Reference Section: Sola Scriptura

[phatcatholic]

phatpham,

this is the thread where you find as much info as you can to prove that a doctrine of SS is not what the early Church and the earliest Christians believed. This is where you show that it is contrary to our Sacred Tradition.

thanks,

phatcatholic

[phatcatholic]

http://www.chnetwork.org/journals/sola/sola11.htm

Did the Church Fathers Believe in Sola Scriptura?

by Joseph Gallegos

William Webster in an essay titled "Sola Scriptura and the Early Church" has attempted to transform the early Church Fathers into proponents of sola Scriptura. In my contribution in Not by Scripture Alone (Santa Barbara:Queenship,1997) Chapter 8 and the Appendix, I delineate three approaches used by Protestant apologists in defending sola Scriptura in patristic thought. Mr. Webster has chosen the third approach; equating sola Scriptura with the material sufficiency of Scripture.

Mr. Webster writes:

"The Reformation was responsible for restoring to the Church the principle of sola Scriptura, a principle which had been operative within the Church from the very beginning of the post apostolic age. Initially the apostles taught orally but with the close of the apostolic age all special revelation that God wanted preserved for man was codified in the written Scriptures. Sola Scriptura is the teaching and belief that there is only one special revelation from God that man possesses today, the written Scriptures or the Bible, and that consequently the Scriptures are materially sufficient and are by their very nature as being inspired by God the ultimate authority for the Church."

Two points are to be noted here. First, Mr. Webster equates sola Scriptura with the material sufficiency of Scripture. Second, according to Mr. Webster, the Reformers were responsible for restoring this narrow understanding of sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura consists of a material and a formal element. First, sola Scriptura affirms that all doctrines of the Christian faith are contained within the corpus of the Old and New Testaments. Hence, Scripture is materially sufficient. Secondly, Scripture requires no other coordinate authority such as a teaching Church or Tradition in order to determine its meaning. Sola Scriptura affirms the formal sufficiency of Scripture. Catholics are allowed to affirm Scripture’s material sufficiency, therefore Mr. Webster’s case directed at proving the Fathers belief in Scripture’s material sufficiency is completely off target. In order for Mr. Webster to make his case for sola Scriptura he must prove that the Fathers affirmed the formal sufficiency of Scripture. The Fathers affirmed both the material sufficiency and formal insufficiency of Scripture.

Mr. Webster states:

"And there is no appeal in the writings of these fathers to a Tradition that is oral in nature for a defense of what they call Apostolic Tradition. The Apostolic Tradition for Irenaeus and Tertullian is simply Scripture."

Notice the sleight of hand by Mr. Webster. He equates St. Irenaeus’s and Tertullian’s understanding of Tradition to mean Scripture. Both of these Fathers clearly understood Tradition as a substantive and coordinate authority alongside Scripture. These same Fathers believed that the doctrines of the Catholic Church are found in Tradition as well as in Scripture. However, they do not make the misguided conclusion that Tradition is equated to Scripture since Tradition includes the same doctrines that Scripture contains. The primary difference between Scripture and Tradition is that they convey the same teaching but through different mediums. One transmits the doctrines via the written Scriptures while Tradition transmits these same doctrines through the life, faith and practice of the Church. If Scripture is equated with Tradition than the writings of St. Irenaeus and Tertullian are reduced to nonsense.

St. Irenaeus writes as if he was anticipating proto-Protestants:

"When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition...It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture or tradition" (Against Heresies 3,2:1).

"Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? 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?" (Against Heresies 3,4:1).

According to Irenaeus, Tradition is substantive in content, normative in authority and continues to live in the Apostolic churches. Likewise Tertullian writes:

"Error of doctrine in the churches must necessarily have produced various issues. When, however, that which is deposited among many is found to be one and the same, it is not the result of error, but of tradition. Can any one, then, be reckless enough to say that they were in error who handed on the tradition" (Prescription against the Heretics,28).

Similarly, the words of Tertullian are reduced to nonsense if we apply Mr. Webster’s understanding of Tradition.

Mr. Webster continues:

"Irenaeus and Tertullian had to contend with the Gnostics who were the very first to suggest and teach that they possessed an Apostolic oral Tradition that was independent from Scripture. These early fathers rejected such a notion and appealed to Scripture alone for the proclamation and defense of doctrine."

