Gavin Ortlund is an author, speaker, and apologist for the Christian faith, who serves as the senior pastor of First Baptist Church of Ojai in Ojai, California. Gavin has a Ph.D. from Fuller Theological Seminary in historical theology, and an M.Div from Covenant Theological Seminary. He is the author of seven books as well as numerous academic and popular articles. For a list of publications, see his CV. He runs the YouTube channel Truth Unites, which seeks to provide an irenic voice on theology, apologetics, and the Christian life.
I greatly admire and appreciate what Gavin describes as his “irenic” (or what I often call an “ecumenical”) methodology, and viewpoint. It’s extremely refreshing to hear in this age which is so hyper-polarized. He is an exemplary Christian role model of this open-minded, charitable approach. We all learn and “win” when good, constructive dialogue takes place. It’s never a “loss” to arrive at more truth or to recognize one’s own error.
*****
This is a response to Gavin’s video, “Did Augustine Affirm Sola Scriptura?” (11-8-21). His words will be in blue and I will provide minute markers with his comments. St. Augustine’s words will be in green. I know that several Catholics have responded to this video in other videos and that Gavin has in turn responded to “critics” (11-14-21) and “Lofton and Little” (11-26-21). I haven’t viewed any of these other videos, so I don’t know how they made their cases, and my answers are completely my own.
I’m “late to the game” in replying to videos, since I am solely a writer (apart from some 25 radio interviews). I’ll take a look (in another reply) at Gavin’s replies to others after I am done with my own critique, to see if they have any bearing on my arguments, so that I will have then responded to all the arguments he brings to the table.
I can draw from the abundance of resources on the topic that have already been compiled as part of the book I edited in 2012: The Quotable Augustine: Distinctively Catholic Elements in His Theology. I think that will likely make my citation of St. Augustine a little more extensive than other Catholics who have responded. The hardest, most time-consuming work’s been done and I don’t have to go searching for relevant citations now.
Let’s revisit, as a preliminary, Gavin’s definition of sola Scriptura, from his video, “Sola Scriptura DEFENDED” (12-15-20), so that we are clear about what we are debating:
Sola Scriptura has always been maintained as the view that the Bible is the only infallible rule for theology. . . . There’s a big difference in saying that the Bible is the only source for theology, and saying the Bible is the only infallible source for theology. . . . The Scripture is is the final court of appeal: the norming norm that norms all other norms but is not normed itself. [between 7:11 and 9:35, with my own bolding, to highlight his central point]
If the Bible is regarded as the only infallible rule, source, or norm for theology, and the final court of appeal, then it inexorably follows from logic that nothing else can function as that. Thus, if a Church father is said to espouse sola Scriptura, by definition, he cannot simultaneously believe in instances of infallibility or what might be called “binding, sublime authority” deriving from the Church, sacred tradition, ecumenical councils, individual bishops, the papacy, or apostolic succession. Gavin expresses this “negative” claim of sola Scriptura by saying, “there’s nothing infallible in tradition” [3:07-3:11]. Moreover, a Church father might be very explicit about Scriptural authority and virtually claim what Gavin has: all except for the exclusivist word “only”. He could state that Scripture is an infallible rule, source, standard, or norm for theology, and even the final court of appeal, and that it is inspired and God’s revelation.
Catholics agree with all of that (no Catholic denies that Scripture is uniquely inspired revelation), and so none of it is proof of an advocacy of sola Scriptura as the rule of faith (in the Protestant understanding), unless the same father expresses it in a way that excludes the infallible authority of the Church, sacred tradition, ecumenical councils, individual bishops, the papacy, or apostolic succession. If a father affirms that any of those non-scriptural things are infallible, then he doesn’t believe in sola Scriptura: period; full stop. He believes in the Catholic “three-legged stool” rule of faith. These are the factors that Protestant apologists almost always neglect to consider in their analyses of the Church fathers and what they believed about the rule of faith.
The previous two paragraphs are key and absolutely crucial for the reader to understand my methodology below. Anyone who is unclear as to my meaning should read them again. All I’m doing is accepting the common definition of sola Scriptura and noting what necessarily follows from it, which is perfectly proper and on-point. I don’t know how many other Catholics and/or Orthodox apologists have used this particular approach to this topic (surely some, if not most), but I have for at least twenty years now. Some of the others may have even derived it from my past writings.
I’m gonna argue that Augustine is very resonant with the idea of sola Scriptura. . . . Augustine couldn’t have been clearer in advocating principles that are basically synonymous with what we call sola Scriptura. [0:03-1:09]
He says he will produce three passages in order to prove his contentions, and stresses that he has not taken anything out of context. He again defines sola Scriptura:
Sola Scriptura is the claim that the Scriptures are the only infallible rule for Christian faith and practice. . . . There is a place for tradition. Creeds and councils can even be binding and authoritative, but all that comes subsequent to the Scripture is reformable in light of Scripture. So there’s nothing infallible in tradition. That is the point of contrast. [2:41-3:12; my bolding; italicized emphases are his own]
Gavin gently complains that with regard to the matter of sola Scriptura, Protestants are “routinely caricatured, set up as a straw man”. I agree. I do my best to represent their views with minute accuracy. The definition he presents for sola Scriptura is one I have agreed with for over thirty years, and indeed, was the one I had as an evangelical Protestant and already an apologist (and passionate supporter of the principle at that time).
So I have not misrepresented Protestantism on this score. I know the view from my own experiences as a Protestant apologist and in the course of debating it for 26 years online. But I recognize that too many Catholics (including credentialed apologists) have done that, and that it’s wrong and should be corrected, with retractions and apologies where necessary. We mustn’t misrepresent anyone’s views. That is bearing false witness, and if we know better, it’s dishonest.
