The Middle Ages on Scripture and Tradition

In part 26 of my Sola Scriptura series, I am going to skip the church fathers that led the Church into the latter part of the Middle Ages and focus on that era as a whole, even though I’m going to mention one specific Church father during this timeframe. Why? Because of all the reasons I’ve already given multiple times. We have a 400-year firewall from the Apostles to Augustine where there is simply no mention of the kind of ‘tradition’ that the Roman Catholic Church says has always existed according to the Council of Trent and thereafter.

The Middle Ages can be a nebulous term that sometimes refers to an era that is anywhere from 400 to 800 years in length in the minds of most people. So, I’m going to be using the term in a general sense. After looking into this era more closely than I had in the past, it is now my contention that the reliance on Scripture was really no different in the Middle Ages than it was during the patristic age of the Church we’ve already examined.

Now, if you are attempting to enter this conversation on part 26, and haven’t read the previous 25 parts, please understand that I’ve been building this case stone upon stone in all the blogs of this series, which started in part 1. So, if you need to catch up, you can find the entire series here, Sola Scriptura.

The Middle Ages

I will admit that I had every intention of skipping the Middle Ages, as there are so many unbiblical beliefs and doctrines that develop during or come to fruition in this era, that it’s hard to want to study anything in this time frame. And I also admit that I am not a fan of Thomas Aquinas and the Scholastic Theology he employed in his thoughts and writings that seemed to rule this era. But Volume II of Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith has changed my mind, although not about wanting to study Aquinas and his writings.

It has always been understood by most Protestants who care enough to read Church history, that the Church had already gone off the rails by this point in time. After looking more closely at this era, that view isn’t completely wrong, but it’s also not completely right, as there was at least one thing that made it through the Middle Ages. To my surprise the concept that seemed to linger on through most of the era was Sola Scriptura.

Catholics are always saying “no one ever used the term ‘sola scriptura’ before the Reformation,” but as you will soon see, that is yet another mistake that Catholic scholars are wrong about. Another of the lingering stereotypes for the medieval period of the Church is that there was an appeal to the authority of both scripture and tradition as theological sources of biblical truth. It is also assumed that the Council of Trent utilized all eras of the Church’s history to prove its two-source theory (Scripture and sacred tradition) of inspired Christian truths. As we have already seen, this was not the case for the patristic era of the Church, and as you will see, is not going to be as strong as previously believed for this era either.

One has to understand that the Council of Trent was held for the singular purpose of repudiating the Reformation. It was not convened to investigate whether any of the Reformation’s conclusions were right or wrong. In the Catholic Church’s view, the Reformation’s teachings were wrong and needed to be refuted at all costs. In the case of Sola Scriptura, the Reformation shined a spotlight on unbiblical beliefs like papal authority and infallibility, Mary and Saint worship (veneration), icon worship, penance, purgatory, etc. By that time, these practices had already been integrated into the Catholic Church’s sacramental system and their redefinition of biblical salvation and would have forced them to admit that the Pope, the Church and its teachings were fallible.

But the question one has to ask themselves is: who is infallible - the Church or Scripture? If there is a theological disagreement between the two, which one is correct? And I’ll give you a great example. The Catholic Church states that the Scriptures alone cannot lead one to salvation, only the Church and her teachings can do that. Hence, the seven sacraments were needed to fill in the gaps where Scripture does not support some of the Church’s beliefs on things like penance, indulgences and purgatory. Jesus, in the Scriptures, arguably introduced only two: baptism and communion. As for the two-source theory of Scripture and Tradition, first and foremost Scripture does not support this belief, nor did the Apostles, and likewise nor did any of the Church fathers in the first 400 years of Christianity, as has already been documented. We looked closely at 2 Tim 3:16 and saw that Paul taught that Scripture was the source of divine knowledge of God and salvation. If the Church is required for one to receive salvation, then what is the purpose of Jesus’ teachings which state otherwise? The same can be said for the Apostles, especially Paul’s writings.

So, with that as our introduction, let’s dig in.

