St. Augustine’s View on the authority
- Wenura Ravindu
Introduction
Some Modern Protestants tend to bring up St. Augustine as a Proto-Protestant and that he was a sola scriptura Believer. In this Document, I am trying to go through Augustine’s writings and try to take a picture of what was Augustine’s real view on the Authority of Scripture, and what authorities did he believe in.
Augustine and Sola Scriptura
What is sola scriptura?
Sola Scriptura is one of the main theological pillars of the protestant reformation. and also this is a very controversial topic, in protestant circles also there are many different definitions for sola scriptura.
As John McArthur Says,
“Sola Scriptura simply means that all truth necessary for our salvation and spiritual life is taught either explicitly or implicitly in Scripture.” 1
According to Keith Mathison,
“…that Scripture was the sole source of revelation; that it was the final authoritative norm of doctrine and practice; that it was to be interpreted in and by the Church; and that it was to be interpreted according to the regular fidei."
“Since the Word of God is the Word of God, it is what God Himself says, and therefore it is the ultimate
authority."2
According to the Got Questions,
“Sola scriptura means that Scripture alone is authoritative for the faith and practice of the Christian”
These are only a few examples, bet there are more than this. So because of the huge diversity, I will take one definition as a General on the Lutherans and Reformed traditions of the Protestantism agreed that the Bible is the sole infallible source of authority for Christian faith and practice.3
So In this part, I mainly focused on 3 quotes from St. Augustine, which are frequently protestants quotes when arguing.
First Quote
“But who can fail to be aware that the sacred canon of Scripture, both of the Old and New Testament, is confined within its own limits, and that it stands so absolutely in a superior position to all later letters of the bishops, that about it we can hold no manner of doubt or disputation whether what is confessedly contained in it is right and true; but that all the letters of bishops which have been written, or are being written, since the closing of the canon, are liable to be refuted if there be anything contained in them which strays from the truth, either by the discourse of some one who happens to be wiser in the matter than themselves, or by the weightier authority and more learned experience of other bishops, by the authority of Councils; and further, that the Councils themselves, which are held in the several districts and provinces, must yield, beyond all possibility of doubt, to the authority of plenary Councils which are formed for the whole Christian world; and that even of the plenary Councils, the earlier are often corrected by those which follow them, when, by some actual experiment, things are brought to light which were before concealed, and that is known which previously lay hid, and this without any whirlwind of sacrilegious pride, without any puffing of the neck through arrogance, without any strife of envious hatred, simply with holy humility, catholic peace, and Christian charity?” (On Baptism, Against the Donatists (Book 2)
Here the Donatists, a sect of believers, are arguing for a particular understanding of baptism, re-baptism, and who can be admitted into the Church. The Donatists were appealing to Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, who they thought affirmed their particular understanding of baptism and it’s in this particular context that we find Augustine. 4
“and that it stands so absolutely in a superior position to all later letters of the bishops”, Augustine is true that God-Breathed Scripture is superior to the letter of the bishops, and we should notice that Augustine doesn’t say that scripture is the only infallible Authority or anything related idea to the sola scriptura. Augustine first outlines two principles about Scripture, that it is “confined within its limits” and “stands so absolutely in a superior position to all later letters of the bishops” in a way that there can be “ no manner of doubt or disputation” that what is in Scripture is right and true. In other words, Scripture is so far above the letters (or arguments) of a single bishop (like Cyprian) that while these may be wrong, what the Scriptures say is right and true.
The first part is merely expressing the truism that everything in Scripture is true since it is inspired revelation and that this can’t be said about any other writing. Every observant traditional Christian agrees, so there is no dispute on that. But it’s beside the point of sola Scriptura, which is not about the higher level of inspiration, but about infallibility. Theoretically (and this is the relevant point of contention), non-scriptural entities may possibly be infallible, too, while not inspired.5
The quotation confirms catholic position because Augustine writes that the wrong bishop can be corrected by other bishops and the councils not only by the Bible, “by the weightier authority and more learned experience of other bishops, by the authority of Councils.” That is the Catholic doctrine that not only Bible is the only Final authority but bishops and the councils too.
Conclusion: nothing in the above citation proves that Augustine held to sola Scriptura. On the contrary, I think it pretty much proves that he didn’t. Some Protestants note that Augustine thought ecumenical councils could possibly err. But again, this is not controversial. No Catholic thinker or scholar denies that this can take place, not just in theory but in fact.
