The Shape of Sola Scriptura

the Shape of
Sola Scriptura

Kei th A . M athi son

canonpress
Moscow, Idaho
Published by Canon Press
P.O. Box 8729, Moscow, ID 83843
800–488–2034 | www.canonpress.com

Keith A. Mathison, The Shape of Sola Scriptura

Copyright © 2001 by Keith A. Mathison

Cover design by David Dalbey.

Printed in the United States of America.

All Scripture quotations are taken from the New King James Version.
Copyright © 1979, 1982, 1984, 1988 by Thomas Nelson, Inc. Used by
permission. All rights reserved.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored

in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form by any means, electronic,
mechanical, photocopy, recording, or otherwise, without prior permission
of the publisher, except as provided by USA copyright law.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Mathison, Keith A.
The shape of sola scriptura / Keith A. Mathison.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN-10: 1-885767-74-9 (pbk.)
ISBN-13: 978-1-88576-774-5 (pbk.)
1. Bible–Evidences, authority, etc. 2. Protestant churches–Doctrines.
I. Title.
BS480 .M36 2001
220.1–dc21 2001000512

09 10 11 12 13 14 15 12 11 10 9 8 7
 To my father and mother.

Parents are the pride of their children

Proverbs 17:6
 Contents
Acknowledgments 9
Foreword 11
Introduction 13

PART O NE: T HE H ISTORICAL C ONTEXT

1. The Early Church 19
2. The Middle Ages 49
3. Martin Luther and John Calvin 83
4. The Radical Reformation,
the Counter-Reformation, and
Post-Reformation Developments 123

PART TWO: T HE W ITNESS OF S CRIPTURE

5. Scripture on Scripture and Tradition 157
6. Scripture on the Church 183

PART T HREE: T HE T HEOLOGICAL

N ECESSITY OF S OLA S CRIPTURA
7. A Critique of the Roman Catholic and
Eastern Orthodox Positions 209
8. A Critique of the Evangelical Doctrine
of Solo Scriptura 237
9. The Doctrine of Sola Scriptura 255

PART F OUR : O BJECTIONS AND I SSUES

10. Answering Objections 285
11. The Canon, the Church,
and the Creeds 313

Conclusion 345
Bibliography 349
Index of Authors 357
Index of Scripture 361
 Acknowledgments

As I reflect upon the completion of this book, I cannot help but

smile in wonder at the amazing providence of God. When I began
to study this topic almost five years ago, I did not think that I
wanted to write a book on the subject. After several years of study
my thoughts on the matter changed somewhat. I became abso-
lutely certain that I did not want to write a book on the subject.
It is not that I do not like the topic. One cannot study something
in depth for five years unless he has at least some interest in it. The
problem was the sometimes overwhelming complexity involved.
It seemed at times as if every question raised ten further ques-
tions, and each of those ten questions raised ten more and so on.
This book only exists because Doug Jones at Canon Press
asked me to write it. I want to thank him for asking me to do this
because I may have never attempted it otherwise. I would also
like to thank my beautiful wife Tricia for putting up once again
with almost daily trips to and from the library. I want to thank my
daughter Sarah for being such a joy and for reminding me to take
frequent breaks for “play time.” I also want to thank my mom and
my dad for their constant encouragement.
There are several others who contributed to this project in dif-
ferent ways. I would like to thank Roy Bennett, David Temples,
Darren Edgington and Tom Forest for numerous conversations
and discussions during the years when I was beginning to study
this issue and wrestle with the many implications involved. I
would also like to thank Ethan Harris for once again bearing the
heavy burden of reading the first draft.

9
 Foreword

As Christians continue to struggle against modernity and post-

modernity, the term “medieval” is slowly and wonderfully be-
coming more of a crown than a term of abuse, especially in
thoughtful Protestant circles. C.S. Lewis once quipped that the
more medieval he became in his outlook, the farther from Ro-
man Catholicism he seemed to grow. The history of the doctrine
of sola Scriptura tends to produce the same effect in many of us.
Once one gets beyond the superficial, individualistic, confused
accounts of the doctrine presented in contemporary Evangelical-
ism, this teaching becomes very natural, organic, medieval, and
apostolic.
In contrast, Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox accounts
fall out of rather perfectionistic and rationalistic commitments
that are alien to the earthiness of biblical reality. Submitting to an
infallible magisterium requires relatively little faith; everything
is, in principle, neat and clean, like a doctor’s office or a robot
husband. A perfect husband would make for a very easy mar-
riage; faith wouldn’t be hard at all. He could never go wrong. But
most wives require great faith. Submission takes on much more
fascinating dimensions when marriage involves sinners.
Biblical history reveals that God’s ways are often more ragged
around the edges than we might wish. In the Old Covenant, we
see the Spirit working through broken institutions, illegitimate
priesthoods, and lonely Elijahs. The Sanhedrin of Christ’s time
presented delicious institutional unity and pomp, but the Spirit

11
12 the shape of sola scriptura

happened to be working through a locust-eating prophet and a

band of unordained fishermen.
In this light, the various, widely publicized departures of many
Evangelicals to Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy have
the distinct aroma of youthful haste and short-term zeal. The
Sanhedrin was far better organized than the fishermen, and it had
a grand liturgy, an authoritative line of oral tradition, and a suc-
cession of leaders. In a healthy church, those forms are good and
holy. But to have turned to the Sanhedrin at that time would have
been to embrace apostasy. Truth, beauty, and goodness were
with the fishermen.
God’s ways are not our ways. Such disheveled times ought not
to be the norm: an established Temple and the unified Church are
the norm. Christendom is currently scattered east, west, and
Evangelical, but it won’t always be that way. We should have Eli-
jah’s hope in the midst of disarray. And a mature and ancient un-
derstanding of sola Scriptura will be at the heart of recovery.
The practice of the ancient and medieval understanding of sola
Scriptura can often be messy in history, and it requires a maturity
that can wisely balance creedal authority and the rare need for Jo-
siahs, a trinitarian one and many. But that is our life on earth. We
are to walk by maturity, not by sight. Keith Mathison’s work is a
grand step in this direction, and, over the past few years, I have
been privileged to share in his thinking about these questions. I
am even more grateful that he agreed to write this book. He care-
fully peels away the thick misconceptions concerning sola Scrip-
tura, many of which have been key to those claiming to abandon
the doctrine. While many Roman and Eastern apologists have
been able to ignore such corrections over the past decade, I hope
Keith’s book will significantly shift the debate and provoke more
genuine dialogue.

Douglas M. Jones III

New St. Andrews College
Moscow, Idaho
 Introduction

The doctrine of sola scriptura, “by Scripture alone,” has been the
focal point of intense disagreement between Roman Catholics
and Protestants since the Reformation of the sixteenth century.
In recent years the subject has gained renewed attention due to
the growing number of converts from Protestantism to both
Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy who claim that their
conversion was due in large part to their “discovery” that the doc-
trine of sola scriptura was indefensible.1 In addition, a new gener-
ation of Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox apologists has
been publishing an ever increasing number of books critical of the
doctrine of sola scriptura.2
Many of these men and women who have left Protestantism
claim to have grown increasingly frustrated at the tendency
within evangelical Protestantism to divide continually over
numerous differences of interpretation and at its seeming inabil-
ity to even begin resolving these differences. They cite the nu-
merous theological fads that permeate Protestantism and the

1 E.g., Patrick Madrid, ed., Surprised by Truth, (San Diego: Basilica Press, 1994); Scott
and Kimberly Hahn, Rome Sweet Home, (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1993); David Cur-
rie, Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic, (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1996); Peter
Gillquist, ed., Coming Home: Why Protestant Clergy are Becoming Orthodox, (Ben Lomond,
CA: Conciliar Press, 1992).
2 E.g., Robert A. Sungenis, Not by Scripture Alone: A Catholic Critique of the Protestant
Doctrine of Sola Scriptura, (Santa Barbara: Queenship Publishing Co., 1997); Mark Shea,
By What Authority? (Huntington, IN: Our Sunday Visitor, 1996); Clark Carlton, The Way:
What Every Protestant Should Know About the Orthodox Church, (Salisbury, MA: Regina Or-
thodox Press, 1997).