McGrath on the Medieval Church

The first person we will be consulting is Alister McGrath, an Irish and Anglican theologian, historian and apologist. He stated the following concerning the medieval Christian period,

The Council of Trent, in its decree on scripture and tradition, has generally been regarded as endorsing the medieval view in recognizing these two distinct theological sources. … In fact, however, it is becoming increasingly clear that the medieval period in general was characterized by its conviction that scripture was the sole material base of Christian theology, thus forcing us to reconsider what, if anything, was distinctive concerning the Reformation principle of sola scriptura. [1] [emphasis added]

So, even though the medieval church period has always been assumed to have supported the conclusions of Trent on Scripture and tradition, a reexamination of the available medieval historical source material is telling a different story. For McGrath, he asked what was distinctive about the Reformation's call for Sola Scriptura when the patristic age was demonstrating the same thing? This was even supported by Duns Scotus (1265-1308 AD), a Scottish Catholic priest and Franciscan friar, university professor, philosopher and theologian who agreed that, “theology does not concern anything except what is contained in scripture, and what may be drawn (elici) from this,” the latter being “contained there ‘virtualiter’ [virtually].” [2]

McGrath concludes with this,

… it is evident from even the most superficial reading of late medieval sources that scripture, and scripture alone, was regarded as the materially sufficient source and norm of Christian theology. No other theological source could be regarded as having this status. Is this not what is expressed by the Reformation principle of sola scriptura? [3] [emphasis in original]

So, if the medieval period upheld the ‘material’ sufficiency of Scripture and was no different than what was professed by the Reformers, then how was it different from what we found in the early Church fathers' writings? One can only conclude that this is exactly what the Reformation meant and defended concerning Sola Scriptura.

Giesler on Aquinas

I now want to turn to a quote from Protestant apologist, Norman Giesler,

Aquinas insists that ‘the author of holy Scripture is God.’ Thus, ‘revelation is the basis of sacred Scripture or doctrine.’ For holy Scripture looks at things in that they are ‘divinely revealed.’ So it is ‘in Holy Scripture, through which the divine will is revealed to us.’ Citing 2 Tim 3:16 (‘all Scripture is inspired of God’), Aquinas refers to the Bible as ‘Divinely inspired Scripture.’ … While many in modern times have denied the inerrancy of Scripture, there is no question where Aquinas stands on the issue. In his commentary on Job he declares that ‘it is heretical to say that any falsehood whatsoever is contained either in the gospels or in any canonical Scripture.’ … Agreeing with Augustine, Aquinas confesses of the books of Scripture, ‘I firmly believe that none of their authors have erred in composing them’ and refers to Scripture as ‘unfailing truth.’ [4]

I first want to state, as I’ve done with other Church fathers, that Thomas Aquinas is NOT perfect or infallible in his teachings and writings. He may be a ‘doctor’ of theology according to the Catholic Church, but he’s still just a human being like the rest of us, with the same failings. Second, as I said above, I don’t particularly like Aquinas and his scholasticism, so I purposely read very little of Aquinas’ works. But even he understood the true nature, importance and superiority of Scripture over everything else.

Aquinas rightly understood that God is the author of Scripture. So, if that is true, then God cannot lie (Num 23:19) nor can He make a mistake. Scripture has to be 100 percent correct in its representation of God and His truths, or none of it is believable, authoritative or inerrant. So, for Aquinas, his statements alone, as quoted by Giesler, mean that Scripture has to be without error.

Now, I know you might be thinking, “where does the Catholic Church teach that Scripture is anything but inerrant?” It is true that they teach that Scripture is authoritative and inerrant, but it’s actually rather hard to reconcile that position when one also states that Scripture alone cannot lead one to salvation. If Scripture cannot do that, then who or what can? For Catholicism, that answer is the Church. [5] This then would put the Church higher in authority than Scripture, and if the Church and Scripture find themselves contradicting each other, the Church would have the higher authority and thus the final authority, and could then correct Scripture. That would mean that Christians would have to reject a passage in Scripture if it contradicted a teaching of the Catholic Church. That would also mean that Scripture was not authoritative or inerrant. There is simply not enough time or space in this blog to write about why that is an absurd and contradictory viewpoint but I'm confident that you can see the issue here.

Next, Aquinas understood that Scripture was divinely revealed to mankind. This statement means that Scripture has to be inspired, authoritative and inerrant in the believer’s life. There would be no reason to divinely reveal Scripture to mankind if it has no role in the believer’s life and does not show how mankind can gain salvation.

