This is a little mini-debate that sparked up on a facebook page on the Sola Scriptura. I used some similar arguments to the ones I've used before in previous debates with Roman Catholics over this issue, plus a few new arguments that I haven't used yet. I must admit that even though I think I held my own pretty well, this particular encounter has stretched the limits of my knowledge and gives good reason for me to pursue my studies further, as I still have much more to learn.I have left this exchange mostly unedited, except for the formatting and the deletion of a few superfluous comments and mentioning of names. Statements of my opponent (Eric Giunta of Confessions of a Liberal Traditionalist) will be in yellow, and patristic quotations (from either of us) will be in blue:=====
In the New Testament, does God direct people to the "scriptures alone," or to His appointed leaders, when doctrinal questions arise?===
We read in Acts 15:1-2 that when a doctrinal issue arose within the Church, Paul and Barnabas did not consult the Bible alone, but rather "were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question". This group of Church leaders (who were directed by the Holy Spirit) then made a decision on the matter, which was then relayed by Paul and Timothy to Christians in numerous cities that they may abide by the ruling. (Acts 15:28; 16:4) At that same council in Jerusalem, the apostle Peter said: "Brethren, you know that in the early days God made choice among you, that BY MY MOUTH the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe." (Acts 15:7) In the early Church salvation came through hearing and believing the preaching of the apostles, not through going straight to the Bible alone. ===
Of course, this begs yet another question: Where does the Bible say that this ever ceases to be the model for the true Church?Or, to put it another way:So many of the Christians on this forum LOVE to BRAG that they are "non-denominational" and are basically a church unto themselves, accountable to no spiritual leader. How is THAT Biblical?! Where in the Bible, of EITHER Testament, do we find covenant believers splitting off and founding their own sects/churches/denominations, or going solo, because they've reached an interpretation of the Bible different from everyone else?Where in the Bible do we find an utter lack of accountability for what one teaches or practices as a Christian?How do any of the Christians on this forum practice the Matthew 18 model for resolving church disputes, or that of Acts 15?Call your model for being Christian what you will, but what it ain't is Biblical!===
But all this begs the question...: WHO, on earth, is the ultimate arbiter of what God's Word actually teaches? If it's just the individual with his Bible, this makes church leadership both redundant and superfluous, as it effectively makes us leaders unto ourselves. And it's not the Biblical model.
Like I asked earlier: Where in the Bible, of EITHER Testament, do we find covenant believers splitting off and founding their own sects/churches/denominations, or going solo, because they've reached an interpretation of the Bible different from everyone else?===
The problem with this argument is that it fails to take into account the simple fact that revelation was still ongoing at that time: The early church had faced a problem that has not yet been addressed by previously-existing scriptures. Thus God ordained this event to take place to reveal to us what His law is on the Judaizing issue.
However, please note this: the only way we even know about this event today is by the fact that God used Luke to write it down, and He made Luke's writings "theopneustos" (God-breathed).
If we used the kind of logic that you are using to argue against Sola Scriptura, how do you think the Church back in the late 2nd century could have argued against the Montanist heretics who claimed prophecies and ecstatic utterances that added to (or sometimes even superceded) scripture? The answer is simple: Revelation must have already been closed off, and God must have already codified all His revelation into writing.
The whole point behind Sola Scriptura is to safeguard the revelations that God has revealed once-for-all against innovations that could creep up later on and pass themselves off as revelation. NOBODY here denies that there was a point in time when not all of God's decrees and revelations have been enscripturated yet. However, once they have been, they become the rule for the church and we are to cease looking for new instructions.
To argue that the early Church was basing some of its doctrines off of new revelations at a time period when scripture hadn't even been completed yet is just an egregious strawman.
Anyway, since we're on the topic of scripture and divine revelation, I have a question of my own to toss at you: Is divine revelation partim-partim, meaning that part of it is given in scripture and another part in unwritten tradition, or is scripture "materially sufficient" but not "formally sufficient?" You can look up what those terms mean if you haven't heard them yet. But I just want to know where you stand on this, because I've heard Roman Catholics on both sides of the fence, and I find it inconceivable that a church that claims to have an infallible magisterium couldn't clear up a matter as basic as this one.
===
"But all this begs the question,...: WHO, on earth, is the ultimate arbiter of what God's Word actually teaches? If it's just the individual with his Bible, this makes church leadership both redundant and superfluous, as it effectively makes us leaders unto ourselves. And it's not the Biblical model."
This is yet another strawman. We affirm that.scripture is the sole *infallible* authority on matters of faith and morals. Yet we know that church authorities are vital, not because they are infallible (they are not), but because they have the responsibility to safeguard the scriptures and attempt to understand them as best as they can. To put it another way, the church is the "custodian" of the scriptures, not its "magistrate."
Instructions from church authorities, statements of faith, creeds, confessions, commentaries, etc. are all well and good. However, their main purpose is to clarify and explain what scripture is supposed to teach, NOT act as infallible authorities alongside the bible.
