Did St. Athanasius defend Sola Scriptura?

[Qohelet]

Hello,
I’ve recently come across what you could consider some fairly controversial writings from the Church Father St. Athanasius that got me really confused:

The sacred and inspired Scriptures are sufficient to declare the truth (Athanasius, Against the Heathen, part 1, 1, 3)

Now one might write at great length concerning these things, if one desired to go rate details respecting them; for the impiety and perverseness of heresies will appear to be manifold and various, and the craft of the deceivers to be very terrible. 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. (Athanasius, To the Bishops of Egypt, Ch 1, 4)

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 (Athanasius, de Synodis, Part 1, 6)

Is it just me, or do they all seem to blatantly defend, in a way, Sola Scriptura? Now I know that some Church Fathers had a few slightly dubious opinions and some of them didn’t always agree with each other, but come on, this is not just any trivial opinion, it’s a pretty big issue, even to Athanasius, so it seems; plus, he’s a saint, and a considerable amount of orthodoxy is one of the main “requirements” for any saint — afterall, Origen wasn’t considered one for no reason.

Can someone please help me clear this up?
Thanks so much. God bless you.

 

[rdscheirer]

What scripture existed when he wrote that- probably as an early church father the only scripture was the OT.

 

[kepha1]

**
St. Athanasius never says scripture is sufficient alone, and he never separated scripture from the Church.

***Does St. Athanasius’ original Greek really say that Scripture is “sufficient above all things”? No. In a very simple sentence which a first-year Greek student should be able to translate correctly, St. Athanasius declares “For divine Scripture is more sufficient than all [other writings, councils, etc.].” The sentence in transliterated Greek reads Esti men gar hikanotera panton he theia graphe. Here we do not have an absolute statement, but a comparative one. To say that Scripture is the primary source of doctrine is not to say that it is the sole source of doctrine. I do not know of any Catholic theologian, doctor, or council of prelates of any period in the Church’s history who would not view arguments from Sacred Scripture as the more authoritative among various sources of doctrine. This quotation gives absolutely no support to the Protestant error of sola scriptura. The issue here in the Greek is subtle, yes, but seemingly too subtle for the Protestant apologist to have caught. *
*Athanasius’ entire anti-Arian corpus is nothing if not a scriptural refutation of heresy. The heretics claim Scripture as their guide. Fine, then let’s show them how they err from Scripture itself. St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Robert Bellarmine, all the doctors of the Church, patristic and scholastic, prefer scriptural authority. In doing so, they do not reject, but rather assert, the teaching of the Church. *
But there’s more. see envoymagazine.com/backissues/2.4/coverstory.html

 

[rdscheirer]

I restate my question- give the dates.

 

[Qohelet]

I restate my question- give the dates.

The first quote dates from around 335 A.D.
The second one from 359.
The third one from 356.

Not sure when the canon of scripture was finally defined though… Sometime in the end of the 4th century?

 

[Crumpy]

Did Jesus defend the idea later to be called “sola scriptura”?

No. I don’t recall the exact verse, but you will recognize Jesus saying that sounds like this, “you have heard (such and such) but I tell you (more and more).”

 

[Third_Day]

Hello,
I’ve recently come across what you could consider some fairly controversial writings from the Church Father St. Athanasius that got me really confused:Is it just me, or do they all seem to blatantly defend, in a way, Sola Scriptura? Now I know that some Church Fathers had a few slightly dubious opinions and some of them didn’t always agree with each other, but come on, this is not just any trivial opinion, it’s a pretty big issue, even to Athanasius, so it seems; plus, he’s a saint, and a considerable amount of orthodoxy is one of the main “requirements” for any saint — afterall, Origen wasn’t considered one for no reason.

Can someone please help me clear this up?
Thanks so much. God bless you.

Athanasius held to scripture and tradition.

Athanasius, To Adelphius, Letter 60
60.2 You, however, beloved and most truly longed-for, have done what befitted **the tradition of the Church **and your piety toward the Lord, in refuting, admonishing, and rebuking such men

Letter 2,6
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. Therefore Paul justly praises the Corinthians because their opinions were in accordance with his traditions. And the Lord most righteously reproved the Jews, saying, ‘Wherefore do ye also transgress the commandments of God on account of your traditions.’ For they changed the commandments they received from God after their own understanding, preferring to observe the traditions of men.

Letter 2.7
In this holy joy of Easter, which being continually in our hearts, we always rejoice, as Paul commanded; 'We pray without ceasing; in everything we give thanks. So we are not remiss in giving notice of its seasons, as we have received from the Fathers. Again we write, again keeping to the apostolic traditions, we remind each other when we come together for prayer; and keeping the feast in common, with one mouth we truly give thanks to the Lord.

