Tertullian y Sola Scriptura

7/28/2019 Tertullian y Sola Scriptura

1/9

Tertullian &Sola Scriptura

Before I begin, I want to note that Tertullian is not aChurch Father. There's no doubt that he was a genius and produced some great writings duringhis long career as a Christian apologist; however, his rigidity on moral issues eventually led himto renounce the Church and join the Montanist movement, a bizarre heretical group whoseleader claimed to be an incarnation of the Holy Spirit. In spite of the great writings which hecontributed to the library of Orthodox Christianity, his later heretical affiliations exclude himfrom being classed with the Fathers.

Although he is not a Father, I've decided to address him here because of his importance to thehistory of early Christianity. He is often called "the father of Latin Christianity" for having beenthe first significant Christian author to write in Latin, writing as an Orthodox Christian from

about AD 197 to AD 207 and, after that, until AD 220 as a Montanist. In his writings he did agreat deal to defend the Christians from the various accusations of immorality that had beenleveled against them, including charges that Christians cannibalized infants and committedincest during their services. And not only did he defend Christianity from false accusations, healso went on the offensive against pagans and heretics.

One of his most interesting tracts against heretics, which has great bearing on the issue ofwhether or not he might have held toSola Scriptura, is a relatively short writing called ThePrescription Against Heretics, in which Tertullian provides "the prescription against heretics":the Church! He argues that, in a dispute between the Church and some heretical group whichhas broken off therefrom, the burden of proof lies strictly with the heretical group, as theChurch's very existence, being the only Christian body with a direct physical link to the

Apostles, verifies its Truth. I'll let Tertullian speak for himself on this point:

"Now, what that was which they [the Apostles] preachedin other words, what it was whichChrist revealed to themcan, as I must here likewise prescribe, properly be proved inno other way than by those very Churches which the Apostles founded in person,

by declaring the Gospel to them directly themselves, both viv voce, as the phrase is, andsubsequently by their epistles. If, then, these things are so, it is in the same degree manifestthat all doctrine which agrees with the Apostolic Churchesthose mouldsandoriginal sources of the Faith must be reckoned for truth, as undoubtedly containingthat which the (said) Churches received from the Apostles, the Apostles from Christ, Christfrom God. Whereas all doctrine must be prejudgedas falsewhich savours of
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_oaKWRDtMdbQ/SyHet6x30tI/AAAAAAAAAWM/hh8FQCj9zig/s1600-h/Tertullian.gif


2/9

contrariety to the Truth of the Churches and Apostles of Christ and God. It remains,then, that we demonstrate whether this doctrine of ours, of which we have now given the rule,has its origin in the Tradition of the Apostles, and whether all other doctrines do not ipso factoproceed from falsehood.We hold communion with the Apostolic Churches becauseour doctrine is in no respect different from theirs. This is our witness of truth." -Tertullian, The Prescription Against Heretics, 21 [emphasis mine]

He also makes clear, in the chapter before the quote above, that in order for a new Church to bevalid it must have a line of succession which it can trace to an Apostolic Church. No one cansimply found a brand new Church all on their own -- for Tertullian, they've got to havecredentials, and those credentials are found in Apostolic Succession. Let's take a look:"They [the Apostles] then in like manner founded Churches in every city, from which all theother Churches, one after another, derived the Tradition of the Faith, and the seeds of doctrine,and are every day deriving them, that they may become Churches. Indeed, it is on thisaccount only that they will be able to deem themselves Apostolic, as being theoffspring of Apostolic Churches. Every sort of thing must necessarily revert to its originalfor its classification. Therefore the Churches, although they are so many and so great,comprise but the one primitive Church, (founded) by the Apostles, from which theyall (spring). In this way all are primitive, and all are Apostolic, whilst they are all proved to

be one, in (unbroken) unity, by their peaceful communion, and title of brotherhood,

and bond of hospitality,privileges which no other rule directs than the one Tradition of theselfsame mystery." - Tertullian, The Prescription Against Heretics, 20 [emphasis mine -- notethat Tertullian's words here mention all four of the "marks of the Church": One, Holy, Catholic,

