Did the Early Church Fathers Believe in Sola Scriptura?

Credo House ^ | April 25, 2015 | C Michael Patton

[Gamecock]

Definition of Sola Scriptura

Sola Scriptura: the reformed Protestant belief that the Scriptures alone are the final and only infallible authority for the Christian. This does not mean that Scriptures are the only authority (nuda or solo Scriptura), as Protestants believe in the authority of tradition, reason, experience, and emotions to varying degrees (after all, “sola scriptura” itself is an authoritative tradition in Protestantism). It does mean that Scripture trumps all other authorities (it is the norma normans sed non normata Lat. “norm that norms which is not normed”).

Controversy of Sola Scriptura

Sometimes people get the idea that sola Scriptura was a 16th-century invention. While it was definitely articulated a great deal through the controversies during the Reformation, its basic principles can be found deep in church history. Take a look at some of these early church fathers who seemed to believe in the primacy of Scripture:

Hippolytus (170-235)

“There is, brethren, one God, the knowledge of whom we gain from the Holy Scriptures, and from no other source. For just as a man, if he wishes to be skilled in the wisdom of this world, will find himself unable to get at it in any other way than by mastering the dogmas of philosophers, so all of us who wish to practise piety will be unable to learn its practice from any other quarter than the oracles of God. Whatever things, then, the Holy Scriptures declare, at these let us took; and whatsoever things they teach, these let us learn; and as the Father wills our belief to be, let us believe; and as He wills the Son to be glorified, let us glorify Him; and as He wills the Holy Spirit to be bestowed, let us receive Him. Not according to our own will, nor according to our own mind, nor yet as using violently those things which are given by God, but even as He has chosen to teach them by the Holy Scriptures, so let us discern them.” (Against the Heresy of One Noetus, 1-4, 7-9)

Irenaeus (175)

“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.

For they [the Apostles] 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.” (Against Heresies, 1:8:1, 3:1:1, 3:3:1, 3:12:9)

Ambrose (330-397)

“For how can we adopt those things which we do not find in the holy Scriptures?” (On the Duties of the Clergy, 1:23:102)

“The Arians, then, say that Christ is unlike the Father; we deny it. Nay, indeed, we shrink in dread from the word. Nevertheless I would not that your sacred Majesty should trust to argument and our disputation. Let us enquire of the Scriptures, of apostles, of prophets, of Christ. In a word, let us enquire of the Father. So, indeed, following the guidance of the Scriptures, our fathers [at the Council of Nicaea] declared, holding, moreover, that impious doctrines should be included in the record of their decrees, in order that the unbelief of Arius should discover itself, and not, as it were, mask itself with dye or face-paint.” (Exposition of the Christian Faith, 1:6:43, 1:18:119)

Clement of Alexandria (150-215)

“But those who are ready to toil in the most excellent pursuits will not desist from the search after truth until they get the demonstration from the Scriptures themselves.” – Clement of Alexandria (The Stromata, 7:16)

Augustine (354–430)

“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)

“Every sickness of the soul hath in Scripture its proper remedy.” (Expositions on the Psalms, 37:2; notice the sufficiency of Scripture being iterated here)

Cyprian (248)

“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.” (Letter 73:2)

Cyril of Jerusalem (313-386)

“For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell thee these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures.” (Catechetical Lectures, 4:17)

“This seal have thou ever on thy mind; which now by way of summary has been touched on in its heads, and if the Lord grant, shall hereafter be set forth according to our power, with Scripture-proofs. For concerning the divine and sacred Mysteries of the Faith, we ought not to deliver even the most casual remark without the Holy Scriptures: nor be drawn aside by mere probabilities and the artifices of argument. Do not then believe me because I tell thee these things, unless thou receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth: for this salvation, which is of our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings, but by proof from the Holy Scriptures.” (A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church, Oxford: Parker, 1845, The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 4.17).

Dionysius of Alexandria (265)

“Nor did we evade objections, but we endeavored as far as possible to hold to and confirm the things which lay before us, and if the reason given satisfied us, we were not ashamed to change our opinions and agree with others; but on the contrary, conscientiously and sincerely, and with hearts laid open before God, we accepted whatever was established by the proofs and teachings of the Holy Scriptures.” (Cited in Ecclesiastical History, Eusebius, 7:24)

Gregory of Nyssa (335-394)

“We make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet; we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings.

And to those who are expert only in the technical methods of proof a mere demonstration suffices to convince; but as for ourselves, we were agreed that there is something more trustworthy than any of these artificial conclusions, namely, that which the teachings of Holy Scripture point to: and so I deem that it is necessary to inquire, in addition to what has been said, whether this inspired teaching harmonizes with it all. And who, she replied, could deny that truth is to be found only in that upon which the seal of Scriptural testimony is set?” – (“On the Soul and the Resurrection” A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, 442)

Basil the Great (379)

Enjoying as you do the consolation of the Holy Scriptures, you stand in need neither of my assistance nor of that of anybody else to help you comprehend your duty. You have the all-sufficient counsel and guidance of the Holy Spirit to lead you to what is right (Letter CCLXXXIII, ANCF, p. 312).