Looking at the entire quote about Aquinas’ beliefs about Scripture, we can easily see the importance that Scripture had in the Church during Aquinas’ day. In fact, Aquinas was only echoing the views of both Augustine and Basil of Caesarea when he quoted Augustine stating that “... the teachings of the fathers was received as authoritative only when it could be demonstrated that it was true to Scripture.” [6] So, this quote by Aquinas reinforces what has already been presented about Augustine’s view of Scripture. It also meant that Aquinas thought Scripture was the highest authoritative source.

On Sola Scriptura

This whole series is based upon the belief and the demonstrable fact that the church and the early church fathers always understood that Scripture was and still is the Christian’s highest authority since it is the only infallible and inerrant set of truths that inform and guide the Christian faith. And this is really no different than the concept of the ‘Trinity,’ another word that is not in the New Testament. Yet, belief in the Trinity was and still is a test of orthodoxy that Christians and the Church have used for almost 2000 years. Why? Because the Scriptures present the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit as a Trinity in virtually every book of the New Testament. Maybe the importance of Scripture was not in every book of the NT but for some reason the early church fathers understood clearly their importance, authority, infallibility and inerrancy to teach and guide believers into the faith that has radically changed the entire world.

When I started this study, I kept hearing and reading that ‘sola Scriptura’ cannot be true because the words were not in Scripture, even though we see that 2 Tim 3:16 clearly teaches the concept. Additionally, I heard and read that there were no church fathers that taught this concept, yet we have a 400-year firewall of Church fathers that definitely understood this concept even if they never coined the phrase. And now, I’ve stumbled upon a Church father that actually said these exact words! To my great surprise, it was Thomas Aquinas. In Aquinas’ commentary on the 21st chapter of John we find an actual usage of the term ‘sola Scriptura.’ Let’s read it together.

Thus, John says, we know that his testimony is true: "If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed" (Gal 1:9). The reason for this is that only the canonical scriptures are the standard of faith. [7] [emphasis added]

If you want to read this from the source for yourself, the link is in the footnote below. But it is truly a remarkable statement because we have always been told that no Church father ever used the phrase, “sola Scriptura.” In the quote above you can see that Aquinas used the phrase, “only the canonical scriptures are the standard of faith.” The Latin that Aquinas wrote was, “sola canonica Scriptura est regula fidei.” Again, if you don’t believe me, follow the link in the footnote below and search for the word, ‘canonical’ in chapter 21 of his commentary on the Gospel of John. It’s clear as day. And not only does he write the words, ‘sola Scriptura’, he goes on to state that it is Scripture alone that is the Christian’s standard of faith.

Webster points out that Aquinas,

... demonstrates that the Reformation principle of sola Scriptura was not a novel theological concept. It can claim historical continuity with the Church from the patristic age up through the Middle Ages. [8]

More Supporting Analysis

Catholic medieval scholar, Brian Tierney, said this concerning the relationship between Scripture and Tradition in the majority of the Middle Ages,

But, before the thirteenth century, there is little trace in their works of the view that Tradition constituted a source of divine revelation separate from Scripture and little inclination to set up a distinction – still less an opposition – between Scriptural revelation and church doctrine. … The men of the Middle Ages lived in the Bible and by the Bible. When twelfth century theologians observed – as they sometimes did – that many things were held by the church that were not to be found in Scripture they seem to have had in mind only liturgical customs or pious practices. An extra-Scriptural source of faith like the Apostles’ Creed (...) was held to define various tenets of Christian doctrine with absolute fidelity; but it was not considered to be a body of revealed truth supplementary to sacred Scripture. Rather, the Creed could be called in the twelfth century a ‘summary’ of the content of Scripture. [9] [emphasis added]

In the above quote, we see clearly that for 1200 years of Church history a modern Catholic medieval scholar did not see the concept of two sources of truth, one Scripture and the other Tradition; there was only one source of truth, Scripture. He saw that the theologians and priests of the Middle Ages lived in and by Scripture. But this is also something that this entire study on Sola Scriptura has stressed over and over. From the Apostles to Augustine, each of the major church fathers we looked at had stressed that it was Scripture that directed them in all things pertaining to life and godliness (2 Pet 1:3). So, it's good to know that even through the majority of the Middle Ages, the Creeds were still seen as a summary of the content of Scripture. And if that wasn’t enough to sway your view, he also threw in that beliefs not found in Scripture but held by the church, were simply customs like the liturgy of a church and/or pious practices. These were the real ‘traditions’ of the church, just as we’ve discussed in earlier blogs. And these ‘traditions’ were not equal to Scripture; they were just customs that were being practiced.

