Alasan reformed dan protestan bersolascriptura

[solideogloria]

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 apostolic churches. Every sort of thing must necessarily revert to its original for its classification. Therefore the churches, although they are so many and so great, comprise but the one primitive church, (founded) by the apostles, from which they all (spring). In this way all are primitive, and all are apostolic, whilst they are all proved to be one, in (unbroken) unity, by their peaceful communion, and title of brotherhood, and bond of hospitality—privileges which no other rule directs than the one tradition of the selfsame mystery.75 Â
Tertullian taught that authoritative apostolic succession is not ecclesiastical but doctrinal. What characterizes a Church as apostolic is conformity to apostolic tradition, which is preeminently enshrined in Scripture. Tertullian appealed to the apostolic churches (those founded directly by the apostles) as an affirmation of true apostolic tradition, and in so doing aligned those churches with the written Scriptures of the apostles.76 
The Alexandrians
The Alexandrians is a term referring principally to Clement of Alexandria and Origen who were associated with the Church of Alexandria in Egypt. We find similarities to Irenaeus and Tertullian in their approach to Scripture and tradition, but also much that marks them as distinctive and unique among the church as a whole. While Irenaeus and Tertullian combated the philosophizing tendencies in the Church, Clement and Origen approached Christianity from a philosophical perspective and sought, as far as possible, to accommodate Christianity to the leading philosophical concepts of their day. They are fond of employing philosophical terms to define and defend Christian truth and were greatly influenced by the leading philosophies of their culture. They attempted to present Christianity as the highest and purest form of philosophy. Unlike Tertullian, who rejected all philosophy, Clement and Origen embraced it, or at least, to reinterpret it in Christian terms. As Clement puts it:
For, like farmers who irrigate the land beforehand, so we also water with the liquid stream of Greek learning what in it is earthy; so that it may receive the spiritual seed cast into it, and may be capable of easily nourishing it. The Stromata will contain the truth mixed up in the dogmas of philosophy, or rather covered over and hidden, as the edible part of the nut in the shell. For, in my opinion, it is fitting that the seeds of truth be kept for the husbandmen of faith, and no others. I am not oblivious of what is babbled by some, who in their ignorance are frightened at every noise, and say that we ought to occupy ourselves with what is most necessary, and which contains the faith; and that we should pass over what is beyond and superfluous, which wears out and detains us to no purpose, in things which conduce nothing to the great end. Others think that philosophy was introduced into life by an evil influence, for the ruin of men, by an evil inventor. But I shall show, throughout the whole of these Stromata, that evil has an evil nature, and can never turn out the producer of aught that is good; indicating that philosophy is in a sense a work of Divine Providence.77 Â
Clement of Alexandria
William Jurgens gives us the following historical background on Clement:
Titus Flavius Clemens, St. Clement of Alexandria, was born of pagan parents, probably at Athens, about the year 150 A.D. After becoming a Christian he journeyed to Italy, Syria and Palestine, seeking Christian teachers for his own instruction. Finally he met the celebrated Pantaenus in Alexandria, and was so attracted to the master that he settled there and became, in order, Pantaenus’ associate, assistant, and finally succeeded him as director of the school of catechumens, attaining the latter position about the year 200 A.D. Two or three years later he was forced by the persecution under Severus to flee from Egypt. He died in Cappadocia between the years 211 and 216 A.D., without ever having seen Egypt again.78
When we venture into the realm of philosophical Christianity as expounded by Clement of Alexandria, we are headed into a decidedly different environment from that of Irenaeus and Tertullian and the vast majority of later fathers. While the emphasis is still placed on the ultimate and final authority of Scripture, its message is often obscured by the philosophical bent and hermeneutical principles (also heavily influenced by philosophy) employed by Clement. Nevertheless, Clement shared the position of Irenaeus and Tertullian, that the Scriptures are materially sufficient and the ultimate authority for the Church.
Clement’s Estimate of Scripture
Clement used much the same terminology as Irenaeus and Terullian to describe the Scriptures, calling them the voice of God and inspired,79Â divine80 Â and truth.81 Because they are inspired, Clement taught that the Scriptures are the ultimate authority in all matters of faith and the sole source for all doctrine.82 He affirmed Scripture alone as the criterion for all truth so that all doctrine must be subjected to the bar of Scripture for validation. In refuting heretics and presenting the truth, Clement emphatically stated that all arguments must to be rooted in and derived from Scripture. He disdained personal opinion void of Scriptural proof,83Â and believed that those who are spiritual and orthodox are led by God in Scripture. They will seek proof from Scripture for the confirmation of all doctrines:
Accordingly, those fall from this eminence who follow not God whither He leads. And He leads us in the inspired Scriptures...Our Gnostic then alone, having grown old in the Scriptures, and maintaining apostolic and ecclesiastic orthodoxy in doctrines, lives most correctly in accordance with the Gospel, and discovers the proofs, for which he may have made search (sent forth as he is by the Lord), from the law and the prophets. For the life of the Gnostic, in my view, is nothing but deeds and words corresponding to the tradition of the Lord.84  
Clement believed that Scripture was the heart and soul of all theology and the preeminent authority in the life of every Christian. G.L. Prestige gives the following overview of Clement’s attitude towards the authority of Scripture and its relationship to tradition, noting that he is representative of the fathers as a whole:
The Bible was associated, and largely identified, with the tradition as early as Clement of Alexandria, at the turn of the century. He claims the authority of scriptural texts with the new phrase ‘as the Scripture has traditioned’ (strom. I.21, 142.2; ib. 7.18, 109.2), and speaks of the

[solideogloria]

‘spiritual knowledge traditioned through the Scriptures’, by which Christ makes a man truly great–minded (strom. 7.16, 105.1)...The genuine ‘‘nostic’—that is to say, the devout and intelligent Christian, the man of real enlightenment—will grow old in the Scriptures, preserves the apostolic and ecclesiastic orthodoxy in his doctrines, and lives according to the Gospel; for his life ‘is nothing else than the deeds and words conforming to the Lord’s tradition’ (ib. 104.1 & 2). In his maintenance of such an attitude, basing a deep reverence for the Bible on the unique character of the tradition which it contained, Clement is not singular. He merely gives expression in words to the spirit which animated all the Fathers, who repudiated with horror the idea of possessing any private or secret doctrine, and supported all their arguments with the most painstaking exegesis of the text of Holy Writ.85
It is interesting to note that Clement does not emphasize the rule of faith as did Irenaeus and Tertullian. Even so, this does not mean that the rule of faith played no role in the church at Alexandria. We know this because Irenaeus wrote that the rule of faith summarized the entirety of the faith and was received throughout the entire world. In addition, Origen, who succeeded Clement in the Church at Alexandria, did emphasize the rule of faith. The rule played an important role in the Church there and in the theology of Clement, but his main interest was not in the rule itself. This was because the rule of faith was a summary of the bare essentials of the Christian faith as it applied to the common Christian—it was merely foundational. Clement taught there were two levels of Christianity. The first was the common faith, represented by the rule, and embraced by all Christians. The second level comprised an elite few, whom Clement referred to as the Christian Gnostic, who went beyond the essentials of the faith.86 Through contemplation, this individual obtained a higher level of knowledge which he called gnosis. This more spiritual Christian or Gnostic, entered more deeply into the Christian faith and was able to comprehend what he called the secret tradition handed down from Jesus to his apostles and through them to the elite few:
The apostle, then, manifestly announces a twofold faith, or rather one which admits of growth and perfection; for the common faith lies beneath as a foundation. To those, therefore, who desire to be healed, and are moved by faith, He added, ‘Thy faith hath saved thee.’ But that which is excellently built upon is consummated in the believer, and is again perfected by the faith which results from instruction and the word, in order to the performance of the commandments...For intensification of the righteousness which is according to the law shows the Gnostic. So one who is placed in the head, which is that which rules its own body—and who advances to the summit of faith, which is the knowledge (gnosis) itself, for which all the organs of perception exist—will likewise obtain the highest inheritance.
    The primacy of knowledge the apostle shows to those capable of reflection...But he teaches that knowledge (gnosis), which is the perfection of faith, goes beyond catechetical instruction, in accordance with the magnitude of the Lord’s teaching and the rule of the Church. Wherefore also he proceeds to add, ‘And if I am rude in speech, yet I am not in knowledge.’87Â
These elitist Christians are, he says, able to expound the truth of the Scriptures in accordance with the Church’s ecclesiastical rule, that is, by an authoritative method of interpreting the Scriptures. Clement taught that although the Scriptures are the source of all doctrine, they must be aligned with correct interpretation which is only found in the Church and handed down from the apostles by way of oral tradition. He mentions that this method was derived from eminent teachers who had preceded him.88 
    It is with this distinction, between the ordinary and the Gnostic Christian, that Clement propounded a concept of tradition that is both novel and outside the orthodox mainstream of the Church of his day. As we have seen earlier, apostolic tradition was equated with the rule of faith and the written Scriptures. It was not purely oral in nature but could be documented and verified by Scripture. The rule itself was not strictly a method of interpretation but a collation of the major and fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith as expressed in Scripture. Clement went beyond the orthodox understanding of tradition to teach that it included the handing down of an unwritten method of interpreting Scripture which he referred to as the ecclesiastical canon or rule.89 We will examine Clement’s concept of interpretive tradition in detail in chapter three.
Origen (A.D. 185–253/254)
Origen succeeded Clement as head of the catechetical school at Alexandria during the first half of the third century. It was under his direction that the school gained its greatest influence and prominence. He was a man of enormous intellect, and by far the most prolific writer of the patristic age. Eusebius tells us that his writings numbered near six thousand. He has been called the greatest scholar of Christian antiquity, and had immense influence on fathers in the East and West in subsequent centuries.
Origen’s View of Scripture
As with the fathers who preceded him, Origen held to the unique authority of Scripture. He describes it as holy,90 sacred and inspired.91 Because Scripture is inspired by God it is uniquely authoritative for the establishing of doctrine and truth:
Let us now ascertain how those statements which we have advanced are supported by the authority of holy Scripture.92 Â
Along with Irenaeus, Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria, Origen recognized no other source of doctrine than Scripture:
But that we may not appear to build our assertions on subjects of such importance and difficulty on the ground of inference alone, or to require the assent of our hearers to what is only conjectural, let us see whether we can obtain any declarations from holy Scripture, by the authority of which these positions may be more credibly maintained.93 Â
Since Scripture is the sole source of doctrine there can be no apostolic teaching that is purely oral in nature:
But let this Jew of Celsus, who does not believe that He foreknew all that happened to Him, consider how, while Jerusalem was still standing, and the whole Jewish worship celebrated in it, Jesus foretold what would befall it from the hand of the Romans. For they will not maintain that the acquaintances and pupils of Jesus Himself handed down His teaching contained in the Gospels without committing it to writing, and left His disciples without the memoirs of Jesus contained in their works.94