First, St. Irenaeus and Tertullian had no issue with the concept of an authoritative Tradition alongside Scripture. Their criticism of the Gnostics was with a tradition that was private and available to only the Gnostic elect in contrast to a Tradition that was public, above board, taught and preserved by the Catholic Church. This was the point that was foisted in the face of the Gnostics by St. Irenaeus and Tertullian:

"But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the successions of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying they themselves are wiser..." (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3,2:2).

"His testimony, therefore, is true, and the doctrine of the apostles is open and steadfast, holding nothing in reserve; nor did they teach one set of doctrines in private, and another in public" (Against Heresies 3,15:1).

"[The Apostles] next went forth into the world and preached the same doctrine of the same faith to the nations. They then in like manner rounded churches in every city, from which all the other churches, one after another, derived the tradition of the faith, and the seeds of doctrine, and are every day deriving them, that they may become churches. inDouche, it is on this account only that they will be able to deem themselves apostolic, as being the offspring of apostolic churches. Every sort of thing must necessarily revert to its original for its classification. Therefore the churches, although they are so many and so great, comprise but the one primitive church, (founded) by the apostles, from which they all (spring). In this way all are primitive, and all are apostolic, whilst they are all proved to be one, in (unbroken) unity, by their peaceful communion and title of brotherhood, and bond of hospitality, — privileges which no other rule directs than the one tradition of the selfsame mystery" (Tertullian, On Prescription Against the Heretics 20).

Mr. Webster’s understanding that the Fathers appealed to Scripture alone is simply a fantasy.

In support of Mr. Webster’s novel idea that St. Irenaeus and Tertullian embraced sola Scriptura he cites Ellen Flessman-Van Leer, a non-Catholic scholar. Unfortunately for Mr. Webster, Ellen Flessman-Van Leer has written in depth and without equivocation on St. Irenaeus’ and Tertullian’s understanding of Apostolic Tradition. Mr. Webster wants to leave us with the impression that Van Leer and the Fathers embraced sola Scriptura. Nothing could be further from the truth.

"For Irenaeus, on the other hand, tradition and scripture are both quite unproblematic. They stand independently side by side, both absolutely authoritative, both unconditionally true, trustworthy, and convincing" (Tradition and Scripture in the Early Church, p139).

Elsewhere Van Leer comments on Tertullian:

"Tertullian says explicitly that the apostles delivered their teaching both orally and later on through epistles, and the whole body of this teaching he designates with the word traditio...This is tradition in the real sense of the word. It is used for the original message of the apostles, going back to revelation, and for the message proclaimed by the church, which has been received through the apostles" (ibid.,pp. 146,147,168).

Van Leer concludes:

"Irenaeus and Tertullian point to the church tradition as the authoritative locus of the unadulterated teaching of the apostles, they can no longer appeal to the immediate memory, as could the earliest writers. Instead they lay stress on the affirmation that this teaching has been transmitted faithfully from generation to generation. One could say that in their thinking, apostolic succession occupies the same place that is held by the living memory in the Apostolic Fathers" (ibid., p.188).

Clearly, Mr. Webster has not understood Van Leer, St. Irenaeus and Tertullian. Mr. Webster continues:

"The Bible was the ultimate authority for the fathers of the patristic age. It was materially sufficient and the final arbiter in all matters of doctrinal truth. As J.N.D. Kelly has pointed out: ‘The clearest token of the prestige enjoyed by (Scripture) is the fact that almost the entire theological effort of the Fathers, whether their aims were polemical or constructive, was expended upon what amounted to the exposition of the Bible. Further, it was everywhere taken for granted that, for any doctrine to win acceptance, it had first to establish its Scriptural basis’ (Early Christian Doctrines, San Francisco: Harper & Row,1978,pp. 42,46).’"

