should be added an inscription found at Bostra, in which a certain ecclesiastic is designated an avrciereu.j qeo,pneustoj .
Note: A secondary source: later (5th-6th century) uses of the word for holy men, as reported by Warfield. Archived copy; the live page is blocked.
I also know that in Rom. 3, the word "solum" is not present in either Greek or Latin text—the papists did not have to teach me that—it is fact! The letters s-o-l-a are not there. And these knotheads stare at them like cows at a new gate, while at the same time they do not recognize that it conveys the sense of the text—if the translation is to be clear and accurate, it belongs there.
Note: Luther admits that 'alone' is not in the Greek or Latin text. He defends it from German idiom and the context, not from earlier Bibles. The same letter contains his 'Dr. Martin Luther will have it so' line, which William may quote.
Furthermore, I am not the only one, nor the first, to say that faith alone makes one righteous. There was Ambrose, Augustine and many others who said it before me. And if one is to read and understand St. Paul, the same thing must be said and not anything else.
Note: This is Luther's own form of the 'he wasn't inventing it' argument. He names Ambrose (most likely Ambrosiaster) and Augustine.
Robert Bellarmine listed eight earlier authors who used sola
Note: Fitzmyer reprints eight of Bellarmine's ten names (leaving out Augustine and Leo) and adds Theodoret and Aquinas from Lyonnet. He marks Chrysostom '[not in Greek text]' and Cyril '[but alludes to Jas 2:19]'. Seen through a blog excerpt, not the book itself.
CAPUT XXV. Solvitur argumentum ex traditione veterum Patrum pro sola fide. Quamvis adversarii testimonia sanctorum Patrum non magni pendant, cum ipsorum erroribus manifeste repugnant : tamen cupide illa eadem colligunt, si quando in specie saltem nobis contraria esse judicant. Percurram igitur breviter testimonia, quæ ab illis adferri solent…
Note: Checked against the page scan (printed p. 204, chapter starts at foot of right column). Line-break hyphens removed. Bellarmine treats this as an OBJECTION he answers, and he lists TEN witnesses, not eight: Origen, Hilary, Basil, 'Ambrose', Chrysostom, Augustine, Cyril of Alexandria, Leo, Theophylact, Bernard. Fitzmyer's eight leave out Augustine and Leo. Fitzmyer's Naples 1856 vol. 4 pp. 501-503 citation was NOT checked; this is the Vivès edition.
Bellarmine, De justificatione 1.25, 1st witness: Origen (on Romans 3), Vivès vol. 6, pp. 204-205 · Latin, Vivès ed. My own English: 'In first place they bring these words from Origen on Romans 3: "And he (the Apostle) said that the justification of faith alone suffices, so that someone who only believes is justified, even if no work has been accomplished by him." I answer: Origen sets faith against EXTERNAL work... So by the word "alone" Origen excludes the necessity of external work, namely when either the power or the opportunity to do such a work is lacking.'
Primo loco proferunt ex Origene in cap. 3. epistolæ ad Romanos hæc verba. « Et dixit (Apostolus) sufficere solius fidei justificationem, ita ut credens quis tantummodo, justificetur, etiamsi nihil ab eo operis fuerit expletum ». Respondeo : Origenes opponit fidem operi externo… Itaque per vocabulum Sola, excludit Origenes necessitatem operis externi ; quando videlicet, aut potestas, aut occasio deest ejusmodi operis faciendi.
Note: The Origen citation starts at the foot of p. 204 and continues on p. 205; Bellarmine's answer is on p. 205. He adds Origen on Rom 4 that faith is the beginning, hope the growth, and charity the 'culmen totius operis', so faith alone does not suffice without hope, love and penance.
Secundo proferunt ex Hilario illa verba can. 8. in Matth. « Movet Scribas, remissum ab homine peccatum… Fides enim sola justificat ». Respondeo, non excludit Hilarius per particulam « sola », nisi legem Mosis, de qua loquebatur.
Note: Checked against the scan. Bellarmine glosses: 'the law does not justify but faith alone' = of these two, only faith has the power to justify.
Bellarmine, De justificatione 1.25, 3rd witness: Basil (Homily on Humility), Vivès vol. 6, p. 205 · Latin, Vivès ed. My own English: 'Third, they bring those words of Basil in the homily On Humility: "This is perfect and complete glorying in God, when one does not boast of his own righteousness, but knows himself unworthy of true righteousness and justified by faith alone in Christ." I answer: by the word "alone" Basil the Great excludes works done without faith and the grace of God.'
Tertio, proferunt ex Basilio illa verba in homilia de Humilitate : « Hæc est perfecta, et integra gloriatio in Deo, quando neque ob justitiam suam quis se jactat : sed novit quidem se ipsum veræ justitiæ indignum, sola autem fide in Christum justificatum ». Respondeo, excludit Magnus Basilius per vocem « sola », opera, quæ fiunt sine fide, et gratia Dei.
Note: Bellarmine continues: 'sola fide justificari apud Basilium, nihil est aliud, nisi ex dono Dei tantum justificari ; non ex operibus prævenientibus omnia dona Dei' (our translation: for Basil, to be justified by faith alone is nothing else than to be justified only by God's gift, not by works that come before all God's gifts).
Bellarmine, De justificatione 1.25, 4th witness: 'Ambrose' (i.e. Ambrosiaster, commentary on Romans 3, 4, 9; also a sermon), Vivès vol. 6, p. 205 · Latin, Vivès ed. My own English: 'Likewise from the commentary on Romans 3: "They are justified freely, because, doing nothing and making no return, they are justified by faith alone, by the gift of God"... I answer: Ambrose (if indeed he is the author either of that sermon or of the commentaries on Paul) by the word "alone" excludes nothing but the ceremonial works of the old law, or at any rate the necessity of external works.'
Item ex comment. in cap. III. ad Roman. « Justificati sunt gratis, quia nihil operantes, neque vicem reddentes, sola fide justificati sunt dono Dei »… Respondeo: Ambrosius (si tamen is est auctor vel sermonis illius, vel commentariorum in Paulum) per vocem Solam, non excludit, nisi opera cæremonialia legis veteris, aut certe necessitatem operum externorum.
Note: Bellarmine himself doubts the work is by Ambrose (it is now called Ambrosiaster). He also quotes from the same author on Hebrews: 'sed sola fides non sufficit. Operari fidem per dilectionem necessarium est' (our translation: but faith alone does not suffice; it is necessary for faith to work through love).
Bellarmine, De justificatione 1.25, 5th witness: Chrysostom (homily De fide et lege naturae; Homily 3 on Titus), Vivès vol. 6, p. 206 · Latin, Vivès ed. My own English: 'Also that from Homily 3 on the epistle to Titus: "If you believe in faith, why do you bring in other things, as though faith were not enough to justify alone?" I answer: in the first passage Chrysostom teaches that faith alone, that is, without external work, sometimes suffices, but external work without faith never suffices... in the second passage he teaches that faith alone, that is, without the ceremonies of the old law, is fully sufficient.'
Item illud ex homil. III. in epist. ad Titum : « Si credis fidei, cur alia infers, quasi fides justificare non sufficiat sola ? » Respondeo : Chrysostomus in priore loco docet, fidem solam, id est, sine opere externo interdum sufficere, opus externum sine fide numquam sufficere… in posteriore loco docet fidem solam, id est, sine cæremoniis legis veteris abunde sufficere.
Note: The 'first passage' is the homily De fide et lege naturae, about the thief who 'only believed and was justified'. Bellarmine adds Chrysostom, Hom. 70 on Matthew: 'Ne fideles sola se fide salvari posse confidant' (our translation: so that the faithful may not trust that they can be saved by faith alone).