[solideogloria]

As Hanson has written:
The most cogent argument for the view that Origen believed that Scripture was the sole source of doctrine for himself or any other Christian is that (unlike Clement) he never quotes any other source as his authority for doctrine, and usually assumes without question that in any discussion the deciding factor is the evidence of the Bible.95 Â
Like Irenaeus and Tertullian, Origen appealed to the authority of the Church’s rule of faith and listed its doctrinal content.96 Â This rule he referred to as the Church’s canon. Like the fathers preceding him, Origen believed that the rule of faith summarized the fundamental truths of the Christian faith. It was representative of the preaching of the Church in its broad outlines, was given by the apostles, and, in its specific doctrines, was grounded in Scripture. It could be appealed to as an authority outside of Scripture but the particular doctrines had to be validated from Scripture. They were parallel authorities but identical in content. Hanson notes:
Origen did regard the Church’s rule of faith as separate from Scripture, but not entirely dissociated from it. The Church’s rule of faith was in fact the Church’s handling and interpretation of Scripture, and its content must therefore be identical with and derive its support from Scripture. But because the rule of faith is what the Church teaches and preaches, and because it derives in unbroken continuity from what the Church always has taught and preached from the very beginning, it cannot be precisely the same as the written books of the Bible, though it is certainly not thought to constitute a separate source of doctrine from Scripture. The rule of faith is the Church’s tradition as the Church teaches it, preaches it, and hands it on to her faithful children. The Scriptures are the same tradition of the Church as it is written down to be for all Christians ‘the certainty of those things wherein they are instructed’, and the source of the Church’s teaching and preaching.97 Â
In Not By Scripture Alone, Joe Gallegos cites Origen’s statements that those who are truly Christian remain true to what he calls the Church’s ecclesiastical and apostolical tradition. He gives the following interpretation of Origen’s words:
One of the most prolific writers of the third century is Origen of Alexandria. Like the Fathers before him, he testifies in his dogmatic treatise on the Christian faith of the necessity of holding fast to the traditional faith of the Church. This faith is transmitted and preserved through orderly succession from the apostles:
Since many, however, of those who profess to believe in Christ differ from each other, not only in small and trifling matters, but also on subjects of the highest importance, as, e.g., regarding God, or the Lord Jesus Christ, or the Holy Spirit; and not only regarding these, but also regarding others which are created existences, viz., the powers and the holy virtues; it seems on that account necessary first of all to fix a definite limit and to lay down an unmistakable rule regarding each one of these, and then to pass to the investigation of other points. For as we ceased to seek for truth (notwithstanding the professions of many among Greeks and Barbarians to make it known) among all who claimed it for erroneous opinions, after we had come to believe that Christ was the Son of God, and were persuaded that we must learn it from Himself; so, seeing there are many who think they hold the opinions of Christ, and yet some of these think differently from their predecessors, yet as the teaching of the Church, transmitted in orderly succession from the apostles, and remaining in the Churches to the present day, is still preserved, that alone is to be accepted as truth which differs in no respect from ecclesiastical and apostolical tradition.98 Â
His implication in these comments is that the Roman Catholic Church adheres to the ecclesiastical and apostolical tradition because she is directly descended from the apostles, the Protestant Church having departed from it. If we are not one with the Church then we are not one with apostolic teaching. But what did Origen mean by ‘the ecclesiastical and apostolical tradition?’ He was referring to the specific doctrines that made up the creed. Origen’s comments come from the Preface of his treatise On First Principles which is an explanation of and commentary on the creed. The Protestant Church therefore fully agrees, in the main, with the ecclesiastical and apostolical tradition as defined by Origen. On the other hand, although the Roman Catholic Church affirms the same doctrines, she does not embrace the same rule of faith defined by Origen and described as the ecclesiastical and apostolical tradition. She has added numerous doctrines to the rule which were completely unknown to the early Church, such as the papal and Marian dogmas. As Origen put it, ‘that alone is to be accepted as truth which differs in no respect from ecclesiastical and apostolical tradition.’ By Origen’s standard, those distinctively Roman doctrines are to be rejected because they differ from the ecclesiastical and apostolical tradition and are therefore not truth. It is the Roman Catholic Church, not the Protestant, that has departed from tradition as defined by Origen.
Cyril of Jerusalem
Cyril was bishop of Jerusalem from 348 A.D. to 386 A.D. His treatise, The Catechetical Lectures, is important historically because this is the earliest documentation we possess of the catechetical instruction of the early church. In this work, Cyril gives an exposition of the Christian faith for those who are being prepared for baptism; a systematic defense and explanation of ‘the canon of truth’ and ‘the rule of faith.’ This is an exhaustive treatise on what was taught the initiates into the Christian faith in the mid–fourth century. It is, in effect, the Creed. Following the example of the major fathers who preceded him, Cyril wrote with conviction of the divine inspiration and absolute authority of both the Old and New Testaments. He referred to them some fifteen times as holy,99  twenty–nine times as divine.100 three times as sacred,101 and four times as divinely inspired by the Holy Spirit.102 Â
    Because he believed the Scriptures to be divinely inspired writings, Cyril taught that they are the ultimate authority for the Church and the sole source of doctrine and truth. Throughout his Lectures, Cyril defends each point of the Creed with Scripture, emphasizing repeatedly the necessity for every doctrine to be validated and proven from Scripture. He is emphatic that not the least point of doctrine is to be delivered without proof from the Scriptures:
Have thou ever in thy mind this seal, which for the present has been lightly touched in my discourse, by way of summary, but shall be stated, should the Lord permit, to the best of my power with the proof from the Scriptures. 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

[solideogloria]

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.103
As with Irenaeus and Tertullian, Cyril used the verb form of the word tradition (paradivdosqai - paradidosthai) to refer to the handing down of the faith,104 saying that no teaching of the faith is to be delivered or ‘traditioned’ apart from the Scriptures. He is insistent that if a doctrine is not written it cannot be known and is to be rejected. He rejected theological speculation on subjects not written in Scripture.105 Â Furthermore, he stated that his Lectures contained the entirety of the faith with nothing omitted. Therefore the entirety of the faith is grounded upon Scripture:
But in learning the Faith and in professing it, acquire and keep that only, which is now delivered to thee by the Church, and which has been built up strongly out of all the Scriptures....We comprise the whole doctrine of the Faith in a few lines....For the articles of the Faith were not composed as seemed good to men; but the most important points collected out of all the Scripture make up one complete teaching of the Faith. And just as the mustard seed in one small grain contains many branches, so also this Faith has embraced in few words all the knowledge of godliness in the Old and New Testaments.106
There is nothing in the rule of faith that is not written in Scripture. Thus, no oral tradition exists which is authoritative for establishing and confirming the faith of individual members of the Church. Cyril certainly knew of no such tradition. Cyril did, however, speak of tradition. For example his Lectures state:
Take heed then, brethren, and hold fast the traditions which ye now receive, and write them on the table of your heart.107
What does Cyril mean by ‘tradition’ here? Roman Catholic apologists contend that he is referring to oral teachings handed down to the Church by the Apostle Paul. They argue that the Protestant insistence that all of the above quotations from Cyril which seem to suggest reliance on Scripture alone as a source and norm of doctrinal truth are proven fallacious by this one reference to tradition. They charge that Protestants distort the teaching of Cyril by neglecting to take into account his full teaching, taking his comments out of context. Robert Sungenis gives expression to this point of view:
Finally, to show how dangerous it can be to quote from a Father without examining the context of his quote, or all that he says on a given subject, we will observe a case of selective quoting, which if not scrutinized, seems to support the sola scriptura position. The same Protestant apologist (Eric Svendsen) quotes Cyril as saying:
For these articles of our faith were not composed of human opinion, but are the principle points collected out of the whole Scripture to complete a single doctrinal formulation of the faith.
The implication the apologist is attempting to draw from this quote is that only Scripture, not human tradition, has been amassed in all its parts to form the doctrinal stipulations of our faith. This seems like a plausible interpretation, that is, until we read the remainder of Cyril’s paragraph and the beginning of the next paragraph:
Take heed then, brethren, and hold fast the traditions which ye now receive, and write them on the table of your heart. Guard them with reverence, lest per chance the enemy despoil any who have grown slack; or lest some heretic pervert any of the truths delivered to you (Catechetical Lectures 5.12)
Here Cyril is paraphrasing the famous passage in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 (‘So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter’) which stipulates both oral (‘word of mouth’) and written (‘by Letter’) as divine revelation and the Tradition Paul wanted the Thessalonians to preserve. Cyril’s citation of 2 Thess. 2:15 comes only two sentences after the quote extracted by the Protestant apologist which he used to teach that Cyril believed in sola scriptura. We must assume that this apologist did not bother to read Cyril’s entire paragraph, or, more likely was quoting a secondary source whose objectivity he did not question.108
What becomes abundantly clear is that the one who has actually distorted Cyril’s writings, citing quotations out of context, is Sungenis. By his use of the word tradition Cyril is not referring to oral tradition. The context of his statement reveals this to be the case:
So for the present listen while I simply say the Creed, and commit it to memory; but at the proper season expect the confirmation out of Holy Scripture of each part of the contents. For the articles of the Faith were not composed as seemed good to men; but the most important points collected out of all the Scripture make up one complete teaching of the Faith. And just as the mustard seed in one small grain contains many branches, so also this Faith has embraced in few words all the knowledge of godliness in the Old and New Testaments. Take heed then, brethren, and hold fast the traditions which ye now receive, and write them on the table of your heart.109
The context is very important here. Cyril is referring to the doctrines of the faith which he says he is passing on to the catechumens. He says they are embodied in the Creed and all were collected out of the Scriptures. In addition, he says he committed the faith to them in its entirety. Thus, by ‘tradition,’ Cyril meant the fundamental doctrines of the rule of faith which were derived from Scripture and passed down by Scripture. Cyril was not referring to oral tradition when he used the term ‘tradition.’ There is no mention of any doctrine in the entirety of the Lectures which was derived from such a tradition. Rather than reading the full context of Cyril’s Lectures so as to interpret individual statements within that broader context, Sungenis isolated one statement, imposing his own preconceived theology on Cyril’s words. Sungenis insists that Cyril is referring to both oral tradition and Scriptural teaching. Cyril exhorted the catechumens to write the traditions he handed down to them on their hearts. Where are the supposed oral traditions mentioned in his Lectures? There are none. Every teaching or tradition that Cyril gave was derived from Scripture, conclusively proving  that Cyril’s use of the term ‘tradition’ meant teaching passed on by the Church, rooted in and proven by Scripture. By alluding to 2 Thessalonians 2:15, Cyril demonstrated his belief that the Apostolic tradition is preserved in and

