Did the Church Fathers Teach Sola Scriptura?

  • Thread starter Thread starter runandsew
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

runandsew

Guest
Did any of the Church Fathers teach Sola Scriptura?

I know that there have been several quotes from the fathers showing that scripture is inspired, and that it is authoritative, but did they teach “Sola Scriptura”, to the exclusion of the tradition or magisterium of the Church?

If so,who taught it and when. (Links would be greatly appriciated)

If not, why not?

I was hoping my Protestant brothers and sisters would respond to this, since I think I know how my fellow Catholics will answer.
 
runandsew said:
Did any of the Church Fathers teach Sola Scriptura?

I know that there have been several quotes from the fathers showing that scripture is inspired, and that it is authoritative, but did they teach “Sola Scriptura”, to the exclusion of the tradition or magisterium of the Church?

If so,who taught it and when. (Links would be greatly appriciated)

If not, why not?

I was hoping my Protestant brothers and sisters would respond to this, since I think I know how my fellow Catholics will answer.
Click to expand...
scripturecatholic.com/scripture_alone.html
catholic.com/thisrock/1992/9208chap.asp
catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0507bt.asp
catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0409fea3.asp
catholic.com/thisrock/1992/9212fea1.asp
catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9904fea4.asp
 
By Sola Scriptura, I mean:
  1. Scripture alone is the primary and absolute source of authority. The final court of appeal for all doctrine and practice (faith and morals)
  2. Scripture is the sufficient and final written authority of God, as to sufficiency the Bible, nothing more, nothing less, and nothing else is all that is necessary for faith and practice.
  3. The Bible is clear or perspicuous, the essential teachings are clear.
  4. Scripture interprets scripture.
In other words that scripture functions as the sole infallible rule of faith for the church, and Scripture is both materially and formally sufficient.

And as for the Church Fathers, I know that you can find passages where they say that you need to consult the scriptures to refute the heretics, and that is true we all need to do this, but they also mention that you need the authority of the church and the Magisterium to refute them also, because the heretics quote scripture also.

So again, my question is do any of the Church Fathers teach Sola Scriptura, to the exclusion of the tradition or magisterium of the Church?

For example St. Vincent of Lerins writing around the year 430 AD writes that all the Heresies up until that point taught by scripture alone, and that you need the Church tradition and Magisterium to counter them. That is how you know what is true.
 
Now this is what I am talking about, It seems to me that this Church father is arguing against Sola Scriptura, are there any Fathers that teach it as the sole rule of faith?


430 AD**St. Vincent of Lerins **

“For the Antiquity and Universality of the Catholic Faith Against the Profane Novelties of All Heresies.”

Chapter II
A General Rule for distinguishing the Truth of the Catholic Faith from the Falsehood of Heretical Pravity.

[4.] 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.

[5.] But here some one perhaps will ask, Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient, what need is there to join with it the authority of the Church’s interpretation? For this reason,-because, owing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another; so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters. For Novatian expounds it one way, Sabellius another, Donatus another, Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, another, Photinus, Apollinaris, Priscillian, another, Iovinian, Pelagius, Celestius, another, lastly, Nestorius another. Therefore, it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies of such various error, that the rule for the right understanding of the prophets and apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard of Ecclesiastical and Catholic interpretation.

[6.] Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense “Catholic,” which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally. This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consent. We shall follow universality if we confess that one faith to be true, which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity, if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy ancestors and fathers; consent, in like manner, if in antiquity itself we adhere to the consentient definitions and determinations of all, or at the least of almost all priests and doctors.
 
JesusforMadrid said:
For a view on Sola Scriptura (i.e. the sufficiency of scripture), you could look here

christiantruth.com/solascriptura.html

An Evangelical view of the formation of the cannon and Sola Scritura that is based on the Early Church writings and takes into account arguments of Catholic apologists can be found here:
[members.aol.com/jasonte2/canon.htm"]http://members.aol.com/jasonte2/canon.htm"]http://members.aol.com/jasonte2/canon.htm](http://members.aol.com/jasonte2/canon.htm)

I hope that helps.
Click to expand...
I was actually hoping for the quotes from the Fathers themselves, not links to articles which people wrote.
The William Webster article can be refuted in this article.
But that was not my point on this thread. I wanted to see the actual quotes, and links to those quotes which would show that they taught Sola Scriptura

I have read many quotes by the fathers showing the unique nature and authority of Scripture, but they also wrote about the tradition also being authoritative.

Are there any fathers that taught against apostolic authority?
And the writing about the Gnostics is not that they had apostolic traditions, but that they said they were in possession of Secret Knowledge.

I am not getting too much feedback on this thread, so I am guessing that Protestants do not believe that the fathers taught sola scriptura.
 
In one sense, yes.

The written word in your heart, not the written word on parchment.

