Sola Scriptura
Christian Definition and Description of Sola Scriptura
Scripture is the writings of the Old and New Testament, which have been historically recognized as God’s Word in written form.[1] And it is by these two books that we can say sola Scriptura (Scripture alone). Scripture alone teaches that the Holy Bible is our final and sole infallible source of authority when it comes to matters of life and practice of the Christian faith.[2] Moreover, sola Scriptura echoes the concept that perspicuity (clarity) of Scripture is the invaluable source to the Christian faith; and that church tradition is not necessary for determining the right interpretation of Scripture.[3] Since the Catholic Church seems to assume or attack Protestants for totally ignoring tradition, let’s take a look at what the early Church Fathers had to say about Scripture alone. Protestants don’t ignore tradition totally (except for bad tradition), but Protestants have a problem with how Catholics see tradition contrary to Scripture.
According to Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-215), he pronounced this about Scripture,
He, then, who of himself believes the Scripture and voice of the Lord, which by the Lord acts to the benefiting of men, is rightly [regarded] faithful. Certainly we use it as a criterion in the discovery of things.” (The Stromata, 16).
Tertullian (c. 160-235) said
That Scriptures . . . indeed furnish us with our Rule of faith. (Against Praxeas, 11).”
Origin (c.185-254) said,
In proof of all words which we advance in matters of doctrine, we ought to set forth the sense of the Scripture as confirming the meaning which we are proposing . . . . therefore we should not take our own ideas for the confirmation of doctrine, unless someone shows that they are holy because they are contained in the divine Scriptures (Homily 25 on Matthew).”
Cyril of Jerusalem (315-386) said,
Do not then believe me because I tell 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. (The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 4.17).”
Athanasius (295-375), the man who was prolifically known to defend the Trinity against heretics declared,
In the Holy Scriptures alone is the instruction of religion announced—to which let no man add, from which let no man detract—which are sufficient in themselves for the enunciation of the truth.”
Chrysostom (344-407) said,
When there is a question of Divine things, would it not be a folly rashly and blindly to receive the opinions of others, when we have a rule by which we can examine everything? I mean the Divine law. It is for this reason that I conjure you all, without resting in the slightest degree on the judgment of others, to consult the Scriptures.”
Augustine (354-430), who John Calvin modeled after when it came to the Doctrines of Grace, said this concerning the Scriptures,
What more shall I teach you than what we read in the apostle? ‘For Holy Scripture fixes the rule for our doctrine, lest we dare be wiser than we ought.'”
And Theodoret of Cyrus (393–457) said,
Bring me not human reasoning’s and syllogisms, for I rely on the divine Scripture alone.”
Proof that Scripture has Divine Authority
We have heard much about the definition and description of Scripture alone from the early Church Fathers, but lets take a deeper look into how the early Church Fathers argued specifically for the divine authority of sola Scriptura. We will take a look mainly into the origin of Scripture (the Words of God), and the nature of Scripture (infallible) from Clement of Rome. Then we will take a look at the origin of Scripture and the nature of Scripture from Irenaeus. The last person we will refer to is Tertullian’s (ca. 160-225) address concerning the nature of Scripture. There are many other early Church Father’s I can refer to, but I will narrow it to a few so it won’t be too superflous.
