From The Identity of the New Testament Text -- Wilbur N. Pickering [h/t Fr John]
There are over 5,000 extant (known) Greek manuscripts (hereafter MSS, or MS when singular) of the New Testament. They range in size from a scrap with parts of two verses to complete New Testaments. They range in date from the second century to the sixteenth. They come from all over the Mediterranean world. They contain several hundred thousand variant readings (differences in the text). The vast majority of these are misspellings or other obvious errors due to carelessness or ignorance on the part of the copyists. However, many thousands of variants remain which need to be evaluated as we seek to identify the precise original wording of the text. How best to go about such a project? This book seeks to provide an answer.Of course, I am not the first to attempt an answer. Numerous answers have been advanced over the years. They tend to form two clusters, or camps, and these camps differ substantially from each other. In very broad and over-simplified terms, one camp generally follows the large majority of the MSS (seldom less than 80 and usually over 95 percent) which are in essential agreement among themselves but which do not date from before the fifth century A.D., while the other generally follows a small handful (often less than ten) of earlier MSS (from the third, fourth and fifth centuries) which not only disagree with the majority, but also disagree among themselves. The second camp has been in general control of the scholarly world for the last 110 years.
The most visible consequence and proof of that control may be seen in the translations of the New Testament into English done during these 110 years. Virtually every one of them reflects a form of the text based upon the few earlier MSS. In contrast to them, the King James Version (AV) and the New King James Version (NKJV) reflect a form of the text based upon the many later MSS. Thus, the fundamental difference between the New Testament in the American Standard Version, Revised Standard Version, New English Bible, Today's English Version, New American Standard Bible, New International Version, etc., on the one hand, and in the AV and NKJV on the other is that they are based on different forms of the Greek text. (There are over 5,500 differences between those two forms.)
The link above is to the entire book-length text. Very interesting reading.
"But I am far from putting reliance in your teachers, who refuse to admit that the interpretation made by the seventy elders who were with Ptolemy [king] of the Egyptians is a correct one; and they attempt to frame another. And I wish you to observe, that they have altogether taken away many Scriptures from the translations effected by those seventy elders who were with Ptolemy, and by which this very man who was crucified is proved to have been set forth expressly as God, and man, and as being crucified, and as dying; but since I am aware that this is denied by all of your nation, I do not address myself to these points, but I proceed to carry on my discussions by means of those passages which are still admitted by you. For you assent to those which I have brought before your attention, except that you contradict the statement, `Behold, the virgin shall conceive, 'and say it ought to be read, `Behold, the young woman shall conceive.' And I promised to prove that the prophecy referred, not, as you were taught, to Hezekiah, but to this Christ of mine: and now I shall go to the proof."
Here Trypho remarked, "We ask you first of all to tell us some of the Scriptures which you allege have been completely cancelled."
And I said, "I shall do as you please. From the statements, then, which Esdras made in reference to the law of the passover, they have taken away the following: `And Esdras said to the people, This passover is our Saviour and our refuge. And if you have understood, and your heart has taken it in, that we shall humble Him on a standard, and thereafter hope in Him, then this place shall not be forsaken for ever, says the God of hosts. But if you will not believe Him, and will not listen to His declaration, you shall be a laughing-stock to the nations.' And from the sayings of Jeremiah they have cut out the following: `I [was] like a lamb that is brought to the slaughter: they devised a device against me, saying, Come, let us lay on wood on His bread, and let us blot Him out from the land of the living; and His name shall no more be remembered.' And since this passage from the sayings of Jeremiah is still written in some copies [of the Scriptures] in the synagogues of the Jews (for it is only a short time since they were cut out), and since from these words it is demonstrated that the Jews deliberated about the Christ Himself, to crucify and put Him to death, He Himself is both declared to be led as a sheep to the slaughter, as was predicted by Isaiah, and is here represented as a harmless lamb; but being in a difficulty about them, they give themselves over to blasphemy. And again, from the sayings of the same Jeremiah these have been cut out: `The Lord God remembered His dead people of Israel who lay in the graves; and He descended to preach to them His own salvation.'
"And from the ninety-fifth (ninety-sixth) Psalm they have taken away this short saying of the words of David: `From the wood.' For when the passage said, `Tell ye among the nations, the Lord hath reigned from the wood, 'they have left, `Tell ye among the nations, the Lord hath reigned.' Now no one of your people has ever been said to have reigned as God and Lord among the nations, with the exception of Him only who was crucified, of whom also the Holy Spirit affirms in the same Psalm that He was raised again, and freed from [the grave], declaring that there is none like Him among the gods of the nations: for they are idols of demons. But I shall repeat the whole Psalm to you, that you may perceive what has been said. It is thus: `Sing unto the Lord a new song; sing unto the Lord, all the earth. Sing unto the Lord, and bless His name; show forth His salvation from day to day. Declare His glory among the nations, His wonders among all people. For the Lord is great, and greatly to be praised: He is to be feared above all the gods. For all the gods of the nations are demons but the Lord made the heavens. Confession and beauty are in His presence; holiness and magnificence are in His sanctuary. Bring to the Lord, O ye countries of the nations, bring to the Lord glory and honour, bring to the Lord glory in His name. Take sacrifices, and go into His courts; worship the Lord in His holy temple. Let the whole earth be moved before Him: tell ye among the nations, the Lord hath reigned. For He hath established the world, which shall not be moved; He shall judge the nations with equity. Let the heavens rejoice, and the earth be glad; let the sea and its fulness shake. Let the fields and all therein be joyful. Let all the trees of the wood be glad before the Lord: for He comes, for He comes to judge the earth. He shall judge the world with righteousness, and the people with His truth.'"
--St. Justin the Philosopher, The Dialogue with Trypho, Chapters 71-73
But if any one says that the writings of Moses and of the rest of the prophets were also written in the Greek character, let him read profane histories, and know that Ptolemy, king of Egypt, when he had built the library in Alexandria, and by gathering books from every quarter had filled it, then learnt that very ancient histories written in Hebrew happened to be carefully preserved; and wishing to know their contents, he sent for seventy wise men from Jerusalem, who were acquainted with both the Greek and Hebrew language, and appointed them to translate the books; and that in freedom from all disturbance they might the more speedily complete the translation, he ordered that there should be constructed, not in the city itself, but seven stadia off (where the Pharos was built), as many little cots as there were translators, so that each by himself might complete his own translation; and enjoined upon those officers who were appointed to this duty, to afford them all attendance, but to prevent communication with one another, in order that the accuracy of the translation might be discernible even by their agreement. And when he ascertained that the seventy men had not only given the same meaning, but had employed the same words, and had failed in agreement with one another not even to the extent of one word; but had written the same things, and concerning the same things, he was struck with amazement, and believed that the translation had been written by divine power, and perceived that the men were worthy of all honour, as beloved of God; and with many gifts ordered them to return to their own country. And having, as was natural, marvelled at the books, and concluded them to be divine, he consecrated them in that library. These things, ye men of Greece, are no fable, nor do we narrate fictions; but we ourselves having been in Alexandria, saw the remains of the little cots at the Pharos still preserved, and having heard these things from the inhabitants, who had received them as part of their country's tradition, we now tell to you what you can also learn from others, and specially from those wise and esteemed men who have written of these things, Philo and Josephus, and many others. But if any of those who are wont to be forward in contradiction should say that these books do not belong to us, but to the Jews, and should assert that we in vain profess to have learnt our religion from them, let him know, as he may from those very things which are written in these books, that not to them, but to us, does the doctrine of them refer. That the books relating to our religion are to this day preserved among the Jews, has been a work of Divine Providence on our behalf; for lest, by producing them out of the Church, we should give occasion to those who wish to slander us to charge us with fraud, we demand that they be produced from the synagogue of the Jews, that from the very books still preserved among them it might clearly and evidently appear, that the laws which were written by holy men for instruction pertain to us.
--St. Justin the Philosopher, Address to the Greeks, Chapter 13
(Note: Cf. also the accounts of Josephus Antiquities, Bk XII.2, and Philo of Alexandria, The Life of Moses, Bk II.5-7.)
God, then, was made man, and the Lord did Himself save us, giving us the token of the Virgin. But not as some allege, among those now presuming to expound the Scripture, [thus: ] "Behold, a young woman shall conceive, and bring forth a son," as Theodotion the Ephesian has interpreted, and Aquila of Pontus, both Jewish proselytes. The Ebionites, following these, assert that He was begotten by Joseph; thus destroying, as far as in them lies, such a marvellous dispensation of God, and setting aside the testimony of the prophets which proceeded from God. For truly this prediction was uttered before the removal of the people to Babylon; that is, anterior to the supremacy acquired by the Medes and Persians. But it was interpreted into Greek by the Jews themselves, much before the period of our Lord's advent, that there might remain no suspicion that perchance the Jews, complying with our humour, did put this interpretation upon these words. They indeed, had they been cognizant of our future existence, and that we should use these proofs from the Scriptures, would themselves never have hesitated to burn their own Scriptures, which do declare that all other nations partake of [eternal] life, and show that they who boast themselves as being the house of Jacob and the people of Israel, am disinherited from the grace of God.
For before the Romans possessed their kingdom, while as yet the Macedonians held Asia, Ptolemy the son of Lagus, being anxious to adorn the library which he had founded in Alexandria, with a collection of the writings of all men, which were [works] of merit, made request to the people of Jerusalem, that they should have their Scriptures translated into the Greek language. And they-for at that time they were still subject to the Macedonians-sent to Ptolemy seventy of their elders, who were thoroughly skilled in the Scriptures and in both the languages, to carry out what he had desired. But he, wishing to test them individually, and fearing lest they might perchance, by taking counsel together, conceal the truth in the Scriptures, by their interpretation, separated them from each other, and commanded them all to write the same translation. He did this with respect to all the books. But when they came together in the same place before Ptolemy, and each of them compared his own interpretation with that of every other, God was indeed glorified, and the Scriptures were acknowledged as truly divine. For all of them read out the common translation [which they had prepared] in the very same words and the very same names, from beginning to end, so that even the Gentiles present perceived that the Scriptures had been interpreted by the inspiration of God. And there was nothing astonishing in God having done this,-He who, when, during the captivity of the people under Nebuchadnezzar, the Scriptures had been corrupted, and when, after seventy years, the Jews had returned to their own land, then, in the times of Artaxerxes king of the Persians, inspired Esdras the priest, of the tribe of Levi, to recast all the words of the former prophets, and to re-establish with the people the Mosaic legislation.
Since, therefore, the Scriptures have been interpreted with such fidelity, and by the grace of God, and since from these God has prepared and formed again our faith towards His Son, and has preserved to us the unadulterated Scriptures in Egypt, where the house of Jacob flourished, fleeing from the famine in Canaan; where also our Lord was preserved when He fled from the persecution set on foot by Herod; and [since] this interpretation of these Scriptures was made prior to our Lord's descent [to earth], and came into being before the Christians appeared-for our Lord was bern about the forty-first year of the reign of Augustus; but Ptolemy was much earlier, under whom the Scriptures were interpreted;-[since these things are so, I say, ] truly these men are proved to be impudent and presumptuous, who would now show a desire to make different translations, when we refute them out of these Scriptures, and shut them up to a belief in the advent of the Son of God. But our faith is stedfast, unfeigned, and the only true one, having clear proof from these Scriptures, which were interpreted in the way I have related; and the preaching of the Church is without interpolation. For the apostles, since they are of more ancient date than all these [heretics], agree with this aforesaid translation; and the translation harmonizes with the tradition of the apostles. For Peter, and John, and Matthew, and Paul, and the rest successively, as well as their followers, did set forth all prophetical [announce-merits], just as the interpretation of the elders contains them.
--St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, Book III Chapter 20, 1-3
But if, when their mouths are stopped on this point, they should seek another, namely, what is said touching Mary's virginity, and should object to us other translators, saying, that they used not the term "virgin," but "young woman;" in the first place we will say this, that the Seventy were justly entitled to confidence above all the others. For these made their translation after Christ's coming, continuing to be Jews, and may justly be suspected as having spoken rather in enmity, and as darkening the prophecies on purpose; but the Seventy, as having entered upon this work an hundred years or more before the coming of Christ, stand clear from all such suspicion, and on account of the date, and of their number, and of their agreement, would have a better right to be trusted.
