The Early Church Fathers and Sola Scriptura

to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us, yet to give this answer with gentleness and reverence.

The Dividing Line is brought to you by Alpha and Omega Ministries, the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church, and Bethany House Publishers.

Your host is Dr. James White, director of Alpha and Omega Ministries and an elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church.

With today's topic, here is Dr. White. The early church fathers, not exactly a subject to hear a lot about on Christian radio, is it?

Who were these men? What did they believe? And how is all this relevant to the subject we've been looking at for a number of weeks now called sola scriptura, the idea that the scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith for the church?

Well, those of you who are familiar with the area of debate know that the early church is an important part of that debate.

At least Roman Catholic apologists like to refer to the early church. They like to say that the early church specifically taught their perspective.

And in fact, they are somewhat wedded to that claim because the Roman Catholic Church does claim that she is the ancient church and that the faith that she has today is the faith that she's always had.

And therefore, the early church fathers were in fact Roman Catholics believing what

Roman Catholics believe today. Well, obviously there are some Roman Catholic apologists who recognize that's simply not the case, and therefore they've developed the idea of the development hypothesis to get around the rather historical fact that the early church had no concept of many of the dogmas that Rome teaches today as being a part of the apostolic depositive faith.

Well, if you are familiar with this area of discussion, maybe you've encountered some Roman Catholic apologetics' writings, magazines like This Rock or Envoy magazine or various and sundry books like Karl Keating's Catholicism and Fundamentalism or Patrick Madrid's Surprised by Truth, books like that.

You know that they like to cite the early fathers. Well, I like to cite the early fathers too.

The simple fact of the matter is that assuming that both of us are being honest with context, which of course both sides say the other isn't, which leaves it up to you to look up things in context and make decisions for yourself, but assuming both sides are fair in the issue of context, should

I be able to go toe -to -toe, quote -to -quote, with a Roman Catholic in regards to the beliefs of the early church?

Well, the answer to that, I think, is no. If Protestantism, if my reformed faith is something that was unknown and is in fact an innovation that only came about with Martin Luther, or the sharper folks would admit at least

John Wycliffe and Jan Hus, or maybe even with people earlier than that. But if it's an innovation, if it was not something that the early church believed, then

I shouldn't be able to go toe -to -toe, quote -to -quote, with a Roman Catholic. But the simple fact of the matter is we can.

And today I'd like to share with you just some of the passages from the writings of the early church fathers. These are men who had positions of leadership in the church, who committed their teachings, committed their debates, and yes, they had lots of debates back then, too, to writing.

And hence, history has preserved for us the issues they addressed and the words that they wrote.

Just to give you an example, in the middle of the 3rd century, we have Cyprian, the Bishop of Carthage.

Cyprian was a martyr. He was beheaded for his faith in Jesus Christ. And he wrote a letter to Pompey.

He was specifically discussing issues in regards to the church, and he said, quote, Whence is this doctrine?

Does it come from the authority of the Lord and of the gospel, or does it come from the commands and epistles of the apostles?

For that those things must be done which are written, God testifies and commands when he says to Joshua, The book of this law shall not depart of your mouth, that you may observe to do all the things which are written.

If, therefore, it is either commanded in the gospel or contained in the epistles and the acts, then also this sacred doctrine must be observed.

Notice then that Cyprian limits the scope of debate to that which is written, specifically to the scriptures themselves.

A hundred and fifty years later, also in North Africa, we have one of the most famous of the early church fathers, and that was the great

Bishop of Hippo, Augustine. And Augustine, or as some people say,

Augustine, Augustine addressed this issue in many, many of his writings.

He said, for example, What more shall I teach you than that what we read in the apostle? For holy scripture fixes the rule for our doctrine, lest we dare to be wiser than we ought.

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

Now, obviously, when we hear such words as that, we recognize that specifically he is referring to the scriptures.

And he says that the holy scripture fixes the rule for our doctrine, fixes the rule for our doctrine.

That's extremely important because what is sola scriptura? It says that the scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith.

And here Augustine, referring to that very rule of faith, says that it is holy scripture that fixes the rule for our doctrine.

It's interesting that when he wrote to Maximin the Arian, as I mentioned last week, he said, I must not press the authority of Nicaea against you, nor you that of Ariminum against me.

I do not acknowledge the one as you do not the other, but let us come to ground that is common to both, the testimony of the holy scriptures.