Sexto proferunt ex Augustino illud : « Quantælibet fuisse virtutis antiquos prædices justos, non eos salvos fecit, nisi fides Mediatoris ». … Respondeo: in priore loco solum docet Augustinus, neminem sine fide salvari; proinde antiquos justos neque per naturam, neque per legem Mosis, sed per ipsam Christi fidem esse salvatos.
Note: Augustine is in Bellarmine's list but NOT in Fitzmyer's eight; neither Augustine passage Bellarmine quotes uses the word 'sola'. On the second passage he says Augustine means living faith formed by charity ('fidem justificantem esse fidem, quæ per dilectionem operatur').
Septimo, posset adduci Cyrillus Alexandrinus qui lib. x. in Joan. cap. 18. scribit, hominem per solam fidem inhærere Christo. Sed in eodem loco satis ipse se explicat, cum dicit, posse hominem in Christo manere per fidem, et tamen carere dilectione et perire.
Note: Bellarmine gives no Latin quotation of Cyril, only a summary. From the 7th witness on he says 'could be adduced' (posset/potest adduci): he adds these himself rather than reporting Protestant citations.
Octavo, adduci potest Leo in epist. 70. ubi sic ait : « Sola fides Catholica vivificat et sanctificat ». … Sed responsio est in promptu ; siquidem per vocem Sola, nihil aliud S. Leo excludit, nisi falsam fidem, et hæreticas sectas. Sola enim fides Catholica, id est, non Ariana, non Eutychiana, non Lutherana justificat.
Note: Leo is in Bellarmine's list but NOT in Fitzmyer's eight. Bellarmine adds that neither Leo nor the other Fathers speak of 'fide speciali promissionum' (the Reformers' special faith in the promises) but of dogmatic faith.
Bellarmine, De justificatione 1.25, 9th witness: Theophylact (on Galatians 3), Vivès vol. 6, pp. 206-207 · Latin, Vivès ed. My own English: 'Ninth, Theophylact can be brought forward, who says in his commentary on Galatians 3: "Faith alone has in itself the power of justifying." But that passage is like the testimony of St Augustine cited above, and means nothing else than that there is nothing that can justify without faith.'
Nono, adduci potest Theophylactus, qui in comment. ad cap. III. ad Galat. ait : « Fides sola habet in se justificandi virtutem ». Sed locus iste similis est testimonio S. Augustini supra citato, neque aliud significat, nisi nihil esse, quod sine fide justificare valeat.
Note: The sentence runs over the page break; 'Sed locus iste... S. Au-' is on p. 206 and '-gustini supra citato... valeat' is at the top of p. 207 (https://archive.org/details/bellarminiopera0006just/page/207).
Bellarmine, De justificatione 1.25, 10th witness: Bernard (Sermon 22 on the Song of Songs; Epistle 77), Vivès vol. 6, p. 207 · Latin, Vivès ed. My own English: 'Tenth, Bernard can be, and usually is, brought forward, who says in Sermon 22 on the Song of Songs: "Whoever, pierced with sorrow for his sins, hungers and thirsts for righteousness, let him believe in you who justify the ungodly, and, justified by faith alone, he will have peace with you." ... In the first testimony he speaks of living faith, joined with charity.'
Decimo, adduci potest, et solet Bernardus, qui serm. 22. in Cantica sic ait : « Quisquis pro peccatis compunctus, esurit, et sitit justitiam, credat in te, qui justificas impium, et solam justificatus per fidem pacem habebit ad te ». … In priore testimonio loquitur de fide viva, et cum charitate conjuncta.
Note: The printed text reads 'solam justificatus per fidem' (sic, as on the scan). On Ep. 77 Bellarmine says 'alone' excludes the necessity of Baptism when it cannot be received, but such faith never justifies 'sine voto Baptismi et pœnitentia, ac dilectione' (without desire for Baptism, penance and love).
Habemus igitur ex testimoniis veterum Patrum, fidem solam aliquando justificare, sed numquam in eo sensu, quo id accipiunt adversarii.
Note: This is Bellarmine's own summary of what the Fathers meant: he concedes they say 'faith alone' justifies, but reads 'alone' as excluding the Mosaic/ceremonial law, external works when impossible, works done before or without grace, false (heretical) faith, or Baptism in necessity; never as excluding charity and penance.
I check bishops against Scripture, tradition, and the catechism
Response, a concession withdrawn: At 51:12 William said he tests a bishop "against sacred Scripture." That is Berean behavior, and it is the principle of sola scriptura. But CCC 100 says the task of authentic interpretation is entrusted to the magisterium alone. So his "check" counts only when it reaches the magisterium's conclusion. If his reading of Scripture contradicted the magisterium, he would be obligated to submit anyway. A test whose answer is fixed in advance is not a test. A Catholic will answer with CCC 86: "this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant." But a servant whose reading can never be overruled by the Word it serves is, in practice, the final authority. This is the circularity Kelly kept pointing to, and William did not answer it.
Response, the Catechism is not infallible: John Paul II called the Catechism "a sure norm for teaching the faith" (Fidei Depositum, 1992), not an infallible definition. Cardinal Ratzinger, who led the commission that wrote it, explained that its individual doctrines carry no more weight than they already had. He added that the Catechism's weight "lies in the whole," and a Catholic may say that it cannot be rejected as a whole. That may be so, but it does not make any single statement in it infallible. Checking a bishop against the Catechism means checking a fallible teacher against a fallible book, which is private judgment by another name.
I declare it to be a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion and a sure norm for teaching the faith.
Note: Calls the Catechism a "sure norm"; it does not call it infallible. The point about the weight of individual doctrines comes from Ratzinger (next source).
The individual doctrine which the Catechism presents receive no other weight than that which they already possess.
Note: Akin prints 'doctrine', likely a typo for 'doctrines'. The same passage goes on: 'The weight of the Catechism itself lies in the whole', and whoever rejects it as a whole separates himself from the Church's faith (see the response at 51:04).
The individual doctrines which the Catechism presents receive no other weight than that which they already possess.
Note: Confirms the sentence in a published book, citing the Ratzinger-Schönborn Introduction, p. 27. The link is a Google Books search showing the snippet (book id YwthEAAAQBAJ).
The individual doctrines that the Catechism affirms have no other authority than that which they already possess.
Note: Variant wording ('affirms... authority' instead of 'presents... weight'), also seen in Marthaler, The Catechism Yesterday and Today (1995). It seems to come from a different translation of Ratzinger's remarks, not from the Ignatius book. Same point either way.
Infallibility doesn't require interpreting every verse
Response: This is true, and it undercuts William's earlier argument. If Catholics interpret the Bible's 31,000-plus verses by fallible private judgment, and Catholic scholars disagree widely about them, then the Protestant use of private judgment cannot be the disqualifier he claimed at 9:37.
Even undefined passages can't be read against dogma
Response: This states the circularity from 51:04 openly. If no reading of Scripture is allowed to contradict dogma, then Scripture can never test the magisterium. It can only agree with it. That is not a check; it is a rubber stamp.
Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
Note: William cited John 6 generally; these are the verses usually meant when the Eucharist is in view.
"Popes can be wrong, not when binding the church" / Judas's office
Response, popes and binding: Pope Honorius was anathematized as a heretic by the Sixth Ecumenical Council (681), and Pope Leo II confirmed the condemnation. Theologians had long used the phrase "ex cathedra," but Vatican I (1870) was the first to define as dogma when a pope speaks ex cathedra and is infallible (Pastor Aeternus ch. 4). The same council taught that the "ordinary and universal magisterium" also binds (Dei Filius ch. 3), a phrase Pius IX had used in an 1863 letter. These definitions came more than a thousand years after Honorius, and their conditions were drawn so that no earlier papal error could count. A rule written after the fact to exclude every known exception is not evidence of infallibility; it is evidence of a rescue.
