Dec 29, 2021

Hilary of Poitiers on Scripture and Tradition [Part 2]

 


On the Trinity, Book 9, section 40

"The Lord enunciated the faith of the Gospel in the simplest words that could be found, and fitted His discourses to our understanding, so far as the weakness of our nature allowed Him, without saying anything unworthy of the majesty of His own nature." (https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/330209.htm)


On the Trinity, Book 7, section 33

"The Lord has not left in doubt or obscurity the teaching conveyed in this great mystery; He has not abandoned us to lose our way in dim uncertainty. Listen to Him as He reveals the full knowledge of this faith to His Apostles;  I am the Way and the Truth and the Life; no man cometh unto the Father but through Me. If ye know Me, ye know My Father also; and from henceforth ye shall know Him, and have seen Him. Philip saith unto Him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us. Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and ye have not known Me, Philip? He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father also. How sayest thou, Shew us the Father? Dost thou not believe Me, that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me? The words that I speak unto you I speak not of Myself, but the Father that dwelleth in Me, He doeth His works. Believe Me, that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me; or else believe for the very works’ sake.

He Who is the Way leads us not into by-paths or trackless wastes: He Who is the Truth mocks us not with lies; He Who is the Life betrays us not into delusions which are death. He Himself has chosen these winning names to indicate the methods which He has appointed for our salvation. As the Way, He will guide us to the Truth; the Truth will establish us in the Life. And therefore it is all-important for us to know what is the mysterious mode, which He reveals, of attaining this life.

No man cometh to the Father but through Me. The way to the Father is through the Son. And now we must enquire whether this is to be by a course of obedience to His teaching, or by faith in His Godhead. For it is conceivable that our way to the Father may be through adherence to the Son’s teaching, rather than through believing that the Godhead of the Father dwells in the Son. And therefore let us, in the next place, seek out the true meaning of the instruction given us here. For it is not by cleaving to a preconceived opinion, but by studying the force of the words, that we shall enter into possession of this faith." (https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/330207.htm)


On the Trinity, Book 8, section 52

"God out of regard for human weakness has not set forth the faith in bare and uncertain statements" (https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/330208.htm)


On the Trinity, Book 11, section 7

""In our reply we have followed Him to the moment of His glorious death, and taking one by one the statements of their unhallowed doctrine, we have refuted them from the teaching of the Gospels and the Apostle. But even after His glorious resurrection there are certain things which they have made bold to construe as proofs of the weakness of a lower nature, and to these we must now reply. Let us adopt once more our usual method of drawing out from the words themselves their true signification, that so we may discover the truth precisely where they think to overthrow it. For the Lord spoke in simple words for our instruction in the faith, and His words cannot need support or comment from foreign and irrelevant sayings." (https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/330211.htm)


On the Trinity, Book 7, section 38

 "It is only the Word of God, of Whom we men are enabled, in our discourse concerning Divine things, to reason. All else that belongs to the Godhead is dark and difficult, dangerous and obscure. If any man propose to express what is known in other words than those supplied by God, he must inevitably either display his own ignorance, or else leave his readers' minds in utter perplexity. "(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/330207.htm)



"Hilary will maintain throughout De Trinitate that our thoughts about God must be governed only by scripture. At the same time, Hilary is aware that this is insufficient to overthrow the assertions of his opponents. They, too, appeal to scripture and use God’s testimony about himself. Indeed, Hilary repeatedly acknowledges their reliance on scripture and laments their ‘deception’, as he calls it, of promoting anti-Nicene theological positions under the guise of scripture alone. Although both parties appeal to scripture, the difference rests, argues Hilary, with how scripture is approached and the normative role assigned to scripture in forming the content of a person’s confession about the mystery of God. In many respects, Hilary’s argument mirrors closely what he has to say about faith and reason. Although his opponents claim to give priority to faith in discerning the mystery of God, Hilary argues that in practice they neglect faith by abusing their gift of reason and limiting God’s revelation of himself to what seems reasonable to their finite and created minds. Similarly, Hilary admits that his opponents claim to be guided by scripture, but in practice they distort it by failing to recognize the scriptural context of the passages they interpret, by pitting one verse against another in an effort to dismiss unfavourable or difficult texts, and by allowing their limited human reason to guide their interpretation and to form the acceptable content of their faith." (Carl L. Beckwith, Oxford Early Christian Studies Series - Hilary of Poitiers on the Trinity: From De Fide to De Trinitae, pg. 189)


Hilary of Poitiers on Scripture and Tradition [Part 1]

 


Homily 13:1 on Matthew

"They who are placed without the Church, cannot attain to any understanding of the divine word. For the ship exhibits a type of Church, the word of life placed and preached within which, they who are without, and lie near like barren and useless sands, cannot understand." (https://books.google.com/books?id=2398ZZ9dIQoC&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&dq=hilary+of+poitiers+matthew&source=gbs_navlinks_s)


I would say that Hilary may be at variance with himself. He elsewhere views Scripture as self-interpreting. Here is an example of this principle:

"All these passages they neither understand rationally, nor distinguish as to their occasions, nor apprehend in the light of the Gospel mysteries, nor realize in the strict meaning of the words and so they impugn the divine nature of Christ with crude and insensate rashness, quoting single detached utterances to catch the ears of the unwary, and keeping back either the sequel which explains or the incidents which prompted them, though the meaning of words must be sought in the context before or after them." (On the Trinity, Book 9, section 2)


He doesn't say "the meaning of words must be sought in the teaching of the infallible magisterium of the Roman church."


