![\"Augustine6\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2016\/04\/Augustine6.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
Portrait of St. Augustine (c. 1480) by Sandro Botticelli (1445-1510)<\/span> [public domain \/ Wikimedia Commons<\/a>]<\/p>\n (3-1-07)<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n I was made aware of a thread at the blog DeoOmnis Gloria.com<\/i><\/a>: 10 Questions for \u201cBible Christians.\u201d<\/a> It seems that that venue has been visited as of late (starting on 4 January 2007) by a very inquisitive Protestant who wants to learn more about Catholic beliefs: a person who goes by \u201cSandT@cctv.org\u201d.<\/p>\n I think others are doing a good job there, but \u201cthe more the merrier\u201d, so I\u2019ll put in my $00.02 worth too, since attempting some sort of answer to \u201cwhy do Catholics believe so-and-so?\u201d or \u201chow do you support that<\/i> from the Bible?\u201d is what apologetics is about, and I do apologetics for a living. Besides, it isn\u2019t often that one runs across someone who is vigorously asking about important questions that divide Protestants and Catholics. It\u2019s a great opportunity for constructive discussion. His words will be in blue<\/span>.<\/p>\n * * * * *<\/p>\n Now, since RC apologists hold to what early church fathers say over or equally to Scripture, read the following.<\/span><\/p>\n We do not. What we believe is that Sacred Apostolic Tradition that has been passed down and confirmed by the Bible and the Church, is authoritative, but it\u2019s not \u201cover\u201d Scripture or opposed to it at all; it is simply alongside it and in harmony with it (and this is itself a quite biblically-explicit concept). The fathers show what this Tradition is when considered as a group. Some fathers get some things wrong. The Church \u2014 guided always by Holy Scripture and received Tradition \u2014 decides who is ultimately right or wrong.<\/p>\n Augustine:<\/span><\/p>\n This Mediator (Jesus Christ), having spoken what He judged sufficient first by the prophets, then by His own lips, and afterwards by the Apostles, has besides produced the Scripture which is called canonical, which has paramount authority, and to which we yield assent in all matters of which we ought not to be ignorant, and yet cannot know of ourselves.<\/p>\n [St. Augustine, City of God<\/i>, Book XI, Chapter 3]<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Here Augustine states that Scripture has paramount authority. Paramount means supreme, as in the very top. Augustine clearly states that Scripture has the highest authority.<\/span><\/p>\n Of course it does. But it is not to the exclusion<\/i> of the authority of Sacred Tradition and the Church.<\/p>\n Added to this commentary is that all matters should to the supreme authority vested in the Scriptures.<\/span><\/p>\n But the Scriptures must always be interpreted correctly. This is the problem. And we all know how Protestants cannot agree amongst themselves as to the proper interpretation.<\/p>\n When I previously raised this point, Jay and others would randomly quote Augustine with the hope of convincing themselves as well myself that Augustine gave tradition equal authority to the Scriptures. Now I have found a quote by Augustine in particular that clearly says that Scripture has the highest authority. My question to you is can you find a quote from Augustine that clearly states that tradition is equivalent to the Authority of the Scriptures?<\/span><\/p>\n Sure; I\u2019m delighted to be of service:<\/p>\n 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, . . .<\/p>\n For often have I perceived, with extreme sorrow, many disquietudes caused to weak brethren by the contentious pertinacity or superstitious vacillation of some who, in matters of this kind, which do not admit of final decision by the authority of Holy Scripture, or by the tradition of the universal Church.<\/p>\n (Letter to Januarius<\/em>, 54, 1, 1; 54, 2, 3<\/a>; cf. NPNF I, I:301)<\/p>\n I believe that this practice [of not rebaptizing heretics and schismatics] comes from apostolic tradition, just as so many other practices not found in their writings nor in the councils of their successors, but which, because they are kept by the whole Church everywhere, are believed to have been commanded and handed down by the Apostles themselves.<\/p>\n (On Baptism<\/em>, 2, 7, 12; from William A. Jurgens, editor and translator,The Faith of the Early Fathers<\/em>, 3 volumes, Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical Press, 1970, vol. 3: 66; cf. NPNF I, IV:430<\/a>)<\/p>\n . . . 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.