A Catholic may reply that Leo II condemned Honorius for negligence, not heresy, and that his letters to Sergius were not ex cathedra. But the council itself named Honorius among the heretics, and for centuries newly elected popes swore an oath that condemned him. The "not ex cathedra" defense relies on exactly the category that was defined after the fact.
Response, Judas:Acts 1:20 quotes Psalm 109:8: "his bishoprick let another take" (episkopē, oversight). Then an apostle who held that office apostatized, which was Kelly's point: holding the office is no guarantee against error.
And with these we define that there shall be expelled from the holy Church of God and anathematized Honorius who was some time Pope of Old Rome, because of what we found written by him to Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines.
To Theodore of Pharan, the heretic, anathema! To Sergius, the heretic, anathema! To Cyrus, the heretic, anathema! To Honorius, the heretic, anathema! To Pyrrhus, the heretic, anathema!
Note: This directly supports "the council itself named him among the heretics."
the author of evil … having found suitable instruments for working out his will (we mean Theodorus, who was Bishop of Pharan, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul and Peter, who were Archbishops of this royal city, and moreover, Honorius who was Pope of the elder Rome, Cyrus Bishop of Alexandria, Macarius who was lately bishop of Antioch, and Stephen his disciple), has actively employed them in raising up for the whole Church the stumbling-blocks of one will and one operation
Note: The council's Prosphoneticus to the Emperor, on the same page, also anathematizes "Honorius, who was the ruler of Rome, as he followed them in these things."
We anathematize the inventors of the new error, that is, Theodore, Sergius, ...and also Honorius, who did not attempt to sanctify this Apostolic Church with the teaching of Apostolic tradition, but by profane treachery permitted its purity to be polluted.
Note: This is a secondary source; I did not fetch a primary text of Leo II's letter. Chapman says the last words of the quotation follow the Greek text of the letter, and that many Catholic apologists have leaned heavily on those words.
With Honorius, who did not, as became the Apostolic authority, extinguish the flame of heretical teaching in its first beginning, but fostered it by his negligence.
Note: This is the source of the "negligence, not heresy" reply. Chapman himself, a Catholic writer, rejects the view that Leo II changed the council's sentence into one for negligence. He writes: "There is evidently no ground whatever for any of these assertions."
also in the oath taken by every new pope from the eighth century to the eleventh in the following words: "Together with Honorius, who added fuel to their wicked assertions" (Liber diurnus, ii, 9).
Note: This is a secondary source; I did not fetch the Latin Liber Diurnus. The same article gives the Catholic counter: Honorius "was a heretic, not in intention, but in fact", and his fault was that "he had not issued a definition ex cathedra." Also, the oath ran from the 8th to the 11th century, about 300 years, not open-ended "centuries".
the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra — that is, when in the exercise of his office as pastor and teacher of all Christians he defines, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the whole Church — is, by reason of the Divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer wished His Church to be endowed in defining doctrines of faith and morals
Note: Theologians used "ex cathedra" before 1870; Vatican I gave the dogmatic definition. "Ordinary and universal magisterium" is in Dei Filius ch. 3 (same council, next source); Pius IX used similar wording in Tuas libenter (1863).
Note: Acts quotes the Septuagint wording of this verse (Ps 108:8 LXX), which has episkopē.
Part 3 — Infallibility, the Early Church, and the Canon
The Church cannot bind the faithful to error
Response, John 16:13: "He will guide you into all truth" belongs with the promise that the Spirit will "bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you" (John 14:26). No one can be reminded of what they never heard. This is a promise to the apostles, fulfilled in the inspired New Testament. Stretching "you" to a succession of bishops two thousand years later reads the promise into the text, not out of it. And Catholics do not claim that all bishops are infallible, only a pope speaking ex cathedra or an ecumenical council. The text knows nothing of such categories.
Response, 1 Timothy 3:15: A pillar holds up something other than itself. The church upholds the truth; it is not the source or guarantor of it. The very next verse says what the truth is: "God was manifest in the flesh…" That is the gospel. And verses 14–15 show how Paul guards the pillar: "These things write I unto thee… that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God." He guards it by writing.
Response, Matthew 16:18 and 28:20: Preservation is not infallibility. God promised Israel perpetual preservation (Jer 31:35–37) and was with her (Isa 41:10), yet her teaching office condemned the Messiah. The gates of hell not prevailing means the church will not be destroyed. It says nothing about a teaching office that cannot err. The step from "the church will survive" to "the magisterium cannot teach error" is an inference William never justified, even when Kelly asked him to five times.
Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly: But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
Thus saith the Lord, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The Lord of hosts is his name: If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the Lord, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever. Thus saith the Lord; If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith the Lord.
Note: v. 37 adds: "If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done."
But thou, Israel, art my servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham my friend. Thou whom I have taken from the ends of the earth, and called thee from the chief men thereof, and said unto thee, Thou art my servant; I have chosen thee, and not cast thee away. Fear thou not; for I am with thee: be not dismayed; for I am thy God: I will strengthen thee; yea, I will help thee; yea, I will uphold thee with the right hand of my righteousness.
Note: The addressee is Israel: v. 8, "But thou, Israel, art my servant, Jacob whom I have chosen."
Checking against tradition is what the catechism says
Response: Then Catholics must interpret the magisterium's documents by private judgment too. Catholic theologians do not agree on how many ex cathedra statements exist: two, seven, or more. An infallible interpreter who needs interpreting has not ended the regress; he has added a layer to it. And the Catechism William appeals to is itself not infallible (see the answer at 51:04).
Theologians and historians do not always agree on what papal statements through the centuries can be deemed infallible.
Note: Same article quotes Fr. Patrick Flanagan that there is “no official list” of papally infallible statements; it names two as best known (1854, 1950) and others (Benedictus Deus 1336, Exsurge Domine 1520) as also claimed.
Since the declaration of papal infallibility by Vatican I (1870), Flinn states, the only example of an ex cathedra statement thereafter took place in 1950… Catholic theologian and church historian Klaus Schatz made a thorough study, published in 1985, that claims the following list of documents to be ex cathedra… There is no complete list of papal statements considered infallible.
Note: Supports “two? seven? more?”: Flinn = 2 undisputed (1854, 1950); Schatz = 7 (Tome of Leo, Agatho, Benedictus Deus, Cum occasione, Auctorem fidei, Ineffabilis Deus, Munificentissimus Deus); the 1998 CDF commentary on Ad Tuendam Fidem lists further examples. Wikipedia is tertiary; for the debate cite Schatz (Papal Primacy, 1996) and Flinn (Encyclopedia of Catholicism, p. 267) directly. The 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia “Infallibility” article (newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm) was checked and gives NO count, so it does not support this point.
The individual doctrine which the Catechism presents receive no other weight than that which they already possess.
Note: Akin prints 'doctrine', likely a typo for 'doctrines'. The same passage goes on: 'The weight of the Catechism itself lies in the whole', and whoever rejects it as a whole separates himself from the Church's faith (see the response at 51:04).
The individual doctrines which the Catechism presents receive no other weight than that which they already possess.
Note: Confirms the sentence in a published book, citing the Ratzinger-Schönborn Introduction, p. 27. The link is a Google Books search showing the snippet (book id YwthEAAAQBAJ).
Augustine held Nicaea to be without error
Response: Augustine wrote that plenary councils themselves "are often corrected by later councils" (On Baptism 2.3.4). He did not believe councils were infallible. He thought Nicaea was right, not that councils as such cannot err. A Catholic may reply that Augustine meant fuller explanation, not the reversal of dogma. But Augustine draws the line himself in the same passage: only Scripture is beyond question, while bishops' letters and even councils can be corrected.
