A Rebuttal to “Sola Scriptura and the Early Church” from Dr. Charles Frazier
By Cesar
Granda
The Council of Trent
denied the sufficiency of Scripture
The
Council of Trent in the 16th century, on the other hand, declared
that the revelation of God was not contained solely in the Scriptures. It
declared that it was contained partly in the written Scriptures and partly in
oral tradition and, therefore, the Scriptures were not materially sufficient.
Answer:
The Council of Trent
NEVER denied the MATERIAL SUFFICIENCY of Scriptures, that is, that the
Scriptures besides of having doctrinal authority, they contain the entire basis
needed for Salvation, doctrines and theology. What Trent denied was the FORMAL
SUFFICIENCY of Scripture also known as Sola Scriptura, which means that
Scriptures besides of being MATERIALLY SUFFICIENT they were SUFFICIENTLY CLEAR,
so that no external source or knowledge is required to give it its correct
meaning:
FORMAL SUFFICIENCY (Sola
Scriptura) = MATERIAL SUFFICIENCY +
SUFFICIENTLY CLEAR
This
was the universal view of Roman Catholic theologians for centuries after the
Council of Trent. (It is interesting to note, however, that in Roman Catholic
circles today there is an ongoing debate among theologians on the nature of
Tradition. There is no clear understanding of what Tradition is in Roman
Catholicism today. Some agree with Trent and some do not).
Answer:
Something to remember is
that the Catholic Church is not a protestant church. What I mean is that, for
instance, within the Reformed Church to which Dr. Frazier belongs the formal
belief is T.U.L.I.P. but an individual CAN STILL BE considered PART of that
Church if he/she does not believe or disagrees with say, “Limited atonement”.
This is not the case in the Catholic Church. If there is an individual that
calls himself a catholic, but says “I disagree with what the Council of Trent
says”, he automatically excommunicates himself from the Catholic Church, thus
he/she, in reality is NOT a Catholic. This was also true in the Early Church.
Many scholars opposed the teachings of the Catholic and Apostolic Church, and
thus they also were excommunicated. Now, there are certain matters of theology,
which are open to discussion and opinion, and there can be differing views
within the church, for instance, the final destination of little children who
die without ever being baptized. There is no accepted doctrine about this, and
Scriptures are nowhere near to be clear on this, all the church says is that
she leaves them to the mercy of God.
Also sometimes there could be different views
within the church on doctrines that are crucial. For instance, the Early
Fathers had different views or at least seemed to have different views on
certain matters on which the Church had not established an unambiguous
theological language yet. A clear illustration of this, which shows how
Scriptures, Tradition and Church go together, is the TRINITY. Before the
Council of Nicaea in the fourth century, there was a heated debate within the
Church on this subject, both parties claimed to have proof from Scripture, and
even though Tradition sided with the Trinitarians, still there was
disagreements. The Church had not yet developed an unambiguous theological
language on this matter. The Scripture obviously were not clear enough on this
matter, otherwise there would have never been any disagreement on this subject
to begin with.
Since this doctrine was a
crucial matter of faith, the Church had to clarify the doctrine once and for
all. After the Council of Nicaea, many people who were against the TRINITY recanted.
Why? Because they recognized that the Church has the Spirit of Truth (John
14:16-17), the church is the pillar and ground of truth (1 Tim 3:15), that
Jesus would be with the Church always (Mt 28:20), and that they should not
cause divisions (1 Cor 1:10). How did they know that the Fathers of Nicaea were
the real Church? easily, they knew that there was an unbroken succession
between them and the Apostles of Christ, and that what they taught was the
unarguable teachings of the Apostles. After that, anybody who did not agree
with what Nicaea had arrived at, was excommunicated and considered a heretic.
This had been the case with many other doctrines. People would interpret
scriptures differently, and thus the church have had to develop a clear and unambiguous
theological language on this doctrine based on Scriptures and on what the
Church has always believed and taught (Tradition) to put an end to the
dissention and clarify the doctrine once and for all. This way of keeping unity
and orthodoxy is why we have one billion Catholics united under one creed
instead of 400 million Protestants divided into 21,000+ creeds.
There
is no clear understanding of what Tradition is in Roman Catholicism today
Answer:
I would like to elaborate
on this statement made by Dr Frazier, which also was made by Pastor White in
his debates about Sola Scriptura.
Let us illustrate. The
clearest example on how this works is the Bible itself. Before the end of the 4th
century there was no established Bible. As I have mentioned before, different
churches had different writings (written tradition), which they read during
their Sunday services. They could not infallibly differentiate between
which books were inspired and which were not. Then, the Church got together and
chose from many, many writings and said which ones were God-breathed and which
were not, which ones were the Word of God and which were not, and thus today we
have 27 books in the New Testament, not one more, not one less. We still have
other books, which, although taken into account by the church, did not make it
to the Bible but are profitable for reading (e.g. The Didache, the Shepard of
Hermas, the epistle of Barnabas etc). And also there are other books, which
seemed inspired because of the name they bore, but actually were heretical (the
Gospel of Thomas, etc).
Now, let us suppose we
have a tradition, which we do not know with certainty whether it is or it isn’t
the Word of God, for starters it does not contradict the Scripture or any other
accepted Sacred Tradition. Just like before the 4th century we were
not sure that Hebrews or the Apocalypse or James were really the Word of God
because their origin was uncertain (some people claimed that they were
inspired, others claimed that they were not); in the same way we are not sure
about this tradition. So, the Church decides whether this tradition is or isn’t
the Word of God, just like they decided that Hebrews, James and the Apocalypse
WERE the Word of God and all those who thought otherwise had to recant.
To illustrate, there was
a tradition in the early church known as “the Assumption of Mary”, many people
can even point out in Scripture to this (Rv 12:14). The Bible logically, might
not be clearer about this because more than likely Mary was still alive when the
books of the Bible were written. Many agreed with this Tradition and many did
not. We did not know whether this really was true or not, because Scripture is
not clear about it and Scripture does not contradicts it either. In the same
way the Early Church could not tell with certainty that Hebrews, James and the
Apocalypse were inspired. Thus the church in the 20th century said
that “the assumption of Mary” was to be considered as a true Sacred Tradition,
and all those who did not agree with this resolution had to recant, just like
all those who did not agree with the book of Hebrews being inspired had to
recant on the 4th century. Therefore, if the Church in the 4th
century had the Authority to choose which books were inspired and which ones
were not, why wouldn’t the Church in the 20th century have the
authority to do something similar since it is the same Church, with the same
unbroken Apostolic Succession?
