Augustine on Scripture and Tradition

If I haven’t touched a nerve in those that reject Sola Scriptura so far then this next Church father might just do so, not that I’m purposely trying to do that. As I’ve examined the major early Church fathers, I’ve been systematically creating what I’ve been calling a ‘firewall’ between Jesus and the Apostles and the later Church fathers when it comes to their view of tradition. To make sure my terminology is understood properly, I simply mean that because there is no mention of the ‘type’ of tradition the Catholic Church says existed during the early church era, there is a real and demonstrable break between the Apostles and the later Church fathers.

I’ve been writing this series because the Catholic Church believes that ‘tradition’ has the same authority as Scripture. As a reminder, the Catholic Church’s view of ‘tradition’ is an Apostolic teaching which has remained unwritten for the past 2000 years and has been orally preserved and transmitted its content over those years by the ‘Church’. And, as we have seen in the previous six blogs about Church fathers, starting with Irenaeus, there has not been a single early Church father that supported the Catholic Church’s concept of ‘tradition.’ We are into the late 4th century now and this concept of ‘tradition’ is completely absent from any of their writings.

So, we now turn our focus to Augustine, someone that both Catholics and Protestants claim support their doctrinal views. Our focus, as has been the case for other Church fathers in this series, will be upon their view of Scripture and tradition. And as we will see, Augustine was no different than any of the others we’ve looked at. I know this blog entry is a bit longer than my others, but I hope you’ll stick with it to the end. Augustine was an important and prolific writer and it’s crucial to provide a lot of examples, as Catholic sources love to quote Augustine as much as Protestants do.

Who He Was

Born in 354 AD in what is now known as Algeria in North Africa, Augustine was the son of a Christian woman and a pagan father, who converted to Christianity on his deathbed. This, plus a number of other circumstances in Augustine’s life, caused him to finally convert to Christianity in 386 AD. Once that occurred, he rose quickly to the office of bishop of Hippo in his native Algeria in 391 and remained there until his death in 430 AD.

Sometimes we think that these great men of God were perfect, but Augustine definitely was not. While in Milan he had a 15 year relationship with a concubine and fathered a son, but his mother never stopped praying for him. And although his mother arranged a ‘suitable’ marriage for him to a young virgin, that never took place, as he backed out of the marriage, possibly because of his deep love for his long-time concubine. But after the death of his son and the urging of a close friend, Augustine converted to Christianity, dedicated his life to God and devoted the remainder of his life to preaching and writing. Virtually every Christian knows of his most famous works, his ‘Confessions,’ written in 397-398 AD, and ‘The City of God’ which was written shortly after Rome was sacked in 410 AD. Augustine is considered the greatest theologian of the early church.

His View of Scripture

As will be presented below, Augustine had an extremely high view of Scripture, so high in fact, that it leaves the reader with little doubt that he completely affirmed Sola Scriptura, even though he never used those words to describe it.

Gavin Ortlund

I’ll start with an article by Justin Taylor from, Augustine Actually (and Clearly) Affirmed Sola Scriptura. His work showed how Gavin Ortlund used three quotes from Augustine to make three distinct points. [1] The first quote from Augustine deals with the differences between the authority of Scripture and the words of men.

But who can fail to be aware that the sacred canon of Scripture, both of the Old and New Testament, is confined within its own limits, and that it stands so absolutely in a superior position to all later letters of the bishops, that about it we can hold no manner of doubt or disputation whether what is confessedly contained in it is right and true; but that all the letters of bishops which have been written, or are being written, since the closing of the canon, are liable to be refuted if there be anything contained in them which strays from the truth, either by the discourse of some one who happens to be wiser in the matter than themselves, or by the weightier authority and more learned experience of other bishops, by the authority of Councils; and further, that the Councils themselves, which are held in the several districts and provinces, must yield, beyond all possibility of doubt, to the authority of plenary Councils which are formed for the whole Christian world; and that even of the plenary Councils, the earlier are often corrected by those which follow them, when, by some actual experiment, things are brought to light which were before concealed, and that is known which previously lay hid, and this without any whirlwind of sacrilegious pride, without any puffing of the neck through arrogance, without any strife of envious hatred, simply with holy humility, catholic peace, and Christian charity? (This is from the article linked above, but can also be found here: Fathers of the Church, On Baptism, 2.3.4) [emphasis in original]