13
14 the shape of sola scriptura

numerous heretics that are readily given a hearing in evangelical

circles as long as these heretics claim to be preaching “what the
Bible says.” Seeking shelter from the theological chaos that is
modern evangelicalism, these men and women fled to commun-
ions which claim to have the answer. Part of that answer is a rejec-
tion of sola scriptura.
Within evangelicalism, many professing Christians use sola
scriptura as a battle cry to justify endless schism. Other professing
evangelicals use the slogan sola scriptura to justify every manner of
false doctrine imaginable. The numerous ways in which sola scrip-
tura has been misused have provided its critics with further evi-
dence of the practical “unworkability” of the doctrine. If sola
scriptura is true, these critics ask, then why are Protestants unable
to come to agreement on what that Scripture teaches? For these
reasons and more, it is absolutely imperative that the heirs of the
Reformation be able to define accurately their concept of author-
ity and be able to defend it against its opponents.
This will require not only answering the relevant criticisms of
Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox apologists but also doing
away with a large number of faulty concepts which are often
wrongly identified with sola scriptura. Roman Catholic and Or-
thodox apologists have been effective in their criticisms in large
part because of the fact that most Protestants have adopted a sub-
jective and individualistic version of sola scriptura that bears little
resemblance to the doctrine of the Reformers. As long as Protes-
tants attempt to maintain this defective version of sola scriptura,
and as long as this version of the doctrine is allowed to be identi-
fied as the Protestant position, Roman Catholic and Orthodox
apologists will continue to effectively demolish it and gain frus-
trated seekers.
What this means is that, like the Reformers, our battle must
be on two fronts. Just as they had to combat the Roman Catholic
position which effectively made the Church autonomous and the
Radical Anabaptist position which effectively made the individual
autonomous, so we too must combat both of these defective
views. Roman Catholic apologists have regrouped, and Eastern
 introduction 15

Orthodox apologists are making numerous inroads. We must

continue to stand firm against their view which ultimately results
in a Church which is a law unto itself. But we must also take a
strong stand against those Protestants whose view ultimately re-
sults in each man being a law unto himself. Both positions are a
deadly poison in the body of Christ, and both are condemned not
only by Scripture itself, but also by the witness of the communion
of saints throughout the history of the Church.
The purpose of this book is twofold. First, it is an attempt to
clear away some of the often misleading historical and theological
rhetoric surrounding this debate. Much of the apologetic output
from proponents on all sides has either ignored or mishandled
crucial historical evidence, presented confusing and often contra-
dictory definitions of terms, and in many cases simply annihilated
armies of straw men. The second purpose of this book is to out-
line a consistent doctrine of the authority of Scripture. Nothing
novel will be said in this study, though much might be new to
some ears in this debate. It is the conviction of this author that the
view of the relationship between Scripture, tradition, and the
Church that the Reformers attempted to restore to the Church is
substantially correct. It is a doctrine for which they coined the
term sola scriptura. It is a doctrine which has been vigorously at-
tacked by its opponents and often misused by its supporters, but
it is the Christian doctrine, and therefore it is the doctrine that
will prevail.
 Part One:
THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT

1. The Early Church

2. The Middle Ages
3. Martin Luther and John Calvin
4. The Radical Reformation,
the Counter-Reformation,
and Post-Reformation Developments
 1

The Early Church

In order to understand the present nature of the debate over the

authority of Scripture it is necessary to gain some historical per-
spective. Much of the confusion surrounding this discussion is due
to the failure of Christians to honestly examine the historical
teaching of those believers who have preceded us in the faith. More
often than not, the historical records are used for the sole purpose
of extracting proof-texts to support a currently entrenched view-
point. The result is an anachronistic reading of modern ideas and
theories back into the writings of the church fathers. This practice
may be observed among both Roman Catholic and Protestant
apologists, and diligent effort must be made to avoid it. While it
is obviously impossible to present an exhaustive examination of
the patristic understanding of scriptural authority in a single chap-
ter, a summary overview of the writings of the fathers themselves
and of the conclusions of patristic scholars does shed valuable light
on the historical question of scriptural authority.
Much of the problem involved in the historical debate over the
authority of Scripture concerns the ambiguity surrounding the
meaning of the word “tradition.” In present day usage, the term
commonly denotes unwritten doctrines handed down orally in
the Church. It is therefore often contrasted with Scripture. How-
ever, a remarkable scholarly consensus shows that in the early
church, Scripture and Tradition were in no way mutually exclu-
sive concepts because they coincided with each other completely.1

1 See Ellen Flessemann van Leer, Tradition and Scripture in the Early Church (Assen,

19
20 the shape of sola scriptura

What this means is that throughout the history of the Church,

including the Protestant Reformation, what we find is a battle
that cannot often be characterized accurately in terms of Scrip-
ture vs. tradition. Instead what we find are competing concepts
of the relationship between Scripture and tradition.2 This will be-
come clearer as the study proceeds.

T HE A POSTOLIC F ATHERS
The term “apostolic fathers” is normally used in reference to the
earliest Christian authors whose writings were not included in
the New Testament. Because they were written in the century
immediately following the death of Christ (ca. a.d. 70–135),
they are considered to be extremely valuable primary sources.
These documents offer invaluable insight into the life and thought
of the Church during this crucial transitional period.3 It was dur-
ing this period of time that Rome sacked Jerusalem, leaving the
Church to wrestle with the question of its identity vis-a-vis Juda-
ism. It was also during this period of time that the rapid growth
and geographical expansion of the Church forced it to confront
pressing questions of administration and government. And it was
during this period of time that the last of the Apostles died, forc-
ing the Church to confront the question of authority.
Among the apostolic fathers, one will search in vain to dis-
cover a formally outlined doctrine of Scripture such as may be
found in modern systematic theology textbooks. The doctrine of
Scripture did not become an independent locus of theology until
the sixteenth century. What we do find throughout the writing of

1953); J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, Rev. Ed., (San Francisco: HarperCollins,
1978), 29–51; R.P.C. Hanson, Tradition in the Early Church, (London, 1962); Heiko
Oberman, Dawn of the Reformation, (Edinburgh: T&T Clark Ltd., 1986), 269–296; The
Harvest of Medieval Theology, (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1963); Jaroslav Peli-
kan, Obedient Rebels, (London: SCM Press Ltd., 1964); F.F. Bruce, Tradition: Old and New,
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1970).
2 Cf. Oberman, Dawn of the Reformation, 270.
3 See J.B. Lightfoot and J.R. Harmer, The Apostolic Fathers, second edition,Edited by
Michael W. Holmes, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1989), 1–15.
 the early church 21

the apostolic fathers is a continual and consistent appeal to the

Old Testament and to the Apostles’ teaching. During these first
decades following Christ, however, we have no evidence demon-
strating that the Church considered the Apostles’ teaching to be
entirely confined to written documents.4 This first generation of
the Church saw many laymen and elders (e.g., Polycarp) who had
been personally acquainted with one or more of the Apostles and
who had sat under their preaching. We have no reason to assume
that the apostolic doctrine could not have been faithfully taught in
those churches which had no access to all of the apostolic writ-
ings. Copies of the writings of the Apostles were in circulation
among the churches and were quoted by the apostolic fathers,
but not every local church had a complete collection of all of the
twenty-seven books later referred to as the New Testament.
As already noted, we have broad scholarly agreement that
Scripture and tradition were not mutually exclusive concepts in
the mind of the early fathers. The concept of “tradition,” when
used by these fathers, is simply used to designate the body of doc-
trine which was committed to the Church by the Lord and His
Apostles, whether through verbal or written communication.5
The body of doctrine, however, was essentially identical regard-
less of how it was communicated. No evidence suggests that the
apostolic fathers believed they had recourse to any type of secret
oral traditions. At this point in the Church’s history, Scripture
and tradition were coinherent concepts; “there was simply no
way of imagining possible conflict between the Christian Scrip-
ture and the Christian tradition—and, therefore, no necessity to
choose between them.”6 In fact, at this early point in the history
of the Church, the use of the term “tradition” to denote the apos-
tolic deposit of faith would, strictly speaking, be anachronistic.

