Robert Gagnon: Fathers Accepted Sola Scriptura (?)

Robert Gagnon: Fathers Accepted Sola Scriptura (?) September 16, 2024

St. Thomas Aquinas Didn’t Believe in it, Either. Nice Try . . . 

Photo credit: romana klee (11-19-10). Books by Tertullian [Flickr / CC BY-SA 2.0 license]

Dr. Robert A. J. Gagnon (see his Facebook page; public posts) is a Visiting Scholar in Biblical Studies at Wesley Biblical Seminary; formerly Professor of Biblical Studies at Houston Christian University and Associate Professor of New Testament at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary. He obtained a Master of Theological Studies (MTS): Biblical Studies degree from Harvard Divinity School and a (Ph.D.) in New Testament Studies, magna cum laude, from Princeton Theological Seminary. Dr. Gagnon grew up Catholic, and he wrote on 8-17-24:

I didn’t find Christ in Catholicism . . . I lost the forest (the big picture of Christ) for a lot of unnecessary trees that were not scripturally grounded. Part of this . . . was due to some non-scriptural and even (in some cases) anti-scriptural doctrines that undermine the role and significance of Christ. I would love to come back to a purified Catholicism more in keeping with a biblical witness. The excessive adulation of Mary, which at times seems to me to come close to elevating her to the godhead (like a replacement consort for Yahweh in lieu of Asherah), is one such obstacle.

After I had made five in-depth responses to him, Dr. Gagnon replied (just for the record) in a thread on another Facebook page, on 9-17-24, underneath my links to all five: “like your other one, it is an amateurish piece.” This is his silly and arrogant way of dismissing my critiques in one fell swoop. I had informed him that I had over twenty “officially published books” [22, to be exact] and yet he replied that he didn’t know “whether” they were “self-published or with a vanity press or a reputable press.”

His words will be in blue. I use RSV for biblical citations.

*****

I’m responding to Dr. Gagnon’s public Facebook article (9-10-24) with the first line that reads, “The very creation of Scripture and the recognition of the supreme authority of Christ and the apostles establishes prima scriptura.”

Technically, he is not here supporting sola Scriptura per se, but rather, the closely related notion of the preeminence of Scripture. Catholics hold to a “three-legged stool” rule of faith of Bible-Tradition-Church: all in complete harmony with each other. But the citations he provides strongly imply a denial of apostolic succession (which is standard Protestant belief, because it contradicts sola Scriptura, as a sub-species of apostolic tradition). I wrote along these lines on 12-21-21:

We must . . . look to see if Church father X thinks Scripture is formally sufficient for authority (not just materially sufficient, which we agree with) . . . we must examine what he believes about the (binding?, infallible?) authority of tradition, Church (including ecumenical councils), and apostolic succession, because the very question at hand (what is the rule of faith?) has to do with the relation of all those things (all but Scripture being non-infallible, according to sola Scriptura).

For that reason, their beliefs concerning all these other elements have to be examined, in order to understand properly how they views their relationship vis-a-vis each other, and whether or not they adhere to sola Scriptura. as the rule of faith. If they hold to the infallible authority of anything besides Scripture, they do not believe in sola Scriptura.

Dr. Gagnon provided patristic citations that he think support his position. We retort that they do not, since they have to be interpreted within the larger context of other relevant statements by the same Church father. Those other statements that I will produce do not harmonize with Dr. Gagnon’s and Protestants’ rule of faith (sola Scriptura), whereas the statements he produces easily harmonize with the Catholic rule of faith. And that is the asymmetric nature of this particular debate.

Ignatius of Antioch [50-c. 110] [my bolding and italics and dates, as throughout]
*
“I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments unto you. They were apostles.” (Epistle to the Romans 4)
*
St. Ignatius also wrote, in support of apostolic succession:

. . . that I may be found in the lot of the Christians of Ephesus, who have always been of the same mind with the apostles through the power of Jesus Christ. (Epistle to the Ephesians, ch. 11)

Your presbyters [preside] in the place of the assembly of the apostles . . . (Epistle to the Magnesians, ch. 6)

Study, therefore, to be established in the doctrines of the Lord and the apostles, . . . (Epistle to the Magnesians, ch. 13)

You . . . should also be subject to the presbytery, as to the apostle of Jesus Christ, . . . (Epistle to the Trallians, ch. 2)

Let all reverence . . . the presbyters as the . . . assembly of the apostles. (Epistle to the Trallians, ch. 3)

This will be the case with you if you are not puffed up, and continue in intimate union with . . . the enactments of the apostles. (Epistle to the Trallians, ch. 7)

See that you all follow . . . the presbytery as you would the apostles; . . . (Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, ch. 8)

Dr. Gagnon provides one citation from one book; I provide seven from four books. This is how it usually goes in Catholic-Protestant “patristic battles.”