Concerning the origin of Scripture as being the very Words of God, Clement of Rome said,
Let us act accordingly to that which is written (First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians 13).[5]
Clement said that we must look carefully into the Scriptures because they are the true utterances of the Holy Spirit (ibid., 45).[6] He also said that the Word of God is also infallible because they are the very Words of God. In his First Apology Clement pointed out,
But when you hear the utterances of the prophets spoken as it were personally, you must not suppose that they are spoken by the inspired men themselves but by the divine Word who moves them.”[7]
He continues by saying,
We must not suppose that the language proceeds from the men who are inspired, but from the divine Word, which moves them. Their work is to announce that which the Holy Spirit, descending upon them, purposes, through them, to teach those who wish to learn the true religion.”[8]
And he has this to say about the passing down of divine revelation to the prophets,
To him [Moses] did God communicate that divine and prophetic gift…and then after him the rest of the prophets…These we assert to have been our teachers, who use nothing from their own human conception, but from the gift vouchsafed to them by God alone (Justin’s Hortatory Oration to the Greeks 8).”[9]
According to Irenaeus, a second century Church Father, he too said the Scriptures are the Words of God. To him the Scriptures are perfect since it was spoken by God and His Spirit (Against Heresies 2.28.2).[10] When it came to the nature of Scripture, Irenaues pointed out that Scripture is the foundation of faith because Scripture is the ground and pillar of our faith.[11] And it when it came to the infallibility of Scripture, here is what he declared,
Let us revert to the Scriptural proof furnished by those apostles who did also write the Gospel…The writings of those apostles,…being the disciples of truth, are above all falsehood.”[12]
And here is what he has to say about those who tried to twist Scripture,
Heretics adduce an unspeakable number of apocryphal and spurious writings which they themselves have forged, to bewilder minds of foolish men, and of such as are ignorant of the Scriptures of truth.”[13]
Now for our last Church Father, Tertullian. Here is what he has to say about the authoritative nature of Scripture:
In granting indulgence, he [Paul] alleges the advice of a prudent man; in enjoining continence, he affirms the advice of the Holy Spirit. Follow the admonition which has divinity for its patron. It is true that believers likewise no “have the Spirit of God;” but not all believers are apostles. When, then, he who had called himself a “believer,” added thereafter that he “had the Spirit of God,” which no one would doubt even in the case of an (ordinary) believer; his reason for saying so was, that he might re-assert for himself apostolic dignity…Apostles have the Holy Spirit properly, who have Him fully, in the operations of prophecy…Thus he attached the Holy Spirit’s authority to that form [of advice] to which he willed us rather to attend; and forthwith it became not an advice of the Holy Spirit, but, in consideration of His majesty, at precept.[14]
With that said, I think it is appropriate to leave you off with with a quote from Martin Luther concerning Scripture alone. May we mediate upon this sobering quote.
Before I do that, let me first give you the context behind this quote. It was after nailing the 95 theses on the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg, that Martin Luther was later held on trail in the Diet of Worms in 1521. It was there where Martin Luther boldly proclaimed before the secular dignitaries and powerful Roman Catholic clergy with this statement,
Unless I am refuted and convicted by testimonies of the Scriptures or by clear arguments, I am conquered by the Holy Scriptures quoted by me, and my conscience is bound in the Word of God: I can not and will not recant anything, since it is unsafe and dangerous to do anything against the conscience.”[15]
Martin Luther was clearly a man that championed sola Scripture. Scripture was his absolute source of authority, not tradition. Tradition was subordinate to sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura in a sense is the Father and tradition is the son. But if tradition went bad, tradition would be an apostate child. Martin Luther clearly understood that all matters of life and practice of the Christian faith was seen through the lens of Scripture.
Luther continued and ended his bold statement by saying:
Here I stand. I cannot do otherwise. God help me! Amen.”[16]
We have seen much concerning the authority of Scripture pronounced from the early Church Fathers, but we will take a look at the message from “Scripture itself” concerning sola Scriptura in the next installment.
[1] Wayne A. Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 1994), 1254.
[2] Busenitz, Nathan. “The Faith of Our Fathers.” Lecture, The Master’s Seminiary, Sun Valley, CA, September 24, 2009..
[3] Nathan Busenitz, Class Lecture 7, Faith of Our Fathers.
[4] Nathan Busenitz, Class Lecture 7, Faith of Our Fathers.
[5] Norman L. Geisler, How History Views the Bible: Decide For Yourself (San Francisco, CA: The Zondervan Corporation, 1982), 23-24.
[6]Ibid, 23-24.
[7] Norman L. Geisler, How History Views the Bible: Decide For Yourself , 23-24.
[8] Ibid, 23-24.
[9] Ibid, 23-24.
[10] Norman L. Geisler, How History Views the Bible: Decide For Yourself , 26.
[11] Ibid, 26.
[12]Ibid, 26.
[13] Ibid, 26.
[14] Ibid, 26-27.
15] Charles R. Biggs, “The Story of Martin Luther: The Reformation and the Life of Martin Luther Until the Diet of Worms (1521),” Monergism,http://www.monergism.com/Reformation.Church.History.Martin.Luther.pdf(accessed March 17, 2012), 130.