Hilary of Poitiers (300-368)

“Their treason involves us in the difficult and dangerous position of having to make a definite pronouncement, beyond the statements of Scripture, upon this grave and abstruse matter….We must proclaim, exactly as we shall find them in the words of Scripture, the majesty and functions of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and so debar the heretics from robbing these Names of their connotation of Divine character, and compel them by means of these very Names to confine their use of terms to their proper meaning….I would not have you flatter the Son with praises of your own invention; it is well with you if you be satisfied with the written word.” (On the Trinity, 2:5, 3:23)

Jerome (347-420)

“When, then, anything in my little work seems to you harsh, have regard not to my words, but to the Scripture, whence they are taken.” (Letter, 48:20)

“I beg of you, my dear brother, to live among these books [Scriptures], to meditate upon them, to know nothing else, to seek nothing else.” (Letter, 53:10)

Theodoret (393-457)

“I shall yield to scripture alone.” (Dialogues, 1)

Conclusion

Here is a good quote from J. N. D. Kelly to sum it all up:

The clearest token of the prestige enjoyed by (Scripture) is the fact that almost the entire theological effort of the Fathers, whether their aims were polemical or constructive, was expended upon what amounted to the exposition of the Bible. Further, it was everywhere taken for granted that, for any doctrine to win acceptance, it had first to establish its Scriptural basis (Early Christian Doctrines, San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1978, pp. 42, 46).

[Salvation]

 

John 20

30 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book;

31 but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name.

[dangus]

Big difference between “all” and “only.”

[Trapped Behind Enemy Lines]

I watch a number of TV programs that have Biblical themes. Most of which are quite good and offer strong proof and evidence connecting historical evidence to events which are written about in the Bible. That is what interests me. I believe the Bible in addition to being a spiritual book is also a history book. If the history isn’t there, then I am not usually there. My major criticism of Mormonism is that I could never find any historical evidence confirming anything that is written in the Book of Mormon. However, with the Bible, we find plenty of archeologolical and other sources corroborating events which occurred in the Bible. Also in many of these programs we come across how the Bible as we know it was originally compiled. There apparently were many gospels written after Jesus’s crucifixtion and resurrection. But only four of them have been accepted into the Bible. I think the motive with some of the programs may be to show how and why some gospels were accepted and others were rejected. My take away from all of this is that politics played no small role.

[Tao Yin]

The Bible Itself declares that it doesn't contain everything.

Why ignore John 20:30-31?

30 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; 31 but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

Jesus did a lot not written in Scripture, but what was written is sufficient for belief and life.

If scripture wasn't sufficient, why didn't the people that knew the additional information that was required write it down?

What does it matter that everything wasn't recorded? Why would a two thousand game of telephone be more reliable that a written record that is sufficient for belief?

Option A: Scripture, sufficient for belief, says...

Option B: Person 1 says that person 2 said that person 3 said that person 4 said that person 5 said that person 6 said that person 7 said that person 8 said that person 9 said that ... that person 120 said that Peter said that "I am the rock and my successors will rule the church until the end."

Option A please.

[dangus]

Oh, lookie! Someone's been proof-texting the Church Fathers! Let's start with the first referece, shall we? Hippolytus was condemning Noetus, who misused scriptures to assert that the Father and Son were the same person, so that God the Father died on the cross. As Hippolytus cites Noetus' words, we learn that Noetus used Scripture! But Hippolytus uses other portions of Scripture to show that Noetus' INTERPRETATION of Scripture is at fault.

So is Hippolytus really asserting Sola Scriptura? I'll grant you, the phrase, "and no other source," sounds like he is. (Unlike, say, Irenaeus, who explicitly states that the successors of the apostles succeed them in their authority.) But where is the power to INTERPRET the Holy Scriptures? Hippolytus tells us in the Holy Church.

Still his wording "and no other source" is pretty directly stated, relative to his insistence from that same passage that the Church has the authority of interpretation. I could truly imagine that a fair-minded person, feeling that by reading the entire passage, he has placed the quote in context, interprets that as an insistence on sola scriptura. But whenever we interpret someone's writings, we are obliged to consider them rational and, unless they make reference to changing their mind, consistent. If someone is a hypocrite, nonsensical or self-contradicting, what use is he as an authority to appeal to?

In the same work as Against the Heresy of Noetus, we receive Against the Heresy of the Quattrodecenians, who insisted on celebrating Easter on the 14th of Nisan, regardless of the day of the week on which it fell. Here, Hippolytus completely, thoroughly and unashamedly sets aside any notion of sola scriptura, in order to affirm the later *traditions* of the Church above the explicit *commands* of the Old Testament scripture.