This quote shows that Augustine believed there was a visible difference between the authority of Scripture and all other writings. The writings of the Church fathers could be wrong, but Scripture was never wrong. The same was true for councils, ecumenical or otherwise. Councils could be and had been wrong, as one council could and did change the beliefs of a previous council. The Catholic Church likes to point to councils and their authority, as if they are in some way on the same level as Scripture but councils were the beliefs of men, where the Scriptures are the words of God. This demonstrates an extremely high view of Scripture.

The next quote deals with the authoritative difference between the Church and Scripture.

As regards our writings, which are not a rule of faith or practice, but only a help to edification, we may suppose that they contain some things falling short of the truth in obscure and recondite [known or understood by relatively few; esoteric; arcane] matters, and that these mistakes may or may not be corrected in subsequent treatises. For we are of those of whom the apostle says: "And if you be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you." (Philippians 3:15) Such writings are read with the right of judgment, and without any obligation to believe. In order to leave room for such profitable discussions of difficult questions, there is a distinct boundary line separating all productions subsequent to apostolic times from the authoritative canonical books of the Old and New Testaments. (This is from the article linked above, but can also be found here: Fathers of the Church, Reply to Faustus, 11.5) [emphasis in original]

Once again, Augustine understood the church’s role in the preservation of Scripture, but there was nothing that eclipsed its authority. The Word of God was infallible but the words of men or the ‘church’ were not. There are plenty of cases in the last 2000 years that can be sighted to demonstrate this fact, whether Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant. Men will fail us, but the Word of God will not.

Lastly, in a letter to Jerome, whom he believed held the same view, he wrote,

For I confess to your Charity that I have learned to yield this respect and honour only to the canonical books of Scripture: of these alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error. And if in these writings I am perplexed by anything which appears to me opposed to truth, I do not hesitate to suppose that either the Ms. [manuscript] is faulty, or the translator has not caught the meaning of what was said, or I myself have failed to understand it. As to all other writings, in reading them, however great the superiority of the authors to myself in sanctity and learning, I do not accept their teaching as true on the mere ground of the opinion being held by them; but only because they have succeeded in convincing my judgment of its truth either by means of these canonical writings themselves, or by arguments addressed to my reason. (This is from the article linked above, but can also be found here: Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, Series I, Vol I, Letter to Jerome, #82) [1st emphasis in original, 2nd emphasis added]

In case you didn't know, Jerome was the person that translated the Greek New Testament manuscripts into Latin to create the Latin Bible, better known as the Latin Vulgate, which was the church’s Bible for over 1000 years. He and Jerome disagreed on a few occasions but this was an example of Augustine expressing his view of Scripture and his belief that Jerome held that same view.

These three quotes by themselves are overwhelming evidence that Augustine believed that the Scriptures were above everything, from the pope down to any bishop from any region or any era.

Quoting Augustine

As I have done in previous blogs, I want to give the reader additional examples of his view of Scripture from his own writings, doing my best to provide links to online resources for what he wrote so that you can read them for yourself.

Holy:

First, however, we must demonstrate, according to the authority of the Holy Scriptures, whether the faith be so. (Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, Series I, Vol III, On the Holy Trinity, 1.4) [emphasis added]

Divine:

You say that it is incredible that Paul should have rebuked in Peter that which Paul himself had done. I am not at present inquiring about what Paul did, but about what he wrote. This is most pertinent to the matter which I have in hand,—namely, the confirmation of the universal and unquestionable truth of the Divine Scriptures, which have been delivered to us for our edification in the faith, not by unknown men, but by the apostles, and have on this account been received as the authoritative canonical standard. (Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, Series I, Vol I, Letter to Jerome, #82.7) [emphasis added]

For, truly, when he pronounces anything to be untrue, he demands that he be believed in preference, and endeavours to shake our confidence in the authority of the divine Scriptures. (Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, Series I, Vol I, Letter to Jerome, #28.3.4) [emphasis added]

Sacred:

