Baptism Is Required

[Dave]

The church fathers you cite did NOT believe in sola sriptura.

Here's an article by Joseph Gallegos in response to an article by William Webster that makes the same false claims the article you provided makes.

[quote]The Fathers know best Not Mr. Webster!

Mr. Webster in an essay titled "Sola Scriptura and the Early Church"[1] 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 appendix I delineate three approaches used by Protestant apologists in defending sola Scriptura in patristic thought. William 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." [1]
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.[2]

A bit more surprising is that Mr. Webster has us believe that the Reformers equated sola Scriptura with material sufficiency. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Calvin writes:
"But a more pernicious error widely prevails that Scripture has only so much weight as is conceded to it by the consent of the church. As if the eternal and inviolable truth of God depended upon the decision of men! For they mock the Holy Spirit when they ask: Who can convince us that these writings came from God? Who can assure us that the Scripture has come down whole and intact even to our day?...Thus, the highest proof of Scripture derives in general form from the fact that God in person speaks in it...Let this point therefore stand: that those whom the Holy Spirit has inwardly taught truly rest upon Scripture, and that Scripture indeed is self-authenticated; hence, it is not right to subject it to proof and reasoning. And the certainty it deserves with us, it attains by the testimony of the Spirit."
Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion,I:7:1,4,5
Similarly Luther writes:

"[T]he truth is that nobody who has not the Spirit of God sees a jot of what is in the Scriptures...[N]othing whatsoever is left obscure or ambiguous, but that all that is in the Scripture is through the Word brought forth in the clearest light and proclaimed to the whole world."
Luther, Bondage of the Will,175

"Unless I am convicted of error by the testimony of Scriptures or (since I put no trust in the unsupported authority of Pope or of councils, since it is plain that they have often erred and often contradicted themselves) by manifest reasoning I stand convicted by the Scriptures to which I have appealed, and my conscience is taken captive by God's word, I cannot and will not recant anything, for to act against our conscience is neither safe for us, nor open to us."
Luther, Final Answer at the Diet of Worms, in DCC,201
Dr. Godfrey summarizes the Reformation doctrine:

"The Protestant position, and my position, is that all things necessary for salvation and concerning faith and life are taught in the Bible clearly enough for the ordinary believer to find it there and understand."
Dr. W. Robert Godfrey, "What Do We mean by Sola Scriptura" in Sola Scriptura!, Don Kistler ed.,(Morgan, Soli Deo Gloria:1996),p 3
The Reformers position affirmed both the formal and material sufficiency of Scripture. Mr. Webster has misrepresented the faith of the Reformers by having us believe that they affirmed his narrow definition of sola Scriptura. The doctrine of sola Scriptura requires no other coordinate authority such as Tradition or a teaching Church in order to interpret all of its doctrines in an orthodox manner. In contrast, Mr. Webster narrows the definition of sola Scriptura to only mean material sufficiency. However, this caricature of sola Scriptura is innocuous since Catholics can affirm the material sufficiency of Scripture. Likewise, Mr. Webster's use of the Fathers in support of material sufficiency is off target. Catholics agree that the Fathers affirmed the material sufficiency of Scripture.[3] However, in the same breath, these very same Fathers affirmed the formal insufficiency of Scripture. I will provide passages from the very same Fathers that are cited by Mr. Webster that affirm the formal insufficiency of Scripture.

Next Mr. Webster writes:

"The Council of Trent in the sixteenth century, on the other hand, declared that the revelation of God was not contained solely in the Scriptures. It was contained partly in the written Scriptures and partly in oral tradition and therefore the Scriptures were not materially sufficient."[1]
Again, Mr. Webster misrepresents the position of Trent and the Catholic Church. The Fathers at the Council of Trent specifically eliminated the words partly in Scripture and partly in tradition from the acts and substituted that the Gospel is contained in both Scripture and Tradition. In fact, the partim/partim language was eliminated by the arguments made by the Servite Fathers, who upheld the material sufficiency of Scripture. Again, Mr. Webster has misfired.

Mr. Webster continues:

"Irenaeus and Tertullian state emphatically that all the teaching of the Bishops that was given orally was rooted in Scripture and could be proven from the written Scriptures. Both fathers give us the actual doctrinal content of the Apostolic Tradition that was orally preached in the Churches and every doctrine is derived from Scripture. There is no doctrine in this Apostolic Tradition that is not found in Scripture."[1]
Mr. Webster gives a partial truth here. Not only is there no doctrine that is not found in Scripture there is no doctrine that is not found in Tradition as well. This is a very crucial point. All doctrines of the Catholic faith are in Tradition as well as in Scripture. Therefore Mr. Webster wrongly concludes that all doctrines are derived from Scripture only. All Catholic doctrines are derived from the teachings of Christ and derivatively His Apostles. These Apostolic doctrines were first transmitted to the Church first via Tradition and later by both Tradition and Scripture. The transmission of doctrines through Tradition was not retired once the Bible was written, collated, and canonized.