What people do is they define sola Scriptura based upon its street-level practice rather than based upon its official expressions. [3:41-3:51]
This is exactly right and a very important point. I had precisely this dispute a few years ago with a fellow Catholic apologist, whom I contended was doing this very thing. I agreed with this faulty tendency in a broader sense in my first reply to Gavin yesterday:
The massive ignorance of the populace in all Christian communions is the reason why we can — in doing apologetics and debates — only compare the “books” of one view with the books (confessions, creeds, catechisms) of another. We can always find bad examples on all sides, but we can’t base any sort of argument on that. We have to know and consult the “official teachings” of any given group.
He made a parallel of looking at examples of some Catholics worshiping Mary and concluding that official Catholic teaching is that Mary should or can be worshiped (which he agreed was not Catholic teaching). He conceded that sola Scriptura is “very routinely practiced poorly or misunderstood by Protestants themselves, but that doesn’t mean we’re not caricaturing when we stray from what the official Protestant teaching is about this.” Again, I couldn’t agree more. Kudos to Gavin for clearly articulating this common error that occurs on all sides, in analyzing other views. It’s a matter of basic fairness, charity, and honesty of presentation.
He then cites Augustine, On Baptism, Against the Donatists, Book II, chapter 3, section 4:
But who can fail to be aware that the sacred canon of Scripture, both of the Old and New Testament, is confined within its own limits, and that it stands so absolutely in a superior position to all later letters of the bishops, that about it we can hold no manner of doubt or disputation whether what is confessedly contained in it is right and true; but that all the letters of bishops which have been written, or are being written, since the closing of the canon, are liable to be refuted if there be anything contained in them which strays from the truth, either by the discourse of some one who happens to be wiser in the matter than themselves, or by the weightier authority and more learned experience of other bishops, by the authority of Councils; and further, that the Councils themselves, which are held in the several districts and provinces, must yield, beyond all possibility of doubt, to the authority of plenary Councils which are formed for the whole Christian world; and that even of the plenary Councils, the earlier are often corrected by those which follow them, when, by some actual experiment, things are brought to light which were before concealed, and that is known which previously lay hid, and this without any whirlwind of sacrilegious pride, . . .
Respectfully, I don’t think this proves what Gavin thinks it proves at all. The first part is merely expressing the truism that everything in Scripture is true, since it is inspired revelation, and that this can’t be said about any other writing. Every observant traditional Christian agrees, so there is no dispute on that. But it’s beside the point of sola Scriptura, which is not about the higher level of inspiration, but about infallibility. Theoretically (and this is the relevant point of contention), non-scriptural entities may possibly be infallible, too, while not inspired.
Protestants say this isn’t the case; Catholics and Orthodox claim that it is. And that’s the dispute. The fact that anything is wrong if it is contrary to Holy Scripture is something we all agree with. It’s perfectly consistent with the Catholic rule of faith, which holds that all true doctrines are and must be in harmony with Scripture. But this view is itself not sola Scriptura and so, has no bearing on that discussion.
The latter half of the quotation actually — I humbly submit — strongly supports the Catholic view and refutes sola Scriptura, because he’s saying that if something is wrong in “letters” by bishops, it can be corrected not only by Scripture, but also “by the weightier authority and more learned experience of other bishops, by the authority of Councils.” Local councils “must yield, beyond all possibility of doubt, to the authority of plenary Councils which are formed for the whole Christian world.”
That’s Catholic authority, folks, not Protestant: which would say that Scripture is the sole infallible entity that corrects theological errors. Councils might rightly do so (if they are in line with Scripture), so says Protestantism, but the Protestant denies that they are infallible, so they could always be wrong, too, in the final analysis.
Sometimes later councils correct earlier ones when doctrines or aspects of them “previously lay hid.” This is St. Augustine asserting development of doctrine: which Protestants sometimes claim was invented out of whole cloth in the 19th century for the purpose of special pleading and rationalizing Church history, by St. John Henry Cardinal Newman. But this is not true at all, as I have massively documented. St. Vincent of Lerins, St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, and many others wrote about development long before Cardinal Newman ever did.
Conclusion: nothing in the above citation proves that Augustine held to sola Scriptura. To the contrary, I think it pretty much proves that he didn’t. Gavin notes that Augustine thought ecumenical councils could possibly err. But again, this is not controversial. No Catholic thinker or scholar denies that this can take place, not just in theory but in fact.
The issue is not that councils never err, or are never corrected by future councils, but rather, whether they are ever (i.e., sometimes) infallible under certain conditions. We don’t hold that all utterances of all ecumenical councils are infallible. The levels of authority is a very complex, nuanced aspect of Catholic ecclesiology, that I have written about. This being the case, what St. Augustine noted is a ho-hum for Catholics and no refutation of our view; nor is it proof that he believed in sola Scriptura.
Gavin then cites as his second example from St. Augustine, Reply to Faustus (Book XI, 5):
As regards our writings, which are not a rule of faith or practice, but only a help to edification, we may suppose that they contain some things falling short of the truth in obscure and recondite matters, and that these mistakes may or may not be corrected in subsequent treatises. For we are of those of whom the apostle says: “And if you be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you.” [Philippians 3:15] Such writings are read with the right of judgment, and without any obligation to believe. In order to leave room for such profitable discussions of difficult questions, there is a distinct boundary line separating all productions subsequent to apostolic times from the authoritative canonical books of the Old and New Testaments.
Gavin notes that Augustine stated that there can be errors in non-biblical writings (of course!), but that there is no errors in the Bible. I totally agree, which is why I have sent much of the last year refuting alleged biblical “contradictions” brought up by atheists, and hope to make a future book out of those replies. Again, Gavin neglects to see that infallibility of tradition or Church or ecumenical councils obtains only in carefully specified conditions, and is not applicable without such limitations or qualifications. This understood, Augustine’s statement is a non-controversial truism, and again not relevant to the dispute about sola Scriptura‘s truth or falsity.
