Old Church Guys and Sola Scriptura
I posted a video on Biblecia.com back on January 24th of 2025 called “The Doctrine of Scripture Alone (Sola Scriptura) as a Response.” On YouTube (https://youtu.be/Oxqv0_mgVeg?si=2Uj4EddKGi2WF0En), I got the following response. I thought I’d share my reply.
Response from @MrJayb76:
Who practiced SS in first 1000yrs? In the same way you practiced it. Who taught it? Why wasn't included in the Nicene creed? It is ridiculous to use a 15th century accretion to judge over a thousand years of Church history and practice. You are so wrong. Even scripture itself doesn't teach it. The word alone was added. You added it. The whole meaning of the text changes substantially once you add the word alone. To say that the church fathers whom you mentioned believed in SS as you believe in it is total intellectual dishonesty. All those church fathers were catholic through and through. Even your cherry picking is a joke.
My reply:
Below the line below is reference. At the risk of too much simplicity, sir, let me begin by saying that I think everyone on the right side of any issue practiced SS, sir. Those in church history who didn’t were, for example, among the majority of emperors and bishops who were Arian against Athanasius. The majority of “the church” taught that Jesus was a created being. Heresy, but these were the bishops and caesars, etc. That belief is not and was not "apostolic." It is not "biblical." Athanasius, against that overwhelming majority of the erring church in his day, was on the right side of the matter precisely and only because his opinions were biblically substantiable. That's SS from him before the buzzword. And no one at Nicaea believed what you do today about the papacy anyway. No one! I can prove this easily, but this response'll be long enough.
Schisms abound in history. The only thing that protects the church is the Scripture. Those who teach it well continue. Those who don't will die off. I assume you’re a Roman Catholic given your stated position, sir. I could be wrong. And I don’t know which of the 250 or so modern Catholic denominations you’re a part of, but if you believe what Rome believes of itself today, that view is not as old you’ve been taught. About half as old I’d say. Goes back about 1K years if I had to calendarize it. Overall, going all the way back, it’s a set of beliefs today that like an acorn has now grown into a tree producing all manner of rotten fruit on the gospel, Mary, and the church and its sacraments. Why? Because it's un-biblical. And every church "father" who was on the side of truth would agree with me today. No one for the first 1000 years of the history of the western church affirmed what you would say today is definitional of your faith. So, you can’t just magically make people in antiquity Roman Catholics any more than I can magically make them Reformed Baptists. Both are developed ideas we must contend for. Period. But in my opinion, each church “father”, just like any person today, would have to be presented (for example) a doctrine like the Immaculate Conception which no one taught before around the start of the 1100's with any sort of popularity. If a church "father" affirmed it, he’d be "in" with Catholics today. If he denied it, he’d be entirely out. Anathema. So, you can’t rope in the ancients by developed modern definitions. And especially once an idea of “dogma” comes into play and something becomes "infallibly declared" by a group.
Why wasn’t SS in the Nicene Creed, you ask? Well, it was. The creed is biblical and all Christians should affirm it...with the caveat of its revisions throughout history for 100's of years. But why wasn’t the infallibility of the pope in it? Why wasn’t Mary as a perpetual virgin, etc.? Do you dismiss those ideas because they weren't? No. It just wasn't the issue discussed. SS developed, as my video outlines, and this is CRUCIAL, in *response to the drift that took a lot of time among those who didn’t practice it. Question: if (argument sake) no one believed that submission to the Roman papacy was essential to salvation before 1869, does that make it impossible to state it in 1869-1870 at Vatican 1? If it was believed by all, why state it? SS comes because men, in their error, began teaching the late medieval idea that submission to the Roman bishop was needed for salvation. Once you’re that far from the Faith, and that took time, then an idea like SS, which corrects such ideas, becomes something clear. When challenges to Jesus’ humanity arose, answers about his true humanity become crystallized by those on the right side of matters such as at Chalcedon. And this is SS.