[solideogloria]

passed on through the written Scriptures. As he put it, it is ‘traditioned’ through Scripture.
    The above documentation from the teaching of Cyril is a strong endorsement of the principle of sola Scriptura. Even Roman Catholic apologists are forced to admit that Cyril’s words are supportive of this principle, though they attempt to blunt the force and implication of his words as seen from the following comments by Philip Blosser and Patrick Madrid:
A good example of this Protestant misuse of the Church Fathers is furnished by James White. He typically begins his foray into the Fathers in search of evidence for sola scriptura with a quote from Cyril of Jerusalem’s Catechetical Lectures, in which he says: ‘not the least part [of the mysteries of the faith] may be handed on without the Holy Scriptures...Even to me, who tell you these things, do not give ready belief, unless you receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of the things which I announce.’ Taken in isolation the passage may seem mildly promising to the Protestant, but the key issue here is the meaning of Scriptural ‘proof.’ The term is open to wide and narrow meanings. We cannot, in a narrow sense, ‘prove’ many doctrines from Scripture (e.g. the Trinity, or infant baptism). But in a wider sense, the Church that teaches these doctrines can look for ‘proofs’ from Scriptures. What does Cyril mean by ‘proof’? As Patrick Madrid points out:
If Cyril was in fact teaching sola scriptura [in this passage], Protestants have a big problem. Cyril’s Catechetical Lectures are filled with his forceful teaching on the infallible teaching office of the Catholic Church (18:23), the Mass as a sacrifice (23:6–8), the concept of purgatory and the efficacy of expiatory prayers for the dead (23:10), the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist (19:7; 21:3; 22:1–9), the theology of the sacraments (23:23), baptismal regeneration (1:3; 3:10–12; 21:3–4), indeed a staggering array of specifically ‘Catholic’ doctrines. It is clear, therefore, that Cyril didn’t mean Scriptural ‘proof’ in the narrow sense, and he certainly wasn’t teaching sola scriptura.110
Blosser and Madrid have blatantly misrepresented this Church father. As we have seen, Cyril does demand Scriptural proof for every doctrine in the narrow sense. He explicitly states this. Much of his Catechetical Lectures is given to proving the doctrine of the Trinity from Scripture, contrary to Blosser’s assertion that one cannot, in a narrow sense, ‘prove’ the doctrine in this way.
    We are told that Protestants who appeal to Cyril in support of sola Scriptura have a big problem because Cyril also taught many things that are supportive of Roman Catholic dogma. Some of these claims are true but some are not. We are informed by Madrid, for example, that Cyril taught the infallibility of the Church in Book 18:23 of his Lectures, but this is actually a mistranslation. He did not say that the Church teaches infallibly, rather that she teaches ‘completely’ or ‘precisely.’
    On the other hand, some of Cyril’s teachings are supportive of Roman Catholic doctrine. What are we to make of this? Roman Catholic apologists imply that if we accept a particular tenent of Cyril’s teaching, we are then obligated to accept everything he taught. We must make an important distinction—a distinction between the principle of sola Scriptura and the principle of interpretation. Although we agree with certain aspects of Cyril’s teachings, such as the fundamental principle of the supreme and final authority of Scripture and its sufficiency, this does not necessitate our acceptance of every conclusion he comes to about the meaning of Scripture. Every doctrine he proclaimed, even those listed by Roman Catholic apologists as supportive of their own teachings, he sought to derive from and defend by Scripture. From a Protestant perspective, we may agree with Cyril on sola Scriptura and yet take issue with some of his interpretations of those same Scriptures. This is the same attitude the fathers themselves held toward one another. One noted example is Augustine’s attitude toward Cyprian and other bishops of the Church:
For the reasonings of any men whatsoever, even though they be Catholics, and of high reputation, are not to be treated by us in the same way as the canonical Scriptures are treated. We are at liberty, without doing any violence to the respect which these men deserve, to condemn and reject anything in their writings, if perchance we shall find that they have entertained opinions differing from that which others or we ourselves have, by the divine help, discovered to be the truth. I deal thus with the writings of others, and I wish my intelligent readers to deal thus with mine.111
Roman Catholic apologists prove themselves to be completely inconsistent in their own practice. They suggest that if we appeal to Cyril on a particular issue, we are bound to accept everything he teaches. Why, then, are there teachings endorsed by Cyril which are rejected by these same Roman apologists today? For example, Cyril lists the specific books of the canon of Scripture, which he says were handed down by the Church.112 Yet Cyril rejected the majority of the books of the Old Testament Apocrypha from the canon of Scripture. In Not By Scripture Alone, Joe Gallegos makes reference to Cyril’s teaching on the canon in the context of promoting the authority of the Church. He purposefully misleads his readers, giving the impression that Cyril and the present day Roman Church are in agreement:
It was the Church who decided which books were and were not included in the canon of Scripture...Cyril of Jerusalem discusses where one finds the authentic canon of the Bible in his lectures on the faith: ‘Learn also diligently, and from the Church, what are the books of the Old Testament, and what those of the New.’113
This is all Gallegos says. He fails to give all of Cyril’s comments on the canon. For obvious reasons, he purposefully omits the catalogue of books which Cyril says were authoritatively determined by the Church as canonical. The Roman Catholic Church has rejected Cyril’s view, demonstrating the inherent contradiction between the claims of Roman apologists and the facts of history. If the Church in Cyril’s day authoritatively defined the canon and Gallegos appeals to that Church in support of the authority of present day Rome, how can he reject what that Church authoritatively taught in the person of Cyril of Jerusalem? Gallegos wants to appeal to Cyril of Jerusalem on a fundamental point of authority but rejects the teaching which he says is illustrative of that authority. This is disingenuous. If he is at liberty to reject the teachings of Church fathers, while appealing to the authority of the Church, then Protestants are at liberty to reject whatever teachings we believe do not conform to Scripture. As we have seen, this was the overall practice of the early Church and its approach to the writings of the Church fathers.
    In his Lectures, Cyril addressed the issue of his authority as a teacher and bishop. He made it clear to the catechumens that his authority was contingent on his fidelity to the written word of

[solideogloria]

God. His authority as a teacher was to be disregarded if he taught anything that cannot be proven from Scripture:
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...Now mind not my argumentations, for perhaps thou mayest be misled but unless thou receive testimony of the Prophets on each matter, believe not what I say: unless thou learn from the Holy Scriptures concerning the Virgin, and the place, the time, and the manner, receive not testimony from man.114
So, the ultimate issue with respect to authority was not the ecclesiastical position but conformity to the truth of Scripture. We ask, if the Roman Church has changed the teaching of the earlier Church, what will keep her from changing fundamental teachings which she embraces today? In fact, this has occurred on numerous occasions throughout the history of Roman Catholicism. The Protestant Church is in fundamental agreement with the rule of faith taught by the fathers of the early Church. This does not mean, however, that we accept every practice and interpretation of Scripture of the patristic age any more than did the early Church herself or the modern Roman Catholic Church.
Athanasius
Athanasius succeeded Alexander of Alexandria as Bishop of that see in 328 A.D. He is renowned as the indomitable champion of Nicene orthodoxy and the principal theologian responsible for the Nicene doctrine of the Trinity. He was one of the most influential and important bishops of the fourth century. His views of Scripture are clearly articulated in his many treatises and letters. They are compatible with those of the fathers we have examined thus far. He held to a high view of the inspiration, primacy, sufficiency and authority of Scripture. In his writings he called the Old and New Testaments inspired,115 holy,116 and divine.117 Athanasius taught there is only one revelation from God, the written and inspired Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. They are the only source of truth for the Christian, the ultimate criterion against which all doctrinal teaching must be measured, and the ultimate and final judge in all doctrinal controversies. In his first letter to Serapion, Athanasius wrote:
Since, therefore, such an attempt is futile madness, nay, more than madness!, let no one ask such questions any more, or else let him learn only that which is in the Scriptures. For the illustrations they contain which bear upon this subject are sufficient and suitable.118 Â
He emphasized repeatedly in other letters that the faith of the Church is derived and known from the Scriptures.119 In one of his Festal Letters after giving a catalogue of the canonical books of Scripture, he wrote that these books alone comprise the source from which one derives the teachings of salvation and godliness.120 That is, Scripture is sufficient as a revelation for all teaching related to faith and morals.121
    One of the applications of his belief in the sufficiency of Scripture was that if a truth could not be demonstrated from Scripture, it was not true and could not be known.122 Since he considered the Scriptures to be all sufficient, the source of all truth and the sole criteria and judge in all controversies, Athanasius demanded Scriptural proof for all teachings. In all his argumentation, he appealed to Scripture alone for validation of his doctrine. He demanded exactly what Cyril of Jerusalem demanded—Scriptural warrant for each and every doctrine.123 Â
    This perspective is evident in his four letters to Serapion where he defends the doctrine of the Trinity, the deity of Christ and the full deity of the Holy Spirit completely from Scripture. Over and over again, when asserting truths about the specific persons of the Godhead, he says, ‘it is written,’ and he proceeds to quote Scripture. It is clear from the above quotes that Athanasius considered Scripture the ultimate source and authority for the Christian faith. It is also noteworthy that he described Scripture as the Apostolic Tradition. From his view, the teaching of the apostles was uniquely enshrined in the Scriptures. Any teaching claiming apostolic authority had to conform to what was written. Archibald Robertson gives the following summation of Athanasius’ position of Scripture:
On the sufficiency of Scripture for the establishment of all necessary doctrine Athanasius insists repeatedly and emphatically...and he follows up precept by example. His works are a continuous appeal to Scripture. There is no passage in his writings which recognizes tradition as supplementing Scripture, i.e., as sanctioning articles of faith not contained in Scripture.124
Some may object that this is an overexaggeration since the term Athanasius utilized for the defense of the deity of the Son was nonbiblical. While true, Athanasius defended the use of the term stating that it conveyed the essential message of Scripture as a whole. He wrote:
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 doctrine so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced in divine Scripture.125
Athanasius and Tradition
Athanasius also spoke of tradition. In his first epistle to Serapion he wrote:
These sayings concerning the Holy Spirit, by themselves alone, show that in nature and essence he has nothing in common with or proper to creatures, but is distinct from things originate, proper to, and not alien from, the Godhead and essence of the Son; in virtue of which essence and nature he is of the Holy Triad, and puts their stupidity to shame. But, beyond these sayings, let us look at the very tradition, teaching, and faith of the Catholic Church from the very beginning, which the Lord gave, the Apostles preached, and the Fathers kept. Upon this the Church is founded, and he who should fall away from it would not be a Christian. and should no longer be so called. There is, then, a Triad, holy and complete, confessed to be God in Father, Son, and holy Spirit, having nothing foreign or external mixed with it, not composed of one that creates and one that is originated, but all creative; and it is consistent and in nature indivisible, and its activity is one…And that they may know this to be the faith of the Church, let them learn how the Lord, when sending forth the Apostles, ordered them to lay this foundation for the