Moreover, the meaning of the above also hinges upon what Augustine means by “our writings.” To whom is he referring? As best I can make out, he seems to be referring to bishops like himself, or perhaps clerics in general. But he may simply mean all non-biblical writings. Catholics don’t hold that individual bishops or Church fathers or saints possess infallibility: up to and including the most eminent Doctors of the Church, like St. Thomas Aquinas. Augustine may simply be expressing the same sentiment. We hold only that bishops in concert in an ecumenical council — as accepted by the pope — can be infallible under certain specified conditions, and that popes can unilaterally do so under very precise particular conditions and circumstances.
So again, the proper question is whether councils and tradition or popes can ever be infallible at any time. Gavin has denied that this could be the case, as to tradition (“there’s nothing infallible in tradition”), and surely he would make the same negative assertion about any other non-biblical authority. Protestants are also under an obligation to understand how Catholic authority and the Catholic rule of faith operate; just as we must not misrepresent their views as to the rule of faith.
His third example is Augustine’s Letter 82 to Jerome (from 405), chapter 1, section 3.
I have learned to yield this respect and honour only to the canonical books of Scripture: of these alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error. And if in these writings I am perplexed by anything which appears to me opposed to truth, I do not hesitate to suppose that either the manuscript is faulty, or the translator has not caught the meaning of what was said, or I myself have failed to understand it. As to all other writings, in reading them, however great the superiority of the authors to myself in sanctity and learning, I do not accept their teaching as true on the mere ground of the opinion being held by them; but only because they have succeeded in convincing my judgment of its truth either by means of these canonical writings themselves, or by arguments addressed to my reason.
This is simply a variation of the argument Augustine made in the other two citations: only Scripture is completely free from error; always infallible. Nothing else is. And again, I say, Catholics agree. Nothing else is inspired or always infallible, but some things are sometimes infallible: contrary to Gavin’s view and sola Scriptura. (and I will show at length that Augustine believes that). What Augustine says right after this portion shows that what he means is in complete accord with the Catholic view:
I believe, my brother, that this is your own opinion as well as mine. I do not need to say that I do not suppose you to wish your books to be read like those of prophets or of apostles, concerning which it would be wrong to doubt that they are free from error. Far be such arrogance from that humble piety and just estimate of yourself which I know you to have, and without which assuredly you would not have said,
Would that I could receive your embrace, and that by converse we might aid each other in learning!
Exactly! Neither Augustine, nor Jerome, great as they were, would ever claim that their writings were on the error-free level of “those of prophets or of apostles.” And that is Catholic teaching. We agree that their writings are not of that nature and that only bishops in an ecumenical council, in agreement with the pope, and under certain conditions, can claim infallibility as a collective, and that only a pope can do so by himself, at times (not all the time!). But again, this doesn’t touch upon the truth or falsity of sola Scriptura at all.
But note something else interesting here, that suggests Augustine does (at least possibly) in this larger passage grant infallibility to non-biblical persons. Prophets and apostles wrote a lot of Scripture, and so partook of its gift of inspiration and infallibility from God. But not all utterances of all prophets and apostles is contained in Scripture. The question then becomes, for example: “if someone heard a talk from Paul one night [none of which was recorded in the Bible] would it be an infallible talk?”
I would say that at least some of it would or could be. Augustine simply noted that prophets and apostles were “free from error.” He may have simply meant “biblical writings.” I don’t know. But I think my speculation is permissible and possible as an interpretation. We know that Augustine accepted extra-biblical traditions (e.g., infant baptism) that were passed down through apostolic succession.
“Prophets” are also a New Testament office that the Apostle Paul seems to intend were to continue in perpetuity in the Church. I commented on this at length in a reply to the late Dr. Greg Bahnsen. He had asked:
Now when contemporary Roman Catholic apologists look at II Thessalonians 2:15 and say, “We’re bound to follow the traditions, oral as well as written,” my response to that is not only are oral and written two different ways of saying the same thing; but my response to that is simply, I’m under obligation to listen to the oral teaching of the Apostles; you’re absolutely right, and they’re not around any more! And you know, catch up with what’s happening in the Church, friend — we don’t have Apostles today! Where do you get the idea — even on your misreading of this verse — where do you get the idea that the authority of the Apostles in oral instruction has passed on to other people?
1 Corinthians 12:28-29 (RSV) And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, then healers, helpers, administrators, speakers in various kinds of tongues. [29] Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles?
Ephesians 4:11-12 And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, [12] to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ,
Acts 11:27-30 Now in these days prophets came down from Jerusalem to Antioch. [28] And one of them named Ag’abus stood up and foretold by the Spirit that there would be a great famine over all the world; and this took place in the days of Claudius. [29] And the disciples determined, every one according to his ability, to send relief to the brethren who lived in Judea; [30] and they did so, sending it to the elders by the hand of Barnabas and Saul.
Acts 21:10-11 While we were staying for some days, a prophet named Ag’abus came down from Judea. [11] And coming to us he took Paul’s girdle and bound his own feet and hands, and said, “Thus says the Holy Spirit, `So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man who owns this girdle and deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles.'”
Acts 13:1 Now in the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers, Barnabas, Simeon who was called Niger, Lucius of Cyre’ne, Man’a-en a member of the court of Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.
