Did Augustine support Sola Scriptura?

[jfoges]

Read this quote from Augustine and tell me whether you think he is supporting something like Sola Scriptura. If you don’t think so, please explain how you interpret the quote:

“Who would not know that the holy canonical scriptures both of the Old and New Testament have a priority over all subsequence writings of bishops such that there cannot be any doubt or dispute at all as to whether whatever is written there is true or right; but that the writings of bishops after the settlement of the canon may be refuted both by the perhaps wiser words of anyone more experienced in the matter and by the weightier authority and more scholarly prudence of other bishops, and also by councils, if something in them perhaps has deviated from the truth; and that even councils held in particular regions or provinces must give way without quibbling (sine ullis ambagibus cedere) to the authority of plenary councils of the whole Christian world; and that even the earlier plenary councils are often (saepe) corrected (emendari) by later ones, if as a result of practical experience (cum aliquo experimento rerum) something that was closed is opened, something that was hidden has become known?”

reference: Augustine, De baptismo contra Donatistas Book III, Ch. 2

 

[SyCarl]

This is perhaps a stronger statement although he also said he would not accept the Gospel except for the authority of the Catholic Church.

Chapter 9.How We Should Proceed in Studying Scripture.

1. In all these books those who fear God and are of a meek and pious disposition seek the will of God. And in pursuing this search the first rule to be observed is, as I said, to know these books, if not yet with the understanding, still to read them so as to commit them to memory, or at least so as not to remain wholly ignorant of them. Next, those matters that are plainly laid down in them, whether rules of life or rules of faith, are to be searched into more carefully and more diligently; and the more of these a man discovers, the more capacious does his understanding become. For among the things that are plainly laid down in Scripture are to be found all matters that concern faith and the manner of life,to wit, hope and love, of which I have spoken in the previous book. After this, when we have made ourselves to a certain extent familiar with the language of Scripture, we may proceed to open up and investigate the obscure passages, and in doing so draw examples from the plainer expressions to throw light upon the more obscure, and use the evidence of passages about which there is no doubt to remove all hesitation in regard to the doubtful passages. And in this matter memory counts for a great deal; but if the memory be defective, no rules can supply the want.-Augustine (On Christian Doctrine, Book 2, Chapter 9, Paragraph 14)
   newadvent.org/fathers/12022.htm

 

[teachccd]

Read this quote from Augustine and tell me whether you think he is supporting something like Sola Scriptura. If you don’t think so, please explain how you interpret the quote:

“Who would not know that the holy canonical scriptures both of the Old and New Testament have a priority over all subsequence writings of bishops such that there cannot be any doubt or dispute at all as to whether whatever is written there is true or right; but that the writings of bishops after the settlement of the canon may be refuted both by the perhaps wiser words of anyone more experienced in the matter and by the weightier authority and more scholarly prudence of other bishops, and also by councils, if something in them perhaps has deviated from the truth; and that even councils held in particular regions or provinces must give way without quibbling (sine ullis ambagibus cedere) to the authority of plenary councils of the whole Christian world; and that even the earlier plenary councils are often (saepe) corrected (emendari) by later ones, if as a result of practical experience (cum aliquo experimento rerum) something that was closed is opened, something that was hidden has become known?”

reference: Augustine, De baptismo contra Donatistas Book III, Ch. 2

Seems to me like Augustine was validating the primacy of Scripture while alluding to Church councils as being authoritative in deciding the absolute truth regarding our deposit of faith.

Trying to apply the contemporary notion of Sola Scriptura to any of the Early Church Fathers totally goes against the very nature of who they were. It was the EF who acknowledged our canon of the New Testament and it was the Councils of the Church that codified the apostolic writings into what we have today.

Anyone, including Augustine, who realizes the evolution of Scripture and the canonicity of the 27 books would know that no where is it mentioned anywhere in the Old Testament which books were to be included in the New Testament.

I find it quite entertaining when some find it necessary to contort the early writings into the contemporary notion that Scripture can stand without the authority of the Church. How do we know that Scripture is inspired?? Because the Church acknowledges it as such and not because it says so. The Book of Mormon claims inspiration as does the distorted version of the New World Translation used by the Jehovah’s Witnesses. So a book can not stand on its own. It requires the Church to whom God entrusted His Word to determine its inspiration.

Saint Augustine would never have subscribed to such refutable nonsense…teachccd

 

[jfoges]

Seems to me like Augustine was validating the primacy of Scripture while alluding to Church councils as being authoritative in deciding the absolute truth regarding our deposit of faith.