On the Trinity, Book 7, section 4

"I trust that the Church, by the light of her doctrine, will so enlighten the world’s vain wisdom, that, even though it accept not the mystery of the faith, it will recognise that in our conflict with heretics we, and not they, are the true representatives of that mystery.  . . . It is the peculiar property of the Church that when she is buffeted she is triumphant, when she is assaulted with argument she proves herself in the right, when she is deserted by her supporters she holds the field." (https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/330207.htm)


Once again, context is important here:

"The Church, ordained by the Lord and established by His Apostles, is one for all; but the frantic folly of discordant sects has severed them from her. And it is obvious that these dissensions concerning the faith result from a distorted mind, which twists the words of Scripture into conformity with its opinion, instead of adjusting that opinion to the words of Scripture."


This at least implies that Hilary viewed Scripture as being what holds the unity in the church together in the first place, since misusing Scripture is what causes disunity (according to the above quote).


There are other passages (I am using the ones from RC apologist Dave Armstrong) in which Hilary speaks about the "church's faith" and the "faith of the Church" which are appealed to to disprove Sola Scriptura, but are obviously not inconsistent with it, and thus I won't waste the time to address them. I am mainly dealing with the passages that are cited which are clearer in what the meaning is and obvious what RC apologists are trying to get from them. 







Dec 28, 2021

Ambrose on Scripture and Tradition [Part 2]

 


Letter 37

"In most places Paul so explains his meaning by his own words, that he who discourses on them can find nothing to add of his own; and if he wishes to say anything, must rather perform the office of a grammarian than a discourser." (PL 16:1084, also in Fathers of the Church, vol. 26, pg. 286)


This quotation shows that Ambrose did not view an infallible magisterium as necessary for getting the meaning of Scripture (which in this context is specifically the letters the Apostle Paul). 


Cain and Abel, Book 1, Chapter 6

"I wished that they be arrayed in the unadorned words of Scripture in order that they may gleam in their own light and that in due order they may speak out plainly for themselves. The sun and the moon need no interpreter. The brilliance of their light is all-sufficient a light that fills the entire world. Faith serves as an illumination for the inspired Word. It is, if I may say so, an intestate witness having no need of another's testimony, yet it dazzles the eyes of all mankind." (Fathers of the Church, vol. 42, pg. 380)


This is an explicit affirmation of Scripture's clearness, plainness, and perspicuity. 


On the Christian Faith, Book 1, Chapter 6

"Nevertheless I would not that your sacred Majesty should trust to argument and our disputation. Let us enquire of the Scriptures, of apostles, of prophets, of Christ." (https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/34041.htm)


On the Duties of the Clergy, Book 1, Chapter 23

"Men of the world give many further rules about the way to speak, which I think we may pass over; as, for instance, the way jesting should be conducted. For though at times jests may be proper and pleasant, yet they are unsuited to the clerical life. For how can we adopt those things which we do not find in the holy Scriptures?" (https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/34011.htm)


Sermon 14 on Psalm 118

"The books of the heavenly Scriptures are good pastures, by which we are fed by daily reading, by which we are renewed and refreshed, when we taste the things that are written, or ruminate frequently upon that which has been but tasted. Upon these pastures the flock of the Lord is fattened." (cited in William Goode, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice, Vol. II, pg. 528)


I will end this article series with a quote from Craig Alan Satterlee:

"Nevertheless, Ambrose could not have the fathomed the possibility of preaching in which Scripture was not an integral part. The bishop of Milan was essentially a scriptural preacher. As we have said, recourse to Scripture is constant in his sermons. For Ambrose, Scripture is 'the spiritual home of the Christian, it constitutes [the Christian's intellectual world'. He understood Scripture to be the source of all knowledge and wisdom... " (Craig Alan Satterlee, Ambrose of Milan's Method of Mystagogical Preaching, pg. 210)





Dec 27, 2021

Ambrose of Milan on Scripture and Tradition [Part 1]

 


Letter 22

"For otherwise they would not have any feeling against their works, did they not judge that they have not the faith which was in them, that faith established by the tradition of our forefathers, which the devils themselves cannot deny, but the Arians do." (https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/340922.htm)


The next section gives us insight as to what Ambrose is referring to when he speaks of "the faith":

"21. We have today heard those on whom hands were laid say, that no one can be saved unless he believe in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; that he is dead and buried who denies the Holy Spirit, and believes not the almighty power of the Trinity. The devil confesses this, but the Arians refuse to do so. The devil says: Let him who denies the Godhead of the Holy Spirit be so tormented as himself was tormented by the martyrs."


He is not speaking of "tradition" in the sense of things which cannot be found in Scripture and yet are necessary for belief and salvation.

On the Christian Faith, Book 1 - Prologue, Section 5

"Of the Acts of Councils, I shall let that one be my chief guide which three hundred and eighteen priests [at the Council of Nicaea: 325 AD], appointed, as it were, after the judgment of Abraham, made (so to speak) a trophy raised to proclaim their victory over the infidel throughout the world, prevailing by that courage of the Faith, wherein all agreed. Verily, as it seems to me, one may herein see the hand of God, . . ." (https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/34041.htm)


Ambrose followed Nicaea (as I personally do) in that Nicaea was in agreement with Scripture, not necessarily because of some sort of inherent infallible authority in church councils. This is evidenced by the following quote:

"So, indeed, following the guidance of the Scriptures, our fathers [at Nicaea] declared, holding, moreover, that impious doctrines should be included in the record of their decrees, in order that the unbelief of Arius should discover itself, and not, as it were, mask itself with dye or face-paint" (On the Christian Faith, Book 1, Chapter 18)






Dec 26, 2021

Tertullian on Scripture and Tradition [Part 2]

 


Against Praxeas, Chapter 20

"But I must take some further pains to rebut their arguments, when they make selections from the Scriptures in support of their opinion, and refuse to consider the other points, which obviously maintain the rule of faith without any infraction of the unity of the Godhead, and with the full admission of the Monarchy. For as in the Old Testament Scriptures they lay hold of nothing else than, I am God, and beside me there is no God; Isaiah 45:5 so in the Gospel they simply keep in view the Lord's answer to Philip, I and my Father are one; John 10:30 and, He that has seen me has seen the Father; and I am in the Father, and the Father in me. John 14:9-10 They would have the entire revelation of both Testaments yield to these three passages, whereas the only proper course is to understand the few statements in the light of the many. But in their contention they only act on the principle of all heretics. For, inasmuch as only a few testimonies are to be found (making for them) in the general mass, they pertinaciously set off the few against the many, and assume the later against the earlier. The rule, however, which has been from the beginning established for every case, gives its prescription against the later assumptions, as indeed it also does against the fewer." (https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0317.htm)


Tertullian is specifically addressing how to interpret obscure passages of the Bible here. Rather than appealing to some infallible Roman magisterium, he directs us to look at the clearer passages of Scripture in order to ascertain the meaning of more obscure ones. 