Here we have Mr. Webster misrepresenting the faith of J.N.D. Kelly, the Anglican patristic scholar. Interesting how Mr. Webster failed to cite the following from the same work:

"It should be unnecessary to accumulate further evidence. Throughout the whole period Scripture and tradition ranked as complementary authorities, media different in form but coincident in content. To inquire which counted as superior or more ultimate is to pose the question in misleading terms. If Scripture was abundantly sufficient in principle, tradition was recognized as the surest clue to its interpretation, for in tradition the Church retained, as a legacy from the apostles which was embedded in all the organs of her institutional life, an unerring grasp of the real purport and meaning of the revelation to which Scripture and tradition alike bore witness" (Early Christian Doctrines, pp. 47-48).

Mr. Webster then cites several paragraphs from St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Gregory of Nyssa, and St. Basil the Great in support of sola Scriptura. Mr. Webster summarizes his findings in the ancient Church:

"These fathers are simply representative of the fathers as a whole. Cyprian, Origen, Hippolytus, Athanasius, Firmilian, Augustine are just a few of the fathers that could be cited as proponents of the principle of sola Scriptura, in addition to Tertullian, Irenaeus, Cyril and Gregory of Nyssa. The early Church operated on the basis of the principle of sola Scriptura and it was this historical principle that the Reformers sought to restore to the Church."

For a complete rebuttal to the above claim I refer to my contribution in Not by Scripture Alone (Santa Barbara: Queenship, 1997), Chapter 8 "What did the Church Fathers teach about Scripture, Tradition and Church" and Appendix: "A Dossier of Church Fathers on Scripture and Tradition."

There are a couple of recurring themes throughout the writings of the Church Fathers on the rule of faith. First, the Fathers affirmed that the most perfect expression of the Apostolic faith is to be found in Sacred Scripture. The Fathers affirmed the material sufficiency of Scripture. According to the Fathers, all doctrines of the Catholic faith are to be found within its covers. Secondly, the Fathers affirmed in the same breath and with equal conviction that the Apostolic faith also has been transmitted to the Church through Tradition. According to the Fathers, the Scriptures can only be interpreted within the Catholic Church in light of her Sacred Tradition. The Fathers, particularly those who combated heresies, affirmed that the fatal flaw of heretics was interpreting Scripture according to their private understanding apart from mother Church and her Tradition. In sum, when the Fathers affirmed the sufficiency and authority of Scripture, they did so not in a vacuum, but within the framework of an authoritative Church and Tradition. Let me cite passages from the same Fathers Mr. Webster used.

St. Cyril of Jerusalem(c.A.D 315-386), Doctor and Catholic bishop of Jerusalem between A.D.348-350 writes: "But in learning the Faith and in professing it, acquire and keep that only, which is now delivered to thee by the CHURCH, and which has been built up strongly out of all the SCRIPTURES" (Catechetical Lectures, 5:12).

Mr. Webster provided this passage but I add it here to draw attention to St. Cyril’s Catholic understanding of the rule of faith. Elsewhere, St. Cyril points to the Church not to Scripture for the definition of the canon: "Learn also diligently, and from the Church, what are the books of the Old Testaments, and what those of the New" (Catechetical Lectures ,4:33).

St. Gregory of Nyssa(c.A.D. 335-394),brother of St. Basil the Great, Doctor of the Catholic Church and bishop of Nyssa writes:

"[F]or it is enough for proof of our statement, that the TRADITION has come down to us from our fathers, handed on, like some inheritance, by succession from the apostles and the saints who came after them. They, on the other hand, who change their doctrines to this novelty, would need the support of arguments in abundance, if they were about to bring over to their views, not men light as dust, and unstable, but men of weight and steadiness: but so long as their statement is advanced without being established, and without being proved, who is so foolish and so brutish as to account the teaching of the evangelists and apostles, and of those who have successively shone like lights in the churches, of less force than this undemonstrated nonsense?" (Against Eunomius,4:6).

St. Basil the Great(A.D. 329-379), Doctor of the Catholic Church, bishop of Caesarea, and brother St. Gregory of Nyssa’s writes:

"Of the dogmas and kergymas preserved in the Church, some we possess from written teaching and others we receive from the tradition of the Apostles, handed on to us in mystery. In respect to piety both are of the same force. No one will contradict any of these, no one, at any rate, who is even moderately versed in manners ecclesiastical. inDouche, were we to try to reject the unwritten customs as having no great authority, we would unwittingly injure the Gospel in its vitals; or rather, we would reduce kergyma to a mere term" (Holy Spirt 27:66).