Also, perhaps looking at examples from church history can help explain this matter a little bit further:
If you recall the Arian controversy of the 4th century, the Nicene council convened to declare what the orthodox position on the deity of Christ was. However, Nicea in its day was hardly accepted by the majority. In fact, there were larger Arian councils at Sirmium that had twice as many bishops as Nicea. Athanasius thus could not appeal to ecclesiastical authority to safeguard the orthodox position, since the majority of church leaders in his day were Arian heretics.
So how did Athanasius defend the true faith? Did he appeal to the bishop of Rome? To unwritten tradition? No, he appealed to scripture. He believed that scripture plainly taught the orthodox position, such that he had no need to appeal to any outside sources. He says:
"It is plain then from the above that the Scriptures declare the Son's eternity; it is equally plain from what follows that the Arian phrases 'He was not,' and 'before' and 'when,' are in the same Scriptures predicated of creatures."
(Four Discourses Against the Arians, 1:4:13)
He did not regard scripture as ambiguous and in need to an extrabiblical authority for clarification. He states with regards to the perspicuity of scripture that:
"And this is usual with Scriptures, to express itsellf in inartificial and simple phrases."
(Four Discourses Against the Arians, 4:33)
And when it came to the council of Nicea, he agrees with the Protestant position that Nicea is correct no by virtue of ecclesiastical authority, but because Nicea proclaimed the true biblical faith. As Athanasius explains it:
"Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faith's sake; for divine Scripture is sufficient above all things; but if a Council be needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene Bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrines so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced in divine Scripture"
(De Synodis, 6)
Athanasius is not the only person I can draw upon as an example. You may also read the Catechetical Lectures of Cyril of Jerusalem. When instructing new believers in the faith, Cyril tells them that they must look to scripture rather than anywhere else in order to prove the things of the faith:
"For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell thee these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures."
(Catechetical Lectures, 4:17)
(As an interesting side note, Cyril of Jerusalem also affirmed, along with the more learned of the early church fathers, that the shorter canon of scripture was correct rather than the longer canon with the apocrypha, but that is a topic to be discussed for another day.)
And finally, look at the Dialogues of Theodoret of Cyrus. Here, he too shows that the true faith is to be proved from the Bible, not from external sources:
"Do not, I beg you, bring in human reason. I shall yield to scripture alone."
(Eranistes, ch. 1)
I appreciate that you are asking the kind of questions that you are asking. I hope that you take my answers into consideration. I am firmly convinced that Sola Scriptura is an essential foundation of the Christian faith, and I try as best as I can to explain why I believe this. A respectful response would be appreciated, thanks.
===
I'm glad to FINALLY have someone on this board to engage with reasonably.You've given me much to respond to. Perhaps we should start with some clarifications?a) Surely you're aware that Catholics do NOT believe in "continuing revelation." The belief of most Protestants that general revelation ended with the death of the Apostles is one of many carryovers from Catholicism. (Keep in mind that the Scriptures themselves are not explicit on this matter. The early Catholics just assumed it.)b) We Catholics DO believe, however, in doctrinal development, i.e., that through the centuries, guided by the Holy Spirit, the Church comes to an ever deeper appreciation of what has been revealed, what is implicit in the original deposit is made explicit in her preaching and teaching, and where at one point perhaps multiple theological hypotheses are permitted, one gets decided on to the exclusion of the others. Note that this is NOT "doctrinal change" as envisaged by liberal Protestants (I'm not implying all Protestants are liberal, please note!), where the very content of the faith changes in each generation, to fit modern mores.c) It's important not to interpret the Fathers, especially individual Fathers who we were know lived and died in communion with the orthodox Church, in isolation from wider ecclesiastical currents. We also (both Catholics AND Protestants) need to be careful not to be anachronistic in interpreting their comments.In the case of Saint Athanasius, we know the man wasn't a Protestant, or a proto-Protestant, so we need to be careful before ascribing to him doctrines coined in the 16th century. When he, and other Fathers, refer to the "Scriptures alone," they are manifestly referring to what later theologians would call the "material sufficiency" of Scripture, not its "formal" sufficiency. That is to say, these Fathers (Athanasius included) understood that the Scriptures could not be properly understood, and expounded upon, outside the rule of faith of that Church whose Scriptures they were.You're right that, at one point at least, the wider Church did not accept the dogmatic decrees of the Nicene Council - but the Catholics did! (Keep in mind that the non-Catholics were not Protestants, but Arians.) You seem a lot better read than the others on this forum. SURELY you're aware that many (most?) of the Arians were pious, Bible-believing Christians who themselves had a whole array of Scriptural arguments at their disposal to justify their beliefs, and we're fooling ourselves if we think the Scriptures are absolutely perspicuous on this matter. Having had, in my short life, extensive relationships with Jehovah's Witnesses, perhaps I'm more sensitive to this matter. Many of their beliefs can be dismissed as bunk, but there is a good-faith case to be made for Arianism from the Scriptures. We Trinitarians need to be honest about this, even while we defend the Scripturalness of our own doctrine.Now, I don't want to be accused of falling into the trap (and I admit, Catholic apologists sometimes do!) of anachronsitically imputing my beliefs onto Athanasius. To determine whether he subscribed to the material sufficiency vs. the formal sufficiency of Scripture, one needs to ask oneself: Did Athanasius EVER dissent from an article of the Catholic faith, on the grounds that he personally did not believe the teaching to be Scriptural (as Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, et al did)? Or rather, was Athanasius ALWAYS try to read Scripture "with the mind of the Church," according to the Church's traditional reading? I think it obvious the answer is the latter.I think what he writes in his Epistle II is representative:"But after [the devil] and with him are all inventors of unlawful heresies, who indeed refer to the Scriptures, but do not hold such opinions as the saints have handed down."
