The CFs: SS or STC

[Koineman]

Here’s a favorite of mine from Irenaeus of Lyons which is commonly misinterpreted by Sola Scripturists:

This passage, considered as follows, is perfectly in synch with what the Catholic Church believes:

In other words it is the Gospel which is to be the pillar and ground of our faith, The fact that we later received this Gospel in written form, as was said above, is no reason to discount the former oral version of this gospel…

Also, this construction,“to be pillar and foundation of our faith”, is not an infinitive in Latin, but rather a future participle of being which agrees with the word “Gospel” in gender, declension and number; it is definitely not an infinitive of purpose attached to “handed done to us in scriptures [writings]”

Iraneus follows with drawing out the nature of the scriptures and why they should be believed, but afterwards says that even if one suspects they are being interpreted wrong, one has the Tradition of the Apostles to support the Church’s interpretations.

peace
steve

Steve, could you quote more of the context so we can get the full picture? That’s what I’m doing with the Tertullian texts, so everyone can follow the writer’s train of thought and not misunderstand his intention.

 

[Koineman]

Thanks for the effort to start this discussion.

I’d suggest as an alternative that we might consider the teaching of a particular author at a time. This is because if we want to get an idea of his thought we need to check across works to see the whole of his position. Certainly within that we can analyze individual passages that we think to be particularly illustrative.

What do you think?

That sounds fine to me. I’ve already started posting some Tertullian quotes, but if you want to start with someone else, that’s fine. Or we can continue with Tertullian.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

I’d also like to make a prediction here at the very beginning, just for the record: I think that this thread will show that passages from the CFs confirm SS at times and in other places confirm STC.

I would offer a clarification.

We define SS. James White’s is one possibility.

And based on this we need to know what qualifies as a father teaching SS and not. For example, if St. So and So says in resolving a problem that Scripture is probative, that doesn’t equal SS. After all the position is Scripture and Tradition in the Church. It should not at all be surprising that proofs from Scripture are used. The issue is whether he teaches and practices SS as defined.

White’s definition is the following.

What then, is sola Scriptura?
Well, the doctrine of sola Scriptura simply states that the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the rule of faith, for the Church. All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source. That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience. To be more specific, I provide the following definition. The Bible claims to be the sole and sufficient rule of faith for the Christian Church. The Scriptures are not in need of any supplement. Their authority comes from their nature as God-breathed revelation. Their authority is not dependent upon man, church or council. The Scriptures are self-consistent, self-interpreting and self-authenticating. The Christian Church looks to the Scriptures as the only and sufficient rule of faith and the Church is always subject to the Word and is constantly reformed thereby.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

I think you are embarking on a fruitless mission. The ECF’s were not infallible. Their writings were subject to the authority of the Petrine ministry and the bishops in communion with him. Hierarchy man, hierarchy.

All of the writings of ECF’s were subject to review.

Some background may be of help. This thread flows from a discussion I am having with Koineman. In it we are trying to establish what view the church taught, practiced, and recognized prior to the Reformation regarding how God’s word is transmitted down through time. Was it by Scripture and Tradition in the Church (STC) or by the Bible alone, sola scriptura (SS)?

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

That sounds fine to me. I’ve already started posting some Tertullian quotes, but if you want to start with someone else, that’s fine. Or we can continue with Tertullian.

We can start with Tertullian. Should we include the first 7 Ecumenical Councils of the undivided church as historic witness for the period as well? There is an interplay between them and the fathers. Athanasius would be one obvious example.

 

[guanophore]

I’d also like to make a prediction here at the very beginning, just for the record: I think that this thread will show that passages from the CFs confirm SS at times and in other places confirm STC.

As you accurately pointed out in another thread, a person can cherry pick passages out,and try to construe them according to their own theologies. This can be done with Scripture, or any other writings including Fathers.

It would seem that, if there are both “extremes” present, that the truth is actually somewhere in the middle.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

My reading: Do not appeal to Scriptures, nor debate, when victory is uncertain. But even if victory is certain, the most important question is: Who has, and has handed down, the Christian faith? The true Christian faith exists wherever the Scriptures are truthfully taught and all the Christian traditions are held.

A person who holds to SS could definitely affirm this.

Yes, the last statement general enough that one holding STC could assent too.

Some background to the Praescriptio is needed.