Catholics don’t believe that every part of an ecumenical council is infallible, but some parts are only infallible under certain conditions. 6
Second Quote
“As regards our writings, which are not a rule of faith or practice, but only a help to edification, we may suppose that they contain some things falling short of the truth in obscure and recondite matters, and that these mistakes may or may not be corrected in subsequent treatises. For we are of those of whom the apostle says: “And if you be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you.” [Philippians 3:15] Such writings are read with the right of judgment, and without any obligation to believe. In order to leave room for such profitable discussions of difficult questions, there is a distinct boundary line separating all productions subsequent to apostolic times from the authoritative canonical books of the Old and New Testaments.”
St. Augustine, Reply to Faustus (Book XI, 5)
By “our writings” what does Augustine mean? Maybe bishops like him, Clergy, or simply mean all non-biblical writings. Catholic Church totally agrees with him, no individual bishops or Church fathers or saints possess infallibility. We hold only that bishops in concert in an ecumenical council — as accepted by the pope — can be infallible under certain specified conditions, and that popes can unilaterally do so under very precise particular conditions and circumstances.
Conclusion: So in this citation too, Augustine doesn’t contradict the Catholic Teaching, But confirms it.
Third Quote
“I have learned to yield this respect and honour only to the canonical books of Scripture: of these alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error. And if in these writings I am perplexed by anything which appears to me opposed to truth, I do not hesitate to suppose that either the manuscript is faulty, or the translator has not caught the meaning of what was said, or I myself have failed to understand it. As to all other writings, in reading them, however great the superiority of the authors to myself in sanctity and learning, I do not accept their teaching as true on the mere ground of the opinion being held by them; but only because they have succeeded in convincing my judgment of its truth either by means of these canonical writings themselves, or by arguments addressed to my reason”( Letter 82 to Jerome (from 405), chapter 1, section 3)
This is simply a variation of the argument Augustine made in the other two citations: only Scripture is completely free from error; always infallible. Nothing else is. And Catholics agree.
The context of this is they are talking about how other Christians should believe in their writings and Augustine Humbelly acknowledge that they are not infallible like Scripture. We can get his view clearly from the other portion of this same writing of his,
"I believe, my brother, that this is your own opinion as well as mine. I do not need to say that I do not suppose you to wish your books to be read like those of prophets or of apostles, concerning which it would be wrong to doubt that they are free from error. Far be such arrogance from that humble piety and just estimate of yourself which I know you to have, and without which assuredly you would not have said, “Would that I could receive your embrace, and that by converse we might aid each other in learning!”
Neither Augustine nor Jerome, great as they were, would ever claim that their writings were on the error-free level of “those of prophets or of apostles.” And that is Catholic teaching. We agree that their writings are not of that nature and that only bishops in an ecumenical council, in agreement with the pope, and under certain conditions, can claim infallibility as a collective, and that only a pope can do so by himself, at times (not all the time!). But again, this doesn’t touch upon the truth or falsity of sola Scriptura at all.7
if you notice that in the previous quote, “these alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error” Augustine affirms that authors of the scripture are completely free from error. The question then becomes, for example: “if someone heard a talk from Paul one night [none of which was recorded in the Bible] would it be an infallible talk?”
I would say that at least some of it would or could be. Augustine simply noted that prophets and apostles were “free from error.” He may have simply meant “biblical writings.” We don’t know. But I think my speculation is permissible and possible as an interpretation. We know that Augustine accepted extra-biblical traditions (e.g., infant baptism) that were passed down through apostolic succession.8
If not sola scriptura then what
The following citations are from St. Augustine and those show what authority St. Augustine Believed on.