Apostolic]As we can see, Tertullian held that there was a single, visible Church which was founded by theApostles and within this Church was uniquely preserved the Ancient Christian Faith. In fact,for Tertullian, Apostolic Succession was a necessity in determining whether one held to the

Ancient Christian Faith; if you didn't have Apostolic Succession, according to Tertullian, youdidn't have the Faith:"But if there be any (heresies) which are bold enough to plant themselves in the midst of the

Apostolic Age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the Apostles, becausethey existed in the time of the Apostles, we can say: Let them produce the original records oftheir churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from

the beginning in such a manner that [that first bishop of their ] bishop shall be able to show forhis ordainer and predecessor some one of the Apostles or of Apostolic men,a man, moreover,

who continued stedfast with the Apostles. For this is the manner in which the ApostolicChurches transmit their registers." - Tertullian, The Prescription Against the Heretics, 32Now, let's take a look at what Tertullian has to say about Scripture's relationship to thisChurch:"But even if a discussion [with the heretics] from the Scriptures should not turn out in such a

way as to place both sides on a par, (yet) the natural order of things would require that thispoint should be first proposed, which is now the only one which we must discuss: With

whom lies that very Faith to which the Scriptures belong.From what and throughwhom, and when, and to whom, has been handed down that rule, by which menbecome Christians? For wherever it shall be manifest that the true Christian rule and Faithshall be, there will likewise be the true Scriptures and expositions thereof, and all

the Christian Traditions." - Tertullian, The Prescription Against the Heretics, 19[emphasis mine]In fact, according to Tertullian, not only could the heretics not rightly interpret Scripture, butthey shouldn't even be allowed by members of the Church founded by the Apostles to use theScriptures in debates at all -- in fact, according to Tertullian, if you're not in the Church you'renot even a Christian! Let's read:"Since this is the case, in order that the truth may be adjudged to belong to us [the Church], 'asmany as walk according to the rule,' which the Church has handed down from the

Apostles, the Apostles from Christ, andChrist from God, the reason of our position is


3/9

clear, when it determines that heretics ought not to be allowed to challenge an appealto the Scriptures, since we, without the Scriptures, prove that they have nothingto do with the Scriptures. For as they are heretics, they cannot be true Christians,

because it is not from Christ that they get that which they pursue of their own mere choice, andfrom the pursuit incur and admit the name of heretics. Thus, not being Christians, theyhave acquiredno right to the Christian Scriptures; and it may be very fairly said to

them, 'Who are you? When and whence did you come? As you are none of mine, what have youto do with that which is mine?'"- Tertullian, The Prescription Against the Heretics, 37According to Tertullian, the Scriptures belong to the Church which holds the True Faith, andwe've seen what he says about this Church above. Without this True Church which holds theTrue Faith, we don't have the "true Scriptures and expositions thereof." In other words, as theOrthodox continue to say today, Scripture cannot be interpreted outside of the context of theOne Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

In fact, Tertullian, in The Prescription Against the Heretics, advises us that, when debatingwith heretics, we shouldn't argue with them out of Scripture at all, as they simply twist it totheir own whims and refuse to understand it properly. In fact, he says, we shouldn't argue withthem at all; we should admonish them and if they persist in error, rebelling against Christ andhis Church, leave them in their error. And he tells us also what our admonishment should

consist of, which is pointing them in the direction of the Church founded by the Apostles anduniquely preserving their Faith.

