The Tradition of Sola Scriptura

"Where is this written?" by Will Weedon, download the article here:

St. John Chrysostom (347-401)
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.
(Homily 33 in Acts of the Apostles [Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers 1,11:210-11; PG 60.243-44])

Regarding the things I say, I should supply even the proofs, so I will not seem to rely on my own opinions, but rather, prove them with Scripture, so that the matter will remain certain and steadfast.
(Homily 8 On Repentance and the Church, The Fathers of the Church vol. 96, p. 118)

St. Gregory of Nyssa (335-395)
Let the inspired Scriptures then be our umpire, and the vote of truth will be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words.”
(On the Holy Trinity, Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, p. 327).

We are not entitled to such license, I mean that of affirming what we please; we make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet; we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings.
(On the Soul and the Resurrection: Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers Series II, vol. V., p. 439)
 
St. Basil (329-379)
Concerning the teachings of the Church, whether publicly proclaimed or reserved to the household of faith, we have received some from written sources, while others have been given to us secretly, through apostolic tradition. Both sources have equal force in true religion. No one would deny either source—no one, at any rate, who is even slightly familiar with the ordinances of the Church. If we attacked unwritten customs, claiming them to be of little importance, we would fatally mutilate the Gospel, no matter what our intentions—or rather, we would reduce the Gospel teachings to bare words.
(On the Holy Spirit, chapter 27, par. 66).

What is the mark of a faithful soul? To be in these dispositions of full acceptance on the authority of the words of Scripture, not venturing to reject anything nor making additions. For, if “all that is not of faith is sin” as the Apostle says, and “faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God,” everything outside Holy Scripture, not being of faith, is sin.
(The Morals, The Fathers of the Church, vol. 9, p. 204)

“Concerning the hearers: that those hearers who are instructed in the Scriptures should examine what is said by the teachers, receiving what is in conformity with the Scriptures and rejecting what is opposed to them; and that those who persist in teaching such doctrines should be strictly avoided.”

St. Cyril of Jerusalem (313-386)
For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell you these things, give not absolute credence, unless you receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures.
(Catechetical Lectures, IV:17, in Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, Volume VII, p. 23.)
 
St. Augustine (354-430)
Only those books of Scripture which are called canonical have I learned to hold in such honor as to believe their authors have not erred in any way in writing them. But other authors I so read as not to deem everything in their works to be true, merely on account of their having so thought and written, whatever may have been their holiness and learning.
(Letter 82 to Jerome)

St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274)
Nevertheless, sacred doctrine makes use of these authorities as extrinsic and probable arguments; but properly uses the authority of the canonical Scriptures as an incontrovertible proof, and the authority of the doctors of the Church as one that may properly be used, yet merely as probable. For our faith rests upon the revelation made to the apostles and prophets who wrote the canonical books, and not on the revelations (if any such there are) made to other doctors.
(Summa Theologia, Part 1, Question 1, Article 8; emphasis added).

St. John of Damascus (675-749)
It is impossible either to say or fully to understand anything about God beyond what has been divinely proclaimed to us, whether told or revealed, by the sacred declarations of the Old and New Testaments.
On the Orthodox Faith (Book I, Chapter 2):

[falsouth]

Weedon and Wolfmueller make a fantastic team.

[jamessheffield]

They are charging me with innovation, and base their charge on my confession of three hypostases, and blame me for asserting one Goodness, one Power, one Godhead. In this they are not wide of the truth, for I do so assert. Their complaint is that their custom does not accept this, and that Scripture does not agree. What is my reply? I do not consider it fair that the custom which obtains among them should be regarded as a law and rule of orthodoxy. If custom is to be taken in proof of what is right, then it is certainly competent for me to put forward on my side the custom which obtains here. If they reject this, we are clearly not bound to follow them. Therefore let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the Word of God, in favor of that side will be cast the vote of truth.[1] Basil the Great The letters Letter 189 To Eustathius the Physician

[johnnyg.]

Hey, a lifelong practicing Roman Catholic an M. Rel. for 31 have followed you for years and profited GREATLY from your Lutheran insights. Gimme a break: I am NOT a "catholic troll." Them's fightin' words. I also think the world of Pastor J. B. Cooper. For your

[Zilam]

Catholic reasoning on Scripture and Authority is quite circular. The scriptures have authority because the church recognizes (and interprets) them. However, when you ask for proof that the RCC has authority, they will go to scripture to try to prove it (Peter, you are the Rock! - Matthew 16).

