Did Clement of Alexandria believe in Sola Scriptura?

[Truthstalker]

Clement of Alexandria lived in the second century.

See newadvent.org/fathers/02107.htm Stromata book 7, chapter 16. The chapter is called

CHAPTER XVI – SCRIPTURE THE CRITERION BY WHICH TRUTH AND HERESY ARE DISTINGUISHED.

But those who are ready to toil in the most excellent pursuits, will not desist from the search after truth, till they get the demonstration from the Scriptures themselves.

and in it are statements such as

He, then, who of himself believes the Scripture and voice of the Lord, which by the Lord acts to the benefiting of men, is rightly [regarded] faithful. Certainly we use it as a criterion in the discovery of things. What is subjected to criticism is not believed till it is so subjected; so that what needs criticism cannot be a first principle. Therefore, as is reasonable, grasping by faith the indemonstrable first principle, and receiving in abundance, from the first principle itself, demonstrations in reference to the first principle, we are by the voice of the Lord trained up to the knowledge of the truth.

Notably absent from the chapter is any regard to church authority in determining truth and heresy, or even mention of them. He seems to view as normative the evaluation of doctrine and dogma by the Scriptures - not by the Church.

The argument then is made that Sola Scriptura was not an invention of the reformation but rather a return to an earlier methodology. Other church fathers can be readily found who made similar statements, but for this thread, let’s stick with Clement.

Did he or did he not advocate Sola Scriptura in this chapter?

 

[John_Henry]

Did he or did he not advocate Sola Scriptura in this chapter?

I presume the question is, Did he or did he not advocate Sola Scriptura?, as opposed to in this particular chapter. After all, it would be strange for him to advocate SS in one chapter, and then advocate some contrary theory in another chapter, or in another writing. So…did St. Clement of Alexandria advocate SS?

First, it is important to note that he speaks very highly of the import of Scripture. But that in of itself does not mean that he advocates the import of Scripture alone. The Catholic Church always brings Scripture to bear on the demonstration of her doctrines. She never says, “Just trust us”. Or “it’s a part of the tradition, with absolutely no witness in scripture.” Granted, other people may disagree with the Church’s interpretation of scripture. Oh well. The same can be said for St. Clement, which he, in fact, makes quite clear in the section you cite.

Second, in the chapter you quote, he most certainly does speak of the Church:

As, then, if a man should, similarly to those drugged by Circe, become a beast; so he, who has spurned the ecclesiastical tradition, and darted off to the opinions of heretical men, has ceased to be a man of God and to remain faithful to the Lord. But he who has returned from this deception, on hearing the Scriptures, and turned his life to the truth, is, as it were, from being a man made a god.

Third, he becomes more explicit when he speaks in the very next chapter:

CHAPTER XVII – THE TRADITION OF THE CHURCH PRIOR TO THAT OF THE HERESIES.
Those, then, that adhere to impious words, and dictate them to others, inasmuch as they do not make a right but a perverse use of the divine words, neither themselves enter into the kingdom of heaven, nor permit those whom they have deluded to attain the truth. But not having the key of entrance, but a false (and as the common phrase expresses it), a counterfeit key (antikleis), by which they do not enter in as we enter in, through the tradition of the Lord, by drawing aside the curtain; but bursting through the side-door, and digging clandestinely through the wall of the Church, and stepping over the truth, they constitute themselves the Mystagogues of the soul of the impious.
For that the human assemblies which they held were posterior to the Catholic Church requires not many words to show…

Such being the case, it is evident, from the high antiquity and perfect truth of the Church, that these later heresies, and those yet subsequent to them in time, were new inventions falsified [from the truth].

From what has been said, then, it is my opinion that the true Church, that which is really ancient, is one, and that in it those who according to God’s purpose are just, are enrolled. For from the very reason that God is one, and the Lord one, that which is in the highest degree honourable is lauded in consequence of its singleness, being an imitation of the one first principle. In the nature of the One, then, is associated in a joint heritage the one Church, which they strive to cut asunder into many sects.

So he not only argues from Scripture, but also from the antiquity of the one true Church, which is called the Catholic Church.

 

[Integritus]

Why would anyone substitute “Scripture as a criterion” with “Sola Scriptura”? The heresy of “Sola Scriptura” was born and reared its infant head in the 16th Century. Clement would be completely confused to any notion of “Sola Scriptura”, as George Washington would be to the recitation of “The Pledge of Allegiance”.