Foster and strengthen me, then, for I am, as I have said, but a child in the sacred Scriptures and in spiritual studies; (Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, Series I, Vol I, Letter from Paulinus and Therasia, #25.3) [emphasis added]

Inspired:

Take good heed, then, to these fearful words of the great apostle; and when you feel that you do not understand, put your faith in the meanwhile in the inspired word of God, (Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, Series I, Vol V, On Grace and Free Will, 1.7) [emphasis added]

I think, too, that I have so discussed the subject, that it is not so much I myself as the inspired Scripture which has spoken to you, in the clearest testimonies of truth, (Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, Series I, Vol V, On Grace and Free Will, 41) [emphasis added]

The above quotes are very clear and really need no explanation. So, let’s turn to some additional quotes on other aspects of what Augustine believed, argued for and taught.

Sufficiency of Scripture:

For though the Lord Jesus did many such acts, yet all of them are not recorded; just as this same St. John the evangelist himself testifies, that Christ the Lord both said and did many things that are not recorded; but such were chosen for record as seemed to suffice for the salvation of believers. (Tractates on the Gospel of John, 49) [emphasis added]

This is from John 21:25, but what’s interesting is that Augustine says that what was written down in the Gospels and Epistles, “were chosen for record as seemed to suffice for the salvation of believers.” Rome does not believe that the Scriptures are sufficient for salvation, but Augustine clearly did.

For all that He was minded to give for our perusal on the subject of His own doings and sayings, He commanded to be written by those disciples, whom He thus used as if they were His own hands. (The Harmony of the Gospels, Book I, Chapter 35) [emphasis added]

In the quote above, we have a couple of interesting insights into Augustine. First, when he states, “He thus used as if they were His own hands,” we see that Augustine believed that God not only divinely used the New Testament writers to create Scripture, he also said these writers were commanded to write, even though we can see from many of the NT books, the writers did not realize that they were writing Scripture. Paul may have known some of his writings were, but neither Luke or Peter seem to have known.

For among the things that are plainly laid down in Scripture are to be found all matters that concern faith and the manner of life. (On Christian Doctrine, Book II, Chapter 9) [emphasis added]

In the above quote, Augustine seems to have clearly understood that the purpose of Scripture was for all matters that pertain to faith and practice (manner of life), or how we are expected to live as believers in Christ. (2 Pet 1:3) This is what Protestants have been saying about Sola Scriptura for over 500 years, it’s about the importance and the purpose of Scripture in the believer’s life. It is the responsibility of the Church to point the believer to Scripture and to teach the truths found in Scripture so that believers can effectively follow Christ. But the emphasis is on the role of Scripture, not the Church. It is Scripture that instructs the believer on how he is to live.

This next one might be from a personal letter, but the point is still clear,

… what more can I teach you, than what we read in the Apostle? For holy Scripture sets a rule to our teaching, that we dare not be wise more than it behooves to be wise; but be wise, as himself says, unto soberness, according as unto each God has allotted the measure of faith. Be it not therefore for me to teach you any other thing, save to expound to you the words of the Teacher, and to treat of them as the Lord shall have given to me. (Of the Good of Widowhood, Chapter 2) [emphasis added]

In the quote above, Augustine points to the ‘words of the teacher’, Christ Jesus, our Lord. He is not pointing the reader to some other body of truth, such as tradition, but to God’s words in the pages of Scripture.

But who can fail to be aware that the sacred canon of Scripture, both of the Old and New Testament, is confined within its own limits, and that it stands so absolutely in a superior position to all later letters of the bishops, that about it we can hold no manner of doubt or disputation whether what is confessedly contained in it is right and true; but that all the letters of bishops which have been written, or are being written, since the closing of the canon, are liable to be refuted if there be anything contained in them which strays from the truth, either by the discourse of some one who happens to be wiser in the matter than themselves, or by the weightier authority and more learned experience of other bishops, by the authority of Councils; and further, that the Councils themselves, which are held in the several districts and provinces, must yield, beyond all possibility of doubt, to the authority of plenary Councils which are formed for the whole Christian world; and that even of the plenary Councils, the earlier are often corrected by those which follow them … (On Baptism, Against the Donatists, Book II, Chapter 3) [emphasis added]

In this quote, Augustine makes clear that it is the word of God that is superior to all bishops, which must also include the bishop of Rome. He makes it clear that if there are teachings or beliefs promoted which stray from what is taught in Scripture, they are not to be believed. In fact, they are to be refuted. He then includes councils because there are later councils that have ‘corrected’ earlier ones. That can only mean that either an earlier council was wrong, or that a later council improperly corrected an earlier one. Either way, if councils stray from what Scripture teaches, they are not to be believed either. So, it is Scripture which is to always stand above bishops and councils.

