10. The Church Fathers’ Doctrine of Canon

In chapter one we saw that there was a wide divide between Rome and Protestants on the nature of the canon. Where Rome claims to have determined the canon, Protestants claimed the church recognized and received the canon from apostles and prophets and that therefore “the Word of God is both temporally and regulatively prior to the church.”²⁵⁸ Where Rome said that it is the mother of the canon and produced everything in the canon, Protestants said that the canon produced everything in the church and so the church is the child of the canon. Where Rome claimed to teach infallibly beyond the canon, Protestants claimed that the only voice that should be heard in the church is the voice of God speaking through the Bible. Where Rome claimed magisterial power, Protestants claimed only ministerial power. So the question comes up: which view represents the early church? This chapter will seek to show that the church fathers and councils of the first few centuries held to the Reformation view of tradition, authority, sufficiency of Scripture, sole infallibility of the Bible, rejection of the apocrypha from the canon, and the definitive first-century closing of the canon. It is Rome that left the catholic faith, not the Reformers. Eastern Orthodoxy soon followed Rome.

The early church’s view of tradition = Sola Scriptura

Summary statement on tradition

In chapters one and four I dealt extensively with the faulty views of non-Reformational thinking on tradition. We saw that Biblical tradition is Sola Scriptura tradition. Likewise, we saw that Protestant tradition (like the Westminster Confession) seeks to be Sola Scriptura tradition. In this chapter we will see that the same was true for the early fathers who appealed to the Bible for their doctrines, not to some secondary source. They were not always accurate in their interpretation of Scripture (anymore than we are), but their modus operandi was to see the Scriptures as the only foundation for their “Rule of Faith,” which was another term for their doctrine or their tradition. (The church fathers tended to use “tradition” and “rule of faith” as synonyms.)

Cyril of Jerusalem (AD 313-386) was a bishop in one of the most distinguished sees²⁵⁹ of the church. He speaks a great deal about tradition, but insists that every word of this tradition must be proven from the Scripture. He said,

For concerning the divine and sacred Mysteries of the Faith, we ought not to deliver even the most casual remark without the Holy Scriptures: nor be drawn aside by mere probabilities and the artifices of argument. Do not then believe me because I tell thee these things, unless thou receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth: for this salvation, which is of our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings, but by proof from the Holy Scriptures… In these articles we comprehend the whole doctrine of faith… For the articles of the Faith were not composed at the good pleasure of men, but the most important points chosen from all Scriptures, make up the one teaching of the Faith… This Faith, in a few words, hath enfolded in its bosom the whole knowledge of godliness contained both in the Old and New Testaments. Behold, therefore, brethren and hold the traditions (2 Thes. 2:15) which ye now receive, and write them on the table of your hearts… Now heed not any ingenious views of mine; else thou mayest be misled; but unless though receive the witness of the prophets concerning each matter, believe not what is spoken; unless thou learn from Holy Scripture… receive not the witness of man.²⁶⁰

How could any statement of Sola Scriptura be any more clear than what Cyril stated? Nor was Cyril alone. The church of the first few centuries held the same view.

Summary statements by patristics and church history scholars showing that the early church held to a Sola Scriptura view of tradition

Hanson says, “It is certain that all the fathers believed that the rule of faith was in its contents identical with the contents of the Bible, and that they all regarded the rule as open to being proved from the Bible.”²⁶¹ Thus, tradition was not something in addition to Scripture, but a summary of Scripture. J.N.D Kelly, one of the foremost scholars of church history and patristics says,

The clearest token of the prestige enjoyed by [Scripture] 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 an exposition of the Bible. Further, it was everywhere taken for granted that, for any doctrine to win acceptance, it had first to establish its Scriptural basis.²⁶²

William Webster states,

When the Fathers speak of a tradition handed down from the apostles independent of Scripture, they are referring to ecclesiastical customs and practices,²⁶³ never to doctrine. Tradition was always subordinate to Scripture as an authority, and the Word of God itself never teaches that tradition is inspired. The Scriptures give numerous warnings against tradition, and the Fathers rejected the teaching of an apostolic oral tradition independent of Scripture as a gnostic heresy. For the church Fathers apostolic tradition or teaching was embodied and preserved in Scripture. The teaching of the Fathers is this: What the apostles initially proclaimed and taught orally, they later committed to writing in the New Testament. Irenaeus succinctly states it in these words: ‘We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.’

How is one to know what the apostles taught orally? It has been handed down to us in the Scriptures, and they in turn are the ground and pillar of our faith. The historical circumstances that prompted Irenaeus’ words are important to understand. He was writing against Gnostics who claimed to have access to an oral tradition handed down from the apostles, which was independent of the written Word of God. Irenaeus, as well as Tertullian, explicitly repudiates such a concept.²⁶⁴

What this is saying is that all the distinctives of Rome that come exclusively from a supposed oral tradition rather than from the Bible are more akin to Gnosticism than to Christianity. The Council of Trent would have been reprimanded by the early church fathers. Ellen Flesseman-Van Leer summarizes the views of Irenaeus on this subject, stating, “For Irenaeus, the church doctrine is never purely traditional; on the contrary, the thought that there could be some truth transmitted exclusively viva voce (orally) is a Gnostic line of thought.”²⁶⁵

Nor was it the early church alone that held to the Protestant views of tradition that we outlined in early chapters. The Reformers claimed that they were restoring the church to the catholic view of tradition - a view of tradition that was consistent with Sola Scriptura. Brian Tierney says the same thing:

Such texts were often quoted and discussed by medieval theologians. But, before the thirteenth century, there is little trace in their works of the view that Tradition constituted a source of divine revelation separate from Scripture and little inclination to set up a distinction—still less an opposition—between Scriptural revelation and church doctrine. One modern author has observed that, for twelfth century theologians (as for the Fathers themselves), church and Scripture ‘co–inhered.’ This seems true in the sense that the teaching of the church and the teaching of Scripture were conceived of as essentially one. ‘The men of the Middle Ages lived in the Bible and by the Bible.’ When twelfth century theologians observed—as they sometimes did—that many things were held by the church that were not to be found in Scripture they seem to have had in mind only liturgical customs or pious practices. An extra–Scriptural source of faith like the Apostles’ Creed (which was commonly regarded as a work of the apostles themselves) was held to define various tenets of Christian doctrine with absolute fidelity; but it was not considered to be a body of revealed truth supplementary to sacred Scripture. Rather the Creed could be called in the twelfth century a ‘summary’ of the contents of Scripture. In this view Scripture recorded divine truth once and for all and the living voice of the church, guided by the Holy Spirit, interpreted that truth and proclaimed it anew to each succeeding generation.²⁶⁶

F.F. Bruce shows how tradition was always teaching based upon the Bible:

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. As R.P.C. Hanson puts it, the rule of faith invoked by the church fathers is ‘a graph of the interpretation of the Bible by the Church in the second and third centuries, a statement of what was generally believed to be the essence of Scripture.’²⁶⁷

J.N.D. Kelly again:

The whole point of his teaching was, in fact, that Scripture and the Church’s unwritten tradition are identical in content, both being vehicles of the revelation. If tradition as conveyed in the ‘canon’ is a more trustworthy guide, this is not because it comprises truths other than those revealed in Scripture, but because the true tenor of the apostolic message is there unambiguously set out.²⁶⁸

Oberman writes much the same:

As regards the pre–Augustinian Church, there is in our time a striking convergence of scholarly opinion that Scripture and Tradition are for the early Church in no sense mutually exclusive: kerygma, Scripture and Tradition coincide entirely. The Church preaches the kerygma which is found in toto in written form in the canonical books. The Tradition is not understood as an addition to the kerygma contained in Scripture but as the handing down of that same kerygma in living form: in other words everything is to be found in Scripture and at the same time everything is in the living Tradition…This coinherence implies the explicit denial of the extrascriptural Tradition. ‘To appeal to revelatory truth apart from Scripture is [for Irenaeus] heretical gnosticism.’²⁶⁹

Ellen Flesseman-Van Leer said,

Tradition is the revelation which reaches us by way of the apostles in the living preaching and teaching of the church; that what the church believes and proclaims is identical with the revelation message which the apostles brought. This original message has been faithfully preserved and transmitted from generation to generation through the succession of bishops. However, this same message has also been preserved in writing. That is to say, the unadulterated apostolic teaching is to be known from Scripture.²⁷⁰

Fuller and Hanson weigh in:

There are, of course, plenty of references in the Fathers to the ‘tradition of the Church’ and ‘the Church’s rule of faith’, and similar phrases, but what they mean in each instance is ‘the Scriptures as interpreted by the Church’, because to the Fathers the Scriptures are the Church’s tradition. That is all we can conclude from the fact that they constantly refer back to the Bible for their doctrine, and that they mention no other source of doctrine, except common sense and the rules of logic. Even when they are interpreting the Bible in opposition to the teaching of heretical sects, and claim that their interpretation is the Church’s interpretation (as they often do), they cannot reasonably be understood as referring to an oral tradition not written, and separate from Scripture, but rather to the way in which the Church has always interpreted its tradition. Had such an independent oral tradition existed, it would have been a secret one, inaccessible to any except to the initiated, in contrast to the written tradition which was available to everybody. But this secret tradition is just the tradition which Irenaeus (fl. 150-180) attributes to some of the heretical sects against which he is writing, and which on behalf of the Church he disavows.²⁷¹

Roman Catholic scholar George Tavard says,

The greatest centuries of the Middle Ages—twelfth and thirteenth—were thus faithful to the patristic concept of ‘Scripture alone.’²⁷²

G.L. Prestige said of Clement (and with him the other fathers)

The Bible was associated, and largely identified, with the tradition as early as Clement of Alexandria, at the turn of the century. He claims the authority of scriptural texts with the new phrase ‘as the Scripture has traditioned’ (strom. I.21, 142.2; ib. 7.18, 109.2), and speaks of the ‘spiritual knowledge traditioned through the Scriptures’, by which Christ makes a man truly great–minded (strom. 7.16, 105.1)…The genuine “Gnostic”—that is to say, the devout and intelligent Christian, the man of real enlightenment—will grow old in the Scriptures, preserves the apostolic and ecclesiastic orthodoxy in his doctrines, and lives according to the Gospel; for his life ‘is nothing else than the deeds and words conforming to the Lord’s tradition’ (ib. 104.1 & 2). In his maintenance of such an attitude, basing a deep reverence for the Bible on the unique character of the tradition which it contained, Clement is not singular. He merely gives expression in words to the spirit which animated all the Fathers, who repudiated with horror the idea of possessing any private or secret doctrine, and supported all their arguments with the most painstaking exegesis of the text of Holy Writ.²⁷³

It was really not until the fourteenth century that a two-source theory of revelation began to develop that ascribed to tradition revealed truths that could not be found in Scripture. William Webster states,

A shift took place in the teaching of the later Middle Ages, however, which Heiko Oberman has documented in his book The Harvest of Medieval Theology. He writes of two opposing views on tradition that developed after the fourteenth century which he calls Tradition I and Tradition II. Tradition I is the historic position of the patristic and early Middle Ages, that Scripture contains all the truths necessary for salvation. Scripture is the materially sufficient source of all doctrine for the Church and tradition the authoritative ecclesiastical interpretation of that standard. Tradition II, however, made tradition more than the authoritative interpretation of Scripture. It became a source of revelation, supposedly containing truths which were handed down orally from the apostles and independent of Scripture. This meant that Scripture was not materially sufficient.²⁷⁴

Letting the church fathers speak for themselves

I will seek to give a sample representation of the fathers so that they can speak for themselves. You will see that they tightly connected “tradition” to Scripture just as Protestants tightly connect doctrine and creeds to Scripture. It was Scriptural tradition or Scriptural doctrine.

Irenaeus (AD 130-202)

Against the Gnostics who claimed an oral tradition from the apostles, Irenaeus insisted that if the tradition was not found in Scripture, it had no authority and was speculative.

Such, then, is their [the heretics’] system, which neither the prophets announced, nor the Lord taught, nor the apostles delivered, but of which they boast that beyond all others they have a perfect knowledge. They gather their views from other sources than the Scriptures…²⁷⁵

In contrast, he claimed that the tradition of the true church was 100% contained in the Scripture.

We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.²⁷⁶

He complained of heretics,

When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but vivâ voce.”²⁷⁷

Since the word translated “handed down” is the verbal form of “tradition,” Irenaeus was saying that apostolic teaching was traditioned through the Scripture. This is the Protestant view of tradition. Protestants have insisted that their doctrinal statements are authoritative only insofar as they accurately reflect the Scripture. Many scholars have demonstrated that this was Irenaeus’ view.²⁷⁸

Hippolytus of Rome (AD 170-235)

There is, brethren, one God, the knowledge of whom we gain from the Holy Scriptures, and from no other source…Whatever things, then, the Holy Scriptures 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 glorify 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.²⁷⁹

Note the categorical rejection of anything doctrinal from any other source than Scripture.

Tertullian (AD 155-240)

Tertullian demanded Scriptural proof for everything.

Of course nothing is ‘too hard for the Lord.’ But if we choose to apply this principle so extravagantly and harshly in our capricious imaginations, we may then make out God to have done anything we please, on the ground that it was not impossible for Him to do it. We must not, however, because He is able to do all things suppose that He has actually done what He has not done. But we must inquire whether He has really done it. God could, if He had liked, have furnished man with wings to fly with, just as He gave wings to kites. We must not, however, run to the conclusion that He did this because He was able to do it! It will be your duty, however, to adduce your proofs out of the Scriptures as plainly as we do…²⁸⁰

Commenting on the authority to dictate the ethics of marriage, he said,

What Scripture does not note, it denies.²⁸¹

J.N.D. Kelly summarizes many other such passages in Tertullian with these words: “Scripture has absolute authority; whatever it teaches is necessarily true, and woe betide him who accepts doctrines not discoverable in it.”²⁸²

Dionysius of Alexandria (AD ? - 264)

Eusebius the historian approvingly quotes Dionysius as stating that Scripture alone was the guide in all church debates.

Now when I came to the nome of Arsinoë, where, as thou knowest, this doctrine had long been prevalent, so that schisms and defections of whole churches had taken place, I called together the presbyters and teachers of the brethren in the villages (there were present also such of the brethren as wished), and I urged them to hold the examination of the question publicly. And when they brought me this book as some invincible weapon and rampart, I sat with them and for three successive days from morn till night attempted to correct what had been written. On that occasion I conceived the greatest admiration for the brethren, their firmness, love of truth, facility in following an argument, and intelligence, as we propounded in order and with forbearance the questions, the difficulties raised and the points of agreement; on the one hand refusing to cling obstinately and at all costs (even though they were manifestly wrong) to opinions once held; and on the other hand not shirking the counter-arguments, but as far as possible attempting to grapple with the questions in hand and master them. Nor, if convinced by reason, were we ashamed to change our opinions and give our assent; but conscientiously and unfeignedly and with hearts laid open to God we accepted whatever was established by the proofs and teachings of the holy Scriptures. And in the end the leader and introducer of this teaching, Coracion, as he was called, in the hearing of all the brethren present, assented, and testified to us that he would no longer adhere to it, nor discourse upon it, nor mention nor teach it, since he had been sufficiently convinced by the contrary arguments. And as to the rest of the brethren, some rejoiced at the joint conference, and the mutual deference and unanimity which all displayed.²⁸³

Origen (AD 185-252)

…we must, in order to establish the positions which we have laid down, adduce the testimony of Holy Scripture.²⁸⁴

Therefore, in proof of all the words we utter when teaching, we ought to produce the doctrine of Scripture as confirming the doctrine we utter. For as all the gold that is without the temple is not sanctified, so every doctrine that is not in the divine Scripture, although it may seem admirable to some, is not sacred, because it is not comprehended within the doctrine of Scripture, which sanctifies that doctrine alone which it contains within itself as the temple renders sacred the gold that is in it. We ought not therefore for the confirmation of our instructions to swear by and take as evidence our own notions which we individually hold and think to be agreeable to truth, unless we are able to show that they are sacred as being contained in the divine Scriptures as in some temples of God.²⁸⁵

Cyprian of Carthage (AD 200-258)

Whence is that tradition? Whether does it descend from the authority of the Lord and the Gospel, or does it come from the injunctions and Epistles of the Apostles? For that we are to do what is written, God testifieth and admonisheth, saying to Joshua: ‘The book of this law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein.’…If then it is commanded in the Gospel, or is contained in the Epistles or Acts of the Apostles…let this divine and holy tradition be observed… 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.

But there is a brief way for religious and simple minds, both to put away error, and to find and to elicit truth. For if we return to the head and source of divine tradition, human error ceases… And this it behooves the priests of God to do now, if they would keep the divine precepts, that if in any respect the truth have wavered and vacillated, we should return to our original and Lord, and to the evangelical and apostolical tradition; and thence may arise the ground of our action, whence has taken rise both our order and our origin.²⁸⁶

Eusebius of Caesarea (AD 265-340)

Eusebius the historian commented on the same meeting cited with Dionysius of Alexandria (above), saying,

And we abstained from defending in every manner and contentiously the opinions which we had once held, unless they appeared to be correct. Nor did we evade objections, but we endeavored as far as possible to hold to and confirm the things which lay before us, and if the reason given satisfied us, we were not ashamed to change our opinions and agree with others; but on the contrary, conscientiously and sincerely, and with hearts laid open before God, we accepted whatever was established by the proofs and teachings of the Holy Scriptures.²⁸⁷

Anthony of Egypt (AD 251-356)

One day when he had gone forth because all the monks had assembled to him and asked to hear words from him, he spoke to them in the Egyptian tongue as follows: ‘The Scriptures are enough for instruction, but it is a good thing to encourage one another in the faith, and to stir up with words.’²⁸⁸

Gaius Marius Victorinus (AD 290-364)

That such is the faith, with the permission of God and Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, we shall affirm. Let no one say, understanding me in a blasphemous way, that it is my own teaching. Indeed, all that I say is said by Holy Scripture and comes from Holy Scripture.²⁸⁹

Though Victorinus inconsistently retained his Neoplatonic philosophy, he still thought that he was operating in the realm of Sola Scriptura. Either this was a blind spot on his part (like we all tend to have) or he realized that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura was so pervasive in the church that his teachings would not be accepted without affirming the doctrine. The question is not whether church fathers mixed error with truth. All men do. The question is, “Did they attempt to operate by the principle of Sola Scriptura?”

Hilary of Poitiers (AD 310-367)

I would not have you flatter the Son with praises of your own invention; it is well with you if you be satisfied with the written word.²⁹⁰

Those things which are not contained in the book of the law, we ought not even to be acquainted with.”²⁹¹

Hilary goes so far as to say that going beyond the Scripture to develop doctrine is treason against Christ:

Their treason involves us in the difficult and dangerous position of having to make a definite pronouncement, beyond the statements of Scripture, upon this grave and abstruse matter. The Lord said that the nations were to be baptized in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. The words of the faith are clear; the heretics do their utmost to involve the meaning in doubt. We may not on this account add to the appointed form, yet we must set a limit to their license of interpretation. Since their malice, inspired by the devil’s cunning, empties the doctrine of its meaning while it retains the Names which convey the truth, we must emphasise the truth which those Names convey. We must proclaim, exactly as we shall find them in the words of Scripture, the majesty and functions of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and so debar the heretics from robbing these Names of their connotation of Divine character, and compel them by means of these very Names to confine their use of terms to their proper meaning.²⁹²

This faith, and every part of it, is impressed upon us by the evidence of the Gospels, by the teaching of the Apostles.²⁹³

…Therefore let private judgment cease; let human reason refrain from passing barriers divinely set. In this spirit we eschew all blasphemous and reckless assertion concerning God, and cleave to the very letter of revelation. Each point in our enquiry shall be considered in the light of His instruction, Who is our theme.²⁹⁴

Athanasius (AD 296-373)

Far from seeing a need for a body of knowledge outside of the Bible, Athanasius said, “the sacred and inspired Scriptures are sufficient to declare the truth…”²⁹⁵ However, he recognized that the ignorant man needs teachers to systematize the teachings of Scripture into a systematic theology. He called these systematic teachings the traditions of the apostles, but he insisted that only traditions found in Scripture can be followed.

For the true and pious faith in the Lord has become manifest to all, being both ‘known and read’ from the Divine Scriptures… But our faith is right, and starts from the teaching of the Apostles and tradition of the fathers, being confirmed both by the New Testament and the Old. For the Prophets say: ‘Send out Thy Word and Thy Truth,’ and ‘Behold the Virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call His name Emmanuel, which is being interpreted God with us.’ But what does that mean, if not that God has come in the Flesh? While the Apostolic tradition teaches in the words of blessed Peter, ‘Forasmuch then as Christ suffered for us in the Flesh;’ and in what Paul writes, ‘Looking for the blessed hope and appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, Who gave Himself for us that He might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto Himself a people for His own possession, and zealous of good works’.²⁹⁶

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; but if a Council be needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene Bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrine so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced in divine Scripture.²⁹⁷

Concerning speculation about the Trinity that is not found in Scripture, Athanasius said,

Since, therefore, such an attempt is futile madness, nay, more than madness, let no one ask such questions any more, or else let him learn only that which is in the Scriptures.²⁹⁸

Concerning some of the finer points of discussion on the Trinity, Athanasius said,

…there ought to be no mention of any of these at all, nor exposition of them in the Church, for this reason and for this consideration, that in divine Scripture nothing is written about them, and that they are above men’s knowledge and above men’s understanding.²⁹⁹

After listing the books of the canon, Athanasius says,

These are the fountains of salvation, that he who thirsteth may be satisfied with the words they contain. In these alone is proclaimed the doctrine of godliness. Let no man add to them, neither let him take ought from them. For on this point the Lord put to shame the Sadducees, saying, Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures. And He reproved the Jews, saying, Search the Scriptures, for they testify of Me.³⁰⁰

Basil of Caesarea (330-379)

Many Roman Catholics quote Basil of Caesarea as holding the dual authority of Scripture and of non-written tradition. It is true that he speaks of tradition as authoritative in his treatise on the Holy Spirit, but in the same treatise he said,

But as for us, what the fathers said, we repeat… But we are not content simply because this is the tradition of the fathers. What is important is that the fathers followed the meaning of Scripture, beginning with the evidence which I have just extracted from the Scriptures and presented to you.³⁰¹

Is this any different than Reformed Presbyterians who speak of the Westminster Confession of Faith and Shorter and Larger Catechisms as being our “standards”? They are authoritative standards for Presbyterians insofar as Presbyterians believe that those creeds faithfully reflect the teaching of Scripture, but they are subordinate standards that acknowledge that they could err. In the same way, Basil was quite clear that custom/tradition was not infallible and must be corrected by Scripture. In describing one debate, he said,

They are charging me with innovation, and base their charge on my confession of three hypostases, and blame me for asserting one Goodness, one Power, one Godhead. In this they are not wide of the truth, for I do so assert. Their complaint is that their custom does not accept this, and that Scripture does not agree. What is my reply? I do not consider it fair that the custom which obtains among them should be regarded as a law and rule of orthodoxy. If custom is to be taken in proof of what is right, then it is certainly competent for me to put forward on my side the custom which obtains here. 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 favour of that side will be cast the vote of truth.³⁰²

This quote shows that for Basil, only Scripture was the ultimate standard of truth. Tradition (=historical theology) was a helpful tool by which to evaluate private interpretation so that each generation did not have to reinvent the wheel of interpretation or re-argue each debate with heretics. Historical theology shows the humility of listening to God’s teachers of the past, but historical theology must still be Scriptural theology. Basil balances that by insisting that each generation be Bereans who evaluate tradition and reject what is not Scriptural: “The hearers taught in the Scriptures ought to test what is said by teachers and accept that which agrees with the Scriptures but reject that which is foreign” (Moralia, 72:1).

The fact of the matter is that Basil vigorously refuted those who claimed authority for their unwritten apostolic tradition if that tradition could not be backed up by Scripture. He told Eustathius the Physician, “Therefore let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the word of God, in favour of that side will be cast the vote of truth.”³⁰³ Several years earlier he said,

We ought carefully to examine whether the doctrine offered us is conformable to Scripture, and if not, to reject it. Nothing must be added to the inspired words of God; all that is outside Scripture is not of faith, but it is sin.³⁰⁴

Could anything be a more clear statement of a Protestant view of tradition than this? In another place he said,

The hear­ers taught in the Scrip­tures ought to test what is said by teach­ers and accept that which agrees with the Scrip­tures but reject that which is for­eign… Plainly it is a falling away from faith and an offense chargeable to pride, either to reject any of those things that are written or to introduce things that are not written.³⁰⁵

Again, this is a thoroughly Protestant view of tradition/doctrine. The following are other quotes from Basil showing that his received tradition (doctrinal standards) were able to be proved from the Bible:

Believe those things that are written. What is not written inquire not into.³⁰⁶

When, by the grace of God, I learned of your piety’s command, worthy as it is of the love you bear God in Christ, whereby you sought from us a written profession of our holy faith, I hesitated at first as to my answer, sensible as I am of my own lowliness and weakness…At any rate, you yourselves know that a faithful minister must preserve unadulterated and unalloyed whatever has been entrusted to him by his good master for dispensation to his fellow servants. Consequently, I also am obliged in the common interest to place before you, in accordance with God’s good pleasure, what I have learned from the Holy Scriptures…But if ‘the Lord is faithful in all his words’ and ‘All his commandments are faithful, confirmed for ever and ever, made in truth and equity,’ to delete anything that is written down or to interpolate anything not written amounts to open defection from the faith and makes the offender liable to a charge of contempt. For our Lord Jesus Christ says: ‘My sheep hear my voice,’ and, before this, He had said: ‘But a stranger they follow not but fly from him because they know not the voice of strangers.’ And the Apostle, using a human parallel, more strongly forbids adding to or removing anything from Holy Writ in the following words: ‘yet a man’s testament if it be confirmed, no man despiseth nor addeth to it.’ So, then, we have determined in this way to avoid now and always every utterance and sentiment not found in the Lord’s teaching…I have neither the leisure nor the skill at present, however, to collect from the Holy Scripture, even at your urging, all the references made throughout to the Father and Son and Holy Spirit, but I think it will satisfy even your conscience if I place before you a few selected passages to show how our thoughts derive from the Scriptures and to provide grounds for certainty both for you yourselves and any others who desire to place their confidence in us; for, just as many proofs declare to us only one divine doctrine, so also, a fair–minded person will recognize in the few proofs I have give the divine character which is in all.³⁰⁷

Enjoying as you do the consolation of the Holy Scriptures, you stand in need neither of my assistance nor of that of anybody else to help you to comprehend your duty. You have the all-sufficient counsel and guidance of the Holy Spirit to lead you to what is right.³⁰⁸

The novice was required not merely to read Scripture but to learn passages from it by heart that he may have full assurance in his piety and may not form his conduct according to the traditions of men.³⁰⁹

What is the mark of a faithful soul? To be in these dispositions of full acceptance on the authority of the words [of the Scripture], not venturing to reject anything nor making additions. For, if ‘all that is not of faith is sin,’ as the Apostle says, and ‘faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God,’ everything outside Holy Scripture, not being of faith, is sin.³¹⁰

Cyril of Jerusalem (AD 313-386)

Have thou ever in thy mind this seal, which for the present has been lightly touched in my discourse, by way of summary, but shall be stated, should the Lord permit, to the best of my power with the proof from the Scriptures. 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 salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures.³¹¹

Now mind not my argumentations, for perhaps you may be misled but unless thou receive testimony of the Prophets on each matter, believe not what I say: unless thou learn from the Holy Scriptures concerning the Virgin, and the place, the time, and the manner, receive not testimony from man. For one who at present thus teaches may possibly be suspected: but what man of sense will suspect one that prophesied a thousand and more years beforehand? If then you seek the cause of Christ’s coming, go back to the first book of the Scriptures.³¹²

It is clear that Cyril’s view of tradition was the systematic doctrine of Scripture, and only Scripture:

But in learning the Faith and in professing it, acquire and keep that only, which is now delivered to thee by the Church, and which has been built up strongly out of all the Scriptures. For since all cannot read the Scriptures, some being hindered as to the knowledge of them by want of learning, and others by a want of leisure, in order that the soul may not perish from ignorance, we comprise the whole doctrine of the Faith in a few lines. This summary I wish you both to commit to memory when I recite it, and to rehearse it with all diligence among yourselves, … For though we or an angel from heaven preach to you any other gospel than that ye have received, let him be to you anathema. So for the present listen while I simply say the Creed, and commit it to memory; but at the proper season expect the confirmation out of Holy Scripture of each part of the contents. For the articles of the Faith were not composed as seemed good to men; but the most important points collected out of all the Scripture make up one complete teaching of the Faith. And just as the mustard seed in one small grain contains many branches, so also this Faith has embraced in few words all the knowledge of godliness in the Old and New Testaments. Take heed then, brethren, and hold fast the traditions which ye now receive, and write them on the table of your heart.³¹³

What else is there that knoweth the deep things of God, save only the Holy Ghost, who spake the Divine Scriptures? But not even the Holy Ghost Himself has spoken in the Scriptures concerning the generation of the Son from the Father. Why then dost thou busy thyself about things which not even the Holy Ghost has written in the Scriptures? Thou that knowest not the things which are written, busiest thou thyself about the things which are not written? There are many questions in the Divine Scriptures; what is written we comprehend not, why do we busy ourselves about what is not written?³¹⁴

Let us then speak concerning the Holy Ghost nothing but what is written; and whatsoever is not written, let us not busy ourselves about it. The Holy Ghost Himself spake the Scriptures; He has also spoken concerning Himself as much as He pleased, or as much as we could receive. Let us therefore speak those things which He has said; for whatsoever He has not said, we dare not say.³¹⁵

And it is enough for us to know these things; but inquire not curiously into His nature or substance: for had it been written, we would have spoken of it; what is not written, let us not venture on…³¹⁶

We have already quoted Cyril at length in the introduction. He also said,

Not even the least of the divine and holy mysteries of the faith ought to be handed down without the divine Scriptures. Do not simply give faith to me speaking these things to you except you have the proof of what I say from the divine Scriptures. For the security and preservation of our faith are not supported by ingenuity of speech, but by the proofs of the divine Scriptures…³¹⁷

So for the present listen while I simply say the Creed, and commit it to memory; but at the proper season expect the confirmation out of Holy Scripture of each part of the contents. For the articles of the Faith were not composed as seemed good to men; but the most important points collected out of all the Scripture make up one complete teaching of the Faith. And just as the mustard seed in one small grain contains many branches, so also this Faith has embraced in few words all the knowledge of godliness in the Old and New Testaments. Take heed then, brethren, and hold fast the traditions which ye now receive, and write them on the table of your heart.³¹⁸

Gregory of Nyssa (AD 335-395)

Whatever is not supported by the testimony of Scripture we reject as false.³¹⁹

Gregory approved of the following remarks by his sister Macrina:

We are not entitled to such licence, 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.³²⁰

They allege that while we confess three Persons we say that there is one goodness, and one power, and one Godhead. And in this assertion they do not go beyond the truth; for we do say so. But the ground of their complaint is that their custom does not admit this, and Scripture does not support it. What then is our reply? We do not think that it is right to make their prevailing custom the law and rule of sound doctrine. For if custom is to avail for proof of soundness, we too, surely, may advance our prevailing custom; and if they reject this, we are surely not bound to follow theirs. Let the inspired Scripture, then, be our umpire, and the vote of truth will surely be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words.³²¹

Gregory said that even the slightest addition to Scripture in our doctrine was blasphemy.

