THE
PATRISTIC PERIOD
Clement of Alexandria, an early
post-apostolic theologian, wrote: `He then who of himself believes the Lord's
Scripture and his actual voice is worthy of belief ... Certainly we use it as a
criterion for the discovery of the real facts." Here the content of
Scripture and the voice of God are clearly equated, and the authority of
Scripture derives at least in part from this identification.' From around two
centuries later, Augustine provides a particularly strong statement of the
material sufficiency of Scripture: `among the things that are plainly laid down
in Scripture are to be found all matters that concern faith and the manner of
life,-to wit, hope and love'.' Similar statements from the period between
Clement and Augustine are commonly cited. Thus Irenaeus calls Scripture `the
ground and pillar of our faith',' and Athanasius writes: `To be sure, the
sacred and divinely inspired Scriptures are sufficient for the exposition of
the truth." Tertullian asserts that doctrines not discoverable in Scripture
should not be accepted.'
These apparently unequivocal
comments do not of course, though, tell the whole theological story. Throughout
the patristic period no programmatic distinction was made between Scripture and
church, with regard either to teaching or authority. The church was ascribed
the right of determining the correct interpretation of Scripture, although not
explicitly as an authority over against Scripture. Thus the above citation from
Athanasius continues: `but there also exist many treatises of our blessed
teachers composed for this purpose, and if one reads them he will gain some
notion of the interpretation of the Scriptures and will be able to attain the
knowledge he desires'. Similarly, Clement of Alexandria seems to regard the
teaching of the church and the message of Scripture as one and the same: `For
being ignorant of the mysteries of the knowledge of the Church, and incapable
of apprehending the grandeur of the truth, they [the heretics] were too
sluggish to penetrate to the bottom of the matter, and so laid aside the
Scriptures after a superficial reading.'
Indeed, it was the threat posed
by heresy which gave rise to the need to bring the twin authorities of
Scripture and church into virtual identity. In response to Gnostic heretics,
who reinterpreted Scripture and claimed to know a secret apostolic tradition,
orthodox theologians, says Geoffrey Bromiley, invoked `the common teaching of
the apostolic churches-the tradition-not to oppose or correct or supplement
Holy Scripture, but to bring its true message into focus. The appeal to
tradition was in fact an appeal to the very apostolicity that formed the main
criterion of New Testament canonicity. Gerhard Ebeling observes that neither
the Fathers nor the medieval church felt the need to define `tradition'
precisely, because they never imagined that it could be in tension with
Scripture." One of the best known patristic statements of this position,
combining a confession of the material sufficiency of Scripture with a view of
the church as the chief authority in biblical interpretation, is that of the
fifth-century writer Vincent of Lerins:
Here someone may possibly ask:
Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and is abundantly sufficient for
every purpose, what need is there to add to it the authority of the church's
interpretation? The reason is, of course, that by its very depth the Holy
Scripture is not received by all in one and the same sense, but its
declarations are subject to interpretation, now in one way, now in another, so
that, it would appear, we can find almost as many interpretations as there are
men.
How, then, is the true
interpretation to be reached and validated? Vincent answers: `In the catholic
church itself especial care must be taken that we hold to that which has been
believed everywhere, always, and by all men. For that is truly and rightly "catholic"."'
Increasingly through the third and fourth centuries the Roman church came to be
regarded as `the appointed custodian and mouthpiece of the apostolic
tradition', although even in Vincent's case the authority of the tradition is
assumed to lie in its identity as a faithful exposition of Scripture."
Thus, in general the Fathers
assert the material sufficiency of Scripture but deny its formal sufficiency.
Further, in asserting the sufficiency of Scripture they equate, implicitly as
well as explicitly, the teaching of Scripture with God's voice. This summary
therefore distinguishes the three elements of the sufficiency of Scripture-an
underlying theological claim and two aspects of the sufficiency of
Scripture-which the present work aims to reconstruct and defend. (Timothy Ward,
Word and Supplement: Speech Acts, Biblical Texts, and the Sufficiency of
Scripture [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002], 23-25)