For the reasonings of any men whatsoever, even though they be Catholics [true Christians], and of high reputation, are not to be treated by us in the same way as the canonical Scriptures are treated. We are at liberty, without doing any violence to the respect which these men deserve, to condemn and reject anything in their writings, if perchance we shall find that they have entertained opinions differing from that which others or we ourselves have, by the divine help, discovered to be the truth. I deal thus with the writings of others, and I wish my intelligent readers to deal thus with mine. (Letter 148.15) [emphasis added]

And once again, in the above quote we see that no matter who the person is, they are not to be treated as authoritative as Scripture. The Scriptures are the words of God to mankind, where a person, even the bishop of Rome, is just a human being who can err. Augustine even includes himself! No one, no matter who that person is, is above Scripture in authority and inerrancy.

Let us not bring in deceitful balances, to which we may hang what weights we will and how we will, saying to suit ourselves, "This is heavy and this is light;" but let us bring forward the sacred balance out of holy Scripture, as out of the Lord’s treasure-house, and let us weigh them by it, to see which is the heavier; or rather, let us not weigh them for ourselves, but read the weights as declared by the Lord. (On Baptism, Against the Donatists, II, 9) [emphasis added]

In the above quote, we see Augustine employ the metaphor of weights and balances to point out the differences between how man operates and how Scripture operates. Mankind is filled with biases and subjective feelings which causes him to operate unjustly towards others. But God, through His Scriptures, always operates justly. His Word is His standard, which He applies fairly to all. And Scripture is the only objective standard that mankind has.

Now, I’m sure there will be some zealous Catholic, who will find a quote of Augustine’s about ‘tradition’ that they feel contradicts this overwhelming evidence of his reverence and belief in the supremacy of Scripture over and against everything else, but the question will be, as it has always been (think about the other Church fathers we’ve addressed), what does the ‘tradition’ being referred to mean in the context of what Augustine, or any Church father, wrote when he referred to it?

Clarity of Scripture:

Furthermore, whether concerning Christ, or concerning His Church, or any other matter whatsoever which is connected with your faith and life, to say nothing of ourselves, who are by no means to be compared with him who said, "Though we," at any rate, as he went on to say, "Though an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you than that which" ye have received in the lawful and evangelical Scripture, "let him be accursed." (Answer to Letters of Petilian, Bishop of Cirta, Book III, Chapter 6) [emphasis added]

Here Augustine refers to Paul and what he wrote in Gal 1:8 concerning anyone preaching another Gospel, but applies it directly to the Scriptures. Augustine boldly states that the preaching of Christ and salvation was encapsulated in what was recorded in Scripture. This, of course, clearly means that no one needs a priest or the Church for salvation. Remember the eunuch and Phillip in Acts 8? And do you remember that Phillip was not a bishop, and thus was not representing the ‘church’? But let’s get back to the quote above. This has no reference to ‘tradition’ whatsoever. So, our understanding about Jesus, His church, our faith and our life, is to come from the pages of Scripture. The very same could be said concerning the quote above about weights and balances. There is an implicit understanding that Scripture is clear on who Jesus is, the purpose of the church, how we attain salvation, and how we are to conduct our lives as believers.