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, Who being the Word, the Life, the Light, the Truth, and God, and Wisdom, and all else that He is by nature, for this cause above all was made in the likeness of man, and shared our nature, becoming like us in all things, yet without sin. He was like us in all things, in that He took upon Him manhood in its entirety with soul and body, so that our salvation was accomplished by means of both:—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 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 divergence from the words delivered to us an extreme blasphemy and impiety. We believe, then, even as the Lord set forth the Faith to His Disciples, when He said, “Go, teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” This is the word of the mystery whereby through the new birth from above our nature is transformed from the corruptible to the incorruptible, being renewed from “the old man,” “according to the image of Him who created” at the beginning the likeness to the Godhead. In the Faith then which was delivered by God to the Apostles we admit neither subtraction, nor alteration, nor addition, knowing assuredly that he who presumes to pervert the Divine utterance by dishonest quibbling, the same “is of his father the devil,” who leaves the words of truth and “speaks of his own,” becoming the father of a lie. For whatsoever is said otherwise than in exact accord with the truth is assuredly false and not true.³²²

What shadow of such a notion did he find in Scripture that he ventures upon this assertion?³²³

We will adopt as the guide of our reasoning, the Scripture.³²⁴

Ambrose (AD 340-397)

For how can we adopt those things which we do not find in the holy Scriptures?³²⁵

It is proper and necessary that each one should learn that which is useful from the inspired Scripture, both for the establishment of piety, and that he may not be accustomed to human traditions.³²⁶

Believe those things that are written. What is not written, inquire not into.³²⁷

Every word and deed should be ratified by the testimony of Holy Scripture.³²⁸

Epiphanius (AD 310-403)

I cannot give the answer to any question with my own reason, but I can with a conclusion from scripture.³²⁹

For since none of the ancient apostles or prophets in the old and new testaments held this opinion, you are asserting your superiority to God himself and your unshakebility.³³⁰

John Chrystostom (AD 347-407)

These then are the reasons; but it is necessary to establish them all from the Scriptures, and to show with exactness that all that has been said on this subject is not an invention of human reasoning, but the very sentence of the Scriptures. For thus will what we say be at once more deserving of credit, and sink the deeper into your minds.³³¹

When we receive money, we do not trust to those who give it to us; we wish to count it ourselves: and when there is a question of Divine things, would it not be a folly rashly and blindly to receive the opinions of others, when we have a rule by which we can examine everything? I mean the Divine law. It is for this reason that I conjure you all, without resting in the slightest degree on the judgment of others, to consult the Scriptures.³³²

When you shall see the wicked heresy, which is the army of Antichrist, standing in the holy places of the church, then let those who are in Judea head for the mountains, that is, those who are Christians should head for the Scriptures. For the true Judea is Christendom, and the mountains are the Scriptures of the prophets and apostles, as it is written: “Her foundations are in the holy mountains.” But why should all Christians at this time head for the Scriptures? Because in this period in which heresy has taken possession of the churches there can be no proof of true Christianity nor any other refuge for Christians who want to know the truth of the faith except the divine Scriptures. Earlier we showed in many ways which is the church of Christ, and which heathenism. But now there is for those who want to know which is the true church of Christ no way to know it except only the through the Scriptures. Why? Because heresy has everything just like the church. How, then, will anyone who wants to know which is the true church of Christ know it in the midst of this great confusion resulting from this similarity, except only through the Scriptures? The Lord, therefore, knowing that there would be such a great confusion of things in the last days, commands that Christians who… want to gain steadfastness in the true faith should take refuge in nothing else but the Scriptures.

Otherwise, if they look to other things, they will be offended and will perish, because they will not know which is the true church, and as a result they will fall into the abomination of desolation which stands in the holy places of the church.³³³

Regarding the things that I say I should supply even the proofs, so I will not seem to rely on my own opinions, but rather, prove them with Scripture, so that the matter will remain certain and steadfast.³³⁴

Wherefore 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; and having learned what are the true riches, let us pursue after them that we may obtain also the eternal good things.³³⁵

If anything is said without Scripture, the thinking of the hearers limps. But where the testimony proceeds from the divinely given Scripture, it confirms both the speech of the preacher and the soul of the hearer.³³⁶

Everything in the divine Scriptures is clear and straightforward; they inform us about all that is necessary.”³³⁷

Isidore of Pelusium 412AD

To ascertain these things are so, let us inspect the rule of truth - I mean the Holy Scriptures.³³⁸

Theophilus of Alexandria (AD 385-412)

It would be the instigation of a demoniacal spirit to follow the conceits of the human mind, and to think anything divine, beyond what has the authority of the Scriptures.³³⁹

Note that this church father would consider the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox traditions that are not found in the Bible to be “demoniacal” just as Christ considered the traditions of the Jewish fathers to be (Matt. 15:1-20 with 1 Tim. 4:1-4).

Nicetas of Remesiana (AD 335-414)

These things being so, beloved, persevere in the tradition which you have learned. Be true to the pact you made with the Lord, to the profession of faith which you made in the presence of angels and of men. The words of the Creed are few—but all the mysteries are in them. Selected from the whole of Scripture and put together for the sake of brevity, they are like precious gems making a single crown. Thus, all the faithful have sufficient knowledge of salvation, even though many are unable, or too busy with their worldly affairs, to read the Scriptures.³⁴⁰

My single appeal will be to the Holy Scriptures.³⁴¹

Jerome (AD 347-420)

For all questions, let us seek for suitable beams from the testimonies of the Scriptures, and cut them down, and build the house of wisdom within us.³⁴²

The other things, also, which they find and feign, of themselves, without the authority and testimonies of the Scriptures, as if by apostolical tradition, the sword of God strikes down.³⁴³

That which does not have authority from the Scriptures, we may as readily disdain (contemn), as well approve…³⁴⁴

Those things which they make and find, as it were, by apostolical tradition, without the authority and testimony of Scripture, the word of God smites.³⁴⁵

As we deny not those things that are written, so we refuse those things that are not written. That God was born of a virgin we believe, because we read it; that Mary did marry after she was delivered we believe not, because we do not read it…³⁴⁶

These following statements are as explicit a rejection of Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox views of tradition as one can get. Many similar ones can be found, but I present here a sampling:

The doctrine of the church which is the house of God may be found in the fulness of the divine books.³⁴⁷

They that prattle without the authority of the Scriptures, they have no faith.³⁴⁸

The sword of God smites whatever they draw and forges from a pretended ‘apostolic tradition’ without the authority and testimony of the Scriptures.³⁴⁹

Everything we say, we ought to confirm from Sacred Scripture.³⁵⁰

Prove your claim from Sacred Scripture, for we must not make an assertion unless it has been adduced from and confirmed by Scripture.³⁵¹

Salvian the presbyter (AD ?-429)

Condemn me if I shall not bring proofs. Condemn me if I shall not demonstrate that the Sacred Scriptures have also said what I have asserted.³⁵²

Augustine (AD 354-430)

…in the plain teaching of Scripture we find all that concerns our belief and moral conduct.³⁵³

Since tradition concerns belief and moral conduct, Augustine is saying that the plain teaching of Scripture gives us everything we need for belief and moral conduct. The following three quotes show that Augustine was unwilling to believe anything the church taught if it was not backed by Scripture:

Neither dare one agree with catholic bishops if their opinion is against the canonical Scriptures of God.³⁵⁴

For the reasonings of any men whatsoever, even though they be Catholics, and of high reputation, are not to be treated by us in the same way as the canonical Scriptures are treated. We are at liberty, without doing any violence to the respect which these men deserve, to condemn and reject anything in their writings, if perchance we shall find that they have entertained opinions differing from that which others or we ourselves have, by the divine help, discovered to be the truth. I deal thus with the writings of others, and I wish my intelligent readers to deal thus with mine.³⁵⁵

However, if you inquire or recall to memory the opinion of our Ambrose, and also of our Cyprian, on the point in question, you will perhaps find that I also have not been without some whose footsteps I follow in that which I have maintained. At the same time, as I have said already, it is to the canonical Scriptures alone that I am bound to yield such implicit subjection as to follow their teaching, without admitting the slightest suspicion that in them any mistake or any statement intended to mislead could find a place.³⁵⁶

Notice that he embraces an implicit faith in Scriptures and rejects an implicit faith in tradition (doctrine passed down).

Let us treat scripture like scripture, like God speaking; don’t let’s look there for man going wrong. It is not for nothing, you see, that the canon has been established for the Church. This is the function of the Holy Spirit. So if anybody reads my book, let him pass judgment on me. If I have said something reasonable, let him follow, not me, but reason itself; if I’ve proved it by the clearest divine testimony, let him follow, not me, but the divine scripture.³⁵⁷

The testimony of so great an apostle using in his own writings an oath as a confirmation of their truth is of more weight with me than the opinion of any man, however learned, who is discussing the writings of another.³⁵⁸

I do not want you to depend on my authority, so as to think that you must believe something because it is said by me; you should rest your belief either on the canonical Scriptures, if you do not see how true something is, or on the truth made manifest to you interiorly, so that you may see clearly.³⁵⁹

What more shall I teach you than what we read in the apostles? For Holy Scripture fixes the rule for our doctrine, lest we dare be wiser than we ought. Therefore I should not teach you anything else except to expound to you the words of the Teacher.³⁶⁰

But if it is supported by the evident authority of the divine Scriptures, namely, of those which in the church are called canonical, it must be believed without any reservation. In regard to other witnesses of evidence which are offered as guarantees of belief, you may believe or not according as you estimate that they either have or have not the weight necessary to produce belief.³⁶¹

For the reasonings of any men whatsoever, even though they be Catholics and of high reputation, are not to be treated by us in the same way as the canonical Scriptures are treated.³⁶²

Especially as in writings of such authors I feel myself free to use my own judgment (owing unhesitating assent to nothing but the canonical Scriptures).³⁶³

Whoever dissents from the sacred Scriptures, even if they are found in all places in which the church is designated, are not the church.³⁶⁴

For whenever a question arises on an unusually obscure subject on which no assistance can be rendered by clear and certain proofs of the Holy Scriptures, the presumption of man ought to restrain itself, nor should it attempt anything definite by leaning to either side.³⁶⁵

They must show it by the canonical books of the divine Scriptures alone, for we do not say that we must be believed because we are in the Church of Christ, because Optatus of Milevi, or Ambrose of Milan or innumerable other bishops of our communion commended the church to which we belong, or because it is extolled by the councils of our colleagues or because through the whole wonderful answers to prayers or cures happen.³⁶⁶

Note this quote completely rules out implicit faith in councils, bishops, or even miracle workers. Scripture alone can command such implicit faith. This means that for creeds to be believed, the Scripture that supports them must seem cogent. This again is as clear a testimony as one can get to a Sola Scriptura definition of tradition/doctrine. The following quotes say much the same:

It is to the canonical Scriptures alone that I am bound to yield such implicit subjection as to follow their teaching, without admitting the slightest suspicion that in them any mistake or any statement intended to mislead could find a place.³⁶⁷

You are wont, indeed, to bring up against us the letters of Cyprian, his opinion, his Council; why do ye claim the authority of Cyprian for your schism, and reject his example when it makes for the peace of the Church? But who can fail to be aware that the sacred canon of Scripture, both of the Old and New Testament, is confined within its own limits, and that it stands so absolutely in a superior position to all later letters of the bishops, that about it we can hold no manner of doubt or disputation whether what is confessedly contained in it is right and true; but that all the letters of bishops which have been written, or are being written, since the closing of the canon, are liable to be refuted if there be anything contained in them which strays from the the truth, either by the discourse of some one who happens to be wiser in the matter than themselves, or by the weightier authority and more learned experience of other bishops, by the authority of Councils; and further, that the Councils themselves, which are held in the several districts and provinces, must yield, beyond all possibility of doubt, to the authority of plenary Councils which are formed for the whole Christian world; and that even of the plenary Councils, the earlier are often corrected by those which follow them, when, by some actual experiment, things are brought to light which were before concealed, and that is known which previously lay hid, and this without any whirlwind of sacrilegious pride, without any puffing of the neck through arrogance, without any strife of envious hatred, simply with holy humility, catholic peace, and Christian charity?.³⁶⁸

The Sola Scriptura statement made by Augustine in the previous paragraph is very close to the statements made by the Westminster Confession of Faith on the infallibility of Scripture and the fact that councils and creeds are subject to error.³⁶⁹

This shows that the established authority of Scripture must outweigh every other; for it derives new confirmation from the progress of events which happen, as Scripture proves, in fulfillment of the predictions made so long before their occurrence.³⁷⁰

In the matters of which we are now treating, only the canonical writings have any weight with us.³⁷¹

For the reasonings of any men whatsoever, even though they be Catholics, and of high reputation, are not to be treated by us in the same way as the canonical Scriptures are treated. We are at liberty, without doing any violence to the respect which these men deserve, to condemn and reject anything in their writings, if perchance we shall find that they have entertained opinions differing from that which others or we ourselves have, by the divine help, discovered to be the truth. I deal thus with the writings of others, and I wish my intelligent readers to deal thus with mine.³⁷²

This also parallels statements on liberty of conscience in the Westminster Confession of Faith.³⁷³ Here is Augustine’s classic demarcation between Scripture and all other writings and sayings:

As regards our writings, which are not a rule of faith or practice, but only a help to edification, we may suppose that they contain some things falling short of the truth in obscure and recondite matters, and that these mistakes may or may not be corrected in subsequent treatises. For we are of those of whom the apostle says: “And if ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you.” Such writings are read with the right of judgment, and without any obligation to believe. In order to leave room for such profitable discussions of difficult questions, there is a distinct boundary line separating all productions subsequent to apostolic times from the authoritative canonical books of the Old and New Testaments. The authority of these books has come down to us from the apostles through the successions of bishops and the extension of the Church, and, from a position of lofty supremacy, claims the submission of every faithful and pious mind. If we are perplexed by an apparent contradiction in Scripture, it is not allowable to say, The author of this book is mistaken; but either the manuscript is faulty, or the translation is wrong, or you have not understood. In the innumerable books that have been written latterly we may sometimes find the same truth as in Scripture, but there is not the same authority. Scripture has a sacredness peculiar to itself. In other books the reader may form his own opinion, and perhaps, from not understanding the writer, may differ from him, and may pronounce in favor of what pleases him, or against what he dislikes. In such cases, a man is at liberty to withhold his belief, unless there is some clear demonstration or some canonical authority to show that the doctrine or statement either must or may be true. But in consequence of the distinctive peculiarity of the sacred writings, we are bound to receive as true whatever the canon shows to have been said by even one prophet, or apostle, or evangelist. Otherwise, not a single page will be left for the guidance of human fallibility, if contempt for the wholesome authority of the canonical books either puts an end to that authority altogether, or involves it in hopeless confusion.³⁷⁴

John Cassian (AD 360-435)

For, as you know, a Creed (Symbolum) gets its name from being a ‘collection.’ For what is called in Greek suvmbolo is termed in Latin ‘Collatio.’ But it is therefore a collection (collatio) because when the faith of the whole Catholic law was collected together by the apostles of the Lord, all those matters which are spread over the whole body of the sacred writings with immense fullness of detail, were collected together in sum in the matchless brevity of the Creed, according to the Apostle’s words: ‘Completing His word, and cutting it short in righteousness: because a short word shall the Lord make upon the earth.’ This then is the ‘short word’ which the Lord made, collecting together in few words the faith of both of His Testaments, and including in a few brief clauses the drift of all the Scriptures, building up His own out of His own, and giving the force of the whole law in a most compendious and brief formula. Providing in this, like a most tender father, for the carelessness and ignorance of some of his children, that no mind however simple and ignorant might have any trouble over what could so easily be retained in the memory.³⁷⁵

Cyril of Alexandria (AD 376-444)

That which the divine Scripture has not spoken, how shall we receive it, and reckon it among verities?³⁷⁶

Sufficient, sufficient for this [i.e. for obtaining a knowledge of the faith] are the Scriptures of the holy Fathers, [i.e., the inspired writers] which if any one would diligently study and vigilantly attend to, he would immediately have his mind filled with divine light. For, they did not speak of themselves, but ‘all Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable.’³⁷⁷

Therefore the inspired Scripture is abundantly-sufficient, even so that those who have been nourished by it ought to come forth wise and very prudent, and possessed of an understanding abundantly instructed in all things… What that is profitable to us is not spoken by it? For, first, (what is also more excellent than all other things,) any one may see in it the glorious doctrine of the true knowledge of God… Moreover, in addition to this, it teaches us how to order aright our life and conversation, and by its divine and sacred laws directs us in the way of righteousness, and makes the path of all equity clear to us.³⁷⁸

Paul requires us to prove every thing, and says, Be wise money-changers. But an exact and scrupulous knowledge of each particular matter we can obtain from no other source than from divinely–inspired Scripture…³⁷⁹

…unless you should prove to us that the volumes of the sacred writers agree with what you have spoken? For we shall not follow those who desire and are accustomed to speak from their own imaginations alone but those who speak from the mouth of the Lord according to that which is written.³⁸⁰

It is best not to love to be moved by the bold assertions of others since they carry us away to incorrect views, but to make the words of the inspired writers the correct and exact rule of faith.³⁸¹

It is necessary that we should follow the sacred Scriptures, in nothing going beyond what they sanction.³⁸²

It is impossible for us to say, or at all think anything concerning God, beyond what has been divinely declared by the divine oracles of the old and new testaments.³⁸³

But an exact and scrupulous knowledge of each particular matter we can obtain from no other source than from divinely inspired Scripture.³⁸⁴

What divine Scripture does not state very clearly must remain unknown and be passed over in silence.³⁸⁵

All things, therefore, that have been delivered to us by the Law, and Prophets, and Apostles, we receive, and acknowledge, and confess; and beyond these, we seek not to know anything. For it is impossible for us to say, or at all think anything concerning God, beyond what has been divinely declared by the divine oracles of the Old and New Testament.³⁸⁶

How can we prove and certify as true something which Sacred Scripture does not attest?³⁸⁷

Vincent of Lérins (AD?-445?)

Here, it may be, someone will ask, Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and is in itself abundantly sufficient, what need is there to join to it the interpretation of the Church? The answer is that because of the very depth of Scripture all men do not place one identical interpretation upon it. The statements of the same writer are explained by different men in different ways, so much so that it seems almost possible to extract from it as many opinions as there are men. Novatian expounds in one way, Sabellius in another, Donatus in another, Arius, Eunomius and Macedonius in another, Photinus, Apollinaris and Priscillian in another, Jovinian, Pelagius and Caelestius in another, and latterly Nestorius in another. Therefore, because of the intricacies of error, which is so multiform, there is great need for the laying down of a rule for the exposition of Prophets and Apostles in accordance with the standard of the interpretation of the Church Catholic.³⁸⁸

The previous quote explains why a doctrinal statement (tradition) that is based upon the Bible is needed. It systematizes in an easy to understand format what is already given in the Bible. The Bible itself commands us to hold to Scriptural doctrine (2 Tim. 3:16; cf. John 7:16; Acts 2:42; Rom. 6:17; 16:17; 1 Tim. 4:6,13,16,17) and reject the non-Scriptural “doctrines… of men” (Matt. 15:9; cf. Matt. 16:12; Eph. 4:14; Col. 2:22). Since tradition is a synonym for doctrine, the same admonitions apply. The Bible commands us to hold to Scriptural tradition (1 Cor. 11:1-2; cf. 2 Thes. 2:15; 3:6) and to shun the traditions of the elders not found in the Bible (Matt. 15:2-20; cf. Mark 7; Gal. 1:14; Col. 2:8; 1 Pet. 1:18)

Salvian the Presbyter (AD 400?-450?)

I could answer with reason and sufficient constancy: ‘I do not know,’ because I do not know the secret councils of God. The oracle of the heavenly Word is sufficient proof for me in this case. God says, as I have proved in the previous books, that He regards all things, rules all things and judges all things. If you wish to know what you must believe, you have Holy Scripture. The perfect explanation is to hold with what you read.³⁸⁹

Theodoret of Cyrus (AD 393-466)

Orth: Do not, I beg you, bring in human reason. I shall yield to scripture alone.
Eran: You shall receive no argument unconfirmed by Holy Scripture, and if you bring me any solution of the question deduced from Holy Scripture I will receive it, and will in no wise gainsay it.
Orth: You know how a moment ago we made the word of the evangelist clear by means of the testimony of the apostle; and that the divine apostle showed us how the Word became Flesh, saying plainly “for verily He took not on Him the nature of angels but He took on Him the seed of Abraham.” The same teacher will teach us how the divine Word was seen upon the earth and dwelt among men.
Eran: I submit to the words both of apostles and of prophets. Shew me then in accordance with your promise the interpretation of the prophecy.³⁹⁰
Orth: This agrees with what we have said, for we have learnt the rule of dogmas from the divine Scripture.³⁹¹

For us the divine writings are sufficient³⁹²

They will find that by God’s grace I hold no other opinion than just that which I have received from holy Scripture.³⁹³

The impiety of Sabellius, Photinus, Marcellus, and Paulus, we refute by proving by the evidence of divine Scripture that the Lord Christ was not only man but also eternal God, of one substance with the Father.³⁹⁴

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.³⁹⁵

We have learnt the rule of dogmas from the divine Scriptures.³⁹⁶

They will find that by God’s grace I hold no other opinion than just that which I have received from holy Scripture.³⁹⁷

Cosmas of Indicopleustes (c. AD 550)

It behoveth not a perfect Christian to attempt to confirm anything from those [writings] that are doubted of, the canonical and commonly received Scriptures explaining all things sufficiently…every doctrine received by Christians.³⁹⁸

Caesarius of Arles (AD 468-542)

Sacred Scripture has said nothing about this, and it is wrong to violate the divine silence. Since God did not think that this should be indicated in His writings, He did not want you to question or to know this through idle curiosity.³⁹⁹

Pope Gregory the Great (AD 540-604)

As servants that serve well are ever intent upon their masters’ countenances, that the things they may bid they may hear readily, and strive to fulfill; so the minds of the righteous in their bent are upon Almighty God, and in His Scripture they as it were fix their eyes on His face, that whereas God delivers therein all that He wills, they may not be at variance with His will, in proportion as they learn that will in revelation. Whence it happens, that His words do not pass superfluously through their ears, but that these words they fix in their hearts.⁴⁰⁰

Gregory certainly contradicted the supposed “tradition” of Trentian Rome when he wrote that 1 Maccabees was not inspired Scripture. In his Book of Morals (basically a commentary on the Book of Job) which he completed after becoming Pope, he writes:

With reference to which particular we are not acting irregularly, if from the books, though not Canonical, yet brought out for the edifying of the Church, we bring forward testimony. Thus Eleazar in the battle smote and brought down an elephant, but fell under the very beast that he killed.⁴⁰¹

John of Damascus (AD 675-749)

Moreover, by the Law and the Prophets in former times and afterwards by His Only-begotten Son, our Lord and God and Savior Jesus Christ, He disclosed to us the knowledge of Himself as that was possible for us. All things, therefore, that have been delivered to us by Law and Prophets and Apostles and Evangelists we receive, and know, and honor, seeking for nothing beyond these…⁴⁰²

Thomas Aquinas (AD 1225-1274)

Even Thomas Aquinas, the founder of Roman Catholic systematic thought, was still so surrounded by the view that 100% of tradition was in the Bible, that he affirmed it himself, saying, “The canonical scriptures alone are the rule of faith.”⁴⁰³

The Glossa Ordinaria (last revision c. AD 1498)

As late as the Reformation, the official study Bible of the Roman Catholic Church continued to be the Glossa Ordinaria. Its comments claimed to represent the historic church, and contained comments by church fathers going all the way back to Origen.⁴⁰⁴ Yet this commentary affirmed the ancient teaching that tradition is not independent of Scripture, but is the systematized teaching of Scripture. Furthermore, nothing but the Scripture has absolute authority. Thus, the following quote not only reflects the Protestant view of the canon, but also the Protestant view of tradition.

Many people, who do not give much attention to the holy scriptures, think that all the books contained in the Bible should be honored and adored with equal veneration, not knowing how to distinguish among the canonical and non-canonical books, the latter of which the Jews number among the apocrypha. Therefore they often appear ridiculous before the learned; and they are disturbed and scandalized when they hear that someone does not honor something read in the Bible with equal veneration as all the rest. Here, then, we distinguish and number distinctly first the canonical books and then the non-canonical, among which we further distinguish between the certain and the doubtful. The canonical books have been brought about through the dictation of the Holy Spirit. It is not known, however, at which time or by which authors the non-canonical or apocryphal books were produced. Since, nevertheless, they are very good and useful, and nothing is found in them which contradicts the canonical books, the church reads them and permits them to be read by the faithful for devotion and edification. Their authority, however, is not considered adequate for proving those things which come into doubt or contention, or for confirming the authority of ecclesiastical dogma, as blessed Jerome states in his prologue to Judith and to the books of Solomon. But the canonical books are of such authority that whatever is contained therein is held to be true firmly and indisputably, and likewise that which is clearly demonstrated from them. For just as in philosophy a truth is known through reduction to self-evident first principles, so too, in the writings handed down from holy teachers, the truth is known, as far as those things that must be held by faith, through reduction to the canonical scriptures that have been produced by divine revelation, which can contain nothing false. Hence, concerning them Augustine says to Jerome: To those writers alone who are called canonical I have learned to offer this reverence and honor: I hold most firmly that none of them has made an error in writing. Thus if I encounter something in them which seems contrary to the truth, I simply think that the manuscript is incorrect, or I wonder whether the translator has discovered what the word means, or whether I have understood it at all. But I read other writers in this way: however much they abound in sanctity or teaching, I do not consider what they say true because they have judged it so, but rather because they have been able to convince me from those canonical authors, or from probable arguments, that it agrees with the truth.⁴⁰⁵

The early church’s view of authority = Sola Scriptura

Summary statements by patristics and church history scholars

Ellen Flesseman–Van Leer makes these observations about the Apologists’ writings:

The only formal authority the Apologists call upon…is Scripture. Aristedes gives first a summary of the main points of the Christian creed and then an exposition of Christian morality, i.e., of the commandments of the Lord Jesus Christ. The source of knowledge of this Christian faith is the Scriptures of the Christians.⁴⁰⁶

J.N.D Kelly said of Tertullian’s works, “Scripture has absolute authority; whatever it teaches is necessarily true, and woe betide him who accepts doctrines not discoverable in it.”⁴⁰⁷ William Webster states that for the fathers of the first several centuries, “Tradition was always subordinate to Scripture as an authority.”⁴⁰⁸

Against the Gnostics, who claimed to have secret information from the apostles not found in the Bible, Irenaeus insisted that any “tradition” gathered “from other sources than the Scriptures”⁴⁰⁹ had no authority and was speculative. Hanson says, “The whole purpose of Irenaeus, at least, as we can reliably collect it from the prefaces and endings of each of the books of Adversus Heareses, was to refute the Gnostics from Scripture… Irenaeus will allow Scripture alone as his source of information about God, and if Scripture tells us nothing, then we can know nothing.”⁴¹⁰ A perusal of the discussions on Tradition given in the previous section clearly show that the church’s only infallible authority was the Bible.

