The secretive "TurretinFan" continues his censorship tactics

Against what may have been my better judgment (based on previous combox encounters with the secretive, paranoid, gent who goes by the name "TurretinFan"), I decided to respond to the following post penned by the anti-Catholic, Reformed "pastor", David King, in the combox of the Februray 15, 2001 thread at the Thoughts of Fancis Turretin blog:

...yet not demonstrate how the early Church was "Protestant" in the way Mathison suggests.

I am going to address this one point because it is such an utter distortion of what Dr. Mathison has actually said and argued. I hope that maybe our Romanist poster will actually get this, though I doubt he is capable of it.

Protestants do not argue that the early church was Protestant, and Dr. Mathison never argued that. What he has argued (and convincingly so) is that the ancient church was not a bunch of Romanists, and that the ancient church certainly didn't hold to the modern day dogmas of papal primacy or papal infallibility. Now, I understand that this goes right over the head of the average wanna-be Roman apologist, but we have to keep saying it whether they ever understand it or not. The early church was catholic, not a bunch of Romanists as Romanists contend. Now I understand that Romanists want to be called "catholics," but that is simply wishful thinking. The church of Rome has departed from the catholic faith, especially so having dogmatized so many "articles of faith" that are uncatholic, ahistorical, and unbiblical. It's a pretty convenient contention to assert, "one must be in communion with the bishop of Rome" in order to be "catholic." But that is not the spirit of catholicism. It is the spirit of Diotrephes "who loves to have the preeminence" ( 3 John 9). That is what Dr. Mathison has argued. Now, we understand you can't see it, but we are always happy to restate it for you over and over. :) (Wednesday, February 16, 2011 6:00:00 PM )

The above post is so typical of David King's caustic, polemical, ad hominem style; I responded with:

>>Protestants do not argue that the early church was Protestant, and Dr. Mathison never argued that. What he has argued (and convincingly so) is that the ancient church was not a bunch of Romanists, and that the ancient church certainly didn't hold to the modern day dogmas of papal primacy or papal infallibility.>>

Me: But it has certainly become vogue among a number of anti-Roman Catholic apologists to argue that certain Protestant doctrines were held by the "early church" (contra a consensus of prominent Protestant patristic scholars).

>>Now, I understand that this goes right over the head of the average wanna-be Roman apologist, but we have to keep saying it whether they ever understand it or not. The early church was catholic, not a bunch of Romanists as Romanists contend.>>

Me: Perhaps some "Romanists", but certainly not all Roman Catholic patristic scholars; fact is, a good number of Roman Catholic patristic scholars acknowledge doctrinal development.

>>Now I understand that Romanists want to be called "catholics," but that is simply wishful thinking.>>

Me: ROFL

>>The church of Rome has departed from the catholic faith, especially so having dogmatized so many "articles of faith" that are uncatholic, ahistorical, and unbiblical.>>

Me: Are you a Socinian? (hyperbole); I know that you are not, but you do argue like one (historically speaking).

Grace and peace,

David (Thursday, February 17, 2011 7:04:00 AM )

[Note: See these 3 threads for important material on why found King’s statement about the RCC not being “catholic” humorous; and this thread for supportive data concerning my Socinian comment.]

David King then posted:

Me: Are you a Socinian? (hyperbole); I know that you are not, but you do argue like one (historically speaking).

Let's see, Mr. Waltz, you profess to have been a Jehovah's Witness, an evangelical, a member of the Roman communion which you said you left some months back, and now who knows what you profess to be. And you want to ask me about being a Socinian? Apparently you don't realize that's a glass house you've built for yourself - be careful with those rocks. :) (Thursday, February 17, 2011 2:09:00 PM )

And in response to one of "TurretinFan's" ill-conceived comments, I wrote:

>>Whether or not the method of argumentation with respect to history is similar doesn't turn this into a valid criticism. After all, the Socinians were not rejected on account of their method of argument but on account of their false doctrines.>>