Richard Muller makes the connection between the Medieval approach to Scripture and that of Protestant Reformers. These were people that would have been the most influential. He wrote,

The reading and study of Scripture was central to the theological enterprise of the Middle Ages. Indeed, before the late twelfth century, the Bible was the only ‘set text’ in the medieval schools … Just as the medieval view of the text, canon and exegesis is the proper background against which the Reformation and the subsequent development of Protestant approaches to Scripture must be understood, so also is the medieval doctrine of Scripture the necessary background to an understanding of the development of an orthodox Protestant doctrine of Scripture. With striking uniformity, the medieval doctors declare the authority of Scripture as the divinely given source of all doctrines of the faith … [10] [emphasis added]

Muller continues with something that seems to be attributed to Albert the Great (1200-1280 AD) and Alphonsus Vargas,

… it is not possible to doubt a single word of Scripture. Reason itself may fall into contradiction but Scripture stands against error as a foundation of truth higher than anything present within the human soul … Alphonsus Vargas held as a basic maxim that all theological statements rested on either ‘a proposition of sacred scripture or were deduced from statements in sacred scripture.’ Indeed, it was the assumption of the theologians of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries that Scripture was the materially sufficient ‘source and norm’ for all theological formulation, granting the inspiration and resulting authority of the text. [11] [emphasis added]

So, both Albert and Alphonsus held that Scripture was higher than any other source of truth, higher than tradition and higher even than the authority of the Church. It was Scripture which stood against all error because it was inspired by God. And it was Scripture that was the inspired source of all doctrines because these doctrines had to be deduced from that inspired source.

And then there is the French Catholic and former Lutheran, Louis Bouyer (1913-2004), who came to a similar conclusion,

… it is right to insist that this narrow ‘biblicism’ is by no means to be confused with the affirmation that the Bible, and in one sense the Bible alone, is the ‘Word of God’ more directly and fully than any of its other expressions, since it alone is so inspired by God as to have him for its author. [12] [emphasis added]

So, if God is the author of Scripture, why are we searching for other sources of inspired truth? We’ve had it for over 2000 years, what else do we need? Honestly, the only reason I can think of for needing another source of truth (‘tradition’, a magisterium, etc.) is if, for some reason, we want or need to inject other supposed ‘truths’ into Christianity that are not found in Scripture! Frankly, Scripture is the only source of truth believers have ever or will ever need. Christians already have enough trouble trying to follow the 66 books of the Bible, much less a bunch of undocumented oral truths called ‘tradition’ which were supposedly passed down verbally over the last 2000 years and cannot be described in full or in part by anyone. And if they cannot be known, they cannot be proven to have ever existed, which is what we see from the historical record.

He then continues after quoting from Augustine’s 19th letter to Jerome, which we’ve already covered, with this:

… St. Thomas [Aquinas], far from moderating this expression, brings out its doctrine most precisely in the beginning of the Summa Theologica. The scriptural books alone, in and by themselves, enjoy absolute authority, since the Christian faith rests entirely on the revelation made by God to the Apostles, and before then to the prophets: it is handed down to us with the direct authority of God only in the canonical books. [13] [emphasis added]

He then concludes with this from Duns Scotus,

According to him, Scripture alone is necessary and sufficient to make known to man the truths of salvation. That does not mean that all other kinds of writings, within and even outside the Church, may not be useful in this respect: but they cannot do more than throw additional light on our understanding of Scripture. Likewise, all the work of theologians and doctors only serves to bring out the content of Scripture. [14] [emphasis added]

And finally, one last quote from Roman Catholic scholar, George Tavard,

The greatest centuries of the Middle Ages – twelfth and thirteenth – were thus faithful to the patristic concept of ‘Scripture alone.’ [15]

So, as we conclude this section, it should be clear that there is an abundant list of theologians, both Protestant and Catholic, who saw the medieval era no different than what we found during the patristic era - a total reliance on Scripture as their only source for Christian truths.

Origins of the Two Source Theory

Unfortunately, this sole reliance on Scripture begins to change in the latter portion of the Middle Ages, which seems to have occurred after the 14th century, which Heiko Oberman documented in his book, The Harvest of Medieval Theology.