Trying to apply the contemporary notion of Sola Scriptura to any of the Early Church Fathers totally goes against the very nature of who they were. It was the EF who acknowledged our canon of the New Testament and it was the Councils of the Church that codified the apostolic writings into what we have today.

Anyone, including Augustine, who realizes the evolution of Scripture and the canonicity of the 27 books would know that no where is it mentioned anywhere in the Old Testament which books were to be included in the New Testament.

I find it quite entertaining when some find it necessary to contort the early writings into the contemporary notion that Scripture can stand without the authority of the Church. How do we know that Scripture is inspired?? Because the Church acknowledges it as such and not because it says so. The Book of Mormon claims inspiration as does the distorted version of the New World Translation used by the Jehovah’s Witnesses. So a book can not stand on its own. It requires the Church to whom God entrusted His Word to determine its inspiration.

Saint Augustine would never have subscribed to such refutable nonsense…teachccd

Did you read the quote I posted? He says that Plenary Councils are authoritative but that they also can err and be corrected later on. I’m glad you find this so “entertaining”. However, the notion that scripture is the highest authority is hardly “contemporary”. Unless you consider the reformers of the 1500’s “contemporaries”. Besides, Augustine is saying in this quote that scripture is the highest authority.

By the way, every single book in the bible was already used by Christians before the canon was decided upon by any ecumenical council.

 

[rhiamom]

The concept of sola scriptura was invented by Martin Luther, as I’m sure you know already, so any attempt to make St. Augustine’s writings support it is going to be a losing proposition. The second quote you gave is about how to study scripture, not whether scripture and only scripture is a valid Church teaching. Context matters.

Martin Luther used sola scriptura as a means to discredit tradition in the Church, specifically the practice of indulgences, to which he took great exception. Indulgences were out of control and corrupt at that time, but that does not make the practice of them itself improper. He needed to invent something that would make the very practice itself wrong, and he came up with sola scriptura and rejecting as unspiritual a number of books in the Bible that troublesomely supported the Catholic ideas he opposed.

 

[GJx86]

I think this is a bit of a stretch, particularly when you keep in mind that Augustine’s goal isn’t to talk about the role of Scripture as much as the role of an individual bishop on whose letters the Donatists based their teachings.

Did you read the quote I posted? He says that Plenary Councils are authoritative but that they also can err and be corrected later on.

I think he means this in the sense of doctrinal development, not the sense of “Council 1 said X was true, and Council 2 affirmed Not X was true.” While this isn’t specifically mentioned, he says that the corrections he’s talking about only occur when new information is gained, when “things [are] brought to light which were before concealed.”

If an ecumenical council could err on a matter of faith or morals, there would be no reason to say that a local council must submit to the decisions of ecumenical councils “without quibbling.”

And if an ecumenical council could err, Augustine would not go on to say that Cyprian would submit if “the truth of this question * had been placed beyond dispute by the investigation and decree of a plenary Council” (Book 2, Chapter 4). How can a council that can err place things beyond dispute?

I presume that if Augustine meant that Scripture was the only authority for Christians, he would also avoid referring to the “full illumination and authoritative decision of a plenary council” in Chapter 4.

I could go on, but you get the point. The rest of Book 2 contains plenty of references to the authority of plenary councils. These references make no sense if Augustine really wants to say that Scripture alone teaches authoritatively.

Besides, Augustine is saying in this quote that scripture is the highest authority.

Augustine’s goal is to contrast Scripture, which is certainly authoritative, with the letters of individual bishops (such as Cyprian), which, if they are contrary to the truth, will eventually be corrected, and therefore cannot be said to be certainly authoritative.

His comment on ecumenical councils is a reference to the fact that the deposit of faith can be better understood as time passes, allowing later ecumenical councils to clarify the teachings of earlier ones without contradicting their teaching.

If Augustine really means “ecumenical councils can teach error, as evidenced by the fact that later ones can correct earlier ones,” then he has no reason to refer to said councils’ ability to “full[y] illuminat[e]” the “truth” and make “authoritative decision” about said truth.*

 

[teachccd]

Did you read the quote I posted? He says that Plenary Councils are authoritative but that they also can err and be corrected later on. I’m glad you find this so “entertaining”. However, the notion that scripture is the highest authority is hardly “contemporary”. Unless you consider the reformers of the 1500’s “contemporaries”. Besides, Augustine is saying in this quote that scripture is the highest authority.

By the way, every single book in the bible was already used by Christians before the canon was decided upon by any ecumenical council.

Yea, that’s my point. It was the councils that codified the canon that we use today. Scripture did not acknowledge itself. An inspired Church acknowledged that which mirrored herself and presented the 27 New testament books as Sacred Scripture to the Christian community.