It painfully obvious that you have not read the arguments that were put forth in the 16th century to curtail the Socinian threat, for one of the primary 'weapons' employed was an attack on their "method of argument". (Thursday, February 17, 2011 10:20:00 PM )


Now, the above are the posts that have remained undeleted by "TurretinFan". The following are my posts that were deleted:

1.) >>Let's see, Mr. Waltz, you profess to have been a Jehovah's Witness, an evangelical, a member of the Roman communion which you said you left some months back, and now who knows what you profess to be. And you want to ask me about being a Socinian? Apparently you don't realize that's a glass house you've built for yourself - be careful with those rocks. :)>>

Interesting comments for sure! Let's see, perhaps you would have me to have remained a JW (the faith God providentially ordained that I was to be born into); or perhaps you would have me to have remained Reformed (not strictly evangelical) after learning of the scandalous schisms that plagued (and continue to plague) the English speaking Reformed paradigm; or perhaps you would have me to have remained Roman Catholic, after years of in depth study lead me to the conclusion that I could no longer affirm an infallible magisterium; or perhaps you would have me to start my own church, as did the co-author/publisher (engineer by trade) of the 3 volume work you helped to produce...hmmm...yes, very interesting...

2.) >>I'm not going to comment on the allegation of contradicting a consensus of "prominent Protestant patristic scholars.">>

A wise choice, for my statement was NOT a mere "allegation", but rather, a fact.

The fathers of the church spoke as they did because they regarded themselves as interpreters of the Scriptures. Therefore they are not to be made a substitute for the Scriptures; nor can the Scriptures be understood apart from the authoritative interpretation which tradition places upon them...if tradition is primitive, Protestant theology must admit that ‘Scripture alone’ requires redefinition. (Jaroslav Pelikan, Obedient Rebels, Harper & Row: New York, N. Y., 1964, p. 180 – bold emphasis mine.)

The divine Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, as opposed to human writings; and the oral tradition or living faith of the catholic church from the apostles down, as opposed tothe varying opinions of heretical sects—together form one infallible source and rule of faith. Both are vehicles of the same substance: the saving revelation of God in Christ; with this difference in form and office, that the church tradition determines the canon, furnishes the key and true interpretation of the Scriptures, and guards them against heretical abuse. (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, MI, 1981 ed., vol. 3, p. 606 – bold emphasis mine.)

Several publications by evangelicals have argued that the doctrine of sola scriptura was practiced, though implicitly, in the hermeneutical thinking of the early church. Such an argument is using a very specific agenda for the reappropriation of the early church: reading the ancient Fathers through the leans of post-Reformational Protestantism…Scripture can never stand completely independent of the ancient consensus of the church’s teaching without serious hermeneutical difficulties…the real question, as the patristic age discovered, is, Which tradition will we use to interpret the Bible? (D. H. Williams, Retrieving the Tradition & Renewing Evangelicalism, pp. 229, 234 – bold emphasis mine.)

Perhaps the most important aspect of the rule of faith is that it gives us what the Church conceived to be ‘the main body of truth’ (to use Irenaeus’ phrase). The Scriptures are, after all, a body of documents testifying to God’s activity towards men in Christ. They are not a rule of faith, nor a list of doctrines, nor a manual of the articles of a Christian man’s belief. In the rule of faith we have a key to what the Church thought the Scriptures came to, where it was, so to speak, that their weight fell, what was their drift. This interpretation of their drift was itself tradition, a way of handling the Scriptures, a way of living in them and being exposed to their effect, which, while not an original part of the Christian Gospel, not itself the paradosis par excellence, had been developed from the Gospel itself, from its heart, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit as an essential part of the existence of the Christian faith in history…We cannot recognize the rule of faith as original tradition, going back by oral continuity independently of Scripture to Christ and his apostles. But we can recognize it as the tradition in which the Church was interpreting Scripture under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and as such claim it as an essential ingredient of historical Christianity. (R.P.C. Hanson, Tradition In The Early Church, pp. 128, 129 – bold emphasis mine.)