<\/p>\n (On Baptism<\/em>, 5,23:31, in NPNF I, IV:475<\/a>)<\/p>\n The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants [is] certainly not to be scorned, nor is it to be regarded in any way as superfluous, nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except Apostolic.<\/p>\n (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis<\/em>, 10,23:39, in William A. Jurgens, editor and translator, The Faith of the Early Fathers<\/em>, 3 volumes, Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical Press, 1970, vol. 3: 86)<\/p>\n 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, or from the nature itself of numbers, and of similitudes. No sober person will decide against reason, no Christian against the Scriptures, no peaceable person against the church.<\/p>\n (On the Trinity<\/em>, 4,6:10; NPNF I, III:75<\/a>)<\/p>\n It is obvious; the faith allows it; the Catholic Church approves; it is true.<\/p>\n (Sermon 117<\/em>, 6)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n As a Protestant I believe that all Christian doctrines and practices must be supported by the Bible. All things yield to the authority of the Scriptures.<\/span><\/p>\n We agree that Christian doctrine must be in harmony with the Bible, and not contradictory to it. What we disagree with is the isolation of the Bible over against the Church and Tradition, because the Bible itself teaches that those things are authoritative and nowhere teaches the Protestant novelty of sola Scriptura<\/i> (Scripture as the only infallible authority). Nor do we think all things are explicitly stated in the Bible. Yet the Bible is materially sufficient: all things necessary to salvation are contained in it.<\/p>\n According to Jay and others, the early church fathers, including Augustine, supported and the idea of co-authority between Scripture and traditions set by the church. I merely showed that this is not so.<\/span><\/p>\n Not at all. One can\u2019t do that by selecting one passage that talks about the authority of Scripture and ignoring many others that talk about Tradition and the Church. One has to consider all of these together to form a proper understanding of the Catholic view of authority. Moreover, many Protestant church historians assert that Augustine did not believe in sola Scriptura<\/i>. For example:<\/p>\n Augustine\u2019s 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<\/em> is an instrumental authority, the door that leads to the fullness of the Word itself.<\/p>\n But there is another aspect of Augustine\u2019s thought . . . we find mention of an authoritative<\/em> extrascriptural oral tradition. While on the one hand the Church \u201cmoves\u201d 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 . . .<\/p>\n (Heiko Oberman, The Harvest of Medieval Theology<\/em>, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, revised edition of 1967, 370-371)<\/p>\n Augustine, therefore, 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, for in 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: \u201cI would not believe the gospel, did not the authority of the catholic church compel me.\u201d . . . 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.<\/p>\n (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church<\/em>, Vol. III: Nicene and Post-Nicene Christianity: A.D. 311-600<\/em>, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1974; reproduction of 5th revised edition of 1910, Chapter V, section 66, \u201cThe Synodical System. The Ecumenical Councils,\u201d <\/a>pp. 344-345)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Sola Scriptura<\/i> is the following. All that is needed is found in Scriptures, anything that is not supported or founded in Scripture is to be rejected. Again, I have bought this point many at times on this blog.<\/span><\/p>\n This is insufficient as a definition. What it describes is the material sufficiency<\/i> of Scripture (and Catholics agree with that). The classic view of sola Scriptura<\/i>, held by Luther and Calvin, and their legatees, is that Scripture is the final infallible authority. Catholics disagree, because we believe that Tradition and the Church can also be infallible (and that they are always harmonious with Scripture).<\/p>\n Here Paul writes that the Bible has all that is needed for Christian doctrine.<\/span><\/p>\n Exactly. It is materially sufficient. But the same Bible does not rule out the authority of Tradition and Church. That\u2019s the point. Protestants want to rule out infallibility anywhere except in Scripture, but the Bible itself doesn\u2019t teach that.