Sola Scriptura in the early Church

The Problem

"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 a 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."
Tertullian, On the Resurrection of the Flesh,3
Recently a few Evangelical Christians have attempted to find the Protestant doctrine of sola Scriptura within the writings of the Church Fathers[1]. These writers do not understand the coordinate role of Tradition and its relationship with Scripture in the ancient Church. Catholic[2], Orthodox[3], Coptic[4] and many Protestant[5] patristic scholars agree that the rule of faith in the early Church consisted of Scripture, Tradition and Church[2]. Not a single Church Father interpreted Sacred Scripture in isolation from the traditional faith of the Church; rather, the Fathers applied Tradition as a rule to interpret Scripture. The only ancient teachers who interpreted Scripture apart from Tradition were the early heretics.

Before the NT was collated and canonized, there were those who would only admit the OT Scripture and reject the oral Christian tradition. St. Ignatius writes:
"And I exhort you to do nothing out of strife, but according to the doctrine of Christ. When I heard some saying, If I do not find it in the ancient Scriptures, I will not believe the Gospel; on my saying to them, It is written, they answered me, That remains to be proved. But to me Jesus Christ is in the place of all that is ancient: His cross, and death, and resurrection, and the faith which is by Him, are undefiled monuments of antiquity."
Epistle to the Philadephians 8:2
St. Ignatius contrasts the authority of this Scriptures-only mentality with the Christian tradition. According to St. Ignatius, one interprets the OT Scripture within the framework of the Christian Gospel.

Some Gnostics not only attempted to falsify the canon of Scripture(such as Marcion) but appealed exclusively to the same and rejected tradition. Eusebius preserves this citation which describes the behavior of those who follow Theodotus, a Unitarian:
"They have treated the Divine Scriptures recklessly and without fear. They have set aside the rule of the ancient faith; and Christ they have not known. They do not endeavor to learn what the Divine Scriptures declare, but strive laboriously after any form of syllogism which may be devised to sustain their impiety. And if any one brings before them a passage of Divine Scripture, they see whether a conjunctive or disjunctive form of syllogism can be made from it."
Church History, V:28:13
These Unitarians relied on Scripture alone and rejected the tradition of the Church. Tertullian of Carthage discovered the futility of interpreting Scripture outside of the framework of the Church and her Tradition. Tertullian writes:
"Our appeal, therefore, must not be made to the Scriptures; nor must controversy be admitted on points in which victory will either be impossible, or uncertain, or not certain enough. But even if a discussion from the Scriptures should not turn out in such a way as to place both sides on a par, (yet) the natural order of things would require that this point should be first proposed, which is now the only one which we must discuss: 'With whom lies that very faith to which the Scriptures belong. From what and through whom, and when, and to whom, has been handed down that rule, by which men become Christians?" For wherever it shall be manifest that the true Christian rule and faith shall be, there will likewise be the true Scriptures and expositions thereof, and all the Christian traditions."
Prescription Against the Heretics, 19
Likewise, St. Athanasius makes the same claim regarding the Arians. According to St. Athanasius the Arians read Scripture according to their own private lights and rejected the traditions of the Church. This is a recurring theme in the writings of the Church Fathers. According to Athanasius, the Arians' rejection of the Church tradition resulted in their divisions and heresy:
"The blessed Apostle approves of the Corinthians because, he says, 'ye remember me in all things, and keep the traditions as I delivered them to you' (1 Cor. xi. 2); but they, as entertaining such views of their predecessors, will have the daring to say just the reverse to their flocks: 'We praise you not for remembering your fathers, but rather we make much of you, when you hold not their traditions.' And let them go on to accuse their own unfortunate birth, and say, 'We are sprung not of religious men but of heretics.' For such language, as I said before, is consistent in those who barter their Fathers' fame and their own salvation for Arianism, and fear not the words of the divine proverb, 'There is a generation that curseth their father' (Prov. ###. 11; Ex. xxi. 17), and the threat lying in the Law against such. They then, from zeal for the heresy, are of this obstinate temper; you, however, be not troubled at it, nor take their audacity for truth. For they dissent from each other, and, whereas they have revolted from their Fathers, are not of one and the same mind, but float about with various and discordant changes."
De Synodis,14
St. Basil of Ceasarea observes the same fatal flaw in those who rejected the deity of the Holy Spirit - the Pneumatomachianists(the Spirit fighters). St. Basil writes:
"It is against us, they say, that they are preparing their engines and their snares; against us that they are shouting to one another, according to each one's strength or cunning, to come on. But the object of attack is faith. The one aim of the whole band of opponents and enemies of 'sound doctrine' is to shake down the foundation of the faith of Christ by levelling apostolic tradition with the ground, and utterly destroying it. So like the debtors,--of course bona fide debtors.--they clamour for written proof, and reject as worthless the unwritten tradition of the Fathers."
Holy Spirit,10:25
Basil could not have provided a more clear passage in contrasting the rule of faith between Catholics and heretics. The Pneumatomachianists, like the Arians and Gnostics, appealed to the Scriptures alone and rejected the tradition of the Church!

St. Augustine finds the wayward principle in the Pelagians and Arians. Pelagius expresses himself as follows: "What we read, therefore, let us believe; and what we do not read, let us deem it wicked to add; and let it suffice to have said this of all cases."
Nature and Grace,46[39]

In other words, Pelagius would only admit what is read within the pages of Holy Writ; hence, like the heretics before him rejected tradition. In the latter part of St. Augustine's life, St. Augustine was involved in an oral debate with an Arian bishop - Maximinus. Maximinus proclaims at the very start of the exchange:
"I did not come to this city in order to stage a debate with Your Holiness. Rather, I am here, sent by Count Segisvult with a view to peace ... If you produce from the divine scriptures something that we all share, we shall have to listen. But those words which are not found in the scriptures are under no circumstances accepted by us, especially since the Lord warns us, saying, In vain they worship me, teaching human commandments and precepts (Mt 15:9)"
Debate with Maximinus,1
In other words, Maximinus rejected all traditional monuments such as Nicea and would only accept what was found in Scripture. Coincidentally, Maximinus appealed to 1 Tim 3:16 in defense of his Bible-only mentality:
"All divinely inspired scripture is useful for teaching (2 Tim 3:16). For that reason, not one least letter or one particle of a letter will pass away (Mt 5:18). The Lord said, Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away (Mt 24:35)."
Debate with Maximinus,15:16
Elsewhere, Maximinus continues to denigrate the authority of tradition and the deity of Christ:
"Even if one produces from testimonies from the divine scriptures all day long, it will not be truly counted against one as wordiness. But if one uses some literary skill or cleverness of mind and makes up words which the holy scriptures do not contain, they are both idle and superfluous."
Debate with Maximinus,13
Time and time again, Maximinus criticizes the traditional monuments such as Trinity and homoousios! Later, Maximinus challenges St. Augustine to defend the deity of the Holy Spirit's on the basis of the Scriptures-alone:
"The truth is not obtained by argumentation, but is proved by certain [scriptural] testimonies. For this reason you ought to produce [scriptural] testimonies that the Holy Spirit is God."
Debate with Maximinus,15:21
Lastly, we visit the arch-heretic Eutyches. Eutyches affirmed after the Incarnation that Christ possessed only one nature not two - the divine and human nature. The Council of Chalcedon writes:
"He[Eutyches] said that he was ready to receive the decrees of the holy fathers assembled in the Councils of Nice and Ephesus, and promises to subscribe to their definitions. But if in their declarations anything by chance should be found either unsound or false, he says that he will neither reject or approve of it: but search the scripture alone as being more solid than all the decrees of the fathers."
Council of Chalcedon, Act 1
In Eutyches we find Luther all over again! What could be more different than Gnosticism, Pelagianism, Arianism, Eutychianism and Pneumatomachianism? Yet, we find the formal principle of sola scriptura applied across these early heresies. The early testimony is clear - if one fails to interpret Scripture within the milieu of Tradition and replace it with a private reading of Scripture than one can come up with about anything. If one wishes to find adherents to the principle of sola scriptura, one need look no further than the proponents of the early heresies.

The Antidote

"Putting aside all Greek literature, they[St. Basil and St. Gregory] are said to have passed thirteen years together in studying the Scriptures alone, and followed out their sense, not from their private opinions, but by the writings and authority of the Fathers."
Rufinus,Church History, 2:9
Notes:

[1] Don Kistler, ed., Sola Scriptura! The Protestant Position on the Bible (Morgan: Soli Deo Gloria, 1996), William Webster, The Church of Rome at the Bar of History (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1995), John Armstrong, ed., Roman Catholicism: Evangelical Protestants Analyze What Divides and Unites Us (Chicago: Moody, 1995)

[2] Congar Yves, Tradition And Traditions (New York: Macmillan, 1966), Gallegos J.A., "What did the Early Fathers teach about Scripture, Tradition, and Church Authority" Not by Scripture Alone, Ed. Robert Sungenis (Santa Barbara:Queenship, 1997), Tavard George, Holy Writ or Holy Church: The Crisis of the Protestant Reformation (New York: Harper, 1959)

[3]John Meyendorff, Living Tradition (Crestwood: St. Vladimir Seminary, 1978)

[4]Fr. Tadros Y. Malaty, Tradition and Orthodoxy (Los Angeles: St George Coptic Church, 1971)

[5] JND Kelly, "Tradition and Scripture" Early Christian Doctrines (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1978), F.W. Dillistone, ed., Scripture and Tradition (London: Lutterworth, 1955), D.H. Williams, Retrieving the Tradition & Renewing Evangelicalism: A Primer for Suspicious Protestants (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999)

This text may downloaded and viewed for private reading only. This text may not be used by another Web site or published, electronically or otherwise, without the written permission of the copyright holder.

Joseph A. Gallegos © 2001 All Rights Reserved.

Documents illustrating the authority of Scripture

HOLY WRIT

'All Scripture, inspired by God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice' 
II Tim 3:16

Fathers of the Church

ANASTASIUS OF ANTIOCH

'It is manifest that those things are not to be inquired into, which Scripture has passed over into silence. For the Holy Spirit has dispensed and administered to us all things which conduce to our profit'
Anagog. Contemp. in Hexem. lib 8 init.

ATHANASIUS
"...from the tokens of truth are more exact as drawn from Scripture, than from other sources..." 
De Decretis, 31

"The Holy and Inspired Scriptures are sufficient of themselves for the preaching of the Truth'
Contra Gentiles, 1:1

"These [canonical] books are the fountains of salvation, so that he who thirsts may be satisfied with the oracles contained in them: in these alone the school of piety preaches the Gospel; let no man add to or take away from them."
Festal Letters 39

"For they were spoken and written by God." 
De Incarnatione 56

"...the Scriptures...will learn from them more completely and clearly the exact detail of what we said"
De Incarnatione 56

"Scripture is of all things most sufficient for us." 
Ad Epis Aeg 4

"Divine Scripture is sufficient above all things." 
De Synodis 6

ANTONY of EGYPT

'The Scriptures are enough for instruction." 
Vita S. Antoni 16

AUGUSTINE

'What more shall I teach you than what we read in the Apostle? For Holy Scripture fixes the rule for our doctrine, lest we dare to be wiser than we ought.'
De Bono Viduitatis 2

'Let us therefore give in ... to the authority of the Holy Scriptures'
De Peccatorum 33

'Let us search for the church in the sacred Scriptures'
Epis 105

'[H]e will find there in much greater abundance things that are to be found nowhere else, but can be learnt only in the wonderful sublimity and wonderful simplicity of the Scriptures' De Doctr. Christ. 2,42,63

'It believes also the Holy Scriptures, old and new, which we call canonical, and which are the source of the faith by which the just lives...'
De Civ. Dei 19,18

BASIL

'The hearers taught in the Scriptures ought to test what is said by teachers and accept that which agrees with the Scriptures but reject what is foreign'
Moralia 72:1

CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

'How can we prove and certify as true something which Sacred Scripture does not attest?'
Glaphyra on Genesis, PG 69,53c

CYRIL of JERUSALEM

'In regard to the divine and holy mysteries of the faith, not the least part may be handed on without the Holy Scriptures. Do not be led astray by winning words and clever arguments. Even to me, who tell you these things, do not give ready belief, unless you receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of the things which I announce. The salvation in which we believe is not proved from clever reasoning, but from the Holy Scriptures. 
Catechetical Lectures 4,17. 

'Nothing must be taught without the Sacred Scriptures'
PG 33,476-7

CHRYSOSTOM

'Therefore I beg you all that you give up what appeals to this one or that one and that you address all these questions concerning these things to the Scriptures.'
Homily 13 on 2 Corinthians

'If anything is said without Scripture, the thinking of the hearers limps. But where the testimony proceeds from the divinely given Scripture, it confirms both the speech of the preacher and the soul of the hearer'
Commenting on Psalm 95

'But when Scripture wants to teach us something like that, it interprets itself and does not permit the hearer to err. I therefore beg and entreat that we close our ears to all these things and follow the canon of the Holy Scripture exactly'
Homily 13 on Genesis

'As a trusty door, Scripture shuts out heretics, securing us from error...'
Joann. 58

'Everything in the divine Scriptures is clear and straightforward; they inform us about all that is necessary'
Epis 2 ad Thess 3,4

GREGORY OF NYSSA

'Therefore let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the word of God, in favor of that side will be cast the vote of truth'
Ep. Ad Eustathius

IRENAEUS(The Father of Tradition) 

'[B]eing most properly assured that the Scriptures are indeed perfect, since they were spoken by the Word of God'
Against Heresies 2,28,2

'The apostles at that time first preached the Gospel but later by the will of God, they delivered it to us in the Scriptures, that it might be the foundation and pillar of our faith'
Against Heresies 3,1

'Since, therefore, the tradition from the apostles does thus exist in the Church, and is permanent among us, let us revert to the Scriptural proof furnished by those apostles who did also write the Gospel, in which they recorded the doctrine regarding God, pointing out that our Lord Jesus Christ is the truth, and that no lie is in Him'
Against Heresies 3,5,1

JEROME

'Ignorance of Scriptures is Ignorance of Christ' In Is. Prologue

ORIGEN

'It is necessary to take the Holy Scriptures as witnesses; for our comments and statements without these witnesses are not trustworthy' In Jerem 1,7

'For he knows that Scripture, as a whole, is God's One Perfect and Complete Instrument, giving forth, to those who wish to learn its one saving music...'
In Matt. tom 2

TERTULLIAN

"If it is nowhere written, then let it fear the woe which impends on all who add to or take away from the written word"
Ad Hermogenes 22

'It is right that His conduct be investigated according to the rule of Scripture'
Ad Marcion 3,17

THEOPHILUS OF ANTIOCH

'It would be acting according to demonic inspiration to follow the thinking of the human mind and to think there could be anything divine apart from the authority of the Scriptures'
Pascal Letter of 401

This text may downloaded and viewed for private reading only. This text may not be used by another Web site or published, electronically or otherwise, without the written permission of the copyright holder.

Joseph A. Gallegos © 1997 All Rights Reserved.

	   The Inspired Scripture  "Look carefully into the Scriptures, which are the true utterances of the Holy Spirit." Clement of Rome[regn c91-c101],Letter to the Corinthians,45(A.D. 98),in ANF,I:17  "But when you hear the utterances of the prophets spoken as it were personally, you must not suppose that they are spoken by the inspired themselves, but by the Divine Word who moves them." Justin Martyr,First Apology,36(A.D. 155),in ANF,I:175  "We should leave things of that nature to God who created us, being most properly assured that the Scriptures are indeed perfect, since they were spoken by the Word of God and His Spirit; but we, inasmuch as we are inferior to, and later in existence than, the Word of God and His Spirit, are on that very account destitute of the knowledge of His mysteries." Irenaeus,Against Heresies,2,28:2(A.D. 180),in ANF,I:399  "Moreover, concerning the righteousness which the law enjoined, confirmatory utterances are found both with the prophets and in the Gospels, because they all spoke inspired by one Spirit of God." Theophilus,To Autolycus,3:12(A.D. 181),in ANF,II:114  "This teaching the apostle knows as truly divine. 'Thou, O Timothy,' he says, 'from a child hast known the holy letters, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation, through faith that is in Christ Jesus.' For truly holy are those letters that sanctify and deify; and the writings or volumes that consist of those holy letters and syllables, the same apostle consequently calls 'inspired of God, being profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished to every good work.' " Clement of Alexandria,Exhortation to the Greeks,9,82:1(A.D. 200),in ANF,II:196  "What, then, is the Paraclete's administrative office but this: the direction of discipline, the revelation of the Scriptures, the reformation of the intellect, the advancement toward the 'better things?' " Tertullian,On the Veiling of Virgins,1:5(A.D. 213),in ANF,IV:27  "They have treated the Divine Scriptures recklessly and without fear. They have set aside the rule of ancient faith;... But how daring this offense is, it is not likely that they themselves are ignorant. For either they do not believe that the Divine Scriptures were spoken by the Holy Spirit, and thus are unbelievers, or else they think themselves wiser than the Holy Spirit, and in that case what else are they than demoniacs?" Hippolytus of Rome,Against Artemon,Fragment in Eusebius' EH 5,28:15,18(A.D. 230),in NPNF2,I:248  "Then, finally, that the Scriptures were written by the Spirit of God, and have a meaning, not such only as is apparent at first sight, but also another, which escapes the notice of most. For those (words) which are written are the forms of certain mysteries, and the images of divine things." Origen,Fundamental Doctrines,1,Preface:8(A.D. 230),in ANF,IV:241  "Reading and observing this, we certainly think that no one is to be restrained from the fruit of satisfaction, and the hope of peace, since we know, according to the faith of the divine Scriptures, God Himself being their author, and exhorting in them, both that sinners are brought back to repentance, and that pardon and mercy are not denied to penitents." Cyprian,To Antonianus,Epistle 51[55]:27(A.D. 252),in ANF,V:335  "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 which 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 unreasonable." Athanasius,Against the Heathen,1(A.D. 318),in NPNF2,IV:4  Now these the divinely-inspired Scriptures of both the Old and the New Testament teach us. For the God of the two Testaments is One, Who in the Old Testament foretold the Christ Who appeared in the New; Who by the Law and the Prophets led us to Christ's school. For before faith came, we were kept in ward under the law, and, the law hath been our tutor to bring us unto Christ. And if ever thou hear any of the heretics speaking evil of the Law or the Prophets, answer in the sound of the Saviour's voice, saying, Jesus came not to destroy the Law, but to fulfil it. Learn also diligently, and from the Church, what are the books of the Old Testament, and what those of the New." Cyril of Jerusalem,Catechetical Lectures,4:33(A.D. 350),in NPNF2,VII:26  "We however, who extend the accuracy of the Spirit to the merest stroke and tittle, will never admit the impious assertion that even the smallest matters were dealt with haphazard by those who have recorded them" Gregory of Nazianzen,Oration II:105(A.D. 362),in NPNF2,VII:225  "How can he who calls Scripture 'God-inspired,' because it was written through the inspiration of the Spirit, use the language of one who insults and belittles Him?" Basil,On the Spirit,21(A.D. 375),in NPNF2,VIII:34  "How, then, does He not possess all that pertains to God, Who is named by priests in baptism with the Father and the Son, and is invoked in the oblations, is proclaimed by the Seraphim in heaven with the Father and the Son, dwells in the Saints with the Father and the Son, is poured upon the just, is given as the source of inspiration to the prophets? And for this reason in the divine Scripture all is called theopneustos because God inspires what the Spirit has spoken." Ambrose,On the Holy Spirit,3,16:112(A.D. 381),in NPNF2,X:151  "The Scripture, 'given by inspiration of God,' as the Apostle calls it, is the Scripture of the Holy Spirit, and its intention is the profit of men. For 'every scripture,' he says, 'is given by inspiration of God and is profitable'; and the profit is varied and multiform, as the Apostle says--'for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.' " Gregory of Nyssa,Against Eunomius,7:1(A.D. 384),in NPNF2,V:192  "Knowing then these things, and collecting instances of the like kind from the inspired divine Scriptures (for it is possible to find many such examples in the case of various other persons) we deem that neither a difficulty arising from seasons or events, nor compulsion and force, nor the arbitrary authority of potentates furnish a sufficient excuse for us when we transgress." John Chrysostom,None can harm him who does not injure himself,(A.D. 406),in NPNF1,IX:283-4  "And if a man in searching the Scriptures endeavors to get at the intention of the author through whom the Holy Spirit spoke, whether he succeeds in this endeavor, or whether he draws a different meaning from the words, but one that is not opposed to sound doctrine, he is free from blame so long as he is supported by the testimony of some other passage of Scripture. For the author perhaps saw that this very meaning lay in the words which we are trying to interpret; and assuredly the Holy Spirit, who through him spoke these words, foresaw that this interpretation would occur to the reader, nay, made provision that it should occur to him, seeing that it too is founded on truth. For what more liberal and more fruitful provision could God have made in regard to the Sacred Scriptures than that the same words might be understood in several senses, all of which are sanctioned by the concurring testimony of other passages equally divine?" Augustine,Christian Instruction,3,27:38(A.D. 426),in NPNF1,II:567  "By the grace of the spirit they dived into the depths of God-inspired scripture and both themselves perceived its mind, and made it plain to all that are willing to learn." Theodoret of Cyr,To the Monks,Epistle 151(A.D. 431),in NPNF2,III:332  "All Scripture, then, is 'given by inspiration of God and is also assuredly profitable.' Wherefore to search the Scriptures is a work most fair and most profitable for souls. For just as the tree planted by the channels of waters, so also the soul watered by the divine Scripture is enriched and gives fruit in its season, viz. orthodox belief, and is adorned with evergreen leafage, I mean, actions pleasing to God. For through the Holy Scriptures we are trained to action that is pleasing to God, and untroubled contemplation." John Damascene,Orthodox Faith,17(A.D. 743),in NPNF2,IX:89     This text may downloaded and viewed for private reading only. This text may not be used by another Web site or published, electronically or otherwise, without the written permission of the copyright holder.  Joseph A. Gallegos © 2000 All Rights Reserved. 	

Free From All Error

"Ye are fond of contention, brethren, and full of zeal about things which do not pertain to salvation. Look carefully into the Scriptures, which are the true utterances of the Holy Spirit."
Clement,To the Corinthians(A.D. 98),in ANF,I:17

"And Trypho said, 'Being shaken by so many Scriptures, I know not what to say about the Scripture which Isaiah writes, in which God says that He gives not His glory to another, speaking thus 'I am the Lord God; this is my name; my glory will I not give to another, nor my virtues.'And I answered, 'If you spoke these words, Trypho, and then kept silence in simplicity and with no ill intent, neither repeating what goes before nor adding what comes after, you must be forgiven; but if[you have done so] because you imagined that you could throw doubt on the passage, in order that I might say the Scriptures contradicted each other, you have erred. But I shall not venture to suppose or to say such a thing; and if a Scripture which appears to be of such a kind be brought forward, and if there be a pretext[for saying] that it is contrary[to some other], since I am entirely convinced that no Scripture contradicts another, I shall admit rather that I do not understand what is recorded, and shall strive to persuade those who imagine that the Scriptures are contradictory, to be rather of the same opinion as myself."
Justin Martyr,Dialogue with Trypho,65(A.D. 155),in ANF,I:230

"If, however, we cannot discover explanations of all those things in Scripture which are made the subject of investigation, yet let us not on that account seek after any other God besides Him who really exists. For this is the very greatest impiety. We should leave things of that nature to God who created us, being most properly assured that the Scriptures are indeed perfect, since they were spoken by the Word of God and His Spirit; but we, inasmuch as we are inferior to, and later in existence than, the Word of God and His Spirit, are on that very account destitute of the knowledge of His mysteries."
Irenaeus,Against Heresies,2,28:2(A.D. 180),in ANF,I:399

"It behoved, therefore, that he should the rather become a scholar of God in this matter of legislation, as he himself confessed that in no other way could he gain accurate information than by God's teaching him through the law. And did not the poets Homer and Hesiod and Orpheus profess that they themselves had been instructed by Divine Providence? Moreover, it is said that among your writers there were prophets and prognosticators, and that those wrote accurately: who were informed by them. How much more, then, shall we know the truth who are instructed by the holy prophets, who were possessed by the Holy Spirit of God! On this account all the prophets spoke harmoniously and in agreement with one another, and foretold the things that would come to pass in all the world. For the very accomplishment of predicted and already consummated events should demonstrate to those who are fond of information, yea rather, who are lovers of truth, that those things are really true which they declared concerning the epochs and eras before the deluge: to wit, how the years have run on since the world was created until now, so as to manifest the ridiculous mendacity of your authors, and show that their statements are not true."
Theophilus of Antioch,To Autolycus,17(A.D. 181),in ANF,II:116

"Therefore they[the followers of Artemon's heresy] have laid their hands boldly upon the Divine Scriptures, alleging that they have corrected them...But how daring this offense is, it is not likely that they themselves are ignorant. For either they do not believe that the Divine Scriptures were spoken by the Holy Spirit, and thus are unbelievers, or else they think themselves wiser than the Holy Spirit, and in that case what else are they than demoniacs?"
Hippolytus of Rome,Fragment in Eusebius' EH 5:28(A.D. 230),in NPNF2,I:248

"In the case I have supposed where the historians desire to teach us by an image what they have seen in their mind, their meaning would be found, if the four were wise, to exhibit no disagreement; and we must understand that with the four Evangelists it is not otherwise."
Origen,Commentary on John,10:4(A.D. 232),in ANF,X:383

" 'Blessed are the peacemakers. ...' To the man who is a peacemaker in either sense there is in the Divine oracles nothing crooked or perverse, for they are all plain to those who understand. And because to such an one there is nothing crooked or perverse, he sees therefore abundance of peace in all the Scriptures, even in those which seem to be at conflict, and in contradiction with one another."
Origen,Commentary on Matthew,2(A.D. 244),in ANF,X:413

"Now it is the opinion of some, that the Scriptures do not agree together, or that God, Who gave the commandment, is false. But there is no disagreement whatever, far from it, neither can the Father, Who is truth, lie; 'for it is bimpossible that God should lie,' as Paul affirms. But all these things are plain to those who rightly consider them, and to those who receive with faith the writings of the law."
Athanasius,To Rufinus,Epistle 19:3(A.D. 347),in NPNF2,IV:546

"And nothing of discrepancy will be found in Sacred Scripture, nor will there be found any statement in opposition to any other statement."
Epiphanius,Panarion,70:7(A.D. 377),in JUR,II:75

"I am not, I repeat, so ignorant as to suppose that any of the Lord's words is either in need of correction or is not divinely inspired."
Jerome,To Marcellus,27:1(A.D. 385),in NPNF2,VI:44

"I have been reading also some writings, ascribed to you, on the Epistles of the Apostle Paul. In reading your exposition of the Epistle to the Galatians, that passage came to my hand in which the Apostle Peter is called back from a course of dangerous dissimulation. To find there the defence of falsehood undertaken, whether by you, a man of such weight, or by any author (if it is the writing of another), causes me, I must confess, great sorrow, until at least those things which decide my opinion in the matter are refuted, if indeed they admit of refutation. For it seems to me that most disastrous consequences must follow upon our believing that anything false is found in the sacred books: that is to say, that the men by whom the Scripture has been given to us, and committed to writing, did put down in these books anything false. It is one question whether it may be at any time the duty of a good man to deceive; but it is another question whether it can have been the duty of a writer of Holy Scripture to deceive: nay, it is not another question -- it is no question at all. For if you once admit into such a high sanctuary of authority 'one false statement as made in the way of duty,1 there will not be left a single sentence of those books which, if appearing to any one difficult in practice or hard to believe, may not by the same fatal rule be explained away, as a statement in which, intentionally, and under a sense of duty, the author declared what was not true."
Augustine,To Jerome,Epistle 28,3:3(A.D. 395),in NPNF1,I:251-252

"For I confess to your Charity that I have learned to yield this respect and honour only to the canonical books of Scripture: of these alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error. And if in these writings I am perplexed by anything which appears to me opposed to truth, I do not hesitate to suppose that either the Ms. is faulty, or the translator has not caught the meaning of what was said, or I myself have failed to understand it."
Augustine,To Jerome,Epistle 82,1:3(A.D. 405),in NPNF1,I:350

"If we are perplexed by an apparent contradiction in Scripture, it is not allowable to say, The author of this book is mistaken; but either the manuscript is faulty, or the translation is wrong, or you have not understood."
Augustine,Reply to Faustus the Manichean,11:5(A.D. 400),in NPNF1,IV:180

This text may downloaded and viewed for private reading only. This text may not be used by another Web site or published, electronically or otherwise, without the written permission of the copyright holder.

Joseph A. Gallegos © 1999 All Rights Reserved.

Documents illustrating the coordinate authority of Sacred Tradition

HOLY WRIT

'[A]nd maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you'
1 Corinthians 11:2

Fathers of the Church

AMBROSE

'But if they will not beleive the doctrines of the priests, let them beleive Christ's oracles, let them beleive the admonitions of angels who say, "For with God nothing is impossible". Let them beleive the apostles CREED WHICH the ROMANS CHURCH as always kept undefiled'
To Sircius

ATHANASIUS

'The confession arrived at Nicea was, we say more, SUFFICIENT and enough by ITSELF, for the subversion of all ireligious heresy, and for the security and furtherance of the doctrine of the Church'
Ad Afros 1

'But the WORD OF THE LORD which came THROUGH the Ecumenical Synod at Nicea, abides forever'
Ad Afros 2

'forcing on the divine oracles a misinterpretation according to their OWN PRIVATE sense'
Orat 1,37

'...that He was not before that time, but is wholly man by nature and nothing more. But this is NO sentiment of the CHURCH, but of the Samosatene and of the present Jews...'
Orat 1,38

"This then I consider the sense of this passage, and that, a VERY ECCLESIASTICAL sense." 
Orat 1,44

'Who heard in his FIRST CATECHISING, that God has a Son and has made all things by His proper Word, *BUT* understood it in THAT SENSE in which we now mean it? Who on the rise of this odious heresy of the Arians, was not startled at what he heard, as *strange* '
Orat 2,34

"However here too they(the Arians) introduce their private fictions, and contend that the Son and the Father are not in such wise 'one,' or 'like,' as the CHURCH preaches, but as they themselves would have it" Orat 3,10

"If we now consider the OBJECT of that FAITH which we Christians HOLD, and using it as a RULE, apply ourselves, as the Apostle teaches to the reading of inspired Scripture. For Christ's enemies, being ignorant of this OBJECT, have wandered from the way of truth, and have stumbled on a stone of stumbling, thinking otherwise than they should think"
Orat 3,28

'let us, retaining the GENERAL SCOPE of the faith, acknowledge that what they interpret ill, HAS a right intepretation'

Had Christ enemies thus dwelt on these thoughts, and recognized the ECCLESIASTICAL SCOPE and an ANCHOR for the faith, they would NOT have made SHIPWRECK of the faith..." 
Orat 3,58

"We are content with the fact that this is not the teaching of the Catholic Church, nor did the Fathers hold this." 
Epis 59

"But our faith is right, and starts from the teaching of the Apostles and tradition of the fathers, being confirmed both by the NT and the Old." 
Epis 60

"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 thesaints 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

'Scarcely, however, did they begin to speak, when they were condemned, and one differed from another; then perceiving the straits in which their heresy lay, they remained dumb, and by their silence confessed the disgrace which came upon their heterodoxy. On this the Bishops, having negatived the terms they had invented, published against them the SOUND and ECCLESIASTICAL faith....And what is strange indeed, Eusebius of Caesarea in Palestine, who had denied the day before, but afterward subscribed, sent to his Church a letter, saying that this was the CHURCH's faith and the TRADITION of the FATHERS'
De Decretis 3

'Are they not then committing a crime in their very thought to gainsay so GREAT and ECUMENICAL a Council'? 
De Decretis 4

'For, what OUR FATHERS have delivered, THIS IS TRULY DOCTRINE; and this is truly the TOKEN of doctors, to CONFESS THE SAME THING with each other, and to vary NEITHER from themselves nor from their FATHERS...Thus the Greeks, as not witnessing to the SAME doctrines, but quarreling one with another, have no truth of teaching; but the holy and veritable HERALDS of TRUTH AGREE TOGETHER, and do not differ..preaching the same Word harmoniously'
De Decretis 4

'...and it is seemingly and most irreligious when Scripture contains such images, to form ideas concerning our Lord from others which are neither in Scripture, nor have any religious bearing. THEREFORE let them tell us FROM WHAT TEACHER or BY WHAT TRADITION they derived these notions concerning the Saviour?...But they seem to me to have a wrong understanding of this passage also; for it has a RELIGIOUS and VERY ORTHODOX sense, which had they understood, they would NOT have blasphemed the Lord of glory'
De Decretis 13

'...and in dizziness about TRUTH, are full set upon accusing the COUNCIL, let them tell us what are the Scriptures from what they have learned , or WHO is the saint by whom they have BEEN TAUGHT...'
De Decretis 18

'MUST needs hold and intend the decisions of the Council, suitably regarding them to signify the relation of the RADIANCE to the LIGHT, and FROM THENCE gaining the illustration TO THE TRUTH'
De Decretis 20

'We are PROVING that THIS view has been TRANSMITTED from FATHER to FATHER, but ye, O modern Jews and disciples of Caiaphas, how many FATHERS CAN YE ASSIGN to your phrases? Not one of the understandings and wise; for all abhor you, but the devil alone; none but he is your father in this apostasy, who both in the beginning sowed you with the seed of this IRRELIGION, and now persuades you to slander the ECUMENICAL Council, for committing to writing, not YOUR doctrines, but that which from the BEGINNING those who were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word have handed down to us. For the faith which the COUNCIL has confessed in writing, that is the faith of the Catholic Church; to assert this, the BLESSED FATHERS so expressed themselves while condemning the Arian heresy...'
De Decretis 27

'...For they dissent from each other, and , whereas they have revolted from THEIR FATHERS, are not of ONE AND THE SAME MIND, but float about with various and discordant changes'
De Synodis 13

'For it is right and meet thus to feel, and to maintain a good conscience toward the FATHERS, if we be not spurious children, but have received the TRADITIONS from them, and the LESSONS of religion at their hands'
De Synodis 47

'Such then, as we confess and beleive, being the SENSE of the FATHERS...'
De Synodis 48

'...but do you, remaining on the foundation of the Apostles, and holding fast the TRADITIONS of the FATHERS, pray that now at length all strife and rivalry may CEASE and the futile questions of the heretics may be condemned...'
De Synodis 54

'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 desrires'
C. Gentes 1

'But the sectaries, who have fallen away from the TEACHING of the CHURCH, and made SHIPWRECK concerning the faith'
C. Gentes 6

'But that the soul is made immortal is a further point in the CHURCH'S TEACHING which you must know...'
C. Gentes 33

'But what is also to the point, let us note that the very TRADITION, teaching, and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning was preached by the Apostles and PRESERVED by the FATHERS. On this the CHURCH was founded; and if anyone departs from THIS, he neither is, nor any longer ought to be called, a Christian.'
Ad Serapion 1,28

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 89

AUGUSTINE

"For in the Catholic Church, not to speak of the purest wisdom, to the knowledge of which a few spiritual men attain in this life, so as to know it, in the scantiest measure, indeed, becuase they are but men, still without any uncertainty...The consent of peoples and nations keep me in Church, so does her authority, inaugerated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age. The SUCCESSION of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the APOSTLE PETER, to whom the Lord, after his resurrection, gave it in charge to feed his sheep, down to the present EPISCOPATE...The epistle begins thus:--'Manicheus, an apostle of Jesus Christ, by the providence of God the Father. These are the wholesome words from the perennial and living fountain.' Now, if you please, patiently give heed to my inquiry. I do not beleive Manichues to be an apostle of Christ. Do not, I beg you, be enraged and begin to curse. For you know that it is my rule to beleive none of your statements without consideration. Therefore I ask, who is this Manicheus? You will reply, An Apostle of Christ. I do not beleive it. Now you are at a loss what to say or do; for you promised to give knowledge of truth, and here you are forcing me to beleive what I have no knowledge of. Perhaps you will read the gospel to me, and will attempt to find there a testimony to Manicheus. But should you meet with a person not yet beleiving in the gospel, how would you reply to him were he to say, I do not beleive? For MY PART, I should NOT BELEIVE the gospel except moved by the authority of the Catholic Church. So when those on whose authority I have consented to beleive in the gospel tell me not to beleive in Manicheus, how can I BUT CONSENT?" 
C. Epis Mani 5,6

"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 universal Church which the authority of these same Scriptures recommends to you"
C. Cresconius I:33

"It is obvious; the faith allows it; the Catholic Church approves; it is true"
Sermon 117:6

"If therefore, I am going to beleive things I do not know about, why should I not believe those things which are accepted by the common consent of learned and unlearned alike and are established by most weighty authority of all peoples?" 
C. Letter called Fundamentals 14:18

"Will you, then, so love your error, into which you have fallen through adolescent overconfidence and human weakness, that you will seperate yourself from these leaders of Catholic unity and truth, from so many different parts of the world who are in agreement among themselves on so important a question, one in which the essence of the Christian religion involved..?" 
C. Julian 1:7,34

"The authority of our Scriptures, strenghtened by the consent of so may nations, and confirmed by the succession of the Apostles, bishops and councils, is against you"
C. Faustus 8:5

"No sensible person will go contrary to reason, no Christian will contradict the Scriptures, no lover of peace will go against the CHURCH"
Trinitas 4,6,10

BASIL

"Let us now investigate what are our common conceptions concerning the Spirit, as well those which have been gathered by us from Holy Scripture AS WELL those which have been gathered concerning it as those which we have RECEIVED from the UNWRITTEN tradition of the Fathers" 
Holy Spirit 22

"Of the beliefs and practices whether generally accepted or enjoined which are preserved in the Church some we possess derived from written teaching; others we have delivered to us in a mystery by the Apostles by the tradition of the Apostles; and both of these in relation to true religion have the same force"
Holy Spirit 27

"The day would fail me, if I went through the mysteries of the Church which are not in Scripture. I pass by the others, the very confession of faith, in Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, from what written document have we?" 
Holy Spirit 67

"While the unwritten traditions are so many and their bearing on 'the mystery of godliness' is so important, can they refuse us a single word which has come down to us from the Fathers;--which we found, derived from untutotred custom, abiding in unpreverted churches;--a word for which contributes in no small degree to the completeness of the force of the mystery"
Holy Spirit 67

"In answer to the objection that the doxology in the form 'with the Spirit' has NO written authority, we maintain that if there is not other instance of that which is unwritten, then this must not be recieved. But if the great number of our mysteries are admitted into our constitution without written authority, then, in company with many others, let us recieve this one. For I HOLD IT APOSTOLIC TO ABIDE BY THE UNWRITTEN TRADITIONS. 'I praise you,' it is said, 'that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances as I have delivered them to you;' and 'Hold fast the traditions which ye have been taught whether by by word, or our Epistle.' One of these traditions is the practice which is now before us, which they who ordained from the beginning, rooted firmly in the churches, delivering it to their SUCCESSORS, and its use through long custom advances pace by pace with time. If as in a court of Law, we were at a loss for documentary evidence, but were able to bring before you a large number of witnesses, would you not give your vote for our aquittal? I think so; for 'at the mouth of two or three witnesses shall the matter be established'. And if we could prove clearly to you that a long period of time was in our favour, should we not have seemed to you to urge you with reason that this suit ought not to be brought into court against us? For ancient dogmas inspire a certain sense of awe, venerable as they are with hoary antiquity"
Holy Spirit 71

"...and I have not allowed my judgement concerning them to rest wholly with myself, but have followed the decisions given about them by our Fathers." 
Epis 204,6

Basil continues affirming that he would receive the Arians if they started: "accepting the Nicene Creed.." 
Epis 204,6

Basil Continues: 

"is to be recieved without hesitation and difficulty, citing in support of his opinion the unanimous assent of the bishops of Macedonia and Asia"
Eps 204,6

Again repudiating private opinion and affirming Scripture, tradition and Church. Regarding the authority of St. Athanasius, the unanimous consent of Bishops, and Nicean Creed, Basil writes: 

"considering myself bound to follow the high authority of such a man and of those who made the rule, and with every desire on my part to win the reward promised peacemakers, did enroll in the lists of communicants all who accepted that creed. The fair thing would be to judge of me, not from one or two who do not walk uprightly in the truth, but from the multitiude of bishops throughout the world, connected with me by the grace of the Lord... you may learn that we are all of one mind and of one opinion. Whoso shuns communion with me, it cannot escape your accuracy, CUTS himself off from the whole Church."
Epis 204,6-7

'Not to accept the VOICE of the Fathers as being of more authority than their OPINION deserves reproof as something filled with pride!'
Epis to Canonicas

CYPRIAN

To Pope Cornelius

'After all this, they yet in addition, having had a false bishop ordained for them by heretics, dare to set sail, and to carry letters from schismatic and profane persons to the CHAIR of Peter, and the PRINCIPLE CHURCH, whence the unity of the priesthood took its rise. They fail to reflect that those Romans are the same as those who faith was publicly praised by the apostle, to whom unbelief CANNOT have access"
Ep 59:14

CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA

Speaking of his own teachers, 

'But they, safeguarding the TRUE tradition of the blessed teachin, which comes straight from the Apostles Peter, James, John and Paul and transmitted from father to son have come down to us with the help of God to deposit in us those acenstral and apostolic seeds'
Stromata 1,11

Right after Clement repudiates the private interpretation of the Gnostics he writes: 

'For US...having grown old in the Scriptures, PRESERVING the Apostolic and ecclesiastical correctness of doctrine, living a life according to the Gospel, is led by the Lord to discover the proofs from the Law and the prophets which he seeks.' 
ibid 7,104

COUNCIL OF NICEA I(AD 325) 

'We believe in ONE HOLY CATHOLIC and APOSTOLIC ++++CHURCH++++'
Nicene Creed

COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE II(AD 553) 

'We confess that(we) hold and declare the faith given from the beginning by the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ to the Holy Apostles, and preached by them in the whole world; which the sacred FATHERS CONFESSED and EXPLAINED, and HANDED down to the holy churches, and especially(those fathers) who assembled in the four sacred Synods, whom we follow and accept through all things and in all things...judging as at odds with piety all things, indeed, which are not in accord with what has been defined as RIGHT FAITH by the same four holy Councils, we condemn and anathematize.'