Another example of this
is the “Perpetual Virginity of Mary”, which is a Tradition that has been accepted
by the Church since the beginning of Christianity. The Bible says nothing about
Mary, the Mother of Jesus, having other children, never talks about other
offsprings of Mary except for Jesus. The Bible talks about the brethren of
Jesus, and the Brother of Jesus, James (Gal 1:19), but the word brother (adelpho
in Greek) or sister (adelphe in Greek) in biblical language were often
used to refer to half brothers or sisters, cousins, nephews or nieces, etc. The
Bible says that Joseph “did not know Mary until (heos in Greek) she had
her firstborn (Prototokos in Greek) son, Jesus” (Mt 1:25), but in
Biblical language the word “until” (heos in Greek) does not necessarily
imply that there is a change in state afterwards (Mat 28:20; 1 Tim 4:13
and 6:14; Rom 8:22; Phil 1:5) and the word “firstborn” is just a title of privilege which was given to all
the firstborns even if he/she remained as the only child (1 Cron 23:17). Thus the Bible is not clear on this. So how do we know whether
Mary had other Children besides Jesus or Not? The answer is by a
Church-accepted Tradition. Since the beginning of Christianity, it was accepted
that Mary had not other Children and that she was always a Virgin. Even the
Reformers John Calvin, Martin Luther and Ulrich Zwingli, who were the first
evangelicals, accepted this. This is funnily contradictive, since as
Protestants they claim to accept nothing if it is not explicitly shown in the
Bible. The bible says nothing that would let someone, without an external
information or knowledge, arrive at the conclusion that Mary remained a Virgin
all her life!
There are other
traditions which the church have not given an official answer on, mostly
because they are not critical doctrines and do not cause divisions, such as the
existence of a “limbo”. Limbus Patrum (the place where the Patriarchs of the
Old Testament went until Jesus opened the gates of Heaven), the bible kind of
talks about it, calls it the “Bosom of Abraham” (Lk 16:22), but the Bible is
not really clear on this matter, although it is unarguable that the Patriarchs
and other righteous people that died before Jesus’ time had to have gone
somewhere to wait for the Messiah to redeem them. This place could not have
been Heaven since Heaven was closed to all mankind and it could not have been
Hell, since they did not deserve it. This is not a critical doctrine, and the
Church has not really clarified it. This tradition has existed since Old
Testament’s time.
Another example is the tradition that Joseph
was an old widower when he married Mary, thus he had other children from his
previous marriage such as Simon, James, etc. Thus, when the Bible talks about
Jesus’ brethren, it is talking about His half-brothers and sisters. This is not
an accepted Tradition either. These two traditions are analogous to the
Didache, the Shepard of Hermas, the epistle of Barnabas, which are books that
even though did not make it to the Bible, are not considered to be heretical.
In the same way these two traditions are not accepted Sacred Traditions, but are
not considered to be heretical either.
So, to conclude, just
like the Catholic Church in the 4th century was able to discern
among many writings to come out with an established group of written Sacred
Tradition which is considered to be inspired in its entirety, which we know
as the Bible, the same Church has discerned among other traditions
and has an established group of Sacred Tradition which are also considered as
inspired. I have given examples of some of them. If you would like to know,
which others they are, read the Catechism of the Catholic Church, go to a
Catholic Mass and/or read other official Church documents.
The other type of Sacred
Tradition is the interpretation of Scripture itself. What 2 Thes 2:15 implies
when it says keep the “oral and written Traditions [Greek paradosis]” is
that Paul had already explained and taught orally how to interpret what he is
now writing. So yes, these oral and written traditions or teachings are on the
same matters but the oral teachings clarify the written teachings and give them
meaning and vice versa, that is, they complement each other. Both the oral and
written teachings remain in the Catholic Church, and receive their authority
because of the unbroken Apostolic Succession (2 Tim 2:2), although the Bible
for being written tradition is also held by other ecclesial communities as
well. With respect to the oral teaching, some of it has been written down, as
we see in the writings of the Fathers, some of it had to be clarified even
further by the intervention of the Holy Spirit in a Council of the Church (Acts
15:28), where an unambiguous theological language was developed (e.g., The
TRINITY in the Council of Nicaea I). Thus, if you want to know what this
Tradition is, simply read Scripture and then find out what meaning it receives
in the Catholic and Apostolic Church.
So there, I have
presented to you a clear understanding of what Sacred Tradition is.
It
must be noted that the view espoused by Trent is contradictory to and is a
repudiation of the belief and practice of the church of the patristic age.
Answer:
This is Dr. Frazier’s opinion. I disagree. We will see later why.
The
early church held to the principle of Sola Scriptura in that it believed that
all doctrine must be proven from Scripture and if such proof could not be
produced, the doctrine was to be rejected.
Answer:
Yes, if proof, which at
least is implied or deduced, could not be produced from Scripture, or if
Scripture clearly contradicted the doctrine in question, then such doctrine was
to be rejected. For instance, the Gnostic belief that Jesus did not resurrect
could be easily rejected from Scripture since Scripture is extremely clear on
this matter: On the third day Jesus arose among the Dead. However, most
heresies that appeared during the 4th century onwards DID claim to
provide scriptural proof (Arianism, Nestorianism, monophysitism, etc.) thus the
Church to finally put an end to these heresies also used Tradition and its own
Authority as the Body and Bride of Christ who has the Spirit of Truth, and is
Pillar and Ground of Truth. The correction to Dr. Frazier Assertion should be
as follows: “all doctrine must be proven from Scripture based on Tradition by
the Church who has the Spirit of Truth”. Now, you may ask but which Church is
that? It has to be that church that has an unbroken succession with Christ and
the Apostles, not a church that shows up out of nothing based on a man’s
fallible interpretation of Scripture.
The
Apostolic Fathers and the Apologists held to Sola Scriptura
From
the very beginning of the post apostolic age with the writings of what are
known as the Apostolic Fathers (Ignatius, Polycarp, Clement, the Didache, and
Barnabus) there is an exclusive appeal to the Scriptures for the positive
teaching of doctrine and for its defense against heresy. The writings of the
Apostolic Fathers literally breathe with the spirit of the Old and New
Testaments. In the writings of the apologists such as Justin Martyr and
Athenagoras the same thing is found. There is no appeal in any of these
writings, to the authority of Tradition as a separate and independent body of
revelation.
Answer:
Again, most of what is
written here, is Dr. Frazier’s Opinion, I disagree. I have sent a four-part
compilation of what the Fathers of the Early Church thought about Tradition,
thus, the statement “There is no appeal in any of these writings, to the
authority of Tradition as a separate and independent body of revelation” is fallacious. It is fallacious in
the sense that, as I have shown, the fathers did advocate Tradition and the
Church as having doctrinal authority and being part of the Word of God: A few
examples:
ATHANASIUS:
'But the WORD OF THE LORD which came THROUGH the Ecumenical Synod at
Nicaea, abides forever'
Ad Afros 2"But our faith is right, and starts from the teaching of the Apostles
and tradition of the fathers, being confirmed both by the New Testament
and the Old."
