![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2021\/12\/Carthage.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 St. Cyprian, bishop of Carthage<\/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. Protestant historian Schaff wrote about the rules of St. Cyprian with regard to the rule of faith:<\/p>\n His views are briefly as follows:<\/p>\n The Catholic church was founded from the first by Christ on St. Peter alone, that, with all the equality of power among the apostles, unity might still be kept prominent as essential to her being. She has ever since remained one, in unbroken episcopal succession; as there is only one sun, though his rays are everywhere diffused. Try once to separate the ray from the sun; the unity of the light allows no division. Break the branch from the tree; it can produce no fruit. Cut off the brook from the fountain; it dries up. Out of this empirical orthodox church, episcopally organized and centralized in Rome, Cyprian can imagine no Christianity at all;<\/a>\u00a0not only among the Gnostics and other radical heretics, but even among the Novatians, who varied from the Catholics in no essential point of doctrine, and only elected an opposition bishop in the interest of their rigorous penitential discipline. Whoever separates himself from the catholic church is a foreigner, a profane person, an enemy, condemns himself, and must be shunned. No one can have God for his father, who has not the church for his mother.<\/a>\u00a0As well might one out of the ark of Noah have escaped the flood, as one out of the church be saved;<\/a>\u00a0because she alone is the bearer of the Holy Spirit and of all grace. (History of the Christian Church, Vol. II: Ante-Nicene Christianity: A.D. 100-325<\/i>,\u00a0<\/i>Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1970, from the fifth edition of 1910,\u00a0section 53, 172-173<\/a>)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n ***<\/p>\n Sacred Tradition<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n These, doubtless, they imitate and follow, who, despising God\u2019s tradition, seek after\u00a0strange doctrines, and bring in teachings of\u00a0human\u00a0appointment, whom the Lord rebukes and reproves in His\u00a0Gospel, saying,\u00a0 . . . in conformity with the requirements alike of the sanctity\u00a0and the\u00a0truth\u00a0of the divine tradition and\u00a0ecclesiastical institution, . . . (Epistle 41<\/a>: To Cornelius, 1)<\/p>\n . . . God\u2019s tradition . . . (Epistle 51<\/a>: To Antonianus, 24)<\/p>\n . . . contrary to the ordinance and tradition of the Gospel, . . . (Epistle 54<\/a>: To Cornelius, 5)<\/p>\n [W]e also ought not therefore to be unmindful of the divine tradition,\u00a0 . . . (Epistle 54<\/a>: To Cornelius, 17)<\/p>\n Concerning which matters, since you have desired our advice,\u00a0know\u00a0that we do not depart from the traditions of the\u00a0Gospel\u00a0and of the\u00a0apostles, but with constancy and firmness take counsel for our brethren and sisters, and maintain the discipline of the\u00a0Church by all the ways of usefulness and safety, . . . (Epistle 61<\/a>: To Pomponius, 1)<\/p>\n I\u00a0know, dearest brother, that very many of the\u00a0bishops\u00a0who are set over the churches of the Lord by divine condescension, throughout the whole world, maintain the plan of evangelical\u00a0truth, and of the tradition of the Lord, and do not by\u00a0human and novel institution depart from that which Christ our Master both prescribed and did; . . . if any one is still kept in this\u00a0error, he may behold the light of\u00a0truth, and return to the root and origin of the tradition of the Lord.\u00a0(Epistle 62<\/a>: To Caecilius, 1)<\/p>\n . . . so that the evangelical law and the Lord\u2019s tradition may be everywhere kept, and there be no departure from what Christ both taught and did. (Epistle 62<\/a>: To Caecilius, 17)<\/p>\n . . . keep the truth of the Lord\u2019s tradition,\u00a0 . . . (Epistle 62<\/a>: To Caecilius, 19)<\/p>\n . . . laying aside the errors\u00a0of\u00a0human\u00a0dispute, we return with a sincere and religious\u00a0faith\u00a0to the evangelical authority and to the\u00a0apostolic tradition, . . . (Epistle 72<\/a>: To Jubaianus, 15)<\/p>\n But what is that blindness of\u00a0soul, what is that degradation of\u00a0faith, to refuse to recognise the unity which comes from\u00a0God\u00a0the\u00a0Father, and from the tradition of\u00a0Jesus Christ the Lord and our God! (Epistle 73<\/a>: To Pompey, 4)<\/p>\n For if we return to the head and source of divine tradition,\u00a0human\u00a0error ceases; . . . if in any respect the\u00a0truth\u00a0have wavered and vacillated, we should return to our original and Lord, and to the evangelical and\u00a0apostolic tradition; . . . (Epistle 73<\/a>: To Pompey, 10)<\/p>\n . . . the divine tradition. (Epistle 73<\/a>: To Pompey, 11)<\/p>\n . . . the evangelical and apostolic tradition, . . . (Epistle 75<\/a>: To Magnus, 3)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The Church<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n [N]or can he who forsakes the Church\u00a0of\u00a0Christ\u00a0attain to the rewards of\u00a0Christ. He is a stranger; he is profane; he is an enemy. He can no longer have God for his Father, who has not the\u00a0Church for his mother. (Treatise I: On the Unity of the Church<\/em><\/a>, 6)<\/p>\n Do you think that you can stand and live if you withdraw from the\u00a0Church, building for yourself other homes and a different dwelling, . . . ? . . . nor is there any other home to\u00a0believers but the one Church. (Treatise I: On the Unity of the Church<\/em><\/a>, 8)<\/p>\n He Himself ordained and made the\u00a0Church . . . (Treatise I: On the Unity of the Church<\/em><\/a>, 13)<\/p>\n They cannot dwell with God who would not be of one mind in God\u2019s Church. (Treatise I: On the Unity of the Church<\/em><\/a>, 14)<\/p>\n Does he think that he has Christ, who acts in opposition to Christ\u2019s\u00a0priests, who separates himself from the company of His\u00a0clergy\u00a0and people? He bears arms against the\u00a0Church, he contends against God\u2019s appointment. An enemy of the altar, a rebel against Christ\u2019s\u00a0sacrifice, for the\u00a0faith\u00a0faithless, for religion profane, a disobedient servant, an impious son, a hostile brother, despising the\u00a0bishops, and forsaking God\u2019s\u00a0priests, he dares to set up another altar, . . . (Treatise I: On the Unity of the Church<\/em><\/a>, 17)<\/p>\n [N]either do they depart from the peace of the Church, who remember that they have obtained\u00a0grace\u00a0in the\u00a0Church\u00a0by the condescension of\u00a0God . . . (Treatise I: On the Unity of the Church<\/em><\/a>, 22)<\/p>\n God is one, and Christ is one, and His Church is one, and the\u00a0faith is one, and the people is joined into a substantial unity of body by the cement of concord. (Treatise I: On the Unity of the Church<\/em><\/a>, 23)<\/p>\n Is any one greater than\u00a0God, or more merciful than God\u2019s goodness, that he should either wish that undone which\u00a0God has suffered to be done, or, as if God had too little power to protect His Church, should think that we could be preserved by his help? (Treatise III: On the Lapsed<\/em><\/a>, 20)<\/p>\n . . . our Mother, the Church . . . (Epistle 8<\/a>: To the Martyrs and Confessors; also, Epistle 9<\/a>: To the Clergy, 3)<\/p>\n There is\u00a0one God, and Christ is one, and there is one Church, and one chair founded upon the rock by the word of the Lord. (Epistle 39<\/a>, 5)<\/p>\n [W]e have exhorted them to acknowledge and hold the root and matrix of the Catholic\u00a0Church. (Epistle 44<\/a>: To Cornelius, 3)<\/p>\n I profess that I both have rendered and do render the greatest thanks without ceasing, dearest brother, to\u00a0God\u00a0the Father Almighty, and to His Christ the Lord and our God and Saviour, that the\u00a0Church\u00a0is thus divinely protected, and its unity and\u00a0holiness\u00a0is not constantly nor altogether corrupted by the obstinacy of perfidy and\u00a0heretical\u00a0wickedness. (Epistle 46<\/a>: To Cornelius, 1)<\/p>\n [T]he Catholic\u00a0Church has been shown to be one, and to be able neither to be cut nor divided. (Epistle 46<\/a>: To Cornelius, 2)<\/p>\n [T]he Church\u00a0which believes on Christ, and holds that which it has once learned, never departs from Him at all, and that those are the\u00a0Church\u00a0who remain in the house of\u00a0God; . . . (Epistle 54<\/a>: To Cornelius, 7)<\/p>\n [H]e who is not in the Church\u00a0of\u00a0Christ\u00a0is not a\u00a0Christian. (Epistle 51<\/a>: To Antonianus, 24)<\/p>\n [T]here can be no salvation\u00a0to any except in the\u00a0Church. (Epistle 61<\/a>: To Pomponius, 4)<\/p>\n [T]he Catholic\u00a0Church, which has been appointed one and alone by the Lord . . . (Epistle 63<\/a>: To Epictetus, 5)<\/p>\n For