4 J.N.D Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 33.

5 The term paradosis (tradition) was only rarely used in the period of the apostolic
fathers. Clement, for example, uses the phrase “the glorious and holy rule of our tradition”
to describe the deposit of faith (7:2). The verb paradidonai, on the other hand, is much more
common, but it had not yet, at this point in history, acquired any specific technical meaning.
6 Albert C. Outler, cited in Jaroslav Pelikan, Obedient Rebels, 173.
22 the shape of sola scriptura

The concept of an apostolic deposit of faith existed, but no

specific term, including “tradition,” was universally used at this
point to denote it.7
The fact that the Lord committed his teaching to the Church is
also significant in the thought of the apostolic fathers. We do not
find in their writings a dichotomy between the apostolic teaching
and the apostolic Church. The Church is distinguished from
Scripture, but the two are not opposed.8 The true apostolic doc-
trine could only be found in the true body of Christ—the Chris-
tian Church.

T HE S ECOND AND T HIRD C ENTUR IES

In the second and third centuries, the Church’s struggle with the
Gnostic heresy resulted in further clarification of the relationship
between Scripture, tradition, and the Church. Because the Gnos-
tics utilized scriptural texts to prove their points and because they
also appealed to alleged secret apostolic traditions, the fathers
were forced to explain the true relationship between Scripture
and tradition.

I RENAEUS ( CA. 130–200)

Irenaeus, the Bishop of Lyons, was on the front lines in the
early Church’s battle against Gnosticism. He has left the Church
an immensely valuable work entitled Against Heresies. The book is
devoted to destroying the various forms of the Gnostic heresy
while at the same time defending the truth of Christianity. Ac-
cording to the Gnostics, the revelation of redeeming knowledge
was not generally available to all men. Instead it was contained in
secret apostolic traditions that were available only to those in-
ducted into the Gnostic mysteries.9

7 Kelly,op. cit., 34–35.

8Geoffrey W. Bromiley, “The Church Fathers and Holy Scripture,” in Scripture and
Truth, ed. by D.A. Carson and John D. Woodbridge, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publish-
ing House, 1983), 218–219.
9 Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition, Vol. 1: The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition,
 the early church 23

In his defense of apostolic Christianity, Irenaeus developed the

concept of the regula fidei or the “rule of faith.”10 The regula fidei
was essentially the content of the profession of faith that every
catechumen was asked to recite from memory before his or her
baptism. It was a summary of the faith taught by the Apostles and
committed to their disciples.11 Whereas the Gnostics appealed to
a secret unwritten tradition, Irenaeus appealed to the public tra-
dition of the Church. Does this mean that Irenaeus subordinated
Scripture to unwritten tradition? No. As Heiko Oberman points
out,
Irenaeus insists that the rule of faith or the rule of truth (regula
fidei or regula veritatis) is faithfully preserved by the apostolic
Church and has found multiform expression in the canonical
books. There is an unbroken continuation of the preached
kerygma into Holy Scripture. One may speak here of an “inscrip-
turisation” of the apostolic proclamation which in this written
form constitutes the foundation and cornerstone of faith.12
This “inscripturisation” means for Irenaeus that the apostolic faith
had been safeguarded by being permanently written in the Holy
Scripture.13 The two were not somehow opposed, nor was Scrip-
ture “subordinate” to the other. Irenaeus simply appealed to this
regula fidei as a necessary hermeneutical principle. The Orthodox
scholar Georges Florovsky points out that in the early Church,
exegesis was “the main, and probably the only, theological
method, and the authority of the Scriptures was sovereign and su-
preme.”14 But the regula fidei was the necessary context for the
correct interpretation of that authoritative Scripture.15 F.F.
Bruce summarizes this early understanding of the rule of faith:

(Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1971), 92. Cf. H.E.W. Turner, The Pattern of
Christian Truth, (A.R. Mowbray & Co. Ltd., 1954), 310.
10 It may be found, for example, in Book III, 4, 2 of Against Heresies.
11 Bruce, op. cit., 115–116.
12 Oberman, op. cit., 272. See also Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 38–39.
13 Against Heresies III, 1, 1. Cf. Kelly, op. cit., 38.
14 Georges Florovsky, Bible, Church, Tradition: An Eastern Orthodox View, (Bucherver-
triebsanstalt, 1987), 75.
15 Ibid.
24 the shape of sola scriptura

When the summary of the apostolic tradition is called the rule of

faith or the rule of truth, the implication is that this is the
church’s norm, the standard by which everything must be judged
that presents itself for Christian faith or claims to be Christian
doctrine, the criterion for the recognition of truth and exposure
of error. If at times it is formally distinguished from Scripture in
the sense that it is recognized as the interpretation of Scripture,
at other times it is materially identical with Scripture in the sense
that it sums up what Scripture says. Plainly what was written
down by the apostles in their letters and what was delivered by
them orally to their disciples and handed down in the church’s
tradition must be one and the same body of teaching.16

This concept of the regula fidei remained a crucial tool in the early
Church’s arsenal against Gnosticism and other heresies.

C LEMENT OF A LEXANDRIA ( CA. 150– CA. 215)

One of the lengthiest explanations of the relationship between
Scripture, tradition and the Church in early Christian literature is
found in the Stromata of Clement of Alexandria. Written within
the historical context of the battle with Gnosticism, chapter 16 of
Book VII is devoted to an elucidation of Scripture as the criterion
by which truth and heresy are to be distinguished. In the very first
sentence of chapter 16, Clement declares the necessity of having
all things proven from Scripture: “But those who are ready to toil
in the most excellent pursuits, will not desist from the search af-
ter truth, till they get the demonstration from the Scriptures
themselves.”17 Like Irenaeus, Clement recognizes the necessity of
the regula fidei as the interpretive context of Scripture and the
Church as the interpreter of Scripture, and he explains this rela-
tionship further in chapter 17; but throughout this chapter it is
the Scripture itself that is considered the criterion of truth.18

16 Bruce, op. cit., 117–118.

17 Unless otherwise noted, all patristic citations are taken from the 38 volume English
edition of the fathers co-published by Wm. B. Eerdmans and T&T Clark.
18 It is interesting to note that the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary, for
which Rome claims a universal and continuous tradition, is explicitly declared by Clem-
ent to be false in this chapter.
 the early church 25

TERTULLIAN ( CA. 155–220)

Tertullian’s explanation of the relationship between the Scrip-
ture, tradition, and the Church does not differ in any significant
way from that of Irenaeus. Like Irenaeus, he does not contrast
Scripture and tradition; instead he claims the oral preaching of
the Apostles was written down in Scripture.19 For Tertullian, as
Kelly explains, “Scripture has absolute authority; whatever it
teaches is necessarily true, and woe betide [“befall”] him who ac-
cepts doctrines not discoverable in it.”20 In refuting a particular
tenet of Docetism, for example, Tertullian writes, “But there is
no evidence of this, because Scripture says nothing.”21 When con-
tending against the patripassianism of Praxeas, he writes, “Let us
be content with saying that Christ died, the Son of the Father; and
let this suffice, because the Scriptures have told us so much.”22 In
contending against Hermogenes’ teaching that matter is eternal,
he says, “But whether all things were made out of any underlying
Matter, I have as yet failed anywhere to find. Where such a state-
ment is written, Hermogenes’ shop must tell us. If it is nowhere
written, then let it fear the woe which impends on all who add or
take away from the written word.”23
We also find in Tertullian “a marked insistence on the decisive
difference between the tradition of God, preserved in the canon
and the traditions of man (consuetudines).”24 In chapter 13 of On
Prescription Against Heretics, Tertullian condemns as madness the
idea that the Apostles “did not reveal all to all men” but instead
“proclaimed some openly and to all the world, whilst they dis-
closed others (only) in secret and to a few.” This Gnostic idea of a
secret apostolic tradition Tertullian heartily condemns.
Like Irenaeus, Tertullian outlines the regula fidei in a number of

