Protestants believe the Scripture is sufficient in all matters concerning faith, morals, and doctrine. Yet, Catholics and Eastern Orthodox put the Scripture on par with the infallible pronouncements of Popes and Ecumenical Councils (even though this is an idea found nowhere in the writings of early Christians.)
Note: This article was written before the author’s conversion to Orthodoxy.
In De Synodis, Athanasius wrote that the Scripture “is sufficient above all things.” What’s the context? Let’s read chapter six:
But the Councils which they are now setting in motion, what colourable pretext have they? If any new heresy has risen since the Arian, let them tell us the positions which it has devised, and who are its inventors? And in their own formula, let them anathematize the heresies antecedent to this Council of theirs [endorsed in previous Arian councils]…Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faith’s sake; for divine Scripture is sufficient above all things; but if a Council be needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene Bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrine so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced in divine Scripture.
The Council of Nicea is held up, not because it inherently has authority, but because it accurately represents the ideas found in the authoritative Scripture. Throughout the rest of the book, we can see how the sufficiency of Scripture simply oozes from the pages of creeds that Athanasius copiously records for us.
One Catholic Synod of Bishops stated:
We have not been followers of Arius—how could Bishops, such as we, follow a Presbyter?— nor did we receive any other faith beside that which has been handed down from the beginning (Chap 22).
What faith was handed down? A mysterious oral tradition that gives us extra-biblical insights? Not if we go by what the councils of Bishops kept saying.
One synod stated:
Holding then this faith, and holding it in the presence of God and Christ, from beginning to end, we anathematize every heretical heterodoxy. And if any teaches, beside the sound and right faith of the Scriptures, that time, or season, or age , either is or has been before the generation of the Son, be he anathema. Or if any one says, that the Son is a creature as one of the creatures, or an offspring as one of the offsprings, or a work as one of the works, and not the aforesaid articles one after another, as the divine Scriptures have delivered, or if he teaches or preaches beside what we received, be he anathema. For all that has been delivered in the divine Scriptures, whether by Prophets or Apostles, do we truly and reverentially both believe and follow (Chap 23).
Another stated:
For neither is safe to say that the Son is from nothing, (since this is no where spoken of Him in divinely inspired Scripture,) nor again of any other subsistence before existing beside the Father, but from God alone do we define Him genuinely to be generated. For the divine Word teaches that the Ingenerate and Unbegun, the Father of Christ, is One…Nor may we, adopting the hazardous position, ‘There was once when He was not,’ from unscriptural sources, [i.e. Arian tradition and councils] imagine any interval of time before Him, but only the God who has generated Him apart from time; for through Him both times and ages came to be…For it is irreligious and alien to the ecclesiastical faith, to compare the Creator with handiworkscreated by Him, and to think that He has the same manner of origination with the rest. For divine Scripture teaches us really and truly that the Only-begotten Son was generated sole and solely. (Chap 26).
In the above, we see an example of the regulative principle at work. One doctrine (that Christ is “from nothing,” i.e. self-created) is wrong specifically because the Scripture does not weigh in on the issue. Hence, the principle at work is that unless the Scripture teaches something, it is not safe to believe it.
We find a similar idea talked about in yet another synod:
But since many persons are disturbed by questions concerning what is called in Latin ‘Substantia,’ but in Greek ‘Usia,’ that is, to make it understood more exactly, as to ‘Coessential,’ or what is called, ‘Like-in-Essence,’ there ought to be no mention of any of these at all, nor exposition of them in the Church, for this reason and for this consideration, that in divine Scripture nothing is written about them, and that they are above men’s knowledge and above men’s understanding (Chap 27).
And yet another:
But the name of ‘Essence,’ which was set down by the Fathers in simplicity, and, being unknown by the people, caused offense, because the Scriptures contain it not, it has seemed good to abolish, and for the future to make no mention of it at all; since the divine Scriptures have made no mention of the Essence of Father and Son (Chap 30).