COUNCIL OF NICEA II(AD 787) 

'If anyone rejects all ecclesiastical tradition either written or not written...let him be anathema'

CYRIL of JERUSALEM

'But in learning the Faith and in professing it, acquire and keep that only, which is now DELIVERED TO THEE by THE CHURCH, AND which has been built up strongly out of all the SCRIPTURES.'
Catechetical Lectures 5,12

'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

CHRYSOSTOM

'So then, brethren, stand fast, and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word, or by our epistle of ours'. Hence it is manifest, that they did not deliver all things by Epistle, but many things unwritten, and in like manner both the one and the other are worthy of credit. Therefore let us think the tradition of the Churh also worthy of credit. It is a tradition seek no farther." 
Homilies on 2 Thess 2:15

"We may answer, that what is here written, was sufficient for those who would attend, and that the sacred writers ever addressed themsleves to the matter of immediate importance, whatever it might be at that time: it was no object with them to be writers of books: in fact, there are many things which have been delivered by UNWRITTEN TRADITION. Now while all that is contained in this Book is worthy of admiration, so is especially the way the Apostles have of coming down to the wants of their hearers: a condescension suggested by the Spirit who has so ordered it, that the subject on which they cheifly dwewll is that pertains to Christ as man. For so it is, that while they discourse so much about Christ, they have spoke little concerning His Godhead: it was mostly of the manhood that they discoursed, and of the Passion, and the Resurrection, and the Ascencion." 
Homilies on Acts 1,1

"Not in vain did the Apostles order that remembrance should be made of the dead in the dreadful mysteries" 
Hom Phil 3,4

EPIPHANIUS OF SALAMIS

'But for all the divine words, there is no need of allegory to grasp the meaning; what is necessary is study and understanding to know the MEANING of each statement. We must have recourse to TRADITION, for all cannot be received from the divine Scriptures. That is why the holy Apostles handed down certain things in writings but others by TRADITIONS. As Paul said:" Just as I handed them on to you." '
Panarion 61,6

GREGORY of NAZIANZUS

"My sheep hear my voice, which I heard from the oracles of God, which I have been taught by the Holy FATHERS, which I have taught alike on all occasions, not conforming myself to the opportune, and which I will never cease to teach; in which I was born, and in which I will depart"
Orat 33,15

"I desire to learn what is this fashion of innovation in things concerning the Church..But since our faith has been proclaimed, both in writing and without writing, here and in distant parts, in times of danger and of safety, how comes it that some make such attempts, and that others keep silence?" 
Epis 101

GREGORY of NYSSA

"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." 
C. Eunomius 4:6

"...I say, that the Church teaches this in plain langauge, 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

"They, on the other hand, who change their doctrines to this novelty, would need the support of their arguments in abundance, if they were to bring over to their views, not men light as dust, and unstable, but MEN of weight and steadiness: but so long as their statement is advanced without being established, and without being proved, who is so foolish ad so brutish as to account the teaching of the evangelists and apostles, AND of those who successively shone like lights in the churches, of less force than this undemonstrated nonsense"
C. Eunomius 4,6

HILARY OF POITIERS

'It behooves us not to withdraw from the CREED which we have received...nor to back off from the faith which we have recieved from through the prophets ... or to back-slide from the Gospels. Once laid down, it continues even to this day through the TRADITION of the FATHERS'
Ex. Oper. Hist. Fragment 7,3

HIPPOLYTUS OF ROME

'It is NOT by drawing on the Holy Scriptures NOR BY GUARDING the TRADITION of some holy person that the HERETICS have formulated these doctrines.'
Refutation of All Heresies 1,Preface

IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH

'If I do not find it in the ancient Scriptures(OT), I will not beleive the Gospel; on my saying to them, It is written, they answered me, That remains to be proved. But to me Jesus Christ is in the place of all that is ancient: His cross, and death and resurrection, and the FAITH which is by Him are undefiled monuments of antiquity..'
Epis Philadelphians 8,2

'Follow the bishop, all of you, as Jesus Christ follows his Father, and the presbterium as the Apostles. As for the deacons, respect them as the Law of God. Let no one do anything with reference to the Church without the bishop. Only that Eucharist may be regarded as legitimate which is celebrated with the bishop or his delegate presiding. Where the bishop is, there let the community be, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church'
Epis Symyrnaens 8

IRENAEUS(The Father of Tradition) 

'The apostles at that time FIRST PREACHED the Gospel but later by the will of God, they delivered it to us in the Scriptures, that it might be the foundation and pillar of our faith'
Against Heresies(AH) 3,1

'Since, therefore, the TRADITION from the apostles DOES thus EXIST in the Church, and is PERMAMENT AMONG US, let us revert to the Scriptural proof furnished by those apostles who did also write the Gospel, in which they recorded the doctrine regarding God, pointing out that our Lord Jesus Christ is the truth, and that no lie is in Him'
AH 3,5,1

"Through none others know we the disposition of our salvation, than those through whom the gospel came to us, first heralding it, then by the will of God delivering to us the Scriptures, which were to be the foundation and pillar of our faith...But when, the heretics are Scriptures,as if they were wrong, and unauthoritative, 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 what 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. The Tradition of the Apostles, manifested 'on the contrary' in the whole world, is open in every Church to all who see the truth...And, 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'
AH 3,1-3

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?'
AH 3,4:1

2)a living authority

"Wherefore it is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church...those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have recieved the certain gift of truth..." 
AH 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"
AH 3,3:3

"Then I have pointed out the truth, and shown the preaching of the Church, which the prophets proclaimed(as I have already demonstrated), but which Christ brought to perfection, and the apostles have handed down , from which the Church, recieving [these truths], and throughout all the world alone preserving them in their integrity, has transmitted them to her sons. Then also-having disposed of all questions which the heretics propose to us, and having explained the doctrine of the apostles, and clearly set forth many of those things which were said and done by the Lord in parables--I shall endeavor, in this fifth book of the entire work which treats of the exposure and refutation of knowledge falsely so called, to exhibit proofs from the rest of the Lord's doctrine and apostolic epistles; [thus] complying with demand, as thou didst request of me(since indeed I have been assigned a place in ministry of the word); and, labouring by every means...and convert them to the Church of God...that they may preserve stedfast the faith which they have recieved, guarded by the Church in its integrity, in order that they be in no way preverted by those who endeavor to teach them false doctrine..." 
AH V Preface

"Now all these [heretics] are of much later date than the bishops to whom the apostles committed to the Churches; which fact I have in the third book taken all pains to demonstrate. It follows, then, as a matter of course, that these aforementioned, since they are blind to the truth,and deviate from the [right] way, will walk in various roads; and therefore the footsteps of their doctrine are scattered here and there without agreement or connection. But the path of those belonging to the Church circumscribes the whole world, as possessing the sure tradition of the Apostles, and gives unto us to see that the faith of all is one and the same ....And undoubtily the preaching of the Church is true and stedfast, in which one and the same way of salvation is shown throughtout the whole world...For the Church preaches the truth everywhere..." 
AH V 20,1

"Those, therefore, who desert the preaching of the Church, call in question the knowledge of the holy presbyters....It behoves us, therefore, to avoid their doctrines, and take careful heed lest we suffer any injury from them; but to flee to the Church, and be brought up in her bosom, and be nourished with the Lord's Scriptures." 
AH V 20,2

Episcopal Succession

"Wherefore it is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church, those who as I have shown, possess succession from the apostles; those who, together with the succession of bishops, have recieved the CERTAIN GIFT of TRUTH, according to the good pleasure of the Father. But [it is also uncumbent] 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] recieve from God the same punishments as Jeroboam did"
AH 4,26:2

"Heretics assent neither to Scripture nor to Tradition"
AH 3,2,1

JEROME

'Do you demand Scripture proof? You may find it in Acts of the Apostles. And even if it did NOT REST on the authority of the Scripture the CONSENSUS of the WHOLE WORLD in this respect would have the force of COMMAND...'
C. Dialogue Luciferians 8

'And let them not flatter you themselves if they think they have Scripture authority sinc the devil himself has quoted Scripture texts...we could all, while preserving in the letter of Scripture, read into it some novel doctrine'
ibid 28

JOHN DAMASCUS

'So, then in expectation of His coming we worship toward the East. But this tradition of the apostles is unwritten. For much that has been handed down to us by tradition is unwritten'
Orthodox Faith 4,12,16

'Moreover that the Apostles handed down much that was unwritten, Paul, the Apostle of the Gentiles, tells us in these words: "Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which ye have been taught of us, whether by word or epistle" And to the Corinthians he writes, "Now I praise your brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the traditions as I have delivered them to you.'
Orthodox Faith 4,16

'He who does not beleive according to the tradition of the Catholic Church is an unbeleiver'
C. Nestorians

MAXIMUS THE CONFESSOR

'I have no private opinion, but only agree with the Catholic Church'
Quoted from 'From the Housetops' Vol 9, No.2 Serial 23 , p28

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

TERTULLIAN

"We do not take our scriptural teaching from the parables but we interpret the parables according to our TEACHING"
Purity 9,1

'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

THEODORET OF CYRUS

'This teaching has been handed down to us not only by the Apostles and prophets but also by those who have INTERPRETED their writings, Ignatius, Eustathius, Athanasius, Basil, Gregory...and other lights of the world and before them, by the HOLY FATHERS gathered at Nicea whose confession of faith we have kept intact, as the inheritance from a Father, while those who dare to VIOLATE THEIR TEACHINGS, we call corrupt and enemies of truth'
Epis 89

THEODOSIUS, says Socrates

'..This being an anxious matter to Nectarius, Sicinnius advised him to avoid all dialectic contests, and to APPEAL to the STATEMENTS of THE ANCIENTS, and to put the question to the heresiarchs from the Emperor whether they made any account of the doctors who belonged to the Church before the division or came to issue with them as aliens from Christianity'
Hist 5,10

VINCENT OF LERINS

Vincent of Lerins remarks(as many of the Fathers do) that the first thing the heretic says to affirm his position is: 

'It is written...!'

'When anyone asks one of these heretics who presents arguments: Where are the proofs of your teacing that I should leave behind the world-wide and ancient faith of the Catholic Church? He will jump in before you have finished with the question: "It is written" He follows up immediately with thousands of texts and examples...'
Commonit 1,26

"Here perhaps, someone may ask: Since the canon of the Scripture is complete and more than sufficient in itself, why is it necessary to add to it the authority of ecclesiastical interpretation? As a matter of fact, [we must answer] Holy Scripture, because of its depth, is not universally accepted in one and the same sense. The same text is interpreted different by different people, so that one may almost gain the impression that it can yield as many different meanings as there are men. Novatian, for example, expounds a passage in one way; Sabellius, in another; Donatus, in another. Arius, and Eunomius, and Macedonius read it differently; so do Photinus, Apollinaris, and Priscillian; in another way, Jovian, Pelagius, and Caelestius; finally still another way, Nestorius. Thus, becuase of the great distortions caused by various erros, it is, indeed, necessary that the trend of the interpretation of the prophetic and apostolic writings be directed in accordance with the rule of the ecclesiastical and Catholic meaning"
Comm 2

This text may downloaded and viewed for private reading only. This text may not be used by another Web site or published, electronically or otherwise, without the written permission of the copyright holder.

Joseph A. Gallegos © 1997 All Rights Reserved.

Private Exegesis apart from Tradition and Church

"True knowledge is [that which consists in] the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient constitution of the Church throughout all the world, and the distinctive manifestation of the body of Christ according to the successions of the bishops, by which they have handed down that Church which exists in every place, and has come even unto us, being guarded and preserved without any forging of Scriptures, by a very complete system of doctrine, and neither receiving addition nor [suffering] curtailment [in the truths which she believes]; and [it consists in] reading [the word of God] without falsification, and a lawful and diligent exposition in harmony with the Scriptures, both without danger and without blasphemy; and [above all, it consists in] the pre-eminent gift of love, which is more precious than knowledge, more glorious than prophecy, and which excels all the other gifts [of God]."
Irenaeus,Against Heresies,4,33:8 (inter A.D. 180-199),in ANF,I:508

"But if there be any (heresies) which are bold enough to plant themselves in the midst of the apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the apostles, because they existed in the time of the apostles, we can say: Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [that first bishop of theirs] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men, ùa man, moreover, who continued stedfast with the apostles. For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter. In exactly the same way the other churches likewise exhibit (their several worthies), whom, as having been appointed to their episcopal places by apostles, they regard as transmitters of the apostolic seed. Let the heretics contrive something of the same kind. For after their blasphemy, what is there that is unlawful for them (to attempt)? But should they even effect the contrivance, they will not advance a step. For their very doctrine, after comparison with that of the apostles, will declare, by its own diversity and contrariety, that it had for its author neither an apostle nor an apostolic man; because, as the apostles would never have taught things which were self-contradictory, so the apostolic men would not have inculcated teaching different from the apostles, unless they who received their instruction from the apostles went and preached in a contrary manner. To this test, therefore will they be submitted for proof by those churches, who, although they derive not their founder from apostles or apostolic men (as being of much later date, for they are in fact being founded daily), yet, since they agree in the same faith, they are accounted as not less apostolic because they are akin in doctrine. Then let all the heresies, when challenged to these two tests by our apostolic church, offer their proof of how they deem themselves to be apostolic. But in truth they neither are so, nor are they able to prove themselves to be what they are not. Nor are they admitted to peaceful relations and communion by such churches as are in any way connected with apostles, inasmuch as they are in no sense themselves apostolic because of their diversity as to the mysteries of the faith."
Tertullian,On Prescription against the Heretics,32 (c.A.D. 200),in ANF,III:258

"For those are slothful who, having it in their power to provide themselves with proper proofs for the divine Scriptures from the Scriptures themselves, select only what contributes to their own pleasures. And those have a craving for glory who voluntarily evade, by arguments of a diverse sort, the things delivered by the blessed apostles and teachers, which are wedded to inspired words; opposing the divine tradition by human teachings, in order to establish the heresy."
Clement of Alexandria,Stromata,7:16 (post A.D. 202),in ANF,II:553-554

"When heretics show us the canonical Scriptures, in which every Christian believes and trusts, they seem to be saying:'Lo, he is in the inner rooms [ie., the word of truth] ' (Matt 24.6). But we must not believe them, nor leave the original tradition of the Church, nor believe otherwise than we have been taught by the succession in the Church of God."
Origen,Homilies on Matthew,Homily 46,PG 13:1667 (ante A.D. 254),in CON,392

"For the method of godliness consists of these two things, pious doctrines, and virtuous practice: and neither are the doctrines acceptable to God apart from good works, nor does God accept the works which are not perfected with pious doctrines. For what profit is it, to know well the doctrines concerning God, and yet to be a vile fornicator? And again, what profit is it, to be nobly temperate, and an impious blasphemer? A most precious possession therefore is the knowledge of doctrines: also there is need of a wakeful soul, since there are many that make spoil through philosophy and vain deceit. The Greeks on the one hand draw men away by their smooth tongue, for honey droppeth from a harlot's lips: whereas they of the Circumcision deceive those who come to them by means of the Divine Scriptures, which they miserably misinterpret though studying them from childhood to all age, and growing old in ignorance. But the children of heretics, by their good words and smooth tongue, deceive the hearts of the innocent, disguising with the name of Christ as it were with honey the poisoned arrows of their impious doctrines: concerning all of whom together the Lord saith, Take heed lest any man mislead you. This is the reason for the teaching of the Creed and for expositions upon it."
Cyril of Jerusalem,Catechetical Lectures,4:2 (A.D. 350),in NPNF2,VII:19

"And, O wretched heretic! you turn the weapons granted to the Church against the Synagogue, against belief in the Church's preaching, and distort against the common salvation of all the sure meaning of a saving doctrine."
Hilary of Poitiers,On the Trinity,12:36 (inter A.D. 356-359),in NPNF2,IX:227

"But since they allege the divine oracles and force on them a misinterpretation, according to their private sense, it becomes necessary to meet them just so far as to vindicate these passages, and to shew that they bear an orthodox sense, and that our opponents are in error."
Athanasius,Discourse Against the Arians,I:37(A.D. 362),in NPNF2,IV:327-328

"To refuse to follow the Fathers, not holding their declaration of more authority than one's own opinion, is conduct worthy of blame, as being brimful of self-sufficiency."
Basil,EpistleTo the Canonicae,52:1 (A.D. 370),in NPNF2,VIII:155

"While (the sects) mutually refute and condemn each other, it has happened to truth as to Gideon; that is, while they fight against each other, and fall under wounds mutually inflicted, they crown her. All the heretics acknowledge that there is a true Scripture. Had they all falsely believed that none existed, some one might reply that such Scripture was unknown to them. But now that have themselves taken away the force of such plea, from the fact that they have mutilated the very Scriptures. For they have corrupted the sacred copies; and words which ought to have but one interpretation, they have wrested to strange significations. Whilst, when one of them attempts this, and cuts off a member of his own body, the rest demand and claim back the severed limb....It is the church which perfect truth perfects. The church of believers is great, and its bosom most ample; it embraces the fulness (or, the whole) of the two Testaments."
Ephraem,Adv. Haeres. (ante A.D. 373),in FOC,I:377-378

"Who knows not that what separates the Church from heresy is this term, 'product of creation, ' applied to the Son? Accordingly, the doctrinal difference being universally acknowledged, what would be the reasonable course for a man to take who endeavors to show that his opinions are more true than ours?"
Gregory of Nyssa,Against Eunomius,4:6 (inter A.D. 380-384),in NPNF2,V:162

"For heresies, and certain tenets of perversity, ensnaring souls and hurling them into the deep, have not sprung up except when good Scriptures are not rightly understood, and when that in them which is not rightly understood is rashly and boldly asserted. And so, dearly beloved, ought we very cautiously to hear those things for the understanding of which we are but little ones, and that, too, with pious heart and with trembling, as it is written, holding this rule of soundness, that we rejoice as in food in that which we have been able to understand, according to the faith with which we are imbued;"
Augustine,On the Gospel of John,Homily XVIII:1 (A.D. 416 et 417),NPNFI,VII:117

"If you produce from the divine scriptures something that we all share, we shall have to listen. But those words which are not found in the scriptures are under no circumstance accepted by us, especially since the Lord warns us, saying, In vain they worship me, teaching human commandments and precepts'(Mt 5:19) "
Maximinus(Arch-Arian Heretic),Debate with Maximinus,1 (c.A.D. 428),in AAOH,188

"Therefore, as I said above, if you had been a follower and assertor of Sabellianism or Arianism or any heresy you please, you might shelter yourself under the example of your parents, the teaching of your instructors, the company of those about you, the faith of your creed. I ask, O you heretic, nothing unfair, and nothing hard. As you have been brought up in the Catholic faith, do that which you would do for a wrong belief. Hold fast to the teaching of your parents. Hold fast the faith of the Church: hold fast the truth of the Creed: hold fast the salvation of baptism."
Cassian,John,Incarnation of the Lord,6:5 (c.A.D. 429/430),in NPNF2,XI:593-594

"I have often then inquired earnestly and attentively of very many men eminent for sanctity and learning, how and by what sure and so to speak universal rule I may be able to distinguish the truth of Catholic faith from the falsehood of heretical pravity; and I have always, and in almost every instance, received an answer to this effect: That whether I or any one else should wish to detect the frauds and avoid the snares of heretics as they rise, and to continue sound and complete in the Catholic faith, we must, the Lord helping, fortify our own belief in two ways; first, by the authority of the Divine Law, and then, by the Tradition of the Catholic Church."
Vincent of Lerins,Commonitory,2:4 (c.A.D. 434),in NPNF2,XI:132

"But the Church of Christ, the careful and watchful guardian of the doctrines deposited in her charge, never changes anything in them, never diminishes, never adds, does not cut off what is necessary, does not add what is superfluous, does not lose her own, does not appropriate what is another's, but while dealing faithfully and judiciously with ancient doctrine, keeps this one object carefully in view,ùif there be anything which antiquity has left shapeless and rudimentary, to fashion and polish it, if anything already reduced to shape and developed, to consolidate and strengthen it, if any already ratified and defined to keep and guard it. Finally, what other object have Councils ever aimed at in their decrees, than to provide that what was before believed in simplicity should in future be believed intelligently, that what was before preached coldly should in future be preached earnestly, that what was before practised negligently should thenceforward be practised with double solicitude ? This, I say, is what the Catholic Church, roused by the novelties of heretics, has accomplished by the decrees of her Councils,ùthis, and nothing else,ùshe has thenceforward consigned to posterity in writing what she had received from those of olden times only by tradition, comprising a great amount of matter in a few words, and often, for the better understanding, designating an old article of the faith by the characteristic of a new name."
Vincent of Lerins,Commonitory,23:59 (c.A.D. 434),in NPNF2,XI:148-149

"[A]ll heresies, that they evermore delight in profane novelties, scorn the decisions of antiquity, and ...make shipwreck of the faith. On the other hand, it is the sure characteristic of Catholics to keep that which has been committed to their trust by the holy Fathers...."
Vincent of Lerins,Commonitory,24:63 (c.A.D. 434),in NPNF2,XI:150

"His (Nestorius) first attempt at innovation was, that the holy Virgin, who bore the Word of God, who took flesh of her, ought not to be confessed to be the mother of God, but only the mother of Christ; though of old, yea from the first, the preachers of the orthodox faith taught, agreeably to the apostolic tradition, that the mother of God. And now let me produce his blasphemous artifice and observation unknown to any one before him."
Theodoret of Cyrus,Compendium of Heretics' Fables,12 (c.A.D. 453),in FOC,I:449

This text may downloaded and viewed for private reading only. This text may not be used by another Web site or published, electronically or otherwise, without the written permission of the copyright holder.

Joseph A. Gallegos © 1997-1998 All Rights Reserved.

Fathers.zip Debate

A Debate between 

Joe Gallegos(Catholic layman) 

& 

James White(Director of Alpha/Omega Ministries) 

On the rule of faith in the ancient Catholic Church

This written debate took place on a BBS echo during April of 1993

Introduction

JG:
James:GodSpeed

The Point of Controversy:

JW:

"The Apostles...delivered the Gospel...in the Scriptures"--Irenaeus 
"Holy Scripture fixes the rule for our doctrine." --Augustine 
"Let us come to...the testimony of the Holy Scriptures" --Augustine 
"Let us seek the church in the books of the Lord." --Augustine 
"Let us search for the church in the sacred Scriptures" --Augustine 
"I am disposed to avoid every assembly of bishops." --Gregory N. 
"Hearers should test what teachers say by Scripture" -- Basil 
"Let God-inspired Scripture decide between us." --Basil, A.D. 374 
"These canonical books are the fountains of salvation." --Athanas. 
Scriptures are sufficient for...preaching...the Truth. --Athanasius 
"We have spoken...our theology from the Scriptures." --Athanasius 
"The Scriptures were spoken and written by God." --Athanasius 
"We can learn the exact details of faith from Scripture. -Athanas. 
"The tokens of truth are more exact as drawn from Scripture." 
"The Scriptures are enough for instruction." --Antony 
"Scripture is of all things most sufficient for us." --Athanasius 
"Divine Scripture is sufficient above all things." --Athanasius 
"Address all these questions to the Scriptures." -- Chrysostom

JG:
You have provided the above tag-line set for your off-line mailreader in support of the novel notion that the Church Fathers embraced Sola-Scriptura as their rule of faith in contrast to the Catholic rule of faith consisting of Scripture, Tradition and Church.

The Beginning

JG:
After re-reading your posts to me, re-reading your works on the subject, and re-listening to your debates regarding Sola Scriptura it has come to my attention that you are confusing the issue of the Father's view of the 'sufficiency of Scripture' and the reformers concept of 'Sola Scriptura'. Therefore I want to spend some time in providing some definitions and important distinctions here before I proceed.

Sola Scriptura includes a couple of points...1) that in a 'material' sense Scriptures contains ALL the truths of Christ and His Apostles for us today and 2) that in a 'formal' sense the Scriptures are able by themselves to provide the means whereby we know what these teachings are...In short Sola Scriptura says that the Bible contains the whole of faith AND via the internal witness of the Holy Spirit the Christian is able to find the doctrines there. Hence we have the ancillary doctrines such as 'the doctrine of the perspecuity of the Bible' and 'the doctrine that only Scripture interprets Scriptures'. Hence there is no room for Tradition or Church in the doctrine of Sola Scriptura at 1)providing truths outside of the Scriptures OR 2)providing the ability whereby one finds this truth.

Regarding the material principle of Sola Scriptura James writes in "Answers to CC":
"What we are told is that everything necessary for life and godliness has been revealed to us (2 Peter 1:3)" 
and under a footnote on this passage James' continues: 
"And note that this is to be found in the same passage wherein Peter will assert the divine nature of the Scriptural Revelation(verses 20-21)" 
pg 147
The point inferred by you is that everything necessary for the Christian faith is contained within the covers of the Sacred Scriptures.

Regarding the 'formal' principle of Sola Scriptura we read in James White's "Answers to CC":
"Hence, if the Bible is His Word, then the Bible will be sufficient IN AND OF ITSELF for the determination of all those doctrines and truths addressed within its pages" pg 35
Again, this formal sufficiency is stated by J.I. Packer: 
'What was new was the beleif, borne in upon the Reformers by their OWN experience of Bible study, that Scripture can and does intepret ITSELF to the faithful within--Scripture is its own intepreter...' 
God's Inerrant Word;Sola Scriptura in History & Today pg 44
Likewise the same is taught by Calvin and his pupil De Chandieu: 
'The Scriptures...are the sure rule of faith and are known NOT so much by the common accord and consent of the Church as by the testimony and illumination of the Holy Spirit' 
Creeds of Christendom, Schaff pg 361
Likewise the same is expressed in the Westminster Confession: 
'The authority of the Holy Scriptures for which it ought to be beleived and obeyed, dependeth NOT upon the testimony of any man or church,, but wholly on God(who is truth itself), the author thereof; and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God. Yet, notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth, and divine authorship thereof, is from the INWARD work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in OUR hearts'
I offer these creeds to state the classic 'sola scriptura' position before us rather than deal with my obvious objections to these Sola Scriptura creeds such as putting a wedge between the work of the Holy Spirit in an individual Christian versus the work of the Holy Spirit in the Church(as we have in Council, the Fathers, universal catechesis of the faith etc.).

The point of controversy in these set of replies is this: did the Fathers affirm the Catholic rule of faith consisting of Scripture, Tradition and Church or did they affirm the Protestant rule of faith (Sola Scriptura) which interprets Scripture via private exegesis?

Let state on the onset that the Catholic Church affirms and admits the 'material' sufficiency(apart from the canonical issues of the Bible) of both the Scriptures itself and Tradition itself....both have the same Divine origin and but differ in modes only....

That is why the Catholic Church will NOT base a doctrine(apart from canon of the Bible) only on tradition alone or on Scripture alone--the belief must find a touchstone in both! For example, in Ott's "Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma" you will find Ott religiously appealing to BOTH Scripture and Tradition. All doctrines of the Catholic faith are found explicitly or implicitly in the pages of Holy Writ...the same goes for Tradition.

Tradition has some advantages(there are others): 1)it permits fullness, which the written text would have narrowed down to the limits of clear exposition and 2)it is by it's nature a community phenomenon--whereas the text could be read by an individual by him or herself, tradition by it's very nature fufills the communal aspects of Church.

Scripture too has some advantages(there are others): 1)has the dignity which always and everywhere has gained for itself, 2)contain the actual words of Our Lord and Savior, and 3)It is fixed under one cover.

In sum, Tradition allows the Church to preserve God's saving Word in it's fullness while Scripture ensures the preservation of it's purity!

Regarding the 'material' sufficiency of Scriptures let me provide some texts which I have quoted previously and some which you have provided.

Tertullian writes: 
"Let the school of Hermogenes show us that it is mentioned in Scripture, if it is not in Scripture, let it fear the woe destined for those who add or take away" 
C. Herm c22
Origen writes: 
"It is necessary to take the Holy Scriptures as witnesses; for our comments and statements without these witnesses are not trustworthy" 
In Jerem Hom i,7
Cyprian writes: 
"...imploring the divine directions, which God has vouchsafed through the Holy Scriptures for our grounding and building up"
Athnasasius writes: 
"The sacred and inspired Scriptures suffice for the defence of the truth" 
Orat i
John Chrysostom writes: 
"Everything in the divine Scriptures is clear and straightfoward; they inform us about all that is necessary" 
Epis 2 Thess 3,4
Cyril of Jerusalem writes 
"The certitude of our faith does not depend on reasoning based on whim, but on the teaching drawn from the Scriptures"
Catech IV
Augustine writes: 
"If anyone, in matters relating to Christ, or His Church, or any other thing which belongs to faith...besides what we have received in the Scriptures...let him be accursed" 
C. Lit Petilian iii 7
Jerome writes: 
"ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance if Christ" 
In Is., prologue
Vincent of Lerins writes: 
"the Canon of the Scriptures is perfect, and sufficient.." 
Commonitories
Middle Ages

Anselm, Aquinas, Bonaventure et.al say the same:

Aquinas writes: 
"The reason for this is that only the canonical Scriptures are normative for faith..." 
Comm on John 21
Bonaventure writes that all Christian doctrine is to be taken: 
"ex fundamento sacrae Scripturae" 
Opusc 13
However, even though the Catholic Church and the early Fathers admit a material sufficiency of the Bible it maintains that Tradition, Church and Scripture are inseparable...and that the one cannot understand the meaning of the Sacred Scripture without Tradition and Church! That is why the early Fathers can admit a sufficiency of the Bible and the existence of unwritten traditions at the same time....In sum, the Fathers admitted a material sufficiency of the Bible but no less affirmed its formal 'insufficiency'! All things can be found within the pages of Holy Writ(implicitly or explicity) but for a proper and authentic understanding of Scripture something else is required--that is, Tradition and Church.

Vincent of Lerins make the same point. We read in his Commonitories: 
"Here perhaps, someone may ask: Since the canon of the Scripture is complete and more than sufficient in itself, why is it necessary to add to it the authority of ecclesiastical interpretation? As a matter of fact, [we must answer] Holy Scripture, because of its depth, is not universally accepted in one and the same sense. The same text is interpreted different by different people, so that one may almost gain the impression that it can yield as many different meanings as there are men. Novatian, for example, expounds a passage in one way; Sabellius, in another; Donatus, in another. Arius, and Eunomius, and Macedonius read it differently; so do Photinus, Apollinaris, and Priscillian; in another way, Jovian, Pelagius, and Caelestius; finally still another way, Nestorius. Thus, becuase of the great distortions caused by various erros, it is, indeed, necessary that the trend of the interpretation of the prophetic and apostolic writings be directed in accordance with the rule of the ecclesiastical and Catholic meaning" 
Comm 2
Similarly, John Henry Newman writes regarding the differences between the Anglican and Catholic way of knowing to his old friend Pusey: 
"You have made a collection of passages from the Fathers, as witnesses in behalf of your doctrine that the whole Christian faith is contained in Scripture, as if, in your sense of the words, Catholics contradicted you here. And you refer to my notes on St. Athanasius as contributing passages to your list; but, after all, neither do you, nor do my notes, affirm any doctrine which Rome denies. Those notes also make reference to a traditional teaching, which (be the faith ever so certainly contained in Scripture), still is necessary as a Regula fidei, for showing us that it is contained there; vid. pp 283,341; and this tradition, I know, you uphold as fully as I do in the notes in question. In consequence, you allow that there is a twofold rule, Scripture and Tradition, and that is all that Catholics say. How then do Anglicans differ from Rome here? I beleive the difference is one of words... Catholics and Anglicans(I do not say Protestants), attach different meanings to the word 'proof', in the controversy as to whether the whole faith is or is not contained in Scripture. We mean that not every article of faith is so contained there, that it may thence be logically proved, independently of the teaching and authority of Tradition; but Anglicans mean that every article of faith is so contained there, that it may be thence proved, provided there be added the illustrations and compensations supplied by Tradition. And it is in this latter sense that the Fathers also speak in the passages which you quote from them. I am sure St. Athanasius frequently adduces passages in proof of points in controversy, which no one would see to be proofs, unless Apostolic Tradition were taken into account, first as suggesting, then as authoritatively ruling, their meaning. Thus you do not say, that the whole of revelation is in Scripture in such a sense that pure unaided logic can draw it from the sacred text;..." 
Letter to Rev Pusey
The Greek Orthodox faith which have seperated from the Catholic Church a millenium ago and draw from the same Tradition and venerate the same Church Fathers likewise affirm the same principle. We read: 
"We have just said that Scripture contained the ENTIRETY(emphasis mine)of the apostolic witness. This entirety, however, is not a verbal entirety, just as the authenticity of scriptural texts is not necessarily a formal or verbal authenticity. The Word of Life is not a theological encylopedia which has only to be opended at the right page for the desired information to be found, exhaustively treated. As for instance the works of Oscar Cullman or Joachim Jeremias have shown, modern exegesis discovers more and more that essential Christian truths, such as the doctrine of the sacraments, not treated directly by the inspired authors, are considered by them as self-evident. Jesus' logia on the Bread of Heaven, the Vine, or 'water springin up into life' (even if the sacramental interpretation of these passages is not the only possible one) cannot be fully understood if one ignores the fact that Christians in the first century practiced Baptism and performed the Eucharist. This makes it quite clear that Scripture, while complete in itself, presupposes Tradition, not as an addition, but as a =milieu= in which it becomes understandable and meaningful" 
John Meyendorff "Living Tradition" pg 15,16; pub by St. Vladimir's Seminary Press.
Irenaeus echoes the same thoughts: 
"So forceful are these arguments that no one should henceforth seek the truth from ANY OTHER source since it would be simple to get it from the CHURCH....On this account are we bound to avoid them, but to make choice of the things pertaining to the Church with the utmost diligence, and to lay hold of the tradition of the truth...For how should it be if the Apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of tradition which they handed down to those whom they commit the Churches" 
Against Heresies
In sum James, you have have been equating the Church's affirmation of the material sufficiency of Scripture(apart from the canonical issues) with Sola Scriptura. All is in Tradition and All is in Scripture. Hence the Catholic Church denies the formal principle of Sola Scriptura Which is, that the Bible itself is incapable by itself of bring forth the meaning of all the doctrines contained therein.