Letter 10.11
I both give thanks to God myself, and exhort you to thank Him with me and on my behalf, this being the Apostolic custom, which these opponents of Christ, and the schismatics, wished to put an end to, and to break off

Athanasius On the Incarnation of the Word
56 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 us. 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. 2. For they were spoken and written by God, through men who spoke of God. **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….

57 But for the searching or the Scriptures and true knowledge of them, an honourable life is needed, and a pure soul, and that virtue which is according to Christ; so that the intellect guiding its path by it, may be able to attain what it desires, and to comprehend it, in so far as it is accessible to human nature to learn concerning the Word of God. 2. For without a pure mind and a modelling of the life after the saints, a man could not possibly comprehend the words of the saints. 3. For just as, if a man wished to see the light of the sun, he would at any rate wipe and brighten his eye, purifying himself in some sort like what he desires, so that the eye, thus becoming light, may see the light of the sun; or as, if a man would see a city or country, he at any rate comes to the place to see it;–thus he that would comprehend the mind of those who speak of God must needs begin by washing and cleansing his soul, by his manner of living, and approach the saints themselves by imitating their works; so that, associated with them in the conduct of a common life, he may understand also what has been revealed to them by God

 

[Third_Day]

Hello,
I’ve recently come across what you could consider some fairly controversial writings from the Church Father St. Athanasius that got me really confused:

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 (Athanasius, de Synodis, Part 1, 6)
Can someone please help me clear this up?
Thanks so much. God bless you.

Athanasius is writing about heretics in the above quote. Seems to me he is saying that the scriptures that were presented at the Council were sufficient to combat the heresy. I don’t see where he is saying scripture is sufficient and tradition and the Catholic Church are not needed. His other writings mention tradition.
Here is the quote you provided in context.

Athanasius, de Synodis
5.As to the Nicene Council, it was not a common meeting, but convened upon a pressing necessity, and for a reasonable object. The Syrians, Cilicians, and Mesopotamians, were out of order in celebrating the Feast, and kept Easter with the Jews(9); on the other hand, the Arian heresy had risen up against the Catholic Church, and found supporters in Eusebius and his fellows, who were both zealous for the heresy, and conducted the attack upon religious people. This gave occasion for an Ecumenical Council, that the feast might be everywhere celebrated on one day, and that the heresy which was springing up might be anathematized. It took place then; and the Syrians submitted, and the Fathers pronounced the Arian heresy to be the forerunner of Antichrist(10), and drew up a suitable formula against it. And yet in this, many as they are, they ventured on nothing like the proceedings(11) of these three or four men(12). Without pre-fixing Consulate, month, and day, they wrote concerning Easter, general compliance; but about the faith they wrote not, ‘It seemed good,’ but, believed, 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

6.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(2), 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? For even the notorious Aetius, who was surnamed godless(3), vaunts not of the discovering of any mania of his own, but under stress of weather has been wrecked upon Arianism, himself and the persons whom he has beguiled. 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

 

[Qohelet]

Thanks a lot for all the insightful answers and sources guys, I’d searched everywhere for them in vain. I knew it was all a contextual problem.

 

[Nicea325]

Hello,
I’ve recently come across what you could consider some fairly controversial writings from the Church Father St. Athanasius that got me really confused:

The sacred and inspired Scriptures are sufficient to declare the truth (Athanasius, Against the Heathen, part 1, 1, 3)

Now one might write at great length concerning these things, if one desired to go rate details respecting them; for the impiety and perverseness of heresies will appear to be manifold and various, and the craft of the deceivers to be very terrible. 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. (Athanasius, To the Bishops of Egypt, Ch 1, 4)

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 (Athanasius, de Synodis, Part 1, 6)

Is it just me, or do they all seem to blatantly defend, in a way, Sola Scriptura? Now I know that some Church Fathers had a few slightly dubious opinions and some of them didn’t always agree with each other, but come on, this is not just any trivial opinion, it’s a pretty big issue, even to Athanasius, so it seems; plus, he’s a saint, and a considerable amount of orthodoxy is one of the main “requirements” for any saint — afterall, Origen wasn’t considered one for no reason.

Can someone please help me clear this up?
Thanks so much. God bless you.

A BIG NO!

First of all,you are only reading two passages from two separate works. One has to read all of his works in their entirety. Second of all, one has to comprehend why did he write the work and to whom and for what purpose? Third, cannot take a few paragraphs to prove a position.

 

[brb3]

… 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

(Athanasius, de Synodis, Part 1, 6)

Athanasius spoke correctly. Scripture is sufficient ABOVE ALL THINGS written. A BIG YES !!!

Just as OT scriptures were the Gold Standard … when the Catholic Church gave us the OT/NT Canon, we now had the ‘sufficient above all things’ written WORD of God. But, as Athanasius acknowledges, many don’t read ‘honestly’, … and use the written word to support whatever preconceived ideas they wish to promote. Thus, the Nicene Bishops needed to put forward the correct teachings of scripture … based on Both the written Word & the Traditions given the Apostles by Christ.