Body: | Sola Scriptura: The Bible alone is enough!
Apostolic Fathers used scripture as the primary defense against false
doctrine.
Click to View
Sola Scriptura home page
Click to View Apostolic Fathers: Dates they lived and other information.
Click to View Apostolic Fathers: Five kinds of Tradition.
Click to View
Mandatory: Apostolic Fathers Catechism Class for Catholics and Orthodox.
200 AD: Tertullian:
"From this, therefore, do we draw up our rule. Since the Lord Jesus
Christ sent the apostles to preach, (our rule is) that no others ought to
be received as preachers than those whom Christ appointed; for "no man
knoweth the Father save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal
Him." Nor does the Son seem to have revealed Him to any other than the
apostles, whom He sent forth to preach-that, of course, which He revealed
to them. Now, what that was which they preached-in other words, what it was
which Christ revealed to them-can, as I must here likewise prescribe,
properly be proved in no other way than by those very churches which the
apostles rounded in person, by declaring the gospel to them directly
themselves, both viva voce [living voice], as the phrase is, and
subsequently by their epistles. If, then, these things are so, it is in the
same degree manifest that all doctrine which agrees with the apostolic
churches-those moulds and original sources of the faith must be reckoned
for truth, as undoubtedly containing that which the (said) churches
received from the apostles, the apostles from Christ, Christ from God.
Whereas all doctrine must be prejudged as false which savours of
contrariety to the truth of the churches and apostles of Christ and God. It
remains, then, that we demonstrate whether this doctrine of ours, of which
we have now given the rule, has its origin in the tradition of the
apostles, and whether all other doctrines do not ipso facto proceed from
falsehood. We hold communion with the apostolic churches because our
doctrine is in no respect different from theirs. This is our witness of
truth." (Tertullian, The prescription against the heretics, Ch 21)
Click to View
Tertullian clearly states that their doctrine and practice is identical to
what the apostles taught orally and with scripture. Tertullian uses the
expression "viva voce" (living voice) which is merely a reference to
inspired oral revelation. The Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches have
changed the original meaning of "viva voce" from the words spoken by
inspired apostles, to whatever the current practice and dogma of the church
is today. Here is proof: "But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and
a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church
at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine. How
can we know what antiquity was except through the Church? ... I may say in
strict truth that the Church has no antiquity. It rests upon its own
supernatural and perpetual consciousness. ... The only Divine evidence to
us of what was primitive is the witness and voice of the Church at this
hour." (Henry Edward Manning, The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or
Reason and Revelation, 1865, p 227-228) To anyone with an ounce of insight,
this statement is not only opposite to what Tertullian means it is utter
heresy because it ignores history (Fathers) and scripture. Anyone who has
talked to a Roman Catholic or Orthodox preacher, knows this is indeed
exactly how they think!
If you had not purposely rejected in some instances, and corrupted
in others, the Scriptures which are opposed to your opinion, you would have
been confuted in this matter by the Gospel of John, when it declares that
the Spirit descended in the body of a dove, and sat upon the Lord.
(Tertullian, The Flesh of Christ, ch 3)
Click to View
Tertullian appeals to scriptures as his primary and foremost doctrinal
standard with no mention of oral tradition. Roman Catholic and Orthodox
leaders today merely say, "the current tradition of the church is the
standard." Further, These leaders don't even believe the scriptures can be
understood by the common people so obviously they would feel Tertullian was
wasting his time even arguing scripture with the Gnostics.
"But there is no evidence of this, because Scripture says nothing."
... "The Scripture says nothing of this, although it is not in other
instances silent" ..."I do not admit what you advance of your own apart
from Scripture." (Tertullian, The Flesh of Christ, ch 6; ch 7)
Click to View
In refuting the Gnostics, Tertullian appeals to the silence of scripture as
proof they are wrong. Whereas Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches today
openly preach we must practice many things not revealed in scripture,
Tertullian says otherwise. Tertullian therefore, not only shows we must not
"exceed what is written" but that scripture itself is the all-sufficient
standard. It is also noteworthy that when the Gnostics were actually making
appeals to their own "oral traditions", Tertullian initially fought back,
not by saying that church tradition was silent, but that the scriptures
taught no such doctrine. The Gnostics argued with oral tradition and
Tertullian refuted with scripture! We agree and do the same today in
fighting the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches! We fight their tradition
with scripture just like Tertullian did!
