Scripture, Tradition and the Church Fathers
By: Moses Flores
In reading
and researching on the traditions of the Roman Catholic Church, it is obvious
that
It is
disturbing to see Protestants give up such grounds to
I do not believe the Fathers to be infallible nor even correct in all their interpretations or theological assertions. However, I do believe that the fathers supported the material and formal sufficiency of Scripture. That is, they believed the Scriptures contained all that is necessary to know the truth about God and salvation and that they did not require an “infallible interpreter” of some sort (in this case, the Magisterium and Sacred Tradition) because they believed that the Scriptures were clear enough, or able to interpret themselves. In order to prove this assertion, it is necessary that the reader understand how the fathers used the word “tradition” in their writings as well as their view and use of Scripture. This chapter will prove that Sola Scriptura has a historical basis as well as a Biblical basis, which was proved previously.
Before engaging the Fathers, it must be said what this study will not provide, namely a stated theological dogma from the Fathers concerning Sola Scriptura. One searches in vain for a stated definition of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura amongst the Fathers as well as for a stated dogma about “sacred tradition”. The works of the Fathers must be regarded in their own historical times. Thus, in one sense, they are neither “Protestant” nor “Roman Catholic” but merely “Catholic” (universal). Instead, what one will clearly see from these excerpts is a presupposed ultimate authority that is inherent in the Scriptures alone. This is seen “in passing”, as it were, as they dealt with the great heresies and theological disputes of their times especially the nature of Christ (the Christological controversies), the Church and the nature of Grace(Augustinian/Pelagian Controversy). The authority of the Scriptures was never in dispute but appears to have always been presupposed and thus not defended nor defined as it was by the time the Reformation came about.
Lack of a clear theological statement of the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura, however, should not mean that one puts aside the Fathers. It will be helpful to remember that the Reformers themselves quoted from the Fathers in support of their doctrinal formulation of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Calvin’s works, as well as Luther’s, are filled with quotes from the Fathers, especially Augustine. The writings of these men were used by God to bring about the Reformation and later defined doctrine of Sola Scriptura.
It must also be stated that the author has been selective, obviously, with the use of the Fathers. That is, not all the Fathers are quoted from. Only major Fathers have been selected, and even then not all of the major ones. The Reason being that trying to use all the Fathers and quoting them extensively is well beyond the scope of this paper. Exegeting all of the Fathers would certainly be a work of mammoth proportions which these studies are not intended to be. They are meant to be as thorough as possible without being exhaustive. The selection of the Fathers quoted from here, no doubt, will be well appreciated and sufficient enough (no pun intended) to drive home the point that the Father did not believe in a second source of revelation that was intended to interpret and define the written revelation of God.
The use of “tradition” in the writings of the Church fathers and their
view of Scripture
All of the
fathers held a high view of Scripture because they believed it to be
“God-breathed” (qeopneustoS , II Tim.
Irenaeus
Irenaeus was one of the early writers of the Church who used the word “tradition” (along with its verb form). For instance, he wrote:
“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.”[3] (Italics mine)
Irenaeus uses the verb form of “tradition” to describe the transmission of the apostolic doctrines concerning salvation. Indeed, Irenaeus does affirm that the teachings of Christ and the apostles have been “traditioned” to us, but we must strongly note where Irenaeus believes they have come down to us. He says that they have been “handed down in the Scriptures.” Irenaeus, thus, believed that since the teachings of the apostles are contained in the Scriptures, the Church has a standard of truth[4]. “The Bible is the means by which the traditio (tradition), or teaching of the apostles is transmitted from generation to generation and by which true apostolic teaching can be verified and error refuted.[5]” This comes out especially in his encounters with the Gnostics. Irenaeus constantly appealed to the Scriptures in defending Christianity against this ancient heresy of the first and second centuries A.D.
Irenaeus believed the Gnostics were guilty of two chief errors. First, he objected to their allegorical method of interpretation which they imposed on the sacred texts which resulted in complete misinterpretations. Second, “the Gnostics claimed to have an oral tradition independent of Scripture, handed down by the apostles which they alone possessed.[6]” This was their “secret knowledge”. Irenaeus wrote:
“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 ignorant of tradition. For they allege that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but viva voce (orally)…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.[7]”
Notice the second way that Irenaeus spoke of “tradition” here: as those secret teachings of the Gnostics. Also notice the logic of the Gnostic: the Scriptures can only be understood truly as they are interpreted by a secret knowledge, or tradition, passed down “viva voce” (orally) to a certain group of people. Therefore, the Scriptures alone are insufficient for knowledge of salvation. Instead, they must be supplemented by another body of revelation found outside of the Scriptures. To the Gnostics, they alone possessed this extra-scriptural revelation.
If the connection isn’t obvious then I shall state it plainly: the Roman Catholic concept of Sacred Tradition is parallel to the Gnostic concept of “secret knowledge”. Both claim that their traditions are handed down from the apostles. Both claim that the Scriptures alone are insufficient for understanding their own meaning and the way of salvation. Both claim that something else is necessary to give their correct meaning and interpretation. Both claim to be the exclusive possessors of that extra body of revelation. Thus, Roman Catholicism is comparable to one of the earliest theological enemies of the Christian faith! There is no avoiding this comparison from the writing of Irenaeus and many statements of the Roman Catholic Church when compared with the heresy of Gnosticism.
Whatever
support
Tertullian
Another early writer of the Church who combated the Gnostic heresy was Tertullian. Tertullian plainly taught that the Scriptures alone were able to determine the truthfulness of doctrine in the Church and must be appealed to for proving Christian doctrine. One author wrote of Tertullian’s view:
“Because scripture contains the revelation and is part of tradition, it has of course absolute authority…and therefore, if a doctrine or precept is written in the Bible, it cannot be but true, and if a dogma needs to be proved true, it is entirely sufficient to show that it is written. And even more important, scripture is not only sufficient evidence, but strictly necessary evidence for proving the truth of dogma.[8]”
Tertullian himself required all who made doctrinal assertions to be able to prove them from the Scriptures[9]. In his treatise “Against Hermogenes” he states:
“I revere the fullness of His Scripture, in which He manifests to me both the Creator and the creation. In the Gospel, moreover, I discover a Minister and Witness of the Creator, even His Word. But whether all things were made out of any underlying matter, I have as yet failed anywhere to find where such a statement is written, Hermogenes’ shop must tell us. If it is nowhere written, then let it fear the woe which impends on all who add or take away from the written word.[10]”
Clearly, these few passages from Tertullian’s writing show his high view of Scripture that is not shared with anything else. From this passage we can see that Tertullian equated the absence of a doctrinal proposition from the written word as “adding to” or “taking away from” the “written word.” As the ultimate authority, the Scriptures served as the sole source for validating the truth of doctrines and for refuting false doctrines in the Church. If a teaching could not be verified through Scripture, then it must be rejected.
Interestingly enough, though, Tertullian spoke of “tradition”. The question we must ask is did Tertullian have in mind the same “traditions” (such as the institution of the Papacy, Papal infallibility, the Marian Dogmas, etc…) that the Roman Catholic Church today asserts De Fide? “Often Tertullian’s references to tradition are quoted indiscriminately by Roman Catholics to promote a theology that is actually foreign to his true teaching and intent.[11]” Therefore, it is important that we allow Tertullian himself to define the content of the “tradition” that he referred to.