<\/p>\n Not only that, but Paul foresees others turning away from the truth and following unsound doctrine. He even instructs Timothy to be prepared to rebuke and reprove, obviously with the Scriptures, which Paul had just wrote is good for rebuking and correction. Paul does not mention oral tradition. [in 2 Timothy 3 and 4]<\/span><\/p>\n He didn\u2019t have to, because he had already done so in the first and second chapter of the same epistle. It was already \u201con the table\u201d and assumed:<\/p>\n 2 Timothy 1:13-14<\/b>\u00a0Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus; guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us.<\/p>\n 2 Timothy 2:2<\/b>\u00a0. . . what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Moreover, in his first letter to Timothy, Paul had called the Church (not the Scripture) \u201cthe pillar and bulwark of the truth\u201d (1 Timothy 3:15; RSV, as throughout) . So you cite Paul only when he talks about the authority of Scripture. We add the parts where he acknowledges the authority of Tradition and the Church as well. A half-truth is little better than an untruth.<\/p>\n Furthermore, to back all this up, Paul in Corinthians<\/span> [1 Cor 4:6] writes do not go beyond what is written. . . . I don\u2019t know what that means to you, but it sounds like, if it is not written in Scriptures, don\u2019t do it or believe it.<\/span><\/p>\n The context of 1 Corinthians 4:6 is clearly one of ethics.<\/em> We cannot transgress (go beyond<\/em>) the precepts of Scripture concerning relationships. This doesn\u2019t forbid the discussion of ethics outside<\/em> of Scripture (which itself cannot possibly treat every conceivable ethical dispute and dilemma).<\/p>\n If what is written<\/em> refers to Scripture, it certainly points to the Old Testament alone (obviously not the Protestant \u201crule of faith\u201d). Thus, this verse proves too much and too little simultaneously.<\/p>\n Paul\u2019s own frequent references to authoritative tradition (even oral tradition: e.g., 1 Cor 11:2, 2 Thess 2:15, 3:6) and the authority of the Church would contradict such a notion anyway. Either Paul contradicts himself or Protestants do. I opt for the latter.<\/p>\n Once again, I asked you to show where Augustine gives tradition or the church paramount authority or directly says that the tradition has equal authority to the Scriptures. You have not done so.<\/span><\/p>\n . . . Again, my challenge is for someone to show a verbatim statement by Augustine in which he says that Scripture and Tradition are equal. None of you have done so yet. You have quoted Augustine giving authority to the church. But Augustine clearly saying that SCRIPTURE and TRADITION are equal in authority has not been proven.<\/span><\/p>\n Maybe this other person didn\u2019t, but I certainly did above, from Augustine\u2019s own words and from the opinion of highly-respected, reputable Protestant historians (Oberman and Schaff).<\/p>\n And my point is that Augustine never gave equal authority to tradition and the Scriptures.<\/span><\/p>\n I showed that he did, above:<\/p>\n . . . final decision by the authority of Holy Scripture, or<\/b> by the tradition of the universal Church.<\/p>\n 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<\/b> from the testimony of the divine Scriptures . . .Note how the word \u201cor\u201d in both statements (I\u2019ve bolded them) make the authority of Tradition and Church equal to that of the Scriptures.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n I could care less about Mr. Schaff. All you did was quote his opinions.<\/span><\/p>\n This is obviously one of the problems here. All you\u2019re doing is spouting your opinions, yet if someone cites a learned Protestant historian, you derisively dimiss it, as if you can learn nothing from even a Protestant scholar. In doing so, you cut off the limb you are sitting on. Why should anyone care about your opinions, either? But we all have a right to our opinions, and we ought to accept the opinions of scholars who devote themselves laboriously to learning about their fields.<\/p>\n Matthew cited Schaff with regard to what the early Fathers believed about Tradition and Scripture, which is exactly relevant to the discussion. I cited him expressly regarding Augustine, since you have repeatedly challenged us to prove that he believed something other than sola Scriptura<\/i>. It\u2019s beyond silly to expect us as laymen to prove something by citation, yet to deny the validity of citing an expert in the field who has studied the matter in great depth. I find this to be a ridiculous \u201cknow-nothing\u201d or anti-intellectual approach. There is a long history of it in certain fringe realms of Protestantism.