[16] Ibid, 130.
Nice historical work done there!
Thanks brother! Part IV will be up next.
Great job at taking the early church Fathers, (who were all Catholic) out of context.
As Evangelz below noted, it’s one thing to assert and another thing to prove it; but the way I also noted another fallacy of reading back the early Patristics as Roman Catholics, while not demonstrating that they are so in the modern sense…
I can prove it with History and Scripture. Scripture does not even support Sola Scriptura and neither does reason. Christ founded a church, and right before He ascended into heaven He told His Apostles (who He wouldnt have needed if He wanted Sola Scriptura) to go forth baptize and preach. Sola Scriptura is a heresy and any thinking mind, can see the error it has spewed.
Hey Margie,
M1.) “I can prove it with History and Scripture.”
Response: Feel free to demonstrate it. Don’t just spend three comments on here only to tell us that you can.
M2.) “Scripture does not even support Sola Scriptura and neither does reason.”
Response: See my response M1. Again, asserting it does not make it so.
M3.) “Christ founded a church, and right before He ascended into heaven He told His Apostles (who He wouldnt have needed if He wanted Sola Scriptura) to go forth baptize and preach.”
Response: What is your operating defnition of Sola Scriptura? I am compelled to ask because it seems that it lead you to set up an interesting argument against Sola Scripture. If your argument is that the Apostles baptized and preached because they were told by Jesus, I do not see how this is an argument against Sola Scriptura since Sola Scriptura does not means that Jesus Himself cannot tell His Apostles what to do in person. Moreover, we all know that this event occur historically in Redemptive history because the Scripture record this truth in places like Matthew 28:19-20 and Acts 1:1-8,etc.
M4.) “Sola Scriptura is a heresy and any thinking mind, can see the error it has spewed.”
Response: When was Sola Scriptura pronounced as a heresy?
Margie, its ironic how you said sola Scriptura is a heresy without even explaining why it is a heresy. By what standard or authority is sola Scriptura heresy? What is your definition of sola Scriptura?
And if you are going to say Scripture does not support sola Scriptura, please provide the Scriptures to support your position, because here at Domain for Truth, we love Scripture!
I concur with SlimJim, how does, “Christ founded a church, and right before He ascended into heaven He told His Apostles (who He wouldnt have needed if He wanted Sola Scriptura) to go forth baptize and preach” go against sola Scriptura when this redemptive event that took place was recorded in Scripture?
Hello Margie,
Thank you for visiting our site. I pray that the Lord will teach you sola Scriptura.
Here is your proposition, “You concluded that, “Great job at taking the early church Fathers, (who were all Catholic) out of context.”
The proposition you state, which requires proof, is assumed without proof. You simply concluded an argument that is based off of your assertion. You beg the blogger of this site to accept your proposition without undertaking any labor of logic. Therefore, it appears you are reasoning fallaciously by begging the question.
Please undertake the labor of logic and explain to us how I took the quotes out of context and explain how all the early church Fathers are all Catholic.
In King Jesus,
Romans 1:16
Yes, we would love for you to come on our Radio show and have a formal debate on this issue, Tuesday evening 7PM.
Oh goof grief. Someone is going to have a REALLY nasty time, explaining to the Church Fathers, WHY they were misrepresented as far as the Orthodox Teaching, goes. Margie, your absolutely correct. And whats even sadder, is I don’t think these individuals, realize, HOW seriously bad this is going to turn out for them, when they stand in Judgement, after they ignored our Warnings. Pax. Ross
Hello Earl,
Please stop committing fallacies like Margie. It appears you are appealing to merely your emotions, which is why you say we will “stand in Judgement.” Just for clarification, are you saying we are going to Hell?
Ross,
To reiterate what Evangelz has stated, can you demonstrate contextually how the quotes were misrepresented rather than assert it?
Oh good grief. How about either of you gentleman, come on our Blog Talk radio show Deeper Truth, and we will debate you on this issue! We have a great moderator. Or you can pick the moderator. Than we can get down to business. And you Evangelicals, can show us, what our Catholic Early Church Fathers, are really teaching. As far as hell goes, I am not your judge. Why don’t we take this, to a better forum, for a formal debate, either with me or Margie, or one of the members of Deeper Truth. Pax.