William Webster notes two different usages of the term “tradition” within the writings of Tertullian. The first usage referred to the “original apostolic preaching faith, which he called the tradition of the faith or the rule of faith.[12]” These traditions are simply the essential doctrines of the Christian faith. Tertullian wrote:
“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 Judea, and founding 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 founded 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…From what and through whom, and when, and to whom, has been handed down that rule, by which we become Christians.[13]”
This faith that was “handed down” (traditioned) are the essential doctrines “by which men become Christians.[14]” They were the common teachings of all the apostles which they took through the world in their proclamation of Christ. Such faith is not able to be added to as it was already defined. Tertullian said, “This rule of faith, indeed, is altogether one, immovable and irreformable.[15]” Thus, this “tradition” that Tertullian spoke of is not something that is growing, or developing, neither is it something that can be added to or deleted from. It should also be noted that this “tradition” is not something different from the content that is found in the Scriptures. Indeed all essential teachings of the apostles are confirmed in Scripture (cf. II Tim. 3:14-16, II Peter 3:16). William Webster points out that “the content of Scripture and the teaching of the rule of faith are identical.[16]” He further states that the rule of faith consisted of “the primary doctrines that make up the creed pertaining to the three persons of the Trinity and the judgment to come[17]. All these teachings are founded in Scripture, and, thus, Scripture is able to serve as the foundation of this “tradition” that Tertullian and the other Fathers refer to.
Tertullian
was also the first person to use the word “tradition” in another sense. Often times, he used the word to refer to
“ecclesiastical customs and practices.[18]” These matters were of secondary importance
such as how many times one must be immersed at Baptism, kneeling on the Lord’s
day, or how often to partake of the Lord’s supper[19]. Yet,
Tertullian spoke of only one doctrinal authority for the Church and that authority was the God-breathed revelation of God “handed down” by the Apostles through the Scriptures alone[20]. In no other source does Tertullian seek to establish doctrine for the Church. For Tertullian, “What Scripture does not note, it denies.[21]”
Cyril of
Cyril
was the bishop of
“Have though ever in mind this seal, which for the present has been lightly touched in my discourse, by way of summary, but shall be stated, should the Lord permit, to the best of my power with the proof from the Scriptures. For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell thee these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures.[23]” (italics mine)
The above quotation from Cyril clearly shows that he believed the Scriptures alone to be the sole revelation of God that is able to recognize and validate Christian doctrine. If a doctrine had no Scriptural support, or proof, then it was not to be believed. Cyril, most certainly, did not endorse an authorative oral tradition that was equal with the Scriptures. The only thing that Cyril acknowledges as being “handed down” to us with authority for establishing doctrine are the Scriptures. Cyril himself stated,
“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…we comprise the whole doctrine of the faith in a few lines…for these articles of the faith were not composed as seemed good to men; but the most important points collected out of all Scripture make up one complete teaching of the Faith. And just as the mustard seed in one small grain contains many branches, so also this faith has embraced in few words all the knowledge of godliness in the Old and New Testaments.[24]” (italics mine)
Several things emerge from this text that we should
note. First, clearly from this reading,
it is the Church that proceeds from the Scriptures (“the Church…built up
strongly out of all Scripture”) and not the Scriptures which proceed from the
Church as
But, still, Cyril spoke of “tradition” and is, therefore, often quoted by Roman Catholic apologist is support of the Roman Catholic concept of “Sacred Tradition.” For instance, Cyril wrote:
“Take heed then, brethren, and hold fast the traditions which ye now receive, and write them on the table of your heart.[25]”
Again, the question we must ask is if the content of this tradition that Cyril is advocating here the exact same ones that the Roman Catholic Church teaches today as essential for salvation? Roman apologist will often quote Cyril, I believe, selectively and out of context to support their assertions. The full context of this quote reveals that the “traditions” that Cyril is referring to are those doctrines that are found in the Scriptures and passed on in the Apostles’ Creed:
“So for the present listen while I simply say the Creed, and commit it to memory; but at the proper season expect the confirmation out of the Holy Scripture of each part of the contents. For the articles of the Faith were not composed as seemed good to men; but the most important points collected out of all Scripture make up one complete teaching of the Faith. And just as the mustard seed in one small grain contains many branches, so also this Faith has embraced in few words all the knowledge of godliness in the Old and New Testaments. Take heed then, brethren, and hold fast the traditions which ye now receive, and write them on the table of your heart.[26]”
The context makes it abundantly clear that the “traditions” that Cyril is talking about are those “important points collected out of all the Scripture” that are believed to “make up the complete teaching of the Faith.” They are doctrines that are not separate from Scripture, but instead are “confirmed out of Holy Scripture.” Thus, the “tradition” that Cyril spoke of was not another body of revelation independent of Scripture or different in content. Rather, it was a body of doctrines based on the Scriptures alone. They are also doctrines that are not “developing” for Cyril says that these teachings of the faith are “complete”.
Does this mean that everything that Cyril taught is accepted by Protestants? Certainly not! Protestants acknowledge that there are teachings among the Church Fathers that must be rejected such as the “ransom to Satan” theory of the atonement. What is important is that the Church Fathers believed in the ultimate authority of the Scriptures alone to establish and teach doctrinal truth. All else that was taught that was not in the Scriptures was of secondary importance and not essential for salvation. Whatever the interpretations that Cyril, and the other Fathers, came up with, we have Cyril’s testimony that only that which is found in Scripture is to be believed and that all essential teachings, such as the Rule of Faith, are handed down by the Apostles in the Scriptures alone[27].
Clearly, Cyril of Jerusalem did not teach the same
concept of “Sacred Tradition” that the Roman Catholic Church teaches today and
defined by
Athanasius
Athanasius became the Bishop of Alexandria around 328 A.D. Athanasius is most noted for his instrumentality in the formulation of the Nicene Creed and the doctrine of the Trinity. Without a doubt, Athanasius was a most influential figure in the early Church and a true champion of Trinitarian orthodoxy. How did this defender of the faith determine what was acceptable Christian doctrine and what was not? From Athanasius’ many writings, it becomes clear that he believed the Scriptures alone to be able to determine truth and to lead to godliness.
