In this post, I will continue to discuss some of the views of the Early Church Fathers on Scripture. As I have said in previous posts, the issue of authority is fundamental to navigating and answering all other issues and questions concerning the Church, and especially the claims of Rome and the East. I hope to show that the history of the Church is not quite as neat as Rome and the East often tell us, at a popular apologetic level at least. And that many of the Early Fathers held similar convictions as reformed catholics (Protestants) concerning the supreme authority of Christ, the Apostles, and Prophets as recorded in Scripture, when compared to the authority of a magisterium, the bishop of Rome, or extra-biblical tradition.

Athanasius’ 39th Festal Epistle (c. AD 367)

After enumerating the books of Scripture, he says,

“These are the fountains of salvation, that he who thirsts may be satisfied with the living words they contain. In these alone the teaching of godliness is proclaimed. Let no one add to these; let nothing be taken away from them. For concerning these the Lord put to shame the Sadducees, and said, ‘Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures’. And he reproved the Jews, saying, ‘Search the Scriptures, for these are they that testify of me…'” ( 39th Festal Epistle)

Athanasius is writing to affirm the Scriptures as opposed to what he calls apocryphal writings, those books written by heretics. This gets complicated because he refers to heretical writings as apocryphal, and he refers to what we would usually call apocryphal as books that are simply read in church, but are not canonical. Things get further complicated by the fact that his enumeration of canonical books leaves Esther out of the Old Testament, but leaves in Baruch and the Letter of Jeremiah (the last chapter of Baruch). He does however include Esther in a list of books that are read in church, but are not Canon. This listing is typical of the first few hundreds years of Church history. The lists are close, but not always exactly what eventually became Canon.

His New Testament canon, however, is the same as what we recognize as Canon now. All of this gets into the difficulties involved in the development of the Canon. For the sake of time, I’m going to simply recommend Michael Kruger’s book Canon Revisited as a great work on the subject and move on. Athanasius’ listing is close to what we have in our Bibles now.

But what is of interest to us is how he describes the Scriptures. He calls them the fountain of salvation. Earlier in the letter he says something similar, “[W]e have made mention of heretics as dead, but of ourselves as possessing the Divine Scriptures for salvation.” So, he says twice that the Scriptures are the source of our salvation. Of course, Christ is the ultimate source of our salvation, but the primary means of being saved by the Word made flesh is by the word written in Scripture. This strong connection between Scripture and salvation is something more akin to the language of evangelicals, rather than Roman apologists. Do we hear from Romanists and Easterners that Scripture is the fountain of salvation? No, we hear we have to be in communion and submission to a particular Eastern Tradition or Roman Tradition because the Church is the fountain of salvation, not Scriptures.

He goes on to say that in them “alone” is found the teachings of godliness. In them alone? Is this what we hear from our Roman and Eastern brothers and sisters? No sirreebob. We are told that Scripture alone is insufficient for the teachings of godliness. We are told that we have to be instructed and assent to teachings that are not plainly taught from Scripture if we are to be godly.

He finally says, let no one add or subtract from them. Immaculate conception anyone? This is just one example. Rome tells us we have to believe that Mary was immaculately conceived without sin, and that through Christ, was retroactively kept from sinning throughout her life, and that her body ascended to heaven after she died. These are things not found in Scripture, yet they are considered dogma by Rome, meaning you have to believe them for salvation. How does this comport with the witness of our father, Athanasius, who believes Scripture alone is our guide for holiness and fountain of salvation? And that we should not add or subtract to them?

Augustine’s City of God (c. 413-426 AD)

“This Mediator, 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.” ( City of God: Book XI: Chapter III)

Here, in Book XI of The City of God, Augustine is writing about the origins of the two cities. The City of Man and the City of God. He says we can know what we need to know about these cities through the Mediator of God and Man and that is Jesus. And he says that the Mediator has spoken to us first by the prophets, then by his own lips, then afterward by the Apostles. And the things they spoke were written down in the canonical Scriptures, which Augustine says has “paramount authority, and to which we yield assent in all matters of which we ought not to be ignorant, yet cannot know of ourselves.” So, he is saying Scripture has supreme authority in divine matters, since we cannot know of supernatural things naturally. Here, Augustine is, to my mind, advocating for some form of Prima Scriptura.