Clement of Alexandria was a lover, heir, father, and preacher of oral traditions that he himself frequently affirmed he received as an immediate successor of the Apostles:

(Stromata 1, 1 ANF 2:301)

" …Well, they preserving the tradition of the blessed doctrine derived directly from the holy apostles, Peter, James, John, and Paul, the sons receiving it from the father (but few were like the fathers), came by God’s will to us also to deposit those ancestral and apostolic seeds. And well I know that they will exult; I do not mean delighted with this tribute, but solely on account of the preservation of the truth, according as they delivered it. For such a sketch as this, will, I think, be agreeable to a soul desirous of preserving from escape the blessed tradition."

“Now this work of mine in writing is not artfully constructed for display; but my memoranda are stored up against old age, as a remedy against forgetfulness, truly an image and outline of those vigorous and animated discourses which I was privileged to hear of blessed and truly remarkable men.”

“The writing of these memoranda of mine, I well know, is weak when compared with that spirit, full of grace, which I was privileged to hear.”

Listen to this, this is great:

"The dogmas taught by remarkable sects will be adduced; and to these will be opposed all that ought to be premised in accordance with the profoundest contemplation of the knowledge, which, as we proceed to the renowned and venerable canon of tradition, from the creation of the world, will advance to our view; setting before us what according to natural contemplation necessarily has to be treated of beforehand, and clearing off what stands in the way of this arrangement. So that we may have our ears ready for the reception of the tradition of true knowledge;

Clement in book 1 of The Stromata, in a eloquent, almost poetic manner, is clearly putting the “ear”, “hear”, and the “spoken” as the themes (realities) that enabled him to receive and transmit the truth of the Gospel from his teachers. He was “privileged to hear” the truth of these traditions. He heard and came to believe. Nobody gave him a copy of the Bible and said “now read, good luck”.

Eusebius writes (in The History of the Church 6,13):

“In Book 1, Clement shows that he himself was almost an immediate successor of the Apostles… In his work The Easter Festival he declared that his friends insisted on his transmitting to later generations in writing the oral traditions that had come down to him from the earliest authorities of the Church.”

 

[Truthstalker]

Certainly Clement acknowledged and celebrated tradition. But here is Scripture as THE criterion, not A criterion - a distinction evident in Greek (his language) and English (ours) but not Latin. He cites tradition but not as something finally determinitive - that is left to Scripture. Note that tradition seems to be subordinate to Scripture, and the chapter on it follows the one on Scripture. Being self-consistent, he would argue that if the Scriptures are THE criterion, then therefore the church cannot be THE criterion, or even on the same level.

I see a circular argument you are making: SS did not exist then, so therefore he could not have been using it, so this could not be SS, as it did not exist. Here we have a demonstration of its possible existence, and you insist simply that it could not be, on the grounds that it was not in existence yet. But here it is, seemingly.

Concerning the ecclesiastical traditions: his example spurns them, but is brought back by conviction through hearing the Scripture, innately demonstrating the superiority of the Scriptures over the traditions of men.

 

[Atreyu]

Certainly Clement acknowledged and celebrated tradition. But here is Scripture as THE criterion, not A criterion - a distinction evident in Greek (his language) and English (ours) but not Latin. He cites tradition but not as something finally determinitive - that is left to Scripture. Note that tradition seems to be subordinate to Scripture, and the chapter on it follows the one on Scripture. Being self-consistent, he would argue that if the Scriptures are THE criterion, then therefore the church cannot be THE criterion, or even on the same level.

I see a circular argument you are making: SS did not exist then, so therefore he could not have been using it, so this could not be SS, as it did not exist. Here we have a demonstration of its possible existence, and you insist simply that it could not be, on the grounds that it was not in existence yet. But here it is, seemingly.

Concerning the ecclesiastical traditions: his example spurns them, but is brought back by conviction through hearing the Scripture, innately demonstrating the superiority of the Scriptures over the traditions of men.

Well, the Scriptures are more superior than the traditions of men, that’s consistent with the Catholic teaching. But are Scriptures more superior than Sacred Tradition? That’s what you need to find out.

 

[Stephen_C]

Also in this chapter Clement said

“And if those also who follow heresies venture to avail themselves of the prophetic Scriptures; in the first place they will not make use of all the Scriptures, and then they will not quote them entire, nor as the body and texture of prophecy prescribe. But, selecting ambiguous expressions, they wrest them to their own opinions, gathering a few expressions here and there; not looking to the sense, but making use of the mere words. For in almost all the quotations they make, you will find that they attend to the names alone, while they alter the meanings; neither knowing, as they affirm, nor using the quotations they adduce, according to their true nature.”