Mr. Webster writes:

"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."[1]
Notice the sleight of hand by Mr. Webster. He equates St. Irenaeus's and Tertullian's understanding of Tradition to mean Scripture. Both of the 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."[1]
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."
Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3,15:1

"Immediately, therefore, so did the apostles, whom this designation indicates as 'the sent.' Having, on the authority of a prophecy, which occurs in a psalm of David, chosen Matthias by lot as the twelfth, into the place of Judas, they obtained the promised power of the Holy Ghost for the gift of miracles and of utterance; and after first bearing witness to the faith in Jesus Christ throughout Judaea, and rounding churches (there), they 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. Indeed, 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, (rounded) 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. Mr. Webster offers this cut and paste of Van Leer.

"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. Church historian, Ellen Flessman-Van Leer affirms this fact:
'For Tertullian Scripture is the only means for refuting or validating a doctrine as regards its content...For Irenaeus, the church doctrine is certainly never purely traditional; on the contrary, the thought that there could be some truth, transmitted exclusively viva voce (orally), is a Gnostic line of thought...If Irenaeus wants to prove the truth of a doctrine materially, he turns to scripture, because therein the teaching of the apostles is objectively accessible. Proof from tradition and scripture serve one and the same end: to identify the teaching of the church as the original apostolic teaching. The first establishes that the teaching of the church is this apostolic teaching, and the second, what this apostolic teaching is'
(Ellen Flessman-van Leer, Tradition and Scripture in the Early Church(Van Gorcum, 1953, pp. 184, 133, 144)."[1]
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
Notice the contrast of the use of the word independent between Mr. Webster and Van Leer. In one fell swoop Van Leer destroys Mr. Webster's novel understanding of St. Irenaeus' rule of faith.

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...[I]n the first case regula approaches a confession of faith, and in the second case the revelation. And the fact that these are two nuances, hardly to be differentiated, proves that for Tertullian the revealed truth and the confession of the church coincide for all practical purposes...The regula is also normative for the right exegesis of scripture...And only as so long as the rule is kept intact and within its boundaries..."
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 cannot 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 JND 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"[1]
Here we have Mr. Webster misrepresenting the faith JND Kelly, the Anglican patristic scholar. Mr. Webster is attempting to transform JND Kelly into a proponent of sola Scriptura via his cut and paste method. 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
Note the contrasting use of the word ultimate in Mr. Webster's novel claim and JND Kelly's passage. Likewise, Mr. Webster misrepresents JND Kelly.

Next we have Mr. Webster citing Luther and Medieval scholar Hieko Oberman:

"Scripture and Tradition were for the early Church in no sense mutually exclusive: kerygma (the message of the gospel), Scripture and Tradition coincided entirely. The Church preached the kerygma which is found in toto in written form in the canonical books. The Tradition was not understood as an addition to the kerygma contained in Scripture but as handing down that same kerygma in living form: in other words everything was to be found in Scripture and at the same time everything was in living Tradition (The Harvest of Medieval Theology (Cambridge: Harvard University, 1963), p. 366)."[1]
Why this passage is cited in support of sola Scriptura is puzzling since it affirms the Catholic position on the relationship of Scripture and Tradition.

The next few paragraphs Mr. Webster cites from St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Gregory of Nyssa, and St. Basil the Great in support of sola Scriptura. Then 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."[1]
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 itself for 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, handled 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. Indeed, 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.

Next, we have Mr. Webster attempting to transform the late Cardinal Yves Congar into a proponent of sola Scriptura with regard to the Old Testament. Mr. Webster cites this passage from Cardinal Yves Congar's magnum opus "Tradition and traditions":

"Revelation is a disclosure of his mystery which God makes to men...a disclosure through created signs, guaranteed by God not to mislead us, though they may be very imperfect. These signs are events, realities, actions and words; but ultimately, at least as regards the Old Covenant, the events and actions are known to us only in words, and written words at that: the writings of sacred Scripture (Yves Congar, Tradition and Traditions (New York: Macmillan, 1966), p. 238)."[1]
Mr. Webster erroneously concludes:

"Yves Congar readily admits the principle of sola Scriptura with regard to the Old Testament. The only revelation we possess of that dispensation is the written Scriptures, even though prophets from the very beginning preached and taught orally."[1]
All Mr. Webster had to do was read the very first Chapter in Cardinal Yves Congar's work. The Cardinal writes in the section titled "Tradition in the Church before the Church":

" 'Tradition', as it existed in Israel, is usually presented to us in three forms. (1) An original oral tradition. In what constitutes the Jewish idea of an oral tradition of the Torah, from Moses up to the 'Men of the Great Synagogue'...(2) Precision...Here tradition operates not as mere transmission, but as the reading of inspired texts, already written down and familiar, in the light of present experiences, or of events longed for by the very people involved in the expectation...(3) Interpretation...And so there came into being in Judaism schools for the interpretation of the Law. These were characterized by a principle of transmission or tradition...this accumulated wisdom of many generations, though originally completely dependent on Scripture, had a value of its own. It was held to come from God no less than Scripture itself and was treated with the same respect."
Congar Yves, "Tradition and traditions" (New York:Macmillan,1967) pp. 1,2,4,5
The Jewish community interpreted the Old Testament within the framework of Tradition and never apart it. Sola Scriptura was never in the minds of the Jewish people.