Acts 15:32 And Judas and Silas, who were themselves prophets, exhorted the brethren with many words and strengthened them. (cf. Lk 2:36)
1 Corinthians 14:26, 29-32, 37, 39 What then, brethren? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification. . . . [29] Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said. [30] If a revelation is made to another sitting by, let the first be silent. [31] For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged; [32] and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets. . . . [37] If any one thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that what I am writing to you is a command of the Lord. . . . [39] So, my brethren, earnestly desire to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues; (cf. 14:1, 3-5, 24; 1 Thess 5:20)
Ephesians 3:4-5 When you read this you can perceive my insight into the mystery of Christ, [5] which was not made known to the sons of men in other generations as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;
1 Timothy 1:18 This charge I commit to you, Timothy, my son, in accordance with the prophetic utterances which pointed to you, that inspired by them you may wage the good warfare,
1 Timothy 4:14 Do not neglect the gift you have, which was given you by prophetic utterance when the council of elders laid their hands upon you.
Revelation 11:3, 6, 10 And I will grant my two witnesses power to prophesy for one thousand two hundred and sixty days, clothed in sackcloth.” . . . [6] They have power to shut the sky, that no rain may fall during the days of their prophesying, and they have power over the waters to turn them into blood, and to smite the earth with every plague, as often as they desire. . . . [10] . . . these two prophets had been a torment to those who dwell on the earth. (cf. 10:11)
Acts 19:6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them; and they spoke with tongues and prophesied.
Acts 21:9 And he had four unmarried daughters, who prophesied.
1 Corinthians 11:4-5 Any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, [5] but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled dishonors her head — it is the same as if her head were shaven.
“So then, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye were taught, whether by word, or by Epistle of ours.”Hence it is manifest, that they did not deliver all things by Epistle, but many things also unwritten, and in like manner both the one and the other are worthy of credit. Therefore let us think the tradition of the Church also worthy of credit. It is a tradition, seek no farther. (On Second Thessalonians, Homily IV)
*
This same is the holy Church, the one Church, the true Church, the catholic Church, fighting against all heresies: fight, it can: be fought down, it cannot. (Cat.Creed, 14)
For in the belly of the Church truth abides. Whosoever from this belly of the Church separated shall have been, must needs speak false things: . . . (E.Ps., 58:3 [58, 5] )
[S]ound doctrine, which alone is Catholic, . . . (C.Faust. xx, 23)
[T]hey introduced into their writings certain matters which are condemned at once by the catholic and apostolic rule of faith, and by sound doctrine. (Harm.G. i, 1, 2)
But if, on the other hand, he has fallen upon the productions of some heretic and in ignorance, it may be, has retained in his mind anything which the true faith condemns, and yet supposes it to be catholic doctrine, then we must set ourselves sedulously to teach him, bringing before him (in its rightful superiority) the authority of the Church universal, . . . (Cat.U., 8, 12)
But the right faith of the Catholic Church rejects such a fiction, and perceives it to be a devilish doctrine: . . . Let us therefore reject this kind of error, which the Holy Church has anathematized from the beginning. (L.John, 34, 2)
It is plain, the faith admits it, the Catholic Church approves it, it is truth. (Serm., 67, 6 [CXVII] )
[W]ith all earnestness, and with all prayers, and lastly with groans, or even, if so it may be, with tears, you entreat of God to set you free from the evil of error; if your heart be set on a happy life. And this will take place the more easily, if you obey with a willing mind His commands, which He has willed should be confirmed by so great authority of the Catholic Church. (Believ., 33)
But those reasons which I have here given, I have either gathered from the authority of the church, according to the tradition of our forefathers, or from the testimony of the divine Scriptures, . . . No sober person will decide against reason, no Christian against the Scriptures, no peaceable person against the church. (Trin. iv, 6, 10)
The latter class, indeed, by examining the Scriptures, and considering the authority of the whole Church as well as the form of the sacrament itself, have clearly seen that by baptism remission of sins accrues to infants . . . (Sin.I.Bapt. i, 64)
But this I say, that according to the Holy Scriptures original sin is so manifest, and that this is put away in infants by the laver of regeneration is confirmed by such antiquity and authority of the catholic faith, notorious by such a clear concurrent testimony of the Church, that what is argued by the inquiry or affirmation of anybody concerning the origin of the soul, if it is contrary to this, cannot be true. (C.Ep.Pel. iii, 26 [X] )
As to those other things which we hold on the authority, not of Scripture, but of tradition, and which are observed throughout the whole world, it may be understood that they are held as approved and instituted either by the apostles themselves, or by plenary Councils, whose authority in the Church is most useful, e.g. the annual commemoration, by special solemnities, of the Lord’s passion, resurrection, and ascension, and of the descent of the Holy Spirit from heaven, and whatever else is in like manner observed by the whole Church wherever it has been established. (Ep. 54 [1, 1]: to Januarius [400] )
[H]e cannot quote a decisive passage on the subject from the Book of God; nor can he prove his opinion to be right by the unanimous voice of the universal Church . . . (Ep. 54 [4, 5]: to Januarius [400] )
[T]he question which you propose is not decided either by Scripture or by universal practice. (Ep. 54 [5, 6]: to Januarius [400] )
. . . moved, not indeed by the authority of any plenary or even regionary Council, but by a mere epistolary correspondence, to think that they ought to adopt a custom which had no sanction from the ancient custom of the Church, and which was expressly forbidden by the most unanimous resolution of the Catholic world . . . (Bapt., iii, 2, 2)