Now that we've looked at exactly what Tertullian believed about the Scriptures, the Church, andthe relationship and authority of the two, let's take a look at one last quote which should leaveno doubt as to where he stood on the matter of Tradition and its authority, in which he nearlyseems to be arguing against theSola Scripturists of today:"And how long shall we draw the saw to and fro through this line, when we have an ancientpractice, which by anticipation has made for us the state, i.e., of the question? If no passageof Scripture has prescribed it, assuredly custom, which without doubt flowedfrom Tradition, has confirmed it. For how can anything come into use, if it has not first

been handed down? Even in pleading Tradition, written authority, you say, must be demanded.Let us inquire, therefore, whether Tradition, unless it be written, should not be

admitted. Certainly we shall say that it ought not to be admitted, if no cases of other practiceswhich, without any written instrument, we maintain on the ground of Tradition alone, and thecountenance thereafter of custom, affords us any precedent. To deal with this matter briefly, Ishall begin with Baptism. When we are going to enter the water, but a little before, in thepresence of the congregation and under the hand of the president, we solemnly profess that wedisown the devil, and his pomp, and his angels. Hereupon we are thrice immersed, making asomewhat ampler pledge than the Lord has appointed in the Gospel. Then when we are takenup (as new-born children), we taste first of all a mixture of milk and honey, and from that day

we refrain from the daily bath for a whole week. We take also, in congregations beforedaybreak, and from the hand of none but the presidents, the sacrament of the Eucharist, whichthe Lord both commanded to be eaten at meal-times, and enjoined to be taken by all alike. Asoften as the anniversary comes round, we make offerings for the dead as birthday honours. Wecount fasting or kneeling in worship on the Lords day to be unlawful. We rejoice in the same

privilege also from Easter to Whitsunday. We feel pained should any wine or bread, eventhough our own, be cast upon the ground. At every forward step and movement, at every goingin and out, when we put on our clothes and shoes, when we bathe, when we sit at table, when

we light the lamps, on couch, on seat, in all the ordinary actions of daily life, we trace upon theforehead the sign. If, for these and other such rules, you insist upon having positiveScripture injunction, you will find none. Tradition will be held forth to you as theoriginator of them, custom as their strengthener, and Faith as their observer.That reason will support Tradition, and custom, and Faith, you will either

yourself perceive, or learn from some one who has." - Tertullian, The Chaplet, 3-4


4/9

[emphasis mine -- also, compare the list of Traditions which Tertullian mentions here withthose still to be found only in the Orthodox Church today]I highly recommend a reading ofThe Prescription Against the Heretics for yourself; Tertulliannot only provides the prescription against the heretics of his own day, but ours as well. If you'dlike to read it, you can do sohere; you can also read The Chaplethere. And everything elseTertullian wrote, both Orthodox and Montanist, can be foundhere.

Father NotSola ScripturaSola Scriptura

Didache

St. Clement of Rome

St. Ignatius of Antioch

St. Papias of Hierapolis

St. Polycarp of Smyrna

St. Justin Martyr

St. Melito of Sardis

St. Irenaeus of Lyons

St. Clement of Alexandria

Tertullian

Did the Church Fathers Believe in Sola Scriptura by Joseph Gallegos

Did the Church Fathers Believe in Sola Scriptura?by Joseph Gallegos

William Webster in an essay titled "Sola Scriptura and the Early Church" has

attempted to transform the early Church Fathers into proponents of sola

Scriptura. In my contribution in Not by Scripture Alone (SantaBarbara:Queenship,1997) Chapter 8 and the Appendix, I delineate three

approaches used by Protestant apologists in defending sola Scriptura in patristic

thought. Mr. Webster has chosen the third approach; equating sola Scriptura

with the material sufficiency of Scripture.Mr. Webster writes:

"The Reformation was responsible for restoring to the Church the principle of sola

Scriptura, a principle which had been operative within the Church from the verybeginning of the post apostolic age. Initially the apostles taught orally but with the

close of the apostolic age all special revelation that God wanted preserved for man wascodified in the written Scriptures. Sola Scriptura is the teaching and belief that there isonly one special revelation from God that man possesses today, the written Scriptures

or the Bible, and that consequently the Scriptures are materially sufficient and are bytheir very nature as being inspired by God the ultimate authority for the Church."