Epis 60Notice how he is talking about two different things: Tradition and Scripture. Scripture confirming Tradition. "But after him (the devil) and with him are all inventors of unlawful
heresies, who indeed refer to the Scriptures, BUT DO NOT hold such
opinions as the saints have handed down, and receiving them as the
traditions of men, err, because they DO NOT rightly KNOW THEM nor
their power"
Festal Letter 2
'Of course, the holy Scriptures, divinely inspired are self-sufficient
for the proclamation of the truth. But there are also numerous works
composed for this purpose by blessed teachers. The ONE WHO READS THEM
will UNDERSTAND the INTERPRETATION of the Scriptures AND will be
ABLE to GAIN knowledge he desires'
C. Gentes 1
ANTONY of EGYPT
"Wherefore keep yourselves all the more untainted by them, and observe
the TRADITIONS of the FATHERS, and chiefly the holy faith in our Lord
Jesus Christ, which you have learned from the SCRIPTURE, AND of which
you have often been put in mind BY ME"
Vita S. Antoni 89Notice that Antony of Egypt distintively talks about Traditions and Scripture.
AUGUSTINE
Jokingly, I add: “So father
Augustine what do you think about the “Assumption of Mary” or “the Perpetual
Virginity of Mary”?
"Wherever this tradition comes from, we must believe that the Church
has not believed in vain, even though the express authority of the
canonical scriptures is not brought forward for it"
Letter 164 to Evodius of Uzalis"To be sure, although on this matter, we cannot quote a clear example
taken from the canonical Scriptures, at any rate, on this question, we
are following the true thought of Scriptures when we observe what has
appeared good to the Catholic Church which the authority of these
same Scriptures recommends to you"
C. Cresconius I:33
I could not have said it better!!
As I mentioned before, and Augustine expresses it here, it is the Scriptures
that defend the authority of both Sacred Tradition and the Church, it is the
Sacred Tradition that defends the authority of both the Scriptures and the
Church, and it is the Church that GIVES authority to both Scriptures and Sacred
Tradition through the Authority given to her by Christ Himself.
"The authority of our Scriptures, strengthened by the consent of so
many nations, and confirmed by the succession of the Apostles, bishops
and councils, is against you"
C. Faustus 8:5COUNCIL OF NICEA II(AD 787)
'If anyone rejects all ecclesiastical tradition either written or
not written...let him be anathema'
Dezinger 308Bear in mind that by 787 A. D., the church had already a well established Bible. CYRIL of JERUSALEM
'Learn also diligently, and FROM THE CHURCH, WHAT ARE THE BOOKS
of the Old Testaments, and WHAT are the books of the NEW'
Catechetical Lectures 5,33
Of course, father Cyril, we know
that we have to learn it from the Church… Where else, since we do not have a
“God-breathed Table of Contents for the Scripture.” We have to keep this Oral
Tradition. And this is an Oral Tradition that even Protestants today follow.
IRENAEUS
For Irenaeus tradition included three things
1) The faith that was handed on-oral or in writing
'For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us
their writings? Would it not be necessary to follow the course
of the tradition which they handed down to those whom they did commit
the Churches?'
Against Heresies 3,4:12) A living authority in the Church due to succession
"Wherefore it is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the
Church...those who, together with the succession of the episcopate,
have received the certain gift of truth... according to the good
pleasure of the Father. But [it is also incumbent] to hold in
SUSPICION others who DEPART from the primitive succession of
the succession, and assemble themselves....But those who cleave
asunder, and separate the unity of the Church, [shall] receive
from God the same punishments as Jeroboam did"
Against Heresies 4,26:2
3) Transmission and preservation by succession.
"In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical
tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth,
have come down to us. And this is MOST abundant proof that there
is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in
the Church from the Apostles until now, and handed in truth"
Against Heresies 3,3:3
JEROME
Jerome mentioned something that I have said before in a previous reply: 'And let them not flatter themselves if they think they have
Scripture authority since the devil himself has quoted Scripture
texts...we could all, while preserving in the letter of
Scripture, read into it some novel doctrine'
C. Dialogue Luciferians 28 Anybody can twist scriptures to make it seem Scriptures advocate his/her own sometimes twisted beliefs. This demonstrates that Scriptures are not FORMALLY SUFFICIENT. ORIGEN
"The Church's preaching has been handed down through an orderly
succession from the Apostles and remains in the Church until the
present. That alone is to be believed as the truth which in no
way departs from ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition"
First Principles 1,2
The statement “There is no appeal in any of these writings, to
the authority of Tradition as a separate and independent body of revelation” is also fallacious because the
Catholic church has never believed that tradition is 100% separate and
independent from Scriptures, actually as I have mentioned, you can consider the
Scriptures as written Tradition. The Word of God has a three-legged support 1)
Scriptures (the written Word of God) 2) Tradition (the unwritten Teaching of
the Apostles) 3) The Church (Jesus’ Bride and Body). Each one proves the
authority to the other two. In any
case, of course, we know that the order on which they came about is: 1) Jesus
taught and trained the Apostles to create His Church, thus there is Tradition
being formed there, however they did not know what to do until Pentecost. Thus
the church came first, starting in Pentecost when the Holy Spirit finally fell
upon them. 2) Then Tradition, the Teaching of the Apostles, started to be spread.
3) Then some of that Teaching or Tradition, got written down, and thus
Scriptures were formed.
In the second, third and most of the fourth century, when all the
Apostles had died and the “Apostolic Age”, which is claimed by some as the only
time when the teachings of the Christ were given orally, was VERY over, those
writings which the Early Church had, were at best several sets of scrolls and
not all churches had all of them. Ephesus had some (Letters to Timothy,
Ephesians, etc), Corinth had others (1 and 2 of Corinth, the Epistle of
Barnabas, etc), Jewish Christian Churches had others (James, the gospel
according to the Hebrews, etc), Asia Minor had others and so on. Most of what
they learned they learned it from the mouth of their bishop and/or presbyters
(not the Apostles!). First of all, people could not just take Scriptures and
read them (notice I don’t use the word Bible because at that time there was no
Bible yet), for two reasons: 1) There was no printing press to have mass
production of these writings (this was the case until the XVI century) 2) Most
people did not know how to read. And Second of all, not all of what they had in
writing included the complete teaching of the church, since not all the
churches had all the books of the New Testament as we do today, thus the
bishops and presbyters had to teach from what they have learned from a previous
teacher who, to be valid, had to belong to the line of succession that started
with the Apostles, thus we have Oral Apostolic Tradition.