{Source: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2806002.htm}There are many such citations.There seems to be this widely-held misconception among Protestants that Catholics do not consider the Scriptures to be authoritative, and that we never refer to them to justify our doctrines. OF COURSE we do! We just know better than to cite the Scriptures out of context, which is within the Tradition of the Church whose Scriptures they are.On the canon: That is indeed best left to another thread. But I think scholarly consensus is that Athanasius's view of the Old Testament, while not heretical by the standards of his day, was outside the historic Christian mainstream. Also to be noted is that he did believe Baruch to be inspired, and also held the Deuterocanon is much higher esteem than the typical Protestant today does.===
A note on the distinction between material and formal sufficiency of Scripture.We Catholics DO believe in a kind of "sola scriptura" IF by that is meant that every doctrine of the true faith is either implicit, or reflected, in the Scriptures. This is known as the material sufficiency of Scripture: Someone who knows the true faith will find all the doctrines of that faith reflected in the Bible.This is not the same as "formal" sufficiency, i.e., the idea that every Christian doctrine is explicit in the Scriptures, or that the Scriptures are so perspicuous that any reasonable person can derive the true faith therefrom, without reference to the Tradition of which the Scriptures are a privileged component.===
It is always nice to have a theological sparring partner. Since we have begun our little mini-debate, I will continue in pursuing the matter further. :)
Now, to say that
"there is a good-faith case to be made for Arianism from the Scriptures" is too much of an overstatement. I have seen Trinity-deniers resort to all sorts of misquotes and verbal gymnastics to get past many of the clearer passages of scripture. When I quoted Athanasius' statements earlier, I made sure to note that he thought scripture was clear when it came to this issue. Again, I quote:
"And this is usual with Scriptures, to express itself in inartificial and simple phrases."
(Four Discourses Against the Arians, 4:33)
Athanasius is not the only one who taught the perspicuity of scripture. When Irenaeus wrote "Adversus Haereses," he argued against the Gnostics and other heretics not on the grounds that scripture was unclear and needed an infallible interpreter. Quite the contrary, he wrote:
"A sound mind, and one which does not expose its possessor to danger, and is devoted to piety and the love of truth, will eagerly meditate upon those things which God has placed within the power of mankind, and has subjected to our knowledge, and will make advancement in [acquaintance with] them, rendering the knowledge of them easy to him by means of daily study. These things are such as fall [plainly] under our observation, and are clearly and unambiguously in express terms set forth in the Sacred Scriptures."
(Against Heresies 2:27:1)
(There are other similar quotations from other church fathers, but I will leave these two for now, lest I make this post exceedingly long with excessive quoting.)
Nonetheless, people do disagree on the interpretation of scripture. Why is that? Well, remember there is a Devil who blinds people from the truth (cf 2 Cor 4:4). Also,even without the Devil's influence, man is a natural born sinner and liar (cf. Psa 51:5, 58:3, Rom 3:10ff). This has an effect on man's ability to reason, which ultimately will affect his interpretation as well.
That being said, I will concede that not all passages of scripture are clear. However, many are, and we can interpret the unclear passages in light of the unclear passages. The question is not whether we can have an authoritative interpreter whose interpretation is unquestionable, but whether we can come to a correct interpretation of scripture using good, responsible exegesis.
I also do not deny that the Church has the task of preserving the correct understanding of scripture. I *affirm* that the Church's task is to act as a teacher that helps other understand the bible. However, there is a chasm between this and stating that the Church is an infallible magistrate over the bible (as opposed to a fallible custodian who is liable to be corrected by the same book that she is tasked with protecting and preserving).
Not only this, but you also have to demonstrate that what the early Church taught is substantially the same as what modern Roman Catholicism teaches. Of course, I would be more than happy to engage you in a debate on patristics, but that is again something to be saved for another thread.
Just so you know, I have had to debate Jehovah's Witnesses and other varieties of Arianism in the past as well. I have done so on the basis of scripture alone. This is actually one criticism I have of Roman Catholic church authority: namely that to say that one's position is correct because an infallible magisterium tells you it is so is to shut down any kind of meaningful discussion with them.
Two more questions:
1) You claim to have an infallible interpreter, yet this infallible interpreter has infallibly interpreted no more than 15 verses in the bible (Source: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/catholic-dir/21246-15-infallibly-interpreted-bible-verses-catholic.htm), and even these 15 verses can have other acceptable interpretations if these other interpretations do not conflict with the infallible one. In other words, 99.999% of scripture has no infallible interpreter. How can you claim that Roman Catholicism has an edge over interpretation of these verses if there is no infallible interpretation? Does not this fact place you on the same boat as Protestants who do not claim to have an infallible interpreter in the first place?
