In light of this overwhelming evidence, we can safely say that St. Augustine rejected sola Scriptura. He clearly held to the Catholic “three-legged-stool” rule of faith (Bible-Tradition-Church). Again, is James White too lazy to do this research that I did? Or does he simply not care about presenting serious, verifiable research? He presented two or three (it was hard to tell), thinking it proved his assertion. I have provided twenty.

5:48 It’s interesting that when he wrote to Maximin the Arian, . . . he said, I must not press the authority of Nicaea against you, nor you that of Ariminum against me. I do not acknowledge the one as you do not the other, but let us come to ground that is common to both, the testimony of the holy scriptures. Notice here, even when faced with a council that Augustine would have considered to be authoritative, that Augustine would have considered to be accurate, that Augustine believed expressed the mind of the church. When talking with Maximin the Arian, he says, I can’t press the authority of that against you and you cannot press against me the authority of Ariminum, another church council that Augustine would have said did not in any way, shape or form express the mind of the church, that it did not in point of fact represent Christian orthodoxy, but you had dueling councils. You had councils that came to different conclusions. But the one thing that doesn’t come to different conclusions, Augustine says, is the testimony of the holy scriptures.

Of course he argued from Scripture with the Arian (just as I did forty years ago in my first major apologetics project, because they had that in common. I do exactly the same with Protestants, for the same reason. One starts with common ground that is agreed-upon in any constructive dialogue or debate. That doesn’t prove anything whatsoever about what one believes is authoritative outside Scripture. It’s simply a methodological choice, nothing more. White is smart enough to figure this out. Good grief!

7:53 He also says, neither dare one agree with Catholic bishops, if by chance they err in anything, with the result that their opinion is against the canonical scriptures of God. Catholic bishops may err, but the scriptures of God do not.

Individual bishops have no gift of infallibility at all, according to Catholicism. They only do in ecumenical council, and when the pope also agrees with their decisions. Decrees of individual bishops aren’t magisterial. So this is a non sequitur. It doesn’t prove at all that Augustine accepted sola Scriptura. He did not, as already proven above.

9:14 Another of the great early fathers was Basil of Caesarea, and he said the hearers taught in the scriptures ought to test what is said by teachers and accept that which agrees with the scriptures, but reject that which is foreign. Now notice what he says. The hearers taught in scriptures ought to test what is said by teachers. It sounds a little bit like private interpretation to me. That sounds like we have a responsibility to go to the ultimate rule of faith in scriptures to test what we are taught.

Of course they should do that. I won’t bother looking this up (no documentation given again) because it proves nothing whatsoever, anyway, as to sola Scriptura. I get so tired of explaining the obvious over and over again. White tries another one from Basil, where he says that Scripture should decide the issue between the two competing parties. But I don’t know who he was dialoguing with. If it was a non-Catholic heretic, then it would have been the same reasoning Augustine employed: find common ground and go from there. It proves nothing of Basil’s own view of the rule of faith. In fact, he believed in the infallibility, even the Bible-like inspiration, of the Council of Nicaea:

[Y]ou should confess the faith put forth by our Fathers once assembled at Nicæa, that you should not omit any one of its propositions, but bear in mind that the three hundred and eighteen who met together without strife did not speak without the operation of the Holy Ghost, . . .  (Letter No. 114 to Cyriacus, at Tarsus)

St. Basil also fully accepted the infallible authority of sacred apostolic tradition (even “unwritten tradition”: twice!) and apostolic succession: both of which the so-called “reformers” ditched in the 16th century when they adopted the novel tradition of men, sola Scriptura:

Let us now investigate what are our common conceptions concerning the Spirit, as well those which have been gathered by us from Holy Scripture concerning It as those which we have received from the unwritten tradition of the Fathers. (The Holy Spirit,  Ch. 9, 22)

The one aim of the whole band of opponents and enemies of sound doctrine [1 Timothy 1:10] is to shake down the foundation of the faith of Christ by levelling apostolic tradition with the ground, and utterly destroying it. So like the debtors — of course bona fide debtors — they clamour for written proof, and reject as worthless the unwritten tradition of the Fathers. But we will not slacken in our defense of the truth. (The Holy Spirit,  Ch. 10, 25)