Yes, considering that the Catholic Church existed so far for 2000 years, I do find this invented notion of Sola Scriptura from the 1500’s as a contemporary idea. No one denied the authority of the Church (except heretics of which Martin Luther was one of the highest ranking) until Martin Luther had to go off on his own. Well, he could not take along the Church that he rejected so all he could run with was the Scriptures. And so was the advent of Protestantism.

I find many ficticious notions entertaining because anything that is not true could and should never be taken to heart. I am VERY comfortable in the Catholic (as you identify yourself) teachings of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition as our full deposit of faith passed on by the Magisterium. That is the truth and trying to make Saint Augustine into a “Sola Scriptura” advocate is ludicrous.

Yes we, as Catholics, do know that Scripture is authoritative and we hold the Word in very high regard. As far as I’ve seen, we are the only ones who carry high the Book of Gospels as we start our celebrations. No Protestant Church that I’ve seen kisses the book or presents it to the congregation with veneration as we do.

So, in closing, yes I did read your post and I really do think that you need to read your own post in light of Catholic teachings as Saint Augustine was very Catholic. And I do hold that anyone making Augustine a Protestant is providing us with quite the entertainment…God Bless…teachccd

 

[teachccd]

I think this is a bit of a stretch, particularly when you keep in mind that Augustine’s goal isn’t to talk about the role of Scripture as much as the role of an individual bishop on whose letters the Donatists based their teachings.

I think he means this in the sense of doctrinal development, not the sense of “Council 1 said X was true, and Council 2 affirmed Not X was true.” While this isn’t specifically mentioned, he says that the corrections he’s talking about only occur when new information is gained, when “things [are] brought to light which were before concealed.”

If an ecumenical council could err on a matter of faith or morals, there would be no reason to say that a local council must submit to the decisions of ecumenical councils “without quibbling.”

And if an ecumenical council could err, Augustine would not go on to say that Cyprian would submit if “the truth of this question * had been placed beyond dispute by the investigation and decree of a plenary Council” (Book 2, Chapter 4). How can a council that can err place things beyond dispute?

I presume that if Augustine meant that Scripture was the only* authority for Christians, he would also avoid referring to the “full illumination and authoritative decision of a plenary council” in Chapter 4.

I could go on, but you get the point. The rest of Book 2 contains plenty of references to the authority of plenary councils. These references make no sense if Augustine really wants to say that Scripture alone teaches authoritatively.

Augustine’s goal is to contrast Scripture, which is certainly authoritative, with the letters of individual bishops (such as Cyprian), which, if they are contrary to the truth, will eventually be corrected, and therefore cannot be said to be certainly authoritative.

His comment on ecumenical councils is a reference to the fact that the deposit of faith can be better understood as time passes, allowing later ecumenical councils to clarify the teachings of earlier ones without contradicting their teaching.

If Augustine really means “ecumenical councils can teach error, as evidenced by the fact that later ones can correct earlier ones,” then he has no reason to refer to said councils’ ability to “full[y] illuminat[e]” the “truth” and make “authoritative decision” about said truth.

Thank you for clarifying my post and unpacking Augustine’s quote in light of our 2000 year history…

 

[Teflon93]

This would be a self-refuting proposition if that were so, the Bible not claiming sola scriptura and St Augustine himself writing well after canonization of Scripture.

 

[jfoges]

I find many ficticious notions entertaining because anything that is not true could and should never be taken to heart. I am VERY comfortable in the Catholic (as you identify yourself) teachings of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition as our full deposit of faith passed on by the Magisterium. That is the truth and trying to make Saint Augustine into a “Sola Scriptura” advocate is ludicrous.

The Magisterium does not “pass on” sacred scripture and sacred tradition. The teaching office (magisterium) of the church simply refers to the authoritative teaching of the hierarchs of the Church, including the Pope and bishops. The role of the teaching office is to teach the world what is contained in sacred tradition, which is passed down by the whole church and safeguarded by the spirit. The teaching office is totally subjegated to what is contained in the deposit of faith, as Augustine here indicates.

 

[jfoges]

This would be a self-refuting proposition if that were so, the Bible not claiming sola scriptura and St Augustine himself writing well after canonization of Scripture.

It is not a self refuting proposition. The concept of sola scriptura simply refers to the idea that the scriptures are the normative basis for all further theological ideas. It is the notion that dogmatic propositions can be critiquedin light of the normative basis of the faith, the inspired writings of canonical scripture.