--St. John Chrysostom, Homily 5 on Matthew, par. 4
From this discrepancy between the Hebrew books and our own arises the well-known question as to the age of Methuselah; for it is computed that he lived for fourteen years after the deluge, though Scripture relates that of all who were then upon the earth only the eight souls in the ark escaped destruction by the flood, and of these Methuselah was not one. For, according to our books, Methuselah, before he begat the son whom he called Lamech, lived 167 years; then Lamech himself, before his son Noah was born, lived 188 years, which together make 355 years. Add to these the age of Noah at the date of the deluge, 600 years, and this gives a total of 955 from the birth of Methuselah to the year of the flood. Now all the years of the life of Methuselah are computed to be 969; for when he had lived 167 years, and had begotten his son Lamech, he then lived after this 802 years, which makes a total, as we said, of 969 years. From this, if we deduct 955 years from the birth of Methuselah to the flood, there remains fourteen years, which he is supposed to have lived after the flood. And therefore some suppose that, though he was not on earth (in which it is agreed that every living thing which could not naturally live in water perished), he was for a time with his father, who had been translated, and that he lived there till the flood had passed away. This hypothesis they adopt, that they may not cast a slight on the trustworthiness of versions which the Church has received into a position of high authority, and because they believe that the Jewish mss. rather than our own are in error. For they do not admit that this is a mistake of the translators, but maintain that there is a falsified statement in the original, from which, through the Greek, the Scripture has been translated into our own tongue. They say that it is not credible that the seventy translators, who simultaneously and unanimously produced one rendering, could have erred, or, in a case in which no interest of theirs was involved, could have falsified their translation; but that the Jews, envying us our translation of their Law and Prophets, have made alterations in their texts so as to undermine the authority of ours. This opinion or suspicion let each man adopt according to his own judgment.
--St. Augustine, City of God Book 15, Chapter 11
For while there were other interpreters who translated these sacred oracles out of the Hebrew tongue into Greek, as Aquila, Symmathus, and Theodotion, and also that translation which, as the name of the author is unknown, is quoted as the fifth edition, yet 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. But although the Jews acknowledge this very learned labor of his to be faithful, while they contend that the Septuagint translators have erred in many places, still the churches of Christ judge that no one should be preferred to the authority of so many men, chosen for this very great work by Eleazar, who was then high priest; for even if there had not appeared in them one spirit, without doubt divine, and the seventy learned men had, after the manner of men, compared together the words of their translation, that what pleased them all might stand, no single translator ought to be preferred to them; but since so great a sign of divinity has appeared in them, certainly, if any other translator, of their Scriptures from the Hebrew into any other tongue is faithful, in that case he agrees with these seventy translators, and if he is not found to agree with them, then we ought to believe that the prophetic gift is with them. 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; and could say the same thing differently, so that, although the words were not the same, yet the same meaning should shine forth to those of good understanding; and could omit or add something, so that even by this it might be shown that there was in that work not human bondage, which the translator owed to the words, but rather divine power, which filled and ruled the mind of the translator. Some, however, have thought that the Greek copies of the Septuagint version should be emended from the Hebrew copies; yet they did not dare to take away what the Hebrew lacked and the Septuagint had, but only added what was found in the Hebrew copies and was lacking in the Septuagint, and noted them by placing at the beginning of the verses certain marks in the form of stars which they call asterisks. And those things which the Hebrew copies have not, but the Septuagint have, they have in like manner marked at the beginning of the verses by horizontal spit-shaped marks like those by which we denote ounces; and many copies having these marks are circulated even in Latin. But we cannot, without inspecting both kinds of copies, find out those things which are neither omitted nor added, but expressed differently, whether they yield another meaning not in itself unsuitable, or can be shown to explain the same meaning in another way. If, then, as it behoves us, we behold nothing else in these Scriptures than what the Spirit of God has spoken through men, if anything is in the Hebrew copies and is not in the version of the Seventy, the Spirit of God did not choose to say it through them, but only through the prophets. But 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. For in that manner He spoke as He chose, some things through Isaiah, some through Jeremiah, some through several prophets, or else the same thing through this prophet and through that. Further, whatever is found in both editions, that one and the same Spirit willed to say through both, but so as that the former preceded in prophesying, and the latter followed: in prophetically interpreting them; because, as the one Spirit of peace was in the former when they spoke true and concordant words, so the selfsame one Spirit hath appeared in the latter, when, without mutual conference they yet interpreted all things as if with one mouth.
--St. Augustine, City of God, Book 18, Chapter 43
From Protopriest, Fr. David Moser, The Bible and Holy Tradition:
I often use metaphor and parable when preaching, and I'd like to share a brief version of one with you that addresses just this issue. Picture a beautiful jeweled pendant. The centerpiece is a brilliant flawless diamond and it is set in pure radiant gold, intricately worked and designed to set off the diamond in its greatest beauty. Surrounding the diamond are carefully chosen stones, lesser gems, but no less flawless and beautiful, rubies, emeralds, saphires, pearls, etc. These are chosen and arranged to compliment and augment the brilliance of the diamond and in no way detract from the diamond's beauty, but rather everything together presents a beautiful whole.The pendant is the whole of Holy Tradition, which is the expression of the revelation of Christ in the Church. The central diamond is the Holy Scripture and the surrounding gems and gold are the lives of the saints, the writings of the fathers, the services and traditions of the Church. Now if someone were to see this pendant who did not like pearls, he might think to himself, "if only we took off the pearls, this would be much better" and if he did so we would still have a beautiful pendant but somehow lessened. Then perhaps portions of the pendant are allowed to become tarnished so that they no longer reveal their beauty and instead of cleaning off the tarnish and restoring the gems, those portions are removed - perhaps even replaced by rhinestones. Then along comes someone else who doesn't like emeralds and removes all the emeralds. And again along comes someone else who removes the remaining saphires etc. Finally someone views this once beautiful pendant and not having seen its former beauty thinks that it is an ugly thing but the diamond is beautiful and so removes the diamond and trashes the rest. The diamond is still beautiful, brilliant and valuable. It is set apart and displayed by itself - a truly beautiful thing, rescued from an ugly setting. But only those who never saw the original setting could say that for the diamond, when removed from the pendant is somehow lessened and there is no longer the goldwork and the other gems to set it off and make it a part of a greater whole. This is what has happened to the Holy Scriptures in the protestant Church. Slowly, gradually all of Holy Tradition has been stripped away either because someone didn't like this or that piece or perhaps the true beauty of a portion was tarnished and it was tossed away without knowing its true value or perhaps a cheap substitute attempting to replace that which was lost was done away with etc. until all that remains of the Tradition of the Church is the Bible. And so they have it - a beautiful gem of the Church but out of context, out of place and its true beauty, revealed by the setting, is lost and in fact the horror stories of the distorted condition of that setting have led to the opinion that this gem is better off without and any attempts to place it back in context are resisted, in some cases violently.
I hope this little story helps to provide some understanding of how the Holy Scripture is a part (a beautiful, brilliant, central part) of Holy Tradition and to remove it from the context of Tradition is to lessen it and hide its true beauty.
From Fr. Georges Florovsky's Scripture and Tradition:
II
This approach to the problem of Scripture and tradition is itself traditional. In fact, it was the approach of the ancient church. St. Irenaeus and St. Basil were appropriately quoted in the Russian Catechism. The problem of correct exegesis was a burning issue in the ancient church during the struggle and contest with heresies. All parties in the dispute used to appeal to Scripture. Moreover, at that time exegesis was the main, and even the only, theological method, and the authority of Scripture was sovereign and supreme. The orthodox leaders were bound to raise the hermeneutical question: What was the principle of interpretation? Now, in the second century the term "Scripture" still denoted primarily the Old Testament. It was in this same century that the authority of the Old Testament was sharply and radically challenged, and actually rejected, by Marcion. The unity of the Bible had to be proved and vindicated. What was the basis and the warrant of a Christian and christological understanding of "prophecy," that is, of the Old Testament? It was in this historic situation that the authority of tradition was first invoked.
Scripture belonged to the church, and it was only in the church, within the community of right faith, that Scripture could be adequately understood and correctly interpreted. Heretics, namely, those outside of the church, had no key to the mind of the Scripture. It was not enough simply to quote scriptural words and texts (the "letter"). Rather, the true meaning of Scripture, taken as an integrated whole, had to be grasped and elicited. In the admirable phrase of St. Hilary of Poitiers, "scripturae enim non in legendo sunt, sed in intelligendo." The phrase was also repeated by St. Jerome. One had to grasp in advance, as it were, the true pattern of scriptural revelation, the great and comprehensive design of God's redemptive providence (the oeconomia), and this could be done only by an insight of faith. It was by faith that the witness to Christ could be discerned in the Old Testament. It was by faith that the unity of the tetramorphic gospel could be properly ascertained.
Now, this faith was not an arbitrary and subjective insight of individuals; it was the faith of the church, rooted in the apostolic message or kerygma and authenticated by it. Those outside of the church, that is, outside of her living and apostolic tradition, failed to have precisely this basic and overarching message, the very heart of the gospel. With them Scripture was an array of disconnected passages and stories or of proof-texts which they endeavored to arrange and re-arrange according to their own pattern, derived from alien sources. They had "another faith."
III
This was the main method and the main argument of Tertullian in his passionate treatise De praescriptione. He could not discuss Scriptures with heretics, with those outside the communion of apostolic faith. For they had no right to use the Scriptures: the Scriptures did not belong to them. They were the possession of the church. Tertullian emphatically insisted on the priority of the "rule of faith." It was the only key to the Scriptures, the indispensable prerequisite of authentic biblical interpretation. And this rule was apostolic; it was rooted in and derived from the original apostolic preaching. The New Testament itself had to be taken in the comprehensive context of the total apostolic preaching, which was still vividly remembered in the church.
The basic intention of this appeal to the apostolic "rule of faith" in the early church is obvious. When Christians spoke of the "rule of faith" as apostolic, they did not mean that the apostles had formulated it. What they meant was that the profession of belief which every catechumen recited before his baptism did embody in summary form the faith which the apostles had taught and had committed to their disciples after them. This profession of faith was the same everywhere, although the actual phrasing could vary from place to place. It was always intimately related to the baptismal formula itself (Cf. C. H. Turner). Apart from this "rule" the Scriptures could only be misinterpreted, contended Tertullian and St. Irenaeus a bit earlier.
The apostolic tradition of faith was the indispensable guide in the understanding of Scripture and the ultimate warrant of right interpretation. The church was not an external authority which could be the judge over Scripture, but was rather the keeper and guardian of that divine truth which has been stored and deposited in Holy Writ. The "rule of faith," of which the early church fathers spoke, was intimately related to the sacrament of Christian initiation. It was the "rule" to which believers are committed (and into which they were previously initiated) by their baptismal profession. On the other hand, this "rule" was nothing other than the "truth" which the apostles had deposited in the church and entrusted to her, to be continuously handed down by the succession of accredited pastors, under the abiding guidance of the Holy Spirit.
The image of the church as a "treasury of truth" comes from St. Irenaeus. The treasure is indeed the Scripture, but also the living faith by which the mystery of the Scripture is assessed. Tradition in the early church was, first of all, a hermeneutical principle and method. Scripture could be rightly and fully comprehended only in the light and in the context of the living apostolic tradition, which was an integral factor of Christian existence. It was so not because tradition could add anything to what has been manifested in the Scripture, but because it provided that living context, the comprehensive perspective, in which alone the true intention and the total design of the Holy Writ, and especially of the divine revelation itself, could be adequately grasped and acknowledged. The Christian truth was, in the phrase of St. Irenaeus, a "well-grounded system," a corpus veritatis, or a "harmonious melody." And it was precisely this harmony that could be apprehended by faith alone. The apostolic tradition, as it was maintained and understood in the early church, was not a fixed core or complex of binding propositions, but rather an insight into the meaning and power of the revelatory events, of the revelation of the "God who acts" and has acted.