I reiterate, there were works
going around which claimed to have been written by the Apostles, and other
works which came from unknown authors, thus the Church had to make decisions on
which books to exalt and consider as genuine God-breathed works of the Spirit,
which books to honor as profitable for reading only and which books to condemn
as heresy. The church finally finished this endeavor at the end of the fourth
century. Before that, an individual could not infallibly discern among inspired
and uninspired books.
They could not compare those books
with Scripture, because that is what they were trying to discern, which books
should be part of Scripture. For instance, how can you tell from Scripture that
the Apocalypse or the book of Revelations is God-Breathed?. You just can’t, and
even in the fourth century they were not sure that the Apostle John had written
the Apocalypse; however, they made the infallible decision to include it.
Thus they compared those books
with what the Church taught (Tradition), those books that went against what the
Church taught were discarded and condemned. Others were only said to be
profitable for reading. When this was done, the church compiled those works
that she considered to be the work of the Spirit in one big volume, which we
call, the Bible, a gift from God to His Church. Some people asked: “What if
tomorrow we find, say another set of scrolls which seem to be also inspired?”
The answer is simple, the Spirit of the Truth that has spoken through the
Church is infallible, and thus the decision of having 27 books in the New
Testament is final. Even if you find the Word of God somewhere else, which is
very possible as we have seen, that does not belong in the Bible,
because the Bible IS MATERIALLY SUFFICIENT, what is there is there, what isn’t,
isn’t. You do not need to add more books to it or take away from it. The Gift that God GAVE to His Church THROUGH
His Church is as it is, and I re-emphasize it is MATERIALLY SUFFICIENT. The
idea that anything that is inspired should be in the Bible comes from
the Protestant notion that the Word of God can be found only in the Bible. This
is not the case and redundantly it is unscriptural. Nowhere in the Bible says
that the Word of God can only be found in the Bible.
To the statement “The writings of the Apostolic Fathers
literally breathe with the spirit of the Old and New Testaments”, I answer, I sure hope they do,
because the Apostolic Fathers (Church fathers that lived one generation after
the Apostles) sure considered Scriptures to be the Written Word of God and to
have Doctrinal Authority just like Catholics do nowadays, although the
Apostolic Fathers could not yet be sure that some of the controversial books
were part of Scripture (such as 3 John or the Apocalypse). It would be contradicting
if they did not include Scripture citations in their writings. But this does
not prove Sola Scriptura, this simply proves that the Early Church Father
considered Scriptures to be the Written Word of God and to have Doctrinal and
Theological Authority. You have to keep
in mind that the books of the Old and New Testament were not the only books
they cited. They cited many other works that are not part of the Bible.
Irenaeus
and Tertullian held to Sola Scriptura
The word
‘tradition’ simply means teaching. Irenaeus and Tertullian state
emphatically that all the teachings of the Bishops that was given orally was
rooted in Scripture and could be proven from the written Scriptures. Both men
give the actual doctrinal content of the apostolic Tradition that was orally
preached in the churches, and it can be seen clearly that all their doctrine
was derived from Scripture.
Answer:
Let us keep in mind that
Tertullian and Irenaeus lived almost a century after the last Apostle had died.
According to Dr. Frazier and Pastor White’s assertions, after the apostles
died, all the “teaching” was in writing and was what we know today as the
Scriptures.
“It can be seen
clearly that all their doctrine was derived from Scripture” Of course it was derived from
Scripture, that is what MATERIAL SUFFICIENCY of Scripture means, and repeating
the definition, MATERIAL SUFFICIENCY means that the Scriptures CONTAIN all the
BASIS for Salvation, DOCTRINES AND THEOLOGY, but the real interpretation of
Scripture is derived from Tradition or what we know as Apostolic Teaching,
which, as Dr. Frazier mentioned, is what Tertullian and Irenaeus refer to.
There was no
doctrine in what they refer to as apostolic Tradition that is not found in
Scripture.
[Sarcastically:]Yes, I agree with you
Dr. Frazier. That is why Irenaeus believed in the supremacy of Peter and thus
in the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome (the Pope) over all the other bishops in
the world, as being the direct successor of Peter. Irenaeus believed this
because he found that in Scripture. [End Sarcasm] Your own statement
contradicts your own beliefs. They of course, do not contradict mine. Ireneaus
was using Apostolic Tradition to give meaning to Scriptures, which is why he
comes out with a belief different to yours. Thus by giving meaning to
Scriptures in the way that the Church has done since the beginning, Irenaeus
has a direct appeal to Apostolic Tradition.
In other words,
the apostolic Tradition defined by Irenaeus and Tertullian is simply the
teaching of Scripture. It was Irenaeus who stated that while the Apostles at
first preached orally, their teaching was later committed to writing (the
Scriptures), and the Scriptures had since that day become the pillar and ground
of the Church’s faith. His exact statement is as follows:
"We have
learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through
whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in
public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the
Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith."1
Once again, this only shows
MATERIAL SUFFICIENCY and that Irenaeus believed that the Scriptures have a
tremendous doctrinal authority, in no way proves FORMAL SUFFICIENCY (Sola
Scriptura). Now notice that it says: “plan of our salvation”, we Catholics acknowledge and
believe that all that we need to know for Salvation is in the Scriptures. The
problem comes about when people try to interpret those Scriptures. That is when
we believe that interpretation should be done in light of what the Church has
always taught and believed, not on the private and fallible interpretation of a
man.
Now, Dr. Frazier, you have to also
include the second part of that quote from Ireneaus that says as follows:
"We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation,than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us,
which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a
later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the
Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. But
when, the heretics refute Scriptures, as if they were wrong,
and unauthorative, and were variable, and the truth could
not be extracted from them by those who were ignorant of
tradition...And when we challenge them in turn with that
Tradition, which is from the Apostles, which is guarded by
the succession of elders in the churches, they oppose
themselves to Tradition, saying that they are wiser, not
only than those elders, but even than the Apostles.”