<\/p>\n All I am asking is for you to provide a writing from Augustine that has him clearly stating that Tradition is equal to Scripture in authority. I have shown where he has said that Scripture has the highest authority. Can you show me a statement from Augustine that proves your point? You have not done so.<\/span><\/p>\n You are very persistent! What will you do now<\/em> that I have provided exactly what you were calling<\/em> for? Will you change your mind about what Augustine believed?<\/p>\n My original post was a challenge to for someone to show where Augustine clearly says that Tradition has equal authority to Scripture. All you have shown are statements from Augustine that you interpret as him equivocating Scripture and Tradition. I however, have shown you a quote where simply says that Scripture has the highest authority. That means there is no equal. It is simple English and simple logic.<\/span><\/p>\n Yes it is! You took the words right out of my mouth! Let\u2019s do a little bit of this logic, from the statements above, that were portions of my earlier longer citations from Augustine:<\/p>\n St. Augustine\u2019s words:<\/p>\n . . . final decision by the authority of Holy Scripture, or<\/b> by the tradition of the universal Church.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n can be re-stated, by the rules of logic and English grammar and syntax, as:<\/p>\n . . . final decision<\/b> by the authority<\/b> of Holy Scripture<\/b> . . .<\/p>\n . . . final decision<\/b> . . . by the tradition<\/b> of the universal Church<\/b>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Sola Scriptura<\/i> holds that the Bible always holds the power of the \u201cfinal decision.\u201d But Augustine believes that the Church and Tradition have the same authority. This precisely <\/i>provides what you are demanding from us, and expressly proves that Augustine did not hold to sola Scriptura<\/i>. 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<\/b> from the testimony of the divine Scriptures . . .<\/p><\/blockquote>\n can be re-stated, by the rules of logic and English grammar and syntax, as:<\/p>\n But those reasons which I have here given, I have . . . gathered from the authority of the church<\/b>, . . .<\/p>\n But those reasons which I have here given, I have . . . gathered from the authority of the<\/b> . . . tradition<\/b> of our forefathers . . .<\/p>\n But those reasons which I have here given, I have . . . gathered . . . from the testimony of the divine Scriptures<\/b> . . .<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Clearly, according to grammar, \u201csimple English\u201d and reason, he views all three as possessing the same authority (because they can all be appealed to as a \u201cfinal\u201d authority).They are all of a piece: the \u201cthree-legged stool\u201d of Catholic authority. It couldn\u2019t be any clearer than it is. Isn\u2019t logic wonderful?<\/p>\n Our friendly Protestant opponent then appeals to St. Gregory of Nyssa and St. Cyril of Jerusalem as supposedly believing in sola Scriptura<\/i>. I recently devoted an entire paper to Gregory of Nyssa<\/a>. A Lutheran was arguing in the same fashion, quite passionately and \u201cconfidently.\u201d But when I made a reply with lots of documentation, he was nowhere to be found. I\u2019ve also shown how St. Cyril of Jerusalem<\/a> \u00a0and St. Basil the Great <\/a>and St. John Chrysostom<\/a> and St. Irenaeus<\/a>\u00a0and several other fathers<\/a> didn\u2019t believe in sola Scriptura<\/em>, either.<\/p>\n What were you paraphrasing and please show what in Acts 16 shows \u201cthe scriptures tell us to submit to the authority of the Church.\u201d Because I do not see it.<\/span><\/p>\n I\u2019m delighted that you brought this up, as it is a compelling biblical argument for absolutely binding and infallible Church authority.<\/p>\n In the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:6-30), we see Peter and James speaking with authority. This Council makes an authoritative pronouncement (citing the Holy Spirit<\/em>) which was binding<\/em> on all Christians:<\/p>\n Acts 15:28-29:<\/b> For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n In the next chapter, we read that Paul, Timothy, and Silas were traveling around \u201cthrough the cities,\u201d and Scripture says that:<\/p>\n . . . they delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem. (Acts 16:4)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n This is Church authority. They simply proclaimed the decree as true and binding \u2014 with the sanction of the Holy Spirit Himself! Thus we see in the Bible an instance of the gift of infallibility that the Catholic Church claims for itself when it assembles in a council.<\/p>\n For more on this, see:<\/p>\n
\nLet\u2019s do it again with another statement of his:<\/p>\n