But who can fail to be aware that the sacred canon of Scripture, both of the Old and New Testament, is confined within its own limits, and that it stands so absolutely in a superior position to all later letters of the bishops, that about it we can hold no manner of doubt or disputation whether what is confessedly contained in it is right and true; … and that even of the plenary Councils, the earlier are often corrected by those which follow them
Note: The skipped middle says bishops' letters can be refuted by wiser men, other bishops and councils, and that local councils yield to plenary ones. Catholic reply: 'corrected' is explained in the same sentence as 'things are brought to light which were before concealed' (fuller light, not reversal), and 'plenary' may mean general councils of a region such as all Africa.
Response: The New Testament and the earliest fathers show plural presbyter-bishops in each church: Phil 1:1, Acts 20:17 and 28 (the same men are called elders and overseers), Titus 1:5–7, 1 Clement 42 and 44, and Didache 15. Jerome says "the apostle clearly teaches that presbyters are the same as bishops," and that one presbyter was later chosen to preside "to remedy schism" (Letter 146). On Titus 1:5 he adds that bishops are greater than presbyters "more by custom than by the veritable ordinance of the Lord." Most historians date the single ruling bishop in each city to the 2nd century. Two qualifications are fair. Jerome still reserves ordination to bishops: "what function, excepting ordination, belongs to a bishop that does not also belong to a presbyter?" And the 2nd-century dating is modern scholarship, not Jerome's own words. Still, the early church does not look like a Catholic diocese or a megachurch. It looks like a council of elders.
Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee: If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre;
And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe.
For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties. Blessed are those presbyters who, having finished their course before now, have obtained a fruitful and perfect departure [from this world]
Note: The 'episcopate' is held by the 'presbyters' (plural) at Corinth. Catholic reply: the same chapter says the apostles arranged that 'other approved men should succeed them in their ministry', which they read as apostolic succession.
Therefore, appoint for yourselves bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord, men meek, and not lovers of money, and truthful and proven; for they also render to you the service of prophets and teachers.
Note: Bishops (plural) chosen by the congregation; no presbyter/bishop distinction. (New Advent inserts a cross-reference, 1 Timothy 3:4, after "money,"; omitted.)
For when the apostle clearly teaches that presbyters are the same as bishops … When subsequently one presbyter was chosen to preside over the rest, this was done to remedy schism and to prevent each individual from rending the church of Christ by drawing it to himself. … For what function, excepting ordination, belongs to a bishop that does not also belong to a presbyter?
Note: Jerome himself excepts ordination. The 'by custom' sentence is not in Letter 146; it is from the Commentary on Titus (next source).
Jerome, Commentary on Titus 1:5 (PL 26) · Unattributed English translation quoted in Wikipedia, 'Presbyter' (Latin: 'magis consuetudine quam dispositionis dominicae veritate')
Therefore, as presbyters may know that by the custom of the church they are subject to the one who has been placed over them; so also bishops may understand that they are greater than presbyters more by custom than by the veritable ordinance of the Lord.
Note: No public-domain English translation of the full Titus commentary was found; this rendering is the one quoted in the response.
Eucharist, Marian teaching, and the papacy are all early
Response, the Marian dogmas: The Immaculate Conception was denied by Bernard, Bonaventure, and Aquinas. The Assumption has no witness in the first three centuries. The earliest accounts are the apocryphal Dormition (Transitus) narratives, dated to the late 4th or 5th century even by the most generous scholars, and the Transitus Mariae is listed among the rejected books in the so-called Gelasian Decree (Decretum Gelasianum), a 6th-century text attributed to Pope Gelasius. Dogmas defined in 1854 and 1950 that the apostolic fathers never mention are not present "in seed form." They are developments, and developments need a norm to be judged by. That is the heart of the issue.
On the Eucharist, see the answer at 20:11. On Clement, see the answer at 1:21:40.
St. Bernard deemed it his duty to publish a protest against this new way of honouring Mary. He addressed to the canons a vehement letter (Epist. 174), in which he reproved them for taking the step upon their own authority and before they had consulted the Holy See. Not knowing that the feast had been celebrated with the rich tradition of the Greek and Syrian Churches regarding the sinlessness of Mary, he asserted that the feast was foreign to the old tradition of the Church.
Note: Bernard's own Letter 174 was not fetched; this is the Catholic Encyclopedia's summary. The article goes on to argue Bernard meant only the 'active conception'.
St. Peter Damian, Peter the Lombard, Alexander of Hales, St. Bonaventure, and Albert the Great are quoted as opposing it. St. Thomas at first pronounced in favour of the doctrine in his treatise on the "Sentences" (in I. Sent. c. 44, q. I ad 3), yet in his "Summa Theologica" he concluded against it.
Note: Catholic reply in the same article: 'If St. Thomas, St. Bonaventure, and other theologians had known the doctrine in the sense of the definition of 1854, they would have been its strongest defenders'. The article also claims belief in Mary's immunity from sin 'was prevalent amongst the Fathers', especially Greek ones.
The first six centuries did not know of the tomb of Mary at Jerusalem. The belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary is founded on the apocryphal treatise De Obitu S. Dominae, bearing the name of St. John, which belongs however to the fourth or fifth century.
Note: A Catholic source conceding the apocryphal, 4th/5th-century origin. It adds that in the West Gregory of Tours mentions it first, and that sermons for the feast attributed to Jerome and Augustine are spurious.
the book which is called the Assumption of holy Mary
Note: Listed with the verdict 'apocryphus'. This English rendering says 'Assumption'; the Latin title (Transitus) was not checked here. The page heads the text as a council under Damasus; the 6th-century dating and pseudo-Gelasian attribution come from scholarship (Dobschütz), not from this page.
having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.
Wolves and Judas don't mean the gates of hell prevailed
Response: Kelly's argument was not that wolves disprove the church's preservation. It was that Acts 20:29–30 says the wolves arise "of your own selves," that is, from the elders. If the elders can speak "perverse things," the leadership is not infallible, and Paul's remedy in verse 32 is "the word of his grace, which is able to build you up," not an office. Catholics agree that individual bishops can err, but Paul is speaking to the elders as a body (Acts 20:17, 28), and he commends them "to God, and to the word of his grace," not to a higher office.
Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears. And now, brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified.
Note: Paul says "of your own selves" to the Ephesian elders (v. 17), whom v. 28 calls overseers, and he commends them "to God" as well as to the word (see the response at 1:12:03).
Rome gave you the Bible; you took Rome's list
Response: The 27 books are not "Rome's list." The same 27 are held today by the Greek Orthodox, the Copts, and others who reject the papacy outright. Athanasius listed exactly these 27 in his 39th Festal Letter (367), as bishop of Alexandria writing on his own authority, not as a Roman decree. If the Orthodox can hold the same 27 while denying Rome, holding the 27 does not entail Roman authority. The history of the Armenian and Syriac churches makes the same point in another way: the Armenians were slow to receive Revelation, and the Syriac Peshitta tradition used a 22-book New Testament for centuries. The New Testament was settled by gradual recognition across the churches, not by a Roman ruling.
The one place Rome's list is distinctive, the deuterocanon, is where Protestants side with a long line of witnesses to the shorter Hebrew canon: Jerome, Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory Nazianzen, Melito, Rufinus, and Cardinal Cajetan in the 1530s. Two qualifications are fair. Most of these lists attach Baruch and the Letter of Jeremiah to Jeremiah, and several omit Esther. And Origen belongs here only with care: he reported the 22-book Hebrew count, but he defended Susanna and Tobit against Julius Africanus and quoted the deuterocanon as Scripture in practice. Even so, the charge that Protestants "took Rome's list" is backwards. Rome took the broader list over the objection of her own greatest biblical scholar. A Catholic may reply that Jerome still translated Tobit and Judith for the Vulgate and deferred to the churches' usage. He did, but he explained why: the church reads these books "for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the Church" (Preface to the Books of Solomon).