from this have arisen, and still arise, schisms and\u00a0heresies, in that the\u00a0bishop\u00a0who is one and rules over the\u00a0Church\u00a0is contemned by the\u00a0haughty\u00a0presumption of some\u00a0persons; and the man who is honoured by God\u2019s condescension, is judged unworthy by\u00a0men. (Epistle 68<\/a>: To Florentius Pupianus, 5)<\/p>\n [A]lthough a rebellious and arrogant multitude of those who will not hear and obey\u00a0may depart, yet the\u00a0Church\u00a0does not depart from Christ; and they are the\u00a0Church\u00a0who are a people united to the\u00a0priest, and the flock which adheres to its pastor. Whence you ought to\u00a0know\u00a0that the\u00a0bishop\u00a0is in the\u00a0Church, and the\u00a0Church\u00a0in the\u00a0bishop; and if any one be not with the\u00a0bishop, that he is not in the\u00a0Church, . . . (Epistle 68<\/a>: To Florentius Pupianus, 8)<\/p>\n [T]here is one Church which, having attained the grace\u00a0of\u00a0eternal\u00a0life, both lives for ever and quickens the people of\u00a0God. (Epistle 70<\/a>: To Quintus, 1)<\/p>\n [T]he Church herself also is uncorrupted, . . . (Epistle 72<\/a>: To Jubaianus, 11)<\/p>\n [T]here is no salvation\u00a0out of the\u00a0Church, . . . (Epistle 72<\/a>: To Jubaianus, 21)<\/p>\n For the\u00a0faith\u00a0of the sacred Scripture sets forth that the\u00a0Church is not without, nor can be separated nor divided against itself, but maintains the unity of an inseparable and undivided house; . . . (Epistle 75<\/a>: To Magnus, 4)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Apostolic Succession<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n . . . the commands which He left to us either by Himself or by His apostles? (Epistle 6<\/a>: To Rogatianus, 4)<\/p>\n [T]hrough the changes of times and successions, the ordering of bishops\u00a0and the plan of the\u00a0Church\u00a0flow onwards; so that the\u00a0Church\u00a0is founded upon the\u00a0bishops, and every act of the\u00a0Church\u00a0is controlled by these same rulers. Since this, then, is founded on the\u00a0divine law, I marvel that some, with daring temerity, have chosen to write to me as if they wrote in the name of the\u00a0Church; when the\u00a0Church\u00a0is established in the\u00a0bishop\u00a0and the\u00a0clergy, and all who stand\u00a0fast in the\u00a0faith<\/em>. (Epistle 26<\/a>: To the Lapsed, 1)<\/p>\n For this, my brother, we especially both labour after, and ought to labour after, to be careful to maintain as much as we can the unity delivered by the Lord, and through His\u00a0apostles\u00a0to us their successors, and, as far as in us lies, to gather into the\u00a0Church\u00a0the dispersed and wandering sheep which the wilful faction and\u00a0heretical\u00a0temptation of some is separating from their Mother; . . . (Epistle 41<\/a>: To Cornelius, 3)<\/p>\n Now the apostles taught us those things which they themselves also learnt from the Lord\u2019s precepts and the heavenly commands, . . . (Epistle 55<\/a>: To the People of Thibaris, 2)<\/p>\n But\u00a0deacons\u00a0ought to remember that the Lord chose\u00a0apostles, that is,\u00a0bishops\u00a0and overseers; while\u00a0apostles\u00a0appointed for themselves\u00a0deacons\u00a0after the ascent of the Lord into heaven, as ministers of their episcopacy and of the\u00a0Church. (Epistle 64<\/a>: To Rogatianianus, 3)<\/p>\n . . . Christ, who says to the\u00a0apostles, and thereby to all chief rulers, who by vicarious ordination succeed to the\u00a0apostles:\u00a0 [T]he apostles only delivered one Church . . . (Epistle 72<\/a>: To Jubaianus, 13)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Councils<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n I do not now recede from these things which have once been determined in our council by common agreement, . . . (Epistle 51<\/a>: To Antonianus, 7)<\/p>\n I will consider it more at large with each one, so that a decided opinion, weighed in the council of many\u00a0priests, on the subject on which you have consulted me, may be established among us, and may be written to you. (Epistle 52<\/a>: To Fortunatus, 3)<\/p>\n But Jovinus also, and Maximus, were present as companions with the proved heretic, condemned for wicked sacrifices and crimes proved against them by the judgment of nine bishops, our colleagues, and again excommunicated also by many of us last year in a council. (Epistle 54<\/a>: To Cornelius, 10)<\/p>\n [A]lthough long since it was decreed, in a council of the bishops, . . .