[solideogloria]

Church, saying: ‘Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit’ (Mt. 28:19). The Apostles went, and thus they taught; and this is the preaching that extends to the whole Church which is under heaven. Since then the Church has this foundation of faith, let these men tell us once again and let them make answer, Is God tryad or dyad?126
The tradition Athanasius refers to is the teaching of Christ in Matthew 28, which forms the foundation for the various creeds of the Church and therefore the faith of the Church. This, he says, is what Christ handed on to the apostles, which they in turn preached and the fathers have kept. Regarding the doctrine of the person of Christ, Athanasius speaks of the tradition of the fathers as a confirmation of the true faith. He says:
But our faith is right, and starts from the teaching of the Apostles and tradition of the fathers, being confirmed both by the New Testament and the Old.127
Athanasius emphasizes that the faith is derived from the teaching of the apostles, by which he meant Scripture, and the tradition or teaching of the fathers, which, he says, is confirmed by Scripture. In other words, the proof that the teaching of the fathers was truly apostolic is conformity to Scripture.
    In his treatise, A Defense of the Nicene Creed, Athanasius explains what he meant by the faith being derived from the tradition or teaching of the fathers. In defending his use of homoousios—because it was not a Scriptural term—Athanasius wrote that its use had historical precedent in the writings of four fathers: Dionysius of Alexandria, Theognostus, Origen and Dionysius of  Rome.128 He appealed to two bishops and two heads of the catechetical school at Alexandria, calling them all fathers, including Origen. However, he did not accept their teaching uncritically; he accepted it only because it could be confirmed by Scripture. Thus, there are not two sources of knowledge but one, the holy Scriptures. After providing extensive documentation from Scripture in his defense of the doctrine of the Holy Spirit, Athanasius made this appeal to those who had distorted the scriptural teaching on the Holy Spirit, ‘Harken to the Scriptures.’129
    Another reference from Athanasius utilized by Roman Catholic apologists in their attempts to augment the authority of their Church and tradition over the primacy of Scripture concerns his use of the term ‘saints.’ For example, Athanasius wrote:
But after him 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, and receiving them as the traditions of men, err, because they do not rightly know them nor their power.130
Roman apologists jump to the conclusion that Athanasius’ use of the term saints here refers to Church fathers who preceded him. They assume that he is acknowledging their authority in handing down right opinions or right teaching. The term handed down is another way of saying tradition, so  they use this statement to support the contention that the fathers looked to the Church and her tradition as the ultimate authority over Scripture. But, as the context reveals, in his use of the word saints, Athanasius is not referring to Church fathers but to the writers of Scripture.131 He calls them saints and Fathers, and refers to their writings as the apostolic tradition. We are to be followers of the saints, that is, of the apostles, by following what they have written:
Of these the (divine) word would have us disciples, and these should of right be our teachers, and to them only is it necessary to give heed, for of them only is ‘the word faithful and worthy of all acceptation;’ these not being disciples because they heard from others, but being eye–witnesses and ministers of the Word, that which they had heard from Him have they handed down.132 Â
This word ‘saints’ is also found in Athanasius’ letters to Serapion. He writes:
The divine Scriptures, then, consistently show that the Holy Spirit is not a creature, but is proper to the Word and to the Godhead of the Father. Thus the teaching of the saints joins in establishing the holy and indivisible Traid; and the Catholic Church has one faith, even this.133
Shapland gives this clarification on his use of the word saints:
The teaching of the saints: i.e. of the Scriptures... a{gioi (hagioi) in Athanasius usually refers to Biblical characters or writers, whether of New Testament or Old Testament. So in de Inc. 57, de Fug. 15.134
Thus, for Athanasius, the Scriptures are the foundation for the faith of the Church. They are an all–sufficient source of knowledge of what God had revealed to the Church and the ultimate standard against which all teachings must be measured. The authority of a Council or bishop is contingent on conformity to the teaching of Scripture.
John Chrysostom
John Chrysostom holds the distinction of being not only a prominent  Church father but also one of the greatest preachers of the early Greek Church and one of its most prolific writers. We possess more of his writings than any other Church father. As Bertrand de Marjerie has noted:
As J. Quasten rightly observed, no Father of the Church has left behind a literary heritage (and we would add, an exegetical heritage) as significant in volume as is that of Chrysostom. He is the only early Antiochian whose writings have survived almost in their entirety.135
Chrysostom’s writings are important also because many were sermons delivered to his congregation and breathe a pastoral spirit. His emphasis was not polemical for the most part, but his primary concern was for the spiritual growth and maturity of those for whom he was responsible. So we have, in Chrysostom, one who dealt with the practical affairs of everyday living in the life of the Church. His sermons are significant, then, in revealing what he thought the priorities of the Christian life should be. Throughout his writings, one truth is emphasized repeatedly: the primacy of the written Scriptures. He teaches that they are the all–sufficient source of truth, the indispensable means of sanctification, and the all–important weapon for spiritual warfare in the Christian life. Chrysostom never tired of exhorting his congregation to read, study, meditate upon and obey the Scriptures. These exhortations and admonitions were rooted in his belief in the full inspiration of the Scriptures. He refers to them as

[solideogloria]