The first clear attitude to emerge on the relation between Scripture, tradition and the church was the coincidence view: that the teaching of the church, Scripture and tradition coincide. Apostolic tradition is authoritative but does not differ in content from the Scriptures. The teaching of the church is likewise authoritative but is only the proclamation of the apostolic message found in Scripture and tradition. The classical embodiment of the coincidence view is found in the writings of Irenaeus and Tertullian.

These both reject the Gnostic claims to a secret tradition supplementing Scripture. Apostolic tradition does not add to Scripture but is evidence of how it is correctly to be interpreted. This tradition is found in those churches which were founded by the apostles, who taught men whose successors teach today. These apostolic churches agree as to the content of the Christian message, in marked contrast to the variations among the heretics. It is important to note that it is the church which is the custodian of Scripture and tradition and which has the authentic apostolic message. There was no question of appealing to Scripture or tradition against the church. This is partly because the apostolic tradition was found in the church but not just for this reason: the Holy Spirit preserves the church from error and leads her into the truth. The real concern of Irenaeus and Tertullian was not with the relation between Scripture and tradition but with the identity of ecclesiastical with apostolic teaching. Any exposition of their teaching on Scripture and tradition which fails to show this is to that extent defective. (A.N.S. Lane, “Scripture, Tradition and Church: An Historical Survey”, Vox Evangelica, Volume IX – 1975, pp. 39, 40 – bold emphasis mine.)

The ‘ancillary view’ is Lane’s term for the sixteenth-century Protestant view, in which tradition functions as an aid, but not a norm, for the interpretation of Scripture…In spite of claims to the contrary, the Reformers did not return to the ‘coincidence view’…The Reformation posited a degree of discontinuity in church history… (Richard Bauckham, “Tradition In Relation To Scripture and Reason”, in Scripture, Tradition, and Reason, ed. Drewery & Bauckham, p. 122.)

As I said earlier, I had some reservations about commenting on "TurretinFan's" blog, fearing that he would delete posts that he perceives to be 'damaging' to his anti-Catholic cause. Maybe I should have listened to my inner voice; but then, if I had said nothing, the 'silliness' would have gone unchallenged...



Grace and peace,

David

What was James (Swan) thinking?

Last night I was scrolling down through James Swan’s Beggars All blog’s “LABELS” looking for possible links to Eastern Orthodox posts, and stumbled upon this following link: DAVID WALTZ. Out of curiosity, I clicked on the link and was completely surprised to find that James had chosen to respond to a November 2009 Articuli Fidei thread five months later in April, 2010. One would think that such a late response would prompt James to inform me that he had done so; but alas, not a word…

Anyway, now that I am finally aware of his post, I would like to share a few of my thoughts on it.

James posted the following:

David Waltz on On Scripture and Tradition:

“Once again, Scripture is CLEAR, but only for those who have embraced the true regula fidei. This was THE view of the majority of the early Church Fathers, and has been recognized as such by a consensus of patristic scholars; the following are but a few selections from this overwhelming consensus."

Here's a citation he used for support:The ‘ancillary view’ is Lane’s term for the sixteenth-century Protestant view, in which tradition functions as an aid, but not a norm, for the interpretation of Scripture… In spite of claims to the contrary, the Reformers did not return to the ‘coincidence view’…The Reformation posited a degree of discontinuity in church history… (Richard Bauckham, “Tradition In Relation To Scripture and Reason”, in Scripture, Tradition, and Reason, ed. Drewery & Bauckham, p. 122.)

So, this quote from Bauckham is used as scholarly evidence that the Reformers posited a "discontinuity in church history" because they rejected the established God-given relationship between Scripture and Tradition. Since the Reformers rejected this, they therefore rejected the true regula fidei. The true regula fidei embraces the authority of the Roman Catholic Church.