IV
The situation did not change in the fourth century. The dispute with the Arians was centered again in the exegetical field, at least in its early phase. The Arians and their supporters had produced an impressive array of scriptural texts in defense of their doctrinal position. They wanted to restrict theological discussion to the biblical ground alone. Their claim had to be met precisely on this ground. Their exegetical method was much the same as that of the earlier dissenters. They were operating with selected proof-texts, without much concern for the total context of revelation. It was imperative for the orthodox to appeal to the mind of the church, to that "faith" which had been once delivered and then faithfully kept. This was the chief concern and the usual method of the great Athanasius. In his arguments he persistently invoked the "rule of faith," much in the same manner as it had been done by the fathers of the second century.
Only the "rule of faith" allows the theologian to grasp the true intention of Holy Scripture, the scopos, the genuine design and intent of the revelation. The "scope" of the faith or the Scriptures was precisely their credal core, which was condensed in the "rule of faith," as this had been handed down and transmitted "from fathers to fathers." In contrast, the Arians had "no fathers" to support their doctrinal claims. Their blasphemy was a sheer innovation totally alien to apostolic tradition and to the overarching message of the Bible. St. Athanasius regarded this traditional "rule of faith" as the norm and ultimate principle of interpretation, opposing "the ecclesiastical sense" to "the private opinions" of the heretics. Indeed, for him Scripture was an adequate and sufficient source of doctrine, sacred and inspired. Only it had to be properly interpreted in the context of the living credal tradition, under the guidance and control of the "rule of faith."
Moreover, this "rule" was in no sense an extraneous authority which could be imposed on the Holy Writ. It was, in fact, the same apostolic preaching which had been deposited in writing in the books of the New Testament. But it was, as it were, this preaching in epitome, Sometimes Athanasius described the Scripture itself as an apostolic paradosis. In the whole discussion with the Arians there is no single reference to any "traditions" in the plural. The only appeal is to Tradition. "Let us look at that very tradition, teaching and faith of the cathlolic church from the very beginning, which the Lord handed down, the apostles preached and the fathers preserved. Upon this the church is established." (St. Athanasius, ad Serap., T. 28). Thus, he teaches that "tradition" is even more than apostolic; it is dominical coming from the Lord Himself.
The first reference to "unwritten traditions" is to be found in the famous treatise of St. Basil, On the Holy Spirit; And, at first glance, it may seem as if St. Basil admitted a double authority and double standard — unwritten traditions alongside of the Scriptures. The fact is however, that he is far from doing so. His terminology is peculiar. His main distnction is between kerygmata and dogmata. In his phraseology, kerygmata are precisely what in the later terminology was denoted as doctrine, that is, formal and authoritative teaching and ruling in matters of faith or the public teaching. On the other hand, dogmata are the total complex of "unwritten habits" — in fact, the total structure of liturgical and sacramental life. These "habits" were handed down, says St. Basil, en mysterio. It would be a flagrant mistranslation if we took these words to mean "in secret." The only accurate rendering is: "by way of mysteries." This means, under the form of rites and liturgical usages. Indeed, all the examples which St. Basil cites in this connection are ritual and symbolic. These rites and symbols are means of communication. In a sense they are extra-scriptural. But their purpose is to impart to the candidates for baptism the "rule of faith" and prepare them for their baptismal profession of faith. St. Basil's appeal to these "unwritten habits" was no more than an appeal to the faith of the church, to her sensus catholicus. He had to break the deadlock created by the obstinate and narrow-minded pseudo-biblicism of his Arian, or Eunomian, opponents. And he pleaded that, apart from this "unwritten" rule of faith, expressed in sacramental rites and habits, it was impossible to grasp the true intention of the Scripture.
V
To conclude this brief excursus on the ancient tradition we should mention St. Vincent of Lerins and his famous Commonitorium. Sometimes it is asserted that Vincent admitted the double authority of Scripture and Tradition. Actually he held the opposite view. Indeed, the true faith could be recognized, according to Vincent, in a double manner, duplici modo, that is, by the authority of the divine law (i.e. Scripture) and by ecclesiastical tradition. This does not imply, however, that there are two sources of Christian doctrine. The "rule" of Scripture was for St. Vincent "perfect and self-sufficient." Why then was it imperative to invoke also the "authority of ecclesiastical understanding," (ecclesiasticae intelligentiae auctoritas)? The reason is obvious: Scripture was variously interpreted and twisted by individual writers for their subjective purposes. And to this confusing variety of discordant interpretations and private opinions, St. Vincent opposes the mind of the church catholic (ut propheticae et apostolicae interpretationis linea secundum ecclesiastici et catholici sensus normam derigatur). Thus tradition for St. Vincent is not an independent instance nor a complementary source of doctrine. It is no more than Scripture being interpreted according to the catholic mind of the church, which is the guardian of the apostolic "rule of faith." St. Vincent repeats and summarizes the continuous attitude of the ancient church on this matter. Scripture is an adequate source of doctrine: ad omnia satis superque sufficiat. Tradition is the authentic guide in interpretation, providing the context and perspective in which Scripture discloses its genuine message.
The Orthodox Church is faithfully committed to this ancient and traditional view on the sources of Christian doctrine. Scripture is an adequate source. But only in so far as it is read and interpreted in the church which is the guardian both of the Holy Writ and of the total apostolic paradosis of faith, order and life. Tradition alone allows the church to go beyond the "letter" to the very Word of Life.
In “Reading Over the Shoulders of the Fathers”—A Call for an Orthodox Approach to Scripture (pdf file), Fr. Lawrence Farley writes:
The much needed ‘return to the Fathers’, Fr. Alexander Schmemann said, “means, above all, the recovery of their spirit, of the secret inspiration which made them true witnesses of the Church” (quoted in Liturgy and Tradition, p. 84f). That is, what is needed is a return to the mind-set, the inner attitude and spiritual world-view of the Fathers.This return to the Fathers is nowhere needed more than in a return to their view and veneration of the Divine Scriptures. The Church is now suffering from a low and deficient view of the Scriptures, one gained from the liberal world of western Academia, one which feels itself free to dissent from the received meaning and interpretation of the Scriptures in favour of more modern and politically-correct views.
In the writing of ostensibly Orthodox authors, in casual conversations with some clergy, in letters to the editor in our Orthodox journals, one can often find evidence of this alienation from the attitude of the Fathers. In one article, supporting references to the Scriptures are pilloried as “biblical literalism”, in another, Pauline use of the Old Testament is discounted as “rabbinic exegesis”, in yet another, one is warned against “the hazards of appealing too quickly to patristic testimony”. Anyone who is a convert from liberal protestantism, can easily identify the common disease which produced all the above citations: a low view of the Scriptures in which they are praised as sources and authorities but ultimately discounted as products of their age rather than as living oracles of Truth.
When one steeps oneself in the literature of the Fathers, one is aware of entering a different world, of breathing a different air. For the Fathers, the Scriptures spoke with the voice of God and an apt citation of a Scriptural text (read and interpreted, of course, through the Tradition of the Church) was seen as bringing all godly controversy to an end. This was not “proof-texting” (which involves the use of Scripture separated from Holy Tradition). Rather, it was an awareness of Scripture as a locus and carrier of that Holy Tradition and therefore as a reliable arbiter in all Christian disputes.
A casual reading of the Fathers will confirm that this was their approach. Consider the words of St. Clement of Rome: “You well know that nothing unjust or fraudulent is written in the Scriptures”. Or the words of St. Irenaeus: “the Scriptures of certain[t]y perfect, since they were spoken by the Word of God and by His Spirit”. Or the words of St. Hippolytus: “those who [do] not believe that the Holy Scriptures were spoken by the Holy Spirit...are unbelievers”. Or Origen: “With complete and utter precision the Holy Spirit supplied the very words of Scripture through His subordinate authors...according to which the wisdom of God pervades every divinely-inspired writing, reach[es] out to each single letter”. The Fathers did not adhere to a view of dictation, which would reduce the human authors of Scripture to merely passive conduits of the Divine Word. They knew full well that these were human documents, subject to the normal human variants of style and didactic purpose. Nonetheless, they were also very aware that these same human documents were vehicles for the Spirit of God, containing, as Divine Oracles, God’s timeless and transcendent Truth, and thus not subject to error.
According to the Fathers, how should we read the Scriptures today? I would point out two components of an Orthodox and patristic approach to the Divine Scriptures.
We should read the Scriptures in the Church. That is, we should interpret the Scriptures guided by our Holy Tradition as preserved in the interpretations of the Fathers. As Origen expresses it, “That alone is to be believed as the truth which is in no way at variance with ecclesiastical and apostolic Tradition”. This does not mean a rejection of all the fruit of modern commentary and criticism. It does mean a selective use of such modern work. The plumb-line of Tradition is to be hung against new work: only such as is consistent with Tradition is be accepted.
We should read the Scriptures on our knees. That is, we should come to the Scriptures as humble learners to be taught, not as judges to teach and correct. Humility is the pre-condition for everything in the Christian life, especially in our reading of the Scriptures. In this as in all things, “God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble” (James 4:6).
We are often exhorted to be diligent in reading the Scriptures. This is a valuable exhortation—but one that must be supplemented with another: read the Scriptures as the Fathers read them. We must open our Bibles as opening the oracles of God—reading, as it were, over the shoulders of the Fathers. Only then can we gain true and eternal benefit for our souls.
To return from my wanderings out in the fields of sarcasm and irony, let me offer this link I recently came across:
The Paul Page: Dedicated to the New Perspective on Paul
Haven't evaluated it. Caveat lector.
The Pontificator in a recent post cites Anglican John Stott on a ubiquitous rule in Protestantism:
In his book Evangelical Truth (2002), John Stott states the popular rule: "Whenever equally biblical Christians, who are equally anxious to understand the teaching of Scripture and to submit to its authority, reach different conclusions, we should deduce that evidently Scripture is not crystal clear in this matter, and therefore we can afford to give one another liberty."ť
The Pontificator is narrowly considering the purported catholicity of Anglicanism. I, however, want to leapfrog from Stott's comment to the Protestant dogma of sola scriptura and its primary problem and fallacy: private interpretation.
We read in 2 Peter 1:20:
Knowing this first, that every prophecy of Scripture cometh not out of private explanation
While this verse is used to prohibit idiosyncratic interpretations of the Scriptures, it is important to keep in mind the context of this verse:
For we did not follow fables which have been cleverly devised, but we became eyewitnesses of that One's majesty and made kn own to ou the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. For having received from God the Father honor and glory, there was borne along by the magnificent glory such a voice to Him, "This is My Son, the Beloved, in Whom I am well pleased." And we heard this voice which was borne along from out of heaven, when we were with Him in the mount, the holy one. And we have this prophetic word made more sure, to which ye do well to take heed, as to a lamp shining in a squalid place, until the day should dawn and the morning start should arise in your hearts. Knowing this first, that every prophecy of Scripture cometh not out of private explanation, for prophecy was not brought about at any time by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke while borne along by the Holy Spirit. (2 Peter 1:16-21)
That is to say, the Gospel is not something received individually, nor just from any source. The Gospel is always already received only from the apostolic witness, which witness itself was communal. St. Peter was not alone in witnessing the Transfiguration. The prophecies of Scripture which spoke of Christ were explained, not on the basis of individual interpretation of the events of Christ's life, but by the communal apostolic witness of that life.
Scripture is always framed and interpreted by the apostolic witness, not only the Old Testament, but the New Testament as well. As St. Peter goes on to write in this epistle:
But false prophets arose among the people, as also there shall be false teachers among you, who shall introduce privily heresies of destruction, even denying the Master Who bought them, and bring upon themselves swift desctruction. (2 Peter 2:1)
And:
This second epistle, beloved, I now write to you, in which I stir up your sincere mind to be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us, the apostles of the Lord and Savior . . . . and be deeming that the long-suffering of the Lord is salvation, even as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom which was given to him, wrote to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them concerning these things, in which are some things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable twist, as they do also the rest of Scriptures, to their own destruction. (2 Peter 3:1, 15-16)
That is to say, the private, or even secret, teachings interpreted from the Scriptures that do not conform to the apostolic exegesis, are to be rejected. Biblical hermeneutics is a public, communal and apostolic exercise. There is an historical witness to such an exegesis. And when we substitute our own judgment of what Scripture means for that public apostolic witness, we violate this Petrine norm.
In part, Protestants must advocate for private interpretation because their dogma of sola scriptura requires it. If all belief and practice must be justified or substantited from the Scriptures, then necessarily Tradition is either eliminated altogether or it is relegated to a position not only beneath Scripture but also beneath that of the individual interpreter.