divine,136 holy,137 sacred,138 the divine oracles.139 To hear or read the Scriptures is to hear God speak.140 They are utterances of the Holy Spirit.141 He believed that both the Old and New Testaments were inspired by God and infallible,142 and because they are inspired, they carry divine authority. There is nothing useless or superfluous in them—every word has a purpose.143 As a result of this divine authority, Chrysostom operated on the basis of a number of fundamental principles and convictions. First, Scripture is the all–sufficient source of truth; there is no other revelation from God. He never quoted from tradition to support a doctrinal argument or to defend the faith:
‘For I am now ready to be offered up’ (2 Timothy 4:6), he says. For this reason he writes: ‘All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.’ All what Scripture? all that sacred writing, he means, of which I was speaking. This is said of what he was discoursing of; about which he said, ‘From a child thou hast known the holy Scriptures.’ All such, then, ‘is given by inspiration of God;’ therefore, he means, do not doubt; and it is ‘profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.’
    ‘For doctrine.’ For thence we shall know, whether we ought to learn or to be ignorant of anything. And thence we may disprove what is false, thence we may be corrected and brought to a right mind, may be comforted and consoled, and if anything is deficient, we may have it added to us.
‘That the man of God may be perfect.’ For this is the exhortation of the Scripture given, that the man of God may be rendered perfect by it; without this therefore he cannot be perfect. Thou hast the Scriptures, he says, in place of me. If thou wouldest learn anything, thou mayest learn it from them. And if he thus wrote to Timothy, who was filled with the Spirit, how much more to us!144
Note that Chrysostom taught that it is from inspired Scripture alone that we learn the truth. There is no other source. In the place of the Apostles, who gave us inspired revelation from God, we have the Scriptures. Thus, if Scripture does not teach something it cannot be known.145 
     Secondly, Chrysostom taught that all arguments must be proven from and supported by Scripture, else they are mere human conjecture and reasoning:
These then are the reasons; but it is necessary to establish them all from the Scriptures, and to show with exactness that all that has been said on this subject is not an invention of human reasoning, but the very sentence of the Scriptures. For thus will what we say be at once more deserving of credit, and sink the deeper into your minds.146 Â
Thirdly, Chrysostom appealed consistently and constantly to Scripture to support his teachings. He was a strong advocate of the principle that Scripture interprets Scripture.147 Robert Charles Hill makes these comments:
These lapses are few compared with the frequency of his reference to the Scriptures to support his teaching. In place of exegetical conviction his words are reinforced with scriptural testimonies and his own rationalizing and the underlying theology of the Word....All in all, it is a rich scriptural diet his congregation is fed...148
Fourthly, the only true teacher from God, the ‘true householder’ as Chrysostom calls him, is the one who has an intimate knowledge of Scripture and teaches in accordance with it.149 Scripture is the instrument used by God’s servants for the building of his Church.150 It is by fidelity to Scripture that the sheep will  discern the true shepherds from the false. That one who does not teach according to the Scriptures he calls a robber, a thief and a false prophet.151 The true Christian is one whose profession and practice agrees with Scripture.152 Â
    Fifthly, Chrysostom constantly exhorted his congregation to fill their minds and hearts with the Scriptures. In part, the argument against sola Scriptura has been the insinuation that there could not have been practical application of this principle in the life of the Church in the early centuries because of widespread illiteracy and the unavailability of bibles. Such assertions are refuted, however, by Chrysostom’s own admonitions. He exhorted his hearers (repeatedly) to procure bibles (poverty being no excuse) and to give themselves diligently to their reading.153 Â
    The benefits he lists, accompanied by the constant exhortations he gave, underscore his belief in the authority, sufficiency and primacy of Scripture for individual Church members. Some of the benefits to be derived from Scripture he listed as: they are the door to the kingdom of God;154 they are an all–sufficient aid to sanctification;155 they guard the Christian and keep him safe from the attacks of heretics and false teachers;156 they give discernment;157 Â they are the soul’s food and security;158 by adhering to the Scriptures Christ becomes our pilot and guide;159 through them we please God and receive reward;160 through them we learn right doctrine and a perfect life;161 they are our spiritual weapon;162 they arm the Christian against heretics;163 they are a great aid against sinning;164 they quench pride, lull desire to sleep, tread under foot the love of money, inspire confidence, give patience and enable the believer to despise pain;165 they expel despondency, engender pleasure, extirpate vice, make virtue take root in the heart, bring stability to one’s life;166 they overthrow false doctrine, confirm the truth, aid in living a holy life;167 they thoroughly quench the darts of the devil;168 banish all satanical influences;169Â transform our souls into surpassing beauty;170 and sanctify us.171 It was Chrysostom’s conviction that no man could be saved who did not give diligent attention to the consistent reading and application of Scripture:
We must thoroughly quench the darts of the devil and beat them off by continual reading of the divine Scriptures. For it is not possible, not possible for anyone to be saved without continually taking advantage of spiritual reading.172
Thus, given the importance of Scripture and the spiritual benefits which accrue to those who apply them, Chrysostom continually exhorted the members of his congregation to saturate their minds and hearts with the word of God: to study the Scriptures attentively and diligently;173 earnestly and continually read them;174 search them;175 take them wholly to themselves and keep them in their minds;176 be diligent hearers of them;177 continually dwell upon them;178 give heed to them; let them be the subjects of their earnest care and constantly in their hands;179 engrave them on their hearts;180 and apply themselves to the Scriptures with great exactness.181 
    Sixthly, Chrysostom enumerated the spiritual harms derived from a neglect of the divine writings. This neglect, he wrote, renders one incapable of resisting sin;182 it is the cause of all

[solideogloria]

evils;183 it incapacitates a person in spiritual warfare, leaving him defenseless and bereft of the Holy Spirit;184 it renders one a slave and captive of the world.185 The ignorance of scripture is the cause of the plague of heresies, negligent lives, labor that results in no advantage, and much sinning.186 It is a great evil to be ignorant of the Scriptures;187 a betrayal of salvation;188 and makes salvation impossible.189
    Chrysostom frequently chided his congregation for their neglect of the Scriptures.190 It was a recurring theme in his sermons. He instructed that children should be taught to appreciate the discipline of Scriptural reading and meditation, and exhorted parents to set the example.191 Chrysostom exhorted his congregation to read, study and meditate on Scripture that they might  understand and obey it. As we will see in chapter three, he was convinced that the Scriptures were formally sufficient and could be understood by the common individual if certain conditions were met.
    It is clear that Chrysostom held to the principle of sola Scriptura encompassing both its material and formal sufficiency. Some argue against this, claiming that Chrysostom affirmed the existence of traditions handed down from the apostles independent of Scripture. The following comments which he made on 2 Thessalonians 2:15 are often cited in support of this contention:
‘So then, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye were taught, whether by word, or by Epistle of ours.’ Hence it is manifest, that they did not deliver all things by Epistle, but many things also unwritten, and in like manner both the one and the other are worthy of credit. Therefore let us think the tradition of the Church also worthy of credit. It is a tradition, seek no farther.192
Is this evidence that Chrysostom was no adherent of sola Scriptura? The key, once again, is in the meaning of his words. When he speaks of tradition, he is referring to ecclesiastical customs and practices. He assumed that if a practice had been in use for many ages it was apostolic in origin. However, nowhere, in the entirety of his writings, does he make an appeal to a tradition that is independent of Scripture in defense of a doctrine or as proof to support any teaching. Scripture alone is the source of truth and carries within itself its own normative authority. Â
The Cappadocians
The Cappadocians is a general title for three of the most influential and important Church fathers of the fourth century: Basil of Caesarea (also known as Basil the Great), his brother, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzus. Occasionally, the sister of Basil and Gregory, Macrina, is also included as the ‘fourth Cappadocian.’ Gregory of Nyssa referred to her as the Teacher. The three Cappadocians were responsible for finally formulating the orthodox Trinitarian doctrine which ultimately quelled the Arian heresy and those heresies arrayed against the person of the Holy Spirit. They are called the Cappadocians because were born and held bishoprics in the region of Cappadocia in central Asia Minor, now modern Turkey. Their importance is obvious from the following comments:
Gregory of Nyssa: His theological work won him high regard at the Second Council of Nicea (787) which bestowed on him the title Father of the Fathers.193
Gregory of Nazianzus: The Five Theological Orations of Gregory of Nazianzus, a defense of the trinitarian doctrine against the Eunomians and Macedonians, won him the title of The Theologian. It is said of these discourses, ‘In a few pages, and in a few hours, Gregory has summed and closed the controversy of a whole century.’194
Basil of Caesarea (Basil the Great): Basil is accounted the founder of Eastern monasticism; and with St. John Chrysostom, he is one of the two pillars of the Oriental Church.195
The Cappadocians’ use and view of Scripture conforms in every way to that of the fathers we have studied thus far. They taught that Scripture is holy, divine, sacred, inspired, and the one authoritative revelation we possess from God.196 Scripture is authoritative as the judge of all controversies and sufficient to declare the fullness of the Christian faith. In a dialogue with Gregory of Nyssa, his sister Macrina made the following remark, with Gregory’s approval:
We are not entitled to such license, I mean that of affirming what we please; we make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet (dogma); we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings.197 Â
Basil wrote in much the same language insisting that Scripture alone is the touchstone of faith and safeguard against error. He stated that all that is not expressly taught in Scripture is to be rejected and every teaching must be demonstrated and proved from Scripture:
But if ‘the Lord is faithful in all his words’ and ‘All his commandments are faithful, confirmed for ever and ever, made in truth and equity,‘ to delete anything that is written down or to interpolate anything not written amounts to open defection from the faith and makes the offender liable to a charge of contempt. For our Lord Jesus Christ says: ‘My sheep hear my voice,’ and, before this, He had said: ‘But a stranger they follow not but fly from him because they know not the voice of strangers.’ And the Apostle, using a human parallel, more strongly forbids adding to or removing anything from Holy Writ in the following words: ‘yet a man’s testament if it be confirmed, no man despiseth nor addeth to it’.198
Gregory of Nyssa echoed the same sentiments:
Whatever is not supported by the testimony of Scripture we reject as false.199 Â
So if Scripture does not teach a particular doctrine it cannot be true. All speculation that exceeds the revelation of Scripture is to be rejected as ‘idle.’ One cannot know what Scripture does not reveal.200 Â In matters of controversy, Scripture is the final arbiter between truth and error. It takes precedence over tradition and custom. In his controversy with the Pneumatomachi (those who denied the deity of the Holy Spirit), Basil was accused of introducing novel teachings, which they claimed were unhistorical because they contradicted their tradition. Basil rejected the argument from tradition and defended Scripture as the only appeal for final judgment:
Their complaint is that their custom does not accept this, and that Scripture does not agree. What is my reply? I do not consider it fair that the custom which obtains among them should be regarded as a law and rule of orthodoxy. If custom is to be taken in proof of what is right, then it

[solideogloria]