2) There are still some Roman Catholics out there who deny material sufficiency and affirm that revelation is partim-partim (eg. most Traditionalists). How do you explain this discrepancy on something as important as the nature of revelation in what is supposed to be a doctrinally-unified church?
===
a) Every good apologist has to be able to place himself in the shoes of his opponents, and give their arguments the strongest, and most charitable, interpretation. Maybe you really do believe that Arian Christians are stupider than you are, or less sanctified, and so can't defend their reading of Scripture in good faith. My experiences, and my knowledge of history, have taught me otherwise. I assure you, the more arrogant among them say and think the same about us.b) I don't know of any informed Catholic who denies that the Scriptures are materially sufficient. Keep in mind that it's always been the case that orthodox Catholics agree on the substance of doctrines, while disagreeing with the best way to formulate that doctrine theologically. I don't know that my Church has dogmatically determines that EVERY dogma of the faith is materially present in the Scriptures, but this sure seems to be the traditional consensus, and in any event we find it more important that the truths of the faith are believed, how one comes to believe them is of much secondary importance.c) I think you misunderstand what Catholics mean when we say the Church interprets the Scriptures authoritatively.We do not mean that the Vatican produces an "Infallible Bible Commentary," given an "infallible" interpretation of every verse. What we mean is that the Church articulates infallible teaching, and this teaching sets the parameters of Biblical interpretation.d) I looked up the context of your one-liner from Athanasius. (http://newadvent.org/fathers/28164.htm) If you do so yourself, you'll see it's got nothing to do with Scripture's perspicuity. I don't know the original Greek, but by "simple" he means something closer to "simplisitc." He's referring to the often awkward way Scripture has of putting certain things, given the simplistic (and "inartful") way in which certain passages are phrased.I see you didn't address the citation from Athanasius I did provide, not did you address the challenge I posed: Do you know of a SINGLE instance where Athanasius dissented from a Catholic doctrine, on the grounds that it contradicted some belief he found in the Scriptures? Did he have any Catholic critics of any of his theology? In other words, do his words and actions show that he believed in "sola scriptura" the way the Protestant Reformers did?Speaking of the Discourse Against the Arians, he indicates in the very first book (chapter 8) that his rule of faith is not Scripture-alone in a Protestant sense, but, as I have put it, Scripture IN TRADITION. After acknowledging that the heretics appeal to the Scriptures all the time to justify their doctrines, he asks of Arianism, rhetorically:"For who was ever yet a hearer of such a doctrine? Or whence or from whom did the abettors and hirelings of the heresy gain it? Who thus expounded to them when they were at school ? Who told them, 'Abandon the worship of the creation, and then draw near and worship a creature and a work ?' But if they themselves own that they have heard it now for the first time, how can they deny that this heresy is foreign, and not from our fathers ? But what is not from our fathers, but has come to light in this day, how can it be but that of which the blessed Paul has foretold, that 'in the latter times some shall depart from the sound faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils, in the hypocrisy of liars; cauterized in their own conscience, and turning from the truth'?"
Athanasius may very well have believed, personally, that full-blown Trinitarianism was perspicuously Biblical. (I personally would not go that far.) But it wasn't that ALONE which convinced him that he was right - it was the very novelty of the Arian doctrine that refuted it, even IF the Arians believed their doctrine to be Biblical.The Protestant authors of the popular online Ante-Nicene Fathers give a LOT more nuanced presentation of Athanasius than what you're claiming:"*****Tradition is recognised as authoritative in two ways: (1) Negatively, in the sense that doctrines which are novel are prima facie condemned by the very fact (de Decr. 7, note 2, ib. 18, Orat. i. 8, 10, ii. 34, 40, de Syn. 3, 6, 7, and Letter 59, §3); and (2) positively, as furnishing a guide to the sense of Scripture (see references in note on Orat. iii. 58, end of ch. xxix.). In other words, tradition with Athanasius is a formal, not a material, source of doctrine. His language exemplifies the necessity of distinguishing, in the case of strong patristic utterances on the authority of tradition, between different senses of the word.***** Often it means simply truth conveyed in Scripture, and in that sense 'handed down' from the first, as for example c. Apol. i. 22, 'the Gospel tradition,' and Letter 60. 6 (cf. Cypr. Ep. 74. 10, where Scripture is 'divinae traditionis caput et origo.'). *****Moreover, tradition as distinct from Scripture is with Athanasius not a secret unwritten body of teaching handed down orally, but is to be found in the documents of antiquity and the writings of the Fathers, such as those to whom he appeals in de Decr., &c ....Connected with the function and authority of tradition is that of the Church....But Athanasius was far from undervaluing the evidence of the Church's tradition. The organ by which the tradition of the Church does its work is the teaching function of her officers, especially of the Episcopate (de Syn. 3, &c.).***** But to provide against erroneous teaching on the part of bishops, as well as to provide for the due administration of matters affecting the Church generally, and for ecclesiastical legislation, *****some authority beyond that of the individual bishop is necessary. This necessity is met, in the Church as conceived by Athanasius, in two ways, firstly by Councils, secondly in the pre-eminent authority of certain sees which exercise some sort of jurisdiction***** over their neighbours."