But if the individual interpreter is, ultimately, the final arbiter of the meaning of Scripture, then it necessarily follows that the Scriptures must be perspicacious, that is to say, the individual interpreter must be able to clearly understand all those things it is necessary to understand (cf. the Westminster Confession I.VII).
However, note, if you will, the account of the Ethiopian eunuch:
And Philip ran up and heard him reading the Prophet Esias, and said, "So then dost thou really understand what thou readest?" But he said, "No. How can I, unless someone should guide me?" And he besought Philip to come up and sit with him. (Acts 8:30-31)
Or, recall, if you will, Apollos:
And a certain Jew, by name Apollos, an Alexandrian by birth, an eloquent man, came down to Ephesus, being mighty in the Scriptures. This man, having been instructed in the way of the Lord, and being fervent i nspirit, was speaking and teaching accurately the things concerning the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John. And this one began to speak boldly in the synagogue. And after Aquila and Priscilla heard him, they took him to themselves, and set forth the way of God to him more accurately. (Acts 18:24-26)
Indeed, not even the Apostles themselves, relied on their own interpretations of the Scriptures:
And He said to them, "These are the words which I spoke to you while I was yet with you, that it is needful for all the things to be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms concerning Me." Then He thoroughly opened their mind to understand the Scriptures. (Luke 24:44-45)
We can see that proper interpretation of Scripture is necessary for those converting, for the converted, and for the Apostles. We can also see that such a proper interpretation comes down from Christ himself, to the community of his apostles and the Church, in a communal witness. Being regenerate does not guarantee one any more certainty or clarity of private interpretation than it does of the unregenerate. St. Apollos needed his private interpretation on baptism corrected so that it conformed to the apostolic witness from St. Paul guarded and kept by Sts. Priscilla and Aquila. But even being an Apostle does not guarantee one certainty and clarity of private interpretation. Even the apostolic witness is a communal enterprise. As St. Paul writes:
But even if we, or an angel from out of heaven, should preach a gospel to you besides that Gospel we preached to you, let such a one be anathema. As we have said before, and now again I say, if anyone preach a gospel to you besides what ye received, let such a one be anathema. (Galatians 1:8-9)
The point of all this has been to demonstrate that the elevation of private interpretation of the Scriptures to an authority greater than that of the communal apostolic witness is contrary to the life of the Church, and to the explicit Scripture itself. The point has not been to eliminate individual reading, wrestling and coming to understand the Scripture. These are indispensable to the life of the Christian. But such individual reading, wrestling and coming to understand the Scriptures must be bounded and shaped by the apostolic tradition. There is a public record throughout these two thousand years of what the Church has received from the Apostles. If our private interpretations do not conform to that record of Faith, then we must abandon such private interpretations for the fullness of the apostolic tradition.
This is where the "rule" that Stott expresses above runs to ground. For perspicacity will always ultimately be in the eye of the interpreter. To determine that in Scripture which is or is not clear on salvific matters is not for the individual to make. Take a look at Protestantism and the matter of baptism. If there ought be anything so clear, in matters of salvation, to the individual, it ought be baptism. But there is no unanimity among Protestants on the matter. Liberty then becomes not freedom but slavery. One might posit something like the liberty of conscience, but such freedom is bought at the price of bondage to ignorance. The circle of perspicacity grows ever smaller as the Gospel is whittled down to nothing more than personal preference. Though the rule Stott expresses might have enjoyed a certain plausibility, even among evangelicals, earlier in the prior century, surely the last few decades have witnessed the utter incompetency of this rule to do anything so important as witness to let alone establish a common faith.
No, we need something far less frail, far less prejudiced and far less prone to the passions than the individual interpreter. We need, bluntly, Tradition to set us right.
Nor is it a matter of setting the Tradition over against the Scripture. Sola scriptura advocates like to pull this rhetorical move. They will accuse Orthodox of making Tradition more authoritative than the Scripture. On the contrary, quite the opposite. For Orthodox the Scripture has all the authority and esteem that Protestants give to it. Orthodox too understand the Bible to be infallible, the written revelation of God. They too understand that all dogmatic pronouncements must be consonant with Scripture. Nor do they think Tradition to have a higher place than Scripture--because the Scripture is Tradition. It is not the whole of it, but it is Tradition, that which has been received and passed on.
No, the primary difference between sola scriptura advocates and Orthodox is not their views on Scripture, it is not their views on Tradition, even though there are admittedly some important distinctions between those views. Rather, the primary difference between Orthodox and sola scriptura advocates is their views on the individual interpreter. Sola scriptura advocates hold the individual interpreter to a level of competency and authority that we do not. Which is ironic. For many sola scriptura advocates will heartily set forth the total depravity of man, and criticize the Tradition as being founded on human (fallible) tradition. Yet they reserve to the individual interpreter all the authority and inspiration of the original apostles. The individual Christian is better able to interpet the Scripture, they will claim, than the inherited interpretations of the apostolic community over two millennia. For sola scriptura advocates, the individual interpeter is, indeed, god-like in his ability to interpret the written revelation of God.
Orthodox don't think so. Rejecting total depravity, affirming the human capacity for synergy with the work of God, Orthodox yet hold a rather dim view of the individual interpreter's ability to accurately interpret the Scriptures. Best always to submit one's interpetation to the canon of the Tradition. For as St. Peter clearly indicates in his epistle, when individual teachings depart from that of the apostolic witness, heresies result. There have been enough heresies through the centuries. No need to add any more.
Al Kimmel, recently received into the Catholic Church from ECUSA, has written a post, "Finding Eucharist in the Bible" in which he takes to task a Protestant blogger who rejects the Church's teaching on the Eucharist because "it's not in the Bible." Says the erstwhile "Fr. Al":
The problem, of course, is that Steve is reading the Scripture as a Protestant and not as a catholic. A catholic doesn’t come to the Bible with a blank slate, as if one can simply read the text and determine what the Church believes and teaches. A catholic reads the Bible within the context of the Holy Tradition and most especially within the eucharistic liturgy itself. Why does the catholic Christian connect the words of Jesus in John 6 to the bread and wine of the Eucharist? Because the Eucharist, itself instituted by Jesus, identifies the offered bread and wine with the Body and Blood of Christ. Hence the significance of the priestly recitation of the dominical words over the offered bread and wine. The catholic Christian, in other words, interprets the Scripture by the Eucharist and the Eucharist by the Scripture. As St Irenaeus wrote, “Our teaching is in accord with the Eucharist and the Eucharist, in its turn, confirms our teaching” (Adv. haer. 4.18.5).
Of course, most Protestants will roll their eyes at this "circularity." To which Al replies succinctly:
At this point, of course, the Protestant will accuse the catholic of violating sola Scriptura. Yep.
Love it. Al continues:
I am struck by Steve’s easy dismissal of the beliefs of “hundreds of million” of Catholic and Orthodox Christians. The catholic conviction of the real presence (or real identification, as I prefer) has been consistently confessed and believed by catholic Christians for two thousand years. Yet here is the Protestant accusing the Church catholic of tinkering, tweaking, retrofitting, and gerrymandering the Scriptures. On what basis does he decide that his interpretation of Scripture is superior to the interpretation of the Church? By his private judgment. This, and this alone, is the ground of his conviction. He can’t even invoke Martin Luther, the father of Protestantism, to support him.In disputes like this, it is appropriate to invoke the solemn authority of Pontificator’s First Law: “When Orthodoxy and Catholicism agree, Protestantism loses.” Perhaps Pontificator needs to formulate a new law: “When an interpretation of Scripture violates Pontificator’s First Law, it just can’t be right.”
Amen.
3. The Problem of Time and Consensus
Even if, for the sake of charitable discussion, we can ignore the problem of the canon and the problem of hermeneutical authority, in the end, biblical reductionism, or the dogma of sola scriptura, fails to answer the question, By what criterion/-ia does one determine the truth among competing and contradictory interpretations, both presently and through history? That is to say, why does sola scriptura, if it is in fact necessary to Christian faith and practice, fail to achieve and maintain holy consensus over time?
Adherents of sola scriptura, by necessity, are forced to not only admit diversity of belief and opinion but to affirm it and celebrate it. They must do so because sola scriptura necessarily results in divergent, contradictory and mutable doctrines, doctrines which not only contradict contemporaneous beliefs but historical ones as well. I do not mean to give the impression that the Christian faith must be a monochromatic, rigid, verbatim recitation of formulaic confessions. But there is a difference between the diversity of orthodox expression exemplified by St. James' insistence on the necessity to faith of works, and St. Paul's rejection of works as the basis of salvation; or St. Gregory of Nyssa's expression of the plurality of the Godhead in terms of dynamis, and St. Gregory Palamas' expression of such plurality in terms of energeia--and the pseudo-diversity that contradicts, such as between those Christians who insist that the Eucharistic elements really do become the Body and Blood of Jesus, and those who do not; or those who insist on the sacramental essence of baptism and those who do not. One form of diversity is shaped by the consensus of the mind of Christ in the Church, the other is shaped by private interpretation elevated to co-authority with the Scriptures. Diversity is no excuse for contradiction, and contradiction is the pervasive milieu of sola scriptura.
As St. Paul writes in the Ephesian letter:
And He gave some to be apostles, and some prophets, and some evangelists, and some shepherds and teachers, for the perfecting of the saints, to the work of ministering, to the building up of the body of the Christ, until we all might come to the unity of the faith, and of the full knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of the Christ, in order that we may no longer be infants, tossed to and fro by waves, and carried about with every wind of teaching, by the sleight of men, in craftiness toward the systematizing of error; but speaking the truth in love, we might grow up into Him in all things Who is the head--the Christ, from Whom all the body, joined and knit together by what every juncture supplieth, according to the energy of every single part in measure, maketh for itself the increase of the body, to the building up of itself in love.(Ephesians 4:11-14)
Clearly, then, the contradictions in doctrine and practice among those who adhere to the dogma of sola scriptura mean that sola scriptura cannot achieve the unity of faith, the consensus of the mind of Christ, that is one of the essential characteristics of the Church, as St. Paul here expressly notes. If this consensus does not exist, then the claims of those lacking that consensus to be the Church are suspect.
Some will argue that the picture here in Ephesians 4 is an eschatological one, pointing usually to 1 Corinthians 13:9-12; or, to say it a bit more accurately, the unity of faith St. Paul refers to in Ephesians 4 will not be fully realized until the appearing of Christ. Until then we see in a glass darkly.
But this merely illustrates the problem of time for the dogma of sola scriptura. We should remind ourselves of Jesus' words to his Apostles:
“But whenever that One, the Spirit of truth, should come, He will guide you into all the truth; for He shall not speak from Himself, but whatsoever He shall hear He shall speak; and He shall announce the coming things to you. That One shall glorify Me, for He shall receive of Mine and shall announce it to you.” (John 16:13-14)
Here Jesus promises his Apostles revelation of all the truth by the Holy Spirit. We can only assume that the promise to the Apostles was fulfilled. But if the promise was fulfilled, then unity of faith was a reality for the apostolic Church. The question we must ask then, in light of all the contradictions of belief and practice among present-day Christians, is, what happened to that unity of faith? If it no longer exists, then we must assume that the Church no longer exists. But if we cannot ascribe to the belief that the Church no longer exists, then we must also maintain that neither has the unity of faith been lost.
Sola scriptura fails to realize the unity of the faith that is an essential characteristic of the Church. It fails both in terms of consensus, and in terms of time. For either it must deny the consensus of the faith to which Scripture clearly testifies as a fulfilled reality for the Church, or it must deny that the unity of the faith of the Church can be maintained over time. So, either heresy and schism must be stronger than the faith of the Church, or time must be stronger.
And, in fact, this is precisely one presumption upon which sola scriptura rests: that the pure faith of the Church, and thus its consensual unity, was lost subsequent to the time of the Apostles. (Though it must be recognized that adherents of sola scriptura differ among themselves when and to what extent this Church lost the purity of her faith and thus consensus with the apostolic teaching.) But all this is just another way to say that the unity of the Faith was lost, and with it an essential characteristic of the Church. And in any case, the onus is upon sola scriptura adherents to demonstrate that their idiosyncratic doctrines are, in fact, the mind of the Church. They can only do so by either appealing to the Scriptures apart from or by privileging their idiosyncratic interpretations over any historic consensus of the Church, and thus force upon the Scriptural texts, and themselves, conformity to private interpretation. To the extent that sola scriptura adherents justify their own interpretations by appeal to the historic consensus of the Church, they simply give witness to the unity of the faith, the consensus of the mind of Christ, that has remained through time.