LOVE, LOVE, LOVE, LOVE, LOVE…
 
How about?

“We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed “perfect knowledge,” as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles.” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, book 3, 1, 1)

And the scriptures! The pillar and foundation of faith!! Whoa!
 
gracelife said:
How about?

“We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed “perfect knowledge,” as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles.” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, book 3, 1, 1)

And the scriptures! The pillar and foundation of faith!! Whoa!
Click to expand...
So, does this mean that Irenaeus is contradicting Scripture which cites “the church of the living God” as “the pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15)?

And Irenaeus also writes:
“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).
Click to expand...
So, he seems to have a particular interest in maintaining apostolic tradition as well. . .

He goes on:
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).
Click to expand...
Here, he seems to be citing both Scripture and tradition as authoritative without distinguishing one as greater or more authoritative.

And further:
“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).
Click to expand...
Seems as though, Irenaeus, who undeniably recognizes the authority of Scripture, also recognizes the instructive authority of the Church in matters of dispute.

For Irenaeus, Scripture and Tradition, as interpreted and imparted by the Church of the apostles, are authoritative. I do not see that his emphasis on the authority of Scripture in one quotation proves his belief in Sola Scriptura.
 
runandsew said:
By Sola Scriptura, I mean:
  1. Scripture alone is the primary and absolute source of authority. The final court of appeal for all doctrine and practice (faith and morals)
Click to expand...
If that were so how would we know which 27 books belonged in the New Testament. Which Old Testament book prophesies this??
runandsew said:
  1. Scripture is the sufficient and final written authority of God, as to sufficiency the Bible, nothing more, nothing less, and nothing else is all that is necessary for faith and practice.
Click to expand...
Except perhaps difinitve doctrines such as the Trinity, Incarnation. Apparantly in Acts Chapter 15 the early Church didn’t refer to Scripture for their dilemma. It was settled by the Church with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
runandsew said:
  1. The Bible is clear or perspicuous, the essential teachings are clear.
Click to expand...
That explains the 30,000+ denominations within Christianity.
runandsew said:
  1. Scripture interprets scripture.
Click to expand...
That would be hard in the first century. Only the entity that acknowledged Sacred Scripture can interpret it with the guidance of the same Holy Spirit who inspired it.
runandsew said:
And as for the Church Fathers, I know that you can find passages where they say that you need to consult the scriptures to refute the heretics, and that is true we all need to do this, but they also mention that you need the authority of the church and the Magisterium to refute them also, because the heretics quote scripture also.
Click to expand...
Yes and the only way to prove inspiration is through the Magisterium. The Book of Mormon claims inspiration. How can a bible only Christian refute that with sola scriptura? The Bible came from the Church and the Early Church fathers handed down the Sacred Tradition ot the members. To say that the Early Church Fathers taught sola scriptura would be to say that they refute themselves. It’s a contradiction of interest. Sola scriptura is unbiblical and a contemporary teaching of the reformation. I hardly find any of the Early Fathers mirroring protestant beliefs.
runandsew said:
So again, my question is do any of the Church Fathers teach Sola Scriptura, to the exclusion of the tradition or magisterium of the Church?

For example St. Vincent of Lerins writing around the year 430 AD writes that all the Heresies up until that point taught by scripture alone, and that you need the Church tradition and Magisterium to counter them. That is how you know what is true.
Click to expand...
The only way that you know what is truth is through the Church that Christ left for us. He didn’t leave a Bible. He left a Church and the Early Fathers taught from that perspective. Purchase books on the Early Church Fathers to confim this. I’ve yet to read, except heretical texts, thoughts to the contrary.
 
Nope, they didn’t teach Sola Scriptura nor did the Apostles themselves read Acts on the Council of Jerusalem
 
runandsew said:
Did any of the Church Fathers teach Sola Scriptura?

I know that there have been several quotes from the fathers showing that scripture is inspired, and that it is authoritative, but did they teach “Sola Scriptura”, to the exclusion of the tradition or magisterium of the Church?

If so,who taught it and when. (Links would be greatly appriciated)

If not, why not?