"But to what shifts you resort, in your attempt to rob the syllable
ex (Indicating the material or ingredient, "out of.") of its proper force
as a preposition, and to substitute another for it in a sense not found
throughout the Holy Scriptures! (Tertullian, The Flesh of Christ, ch 20)
Click to View
Tertullian appeals to the private interpretation of a preposition of a word
found in scripture. In a most "un-Roman catholic" way, he expects the
Gnostics to possess the ability to be able to both understand and properly
interpret this, even as heretics! Obviously Tertullian believed that the
scripture was understandable, by merely reading it. Paul stated as much in
Eph 3:3-5, "When you read you can have my same level of understanding of
the mystery of Christ."
"We have, however, challenged these opinions to the test, both of
the arguments which sustain them, and of the Scriptures which are appealed
to, and this we have done ex abundanti; so that we have, by showing what
the flesh of Christ was" (Tertullian, The Flesh of Christ, ch 25)
Click to View
Tertullian says that he "abundantly" appealed to scripture to refute the
heretics. Orthodox are surprised by this and would have expected Tertullian
to merely say, "its not what our current church tradition is".
"And how long shall we draw the saw to and fro through this line,
when we have an ancient practice, which by anticipation has made for us the
state, i.e., of the question? If no passage of Scripture has prescribed it,
assuredly custom, which without doubt flowed from tradition, has confirmed
it. For how can anything come into use, if it has not first been handed
down? Even in pleading tradition, written authority, you say, must be
demanded. Let us inquire, therefore, whether tradition, unless it be
written, should not be admitted. Certainly we shall say that it ought not
to be admitted, if no cases of other practices which, without any written
instrument, we maintain on the ground of tradition alone, and the
countenance thereafter of custom, affords us any precedent. To deal with
this matter briefly, I shall begin with baptism. When we are going to enter
the water, but a little before, in the presence of the congregation and
under the hand of the president, we solemnly profess that we disown the
devil, and his pomp, and his angels. Hereupon we are thrice immersed,
making a somewhat ampler pledge than the Lord has appointed in the Gospel.
Then when we are taken up (as new-born children), we taste first of all a
mixture of milk and honey, and from that day we refrain from the daily bath
for a whole week. We take also, in congregations before daybreak, and from
the hand of none but the presidents, the sacrament of the Eucharist, which
the Lord both commanded to be eaten at meal-times, and enjoined to be taken
by all alike. As often as the anniversary comes round, we make offerings
for the dead as birthday honours. We count fasting or kneeling in worship
on the Lord's day to be unlawful. We rejoice in the same privilege also
from Easter to Whitsunday. We feel pained should any wine or bread, even
though our own, be cast upon the ground. At every forward step and
movement, at every going in and out, when we put on our clothes and shoes,
when we bathe, when we sit at table, when we light the lamps, on couch, on
seat, in all the ordinary actions of daily life, we trace upon the forehead
the sign. If, for these and other such rules, you insist upon having
positive Scripture injunction, you will find none. Tradition will be held
forth to you as the originator of them, custom as their strengthener, and
faith as their observer. That reason will support tradition, and custom,
and faith, you will either yourself perceive, or learn from some one who
has. (Tertullian, The crown or De Corona, ch 3-4)
Click to View
We love this statement by Tertullian because it proves our point that he
used the Bible only to determine doctrine to the exclusion of oral
tradition. Now we are actually shocked that Roman Catholic and Orthodox
apologists would ever want to refer to this text because it utterly refutes
their claim that there is an oral tradition with doctrines that are
distinct from, and missing from scripture! If these anti-sola Scriptura
advocates are correct, that we must follow, as Tertullian did, "tradition"
then why do neither the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches say as a
matter of liturgy before they are baptized: "solemnly profess that we
disown the devil". Why do Orthodox immerse three times ... just as
Tertullian says you should do in tradition, "thrice immersed" yet the
Catholics reject this tradition and sprinkle once? After being baptized,
why do both the Catholic and Orthodox churches disobey "Tertullian's
apostolic tradition" by not "a mixture of milk and honey, and from that day
we refrain from the daily bath for a whole week"? In fact they all disobey
this apostolic tradition and take a bath as soon as they get home after
being baptized! What heresy! Of course, the liturgy of "triple baptism" is
not taught in scripture any more than drinking milk/honey and not bathing