Conclusion
As I have argued from the beginning: The primary problem with sola scriptura is that it is not to be found anywhere within Scripture, nor, I might add here, within any testimony of the Church of the first millennium, prior to the Great Schism. It is thus a dogma that is extra-scriptural and extra-traditional and either refutes itself on its own terms, or begs the question of the authority of the one asserting the dogma as a norm for all Christians.
But even if we accept sola scriptura on its face for the sake of discussion, I have shown that there are three other problems fatal to the dogma of sola scriptura: the canon, hermeneutical authority, and consensus over time. Since sola scriptura cannot resolve these problems, it cannot provide an authoritative voice to the Church of the will of God. It is, then, simply a polemical tool in the hands of those who wield it to set aside the authority of the Church, which is to say, the presence of the Holy Spirit in the Church, who led the apostles into all the truth. It is also to deny the perseverance of the Church and her Faith through time. For these reasons, and its own internal contradictions, sola scriptura is not a Christian doctrine.
Note: The previous two installments are The Problems of Biblical Reductionism I and The Problems of Biblical Reductionism II
And the following are some other of my recent musings on Scripture and Tradition.
2. The Problem of Hermeneutics
Biblical reductionists, or adherents of sola scriptura, cannot answer, and for the most part do not even try to answer, an extremely important question: What hermeneutical method is the "biblical" one? That is to say, since the Bible is never uninterpreted, what is the right way to interpret it, and on what authority can this claim be made?
In the narrow view of sola scriptura, where every belief and practice must be founded on explicit or inferential biblical precedent, this is mostly a matter of inconsistency; these adherents do not practice fully what they preach. For surely, if there were ever an inescapably essential belief and practice that must be established on the basis of Scripture alone, it would be that of the proper way to interpret Scripture. In the broader view of sola scriptura, where beliefs and practices must not contradict Scripture but where there is otherwise latitude if they do not, this is far less of a practical problem, or one of inconsistency per se. But it remains a problem for all positions along the spectrum of sola scriptura in that it ultimately elevates not Scripture itself but the private interpreter or his group over the Tradition and over Scripture itself. That is to say, biblical authority rests, necessarily for sola scriptura adherents, on the interpretation an individual or group derives from the Scripture.
In the narrow view of sola scriptura all of Tradition is seen as antithetical to Scripture in that Tradition is understood as originating in man, while Scripture has divine origins. Thus, to adhere to Tradition, especially when such beliefs or practices are not clearly enunciated or directly inferred from Scripture is tantamount to elevating human opinion over divine revelation. But as I noted in the previous post, sola scriptura adherents, especially those who hold the narrow view, cannot escape that they are necessarily adhering to extra-scriptural Tradition (which in their view would be mere human opinion) in the acceptance of the canon of Scripture. In the broader view of sola scriptura Tradition is seen as necessarily subordinate to Scripture, or rather, to the interpreter's (or his group's) explanation of Scripture; for while many beliefs and practices which are not clearly enunciated in Scripture or directly inferred from it (such as the use and veneration of icons) may well be allowed and even encouraged, it is Scripture, or, rather, its interpretation, that sets the bound for Tradition, and not Tradition for the understanding of Scripture.
By on the one hand cutting off Scripture from Tradition and on the other hand subordinating Tradition to Scripture, the private interpreter or his interpretive group is elevated over Tradition, and, by corollary, even over Scripture. For in the final analysis, Scripture means what the interpreter or his group takes it to mean. For objective evidence of this assertion, one may simply note the plethora of distinctive and contradictory “study Bibles” each parsing Scripture through their own interpretive grid.
This is precisely why Scripture itself disallows private interpretation, as we read in 2 Peter 1:20:
Knowing this first, that every prophecy of Scripture cometh not out of private explanation, (2 Peter 1:20)
“Private” here is the Greek idios, which refers to one's own, what we might call “idiosyncratic,” individualistic. And “explanation” translates a New Testament hapax legomena, epilusis, which occurs only about three dozen times in the extant literature, mostly in various fragmentary texts, though two primary instances are in Aeschylus, Seven Against Thebes line 130 (where it indicates a release from fear), and here in 2 Peter (where it means an explanation).
Some object here noting that we cannot but help reading and working to understand the Scriptures for ourselves, and that this will necessitate “privately” interpreting the Scriptures. And in any case, this text isn't talking about reading the Scriptures per se but about proclaiming Christological prophecies. So this text isn't really about forbidding individuals interpreting the texts on their own, but forbidding private prophetic utterances regarding the Christ. But let's note the full context:
For we did not follow fables which have been cleverly devised, but we became eyewitnesses of that One's majesty and made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. For having received from God the Father honor and glory, there was borne along by the magnificent glory such a voice to Him, “This is My Son, the Beloved, in Whom I am well pleased.” And we heard this voice which was borne along from out of the heaven, when we were with Him in the mount, the holy one. And we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which ye do well to take heed, as to a lamp shining in a squalid place, until the day should dawn and the morning star should rise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that every prophecy of Scripture cometh not out of private explanation, for prophecy not brought about at any time by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke while borne along by the Holy Spirit. (2 Peter 2:16-21)
Notice the plural “we” that is used throughout. Notice that the author (which I assume to be St. Peter) pointedly affirms that he (and the others with him, namely, James and John) were eyewitnesses of the Transfiguration. Note that he enjoins upon his readers the authority of his eyewitness account (“ye do well to take heed”), and that this eyewitness account was not some sort of idiosyncratic fantasy, or the assertion of personal authority, but the divine revelation of God prophesied and now fulfilled in the apostolic community.
In other words, this text is all about authority, specifically apostolic authority. And note that this authority is received and transmitted. No single individual can claim this authority but it must be manifested in the apostolic community. The principle of hermeneutics in the Church, the proper method of interpretation, is to have this mind that is in Christ, to have the unity of the faith and not to be carried about by every wind of doctrine. It is to submit ourselves and all our lives to Christ our God as he has revealed himself to his disciples, as far as they were able to bear it, and from whom we receive both the revelation and its meaning.
In other words, the Faith (here summarized in the Transfiguration) is received from approved men (the apostles) into the community formed, shaped and led by them. Individuals, no matter how charismatic or forceful, do not have the authority to provide their own idiosyncratic determinations of God's revelation.
To say it bluntly and clearly: there is no private interpretation in the Church, but all interpretation must be submitted to and through the apostolic community. Sola scriptura adherents, however, necessarily and inescapably violate this norm. They do so either by cutting off Scripture from Tradition, or they do so by subordinating Tradition to the Scripture, making Tradition coextensive with the interpreter's (or his group's) explanation of Scripture.
In other words, on the historic Church's view, there is one single thing, which we term Tradition, and Scripture is one manifestation of that single Tradition. There is no subordination of Scripture to Tradition or Tradition to Scripture, but both are expressions of the authority of the apostolic community, the instantiation of the divine life of the Spirit in the Church. Scripture means what the Church, the apostolic community, says it means, not because the Church is the official institution of the religion, nor because the Church wrote the Scriptures, but because the one divine mind of Christ permeates all, the Church, the Scriptures and the Tradition. It is all one single expression of the Truth that Christ is.
The dogma of sola scriptura necessarily cannot instantiate this mind of Christ, for it is not found in it, either in the Scriptures or in the Tradition. Which is why sola scriptura can only foster private, idiosyncratic interpretation, which relies on the personal authority or force of the interpreter or his group. It is also why sola scriptura can offer no solution to the problem of discrepant and contradictory interpretations.
[Next: 3. The Problem of Time and Consensus]
Introduction
By the "problem of biblical reductionism" I mean the narrowing of dogmatic and pragmatic authority to the text of the Scriptures. It is an attempt to guard against the "traditions of men," but is ultimately self-defeating and self-refuting. Its primary instantiation is in the dogma of sola scriptura.
I will say it clearly and bluntly: the Protestant dogma of sola scriptura is an invention of men; it is not from God. Indeed, the human tradition of sola scriptura is a hindrance to faith and salvation. This is true for many of the variations of sola scriptura one finds, whether the more open form which accepts historical traditions of the Church so long as they don't go against Scripture (or, rather, against a particular interpretation of Scripture), or the more narrow form which demands that every belief and practice be justified by explicit propositions or inferential arguments from Scripture.
The primary problem with sola scriptura is that the dogma itself is not to be found anywhere within Scripture. If sola scriptura is taken in its more narrow form, then it is an extra-Scriptural dogma, and thus is self-refuting. If sola scriptura is taken in its broader form, it is question-begging circularity since it first must assume what it later concludes.
But there are three other problems that are fatal to the dogma of sola scriptura: the definition of what exactly is scriptura, i.e., the extent of the biblical canon; the question of hermeneutical methodology, i.e., the problem of proper interpretation of the Scripture on which sole basis we are to form dogma and practice; and the lack of a criterion (or of criteria) through which to decide disputed interpretations. Since sola scriptura cannot answer the questions of canon, interpretive methodology and interpretive criterion/-ia, the dogma of sola scriptura cannot do that which it is intended to do: to provide an authoritative voice to the Church of the will of God. It is, then, simply a polemical tool to criticize and neutralize the Tradition of the Church with which sola scriptura adherents disagree.
1. The Problem of the Canon
The question sola scriptura cannot answer is: What, precisely, is the Bible? That is to say, what books make up the Bible?
There are very few explicit references in Scripture in which particular books claim (for themselves or other books) divine inspiration. St. Paul in 2 Timothy 3:14-17 claims that all Scripture is inspired (“God-out-breathed”), but does not otherwise list those books (and does not claim that 2 Timothy itself is part of that Scriptural canon.) St. Peter seems pretty clearly to include St. Paul's letters in with the rest of Scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16). But once again, we do not have a list of letters that are considered part of the canon of Scripture. Should we also include the epistle to the Laodiceans (Colossians 4:16)?
This scenario is exacerbated, for us in the positivist modern world, in that the canon of Scripture was largely assumed more than it was codified. We know that some books, such as the Shepherd of Hermas, quite popular in the early Church but which we do not now consider canonical, were viewed alongside what we now know as canonical New Testament books as having similar authority. Other books that we now view as canonical, such as the Revelation, were in dispute for centuries.
This is further illustrated by the place (or lack thereof) in our own Bibles today of the so-called “Apocrypha” or “Deuterocanonicals”--the books of Tobit, Judith, the books of Maccabees (two, three or four?), the additions to Esther and Daniel, Baruch and the Letter of Jeremiah, the books of Esdras, Psalm 151, the prayer of Manasseh, Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom. For most of the Church, and for most of the first millennium and a half of the life of the Church, these books were viewed as part of the Scriptures. Indeed, some of our earliest codices of complete Scriptures bind them with the rest of the (undisputed) Old Testament books and the New Testament.
The, to us, seeming uncertainty of the extent of the canon is further aggravated by the fact that neither in the East nor in the West did an ecumenical synod decree about the canon for more than a millennium—though individuals, such as St. Athanasios, and local synods did enumerate the canon, and the consensus of the Church on the canon is clear and settled by the fourth century: all of the (undisputed) Old Testament, most of the so-called “apocrypha” (with 3 and 4 Maccabees and 2 Esdras remaining in some doubt), and all of the New Testament. Both Origen and St. Jerome indicate that the “apocrypha” are not found in the Hebrew canon and themselves hold them in some doubt, but both include them in their editions of the Scriptures--thus testifying to their acceptance by and use in the Church as a whole.
It wasn't until Luther's and other Reformational polemical attacks on the “apocrypha” that they were ever held as not being part of the Scripture. But Luther's own credibility on the matter is suspect as he, himself, based on his own subjective criteria, rejected the apostolic authority of Hebrews, Jude, and Revelation, though he thought they were "fine" books, and placed them at the end of his New Testament. The epistle of James, however, Luther stated is "flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture." So Luther rejects a book that had never been in serious doubt in the early Church--and on no other authority than his own personal understanding of the Gospel.