It is not uncommon for Athanasius to ask his opponents to prove their doctrinal assertions solely from the Scriptures. For instance, in his first letter to Serapion, he writes:
“Since, therefore, such as attempt is futile madness, nay, more than madness!, let no one ask such questions any more, or else let him learn only that which is in the Scriptures. For the illustrations they contain which bear upon this subject are sufficient and suitable.[28]”
Athanasius’ use of the word “only” here is a clear demonstration of Athanasius’ adherence to the principle of Sola Scriptura. He does not ask for one to learn the “sacred Tradition” along with the Scriptures. This is because Athanasius does not believe there is a second body of revelation outside of the Scriptures that are authorative in the Church’s faith. Again, Athanasius states, “but our faith is right, and starts from the teaching of the Apostles and traditions of the fathers being confirmed both by the New Testament and the Old.[29]” The significance of such a statement is that Athanasius is charging people as being outside of the faith on the basis that their doctrinal assertions are not found in, or supported by, the Scriptures![30] Against the Arians, who rejected the deity of Christ, Athanasius wrote:
“Which of the two theologians sets forth our Lord Jesus Christ as God and Son of the Father, this which you vomited forth, or that which we have spoken and maintain from the Scriptures? If the Saviour be not God , nor Word, nor Son, you shall have leave to say what you will, and so shall the Gentiles, and the present Jews. But if He be Word of the Father and true Son, and God from God, and ‘over all blessed for ever,’ is it not becoming to obliterate and blot out those other phrases and that Arian Thalia, as but a pattern of evil , a store of all irreligion, into which, whoso falls ‘knoweth not that giants perish with her, and reacheth the depths of Hades?’ This they know themselves, and in their crafts they conceal it, not having the courage to speak out, but uttering something else. For if they speak, a condemnation will follow’ and if they be suspected, proofs from Scripture will be cast at them from every side…Nor does Scripture afford them any pretext; for it has been often shewn, and it shall be shewn now, that their doctrine is alien to the divine oracles.[31]” (italics mine)
Also, in his writings to the Bishops in
“But further, as they have had the boldness to say that there is another Word in God, and since they cannot bring any other clear proof of this from the Scriptures, let them but shew one work of His or one work of the Father that was done without this Word; so that they may seem to have some ground at least for their own idea.[32]” (italics mine)
These statements, and others[33], clearly show that Athanasius rejected any doctrine that could not be supported by the clear teachings of the Scriptures alone. The basis, especially, for rejecting the doctrine of Christ according to the Arians, was that their beliefs were contrary to that which was taught clearly in Scripture. Athanasius claimed the Arian doctrines to be “alien to the divine oracles.” As further proof that Athanasius adhered to the principle of Sola Scriptura, it should be noted that he has positive statements for believing teachings if, and only if, they are based on the Scriptures. For instance, in “Against the Heathens”, he writes,
“But this all inspired Scripture also teaches more plainly and with more authority, so that we in our turn write boldly to you as we do, and you, if you refer to them, will be able to verify what we say. For an argument when confirmed by higher authority is irresistibly proved.[34]”
In his “De Decretis”, also known as the “Defense of the Nicene Definition,” he writes,
“And we have proof of this, not from external sources, but from the Scriptures.[35]”
Against the Arians, he writes,
“But with God this cannot be; for He is not composed of parts, but being impassible and simple, He is impassibly and indivisibly Father of the Son. This again is strongly evidenced and proved by divine Scripture. For the Word of God is His Son, and the Son is the Father’s Word and Wisdom; and Word and Wisdom is neither creature nor part of Him whose Word He is, not an offspring passibly begotten.[36]”
All these statements clearly warrant the belief that Athanasius believed that Christian doctrine must have a solid grounding in Scripture. He states the perspicuity of the Scriptures in saying that they teach more “plainly”, thus, showing that the Scriptures were formally sufficient to be understood apart from any other revelation, interpreter, or “external source” as Athanasius put it[37]. In formulating the Orthodox Trinitarian statement of the Nicene Creed, he believed it his duty to present positive Scriptural proof for his doctrinal assertions. There are even instances in his writings when Athanasius clearly affirms the material sufficiency of Scripture. For instance, he writes:
“The knowledge of our religion and of the truth of things is independently manifest rather than in need of human teachers, for almost day by day it asserts itself by facts, and manifests itself brighter than the sun by the doctrine of Christ. Still, as you nevertheless desire to hear about it, Macarius, come let us as we may be able set forth a few points of the faith of Christ; able though you are to find it out from the divine oracles, but yet generously desiring to hear from others as well. For although the sacred and inspired Scriptures are sufficient to declare the truth, - while there are other works of our blessed teachers compiled for this purpose, if he meet with such a man will gain some knowledge of the interpretation of the Scriptures, and be able to learn what he wishes to know, - still, as we have not at present in our hands the compositions of our teachers, we must communicate in writing to you what we learned from them,- the faith, namely, of Christ the Saviour; lest any should hold cheap the doctrine taught among us, or think faith in Christ unreasoned.[38]” (italics mine)
Also, he says,
“Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faith’s sake; for divine Scripture is sufficient above all things; but if a Council be needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene Bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrine so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced in the divine Scriptures.[39]” (italics mine)
One final passage will suffice to show that Athanasius supported the principle of Sola Scriptura, especially the material and formal sufficiency of the Scriptures. After having just declared what he believes to be the authorative Canon of Scripture (which did not include the apocryphal books listed by the Canon of the Council of Trent)[40], he states:
“These are the fountains of salvation, that they who thirst may be satisfied with the
living words they contain. In these alone is proclaimed the doctrine
of godliness. Let no man add to these, neither let him take ought from these. For concerning these the
Lord put to shame the Sadducees, and said, ‘Ye do err, not knowing the
Scriptures.’ And He reproved the Jews,
saying, ‘Search the Scriptures, for these are they which testify of
Remember the principle of Sola Scriptura is that the Bible alone is the sole infallible rule of faith and it clearly reveals all things necessary for salvation and life. Is this not what Athanasius has just said in stating, “these alone (the canonical Scriptures) is proclaimed the doctrine of godliness”? Is not the explicit affirmation of the principle of Sola Scriptura stated when he says that the Scriptures independently manifest “our faith” (material sufficiency) and thus, we have “no need of human teachers” (formal sufficiency)? Even over Church councils, Athanasius declares that Scripture is “sufficient above all things.” In the context in which this is said, Athanasius is saying that there are some who vainly demand a council for proofs of doctrine because the Scriptures carry a sufficiency beyond the councils because the “religion of Christ” is found in the divine Scriptures. There is no mention of another body of revelation that is needed to “authentically interpret” or “understand” the Scriptures.
Any fair reading of what Athanasius said about the Scriptures will certainly show that he believed the Scriptures alone to be the infallible rule of faith and to be able to lead one to godliness. The Scriptures, according to Athanasius, need not the help of a human teacher for “the sacred and inspired Scriptures are sufficient to declare the truth.[42]”
But what are we to make of Athanasius’ use of the word “tradition” in his writings? For instance, he wrote:
“But our faith is right, and starts from the teaching of the Apostles’ and tradition of the fathers, being confirmed both by the Old and New Testaments.[43]”
The important question here is if Athanasius is using the word “tradition” in the same sense as the Roman Catholic Church has defined it[44]. This does not seem to be the case. In fact, the self same quote is able to demonstrate what Athanasius had in mind when he used the word “tradition.” Notice that Athanasius believes the Trinitarian faith to be right because it starts from the “teaching of the Apostles and tradition of the fathers.” Before any one may jump to the Roman Catholic conclusion of the use of the word “tradition”, Athanasius says that both of these – the teaching of the Apostles and the tradition of the fathers – are “confirmed in both the Old and New Testaments.[45]” That is, the Apostles’ teaching and the “tradition” that Athanasius is referring to are those body of doctrines which can be found in the Sacred Scriptures only. Thus, the basis for apostolicity of a doctrine is its “confirmation” in the Holy Scriptures.
This interpretation of Athanasius’ use of “tradition” also comes out in his “Life of Anthony”:
“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
Here, Athanasius reveals the source of the “traditions of
the fathers” and the content of our “holy faith” as the Scriptures. It is not unwarranted to conclude that
Athanasius believed the content of the tradition of the fathers to be the same
as that which is found in the Scriptures.