On the Flesh of Christ, Chapter 6

"Since, therefore, it has not been told us whence they obtained their flesh, it remains for us not to doubt in our minds that a property of angelic power is this, to assume to themselves bodily shape out of no material substance. How much more, you say, is it (within their competence to take a body) out of some material substance? That is true enough. But there is no evidence of this, because Scripture says nothing. " (https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0315.htm)


This quotation gives the implication that for Tertullian Scripture was the final arbiter in terms of whether or not a doctrine had "evidence" for it, meaning Scripture was the ultimate regula fide for him. 


Against Hermogenes, Chapter 22

"I revere the fullness of His Scripture, in which He manifests to me both the Creator and the creation. In the gospel, moreover, I discover a Minister and Witness of the Creator, even His Word. John 1:3 But whether all things were made out of any underlying Matter, I have as yet failed anywhere to find. Where such a statement is written, Hermogenes' shop must tell us. If it is nowhere written, then let it fear the woe which impends on all who add to or take away from the written word. Revelation 22:18-19" (https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0313.htm)


On the Resurrection of the Flesh, Chapter 3

"Take away, indeed, from the heretics the wisdom which they share with the heathen, and let them support their inquiries from the Scriptures alone: they will then be unable to keep their ground. " (https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0316.htm)


Against Praxeas, Chapter 18

"Now the Scripture is not in danger of requiring the aid of any one's argument, lest it should seem to be self-contradictory. It has a method of its own, both when it sets forth one only God, and also when it shows that there are Two, Father and Son; and is consistent with itself." (https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0317.htm)


Prescription Against Heretics, Chapter 14

"Well, but they actually treat of the Scriptures and recommend (their opinions) out of the Scriptures! To be sure they do. From what other source could they derive arguments concerning the things of the faith, except from the records of the faith?" (https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0311.htm)


Prescription Against Heretics, Chapter 36

"One Lord God does she [the church of Rome] acknowledge, the Creator of the universe, and Christ Jesus (born) of the Virgin Mary, the Son of God the Creator; and the Resurrection of the flesh; the law and the prophets she unites in one volume with the writings of evangelists and apostles, from which she drinks in her faith" (https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0311.htm)


Prescription Against Heretics, Chapter 38

"Where diversity of doctrine is found, there, then, must the corruption both of the Scriptures and the expositions thereof be regarded as existing. On those whose purpose it was to teach differently, lay the necessity of differently arranging the instruments of doctrine. They could not possibly have effected their diversity of teaching in any other way than by having a difference in the means whereby they taught. As in their case, corruption in doctrine could not possibly have succeeded without a corruption also of its instruments, so to ourselves also integrity of doctrine could not have accrued, without integrity in those means by which doctrine is managed. " (https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0311.htm)


The Apology, Chapter 20

"To make up for our delay in this, we bring under your notice something of even greater importance; we point to the majesty of our Scriptures, if not to their antiquity. If you doubt that they are as ancient as we say, we offer proof that they are divine. And you may convince yourselves of this at once, and without going very far. Your instructors, the world, and the age, and the event, are all before you. All that is taking place around you was fore-announced; all that you now see with your eye was previously heard by the ear. The swallowing up of cities by the earth; the theft of islands by the sea; wars, bringing external and internal convulsions; the collision of kingdoms with kingdoms; famines and pestilences, and local massacres, and widespread desolating mortalities; the exaltation of the lowly, and the humbling of the proud; the decay of righteousness, the growth of sin, the slackening interest in all good ways; the very seasons and elements going out of their ordinary course, monsters and portents taking the place of nature's forms — it was all foreseen and predicted before it came to pass. While we suffer the calamities, we read of them in the Scriptures; as we examine, they are proved. Well, the truth of a prophecy, I think, is the demonstration of its being from above." (https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0301.htm)




"Scripture was authoritative for Tertullian. Although he did not write commentaries on biblical books, he used Scripture as his primary source material in almost every chapter of every work (the only exception being his apologetic works that were designed for pagan readers). In this, he was no different from most other early Christian writers....The second thing to say about Tertullian’s stated hermeneutic was his belief in the simplicity of Scripture. It could interpret itself, he claimed at one point, and had a method of its own, such that all apparent inconsistency could be explained (Against Praxeas 18.2). Indeed, the principle he put forward was that one text of Scripture must always be interpreted in the light of a greater number of texts (Against Praxeas 20.2), and that later texts must agree with earlier ones (Against Praxeas 20.3), principles with which he did not always conform." (Geoffrey D. Dunn, Early Church Fathers - Tertullian, pgs. 13, 15)

