The Church Fathers and Sola Scriptura: Examining Patristic Views on Authority and Clarity of God’s Word

By Chase Reed

Reformation Day is observed by various Protestant denominations on October 31st each year. On this day in AD 1517, Martin Luther began the Protestant Reformation against the Roman Catholic Church (RCC). In his 95 Theses, Luther listed out his many grievances with the RCC, including their practices and theology that he deemed unbiblical. One of the major areas of Roman Catholic theology that Luther and his Reformation contemporaries found fault with was the Catholic belief that the Bible was not the only infallible source of authority for Christian faith and practice. The RCC held to the belief that church tradition, the pope, and the Magisterium also hold some degree of infallibility alongside God’s word in Scripture.

The Reformers, on the other hand, held to the belief that the Bible was the only source of infallible, divinely inspired authority and was to be interpreted by itself through the guidance of the Holy Spirit. This doctrine came to be known as sola Scriptura (Latin for “Scripture alone”). It’s crucial to note that the Reformers did not intend to disregard the universal church or tradition as a source of authority, but instead they recognized that both were composed of and affected by corruptible men, and therefore, were fallible. Luther and his contemporaries still held to a high view of the Church, but the Bible reigned as the sole infallible and divine authority to them as they sought to reform the Church over their years of ministry.

Modern Roman Catholic scholars argue that sola Scriptura is nothing more than a 19th century phrase describing a 16th century doctrine invented by Luther that has no foundation in church history. These scholars find no mention of sola Scriptura in the writings of the ante-Nicene or post-Nicene patristics and therefore see it as unnecessary. This argument falls apart, however, when one has a more complete understanding of the theology of the early church and its leaders. Although the doctrine of sola Scriptura is often attributed to the Reformers, the writings of the Church Fathers indicate that a prototype of this doctrine was alive and well in the first centuries of the Church, namely evidenced by the patristics’ comments on the authority and clarity of Scripture.

Defining Sola Scriptura

Before examining the writings of the patristics, it is crucial to establish a working definition of sola Scriptura in order to make clear what the doctrine is and what it is not. One of the more straightforward definitions comes from church historian and pastor, Stephen J. Nichols. He writes: “The Bible is the sole and final authority in all matters of life and godliness. The church looks to the Bible as the ultimate authority.” Although his definition is straight and to the point, it is still wise to unpack the language Nichols uses.

When he says “all matters of life and godliness,” Nichols is referring only to those matters which pertain to the Christian life and are stated in the Bible. One must understand that Nichols is not saying that the Bible should be the sole authority in other non-theological fields. For example, this definition does not mean that a surgeon should throw away his or her medical textbooks and instruction manuals before performing a heart surgery and instead turn only to the Bible. Neither would an architect abandon all that he or she has learned in school and instead pull the Bible from their shelf in order to determine how to build a skyscraper. This practice of using the Bible as the only authority in every matter of life and work is not what sola Scriptura advocates for. Sola Scriptura in reality advocates that the Bible be the “rule of faith” in matters that are stated in Scripture, such as how to imitate Christ, worship God, or lead a family.
This also means, as Nichols writes in the second half of his definition, that the Church is not above or equal to Scripture when it comes to matters of life and faith. It should be noted that the purpose of having a doctrine of sola Scriptura is not to weaken the Church by stripping it of authority, but instead to give it a divine foundation outside of itself. The Church ultimately is filled with people who sin, and thus cannot rely fully on those individuals all the time. Instead, the Church, with all its imperfections, can look to God’s word for answers when it comes to disagreements and quarrels over both major and minor theological dilemmas. Now that a proper definition of sola Scriptura has been defined and explained, one can better understand the writings of the patristics who displayed that a prototype of the doctrine existed several centuries before the events of the Protestant Reformation.