Notice here, even when faced with a council that Augustine would have considered to be authoritative, that Augustine would have considered to be accurate, that Augustine believed expressed the mind of the church.

When talking with Maximin the Arian, he says, I can't press the authority of that against you and you cannot press against me the authority of Ariminum, another church council that Augustine would have said did not in any way, shape or form express the mind of the church, that it did not in point of fact represent

Christian orthodoxy, but you had dueling councils. You had councils that came to different conclusions.

But the one thing that doesn't come to different conclusions, Augustine says, is the testimony of the holy scriptures.

So what else does he say? He says, quote, let us not hear this I say, this you say, but thus says the

Lord. Surely it is the books of the Lord on whose authority we both agree in which we both believe. There let us seek the church.

There let us discuss our case. In what realm? In the realm of the books of the Lord. That is the holy scriptures.

Let those things, he says, be removed from our midst, which we quote against each other, not from divine canonical books, but from elsewhere.

What elsewhere? Well, whatever. Someone may perhaps ask, why do you want to remove these things from our midst?

Because I do not want the holy church proved by human documents, but by divine oracles, is what he says.

He goes on to say, whatever they may adduce, and wherever they may quote from, let us rather, if we are his sheep, hear the voice of our shepherd.

Therefore let us search for the church in the sacred canonical scriptures.

He also says, neither dare one agree with Catholic bishops, if by chance they err in anything, with the result that their opinion is against the canonical scriptures of God.

Catholic bishops may err, but the scriptures of God do not.

That is his direct assertion. Listen to these words. You ought to notice 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, and this is in regards to a commentary on the gospel of John, when he offered himself to them to touch, this did not suffice him unless he also confirmed the heart of the believers from the scriptures.

And listen to these words from Augustine. For he foresaw that the time would come when we would not have anything to touch, but would have something to read.

So often Roman Catholic apologists say, well, the Lord Jesus never commanded the apostles to write. He commanded them to teach.

That's orally, yes, but here Augustine recognizes there would be a time that would come when we would not have anything to touch, but we would have something to read because the apostles would not be with us always.

Another of the great early fathers was Basil of Caesarea, and he said the hearers taught in the scriptures ought to test what is said by teachers and accept that which agrees with the scriptures, but reject that which is foreign.

Now notice what he says. The hearers taught in scriptures ought to test what is said by teachers.

It sounds a little bit like private interpretation to me. That sounds like we have a responsibility to go to the ultimate rule of faith in scriptures to test what we are taught.

Does that mean you test the Bishop of Rome, Basil? Yes, of course, but the Roman Catholic today cannot do so because the

Roman Catholic believes the Pope is infallible when he speaks on matters of faith and morals. Basil also said, without a doubt, it is a most manifest fall from the faith and a most certain sign of pride to introduce anything that is not written in the scriptures.

Our blessed Savior having said, my sheep hear my voice and the voice of strangers they will not hear, and to detract from scripture or to add anything to the faith that is not there is most manifestly forbidden by the apostle saying, if it be but a man's testament, no man addeth thereto.

Notice what he says. It is a certain sign of pride to add anything to or subtract anything from the scriptures.

Why? Well, because Jesus said, my sheep hear my voice. Well, where is the voice of Jesus then found?

For Basil, it's very clear. It is found in the scriptures themselves and it is forbidden, he says, to detract or add anything to the faith that is not where?

There. And what is the there? Scripture. So much for inspired oral tradition existing outside of scripture.

Now, here's another passage. Their complaint is that their custom does not accept this and that scripture does not agree.

What is my reply? Now, here's a very important passage because he's dealing with a situation where there is disagreement between people who call themselves

Christians. What is my reply? I do not consider it fair that the custom which obtains among them should be regarded as a law and rule of orthodoxy.

If custom is to be taken in proof of what is right, then it is certainly competent for me to put forward on my side the custom which obtains here.

So in other words, what he's saying is, hey, if tradition and custom is to be the rule of faith, the law and rule of orthodoxy, then we have our traditions and customs too.

Notice how he concludes. Therefore, he says, if they reject this, we are clearly not bound to follow them.

Therefore, let God inspired scripture decide between us and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the word of God in favor of that side will be cast the vote of truth.

So what is the arbiter? What is the standard that decides between Christians who disagree?

God inspired scripture. It is the rule.