Hey Ross,
The medium where rational exchange occur is important, and some media form is better than others. In light of the subject matter at hand being historical in nature, I think written exchange with the opportunity for citation and the quality time of evaluating them contextually is a better format rather than a Talk radio show. I have to admit, I was anticipating the response on your part would be more of an interaction with the post written by my friend here, rather than “We will debate you” “on our Blog Talk radio show.” I am honored by the request and yet skeptical of such an endeavor, seeing the lack of serious interaction thus far with the actual post itself. As we all know from viewing political televised debates, a more formal debate does not necessarily mean the improvement of the substance of the argument, especially if the comment box here is a sign of things to come.
What I find interesting is that you quote these Early Church Fathers to prove your point but neglect to mention that these same people also believed in the Holy Catholic Church, Communion, baptismal regeneration, etc.
R1.) “What I find interesting is that you quote these Early Church Fathers to prove your point but neglect to mention that these same people also believed in the Holy Catholic Church, Communion, baptismal regeneration, etc.”
Response: First off, perhaps the reason why is because the topic is not about Communion, baptismal regeneration, etc. It’s a post that focuses on Sola Scriptura. Secondly, if you cite these doctrines and practices to show the inconsistencies between the historic Christian faith with my faith and practices, I think you take the time to know what we believe first: I do believe in the Catholic Church (but that does not mean the ROMAN CATHOLIC church, just as I believe in the Church of Christ but not THE Church of Christ popular in the South, etc), I do partake in Communion, and I do believe in the SPIRIT’S baptismal regeneration of believers. It might not be the way you understand them. Thirdly, while I do disagree with some of the later church fathers (no one is perfect), this does not pose a problem per se since I hold to Sola Scriptura as my ultimate authority for faith and practice. Fourthly, I think often times Roman Catholics at the popular internet apologetics level make the fallacy that descriptive is not the same as prescriptive (that is, just because you can show something from the past does not necessarily always mean one ought to practice or believe it). Fifthly, by your own method, have you realize the same argument can be applied to the Roman Catholic Church? Why is the current Roman Catholic Church inconsistent with the eschatology of the early Patristics, the mode of baptism by immersion in an area of open running water, etc?
Also, in Book 3 Chapters 2-4 Irenaeus shows the necessity of the Church and Her Traditions. We do not disagree that the Bible contains all truths of Christ. It is either there implicitly or explicitly. What we do disagree is the implementation of how to interpret the Scriptures. Is it private interpretation as can be widely seen the Protestant realm due to the various sects or is it interpreted by an infallible interpreter? So by quoting the Church fathers about their esteem of the Holy Scriptures and failing to recognize that these same people warn others not to twist the Scriptures to their destruction you are distorting the integrity of these men. They loved the Scriptures and knew that their proper place is in the bosom of the Holy Catholic Church.
Robbie, provide the quote in its context, where it shows that Irenaeus is against sola Scriptura and show me a quote where Irenaeus supports the fundamental teachings of the “Roman Catholic Church” not Catholic Church (universal).
Your objection: “Is it private interpretation as can be widely seen the Protestant realm due to the various sects or is it interpreted by an infallible interpreter?”
Response: God’s Word’s are infallible. Despite the spurious misinterpretations that many people make, it does not mean that the Bible negates sola Scriptura. God is never wrong, sinful people who misinterpret Scripture are the one’s that are at fault. Also show me where the Bible is against sola Scriptura.
R2.) “Also, in Book 3 Chapters 2-4 Irenaeus shows the necessity of the Church and Her Traditions.
Response: Irenaeus’ Adversus Haereses Book 3 Chapter 2-4 does show the importance of the church and tradition. I might be mistaken, but I don’t think a contextual reading of these three beautiful chapters necessarily rule out Sola Scriptura, while it does pose dilemmas for those who are against Sola Scriptura:
(a.) In the opening lines of Paragraph 1 of Book 3 chapter 1 (contextually before chapters 2-4), Irenaeus gave this fascinating statement: “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” (cited: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103301.htm). Note how Irenaeus made a statement about the Scripture being handed down by the Apostles. It is the Scriptures that is “to be the ground and pillar of our faith.”