Against Heresies 3:1-2
Ireneaus was combating the Gnostics who were heretics who did believe that Scriptures had to be interpreted in the light of Tradition, but both the tradition and scriptures they acknowledge were false. They claimed to have the “secret” tradition as they called it. Ireneaus lets us know what the real Tradition is, which we should use to interpret Scriptures: “the Tradition, which is from the Apostles, which is guarded by the succession of elders in the churches” and also he had to show them what the real Scriptures were, thus he says that they were the Scriptures that had been “handed down to us by the Apostles”. However, he continues saying that he believes that getting to prove all the churches succession is hard thus he says:
“..since it is a long matter in a work like this to
enumerate these successions, we will confute them by
pointing to the Tradition of that greatest and most
ancient and universally known Church, founded and
constituted at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles,
Peter and Paul, a tradition which she has had and a
faith which she proclaims to all men from those Apostles”
Against Heresies 3:3
Rather, these men 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. Irenaeus and Tertullian rejected such a notion and appealed to Scripture alone for the proclamation and defense of doctrine
Answer:
Everybody knows that the Gnostics
were heretics. They claimed to have the “secret Tradition” or the “secret
knowledge”. The Gnostics believed and denied many things that are very,
very clear in Scriptures, such as the Resurrection of Christ,
instead they believed that he had escaped death. No real modern-time Christian
denies the resurrection of Christ, because it is very clear in scripture that
he resurrected. This is why Ireneaus and Tertullian argued so much from
scriptures with the Gnostics, because to Ireneaus and Tertullian they were
“blind” for not being able to see that Scriptures were very clear about these
things, and also the Gnostics attacked Scriptures and thus Ireneaus and
Tertullian defended them so ferociously. On the other hand, Irenaeus also
showed the Gnostics that the Catholic Church had the REAL TRADITION, which was
based on the Apostolic Succession, and this Tradition is what validated the
REAL Scriptures.
Tertullian writes:
'Let them show the origins of their churches, let them unroll
the list of their bishops,(showing) through a succession coming
down from the very beginning that their first bishop had his
authority and predecessor someone from among the number of
Apostles or apostolic men and, further, that he did not stray
from the Apostles. In this way the apostolic churches present
their earliest records. The church of Smyrna, for example,
records that Polycarp was named by John; the Romans, that
Clement was ordained by Peter. In just the same way, the
other churches show who were made bishops by the Apostles
and who transmitted the apostolic seed to them. Let the
heretics invent something like that'
Prescr Ag Heretics 32
The concern of Tertullian and
Ireneaus in showing real and valid Apostolic Succession was based in nothing
else than in showing that they were the REAL and ORIGINAL CHURCH that had
maintained a VALID APOSTOLIC TRADITION including VALID SCRIPTURES. Churches and
individuals that believe in Sola Scriptura do not care a bit on
Apostolic Succession. And this is not the case with Tertullian and Ireneaus.
Church
historian, Ellen Flessman-van Leer affirms this fact:
Answer:
The cited Assertion by Ellen
Flessman-van Leer can be refuted by what I have written above. The statement “the thought
that there could be some truth, transmitted exclusively viva voce (orally), is
a Gnostic line of thought...” is true to the extend that the Gnostics claimed, as I mentioned
above, they had the “secret knowledge” which had been transmitted to them
orally (a false tradition) and that they did not care what the Scriptures said
and that they contradicted with the real Scriptures. This is not the case with
Sacred Tradition. Sacred Tradition does not contradict Scriptures; on the
contrary it gives meaning to them.
For illustration on this matter,
Sola Scriptura advocates and Gnostics are in opposite extremes of a stick,
while the Catholic Church is in the middle.
Sola Scriptura advocates attack Tradition while Gnostics attacked the
real Scripture, although they also attacked the real Tradition [I said real
Scripture because Gnostics had false scripture also such as the Gospel of
Thomas]. This is why Ireneaus and Tertullian when combating the Gnostics they
had to defend Scriptures and show which one was the real Tradition.
The last assertion: “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”. This is
simply her opinion with which I disagree. Tradition also helps to give
Scripture its real meaning, however in the case of the Gnostics, Tertullian and
Ireneaus were using Tradition to show that our Scriptures were the real
scriptures, because the Gnostics were refuting that very fact. Once, they
could prove that, it was very easy to show that Gnostic beliefs were wrong
because their beliefs very clearly contradicted Scripture.
The Bible was
the ultimate authority for the Church 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.3
Answer:
I agree with the first part, the
bible is MATERIALLY SUFFICIENT, and yes it was the final arbiter in all matters
of doctrinal truth, except when both parties used the Scriptures to defend their
position, differing only in interpretation. Then who is right and who is
wrong?. Now, about the citation of J.N.D. Kelly, this is all true, but this
does not prove Sola Scriptura, this simply proves that the Fathers considered
the Bible to be inspired and that it had doctrinal authority, which we
Catholics today do accept with all our heart.
This has nothing to do with Sola Scriptura.
Heiko Oberman
comments about the relationship between Scripture and Tradition in the early
church:
Answer:
The citation of Heiko Oberman,
expresses only Mr. Oberman’s misrepresentation of the Early Church fathers as I
have shown above and in the four-part Compilation of the Early Father on
Tradition.
Cyril of
Jerusalem held to Sola Scriptura
Answer:
Once again, as I said, the
citation from Cyril of Jerusalem only proves the MATERIAL SUFFICIENCY of
scripture and that they have great Doctrinal Authority nothing else. In no
means prove FORMAL SUFFICIENCY or Sola Scriptura. The same can be said about
part of the given discussion: “He states in explicit terms that if he were to
present any teaching to these catechumens which could not be validated from
Scripture, they were to reject it”. Yes, this is correct if a teaching contradicts Scripture it
has to be rejected.
It is significant
that Cyril of Jerusalem, who is communicating the entirety of the faith to
these new believers, did not make a single appeal to an oral tradition to
support his teaching
Answer:
This statement could not be more
WRONG! You should read again Cyril of Jerusalem’s works. In his Catechetical
Lectures, he wrote about the reverence one should have at the Liturgy. This
might seem not important in some senses because it is just the way of worship,
but in many scopes, such as the Eucharist, it SURE is important to Catholics
today and of course it was important to St. Cyril of Jerusalem, because he, as
Catholics do today, strongly believed in the Real presence of Christ in the
Eucharist. He wrote, for instance:
Since then He [Jesus] Himself declared and said of the Bread,
“This is My Body”, who shall dare to doubt any longer? And
since He has Himself affirmed and said, “This is My Blood”,
who shall ever hesitate, saying, that it is not His blood?
Catechetical Lectures 22 (Mystagogic 4), 1 So with full assurance let us partake as of the Body and
Blood of Christ: for in the figure of Bread is given to
you His Body, and in the figure of Wine His Blood; that you,
by partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ, may be made of
the same body and the same blood with Him. For thus we come
to bear Christ in us, because His Body and Blood are
distributed through our members; thus it is that, according
to the blessed Peter, we became partakers of the divine
nature (2 Pet 1:4).