is certainly competent for me to put forward on my side the custom which obtains here. If they reject this, we are clearly not bound to follow them. Therefore let God–inspired Scripture decide between us; and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the word of God, in favour of that side will be cast the vote of truth.201
Gregory of Nyssa made the same assertion:
They allege that while we confess three Persons we say that there is one goodness, and one power, and one Godhead. And in this assertion they do not go beyond the truth; for we do say so. But the ground of their complaint is that their custom does not admit this, and Scripture does not support it. What then is our reply? We do not think that it is right to make their prevailing custom the law and rule of sound doctrine. For if custom is to avail for proof of soundness, we too, surely, may advance our prevailing custom; and if they reject this, we are surely not bound to follow theirs. Let the inspired Scripture, then, be our umpire, and the vote of truth will surely be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words.202
When referring to the writings and teachings of the fathers who preceded him, Basil stated they possessed a definite authority.203 However, while according them respect and authority, he qualified their authority as secondary and contingent in nature. They had authority only because their teachings conformed to Scripture. He never received the teaching of the fathers as autonomous or coequal with Scripture:
What our fathers said, the same say we, that the glory of the Father and of the Son is common; wherefore we offer the doxology to the Father with the Son. But we do not rest only on the fact that such is the tradition of the Fathers; for they too followed the sense of Scripture, and started from the evidence which, a few sentences back, I deduced from Scripture and laid before you.204
He warned that it is the duty of all teachers to beware lest they teach anything beyond the will of God as it is revealed in Scripture, thereby becoming false witnesses and false teachers:
What mind ought a prelate to have in those things which he commands or appoints? To which the reply is, Towards God, as a servant of Christ, and a steward of the mysteries of God, fearing lest he should speak or order anything beyond the will of God, as declared in the Scriptures, and be found a false witness of God, or sacrilegious, in either introducing anything foreign to the doctrine of the Lord, or omitting anything acceptable to God.205
Basil gave an admonition similar to that of Cyril of Jerusalem, exhorting his readers to examine every teacher and to reject any teaching that did not conform to Scripture:
Concerning the Hearers: that those hearers who are instructed in the Scriptures should examine what is said by the teachers, receiving what is in conformity with the Scriptures and rejecting what is opposed to them; and that those who persist in teaching such doctrines should be strictly avoided.206
This perspective was also enunciated by Augustine who said he would receive the teaching of the fathers only as they conformed to the teaching of Scripture.207 Many centuries later, Thomas Aquinas restated the position expressed by Basil, Cyril and Augustine:
All the intermediaries through which faith comes to us are above suspicion. We believe the prophets and apostles because the Lord has been their witness by performing miracles, as Mark (16:20) says: ‘...and confirming the word with signs that followed.’ And we believe the successors of the apostles and prophets only in so far as they tell us those things which the apostles and prophets have left in their writings.208  
These fathers never taught a blind acceptance of the teaching of the Church, but that all teaching must be ratified by Scripture. To requote Basil:
Rule Twenty–six: That every word and deed should be ratified by the testimony of the Holy Scripture to confirm the good and cause shame to the wicked.209
One of Basil’s writings is a treatise titled Concerning Faith. He wrote in his introductory remarks that he intended to expound the essential doctrines of the faith as he had learned them from the divine Scriptures. He stated that Scripture is the source of doctrine for the faith and that it is unlawful to add anything to it not written in Scripture.210 Basil followed precisely the pattern we witnessed with Cyril of Jerusalem. He expounded the creed, giving proof of each and every doctrine from Scripture. He exhorted his readers to ground their convictions in its truth. The entirety of the faith, as it relates to doctrine and morals, is, according to Basil, communicated through the Scriptures, a sentiment likewise expressed by Gregory of Nyssa.211 The Scriptures, then, are a sufficient rule for the proclamation of the truth. All that is necessary to be believed for salvation is revealed in them, and anything not revealed therein is to be rejected, for it is outside of the faith. Basil warned that the true Christian is characterized by strict adherence to the teaching of Scripture:
What is the mark of a Christian? Faith working by charity. What is the mark of faith? A sure conviction of the truth of the inspired words, not to be shaken by any process of reasoning, nor by the alleging of natural requirements, nor by the pretences of false piety. What is the mark of a faithful soul? To be in these dispositions of full acceptance on the authority of the words [of the Scripture], not venturing to reject anything nor making additions. For, if ‘all that is not of faith is sin,’ as the Apostle says, and ‘faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God,’ everything outside Holy Scripture, not being of faith, is sin.212
We need to note here that when Basil said it was unlawful to add anything to the faith which is not in Scripture, he did not mean the use of terms not found in Scripture, such as homoousios or Trinity, but that all terms used must reflect the overall meaning of Scripture—its overall scope or intention. As Macrina put it:
We make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet (dogma); we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings.213

[solideogloria]

Gregory of Nazianzus expresses a similar view:
Again, where do you get your Unbegotten and Unoriginate, those two citadels of your position, or we our Immortal? Show me these in so many words, or we shall either set them aside, or erase them as not contained in Scripture; and you are slain by your own principle, the names you rely on being overthrown, and therewith the wall of refuge in which you trusted. Is it not evident that they are due to passages which imply them, though the words do not actually occur? What are these passages?—I am the first, and I am the last, and before Me there was no God, neither shall there be after Me. For all that depends on that Am makes for my side, for it has neither beginning nor ending. When you accept this, that nothing is before Him, and that He has not an older Cause, you have implicitly given Him the titles Unbegotten and Unoriginate.214
The Cappadocians, while holding tenaciously to the primacy and sufficiency of Scripture, did not emphasize a slavish adherence to the literal words of Scripture but to its meaning. They employed logic and reasoning to express the truth of Scripture but both were always subject to the word of God. They reasoned from Scripture to Scriptural conclusions. As Gregory of Nyssa wrote: 
Thus does our reason, under the guidance of the Scripture, place not only the Only–begotten but the Holy Spirit as well above the creation, and prompt us in accordance with our Savior’s command to contemplate Him by faith in the blessed world of life giving and uncreated existence: and so this unit, which we believe in, above creation, and sharing in the supreme and absolutely perfect nature...215
The argument for the supremacy, primacy and authority of Scripture in all theological discussions is well defended by Gregory of Nyssa and his sister Macrina. In their dialogue with one another over the nature of the soul and the reality of the resurrection, Macrina maintained, as we saw above, that Scripture is the rule of every tenant or dogma. Here we want to give a fuller context for her comments. They were made in reference to Greek philosophical speculations, in particular, those of Plato and Aristotle. She emphatically stated that the Christian is never to give full reign to intellectual speculation about reality. All reasoning must be subject to the authority of Scripture:
As for ourselves, if the Gentile philosophy, which deals methodically with all these points, were really adequate for a demonstration, it would certainly be superfluous to add a discussion on the soul to those speculations. But while the latter proceeded, on the subject of the soul, as far in the direction of supposed consequences as the thinker pleased, we are not entitled to such license, I mean that of affirming what we please; we make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet; we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings. We must therefore neglect the Platonic chariot and the pair of horses of dissimilar forces yoked to it, and their driver, whereby the philosopher allegorizes these facts about the soul; we must neglect also all that is said by the philosopher who succeeded him and who followed out probabilities by rules of art, and diligently investigated the very question now before us, declaring that the soul was mortal by reason of these two principles; we must neglect all before and since their time, whether they philosophized in prose or in verse, and we will adopt, as the guide of our reasoning, the Scripture, which lays it down as an axiom that there is no excellence in the soul which is not a property as well of the Divine nature....If on the other hand any one will accept a discussion which is in a naked unsyllogistic form, we will speak upon these points by making our study of them so far as we can follow the chain of Scriptural tradition. What is it, then, that we assert?216
Macrina then proceeded to expound upon the nature of the soul using logical argumentation without any specific appeal to Scripture. Gregory admonished her by reminding her that although he agrees with her conclusions and her process of reasoning, they had determined to support all their teaching and conclusions from Scripture. A reasoning process devoid of Scriptural testimony was not sufficient. She must adhere to her own basic principles, supporting her conclusions from Scripture:
Much moved by these words, I said: To any one who reflects indeed, your exposition, advancing as it does in this consecutive manner, though plain and unvarnished, bears sufficiently upon it the stamp of correctness and hits the truth. And to those who are expert only in the technical methods of proof a mere demonstration suffices to convince; but as for ourselves, we were agreed that there is something more trustworthy than any of these artificial conclusions, namely, that which the teachings of Holy Scripture point to: and so I deem that it is necessary to inquire, in addition to what has been said, whether this inspired teaching harmonizes with it all.217
Macrina agreed with this admonition. She responded with:
And who, she replied, could deny that truth is to be found only in that upon which the seal of Scriptural testimony is set? So, if it is necessary that something from the Gospels should be adduced in support of our view, a study of the Parable of the Wheat and Tares will not be here out of place.218 Â
Jaroslav Pelikan sums up the Cappadocians’ position:
When the Cappadocians interpreted God, the world, and man as topics in orthodox dogmatics, they could and did presuppose, as obvious assumptions, some views of God, the world, and man that had come to them from their heritage in Classical culture. Clearly they claimed to be ascribing authoritative priority to scriptural teaching. In the doctrine of God, they declared, the incarnation of the Logos came not to supplement but to correct all existing presuppositions about the divine nature. In the doctrine of immortality, Gregory of Nyssa acknowledged that Macrina’s philosophical ‘exposition, advancing as it did in this consecutive manner,’ was convincing on purely natural grounds. But then he immediately went on to identify Scripture as ‘more trustworthy than any of these artificial conclusions’; and therefore he demanded of her: ‘It is necessary to inquire, in addition to what has been said, whether this inspired teaching harmonizes with it all.’219
According to the Cappadocians, then, the Scriptures are materially sufficient. What is more, according to Basil, they are formally sufficient through the illuminating ministry of the Holy Spirit. In writing to a widow, he encouraged her with these words:

[solideogloria]