“[T]hey introduced into their writings certain matters which are condemned at once by the catholic and apostolic rule of faith, and by sound doctrine.”(Harm.G. i, 1, 2)
"But if, on the other hand, he has fallen upon the productions of some heretic and in ignorance, it may be, has retained in his mind anything which the true faith condemns, and yet supposes it to be catholic doctrine, then we must set ourselves sedulously to teach him, bringing before him (in its rightful superiority) the authority of the Church universal, . . . "(Cat.U., 8, 12)
“It is plain, the faith admits it, the Catholic Church approves it, it is truth.” (Serm, 67, 6 [CXVII] )
St. Augustine on Tradition
“[T]he question which you propose is not decided either by Scripture or by universal practice.” (Ep. 54 [5, 6]: to Januarius [400] )
“The very sacraments indeed of the Church, which she administers with due ceremony, according to the authority of very ancient tradition . . .” (Grace.Orig. ii, 45)
St. Augustine On Ecumenical Councils
“Nor should we ourselves venture to assert anything of the kind, were we not supported by the unanimous authority of the whole Church, to which he himself [St. Cyprian] would unquestionably have yielded, if at that time the truth of this question [rebaptism] had been placed beyond dispute by the investigation and decree of a plenary Council.” (Bapt., ii, 4, 5)
“. . . sufficiently manifest to the pastors of the Catholic Church dispersed over the whole world, through whom the original custom was afterwards confirmed by the authority of a plenary Council . . .” (Bapt., vi, 1, 1)
“My opinion therefore is, that wherever it is possible, all those things should be abolished without hesitation, which neither have warrant in Holy Scripture, nor are found to have been appointed by councils of bishops, nor are confirmed by the practice of the universal Church, . . .” (Ep. 55 [19, 35]: to Januarius [400] )
St. Augustine on the Papacy / Primacy of Peter and the Roman see
“For if the lineal succession of bishops is to be taken into account, with how much more certainty and benefit to the Church do we reckon back till we reach Peter himself, to whom, as bearing in a figure the whole Church, the Lord said: “Upon this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it!” [Matthew 16:18] The successor of Peter was Linus, and his successors in unbroken continuity were these:— Clement, Anacletus, Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, Telesphorus, Iginus, Anicetus, Pius, Soter, Eleutherius, Victor, Zephirinus, Calixtus, Urbanus, Pontianus, Antherus, Fabianus, Cornelius, Lucius, Stephanus, Xystus, Dionysius, Felix, Eutychianus, Gaius, Marcellinus, Marcellus, Eusebius, Miltiades, Sylvester, Marcus, Julius, Liberius, Damasus, and Siricius, whose successor is the present Bishop Anastasius. In this order of succession no Donatist bishop is found.” (Ep. 53 [1, 2]: from Augustine, Fortunatus, and Alypius to Generosus [400] )
“But that after this sin Peter should become a pastor of the Church was no more improper than that Moses, after smiting the Egyptian, should become the leader of the congregation.” (C.Faust. xxii, 70)
“. . . the Roman Church, in which the supremacy of an apostolic chair [apostolicae cathedrae principatus] has always flourished . . .” (Ep. 43 [3, 7]: to Glorius, Eleusius, the Two Felixes, and Grammaticus [397] )
“For already have two councils on this question been sent to the Apostolic see; and rescripts also have come from thence. The question has been brought to an issue; would that their error may sometime be brought to an issue too!” (Serm., 81, 10 [CXXXI] )
“I desire with the Lord’s help to use the necessary measures in our Council, and, if it be necessary, to write to the Apostolic See; that, by a unanimous authoritative decision of all, we may have the course which ought to be followed in these cases determined and established.” (Ep. 250: to Classicianus)
St. Augustine on Apostolic Succession
“We, namely, the catholic faith, coming from the doctrine of the apostles planted in us, received by a line of succession, to be transmitted sound to posterity—the catholic faith, I say, has, between both those parties, that is, between both errors, held the truth.” (L.John, 37, 6)
“The authority of our books, which is confirmed by the agreement of so many nations, supported by a succession of apostles, bishops, and councils, is against you.” (C.Faust. xiii, 5)
Protestant Scholars on Augustine
Historian Heiko Oberman
"Augustine’s legacy to the middle ages on the question of Scripture and Tradition is a two-fold one. In the first place, he reflects the early Church principle of the coinherence of Scripture and Tradition. While repeatedly asserting the ultimate authority of Scripture, Augustine does not oppose this at all to the authority of the Church Catholic . . . The Church has a practical priority: her authority as expressed in the direction-giving meaning of commovere is an instrumental authority, the door that leads to the fullness of the Word itself.