The absence of there being an authority outside of the Scripture and clear reason is pretty obvious to anyone reading these statements.
Athanasius ends De Synodis saying:
What then I have learned myself, and have heard men of judgment say, I have written in few words; but do you, remaining on the foundation of the Apostles, and holding fast the traditions of the Fathers, pray that now at length all strife and rivalry may cease, and the futile questions of the heretics may be condemned (Chap 54).
In light of everything we just read, obviously the foundation of the Apostles is what we see in the Scriptures. The traditions of the Fathers, in light of this, are the correct interpretations of the Scriptures. Hence, Scripture is sufficient above all things. Tradition informs us as to how to adequately interpret Scriptures. However, we see no indication that Christians are bound to believe in doctrines and customs that have no bearing whatsoever in the Scriptures. And if this is the case, why does the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox church spend so much time saying that the consciences of Christians are bound to authorities outside the Scripture?
Athanasius would view such ideas as repugnant.
Orthodox Christian Theology 
The irony is you don’t realize that your church through Synod of Dort and/or Westminster Confession of faith “infallibly” declared canonicity of your 66 books of Scripture. In other words your church has even higher authority than Scripture!
‘[W]hy does the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox church spend so much time saying that the consciences of Christians are bound to authorities outside the Scripture?’
It’s a very broad question since there are myriads of different kinds of authorities outside the scriptures. There is e.g. the authority of parents, and of laws and governments, aside from the authority of pastors and bishops.
I would argue that all of those different types of authority have a basis in the scriptures. Clearly the authority of parents is in the scriptures, as well as the authority of laws and governments. But the scriptures also clearly indicate that heads of churches have authority over those churches.
Further, the scriptures themselves, that is, the fact that we know which books we are referring to under that name, is itself a tradition — one which many people take so much for granted that they scarcely give it a thought. And again the notion that the scriptures — the particular 66 or 73 books we includes under that name — are the ultimate authority in matters of doctrine, is yet another tradition. The scriptures don’t spell it out in so many words; it’s more of an authoritative interpretation.
Insisting on the ultimate authority of the scriptures without acknowledging extra-biblical authorities can’t help but lead us around and around in circles.
Thanks for the comment. The Scriptures had authority before the Council of Carthage, no? If that be the case, then the Scriptures have authority without the authoritative settling of a Canon.
If the scriptures did have authority before the canon was established, it was because they were believed to have been written or handed down by the Apostles. So again the authentication of the scriptures depended upon extra-biblical authority. Further, as you know, for a time there were disagreements as to the authenticity of certain books. Whether they were held to be authoritative in a particular church depended on the judgment of the local bishop.
Again, being that a plethora of church fathers (many of which were Bishops) expressed doubts over certain books of the Scripture and Deuterocanon over the course of centuries shows that they did not view the issue as resolved. Your assertion that this proves the necessity of an inerrant authenticating authority is contradicted by the fact that the Church used to have separate authorities (Bishops) contradicting each other on specific books for hundreds of years.
To say that something God Himself writes sources its authority from men, no matter how holy (or right) these men were, is very misguided. The authority of the Scripture is derived from Who wrote it.
God bless,
Craig
OK but you seem to have now switched topics. Before the topic was why the Catholic Church teaches that people’s consciences are bound by authorities outside the scriptures. Now you’re discussing whether outside authorities give authority to the scriptures.
People’s consciences are bound by authorities outside the scriptures, for the same reason that people are bound to believe that the specific books that we consider scripture, are scripture. The scriptures don’t spell out which books are scripture, therefore the knowledge of which books are scripture is extra-biblical knowledge (do we agree on that?). If the number and identity of the books of scripture is authoritative knowledge, then that knowledge must gain its authority from extra-biblical sources.
Whereas if the number and identity of the books of scripture is *not* authoritative knowledge, then how will people know authoritatively which books are scripture?
