![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2021\/12\/ClementRome.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nProtestant apologists, in tackling the topic of sola Scriptura<\/em> and whether the Church fathers believed in it or not, very often argue as follows:<\/p>\n Church Father X believes in\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/em>, because, look, see!: he\u00a0praises\u00a0<\/em>Scripture in this place and that, and another over there, and says that Christians ought to\u00a0read<\/em>\u00a0the Bible to learn theology! Obviously, then, he agrees with the formal Protestant principle of\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/em>! Who could possibly\u00a0doubt<\/em>\u00a0it?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n But this is fallacious and illogical through and through. The proper approach to this topic and what a given Church father believed is as follows:<\/p>\n Sola Scriptura<\/em>\u00a0(as\u00a0classically defined by Protestants<\/a>) means that Scripture is the\u00a0only final infallible norm and source<\/em>\u00a0and standard<\/em>\u00a0(rule of faith) for Christian doctrine and faith. It follows from this, that neither the Church, nor ecumenical councils, nor popes, nor sacred, apostolic tradition, nor apostolic succession are infallible sources of authority. They are usually respected by the thinking Protestant, and regarded as authoritative to a degree, but not\u00a0infallibly<\/em>\u00a0so.<\/p>\n We must, therefore, look to see if Church father\u00a0X<\/em>\u00a0thinks Scripture is\u00a0formally sufficient for authority<\/em>\u00a0(not just materially sufficient, which we agree with) without the necessary aid of tradition and the Church, or if he does not, as indicated in other statements. A thinker\u2019s statements regarding Christian authority must be evaluated in context of all of his thought in this area, rather than having pieces taken out and then claiming that they \u201cprove\u201d something that they do not, in fact, prove at all.<\/span><\/p>\n In other words, even if we find a quote where a father\u00a0seems<\/i>\u00a0(at first glance) to be stating something akin to\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/em>\u00a0(since he is writing about the Bible without immediate reference to Church or tradition), 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\u00a0rule of faith<\/em>?) has to do with the\u00a0relation<\/em>\u00a0of all those things (all but Scripture being non-infallible, according to\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/em>).<\/p>\n For that reason, their beliefs concerning all these\u00a0other<\/em>\u00a0elements\u00a0have<\/em>\u00a0to be examined, in order to understand properly how they views their relationship vis-a-vis each other, and whether or not they adhere to\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/em>. as the rule of faith. If they hold to the infallible authority of anything besides Scripture, they do\u00a0not<\/em>\u00a0believe in\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/em>.<\/p>\n The Protestant always puts the Bible above Church and tradition, and denies that the latter two can be infallible. Catholics and Orthodox believe in a three-legged stool, where, practically-speaking, Church and tradition have equal authority with Scripture, because they are the necessary framework and interpretive grid through which Scripture can be properly interpreted in an orthodox sense.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n With this in mind, we proceed to determine whether St. Clement of Rome believed in sola Scriptura<\/em>, or the Catholic rule of faith. The material below is from Clement\u2019s First Letter to the Corinthians<\/em> (all on one web page<\/a> in Schaff\u2019s 38-volume collection of the Church fathers) unless otherwise noted. Catholics consider Clement, as the fourth bishop of Rome<\/a> and successor to St. Peter as pope. The date most mentioned as the time of the writing of this epistle is 96 AD.<\/p>\n Sacred Tradition<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n Wherefore let us forsake idle and vain thoughts; and let us conform to the glorious and venerable rule which hath been handed down to us<\/span>; (ch. 7, J. B. Lightfoot translation<\/a>, published in 1891)<\/p>\n [L]et us conform to the<\/span> glorious and holy rule of our tradition<\/span>. (ch. 7; revised translation of Lightfoot, in The Apostolic Fathers<\/em>, second edition; edited and revised by Michael W. Holmes, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1989, p. 32)<\/p>\n Wherefore let us put aside empty and vain cares, and let us come to the glorious and venerable rule of our tradition,<\/span> (ch. 7, Kirsopp Lake translation<\/a>, 1912)<\/p>\n Let us . . . turn<\/span> to the glorious and venerable rule of our tradition. (ch. 7, James A. Kleist, S.J. translation<\/a>, 1946)\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n [L]et us turn to the<\/span> renowned and solemn standard that has come down to us,<\/span> (ch. 7, Edgar J. Goodspeed translation<\/a>, 1950)<\/p>\n Therefore, let us . . . approach the renowned and honorable rule (canon) of our tradition. (ch. 7, <\/span><\/span>Kevin P. Edgecomb translation<\/a>, 2006)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n St. Clement also cites as \u201cScripture\u201d in 23:3-4 a source that is not in the Bible, as later determined:<\/p>\n Far be that Scripture from us, where it says, \u201cWretched are the double-minded, the doubters of soul, who say, \u2018These things were even heard by our fathers, and behold, we have grown old and none of them have happened to us.\u2019 \u201cYou mindless ones! Compare yourselves to a tree; take the vine. Indeed, first it sheds leaves, then a bud is produced, then a leaf, then a flower, and after these, an unripe grape, becoming then a bunch of grapes.\u201d (ch. 23; Kevin P. Edgecomb translation<\/a>, 2006)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Some speculate that the citation was from the lost book of Eldad and Modat mentioned in the Shepherd of Hermas (Vis. 2.3.4). Translators Kirsopp Lake<\/a>, J. B. Lightfoot<\/a>, and Goodspeed<\/a> also use the word \u201cScripture\u201d in 23:3. Schaff, however, translates, \u201cthat which is written\u201d: perhaps translation bias, as we also arguably see in his rendition of chapter 7.