Two points are to be noted here. First, Mr. Webster equates sola Scriptura with the materialsufficiency of Scripture. Second, according to Mr. Webster, the Reformers were responsible forrestoring this narrow understanding of sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura consists of a material and a

formal element. First, sola Scriptura affirms that all doctrines of the Christian faith are containedwithin the corpus of the Old and New Testaments. Hence, Scripture is materially sufficient.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/tertullian11.htmlhttp://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/tertullian11.htmlhttp://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/tertullian11.htmlhttp://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/tertullian04.htmlhttp://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/tertullian04.htmlhttp://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/tertullian04.htmlhttp://www.earlychristianwritings.com/tertullian.htmlhttp://www.earlychristianwritings.com/tertullian.htmlhttp://www.earlychristianwritings.com/tertullian.htmlhttp://www.earlychristianwritings.com/tertullian.htmlhttp://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/tertullian04.htmlhttp://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/tertullian11.html


5/9

Secondly, Scripture requires no other coordinate authority such as a teaching Church or Tradition inorder to determine its meaning. Sola Scriptura affirms the formal sufficiency of Scripture. Catholicsare allowed to affirm Scriptures material sufficiency, therefore Mr. Websters case directed atproving the Fathers belief in Scriptures material sufficiency is completely off target. In order for Mr.Webster to make his case for sola Scriptura he must prove that the Fathers affirmed the formalsufficiency of Scripture. The Fathers affirmed both the material sufficiency and formal insufficiency

of Scripture.Mr. Webster states:

"And there is no appeal in the writings of these fathers to a Tradition that is oral innature for a defense of what they call Apostolic Tradition. The Apostolic Tradition forIrenaeus and Tertullian is simply Scripture."

Notice the sleight of hand by Mr. Webster. He equates St. Irenaeuss and Tertullians understandingof Tradition to mean Scripture. Both of these Fathers clearly understood Tradition as a substantiveand coordinate authority alongside Scripture. These same Fathers believed that the doctrines of the

Catholic Church are found in Tradition as well as in Scripture. However, they do not make themisguided conclusion that Tradition is equated to Scripture since Tradition includes the samedoctrines that Scripture contains. The primary difference between Scripture and Tradition is that

they convey the same teaching but through different mediums. One transmits the doctrines via thewritten Scriptures while Tradition transmits these same doctrines through the life, faith and practiceof the Church. If Scripture is equated with Tradition than the writings of St. Irenaeus and Tertullianare reduced to nonsense.St. Irenaeus writes as if he was anticipating proto-Protestants:

"When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accusethese same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] thatthey are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those whoare ignorant of tradition...It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent

neither to Scripture or tradition" (Against Heresies 3,2:1)."Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, shouldwe not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles heldconstant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to thepresent question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left uswritings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the traditionwhich they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches?" (Against

Heresies 3,4:1).According to Irenaeus, Tradition is substantive in content, normative in authority and continues to

live in the Apostolic churches. Likewise Tertullian writes:"Error of doctrine in the churches must necessarily have produced various issues.

When, however, that which is deposited among many is found to be one and the

same, it is not the result of error, but of tradition. Can any one, then, be recklessenough to say that they were in error who handed on the tradition" (Prescriptionagainst the Heretics,28).

Similarly, the words of Tertullian are reduced to nonsense if we apply Mr. Websters understandingof Tradition.Mr. Webster continues:

"Irenaeus and Tertullian had to contend with the Gnostics who were the very first to


6/9

suggest and teach that they possessed an Apostolic oral Tradition that wasindependent from Scripture. These early fathers rejected such a notion and appealedto Scripture alone for the proclamation and defense of doctrine."