Of the beliefs and practices whether generally accepted or publicly enjoined which are preserved in the Church some we possess derived from written teaching; others we have received delivered to us in a mystery by the tradition of the apostles; and both of these in relation to true religion have the same force. And these no one will gainsay — no one, at all events, who is even moderately versed in the institutions of the Church. . . . For were we to attempt to reject such customs as have no written authority, on the ground that the importance they possess is small, we should unintentionally injure the Gospel in its very vitals; or, rather, should make our public definition a mere phrase and nothing more. For instance, to take the first and most general example, who is thence who has taught us in writing to sign with the sign of the cross those who have trusted in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ? What writing has taught us to turn to the East at the prayer? Which of the saints has left us in writing the words of the invocation at the displaying of the bread of the Eucharist and the cup of blessing? For we are not, as is well known, content with what the apostle or the Gospel has recorded, but both in preface and conclusion we add other words as being of great importance to the validity of the ministry, and these we derive from unwritten teaching. Moreover we bless the water of baptism and the oil of the chrism, and besides this the catechumen who is being baptized. On what written authority do we do this? Is not our authority silent and mystical tradition? Nay, by what written word is the anointing of oil itself taught? And whence comes the custom of baptizing thrice? And as to the other customs of baptism from what Scripture do we derive the renunciation of Satan and his angels? Does not this come from that unpublished and secret teaching which our fathers guarded in a silence out of the reach of curious meddling and inquisitive investigation? Well had they learned the lesson that the awful dignity of the mysteries is best preserved by silence. What the uninitiated are not even allowed to look at was hardly likely to be publicly paraded about in written documents. . . . In the same manner the Apostles and Fathers who laid down laws for the Church from the beginning thus guarded the awful dignity of the mysteries in secrecy and silence, for what is bruited abroad random among the common folk is no mystery at all. This is the reason for our tradition of unwritten precepts and practices, that the knowledge of our dogmas may not become neglected and contemned by the multitude through familiarity. (The Holy Spirit,  Ch. 27, 66)

In answer to the objection that the doxology in the form with the Spirit has no written authority, we maintain that if there is no other instance of that which is unwritten, then this must not be received. But if the greater number of our mysteries are admitted into our constitution without written authority, then, in company with the many others, let us receive this one. For I hold it apostolic to abide also by the unwritten traditions. I praise you, it is said, that you remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances as I delivered them to you; [1 Corinthians 11:2] and Hold fast the traditions which you have been taught whether by word, or our Epistle. [2 Thessalonians 2:15] One of these traditions is the practice which is now before us, which they who ordained from the beginning, rooted firmly in the churches, delivering it to their successors, and its use through long custom advances pace by pace with time. (The Holy Spirit,  Ch. 29, 71)

[W]e too are undismayed at the cloud of our enemies, and, resting our hope on the aid of the Spirit, have, with all boldness, proclaimed the truth. Had I not so done, it would truly have been terrible that the blasphemers of the Spirit should so easily be emboldened in their attack upon true religion, and that we, with so mighty an ally and supporter at our side, should shrink from the service of that doctrine, which by the tradition of the Fathers has been preserved by an unbroken sequence of memory to our own day. (The Holy Spirit,  Ch. 30, 79)

In our case, too, in addition to the open attack of the heretics, the Churches are reduced to utter helplessness by the war raging among those who are supposed to be orthodox. For all these reasons we do indeed desire your help, that, for the future all who confess the apostolic faith may put an end to the schisms which they have unhappily devised, and be reduced for the future to the authority of the Church; that so, once more, the body of Christ may be complete, restored to integrity with all its members. Thus we shall not only praise the blessings of others, which is all we can do now, but see our own Churches once more restored to their pristine boast of orthodoxy. For, truly, the boon given you by the Lord is fit subject for the highest congratulation, your power of discernment between the spurious and the genuine and pure, and your preaching the faith of the Fathers without any dissimulation. That faith we have received; that faith we know is stamped with the marks of the Apostles; to that faith we assent, as well as to all that was canonically and lawfully promulgated in the Synodical Letter. (Letter No. 92 to the Italians and Gauls, 3)

St. Basil mentions “tradition” 21 times in The Holy Spirit: “the tradition of their fathers” (7, 16); “the tradition of the Fathers” (7, 16); “Can I then, perverted by these men’s seductive words, abandon the tradition which guided me to the light . . .?” (10, 26); “For the tradition that has been given us by the quickening grace must remain for ever inviolate” (12, 28); “by the tradition of the divine knowledge the baptized may have their souls enlightened” (15, 35); “the unwritten traditions are so many” (27, 67); etc.

So we see that the highest reverence of Scripture can exist alongside with reverence for an ecumenical council which always operated with “the operation of the Holy Ghost” and that the same father thought that “not holding their declaration of more authority than one’s own opinion, is conduct worthy of blame.” And it can co-exist with a belief in the sublime authority of apostolic tradition and apostolic succession. As it was for Basil, so it is for Catholics, now, and from the beginning.