Yet
In another instance, Athanasius writes,
“These sayings concerning the Holy Spirit, by themselves alone, show that in nature and essence he has nothing in common with or proper to creatures, but is distinct from things originate, proper to, and not alien from, the Godhead and essence of the Son; in virtue of which essence and nature he is of the holy Triad, and puts their stupidity to shame. But, beyond these sayings, let us look at the very tradition, teaching, and faith of the Catholic Church from the very beginning, which the Lord gave, the Apostles preached, and the Fathers kept. Upon this the Church is founded, and he who should fall away from it would not be Christian and should no longer be so called. There is, then, a Triad, holy and complete, confessed to be God in Father, Son, and holy Spirit, having nothing foreign or external mixed with it, not composed of one that creates and one that is originated, but all creative; and it is consistent and in nature indivisible, and its activity is one…And that they may know this to be the faith of the Church, let them learn how the Lord, when sending forth the Apostles, ordered them to lay this foundation for the Church, saying: ‘God and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit’ (Matt. 28:19). The Apostles went, and thus they taught, and this is the preaching that extends to the whole Church which is under heaven. Since then the Church has this foundation of faith, let these men tell us once again and let them make answer, Is God tryad or dyad?[47]”
The “tradition” that Athanasius is referring to here,
again, can be shown to be based on and confirmed in the Scriptures. First, note that the content of the
“tradition” that Athanasius is referring to is the equality of the three
persons of Trinity, especially the Holy Spirit.
Thus, because he clearly defines what the content of this “tradition” is,
it is unwarranted for Roman Catholic apologists to want to use this passage to
say that Athanasius intended the same meaning of “tradition” that
Clearly, Athanasius’ writings do not support the Roman Catholic concept of “Sacred Tradition”. What he does support is the belief that the Scriptures contain all things necessary for godliness – including salvation and morals – and that these Scriptures alone, apart from Church councils and human teachers, are sufficient to teach the Christian faith. There is no hint of a dual revelation view in the writings of Athanasius especially when closely examined in their proper context and understood in the light of the rest of his statements on the sufficiency of Scripture.
Augustine
Of all the Church Fathers, Augustine is the most
influential of all the early thinkers of Church history. He was the Bishop of Hippo, located in
Augustine believed the Scriptures to be the supreme authority in the Church. For Augustine, the authority of the Scriptures was absolute because of his view of the infallibility of the Scriptures. His view of the Scriptures as the Supreme authority comes out especially in his attitude towards Church councils and the writings of previous fathers. Augustine wrote, in his work “On Baptism”:
You are wont, indeed , to bring up against us the letters of Cyprian, his opinion, his Council; why do ye claim the authority of Cyprian for your schism, and reject his example when it makes for the peace of the Church? But who can fail to be aware that the sacred canon of Scripture , both of the Old and New Testaments, is confined within its own limits, and that it stands so absolutely in a superior position to all later letters of the bishops, that about it we can hold no manner of doubt or disputation whether what is confessedly contained in it is right and true; but that all the letters of the bishops are liable to be refuted if there be anything contained in them which strays from the truth, either by the discourse of some one who happens to be wiser in the matter than themselves, or by the weightier authority and more learned experience of other bishops , by the authority of Councils; and further, that the Councils themselves , which are held in the several districts and provinces, must yield, beyond all possibility of doubt, to the authority of plenary Councils which are formed for the whole Christian world; and that even of the plenary Councils, the earlier are often corrected by those which follow them, when, by some actual experiment, things are brought to light which were before concealed, and that is known which previously lay hid, and this without any whirlwind of sacrilegious pride, without any puffing of the neck through arrogance, without any strife of envious hatred, simply with holy humility, catholic peace, and Christian charity.[49]” (Italics mine)
Augustine makes the distinction between Cyprian’s writings and those of the Scriptures being that the former could only be received as they were conformed to the latter. Indeed, Augustine believed that the readers were free to accept or reject the writings of Cyprian if they did not agree with the Scriptures:
“We do no injustice to Cyprian when we make a distinction between his epistles and the canonical authority of the divine Scriptures. Apart from the Sacred canonical Scripture, we may freely pass judgment on the writings of believers and disbelievers alike…For that reason Cyprian’s epistles, which have no canonical authority must be judged according to their agreement with the authority of the divine writings. Thus we can accept from Cyprian only what agrees, and safely reject what does not agree, with Scripture.[50]” (Italics mine)
Very clearly, the Sacred Scriptures, for Augustine, serve as the ultimate authority over Church Councils and even all other Church Fathers[51]. Thus, the authority granted to these Councils and Fathers is contingent on their agreement with Holy Writ. Indeed, the Scriptures are the foundation of the Christian faith and they do not share that status with other traditions[52].
Because Scripture is the ultimate authority, Augustine believed that the Scriptures contained all that was necessary to be believed unto salvation. That Augustine believed in the material sufficiency of the Scriptures is evidenced in his writings to Catechumens:
“Receive my children, the Rule of Faith, which is called the Symbol (or Creed). And when ye have received it, write it in your heart, and be daily saying it to yourselves; before ye sleep, before ye go forth, arm you with your Creed. The Creed no man writes so as it may be able to be read: but for rehearsal of it, lest haply forgetfulness obliterate what care hath delivered , let your memory be your record-roll: what ye are about to hear, that are ye to believe; and what ye shall have believed, that are about to give back with your tongue. For the Apostle says, ‘With the heart man believeth unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.’ For this is the Creed which ye are to rehearse and to repeat in answer. These words which ye have heard are in the Divine Scriptures scattered up and down: but these gathered and reduced into one, that the memory of slow persons might not be distressed; that every person may be able to say, able to hold , what he believes. For have ye now merely heard that God is Almighty? But ye begin to have him for your father, when ye have been born by the church as your Mother.[53]” (Italics mine)
The content of the Creed is listed elsewhere by Augustine as those statements that make up the Apostles’ Creed[54]. All these essential doctrines (“that ye are to believe”) of the faith are the same which are found “in the divine Scriptures”. The Scriptures serve as regula fidei and the “strongest and surest evidence[55]” for the validity of any doctrine according to Augustine.
By this same token, Augustine rejects doctrines which are not founded upon Scripture. He writes,
“However, it is for the philosophers to determine whatever and how they differ, though their own writings sufficiently testify that they make great account of love (amor) placed on good objects, and even on God Himself. But we wished to show that the Scripture of our religion, whose authority we prefer to all writings whatsoever, make no distinction between amor, dilectio, and caritas; and we have already shown that amor is used in a good connection…what we assert let us prove from Scripture[56].”
Augustine’s last phrase clearly shows the necessity for Scriptural proofs to accompany any doctrine that is to be considered Christian. Augustine also stated that “our belief is determined…by the declarations of Scripture, resting as they do on foundations of the strongest and surest evidence.[57]” Because it was the Scriptures alone that possessed such ultimate authority and infallibility, and because they served as the sine qua non of Christian doctrine Augustine could tell his readers that they are not bound to his words or that of any other:
“I do not want you to depend on my authority, so as to think that you must believe something because it is said by me; you should rest your belief either on the canonical Scriptures, if you do not see how true something is, or on the truth made manifest to you interiorly, so that you may see it clearly.[58]”
Also,
“But if it is supported by the evident authority of the divine Scriptures, namely, of those which in the Church are called canonical, it must be believed without reservation. In regard to other witnesses of evidence which are offered as guarantees of belief, you may believe or not, according as you estimate that they either have or have not the weight necessary to produce belief.[59]”
Again, concerning the writings of previous Fathers he writes:
“However, if your inquire or recall to memory the opinion of our Ambrose, and also of our Cyprian, on the point in question, you will perhaps find that I also have not been without some whose footsteps I follow in that which I have maintained. At the same time, as I have said already, it is to the canonical Scriptures alone that I am bound to yield such implicit subjection as to follow their teaching, without admitting the slightest suspicion that in them any mistake or any statement intended to mislead could find a place.[60]”
The sum of these statements and many
others of Augustine most certainly show that Augustine believed the Scriptures
alone to be the sole infallible rule of faith for the Church[61]. This is the very heart of the principle of
Sola Scriptura and Augustine leaves no ambiguity as to his position on the
Scriptures. Therefore, any doctrine that
lacked Scriptural support is not necessary to be believed.