All things that are read from the Holy Scriptures in order to our instruction and salvation, it behooves us to hear with earnest heed … because that which shall make us strong against insidious errors, God has been pleased to put in the Scriptures, against which no man dares to speak, who in any sort wishes to seem a Christian), … For He opened to them the Scriptures and showed them that it behooved Christ to suffer, and that all things should be fulfilled which were written of Him in the Law of Moses, and the Prophets, and the Psalms. He embraced in His discourse the whole ancient text of the Scriptures. All that there is of those former Scriptures tells of Christ; but only if it find ears. He also opened their understanding that they might understand the Scriptures. Whence we also must pray for this, that He would open our understanding. (Homily 2, on 1 John) [emphasis added]

There really cannot be any questions about the meaning of the above. Scripture protects us against error, and it is God who opens our understanding to His Word, which is the Scriptures. It isn’t the church that provides this understanding, it is God who opens our eyes to His truths when we seek to understand what we should believe and how we should live.

For the reasonings of any men whatsoever, even though they be Catholics [which should be understood to mean Christians], and of high reputation, are not to be treated by us in the same way as the canonical Scriptures are treated. We are at liberty, without doing any violence to the respect which these men deserve, to condemn and reject anything in their writings, if perchance we shall find that they have entertained opinions differing from that which others or we ourselves have, by the divine help, discovered to be the truth. I deal thus with the writings of others, and I wish my intelligent readers to deal thus with mine. (Letters, 148, Chapter 4, 15) [emphasis added]

In other words, the wisdom of man does not and cannot be compared to the wisdom found in Scripture. And even Augustine understood that his words and writings would need to be judged against what Scripture says. If his writings have value, it is only because they conform and support the clear teachings of Scripture.

Authority of Scripture:

What does “homoousios” mean, I ask, but “the Father and I are one (John 10:30)?” I should not, however, introduce the Council of Nicea to prejudice the case in my favor, nor should you introduce the Council of Ariminum that way. I am not bound by the authority of Ariminum, and you are not bound by that of Nicea. By the authority of the scriptures that are not the property of anyone, but the common witness for both of us, let position do battle with position, case with case, reason with reason. [2] [emphasis added]

Not only did Augustine see Scripture as described above, he also saw it as authoritative, being the highest authority of all. In the great debate with Arianism, Augustine understood Jesus to be God because He was described as such in Scripture, not the word, “homoousios” (or ‘of the same substance’), but the concept that Jesus and the Father were of the same substance. He quotes only a single verse but Athanasius, who wrote volumes on this, bathed his defense of the Trinity in Scripture, and Augustine was acknowledging that.

Again, I could have included many more quotes from Augustine, but I think 8 pages of evidence is quite sufficient.

His View of Tradition

We now come to an area where Protestants and Catholics disagree, since both sides of the Sola Scriptura debate claim him for their side. Because he was such a prolific writer, it is difficult to go through everything that Augustine wrote, so we will look at something the other side has written that they believe refutes Sola Scriptura. We’ve just seen that Augustine was a very strong proponent for the authority and sufficiency of Scripture, and I’ve provided the linked quotes that clearly demonstrate his support for the concept of Sola Scriptura. But Catholicism believes he held their current view of ‘tradition’, that Scripture and Tradition were co-equal in authority, and with the Church holding the ultimate authority over both.

In one of the quotes above referencing the ‘Authority of Scripture’, we saw that in his defense against the Arian, Maximinus, Augustine only wanted the issue to be settled by Scripture and not by referencing the opinions of competing councils. However, Joe Gallegos, in his section of the book, Not by Scripture Alone, argues that it was Maximinus, not Augustine, who appealed to Scripture as the highest authority. Gallegos wrote,

Maximinus insisted on adhering to Scripture alone throughout the debate. He did not allow traditional formulas such as the Nicaean Creed or ‘homoousion,’ since he did not find these in Scripture. Therefore, the oral debate between Maximinus and Augustine was based on Scripture, since this was the only common authority between them. In the debate and his follow-up replies, Augustine imparted the ecclesiastical understanding of Scripture and never wavered from the traditional Catholic faith. Not surprisingly, Maximinus imparted his own Arian understanding of Scriptures and rejected Catholic tradition. Maximinus not only exhibited a great facility in handling Scripture, he also possessed great oratory skills. His deftness in Scripture allowed him to defeat Heraclius, a disciple of Augustine, in debate. This defeat brought the bishop of Hippo out of retirement to debate Maximinus. The first series of passages below are from Maximinus. These passages clearly show Maximinus’ insistence and reliance on Scripture alone, apart from any traditional landmark. He even appeals to 2 Timothy 3:16, a favorite passage often used by Protestant apologists today, in defending the concept of scripture alone. [3]