13:48 One of my favorite of the early fathers was John Chrysostom. And he said the following, quote:

but when scripture wants to teach us something like that, it interprets itself and does not permit the hearer to err. I therefore beg and entreat that we close our ears to all these things and follow the canon of the holy scripture exactly.

One would have to see what “like that” and “all these things” referred to by consulting context (of which we have none, above). Again, White provided no source and I refuse to do his work for him. It’s not my job to document his own quotations that he didn’t see fit to document, like any 9th-grader writing an essay would do. Needless to say, this doesn’t prove sola Scriptura. St. John Chrysostom accepted the authority of sacred tradition (even unwritten, oral tradition):

“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. Here he shows that there were many who were shaken. (On Second Thessalonians, Homily IV)

For, “remember,” he says, “the words of the Lord which he spake: It is more blessed to give than to receive.” (v. 35.) And where said He this? Perhaps the Apostles delivered it by unwritten tradition; or else it is plain from (recorded sayings, from) which one could infer it. (Homily XLV on Acts 20:32)

Not by letters alone did Paul instruct his disciple in his duty, but before by words also which he shows, both in many other passages, as where he says, “whether by word or our Epistle” (2 Thess. ii. 15.), and especially here. Let us not therefore suppose that anything relating to doctrine was spoken imperfectly. For many things he delivered to him without writing. Of these therefore he reminds him, when he says, “Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me.” (Homily III on 2 Timothy– on 2 Tim 1:13-18)

Note two things in particular in the last  quotation: the corresponding relationship of 2 Thessalonians 2:15 (which the other citation was a comment upon) and the reference to “anything relating to doctrine.” This shows that he regarded 2 Thessalonians 2:15 (by direct reference: no speculation on our part) as dealing with doctrine and not just practice. And that is the key unlocking the question of what sort of tradition he was referring to in the other citation under examination. To me that settles the argument: St. John Chrysostom did not believe in sola Scriptura. Further contextual factors strengthen this conclusion. Right after this quotation, he wrote about the deposit of faith (or “apostles’ teaching”: Acts 2:42) — which is, of course, primarily doctrinal and theological — in relation to this passage:

After the manner of artists, I have impressed on you the image of virtue, fixing in your soul a sort of rule, and model, and outline of all things pleasing to God. These things then hold fast, and whether you are meditating any matter of faith or love, or of a sound mind, form from hence your ideas of them. It will not be necessary to have recourse to others for examples, when all has been deposited within yourself.

That good thing which was committed unto you keep,— how?— by the Holy Ghost which dwells in us. For it is not in the power of a human soul, when instructed with things so great, to be sufficient for the keeping of them. And why? Because there are many robbers, and thick darkness, and the devil still at hand to plot against us; and we know not what is the hour, what the occasion for him to set upon us. How then, he means, shall we be sufficient for the keeping of them? By the Holy Ghost; that is if we have the Spirit with us, if we do not expel grace, He will stand by us. For, Except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. Except the Lord keep the city, the watchman wakes but in vain. Psalm 127:1 This is our wall, this our castle, this our refuge. If therefore It dwells in us, and is Itself our guard, what need of the commandment? That we may hold It fast, may keep It, and not banish It by our evil deeds.

He comments in similar fashion on the related verse, 2 Thessalonians 2:15:

“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. Here he shows that there were many who were shaken. (On Second Thessalonians, Homily IV)

He even appeals to an apostolic unwritten tradition of intercessory prayers for the dead (mentioning also the Sacrifice of the Mass:

Mourn for those who have died in wealth, and did not from their wealth think of any solace for their soul, who had power to wash away their sins and would not. Let us all weep for these in private and in public, but with propriety, with gravity, not so as to make exhibitions of ourselves; . . . Let us weep for these; let us assist them according to our power; let us think of some assistance for them, small though it be, yet still let us assist them. How and in what way? By praying and entreating others to make prayers for them, by continually giving to the poor on their behalf.

. . . Not in vain did the Apostles order that remembrance should be made of the dead in the dreadful Mysteries. They know that great gain resulteth to them, great benefit; for when the whole people stands with uplifted hands, a priestly assembly, and that awful Sacrifice lies displayed, how shall we not prevail with God by our entreaties for them? And this we do for those who have departed in faith, . . .