He writes of two opposing views on tradition that developed after the fourteenth century which he calls Tradition I and Tradition II. Tradition I is the historic position of the patristic and early Middle Ages, that Scripture contains all the truths necessary for salvation. Scripture is the materially sufficient source of all doctrine for the Church and tradition the authoritative ecclesiastical interpretation of that standard. Tradition II, however, made tradition more than the authoritative interpretation of Scripture. It became a source of revelation, supposedly containing truths which were handed down orally from apostles and independent of Scripture. This meant that Scripture was not materially sufficient. [16]

He continued with this,

Tradition II, refers to the written and unwritten part of the apostolic message as approved by the Church … Ecclesiastical tradition, including canon law, are invested with the same degree of authority as that of Holy Scripture. [17]

As you can see, this is a significant change in what we’ve seen from the Church fathers we have looked at in previous blogs of this series, as well as what we have just learned about the first part of the Middle Ages in this blog. What brought on this change? Why would you suddenly ‘develop’ such a concept when the history of the church stands in complete opposition to this? Why would you need to? What would be the purpose? We are left to speculate since only the Catholic Church can answer these questions and they refuse to do so. Or we get some nonsense about ‘tradition’ always being part of the revelation of God from the Apostles until today, and we know that to be false.

We know what happened in the beginning of the 16th century and we know that this two source theory of Scripture and Tradition was used by the Catholic Church as one of its responses to the Protestant Reformation as part of its conclusions submitted by the Council of Trent. I have to agree with Webster as he summarized Oberman’s point that,

... sanctioning tradition as a vehicle of revelation, thereby rendering Scripture materially insufficient, as inconsistent with the historic testimony of the patristic and Middle Ages. The opinion of the fathers and theologians throughout the history of the Church and up to the Reformation was overwhelmingly in favor of the Reformation principle of sola Scriptura and antithetical to the position of the Council of Trent. Contrary to the claims by Roman Catholic apologists, the principle of sola Scriptura is not only biblical, it is historical. It is Roman Catholic teaching, as defined by the Council of Trent, which is, in fact, unhistorical. [18] [emphasis added]

Conclusion

This concludes our journey through the Church fathers, a journey I hope you’ve enjoyed reading. There is so much more about each of these men but we had to limit our study to their understanding of Scripture and tradition.

For this last journey through the Church fathers, we learned that even though we skipped over 500 to 700 years of church history, the Middle Ages wasn’t that different from the patristic age of Irenaeus, Athanasius and Augustine when it came to their views of Scripture and what constituted ‘tradition.’ Even the likes of Thomas Aquinas, the single most important writer of this era, wrote that Scripture was the only standard needed for the Christian faith. And it was Aquinas who seems to have coined the term, Sola Scriptura.

The Middle Ages might have some disturbing doctrines, beliefs and behaviors that should never be believed, practiced or emulated. But their Church ‘doctors’ at least held on to the view that Scripture was the sole standard for which all doctrines must be judged against.

That said, we are not done with our sola Scriptura journey.

“It is impossible either to say or fully to understand anything about God beyond what has been divinely proclaimed to us, whether told or revealed, by the sacred declarations of the Old and New Testaments.”

St. John of Damascus (676 – 749 AD)

Footnotes

1. William Webster, Holy Scripture, Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol II, (Battle Creek, WA: Christian Resource, Inc, 2001), p. 88.
2. Ibid, p. 88.
3. Ibid, p. 89.
4. Ibid, p. 89.
5. See Matt Slick article, Summary of process of salvation in Roman Catholicism.
6. William Webster, Holy Scripture, Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol II, (Battle Creek, WA: Christian Resource, Inc, 2001), p. 89.
7. Commentary on the Gospel of St. John, Chapter 21, by St. Thomas Aquinas, translated by Fabian R. Larcher, O.P..
8. Ibid, p. 90.
9. Ibid, p. 90.
10. Ibid, p. 91.
11. Ibid, p. 91.
12. Ibid, pp. 91-92.
13. Ibid, p. 92.
14. Ibid, p. 92.
15. Ibid, p. 92.
16. Ibid, pp. 92-93.
17. Heiko Oberman, The Harvest of Medieval Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1967), pp. 372-373), as quoted in William Webster, Holy Scripture, Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol II, (Battle Creek, WA: Christian Resource, Inc, 2001), p. 93.
18. William Webster, Holy Scripture, Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol II, (Battle Creek, WA: Christian Resource, Inc, 2001), p. 93.

This blog has a heavy reliance upon the book, Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith, Volume II. pgs 88 through 93.

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.