"Tertullian held a high view of Scripture. His grasp of the entire Bible is “astonishing.” For Tertullian, Scripture is the “voice of the Holy Spirit” and therefore “divine.” Since the Holy Spirit was its ultimate author, Scripture carried authority. This authority was more assumed by Tertullian than proven. This indicates that it was generally accepted. Although Tertullian shows himself primarily as a rhetor, in his theological treatises his proof is largely biblical exposition and follows in general the biblical sequence rather than rhetorical topics...The Scriptures were “God’s inspired standard,” but Tertullian placed “our rule and standard of faith” together as one (De an. 2)...The Rule of Faith served as a summary of the apostolic message, of the Christian gospel. Hence, its wording varied as circumstances required...The treatise, De praescriptione, has rightly gained attention because of the novelty of Tertullian’s argument. This, however, has resulted in the neglect of recognizing the premise of the whole discussion, the authority of Scripture. The student of the treatise must remember its polemical purpose and not generalize some of its arguments to represent the whole of Tertullian’s thought on Scripture....It is notable that in De praescriptione when arguing that “heretics” can be refuted without appeal to Scripture, Tertullian actually says a great deal about the authority of Scripture and gives Paul a particularly prominent place in the discussion. Implicit in the thesis of the treatise is the authority of Scripture....Impressive are the statements of the authority of Scripture in De praescriptione. Catholic teaching is in accord with Scripture; there is nothing in the “instruments of doctrine” (instrumenta doctrinae, here the New Testament writings) that “is contrary to us” (i.e., catholic Christians, De prae. haer. 38). From the Scriptures “we have our being” (De prae. haer. 38).33 The heretics acknowledged the authority of Scripture (De prae. haer. 14–15) and indeed could not believe without the Scriptures (De prae. haer. 23)." (Everett Ferguson, "Tertullian, Scripture, Rule of Faith, and Paul" in Todd D. Still, Tertullian and Paul, pgs. 22, 24, 26, 28)




Dec 25, 2021

Tertullian on Scripture and Tradition [Part 1]

 


Prescription Against Heretics, chapter 21

"It remains, then, that we demonstrate whether this doctrine of ours, of which we have now given the rule, has its origin in the tradition of the apostles, and whether all other doctrines do not ipso facto proceed from falsehood." (https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0311.htm)


Tertullian in chapters 21-29 (in particular) goes into detail as to why the faith he was then preaching and defending (before he drifted to Montanism) is able to be traced back to the 12 apostles and evangelists, and why the views of the heretical groups are late and thus considered acts of deviance from the true faith. 

What, then, is the tradition that Tertullian was referring to? We find the answer in chapter 29 of the same treatise:

"In whatever manner error came, it reigned of course only as long as there was an absence of heresies? Truth had to wait for certain Marcionites and Valentinians to set it free. During the interval the gospel was wrongly preached; men wrongly believed; so many thousands were wrongly baptized; so many works of faith were wrongly wrought; so many miraculous gifts, so many spiritual endowments, were wrongly set in operation; so many priestly functions, so many ministries, were wrongly executed; and, to sum up the whole, so many martyrs wrongly received their crowns! Else, if not wrongly done, and to no purpose, how comes it to pass that the things of God were on their course before it was known to what God they belonged? that there were Christians before Christ was found? that there were heresies before true doctrine? Not so; for in all cases truth precedes its copy, the likeness succeeds the reality. Absurd enough, however, is it, that heresy should be deemed to have preceded its own prior doctrine, even on this account, because it is that (doctrine) itself which foretold that there should be heresies against which men would have to guard! To a church which possessed this doctrine, it was written—yea, the doctrine itself writes to its own church—“Though an angel from heaven preach any other gospel than that which we have preached, let him be accursed.


Tertullian in terms of "tradition" is speaking of the regula fide or the gospel, something obviously contained in Holy Scripture itself. This is further confirmed when we look at chapter 27:

"Since, therefore, it is incredible that the apostles were either ignorant of the whole scope of the message which they had to declare, or failed to make known to all men the entire rule of faith, let us see whether, while the apostles proclaimed it, perhaps, simply and fully, the churches, through their own fault, set it forth otherwise than the apostles had done. All these suggestions of distrust you may find put forward by the heretics. They bear in mind how the churches were rebuked by the apostle: “O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you?” [Gal. iii. 1.] and, “Ye did run so well; who hath hindered you?” [Gal. v. 7.] and how the epistle actually begins: “I marvel that ye are so soon removed from Him, who hath called you as His own in grace, to another gospel.” [Gal. i. 6.] That they likewise (remember), what was written to the Corinthians, that they “were yet carnal,” who “required to be fed with milk,” being as yet “unable to bear strong meat;” [1 Cor. iii. 1, and following verses.] who also “thought that they knew somewhat, whereas they knew not yet anything, as they ought to know.” [1 Cor. viii. 2.] When they raise the objection that the churches were rebuked, let them suppose that they were also corrected; let them also remember those (churches), concerning whose faith and knowledge and conversation the apostle “rejoices and gives thanks to God,” which nevertheless even at this day, unite with those which were rebuked in the privileges of one and the same institution."


Tertullian defines the "rule of faith" (regula fide) elsewhere in his writings:


"Now, with regard to this rule of faith— that we may from this point acknowledge what it is which we defend — it is, you must know, that which prescribes the belief that there is one only 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 heavenly 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. This rule, as it will be proved, was taught by Christ, and raises among ourselves no other questions than those which heresies introduce, and which make men heretics." (Prescription against Heretics, Chapter 13)


[Similar language can be found in chapter 2 of Tertullian's work Against Praxeas]


I would end our examination of this citation with this quote from Everett Ferguson:


"A cluster of uses of traditio occurs in Prescription of Heretics. In this work, Tertullian, like Irenaeus, turns from the scriptural argument to the argument from tradition, only now using a legal principle to exclude heretics from appealing to the Scriptures at all. The content of his works as a whole and the tenor of this work, however, show that Scripture was the standard for him. Tertullian aims to show that “the true Christian rule and faith, the true Scriptures and expositions of them, and all the Christian traditions” (19.2–3) are to be found in the churches derived directly from the apostles. These terms are equivalent; the Christian traditions are the Christian message, Christian teachings (7.)" (Everett Ferguson, "Paradosis and traditio: A Word Study", in Tradition and the Rule of Faith in the Early Church, pgs. 18-19)