19 Kelly, op. cit., 39.

20 Ibid.
21 On the Flesh of Christ, ch. 6. Docetism (from the Greek dokein, meaning “to think or
suppose”) was an early heresy that denied the reality of the incarnation. According to the
Docetists, Christ’s human body only “appeared” to be real.
22 Against Praxeas, ch. 29.
23 Against Hermogenes, ch. 22.
24 Oberman, op. cit., 274.
26 the shape of sola scriptura

places throughout his writings.25 In chapter 13 of his treatise On

the Prescription Against Heretics, for example, he describes the rule
of faith as
the belief that there is only one God, and that He is none other
than the Creator of the world, who produced all things out of
nothing through His own Word, first of all sent forth; that this
Word is called His Son, and, under the name of God, was seen “in
diverse manners” by the patriarchs, heard at all times in the
prophets, at last brought down by the Spirit and Power of the
Father into the Virgin Mary, was made flesh in her womb, and,
being born of her, went forth as Jesus Christ; thenceforth He
preached the new law and the new promise of the kingdom of
heaven, worked miracles; having been crucified, He rose again
the third day (then) having ascended into the heavens, He sat at
the right hand of the Father; sent instead of Himself the Power of
the Holy Ghost to lead such as believe; will come with glory to
take the saints to the enjoyment of everlasting life and of the heav-
enly promises, and to condemn the wicked to everlasting fire,
after the resurrection of both these classes shall have happened,
together with the restoration of their flesh.
One will immediately notice the similarity in overall form be-
tween this early outline of the rule of faith and what later became
known as the Apostles’ Creed. The rule of faith, like the Apos-
tles’ Creed, follows a Trinitarian outline, beginning with a con-
fession of faith in the Father, followed by a confession of faith in
the Son and the Holy Spirit. It must also be noted that as in the
case of Irenaeus, for Tertullian, the Scriptures are in no way sub-
ordinated to this “rule of faith.” It is the Scriptures, according to
Tertullian, that “indeed furnish us with our Rule of faith.”26 But it
is the rule of faith that is the hermeneutical context for a proper
interpretation of Scripture. Because both the apostolic Scriptures
and the apostolic rule of faith have as their source the Apostles,
they are mutually reciprocal and indivisible for Tertullian.27

25 Eg., On Prescription Against Heretics, ch. 13; Against Praxeas, ch. 2; On the Veiling of Vir-
gins, ch. 1.
26 Against Praxeas, ch. 11.
27 On Prescription Against Heretics, ch. 19.
 the early church 27

H IPPOLYTUS ( CA. 170–236)

Further testimony demonstrating patristic belief in the one
source understanding of God’s self-revelation may be found in
the writing of Hippolytus. In a work entitled Against the Heresy of
One Noetus, Hippolytus explains the source of our knowledge of
God.

There is, brethren, one God, the knowledge of whom we gain

from the Holy Scriptures, and from no other source. For just as
a man, if he wishes to be skilled in the wisdom of this world, will
find himself unable to get at it in any other way than by mastering
the dogmas of philosophers, so all of us who wish to practice pi-
ety will be unable to learn its practice from any other quarter
than the oracles of God. Whatever things, then, the Holy Scrip-
tures declare, at these let us look; and whatsoever things they
teach, these let us learn; and as the Father wills our belief to be,
let us believe; and as He wills the Son to be glorified, let us glo-
rify Him; and as He wills the Holy Spirit to be bestowed, let us
receive Him. Not according to our own will, nor according to
our own mind, nor yet as using violently those things which are
given by God, but even as He has chosen to teach them by the
Holy Scriptures, so let us discern them.28

Hippolytus does not divorce the Holy Scriptures from the

Church or from the regula fidei. In fact, he includes a summary of
how the Church used the regula fidei in their condemnation of
Noetus,29 but the Holy Scripture is held forth as the unique stan-
dard and only source for the knowledge of God.

C YPRIAN ( CA. 200–258)

Further insight into the early Church’s understanding of the
relationship between Scripture, the Church, and tradition may be
gained through an examination of the letters of Cyprian, the
Bishop of Carthage. The question of lapsed Christians was a

28 Against Noetus, ch. 9.

29 Ibid., ch. 1.
28 the shape of sola scriptura

contentious issue at this time, and Cyprian quarreled extensively

with Pope Stephen over the question of baptism.30 What is of in-
terest at this point is not the subject of the debate so much as the
manner of the debate and the principles expressed. In a letter
written to explain Stephen’s actions, Cyprian directly accuses the
pope of error. He writes, “I have sent you a copy of his reply; on
the reading of which, you will more and more observe his error
in endeavoring to maintain the cause of heretics against Chris-
tians, and against the Church of God.”31 He continues,
Let nothing be innovated, says he, nothing maintained, except
what has been handed down. Whence is that tradition? Whether
does it descend from the authority of the Lord and of the Gos-
pel, or does it come from the commands and the epistles of the
apostles? For that those things which are written must be done,
God witnesses and admonishes, saying to Joshua the son of Nun:
“The book of this law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou
shalt meditate in it day and night, that thou mayest observe to do
according to all that is written therein.”32

Cyprian grieves over this error of Stephen: “What obstinacy is

that, or what presumption, to prefer human tradition to divine
ordinance, and not to observe that God is indignant and angry as
often as human tradition relaxes and passes by the divine pre-
cepts.”33 He laments the fact that “that which is done without
against the Church is defended within the very Church itself.”34
And arguing against the pope’s own claim that he is merely de-
fending the ancient tradition of the Church, Cyprian counters,
“Nor ought custom, which had crept in among some, to prevent
the truth from prevailing and conquering; for custom without
truth is the antiquity of error.”35

30 William La Due, The Chair of Saint Peter: A History of the Papacy, (Maryknoll: Orbis
Books, 1999), 33–39.
31 Epistle 73:1.
32 Epistle 73:2.
33 Epistle 73:3.
34 Epistle 73:8.
35 Epistle 73:9.
 the early church 29

In a letter from Firmilian, the Bishop of Caeserea, to Cyprian

regarding Pope Stephen’s actions, we gain another witness to the
attitude of the early Church towards authority. Firmilian writes,
“they who are at Rome do not observe those things in all cases
which are handed down from the beginning, and vainly pretend
the authority of the apostles.”36 He argues that by advocating her-
esy, Pope Stephen has broken the peace and unity of the Catholic
Church.37 There is no intimation here, or anywhere in the ante-
Nicene fathers, of a charism or gift of infallibility given to the Ro-
man bishop which automatically preserves him from doctrinal
deviation from the apostolic faith. Not only is the possibility of
grievous error assumed, it is expressly declared to have been em-
braced.

T HE F OUR TH AND F IFTH C ENTUR IES

The fourth and fifth centuries of the Church’s history were a pe-
riod of great theological controversy and great theological con-
solidation. It was during this period of time that the intense
Trinitarian and Christological battles reached their climax. It was
also during these two centuries that the standards of Trinitarian
and Christological orthodoxy were clarified and explained at the
ecumenical councils of Nicea (a.d. 325), Constantinople (a.d.
381), Ephesus (a.d. 431), and Chalcedon (a.d. 451) and officially
set forth in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed and the Defini-
tion of Chalcedon.

A THANASIUS ( CA. 296–373)

Considered to be the greatest theologian of his time, Athana-
sius, the Bishop of Alexandria, was a key player in the fourth-
century battle with the Arian heresy. His tireless efforts were
largely responsible for the great ecumenical council at Nicea in

36 Epistle 74:6.
37 Ibid.
30 the shape of sola scriptura

a.d. 325, which officially condemned Arianism and vindicated

the orthodox doctrine.38
Like earlier heretics the Arians appealed to Scripture and, in
fact, insisted that all discussion be restricted to the text of Scrip-
ture. Athanasius’s critique of these heretics, therefore, proves in-
valuable to a study of the early Church’s concept of authority.
Athanasius does not deny the sufficiency of Scripture for the de-
fense of the truth. Instead he often explicitly affirms it. He states
in one place that “the sacred and inspired Scriptures are sufficient
to declare the truth.”39 Elsewhere he argues that “holy Scripture
is of all things most sufficient for us” and urges “those who desire
to know more of these matters to read the Divine word.”40 And
again he says, “divine Scripture is sufficient above all things.”41
The error of the heretics, according to Athanasius, is not in
their appeal to Scripture but in their appeal to Scripture taken out
of the context of the apostolic faith, that which Irenaeus referred
to as the regula fidei. As Florovsky notes,
This “rule,” however, was in no sense an “extraneous” authority
which could be “imposed” on the Holy Writ. It was the same “Ap-
ostolic preaching,” which was written down in the books of the
New Testament, but it was, as it were, this preaching in epitome.42
According to Athanasius, Holy Scripture is the apostolic para-
dosis or “tradition.”43 There is no second source concept of tradi-
tion. In his entire debate with the Arians, Athanasius never
appeals to any plural “traditions.”44 He appeals to the sufficiency
of the Holy Scripture as interpreted within the context of the ap-
ostolic regula fidei.

