1 2 3 4

Augustine-

St. Augustine is also quoted by Mr. Engwer in the following words:

Augustine (the perspicuity of scripture, 7/27/02)

7/27/02

"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,--to wit, hope and love, of which I have spoken in the previous book. After this, when we have made ourselves to a certain extent familiar with the language of Scripture, we may proceed to open up and investigate the obscure passages, and in doing so draw examples from the plainer expressions to throw light upon the more obscure, and use the evidence of passages about which there is no doubt to remove all hesitation in regard to the doubtful passages." - Augustine (On Christian Doctrine, 2:9)

This is another instance of trying to make a church father look as if he’s saying something different than what the Catholic Church believes regarding scriptural interpretation. Can Mr. Engwer name any Catholic apologist who doesn’t believe that ‘plainer expressions’ of scripture can ‘throw light upon the more obscure?’ I know of none. Mr. Engwer is missing the whole point. Of course obscure passages of scripture can be opened up and explained by the plainer passages of scripture. What Mr. Engwer needs to prove is that when a dispute arose in the early Church regarding these ‘plain passages of scripture’ the mode for solving the controversy rested in the authority of the canonical scriptures alone, without any recourse to a “nebulous” tradition. However, we find Augustine stating just the opposite. It in a related passage, Augustine writes the following:

“Let the reader consult the rule of faith which he has gathered from the plainer passages of scripture, and from the authority of the Church,...”

(Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, 3,2:2)

This is a very ‘plain’ statement that expresses Augustine’s belief in a rule of faith that existed outside the canonical scriptures alone. We can see in this passage that Augustine’s understanding of the perspicuity of scripture was much different than what Mr. Engwer portrays it to be. The authority of the Church is inseparably linked to the Scriptures as a “rule of faith.” Augustine himself says that he would not even believe the gospel “except moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.” (Augustine, Against the Epistle of Manichaeus, 5:6)

Mr. Engwer also brings Basil to the fore.

Basil (the perspicuity of scripture, 9/27/02)

9/27/02

Basil contradicted the popular Roman Catholic argument that scripture is insufficient for proving Trinitarian doctrine:

"But all who maintain that either Son or Spirit is a creature, or absolutely reduce the Spirit to ministerial and servile rank, are far removed from the truth. Flee their communion. Turn away from their teaching, They are destructive to souls. If ever the Lord grant us to meet, I will discourse to you further concerning the faith, to the end that you may perceive at once the power of the truth and the rottenness of heresy by Scriptural proof." (Letter 105)

9/28/02

Once again Mr. Engwer presents us with a “Scriptural Proof = Sola Scriptura” argument. Every time Scriptural teaching is extolled, those of Mr. Engwer’s persuasion immediately assume that the Church Father in question is rejecting any idea of a Church that teaches infallibly. Once again, it’s the passages from Basil that are ignored in Mr. Engwer’s series that give us the whole truth.

“To refuse to follow the Fathers, not holding their declaration of more authority than one’s own opinion, is conduct worthy of blame, as being brimful of self-sufficiency.”

(Basil, Epistle to the Canonicae, 52:1)

“Of the dogmas and kerygmas preserved in the Church, some we possess from written teaching and others we receive from the tradition of the Apostles, handed on to us in mystery. In respect to piety both are of the same force. No one will contradict any of these, no one, at any rate, who is even moderately versed in matters ecclesiastical. Indeed, were we to try to reduce unwritten customs as having no great authority, we would unwittingly injure the Gospel in its vitals; or rather, we would reduce kerygma to a mere term.”

(Basil, On the Spirit, 27:66) emphasis mine

From these quotes it’s easy to determine what Basil really believed concerning Scripture. He didn’t believe that Scripture, in and of itself, was the only norm for dogmas and kerygmas. No, he unflinchingly states that both the written teaching and the tradition of the Apostles have the same force. To my knowledge, no one in Basils’ day said that this teaching of his was “unscriptural.” What’s more, no one called this tradition “nebulous” or demanded that Basil define the “extent” of that tradition because of the disagreements or apparent contradictions between Basil’s teaching and the teachings of another Church Father. It’s obvious that Basil did not believe that tradition was merely useful; he believed it was just as authoritative as Scripture. Basil considered tradition so important that he specifically states that it’s rejection would “unwittingly injure the Gospel in its vitals.”; hardly a sentiment in line with Protestant theology.