There is nothing about this notion that goes against “2,000 years of church tradition” as ccd teacher seems to think. No, the idea that scripture is the normative basis for the faith is itself part of sacred tradition. The church currently teaches that all prophetic teaching was closed with the last writing of scripture. The Magisterium is not a prophetic voice but simply a teaching office that re-teaches what was already revealed.

 

[richard377]

Justification by faith alone is a Protestant doctrine, it isn’t even Biblical.

 

[jfoges]

If Augustine really means “ecumenical councils can teach error, as evidenced by the fact that later ones can correct earlier ones,” then he has no reason to refer to said councils’ ability to “full[y] illuminat[e]” the “truth” and make “authoritative decision” about said truth.

You are mistaking the idea of the aurthority of church hierarchs with the idea of the a priori infallibility of an ecumenical council.

Augustine did indeed believe in the teaching authority of the hierarchs of the church. However, he did not believe in the a priori infallibility of ecumenical councils, by virture of their being convoked. Councils can be corrected by later coucils, according to Augustine. The thing that makes a council a correct teaching is the content of what it teaches, not the fact that it was a meeting of the world’s bishops. There were councils in history that were never recognized as ecumenical councils of the church because their decisions were not accepted as correct by the church as a whole.

 

[jfoges]

Justification by faith alone is a Protestant doctrine, it isn’t even Biblical.

Justification by faith alone is Sola Fide, not Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura is something else.

 

[Teflon93]

It is not a self refuting proposition. The concept of sola scriptura simply refers to the idea that the scriptures are the normative basis for all further theological ideas. It is the notion that dogmatic propositions can be critiquedin light of the normative basis of the faith, the inspired writings of canonical scripture.

There is nothing about this notion that goes against “2,000 years of church tradition” as ccd teacher seems to think. No, the idea that scripture is the normative basis for the faith is itself part of sacred tradition. The church currently teaches that all prophetic teaching was closed with the last writing of scripture. The Magisterium is not a prophetic voice but simply a teaching office that re-teaches what was already revealed.

It is a self-refuting proposition, as Scripture does not demand sola scriptura and since St Augustine was a bishop himself writing centuries after canonization.

Thus, the authority of St Augustine’s writing on sola scriptura cannot be invoked by the very terms of what he himself said in the quoted passage.

Think of the hoary old paradox of the man who says, “I am a liar—everything I say is untrue.”

 

[jfoges]

It is a self-refuting proposition, as Scripture does not demand sola scriptura and since St Augustine was a bishop himself writing centuries after canonization.

Thus, the authority of St Augustine’s writing on sola scriptura cannot be invoked by the very terms of what he himself said in the quoted passage.

Think of the hoary old paradox of the man who says, “I am a liar—everything I say is untrue.”

You are assuming that holding Sola Scriptura also means that one must believe that scripture is a collection of dogmatic propositions and one is not entitled to believe anything that is not expressly stated in scripture. By Sola Scriptura I only mean that scripture is held as a normative standard from which all subsequent dogmatic propositions can be critiqued. Notice in my first post I said “something LIKE sola scriptura”

 

[Spirithound]

“Who would not know that the holy canonical scriptures both of the Old and New Testament have a priority over all subsequence writings of bishops such that there cannot be any doubt or dispute at all as to whether whatever is written there is true or right; but that the writings of bishops after the settlement of the canon may be refuted both by the perhaps wiser words of anyone more experienced in the matter and by the weightier authority and more scholarly prudence of other bishops, and also by councils, if something in them perhaps has deviated from the truth; and that even councils held in particular regions or provinces must give way without quibbling (sine ullis ambagibus cedere) to the authority of plenary councils of the whole Christian world; and that even the earlier plenary councils are often (saepe) corrected (emendari) by later ones, if as a result of practical experience (cum aliquo experimento rerum) something that was closed is opened, something that was hidden has become known?”

The teaching office is totally subjegated to what is contained in the deposit of faith, as Augustine here indicates.

My take on what Sola Scriptura entails is a rejection of practices that are not in the Bible, for example, venerating St. Ignatius of Antioch.

St. Augustine is not doing away with those practices here. What he does say is that bishops are constrained in what they may teach as Truth by what is written in the Scriptures. That’s not to say that they can’t add things, like praying the Rosary, but it does mean that they can’t teach things that are contradicted by Scripture, for example, Jesus not being divine.

Thus, it is true that the teaching office, in that regard, is subjugated to Scripture, but of course, being Catholic, you already know that nothing the Church teaches goes against Scripture, right?

