By Dr
Charles Frazier (D Th)
The
Reformation restored the principle of Sola Scriptura
The sixteenth century Reformation was responsible for restoring to
the church the principle of Sola Scriptura, a principle that 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, founded on the Scriptures
themselves, that there is only one special revelation from God that man
possesses today, the written Scriptures or the Bible. Consequently the
Scriptures are materially sufficient and are by their very nature, as being
inspired by God, the ultimate authority for the church. This means that there
is no portion of that revelation which has been preserved in the form of oral
tradition independent of Scripture. We do not possess any oral teaching of an
Apostle today. Only Scripture therefore records for us the apostolic teaching
and the final revelation of God.
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.
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). 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. 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.
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.
It is
with the writings of Irenaeus and Tertullian in the mid to late second century
that we first encounter the concept of Apostolic Tradition that is handed down
in the Church in oral form. 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. There was no
doctrine in what they refer to as apostolic Tradition that is not found in
Scripture. 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
Tradition,
when referring to oral proclamation such as preaching or teaching, was viewed
primarily as the oral presentation of Scriptural truth, or the codifying of
biblical truth into creedal expression. There is no appeal in the writings of
Irenaeus or Tertullian to a tradition on issues of doctrine that is not found
in Scripture. 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.
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.2
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
Heiko
Oberman comments about the relationship between Scripture and Tradition in the
early church:
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.4
Cyril of
Jerusalem held to Sola Scriptura
The
fact that the Church of the patristic age was faithful to the principle of Sola
Scriptura is clearly seen from the writings of Cyril of Jerusalem (the bishop
of Jerusalem in the mid 4th century). He is the author of what is
known as the Catechetical Lectures. This work is an extensive series of
lectures given to new believers expounding the principle doctrines of the
faith. It is a complete explanation of the faith of the church of his day. His
teaching is thoroughly grounded in Scripture. There is in fact not one appeal
in the entirety of the Lectures to an oral apostolic Tradition that is
independent of Scripture. 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. This fact confirms that his authority as a
bishop was subject to his conformity to the written Scriptures in his teaching.
The following excerpts are some of his statements on the final authority of
Scripture from these lectures.
This seal have thou ever on thy mind; which now by way of summary
has been touched on in its heads, and if the Lord grant, shall hereafter be set
forth according to our power, with Scripture proofs. For concerning the divine
and sacred Mysteries of the Faith, we ought not to deliver even the most casual
remark without the Holy Scriptures: nor be drawn aside by mere probabilities
and the artifices of argument. Do not then believe me because I tell thee these
things, unless thou receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set
forth: for this salvation, which is of our faith, is not by ingenious
reasonings, but by proof from the Holy Scriptures.5
But take thou and hold that faith only as
a learner and in profession, which is by the Church delivered to thee, and is
established from all Scripture. For since all cannot read the Scripture, but
some as being unlearned, others by business, are hindered from the knowledge of
them; in order that the soul may not perish for lack of instruction, in the
Articles which are few we comprehend the whole doctrine of Faith...And for the
present, commit to memory the Faith, merely listening to the words; and expect
at the fitting season the proof of each of its parts from the Divine
Scriptures. For the Articles of the Faith were not composed at the good
pleasure of men: but the most important points chosen from all Scriptures, make
up the one teaching of the Faith. And, as the mustard seed in a little grain
contains many branches, thus also this Faith, in a few words, hath enfolded in
its bosom the whole knowledge of godliness contained both in the Old and New
Testaments. Behold, therefore, brethren and hold the traditions which ye now
receive, and write them on the table of your hearts.6
Notice
in the above passage that Cyril states that catechumens are receiving tradition
and he exhorts them to hold to the traditions, which they are now receiving.
From what source is this tradition derived? Obviously it is derived from the
Scriptures, the teaching or tradition or revelation of God, which was committed
to the Apostles and passed on to the church, and which is now accessible in
Scripture alone. 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 teachings. The entirety of the faith is
grounded upon Scripture and Scripture alone.
Gregory of
Nyssa held to Sola Scriptura
Gregory
of Nyssa also enunciated this principle. He stated:
The generality of men still fluctuate in their opinions about
this, which are as erroneous as they are numerous. As for ourselves, if the
Gentile philosophy, which deals methodically with all these points, were really
adequate for a demonstration, it would certainly be superfluous to add a
discussion on the soul to those speculations. But while the latter proceeded,
on the subject of the soul, as far in the direction of supposed consequences as
the thinker pleased, we are not entitled to such license, I mean that of
affirming what we please; we make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure
of every tenet; we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone
which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings.7
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. 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. The
extensive use of Scripture by the fathers of the early Church from the very
beginning are seen in the following facts:
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.
Clement of Alexandria: He lived from 150
to 215 AD. He cites all the New Testament, books except Philemon, James and 2
Peter. He gives 2,400 citations from the New Testament.
Tertullian: He lived from 160 to 220 AD.
He makes over 7,200 New Testament citations.
Origen: He lived from 185 to 254 AD. He
succeeded Clement of Alexandria at the Catechetical school at Alexandria. He
makes nearly 18,000 New Testament citations.
By the end of the 3rd century,
virtually the entire New Testament could be reconstructed from the writings of
the church fathers.7
Customs and
Practices as Apostolic Oral Tradition.
It is
true that the early church also held to the concept of tradition as referring
to ecclesiastical customs and practices. It was often believed that such
practices were actually handed down from the Apostles, even though they could
not necessarily be validated from the Scriptures. These practices, however, did
not involve the doctrines of the faith, and were often contradictory among
different segments of the Church. An example of this is found early on in the 2nd
century in the controversy over when to celebrate Easter. Certain Eastern
churches celebrated it on a different day from those in the West, but each
claimed that their particular practice was handed down to them directly from
the apostles. 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. It is interesting; however, to note that one of the
proponents for the Eastern view was Polycarp, who was a disciple of the apostle
John. There are other examples of this sort of claim in church history. 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. 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.
The Roman
Catholic Church’s appeal to Tradition as an authority not valid
The
Roman Catholic Church states that it possesses an oral apostolic Tradition
which is independent of Scripture, and which is binding upon men. It appeals to
Paul’s statement in 2 Thessalonians 2:15: "Therefore, brethren, stand fast
and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our
epistle". Rome asserts that, based on Paul’s teaching in this passage, the
teaching of Sola Scriptura is false, since he handed on teachings to the
Thessalonians in both oral and written form. 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. From Francis de Sales to the writings of Karl Keating and
Robert Sungenis there is a very conspicuous absence of documentation of the
specific doctrines to which the Apostle Paul is referring. 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. What Sungenis and other Roman Catholic
authors fail to define, is the contents and precise doctrines of the claimed
"apostolic Tradition". The simple reason that they do not do so is
because it does not exist. If such traditions existed and were of such
importance why did Cyril of Jerusalem not mention them in his Catechetical
Lectures? 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. The
only special revelation man possesses today from God that was committed to the
Apostles is the written Scriptures. 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 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.
Endnotes