In fact James, you deny this principle implicitly seeing that you posted a Creed affirmed by Alpha/Omega Ministries. Why if the Bible is the only thing you need since you write: 
"Hence, if the Bible is His Word, then the Bible will be sufficient IN AND OF ITSELF for the determination of all those doctrines and truths addressed within its pages"
pg 35
For the Fathers, Scripture, Tradition and Church are inseparable. There can be no more Scripture rightly understood without the Church, than there can be Church without Scripture.

In Christ Jesus
Joe

Your Book

JG:
James:GodSpeed

Agreed...I think James silence and non-use of the Fathers in his own chapter(chp 4 of "Answers to CC") on the Sufficiency of the Scriptures speaks pretty loudly and is representative of Protestant theology..

JW:
my debate with Gerry Matatics, all quotes from the Fathers, but ONE, came from me, as you well know.

JG:
And what does that have to do with your silence of the Fathers in Chapter 4 of "Answers to CC"?

JW:
What "silence"? The chapter wasn't *meant* to even begin to discuss the topic, Joe. That's not silence. _Answers_ was originally just the appendix to _The Fatal Flaw_.

JG:
James this is my point exactly--that Protestant writing(like your chapter 4 for affirming the Scriptures sufficiency) for the most part due to their epistomological method of Sola Scriptura and the fact that they have despaired in reconciling their theology with the early Church have for the most part not appealed to the early Church for those distinctive beliefs that separate Catholics and Protestants...

It is odd that you did not offer just one text from the Fathers affirming the reformers Sola Scriptura?

JW:
pages. Dr. Morey said, "Hey, split it off, write intros, smooth things out some, and you have your second book."

JG:
I heard that Dr. Morey is fairly critical of Catholicism as well...Could you provide me info on a newsletter I heard he offers?

JW:
fact that Sue Widemark can be caught red-handed in an abject lie, and not one Roman Catholic on this echo will even DARE to call her to

JG:
James--When I showed you(on the Open-Bible echo) a mistake you made during a debate with Gerry--you replied that you had forgotten--when I reminded you that you made a blunder you replied simply by the words, 'I thought you meant a real mistake'--what bothers me here James is your candor and forthrightness....

JW:
{ chuckle } I really wish I could upload a "sound file" about this supposed "mistake," Joe. I had said that a "majority of passages" taught such and such a thing; Gerry said, "Well, if it's just a majority, then do the others teach something differently?" When I got up I said, "Thank you for catching that mistake, Gerry; *all* the passages teach that, not just a majority." We all laughed and went on from there. The "mistake" was a mere instance of mis-speaking, and had NOTHING at all to do with the substance of the debate. { And, if the Inquisition wants to pursue that one, tapes are available. }

JG:
James--it is a mistake--no matter the degree...I was questioning your candor and forthrightness regarding the matter...the response of "I thought you meant a real mistake" was hardly an admission of a mistake!

In Christ Jesus
Joe

St. Irenaeus!

JG:
James:GodSpeed

Now let me rebut your replies regarding the Fathers and Sola Scriptura.

St. Irenaeus... 
"Through none others know we the disposition of our salvation, than those through whom the gospel came to us, first heralding it, then by the will of God delivering to us the Scriptures, which were to be the foundation and pillar of our faith...But when, the heretics are Scriptures,as if they were wrong, and unauthoritative, 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 what 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. The Tradition of the Apostles, manifested 'on the contrary' in the whole world, is open in every Church to all who see the truth...And, 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" 
Hor. 3:1-3
JW:
Hor 3:1-3? I think you mean "Irenaeus Against Heresies, Book III, chapters 1 through 3." Tell me, Joe: was Irenaeus correct when he said that God had intended that the *Scriptures* were to be the foundation and pillar of our faith? Just wondering. I'm thankful I don't have to make Irenaeus' statement into an "apostolic tradition."

JG:
Yes Irenaeus considered the Scriptures(which were BTW for Irenaeus for the most part the OT [Septuagint]) as the pillar and foundation of our faith but this is light years from Sola Scriptura. Since Irenaeus would of made this claim only in light of Tradition and Church. For Irenaeus, as for the rest of the Fathers, the sufficieny of the Scriptures was never apart from Tradition and Church. In this light Catholics would agree to a material sufficiency of the Bible. However this same Irenaeus while affirming the sufficiency(ie. material) He affirms the Scripture's 'formal' insufficiency.

I've already showed you(above) that Irenaeus NEVER appealed to the Scriptures APART from Church('tradition...guarded by the succession of elders') or Tradition('who were ignorant of tradition...')! This is a complete denial of the formal principle of Sola Scriptura.

JW:
In the first section you failed to quote, Irenaeus told us that Mark "handed down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter." (ANF 1:414). Sounds to me like that would cause a problem with the idea that Peter preached things which were *not* written down. Or would you say that Mark left out a lot of important material?

JG:
Not at at all--where does it say that ALL that Peter preached is contained in Mark's Gospel?

JW:
Now, sadly, you also skipped over one of the most important parts, the final section of chapter 1, which defines the real issues at hand here, and, I feel, creates insuperable problems for the defender of Roman Catholic teachings. Please note:

JG:
James--no passage from the early Church Fathers is going to surprise the Catholic Church--since we been around and have read the Church Fathers for the past few centuries...

JW: 
These have all declared to us that there is one God, Creator of heaven and earth, announced by the law and the prophets; and one Christ, the Son of God. If any one do not agree to these truths, he despises the companions of the Lord; nay more, he despises Christ Himself the Lord; yea, he depises the Father also, and stands self-condemned, resisting and opposing his own salvation, as is the case with all heretics 
(ANF 1:414-415).
This is *vitally* important, Joe! The argument with the gnostics (that spurred more than one of your favorite citations regarding "tradition") was over the very fundamental nature of God. Some of the gnostics were so far removed from the truth that they could identify Jehovah as the demiurge responsible for creation, yet denied that Jehovah was the Father of Jesus!

JG:
The reason the Gnostics were so removed from the truth was that they were not interpreting the Scriptures in the grid of Tradition preserved in the Church. Irenaeus was rejecting the Gnostics use of tradition that was not above the board(a secret tradition if you will). Irenaeus clearly affirmed a tradition(apart from Scripture) that was held universally, a tradition that was entrusted to the Church, guarded/transmitted by succession of bishops... 
'It comes to this, therefore, these men do now consent to neither the Scriptures nor to tradition'
AH 3,2:2;
The error of the Gnostics was that they were making a selection from Scripture here, a selection there, without reading the passage within the grid of Tradition, as transmitted to the Church from the Apostles. Remember Sola Scriptura's formal principle affirms that the BIBLE alone one can come to 'know' the truth in the Bible...however for Irenaeus, Tradition(which is all the Apostolic deposit--whether written or oral) and Church are required in order for the authentic and full interpretion of the Scriptures!

JW:
Now, to define what "tradition" is being spoken of here by Irenaeus, we merely have to listen to his own words: the "tradition" that is here presented is nothing more than the basic facts of the Gospel itself regarding the fact that there is one true God, that Jesus is the Son of God, etc.! This "tradition," Irenaeus teaches, goes all the way back to the Apostles, and indeed it did! But this just shows us that your use of "tradition" is not the patristic use, for surely you are not going to tell us that the fact that there is but one God, and that Jesus is the Son of God, is not to be found in Scripture! There is nothing whatsoever in this statement that denies sola scriptura, and in point of fact, being able to define specifically what Irenaeus is referring to as "tradition" helps to demonstrate how anachronistic is the Roman interpretation of these passages.

JG:
Irenaeus is the last Father that's going to rescue you from your assertion that the early Church affirmed the reformers' novel doctrine of Sola Scriptura. In fact, Irenaeus makes it clear that 'tradition' is derived from the Apostles not necessarily from the Scriptures as 3,4:1 clearly affirms---In addition for Irenaeus tradition 
'which originates from the Apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the successors of the Apostles'
AH III 2:2.
The point is that Irenaeus points to an authority apart from the Scriptures alone--that is the tradition from the apostles committed to the Church and guarded by the succession of bishops...Irenaeus makes it clear of the the existence of the authority of Scripture and tradition AH 3,3:2... Tradition for Irenaeus includes basically three elements: 1) a deposit of faith that is handed on, 2)a living authority and 3)transmission by succession! 
"That is why it is necessary to avoid them, while cherishing with the utmost diligence the things pertaining to the Church, and to lay hold of the tradition of truth...What if the Apostles had not left writings to us? Would it not be necessary to follow the order of TRADITION, which was handed down to those whom they entrusted the Churches?" 
Against Her 3,4:1 ...
Again, Irenaeus never separates Scripture, tradition and Church. Now could you please tell me what is this authority called Tradition that Irenaeus appeals to that is NOT the Scriptures?

JW:
If I might expand this, and demonstrate it more fully, I offer the very first citation from Jurgens regarding the authority of "tradition," that being Ireneaus 1:10:2.

This was the passage that woke me up to the fact that Jurgens can be a rather biased source, for I took

JG:
Like the notes in the 38 Vol set of Eerdmans'. Anyways I didn't use Jurgens here...

JW:
the time to look up the context of the passage cited by Jurgens, and discovered that, again, the "tradition" under discussion is hardly some oral, separate revelation from God. Note what comes immediately prior to 1:10:2:

JG:
And what is it according to Ireneaus AH 3,4:1 or AH 4,26:2 or 3,3:3? 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?' 
AH 3,4:1
2)a living authority 
'Wherefore it is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church...those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have recieved the certain gift of truth..."
AH 26:2
and 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"
AH 3,3:3
JW: 
The Church, though dispersed throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: [She believes] in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His [future] manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father "to gather all things in one," and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Saviour, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, "every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess" to Him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all; that He may send "spiritual wickedness," and the angels who transgressed and became apostates, together with the ungodly, and unrighteous, and wicked, and profane among men, into everlasting fire; but may, in the exercise of His grace, confer immortality on the righteous, and holy, and those who have kept His commandments, and have persevered in His love, some from the beginning [of their Christian course], and others from [the date of] their repentance, and may surround them with everlasting glory
(ANF 1:330-331).
It is highly instructive to note that 1) not a single thing attributed to "oral tradition" in Roman Catholic teaching is mentioned by Irenaeus in this passage,

JG:
So! Sola Scriptura admits in it's formal principle that the BIBLE alone is all one requires to enable a person to 'know' the teachings contained herein--nothing is else normative for faith! And if you read elsewhere James we find that this consensus of faith he speaks of in the above passage as being committed and preserved in the Church via episcopal succession. And if one deviates from this tradition that is preserved in this Church then he will be jugded as Jerobaom did(AH 4,26:2 see passage cited above).

and 2) that when defining this tradition, he quotes

JW:
from Scripture more than once!

JG:
Tradition includes Scripture..but Irenaeus does not equate tradition with ONLY the Scripture...if so then he contradicted himself in Ag Her 3, 4:1...Sorry James--Irenaeus rejects Sola Scriptura...

JW:
been made more than once (Doug has done a fine job in saying it more clearly than I) is borne out: that the "tradition" does not contain any "other" revelation than that which we have in Scripture, just as 2 Thessalonians 2:15 indicated all along.

JG:
I agree that Doug has done a fine job in presenting his position. I believe he is sincere but sincerely wrong(as he beleives I am wrong)...

JW:
Now, your next ellipses demonstrates what I said before, that being that it is the specific teachings of Valentinus, Marcion, and Cerinthus that is at question here, again demonstrating that this is a debate on the very fundamentals of the faith: monotheism, the deity of Christ, etc., which is plainly found in Scripture, and in the "tradition" that Irenaeus mentioned, which is little more than a summary statement of the fact that there is only one God, and that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

JG:
You need to deal with the fact that Irenaeus uses 'tradition' in a sense that is not equated with the Scriptures such as AH 3,4:1 and the fact that for Irenaeus, like the rest of the Fathers, Scripture is never read by itself but always read within the framework of Tradition and Church...There no such thing as the 'Bible alone is able to bring one to know all the truths in Scripture' for Irenaeus.

JW:
Your next ellipses removes the following statement, again fully understandable in the context of dealing with gnostics:

It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition.

And what is this tradition? The summary statement of the Christian faith, derived from Scripture, as we have already seen.

JG:
James--you need to deal with the fact even in this mitigated sense(since for Irenaeus tradition came from the Apostles both orally and written AH 3,4:1) invalidates Sola Scriptura since Irenaeus would be appealing to another authority(no matter where it is derived) alongside Scripture---since Sola Scriptura is JUST that--Scriptures Alone as the rule of faith...In addition, Irenaeus would never interpret Scripture by itself apart from tradition and Church.

Now let me provide some additional notes regarding Irenaeus view of Scripture, Tradition and Church...

Speaking of tradition as preserved by successsion in the Church we read: 
"But again when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the Apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of successions of the presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition,...It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition" 
AH 3,2:2
Speaking of the tradition in the Church we read: 
"Since, therefore, the tradition from the apostles does exist in the Church, and is permament among us, let us revert to the Scriptural proof furnished by those Apostles..."
AH 3,4:1
Speaking of tradition(as something handed down--not just written) preserved and guarded by the Church we read: 
"Then I have pointed out the truth, and shown the preaching of the Church, which the prophets proclaimed(as I have already demonstrated), but which Christ brought to perfection, and the apostles have handed down , from which the Church, recieving [these truths], and throughout all the world alone preserving them in their integrity, has transmitted them to her sons. Then also-having disposed of all questions which the heretics propose to us, and having explained the doctrine of the apostles, and clearly set forth many of those things which were said and done by the Lord in parables--I shall endeavor, in this fifth book of the entire work which treats of the exposure and refutation of knowledge falsely so called, to exhibit proofs from the rest of the Lord's doctrine and apostolic epistles; [thus] complying with demand, as thou didst request of me(since indeed I have been assigned a place in ministry of the word); and, labouring by every means...and convert them to the Church of God...that they may preserve stedfast the faith which they have recieved, guarded by the Church in its integrity, in order that they be in no way preverted by those who endeavor to teach them false doctrine..."
AH V Preface
Irenaeus affirms the authority of the Church(bishops) and the faith held by all(consensus) as part of the formula for providing authentic and true expositions from the Scriptures(and never apart from them). In addition, is only within this grid of =tradition= is the =Church= able to come to 'know' God's Word found in the Scriptures. 
"Now all these [heretics] are of much later date than the bishops to whom the apostles committed to the Churches; which fact I have in the third book taken all pains to demonstrate. It follows, then, as a matter of course, that these aforementioned, since they are blind to the truth,and deviate from the [right] way, will walk in various roads; and therefore the footsteps of their doctrine are scattered here and there without agreement or connection. But the path of those belonging to the Church circumscribes the whole world, as possessing the sure tradition of the Apostles, and gives unto us to see that the faith of all is one and the same ....And undoubtily the preaching of the Church is true and stedfast, in which one and the same way of salvation is shown throughtout the whole world...For the Church preaches the truth everywhere..." 
AH V 20,1
Similary Irenaeus continues that Scripture is never apart from tradition and Church..we read: 
"Those, therefore, who desert the preaching of the Church, call in question the knowledge of the holy presbyters....It behoves us, therefore, to avoid their doctrines, and take careful heed lest we suffer any injury from them; but to flee to the Church, and be brought up in her bosom, and be nourished with the Lord's Scriptures." 
AH V 20,2

Episcopal Succession 
"Wherefore it is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church, those who as I have shown, possess succession from the apostles; those who, together with the succession of bishops, have recieved the CERTAIN GIFT of TRUTH, according to the good pleasure of the Father. But [it is also uncumbent] 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] recieve from God the same punishments as Jeroboam did"
AH 4,26:2
Eucharist as a Real Presence 
"...And the cup likewise, which is part of that creation to which we belong, confessed to be His blood..."
AH 4,17:5
"Then, again, how can they say that the flesh, which is nourished with the body of the Lord and with His blood, goes to corruption, and does not partake of life? Let them, therefore, either alter their opinion or cease from offering the things just mentioned. But our opinion is in accordance with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn establishes our opinion. For we offer to Him His own, announcing consistently the fellowship and union of the flesh and Spirit. For as bread, which is produced from the earth, when it recieves the invocation, is NO longer common bread, but the Eucharist..."
AH 4:18:5
Eucharist as Sacrifice 
"The oblation of the Church, therefore, which the Lord gave instructions to be offered throughout the whole world, is accounted with God a pure sacrifice, and is acceptable to him..."
AH 4,18:1
In sum, Irenaeus like the rest of the Father, affirmed the suffiency of Scripture but only in the context of Tradition and Church. Hence, Irenaeus would deny the formal principle of Sola Scriptura since he would never separate Scripture, tradition and Church while the heretics would deny tradition and Church and come up with all kinds of doctrine. 
"But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the successions of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition...It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture or tradition...It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world" 
AH 3,2:2;3,3,3:1
In Christ Jesus
Joe

St. Augustine!

JG:
James:GodSpeed

St. Augustine speaking of religious usages... 
"Those which we keep, not as being written, but as from Tradition, if observed by the whole of Christendom, are thereby understood to be committed to us by the Apostles themselves or plenary Councils, and to be retained as instituted"
Ep 118
JW:
Given that this letter is twelve pages long, Joe, would you mind providing a proper citation? The thing is 34 chapters long.... Be that as it may, is Augustine speaking of revealed truths? What is a "religious usage" as you put it?

JG:
It doesn't matter what the character of 'religious usage' is James since St. Augustine affirms the authority of Tradition(on the basis of universal belief and antiquity) alongside the authority of the Scriptures. Remember Sola Scriptura is just that--the Scriptures Alone is all one needs...St. Augustine admits some doctrines on the basis of Tradition(such as infant baptism, heretical baptism) and interprets Scripture within the grid of Tradition/Church and not via the rule of Sola Scriptura. The farthest thing from Augustine, like the rest of the Fathers, is that he interprets Scripture within the milieu of tradition and Church as opposed to private interpretation.

St. Augustine regarding infant baptism... 
"And if anyone seek for divine authority in this matter, though what is held by the whole Church, and not as instituted by Councils, but as a matter of invariable custom, is rightly held to have been handed down by apostolic authority...."
On Baptism 24
JW:
Ah yes, back to having to fight with Cyprian on baptism.

JG:
Nevertheless you haven't dealt with the text that clearly shows Augustine affirmed the authority placed in 'the faith of the whole Church' as an authority coming from the Apostles. An authority in which the Scriptures are to be interpreted not apart from it!

Now to provide further evidence that St. Augustine did not appeal to the reformer's concept of Sola Scriptura.

Here we read clearly that for ambiguous and doubtful passages St. Augustine appealed not to Sola Scriptura but rather; 
"the rule of faith which has gathered from the plainer passages of Scripture, AND from the authority of the Church, AND of which I treated at sufficient length when I was speaking in the first book about things" 
On Christian Doctrine III, 2
Likewise we have St. Augustine appeal to another monument of Tradition(the universal/conciliar belief of the Church) for determining his canon of the New Testament Scriptures--Note that for St. Augustine, like Catholic apologists today, he appealed to the authority of Church/Tradition in regards to determining the canon of the New Testament and not his own private discernment of the canon. We read; 
"Now, in regards to the canonical Scriptures, he MUST FOLLOW the judgement of the greater number of catholic churches...Accordingly, among the canonical Scriptures he will judge according to the standard: to prefer those that are recieved by all the catholic churches to those which some do not recieve."
On Christian Doctrine II,8
Similarly, St. Augustine affirms the authority of Tradition(via the monument of universal belief and usage) regarding prayers for the dead. We read: 
"In the books of Maccabees we read of sacrifice offered for the dead. Howbeit, even if their were no where at all read in the Old Scriptures, not small is the authority, which in this usage is clear, of the whole Church, namely that in the prayers of the priest which are offered to the Lord God at His altar, the commendation of the death hath its place" 
De Cura Pro Mortuis I,3
Again, we find St. Augustine appealing to Tradition and Church(via Council/Conciliar beleif etc.) regarding heretical baptism, Cyprian and the Donatist controversies and not the Scriptures alone... 
"By this witness he gives sufficient proof how much more ready he would have been to bear his testimony, had ANY Council been held to discuss this matter which either embraced the whole Church, or at least represented our brethren beyond the sea. But such a Council had not yet been held, because the whole world bound together by the powerful bond of custom; and this was deemed SUFFICIENT to oppose to those who wish to introduce what was new, because they could not comprehend the truth. Afterwards, however, while the question became a matter for discussion and investigation amongst many on either side, the new pratice was not only invented, but even submitted to the authority and power of a PLENARY Council"
De Baptismo C. Donatists II,7
Likewise, St. Augustine appeals to Tradition and Church regarding the doctrine of infant baptism. In this passage we find St. Augustine affirm a couple of aspects of Tradition; 1)viewed as a belief held by the whole Church , 2) a belief that is entrenched in antiquity and 3)a belief that is unchanging. In addition, we find St. Augustine contrasting the apostolic authority of invariable custom with the authority placed in the Church(in Council)...Again we find St. Augustine, like Athanasius and the rest of the Fathers, upholding Church, Scripture and Tradition as opposed to the Scriptures Alone. 
"And this is the firm tradition of the universal church, in respect of baptism of infants...and if one seek for divine authority in this matter, though what is held by the WHOLE Church, and that not as instituted by Councils, but as a matter of invariable custom, is rightly held to have been handed down by APOSTOLIC authority..."
ibid IV,31
Hence for St. Augustine, Scripture is the criterion of faith but not at the exclusion of tradition and Church. That is why St. Augustine explicitly affirms(eg. heretical baptism, infant baptism etc.) what the Church has traditionally/generally held to be of apostolic authority. In addition, St. Augustine also affirms that this tradition is entrusted to the Church and preserved by apostolic succession. Regarding infant baptism and original sin St. Augustine affirms that his interpretation was in-line with the traditional teaching of the Church and not his private interpretation he writes: 
"For who does not see in what degree Coelestius was bound by the interrogations of your holy predecessor and by the answers of Coelestius, whereby he professed that he consented to the letters of Pope Innocent,and fastened by a most wholesome chain, so as not to dare any further to maintain that the original sin of infants is not put away in baptism? Because these are the words of the venerable Bishop Innocent concerning this matter to the Carthaginian Council....'by the purification of a new regeneration, purged all past sin by the washing of baptism.' What could be more clear than the judgement of the Apostolic See?"
C. Duas Epis Pelagianorum II,6
Likewise, here we have St. Augustine affirming his interpetation of Sacred Scriptures(re: Original Sin) is in-line with Church and tradition(as seen in the monuments of the Church Fathers) as opposed to his own private interpretation. 
"What, moreover, shall I say of those commentators on the divine Scriptures who have flourished in the catholic Church? They have never tried to prevert these testimonies to an ALIEN sense, becuase they were firmly ESTABLISHED in our most ancient and solid faith, and were never moved aside from error. Were I wish to collect these together and to make use of their testimony, the task would be too long, and I should probably seem to have bestowed less preference that I ought on the canonical authorities, from one must never deviate"
De Nup et Conc II,51
Again, private intepretation is not in the vocabulary of St. Augustine, hence St. Augustine is foreign to the formal aspect of Sola Scriptura. The testimonies from St. Augustine are legion affirming that Scripture, Tradition and Church are inseparable as opposed to Sola Scriptura(i.e. Bible and one's private interpretation to obtain the truth). I will end with the words of St. Augustine in his work dealing with the Manichean heresy: 
"For in the Catholic Church, not to speak of the purest wisdom, to the knowledge of which a few spiritual men attain in this life, so as to know it, in the scantiest measure, indeed, becuase they are but men, still without any uncertainty...The consent of peoples and nations keep me in Church, so does her authority, inaugerated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age. The SUCCESSION of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the APOSTLE PETER, to whom the Lord, after his resurrection, gave it in charge to feed his sheep, down to the present EPISCOPATE...The epistle begins thus:--'Manicheus, an apostle of Jesus Christ, by the providence of God the Father. These are the wholesome words from the perennial and living fountain.' Now, if you please, patiently give heed to my inquiry. I do not beleive Manichues to be an apostle of Christ. Do not, I beg you, be enraged and begin to curse. For you know that it is my rule to beleive none of your statements without consideration. Therefore I ask, who is this Manicheus? You will reply, An Apostle of Christ. I do not beleive it. Now you are at a loss what to say or do; for you promised to give knowledge of truth, and here you are forcing me to beleive what I have no knowledge of. Perhaps you will read the gospel to me, and will attempt to find there a testimony to Manicheus. But should you meet with a person not yet beleiving in the gospel, how would you reply to him were he to say, I do not beleive? For MY PART, I should NOT BELEIVE the gospel except moved by the authority of the Catholic Church. So when those on whose authority I have consented to beleive in the gospel tell me not to beleive in Manicheus, how can I BUT CONSENT?" 
C. Epis Mani 5,6
Likewise we have Augustine affirming the need for interpreting Scripture in light of Tradition/Church and never apart from them: 
"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 universal Church which the authority of these same Scriptures recommends to you" 
C. Cresconius I:33
"It is obvious; the faith allows it; the Catholic Church approves; it is true" 
Sermon 117:6
"If therefore, I am going to beleive things I do not know about, why should I not believe those things which are accepted by the common consent of learned and unlearned alike and are established by most weighty authority of all peoples?" 
C. Letter called Fundamentals 14:18
"Will you, then, so love your error, into which you have fallen through adolescent overconfidence and human weakness, that you will seperate yourself from these leaders of Catholic unity and truth, from so many different parts of the world who are in agreement among themselves on so important a question, one in which the essence of the Christian religion involved..?"
C. Julian 1:7,34
"The authority of our Scriptures, strenghtened by the consent of so may nations, and confirmed by the succession of the Apostles, bishops and councils, is against you" 
C Faustus 8:5
Note that St. Augustine appealed to the authority of the Church as opposed to his own internal witness regarding the validity/authenticity of the gospel!

Like the rest of the Fathers who intepreted the Scriptures in light of Tradition and Church, Augustine affirmed Catholic doctrines such as the real presence: 
'For Christ was carried in his own hands when, entrusting to us his own Body, he said: "This is my Body." Indeed he was carrying that Body in his own hands'
Ennar. In Ps 33
In Christ Jesus
Joe

St. Gregory of Nazianzus/Nyssa!

JG:
James:GodSpeed

Gregory N? Which one James?

St. Gregory of Nazianzus 
"My sheep hear my voice, which I heard from the oracles of God, which I have been taught by the Holy Fathers, which I have taught alike on all occasions, not conforming myself to the opportune, and which I will never cease to teach; in which I was born, and in which I will depart"
JW:
And the oracles of God, Joe, are found in Scripture, as we have seen.

JG:
Here we have a clear passage from St. Gregory of Naz. that affirms that he was primarily a witness to the faith and NOT a private exegete of Sacred Scripture. The words 'I have been taught by the Holy Fathers' and 'which I have taught alike' indicate that for St. Gregory of Naz, and unlike the proponents of Sola Scriptura, that his understanding of Scripture was not a private one rather one rooted in Tradition and Church.

Likewise writing to Cledonius St. Gregory of Naz. is making the inquiry why people make innovations regarding the Church since the faith has comes to them both in writing and without writing. 
"I desire to learn what is this fashion of innovation in things concerning the Church..But since our faith has been proclaimed, both in writing and without writing, here and in distant parts, in times of danger and of safety, how comes it that some make such attempts, and that others keep silence?"
Epis 101
For St. Gregory of Naz., we have the faith being transmitted in writing and without writing. In addition, for St. Gregory of Naz. the sense of Scripture will be in-line with faith proclaimed in both the written and unwritten forms and not his private interpretation of Sacred Scriptures apart from Tradition or Church.

Since St. Gregory of Naz. interprets Sacred Scripture within the context of Tradition and Church he holds fast to such doctrines as the Real Presence of the Eucharist: 
"Scarcely yet delivered from the pains of my illness, I hasten to you, the guardien of my cure. For the tongue of a priest mediating of the Lord raises the sick. Do then the greater thing in your priestly ministration, and loose the great mass of my sins when you lay hold of the SACRIFICE of the resurrection. For your affairs are a care to me waking or sleeping, and you are to me a good plectrum, and have made a welltuned lyre to dwell within my soul, becuase by your numerous letters you have trained my soul to science. But, most reverend friend, cease not both to pray and to plead for me when you draw down the WORD by your word, when the BLOODless cutting you sever the BODY and BLOOD of the Lord, using your voice for the glaive."
Epis 171
St. Gregory of Nyssa...

St. Gregory of Nyssa regarding Christ's nature... 
"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
JW:
Pray tell, Joe, what this unwritten tradition concerning Christ's nature is! I wish to hear about this!

JG:
Again...not to the point! Let me rope you back into the discussion, again! You are alledging that the early Fathers affirm the reformed position of Sola Scriptura as their epistomological method at arriving at Christian truth! Now deal with the passage James. Here we have St. Gregory of Nyssa affirming : 1)a tradition coming down from the Fathers(an authority distinct from the Scriptures-another monument of tradition) and 2) a tradition entrusted and transmitted by the successors of the Apostles. Smells Catholic to me James...Why didn't St. Gregory just say 'it suffices for proof since it says this or that in the text of Holy Writ?' The reasons he doesn't is that for Gregory of Nyssa--the rule of faith is Scripture, Tradition and Church. Remember James--Sola Scriptura is just that the BIBLE ALONE is the rule of faith--No need for tradition or Church in the rule of faith since it is alledged that the Fathers (via Sola Scriptura) can come to know all the truths contained therein. Likewise St. Gregory of Nyssa, and the rest of the Fathers, affirms the authority of Scripture, Tradition and Church. We don't find St. Gregory of Nyssa interpreting Sacred Scripture by his lonesome apart from the conciliar confession of faith of the fathers/Church. In addition, we find St. Gregory of Nyssa, like the Fathers before him, affirm the authority in the Church when he beleives that the authentic gospel is transmitted and preserved via apostolic succession.

In sum, for St. Gregory of Nyssa to substantiate the unique generation of the Son it SUFFICED for him that 
'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.'
C. Eunomius 4,6
Prior to this passage we have St. Gregory continue in his affirmation of interpreting the Sacred Scriptures within the context of Church and Tradition. We read: 
"...I say, that the Church teaches this in plain langauge, 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
Hence, for St. Gregory of Nyssa his interpretation will indeed be a Catholic one as opposed to a private one. He follows the passage affirming the authority of tradition(above) handed down by the fathers with: 
"They, on the other hand, who change their doctrines to this novelty, would need the support of their arguments in abundance, if they were to bring over to their views, not men light as dust, and unstable, but MEN of weight and steadiness: but so long as their statement is advanced without being established, and without being proved, who is so foolish ad so brutish as to account the teaching of the evangelists and apostles, AND of those who successively shone like lights in the churches, of less force than this undemonstrated nonsense" 
C. Eunomius 4,6
For St. Gregory, interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures apart from Tradition and Church is NONSENSE. The reason the heretics fall into novelty and their doctrines change amongst themselves is that they do not read the Scriptures within the grid of Tradition/Church.

That is why for St. Gregory of Nyssa, like his the Fathers before, saw in Scripture(within the milieu of Tradition/Church) the doctrine of the Real Presence in the Eucharist. We read: 
"For as in that case, too, the grace of the Word used to make holy the Body, the substance of which came of the bread, and in manner was itself bread, so also in this case the bread, as says the Apostle, 'is sanctified by the Word of God and prayer'; not that it advances by the process of eating to the stage of passage into the body of the Word, but it is at once CHANGED into the body by means of the Word, as the Word itself said, 'This is my Body.' Seeing, too, that all flesh is nourished by what is moist (for without this combination our earthly part would not continue to live), just as we support by food which is firm and solid the solid part of our body, in like manner we supplement the moist part from the kindred element; and this, when within us, by its faculty of being transmitted, is CHANGED to blood, and especially if through the wine it recieves the faculty of being transmuted into heat."
In Christ Jesus
Joe

St. Basil!

JG:
James:GodSpeed

Basil... 
"Of the beleifs and practices whether generally accepted or enjoined which are preserved in the Church some we possess derived from written teaching; others we have delivered to us in a mystery by the Apostles by the tradition of the Apostles; and both of these in relation to true religion have the same force" 
Holy Spirit 27 St. Basil
JW:
You are repeating yourself, Joe. Allow me to provide the rest of the quotation, yet again: 
And these no one will gainsay; --no one, at all events, who is even moderately versed in the institutions of the Church. For were we to reject such customs as have no written authority, on the ground that the importance they possess is small, we should unintentionally injure the Gospel in its very vitals; or, rather, should make our public definition a mere phrase and nothing more. For instance, to take the first and most general example, who is there who has taught us in writing to sign with the sign of the cross those who have trusted in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ? What writing has taught us to turn to the East at the prayer? Which of the saints has left us in writing the words of the invocation at the displaying of the bread of the Eucharist and the cup of blessing? For we are not, as is well known, content with what the apostle or the Gospel has recorded, but both in preface and conclusion we add other words as being of great importance to the validity of the ministry, and these we derive from unwritten teaching. Moreover we bless the water of baptism and the oil of the chrism, and besides this the catechumen who is being baptized. One what written authority do we do this? Is not our authority silent and mystical tradition? Nay, by what written word is this anointing oil itself taught? And whence comes the custom of baptizing thrice? And as to the other customs of baptism from what Scripture do we derive the renunciation of Satan and his angels? Does this not come from that unpublished and secret teaching which our fathers guarded in a silence out of the reach of curiouis meddling and inquisitive investigation?
(NPNF II, 8:41-42).
Oops, I guess that proves *too much,* unless you wish to say that the *custom* (since that is manifestly what Basil is talking about) of baptizing "thrice" is what you are looking for (do you do that in the way Basil did?); or that praying while facing East is an oral tradition (inspired, no less) going back to the Apostles (do you pray facing East?), then it would seem that Basil's statement is not referring to what you are actually asserting. I surely disagree with his statement....such "customs" are matters of Christian freedom (you don't insist that I face East while praying, do you??), and he is really skating on VERY thin ice at this point in his argument in trying to substantiate the use of the word "with" rather than "in" with reference to the Holy Spirit (do *you* find his argument compelling? *I* sure wouldn't use it with a Oneness advocate, or a JW, would *you*?).

JG:
I was hoping you were going to deal with the fact that St. Basil affirmed as part of his rule of faith the unwritten traditions of the Apostles despite what you may think of the traditions! Again let me rope you back---your thesis is: Did the early Church affirm Sola S. as implied by your tag line set which included Basil! The fact remains James--one that you have not squarely addressed-that Basil is not a proponent Sola S. since he clearly affirms the authority of unwritten traditions despite what you may think of them!

In fact, James--I was hoping you would continue to provide the rest of the text found in sections 66 through 71. These passages makes clear that Basil affirms the authority of unwritten traditions as Apostolic--he makes references to many customs and practices that are based on unwritten traditions to authenticate his use of an unwritten tradition to affirm the divinity of the Holy Spirit. The whole gist of Basil's affirmation of unwritten tradition is that he uses the authority placed in unwritten tradition to affirm the divinity of the Holy Spirit-which is what the whole book is about. So Basil continues his thoughts on the divinity of the Holy Spirit: 
"The day would fail me, if I went through the mysteries of the Church which are not in Scripture. I pass by the others, the very confession of faith, in Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, from what written document have we?"
Holy Spirit 67
JW:
Same section as above.