38 For a history of the events and debates surrounding the Arian controversy and the
Council of Nicea, see Leo Donald Davis, The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325–787):
Their History and Theology, (Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1983), 33–80; cf.
Kelly, op. cit., 280–309.
39 Against the Heathen, I:3.
40 To the Bishops of Egypt, I:4.
41 De Synodis, I, 1, 6.
42 Florovsky, op. cit., 82–83.
43 Ad Adelphium, 6.
44 Florovsky, 83.
 the early church 31

H ILARY OF POITIERS ( CA. 300–367)

The concern for interpreting the authoritative Scriptures
within the context of the apostolic faith is repeated in the writ-
ings of Hilary, the Bishop of Poitiers. The apostolic rule of faith
and the Holy Scripture are essentially one and the same for Hi-
lary. In his treatise On the Councils, he provides a brief outline of
the evangelical and apostolic tradition and then concludes, “For
all those things which were written in the divine Scriptures by
Prophets and by Apostles we believe and follow truly and with
fear.”45 The same truths he refers to as the apostolic tradition he
refers to as written in the Scriptures.
These Scriptures, however, cannot be interpreted apart from
the context of the apostolic faith without destroying their mean-
ing. He writes of heretics, “Such is their error, such their pesti-
lent teaching; to support it they borrow the words of Scripture,
perverting its meaning and using the ignorance of men as their
opportunity of gaining credence for their lies.”46 Scripture is the
final doctrinal authority, according to Hilary, but only when it is
interpreted rightly. The mere use of Scripture does not guarantee
the right use of Scripture.

C YRIL OF JERUSALEM ( CA. 315– CA. 384)

One of the most fascinating statements made by any of the early
Church fathers concerning the authority of Scripture is found in
the Catechetical Lectures of Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem. He writes,
For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not
even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy
Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and
artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell thee these things, give
not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the
things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this sal-
vation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning,
but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures.47

45 On the Councils, 29–30.

46 On the Trinity, iv:14.
47 Catechetical Lectures, iv:17.
32 the shape of sola scriptura

Here we find stated, about as clearly as possible, the necessity of

firm scriptural proof for every article of faith. Cyril tells his cat-
echumens not to rest their faith upon plausibility or ingenious ar-
guments or even upon his own authority as a Bishop, but to rest
it upon clear proof from the Holy Scripture.

T HE TRANSITIONAL P ER IOD
Thus far the testimony of the early Church fathers regarding the
question of authority is consistent. Scripture is the authority, but
it must be interpreted according to the apostolic regula fidei. As
noted by G.L. Prestige, “The voice of the Bible could be plainly
heard only if its text were interpreted broadly and rationally, in
accordance with the apostolic creed and the evidence of the his-
torical practice of Christendom.”48 In a number of historical
studies, the church historian Heiko Oberman describes the char-
acteristics of this early patristic position. As he explains, this one
source concept of “tradition” has two primary qualities:

1. The immediate divine origin of tradition together with the

insistence on a clearly circumscribed series of historical acts of
God in the rule of faith or the rule of truth.
2. The rejection of extra-scriptural tradition.49

For the sake of clarity, Oberman terms this “single exegetical tra-
dition of interpreted scripture ‘Tradition I’.”50 It is this view
which was universally held for the first three centuries of the
Church. During the fourth century, however, a transitional pe-
riod began as several prominent fathers started to hint at a two-
source concept of tradition.

48 Cited by Florovsky, 80.

49 Heiko Oberman, The Dawn of the Reformation, (Edinburgh: T&T Clark Ltd., 1986),
276. Cf. also Oberman, The Harvest of Medieval Theology, (Cambridge: Harvard University
Press, 1963), 361–393.
50 Ibid., 280. Because of the value of Oberman’s thesis and because it has been built
upon by other historical scholars, this study will continue to use his terminology.
 the early church 33

B ASIL THE G REAT ( CA. 330–379)

It is in the fourth-century writings of Basil the Great that we
find for the first time the suggestion “that the Christian owes
equal respect and obedience to written and to unwritten ecclesi-
astical traditions, whether contained in canonical writings or in
secret oral tradition handed down by the Apostles through their
successors.”51 The passage in question is found in Basil’s treatise
On the Holy Spirit. He writes,

Of the beliefs and practices whether generally accepted or pub-

licly enjoined which are preserved in the Church some we pos-
sess derived from written teaching; others we have received
delivered to us “in a mystery” by the tradition of the apostles; and
both of these in relation to true religion have the same force.
And these no one will gainsay; no one, at all events, who is even
moderately versed in the institutions of the Church. For were
we to attempt to reject such customs as have no written author-
ity, on the ground that the importance they possess is small, we
should unintentionally injure the Gospel in its very vitals; or,
rather, should make our public definition a mere phrase and
nothing more.52

As we shall see, these comments by Basil were seized upon in the

late Middle Ages by canon lawyers and theologians seeking to de-
fend an authoritative second extra-Biblical source of revelation.
And while it is very possible that Basil’s teaching is the first ex-
plicit instance of what Oberman terms “Tradition II,” the case has
been made by the Orthodox theologian Georges Florovsky that
Basil meant nothing of the sort. He notes,

In any case, one should not be embarrassed by the contention of

St. Basil that dogmata were delivered or handed down by the
Apostles, en musterio. It would be a flagrant mistranslation if we
render it as “in secret.” The only accurate rendering is: “by
the way of mysteries,” that is—under the form of rites and

51 Oberman, Harvest of Medieval Theology, 369.

52 On the Holy Spirit,
66.
34 the shape of sola scriptura

(liturgical) usages, or “habits.” In fact, it is precisely what St. Ba-

sil says himself: ta pleista ton mustikon agraphos hemin empoliteuetai.
[Most of the mysteries are communicated to us by an unwritten
way]. The term ta mustika refers here, obviously to the rites of
Baptism and Eucharist, which are, for St. Basil, of “Apostolic”
origin. . . . Indeed, all instances quoted by St. Basil in this con-
nection are of ritual or liturgical nature.53

All of these liturgical rites, according to Basil, come from a “silent”

and “private” tradition. But, as Florovsky notes, “[t]his ‘silent’ and
‘mystical’ tradition, ‘which has not been made public,’ is not an es-
oteric doctrine, reserved for some particular elite.” In fact, “the
‘elite’ was the Church.”54 The historical context sheds some light
on this obscure concept:
St. Basil is referring here to what is now denoted as disciplina ar-
cani. [The discipline of secrecy]. In the fourth century this “disci-
pline” was in wide use, was formally imposed and advocated in
the Church. It was related to the institution of the Catechu-
menate and had primarily an educational and didactic purpose.
On the other hand, as St. Basil says himself, certain “traditions”
had to be kept “unwritten” in order to prevent profanation at the
hands of the infidel. This remark obviously refers to rites and us-
ages. It may be recalled at this point that, in the practice of the
Fourth century, the Creed (and also the Dominical Prayer) were
a part of this “discipline of secrecy” and could not be disclosed to
the noninitiated. The Creed was reserved for the candidates for
Baptism, at the last stage of their instruction, after they had been
solemnly enrolled and approved. The Creed was communi-
cated, or “traditioned,” to them by the bishop orally and they had
to recite it by memory before him. . . . The Catechumens were
strongly urged not to divulge the Creed to outsiders and not to
commit it to writing. It had to be inscribed in their hearts.55

It is against this historical context and background that Basil’s

comments must be interpreted and understood.