In closing Mr. Webster offers this final criticism of Tradition, he writes:

"The teaching of a separate body of Apostolic revelation known as Tradition which is oral in nature originated, not with the Christian Church, but with Gnosticism. This was an attempt by the gnostics to bolster their authority by asserting that the Scriptures were not sufficient. They stated that they possessed the fullness of apostolic revelation because they not only had the written revelation of the apostles in the Scriptures but also their oral tradition, and the key for interpreting and understanding that revelation. Just as the early fathers repudiated this teaching and claim by an exclusive reliance upon and appeal to the written Scriptures, so must we."[1]
Mr. Webster clearly is misrepresenting St. Irenaeus, Tertullian, the Catholic Church's understanding of Tradition and the Gnostics view of tradition. St. Irenaeus, Tertullian and the rest of the Fathers were not against authentic Catholic Tradition but against a tradition that was a secret oral message, known only to a few elect people, and not authenticated by Apostolic succession.

"For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but viva voce...And this wisdom each one of them alleges to be the fiction of his own inventing..the truth resides at one time in Valentinus, at another in Marcion, at another in Cerinthius, then afterward Basilides"
St. Irenaeus,Against Heresies,3,2:1
In contrast, according to St. Irenaeus and Tertullian, authentic Catholic tradition was above board, public, known to all who looked, and authenticated by the succession of bishops in the Apostolic Churches. St. Irenaeus countered the gnostics with:

"But, again, when we refer them to the tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of successions of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition...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; those who neither taught nor knew anything like what these [heretics] rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to "the perfect" apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon [to the Church], but if they should fall away, the direst calamity."
St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3,2:2,3,3:1

Tertullian offers a similar criticism:

"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,--a 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 the Prescription Against the Heretics 32
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. In contrast, Mr. Webster would have you believe that the early Church Fathers, such as St. Irenaeus and Tertullian, rejected the concept of an authoritative Tradition on the basis they rejected the secret tradition of the gnostics.

Perhaps Mr. Webster can answer the above challenge of St. Irenaeus and Tertullian, reject sola Scriptura and turn to the very Tradition referred to by St. Irenaeus and Tertullian.

Notes:

[1] Sola Scriptura and the Early Church ; url [url="http://www.christiantruth.com/solascriptura.html"]http://www.christiantruth.com/solascriptura.html[/url]
[2] Interesting to note that Mr. Webster does not apply this narrow definition of sola Scriptura in his earlier criticisms of the Catholic Church(cf. "The Church of Rome at the Bar of History" (Pennsylvania:Banner,1995), "Did I Really Leave the Holy Catholic Church?" in "Roman Catholicism", J. Armstrong ed., (Chicago:Moody,1994))
[3] Material sufficiency is affirmed by well known Catholic theologians such as: John Henry Newman, Waltar Kaspar, George Tarvard, Henri Lubac, Matthias Sheeben, Michael Schmaus, and Joseph Ratzinger. I affirmed the Fathers believed in the material sufficiency of Scripture in my chapter "What did the Fathers teach about Scripture, Tradition and Church".[/quote]

[littleflower+JMJ]

bump i hope the above is read.

[the lumberjack]

I will read it...I promise. it'll just have to be tomorrow...I'm too tired to do it tonight.

love to you all.

God bless.

[Laudate_Dominum]

If anyone has a serious interest in the polemics of William Webster I would suggest these resources:

[url="http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num1.htm"]http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num1.htm[/url]
[url="http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num49.htm"]http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num49.htm[/url]
[url="http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ423.HTM"]http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ423.HTM[/url]
[url="http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ31.HTM"]http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ31.HTM[/url]
[url="http://www.geocities.com/Athens/3517/webster.html"]http://www.geocities.com/Athens/3517/webster.html[/url]
[url="http://www.angelfire.com/ms/seanie/papacy/wlist.html"]http://www.angelfire.com/ms/seanie/papacy/wlist.html[/url]
[url="http://www.americancatholictruthsociety.com/webster/webray1.htm"]http://www.americancatholictruthsociety.co...ter/webray1.htm[/url]
[url="http://www.catholicconvert.com/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabid=77"]http://www.catholicconvert.com/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabid=77[/url]
[url="http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/papacy.htm"]http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/papacy.htm[/url]


Books:
Not By Scripture Alone: A Catholic Critique of the Protestant Doctrine of Sola Scriptura, by Robert Sungenis
Upon This Rock: St. Peter and the Primacy of Rome in Scripture and the Early Church by Stephen K. Ray