(b) Continuing in the same flow of Irenaeus’ view of Scripture as the ground and pillar of our faith, he then gives a description of the Gnostics in the very first lines in chapter two, which ironically fit the descriptions of Roman Catholics who argue that the Scripture is ambigious or lacking full authority when it is interpreted in ignorance of “traditions”: “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” (cited: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103302.htm). To assert that the Scripture is ambigious (as oppose to the doctrine of the clarity of Scripture, which Sola Scriptura rests upon) is not something Irenaeus favored, and those who hold this position in order to argue against Sola Scriptura will have some problem with citing Irenaeus as a friend to their cause.
(c) Irenaeus’ talk about tradition in chapters 2-4 in no way threaten Sola Scriptura, since nowhere does Irenaeus state that Scripture must be interpreted by traditions.
(d) Remebering the point made in (c), we can further evaluate traditions discussed in chapters 2-4. Roman Catholics invoking the discussion in chapters 2-4 to support the idea that the Apostles handed down traditions down to the modern Roman Catholic Church makes an interesting leap of logic: The traditions might have been handed down to the church in Irenaeus’ day, but it’s another thing to claim that it has been handed down to the modern 21st Roman Catholic Church.
(e) Per (d), a Roman Catholic might argue from Book III, Chapter three, paragraph 2 that Irenaeus pointed to the church in Rome as the standard of measuring orthodoxy, as the last lines states, “For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere” (cited: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm). Sola Scriptura does not mean that it is forbidden to go by the general rule of thumb of seeing how others are doing in the issue of faith and practice (though Scripture is the ultimate authority), just in case one may stray, which was a good point Irenaeus made. However, nowhere did Irenaeus say that the church in Rome can never err, since he does qualify his statement, “inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.”
(f) Building upon (e), Roman Catholics cannot cite Book III Chapter three to substantiate that the church physically situated in Rome can never err, since in the fourth paragraph Irenaeus describe the church in Ephesus having the same status of bearing witness to the truth according to the Apostolic tradition handed down to it: “Then, again, the Church in Ephesus, founded by Paul, and having John remaining among them permanently until the times of Trajan, is a true witness of the tradition of the apostles” (cited: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm). If Ephesus has the same status as Rome, and if one were to apply the same form of argumentation Roman Catholics used on others, why then does the Roman Catholic not accept the Second Council of Ephesus?.
R3.) “We do not disagree that the Bible contains all truths of Christ. It is either there implicitly or explicitly. What we do disagree is the implementation of how to interpret the Scriptures.”
Response: If one disagree with someone else’s interpretation, I think it’s more proper to show how one get the right interpretation contextually and address the hermeneutics. One does not need to show that we ought to believe something because just your sociological religious group believes it.
R4.) “Is it private interpretation as can be widely seen the Protestant realm due to the various sects or is it interpreted by an infallible interpreter?”
Response: Here you are an either/or fallacy. There is a third way between subjectivism and “Thus says Rome…” It’s called the historical grammatical approach. By the way, epistemologically, how do you know when the Roman Catholic church have spoken infallibly? And what basis do you have for believing it is infallible in it’s interpretation? Moreover, you suggests that the Protestants are wrong because of various sects, but is the Roman Catholic church as monolitihic as you seem to suggest? And if not, does not your argument turn against Roman Catholicism itself?
R5.) “So by quoting the Church fathers about their esteem of the Holy Scriptures and failing to recognize that these same people warn others not to twist the Scriptures to their destruction you are distorting the integrity of these men.”
Response: I think I acknowledge these church fathers warn people from twisting Scripture (see R3), so I do not think it is fair that you throw the charge of me distorting the integrity of these men.
[…] response to a comment concerning Irenaeus’ work Adversus Haereses being cited in the course of a debate about Sola Scriptura. Since I spent an unusually long time interacting with Irenaeus in my reply, I thought it might […]
[…] Sola Scriptura Versus Sola Ecclesia: Part IIISola Scriptura Verses Sola Ecclesia: Part IV […]