We could all be accused of cherry picking, sir. Romanists are the best at it. In summation, our position is that all opinions certainly biblical are acceptable. All those that aren’t, aren’t. That has been the position of the true church from the start...even when the papists were heretics. Today, this truth separates the church from the Italian and Turkish ones.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Here’s a helpful Reddit thread (those do exist) on those who articulated our current view on SS that I found helpful and plenteous. Sir, it is we Protestants who stand with the true and ancient church, not the Roman Catholic or the Eastern Orthodox (who you also BTW anathematize and they both you and us). Please, carefully read the posts here and see if they check out historically: https://www.reddit.com/r/ChristianApologetics/comments/13v5hv/the_early_church_fathers_on_sola_scriptura/?rdt=42167.
This thread is what’s below:
Hippolytus (170-235) “Some others are secretly introducing another doctrine, who have become disciples of one Noetus, who was a native of Smyrna, and lived not very long ago. This person was greatly puffed up and inflated with pride, being inspired by the conceit of a strange spirit. He alleged that Christ was the Father Himself, and that the Father Himself was born, and suffered, and died….But the case stands not thus; for the Scriptures do not set forth the matter in this manner….the Scriptures themselves confute their senselessness, and attest the truth…The Scriptures speak what is right; but Noetus is of a different mind from them. Yet, though Noetus does not understand the truth, the Scriptures are not at once to be repudiated….The proper way, therefore, to deal with the question is first of all to refute the interpretation put upon these passages [of scripture] by these men, and then to explain their real meaning….For whenever they wish to attempt anything underhand, they mutilate the Scriptures. But let him quote the passage as a whole, and he will discover the reason kept in view in writing it….if they choose to maintain that their dogma is ratified by this passage [of scripture], as if He owned Himself to be the Father, let them know that it is decidedly against them, and that they are confuted by this very word….Many other passages [of scripture], or rather all of them, attest the truth. A man, therefore, even though he will it not, is compelled to acknowledge God the Father Almighty, and Christ Jesus the Son of God, who, being God, became man, to whom also the Father made all things subject, Himself excepted, and the Holy Spirit; and that these, therefore, are three. But if he desires to learn how it is shown still that there is one God, let him know that His power is one….What, then, will this Noetus, who knows nothing of the truth, dare to say to these things? And now, as Noetus has been confuted, let us turn to the exhibition of the truth itself, that we may establish the truth, against which all these mighty heresies have arisen without being able to state anything to the purpose. There is, brethren, one God, the knowledge of whom we gain from the Holy Scriptures, and from no other source. For just as a man, if he wishes to be skilled in the wisdom of this world, will find himself unable to get at it in any other way than by mastering the dogmas of philosophers, so all of us who wish to practice piety will be unable to learn its practice from any other quarter than the oracles of God. Whatever things, then, the Holy Scriptures declare, at these let us took; 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.” (Against the Heresy of One Noetus, 1-4, 7-9).
Irenaeus (175) “They [heretics] gather their views from other sources than the Scriptures…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….It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and to demonstrate the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these heretics rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to ‘the perfect’ apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon to the Church, but if they should fall away, the direst calamity….proofs of the things which are contained in the Scriptures cannot be shown except from the Scriptures themselves.” (Against Heresies, 1:8:1, 3:1:1, 3:3:1, 3:12:9).
Ambrose (330-397) “For how can we adopt those things which we do not find in the holy Scriptures?” (On the Duties of the Clergy, 1:23:102) “The Arians, then, say that Christ is unlike the Father; we deny it. Nay, indeed, we shrink in dread from the word. Nevertheless I would not that your sacred Majesty should trust to argument and our disputation. Let us enquire of the Scriptures, of apostles, of prophets, of Christ. In a word, let us enquire of the Father…So, indeed, following the guidance of the Scriptures, our fathers [at the Council of Nicaea] declared, holding, moreover, that impious doctrines should be included in the record of their decrees, in order that the unbelief of Arius should discover itself, and not, as it were, mask itself with dye or face-paint.” (Exposition of the Christian Faith, 1:6:43, 1:18:119).
Clement of Alexandria (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.” – Clement of Alexandria (The Stromata, 7:16).
Augustine (354–430) “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….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.” – Augustine (Reply to Faustus the Manichaean, 11:5) “Every sickness of the soul hath in Scripture its proper remedy.” (Expositions on the Psalms, 37:2).