It is the measuring stick. And as he said elsewhere, he said, a rule and measuring stick, so long as nothing is lacking to make it truly a rule and measuring stick receives no addition to make it whole for an addition happens because of a defect.

But if it is imperfect, it is not at all rightly called a rule and measuring stick. You hear what he's saying?

If the scriptures as he taught are a rule and measuring stick, then you cannot add anything to them.

If you do add something to it, then that means that it was defective in the first place. And that indeed is what has to be claimed by those who wish to add oral traditions or add some type of apostolic tradition that is not a part of scripture.

What that must functionally mean is that the scriptures themselves are defective.

They are not sufficient to function as the sole rule of faith of the church. And that is the

Roman position in regards to the issue of authority. Now I can hear the responses from Roman Catholic apologists, and I will provide a,

I'll give you the objections to some of these passages I just read and respond to them.

But first we need to take a short break. We've been looking at the subject of Sola Scriptura, and today we are specifically looking at the subject of what the early church taught concerning these issues.

And I just want to give you two more quotes and provide you with some rebuttal in response, shall we say.

One of my favorite of the early fathers was John Chrysostom. And he said the following, quote, but when scripture wants to teach us something like that, it interprets itself and does not permit the hearer to err.

I therefore beg and entreat that we close our ears to all these things and follow the canon of the holy scripture exactly.

Over and over and over again, you will hear Roman Catholic apologists saying, you can't believe the Bible can interpret itself.

That's ridiculous. Well, John Chrysostom thought it could. If you believe it's alive and living and supernatural in origin, why can't it?

Because it is consistent with itself, provide the context of its own interpretation.

Cyril of Jerusalem wrote the following in his catechetical lectures, this would be in the fifth century.

In regard to the divine and holy mysteries, I'm sorry, middle of the fourth century specifically. In regard to the divine and holy mysteries of the faith, not the least part may be handed on without the holy scriptures.

Do not be led astray by winning words and clever arguments. Even to me who tell you these things, do not give ready belief unless you receive from the holy scriptures the proof of the things which

I announce. The salvation which we believe is not proved from clever reasoning, but from the holy scriptures.

Now what is fundamentally, foundationally, and obviously required of any individual to do what

Cyril said? If he says, do not give ready belief unless you receive from the holy scriptures the proof of the things which

I announce, well, how am I supposed to do that? How am I supposed to test what

I am taught by the holy scriptures if the scriptures are not in fact sufficient to function as the rule of faith?

In each one of these quotes, we have heard these early fathers commending to the faithful their responsibility to test what is taught by the ultimate authority, and that is the holy scriptures.

We have not found them saying, test what is taught by the words of the bishop of Rome, and you will not find anyone in this time period saying that.

In fact, if you think that anyone did, I would strongly encourage you to go to our website at www .aomin

.org and listen to some of the debates that we have posted there. We are in the process now of posting debates on the papacy, and listen to the quotes that are provided.

Listen to the documentation, and do not be led astray by what I call the Peter syndrome.

That is, you will find the early church fathers saying lots of wonderful things about Peter, and Rome automatically assumes that that just means they believe the same thing about the bishop of Rome, and that is not the case.

For example, Cyprian, who believed that Peter was the rock of Matthew 16, 18, likewise believed that every single bishop was the successor of Peter.

You'll find in lots of magazines and books the quotes from Cyprian about the foundation of the church on the chair of Peter, but you won't find them, unfortunately, discussing the fact that what he thought that meant was that every bishop, himself included as the bishop of Carthage, was the successor of Peter and sat upon the chair of Peter.

Like I said, it would be nice to just assume that everyone's honest with all those things, but sometimes that's not the case.

Now, what are some of the objections? Well, I cited extensively from Augustine and from Basil of Caesarea, and the first response

I automatically get is, yeah, but those guys believe things that you don't. Okay, they did. What does that have to do with the issue at hand?

Well, nothing at all. Because if they were consistent and said that we must test all things by Scripture, then they would want to have a dialogue about the issues where we disagreed based upon what?

Based upon Scripture. And that's fine. Well, look at Augustine.

There are times when he appealed to tradition. Look at Basil of Caesarea when he's talking about what direction you should pray, what direction you should face when you pray, how many times you should be baptized, things like that.

He appeals to tradition. Yes, he does. Interestingly enough, especially with Basil of Caesarea, no

Roman Catholic today would say he was right, because you don't practice the way he did. Basil did.