JG:
This is hardly a response James...Basil clearly showed some things in the previous passage that was based squarely on unwritten tradition such as the blessing of water for Baptism(nowhere in the NT), the blessing of oil for the anointing(nowhere found in the NT). In addition, Basil goes on to affirm that the very confession of faith of the Triune God doesn't come from the Scriptures but from Tradition! Basil does not separate Scripture, Tradition and Church.

Basil continues to prove the divinity of the Holy Spirit via the confessions of faith(a monument of tradition) of the Church in the Triune God and the word 'with' the Holy Spirit: 
"While the unwritten traditions are so many and their bearing on 'the mystery of godliness' is so important, can they refuse us a single word which has come down to us from the Fathers;--which we found, derived from untutotred custom, abiding in unpreverted churches;--a word for which contributes in no small degree to the completeness of the force of the mystery"
67
Basil, like the Fathers before him, would understand the Scriptures in light of the conciliar confession of faith and Church. Basil continues to affirm the divinity of the Holy Spirit and the sense of Sacred Scriptures via Tradition and not via the Scriptures alone: 
"In answer to the objection that the doxology in the form 'with the Spirit' has NO written authority, we maintain that if there is not other instance of that which is unwritten, then this must not be recieved. But if the great number of our mysteries are admitted into our constitution without written authority, then, in company with many others, let us recieve this one. For I HOLD IT APOSTOLIC TO ABIDE BY THE UNWRITTEN TRADITIONS. 'I praise you,' it is said, 'that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances as I have delivered them to you;' and 'Hold fast the traditions which ye have been taught whether by by word, or our Epistle.' One of these traditions is the practice which is now before us, which they who ordained from the beginning, rooted firmly in the churches, delivering it to their SUCCESSORS, and its use through long custom advances pace by pace with time. If as in a court of Law, we were at a loss for documentary evidence, but were able to bring before you a large number of witnesses, would you not give your vote for our aquittal? I think so; for 'at the mouth of two or three witnesses shall the matter be established'. And if we could prove clearly to you that a long period of time was in our favour, should we not have seemed to you to urge you with reason that this suit ought not to be brought into court against us? For ancient dogmas inspire a certain sense of awe, venerable as they are with hoary antiquity"
71
The Basil then continues in the next several chapters to prove the divinity of the Holy Spirit by appealing the Church Fathers, like Catholic apologist of today, such as Irenaeus, Clement of Rome, Dionysius of Rome, Origen etc. The entire passage above deals with the defense of tradition in determining the sense of Sacred Scripture. Interesting to note that Basil uses the exact same passages as Catholic apologists do in defending the use of tradition(such as 1 Cor 11:2, 2 Thess 2:15). Basil, like the rest of the Fathers, would have =never= interpreted Sacred Scriptures apart from tradition and Church. Private intepretation apart from tradition and Church is alien to Basil. In sum, Basil affirms a Catholic understanding of arriving at God's Word. That is, =not= by reading the Scripture alone through the eyes of an individual Christian rather reading the Scriptures through the Church in the milieu of Tradition. For Basil, like the Fathers before him, Scripture , Tradition and Church are inseperable.

In fact, Basil provides a Catholic definition of tradition: 1) unwritten traditions are Apostolic, 2) that these same traditions were ordained from the beginning, 3) that these same traditions are entrusted to the Church and 4) transmitted via their successors.

A few chapters prior Basil uses the same Catholic epistomological method at arriving at God's Word. We read: 
"Let us now investigate what are our common conceptions concerning the Spirit, as well those which have been gathered by us from Holy Scripture AS WELL those which have been gathered concerning it as those which we have RECEIVED from the UNWRITTEN tradition of the Fathers"
22
Again, Basil matter-of-factly affirms that Scripture, Tradition and Church are united and inseparable. Private interpretation and Sola Scriptura are foreign to Basil.

Regarding his repudiation of private intepretation and his affirmation of tradition and Church Basil makes the following comments on Arius and his errors: 
"...and I have not allowed my judgement concerning them to rest wholly with myself, but have followed the decisions given about them by our Fathers."
Epis 204
Basil continues affirming that he would receive the Arians if they started: 
"accepting the Nicene Creed.." 
Basil Continues: 
"is to be recieved without hesitation and difficulty, citing in support of his opinion the unanimous assent of the bishops of Macedonia and Asia" 
Again repudiating private opinion and affirming Scripture, tradition and Church.

Regarding the authority of St. Athanasius, the unanimous consent of Bishops, and Nicean Creed, Basil writes: 
"considering myself bound to follow the high authority of such a man and of those who made the rule, and with every desire on my part to win the reward promised peacemakers, did enroll in the lists of communicants all who accepted that creed. The fair thing would be to judge of me, not from one or two who do not walk uprightly in the truth, but from the multitiude of bishops throughout the world, connected with me by the grace of the Lord... you may learn that we are all of one mind and of one opinion. Whoso shuns communion with me, it cannot escape your accuracy, CUTS himself off from the whole Church." 
It is clear that for Basil, Scripture, Tradition and Church are inseparable; hence private interpretation of Scripture which is not in line with tradition and Church is heresy.

Since Basil interprets Scripture within the grid of Tradition and Church he affirms Catholic doctrines such as the Real Presence: 
"It is good and beneficial to communicate every day, and to partake of the holy body and blood of Christ. For he distinctly says, 'He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life.' "
Epis 93
In Christ Jesus
Joe

Cyril of Jerusalem!

JG:
James:GodSpeed

Cyril----

JW:
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. For since all cannot read the Scriptures, some being hindered as to the knowledge of them by want of learning, and others by a want of leisure, in order that the soul may not perish from ignorance, we comprise the whole doctrine of the Faith in a few lines. This summary I wish you both to commit to memory with all diligence among yourselves, not writing it out on paper, but engraving it by the memory upon your heart...So for the present listen while I simply say the Creed, and commit it to memory; but at the proper season expect the confirmation our of 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 the 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, as hold fast the traditions which ye now receive, and write them on the table of your heart 
(NPNF II 7:32). Cathechetical Lectures 5:32
This is the tradition you are referring to, and I agree, that is what Athanasius is referring to. A tradition comprised of that which has been "collectedout of all the Scripture" as said above. Yes, that's what he is talking about. I'm glad we now agree on that.

JG:
Yet you are missing a very vital point here James--tradition as found in it's various monuments such as Church Councils, the faith that has been transmitted from generation to generation coming from the Apostles, the faith expounded by the fathers of the Church in their writings, the catechesis of the Church, the faith expressed in the various Church liturgies etc... ARE PART of the RULE of faith for the Athanasius in order to determine the 'sense' and 'orthodox' intepretation of Sacred Scripture in it's fullness. Sola Scriptura says that ALL one needs to determine the doctrines contained therein is the Scriptures alone--no need for tradition or Church.

Even Cyril denied the formal insufficiency of the Scripture since he writes above: 
'But in learning the faith and in professing it, acquire it and keep ONLY, which is now delivered to thee BY THE Church, and which has been built up strongly out of the Scriptures.'
Cat V:12
Note that Cyril didn't say ALL we need for 'learning the faith' is the SCRIPTURES ALONE but included those teachings that have been authoritatively handed down such as we have in the Creeds(a monument of tradition). In addition, Cyril does not separate the Scripture, tradition and Church. Regarding teachings not contained in the Scriptures and the authority of the Church we read: 
'Learn also diligently, and FROM THE CHURCH, WHAT ARE THE BOOKS of the Old Testaments, and WHAT are the books of the NEW'
Cat IV:33
Granted the Church was still grappling with the issue of the canon of but the point is that Cyril recognized the authority of the Church to define HIS canon(which is a teaching not contained within the Scriptures themselves)...

JW: 
In regard to the divine and holy mysteries of the faith, not the least part may be handed on without the Holy Script- ures. Do not be led astray by winning words and clever arguments. Even to me, who tell you these things, do not give ready belief, unless you receive from the Holy Script- ures the proof of the things which I announce. The salvation in which we believe is not proved from clever reasoning, but from the Holy Scriptures. --
St. Cyril of Jerusalem (ca. 350) _Catechetical Lectures_ 4:17.
JG:
Good Old St. Cyril....What makes you think that the rule of faith for St. Cyril only involves Scripture James?

JW:
Oh, I don't know, Joe....I guess the point that is very clear to me from the above is, "Test what you are taught by Scripture." Doesn't sound like someone who believes in the infallibility of the magisterium, but rather the infallibility of the Scriptures.

JG: 
"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"
Cat V:12
So let's not put Sola Scriptura in the mouths of the Fathers...

JW:
I would like to thank you, Joe, for bringing this passage up, Just as this series started, with your citation of Irenaeus, so it ends--with further confirmation of the truth of sola scriptura. Why do I say this? Well, again, the mere reading of the passage you cite IN CONTEXT proves the exact same point I made at the beginning regarding the definition of "tradition" in Irenaeus. Please note the citation you provided in full: 
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. For 
Cat V:12
JG:
Again...James you are ignoring the use of the conjunction 'AND' here. You are trying to insert a wedge between the Scriptures and Church's Tradition for St. Cyril. Cyril does not admit any intepretation apart from tradition or Church. Cyril interprets Scripture in light of the faith which has been delivered to the Church; IOW Cyril's rule of faith consists of Scripture and the Church's tradition. Cyril makes use of both.... Like the rest of the fathers, Tradition is that faith that is 1)held by the Church universal 2)a faith that was transmitted from the Apostles and entrusted to the Church and transmitted from generation to generation via catechesis...an authority alongside the Scripture...

JW:
There are many things to note here, Joe. First, the "faith" being discussed is merely the creed, just as it was with Irenaeus when he spoke of "traditions." There is nothing in the Creed that is not found in Scripture, Secondly, Cyril says that the creed is merely the

JG:
Exactly--and the creeds are one of the many 'touchstones' of Tradition! In addition, there isn't anything in the Creed not found in Sacred Tradition either...

Nevertheless there is something confessed in the Nicean creed which you wouldn't hold onto but Cyril(and the rest of the Fathers) would...ie 
'We acknowledge ONE BAPTISM for the forgiveness of sins' 
Please tell me James who is affirming this touchstone of Tradition such as the Nicean Creed as authoritative, binding and part of the rule of faith--Cyril or James White a proponent of Sola Scriptura?

JW:
Testaments." Where is your oral tradition, Joe? Doesn't the Faith

JG:
James...the oral tradition originated with the Apostles--as did the written tradition...both were handed down and entrusted to Christ's Church...the oral tradition that was not written down was passed onto the Church from generation to generation via various ministrations of the Church The various =monuments= to this original deposit of faith coming from the Apostles that was not written down is found in such things as the writings of the Church Fathers, Creeds, Liturgy, Archeological artifacts, the faith of the living Church, Church Councils etc...

In sum, Cyril holds on to traditions such as the canon of the Sacred Scriptures and traditions such as Creeds...that is why Cyril finds(all over his writings) in Scripture the Real Presence in the Eucharist. We read: 
'Having learnt these things, and been fully assured that the seeming bread is NOT bread, though sensible to taste, BUT the BODY of Christ; and that the seeming wine is NOT wine, though the taste will have it so, but the BLOOD of Christ..'
Cat XXII:9
Where did Cyril learn these things and where did he get his assurance from?

In Christ Jesus
Joe

Chrysostom!

JG:
James:GodSpeed

Chrysostom---

Chrysostom writes: 
" ' So then, brethren, stand fast, and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word, or by our epistle of ours'. Hence it is manifest, that they did not deliver all things by Epistle, but many things unwritten, and in like manner both the one and the other are worthy of credit. Therefore let us think the tradition of the Churh also worthy of credit. It is a tradition seek no farther."
NPNF 13,390
JW:
I guess this means that you do not wish to answer my challenge to demonstrate that the traditions Chrysostom refers to fit into the category of inspired oral traditions that you claim? I can certainly understand your unwillingness to engage that challenge, too, Joe, in light of other statements by Chrysostom:

JG:
This is about the second evasive move you have made concerning this forceful and clear passage from Chrysostom! Again...does Sola Scriptura admit an authority coming from the Apostles not written down as having an authority 'in like manner' as the Scriptures and that these unwritten traditions are 'worthy of credit'?

JW: 
Therefore I beg you all that you give up what appeals to this one or that one and that you address all these questions concerning these things to the Scriptures. 
(Chrysostom, Homily 13 on 2 Corinthians)
JG:
Instead of dealing with the commentary from Chrysosotom on 2 Thess 2:15 you have dodged the clear force of his passage by going elsewhere! Again, James--all the passages in the world from Chrysostom will not rescue you from his commentary on 2 Thess 2:15 and your assertion that Chrysostom or any Church Father affirmed the reformers Sola Scriptura since they affirm not only the authority of Scriptures but the equally authoritative Traditions and the authority of the Church....

Regarding Homily 13 on 2nd Corinthians...Chrysostom, like Athanasius and the rest of the Fathers, ASSUME tradition/Church when intepreting Sacred Scriptures. That is why Chrysostom affirms tradition in interpreting Scripture as affirmed in his homily on 2nd Thess. He affirms the same point regarding the Apostle's primary mission was to preach and not write in. We read: 
'...it was no object with them to be writers of books: in fact, there are many things which they have delivered by unwritten tradition. Now while all that is contained in this book is worthy of admiration, so is especially the way the Apostles have of coming down to the wants of their HEARERS...'
Hom on Acts 1
Again, Chrysostom like the rest of the fathers never intepreted Scripture apart from tradition and Church.

JW: 
If anything is said without Scripture, the thinking of the hearers limps. But where the testimony proceeds from the divinely given Scripture, it confirms both the speech of the preacher and the soul of the hearer 
(Chrysostom commenting on Psalm 95)
JG:
Again...Chrysostom is affirming the beauty and authority of the Sacred Scriptures...but for Chrysostom intepreting Scripture is not a private affair but one made within the context of tradition and Church.

JW: 
But when Scripture wants to teach us something like that, it interprets itself and does not permit the hearer to err. I therefore beg and entreat that we close our ears to all these things and follow the canon of the Holy Scripture exactly 
(Homily 13 on Genesis)
JG:
And yet this same Chrysostom would never have interpreted these same Scriptures outside the context of the Church and Tradition....

Oops.. 
"Not in vain did the Apostles order that remembrance should be made of the dead in the dreadful mysteries" 
Hom Phil 3,4
Prayers for dead for Chrysostom was a doctrine coming from the Apostles...Now where did the Apostles explicitly order that prayers be made for the dead in the NT? So much for Sola Scriptura! Here we have a tradition handed down by the Apostles not explicitly contained in the NT...

Oops 
"We may answer, that what is here written, was sufficient for those who would attend, and that the sacred writers ever addressed themsleves to the matter of immediate importance, whatever it might be at that time: it was no object with them to be writers of books: in fact, there are many things which have been delivered by UNWRITTEN TRADITION. Now while all that is contained in this Book is worthy of admiration, so is especially the way the Apostles have of coming down to the wants of their hearers: a condescension suggested by the Spirit who has so ordered it, that the subject on which they cheifly dwewll is that pertains to Christ as man. For so it is, that while they discourse so much about Christ, they have spoke little concerning His Godhead: it was mostly of the manhood that they discoursed, and of the Passion, and the Resurrection, and the Ascencion."
Hom on Acts 1,1
No narrative on my part needed here...bye bye Sola S for Chrysostom...

Since Chrysostom interpreted Sacred Scripture in harmony with the Church's tradition we find Chrysostom affirming the Real Presence in the Eucharist. We read: 
"Let us everywhere be attentive to God. Let us not contradict him although what he says appears to be contrary to our reasoning and understanding. Thus we carry out the mysteries not only what appears to our senses but what his our words tell us. For his word is not able to deceive; our senses are easily deceived. Becuase the Word says, 'This is my Body', let us be attentive, let us beleive, let us look upon him with eyes of the spirit. For Christ did not give us something sensible; even in the sensible things, all is spiritual... Therefore le everyone be vigilant. No small punishment hangs over him who commuincates unworthily. Think of how angry you become against the traitor and against those who crucified Christ. And so beware lest yourself be guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ. They killed that all-holy Body; after so many graces you recieve him with a stained soul...What purity should that man have who enjoys this sacrifice? How much purer than the rays of the sun should be the hand that touches this FLESH, the mouth which is filled with spiritual fire, the tongue tinted with the awe-inspiring Blood?"
Comment on Matt, 82
In Christ Jesus
Joe

St. Antony!

JG:
James:GodSpeed

Antony----

Antony says regarding the Arians: 
"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"
JW:
References, please?

JG:
Athanasius work on the "Life of Antony"... NPNF Vol IV 2nd Series pg 220 in the upper left hand corner! Good Old St. Athony holding to the Scriptures and the tradition of the Fathers...Interesting how Athanasius didn't make a qualification(like we only need the Scriptures as our rule of faith) here but took Antony's words as matter of fact...

In Christ Jesus
Joe

Luther!

JG:
James:GodSpeed 
"We are obliged to yield many things to the Catholics--(for example) that they possess the Word of God which we recieved from them; otherwise we should have known nothing about it" 
Comm in John 16
JW:
So much for the infallibility of Luther. (: Anything more than just a vague reference like that, Joe? Like, a page number, maybe? A volume number, maybe?

JG:
That's all I have bro...Comm in Johan 16

In Christ Jesus
Joe

Athanasius-Introduction!

JG:
James:GodSpeed

St. Athanasius...

I have cut/pasted the various passages of Athanasius according to the particular book cited(eg. De Incar, De Decretis etc.) in order to consilidate our messages/responses. Following my reponse to your last messages I will(as I did with the rest of the Fathers) I will add some further light that St. Athanasius, like the Fathers before and after him, denied Sola Scripture and affirmed the rule found in Scripture, Tradition and Church....

JW:
So, I started thinking: Athanasius, the great bishop of Alexandria, has always been one of my favorite patristic authors. I read a lot of his

JG:
And yet St. Athanasius was a BISHOP James--one who defended and appealed to Tradition as found in the monuments of the Church Councils, the Church Fathers etc...hence bye bye Sola Scriptura...

JW:
The continued use of "hence bye bye Sola Scriptura," in light of the repeated refutation of your attempts to find support for your assertion

JG:
An assertion based on the fact that St. Athanasius never separated Scripture from Church or Tradition...Remember James Sola Scriptura admits that we can come to 'know' by the Scriptures ALONE the truth contained therein...no need for tradition or Church...

JW:
Yes, Athanasius was a bishop. So? You have never shown him defending the tradition we are talking about, that is, the modern, anachronistic

JG:
As a bishop, James, Athanasius would beleive in the authority placed in the episcopal college, the authority of the Ecumenical Council, the bishops as the transmitter of the faith etc...all of which affirms that Athanasius would have never intepreted the sacred text apart from tradition or Church...remember you are trying to defend the fact that Athanasius, like yourself, affirms that the Bible is the sole and sufficient rule of faith-Sola Scriptura(materially and formally)..

JW:
Roman Catholic doctrine of oral tradition as a revelation from God that exists separate from Scripture and contains truth not found in Scripture.

JG:
If you read my introduction James--Catholics would admit all of God's truth is contained in Scripture(except for the canonical issues of the Bible) or in tradition(since the Bible came out of tradition). Tradition contains the fullness of God's Word while the Scripture preserves the purity of God's Word...Hence, tradition does provide doctrines NOT contained in the Sacred Scripture--that is the doctrine of the inspiration of the various books of the Bible, the doctrine of the canon of the Old and New Testaments....Now dealing with the Scriptures (aside from the canonical issues) a Catholic can affirm the sufficiency of Scripture provided it is interpreted by Christ's Church within the milieu of Tradition--for Tradition(aside from the doctrines of the canon/inspiration of the Bible) provides implicit/explicit touchstones of what is implicit in the Sacred Scriptures(such as infant baptism, or heretical baptism or the Trinity, the divinity of the Holy Spirit etc..)

JW:
I am certain Athanasius would have defended the "tradition" of the Church that starts with "We believe in one God, the Father...." But you will search high and low, Joe, for any defense of YOUR view of "oral tradition" in our beloved Athanasius. This remains your unproven, unsupported assertion.

JG:
Again, James your off the mark here...tradition is much richer concept than the narrow sense in which you are defining it. That is, yes it contains truths not found in Scripture(such as the canon/inspiration of the Bible) but it also includes explicit touchstones that interpret Sacred Scripture in it's fullness--and without Tradition/Church Athanasius would have not been able to interpret Scripture in it's fullness. I will show the evidence for this in the second half of this reply.

In Christ Jesus
Joe

Athanasius-Oratio de incarnatione Verbi!

JG:
James:GodSpeed

De Incarnatione

JW:
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 for God.
(De Incarnatione Verbi Dei, 56, NPNF II:IV:66).
JG:
Spoken like a great Catholic James--I often say the same thing to non-Christians--that you should repair to the Bible as it contains God's Word which is able to correct, reproof, defend and answer your questions on life...and that the Bible is the Words of God in the words of men!

JW:
Very true. And, in CONTEXT of what he is saying, Joe, Athanasius is referring his readers to a HIGHER source of truth than the TEACHING he has just given them.

JG:
He is making a distinction between his words(not God's Words) and Sacred Scripture but you fail to show me where St. Athanasius rule doesn't include Tradition and/or Church...

JW:
You are the one making the positive assertion that Athanasius *APPEALED* (your word) to Tradition with a capital T. Now here you have a BISHOP (to borrow your own word from above) TEACHING in his OFFICE as BISHOP on a topic that is *directly* relevant to FAITH and MORALS, and he points his hearers to a HIGHER source of truth than the TEACHING he has just given them. Therefore, if we follow this thought through to its conclusion, we find that the ultimate authority for Athanasius is....?

JG:
Apples and oranges here James...No bishop or Pope would put their teaching on the same plain as God's inspired Word...period end of issue...The only oral teaching that is on par with the Scriptures are the oral words of Christ and the Apostles themselves...end of issue.

Now for Athanasius however, Scripture would have never been interpreted apart from Tradition and Church--all of which are authoritative, binding and necessary in providing the fullness of God's Word. Hence Athanasius denies the formal aspect of Sola Scriptura and affirms its formal insufficiency. Athanasius epistomology is worlds apart from the one put forth by proponents of Sola Scriptura-which claim: 
'...the Bible will be sufficient in and of itself for the DETERMINATION of ALL those DOCTRINES and TRUTHS addressed within its pages.' 
"Answers to CC" JW pg 35
Hence no need for an authoritative body of tradition or Church to determine the sense and provide an authoritative/binding interpretation of Sacred Scriptures since Scriptures are sufficient in and of themselves for the determination of the truths therein.

In Christ Jesus
Joe

Athanasius-Epistula de decretis Nicaenae synodi!

JG:
James:GodSpeed

...De Decretis 4

St. Athanasius regarding Nicea, the authority of the Fathers, traditional pedigree of doctrine in the Fathers writes: 
"For, what our Fathers have delivered, this is truly doctrine; and this is truly the token of doctors, to confess the same thing with each other, and to vary neither from themselves nor from their fathers ; whereas they who do have not this character are to be called not true doctors"
De Decr 4
JW:
Where is there an "oral tradition" here, Joe? Where does Athanasius appeal to this? You are not even addressing the issue here. Further, I do not find this passage as you cited it.

JG:
James--one of the many monuments of Sacred Tradition is the traditional pedigree of doctrine as found in the faith of the early Church--an authority Athanasius appeals to time and time again -- Here in De Decr 4 we have Athanasius appealing the antiquity and universality of the faith an authority distinct from the Scriptures(as we know Athanasius affirmed as well)....No you need to address the fact that Athanasius =never= separates Scripture, Tradition and Church and does NOT interpret Scripture via the principles of Sola Scriptura!

For Athanasius =orthodoxy= is not primarily an exegesis of Scripture but it is matter of being a faithful WITNESS! Hence we have Athanasius affirming the 'orthodox' sense of doctrines by interpreting Scriptures so they are in line with: 
"For, what our Fathers have delivered," 
Since for Athanasius; 
'this is TRULY doctrine and this is truly the token of doctors,' 
De Decretis 4
True doctrine for Athanasius isn't determined merely on the basis of Scripture alone(apart from tradition/Church) rather by those: 
'to confess the same thing with each other, and to vary neither from themselves nor from their fathers'
De Decretis 4
Likewise heresy for Athanasius isn't determined merely on the basis of Scripture alone(apart from tradition/Church) rather by those: 
'who do have not this character are to be called not true doctors" 
De Decr 4
...De Decretis 6 
"This then is the sense in which they who met at Nicea made use of these expressions. But next that they did not invent them for themselves(since this is one of their excuses), but spoke what they had recieved from their predecessors, proceed we to prove this also, to cut even this excuse from them"
De Decr 6
JW:
Which as preceded in De Decr 5: 
And let them blame themselves in this matter, for they set the example, beginning their war against God with words not in Scripture. However, if a person is interested in the question, let him know, that, even if the expressions are not in so many words in the Scriptures, yet, as was said before, they contain the sense of the Scriptures, and expressing it, they convey it to those who have their hearing unimpaired for religious doctrine. 
Please note again, Joe, that Athanasius does NOT appeal to your "tradition" to make his point. If he were a Roman Catholic, he would have easily said, "Even if the expressions are not in so many words in the Scriptures, they ARE found in Tradition...." But he did not say that, did he? No, he didn't.

JG:
James I agree that Athanasius appealed to the Scriptures but this still doesn't discount the fact that he ASSUMES the Tradition of Church when does so. De Decretis 6(as all his writings make abundantly clear) that Athanasius does not intepret Scripture apart from what he has learned from the Church. That is why Athanasius affirms his orthodoxy not on Scriptures ALONE but what he has inherited from his teachers, from what has been passed on from generation to generation via catechesis etc...

JW:
Next, Athanasius, in De Decr 6, is simply proving that the terminology used at Nicea had indeed been used before, (he cites Theognostus immediately following your citation as evidence of this). Anyone who has read De Decretis knows upon what basis Athanasius defends Nicea: and it is NOT on the basis of your oral tradition, but squarely on the basis of inspired Scripture.

JG:
Not simply proving the terminology at Nicea had indeed been used before but that the faith of his predecessors(a monument of Tradition) came from the Apostles--and that faith had been handed down from the Apostles to the Church, and the Church then passed the faith down from generation to generation via the various ministrations of the Church such as catechesis, Creeds, Councils, teachings of the fathers etc. Again Athanasius understand NO doctrines unless they are understood within the grid of Scripture, Tradition and Church rather than through Sola Scriptura principles.

and then St. Athanasius continues his defense by providing passages from Theognostus, Dionysius of Alexander, Dionsyius of Rome(25th Pope) and Origen.

JW:
Defense of the usage of the terms of Nicea prior to Nicea, Joe, not a defense of their *truthfulness* on the basis of some supposed oral tradition. Athanasius had already defended the correctness of the terms on the basis of Scripture. He is ONLY dealing with the accusation that Nicea had "made up" terms that had never been used before.

JG:
Hardly...James...if Athanasius' rule of faith consisted merely of the reformers Sola Scriptura--he would of rejected any notion in correcting the Arian interpretation of the Fathers and directing them to the Scriptures ALONE, However Athanasius understood that the Scriptures MUST be understood ONLY within the Church's tradition. Private interpretation of Scripture apart from tradition and Church is not in Athanasius epistomlogical equation....but as you know James not only did Athanasius appeal to the Scriptures but he ASSUMED to interpret Scripture within Tradition as expressed in such monuments in the faith of the fathers, the faith held by the Church universal and the magisterial authority of the Church(as in Council--why not he too was a bishop of the Catholic Church)....Interesting to note that the Creed he was defending had nothing to say that we beleive in ONLY the Sacred Scriptures but 'we beleive in the holy catholic and apostolic church'! Quite understandable since Athanasius embraced the Scriptures within the milieu of Tradition and Church.

It is no wonder that Athanasius appealed to and offered the balance views of the Fathers(after the Arians made an appeal to the Fathers) regarding the nature of Christ rather than say to the Arians, 'hey I don't care what the Fathers taught or what the Nicean Council proclaimed--because after all our rule of faith is Sola Scriptura'....But as you know he didn't..

JW:
The weakness of your position is showing, Joe, for when one needs to create a straw-man, one is in trouble. I invite *everyone* reading this to read De Decretis 6, right at the beginning, and note what you are having to do here, Joe. Athanasius is simply addressing the charge that the terms used by Nicea are novel, NOTHING ELSE. You have to turn his

JG:
And how did he do this James? He appealed to the authority of Tradition found in the pedigree of faith that was handed down from the apostles to the fathers etc. and to the faith held by the Church universal...

And why Stop at Decretis 6 James? Why not have them read the whole "Defence of the Nicene Creed"

It is obvious James you are back-peddling here. Athanasius not only proving that the Arian doctrines are novel but that tradition(in it's various monuments) is NECESSARY in order to intepret and know the 'orthodox' sense of the Scriptures. That is why we have Athanasius saying all over the place to the Arians to show us their traditional pedigree of their doctrines. For Athanasius unless one recognizes the ecclesiastical sense of the faith within the Church and uses it as an =anchor= then one's faith would be shipwrecked!

JW:
demonstration of the historical consistency of the USE OF TERMS into an "appeal" to an extra-biblical authority! Anyone who reads all of De Decretis will see plainly the folly of your position.

JG:
You have it there in front of you James--it is clear that Athanasius assumes the authority of Tradition and magisterial authority of the Church(as in Council) when he reads Scriptures. What are you are going to do with Athanasius' affirmation that his interpretation was not via Sola Scriptura principles rather through Catholic principles as he interprets Scriptures in harmony with writers of the early Church, to the faith present in the universal Church, the authority of Church Councils, to what he was taught, to the faith passed on from generation to generation via catechesis?

JG:
St. Athanasius affirming the authority of an Ecumenical Council and the Fathers writes... 
"...you to slander the Ecumenical Council, for committing to writing, not your doctrines, but that which from the beginning those who were eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word handed down to us. For the faith which the Council has confessed in writing, that is the faith of the Catholic Church; to assert this, the blessed Fathers so expressed themselves while condemning the Arian heresy"
De Decr 6
JW:
And, of course, the doctrine under discussion (the deity of Christ) Athanasius has fully demonstrated, not on the basis of extra-biblical tradition, but the Scriptures themselves. Again, no oral tradition,no different revelation that is not in Scripture. One tradition, just as in 2 Thessalonians 2:15.

JG:
And you have yet to deal =squarely= with the fact that Athanasius is clearly affirming the magisterial authority placed in the CHURCH as exercized in an Ecumenical Council! Of course he uses Scripture James but only harmony with tradition and Church and not via Sola Scriptura principles. His proof of orthodoxy is primarly one based on tradition.

Again, we have a person who is alledged to have beleived in Sola Scriptura when this same person is clearly interpreting Scriptures not by his lonesome(apart from tradition/Church) but in harmony with the authority placed in Tradition found in the faith of his precedessors, in the faith held universally in the Church, in the authority placed in the catechesis of the Church, in the authority of the Church as we find in the episcopacy in Council....sounds Catholic to me James...

...De Decretis 13

St. Athanasius after providing the Arian position writes: 
"Let them tell us from what teacher, or by what tradition, they derived those notions concerning the Saviour"
De Decr. 13
JW:
And, as at the beginning, when I invited you to engage in a scholarly exegesis of this passage, I again reply: Athanasius is not citing, or appealing to (as you originally claimed when citing this passage) any "oral tradition." He is simply pointing out that the Arian doctrine was novel. This does not even begin to substantiate your claim that he is appealing to extra-Biblical tradition, and it in no way invalidates the truth of sola scriptura.

JG:
James, Athanasius knows no doctrines other than what was taught to him by his teachers, or other than what has been handed down from generation to generation via the various ministrations of the Church..IOW Athanasius knows no doctrines other than what he finds in Tradition(via its various monuments). Hence, Athanaius interprets and imparts the 'orthodox' understanding of Scripture via the Church's tradition and not through the principles of Sola Scriptura. That is why we have Athanasius affirming the 'pious' and 'orthodox' sense of Scripture by contrasting the Church's doctrine with the Arians' doctrines by such statements as we have above, 
'Let them tell us from what teacher, or by what tradition derived those notions concering the Savior'
De Decr. 13
...De Decretis 31

JW:
...for the tokens of truth are more exact as drawn from Scripture, than from other sources.... 
(De Decretis, 31, NPNF II:IV:172).
JG:
No prob. The written tradition enjoys this attribute since it is written and under one cover...that is one reason why the Sacred Scriptures enjoys a primacy within Sacred Tradition...

JW:
Really? And what is more clear on such truths as Papal Infallibility? Scripture, or "oral tradition"?

JG:
James there are many aspects to written and Apostolic unwritten traditions...

JW:
N.B.: "Apostolic traditions" for Athanasius was simply that found in the NT:

JG:
However, for Athanasius the NT was never intepreted apart from the tradition(Regula Fide) and the Church in contrast to the principle of Sola Scriptura and individual interpretation.

In Christ Jesus
Joe

Athanasius-Epistula ad Adelphius!

JG:
James:GodSpeed

Letter 60

JW:
While the APOSTOLIC TRADITION teaches in the words of blessed Peter, `Forasmuch then as Christ suffered for us in the Flesh,' and in what Paul writes, `Looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of our Great God and Savior Jesus Christ, Who gave Himself for us that He might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto Himself a people for His own possession, and zealous of good works
(NPNF II, IV:577). Epis 60
Would you please provide to us, Joe, a citation by Athanasius where he cites "Apostolic tradition" as authoritative, and what he cites comes from your oral tradition? Maybe a discourse on the Bodily Assumption of Mary, or Papal Infallibility, would provide such a citation?

JG:
Athanasius appeals to the Regula Fide(rule of faith-tradition) and not to private interpretations of Sacred Scripture. IOW Athanasius assumes a tradition that is authoritative and substanative such as to supply the 'orthodox' sense of Sacred Scripture. Again for Athanasius, like the Fathers before and after him, do not separate Scripture, tradition and Church.

first there is the deposit itself--in both cases when the Apostle's uttered God's Word it was just as authoritative and inspired as when they put stylus to papyrus....Now we don't have the Apostle's original oral words nor do we have their autographs...Next there is an aspect of Tradition that is not inspired--and that deals with it's transmission....Hence the text you have in your hands or the monuments of Apostolic Tradition we have in the liturgy, Church Fathers, etc. are not inspired...

JW:
Are you saying that only the originals are "inspired"?

JG:
Yes, strictly speaking, from Genesis to Revelation only the originals themselves were inspired by God since they were inerrant as well...

JW:
Inerrant, yes, but is inspiration dependent upon it being an original, or it being an accurate representation of the original? "Theos en ho logos" is a copy of the original; does that mean it is not inspired any longer?

JG:
Yes, we have a reliable =access= to the original inspired Scriptures however the text in my hand wasn't inspired by God. 
"We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies to the autographic text of Scripture..."
"Inerrancy" Geisler pg 496..
God didn't inspire the printer or the lithographer regarding my text.

JW:
Really? And what is more clear on such truths as Papal Infallibility? Scripture, or "oral tradition"?

JG:
Both Scripture and Tradition are required by the Church in order to obtain the orthodox sense of God's Word. This goes for each and every doctrine of the Church.

In Christ Jesus
Joe

Athanasius-Epistula de synodis Armini et Seleucia!

JG:
James:GodSpeed

De Synodis

...De Synodis 5

St. Athanasius regarding the dating of Easter and the authority of Church Councils writes: 
"...'Thus beleives the Catholic Church'; and thereupon they confessed how they beleived, in order to show that their sentiments were not novel, but Apostolic; and what they wrote down was no discovery of theirs, but is the same as taught by the Apostles" 
Ep Councils of Ariminum/Seleucia
De Synodis 5

JW:
Already responded to as well. Purely repetitious on your part.

JG:
Just as repeitious as your tag lines! But I can understand why you will not squarely address this passage--your previous reply that the East and West differ today on the dates is =hardly= to the point is it? The fact remains, whatever the date of Easter, that Athanasius nevertheless considered the confession of the Catholic Church in Council as Apostolic! Now does Sola S admit Church Councils as being Apostolic an therefore as part of their rule of faith?

Read the next line James...

JW:
What line, Joe?

JG:
Does sola scriptura include as part of it's rule of faith ecclesiastical councils-- whose decisions on matters of faith as coming from the Apostles?

JW:
No, it doesn't, as it is beyond refutation that councils have contradicted one another, despite their claims to have been teaching Apostolic truth.

JG:
Well BYE BYE Sola Scriptura for Athanasius .... again..

JW:
In other words, "I can't demonstrate that my assertion has anything to do with sola scriptura, so I'll just repeat this `bye bye' line and hope for the best." When you feel up to attempting to push your citation, and prove your assertions, Joe, please let me know.