First, St. Irenaeus and Tertullian had no issue with the concept of an authoritative Traditionalongside Scripture. Their criticism of the Gnostics was with a tradition that was private and

available to only the Gnostic elect in contrast to a Tradition that was public, above board, taughtand preserved by the Catholic Church. This was the point that was foisted in the face of theGnostics by St. Irenaeus and Tertullian:

"But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles,[and] which is preserved by means of the successions of presbyters in the Churches,they object to tradition, saying they themselves are wiser..." (Irenaeus, AgainstHeresies 3,2:2)."His testimony, therefore, is true, and the doctrine of the apostles is open andsteadfast, holding nothing in reserve; nor did they teach one set of doctrines inprivate, and another in public" (Against Heresies 3,15:1)."[The Apostles] next went forth into the world and preached the same doctrine of thesame faith to the nations. They then in like manner rounded churches in every city,from which all the other churches, one after another, derived the tradition of the faith,

and the seeds of doctrine, and are every day deriving them, that they may becomechurches. Indeed, it is on this account only that they will be able to deem themselvesapostolic, as being the offspring of apostolic churches. Every sort of thing mustnecessarily revert to its original for its classification. Therefore the churches, althoughthey are so many and so great, comprise but the one primitive church, (founded) bythe apostles, from which they all (spring). In this way all are primitive, and all areapostolic, whilst they are all proved to be one, in (unbroken) unity, by their peacefulcommunion and title of brotherhood, and bond of hospitality, privileges which noother rule directs than the one tradition of the selfsame mystery" (Tertullian, OnPrescription Against the Heretics 20).

Mr. Websters understanding that the Fathers appealed to Scripture alone is simply a fantasy.In support of Mr. Websters novel idea that St. Irenaeus and Tertullian embraced sola Scriptura he

cites Ellen Flessman-Van Leer, a non-Catholic scholar. Unfortunately for Mr. Webster, Ellen Flessman-Van Leer has written in depth and without equivocation on St. Irenaeus and Tertulliansunderstanding of Apostolic Tradition. Mr. Webster wants to leave us with the impression that VanLeer and the Fathers embraced sola Scriptura. Nothing could be further from the truth.

"For Irenaeus, on the other hand, tradition and scripture are both quite unproblematic.

They stand independently side by side, both absolutely authoritative, bothunconditionally true, trustworthy, and convincing" (Tradition and Scripture in the Early

Church, p139).Elsewhere Van Leer comments on Tertullian:

"Tertullian says explicitly that the apostles delivered their teaching both orally and lateron through epistles, and the whole body of this teaching he designates with the word

traditio...This is tradition in the real sense of the word. It is used for the originalmessage of the apostles, going back to revelation, and for the message proclaimed bythe church, which has been received through the apostles" (ibid.,pp. 146,147,168).


7/9

Van Leer concludes:"Irenaeus and Tertullian point to the church tradition as the authoritative locus of the

unadulterated teaching of the apostles, they can no longer appeal to the immediatememory, as could the earliest writers. Instead they lay stress on the affirmation thatthis teaching has been transmitted faithfully from generation to generation. One couldsay that in their thinking, apostolic succession occupies the same place that is held by

the living memory in the Apostolic Fathers" (ibid., p.188).Clearly, Mr. Webster has not understood Van Leer, St. Irenaeus and Tertullian. Mr. Webstercontinues:

"The Bible was the ultimate authority for the fathers of the patristic age. It wasmaterially sufficient and the final arbiter in all matters of doctrinal truth. As J.N.D. Kellyhas pointed out: The clearest token of the prestige enjoyed by (Scripture) is the factthat almost the entire theological effort of the Fathers, whether their aims werepolemical or constructive, was expended upon what amounted to the exposition of the

Bible. Further, it was everywhere taken for granted that, for any doctrine to winacceptance, it had first to establish its Scriptural basis (Early Christian Doctrines, SanFrancisco: Harper & Row,1978,pp. 42,46)."

Here we have Mr. Webster misrepresenting the faith of J.N.D. Kelly, the Anglican patristic scholar.

