![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2021\/12\/TertullianBooks.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nProtestant apologists, in tackling the topic of\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/em>\u00a0and 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 Tertullian<\/a> believed in\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/em>, or the Catholic rule of faith. The material below is from Philip Schaff\u2019s 38-volume collection of the Church fathers. Anglican Church historian J. N. D. Kelly summarizes Tertullian\u2019s view on the rule of faith:<\/p>\n [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<\/em>. 21; c. Marc<\/em>. I, 21;4 5] to the whole body of apostolic doctrine, whether delivered orally or in epistles, as\u00a0apostolorum traditio\u00a0<\/em>or\u00a0apostolica traditio<\/em>\u00a0. . .<\/p>\n Tertullian\u2019s attitude does not differ from Irenaeus\u2019s in any important respect . . . In its primary sense, however, the apostolic, evangelical or Catholic tradition [C.\u00a0Marc<\/em>. 4, 5; 5, 19;\u00a0de monog<\/em>. 2] stood for the faith delivered by the apostles, and he never contrasted tradition so understood with Scripture . . .<\/p>\n 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.,\u00a0de praescr<\/em>. 21; 32; c.\u00a0Marc<\/em>. 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<\/em>.\u00a028] their otherwise inexplicable unanimity . . .<\/p>\n This unwritten tradition he considered to be virtually identical with the \u2018rule of faith\u2019 (regula fidei<\/em>), 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<\/em>. 19] . . .<\/p>\n 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\u00a0regula<\/em>\u00a0had preserved the apostles\u2019 testimony in its original shape. . . . the one divine revelation was contained in its fulness both in the Bible and in the Church\u2019s continuous public witness.\u00a0(Early Christian Doctrines<\/em>, HarperSanFrancisco, revised 1978 edition, 36, 39-41)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n ***<\/p>\n The Church<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n [T]he churches, although they are so many and so great, comprise but the one primitive church . . . (Prescription against Heretics<\/em><\/a>, ch. 20)<\/p>\n [I]t is incredible that these could have been such as to bring in some other rule of faith, differing from and contrary to that which they were proclaiming through the\u00a0Catholic\u00a0churches, \u2014 as if they spoke of one God in the\u00a0Church, (and) another at home, and described one substance of\u00a0Christ, publicly, (and) another secretly, and announced one hope of the resurrection before all\u00a0men, (and) another before the few; although they themselves, in their epistles, besought men that they would all speak one and the same thing, and that there should be no divisions and dissensions in the church, seeing that they, whether\u00a0Paul\u00a0or others, preached the same things. Moreover, they remembered (the words):\u00a0 Sacred Tradition<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n It remains, then, that we demonstrate whether this doctrine of ours, of which we have now given the rule, has its origin in the tradition of the\u00a0apostles, and whether all other\u00a0doctrines<\/em>\u00a0do not\u00a0ipso facto<\/em> proceed from falsehood. (Prescription against Heretics<\/em><\/a>, ch. 21)<\/p>\n When, however, that which is deposited among many is found to be one and the same, it is not the result of\u00a0error, but of tradition. Can any one, then, be reckless enough to say that they were in\u00a0error who handed on the tradition? (Prescription against Heretics<\/em><\/a>, ch. 28)<\/p>\n Such are the summary arguments which we use, when we take up arms against\u00a0heretics\u00a0for the\u00a0faith\u00a0of the gospel, maintaining both that order of periods, which rules that a late date is the mark of forgers, and that authority of churches which lends support to the tradition of the\u00a0apostles; because\u00a0truth\u00a0must needs precede the\u00a0forgery, and proceed straight from those by whom it has been handed on. (Against Marcion<\/em>, Book IV<\/a>, ch. 5)<\/p>\n We have it on the\u00a0true\u00a0tradition of the\u00a0Church, that this epistle was sent to the Ephesians, not to the Laodiceans. (Against Marcion<\/em>, Book V<\/a>, ch. 17)<\/p>\n For if, even at that time, the tradition of the gospel had spread everywhere, how much more now! Now, if it is our gospel which has spread everywhere, rather than any\u00a0heretical\u00a0gospel, much less\u00a0Marcion\u2019s, which only dates from the reign of\u00a0Antoninus, then ours will be the gospel of the\u00a0apostles. (Against Marcion<\/em>, Book V<\/a>, ch. 19)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Apostolic Succession<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n [E]ven if a discussion from the Scriptures\u00a0should not turn out in such a way as to place both sides on a par, (yet) the natural order of things would require that this point should be first proposed, which is now the only one which we must discuss:\u00a0 They [the Apostles] then in like manner founded churches in every city, from which all the other churches, one after another, derived the tradition of the faith, and the seeds of doctrine, and are every day deriving them, that they may become churches. Indeed, it is on this account only that they will be able to deem themselves apostolic, as