Source: {http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf204.v.iv.iv.html}Outside of some very High Anglican circles, this is not classical Protestantism.===
First off, you stated that I did not answer you on the Athanasius line. I did already answer your question. Perhaps I should again bring up what I said before:
"I also do not deny that the Church has the task of preserving the correct understanding of scripture. I *affirm* that the Church's task is to act as a teacher that helps other understand the bible. However, there is a chasm between this and stating that the Church is an infallible magistrate over the bible (as opposed to a fallible custodian who is liable to be corrected by the same book that she is tasked with protecting and preserving)."
The early church may have preserved the correct understanding of divine Revelation (of course, you also have to take into account the fact that the ecfs had a diversity of opinions, but that will be for another topic), but that does not mean that the later church cannot deviate from this correct understanding. Merely saying that the early church had the correct understanding of scripture is not enough: You would also have to prove that this understanding was preserved and was not tainted by later innovations (remember: the main contention of Reformation that the church had strayed from the example of the early church and had to return to it; sola scriptura was/is the means of getting there).
Now as for your other question:
"Do you know of a SINGLE instance where Athanasius dissented from a Catholic doctrine, on the grounds that it contradicted some belief he found in the Scriptures?"
I don't quite understand this question, since it seems ambiguous. Do you mean "Catholic" in the 4th century sense of the term, or do you mean modern-day Roman Catholicism? If you mean the former, I would say no, if only for the reason that Athanasius would have regarded Catholic (in the 4th-century sense) doctrine as synonymous with biblical doctrine (which is again why he considered the matter to be perspicuous). If you mean the latter, however, then I must say that I cannot find sufficient evidence that Athanasius believed what Rome teaches today (though again, we need to save that one for another topic).
Finally, I don't think you addressed my second question: I understand that you (and many other Roman Catholics) affirm that scripture is at least materially sufficient. However, there are many (mostly traditionalist) Roman Catholics who do not grant even this and assert the partim-partim view. What do you make of this discrepancy?
===
1) No, actually, you did not answer any of the citations I proffered, from Athanasius himself, and from the Protestant editors of the now-online "Ante-Nicene Fathers," that contextualized the Patriarch of Alexandria's understanding of the role of Scripture in Tradition, i.e., that the Church's Tradition was the hermeneutic through which Scripture was properly understood.Again, the citations:a) Epistle II:"But after [the devil] and with him are all inventors of unlawful heresies, who indeed refer to the Scriptures, but do not hold such opinions as the saints have handed down."
{Source: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2806002.htm}b) Discourse on the Arians 1:8:"For who was ever yet a hearer of such a doctrine? Or whence or from whom did the abettors and hirelings of the heresy gain it? Who thus expounded to them when they were at school ? Who told them, 'Abandon the worship of the creation, and then draw near and worship a creature and a work ?' But if they themselves own that they have heard it now for the first time, how can they deny that this heresy is foreign, and not from our fathers ? But what is not from our fathers, but has come to light in this day, how can it be but that of which the blessed Paul has foretold, that 'in the latter times some shall depart from the sound faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils, in the hypocrisy of liars; cauterized in their own conscience, and turning from the truth'?"
c) "*****Tradition is recognised as authoritative in two ways: (1) Negatively, in the sense that doctrines which are novel are prima facie condemned by the very fact (de Decr. 7, note 2, ib. 18, Orat. i. 8, 10, ii. 34, 40, de Syn. 3, 6, 7, and Letter 59, §3); and (2) positively, as furnishing a guide to the sense of Scripture (see references in note on Orat. iii. 58, end of ch. xxix.). In other words, tradition with Athanasius is a formal, not a material, source of doctrine. His language exemplifies the necessity of distinguishing, in the case of strong patristic utterances on the authority of tradition, between different senses of the word.***** Often it means simply truth conveyed in Scripture, and in that sense 'handed down' from the first, as for example c. Apol. i. 22, 'the Gospel tradition,' and Letter 60. 6 (cf. Cypr. Ep. 74. 10, where Scripture is 'divinae traditionis caput et origo.'). *****Moreover, tradition as distinct from Scripture is with Athanasius not a secret unwritten body of teaching handed down orally, but is to be found in the documents of antiquity and the writings of the Fathers, such as those to whom he appeals in de Decr., &c ....Connected with the function and authority of tradition is that of the Church....But Athanasius was far from undervaluing the evidence of the Church's tradition. The organ by which the tradition of the Church does its work is the teaching function of her officers, especially of the Episcopate (de Syn. 3, &c.).***** But to provide against erroneous teaching on the part of bishops, as well as to provide for the due administration of matters affecting the Church generally, and for ecclesiastical legislation, *****some authority beyond that of the individual bishop is necessary. This necessity is met, in the Church as conceived by Athanasius, in two ways, firstly by Councils, secondly in the pre-eminent authority of certain sees which exercise some sort of jurisdiction***** over their neighbours."