<\/p>\n Apostolic Succession<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n [L]et us conform to the glorious and venerable rule which hath been handed down to us<\/span>; (ch. 7, J. B. Lightfoot translation<\/a>)<\/p>\n [L]et us turn to the<\/span> renowned and solemn standard that has come down to us,<\/span> (ch. 7, Edgar J. Goodspeed translation<\/a>, 1950)<\/p>\n The apostles<\/span> have preached the gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ [has done so] from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles<\/span> by Christ. Both these appointments<\/span>, then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand. And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first fruits<\/span> [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons<\/span> of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus says the Scripture in a certain place, \u201cwill appoint their bishops in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.\u201d (ch. 42)<\/p>\n Our\u00a0apostles<\/span>\u00a0also\u00a0knew, through\u00a0our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife on account of the office of the\u00a0episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge\u00a0of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned<\/span>, and afterwards gave instructions, that<\/span> when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry<\/span>. We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them<\/span>, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole church, and who have blamelessly served the flock of\u00a0Christ, in a\u00a0humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be\u00a0justly dismissed from the ministry. (ch. 44)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Petrine Primacy \/ Papacy<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n If, however, any shall disobey the words spoken by Him through us<\/span>, let them\u00a0know that they will involve themselves in transgression and serious danger<\/span>; . . . (ch. 59)<\/p>\n Joy and\u00a0gladness\u00a0will you afford us, if you become\u00a0obedient\u00a0to the words written by us and through the\u00a0Holy Spirit\u00a0<\/span>root out the lawless wrath of your jealousy according to the intercession which we have made for peace and unity in this letter. (ch. 63)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n I wrote about these ostensibly \u201cpapal\u201d passages<\/a>\u00a0at some length. Here are some of my observations:<\/p>\n Why is it that Clement is speaking with authority from Rome, settling the disputes of\u00a0other<\/em> regions [Corinth was about 743 miles from Rome]? Why didn\u2019t the Corinthians solve it themselves<\/em>, if they had a proclaimed bishop or even if they didn\u2019t claim one at the time? Why did they appeal to the bishop of Rome? . . .<\/p>\n Clement definitely asserts his authority over the Corinthian church far away. Again, the question is: \u201cwhy<\/em>?\u201d What\u00a0sense<\/em> does that make in a Protestant-type ecclesiology where every region is autonomous and there is supposedly no hierarchical authority in the Christian Church? Why must they \u201cobey\u201d the bishop from another region? Not only does Clement assert strong authority;\u00a0he also claims (twice) that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are speaking \u201cthrough\u201d him<\/strong><\/em>.<\/p>\n That is\u00a0extraordinary<\/em>, and very similar to what we see in the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15:28 (\u201cFor it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things\u201d: RSV) and in Scripture itself. It\u2019s not strictly inspiration but it is sure something akin to\u00a0infallibility<\/em> (divine protection from error and the pope as a unique mouthpiece of, or representative of God). . . .<\/p>\n [W]hy does\u00a0Corinth<\/em>\u00a0have to obey\u00a0Rome<\/em>? Who determined\u00a0that<\/em>\u00a0set-up? Why does it even\u00a0cross their mind<\/em>\u00a0to write to a local church far away to settle their problems, and why does Clement assume that they should\u00a0obey<\/em>\u00a0him, and that it would be \u201ctransgression and serious danger\u201d if they\u00a0don\u2019t<\/em>?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n ***<\/p>\n Related Reading<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n For\u00a0much<\/em>\u00a0more on\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/em>: see my\u00a0Bible, Tradition, Canon, & \u201cSola Scriptura\u201d<\/a>\u00a0web page.<\/p>\n For documentation of many more Church fathers who rejected\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/em>, see the \u201cBible\u201d section of my\u00a0Fathers of the Church<\/a>\u00a0web page.<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n Practical Matters<\/em><\/strong>: Perhaps some of my 3,900+ free online articles (the most comprehensive \u201cone-stop\u201d Catholic apologetics site) or\u00a0fifty books<\/a>\u00a0have helped you (by God\u2019s grace) to decide to\u00a0become Catholic<\/a>\u00a0or to\u00a0return to the Church<\/a>, or better understand some doctrines and\u00a0why<\/em>\u00a0we believe them<\/a>.<\/p>\n 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\u2019m always in need of more funds: especially\u00a0monthly<\/em>\u00a0support. \u201cThe laborer is worthy of his wages\u201d (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a\u00a0full-time Catholic apologist<\/a>, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.<\/p>\n PayPal donations<\/a>\u00a0are the easiest: just send to my email address: apologistdave@gmail.com. You\u2019ll see the term \u201cCatholic Used Book Service\u201d, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page:\u00a0About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong \/ Donation Information<\/a>.\u00a0Thanks a million<\/em><\/strong>\u00a0from the bottom of my heart!<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n