Irenaeus is also used to buttress evangelical theology:

Irenaeus (the perspicuity of scripture, 7/24/02)

7/24/02

"A sound mind, and one which does not expose its possessor to danger, and is devoted to piety and the love of truth, will eagerly meditate upon those things which God has placed within the power of mankind, and has subjected to our knowledge, and will make advancement in acquaintance with them, rendering the knowledge of them easy to him by means of daily study. These things are such as fall plainly under our observation, and are clearly and unambiguously in express terms set forth in the Sacred Scriptures....the entire Scriptures, the prophets, and the Gospels, can be clearly, unambiguously, and harmoniously understood by all" - Irenaeus (Against Heresies, 2:27:1-2)

Again, no Catholic apologist I know of would disagree with this statement. I wholeheartedly believe that the Scriptures “can be clearly, unambiguously , and harmoniously understood by all.” Where I , (and yes, Irenaeus), draw the line is when one starts claiming that no other infallible authority exists but the Bible alone to solve disputes over it’s teaching. Irenaeus had his own troubles with those who felt they knew better than the Church:

“By transferring passages, and dressing them up anew, and making one thing out of another, they succeed in deluding many through their wicked art in adapting the oracles of the Lord to their opinions.”

(Irenaeus, Against Heresies)

Yes, the scriptures can be understood “clearly, unambiguously, and harmoniously.” But where do we go when there is a debate over it’s meaning? Irenaeus gives a thoroughly Catholic answer to this dilemma:

“For how stands the case? Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches?”

The interpretation of Scripture is certainly an “important question“. Irenaeus does not bellow that these Churches and the traditions they hold are “nebulous” or “fallible“. He specifically writes that the truths he learns from these Churches are “certain and clear.” How could this be if he believed that only the Scriptures alone were infallible? Can “certain and clear” answers on matters of importance be authoritatively given to the faithful from a source outside the Scriptures? Irenaeus’ answer is, Yes. He specifically states that when a dispute arises we can’t just say, “well, it’s not written so it’s not a matter of importance to me.” No, Irenaeus teaches that it is “necessary” to “follow the course of the tradition which they [the Churches] handed down,” especially when the written teachings alone do not answer the question.

As we can see from the examples above, the Church Fathers did not have the same view of the “perspicuity” of the Scriptures that Mr. Engwer does. Time and time again we can see that the Fathers understood that when a dispute arises it is to the Church that we must go to solve the dispute. If the Fathers of the Church could make such bold claims for the place of tradition, despite the disagreements among themselves, why is it that Mr. Engwer faults the Catholic Church of today for making the same claims for tradition? Do we have our disagreements? - you bet, I won’t claim otherwise. But, in spite of our disagreements, we know where to go when a dispute arises - it’s the same place that Irenaeus, Basil, and Augustine told us to go when there is a controversy over doctrine - the Church.

Tradition

In the proceeding discussion we have touched on a few quotes from the Fathers that give evidence of their belief in the authoritative role of tradition. We have seen that even though the Fathers had their disagreements, they still believed that tradition was a sure guide in determining the truth.

Certain questions naturally arise as regards tradition: Why did the Fathers make such claims for tradition if, in fact, they came to contradictory conclusions based on that tradition? What happened in the early church when these sorts of disagreements arose? How were the problems solved? When an authoritative decision came from the church on such disagreements did the Fathers recant their previous objections, or did they instead claim that councils and tradition are fallible and therefore are too untrustworthy as to demand the assent of Christians. I’ll touch on all of these points as we go along.

Let’s again venture into the writings of the Fathers beginning with Athanasius.