And this is the firm tradition of the universal Church, in respect of the baptism of infants . . . (Bapt., iv, 23, 31)
[W]hat is held by the whole Church, . . . as a matter of invariable custom, is rightly held to have been handed down by authority, . . . (Bapt., iv, 24, 32)
Whence, however, was this derived, but from that primitive, as I suppose, and apostolic tradition, by which the Churches of Christ maintain it to be an inherent principle, that without baptism and partaking of the supper of the Lord it is impossible for any man to attain either to the kingdom of God or to salvation and everlasting life? So much also does Scripture testify, according to the words which we already quoted. (Sin.I.Bapt. i, 34 [XXIV] )
The very sacraments indeed of the Church, which she administers with due ceremony, according to the authority of very ancient tradition . . . (Grace.Orig. ii, 45)
And this custom, coming, I suppose, from tradition (like many other things which are held to have been handed down under their actual sanction, because they are preserved throughout the whole Church, though they are not found either in their letters, or in the Councils of their successors), . . . (Bapt., ii, 7, 12)
For if none have baptism who entertain false views about God, it has been proved sufficiently, in my opinion, that this may happen even within the Church. “The apostles,” indeed, “gave no injunctions on the point;” but the custom, which is opposed to Cyprian, may be supposed to have had its origin in apostolic tradition, just as there are many things which are observed by the whole Church, and therefore are fairly held to have been enjoined by the apostles, which yet are not mentioned in their writings. (Bapt., v, 23, 31)
*
[S]ubsequently that ancient custom was confirmed by the authority of a plenary Council . . . (Bapt., iv, 5, 8)
. . . sufficiently manifest to the pastors of the Catholic Church dispersed over the whole world, through whom the original custom was afterwards confirmed by the authority of a plenary Council . . . (Bapt., vi, 1, 1)
My opinion therefore is, that wherever it is possible, all those things should be abolished without hesitation, which neither have warrant in Holy Scripture, nor are found to have been appointed by councils of bishops, nor are confirmed by the practice of the universal Church, . . . (Ep. 55 [19, 35]: to Januarius [400] )
And let any one, who is led by the past custom of the Church, and by the subsequent authority of a plenary Council, and by so many powerful proofs from holy Scripture, and by much evidence from Cyprian himself, and by the clear reasoning of truth, to understand that the baptism of Christ, consecrated in the words of the gospel, cannot be perverted by the error of any man on earth . . . (Bapt., v, 4, 4)
The Papacy / Primacy of Peter and the Roman See
For if the lineal succession of bishops is to be taken into account, with how much more certainty and benefit to the Church do we reckon back till we reach Peter himself, to whom, as bearing in a figure the whole Church, the Lord said: “Upon this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it!” [Matthew 16:18] The successor of Peter was Linus, and his successors in unbroken continuity were these:— Clement, Anacletus, Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, Telesphorus, Iginus, Anicetus, Pius, Soter, Eleutherius, Victor, Zephirinus, Calixtus, Urbanus, Pontianus, Antherus, Fabianus, Cornelius, Lucius, Stephanus, Xystus, Dionysius, Felix, Eutychianus, Gaius, Marcellinus, Marcellus, Eusebius, Miltiades, Sylvester, Marcus, Julius, Liberius, Damasus, and Siricius, whose successor is the present Bishop Anastasius. In this order of succession no Donatist bishop is found. (Ep. 53 [1, 2]: from Augustine, Fortunatus, and Alypius to Generosus [400] )
Peter is the Church Herself. (E.Ps., 94:18 [94, 17] )
But that after this sin Peter should become a pastor of the Church was no more improper than that Moses, after smiting the Egyptian, should become the leader of the congregation. (C.Faust. xxii, 70)
I suppose that there is no slight to Cyprian in comparing him with Peter in respect to his crown of martyrdom; rather I ought to be afraid lest I am showing disrespect towards Peter. For who can be ignorant that the primacy of his apostleship is to be preferred to any episcopate whatever? (Bapt., ii, 1, 2)
. . . the Roman Church, in which the supremacy of an apostolic chair [apostolicae cathedrae principatus] has always flourished . . . (Ep. 43 [3, 7]: to Glorius, Eleusius, the Two Felixes, and Grammaticus [397] )
For already have two councils on this question been sent to the Apostolic see; and rescripts also have come from thence. The question has been brought to an issue; would that their error may sometime be brought to an issue too! (Serm., 81, 10 [CXXXI] )
I desire with the Lord’s help to use the necessary measures in our Council, and, if it be necessary, to write to the Apostolic See; that, by a unanimous authoritative decision of all, we may have the course which ought to be followed in these cases determined and established. (Ep. 250: to Classicianus [unknown date] )
[T]hey admit the necessity of baptizing infants—finding themselves unable to contravene that authority of the universal Church, which has been unquestionably handed down by the Lord and His apostles . . . (Sin.I.Bapt. i, 39 [XXVI] )
We, namely, the catholic faith, coming from the doctrine of the apostles planted in us, received by a line of succession, to be transmitted sound to posterity—the catholic faith, I say, has, between both those parties, that is, between both errors, held the truth. (L.John, 37, 6)
Now who is there that would not be afraid, from the voice of God through the Apostles, the voice of God through the Scriptures, through His clouds? (E.Ps., 104:7 [104, 7] )
The authority of our books, which is confirmed by the agreement of so many nations, supported by a succession of apostles, bishops, and councils, is against you. (C.Faust. xiii, 5)
[I]f you acknowledge the supreme authority of Scripture, you should recognise that authority which from the time of Christ Himself, through the ministry of His apostles, and through a regular succession of bishops in the seats of the apostles, has been preserved to our own day throughout the whole world, with a reputation known to all. There the Old Testament too has its difficulties solved, and its predictions fulfilled. (C.Faust. xxxiii, 9)
[T]his which we hold is the true and truly Christian and catholic faith, as it was delivered of old by the Holy Scriptures, and so retained and kept by our fathers and even to this time, in which these heretics have attempted to destroy it, and as it will hereafter by God’s good will be retained and kept. (C.Ep.Pel. iv, 32 [XII] )
Abbreviations and Links and Dates
400 / 401 Bapt. On Baptism, Against the Donatists (De baptismo) [tr. J. R. King; rev. Chester D. Hartranft; NPNF 1-4]
391 Believ. On the Usefulness of Believing (De utilitate credendi) [tr. C. L. Cornish; NPNF 1-3]
420 C.Ep.Pel. Against Two Letters of the Pelagians (Contra duas epistulas Pelagianorum) [tr. Peter Holmes and Robert E. Wallis, rev. Benjamin B. Warfield; NPNF 1-5]
397-398 C.Faust. Against Faustus the Manichee (Contra Faustum Manichaeum) [tr. Richard Stothert; NPNF 1-4]
393 Cat.Creed Sermon to Catechumens on the Creed [tr. by H. Browne; NPNF 1-3]
400 Cat.U. On Catechizing the Uninstructed (De catechizandis rudibus) [tr. S. D. F. Salmond; NPNF 1-3]
396-420 E.Ps. Explanations of the Psalms (Enarrationes in Psalmos) [tr. J. E. Tweed; NPNF 1-8]
386-429 Ep. [#] Letters (Epistulae) [tr. J. G. Cunningham; NPNF 1-1]
418 Grace.Orig. On the Grace of Christ and on Original Sin (De gratia Christi et de peccato originali) [tr. Peter Holmes and Robert E. Wallis, rev. Benjamin B. Warfield; NPNF 1-5]
400 Harm.G. Harmony of the Gospels(De consensu evangelistarum) [tr. S. D. F. Salmond; NPNF 1-6]
406-430 L.John Lectures on the Gospel of John(In euangelium Ioannis tractatus) [tr. John Gibb; NPNF 1-7]
393-430 Serm. Sermonson the New Testament (Sermones) [tr. R. G. MacMullen; NPNF 1-6]
412 Sin.I.Bapt. On Merit and the Forgiveness of Sins and on Infant Baptism (De peccatorum meritis et remissione et de baptismo parvulorum) [tr. Peter Holmes and Robert E. Wallis, rev. Benjamin B. Warfield; NPNF 1-5]
399-419 Trin. On the Trinity (De trinitate) [tr. Arthur West Haddan; NPNF 1-3]
***
Gavin replied to a portion of my argument in his combox:
Dave, thanks for engaging my videos, and for the kind words. I’m reading this post now and I’ll just give a response to your interaction with the first quote.
The contrast here between Scripture and subsequent councils is not, as you say, that the former is merely inspired revelation, but that it alone is infallible. That is explicit in what he says: “that about it we can hold no manner of doubt or disputation whether what is confessedly contained in it is right and true.” He is not talking about biblical inspiration. He is talking about how you can know the bible is true, unlike everything subsequent, which can err. The Scripture is confined in its own limits in this specific sense, per Augustine’s words; not because it alone is inspired, but because it alone must be true.
That is why it is so significant that he includes the “plenary Councils which are formed for the whole Christian world” as those that can err, such that “the earlier are often corrected by those which follow them.” Every time the verb “corrected” appears in the context, it has to do with doctrinal error (e.g., in the next sentence dealing with Cyprian’s error). This is not doctrinal development; this is error needing a correction. Augustine is evidently thinking of the official declaration of the council (hence needing to be corrected by a subsequent, separate council), and Catholic teaching does hold that that is infallible, per Vatican 1. Trying to apply Augustine’s statement to something short of that happening at a council vitiates the whole point of his sentence and would then undermine his originating point at the climactic point (because then the Scripture would no longer be confined within its own limits such that about it alone do we know it’s true).
In terms of Augustine’s views on apostolic succession, tradition, etc. (regarding the quotes you provide at the end), I got into this in my response videos somewhat. The basic point would be these things are not inconsistent with sola Scriptura. E.g., believing in an authoritative council doesn’t mean believing in infallible councils. Or believing in apostolic succession is manifestly not at odds with sola Scriptura. And so forth. They don’t tell you whether the bible alone is infallible. My response to Lofton and Little especially stresses this point.
Anyway, let me know if you watch the later videos (if you have time) and have any further thoughts. Take care and thanks again!
Thanks for your reply (again very quick!).
You make your point vigorously, but I still don’t see it. It remains true that 1) only Scripture is completely error-free, and that 2) nothing else rises to that level. We all agree on that. One can quibble about whether he is referring to inspiration or infallibility, but I don’t think that changes my argument. Catholics don’t think that tradition or councils or papal encyclicals are always infallible everywhere. You seem to be assuming otherwise. If universal infallibility were what we believed about those other things, I’d agree with you, but since we don’t . . .
He’s certainly talking about doctrinal development in the final sentence. That’s what I was referring to. We know that he wrote about development elsewhere; e.g., City of God , Book XVI, ch. 2:
For while the hot restlessness of heretics stirs questions about many articles of the catholic faith, the necessity of defending them forces us both to investigate them more accurately, to understand them more clearly, and to proclaim them more earnestly; and the question mooted by an adversary becomes the occasion of instruction . . .
Likewise, Commentary on Psalm 55 (section 21; I rephrased some things and changed sentence order for syntactical improvement, due to the very awkward, almost unreadable literal translation):
[B]y heretics the Catholic Church has been vindicated, . . . For many things lay hidden in the Scriptures: and when heretics, who had been cut off, troubled the Church of God with questions, then those things which lay hidden were opened, and the will of God was understood . . . Many men that could understand and expound the Scriptures very excellently, were hidden among the people of God, and they did not declare the solution of difficult questions, until a reviler again urged them. For was the doctrine of the Trinity perfectly expounded upon before the Arians snarled at it? Was repentance perfectly treated before the opposition of the Novatians? Likewise, Baptism was not perfectly understood, before rebaptizers from the outside contradicted; nor even the very oneness of Christ . . .