for a week. These represent localized customs that are expedient. All
churches have localized customs and they vary, from congregation to
congregation. Remember, there are three kinds of tradition that the
apostolic fathers refer to. This is the second type of tradition that is
optional because it involves human origin choices that God cares nothing
about. Like Tertullian said, "we trace upon the forehead the sign. If, for
these and other such rules, you insist upon having positive Scripture
injunction, you will find none". That's because it is optional for local
churches and individual Christians to do. Indeed, even the Roman Catholic
and Orthodox churches do not make the "sign of the cross on the forehead"
as was the "apostolic tradition", rather they changed the "apostolic
tradition" and started making the sign of the cross on the chest! It is
these expedient things that are "tradition" and clearly optional that
scripture is silent about. Other examples of tradition in this same
category today, might be making sure the temperature of the water in the
baptistery is exactly 77 degrees; holding the person being baptized under
water for exactly three second, one for the Father, one for the Son and one
for the Holy Spirit. So this very passage by Tertullian that Roman Catholic
and Orthodox anti-sola Scriptura advocates quote to disprove sola
Scriptura, in fact refutes them! This passage also clearly shows the
category of "tradition" that all the "Apostolic Fathers" viewed was not
found in scripture. Unlike "classical reformers" like Keith A. Matheson,
who stated in his book, "The shape of sola Scriptura", that it is important
to maintain the oral traditions of the post-apostolic church, we reject
this completely because there was a clear and steady drift away from New
Testament doctrine and liturgy immediately following the death of the
apostles. For us, if it is not in the Bible, we don't do it!
"Now, with regard to this rule of faith-that we may from this point
acknowledge what it is which we defend-it is, you must know, that which
prescribes the belief that there is one only God, and that He is none other
than the Creator of the world, who produced all things out of nothing
through His own Word, first of all sent forth; that this Word is called His
Son, and, under the name of God, was seen "in diverse manners" by the
patriarchs, heard at all times in the prophets, at last brought down by the
Spirit and Power of the Father into the Virgin Mary, was made flesh in her
womb, and, being born of her, went forth as Jesus Christ; thenceforth He
preached the new law and the new promise of the kingdom of heaven, worked
miracles; having been crucified, He rose again the third day; (then) having
ascended into the heavens, He sat at the right hand of the Father; sent
instead of Himself the Power of the Holy Ghost to lead such as believe;
will come with glory to take the saints to the enjoyment of everlasting
life and of the heavenly promises, and to condemn the wicked to everlasting
fire, after the resurrection of both these classes shall have happened,
together with the restoration of their flesh. This rule, as it will be
proved, was taught by Christ, and raises amongst ourselves no other
questions than those which heresies introduce, and which make men
heretics." (Tertullian, the Prescription Against Heretics, Chapter XIII)
Click to View
The Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches love to quote (Tertullian, the
Prescription Against Heretics, Chapter XIII) as proof that Tertullian had
an oral apostolic tradition that was distinct from scripture. We who teach
sola Scriptura, actually have no problem agreeing! Tertullian calls this
oral tradition, "the rule of faith". We agree that it was a creed, but
notice it contains absolutely nothing, except what the scriptures
specifically reveal. This would have been a powerful witness for the Roman
Catholic and Orthodox churches if such a "rule of faith" actually contained
doctrinal details not found in scripture like: the perpetual virginity and
assumption of Mary; infant baptism; triple baptism; the sign of the cross
etc. In fact, Tertullian's "rule of faith" is proof of our major premise,
namely, that all such "apostolic traditions" that were considered essential
were based entirely (100%) upon scripture. Even in the Lord's true church
today, any member at random, if asked from the pulpit, could give a similar
"one paragraph summary" of the true faith. Even the apostle Paul gives a
similar type of "one paragraph summary" of doctrine in 1 Cor 15:3-8. Of
course, we must take issue with Tertullian's "rule of faith" on one key
point: While he views this extra-biblical, man-made document authoritative
in itself, even if it is directly based upon scripture, the correct
approach is to give it no more authority than the many different "one
paragraph summaries of faith" each member might give. Tertullian's creed,
began a very dangerous trend where eventually, as we see in most
denominations today, creeds have actually supplanted and replaced scripture
as the ultimate authority.