The context as a group of heresies loosely grouped as gnosticism. They claimed their heretical teachings derived from secret traditions of the apostles; and they often excised passages even whole swatches of the OT from Scripture to produce their own version and then teach from that.

Tertullian with training in Roman law, raises an objection (a praescriptio) that they can’t use the Bible because it is not theirs–it belongs to the apostolic churches. And their supposed apostolic traditions are not found in these churches.

We need to go back to Chaps 15, then, to gain the full import of his argument and the final conclusion of this objection reached in 19.

Chapter 15. Heretics Not to Be Allowed to Argue Out of the Scriptures. The Scriptures, in Fact, Do Not Belong to Them.

We are therefore come to (the gist of) our position; for at this point we were aiming, and for this we were preparing in the preamble of our address (which we have just completed)—so that we may now join issue on the contention to which our adversaries challenge us. They put forward the Scriptures, and by this insolence of theirs they at once influence some. In the encounter itself, however, they weary the strong, they catch the weak, and dismiss waverers with a doubt. Accordingly, we oppose to them this step above all others, of not admitting them to any discussion of the Scriptures.

If in these lie their resources, before they can use them, it ought to be clearly seen to whom belongs the possession of the Scriptures, that none may be admitted to the use thereof who has no title at all to the privilege.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

Only those churches that are the “offspring” of churches founded by the apostles, who were sent by Christ, can be considered apostolic. Even though there are many churches, they are all one apostolic church because they all spring from the same apostolic source.

Agreed.

But this doesn’t sound like SS at all–as James White defines it. If someone affirmed SS at this time (2nd c), would they ever make an argument like this?

 

[guanophore]

Only those churches that are the “offspring” of churches founded by the apostles, who were sent by Christ, can be considered apostolic. Even though there are many churches, they are all one apostolic church because they all spring from the same apostolic source.

Indeed. And since all the “churches” formed during and after the resurrection are separated from teh Apotoslic succession, and were founded by men, some 1500 years after the fact, they cannot be considered apostolic churches.

1 John 2:19
19 They went out from us, but they did not belong to us; for if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us. But by going out they made it plain that none of them belongs to us.

Once the break was made from the apostolic faith, Christendom began to suffer the fruit of that abandonment, which is ongoing division and separation.

 

[thenobes]

Steve, could you quote more of the context so we can get the full picture? That’s what I’m doing with the Tertullian texts, so everyone can follow the writer’s train of thought and not misunderstand his intention.

I’ll wait until you, Fr of Jazz, and others have exhausted the Tertullian quotes. I fear the thread may get sidetracked otherwise. If anyone is intested, the quote is from the first paragrah of the first chapter of book 3; I plan to post the last paragraph of the last book 2, and the first 2 paragraphs of Book 3. The source can be found at: newadvent.org/fathers/0103.htm.

peace
Steve

 

[Goya]

I would offer a clarification.

We define SS. James White’s is one possibility.

And based on this we need to know what qualifies as a father teaching SS and not. For example, if St. So and So says in resolving a problem that Scripture is probative, that doesn’t equal SS. After all the position is Scripture and Tradition in the Church. It should not at all be surprising that proofs from Scripture are used. The issue is whether he teaches and practices SS as defined.

White’s definition is the following.

What then, is sola Scriptura?
Well, the doctrine of sola Scriptura simply states that the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the rule of faith, for the Church. All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source. That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience. To be more specific, I provide the following definition. The Bible claims to be the sole and sufficient rule of faith for the Christian Church. The Scriptures are not in need of any supplement. Their authority comes from their nature as God-breathed revelation. Their authority is not dependent upon man, church or council. The Scriptures are self-consistent, self-interpreting and self-authenticating. The Christian Church looks to the Scriptures as the only and sufficient rule of faith and the Church is always subject to the Word and is constantly reformed thereby.

“Roh roh, Raggy”

…you just opened a can of worms. Our seperated bretheren can’t even agree on the definition of Sola Scriptura!

Watch, as the goal posts are moved, during the course of most any discussion on ss…

(I kid…to an extent, anyway–actually, great move on your part, in seeking to pin down the definition of SS for this thread, at the outset–usually that one gets thrown in after you’re knee deep in the fray, and the need arises to appeal to a …*a more conducive *definition of SS. ).