James has misread my thread; the primary focus of the thread was dealing with the view of the early Church Fathers on Scripture and Tradition. James pulls one quote (out of context) from the nine scholarly citations I provided and ignored the relationship of that selection to all the others. What I find even more troubling is the fact that James later goes on to provide the broader context the quote I provided from Dr. Bauckham, which affirms what I (and the other scholars I cited) have said about the early Church Fathers—i.e. that early CFs held to the “coincidence view” of Scripture and Tradition, and not the “ancillary view” of the Reformers.

So, I cannot help but ask myself: “What was James (Swan) thinking” when he wrote up his post? Further, did he actually read the entire thread; and if he did read the entire thread, should I not question the motives of his post?

In ending, I would like to state that once I discovered this disappointing post from James, I felt compelled to respond—sincerely hope my readers have some sympathy with me for addressing a sub-standard issue…


Grace and peace,

David

Scripture and Tradition: the early Church Fathers and patristic scholarly consensus vs. TurretinFan

Earlier today, TurretinFan (hereafter TF) published the 11th installment of his anti-Catholic polemical series Perspicuity of Scripture Contra Bellisario. TF, in essence, sums up his view of the early Church Fathers concerning Scripture and Tradition with:

Unfortunately, Mr. Bellisario does not understand that the quotation defeats his position, not mine. We appeal to tradition just as Irenaeus did. We don't do it because tradition is a separate source of infallible authority, but because folks like the Gnostics and Roman Catholics think that it is. We show that they hold neither to Scripture nor Tradition, preferring their own inventions to both.

Mr. Bellisario would like to read into Irenaeus a modern Roman Catholic view of tradition, but Irenaeus himself doesn't say what Rome says. Irenaeus does not claim that tradition is necessary in order to understand Scripture: he ascribes that error to the Gnostics. Irenaeus acknowledges (as we do) the reality of tradition, but does not make it infallible, as Mr. Bellisario would wish. (Accessed online 11-07-09.)

“Unfortunately”, TF, yet once again, has misread a Church Father. Note the following:

There was, however, another aid which he looked upon as of the most certain and most important utility, so far as it extended, and that was the baptismal creed, which he regarded as infallible for leading to the right sense of Scripture upon fundamental points, and according to which he thought all Scripture ought to be interpreted. [I.ix.4] It is evident, therefore, that he regarded the tradition of the Church, to that extent, as divine and infallible. (James Beaven, An Account of the Life and Writings of S. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons and Martyr, 1841, p. 139 – bold emphasis mine.)

For the record, James Beaven was not a Roman Catholic (I have added “Roman” to Catholic for TF), but TF is most certainly an anti-Catholic; with this in mind, whose assessment of Irenaeus would one discern to be the least polemical, and most objective?

Moving on, I would now like to comment on the issue of the perspicuity of Scripture as a whole. With TF, I too believe in the perspicuity of Scripture—Scripture clearly teaches baptismal regeneration, infant baptism, the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, apostolic succession, et al.—you see, my position on this issue is fundamentally the same as Irenaeus, Athanasius, and so many other Church Fathers. Yes, Scripture is CLEAR, but only to those who embrace the Catholic regula fidei. Everyone has, in essence, a regula fidei which governs their interpretation of Scripture—the Arians created a regula fidei, the Socinians created a regula fidei, the Lutherans created a regula fidei, the Calvinists created a regula fidei—yes, everyone has a regula fidei, and for some, it is a regula fidei created, and held to, by but one individual.

Though many do to not realize it, the regula fidei that one embraces is inextricably linked to church authority. One Reformed author recently articulated this very important connection:

Unlike modern Evangelicalism, the classical Protestant Reformers held to a high view of the Church. When the Reformers confessed extra ecclesiam nulla salus, which means “there is no salvation outside the Church,” they were not referring to the invisible Church of all the elect. Such a statement would be tantamount to saying that outside of salvation there is no salvation. It would be a truism. The Reformers were referring to the visible Church…The Church is the pillar and ground, the interpreter, teacher, and proclaimer of God’s Word…The Church has authority because Christ gave the Church authority. The Christian who rejects the authority of the Church rejects the authority of the One who sent her (Luke 10:16). (Keith A. Mathison, The Shape of Sola Scriptura, pp. 268, 269.)