Irenaeus [130-202] (Against Heresies)
*
“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 … handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed ‘perfect knowledge,’ as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles.” (3.1.1)
*
Irenaeus criticized those who “accuse these Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and assert that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition.” (3.2.1)
*
“It behooves us to … adhere to those who, as I have already observed, do hold the doctrine of the apostles.” (4.26.4)
*
“True knowledge is that which consists in the doctrine of the apostles…. It consists in reading the word of God without falsification, and a lawful and diligent exposition in harmony with the Scripture.” (4.33.8)
*

St. Irenaeus, of course, was a very prominent adherent of apostolic succession and the authority of Church and tradition alongside Holy Scripture. Prominent Protestant church historian Philip Schaff describes his views (and also, Tertullian’s):

Besides appealing to the Scriptures, the fathers, particularly Irenaeus and Tertullian, refer with equal confidence to the “rule of faith;” that is, the common faith of the church, as orally handed down in the unbroken succession of bishops from Christ and his apostles to their day, and above all as still living in the original apostolic churches, like those of Jerusalem, Antioch, Ephesus, and Rome. Tradition is thus intimately connected with the primitive episcopate. The latter was the vehicle of the former, and both were looked upon as bulwarks against heresy.

Irenaeus confronts the secret tradition of the Gnostics with the open and unadulterated tradition of the catholic church, and points to all churches, but particularly to Rome, as the visible centre of the unity of doctrine. All who would know the truth, says he, can see in the whole church the tradition of the apostles; and we can count the bishops ordained by the apostles, and their successors down to our time, who neither taught nor knew any such heresies. Then, by way of example, he cites the first twelve bishops of the Roman church from Linus to Eleutherus, as witnesses of the pure apostolic doctrine. He might conceive of a Christianity without scripture, but he could not imagine a Christianity without living tradition; and for this opinion he refers to barbarian tribes, who have the gospel, “sine charta et atramento,” written in their hearts. (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol. II: Ante-Nicene Christianity: A.D. 100-325, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1970; reproduction of 5th revised edition of 1910, Chapter XII, section 139, “Catholic Tradition,” 525-526)

Likewise, Anglican patristics scholar J. N. D. Kelly observed:

His most characteristic thought, however, is that the Church is the sole repository of the truth, and is such because it has a monopoly of the apostolic writings, the apostolic oral tradition and the apostolic faith. Because of its proclamation of this one faith inherited from the apostles, the Church, scattered as it is throughout the entire world, can claim to be one [haer. 1,10,2]. Hence his emphasis [E.g., ib. 1,9,4; 1,10,1 f; 1,22,1] on ‘the canon of the truth’, i.e. the framework of doctrine which is handed down in the Church and which, in contrast to the variegated teachings of the Gnostics, is identical and self-consistent everywhere. In a previous chapter we noted his theory that the unbroken succession of bishops in the great sees going back to the apostles themselves provides a guarantee that this faith is identical with the message which they originally proclaimed. (Early Christian Doctrines, HarperSanFrancisco, revised 1978 edition, 192)
For much more along these lines, see:
*
*
***

“Please Hit ‘Subscribe’”! If you have received benefit from this or any of my other 4,800+ articles, please follow my blog by signing up (with your email address) on the sidebar to the right (you may have to scroll down a bit), above where there is an icon bar, “Sign Me Up!”: to receive notice when I post a new blog article. This is the equivalent of subscribing to a YouTube channel. My blog was rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT: endorsed by influential Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Please also consider following me on Twitter / X and purchasing one or more of my 55 books. All of this helps me get more exposure, and (however little!) more income for my full-time apologetics work. Thanks so much and happy reading!

***

Tertullian [c. 155-c. 220]
*
“It will be your duty … to adduce your proofs out of the Scriptures as plainly as we do, when we prove that He made His Word a Son to Himself…. All the Scriptures attest the clear existence of, and distinction in (the Persons of) the Trinity, and indeed furnish us with our Rule of faith.” (Against Praxeas 11)
*
J. N. D. Kelly summarizes Tertullian’s view on the rule of faith:

[F]or Tertullian what was believed and preached in the churches was absolutely authoritative . . . on occasion [he] described this original message as tradition, using the word to denote the teaching delivered by the apostles, without any implied contrast between tradition and Scripture . . . Tertullian can refer [de praescr. 21; c. Marc. I, 21;4 5] to the whole body of apostolic doctrine, whether delivered orally or in epistles, as apostolorum traditio or apostolica traditio . . .