Enjoying as you do the consolation of the Holy Scriptures, you stand in need neither of my assistance nor of that of anybody else to help you to comprehend your duty. You have the all–sufficient counsel and guidance of the Holy Spirit to lead you to what is right.220
In all their controversies the Cappadocians grounded their arguments on the teaching of Scripture, demanding proof from their adversaries for any and all teachings. Gregory of Nyssa is representative in these comments against Eunomius:
Let him tell us whence he has this boldness of assertion. From what inspired utterance? What evangelist, what apostle ever uttered such words as these? What prophet, what lawgiver, what patriarch, what other person of all who were divinely moved by the Holy Ghost, whose voices are preserved in writing, ever originated such a statement as this?221
We need to say a word here about tradition because Basil is cited more than any other father in support of the principle of extra–biblical apostolic oral tradition. Roman Catholic apologists reject the conclusions we have drawn regarding the Cappadocian view of the primacy and sufficiency of Scripture due to Basil’s comments on tradition. We will examine this issue in detail in the next chapter but suffice it to say here that Basil did indeed believe in apostolic tradition independent of Scripture. However, when his teaching is examined within the context of his overall writings, what becomes clear is that his position on tradition did not diminish his belief in the material and formal sufficiency and primacy of Scripture. He wrote that there were many practices in the Church which were rooted in tradition and were not mentioned in Scripture.222 He gave specific examples of traditions he believed were handed down from the apostles apart from Scripture.223 It is important to remember that when Basil referred to unwritten traditions, he was referring specifically to ecclesiastical practices and customs and not doctrine. This whole issue arose when he was criticized for using a nonscriptural term to defend the deity of the Holy Spirit which had a long history of use in the Church. But, even with the appeal to the traditional use of a word, Basil did not rely on the argument from tradition in an exclusive sense. He stated that the use of the word was acceptable only because it was in harmony with the overall teaching of Scripture.224 Furthermore, the practices that Basil mentioned were clearly unnecessary for the faith because most of them are no longer practiced demonstrating that they are of secondary importance. The ultimate authority was still Scripture.
Augustine
Augustine was the bishop of Hippo in North Africa from 395 A.D. until his death in 430 A.D. He was one of, if not the most, influential of the Church fathers. He was a prolific writer and one of the greatest theologians of the early Church. He is one of few given the title ‘doctor of the Church.’ William Jurgens explains his importance:
If we were faced with the unlikely proposition of having to destroy completely either the works of Augustine or the works of all the other Fathers and Writers, I have little doubt that all the others would have to be sacrificed. Augustine must remain. Of all the Fathers it is Augustine who is the most erudite, who has the most remarkable theological insights, and who is effectively the most prolific. If Origen or Didymus the Blind or some other Father or Writer wrote more than Augustine—a hypothesis by no means certain—it is now of little account, because their works have not survived...Augustine’s writings are no less remarkable than his life. The surviving corpus of his letters is one of the most instructive known from antiquity; and the corpus of his sermons is the largest. His Confessions, the source of so much autobiographical information, is in a form quite unique in its time; and his City of God, which might be termed his major and typical writing, constitutes the earliest known theology of history. Again, his Corrections is perfectly unique, being a work written towards the end of his life, in which he pronounces judgment, generally quite severe, on the effectiveness individually of all his previous writings. Of all the Fathers, none wrote so well or so much as Augustine; and in modern times none other has been so much written about. He was unique in his time, and none like him has since been seen.225
Augustine left no doubt as to his view of Scripture. He is clear and unambiguous. His writings are saturated with direct quotations from and allusions to the Scriptures. As will become evident on examination of his teaching, he believed Scripture to be the foundation of the Church and the supreme authority over her. Few fathers have written as forcefully for the primacy of Scripture, the primary reason being his unequivocal belief in the divine inspiration and infallibility of the bible. His position is completely consistent with the fathers we have examined thus far, demonstrating the unanimous view of the early Church fathers towards the inspiration of Scripture. The usual descriptions of Scripture consistently enunciated by the fathers are reiterated over and over again by Augustine, though he is often even more fervent. Taken as a whole, his statements are a powerful witness to the patristic doctrine of inspiration. For example, he refers to the written Scriptures as holy,226 divine,227Â sacred,228 divinely inspired,229 the divine oracles,230 the Scriptures of God,231 spoken by God,232 the word of God,233Â the voice of God,234 the face of God,235 and the divine utterance.236 Â
    His belief in inspiration was not primarily because the Church testified to it but because of the evidence within Scripture itself, particularly the fulfilment of prophecy.237 This implicit belief in Scripture’s inspiration led him to the application of a number of related principles, namely infallibility, authority and sufficiency. He believed that whatever God has revealed in the Scriptures is absolutely true and completely free from any error, mistakes, contradictions or falsehoods.238 The Scriptures cannot err at any point. They are inspired and infallible, carry divine authority and are, therefore, the paramount and supreme authority for the Church, outweighing every other:
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.239
That Augustine looked to the Scriptures as the supreme authority for every Christian, is seen in his attitude towards Church councils and the writings of Church fathers. He never believed the Church to be infallible. The only infallible standard is holy Scripture. In his work, On Baptism, Augustine wrote that Councils carry authority only in so far as they conform to the truth of Scripture; they can be corrected by later Councils. He clearly believed Councils could err:

[solideogloria]

You are wont, indeed, to bring up against us the letters of Cyprian, his opinion, his Council; why do ye claim the authority of Cyprian for your schism, and reject his example when it makes for the peace of the Church? But who can fail to be aware that the sacred canon of Scripture, both of the Old and New Testament, is confined within its own limits, and that it stands so absolutely in a superior position to all later letters of the bishops, that about it we can hold no manner of doubt or disputation whether what is confessedly contained in it is right and true; but that all the letters of bishops which have been written, or are being written, since the closing of the canon, are liable to be refuted if there be anything contained in them which strays from the truth, either by the discourse of some one who happens to be wiser in the matter than themselves, or by the weightier authority and more learned experience of other bishops, by the authority of Councils; and further, that the Councils themselves, which are held in the several districts and provinces, must yield, beyond all possibility of doubt, to the authority of plenary Councils which are formed for the whole Christian world; and that even of the plenary Councils, the earlier are often corrected by those which follow them, when, by some actual experiment, things are brought to light which were before concealed, and that is known which previously lay hid, and this without any whirlwind of sacrilegious pride, without any puffing of the neck through arrogance, without any strife of envious hatred, simply with holy humility, catholic peace, and Christian charity?240
In referring to Cyprian, the third century North African Church father, Augustine drew a distinction between his writings and the Scriptures, saying that his writings were to be received as authoritative only when it could be demonstrated they were consistent with the truth of Scripture. He claimed  the liberty to reject any writings which contradicted or could not be validated from Scripture:
We do no injustice to Cyprian when we make a distinction between his epistles and the canonical authority of the divine Scriptures. Apart from the Sacred canonical Scriptures, we may freely pass judgment on the writings of believers and disbelievers alike...For that reason Cyprian’s epistles, which have no canonical authority must be judged according to their agreement with the authority of the divine writings. Thus we can accept from Cyprian only what agrees, and safely reject what does not agree, with Scripture.241
This was his position on the writings of all the bishops of the Church, including himself:
For the reasonings of any men whatsoever, even though they be Catholics, and of high reputation, are not to be treated by us in the same way as the canonical Scriptures are treated. We are at liberty, without doing any violence to the respect which these men deserve, to condemn and reject anything in their writings, if perchance we shall find that they have entertained opinions differing from that which others or we ourselves have, by the divine help, discovered to be the truth. I deal thus with the writings of others, and I wish my intelligent readers to deal thus with mine.242
Thomas Aquinas reiterates the same perspective, even quoting Augustine approvingly as an authority for his convictions.243 It is clear that Augustine believed and taught that the Church’s authority is contingent on her adherence to Scripture; where she deviates from that standard she is to be rejected. The true Church of Jesus Christ is evidenced by conformity to Scripture alone.244 Scripture is the foundation of the Church:
Intending to speak, in dependence on God’s grace, of the day of His final judgment, and to affirm it against the ungodly and incredulous, we must first of all lay, as it were, in the foundation of the edifice, the divine declarations.245
Augustine also taught that Scripture is sufficient as the source of all truth and is the final arbiter in all theological controversies. He wrote:
For holy Scripture setteth a rule to our teaching, that we dare not ‘be wise more than it behoveth to be wise;’ but be wise, as himself saith, ‘unto soberness, according as unto each God hath allotted the measure of faith.’ Be it not therefore for me to teach you any other thing, save to expound to you the words of the Teacher, and to treat of them as the Lord shall have given to me.246 Â
According to Augustine, all that is sufficient for salvation is contained in Scripture, meaning that there are no truths necessary for salvation and handed down from Christ to the Church through the apostles which are independent of Scripture. All that Christ desired for us to know, he commanded to be written, and what has been written is sufficient for salvation.247 Â
    Augustine’s view of the sufficiency of Scripture is seen in his exposition of the creed for catechumens. In it he reiterated what Cyril of Jerusalem, Irenaeus and Tertullian taught, that the rule of faith is derived and proved from Scripture alone:
Receive, my children, the Rule of Faith, which is called the Symbol (or Creed). And when ye have received it, write it in your heart, and be daily saying it to yourselves; before ye sleep, before ye go forth, arm you with your Creed. The Creed no man writes so as it may be able to be read: but for rehearsal of it, lest haply forgetfulness obliterate what care hath delivered, let your memory be your record–roll: what ye are about to hear, that are ye to believe; and what ye shall have believed, that are about to give back with your tongue. For the Apostle says, ‘With the heart man believeth unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.’ For this is the Creed which ye are to rehearse and to repeat in answer. These words which ye have heard are in the Divine Scriptures scattered up and down: but thence gathered and reduced into one, that the memory of slow persons might not be distressed; that every person may be able to say, able to hold, what he believes.248
The specific doctrines of the Symbol or the Creed are listed by Augustine in his sermon On Faith and the Creed:
We believe in God the Father Almighty, the creator of all things…In Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only–begotten of the Father, that is to say, His only Son our Lord...Who under Pontius Pilate was crucified and buried…On the third day he arose again from the dead…He ascended into heaven...He sits at the right hand of the Father...He will come from thence and will judge the quick and the dead...We believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy Church…catholic, the remission of sins and the resurrection of the flesh.249 Â

[solideogloria]