\u00a0(Epistle 65<\/a>, 1)<\/p>\n . . . contrary to the rule lately made in council by the priests, . . . (Epistle 65<\/a>, 2)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Deuterocanon<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n You say that you are\u00a0wealthy\u00a0and rich; but it becomes not a\u00a0virgin\u00a0to boast of her riches, since\u00a0Holy Scripture\u00a0says,\u00a0 Petrine Primacy \/ Papacy<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Peter also, to whom the Lord commends His sheep to be fed and guarded, on whom He placed and founded the\u00a0Church, . . . (Treatise II: On the Dress of Virgins<\/em><\/a>, 10)<\/p>\n Peter . . . upon whom by the Lord\u2019s condescension the Church was founded, [Matthew 16:18] . . . (Treatise IX<\/a><\/em>, 9)<\/span><\/p>\n There is . . . one chair founded upon the rock by the word of the Lord. (Epistle 39<\/a>, 5)<\/p>\n Peter, upon whom by the same Lord the Church had been built, . . . (Epistle 54<\/a>: To Cornelius, 7)<\/p>\n After such things as these, moreover, they still dare \u2014 a false\u00a0bishop\u00a0having been appointed for them by,\u00a0heretics\u2014 to set sail and to bear letters from schismatic and profane\u00a0persons\u00a0to the throne of Peter, and to the chief church whence\u00a0priestly\u00a0unity takes its source; and not to consider that these were the Romans whose\u00a0faith was praised in the preaching of the apostle, to whom faithlessness could have no access. (Epistle 54<\/a>: To Cornelius, 14)<\/p>\n We had lately also congratulated you indeed, dearest brother, when the divine condescension, by a double honour, appointed you in the administration of God\u2019s Church, . . . the benignant and liberal protection of the Lord has brought you back again to His own with the same glory, and with praises to you; that so the shepherd might be restored to feed his flock, and the pilot to manage the ship, and the ruler to govern the people; and that it might appear that your banishment was so divinely arranged, . . . (Epistle 57<\/a>: To Pope Lucius, 1)<\/p>\n Peter speaks there, on whom the\u00a0Church was to be built, . . . (Epistle 68<\/a>: To Florentius Pupianus, 8)<\/p>\n [T]he Holy Spirit\u00a0is one, and the\u00a0Church founded by Christ the Lord upon Peter, by a source and principle of unity, is one also. (Epistle 69<\/a>: To Januarius, 3)<\/p>\n Peter, whom first the Lord chose, and upon whom He built His Church, . . . he held the primacy, . . . (Epistle 70<\/a>: To Quintus, 3)<\/p>\n Peter, upon whom He built the\u00a0Church, . . . (Epistle 72<\/a>: To Jubaianus, 7)<\/p>\n . . . the Church which is one, and is founded upon one who has received the keys of it by the Lord\u2019s voice? (Epistle 72<\/a>: To Jubaianus, 11)<\/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>: archaeological site of Carthage (Tunisia)<\/span> [Wikimedia Commons<\/a> \/ Creative Commons<\/a>\u00a0Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 IGO<\/a> license]<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n Summary<\/em>: St. Cyprian rejected sola Scriptura<\/em>\u00a0& accepted the authority of the Catholic Church, apostolic succession, sacred tradition, councils, & the papacy centered in Rome.<\/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":62106,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[239],"tags":[598,779,15533,48,514,33,15509,1029,240,15527,15524,15521,15530,2007,15518,2006,15142,15558,3828,15536,1266,1267,32,902,35,47,36,932],"class_list":["post-62099","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-cyprian","tag-cyprian-sola-scriptura","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-three-legged-stool","tag-tradition"],"yoast_head":"\nYou reject the commandment of\u00a0God, that you may keep your own tradition.<\/q> [Mark 7:9]<\/span>\u00a0 (Treatise I: On the Unity of the Church<\/em><\/a>, 19)<\/p>\n
He that hears you, hears me; and he that hears me, hears Him that sent me; and he that despises you, despises me, and Him that sent me.<\/q> [Luke 10:16] (Epistle 68<\/a>: To Florentius Pupianus, 4)<\/span><\/p>\n
What has\u00a0pride\u00a0profited us? Or what benefit has the vaunting of riches conferred upon us? And all these things have passed away like a shadow.<\/q> [Wisdom 5:8] (Treatise II: On the Dress of Virgins<\/em><\/a>, 10)<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n