Audio only:
In this episode Trent shows why it’s a bad idea for Protestants to cite the Church fathers in defense of sola scriptura.
Transcription:
Trent:
When Protestants try to enlist the church fathers to defend the doctrine of soul of scriptura, they face a dilemma. If they use the earliest church fathers, they realize there’s no evidence for their view, but if they use the later church fathers, they end up proving Catholicism is quite biblical. So let’s drill down into the horns of this dilemma. But before we do that, I will say what’s not a dilemma? Liking this video and subscribing to our channel so you don’t miss all of our content and you help us reach more people by subscribing. So let’s start with the first option. The pre ene church fathers. The church fathers before the Council of Nicea in 3 25. When you read historical defenses of script Torah, they almost always use sources from after the Council of Nsea. In my debate with James White, I asked him to provide sources for fathers who defended Sola script Torah from the first 300 years of the church’s history, and he didn’t seem very eager to do that.
CLIP:
You’re agreeing to time of the apostles. Divine revelation is written and unwritten, and then in the future it becomes written only.
Yes.
Okay. Was there any Christian in the early church who said that that happened and it was confined to the written word
Only? They weren’t even discussing it. I’ll take anybody. I’ll take anybody the vast. Well, I can give you all sorts of, depending on how you want to deal with, let’s go up to the council in I see why I only up to the council in I see give you 300 years. It’s a long time. Yes. Try to keep it. Question, answer. Okay. Yeah, we’re trying to, we’re having too much fun. There’s all sorts of passages I can give you. We can give you Athanasius, we can give you Augustine, all things like that. But you’re dealing with a period of time before the cannon is fully known within the church.
Trent:
The closest I’ve seen Protestant apologists come to providing evidence from this era comes from St. IUs, who said, we have learned from none others the plan of our salvation then from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at once 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 pillar of our faith. But in this passage, EU is saying the gnostic heretics are wrong when they claim that the apostles lacked perfect power and that they didn’t have the true gospel. They had the gospel and the gnostics contradicted, which can be seen in the gospels have been handed on. EU writes just after this passage, these the gospels have all declared to us that there is one God creator of heaven and earth announced by the law on the prophets and one Christ, the son of God.
If anyone do not agree to these truths, he despises the companions of the Lord. However, EU doesn’t say that the faith itself is confined or only found in the apostles written word alone or that this written word is sufficient for believers. In fact, EU wrote the following, suppose there a rise of dispute relative to some important question among us? Should we not have recourses 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? The then Lutheran Scholar Yala Pelican remarked on this passage so palpable was this apostolic tradition that even if the apostles had not left behind the scriptures to serve as normative evidence of their doctrine, the church would still be in a position to follow the structure of the tradition which they handed on to those whom they committed the churches.
It’s no wonder Pelican also said in the anti Nic church, there was no notion of Sola scriptura. So Rin Aus does say that revelation comes to us in scripture, but not scripture alone. And the absence of pre ine fathers in these historical defenses of sola scriptura isn’t surprising because as I show in my episode a neglected argument for Sola scriptura, the first Christians did not consider the apostolic writings to be scripture on par with the Old Testament’s authority. This explains why these earliest church fathers almost never cited the New Testament as scripture or even as an authoritative source. The Baptist Scholar Lee Martin McDonald writes, in the first one and a half centuries of church history, no prominence was given to a gospel writer or to a gospel. As a written document, Michael Krueger, a conservative Protestant canon scholar, writes For many modern scholars, the key time is the end of the second century.
Only then largely due to the influence of EU were these books first regarded as scripture. So if scholars can legitimately raise this much doubt about whether the earliest church fathers believe the apostolic writings were scripture, then there’s no doubt that the earliest fathers did not believe in Sola s scriptura. But what about the other option? It’s true. You can find church fathers after the time of niah who speak highly of scripture in ways that sound like they’re advocating for soul of S scriptura. You have people like St. Athanasius who wrote The Sacred and Inspired Scriptures are sufficient to declare the truth, but Catholics can agree that scripture is sufficient for believers without adopting the false doctrine of sola scriptura. The key is distinguishing the Catholic idea of the material sufficiency of scripture from the Protestant idea of the formal sufficiency of scripture. Material sufficiency refers to scripture containing all of divine revelation or at least everything necessary for salvation in either explicit or implicit form.