JG:
The point being is that Athanasius affirmed Church Councils(a monument of tradition--to affirm that his interpretation was in line with the ecclesiastical scope of faith amongst the bishops) as binding on the consciences of the faithful and possessing authority as coming from the Apostles. Athanasius writes: 
'Thus believes the Catholic Church; and thereupon they confessed how they beleived, IN ORDER to show that their own sentiments were not novel, but Apostolic..."
De Synodis 5
Athanasius didn't say the Church Fathers in Council said 'since I read from the Scripture then it is therefore Apostolic. As true as this is James(since the Scriptures are indeed Apostolic) the fact remains that Athanasius affirmed alongside the Scriptures such monuments of tradition as the ecclesiastical scope of the faith held by the Bishops in an Ecumenical Council as a touchstone in affirming a doctrine's 'orthodoxy' and 'apostlicity'.

JW:
contradiction....BTW, I find it interesting that you mention this is about Easter, since it is plain that the Eastern Churches claimed Apostolic origin for THEIR dating of Easter, too, going back to John.

JG:
Nevertheless it doesn't invalidate the Athanasius view regarding the authority of a Council...whose decisions on matters of faith as coming from the Apostles...

JW:
Fascinating that Athanasius didn't defend Nicea on that basis....Maybe he, like Basil, was referring to mere practices, rather than revealed truth?

JG:
He defended the Catholic Church's doctrine as I've shown on several occasions; on the basis of Scripture, on the basis of the ecclesiastical scope of the faith held by all Christians, by the faith held by the bishops held in an Ecumenical Council, by what he was taught by his forefathers etc...

Wow we have Athanasius appealing to the scope of the faith in which Christians hold, he appeals to Scripture, he affirms the authority of the Council(why not he's a bishop of the Catholic Church, he appeals to the testimony/writings of the Fathers etc...sounds like a great Catholic to me ....

JW:
You know, when I talk with Mormon missionaries, I can tell when they are completely out of answers when they start repeating their testimony over and over and over again, Joe.

JG:
Since this statement contains nothing but rhetoric rather than a substanative reply I will assume you have none.

De Synodis 6

JW:
sufficient above all things; but if a Council be needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene divine Scripture
(De Synodis, 6, NPNF II:IV:453).
The Nicene divine Scripture? Let's at least try to keep the editing neat, OK?

JG:
You know very well the Nicene Creed is not Sacred Scripture but it is binding and authortative on my minds of all Christians, including Athanasius--hence Athanasius would have never dreamed of interpreting the Sacred Scriptures apart from the tradition of the Creeds whereas proponents of Sola Scriptura are not required to heed to the authority of Creeds or Councils, or the Fathers, when determining the sense of the Scriptures since the Bible is sufficient in and of itself!

JW:
BTW, you deleted the following question without answering it:

Oh, really? Would you mind showing me where Athanasius did this? Where does Athanasius say, "Well, you say that, but the oral tradition of the apostles says

JG:
I will show you this in the second part of my response...It was not the 'ordinary' aim of Athanasius to prove any apostolic teaching by the Scriptures alone as his rule; in addition, Athanasius did not appeal to his own own private sense/opinion of Sacred Scriptures for his rule; But Athanasius did recognize an authoritative and substanative tradition such as to provide the 'orthodox' sense of Sacred Scriptures..a tradition coming from the apostles carried on from generation to generation via catechesis and teachings within the Church....

JW:
And I *began* the discussion pointing out that *even if that were true* (and to date, you certainly have not come CLOSE to keeping up your end of any one-to-one quotation fest), it would support my contentions, not yours. If belief in some "oral tradition" is *apostolic* in nature, then we should NOT find me able to go "toe to toe" with you in this area.

JG:
Not at all James--the Church has championed that Divine Revelation is contained in both the Written and Unwritten Traditions...You are merely quoting those passages that affirm the written and I the unwritten...The problem is squarely on your shoulders since we have testimonmy for BOTH ...

JW:
So you keep professing, but yet do we see basis for your belief. So far, you have not been able to affirm the existence of your "oral tradition" in the patristic period. But we press on....

JG:
Athanasius assumes tradition and uses it in order to determine the orthodox sense of Sacred Scriptures...

JW:
But, obviously, it is NOT the teaching of Athanasius, and many others.

JG:
First of all James--not all the Fathers taught and wrote(not to mention that many of their writings are extant) on every subject....

JW:
So?

JG:
So we don't expect to find a full orbed expression of the Catholic faith from each and every Father

JW:
I haven't asked for one, Joe.

JG:
Great...

JW:
But doesn't it strike you as rather odd that someone like Athanasius could discuss the very CENTRAL doctrines of the Christian faith *without* resorting to your oral tradition?

JG:
An assertion without a scrap of evidence James...Again, Athanasius appealed to the tradition of the Church in order to obtain the true and orthodox sense of Scripture...His epistomoligical method was the Catholic one consisting of Scripture, Tradition and Church and not a private one of Sola Scriptura...

JW:
He surely refers to the tradition of the Church, i.e., the Creed, the belief in one God, the work of Jesus Christ, etc., but we have already seen that such an appeal is not counter to sola scriptura, since the Fathers clearly confessed that what was found in the symbol was merely a condensation and simplification of what was found in Scripture,

JG:
Voila! This is the fatal flaw of your thesis James! YES and MOST certainly Athanasius appealed to the tradition of the Church as found in the creeds in the Church or the faith held by the fathers before him in the Church or the faith espoused in the Councils of the Church etc. in order to DETERMINE the 'orthodox' sense of the Scriptures. THIS IS NOT Sola Scriptura since you admit that Sola Scriptura affirms that ONE is able to determine the sense of the doctrines contained therein apart from any tradition or Church.

JW:
Creed. Hence, the Scriptures remain supreme, and all other sources

JG:
We are not talking about a primacy(as Catholics would affirm) of the Scriptures here James ...let's not get sidetracked here James. The thesis is this ===> did the Fathers (which you included in your tag lines) affirm Sola Scriptura as their rule of faith...I say no since ALL the Fathers appealed to tradition and Church in order to determine the sense of the Sacred Scriptures(while some appealed to tradition as providing truths apart from Scripture as well) and NOT via a private interpretation of the Scriptures apart from tradition or Church. The Fathers, like Athanasius, would consider a person interpreting the Scriptures all by himself apart from tradition or Church as a heretic and a liar!

JW:
Is the Bible sufficient to inform us about *all* the things that we are *bound* by God to believe? Athanasius would say yes; what do you say?

JG:
Via the reformers concept of Sola Scriptura NO! St. Athanasius would have interpreted the Scriptures as delivered and handed down by the entire Church(and this would include the authority of the Fathers, Councils, etc..)

JW:
You have yet to provide a basis for this, Joe.

JG:
My introduction set the basis for my answer since ALL the Fathers denied the Scripture's formal insufficiency. I will provide more evidence in the second part of the reply.

JW:
Are you saying that Athanasius would have said that one had to believe in Papal Infallibility, as well?

JG:
No more binding than the Nicene Creed was for some before the Nicean Council...

JW:
Where does he say this? Where does he say that *anything* is necessary to be believed that is NOT based upon the testimony of Scripture?

JG:
Regarding Athanasius--I am appealing to the formal aspect of Sola Scriptura not the material aspect. Hence, Athanasius would not have interpreted Scripture WITHOUT tradition and Church in order to obtain the orthodox sense of the Bible...Therefore Athanasius would deny the formal insufficiency of the Bible; therefore bye bye Sola Scriptura for Athanasius...

In Christ Jesus
Joe

Athanasius-Adversus Arianos Orationes

JG:
James:GodSpeed

Orat

...Orat i,8

JW:
"If such bewilderment and empty speaking be from ignorance, Scripture will teach them, that the devil, the author of heresies, because of the ill savour which attaches to evil, borrows Scripture language, as a cloak wherewith to sow the ground with is own poison also, and to seduce the simple."
Orat i,8
Now HERE is the perfect spot for Athanasius to sing the praises of Roman Catholic oral tradition!

JG:
Why should it James--Athanasius is dealing with the Arian heresy...

JW:
I guess it follows, then, that your "oral tradition" only deals with secondary, or tertiary, issues, rather than the central doctrines of the faith?

JG:
Wrong again James...you assume that when Athanasius quotes Scripture that he is invoking the novel concept of Sola Scriptura. A fatal flaw indeed, since Athanasius, like the rest of the Fathers, would not give his own private interpretation of the Sacred Text rather provide an interpretation not of his own but in-line with the ecclesiatical scope of the Church. Note his use of such words as 'own poison' to affirm Athanasius repudiation of an intepretation of Scripture apart from Tradition/Church.

JW:
backing, as they so often do? Yet, we don't find any such song of praise to "oral tradition."

JG:
Athanasius would never seperate Scripture from Tradition or Church. More later.

So...why should he here in this passage dealing with the Arians? Why would the Arian want to make an appeal to Tradition which was one and universal on the deity of Christ...The battles between the Arians and Athanasius was mainly a Scriptural battle James since that was the Arians playground...

JW:
Oh, really, Joe? Don't you remember your own citations? You yourself, Joe, have cited De Decretis 3:13 as evidence that Athanasius, to quote, "appealed to tradition." Yet, if you will look back at this passage, Athanasius is *defending* the Nicene formulation against WHOM? Yes, the Arians! Now, Joe, you can't have your cake and eat it, too! At one time you tell us all that the Arians are referring to tradition, and Athanasius is doing the same thing on the basis of De Decretis 3:13, and now you say the opposite. Which will it be?

JG:
James...Athanasius quotes Scripture all over the place in defending the faith against the Arians...but he never does it apart from tradition or Church. Therefore bye bye Sola Scriptura. Athanasius' defense of Catholic doctrine was not based primarily by the Scriptures, nor does he try to prove the sense of the Scriptures via his own lights(great as they were) RATHER he assumes a tradition that is substanative and binding, such as to provide the 'orthodox' sense of Scripture.

JW:
Now, yes, Athanasius is dealing with the Arians. It must follow, from your comments, that we can know all we need to know about the Deity of Christ WITHOUT your oral tradition, since you seem to be admitting that Athanasius does NOT refer to oral tradition to defend his position (though you have made the opposite assertion before). Is that the case? Can we know all we need to know about the Trinity, or the deity of Christ, from Scripture, without your "oral tradition"?

JG:
In order to obtain the proper sense of Scripture; the Church must interpret the Scriptures within the grid of Sacred Tradition. This goes for Athanasius as well...Do you know of anyone that has formulated and systematized the nature of God INTO what was hammered out at Nicea, Chalcedon etc. known as the Blessed Trinity from the BIBLE ALONE apart from any tradition or Church?

Orat i,10---

JW:
Which of the two theologies 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?

JG:
What?

JW:
You don't remember this, Joe? I posted it to you only a few weeks ago. You said you had read these things. It's Orat. 1:10. Remember I used this to demonstrate your error in citing Orat 1:8?

JG:
Again, Orat i,10 doesn't help you here James since Athansasius isn't giving his private opinion or proving a doctrine from the Scriptures via Sola Scriptura principles but ASSUMES a tradition that is authoritative and binding from which the 'true' interpretation of Scripture is obtained.

In fact, in the same section we find following Athanasius words 'which you vomited forth, or that which we have spoke and maintain from the Scriptures?': 
'It is not detestable even in this, that it dares not speak out, but is kept hid by it's own friends, and fostered as serpents are? for from what sources have we got together these words? or from whom have they recieved what they venture to say? Not any one man can they specify who as supplied it.'
Orat i,10
IOW Athanasius cares to only show that his intepretation of Scripture is the one consistent with the traditional teaching of the Church--he does not proport to find any meaning in Scripture other than the one taught to him...Athanasius is primarily a witness to the faith not an exegete...

JW:
Which is followed closely by the following:

For if they speak, a condemnation will follow; and if they be suspected, proofs from Scripture will be cast at them from every side.

Orat i,10

JG:
And what is wrong with appealing and defending the faith with the Scriptures--particularly if your opponent is only dealing with the Scriptures...

JW:
Arians only deal with the Scriptures, now, Joe? Well, like I showed above, this is a new story for you. Be that as it may, the point is clear: Athanasius, in defending the very central doctrines of the Christian faith, appeals ONLY to Scripture. Can you show us where he appeals to your oral tradition, Joe? Maybe where he defends the infallibility of Liberius on the basis of this tradition of yours?

JG:
You are reading into Athanasius use of Scripture a tacit affirmation of Sola Scriptura...yes Athanasius uses Scripture but always within the milieu of tradition and Church. If you read further in Orat i, 8 you will find that for him the 'orthodox' sense of Scripture is the one that is in harmony with what he was catechized(a monument of tradition) in and one that was handed to him by his predecessors in the faith... 
'It is not detestable even in this, that it dares not speak out, but is kept hid by it's own friends, and fostered as serpents are? for from what sources have we got together these words? or from whom have they recieved what they venture to say? Not any one man can they specify who as supplied it.'
Orat i,10
Remember Sola Scriptura is just that James--the Bible alone one able to know/determine the doctrines therein...no need for an authoritative tradition or Church...

JW:
Scripture proofs? Why not just throw the weight of oral tradition at

JG:
The Arians main playground was the Scriptures...nonetheless Athanasius did defend tradition of the Church when some Arians started to appeal to it(you'll find the pertinent quotes in my first message)

JW:
Please provide them, because you can't possibly be referring to the passage above, which has been shown to be anything *but* an "appeal" to your oral tradition!

JG:
Orat i, 10 is an example where Athanasius assumes an authoritative traditon(such as one found in catechesis, voice of Christian people etc..) in order determine the 'orthodox' doctrine...More in the second half.

JW:
them and be done with it? That is surely how one must handle such doctrines as papal infallibility and Bodily Assumption!

JG:
Highly selective of you James--

JW:
I hardly see how you can complain, Joe. When challenged, Roman Catholic apologists always limit what has been defined on the basis of tradition to ex-cathedra pronouncements, such as those I mentioned. It's real tough to discuss the contents of your supposed "oral tradition" without referring to those very few doctrines which have been propounded from it.

JG:
Every Catholic doctrine has a touchstone in both Scripture and Tradition.

to take a couple of quotes from Athanasius and misinterpret them and then transform Athanasius emphasis on Scripture into the voice of all the Fathers, Doctors, Bishops, lay etc. of the early Church...

JW:
When I say that you have misinterpreted something, Joe, I demonstrate it by citation and exegesis. You simply make the claim and then repeat the "standard lines." Where have I misinterpreted Athanasius? Who has consistently made reference to context, you, or me?

JG:
You affirm Athanasius held to Sola Scriptura...I hold that Athanasius affirmed the Catholic rule of faith..ie. that is one found in Scripture, Tradition and Church...IOW for Athanasius, he witnessed to the 'orthodox' teachings of the Apostles by providing the ecclesiastical and traditional sense of the Sacred Scriptures...as opposed to his 'own private' interpretation apart from tradition and Church...

Orat

JW:
Now, if you would like to demonstrate that Athanasius taught Papal Infallibility or Bodily Assumption, PLEASE, be my guest! I would like to see this!

JG:
I never said that my defense of the Catholic faith would be made merely on the basis of one Church Father? You know better than that James. Athanasius spent most of his time dealing with the Christological heresies of the Arians and not other issues of faith...

Nevertheless we are dealing with one issue between us...the rule of faith of the Fathers..Sola Scriptura or Scripture/Church/Tradition!

JW:
In fact, could you do something for me? Since you claim it is an oral tradition, delivered to the Fathers, could you fill in just one reference for each of the following where they taught Papal Infallibility (just put a "P" after the citation) and Bodily Assumption (use "B"):

Ignatius 
Clement 
Polycarp 
Irenaeus 
Tertullian 
Cyprian

JG:
Let's not get sidetracked here James. Sola Scriptura is the issue we are dealing with not papal infallibility. I mean after all, is there any amount of or persauasive tradition that would convert any of your held beliefs...such as the doctrine of the Real Presence or baptismal regeneration...which enjoys as much consensus and antiquity as anyone would want?

JW:
I'll keep it short, as you are probably busy, too. Since this is supposedly an "apostolic doctrine," I'm sure you'll be able to fill in at least the ones where we have a substantial body of extant literature.

JG:
We are dealing with Sola Scriptura. Perhaps the primacy/infallibilty of the Pope later..

JW:
Athanasius' way. Instead, he shows the consistency of his own belief with Scripture, and the inconsistency of the heretics' beliefs: all in

JG:
Hardly his OWN beleif James--He admitted that the faith was that of the Church, which came from the fathers and their fathers and so on... Athanasius like the Fathers before and after him considered themselves primarily as witnesses to the faith and not exegetes of Scripture James...

JW:
Oh? Where do you get this idea?

JG:
WHERE? All over the writings of Athanasius. He breathes this assumption in his discussions with the Arians. In fact, it is Athanasius' rule of faith! See the second half for Athanasius understanding of the rule of faith.

at the various Councils the question that was asked was not what "I" think or think probable an interpretation of a passage of Scripture is rather was this what I have been taught by others!

JW:
Or, more accurately, what has God revealed to be true.

JG:
Don't get Gnostic on me James...God working through WHOM is the question?

...Orat i,8

JG:
St. Athanasius after quoting Scripture and providing the Arian interpretation of Christ writes: 
"Who was ever a hearer of such a doctrine? or whence did they gain it? or who thus expounded to them, when they were at school? What is not from the Father, but has come to light in this day, how can it be but that which the blessed Paul has foretold, that 'in the latter times, some shall depart from the sound faith"
Orat 1:8
JW:
'sigh' Joe, we have gone over this before, and you have consistently REFUSED to even BEGIN to respond to this passage *in context.* Your constant re-citation of the passage, in light of your continued refusal to deal with what the passage says IN CONTEXT proves to me that you are unable to engage a scholarly discussion of this passage.

JG:
Pretty much what you have done with the previous quotes from Irenaeus, Augustine, Basil, Greg Naz, Greg Nys, Basil et. at. In fact, you haven't dealt with them directly. For example, on Basil you didn't rebut the fact that he appealed to uwritten traditions but rather questioned what practices/beliefs he based on unwritten traditions...Nevertheless Athanasius does not separate Scripture from Tradition. For him, the test of 'orthodoxy' consisted of contrasting a doctrine with what he was taught, with what his predecessors in the faith passed on, what the Church transmitted in Council, the catechesis of the Church; IOW he measured the doctrine against tradition.

JW:
who are benefitted by the reading of these interchanges, I will once again point out the flaws in your citation. First, the passage in no way, shape, or form even *mentions* the concept of "oral tradition" in the Roman Catholic context.

JG:
Even though the words of 'oral tradition' was not used Athanasius' is clearly appealing to them...he appeals to tradition found in the faith handed down or taught by his predeccesors which is a distinct authority apart from the Scriptures. Hence Athanasius can say to the Arians WHO had the Scriptures in hand 'Who was ever a hearer of such a doctrine' or 'whence did they gain it' or 'who thus expounded it to them'. These passages clearly affirm that the Arians espoused a NOVEL idea since Athanasius questioned the Arians traditional pedigree of the doctrine! Athanasius in many of his writings questioned the fact that the Arians doctrine was unscriptual on the basis that their doctrines were not in line with the tradition of the Church.

Athanasius adds in this passage: 
"But if they[the Arians] themselves own that they have heard it now for the very FIRST time, how can they deny that this heresy is foreign, and not from our father'
Orat 1:8
Again, Athanasius is reinforcing the fact that the Arian doctrine was novel since their traditional pedigree(and NOT their Scriptural basis) was wanting since the Arians themselves admit that the origin of their doctrine was no older than Arius himself. Clearly, Athanasius is appealing to Tradition(via the monunent of universal belief and antiquity of the faith of the Church) and not Scriptures Alone as part of his rule of faith....

JW:
"...giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils, in the hypocrisy of liars; cauterized in their own conscience, and turning from the truth. For, behold, we take divine Scripture, and thence discourse with freedom of the religious Faith, and set it up as a light upon its candlestick...."
Orat i,9
JG:
Agreed James--we don't deny the authority of Holy Writ and the material sufficiency(apart from the canon/inspiration issues) of Holy Writ since all Catholic beliefs must have a touchstone in both the written and unwritten traditions...but let's don't get off the subject at hand...Did the early Fathers affirm the rule of faith of Sola Scriptura which claims that not only is the Scriptures sufficient in a material sense but the Scriptures ALONE are sufficient in a formal sense. It is the latter which Catholics and ALL the Fathers deny!

But let's not quote Athanasius out of context James because in the section right before (Orat i,8) we have Athanasius affirm the 'orthodoxy' of his doctrine based on the fact that his doctrine was not of his own private exegesis apart from Tradition or Church rather one inherited from the Church since he could find it in the teachings of the fathers before him and he could find hearers of his doctrine all over the Church. So let's not put words in Athanasius mouth since he denies time and time again the formal principle of the Scriptures. And in the section following this passage you selected from Orat i, 9 Athanasius affirms the same idea...'...for from what sources have they got together these words? or from whom have they received what they venture to say?' Orat i, 10

JW:
And the next section begins, 
Which of the two theologies 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?
Orat i, 10
JG:
I answered this already above--In sum, everytime Athanasius affirms the authority of Scripture he ASSUMES it is to be interpreted within the milieu of Tradition and Church as the remaining text of the same Orat i,10 clearly shows. Regarding the Arians doctrines...'Not any one man can they specify who has supplied it?'

JW:
Which is followed quickly by, 
For if they speak, a condemnation will follow; and if they be suspected, proofs from Scripture will be cast at them from every side. 
Orat i,9
JG:
Agreed...but let's take Athanasius writings in their entirety! All the passages in the world from Athanasius regarding the Scriptures' authority are not to the point James since Athanasius ASSUMES they are to be interpreted not via Sola Scriptura principles(that is ALONE) but within the tradition of Christ's Church. Athanasius' knows No orthodox doctrines other than what he has inherited from the Church...So the question remains 'What was Athanasius' rule of faith?'... You need to deal with the fact that Athanasius did not seperate Scripture , Tradition and Church or show us that Athanasius used Sola Scriptura principles at arriving at Christian truths.

JW:
These citations have been provided to you before; you have failed to take them into consideration, and hence, I can only conclude that you cannot deal with an examination of the passage as you cited it.

JG:
Good Old Athanasius...appeals to Scripture, appealed to Church Councils, he appealed to the Fathers, appealed to the faith of antiquity among beleivers of the Church....So much for Sola S....

Orat

...Orat i,10;13

JW:
Nor does Scripture afford them any pretext; for it has been often shown, and it shall be shown now, that their doctrine is alien to the divine oracles
(p. 312). Orat i,10
It is plain then from the above that the Scriptures declare the Son's eternity
(p. 313). Orat i, 13
And he does not merely limit the Scriptures to the declaration of certain truths; no, instead, he finds Scripture speaking to the most complex of theological beliefs, such as the divine generation of the Son, and says, 
"This again is strongly evidenced and proved by divine Scripture"
(p. 322).
JG:
What is your point James--that one is able to use the Scriptures to defend a doctrine?

JW:
The point is very plain, Joe: Athanasius discusses the very central doctrines of the faith without a single appeal to your tradition. If he could get by without your tradition, why do I need it now?

JG:
What? Look again James...Athanasius is NOT appealing to HIS own interpretation but providing the interpretation consistent to what was transmitted to him in teaching, what was handed to him by his spiritual fathers in the faith--hence Athanasius was primarily a WITNESS not an exegete. Again a couple of sentences prior to the passage, 
'Nor does Scripture afford them..'
Orat i, 10 ; 
we find that thanasius affirms his orthodoxy on the basis that it was what was handed to him, what was taught to him--IOW he understood to be true because it was the ecclesiastical/traditional sense of Scripture! Again I repeat in Orat i,10 
'for from what sources have they got together these words? or from whom have they recieved what they venture to say? Not any one man can they specify who has supplied it.' 
Athanasius repeats the same train of thought and begins his first discourse the same way: 
'If such bewilderment and empty speaking be from ignorance, Scripture will teach them, that the devil, the author of heresies, because of the ill savour which attaches to evil, borrows Scripture langauge, as a cloak wherewith to sow the ground with his own poison...or how can he be orthodox concering the Spirit, while he speaks profanely of the Word' and Athanasius understood that his his doctrine was orthodox and the Arians was heresy 'For who was ever a hearer of such a doctrine? or whence or from whom did the abbettors and hirelings of the heresy gain it? who thus expounded to them when they were at school?...but they themselves own that they heard it for the first time, how can they deny that this heresy is foreign, and not from our fathers..'
Orat i, 8
This is the way Athanasius argues James all through his writings--he presents a heretical belief of the Arians, shows how the orthodox position is in concert with the Sacred Scripture and then contrast this with what the Church has always beleived and taught. For Athanasius the orthodox sense of the Scriptures is one that is in keeping with what he has been taught, with what his spiritual fathers of the past has held and with the ecclesiastical sense of the Scriptures. Again, tradition(in the various monuments such as catechesis, the ecclessiastical sense of Scripture, the writings of the fathers etc.) are enough for Athanasius to determine the orthodox doctrines.

JW:
And how does Athanasius do this? Does he appeal to unwritten tradition to prove that the interpretation of the heretics is in error? No. He exegetes the passages themselves, and shows the inconsistencies of the Arian interpretations.

JG:
So...but to say that Athanasius only appealed to the Scriptures as his rule of faith is another thing...

JW:
Until you can demonstrate him doing just that, Joe, your position remains undefended.

JG:
I have shown you above that Athanasius is not a private exegete as Sola Scriptura would have it but a witness of faith showing how the orthodox position is the one that is in line with the tradition of the Church and Scripture. More later.

Orat i,8;10;52---

JW:
same passages, Athanasius did 1500 years ago. Tell me, Joe--who follows this example from the early Church? The Protestant, who engages the JW on the basis of the very text itself, or the Roman Catholic, who appeals to "oral tradition" to defend the Trinity or the Deity of Christ?

JG:
Where do you get the idea that Catholics affirm ONLY the oral? You set up a strawman James.

JW:
Talk about a strawman, Joe! Where did I say "ONLY" affirms the oral? I didn't! Yet you must admit that you have seen MANY Roman Catholics, unable to defend the Trinity or the Deity of Christ, falling back upon their true final authority, "Well, the Church says so on the basis of tradition" etc.

JG:
Well your flippant remark regarding the authority of Church and tradition would not be in line with the ecclesisatical sense of Athanasius would it James? This is no surprise since you are a proponent of Sola Scriptura/private intepretation and Athanasius would never have separated Scripture, Tradition or Church. In the same discourse we have Athanasius railing against private Arian opinions of Scripture: 
'Laying down their PRIVATE impiety as some sort of rule, they wrest all the divine oracles into accoradance with it'
Orat i, 52
So much for private intepretation of Sola Scriptura...

JW:
Back on track: The Protestant, such as myself, who argues against the Jehovah's Witness solely from Scripture is following Athanasius' example. How can this be, if Rome is, indeed, true in her claims?

JG:
James you are not coming to grips with the fact then when Athanasius quotes Scripture he assumes Tradition...when you quote Scripture you do not assume an authoritative tradition or Church! But this is no surprise since you are a proponent of Sola Scriptura. Athanasius on the other hand affirms that his teaching is 'orthodox' since it is in line with what the fathers who taught him, in line with the Church and in line with the catechesis in the Church from the beginning... 
'how can they deny that this heresy is foreign, and not from our fathers...'
Orat i, 8
JG:
The Catholic, like Athanasius and the rest of the Fathers affirms Both the written and unwritten Apostolic traditions in the context of the pillar and foundation of the truth--the Church...

JW:
Another confession of faith, but not a provision of proof.

JG:
Re-read Orat i, 8 again James...Athanasius assumes tradition in interpreting Scripture--and for him 'orthodoxy' is measured whether they are in line with various monuments of tradition which includes all the various ministrations of the Church such as catechesis or the writings of the Church fathers! 
'till now they understand nothing...who thus expounded to them when they were at school?...'
Orat i, 8
'for from what sources have they got together these words? or from whom have they received what they venture to say?..'
Orat i, 10
JW:
But what is also to the point, let us note that the very tradition, teaching, and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning, which the Lord gave, was preached by the Apostles, and was preserved by the Fathers. On this was the Church founded; and if anyone departs from this, he neither is nor any longer ought to be called a Christian:

That's the part that gets quoted, because it is surely liable to be read with modern eyes and understandings, is it not? "Aha!" comes the cry, "See! Athanasius speaks of tradition! That proves it! No sola scriptura!" But, what does Athanasius MEAN by tradition?

JG:
I just showed you James--for Athanasius tradition includes such things as the Creeds, writings of the Church fathers, doctrines that are handed on from generation to generation via catechesis, the voice of the Chrisian people, the ecclesiastical sense of Scripture etc, etc...a tradition that is substanative and authoritative for Athanasius...bye bye Sola Scriptura

James that has been your thesis but I disagree with it.

JW:
Woops, Joe, you messed up in deleting my materials again; you obviously read my "thesis" regarding the meaning of "tradition" for Athanasius in his letter to Serapion, then deleted it from your reply, but responded to my "thesis" anyway, without including it. For those attempting to follow, I repeat the deleted quotation from Athanasius that is so very important: 
there is a Trinity, holy and perfect, acknowledged as God, in Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, having nothing foreign or external mixed with It, no composed of a fashioner and an originated, but entirely creative and fashioning...
(etc.).
JG:
Tradition for Athanasius includes what the Church has handed down from father to father, what it has always been beleived...

JW:
Right, and that tradition is derived from, and secondary to, Scripture, just as Cyril said. Thanks for confirming that. It is NOT what YOU mean when you speak of your "oral tradition."

JG:
James this statement of yours like those above are damning to your thesis that Athanasius affirms Sola Scriptura--since you admit that Athanasius affirms a tradition..Since Athanasius ASSUMES this tradition as something that is distinct(though in line with Scriptures) and authoritative therefore bye bye Sola Scriptura. He will not separate Scripture, Tradition or Church. From a Sola Scriptura standpoint Athanasius doesn't need to repair =ANY= tradition in order to determine the 'orthodox' sense of Scripture. However, for Athanasius 'orthodoxy' is measured by the various monuments of tradition.

Orat

You seem to think that Ahanasius is interpreting Sacred Scriptures ALL BY HIS LONESOME apart from the monuments of Tradition such as Church Councils, beleifs as handed down by the faithful, the writings of the Fathers and apart from the Church itself...

JW:
*I* certainly never said that! But I DID say that Scripture was the highest authority, and that Athanasius does not appeal to your "oral tradition" as basis for his beliefs. Let's stay on course here, we are getting close to land....

JG:
I was going to begin my =entire= set of replies with this statement of yours James since IMHO this is the most damning to your thesis that Athanasius affirmed Sola Scriptura...remember James Sola Scriptura means that: 
'...the Bible is His Word , then the Bible will be SUFFICIENT IN AND OF ITSELF for the determination of all those doctrines and truths addressed within its pages.'
Answers to CC James White pg 35
whereas the Catholic position is 
'Holy Scripture contains the whole faith in substance, but the faith can be grasped in its totality and fullness only in light of Tradition'
Church's Confession of Faith(A Catholic Cathechism) pg 47
and finally Athanasius writes in the same first discourse regarding the orthodox doctrine: 
'THIS,' he writes, 'I conceive is the meaning of this passage, and that a meaning ESPECIALLY ECCLESIASTICAL'
Orat i, 44
Likewise Athanasius ends his discourse with the Arians the same way he started it: 
'Had they dwelt on these thoughts, and recognized the ecclesiastical scope as an ANCHOR for the faith, they would not have of the faith have made shipwreck of the faith'
Orat iii, 58
Good Old Athanasius...without the tradition of the Church(as evidence by the ecclesiastical sense of faith)the interpretation of Scripture and one's faith can become shipwrecked...

JW:
This is very important, for it is beyond dispute that Athanasius develops, AND DEFENDS, the Trinity on the basis of Scripture. He does

JG:
He does use Scripture--no argument...but he also appeals the writings of the early Church, Councils, and to the faith handed down as well...So much for Sola Scriptura...
JW:
Another profession of faith, without a citation or shred of evidence. This is not argument any longer, Joe; you are merely repeating your "testimony."

JG:
We'll let the readers be the judge James. I've already shown you in the first discourse of Athanasius that his appeal to Scripture is not apart from tradition and Church.

...Orat iii,15

JW:
For divine Scripture wishing us thus to understand the matter, has given such illustrations, as we have said above, from which we are able both to press the traitorous Jews, and the refute the allegations of Gentiles who maintain and think, on account of the Trinity, that we profess many gods (p. 402).
Orat iii, 15
JG:
Again, nothing that invalidates the authority of Tradition or Church...

JW:
And nothing that affirms the existence of your mythical "oral tradition," either.

JG:
Wrong again. James your assertions are without any basis as I've already shown. Any appeal to the Scriptures by Athanasius is made within the milieu of tradition and Church. Again, any time Athanasius asserts that a doctrine in Scriptures is either 'true', 'orthodox', 'good' or 'pious' Athanasius understands this to mean that his intepretation is in harmony with the Regula Fide(the rule of faith). I will show you in the second half what is Athanasius rule of faith. In short, Athanasius' rule of faith is Scripture and Tradition. In the same discourse iii in which you deny Athanasius appeal to tradition we find: 
'And yet, needless though it be to refine upon these passages, considering them so clear and RELIGIOUS sense, and our own ORTHODOX belief, yet that their irreligion may be shewn here also, come let us shortly, as we have RECEIVED FROM THE FATHERS, expose THEIR heterodoxy from the passage'
Orat iii, 18
Time and time again Athanasius uses this principle(interpreting the Scriptures in harmony what he was taught, to be in harmony with the teachings of the Church rec'd from the fathers etc) to show the Arians their private(and therefore misinterpretation) of the Scriptures and affirm his orthodoxy.

...Orat iii,28 
"That of what they now alledge from the Gospels they certainly give unsound intepretation we may easily see, if we now consider the OBJECT of that faith which we as Christians hold, and , USING IT AS A RULE, apply ourselves, as the Apostles teaches, to the reading of the inspired Scripture. For Christ's enemies, being ignorant of this OBJECT have wandered from the truth"
Orat iii.28
JW:
Surely you are not asserting that the above qualifies as a reference to the authority of your oral tradition, are you, Joe? I would be deeply

JG:
Absolutely James...tradition finds monuments in the life of the Church--such as the faith of the Church, liturgy, catechesis, writings of the Fathers etc..

James whatever the character of the "OBJECT" is--nevertheless nullifies Sola Scriptura....

JW:
A fascinating statement, Joe! You don't know what "skopos" is, or to what it refers, but it surely nullifies sola scriptura! Amazing!

JG:
James this was hardly a refutation of this passage was it. The notes supplied by John Henry Newman makes my point abundantly clear.

The ecclesiatical scope, or the Regula Fidei(rule of faith) is nothing more that the 'traditional' Catholic faith held from the beginning, held by all--a tradition which is substanative and authoritative such as to provide the 'true' sense of Scripture...without it one makes a shipwreck of his faith...

JW:
disappointed at such an unscholarly attempt (even Newman didn't try it, at least not in this edition)

JG:
I got this quote from Newman's Via Media! I guess it was scholarly after all...

JW:
But his *translation* does not make the attempt, and I find no notes to that effect in the edition in my possession.

JG:
Wrong again James! Not only do we find John Henry Newman using this same passage to affirm an authoritative tradition in his "Via Media" but he makes the same point in the same book you are reading from by Eerdmans...read his notes on the Regula Fidei in the very book you... On the very passage we are discussing you can follow the thread provided by his notes and find his definition of the regula fidei(ecclesiastical sense of faith; traditionary doctrine held by the faithful) and the fact that Athanasius uses it as the rule to obtain the 'orthodox' sense of Scripture....The notes on this passage will refer you to Orat iii,50; and these notes refer you to notes found in Orat iii,58 which read: 
"It is remarkable that he ends as he began, with reference to the ecclesiastical scope, or Regula Fidei, which has so often come under our notice, vid. Or ii 35 n. 2. 44, n.1, as if distinctly to tell us, that Scripture did not force its meaning on the individual as to dispense with an intepreter, and as if his own deductions were not to be viewed merely in their own logical power, great as that power often is, but UNDER the authority of the Catholic doctrines which they subserve"
Note 12 provided for Orat iii, 58
In addition if you look at the notes at the beginning of the text in the 'Prolegomena' we read: 
'Tradition is recognized as authoritative in two ways: (i) Negatively, in the sense that doctrines which are novel are prima acie condemned by the very fact....and (ii) positively, as furnishing a GUIDE to the sense of Scripture...In other words, tradition with Athanasius IS A FORMAL, not a material, source of doctrine.'
lxxiv
More in the second half...

Orat

...Orat iii,28;29

JW:
Finally, having established the context of your original citation (a few messages ago now) of the following passage, we proceed:

JG:
By all means...