"But there is another aspect of Augustine’s thought . . . we find mention of an authoritative extrascriptural oral tradition. While on the one hand the Church “moves” the faithful to discover the authority of Scripture, Scripture on the other hand refers the faithful back to the authority of the Church with regard to a series of issues with which the Apostles did not deal in writing. Augustine refers here to the baptism of heretics . . . "(The Harvest of Medieval Theology, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, revised, 1967, 370-371)
J. N. D. Kelly
“The three letters [Epistles 175-177] relating to Pelagianism which the African church sent to Innocent I in 416, and of which Augustine was the draughtsman, suggested that he attributed to the Pope a pastoral and teaching authority extending over the whole Church, and found a basis for it in Scripture.” (Early Christian Doctrines, San Francisco: Harper & Row, fifth revised edition, 1978, 419)
"According to Augustine [De doct. christ. 3,2], its [Scripture’s] doubtful or ambiguous passages need to be cleared up by ‘the rule of faith’; it was, moreover, the authority of the Church alone which in his eyes [C. ep. Manich. 6: cf. De doct. christ. 2,12; c. Faust Manich, 22, 79] guaranteed its veracity.” (Ibid., 47)
Philip Schaff
“[I]n a certain sense, as against heretics, he made the authority of Holy Scripture dependent on the authority of the catholic church, in his famous dictum against the Manichaean heretics: “I would not believe the gospel, did not the authority of the catholic church compel me.” . . . The Protestant church makes the authority of the general councils, and of all ecclesiastical tradition, depend on the degree of its conformity to the Holy Scriptures; while the Greek and Roman churches make Scripture and tradition coordinate.” (History of the Christian Church, vol. 3: Chapter V, section 66, “The Synodical System. The Ecumenical Councils,” 344-345)
“He adopted Cyprian’s doctrine of the church, and completed it in the conflict with Donatism by transferring the predicates of unity, holiness, universality, exclusiveness and maternity, directly to the actual church of the time, which, with a firm episcopal organization, an unbroken succession, and the Apostles’ Creed, triumphantly withstood the eighty or the hundred opposing sects in the heretical catalogue of the day, and had its visible centre in Rome.” (Schaff, ibid., Chapter X, section 180, “The Influence of Augustine upon Posterity and his Relation to Catholicism and Protestantism,” 1019-1020)
Jaroslav Pelikan
“This authority of orthodox catholic Christendom . . . was so powerful as even to validate the very authority of the Bible . . . But between the authority of the Bible and the authority of the catholic church (which was present within, but was more than, the authority of its several bishops past and present) there could not in a real sense be any contradiction. Here one could find repose in “the resting place of authority,” [Bapt. 2.8.13] not in the unknown quantity of the company of the elect, but in the institution of salvation that could claim foundation by Christ and succession from the apostles. (The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine: Vol.1 of 5: The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition” (100-600), Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1971, 303-304)
"Augustine, writing against the Donatists, had coined the formula, ‘the judgment of the whole world is reliable [securus judicat orbis terrarum].’ [Parm. 3.4.24] Catholicity was a mark both of the true church and of the true doctrine, for these were inseparable.” (Ibid., 334)
And these citations confirm that the Catholic View of Augustine is held by prominent Protestant scholars too.
What is the Catholic Church?
I saw some protestants trying to make a distinction between Catholic and Roman Catholic. And I tried to touch that part also. So what was called as “Catholic Church” in the early church?
Famous writing of St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to Smyrneans in 110AD is the first written work containing the word “Catholic Church”.
“Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop or by one whom he ordains [i.e., a presbyter]. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church” (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 110]).
this writing of St. Ignatius Pictures us how the early church was formed and what its hierarchy was. and it shows the specialty of the Eucharist and Bishops in the Church. According to Ignatius, Eucharist is the central point of the church. and this refutes the whole invisible church theory.
Early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly, a Protestant, writes: “As regards ‘Catholic,’ its original meaning was ‘universal’ or ‘general.’ . . . in the latter half of the second century at latest, we find it conveying the suggestion that the Catholic is the true Church as distinct from heretical congregations (cf., e.g., Muratorian Canon). . . . What these early Fathers were envisaging was almost always the empirical, visible society; they had little or no inkling of the distinction which was later to become important between a visible and an invisible Church” (Early Christian Doctrines, 190–1).9
Roman or Catholic
Q: When did the term “Roman Catholic Church” come into being?
A: It is not possible to give an exact year when the Catholic Church began to be called the “Roman Catholic Church,” it is possible to approximate it. The term originates as an insult created by Anglicans who wished to refer to themselves as Catholic. They thus coined the term “Roman Catholic” to distinguish those “other” Catholics and create a sense in which they could refer to themselves as Catholics (by attempting to deprive actual Catholics to the right to the term).
Different variants of the “Roman” insult appeared at different times. The earliest form of the insult was the noun “Romanist” (one belonging to the Catholic Church), which appeared in England about 1515-1525. The next to develop was the adjective “Romish” (similar to something done or believed in the Catholic Church), which appeared around 1525-1535. Next came the noun “Roman Catholic” (one belonging to the Catholic Church), which was coined approximately 1595-1605. Shortly thereafter came the verb “to Romanize” (to make someone a Catholic or to become a Catholic), which appeared around 1600-10. Then between 1665 and 1675 we got the noun “Romanism” (the system of Catholic beliefs and practices), and finally we got a late-comer term about 1815-1825-the noun “Roman Catholicism,” which is a synonym for the earlier “Romanism.”
