The Positive and Negative Claims of Sola Scriptura

I've noted a number of Roman Catholics who seem to think that the advocates of Sola Scriptura need to prove that Scripture teaches "Scripture alone is the infallible rule of faith and life." I understand (I think) this mindset - if you're advocating "Sola Scriptura" you should be able to prove it. Part of the problem is that some Roman Catholics don't seem to understand that "sola scriptura" is a name for a bundle of doctrines. There are both positive and negative positions within that bundle.

The primary positive claims of Sola Scriptura are that:

a) Everything we need to know for salvation is taught in Scripture. (Sufficiency)
b) Everything necessary for salvation is taught clearly in Scripture. (Perspicuity)

We could summarize these as simply "sufficiency."

The negative claim of Sola Scriptura is that there is nothing else like it. This is a universal negative. But there are also specific negative claims, such as:

c) Teachers that teach contrary to Scripture should be rejected. (Primacy)
d) The Bible does not err. (Inerrancy)

That the Scripture teach (a)-(d) really should be enough for anyone who properly understands Sola Scriptura. The general negative claim of "and there is no other like it" does not have the same kind of burden. In other words, having established that the Scriptures are an infallible rule of faith, we can be content to let all comers try to prove that their supposedly supplemental rule of faith is also one. It's not strictly necessary for us to remove that possibility antecedently.

Indeed, it is illogical for people to suppose that the position of sola scriptura would be defeated, simply because the negative part of the claim were unproven. Until some other infallible rule is established, Scripture alone is the default position.

I mention all of the above without getting into the question of whether the general negative claim can be established from Scripture, but rather simply observing the lack of consequences in the case that it could not. In short, sola scriptura is not discredited until either the sufficiency of Scripture is disproven or some other rule of faith established.

-TurretinFan

A Half Century for the Emergence of the Council

One of the supposed benefits of Rome's councils is that they allegedly provide a clarity that is missing from Scripture. But those who think this should consider Benedict XVI's comments on Vatican II:

I would now like to add yet a third point: there was the Council of the Fathers – the real Council – but there was also the Council of the media. It was almost a Council apart, and the world perceived the Council through the latter, through the media. Thus, the Council that reached the people with immediate effect was that of the media, not that of the Fathers.

...

We know that this Council of the media was accessible to everyone. Therefore, this was the dominant one, the more effective one, and it created so many disasters, so many problems, so much suffering: seminaries closed, convents closed, banal liturgy … and the real Council had difficulty establishing itself and taking shape; the virtual Council was stronger than the real Council. But the real force of the Council was present and, slowly but surely, established itself more and more and became the true force which is also the true reform, the true renewal of the Church. It seems to me that, 50 years after the Council, we see that this virtual Council is broken, is lost, and there now appears the true Council with all its spiritual force.

(Original Link: Benedict XVI, "The Second Vatican Council, as I saw it" Updated Link: Meeting with the Parish Priests and Clergy of Rome, 14 February 2013 - the second ellipsis is part of the official text, the first is mine)

If a council is so easily misrepresented and so widely misunderstood, even when its writings are all easily obtained, how is that supposed to be a solution to the problem of alleged ambiguity in Scripture?

-TurretinFan

Luke the Evangelist vs. Postmodernism and their Roman Allies

Luke 1:1-4

Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, that thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.

Notice that the purpose of the Scripture, particularly of the gospel of Luke, was to provide certainty that could not be obtained simply based on the prior oral tradition that Theophilus had received.

You can have the same certainty Theophilus did, by reading the same Scriptures that were given for that very purpose to him. Scriptures that are superior to the instruction he received before receiving the Scriptures, because they are based on the perfect understanding that comes, though not stated explicitly here, from the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

-TurretinFan

Jason Sabalow Partially Affirms Perspicuity

It's always nice to hear one of Rome's apologists confessing the perspicuity of Scripture on matters that are necessary for salvation: "the Gospels testify and testify clearly to who Jesus is, and who he is is God." Jason Sabalow is correct about that, and the post-modernistic folks within Rome's communion who try to suggest that the Scriptures are not clear about this or any other item necessary for salvation are wrong.

So that Mr. Sabalow does not get in trouble with his colleagues, I will note that he has not completely affirmed perspicuity, as he has not stated that all things necessary for salvation are found clearly in Scripture, nevertheless, he has affirmed a point that I have seen others in his communion attempt to deny, namely that the divinity of the Son is clearly taught in Scripture.

- TurretinFan

Perspicuity Perspicuously Presented

Ephesians 3:3-4  How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)

It's not the whole doctrine of perspicuity, but it does at a minimum suggest the formal sufficiency of Scripture.  On top of that, it's just common sense that the reason the Bible was written was to be read and understood by the common men to whom it was addressed (for example, the Ephesians, Galatians, Colossians, Romans, Corinthians, and so on).

-TurretinFan

What Should be Spent on Wine and Gambling?

Others have noted that there is inconsistency in the Koran regarding alcohol.  One of these passages comes from Surah 2.  The particular ayah is 219

219. They ask thee concerning wine and gambling. Say: "In them is great sin, and some profit, for men; but the sin is greater than the profit." They ask thee how much they are to spend; Say: "What is beyond your needs." Thus doth Allah Make clear to you His Signs: In order that ye may consider-

The usual point is that here there is no command toward total abstinence, and there is an indication that there is some profit in them.  That is, they are not simply sin.  There is another point that can be made, though.  Suppose we ask how much should be spent on wine and gambling?  This ayah seems to indicate that the answer that should be given by Muslims is "Your disposable income" (that is, what you have beyond what you need).

In analyzing this point, of course, one has to assume that the context interprets the text -- an assumption that is not necessarily valid.  We know, for example, that order of the ayat in the Koran is not the order in which the ayat were allegedly revealed to Mohammed.

Nevertheless, in order to avoid making the sentence (They ask thee how much they are to spend; Say: "What is beyond your needs.") a floating maxim, we need to try to interpret it contextually.  After all, the object of this spending is not identified in the sentence itself and so need to be supplied from the context.  There are basically two options for context.  Context precedent and context subsequent.  Context precedent suggests that the Koran is talking about spending on wine and gambling.  This approach makes sense, particularly because the very next sentence alleges perspicuity.  ("Thus doth Allah Make clear to you His Signs: In order that ye may consider-(Their bearings) on this life and the Hereafter.")

Some may point out that "They ask thee..." may introduce a subject change.  After all, in the next Ayah, we see this:

220. (Their bearings) on this life and the Hereafter. They ask thee concerning orphans. Say: "The best thing to do is what is for their good; if ye mix their affairs with yours, they are your brethren; but Allah knows the man who means mischief from the man who means good. And if Allah had wished, He could have put you into difficulties: He is indeed Exalted in Power, Wise."  

Notice that "They ask thee concerning orphans ..." seems to introduce a new topic.  Yet this is not a rigid rule in the Koran, even in this Surah.  For example, only a few ayat earlier, the Koran states:

215. They ask thee what they should spend (In charity). Say: Whatever ye spend that is good, is for parents and kindred and orphans and those in want and for wayfarers. And whatever ye do that is good, -(Allah) knoweth it well.

216. Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not. 

217. They ask thee concerning fighting in the Prohibited Month. Say: "Fighting therein is a grave (offence); but graver is it in the sight of Allah to prevent access to the path of Allah, to deny Him, to prevent access to the Sacred Mosque, and drive out its members." Tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter. Nor will they cease fighting you until they turn you back from your faith if they can. And if any of you Turn back from their faith and die in unbelief, their works will bear no fruit in this life and in the Hereafter; they will be companions of the Fire and will abide therein.

Notice that here there is a shift from discussing spending on charity to fighting.  Note in particular that "They ask thee concerning fighting ..." does not introduce a new topic.  It provides a specific detail about the immediately preceding topic.  Moreover, notice that the new topic of fighting was introduced without the use of "They ask ... ."

Others may point out that in this Surah, spending often refers to charitable or devotional spending.  For example:

3. Who believe in the Unseen, are steadfast in prayer, and spend out of what We have provided for them;

177. It is not righteousness that ye turn your faces Towards east or West; but it is righteousness- to believe in Allah and the Last Day, and the Angels, and the Book, and the Messengers; to spend of your substance, out of love for Him, for your kin, for orphans, for the needy, for the wayfarer, for those who ask, and for the ransom of slaves; to be steadfast in prayer, and practice regular charity; to fulfil the contracts which ye have made; and to be firm and patient, in pain (or suffering) and adversity, and throughout all periods of panic. Such are the people of truth, the Allah.fearing.



195. And spend of your substance in the cause of Allah, and make not your own hands contribute to (your) destruction; but do good; for Allah loveth those who do good.


215 (already presented above)

261-265 The parable of those who spend their substance in the way of Allah ...


270. And whatever ye spend in charity or devotion, be sure Allah knows it all. But the wrong-doers have no helpers.


274. Those who (in charity) spend of their goods by night and by day, in secret and in public, have their reward with their Lord: on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.

This larger context certainly might seem to lend credibility to the idea that spending is not spending on wine and gambling, but on charity.   On the other hand, 215 already answered the question about what should be spent on charity.  So, interpreting 219 as referring to spending on charity seems to make it redundant with 215.


Moreover, there is another pattern that emerges from a study of this Surah.


The expression "Thus doth Allah make clear His Signs to men" is introduced to wrap up one topic and move on to a different topic in 187.  Then a similar expression is used in a similar way in 221 and then again in 242 and 266.


A similar approach is also used in 3:103, Surah 4 ends in that way, and 5:89 uses the expression to separate a discussion on how to cure the moral damage from breaking an oath from a discussion on gambling and drinking.

Specifically:

90. O ye who believe! Intoxicants and gambling, (dedication of) stones, and (divination by) arrows, are an abomination,- of Satan's handwork: eschew such (abomination), that ye may prosper.

91. Satan's plan is (but) to excite enmity and hatred between you, with intoxicants and gambling, and hinder you from the remembrance of Allah, and from prayer: will ye not then abstain? 

What was previously some profit and great sin is now an "abomination" from Mohamed's followers must abstain.


Of course, the above understanding isn't the understanding of the Sunni.  They don't interpret 2:219 as suggesting that people should spend only their disposable income on wine and gambling.  They likewise are reluctant to see "abomination of Satan's handwork" (5:90) as being in conflict with "some profit" (2:219).  That isn't their view of the Koran, and their scholars do not (to my knowledge) agree with my analysis above.