The following sample quotes from the fathers demonstrates that this view of authority was the pervasive view of the church fathers.

Letting the fathers speak for themselves on the ultimate authority of Scripture

As we have seen in chapter 1, if anything (whether church, councils, popes, bishops, archeology, etc.) helps to determine the canon of Scripture, that thing becomes a greater authority than the Bible. It is a logical necessity.

When Rome asserts that the Church is the mother of the canon and has the authority to determine the canon, it is declaring the authority of the Church to be greater than the authority of Scripture.

Justin Martyr (AD 100-165)

Justin Martyr argues the opposite, saying that there is nothing greater than God or His Word. Thus, he insists that even proofs of the Bible would make the proof greater than the Bible, which is impossible, since it is the Word of God. Like this present book, Justin insists that just as God is self-authenticating, so too is Scripture self-authenticating. As Hebrews 6:13 words it, “For when God made a promise to Abraham, because He could swear by no one greater, He swore by Himself.” The Bible’s authority (this section) is thus tightly connected to its self-authentication (to be discussed later in this chapter). Justin Martyr’s argumentation on authority is the same as the Protestant Reformation’s argument - they had a “Sola Scriptura” view of authority.

The word of truth is free, and carries its own authority, disdaining to fall under any skilful argument, or to endure the logical scrutiny of its hearers. But it would be believed for its own nobility, and for the confidence due to Him who sends it. Now the word of truth is sent from God; wherefore the freedom claimed by the truth is not arrogant. For being sent with authority, it were not fit that it should be required to produce proof of what is said; since neither is there any proof beyond itself, which is God. For every proof is more powerful and trustworthy than that which it proves; since what is disbelieved, until proof is produced, gets credit when such proof is produced, and is recognised as being what it was stated to be. But nothing is either more powerful or more trustworthy than the truth; so that he who requires proof of this, is like one who wishes it demonstrated why the things that appear to the senses do appear.⁴¹¹

Irenaeus (AD 130-202)

In chapter II of “Against Heresies,” Irenaeus complains that the Gnostics reject the “written documents” of the Scripture and insist on an oral (vivâ voce) tradition. When Irenaeus says that church tradition is based on the Bible, they reject church tradition because it misses out on information that Christ and apostles did not have at their disposal. In all of this they put their authority over against the authority of the Scripture.

When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but vivâ voce…⁴¹²

We have known the method of our salvation by no other means than those by whom the gospel came to us; which gospel they truly preached; but afterward, by the will of God, they delivered to us in the Scriptures, to be for the future the foundation and pillar of our faith.⁴¹³

Clement of Alexandria (AD 150?-215?)

But those who are ready to toil in the most excellent pursuits, will not desist from the search after truth, till they get the demonstration from the Scriptures themselves.⁴¹⁴

Tertullian (AD 155-222?)

What Scripture does not note, it denies.⁴¹⁵

In the following quote, Tertullian insists that even the apostles did not have any authority except the authority of divine revelation given to them by Christ. The Father delivers revelation to the Son, Who delivers it to the apostles, who deliver it to the church. The church loses authority when it deviates from this divine revelation.

We, however, are not permitted to cherish any object after our own will, nor yet to make choice of that which another has introduced of his private fancy. In the Lord’s apostles we possess our authority; for even they did not of themselves choose to introduce anything, but faithfully delivered to the nations (of mankind) the doctrine which they had received from Christ. If, therefore, even “an angel from heaven should preach any other gospel” (than theirs), he would be called accursed by us.⁴¹⁶

In the following quote Tertullian shows again that the only authority that the Church possesses is a delegated authority that comes from Christ through the apostles. For heretics to introduce new writings, they would have to prove that Christ came again and had made new apostles.

Let them show me by what authority they come! If it be some other God they preach, how comes it that they employ the things and he writings and the names of that God against whom they preach? If it be the same God, why treat Him in some other way? Let them prove themselves to be new apostles! Let them maintain that Christ has come down a second time, taught in person a second time, has been twice crucified, twice dead, twice raised!⁴¹⁷

On issues of Faith, Tertullian insisted on “recalling all questions to God’s inspired standard.”⁴¹⁸

J.N.D. Kelly summarizes many other such passages in Tertullian with these words: “Scripture has absolute authority; whatever it teaches is necessarily true, and woe betide him who accepts doctrines not discoverable in it.”⁴¹⁹

Dionysius of Alexandria (c. 250)

…we were not ashamed to change our opinions and agree with others; but on the contrary, conscientiously and sincerely, and with hearts laid open before God, we accepted whatever was established by the proofs and teachings of the Holy Scriptures.⁴²⁰

Origen (AD 185?-252)

Over and over Origen appeals to “the authority of the Scripture” or “the authority of the Gospels” or “the authority of the apostles” to prove His doctrines, always quoting the Bible. He did not appeal to any other authorities for doctrine:

No man ought, for the confirmation of doctrines, to use books which are not canonized Scriptures.⁴²¹

…we must, in order to establish the positions which we have laid down, adduce the testimony of Holy Scripture.⁴²²

Therefore, in proof of all the words we utter when teaching, we ought to produce the doctrine of Scripture as confirming the doctrine we utter. For as all the gold that is without the temple is not sanctified, so every doctrine that is not in the divine Scripture, although it may seem admirable to some, is not sacred, because it is not comprehended within the doctrine of Scripture, which sanctifies that doctrine alone which it contains within itself as the temple renders sacred the gold that is in it. We ought not therefore for the confirmation of our instructions to swear by and take as evidence our own notions which we individually hold and think to be agreeable to truth, unless we are able to show that they are sacred as being contained in the divine Scriptures as in some temples of God.⁴²³

Cyprian of Carthage (AD 200-258)

Whence is that tradition? Whether does it descend from the authority of the Lord and the Gospel, or does it come from the injunctions and Epistles of the Apostles? For that we are to do what is written, God testifieth and admonisheth, saying to Joshua: ‘The book of this law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein.’… If then it is commanded in the Gospel, or is contained in the Epistles or Acts of the Apostles…let this divine and holy tradition be observed… 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.⁴²⁴

Rather than seeing tradition as producing Scripture, Cyprian said that Scripture is “the head and source of divine tradition.”⁴²⁵

Gaius Marius Victorinus (AD 290-364)

Victorinus insisted that any doctrine that did not come from Scripture alone was blasphemous.

That such is the faith, with the permission of God and Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, we shall affirm. Let no one say, understanding me in a blasphemous way, that it is my own teaching. Indeed, all that I say is said by Holy Scripture and comes from Holy Scripture.⁴²⁶

Athanasius (AD 296-373)

Athanasius insisted that the church had no authority to go beyond the Scripture in its faith and practice.

The Catholic Christians will neither speak nor endure to hear anything in religion that is a stranger to Scripture; it being an evil heart of immodesty to speak those things which are not written.⁴²⁷

After listing the books of the Bible, Athanasius says

In these alone is proclaimed the doctrine of godliness. Let no man add to these, neither let him take ought from these. For concerning these the Lord put to shame the Sadducees, and said, ‘Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures.’ And He reproved the Jews, saying, ‘Search the Scriptures, for these are they that testify of Me.⁴²⁸

Many quotes can be shown that indicate that the Creeds had authority only as they faithfully communicated the truth of Scripture. Here is one sample:

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; but if a Council be needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene Bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrine so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced in divine Scripture.⁴²⁹

Basil of Caesarea (330-379)

If Basil did not believe in a Sola Scriptura authority, the following exhortations would make no sense:

Believe those things that are written. What is not written inquire not into.⁴³⁰

The hear­ers taught in the Scrip­tures ought to test what is said by teach­ers and accept that which agrees with the Scrip­tures but reject that which is for­eign.⁴³¹

But if ‘the Lord is faithful in all his words’ and ‘All his commandments are faithful, confirmed for ever and ever, made in truth and equity,’ to delete anything that is written down or to interpolate anything not written amounts to open defection from the faith and makes the offender liable to a charge of contempt. For our Lord Jesus Christ says: ‘My sheep hear my voice,’ and, before this, He had said: ‘But a stranger they follow not but fly from him because they know not the voice of strangers.’ And the Apostle, using a human parallel, more strongly forbids adding to or removing anything from Holy Writ in the following words: ‘yet a man’s testament if it be confirmed, no man despiseth nor addeth to it.’ So, then, we have determined in this way to avoid now and always every utterance and sentiment not found in the Lord’s teaching.⁴³²

Enjoying as you do the consolation of the Holy Scriptures, you stand in need neither of my assistance nor of that of anybody else to help you to comprehend your duty. You have the all-sufficient counsel and guidance of the Holy Spirit to lead you to what is right.⁴³³

The novice was required not merely to read Scripture but to learn passages from it by heart that he may have full assurance in his piety and may not form his conduct according to the traditions of men.⁴³⁴

I do not consider it fair that the custom which obtains among them should be regarded as a law and rule of orthodoxy. If custom is to be taken in proof of what is right then it is certainly competent for me to put forward on my side the custom which obtains here. If they reject this we are clearly not bound to follow them. Therefore let God inspired Scripture decide between us and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the word of God, in favor of that side will be cast the vote of truth.⁴³⁵

Cyril of Jerusalem (AD 313-386)

Cyril believed that the church’s authority could never go beyond the Scripture.

Let us then speak concerning the Holy Ghost nothing but what is written; and whatsoever is not written, let us not busy ourselves about it. The Holy Ghost Himself spake the Scriptures; He has also spoken concerning Himself as much as He pleased, or as much as we could receive. Let us therefore speak those things which He has said; for whatsoever He has not said, we dare not say.⁴³⁶

And it is enough for us to know these things; but inquire not curiously into His nature or substance: for had it been written, we would have spoken of it; what is not written, let us not venture on…⁴³⁷

For concerning the divine and sacred Mysteries of the Faith, we ought not to deliver even the most casual remark without the Holy Scriptures: nor be drawn aside by mere probabilities and the artifices of argument. Do not then believe me because I tell thee these things, unless thou receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth: for this salvation, which is of our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings, but by proof from the Holy Scriptures… In these articles we comprehend the whole doctrine of faith… For the articles of the Faith were not composed at the good pleasure of men, but the most important points chosen from all Scriptures, make up the one teaching of the Faith… This Faith, in a few words, hath enfolded in its bosom the whole knowledge of godliness contained both in the Old and New Testaments. Behold, therefore, brethren and hold the traditions (2 Thes. 2:15) which ye now receive, and write them on the table of your hearts… Now heed not any ingenious views of mine; else thou mayest be misled; but unless though receive the witness of the prophets concerning each matter, believe not what is spoken; unless though learn from Holy Scripture… receive not the witness of man.⁴³⁸

Now mind not my argumentations, for perhaps you may be misled but unless thou receive testimony of the Prophets on each matter, believe not what I say: unless thou learn from the Holy Scriptures concerning the Virgin, and the place, the time, and the manner, receive not testimony from man. For one who at present thus teaches may possibly be suspected: but what man of sense will suspect one that prophesied a thousand and more years beforehand? If then you seek the cause of Christ’s coming, go back to the first book of the Scriptures.⁴³⁹

For though we or an angel from heaven preach to you any other gospel than that ye have received, let him be to you anathema. So for the present listen while I simply say the Creed, and commit it to memory; but at the proper season expect the confirmation out of Holy Scripture of each part of the contents. For the articles of the Faith were not composed as seemed good to men; but the most important points collected out of all the Scripture make up one complete teaching of the Faith. And just as the mustard seed in one small grain contains many branches, so also this Faith has embraced in few words all the knowledge of godliness in the Old and New Testaments. Take heed then, brethren, and hold fast the traditions which ye now receive, and write them on the table of your heart.⁴⁴⁰

What else is there that knoweth the deep things of God, save only the Holy Ghost, who spake the Divine Scriptures? But not even the Holy Ghost Himself has spoken in the Scriptures concerning the generation of the Son from the Father. Why then dost thou busy thyself about things which not even the Holy Ghost has written in the Scriptures? Thou that knowest not the things which are written, busiest thou thyself about the things which are not written? There are many questions in the Divine Scriptures; what is written we comprehend not, why do we busy ourselves about what is not written?⁴⁴¹

Gregory of Nyssa (AD 335-395)

Whatever is not supported by the testimony of Scripture we reject as false.⁴⁴²

Gregory approved of the following remarks by his sister Macrina:

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 (dogma); we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings.⁴⁴³

Let the inspired Scripture, then, be our umpire, and the vote of truth will surely be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words.⁴⁴⁴

We will adopt as the guide of our reasoning, the Scripture.⁴⁴⁵

Ambrose (AD 340?-396),

For how can we adopt those things which we do not find in the holy Scriptures?⁴⁴⁶

Believe those things that are written. What is not written, inquire not into.⁴⁴⁷

Every word and deed should be ratified by the testimony of Holy Scripture.⁴⁴⁸

It is proper and necessary that each one should learn that which is useful from the inspired Scripture, both for the establishment of piety, and that he may not be accustomed to human traditions.⁴⁴⁹

Epiphanius (AD 310-403)

I cannot give the answer to any question with my own reason, but I can with a conclusion from scripture.⁴⁵⁰

Epiphanius insisted that any doctrine that did not arise from the Old or New Testaments was a declaration of a competing authority and infallibility - something he rejected.

For since none of the ancient apostles or prophets in the old and new testaments held this opinion, you are asserting your superiority to God himself and your unshakability.⁴⁵¹

John Chrystostom (AD 347-407)

These then are the reasons; but it is necessary to establish them all from the Scriptures, and to show with exactness that all that has been said on this subject is not an invention of human reasoning, but the very sentence of the Scriptures. For thus will what we say be at once more deserving of credit, and sink the deeper into your minds.⁴⁵²

When we receive money, we do not trust to those who give it to us; we wish to count it ourselves: and when there is a question of Divine things, would it not be a folly rashly and blindly to receive the opinions of others, when we have a rule by which we can examine everything? I mean the Divine law. It is for this reason that I conjure you all, without resting in the slightest degree on the judgment of others, to consult the Scriptures.⁴⁵³

In the following passage, Chrysostom understands the confusion of those who hear competing claims to truth. He tells them to use the Scriptures to discern false authority from true authority.

But why should all Christians at this time head for the Scriptures? Because in this period in which heresy has taken possession of the churches there can be no proof of true Christianity nor any other refuge for Christians who want to know the truth of the faith except the divine Scriptures. Earlier we showed in many ways which is the church of Christ, and which heathenism. But now there is for those who want to know which is the true church of Christ no way to know it except only the through the Scriptures. Why? Because heresy has everything just like the church. How, then, will anyone who wants to know which is the true church of Christ know it in the midst of this great confusion resulting from this similarity, except only through the Scriptures? The Lord, therefore, knowing that there would be such a great confusion of things in the last days, commands that Christians who… want to gain steadfastness in the true faith should take refuge in nothing else but the Scriptures. Otherwise, if they look to other things, they will be offended and will perish, because they will not know which is the true church, and as a result they will fall into the abomination of desolation which stands in the holy places of the church.⁴⁵⁴

Wherefore 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; and having learned what are the true riches, let us pursue after them that we may obtain also the eternal good things.⁴⁵⁵

Isidore of Pelusium 412AD

To ascertain these things are so, let us inspect the rule of truth - I mean the Holy Scriptures.⁴⁵⁶

Theophilus of Alexandria (AD 385-412)

It would be the instigation of a demoniacal spirit to follow the conceits of the human mind, and to think anything divine, beyond what has the authority of the Scriptures.⁴⁵⁷

Nicetas of Remesiana (AD 335-414)

My single appeal will be to the Holy Scriptures.⁴⁵⁸

Jerome (AD 347-420)

They that prattle without the authority of the Scriptures, they have no faith.⁴⁵⁹

For all questions, let us seek for suitable beams from the testimonies of the Scriptures, and cut them down, and build the house of wisdom within us.⁴⁶⁰

The other things, also, which they find and feign, of themselves, without the authority and testimonies of the Scriptures, as if by apostolical tradition, the sword of God strikes down.⁴⁶¹

That which does not have authority from the Scriptures, we may as readily disdain (contemn), as well approve.⁴⁶²

Everything we say, we ought to confirm from Sacred Scripture.⁴⁶³

Prove your claim from Sacred Scripture, for we must not make an assertion unless it has been adduced from and confirmed by Scripture.⁴⁶⁴

Augustine (AD 354-430)

Augustine too had a Sola Scriptura view of authority. No one had authority unless it was an authority derived from Scripture and where Scripture’s authority vanishes, all authority vanishes. As he worded it, “Faith will totter, if the authority of Sacred Scriptures wavers.”⁴⁶⁵ Here are more quotes on his views:

I do not want you to depend on my authority, so as to think that you must believe something because it is said by me; you should rest your belief either on the canonical Scriptures, if you do not see how true something is, or on the truth made manifest to you interiorly, so that you may see clearly.⁴⁶⁶

For the reasonings of any men whatsoever, even though they be Catholics, and of high reputation, are not to be treated by us in the same way as the canonical Scriptures are treated. We are at liberty, without doing any violence to the respect which these men deserve, to condemn and reject anything in their writings, if perchance we shall find that they have entertained opinions differing from that which others or we ourselves have, by the divine help, discovered to be the truth. I deal thus with the writings of others, and I wish my intelligent readers to deal thus with mine.⁴⁶⁷

However, if you inquire or recall to memory the opinion of our Ambrose, and also of our Cyprian, on the point in question, you will perhaps find that I also have not been without some whose footsteps I follow in that which I have maintained. At the same time, as I have said already, it is to the canonical Scriptures alone that I am bound to yield such implicit subjection as to follow their teaching, without admitting the slightest suspicion that in them any mistake or any statement intended to mislead could find a place.⁴⁶⁸

Note that Augustine explicitly rejects the Greek Orthodox idea that the writings of the fathers can be authoritative in any sense apart from Scripture.

Your design clearly is to deprive Scripture of all authority, and to make every man’s mind the judge what passage of Scripture he is to approve of, and what to disapprove of. This is not to be subject to Scripture in matters of faith, but to make Scripture subject to you. Instead of making the high authority of Scripture the reason of approval, every man makes his approval the reason for thinking a passage correct. If, then, you discard authority, to what, poor feeble soul, darkened by the mists of carnality, to what, I beseech you, will you betake yourself? Set aside authority, and let us hear the reason of your beliefs. Is it by a logical process that your long story about the nature of God concludes necessarily with this startling announcement, that this nature is subject to injury and corruption? And how do you know that there are eight continents and ten heavens, and that Atlas bears up the world, and that it hangs from the great world-holder, and innumerable things of the same kind? Who is your authority? Manichæus, of course, you will say. But, unhappy being, this is not sight, but faith. If, then, you submit to receive a load of endless fictions at the bidding of an obscure and irrational authority, so that you believe all those things because they are written in the books which your misguided judgment pronounces trustworthy, though there is no evidence of their truth, why not rather submit to the authority of the Gospel, which is so well founded, so confirmed…⁴⁶⁹

Note in the following passage that Augustine uses the Protestant argument that nothing can be higher than God’s truth or testify to God’s truth. If it is God’s Word, it is self-attesting and the highest authority.

What sort of a man this Nathanael was, we prove by the words which follow. Hear what sort of a man he was; the Lord Himself bears testimony. Great is the Lord, known by the testimony of John; blessed Nathanael, known by the testimony of the truth. Because the Lord, although He had not been commended by the testimony of John, Himself to Himself bore testimony, because the truth is sufficient for its own testimony.⁴⁷⁰

In the following passage Augustine says that the only reason people should follow him is if they are following the Scriptures he is teaching. Again, this is an issue of authority.

Let us treat scripture like scripture, like God speaking; don’t let’s look there for man going wrong. It is not for nothing, you see, that the canon has been established for the Church. This is the function of the Holy Spirit. So if anybody reads my book, let him pass judgment on me. If I have said something reasonable, let him follow, not me, but reason itself; if I’ve proved it by the clearest divine testimony, let him follow, not me, but the divine scripture.⁴⁷¹

He believed there was no need for another authoritative source of revelation:

…in the plain teaching of Scripture we find all that concerns our belief and moral conduct.⁴⁷²

The testimony of so great an apostle using in his own writings an oath as a confirmation of their truth is of more weight with me than the opinion of any man, however learned, who is discussing the writings of another.⁴⁷³

What more shall I teach you than what we read in the apostles? For Holy Scripture fixes the rule for our doctrine, lest we dare be wiser than we ought. Therefore I should not teach you anything else except to expound to you the words of the Teacher.⁴⁷⁴

But if it is supported by the evident authority of the divine Scriptures, namely, of those which in the church are called canonical, it must be believed without any reservation. In regard to other witnesses of evidence which are offered as guarantees of belief, you may believe or not according as you estimate that they either have or have not the weight necessary to produce belief.⁴⁷⁵

This shows that the established authority of Scripture must outweigh every other; for it derives new confirmation from the progress of events which happen, as Scripture proves, in fulfillment of the predictions made so long before their occurrence.⁴⁷⁶

Especially as in writings of such authors I feel myself free to use my own judgment (owing unhesitating assent to nothing but the canonical Scriptures)⁴⁷⁷

Whoever dissents from the sacred Scriptures, even if they are found in all places in which the church is designated, are not the church.⁴⁷⁸

For the reasonings of any men whatsoever, even though they be Catholics, and of high reputation, are not to be treated by us in the same way as the canonical Scriptures are treated. We are at liberty, without doing any violence to the respect which these men deserve, to condemn and reject anything in their writings, if perchance we shall find that they have entertained opinions differing from that which others or we ourselves have, by the divine help, discovered to be the truth. I deal thus with the writings of others, and I wish my intelligent readers to deal thus with mine.⁴⁷⁹

They must show it by the canonical books of the divine Scriptures alone, for we do not say that we must be believed because we are in the Church of Christ, because Optatus of Milevi, or Ambrose of Milan or innumerable other bishops of our communion commended the church to which we belong, or because it is extolled by the councils of our colleagues or because through the whole wonderful answers to prayers or cures happen.⁴⁸⁰

Cyril of Alexandria (AD 376-444)

That which the divine Scripture has not spoken, how shall we receive it, and reckon it among verities?⁴⁸¹

Paul requires us to prove every thing, and says, Be wise money-changers. But an exact and scrupulous knowledge of each particular matter we can obtain from no other source than from divinely–inspired Scripture…⁴⁸²

It is necessary that we should follow the sacred Scriptures, in nothing going beyond what they sanction.⁴⁸³

What divine Scripture does not state very clearly must remain unknown and be passed over in silence.⁴⁸⁴

All things, therefore, that have been delivered to us by the Law, and Prophets, and Apostles, we receive, and acknowledge, and confess; and beyond these, we seek not to know anything. For it is impossible for us to say, or at all think anything concerning God, beyond what has been divinely declared by the divine oracles of the Old and New Testament.⁴⁸⁵

How can we prove and certify as true something which Sacred Scripture does not attest?⁴⁸⁶

Vincent of Lérins (AD?-445?)

Vincent argues that Scripture is the sole authority for doctrine, and any authority that the church exercises must come from Scripture.

And therefore, as to the more ancient schisms or heresies, we ought either to confute them, if need be, by the sole authority of the Scriptures, or at any rate, to shun them as having been already of old convicted and condemned by universal councils of the Catholic Priesthood.⁴⁸⁷

Then he goes on to discuss how we know which interpretations of Scripture are correct. He appeals to consensus and then to historical theology to validate the interpretation, but an interpretation can only have authority as it correctly interprets the Scripture.

In his discussion of what constitutes the catholic faith, Vincent insists that the catholic faith 1) starts with the sufficiency of the Bible alone as the foundation for teaching, 2) that the teaching of Scripture is not inerrant but has varied through time, 3) that if a bad theology infects the whole church, then we should look to antiquity to see if it can be corrected, 4) and if even in antiquity we should find no consensus, then we should approach the subject with real care.

(1) I have continually given the greatest pains and diligence to inquiring, from the greatest possible number of men outstanding in holiness and in doctrine, how I can secure a kind of fixed and, as it were, general and guiding principle for distinguishing the true Catholic Faith from the degraded falsehoods of heresy. And the answer that I receive is always to this effect; that if I wish, or indeed if anyone wishes, to detect the deceits of heretics that arise and to avoid their snares and to keep healthy and sound in a healthy faith, we ought, with the Lord’s help, to fortify our faith in a twofold manner, firstly, that is, by the authority of God’s Law, then by the tradition of the Catholic Church.

(2) Here, it may be, someone will ask, Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and is in itself abundantly sufficient, what need is there to join to it the interpretation of the Church? The answer is that because of the very depth of Scripture all men do not place one identical interpretation upon it. The statements of the same writer are explained by different men in different ways, so much so that it seems almost possible to extract from it as many opinions as there are men. Novatian expounds in one way, Sabellius in another, Donatus in another, Arius, Eunomius and Macedonius in another, Photinus, Apollinaris and Priscillian in another, Jovinian, Pelagius and Caelestius in another, and latterly Nestorius in another. Therefore, because of the intricacies of error, which is so multiform, there is great need for the laying down of a rule for the exposition of Prophets and Apostles in accordance with the standard of the interpretation of the Church Catholic.

(3) Now in the Catholic Church itself we take the greatest care to hold that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all. That is truly and properly ‘Catholic,’ as is shown by the very force and meaning of the word, which comprehends everything almost universally. We shall hold to this rule if we follow universality [i.e. ecumenicity], antiquity, and consent. We shall follow universality if we acknowledge 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 clear that our ancestors and fathers proclaimed; consent, if in antiquity itself we keep following the definitions and opinions of all, or certainly nearly all, bishops and doctors alike.

(4) What then will the Catholic Christian do, if a small part of the Church has cut itself off from the communion of the universal Faith? The answer is sure. He will prefer the healthiness of the whole body to the morbid and corrupt limb. But what if some novel contagion try to infect the whole Church, and not merely a tiny part of it? Then he will take care to cleave to antiquity, which cannot now be led astray by any deceit of novelty. What if in antiquity itself two or three men, or it may be a city, or even a whole province be detected in error? Then he will take the greatest care to prefer the decrees of the ancient General Councils, if there are such, to the irresponsible ignorance of a few men. But what if some error arises regarding which nothing of this sort is to be found? Then he must do his best to compare the opinions of the Fathers and inquire their meaning, provided always that, though they belonged to diverse times and places, they yet continued in the faith and communion of the one Catholic Church; and let them be teachers approved and outstanding. And whatever he shall find to have been held, approved and taught, not by one or two only but by all equally and with one consent, openly, frequently, and persistently, let him take this as to be held by him without the slightest hesitation.⁴⁸⁸

Cosmas of Indicopleustes (c. AD 550)

It behoveth not a perfect Christian to attempt to confirm anything from those [writings] that are doubted of, the canonical and commonly received Scriptures explaining all things sufficiently…every doctrine received by Christians.⁴⁸⁹

Caesarius of Arles (AD 468-542)

Sacred Scripture has said nothing about this, and it is wrong to violate the divine silence. Since God did not think that this should be indicated in His writings, He did not want you to question or to know this through idle curiosity.⁴⁹⁰

John of Damascus (AD 675-749)

Moreover, by the Law and the Prophets in former times and afterwards by His Only-begotten Son, our Lord and God and Savior Jesus Christ, He disclosed to us the knowledge of Himself as that was possible for us. All things, therefore, that have been delivered to us by Law and Prophets and Apostles and Evangelists we receive, and know, and honor, seeking for nothing beyond these…⁴⁹¹

Thomas Aquinas (AD 1225-1274)

We have already quoted Thomas Aquinas as saying, “The canonical scriptures alone are the rule of faith (Sola canonica scriptura est regula fidei).⁴⁹² This statement not only denies the Roman Catholic view of Tradition (given in the previous section), but it also denies that there is any other authority than a Scripture delegated authority. This is the Protestant view that Scripture alone is the ultimate authority. It is sad to see him become more and more inconsistent with this viewpoint over his lifetime.