Mr. Engwer (JE from now on) gives the following citations from Athanasius:

Athanasius (tradition, 6/16/02)

6/16/02

Athanasius wrote:

"These are fountains of salvation, that they who thirst may be satisfied with the living words they contain. In these alone is proclaimed the doctrine of godliness. Let no man add to these, neither let him take ought from these." (Festal Letter 39:6)

From this quote it is inferred that the scriptures alone contain the “doctrine of godliness,” and that other voices such as tradition would be an abominable supplement to this “doctrine of godliness.” Is this how Athanasius viewed tradition? I think not. Consider the following quote:

Without prefixing Consulate, month, and day [the Fathers] wrote concerning Easter, ‘It seemed good as follows,’ for it did then seem good that there should be a general compliance; but about the faith they wrote not, ‘It seemed good,’ but, ‘Thus believes the Catholic Church’; and thereupon they confessed how they believed, in order to show that their own sentiments were not novel, but Apostolic; and what they wrote down was no discovery of theirs, but is the same as was taught by the Apostles

(Letter on the Councils of Arminium and Selucia)

We can see from this quote that Athanasius did not consider all councils to be fallible. He declares that the confession of faith rests upon the statement “Thus believes the Catholic Church.”

Athanasius also used very exalting language as regards councils. In reference to the Council of Nicea, Athanasius wrote:

The confession arrived at Nicea was, we say more, sufficient and enough by itself for the subversion of all irreligious heresy and for the security and furtherance of the doctrine of the Church.

(Ad Afros 1)

Here we can see that in the eyes of Athanasius, tradition also was called “sufficient...by itself.” Athanasius did not hold to the evangelical view that only Scripture was sufficient for the “subversion of all irreligious heresy,” since he uses the same strong words in reference to a council of the Church.

Athanasius also gives this authority to the Church Herself in her decision on the Trinity at Nicea:

But beyond these [Scriptural] sayings, let us look at the very tradition, teaching, and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning, which the Lord gave, the Apostles preached, and the Fathers kept. Upon this the Church is founded, and he who should fall away from it would not be a Christian, and should no longer be so called.

(Ad Serapion 1:28)

Athanasius also testifies to the fact that the Council was needed to clarify the teaching of Scripture:

Yes, it behooved, say I too; for the tokens of truth are more exact as drawn from Scripture, than from other sources; but the ill disposition and the versatile and crafty irreligion of Eusebius and his fellows, compelled the Bishops [at Nicea], as I said before, to publish [i.e. the non-scriptural phrase ‘one in essence’] more distinctly the terms which overthrew their irreligion.

(Athanasius, Defence of the Nicene Definition)

Notice that Athanasius didn’t claim that the Scripture alone overthrew the irreligion of those who denied the doctrine of the Trinity. No, Athanasius had no qualms about saying that a more distinct definition from the Bishops overthrew the teaching of the heretics.

It’s interesting to note that Athanasius had his reasons for going to tradition to prove his case: The main reason is because his opponents, the Arians, were using Scripture to prove their doctrine that Christ was a creature. Athanasius goes to great length to show that Scripture must be coupled with tradition if it is to be interpreted correctly:

But after him [the devil] and with him are all inventors of unlawful heresies, who indeed refer to the Scriptures, but do not hold such opinions as the saints have handed down, and receiving them as the traditions of men, err, because they do not rightly know them or their power.

If we now consider the scope of that faith which we Christians hold, and using it as a rule, apply ourselves, as the Apostle teaches to the reading of the inspired Scripture. For Christ’s enemies, being ignorant of this scope, have wandered from the way of truth, and have stumbled on a stone of stumbling, thinking otherwise than they should think. Let us, retaining the general scope of the faith, acknowledge that what they interpret ill, has a right interpretation.

(Athanasius, Discourse against the Arians I & III)

We can see here that yardstick that Athanasius uses to determine whether or not an interpretation of Scripture is orthodox is to see if it conforms to what “the saints have handed down.”

Athanasius also aptly remarked on how wrenching Scripture away from the teaching office of the Church always results in dissension:

For they dissent from each other, and, whereas they have revolted from their fathers, are not of one and the same mind, but float about with various discordant changes.

(Athanasius, Councils of Arminium and Seleucia)

1 2 3 4