These are, the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Afterwards, the Acts of the Apostles and Epistles (called Catholic), seven … In addition, there are fourteen Epistles of Paul … And besides, the Revelation of John. … These are fountains of salvation … In these alone is proclaimed the doctrine of godliness. Let no man add to these, neither let him take ought from these.
This preface to the Scriptures may serve as a "helmeted" introduction to all the books which we turn from Hebrew into Latin, so that we may be assured that what is not found in our list must be placed amongst the Apocryphal writings. Wisdom, therefore, which generally bears the name of Solomon, and the book of Jesus, the Son of Sirach, and Judith, and Tobias, and the Shepherd are not in the canon.
Note: Jerome's 22-book list here does include Esther.
As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it read these two volumes for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the Church.
Note: "These two volumes" are Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus. Catholics often cite Jerome's later preface to Judith, which says Nicaea counted Judith among the Scriptures.
There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number … Then Isaiah, one book, then Jeremiah with Baruch, Lamentations, and the epistle, one book … there are other books besides these not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read … The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit
Note: Shows both qualifications in the response: Baruch and the Letter of Jeremiah are counted inside the canon, and Esther is put among the books that are only read.
Learn also diligently, and from the Church, what are the books of the Old Testament, and what those of the New. And, pray, read none of the apocryphal writings … Read the Divine Scriptures, the twenty-two books of the Old Testament … of Jeremiah one, including Baruch and Lamentations and the Epistle
Note: Cyril includes Esther and Baruch, and his New Testament list (sec. 36) omits Revelation. He also tells hearers to learn the books 'from the Church' and says 'Being therefore a child of the Church, trench thou not upon its statutes' (see the response at 1:47:39).
I count therefore, twenty-two of the ancient books, … corresponding to the number of the Hebrew letters.
Note: His list omits Esther, and his NT list omits Revelation. The poem ends by saying that any books beyond these are not genuine. Only one line is quoted because the translation is modern.
Accordingly when I went East and came to the place where these things were preached and done, I learned accurately the books of the Old Testament … the Psalms of David, the Proverbs of Solomon, Wisdom also, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Job; of Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah; of the twelve prophets, one book ; Daniel, Ezekiel, Esdras.
Note: Melito omits Esther. His "Wisdom also" is another name for Proverbs: Eusebius says the ancients called Proverbs "All-virtuous Wisdom" (HE 4.22.8).
But it should be known that there are also other books which our fathers call not Canonical but Ecclesiastical: that is to say, Wisdom, called the Wisdom of Solomon, and another Wisdom, called the Wisdom of the Son of Syrach … To the same class belong the Book of Tobit, and the Book of Judith, and the Books of the Maccabees. … all of which they would have read in the Churches, but not appealed to for the confirmation of doctrine.
Note: Rufinus's canonical list in sec. 37 includes Esther.
For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. … For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome.
Note: This is a secondary quotation, and Cajetan's Latin was not checked. Cajetan allows that these books "may be called canonical" in the sense of a rule for edification, not for confirming matters of faith.
It should be stated that the canonical books, as the Hebrews have handed them down, are twenty-two; corresponding with the number of their letters. … Jeremiah, with Lamentations and the epistle in one, Jeremia; … Esther, Esther. And besides these there are the Maccabees, which are entitled Sarbeth Sabanaiel.
Note: Origen is reporting the Hebrew count ("as the Hebrews have handed them down"), not necessarily his own church's list. The Twelve Prophets are missing from the text as preserved, which is probably a copying slip.
And, forsooth, when we notice such things, we are immediately to reject as spurious the copies in use in our Churches, and enjoin the brotherhood to put away the sacred books current among them … You shall not remove the ancient landmarks which your fathers have set. … However, since the Churches use Tobias, you must know that even in the captivity some of the captives were rich and well to do.
Note: Shows the qualification about Origen in the response: he defends Susanna and Tobit on the basis of church use, while admitting that the Jews do not use Tobit or Judith.
Why only two centuries?
Response: Because the earlier the witness, the closer it is to the apostles. That is the same principle William uses when he appeals to "unbroken tradition." If the papacy, as defined in CCC 882, is apostolic, it should be visible in the men who knew the apostles. It is not. Asking for a thousand years of evidence is asking permission for development. And the books that were settled late were settled by recognition across the churches, not by decree (see the answer at 1:18:32).
has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.
Note: The subject is "the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ", and the CCC is quoting Lumen Gentium 22. Copyrighted, so the quote is kept under 25 words.
Augustine and the North African councils required union with Rome
Response: The canon itself says otherwise. Its closing line reads: "Let this be made known also to our brother and fellow-priest Boniface, or to other bishops of those parts, for the purpose of confirming that Canon." That asks fellow bishops, Rome's among others, to agree. It is not submission to a supreme pontiff. And the line cannot be original: the council met in 397, and Boniface did not become bishop of Rome until 418, so it was added when the canons were collected later. Many modern books print a different reading from one old manuscript: "for the confirmation of this canon the church across the sea shall be consulted." Either way, it is consultation, not a request for a ruling. And the same North African church, at Carthage in 419–424 (the Apiarius affair), told Pope Celestine to stop sending legates and hearing appeals from Africa. That is hardly a church that believed Rome had "full, supreme, and universal power" (CCC 882).
Let this be made known also to our brother and fellow-priest Boniface, or to other bishops of those parts, for the purpose of confirming that Canon.
Note: Westcott: the council met in 397, and Boniface did not become bishop of Rome until 418, so this sentence was added later. It addresses other bishops as well as Rome.
we earnestly conjure you, that for the future you do not readily admit to a hearing persons coming hence, nor choose to receive to your communion those who have been excommunicated by us … And how shall we be able to rely on a sentence passed beyond the sea … For that your Holiness should send any on your part we can find ordained by no council of Fathers.
Note: Catholic counter-reading: the Africans were rejecting Rome's appeal to canons it wrongly called Nicene (they were from Sardica), not rejecting Roman primacy outright. The letter still addresses Celestine respectfully as "Lord and brother".
has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.
Note: The Catechism's punctuation is "full, supreme, and universal" (with a comma before "and").
'Catholic' was the name of a church headed by the pope
Response: Ignatius is the first to use the word (To the Smyrnaeans 8), and he means "universal" or "whole." Nothing in Ignatius connects the word to a bishop of Rome. His whole view of the church centers on the local bishop with his presbyters.
See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. … Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.
Note: 'First' means the earliest surviving use. The bishop here is the local bishop of Smyrna with his presbytery; the chapter says nothing about Rome.
Fathers also quoted Hermas, 1 Clement, Enoch
Response: The disputed books were settled by recognition, not decree. Hebrews, James, and Revelation were received through criteria the churches applied, such as apostolic origin, wide use, and agreement with the rule of faith, not because a bishop ruled. And the point about Hermas, 1 Clement, and Enoch helps the Protestant case: those books were tested and set aside by the same process of recognition. No infallible council was needed to drop Hermas; the churches did it.
Among the disputed writings, which are nevertheless recognized by many, are extant the so-called epistle of James and that of Jude, also the second epistle of Peter, and those that are called the second and third of John … Among the rejected writings must be reckoned also the Acts of Paul, and the so-called Shepherd, and the Apocalypse of Peter … distinguishing those works which according to ecclesiastical tradition are true and genuine and commonly accepted
Note: Eusebius files Revelation under both the accepted and the rejected books "if it seem proper", which shows the gradual process. William may stress that the criterion is "ecclesiastical tradition".
it should be observed that this too has been disputed by some, and on their account cannot be placed among the acknowledged books; while by others it is considered quite indispensable, especially to those who need instruction in the elements of the faith. Hence, as we know, it has been publicly read in churches
Note: Shows Hermas was set aside by the churches' own use and judgment, with no conciliar decree, though it had been read publicly.