53 Florovsky, op. cit., 86–87.

54 Ibid., 87.
55 Ibid., 87–88.
 the early church 35

The only difference between dogma and kerygma was in the man-
ner of their transmission: dogma is kept “in silence” and keryg-
mata are “publicized”. . . . But their intent is identical: they
convey the same faith, if in different manners. . . . Thus, the “un-
written tradition,” in rites and symbols, does not actually add
anything to the content of the scriptural faith: it only puts this
faith in focus. . . . St. Basil’s appeal to “unwritten tradition” was
actually an appeal to the faith of the Church . . . . He pleaded
that, apart from this “unwritten” rule of faith, it was impossible
to grasp the true intention and teaching of the Scripture itself.
St. Basil was strictly scriptural in his theology: Scripture was for
him the supreme criterion of doctrine.56

Basil explicitly declares Scripture to be his supreme criterion in

one of his many letters. Writing about his controversy with the
heretics, he says,

Their complaint is that their custom does not accept this, and
that Scripture does not agree. What is my reply? I do not con-
sider 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. 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 fa-
vor of that side will be cast the vote of truth.57

The evidence seems to indicate that, despite the inherent ambi-

guity of his infamous words, Basil did not intend to be under-
stood as teaching a two-source concept of revelation.

G REGORY OF N YSSA ( CA. 335– CA. 394)

Gregory, his brother Basil the Great, and their lifelong friend
Gregory of Nazianzus, are known to historians as the Cappado-

56 Ibid., 88–89.
57 Letters, 189:3.
36 the shape of sola scriptura

cian Fathers. These men are best known for their detailed defense
of Nicene Trinitarianism against the attacks of the Arian heretics.
Gregory, who was ordained Bishop of Nyssa, wrote a large num-
ber of philosophical, theological and apologetic treatises. One of
these works, entitled On the Soul and the Resurrection, contains a
summary statement of his view of the authority of Scripture. The
book is set forth in the form of a dialogue between Gregory and
Macrina, who is referred to as “the Teacher.” Throughout the
book, Gregory raises the objections of the philosophers to the
Christian doctrine, and the Teacher answers. Near the beginning
of the tract, Gregory summarizes the orthodox Christian answer
to the speculations of philosophers. He writes,

But while the latter proceeded, on the subject of the soul, as far
in the direction of supposed consequences as the thinker
pleased, we are not entitled to such license, I mean that of
affirming what we please; we make the Holy Scriptures the rule
and the measure of every tenet; we necessarily fix our eyes upon
that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize
with the intention of those writings.58

Although written in the context of a philosophical debate, the in-

tent of Gregory’s statement is clear. The Scripture is the doctri-
nal norm of the Christian faith.
J.N.D. Kelly suggests that Gregory differentiated between
Scripture and an extra-scriptural tradition when, in his desire to
prove the unique generation of the Son, he argued that it is suffi-
cient that “we have the tradition descending to us from the fa-
thers, like an inheritance transmitted from the apostles along the
line of holy persons who succeeded them.”59 It is unclear, how-
ever, that Gregory meant anything different here than what the
earlier fathers meant by their use of tradition. In fact, Gregory
himself explains in another place:

58 On the Soul and the Resurrection. There are no book or chapter divisions in the Eerd-
mans English edition of this text. See, Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, eds. The Nicene and
Post Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. V, 439.
59 Cited in Kelly, op. cit., 45.
 the early church 37

The Christian Faith, which in accordance with the command of

our Lord, has been preached to all nations by His disciples, is
neither of men, nor by men, but by our Lord Jesus Christ
Himself. . . . He, I say, appeared on earth and “conversed with
men,” that men might no longer have opinions according to their
own notions about the Self-existent, formulating into a doctrine
the hints that come to them from vague conjectures, but that we
might be convinced that God has truly been manifested in the
flesh, and believe that to be the only true “mystery of godliness,”
which was delivered to us by the very Word and God, Who by
Himself spake to His Apostles, and that we might receive the
teaching concerning the transcendent nature of the Deity which
is given to us, as it were, “through a glass darkly” from the older
Scriptures—from the Law, and the Prophets, and the Sapiential
[Wisdom] Books, as an evidence of the truth fully revealed to us,
reverently accepting the meaning of the things which have been
spoken, so as to accord in the faith set forth by the Lord of the
whole Scriptures, which faith we guard as we received it, word for
word, in purity, without falsification, judging even a slight diver-
gence from the words delivered to us an extreme blasphemy and
impiety. . . . In the Faith then which was delivered by God to the
Apostles we admit neither subtraction, nor alteration, nor addi-
tion, knowing assuredly that he who presumes to pervert the Di-
vine utterance by dishonest quibbling, the same “is of his father
the devil,” who leaves the words of truth and “speaks his own,” be-
coming the father of a lie.60

The emphasis throughout this passage is that the faith—the tradi-

tion—that is handed down is clearly written “word for word.” In
other words it is the apostolic Scriptures, together with the older
Scriptures, from which Gregory admits no subtraction, alter-
ation or addition.

JOHN C HRYSOSTOM ( CA. 347–407)

Considered one of the “doctors” of the Church, John spent a
number of years as a deacon and elder in the church at Antioch.

60 Against Eunomius, II:1. Emphasis mine.

38 the shape of sola scriptura

His gift of preaching was so admired that it later earned him the
nickname Chrysostomos or “golden mouth.” In a.d. 398, John be-
came the Bishop of Constantinople, one of the great sees of the
ancient Church, but it is his gifted preaching for which he is most
remembered.
Unlike Basil and Gregory of Nyssa, whose support of Tradi-
tion II is ambiguous at best, John seems to clearly embrace a two-
source concept of revelation. While he will without hesitation
assert the authority of Scripture, he also seems to assert the ex-
istence of authoritative unwritten apostolic traditions. An
explicit declaration of John’s view of the authority of Scripture is
found in his sermon on 2 Timothy 3:16–17. In his examination of
this passage, John carefully comments on each phrase. He writes
regarding the ways in which Scripture is profitable for doctrine:

For thence we shall know, whether we ought to learn or to be ig-

norant of anything. And thence we may disprove what is false,
thence we may be corrected and brought to a right mind, may be
comforted and consoled, and if anything is deficient, we may
have it added to us.
“That the man of God may be perfect.” For this is the exhorta-
tion of the Scripture given, that the man of God may be rendered
perfect by it; without this therefore he cannot be perfect. Thou
hast the Scriptures, he says, in place of me. If thou wouldst learn
anything, thou mayest learn it from them. And if he thus wrote
to Timothy who was filled with the Spirit, how much more to
us!61

One of the most interesting comments John makes here is his as-
sertion that the Scriptures are what the man of God now has “in
place of” an Apostle. The authority of the Apostles is now found
in their writings—the Scripture. In another place John tells his
hearers, “I exhort and entreat you all, disregard what this man
and that man thinks about these things, and inquire from the
Scriptures all these things.”62

61 Homilies on II Timothy, IX.

62 Homilies on II Corinthians, XIII.
 the early church 39

This, however, is not all that John has to say. In a homily on 2

Thessalonians 2:15, John says that,

It is manifest that they [the Apostles] did not deliver all things by
Epistle, but many things also unwritten, and in like manner both
the one and the other are worthy of credit. Therefore let us think
the tradition of the Church also worthy of credit. It is a tradition,
seek no farther.63

While it is possible that John may have meant no more than Basil,
the specific distinction between what is written and what is un-
written is clear.