Now admittedly, for some, their “church authority” is themselves, but I think most would agree that Mathison had in mind ‘confessional’ churches. Mathison maintains that “the Church” has real authority, while at the same time holding to the perspicuity of Scripture; he believes, as do I (and the early Church Fathers), that the two are not mutually exclusive. Mathison’s view was cogently expressed by none other than John Henry Newman back in the 19th century—note the following, which Newman addressed to his Anglican friend Dr. E. B. Pusey:

You have made a collection of passages from the Fathers, as witnesses in behalf of your doctrine that the whole Christian faith is contained in Scripture, as if, in your sense of the words, Catholics contradicted you here. And you refer to my Notes on St. Athanasius as contributing passages to your list; But, after all, neither you, nor I in my Notes, affirm any doctrine which Rome denies. Those Notes also make frequent reference to a traditional teaching, which (be the faith ever so contained in Scripture), still is necessary as a Regula Fidei, for showing us that it is contained there; vid. Pp. 283-431; and this tradition, I know, you uphold as fully as I do in the Notes in question. In consequence, you allow that there is a two-fold rule, Scripture and Tradition; and this is all that Catholics say. How, then do Anglicans differ from Rome here? I believe the difference is merely one of words… (John Henry Newman, Certain Difficulties Felt By Anglicans In Catholic Teaching Considered, vol. 2, pp. 11, 12.)

Once again, Scripture is CLEAR, but only for those who have embraced the true regula fidei. This was THE view of the majority of the early Church Fathers, and has been recognized as such by a consensus of patristic scholars; the following are but a few selections from this overwhelming consensus:

The fathers of the church spoke as they did because they regarded themselves as interpreters of the Scriptures. Therefore they are not to be made a substitute for the Scriptures; nor can the Scriptures be understood apart from the authoritative interpretation which tradition places upon them...if tradition is primitive, Protestant theology must admit that ‘Scripture alone’ requires redefinition. (Jaroslav Pelikan, Obedient Rebels, Harper & Row: New York, N. Y., 1964, p. 180 – bold emphasis mine.)

The divine Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, as opposed to human writings; and the oral tradition or living faith of the catholic church from the apostles down, as opposed tothe varying opinions of heretical sects—together form one infallible source and rule of faith. Both are vehicles of the same substance: the saving revelation of God in Christ; with this difference in form and office, that the church tradition determines the canon, furnishes the key and true interpretation of the Scriptures, and guards them against heretical abuse. (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, MI, 1981 ed., vol. 3, p. 606 – bold emphasis mine.)

Several publications by evangelicals have argued that the doctrine of sola scriptura was practiced, though implicitly, in the hermeneutical thinking of the early church. Such an argument is using a very specific agenda for the reappropriation of the early church: reading the ancient Fathers through the leans of post-Reformational Protestantism…Scripture can never stand completely independent of the ancient consensus of the church’s teaching without serious hermeneutical difficulties…the real question, as the patristic age discovered, is, Which tradition will we use to interpret the Bible? (D. H. Williams, Retrieving the Tradition & Renewing Evangelicalism, pp. 229, 234 – bold emphasis mine.)