[the lumberjack]

okay, as I've said...if "tradition" is the using of oral and/or written material for the purpose of building, fine. but the basis of these is a MAN's interpretation of GOD's word....fallible, and incomplete man, while God's word is complete in itself, though yes, it does not reveal all...but it is not God's job to reveal all, for He alone is God

and I have also said, that there have been, and are, some AWESOME brethren in Christ who have said some deep, insightful, and helpful stuff.

so, while I'm not refuting the use of these materials...or tradition, oral or written (because I know I use it to back my case too, and I KNOW you guys do too ), I AM saying that we CAN NOT use these as the SOLE basis of doctrine, because they were written by man, based on their view of the bible...

you guys said yourselves, the oral and written tradition supplement the bible, or work along side...but this tradition is no where equal to being the Word of God Almighty.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='the lumberjack' date='Mar 10 2004, 12:20 PM'] okay, as I've said...if "tradition" is the using of oral and/or written material for the purpose of building, fine. but the basis of these is a MAN's interpretation of GOD's word....fallible, and incomplete man, while God's word is complete in itself, though yes, it does not reveal all...but it is not God's job to reveal all, for He alone is God

and I have also said, that there have been, and are, some AWESOME brethren in Christ who have said some deep, insightful, and helpful stuff.

so, while I'm not refuting the use of these materials...or tradition, oral or written (because I know I use it to back my case too, and I KNOW you guys do too ), I AM saying that we CAN NOT use these as the SOLE basis of doctrine, because they were written by man, based on their view of the bible...

you guys said yourselves, the oral and written tradition supplement the bible, or work along side...but this tradition is no where equal to being the Word of God Almighty. [/quote]
Actually most of Webster's writings are a bastardization and misrepresentation of Patristic writings and Catholic tradition, not his private interpretation of Scripture.
For example his three volume "masterpiece" on sola scriptura is mainly a compilation of quotes from the Fathers (and even the Medievals!) which he tries to say support the protestant idea of sola scriptura. All he really proves is that the Catholic Church loves and reveres the Word of God and has always considered it the source from which authentic Theology flows. He should add a fourth volume showing how the Catholic writings of the 20th century quote Scripture left and right and consider it authoritative. He can try to convince me that the Church of today holds sola scriptura.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Mar 10 2004, 12:31 PM'] Actually most of Webster's writings are a bastardization and misrepresentation of Patristic writings and Catholic tradition, not his private interpretation of Scripture.
For example his three volume "masterpiece" on sola scriptura is mainly a compilation of quotes from the Fathers (and even the Medievals!) which he tries to say support the protestant idea of sola scriptura. All he really proves is that the Catholic Church loves and reveres the Word of God and has always considered it the source from which authentic Theology flows. He should add a fourth volume showing how the Catholic writings of the 20th century quote Scripture left and right and consider it authoritative. He can try to convince me that the Church of today holds sola scriptura. [/quote]
[quote]you guys said yourselves, the oral and written tradition supplement the bible, or work along side...but this tradition is no where equal to being the Word of God Almighty. [/quote]
The Church does not seperate Apostolic Tradition, the Bible and the life of the Church. They all harmonize and form the deposit of Faith that Christ gave. And you are right, the Scripture has a primary place. Sacred Tradition is a guide for properly interpreting the Scriptures, and all the Church's doctrine has a foundation in the Scriptures.
Thanks for reminding us lumberjack.

[the lumberjack]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Mar 10 2004, 12:31 PM'] All he really proves is that the Catholic Church loves and reveres the Word of God and [b]has always considered it the source from which authentic Theology flows[/b]. [/quote]
this is all I'm saying.

thank you.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='the lumberjack' date='Mar 10 2004, 12:37 PM'] this is all I'm saying.

thank you. [/quote]
I love agreement!

[Laudate_Dominum]

Here's a little article on Scripture and Tradition in the Catholic Church.

[quote]Scripture and Tradition


Protestants claim the Bible is the only rule of faith, meaning that it contains all of the material one needs for theology and that this material is sufficiently clear that one does not need apostolic tradition or the Church’s magisterium (teaching authority) to help one understand it. In the Protestant view, the whole of Christian truth is found within the Bible’s pages. Anything extraneous to the Bible is simply non-authoritative, unnecessary, or wrong—and may well hinder one in coming to God.

Catholics, on the other hand, recognize that the Bible does not endorse this view and that, in fact, it is repudiated in Scripture. The true "rule of faith"—as expressed in the Bible itself—is Scripture plus apostolic tradition, as manifested in the living teaching authority of the Catholic Church, to which were entrusted the oral teachings of Jesus and the apostles, along with the authority to interpret Scripture correctly.

In the Second Vatican Council’s document on divine revelation, Dei Verbum (Latin: "The Word of God"), the relationship between Tradition and Scripture is explained: "Hence there exists a close connection and communication between sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. For sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit. To the successors of the apostles, sacred Tradition hands on in its full purity God’s word, which was entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit.

"Thus, by the light of the Spirit of truth, these successors can in their preaching preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known. Consequently it is not from sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same devotion and reverence."