Irenaeus, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of Nyssa, and Basil are the only Fathers cited by Mr. Webster in support of sola Scriptura. I have provided passages from these same Fathers to provide the necessary balance. It would be easy for anyone to cut and paste the Fathers to their liking, however to find the authentic faith of a Father we must look at their entire writings.

It is clear the early Church Fathers appealed to Tradition alongside Scripture. This Tradition was normative, substantive, available to all, and preserved by the Apostolic Churches, particularly the See of Rome.

Joseph A. Gallegos is a graduate of the University of California, Irvine and West Coast University, Los Angeles. He is very active in Catholic Apologetics, having created Corunum Apologetics BBS in 1992, and an international web site (http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos) for his expertise on patristic thought regarding the Papacy and Tradition. He is the author of What Did The Church Fathers Teach About Scripture, Tradition, and Church Authority in Not By Scripture Alone (Queenship Publishing, 1997).

[phatcatholic]

http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/private.htm

The Church Fathers on Private Exegesis Apart from Tradition and Church

"True knowledge is [that which consists in] the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient constitution of the Church throughout all the world, and the distinctive manifestation of the body of Christ according to the successions of the bishops, by which they have handed down that Church which exists in every place, and has come even unto us, being guarded and preserved without any forging of Scriptures, by a very complete system of doctrine, and neither receiving addition nor [suffering] curtailment [in the truths which she believes]; and [it consists in] reading [the word of God] without falsification, and a lawful and diligent exposition in harmony with the Scriptures, both without danger and without blasphemy; and [above all, it consists in] the pre-eminent gift of love, which is more precious than knowledge, more glorious than prophecy, and which excels all the other gifts [of God]."

Irenaeus,Against Heresies,4,33:8 (inter A.D. 180-199),in ANF,I:508

"But if there be any (heresies) which are bold enough to plant themselves in the midst of the apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the apostles, because they existed in the time of the apostles, we can say: Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [that first bishop of theirs] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men, ùa man, moreover, who continued stedfast with the apostles. For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter. In exactly the same way the other churches likewise exhibit (their several worthies), whom, as having been appointed to their episcopal places by apostles, they regard as transmitters of the apostolic seed. Let the heretics contrive something of the same kind. For after their blasphemy, what is there that is unlawful for them (to attempt)? But should they even effect the contrivance, they will not advance a step. For their very doctrine, after comparison with that of the apostles, will declare, by its own diversity and contrariety, that it had for its author neither an apostle nor an apostolic man; because, as the apostles would never have taught things which were self-contradictory, so the apostolic men would not have inculcated teaching different from the apostles, unless they who received their instruction from the apostles went and preached in a contrary manner. To this test, therefore will they be submitted for proof by those churches, who, although they derive not their founder from apostles or apostolic men (as being of much later date, for they are in fact being founded daily), yet, since they agree in the same faith, they are accounted as not less apostolic because they are akin in doctrine. Then let all the heresies, when challenged to these two tests by our apostolic church, offer their proof of how they deem themselves to be apostolic. But in truth they neither are so, nor are they able to prove themselves to be what they are not. Nor are they admitted to peaceful relations and communion by such churches as are in any way connected with apostles, inasmuch as they are in no sense themselves apostolic because of their diversity as to the mysteries of the faith."

Tertullian,On Prescription against the Heretics,32 (c.A.D. 200),in ANF,III:258

"For those are slothful who, having it in their power to provide themselves with proper proofs for the divine Scriptures from the Scriptures themselves, select only what contributes to their own pleasures. And those have a craving for glory who voluntarily evade, by arguments of a diverse sort, the things delivered by the blessed apostles and teachers, which are wedded to inspired words; opposing the divine tradition by human teachings, in order to establish the heresy."

Clement of Alexandria,Stromata,7:16 (post A.D. 202),in ANF,II:553-554

"When heretics show us the canonical Scriptures, in which every Christian believes and trusts, they seem to be saying:'Lo, he is in the inner rooms [ie., the word of truth] ' (Matt 24.6). But we must not believe them, nor leave the original tradition of the Church, nor believe otherwise than we have been taught by the succession in the Church of God."