Perhaps the most important aspect of the rule of faith is that it gives us what the Church conceived to be ‘the main body of truth’ (to use Irenaeus’ phrase). The Scriptures are, after all, a body of documents testifying to God’s activity towards men in Christ. They are not a rule of faith, nor a list of doctrines, nor a manual of the articles of a Christian man’s belief. In the rule of faith we have a key to what the Church thought the Scriptures came to, where it was, so to speak, that their weight fell, what was their drift. This interpretation of their drift was itself tradition, a way of handling the Scriptures, a way of living in them and being exposed to their effect, which, while not an original part of the Christian Gospel, not itself the paradosis par excellence, had been developed from the Gospel itself, from its heart, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit as an essential part of the existence of the Christian faith in history…

We cannot recognize the rule of faith as original tradition, going back by oral continuity independently of Scripture to Christ and his apostles. But we can recognize it as the tradition in which the Church was interpreting Scripture under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and as such claim it as an essential ingredient of historical Christianity. (R.P.C. Hanson, Tradition In The Early Church, pp. 128, 129 – bold emphasis mine.)

The first clear attitude to emerge on the relation between Scripture, tradition and the church was the coincidence view: that the teaching of the church, Scripture and tradition coincide. Apostolic tradition is authoritative but does not differ in content from the Scriptures. The teaching of the church is likewise authoritative but is only the proclamation of the apostolic message found in Scripture and tradition. The classical embodiment of the coincidence view is found in the writings of Irenaeus and Tertullian.

These both reject the Gnostic claims to a secret tradition supplementing Scripture. Apostolic tradition does not add to Scripture but is evidence of how it is correctly to be interpreted. This tradition is found in those churches which were founded by the apostles, who taught men whose successors teach today. These apostolic churches agree as to the content of the Christian message, in marked contrast to the variations among the heretics. It is important to note that it is the church which is the custodian of Scripture and tradition and which has the authentic apostolic message. There was no question of appealing to Scripture or tradition against the church. This is partly because the apostolic tradition was found in the church but not just for this reason: the Holy Spirit preserves the church from error and leads her into the truth. The real concern of Irenaeus and Tertullian was not with the relation between Scripture and tradition but with the identity of ecclesiastical with apostolic teaching. Any exposition of their teaching on Scripture and tradition which fails to show this is to that extent defective. (A.N.S. Lane, “Scripture, Tradition and Church: An Historical Survey”, Vox Evangelica, Volume IX – 1975, pp. 39, 40 – bold emphasis mine.)

The ‘ancillary view’ is Lane’s term for the sixteenth-century Protestant view, in which tradition functions as an aid, but not a norm, for the interpretation of Scripture…In spite of claims to the contrary, the Reformers did not return to the ‘coincidence view’…The Reformation posited a degree of discontinuity in church history… (Richard Bauckham, “Tradition In Relation To Scripture and Reason”, in Scripture, Tradition, and Reason, ed. Drewery & Bauckham, p. 122.)


So, TF’s read of the early Church Fathers, or that represented by the above patristic scholars; TF’s regula fidei, or that of the Catholic Church? IMO, the answer to both questions is perspicuous.



Grace and peace,

David

The 05/22/08 Dividing Line webcast - part 2.

I had little time over the extended Memorial Day weekend to spend on internet related issues, so I had to wait until this morning for the second installment of my treatment of the 05/22/08 The Dividing Line webcast. In the first installment, I dealt with the charges that James had leveled against D.H. Williams’ comments concerning Athanasius and Liberius; in this second thread, I shall address James’ basic contention concerning Athansius’ use of tradition. Rather than typing up excerpts from the webcast, I shall instead refer directly to James’ own essay (“Sola Scriptura and the Early Church”, in Sola Scriptura! - 1995) which formed the basis for James’ argumentation.

In his essay, James argues that: “Sola scriptura has long been the rule of believing Christian people, even before it became necessary to use the specific terminology against later innovators who would usurp the Scriptures supremacy in the church.” (Page 53.)

Here James is making the claim that early Church Fathers (such as Irenaeus, Augustine and Athanasius) believed in, and taught the doctrine of sola scriptura. This by default means that according to James’ assessment, the above mentioned Church Fathers believed and taught that: 1.) the Scriptures are the only infallible rule of faith; 2.) the Scriptures are not only materially sufficient, but also formally sufficient (i.e. the doctrine of perspicuity); 3.) the doctrine many of the early Church Fathers on the relationship between Scripture and tradition was essentially the same as the Reformers doctrine.