And after reading the quotes provided in his section of the book, one appears to be left with the impression Gallegos insinuates. However, according to William Webster, Roland Teske, the translator of Augustine’s works, stated the following,

Early in the debate, when Maximinus appeals to the Council of Ariminum, Augustine insists that both parties leave aside appeals to councils and carry on the debate on the basis of the scripture which they both accept rather than on the basis of conciliar authorities over which they are divided. Maximinus had appealed to the Council of Ariminum (Rimini), where in 359 an Arian creed was ratified by 330 Western bishops. It was of this council that Jerome wrote: ‘The world groaned and was astonished to find itself Arian.’ Accordingly, Augustine agrees not to appeal to the Council of Nicea, as Maximinus gives up appealing to that of Ariminum, so that the debate proceeds on the basis of the scripture common to both parties. [4] [emphasis added]

If you will remember, I quoted this specific statement from Augustine above, so let’s read it again.

What does “homoousios” mean, I ask, but “the Father and I are one (John 10:30)?” I should not, however, introduce the Council of Nicea to prejudice the case in my favor, nor should you introduce the Council of Ariminum that way. I am not bound by the authority of Ariminum, and you are not bound by that of Nicea. By the authority of the scriptures that are not the property of anyone, but the common witness for both of us, let position do battle with position, case with case, reason with reason. [5] [emphasis added]

As you can see, it was Augustine that realized that appealing to the tradition of councils, or their respective decisions, would not prove anything since each side had councils to appeal to. It wasn’t that Nicea was wrong, it was that councils were the thoughts of men, maybe even Godly men in the Church, but men nonetheless. Scripture, on the other hand, is the inerrant and infallible words of God to mankind, and only Scripture could resolve the debate. This showed that it was Scripture, and not tradition or the Church, that stood as the highest authority.

By misrepresenting the history of this debate, Gallegos seems to have attempted to associate the Protestant position of Sola Scriptura with that of the heresy of Arianism. That insinuation would be as follows, ‘Arians believed in Sola Scriptura, as Protestants do today. Therefore, Protestants are heretics like Arians were if they embrace Sola Scriptura.’ This, of course, is absurd, since the debate between Maximinus and Augustine was about the nature of the Trinity and the uncreated nature of Jesus, which Arians rejected. But trying to change the historical facts in this interchange to suit your beliefs is never the right way to prove your case.

What I find interesting concerning the argument that Gallegos employed is that if tradition and the authority of the Church were so important back then as they seem to be today for Catholicism, why was it Scripture that defeated Arianism? Historically, anyone who studies Athanasius would see the very same thing, that he relied upon Scripture to demonstrate that Jesus is God, a concept that was and still is thoroughly supported throughout Scripture. I also find it interesting that Arians believed in the authority and sufficiency of Scripture, just as the early church fathers did, and just as Protestant do today. And as we’ve already seen above, just as Augustine did.

But to take this a step further, the disagreement between Augustine and Maximinus was not about the authority and sufficiency of Scripture, since they both supported these positions. The disagreement was not about Sola Scriptura but about ‘interpretation.’ The Arians believed it was wrong to use words not found in Scripture to communicate biblical concepts, such as ‘homoousios’, to describe Jesus as being ‘of the same substance’ as the Father, or usage of the word ‘trinity’ to describe the nature of God. This, once again, is absurd as any sermon or homily would use non-biblical terms for the same purpose, which a random review of the Church fathers in any era would demonstrate. As Webster points out,

The Arians isolated biblical passages, interpreting them out of the context of the broader teaching of Scripture. They did not interpret Scripture in the light of its overall ‘scope’ (as Athanasius put it). Therefore, in the name of Scripture, they introduced teachings which undermined its true meaning. [6]

So, Gallegos appears to have confused the nature of the debate and seems to have rewritten some history to suit his overall purpose along the way.