The Pastor, moreover, did Hermas write very recently in our times in the city of Rome … And therefore it also ought to be read; but it cannot be made public … in the Church to the people, nor placed among the prophets, as their number is complete, nor among the apostles to the end of time.
Note: The same fragment accepts the Wisdom of Solomon and the Apocalypse of Peter ("though some amongst us will not have this latter read"), so its list is not identical to the later 27. The page's "Plus" is a typo for Pius.
"Thank you, Papa" / no table of contents
Response: William's line applies to him too. The Bible's table of contents is not inspired. Neither is the Catechism's: CCC 120 lists the books, and that list is a human document repeating a council's decision. So William receives the canon the same way everyone does, by trusting a chain of human testimony. He believes Trent's decree (1546) is infallible, but he can identify it as infallible only by his own fallible judgment (see the answer at 19:15). A Catholic will say the Catechism's list rests on apostolic Tradition, not merely on human testimony. But that is the very point in dispute, and it can be accepted only by trusting the Church's testimony about itself. The difference lies in what each side does with the books once it has them.
It was by the apostolic Tradition that the Church discerned which writings are to be included in the list of the sacred books.
Note: The paragraph then gives the count, 46 Old Testament and 27 New Testament books, followed by the list. Catholics hold that the list rests on apostolic Tradition, not merely on human testimony (see the response at 1:19:38).
And it has thought it meet that a list of the sacred books be inserted in this decree, lest a doubt may arise in any one's mind, which are the books that are received by this Synod.
Acts 15 is the church deciding dogma
Response: The apostles were present: living, inspired men. James settles the matter by quoting Amos 9, saying "to this agree the words of the prophets" (Acts 15:15). Even with apostles in the room, Scripture was the norm. It is also James, not Peter, who gives the deciding judgment: "my sentence is…" (Acts 15:19). And dogmata in Acts 16:4 is the ordinary Greek word for "decrees," the same word used for Caesar's decrees in Luke 2:1 and Acts 17:7. Reading the later Catholic sense of "dogma" into it is anachronism.
And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me: Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things. Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world. Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.
And as they went through the cities, they delivered them the decrees for to keep, that were ordained of the apostles and elders which were at Jerusalem.
Note: Same Strong's number 1378 is shown on each interlinear: https://biblehub.com/interlinear/luke/2-1.htm (dogma), https://biblehub.com/interlinear/acts/16-4.htm (dogmata), https://biblehub.com/interlinear/acts/17-7.htm (dogmatōn). Only 5 NT occurrences (also Eph 2:15, Col 2:14).
an opinion, a judgment ( Plato , others), doctrine, decree, ordinance ; 1. of public decrees … of rulers, Luke 2:1 ; Acts 17:7 … 3. of certain decrees of the apostles relative to right living: Acts 16:4 .
Note: Thayer also lists 'doctrine' as a sense and notes that Ignatius (Magnesians 13.1) uses dogmata for the precepts of the Lord and the apostles, and the Acts 16:4 decisions were binding on the churches. The word is still the ordinary term for a decree, not the later technical sense of 'dogma'.
Clement of Rome acted as head of the church
Response: This is William's strongest example, and it does not hold. 1 Clement is anonymous. It is written in the name of "the church of God which sojourns at Rome." Irenaeus (Against Heresies 3.3.3) says "the Church in Rome dispatched a most powerful letter," crediting the church, not Clement's personal authority. Irenaeus does call Clement bishop of Rome in the same section ("in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric"), but the point is whom he credits for the letter. The Shepherd of Hermas (Vision 2.4.3) describes Clement's role as sending letters to other cities, the work of a corresponding secretary. The letter itself assumes plural leaders at Rome and Corinth (chapters 42 and 44).
Ignatius' letter to Rome (c. 110) is the only one of his letters to churches that never mentions that church's bishop, which is strange if the supreme pontiff lived there. A Catholic will point to its greeting, which describes the church "which also presides in the place of the region of the Romans" and "which presides over love." But it is the church that presides, and no bishop of Rome is named; the only bishop in the letter is Ignatius himself, "the bishop of Syria." Catholics read "presides over love" as presiding over the whole brotherhood, and they cite chapter 4, "I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments unto you," to link Peter to Rome. But whether Peter was in Rome is not the question. The question is whether a Roman bishop had authority over every church.
One church rebuking another was normal: Ignatius, Polycarp, and Dionysius of Corinth all did it. Writing with conviction is not universal jurisdiction. Nothing in Clement says "I am the successor of Peter with supreme power over all churches." William is reading 1870 back into AD 96.
The church of God which sojourns at Rome, to the church of God sojourning at Corinth, to them that are called and sanctified by the will of God, through our Lord Jesus Christ
If, however, any shall disobey the words spoken by Him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and serious danger … Joy and gladness will you afford us, if you become obedient to the words written by us and through the Holy Spirit root out the lawless wrath of your jealousy
Note: The first part is ch. 59, the second ch. 63. The letter speaks as 'us' (the Roman church), and claims the words are God's, not that disobeying a bishop of Rome as such is disobeying God.
In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome dispatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles
Note: The same section calls Clement bishop of Rome ('in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric'). The response's point is that Irenaeus credits the letter to the church.
You will write therefore two books, and you will send the one to Clemens and the other to Grapte. And Clemens will send his to foreign countries, for permission has been granted to him to do so. And Grapte will admonish the widows and the orphans. But you will read the words in this city, along with the presbyters who preside over the Church.
Note: Identifying this Clemens with the Clement of 1 Clement is likely but not certain, and 'corresponding secretary' is an inference. Note the same sentence has 'the presbyters who preside over the Church' at Rome.
For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties. Blessed are those presbyters who, having finished their course before now, have obtained a fruitful and perfect departure [from this world]
Note: Plural presbyters hold the episcopate at Corinth (see also ch. 42, 'bishops and deacons').
the Church which is beloved and enlightened by the will of Him that wills all things which are according to the love of Jesus Christ our God, which also presides in the place of the region of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honour … and which presides over love, is named from Christ, and from the Father
Note: This translation reads 'presides over love'. In ch. 2 Ignatius calls himself 'the bishop of Syria'; no bishop of Rome is named. Catholics cite ch. 4 ('I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments unto you') to link Peter to Rome.
And first we must speak of Dionysius, who was appointed bishop of the church in Corinth, and communicated freely of his inspired labors not only to his own people, but also to those in foreign lands, and rendered the greatest service to all in the catholic epistles which he wrote to the churches. … Among these is the one addressed to the Lacedæmonians, containing instruction in the orthodox faith and an admonition to peace and unity
Note: Shows a non-Roman bishop writing admonitions to other churches; the same chapter also quotes his letter to Soter of Rome.
Polycarp, and the presbyters with him, to the Church of God sojourning at Philippi … I am greatly grieved for Valens, who was once a presbyter among you, because he so little understands the place that was given him [in the Church].
Note: Another church addressing and correcting a church elsewhere; Philippi's leaders are presbyters and deacons, no single bishop named.
William's concession: no infallible Jewish canon
Response: This concession undercuts William's whole canon argument. Israel had a recognized canon that Jesus held people to, with no infallible body to define it (see the answer at 47:56).
Part 4 — The Josephus Exchange
The Josephus exchange
Response: It is true that Josephus gives no list of titles, but that does not matter. Against Apion 1.38–41 gives the structure: five books of Moses, thirteen of the prophets, and four of hymns and precepts, twenty-two in all. That structure is the Hebrew canon counted the standard way, and it leaves no room for extra books. Then comes the sentence William skipped: from Artaxerxes to Josephus' own day, things were written down but were "not deemed worthy of equal credit," because "the exact succession of the prophets" had ceased. That cutoff plainly excludes 1–2 Maccabees, Sirach, and Wisdom, which were all written after Artaxerxes. The date alone does not rule out Tobit, Judith, or Baruch, since they are set in the Assyrian and Babylonian periods. For those, the count does the work: a 22-book collection already filled by the Hebrew books has no room for them.
