Does St. Augustine teach Sola Scriptura?

[gurneyhalleck1]

This is born out in J.N.D. Kelly’s “Early Christian Doctrine.” When reading his chapter on Scripture and Tradition in the early Church, he himself does not seem to be clear on what the position was. In his own chapter it seems in places he argues for the Catholic understanding, then in other places for the protestant understanding.

Sola Scriptura at its essence, its most basic theology is the assertion that it is possible for the Church to teach that which is outside the Bible, or beyond the Bible. Furthermore it is the notion that the Church can err. Hence Scripture Alone must serve as the final norm, the Supreme Norm of all Christian Doctrine.

This idea (that the Church might possibly err, or teach something outside the Scriptures) developed in the Middle Ages, and it is out of this which the notion becomes more fully developed with the Reformers. Sola Scriptura at least as held by the protestants assumes a very specific model of Revelation called the “Doctrinal” or “Propositional” model. The point is that none of the above issues were really on the mind of the Church Fathers. They were dealing with very specific questions and heresies. Whether the Church could or could not err, whether the Church could or would teach something outside of Scripture are later questions which started to be asked for various and assorted reasons. What I have written does not even begin to examine the role of Nominalist Philosophy on the two pillars of the Reformation: Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide.

In short I think both sides are reading into the ECF more then is intended, becasue for every passage the protestant cites in favor of Sola Scriptura, Catholics can cite a passage in favor of “Scripture and Tradition.” For every passage the Catholic can cite in favor of “Scripture and Tradition” the protestant can cite a passage in favor of “Sola Scriptura.”

I also have read JND Kelly’s Early Christian Doctrines book and found it EXCELLENT. The points you make are dead on.

On one hand there is Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp, and Clement touting episcopacy as the only true form of church gov’t, and on the other hand, just a few years before these guys, Kelly points out that presbyters were a group of elders, equals, ruling over a church. Due to the size of growing churches and church expansion, the episcopacy grew out of those elders. What that seems to indicate is that the presbyterian more protestant form of church gov’t is the more authentic original governance and that the catholic/orthodox/anglican form is a development early on. Which one is correct? The bible and the early fathers can support an argument for either. It’s not a slam dunk! You’re right!

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Augustine taught that Scripture must be interpreted in light of Apostolic Tradition.

“But when proper words make Scripture ambiguous, we must see in the first place that there is nothing wrong in our punctuation or pronunciation. Accordingly, if, when attention is given to the passage, it shall appear to be uncertain in what way it ought to be punctuated or pronounced, let the reader consult the rule of faith which he has gathered from the plainer passages of Scripture, and from the authority of the Church, and of which I treated at sufficient length when I was speaking in the first book about things.”

• On Christian Doctrine, 3, 2:2*

Augustine taught against the private interpretation of Scripture, which he saw as the source of heresy.

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

Augustine recognized the Three Pillars of the Catholic faith: Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium. He was aware that it was the Magisterium which determined the canon of Scripture in the first place.

“The authority of our books [Scriptures], which is confirmed by agreement of so many nations, supported by a succession of apostles, bishops, and councils, is against you.”
Reply to Faustus the Manichean, 13:5

For Augustine the deposit of faith consists of both Scripture and Tradition. I’m sure Augustine would have felt the same way about Luther and Calvin as he did Manichaeus.

*“For in the Catholic Church, not to speak of the purest wisdom, to the knowledge of which a few spiritual men attain in this life, so as to know it, in the scantiest measure, indeed, because they are but men, still without any uncertainty…The consent of peoples and nations keep me in the Church, so does her authority, inaugurated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age. The succession of priests keeps me, beginning with the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after his resurrection, gave it in charge to feed his sheep, down to the present episcopate? For my part, I should not believe the gospel except moved by the authority of the Catholic Church. So when those on whose authority I have consented to believe in the gospel tell me not to believe in Manichaeus, how can I but consent?” *
Epistle of Manichaeus 5, 6

Scripture must not be divorced from the apostolic teaching authority of the Catholic Church.

“No sensible person will go contrary to reason, no Christian will contradict the Scriptures, no lover of peace will go against the Church.”
Trinitas 4, 6, 10

If only Luther had listened to Augustine. :doh2:

PAX :harp:

Great post with superb quotes. Great research!