But Evangelical and Fundamentalist Protestants, who place their confidence in Martin Luther’s theory of sola scriptura (Latin: "Scripture alone"), will usually argue for their position by citing a couple of key verses. The first is this: "These are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name" (John 20:31). The other is this: "All Scripture is
inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be equipped, prepared for every good work" (2 Timothy 3:16–17). According to these Protestants, these verses demonstrate the reality of sola scriptura (the "Bible only" theory).

Not so, reply Catholics. First, the verse from John refers to the things written in that book (read it with John 20:30, the verse immediately before it to see the context of the statement in question). If this verse proved anything, it would not prove the theory of sola scriptura but that the Gospel of John is sufficient.

Second, the verse from John’s Gospel tells us only that the Bible was composed so we can be helped to believe Jesus is the Messiah. It does not say the Bible is all we need for salvation, much less that the Bible is all we need for theology; nor does it say the Bible is even necessary to believe in Christ. After all, the earliest Christians had no New Testament to which they could appeal; they learned from oral, rather than written, instruction. Until relatively recent times, the Bible was inaccessible to most people, either because they could not read or because the printing press had not been invented. All these people learned from oral instruction, passed down, generation to generation, by the Church.

Much the same can be said about 2 Timothy 3:16-17. To say that all inspired writing "has its uses" is one thing; to say that such a remark means that only inspired writing need be followed is something else. Besides, there is a telling argument against claims of Evangelical and Fundamentalist Protestants. It is the contradiction that arises out of their own interpretation of this verse. John Henry Newman explained it in an 1884 essay entitled "Inspiration in its Relation to Revelation."

 
Newman’s argument



He wrote: "It is quite evident that this passage furnishes no argument whatever that the sacred Scripture, without Tradition, is the sole rule of faith; for, although sacred Scripture is profitable for these four ends, still it is not said to be sufficient. The Apostle [Paul] requires the aid of Tradition (2 Thess. 2:15). Moreover, the Apostle here refers to the scriptures which Timothy was taught in his infancy.

"Now, a good part of the New Testament was not written in his boyhood: Some of the Catholic epistles were not written even when Paul wrote this, and none of the books of the New Testament were then placed on the canon of the Scripture books. He refers, then, to the scriptures of the Old Testament, and, if the argument from this passage proved anything, it would prove too much, viz., that the scriptures of the New Testament were not necessary for a rule of faith."

Furthermore, Protestants typically read 2 Timothy 3:16-17 out of context. When read in the context of the surrounding passages, one discovers that Paul’s reference to Scripture is only part of his exhortation that Timothy take as his guide Tradition and Scripture. The two verses immediately before it state: "But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it, and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus" (2 Tim. 3:14–15).

Paul tells Timothy to continue in what he has learned for two reasons: first, because he knows from whom he has learned it—Paul himself—and second, because he has been educated in the scriptures. The first of these is a direct appeal to apostolic tradition, the oral teaching which the apostle Paul had given Timothy. So Protestants must take 2 Timothy 3:16-17 out of context to arrive at the theory of sola scriptura. But when the passage is read in context, it becomes clear that it is teaching the importance of apostolic tradition!

The Bible denies that it is sufficient as the complete rule of faith. Paul says that much Christian teaching is to be found in the tradition which is handed down by word of mouth (2 Tim. 2:2). He instructs us to "stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15).

This oral teaching was accepted by Christians, just as they accepted the written teaching that came to them later. Jesus told his disciples: "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me" (Luke 10:16). The Church, in the persons of the apostles, was given the authority to teach by Christ; the Church would be his representative. He commissioned them, saying, "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations" (Matt. 28:19).

And how was this to be done? By preaching, by oral instruction: "So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ" (Rom. 10:17). The Church would always be the living teacher. It is a mistake to limit "Christ’s word" to the written word only or to suggest that all his teachings were reduced to writing. The Bible nowhere supports either notion.

Further, it is clear that the oral teaching of Christ would last until the end of time. "’But the word of the Lord abides for ever.’ That word is the good news which was preached to you" (1 Pet. 1:25). Note that the word has been "preached"—that is, communicated orally. This would endure. It would not be
supplanted by a written record like the Bible (supplemented, yes, but not supplanted), and would continue to have its own authority.

This is made clear when the apostle Paul tells Timothy: "[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2). Here we see the first few links in the chain of apostolic tradition that has been passed down intact from the apostles to our own day. Paul instructed Timothy to pass on the oral teachings (traditions) that he had received from the apostle. He was to give these to men who would be able to teach others, thus perpetuating the chain. Paul gave this instruction not long before his death (2 Tim. 4:6–8), as a reminder to Timothy of how he should conduct his ministry.

 
What is Tradition?