Next Gallegos attempted to show that Augustine had appealed to the authority of the Church in the debate, but that is not historically accurate either. Terms like ‘trinity’ and ‘homoousios’ became ‘tradition’ for expressing a biblical concept, not because of the authority of the Church, but because the concept could be shown to exist in Scripture. We know that God can be expressed as a Trinity because Scripture teaches it. But Augustine “did not blindly follow the Church’s teaching concerning the Trinity; he did so because he was convinced it was taught in Scripture.” [7]

Augustine seems to echo Basil’s sentiment,

But we do not rest only on the fact that such is the tradition of the Fathers; for they too followed the sense of Scripture, and started from the evidence which, a few sentences back, I deduced from Scripture and laid before you. (Basil, On the Holy Spirit, 7.16)

The Catholic Church places great importance upon the church’s authority, as well as its councils. But as we see from both Augustine and Basil, both relied upon Scripture for their beliefs, not the teachings of the Church, even if they were one and the same. [8]

So let me give you an example of what I mean. Protestants do not accept the authority of the Pope, which is also an extension of what is believed to be the Catholic Church's authority. Let’s take the Pelagian controversy [9] that directly involved Augustine. The North African bishops, including Augustine, condemned Pelagius, where the Roman bishop, Zosimus, affirmed his orthodoxy. The bishop of Rome demanded that the African bishops retract their condemnation, but the North African bishops refused to do so because they believed that the Church’s authority was in opposition to the teachings of Scripture. For the North African bishops, it was Scripture which had a higher authority than the bishop of Rome. And in the end, the African bishops prevailed. So, if the Church's or the Pope’s authority is truly higher than Scripture, then technically Scripture would have to be wrong for that to occur. So, if you believe that the Church or the Pope has a higher authority than Scripture, then you realistically cannot hold that Scripture is infallible.

Conclusion

I spent some additional time on Augustine because the Catholic Church has declared him to be a ‘doctor’ of the church, which means he has been recognized as someone that has contributed significantly to theology and/or doctrine through his research, study, or writings. This would seem to insinuate that Catholicism places more importance upon what he said versus what other Church fathers said. And it is my position that he demonstrated his belief in Sola Scriptura by his defense of the importance of Scripture in the lives of believers and in its ability to defend core Christian doctrines such as the Trinity and the divinity of Christ (being both fully God and fully man). In fact, all of the early Church fathers we’ve covered in this blog series relied solely on Scripture to refute and defend both unbelievers and the heresies that developed within the Church. I would also maintain the same is true of the Church fathers we did not cover during this same timeframe.

We saw how Augustine relied upon Scripture throughout his writings, and we also saw how one Catholic apologist attempted to rewrite a little church history to make it appear that Arians were the first to attempt to use a ‘Scripture only’ position to refute Augustine. But this type of defense only works if your opponent is ignorant of church history. And when Augustine’s writings are properly reviewed, they reveal that it was Augustine that promoted a ‘Scripture only’ position to refute the Arians, and he did that quite masterfully.

So, this concludes our investigation of the early Church fathers in the patristic age up through Augustine. If there was going to be a case for ‘tradition’ in these first centuries, it would have existed in at least one of the fathers I’ve presented. So let me remind you of the Church fathers that have been addressed - they were: Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius, Chrysostom and Augustine. This is arguably the “who’s who” of Church fathers in the first 400 years of the Church, and what we found was that none of them wrote anything about ‘tradition’, as has been defined by the Council of Trent and since.

I realize that one possible criticism might be that I’m expecting these Church fathers to have written about oral traditions that were never supposed to be written down in the first place. But both Gnosticism and Arianism posed a real and substantial theological threat to the church’s doctrine that took centuries to overcome. If this body of oral tradition truly exists and is co-equal to the authority and sufficiency of Scripture, don’t you think one of them would have broken down and reached into that ‘wealth of knowledge’ to help them defend their positions against these heresies? But what we saw is that none did, even when Arianism had captured the majority of bishops in the Church, including, for a time, the bishop of Rome.