 

[Apologist78]

I also have read JND Kelly’s Early Christian Doctrines book and found it EXCELLENT. The points you make are dead on.

On one hand there is Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp, and Clement touting episcopacy as the only true form of church gov’t, and on the other hand, just a few years before these guys, Kelly points out that presbyters were a group of elders, equals, ruling over a church. Due to the size of growing churches and church expansion, the episcopacy grew out of those elders. What that seems to indicate is that the presbyterian more protestant form of church gov’t is the more authentic original governance and that the catholic/orthodox/anglican form is a development early on. Which one is correct? The bible and the early fathers can support an argument for either. It’s not a slam dunk! You’re right!

Be careful here. While I agree the data seems conflicting in that it is not as clear as we would like it to be, there are a few things to remember:

It may or may not be true that a group of elders first governed the early Church. However I think we need to be careful we don’t read into this “Presbyterianism.” One of the reasons is that we must remember we are dealing with actually ordained bishops and priests. (Though during this time the words were interchangable.) The protestant system rejects an ordained priesthood and affirms only a priesthood of the baptized.

While “juristiction” in the early Church may have been a group of elders, the question of “juristiction” is a different question then the question of the power of “orders.” Holy orders- that is ordination for the Catholic is a deeper sharing in the High Priesthood of Jesus Christ, such that the one ordained does what Christ did- begets life through the celebration of the sacraments. In the sacramental celebration the essence of the life, death, and resurrection of Christ is made present, or rather we are drawn into it. Each sacrament draws emphasis to some particular event in the life of Christ, the Eucharist presents the whole, and all sacraments find their origin and power from the Eucharist.

Hence the essence of Holy Orders, or Priesthood is not necessarily the power of temporal governance- that is a human development. The Essence of Holy Orders is the Priesthood, the begetting of life, mediation and intercession. That was clearly present in the early Church. What was also present was that the bishops were seen as the ones who protect and guard the deposit of Faith. All of this is absent from modern protestantism. However certainly the “high church” protestants like the Lutherans and Anglicans and Orthodox have retained some of it. In any case it is not essencial to the priesthood to govern the “temporal” affairs of the Church.

 

[Apologist78]

What I was alluding to was the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, not the case in the early church.

The primacy of the pope shows itself in different ways throught he centuries. In the Early Church the ECF were more likely to refer to “Rom” then they were to the bishop. They had high praise for “Rome.” In later times “Rome” and the “Bishop of Rome” began to be connected. For example “Rome has not erred” eventually lead to “The pope has not erred.” I think this is a legitimate development, since the Bishop of Rome cannot be seperated from his diocese.

I should have been more specific. Let me narrow the question to, say, Lutherans and Anglicans.

And which Lutherans would we be talking about? Missouri Synod or ELCA? These two groups have nothing to do with each other.

Which Anglicans would we be talking about? The Episcopal Church or the Anglican Church?

With these two groups it depends. The more conservative wings of them might be more willing to enter into union with Catholocism. The more liberal wings, forget it.

As for the Orthodox, would they ever accept the Bishop of Rome as anything more than first among equals?

I don’t know. The councils have already defined that the pope has primacy. Hence we cannot give on that point.

BTW, if they did accept the primacy of the pope, and reconcile on those grounds, I would consider that such dramatic and undeniable evidence of the influence of the Holy Spirit, I would have difficulty staying where I am.

I think so. Where are you now?

 

[Dee_Dee_King]

What that seems to indicate is that the presbyterian more protestant form of church gov’t is the more authentic original governance and that the catholic/orthodox/anglican form is a development early on. Which one is correct?

the catholic church never claims that it has the same appearance as the early church. obviously there has been growth. besides, even in the bible, we can see a development of bishops who were called overseers.

protestants who reject development of doctrine and dogmas should also reject the doctrine of the trinity and hypostatic union, something they usually take for granted.

 

[JonNC]

=Apologist78;4368204]The primacy of the pope shows itself in different ways throught he centuries. In the Early Church the ECF were more likely to refer to “Rom” then they were to the bishop. They had high praise for “Rome.” In later times “Rome” and the “Bishop of Rome” began to be connected. For example “Rome has not erred” eventually lead to “The pope has not erred.” I think this is a legitimate development, since the Bishop of Rome cannot be seperated from his diocese.