Origen,Homilies on Matthew,Homily 46,PG 13:1667 (ante A.D. 254),in CON,392

"For the method of godliness consists of these two things, pious doctrines, and virtuous practice: and neither are the doctrines acceptable to God apart from good works, nor does God accept the works which are not perfected with pious doctrines. For what profit is it, to know well the doctrines concerning God, and yet to be a vile fornicator? And again, what profit is it, to be nobly temperate, and an impious blasphemer? A most precious possession therefore is the knowledge of doctrines: also there is need of a wakeful soul, since there are many that make spoil through philosophy and vain deceit. The Greeks on the one hand draw men away by their smooth tongue, for honey droppeth from a harlot's lips: whereas they of the Circumcision deceive those who come to them by means of the Divine Scriptures, which they miserably misinterpret though studying them from childhood to all age, and growing old in ignorance. But the children of heretics, by their good words and smooth tongue, deceive the hearts of the innocent, disguising with the name of Christ as it were with honey the poisoned arrows of their impious doctrines: concerning all of whom together the Lord saith, Take heed lest any man mislead you. This is the reason for the teaching of the Creed and for expositions upon it."

Cyril of Jerusalem,Catechetical Lectures,4:2 (A.D. 350),in NPNF2,VII:19

"And, O wretched heretic! you turn the weapons granted to the Church against the Synagogue, against belief in the Church's preaching, and distort against the common salvation of all the sure meaning of a saving doctrine."

Hilary of Poitiers,On the Trinity,12:36 (inter A.D. 356-359),in NPNF2,IX:227

"But since they allege the divine oracles and force on them a misinterpretation, according to their private sense, it becomes necessary to meet them just so far as to vindicate these passages, and to shew that they bear an orthodox sense, and that our opponents are in error."

Athanasius,Discourse Against the Arians,I:37(A.D. 362),in NPNF2,IV:327-328

"To refuse to follow the Fathers, not holding their declaration of more authority than one's own opinion, is conduct worthy of blame, as being brimful of self-sufficiency."

Basil,EpistleTo the Canonicae,52:1 (A.D. 370),in NPNF2,VIII:155

"While (the sects) mutually refute and condemn each other, it has happened to truth as to Gideon; that is, while they fight against each other, and fall under wounds mutually inflicted, they crown her. All the heretics acknowledge that there is a true Scripture. Had they all falsely believed that none existed, some one might reply that such Scripture was unknown to them. But now that have themselves taken away the force of such plea, from the fact that they have mutilated the very Scriptures. For they have corrupted the sacred copies; and words which ought to have but one interpretation, they have wrested to strange significations. Whilst, when one of them attempts this, and cuts off a member of his own body, the rest demand and claim back the severed limb....It is the church which perfect truth perfects. The church of believers is great, and its bosom most ample; it embraces the fulness (or, the whole) of the two Testaments."

Ephraem,Adv. Haeres. (ante A.D. 373),in FOC,I:377-378

"Who knows not that what separates the Church from heresy is this term, 'product of creation, ' applied to the Son? Accordingly, the doctrinal difference being universally acknowledged, what would be the reasonable course for a man to take who endeavors to show that his opinions are more true than ours?"

Gregory of Nyssa,Against Eunomius,4:6 (inter A.D. 380-384),in NPNF2,V:162

"For heresies, and certain tenets of perversity, ensnaring souls and hurling them into the deep, have not sprung up except when good Scriptures are not rightly understood, and when that in them which is not rightly understood is rashly and boldly asserted. And so, dearly beloved, ought we very cautiously to hear those things for the understanding of which we are but little ones, and that, too, with pious heart and with trembling, as it is written, holding this rule of soundness, that we rejoice as in food in that which we have been able to understand, according to the faith with which we are imbued;"

Augustine,On the Gospel of John,Homily XVIII:1 (A.D. 416 et 417),NPNFI,VII:117

"If you produce from the divine scriptures something that we all share, we shall have to listen. But those words which are not found in the scriptures are under no circumstance accepted by us, especially since the Lord warns us, saying, In vain they worship me, teaching human commandments and precepts'(Mt 5:19) "

Maximinus(Arch-Arian Heretic),Debate with Maximinus,1 (c.A.D. 428),in AAOH,188

"Therefore, as I said above, if you had been a follower and assertor of Sabellianism or Arianism or any heresy you please, you might shelter yourself under the example of your parents, the teaching of your instructors, the company of those about you, the faith of your creed. I ask, O you heretic, nothing unfair, and nothing hard. As you have been brought up in the Catholic faith, do that which you would do for a wrong belief. Hold fast to the teaching of your parents. Hold fast the faith of the Church: hold fast the truth of the Creed: hold fast the salvation of baptism."