In fact, in the original 1522 preface to his New Testament, Luther further opined on the New Testament canon:
John's Gospel is the one, tender, true chief Gospel, far, far to be preferred to the other three and placed high above them. So, too, the Epistles of St. Paul and St. Peter far surpass the other three Gospels -- Matthew, Mark, and Luke.In a word, St. John's Gospel and his first Epistle, St. Paul's Epistles, especially Romans, Galatians and Ephesians, and St. Peter's first Epistle are the books that show you Christ and teach you all that is necessary and good for you to know, even though you were never to see or hear any other book or doctrine. Therefore St. James' Epistle is really an epistle of straw, compared to them; for it has nothing of the nature of the Gospel about it.
(I should note that Luther apparently removed these words in his 1545 preface, but it is clear that he hardly moved away from this opinion in general. I should also note that other Reformers rejected Luther's judgments on the canonicity of the books he rejects.)
Luther illustrates quite perfectly the polemical nature of sola scriptura. The dogma cannot determine the extent of the canon, and ultimately, its use is to restrict those texts that go against one's own theological positions. The “apocrypha” are rejected in the Reformation, in part, because they can be used to support prayers for the dead. But if we can reject the “apocrypha” as canonical, then we can reject the support for the teaching of prayers for the dead. But once one buys into such a paradigm, it will work out to its logical conclusion, as Luther demonstrates. By rejecting, or simply ignoring and downplaying the importance of, biblical texts that oppose one's theological positions, one must eventually box oneself into a narrow Marcionite prison of presuppositions.
Sola scriptura adherents simply fail to acknowledge that the canon is not derived from sola scriptura but from the received authority of the Tradition of the Church. They then use the Tradition (the canon) and a polemical device (sola scriptura) to oppose those aspects of the Tradition they misunderstand or with which they disagree.
That the question of the canon cannot be settled by the dogma of sola scriptura, and the fact that sola scriptura adherents absolutely depend upon the traditional New Testament canon is not only a delicious irony, but the utter defeat of their dogma of sola scriptura.
[Next: 2. The Problem of Hermeneutics]
That there is not only solid evidence of oral tradition in the New Testament, but that Christians were commanded to hold to the oral tradition (along with the written tradition) is also based on solid evidence, and I will draw the immediate implications of these facts.
First, let's examine the evidence (all emphases below added).
We note the preaching of the Gospel has always been by oral peaching, even if literary forms of the Gospel are canonized in our Scriptures. So we are not surprised to hear St. Paul say to the Thessalonians:
Because of this we also give thanks to God unceasingly, so that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you received not the word of men, but just as it truly is, the word of God, which also is at work in you who believe. (1 Thessalonians 2:13)
Indeed, the Apostolic transmission of this Gospel was essential to God's redemptive plan for the cosmos. The writer to the Hebrews exhorts his readers:
[H]ow shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation, which in the beginning was spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed to us by those who heard Him (Hebrews 2:3)
St. John echoes this:
That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have gazed upon, and our hands have handled, concerning the Word of life--and the life was manifested, and we have seen, and bear witness, and we declare to you the eternal life which was with the Father and was manifested to us--that which we have seen and heard we declare to you, in order that you also may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ. And these things we write to you that our joy may be fulfilled. And this is the message which we have heard from Him and we announce to you, that God is light and in Him is no darkness at all. (1 John 1:1-5)
From the beginning of the world, God's redemption is communicated orally. Not only that, however, it is also transmitted from generation to generation orally. St. Paul writes:
The things which you learned and received and heard and saw in me, practice these things; and the God of peace shall be with you. (Philippians 4:9)
Note that St. Paul does not spell out in detail to the Church in Philippi all the things that they had “learned and received and heard and saw” in him here in his epistle to them. He presumes a certain content to their understanding, a content embodied by his way of life among them, that he need only note in summary here in his epistle. That is to say, there was an oral tradition in addition to his letter which he calls them to practice.
St. Paul goes on to say to St. Timothy:
Hold to the pattern of sound words which you have heard from me, in faith and love which are in Christ Jesus. (2 Timothy 1:13)
St. Paul doesn't say here, “Put into practice the Scriptures you have studied from your youth,” but enjoins upon them the things they hear and saw him say and do. Which is not to say that St. Paul would not want St. Timothy to put the Old Testament into practice; but it is to say that it was the oral tradition St. Timothy was to put into practice.
Note also that this exhortation, and the following one, are from the very same text that will later claim that all Scripture (the primary reference here is to the Old Testament) is “God-out-breathed,” and is profitable for the leaders of the Church in their ministry to Church members of teaching, reproof, correction and training in righteousness (3:16-17). Indeed, it is ironic that those who misinterpret these verses to teach the all-sufficiency of Scripture (over and against oral tradition), fail to reckon with the fact that St. Paul does not enjoin St. Timothy to “ask for the ancient paths of the Lord” (Jeremiah 6:16), but instead exhorts him to “hold to the pattern of sound words” which he had heard from St. Paul. He continues to exhort St. Timothy:
And the things which you have heard from me through many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be competent to teach others also. (2 Timothy 2:2)
Again: St. Timothy was not enjoined to write about it, nor to disseminate the Old Testament or St. Paul's letter, but to disseminate what he had heard. I don't deny the essentiality of the Scriptures, nor that Christians ought to hold to them and disseminate them. But I am pointing out that St. Paul commanded St. Timothy to do something quite specific: hold to the oral tradition and to pass it on.
Indeed, that this keeping of the oral tradition is important to the Christian way of life is further supported by the letter to the Hebrews. The author of Hebrews notes that the surpassing nature of the final revelation in Christ demands that we give earnest attention to that which we've heard:
On account of this we must give the more earnest heed to the things we have heard, lest we drift away. (Hebrews 2:1)
Here, the emphasis on the oral tradition is clear: The author of Hebrews is writing that which will later be canonized as Scripture (and, I would argue, is Scripture from its initial composition) and could refer to the Old Testament Scriptures. But he does not encourage his readers to give more earnest heed to the Scriptures, but to the oral tradition that they had received. And that failure to do so would be for them to drift away.
The key to this oral tradition was its antiquity; i. e., it predates all the New Testament writings and goes back to “the beginning.”
Brothers, I am not writing a new commandment to you, but an old commandment which you have had from the beginning. The old commandment is the word which you heard from the beginning. . . . Therefore let that which you heard from the beginning abide in you. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, you also will abide in the Son and in the Father. (1 John 2:7, 24)
and:
This is love, that we walk according to His commandments. This is the commandment, that as you have heard from the beginning, that you should walk in it. (2 John 6)
Once again, adherence to the oral tradition is essential for the life of faith—doing so will enable us to abide in the Son and in the Father.
Not only does the final revelation of God in Christ begin with the oral declaration of St. John the Forerunner, it ends with the oral declaration of St. John the Revelator in the Apocalypse, as Jesus exhorts his Church in Sardis:
Remember therefore how you have received and heard, and hold fast, and repent. Therefore if you will not watch, I will come upon you like a thief, and by no means shall you know what hour I will come upon you. (Revelation 3:3)
The Church in Sardis was called back to the oral tradition. Once again, whether or not we hold to the oral tradition has eternal consequences. For not only is the oral word to be heard, it is to be lived:
Remember your leaders, who spoke the word of God to you, of whom considering the result of their conduct, imitate their faith. (Hebrews 13:7)
Indeed, we do this so that we may increase our diligence and avoid dullness:
But we desire that each one of you show the same diligence to the full assurance of hope until the end, lest you become dull, but become imitators of those who through faith and patience inherit the promises. (Hebrews 6:11-12)
In fact, imitation is a frequent exhortation from St. Paul to his readers:
Therefore I exhort you, be imitators of me. . . . Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ. . . . Therefore be imitators of God as beloved children. . . . Be fellow imitators of me, brothers, and look out for those walking this way, just as you have us for a pattern. . . . And you became imitators of us and of the Lord, in that you received the word in much tribulation, with joy of the Holy Spirit . . . . For you, brothers, became imitators of the churches of God which are in Judea in Christ Jesus, because you suffered the same things from your fellow countrymen, just as also they did by the Jews . . . (1 Corinthians 4:16; 11:1; Ephesians 5:1; Philippians 3:17; 1 Thessalonians 1:6; 2:14)
And what is it that the readers are to imitate? The oral tradition as lived by the Apostles and those leaders who themselves are passing on the oral tradition.
The implications are clear: Christians ought not merely hold to Scripture alone, but are also to hold to that which has been believed “always, everywhere, and by all” (St. Vincent of Lerins, Commonitory, 2). It is essential to our life in Christ to do so, and if we are not doing so, we must repent and return again to that which the Church heard and received from the beginning.
The challenge, however, is not necessarily that there was an oral tradition--it seems even sola scriptura adherents would agree to that--but rather that there was an oral tradition in addition to the written tradition, and, further, what the content is of that oral tradition.
Here, due to the presuppositions surrounding sola scriptura, I am forced to articulate my case--if I am to have any chance as to plausibility and persuasiveness--within presuppositional constraints I do not accept. If I argue for oral traditional content that is also clearly expressed in the Scripture, my interlocutors will reply, "Ah, but this is just what we are claiming: all oral tradition is confined within the written tradition (i.e., the Scriptures)." If I argue for oral traditional content that is not clearly expressed in Scripture, then my interlocutors will reply, "Ah, but since this is not in Scripture, it is merely the tradition of men." So, I'm sort of damned if I do, and damned if I don't.
However, despite this seemingly impossible scenario, I will, in fact, demonstrate that there is an oral tradition that is different from but in concert with the written tradition. To do so I will have to confine myself to the earliest witnesses, the ones closest in time to the Apostles. For the closer historically I can be to the Apostles, the more plausible will be my case that the oral tradition for which I am providing citations is connected to the Apostles. Furthermore, I will also have to demonstrate that the oral traditional content I am claiming as apostolic is believed "always, everywhere and by all." Since the earliest witnesses we have are few, demonstrating that at least two of these witnesses agree will have to at least plausibly suggest--if it cannot be conclusively proven due to the nature of the evidenciary limitations--that such beliefs were, indeed, held always, everywhere, and by all.
That being said, then, the following are some aspects of oral tradition which are not expressly stated or are obscure in the New Testament:
1. The extent of the canon of Scripture (Muratorian canon, citations by the Apostolic Fathers, St. Athansios' festal letter).
2. Triune baptism accompanied with fasting, both by the baptisand and by the sponsors (Didache 7, St Justin's First Apology 61).
3. Only one (Sunday) Eucharist celebrated by one president of the presbytery or bishop (1 Clement 41; St Ignatios to the Philadelphians 4).
4. Orderly succession of leadership from the apostles (1 Clement 44; St Irenaeus Against Heresies III.3).
5. A specific order of worship with specific prayers recited (Didache 9-10; St Justin's First Apology 65-67).
6. Eucharistic elements are sacramentally the body and blood of Jesus (St Ignatios to the Ephesians 20; St Ignatios to the Smyrnaens 7; St Justin's First Apology 66; St Irenaeus' Against Heresies V.2,2-3).
7. Closed communion (no unbaptized communicants) (Didache 9; St Justin's First Apology 66).
8. The Greek Old Testament (Septuagint) is the Christian Old Testament (as opposed to the Hebrew, or as it is later known, the Masoretic, text) (St Justin's Dialogue with Trypho 71-73; St Justin's Address to the Greeks 13; St Irenaeus' Against Heresies III.21).
Clearly this is not an exhaustive list, and some items (Triune baptism; Sacramental Eucharist) are expressly stated in the New Testament but about them there is present dispute. But it is, nonetheless, a list of substantive items.
And it shows, I think, even to adherents of sola scriptura, that the tradition of the Church is both more than merely the content of the Scriptures and is apostolic in origin.