Twenty-two was the standard Hebrew count, and its contents are known. Jerome (the Prologus Galeatus), Origen (in Eusebius, Church History 6.25), Cyril of Jerusalem (Catechetical Lecture 4.35), and Athanasius (Festal Letter 39) all give the number 22 and list the titles, and each matches the Hebrew and Protestant Old Testament, give or take Esther and Baruch attached to Jeremiah. Melito (Eusebius, Church History 4.26) gives no number, but his list of titles is the Hebrew canon minus Esther, with no deuterocanonical books. His list reads "the Proverbs of Solomon, Wisdom also," and some argue that "Wisdom" means the Wisdom of Solomon. It does not: Eusebius says Hegesippus, "Irenæus and the whole company of the ancients, called the Proverbs of Solomon All-virtuous Wisdom" (Church History 4.22.8). Twenty-two is also the number of letters in the Hebrew alphabet. Josephus' 22 is that canon; there is no serious alternative.
Response: Antiquities 10.79 does say Ezekiel "left behind him in writing two books." No one knows exactly what Josephus meant (two halves of Ezekiel? Lamentations?), but it adds no deuterocanonical books. It is a curiosity, not an argument.
Response: Josephus' closing summary says he has related things "as written in our sacred books." But Antiquities also draws on the Letter of Aristeas, Nicolaus of Damascus, Strabo, Polybius, and Herod's memoirs. Using a source for history is not calling it Scripture. Josephus the historian used 1 Maccabees as a chronicle; Josephus the apologist, in Against Apion, states exactly where the divine books stop. The author should be read on his own terms.
Response: Some scholars debate whether the word "canon" is anachronistic for the 1st century, but almost none think Josephus is affirming a collection wider than 22 books. William used a scholarly point about terminology to support the opposite conclusion.
Response: "The law of Moses, and… the prophets, and… the psalms" is the threefold division of the Hebrew Bible, with Psalms heading the Writings, as it does in the Hebrew order. Matthew 23:35, "from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias," is often cited as running from Genesis to 2 Chronicles, the last book in the Hebrew order. That is supporting evidence at best, since the order of the Writings varied, and the Aleppo and Leningrad codices put Chronicles first in the Writings, not last. Luke 24:44 is the clearer text.
Response: Paul cares: "unto them were committed the oracles of God" (Rom 3:2). Dismissing the custodians of the Old Testament as irrelevant to the Old Testament canon is not an argument.
For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from, and contradicting one another: [as the Greeks have:] but only twenty two books: which contain the records of all the past times: which are justly believed to be divine. … And of them five belong to Moses … But as to the time from the death of Moses, till the reign of Artaxerxes, King of Persia, who reigned after Xerxes, the Prophets, who were after Moses, wrote down what was done in their times, in thirteen books. The remaining four books contain hymns to God; and precepts for the conduct of human life.
Note: Whiston numbers this 1.8; the Niese/Loeb numbering is 1.37-43. Josephus gives the 5+13+4 structure but no title list, as William said.
’Tis true, our history hath been written since Artaxerxes very particularly; but hath not been esteemed of the like authority with the former by our forefathers; because there hath not been an exact succession of Prophets since that time. … For during so many ages as have already passed, no one has been so bold, as either to add any thing to them; to take any thing from them; or to make any change in them.
Note: The response quotes Thackeray's Loeb wording ('not deemed worthy of equal credit'); Whiston, quoted here, says 'not been esteemed of the like authority', which means the same. 'Exact succession of prophets' matches Whiston word for word.
And so there are also twenty-two books of the Old Law; that is, five of Moses, eight of the prophets, nine of the Hagiographa, though some include Ruth and Kinoth (Lamentations) amongst the Hagiographa, and think that these books ought to be reckoned separately; we should thus have twenty-four books of the ancient Law.
Note: Jerome names every title in the paragraph before this one. His count is 5+8+9, not Josephus' 5+13+4, but the total of 22 is the same.
This preface to the Scriptures may serve as a helmeted [i.e. defensive] introduction to all the books which we turn from Hebrew into Latin, so that we may be assured that what is outside of them must be placed aside among the Apocryphal writings. Wisdom, therefore, which generally bears the name of Solomon, and the book of Jesus the Son of Sirach, and Judith, and Tobias, and the Shepherd [of Hermes?] are not in the canon.
Note: Catholic writers reply that Jerome later translated Judith and Tobit and deferred to the churches' usage (see the response at 1:12:41).
It should be stated that the canonical books, as the Hebrews have handed them down, are twenty-two; corresponding with the number of their letters. … Isaiah, Jessia; Jeremiah, with Lamentations and the epistle in one, Jeremia; Daniel, Daniel; Ezekiel, Jezekiel; Job, Job; Esther, Esther. And besides these there are the Maccabees, which are entitled Sarbeth Sabanaiel.
Note: Origen is reporting the Hebrew list ("as the Hebrews have handed them down"). The transmitted text leaves out the Twelve Prophets, almost certainly by a copyist's slip, so it names only 21. It attaches "the epistle" (of Jeremiah) to Jeremiah, and it places Maccabees outside the 22.
Of these read the two and twenty books, but have nothing to do with the apocryphal writings. … And of the Old Testament, as we have said, study the two and twenty books, which, if you are desirous of learning, strive to remember by name, as I recite them. … of Jeremiah one, including Baruch and Lamentations and the Epistle ; then Ezekiel, and the Book of Daniel, the twenty-second of the Old Testament.
Note: Cyril counts Esther as the twelfth book and attaches Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah to Jeremiah.
There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number; for, as I have heard, it is handed down that this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews; their respective order and names being as follows. … Then Isaiah, one book, then Jeremiah with Baruch, Lamentations, and the epistle, one book; afterwards, Ezekiel and Daniel, each one book. Thus far constitutes the Old Testament.
Note: Athanasius counts Ruth separately and leaves Esther out of the 22.
there are other books besides these not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness. The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd.
Note: Athanasius puts Esther among the books to be read, not in the canon. This is why Esther is the usual exception in these lists.
Accordingly when I went East and came to the place where these things were preached and done, I learned accurately the books of the Old Testament … Of Moses, five books: Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, Deuteronomy; Jesus Nave, Judges, Ruth; of Kings, four books; of Chronicles, two; the Psalms of David, the Proverbs of Solomon, Wisdom also, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Job; of Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah; of the twelve prophets, one book ; Daniel, Ezekiel, Esdras.
Note: Melito gives no number and leaves out Esther. His "Wisdom also" is another name for Proverbs (see the next source).
Nor was he the only Prophet who delivered such predictions beforehand to the multitude: but so did Ezekiel also: who was the first person that wrote, and left behind him in writing two books concerning these events.
Note: "He" is Jeremiah. Whiston's footnote says nothing on what the second book is.
I have attempted to enumerate those High Priests that we have had, during the interval of two thousand years. I have also carried down the succession of our Kings, and related their actions and political administration, without [considerable] errors: as also the power of our monarchs; and all according to what is written in our sacred books.
Note: The summary covers his whole history, including the Hasmonean high priests and kings. So William's reading has some surface basis. The answer is that this is a general summary sentence, while Against Apion 1.8 is where Josephus defines which books are divine.
Of which Nicolaus of Damascus is a witness for us: who in his history writes thus: “When Antiochus had erected a trophy at the river Lycus, upon his conquest of Indates the general of the Parthians, he stayed there two days.
Cleopatra intrusted these men with her army: and did nothing without their advice: as Strabo of Cappadocia attests, when he saith thus, “Now the greater part, both those that came to Cyprus with us, and those that were sent afterward thither, revolted to Ptolemy immediately; only those that were called Onias’s party, being Jews, continued faithful …” These are the words of Strabo.