The Patristics and the Authority of Scripture

The first aspect of the Church Fathers’ writings that indicate their belief in a precursor form of sola Scriptura is found in how they viewed the authoritative nature of Scripture. When the Church itself was in its infant years, many controversies, arguments, and even heretical beliefs arose. When such issues occurred, it became a responsibility for the early church fathers to address them in order that God’s people would know the truth and that the Lord would be glorified rightly. In their efforts to maintain orthodoxy and suppress false doctrine, the writings of the Church Fathers indicate that they appealed to Scripture, as they saw it possessing final and complete authority.

A notable example of this took place when Sabellianism, a trinitarian heresy similar to Modalism, gained popularity. The Sabellians began to accuse the church of innovating a doctrine of the Trinity that did not fit their custom. One of the Church Fathers, Gregory of Nyssa, responded to this predicament with these words:

• “We do not think that it is right to make their prevailing custom the law and rule of sound doctrine. For if custom is to avail for proof of soundness, we too, surely, may advance our prevailing custom; and if they reject this, we are surely not bound to follow theirs. Let the inspired Scripture, then, be our umpire, and the vote of truth will surely be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words.”

After rejecting the Sabellians’ accusation, Gregory provides reasoning for why turning purely to one’s own custom is incorrect. He states that if turning to custom is the only proof behind engaging in a certain practice, then no one group can claim that something is true, as each group can merely turn to its own custom while rejecting another. With this logic in mind, Gregory proclaims that it is the divinely inspired Scriptures that will define what is true. It is crucial to note that Gregory does not mention the Church or its traditions as the best solution to putting the Sabellian heresy to rest. Although he is not denying outright the value of either of those two institutions, it is evident that Gregory viewed the authority of Scripture as not only useful in disproving false doctrine but also as the source containing the final say on theological matters.

In addition to addressing heresies, the early Church Fathers also alluded to their views on the authority of Scripture when commentating on the very Bible itself. In his commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, the patristic John Chrysostom writes very plainly his view of God’s word. Commenting on Matt 26:26-28 specifically, he encourages his readers with these words:

• “Let us then in everything believe God, and gainsay Him in nothing, though what is said seem to be contrary to our thoughts and senses, but let His word be of higher authority than both reasonings and sight. Thus let us do in the mysteries also, not looking at the things set before us, but keeping in mind His sayings.”

From the beginning of this comment on Matthew, Chrysostom admits that mankind has a tendency to outright refuse to believe in God due to being swayed by their own “thoughts and feelings.” However, he implores his Christian brethren to place the word of God above such things. Notice once again that another Church Father (Chrysostom in this case) does not mention either the Church, tradition, or any sort of leader, such as a bishop, as being of higher authority than Man’s own feelings, but solely states Scripture as possessing such a position. Chrysostom explains his reasoning for taking this position by stating, “For [God’s] word cannot deceive, but our senses are easily beguiled. That hath never failed, but this in most things goeth wrong.” Here, the patristic makes clear that God’s word is incapable of lying due to being revealed by a perfect God. This furthers the idea that the Church Fathers’ viewed Scripture alone as being infallible, as Chrysostom mentions that the senses of Man are flawed, not God. This means that mankind must turn to something else that is incapable of deceiving, leaving him with no other choice but to turn to the word of God. Chrysostom expands on this in a separate homily when he writes the following:

• “There comes a heathen and says, ‘I wish to become a Christian, but I know not whom to join: there is much fighting and faction among you, much confusion: which doctrine am I to choose?’ How shall we answer him? ‘Each of you’ (says he) ‘asserts, “I speak the truth.”‘ No doubt: this is in our favor. For if we told you to be persuaded by arguments, you might well be perplexed: but if we bid you believe the Scriptures, and these are simple and true, the decision is easy for you. If any agree with the Scriptures, he is the Christian; if any fight against them, he is far from this rule.”