 

[Goya]

My reading: Do not appeal to Scriptures, nor debate, when victory is uncertain. But even if victory is certain, the most important question is: Who has, and has handed down, the Christian faith? The true Christian faith exists wherever the Scriptures are truthfully taught and all the Christian traditions are held.

A person who holds to SS could definitely affirm this.

I read your quote as being an affirmation of authority, according to apostolic succession:

“With whom lies that very faith to which the Scriptures belong.23 From what and through whom, and when, and to whom, has been handed down that rule, by which men become Christians?”

Followed by:

For wherever it shall be manifest that the true Christian rule and faith shall be, there will likewise be the true Scriptures and expositions thereof, and all the Christian traditions.

Which simply means they’re all counting on the same scripture–the same true scripture.

Note further, before that:

*appeal, therefore, must not *be made to the Scriptures…

…and…

But even if a discussion from the Scriptures should not turn out in such a way as to place both sides on a par…,

IOW: If scripture doesn’t settle the issue, we must appeal to authority–hence “…from whom, to whom…etc,… the ‘rule of faith’ was [entrusted]/handed dowon to/thorugh.”

Isn’t that an express confession that scripture is not perspicuos??? That an extrinsic authority–based on apsotolic succession ("…from whom, and to whom…")–is needed to settle disputes which are not settled clearly by scripture?

…futher still:

“…nor must controversy be admitted…”

–this is telling the Church, not to admit such controversies in interpretation of scripture publicly–until they have been settled according to the Curch’s authority–i.e.–until they–the Church–has settled on an interpretation.

How pray tell, does one read sola scriptura into that???

Point to STC, IMHO. (albeit admittedly biased opinion…)

 

[Goya]

Only those churches that are the “offspring” of churches founded by the apostles, who were sent by Christ, can be considered apostolic. Even though there are many churches, they are all one apostolic church because they all spring from the same apostolic source.

=STC. Again.

I thought you were seeking to show us that the ECF’s championed SS?

You may not want to keep too open a mind there–you’re gonna’ wind up Catholic!

Or are you ‘rope a doping’ us, here?

 

[Goya]

Here are the respective quotes refrenced above (posted by Koineman), for convenience–so folks don’t have to bounce back and forth between pages, to read teh full quotes.

*CHAP. XIX. APPEAL, IN DISCUSSION OF HERESY, LIES NOT TO THE SCRIPTURES. THE SCRIPTURES BELONG ONLY TO THOSE WHO HAVE THE RULE OF FAITH

Our appeal, therefore, must not be made to the Scriptures; nor must controversy be admitted on points in which victory will either be impossible, or uncertain, or not certain enough.21 But even if a discussion from the Scriptures should not turn out in such a way as to place both sides on a par, (yet) the natural order of things would require that this point should be first proposed, which is now the only one which we must discuss: “With whom lies that very faith to which the Scriptures belong.23 From what and through whom, and when, and to whom, has been handed down that rule, by which men become Christians?” For wherever it shall be manifest that the true Christian rule and faith shall be, there will likewise be the true Scriptures and expositions thereof, and all the Christian traditions.

------------------------------[Second quote]------------------------

CHAP. XX.—CHRIST FIRST DELIVERED THE FAITH. THE APOSTLES SPREAD IT; THEY FOUNDED CHURCHES AS THE DEPOSITORIES THEREOF. THAT FAITH, THEREFORE, IS APOSTOLIC, WHICH DESCENDED FROM THE APOSTLES, THROUGH APOSTOLIC CHURCHES