But the Koran calls itself the "Qur'an that makes things clear" (15:1) and claims "We sent down the Book to thee for the express purpose, that thou shouldst make clear to them those things in which they differ, and that it should be a guide and a mercy to those who believe." (15:64)


-TurretinFan

Carl Beckwith on Sola Scriptura and the Arian Controversy

Carl Beckwith in Hilary of Poitiers on the Trinity: From De Fide to De Trinitate (New York and Oxford, 2009) provides a number of interesting comments in relation to Hilary of Poiters and the Scripture, particular in the context of the Arian controversy. One of the first passages of this book that caught my eye is the following:

The Homoian appeal to scripture alone in these debates should not be misconstrued as resembling the same appeal made by the Reformers. For example, Martin Luther expresses the need for extra-biblical words or phrases in such disputes as the Trinitarian debates. Note Luther’s appeal to Hilary’s understanding of scripture. He writes: ‘It is certainly true that one should teach nothing outside of Scripture pertaining to divine matters, as St. Hilary writes in On the Trinity, Book I, which means only that one should teach nothing that is at variance with Scripture. But that one should not use more or other words than those contained in Scripture—this cannot be adhered to, especially in a controversy and when heretics want to falsify things with trickery and distort the words of Scripture.’ See ‘On the Councils and the Church’, Luther’s Works, general editors Helmut Lehmann and Jaroslav Pelikan (St Louis, Mo.: Concordia Publishing House, 1957– ), 41: 83

(p. 66, fn 41.)
In the passage above, we see an interesting point.  Both the Homoians (the folks that Mr. Waltz would prefer I didn't call "Arians") and the Niceans agreed that Scripture alone is the rule of faith.  If we take Beckwith's comment at face value, the difference between the two is that the Homoians practiced (or claimed that they practiced) a rigid rule by which there was no need for extra-biblical words.  The Niceans (like Hilary), however, saw value in the use of extra-biblical terms.

Moreover, as Beckwith explains, what Hilary saw as the problem was that the words of Scripture were being interpreted arbitrarily.

Before commenting on the analogy, Hilary predictably begins with a number of comments on the limitation of human speech. Although we should by ‘faith alone’ (sola fide) adore the Father, venerate the Son, and abound in the Holy Spirit, conflict and dispute over the Trinity has forced Hilary to address a subject that cannot be described by human words.[FN12 De Trinitate, II.2.3–9.] Although human speech is limited in what it is able to communicate about an infinite God, the distortion of the scriptural witness to the Triune God and the consequent threat to the faithful force Hilary to enter the discussion. He writes: ‘Many have appeared who received the simplicity of the heavenly words in an arbitrary manner and not according to the certain meaning of truth itself, interpreting them in a sense which the force of the words did not demand.’[FN13 Ibid. II.3.1–4: ‘Extiterunt enim plures, qui caelestium verborum simplicitatem pro voluntatis suae sensu, non pro veritatis ipsius absolutione susciperent, aliter interpraetantes quam dictorum virtus postularet.’ On Hilary’s use of simplicity, see SC 443, p. 278, n. 2.] Hilary repeatedly charges his opponents with interpreting the words of scripture in an arbitrary manner because they ignore the unity of God’s revelation, the progressive disclosure of Christ’s person and work, and the context of the heavenly words. He continues: ‘Heresy comes not from scripture, but from the understanding of it; the fault is in the mind [of the interpreter], not in the word.’[FN14 De Trinitate, II.3.4–5: ‘De intellegentia enim heresies, non de scribtura est; et sensus, non sermo fit crimen.’] At this point, he makes reference to Basil’s analogy.

He asks:

Is it possible to falsify the truth? When the name Father is heard, is not the nature of the Son contained in the name? Will he not be the Holy Spirit who has been so designated? For, there cannot but be in the Father what a Father is, nor can the Son be wanting in what a Son is, nor can there not be in the Holy Spirit what is received. Iniquitous men confuse and complicate everything and in their distorted minds even seek to effect a change in the nature so that they deprive the Father of what the Father is and take away from the Son what the Son is. They despoil him, however, since according to them he is not a Son by nature. He does not possess the nature if the one born and the begetter do not have the same properties in themselves. He is not a Son whose being (substantia) is different from and unlike (dissimilis) that of the Father. In fact, how will he be a Father if he does not recognize in the Son the substance and nature (substantiae adque naturae) that belong to him? [FN15 Ibid. II.3.5–19.]

(pp. 101-02)

Hilary explains that the way to avoid this hermeneutic of capriciousness is to attempt to understand the Bible according to the author's original intent.  Look for the reason the words were spoken or written and you will discover the meaning of the words more easily.

The heretics, however, are not really concerned with this question. As Hilary observes, they undermine the co-equality of the Spirit with the Father and the Son by focusing on the questions quid sit and qualis sit.[FN73 De Trinitate, II.29.23–4.] Hilary charges his opponents with obscuring the true nature of the Spirit by not properly distinguishing between God qua Spirit (John 4: 24) and God the Holy Spirit. Hilary proceeds, then, with a discussion of how we properly read and interpret scripture. He writes: ‘There is a cause for every statement being made as it is [in scripture] and the meaning of what is said will be understood from the purpose for which the words were spoken, lest because of the response given by the Lord, God is spirit, the name Holy Spirit, his use and gift be denied.’[FN74 Ibid. II.31.3–4: ‘Omne enim dictum ut dicatur ex causa est, et dicti ratio ex sensu erit intellegenda dicendi: ne quia responsum a Domino est: Spiritus Deus est, idcirco cum sancti Spiritus nomine et usus negetur et donum.’] Hilary has already given similar advice at the beginning of Book Two. His opponents deliberately neglect the circumstances of particular verses in scripture and offer interpretations which the force of the words does not warrant.[FN75 Cf. ibid. II.3.1–4.] They distort the meaning of passages because they separate the circumstances that occasion Christ’s words from the words themselves. The faithful interpreter, however, will make the words dependent on their circumstances.[FN76 Cf. ibid. I.18.14–16 and I.30.4–5.]

Hilary’s opponents fail to answer properly the questions quid sit and qualis sit about the Holy Spirit, because they refuse to approach scripture free from their preconceived ideas about God. Hilary’s concern for how to read scripture properly reinforces his statements from the preface to Book Two: ‘heresy comes not from scripture, but from the understanding of it; the fault is in the mind [of the interpreter], not in the [divine] word.’[FN77 Ibid. [i.e. De Trinitate] II.3.4–5: ‘De intellegentia enim heresies, non de scribtura est; et sensus, non sermo fit crimen.’] His opponents take the Lord’s comment, God is Spirit, out of context in order to deny the name Holy Spirit and, as a result, his use and gifts. Since the Holy Spirit has been promised to us that we may know the things that have been given us by God (1 Cor. 2: 12), the denial of the Spirit is the denial of the light of knowledge. If the soul does not breathe in the gift of the Spirit through faith, it will, explains Hilary, ‘have the natural faculty to perceive God, but it will not have the light of knowledge’.[FN78 Ibid. II.35.11–13.]

Hilary ends by insisting that this gift, the Holy Spirit, is everywhere and available to all who are willing to receive it. When we approach scripture free from preconceived ideas, and when we allow faith to guide us in our search for understanding the mystery of God, we demonstrate our willingness to receive the gift of the Spirit. This gift not only brings the light of knowledge, but it brings us ‘the assurance of our future hope’.[FN79 Ibid. II.35.18–19: ‘hoc [munus] . . . futurae spei pignus est . . .’] Hilary ends Book Two, and his discussion of St Matthew’s baptismal formula, by emphasizing the certainty and comfort the soul receives when it confesses the catholic and apostolic faith in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

(pp. 124-25)
Notice how, in the passage above, Hilary (like us) affirms the perspicuity of Scripture whilst blaming the errors of heretics not on the Scriptures but on the heretics.  They neglect the "circumstances" of the text, that is to say - they don't consider the context.  In short, their problem is that they are not letting the text be its own interpreter.

For whatever reason, Hilary chose to write what purports to be an autobiographical narrative describing his intellectual journey to the Christian faith. According to this autobiography, Hilary’s soul, troubled with thoughts of death, began to search for answers about God and his involvement with creation. He turned first to popular philosophy, and discovered numerous opinions that he thought contradicted one another. Frustrated with these diverse and uncertain teachings, Hilary turned to scripture and discovered, as he puts it, ‘God’s testimony about himself’. He learned who God is and the salvation won by Jesus Christ, who, according to scripture, is both human and divine. Amidst the comfort and certainty of the saving promises of the Gospel, Hilary next encountered people professing an adherence to scripture but denying the divinity of Christ and consequently, in Hilary’s estimation, his saving work. These people rejected the very teaching that calmed Hilary’s anxious soul, yet claimed to accept scripture, the very source of Hilary’s assurance. He ends his narration with a pro-Nicene statement on the Trinity, which, he tells the reader, he has learned from his own private reading of scripture.

(p. 152)

Notice how Beckwith reports that Hilary is claiming to have arrived at the Nicene view not by simply bowing down to the Nicene fathers, but rather through a journey through Scriptures.  He is providing a sola scriptura defense of Nicaea.

It should be noted that Beckwith quotes (with disagreement) from E.W. Watson:

Scholars addressing the historical reliability of the narration fall into three groups. The first group takes a traditional approach that follows the Church Fathers and uncritically accepts the narration as it reads: an account of Hilary’s journey to the faith.1 For example, E.W. Watson writes: ‘It was, then, as a man of mature age, of literary skill and philosophical training, that Hilary approached Christianity. He had been drawn towards the Faith by desire for a truth which he had not found in philosophy; and his conviction that this truth was Christianity was established by independent study of scripture, not by intercourse with Christian teachers; so much we may safely conclude from the early pages of the De Trinitate.’2 The problem with Watson’s straightforward reading of Hilary’s narration ...

1 Jerome and Augustine both think Hilary converted to Christianity because of the narration in Book One. See Jerome, Commentariorum in Isaiam prophetam, XVII. 60 (PL 24: 594–5), and Augustine, De Doctrina Christiana, II.61. On the other hand, Hilary’s biographer, Venantius Fortunatus, flatly states that Hilary was Christian from infancy: Venantius Fortunatus, Vita S. Hilarii I.3 (PL 9: 187A). For a discussion of these sources, see E. Boularand, ‘La Conversion de saint Hilaire de Poitiers’, Bulletin de Littérature Ecclésiastique, 62 (1961), 82–6, 95–104.
2 Watson, ‘Introduction Chapter 1, The Life and Writings of St. Hilary of Poitiers’, NPNF, 2nd ser., IX, p. v.

(p. 153)

While we may disagree with E. W. Watson taking Hilary at face value, Watson is correct about what Hilary is conveying to the reader.  In other words, Hilary is portraying his journey in a way that is almost solo scriptura.  That is to say, almost as though it were just Hilary and his Bible without the aid of Christian teachers.

Beckwith provides an excellent analysis of Hilary's view about the relationship between Scripture, philosophy, and certainty.