Addendum
I have made reference above to St. Irenaeus' Against Heresies as a source for several of the items of the apostolic oral tradition. Some might wonder how it is that I can claim that St. Irenaeus, who wrote his work c. A.D. 185, can lay a claim to faithful transmission of the oral apostolic tradition. Let me cite one passage from Against Heresies to make this claim clear:
4. But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic Churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time,-a man who was of much greater weight, and a more stedfast witness of truth, than Valentinus, and Marcion, and the rest of the heretics. He it was who, coming to Rome in the time of Anicetus caused many to turn away from the aforesaid heretics to the Church of God, proclaiming that he had received this one and sole truth from the apostles,-that, namely, which is handed down by the Church. There are also those who heard from him that John, the disciple of the Lord, going to bathe at Ephesus, and perceiving Cerinthus within, rushed out of the bath-house without bathing, exclaiming, "Let us fly, lest even the bath-house fall down, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within." And Polycarp himself replied to Marcion, who met him on one occasion, and said, "Dost thou know me? ""I do know thee, the first-born of Satan." Such was the horror which the apostles and their disciples had against holding even verbal communication with any corrupters of the truth; as Paul also says, "A man that is an heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject; knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself." There is also a very powerful Epistle of Polycarp written to the Philippians, from which those who choose to do so, and are anxious about their salvation, can learn the character of his faith, and the preaching of the truth. Then, again, the Church in Ephesus, founded by Paul, and having John remaining among them permanently until the times of Trajan, is a true witness of the tradition of the apostles. (Against Heresies, Bk III.3,4, emphases added)
In other words, we have this chain of transferral of the apostolic tradition: the Apostle John to St. Polycarp to St. Irenaeus. If 2 Timothy 2:2 above can be delineated thus: St. Paul to St. Timothy to faithful men to others--then we may note that the transmission from the Apostle John to St. Irenaeus is three connections where 2 Timothy 2:2 notes four, thus being well within the literal apostolic exhortation (and of course within its intended meaning).
The three global monotheistic faiths—Judaism, Christianity, and Islam—all have their Scriptures: the Hebrew Bible, the Christian Old and New Testaments, and the Koran. The Koran famously refers to Jews and Christians as the “People of the Book.”(cf. Suras 9:29; 29:46), and, indeed, all three faiths are known for their devotion to their Scriptures.
What is clear, however, is that both Judaism and Islam have a different relationship with their respective Scriptures than do Christians with theirs. Both Islam and Judaism focus explicitly on that actual text of their respective Scriptures such that the Masoretic text is well known for its scrupulosity in passing down the exact text of the Hebrew Bible, and Islam does not even acknowledge any versions of the Koran as being the Koran but are considered commentaries (by translation) on the Arabic text.
Christian Scriptures, on the other hand, though handled with reverence and fidelity, and though focused attention was given to the faithful transmission of the actual text, were nonetheless not handled with the same sort of scrupulosity. The Christian Scriptures are rich with varying text-type traditions, and the Christian Old Testament varies in the translation methods of the various Hebrew and Aramaic (in most cases) originals from quite loose paraphrase to wooden word-for-word translation. The Septuagint also contains noticeable differences from the Hebrew Bible's Masoretic text not just in the canon (including texts excluded by Jews after the advent of Christianity) but even in including portions of canonical books not included in the Masoretic text, and excluding verses included in the Masoretic text.
Furthermore, from the very beginning of Christianity, the translation of the original texts were considered as authoritative as the originals themselves. Thus the Latin Vulgate took hold in western Christianity, and various translations became the Bible for their respective language groups, such as Slavonic for Russia. Christian children memorized the Scriptures in their native languages, whereas Jewish boys had to learn to read and chant Hebrew for their bar mitzvah, and Muslims memorize the Arabic original.
That is to say, Christians have always viewed the essence of Scripture to be the meaning and not the words. Indeed, the Christian hermeneutical key for the Old Testament has never been what the original audience of Jews would have understood, however helpful this may be, but rather the interpretive key to the Old Testament has always been for Christians Christ himself.
As St. Paul writes in his epistle to the Corinthians:
Ye are our epistle, which hath been inscribed in hour hearts, known and read by all men, since it is manifest that ye are an epistle of Christ, ministered by us, which hath not been inscribed with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God, not in stony tablets, but in fleshy tablets of the heart.And we have such trust through Christ toward God: Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to reckon anything as of ourselves, but our sufficiency is of God, Who also made us fit ministers of a new covenant [diathekes], not of the letter, but of the Spirit; for the letter killeth, but the Spirit maketh alive. . . .
But their [i. e., the Israelite's] minds were hardened: For until this day, the same veil remaineth upon the reading of the old testament [diathekes], it not being revealed that in Christ the veil is being abolished. But until today, when Moses is being read, a veil lieth in their heart. But whenever it shall turn to the Lord, the veil is taken away. (2 Corinthians 3:2-7, 14-16)
Indeed, that the point of the Scriptures is their meaning, which is to say, is Christ, is also made evident in the epistle to the Hebrews:
God, Who of old, in many parts and in many ways spoke to the fathers through the prophets, did in these last of days speak to us through the Son, Whom He appointed heir of all things, by Whom also He made the ages . . . . (Hebrews 1:1-2)
Christ is the final revelation of God, in him is all of what God wants to say to us. We worship a living Word, not a written text. Indeed, many Christians today, actually misinterpret another passage from Hebrews; namely the one about the living and effective Word. Here is a different translation from what most Christians have read:
For the Logos of God is living and effective, and sharper than every two-edged sword, even going through as far as the dividing of both soul and spirit and of both joints and marrows. And there is no created thing not manifest before His face; but all things are fixed and laid bare to His eyes with Whom is our account. (Hebrews 4:12-13)
If one looks in the context of Hebrews four, the writer has not discussed written Scripture. In verse 10, the author speaks of the one who has entered his rest from his works, just as God did from his own. This is a clear reference to Jesus. Verse 11 exhorts us to enter into that rest which Jesus has obtained. And verse 12 talks about the “Word” (or Logos) of God. Clearly then verse 12 is talking about Jesus and not a written Scripture.
This is borne out by the way logos is used in Hebrews. There are twelve occurrences, which carry these respective meanings: a spoken word (2:2; 4:2; 5:11*; 7:28*; 13:7); an account rendered (4:13; 13:22); perhaps the Hebrews epistle itself (5:11*); God's oracles/revelation (5:13; 7:28*); and Christ himself (4:12; 6:1 [as subject of teaching]). Only in two instances (5:11 and 7:28) could logos be interpreted as referring to written Scriptures, but both of these interpretations depend upon the subsequent result and not the original event. That is to say, in Hebrews 5:11, the author is indicating that he has much more to teach them. This could be construed as the subject matter which follows, especially in chapter 7. But then this presumes that the Hebrews epistle is Scripture, something that the author himself never clearly intends about his own letter. And in Hebrews 7:28, the “word” is the word of the oath God spoke relative to the Messiah being a priest forever. This spoken word from God is written in the Psalm, which is received as Scripture, but it was originally that which God had spoken, or revealed, to his prophet. In other words, logos in Hebrews is never clearly used to refer to Scripture, and the context of Hebrews 4 is not referring to Scripture, so verse 12 refers to the Christ, not to a written body of Scripture.
So the essence of Scripture is Christ, and that essence is communicated to us through the meaning of the Scriptures and not the mere letters of the text. That this was the view of the early Church is also clear. We read in St. Justin:
For these words [of the Old Testament] have neither been prepared by me, nor embellished by the art of man; but David sung them, Isaiah preached them, Zechariah proclaimed them, and Moses wrote them. Are you acquainted with them, Trypho? They are contained in your Scriptures, or rather not yours, but ours. For we believe them; but you, though you read them, do not catch the spirit that is in them. (St. Justin the Philosopher, Dialogue with Trypho, Ch. 29)
In fact, St. Hilary of Poitiers wrote, "Scripturae enim non in legendo sunt, sed in intelligendo., or "For Scripture is not in the reading, but in the understanding." ad Constantium Aug. [to the Emperor Constantius], Bk II, Ch. 9). St. Jerome echoes this.
We ought to remain in that Church which was rounded by the Apostles and continues to this day. If ever you hear of any that are called Christians taking their name not from the Lord Jesus Christ, but from some other, for instance, Marcionites, Valentinians, Men of the mountain or the plain, you may be sure that you have there not the Church of Christ, but the synagogue of Antichrist. For the fact that they took their rise after the foundation of the Church is proof that they are those whose coming the Apostle foretold. And let them not flatter themselves if they think they have Scripture authority for their assertions, since the devil himself quoted Scripture, and the essence of the Scriptures is not the letter, but the meaning. Otherwise, if we follow the letter, we too can concoct a new dogma and assert that such persons as wear shoes and have two coats must not be received into the Church.(The Dialogue Against the Luciferians, ch. 28)
So, for Christians, what is important about the Scriptures is what they mean, how they reveal Christ and not the letters of the text.
Now don't mistake me. I do not mean to indicate that the practices of textual criticism or reliance on the Greek Old Testament and New Testament is inessential. On the contrary, if what is important is the meaning, then that meaning will be conveyed by words and to the best of our ability we should reconstruct the actual words of the originals from the copies we have available to us. But we need not fret over whether we have the exact wording of the original text. For the meaning of the texts is not going to be preserved in the mere letters of the text, but in the Christ who is revealed in them.
And it is this hermeneutical principle that will reveal to us the need for our Old Testament to conform to the Old Testament of the Church, which is not the Hebrew Bible as it is currently known. For the meaning of the Old Testament is preserved in that text that the Church received and which was her Bible. And that text was the Greek Old Testament. Once again, however, we need to fret over whether we have the exact same texts of the Septuagint that the apostles had—there is room for variations of Septuagint text-types. In any case, if we want to establish an authoritative “first edition” of the Christian Bible, we would do well to practice our textual criticism primarily via liturgical reconstruction of the biblical texts and not only the biblical codices.
To return to the primary point of this post, however, if the essence of the Scriptures is Christ, and is, therefore, their meaning, then it is going to be radically important that Christians “get right” the meaning of the text. This is not to imply that there is only one singular meaning of each text, for there are legitimately layers of meaning in the texts of Scripture. But to adequately access those layers, that meaning, it will be necessary to follow the proper hermeneutic.
But what is that proper hermeneutic? How do Christians get at the true meaning of the Scriptures? They do so through the mind of Christ. And where do we find this mind of Christ? According to 1 Corinthians 2:16, Ephesians 4:11-16 and 1 John 2:20-24; 3:23-4:6, that mind of Christ is found in the Church, the pillar and bulwark of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15). Therefore our interpretations of the Scriptures, if we would get the essence of the Scripture, must conform to what the Church has always said about them.
As St. Vincent of Lerins put it in the fifth century:
A General Rule for distinguishing the Truth of the Catholic Faith from the Falsehood of Heretical Pravity.I Have often then inquired earnestly and attentively of very many men eminent for sanctity and learning, how and by what sure and so to speak universal rule I may be able to distinguish the truth of Catholic faith from the falsehood of heretical pravity; and I have always, and in almost every instance, received an answer to this effect: That whether I or any one else should wish to detect the frauds and avoid the snares of heretics as they rise, and to continue sound and complete in the Catholic faith, we must, the Lord helping, fortify our own belief in two ways; first, by the authority of the Divine Law, and then, by the Tradition of the Catholic Church.
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.
Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense "Catholic," which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally. This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consent. We shall follow universality if we confess that one faith to be true, which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity, if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy ancestors and fathers; consent, in like manner, if in antiquity itself we adhere to the consentient definitions and determinations of all, or at the least of almost all priests and doctors. (St. Vincent of Lerins, The Commonitory, Ch. II)
Why the phrase “man of God” in 2 Timothy 3:16-17 does not refer to every Christian generally but to Church leaders specifically.
Earlier, I examined 2 Timothy 3:16-17 to show why Scripture cannot be said to claim for itself all-sufficiency. Here are the verses once more:
Every Scripture is God-inspired and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness, in order that the man of God may be perfect, equipped for every good work (2 Timothy 3:16-17)
Thanks to a comment from Perry Robinson to me, I was compelled to look at this phrase in 2 Timothy 3:17, “man of God.” The phrase occurs more than sixty times in the Scriptures, more than forty of them in 1-2 Kings, where they refer most often to Elijah, Elisha, and the unnamed prophet out of Judah of chapter 13. In all “man of God” refers to the prophets--all instances of the phrase are to named prophets or unnamed but specific prophets--nearly fifty times, Moses (eight times), David (three times), the angel that appeared to Samson's parents (twice), to the son of Igdaliah (Godolias in the LXX), a Levitical priest (once), to St. Timothy (once at 1 Timothy 6:11), and to the unspecified “man of God” in our text under consideration, though contextually its most proximate target would be St. Timothy.