Catechetical Lectures 22 (Mystagogic 4), 3 Consider therefore the Bread and the Wine not as bare
elements, for they are, according to the Lord's declaration,
the Body and Blood of Christ; for even though sense suggests
this to you, let faith assure you. Judge not the
matter from the taste, but from faith be fully assured without
misgiving, that the Body and Blood of Christ have been
given to you.
Catechetical Lectures 22 (Mystagogic 4), 6The Apostles in the Bible wrote very little about Liturgy and the way of worship. This is very logical because they knew that whatever was not in the Bible, Christians would learn from the Church. Thus in the Bible it does not tell us, for instance, how exactly baptism took place (i.e., what they dressed, etc), or all the details of a typical Sunday worship service (Mass). The following excerpt from the Catechetical Lectures shows the importance that St. Cyril’s gives to the Liturgy of the Eucharist, which he truly believed to be the partaking of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, and showed that this tradition, because of its importance in our faith, should be kept undefiled. So obviously, to him this was not just another way of worship, but it was an important tradition to be kept because it involved literally the Body and Blood of Christ Himself. Catholics reading this excerpt will find it to be VERY familiar with today’s way of partaking of Holy Communion at Mass.
... Trust not the judgment to your bodily palate, no, but to
unfaltering faith; for those who taste are bidden to taste,
not bread and wine, but the anti-typical Body and Blood of
Christ.
Do not approach, then, with your wrists extended, or your fingers spread; but make your left hand a throne for the right,
as for that which is to receive a King. And having hollowed your
palm, receive the Body of Christ, saying over it, “Amen”. Then
after having carefully blessed your eyes by the touch of the Holy
Body, consume it – carefully, lest you lose any portion of it;
for whatever you lose, is evidently a loss to you as it were
from one of your own limbs. For tell me, if any one gave you
grains of gold, would you not hold them with all carefulness,
being on your guard against losing any of them, and suffering
loss? Will you not then much more carefully keep watch,
that not a crumb fall from you of what is more precious
than gold and precious stones?
Then after you have partaken of the Body of Christ, draw nearalso the Cup of His Blood; not stretching forth your hands,
but bending, and saying with an air of worship and reverence,
“Amen”, bless yourself by partaking also of the Blood of Christ.
And while the moisture is still upon your lips, touch it with
your hands, and bless your eyes and brow and the other organs
of sense. Then wait for the prayer, and give thanks to God, who
has counted you worthy of such great mysteries.
Hold fast these traditions undefiled and, keep yourselves free from offence. Do not separate yourselves from Communion;
do not deprive yourselves, by the pollution of sins, of these
Holy and Spiritual Mysteries. And the God of peace sanctify
you wholly; and may your spirit, and soul, and body be preserved
entire without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ:-
To whom be glory and honor and might, with the Father and the
Holy Spirit, now and ever, and world without end. Amen.
Catechetical Lectures 23, 20-23
Clearly St. Cyril, as Catholics do today, considered these Traditions (i.e., the Liturgy of the Eucharist), not just a way of worship but much more than that, because we partake of the Body and Blood of Christ and, as we have seen, the traditions that he is talking about and he tells us to “hold fast undefiled”, which are the details of the Lord’s supper, are NOT explicitly (although they are implicitly) in the Bible, and Catholics today still keep them and hold fast.
Besides this unbreakable proof on
the importance of the reverence one must show to the Liturgy of the Eucharist,
for one is literally partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ, as St. Cyril
tells us, we also have for instance the following excerpt, which I already
cited above:
CYRIL OF JERUSALEM wrote:
'Learn also diligently, and FROM THE CHURCH, WHAT ARE THE BOOKS
of the Old Testaments, and WHAT are the books of the NEW'
Catechetical Lectures 5,33
Here is a clear example of an Oral
Tradition from the Church, which he asked them to uphold. Within Scripture you
do not find an inspired Table of Contents. Cyril of Jerusalem lived right
during the time when the Church, through the Holy Spirit, had just made the
decision of which books should go in the Bible and which should not (End of the
4th century). Thus, in a sense he was saying, accept as infallible
this new resolution of the Church.
Bear in mind, also, that in the time of Cyril of Jerusalem (4th
century) there were no books, as we know them today. The Bible was at its best
a set of scrolls; this is why he asked them to learn diligently and from the
CHURCH which books are part of the Scriptures, because they were not going to
get them compiled in a nice and neat volume.
Answer:
Once again, the given citation
from Gregory of Nyssa does not prove Sola Scriptura, but only Material
Sufficiency and Doctrinal Authority.
GREGORY of NYSSA writes:
"It suffices for proof of our statement that we have a tradition
coming down from the Fathers, an inheritance as it were, by
succession from the Apostles through the saints who came after them."
Eunomius
This statement is self-validating (2 Tim 2:2), but also, he was claiming
Apostolic Succession. If he was talking about Scripture alone (Sola Scriptura)
what would be the need for claiming Apostolic Succession?.
"...I say, that the Church teaches this in plain language, that the
Only-begotten is essentially God, very God of the essence of the very
God, how OUGHT one who OPPOSES her DECISIONS to overthrow the
preconceived opinion?"
C. Eunomius 4,6
In this case Gregory of Nyssa was
opposing the Arians who also used Scripture to defend their heresy. He plainly
answers to follow what the Church teaches, and to follow the decision of the
Church. This obviously is not Sola Scriptura.
So as we can see the assertion
“Gregory of Nyssa held to Sola Scriptura” is flat wrong.
The Early Church
operated on basis of Sola Scriptura
These
quotations are simply representative of the Church fathers as a whole. Cyprian,
Origen, Hippolytus, Athanasius, Firmilian, and Augustine are just a few of
these that could be cited as proponents of the principle of Sola Scriptura in
addition to Tertullian, Irenaeus, Cyril and Gregory of Nyssa.
Answer:
I have shown above that the Early
Fathers, when they defended Scriptures, defended only their MATERIAL
SUFFICIENCY and their Doctrinal Authority, as being inspired and the Written
Word of God. They did not advocate FORMAL SUFFICIENCY of Scripture or Sola
Scriptura. Also, I have shown above and in the four-part compilation of the
Early Fathers on Tradition how the Early Church Fathers believed in the
Doctrinal Authority of Tradition and the Church and that Scripture had to be
interpreted in the light of both real Tradition and the Church, which had a
valid Apostolic Succession.
Irenaeus: He
knew Polycarp who was a disciple of the apostle John. He lived from c 130 to
202 AD. He quotes from twenty-four of the twenty-seven books of the New
Testament, taking over 1,800 quotations from the New Testament alone.