It is these doctrines which Augustine claimed are the saving truths of the catholic faith and sufficient for salvation.250 In his expositions of these doctrines he made no appeal to any source of authority other than Scripture. After covering each point, Augustine closed with these remarks:
This is the faith which in few words is given in the Creed to Christian novices, to be held by them. And these few words are known to the faithful, to the end that in believing they may be made subject to God; that being made subject, they may rightly live; that in rightly living, they may make the heart pure; that with the heart made pure, they may understand that which they believe.251
Augustine considered the Scriptures the all–sufficient source for the proclamation of the truths necessary for salvation. There is nothing in the Creed, which Augustine believed summarized the essence of saving faith, that was not supported from Scripture. As we have seen, this is the same perspective held by Cyril of Jerusalem. In addition it is a view also expressed by Niceta of Remesiana (335–415)252 and John Cassian.253 These fathers all taught that the tradition handed down by the Church as summarized in the Creed, contained a sufficient knowledge of salvation and all the mysteries of the faith, and were in turn derived completely from Scripture. Scripture then is the all–sufficient source of doctrine for the faith.
    Given its authority and sufficiency, Augustine considered it axiomatic that all teaching which could not be proven from Scripture was to be rejected. He demanded Scriptural proof all teaching.254 It was the evidence or proof of Scripture which determined the faith of the Church:
Our belief is determined...by the declarations of Scripture, resting as they do on foundations of the strongest and surest evidence.255
Consequently, if anyone teaches anything beyond what is received in Scripture, especially with respect to the gospel, he is anathema:
Furthermore, whether concerning Christ, or concerning His Church, or any other matter whatsoever which is connected with your faith and life, to say nothing of ourselves, who are by no means to be compared with him who said, ‘Though we,’ at any rate, as he went on to say, ‘Though an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you than that which’ ye have received in the lawful and evangelical Scripture, ‘let him be accursed.’256 Â
This principle of not violating the silence of Scripture by promoting doctrines which cannot be proven from Scripture was practiced consistently by the fathers. As we have seen it is taught by Irenaeus, Tertullian, Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, John Chrysostom, Gregory of Nazianzus and Gregory of Nyssa. It is also taught by Caesarius of Arles,257 Prosper of Aquitaine,258 Theodoret259 and Salvian the Presbyter.260 
    According to Augustine, the gospel which the apostle Paul handed down to the Church was handed down in the Scriptures, and woe to him who teaches anything that distorts or modifies that message. Therefore, in all doctrinal controversies, given the inspired, infallible, authoritative and sufficient nature of Scripture, it is the final arbiter. In his controversy with the Donatists he states this principle succinctly when he says, in effect, ‘Let us look to Scripture alone’:
Let us not bring in deceitful balances, to which we may hang what weights we will and how we will, saying to suit ourselves, ‘This is heavy and this is light;’ but let us bring forward the sacred balance out of holy Scripture, as out of the Lord’s treasure–house, and let us weigh them by it, to see which is the heavier; or rather, let us not weigh them for ourselves, but read the weights as declared by the Lord.261
In his controversy with the Pelagians, it was not the authority of the Church, but the authority of Scripture which settled the doctrinal issues for Augustine:
Moreover, in the sacred books of the canon, the authority of this doctrine is vigorously asserted in the clearest and fullest way. The apostle exclaims: ‘By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so it passed upon all men, in which all have sinned.’ Now from these words it cannot certainly be said, that Adam’s sin has injured even those who commit no sin, for the Scripture says, ‘In which all have sinned.’262 Â
Augustine’s position on the authority and sufficiency of Scripture is encapsulated in the following statement from his treatise, On the Unity of the Church: ‘These are the proofs, these the foundations, these the supports of our cause.’263 
    The foregoing evidence sufficiently demonstrates that Augustine was a firm believer in the principle of sola Scriptura, that is, in the ultimate authority, sufficiency and primacy of Scripture. In spite of this, Roman Catholic apologists insist that Augustine held to a three–fold concept of authority: the Church (as the ultimate authority), Tradition and Scripture. For example, in Not By Scripture Alone, Joe Gallegos mentions the debate between Maximinus the Arian and Augustine, in which Maximinus maintained that any use of nonbiblical terms (such as homoousion) was illegitimate because they were not found in Scripture. All argumentation had to be based expressly on Scripture alone. Gallegos argues that Maximinus was a strong promoter of sola Scriptura and attempts to equate the Protestant position with the Arian heresy. He says:
Maximinus insisted on adhering to Scripture alone, throughout the debate. He did not allow traditional formulas such as the Nicaean Creed or ‘homoousion,’ since he did not find these in Scripture. Therefore, the oral debate between Maximinus and Augustine was based on Scripture, since this was the only common authority between them. In the debate and his follow–up replies, Augustine imparted the ecclesiastical understanding of Scripture and never wavered from the traditional Catholic faith. Not surprisingly, Maximinus imparted his own Arian understanding of Scripture and rejected Catholic tradition. Maximinus not only exhibited a great facility in handling Scripture, he also possessed great oratory skills. His deftness in Scripture allowed him to defeat Heraclius, a disciple of Augustine, in debate. This defeat brought the bishop of Hippo out of retirement to debate Maximinus. The first series of passages below are from Maximinus. These passages clearly show Maximinus’ insistence and reliance on Scripture alone, apart from any traditional landmark. He even appeals to 2 Timothy 3:16, a favorite passage often used by Protestant apologists today, in defending the concept of scripture alone.264

[solideogloria]

By painting Maximinus as proponent of sola Scriptura, Gallegos is seeking to identify Protestants with the heretical Arian movement. He suggests that Maximinus appealed to Scripture alone apart from any ‘traditional landmarks’ while Augustine appealed to tradition and the authority of the Church. But, in fact, Gallegos has misrepresented both Maximinus and Augustine. It was not Maximinus who insisted on adhering to Scripture alone, but Augustine. While both men appealed to tradition by appealing to the authority of the Councils, it was Augustine who realized how counterproductive this was and insisted on appealing to Scripture alone. Here are his comments:
I should not, however, introduce the Council of Nicaea to prejudice the case in my favor, nor should you introduce the Council of Ariminum that way. I am not bound by the authority of Ariminum, and you are not bound by that of Nicaea. By the authority of the scriptures that are not the property of anyone, but the common witnesses for both of us, let position do battle with position, case with case, reason with reason.265
Roland Teske, the translator of Augustine’s works in the Rotelle series, confirms that it was indeed Augustine, and not Maximinus, who insisted on adherence to Scripture alone:
Early in the debate, when Maximinus appeals to the Council of Ariminum, Augustine insists that both parties leave aside appeals to councils and carry on the debate on the basis of the scripture which they both accept rather than on the basis of conciliar authorities over which they are divided. Maximinus had appealed to the Council of Ariminum (Rimini), where in 359 an Arian creed was ratified by 330 Western bishops. It was of this council that Jerome wrote: ‘The world groaned and was astonished to find itself Arian.’ Accordingly, Augustine agrees not to appeal to the Council of Nicaea, as Maximinus gives up appealing to that of Ariminum, so that the debate proceeds on the basis of the scripture common to both parties.266
The Church fathers did not generally disagree with Maximinus and the Arians on the principle of the authority and sufficiency of Scripture. As has been documented, both sides believed that Scripture contained the fullness of revelation from God and that all doctrinal formulation must be validated from it. However, the fathers disagreed with their Arian opponents arguing that it was not illegitimate to use nonbiblical terms such as homoousion and Trinity because, though not explicitly found in Scripture, the terms conveyed concepts clearly taught there. The real battle in the Arian heresy was not over sola Scriptura, but over interpretation. The Arians isolated biblical passages, interpreting them out of the context of the broader teaching of Scripture. They did not interpret Scripture in light of its overall scope (as Athanasius put it).     Therefore, in the name of Scripture, they introduced teachings which undermined its true meaning.
The terms introduced by the fathers present at Nicaea became traditional and standard for expressing the biblical message. It is important to note that these bishops went to great lengths to justify their use of these terms, by demonstrating they could be supported from Scripture. Consequently, the Church cited them as authoritative. The Church’s interpretation was accepted by later fathers, such as Augustine, only because the terms were found to have a solid biblical basis. This, then, is how we are to understand the appeal of fathers like Augustine to the authority of the Church’s tradition. Gallegos attempts to draw a contrast between Maximinus and Augustine. However, the historical evidence demonstrates otherwise. Augustine did not blindly follow the Church. He agreed with what had become the Church’s understanding of the Trinity because he was convinced it was taught in Scripture. We come back again to Basil’s statement regarding the fathers:
But we do not rest only on the fact that such is the tradition of the Fathers; for they too followed the sense of Scripture, and started from the evidence which, a few sentences back, I deduced from Scripture and laid before you.267
Gallegos has misrepresented Augustine by failing to take into account his complete teaching on the Church and councils. Augustine believed that the Church had authority because her teaching agreed with the apostolic deposit handed down in Scripture. That Augustine and the North Africans did not slavishly follow the authority of the Church is demonstrated conclusively in the conflict between the North African bishops and Zosimus, the bishop of Rome, during the Pelagian controversy. At one point, Zosimus affirmed the orthodoxy of Pelagius and Celestius after their condemnation by the North Africans for heresy, demanding that the North Africans retract their position and receive Pelagius and Celestius as orthodox. They refused to submit to the bishop of Rome, convinced that the teachings of Pelagius and Celestius were heretical because they contradicted Scripture. They refused to yield to the authority of the Roman Church because, at that point, the Church’s authority (as represented by the bishop of Rome) was at odds with Scripture. The authority of Scripture took precedence over the authority of the bishop of Rome.
    Gallegos constructs a straw man argument against sola Scriptura in citing Maximinus. The Protestant Church does not disagree with Augustine’s arguments against Maximinus. In fact, it rejects the arguments of Maximinus himself, yet firmly holds to the principle of sola Scriptura. Where in the teaching of the Trinity does the Protestant Church contradict what Augustine calls the faith of the Catholic Church of his day? Sola Scriptura does not prohibit the use of nonbiblical terms to express the teaching of Scripture. Evangelicals agree completely with Augustine, Athanasius and other great theologians of the patristic age who argued for the sound principle of interpretation, that individual passages must be interpreted in light of the whole of Scripture. This is the Reformation principle of the analogy of faith. What we do reject, however, is the notion promoted by Roman apologists that there is direct correlation between the Church of the patristic age and the Church of Rome today; that whatever the Church of the patristic age is, Rome is, and therefore whatever Rome teaches must be true. Just because the Church was right on certain issues in the fourth and fifth centuries does not mean we are to blindly follow the Church of Rome in whatever she teaches today. The logic here is skewed. If Roman apologists were consistent they would become Orthodox because the tradition Augustine cited as authoritative originated, not with Rome and the West, but with the Eastern Church through the council of Nicaea, Athanasius and finally the Cappadocians.
    As for Maximinus and the Arians, it is the Roman Catholic Church, not the Protestant, that follows their hermeneutical example. In many of her dogmatic teachings, Rome has isolated Scripture from its broader context and given an interpretation of those passages that is antithetical to the overall teaching of Scripture. Furthermore, in the name of tradition and the authority of the Church, Rome has introduced novel teachings which are contrary to both Scripture and the tradition of the early Church. She appeals to the principle of tradition as justification for her present day teachings which actually contradict the past tradition. Like