Against Marcion, Book 4, Chapter 5

"Such are the summary arguments which we use, when we take up arms against heretics for the faith of the gospel, maintaining both that order of periods, which rules that a late date is the mark of forgers, and that authority of churches which lends support to the tradition of the apostles; because truth must needs precede the forgery, and proceed straight from those by whom it has been handed on." (https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/03124.htm)


Here is the full context: 

"On the whole, then, if that is evidently more true which is earlier, if that is earlier which is from the very beginning, if that is from the beginning which has the apostles for its authors, then it will certainly be quite as evident, that that comes down from the apostles, which has been kept as a sacred deposit in the churches of the apostles. Let us see what milk the Corinthians drank from Paul; to what rule of faith the Galatians were brought for correction; what the Philippians, the Thessalonians, the Ephesians read by it; what utterance also the Romans give, so very near (to the apostles), to whom Peter and Paul conjointly bequeathed the gospel even sealed with their own blood. We have also St. John’s foster churches. For although Marcion rejects his Apocalypse, the order of the bishops (thereof), when traced up to their origin, will yet rest on John as their author. In the same manner is recognised the excellent source of the other churches. I say, therefore, that in them (and not simply such of them as were founded by apostles, but in all those which are united with them in the fellowship of the mystery of the gospel of Christ) that Gospel of Luke which we are defending with all our might has stood its ground from its very first publication; whereas Marcion’s Gospel is not known to most people, and to none whatever is it known without being at the same time condemned. It too, of course, has its churches, but specially its own—as late as they are spurious; and should you want to know their original, you will more easily discover apostasy in it than apostolicity, with Marcion forsooth as their founder, or some one of Marcion’s swarm. Even wasps make combs; so also these Marcionites make churches.  The same authority of the apostolic churches will afford evidence to the other Gospels also, which we possess equally through their means, and according to their usage—I mean the Gospels of John and Matthew—whilst that which Mark published may be affirmed to be Peter's whose interpreter Mark was. For even Luke’s form of the Gospel men usually ascribe to Paul. And it may well seem that the works which disciples publish belong to their masters. Well, then, Marcion ought to be called to a strict account concerning these (other Gospels) also, for having omitted them, and insisted in preference on Luke; as if they, too, had not had free course in the churches, as well as Luke’s Gospel, from the beginning. Nay, it is even more credible that they existed from the very beginning; for, being the work of apostles, they were prior, and coeval in origin with the churches themselves. But how comes it to pass, if the apostles published nothing, that their disciples were more forward in such a work; for they could not have been disciples, without any instruction from their masters? If, then, it be evident that these (Gospels) also were current in the churches, why did not Marcion touch them—either to amend them if they were adulterated, or to acknowledge them if they were uncorrupt?  For it is but natural that they who were perverting the gospel, should be more solicitous about the perversion of those things whose authority they knew to be more generally received. Even the false apostles (were so called) on this very account, because they imitated the apostles by means of their falsification. In as far, then, as he might have amended what there was to amend, if found corrupt, in so far did he firmly imply that all was free from corruption which he did not think required amendment. In short, he simply amended what he thought was corrupt; though, indeed, not even this justly, because it was not really corrupt.  For if the (Gospels) of the apostles have come down to us in their integrity, whilst Luke’s, which is received amongst us, so far accords with their rule as to be on a par with them in permanency of reception in the churches, it clearly follows that Luke’s Gospel also has come down to us in like integrity until the sacrilegious treatment of Marcion. In short, when Marcion laid hands on it, it then became diverse and hostile to the Gospels of the apostles. I will therefore advise his followers, that they either change these Gospels, however late to do so, into a conformity with their own, whereby they may seem to be in agreement with the apostolic writings (for they are daily retouching their work, as daily they are convicted by us); or else that they blush for their master, who stands self-condemned either way—when once he hands on the truth of the gospel conscience smitten, or again subverts it by shameless tampering. Such are the summary arguments which we use, when we take up arms against heretics for the faith of the gospel, maintaining both that order of periods, which rules that a late date is the mark of forgers, and that authority of churches which lends support to the tradition of the apostles; because truth must needs precede the forgery, and proceed straight from those by whom it has been handed on." 


The first sentence ("On the whole, then, if that is evidently more true which is earlier, if that is earlier which is from the very beginning, if that is from the beginning which has the apostles for its authors, then it will certainly be quite as evident, that that comes down from the apostles, which has been kept as a sacred deposit in the churches of the apostles.") seems to imply that Tertullian is speaking of Scripture (notice the phrase in bold emphasis from Tertullian). 




Dec 24, 2021

Gregory Nazianzus on Scripture, Tradition, and the Church

 

In this article, I am looking at the citations used most often by Roman Catholic apologists to assert that Gregory Nazianzen denied sola Scriptura and held to a more papist view of Scripture, tradition, and church authority. 


Letter 101 (first Letter to Cledonius)

"But since our faith has been proclaimed, both in writing and without writing, here and in distant parts, in times of danger and of safety, how comes it that some make such attempts, and that others keep silence?" (https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3103a.htm)


This is similar language to that of 2 Thess. 2:15 (a common proof-text used by RC apologists). It does not refute sola Scriptura as I have demonstrated in other articles on this website. We don't deny that preaching is one of the means by which God communicates the faith to people.