At this point in the narrative Hilary’s troubled soul encounters scripture, and begins to find an answer to its questions. Hilary reads, ‘I am that I am’ (Exod. 3: 14), and discovers God testifying about his most characteristic property, his being (esse). What reason rightly suspected, scripture made certain and expressed, continues Hilary, ‘in language best adapted to human understanding, an incomprehensible knowledge of the divine nature’.[FN20 [De Trinitate] I.5.7–9.] Indeed, it was worthy of God to reveal his existence, ‘as the testimony (ad protestationem) [FN21 Hilary always uses protestatio in reference to the testimony given in scripture. It is either the testimony given by God about himself (I.5, I.18), by Jesus (I.27, I.31, IX.58, IX.66, IX.67, X.49), by Wisdom (XII.35), or by the Apostle (XI.45). Only once does Hilary use protestatio in reference to our testimony. But even here he is talking about our confession of faith which is derived from scripture (X.70). Since it is God’s testimony or the Holy Spirit’s testimony through the Apostle, it brings assurance and certainty. Philosophy never achieves this kind of certainty, no matter how correct it might be in its assertions.] of his everlasting eternity’. [FN22 De Trinitate, I.5.15–16. In his Commentary on Matthew, Hilary uses aeternitas to designate the ‘community of substance’ shared by the Father and Son. See In Matt., 5.15, 16.4–5, 23.5 and esp. 31.2–3. Cf. CaP B II.10 (CSEL 65: 151–2). On this point, see Smulders, La Doctrine trinitaire, 75.] When the soul is guided by natural reason, it fails to achieve the certainty brought about by God’s own testimony. Reason finds nothing to confirm its ideas, guide its thoughts, or limit its speculations. However, when the troubled soul encounters scripture, it encounters God’s testimony about himself, and in that testimony finds certainty.

A third point established by Hilary in the opening of his narrative is that certainty is found only in scripture. That is to say, certainty is found not within the individual (natural reason) but beyond the individual (God or scripture).

(pp. 160-61)

The key point to take away from the passage above is that the certain comes from Scripture.  For our friends at the Roman blog "Called to Communion," Scripture is not sufficient to provide certainty.  Indeed, the folks there have even alleged that - in essence - Nicaea rendered things heretical that Scripture could not or that Scripture alone was not sufficient to address the Arian heresy.

Rather than allowing God to descend to them, and ascending to an infinite knowledge of God with their boundless faith, they ‘confined infinite things within the boundary of their own understanding and made themselves judges of religion’. [FN37 De Trinitate, I.15.3–6.] These people sought to be masters of religion, while the work of religion, explains Hilary, is a work of obedience (opus oboedientiae): faithful obedience to what God has revealed about himself. By seeking knowledge of God from themselves rather than from God, Hilary charges his opponents with making their own natural reason, instead of scripture—God’s own testimony about himself—the ultimate standard of judgement on theological matters.

(p. 166)

Notice that this is something of an identical problem that is presented by our friends of the Roman communion in their role as skeptic (a role they don in order to attempt to persuade us of our need for Rome).  In their role as skeptic they attempt to make natural reason the ultimate standard of judgment on theological matters.  Once you are a member of their communion, of course, that will no longer be your standard, but for purposes of alleging the insufficiency of Scripture, they must adopt the position of those who Hilary bravely fought.

At this point in the treatise Hilary is not interested in refuting the claims of his opponents, only in exposing their faulty approach to the evangelical faith. According to Hilary, they correctly look to scripture for answers, but are misled because they do not depend on faith in their reading of scripture. Instead of being obedient to God’s word, they make God’s word obedient to their natural reason: rending it from its context, pitting one revelation against another, and allowing their limited human reason to guide their interpretation and to form the acceptable content of their faith. The correct interpreter, continues Hilary, will make use of the ‘regenerate intellect’, and ‘not measure God’s nature by the laws of his own nature but judge God’s assertions by the magnificence of God’s testimony about himself’.[FN40 [De Trinitate] I.18.14–16.]

(p. 167)

How many times have we seen happen just what Hilary describes above!  When we point out Paul's teaching on justification by faith alone in Romans and Galatians, replete with context, instead of a contextually driven analysis, we are simply provided with a comment from James ripped out of its context!  There is an attempt to pit James against Paul. 

Hilary continues by describing the best method for approaching scripture:[FN42 Hilary’s method, briefly stated here, is frequently cited and used by the Reformers. See e.g. Martin Luther’s comments in Luther’s Works, general editors Helmut Lehmann and Jaroslav Pelikan (St Louis, Mo.: Concordia Publishing House), 1: 263, 32: 194, 33: 205, 41: 53, quoting De Trinitate I.18 directly at 31: 276 and offering an interpretation of it at 41: 83–4; Calvin, Institutes, 1.7.4, 1.11.1, 1.13.21. Martin Chemnitz also made explicit use of Hilary’s comments on scripture in his treatise De Coena Domini. See Martin Chemnitz, The Lord’s Supper, trans. J. A. O. Preus (St Louis, Mo.: Concordia Publishing House, 1979), 31–3, et passim.] ‘For he is the best reader who allows the words to reveal their own meaning rather than imposing one on them, who takes meaning from the text rather than bringing meaning to it, and who does not force a semblance of meaning on the words that he had determined to be right before reading them.’[FN43 De Trinitate, I.18.14–16: ‘Dei naturam non naturae suae legibus metiatur, sed divinas professiones secundum magnificentiam divinae de se protestationis expendat. Optimus enim lector est, qui dictorum intellegentiam expectet ex dictis potius quam inponat et rettulerit magis quam adtulerit, neque cogat id videri dictis contineri quod ante lectionem praesumpserit intellegendum.’ Cf. In Matt., 7.8: we must not accommodate the scriptures to our thoughts but our thoughts to scripture.]

(p. 168)

It's hard to present the principle of "Scripture is its own interpreter" more clearly than Hilary has done in the passage above.  Beckwith is exactly correct in saying that this is the approach that the Reformers used. It's the same approach that we, the spiritual heirs of Hilary and the Reformation, use today.

Once a person acknowledges that he is an imperfect and finite creature seeking to understand a perfect and infinite creator, he needs to know where to find authoritative knowledge about God and his mysteries. The person will ask, explains Hilary: ‘From what books shall I take words to explain such difficult mysteries?’[FN3 De Trinitate, II.12.5–6.] The answer is, scripture. From the very beginning of the treatise, Hilary informs the reader that he will have recourse only to God’s words when discussing God. He writes: ‘Since our treatise will be about the things of God, let us leave to God knowledge of himself and let us in pious reverence obey his words.’ Indeed, argues Hilary, God is ‘a fitting witness to himself who is only known through himself’.[FN4 Ibid. I.18.21–3. Cf. II.6–7, III.9, IV.1, IV.14, V.20, VIII.43, IX.40, IX.69.]

(p. 188)

Notice how Beckwith correctly arrives at "only to God's words" from the whole body of Hilary's writings.  Even if Hilary does not use the exact expression "sola scriptura," it is plain enough that Hilary is using that principle.

Hilary will maintain throughout De Trinitate that our thoughts about God must be governed only by scripture. At the same time, Hilary is aware that this is insufficient to overthrow the assertions of his opponents. They, too, appeal to scripture and use God’s testimony about himself. Indeed, Hilary repeatedly acknowledges their reliance on scripture and laments their ‘deception’, as he calls it, of promoting anti-Nicene theological positions under the guise of scripture alone.[FN6 Cf. Ibid. IV.7–9; IV.11; V.1.23 ff.] Although both parties appeal to scripture, the difference rests, argues Hilary, with how scripture is approached and the normative role assigned to scripture in forming the content of a person’s confession about the mystery of God.

(p. 189)

Notice what Hilary doesn't do.  Hilary doesn't say, "one has to read Scripture the same way the Nicene fathers did."  Hilary instead says that the problem of the heretics is that they don't let Scripture decide its own meaning.  They are right to appeal to the authority of Scripture, they have just misused Scripture.

The first point to be noted when it comes to the language of scripture, insists Hilary, is that God speaks to us, not to himself, and therefore his speaking is done with words most fitting to our finite and created nature. Hilary writes, ‘we must first of all know that God has not spoken to himself [in scripture] but to us and has adapted the language of his declaration to our understanding such that the weakness of our nature is able to grasp his meaning’.[FN9 De Trinitate, VIII.43.1–4. Cf. Tract. in Ps., 126.6 (CSEL 22: 617): ‘Sermo enim divinus secundum intellegentiae nostrae consuetudinem naturamque se temperat communibus rerum vocabulis ad significationem doctrinae suae et institutionis aptatis. Nobis enim, non sibi loquitur, atque ideo nostris utitur in loquendo.’ This last sentence summarizes Hilary’s understanding of the language of scripture well: ‘he [God] speaks to us, not to himself, and therefore makes use of our language in speaking.’] God’s revelation is for us and is meant to be understood by us. Hilary’s comment echoes the very beginning of his treatise. God gives testimony about himself, he explained, ‘in language best adapted to human understanding’.[FN10 De Trinitate, I.5.7–9. Cf. VIII.16; XII.9; Tract. in Ps., 126.6.] Since the purpose of God’s testimony is to disclose who he is and what he has done, he necessarily accommodates his revelation to the words most easily grasped by us. Hilary writes: ‘The Lord expressed the evangelical faith in words as simple as possible, and adapted his language to our understanding to the extent that the weakness of our nature could grasp them; nevertheless, he did not say anything that was unworthy of the majesty of his nature.’[FN11 De Trinitate, IX.40.14–18. See also VI.16.20–6.] Since scripture discloses who God is in words best adapted to our limited understanding, if we fail to grasp God’s word the fault ‘lies with our faith’, not scripture.[FN12 Ibid. VII.38.]

(pp. 190-91)

Hilary's argument above is key.  Scripture is perspicuous on the essential doctrines of the faith, because the purpose of Scripture is soteriological.  Scripture is designed by God to be read and understood - heard and obeyed - proclaimed and believed.  With this teleology, of course Scripture is written well for that purpose.  It is not written to be a gem of the most magnificent complexity and intricate grammatical craftsmanship.  Instead, it is a communication piece.  Thus, it is written in a manner that is accommodated to the reader.

Hilary’s emphasis on the unity of scripture allows him to negotiate any argument that is grounded in isolated verses of scripture and not in scripture as a whole or unit. When individual texts are used to overthrow the larger narrative or sense of scripture, Hilary argues that the Spirit is undermined by breaking the word of God and by pitting one verse against another.[FN20 Cf., [De Trinitate] V.23, VII.24, and XII.3.3–6.

When theological argument focuses on particular verses or passages, the best interpreter, argues Hilary, must consider the larger scriptural context. By discerning the reason or motive (causa) of the verse, a proper understanding of its meaning (ratio) will follow.[FN21 Ibid. II.31.3–4.] It is this attention to context that, Hilary argues, his opponents neglect. From his perspective, they arbitrarily accept various words of scripture but neglect the circumstances of those words. They take words spoken in one context and for one purpose, and arrange them so as to understand them in a different context for a different purpose.[FN22 Hilary’s criticism here is reminiscent of Irenaeus, who complained that the Gnostics ‘contradict the order and the continuity of the scriptures, and, as best they can, dissolve the members of the truth. They transfer and transform, making one thing out of another and thus lead many astray by the badly constructed phantom that they make out of the Lord’s words they adjust’ (Against Heresies, I.8.1). Irenaeus proceeds with the well-known description of the disfigured mosaic of a king. The good image of the king is rearranged by heretics into that of a dog or fox and used to deceive simple believers. Hilary’s point throughout this section and his earlier discussion of his opponents’ show of piety is very similar to the concern expressed here by Irenaeus. See Irenaeus of Lyons, trans. Robert Grant (London: Routledge, 1997), 65–6.] For example, they deny the equality of the Father and Son by citing ‘The Father is greater than I’ (John 14: 28) whenever confronted with such verses as ‘I and the Father are one’ (John 10: 30) or ‘I am in the Father and the Father is in me’ (John 14: 10). Therefore, conclude Hilary’s opponents, when Christ is called God, the name is only a title, not a true description of his nature. When scriptural verses are used in this way by his opponents, they fail, argues Hilary, to grasp their meaning because they do not ‘discern the circumstances of time, or apprehend the mysteries of the Gospel, or understand the force of the words’.[FN23 De Trinitate, IX.2.28–30.] They pass over the reasons that prompted these verses by neglecting the words that either precede or follow, and in the end undermine the unity of scripture and its progressive disclosure of God’s saving work.