“And if any comparisons shall have been made for thee, if thou hast found them in the Scripture, believe: if thou shalt not have found them spoken of except by report, do not very much believe them. The thing itself perchance is not so. Do thou profit by it, let that comparison avail for they salvation.[62]”
Augustine couldn’t have affirmed the material sufficiency of the Scriptures any clearer when he said,
“For though the Lord Jesus did many such acts, yet all of them are not written recorded; just as this same St. John the evangelist himself testifies, that Christ the Lord both said and did many things that are not recorded; but such were chosen for record as seemed to suffice for the salvation of believers.[63]” (Italics mine)
Surely with words like this we cannot believe that Augustine believed that the Scriptures alone were insufficient for the knowledge of salvation. In his reference to John 20:30-31, Augustine believes that the reason for writing only a portion of the life of Christ and not recording all His words and deeds is because those things which were written “seemed to suffice for the salvation of believers.” Augustine does not even hint here or anywhere in his writings that information which is crucial for salvation was left out of the Scriptures so that it could be transmitted in another manner.
To conclude Augustine’s view of Scripture, it may be proved that he also believed in the formal sufficiency and perspicuity of Scripture, thus, showing that he rejected the notion of an external interpreter of the Scriptures. He wrote,
“The Words of Scripture which are under consideration seem to me of themselves to make this sufficiently plain to those who carefully attend to them.[64]”
Also, in his work “On Christian Doctrine” Augustine gives the rule of how one should go about interpreting Scripture:
“In all these books those who fear God and are of a meek and pious disposition seek the will of God. And in pursuing this search the first rule to be observed is, as I said, to know these books, if not yet with the understanding, still to read them so as to commit them to memory, or at least so as laid down in them, whether rules of life or rules of faith, are to be searched into more carefully and more diligently; and the more of these a man discovers, the more capacious does his understanding become. For among the things that are plainly laid down in Scripture are to be found all matters that concern faith and the manner of life,- to wit, hope and love, of which I have spoken in the previous book. After this, when we have made ourselves to a certain extent familiar with the language of Scripture, we may proceed to open up and investigate the obscure passages, and in doing so draw examples from the plainer expressions to throw light upon the more obscure, and use the evidence of passages about which there is no doubt to remove all hesitation in regard to the doubtful passages. And in this matter memory counts for a great deal; but if memory be defective, no rules can supply the want.[65]”
Further in the same work he testifies,
“Accordingly the Holy Spirit has, with admirable wisdom and welfare, so arranged the Holy Scriptures or by the plainer passages to satisfy our hunger, and by the more obscure to stimulate our appetite. For almost nothing is dug out of those passages which may not be found set forth in the plainest language else where.[66]”
Notice that in all these passages that detail the perspicuity of Scripture and their self-interpreting nature, Augustine has nothing to say about a hierarchical structure within the Church as alone possessing that which is able to give the “authentic interpretation” of the Scriptures. Nothing is mentioned about the necessity of “Sacred Tradition” as needed to be able to understand the Scriptures nor is the idea presented that the Scriptures are incomplete without another body of revelation. Instead, what is clear from these passages of Augustine’s teachings is that the Scriptures are able, in and of themselves, to give the correct understanding and interpretation. It would seem to the case that the inclusion of an external source to use to try to interpret Scripture would only introduce something foreign into the text. It would also seem to be the case, being consistent with Augustine – that is, being that he viewed only the Scriptures as infallible – that it would mean something that is fallible would be used to interpret that which is infallible by its very nature, the God-breathed Word of God!
Augustine had much to say about the Scriptures as we have clearly seen. He believed them alone to be worthy of unquestionable authority because of their origin. He believed that all Christian doctrine should be based upon them and what could not be proved by them was not necessary to be believed. He held Scripture’s authority higher than that of his own writings, as well as those of the previous fathers and Church Councils, and would probably say the same about those who proceed after him. He also believed them alone to contain what is necessary to be believed for salvation and that information was plainly set forth by God and any person could come to the truth from the Scriptures alone. Surely Augustine is not one who asserted a “Sacred Tradition” that is necessary for Scripture to be “authentically interpreted” or understood in its plain teachings. How could this be the case from this great theologian and defender of the faith who required Scriptures only and used Scripture against heresies in the Church.
Roman Catholic apologists, however, will insist that Augustine believed in a “threefold authority” namely the Church, Sacred Tradition and the Scriptures[67]. But this surely cannot be the case after what we have already seen from Augustine and his beliefs about the authority of the Scriptures.
Conclusion
It would seem that a conclusion is not really necessary after all the evidence that has been presented. It is clear that the Fathers did not use the term “tradition” to mean a second body of revelation that exist independently from the Scriptures that alone is able to interpret and give understanding to the Scriptures. This becomes even clearer when we see the beliefs that the Fathers had about the Scriptures. We have seen that Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius and Augustine all believed that the Scriptures alone are materially sufficient for teaching Christian doctrine, especially what is necessary for salvation. We have seen that they believed the Scriptures to be clear in what they teach and what is not clear immediately may be understood from other places in the Scripture. The Fathers do not believe that only a certain group of men, known as the Magisterium are the sole possessors of a body of revelation that is necessary for understanding the Bible.
I could quote Origen[68],
Dionysius of Alexandria[69], Socrates Scholasticus[70], Basil of
Caesarea[71] and many others. I could even offer more quotes from the
Fathers that were previously studied just to prove that the views presented
were not isolated portions of their writings but consistent positions that each
held. It should suffice, with the
historical evidence presented, to see that Rome’s position stated and
infallibly defined in the Council of Trent for a “sacred tradition” that exists
independently of Scripture and alone is able to interpret and give the
authentic understanding and, furthermore, is solely possessed by the
Magisterium of the Church, is clearly not a position that can be accurately
maintained in the light of the history of the early Church. It is wholly unwarranted. So much so, that
The example of the early Church is clear: The Scriptures alone, as God-breathed revelation, possess the ultimate authority in the Church and over the Church in matters of faith and morals. The Scriptures contain all that is necessary to be believed for salvation and is able to be understood plainly. Those things that are not immediately plain may be understood by comparing Scripture with Scripture since Scripture alone possesses the key to unlocking its own meanings[72]. All this proves that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, as defined later in history by the Reformers, existed principally in beginning of the Church and was, more than likely, abandoned for various reasons in order to confer the authority that belonged to God alone through His Word alone onto the Magisterium alone (Sola Ecclesia). Thus, we can say that the Reformation, including Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and the others who came before affirming the principle of Sola Scriptura – were right to break away from that which had corrupted the Word of God and the Gospel.
We began this study by asserting that
For the Protestant reader, any fear of Roman Catholic
apologists’ use of the Church Fathers to give support to their arguments for
the existence of a “tradition” within the Church that was necessary to
understand and interpret Scripture should be dispelled for the Fathers support
no such notion. Their legs have been
pulled out from under them. If anything,
the Protestant reading this should understand that the early Church has never
been against the principle of Sola Scriptura; rather, they have always adhered
to it. Indeed, as the Reformation was a return to the apostolic faith
concerning justification, the cause for the restoration and recovery of the
Gospel was a return to, as well as formally defining, the principle of Sola
Scriptura. The Protestant should even be
encouraged to study early Church history and the writings of the fathers and
use them with confidence concerning the matter of authority in the Church. We must remember that the Reformation did not
take place in a vacuum. It was a return
to what Christ had originally formed but had become deformed and corrupted over
time. It was a relighting of the light
that had been extinguished over time. It
was not something new. The fathers do
not support
[1] Recent Protestants arguing against Calvinism and Calvinist
who appeal to the some of the Fathers – especially Augustine – have begun to
use this logic. The author, personally,
condemns this sort of attitude to the Fathers and this type of logic.