Oration 2

"[T]he wiser of the Hebrews tell us that there was of old among the Hebrews a most excellent and praiseworthy law, that every age was not entrusted with the whole of Scripture, inasmuch as this would not be the more profitable course, since the whole of it is not at once intelligible to everyone, and its more recondite parts would, by their apparent meaning, do a very great injury to most people." (https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/310202.htm)


This is cited to suggest that Gregory didn't hold to the perspicuity or plainness of Scripture. However, notice he is describing a rule among the Hebrews (Jews), not among Christians. A person might respond by saying that Gregory calls this rule "a most excellent and praiseworthy law". Yet notice what he says in the next section:


"Among us, however, there is no boundary line between giving and receiving instruction, like the stones of old between the tribes within and beyond the Jordan: nor is a certain part entrusted to some, another to others; nor any rule for degrees of experience; but the matter has been so disturbed and thrown into confusion, that most of us, not to say all, almost before we have lost our childish curls and lisp, before we have entered the house of God, before we know even the names of the Sacred Books, before we have learned the character and authors of the Old and New Testaments: (for my present point is not our want of cleansing from the mire and marks of spiritual shame which our viciousness has contracted) if, I say, we have furnished ourselves with two or three expressions of pious authors, and that by hearsay, not by study; if we have had a brief experience of David, or clad ourselves properly in a cloaklet, or are wearing at least a philosopher's girdle, or have girt about us some form and appearance of piety— phew! How we take the chair and show our spirit! Samuel was holy even in his swaddling clothes: 1 Samuel 2:11 we are at once wise teachers, of high estimation in Divine things, the first of scribes and lawyers; we ordain ourselves men of heaven and seek to be called Rabbi by men; Matthew 23:7 the letter is nowhere, everything is to be understood spiritually, and our dreams are utter drivel, and we should be annoyed if we were not lauded to excess. This is the case with the better and more simple of us: what of those who are more spiritual and noble? After frequently condemning us, as men of no account, they have forsaken us, and abhor fellowship with impious people such as we are."


Dec 23, 2021

Augustine and the Papacy: The Case of Apiarius

 

Apiarius was a priest in the diocese of Sicca who was excommunicated by Bishop Urban. Apiarius then appealed to Pope Zosmius for protection and he was admitted into the communion of the church again. Zosmius then said that Apiarius should be reinstated. The North African bishops didn't like this idea, and held a synod at Carthage (AD 418), and they decreed the following:

"If Presbyters, Deacons, or other inferior clerics complain in any causes which they may have of the judgment of their own Bishop, let the neighbouring Bishops hear them and settle the dispute. If they should desire to appeal from them they shall only do so to African Councils or to the Primates of their provinces. But whosoever should think fit to appeal to transmarine Councils may not be received into communion by any one in Africa" (Canon 17, cited in Charles Hefele, History of the Councils of the Church, vol. 2, pg. 463)

Zosmius then cited the Sardican canons as a defense of his authority in the Apiarius situation, however, he passed them off as canons of the Council of Nicaea. The North African bishops obviously did not see these canons in their archives of the decrees of Nicaea. They held another syond at Carthage in 419 AD, where they examined this issue. Alypius, the bishop of Tagaste, said that deputies should be sent to the cities of Constantinople, Alexandria, and Antioch and get authentic copies of the decrees of Nicaea in order to see if Zosimus' claims were true.

One of Zosimus' legates, Faustinus, did not like this idea. Instead, he thought, the synod should talk to the bishop of Rome and ask him to investigate the issue of the Nicene canons. Why would Faustinus do this? Probably, because he knew that the Sardican canons (cited as Nicene) were not in the authentic copies of the Nicene canons and that this would be damaging to the cause of Pope Zosimus. However, the Council of Carthage ignored Faustinus' proposal., and instead followed the proposal of Alypius to write to the three Sees and get copies of the decrees of Nicaea. 


Later, the council wrote a letter to the then-pope Boniface, which says the following:

"‘We took care to intimate by our letter to Zosimus of venerable memory, that we would for a short time permit these rules to be observed without any injury to him until we had searched the statutes of the Nicene Council. And now we request your Holiness to cause these rules to be kept by us, as they were passed or appointed at Nicaea by the Fathers; and to cause the rules which they brought in their instructions to be carried out in your own Provinces, to wit’: here follow the fifth (al. the seventh) and the fourteenth (al. the seventeenth) ‘Sardican Canons.’ These we have, at all events, inserted in the Acts until the arrival of the most authentic copies of the Nicene Council: and should they be there contained (as the brethren sent to us from the Apostolical See have alleged in their instructions), and be even kept according to that rule by you in Italy, we could by no means be compelled either to endure such treatment as we are unwilling to mention, or could suffer what is unbearable. But we trust, by the mercy of our Lord God, that while your Holiness presides over the Roman Church, we shall not have to endure such arrogance as that—non sumus jam istum typhum passuri—and that a course of proceeding will be maintained towards us such as ought to be observed, even without our having to speak about it. A course of proceeding which, according to the wisdom and justice which the Most High has given you, you yourself see ought to be maintained, if perchance the Canons of the Nicene Council run otherwise. For though we have read very many copies, yet we never find in the Latin copies of the Nicene Council the quotations made in the above–mentioned instructions: nevertheless, as we could not find them here in any Greek copy, we the more desire they should be brought us from the Oriental Churches, where, it is said, authentic copies of the same decrees may be found. Wherefore we also beseech your Reverence to be good enough yourself to write to the Priests of those parts, that is, of the Church of Antioch, Alexandria, and Constantinople, and to others also, if your Holiness please: that these same Canons appointed by our Fathers in the city of Nicaea may reach us, you specially by the help of the Lord conferring this benefit on all the Western Churches. For who can doubt that the copies, brought from so many different places and noble Churches of Greece, which are compared, and agree, are the most authentic copies of the Nicene Council which met in Greece. Until this be done, the quotations made to us in the above–mentioned instruction, concerning the appeals of Bishops to the Priest of the Roman Church, and concerning the terminating the causes of the clergy by the Bishops of their own Provinces, we declare that we will maintain till the copies are tested; and we trust that your Blessedness will by the will of God help us in this." (Mansi, 3:830 and in Edward Denny, Papalism, pgs. 235-236)


Notice that the letter says that " a course of proceeding which, according to the wisdom and justice which the Most High has given you, you yourself see ought to be maintained, if perchance the Canons of the Nicene Council run otherwise." This shows that they viewed the bishop of Rome as obligated to obey the authentic canons of Nicaea. He was subject to church councils, just like them. This is incompatible with the Vatican I view of the papacy and church authority in history. 