Philip Schaff wrote, accordingly, about Augustine’s views:
Augustine . . . manifestly acknowledges a gradual advancement of the church doctrine, which reaches its corresponding expression from time to time through the general councils; but a progress within the truth, without positive error. (History of the Christian Church, vol. 3: Nicene and Post-Nicene Christianity, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1974 [orig. 1910], 344)
Schaff wrote elsewhere:
Within the limits of the Jewish theocracy and Catholic Christianity Augustin admits the idea of historical development or a gradual progress from a lower to higher grades of knowledge, yet always in harmony with Catholic truth. He would not allow revolutions and radical changes or different types of Christianity. “The best thinking” (says Dr. Flint, in his Philosophy of History in Europe, I. 40), “at once the most judicious and liberal, among those who are called the Christian fathers, on the subject of the progress of Christianity as an organization and system, is that of St. Augustin, as elaborated and applied by Vincent of Lerins in his ‘Commonitorium,’ where we find substantially the same conception of the development of the Church and Christian doctrine, which, within the present century, De Maistre has made celebrated in France, Mohler in Germany, and Newman in England. (Editor’s Preface to City of God, 38-volume set of the Church Fathers, December 10, 1886)
I suppose one could interpret all the quotes I compiled in that way, but I don’t find it plausible. And I don’t because it is evident (to me, anyway) that Augustine doesn’t think like a Protestant. He doesn’t “answer” the way a Protestant would. Thus, time and again, when he says an error must be corrected, he doesn’t appeal to Scripture alone, as I think you or most Protestants would, but he includes the church, universal tradition, councils, and apostolic succession. The habitual conclusion of those things proves to my satisfaction that he is indeed thinking in terms of the Catholic “three-legged stool” rule of faith. He doesn’t appear to be assuming that Scripture is the only “final court of appeal” as you put it.
If he is wrong concerning the rule of faith, it causes no harm to Catholicism. He could have been wrong, just as he was on some aspects of predestination, according to our dogma on that. But I don’t think he is wrong. I think it’s just as “clear” that he was thoroughly Catholic in this regard, as you think it couldn’t be clearer in your quotes that he thought more like a proto-Protestant.
My view of Augustine and the rule of faith is not just my own. Several reputable Protestant historians and scholars agree (and I am happy to defer to them as experts; I’m just a lay apologist): Historian Heiko Oberman notes concerning St. Augustine:
Augustine’s legacy to the middle ages on the question of Scripture and Tradition is a two-fold one. In the first place, he reflects the early Church principle of the coinherence of Scripture and Tradition. While repeatedly asserting the ultimate authority of Scripture, Augustine does not oppose this at all to the authority of the Church Catholic . . . The Church has a practical priority: her authority as expressed in the direction-giving meaning of commovere is an instrumental authority, the door that leads to the fullness of the Word itself.
But there is another aspect of Augustine’s thought . . . we find mention of an authoritative extrascriptural oral tradition. While on the one hand the Church “moves” the faithful to discover the authority of Scripture, Scripture on the other hand refers the faithful back to the authority of the Church with regard to a series of issues with which the Apostles did not deal in writing. Augustine refers here to the baptism of heretics . . . (The Harvest of Medieval Theology, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, revised, 1967, 370-371)
J. N. D. Kelly, the great Anglican patristic scholar, wrote:
The three letters [Epistles 175-177] relating to Pelagianism which the African church sent to Innocent I in 416, and of which Augustine was the draughtsman, suggested that he attributed to the Pope a pastoral and teaching authority extending over the whole Church, and found a basis for it in Scripture. (Early Christian Doctrines, San Francisco: Harper & Row, fifth revised edition, 1978, 419)
According to Augustine [De doct. christ. 3,2], its [Scripture’s] doubtful or ambiguous passages need to be cleared up by ‘the rule of faith’; it was, moreover, the authority of the Church alone which in his eyes [C. ep. Manich. 6: cf. De doct. christ. 2,12; c. Faust Manich, 22, 79] guaranteed its veracity.” (Ibid., 47)
Philip Schaff again:
[I]n a certain sense, as against heretics, he made the authority of Holy Scripture dependent on the authority of the catholic church, in his famous dictum against the Manichaean heretics: “I would not believe the gospel, did not the authority of the catholic church compel me.” . . . The Protestant church makes the authority of the general councils, and of all ecclesiastical tradition, depend on the degree of its conformity to the Holy Scriptures; while the Greek and Roman churches make Scripture and tradition coordinate. (History of the Christian Church, vol. 3: Chapter V, section 66, “The Synodical System. The Ecumenical Councils,” 344-345)
He adopted Cyprian’s doctrine of the church, and completed it in the conflict with Donatism by transferring the predicates of unity, holiness, universality, exclusiveness and maternity, directly to the actual church of the time, which, with a firm episcopal organization, an unbroken succession, and the Apostles’ Creed, triumphantly withstood the eighty or the hundred opposing sects in the heretical catalogue of the day, and had its visible centre in Rome. (Schaff, ibid., Chapter X, section 180, “The Influence of Augustine upon Posterity and his Relation to Catholicism and Protestantism,” 1019-1020)
Lutheran Church historian Jaroslav Pelikan concurs with this general assessment of St. Augustine’s views:
This authority of orthodox catholic Christendom . . . was so powerful as even to validate the very authority of the Bible . . . But between the authority of the Bible and the authority of the catholic church (which was present within, but was more than, the authority of its several bishops past and present) there could not in a real sense be any contradiction. Here one could find repose in “the resting place of authority,” [Bapt. 2.8.13] not in the unknown quantity of the company of the elect, but in the institution of salvation that could claim foundation by Christ and succession from the apostles. (The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine: Vol.1 of 5: The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600), Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1971, 303-304)
Augustine, writing against the Donatists, had coined the formula, ‘the judgment of the whole world is reliable [securus judicat orbis terrarum].’ [Parm. 3.4.24] Catholicity was a mark both of the true church and of the true doctrine, for these were inseparable.” (Ibid., 334)
So what can I say? If I look over relevant Augustine texts, and — taken cumulatively –, they seem to point to what I recognize as the Catholic rule of faith, and not only that, I find that these great Protestant scholars (Schaff, Kelly, Oberman, and Pelikan) — who can’t be accused of a natural Catholic bias, as I could be — agree with me in their interpretation of all the data, that seems to me compelling. Their job is to summarize what Church fathers held regarding any given doctrine, and this is their judgment. It fits with what I see, and I accept it on their authority and based on a congruence with my own amateur observations and speculations.