In this discussion it is important to keep in mind what the Catholic Church means by tradition. The term does not refer to legends or mythological accounts, nor does it encompass transitory customs or practices which may change, as circumstances warrant, such as styles of priestly dress, particular forms of devotion to saints, or even liturgical rubrics. Sacred or apostolic tradition consists of the teachings that the apostles passed on orally through their preaching. These teachings largely (perhaps entirely) overlap with those contained in Scripture, but the mode of their transmission is different.

They have been handed down and entrusted to the Church (which means to its official teachers, the bishops in union with the pope). It is necessary that Christians believe in and follow this tradition as well as the Bible (Luke 10:16). The truth of the faith has been given primarily to the leaders of the Church (Eph. 3:5), who, with Christ, form the foundation of the Church (Eph. 2:20). The Church has been guided by the Holy Spirit, who protects this teaching from corruption (John 14:25-26, 16:13).

 
Handing on the faith



Paul illustrated what tradition is: "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures. . . . Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed" (1 Cor. 15:3,11). The apostle praised those who followed Tradition: "I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2).

The first Christians "devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching" (Acts 2:42) long before there was a New Testament. From the very beginning, the fullness of Christian teaching was found in the Church as the living embodiment of Christ, not in a book. The teaching Church, with its oral, apostolic tradition, was authoritative. Paul himself gives a quotation from Jesus that was handed down orally to him: "It is more blessed to give than to receive" (Acts 20:35).

This saying is not recorded in the Gospels and must have been passed on to Paul. Indeed, even the Gospels themselves are oral tradition which has been written down (Luke 1:1–4). What’s more, Paul does not quote Jesus only. He also quotes from early Christian hymns, as in Ephesians 5:14. These and other things have been given to Christians "through the Lord Jesus" (1 Thess. 4:2).

Fundamentalists say Jesus condemned tradition. They note that Jesus said, "And why do you transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?" (Matt. 15:3). Paul warned, "See to it that no one makes a prey of you by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the universe, and not according to Christ" (Col. 2:8). But these verses merely condemn erroneous human traditions, not truths which were handed down orally and entrusted to the Church by the apostles. These latter truths are part of what is known as apostolic tradition, which is to be distinguished from human traditions or customs.

 
"Commandments of men"



Consider Matthew 15:6–9, which Fundamentalists and Evangelicals often use to defend their position: "So by these traditions of yours you have made God’s laws ineffectual. You hypocrites, it was a true prophecy that Isaiah made of you, when he said, ‘This people does me honor with its lips, but its heart is far from me. Their worship is in vain, for the doctrines they teach are the commandments of men.’" Look closely at what Jesus said.

He was not condemning all traditions. He condemned only those that made God’s word void. In this case, it was a matter of the Pharisees feigning the dedication of their goods to the Temple so they could avoid using them to support their aged parents. By doing this, they dodged the commandment to "Honor your father and your mother" (Ex. 20:12).

Elsewhere, Jesus instructed his followers to abide by traditions that are not contrary to God’s commandments. "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice" (Matt. 23:2–3).

What Fundamentalists and Evangelicals often do, unfortunately, is see the word "tradition" in Matthew 15:3 or Colossians 2:8 or elsewhere and conclude that anything termed a "tradition" is to be rejected. They forget that the term is used in a different sense, as in 1 Corinthians 11:2 and 2 Thessalonians 2:15, to describe what should be believed. Jesus did not condemn all traditions; he condemned only erroneous traditions, whether doctrines or practices, that undermined Christian truths. The rest, as the apostles taught, were to be obeyed. Paul commanded the Thessalonians to adhere to all the traditions he had given them, whether oral or written.

 
The indefectible Church



The task is to determine what constitutes authentic tradition. How can we know which traditions are apostolic and which are merely human? The answer is the same as how we know which scriptures are apostolic and which are merely human—by listening to the magisterium or teaching authority of Christ’s Church. Without the Catholic Church’s teaching authority, we would not know with certainty which purported books of Scripture are authentic. If the Church revealed to us the canon of Scripture, it can also reveal to us the "canon of Tradition" by establishing which traditions have been passed down from the apostles. After all, Christ promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church (Matt. 16:18) and the New Testament itself declares the Church to be "the pillar and foundation of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15). [/quote]

[Laudate_Dominum]

This stuff has quotes to support the article I just posted:

[quote]Apostolic Tradition

Is Scripture the sole rule of faith for Christians? Not according to the Bible. While we must guard against merely human tradition, the Bible contains numerous references to the necessity of clinging to apostolic tradition.

Thus Paul tells the Corinthians, "I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2), and he commands the Thessalonians, "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15). He even goes so far as to order, "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us" (2 Thess. 3:6).

To make sure that the apostolic tradition would be passed down after the deaths of the apostles, Paul told Timothy, "[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first four generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, the generation Timothy will teach, and the generation they in turn will teach.

The early Church Fathers, who were links in that chain of succession, recognized the necessity of the traditions that had been handed down from the apostles and guarded them scrupulously, as the following quotations show.