But is this the case? In five previous threads on this blog (HERE) I have touched on various aspects concerning the doctrine of sola scriptura. Also, since the inception of the this blog I have provided an excerpt (on the right-hand sidebar), from one of the most important essays on Scripture and tradition ever penned—A.N.S. Lane’s “Scripture, Tradition and Church: An Historical Survey” (for the entire essay GO HERE). All of this material suggests otherwise. But, there is much more, so in a sincere hope to put to rest the view that sola scriptura was taught by many of the early Church Fathers, I shall now provide even more evidence.

Lane’s essay forcefully argues for the position that he has termed “the coincidence view” as representative of the early Church. In other words, “Scripture and tradition coincide”; “Apostolic tradition is authoritative but does not differ from in content from the Scriputres”; the “teaching of the church is likewise authoritative but is only the proclamation of the apostolic message found in Scripture and tradition”; “the Holy Spirit preserves the church from error and leads her into the truth” (page 39). And further: “Scripture is materially sufficient (it contains all that is necessary) but formally insufficient (it needs an intpereter)”; “Tradition is necessary because heretics from Novation to Nestorius have misinterpreted Scripture”; but, “while tradition is the test to be applied to novelty which arises in the church and claims to be scriptural it should not be imagined that this test can be used to question the authoritative decisions of the church” (page 40).

One can immediately discern that Lane does not believe that the early Church maintained a belief in sola scritpura, for formal sufficiency (one of the necessary ingredients of the ‘traditional’ Protestant view) was denied.

And Lane is not only scholar who espouses this view. I have already invoked Dr. Williams, here are a few more examples:

“In the ante-Nicene Church, the notion of sola Scriptura does not exist. But then there is also no notion of a tradition which is superior to Scripture, or which alters the essential content of the apostolic message as it is deposited in Scripture. There is simply no way of imagining possible conflict between the Christian Scripture and the Christian tradition—and, therefore, no necessity to choose between them.” (Albert Outler, “The Sense of Tradition in the Ante-Nicene Church”, in The Heritage of Christian Thought: Essays in Honor of Robert Lowery Calhoun, edited by Cushman and Grislis: New York, N. Y., 1965, p.29)

“The fathers of the church spoke as they did because they regarded themselves as interpreters of the Scriptures. Therefore they are not to be made a substitute for the Scriptures; nor can the Scriptures be understood apart from the authoritative interpretation which tradition places upon them...if tradition is primitive, Protestant theology must admit that ‘Scripture alone’ requires redefinition.” (Jaroslav Pelikan, Obedient Rebels, Harper & Row: New York, N. Y., 1964, p. 180.)

“Along with total commitment to the Scriptures as the norm of all doctrine, a new and clear conviction concerning the authority of oral tradition began to develop. This oral tradition, handed down from generation to generation and going back through the apostles directly to Christ, in no way conflicted with the Scriptures. But it did aid the church in interpreting the Scriptures and particularly in summarizing the Christian faith and thus protecting Christians against the aberrations of Gnostics and heretics. To Tertullian and Irenaeus, who developed this position, such apostolic tradition, which faithfully transmitted Christ’s teaching, was, like Scripture, infallible.” (Robert D. Preus, “The View of the Bible Held by the Church: The Early Church Through Luther”, in Inerrancy, edited by Norman Geisler, Zondervan: Grand Rapids, MI, 1980, p. 359)

“The divine Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, as opposed to human writings; and the oral tradition or living faith of the catholic church from the apostles down, as opposed tothe varying opinions of heretical sects—together form one infallible source and rule of faith. Both are vehicles of the same substance: the saving revelation of God in Christ; with this difference in form and office, that the church tradition determines the canon, furnishes the key and true interpretation of the Scriptures, and guards them against heretical abuse.” (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, MI, 1981 ed., vol. 3, p. 606)