being the offspring of\u00a0apostolic churches. . . . Therefore the\u00a0churches, although they are so many and so great, comprise but the one primitive church, (founded) by the\u00a0apostles, from which they all (spring). In this way all are primitive, and all are apostolic, while they are all\u00a0proved\u00a0to be one, in (unbroken) unity, by their peaceful communion, and title of brotherhood, and bond of hospitality \u2014 privileges which no other rule directs than the one tradition of the selfsame\u00a0mystery. (Prescription against Heretics<\/em><\/a>, ch. 20)<\/p>\n From this, therefore, do we draw up our rule. Since the\u00a0Lord Jesus Christ\u00a0sent the\u00a0apostles\u00a0to preach, (our rule is) that no others ought to be received as preachers than those whom Christ appointed; for\u00a0 [N]or can they presume to claim to be a church themselves who positively have no means of proving when, and with what swaddling-clothes this body was established. (Prescription against Heretics<\/em><\/a>, ch. 22)<\/p>\n But if there be any (heresies) which are bold enough to plant themselves in the midst of the\u00a0apostolic\u00a0age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the\u00a0apostles, because they\u00a0existed\u00a0in the time of the\u00a0apostles, we can say: Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their\u00a0bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [that first\u00a0bishop\u00a0of theirs ]\u00a0bishop\u00a0shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the\u00a0apostles\u00a0or of apostolic men, \u2014 a\u00a0man, moreover, who continued steadfast with the\u00a0apostles. For this is the manner in which the\u00a0apostolic churches\u00a0transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that\u00a0Polycarp\u00a0was placed therein by John; as also the\u00a0church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter. In exactly the same way the other churches likewise exhibit (their several worthies), whom, as having been appointed to their episcopal places by\u00a0apostles, they regard as transmitters of the apostolic seed. Let the\u00a0heretics\u00a0contrive something of the same kind. For after their\u00a0blasphemy, what is there that is unlawful for them (to attempt)? But should they even effect the contrivance, they will not advance a step. For their very doctrine, after comparison with that of the\u00a0apostles, will declare, by its own diversity and contrariety, that it had for its author neither an apostle nor an apostolic man; because, as the\u00a0apostles\u00a0would never have taught things which were self-contradictory, so the apostolic men would not have inculcated teaching different from the\u00a0apostles, unless they who received their instruction from the\u00a0apostles\u00a0went and preached in a contrary manner. To this test, therefore will they be submitted for\u00a0proof\u00a0by those churches, who, although they derive not their founder from\u00a0apostles\u00a0or apostolic men (as being of much later date, for they are in fact being founded daily), yet, since they agree in the same\u00a0faith, they are accounted as not less apostolic because they are akin in doctrine. Then let all the\u00a0heresies, when challenged to these two tests by our apostolic church, offer their\u00a0proof\u00a0of how they deem themselves to be apostolic. But in\u00a0truth\u00a0they neither are so, nor are they able to prove themselves to be what they are not. Nor are they admitted to peaceful relations and communion by such churches as are in any way connected with\u00a0apostles, inasmuch as they are in no sense themselves apostolic because of their diversity as to the\u00a0mysteries\u00a0of the\u00a0faith. (Prescription against Heretics<\/em><\/a>, ch. 32)<\/p>\n Since this is the case, in order that the\u00a0truth\u00a0may be adjudged to belong to us,\u00a0 No\u00a0doubt, after the time of the\u00a0apostles, the\u00a0truth\u00a0respecting the belief of God suffered corruption, but it is equally certain that during the life of the\u00a0apostles\u00a0their teaching on this great article did not suffer at all; so that no other teaching will have the\u00a0right\u00a0of being received as apostolic than that which is at the present day proclaimed in the churches of apostolic foundation. You will, however, find no church of apostolic origin but such as reposes its\u00a0Christian\u00a0faith in the Creator. But if the churches shall prove to have been corrupt from the beginning, where shall the pure ones be found? Will it be among the adversaries of the Creator? Show us, then, one of your churches, tracing its descent from an\u00a0apostle, and you will have gained the day.\u00a0(Against Marcion<\/em>, Book I<\/a>, ch. 21)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Petrine Primacy \/ Papacy<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Was anything withheld from the\u00a0knowledge\u00a0of Peter, who is called\u00a0 Afterwards, as he himself [St. Paul] narrates, he [T]hey at first were believers\u00a0in the doctrine of the\u00a0Catholic\u00a0Church, in the\u00a0church of Rome\u00a0under the\u00a0episcopate\u00a0of the blessed\u00a0Eleutherus, . . . (Prescription against Heretics<\/em><\/a>, ch. 30)<\/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 Photo credit<\/strong>:<\/span> romana klee<\/a> (11-19-10). Books by Tertullian<\/span> [Flickr<\/a> \/ CC BY-SA 2.0<\/a> license]<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n Summary<\/em>: Tertullian didn\u2019t believe in sola Scriptura<\/em>, & fully accepted the sublime authority of the Church, sacred tradition, apostolic succession, & Petrine primacy.