As a Catholic, you may think this development is legitimate. I think the EO would differ.

And which Lutherans would we be talking about? Missouri Synod or ELCA? These two groups have nothing to do with each other.
Which Anglicans would we be talking about? The Episcopal Church or the Anglican Church?
With these two groups it depends. The more conservative wings of them might be more willing to enter into union with Catholocism. The more liberal wings, forget it.

You have apoint here. Yet, curiously, it is the more liberal Lutherans who signed on to the JDDJ. The most conservative groups, like WELS, probably won’t. Be that as it may, when was the last time a truly ecumenical council was held, where the EO was involved? And it seems to me, that if the pope did call one and opened it to those “eclesial communities” wishing to attend, it could create an atmosphere where the HS could move upon all of us to seek language that could overcome many differences. Maybe just wishful thinking on my part, but all things are possible through HIm.

I don’t know. The councils have already defined that the pope has primacy. Hence we cannot give on that point.

Were they truly ecumenical councils including the Orthodox? And earlier in this post, you said the “I think this is a legitimate development, since the Bishop of Rome cannot be seperated from his diocese”. Seems to me the position of the CC on the authority of the pope could be further “developed” in discussion with others in the Body of Christ. Of course, those of us not currently in communion with Rome would have to further “develop” our positions on this matter, as well.

I think so. Where are you now?

Confessional Lutheran.

Jon

 

[Apologist78]

As a Catholic, you may think this development is legitimate. I think the EO would differ.

I don’t know. I think the problem is more a fear of “Papalism” hence what they are reallly rejecting is Papalism. They fear an out of control tyrant who just imposes doctrine on everybody. I think that is their main fear with Papal Infallibility. I think the other problem is that the reality is that no body wants someone to be higher then they are. Everyone wants to be their own boss. No one likes the idea that someone else can correct them, or “tell them what to do.” Americans in particular have great issue with this. With a pope you are never your own boss, and I think to submit to the pope requires a great trust in God’s providence.

I think the fear is irraltional- especially given the two doctrines that the pope DID define ex-cathedra. Before he defined them he checked with the worlds bishops. Not only that- people were writting to Rome demanding a definition! That is not papalism, that is not a tyrant who just imposes doctrine on people. Yet protestants act like it is. Evidently they are not familiar with the history of the definition of these two doctrines.

You have apoint here. Yet, curiously, it is the more liberal Lutherans who signed on to the JDDJ.

It has been a while since I have read the document. But, I think what both sides agree on is very simply that justification is a total and complete free gift from God. HOW the justification process works out in the individual however (which is to say the soteriology) I do not think there is great agreement on that.

In some ways Lutherans are very much like us, yet in other ways we are worlds apart. They reject the notion of the mass as sacrifice, and they also reject the notion that there is a substantial change in the very being of the bread and wine. They affirm a bodily presence of Christ IN ADDITION to the bread and wine, where as Catholics affirm a presence of Christ such that it changes the very ESSENCE AND BEING of bread and wine. The greater (Christ) assimilates the lesser (bread and wine) and hence what was bread and wine is now Christ in essence.

The thing is— all of this effects ones theology of justification. For a Catholic justification is something which happens at our very BEING- the core of who we are. For Lutherans, justification is more platonic. The righteoueness of Christ is alien, it is not ours. This parallels their theology of the Eucharist very much. Just as in the Eucharist the presence of Christ does not change the being or essence of the bread and wine, so too the life and presence of Christ within the believer does not fundamentally change them, but rather changes God’s DISPOSITION towards them. Now, I give the general picture as I see it. If I am wrong, maybe some of the other Lutherans on this site will tweak what I have said, perhaps you would. Be my guest.

In essence the way I see it the major point of contention between Lutherans and Catholics on Justification (among others) has to do with this:

CATHOLIC POSITION: Justification happens in our very being. We are actually transformed, purified, made righteous. Our righteoueness is Christ’s righteousness, and visa versa. With this position, it is not difficult to understand why the Catholic can speak of “merit” or “meriting” and “good works” as salvific. Joined with Christ’s one eternal work, they too become supernatural in character, and hence have “merit.”