JW:
Now what has been briefly said above may suffice to show their misunderstandings of the passages they then alleged; and that of what they now allege from the Gospels they certainly given an unsound interpretation, we may easily see, if we now consider the scope of that faith which we Christians hold, and using it as a rule, apply ourselves, as the Apostle teaches, to the reading of inspired Scripture. For Christ's enemies, being ignorant of this scope, have wandered from the way of truth, and have stumbled on a stone of stumbling, thinking otherwise than they should think. Orat iii, 28 
29. Now the scope and character of Holy Scripture, as we have often said, is this,--it contains a double account of the Saviour; that He was ever God, and is the Son, being the Father's Word and Radiance and Wisdom; and that afterwards for us He took flesh of a Virgin, Mary Bearer of God, and was made man. And this scope is to be found throughout inspired Scripture, as the Lord Himself has said, `Search the Scriptures, for they are they which testify of Me.' 
Orat iii,29
You know that old song, "What A Difference a Day Makes"? Well, I'm writing one entitled "What A Difference a Context Makes."

JG:
Sorry you lose..James -- Athanasius makes a clear distinction between the 'scope of the faith which Christians hold' and 'the reading of the inspired Scriptures'...two distinct authorities--Bye Bye Sola Scriptura again..

JW:
Thank you for providing that in-depth exegesis of the passage, Joe, and taking into consideration the 150 or more lines of citations that proceeded it so as to provide you with the literary context, etc. I must come to the conclusion on the basis of a three and one half line response that you simply cannot deal with Athanasius in his context, and must just repeat the same professions of faith over and over

JG:
Fire away James. The context will not help you here as Athanasius is clearly denying the formal principle of Sola Scriptura as he affirms in his rule of faith the 'ecclesiastical sense' of Scripture (a monument of tradition) as necessary in order to 'know' the 'orthodox' sense of Sacred Scripture. There is no private interpretation in Athanasius epistomology. For Athanasius 'orthodoxy' is determined by contrasting a doctrine by what he was taught, by what Christian's have beleived from generation to generation, by the ecclesisatical(NOT PRIVATE sense) sense of Scripture.

JW:
again, such as "Bye Bye Sola Scriptura." YOU may feel better when you write that, Joe, but *I* know that I have made my point, and I know that you are simply running for cover.

JG:
Well James it doesn't matter what =you= may think about yourself.

JW:
Now, since you introduced the passage, would you care to take the lead in contextually defining the term "scopos" as it is used by

JG:
I already have-that is why I provided you the passage! Athanasius is making a distinction between what has been held by the faithful and the reading of the inspired Scriptures....

JW:
Excuse me? You already have? Tell me honestly, Joe, had you read this passage in context?

JG:
Several times. Read the discourses as well...Interesting how Athanasius begins and ends his 3 discourses with the necessity to read the Scriptures in harmony with tradition in order to determine the 'true' sense of Scripture

JW:
Did you know that it defined "scope" as being "found throughout the inspired Scripture"?

JG:
They should be found in the Scriptures. Since ALL Christian beleifs are conveyed(apart from the canon/inspiration of the Scriptures) in Scripture(implicity or explicitly).

*BUT* the scope which Athanasius was referring to in Orat ii, 28 was the ECCLESIASTICAL SCOPE not the SCRIPTURES ITSELF James. This is something entirely different. In other words, Athanasius deemed it necessary to repair to the ecclesiastical sense of the faith in interpreting Sacred Scriptures in order to determine it's true and therefore 'orthodox sense'. Hence Athnanasius, like the rest of the Fathers, reject the Bible's formal sufficiency. This is in stark contrast to the epistomological method of Sola Scriptura you put forth: 
'...then the Bible will be sufficient IN AND OF ITSELF for the DETERMINATION of all those doctrines and truths addressed within its pages.'
Answers to CC, James White pg 35
JW:
And how do you fit Athanasius own statement into your own? It seems pretty plain to me that "skopos" is referring to the Creed, that symbol which Athanasius himself defines:

JG:
Excellent, Correct again James- The Creed is just another monument of Tradition which for Athanasius is indispensable in interpreting the the Scriptures in a 'true' and 'pious' sense.

JW:
29. Now the scope and character of Holy Scripture, as we have often said, is this,--it contains a double account of the Saviour; that He was ever God, and is the Son, being the Father's Word and Radiance and Wisdom; and that afterwards for us He took flesh of a Virgin, Mary Bearer of God, and was made man. And this scope is to be found throughout inspired Scripture, as the Lord Himself has said, `Search the Scriptures, for they are they which testify of Me.' 
Orat i, 29

Athanasius says the "skopos" is found in Scripture. 
Joe Gallegos says the "skopos" is found outside of Scripture.

JG:
Wrong again James--you are creating a false dichotemy between two objects. For Athanasius these two objects go hand in hand rather than say Athanasius affirmed only =one= scope. Athanasius is clearly delineating an authority which is substanative and distinct from the Scriptures itself(the ecclesiastical sense of the faith within the Church) in Orat i,28. In addition he affirms another scope(object) namely the Scriptures in Orat iii, 29 themselves, hence he not equating the scope in Orat iii, 28 with the scope of Orat iii, 29. The former is the faith held by Christians(a monument of tradition) and the latter is the Scriptures. In sum, Athanasius IS affirming that the scopos is found in tradition and in Scripture as opposed to the Scriptures only.

Let's look at Orat iii, 28 and 29 a little more carefully. In Orat iii, 28 we find Athanasius explaining the orthodox sense of our Lord's eternality and nature. He starts with the Arians claim that their beliefs are in harmony with Scripture: 
'and that of what they now alleged; and that of what they now allege from the Gospels they certainly give an unsound interpretation' 
Athanasius continues by affirming that the 'orthodox' sense was missed by the Arians because they have not 'heeded' to the ecclesiastical faith of all Christians(a monument of Tradition) hence Athanasius writes: 
'we may easily see, if we now consider the scope(object) of that faith which we Christian hold, and using it as a RULE, apply ourselves, as the Apostle teaches, to the READING of inspired Scripture' 
and since the Arians did not interpret the Scriptures in HARMONY with the faith/teaching present in the Church he writes: 
'For Christ's enemies being ignorant of THIS SCOPE, have wandered from the truth, and stumbled on a stone of stumbling, thinking otherwise than they should think'
Orat iii, 28
Next we have Athanasius discussing the central theme of the Sacred Scripture is Jesus Christ(His divinity and Sonship). Hence we have Athanasius writing: 
'Now the scope(object) and character of Holy Scripture, as we often said, IS THIS, IT contains a double account of the Saviour...and THIS scope(object-ie. Jesus being the central theme) is to be found throughout inspired Scriptures'
Orat iii,29
In sum, Athanasius is appealing to two objects in determing 'orthodox' doctrine --1) the 'scope of the faith which we Christians hold ('Orat iii,28) and 2) the 'scope' consisting of the central theme of Christ's divinity and Sonship found 'throughout inspired Scripture'(Orat iii,29). Again, Athanasius affirms the Catholic position not Sola Scriptura otherwise Athanasius would not not deem it necessary to hold on to the 'ecclesiastical sense' of the faith of Christians in interpreting Scripture. In fact, in the same exact discourse Athanasius damns private intepretation, denies the Bible's formal sufficiency and affirms the necessity of intepreting Scripture in harmony with the ecclesiatical faith of the Church. We read: 
'Had Christ's enemies thus dwelt on these thoughts, and RECOGNIZED the =ecclesiastical scope= as an ANCHOR for the faith, they would NOT HAVE MADE *SHIPWRECK* of the faith...'
Orat iii, 58
Again and again Athanasius uses tradition as part of his rule of faith.. For Athanasius the 'orthodox' sense of Scripture is determined via it's harmony with tradition.

JW:
Who is to be believed?

JG:
Athanasius of course...

JW:
Athanasius in this passage? You seem to want to make it mean "oral tradition."

JG:
Athanasius as we read affirms the authority of tradition to determine the 'orthodox' sense of doctrines and not via Sola Scriptura...and as we read one who does not apply the ecclesiastical scope of the faith of the Christian people to the reading of Scriptures one will inevitably SHIPWRECK one's faith.

Orat

James--perhaps you need to do some reading in what Tradition means...

JW:
Yes, Joe, indeed. We all need to continue learning.

JG:
May I recommend a few works for your reading?

Catholic; 'The meaning of tradition' by Yves Congar 
Protestant; 'Early Christian Doctrines' by J.N.D. Kelly (chapter on tradition) 
Orthodox; 'Living Tradition' by J. Meyendorff

there are various aspects to it--it derives it's source from the unwritten teachings of the Apostles--

JW:
And, as you know, Joe, you have been challenged to demonstrate that what YOU claim is "unwritten apostolic doctrine" can actually be traced to the Apostles, which is why we are doing this whole thing to begin with. I assert that what the Apostles taught orally does not differ from what they wrote in the New Testament.

JG:
The unwritten tradition of the Apostles existed before the written. It was from the unwritten tradition that the written originated. Regarding your use of the word 'differ'...the unwritten tradition doesn't differ in the sense that it contradicts Scripture but that it contains the fullness what is found in the Scripture...

Tradition also involves the transmission/monuments of such teaching through the centuries(such as the beleif of the faithful that has been held from the beginning, the writings of the Fathers, Councils, liturgies etc...)...Now it is clear that the passage is referring to Tradition...

JW:
Yes, tradition just as it was defined by Cyril, that being the Creed, the basic truth that is found in Scripture, or, to repeat his words:

JG:
Agreed...All divine 'tradition' is in harmony with Scripture...

JW:
So, since it is a given that if you collect one thing out of another, it must be secondary to the greater thing, then we see that Athanasius is NOT referring to the "oral tradition" you have been seeking to establish all along, an oral tradition that, as I have said, contains revelation OTHER than that found in the New Testament.

JG:
Sufficiency of Scripture in the Catholic sense and Sola Scriptura are two entirely different things James. Remember the subject at hand is do the Church Fathers affirm as their rule of faith Sola Scriptura or Scripture, Tradition and Church.

Couldn't be any clearer James...You would have your point made James if Athanasius merely said that the Scriptures ALONE was our rule of faith but he DIDN't---rather he included Tradition as found in the scope of the faith in the faithful as the grid in which the Scriptures are to be read!

JW:
Now there you go again, Joe, mixing up the tradition we have just agreed Athanasius is referring to (which is derived from Scripture, as Athanasius said), with your "oral tradition" which is NOT derived from Scripture. Let's keep on the straight and narrow here....

JG:
James let's stay on the subject at hand James...ALL of Sacred Tradition comes from Christ and derivatively from the Apostles; it was unwritten tradition at first. So it's more perfect to say that the written tradition came from the unwritten tradition. Regarding tradition, there are several aspects to it; such as truth not contained within the pages of Holy Writ such as the doctrine concerning the 'existence' of 'new' inspired writings and the doctrine of the 'canon' of the NT. These are clearly not contained within Scripture. In addition, tradition consists of teachings which provide the 'fullness' and 'orthodox' sense of doctrines contained in Scripture. Hence, tradition in this light tradition provides the 'full' and 'orthodox' sense of Scripture. It is to this latter aspect of tradition that I direct my attention to in these set of replies.

Hence, that is why the early Fathers, and Catholics can speak of a material(starting with the Bible in hand as a given;aside from the canonical issues) sufficiency of Scripture and at the same time deny the formal principle of Sola Scriptura since tradition(in it's various monuments) is required in order to obtain the 'full' and 'orthodox' sense of God's Word..

...Orat iii,28

St. Athanasius regarding the rule of faith...

"That of what they now allege from the Gospels they certainly give unsound interpretation we may easily see, if we now consider the object of that faith which we Christians hold, and, using it as a rule, apply it ourselves, as the Apostle teaches, to the reading of inspired Scripture. For Christ enemies, being ignorant of this object have wandered from the truth"
Orat 3:28
JW:
And, again, you have been shown to be in error on this as well, Joe. What is the scopos? Why do you allege it is extra-biblical in nature?

JG:
I answered this obection above. The object/scopos is that body of belief which Christians hold--an aspect of Tradition distinct from the Scriptures itself(though in harmony with it)... Athanasius uses tradition expressed in the voice of the faithful as a rule and applies it to the reading of Sacred Scriptures...Athanasius makes a clear distinction between two things; 1)the object consisting of the ecclesiastical faith and 2)the Scriptures. He clearly affirms the Catholic position here James where Athanasius rule includes reading the Scripture within the milieu of tradition(the object of faith of Christians). Does Sola Scriptura =require= that tradition(as expressed in the body of beleif of the faithful) is needed in order to determine the truths of Scripture?

Since Athanasius inteprets Scripture as a witness of the Church and not as a private exegete he affirms like the rest of the Fathers the Real Presence in the Eucharist. We read: 
'And we are not deified not partaking of the body of a man, but by recieving the Body of the Word Himself'
Letter 61,2
'See to it, therefore, Deacon, that thou do not administer to the unworthy the purple of the sinless body,'
Comm on Matt vii,6
In Christ Jesus
Joe

Athanasius Regula Fidei

JG:
Athanasius' Rule of Faith

It is through recognizing this regula fidei(the rule of faith) as his foundation that Athanasius debates the Arians. All doctrine that Athanasius affirms as 'pious', 'orthodox', 'true' and 'worthy' of belief are those doctrines that were taught to him by his spiritual fathers therefore in harmony with the traditional catechesis of the Catholic Church. Hence, it was not the ordinary aim for Athanasius when rebutting the Arians to prove the 'orthodoxy' of a doctrine through a private exegesis of the Scriptures rather Athanasius 'assumes' an authoritative and substantive tradition such as to provide the authentic orthodox interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures. This 'tradition' for Athanasius was expressed in various monuments such as: 1) tradition of faith passed on from generation to generation via the catechesis of the Church, 2)tradition of the faith passed on by various other ministrations of the Church such as liturgy, 3)tradition expressed through Ecumenical Council, 4)tradition passed on by the writings of his spiritual fore-fathers in the faith and 5)tradition expressed by the ecclesiastical voice of Catholics. All these were 'sufficient' for Athanasius to determine the orthodoxy of a doctrine! In short, like the Fathers at Nicea, Athanasius was not a private exegete or an inquirer rather a witness and a transmitter of the Apostolic faith.

Private Interpretation...

Throughout Athanasius writings we find that intepretation of Scripture is no private matter but one performed within the context of tradition and within the Catholic Church. For example we find in his first discourse against the Arians: 
'Laying down their PRIVATE impiety as some sort of RULE(as in in rule of faith), they wrest all the divine oracles into accordance with IT'
Orat i, 52
Here we find Athanasius denying the validity of private intepretation such as one allowed and affirmed via the epistomological principle of Sola Scripture. In short, for Athanasius private intepretation should not be used as a rule of faith.

Likewise we read Athanasius commenting on the Arians private intepretation of John 10:30 and John 17:11: 
'However here too they introduce their PRIVATE fictions, and contend that the Son and the Father are not in such wise 'one' or 'like' as the CHURCH PREACHES, BUT as they THEMSELVES would have it' 
Orat iii,10
Here we have Athanasius lampooning the notion of determining the orthodox sense of a passage via private exegesis rather than contrasting one's intepretation against the Church's tradition. This is the way Athanasius argues throughout his writing, ie. via Catholic principles of affirming Scripture, Tradition and Church and not via the private exgesis of Sola Scriptura.

Next we have Athanasius discussing the term 'made' in relation to the incarnation we read: 
'...and thus they deceive the thoughtless, making the language of Scripture THEIR pretence, but instead of the TRUE sense sowing upon it the poison of their OWN heresy.' 
Orat i,53
Here we have Athanasius denying the legitimacy of private interpretation apart from tradition or Church.

Likewise a few chapters before Athanasius writes: 
'But since they alledge the divine oracles and force on them a misinterpretation, according to their OWN PRIVATE sense'
as opposed an intepretation in harmony with the eccelesiatical sense of the Church. Hence Athanasius continues: 
', it becomes necessary to meet them just so far as to vindicate these passages, and to shew that they bear an orthodox sense, and that our opposition is in error.' 
Hence Athanasius determined that the 'orthodox' doctrine are those that are in harmony with tradition and Church. Therefore Athanasius thought it necessary to vindicate these doctrines and therefore show that these 'orthodox' teachings are in harmony with the Sacred Scriptures.

Hence a common phrase of Athanasius contrasting the private interpretation of Scripture and the interpretation of Scripture in an ecclesiastical context within the Church's tradition we read: 
'The Arians, however, not even thus abashed, reply, 'Not as you say, but as we say, but as we will;' for, whereas you have overthrown our former expedients, we have invented a new one...'
Orat iii, 17
In other words, the teachings of the heretical Arians was one that was self-willed(ie. private) from the start to the beginning as opposed to teachings that have been transmitted from generation to generation. Athanasius was =contrasting= the Arian's doctrines, their interpretation of Scripture WITH the Church's teachings.

The same point is made when Athanasius contrast the Arian private views with that of the Church such as: 
'..But since he wrote plainly and repeatedly on the same subject, let Arius gnash his teeth when he sees his OWN heresy subverted by Dionysius, and hears him say what he does not want to hear...' 
De Sententia Dionsii 16
The same argument is put forth by Athanasius in his defence of the Nicean definition, we read: 
'Now it happened to Eusebius and his fellows in the Nicene Council as follows: while they stood out in their IRRELIGION, and attempted their fight against God...'
In other words the Arians(semi-Arians) attempted to show that their private interpretation of Scripture, their self-willed doctrines were indeed orthodox but when contrasted with the orthodox views of the Catholic Church in Council Athanasius writes: 
'Scarcely however, did they begin to speak, when they were condemned, and one differed from another(a consequence of private exegesis); then perceiving the straits in which their heresy lay, they remained dumb, and by their silence confessed the disgrace which came upon their heterodoxy.' 
De Decretis 3
That is why Athanasius affirms that 'orthodoxy' and a 'true' sense of the Scriptures is one that is harmony with, 
'the Church's faith, and the tradition of the fathers,' 
Decretis 3
and the reason why Eusebius professed 'prior' that his faith was in line with the Church's tradition to affirm his alledged orthdoxy!

This is why the Church in Council deemed it necessary to define the Nicene definitions in order that these acts: 
'published against them(the Arians) the SOUND and ECCLESIASTICAL faith.' 
De Decretis 3
Tradition...

Tradition for Athanasius is the context in which the orthodox sense of Sacred Scriptures is to be interpreted--tradition is authoritative and substanative and finds monuments in such things as the voice of the Christian people, the faith transitted from generation to generation via the Church's catechesis, the faith expressed by the fathers of the Church, the faith expressed in Ecumenical Council etc...Tradition was sufficient and necessary for Athanasius to determine the orthodox and true sense of Sacred Scriptures.

'See' writes Athanasius, 
'we are proving that THIS VIEW has been transmitted from father to father; but ye, O modern Jews and disciples of Caiphas, how many fathers can ye assign to your phrases? Not one of the understanding and wise; for all abhor you, but the devil alone; none but he is your father in this apostasy, who both in the beginning sowed you with the seed of this irreligion, and now persuades you to slander the Ecumenical Council, for committing to writing, not your doctrines, but that which from the beginning those who were eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word have handed down to us.'
IOW the Council set forth those truths that were NOT explicitly contained in Scripture but have been held by the Church via Sacred Tradition!

Athanasius continues, 
'For the faith which the Council has confessed in writing, that is the faith of the Catholic Church; to assert this, the blessed Fathers so expressed themselves while condemning the Arian heresy; and this is teh chief reason why these apply themselves to calumniate the Council. For it is not the terms which trouble them, but that those terms prove them to be heretics, and presumptous beyond other heresies' 
De Decretis 27
Likewise we read that the Arians are: 
'forcing on the divine oracles a misinterpretation according to their OWN PRIVATE sense' 
Orat i,37
additionally Athanasius =shouts=, 
'Who heard in his FIRST CATECHISING, that God has a Son and has made all things by His proper Word, *BUT* understood it in THAT SENSE in which we now mean it? Who on the rise of this odious heresy of the Arians, was not startled at what he heard, as *strange* ' 
Orat ii, 34
For Athanasius his rule consisted of both Scripture and the Church's Tradition(as expressed in it's various monuments). Both of them make up the composite rule within the Church and WITHOUT an appeal to a private exegesis of Scripture(apart from tradition and Church).

Likewise, Athanasius confirms the necessity for passing on the faith via tradition in the monument of the acts/creed of the Nicean Council: 
'The confession arrived at Nicea was, we say more, SUFFICIENT and enough by ITSELF, for the subversion of all ireligious heresy, and for the security and furtherance of the doctrine of the Church' 
Ad Afros i
That is why Athanasius doesn't hesistate to affirm that tradition(in its various monuments) is capable of transmitting God's Word: 
'But the WORD OF THE LORD which came THROUGH the Ecumenical Synod at Nicea, abides forever'
Ad Afros ii
Again, for Athanasius, Scripture, tradition and Church are inseperable.

Rule of Faith...

In short, Athanasius considers Scripture as sufficient for affirming and proving all the truths of Catholicism but though Athanasius always appeals to Scripture he =never= interprets Scripture as a private exegete apart from tradition and Church but =always= within the milieu of the Church's Sacred Tradition. In other words, Tradition with him (which consists of such things as the teachings of the fathers of the Church, the catechesis of the Church, the faith expressed at Councils, the ecclesiastical scope of faith of the Church etc.) is of supreme authority!

That is why Athanasius can speak of the Sacred Scriptures(while assuming tradition/Church) as sufficient: 
'For although the Sacred and inspired Scriptures are sufficient to declare the truth,--while there are other works of our blessed teachers...' 
Contra Gentes 1
Regarding the Trinity Athanasius writes: 
'Since divine Scripture is sufficient more than anything else, I recommend persons who wish to know fully concerning these things' 
Ad Ep Aeg 4
'The Scriptures are enough for instruction, but it is a good thing to encourage one another in the faith, and to stir up with words.' 
Vita S. Antoni 16
'For this we must seek before all things, whether He is Son, and on that point especially the Scriptures...' 
Orat ii,73
In interpreting Sacred Scripture Athanasius assumes an authoritative and substantive tradition. That is, Athanasius assumes that the Catholic teaching/tradition is true and the Sacred Scriptures must be intepreted by it!

For example in Orat iii,35 we find Athanasius defending Our Lord's divinity not via Sola Scriptura principles but via tradition we read: 
'This is then what happens to God's enemies the Arians, for looking at what is human in the Saviour, they have judged him to be a creature...But for them, learn they, however tardily that "the Word became Flesh"...'
then Athanasius continues to go on to prove that he doesn't not rely simply on the force of the passage but writes: 
'let us, retaining the GENERAL SCOPE of the faith, acknowledge that what they interpret ill, HAS a right intepretation' 
Orat iii,35
In other words, Athanasius rule for determining the orthodox from the heterodox were determined by contrasting them by the various monuments of tradition such as the faith expressed in the universal Church.

This rule of faith(Scripture/Traditio/Church) is Athanasius' way of arguing with the Arians.

Again we read in the same discourse: 
'that of what they now alledge from the Gospels they certainly give unsound intepretation, we may easily see'
And how did Athanasius determine how the unsound(or heterodox) teaching was to be determined? By Scripture alone apart from tradition or Church? or rather: 
'if we now consider the scope of that faith which we Christians hold, and using it as a RULE, apply ourselves, as the Apostle teaches to the reading of inspired Scripture'
Orat iii,28
In other words, if we use the Church's tradition, as found in the faith expressed in the universal Church, and interpret the Scriptures in harmony with this tradition then we are able to explain the Sacred Text in the true and pious sense. However if we wander from this tradition Athanasius warns: 
'For Christ's enemies, being ignorant of this SCOPE, have wandered from the way of truth, and have stumbled on a stone of stumbling, thinking otherwise than they should think' 
Orat iii,28
Again, Athanasius simply DOES NOT expound Scripture but rescues it from misinterpretation by using the traditional doctrinal teaching in the Church as a rule and applies it to Scripture to obtain it's orthodox sense. He interprets Scripture with this rule. Hence his use of the terms 'orthodox, 'pious', and 'true' imply an authoritative and substanative tradition. This rule of faith is expressed throughout his writings: 
'Which of the two theologies set 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...Is it not detestable even in this, that it dares not speak out, but is kept hid by its OWN friends, and fostered as serpents are? for from what sources have they got together these words? or from whom have they recieved what they venture to say? Not any one man can they specify who has supplied it...Nor does Scripture afford them any pretext; for it has been often shewn...that their doctrine is alien to the divine oracles.' 
Orat i,10
'But since they allege the divine oracles and force upon them a misinterpretation, according to their OWN PRIVATE sense, it becomes necessary to meet them just so far as to vindicate these passages, and to shew them that they bear an ORTHODOX sense' 
Orat i,37
'...that He was not before that time, but is wholly man by nature and nothing more. But this is NO sentiment of the CHURCH, but of the Samosatene and of the present Jews...' 
Orat i,38
'This then ***I*** consider the sense of this passage, and that, a VERY ECCLESIASTICAL sense.' 
Orat i,44
'These passages they brought forward at every turn, mistaking their sense, under the idea that they proved that the Word of God was a creature...and thus they deceive the thoughtless, making the language of Scripture THEIR pretence, but instead of the TRUE sense sowing upon it the poison of their OWN heresy' 
Orat i,53
'...that the Son is not from nothing nor in the number of things originate at all, the TRUTH WITNESSING it...,yet since, as if dreading to desert their OWN fiction, they are accustomed to allege the aforesaid passage of divine Scripture, which have a good meaning, but are by them praticed on, let us proceed afresh to take up the question of the sense of these, to remind the faithful, and to shew from these passages that they have NO KNOWLEDGE at all of Christianity' 
Orat ii,1
' "to Him that made him" for while it is CONFESSED what His nature is, what word is used in such instances need raise no question. For terms do not disparage His nature, rather that Nature DRAWS to itself those terms and changes them' 
Orat ii,3
Followed by: 
'Hence again they speak of those who are begotten, 'become' and 'made' knowing that, while they are acknowledged to be sons, we need not make a question of 'they became' or 'I have begotten' or 'I made.' FOR NATURE and TRUTH draw the meaning to themselves. This BEING SO, when persons ask whether the Lord is a creature or work, it is proper to ask of them this first, whether He is Son and Word and Wisdom' 
Orat ii,5
In other words(as the notes of John Henry Newman reads) 
'That is while the style of Scripture justifies us in thus interpreting the word 'made,' DOCTRINAL TRUTH **obliges** us to do so, He considers the Regula Fidei the principle of interpretation and accordingly goes on to apply it'
NPNF Vol IV 2nd Series page 350 note 1
Similarly, 
'But here they must have the same answer as before, and first BE TOLD that the Word is a Son, as has been said above, and not a work, and such terms are not to be understood of His Godhead, but the reason and manner of them investigated' 
Orat ii,12
'thereby to perplex the ears of the simple and to pervert them from the Truth? for WHO HEARS of a son but conceives of that which is proper to the father's essence? WHO HEARD , in his FIRST CATECHISING, that God has a Son and has made all things by His proper Word, but understood in THAT SENSE which which we now mean it? who on the rise of this odious heresy of the Arians, was NOT STARTLED at what he heard, as strange, and a SECOND sowing, besides that Word which has been sown from the beginning? For what is sown in every soul from the beginning is tht God has a SON...' 
Orat ii,34
'They then afresh, as if forgetting the proofs which have already been urged against them, 'pierce themselves through' with these bonds of IRRELIGION and thus argue. BUT THE WORD OF TRUTH confutes them as follows...' 
Orat ii,35
'We have gone through thus much of the passage in the Proverbs, resisting the insensate fables which their hearts have INVENTED, that they might know that the Son of God ought not be called a creature, and may LEARN lightly to read the what admits in truth of RIGHT interpretation' 
Orat ii,44
'and denying His own Word? This is not the MIND of Christians...' 
Orat iii,7
'Had Christ enemies thus dwelt on these thoughts, and recognized the ECCLESIASTICAL SCOPE and an ANCHOR for the faith, they would NOT have made SHIPWRECK of the faith...' 
Orat iii,58
Interesting how Athanasius begins and ends his discourses with the rule of faith. 
'Scarcely, however, did they begin to speak, when they were condemned, and one differed from another; then perceiving the straits in which their heresy lay, they remained dumb, and by their silence confessed the disgrace which came upon their heterodoxy. On this the Bishops, having negatived the terms they had invented, published against them the SOUND and ECCLESIASTICAL faith....And what is strange indeed, Eusebius of Caesarea in Palestine, who had denied the day before, but afterward subscribed, sent to his Church a letter, saying that this was the CHURCH's faith and the TRADITION of the FATHERS' 
De Decretis 3
'Are they not then committing a crime in their very thought to gainsay so GREAT and ECUMENICAL a Council'? 
De Decretis 4
'For, what OUR FATHERS have delivered, THIS IS TRULY DOCTRINE; and this is truly the TOKEN of doctors, to CONFESS THE SAME THING with each other, and to vary NEITHER from themselves nor from their FATHERS...Thus the Greeks, as not witnessing to the SAME doctrines, but quarreling one with another, have no truth of teaching; but the holy and veritable HERALDS of TRUTH AGREE TOGETHER, and do not differ..preaching the same Word harmoniously' 
De Decretis 4
'When thus pressed, they will perhaps make an answer which has brought them into trouble many times already; "We consider that the Son has this perogative over others, and therefore is called Only-begotten, because He alone was brought to be by God alone, and all others things were created by God through the Son" Now *I* wonder WHO it was that suggested to you such a futile and novel an idea as that the Father alone wrought with His own hand the Son alone, and that all other things were brought to be by the Son as by an underworker' 
De Decretis 7
'...and it is seemingly and most irreligious when Scripture contains such images, to form ideas concerning our Lord from others which are neither in Scripture, nor have any religious bearing. THEREFORE let them tell us FROM WHAT TEACHER or BY WHAT TRADITION they derived these notions concerning the Saviour?...But they seem to me to have a wrong understanding of this passage also; for it has a RELIGIOUS and VERY ORTHODOX sense, which had they understood, they would NOT have blasphemed the Lord of glory' 
De Decretis 13
'...and in dizziness about TRUTH, are full set upon accusing the COUNCIL, let them tell us what are the Scriptures from what they have learned , or WHO is the saint by whom they have BEEN TAUGHT...' 
De Decretis 18
'MUST needs hold and intend the decisions of the Council, suitably regarding them to signify the relation of the RADIANCE to the LIGHT, and FROM THENCE gaining the illustration TO THE TRUTH' 
De Decretis 20
And after showing that his interpretation was in harmony with the writings of several Church Fathers he continues: 
'SEE,'

'We are PROVING that THIS view has been TRANSMITTED from FATHER to FATHER, but ye, O modern Jews and disciples of Caiaphas, how many FATHERS CAN YE ASSIGN to your phrases? Not one of the understandings and wise; for all abhor you, but the devil alone; none but he is your father in this apostasy, who both in the beginning sowed you with the seed of this IRRELIGION, and now persuades you to slander the ECUMENICAL Council, for committing to writing, not YOUR doctrines, but that which from the BEGINNING those who were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word have handed down to us. For the faith which the COUNCIL has confessed in writing, that is the faith of the Catholic Church; to assert this, the BLESSED FATHERS so expressed themselves while condemning the Arian heresy...' 
De Decretis 27
'Just as I have related the reason and sense, with which the COUNCIL and the FATHERS before it defined and published ...' 
De Decretis 28
'The confession arrived at Nicea was, we say more, SUFFICIENT and enough by ITSELF, for the subversion of all ireligious heresy, and for the security and furtherance of the doctrine of the Church' 
Ad Afros i
'But the WORD OF THE LORD which came THROUGH the Ecumenical Synod at Nicea, abides forever'
Ad Afros ii
'And would that they had written, touching 'their OWN'; and had not made their essay as touching 'Catholic', for they did not write, 'Thus we beleive,' but 'Catholic Faith was published' ' 
De Synodis 3
' "Thus beleives the Catholic Church;" and thereupon they confessed how they beleived, IN ORDER to shew that their OWN sentiments were not novel, BUT APOSTOLICAL, and what they wrote down was no discovery of theirs, but is the same as was taught by the Apostles' 
De Synodis 5
'Having therefore no reason on their side, but being in difficulty whichever way they turn, in spite of their pretences, they have nothing left to say; "Forasmuch as we contradict our PREDECESSORS, and transgress the TRADITIONS of the FATHERS, therefore we have thought good that a Council shoud meet...' 
De Synodis 7
'The blessed Apostle approves of the Corinthians because, he says,

"ye remember me in all things, and keep the traditions as I delivered them to you'
(1 Cor xi.2);

but they[Arians], as entertaining such views of their predecessors, will have the DARING to say just the REVERSE to their flocks:

"We praise you not for remembering YOUR FATHERS, BUT RATHER we make much of you, when you hold NOT THEIR TRADITIONS."

'...For they dissent from each other, and , whereas they have revolted from THEIR FATHERS, are not of ONE AND THE SAME MIND, but float about with various and discordant changes' 
De Synodis 14
'How many men read divine Scriptures wrongly, and thus conceiving it, find fault with the Saints?' 
De Synodis 33
'For it is right and meet thus to feel, and to maintain a good conscience toward the Fathers, if we be not spurious children, but have received the TRADITIONS from them, and the LESSONS of religion at their hands' 
De Synodis 47
'Such then, as we confess and beleive, being the SENSE of the FATHERS...' 
De Synodis 48
Athanasius as he began in De Synodis ends with: 
'...but do you, remaining on the foundation of the Apostles, and holding fast the TRADITIONS of the FATHERS, pray that now at length all strife and rivalry may CEASE and the futile questions of the heretics may be condemned...' 
De Synodis 54
'But the sectaries, who have fallen away from the TEACHING of the CHURCH, and made SHIPWRECK concerning the faith' 
C. Gentes 6
'But that the soul is made immortal is a further point in the CHURCH'S TEACHING which you must know...' 
C. Gentes 33
I could multiply the passages but the point is abundantly clear. Athanasius rule of faith was Scripture, Tradition and Church. The great and essential difference between the epistomological methods of knowing the 'true' sense of Scripture is that Catholics interprets Scripture in harmony with Tradition while proponents of Bible-only via their own private judgement. Athanasius knows of no 'orthodox' doctrine that is not in harmony with the Church's tradition.

In Christ Jesus
Joe

Conclusion

Conclusions 
"Holy Scripture bears witness to everything necessary for salvation, especially to the center of our faith--God's salvation Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit...Holy Scripture contains the whole faith in substance, but the faith can be grasped in its totality and fullness on in light of Tradition. So the Second Vatican Council teaches: 'The Church does not draw her certainty about all revealed truths from the Scriptures alone'(DV6) " 
The Church's Confession of Faith(Catechism for adults) pg 46,47
The main difficulty at hand is not the primacy of the Sacred Scriptures--since Catholics would give a hardy 'Amen'. The question is, are the Scripture's formally sufficient of the themselves to provide us with their 'true' and 'orthodox' sense apart from Tradition or Church. The heretics of yesteryear and today, claim to have their basis squarely on the Scriptures. Tertullian once remarked that the only thing one gets when arguing with a heretic by marshalling Scripture passages back and forth is a 'headache'. 
'because a controversy over the Scriptures can, clearly, produce no other effect than help upset either the stomach or the brain' 
Prescr i,16
James , Vincent of Lerins remarks(as many of the Fathers do) that the first thing the heretic says to affirm his position is 
"It is written..."! 
'When anyone asks one of these heretics who presents arguments: Where are the proofs of your teacing that I should leave behind the world-wide and ancient faith of the Catholic Church? He will jump in before you have finished with the question: "It is written" He follows up immediately with thousands of texts and examples...'
Commonit I:26
The point being that everyone has claimed to have Scripture on their side. So how did the Fathers/Church deal with this? While all the Church Fathers appealed to Scripture they did so not in a vacuum but within the grid of tradition. No Church Father looked to Scripture apart from tradition or Church. The Church Fathers would have never wanted to be considered as a private exegete or as an original mind. Essentially, the Fathers considered themselves as WITNESSES to the faith handing on what their spiritual fathers in the faith had transmitted to them. They affirmed tradition in it's various monuments as the primary determinant of 'pious' and 'orthodox' interpretations of Scripture. If the interpetation was not in harmony with what the Church had always taught then the interpretation was rejected. For example let's consider the following passages: 
"Jesus answered: Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone?"
Mark 10:18...
or 
"...for the Father is greater than I.." 
John 14:28
or 
"Jesus wept"
Jn 11:35
Now the Arians, and the Jehovah Witnesses of today, bring forth such passages in support of Christ's non-divinity. This interpretation would be rejected because it is not in harmony with what the Church has always taught. Or as Tertullian explains it: 
"We do not take our scriptural teaching from the parables but we interpret the parables according to our TEACHING" 
Purity 9,1
Or Athanasius, 
"Had Christ's enemies thus dwelt on these thoughts, and recognized the ecclesiastical scope as an anchor for the faith, they would not have made shipwreck of the faith..."
Orat iii,58
IOW Scripture is to be interpreted in light of the traditional teaching of the Church not contrary to it.

Yes Scripture is the basis of our teaching--it is sufficient when read within the milieu of the Church tradition. If the letter of the passage seems to contradict the tradition(like the above passage), then one must assume that the passage is interpreted incorrectly!

A private interpretation of Scripture apart from tradition or Church will lead to all sorts of meanings as the Sola Scriptura experiment of the last 500 years has clearly shown.

All the Church Fathers embraced the Sacred Scripture, Tradition and Church as their rule of faith in contrast to interpreting the Sacred Scriptures as a private exegete (apart from tradition or Church) via the principle of Sola Scriptura.

Interesting to note that in Geisler's(a Protestant exegete/apologist) anthology on "Inerrancy" chapter 12(The View of the Bible-the early Church thru Luther) offers support for the Catholic position in contrast to your position. 
'Along with the total commitment to the Scriptures as the norm for all doctrine, a new and clear conviction concerning the authority of oral tradition began to develop. This oral tradition, handed down from generation to generation and going back to the apostles directly to Christ, in now way conflicting with the Scriptures. But it did aid the Church in interpreting the Scriptures and particularly in summarizing the Christian faith and thus protecting Christians against the aberrations of Gnostics and other heretics.' 
Inerrancy, pg 359
Likewise the Protestant 38 volume set on the Fathers you have in your hands James affirms that the Fathers did not consider themselves as private exegetes of Scripture but foremost and primarily as witnesses to the faith. We read in the last volume of Eerdmans' 38-volume set on the Fathers and the Council of Nicea: 
'...as in every other of the Seven Ecumenical Councils, the question the Fathers considered was *NOT* what THEY supposed Holy Scriptures might mean, nor what they, from a priori arguments, thought would be consistent with the mind of God, but something entirely *different*, to wit, what they had RECEIVED. They understood their position to be that of witnesses, NOT that of *exegetes*. They recognized but one duty upon them resting upon them in this respect--to hand down to other faithful men that good thing the CHURCH had received according to the command of God. The first requirement was not learning, but honesty. The question they were called upon to answer was not, What do *I* think probable, or even certain, from the Holy Scriptures? *BUT*, what have I been taught, what has been intrusted to me to hand down to others? When the time came, in the Fourth Council, to examine the Tome of Pope St. Leo, the question was not whether it could be proved to the satisfaction of the assembled fathers FROM HOLY SCRIPTURE, BUT whether it was the *TRADITIONAL* faith of the Church' 
NPNF Vol 38 Intro to Nicea..
In contrast to the Father's epistomoligical method of using Scripture, Tradition and Church we have such statements from proponents of Sola Scriptura that pit intepretating the Scriptures within the milieu of tradition and private interpretation of the Scriptures:

Luther... 
"I place against the sayings of ALL the Fathers, and every artifice and word of angels, men and devils, the Scripture and the Gospel' 
'I will not give a hair through a thousand Augustines... were against me and I am certain that the true Church with me holds fast to the Word of God' 
WA, 10 II, 256
In sum, the Church Fathers denied the novel doctrine of Sola Scriptura on two points--

First, materially the Bible was insufficient to supply the teaching regarding the inspiration and canon of the Bible. Something outside the Bible was required in order to provide this doctrine--that is Tradition. The late F.F. Bruce, a Protestant exegete, remarks on this issue: 
'In the canon of Scripture we have an indispensable tradition on which every Christian church is dependent--on which indeed even those churches which claim to rely on the 'Bible only' without reference to tradition are most dependent of all.' 
Scripture, Tradition & Reason, Edit. by Drewery/Bauckham, pg 54
Secondly, taking the Bible as a given(apart from the canonical issues) the Church Fathers(as do Catholics) affirmed the material sufficiency of the Bible in all doctrines as long as the Bible is interpreted within the context of Tradition and Church. IOW the Fathers denied the formal sufficiency of the Bible. That is, all Fathers affirmed that the Bible alone was in and of itself *insufficient* to supply with certainty the 'true' and 'orthodox' sense of Sacred Scriptures. For them Scripture, Tradition and Church were inseperable. The Fathers interpreted Sacred Scripture not as original minds or as private exegetes(as Sola Scriptura would have it) but as 'witnesses' to the faith intepreting Scriptures in harmony with the Church's Tradition and not contrary to it. 
'He who speaketh of his own, speaketh a lie' 
Apoll. i, 4th century
I will end these set of replies here James and await your response. Note that I only addressed those Fathers which were listed in your original tag-line list. Would you like to address earlier witnesses to the faith such as Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and Origen regarding Sola Scriptura?

In Christ Jesus
Joe

Easter Sunday 1993--'He is Risen'

This text may downloaded and viewed for private reading only. This text may not be used by another Web site or published, electronically or otherwise, without the written permission of the copyright holder.

Joseph A. Gallegos © 1997 All Rights Reserved.

St. Athanasius, the Scriptures, Tradition and Church

Cutting and pasting writings to reinterpret their original and intended meaning is a common practice of the early heretics. Irenaeus commenting on the Gnostics' use of Sacred Scripture writes: 
"In doing so, however, they disregard the order and the connection of the Scriptures, and so far as in them lies, dismember and destroy the truth. By transferring passages, and dressing them up anew, and making one thing out of another, they succeed in deluding many through their wicked art in adapting the oracles of the Lord to their opinions. Their manner of acting is just as if one, when a beautiful image of a king has been constructed by some skilful artist out of precious jewels, should then take this likeness of the man all to pieces, should rearrange the gems, and so fit them together as to make them into the form of a dog or of a fox, and even that but poorly executed; and should then maintain and declare that this was the beautiful image of the king which the skilful artist constructed, pointing to the jewels which had been admirably fitted together by the first artist to form the image of the king, but have been with bad effect transferred by the latter one to the shape of a dog, and by thus exhibiting the jewels, should deceive the ignorant who had no conception what a king's form was like, and persuade them that that miserable likeness of the fox was, in fact, the beautiful image of the king."
Irenaeus,Against Heresies,I,8:1(A.D. 180),in ANF,I:326
The Gnostics rearranged selected texts from Scripture to peddle their doctrines as apostolic. The selected texts were apostolic and not the cut and paste meaning. Those familiar with the purport of the Apostles' teaching were able to discern the Gnostics heresy. 

James White,director of Alpha and Omega Ministries,is guilty of this cut and paste approach with the faith of the early Church Fathers. Mr. White for years has pioneered the idea that the Fathers embraced the doctrine of sola scriptura in contrast to the Catholic Church rule of faith. Mr. White offered proof of this novelty from various Fathers, particularly from the Patriarch of Alexandria, St. Athanasius(ca. A.D. 296-373). St. Athanasius was the champion of Catholic orthodoxy and defender of the divinity of Jesus Christ against the Arian heresy. Mr. White transforms St. Athanasius into a 'Bible-only' Christian by selecting passages which speak highly of the inspiration and authority of Sacred Scripture while downplaying and even ignoring passages which speak equally forceful on the authorities of Tradition and Church. We will examine in the chronological order the passages that Mr. White has culled from the writings of St. Athanasius in support of sola scriptura.

Contra Gentes(A.D. 318)
---------------------------------------
"For indeed the holy and God-breathed Scriptures are self-sufficient for the preaching of the truth."
[1] Contra Gentes 1(A.D. 318) as cited by James White, SS p. 49
Contra Gentes was written to vindicate the Catholic faith against the wayard doctrines and practices of the pagan Gentiles. In all his writings, St. Athanasius assumed an authoritative and substantive Tradition. Hence, when we find St. Athanasius extolling the sufficiency of the Scriptures he does so not in the vacuum of sola scriptura but within the milieu of Catholic Tradition and Church. This passage offered by Mr. White, like other passages, is not presented in context. St. Athanasius 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 which 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 unreasonable. For this is what the Gentiles traduce and scoff at, and laugh loudly at us, insisting on the one fact of the Cross of Christ; and it is just here that one must pity their want of sense, because when they traduce the Cross of Christ they do not see that its power has filled all the world, and that by it the effects of the knowledge of God are made manifest to all."
Contra Gentes,1 (A.D. 318),in NPNF2,XIV:4
If the Gentiles had only grasped the traditional Catholic faith, they would have interpreted Sacred Scripture in an orthodox manner. This is the faith and constant theme of the St. Athanasius. In his later writings, St. Athanasius applies this traditional polemic against the Tropicists and Arians. St. Athanasius iterates this theme a few passages later: 
"But the sectaries,who have fallen away from the teaching of the Church, and made shipwreck concerning their Faith..."
Contra Gentes,6(A.D. 318),in NPNF2,XIV:7
Oratio de incarnatione(A.D. 318)
---------------------------------------------------

The next passage is found in St. Athanasius greatest work,Oratio de Incarnatione Verbi(Incarnation of the Word): 
" 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."
[2] De Incarnatione Verbi 56(A.D. 318),NPNF2,XIV:66
Mr. White mistakenly discovers sola scriptura in this passage. One may be tempted to believe that the Patriarch of Alexandria is advocating sola scriptura if this passage is taken in isolation. In light of his other writings, St. Athanasius is advising Macarius(the Christ-loving man) read Scripture within the context of the Church's faith.

In the next sentence we read: 
"But we impart of what we have learned from inspired teachers who have been conversant with them, who have also become martyrs for the deity of Christ,to your zeal for learning, in turn."
(ibid)
St. Athanasius brings together Scripture and the teaching Church in contrast to Mr. White's understanding. There is no such thing as an isolated reading of Scripture in the faith of St. Athanasius. We will see later, that St. Athanasius finds a private reading of Scripture apart from the traditional faith of the Catholic Church as the fatal flaw of heretics.

De Decretis(A.D. 351)
-----------------------------------

The next passage brought forth by Mr. White is found in St. Athanasius' apology of the Nicene faith, De Decretis. We read: 
"...for the tokens of truth are more exact as drawn from Scripture, than from other sources."
[3] De Decretis,32(A.D. 351),in NPNF2,IV:172
Similarly, Mr. White is plucking this passage from the context of St. Athanasius faith. St. Athanasius never pitted Sacred Scriptures with Sacred Tradition. Elsewhere in this work, St. Athanasius affirms the necessity of holding fast to the traditional doctrines passed down to the Church from the Apostles. It is through this ecclesiastical heritage that one interprets Sacred Scripture. St. Athanasius writes: 
" For, what our Fathers have delivered, this is truly doctrine; and this is truly the token of doctors, to confess the same thing with each other, and to vary neither from themselves nor from their fathers; whereas they who have not this character are to be called not true doctors but evil."
De Decretis 4(A.D. 351),in NPNF2,IV:153

"See, we are proving that this view has been transmitted from father to father; but ye, O modern Jews and disciples of Caiaphas, how many fathers can ye assign to your phrases?"
De Decretis 27(A.D. 351),in NPNF2,IV:168
St. Athanasius affirms the sufficiency of Scripture as long as they are understood within the framework of the Church's Tradition. The Fathers of Nicea were compelled to define the faith that disallowed an Arian interpretation since the Arians were interpreting Scripture contrary to Catholic Tradition. St. Athanasius and the Fathers realized the futility of defining Catholic doctrine on the letter of Scripture alone. Scripture was formally insufficient. The mere letter of Scripture, apart from the ecclesiastical faith, was insufficient to proclaim and defend the Catholic faith. The Arians had a ready interpretation for any passage of Scripture in support of their heresy. St. Athanasius writes: 
"[B]ut ill disposition and the versatile and crafty irreligion of Eusebius and his fellows, compelled the Bishops[at Nicea], as I said before, to publish more DISTINCTLY the terms which overthrew their irreligion; and what the Council did write has already been shewn to have an orthodox sense, while the Arians have shewn to be corrupt in their phrases and evil dispositions."
De Decretis 32 (A.D. 351),in NPNF2,IV:172
Vita S. Antoni(A.D. 357)
--------------------------------------

The next passage brought forth by Mr. White is found in Athanasius' biography of St. Antony, the monk. 
"The Scriptures are enough for instruction, but it is a good thing to encourage one another in the faith, and to stir up with words."
[4] Vita Antony 16 (A.D. 357),in NPNF2,IV:200
Mr. White incorrectly infers from this passage St. Antony's belief in sola scriptura. Similarly, this passage has been isolated from the context of St. Antony's faith. 

Elsewhere St. Athanasius preserves these words of St. Antony: 
"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 Antony 89 (A.D. 357),in NPNF2,IV:220
Interesting what a difference a context makes. St. Antony affirmed the Catholic rule of faith. St. Antony reminded St. Athanasius to hold fast not only Scripture but the traditional faith of the Fathers and the faith he taught him.

Orations(A.D. 362)
-----------------------------

Mr. White cites a passage I brought [5] forth years ago affirming St. Athanasius' denial of sola scriptura. 
"[T]hat of what they now allege from the Gospels they certainly give an unsound interpretation, we may easily see, if we now consider the scope of that faith which we Christians hold, and using it as a rule, apply ourselves, as the Apostle teaches, to the reading of inspired Scripture. For Christ's enemies, being ignorant of this scope, have wandered from the way of truth...."
[6] Orationes contra Arianos 3:28 (A.D. 362),in NPNF2,IV:409
St. Athanasius condemns the Arians for not using the ecclesiastical scope as a guide for interpreting Scripture. St. Athanasius continues his argument by stating that the Arians had become heterodox by ignoring the ecclesiastical rule. Mr. White does not deal with the passage, instead, he foists passages throughout St. Athanasius' Orationes that only speak of Scripture's authority. 
"If such bewilderment and empty speaking be from ignorance, Scripture will teach them, that the devil, the author of heresies, because of the ill savour which attaches to evil, borrows Scripture language, as a cloak wherewith to sow the ground with his own poison also, and to seduce the simple."
[7] Orationes contra Arianos I:8 (A.D. 362), in NPNF2,IV:310

"For, behold, we take divine Scripture, and thence discourse with freedom of the religious Faith...."
[8] Orationes contra Arianos I:9 (A.D. 362), in NPNF2,IV:311

"Which of the two theologies 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?"
[8] Orationes contra Arianos I:10 (A.D. 362),in NPNF2,IV:311

"For if they speak, a condemnation will follow; and if they be suspected, proofs from Scripture will be cast at them from every side."
[8] Orationes contra Arianos I:10 (A.D. 362),in NPNF2,IV:311

"Nor does Scripture afford them any pretext; for it has been often shewn, and it shah be shewn now, that their doctrine is alien to the divine oracles."
[9] Orationes contra Arianos I:10 (A.D. 362),in NPNF2,IV:312

"It is plain then from the above that the Scriptures declare the Son's eternity."
[10] Orationes contra Arianos I:13 (A.D. 362),in NPNF2,IV:313

"But since they allege the divine oracles and force on them a misinterpretation, according to their private sense, it becomes necessary to meet them just so far as to vindicate these passages, and to shew that they bear an orthodox sense, and that our opponents are in error."
[10] Orationes contra Arianos I:37 (A.D. 362),in NPNF2,IV:327-328

"Now the scope and character of Holy Scripture, as we have often said, is this,--it contains a double account of the Saviour; that Fie was ever God, and is the Son, being the Father's Word and Radiance and Wisdom; and that afterwards for us He took flesh of a Virgin, Mary Bearer of God, and was made man. And this scope is to be found throughout inspired Scripture, as the Lord Himself has said, 'Search the Scriptures, for they are they which testify of Me."
[11] Orationes contra Arianos 3:29 (A.D. 362),in NPNF2,IV:409
Mr. White concludes:
"This 'scope,' we are told, 'is to be found throughout inspired Scripture'. Obviously, therefore,it is not something that exists separately from Scripture."[12]
Mr. White misleads the reader on meaning of the word 'scope' in Orationes III:28 by referring to Orationes III:29. Scope is an object. It is a neutral term and says nothing by itself regarding its reference. St. Athanasius uses scope to mean several things. For example, in a non-related passage St. Athanasius writes: 
"Peter then, having learned this from the Saviour, in both points set the Jews right, saying, "O Jews, the divine Scriptures announce that Christ cometh, and you consider Him a mere man as one of David's descendants, whereas what is written of Him shews Him to be not such as you say, but rather announces Him as Lord and God, and immortal, and dispenser of life. For Moses has said, 'Ye shall see your Life hanging before your eyes.' And David in the hundred and ninth Psalm, 'The Lord said unto My Lord, Sit Thou on My right hand, till I make Thine enemies Thy footstool;' and in the fifteenth, 'Thou shalt not leave my soul in hades, neither shalt Thou suffer Thy Holy One to see corruption.' "
Orationes II:16(A.D. 362),in NPNF2,IV:356
St. Athanasius provides the traditional interpretation and the primary scope(object) of the above Scripture passages: 
"Now that these passages have not David for their scope he himself witnesses, avowing that He who was coming was His own Lord."
Orationes contra Arianos II:16(A.D. 362),in NPNF2,IV:356
In this context, Christ is the scope(object). Scope requires a context to determine its reference.

Let us revisit Orationes III:28: 
"[T]hat of what they now allege from the Gospels they certainly give an unsound interpretation, we may easily see, if we now consider the scope of that faith which we Christians hold, and using it as a rule, apply ourselves, as the Apostle teaches, to the reading of inspired Scripture. For Christ's enemies, being ignorant of this scope, have wandered from the way of truth...."
Orationes contra Arianos III:28(A.D. 362),in NPNF2,IV:409
The scope is the ecclesiastical faith held by Catholics everywhere. The scope reference in this passage is not Scripture unlike Mr. White's misleading reference. If the Arians had used this ecclesiastical scope as a rule when interpreting Scripture they would have remained orthodox.

In Orationes III:29, St. Athanasius changes the meaning of the word scope. St. Athanasius writes: 
"Now the scope and character of Holy Scripture, as we have often said, is this,--it contains a double account of the Saviour; that He was ever God, and is the Son, being the Father's Word and Radiance and Wisdom; and that afterwards for us He took flesh of a Virgin, Mary Bearer of God, and was made man. "
Orationes contra Arianos III:29(A.D. 362),in NPNF2,IV:409
St. Athanasius, equates scope with the Catholic doctrine of the Incarnation. St. Athanasius affirms that the doctrine of the Incarnation is found in Scripture: 
"And this scope is to be found throughout inspired Scripture, as the Lord Himself has said, 'Search the Scriptures, for they are they which testify of Me."
Orationes contra Arianos III:29(A.D. 362),in NPNF2,IV:409
In sum, St. Athanasius applies the word scope to refer to various things. In Oration III:28 the scope refers to the traditional faith of Catholics. This scope contains all Catholic doctrines including the Incarnation. In the same passage, St. Athanasius insists that if the Arians had interpreted Scripture within this traditional scope they would have remained orthodox. In the next passage, St. Athanasius applies the word 'scope' to refer to a particular doctrine, the doctrine of the Incarnation. He then goes on to affirm that this doctrine is found within Scripture. St. Athanasius uses the word scope to refer to many things: Christ(Orationes II:16), ecclesisatical faith(Orationes III:28), and Incarnation(Orationes III:29). Mr. White has misunderstood St. Athanasius' use of the word scope.

The thrust of this section is directed against the Arians diverse interpretations of Scripture: 
"Introduction to texts from the Gospels on the Incarnation...We must recur to the Regula Fidei..."
NPNF2,IV:407(Introductory Note)
In section 26, St. Athanasius provides a litany of passages from the Gospels to justify the doctrine of the Incarnation. In section 27, St. Athanasius explains how the Arians denial of the Tradition has led them to ask questions as: 
" 'Why did the Word become flesh at all...For how could He, being God, become man?"
Orationes contra Arianos III:27(A.D. 362),in NPNF2,IV:408
Since the Arians rejected the doctrine of the Incarnation St. Athanasius concludes: 
"[T]hey now allege from the Gospels they certainly give an unsound interpretation."
Orationes contra Arianos III:28(A.D. 362),in NPNF2,IV:409
St. Athanasius continues: 
"[W]e may easily see, if we now consider this scope of that faith which we Christians hold, and using as a RULE, apply ourselves, as the Apostle teaches, TO THE reading of inspired Scripture."
Orationes contra Arianos III:28(A.D. 362),in NPNF2,IV:409
Catholics can determine the orthodoxy of an interpretation of Scripture through a comparison with Catholic Tradition. If it is in accord with the Catholic Tradition faith of the Church it is orthodox if not reject it.

St. Athanasius proceeds in section 29 to focus on the doctrine of the Incarnation, which is contained in Scripture and Tradition. 
"Now the scope and character of the Holy Scripture ... is this--it contains a double account of the Saviour; that He was ever God...and was made man"
Orationes contra Arianos III:29(A.D. 362),in NPNF2,IV:409
The doctrine of the Incarnation is contained in two scopes, first it is contained in the ecumenical faith of the Catholic Church(Oration III:28) and second, it is contained in Scripture(Oration III:29). If the Arians had held to the first scope(Oration III:28) they would have recognized the doctrine of the Incarnation in Scripture(Oration III:29) and remained orthodox.

A few sections later St. Athanasius hammers home the same theme: 
"[L]et us, retaining the general scope of the faith, acknowledge that what they[the Arians] interpret ill, has a right interpretation."
Orationses contra Arianos III:35(A.D. 362),in NPNF2,IV:413
The Catholic rule of is so prominent in the faith of St. Athanasius, he begins and ends his discourses with the Arians with it:

In Orationes I:44 he writes: 
"This then I consider the sense of this passage, and that, a very ecclesiastical sense."
Orationes contra Arianos I:44(A.D. 362),in NPNF2,IV:331
In Orationes III:58 he writes:
"Had Christ's enemies thus dwelt on these thoughts, and recognised the ecclesiastical scope as an anchor for the faith, they would not have made shipwreck of the faith, nor been so shameless as to resist those who would fain recover them from their fall, and to deem those as enemies who are admonishing them to be religious."
Orationes contra Arianos III:58(A.D. 362),in NPNF2,IV:425
Here, the scope is the Church's faith and doctrines. If the Arians had held fast to this scope they would not have made shipwreck of their faith.

De Synodis(A.D. 362)
----------------------------------

The next passage brought forth by Mr. White is found in St. Athanasius' defense of the Council of Nicea. 
"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 divine Scripture."
[13] De Synodis 6(A.D. 362),in NPNF2,IV:453
Scripture is sufficient when it is read within the milieu of the Church's Tradition. St. Athanasius contrasts the traditional understanding of Scripture with anything not in accord with the traditional faith, specifically the Arian Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia. Regarding these heretical Councils St. Athanasius writes: 
"But the Councils which they are now setting in motion, what colourable pretext have they? If any new heresy has risen since the Arian, let them tell us the positions which it has devised, and who are its inventors? and in their own formula, let them anathematize the heresies antecedent to this Council of theirs, among which is the Arian, as the Nicene Fathers did, that it may appear that they too have some cogent reason for saying what is novel. But if no such event has happened, and they have it not to shew, but rather they themselves are uttering heresies, as holding Arius's irreligion, and are exposed day by day, and day by day shift their ground, what need is there of Councils, when the Nicene is sufficient, as against the Arian heresy, so against the rest, which it has condemned one and all by means of the sound faith?"
De Synodis 6(A.D. 362),in NPNF2,IV:453
The Council of Nicea was sufficient to proclaim doctrinal truth and combat heresy. Are we to conclude that St. Athanasius is excluding the authority of Sacred Scripture? Of course not, since we know from his other writings that St. Athanasius' rule of faith includes Scripture and Tradition unlike Mr. White's myopic conclusion. 

In anticipation of his Arian opponents pitting the authority of the Nicene Council against his own words , 'divine Scripture is sufficient above all things,' St. Athanasius reminds the Arian heretics that the Council of Nicea was the expression of the Church's Tradition and therefore the doctrines are found in Scripture as well. The Patriarch of Alexandria writes: 
"[T]he Nicene bishops did not neglect this matter,but stated the doctrine so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly, cannot be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced in the Scriptures."
De Synodis 6(A.D. 362),in NPNF2,IV:453
The Arians had a ready interpretation for any passage of Scripture the Catholic bishops would bring forth. The Arians felt they had Scripture on their side. What made Nicea authoritative over and above an alignment with Scripture, was the faith confessed at Nicea was the SAME faith taught and handed down from generation to generation from the Apostles. Nicea was authoritative because the Fathers only had one thing in mind, was this the teaching that had been taught to them by their forefathers? 

Mr. White failed to cite the following passage in the preceeding section of De Synodis 6: 
"[The Fathers at Nicea]...but concerning matters of faith, they did not write: 'It was decided,' but 'Thus the Catholic Church believes.' And thereupon they confessed how they believed. THIS THEY DID in order to SHOW that their judgement was not of more recent origin, but was in fact Apostolic times; and that what they wrote was no discovery of their own, BUT IS SIMPLY THAT WHICH WAS TAUGHT by the APOSTLES"
De Synodis 5(A.D. 362),in NPNF2,IV:453

The Fathers of Nicea did not derive or synthesize teachings from Scripture rather they confessed what they had always believed. This above all proved that the doctrines of Nicea were apostolic.

"But the word of the Lord which came through the ecumenical Synod at Nicea, abides forever."
Ad Afros 2(A.D. 372),in NPNF2,IV:489
In addition, St. Athanasius affirmed that the Council of Nicea was ecumenical and under divine influence.

St. Athanasius provides us with this summary of the authority of Nicea: 
"See, we are proving that this view has been transmitted from father to father; but ye, O modern Jews and disciples of Caiaphas, how many fathers can ye assign to your phrases? Not one of the understanding and wise; for all abhor you, but the devil alone ; none but he is your father in this apostasy, who both in the beginning sowed you with the seed of this irreligion, and now persuades you to slander the Ecumenical Council , for committing to writing, not your doctrines, but that which from the beginning those who were eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word have handed down to us . For the faith which the Council has confessed in writing, that is the faith of the Catholic Church; to assert this, the blessed Fathers so expressed themselves while condemning the Arian heresy; and this is a chief reason why these apply themselves to calumniate the Council. For it is not the terms which trouble them , but that those terms prove them to be heretics, and presumptuous beyond other heresies."
De Decretis 27(A.D. 351),in NPNF2,IV:168-169
Nicea was authoritative for a number of reasons apart from agreement with Scripture. Foremost, the Fathers of Nicea understood their faith was the same faith taught to them by their forefathers in the Catholic Church. They understood that the Council was led by the Holy Spirit. Lastly, they understood the Council expressed the ecumenical nature of their faith.

St. Athanasius brings together the Church's Tradition and Scripture. St. Athanasius understands no substantive difference in the authority of Scriptures when understood within the framework of the Church and the authority of the Ecumenical Council of Nicea, since both bring together Scripture and the Church's traditional faith!

In the same work(De Synodis) St. Athanasius writes: 
"The blessed Apostle approves of the Corinthians because, he says, 'ye remember me in all things, and keep the traditions as I delivered them to you' (1 Cor. xi. 2); but they, as entertaining such views of their predecessors, will have the daring to say just the reverse to their flocks: 'We praise you not for remembering your fathers, but rather we make much of you, when you hold not their traditions.' "
De Synodis 14(A.D. 362),in NPNF2,IV:453
St. Athanasius pits private interpretation of Scripture against the Catholic rule of faith. This traditional theme is so imbedded in the faith of St. Athanasius that he ends his work on this subject: 
"[R]emaining on the foundation of the Apostles, and holding fast the traditions of the Fathers, pray that now at length all strife and rivalry may cease, and the futile questions of the heretics may be condemned, and all logomachy; and the guilty and murderous heresy of the Arians may disappear, and the truth may shine again in the hearts of all, so that all every where may 'say the same thing'(1 Cor. i. 10), and think the same thing, and that, no Arian contumelies remaining, it may be said and confessed in every Church, 'One Lord, one faith, one baptism' (Eph. iv. 5), in Christ Jesus our Lord, through whom to the Father be the glory and the strength, unto ages of ages. Amen."
De Synodis 54(A.D. 362),in NPNF2,IV:453
Ad Episcopos(A.D. 372)
--------------------------------------

The final passage brought forth by Mr. White is found in St. Athanasius' epistle to the bishops of Africa. He writes: 
"But since holy Scripture is of all things most sufficient for US, therefore recommending to those who desire to know more of these matters, to read the Divine word, I now hasten to set before you that which most claims attention, and for the sake of which principally I have written these things."
[14]Ad Episcopos 4(A.D. 372),in NPNF2,IV:225
Mr. White mistakenly infers St. Athanasius advocacy of sola scriptura. Scripture is sufficient for orthodox Catholics since they will read it according to the ecclesiastical scope. St. Athanasius' understanding of Scripture's sufficiency is diametrically opposed to Mr. White's. St. Athanasius is writing to Catholic bishops, as such, it is assumed they will read Scripture as faithful Catholics.

In the same work St. Athanasius proves the orthodoxy of a doctrine not on the basis of Scripture alone but through a traditional test. 
"Such are the machinations of these men against the truth: but their designs are manifest to all the world, though they attempt in ten thousand ways, like eels, to elude the grasp, and to escape detection as enemies of Christ. Wherefore I beseech you, let no one among you be deceived, no one seduced by them; rather, considering that a sort of judaical impiety is invading the Christian faith, be ye all zealous for the Lord; hold fast, every one, the faith we have received from the Fathers, which they who assembled at Nicaea recorded in writing, and endure not those who endeavour to innovate thereon. And however they may write phrases out of the Scripture, endure not their writings; however they may speak the language of the orthodox, yet attend not to what they say; for they speak not with an upright mind, but putting on such language like sheeps' clothing, in their hearts they think with Arius, after the manner of the devil, who is the author of all heresies. For he too made use of the words of Scripture, but was put to silence by our Saviour. For if he had indeed meant them as he used them, he would not have fallen from heaven; but now having fallen through his pride, he artfully dissembles in his speech, and oftentimes maliciously endeavours to lead men astray by the subtleties and sophistries of the Gentiles. Had these expositions of theirs proceeded from the orthodox, from such as the great Confessor Hosius, and Maximinus of Gaul, or his successor, or from such as Philogonius and Eustathius, Bishops of the East, or Julius and Liberius of Rome, or Cyriacus of Moesia, or Pistus and Aristaeus of Greece, or Silvester and Protogenes of Dacia, or Leontius and Eupsychius of Cappadocia, or Caecilianus of Africa, or Eustorgius of Italy, or Capito of Sicily, or Macarius of Jerusalem, or Alexander of Constantinople, or Paederos of Heraclea, or those great Bishops Meletius, Basil, and Longianus, and the rest from Armenia and Pontus, or Lupus and Amphion from Cilicia, or James and the rest from Mesopotamia, or our own blessed Alexander, with others of the same opinions as these;--there would then have been nothing to suspect in their statements, for the character of APOSTOLICAL MEN is sincere and INCAPABLE OF FRAUD"
Ad Episcopos 8(A.D. 372),in NPNF2,IV:227
I don't remember proponents of sola scriptura arguing like this? In one fell swoop St. Athanasius refutes Mr. White. There is no soil in faith of St. Athanasius for sola scriptura.

I will end this discourse with the words of St. Athanasius: 
"However here too they[ie. the Arians] introduce their private fictions, and contend that the Son and the Father are not in such wise 'one,' or 'like,' as the Church preaches, but, as they themselves would have it."
Orationes contra Arianos III:10(A.D. 362),in NPNF2,IV:399
St. Athanasius pray for us

Notes
----------

[1] Cited in SS,p 49
[2] Cited in SS,p 50
[3] Cited in SS,p 51, Cited in AI, Cited CR2
[4] Cited in SS,p 49-50
[5] Mr. White and myself were involved in a computer debate in 1993 on the rule of faith in the early Church. This debate <fathers.htm> is available here at Corunum's web site.
[6] Cited in SS,p 44-45
[7] Cited in SS,p 45
[8] Cited in SS,p 46
[9] Cited in SS,p 47
[10] Cited in SS,p 47
[11] Cited in SS,p 48
[12] Cited in SS,p 48-49
[13] Cited in SS,p 51 and CR1
[14] Cited in SS,p 50

Abbreviations Used
-------------------------------

AI - Internet article titled "Of Athanasius and infallibility" url: www.aomin.org/credenda.html

ANF - Roberts, Alexander and Donaldson, James, eds., The Ante-Nicene Fathers:The Writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325, 10 volumes (Edinburgh,1884-86)

CR1 - Christian Research Journal, July-August 1997, pp 30-34

CR2 - Christian Research Journal, January-March 1998,p. 5 

NPNF2 - Schaff, Philip, et.al.,eds.,A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Church Fathers,14 volumes, Series 2

SS - Don Kistler,ed.,"Sola Scriptura:The Protestant Position on the Bible" (Morgan PA:Soli Deo Gloria Pub.,1995)

This text may downloaded and viewed for private reading only. This text may not be used by another Web site or published, electronically or otherwise, without the written permission of the copyright holder.

Joseph A. Gallegos © 1998 All Rights Reserved.

	   The Fathers know best Not Mr. Webster!  Mr. Webster in an essay titled "Sola Scriptura and the Early Church"[1] has attempted to transform the early Church Fathers into proponents of sola Scriptura. In my contribution in "Not by Scripture Alone" (Santa Barbara:Queenship,1997) chapter 8 and appendix I delineate three approaches used by Protestant apologists in defending sola Scriptura in patristic thought. William Webster has chosen the third approach; equating sola Scriptura with the material sufficiency of Scripture. Mr. Webster writes:  "The Reformation was responsible for restoring to the Church the principle of sola Scriptura, a principle which had been operative within the Church from the very beginning of the post apostolic age. Initially the apostles taught orally but with the close of the apostolic age all special revelation that God wanted preserved for man was codified in the written Scriptures. Sola Scriptura is the teaching and belief that there is only one special revelation from God that man possesses today, the written Scriptures or the Bible, and that consequently the Scriptures are materially sufficient and are by their very nature as being inspired by God the ultimate authority for the Church." [1] Two points are to be noted here. First, Mr. Webster equates sola Scriptura with the material sufficiency of Scripture. Second, according to Mr. Webster, the Reformers were responsible for restoring this narrow understanding of sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura consists of a material and a formal element. First, sola Scriptura affirms that all doctrines of the Christian faith are contained within the corpus of the Old and New Testaments. Hence, Scripture is materially sufficient. Secondly, Scripture requires no other coordinate authority such as a teaching Church or Tradition in order to determine its meaning. Sola Scriptura affirms the formal sufficiency of Scripture. Catholics are allowed to affirm Scripture's material sufficiency, therefore Mr. Webster's case directed at proving the Fathers belief in Scripture's material sufficiency is completely off target. In order for Mr. Webster to make his case for sola Scriptura he must prove that the Fathers affirmed the formal sufficiency of Scripture. The Fathers affirmed both the material sufficiency and formal insufficiency of Scripture.[2]  A bit more surprising is that Mr. Webster has us believe that the Reformers equated sola Scriptura with material sufficiency. Nothing could be further from the truth.  Calvin writes:  "But a more pernicious error widely prevails that Scripture has only so much weight as is conceded to it by the consent of the church. As if the eternal and inviolable truth of God depended upon the decision of men! For they mock the Holy Spirit when they ask: Who can convince us that these writings came from God? Who can assure us that the Scripture has come down whole and intact even to our day?...Thus, the highest proof of Scripture derives in general form from the fact that God in person speaks in it...Let this point therefore stand: that those whom the Holy Spirit has inwardly taught truly rest upon Scripture, and that Scripture indeed is self-authenticated; hence, it is not right to subject it to proof and reasoning. And the certainty it deserves with us, it attains by the testimony of the Spirit." Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion,I:7:1,4,5 Similarly Luther writes: "[T]he truth is that nobody who has not the Spirit of God sees a jot of what is in the Scriptures...[N]othing whatsoever is left obscure or ambiguous, but that all that is in the Scripture is through the Word brought forth in the clearest light and proclaimed to the whole world." Luther, Bondage of the Will,175  "Unless I am convicted of error by the testimony of Scriptures or (since I put no trust in the unsupported authority of Pope or of councils, since it is plain that they have often erred and often contradicted themselves) by manifest reasoning I stand convicted by the Scriptures to which I have appealed, and my conscience is taken captive by God's word, I cannot and will not recant anything, for to act against our conscience is neither safe for us, nor open to us." Luther, Final Answer at the Diet of Worms, in DCC,201 Dr. Godfrey summarizes the Reformation doctrine: "The Protestant position, and my position, is that all things necessary for salvation and concerning faith and life are taught in the Bible clearly enough for the ordinary believer to find it there and understand." Dr. W. Robert Godfrey, "What Do We mean by Sola Scriptura" in Sola Scriptura!, Don Kistler ed.,(Morgan, Soli Deo Gloria:1996),p 3 The Reformers position affirmed both the formal and material sufficiency of Scripture. Mr. Webster has misrepresented the faith of the Reformers by having us believe that they affirmed his narrow definition of sola Scriptura. The doctrine of sola Scriptura requires no other coordinate authority such as Tradition or a teaching Church in order to interpret all of its doctrines in an orthodox manner. In contrast, Mr. Webster narrows the definition of sola Scriptura to only mean material sufficiency. However, this caricature of sola Scriptura is innocuous since Catholics can affirm the material sufficiency of Scripture. Likewise, Mr. Webster's use of the Fathers in support of material sufficiency is off target. Catholics agree that the Fathers affirmed the material sufficiency of Scripture.[3] However, in the same breath, these very same Fathers affirmed the formal insufficiency of Scripture. I will provide passages from the very same Fathers that are cited by Mr. Webster that affirm the formal insufficiency of Scripture.  Next Mr. Webster writes: "The Council of Trent in the sixteenth century, on the other hand, declared that the revelation of God was not contained solely in the Scriptures. It was contained partly in the written Scriptures and partly in oral tradition and therefore the Scriptures were not materially sufficient."[1] Again, Mr. Webster misrepresents the position of Trent and the Catholic Church. The Fathers at the Council of Trent specifically eliminated the words partly in Scripture and partly in tradition from the acts and substituted that the Gospel is contained in both Scripture and Tradition. In fact, the partim/partim language was eliminated by the arguments made by the Servite Fathers, who upheld the material sufficiency of Scripture. Again, Mr. Webster has misfired.  Mr. Webster continues: "Irenaeus and Tertullian state emphatically that all the teaching of the Bishops that was given orally was rooted in Scripture and could be proven from the written Scriptures. Both fathers give us the actual doctrinal content of the Apostolic Tradition that was orally preached in the Churches and every doctrine is derived from Scripture. There is no doctrine in this Apostolic Tradition that is not found in Scripture."[1] Mr. Webster gives a partial truth here. Not only is there no doctrine that is not found in Scripture there is no doctrine that is not found in Tradition as well. This is a very crucial point. All doctrines of the Catholic faith are in Tradition as well as in Scripture. Therefore Mr. Webster wrongly concludes that all doctrines are derived from Scripture only. All Catholic doctrines are derived from the teachings of Christ and derivatively His Apostles. These Apostolic doctrines were first transmitted to the Church first via Tradition and later by both Tradition and Scripture. The transmission of doctrines through Tradition was not retired once the Bible was written, collated, and canonized.  Mr. Webster writes: "And there is no appeal in the writings of these fathers to a Tradition that is oral in nature for a defense of what they call Apostolic Tradition. The Apostolic Tradition for Irenaeus and Tertullian is simply Scripture."[1] Notice the sleight of hand by Mr. Webster. He equates St. Irenaeus's and Tertullian's understanding of Tradition to mean Scripture. Both of the these Fathers clearly understood Tradition as a substantive and coordinate authority alongside Scripture. These same Fathers believed that the doctrines of the Catholic Church are found in Tradition as well as in Scripture. However, they do not make the misguided conclusion that Tradition is equated to Scripture since Tradition includes the same doctrines that Scripture contains. The primary difference between Scripture and Tradition is that they convey the same teaching but through different mediums. One transmits the doctrines via the written Scriptures while Tradition transmits these same doctrines through the life, faith and practice of the Church. If Scripture is equated with Tradition than the writings of St. Irenaeus and Tertullian are reduced to nonsense.  St. Irenaeus writes as if he was anticipating proto-Protestants: "When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition...It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture or tradition" Against Heresies 3,2:1  "Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches?" Against Heresies 3,4:1 According to Irenaeus, Tradition is substantive in content, normative in authority and continues to live in the Apostolic churches.  Likewise Tertullian writes: "Error of doctrine in the churches must necessarily have produced various issues. When, however, that which is deposited among many is found to be one and the same, it is not the result of error, but of tradition. Can any one, then, be reckless enough to say that they were in error who handed on the tradition." Prescription against the Heretics,28 Similarly, the words of Tertullian are reduced to nonsense if we apply Mr. Webster's understanding of Tradition.  Mr. Webster continues: "Irenaeus and Tertullian had to contend with the Gnostics who were the very first to suggest and teach that they possessed an Apostolic oral Tradition that was independent from Scripture. These early fathers rejected such a notion and appealed to Scripture alone for the proclamation and defense of doctrine."[1] First, St. Irenaeus and Tertullian had no issue with the concept of an authoritative Tradition alongside Scripture. Their criticism of the Gnostics was with a tradition that was private and available to only the Gnostic elect in contrast to a Tradition that was public, above board, taught and preserved by the Catholic Church. This was the point that was foisted in the face of the Gnostics by St. Irenaeus and Tertullian: "But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the successions of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying they themselves are wiser..." Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3,2:2  "His testimony, therefore, is true, and the doctrine of the apostles is open and steadfast, holding nothing in reserve; nor did they teach one set of doctrines in private, and another in public." Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3,15:1  "Immediately, therefore, so did the apostles, whom this designation indicates as 'the sent.' Having, on the authority of a prophecy, which occurs in a psalm of David, chosen Matthias by lot as the twelfth, into the place of Judas, they obtained the promised power of the Holy Ghost for the gift of miracles and of utterance; and after first bearing witness to the faith in Jesus Christ throughout Judaea, and rounding churches (there), they next went forth into the world and preached the same doctrine of the same faith to the nations. They then in like manner rounded churches in every city, from which all the other churches, one after another, derived the tradition of the faith, and the seeds of doctrine, and are every day deriving them, that they may become churches. Indeed, it is on this account only that they will be able to deem themselves apostolic, as being the offspring of apostolic churches. Every sort of thing must necessarily revert to its original for its classification. Therefore the churches, although they are so many and so great, comprise but the one primitive church, (rounded) by the apostles, from which they all (spring). In this way all are primitive, and all are apostolic, whilst they are all proved to be one, in (unbroken) unity, by their peaceful communion and title of brotherhood, and bond of hospitality,--privileges which no other rule directs than the one tradition of the selfsame mystery." Tertullian, On Prescription Against the Heretics 20 Mr. Webster's understanding that the Fathers appealed to Scripture alone is simply a fantasy.  In support of Mr. Webster's novel idea that St. Irenaeus and Tertullian embraced sola Scriptura he cites Ellen Flessman-Van Leer, a non-Catholic scholar. Mr. Webster offers this cut and paste of Van Leer. "Irenaeus and Tertullian had to contend with the Gnostics who were the very first to suggest and teach that they possessed an Apostolic oral Tradition that was independent from Scripture. These early fathers rejected such a notion and appealed to Scripture alone for the proclamation and defense of doctrine. Church historian, Ellen Flessman-Van Leer affirms this fact:  'For Tertullian Scripture is the only means for refuting or validating a doctrine as regards its content...For Irenaeus, the church doctrine is certainly never purely traditional; on the contrary, the thought that there could be some truth, transmitted exclusively viva voce (orally), is a Gnostic line of thought...If Irenaeus wants to prove the truth of a doctrine materially, he turns to scripture, because therein the teaching of the apostles is objectively accessible. Proof from tradition and scripture serve one and the same end: to identify the teaching of the church as the original apostolic teaching. The first establishes that the teaching of the church is this apostolic teaching, and the second, what this apostolic teaching is' (Ellen Flessman-van Leer, Tradition and Scripture in the Early Church(Van Gorcum, 1953, pp. 184, 133, 144)."[1] Unfortunately for Mr. Webster, Ellen Flessman-Van Leer has written in depth and without equivocation on St. Irenaeus' and Tertullian's understanding of Apostolic Tradition. Mr. Webster wants to leave us with the impression that Van Leer and the Fathers embraced sola Scriptura. Nothing could be further from the truth. "For Irenaeus, on the other hand, tradition and scripture are both quite unproblematic. They stand independently side by side, both absolutely authoritative, both unconditionally true, trustworthy, and convincing." Tradition and Scripture in the Early Church, p139 Notice the contrast of the use of the word independent between Mr. Webster and Van Leer. In one fell swoop Van Leer destroys Mr. Webster's novel understanding of St. Irenaeus' rule of faith.  Elsewhere Van Leer comments on Tertullian: "Tertullian says explicitly that the apostles delivered their teaching both orally and later on through epistles, and the whole body of this teaching he designates with the word traditio...This is tradition in the real sense of the word. It is used for the original message of the apostles, going back to revelation, and for the message proclaimed by the church, which has been received through the apostles...[I]n the first case regula approaches a confession of faith, and in the second case the revelation. And the fact that these are two nuances, hardly to be differentiated, proves that for Tertullian the revealed truth and the confession of the church coincide for all practical purposes...The regula is also normative for the right exegesis of scripture...And only as so long as the rule is kept intact and within its boundaries..." ibid.,pp. 146,147,168 Van Leer concludes: "Irenaeus and Tertullian point to the church tradition as the authoritative locus of the unadulterated teaching of the apostles, they cannot longer appeal to the immediate memory, as could the earliest writers. Instead they lay stress on the affirmation that this teaching has been transmitted faithfully from generation to generation. One could say that in their thinking, apostolic succession occupies the same place that is held by the living memory in the Apostolic Fathers." ibid., p.188 Clearly, Mr. Webster has not understood Van Leer, St. Irenaeus and Tertullian.  Mr. Webster continues: "The bible was the ultimate authority for the fathers of the patristic age. It was materially sufficient and the final arbiter in all matters of doctrinal truth. As JND Kelly has pointed out: 'The clearest token of the prestige enjoyed by (Scripture) is the fact that almost the entire theological effort of the Fathers, whether their aims were polemical or constructive, was expended upon what amounted to the exposition of the Bible. Further, it was everywhere taken for granted that, for any doctrine to win acceptance, it had first to establish its Scriptural basis' (Early Christian Doctrines (San Francisco: Harper & Row,1978),pp. 42,46"[1] Here we have Mr. Webster misrepresenting the faith JND Kelly, the Anglican patristic scholar. Mr. Webster is attempting to transform JND Kelly into a proponent of sola Scriptura via his cut and paste method. Interesting how Mr. Webster failed to cite the following from the same work: "It should be unnecessary to accumulate further evidence. Throughout the whole period Scripture and tradition ranked as complementary authorities, media different in form but coincident in content. To inquire which counted as superior or more ultimate is to pose the question in misleading terms. If Scripture was abundantly sufficient in principle, tradition was recognized as the surest clue to its interpretation, for in tradition the Church retained, as a legacy from the apostles which was embedded in all the organs of her institutional life, an unerring grasp of the real purport and meaning of the revelation to which Scripture and tradition alike bore witness" Early Christian Doctrines, pp. 47-48 Note the contrasting use of the word ultimate in Mr. Webster's novel claim and JND Kelly's passage. Likewise, Mr. Webster misrepresents JND Kelly.  Next we have Mr. Webster citing Luther and Medieval scholar Hieko Oberman: "Scripture and Tradition were for the early Church in no sense mutually exclusive: kerygma (the message of the gospel), Scripture and Tradition coincided entirely. The Church preached the kerygma which is found in toto in written form in the canonical books. The Tradition was not understood as an addition to the kerygma contained in Scripture but as handing down that same kerygma in living form: in other words everything was to be found in Scripture and at the same time everything was in living Tradition (The Harvest of Medieval Theology (Cambridge: Harvard University, 1963), p. 366)."[1] Why this passage is cited in support of sola Scriptura is puzzling since it affirms the Catholic position on the relationship of Scripture and Tradition.  The next few paragraphs Mr. Webster cites from St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Gregory of Nyssa, and St. Basil the Great in support of sola Scriptura. Then Mr. Webster summarizes his findings in the ancient Church: "These fathers are simply representative of the fathers as a whole. Cyprian, Origen, Hippolytus, Athanasius, Firmilian, Augustine are just a few of the fathers that could be cited as proponents of the principle of sola Scriptura, in addition to Tertullian, Irenaeus, Cyril and Gregory of Nyssa. The early Church operated on the basis of the principle of sola Scriptura and it was this historical principle that the Reformers sought to restore to the Church."[1] For a complete rebuttal to the above claim I refer to my contribution in "Not by Scripture Alone" (Santa Barbara:Queenship,1997), Chapter 8 "What did the Church Fathers teach about Scripture, Tradition and Church" and appendix "A Dossier of Church Fathers on Scripture and Tradition".  There are a couple of recurring themes throughout the writings of the Church Fathers on the rule of faith. First, the Fathers affirmed that the most perfect expression of the Apostolic faith is to be found in Sacred Scripture. The Fathers affirmed the material sufficiency of Scripture. According to the Fathers, all doctrines of the Catholic faith are to be found within its covers. Secondly, the Fathers affirmed in the same breath and with equal conviction that the Apostolic faith also has been transmitted to the Church through Tradition. According to the Fathers, the Scriptures can only be interpreted within the Catholic Church in light of her Sacred Tradition. The Fathers, particularly those who combated heresies, affirmed that the fatal flaw of heretics was interpreting Scripture according to their private understanding apart from mother Church and her Tradition. In sum, when the Fathers affirmed the sufficiency and authority of Scripture, they did so not in a vacuum, but within the framework of an authoritative Church and Tradition. Let me cite passages from the same Fathers Mr. Webster used.  St. Cyril of Jerusalem(c.A.D 315-386), Doctor and Catholic bishop of Jerusalem between A.D.348-350 writes: "But in learning the Faith and in professing it, acquire and keep that only, which is now delivered to thee by the CHURCH, and which has been built up strongly out of all the SCRIPTURES." Catechetical Lectures, 5:12 Mr. Webster provided this passage but I add it here to draw attention to St. Cyril's Catholic understanding of the rule of faith. Elsewhere, St. Cyril points to the Church not to Scripture itself for the canon: "Learn also diligently, and from the Church, what are the books of the Old Testaments, and what those of the New." Catechetical Lectures ,4:33 St. Gregory of Nyssa(c.A.D. 335-394),brother of St. Basil the Great, Doctor of the Catholic Church and bishop of Nyssa writes: "[F]or it is enough for proof of our statement, that the TRADITION has come down to us from our fathers, handled on, like some inheritance, by succession from the apostles and the saints who came after them. They, on the other hand, who change their doctrines to this novelty, would need the support of arguments in abundance, if they were about to bring over to their views, not men light as dust, and unstable, but men of weight and steadiness: but so long as their statement is advanced without being established, and without being proved, who is so foolish and so brutish as to account the teaching of the evangelists and apostles, and of those who have successively shone like lights in the churches, of less force than this undemonstrated nonsense?" Against Eunomius,4:6 St. Basil the Great(A.D. 329-379), Doctor of the Catholic Church, bishop of Caesarea, and brother St. Gregory of Nyssa's writes: "Of the dogmas and kergymas preserved in the Church, some we possess from written teaching and others we receive from the tradition of the Apostles, handed on to us in mystery. In respect to piety both are of the same force. No one will contradict any of these, no one, at any rate, who is even moderately versed in manners ecclesiastical. Indeed, were we to try to reject the unwritten customs as having no great authority, we would unwittingly injure the Gospel in its vitals; or rather, we would reduce kergyma to a mere term." Holy Spirt 27:66 Irenaeus, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of Nyssa, and Basil are the only Fathers cited by Mr. Webster in support of sola Scriptura. I have provided passages from these same Fathers to provide the necessary balance. It would be easy for anyone to cut and paste the Fathers to their liking, however to find the authentic faith of a Father we must look at their entire writings.  Next, we have Mr. Webster attempting to transform the late Cardinal Yves Congar into a proponent of sola Scriptura with regard to the Old Testament. Mr. Webster cites this passage from Cardinal Yves Congar's magnum opus "Tradition and traditions": "Revelation is a disclosure of his mystery which God makes to men...a disclosure through created signs, guaranteed by God not to mislead us, though they may be very imperfect. These signs are events, realities, actions and words; but ultimately, at least as regards the Old Covenant, the events and actions are known to us only in words, and written words at that: the writings of sacred Scripture (Yves Congar, Tradition and Traditions (New York: Macmillan, 1966), p. 238)."[1] Mr. Webster erroneously concludes: "Yves Congar readily admits the principle of sola Scriptura with regard to the Old Testament. The only revelation we possess of that dispensation is the written Scriptures, even though prophets from the very beginning preached and taught orally."[1] All Mr. Webster had to do was read the very first Chapter in Cardinal Yves Congar's work. The Cardinal writes in the section titled "Tradition in the Church before the Church": " 'Tradition', as it existed in Israel, is usually presented to us in three forms. (1) An original oral tradition. In what constitutes the Jewish idea of an oral tradition of the Torah, from Moses up to the 'Men of the Great Synagogue'...(2) Precision...Here tradition operates not as mere transmission, but as the reading of inspired texts, already written down and familiar, in the light of present experiences, or of events longed for by the very people involved in the expectation...(3) Interpretation...And so there came into being in Judaism schools for the interpretation of the Law. These were characterized by a principle of transmission or tradition...this accumulated wisdom of many generations, though originally completely dependent on Scripture, had a value of its own. It was held to come from God no less than Scripture itself and was treated with the same respect." Congar Yves, "Tradition and traditions" (New York:Macmillan,1967) pp. 1,2,4,5 The Jewish community interpreted the Old Testament within the framework of Tradition and never apart it. Sola Scriptura was never in the minds of the Jewish people.  In closing Mr. Webster offers this final criticism of Tradition, he writes: "The teaching of a separate body of Apostolic revelation known as Tradition which is oral in nature originated, not with the Christian Church, but with Gnosticism. This was an attempt by the gnostics to bolster their authority by asserting that the Scriptures were not sufficient. They stated that they possessed the fullness of apostolic revelation because they not only had the written revelation of the apostles in the Scriptures but also their oral tradition, and the key for interpreting and understanding that revelation. Just as the early fathers repudiated this teaching and claim by an exclusive reliance upon and appeal to the written Scriptures, so must we."[1] Mr. Webster clearly is misrepresenting St. Irenaeus, Tertullian, the Catholic Church's understanding of Tradition and the Gnostics view of tradition. St. Irenaeus, Tertullian and the rest of the Fathers were not against authentic Catholic Tradition but against a tradition that was a secret oral message, known only to a few elect people, and not authenticated by Apostolic succession. "For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but viva voce...And this wisdom each one of them alleges to be the fiction of his own inventing..the truth resides at one time in Valentinus, at another in Marcion, at another in Cerinthius, then afterward Basilides" St. Irenaeus,Against Heresies,3,2:1 In contrast, according to St. Irenaeus and Tertullian, authentic Catholic tradition was above board, public, known to all who looked, and authenticated by the succession of bishops in the Apostolic Churches. St. Irenaeus countered the gnostics with: "But, again, when we refer them to the tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of successions of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition...It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew anything like what these [heretics] rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to "the perfect" apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon [to the Church], but if they should fall away, the direst calamity." St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3,2:2,3,3:1  Tertullian offers a similar criticism:  "But if there be any (heresies) which are bold enough to plant themselves in the midst Of the apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the apostles, because they existed in the time of the apostles, we can say: Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [that first bishop of theirs] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men,--a man, moreover, who continued stedfast with the apostles. For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter. In exactly the same way the other churches likewise exhibit (their several worthies), whom, as having been appointed to their episcopal places by apostles, they regard as transmitters of the apostolic seed. Let the heretics contrive something of the same kind. For after their blasphemy, what is there that is unlawful for them (to attempt)? But should they even effect the contrivance, they will not advance a step. For their very doctrine, after comparison with that of the apostles, will declare, by its own diversity and contrariety, that it had for its author neither an apostle nor an apostolic man; because, as the apostles would never have taught things which were self-contradictory, so the apostolic men would not have inculcated teaching different from the apostles, unless they who received their instruction from the apostles went and preached in a contrary manner. To this test, therefore will they be submitted for proof by those churches, who, although they derive not their founder from apostles or apostolic men (as being of much later date, for they are in fact being founded daily), yet, since they agree in the same faith, they are accounted as not less apostolic because they are akin in doctrine. Then let all the heresies, when challenged to these two tests by our apostolic church, offer their proof of how they deem themselves to be apostolic. But in truth they neither are so, nor are they able to prove themselves to be what they are not. Nor are they admitted to peaceful relations and communion by such churches as are in any way connected with apostles, inasmuch as they are in no sense themselves apostolic because of their diversity as to the mysteries of the faith." Tertullian,On the Prescription Against the Heretics 32 It is clear the early Church Fathers appealed to Tradition alongside Scripture. This Tradition was normative, substantive, available to all, and preserved by the Apostolic Churches, particularly the See of Rome. In contrast, Mr. Webster would have you believe that the early Church Fathers, such as St. Irenaeus and Tertullian, rejected the concept of an authoritative Tradition on the basis they rejected the secret tradition of the gnostics.  Perhaps Mr. Webster can answer the above challenge of St. Irenaeus and Tertullian, reject sola Scriptura and turn to the very Tradition referred to by St. Irenaeus and Tertullian.  Notes:  [1] Sola Scriptura and the Early Church ; url http://www.christiantruth.com/solascriptura.html [2] Interesting to note that Mr. Webster does not apply this narrow definition of sola Scriptura in his earlier criticisms of the Catholic Church(cf. "The Church of Rome at the Bar of History" (Pennsylvania:Banner,1995), "Did I Really Leave the Holy Catholic Church?" in "Roman Catholicism", J. Armstrong ed., (Chicago:Moody,1994)) [3] Material sufficiency is affirmed by well known Catholic theologians such as: John Henry Newman, Waltar Kaspar, George Tarvard, Henri Lubac, Matthias Sheeben, Michael Schmaus, and Joseph Ratzinger. I affirmed the Fathers believed in the material sufficiency of Scripture in my chapter "What did the Fathers teach about Scripture, Tradition and Church".    This text may downloaded and viewed for private reading only. This text may not be used by another Web site or published, electronically or otherwise, without the written permission of the copyright holder.  Joseph A. Gallegos © 1999 All Rights Reserved. 	

	   St. Athanasius and Sacred Tradition  Some advocates of sola Scriptura believe that tradition, according to the Athanasius, is nothing more than something derived from Scripture. In other words, they equate tradition with Scripture; thereby, downplaying the authority of Sacred Tradition. Nothing could be farther from the truth.  Athanasius for the most part equated the word tradition with the teachings and doctrines given to the Church by Christ and His Apostles. These doctrines have been handed down to the Church to subsequent generations through its the various ministrations. For Athanasius these included: preaching, liturgy, catechesis, faith of the Christian people, the ecclesiastical scope/object, ecumenical belief, faith of the Fathers etc. There are a few places where Athanasius equates tradition w/ Scripture itself ('While the Apostolic tradition teaches in the words of blessed Peter, 'Forasmuch then as Christ suffered for us in the Flesh; 'Epistle 60:6); however, for the majority of his writings he applies tradition as a body of teachings which have come down from the Apostles via the life and practice of the Church; as such, they are harmonious and complementary with Scripture. That is why you'll find citations from Athanasius which finds Tradition harmonious w/ Scripture and visa-versa; which is different than saying Tradition is derived from Scripture. The reason Scripture and Tradition are harmonious is that both are derived from the same source -- Christ and His Apostles. For example in his letter to Serapion, after he cites several passages from Scripture in support of the Holy Spirit's deity, he writes:  "But, beyond these sayings" To Serapion 1:28  According to Athanasius, These sayings are the previous Scripture passages. Then Athanasius continues the contrast:  "Let us look at the very tradition, teaching, and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning, which the Lord gave, the Apostles preached and the Fathers kept." To Serapion 1:28  A couple things to note here. First, there is a clear distinction between Scripture ('these sayings') and tradition. According to Athanasius, tradition are the teachings inherited by the Church which were transmitted by Christ and His Apostles and preserved by the Fathers. Here and in most places in Athanasius' writings, Scripture and tradition are two different entities. However, both are apostolic in origin, both transmit the faith of the Church and both are preserved/kept by the Church. The primary difference between Scripture and tradition is the medium by which the faith is transmitted. Scripture by way of writing and tradition by way of the life and practice of the Church (catechesis, general faith of the Church, liturgy, Fathers, preaching etc.)  Additionally, proponents of sola Scripture therefore make the misguided conclusion that Tradition is not a substantive coordinate authority alongside Scripture.  "But after him 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 2:6  No commentary required, as Athanasius has refuted the novel idea that tradition is merely teaching derived soley from Scripture.  Advocates of sola Scripture make the charge that Catholics are anachronistic in their belief of the tripartite rule of faith. In my honest opinion, sola Scriptura advocates have read Athanasius, but have not understood him. In fact, Athanasius interpretation of Scripture is ruled by the Church's traditional doctrines. Under any other premise, Athanasius would seem to argue illogically. Commenting on the word "made" in "Who was faithful to Him that made Him" Heb 3:2, Athanasius writes:  "For nature and truth draw their meaning to themselves. This being so, when persons ask whether the Lord is a creature or work, it is proper to ask them this first, whether He is Son and Word and Wisdom." Dis. Against Arians 2:4-5  In other words, the true nature of Christ is determined by the truth expressed by traditional doctrine of the Incarnation! Since, the Arians rejected this traditional doctrine of the Church, they interpreted Scripture to their own destruction and made shipwreck of their faith. In other words, if one holds onto the tradition of the Incarnation then one will readily interpret the word "made" to mean divine generation despite its prima facie meaning!  A few paragraphs before, Athanasius makes the same point:  "[L]et them not question about the [Scriptural]terms, as I said before, which the sacred writers use of the Word Himself, viz. not 'to Him that begat Him,' but 'to Him that made Him;' for while it is confessed what His nature is, what word is used in such instances need raise no question. For terms do not disparage His Nature; rather that Nature draws to Itself those terms and changes them." Dis. Against Arians 2:3  Despite the prima facie meaning of the word "made", the traditional doctrine of the Incarnation obliges him to interpret the text to mean divine generation. In other words, the tradition of the Incarnation, a doctrine that is confessed in the Church and dogmatizes the true nature of Christ, changes the prima facie meaning of the word "made"!  In another example, Athanasius writes:  "[T]he Arians; for looking at what is human in the Saviour, they have judged Him a creature ... But for them, learn they however tardily, that 'the Word became Flesh;' " Dis. Against Arians 3:35  Here would have been an ideal place for Athanasius to affirm the Incarnation on the word of Scripture without the aid of Tradition. However, he continues by stating that he does NOT rely on the force of this Scripture passage alone:  "Let us, retaining the general scope of the faith, acknowledge that what they interpret ill, has a right interpretation." Dis. Against Arians 3:35  Athanasius affirms there is a tradition that is substantive, authoritative and independent as to supply him with the orthodox understanding of Scripture.  Again Athanasius writes:  "What they[Arians] now allege from the Gospels they certainly give unsound interpretation, we may easily see..." Dis. Against Arians 2:28  Here's a perfect place for Athanasius to say,  "we may easily see if we look ONLY to the Scripture themselves apart from any Church tradition"; however, Athanasius in contrast to words of a proponent of sola Scriptura actually writes:  "we may see easily, if we now consider the scope of that faith which we Christians hold, and using it as a rule, apply ourselves, as the Apostle teaches, to the reading of inspired Scripture. For Christ's enemies, being ignorant of this scope, have wandered from the way of truth, and have stumbled on a stone of stumbling, thinking otherwise than they should think." Dis. Against Arians 3:28  What is Athanasius advocating as a rule to be applied to a reading of Scripture without which the Arians have wandered from the truth? Clearly it is not Scripture itself, but tradition as expressed in the ecumenical faith of the Catholic people!  Let's cut to the chase -- why don't advocates of sola Scriptura find one(1) single passage, just one now, from the corpus of Athanasius' writings where Athanasius pits his understanding of Scripture up against the Church's Tradition!  The reason you will not find one is that the Church's Tradition comes from Christ and His Apostles. Hence, Athanasius treats both authorities as complementary and harmonious. That is why you will find Athanasius complement one with the other - he validates Tradition with Scripture and Scripture with Tradition. He doesn't pit one against the other, rather he upholds both authorities.  Catholics, as does Athanasius, affirm that some passages in Scripture are clear at first glance and require no complementary authority. However, perspicuity of various passages is dependent on the eye of the beholder - some passages are clear for some while these same passage may be obscure for others. However, in the final analysis, Catholics and Athanasius affirm that one's understanding of the Sacred Text is ruled by the ecclesiastical tradition of the Church no matter how perspicuous a word, term, or passage in Scripture may be to the contrary.  Interestingly, the few bishops who sided with Arius did not attempt to find an uninterrupted traditional pedigree in their favor. Athanasius believed that Arianism was the first heresy to appeal to a private understanding of Sacred Scripture:  "Of all other heresies which have departed from the truth it is acknowledged that they have but devised a madness, and their irreligiousness has long since become notorious to all men...But, whereas one heresy, and that the last, which has now risen as harbinger of Antichrist, the Arian, as it is called, considering that other heresies, her elder sisters, have been openly proscribed, in her craft and cunning, affects to array herself in Scripture language, like her father the devil..." Dis. Against Arians, 1:1  JND Kelly(a non-Catholic patristic scholar) who summarizes this time period writes:  "If Scripture was abundantly sufficient in principle, tradition was recognized as the surest clue to its interpretation, for in tradition the Church retained, as a legacy from the apostles, which was embedded in all the organs of her institutional life, an unerring grasp of the real purport and meaning of the revelation to which Scripture and tradition alike bore witness." Early Christian Doctrines, 48  In the end, Athanasius realized, as did the Nicene Fathers, that both Catholics and Arians could appeal to Scripture for their belief; however, only Catholics could proof their orthodoxy by an appeal to tradition:  "See, we are proving that this view has been transmitted from father to father; but ye, O modern Jews and disciples of Caiaphas, how many fathers can ye assign to your phrases? Not one of the understanding and wise; for all abhor you, but the devil alone; none but he is your father in this apostasy" Defense of the Nicene Definition, 27(A.D. 355),in NPNF2,IV:168    This text may downloaded and viewed for private reading only. This text may not be used by another Web site or published, electronically or otherwise, without the written permission of the copyright holder.  Joseph A. Gallegos © 2000 All Rights Reserved. 	

Interpreting Scripture with the eyes of the Church

"Those, therefore, who desert the preaching of the Church, call in question the knowledge of the holy presbyters, not taking into consideration of how much greater consequence is a religious man, even in a private station, than a blasphemous and impudent sophist. Now, such are all the heretics, and those who imagine that they have hit upon something more beyond the truth, so that by following those things already mentioned, proceeding on their way variously, in harmoniously, and foolishly, not keeping always to the same opinions with regard to the same things, as blind men are led by the blind, they shall deservedly fall into the ditch of ignorance lying in their path, ever seeking and never finding out the truth. It behoves us, therefore, to avoid their doctrines, and to take careful heed lest we suffer any injury from them; but to flee to the Church, and be brought up in her bosom, and be nourished with the Lord's Scriptures."
Irenaeus,Against Heresies,5,20:2(A.D. 180),in ANF,I:548

"Since this is the case, in order that the truth may be adjudged to belong to us, "as many as walk according to the rule," which the church has handed down from the apostles, the apostles from Christ, and Christ from God, the reason of our position is clear, when it determines that heretics ought not to be allowed to challenge an appeal to the Scriptures, since we, without the Scriptures, prove that they have nothing to do with the Scriptures. For as they are heretics, they cannot be true Christians, because it is not from Christ that they get that which they pursue of their own mere choice, and from the pursuit incur and admit the name of heretics. Thus, not being Christians, they have acquired no right to the Christian Scriptures; and it may be very fairly said to them, "Who are you? When and whence did you come?"
Tertullian,Prescription against the heretics,37(A.D. 200),in ANF,III:261

"Now the cause, in all the points previously enumerated, of the false opinions, and of the impious statements or ignorant assertions about God, appears to be nothing else than the not understanding the Scripture according to its spiritual meaning, but the interpretation of it agreeably to the mere letter. And therefore, to those who believe that the sacred books are not the compositions of men, but that they were composed by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, agreeably to the will of the Father of all things through Jesus Christ, and that they have come down to us, we must point out the ways (of interpreting them) which appear (correct) to us, who cling to the standard of the heavenly Church of Jesus Christ according to the succession of the apostles. "
Origen,First Principles,4,1:9(A.D. 230),in ANF,IV:357

"The spouse of Christ cannot be adulterous; she is uncorrupted and pure. She knows one home; she guards with chaste modesty the sanctity of one couch. She keeps us for God. She appoints the sons whom she has born for the kingdom. Whoever is separated from the Church and is joined to an adulteress, is separated from the promises of the Church; nor can he who forsakes the Church of Christ attain to the rewards of Christ. He is a stranger; he is profane; he is an enemy. He can no longer have God for his Father, who has not the Church for his mother. If any one could escape who was outside the ark of Noah, then he also may escape who shall be outside of the Church. The Lord warns, saying, 'He who is not with me is against me, and he who gathereth not with me scattereth.' "
Cyprian,Unity of the Church,6(A.D. 256),in ANF,V:423

"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....Take heed then, brethren, and hold fast the traditions[ie. The creed] which ye now receive, and write them an the table of your heart."
Cyril of Jerusalem,Catechetical Lectures,5:12(A.D. 350),in NPNF2,VII:32

"[T]hey who are placed without the Church, cannot attain to any understanding of the divine word. For the ship exhibits a type of Church, the word of life placed and preached within which, they who are without, and lie near like barren and useless sands, cannot understand."
Hilary of Poitiers,On Matthew,Homily 13:1(A.D. 355),in FOC,I:347

"But beyond these [Scriptural] sayings, let us look at the very tradition, teaching and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning, which the Lord gave, the Apostles preached, and the Fathers kept."
Athanasius,Four Letters to Serapion of Thmuis,1:28(A.D. 360),in SHAP,133-134

"This then I consider the sense of this passage, and that, a very ecclesiasitcal sense."
Athanasius,Discourse Against the Arians,1:44(A.D. 362),in NPNF2,IV:331

"It is the church which perfect truth perfects. The church of believers is great, and its bosom most ample; it embraces the fullness of the two Testaments."
Ephraem,Against Heresies(ante A.D. 373),in FOC,I:378

"Now I accept no newer creed written for me by other men, nor do I venture to propound the outcome of my own intelligence, lest I make the words of true religion merely human words; but what I have been taught by the holy Fathers, that I announce to all who question me. In my Church the creed written by the holy Fathers in synod at Nicaea is in use. I believe that it is also repeated among you; but I do not refuse to write its exact terms in my letter, lest I be accused of taking too little trouble. It is as follows: This is our faith. But no definition was given about the Holy Ghost, the Pneumatomachi not having at that date appeared. No mention was therefore made of the need of anathematizing those who say that the Holy Ghost is of a created anti ministerial nature. For nothing in the divine and blessed Trinity is created."
Basil,To the Church of Antioch,Epistle 140:2(A.D. 373),in NPNF2,VIII:204

"For they [heretics] do not teach as the church does; their message does no accord with the truth."
Epiphanius,Panarion,47(A.D. 377),in PAN,168

"[S]eeing, 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... And let no one interrupt me, by saying that what we confess should also be confirmed by constructive reasoning: for it is enough for proof of our statement, that the tradition has come down to us from our fathers, handled on, like some inheritance, by succession from the apostles and the saints who came after them."
Gregory of Nyssa,Against Eunomius,4:6(A.D. 384),in NPNF2,V:163

"Wherefore all other generations are strangers to truth; all the generations of heretics hold not the truth: the church alone, with pious affection, is in possession of the truth."
Ambrose,Commentary of Psalm 118,19(A.D. 388),in FOC,I;171

"They teach what they themselves have learnt from their predecessors. They have received those rites which they explain from the Church's tradition. They preach only 'the dogmas of the Church' "
Chrysostom,Baptismal Instruction(A.D. 389),in CON,445

"But when proper words make Scripture ambiguous, we must see in the first place that there is nothing wrong in our punctuation or pronunciation. Accordingly, if, when attention is given to the passage, it shall appear to be uncertain in what way it ought to be punctuated or pronounced, let the reader consult the rule of faith which he has gathered from the plainer passages of Scripture, and from the authority of the Church, and of which I treated at sufficient length when I was speaking in the first book about things."
Augustine,On Christian Doctrine,3,2:2(A.D. 397),in NPNF1,II:557

" 'So then, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye were taught, whether by word, or by Epistle of ours.' Hence it is manifest, that they did not deliver all things by Epistle, but many things also unwritten, and in like manner both the one and the other are worthy of credit. Therefore let us think the tradition of the Church also worthy of credit. It is a tradition, seek no farther."
Chrysostom,Homily on 2nd Thessalonians,4:2(A.D. 404),in NPNF1,XIII:390

"My resolution is, to read the ancients, to try everything, to hold fast what is good, and not to recede from the fath of the Catholic Church."
Jerome,To Minervius & Alexander,Epistle 119(A.D. 406),in FOC,I:73

"But those reasons which I have here given, I have either gathered from the authority of the church, according to the tradition of our forefathers, or from the testimony of the divine Scriptures, or from the nature itself of numbers and of similitudes. No sober person will decide against reason, no Christian against the Scriptures, no peaceable person against the church."
Augustine,On the Trinity,4,6:10(A.D. 416),in NPNF1,III:75

"But it will be said, If the words, the sentiments, the promises of Scripture, are appealed to by the Devil and his disciples, of whom some are false apostles, some false prophets and false teachers, and all without exception heretics, what are Catholics and the sons of Mother Church to do? How are they to distinguish truth from falsehood in the sacred Scriptures? They must be very careful to pursue that course which, in the beginning of this Commonitory, we said that holy and learned men had commended to us, that is to say, they must interpret the sacred Canon according to the traditions of the Universal Church and in keeping with the rules of Catholic doctrine, in which Catholic and Universal Church, moreover, they must follow universality, antiquity, consent."
Vincent of Lerins,Commonitories,70(A.D. 434),in NPNF2,XI:152

"[H]old fast the faith in simplicity of mind; establishing the tradition of the church as a foundation, in the inmost recesses of thy heart, hold the doctrines which are well-pleasing unto God."
Cyril of Alexandria,Festal Letters,Homily 8(A.D. 442),in FOC,I:446-447

This text may downloaded and viewed for private reading only. This text may not be used by another Web site or published, electronically or otherwise, without the written permission of the copyright holder.

Joseph A. Gallegos © 2000 All Rights Reserved.