Transcript

When Protestants try to enlist the church fathers to defend the doctrine of sola 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-Nicene church fathers, the church fathers before the Council of Nicaea in 325.

When you read historical defenses of sola scriptura, they almost always use sources from after the Council of Nicaea.

In my debate with James White, I asked him to provide sources for fathers who defended sola scriptura from the first 300 years of the church's history, and he didn't seem very eager to do that.

You're- you're agreeing to time with 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- I'll take anybody.

The vast ma-

I'll take anybody.

The vast ma- j- Well, I can give you all sorts of, depending on how, how you want to deal with it.

Let's go up to the Council of Nicaea.

Why am I only up to the Council of Nicaea?

I can give you 300 years.

It's a long time.

Yes, and-

Try, try, try to keep it question, answer.

Okay.

Yeah.

All right.

We're trying to.

Uh-

We're having too much fun.

Yeah.

We- there's, there's all sorts of, of, of passages I can give you.

We can give you Athanasius.

We can give you Augustine, all things that But you're dealing with a period of time before the canon is fully known within the church.

The closest I've seen Protestant apologists come to providing evidence from this era comes from Saint Irenaeus who said, 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 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 and pillar of our faith.

But in this passage, Irenaeus 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 contradict it, which can be seen in the gospels that have been handed on.

Irenaeus 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 and 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, Irenaeus 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, Irenaeus wrote the following, Suppose there arise a 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, Jaroslav Pelikan, remarked on this passage, quote, 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 Pelikan also said, In the anti-Nicene Church there was no notion of sola scriptura.

So, Irenaeus does say that revelation comes to us in scripture but not scripture alone.

And the absence of pre-Nicene 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 Kruger, a conservative Protestant canon scholar writes, For many modern scholars, the key time is the end of the 2nd century.

Only then, largely due to the influence of Irenaeus, were these books first regarded as scripture.

So, if scholars can legitimately raise this much doubt about whether the earliest church fathers believed the apostolic writings were scripture, then there's no doubt that the earliest fathers did not believe in sola scriptura.

But what about the other option?

It's true you can find church fathers after the time of Nicaea who speak highly of scripture in ways that sound like they are advocating for sola scriptura.

You have people like Saint 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 to 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-Nicene 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 First Corinthians 11:2 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 confessed by the fathers at Nicea alone hold good among you.

Here's another example from my debate with James White on sola Scriptura.

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.

Uh, tell me what you think about this, uh, citation.

You want to notice particularly, particularly, and store in your memory, that God wanted to lay a firm foundation in the scriptures against treacherous errors, a foundation against which no one dares 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.

Um, 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 heart of 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 sola Scriptura, for example, there's 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 faili- fairly held to have been enjoined by the apostles which yet are not mentioned in their writings.

And yet, uh, 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 dear to wise as we ought.

Therefore, I should not teach you anything else except to expound you the words of 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 stri- 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.

Okay, how about out-

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, Nicea in 325 and Constantinople in 381.

And it's debated whether Augustine even knew about Constantinople.

So, there's no evidence Augustine believed these two ecumenical councils contradicted each other.

In fact, Augustine refuted the Donatists by saying of the Council of Nicea, The truth of this question had been placed beyond dispute by the investigation and decree of a plenary council.

Robert Eno, a liberal Catholic historian that Protestants often cite, is skeptical and says, No firm conclusions can be drawn from De Baptismo 2.4 concerning the fallibility of these plenary councils in Augustine's mind.

Though, Eno himself, quote, Leans to the view that Augustine believed that these universal councils did not err.

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 define, 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 Sola Scriptura, why do so many leading Protestants act like he did not believe in Sola Scriptura?

The famous Calvinist theologian B. B. 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 Ellingsen says of Augustine, quote, 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 Manichee 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-Nicene 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 Sola Scriptura, the deposit of faith is not rely on the church fathers being unanimous.

They might have 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, Chrysostom, 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, baptismal 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 believed in Sola Scriptura, so we should believe in it, then why wouldn't we also agree with them on these distinctly Catholic doctrines?

Here's an exchange that I had with Protestant apologist Kelly Powers that underscores this problem.

But you would agree that these fourth century fathers, they practiced Sola Scriptura, but they saw that one could have the Bible as an ultimate authority, and this, the Bible did not contradict their universal views on baptismal regeneration-

Yeah.

a priest making the mass of propitiatory sacrifice, uh, on an altar, or confessing sins to a priest-

I'm not saying

I know you don't agree with that, but based on-

I'm not saying Yeah, sorry.

I'm just saying they would go to scripture.

That's what they would lean on, right?

And they would, they would see these things as totally biblical.

They, they weren't basing it on their own authority.

They went to scripture to believe what they were teaching.

That's, that's what I'm trying to say.

Whether right or wrong-

But, but do you-

Whether right or wrong, they still went to scripture for their authority.

Now, one way out of the dilemma would be to say that the fathers followed Sola 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 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, or 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 Sola Scriptura.

You either have the earliest fathers who say nothing resembling Sola Scriptura at all, or you have the later fathers who have a high view of scripture, but if they really did practice Sola 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 y'all so much, and I hope you have a very blessed day.