Further, in the acts of the Council, canon 125 shows a lack of recognition on the part of the African church of papal authority:

"it seemed good that presbyters, deacons, or other of the lower clergy who are to be tried, if they question the decision of their bishops, the neighbouring bishops having been invited by them with the consent of their bishops, shall hear them and determine whatever separates them. But should they think an appeal should be carried from them, let them not carry the appeal except to African councils or to the primates of their provinces. But whoever shall think of carrying an appeal across seas he shall be admitted to communion by no one in Africa." (https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3816.htm)


Edward Denny further notes the following:


"It must be noted, too, that Zosimus’ own action in citing these pretended Nicene Canons is also incompatible with Papalism, for, according to the Vatican decrees, to the Roman Pontiff as the supreme judge of all the faithful, having full and supreme power of jurisdiction, jure divino, over the universal Church, recourse may be had in all causes appertaining to ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Hence, therefore, to allege a Canon granting such a limited power to the Roman Bishop as that quoted in the Commonitorium as the ground of his claim would have been to practically deny that he had, as the ‘legitimate successor of St. Peter,’ a grant of sovereign power from the Head of the Church; a grant essential to the maintenance of the Divine Constitution of the Church." (Edward Denny, Papalism, pgs. 236-237)


One last point is that Zosimus flaunted his alleged apostolical/Petrine authority in a letter titled Quamuis Patrum, and yet the African bishops did not care, showing that they did not view the bishop of Rome as having universal jurisdiction over the Church. 

"In Quamuis Patrum, written in March 418, he deliberately flaunted his apostlic authority and claimed that no one should dispute his judgment. Such is the authority of Peter and the venerable decrees of the church that all questions concerning human and divine laws, as well as all disciplinary matters, must be referred to Rome for ultimate resolution. This was high-flown language indeed, as as far as the Africans were concerned, totally unacceptable....In late April 418, Quamuis Patrum, duly arrived at Carthage, but it hardly seemed to matter. The Africans already had their next move planned." (J.E. Merdinger, Rome and the African Church in the Time of Augustine, pg. 129)










Did Martin Luther add the word "alone" to Romans 3:28?

 


Luther gives clarification as to his translation of Romans 3:28 in his Open Letter on Translation:

“I know very well that in Romans 3 the word solum is not in the Greek or Latin text — the papists did not have to teach me that. It is fact that the letters s-o-l-a are not there. And these blockheads stare at them like cows at a new gate, while at the same time they do not recognize that it conveys the sense of the text -- if the translation is to be clear and vigorous [klar und gewaltiglich], it belongs there. I wanted to speak German, not Latin or Greek, since it was German I had set about to speak in the translation. So much for translating and the nature of language. However, I was not depending upon or following the nature of the languages alone when I inserted the word solum in Romans 3. The text itself, and Saint Paul's meaning, urgently require and demand it. For in that passage he is dealing with the main point of Christian doctrine, namely, that we are justified by faith in Christ without any works of the Law. Paul excludes all works so completely as to say that the works of the Law, though it is God's law and word, do not aid us in justification. Using Abraham as an example, he argues that Abraham was so justified without works that even the highest work, which had been commanded by God, over and above all others, namely circumcision, did not aid him in justification. Rather, Abraham was justified without circumcision and without any works, but by faith, as he says in Chapter 4: "If Abraham were justified by works, he may boast, but not before God." So, when all works are so completely rejected — which must mean faith alone justifies — whoever would speak plainly and clearly about this rejection of works will have to say "Faith alone justifies and not works." The matter itself and the nature of language requires it.” (http://www.bible-researcher.com/luther01.html)


Furthermore, Joseph Fitzmyer points out in his commentary on Romans (pgs. 360-361) that many other people added the word "alone" in their commentaries and exposition on the book of Romans. Some examples would Basil, John Chrysostom, and Thomas Aquinas. 

Dec 21, 2021

Theodoret on Scripture and Tradition [Part 2]

 


Commentary on the Prophet Ezekiel


"Some people who have fallen foul of this complaint have endeavored to level charges at the divine Scripture, and especially the inspired oracles, of being shrouded in obscurity. To such people the divine-inspired Paul would retort, “Now, even if our Gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, but to the mature it is wisdom we are speaking.” In keeping with this, too, is what is said by our Lord and savior to the holy apostles, “To you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom, whereas to those others it is not given;” and to explain the reason he immediately adds, “Seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not understand” — that is, they willingly bring upon themselves the cloud of ignorance: if they turn to the Lord, as the apostle says, the veil will be lifted. Divine realities, therefore, are not obscure to everyone, only to those who are voluntarily blind; they ought to take note and realize that nothing worthwhile is readily accessible to human beings." (Commentaries on the Prophets: Volume Two - Ezekiel, [trans. Robert Charles Hill], pgs. 27-28, also in PG 81:808-809)


Questions on Genesis, Q. 1


"The divine Scripture is accustomed to accommodate its lessons to those who are to be instructed; and to the perfect, to offer that which is perfect; and to the ignorant, elementary points and things suited to their ability." (PG 80:77)


Diaolgue 1 with Eranistes


"You stand in need of no interpretation from without. The evangelist himself interprets himself. For after saying the Word was made flesh, he goes on "and dwelt among us" (https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/27031.htm)