Note: Whiston's note on this passage counts ten citations of Strabo in Josephus.
but will first produce the testimony of Polybius of Megalopolis: for thus does he speak, in the sixteenth book of his history, “Now Scopas, the general of Ptolemy’s army, went in haste to the superior parts of the countrey, and in the winter time overthrew the nation of the Jews.”
Note: In Antiquities 12.9.1 Josephus also argues against Polybius over how Antiochus Epiphanes died. He weighs historical sources critically and does not treat them as Scripture.
And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.
Note: The Zechariah of 2 Chr 24:20-22 is called the son of Jehoiada, while Matthew says "son of Barachias". This is a known difficulty and one more reason to use this text only as support.
There are two manuscripts that list Chronicles first: the Codex Lenigradensis (L) and the Aleppo Codex.
Note: The same post connects the Chronicles-first order to a Palestinian tradition, and the Chronicles-last order to the Babylonian tradition recorded in the Talmud.
In the Leningrad Codex, the order of the Ketuvim is: Chronicles, Psalms, Job, Proverbs, Ruth, Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, Lamentations, Esther, Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah.
In the Aleppo Codex, the order of the Ketuvim is Books of Chronicles, Psalms, Book of Job, Book of Proverbs, Book of Ruth, Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, Book of Lamentations, Book of Esther, Book of Daniel, and Book of Ezra and Book of Nehemiah.
Note: The surviving Aleppo text breaks off in Song of Songs, so the end of this order is reconstructed. Chronicles coming first is not in doubt.
Response: The fathers say otherwise. Kelly read from Irenaeus, Tertullian, Dionysius, Gregory of Nyssa, Basil, and Cyril later in the stream (3:03:00–3:11:00). To these can be added:
Athanasius, Contra Gentes 1: the sacred and inspired Scriptures are sufficient for the declaration of the truth.
Augustine, Letter 82.3 to Jerome: he gives honor "only to the canonical books of Scripture," believing their authors alone to be completely free from error, and judges all other writers, however holy, by Scripture.
Augustine, On Baptism 2.3.4: plenary councils themselves "are often corrected by later councils" (see the answer at 1:03:14).
None of these men denied tradition, and sola scriptura does not deny it either. What they denied is that anything else is the infallible judge. That is the whole doctrine. On Cyril, see the answer at 1:47:39.
For although the sacred and inspired Scriptures are sufficient to declare the truth — while there are other works of our blessed teachers compiled for this purpose, if he meet with which a man will gain some knowledge of the interpretation of the Scriptures, and be able to learn what he wishes to know
Note: The same sentence values teachers' works as aids for interpreting Scripture, which fits the 'tradition as servant, not umpire' point.
For I confess to your Charity that I have learned to yield this respect and honour only to the canonical books of Scripture: of these alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error. … As to all other writings, in reading them, however great the superiority of the authors to myself in sanctity and learning, I do not accept their teaching as true on the mere ground of the opinion being held by them; but only because they have succeeded in convincing my judgment of its truth either by means of these canonical writings themselves, or by arguments addressed to my reason.
Note: Section 3 falls in chapter 1 of the letter in New Advent's layout.
and that even of the plenary Councils, the earlier are often corrected by those which follow them, when, by some actual experiment, things are brought to light which were before concealed
Note: See 1:03:14 for the fuller passage and the Catholic reply.
Irenaeus: truth through succession, especially popes
Response: Irenaeus appealed to the succession of all the apostolic churches (Against Heresies 3.3.1). His famous passage on Rome (3.3.2) treats Rome as a convenient example, because people from everywhere gathered there, and the text is notoriously ambiguous. He also rebuked Pope Victor for excommunicating the churches of Asia (Eusebius, Church History 5.24). He was not a man who thought Rome was infallible. And the content of the tradition he defended was public and scriptural (see the answer at 36:04).
It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times
For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre-eminent authority, … that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.
Note: The ANF footnote on this clause says: 'We are far from sure that the rendering given above is correct'. Be fair: 'every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre-eminent authority' is William's strongest text; the 'Rome as a sample where the faithful gather' reading rests on 'convenire' and on the last clause. New Advent's version drops the 'faithful everywhere' clause, so quote CCEL. (Footnote numbers in the CCEL text are omitted.)
Thereupon Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the common unity the parishes of all Asia, with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox … But this did not please all the bishops. And they besought him to consider the things of peace, and of neighborly unity and love. Words of theirs are extant, sharply rebuking Victor. … Among them was Irenæus
Note: Catholic reply: Irenaeus 'admonishes' Victor not to cut off whole churches but does not deny he has the power to; the episode shows Victor claiming wide authority.
Cyril used tradition to discern the canon
Response: Cyril did use tradition to discern the canon: "Learn also diligently, and from the Church, what are the books." But the canon his tradition delivered (Catechetical Lecture 4.35) was 22 books, with no Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, or Maccabees, and with an explicit warning: "have nothing to do with the apocryphal writings." William's own witness testifies against Trent. Two qualifications are fair. Cyril's Jeremiah includes Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah, which Trent accepts and Protestants do not, and his New Testament list leaves out Revelation. So Cyril matches neither Trent nor the Protestant canon exactly, which is itself the point: the church's tradition on the canon was not uniform. A Catholic may quote Cyril's "Being therefore a child of the Church, trench thou not upon its statutes." But the canon that child of the Church was told to keep is still not Trent's.
Learn also diligently, and from the Church, what are the books of the Old Testament, and what those of the New. And, pray, read none of the apocryphal writings … Of these read the two and twenty books, but have nothing to do with the apocryphal writings. … of Jeremiah one, including Baruch and Lamentations and the Epistle ; then Ezekiel, and the Book of Daniel, the twenty-second of the Old Testament.
Note: Cyril's 22 books include Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah, and his New Testament list (4.36) omits Revelation. He also tells hearers to learn the books 'from the Church'.
The deposit is oral teaching with no expiration date
Response: The deposit is defined in the same passage: "Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me" (2 Tim 1:13). Paul then tells Timothy where that pattern is found: "the holy scriptures… All scripture is given by inspiration of God… That the man of God may be perfect" (3:15–17). And 2 Timothy 2:2 commits the deposit to "faithful men," fallible men with no promise of infallibility, judged by whether they teach the same content. A deposit entrusted to fallible men to pass on, and checked by Scripture, is the Protestant picture.
For the which cause I also suffer these things: nevertheless I am not ashamed: for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day. Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. That good thing which was committed unto thee keep by the Holy Ghost which dwelleth in us.
And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
Three broader replies run through the whole debate, and each deserves an answer.
The canon and circularity. A Catholic may say the Protestant position is worse off, because Scripture never gives its own list, while the Church is a living authority that can speak. But a living authority that is fallible is still fallible. And Israel had no living infallible authority, yet had a canon that Jesus held people to.
The development of doctrine. John Henry Newman compared doctrine to an acorn growing into an oak. But every heresy also claims to be a development. Development needs a norm to tell growth from corruption, and the only norm the fathers name is Scripture.
The fathers on sufficiency. A Catholic may say that when the fathers call Scripture sufficient, they do not mean sola scriptura, because the same fathers also appealed to tradition. That is correct, and sola scriptura never excluded tradition as a subordinate authority. The only question is what is infallible, and Augustine answers it: Scripture alone (Letter 82).
Conclusion
William's case rested on three pillars: that the canon requires an infallible church, that oral tradition stands beside Scripture as an equal authority, and that the early church looked Catholic rather than Protestant. Examined against the sources, each one gives way. The canon was received by recognition, as Israel's was, and William conceded that Israel had no infallible canon. The apostles' oral teaching had the same content as their letters, and no one has produced a binding dogma that survives only in oral tradition. And the fathers, for all their love of tradition, judged everything else by Scripture. That is what sola scriptura claims.