Cyprian (248) “Let nothing be innovated, says he, nothing maintained, except what has been handed down. Whence is that tradition? Whether does it descend from the authority of the Lord and of the Gospel, or does it come from the commands and the epistles of the apostles? For that those things which are written must be done, God witnesses and admonishes, saying to Joshua the son of Nun: ‘The book of this law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate in it day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein.’ Also the Lord, sending His apostles, commands that the nations should be baptized, and taught to observe all things which He commanded. If, therefore, it is either prescribed in the Gospel, or contained in the epistles or Acts of the Apostles, that those who come from any heresy should not be baptized, but only hands laid upon them to repentance, let this divine and holy tradition be observed.” (Letter 73:2).
(MY PERSONAL FAVORITE HERE)
Cyril of Jerusalem (313-386) “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.” (Catechetical Lectures, 4:17) “This seal have thou ever on thy mind; which now by way of summary has been touched on in its heads, and if the Lord grant, shall hereafter be set forth according to our power, with Scripture-proofs. 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.” (A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church, Oxford: Parker, 1845, The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 4.17).
Dionysius of Alexandria (265) “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.” (cited in Ecclesiastical History, Eusebius, 7:24).
Gregory of Nyssa (335-394) “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…And to those who are expert only in the technical methods of proof a mere demonstration suffices to convince; but as for ourselves, we were agreed that there is something more trustworthy than any of these artificial conclusions, namely, that which the teachings of Holy Scripture point to: and so I deem that it is necessary to inquire, in addition to what has been said, whether this inspired teaching harmonizes with it all. And who, she replied, could deny that truth is to be found only in that upon which the seal of Scriptural testimony is set?” - (On the Soul and the Resurrection).
Basil the Great (379) 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 comprehend your duty. You have the all-sufficient counsel and guidance of the Holy Spirit to lead you to what is right (Letter CCLXXXIII, ANCF, p. 312).
Hilary of Poitiers (300-368) “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….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….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.” (On the Trinity, 2:5, 3:23).
Jerome (347-420) “When, then, anything in my little work seems to you harsh, have regard not to my words, but to the Scripture, whence they are taken.” (Letter, 48:20) “I beg of you, my dear brother, to live among these books [Scriptures], to meditate upon them, to know nothing else, to seek nothing else.” (Letter, 53:10) “When Paula comes to be a little older and to increase like her Spouse in wisdom and stature and in favour with God and man, let her go with her parents to the temple of her true Father but let her not come out of the temple with them. Let them seek her upon the world’s highway amid the crowds and the throng of their kinsfolk, and let them find her nowhere but in the shrine of the scriptures” (Letter, 107:7).
Justin Martyr (100-165) “And now, if I say this to you, although I have repeated it many times, I know that it is not absurd so to do. For it is a ridiculous thing to see the sun, and the moon, and the other stars, continually keeping the same course, and bringing round the different seasons; and to see the computer who may be asked how many are twice two, because he has frequently said that they are four, not ceasing to say again that they are four; and equally so other things, which are confidently admitted, to be continually mentioned and admitted in like manner; yet that he who founds his discourse on the prophetic Scriptures should leave them and abstain from constantly referring to the same Scriptures, because it is thought he can bring forth something better than Scripture. The passage, then, by which I proved that God reveals that there are both angels and hosts in heaven is this: ‘Praise the Lord from the heavens: praise Him in the highest. Praise Him, all His angels: praise Him, all His hosts.’” (Dialogue with Trypho, 85).
Theodoret (393-457) “I shall yield to scripture alone.” (Dialogues, 1) Here is a good quote from J. N. D. Kelly: 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 the 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 (Early Christian Doctrines, San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1978, pp. 42, 46).
And on and on and on it goes. We could all be accused of "cherry picking." My stance as a Protestant is on the 66 books we call Scripture. That is the sure foundation. All others are sinking sand.
Grace to you!
And I posted another short reply just afterward to address a point he made saying:
And "adding the alone" does change one's interpretation, sir, but when the errors you're correcting by that alone must be corrected to go back to what has been lost, that change is needed and holy and life-giving.