You see, there are two levels of certainty that we’re talking about: Once we know which books are scripture, then we can have absolute assurance that what they say to us is true. That absolute assurance comes from the fact that they are authored by God. We agree on that.
But how do we gain that knowledge in the first place? Without the knowledge of the identity of the scriptures, the scriptures themselves cannot bind our consciences. Therefore there must be extra-biblical authorities which bind our consciences. The extra-biblical authorities don’t give the scriptures their authority, but they *let us know* that the scriptures — the specific 66 or 73 books we accept as scripture — are in fact scripture and are therefore authoritative.
I’ll just repeat myself. The Church did not have the number 73 hammered out until the Council of Carthage. The Eastern Church still has not accepted the number 73. Yet, the Scripture was authoritative before the Council and it remains authoritative.
Then I will repeat myself as well: Before the Council of Carthage, how did Christians know which books of purported scripture were authentic scripture?
They didn’t. They were free to speculate based upon the varying traditions of preceding Bishops and their own reflections of what they knew about manuscript history. For example, Augustine in Book 18 Chapter 43 of City of God speculated that the LXX was literally inspired by God in its translation: “For the same Spirit who was in the prophets when they spoke these things was also in the seventy men when they translated them, so that assuredly they could also say something else, just as if the prophet himself had said both, because it would be the same Spirit who said both…”
So, Christians are free to accept and reject such conclusions based upon the evidence. This has always been how the issue of Canon was dealt with in the Church until literally Trent, because even up to that point there were still notable Bishops that rejected certain books of the Deuterocanon.
God bless,
Craig
Are you saying that Christians today are still free to speculate as to which books are authentic scripture and which are not?
To the extent that the Fathers were, yes. Being that Christians for all time already agreed on most of the Scripture, the books that were historically questionable do not hold a great deal of pivotal doctrine that cannot be found elsewhere in the Scripture (Esther, Deuterocanon, even Revelation of John which is not fully accepted by Eastern Orthodoxy.) For example, I do not personally take a hard stance against the Deuterocanon. However, I think anyone who has read the Deuterocanon a couple of times carefully would admit there is not a whole lot of new things there.
God bless,
Craig
I’m not sure what you mean by “to the extent that the Fathers were”. Were the Fathers not totally free in that regard?
Essentially yes, but there was quite a bit of unanimity on the majority of the Scripture, and I don’t think it would be safe nor smart to ignore such a witness.
So they were not bound to follow the witness of the virtual unanimity that existed, but it would have been dangerous and stupid not to, in your opinion. But that’s only with regard to those books on which there was virtual unanimity. As to the rest, they were essentially totally free to reject them. Have I got that right?
We are free to speculate where there is no unaminity nor overt witness of the Spirit speaking through the text. The conscience of the Christian is not bound to believe something is Canonical in the 21st century that the conscience of another Christian was not bound to in the 3rd century–unless there exists an authority for truth that has weighed on the matter subsequently and now, we must heed this new authority.
And is there such an authority in your view?
No.
Bear with me for a moment: Let’s speak based upon the evidence, or lack thereof. I know I cannot prove what Scripture is. Let’s stick with the 73 Book Canon from the Council of Carthage. What proof do I have that the Council did not err? Absolutely nothing. How do I know that the Christian Scriptures are true, and not the Quran on the Book of Mormon? I have to hold to the authority of those 73 Books presuppositionally, without evidence, as I have no more empirical evidence for those 73 Books then I have for the other books I just named.
In the same way, I think that unless you posit the existence of another authority that God speaks through in addition to the Scripture, your belief likewise must be presuppositional. It is not something that can be proven empirically, any more than the authority of Scripture.
Now, I do not mind speculating as to how we reasonably build upon presuppositions (as Descartes, Augustine, and many other great thinkers have done the same thing), but I think it is important to come to some sort of agreement upon what we actually know and what we don’t, but we presume anyway in order to make sense of the world and our beliefs.
Then as far as I can figure, your position is that the scriptures themselves do not bind the consciences of Christians. Is that right?