 
Pope Clement I

"Then the reverence of the law is chanted, and the grace of the prophets is known, and the faith of the Gospels is established, and the tradition of the apostles is preserved, and the grace of the Church exults" (Letter to the Corinthians 11 [A.D. 80]).

 
Papias

"Papias [A.D. 120], who is now mentioned by us, affirms that he received the sayings of the apostles from those who accompanied them, and he, moreover, asserts that he heard in person Aristion and the presbyter John. Accordingly, he mentions them frequently by name, and in his writings gives their traditions [concerning Jesus]. . . . [There are] other passages of his in which he relates some miraculous deeds, stating that he acquired the knowledge of them from tradition" (fragment in Eusebius, Church History 3:39 [A.D. 312]).

 
Eusebius of Caesarea

"At that time [A.D. 150] there flourished in the Church Hegesippus, whom we know from what has gone before, and Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, and another bishop, Pinytus of Crete, and besides these, Philip, and Apollinarius, and Melito, and Musanus, and Modestus, and, finally, Irenaeus. From them has come down to us in writing, the sound and orthodox faith received from tradition" (Church History 4:21).

 
Irenaeus

"As I said before, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although she is disseminated throughout the whole world, yet guarded it, as if she occupied but one house. She likewise believes these things just as if she had but one soul and one and the same heart; and harmoniously she proclaims them and teaches them and hands them down, as if she possessed but one mouth. For, while the languages of the world are diverse, nevertheless, the authority of the tradition is one and the same" (Against Heresies 1:10:2 [A.D. 189]).

"That is why it is surely necessary to avoid them [heretics], while cherishing with the utmost diligence the things pertaining to the Church, and to lay hold of the tradition of truth. . . . What if the apostles had not in fact left writings to us? Would it not be necessary to follow the order of tradition, which was handed down to those to whom they entrusted the churches?" (ibid., 3:4:1).

...

"It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors to our own times—men who neither knew nor taught anything like these heretics rave about.

"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles.

"With this church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree—that is, all the faithful in the whole world—and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (ibid., 3:3:1–2).

 
Clement of Alexandria

"Well, they preserving the tradition of the blessed doctrine derived directly from the holy apostles, Peter, James, John, and Paul, the sons receiving it from the father (but few were like the fathers), came by God’s will to us also to deposit those ancestral and apostolic seeds. And well I know that they will exult; I do not mean delighted with this tribute, but solely on account of the preservation of the truth, according as they delivered it. For such a sketch as this, will, I think, be agreeable to a soul desirous of preserving from loss the blessed tradition" (Miscellanies 1:1 [A.D. 208]).

 
Origen

"Although there are many who believe that they themselves hold to the teachings of Christ, there are yet some among them who think differently from their predecessors. The teaching of the Church has indeed been handed down through an order of succession from the apostles and remains in the churches even to the present time. That alone is to be believed as the truth which is in no way at variance with ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition" (The Fundamental Doctrines 1:2 [A.D. 225]).

 
Cyprian of Carthage

"[T]he Church is one, and as she is one, cannot be both within and without. For if she is with Novatian, she was not with [Pope] Cornelius. But if she was with Cornelius, who succeeded the bishop Fabian by lawful ordination, and whom, beside the honor of the priesthood the Lord glorified also with martyrdom, Novatian is not in the Church; nor can he be reckoned as a bishop, who, succeeding to no one, and despising the evangelical and apostolic tradition, sprang from himself. For he who has not been ordained in the Church can neither have nor hold to the Church in any way" (Letters 75:3 [A.D. 253]).

 
Athanasius

"Again we write, again keeping to the apostolic traditions, we remind each other when we come together for prayer; and keeping the feast in common, with one mouth we truly give thanks to the Lord. Thus giving thanks unto him, and being followers of the saints, ‘we shall make our praise in the Lord all the day,’ as the psalmist says. So, when we rightly keep the feast, we shall be counted worthy of that joy which is in heaven" (Festal Letters 2:7 [A.D. 330]).

"But you are blessed, who by faith are in the Church, dwell upon the foundations of the faith, and have full satisfaction, even the highest degree of faith which remains among you unshaken. For it has come down to you from apostolic tradition, and frequently accursed envy has wished to unsettle it, but has not been able" (ibid., 29).

 
Basil the Great

"Of the dogmas and messages 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 matters ecclesiastical. Indeed, were we to try to reject unwritten customs as having no great authority, we would unwittingly injure the gospel in its vitals; or rather, we would reduce [Christian] message to a mere term" (The Holy Spirit 27:66 [A.D. 375]).

 
Epiphanius of Salamis

"It is needful also to make use of tradition, for not everything can be gotten from sacred Scripture. The holy apostles handed down some things in the scriptures, other things in tradition" (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 61:6 [A.D. 375]).

 
Augustine

"[T]he custom [of not rebaptizing converts] . . . may be supposed to have had its origin in apostolic tradition, just as there are many things which are observed by the whole Church, and therefore are fairly held to have been enjoined by the apostles, which yet are not mentioned in their writings" (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 5:23[31] [A.D. 400]).