In this passage, Chrysostom observes how even the unsaved see the fallible nature of the Church. They claim that there is much fighting and division, most likely caused by the same deceiving senses that Chrysostom mentions earlier. The Church Father concludes then that if one wants to join a real church, they must seek one that yields to and believes in the authority of the divine Scriptures. His bold claim of stating that this decision is “easy” bolsters the idea that Chrysostom was confident in the authority of Scripture above both the Church and its traditions. From their writings on the authority of Scripture, the patristics provide insights into their prototype form of sola Scriptura when they sought to use the word of God in aiding them to defend the Church from false doctrine, when they commented on passages of the Bible itself, or when they were encouraging new believers to find biblical, God-fearing church communities.

The Patristics and the Clarity of Scripture

The second aspect of the Church Fathers’ writings that indicate their belief in a precursor form of sola Scriptura is found in how they viewed the clarity (or perspicuity) of Scripture. During the early church’s rise and expansion, the canon of the New Testament was formally recognized by various church leaders and ecumenical councils. As churches began to share the canonized texts with their congregants, more people around the world began to hear and/or read the word of God for themselves. With this, they also sought to have the biblical information interpreted. Catholic and Protestants both agree with the idea that one of the reasons God gave His people the Holy Spirit was so that He could aid them in interpreting the information, stories, and theology that they read in Scripture. The doctrine of sola Scriptura, however, conflicts with the Catholic belief that the RCC and the Pope or Magisterium have the ability to infallibly interpret the Scriptures, as the RCC believes God has granted His church certain truths through the Spirit.

Be that as it may, the words of the Church fathers imply that a person is able to interpret and understand at least the most basic information within God’s word without the Church or tradition, such as the Gospel message. Athanasius of Alexandria is one of several patristics to comment on this issue. In his 39th letter discussing what he regards as canonical in the Bible, Athanasius writes:

• “[The Scriptures] are fountains of salvation, that they who thirst may be satisfied with the living words they contain. In these alone is proclaimed the doctrine of godliness. Let no man add to these, neither let him take ought from these. For concerning these the Lord put to shame the Sadducees, and said, ‘Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures.’ And He reproved the Jews, saying, ‘Search the Scriptures, for these are they that testify of Me.’”

There are two key points in Athanasius’ quote on the clarity of the Bible that point to a doctrine of “Scripture alone.” First, he states that the “living words” in the Bible can make a person “satisfied.” Had he held to the view of the necessity of tradition, the church, or the pope, then Athanasius would have been incorrect to say that the Scriptures are satisfying to those who thirst for salvation. Clearly, he felt a person could rightly interpret the Scriptures with the power of the Holy Spirit and come to know God. The second piece of evidence is the reference to John 5:38-39 that Athanasius makes. In these verses, Christ Himself is calling out the Jews for their tradition of searching the Scriptures with “a wooden and superstitious reverence for the letter.” Rather than seek the Lord’s help in their endeavor to understand the Scriptures, the Sadducees allowed themselves to be guided by their own tradition of interpretation and it led them astray. Athanasius draws on this verse to demonstrate that the Scriptures must be viewed above the authority of man-made traditions.

Another Church Father who seemingly defends the clarity of Scripture as it stands on its own is Hilary of Poitiers. Hilary comments frequently on the idea of the “condescension of the Spirit.” Theologian William Webster defines this as “the teaching that the revelation of God in Scripture allows for the frailty of men in their capacity to understand it. God has therefore condescended to put his truth in language that is plain, simple, straightforward and easy to understand.” Hilary advocates for believers to hold to this teaching in his literary work on the Trinity. He writes in his eleventh book:

• “But God’s gift of understanding is the reward of faith, for through faith the infirmity of sense is recompensed with the gift of revelation. Timothy, that ‘man of God’ as the Apostle witnesses of him, Paul’s true child in the faith, is exhorted to understand because the Lord will give him understanding in all things: let us, therefore, knowing that the Lord will grant us understanding in all things, remember that the Apostle exhorts us also to understand.”