“What was new here? Not the idea that the Bible, being God-given, speaks with God’s authority—that was common ground to both the Reformers and their opponents, and was indeed at that time an unquestioned Christian commonplace, like the doctrine of the Trinity. Nor was there anything new in the Reformer’s insistence that Bible reading is a sweet nourishing activity for Christian people. What was new was the belief, borne upon the Reformer’s by their own experience of Bible study, that Scripture can and does interpret itself to the faithful from within...From the second century on, Christians had assumed that the traditions and teachers of the church, guided by the Holy Spirit, were faithful to the biblical message, and that it was safe to equate Church doctrine with Bible truth.” (J. I. Packer, “‘Sola Scriptura’ In History and Today”, God’s Inerrant Word, ed. James Montgomery, pp. 44-45.)

“The ‘ancillary view’ is Lane’s term for the sixteenth-century Protestant view, in which tradition functions as an aid, but not a norm, for the interpretation of Scripture…In spite of claims to the contrary, the Reformers did not return to the ‘coincidence view’…The Reformation posited a degree of discontinuity in church history…” (Richard Bauckham, “Tradition In Relation To Scripture and Reason”, in Scripture, Tradition, and Reason, ed. Drewery & Bauckham, p. 122.)

And one more quote from Dr. Williams:

“Several publications by evangelicals have argued that the doctrine of sola scriptura was practiced, though implicitly, in the hermeneutical thinking of the early church. Such an argument is using a very specific agenda for the reappropriation of the early church: reading the ancient Fathers through the leans of post-Reformational Protestantism…Scripture can never stand completely independent of the ancient consensus of the church’s teaching without serious hermeneutical difficulties…the real question, as the patristic age discovered, is, Which tradition will we use to interpret the Bible?” (D. H. Williams, Retrieving the Tradition & Renewing Evangelicalism, pp. 229, 234.)

Not one of the above cited scholars is Catholic, and all (with the possible exception of Schaff) are within the Evangelical camp. So, I think it is quite safe to say that these men are not reading the early Church Fathers with some conciliar Catholic bias.

Now, I would like to urge my readers to listen to James’ webcast again (and if possible, read his above cited essay), and then read the early Church Fathers anew, and determine if James’ view is the correct one, or that of Lane and his supporters.


[BTW, in the many citations that James provided in his essay from the corpus of Athanasius, he conveniently left out this one:

“Moreover, aside from these scriptural utterances, let us also consider the tradition and teaching and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning, that which the Lord has given, the apostles preached, and the fathers [596A] guarded. This is the foundation on which the Church is established, and the one who strays form it is not a Christian and should no longer be called so…”(Athanasius, Epistola I Ad Serapion – English trans. by Khaled Anatolis, Athanasius, Routledge: London, 2004, p. 227.)


James is certainly not the only person who has advanced the notion that the early Church taught the doctrine of sola scriptura; back in the mid-19th century, the Anglican scholar, Dr. Pusey, attempted to the same, to which John Henry Newman responded:

“You have made a collection of passages from the Fathers, as witnesses in behalf of your doctrine that the whole Christian faith is contained in Scripture, as if, in your sense of the words, Catholics contradicted you here. And you refer to my Notes on St. Athanasius as contributing passages to your list; But, after all, neither you, nor I in my Notes, affirm any doctrine which Rome denies. Those Notes also make frequent reference to a traditional teaching, which (be the faith ever so contained in Scripture), still is necessary as a Regula Fidei, for showing us that it is contained there; vid. Pp. 283-431; and this tradition, I know, you uphold as fully as I do in the Notes in question. In consequence, you allow that there is a two-fold rule, Scripture and Tradition; and this is all that Catholics say. How, then do Anglicans differ from Rome here? I believe the difference is merely one of words…” (John Henry Newman, Certain Difficulties Felt By Anglicans In Catholic Teaching Considered, vol. 2, pp. 11, 12.)


Grace and peace,

David