The Glossa Ordinaria (last revision c. AD 1498)

As late as the Reformation, the official study Bible of the Roman Catholic Church continued to be the Glossa Ordinaria. It likens the Bible to the “first principles” or presuppositions beyond which you cannot go. In other words, the Bible is the ultimate authority.

But the canonical books are of such authority that whatever is contained therein is held to be true firmly and indisputably, and likewise that which is clearly demonstrated from them. For just as in philosophy a truth is known through reduction to self-evident first principles, so too, in the writings handed down from holy teachers, the truth is known, as far as those things that must be held by faith, through reduction to the canonical scriptures that have been produced by divine revelation, which can contain nothing false. Hence, concerning them Augustine says to Jerome: To those writers alone who are called canonical I have learned to offer this reverence and honor: I hold most firmly that none of them has made an error in writing. Thus if I encounter something in them which seems contrary to the truth, I simply think that the manuscript is incorrect, or I wonder whether the translator has discovered what the word means, or whether I have understood it at all. But I read other writers in this way: however much they abound in sanctity or teaching, I do not consider what they say true because they have judged it so, but rather because they have been able to convince me from those canonical authors, or from probable arguments, that it agrees with the truth.⁴⁹³

The early church’s view of inerrancy and infallibility = Sola Scriptura

Definition of infallibility and inerrancy

Infallibility means incapable of error while inerrancy means without error. For purposes of brevity, I will use the two as synonyms, even though they are distinguishable. Inerrancy can be defined this way:

Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God’s acts in creation, about the events of world history, and about its own literary origins under God, than in its witness to God’s saving grace in individual lives.⁴⁹⁴

In sum, everything the Bible says, it says without error, and the Bible speaks to everything. The following syllogism is a simple way of demonstrating inerrancy from the Scripture.

1. God cannot lie (Tit. 1:2) or be mistaken (Heb. 4:13)
2. All Scripture is God’s Word (2 Tim. 3:16; 1 Thes. 2:13)
3. Therefore, Scripture cannot lie or be mistaken (i.e., it is inerrant)

The Bible’s own self-referential statements are replete with affirmation’s of its truthfulness. Peter affirms that no portion of Scripture came from private origin and that “prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit” (2 Pet. 1:20-21).

Since the Bible is God’s Word being communicated to us through the prophets, it should exhibit the characteristics of God’s attribute of truthfulness. The Bible speaks of itself as “the Scripture of truth” (Dan. 10:21), and insists that “the Scriptures must be fulfilled” (Mark 14:49). Jesus affirmed that “the Scriptures cannot be broken” (John 10:35) and insisted that “it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one tittle of the law to fail” (Luke 16:17).⁴⁹⁵

This reliability of Scripture is affirmed down to the very forms of words and sentences. For example, the Scriptures base doctrine on the tense of a verb,⁴⁹⁶ the voice of a verb,⁴⁹⁷ a singular versus a plural noun,⁴⁹⁸ the sequence of a historical narrative,⁴⁹⁹ a tiny phrase,⁵⁰⁰ one single word,⁵⁰¹ and individual letters.⁵⁰² No wonder Daniel 10:21 calls the Bible the “Scripture of Truth” and Jesus affirmed to the Father, “Your word is truth” (John 17:17). All these statements affirm the inerrancy of Scripture.

For further Biblical information on inerrancy, see my booklet, “How to Deal with Objections to Inerrancy.”⁵⁰³

Summary statement on the Bible alone being inerrant and infallible

Unlike Rome and Eastern Orthodoxy, who both attribute infallibility and inerrancy to the church under certain circumstances, the early church affirmed that the Bible alone was infallible and inerrant. Rome claims infallibility when the pope speaks ex cathedra,⁵⁰⁴ or when the church speaks through the ecumenical church councils,⁵⁰⁵ or when it speaks through the episcopal college in union with the pope.⁵⁰⁶ Eastern Orthodoxy says, “The Church is infallible… [And] The Church’s infallibility is expressed chiefly through Ecumenical Councils.”⁵⁰⁷ This section will show how out of touch both modern apostate churches are from the catholic faith of the first thousand years.

Luther translated Augustine as saying, “I have learned to hold the Scriptures alone inerrant.”⁵⁰⁸ In that same letter to Jerome, Augustine said, “if an angel from heaven should preach to you anything besides what you have received in the Scriptures of the Law and of the Gospels, let him be anathema.”⁵⁰⁹ This is as absolute a denial of any other authoritative source for doctrine as one could get.

It was this belief that the Scriptures alone were inerrant that led the church fathers to hold to the other presuppositions of this book. Church fathers would not yield to the authority of a church council unless the church council backed up what they said by the inerrant Scriptures. As Theodoret of Cyrus said, “I shall yield to scripture alone.”⁵¹⁰ In his book, The Church of Rome at the Bar of History, William Webster traces the decisions of church councils that were contradicted by popes and of official decrees of popes that were contradicted by ecumenical councils, and shows how the church of the first millennium held that Scripture had an exclusive claim to infallibility and inerrancy in the minds of the church fathers. Just speaking of one such conflict — that between Pope Honorius (AD 625-638) and the Sixth Ecumenical Council (AD 680-681), he says:

The significance of these facts cannot be overstated. An ecumenical council, which is considered infallible by the Roman Catholic Church, as well as Pope Leo II, have condemned and anathematized an ‘infallible’ pope for heresy. In the light of this historical evidence, the theory of papal infallibility is bankrupt, as Roman Catholic historian Johann von Dollinger admits:

This one fact — that a Great Council, universally received afterwards without hesitation throughout the Church, and presided over by Papal legates, pronounced the dogmatic decision of a Pope heretical, and anathematized him by name as a heretic — is a proof, clear as the sun at noonday, that the notion of any particular enlightenment or inerrancy of the Popes was then utterly unknown to the whole Church.

Roman Catholic apologists generally attempt to salvage the dogma of papal infallibility by claiming that Honorius was not giving an ex cathedra statement but merely his opinion as a private individual. He was therefore not condemned in his official capacity as the pope. However, the text of the official decrees of the Sixth Ecumenical Council proves that it thought otherwise. It condemns Honorius as a heretic in his official capacity as a pope, not as a private individual, for being used by Satan for actively disseminating a heresy which would be a stumbling block for all orthodox people. In other words, it condemns the pope as heretic on the basis of pronouncements which the Church would later define as meeting the conditions of ex cathedra statements.⁵¹¹

So strong was this viewpoint (that the Scriptures alone are infallible and inerrant) that as late as Thomas Aquinas theologians dared not profess any other viewpoint. Aquinas said, “The canonical scriptures alone are the rule (measure) of faith (Sola canonica scriptura est regula fidei).”⁵¹²

J.N.D. Kelly said of the early fathers, “Scripture has absolute authority; whatever it teaches is necessarily true, and woe betide him who accepts doctrines not discoverable in it.”⁵¹³ The idea that the church was the mother of the canon would run completely contrary to the idea that the Bible alone was inerrant. The idea of an independent source of authoritative tradition would also undermine this doctrine. No tradition, statements of church councils, or opinions held by fathers were considered trustworthy by Origen unless they were backed by Scripture.⁵¹⁴ All other standards were considered subordinate to Scripture.⁵¹⁵

So all the sections of this chapter are intertwined with this concept, and the quotes from other sections would also buttress this view that the Bible alone is inerrant. Irenaeus’ chief objection to the heretics he confronted was that “They gather their views from other sources than the Scriptures.”⁵¹⁶ Thus every quote under the “authority” section of this chapter is a quote that buttresses this idea that the Bible has an exclusive claim to infallibility and inerrancy.

Summary statements by patristics and church history scholars showing that the early church held that the Bible alone was inerrant

Since liberal scholars have recently tried to show that the fathers did not believe in inerrancy at all,⁵¹⁷ I will seek to show that the doctrine of inerrancy is also the ancient catholic doctrine. Since the doctrine of inerrancy is a presupposition that is essential to this book, it is helpful to show that it was also a foundational presupposition for the early church.

The following summaries represents experts in patristics from both conservative and liberal backgrounds. The significance of this is that if even experts who are hostile to the doctrine of inerrancy admit that the ancient church held to inerrancy, it gives added weight.

B.B. Warfield

The Church has always believed her Scriptures to be the book of God, of which God was in such a sense the author that every one of is affirmations whatever kind is to be esteemed as the utterance of God, of infallible truth and authority.⁵¹⁸

Geoffrey Bromily

Geoffrey Bromily sums up the entire early church by saying, “there can be no mistaking that they held to divine, inerrant inspiration.”⁵¹⁹

Gregg Allison

This all-encompassing notion of the truthfulness of Scripture resulted in Augustine affirming the divine creation of the universe out of nothing; the origin of humanity no more than six thousand years before his time; the great age of people who lived before the flood; and the scientific possibility of the worldwide flood and of Noah’s ark to save eight people and the animals on board. Clearly, he believed that biblical inerrancy extended to matters of cosmology, human origins, genealogy, and the like. Scripture’s infallibility also meant that no contradictions exist in the Bible. Accordingly, Augustine underscored that ‘we are bound to believe’ everything in Scripture.⁵²⁰

Hans Küng

…the Spirit alone decided the content and form of the biblical writings, with the result that the whole Bible was free of contradictions, mistakes, and errors, or had to be kept free by harmonizing, allegorizing, or mysticizing. St. Augustine’s influence in regard to inspiration and inerrancy prevailed throughout the Middle Ages and right into the modern age.⁵²¹

Herman Sasse

During all these [fifteen] centuries no one doubted that the Bible in its entirety was God’s Word, that God was the principal author of the Scriptures, as their human authors had written under the inspiration of God the Holy Spirit, and that, therefore, these books were free from errors and contradictions, even when this did not seem to be the case. The Middle Ages had inherited this view from the Fathers who had established it in numerous exegetical and apologetical writings.⁵²²

R. Laird Harris

It is safe to say that there is no doctrine, except those of the Trinity and the deity of Christ, which has been so widely held through the ages of Church history as that of verbal inspiration.⁵²³

J.N.D. Kelly

…it goes without saying that the fathers envisaged the whole Bible as inspired. It was not a collection of desperate segments, some of divine origin and others of merely human fabrication… their general view was that Scripture was not only exempt from error but contained nothing that was superfluous.⁵²⁴

Bruce Vawter

It would be pointless to call into question that Biblical inerrancy in a rather absolute form was a common persuasion from the beginning of Christian times, and from Jewish times before that. For both the Fathers and the rabbis generally, the ascription of any error to the Bible was unthinkable . . . . If the word was God’s it must be true, regardless of whether it made known a mystery of divine revelation or commented on a datum of natural science, whether it derived from human observation or chronicled an event of history.⁵²⁵

Harold Linsell

There is no evidence to show that errancy was ever a live option in the history of Christendom for eighteen hundred years in every branch of the Christian Church that had not gone off into aberrations.⁵²⁶

William G.T. Shedd

The theory of plenary inspiration has been the generally received doctrine of the Church… [It] prevailed in the Patristic, Mediaeval, and Reformation Periods.⁵²⁷

John Woodbridge

Augustine, Calvin, and Luther did not restrict the concept of potential errors in the Bible to purposeful deceits; they did not define biblical infallibility in terms of the Bible’s capacity to lead us infallibly to salvation; they did not make a disjunction between the imperfect words of Scripture and its perfect message, basing this distinction upon a form/function dichotomy; they did not discuss the concept of accommodation as a means to explain why there were ‘technical errors’ or other errors in the Scripture; they did not propose that Scriptural teachings have no bearing on the natural world or ‘science’; they did not argue that the Bible has ‘technical errors’ or other errors in it due to humanness and limited understanding of the biblical authors; they did not associate the authority of the Bible primarily with its capacity to lead us to salvation. If Augustine, Calvin, and Luther do represent the central-church tradition regarding biblical authority, then Rogers and MicKim have seriously misunderstood benchmark features of that tradition.⁵²⁸

New Catholic Encylopedia

The inerrancy of Scripture has been the constant teaching of the Fathers, theologians, and recent Popes in their encyclicals on Biblical studies.⁵²⁹

Letting the church fathers speak for themselves on inerrancy

It is impossible to read through the quotes under the first “authority” section and deny that those fathers held to any other infallible source than the Bible. Here are additional quotes to prove that they held to the inerrancy of every portion of the Bible.

Clement of Rome (AD 35-99?)

Look carefully into the Scriptures, which are the true utterances of the Holy Spirit. Observe that nothing of an unjust or counterfeit character is written in them.⁵³⁰

Justin Martyr (AD 100-165)

…since I am entirely convinced that no Scripture contradicts another, I shall admit rather that I do not understand what is recorded, and shall strive to persuade those who imagine that the Scriptures are contradictory, to be rather of the same opinion as myself.⁵³¹

But when you hear the utterances of the prophets spoken as it were personally, you must not suppose that they are spoken by the inspired themselves, but by the Divine Word who moves them.⁵³²

Theophilus of Antioch (c. AD 180)

But men of God carrying in them a holy spirit and becoming prophets, being inspired and made wise by God, became God-taught, and holy, and righteous. Wherefore they were also deemed worthy of receiving this reward, that they should become instruments of God, and contain the wisdom that is from Him, through which wisdom they uttered both what regarded the creation of the world and all other things. For they predicted also pestilences, and famines, and wars…and they all have spoken things consistent and harmonious with each other, both what happened before them and what happened in their own time, and what things are now being fulfilled in our own day: wherefore we are persuaded also concerning the future things that they will fall out, as also the first have been accomplished.⁵³³

One can see how consistently and harmoniously all the prophets spoke, having given utterance through one and the same spirit concerning the unity of God, and the creation of the world, and the formation of man… the multitude of prophets, who are numerous, and said ten thousand things consistently and harmoniously? For those who desire it, can, by reading what they uttered, accurately understand the truth, and no longer be carried away by opinion and profitless labour…⁵³⁴

How much more, then, shall we know the truth who are instructed by the holy prophets, who were possessed by the Holy Spirit of God! On this account all the prophets spoke harmoniously and in agreement with one another, and foretold the things that would come to pass in all the world. For the very accomplishment of predicted and already consummated events should demonstrate to those who are fond of information, yea rather, who are lovers of truth, that those things are really true which they declared concerning the epochs and eras before the deluge: to wit, how the years have run on since the world was created until now, so as to manifest the ridiculous mendacity of your authors, and show that their statements are not true.⁵³⁵

Scripture is being used here as the judge of all truth claims by historians and philosophers. Scripture is presuppositionally true even in describing creation events that no man can examine.

Ireneaus (AD 130-202)

We should leave things [of an unknowable] nature to God who creates us, being most assured that the Scriptures are indeed perfect, since they were spoken by the Word of God and His Spirit.⁵³⁶

Clement of Alexandria (AD 150?-215?)

But we, who have heard by the Scriptures that self-determining choice and refusal have been given by the Lord to men, rest in the infallible criterion of faith, manifesting a willing spirit, since we have chosen life and believe God through His voice. And he who has believed the Word knows the matter to be true; for the Word is truth. But he who has disbelieved Him that speaks, has disbelieved God.⁵³⁷

It will naturally fall after these, after a cursory view of theology, to discuss the opinions handed down respecting prophecy; so that, having demonstrated that the Scriptures which we believe are valid from their omnipotent authority, we shall be able to go over them consecutively, and to show thence to all the heresies one God and Omnipotent Lord to be truly preached by the law and the prophets, and besides by the blessed Gospel. Many contradictions against the heterodox await us while we attempt, in writing, to do away with the force of the allegations made by them, and to persuade them against their will, proving by the Scriptures themselves.⁵³⁸

I could adduce ten thousand Scriptures of which not “one tittle shall pass away” without being fulfilled; for the mouth of the Lord the Holy Spirit hath spoken these things.⁵³⁹

He who believeth then the divine Scriptures with sure judgment, receives in the voice of God, who bestowed the Scripture, a demonstration that cannot be impugned. Faith, then, is not established by demonstration. “Blessed therefore those who, not having seen, yet have believed.”⁵⁴⁰

Notice the presuppositional approach to Scripture. The truth of Scripture is not established by an outside source. It is believed, and that belief is rewarded since the Scriptures are a sure judgment that cannot be impugned by anyone.

Tertullian (AD 155-222?)

The statements, however, of holy Scripture will never be discordant with truth.⁵⁴¹

it is as incredible [inconceivable] to every man of sense that we should seem to have introduced any corrupt text into the Scriptures.⁵⁴²

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… is consistent with itself.⁵⁴³

Hippolytus of Rome (AD 170-235)

Therefore they [the followers of Artemon’s heresy] have laid their hands boldly upon the Divine Scriptures, alleging that they have corrected them… But how daring this offense is, it is not likely that they themselves are ignorant. For either they do not believe that the Divine Scriptures were spoken by the Holy Spirit, and thus are unbelievers, or else they think themselves wiser than the Holy Spirit, and in that case what else are they than demoniacs?⁵⁴⁴

Origen (AD 185?-252/3)

…there is in the Divine oracles nothing crooked or perverse, for they are all plain to those who understand. And because to such a one there is nothing crooked or perverse, he sees therefore abundance of peace in all the Scriptures, even in those which seem to be at conflict, and in contradiction with one another. And likewise he becomes a third peacemaker as he demonstrates that that which appears to others to be a conflict in the Scriptures is no conflict, and exhibits their concord and peace, whether of the Old Scriptures with the New, or of the Law with the Prophets, or of the Gospels with the Apostolic Scriptures, or of the Apostolic Scriptures with each other. For, also, according to the Preacher, all the Scriptures are “words of the wise like goads, and as nails firmly fixed which were given by agreement from one shepherd;” and there is nothing superfluous in them. But the Word is the one Shepherd of things rational which may have an appearance of discord to those who have not ears to hear, but are truly at perfect concord. For as the different chords of the psalter or the lyre, each of which gives forth a certain sound of its own which seems unlike the sound of another chord, are thought by a man who is not musical and ignorant of the principle of musical harmony, to be inharmonious, because of the dissimilarity of the sounds, so those who are not skilled in hearing the harmony of God in the sacred Scriptures think that the Old is not in harmony with the New, or the Prophets with the Law, or the Gospels with one another, or the Apostle with the Gospel, or with himself, or with the other Apostles. But he who comes instructed in the music of God, being a man wise in word and deed, and, on this account, like another David—which is, by interpretation, skilful with the hand—will bring out the sound of the music of God, having learned from this at the right time to strike the chords, now the chords of the Law, now the Gospel chords in harmony with them, and again the Prophetic chords, and, when reason demands it, the Apostolic chords which are in harmony with the Prophetic, and likewise the Apostolic with those of the Gospels. For he knows that all the Scripture is the one perfect and harmonised instrument of God, which from different sounds gives forth one saving voice to those willing to learn, which stops and restrains every working of an evil spirit, just as the music of David laid to rest the evil spirit in Saul, which also was choking him. You see, then, that he is in the third place a peacemaker, who sees in accordance with the Scripture the peace of it all, and implants this peace in those who rightly seek and make nice distinctions in a genuine spirit.⁵⁴⁵

It is necessary to take the Holy Scriptures as witnesses; for our comments and statements without these witnesses are not trustworthy.⁵⁴⁶

We, however, in conformity with our belief in that doctrine, which we assuredly hold to be divinely inspired, believe that it is possible in no other way to explain and bring within the reach of human knowledge this higher and diviner reason as the Son of God, than by means of those Scriptures alone which were inspired by the Holy Spirit.⁵⁴⁷

…their statements were true and divinely inspired…⁵⁴⁸

…who believe that the sacred books are not the compositions of men, but that they were composed by inspiration of the Holy Spirit.⁵⁴⁹

The following shows that he believed in plenary inspiration - every word of Scripture.

the divine inspiration of holy Scripture, which extends throughout its body…⁵⁵⁰

Novatian (c AD 200-258)

…we ought to pass over no portion of the heavenly Scriptures, since indeed also we ought by no means to reject those marks of Christ’s divinity which are laid down in the Scriptures… the heavenly Scriptures, which never deceive…⁵⁵¹

Dionysius the Great of Alexandria (AD ?-264)

And let us not suppose that the evangelists disagree or contradict each other…⁵⁵²

Hilary of Poitiers (AD 300-368)

The Scripture is accurate and consistent…⁵⁵³

Athanasius (AD 296-373)

…the tokens of truth are more exact as drawn from Scripture, than from other sources.⁵⁵⁴

Speaking against heretics who denied inerrancy, Athanasius said,

or that God, Who gave the commandment, is false. But there is no disagree- ment whatever, far from it, neither can the Father, Who is truth, lie.

Now it is the opinion of some, that the Scriptures do not agree together, or that God, Who gave the commandment, is false. But there is no disagreement whatever, far from it, neither can the Father, Who is truth, lie; ‘for it is impossible that God should lie,’ as Paul affirms.⁵⁵⁵

Basil of Caesarea (AD 330-379)

…all Scripture is God inspired and profitable, and there is nothing in it unclean…⁵⁵⁶

Cyril of Jerusalem (AD 313-386)

For the things concerning Christ are all put into writing, and nothing is doubtful, for nothing is without a text. All are inscribed on the monuments of the Prophets; clearly written, not on tablets of stone, but by the Holy Ghost.⁵⁵⁷

Gregory Nazianzen (AD 329-390)

We however, who extend the accuracy of the Spirit to the merest stroke and tittle, will never admit the impious assertion that even the smallest matters were dealt with haphazard by those who have recorded them, and have thus been borne in mind down to the present day: on the contrary, their purpose has been to supply memorials and instructions for our consideration under similar circumstances, should such befall us, and that the examples of the past might serve as rules and models, for our warning and imitation.⁵⁵⁸

Gregory of Nyssa (AD 335-395)

…the Scripture does not lie.⁵⁵⁹

John Chrysostom (AD 349-407)

For the Scripture by no means speaks falsely.⁵⁶⁰

Chrysostom comments on John’s quotation of Isaiah, saying,

He desires hence to establish by many proofs the unerring truth of Scripture, and that what Isaiah foretold fell not out otherwise, but as he said.⁵⁶¹

As a trusty door, Scripture shuts out heretics, securing us from error…⁵⁶²

Not only did Chrysostom affirm inerrancy, he affirmed that every word and syllable was inspired:

let us act so as to interpret everything precisely and instruct you not to pass by even a brief phrase or a single syllable contained in the Holy Scriptures. After all, they are not simply words, but words of the Holy Spirit, and hence the treasure to be found in even a single syllable is great.⁵⁶³

And these declarations, though they seem contrary to one another, have yet an entire agreement.⁵⁶⁴

Jerome (AD 347-420)

Each and every speech, all syllables, marks and periods in the divine scriptures are full of meanings and breathe heavenly sacraments.⁵⁶⁵

The error, neither of parents nor ancestors, is to be followed; but the authority of the Scriptures, and the government of God as our teacher.⁵⁶⁶

Whatever we read in the Old Testament we find also in the Gospel; and what we read in the Gospel is deduced from the Old Testament. There is no discord between them, no disagreement.⁵⁶⁷

I am not, I repeat, so ignorant as to suppose that any of the Lord’s words is either in need of correction or is not divinely inspired…⁵⁶⁸

Holy Scripture, I reply first of all, cannot contradict itself.⁵⁶⁹

I know that a difference must be made between the apostles and all other preachers. The former always speak the truth; but the latter being men sometimes go astray.⁵⁷⁰

Augustine (AD 354-430)

Still, as I said awhile ago, it is only to the canonical Scriptures that I owe such a willing submission that I follow them alone, and believe of them that their authors were not in error anywhere at all in them, nor did they set down anything so as to deceive.⁵⁷¹

This Mediator, having spoken what He judged sufficient first by the prophets, then by His own lips, and afterwards by the apostles, has besides produced the Scripture which is called canonical, which has paramount authority, and to which we yield assent in all matters.⁵⁷²

For Scripture, which proves the truth of its historical statements by the accomplishment of its prophecies, gives no false information.⁵⁷³

For it seems to me that most disastrous consequences must follow upon our believing that anything false is found in the sacred books: that is to say, that the men by whom the Scripture has been given to us, and committed to writing, did put down in these books anything false. It is one question whether it may be at any time the duty of a good man to deceive; but it is another question whether it can have been the duty of a writer of Holy Scripture to deceive: nay, it is not another question—it is no question at all. For if you once admit into such a high sanctuary of authority one false statement as made in the way of duty, there will not be left a single sentence of those books which, if appearing to any one difficult in practice or hard to believe, may not by the same fatal rule be explained away, as a statement in which, intentionally, and under a sense of duty, the author declared what was not true.⁵⁷⁴

For I confess to your Charity that I have learned to yield this respect and honour only to the canonical books of Scripture: of these alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error. And if in these writings I am perplexed by anything which appears to me opposed to truth, I do not hesitate to suppose that either the manuscript is faulty, or the translator has not caught the meaning of what was said, or I myself have failed to understand it.⁵⁷⁵

For it cannot be remotely possible that the authority of the Scriptures should be fallacious at any point.⁵⁷⁶

I have thought it my duty to quote all these passages from the writings of both Latin and Greek authors who, being in the Catholic Church before our time, have written commentaries on the divine oracles, in order that our brother, if he hold any different opinion from theirs, may know that it becomes him, laying aside all bitterness of controversy, and preserving or reviving fully the gentleness of brotherly love, to investigate with diligent and calm consideration either what he must learn from others, or what others must learn from him. For the reasonings of any men whatsoever, even though they be Catholics, and of high reputation, are not to be treated by us in the same way as the canonical Scriptures are treated. We are at liberty, without doing any violence to the respect which these men deserve, to condemn and reject anything in their writings, if perchance we shall find that they have entertained opinions differing from that which others or we ourselves have, by the divine help, discovered to be the truth. I deal thus with the writings of others, and I wish my intelligent readers to deal thus with mine.⁵⁷⁷

Your design clearly is to deprive Scripture of all authority, and to make every man’s mind the judge what passage of Scripture he is to approve of, and what to disapprove of. This is not to be subject to Scripture in matters of faith, but to make Scripture subject to you. Instead of making the high authority of Scripture the reason of approval, every man makes his approval the reason for thinking a passage correct.⁵⁷⁸

Let us treat scripture like scripture, like God speaking; don’t let’s look there for man going wrong. It is not for nothing, you see, that the canon has been established for the Church. This is the function of the Holy Spirit. So if anybody reads my book, let him pass judgment on me. If I have said something reasonable, let him follow, not me, but reason itself; if I’ve proved it by the clearest divine testimony, let him follow, not me, but the divine scripture.⁵⁷⁹

…the authority of the divine Scriptures becomes unsettled… if this be once admitted, that the men by whom these things have been delivered unto us, could in their writings state some things which were not true…⁵⁸⁰

…let all depart from me who imagine Moses to have spoken things that are false. But let me be united in Thee, O Lord, with them, and in Thee delight myself with them that feed on Thy truth, in the breadth of charity; and let us approach together unto the words of Thy book, and in them make search for Thy will, through the will of Thy servant by whose pen Thou hast dispensed them.⁵⁸¹

The following classic statement by Augustine makes a huge demarcation between Scripture, which is inerrant, and all other statements or writings which can be subject to error:

As regards our writings, which are not a rule of faith or practice, but only a help to edification, we may suppose that they contain some things falling short of the truth in obscure and recondite matters, and that these mistakes may or may not be corrected in subsequent treatises. For we are of those of whom the apostle says: “And if ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you.” Such writings are read with the right of judgment, and without any obligation to believe. In order to leave room for such profitable discussions of difficult questions, there is a distinct boundary line separating all productions subsequent to apostolic times from the authoritative canonical books of the Old and New Testaments. The authority of these books has come down to us from the apostles through the successions of bishops and the extension of the Church, and, from a position of lofty supremacy, claims the submission of every faithful and pious mind. If we are perplexed by an apparent contradiction in Scripture, it is not allowable to say, The author of this book is mistaken; but either the manuscript is faulty, or the translation is wrong, or you have not understood. In the innumerable books that have been written latterly we may sometimes find the same truth as in Scripture, but there is not the same authority. Scripture has a sacredness peculiar to itself. In other books the reader may form his own opinion, and perhaps, from not understanding the writer, may differ from him, and may pronounce in favor of what pleases him, or against what he dislikes. In such cases, a man is at liberty to withhold his belief, unless there is some clear demonstration or some canonical authority to show that the doctrine or statement either must or may be true. But in consequence of the distinctive peculiarity of the sacred writings, we are bound to receive as true whatever the canon shows to have been said by even one prophet, or apostle, or evangelist. Otherwise, not a single page will be left for the guidance of human fallibility, if contempt for the wholesome authority of the canonical books either puts an end to that authority altogether, or involves it in hopeless confusion.⁵⁸²

…let us understand that there is the most perfect agreement in them [the Scriptures], let us not follow the conceits of certain vain ones, who in their error think that the two Testaments in the Old and New Books are contrary to each other; that so we should think that there is any contradiction here…⁵⁸³

John Cassian (AD 360-435)

How wonderfully consistent the Holy Scriptures always are!⁵⁸⁴

Cyril of Alexandria (AD 376-444)

That which the divine Scripture has not spoken, how shall we receive it, and reckon it among verities?⁵⁸⁵

But an exact and scrupulous knowledge of each particular matter we can obtain from no other source than from divinely–inspired Scripture…⁵⁸⁶

How can we prove and certify as true something which Sacred Scripture does not attest?⁵⁸⁷

Anselm of Canterbury (AD 1022-1109)

For I am sure that, if I say anything which is undoubtedly contradictory to Holy Scripture, it is wrong; and, if I become aware of such a contradiction, I do not wish to hold to that opinion.⁵⁸⁸

Thomas Aquinas (AD 1225-1274)

It is plain that nothing false can ever underlie the literal sense of Holy Writ.⁵⁸⁹

…other disciplines derive their certitude from the natural light of human reason, which can err, whereas theology derives its certitude from the light of the divine knowledge, which cannot be misled.⁵⁹⁰

It is unlawful to hold that any false assertion is contained either in the Gospel or in any canonical Scripture, or that the writers thereof have told untruths, because faith would be deprived of its certitude which is based on the authority of Holy Writ.⁵⁹¹

The Glossa Ordinaria (last revision c. AD 1498)

The Glossa Ordinaria clearly affirmed the inerrancy, reliability, and infallibility of the Scriptures.