Tertullian’s attitude does not differ from Irenaeus’s in any important respect . . . In its primary sense, however, the apostolic, evangelical or Catholic tradition [C. Marc. 4, 5; 5, 19; de monog. 2] stood for the faith delivered by the apostles, and he never contrasted tradition so understood with Scripture . . .

But Tertullian did not confine the apostolic tradition to the New Testament; even if Scripture were to be set on one side, it would still be found in the doctrine publicly proclaimed by the churches. Like Irenaeus, he found [E.g., de praescr. 21; 32; c. Marc. 4, 5] the surest test of the authenticity of this doctrine in the fact that the churches had been founded by, and were continuously linked with, the apostles; and as a further guarantee he added [De praescr. 28] their otherwise inexplicable unanimity . . .

This unwritten tradition he considered to be virtually identical with the ‘rule of faith’ (regula fidei), which he preferred to Scripture as a standard when disputing with Gnostics . . . where controversy with heretics breaks out, the right interpretation can be found only where the true Christian faith and discipline have been maintained, i.e., in the Church [De praescr. 19] . . .

He was also satisfied, and made the point even more forcibly than Irenaeus, that the indispensable key to Scripture belonged exclusively to the Church, which in the regula had preserved the apostles’ testimony in its original shape. . . . the one divine revelation was contained in its fulness both in the Bible and in the Church’s continuous public witness. (Early Christian Doctrines, HarperSanFrancisco, revised 1978 edition, 36, 39-41)

This information about Tertullian’s views does not support Gagnon’s take at all. For many Tertullian citations that back up the above summary, see:
*
Tertullian (c. 155-c. 220) vs. Sola Scriptura[12-23-21]
*

Hippolytus [d. c. 236]

There is, brethren, one God, the knowledge of whom we gain from the Holy Scriptures, and from no other source…. All of us who wish to practice piety will be unable to learn its practice from any quarter than the oracles of God. Whatever things then the Holy Scriptures declare, at these let us look; and whatsoever things they teach these let us learn.” (Against Heresies 9)
*

Hippolytus expressly accepts the notion of apostolic succession, which runs counter to sola Scriptura:

Thus, if these things are heard with grace and correct faith, they bestow edification on the Church and eternal life on the believers. I counsel that these things be observed by all with good understanding. For if all who hear the apostolic tradition follow and keep it, no heretic will be able to introduce error, nor will any other person at all. It is in this manner that the many heresies have grown, for those who were leaders did not wish to inform themselves of the opinion of the apostles, but did what they wanted according to their own pleasure, and not what was appropriate. If we have omitted anything, beloved ones, God will reveal it to those who are worthy, steering Holy Church to her mooring in the quiet haven. (The Apostolic Tradition, 1, – c. 215 – translation of Kevin P. Edgecomb, based on the work of Bernard Botte and Gregory Dix, 43)

He refers to an authoritative, binding apostolic Tradition and Church:

Those who are well informed may keep the tradition which has lasted until now, according to the explanation we give of it, and so that others by taking note of it may be strengthened (against the fall or error which has recently occurred because of ignorance and ignorant people), with the Holy Spirit conferring perfect grace on those who have a correct faith, and so that they will know that those who are at the head of the Church must teach and guard all these things. (Ibid.)

None will refute these, save the Holy Spirit bequeathed unto the Church, which the Apostles, having in the first instance received, have transmitted to those who have rightly believed. But we, as being their successors, and as participators in this grace, high-priesthood, and office of teaching, as well as being reputed guardians of the Church, must not be found deficient in vigilance, or disposed to suppress correct doctrine . . . (Refutation of All Heresies, Book I, Preface)

Photo credit: romana klee (11-19-10). Books by Tertullian [Flickr / CC BY-SA 2.0 license]

Summary: Contra Dr. Gagnon, Church fathers didn’t believe in sola Scriptura, & accepted the authority of the Church, sacred tradition, & apostolic succession, alongside the Bible.

"Yes:https://www.lulu.com/shop/d..."

Debate: Catholic Assurance of Salvation
"Is there a hard (paper) copy available of your book on Calvin? On Amazon.ca there ..."

Debate: Catholic Assurance of Salvation
"My understanding is that the word translated as "Woman" might be better represented in modern ..."

Jesus Disparaged Mary (“Woman”)? (vs. Robert ..."
"That's not what I meant (though I can see how one might think that). In ..."

Must the Gospel be Preached at ..."

Browse Our Archives