And certain other heretics, contentious by nature, and wholly uninformed as regards knowledge, as well as in their manner more than usually quarrelsome, combine in maintaining that Pascha [Easter] should be kept on the fourteenth day of the first month, according to the commandment of the law, on whatever day of the week it should occur. But in this they only regard what has been written in the law, that he will be accursed who does not so keep the commandment as it is enjoined. They do not, however, attend to this fact, that the legal enactment was made for Jews, who in times to come should kill the real Passover [Pascha]. And this Paschal sacrifice in its efficacy, has spread unto the Gentiles, and is discerned by faith, and not now observed in letter merely. They attend to this one commandment, and do not look unto what has been spoken by the Apostle: 'For I testify to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to keep the whole law.' In other respects, however, these consent to all the Traditions delivered to the Church by the Apostles."

So is Hippolytus merely contradicting his own principal? Not when we look at the intentional context of his words, not merely the literal content: Noetus used the scripture to lead people away from the Church. He therefore challenges people that they should look to the scriptures to confirm the teachings they have received, and reject unauthorized preachers who have invented doctrine. He in no way asserts that in matters that the successors of the apostles should be doubted if one cannot confirm their teaching with their own interpretation of the bible, guided by their own intellect.

[mlizzy]

“Sufficient” is fine, but some folks just want more, making life better [or more enjoyable] for all of us.

http://jenniferfulwiler.com/saints/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6L-WhdPBaiE

[imardmd1]

If in doubt start with the KJV then take it back to the earliest Greek, Aramaic or Hebrew manuscripts you have access to

Earliest is not an indicator of validity. In fact, it can mislead because the "earliest" codices or fragments were ones discounted by their first possessors, put on the shelves, and not used; so they didn't get worn out and need copying.

The best assurance is (contrary to Westcott & Hort and their philological kin) the preservation by the institutes using them; i. e., those most numerous and agreed upon by a wide distribution of copiers.

That is my position. KJV is a good translation, but then, only a translation.

Modern versions based on the Critical Greek text are almost worthless for their corrupted contents.

[MamaB]

I came across the last few minutes of a show about the flood. The show seemed to believe it truly happened. What I do not understand was a show which concluded that Jacob’s Ladder was an UFO. One said Atlantis was one, too, and that is why it disappeared, another said the Burning Bush was one, too.

[MamaB]

Are you saying the Bible is not enough to make life enjoyable?

[Trapped Behind Enemy Lines]

Avoid the goofy ones and watch the serious ones. I have become intrigued with Robert Ballard’s more recent exploits on the Black Sea. Remember Ballard was the one who found the Titanic. Seems that the Black Sea was once a fresh water lake. Then there was an epic flood that brought in salt water overflowing in from the Mediterranean at around the same time of Great Flood during the time of Noah.

I am also intrigued with all programs about the Shroud of Turin which I think is the real deal and I have also read many books on that subject as well.

Avoid the space alien shows and focus on the ones that present historical, archeological, and scientific evidence.

[mlizzy]

It’s “sufficient” MamaB. :)

[RnMomof7]

John 21: (We'll be using the KJV today to keep things on even footing): "And there are also many other things which Jesus did,

the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen."

Please take time to READ this Sal, Not things He taught or said..but things HE DID ..words mean things ........

Why ignore John 20:30-31?

30 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; 31 but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

On more time Sal ..Signs, things...not teachings or traditions ...

The teachings that God wanted to leave for us were brought to the mind of the mind of the NT writers.. just as Christ ha promised

Joh 14: But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

[piusv]

Big difference between “all” and “only.”

This.

[avenir]

“For me it was “Believe in Jesus and you will go to heaven”. That’s bible based and came from a Christian to a non-Christian and then I believed.”

Praise God!

[DungeonMaster]

Praise God!

AMEN!

I distinctly remember getting back from tdy in Honduras, where I got saved, and a Christian walking up to me and shaking my hand saying "I HEARD YOU GOT SAVED!!! You won't believe what's going to happen in your life now".

Praise the Lord!

I won't seem that man again until "we all get together, what a day of rejoicing that will be". But when I do see him I can't wait to tell him how right he was.

[Eric Pode of Croydon]

Wondering if you had any thoughts about my post #17.

[Gamecock]

In a flurry of other pings I overlooked your ping. My apologies.

Would you agree that an adherent of sola scriptura could question, say, the conclusions of the First Council of Nicaea, based upon his own personal reading of Scripture?

Let me get some clarification, are you asking if someone can disavow the Nicene Creed?

[Eric Pode of Croydon]

Let me slightly re-word..... Upon what ground did the Council of Nicaea establish an interpretation of the Bible with which I may not disagree? As far as I know, Arius and Athanasius were reading from the same Book.

[avenir]

“When we all see Jesus, we’ll sing and shout the victory (shout the victory)!”

[DungeonMaster]

That’s a great song. Our church sings way too many of the new ones that are really weak doctrinally and require a lot of vocal skills, which I lack.