No. The Scriptures do. However, the Christian is left in doubt over 10-15 percent of the Scripture, as traditionally there was not unaminity over these disputed books. A Christian may accept these disputed books based upon firm evidence and conviction that the Spirit speaks through them.
So as to that 10-15% of the scriptures, he is not bound, is that right?
He is not bound inasmuch he is not convnced they actually are Scripture.
And what about the other 85% of the scriptures? Is he bound as to them?
Of course.
Going back to the 15%, you said a Christian is not bound by them inasmuch as he is not convinced that they are scripture. This means that he may or may not be bound by them, since he may or may not believe in their canonicity. The extent to which he is bound depends on the extent to which he judges them canonical. But as to the 85%, he is bound by them regardless, since he must consider them canonical. It is not open to him to judge them non-canonical, due to the unanimity of the Fathers as to those books. Is that right?
Essentially, yes. If no sensible Christian rejected a book for 2,000 years, they can’t be starting now.
Just to clarify, and as mentioned previously, we’re talking about two kinds of binding: Being bound to acknowledge certain books as scripture, and being bound BY scripture. As you acknowledged, you can’t be bound in the second way unless you are bound in the first way, that is, you’re not bound by scripture until you recognize it as scripture.
As to the 15%, you said people may or may not be bound by those scriptures, depending on whether they accept them as scripture, which is up to themselves. But as to the 85%, people are bound by those scriptures, because they are bound to accept them as scripture. The difference between the 85% and the 15% is the unanimity of the Fathers as to their canonicity. Therefore it’s that unanimity that binds the Christian to accept the 85% as God’s word, and thus to be bound by them as God’s word once he has accepted them as such.
Therefore, the unanimity of the Fathers is an extra-biblical authority which binds the consciences of Christians.
For all practical purposes, yes. However, those who often disagree about the 15% actually add another authority on top of the unanimity of the Fathers, which in fact then contradicts the Fathers, as they were not unanimous about these books.
I’m not arguing particularly about who the binding extra-biblical authority is, just that there must be some binding extra-biblical authority in order for the scriptures themselves to be binding.
Defining the 15% as canonical would only be a contradiction of the Fathers, if the Fathers were unanimous *against* their canonicity. But in fact they *lacked* unanimity as to those books, one way or the other. Therefore, for the Church to define them as canonical only contradicts that proportion of the Fathers who found them non-canonical (which might even have been a minority).
The latter point is correct. The former point, not exactly so. The Scripture’s authority is derived from its source (God). It is based upon that authority, which says believer have the Holy Spirit, which then compels us not to reject unanimity on doctrines and Canon. I call it unsafe, because I base it on inferences of what it means for the Holy Spirit to lead believers into all truth. However, it cannot be binding, because the nature of inferences…we are not sure this is how we are to apply what it means to be led into all truth.
Interesting. What books are we not bound to? The 15%
There is a sense we are bound to all of the books (i.e. ignorance of the law is no excuse), but 15% of the books the Church does not infallibly know (or, if you’re RCC, they did not infallibly know until Trent.)
That 15% would include the Deuterocanon, Esther, the Catholic Epistles, and Revelation.
So question. How do you feel about this article now? How would you respond to your former self before conversion to Orthodoxy
Good question. St Vincent de Lerins gives the answer in COmmonitorium Par 5:
But here some one perhaps will ask, Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient, what need is there to join with it the authority of the Church’s interpretation? For this reason — because, owing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another; so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters. For Novatian expounds it one way, Sabellius another, Donatus another, Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, another, Photinus, Apollinaris, Priscillian, another, Iovinian, Pelagius, Celestius, another, lastly, Nestorius another. Therefore, it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies of such various error, that the rule for the right understanding of the prophets and apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard of Ecclesiastical and Catholic interpretation.
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3506.htm
I have since written on Apostolic Tradition in the Scriptures, something I did not appreciate years ago.
May God have mercy on me for my errors.