We’ve made it through four centuries, a little over 400 years, of Church fathers and haven’t found a single instance of the modern day type of tradition used, believed, or explained by any of the Church fathers from the Apostles to Agustine. At this point I believe that ‘firewall’ is complete. Any concept of an oral Apostolic transmitted doctrine of ‘tradition’ that came after this point in church history has to be developed or a later invention. This can be our only conclusion for the type of ‘tradition’ the Catholic Church maintains has existed and has been promoted as equal in authority to Scripture, since it does not seem to have originated in anything taught by the Apostles. Without evidence of its existence in the first four centuries, there really is no reason to go further with the Church fathers - no matter what they may have written about Scripture and/or ‘tradition’ after this point, one has to conclude the modern concept of ‘tradition’ appears to have been either developed in the later centuries or is an outright invention in the 16th century at the Council of Trent, for the sole purpose of ‘refuting’ Protestantism. Either way, it does not exist and is not binding on any believer, including Catholics.

The other conclusion we are left with is that Sola Scriptura, although never directly mentioned by any known Church father, is the concept all of them seemed to have believed based upon their reverence for and complete trust in the authority of Scripture in their own lives and those of the believers they fought to protect and teach.

Accordingly the Holy Spirit has, with admirable wisdom and care for our welfare, so arranged the Holy Scriptures as by the plainer passages to satisfy our hunger, and by the more obscure to stimulate our appetite. For almost nothing is dug out of those obscure passages which may not be found set forth in the plainest language elsewhere.

Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, II.6.8

Footnotes

1. I found the quotes from the referenced article and provided a link to each for the reader to view for themselves. Please see: Augustine Actually (and Clearly) Affirmed Sola Scriptura
2. Works Of Saint Augustine, Arianism and Other Heresies, Answer to Maximinus the Arian, Book II:14.3, Part 1, vol 18, ed. John Rotelle, OSA, trans. Roland J. Teske, New York: New York City Press, 1995, as quoted in David King and William Webster, Holy Scripture, Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol III, (Battle Creek, WA: Christian Resource, Inc, 2001), pp. 144-145.
3. Robert Sungenis, Not By Scripture Alone, ed. (Santa Barbara: Queenship, 1997), online PDF version from academia.edu, p. 396.
4. William Webster, Holy Scripture, Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol II, (Battle Creek, WA: Christian Resource, Inc, 2001), p. 82.
5. Works Of Saint Augustine, Arianism and Other Heresies, Answer to Maximinus the Arian, Book II:14.3, Part 1, vol 18, ed. John Rotelle, OSA, trans. Roland J. Teske, New York: New York City Press, 1995, as quoted in David King and William Webster, Holy Scripture, Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol III, (Battle Creek, WA: Christian Resource, Inc, 2001), pp. 144-145.
6. William Webster, Holy Scripture, Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol II, (Battle Creek, WA: Christian Resource, Inc, 2001), p. 82.
7. Ibid, p. 82.
8. Please note, I am not trying to insinuate that every teaching of the Church (Catholic or Protestant), either today or 1500 yrs ago, was unscriptural. I’m simply pointing out that the ‘source’ of our teachings should be Scripture. If any Church teaching is unbiblical, it should be refuted by Scripture. As an example, this is why Protestants oppose the Catholic Church's teachings on Mary - they are patently unbiblical since none of them can be found in the pages of Scripture.
9. “Pelagianism is the unbiblical teaching that Adam’s sin did not affect future generations of humanity. According to Pelagianism, Adam’s sin was solely his own, and Adam’s descendants did not inherit a sinful nature passed down to them. God creates every human soul directly, and therefore every human soul starts out in innocence, free from sin. We are not basically bad, says the Pelagian heresy; we are basically good.” (What is Pelagianism?)

All Scriptures quotes are from the New American Standard Bible, 1995 Revision, unless otherwise noted. Verse links from Blue Letter Bible, https://www.blueletterbible.org/

For the best treatment of Sola Scriptura in book form, please consider investing in the 3 volume set of: David T. King and William Webster, Holy Scripture, Ground and Pillar of Our Faith, Volume 1, Volume 2, Volume 3 (Battle Creek, WA: Christian Resource, Inc, 2001). It's the guide I'm using to integrate some of my own study on this important subject. This book set is inexpensive and worth every penny.