Cassian,John,Incarnation of the Lord,6:5 (c.A.D. 429/430),in NPNF2,XI:593-594

"I have often then inquired earnestly and attentively of very many men eminent for sanctity and learning, how and by what sure and so to speak universal rule I may be able to distinguish the truth of Catholic faith from the falsehood of heretical pravity; and I have always, and in almost every instance, received an answer to this effect: That whether I or any one else should wish to detect the frauds and avoid the snares of heretics as they rise, and to continue sound and complete in the Catholic faith, we must, the Lord helping, fortify our own belief in two ways; first, by the authority of the Divine Law, and then, by the Tradition of the Catholic Church."

Vincent of Lerins,Commonitory,2:4 (c.A.D. 434),in NPNF2,XI:132

"But the Church of Christ, the careful and watchful guardian of the doctrines deposited in her charge, never changes anything in them, never diminishes, never adds, does not cut off what is necessary, does not add what is superfluous, does not lose her own, does not appropriate what is another's, but while dealing faithfully and judiciously with ancient doctrine, keeps this one object carefully in view,ùif there be anything which antiquity has left shapeless and rudimentary, to fashion and polish it, if anything already reduced to shape and developed, to consolidate and strengthen it, if any already ratified and defined to keep and guard it. Finally, what other object have Councils ever aimed at in their decrees, than to provide that what was before believed in simplicity should in future be believed intelligently, that what was before preached coldly should in future be preached earnestly, that what was before practised negligently should thenceforward be practised with double solicitude ? This, I say, is what the Catholic Church, roused by the novelties of heretics, has accomplished by the decrees of her Councils,ùthis, and nothing else,ùshe has thenceforward consigned to posterity in writing what she had received from those of olden times only by tradition, comprising a great amount of matter in a few words, and often, for the better understanding, designating an old article of the faith by the characteristic of a new name."

Vincent of Lerins,Commonitory,23:59 (c.A.D. 434),in NPNF2,XI:148-149

"[A]ll heresies, that they evermore delight in profane novelties, scorn the decisions of antiquity, and ...make shipwreck of the faith. On the other hand, it is the sure characteristic of Catholics to keep that which has been committed to their trust by the holy Fathers...."

Vincent of Lerins,Commonitory,24:63 (c.A.D. 434),in NPNF2,XI:150

"His (Nestorius) first attempt at innovation was, that the holy Virgin, who bore the Word of God, who took flesh of her, ought not to be confessed to be the mother of God, but only the mother of Christ; though of old, yea from the first, the preachers of the orthodox faith taught, agreeably to the apostolic tradition, that the mother of God. And now let me produce his blasphemous artifice and observation unknown to any one before him."

Theodoret of Cyrus,Compendium of Heretics' Fables,12 (c.A.D. 453),in FOC,I:449

[phatcatholic]

http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/athans.htm

St. Athanasius and Sola Scriptura

This essay contains an apologetic against recent attempts by James White (of Alpha & Omega ministries) in transforming St. Athanasius,the great Patriarch of Alexandria, into a proponent of sola scriptura

http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/web.htm

Material Sufficiency and Sola Scriptura

This essay contains an apologetic against an attempt by William Webster (of Christian Truth Web Site) in transforming the Church Fathers into proponents of sola scriptura

http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/churchm.htm

Interpreting Scripture Through the Eyes of the Church

The Church Fathers together proclaimed that authentic and orthodox interpretation of Scripture can only be obtained if one understands Scripture according to the faith of the Church. The Fathers never wanted to be considered private exegetes or dared to be innovative in their approach to interpreting Scripture. The Fathers had only one goal in mind when interpreting Scripture -- to teach the apostolic doctrine as it was taught to them. The heretics on the other hand jettisoned Mother Church and her teaching and replaced it with their own private understanding.

http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/sola_her.htm

Sola Scriptura in the Early Church

There are preachers in the early Church that adhered to the formal principle of sola scriptura; however, despite their common belief in appealing to the Scriptures alone they disagreed with one another.