Regarding the plenary councils, you will note that St. Augustine says “…earlier plenary councils are often corrected by later ones, if as a result of practical experience something that was closed is opened…”
What is this “practical experience” ? Certainly it is not a Divinely revealed truth which governs faith or morals, for that is not “practical”, is it? Rather, it is a “practice” or a “discipline”, which councils, popes, and bishops are free to change at their prudence.

It is common practice on these fora to exhort someone taking certain parts of St. Augustine’s writings to take them in the context of his entire library of writings. I will further exhort you to consider the passage you read in the context of his life. St. Augustine was a bishop. After he wrote that passage, he continued to be a bishop. What is it that you hope to accomplish through this passage? What are you trying to prove? Finally, how do St. Augustine’s priestly and episcopal duties, status, and end of life mesh with your goals?

I await your answers to these questions.

 

[Spirithound]

You are assuming that holding Sola Scriptura also one is not entitled to believe anything that is not expressly stated in scripture.

That’s precisely what I take Sola Scriptura to mean.

By Sola Scriptura I only mean that scripture is held as a normative standard from which all subsequent dogmatic propositions can be critiqued. Notice in my first post I said “something LIKE sola scriptura”

You mean, you want us to say that Scripture is true, inspired, and inerrant?

YES.

 

[jfoges]

My take on what Sola Scriptura entails is a rejection of practices that are not in the Bible, for example, venerating St. Ignatius of Antioch.

St. Augustine is not doing away with those practices here. What he does say is that bishops are constrained in what they may teach as Truth by what is written in the Scriptures. That’s not to say that they can’t add things, like praying the Rosary, but it does mean that they can’t teach things that are contradicted by Scripture, for example, Jesus not being divine.

Thus, it is true that the teaching office, in that regard, is subjugated to Scripture, but of course, being Catholic, you already know that nothing the Church teaches goes against Scripture, right?

Regarding the plenary councils, you will note that St. Augustine says “…earlier plenary councils are often corrected by later ones, if as a result of practical experience something that was closed is opened…”
What is this “practical experience” ? Certainly it is not a Divinely revealed truth which governs faith or morals, for that is not “practical”, is it? Rather, it is a “practice” or a “discipline”, which councils, popes, and bishops are free to change at their prudence.

It is common practice on these fora to exhort someone taking certain parts of St. Augustine’s writings to take them in the context of his entire library of writings. I will further exhort you to consider the passage you read in the context of his life. St. Augustine was a bishop. After he wrote that passage, he continued to be a bishop. What is it that you hope to accomplish through this passage? What are you trying to prove? Finally, how do St. Augustine’s priestly and episcopal duties, status, and end of life mesh with your goals?

I await your answers to these questions.

First of all, I nowhere claimed that Augustine was a protestant or a forerunner to protestantism. I only asked if he was supporting something LIKE sola scriptura, which is only one of many protestant ideas.

You are jumping to a lot of conclusions. Firstly, suppose Augustine did believe that all writings by bishops, ecumenical councils, and any other proclamations of church hierarchs could be critiqued and improved in light of scripture. Does this mean that he would necessarily believe that nothing outside of scripture could be believed? No, because he could also believe in Sacred Tradition. Is it necessasry to believe in the infallibility of dogmatic propositions that are agreed upon at councils in order to believe that both scripture and tradition are part of divine revelation? No it is not.

Also, does the belief that writings of bishops and council proclamations are not infallible necessarily mean that Augustine was against to the deacon-priest-bishop hierarchy? No, not at all. One can believe that bishops have a teaching office without believing that either bishops, or councils, are a priori infallible by virtue of the episcopal office.

 

[Spirithound]

First of all, I nowhere claimed that Augustine was a protestant or a forerunner to protestantism. I only asked if he was supporting something LIKE sola scriptura, which is only one of many protestant ideas.

You are jumping to a lot of conclusions. Firstly, suppose Augustine did believe that all writings by bishops, ecumenical councils, and any other proclamations of church hierarchs could be critiqued and improved in light of scripture. Does this mean that he would necessarily believe that nothing outside of scripture could be believed? No, because he could also believe in Sacred Tradition. Is it necessasry to believe in the infallibility of dogmatic propositions that are agreed upon at councils in order to believe that both scripture and tradition are part of divine revelation? No it is not.

Also, does the belief that writings of bishops and council proclamations are not infallible necessarily mean that Augustine was against to the deacon-priest-bishop hierarchy? No, not at all. One can believe that bishops have a teaching office without believing that either bishops, or councils, are a priori infallible by virtue of the episcopal office.

Sorry, my post seems to have been better suited to a different thread.
So then please tell me, what is it we’re looking at here? We, as Catholics, affirm and believe that Scripture is inerrant. How much further do you feel St. Augustine’s passage pushes that?