He did appeal to unwritten traditions in regards to practices and how to do certain things.

How many times you should baptize, and what direction you should face, and how you should word certain prayers, and things like that.

Was he inconsistent to do so? Well, you might defend him by saying he wasn't basing real doctrine on the base of these things, but actually

I'd say he just was simply inconsistent. You say, well, then how can you cite him?

Well, because all of us are inconsistent at some point or another. In fact, the fact that we are to continuously expose ourselves to the

Word of God, and that we are to test what we believe by the Word of God, that is a part of our becoming more and more consistent.

The very Christian life is meant to be a process where we become more and more consistent in our application of God's truth.

So, I don't have to dismiss Basil just because I look at a point and say, look, you know, on these issues here, he had a belief, and I would submit to you, that belief came to him from his traditions, and if he was consistent with himself, he would have tested those things by Scripture, and would have eventually rejected them, if they did not have a basis in Scripture.

That's what he said to do. And so, recognizing that he himself was inconsistent at a point does not change the fact that when it came to the issue of disagreements between Christians on matters of doctrine, he said, you go to the

God -inspired Scriptures. They are the ones who give you the final vote of truth.

Not to the Bishop of Rome, or the infallible Magisterium of the Church of Rome, because no one in his day believed that.

They did not make appeal in that way, because they did not have the modern Roman Catholic concept.

Augustine's the best example. I gave an entire lecture on this subject at a conference just last year in regards to Augustine and the

Donatists. And Augustine is one of those folks, oh, he takes a lot of heat from a lot of people.

There's a lot of people who go, ah, you know, Augustine believed this, Augustine believed that. Augustine's doctrine of the

Church gave rise to the eventual Roman Catholic viewpoint. And it did. It did. But as the eminent theologian

B .B. Warfield put it, he said, the Reformation inwardly considered was nothing more than the victory of Augustine's doctrine of grace over Augustine's doctrine of the

Church. That means Augustine was inconsistent with himself. Yes, he was. There's a whole reason why he was.

It had to do with the Donatist movement. It had to do with political pressures. It had to do with the context in which he lived.

And you know what? That's true for all of us. Most of our inconsistencies in our theologies, most of our blind spots, are due to the fact that we engage in controversies, that we engage in the situations that surround us in our life, and as a result, our exegesis is skewed one direction or another, we are not balanced one way or another, and most of the time we don't even see it.

Well, we happen to have volumes and volumes of Augustine's writings, and therefore we can examine his writings and we can detect these inconsistencies.

We have that wonderful option of hindsight. We are not in the same situation he was in.

The simple fact of the matter remains, he made the statements he made, and if he had as Roman Catholics believe today, that the

Scripture is simply part of sacred tradition, and that you need these oral traditions to buttress these things, then he wouldn't have said the words that he said.

He wouldn't have made the statements that he made. And so, when we talk about the issue of sola scriptura in the early church, sadly,

I must report to you that the primary response that we get from Roman Catholic apologists is not a meaningful interaction with the passages.

Finally, there is a book that came out just recently where there is at least some attempt to do that.

Most of the attempt fails, most of it is just simply to say, well, they couldn't have meant that because they said this over here, and the idea of testing for consistency and listening to a passage in its own context, thrown out the window, no one really worries about that too much.

But most of the responses has simply fallen in the category merely of mockery.

Can you believe that anyone would suggest that anyone in the early church actually believed anything like this?

And that's pretty much the level of the response that we get, is merely to mock the idea, not interact with the citations themselves.

Athanasius, one of my heroes of the early church, said, but since Holy Scripture is of all things most sufficient for us, therefore recommending to those who desire to know more of these matters to read the divine word.

I now hasten to set before you that which most claims attention and for the sake of which principally

I have written these things. And there he was defending the very deity of Christ and the issues of Arianism.

And he says, Holy Scripture is of all things most sufficient for us. He said elsewhere, for indeed the holy and God -breathed scriptures are self -sufficient for the preaching of the truth.

He said that, let this then Christ loving man be our offering to you. Just for a rudimentary sketch and outline and a short compass, the faith of Christ and of his divine appearing usward, but you taking occasion by this, if you light upon the text of the scriptures by genuinely applying your mind to them, will learn from them more completely and clearly the exact detail of what we have said, for they were spoken and written by God through men who spoke for God.

Where do you find the early fathers saying that the words of the Bishop of Rome are the very speaking of God, that they were spoken by him?