A UGUSTINE (354–430)
Probably the greatest theologian in the first thousand years of
the Church, Augustine, the Bishop of Hippo, is known popularly
for his Confessions. Equally important, although less familiar to
most, are his numerous theological works such as On the Trinity,
the anti-Pelagian writings, and his massive and highly influential
philosophy of history—The City of God.
According to Oberman, Augustine is clearly an early propo-
nent of Tradition II—the concept of tradition that allows for an
authoritative extra-biblical source of revelation. On the one hand
he repeatedly asserts the primacy and authority of Scripture. For
example, in his moral treatise On the Good of Widowhood, he
writes,
What more can I teach you, than what we read in the Apostle?
For holy Scripture setteth a rule to our teaching, that we dare
not “be wise more than it behoveth to be wise.” 64

Likewise in The Unity of the Church, he writes,

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

63 Homilies on II Thessalonians, IV.

64 On the Good of Widowhood, 2.
40 the shape of sola scriptura

agree and which we both believe. There let us seek the church,
there let us discuss our case. . . . Let those things be removed
from our midst which we quote against each other not from di-
vine canonical books but from elsewhere. Someone may perhaps
ask: Why do you want to remove these things from the midst?
Because I do not want the holy church proved by human docu-
ments but by divine oracles.65

Augustine also makes it clear that the regula fidei is essentially a

summary of Holy Scripture. In a sermon to catechumens, he de-
clares that the words of the Creed “which ye have heard are in the
Divine Scriptures scattered up and down; but thence gathered
and reduced into one.”66
If this were all Augustine said, we could confidently conclude
that he shared the same concept of tradition taught in the first
three centuries. However, while Augustine clearly asserts the au-
thority of scriptural revelation, he also suggests that there is an
authoritative extra-scriptural oral tradition. This comes out most
obviously in his writings on issues such as baptism. He writes, for
example, in one treatise on the subject, “if any one seek for divine
authority in this matter, though what is held by the whole
Church, and that not as instituted by Councils, but as a matter of
invariable custom, is rightly held to have been handed down by
apostolic authority.”67 And in a comment on Cyprian’s contro-
versy with Pope Stephen, he adds,

“The Apostles,” indeed, “gave no injunctions on the point;” but

the custom, which is opposed to Cyprian, may be supposed to
have had its origin in apostolic tradition, just as there are many
things which are observed by the whole Church, and therefore
are fairly held to have been enjoined by the apostles, which yet
are not mentioned in their writings.68

65 The Unity of the Church, 3. Cited in Martin Chemnitz, An Examination of the Council
of Trent, Vol. I, (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1971), 157.
66 On the Creed: A Sermon to the Catechumens, I.
67 On Baptism, Against the Donatists, IV:24.
68 Ibid., V:23.
 the early church 41

On the face of it, this statement and the others like it appear to
indicate that Augustine advocated a two-source concept of tradi-
tion. And it is very possible that he did embrace this view. It is
certainly true that his statements were later interpreted in that
way. But when we consider the fact that his suggestive comments
(like those of Basil) almost all occur within the context of debates
over liturgical and ritual issues, the possibility must remain open
that Augustine meant nothing more than what Basil meant and
that neither intended to advocate a new concept of tradition.
In addition to the comments Augustine made regarding Scrip-
ture and tradition, there are numerous statements in his writings
regarding the authority of the Church. Perhaps the most infa-
mous statement of Augustine that bears on the question of eccle-
siastical authority is one he made in his anti-Manichaean writings.
The statement itself reads as follows: “For my part, I should not
believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Cath-
olic Church.”69 This brief comment has become a foundational
proof-text for modern Roman Catholicism’s ecclesiastical
claims, but it remains to be seen whether it can bear the weight
placed upon it. As Oberman explains, Augustine’s assertion of
“practical priority” was later interpreted as an assertion of “meta-
physical priority.”70 The actual language and context of Augus-
tine’s comment, however, will not allow for this interpretation.
Oberman points out that “moved” is a translation of the Latin
commovit me and that here “the Church must be understood to
have an authority to direct (commovere) the believer to the door
which leads to the fullness of the Word itself.”71 Florovsky ex-
plains the importance of a contextual reading of Augustine:

The phrase must be read in its context. First of all, St. Augustine
did not utter this sentence on his own behalf. He spoke of the at-
titude which a simple believer had to take, when confronted

69 Against the Epistle of Manichaeus,

ch. 5.
70 Oberman,The Dawn of the Reformation, 278.
71 Heiko Oberman, Forerunners of the Reformation, (London: Lutterworth Press,
1967), 56.
42 the shape of sola scriptura

with the heretical claim for authority. In this situation it was

proper for a simple believer to appeal to the authority of the
Church, from which, and in which, he had received the Gospel
itself: ipsi Evangelio catholicis praedicantibus credidi. [I believed the
Gospel itself, being instructed by catholic preachers]. The Gos-
pel and the preaching of the Catholica belong together. St. Au-
gustine had no intention “to subordinate” the Gospel to the
Church. He only wanted to emphasize that “Gospel” is actually
received always in the context of Church’s catholic preaching
and simply cannot be separated from the Church. Only in this
context it can be assessed and properly understood. Indeed, the
witness of the Scripture is ultimately “self-evident,” but only for
the faithful, for those who have achieved a certain “spiritual” ma-
turity,—and this is only possible within the Church. He opposed
this teaching and preaching auctoritas of the Church Catholic to
the pretentious vagaries of Manichean exegesis. The Gospel did
not belong to the Manicheans. Catholicae Ecclesiae auctoritas [the
authority of the Catholic Church] was not an independent
source of faith. But it was the indispensible principle of sound in-
terpretation. Actually, the sentence could be converted: one
should not believe the Church, unless one was moved by the
Gospel. The relationship is strictly reciprocal.72

In this Augustine is in agreement with the earlier fathers who in-

sisted on the necessary role of the Church. The evidence simply
does not support later medieval concepts of a Church that has
metaphysical priority over Holy Scripture. This interpretation
(which persists today) stems from taking one sentence out of con-
text and reading far more into it than that context will allow.
The evidence does, however, lend possible support to Ober-
man’s assertion that Augustine is one of the first, if not the first,
Latin father to explicitly endorse a two-source concept of revela-
tion. This is significant because, as Pelikan notes, “in a manner
and to a degree unique for any Christian thinker outside the New
Testament, Augustine has determined the form and the content
of church doctrine for most of Western Christian history.”73

72 Florovsky, op. cit., 92.

73 Pelikan, op. cit., 293.
 the early church 43

T HE V INCENTIAN C ANON
As we have seen, the question of how to distinguish truth from
heresy has always faced the Church. From the first century on-
ward, heresies have arisen, and Christians have been forced to
combat them. We’ve seen the manner in which the concept of
the regula fidei developed and guided patristic apologetics. One of
the fullest and most influential treatments of the question of dis-
cernment to be found in the early Christian fathers is Vincent of
Lerins’s Comonitory.

V INCENT OF L ERINS ( D. CA. 450)

Little is known of the author of the Comonitory. The book is
written under an assumed name, but it is attributed to Vincent of
Lerins by Gennadius in the late fourth century, and his judgment
has been almost unanimously accepted. The object of the book is
to provide a standard or rule by which apostolic Christian truth
may be distinguished from heresy.74 Because of its significance,
the relevant parts of Vincent’s comments are quoted in full.

[W]hether I or any one else should wish to detect the frauds and
avoid the snares of heretics as they rise, and to continue sound
and complete in the Catholic faith, we must, the Lord helping,
fortify our own belief in two ways; first by the authority of the
Divine Law, and then, by the Tradition of the Catholic Church.
But here some one perhaps will ask, Since the canon of Scrip-
ture is complete, and sufficient of itself for everything, and more
than sufficient, what need is there to join with it the authority of
the Church’s interpretation? For this reason—because, owing to
the depth of Holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the
same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in
another; so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations
as there are interpreters. . . . Therefore, it is very necessary, on
account of so great intricacies of such various error, that the rule
for the right understanding of the prophets and apostles should
be framed in accordance with the standard of Ecclesiastical and
Catholic interpretation.