In this sense, scripture is sufficient for theology because scripture provides us with all the necessary materials for the cause of theology. Under this view, scripture is sufficient to guide believers in the same way that a hardware store is sufficient for the goal of living in a house. All the materials you need are in the hardware store, but if you don’t know how put them together, you won’t be living in a suitable house. Formal sufficiency, on the other hand, refers to scripture containing not just the material of divine revelation, but containing that material in a clearly understandable form that anyone with due means can discover. Under this view, scripture is sufficient to guide believers in the same way that a suburban track home is sufficient for living in a house. You just have to make a few minor adjustments, but it’s basically move in ready. One of the common Catholic views of the material sufficiency of scripture says that all dogma is in scripture, at least implicitly, but the church provides an infallible interpretation of these dogmas showing clearly what must be believed.
But Protestant formal sufficiency says that the church is not needed for this task of interpreting scripture. As the Westminster confession puts it, the infallible rule of interpretation of scripture is the scripture itself. While some Protestant apologists claim that the church fathers held to the formal view of sufficiency of scripture, the evangelical author Timothy Ward writes, in general, the fathers assert the material sufficiency of scripture but deny its formal sufficiency. Whenever Protestants cite a post ene father who sounds like he supports sola scriptura, you can find another quote from that same father undermining sola scriptura. For example, here’s the full quote from St. Athanasius that I referenced earlier, for although the sacred and inspired scriptures are sufficient to declare the truth, while there are other works of our blessed teachers compiled for this purpose, if he meet with which a man will gain some knowledge of the interpretation of the scriptures and be able to learn what he wishes to know still as we have not at present in our hands the compositions of our teachers, we must communicate in writing to you what we learned from them, the faith namely of Christ, the Savior for Athanasius.
The scriptures do contain the truth of the gospel, but one must also seek out the correct interpretation of that truth from those who already teach the faith. That’s why Athanasius cited one Corinthians 11, two saying, as I handed the traditions to you, so ye hold them fast in his letter to the bishops of Africa, and he instructed them to quote, let the faith confess by the fathers that NAIA alone hold good among you. Here’s another example from my debate with James White on Solas script Torah. For every quote from St. Augustine that James used to try to paint Augustine as a promoter of Sola scriptura, I presented another quote showing that St. Augustine did not believe in sola Scriptura.
CLIP:
Tell me what you think about this citation. You ought to notice, particularly in store in your memory, that God wanted to lay a firm foundation, the scriptures against treacherous errors, a foundation against which no one daress to speak, who would in any way be considered a Christian for when he offered himself to them to touch. This did not suffice him unless he had also confirmed the heart of the believers from the scriptures for he foresaw that the time would come when we would not have anything to touch but would have something to read. This is Augustine. Do you believe that Augustine was in error in making this clear statement that the foundation is in the scriptures against treacherous errors and that he wanted to confirm the Harvard believers from the scriptures rather than from apostolic tradition?
No, Augustine had a very high view of scripture. No one doubts that. But if you’re trying to argue that Augustine believed that in soul of s Scriptura, for example, there is no way you can get that from his writings because here’s another quote from Augustine. There are many things which are observed by the whole church and therefore are fairly held to have been enjoined by the apostles, which yet are not mentioned in their writings.
And yet, okay, I can’t argue that point, so I’ll give you his own response to that. What more shall I teach you than what we read in the Apostle for Holy Scripture fixes the rule for our doctrine, lest we be darity wise than we ought. Therefore, I should not teach you anything else except to expound you. The words the teacher. Is there a difference in Augustine between practices and doctrine so that tradition can be used for practices, but scripture only for doctrine?
No, because he also believed it was a doctrine that Adam was saved and Adam was in heaven, and he says here of these doctrines which must be believed from whatever source it was handed down to the church. Although the authority of the canonical strict scriptures cannot be brought forward as speaking expressly in its support, you can find passages. Yes, Augustine has a very high view of scripture, but he does not have the formal sufficiency Protestant view of scripture
Trent:
Other Protestant apologists have said that St. Augustine did believe in sola scriptura because Augustine thought that only scripture was infallible and that Augustine even said that church councils contradicted each other. But in that context, Augustine was talking about local church councils that are not infallible. By the time he was writing, there had been only two post apostolic ecumenical councils EA in 3 25 and Constantinople in 3 81, and it’s debated whether Augustine even knew about Constantinople.
So there’s no evidence Augustine believed these two ecumenical counsels contradicted each other. In fact, Augustine refuted the donus by saying of the counsel of ea. The truth of this question have been placed beyond dispute by the investigation and decree of a plenary counsel Robert Eno, a liberal Catholic historian that Protestants often cite is skeptical and says No firm conclusions can be drawn from day ESMO 2.4 concerning the fallibility of these plenary counsels. In Augustine’s mind though, Eno himself leans to the view that Augustine believed that these universal councils did not air at a minimum. We simply don’t know what Augustine thought of these councils being an infallible rule of faith or not. So we cannot say that Augustine thought that only scripture was an infallible rule of faith because we don’t know what he thought of the other councils. It would seem though that these councils would have to be infallible from his perspective because they can define Latin.