Christ Jesus our Lord (may He bear with me a moment in thus expressing myself!), whosoever He is, of what God soever He is the Son, of what substance soever He is man and God, of what faith soever He is the teacher, of what reward soever He is the Promiser, did, whilst He lived on earth, Himself declare what He was, what He had been, what the Father’s will was which He was administering, what the duty of man was which He was prescribing; (and this declaration He made,) either openly to the people, or privately to His disciples, of whom He had chosen the twelve chief ones to be at His side, and whom He destined to be the teachers of the nations. Accordingly, after one of these had been struck off, He commanded the eleven others, on His departure to the Father, to “go and teach all nations, who were to be baptized into the Father, and into the Son, and into the Holy Ghost.” Immediately, therefore, so did the apostles, whom this designation indicates as “the sent.” Having, on the authority of a prophecy, which occurs in a psalm of David, chosen Matthias by lot as the twelfth, into the place of Judas, they obtained the promised power of the Holy Ghost for the gift of miracles and of utterance; and after first bearing witness to the faith in Jesus Christ throughout Judæa, and founding churches (there), they next went forth into the world and preached the same doctrine of the same faith to the nations. They then in like manner founded churches in every city, from which all the other churches, one after another, derived the tradition of the faith,4 and the seeds of doctrine, and are every day deriving them, that they may become churches. Indeed, it is on this account only that they will be able to deem themselves apostolic, as being the offspring of apostolic churches. Every sort of thing6 must necessarily revert to its original for its classification. Therefore the churches, although they are so many and so great, comprise but the one primitive church, (founded) by the apostles, from which they all (spring). In this way all are primitive, and all are apostolic, whilst they are all proved to be one, in (unbroken) unity, by their peaceful communion,8 and title of brotherhood, and bond of hospitality,—privileges10 which no other rule directs than the one tradition of the selfsame mystery. *

 

[Koineman]

I would offer a clarification.

We define SS. James White’s is one possibility.

I’m not sure what James White’s definition is, but what I’ve learned is that SS is the belief that Scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith and that traditions are not to be rejected but rather tested by Scripture. This is essentially what the Cambridge Declaration says, though not in those precise words (see below).

And based on this we need to know what qualifies as a father teaching SS and not. For example, if St. So and So says in resolving a problem that Scripture is probative, that doesn’t equal SS.

I agree. Merely using Scripture to prove something does not necessarily mean SS. I think that’s pretty obvious. I would consider a church father to be upholding SS if he spoke in such a way as to make Scripture the final authority over tradition, and the sole infallible authority.

White’s definition is the following.

What then, is sola Scriptura?
Well, the doctrine of sola Scriptura simply states that the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the rule of faith, for the Church. All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source. That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience. To be more specific, I provide the following definition. The Bible claims to be the sole and sufficient rule of faith for the Christian Church. The Scriptures are not in need of any supplement. Their authority comes from their nature as God-breathed revelation. Their authority is not dependent upon man, church or council. The Scriptures are self-consistent, self-interpreting and self-authenticating. The Christian Church looks to the Scriptures as the only and sufficient rule of faith and the Church is always subject to the Word and is constantly reformed thereby.

He’s throwing a lot in there, IMO, that is not SS but is somewhat related. He’s also talking about inspiration (Scripture being God-breathed). Keep in mind, too, that James White does not come from a strictly Reformed background. He’s a Calvinistic baptist, to the best of my knowledge.

Here is a definition from the Cambridge Declaration, which was put together by the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals:

Thesis One: Sola Scriptura

We reaffirm the inerrant Scripture to be the sole source of written divine revelation, which alone can bind the conscience. The Bible alone teaches all that is necessary for our salvation from sin and is the standard by which all Christian behavior must be measured. We deny that any creed, council or individual may bind a Christian’s conscience, that the Holy Spirit speaks independently of or contrary to what is set forth in the Bible, or that personal spiritual experience can ever be a vehicle of revelation.

reformed.org/documents/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/documents/cambridge.html

I think that gets more to the point.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

I’m not sure what James White’s definition is, but what I’ve learned is that SS is the belief that Scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith and that traditions are not to be rejected but rather tested by Scripture. This is essentially what the Cambridge Declaration says, though not in those precise words (see below).

I agree. Merely using Scripture to prove something does not necessarily mean SS. I think that’s pretty obvious. I would consider a church father to be upholding SS if he spoke in such a way as to make Scripture the final authority over tradition, and the sole infallible authority.

He’s throwing a lot in there, IMO, that is not SS but is somewhat related. He’s also talking about inspiration (Scripture being God-breathed). Keep in mind, too, that James White does not come from a strictly Reformed background. He’s a Calvinistic baptist, to the best of my knowledge.

Here is a definition from the Cambridge Declaration, which was put together by the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals:

Thesis One: Sola Scriptura

That sounds fine.

Some clarifications and observations.

(1) I gather you agree with White’s definition, but just want to keep things simple.

(2) A catholic could agree with the first sentence of the definition: Scripture is “the sole source of written divine revelation. . . .” That’s a curious nuance, “written.”

(3) This definition does not use the word “infallible” in relation to Scripture although you do.