Answer:
This statement and the similar
others that are included saying that the Early Fathers quoted books of the New
Testament a lot, do not prove Sola Scriptura at all. This only proves that the
Early Fathers considered the books they cited as having doctrinal authority,
and how they knew that? By Tradition. They were taught by someone else from the
Church who the person that wrote them was, and they believed the Church. Notice
that most of the Fathers that were cited did not know any of the Apostles. They
definitely did not believe that a book was written by an Apostle simply because
the book bore his name as is the case with the Gospel of Thomas, which is of
Gnostic origin.
These statements could be used
also in an argument to say that the Early Fathers DID know which books were
inspired and which were not. As I mentioned before, most of the books were easy
to know that they were inspired because Tradition showed clearly who wrote
them. The challenge, and what the church clarified infallibly and once and for
all in the 4th century, was the God-breathed nature of the books
with doubtful origin (Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Apocalypse, Jude,
etc.).
By the end of
the 3rd century, virtually the entire New Testament could be
reconstructed from the writings of the church fathers.7
Answer:
Of course, the Church in the 4th
century did not choose the books that would be part of the Bible out of thin
air, they based their decision on Apostolic Tradition, which was held by the
unbroken Apostolic Succession of the Church Fathers who cited these books so
much as it has been avidly illustrated by Dr. Frazier. But it is important to
notice also, that the books that form part of the New Testament today were not
the only works cited by the Early Church fathers, they also cited other books
as well. Thus, the Church in the 4th Century did really have to make
a decision, a decision, which we recognize as infallible even today.
Customs and Practices as Apostolic Oral Tradition.
Answer:
On this I agree up to a certain
point. Some of the customs and Practices at the beginning were contradictory
but they were not critical or crucial issues since they did not involve faith
or morals. But they were still Apostolic Tradition, because they were taught by
the Apostles. On the other hand, as I have illustrated above, the criterion
that these practices, as the ones written by Cyril of Jerusalem, are not
crucial, comes from the private interpretation of Scripture by Dr. Frazier. The
example I have given, the Liturgy on the Eucharist, is a Tradition that St.
Cyril wrote about and that he, as Catholics do today, considered very crucial
and thus it is still kept, because it is the reverence that should be given to
the Body and Blood of Christ.
This actually
led to conflict with the Bishop of Rome who demanded that the Eastern Bishops
submit to the Western practice. This they refused to do, firmly believing that
they were adhering to apostolic Tradition. Which one is correct? There is no
way to determine which, if either, was truly of apostolic origin.
The conflict to the Bishop of Rome
(the Pope), was not entirely the day on which Easter was to be celebrated, this
not being a crucial issue, but since the date had already been established
Apostolically in the West, as St. Peter had taught them, the fact that the East
was not keeping orthodoxy, even if they were following Apostolic Tradition as
St. John had taught them, could have more serious consequences which opposed
the Word of God (1 Cor 1:10). Thus
Polycarp, who had been a disciple of the Apostle John, and that was the
bishop of Smyrna, being in his eighties, undertook a trip of hundreds of miles
to Rome, to explain to Pope Anicetus why they were not celebrating Easter on
the same date. Notice, how it was really important to Polycarp to make the
Bishop of Rome understand why they were not following his resolution, to the
point that he traveled by foot at his old age hundreds of miles to meet
with the Pope in person. It is clear that Polycarp recognized the Supremacy of
Anicetus, even though they were both Bishops of different and faraway churches.
This same conflict resurfaced a generation later, in Irenaeus time, and in this
case Pope Victor excommunicated the Churches in Asia, however, Irenaeus, who
had been a disciple of Polycarp, oriented him by letting him know that they
were doing that because they had learned this custom from the Apostle John.
Pope Victor listened to Irenaeus just like Peter had listened to Paul almost a
century earlier (Gal 2:14), and Pope Victor recanted and revoked the
excommunication. Later on, for the sake of unity, the Churches of Asia by
themselves accepted Rome’s resolution on the day to celebrate Easter.
So the answer as to which one is
correct is, both of them were correct, because they both were from Apostolic
origin, but being this not a critical matter, keeping unity was more crucial.
Just because a
certain church father claims that a particular practice is of apostolic origin
does not mean that it necessarily was. All it meant was that he believes that
it was. But there was no way to verify if in fact it was a tradition from the
Apostles.
Answer:
Yes, this is the same as the
Church not being sure of the origin of certain books of the New Testament. When
there is doubt about the origin of Tradition, the church as the pillar and
ground of truth (1 Tim 3:15), as having as eternal advocate the Spirit of the
Truth (Jn 14:16) makes the decisions. Just like the church decided on including
Hebrew, Apocalypse, etc in the New Testament even when they did not know with
certainty who their authors were.
There are
numerous practices in which the early church engaged which it believed were of
apostolic origin which are listed by Basil the Great, but which no one
practices today. Clearly therefore, such appeals to oral apostolic Tradition
that refer to customs and practices are meaningless.
Answer:
Yes, unity and orthodoxy were more
important. The church sometimes sets up rules on certain practices which she
can change any time. These by no means are infallible resolutions. An example
of this is the celibacy of priests and nuns. That practice can change, if the
Church decides so. These matters are not on faith and morals, thus they are not
too crucial. The practices that Basil the Great listed are of this same nature.
The
Roman Catholic Church’s appeal to Tradition as an authority not valid
But what is
interesting in such an assertion is that Roman apologists never document the
specific doctrines to which Paul is referring which they claim they possess,
and which they say are binding upon men.
This statement is influenced by the
fact that as Protestant, it naturally comes to his mind to have a written
document, which will hold ALL the authority. Since Protestants do not consider
their own churches as having enough authority (if any at all) and since they
cannot claim any Apostolic Tradition because they cannot claim Apostolic
Succession, this is the only way they can do their best to keep unity.
Unfortunately, this is not very efficient (thus we have 21,000+ protestant
denominations). This is not the case in the Catholic Church. The Catholic
Church knows what she teaches and real Catholics know what is binding upon
them. The authority is held by Scripture, Sacred Tradition and Church. However,
if you wish to see a well documented set of doctrines, in 1992, the Catechism
of the Catholic Church was published which is just a brief compilation
of what the Catholic Church teaches and has taught, from Scripture, Tradition
and Church itself. For instance, it cites certain verse of Scripture and then
it gives the interpretation based on Apostolic Tradition. Or it shows a Sacred
Tradition and then shows the verses that justify it in Scripture and the
Council on which the unambiguous theological language of the doctrine was
developed if any (remember that many doctrines, although binding from the
beginning of Christianity, were not really clear until a Council finally
developed an unambiguous theological language for it, this normally took place
to put an end to heresy which most of the time arose from the private
interpretation of Scripture).
Sungenis edited
a work recently on a defense of the Roman Catholic teaching of tradition
entitled Not By Scripture Alone. It is touted as a definitive refutation
of the Protestant teaching of Sola Scriptura. His book is 627 pages in length. Not
once in the entire book does any author define the doctrinal content of this
supposed apostolic Tradition that is binding on all men! Yet we are told is
that it exists, that the Roman Catholic Church possesses it, and that we are
bound, therefore, to submit to this church which alone possesses the fullness
of God’s revelation from the Apostles.
Actually, the title suggests that
the book was about refuting Sola Scriptura rather than defending Apostolic
Tradition. If this is so, why would you think that Sungenis or the other
authors were going to define Apostolic Tradition? they were just proving Sola
Scriptura wrong, nothing else. I do not need to show that Apostolic Tradition
exists to prove that Sola Scriptura is invalid. Not at all. This is a bad approach
that you take and that I even noticed in the Sola Scriptura debate between
Pastor White and Gerry Matatics. Pastor White was trying to prove that the
doctrine known as Sola Scriptura existed by proving that Sacred Tradition, also
known as Apostolic Tradition, did not exist, and Gerry Matatics kept telling
him, “why are you trying to put the burden of proof on my shoulders?”. Indeed,
the topic of the Debate was “Does the Bible teach Sola Scriptura?” NOT “Does
Sacred Tradition exists?”.
The point of the matter is that
Sola Scriptura, apart from whether Sacred Tradition exists or not, is a
doctrine that refutes itself, that is, it cuts its own roots because from
Scripture alone it cannot be proven that this doctrine is valid.
If such
traditions existed and were of such importance why did Cyril of Jerusalem not
mention them in his Catechetical Lectures?
This assertion is incorrect. He
did appealed to them as I have shown above.
We defy anyone
to list the doctrines to which Paul is referring in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 which
he says he committed orally to the Thessalonians
Answer:
I have mentioned above what has to
be done if one wants to know this. To reiterate, simply follow what the
Catholic Church teaches. The meaning the Catholic Church gives to Scripture is
Apostolic Tradition, and are the oral Traditions that Paul was talking about in
2 Thes 2:15, which by NO means were given ONLY to the Thessalonians, of
course. Some of those oral traditions
got written down later by the Early Church Fathers. For instance, Scripture
does give us the basis for Apostolic Succession being necessary to have a valid
church, and we should be able to come out with such doctrine from Scripture
(Titus 1:5, 2 Tim 1:6, 1 Tim 4:14, 1 Tim 5:22, Acts 6:5-6, Acts 13:13), but if
someone disagrees, the reaffirmation that this doctrine was what the Apostles
taught, was written down by Clement of Rome in his Epistle to the Corinthians.
Let us bear in mind that Clement was a disciple of Peter and Paul. This
doctrine was also advocated by Irenaeus and Tertullian as we have seen. Also, other doctrines, which were challenged
in spite of being part of Scripture and Tradition, were clarified by the
Apostolic Church, whose authority she received directly from Christ, by
defining an unambiguous theological language in a valid Council of the
Apostolic Church. An example of this is the doctrine of the Trinity.
Thus, what we have to understand
is that Sacred Tradition is not separate from Scripture and Church; therefore,
for every verse of Scripture, Sacred Tradition follows along and is simply the
meaning given by the Catholic and Apostolic Church which comes directly from
the Apostles and confirmed by the majority of the Early Church Fathers or in
“unanimous consent by them” and in some cases by an unambiguous theological
language developed by a Council of the Apostolic Church.
This was the belief and practice of the church of the patristic
age. This principle was adhered to by the Reformers, which they sought to
restore to the church after doctrinal corruption had entered through the door
of tradition.
The Reformers privately
interpreted Scriptures. Thus, they took authority to give meaning to Scriptures
away from Tradition and the Apostolic Church and gave this authority to
themselves. Consequently, we see differing views among them. Why should I
follow Luther’s or Calvin’s or Zwingli’s or anybody else’s interpretation of
Scripture? Besides of being differing views, they are fallible men, more than
likely unable to recognize the Spirit (1 Cor 2:14). By the same token, the
fallible opinion that doctrinal corruption had entered the Apostolic
Church, and that because of this, this Church had stopped being the Church of
Christ, is a subtle but direct way of calling Jesus a LIAR, because he promised
that the Spirit of Truth will always be with His Church (John 14:16-17),
and that He, Himself, will be with His Church always (Mt 28:20) and that
His Church will always go on, because “death will not prevail against it” (Mt
16:18). And to call Jesus a liar, besides of being not nice, is pure and simple
blasphemy.
Yes, it is true that the “weed”
had infiltrated the Church because “the enemy” planted it, even though the seed
was good (Mt 13:25-28) and many sinners and unmoral men were part of the
Church, but this is very different to assert that there was doctrinal
corruption. Again, besides of being a fallible opinion, based on private
interpretation of Scripture, goes against what Jesus promised that the Truth
would always be with the Church (John 14:16-18, 1 Tim 3:15).
The teaching of
a separate body of apostolic revelation known as tradition that is oral in
nature originated not with the Christian church but rather 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
additionally, the key for interpreting and understanding that revelation. Just
as the early church fathers repudiated that teaching and claim by an exclusive
reliance upon and appeal to the written Scriptures, so must we. "My
sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me" John 10:27.
Answer:
I have already refuted this. As I
mentioned, the tradition of the Gnostics was a false tradition since they did
not have Apostolic Succession and also their tradition contradicted Scriptures,
thus Mark 7:7-9 applies to them. Of course, they also had their own false
scriptures, which were proven to be false in the same way: By proving that they
did not have Apostolic Succession. That is what the Early Church repudiated.
The Early Church did not repudiate the Real Tradition and the Real Scriptures
of the Apostolic Church; they repudiated the false Gnostic traditions as well
as their heretical Scriptures.
CONCLUSION:
You have titled this “Sola
Scriptura and the Early Church”, however you have not proven that the Early
Church defended Sola Scriptura, at most your citations show MATERIAL
SUFFICIENCY of the Scriptures. In a bad approach you tried to prove that Early
Church Fathers did not believe in the existence of Sacred Traditions, which you
were unable to do anyway, thinking that this would prove that they believed in
Sola Scriptura, but this is not the case. Trying to prove Sola Scriptura with
extra-scriptural sources is contradicting. If you are not able to prove Sola
Scriptura from Scripture alone and without the help of any other source, then
Sola Scriptura refutes itself and it is not valid. It would be like saying, “no
generalization is true” or “the tendency to remain celibate is hereditary”.
And since from Scriptures alone,
Sola Scriptura cannot be proven, then this doctrine cannot be valid.