Augustine’s On the Unity of the Church (c. 386-430 AD)

Augustine puts this Prima Scriptura approach into practice with his writings against the Donatists. In his book On the Unity of the Church, he argues his case from Scripture, and asks them to do the same.

“The question has been proposed: Is the Church of Christ among the Catholics or among the Donatists? This needs to be determined from specific and clear citations in Holy Scripture.” (On The Unity of the Church)

Here Augustine uses the term Catholic not as modern Roman Catholics use it, but as a reference to the entire church throughout the whole world who hold to orthodox teaching. The modern Roman Catholic Church looks and believes differently than the Church in the 4th century, so it’s a mistake to import our understanding of modern Roman Catholicism now into the word Catholic then.

This work is dealing with the question of where the Church is, among the Catholics or Donatists. You can read up on the Donatist controversy elsewhere. But basically Donatists believed that valid sacraments were only found with clergy who were faultless. They specifically denied the validity of sacraments by clergy who apostatized during persecution and then returned during peace time. My take is that those clergy should be defrocked, but that their sacraments are still valid. Augustine and the Church generally has sided against the Donatists. They have said that the validity of baptism and the Lord’s supper does not depend on the holiness of the priest. I would agree.

However, the specifics of the controversy, and even Augustine’s argument is not of immediate interest to us here. What is of interest to us is the manner in which Augustine argues against the Donatists. Does he appeal to the Bishop of Rome? To a council? To the magisterium of the Church? Nope. He begins this work by going straight to Scripture. Where is the Church of Christ, you ask? Augustine says, “This needs to be determined from specific and clear citations in Holy Scripture.” He goes straight to the Scriptures to answer this question. And he continually does this throughout this work.

Furthermore, when he argues from Scripture he never says that the Apostles’ tactile successors are the infallible guarantors of correct teaching, or that Jesus gave Peter the See in Rome to rule the entire Church. In fact, when he mentions Matthew 16, Augustine says,

“He [Jesus] is among these who build upon the rock, that is, who hear the words of Christ and act, because Peter confesses him to be Christ the Son of God, he thus says and on this rock I will build my Church.” (On The Unity of the Church)

Augustine is giving a Protestant interpretation of this passage. That the confession of Jesus as Christ is the rock, and that those who hear the words of Christ and act, meaning obey, build upon that rock and is where the body of Christ is. Obedient Christians is where the Church is. There is no mention of the authority of the bishop of Rome. There is no mention of Tradition as the supreme authority. There is no mention of an institutionally infallible authority, except for the Scriptures. And that the Church are those Christians who hear the words of Jesus and act upon them.

Augustine:

“But, as I had begun to say, let us not listen to ‘you say this, I say that’ but let us listen to ‘the Lord says this.’ Certainly, there are the Lord’s books, on whose authority we both agree, to which we concede, and which we serve; there we seek the Church, there we argue our case.” (On The Unity of the Church)

Augustine is saying to the Donatists, we both believe on Scriptural authority, so let’s argue our case there. Let the Scriptures tell us where the Church is. He doesn’t make an appeal to the authority of an institution or endless genealogies of successors. Rather, he says, “Come now, let us reason together and argue our positions from the Word of God.”

Augustine:

“But because scurrilous people often say many things against some or on behalf of other issues, many things posited figuratively and obscurely in order to exercise reasoning minds through images of riddles or the two-fold understanding of ambiguity are sometimes believed by a false interpretation to agree. This I preach and promise, that we prize whatever is open and clear. If these things were not found in Holy Scripture, there would be no way by which things closed might be opened and obscure things clarified.” (On The Unity of the Church)