74 Comonitory, I.
44 the shape of sola scriptura

Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must

be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed every-
where, always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense
“Catholic,” which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing
declare, comprehends all universally. This rule we shall observe
if we follow universality, antiquity, consent. We shall follow uni-
versality if we confess that one faith to be true, which the whole
Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity, if we in no
wise depart from those interpretations which it is manifest were
notoriously held by our holy ancestors and fathers; consent, in
like manner, if in antiquity itself we adhere to the consentient
definitions and determinations of all, or at the least of almost all
priests and doctors.75

For the purposes of this study it must be determined whether

Vincent embraced a one-source or two-source concept of tradi-
tion. Did he embrace “Tradition I” or “Tradition II”?
Oberman notes that Vincent’s view does not allow for an au-
thoritative extra-scriptural tradition. Vincent does not reject the
material sufficiency of Scripture, only the formal sufficiency.76
He argues that Scripture must be interpreted by the Church be-
cause heretics have repeatedly promoted their own various false
interpretations. However, “the sole purpose of interpretation is
preservation: the faith once declared to the Apostles has to be
protected against change, which represents for him perver-
sion.”77 As Florovsky notes,

Tradition was not, according to Vincent, an independent in-

stance, nor was it a complementary source of faith. Ecclesiastical
understanding could not add anything to the Scripture. But it
was the only means to ascertain and to disclose the true meaning
of Scripture. Tradition was, in fact, the authentic interpretation
of Scripture. And in this sense it was coextensive with Scripture.
Tradition was actually Scripture rightly understood. And

75 Ibid., II.
76 Oberman, The Dawn of the Reformation, 279.
77 Ibid., 279.
 the early church 45

Scripture was for Vincent the only, primary and ultimate, canon
of Christian truth.78
In this Vincent was completely consistent with the early fathers’
concept of tradition. Vincent does not establish any secret oral
tradition as the standard of proper interpretation; instead he finds
this standard in the consensus of the fathers. And yet, it is impor-
tant to note, as Oberman observes, that “Vincent does not want
the interpretation of the Church, which one may call the exeget-
ical tradition, to become a second tradition or source apart from
Holy Scripture.”79 Even the most godly of the fathers “are in prin-
ciple magistri probabiles, teachers whose utterances are probable
but do not yet constitute proof.”80
In Vincent, we find one of the fullest early examinations of the
vexing problem of authority. The standard Vincent sets forth by
which one may distinguish truth from error is consistent with the
one-source concept of tradition (Tradition I) found universally
throughout the early fathers. His view of an authoritative exeget-
ical tradition is directly opposed to any kind of two-source con-
cept of tradition.81

T HE A UTHORITY OF C OUNCILS , C REEDS, AND F ATHERS

The patristic attitude toward the authority of the Councils, the
creeds, and their predecessors also plays into this debate. The dis-
cussion of Irenaeus and Tertullian illustrated the importance of
the regula fidei in the early decades of the Church’s history. It is in-
teresting to note the gradual way in which the earliest creeds
built upon the rule of faith. As F.F. Bruce explains,
In Irenaeus, Tertullian and Origen alike this summary of the con-
tent of the apostles’ teaching is in three sections, relating respec-
tively to God the Father, to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit. This

78 Florovsky, op. cit., 74–75.

79 Oberman, op. cit., 280.
80 Ibid. Cf. Comonitory, III.
81 Ibid.
46 the shape of sola scriptura

is comparable to the primitive baptismal confession of the Gen-

tile churches, which consisted of an affirmative answer to the
threefold question, framed more or less like this: Do you believe
in God the Father? And in his Son Jesus Christ? And in the Holy
Spirit? The response to this threefold question forms the skele-
ton on which were built up the early creeds, best known of which
is the Roman creed, the ancestor of what we call the Apostles’
Creed. But even the old Roman creed, and to a much more
marked degree the creeds of the eastern churches (culminating
in the Creed of Nicea and what we traditionally call the Nicene
Creed) amplify the original threefold response by means of such
a summary of the faith as we find in Irenaeus, Tertullian and Ori-
gen. Thus, even if the baptismal confession and the “rule of faith”
were independent in origin, they came in time to interpenetrate
each other, until from the fourth century onward the ecumenical
creed supersedes the appeal to the rule of faith.82

The Creed was essentially a continuation of the regula fidei, ex-

pressing the same truths in a fuller way.
In the first three centuries of the Church, councils were occa-
sional meetings held to discuss and decide upon issues of concern
to the many local churches. The earliest councils were regarded
more as “charismatic events” than ecclesiastical institutions.83
Councils were never accepted as valid in advance in spite of the
appearance of formal regularity. That this is true is clearly ob-
served when we realize that many councils were disavowed.84 In
the fourth and fifth century there were four councils which
gained a place of special prominence in the Church and were
termed “ecumenical councils.”85 These councils dealt with signi-
ficant Trinitarian and Christological issues that were rending the
Church apart.
Until the division between the Eastern and Western churches,

82 Bruce, op. cit., 115–116.

83 Florovsky, op. cit., 96.
84 Ibid.
85 Nicea in a.d. 325; Constantinople in a.d. 381; Ephesus in a.d. 431; and Chalcedon
in a.d. 451. For a good summary of the history of the ecumenical councils see Leo Donald
Davis, op. cit.
 the early church 47

an ecumenical council was defined “as a synod the decrees of

which have found acceptance by the Church in the whole
world.”86 Their acceptance in the early Church is illustrated by
the way in which some early Christians referred to the Church as
“the Church of the four Gospels and the four councils.”87 Their
purpose, however, was not to supplant Scripture. Their purpose
was to defend the apostolic interpretation of Scripture against the
attacks of the heretics. Athanasius, for example, wrote the fol-
lowing in response to Arians calling for another council after Ni-
cea: “Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they
have demanded Councils for the faith’s sake; for divine Scripture
is sufficient above all things.”88
Similarly, we find that a patristic appeal to earlier fathers is not
an appeal to an authority equal to or above Scripture. As Flo-
rovsky reminds us, “It must be kept in mind that the main, if not
also the only, manual of faith and doctrine was, in the ancient
Church, precisely the Holy Writ.”89 Appeal to the fathers was
made in order to guarantee faithfulness to the proper interpreta-
tion of that authoritative Holy Scripture. As J.N.D. Kelly ob-
serves, “the authority of the fathers consisted precisely in the fact
that they had so faithfully and fully expounded the real intention
of the Bible writers.”90 Scripture was the doctrinal norm of the
fathers. The clearest evidence of this is the fact that
almost the entire theological effort of the fathers, whether their
aims were polemical or constructive, was expended upon what
amounted to the exposition of the Bible. Further, it was every-
where taken for granted that, for any doctrine to win accep-
tance, it had first to establish its scriptural basis.91

86 Henry R. Percival, The Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Undivided Church, Vol. XIV of
A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series, Philip
Schaff and Henry Wace, eds. (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.,1997),
xi. Since the split, Rome has redefined the definition of an ecumenical council to empha-
size the role of the Bishop of Rome. Cf. Leo Donald Davis, op. cit., 323.
87 Pelikan, op. cit., 335.
88 De Synodis, I, 1, 6.
89 Florovsky, op. cit., 102.
90 Kelly, op. cit., 49.
91 Ibid., 46. Kelly illustrates this by pointing out the difficulty that faced those
who championed novel theological terms like homoousios. The objection that was
48 the shape of sola scriptura

This is why the fathers were cited in the early Church—because

they were faithful interpreters of Scripture. They were not cited
as a second source of revelation or a second authority on par with
Scripture.

S UMMAR Y
For the first three centuries, we find a general consensus regard-
ing authority. The New Testament which was the “inscripturisa-
tion” of the apostolic proclamation, together with the “older
Scriptures,” was the source of revelation and the authoritative
doctrinal norm. The Scripture was to be interpreted by the
Church and in the Church within the context of the regula fidei. If
it was taken out of its apostolic context, it would inevitably be
mishandled. Yet neither the Church nor the regula fidei were con-
sidered second sources of revelation or equal authorities on par
with Scripture. The Church was the interpreter and guardian of
the Word of God, and the regula fidei was a summary of the apos-
tolic preaching and the hermeneutical context of the Word of
God. But only the Scripture was the Word of God. In other
words, for the first three centuries, the Church held to the con-
cept of tradition defined by Oberman as “Tradition I.”
In the fourth century the first hints of a two-source concept of
tradition—one which allows for an extra-scriptural revelation as
authoritative as Scripture itself—begin to appear. This two-
source position, or “Tradition II,” is possibly suggested in the
writings of both Basil and Augustine. And while it is uncertain
that either of these fathers actually intended to advocate “Tradi-
tion II,” it is certain that this understanding of tradition would
have been foreign to the earliest church fathers. Its suggestion in
the writings of Augustine, however, ensured it a place in the
thought of the Middle Ages.

vigorously raised in both orthodox and heretical circles was that these terms were not
found in the Bible. The opposition was finally overcome only when they were able to
demonstrate that, even if the terms were not found in the Bible, the meaning of those
terms was the meaning of the Bible.