Response from @MrJayb76:
Who practiced SS in first 1000yrs? In the same way you practiced it. Who taught it? Why wasn't included in the Nicene creed? It is ridiculous to use a 15th century accretion to judge over a thousand years of Church history and practice. You are so wrong. Even scripture itself doesn't teach it. The word alone was added. You added it. The whole meaning of the text changes substantially once you add the word alone. To say that the church fathers whom you mentioned believed in SS as you believe in it is total intellectual dishonesty. All those church fathers were catholic through and through. Even your cherry picking is a joke.
My reply:
Below the line below is reference. At the risk of too much simplicity, sir, let me begin by saying that I think everyone on the right side of any issue practiced SS, sir. Those in church history who didn’t were, for example, among the majority of emperors and bishops who were Arian against Athanasius. The majority of “the church” taught that Jesus was a created being. Heresy, but these were the bishops and caesars, etc. That belief is not and was not "apostolic." It is not "biblical." Athanasius, against that overwhelming majority of the erring church in his day, was on the right side of the matter precisely and only because his opinions were biblically substantiable. That's SS from him before the buzzword. And no one at Nicaea believed what you do today about the papacy anyway. No one! I can prove this easily, but this response'll be long enough.
Schisms abound in history. The only thing that protects the church is the Scripture. Those who teach it well continue. Those who don't will die off. I assume you’re a Roman Catholic given your stated position, sir. I could be wrong. And I don’t know which of the 250 or so modern Catholic denominations you’re a part of, but if you believe what Rome believes of itself today, that view is not as old you’ve been taught. About half as old I’d say. Goes back about 1K years if I had to calendarize it. Overall, going all the way back, it’s a set of beliefs today that like an acorn has now grown into a tree producing all manner of rotten fruit on the gospel, Mary, and the church and its sacraments. Why? Because it's un-biblical. And every church "father" who was on the side of truth would agree with me today. No one for the first 1000 years of the history of the western church affirmed what you would say today is definitional of your faith. So, you can’t just magically make people in antiquity Roman Catholics any more than I can magically make them Reformed Baptists. Both are developed ideas we must contend for. Period. But in my opinion, each church “father”, just like any person today, would have to be presented (for example) a doctrine like the Immaculate Conception which no one taught before around the start of the 1100's with any sort of popularity. If a church "father" affirmed it, he’d be "in" with Catholics today. If he denied it, he’d be entirely out. Anathema. So, you can’t rope in the ancients by developed modern definitions. And especially once an idea of “dogma” comes into play and something becomes "infallibly declared" by a group.
Why wasn’t SS in the Nicene Creed, you ask? Well, it was. The creed is biblical and all Christians should affirm it...with the caveat of its revisions throughout history for 100's of years. But why wasn’t the infallibility of the pope in it? Why wasn’t Mary as a perpetual virgin, etc.? Do you dismiss those ideas because they weren't? No. It just wasn't the issue discussed. SS developed, as my video outlines, and this is CRUCIAL, in *response to the drift that took a lot of time among those who didn’t practice it. Question: if (argument sake) no one believed that submission to the Roman papacy was essential to salvation before 1869, does that make it impossible to state it in 1869-1870 at Vatican 1? If it was believed by all, why state it? SS comes because men, in their error, began teaching the late medieval idea that submission to the Roman bishop was needed for salvation. Once you’re that far from the Faith, and that took time, then an idea like SS, which corrects such ideas, becomes something clear. When challenges to Jesus’ humanity arose, answers about his true humanity become crystallized by those on the right side of matters such as at Chalcedon. And this is SS.
We could all be accused of cherry picking, sir. Romanists are the best at it. In summation, our position is that all opinions certainly biblical are acceptable. All those that aren’t, aren’t. That has been the position of the true church from the start...even when the papists were heretics. Today, this truth separates the church from the Italian and Turkish ones.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Here’s a helpful Reddit thread (those do exist) on those who articulated our current view on SS that I found helpful and plenteous. Sir, it is we Protestants who stand with the true and ancient church, not the Roman Catholic or the Eastern Orthodox (who you also BTW anathematize and they both you and us). Please, carefully read the posts here and see if they check out historically: https://www.reddit.com/r/ChristianApologetics/comments/13v5hv/the_early_church_fathers_on_sola_scriptura/?rdt=42167.