But the canonical books are of such authority that whatever is contained therein is held to be true firmly and indisputably, and likewise that which is clearly demonstrated from them. For just as in philosophy a truth is known through reduction to self-evident first principles, so too, in the writings handed down from holy teachers, the truth is known, as far as those things that must be held by faith, through reduction to the canonical scriptures that have been produced by divine revelation, which can contain nothing false. Hence, concerning them Augustine says to Jerome: To those writers alone who are called canonical I have learned to offer this reverence and honor: I hold most firmly that none of them has made an error in writing. Thus if I encounter something in them which seems contrary to the truth, I simply think that the manuscript is incorrect, or I wonder whether the translator has discovered what the word means, or whether I have understood it at all. But I read other writers in this way: however much they abound in sanctity or teaching, I do not consider what they say true because they have judged it so, but rather because they have been able to convince me from those canonical authors, or from probable arguments, that it agrees with the truth.⁵⁹²

The early church held to the sufficiency of Scripture for faith and practice

Roman Catholic apologists frequently claim that there is not a shred of evidence for the doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture in the first thousand years of church history. The Second Vatican Council said, “the Church does not draw her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Hence, both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal feelings of devotion and reverence.”⁵⁹³ Karl Keating, a Roman apologist, wrote,

Fundamentalists say the Bible is the sole rule of faith. Everything one needs to believe to be saved is in the Bible, and nothing needs to be added to the Bible … Catholics, on the other hand, say the Bible is not the sole rule of faith and that nothing in the Bible suggests it was meant to be…. The true rule of faith is Scripture plus…⁵⁹⁴

Blosser boldly claims:

The doctrine that Scripture alone is sufficient to function as the regula fidei — the infallible rule for the ongoing faith and life of the Church—is of highly improbable orthodoxy since…it had no defender for the first thirteen centuries of the Church. It does not belong to historic Christianity…The proponent of sola scriptura must be able to show from Scripture that the whole content of God’s revelation for the ongoing instruction of His Church was committed wholly to writing without residue, and also that verses referring to the necessity of holding fast to oral as well as written apostolic traditions (such as 2 Th 2:15) are limited in their reference to the first century. Moreover, he must be able to show from history, that a preponderance of the data support sola scriptura but do not support the extrabiblical traditions of the Church…The Protestant insists that the deposit of faith is exhausted without residue in Scripture and, therefore, that only those doctrines that are “implicit” in Scripture can be “deduced” from Scripture as valid “developments”… Sola scriptura assumes no ultimate need for the larger context of the Church’s tradition and teaching. However, not only is the canon of Scripture incapable of being identified apart from tradition… but the meaning of Scripture cannot be fully grasped.⁵⁹⁵

This book has already taken up his exegetical challenge and has proven that this is not true. This chapter demonstrates that his claim of absolute silence on the sufficiency of Scripture among the church fathers is also incorrect. The Reformers demonstrated that they were seeking to Reform the church back to the catholic faith of the fathers.⁵⁹⁶

Summary statements from patristics and church history scholars

William Cunningham

I mean the constant maintenance, during the first three centuries, of the supremacy and sufficiency of the sacred Scriptures, and the right and duty of all men to read and study them. There is no trace of evidence in the first three centuries that these scriptural principles were denied or doubted, and there is satisfactory evidence that they were steadily and purely maintained… and the same may be said of the writings, without exception, of many succeeding centuries - there is not the slightest traces of anything like that depreciation of the Scriptures, that denial of their fitness, because of their obscurity and alleged imperfection, to be a sufficient rule or standard of faith, which stamp so peculiar a guilt and infamy upon Popery and Tractarianism. There is nothing in the least resembling this; on the contrary, there is a constant reference to Scripture as the only authoritative standard.⁵⁹⁷

Archibald Robertson

Robertson sums up Athanasius’ views of the sufficiency of Scripture in these words:

On the sufficiency of Scripture for the establishment of all necessary doctrine Athanasius insists repeatedly and emphatically (c. Gent. 1, de Incarn. 5, de Decr. 32, Vit. Ant. 16, &c., &c.); and he follows up precept by example. ‘His works are a continuous appeal to Scripture.’ There is no passage in his writings which recognises tradition as supplementing Scripture, i.e., as sanctioning articles of faith not contained in Scripture.⁵⁹⁸

H.E.W Turner

But did the Fathers maintain the principle of the sufficiency of Scripture in matters of faith? The inspiration and authority of the Bible are never for one moment in question, while the primacy of the Scriptures as a source of doctrine can easily be demonstrated from their writings. An example of this, at once early and decisive, may be cited from St. Irenaeus. At the beginning of his third book which contains his appeal to Tradition he can write: ‘For we know the Economy of our salvation through those through whom the Gospel reached us. This they proclaimed at that time, but afterwards through the Will of God handed down to us in Scripture to be the future foundation and column of our faith.’ The main point of the passage is the living voice of the Kerugma first embodied in the apostolic Scriptures and then handed down to the contemporary Church through the apostolic Ministry. The accent falls upon the continuity between the oral tradition of the first generation and the teaching office of the Christian bishop in later times. Yet, so accustomed is St. Irenaeus to the decisive role of the Bible that he introduces a phrase here to dovetail his argument more closely with the appeal to Scripture to which his second book is devoted… In contrast to the placita of the philosophers, Hippolytus can state that ‘as many of us as wish to study religion will not learn it elsewhere than from the Oracles of God.’…A clearer example, though still restricted to a particular point, is to be found in the polemic of Tertullian against Hermogenes, who maintained the view that God created the Universe out of preexistent matter: ‘I adore the plenitude of Scripture which reveals to me both the Creator and created things; in the Gospel, however, I find more — the Logos as the minister and servant of the Creator. But that all things were made from pre‑existent Matter I have so far never read. Let the factory of Hermogenes be shown to be in Scripture; if it is not in Scripture, let him fear the curse marked out for those who add and subtract’ (Rev. xxii, 18-19)

The first general statement of the principle of the sufficiency of Scripture occurs in Clement of Alexandria. For him the source of the teaching is the Lord through the prophets, the Gospel, and the Apostles. If any one supposes that another source is necessary, no other can be discovered. We use Scripture as a norm (criterion) for the discovery of things. Origen finds an allegory of the sufficiency of Scripture in the provisions of Leviticus vii, 16-17… The evidence becomes more explicit in the fourth century…The demand for a scriptural term at the Council of Nicea illustrates the temper of the times. Though evidently not ill–pleased to be asked for a theological exercise of his own, St. Athanasius reminds the recipient of the Contra Gentes that ‘the holy and inspired Scriptures are sufficient for the proclamation of the truth.’ The list of the Canonical Books contained in his Festal Letter concludes with the sentence: ‘These are the fountains of salvation that those who thirst may be satisfied with the living words which they contain. In these alone is proclaimed the doctrine of holiness. Let no man add to these, neither let him take anything from them.’ The allusion to the closing verses of the Apocalypse is also echoed by St. Basil. St. Gregory of Nyssa discovers in the three angelic visitors of Genesis xix, 1‑7 a reference to the Trinity. He indignantly rejects the obviously correct exegesis of the angels as ministering spirits. ‘Whatever is not supported by the testimony of Scripture we reject as false.’ If the application is unfortunate, the principle is clear. St. John Chrysostom compares the Scriptures to the door of the sheepfold: ‘He who does not use the Scriptures but climbs up some other way without following the appointed road, the same is the thief.’ Finally, Theodoret in his Dialogue requests his interlocutor to avoid human reasonings, ‘for I listen to Scripture alone.’

Nor are examples lacking in the West. St Ambrose asks how we can receive what we do not find in Holy Scripture, while St. Augustine uses language from which perhaps part of the eighth Anglican article is derived: ‘In these things which are plainly laid down in Scripture all things are found which embrace faith and morals.’ St. Vincent of Lérins has no hesitation in admitting that ‘the Canon of Scripture is perfect, sufficient in itself and more than sufficient for everything.’ There can be no doubt that the Bible is fundamentally an orthodox book, sufficient if its teaching is studied as a whole to lead to orthodox conclusions. Such was the experience of St. Hilary of Poitiers, who makes the surprising confession that he only discovered the Creed of the Council of Nicea on the very eve of his exile, although he had previously held the teaching which it contained on the basis of his study of the Bible.⁵⁹⁹

William Webster

The Cappadocians, while holding tenaciously to the primacy and sufficiency of Scripture, did not emphasize a slavish adherence to the literal words of Scripture but to its meaning. They employed logic and reasoning to express the truth of Scripture but both were always subject to the word of God. They reasoned from Scripture to Scriptural conclusions.⁶⁰⁰

Letting the fathers speak for themselves

Irenaeus (AD 130-202)

Irenaeus is often appealed to as supporting the Roman Catholic view of tradition, but Irenaeus was clear that 100% of apostolic tradition was committed to writing in the New Testament. For example, he said,

The apostles at that time first preached the Gospel but later by the will of God, they delivered it to us in the Scriptures, that it might be the foundation and pillar of our faith… Since, therefore, the tradition from the apostles does thus exist in the Church, and is permanent among us, let us revert to the Scriptural proof furnished by those apostles who did also write the Gospel, in which they recorded the doctrine regarding God, pointing out that our Lord Jesus Christ is the truth, and that no lie is in Him.⁶⁰¹

He called the Gnostics heretics because “They gather their views from other sources than the Scriptures.”⁶⁰² He claimed that anything thought to be “knowledge” that was not founded in Scripture was mere speculation.⁶⁰³

We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.⁶⁰⁴

Hippolytus of Rome (AD 170-235)

There is, brethren, one God, the knowledge of whom we gain from the Holy Scriptures, and from no other source…Whatever things, then, the Holy Scriptures 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 glorify 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.⁶⁰⁵

Note again the categorical rejection of anything doctrinal from any other source than Scripture.

Tertullian (AD 155-240)

It will be your duty, however, to adduce your proofs out of the Scriptures as plainly as we do…⁶⁰⁶

Because Scripture was his source of doctrine, Tertullian insisted that nothing could later be added to apostolic doctrine. If the rule of faith (or tradition) was Scriptural, then it was fixed and cannot be added to. He said, “The rule of faith, indeed, is altogether one, alone immovable and irreformable.”⁶⁰⁷ Thus, he would have been opposed to many modern Roman Catholic doctrines such as the Assumption of Mary or her Immaculate Conception.

Origen (AD 185-252)

Therefore, in proof of all the words we utter when teaching, we ought to produce the doctrine of Scripture as confirming the doctrine we utter. For as all the gold that is without the temple is not sanctified, so every doctrine that is not in the divine Scripture, although it may seem admirable to some, is not sacred, because it is not comprehended within the doctrine of Scripture, which sanctifies that doctrine alone which it contains within itself as the temple renders sacred the gold that is in it. We ought not therefore for the confirmation of our instructions to swear by and take as evidence our own notions which we individually hold and think to be agreeable to truth, unless we are able to show that they are sacred as being contained in the divine Scriptures as in some temples of God.⁶⁰⁸

Cyprian of Carthage (AD 200-258)

Cyprian called the Bible “the head and source of divine tradition”⁶⁰⁹, and for this reason, his only authority was:

the authority of the Lord and the Gospel… and the Epistles of the Apostles… For that we are to do what is written… The book of this law shall not depart out of thy mouth… If then it is commanded in the Gospel, or is contained in the Epistles or Acts of the Apostles…let this divine and holy tradition be observed.⁶¹⁰

Anastasius of Antioch (AD ?-302)

It is manifest that those things are not to be inquired into, which Scripture has passed over into silence. For the Holy Spirit has dispensed and administered to us all things which conduce to our profit.⁶¹¹

Anthony of Egypt (AD 251-356)

The Scriptures are enough for instruction.⁶¹²

Gaius Marius Victorinus (AD 290-364)

Gaius insisted that any doctrine that did not come from Scripture alone was blasphemous.

That such is the faith, with the permission of God and Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, we shall affirm. Let no one say, understanding me in a blasphemous way, that it is my own teaching. Indeed, all that I say is said by Holy Scripture and comes from Holy Scripture.⁶¹³

Hilary of Poitiers (AD 310-367)

Therefore let private judgment cease; let human reason refrain from passing barriers divinely set. In this spirit we eschew all blasphemous and reckless assertion concerning God, and cleave to the very letter of revelation. Each point in our enquiry shall be considered in the light of His instruction…⁶¹⁴

I would not have you flatter the Son with praises of your own invention; it is well with you if you be satisfied with the written word.⁶¹⁵

Those things which are not contained in the book of the law, we ought not even to be acquainted with.⁶¹⁶

Their treason involves us in the difficult and dangerous position of having to make a definite pronouncement, beyond the statements of Scripture, upon this grave and abstruse matter. The Lord said that the nations were to be baptized in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. The words of the faith are clear; the heretics do their utmost to involve the meaning in doubt. We may not on this account add to the appointed form, yet we must set a limit to their license of interpretation. Since their malice, inspired by the devil’s cunning, empties the doctrine of its meaning while it retains the Names which convey the truth, we must emphasise the truth which those Names convey. We must proclaim, exactly as we shall find them in the words of Scripture, the majesty and functions of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and so debar the heretics from robbing these Names of their connotation of Divine character, and compel them by means of these very Names to confine their use of terms to their proper meaning.⁶¹⁷

I would not have you flatter the Son with praises of your own invention; it is well with you if you be satisfied with the written word.⁶¹⁸

Athanasius (AD 296-373)

…the sacred and inspired Scriptures are sufficient to declare the truth…⁶¹⁹

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; but if a Council be needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene Bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrine so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced in divine Scripture.⁶²⁰

Since, therefore, such an attempt is futile madness, nay, more than madness, let no one ask such questions any more, or else let him learn only that which is in the Scriptures.⁶²¹

Scripture is of all things most sufficient for us.⁶²²

Vainly then do they [the Arians] run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faith’s sake; for divine Scripture is sufficient above all things; but if a Council be needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene Bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrine so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced in divine Scripture.⁶²³

…there ought to be no mention of any of these at all, nor exposition of them in the Church, for this reason and for this consideration, that in divine Scripture nothing is written about them, and that they are above men’s knowledge and above men’s understanding.⁶²⁴

These [canonical] books are the fountains of salvation, so that he who thirsts may be satisfied with the oracles contained in them: in these alone the school of piety preaches the Gospel; let no man add to or take away from them.⁶²⁵

Basil of Caesarea (AD 330-379)

Believe those things that are written. What is not written inquire not into.⁶²⁶

Their complaint is that their custom does not accept this, and that Scripture does not agree. What is my reply? I do not consider it fair that the custom which obtains among them should be regarded as a law and rule of orthodoxy. If custom is to be taken in proof of what is right, then it is certainly competent for me to put forward on my side the custom which obtains here. 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 favour of that side will be cast the vote of truth.⁶²⁷

What mind ought a prelate to have in those things which he commands or appoints? To which the reply is, Towards God, as a servant of Christ, and a steward of the mysteries of God, fearing lest he should speak or order anything beyond the will of God, as declared in the Scriptures, and be found a false witness of God, or sacrilegious, in either introducing anything foreign to the doctrine of the Lord, or omitting anything acceptable to God.⁶²⁸

Concerning the hearers: that those hearers who are instructed in the Scriptures should examine what is said by the teachers, receiving what is in conformity with the Scriptures and rejecting what is opposed to them; and that those who persist in teaching such doctrines should be strictly avoided.⁶²⁹

Rule Twenty–six: That every word and deed should be ratified by the testimony of the Holy Scripture to confirm the good and cause shame to the wicked.⁶³⁰

In the following lengthy quote Basil asserts that to neglect any part of what is written in Scripture or to introduce anything that is not written in it is 1) to fall away from the faith, 2) to fail to be a faithful minister, 3) and a proof of great presumption:

When, by the grace of God, I learned of your piety’s command, worthy as it is of the love you bear God in Christ, whereby you sought from us a written profession of our holy faith, I hesitated at first as to my answer, sensible as I am of my own lowliness and weakness…At any rate, you yourselves know that a faithful minister must preserve unadulterated and unalloyed whatever has been entrusted to him by his good master for dispensation to his fellow servants. Consequently, I also am obliged in the common interest to place before you, in accordance with God’s good pleasure, what I have learned from the Holy Scriptures…But if ‘the Lord is faithful in all his words’ and ‘All his commandments are faithful, confirmed for ever and ever, made in truth and equity,’ to delete anything that is written down or to interpolate anything not written amounts to open defection from the faith and makes the offender liable to a charge of contempt. For our Lord Jesus Christ says: ‘My sheep hear my voice,’ and, before this, He had said: ‘But a stranger they follow not but fly from him because they know not the voice of strangers.’ And the Apostle, using a human parallel, more strongly forbids adding to or removing anything from Holy Writ in the following words: ‘yet a man’s testament if it be confirmed, no man despiseth nor addeth to it.’ So, then, we have determined in this way to avoid now and always every utterance and sentiment not found in the Lord’s teaching… I have neither the leisure nor the skill at present, however, to collect from the Holy Scripture, even at your urging, all the references made throughout to the Father and Son and Holy Spirit, but I think it will satisfy even your conscience if I place before you a few selected passages to show how our thoughts derive from the Scriptures and to provide grounds for certainty both for you yourselves and any others who desire to place their confidence in us; for, just as many proofs declare to us only one divine doctrine, so also, a fair–minded person will recognize in the few proofs I have give the divine character which is in all.⁶³¹

The hear­ers taught in the Scrip­tures ought to test what is said by teach­ers and accept that which agrees with the Scrip­tures but reject that which is for­eign… Plainly it is a falling away from faith and an offense chargeable to pride, either to reject any of those things that are written or to introduce things that are not written.⁶³²

Enjoying as you do the consolation of the Holy Scriptures, you stand in need neither of my assistance nor of that of anybody else to help you to comprehend your duty. You have the all-sufficient counsel and guidance of the Holy Spirit to lead you to what is right.⁶³³

The novice was required not merely to read Scripture but to learn passages from it by heart that he may have full assurance in his piety and may not form his conduct according to the traditions of men.⁶³⁴

Cyril of Jerusalem (AD 313-386)

The quotes of Cyril already given in the first section (under tradition) are powerful testimonies to Sola Scriptura and the total sufficiency of Scripture. William Webster summarized the evidence of Cyril by saying,

Cyril taught that they are the ultimate authority for the Church and the sole source of doctrine and truth. Throughout his Lectures, Cyril defends each point of the Creed with Scripture, emphasizing repeatedly the necessity for every doctrine to be validated and proven from Scripture. He is emphatic that not the least point of doctrine is to be delivered without proof from the Scriptures.⁶³⁵

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 salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures.⁶³⁶

Now mind not my argumentations, for perhaps you may be misled but unless thou receive testimony of the Prophets on each matter, believe not what I say: unless thou learn from the Holy Scriptures concerning the Virgin, and the place, the time, and the manner, receive not testimony from man. For one who at present thus teaches may possibly be suspected: but what man of sense will suspect one that prophesied a thousand and more years beforehand? If then you seek the cause of Christ’s coming, go back to the first book of the Scriptures.⁶³⁷

For though we or an angel from heaven preach to you any other gospel than that ye have received, let him be to you anathema. So for the present listen while I simply say the Creed, and commit it to memory; but at the proper season expect the confirmation out of Holy Scripture of each part of the contents. For the articles of the Faith were not composed as seemed good to men; but the most important points collected out of all the Scripture make up one complete teaching of the Faith. And just as the mustard seed in one small grain contains many branches, so also this Faith has embraced in few words all the knowledge of godliness in the Old and New Testaments. Take heed then, brethren, and hold fast the traditions which ye now receive, and write them on the table of your heart.⁶³⁸

What else is there that knoweth the deep things of God, save only the Holy Ghost, who spake the Divine Scriptures? But not even the Holy Ghost Himself has spoken in the Scriptures concerning the generation of the Son from the Father. Why then dost thou busy thyself about things which not even the Holy Ghost has written in the Scriptures? Thou that knowest not the things which are written, busiest thou thyself about the things which are not written? There are many questions in the Divine Scriptures; what is written we comprehend not, why do we busy ourselves about what is not written?⁶³⁹

Let us then speak concerning the Holy Ghost nothing but what is written; and whatsoever is not written, let us not busy ourselves about it. The Holy Ghost Himself spake the Scriptures; He has also spoken concerning Himself as much as He pleased, or as much as we could receive. Let us therefore speak those things which He has said; for whatsoever He has not said, we dare not say.⁶⁴⁰

And it is enough for us to know these things; but inquire not curiously into His nature or substance: for had it been written, we would have spoken of it; what is not written, let us not venture on…⁶⁴¹

Gregory of Nyssa (AD 335-395)

Whatever is not supported by the testimony of Scripture we reject as false.⁶⁴²

Gregory approved of the following remarks by his sister Macrina:

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 (dogma); we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings.⁶⁴³

They allege that while we confess three Persons we say that there is one goodness, and one power, and one Godhead. And in this assertion they do not go beyond the truth; for we do say so. But the ground of their complaint is that their custom does not admit this, and Scripture does not support it. What then is our reply? We do not think that it is right to make their prevailing custom the law and rule of sound doctrine. For if custom is to avail for proof of soundness, we too, surely, may advance our prevailing custom; and if they reject this, we are surely not bound to follow theirs. Let the inspired Scripture, then, be our umpire, and the vote of truth will surely be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words.⁶⁴⁴

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 spoke 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 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 divergence from the words delivered to us an extreme blasphemy and impiety. We believe, then, even as the Lord set forth the Faith to His Disciples, when He said, ‘Go, teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.’ This is the word of the mystery whereby through the new birth from above our nature is transformed from the corruptible to the incorruptible, being renewed from ‘the old man,’ ‘according to the image of Him who created’ at the beginning the likeness to the Godhead. In the Faith then which was delivered by God to the Apostles we admit neither subtraction, nor alteration, nor addition, knowing assuredly that he who presumes to pervert the Divine utterance by dishonest quibbling, the same ‘is of his father the devil,’ who leaves the words of truth and ‘speaks of his own,’ becoming the father of a lie. For whatsoever is said otherwise than in exact accord with the truth is assuredly false and not true.⁶⁴⁵

What shadow of such a notion did he find in Scripture that he ventures upon this assertion?⁶⁴⁶

Let the inspired Scripture, then, be our umpire, and the vote of truth will surely be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the divine words.⁶⁴⁷

We will adopt as the guide of our reasoning, the Scripture.⁶⁴⁸

Ambrose (AD 339-397)

For how can we adopt those things which we do not find in the holy Scriptures?⁶⁴⁹

Epiphanius (AD 310-403)

I cannot give the answer to any question with my own reason, but I can with a conclusion from scripture.⁶⁵⁰

John Chrystostom (AD 347-407)

These then are the reasons; but it is necessary to establish them all from the Scriptures, and to show with exactness that all that has been said on this subject is not an invention of human reasoning, but the very sentence of the Scriptures. For thus will what we say be at once more deserving of credit, and sink the deeper into your minds.⁶⁵¹

When we receive money, we do not trust to those who give it to us; we wish to count it ourselves: and when there is a question of Divine things, would it not be a folly rashly and blindly to receive the opinions of others, when we have a rule by which we can examine everything? I mean the Divine law. It is for this reason that I conjure you all, without resting in the slightest degree on the judgment of others, to consult the Scriptures.⁶⁵²

When you shall see the wicked heresy, which is the army of Antichrist, standing in the holy places of the church, then let those who are in Judea head for the mountains, that is, those who are Christians should head for the Scriptures. For the true Judea is Christendom, and the mountains are the Scriptures of the prophets and apostles, as it is written: “Her foundations are in the holy mountains.” But why should all Christians at this time head for the Scriptures? Because in this period in which heresy has taken possession of the churches there can be no proof of true Christianity nor any other refuge for Christians who want to know the truth of the faith except the divine Scriptures. Earlier we showed in many ways which is the church of Christ, and which heathenism. But now there is for those who want to know which is the true church of Christ no way to know it except only the through the Scriptures. Why? Because heresy has everything just like the church. How, then, will anyone who wants to know which is the true church of Christ know it in the midst of this great confusion resulting from this similarity, except only through the Scriptures? The Lord, therefore, knowing that there would be such a great confusion of things in the last days, commands that Christians who…want to gain steadfastness in the true faith should take refuge in nothing else but the Scriptures.

Otherwise, if they look to other things, they will be offended and will perish, because they will not know which is the true church, and as a result they will fall into the abomination of desolation which stands in the holy places of the church.⁶⁵³

Regarding the things I say, I should supply even the proofs, so I will not seem to rely on my own opinions, but rather, prove them with Scripture, so that the matter will remain certain and steadfast.⁶⁵⁴

Wherefore 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; and having learned what are the true riches, let us pursue after them that we may obtain also the eternal good things.⁶⁵⁵

Everything in the divine Scriptures is clear and straightforward; they inform us about all that is necessary.⁶⁵⁶

But when Scripture wants to teach us something like that, it interprets itself and does not permit the hearer to err. I therefore beg and entreat that we close our eyes to all things and follow the canon of Holy Scripture exactly.⁶⁵⁷

Isidore of Pelusium 412AD

To ascertain these things are so, let us inspect the rule of truth - I mean the Holy Scriptures.⁶⁵⁸

Theophilus of Alexandria (AD 385-412)

It would be the instigation of a demoniacal spirit to follow the conceits of the human mind, and to think anything divine, beyond what has the authority of the Scriptures.⁶⁵⁹

Nicetas of Remesiana (AD 335-414)

My single appeal will be to the Holy Scriptures.⁶⁶⁰

Jerome (AD 347-420)

For all questions, let us seek for suitable beams from the testimonies of the Scriptures, and cut them down, and build the house of wisdom within us.⁶⁶¹

The other things, also, which they find and feign, of themselves, without the authority and testimonies of the Scriptures, as if by apostolical tradition, the sword of God strikes down.⁶⁶²

That which does not have authority from the Scriptures, we may as readily disdain (contemn), as well approve…⁶⁶³

We deny not those things which are written, so we refuse those which are not written. That God was born of a Virgin, we believe, because we read; that Mary married after she gave birth to him, we believe not, because we read not.⁶⁶⁴

Those things which they make and find, as it were, by apostolical tradition, without the authority and testimony of Scripture, the word of God smites.⁶⁶⁵

Everything we say, we ought to confirm from Sacred Scripture.⁶⁶⁶

Prove your claim from Sacred Scripture, for we must not make an assertion unless it has been adduced from and confirmed by Scripture.⁶⁶⁷

Salvian the presbyter (AD?-429)

Condemn me if I shall not bring proofs. Condemn me if I shall not demonstrate that the Sacred Scriptures have also said what I have asserted.⁶⁶⁸

Augustine (AD 354-430)

For among the things that are plainly laid down in Scripture are to be found all matters that concern faith and the manner of life.⁶⁶⁹

If anyone preaches either concerning Christ or concerning His church or concerning any other matter which pertains to our faith and life; I will not say, if we, but what Paul adds, if an angel from heaven should preach to you anything besides what you have received in the Scriptures of the Law and of the Gospels, let him be anathema.⁶⁷⁰

I do not want you to depend on my authority, so as to think that you must believe something because it is said by me; you should rest your belief either on the canonical Scriptures, if you do not see how true something is, or on the truth made manifest to you interiorly, so that you may see clearly.⁶⁷¹

…owing unhesitating assent to nothing but the canonical Scriptures.⁶⁷²

They must show it by the canonical books of the divine Scriptures alone, for we do not say that we must be believed because we are in the Church of Christ, because Optatus of Milevi, or Ambrose of Milan or innumerable other bishops of our communion commended the church to which we belong, or because it is extolled by the councils of our colleagues or because through the whole wonderful answers to prayers or cures happen.⁶⁷³

Cyril of Alexandria (AD 376-444)

That which the divine Scripture has not spoken, how shall we receive it, and reckon it among verities?⁶⁷⁴

Sufficient, sufficient for this are the Scriptures…⁶⁷⁵

Therefore the inspired Scripture is abundantly-sufficient, even so that those who have been nourished by it ought to come forth wise and very prudent, and possessed of an understanding abundantly instructed in all things…⁶⁷⁶

Paul requires us to prove every thing, and says, Be wise money-changers. But an exact and scrupulous knowledge of each particular matter we can obtain from no other source than from divinely–inspired Scripture.⁶⁷⁷

It is necessary that we should follow the sacred Scriptures, in nothing going beyond what they sanction.⁶⁷⁸

It is impossible for us to say, or at all think anything concerning God, beyond what has been divinely declared by the divine oracles of the old and new testaments.⁶⁷⁹

But an exact and scrupulous knowledge of each particular matter we can obtain from no other source than from divinely inspired Scripture.⁶⁸⁰

What divine Scripture does not state very clearly must remain unknown and be passed over in silence.⁶⁸¹

How can we prove and certify as true something which Sacred Scripture does not attest?⁶⁸²

Vincent of Lérins (AD?-445?)