So, you have authority because the scriptures say so, but the scriptures only have authority because you say they do and only you can properly interpret them? That's so silly! I used to be afraid of debating Catholics on this, but when you get down to it, they are so easily refuted.

[RomanZeNine]

I always have an automatic distrust of anyone who doesn't proport Sola Scriptura since coming back to the faith. It is exactly the kind of people who attacked Sola Scriptura (specifically in regards to Creationism) who caused me to walk away from the Faith Originally. I suffered so much because of my choices during that dark period. Sola Scriptura was the reason I came to the Lutherans, even many of the Protestants totally deny it these days.

[HillbillyBlack]

- Irenaeus (AD 180): 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. (Against Heresies, 3:1.1)

- Athanasius (AD 296-373): The holy and inspired Scriptures are fully sufficient for the proclamation of the truth. (Against the Heathen, 1:3)

- Augustine (AD 354-430): It is to the canonical Scriptures alone that I am bound to yield such implicit subjection as to follow their teaching, without admitting the slightest suspicion that in them any mistake or any statement intended to mislead could find a place. (Letters, 82.3)

- Augustine (AD 354-430): He [God] also inspired the Scripture, which is regarded as canonical and of supreme authority and to which we give credence concerning all the truths we ought to know and yet, of ourselves, are unable to learn. (City of God, 11.3)

- Cyril of Jerusalem (AD 310-386): For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell you these things, give not absolute credence, unless you receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures. (Catechetical Lectures, IV:17 in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers)

- Gregory of Nyssa (AD 330-395): We are not entitled to such license, namely, of affirming whatever we please. For we make Sacred Scripture the rule and the norm of every doctrine. Upon that we are obliged to fix our eyes, and we approve only whatever can be brought into harmony with the intent of these writings. (On the Soul and the Resurrection, quoted in Jaroslav Pelikan, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971], p. 50.)

- Augustine of Hippo (AD 354-430): Let them show their church if they can, not by the speeches and mumblings of the Africans, not by the councils of their bishops, not by the writings of any of their champions, not by fraudulent signs and wonders, because we have been prepared and made cautious also against these things by the Word of the Lord. (On the Unity of the Church, 16)

- John Chrysostom (AD 347-407): Wherefore I exhort and entreat you all, disregard what this man and that man thinks about these things, and inquire from the Scriptures all these things; and having learned what are the true riches, let us pursue after them that we may obtain also the eternal good things. (Homily 13 on 2 Corinthians)

- Basil the Great (AD 329-379): Therefore let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the Word of God, in favor of that side will be cast the vote of truth. (Letter 189 to Eustathius the physician)

“The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.”

This is why some apologist cant make heads or tails of scripture. Unless their interpretations are spirit deserned, they only have 2nd hand interpretive sources. We SHOULD listen to church interpretations but only so far as to test them against the word of God.

The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

Material sufficiency is not Sola Scriptura. The Scriptures have been always read in the Apostolic Tradition of the Catholic Church.
The heretics also used the Scriptures to validate their personal views, what to do there? The Church interpreted the Scriptures in the light of the Apostolic Tradition and solve the dispute.

[PhilHypocrite]

Literally exactly what I needed just now! God bless you!

[georgeharrison]

So, first of all, Pastor Wolfmueller asks "what do you want me to believe that's not in the Scriptures?". Lutherans ask their people to believe a whole host of things that are not explicitly in the Bible. I'll give one example: Luther says, "“I did not invent [infant Baptism.] It came to me by tradition and I was persuaded by no word of Scripture that it was wrong.” [Martin Luther, “Concerning Rebaptism, ” Luther’s Works: American Edition, Volume 40 “Church and
Ministry II” (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1958), 254.] And if you read Luther's Large Catechism, his defense of infant baptism specifically, he does not produce one text from the Bible that demands it. Rather he says the best proof for regular people is that many who are baptized as infants received the Holy Spirit and persist in it. So, he appeals to the experience of the church as the best proof for justifying infant baptism. So, Lutherans demand and expect that their people and converts to Lutheranism must accept infant baptism and believe it is right, but Luther himself did not attempt to prove infant baptism from a clear passage of scripture - because there isn't one. So, here's one place Pastor Wolfmueller expects his people to believe something that isn't in Scripture.

Second, a less cherry picked reading of these fathers, who allegedly testify to Sola Scriptura as Lutherans believe it, would reveal that these same fathers who supposedly appeal to Scripture as having the same final and ultimate authority for faith and practice in the church also taught things about justification, the cross, the role of the will in justification etc etc etc that Lutherans like Pastor Wolfmueller would say are false doctrine and are not the teaching of Scripture. In fact, the Formula of Concord rejects a teaching of Chrysostom as unsound for he says that "God draws, but He draws the willing." Quote me something from Augustine about the authority of the canon, he also taught that infants should not only be baptized but Communed!