(pp. 192-93)

Of course, the principles of Irenaeus and Hilary above are fully correct.  One of the problem of heretics is a fondness for taking Scripture out of context and rearranging it.  Irenaeus mosaic illustration is gripping - one can take a mosaic of a king and rearrange it into a fox - and the heretics attempt to do the same with Scripture.  The only proper way to understand the verses of Scripture is in their context - in their original relationship to one another.

There's a lot more to Beckwith's book than the points I've raised above.  These were, however, points that particularly piqued my interest, and answered some of the frequent objections we hear from Rome's advocates.  While Cardinal Newman may have claimed that to be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant, depth in history continues to confirm that history is no friend of Rome.  Was Hilary a "Protestant"?  Of course not.  Nevertheless, an adherence to fundamental aspects of sola scriptura can be seen in his writings, as has been demonstrated above.

- TurretinFan

Benedict XVI, Parables, Perspicuity, and Freedom

The Vatican Information Service provided the following partial account of Joseph Ratzinger's (aka Benedict XVI's) remarks from 10 July 2011:

"Yet this Gospel narrative also highlights the 'method' of Jesus' preaching; in other words, His use of parables", the Holy Father added. "His disciples ask Him: 'why do you speak to them in parables?' Jesus replies by distinguishing between the disciples and the crowds: to the former, who have already chosen to follow Him, He can speak openly of the Kingdom of God, but to others He has to use parables in order to simulate [sic] a decision, a conversion of heart. This is because parables, by their nature, require an effort of interpretation, they appeal to our intelligence but also to our freedom. ... In the final analysis the true 'Parable' of God is Jesus Himself ... Who, in human form, both hides and reveals divinity. Thus, God does not force us to believe in Him; rather, He draws us to Him with the truth and goodness of His incarnate Son. Love, in fact, always respects freedom".

(ellipses in VIS's report)

I. Parables

Ratzinger (B16) is wrong about the reason why Jesus spoke in parables, with respect to the crowd. Jesus himself explained his reason for speaking to them in parables:

Matthew 13:10-17
And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath. Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: for this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them. But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear. For verily I say unto you, That many prophets and righteous men have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them.

Likewise, in the parallel account in Mark:

Mark 4:10-12
And when he was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the parable. And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables: that seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.

And in Luke:

Luke 8:9-10
And his disciples asked him, saying, What might this parable be? And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand.

The point, therefore, of the parables was not either to "simulate" [sic] or stimulate a decision or to convert their hearts. The point was not provide the crowd with an intellectual challenge, but to leave them in ignorance. The point wasn't to free the people, but to leave them bound up in their blindness.

II. Perspicuity

It is interesting, though, to reflect on B16's apparent view of perspicuity, in which even Jesus' parables are sufficiently clear that human reason/freedom is sufficient to divine their meaning. That goes beyond the Reformed view of perspicuity, in that we maintain that Jesus' explanation of the parables was necessary for us to understand their meaning. Moreover, one expects that B16 is not consistent in this principle of perspicuity, since consistency would leave no room for an infallible magisterium as a necessity.

III. Love Respects Freedom

B16's final comment sounds familiar to those who frequently deal with non-Calvinist presentations on God's love: "Thus, God does not force us to believe in Him; rather, He draws us to Him with the truth and goodness of His incarnate Son. Love, in fact, always respects freedom."

The idea that "love always respects freedom" is not a Biblical tenet. Biblical love seeks what is best for others. Thus, for example, the good Samaritan is not praised because he respected the freedom of the robbed man, but because what he did was in the robbed man's best interest - and specifically because he put the robbed man's interest ahead of his own interest.

While we would not insist that God forces people to believe against their wills, it is by God's mercy and grace that our wills are changed, that we are converted, so that we love God and believe on His name. Thus, it is true that we are drawn with the truth and goodness of Christ.

Nevertheless, we are hard pressed to say that the love of God always respects freedom. After all, we must not forget that the gospel message has a coercive edge to it. If you will not repent and believe on the Son for salvation, you will perish. Thus, those to whom we preach are not threatened with merely physical death (like a bandit pointing a gun at someone's head) but with the eternal torment.

Moreover, there is even a constraining aspect to God's love for those of us who love God:

2 Corinthians 5:10-15
For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad. Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men; but we are made manifest unto God; and I trust also are made manifest in your consciences. For we commend not ourselves again unto you, but give you occasion to glory on our behalf, that ye may have somewhat to answer them which glory in appearance, and not in heart. For whether we be beside ourselves, it is to God: or whether we be sober, it is for your cause. For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead: and that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.

But remember, that the service of the Lord is true freedom, for it is written:

Matthew 11:28-30
Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.

And again:

John 8:36 If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.

Therefore, we ought not to say that "Love always respects freedom," but that that the Love of God produces freedom in men who were all their lives in the bondage of sin.

-TurretinFan

Grace in Cyril's Commentary on the Book of Exodus (First Discourse)

The Orthodox Research Institute has published an English translation of the first discourse of Cyril of Alexandria's Commentary on the Book of Exodus. It's not a massive volume (about 50 pages of English text). Nevertheless, it serves to illustrate some aspects of Cyril's teachings on topics related to the doctrines of grace. Most of the following will be quotations from this single work. Any bolding is my own, whereas material in brackets is added by the translator:

The State of Fallen Man
The following interestingly seems like some form of recognition of original sin, at least of concupiscence, and its universal applicability to the human race, as well as its source in God's withholding grace:

But let the word of the narrative pause at this point. Let us say presently bringing the mind into the innermost spectacles, that because the thought of man is persistently devoted to evil things since his youth because of lack of good things from above, the whole human race, so to speak, was being corrupted and something like a famine was devouring the heavenly lessons; It was exactly as we could observe the prodigal who is also drawn as a model of a parable, who devoured the paternal fortune in foreign lands, and wished to satisfy his hunger with the fruit of the carob tree from which the pigs were eating.

(Chapter 3 at p. 13)

Bondage of the Will
In the following, Cyril appears to argue that it is the knowledge of God that brings true freedom of will.

"But God," he says, "considered them, and looked upon the children of Israel, and was made known to them." When, therefore, we live in ignorance of God {ignoring God or being ignored by God} then we all will also fall under those who do us injustice, and we roll around into the mires of sin, having as bitter and raw {cruel} supervisors of such things the unclean demons. But the grace of freedom will always follow the knowledge of God (knowing God will always be followed by the freedom of will}.

(Chapter 8, at p. 75)

Justification of the Impious by Faith in Christ
In the following, Cyril appears to argue for justification by grace through faith:

For {the fact that} those who do not move away from the worship according to the law are being held under the power of corruption, Christ himself will make clear. "Verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye eat the flesh of the son of man, and drink the blood, ye have no life in you." And this was the mystery, not from those under the law from some place or other, but from those who have accepted the faith and have been justified in Christ and {have accepted} the education which is better than the one under the law, and I mean the evangelic one. Those, therefore, who did not become free of the burden through faith, or under the {power of} corruption, and as in a mall, {which is} the mother of death, and I mean, indeed, the same, and they are away from Christ. But if they would wish to untie the sample, that is the corruption, which {corruption} does not have the power to justify them, and {if they would wish} to approach the grace which truly produces life, then they will approach the one who justifies the impious one, {they will approach} Christ, that is, through whom and with whom the glory belongs to the Father together with the Holy Spirit to the centuries of centuries. Amen.

(Chapter 8, at p. 87)

Plain and Direct Style of Scripture
Finally, here is one quotation from Evie Zachariades-Holmberg, editor/translator, which is of interest as it relates to the perspicuity of Scripture:

There are, of course examples in the early Christian literature, where the authors achieve masterpieces with the use of the simple or the sophisticated / artificial style in the language. St. Paul's mode of expression for example in chapters 12 and 13 of the first epistle to the Corinthians is amazing in its directness, vivacity, power and simplicity, especially when compared to the epistle of Clement of Rome who is also addressing the Corinthians on the same subject.

(p. xv)

- TurretinFan

James of Edessa on Scripture

Roger Pearse recently posted on-line a translation (Original to French by Francois Nau and then French to English by Roger Pearse) of James of Edessa's Letter to John the Stylite on the genealogy of the Virgin Mary. I'm not sure the precise date of the letter, but James of Edessa (aka Jacob of Edessa) was a Syrian who lived from about A.D. 633 to 708.

The letter itself deals with a relatively minor problem. The minor problem is this. There were stories that alleged that Mary was of the tribe of Levi. Moreover, there was some minor corroboration of these stories in that Elizabeth was Mary's cousin, yet Elizabeth is described this way:

Luke 1:5 There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.

In the letter, James of Edessa's response is essentially one of sola Scriptura. Rather than addressing the matter via tradition, James of Edessa begins from a very simple syllogism.

1. Jesus descended from David.
2. Jesus descended from Mary.
3. Therefore, Mary descended from David.

I would say he mistakenly analyzes the gospel genealogies in saying that neither of them is Mary's, but nevertheless, his fundamental approach of relying solely on Scripture to answer the question is correct.

He provides extensive documentation from the Old Testament to prove that the Messiah was the Son of David. From that, using the syllogism I identified above, he provides Mary's Davidic genealogy (with a lacuna from David to Mary) by simple logic.

Along the way, some of his comments about Scripture are quite fascinating - they are the sort of thing one would expect to hear from Calvin:

1. The divine apostle Paul when he wrote to men like those today, who were interpreting with great difficulty the mysterious words of the Gospel of Christ, said with wisdom and profundity: If there are men for whom our gospel is hidden, it is so for those who are perishing, for the unbelievers whose minds the god of this world has clouded, so that they do not see shining the light of the Gospel of the glory of the Messiah who is the image of God [2 Corinthians 4:3-4]. — But all of us, he said, who behold as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same shape, that is to say into the same image, from glory to glory, when we believe without hesitation in the words of the Gospel as (coming) from the Lord who is the Spirit [2 Corinthians 3:18]. So your Fraternity will know that, if someone interprets with great difficulty, finds obscure the words of the Gospel and does not believe it, or wants to oppose it with insidious and treacherous subtleties, this is one of those for whom the Gospel is hidden, one of those who are perishing, and one of those whom God has abandoned and, so that their minds are darkened by the shadows of the god of this world, and that the light of his Gospel does not shine in their eyes, because they are not worthy of being saved, because of their disbelief and the lack of rectitude of their spirit.