[phatcatholic]

http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/SOLASCRI.TXT

the following is an exerpt from the article Sola scriptura: A Blueprint for Anarchy by Patrick Madrid

SOLA SCPIPTURA IS UNHISTORICAL

First, let's consider <sola scriptura> from the vantage point of history. If the notion of the absolute sufficiency of Scripture2 were inDouche part of "the faith that was once for all handed on to the saints" (Jude 3), we would expect to find it everywhere taught and practiced in the early Church. We would expect to see the

ancient Christian liturgical life dominated and shaped by the rule of <sola scriptura>. But we don't see anything of the sort. The fact is, the writings of the Church Fathers and the councils, both regional and ecumenical, reveal that <sola scriptura> was completely alien to the thought and life of the early Church. Mind

you, the early Church placed an exceedingly great emphasis on the importance and authority of Scripture to guide and govern the life of the Church, and Scripture was employed constantly by the Fathers in their doctrinal treatises and pastoral directives. But Scripture was never regarded (or used) by the Church Fathers as

something that stands alone, self-sufficient and entirely independent of Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium.

Sometimes Protestant apologists try to bolster their case for <sola scriptura>3 by using highly selective quotes from Church Fathers such as Athanasius, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Jerusalem, Augustine, and Basil of Caesarea. These quotes, isolated from the rest of what the Father in question wrote about church authority,

Tradition and Scripture, can give the appearance that these Fathers were hard-core Evangelicals who promoted an unvarnished <sola scriptura> principle that would have done John Calvin proud. But this is merely a chimera. In order for the selective "pro-<sola scriptura>" quotes from the Fathers to be of value to a

Protestant apologist, his audience must have little or no firsthand knowledge of what these Fathers wrote. By considering the patristic evidence on the subject of scriptural authority in context, a very different picture emerges. A few examples will suffice to demonstrate what I mean.

Basil of Caesarea provides Evangelical polemicists with what they think is a "smoking gun" quote upholding <sola scriptura>: "Therefore, let God inspired Scripture decide between us; and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the Word of God, in favor of that side will be cast the vote of truth" (<Epistle ad Eustathius>). This, they think, means that Basil would have been

comfortable with the Calvinist notion that "All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them" (<The Westminister Confession> 7).

Yet if Basil's quote is to be of any use to the Protestant apologist, the rest of Basil's writings must be shown to be consistent and compatible with <sola scriptura>. But watch what happens to Basil's alleged <sola scriptura> position when we look at other statements of his:

"Of the beliefs and practices whether generally accepted or enjoined which are preserved in the Church, some we possess derived from written teaching; others we have delivered to us in a mystery by the apostles by the tradition of the apostles; and both of these in relation to true religion have the same force" (<On

the Holy Spirit>, 27).

"In answer to the objection that the doxology in the form with the Spirit' has no written authority, we maintain that if there is not another instance of that which is unwritten, then this must not be received [as authoritative]. But if the great number of our mysteries are admitted into our constitution without [the] written

authority [of Scripture], then, in company with many others, let us receive this one. For I hold it apostolic to abide by the unwritten traditions. 'I praise you,' it is said [by Paul in l Cor. 11:1] that you remember me in all things and keep the

traditions just as I handed them on to you,' and Hold fast to the traditions that you were taught whether by an oral statement or by a letter of ours' [2 Thess. 2:15]. One of these traditions is the practice which is now before us [under consideration], which they who ordained from the beginning, rooted firmly in the churches, delivering it to their successors, and its use through long custom

advances pace by pace with time" (<On the Holy Spirit>, 71).

Such talk hardly fits with the principle that Scripture is formally sufficient for all matters of Christian doctrine. This type of appeal to a body of unwritten apostolic Tradition within the Church as being authoritative is frequent in Basil's writings.

Protestant apologists are also fond of quoting two particular passages from Athanasius: "The holy and inspired Scriptures are sufficient of themselves for the preaching of the truth" (<Contra Gentiles> 1:1). And: "These books [of canonical Scripture] are the fountains of salvation, so that he who thirsts may be satisfied

with the oracles contained in them. In these alone the school of piety preaches the Gospel. Let no man add to these or take away from them" (39th <Festal Letter>). But in neither place is Athanasius teaching <sola scriptura>.