…since the canon of Scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient…⁶⁸³

Theodoret of Cyrus (AD 393-458)

Do not bring me human reasonings and syllogisms, for I am governed only by the Divine Scriptures.⁶⁸⁴

Orth: Do not, I beg you, bring in human reason. I shall yield to scripture alone. Eran: You shall receive no argument unconfirmed by Holy Scripture, and if you bring me any solution of the question deduced from Holy Scripture I will receive it, and will in no wise gainsay it. Orth: You know how a moment ago we made the word of the evangelist clear by means of the testimony of the apostle; and that the divine apostle showed us how the Word became Flesh, saying plainly “for verily He took not on Him the nature of angels but He took on Him the seed of Abraham.” The same teacher will teach us how the divine Word was seen upon the earth and dwelt among men. Eran: I submit to the words both of apostles and of prophets. Shew me then in accordance with your promise the interpretation of the prophecy.⁶⁸⁵

…we have learnt the rule of dogmas from the divine Scripture.⁶⁸⁶

They will find that by God’s grace I hold no other opinion than just that which I have received from holy Scripture.⁶⁸⁷

for us the divine writings are sufficient.⁶⁸⁸

The impiety of Sabellius, Photinus, Marcellus, and Paulus, we refute by proving by the evidence of divine Scripture that the Lord Christ was not only man but also eternal God, of one substance with the Father.⁶⁸⁹

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.⁶⁹⁰

Salvian the Presbyter (AD 400?-450?)

If you wish to know what you must believe, you have Holy Scripture. The perfect explanation is to hold with what you read.⁶⁹¹

The oracle of the heavenly Word is sufficient proof for me in this case. God says, as I have proved in the previous books, that He regards all things, rules all things and judges all things. If you wish to know what you must believe, you have Holy Scripture. The perfect explanation is to hold with what you read.⁶⁹²

Caesarius of Arles (AD 468-542)

You ask whether He [i.e. the Holy Spirit] was begotten or not. Sacred Scripture has said nothing about this, and it is wrong to violate the divine silence. Since God did not think that this should be indicated in His writings, He did not want you to question or to know through idle curiosity.⁶⁹³

Sacred Scripture has said nothing about this, and it is wrong to violate the divine silence. Since God did not think that this should be indicated in His writings, He did not want you to question or to know through idle curiosity.⁶⁹⁴

Cosmas of Indicopleustes (c. AD 550)

It behoveth not a perfect Christian to attempt to confirm anything from those [writings] that are doubted of, the canonical and commonly received Scriptures explaining all things sufficiently…every doctrine received by Christians.⁶⁹⁵

Pope Gregory the Great (AD 540-604)

…in His Scripture they as it were fix their eyes on His face, that whereas God delivers therein all that He wills, they may not be at variance with His will, in proportion as they learn that will in revelation.⁶⁹⁶

John of Damascus (AD 675-749)

All things, therefore, that have been delivered to us by Law and Prophets and Apostles and Evangelists we receive, and know, and honor, seeking for nothing beyond these.⁶⁹⁷

…it is impossible either to say or fully to understand anything about God beyond what has been divinely proclaimed to us, whether told or revealed, by the sacred declarations of the Old and New Testaments.⁶⁹⁸

The early church’s view of canon = self-authentication (Sola Scriptura)

Summary statements by scholars

Many scholars who are experts on the councils have categorically insisted that no church council ever exercised authority to determine the canon. Leon Morris expresses the opinion of many of these scholars when he says,

The church never attempted to create or confer canonicity. The decrees of the councils dealing with the matter, never run in the form: “This Council decrees that henceforth such and such books are to be canonical.” The decrees rather run in the form: “This Council declares that these are the books which have always been held to be canonical.”…

The Synod always contents itself with saying which books are already accepted as canonical. It often speaks of the accepted books as those which have been “handed down.” It never attempts to confer canonicity on a book which lacked it, nor to remove from the list a book which was agreed to have had it…

Canonicity is something in the book itself, something that God has given it, not a favored status the church confers upon it. The church made no attempt to do more than to recognize canonicity and it could do no more.⁶⁹⁹

F.F. Bruce agrees, stating,

One thing must be emphatically stated. The New Testament books did not become authoritative for the Church because they were formally included in a canonical list; on the contrary, the Church included them in her canon because she already regarded them as divinely inspired, recognizing their innate worth and generally apostolic authority, direct or indirect. The first ecclesiastical councils to classify the canonical books were both held in North Africa-at Hippo Regius in 393 and at Carthage in 397-but what these councils did was not to impose something new upon the Christian communities but to codify what was already the general practice of these communities.⁷⁰⁰

Even the New Catholic Encylopedia agrees that this was the case, stating, “St. Jerome distinguished between canonical books and ecclesiastical books. The latter he judged were circulated by the Church as good spiritual reading but were not recognized as authoritative Scripture. The situation remained unclear in the ensuing centuries…For example, John of Damascus, Gregory the Great, Walafrid, Nicolas of Lyra and Tostado continued to doubt the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books. According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Church at the Council of Trent. The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent (The New Catholic Encyclopedia, The Canon).

Herman Bavinck insists that the church fathers understood Scripture to be self-authenticating:

In the church fathers and the scholastics… [Scripture] rested in itself, was trustworthy in and of itself (αὐατοπιστος), and the primary norm for church and theology.⁷⁰¹

Letting the fathers speak for themselves

Justin Martyr (AD 100-165)

Justin Martyr insists that there can be no external proof of Scripture since that would make the supposed proof of greater authority than the Scripture. Rather, the Scripture is self-attesting. This is the Protestant position on Scripture. (See discussion under Justin Martyr in the “authority” section of this chapter.)

The word of truth is free, and carries its own authority, disdaining to fall under any skilful argument, or to endure the logical scrutiny of its hearers. But it would be believed for its own nobility, and for the confidence due to Him who sends it. Now the word of truth is sent from God; wherefore the freedom claimed by the truth is not arrogant. For being sent with authority, it were not fit that it should be required to produce proof of what is said; since neither is there any proof beyond itself, which is God. For every proof is more powerful and trustworthy than that which it proves; since what is disbelieved, until proof is produced, gets credit when such proof is produced, and is recognised as being what it was stated to be. But nothing is either more powerful or more trustworthy than the truth; so that he who requires proof of this, is like one who wishes it demonstrated why the things that appear to the senses do appear.⁷⁰²

Tatian (AD 120-180)

I was led to put faith in these [Scriptures] by the unpretending cast of the language, the inartificial character of the writers, the foreknowledge displayed of future events, the excellent quality of the precepts.⁷⁰³

Further, if any one ponders over the prophetic sayings with all the attention and reverence they deserve, it is certain that in the very act of reading and diligently studying them his mind and feelings will be touched by a divine breath. He will recognize that the words he is reading are not human utterances but the language of God; and so he will perceive from his own experience that these books have been composed not by human art or mortal eloquence but, if I may so speak, in a style that is divine.⁷⁰⁴

Clement of Alexandria (AD 150?-215?)

Clement of Alexandria cited Matthew 4:17 and Philippians 4:5, saying that it was easy to distinguish the words of men from the words of Scripture because “No one will be so impressed by the exhortations of any of the saints, as he is by the words of the Lord Himself.⁷⁰⁵

Origen (AD 185-252)

Therefore, in proof of all the words we utter when teaching, we ought to produce the doctrine of Scripture as confirming the doctrine we utter. For as all the gold that is without the temple is not sanctified, so every doctrine that is not in the divine Scripture, although it may seem admirable to some, is not sacred, because it is not comprehended within the doctrine of Scripture, which sanctifies that doctrine alone which it contains within itself as the temple renders sacred the gold that is in it. We ought not therefore for the confirmation of our instructions to swear by and take as evidence our own notions which we individually hold and think to be agreeable to truth, unless we are able to show that they are sacred as being contained in the divine Scriptures as in some temples of God.⁷⁰⁶

Cyprian of Carthage (AD 200-258)

Rather than seeing tradition or church as producing Scripture, Cyprian said that Scripture is “the head and source of divine tradition.”⁷⁰⁷

John Chrysostom (AD 347-407)

But when Scripture wants to teach us something like that, it interprets itself and does not permit the hearer to err. I therefore beg and entreat that we close our ears to all these things and follow the canon of the Holy Scripture exactly.⁷⁰⁸

Augustine (AD 354-430)

Augustine believed that if Scripture was God’s Word, no authority could bear witness to it. It would bear witness to itself since God can only bear witness to Himself. It is self-authenticating.

What sort of a man this Nathanael was, we prove by the words which follow. Hear what sort of a man he was; the Lord Himself bears testimony. Great is the Lord, known by the testimony of John; blessed Nathanael, known by the testimony of the truth. Because the Lord, although He had not been commended by the testimony of John, Himself to Himself bore testimony, because the truth is sufficient for its own testimony.⁷⁰⁹

Let us treat scripture like scripture, like God speaking; don’t let’s look there for man going wrong. It is not for nothing, you see, that the canon has been established for the Church. This is the function of the Holy Spirit. So if anybody reads my book, let him pass judgment on me. If I have said something reasonable, let him follow, not me, but reason itself; if I’ve proved it by the clearest divine testimony, let him follow, not me, but the divine scripture.⁷¹⁰

The Prologue to the Glossa Ordinaria (AD 420-1458)

The Glossa Ordinaria of the Latin Vulgate Bible can be read in both Latin⁷¹¹ and English.⁷¹² The development of these comments on the text began with Jerome and was completed in the fifteenth century, but with references being inserted from earlier fathers like Origen. It represents the official teaching of the catholic church fathers from Jerome to the time of the Reformation. Nowhere does it speak of the church determining the canon. Instead, it speaks of the canonical books as having a self-authenticating character. While rejecting the Apocrypha as never having been Scripture, it speaks of the canonical books as being canonical the moment they were dictated by the Holy Spirit:

The canonical books have been brought about through the dictation of the Holy Spirit. It is not known, however, at which time or by which authors the non-canonical or apocryphal books were produced… But the canonical books are of such authority that whatever is contained therein is held to be true firmly and indisputably, and likewise that which is clearly demonstrated from them. For just as in philosophy a truth is known through reduction to self-evident first principles, so too, in the writings handed down from holy teachers, the truth is known, as far as those things that must be held by faith, through reduction to the canonical scriptures that have been produced by divine revelation, which can contain nothing false.⁷¹³

The majority of the church took a stand against the Apocrypha

Summary statements by patristics and church history scholars showing that the early church did not believe the apocrypha were Scripture

As we will see, the vast majority in the church prior to the Reformation held that the apocryphal books were useful devotionally and for background history, but did not treat them as inspired Scripture. Before we demonstrate that, we will look at the contrary evidence that is put forward by the Roman Catholic church.

Rome’s claim to early councils affirming the apocrypha - understanding the evidence

Perhaps the strongest case that the Roman Catholic Church can make is that there were at least some councils in the early church that did indeed accept the apocrypha in a canon.

These claims are accurate to a point: The council of Rome (AD 382) was the first council to affirm some Apocryphal books. The decree of Damasus (though its authorship is highly disputed), if authentic, is the decree of the bishop of Rome that articulated which books belonged in the canon, and included apocryphal books. This view was reiterated eleven years later at the Council of Hippo, in North Africa, and then again at the third council of Carthage in AD 397. Finally, this canon was reaffirmed under Boniface at a later Council of Carthage in AD 419.

The two-canon theory

There is debate on how these decisions should be interpreted by Protestants, with competing scholars citing evidence from the church fathers that could lead to two quite different conclusions. I lean towards the view which says that there was no contradiction between these councils and later councils on the canonicity of books.

I hold to the two-canon theory already articulated in chapter 1, and held to by numerous Romanist scholars at the time of the Reformation. For example, Cajetan (hardly a friend of the Reformation; more like the arch-enemy) held to the two-canon theory. He said,

Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the Bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the Bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage.⁷¹⁴

William Webster summarizes Cajetan’s views in these words:

The word ‘canon’, then, came to have two meanings—one broad and the other narrow. The books that were considered inspired and authoritative for the establishing of doctrine held a proto-canonical status. The apocryphal or ecclesiastical books, on the other hand, while not authoritative in defining doctrine were nonetheless valuable for the purpose of edification and held a secondary or deutero-canonical status. It is in this way that the Church historically has generally understood Augustine and the Council of Carthage.⁷¹⁵

Thus, there was a canon established by God (the 66 books of our Bible) and there was a canon established by the church (varying from region to region, but consisting of the apocrypha and even writings of church fathers). The first canon was authoritative for doctrine and church, while the second was considered helpful for devotional life and historical background. The Reformers would have no problem with this view of the apocrypha.

Is there evidence that the church fathers saw this dual-canon distinction? Yes, I believe it is the only way to reconcile all the councils of the first millennium. It would take us too far afield to delve into all the contradictions that would arise if this two-canon theory were not true, but just consider the synod of Trullo (AD 692), which affirmed the canons of both the Council of Laodicea and the Council of Carthage.

On the one-canon theory, Laodicea and Carthage are impossible to reconcile. Laodicea absolutely rejects the apocrypha from the authoritative canon, while Carthage includes the apocrypha in the readings of the church. There is no reconciling Carthage with Laodicea if Carthage includes Apocryphal books from the same canon that Laodicea explicitly excludes them. In the two canon theory, there is no conflict whatsoever. Trullo can affirm that the apocrypha are approved for reading in the church and for devotion, and also affirm with Laodicea that nothing other than the 66 books of the Bible can be authoritative in settling any doctrinal issue. It is a perfect solution that meets all the quotes I have given in the pages above.

Roman Catholics object to this theory by citing a few fathers who speak of the Apocrypha as “Scripture.” The word for “Scripture” simply means writings, and some of these same fathers distinguished between inspired writings of God’s prophets and uninspired writings of non-prophets. They were quite aware, after all, that the writer of Maccabees claimed not to be a prophet.⁷¹⁶ They would not ascribe prophetic authority to a book that explicitly claimed to not be prophetic. Thus, this objection has no weight. Nor does it solve the tension that would exist between various councils if there was only one canon. If the secondary canon was not given by God and was not authoritative, it would not matter that this canon could change or even be different from region to region.

Numerous church fathers seem to speak of two bodies of books that they use, one inspired and the other not. Even the New Catholic Encyclopedia admits that this two-canon view was the view of the church prior to Trent. It says,

St Jerome distinguished between canonical books and ecclesiastical books. The latter he judged were circulated by the Church as good spiritual reading but were not recognized as authoritative Scripture… The situation remained unclear in the ensuing centuries… According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Church at the Council of Trent… The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent?⁷¹⁷

The only thing I would quibble about in this Roman Catholic description is their claim that “uncertainty persisted up to the time of Trent.” Nothing could be further from the truth (as can be seen by the church fathers quoted under the next theory, as well as the church fathers quoted later, who reject the apocrypha as inspired.)

The contradictory councils theory

The second theory that you see Protestant scholars holding to is that the councils were hopelessly contradictory (and thus not to be trusted), and even the Roman Catholic Church does not submit to the councils of Hippo and Carthage (and are thus hypocritical in appealing to those councils as authoritative). Even though I don’t agree with this theory, I will include the evidence for two reasons. First, some of the quotes seeking to prove this view further substantiate the first theory that I have defended above. Second, even if the reader is not persuaded by the information above, this information can show that the Roman Catholic interpretation still doesn’t fit the evidence.

Why were the Councils of Hippo and Carthage not authoritative councils (on anyone’s view)? For several reasons. First, they were local councils and did not represent the church as a whole. Second, only a handful of bishops attended these councils. Third, the vast majority of the church ignored the conclusions of these councils and continued to follow the Hebrew canon recommended by Jerome (see more on geography below).

For example, the synod of Laodicea forbids reading any non-canonical books in the church and only allows the “canonical books of the old and new Testaments” (identical with the Protestant list), and explicitly states that Tobit, Judith, Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, and the two books of the Maccabees are not part of God’s canon of inspired books (see Canon 59.1).

Fourth, these councils were dominated by Augustine, who later changed his views on the canon, apparently being convinced by the majority opinion of the church. Geisler points out that Augustine “later…recognized that the Septuagint was not inspired, and reverted to the authority of the Hebrew Scrip­tures.”⁷¹⁸ In effect, he revoked the views that he promoted at the councils of Hippo and Carthage. Certainly his views did not change the church consensus of the time.

Sixth, Tim Dunkin shows⁷¹⁹ that the vast majority of those who studied the issue and compiled a list of which books the church had always recognized supported the Protestant canon, not the Romanist canon. These include the lists made by Melito of Sardis (AD 180), Hilary of Poitiers (AD 360), Athanasius (AD 367), Cyril of Jerusalem (AD 380), Gregory of Nazianzus (AD 380), Amphilocius of Iconium (AD 380), Ephiphanius of Salamis (AD 385), Jerome (AD 391), and John of Damascus (AD 730).

How extensive was this Protestant view among the church fathers? Cajetan claimed it was universally held, even by Augustine and the councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage. I tend to agree. Others disagree, but say that it was still the vast majority who held to the Protestant canon. For example, Harris says, “The single voice of antiquity in favor of the Apocrypha is that of Augustine and the Councils of Hippo (A.D. 393) and Carthage (397), which he dominated.”⁷²⁰

While I believe that is a slightly exaggerated conclusion, it is close to the truth (assuming the one-canon theory for the moment) since the followers of Augustine who held to the Apocrypha were in the minority, were geographically isolated, and were contradicted by other councils on this very subject matter. This means that these councils have no claim to catholicity, and it is quite instructive that the Roman Catholic Church ignores several of the decrees of these councils, and even ignores some of their recommended apocryphal books. In his masterful treatment⁷²¹ of several areas of canonicity that my book does not touch on, William Whitaker explains,

For there are some things in those canons which the papists can by no means approve; namely, that the bishop of Constantinople is equalled with the Roman, can. 36; that priests and deacons are not to be separated from their wives, can. 13; that the law of fasting is imposed on the Roman church, can. 55; and others of the same kind… It is, besides, a strong objection to the credit and authority of these canons, that eighty-five canons of the apostles are approved and received in them, can. 2. For pope Gelasius (in Gratian, Dist. 15. C. Romana Ecclesia) declares the book of the apostolic canons apocryphal.⁷²²

The fact of the matter is that these Councils were contradicted by universal councils not long afterwards, and neither Rome nor Protestants follow them in all that they say. Thus, they have no claim to catholicity.

It is hypocritical to turn to these councils where they support your cause, and to ignore them where they do not. For example, Rome rejects some books that these councils accepted (Third Maccabees, Sirach) and Rome includes Apocryphal books which these councils rejected (Tobit, Judith). It hardly seems consistent for them to claim that these councils support their view of canon. They clearly do not.

More needs to be said about one of the tests of catholicity⁷²³ - universal consent of the church. Tim Dunkin examines the claims of Rome on catholicity and says,

The acceptance of the apocryphal books fails the test of catholicity in geography, as well. Before the time that Europe fell under the dominion of Roman Catholicism and the Catholic Bible (Apocrypha included) became the sole approved version, the only places where the Apocrypha gained serious currency were in Egypt and North Africa, with patristics from Palestine later turning to it through the influence of Pamphilus and Eusebius. The general testimony from Greece, Asia Minor, Mesopotamia, Gaul, Syria, and even many in Italy was against the inclusion of these books.⁷²⁴

Nor does Rome’s inclusion of the apocrypha pass the two other tests of catholicity - antiquity and unanimity.⁷²⁵ Samuel Waldron concurs, saying,

Neither the Zadokite fragments, nor Philo, nor Josephus, nor the New Testament ever cite the Apocrypha as Scripture. On the contrary, as we have earlier seen, the Apocrypha are excluded in every early counting or listing of the Old Testament canon until Augustine… Neither the Jews, nor the early church till Augustine, nor the Greek church, nor the Protestant church received the Apocrypha as canonical. Even Augustine had his doubts later on. (17) The very council at which these books gained unquestionable canonical status for the Roman Catholic Church was the Council of Trent. It was that council in which from a Protestant point of view the Roman Catholic Church became officially apostate. Thus, departure on the subject of the canon by Roman Catholicism was accompanied by the official proclamation of serious, doctrinal error.”⁷²⁶

Roman Catholics often object that since the church had not yet settled the question of the canon at Trent, we should not be surprised at the lack of consensus on the Apocrypha. But Matthew McMahon does a marvelous job of discrediting this argument:

The fathers agree that the apocrypha is non-canonical and should not be included in the canon. Melito of Sardis (Eusebius – Lib. IV. Cap. 26.) testifies he knew the OT canon. He took great pains in research, as we are told by Eusebius, and comes to the exact number of books as the protestants and Jews do. Origen (Eus. Lib. VI c. 25) acknowledges the same books as the protestants as canonical and says that the number of them are two and twenty according to the Hebrew alphabet. (Remembering the combination of 1-2 Samuel, 1-2 Kings, etc.) Athanasius says “Our whole scripture is divinely inspired and hath books not infinite in number, but finite and comprehended in a certain canon.” There was, therefore a certain canon by the late 300’s. He then enumerates this, “The canonical books of the OT are two and twenty. Equal to the number as the Hebrew alphabet.” Then he says, “But besides these, there are also other non canonical books of the OT which are only read to the catechumens.” Then he lists the Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, the fragments of Esther, Judith, Tobit and the like. “These” he says “are the non-canonical books of the OT” (Athanas. Opp. Ii. 126. sqq. Ed. Bened.). Hilary, bishop of Poitiers, says, “The law of the OT is considered as divided into twenty-two books, so as to correspond to the number of letters.” Nazianzen fixes the same number. Cyril of Jerusalem, in his 4th catechetical discourse says much, “Do thou learn carefully from the church what are the books of the OT, Read the divine Scriptures, the two and twenty books (Cyril. Hiersol. Catech. IV. 33. p. 67. ed Tuttei.). Epiphanius counts twenty seven, or by the Hebrew doubling, twenty two, “delivered by God to the Jews.” And he says of the apocryphal books, “They are indeed useful books, but are not included in the canon, and were not deposited in the ark of the covenant.” Ruffinus, in his exposition of the Apostle’s Creed, says “But it should be known that there are other books also, which were called by the ancients not canonical but ecclesiastical, the Wisdom of Solomon and of Sirach, the book of Tobit, Judith, Macabees. These they would have to be read in the churches, but that nothing should be advanced from them for the confirming the authority of faith” (Symb. Apost. In Appendix ad Cyprian. Ed. Fell. P. 26). (As with any good book.) Jerome plainly rejects all the apocryphal books from the canon. In his Prologus Galeatus he says “As there are twenty and two letters, so there are counted twenty and two books. Therefore the Wisdom of Solomon, and Jesus, and Judith, and Tobit, are not in the canon.” (See the introduction to the Vulgate in his own hand.) Gregory the Great, in his commentaries on Job (Lib. XIX. Cap. 16.) expressly writes that the books of Maccabees is not canonical, as well as the rest. Josephus also agrees. In his first book against Apion the grammarian “We have not innumerable books, inconsistent and conflicting with each other, but two and twenty books alone, containing the series of our whole history, and justly deemed worthy of our highest credit” (Contra Apion. L. I. C. 8.).

Two objections are brought by the RCC: 1) these fathers spoke of the Jewish not the Christian canon. 2) the canon was not yet fixed. Both of these are nonsense.

Of the first objection, the councils and father were speaking of the Christian canon, not just the Jewish. It is ludicrous to assume they would exclude the OT from the Christian’s Bible. The synod of Laodicea prescribed the books which were to be accepted in the churches. Melito did not desire to find out what these books were for the Jew’s sake, but his own. Athanasius said the apocrypha was read by the catechumens, meaning those raised up in the church – Christian catechumens. Cyril forbids reading the apocrypha saying that the apostles rejected them. Ruffinus is speaking concerning the church, saying those books are not canonical but ecclesiastical – proving he spoke of the church. Jerome, writing to Paulinus (a Christian Bishop), makes none others canonical than the protestants. He acknowledges no other canon than I do now. He writes in his preface to the book of Chronicles, “The church knows nothing of the apocryphal writings; we must therefore have recourse to the Hebrews, from whose text the Lord speaks, and his disciples chose their examples. What is not extant in them is to be flung away from us” (Preface to Ezra and Nehemiah). In his preface to the books of Solomon, “As therefore the church, while it reads Judith and Tobit and the book of Maccabees, yet receives them not among the canonical Scriptures; so she may read these two volumes (Wisdom and Sirach) for the edification of the people, not for affirming the authority of faith.” They are absurd who imagine a double canon. Jerome calls the Pelagians heretics (rightly so) for citing testimonies of the Apocrypha while attempting to prove something of heaven.

What shall the RCC then produce? Trullan? Except the Trullan council, the RCC has nothing at all to stand on. And this Trullan does not precisely affirm the Apocrypha canonical, but attributes the sanction of Carthage, which is no consequence since they also sanctioned Laodicea. And the RCC denies all credit to the Trullan canons themselves. Thus they are left without defense on any side.

