Clement of Rome (d. 99): “The apostles received the gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ … Armed therefore with their charge, and having been fully assured through the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ and confirmed in the word of God with full conviction of the Holy Spirit, they went forth with the glad tidings” (quoted in J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, pp. 33-34).
Irenaeus (c.130-c.202): “It is by no other that we have gained the knowledge of the economy of our salvation than by those by whom the gospel reached us: which gospel they then preached, and afterwards by the will of God delivered to us in the scriptures, to be the bases and pillar of our faith” (Against Heresies, Book 3:I; quoted in William Whitaker, A Disputation on Holy Scripture, p. 670).
“In its primary sense, however, the apostolic, evangelical or Catholic tradition stood for the faith delivered by the apostles and he [i.e., Tertullian (c. 155-220)] never contrasted tradition so understood with Scripture. Indeed, it was enshrined in Scripture, for the apostles subsequently wrote down their oral preaching in epistles. For this reason Scripture has absolute authority; whatever it teaches is necessarily true, and woe betide him who accepts doctrines not discoverable in it … He was emphatic that no secret tradition existed, and that it was incredible that the apostles did not know, or failed to pass on, the revelation in its entirety” (J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, pp. 39-40).
Hippolytus (c.170-236): “There is, brethren, one God, the knowledge of whom we gain from the Holy Scriptures, and from no other source. For just as a man, if he wishes to be skilled in the wisdom of this world, will find himself unable to get at it in any other way than by mastering the dogmas of philosophers, so all of us who wish to practice piety will be unable to learn its practice from any other quarter than the oracles of God. Whatever things, then, the Holy Scriptures declare, at these let us look; and whatsoever things they teach, these let us learn; and as the Father wills our belief to be, let us believe; and as He will the Son to be glorified, let us glorify Him; and as He wills the Holy Spirit to be bestowed, let us receive Him. Not according to our own will, not according to our own mind, nor yet as using violently those things which are given by God, but even as He has chosen to teach them by the Holy Scriptures, so let us discern them” (Against Noetus, chap. 9; quoted in Keith A. Mathison, The Shape of Sola Scriptura, p. 27).
Origen (c.184-c.253):
[1] “It is necessary for us to cite the testimony of the Holy Scriptures. For our opinions and discourses have no credit, unless confirmed by their witness. And that saying, ‘By the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be confirmed,’ agrees rather to the proof of an interpreter than to any number of mere human testimonies; and means, that I should establish the word of my understanding by taking two witnesses from the old and new testaments; or taking three, from the Gospel, from the prophets, and from the apostles. For so shall every word be established” (Homily on Jeremiah, 1; quoted in William Whitaker, A Disputation on Holy Scripture, p. 676).
[2] “If even the apostle himself, such and so great as he was, thinks that the authority of his words is not sufficient without showing that what he says is written in the law and the prophets; how much rather should we, who are the least, observe, when we teach, not to bring forward our own judgments, but those of the Holy Spirit!” (Commentary on Romans 3; quoted in William Whitaker, A Disputation on Holy Scripture, p. 676).
Cyprian (c.220-258): “Let nothing be innovated, says he, nothing maintained, except what has been handed down. Whence is that tradition? Whether does it descend from the authority of the Lord and of the Gospel, or does it come from the commands and the epistles of the apostles? For that those things which are written must be done, God witnesses and admonishes, saying to Joshua the son of Nun: ‘The book of this law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate in it day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein… What obstinacy is that, or what presumption, to prefer human tradition to divine ordinance, and not to observe that God is indignant and angry as often as human tradition relaxes and passes by the divine precepts… Nor ought custom, which has crept in among some, to prevent the truth from prevailing and conquering, for custom without truth is the antiquity of error” (Epistle 73:2, 3, 9 to ‘Pope’ Stephen; quoted in Mathison, The Shape of Sola Scriptura, p. 28).
Firmilian (d. 269): “They who are at Rome do not observe those things in all cases which are handed down from the beginning, and vainly pretend the authority of the apostles” (Epistle 74:6 to Cyprian concerning ‘Pope’ Stephen; quoted in Mathison, The Shape of Sola Scriptura, p. 29).