[2] In their writings, the word translated as “handed down”
is actually the verb form of the noun “tradition”. Thus, it could be said that some teachings
have been “traditioned” to others.
[3] Anti-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1, Irenaeus, Against Heresies,
II. 28. 2
[4] Elsewhere, Irenaeus writes, “since, therefore, we have such
proofs it is not necessary to seem truth among other which it is easy to obtain
from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in
a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth:
so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the well of life.” (Against Heresies, III.
4. 1) What is
interesting about this quote as well, is that Irenaeus clearly stands opposed
to the idea of a only a select few (i.e. the Magisterium) possessing access to
the revelation of God.
[5] Webster,
William, Holy Scripture: The Ground and
Pillar of our Faith, vol. 2, Christian Resources Inc, Battle Ground, Washington, 2001, pg. 25
[6] Webster, Holy
Scripture, pg. 31
[7] Against Heresies, III. 2. 1, III. 3.1
[8] Flessenman-Van Leer, Ellen, Tradition
and Scripture in the Early Church, Assen: Van Gorcum, 1953, pg. 172
quoted from Holy Scripture, vol. II, pg.
37
[9] “It will be your duty, however, to adduce your proofs
out of the Scriptures as plainly as we do…” Anti-Nicene
Fathers, vol.III, Against Praexes,
10,11
[10] Against Hermogenes, 22
[11] Webster, Holy
Scripture, pg. 39
[12] ibid.
[13] A.N.F.,
vol. III, Prescription against heretics, 20,
19
[14] The
interesting question that can be raised at this point is what these doctrine
were and did they include the de fide
Dogmas that were defined for the first
time in the Council of Trent (such as the Canon, Justification and the
Sacraments), the Institution of the Papacy (as defined by Unum Santum in 1308), Papal Infallibility
(as defined at Vatican I in 1870), the Marian Dogmas (such as the Immaculate
conception dogmatically defined in 1854 and the Assumption dogmatically defined
in 1950)? Of course, if Tertullian’s use
of tradition didn’t include those teachings then we can truly say that
[15] A.N.F., Veiling of
Virgins, 1
[16] Webster, Holy Scripture,
pg. 40
[17] ibid. This point
also was obvious to me as I read The Deposit
of Faith: What the Catholic Church
really believes by Eugene Kevane (Author House
Publishing,
[18] Holy Scripture, pg. 40
[19] “And
how long shall we draw the saw to and fro through this line, when we have an
ancient practice, which by anticipation has made for us the state, i.e. of the
question? If no passage of Scripture has
prescribed it, assuredly custom,
which without doubt flowed from tradition,
has confirmed it. For how can anything
come into use, if it has not first been handed down? Even in pleading tradition, written
authority, you say, must be demanded.
Let us inquire, therefore, whether tradition, unless it be written, should not be admitted. Certainly we shall say that it ought not to
be admitted, if no cases of other practices which, without any written
instrument, we maintain on the ground of tradition alone, and the countenance
thereafter of custom, affords us any precedent.
To deal with this matter briefly, I shall begin with baptism.
When we are going to enter the water, but a little before, in the
presence of the congregation and under the hand of the president, we solemnly
profess that we disown the devil, and his pomp, and his angels. Hereupon we are thrice immersed, making a
somewhat ampler pledge than the Lord has appointed in the Gospel. Then when we are taken up (as new born
children), we taste first of all a mixture of milk and honey, and from that day
we refrain from the daily bath for a whole week. We take also, in congregations before
daybreak, and from the hand of none but the presidents, the sacrament of the
Eucharist, which the Lord both commanded to be eaten at meal-times, and
enjoined to be taken by all alike. As
often as the anniversary comes round, we make offerings for the dead as birthday
honors. We count fasting of kneeling in
worship on the Lord’s day to be unlawful. We rejoice in the same privileges also from
Easter to Whitsunday. We feel pained
should any wine or bread, even though our own, be cast upon the ground. At every forward step and movement, at every
going in and out, when we put on our clothes and shoes, when we bathe, when we
sit at table, when we light the lamps, on couch, on seat, in all the ordinary
actions of daily life, we trace upon the forehead the sign.
If,
for these and other such rules, you insist upon having positive Scripture
injunction, you will find none.
Tradition will be held forth to you as the originator of them, custom as
their strengthener, and faith as their observer. That reason will support tradition, and
custom, and faith, you with either yourself perceive, or learn from some one
who has.” (A.N.F., De Corona, 3-4,
Italics mine)
Clearly Tertullian is referring to customary practices
that the Church used in his day and these are clearly not matters of necessity
to be believed unto salvation and neither will not believing in them result in
the loss of salvation.
[20] Concerning
those who denied the resurrection, Tertullian wrote:
“He, therefore, will not be a
Christian who shall deny this doctrine which is confessed by Christians;
denying it, moreover, on grounds which are adopted by a man who is not
Christian. Take away, indeed, from the
heretics the wisdom which they share with the heathen, and let them support
their inquiries from the Scriptures alone:
they will then be unable to keep their ground.
For that which commends men’s common sense is its very simplicity, and
its participation in the same feelings, and its community of opinions; and it
is deemed to be all the more trustworthy, inasmuch as its definitive statements
are naked and open, and known to all.” (A.N.F., vol. III, on the Resurrection of the Flesh, chapter 3)
Notice that Tertullian’s standard for proving and
disproving proposed doctrine is the “Scriptures alone” (Sola Scriptura!). It would be inconsistent of Tertullian to
require that heretics and those who deny essential
Christian teachings to prove their beliefs from the Scriptures alone if he was
not able to do the same for the doctrines that he believed.
[21] A.N.F., vol. IV, Tertullian, On monogamy, chapter 4.
This is actually
a rather interesting quote since most Roman Catholic doctrines
are not explicitly denied in Scripture.
Rather, they are simply not mentioned, thus,
[22] Holy Scripture, pg. 51
[23] N.P.N.F.vol.
VII, Cyril of
[24] ibid. 5.12
[25] ibid.
[26] ibid.
[27] It is important that we recognize the difference between
the principle of Sola Scriptura and the interpretation of Scripture. Clearly, the Fathers held to the principle of
Sola Scriptura yet their interpretations were not always the same. But their underlying presupposition in all
their interpretations is that Scripture alone is that which validates or
invalidates a doctrine as Christian
[28] Shapland,
C. R. B., The Letters of St. Athanasius
Concerning the Holy Spirit (New York: Philosophical Library, 1951), A letter of Athanasius to Bishop Serapion Concerning the Holy Spirit, Epistle 1.19, pg.
108-109, quoted in Holy Scripture,
vol. II by William Webster.
[29] N.P.N.F.2, Vol. IV, Athanasius,
Letters of Athanasius, Letter LX6.
The meaning of Athanasius’ use of the word “tradition” will be dealt with in the
later in this section. Suffice it to say
that it is clear that Athanasius says that our “faith” is comprised of the “teaching
of the Apostles” and the “tradition of the fathers” is “confirmed” by the
Scriptures.