[NPNF Editor’s note: “The reference doubtless is to the so-called ‘Apostolical Constitutions,’ which direct the observance of the Eucharist in commemoration of the departed”] (On Philippians, Homily 3)

Concerning the “sacred writers” he stated:

[I]t was no object with them to be writers of books: in fact, there are many things which they have delivered by unwritten tradition. (On Acts of the Apostles, Homily 1)

In regard to the divine and holy mysteries of the faith, not the least part may be handed on without the holy scriptures. Do not be led astray by winning words and clever arguments. Even to me who tell you these things, do not give ready belief unless you receive from the holy scriptures the proof of the things which I announce. The salvation which we believe is not proved from clever reasoning, but from the holy scriptures. [Catechetical Lectures, 4, 17]

Cyril talks about the inspired authority of Scripture, as he should, and as we do, but he places it within the authoritative interpretation of Holy Mother Church. Hence, he wrote:

But in learning the Faith and in professing it, acquire and keep that only, which is now delivered to thee by the Church, and which has been built up strongly out of all the Scriptures. For since all cannot read the Scriptures, some being hindered as to the knowledge of them by want of learning, and others by a want of leisure, in order that the soul may not perish from ignorance, we comprise the whole doctrine of the Faith in a few lines. . . . So for the present listen while I simply say the Creed, and commit it to memory; but at the proper season expect the confirmation out of Holy Scripture of each part of the contents. . . . Take heed then, brethren, and hold fast the traditions which ye now receive, and write them on the table of your heart. Guard them with reverence, lest per chance the enemy despoil any who have grown slack; or lest some heretic pervert any of the truths delivered to you. (Catechetical Lectures 5:12-13)

He refers to “the tradition of the Church’s interpreters” (Catechetical Lectures 15:13). When Cyril refers to “proof” and “demonstration” from the Scriptures in 4:17, it depends what he means. If he means by that, “all doctrines to be believed are harmonious with Scripture, and must not contradict it,” this is simply material sufficiency and exactly what Catholics believe. If he means, “all doctrines to be believed must be explicitly explained and taught by Scripture and not derived primarily or in a binding fashion from the Church or tradition” then he would be espousing sola Scriptura.

But it’s not at all established that this is what he meant. It is established, on the other hand, that he accepted the binding authority of Church, tradition, and apostolic succession (“that apostolic and evangelic faith, which our fathers ever preserved and handed down to us as a pearl of great price”: To Celestine, Epistle 9).

The notion that all doctrines must be explicit in Scripture in order to be believed (and only binding if so), is simply not taught in the Bible; i.e., sola Scriptura is not taught in the Bible. An authoritative, binding Church and tradition certainly are taught in Scripture, and those two things expressly contradict sola Scriptura. Conclusion: neither the Bible nor St. Cyril of Jerusalem teach sola Scriptura. He refers to the passing-on of apostolic tradition:

And now, brethren beloved, the word of instruction exhorts you all, to prepare your souls for the reception of the heavenly gifts. As regards the Holy and Apostolic Faith delivered to you to profess, we have spoken through the grace of the Lord as many Lectures, as was possible,. . . (Catechetical Lectures 18, 32)

Make thou your fold with the sheep: flee from the wolves: depart not from the Church. . . . The truth of the Unity of God has been delivered to you: learn to distinguish the pastures of doctrine. (Catechetical Lectures 6, 36)

He speaks in terms of the Catholic “three-legged stool” rule of faith: tradition, Church, and Scripture: all harmonious:

But in learning the Faith and in professing it, acquire and keep that only, which is now delivered to you by the Church, and which has been built up strongly out of all the Scriptures. For since all cannot read the Scriptures, some being hindered as to the knowledge of them by want of learning, and others by a want of leisure, in order that the soul may not perish from ignorance, we comprise the whole doctrine of the Faith in a few lines. This summary I wish you both to commit to memory when I recite it , and to rehearse it with all diligence among yourselves, not writing it out on paper , but engraving it by the memory upon your heart , taking care while you rehearse it that no Catechumen chance to overhear the things which have been delivered to you. . . . for the present listen while I simply say the Creed , and commit it to memory; but at the proper season expect the confirmation out of Holy Scripture of each part of the contents. For the articles of the Faith were not composed as seemed good to men; but the most important points collected out of all the Scripture make up one complete teaching of the Faith. And just as the mustard seed in one small grain contains many branches, so also this Faith has embraced in few words all the knowledge of godliness in the Old and New Testaments. Take heed then, brethren, and hold fast the traditions which you now receive, and write them on the table of your heart.