""With whom lies that very faith to which the Scriptures belong.
From what and through whom, and when, and to whom, has been handed down
that rule, by which men become Christians?" For wherever it shall be
manifest that the true Christian rule and faith shall be, there will
likewise be the true Scriptures and expositions thereof, and all the
Christian traditions. (Tertullian, The prescription against the heretics,
Ch 19)
Click to View
It is clear that Tertullian accepts the creed, which he calls "the rule of
faith" as an extra-biblical witness to truth. But it is also clear, from
what he wrote in (Tertullian, the Prescription Against Heretics, Chapter
XIII, see above in blue) that this creed contained nothing distinct from
what the scriptures teach.
"Silence! Silence on such blasphemy. Let us be content with saving
that Christ died, the Son of the Father; and let this suffice, because the
Scriptures have told us so much. For even the apostle, to his
declaration-which he makes not without feeling the weight of it-that
"Christ died," immediately adds, "according to the Scriptures," in order
that he may alleviate the harshness of the statement by the authority of
the Scriptures, and so remove offence from the reader." (Tertullian,
Against Praxeas, ch 29)
Click to View
Tertullian takes the view that if the scriptures speak on a subject, it is
the only authority needed.
What, therefore, did not exist, the Scripture [Gnostic false
doctrine] was unable to mention; and by not mentioning it, it has given us
a clear proof that there was no such thing: for if there had been, the
Scripture would have mentioned it. (Tertullian, Against Hermogenes, ch 20)
Click to View
Tertullian makes the profound statement that the Gnostics are wrong because
scripture doesn't teach their doctrine. If there existed a separate channel
of doctrinal authority, as the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches say
exists, the Gnostics would have countered Tertullian by saying, "That's a
silly argument Tertullian, because you know there are all kinds of
doctrines the church teaches that are not found in the scripture, but are
considered true, because they are "oral apostolic tradition". We do not
deny oral apostolic tradition was considered authoritative in the early
church, just that it never differed in any way from what was in scripture.
The both the church and the Gnostics understood this and that is why
Tertullian refutes them based upon the silence of scripture.
I revere the fulness of His Scripture, in which He manifests to me
both the Creator and the creation. In the gospel, moreover, I discover a
Minister and Witness of the Creator, even His Word. But whether all things
were made out of any underlying Matter, I have as yet failed anywhere to
find. Where such a statement is written, Hermogenes' shop must tell us. If
it is nowhere written, then let it fear the woe which impends on all who
add to or take away from the written word. (Tertullian, Against Hermogenes,
ch 22)
Click to View
Tertullian first claims scripture is all-sufficient and then argues that if
the Gnostic doctrines are not in scripture, then they are false.
"Suppose now I should say the city built a theatre and a circus, but
the stage ... But this example may be an idle one as being derived from a
human circumstance; I will take another, which has the authority of
Scripture itself. It says that "God made man of the dust of the ground""
(Tertullian, Against Hermogenes, ch 31)
Click to View
After using an argument based upon every day life, Tertullian then
underscores that this next argument is authoritative because it comes from
scripture. This shows that that non-biblical opinions by church leaders
should not be considered authoritative. Of course today, bishops and
priests demand obedience even when they do not quote scripture by calling
it tradition.
by Steve Rudd
Click to View
Go To Start: WWW.BIBLE.CA
|