Constantine the Great (c.272-337) at the Council of Nicaea: “The evangelic and apostolic books, together with the oracles of the old prophets, plainly instruct us what we ought to think on divine subjects. Let us then, laying aside all hostile discord, resolve the debated questions by the testimony of the inspired scriptures” (quoted in Theodoret, Lib, 1. c. 7; cited in William Whitaker, A Disputation on Holy Scripture, p. 678).
Cyril of Jerusalem (c.315-c.384): “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 thou 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; quoted in Mathison, The Shape of Sola Scriptura, p. 31).
Basil the Great (c.329-379): “It is a manifest piece of infidelity, and incurs a just charge of arrogance, either to reject what is written, or to add anything which is not written … Since our Lord Jesus Christ says, ‘My sheep hear my voice,’ promising, ‘a stranger will they not follow, but flee from him, for they know not the voice of strangers;’ and the apostle, by an example taken from the case of men, earnestly prohibits the adding to, or taking from, the scriptures of God, when he says, ‘Though it were but a man’s testament, yet, when it is confirmed, no man disannulleth or addeth thereto;’ consequently, we know that now and always we should flee all words and sentiments alien from the doctrine of the Lord” (Confession of Faith; quoted in William Whitaker, A Disputation on Holy Scripture, pp. 681-682).
Gregory of Nyssa (c.335-c.394):
[1] “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; quoted in Mathison, The Shape of Sola Scriptura, p. 36).
[2] “[We] reverently [accept] the meaning of the things which have been spoken, so as to accord in the faith set forth by the Lord of the whole Scriptures, which faith we guard as we received it, word for word, in purity, without falsification, judging even a slight divergence from the words delivered to us an extreme blasphemy and impiety … In the Faith then which was delivered by God to the Apostles we admit neither subtraction, nor alteration, nor addition, knowing assuredly that he who presumes to pervert the Divine utterance by dishonest quibbling, the same ‘is of his father the devil,’ who leaves the words of truth and ‘speaks his own,’ becoming the father of a lie” (Against Eunomius, II:1; quoted in Mathison, The Shape of Sola Scriptura, p. 37).
Theophilus of Alexandria (345-412): “It is the fruit of a diabolic spirit to think that there is aught divine without the authority of the sacred scriptures” (Second Paschal; quoted in William Whitaker, A Disputation on Holy Scripture, p. 688).
John Chrysostom (c.347-407): “For this is the exhortation of the Scripture given that the man of God may be rendered perfect by it; without this therefore he cannot be perfect. Thou hast the Scriptures, he [Paul] says, in place of me. If thou wouldst learn anything, thou mayest learn it from them. And if he thus wrote to Timothy who was filled with the Spirit, how much more to us?” (Homilies on 2 Timothy, IX; quoted in Mathison, The Shape of Sola Scriptura, p. 38).
Jerome (c.347-420): “And other things also, which they find or invent out of their own heads, as if it were an apostolic tradition, without the authority and testimony of scripture, the sword of God strikes through” (Commentary on Haggai 1; quoted in William Whitaker, A Disputation on Holy Scripture, p. 692).
Augustine (354-430):
[1] “I am not bound by the authority of [Cyprian’s] epistle because I do not hold the writings of Cyprian as canonical, and I accept whatever in them agrees with the authority of the divine Scriptures with his approval, but what does not agree I reject with his permission.”
[2] “I have learned to give this reverence and honour to those books of Scripture alone which are now called canonical, as firmly to believe that no one of their authors erred in writing anything … but I so read the others, that however excellent in purity of doctrine, I do not therefore take a thing to be true because they thought so; but because they can persuade me, either through those canonical authors, or probable reason, that it does not differ from the truth. Nor do I think that you, my brother, are of a different opinion. I say further, I do not suppose that you wish your books to be read as if they were the writings of the prophets or apostles, which beyond a doubt are free from any error.”