LUTHERAN POSITION: Justification does not in essence change us, it changes God’s disposition towards us. Here it is not difficult to see why Luther and Lutherans reject the notion of “merit” or “good works” has having any salvific value. Christ’s righteouesness does not become ours at the level of who we are, at the level of being. Our works and his works remain eternally seperate, and hence how could our works be of any value whatever?

The Lutheran position is not necessarily a surprise given the influence of Nomanalism on Luther’s Theology.

As I said however indeed, both sides affirm that justification (however we understand it) is a total and complete free gift.

The most conservative groups, like WELS, probably won’t. Be that as it may, when was the last time a truly ecumenical council was held, where the EO was involved?

Probably 1300 or so.

And it seems to me, that if the pope did call one and opened it to those “eclesial communities” wishing to attend, it could create an atmosphere where the HS could move upon all of us to seek language that could overcome many differences.

Isn’t this what happened at Vatican II? The Council was open to (name removed by moderator)ut from protestant theologians. In fact as I understand it the document Dei Verbum was influenced by some protestant theologies.

Maybe just wishful thinking on my part, but all things are possible through HIm.

I don’t disagree with you. When I am pope I will do just that.

In all seriousness I think the Catholic Church as a whole could very much benifit from dialogue with all the other protestant communities. What I notice is that in some areas Catholics are not grasping what the other side is saying. I notice this especially in the Catholic/Protestant debate on Sola Scriptura.

Were they truly ecumenical councils including the Orthodox? And earlier in this post, you said the “I think this is a legitimate development, since the Bishop of Rome cannot be seperated from his diocese”. Seems to me the position of the CC on the authority of the pope could be further “developed” in discussion with others in the Body of Christ.

The position could be further developed, and I think even JPII admitted as much. However whatever position one arrives at the Primacy of the pope must still remain intact, along with the infalliblity of the pope.

 

[Good_Fella]

I am saying that I don’t believe EITHER SIDE can try to legetimize their positions with the ECF becasue the ECF themselves do not appear to be clear as we would like.

I have yet to see anything from the popular Catholic apologists which I feel sufficienty refutes the protestant case.

A sola-scripturist rejects Tradition as a medium of divine revelation and the teaching authority of the Magisterium. He believes that Scripture is both materially and formally sufficient in itself. The ECFs did not subscribe to the idea of sola scriptura. If one reads their writings, he can see for himself that they believed Scripture must be interpreted in light of Apostolic Tradition by the teaching authority of the Church.

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

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

*“But in learning the Faith and in professing it, acquire and keep that only, which is now delivered thee by the Church, and which has been built up strongly out of all the Scriptures…Take heed then, brethren, and hold fast the traditions which ye now receive, and write them and the table of your heart.” *
Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 5:12 (A.D. 350)

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

*“Now I accept no newer creed written for me by other men, nor do I venture to propound the outcome of my own intelligence, lest I make the words of true religion merely human words; but what I have been taught by the holy Fathers, that I announce to all who question me. In my Church the creed written by the holy Fathers in synod at Nicea is in use.” *
Basil, To the Church at Antioch, Epistle 140:2 (A.D. 373)

The Church Fathers never affirmed the formal sufficiency of Scripture. On the contrary, they affirmed the material sufficiency and formal insufficiency of Scripture. The Church Fathers appealed to Tradition, that is oral in nature for the defense of what they perceived as Apostolic Tradition. They acknowledged this tradition as a substantive and coordinate (equal in rank) authority alongside the written word.

Scripture is not materially insufficient with respect to the dogmas of the Catholic Church. The insufficiency lies with the formality of Scripture: the homousian nature of Christ (one in substance and essence with the Father); the two (as opposed to one) internal divine processions within the Trinity; the procession of the Holy Spirit through spiration as opposed to generation; The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist (Transubstantiation). The early Church Fathers were aware or would at least acknowledge that these truths are explicitly mediated through the mediums of Tradition and Magisterium. They were aware that the written word in Scripture would become distorted when interpreted outside of Tradition and thus contravene the doctrines of the Catholic Church. Arianism made that clear enough.

Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions you were taught, either by an oral statement or a letter of ours.
2 Thessalonians 2, 15

PAX :tiphat: