Apostolic Succession or Sola Scriptura? Epistemology, Elephants, and Germs

This blog entry inspired this note.

The link above records that in February 2010 some important intellectual leaders in the Reformed world discussed Sola Scriptura and that Bryan Cross, a Roman Catholic (convert from Reformed faith) involved with the blog Called to Communion, was invited.  The discussion that ensued apparently centered on the dialogue between Cross and Michael Horton.  It was published in Modern Reformation. However, due to space constraints Cross's full final reply to Horton was not included.  However, on the link above you can find his full (and lengthy) reply to Horton's closing remarks. 

Below is Cross's abbreviated reply, which also turned out too big for the published dialogue as it appeared in Modern Reformation.

I post this below because it contains what seems to me to be some of the fundamental points a Roman Catholic should make in defense of Catholicism and its rejection of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. 

One epistemological principle that shows up in the assumptions of Cross is the idea that the absence of evidence, given a good epistemic vantage point, is evidence of absence. E.g., if I say, "there is an absence of evidence that there is an elephant in my living room" we must conclude that (given that I'm not drunk, drugged, or deluded) this absence of evidence is, in fact, evidence there is no elephant in my living room.   Contrast: "There is an absence of evidence of microscopic germs".   Here I can't conclude the absence of evidence is therefore evidence there are not germs.  That's because I don't have a good epistemic vantage point, given my epistemic faculties --my eyeballs--are not equipped to observe germs EVEN IF they are present.  

The best overall historical reconstruction of events (including Scriptural and non-Scriptural sources) from the (1st and) 2nd century and onward, all indicate a belief in and practice of apostolic succession.   Thus there is positive evidence indicating that the Christian community did practice it.  

Cross in the text I append, says: "There wasn’t some great controversy or debate as the ‘heretical’ practice of apostolic succession universally swept over the Church in the first and second centuries, and replaced the ‘original’ notion that ecclesial leadership was based entirely on agreement with the Apostles’ doctrine. If the Apostles didn’t institute the practice of apostolic succession, that’s a very strange silence. If apostolic succession were a later innovation, we would expect to find all those Christians who were being martyred for holding fast to what the Apostles had taught, vociferously protesting to the death that apostolic succession is not the way the Apostles set up the basis for leadership in the Church."

And so there is an absence of evidence that the community believed and practiced anything like Sola Scriptura Don't get me wrong, I said "Sola" Scriptura.  Claims about the unparalleled importance or absolute normativity of Scriptura interpreted correctly, all miss the boat.  About that, everyone agrees.  The question between Cross and Horton (and Catholic and orthodox Protestants) concerns which interpretations are authoritative.  Again, don't get me wrong.  You can't say "the correct one" is authoritative --that's precisely the question --who has the authority to be taken as authorized to give the correct one? I can't use the answer "the correct one" as a way to determine which one is the correct one without circular reasoning.

So we have this question and the apparent absence of evidence regarding the Sola Scripturist position.  And we have our epistemic principle.  Reflecting on that principle we raise this question: 

Is the absence of evidence that the earliest community believed or practiced Sola Scriptura, and the absence of evidence concerning their rejection as heretical of anything like the Catholic or Eastern Orthodox notion of ecclesial authority to interpret Scripture, also EVIDENCE OF ABSENCE? 

According to Cross, that is a lynchpin issue in the dispute concerning Sola Scriptura.  And, according to Cross (and I'd agree), the debate is leaning Catholic.  That's because the absence of evidence for Sola Scriptura or for apostolic ecclesial authority being heretical is much more like the perceived absence of an elephant than the perceived absence of germ.

Here's the text, below here is a quotation:

Here, below is the unpublished five-hundred word reply that I submitted after learning that there was space for me to write only five-hundred more words:

Bryan Cross: Michael, I’m told by Ryan that there is space for me to say only five hundred more words. In such a short space I cannot give an adequate reply to your most recent comments. So I will offer a very brief summary here of what I see as the most fundamental point of disagreement, and later at Called To Communion I’ll post a more thorough reply to your latest comment. 

Three years ago your colleague R. Scott Clark, talking about the Federal Vision controversy, said the following: “All heretics quote Scripture. The question in this controversy is not the normativity of the Bible but who gets to interpret it.” He was absolutely correct. But it is not only the question in the FV controversy; it is ultimately the same question at the very heart of the Protestant-Catholic divide: Who has interpretive authority? The Catholic answer to that question is based on apostolic succession. Christ did not leave His Church with only a book; He also authorized and equipped a perpetual, visible living magisterial authority to provide the authoritative interpretation of Scripture to His flock, until He returns. The Church universally affirmed and practiced apostolic succession, wherever she spread all over the world, as is clear in the historical record from the second century on. There wasn’t some great controversy or debate as the ‘heretical’ practice of apostolic succession universally swept over the Church in the first and second centuries, and replaced the ‘original’ notion that ecclesial leadership was based entirely on agreement with the Apostles’ doctrine. If the Apostles didn’t institute the practice of apostolic succession, that’s a very strange silence. If apostolic succession were a later innovation, we would expect to find all those Christians who were being martyred for holding fast to what the Apostles had taught, vociferously protesting to the death that apostolic succession is not the way the Apostles set up the basis for leadership in the Church. But what we find instead is that these martyrs are the ones defending apostolic succession, and defending those bishops ordained by way of apostolic succession. The only ones denying the necessity of apostolic succession were the second-century Gnostics, because they didn’t have it. One must adopt a radical ecclesial deism in order to explain away such evidence.


Although it would be nice to think that Scripture is so clear that no visible living interpretive authority is needed to provide the authoritative interpretation, if the fragmentation of Protestantism over the past four hundred and ninety years is not enough to falsify such a position, then how many more centuries of division would be needed to falsify it? Exegesis and hermeneutics cannot unite Christians in one body; only a divinely authorized visible living interpretive authority can do so. 


I wish to thank you for inviting me to participate in this discussion. I pray that it may be helpful for advancing mutual understanding, and the eventual reconciliation of Protestants and Catholics together again in the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.