2. For we who — in the words of the apostle who knew and taught the mysteries of the Messiah — see and look at the words of the holy book as in a mirror, there is nothing in the Gospel that lends to difficulty or disbelief, but we are informed by the mysterious words it contains; we look at these words like one who looks at his reflection in a mirror, and they show clearly the picture of the truth. We learn from it that the Messiah has truly come, and we say that if he has truly come he was born, in the flesh, of the seed of David, as the prophets said of him; if he came and if he was born of the seed of David, he must necessarily also come at his time; if he came and he came at his time, and if he is born in the flesh of the seed of David, then the woman who gave birth is also by absolute necessity of the seed of David, as all these things depend on each other and are attached like (the rings) of a chain; they are combined and established by a necessary sequence of ideas and there is no (possible) hesitation on this subject.

- James of Edessa, Letter to John the Stylite, Sections 1-2

The quotation provides a very typical sola Scriptura contrast between those who don't understand the Scriptures because their minds are darkened and those for whom the Scriptures are perspicuous - at least on certain subjects.

But James of Edessa goes on:

3. So by a firm and conclusive syllogism we must show to a Christian or Arab interlocutor that the Blessed Virgin Mary and Mother of God is of the seed of David, although this is not shown by the (holy) Books. This cannot be demonstrated by providing "evidence" from strange and superfluous stories that are brought forward by many and is written and read, but are not part of the holy books. Know indeed, O friend of truth, that I know the stories written by men of zeal, based on their own ideas without any testimony of the (holy) books. The Blessed Virgin Mary, mother of the Messiah, is the daughter of Anne and the just Joachim; the latter, according to the authors of these stories, was the son of Panthir, and Panthir was the brother of Melchi; the latter was the son of Iani, who was descended through his family from the tribe of Levi. They were based in Galilee, near the place where Tiberias was built.

As I said earlier, I do not want to demonstrate the matter with a superfluous demonstration taken from strange things, but using this firm and conclusive syllogism as I did earlier, O friend of God and the truth, that I want the truth to be upheld and not using words (learned) from superfluous stories; whoever the man may be who speaks with you and asks you or presses you on this issue, whether a Christian or a Mohammedan, if he is intelligent and has a reasonable soul, he will understand what the syllogism from which he will understand and will gladly testify to the truth without discussion. What I have said is enough to show clearly to a Christian or to a Mohammedan who talks about this subject, that the Blessed Virgin Mary is of the seed of David.

4. I must now quote for you the words of the prophets. They will show you evidence that the Messiah is, in the flesh, of the seed of David; it will then be shown you, in order to refute the Jews, that the Messiah has come in his time as it was written about him. Thus the expectation (of the Jews) is pointless, for because of their wickedness and blindness of heart, they were led to believe in a lie and not in the truth. The (holy) Spirit (by the) psalmist, testifies to you that the Messiah comes from David, when he says:

I have found David my servant and I have anointed him with my holiness (with my holy oil) [Psalm 89:20];

and speaking of the Messiah who is to come from him, he adds further:

I will make his seed eternal, and his throne like the days of heaven [Psalm 89:29 Peshitta].

The prophet Micah said:

And you Bethlehem, house of Ephrata, you're are not the (most) little among the thousands (the major cities) of Judah, because from you I will make come a ruler, who will command over Israel, and his outgoing (his origin is) from the beginning of the days of the world [Micah 5:2 (Unknown version)].

— Isaiah said:

And I'll make with you an eternal covenant: the holy things (the virtues) promised to David [Isaiah 55:3].

— Jeremiah said:

Behold, the days come, says the Lord, and I will raise unto David a just offspring, and a King shall reign and be wise; he will make judgement and justice on the earth. In his days (during his reign) Judah will be saved, and Israel shall dwell with confidence and the name that the Lord will give it will be: our righteousness [Jeremiah 23:5-6].

— And after something else:

I will break the yoke on their necks and I will cut their chains, and foreigners shall not subjugate them any more, but they will serve the Lord their God and David their king, whom he has established [Jeremiah 30:8-9].

— And further on again:

Thus says the Lord: If you can make pointless my covenant that I have made with the day and my covenant that I have made with the night, so that day and night no longer have a place in time, then my covenant that I made with David my servant also will be pointless, and he shall have no son to reign on his throne [Jeremiah 33:20-21].

— Ezekiel says in the name of the Lord:

I will make a covenant together with David, I will kill every wicked animal on earth [Ezekiel 34:25 (LXX)].

By "animal" he means, in my opinion, the devil. — And further on:

I will purify them and they shall be my people, and I will be their God; and my servant David shall be their king and they shall have only one shepherd [Ezekiel 37:23-24].

— And again:

My servant (David) will be their leader forever [Ezekiel 37:25].

These are the testimonies of the prophets, to show you that the Messiah is descended from the seed of David, and there are others like them.

- James of Edessa, Letter to John the Stylite, Sections 3-4

Notice How James of Edessa does not want to build any doctrine on those books. What you will find interesting, perhaps, is that it is from that class of books that Rome finds its earliest evidence for some of its doctrines about Mary. May I suggest that whatever you may think of James of Edessa's conclusions, his approach is better than theirs. He builds his theology on necessary inferences from Scripture, they build theirs without such evidence.

There is one final item from James of Edessa that I wish to bring to your attention:

So now, everyone: the true Christians and the bold heretics, the Muslims and the Jews in spite of themselves, all confess truly and necessarily that the Messiah has indeed come, that he came in his time, and he is descended from the seed of David, and if all these things are necessarily satisfied (are linked), Mary, the Blessed Virgin who gave birth to him, is also descended from David, although that is not explicitly written in the Holy Book, and that we are not able to produce what is not written. Because that which the truth (the reasoning) states, without allowing anything to be added or subtracted, shows much better the truth to our spirit and to our faith than if we were gathering superfluous words which are not written (in the Bible) and that we can not demonstrate from the sacred books.

- James of Edessa, Letter to John the Stylite, Section 6

That last portion really shows the force of James of Edessa's comment. His operative principle is sola Scriptura. If he can't show it from the Bible, he can't show it. He treats extra-scriptural tradition as unnecessary and extraneous words, and basically denigrates them to the point of their not being worth considering (although he knows what they say).

It would have been nice for James of Edessa to explicitly state the principles of sola Scriptura, but I believe we can fairly clearly see them at work in this letter. The entire letter may found at the following link (link).

-TurretinFan

Sola Scriptura in Cyril of Alexandria's "Against Those Who are Unwilling to Confess that the Holy Virgin is Theotokos"

The Orthodox Research Institute has published an English translation of Cyril of Alexandria's work, "Against Those Who are Unwilling to Confess that the Holy Virgin is Theotokos." It's not a huge tome, weighing in at about 50 pages of English text. Nevertheless, I think it serves to illustrate the Sola Scriptura approach of Cyril. Most of the following will be quotations from this single work. Italics are in the original, but any bolding is my own:

From this viewpoint, it follows that the one Christ has been divided into two things, into God and a man. But this is alien to the apostolic teaching and is in fact an invention of a demonic imagination. For the divine word proclaims to us that at the end of the ages, the Logos became man, not indeed that he was transformed into human nature, but that he took himself this nature.

- Cyril of Alexandria, "Against Those Who are Unwilling to Confess that the Holy Virgin is Theotokos," Part 1, Section 2

What is implicit in Cyril's analysis is that if it is not in the Scriptures, it is not part of the apostolic teaching. We see him express the same thing negatively here:

But, if they say that the divine visitation has come upon a man born of a woman, then this is also what happened in the case of all the prophets. If this is true, then it is necessary to find in the divine Scripture two separate confessions, one, which praises God the Logos in himself, and another, which glorifies a man like us in words appropriate to human beings.

- Cyril of Alexandria, "Against Those Who are Unwilling to Confess that the Holy Virgin is Theotokos," Part 1, Section 2

The same thing is repeated:

[After quoting John 1:1, John 1:14, and Hebrews 2:14] Do you hear then the one saying that the Logos was made flesh and the other that he partook of the same? But, if Jesus were born the man from a woman and afterwards the Logos descended upon him, as said before, it is necessary to find everywhere two completely separate confessions. Now, however, that the divinely inspired Scripture attributes to him conjointly the things, which belong by nature of man, the economy of the union is clearly seen.

- Cyril of Alexandria, "Against Those Who are Unwilling to Confess that the Holy Virgin is Theotokos," Part 1, Section 3

Notice as well that in the quotation above Cyril says that the orthodox is "clearly seen" in Scripture, thereby affirming the perspicuity of Scripture on this issue.

Now consider Cyril's rather sharp remarks about his theological opponents:

But we recognize that their words are full of madness and delirium that it is as if they were spoken in sleep or drunkenness. We shall say to them the words of the Savior, "You err, knowing neither the Scriptures nor the power of God" (Matt. 22:29). You ought to sober up and stop sinning, because you have become sick through ignorance of God.

- Cyril of Alexandria, "Against Those Who are Unwilling to Confess that the Holy Virgin is Theotokos," Part 1, Section 6

What is implied in Cyril's rather non-irenic comments is that ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of God. The two go hand in hand.

And again:

If, then, they apply the indwelling to him in a similar manner as in the saints, their blasphemy will be obvious to everyone, and it will be clear that their teaching is entirely alien to the apostolic teaching.

- Cyril of Alexandria, "Against Those Who are Unwilling to Confess that the Holy Virgin is Theotokos," Part 1, Section 7

Notice that Cyril's emphasis is on the fact that their ideas are not part of the apostolic teaching. In fact, they are foreign to it.

However, of course, the heretics did try to argue from the Scriptures. So Cyril analyzed their arguments. Consider his approach:

But look, they say, the Apostle openly confessed Him to be a man. For, in a letter to Timothy, he writes this: "a man Christ Jesus" (1 Tim. 2:5). They say this, because they want to disturb the mind of the most sincere [believers]. But, if anyone prudently examines the apostolic verse, he will cast his vote against their impiety on the basis of this very verse. However, we shall not cut short the verse like they do, but taking into account a little of what precedes this verse, we shall be able to understand correctly the confession of the economy which is made here.

- Cyril of Alexandria, "Against Those Who are Unwilling to Confess that the Holy Virgin is Theotokos," Part 2, Section 12

There are at least three things to note in the preceding quotation. First, the perspicuity of Scripture is shown in Cyril's comment about "if anyone prudently examines the apostolic verse." Second, the sufficiency of Scripture is shown by Cyril's comment, "on the basis of this very verse." Third, the hermeneutical principle that Scripture interprets Scripture is shown by Cyril's appeal to context.

It's not a lone appeal either, for he continues:

If this is the case, then, let us bring right into the middle of our discussion the Lord's statement, which they presumptuously say must be understood, as if in the Gospels he confessed that he was a mere man: "why do you seek to kill me a mere man, who has spoken the truth to you?" (John 8:40). But if one gives his mind as a love of truth to the verses of the Gospels and especially to the context, in which the Savior has spoken, then he will fully understand their cunning and will justly call them censorious and slanderous.