"But the admonition that he [Cyprian] gives us, ‘that we should go back to the fountain, that is, to apostolic tradition, and thence turn the channel of truth to our times,’ is most excellent, and should be followed without hesitation" (ibid., 5:26[37]).

"But in regard to those observances which we carefully attend and which the whole world keeps, and which derive not from Scripture but from Tradition, we are given to understand that they are recommended and ordained to be kept, either by the apostles themselves or by plenary [ecumenical] councils, the authority of which is quite vital in the Church" (Letter to Januarius [A.D. 400]).

 
John Chrysostom

"[Paul commands,] ‘Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you have been taught, whether by word or by our letter’ [2 Thess. 2:15]. From this it is clear that they did not hand down everything by letter, but there is much also that was not written. Like that which was written, the unwritten too is worthy of belief. So let us regard the tradition of the Church also as worthy of belief. Is it a tradition? Seek no further" (Homilies on Second Thessalonians [A.D. 402]).

 
Vincent of Lerins

"With great zeal and closest attention, therefore, I frequently inquired of many men, eminent for their holiness and doctrine, how I might, in a concise and, so to speak, general and ordinary way, distinguish the truth of the Catholic faith from the falsehood of heretical depravity.

"I received almost always the same answer from all of them—that if I or anyone else wanted to expose the frauds and escape the snares of the heretics who rise up, and to remain intact and in sound faith, it would be necessary, with the help of the Lord, to fortify that faith in a twofold manner: first, of course, by the authority of divine law [Scripture] and then by the tradition of the Catholic Church.

"Here, perhaps, someone may ask: ‘If the canon of the scriptures be perfect and in itself more than suffices for everything, why is it necessary that the authority of ecclesiastical interpretation be joined to it?’ Because, quite plainly, sacred Scripture, by reason of its own depth, is not accepted by everyone as having one and the same meaning. . . .

"Thus, because of so many distortions of such various errors, it is highly necessary that the line of prophetic and apostolic interpretation be directed in accord with the norm of the ecclesiastical and Catholic meaning" (The Notebooks [A.D. 434]).

 
Pope Agatho

"[T]he holy Church of God . . . has been established upon the firm rock of this Church of blessed Peter, the prince of the apostles, which by his grace and guardianship remains free from all error, [and possesses that faith that] the whole number of rulers and priests, of the clergy and of the people, unanimously should confess and preach with us as the true declaration of the apostolic tradition, in order to please God and to save their own souls" (Letter read at fourth session of III Constantinople [A.D. 680]). [/quote]

[jasJis]

[quote]ulimately, when men fail...which WE do, because we are NOT God, the Bible is the only SOLID authority we have.[/quote]
One SOLID word. [b]GRACE[/b]
It's needed to discern God speaking in His Word.
It's needed to discern God speaking through others in His Church
It's needed to discern God speaking in our hearts.
Grace is not seperate and exclusionary actions until the 'ultimate' Authority is derived, but inclusive actions until it's abundance approaches Authority.

The problem is two-fold. What we call SOLID always is explained in human terms and it fails to comprehend the [u]real[/u] SOLIDness of God. Prove we have a soul in SOLID terms. Prove you exist in reality with SOLID terms. The Divine Love of God and His reality cannot be defined and objectively identified with human logic and human reason alone. Logic and reason can compliment Faith, but cannot replace Faith and Hope.

When looking for God's Authority on earth, Faith is neccessary first, and Logic and Reason will show us the reasonablness of our faith. It's not reasonable that a book of God's Word is the sole Authority unless it is clearly devoid of any human influence. That isn't possible because we have to interpret God's Word with human language. Reason then leads us to look for God's correction to overcome our human frailties in understanding. We look for the action of His Grace. Reason shows us that God doesn't chose to make us all self-sufficient islands of Grace. We know that we personally benefit from Grace when we serve others. If we need help, God will often aid us through His graced human efforts of others.

Nowhere in the Bible is the Written Word identified as the the Complete Authority. Human people doing God's will are always used. God always utilized people to speak His Word. Consider the concept of the Word made Flesh in Jesus the Christ. Consider Paul's description of the Body of Christ, our different but complimentary roles. Consider Jesus' parable of giving some servants more than others, and expecting different levels of response accordingly. Consider Jesus' promise of the Paraclete

Authorative discernment of God's Will is different for each one of us. We are personally enlightened through His Grace in Scripture, God speaking in our hearts, and God speaking to us through others. You can't dismiss His Grace in any of these forms without dismissing God's Grace. Even the Catholic Church, as a self-identified Authoritive source of God's Grace, acknowledges the Authority of God's Grace speaking in our hearts and the Authority of God's grace in Scripture. Like us, in the Body of Christ as complimentary organisms, God's Grace is provided to us in through varied, but mutually complimentary, sources.

Or in really basic terms, we must recognize that God's Authority is not identified in humanly simplistic "either/or" statements, but in complex "and" statements to even begin to approach the complex sophistication of God.