I was hoping my Protestant brothers and sisters would respond to this, since I think I know how my fellow Catholics will answer.
Click to expand...
When you use the term “Church Fathers” I suppose you mean the earlier Protestants? Indeed I’m pretty sure that was taught or else Catholics would not have been teaching about “the otherwise” for over a thousand years. But I guess the bible speaks for itself when speaking of magisterium.
ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/FAWORKS.HTM
 
hengcymatthew said:
When you use the term “Church Fathers” I suppose you mean the earlier Protestants? Indeed I’m pretty sure that was taught or else Catholics would not have been teaching about “the otherwise” for over a thousand years. But I guess the bible speaks for itself when speaking of magisterium.
ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/FAWORKS.HTM
Click to expand...
I’m a little slow. What is the “otherwise” that the Catholics have been teaching for over a thousand years? I know that heresies ran rampant throughout the centuries. Are these what you are referring to??:confused: And about the Bible speaking for itself could you elaborate?
 
hengcymatthew said:
When you use the term “Church Fathers” I suppose you mean the earlier Protestants? Indeed I’m pretty sure that was taught or else Catholics would not have been teaching about “the otherwise” for over a thousand years. But I guess the bible speaks for itself when speaking of magisterium.
ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/FAWORKS.HTM
Click to expand...
Actually I believe the “Church Fathers” refered to here are the “Church Fathers” of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. The protestants have no church fathers, unless you are referring to Luther, Calvin etc.

The “Church Fathers” were Catholic.

By the way…the Bible doesn’t speak of a ‘magisterium’…that word isn’t FOUND in Scripture. You get that word from the One Holy Catholic and Apostlic Church. NOR will you find any teachings on Sola Scriptura in the Church Fathers. The man made teaching of Sola Scriptura doesn’t appear until after Luther.

Gracie
 
St. Irenaeus is being literary here. The Church Fathers delighted in doing unto the New Testament the same thing that Christians had already done to the Old – namely, using scripture quotes in every possible context to demonstrate how it all related to what they’d heard from the Word Himself.

I should first point out the context, which was making heretics admit they were twisting the Scriptures, making up false gospels, and pulling logically inconsistent beliefs out of their butts and claiming Jesus and the Apostles had taught them “secretly”.

In the third book, Irenaeus turns to a somewhat more positive approach – refuting the Gnostics by telling them what the tradition of the Church actually was. He elaborates on what Jesus taught and what the apostles taught. (He follows up Against Heresies with another huge tome on the Apostolic Teaching, which is apparently just as interesting as Against Heresies.) The quote you mentioned is immediately preceded by a preface summing up the previous two books and announcing this third book’s premise.

"Call to mind then, the things which I have stated in the two preceding books, and, taking these in connection with them, thou shalt have from me a very copious refutation of all the heretics; and faithfully and strenuously shalt thou resist them in defence of the only true and life-giving faith, which the Church has received from the apostles and imparted to her sons. For the Lord of all gave to His apostles the power of the Gospel, through whom also we have known the truth, that is, the doctrine of the Son of God; to whom also did the Lord declare: “He that heareth you, heareth Me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth Me, and Him that sent Me.”

The things heard from Jesus. The things heard from the apostles. The things taught by the Church. In other words, scripture and tradition, both safeguarded by the Church, the pillar of the Truth.

The title of Chapter I then reads: “The apostles did not commence to preach the Gospel, or to place anything on record, until they were endowed with the gifts and power of the Holy Spirit. They preached one God alone, Maker of heaven and earth.”

So then we read your quote: “We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.”

So in other words, the Church (which he knows the Christian reader will remember at the reference to “the pillar of our faith”), has handed down the Scriptures from Jesus and the Apostles.

So yes, the Scriptures are one of the important tools that the Church uses. But Irenaeus is not denying that the Church is the pillar of the faith. Rather, he is binding together the Church and the Scriptures, and questioning why anyone who’s turned away from the Church towards Gnosticism would be messing about with the Scriptures at all – much less, claiming to know the Scriptures better than the Church which handed them down.

I do invite anybody who’s interested to read the Church Fathers. There’s nothing better than early Christian literature to put all our petty problems into perspective. Also, they lived among unbelievers a lot more than most Christian writers, so they’re actually more helpful for modern problems than you’d expect. Irenaeus is probably not where to start, though, unless you’ve got friends with Da Vinci Code on the brain. 🙂

The best way to read the Fathers, though, is out loud. (That’s how people back then read, actually. St. Ambrose was famous for not moving his lips when he read.) Check out marialectrix.wordpress.com or other podcasts containing material by the Fathers for free public domain audiobooks of their stuff.
 
Mannyfit75 said:
Nope, they didn’t teach Sola Scriptura nor did the Apostles themselves read Acts on the Council of Jerusalem
Click to expand...
Ambrose
“For how can we adopt those things which we do not find in the holy Scriptures?” - Ambrose (On the Duties of the Clergy, 1:23:102)

Augustine
“In order to leave room for such profitable discussions of difficult questions, there is a distinct boundary line separating all productions subsequent to apostolic times from the authoritative canonical books of the Old and New Testaments. The authority of these books has come down to us from the apostles through the successions of bishops and the extension of the Church, and, from a position of lofty supremacy, claims the submission of every faithful and pious mind…In the innumerable books that have been written latterly we may sometimes find the same truth as in Scripture, but there is not the same authority. **Scripture has a sacredness peculiar to itself.” **- Augustine (Reply to Faustus the Manichaean, 11:5)