“St. Augustine had no intention to ‘subordinate’ the Gospel to the Church. He only wanted to emphasize that ‘Gospel’ is actually received always in the context of the Church’s catholic preaching and simply cannot be separated from the Church. Only in this context it can be assessed and properly understood. Indeed, the witness of the Scripture is ultimately ‘self-evident,’ but only for the faithful, for those who have achieved a certain spiritual maturity, and this is only possible within the Church. He opposed this preaching and teaching auctoritas [i.e., authority] of the Church Catholic to the pretentious vagaries of Manichean exegesis. The Gospel did not belong to the Manicheans. Catholicae Ecclesiae auctoritas [the authority of the Catholic Church] was not an independent source of faith, but it was the indispensible principle of sound interpretation. Actually, the sentence could be converted: one should not believe the Church, unless one was moved by the Gospel. The relationship is strictly reciprocal” (George Florovsky, an Eastern Orthodox theologian (1893-1979); cited in Mathison, The Shape of Sola Scriptura, p. 42).
J. N. D. Kelly: “Indeed, all the instances of unwritten tradition lacking Scriptural support which the early theologians mention will be found, on examination, to refer to matters of observance and practice (e.g. triple immersion in baptism; turning East for prayer) rather than doctrine as such” (Early Christian Doctrines, p. 47).
Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274): “[The church’s] proper authorities are those of the canonical Scripture, and these it applied with convincing force. It has other proper authorities, the doctors of the Church, and these it looks to as its own, but for arguments that carry no more than probability. For our faith rests on the revelation made to the prophets and apostles, who wrote the canonical books, not on a revelation, if such there be, made to any other teacher” (Summa Theologiae, Q. 1, art. 8; cited in Mathison, The Shape of Sola Scriptura, p. 77).
Francis Turretin (1623-1687): “The orthodox (although they hold the fathers in great estimation and think them very useful to a knowledge of the history of the ancient church, and our opinion on cardinal doctrines may agree with them) yet deny that their authority, whether as individuals or taken together, can be called authoritative in matters of faith and the interpretation of the Scriptures, so that by their judgment we must stand or fall. Their authority is only ecclesiastical and subordinate to the Scriptures and of no weight except so far as they agree with them” (Institutes of Elenctic Theology, vol. 1, p. 163).
Matthew Henry (1662-1714): “There is no argument hence for regarding oral traditions in our days, now that the canon of scripture is complete, as of equal authority with the sacred writings. Such doctrines and duties as were taught by the inspired apostles we must steadfastly adhere to; but we have no certain evidence of any thing delivered by them more than what we find contained in the holy scriptures” (Comm. on II Thess. 2:15).
Charles Hodge (1797-1878): “Man has not the clearness of perception, the retentiveness of memory, or the power of presentation, to enable him (without supernatural aid) to give a trustworthy account of a discourse once heard, a few years or even months after its delivery. And that this should be done over and over from month to month for thousands of years, is an impossibility. If to this be added the difficulty in the way of this oral transmission, arising from the blindness of men to the things of the Spirit, which prevents their understanding what they hear, and from the disposition to pervert and misrepresent the truth to suit their own prejudices and purposes, it must be acknowledged that tradition cannot be a reliable source of knowledge and religious truth” (Systematic Theology, 1:121; quoted in Mathison, The Shape of Sola Scriptura, p. 211).
Albert Barnes (1798-1870): “Here it means the doctrines or precepts which they had received from the apostle, whether when he was with them, or after he left them; whether communicated by preaching or by letter. This passage can furnish no authority for holding the “traditions” which have come down from ancient times, and which profess to have been derived from the apostles; because: (1) there is no evidence that any of those traditions were given by the apostles; (2) many of them are manifestly so trifling, false, and contrary to the writings of the apostles, that they could not have been delivered by them; (3) if any of them are genuine, it is impossible to separate them from those which are false; (4) we have all that is necessary for salvation in the written word; and, (5) there is not the least evidence that the apostle here meant to refer to any such thing. He speaks only of what had been delivered to them by himself, whether orally or by letter; not of what was delivered from one to another as from him. There is no intimation here that they were to hold anything as from him which they had not received directly from him, either by his own instructions personally or by letter. With what propriety, then, can this passage be adduced to prove that we are to hold the traditions which professedly come to us through a great number of intermediate persons? Where is the evidence here that the church was to hold those unwritten traditions, and transmit them to future times?” (Comm. on II Thess. 2:15).
John William Burgon (1813-1888): “… the Bible is none other than the voice of Him that sitteth upon the Throne! Every book of it, every chapter of it, every verse of it, every word of it, every syllable of it (where are we to stop?) every letter of it, is the direct utterance of the Most High! … Well spake the HOLY GHOST by the mouth of the many blessed men who wrote it. The Bible is none other than the Word of God: not some part of it more, some part of it less; but all alike the utterance of Him who sitteth upon the Throne, absolute, faultless, unerring, supreme.”