- Cyril of Alexandria, "Against Those Who are Unwilling to Confess that the Holy Virgin is Theotokos," Part 2, Section 15

Notice again in the preceding quotation the double affirmation of Scripture's perspicuity and the necessity to read Scripture in context, letting Scripture interpret Scripture.

Notice as well Cyril's explanation for the faulty conclusion of the heretics:

But they are silent about all these verses and seize upon this word "man," and in this, they are similar to the Jews of that time. For the Jews waited for the Savior to teach, not really because they wanted to believe or to be taught, but because they were planning to seize upon something he would say, as the evangelist reports. These men too read or rather speculate about the divine Scriptures in order to find an accusation against him, who laid down his life for them.

- Cyril of Alexandria, "Against Those Who are Unwilling to Confess that the Holy Virgin is Theotokos," Part 2, Section 15

This is the difference between exegesis and eisegesis. The latter seeks to seize the Word for its own purposes, the former comes to the Word seeking to learn.

He even gets stronger:

[After quoting John 5:17, 19, 22-23, 25, and 27-29 and John 6:35] But they bypass all these verses as if they do not hear or rather, because they intentionally pretend to be deaf. They carry on about this statement, "but now you are seeking to kill me, a man, who has told you the truth," in order to disturb the minds of the most sincere [believers]. But they should consider, if they are right, that he who spoke what was said before is he, who has said this statement also.

- Cyril of Alexandria, "Against Those Who are Unwilling to Confess that the Holy Virgin is Theotokos," Part 2, Section 16

Notice how Cyril is bringing in the concept of tota scriptura - all of Scripture must be considered, not only a select verse or fragment of a verse. That is because Scripture interprets Scripture.

Cyril continues on with sola Scriptura:

We should be content with what we have said and seek nothing more. For those who are right thinking and instruct themselves by listening to the divine Scriptures will say in good faith that there is nothing absurd about him being at once God and man, if in saying these things sometimes he is called God and sometimes man. The one designation by no means annuls the other.

- Cyril of Alexandria, "Against Those Who are Unwilling to Confess that the Holy Virgin is Theotokos," Part 2, Section 16

Notice that Cyril has proposed a self-magisterium. A person educates himself by reading the Bible. Such a person is "right thinking" to Cyril. When Cyril says that we should be content with what we have said and seek nothing more, he means that we should accept and limit ourselves to what Scripture teaches.

Cyril also addresses a counter-argument based on something akin to sola Scriptura:

If they insist on saying, "where the Virgin is called Theotokos in Scripture," let them clearly hear the angel proclaiming this piece of good news to the shepherd and saying: "For today to you a Savior is born, who is Christ the Lord" (Luke 2:11). He does not say, "Who shall be Lord" or in whom the Lord shall dwell," but "who is Lord."

- Cyril of Alexandria, "Against Those Who are Unwilling to Confess that the Holy Virgin is Theotokos," Part 3, Section 23

Notice that Cyril doesn't answer: "well, we don't have to prove our doctrines from Scripture," nor does he make vague comparisons to the fact that the word "Trinity" is not in Scripture. Instead, he answers the argument by showing where the Scriptures teach that Christ was God-become-man, not a human that was later indwelt by God. He accepts the major premise of his objectors (if it is not in Scripture it is not orthodox) but he rejects the minor premise (it is not in Scripture).

In view of the above, it should not be surprising to hear Cyril describe Paul this way:

Again, they should not whisper about this by putting forward the passion and resurrection and the fact that God raised him up. For already the reasoning, which applies to the economy, has been proven by what we have already said. If, however, they want to learn more clearly who it was who was crucified, then let them hear the teacher of the whole world, when he writes in his epistle to the Corinthians, "for I received from the Lord and delivered to you, that our Lord Jesus Christ on the night, on which he was betrayed, took bread," etc. (1 Cor. 11:23). Do you observe that the one who suffered for us is openly declared to be Lord?

- Cyril of Alexandria, "Against Those Who are Unwilling to Confess that the Holy Virgin is Theotokos," Part 3, Section 24

Is the quotation above itself a compelling proof that Cyril practiced sola Scriptura? Of course not. But it is not by itself. It is part of a larger context in which it becomes obvious that Cyril thinks that the Scriptures teach the reader important things plainly.

Hear then Cyril's conclusion to his work:

He did, indeed, show that the one who was born from the Virgin, that is himself, was both son of David and Lord. However, those who heard this testimony were confounded and did not contradict him, as the evangelist says in the narrative: "For no one was able to reply to his word and dared from that time to ask him any more questions" (Matt. 22:46). May the same thing happen to these [heretics] as well. May they somehow abandon their madness and come to know the preaching of true religion. As for us, beloved, let us hold this faith forever, keeping it in mind, preaching it plainly and boldly with our mouths, being prepared willingly to suffer everything for it. For this is the prediction of the prophets, the preaching of the Apostles and the cause of the Kingdom of Heaven. This is the guide of eternal life. This is the wealth of the Fathers. This is our own true treasure, for the sake of which it is right that we sell and give away all things. If anyone ever wanted to steal this from us, let us despise him as an enemy of Christ and of our salvation, because we are persuaded by the commandment of the Apostle: "Whether we ourselves or an angel was to preach to you a different gospel from that which we preached let him be anathema" (Gal. 1:8).

- Cyril of Alexandria, "Against Those Who are Unwilling to Confess that the Holy Virgin is Theotokos," Part 3, Sections 29-30.

For Cyril, as we have seen, it was crucial to keep doctrines Scriptural, and it was right to call down the anathema of Galatians 1:8 on those who were departing from Scripture's teaching on an important point.

Someone might wonder, "perhaps TurretinFan has simply cited the portions of the rebuttal relating to Scripture, but has left out the rebuttal from the Fathers and from the authority of the Church." Do not fear, I have not left out such items. In fact, the church is only rarely mentioned in the treatise. There is, of course, no mention of the Roman bishop (Cyril of Alexandria was no Romanist, after all) - and there is only a limited reference to councils. I think the limited reference to councils is illuminating, because Cyril is dogmatically condemning as heretics those against whom no counsel has yet proclaimed. He compares them to condemned heretics, and argues that his own position is founded on the unshakable rock. In the context of the work, that means Scripture, not the see of Peter, or apostolic succession generally:

These things and things like them are common to all those, who attempt to scatter the flock of true religion, as indeed the end of the aforementioned heresies has shown. What advantage did the deceit of Arius bring him? What advantage was there in the heresy of Eunomius and those, who blaspheme against the Holy Spirit? What profit in the heresy of Paul of Samosata or in the madness of the one called Apollinaris? All these men had a shameful end to their present life and were thrown out of the boundaries of the Church. They shall be thrown out of "the Church of the first-born in heaven" (Heb. 12:23), because their names have been erased from "the Book of the Living and shall not be inscribed with the just" (Ps. 68:29). The same end will come upon these current blasphemers, especially those, who have become the leaders of this perversity, if they do not quickly become aware of their madness and attempt to return to the place, from which they have fallen. For they shall hear from the Savior, "Just as a piece of cloth stained with blood is not clean, so you also will not be clean. Because you lost my land and killed my people, who shall not remain forever" (Isaiah 14:19-20). As for us, who have build our faith firmly upon the unbreakable rock, let us keep the true religion to the end. Let us not be disturbed at all by our opponents, but rather we will have the love of the Lord as an invincible weapon. Let us boast in Him for all things and laugh at the lowliness of our opponents and say the words of the prophet: "God is with us: Know all nations and be dismayed, be dismayed in your strength. If you regain your strength, you shall be dismayed; if you deliberate, the Lord will scatter your deliberations. And whatever words you might speak; it shall not persist among you, because the Lord God is with us" (Isaiah 8:8-10).

- Cyril of Alexandria, "Against Those Who are Unwilling to Confess that the Holy Virgin is Theotokos," Part 1, Section 11.

So, quite the contrary, although Cyril believes that the Church will vindicate him, Cyril is bold to call these men heretics prior to any ecclesiastical decision on the matter. He doesn't wait for a council to condemn them, but argues that their positions are heretical on the strength of Scripture alone. May we be stirred up to follow this example of Sola Scriptura that we have seen in Cyril.

-TurretinFan

P.S. The following excerpt may also be interesting from the standpoint of a discussion on penal substitution:

When, therefore, this is the case, obviously, he demonstrated his love for us by means of a great philanthropy and has partaken of our own nature in order that he might raise it up and deliver it from bondage to the devil. No one, then, should be ashamed in hearing about a child and a baby and anything else that has been written about him in a purely human fashion. For he underwent all things not for his own sake, but for our sake. He preserved everywhere what is proper to human nature in order that the economy might not be regarded as a mere fiction.

- Cyril of Alexandria, "Against Those Who are Unwilling to Confess that the Holy Virgin is Theotokos," Part 3, Section 26.

Formal Sufficiency of Scripture: Early Christian Writers (Guest Series)

Formal Sufficiency of Scripture
Stated and Examined from Scripture and the Fathers, with scholarly confirmation regarding the Fathers' views.

In an introduction section (link), we discussed the nature of formal sufficiency that we, the Reformed, affirm. In the next section (link), we saw Scripture's own testimony to its own sufficiency. If we were simply establishing the Reformed position, that would be completely sufficient. It would not be necessary to add anything to that.

Nevertheless, our challenger from the Roman side has requested some patristic confirmation. Frankly, we are not sanguine about the possibility that he'll actually carefully read and consider the evidence that we present, yet perhaps these evidences will be sufficient to help establish that our insight into Scripture is not a novel insight.

Thus, in this section, we will focus on some early Christian writers and identify what they had to say about the Scriptures. One logical place to start is with Justin Martyr.

Justin Martyr (wrote after 151)(ANF 1):

And I replied, “I would not bring forward these proofs, Trypho, by which I am aware those who worship these [idols] and such like are condemned, but such [proofs] as no one could find any objection to. They will appear strange to you, although you read them every day; so that even from this fact we understand that, because of your wickedness, God has withheld from you the ability to discern the wisdom of His Scriptures; yet [there are] some exceptions, to whom, according to the grace of His long-suffering, as Isaiah said, He has left a seed of salvation, lest your race be utterly destroyed, like Sodom and Gomorrah. Pay attention, therefore, to what I shall record out of the holy Scriptures, which do not need to be expounded, but only listened to.

ANF: Vol. I, Dialogue of Justin, Chapter 55.

There are a couple of key points to notice in this quotation from Justin. First, Justin recognizes the need for God to enlighten the mind of the hearer. He suggests that God withheld wisdom from Trypho, but Justin still insists that the testimony of Scripture is so clear that it can simply be listened to. When you compare that to our presentation in the introduction section, and when you look at the Scriptural testimony, you see that Justin's words seem to be consistent with both.

Moving on from Justin, we can consider Irenaeus. Irenaeus offers the following testimony to the perspicuity of Holy Scripture.