Third, let's grant for the moment that these father's appeal to the authority of Scripture means what Pastor Wolfmueller claims it means, that Sola Scriptura as Lutherans believe it is also the teaching of the Fathers. These same fathers disagree with the Lutheran Confessions at crucial points as to what it is that Scripture actually teaches. What good does the teaching of Sola Scriptura do as a doctrine if the effect of the doctrine is disagreement on essential matters of the faith and practice? Rather than safe guarding the purity of the Gospel it has opened up a subjective chaos into the life of the Christian church. The effect of the doctrine, as Pastor Wolfmueller presented it here, is that the individual's interpretation of the text, with all the presuppositions each person brings to the texts of the Bible, is the final authority.

And no, I'm not a Catholic apologist. But this is a sloppy attempt to shoehorn the Fathers into the Lutheran Confession of Sola Scriptura. It used to be OK for Lutherans to admit that the Gospel and pure doctrine were lost shortly after the Apostles. However problematic that thought may be, at least it was honest that the Church Fathers ain't Lutheran and they didn't need them to be.

[mrscms]

Church father trading cards?! pretty geeky Pastor. I love it. Love Pastor Weeden as well. Reading his "Coming Home" Lenten Devotions for 2022.

[shirleygoss]

Okay, I confess to not being well read in the Fathers of the Church. That said, I saw nothing you said that would go against the Eastern Orthodox Christian faith.
I saw when the 10 Minute Bible Hour talked to Pastor Weedon, and was impressed! His enthusiasm was contagious.

[simontemplar]

What would you have me believe that the Prophets and apostles haven't written is-- that's a Protestant mic drop right there! Well said, Pastor!

[johnrevelation]

I like your simple props. Maybe I'm just old school. Thank you for your dedication to teaching. I enjoy watching and/or listening to your videos.

[jediv]

*Jesus, Apostles and NT Church all practised Sola Scriptura in Scriptures. 150+ verses say so. Roman ctists love defying God and His Words.*

[jordantsak]

I like to watch catholic apologist videos, because the more I watch them, the more steadfast lutheran I be.

[TylerMancuso]

I love that you’re using the church fathers here, many Protestants don’t even consider them worth reading, so thank you. However, nothing that was said here is out of line with the apostolic teaching of tradition and authority. It simply confirms that the authority of the church to carry on TRUE theology MUST come from scripture. Which is always has (not RC btw, I am Orthodox). Let’s examine scripture, what does it say in 1Tim 3:15? It says the CHURCH is the pillar and ground of truth. Why not scripture the pillar and ground of truth? Because scripture, logically, needs interpretation.

Even in this comment section I see Protestants that are all using scripture to make a claim about their beliefs and coming to different conclusions about it.

Very clearly in John 16 we see Christ explain that He will send His spirit to guide them into “all truth”. And Paul speaks to the Thesselonians and says to keep their traditions whether by ORAL teaching or by epistle. Therefore, the Church has and always will continue to deliver truth, including the decision around the final canon of WHAT IS HOLY SCRIPTURE! :) Ie. The Bible. This is why the scripture can only be *reliably* interpreted within the context of THE CHURCH. It does NOT mean that the church can make authoritative claims or doctrines OUTSIDE of what the scriptures say. (We call those historical claims… heresies 😎)

God bless you all, it’s a tough subject, we’re all doing our best but I recommend looking into Orthodoxy! The great schism left RC to follow a (unfortunately) heretical teaching and “infaliable” pope that led the RCs into some bad places and doctrines. The Orthodox continued the tradition and SCRIPTURAL teaching of Christ and His apostles and continue to to this day :)

[xnihilo]

Pastor Wolf,
I'm telling you, I was this close <--> to turning Eastern Orthodox because of this issue.
Thank you for shedding light for the power of God's Word to keep me on the right path.

Tetelestai!

[davidwiist]

Church Father trading cards were a nice touch. Thanks to both you and Rev. Weedon.

[gerrardthemagnificent]

Literally just today I was looking at the history of the Canon and concerned about how valid sola scriptura is. This video has been a great gift of God to me and I am sure to all who watch it.
May God give you the joy of endurance and of a whole family that loves and worships you together all your days and then forevermore!

[pjbaker]

Where are the church Father cards from? I would love to order a set for our homeschool and one for my seminary husband 😀