This thread is what’s below:
Hippolytus (170-235) “Some others are secretly introducing another doctrine, who have become disciples of one Noetus, who was a native of Smyrna, and lived not very long ago. This person was greatly puffed up and inflated with pride, being inspired by the conceit of a strange spirit. He alleged that Christ was the Father Himself, and that the Father Himself was born, and suffered, and died….But the case stands not thus; for the Scriptures do not set forth the matter in this manner….the Scriptures themselves confute their senselessness, and attest the truth…The Scriptures speak what is right; but Noetus is of a different mind from them. Yet, though Noetus does not understand the truth, the Scriptures are not at once to be repudiated….The proper way, therefore, to deal with the question is first of all to refute the interpretation put upon these passages [of scripture] by these men, and then to explain their real meaning….For whenever they wish to attempt anything underhand, they mutilate the Scriptures. But let him quote the passage as a whole, and he will discover the reason kept in view in writing it….if they choose to maintain that their dogma is ratified by this passage [of scripture], as if He owned Himself to be the Father, let them know that it is decidedly against them, and that they are confuted by this very word….Many other passages [of scripture], or rather all of them, attest the truth. A man, therefore, even though he will it not, is compelled to acknowledge God the Father Almighty, and Christ Jesus the Son of God, who, being God, became man, to whom also the Father made all things subject, Himself excepted, and the Holy Spirit; and that these, therefore, are three. But if he desires to learn how it is shown still that there is one God, let him know that His power is one….What, then, will this Noetus, who knows nothing of the truth, dare to say to these things? And now, as Noetus has been confuted, let us turn to the exhibition of the truth itself, that we may establish the truth, against which all these mighty heresies have arisen without being able to state anything to the purpose. There is, brethren, one God, the knowledge of whom we gain from the Holy Scriptures, and from no other source. For just as a man, if he wishes to be skilled in the wisdom of this world, will find himself unable to get at it in any other way than by mastering the dogmas of philosophers, so all of us who wish to practice piety will be unable to learn its practice from any other quarter than the oracles of God. Whatever things, then, the Holy Scriptures declare, at these let us took; 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.” (Against the Heresy of One Noetus, 1-4, 7-9).
Irenaeus (175) “They [heretics] gather their views from other sources than the Scriptures…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….It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and to demonstrate the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these heretics rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to ‘the perfect’ apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon to the Church, but if they should fall away, the direst calamity….proofs of the things which are contained in the Scriptures cannot be shown except from the Scriptures themselves.” (Against Heresies, 1:8:1, 3:1:1, 3:3:1, 3:12:9).
Ambrose (330-397) “For how can we adopt those things which we do not find in the holy Scriptures?” (On the Duties of the Clergy, 1:23:102) “The Arians, then, say that Christ is unlike the Father; we deny it. Nay, indeed, we shrink in dread from the word. Nevertheless I would not that your sacred Majesty should trust to argument and our disputation. Let us enquire of the Scriptures, of apostles, of prophets, of Christ. In a word, let us enquire of the Father…So, indeed, following the guidance of the Scriptures, our fathers [at the Council of Nicaea] declared, holding, moreover, that impious doctrines should be included in the record of their decrees, in order that the unbelief of Arius should discover itself, and not, as it were, mask itself with dye or face-paint.” (Exposition of the Christian Faith, 1:6:43, 1:18:119).
Clement of Alexandria (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.” – Clement of Alexandria (The Stromata, 7:16).
Augustine (354–430) “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….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.” – Augustine (Reply to Faustus the Manichaean, 11:5) “Every sickness of the soul hath in Scripture its proper remedy.” (Expositions on the Psalms, 37:2).
Cyprian (248) “Let nothing be innovated, says he, nothing maintained, except what has been handed down. Whence is that tradition? Whether does it descend from the authority of the Lord and of the Gospel, or does it come from the commands and the epistles of the apostles? For that those things which are written must be done, God witnesses and admonishes, saying to Joshua the son of Nun: ‘The book of this law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate in it day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein.’ Also the Lord, sending His apostles, commands that the nations should be baptized, and taught to observe all things which He commanded. If, therefore, it is either prescribed in the Gospel, or contained in the epistles or Acts of the Apostles, that those who come from any heresy should not be baptized, but only hands laid upon them to repentance, let this divine and holy tradition be observed.” (Letter 73:2).
