‍ 

Dialogue on the Early Christians’

View of Scripture

 

A response to Mr. Enloe’s claim that sola Scriptura 

can be found in the early Church.

 

Gary Hoge

 

I can provide you with a number of citations from Athanasius, Augustine, Irenaeus, and Basil which show that there was a strong tendency in the early Church to judge all doctrines and alleged apostolic traditions by Scripture (the battles with the gnostics and Arians come readily to mind), which would, of course, necessitate that these Fathers thought Scripture was clear enough to function in such a manner. This would place two more “Protestant” beliefs--Sola Scriptura and the perspicuity of Scripture--in the early Church.

 

What these quotations will show (and believe me, I’ve seen them all) is that the Fathers believed in the material sufficiency of Scripture. But they insisted that Scripture can only properly be interpreted within the framework of Tradition and apostolic succession. They did not believe in sola Scriptura, and they emphatically denied the alleged “perspicuity of Scripture.” Let me cite a few examples to illustrate this. You mentioned Basil as a potential advocate of sola Scriptura, but he wrote,

 

Of the dogmas and messages preserved in the Church, some we possess from written teaching and others we receive from the Tradition of the Apostles, handed on to us in mystery. In respect to piety both are of the same force. No one will contradict any of these, no one, at any rate, who is even moderately versed in matters ecclesiastical. Indeed, were we to try to reject unwritten customs as having no great authority, we would unwittingly injure the gospel in its vitals; or rather, we would reduce [Christian] message to a mere term. (Basil, The Holy Spirit, 27:66).

 

How can that possibly be morphed into an affirmation of sola Scriptura?

 

Also, you mentioned Irenaeus (a disciple of John’s disciple Polycarp). Irenaeus wrote,

 

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. . . . When, however, they [the heretics] 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. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents. (Against Heresies, 3:1, 2).

 

That sure sounds like an affirmation of sola Scriptura, but is it? Not at all. Irenaeus was refuting the idea that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents. The corollary that Irenaeus was defending was not necessarily that the truth was delivered by written documents alone, but merely that it was, at least in part, delivered by means of written documents. Indeed, Irenaeus continues . . .

 

But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth. . . .

‍ 

It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about. . . .

‍ 

Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth: so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. For she is the entrance to life; all others are thieves and robbers. On this account are we bound to avoid them, but to make choice of the thing pertaining to the Church with the utmost diligence, and to lay hold of the tradition of the truth. For how stands the case? Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse 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? (Against Heresies, 3:2-4).

 

Irenaeus went on to describe how the barbarian nations, who can’t read and don’t have the Scriptures, are nevertheless faithful Christians, and free from heresy, because of their reliance on the apostolic tradition. This is the typical attitude of the Fathers. They affirmed that Scripture is materially sufficient, but denied that it is formally sufficient. Vincent of Lerins explained this explicitly:

 

Here perhaps, someone may ask: Since the canon of the Scripture is complete and more than sufficient in itself, why is it necessary to add to it the authority of ecclesiastical interpretation? As a matter of fact, [we must do so because] Holy Scripture, because of its depth, is not universally accepted in one and the same sense. The same text is interpreted differently by different people, so that one may almost gain the impression that it can yield as many different meanings as there are men. Novatian, for example, expounds a passage in one way; Sabellius, in another; Donatus, in another. Arius, and Eunomius, and Macedonius read it differently; so do Photinus, Apollinaris, and Priscillian; in another way, Jovian, Pelagius, and Caelestius; finally still another way, Nestorius. [One might easily insert the names of Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, et al. at this point] Thus, because of the great distortions caused by various errors, it is, indeed, necessary that the trend of the interpretation of the prophetic and apostolic writings be directed in accordance with the rule of the ecclesiastical and Catholic meaning. (Commonitories, 2).

 

Vincent’s statement that the Scriptures “can yield as many different meanings as there are men,” is eerily reminiscent of Luther’s statement, over a thousand years later, that “there are almost as many sects and beliefs as there are heads” (Quoted in Leslie Rumble, Bible Quizzes to a Street Preacher, (Rockford, IL: TAN books, 1976), 22). Yet, for some reason, Luther simply couldn’t see that this is evidence of the lack of perspicuity in Scripture. Instead, he blamed it on wickedness on the part of whoever would interpret Scripture differently than he (including Calvin).

 

To paraphrase you, some of the quotes from the early Fathers can support the Protestant doctrines they are brought forward to defend, but only if you read the Protestant doctrines back into them. However, if we look at the whole of what the Fathers wrote, not just isolated, Protestant-sounding fragments, we’ll see that these guys were thoroughly Catholic. That is very easily demonstrated by their comments with regard to the papacy, the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, apostolic succession, infused justification, baptismal regeneration, etc., as I showed in my paper, “The Alleged Protestantism of the Early Church”