First, in the case of the <Festal Letter>, he was instructing his churches as to what could and could not be read at Church as "Scripture." The context of the epistle makes it clear that he was laying down a liturgical directive for his flock.

Second, as in the case of Basil and the other Fathers Protestants attempt to press into service, Athanasius' writings show no signs of <sola scriptura>, but rather of his staunchly orthodox Catholicism. Athanasius, for example, wrote: "The confession arrived at Nicea was, we say more, sufficient and enough by itself

for the subversion of all irreligious heresy and for the security and furtherance of the doctrine of the Church" (<Ad Afros> 1). And: "[T]he very tradition, teaching, and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning was preached by the apostles and preserved by the Fathers. On this the Church was founded; and if anyone departs from this, he neither is nor any longer ought to be celled a Christian" (<Ad Serapion> 1:28).

And consider this quote from Cyril of Jerusalem's <Catechetical Lectures>, a favorite of the <nouveau> Protestant apologists: "In regard to the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not the least part may be handed on without the Holy Scriptures. Do not be led astray by winning words and clever arguments. Even to me, who tell you these things, do not give ready belief, unless you receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of the things which I announce. The salvation which we believe is not proved from clever reasoning, but from the Holy Scriptures" (4:17).

How should we understand this? Catholic patristic scholars would point out that such language as Cyril uses here is consistent with his and the other Fathers' high view of Scripture's authority and with what is sometimes called its material sufficiency (more on that shortly). This language, while perhaps more rigorously

biblical than some modern Catholics are used to, nonetheless conveys an accurate sense of Catholic teaching on the importance of Scripture. Even taken at face value, Cyril's admonition poses no problem for the Catholic. But it does, ironically, for the Protestant.

The proponent of <sola scriptura> is faced with a dilemma when he attempts to use Cyril's quote. Option One: If Cyril was in fact teaching <sola scriptura>, Protestants have a big problem. Cyril's <Catechetical Lectures> are filled with his forceful teachings on the infallible teaching office of the Catholic Church (18:23), the Mass as a sacrifice (23:6-8), the concept of purgatory and the efficacy of expiatory prayers for the dead (23:10), the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist (19:7; 21:3; 22:1-9), the theology of sacraments (1:3), the intercession of the saints (23:9), holy orders (23:2), the importance of frequent Communion

(23:23), baptismal regeneration (1:1-3; 3:10-12; 21:3-4), inDouche a staggering array of specifically "Catholic" doctrines.

These are the same Catholic doctrines that Protestants claim are not found in Scripture. So, if Cyril really held to the notion of <sola scriptura>, he certainly believed he had found those Catholic doctrines in Scripture. One would then have to posit that Cyril was badly mistaken in his exegesis of Scripture, but this

tack, of course, leads nowhere for Protestants, for it would of necessity impugn Cyril's exegetical credibility as well as his claim to find <sola scriptura> in Scripture.

Option Two: Cyril did not teach <sola scriptura>; the Protestant understanding of this passage is incorrect. That means an attempt to hijack this quote to support <sola scriptura> is futile (if not dishonest), since it would require a hopelessly incorrect understanding of Cyril's method of systematic theology, the doctrinal schema he sets forth in <Catechetical Lectures>, and his view of the authority of Scripture. Obviously, neither of these options is palatable to the Protestant apologist.

Were there time and space to cycle through each of the patristic quotes proffered by Protestants arguing for <sola scriptura>, we could demonstrate in each case that the Fathers are being quoted out of context and without regard to the rest of their statements on the authority of Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium. It

will suffice for now, though, to remind Catholics that the Fathers did not teach <sola scriptura>, and no amount of clever "cut-and-paste" work by defenders of <sola scriptura> can demonstrate otherwise.

Edited December 9, 2003 by phatcatholic

[phatcatholic]

A Treatise on Sola Scriptura: Part Three--The Three Premises of Sola Scriptura

See the second premise: The Church was Suppose to Practice Sola Scriptura After the Apostles Died.