Guard them with reverence, lest per chance the enemy despoil any who have grown slack; or lest some heretic pervert any of the truths delivered to you. For faith is like putting money into the bank , even as we have now done; but from you God requires the accounts of the deposit. I charge you, as the Apostle says, before God, who quickens all things, and Christ Jesus, who before Pontius Pilate witnessed the good confession, that you keep this faith which is committed to you, without spot, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ. (Catechetical Lectures 5, 12-13)

At every turn, then, we see that St. Cyril is thoroughly Catholic, and does not teach sola Scriptura.

White then — remarkably — proves that he doesn’t understand logic, nor how to properly analyze patristic statements that are contrary to sola Scriptura, and prove that the one who wrote them didn’t believe in it:

17:27  the first response I automatically get is, “yeah, but those guys believe things that you don’t. Okay, they did. What does that have to do with the issue at hand? Well, nothing at all.

It certainly does if they believe in infallible things other than Scripture, because every time that happens, it’s proof that they don’t adhere to sola Scriptura in its standard definition. But apparently that is too sophisticated for White to grasp. He did acknowledge, however, that St. Basil sometimes appealed to unwritten traditions, but then asserts that “he just was simply inconsistent . . . because all of us are inconsistent at some point or another” (18:52). He can’t admit that he denied sola Scriptura. That wouldn’t go with the plan. He is only willing to concede that he believed in it most of the time, but contradicted it some of the time, being human. He can’t fathom that he actually was consistent, and that he himself is the one stuck in the “either/or” trap of false dichotomies.

20:56  Augustine was inconsistent with himself. 

Well of course. It could never be true in any conceivable universe that James White was inconsistent and wrong and confused, rather than Augustine! No! It’s not possible. Therefore, the fault here must lie with Augustine rather than with the venerable “Dr.” [???]-Bishop.

21:52 The simple fact of the matter remains, he made the statements he made, and if he had as Roman Catholics believe today, that the Scripture is simply part of sacred tradition, [which we don’t believe]

and that you need these oral traditions to buttress these things, then he wouldn’t have said the words that he said. He wouldn’t have made the statements that he made. And so, when we talk about the issue of sola Scriptura in the early church, sadly, I must report to you that the primary response that we get from Roman Catholic apologists is not a meaningful interaction with the passages.

He simply couldn’t have believed as a Catholic does, because he said things that White erroneously and foolishly, illogically believes are the equivalent of sola Scriptura. Therefore, the things I documented above, that prove that Augustine rejected sola Scriptura, are all fabricated and made up by myself or other “Romanists” / “papists.” Makes perfect  sense, right? “Hear no evil, see no evil, read no evil . . .”

22:41 Most of the attempt fails, most of it is just simply to say, well, they couldn’t have meant that because they said this over here, and the idea of testing for consistency and listening to a passage in its own context, thrown out the window, no one really worries about that too much.

I have shown, contrary to this caricatured nonsense, that a father’s thought has to be considered as a whole. All of the men noted above were consistent in their rule of faith, which was the Catholic one. It’s all harmonious. White simply can’t accept that conclusion, and so he is blind to any evidence contrary to the myths that he holds in his head. Catholics don’t have to be blind and ultra-biased and hyper-selective with the Church fathers. It’s so obvious that they believed far more like us than like Protestantism that our work in this regard is rather easy.

Then he cites Athanasius and tries to play the game again. This reply is now over 7,000 words and I’m trying to finish it at 1:30 AM, so I’ll simply refer readers to my treatments of his views:

St. Athanasius’ Rule of Faith (NOT Sola Scriptura) [6-16-03]

Lutheran Chemnitz: Errors Re Fathers & Sola Scriptura (including analysis of Jerome, Augustine, Origen, Epiphanius, Ambrose, Lactantius, Athanasius, and Cyprian) [8-31-07]

Did Athanasius Accept Sola Scriptura? (vs. Bruno Lima) [10-14-22]

**

See also my web page: Bishop “Dr.” [?] James White: Anti-Catholic Extraordinaire

**

NOTES: I call Mr. White a bishop because he informed me in a letter dated 10 January 2001 that he was a bishop: “I am an elder in the church: hence, I am a bishop, overseer, pastor, of a local body of believers”. So I have called him that ever since [see more material giving the background and rationale for this, based on White’s own stated beliefs]. As for his supposed doctorate (hence my quotation marks and question mark), see:

James White’s Bogus “Doctorate” Degree (vs. Mark Bainter) [9-16-04]

James White’s Bogus “Doctorate” Degree, Part II (vs. Jamin Hubner) [6-29-10]

James White Bogus “Doctorate” Issue Redux: Has No One Ever Interacted With His Self-Defense? / White Takes His Lumps from Baptist Peter Lumpkins [2-20-11]

*