What do you think Clement was talking about here? Sometimes you need to take off the either/or glasses and try on the Both/and ones. Without Sacred Tradition, how do we interpret Sacred Scripture?

 

[Stephen_C]

TS,
If you see Sola Scriptura in Clement’s writings. ok now what? I don’t see it. Not when to take in this chapter as a whole, not just bits and pieces. TS, please do not take this wrong. I am just trying to see where you are at in your Journey. You do not have to answer if you do not want to…You said in an earler post a while back you were still seeking but looking for loop holes. Is that still true?

 

[Truthstalker]

Well, the Scriptures are more superior than the traditions of men, that’s consistent with the Catholic teaching. But are Scriptures more superior than Sacred Tradition? That’s what you need to find out.

Good question. Perhaps Clement is indeterminate. But this chapter points to an assertion that the Scriptures are superior for at least one purpose. I’m not convinced we can demand of Clement a systematic theology that would be more typical of a later age, as he was not yet exposed to some of the issues as issues that came up later.

 

[Truthstalker]

TS,
If you see Sola Scriptura in Clement’s writings. ok now what? I don’t see it. Not when to take in this chapter as a whole, not just bits and pieces. TS, please do not take this wrong. I am just trying to see where you are at in your Journey. You do not have to answer if you do not want to…You said in an earler post a while back you were still seeking but looking for loop holes. Is that still true?

IF Clement held to SS and IF other early fathers can be shown to have endorsed it, then necessarily it wasn’t an invention of the reformation, but the argument could be legitimized that it was a valid viewpoint in the life of the church, and would point to a wider historical catholicism than is currently admitted, and would lead to an argument that holding to SS positions is at least as valid as holding to S+T positions. This would be a significant reinterpretation of the nature of Catholicism - that the tent, actually, is bigger than admitted, and some Protestants, at least, are already within it. This would require of course not just proof of the two initial “ifs” but a determination of the validity of the statements I listed afterwards, all of which are speculative.

I suspect this chapter may be one of those that can be read validly with either SS or S+T eyes. The text I have has all kinds of exuberant footnotes declaring the clarity of his SS in this chapter, and thus proof of classic Protestantism. Clement is difficult reading, and I suspect Catholics will disagree with the idea that Clement was a Protestant in theology.

 

[Stephen_C]

Ok, Don’t know if this belongs on your thread…forgive me it does not. But last night while trying to get to sleep I just could not get SS out of my mind. How could it be true? Then it came to me. (Also keep in mind am still on my first pot of Java) We read the bible. We interpret what Jesus is saying right?
We share that with someone. (In the case of a paster his congregation) They agree. So now we have the bible and an explanation of what a passage means. Is that SS? Or did he just start a tradition? So if a Church professes this is what we believe…This is how we interpret the word of God…This is what the Bible is saying here…This is how we should view that passage…Is that SS? Think about it. Or is SS We reject Catholic tradition and inject our own. So maybe that is way I can’t see SS in Clement’s writings. I just do not believe SS to be true.

 

[John_Henry]

IF Clement held to SS and IF other early fathers can be shown to have endorsed it,

But this also presupposes that Clement was working with the full canon of scripture as you know it. Which we know he wasn’t, because the first time you get a quote of the NT as we know it is 160 years after the writing you quote, in St. Athanasius (AD 367). If you’re gonna have a SS, you need a canon. But seen you don’t have a canon, you don’t have a SS.

Note that tradition seems to be subordinate to Scripture, and the chapter on it follows the one on Scripture

So what. The chapter on scripture follows about 50 other chapters in the Miscellanies.

 

[John_Henry]

Did he or did he not advocate Sola Scriptura in this chapter?

No. Thankfully, Dave Armstrong has a long section examining the full thought of St. Clement in his own words, [here](ic.net. Take a gander. It’s what I would say if I had 10 hours free to research and write.

 

[Truthstalker]

No. Thankfully, Dave Armstrong has a long section examining the full thought of St. Clement in his own words, [here](ic.net. Take a gander. It’s what I would say if I had 10 hours free to research and write.

Thanks, I’ll read it later.

The previous posts illustrate the difference in approach between Catholic and SS thought. Catholics rely upon the Church to establish the canon; under SS, it is the Holy Spirit Who authenticates the canon, and whether the church does so or not is irrelevant. Scripture is regarded as self-authenticating, and so no one needed to wait until the Church declared what the canon was in order to use Scripture as the criterion.