Isidore, who lived in those times almost (Lib. Isad. De Eccl. Offic. Lib. 1. c. 12.) says that the OT was settled by Ezra in two and twenty books, “that the books might correspond by the number of the letters.” John Damascus says (Lib. IV. C. 18) “It must be known that there are only two and twenty books of the OT, according to the alphabet of the Hebrew language.” So also Nicephorus, “There are two and twenty books of the OT.” Leotinus says in his book of Sects (act. 2.) that there are no more than twenty two canonical books as the churches receive. Rabanus Maurus (De. Institutes. Cler. C. 54) says that the whole OT was distributed by Ezra in two and twenty books, “that there may be as many in the law as in the letters.” Radalphus (Lib. XIV. in Lev. c. 1.), “Tobit, Judith and the Maccabees, although they be read for instruction in the church, yet have they not authority.” They are not canonical. Hugo S. Victoris (Prolog. Lib. I. De Sacram. C. 7.) says “that these books are read indeed, but not written in the body of the text or in the authoritative canon; that is, such as the book of Tobit, Judith, Maccabees, the Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus.” And again in Didascal. Lib. IV. C. 8., “As there are twenty two alphabetic letters, by mean of which we write in Hebrew, and speak of what we have to say, and the compass of the human voice is included in their elementary sounds; so twenty-two books are reckoned, by means of which being the alphabets and doctrine of God…” Also the opinion of Richard de S. Victore (Exception. Lib. II. C. 9), Lyra (prolog. In Libros Aprocryph.) Dionysius Carthusianus (Comment in Gen. in Princip.) , Abulensis (in Matt. c. 1), Antonius (3 p. Tit. XVIII. C. 5.), Cardinal Hugo (Prologue to Joshua) says the apocryphal books are not a rule for faith. Cardinal Cajetan and Erasmus both declare the canon glossed by the apocryphal books being included in it in their time. (See Leo’s Epistle “Dilecto Filio Erasmo Roterd.” Prefixed to Erasmus’ Greek NT, Basil, 1535). Even Arius Montanus, who was himself present in the synod at Trent, and published vast biblical work, and called by Gregory XIII his “son,” in addition to the Hebrew Bible with an interlinear version declares that the orthodox church follows the canon of the Hebrews, and reckons apocryphal the books of the “OT” written in Greek: all those apocryphal books we have mentioned so far.⁷²⁷

Sometimes Roman Catholics will simply give a long list of church fathers who quoted the apocrypha. They claim that these quotes show a love for the Apocrypha and an unofficial treatment of the Apocrypha as Scripture. For example, one Roman apologists acknowledges that some of the fathers speak against the apocrypha as Scripture, yet quote it. Here is his strange conclusion:

All these declarations, more or less unfavorable to the Apocrypha, lose much of their importance from the fact that the men who excluded the Apocrypha from the canon use them in an impartial manner as though canonical; so Athanasius, Cyril, Epiphanius, and even Jerome, who in spite of his theory is not afraid to quote Ecclesiasticus as “Sacred Scripture.” Roman theologians have rightly laid great stress upon this fact; for it proves that, notwithstanding opposite theories, ecclesiastical practise on the whole was to use the Apocryphal like the canonical writings.⁷²⁸

This does not follow at all. Take Jerome, for example. He explicitly excludes the Apocrypha from the Biblical canon and even speaks of it as containing dangerous and silly errors.⁷²⁹ Yet he quotes from it approvingly when it suits his purposes. Was he being inconsistent? Not at all. John Weldon gives a great response when he says,

But this does not prove the early writers considered the apocryphal books Scripture. Indeed, if they spoke against the Apocrypha, they could hardly have considered it Scripture. Even in modern books, Christian authors will, e.g., quote Scripture and a conservative theologian along side it with equal authority, at least as far as the reader could determine. All this means is that they accept the theologian’s statement because it is true, even as true as Scripture. But they would hardly accept the theologian’s declaration as inspired Scripture.⁷³⁰

Church fathers who stood strongly against the apocrypha span the centuries all the way to the Reformation

While there may⁷³¹ be slim evidence that the Epistle of Barnabas, Justin Martyr, Ireneaus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Caius, Origen, Cyprian of Carthage, Eusebius of Caesarea, Methodius, Hillary of Poitiers, Ambrose, and Tyranus Rufinus quoted the Apocrypha, these handful of quotes do not overturn the thesis we are presenting here for two reasons:

First, quoting the apocrypha proves nothing. Rufinus quoted the apocrypha, yet insisted that those books are not part of the canon.⁷³² The same was true of other fathers listed above. The fact of the matter is that the apocrypha are useful for historical background and we Protestants quote the Apocrypha without in any way implying that those authors carry the same authority as Scripture. In one sense it would be no different than quoting from a modern theologian to show that he agrees with a given position. If you examine the writings of the aforementioned fathers, you will see that some of these fathers quoted the apocrypha approvingly while insisting that the apocrypha is not part of the canon (on my view, the God-given canon).

Second, while a handful of these fathers may have treated the Apocrypha as Scripture, their viewpoint never prevailed in the Church. As I pointed out in chapter 1, the official catholic position all the way to the time of the Reformation was the same as the Protestant position. Even Cajetan, the most famous Romanist scholar at the time of the Reformation said that the church of his day followed Jerome in believing the Bible had only 66 books. Whether you accept the two-canon theory or not, his statements cannot be easily brushed aside.

That this was indeed the church’s official position for the millennium before the Reformation can be seen by the Glossa Ordinaria - the commentary on the official Vulgate Bible of the church. The Glossa Ordinaria represents the approved notes of the church fathers from Jerome through the next several centuries. They constitute an official church commentary on the meaning of the text. David Oritz says of these marginal notes,

The Ordinary Gloss, known as the Glossa Ordinaria, is an important witness to the position of the Western Church on the status of the Apocrypha because it was the standard authoritative biblical commentary for the whole Western Church. It carried immense authority and was used in all the schools for the training of theologians.”⁷³³

Since the Glossa Ordinaria explicitly rejects the Apocrypha, it was the church’s official position to reject the Apocrypha. The following translation of the Prologue shows the Church’s official position all the way to the time of the Reformation.

Many people, who do not give much attention to the holy scriptures, think that all the books contained in the Bible should be honored and adored with equal veneration, not knowing how to distinguish among the canonical and non-canonical books, the latter of which the Jews number among the apocrypha. Therefore they often appear ridiculous before the learned; and they are disturbed and scandalized when they hear that someone does not honor something read in the Bible with equal veneration as all the rest. Here, then, we distinguish and number distinctly first the canonical books and then the non-canonical, among which we further distinguish between the certain and the doubtful. The canonical books have been brought about through the dictation of the Holy Spirit. It is not known, however, at which time or by which authors the non-canonical or apocryphal books were produced. Since, nevertheless, they are very good and useful, and nothing is found in them which contradicts the canonical books, the church reads them and permits them to be read by the faithful for devotion and edification. Their authority, however, is not considered adequate for proving those things which come into doubt or contention, or for confirming the authority of ecclesiastical dogma, as blessed Jerome states in his prologue to Judith and to the books of Solomon. But the canonical books are of such authority that whatever is contained therein is held to be true firmly and indisputably, and likewise that which is clearly demonstrated from them. For just as in philosophy a truth is known through reduction to self-evident first principles, so too, in the writings handed down from holy teachers, the truth is known, as far as those things that must be held by faith, through reduction to the canonical scriptures that have been produced by divine revelation, which can contain nothing false. Hence, concerning them Augustine says to Jerome: To those writers alone who are called canonical I have learned to offer this reverence and honor: I hold most firmly that none of them has made an error in writing. Thus if I encounter something in them which seems contrary to the truth, I simply think that the manuscript is incorrect, or I wonder whether the translator has discovered what the word means, or whether I have understood it at all. But I read other writers in this way: however much they abound in sanctity or teaching, I do not consider what they say true because they have judged it so, but rather because they have been able to convince me from those canonical authors, or from probable arguments, that it agrees with the truth.⁷³⁴

The Prologue then gives an authoritative list of every book that belongs in the Old Testament canon (which equals the Protestant canon) and lists those books which are non-canonical (which includes the Apocrypha found in Rome and Eastern Orthodoxy).⁷³⁵ Throughout the book, when an apocryphal portion begins, there is a note that says, “Here begins the book of Tobit which is not in the canon,”⁷³⁶ or “Here begins the book of Judith which is not in the canon,”⁷³⁷ etc.

The significance of the Glossa Ordinaria is that even the New Catholic Encylopedia admits that it represents the official position of the church down through the previous centuries. This makes it crystal clear that it is Rome that abandoned the catholic position on canon, not the Protestants.

Even the Cardinal Francisco Jiménez de Cisneros, the Archbishop of Toledo, and Grand Inquisitor against Protestants, did not believe the apocryphal books were inspired. Cisneros, in collaboration with the leading theologians of his day, produced an edition of the Bible called the Biblia Complutensia or the Complutensian Polyglot Bible. There is an admonition in the Preface that states that the books of Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, the Maccabees and the additions to Esther and Daniel are not canonical Scriptures and therefore could not be used to confirm any fundamental points of doctrine, though the church used them for reading and edification. No wonder the vote to include the apocrypha at the Council of Trent was a minority vote.⁷³⁸

The following is a brief list of famous churchmen who clearly stood against Rome’s views on the apocrypha: Melito of Sardis (died 180 AD), Origen (184-254), Athanasius (296-373), Cyril of Jerusalem (313-386), Gregory of Nazianzus (329-390), Hilary of Poitiers (310-367), Epiphanius, Basil the Great (330-379), Jerome (347-420), Rufinus, Primasius (died 560), Gregory the Great (590-604), The Venerable Bede (673-735), Agobard of Lyons (779-840), Alcuin (735-804), Walafrid Strabo (808-849), Haymo of Halberstadt (died 853), Ambrose of Autpert (730-784), Radulphos Flavicencius (1063-122), Hugh of St. Victor (1096-1141), Richard of St. Victor (died 1155), John of Salisbury (1120-1180), Peter Cellensis (1115-1183), Rupert of Deutz (1075-1129), Honorius of Autun (1080-1154), Peter Comestor (died 1178), Peter Maritius or Peter the Venerable (1092-1156), Adam Scotus (1140-1212), Hugo of St. Cher (1200-1263), Philip of Harveng (died 1183), Nicholas of Lyra (1270-1340), William of Ockham (1287-1347), Antoninus (died 1459), Alanso Tostado (1414-1455), Dionysius the Carthusian (1402-1471), Thomas Walden (1375-1430), Jean Driedo (condemned Luther’s teachings in 1519), John Ferus, and Jacobus Faber Stapulensis (1455-1536) could all be cited as contradicting Trent’s claim to represent tradition on the apocrypha.

Sample examples that show the official catholic view of apocrypha was the Protestant view of apocrypha

Origen (AD 185?-252)

Origen does not support the apocryphal books of Rome or the Eastern Orthodox church.⁷³⁹

Council of Laodicea (AD 363)

As has already been mentioned, the Council of Laodicea’s list of books excludes the Roman Catholic apocrypha.⁷⁴⁰

Hilary of Poitiers (AD 300-368)

Hilary of Poitiers also rejected the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox apocryphal books.⁷⁴¹

Athanasius (AD 296-373)

After listing the books of the canon, Athanasius proceeds to say that these Scriptures are sufficient. Then he lists a second class of books that the church has approved, but which are not in the canon: the apocrypha.

These are the fountains of salvation, that he who thirsteth may be satisfied with the words they contain. In these alone is proclaimed the doctrine of godliness. Let no man add to them, neither let him take ought from them. For on this point the Lord put to shame the Sadducees, saying, Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures.* And He reproved the Jews, saying, Search the Scriptures, for they testify of Me.

But for greater exactness, I add this also, considering it necessary so to write; that there are other books besides these, not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who are come of late, wishing for admonition and instruction in godliness. The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit, and that which is called the Doctrine of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. But the former, my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being [merely] read; nor is there any mention of apocryphal writings. But this is an invention of heretics, writing them to favour their own views, bestowing upon them their approbation, and assigning to them a date, and producing them as ancient writings, that thereby they might find occasion to lead astray the simple.⁷⁴²

Cyril of Jerusalem (AD 313-386)

Cyril’s list of canonical books also excludes the apocryphal books of Rome and the Eastern Orthodox Church, and he explicitly says, “read none of the apocryphal writings.” His full quote is quite explicit.

Now these the divinely-inspired Scriptures of both the Old and the New Testament teach us. For the God of the two Testaments is One, Who in the Old Testament foretold the Christ Who appeared in the New; Who by the Law and the Prophets led us to Christ’s school. For before faith came, we were kept in word under the law, and, the law hath been our tutor to bring us unto Christ. And if ever thou hear any of the heretics speaking evil of the Law or the Prophets, answer in the sound of the Saviour’s voice, saying, Jesus came not to destroy the Law, but to fulfil it. Learn also diligently, and from the Church, what are the books of the Old Testament, and what those of the New. And, pray, read none of the apocryphal writings: for why dost thou, who knowest not those which are acknowledged among all, trouble thyself in vain about those which are disputed? Read the Divine Scriptures, the twenty-two books of the Old Testament, these that have been translated by the Seventy-two Interpreters…

Of these read the two and twenty books, but have nothing to do with the apocryphal writings. Study earnestly these only which we read openly in the Church. Far wiser and more pious than thyself were the Apostles, and the bishops of old time, the presidents of the Church who handed down these books. Being therefore a child of the Church, trench thou not upon its statutes. And of the Old Testament, as we have said, study the two and twenty books, which, if thou art desirous of learning, strive to remember by name, as I recite them. For of the Law the books of Moses are the first five, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. And next, Joshua the son of Nave, and the book of Judges, including Ruth, counted as seventh. And of the other historical books, the first and second books of the Kings are among the Hebrews one book; also the third and fourth one book. And in like manner, the first and second of Chronicles are with them one book; and the first and second of Esdras are counted one. Esther is the twelfth book; and these are the Historical writings. But those which are written in verses are five, Job, and the book of Psalms, and Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs, which is the seventeenth book. And after these come the five Prophetic books: of the Twelve Prophets one book, of Isaiah one, of Jeremiah one, including Baruch and Lamentations and the Epistle; then Ezekiel, and the Book of Daniel, the twenty-second of the Old Testament.⁷⁴³

Gregory of Nazianzus (AD 329-389)

Yet another father who rejected the apocrypha.⁷⁴⁴

Amphilochius of Iconium (AD 394-403)

Amphilochius clearly rejected the apocrypha in his list of books in the canon.⁷⁴⁵

Epiphanius (AD 310-403)

The list of canonical books that Epiphanius writes down does not line up with the canon of Rome or the Eastern Orthodox Church.⁷⁴⁶

Rufinus (AD 340-410)

Rufinus clearly did not include the apocrypha of the Roman Catholic Church or the Eastern Orthodox Church. Here is his canonical list:

Of the Old Testament, “therefore, first of all there have been handed down five books of Moses, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Then Jesus Nave, (Joshua the son of Nun), The Book of Judges together with Ruth; then four books of Kings (Reigns), which the Hebrews reckon two; the Book of Omissions, which is entitled the Book of Days (Chronicles), and two books of Ezra (Ezra and Nehemiah), which the Hebrews reckon one, and Esther; of the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel; moreover of the twelve (minor) Prophets, one book; Job also and the Psalms of David, each one book. Solomon gave three books to the Churches, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles. These comprise the books of the Old Testament.

Of the New there are four Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John; the Acts of the Apostles, written by Luke; fourteen Epistles of the Apostle Paul, two of the Apostle Peter, one of James, brother of the Lord and Apostle, one of Jude, three of John, the Revelation of John. These are the books which the Fathers have comprised within the Canon, and from which they would have us deduce the proofs of our faith.

But it should be known that there are also other books which our fathers call not “Canonical” but “Ecclesiastical:” that is to say, Wisdom, called the Wisdom of Solomon, and another Wisdom, called the Wisdom of the Son of Syrach, which last-mentioned the Latins called by the general title Ecclesiasticus, designating not the author of the book, but the character of the writing. To the same class belong the Book of Tobit, and the Book of Judith, and the Books of the Maccabees. In the New Testament the little book which is called the Book of the Pastor of Hermas, [and that] which is called The Two Ways, or the Judgment of Peter; all of which they would have read in the Churches, but not appealed to for the confirmation of doctrine. The other writings they have named “Apocrypha.” These they would not have read in the Churches.⁷⁴⁷

Note that he was willing to call the apocrypha “Ecclesiastical” books, but not “Canonical” books.

Jerome (AD 347-420)

The translator of the Latin Vulgate (Jerome) said this about the apocrypha:

Let her avoid all apocryphal writings, and if she is led to read such not by the truth of the doctrines which they contain but out of respect for the miracles contained in them; let her understand that they are not really written by those to whom they are ascribed, that many faulty elements have been introduced into them, and that it requires infinite discretion to look for gold in the midst of dirt.⁷⁴⁸

This preface to the Scriptures may serve as a “helmeted” introduction to all the books which we turn from Hebrew into Latin, so that we may be assured that what is not found in our list must be placed amongst the Apocryphal writings. Wisdom, therefore, which generally bears the name of Solomon, and the book of Jesus, the Son of Sirach, and Judith, and Tobias, and the Shepherd are not in the canon.⁷⁴⁹

…the book of Daniel, which in Hebrew contains neither the history of Susanna, nor the hymn of the three youths, nor the fables of Bel and the Dragon…⁷⁵⁰

As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it read these two volumes for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the Church.⁷⁵¹

Augustine (AD 354-430)

He speaks of “The fact that the canon of our Scriptures is definitively closed…”⁷⁵²

While he initially received the apocrypha as Scripture, in his retractions he seems to have changed his mind. For example, he says,

Moreover, I do not seem to have correctly called prophetic the words in this passage: “Why is earth and ashes proud?” for the book in which this is read is not the work of one of whom we can be certain that he should be called a prophet.⁷⁵³

Thus, he at least repudiated Ecclesiasticus.

Pope Gregory the Great (AD 540-604)

It is particularly embarrassing for Rome’s view on tradition that Pope Gregory the Great explicitly says that 1 Maccabees is not canonical. In his Book of Morals, which he completed after becoming Pope, he writes:

With reference to which particular we are not acting irregularly, if from the books, though not Canonical, yet brought out for the edifying of the Church, we bring forward testimony. Thus Eleazar in the battle smote and brought down an elephant, but fell under the very beast that he killed [1 Macc. 6, 46].⁷⁵⁴

Rome claims that he wrote that portion before he was pope, but the fact of the matter is that he finished writing the book after he was pope and had it published after he was pope. He clearly endorsed his earlier writing when he was pope.

Glossa Ordinaria (last revision c. AD 1498)

The Prologue to the Gloss Ordinaria gives a discussion of why the apocrypha are not canonical (see earlier quote in this section). It then gives an authoritative list of every book that belongs in the Old Testament canon (which equals the Protestant canon) and lists those books which are non-canonical (which includes the Apocrypha found in Rome and Eastern Orthodoxy).

These are the books that are not in the canon, which the church includes as good and useful books, but not canonical. Among them are some of more, some of less authority. For Tobit, Judith, and the books of Maccabees, also the book of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, are strongly approved by all. Thus Augustine, in book two of De Doctrina Christiana, counts the first three among canonical books; concerning Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, he says they deserved to be received as authoritative and should be numbered among the prophetic books; concerning the books of Maccabees, in book 18 of the City of God, speaking of the books of Ezra, he says that, although the Jews do not consider them canonical, the church considers them canonical because of the passions of certain martyrs and powerful miracles. Of less authority are Baruch and Third and Fourth Ezra. For Augustine makes no mention of them in the place cited above, while he included (as I have said) other apocryphal works among the canonical. Rufinus as well, in his exposition of the creed, and Isidore, in book 6 of the Etymologies, where they repeat this division of Jerome, mentioned nothing of these other books. And that we might enumerate the apocryphal books in the order in which they appear in this Bible, even though they have been produced in a different order, first come the third and fourth books of Ezra. They are called Third and Fourth Ezra because, before Jerome, Greeks and Latins used to divide the book of Ezra into two books, calling the words of Nehemiah the second book of Ezra. These Third and Fourth Ezra are, as I have said, of less authority among all non- canonical books. Hence Jerome, in his prologue to the books of Ezra, calls them dreams. They are found in very few Bible manuscripts; and in many printed Bibles only Third Ezra is found. Second is Tobit, a very devout and useful book. Third is Judith, which Jerome says in his prologue had been counted by the Nicene Council in the number of holy scriptures. Fourth is the book of Wisdom, which almost all hold that Philo of Alexandria, a most learned Jew, wrote. Fifth is the book of Jesus son of Sirach, which is called Ecclesiasticus. Sixth is Baruch, as Jerome says in his prologue to Jeremiah. Seventh is the book of Maccabees, divided into first and second books…Further, it should be known that in the book of Esther, only those words are in the canon up to that place where we have inserted: the end of the book of Esther, as far as it is in Hebrew. What follows afterward is not in the canon. Likewise in Daniel, only those words are in the canon up to that place where we have inserted: The prophet Daniel ends. What follows afterward is not in the canon.⁷⁵⁵

Throughout the book, when an apocryphal portion begins, there is a note that says, “Here begins the book of Tobit which is not in the canon,”⁷⁵⁶ or “Here begins the book of Judith which is not in the canon,”⁷⁵⁷ etc.

Church fathers on the connection between prophecy and canon and the definitive closing of the canon

Summary statement

We will now examine whether church fathers agree with the prophecy-canon thesis that I have proposed. This will admittedly be the weakest section of this chapter since the early church fathers were almost as divided on the issue of continuing prophecy as the Reformers were at the time of the Reformation. So while a cessationist theology was common among early church fathers and became the dominant viewpoint in later centuries, charismatics can claim at least some church fathers (like Tertullian and Eusebius).

Nevertheless, we will see that Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox claims to an authoritative continuing revelation were absolutely rejected by the catholic church of the first thousand years. There is no basis in historical theology for the claim of Trent that the church had the authority to infallibly add books to the Bible by divine revelation. The catholic church believed in a closed canon that served as the exclusive authority and the sufficient authority for the church. The church fathers said “the canon of Scripture is complete” (see previous section for quotes).

Having said that, the thesis this book has set forth was a pervasive position in the church of the first thousand years and is not novel. I will now seek to show that historical theology substantiates my interpretation.

Summary of cessationist scholarship

Charismatics can appeal to a handful fathers like Eusebius,⁷⁵⁸ who mistakenly thought that prophecy would continue until the Second Coming of Christ, but even these church fathers differed rather markedly from modern charismatics like Wayne Grudem. For example, when a self-proclaimed prophet was determined to be in error, he was rejected en toto by the early church. There was no winnowing of good from bad prophecies within one prophet. Instead, he was either a good prophet or a false prophet.⁷⁵⁹ Epiphanius insisted that New Testament prophets like Agabus were 100% inerrant.⁷⁶⁰ Farnall shows how this viewpoint was pervasive: “In the early church any error in a prophecy indicated that a false prophet was prophesying.”⁷⁶¹

Likewise, New Testament prophets (if they were thought to exist) were treated as identical to Old Testament prophets. For example, Eusebius cites an “Anonymous” church father who discredited the Montanists because they did not line up with the example of Old Testament prophets. He cites this as the way the church handled false prophets.

Thus the early church used Old Testament prophets and prophecy as a model for New Testament prophets and prophecy. If New Testament prophets did not conform to the pattern of Old Testament prophets, they were to be rejected as false. Here the understanding of a direct continuity between Old Testament and New Testament prophets is seen in the early church.⁷⁶²

Likewise, Justin Martyr claimed that New Testament prophets were identical to Old Testament prophets,⁷⁶³ and their presence with the church (as witnessed by the New Testament writings) was proof that the Spirit had left Judaism and had come to the church. Farnell’s commentary on Martyr states,

By this statement one may infer that Justin Martyr viewed the New Testament prophetic gift as a direct continuation of the gift as it was practiced in the Old Testament. The same gift of prophecy seen in the Old Testament was transferred to the church with the advent of Messiah.⁷⁶⁴

So when Montanism began to claim new prophecies in AD 156, the church applied the standards laid out in the Old Testament and found Montanism to be false for three reasons: 1) They were not rational like Old Testament prophets. 2) They did not have accurate interpretations of Scripture like Old Testament prophets did. 3) Some of their prophecies did not come true. This was the criteria used in the Old Testament, and substantiates the thesis of prophecy set forth in my book. Farnell says,

In summary the early postapostolic church judged the genuineness of New Testament prophets by Old Testament prophetic standards. Prophets in the New Testament era who were ecstatic, made wrong applications of Scripture, or prophesied falsely were considered false prophets because such actions violated Old Testament stipulations regarding what characterized a genuine prophet of God (Deut 13:1–5; 18:20–22). This idea is reinforced by the belief among some in the early church that the Old Testament prophetic gift had been transferred to the church in light of the coming of Messiah (cf. Acts 2:17–21 and Joel 2:28–30). The early church affirmed the idea of a direct continuity between Old Testament and New Testament prophets and prophetic standards. Montanism’s “newness” as prophecy centered in its sharp departure from norms of prophecy seen in the Old Testament. Becoming alarmed by such a departure, the early church fought against and repudiated it.⁷⁶⁵

Just as happened with errors related to Theology, Christology, and Pneumatology, errors related to spiritual gifts led the church to study the issue of charismatic gifts more closely and to eventually embrace cessationism with regard to prophecy and apostleship. Bishops in Asia Minor excommunicated the Montanists in AD 177. Klawiter summarizes this period, saying, “By about A.D. 177, the churches in Asia and Phrygia had rejected the New Prophecy. By the end of the second century, the New Prophecy was being combated also at Hieropolis (Phrygia), Antioch (Syria), and Ancyra (Galatia).”⁷⁶⁶ The Council of Constantinople declared the charismatic movement of Montanism to be a heresy that amounted to paganism. Hill claims that “the repudiation of Montanism marks the effective end of prophecy in the Church.”⁷⁶⁷ As happened with the doctrines of the Trinity and the nature of Christ, sincerely held errors forced the church to clarify the absolute cessation of any authoritative prophecy.

Letting the church fathers speak for themselves on a canon closed by the apostles and prophets

Clement of Rome (AD 35-99?)

Clement’s only references to “prophecy” or “prophets” is to the inspired Scriptures (1 Clem. 12:8; 17:1; 43:1). He uses the terms just as I have. In addition he only appeals to the authority of Scripture.⁷⁶⁸

Ignatius (AD 35-108)

Ignatius claims that New Testament prophets had the same Spirit as the apostles and that both prophets and apostles were vehicles of “the Author of knowledge.” He parallels the Spirit’s work as being the same in Moses, the prophets and the apostles.

I do also love the prophets as those who announced Christ, and as being partakers of the same Spirit with the apostles. For as the false prophets and the false apostles drew [to themselves] one and the same wicked, deceitful, and seducing spirit; so also did the prophets and the apostles receive from God, through Jesus Christ, one and the same Holy Spirit, who is good, and sovereign, and true, and the Author of [saving] knowledge. For there is one God of the Old and New Testament, “one Mediator between God and men,” for the creation of both intelligent and sensitive beings, and in order to exercise a beneficial and suitable providence [over them]. There is also one Comforter, who displayed His power in Moses, and the prophets, and apostles.⁷⁶⁹

Notice that Ignatius spoke in the past tense about these prophets and apostles. Second, the prophets are grouped with the apostles. Third, what they produced is the same as what all prophets have produced, for it is the same Author “of the Old and New Testament” who displayed His power in Moses, and the prophets, and apostles.” This is not continuationism. Elsewhere, he clearly distinguishes between the subsidiary authority of current bishops and the revelatory authority of the apostolic age:

I do not enjoin you in the manner of Peter and Paul. They were Apostles, I am a condemned man.⁷⁷⁰

Furthermore, Ignatius distinguishes between the “Apostolic age” and what continues after the apostolic age. Only the ordinary gifts continue:

Though there has been a change of title, the functions exercised by the threefold ministry of bishops, presbyters, and deacons are a continuation of the functions exercised in the Apostolic age by Apostles, presbyter-bishops, and deacons.⁷⁷¹

Justin Martyr (AD 100-165)

Justin Martyr claims the absence of any prophet after the apostolic age.

But after the manifestation and death of our Jesus Christ in your nation, there was and is nowhere any prophet: nay, further, you ceased to exist under your own king, your land was laid waste, and forsaken like a lodge in a vineyard; and the statement of Scripture, in the mouth of Jacob, ‘And He shall be the desire of nations, ‘meant symbolically His two advents, and that the nations would believe in Him; which facts you may now at length discern. For those out of all the nations who are pious and righteous through the faith of Christ, look for His future appearance.⁷⁷²

Charismatics like to quote Justin as saying, “For the prophetical gifts remain with us, even to the present time” (chapter LXXII), but if you read the whole discussion you will see that Justin is saying that the Jews have no more prophets bringing Scriptures but in contrast the church was given prophets and their “prophetic writings” are with us till today. God stopped revealing things to the Jews hundreds of years before Christ, but when the Messiah came, God revealed much about Him and about church conduct. Those are the “prophetical gifts” that the church has and which are absent from the Jews.

Secondly, Justin speaks of the “prophetic word” as being Scripture (see chapter LVI, LXXVII, LXXXV, CX, CXII). Justin Martyr repeatedly appeals to the authority of “prophetic writings,” and “prophetic passages,” and the “prophetic word,” and it is always Scripture that he is appealing to. This is quite contrary to Grudem’s thesis. For example, in Martyr’s Hortatory Address to the Greeks, Justin Martyr says,

To him [Moses] first did God communicate that divine and prophetic gift which in those days descended upon the holy men, and him also did He first furnish that he might be our teacher in religion, and then after him the rest of the prophets, who both obtained the same gift as he, and taught us the same doctrines concerning the same subjects. These we assert to have been our teachers, who taught us nothing from their own human conception, but from the gift vouchsafed to them by God from above.⁷⁷³

It is clear that though we possess the gifts of the revelation (that is, the Scriptures), these New Testament prophets were in the past tense “in those days.” It is also clear that for Justin, the New Testament prophetic gifts are identical to the prophetic gift that Moses received. It is also clear that he is including Moses and the later prophets as his teachers. Charismatics have taken Justin Martyr out of context. Speaking of the writers of Scripture, Justin says,

A long time ago, long before the time of those reputed philosophers, there lived blessed men who were just and loved by God, men who spoke through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and predicted events that would take place in the future, which events are now taking place. We call these men the Prophets. They alone knew the truth and communicated it to men, whom they neither deferred to nor feared. With no desire for personal glory, they reiterated only what they heard and saw when inspired by the Holy Spirit. Their writings are still extant, and whoever reads them with the proper faith will profit greatly in his knowledge of the origin and end of things, and of any other matter that a philosopher should know. In their writings they gave no proof at that time of their statements, for, as reliable witnesses of the truth, they were beyond proof; but the happenings that have taken place and are now taking place force you to believe their words. They also are worthy of belief because of the miracles which they performed, for they exalted God, the Father and Creator of all things, and made known Christ, His Son, who was sent by Him. This the false prophets, who are filled with an erring and unclean spirit, have never done nor even do now, but they undertake to perform certain wonders to astound men and they glorify the demons and spirits of error. Above all, beseech God to open to you the gates of light, for no one can perceive or understand these truths unless he has been enlightened by God and His Christ.⁷⁷⁴

Again, these prophets existed a long time ago, though we hear them through their writings. Justin affirms that without the prophets there can be no knowledge, and what prophets speak and write, they do so by inspiration. Prophets for Justin are men with divine inspiration who impart necessary knowledge of God and of true revelation.