Dialogue 2 with Eranistes


"Eran.—In these points you seem to say sooth, but after its assumption into heaven I do not think that you will deny that it was changed into the nature of Godhead. Orth.—I would not so say persuaded only by human arguments, for I am not so rash as to say anything concerning which divine Scripture is silent." (https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/27032.htm)



Theodoret on Scripture and Tradition [Part 1]

 


Lets take a look at the passages from Theodoret used by Roman Catholic apologists to assert that he did not hold to the formal sufficiency of Scripture and sola scriptura:


Letter 89

"So have I learned not only from the apostles and prophets but also from the interpreters of their writings, Ignatius, Eustathius, Athanasius, Basil, Gregory, John, and the rest of the lights of the world; and before these from the holy Fathers in council at Nicæa, whose confession of the faith I preserve in its integrity, like an ancestral inheritance, styling corrupt and enemies of the truth all who dare to transgress its decrees. I invoke your greatness, now that you have heard from me in these terms, to shut the mouths of my calumniators. It is in my opinion wholly unreasonable to accept as true what is charged against men in their absence; rather is it lawful and right that those who wish to appear as prosecutors should accuse the defendants in their presence, and endeavour to convict them face to face. Under these conditions the judges will without difficulty be able to arrive at the truth." (https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2707089.htm)


This does not necessarily contradict sola scriptura. All he is saying is that he learned the faith from other sources outside of Scripture. He isn't saying that he viewed those sources as infallible ones. In the next article, it will be shown that Theodoret considered Scripture alone to be the infallible rule of faith. 


Letter 84

"I hope then that your piety will deign, if there really are any, though I cannot believe it, who disobey the apostolic doctrines to close their mouths, to rebuke them as the laws of the Church require, and teach them to follow the footsteps of the holy Fathers and preserve undefiled the faith laid down at Nicæa in Bithynia by the holy and blessed Fathers, as summing up the teaching of Evangelists and Apostles." (https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2707084.htm)


This time, the refutation is perhaps in the quote itself. Theodoret isn't viewing Nicaea itself as infallible. Rather he is speaking of the faith delivered there. He also says to follow them "as summing the teaching of Evangelists and Apostles", which is an obvious reference to the NT writers.


Letter 151


"This is the confession of the faith of the Church; this is the doctrine taught by evangelists and apostles. For this faith, by God's grace I will not refuse to undergo many deaths. This faith we have striven to convey to them that now err and stray, again and again challenging them to discussion, and eager to show them the truth, but without success....The slander of the libellers that represent me as worshipping two sons is refuted by the plain facts of the case. I teach all persons who come to holy Baptism the faith put forth at Nicæa...This is the doctrine delivered to us by the divine prophets; this is the doctrine of the company of the holy apostles; this is the doctrine of the great saints of the East and of the West....In a word I assert that I follow the divine oracles and at the same time all these saints. By the grace of the spirit they dived into the depths of God-inspired scripture and both themselves perceived its mind, and made it plain to all that are willing to learn. Difference in tongue has wrought no difference in doctrine, for they were channels of the grace of the divine spirit, using the stream from one and the same fount."


This is similar to the quote above, where "the refutation is in the quote itself."

1) Notice that Theodoret follows the saints due to their insight into the study of Scripture

2) The sentence at the end describing the other fathers of Theodoret's time ("channels of the grace of the divine spirit, using the stream from one and the same fount" [a probable reference to Scripture]) at least implies that ultimately he follows them as he sees them following Scripture, thus pointing back to Scripture ("divine spirit...one and the same fount") as the ultimate authority and rule of faith. 

3) The doctrine which he is upholding is that which is "delivered to us by the divine prophets" and is "the doctrine of the company of the holy apostles".

















John of Damascus' Biblical Canon

 


John of Damascus
John of Damascus was a 7th century priest and monk known for his defense of icons and images (which I as a Reformed Christian, would disagree with). Nonetheless, he agrees (almost) with Judaism and Protestantism on the Old Testament canon. He does however, include the books of Esdras and the Wisdom of Solomon.


Here is the entire list from An Exposition of the Orthodox Faith:


"Observe, further , that there are two and twenty books of the Old Testament, one for each letter of the Hebrew tongue. For there are twenty-two letters of which five are double, and so they come to be twenty-seven. For the letters Caph, Mem, Nun, Pe , Sade are double. And thus the number of the books in this way is twenty-two, but is found to be twenty-seven because of the double character of five. For Ruth is joined on to Judges, and the Hebrews count them one book: the first and second books of Kings are counted one: and so are the third and fourth books of Kings: and also the first and second of Paraleipomena: and the first and second of Esdra. In this way, then, the books are collected together in four Pentateuchs and two others remain over, to form thus the canonical books. Five of them are of the Law, viz. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. This which is the code of the Law, constitutes the first Pentateuch. Then comes another Pentateuch, the so-called Grapheia , or as they are called by some, the Hagiographa, which are the following: Jesus the Son of Nave , Judges along with Ruth, first and second Kings, which are one book, third and fourth Kings, which are one book, and the two books of the Paralipomena which are one book. This is the second Pentateuch. The third Pentateuch is the books in verse, viz. Job, Psalms, Proverbs of Solomon, Ecclesiastes of Solomon and the Song of Songs of Solomon. The fourth Pentateuch is the Prophetical books, viz the twelve prophets constituting one book, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel. Then come the two books of Esdra made into one, and Esther. There are also the Panaretus, that is the Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Jesus, which was published in Hebrew by the father of Sirach, and afterwards translated into Greek by his grandson, Jesus, the Son of Sirach. These are virtuous and noble, but are not counted nor were they placed in the ark." (https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/33044.htm)




Eutyches and the Double Consubstantiality of Christ

  During the Home Synod of Constantinople, Eutyches was summoned multiple times to appear before the assembly of bishops. On one such instan...