(4) Is this because it is hard to imagine what “infallible” can add to “inerrant.” If the Bible does not err it, by definition, has infallibly expressed the truth God wanted to put into it.

(5) Last if we are going to look to see if SS is in the ECFs (and first seven Councils) we need to spell it out. Some questions need to be answered. Your second paragraph helps a great deal. Now bear in mind I am not at this point challenging whether this is the method God chose, but only attempting to draw out what is inherent in it, but:

(a) To say the Bible is the “sole infallible authority” one must mean and cannot mean other than “my interpretation of the Bible alone in x AD is the sole infallible authority.”

(b) It must also mean, therefore, you (based on your interpretation of the Bible alone) have the right to call into question the apostolic tradition preserved in the church stemming from the apostles and Pentecost (or at least what the church considers to be the apostolic tradition preserved in her) and the church’s conviction that it faithfully transmits that tradition.

It is my contention that these are inherent in your second paragraph. And these are what we should look for in an ECF to see if he upholds SS. This needs to be clarified a bit further.

Thanks for the great job in starting this thread!

 

[Tomster]

Just throwing in one of my favorites:

St. Cyril of Jerusalem insists that we must receive from the Church herself the canon of Scripture (Catech. IV, 33), and he adds that, as many Christians cannot, through the lack of learning or of leisure, study the Scripture and thus appropriate its teaching, the Church has summed up that teaching in the symbol of faith, which must be religiously held and preserved, for she teaches faultlessly the doctrines which ought to come to men’s knowledge. (Catech. V, 12, XVIII, 23)

 

[Goya]

Point of order/clarification:

White’s definition contains this little nugget:

…The Bible claims to be the sole and sufficient rule of faith for the Christian Church. The Scriptures are not in need of any supplement. Their authority comes from their nature as God-breathed revelation

I’m going to guess that a fellow as sharp and honest as our friend Koinmen, would disown this claim–but then I may be presuming too much.

So I’d ask Mr. Koinemen to either expressly disown it–or, alternatively/if not–to show us where “the Bible claims to be the sole and sufficient rule of faith”.

I’m certainly not aware of any such claim in my bible–and frankly, I kinda’ thought that’s what K’man was alluding to, when he said: “He’s throwing a lot in there, IMO, that is not SS…”

 

[Koineman]

Point of order/clarification:

White’s definition contains this little nugget:

I’m going to guess that a fellow as sharp and honest as our friend Koinmen, would disown this claim–but then I may be presuming too much.

So I’d ask Mr. Koinemen to either expressly disown it–or, alternatively/if not–to show us where “the Bible claims to be the sole and sufficient rule of faith”.

That’s taking us off our course here. This is about examining the CFs, not the Bible.

 

[Koineman]

That sounds fine.

Some clarifications and observations.

(1) I gather you agree with White’s definition, but just want to keep things simple.

Correct.

(2) A catholic could agree with the first sentence of the definition: Scripture is “the sole source of written divine revelation. . . .” That’s a curious nuance, “written.”

I noticed the oddity of the way that was written. It seems redundant: Scripture (writing) is the sole source of what is written. My guess is they were simply emphasizing that Scripture is the only written divine revelation.

(3) This definition does not use the word “infallible” in relation to Scripture although you do.

True, but I think it’s implied when it says that Scripture “is the standard by which all Christian behavior must be measured.”

(4) Is this because it is hard to imagine what “infallible” can add to “inerrant.” If the Bible does not err it, by definition, has infallibly expressed the truth God wanted to put into it.

I would think so.

(5) Last if we are going to look to see if SS is in the ECFs (and first seven Councils) we need to spell it out. Some questions need to be answered. Your second paragraph helps a great deal. Now bear in mind I am not at this point challenging whether this is the method God chose, but only attempting to draw out what is inherent in it, but:

(a) To say the Bible is the “sole infallible authority” one must mean and cannot mean other than “my interpretation of the Bible alone in x AD is the sole infallible authority.”

That’s really a Catholic criticism of SS, but since this is about examining the CFs to see if the Reformed view of SS is there, I think we shouldn’t get bogged down in this kind of criticism at this point. The same goes for question (b). We should just stick with a definition from a reliable source and go with that. The philosophical implications of that definition–the objective text vs. the subjective interpretation–don’t need to be discussed.