(MY PERSONAL FAVORITE HERE)
Cyril of Jerusalem (313-386) “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.” (Catechetical Lectures, 4:17) “This seal have thou ever on thy mind; which now by way of summary has been touched on in its heads, and if the Lord grant, shall hereafter be set forth according to our power, with Scripture-proofs. 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.” (A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church, Oxford: Parker, 1845, The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 4.17).
Dionysius of Alexandria (265) “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.” (cited in Ecclesiastical History, Eusebius, 7:24).
Gregory of Nyssa (335-394) “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…And to those who are expert only in the technical methods of proof a mere demonstration suffices to convince; but as for ourselves, we were agreed that there is something more trustworthy than any of these artificial conclusions, namely, that which the teachings of Holy Scripture point to: and so I deem that it is necessary to inquire, in addition to what has been said, whether this inspired teaching harmonizes with it all. And who, she replied, could deny that truth is to be found only in that upon which the seal of Scriptural testimony is set?” - (On the Soul and the Resurrection).
Basil the Great (379) 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 comprehend your duty. You have the all-sufficient counsel and guidance of the Holy Spirit to lead you to what is right (Letter CCLXXXIII, ANCF, p. 312).
Hilary of Poitiers (300-368) “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….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….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.” (On the Trinity, 2:5, 3:23).
Jerome (347-420) “When, then, anything in my little work seems to you harsh, have regard not to my words, but to the Scripture, whence they are taken.” (Letter, 48:20) “I beg of you, my dear brother, to live among these books [Scriptures], to meditate upon them, to know nothing else, to seek nothing else.” (Letter, 53:10) “When Paula comes to be a little older and to increase like her Spouse in wisdom and stature and in favour with God and man, let her go with her parents to the temple of her true Father but let her not come out of the temple with them. Let them seek her upon the world’s highway amid the crowds and the throng of their kinsfolk, and let them find her nowhere but in the shrine of the scriptures” (Letter, 107:7).
Justin Martyr (100-165) “And now, if I say this to you, although I have repeated it many times, I know that it is not absurd so to do. For it is a ridiculous thing to see the sun, and the moon, and the other stars, continually keeping the same course, and bringing round the different seasons; and to see the computer who may be asked how many are twice two, because he has frequently said that they are four, not ceasing to say again that they are four; and equally so other things, which are confidently admitted, to be continually mentioned and admitted in like manner; yet that he who founds his discourse on the prophetic Scriptures should leave them and abstain from constantly referring to the same Scriptures, because it is thought he can bring forth something better than Scripture. The passage, then, by which I proved that God reveals that there are both angels and hosts in heaven is this: ‘Praise the Lord from the heavens: praise Him in the highest. Praise Him, all His angels: praise Him, all His hosts.’” (Dialogue with Trypho, 85).
Theodoret (393-457) “I shall yield to scripture alone.” (Dialogues, 1) Here is a good quote from J. N. D. Kelly: 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 the 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 (Early Christian Doctrines, San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1978, pp. 42, 46).
And on and on and on it goes. We could all be accused of "cherry picking." My stance as a Protestant is on the 66 books we call Scripture. That is the sure foundation. All others are sinking sand.
Grace to you!
And I posted another short reply just afterward to address a point he made saying:
And "adding the alone" does change one's interpretation, sir, but when the errors you're correcting by that alone must be corrected to go back to what has been lost, that change is needed and holy and life-giving.
Recent
Archive
2025
2024
January
Proving That Jesus is the Christ From the Old Testament. Part 4Proving That Jesus is the Christ From the Old Testament. Part 5Proving That Jesus is the Christ From the Old Testament. Part 6Proving That Jesus is the Christ From the Old Testament. Part 7Proving That Jesus is the Christ From the Old Testament. Part 8
February
March
July
August
December
2023
February
April
May
July
2022
January
February
November
No Comments