One more thing. You wrote: “believing in apostolic succession is manifestly not at odds with sola Scriptura. And so forth. They don’t tell you whether the Bible alone is infallible.” I would say it’s so at odds with sola Scriptura that the Calvinists and most of the Lutherans and certainly the Zwinglians and more radical Anabaptists, etc. all rejected it. I don’t see Protestants today appealing to that, except for perhaps some Anglo-Catholics. It’s simply not on their radar screen. You don’t appeal to it. You act consistently with sola Scriptura: the Bible is always the final norm and appeal.
Augustine and the fathers, generally, on the other hand, don’t approach the issue that way at all. For them, the appeal to apostolic succession and the (somewhat exaggerated language of) the Vincentian canon, “what was always believed everywhere by all . . .” was conclusive in and of itself and especially a “slam dunk” against heretics with no early history at all. It was very useful because the heretics could always come up with heretical interpretations of Scripture, but they couldn’t make up a history that didn’t happen. So for the fathers, appeal to unbroken apostolic succession was usually central to their defenses of orthodoxy.
Thanks for reading all this and interacting! I plan on taking a look at your other two videos tomorrow.
Thanks for the comment Dave! A few replies:
Whether Augustine is talking about inspiration or infallibility is not a quibble. If the scripture were confined to its own limits merely in the sense that it alone is inspired, then your argument would work and that would not be at odds with the Catholic position. But he is saying that the scripture is confined to its own limits in the sense that it alone is infallible. This is the explicit claim of the passage: he locates his contrast between the scripture and subsequent councils on the grounds that former is infallible and the latter are fallible. That is, The Bible must always be true, but in contrast even the plenary councils can err. The passage says nothing about inspiration.
I am not assuming that traditions and councils and papal encyclicals always are infallible, but rather, per Vatican 1, that the official and formal deliverances of ecumenical councils are considered infallible by the Roman Catholic Church. I’ve not had this point contested before by other Catholics. Vatican II has the same understanding. Later magisterial teaching can clarify but not contradict earlier magisterial teaching.
The fact that Augustine believes in some conception of doctrinal development does not mean that the verb “corrected” does not have reference to an error here. In the context, I think it’s obvious that it does. But it sounds like we’ll just have to disagree on that, and that is OK!
I fail to see the relevance of the quotes from Oberman and Schaff and others. They’re basically saying things that are consistent with sola Scruptura, such as the fact that the authority of the church and the authority of Scripture are not at odds with one another. There is no problem for that with sola Scriptura. A real contradiction with sola Scriptura would be if Augustine maintained that the church possessed infallibility in some sense. You were very clear and charitable to define sola Scriptura accurately early on in the post so I don’t really understand this aspect of your response. It sounds like you’re reverting to the claim that sola Scriptura is somehow at odds with authoritative councils. It is not. It is only at odds with infallible councils.
I’ll leave it there for now as I’m at the park watching the kids! Forgive if my comments seem blunt or forceful, I am typing this out by my voice automation so there may be typos as well. Thanks again for the engagement.
Thanks for this reply. At this point, I truly don’t know what else to add or say. We seem to be at a total impasse. Of course, as you know, that’s often what happens, in these discussions of deeply-held beliefs, but we have done it without acrimony and perhaps we have both learned something in the conversation, so that makes it worthwhile. One thing I’ve I’ve learned — though we disagree on this — is that you are a very good debater, and I always respect that because it challenges me (a person who loves debates and challenges both). It’s my honor and privilege to interact with you.
You said somewhere that you hope that at least Catholic viewers can see how someone might take a different view on these matters. I do see that. As I’ve always said, everything goes back to premises, and at some point, people disagree on some premise that they follow. These determine what is built upon them. I think that’s largely what we have in Protestant-Catholic disputes (when examined closely).
The premises split at some point (usually the 1500s) and that in turn caused the two parties to think differently about a lot of things. They may be internally consistent and perfectly honest but arrive at different conclusions because of these different premises. And both sides sincerely, honestly “see” the same things differently: whether in Scripture or patristic quotations. I think our present dialogue shows that quite clearly.
Your other two videos will offer fresh material for me to critique, but this particular discussion seems exhausted. Let readers judge . . .
Thanks Dave. Yes, I have observed that it is very common for discussions to reach an impasse, and I agree with you that having different starting points often is a factor for that. When that happens at any rate it is always pleasant and good to be able to recognize it and remain charitable in the process, so I truly appreciate your observations and remarks, which I will continue to think on as well! Take care.
See the follow-up discussion: Augustine & Sola Scriptura, Pt. 2 (vs. Gavin Ortlund) [4-29-22]
***
Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,000+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.
Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.
PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!
***
Summary: Baptist Gavin Ortlund provides three proofs about Augustine & sola Scriptura. I offer counter-replies & additional counter-evidence from many Augustine citations.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In