Interesting how Mr. Webster failed to cite the following from the same work: "It should be unnecessary to accumulate further evidence. Throughout the wholeperiod Scripture and tradition ranked as complementary authorities, media different in

form but coincident in content. To inquire which counted as superior or more ultimateis to pose the question in misleading terms. If Scripture was abundantly sufficient in

principle, tradition was recognized as the surest clue to its interpretation, for intradition the Church retained, as a legacy from the apostles which was embedded in allthe organs of her institutional life, an unerring grasp of the real purport and meaningof the revelation to which Scripture and tradition alike bore witness" (Early ChristianDoctrines, pp. 47-48).

Mr. Webster then cites several paragraphs from St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Gregory of Nyssa, and St.Basil the Great in support of sola Scriptura. Mr. Webster summarizes his findings in the ancient

Church:"These fathers are simply representative of the fathers as a whole. Cyprian, Origen,

Hippolytus, Athanasius, Firmilian, Augustine are just a few of the fathers that could becited as proponents of the principle of sola Scriptura, in addition to Tertullian,Irenaeus, Cyril and Gregory of Nyssa. The early Church operated on the basis of the

principle of sola Scriptura and it was this historical principle that the Reformers soughtto restore to the Church."

For a complete rebuttal to the above claim I refer to my contribution in Not by Scripture Alone(Santa Barbara: Queenship, 1997), Chapter 8 "What did the Church Fathers teach about Scripture,

Tradition and Church" and Appendix: "A Dossier of Church Fathers on Scripture and Tradition." There are a couple of recurring themes throughout the writings of the Church Fathers on the rule offaith. First, the Fathers affirmed that the most perfect expression of the Apostolic faith is to befound in Sacred Scripture. The Fathers affirmed the material sufficiency of Scripture. According tothe Fathers, all doctrines of the Catholic faith are to be found within its covers. Secondly, the

Fathers affirmed in the same breath and with equal conviction that the Apostolic faith also has beentransmitted to the Church through Tradition. According to the Fathers, the Scriptures can only be


8/9

interpreted within the Catholic Church in light of her Sacred Tradition. The Fathers, particularlythose who combated heresies, affirmed that the fatal flaw of heretics was interpreting Scriptureaccording to their private understanding apart from mother Church and her Tradition. In sum, whenthe Fathers affirmed the sufficiency and authority of Scripture, they did so not in a vacuum, butwithin the framework of an authoritative Church and Tradition. Let me cite passages from the sameFathers Mr. Webster used.St. Cyril of Jerusalem(c.A.D 315-386), Doctor and Catholic bishop of Jerusalem between A.D.348-350 writes: "But in learning the Faith and in professing it, acquire and keep that only, which is nowdelivered to thee by the CHURCH, and which has been built up strongly out of all the SCRIPTURES"(Catechetical Lectures, 5:12).Mr. Webster provided this passage but I add it here to draw attention to St. Cyrils Catholicunderstanding of the rule of faith. Elsewhere, St. Cyril points to the Church not to Scripture for thedefinition of the canon: "Learn also diligently, and from the Church, what are the books of the Old

Testaments, and what those of the New" (Catechetical Lectures,4:33).St. Gregory of Nyssa(c.A.D. 335-394),brother of St. Basil the Great, Doctor of the Catholic Churchand bishop of Nyssa writes:

"[F]or it is enough for proof of our statement, that the TRADITION has come down to

us from our fathers, handed on, like some inheritance, by succession from the apostlesand the saints who came after them. They, on the other hand, who change their

doctrines to this novelty, would need the support of arguments in abundance, if theywere about to bring over to their views, not men light as dust, and unstable, but menof weight and steadiness: but so long as their statement is advanced without beingestablished, and without being proved, who is so foolish and so brutish as to accountthe teaching of the evangelists and apostles, and of those who have successivelyshone like lights in the churches, of less force than this undemonstrated nonsense?"