<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Protestant apologists, in tackling the topic of\u00a0sola Scriptura\u00a0and whether the Church fathers believed in it or not, very often argue as follows: Church Father X believes in\u00a0sola Scriptura, because, look, see!: he\u00a0praises\u00a0Scripture in this place and that, and another over there, and says that Christians ought to\u00a0read\u00a0the Bible to learn theology! Obviously, then, he agrees […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2331,"featured_media":62094,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[239],"tags":[598,779,15533,48,514,33,15509,1029,240,15527,15524,15521,15530,2007,15518,2006,3828,15536,1266,1267,32,902,35,47,15555,15552,36,932],"class_list":["post-62091","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-fathers-of-the-church","tag-apostolic-succession","tag-apostolic-tradition","tag-authoritative-bible-interpretation","tag-bible-alone","tag-bible-only","tag-christian-authority","tag-christian-tradition","tag-church-authority","tag-church-fathers","tag-church-fathers-apostolic-succession","tag-church-fathers-church-authority","tag-church-fathers-ecumenical-councils","tag-church-fathers-scripture","tag-church-fathers-sola-scriptura","tag-church-fathers-the-rule-of-faith","tag-church-fathers-tradition","tag-fathers-sola-scriptura","tag-infallible-christian-authority","tag-patristics","tag-patrology","tag-rule-of-faith","tag-sacred-tradition","tag-scripture-alone","tag-sola-scriptura","tag-tertullian","tag-tertullian-sola-scriptura","tag-three-legged-stool","tag-tradition"],"yoast_head":"\nLet your communication be yea, yea; nay, nay; for whatsoever is more than this comes of\u00a0evil;<\/q> [Matthew 5:37]<\/span> so that they were not to handle the gospel in a diversity of treatment. (Prescription against Heretics<\/em><\/a>, ch. 26)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
With whom lies that very\u00a0faith\u00a0to which the\u00a0Scriptures\u00a0belong. From what and through whom, and when, and to whom, has been handed down that rule, by which men become\u00a0Christians?<\/q>\u00a0For wherever it shall be manifest that the\u00a0true\u00a0Christian\u00a0rule and\u00a0faith\u00a0shall be,\u00a0there<\/em>\u00a0will likewise be the\u00a0true\u00a0Scriptures and expositions thereof, and all the\u00a0Christian traditions. (Prescription against Heretics<\/em><\/a>, ch. 19)<\/p>\n
no man\u00a0knows\u00a0the Father save the\u00a0Son, and he to whomever the Son will reveal Him.<\/q>\u00a0Matthew\u00a011:27<\/span>\u00a0Nor does the Son seem to have revealed Him to any other than the\u00a0apostles, whom He sent forth to preach \u2014 that, of course, which He revealed to them. Now, what that was which they preached \u2014 in other words, what it was which Christ revealed to them \u2014 can, as I must here likewise prescribe, properly be\u00a0proved\u00a0in no other way than by those very churches which the\u00a0apostles\u00a0founded in person, by declaring the gospel to them directly themselves, both\u00a0viv\u00e2 voce<\/em>, as the phrase is, and subsequently by their epistles. If, then, these things are so, it is in the same degree manifest that all doctrine which agrees with the\u00a0apostolic churches\u2014 those moulds and original sources of the\u00a0faith\u00a0must be reckoned for\u00a0truth, as undoubtedly containing that which the (said) churches received from the\u00a0apostles, the\u00a0apostles\u00a0from Christ, Christ from\u00a0God. Whereas all doctrine must be prejudged as false which savours of contrariety to the\u00a0truth\u00a0of the churches and\u00a0apostles\u00a0of Christ and God. It remains, then, that we demonstrate whether this doctrine of ours, of which we have now given the rule, has its origin in the tradition of the\u00a0apostles, and whether all other\u00a0doctrines<\/em>\u00a0do not\u00a0ipso facto<\/em>\u00a0proceed from\u00a0falsehood. We hold communion with the\u00a0apostolic churches\u00a0because our doctrine is in no respect different\u00a0from theirs<\/em>. This is\u00a0our<\/em>\u00a0witness\u00a0of\u00a0truth. (Prescription against Heretics<\/em><\/a>, ch. 21)<\/p>\n
as many as walk according to the rule,<\/q>\u00a0which the church has handed down from the\u00a0apostles, the\u00a0apostles\u00a0from Christ,\u00a0and<\/em>\u00a0Christ from\u00a0God, the reason of our position is clear, when it determines that\u00a0heretics\u00a0ought not to be allowed to challenge an appeal to the\u00a0Scriptures, since we, without the\u00a0Scriptures, prove that they have nothing to do with the\u00a0Scriptures. . . . But on what ground are\u00a0heretics\u00a0strangers and enemies to the\u00a0apostles, if it be not from the difference of their teaching, which each individual of his own mere will has either advanced or received in opposition to the\u00a0apostles? (Prescription against Heretics<\/em><\/a>, ch. 37)<\/p>\n
the rock on which the church should be built,<\/q>\u00a0who also obtained\u00a0
the keys of the\u00a0kingdom of heaven,<\/q>\u00a0with the power of\u00a0
loosing and binding in heaven and on earth?<\/q> (Prescription against Heretics<\/em><\/a>, ch. 22)<\/p>\n
went up to Jerusalem for the purpose of seeing Peter,<\/q> [Galatians 1:18]<\/span>\u00a0because of his office, no\u00a0doubt,\u00a0 . . . (Prescription against Heretics<\/em><\/a>, ch. 23)<\/p>\n