B. B. Warfield (1851-1921): “This church-doctrine of inspiration differs from the theories that would fain supplant it, in that it is not the invention nor the property of an individual, but the settled faith of the universal church of God; in that it is not the growth of yesterday, but the assured persuasion of the people of God from the first planting of the church until today; in that it is not a protean shape, varying its affirmations to fit every new change in the ever-shifting thought of men, but from the beginning has been the church’s constant and abiding conviction as to the divinity of the Scriptures committed to her keeping” (Works, vol. 1, p. 52).
Robert Reymond (1932-2013): “It is a giant leap of logic simply to assert, because there was such a thing as ‘apostolic tradition’ in the New Testament age, that that tradition justifies the positing of an ongoing ‘process of living tradition’ after the close of the New Testament canon” (A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, p. 85).
W. Gary Crampton (1943-): “The only tradition that has binding force is that of Christ’s apostles, which is now wholly inscripturated for us in the Bible. Apostolic teaching is found in the writings of the apostles, not the ‘living (that is, changing) voice’ of Roman Catholic tradition. That tradition is riddled with contradictions and therefore false” (By Scripture Alone, p. 188).
Keith A. Mathison (1967-):
[1] “Scripture cannot be appealed to as a higher law because the Church tells us what Scripture is and what it really means. Tradition cannot be appealed to as a higher law because the Church tells us what tradition is and what it really means. The fathers cannot be appealed to as a higher standard because the Church tells us what the fathers really mean. God cannot be appealed to because the Church is said to be the voice of God on earth. And because there is no higher ethical or doctrinal standard to which anyone can appeal, the Church becomes autonomous—a law unto herself” (The Shape of Sola Scriptura, p. 224).
[2] “The Church received the Old Testament from Israel. She received the New Testament from the Apostles of Christ. It is true that there were spurious books being circulated at the same time as the apostolic books. But the fact that Christ’s Church, His sheep, heard His voice amidst the clamoring voices of strangers does not mean that the Church ‘created’ the rule of faith. God created the rule of faith, and the Church heard it, received it and obeys it. Definition does not entail creation. Scientists have defined the God-given laws of physics, but scientists did not create those laws. God created them, and man discovered and defined them” (The Shape of Sola Scriptura, pp. 227-228).
[3] “Rome has made the mistake of confusing the recognition of authority with the conferral of authority. John the Baptist was chosen to prepare the way for Jesus the Messiah (Matt. 3:3). And John the Baptist recognized the Messiah, saying, ‘Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world’ (John 1:29). But the fact that John recognizes Jesus does not imply that John is greater in authority than Jesus. Neither does the fact that the Church recognized the divine inspiration of Scripture imply that the Church has greater authority than Scripture. The sheep hear and know the voice of their Shepherd (John 10:4), but this does not place the sheep on a level of authority equal to or greater than the Shepherd” (The Shape of Sola Scriptura, p. 265).
[4] “No other proposed norm can claim these qualities for itself. The writings of the fathers are not God-breathed. The canons and decrees of the Councils are not God-breathed. The Church does not speak with the inherent self-authority of God. The Church is the Bride of Christ. She is the Body of Christ with Christ as her head. She has been promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against her, but she has not been promised perfection or infallibility this side of consummation, and it is presumption to claim such perfection and infallibility. God-breathed Scripture is the supreme norm to which the Church is to submit and to which her creeds are to conform” (The Shape of Sola Scriptura, pp. 266-267).
[5] “There is a significant difference between the Scriptures and the ecumenical creeds. Scripture alone is God-breathed. Because of this, Scripture alone is inherently infallible. Scripture alone, being the very Word of the living God, has the absolute and final authority of God Himself. The creeds are not God-breathed. This fact alone subordinates their authority to that of Scripture. The creeds were written by fallible and non-inspired councils of the Church. Scripture’s authority is absolute—because it is the Word of God. The authority of the creeds is derivative—because they are the Church’s summaries of the Word of God” (The Shape of Sola Scriptura, p. 338).