[30] I find it interesting that by their theologians’ own
admissions, many of the Roman Catholic Dogmas are not supported by the
Scriptures in the manner that Athanasius is advocating for and required of the
opponents of orthodoxy. For example, Dr.
Ludwig Ott, in his standard work, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (4th,
edition,Tan
Books and Publishers,
[31] N.P.N.F.2, Vol. IV, Athanasius,
Discourse against the Arians, Discourse
I, chap. III.10
[32] ibid., To the
Bishops of Egypt, chap. II. 15
[33] “Since
then nothing is said in the Scriptures, it is evident that these things had
never taken place before.” (NPNF2, On the Incarnation of the Word 38).
“For neither is safe to say that the Son is from
nothing, (Since this is no where spoken of Him in divinely inspired Scripture,)
nor again of any other subsistence before existing beside the Father, but from
God alone do we define Him genuinely to be generated. For the divine Word teaches that the
Ingenerate and Unbegun, the Father of Christ, is One.” (NPNF2, Councils
of Arminium and Seleucia, Part
II, History of Arian opinions 26)
[34] N.P.N.F.2, Vol. IV, Athanasius,
Against the Heathens (Contra Gentes), Part III.
45
[35] ibid. De Decretis
or Defense of the Nicene Definition, chap. IV. 17
[36] ibid.
Four Discourses against the Arians, Discourse I, chap. VIII. 28
[37] Elsewhere,
Athanasius asserted :
“Let this, then, Christ –loving
man, be our offering to you, just for a rudimentary sketch and outline, in a
short compass, of the faith of Christ and of His Divine appearing to usward. But you,
taking occasion by this, if you light upon the text of the Scriptures, by
genuinely applying your mind to them, will
learn from them more completely and clearly the exact detail of what we have
said. For they were spoken and
written by God, through men who spoke of God” (N.P.N.F.2, Vol. IV, Athanasius, On the Incarnation of the Word, 56)
Compare
these words of Athanasius to the propositions of the Westminster Confession of
Faith:
“All Things in Scripture are not
alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all: yet those things which are necessary to be
known, believed, and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded, and
opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the
unlearned, in a due use of ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient
understanding of them.” (Chap. I. 7)
There
is a direct relationship of the meanings of both of these statements about the
clarity of the Scripture and the ability of any reader of Scripture to
understand what is to be believed if one “genuinely applies their mind” to
them. Athanasius even went so far as to
say that the Scriptures are the better teacher than any human person. No mention is made of a “sacred tradition”
needed to understand completely and clearly.
Notice Athanasius’ basis for the clarity of the Scriptures is because
they were spoken and written by God!
[38] N.P.N.F.2, Vol. IV, Athanasius,
Against the Heathens, Part I.1-3
[39] ibid. Councils of Arminium and
[40] “In proceeding to make mention of these
things, I shall adopt, to commend my undertaking, the pattern of Luke the
Evangelist, saying on my own account: `Forasmuch as some have taken in hand ,'
to reduce into order for themselves the books termed apocryphal, and to mix
them up with the divinely inspired Scripture, concerning which we have been
fully persuaded, as they who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers
of the Word, delivered to the fathers; it seemed good to me also, having been
urged thereto by true brethren, and having learned from the beginning, to set
before you the books included in the Canon, and handed down, and accredited as
Divine; to the end that any one who has fallen into error may condemn those who
have led him astray; and that he who has continued steadfast in purity may
again rejoice, having these things brought to his remembrance. There are, then, of the Old Testament,
twenty-two books in number; for, as I have heard, it is handed down that this
is the number of the letters among the Hebrews; their respective order and
names being as follows. The first is Genesis, then Exodus, next Leviticus,
after that Numbers, and then Deuteronomy. Following these there is Joshua, the
son of Nun, then Judges, then Ruth. And again, after these
four books of Kings, the first and second being reckoned as one book, and so
likewise the third and fourth as one book. And again, the first and
second of the Chronicles are reckoned as one book. Again
Ezra, the first and second are similarly one book. After these there is
the book of Psalms, then the Proverbs, next Ecclesiastes, and the Song of
Songs. Job follows, then the Prophets, the twelve being reckoned as one book. Then Isaiah, one book, then Jeremiah with Baruch, Lamentations, and7
the epistle, one book; afterwards, Ezekiel and Daniel, each one book.
Thus far constitutes the Old Testament…Again it is not tedious to speak of the
[books] of the New Testament. These are, the four Gospels, according to
Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Afterwards, the Acts of the
Apostles and Epistles (called Catholic), seven, viz. of James, one; of Peter,
two; of John, three; after these, one of Jude. In addition, there are
fourteen Epistles of Paul, written in this order. The first, to the Romans;
then two to the Corinthians; after these, to the Galatians; next, to the
Ephesians; then to the Philippians; then to the Colossians; after these, two to
the Thessalonians, and that to the Hebrews; and again, two to Timothy; one to
Titus; and lastly, that to Philemon. And besides, the
Revelation of John.” (N.P.N.F.2, Vol. IV, Athanasius, Festal Letters, Letter 39)
[41] N.P.N.F.2,
Vol. IV, Athanasius, Festal Letters, Letter
39
[42] ibid., Contra Gentes, 1.1
[43] ibid. Ad Adelphium, 6
[44] namely
as different body of revelation that
exists apart from the Scriptures; that is in the possession only of the
teaching order of the Church; as something necessary to “authentically
interpret” the Scriptures, etc…see the chapter on the Roman Catholic position
on the Bible for a fuller description of Rome’s claims for Sacred Tradition.
[45] Remember, the Athanasian canon DOES
NOT include the apocrypha which
[46] N.P.N.F.2, Vol. IV, Athanasius,
Life of Anthony, 89
[47] Shapland,
C.R.B., The Letters of St. Athanasius
concerning the Holy Spirit, ( Philosophical Library, New York, 1951,) A
letter of Athanasius to Bishop Serapion concerning
the Holy Spirit, Epistle 1.27-29, pg. 133-136 quoted in Holy Scripture vol. III
[48] Roman
Catholic historian, William Jurgens, mention
Augustine’s importance in The Faith of
the Church Fathers (Collegeville: Liturgical, 1979, Vol. III): “If we were faced with the unlikely
proposition to destroy completely either the works of Augustine or the works of
all the other Fathers and Writers, I have little doubt that all the others
would have to be sacrificed . Augustine
must remain.”(pg. 1)
[49] N.P.N.F.1, Vol.
IV, Augustine, On Baptism, 2.4
[50] ibid. De Cresconium, 2.39-40
[51] “For the reasonings of any
men whatsoever, even though they be Catholics, and of high reputation, are not
to be treated by us in the same way as the canonical Scriptures are
treated. We are at liberty, without
doing any violence to the respect which these men deserve, to condemn and
reject anything in their writings, if perchance we shall find that they have
entertained opinions differing from that which others or we ourselves have, by
the divine help, discovered to be the truth.
I deal thus with the writings of others, and I wish my intelligent
readers to deal thus with mine.”
(N.P.N.F.1, Vol. I, Augustine,
Letters of
[52] “Intending to speak, in dependence on
God’s grace, of the day of His final judgment, and to affirm it against the
ungodly and incredulous, we must first of all lay, as it were, in the
foundation of the edifice, the divine declarations.” (N.P.N.F.1, Vol. I, Augustine, City of
[53] N.P.N.F.1, Vol. III, Augustine,
On the Creed, A sermon to Catechumens, 1
[54] ibid.