(Against Eunomius,4:6).St. Basil the Great(A.D. 329-379), Doctor of the Catholic Church, bishop of Caesarea, and brotherSt. Gregory of Nyssas writes:

"Of the dogmas and kergymas preserved in the Church, some we possess from writtenteaching and others we receive from the tradition of the Apostles, handed on to us inmystery. In respect to piety both are of the same force. No one will contradict any ofthese, no one, at any rate, who is even moderately versed in manners ecclesiastical.Indeed, were we to try to reject the unwritten customs as having no great authority,we would unwittingly injure the Gospel in its vitals; or rather, we would reducekergyma to a mere term" (Holy Spirt 27:66).

Irenaeus, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of Nyssa, and Basil are the only Fathers cited by Mr. Websterin support of sola Scriptura. I have provided passages from these same Fathers to provide thenecessary balance. It would be easy for anyone to cut and paste the Fathers to their liking,

however to find the authentic faith of a Father we must look at their entire writings.It is clear the early Church Fathers appealed to Tradition alongside Scripture. This Tradition wasnormative, substantive, available to all, and preserved by the Apostolic Churches, particularly theSee of Rome.Joseph A. Gallegos is a graduate of the University of California, Irvine and West Coast University,Los Angeles. He is very active in Catholic Apologetics, having created Corunum Apologetics BBS in

1992, and an international web site (http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos) for his expertise onpatristic thought regarding the Papacy and Tradition. He is the author of What Did The ChurchFathers Teach About Scripture, Tradition, and Church Authority in Not By Scripture Alone
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegoshttp://www.cin.org/users/jgallegoshttp://www.cin.org/users/jgallegoshttp://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos


9/9

(Queenship Publishing, 1997).

Read more:http://www.catholicfidelity.com/did-the-church-fathers-believe-in-sola-scriptura-by-

joseph-gallegos/
http://www.catholicfidelity.com/did-the-church-fathers-believe-in-sola-scriptura-by-joseph-gallegos/?utm_source=copy&utm_medium=paste&utm_campaign=copypaste&utm_content=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.catholicfidelity.com%2Fdid-the-church-fathers-believe-in-sola-scriptura-by-joseph-gallegos%2Fhttp://www.catholicfidelity.com/did-the-church-fathers-believe-in-sola-scriptura-by-joseph-gallegos/?utm_source=copy&utm_medium=paste&utm_campaign=copypaste&utm_content=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.catholicfidelity.com%2Fdid-the-church-fathers-believe-in-sola-scriptura-by-joseph-gallegos%2Fhttp://www.catholicfidelity.com/did-the-church-fathers-believe-in-sola-scriptura-by-joseph-gallegos/?utm_source=copy&utm_medium=paste&utm_campaign=copypaste&utm_content=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.catholicfidelity.com%2Fdid-the-church-fathers-believe-in-sola-scriptura-by-joseph-gallegos%2Fhttp://www.catholicfidelity.com/did-the-church-fathers-believe-in-sola-scriptura-by-joseph-gallegos/?utm_source=copy&utm_medium=paste&utm_campaign=copypaste&utm_content=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.catholicfidelity.com%2Fdid-the-church-fathers-believe-in-sola-scriptura-by-joseph-gallegos%2Fhttp://www.catholicfidelity.com/did-the-church-fathers-believe-in-sola-scriptura-by-joseph-gallegos/?utm_source=copy&utm_medium=paste&utm_campaign=copypaste&utm_content=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.catholicfidelity.com%2Fdid-the-church-fathers-believe-in-sola-scriptura-by-joseph-gallegos%2Fhttp://www.catholicfidelity.com/did-the-church-fathers-believe-in-sola-scriptura-by-joseph-gallegos/?utm_source=copy&utm_medium=paste&utm_campaign=copypaste&utm_content=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.catholicfidelity.com%2Fdid-the-church-fathers-believe-in-sola-scriptura-by-joseph-gallegos%2F

Documents

Tertullian y Sola Scriptura