Irenaeus (130 - c. 200)(ANF 1):

A sound mind, and one which does not expose its possessor to danger, and is devoted to piety and the love of truth, will eagerly meditate upon those things which God has placed within the power of mankind, and has subjected to our knowledge, and will make advancement in [acquaintance with] them, rendering the knowledge of them easy to him by means of daily study. These things are such as fall [plainly] under our observation, and are clearly and unambiguously in express terms set forth in the Sacred Scriptures. And therefore the parables ought not to be adapted to ambiguous expressions. For, if this be not done, both he who explains them will do so without danger, and the parables will receive a like interpretation from all, and the body of truth remains entire, with a harmonious adaptation of its members, and without any collision [of its several parts]. But to apply expressions which are not clear or evident to interpretations of the parables, such as every one discovers for himself as inclination leads him, [is absurd.] For in this way no one will possess the rule of truth; but in accordance with the number of persons who explain the parables will be found the various systems of truth, in mutual opposition to each other, and setting forth antagonistic doctrines, like the questions current among the Gentile philosophers.

ANF: Vol. I, Against Heresies, 2:27:1.

Like Justin, Irenaeus acknowledges that a sound mind is a gift from God, and Irenaeus further explains that there are clear and unambiguous teachings in Scripture. He similarly places understanding of these Scriptures within the provenance of individual men who daily study the Word.

Here's another example from Irenaeus:

Irenaeus (130 - c. 200)(ANF 1):

According to this course of procedure, therefore, man would always be inquiring but never finding, because he has rejected the very method of discovery. And when the Bridegroom comes, he who has his lamp untrimmed, and not burning with the brightness of a steady light, is classed among those who obscure the interpretations of the parables, forsaking Him who by His plain announcements freely imparts gifts to all who come to Him, and is excluded from His marriage-chamber. Since, therefore, the entire Scriptures, the prophets, and the Gospels, can be clearly, unambiguously, and harmoniously understood by all, although all do not believe them; and since they proclaim that one only God, to the exclusion of all others, formed all things by His word, whether visible or invisible, heavenly or earthly, in the water or under the earth, as I have shown from the very words of Scripture; and since the very system of creation to which we belong testifies, by what falls under our notice, that one Being made and governs it,—those persons will seem truly foolish who blind their eyes to such a clear demonstration, and will not behold the light of the announcement [made to them]; but they put fetters upon themselves, and every one of them imagines, by means of their obscure interpretations of the parables, that he has found out a God of his own. For that there is nothing whatever openly, expressly, and without controversy said in any part of Scripture respecting the Father conceived of by those who hold a contrary opinion, they themselves testify, when they maintain that the Saviour privately taught these same things not to all, but to certain only of His disciples who could comprehend them, and who understood what was intended by Him through means of arguments, enigmas, and parables.

ANF: Vol. I, Against Heresies, 2:27:2.

This is similar to the last two quotations. It also shows that Irenaeus believed that the Scriptures could be understood by everyone, although some people handcuff themselves.

Moreover, Irenaeus informs us that the notion of a “living voice” being needed to the interpretation of Holy Scripture originated with Gnostic heretics.

Irenaeus (130 - c. 200)(ANF 1):

When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but viva voce: wherefore also Paul declared, “But we speak wisdom among those that are perfect, but not the wisdom of this world.” And this wisdom each one of them alleges to be the fiction of his own inventing, forsooth; so that, according to their idea, the truth properly resides at one time in Valentinus, at another in Marcion, at another in Cerinthus, then afterwards in Basilides, or has even been indifferently in any other opponent, who could speak nothing pertaining to salvation. For every one of these men, being altogether of a perverse disposition, depraving the system of truth, is not ashamed to preach himself.

ANF: Vol. I, Against Heresies, Book 3:2:1.

What's interesting about this point that Irenaeus raises is that he is directly addressing the error of those who try to argue that although Scripture may have the teachings, they are too ambiguous to be extracted simply by reading the Scripture, and that consequently tradition is needed.

This provides a good chance to turn to the testimonies of the ancients regarding the perspicuity of Holy Scripture.

Irenaeus (130 - c. 200)(ANF 1):

And in every Epistle the apostle [i.e. Paul] plainly testifies, that through the flesh of our Lord, and through His blood, we have been saved.

ANF: Vol. I, Against Heresies, Book 5:14:3.

Irenaeus' comments are pretty self-explanatory. We see a similar idea in Theophilus of Antioch.

Theophilus of Antioch (A.D. 115–168 or 181)(ANF 2):

Therefore, do not be skeptical, but believe; for I myself also used to disbelieve that this would take place, but now, having taken these things into consideration, I believe. At the same time, I met with the sacred Scriptures of the holy prophets, who also by the Spirit of God foretold the things that have already happened, just as they came to pass, and the things now occurring as they are now happening, and things future in the order in which they shall be accomplished. Admitting, therefore, the proof which events happening as predicted afford, I do not disbelieve, but I believe, obedient to God, whom, if you please, do you also submit to, believing Him, lest if now you continue unbelieving, you be convinced hereafter, when you are tormented with eternal punishments; which punishments, when they had been foretold by the prophets, the later-born poets and philosophers stole from the holy Scriptures, to make their doctrines worthy of credit. Yet these also have spoken beforehand of the punishments that are to light upon the profane and unbelieving, in order that none be left without a witness, or be able to say, “We have not heard, neither have we known.” But do you also, if you please, give reverential attention to the prophetic Scriptures, and they will make your way plainer for escaping the eternal punishments, and obtaining the eternal prizes of God. For He who gave the mouth for speech, and formed the ear to hear, and made the eye to see, will examine all things, and will judge righteous judgment, rendering merited awards to each. To those who by patient continuance in well-doing seek immortality, He will give life everlasting, joy, peace, rest, and abundance of good things, which neither hath eye seen, nor ear heard, nor hath it entered into the heart of man to conceive. But to the unbelieving and despisers, who obey not the truth, but are obedient to unrighteousness, when they shall have been filled with adulteries and fornications, and filthiness, and covetousness, and unlawful idolatries, there shall be anger and wrath, tribulation and anguish, and at the last everlasting fire shall possess such men. Since you said, “Show me thy God,” this is my God, and I counsel you to fear Him and to trust Him.

ANF: Vol. II, Theophilus to Autolycus, Book I, Chapter 14.

Notice how Theophilus not only explains his own personal story about coming to faith through reading the Scriptures, but also claims that the Scriptures will make things plain for others. This is the same role of illumination we discussed in the previous sections of this series.

And that's not all Theophilus has to say:

Theophilus of Antioch (A.D. 115–168 or 181) (ANF 2):

Likewise spoke the other prophets of the truth. And why should I recount the multitude of prophets, who are numerous, and said ten thousand things consistently and harmoniously? For those who desire it, can, by reading what they uttered, accurately understand the truth, and no longer be carried away by opinion and profitless labour. These, then, whom we have already mentioned, were prophets among the Hebrews,—illiterate, and shepherds, and uneducated.

Original Greek:
ὁμοίως εἶπον καὶ οἱ λοιποὶ τῆς ἀληθείας προφῆται. Καὶ τί μοι τὸ πλῆθος καταλέγειν τῶν προφητῶν, πολλῶν ὄντων καὶ μυρία φίλα καὶ σύμφωνα εἰρηκότων; οἱ γὰρ βουλόμενοι δύνανται ἐντυχόντες τοῖς διʼ αὐτῶν εἰρημένοις ἀκριβῶς γνῶναι τὸ ἀληθὲς καὶ μὴ παράγεσθαι ὑπὸ διανοίας καὶ ματαιοπονίας. οὗτοι οὖν οὓς προειρήκαμεν προφῆται ἐγένοντο ἐν Ἑβραίοις, ἀγράμματοι καὶ ποιμένες καὶ ἰδιῶται.

Ad Autolycum, Liber II, §35, PG 6:1109; ANF: Vol. II, Theophilus to Autolycus, Book II, Chapter 35.

Notice again how Theophilus views the Scriptures as something that can readily be understood through simply reading them.

Other early Christian writings that have sometimes been dated as early as the 1st or 2nd century also give a similar picture.

1 Clement has been dated by some as early as the the late 90's and as late as A.D. 140 or later. Also, the authorship of the book is uncertain. Thus, this is not necessarily the writing of a church father, but it is an early Christian writing.

1 Clement 45:1-3

(Lightfoot Translation)
Be ye contentious, brethren, and jealous about the things that pertain unto salvation. Ye have searched the scriptures, which are true, which were given through the Holy Ghost; and ye know that nothing unrighteous or counterfeit is written in them.

Alternative translation (Roberts Translation): Ye are fond of contention, brethren, and full of zeal about things which do not pertain to salvation. Look carefully into the Scriptures, which are the true utterances of the Holy Spirit. Observe that nothing of an unjust or counterfeit character is written in them.

Greek: Φιλόνεικοί ἐστε, ἀδελφοί, καὶ ζηλωταὶ περὶ τῶν ἀνηκόντων εἰς συτηρίαν ἐγκεκύφατε εἰς τὰς γραηάς, ρὰς γραγάς, τὰς ἀληθεῖς, τὰς [διὰ] τοῦ ὰγίου ἐπίστασθε ὅτι οὐδὲν ἄδικον οὐδὲ παραπεποιημένον γέγραπται ἐν αὐταῖς.

This is less explicit than some of the passages above, but it is clear that the author of 1 Clement thinks that his readers will be familiar with Scripture and that they will obtain their information about salvation from those entirely trustworthy books.

1 Clement 53:1

(Lightfoot Translation)
For ye know, and know well, the sacred scriptures, dearly beloved, and ye have searched into the oracles of God. We write these things therefore to put you in remembrance.

Alternative translation (Roberts Translation): Ye understand, beloved, you understand well the Sacred Scriptures, and you have looked very earnestly into the oracles of God. Call then these things to your remembrance.

Greek: Ἐπίστασθε γὰρ καὶ καλῶς ἐπίσταθε τὰς ὶερὰς γραφὰς, καὶ ἐγκεκύφατε εἰς τὰ λόγια τοῦ Θεοῦ πρὸς ἀνάμνησιν αῧν ταῦτα γράφομεν.

Similarly, as in the previous instance, the author of 1 Clement assumes familiarity with Scripture and does not claim to write so much to instruct as simply to remind.

A similar remark can be found in a letter ascribed to Polycarp (whether it is actually Polycarp's work is probably less certain, but it is a fairly early Christian writing):

Polycarp to the Philippians, Chapter 12:

(Roberts Translation - ANF 1)
For I trust that ye are well versed in the Sacred Scriptures, and that nothing is hid from you; but to me this privilege is not yet granted.

(Lightfoot Translation)
For I am persuaded that ye are well trained in the sacred writings, and nothing is hidden from you. But to myself this is not granted.

(Lake Translation)
For I am persuaded that ye are well trained in the sacred writings, and nothing is hidden from you. But to myself this is not granted.

Latin (the original Greek was not preserved, to my knowledge):
Confido enim vos bene exercitatos esse in sacris literis, et nihil vos latet; mihi autem non est concessum.