Source: {http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf204.v.iv.iv.html}Finally, I showed that the one passage you produced showing his belief in Scripture's perspicuity actually had nothing to do with perspicuity at all.2) I also addressed the claim that there is somehow a contradiction in Catholic teaching about the relationship between Scripture and Tradition. There isn't, and I asked you to cite authoritative sources to the contrary. Two people can agree on the same truth, and simply formulate it differently. In the present discussion, one such framework is to consider Scripture and Tradition two sources of doctrine (Tradition defined as "the Word of God as it is found in the Church, outside of but not autonomous from Scripture"), or, what I think gives more justice to the Catholic and patristic understanding, "Scripture IN Tradition," with Scripture understood to be materially but not formally sufficient.3) Finally, I think a little intellectual honesty is called for. Catholic is Catholic. Let's not set up a dichotomy, or any artifical distinction, between rth-century Catholicism and, say, 16th century "Roman" (Muwahahahaha!) Catholicism.When the Fathers are not read with an egenda, it's rather obvious that the orthodox Church of the 4th century (and I would argue, MUCH earlier) was Catholic, and the same institution as today's Catholic Church, or AT LEAST today's Catholic and Orthodox Churches. To claim otherwise is just dishonest. We KNOW what the 4th century church believed, and how it was constituted: a very high sacramentalism, a robust hierarchy, liturgical worship, veneration of Mary and the saints and their relics, Roman primacy,apostolic succession, prayer for the dead, etc. This is simply incontestable.Pointing out differences (Duh!) between Catholicism in the 16th century and Catholicism in the 4th century, in order to claim that the former is not the same institution as the latter is just silly. Denominations undergo change all the time - it doesn't mean they don't stay the same denomination!So please, let's not be dishonest. There's a REASON Catholics (and Orthodox) venerate Athanasius as a saint, and your typical Protestant doesn't. I don't deny that theological development occurred between the 4th and 16th centuries (just as it's ALWAYS occured in the Church of Christ), but to claim the two are not the same Church is just grasping at straws.So no, you haven't shown that Athanasius believed that Scripture alone, DIVORCED FROM THE CHURCH'S TRADITIONAL UNDERSTANDING OF IT, was the rule of faith for the Christian. We know what the orthodox Church of Athanasius's time believed and taught, and there is no evidence whatsoever that Athanasius dissented from even a single one of the Church's doctrines on the ground that he independently, and without recourse to the Church's Tradition, found these doctrines Biblically wanting.===
To understand what I mean the difference to be between an orthodox Catholic understanding of Scripture's sufficiency, such that Athanasius subscribed to, and modern Protestant sola scriptura, just look at the attutides of most of your co-religionists to this question.They subscribe to a whole HOST of doctrines that are COMPLETELY foreign to historic Christianity. And do they care? Point out to your typical Evangelical that no one, NO CHRISTIAN, believed in a doctrine of a pre-trib rapture before the 1800s, and he'll tell you,"Who cares? It's taught in Scripture!"Athanasius never approached the Bible in this way, autonomous from the Church whose Bible it was.===
(It looks like at this point, we’ve pretty much changed the topic from just sola scriptura to the nature of the early church as well. Fine, it is inevitable that these topics should cross each other)
“So no, you haven’t shown that Athanasius believed that Scripture alone, DIVORCED FROM THE CHURCH’S TRADITIONAL UNDERSTANDING OF IT, was the rule of faith for the Christian”
Sir, I never made that claim. Athanasius certainly did not interpret scripture apart from church tradition. What I reject is the idea that this tradition has infallible authority rather than acting as a teaching aid (in the same way that we also make use of commentaries and language resources to interpret scripture). The church has authority, but its authority is contingent on its ability to remain faithful to the Revelations that she has received. The point of both the Trinitarian defense against Arianism and the Protestant Reformation was that the majority of the church had went astray and needed to be corrected, using scripture as the benchmark to determine what they needed to go back to. Also, like I said, you would have to prove that what the Nicene church acceped as tradition is the same kind of tradition that modern Rome has.
As for Athanasius’ belief in perspictuity, I will have to defer to the research of a more well-read friend of mine at this point:
http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2010/03/scriptures-clarity-confirmed-against.htmlhttp://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2010/02/athanasius-against-scriptures-formal.html
Now, you say that the 4th century church had
"a very high sacramentalism, a robust hierarchy, liturgical worship , veneration of Mary and the saints and their relics , Roman primacy, apostolic succession , prayer for the dead, etc. This is simply incontestable." To say that it is “simply incontestable” is overstating your case, not to mention ignoring scores of historians and scholars who do not have the same conclusions as you do. Anyway, will deal with these points one by one:
“A very high sacramentalism” – “Very high” is too vague. The fourth century church did not have monstrances, or claim eucharistic miracles. They did not practice auricular confession (they had a form of confession, but it is very different from what modern Roman Catholics practice). Their was also at this point still at least some debate over whether or not infants should be baptized (the credobaptist position managed to survive until sometime around the 5th century).