Dee bring to an end theological controversy. Augustine’s contemporary St. Vincent of Lorenz put it this way, by the decree and authority of a council, the rule of the church’s faith may be settled. Finally, if Augustine believed in so scriptura, why do so many leading Protestants act like he did not believe in so scriptura, the famous Calvinist theologian BB Warfield said The reformation inwardly considered was just the ultimate triumph of Augustine’s doctrine of grace over Augustine’s doctrine of the church, which wouldn’t make sense if Augustine believed in sola scriptura and denied the church’s infallible authority. That’s why Protestant church history Professor Mark Ellingson says of Augustine, when decisions were to be made about ecclesiastical matters, he appealed to both the Bible and tradition allowing them to function, especially in cases where scripture laid down, no definite rule indeed against the mannequin heretics. Augustine contended that the reason for believing is not found in the scriptures alone, but is grounded in the Catholic tradition.
And there’s many other quotes from the post ene fathers that Protestants cite in defense of sola scriptura. If you want to see my response to some of the favorites, check out my book, the Case for Catholicism. Also, even if it turned out that one of the church fathers believed in so scriptura, the deposit of faith is not rely on the church fathers being unanimous. They might’ve disagreed on some of the doctrines because the fathers aren’t infallible, but the church can discern from their testimony what belongs to sacred tradition. But let’s just assume for the sake of the argument that the Protestant apologists are correct and Saint Athanasius Augustine, Jerome and these other late fathers believed in sola scriptura. What would that prove? Well think about this. These fathers also believed in distinctly Catholic doctrines like the sacrificial nature of the mass, the priesthood, including confessing sins to a priest, the perpetual virginity of Mary purgatory seeking the intercession of the saints, and they also believed in doctrines that contradict what most evangelical and reformed Protestants believe in.
They believed in things like infant baptism, baptism, regeneration, episcopal church leadership, and the possibility of losing salvation. If these church fathers could believe in all of these doctrines while operating under sola scriptura, then why can’t all Christians do that today? And if we should believe these fathers when it comes to sola scriptura, if you say, oh, well these late fathers believe in sola scriptura, so we should believe in it, then why wouldn’t we also agree with them on these other distinctly Catholic doctrines? Here’s an exchange that I had with Pro testant apologist Kelly Powers that underscores this problem…
CLIP:
But you would agree that these fourth century fathers practiced sola scriptura, but they saw that one could have the Bible as an ultimate authority, and the Bible did not contradict their universal views on baptismal regeneration, a priest making the mass a propitiatory sacrifice on an altar or confessing sins to a priest.
Yeah, sorry. I’m just saying. They would go to scripture, that’s what
And they would see these things as totally biblical.
They weren’t basing it on their own authority. They went to scripture to believe what they were teaching. That’s what I’m trying to say, whether right or whether right or wrong, they still went to scripture for their authority.
Trent:
Now, one way out of the dilemma would be to say that the fathers followed solos scriptura, and so Christians are permitted to invoke the saints or go to mass, but they aren’t obligated to do this. You can do whatever you want as a Christian unless it contradicts scripture, but that doesn’t work because the fathers said that people were obligated to believe distinctly Catholic doctrines about the church and the sacraments. They weren’t merely permitted to believe those things. Another way out though would be by saying that the fathers were right about sola scriptura, but they were just wrong about all of these other Catholic doctrines that are actually unbiblical. But if that’s true, then why think the fathers got sola scriptura, right? If they also got so many other doctrines wrong in the early church, this is similar to an argument that I make against the Protestant view of the biblical canon.
If you think that the fourth century church got so many important doctrines wrong, then why do you trust them in knowing what the doctrine of the canon is or which books belong in the Bible? And if you trust the fourth century church when it comes to the canon of scripture, well, why not trust them on other doctrines where they have much more agreement on things like baptismal regeneration, the sacrifice of the mass where a priesthood rooted in apostolic succession in union with the Pope? So what we’ve seen is that it’s futile to try to use the church fathers to prove Solas script Torah. You either have the earliest fathers who say nothing resembling Solas script Torah at all, or you have the later fathers who have a high view of scripture. But if they really did practice soul of scriptura, that would show that the other traditional Catholic doctrines and practices that they do believe in, they aren’t just biblical. It is unbiblical to not believe in these doctrines or to deny these practices. Thank you so much for listening to today’s episode, and if you want to learn more about this subject, check out my book, the Case for Catholicism or Joel Peters’ new book, Sola Scriptura Doesn’t Work. Thank you all so much and I hope you have a very blessed day.