In this passage, Hilary highlights that faith in God is the key factor in understanding Scripture. He makes no distinction between the faith of the layman or the faith of the ministry leader. If one believes they are like Timothy or Paul and are “children of faith,” then according to Hilary, God will grant that person understanding through the work of His Spirit. God did not design His word to be a confusing mess that only a select few or a select pope could understand. Rather, as Hilary writes in the same Book, those who seek the truth in Scripture will have it clearly revealed to them by God through their faith. From their writings on the clarity of Scripture, the patristics provide more evidence in a precursor form of sola Scriptura.

Conclusion

Once again, a prototype doctrine of sola Scriptura can be found within the writings of various Church Fathers, namely evidenced by the patristics’ comments on the authority and clarity of Scripture. The doctrine was not merely an invention by men like Martin Luther or his Reformation contemporaries. Rather, they sought a return to form that began many centuries before them with the Church Fathers. Patristics such as Gregory of Nyssa and John Chrysostom demonstrate in their literature that Scripture is to be viewed as the highest authority, whether that be in matters of defending the Church from heresy or when commenting on passages of the Bible itself. Other patristics such as Athanasius of Alexandria and Hilary of Poitiers display in their literary works that the Bible is clear enough to be understood and grasped by individuals without the necessity of the Church or tradition. With this being said, it may appear that the Church Fathers, if they truly did hold to a form of sola Scriptura, did not have a high value for the Church or tradition. Quite the contrary is true, however. The patristics saw the Church as a beacon of hope to the world and tradition as a way to defend its doctrines. Scripture, though, was the very foundation of both institutions. Irenaeus of Lyons, another church father, summarizes the purpose of Scripture in the role of the early church well. He writes in his work Against Heresies:

• “We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.”

To elevate Scripture, the vehicle of the Gospel message itself, above these man-made traditions and the fallible people of the Church is to humbly admit, just as the patristics did, that God’s word reigns above all else as the divine revelation that it is.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

• Athanasius of Alexandria. “Letter XXXIX.” Pages 551-552 in A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church: The Second Series, Volume IV: Athanasius: Select Works and Letters. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1891. 

• Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2013. 

• Gregory of Nyssa. “On the Holy Trinity, and of the Godhead of the Holy Spirit. To Eustathius.” Page 326-330 in A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church: The Second Series, Volume V: Gregory of Nyssa: Dogmatic Treatises, etc. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1892. 

• Hilary of Poitiers. “On the Trinity, Book XI.” Pages 203-217 in A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church: The Second Series, Volume IX: Hilary of Poitiers, John of Damascus. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1898. 

• Irenaeus of Lyons. “Against Heresies, Book III.” Page 414-415 in Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume I: The Apostolic Fathers, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1885. 

• John Chrysostom. “Homily LXXXII.” Page 472-478 in A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Volume X: St. Chrysostom: Homilies on the Gospel of Matthew. Edited by Philip Schaff. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1888. 

• John Chrysostom. “Homily XXXIII.” Pages 205-212 in A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Volume XI: St. Chrysostom: Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistle to the Romans. Edited by Philip Schaff. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1889. 

• Mathison, Keith A. The Shape of Sola Scriptura. Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 2001. 

• Morris, Leon. The Gospel According to John. NICNT 4, edited by F. F. Bruce. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1971. 

• Nichols, Stephen J. The Reformation: How a Monk and a Mallet Changed the World. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2007.

• Pope John Paul II. “Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith: Doctrinal Commentary on the Concluding Formula of the Professio fidei.” Vatican.va, 1998. https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_1998_professio-fidei_en.html.  

• Thomson, James. “Sola Scriptura.” The Presbyterian Record 11, (Nov. 2011): Pages 17-18, https://www.proquest.com/magazines/sola-scriptura/docview/906127242/se-2. 

• Webster, William. “Scripture and Tradition in the Early Church: Tradition As Interpretation: The Formal Sufficiency of Scripture.” Christian Truth, 2022, https://christiantruth.com/articles/formalsufficiencyofscripturefinal/. 

1. 

   Correct. The Church is a very useful tool for the Christian trying to discern theological knowledge. However, the inspired Word…

2. 

   In essence, the church can be inspired by God because it is the body of Christ, but it CAN err…