“veneration of Mary and the saints and their relics” – Many of the major Marian dogmas (such as her sinlessness and assumption/dormition) did not yet exist at this time. Also, relic worship did admittedly begin sometime around this period, but the fact that it took that much time to appear serves to prove that it is an innovation, not that it is apostolic.
As far as veneration goes, I would like to refer you to some quotes from Epiphanius of Salamis, gathered together by a sister in this webpage:
http://pilgrimsdaughter.blogspot.com/2009/12/epiphanius-on-adoration-of-mary-and.html(Now, at this point you may try to argue for a difference between latria and dulia. However, it must be pointed out that the ecfs did not seem to have been aware of this distinction. For them, worship was worship, whether or not it you distinguished it from a lesser “veneration.”)
“a robust hierarchy” – Granted, the monarchical episcopate had already developed by the 4th century, but it took time to arrive at this point from the original church structure, which was based on a plurality of elders (with no distinct line being drawn between elder and bishop until at least the early second century). Even Roman Catholic scholars admit this. For a more detailed discussion, see Francis A. Sullivan’s “From Apostles to Bishops,” published by Paulist Press.
“liturgical worship” – Church liturgy was already beginning to become more complex and ritualized at this time (compared to the simplicity of 1st and 2nd century agape feasts). Also, to paraphrase a certain source (I don’t have it on me at this moment, so I’m quoting from memory, but I’ll give you the citation once I find it), uniformity in the order of worship is actually an indication of later innovation, rather than antiquity.
“Roman primacy” – For a detailed refutation of this claim, see the resources listed here:
http://epagonizesthai.blogspot.com/2009/06/some-books-on-papacy.html“apostolic succession” – At this point the church did admittedly begin to develop a concept of apostolic succession, but this is once again a departure from the simplicity of the 1st and 2nd centuries.
"They subscribe to a whole HOST of doctrines that are COMPLETELY foreign to historic Christianity. And do they care? Point out to your typical Evangelical that no one, NO CHRISTIAN, believed in a doctrine of a pre-trib rapture before the 1800s, and he'll tell you,"Who cares? It's taught in Scripture!"
I don’t believe in pre-trib rapture either, so this doesn’t concern me all that much. However, since you brought up eschatology, you do realize that Premillennialism (whether pre-trib or not) was considered a normal and orthodox understanding of the endtimes during days of the early church, right? It wasn’t totally rejected until sometime around the 5th century, which was when Amillennialism became the normative at which point it was believed by very few people until it was revived sometime after the Reformation. (Note: I am not arguing for either millennial view, but am simply pointing out that both views are archaic and have an equal claim to antiquity, and early church fathers certainly had differences of opinion as to which one was taught in scripture.)
A good resource on what the early church believed would Everett Ferguson’s two-volume series “Early Christians Speak” published by Acu press. Go check those works out.
Anyway, I am writing this from the public library, and I have to sign off soon. I will respond further later on, and maybe give you time to respond to what I have written thus far.
===
Let's stick to Athanasius. There's no possible way I can respond to a smorgasboard of claims.I'm afraid your presentation doesn't do Athanasius justice. The Patriarch of Alexandria ('cause, you know, classical Protestantism has monarchical bishops, let alone Patriarchs!) did not leave behind a Catechism, and was not addressing Protestantism. But I, for one, do not know a single scholar who would assert that Athanasius subscribed to the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura, nor have you produced any remark of his to the effect that he believed the Church's traditional understanding of Scriptural doctrine could be in error.In fact, the Protestant editors of the Ante-Nicene Fathers say precisely the opposite, and give numerous citations to prove it:"Tradition is recognised as authoritative in two ways: (1) Negatively, in the sense that doctrines which are novel are prima facie condemned by the very fact (de Decr. 7, note 2, ib. 18, Orat. i. 8, 10, ii. 34, 40, de Syn. 3, 6, 7, and Letter 59, §3)"What Protestant believes THIS?The idea that Athanasius considered the Church's Tradition the way Protestants consider Bible commentaries - useful aids, but not binding on the Christian conscience, indeed, to be ignored completely if one wants to - is just ludicrous. Athanasius again:"For what is so manifestly shown to be evil, it is not necessary to waste time in exposing further, lest contentious persons think the matter doubtful. It is enough merely to answer such things as follows: we are content with the fact that this is not the teaching of the Catholic Church, nor did the fathers hold this. But lest the 'inventors of evil things' make entire silence on our part a pretext for shamelessness, it will be well to mention a few points from Holy Scripture, in case they may even thus be put to shame, and cease from these foul devices."Whence did it occur to you, sirs, to say that the Body is of one Essence with the Godhead of the Word? For it is well to begin at this point, in order that by showing this opinion to be unsound, all the others too may be proved to be the same. Now from the divine Scriptures we discover nothing of the kind. For they say that God came in a human body. But the fathers who also assembled at Nicæa say that, not the body, but the Son Himself is coessential with the Father, and that while He is of the Essence of the Father, the body, as they admitted according to the Scriptures, is of Mary. Either then deny the Synod of Nicæa, and as heretics bring in your doctrine from the side; or, if you wish to be children of the fathers, do not hold the contrary of what they wrote."