Cyprian
“Let nothing be innovated, says he, nothing maintained, except what has been handed down. Whence is that tradition? Whether does it descend from the authority of the Lord and of the Gospel, or does it come from the commands and the epistles of the apostles? For that those things which are written must be done, God witnesses and admonishes, saying to Joshua the son of Nun: ‘The book of this law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate in it day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein.’ Also the Lord, sending His apostles, commands that the nations should be baptized, and taught to observe all things which He commanded.** If, therefore, it is either prescribed in the Gospel, or contained in the epistles or Acts of the Apostles, **that those who come from any heresy should not be baptized, but only hands laid upon them to repentance, let this divine and holy tradition be observed.” - Cyprian (Letter 73:2)

Cyprian equates Tradition with what is written down, in other words, scripture.
 
kaycee said:
Ambrose
“For how can we adopt those things which we do not find in the holy Scriptures?” - Ambrose (On the Duties of the Clergy, 1:23:102)
Click to expand...
Right, and sola Scriptura is not found in the holy Scriptures so it can’t be adopted.
 
gracelife said:
How about?

“We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed “perfect knowledge,” as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles.” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, book 3, 1, 1)

And the scriptures! The pillar and foundation of faith!! Whoa!
Click to expand...
Actually read the quote again without the protestant bias, It says they learned from none other than the apostles, which is what the “ground and foundation of truth” modifies in Iraeaeus statement. I.e. he says the apostles are the pillars and foundation. As well he doesn’t say sola scriptura, he says what was handed down was the plan for salvation, which is exactly correct, first preaching then handing down scripture.

To falsely interpret and present Iranaeus as saying sola scriptura (bible is the final authority) is an injustice to a great man. Not once does he state that in that above statement even remotely because he knows that it is the Holy Spirit who guides the church, and that he, working through his indwelling is the final authority.

Is this how scripture is interpreted as well by sola scripturists? (It looks like man made preconceptions projected onto writings and or scripture)

Peace and God Bless
Nicene
 
francesco920 said:
Right, and sola Scriptura is not found in the holy Scriptures so it can’t be adopted.
Click to expand...
In I Corinthians 4:6, we have what amounts to a virtual declaration of the Protestant doctrine or principle of Sola Scriptura! I Corinthians 4:6, Paul says, “Now these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes; that in us you might learn not to go beyond the things which are written; that no one of you be puffed up for the one against the other.” Paul says, “Brothers, I have applied (I’ve used a figure of speech) I’ve applied these things (I think he’s referring here “these things” about pride in men, or in their ministries) — I’ve applied these things to myself and to Apollos for your benefit in order that you might learn by us,” the saying, “not to go beyond the things which are written.

Isn’t that amazing? Here’s Paul (long before Luther, long before Calvin, long before the controversy in the late 20th century) saying, I want you to learn the meaning of this, **“Not to go beyond the things which are written!” **That you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, “Do not go beyond what is written!” (That’s the NIV.) The RSV says, “that you may learn by us to live according to Scripture.” Or in the Tyndale Commentary on this verse, Leon Morris says, “that what Paul is referring to is a ‘catch’ cry familiar to Paul and his readers, directing attention to the need for conformity to Scripture.” A ‘catch’ cry, a popular slogan! “Not to go beyond the things written!” And Paul says I want you to learn the meaning of that! That is an important principle for you! It is very simply the Protestant principle of sola Scriptura.
 
Nicene said:
Actually read the quote again without the protestant bias, It says they learned from none other than the apostles, which is what the “ground and foundation of truth” modifies in Iraeaeus statement. I.e. he says the apostles are the pillars and foundation. As well he doesn’t say sola scriptura, he says what was handed down was the plan for salvation, which is exactly correct, first preaching then handing down scripture.

To falsely interpret and present Iranaeus as saying sola scriptura (bible is the final authority) is an injustice to a great man. Not once does he state that in that above statement even remotely because he knows that it is the Holy Spirit who guides the church, and that he, working through his indwelling is the final authority.

Is this how scripture is interpreted as well by sola scripturists? (It looks like man made preconceptions projected onto writings and or scripture)

Peace and God Bless
Nicene
Click to expand...
Christ is the conerstone with which the Apostles and the prophets are the foundation. We have the Apostles writings and teachings, traditions, which were once and for all delivered to the Saints. We do not have Apostles today but we have their deposit of Faith in the God breathed Scripture. This Scripture thouroughly equips the man of God.

Irenaeus
“They [heretics] gather their views from other sources than the Scriptures…We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith…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 of 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…**proofs of the things which are contained in the Scriptures cannot be shown except from the Scriptures themselves.” - Irenaeus **(Against Heresies, 1:8:1, 3:1:1, 3:3:1, 3:12:9)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top