Augustine is saying that the clear passages of Scripture are prized over unclear. And that clear passages are able to bring light to the unclear passages. This is significant to my mind because most Roman Catholic distinctives are derived from ambiguous texts, like the building of the Church on the rock. Is the rock Peter or the confession? Or references to Solomon’s mother as reason to reverence Mary. Or references to the Ark ascending to Jerusalem as proof of Mary’s bodily ascension into heaven. Possibly true typologies there, but also ambiguous. Augustine says that Catholics are to prize clear Scripture over ambiguous. Who is being the better Catholic? Papists who make elaborate theologies based on ambiguous texts and possible typologies? Or the low-church evangelical who clings to the clear passages of Scripture? I’m all for typologies and maximal interpretation, and I think evangelicals are wrong for adhering to a strict historical-grammatical interpretation of Scripture. But to make unclear texts into infallible dogmas is an error. It inverts Augustine’s teachings here by prizing ambiguous texts over clear texts.

It is also significant that Augustine says unclear passages are revealed by the clear things in Scripture, and that without the clear passages there would be no way of clarifying them. Isn’t one of the purposes of the magisterium to give us clarity with unclear texts? Isn’t the Church as an institution able to clear these things up for us? Augustine says, no. Augustine says the clear Scripture interprets unclear Scripture for us.

Augustine:

“No one agrees with the catholic bishops if they are anywhere by chance mistaken in holding any opinion contrary against the canonical Scriptures of God.” (On The Unity of the Church)

Again, Augustine prizes the authority of canonical Scriptures over the authority of the Apostles’ successors if those successors are contrary to the Scriptures. Can you get anymore Protestant than this?

Augustine describes the Gentile churches throughout the world mentioned in Scripture. And then says, “…we received this not from the councils of arguing bishops, not from disputations, not from legal or municipal acts, but from holy canonical literature.”

He’s making a point of the universality of the Church and appeals to the Scripture’s attestation of this fact. Again, you see that Augustine is suggesting that the validation of this fact is strong because it comes from Scripture and not from a council, or a legal declaration. He even describes these secondary authorities in a kind of mocking tone by mentioning “arguing bishops.” So, again another appeal by Augustine to the supreme authority of Scripture.

Augustine:

“But they may not show whether they adhere to the Church unless from the canonical books of the divine Scriptures since we do not say that it should be believed of us that we are in the Church of Christ on this account that Optatus of Milevis or Ambrose of Milan or countless other bishops in communion with us commended that Church to which we adhere or that this Church was preached by the councils of our colleagues or that throughout the whole world, in the holy places that our communion frequents, so many miracles either of answered prayers or of healings are performed that the bodies of martyrs that lay hidden for so many years were revealed to Ambrose because they could hear many petitioners and a man blind for many years who was well known in the city of Milan received his sight at those bodies or since this one saw in a dream and that one heard in an ecstasy either that he should not go to Donatus’ sect or that he should abandon Donatus’ sect. Whatever such things happened in the catholic Church should therefore be approved of. Because they happen in the catholic Church, the Church is not therefore shown to be catholic, just because these things happen in it. The Lord Jesus himself, when he rose from the dead, offered his body to be seen by the eyes of his disciples and touched with their hands in case they nevertheless think they experienced some trick. He considered them more strengthened by the evidence of the law, the prophets, and the psalms, showing what was predicted earlier was fulfilled in him. So he commends his Church, saying that repentance and the forgiveness of sins is to be proclaimed to all nations beginning from Jerusalem. He asserted that this was written in the law, the prophets, and the psalms; we adhere to this commended by his own mouth. This is the evidence of our case, this the foundation, this the support.”

Augustine says that Christ’s Church is not recognized simply because the catholic Church has certain bishops associated with, or that certain bishops or councils have commended this church, or because miraculous things happen there, but because Christ has testified to its flourishing and Christ himself makes appeals to the Scriptures – the law, the prophets, and the psalms. Augustine says “this is the evidence of our case, this the foundation, this the support.” Again, no mention of Christ giving the keys to Peter. No mention of Peter’s successor. No mention of the Church as an institution with inherent authority. Augustine builds his entire case on the authority of Christ, the prophets and Apostles, as found in Scripture.

Next installment, we’ll keep examining more passages from the Early Fathers.

Saint Athanasius Audio Podcast

Saint Athanasius Video Podcast