 

[Truthstalker]

Ok, Don’t know if this belongs on your thread…forgive me it does not. But last night while trying to get to sleep I just could not get SS out of my mind. How could it be true? Then it came to me. (Also keep in mind am still on my first pot of Java) We read the bible. We interpret what Jesus is saying right?
We share that with someone. (In the case of a paster his congregation) They agree. So now we have the bible and an explanation of what a passage means. Is that SS? Or did he just start a tradition? So if a Church professes this is what we believe…This is how we interpret the word of God…This is what the Bible is saying here…This is how we should view that passage…Is that SS? Think about it. Or is SS We reject Catholic tradition and inject our own. So maybe that is way I can’t see SS in Clement’s writings. I just do not believe SS to be true.

This may shed some light on the thread, but digresses a little.

Under SS, anything you come up with must be established as being in agreement with Scripture, and so any explanation or tradition is subject to it. You may interpret it, but your interpretation is always to be evaluated in light of Scripture.
Clement grouses about people’s lousy interpretations of Scripture - under SS the only way to evaluate the interpretation is by Scripture.

 

[John_Henry]

The previous posts illustrate the difference in approach between Catholic and SS thought. Catholics rely upon the Church to establish the canon; under SS, it is the Holy Spirit Who authenticates the canon, and whether the church does so or not is irrelevant. Scripture is regarded as self-authenticating, and so no one needed to wait until the Church declared what the canon was in order to use Scripture as the criterion.

I maintain, though, that the “self-authentication” you refer is only a useful criteria once you know the canon. Seriously. Practically, how does what you are suggesting work? People, inspired by the Holy Spirit, “just know” what is and isn’t scripture? But that is clearly not how it happened. It was decided which books were part of the canon, in council, after centuries of developing traditions on the subject. So the question that I have is:

Presuming that you get to invent another history of the Church, with your theory being the one that people are to use, how does your theory work in practice, as people undertake the laborious task of sifting through the greater than 100 books written within the first couple of centuries after Christ?

 

[Truthstalker]

I maintain, though, that the “self-authentication” you refer is only a useful criteria once you know the canon. Seriously. Practically, how does what you are suggesting work? People, inspired by the Holy Spirit, “just know” what is and isn’t scripture? But that is clearly not how it happened. It was decided which books were part of the canon, in council, after centuries of developing traditions on the subject. So the question that I have is:

Presuming that you get to invent another history of the Church, with your theory being the one that people are to use, how does your theory work in practice, as people undertake the laborious task of sifting through the greater than 100 books written within the first couple of centuries after Christ?

Now we are off thread, so see a new thread at forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=1644093#post1644093.

The current thread concerns whether Clement adhered to SS. The new thread should concern the claim of SS that Scripture is self-authenticating.

 

[Atreyu]

Thanks, I’ll read it later.

The previous posts illustrate the difference in approach between Catholic and SS thought. Catholics rely upon the Church to establish the canon; under SS, it is the Holy Spirit Who authenticates the canon, and whether the church does so or not is irrelevant. Scripture is regarded as self-authenticating, and so no one needed to wait until the Church declared what the canon was in order to use Scripture as the criterion.

How could it be irrelevant whether or not the Church was the agent who authenticated the canon? If it was the Church, then this is proof that the Holy Spirit guides the Church to the Truth! Is it not?

 

[Truthstalker]

Now we are off thread, so see a new thread at forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=1644093#post1644093.

The current thread concerns whether Clement adhered to SS. The new thread should concern the claim of SS that Scripture is self-authenticating.

How could it be irrelevant whether or not the Church was the agent who authenticated the canon? If it was the Church, then this is proof that the Holy Spirit guides the Church to the Truth! Is it not?

See new thread.

 

[Truthstalker]

I read through Dave Armstrong’s article and through Clement’s chapters again. Clement isn’t explicit either way - some statements can be used to support either position. Nowhere does he say “Scripture trumps tradition” explicitly, but there are statements that sound suspiciously like Prima Scriptura if not Sola Scripture, such as the chapter title. But I doubt he thought it out as far as we have today.

 

[JaneFrances]

But I doubt he thought it out as far as we have today.

That’s the tip. . .Within historical Catholic thought, there is much latitude for instances of a Prima Scriptura perspective. I think this can be referred to as the material sufficiency of Scripture arguement. So, in the case of Clement, given the climate of his time and the chronology of his participation in this discussion, we must always keep in mind that development of doctrine necessitates DEVELOPMENT.