On Faith and the Creed, 3,11,12,13,14,15,16,21
[55] N.P.N.F.1, Vol. IV, Augustine,
Reply to Faustus the Manichaean, 26.3
[56] N.P.N.F.1,
Vol. II, Augustine, The City of God, Book
XIV, chap. 7
[57] N.P.N.F.1, Vol. IV, Augustine,
Reply to Faustus the Manichaean, 26.3
[58] Fathers of the
Church, (
[59] ibid,
chap., 4,pg. 173
[60] Epistola, LXXXII,
Caput. 3.24, Also
“Now, note carefully and recall
what has been said, so as to see whether I have explained what you submitted to
me, and what seemed difficult to explain.
If you ask how I know, I answer that we read in Scripture, the source of truth: ‘Blessed are the clean in heart,
for they shall see God.’ And other passages of like tenor.” (Fathers
of the Church, Letter, 147, chap. 37, pg. 204)
“You do not put the same faith in
me as you do in Ambrose, from whose books I have drawn this weighty testimony;
or if you do think that we are both to be weighed in the same balance, of
course, you will not compare us in any
way with the Gospel, or put our writings on the same footing with the canonical
Scriptures. Obviously, if you are
wise enough to distinguish correctly, you wee that we fall far short of that authority, and that I fall even farther; however much
credibility you assign to both of us, you compare us in vain to that high standard.” (Fathers of the Church, Letter, 147, chap. 39, pg. 207)
“My reason for inserting these
opinions of such great men on such a great subject was not to make you think
that anyone’s interpretation should be accepted with the authority due to the
canonical Scripture, but that those who are otherwise minded may try to see
with their mind what is true, and to seek God in the simplicity of their heart,
and cease to find fault so rashly with the learned expounders of the divine
words.” (Fathers of the Church, Letter, 147,
chap.. 54, pg. 223)
“I have thought it my duty to quote
all these passages from the writings of both Latin and Greek authors who, being
in the Catholics Church before our time, have written commentaries on the
divine oracles, in order that our brother, if he hold any different opinion
from theirs, may know that it becomes him, laying aside all bitterness of
controversy, and preserving of reviving fully the gentleness of brotherly love,
to investigate with diligent and calm consideration either what he must learn
from others, or what others must learn from him. For the
reasonings of any men whatsoever, even though they be Catholics, and of high reputation, are not to be treated
by us in the same way as the canonical Scriptures are treated. We are at liberty, without doing any violence
to the respect which these men deserve, to condemn and reject anything in their
writings, if perchance we shall find that they have entertained opinions
differing from that which others or we ourselves have, by the divine help,
discovered to be the truth. I deal
thus with the writings of others, and I wish my intelligent readers to deal
thus with mine.” (N.P.N.F.1, Augustine, vol. 1, Letters of
Clearly, Augustine demonstrates the aspect of the
principle of Sola Scriptura that teaches that the Scriptures alone are the sole
infallible rule of faith. All other
“rules of faith” that are not the Scriptures nor based on them are not
necessary to be believed unto salvation.
[61] “For
it cannot be remotely possible that the authority of the Scriptures should be
fallacious at any point.” (Fathers of the
Church, Letter, 147, chap. 14, pg. 181)
“For the authority is extant of the divine Scriptures,
from which our reason ought not to turn aside; nor by leaving the solid support
of the divine utterance, to fall headlong over the precipice of its own surmisings, in matter wherein neither the perceptions of
the body rule, nor the clear reason of the truth shines forth.” (N.P.N.F.1,
Vol. III, Augustine, On the Trinity, Book
III, chap. 11)
[62] N.P.N.F.1,
Vol. VIII, Augustine,
[63] N.P.N.F.1, Vol. VII, Augustine,
Tractates on John, Tractates 49, John 11:1-54. What is particularly interesting about
Augustine’s mention of John 20:30-31 is that Roman Catholic apologist attempt
to use that passage to support the two-source theory of revelation. Their argument from that text is that this
text proves that there is “revelation” that is not recorded in Scripture. However, Augustine’s
understanding of the text, and even the natural meaning of the text does
not support that interpretation, but rather refutes it and gives, yet, another
misuse of Scripture by the Roman Catholic Church. Augustine believed the text to imply that
while much more could have been written, John believed it sufficed for the
salvation of his readers to know only what was written.
[64] N.P.N.F.1,
vol. 1, Augustine, Letters of
“This I have said test any should
blame us as over-bold in handling these matters, or despair of himself that he should be able to understand, by God’s gift,
what the Son of God has deigned to speak to him. Therefore what He has deigned to speak to us,
we ought to believe that He meant us to understand. But if we do not understand He, being asked , gives understanding, who gave His Word unasked.”
(N.P.N.F.1, vol. VII, Augustine,
Tractates on John, Tractate XXII.1)
“John XI. 55-57; XII.
Yesterday’s lesson in the holy Gospel , on
which we spake as the Lord enabled us, is followed by
to-day’s, on which we purpose to speak in the same spirit of dependence. Some passages in the Scriptures are so clear
as to require a hearer rather than an expounder: over such we need not tarry,
that we may have sufficient time for those which necessarily demand a fuller
consideration.” (ibid. Tractate
L.)
[65] N.P.N.F.1,
vol. II, Augustine, On Christian
Doctrine, Book II, chap. 19
[66] ibid., Book II, chap. 6.8
[67] See
“Not by Scripture alone” edited by Robert Sungenis,
pg. 430
[68] “And
now, what we have drawn from the
authority of Scripture ought to be
sufficient to refute the arguments of the heretics.” (A.N.F., Vol. IV. De Principiis,
Book II, chap. 5.3)
[69] “Nor did we evade objections, but we endeavored as far
as possible to hold to and confirm the things which lay before us, and if the
reason given satisfied us, we were not ashamed to change our opinions and agree
with others; but on the contrary,
conscientiously and sincerely, and with hearts laid open before God, we accepted whatever was established by the
proofs and teachings of the Holy Scriptures.” (N.P.N.F.2, Vol. I, The Church History of Eusebius, Book 7, chap. 24)
[70] “In
conformity with evangelic and apostolic
tradition, we believe in one God the Father Almighty, the Creator and
Framer of the universe…And if any one
shall teach contrary to the sound and right faith of the Scriptures,
affirming that there is or was a period or an age before the Son of God existed, let him be accursed. And if any one shall say that the Son is a
creature as one of the creatures, or that he is offspring as one of the offsprings, and shall not hold each of the aforesaid
doctrines as the Divine Scriptures have delivered them to us: or if any one
shall teach or preach any other doctrine contrary to that which we have
received, let him be accursed. For we
truly and unreservedly believe and follow all things handed down to us from the
sacred Scriptures by the prophets and apostles.” (N.P.N.F.2, Vol. II, The Ecclesiastical History, by Socrates Scholasticus,
Book II, chap. 10)
[71] “Believe those
things that are written. What is not written inquire not into.” (Homilia Adversus Calumn. S. Trinitatis. Translation
by William Goode, Vol. 3, p. 132.)
[72] Hilary
of Poitiers wrote, “For he is the best student who
does not read his thoughts into the book, but lets it reveal its own’ who draws from it its sense, and does not
import his own into it, nor force upon its words a meaning which he had
determined was the right one before he opened its pages. Since then we are to discourse of the things
of God, let us assume that God has full knowledge of Himself, and bow with
humble reverence to His words. For He
Whom we can only know through His own utterances is the fitting witness
concerning Himself.” (N.P.N.F.2, Vol.
IX, On the Trinity, Book I.38)