Letter LIX to Epictetus, 3 and 4: http://newadvent.org/fathers/2806059.htmFor Athanasius, a doctrine that is novel is ipso facto invalid, and the Nicene Council binding for its ecumenicity. This simply isn't Protestant.Cherry-picking verses from the Fathers, without taking into account their broader ecclesiastical context or their broader teaching, is just ludicrous. One could easily take any modern Catholic theological tract and make it the mouthpiece for any Protestant sect one wanted.To argue, from Athanasius, the perspicuity of Scripture is equally silly, given that his entire career refutes it! If he DID believe Scripture was perspicuous, it's only because by "Scripture" he meant "Scripture as traditionally understood by the Church." The Church's traditional reading of Scripture WAS relatively clear and unambiguous, but the Scriptures themselves? OBVIOUSLY not, or there would have been no Arian controversies!Honestly, this is about the STUPIDEST doctrine one can defend, since the entire witness of history refutes it. Christians can't even agree on whether the Scriptures themselves are perspicuous on their perspicuity!===
I'm getting a bit tired at this point. My knowledge is obviously limited, plus I have to attend to other matters. For now, you see the links in my last post. My fiinal word of advice to you is not to claim victory prematurely, but go check out the information that I linked to and try to interact with them. I'm sure you'll find this to be an intellectually stimulating discussion.
God bless.
===
PS - One last resource that I recommend you get, if you have the money to spend for it:
http://www.christianbook.com/scripture-ground-pillar-faith-vols-1/william-webster/pd/4678?item_code=WW&netp_id=317941It's most comprehensive treatment of the subject that I know of thus far.
===
Forgive me, my brother, if I've come across haughty. I'm no scholar of Patristics, this just happens to be one of my intellectual hobbies.I'm not the kind to "declare victory," as I know MANY are on this forum. Nor am I in the business of name-calling.I do believe that the sources you cite (which are not scholarly - NOT that this means they can't contain valuable information and shouldn't be taken on their own merits, I'm just pointing this out; the same could be said for many a Catholic apologetic) misrepresent Athanasius and the early Church, but that having been said they do contribute to a much more nuanced understanding of patristic doctrine than some of the pop-Catholic apologetics would suggest.For instance, the Patristic insistence on the material sufficiency of Scripture is a thought-provoking one, and Protestants are to be commended for reminding Catholics of it.Your contesting of the Catholicity of the early Church I do fund puzzling. Will you not admit the principle of doctrinal development, if not normatively then at least as an emperical fact? To argue that the Church of the Nicene Council is not the Church of the Tridentine, because 4th century Catholicism was more primitive than that of the 16th century just makes no sense to me.It seems to me that, unless we are strict Restorationists (and I don't think you are, but feel free to correct me), historically-minded Protestants must admit the principle that the Church delves ever more deeply into her rule of faith, and draws out its implications.We shouldn't expect the Church in the 4th century to look, feel, and taste EXACTLY like the Church in the 21st. The Church is a living organism, both a body and a tree. Bodies and trees grow, staying ever-the-same and yet changing.For instance, the early Church's sacramentalism. Your disputation of my characterization as "very high" focuses on various superficialities, which Catholics have never claimed to be articles of faith. We KNOW monstrances are a late-medieval innovation: So what? So are Christian universities, and printed Bibles! Your protestations here have to do with customs, which we freely admit DO evolve to better express and communicate the unchanging Faith. Again, so what?Your mention of Eucharistic miracles is also very curious: Again, so what? The early Church was not cessationist, and did not believe God was limited in what miracles He could or would perform, to strengthen the faith of His people in every age. Catholics don't have to believe in any Eucharistic miracles - these are historical phenomenon which are scrutinized on their own merits, on a case-by-case basis. And besides, SUPERNATURAL PHENOMENA have been associated with the Eucharist continuously, since the Apostle Paul wrote some Christians were suffering illness for receiving It unworthily! Cyprian of Carthage mentions similar phenomena, and so do Fathers after him.Finally, aside from Tertullian, I don't know of any orthodox authority who wrote against the practice of infant baptism. It seems to have been normative from the apostolic age. The practice in some quarters to delay it into adulthood wasn't based on the theological premises of 16th century anabaptists, but for fear that children might not live up to the commitments assumed in their infant baptisms. This delay actually presupposes the doctrines of baptismal regeneration and the validity of infant baptism.For what it's worth, I'll give THIS to modern anabaptists: I tend to believe that only infants in observant households ought to be baptized. This judgment of mine is outside the Catholic mainstream, and I respect that of those who argue otherwise, but on this I tend to find affinity with many a Protestant.===
That ends my discussion for now. I may discuss matters with this person further in the future, when time permits.