A similar complex of insults arose around the term “pope.” About 1515-25 the Anglicans coined the term “papist” and later its derivative “papism.” A quick follow-up, in 1520-1530, was the adjective “popish.” Next came “popery” (1525-1535), and then “papistry” (1540-1550), with its later derivatives, “papistical” and “papistic.” (Source: Random House Webster’s College Dictionary, 1995 ed.)
This complex of insults is revealing as it shows the depths of animosity English Protestants had toward the Church. No other religious body (perhaps no other group at all-even national or racial ones) has such a complex of insults woven into the English language as does the Catholic Church. Even today many Protestants who have no idea what the origin of the term is cannot bring themselves to say “Catholic” without qualifying it or replacing it with a Roman insult.10
According to the Catholic Scholar John Henry Newman, Roman was also used similar to Catholic in the early church. (Do not confuse it with “Roman Catholic”)
“It will be anticipated that the duration of this ascendancy of error had not the faintest tendency to deprive the ancient Church of the West of the title Catholic . . . . The Arians seem never to have claimed the Catholic name. It is more remarkable that the Catholics during this period were denoted by the additional title of Romans. Of this there are many proofs in the histories of St. Gregory of Tours, Victor of Vite, and the Spanish Councils.” (Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine (1845; rev. ed. 1878), see ch. 6, sec. 3.
pp. 278-79)
St. Augustine on the Catholic church
St. Augustine Believed in The Catholic Church which is Led by the Bishop Of Rome. He literary lists the succession of the Bishops of Rome to prove that his view is valid because it is coming from apostles. Think a moment yourself. are your church can trace back to these apostles? or there is no apostolic succession like Donatist heretics?
" For if the lineal succession of bishops is to be taken into account, with how much more certainty and benefit to the Church do we reckon back till we reach Peter himself, to whom, as bearing in a figure the whole Church, the Lord said: ‘Upon this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it !’ The successor of Peter was Linus, and his successors in unbroken continuity were these: – Clement, Anacletus, Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, Telesphorus, Iginus, Anicetus, Pius, Soter, Eleutherius, Victor, Zephirinus, Calixtus, Urbanus, Pontianus, Antherus, Fabianus, Cornelius, Lucius, Stephanus, Xystus, Dionysius, Felix, Eutychianus, Gaius, Marcellinus, Marcellus, Eusebius, Miltiades, Sylvester, Marcus, Julius, Liberius, Damasus, and Siricius, whose successor is the present Bishop Anastasius. In this order of succession no Donatist bishop is found. "
(Letter to Generosus, 53:2, in NPNF I, I:298)
Why it is not even possible that St. Augustine Believed in protestant sola scriptura?
simply, Augustine didn’t believe in the 66 books version of the bible, but in the Catholic canon. So Augustine even disagrees with the canon also with protestants.
From this time, when the temple was rebuilt, down to the time of Aristobulus, the Jews had not kings but princes; and the reckoning of their dates is found, not in the Holy Scriptures which are called canonical, but in others, among which are also the books of the Maccabees. These are held as canonical, not by the Jews, but by the Church, on account of the extreme and wonderful sufferings of certain martyrs, . . . (City of God, xviii, 36)
. . . the Church has received this Septuagint translation just as if it were the only one; and it has been used by the Greek Christian people, most of whom are not aware that there is any other. From this translation there has also been made a translation in the Latin tongue, which the Latin churches use. Our times, however, have enjoyed the advantage of the presbyter Jerome, a man most learned, and skilled in all three languages, who translated these same Scriptures into the Latin speech, not from the Greek, but from the Hebrew. . . . whatever is in the Septuagint and not in the Hebrew copies, the same Spirit chose rather to say through the latter, thus showing that both were prophets. (City of God, xviii, 43)
Final Thoughts
As I showed throughout this paper, St. Augustine is a Very Catholic who had a high view of Roman Authority. If someone wants to make him a Proto-Protestant he needs to reject almost all of the above citations from St Augustine. And automatically he fells into the Cherry Picking and Texas Sharpshooter Fallacies. And our position is not only a Catholic one, But Prominent Protestant Scholars also support it.
Thank You.
The Shape of Sola Scriptura, Keith Mathison, 2001 ↩︎
Wisse, Maarten (2017). “PART I: Systematic Perspectives – Contra et Pro Sola Scriptura”. In Burger, Hans; Huijgen, Arnold; Peels, Eric (eds.). Sola Scriptura: Biblical and Theological Perspectives on Scripture, Authority, and Hermeneutics. Studies in Reformed Theology. Vol. 32. Leiden: Brill Publishers. pp. 19–37. doi:10.1163/9789004356436_003. ISBN 978-90-04-35643-6. ISSN 1571-4799 ↩︎
0 Comments