From every point of view, therefore, it must be seen that in no other way than only from the prophets who teach us by divine inspiration, is it at all possible to learn anything concerning God and the true religion.⁷⁷⁵

Muratorian Fragment (AD 170)

The Muratorian Fragment⁷⁷⁶ was written during the period of the Montanist controversy, and it draws a clear line in the sand - anything written after the death of the apostles and the last of the prophets in the first century is automatically false prophecy and cannot be treated as canonical. Heine states that, “The Roman church did not argue with the Montanists about true or false prophecy, nor about rational versus ecstatic prophecy. It refused to grant the possibility of any prophecy after the apostles.”⁷⁷⁷ This document obviously reflects a broad church consensus that had developed by AD 170. The relevant portion of the text states:

Hermas wrote the Shepherd very recently, in our times, in the city of Rome, while bishop Pius, his brother, was occupying the [episcopal] chair of the church of the city of Rome. And therefore it ought indeed to be read; but it cannot be read publicly to the people in church either among the Prophets, whose number is complete, or among the Apostles, for it is after [their] time.⁷⁷⁸

Note the clear cessationism of both apostles and prophets. Note also the connection of prophecy to the inspired Scripture. This early church document attributes the writing of the New Testament to both “apostles” and “prophets.” Furthermore, the Muratorian Fragment explicitly says that the number of the prophets “is complete.” This is a clear rejection of continuing prophecy. It rejected “The Shepherd of Hermes” as non-canonical because prophecy had ceased. It rejected anything post-apostolic because even good books must be distinguished from “the Prophets, whose number is complete” and from “the apostles, for it is after their time.”

This is a strong affirmation that New Testament prophecy was normative and on a level with apostolic writings. We will be seeing many other church fathers making the same connection - canonicity is dependent on either apostolicity or propheticity.

Dionysius of Corinth (AD ?-171?)

Dionysius distinguished his letters from the “Scriptures of the Lord” lest anyone think that there were new canonical books.⁷⁷⁹ This phrase, “Scriptures of the Lord” speaks to a body of books distinct from the Old Testament that were already acknowledged as being a set canon. He was not waiting for the church to determine what was Scripture. He already knew it to be a closed body of literature.

Theophilus of Antioch (c. AD 180)

It would be acting according to demonic inspiration to follow the thinking of the human mind and to think there could be anything divine apart from the authority of the Scriptures.⁷⁸⁰

This is a clear rejection of any other form of revelation being authoritative in the church.

Anonymous critic of Montanism (c. AD 196)

Eusebius quotes an unknown father who was opposing Montanism:

For a long and protracted time, my dear Abercius Marcellus, I have been urged by you to compose a treatise against the sect of those called after Miltiades, but until now I was somewhat reluctant, not from any lack of ability to refute the lie and testify to the truth, but from timidity and scruples lest I might seem to some to be adding to the writings or injunctions of the word of the new covenant of the gospel, to which no one who has chosen to live according to the gospel itself can add and from which he cannot take away.⁷⁸¹

This clear reference to Revelation 22:18-29 shows that this writer interpreted those words the same way this book has. He treats the canon as closed. Furthermore, he refers to the writings “of the new covenant” as if it is a body of literature in parallel to the writings of the old covenant.

Gaius (c. 200)

Eusebius also records a debate between Gaius and some Montanist heretics. The Montanists claimed to have new prophetic revelations from God and new prophetic writings. Gaius opposed these ideas, making the claim that “composing new Scriptures” was “recklessness and audacity.” Why would it be recklessness and audacity if both the canon and the office of prophet were open? Gaius’ comments could be equally made against the decision of the Council of Trent.

And there has reached us also a Dialogue of Gaius, a very learned person (which was set a-going at Rome in the time of Zephyrinus), with Proclus the champion of the heresy of the Phrygians. In which, when curbing the recklessness and audacity of his opponents in composing new Scriptures, he mentions only thirteen epistles of the holy Apostle [Paul], not numbering the Epistle to the Hebrews with the rest;⁷⁸² seeing that even to this day among the Romans there are some who do not consider it to be the Apostle’s.⁷⁸³

Irenaeus (AD 130-202)

In the same way, charismatics like to quote Irenaeus as saying,

In like manner we do also hear many brethren in the Church, who possess prophetic gifts, and who through the Spirit speak all kinds of languages, and bring to light for the general benefit the hidden things of men, and declare the mysteries of God, whom also the apostle terms ‘spiritual,’ they being spiritual because they partake of the Spirit, and not because their flesh has been stripped off and taken away, and because they have become purely spiritual.⁷⁸⁴

While Irenaeus may have been one of the handful of fathers who believed in tongues and some sort of ongoing prophecy (see my introductory comments to this section), such a position would still need to be reconciled with the numerous quotes from these same authors that show a completed revelation to which nothing can be added. For example, Irenaeus says,

Now, in the first place, it is loss to wander from the truth, and to imagine that as being the case which is not; then again, as there shall be no light punishment [inflicted] upon him who either adds or subtracts anything from the Scripture…⁷⁸⁵

In context he was dealing with the fact that it would be impossible to know anything about the Antichrist (even his name) by revelation when the Scripture did not provide it. So this would be a clear statement against any kind of authoritative revelation such as Rome or Eastern Orthodoxy claim to have.

Some commentators believe that Irenaeus himself was a cessationist. I am not strongly opinionated one way or the other, but they point out two interesting facts:

1. As the editor points out, “The old Latin has ‘audivimus,’ have heard.”⁷⁸⁶ It is in the past tense as if these things used to be, not as if it was presently going on. While that conflicts with the Greek fragment of this section that we have, the past tense does indeed fit the whole flow of his argument, which is their next point:
2. When taken in context,⁷⁸⁷ the larger quote is not documenting spiritual gifts, but is using a passage related to spiritual gifts to support his argument against the Gnostics on the importance of the body. Gnostics thought that to be spiritual one needs to escape the body, but Paul argues 1) that God created the body, so the body could not be bad; 2) that the body itself was “moulded after the image of God”; 3) that God used the body to minister spiritual gifts; 4) that being “perfect” in “wisdom” (“We speak wisdom among them that are perfect,”), can include spiritual things done with a body; 5) that the body is the temple of the Holy Spirit. The sub-argument is that “we heard” that even the spiritually mature who lived in the time of the apostles also exercised spiritual gifts in the body.

Whichever interpretation of Irenaeus is correct, he clearly did not mean what Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox mean by his statement - that the prophetic gifts continue to give inspired and authoritative guidance to the church after the apostolic age. Three things are crystal clear (as demonstrated in the first section of this chapter):

1. As Kelly worded it, “The whole point of his (Irenaeus’) teaching was, in fact, that Scripture and the Church’s unwritten tradition are identical in content.”⁷⁸⁸
2. Any purported revelation that added information to the Bible was considered heretical or speculative. As Irenaeus worded it, “Such, then, is their [the heretics’] system, which neither the prophets announced, nor the Lord taught, nor the apostles delivered, but of which they boast that beyond all others they have a perfect knowledge. They gather their views from other sources than the Scriptures…”⁷⁸⁹ Against the Gnostics, who claimed to have secret information from the apostles not found in the Bible, Irenaeus insisted that any “tradition” gathered “from other sources than the Scriptures” had no authority and was speculative.⁷⁹⁰
3. As we have previously shown, Irenaeus’ epistemology was that we can know nothing for sure without the Scripture. So even if Irenaeus believed in ongoing prophecy, it was not to gain new knowledge. As Hanson summarizes the evidence: “The whole purpose of Irenaeus, at least, as we can reliably collect it from the prefaces and endings of each of the books of Adversus Heareses, was to refute the Gnostics from Scripture… Irenaeus will allow Scripture alone as his source of information about God, and if Scripture tells us nothing, then we can know nothing.”⁷⁹¹

Irenaeus said, “It is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are.”⁷⁹² Certainly the Gospel canon was closed or this statement would make no sense.

Origen (AD 185?-252/3)

Origen already spoke of a canon of Scripture in the mid-third century:

No man ought, for the confirmation of doctrines, to use books which are not canonized Scriptures…⁷⁹³

Rome believes that the canon was open-ended; Origen believed that canonization was a done deal, not a process.

Origen’s list of the final canon of the New Testament contains all twenty-seven books of the Protestant canon. He first lists them using the metaphor of trumpets blowing before the walls of Jericho:

So too our Lord Jesus Christ… sent his apostles as priests carrying well-wrought trumpets. First Matthew sounded the priestly trumpet in his Gospel, Mark also, and Luke, and John, each gave forth a strain on their priestly trumpets. Peter moreover sounds with the two trumpets of his Epistles; James also and Jude. Still the number is incomplete, and John gives forth the trumpet sound through his Epistles [and Apocalypse]; and Luke while describing the deeds of the apostles. Latest of all, moreover, that one comes who said, “I think that God has set us forth as the apostles last of all” (1 Cor 4:9), and thundering on the fourteen trumpets of his Epistles he threw down, even to their very foundations, the wall of Jericho, that is to say, all the instruments of idolatry and the dogmas of the philosophers. (Hom. Josh. 7.1)

His analogy implies an ending of canon with the last of the trumpets. He also lists the same twenty-seven books using the imagery of Isaac’s servants helping him dig wells:

Isaac, therefore, digs also new wells, nay rather Isaac’s servants dig them. Isaac’s servants are Matthew, Mark, Luke, John; his servants are Peter, James, Jude; the apostle Paul is his servant. These all dig the wells of the New Testament. (Hom. Gen. 13.2.)

In one of his homilies, Origen claims that the net of the canon was not completely filled when Christ came to earth but it was completely filled with the age of the Apostles. This shows that the canon was recognized to be a closed canon over a century before Athanasius’ famous Festal Letter.

…before our Savior Jesus Christ this net was not wholly filled; for the net of the law and prophets had to be completed… And the texture of the net has been completed in the Gospels, and in the words of Christ through the Apostles.⁷⁹⁴

Anastasius of Antioch (AD ?-302)

It is manifest that those things are not to be inquired into, which Scripture has passed over into silence. For the Holy Spirit has dispensed and administered to us all things which conduce to our profit.⁷⁹⁵

This seems to be a clear statement of cessationism. Certainly no new truth can be given in his view.

Victorian of Petau (d. c. AD 304)

The apostles through signs, wonders and mighty deeds overcame the unbelievers. After this the faith of the Church was given the comfort of the interpreted prophetic scriptures.⁷⁹⁶

Note the phrase “prophetic scriptures.” Contrary to Grudem, most church fathers believed the New Testament Scriptures were given through prophets.

Eusebius of Caesarea (AD 260-340)

Though we have already mentioned that Eusebius seems to hold to some sort of continuing prophecy, he clearly judged the Montanist claims to prophecy by Old Testament standards. Because the prophecies did not meet the criteria, the prophets were rejected as false prophets. See Eusebius’ History, chapter 15.

This chapter calls the prophecies of Montanus “false prophecies” or “so-called prophecies.” Philip Schaff comments:

Montanism must not be looked upon as a heresy in the ordinary sense of the term. The movement lay in the sphere of life and discipline rather than in that of theology. Its fundamental proposition was the continuance of divine revelation… Two noble ladies (Priscilla and Maximilla) attached themselves to Montanus, and had visions and prophesied in the same way. These constituted the three original prophets of the sect, and all that they taught was claimed to be of binding authority on all. They were quite orthodox, accepted fully the doctrinal teachings of the Catholic Church, and did not pretend to alter in any way the revelation given by Christ and his apostles. But they claimed that some things had not been revealed by them, because at that early stage the Church was not able to bear them; but that such additional revelations were now given, because the fullness of time had come which was to precede the second coming of Christ. These revelations had to do not at all with theology, but wholly with matters of life and discipline. They taught a rigid asceticism over against the growing worldliness of the Church, severe discipline over against its laxer methods, and finally the universal priesthood of believers (even female), and their right to perform all the functions of church officers, over against the growing sacerdotalism of the Church. They were thus in a sense reformers, or perhaps reactionaries is a better term, who wished to bring back, or to preserve against corruption, the original principles and methods of the Church… They looked upon their prophets—supernaturally called and endowed by the Spirit—as supreme in the Church… But although it failed and passed away, Montanism had a marked influence on the development of the Church. In the first place, it aroused a general distrust of prophecy, and the result was that the Church soon came to the conviction that prophecy had entirely ceased. In the second place, the Church was led to see the necessity of emphasizing the historical Christ and historical Christianity over against the Montanistic claims of a constantly developing revelation, and thus to put great emphasis upon the Scripture canon. In the third place, the Church had to lay increased stress upon the organization—upon its appointed and ordained officers—over against the claims of irregular prophets who might at any time arise as organs of the Spirit. The development of Christianity into a religion of the book and of the organization was thus greatly advanced, and the line began to be sharply drawn between the age of the apostles, in which there had been direct supernatural revelations, and the later age, in which such revelations had disappeared.⁷⁹⁷

Athanasius (AD 296-373)

Some (like Hermius Sozoman) have claimed that Athanasius “was endowed with the gift of prophecy.” However, Athanasius himself denied that, and claimed that prophecy had ceased in AD 70. He said,

But perhaps, being unable, even they, to fight continually against plain facts, they will, without denying what is written, maintain that they are looking for these things, and that the Word of God is not yet come. For this it is on which they are for ever harping, not blushing to brazen it out in the face of plain facts.

1. But on this one point, above all, they shall be all the more refuted, not at our hands, but at those of the most wise Daniel, who marks both the actual date, and the divine sojourn of the Saviour, saying: “Seventy weeks are cut short upon thy people, and upon the holy city, for a full end to be made of sin, and for sins to be sealed up, and to blot out iniquities, and to make atonement for iniquities, and to bring everlasting righteousness, and to seal vision and prophet, and to anoint a Holy of Holies; and thou shalt know and understand from the going forth of the word to restore and to build Jerusalem unto Christ the Prince.”
2. Perhaps with regard to the other (prophecies) they may be able even to find excuses and to put off what is written to a future time. But what can they say to this, or can they face it at all? Where not only is the Christ referred to, but He that is to be anointed is declared to be not man simply, but Holy of Holies; and Jerusalem is to stand till His coming, and thenceforth, prophet and vision cease in Israel.
3. David was anointed of old, and Solomon and Ezechias; but then, nevertheless, Jerusalem and the place stood, and prophets were prophesying: God and Asaph and Nathan; and, later, Esaias and Osee and Amos and others. And again, the actual men that were anointed were called holy, and not Holy of Holies.
4. But if they shield themselves with the captivity, and say that because of it Jerusalem was not, what can they say about the prophets too? For in fact when first the people went down to Babylon, Daniel and Jeremy were there, and Ezechiel and Aggæus and Zachary were prophesying.

So the Jews are trifling, and the time in question, which they refer to the future, is actually come. For when did prophet and vision cease from Israel, save when Christ came, the Holy of Holies? For it is a sign, and an important proof, of the coming of the Word of God, that Jerusalem no longer stands, nor is any prophet raised up nor vision revealed to them, — and that very naturally.

1. For when He that was signified was come, what need was there any longer of any to signify Him? When the truth was there, what need any more of the shadow? For this was the reason of their prophesying at all,—namely, till the true Righteousness should come, and He that was to ransom the sins of all. And this was why Jerusalem stood till then—namely, that there they might be exercised in the types as a preparation for the reality.
2. So when the Holy of Holies was come, naturally vision and prophecy were sealed and the kingdom of Jerusalem ceased. For kings were to be anointed among them only until the Holy of Holies should have been anointed; and Jacob prophesies that the kingdom of the Jews should be established until Him, as follows: — “The ruler shall not fail from Juda, nor the Prince from his loins, until that which is laid up for him shall come; and he is the expectation of the nations.”
3. Whence the Saviour also Himself cried aloud and said: “The law and the prophets prophesied until John.” If then there is now among the Jews king or prophet or vision, they do well to deny the Christ that is come. But if there is neither king nor vision, but from that time forth all prophecy is sealed and the city and temple taken, why are they so irreligious and so perverse as to see what has happened, and yet to deny Christ, Who has brought it all to pass? Or why, when they see even heathens deserting their idols, and placing their hope, through Christ, on the God of Israel, do they deny Christ, Who was born of the root of Jesse after the flesh and henceforth is King? For if the nations were worshipping some other God, and not confessing the God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and Moses, then, once more, they would be doing well in alleging that God had not come.
4. But if the Gentiles are honouring the same God that gave the law to Moses and made the promise to Abraham, and Whose word the Jews dishonoured,—why are they ignorant, or rather why do they choose to ignore, that the Lord foretold by the Scriptures has shone forth upon the world, and appeared to it in bodily form, as the Scripture said: “The Lord God hath shined upon us;” and again: “He sent His Word and healed them;” and again: “Not a messenger, not an angel, but the Lord Himself saved them?”
5. Their state may be compared to that of one out of his right mind, who sees the earth illumined by the sun, but denies the sun that illumines it. For what more is there for him whom they expect to do, when he is come? To call the heathen? But they are called already. To make prophecy, and king, and vision to cease? This too has already come to pass. To expose the godlessness of idolatry? It is already exposed and condemned. Or to destroy death? He is already destroyed.
6. What then has not come to pass, that the Christ must do? What is left unfulfilled, that the Jews should now disbelieve with impunity? For if, I say,—which is just what we actually see,—there is no longer king nor prophet nor Jerusalem nor sacrifice nor vision among them, but even the whole earth is filled with the knowledge of God, and gentiles, leaving their godlessness, are now taking refuge with the God of Abraham, through the Word, even our Lord Jesus Christ, then it must be plain, even to those who are exceedingly obstinate, that the Christ is come, and that He has illumined absolutely all with His light, and given them the true and divine teaching concerning His Father.
7. So one can fairly refute the Jews by these and by other arguments from the Divine Scriptures.⁷⁹⁸

Note that Athanasius gives exactly the same interpretation of Daniel 9 that I gave - that “seal up vision and prophet” means, “prophet and vision cease in Israel.” For Jews who are still awaiting prophecy to end, he says that there is no point in waiting: “To make prophecy, and king, and vision to cease? This too has already come to pass.”

Basil of Caesarea (330-379)

What is the mark of a Christian? Faith working by charity. What is the mark of faith? A sure conviction of the truth of the inspired words, not to be shaken by any process of reasoning, nor by the alleging of natural requirements, nor by the pretences of false piety. What is the mark of a faithful soul? To be in these dispositions of full acceptance on the authority of the words [of the Scripture], not venturing to reject anything nor making additions. For, if ‘all that is not of faith is sin,’ as the Apostle says, and ‘faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God,’ everything outside Holy Scripture, not being of faith, is sin.⁷⁹⁹

Epiphanius (AD 310-403)

Epiphanius argued strongly against the charismatic movement known as Montanism. He argued that true prophecy was inerrant, and said that Agabus’ prophecy was inerrant. He said,

A prophet always spoke with composure and understanding, and delivered his oracles by the Holy Spirit’s inspiration.⁸⁰⁰

He saw New Testament prophets as being the same as Old Testament prophets. He said,

We find then that every prophet, whether in the Old Testament or in the New, prophesies with understanding, as St. John said in Revelation: ‘The Lord revealed these things to his servants through his servant John, and, ‘Thus saith the Lord.’ The person who said this was sound of mind and understanding—see how he says the same thing as the Old Testament prophets who say, ‘Thus saith the Lord,’ and ‘the vision which he saw.’ But this Montanus, who has deceived his victims with his boast of being a prophet, describes things which are not consistent with sacred scripture.⁸⁰¹

We see here a testing of supposed prophecy, and in fuller context a rejection of Montanus, not because of bad theology, but because his prophesied commands for life were legalistic and inconsistent with Scripture. Note too that Epiphanius believed that all true prophets spoke with authority - “Thus saith the Lord,” rather than tentatively, as Grudem claims.

John Chrysostom (AD 347-407)

Chrysostom held that prophecy had completely ceased:

This whole place is very obscure: but the obscurity is produced by our ignorance of the facts referred to, and by their cessation, being such as then used to occur, but now no longer take place. And why do they not happen now? Why look now, the cause too of the obscurity hath produced us again another question: namely, why did they then happen, and now do so no more?⁸⁰²

Augustine (AD 354-430)

Therefore the prophecy of Haggai was not fulfilled in the rebuilding of that temple. For it can never be shown to have had so much glory after it was rebuilt as it had in the time of Solomon; yea, rather, the glory of that house is shown to have been diminished, first by the ceasing of prophecy, and then by the nation itself suffering so great calamities, even to the final destruction made by the Romans, as the things above-mentioned prove. But this house which pertains to the new testament is just as much more glorious as the living stones, even believing, renewed men, of which it is constructed are better. But it was typified by the rebuilding of that temple for this reason, because the very renovation of that edifice typifies in the prophetic oracle another testament which is called the new.⁸⁰³

In the same book he speaks of a “prophetic age,” “prophetic times,” and a “prophetic dispensation” as if those were a bygone age. In On the Trinity, chapter 19, Augustine says that the prophetic gifts are equally authoritative with apostolic gifts: “the one prophetic, the other apostolic; because both possess the authority of a divine utterance.”⁸⁰⁴ In his work, On Catechizing the Uninstructed, Augustine speaks of Christ’s words in Matthew 10:16 as being “that prophetic word which the Lord spake.”⁸⁰⁵

John Cassian (AD 360-435)

It is clear that John Cassian believed the canon was closed and that when the Apostles wrote the last book, God was “Completing His word.”

For, as you know, a Creed (Symbolum) gets its name from being a ‘collection.’ For what is called in Greek suvmbolo~ is termed in Latin ‘Collatio.’ But it is therefore a collection (collatio) because when the faith of the whole Catholic law was collected together by the apostles of the Lord, all those matters which are spread over the whole body of the sacred writings with immense fullness of detail, were collected together in sum in the matchless brevity of the Creed, according to the Apostle’s words: ‘Completing His word, and cutting it short in righteousness: because a short word shall the Lord make upon the earth.’ This then is the ‘short word’ which the Lord made, collecting together in few words the faith of both of His Testaments, and including in a few brief clauses the drift of all the Scriptures, building up His own out of His own, and giving the force of the whole law in a most compendious and brief formula. Providing in this, like a most tender father, for the carelessness and ignorance of some of his children, that no mind however simple and ignorant might have any trouble over what could so easily be retained in the memory.⁸⁰⁶

Cyril of Alexandria (AD 376-444)

The following quotes of Cyril seem to indicate that the Scriptures are the only revelation the church now possesses.

That which the divine Scripture has not spoken, how shall we receive it, and reckon it among verities?⁸⁰⁷

It is necessary that we should follow the sacred Scriptures, in nothing going beyond what they sanction.⁸⁰⁸

It is impossible for us to say, or at all think anything concerning God, beyond what has been divinely declared by the divine oracles of the old and new testaments.⁸⁰⁹

What divine Scripture does not state very clearly must remain unknown and be passed over in silence.⁸¹⁰

How can we prove and certify as true something which Sacred Scripture does not attest?⁸¹¹

Vincent of Lérins (c. 445?)

the canon of Scripture 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?⁸¹²

Athanasius of Antioch (AD 594-631)

It is manifest that those things are not to be inquired into, which Scripture has passed over into silence. For the Holy Spirit has dispensed and administered to us all things which conduce to our profit.⁸¹³

This seems to speak of a finality to the Spirit’s prophetic giving of information to the church. Where Scripture is silent, nothing more is given by the Holy Spirit.

Counter-evidence some have raised

This is not to say that scholars have not tried to produced contrary evidence. Scholarly books have been written to show a kind of continuation of prophecy among the fathers.⁸¹⁴ Albert Sundberg claims that the church fathers did not see inspiration as anything unique to the canonical books, but saw their own writings as being inspired by the Spirit.⁸¹⁵ Lee McDonald has recently said much the same in his massive work on the canon.⁸¹⁶

Certainly some careless remarks by early writers could be taken in that way. For example the writer of 1 Clement said that his own letters were written “through the Holy Spirit.”⁸¹⁷ But there is a vast difference between writing under the guidance and anointing of the Holy Spirit (something we all pray for) and writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

The same writer made that distinction quite clearly in the same letter. Concerning Scripture, he said, “Look carefully into the Scriptures, which are the true utterances of the Holy Spirit. Observe that nothing of an unjust or counterfeit character is written in them.”⁸¹⁸ He did not say that about his own writings. We have already seen that 1 Clement elsewhere distinguishes between the apostolic authority of the canonical books and his own writing. Other church fathers, from the earliest times made a huge distinction between their own guidance by the Spirit (something that cessationists do not deny) and the inspiration of the apostles and prophets.

It is clear that at least a handful of early authors spoke of both apostleship and prophecy as continuing. The Letter from the Church of Smyrna (probably late third century to early fourth century)⁸¹⁹ is one such example. It describes the martyrdom of Polycarp in these words:

But the most admirable Polycarp, when he first heard [that he was sought for], was in no measure disturbed, but resolved to continue in the city. However, in deference to the wish of many, he was persuaded to leave it. He departed, therefore, to a country house not far distant from the city. There he stayed with a few [friends], engaged in nothing else night and day than praying for all men, and for the Churches throughout the world, according to his usual custom. And while he was praying, a vision presented itself to him three days before he was taken; and, behold, the pillow under his head seemed to him on fire. Upon this, turning to those that were with him, he said to them prophetically, “I must be burnt alive.”⁸²⁰

Later, when describing the change of execution from beasts to lions, the letter says,

Then it seemed good to them to cry out with one consent, that Polycarp should be burnt alive. For thus it behooved the vision which was revealed to him in regard to his pillow to be fulfilled, when, seeing it on fire as he was praying, he turned about and said prophetically to the faithful that were with him, “I must be burnt alive.”(p. 41)

Later the letter calls Polycarp “an apostolic and prophetic teacher” (p. 42). So it is clear that this letter shows a belief in some kind of continuation of both apostleship and prophecy.

Yet the same church fathers that are quoted by charismatics as showing some continuation of prophecy give evidence of a sharp distinction between their guidance by the Holy Spirit and the authoritative revelation of Scripture. For example, Irenaeus made it clear that the New Testament Scriptures were unique: “We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.” Dionysius of Corinth seeks to make it crystal clear that his writings are different from “the Scriptures of the Lord.”⁸²¹ Indeed, dozens of quotes from the previous sections of this chapter make it crystal clear that they saw any post-AD 70 writings as being excluded from the canon.

So how are we to explain the evidences cited by the charismatics? I believe the fathers had definitional differences on this subject, not substantive differences. I too have experienced dreams, visions, premonitions, and other forms of remarkable guidance, and yet I believe that all apostleship and prophecy have ceased. I believe it because I am forced to that conclusion based on my exegesis of the Word of God. So I define the remarkable things Polycarp and I have experienced as one form of fallible non-authoritative guidance while some people define those same experiences as prophecy.

Just as we have shown that the African church of Augustine seemed to define the term “canon” differently from the majority of the church, there appears to be a minority of church fathers who defined the word “prophecy” differently. It is parallel to the definitional differences one sees in the Westminster Assembly on the same subject. A minority at the Westminster Assembly believed in ongoing prophecy, but they sharply distinguished that “prophecy” from the authoritative prophecies that produced the Scriptures and asserted that special revelation had ceased with the apostles and special revelation alone was authoritative.

One of the clearest books to delve into this muddied subject is The Westminster Confession of Faith and the Cessation of Special Revelation by Garnet Howard Milne.⁸²² In appendix A I will seek to summarize some of his evidence on the differences of view at the Assembly and how it was that they were united in meaning, though holding to differences of definition. I provide that appendix because I believe it is parallel to the definitional differences that were held by the church fathers in the context of a united cessationism. Again, this shows that though Protestantism has been divided, it more closely parallels the ancient church than Rome does. The vast majority of church fathers in the first 1000 years would have been able to endorse the statement from the Westminster Confession that starts our next chapter (Appendix A).