And there is more from Polycarp:

Polycarp to the Philippians, Chapter 3

(Roberts Translation - ANF 1)
These things, brethren, I write to you concerning righteousness, not because I take anything upon myself, but because ye have invited me to do so. For neither I, nor any other such one, can come up to the wisdom of the blessed and glorified Paul. He, when among you, accurately and stedfastly taught the word of truth in the presence of those who were then alive. And when absent from you, he wrote you a letter, which, if you carefully study, you will find to be the means of building you up in that faith which has been given you, and which, being followed by hope, and preceded by love towards God, and Christ, and our neighbour, " is the mother of us all." For if any one be inwardly possessed of these graces, he hath fulfilled ths command of righteousness, since he that hath love is far from all sin.

(Lightfoot Translation)
These things, brethren, I write unto you concerning righteousness, not because I laid this charge upon myself, but because ye invited me. For neither am I, nor is any other like unto me, able to follow the wisdom of the blessed and glorious Paul, who when he came among you taught face to face with the men of that day the word which concerneth truth carefully and surely; who also, when he was absent, wrote a letter unto you, into the which if ye look diligently, ye shall be able to be builded up unto the faith given to you, which is the mother of us all, while hope followeth after and love goeth before--love toward God and Christ and toward our neighbor. For if any man be occupied with these, he hath fulfilled the commandment of righteousness; for he that hath love is far from all sin.

(Lake Translation)
These things, brethren, I write to you concerning righteousness, not at my own instance, but because you first invited me. For neither am I, nor is any other like me, able to follow the wisdom of the blessed and glorious Paul, who when he was among you in the presence of the men of that time taught accurately and stedfastly the word of truth, and also when he was absent wrote letters to you, from the study of which you will be able to build yourselves up into the faith given you; "which is the mother of us all" when faith follows, and love of God and Christ and neighbour goes before. For if one be in this company he has fulfilled the command of righteousness, for he who has love is far from all sin.

Greek:
Ταῦτα, ἀδελφοί, οὐκ ἐμαυτῷ ἐπιτρέψας γράφω ὑμῖν περὶ τῆς δικαιοσύνης, ἀλλ' ἐπεὶ ὑμεῖς προεπεκαλέσασθέ με. Oὔτε γὰρ ἐγὼ οὔτε ἄλλος ὅμοιος ἐμοὶ δύναται κατακολουθῆσαι τῇ σοφίᾳ τοῦ μακαρίου καὶ ἐνδόξου Παύλου, ὃς γενόμενος ἐν ὑμῖν κατὰ πρόσωπον τῶν τότε ἀνθρώπων ἐδίδαξεν ἀκριβῶς καὶ βεβαίως τὸν περὶ ἀληθείας λόγον, ὃς καὶ ἀπὼν ὑμῖν ἔγραψεν ἐπιστολάς, εἰς ἃς ἐὰν ἐγκύπτητε, δυνηθήσεσθε οἰκοδομεῖσθαι εἰς τὴν δοθεῖσαν ὑμῖν πίστιν. ἥτις ἐστὶν μήτηρ πάντων ἡμῶν, ἐπακολουθούσης τῆς ἐλπίδος, προαγούσης τῆς ἀγάπης τῆς εἰς θεὸν καὶ Χριστὸν καὶ εἰς τὸν πλησίον. ἐὰν γάρ τις τούτων ἐντὸς ᾖ, πεπλήρωκεν ἐντολὴν δικαιοσύνης· ὁ γὰρ ἔχων ἀγάπην μακράν ἐστιν πάσης ἁμαρτίας.

Notice that he not only praises the wisdom of Paul, but he affirms that Paul's letter to the Philippians is "the means of building up in" the faith that Paul had delivered to them by preaching to them.

The following selections are taken from Ignatius letters. These letters are thought to be authentic, and quite early, but their existence in long and short forms suggests significant tampering. The date of the tampering is not very clear. So, I would not suggest that we should assume that these letters can be definitively dated to the first two centuries, but many folks certainly would date them that early. In general, the short recension is what we would expect to be more likely the authentic original where the long and short differ.

Ignatius to Philadelphians (Long recension only), Chapter IV (ANF 1):

Fathers, "bring up your children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord; "31 and teach them the holy Scriptures, and also trades, that they may not indulge in idleness. Now [the Scripture] says, "A righteous father educates [his children] well; his heart shall rejoice in a wise son."

The interesting thing about the preceding quotation is that Ignatius expects parents to be teaching their children the Scriptures. That may not say much directly to the topic of perspicuity, but it does suggest that the Scriptures are something that a child is capable of understanding - and that parents are competent to teach their children from the Scriptures.

Ignatius to Philadelphians, Chapter VIII (ANF 1):

(short) And I exhort you to do nothing out of strife, but according to the doctrine of Christ. When I heard some saying, If I do not find it in the ancient Scriptures, I will not believe the Gospel; on my saying to them, It is written, they answered me, That remains to be proved. But to me Jesus Christ is in the place of all that is ancient: His cross, and death, and resurrection, and the faith which is by Him, are undefiled monuments of antiquity; by which I desire, through your prayers, to be justified.

(long) I therefore exhort you that ye do nothing out of strife, but according to the doctrine of Christ. For I have heard some saying, If I do not find the Gospel in the archives, I will not believe it. To such persons I say that my archives are Jesus Christ, to disobey whom is manifest destruction. My authentic archives are His cross, and death, and resurrection, and the faith which bears on these things, by which I desire, through your prayers, to be justified. He who disbelieves the Gospel disbelieves everything along with it. For the archives ought not to be preferred to the Spirit. "It is hard to kick against the pricks;" it is hard to disbelieve Christ; it is hard to reject the preaching of the apostles.

The main point to observe here is that Ignatius seems to be addressing folks who are challenging the Gospel on the basis that it is not fully supported by the Old Testament Scriptures. Ignatius doesn't correct this essentially sola Scriptura view, but instead insists on the equal authority of the New Testament. I realize, of course, that Ignatius' words above can be explained differently. I'm simply showing that they can be reasonably understood within the milieu of other early writings and, of course, the Scriptures themselves.

Ignatius to Magnesians (long only) Chapter IX (Roberts translation):

If, then, those who were conversant with the ancient Scriptures came to newness of hope, expecting the coming of Christ, as the Lord teaches us when He says, "If ye had believed Moses, ye would have believed Me, for he wrote of Me;" and again, "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it, and was glad; for before Abraham was, I am;" how shall we be able to live without Him? The prophets were His servants, and foresaw Him by the Spirit, and waited for Him as their Teacher, and expected Him as their Lord and Saviour, saying, "He will come and save us."

Again, this testimony only touches quite obliquely on the issue of the perspicuity of Scripture. I really only have included it for the sake of completeness. It does show that Ignatius (or the author of this long version, if not Ignatius himself) viewed Christianity as an extension of the same book-taught religion as existed before the Incarnation. This then has implications for perspicuity, for the Old Testament Scriptures were less clear than the New, and yet people who were conversant with the Old Testament Scriptures expected Christ's coming with hope.

Tatian (c. 160) Chapter 29 - Account Of Tatian’s Conversion:

Wherefore, having seen these things, and moreover also having been admitted to the mysteries, and having everywhere examined the religious rites performed by the effeminate and the pathic, and having found among the Romans their Latiarian Jupiter delighting in human gore and the blood of slaughtered men, and Artemis not far from the great city sanctioning acts of the same kind, and one demon here and another there instigating to the perpetration of evil, — retiring by myself, I sought how I might be able to discover the truth. And, while I was giving my most earnest attention to the matter, I happened to meet with certain barbaric writings, too old to be compared with the opinions of the Greeks, and too divine to be compared with their errors; and I was led to put faith in these [i.e. the Scriptures] by the unpretending cast of the language, the inartificial character of the writers, the foreknowledge displayed of future events, the excellent quality of the precepts, and the declaration of the government of the universe as centered in one Being. And, my soul being taught of God, I discern that the former class of writings lead to condemnation, but that these put an end to the slavery that is in the world, and rescue us from a multiplicity of rulers and ten thousand tyrants, while they give us, not indeed what we had not before received, but what we had received but were prevented by error from retaining.

Greek:
Ταῦτʼ οὖν ἰδών, ἔτι δὲ καὶ μυστηρίων μεταλαβὼν καὶ τὰς παρὰ πᾶσι θρησκείας δοκιμάσας διὰ θηλυδριῶν καὶ ἀνδρογύνων συνισταμένας, εὑρὼν δὲ παρὰ μὲν Ῥωμαίοις τὸν κατʼ αὐτοὺς Λατιάριον Δία λύθροις ἀνθρώπων καὶ τοῖς ἀπὸ τῶν ἀνδροκτασιῶν αἵμασι τερπόμενον, Ἄρτεμιν δὲ οὐ μακρὰν τῆς Μεγάλης πόλεως τῶν αὐτῶν πράξεων ἐπανῃρημένην τὸ εἶδος ἄλλον τε ἀλλαχῆ δαίμονα κακοπραγίας ἐπαναστάσεις πραγματευόμενον, κατʼ ἐμαυτὸν γενόμενος ἐζήτουν ὅτῳ τρόπῳ τἀληθὲς ἐξευρεῖν δύνωμαι. περινοοῦντι δέ μοι τὰ σπουδαῖα συνέβη γραφαῖς τισιν ἐντυχεῖν βαρβαρικαῖς, πρεσβυτέραις μὲν ὡς πρὸς τὰ Ἑλλήνων δόγματα, θειοτέραις δὲ ὡς πρὸς τὴν ἐκείνων πλάνην· Καί μοι πεισθῆναι ταύταις συνέβη διά τε τῶν λέξεων τὸ ἄτυφον καὶ τῶν εἰπόντων τὸ ἀνεπιτήδευτον καὶ τῆς τοῦ παντὸς ποιήσεως τὸ εὐκατάληπτον καὶ τῶν μελλόντων τὸ προγνωστικὸν καὶ τῶν παραγγελμάτων τὸ ἐξαίσιον καὶ τῶν ὅλων τὸ μοναρχικόν. θεοδιδάκτου δέ μου γενομένης τῆς ψυχῆς συνῆκα ὅτι τὰ μὲν καταδίκης ἔχει τρόπον, τὰ δὲ ὅτι λύει τὴν ἐν κόσμῳ δουλείαν καὶ ἀρχόντων μὲν πολλῶν καὶ μυρίων ἡμᾶς ἀποσπᾷ τυράννων, δίδωσι δὲ ἡμῖν οὐχ ὅπερ μὴ ἐλάβομεν, ἀλλʼ ὅπερ λαβόντες ὑπὸ τῆς πλάνης ἔχειν ἐκωλύθημεν.

Oratio Adversus Graecos, Caput 29, PG 6:865, 868; translation in ANF: Vol. II, Tatian’s Address to the Greeks, Chapter 29.

Notice that Tatian attributes clarity to Scripture but simultaneously attributes his conversion to the direct work of the Holy Spirit in his heart, teaching him.

This look at the earliest period shows us some of the views of some of the earliest Christian writers, but in the coming segment or segments, we will look at some of the next generation of Christian writers, as we enter the 3rd century and beyond.