From this follows 4 observations and a corollary:
1. “Man of God” is never used in Scripture to refer to the people of God generally, but to specific persons.
2. “Man of God” always refers to a prophet, priest, King or Church leader, never to the general people of God. Since this is so for every other occurrence, then even 2 Timothy 3:17, though it does not name a specific person, contextually can only refer to a Church leader.
3. We know from passages such as Acts 15:35; 18:11; 20:20, 28-31; Romans 12:7; Colossians 1:28; Ephesians 4:11; 1 Timothy 3:2; 2 Timothy 2:24; 4:2; Titus 1:10-14 and Hebrews 13:7 that teaching and correction was an essential part of Church leadership (though Colossians 3:16 could be construed more broadly to apply to Church members generally, and 1 Corinthians 14:26 to those with the charism of teaching, which only the more emphasizes teaching and correction as essential to Church leadership).
4. Given 1-3, then, St. Paul is telling St. Timothy that Scripture is useful for Church leaders “for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness.” Whatever else we may say about Scripture and Christians generally, this specific verse is not for application to Christians generally, but to Christian leaders specifically.
5. As a corollary to 4--especially in light of such verses as Acts 15:1; 20:28-31; Colossians 2:22; Titus 1:10-14--when Christians who are not Church leaders make use of Scripture, they should ensure that their teaching conforms to the teaching of the Church leadership.
As I have indicated in my arguments elsewhere, Church leaders are responsible for the faithful transmission of the tradition of the Apostles, which ultimately means that all Scriptural interpretation, especially that of the laity, must conform to what the Church has always taught and believed from the beginning.
So, given my previous argument regarding 2 Timothy 3:16-17, that it does not claim the all-sufficiency of Scripture, and given this argument that the verses only apply to Church leaders specifically, it is now indisputable that Protestants cannot appeal to these verses for Scriptural all-sufficiency, for not only do the verses not make this claim (as I've previously proven), neither are they useful for any Christian generally, but for Church leaders particularly, and so even if their all-sufficiency were provisionally granted, it would not apply to all Christians indiscriminately, and therefore would violate the purported claim to be all-sufficient.
I present here a brief sketch as to why 2 Timothy 3:16-17 does not teach the all-sufficiency of Scripture.
Every Scripture is God-inspired and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness, in order that the man of God may be perfect, equipped for every good work (2 Timothy 3:16-17)
Sola scriptura advocates frequently utilize these verses to both prove the divine origin and authority of the Scriptures as well as that all that Christians need are the Scriptures, and either we need not feel bound to follow traditions not explicitly enjoined in or necessarily inferred from the Scriptures or, more strongly, we must not do anything that is not explicitly enjoined in or necessarily inferred from the Scriptures. Christians need nothing more than the Scriptures.
By “Scriptures” of course, sola scriptura adherents mean the (relatively late) Protestant canon of sixty-six books (minus the so-called “Apocrypha”), and, more pointedly, they mean the New Testament Scriptures. Thus, the sixty-six books of the Protestant canon are “all-sufficient” and we either do not need tradition, or even must reject all extrascriptural tradition.
But is St. Paul making a claim for the all-sufficiency of Scripture? The answer is no, and here's why.
1. The “Scriptures” to which St. Paul refers here in 2 Timothy 3:16 has already been identified previously as what we would call the Old Testament just one verse prior in 2 Timothy 3:15. That St. Paul cannot mean the New Testament Scriptures is clear in that the Scriptures St. Timothy was taught in his youth could only have been the Old Testament since no New Testament book would have been written in St. Timothy's youth. St. Paul first encountered St. Timothy on his second missionary journey (c. AD 50-53), and at this time it is possible for only one to three New Testament books to have been written, depending on how one dates them (perhaps Galatians and 1-2 Thessalonians), and St. Timothy could not have studied these in his youth.
2. St. Paul does not claim that the Old Testament Scriptures are all-sufficient, and, indeed, if they were, then the New Testament would have been superfluous. What he says is that the Old Testament Scriptures are “profitable” (ophelimos) for four purposes (teaching, reproof, correction, and instruction which is in righteousness), which purposes result in an “adult” (“perfect” here is artios which indicates complete, full-grown, prepared) Christian, who has been equipped for every good work. But that they are not all-sufficient is clear: the Old Testament does not tell us about baptism for the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit; nor does it tell us about the Lord's Supper; nor about the necessity for all Christians everywhere to gather on Sunday to worship and celebrate the Lord's Supper (nor does the New Testament explicitly teach this last practice for that matter)--three of the most important practices of the Church and without which the Church and the faith would not be what they are.
3. Given 1 and 2, it cannot be the case that St. Paul, though he does not explicitly state the all-sufficiency of Scripture, he at least implies it.
As an aside, also in this same chapter, St. Paul refers to the names of two men who opposed Moses. Jewish tradition identifies these two as the Egyptian magicians who opposed Moses (though the text here in St. Paul does not clearly state this). This is one example of what many take to be a clear use of tradition in Scripture (the other is in Jude 9, where the archangel Michael argued with the devil over the body of Moses). Sola scriptura advocates explain that it is not necessary to appeal to tradition for these facts, that the Holy Spirit could quite well have revealed these facts to St. Paul and St. Jude directly. This is certainly true that this could be the case. But it does involve some circularity of reasoning that makes such an explanation suspect.
In any case, appealing to tradition to explain 2 Timothy 3:8 is not necessary to my main argument above.
So, since St. Paul does not make any claims about the New Testament in these verses, and since manifestly the Old Testament is not in itself all-sufficient, St. Paul cannot mean that Scripture is all-sufficient for Christian faith and practice.
Especially given the fact that St. Paul enjoins upon the Thessalonian Church to adhere to the entirety of the apostolic tradition, both oral and written, as it comes from St. Paul's ministry (2 Thessalonians 2:15), then to claim that St. Paul in 2 Timothy 3:16-17 is teaching the all-sufficiency of Scripture is a false teaching and must be rejected.
I here present a brief sketch as to why “tradition” in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 is necessarily apostolic oral tradition, and why we must adhere to oral apostolic tradition as it has been handed down to us.
So then, brethren, be standing firm and holding fast the traditions which ye were taught, whether by word or by our epistle. (2 Thessalonians 2:15)
1. The Church at Thessaloniki had been disturbed by a letter purporting to have been from St. Paul claiming that the day of the Lord had already come (2 Thessalonians 2:2).
2. St. Paul tells them not to be disturbed “by a spirit, a word, or an epistle (seemingly) from us” (2 Thessalonians 2:2).
3. After describing some particulars about the man of lawlessness, he asks the Thessalonians whether they remember, when he was last with them, that he had spoken these things to them (2 Thessalonians 2:5).
4. He continues speaking about the man of lawlessness and the spirit of delusion the Lord will send on those who persist in their unbelief, and then gives thanks that the Thessalonians are not of that sort but are the first fruits of sanctification, and then exhorts them to “hold to the traditions you were taught, whether by word or by letter” (2 Thessalonians 2:15).
Four interesting observations are in order:
1. The written word was not necessarily a guarantee of apostolicity; a fraudulent document going out in St. Paul's name had misled and confused the Thessalonians.
2. The Thessalonians had the apostolic traditions which they had been taught through St. Paul's apostolic ministry, and they were to use that to compare anything that disturbed or shook their mind (i. e., anything that was “new” or out of concert with the apostolic tradition), and the entirety of that apostolic tradition was not only St. Paul's letter to them, but also his spoken word.
3. That the teaching of “the man of lawlessness” is not contained anywhere else in canonical letters of St. Paul clearly entails that this tradition was that which St. Paul had given them orally while ministering to them.
4. The unity of oral apostolic tradition and Scripture is clearly presumed; i. e., oral apostolic tradition and Scripture are not opposed to one another, and, in fact, are essentially the same since they are manifestations of the authority of a single source: the apostolic ministry.
Now some sola scriptura adherents will argue that since St. Paul's teaching regarding the lawless one has been preserved in 2 Thessalonians, and since that letter has been received by the Church as canonical, that this obviates oral apostolic tradition. This conclusion, however is false, and here's why.
First and foremost, St. Paul's counsel to adhere to oral and written apostolic tradition is, itself, certified in the same canonical text that supposedly obviates apostolic tradition. This is simply self-contradictory. In other words, Scripture itself enjoins upon the Thessalonians that they hold to the oral apostolic tradition St. Paul had delivered to them. Clearly Scripture cannot be used to obviate oral apostolic tradition.
Secondly, this begs the question that sola scriptura advocates assert but do not prove: namely, that the Scriptures (which necessarily, on their terms, include the New Testament) are all-sufficient. Scripture nowhere asserts this (the spooftexting of 2 Timothy 3:16-17 notwithstanding), but more importantly the sheer logic of history denies it: the complete canon of Scriptures were not available to all Christians for many decades (to estimate on the highly conservative end) after Pentecost, since the New Testament was not complete until the end of the first century. Unless sola scriptura advocates are willing to argue that a partial New Testament canon is also all-sufficient (since various Churches in the first century would have only some copies of St. Paul's letters, and not all the New Testament canonical books would have been available to all Churches till, minimally, well into the second century, perhaps a century after Pentecost), then they are forced to admit that the Church operated for decades after the death of the last Apostle, and for perhaps as long as a century after the death of most of the Apostles, before there was any realistic opportunity for Churches to have most, though perhaps not all, of the completed canon of the Scriptures. This means the Churches did not have direct access to the Apostles themselves, nor of their writings, for perhaps as long as a hundred years (again, estimating very conservatively, I happen to think it was much longer), and therefore were without anything that was “all-sufficient” to guide them in their faith.
Clearly, the Churches had to operate on oral apostolic tradition for many decades, even for as long as a century (I would argue longer even than that).
If, therefore, sola scriptura cannot withstand the test of canonical Scripture as well as historical fact, it is a false teaching and should be rejected.
Kevin has offered the last word in this series of posts between us on Tradition and Scripture. He has conceded the infallibility of the Church, though he understands it differently than do I. Given his concession, it is tempting to take up the conversation anew. But it is a temptation I will resist. I thank him for his willingness to debate these matters in the strong way that he has, though with consummate respect and courtesy. As promised, I've linked to his reply, and it is the final link in the series which follows below.
No, You Do NOT Have a Right to Depart from the Tradition (Initial post by Clifton)
Inscripturated Apostolic Tradition (Initial response by Kevin)
My Reply to Kevin re: Tradition and Scripture (Clifton)
Response to Tradition and Scripture (Kevin)
My Account of Scripture and Tradition (Secondary post by Clifton reflecting on Scripture and Tradition in general)
Voiding the Word (Kevin's reply to "My Account of Scripture and Tradition")
Tradition and Scripture Continued: My Response to Kevin (Clifton's reply to Kevin's "Response to Tradition and Scripture")
A-Voiding the Word: My Response to Kevin's Other Post (Clifton's Reply to Kevin's "Voiding the Word")
Epistemological Comfort Blankets (Kevin's combined reply to the previous two replies by Clifton)
Hermeneutics and Infallibility, or, As Expected, the Impasse Has Quickly Been Reached: A Reply to Kevin (Clifton's reply to Kevin)
Vicious Interpretive Circles (Kevin's reply)
Vicious Interpretive Circles, Indeed! (A Final Reply to Kevin?) (Clifton again)
What We Have Here (Kevin's reply to the above post)
What Have We Here? (My Final Reply to Kevin. Period.)
Conceding Infallibility (Kevin's Final Reply)
Kevin has given a reply to my last post in our exchange: What We Have Here. Much of that reply is rehash of what has gone before, so I will not deal with it as extensively as I have before. Indeed, once again Kevin's reply does not serve to advance the discussion any further, though it does serve to highlight even more our differences. For this reason, and due also to the encroachment of Great and Holy Lent, this will be my final response to Kevin. If he chooses to reply to this my final post, I will link to it on the main page of my blog, and allow him to have the last word. For my purposes, this is my last word on the matter between us.
(Note: A list of all the posts in this dia-blog to date, not including this one, follows at the end of this post.)
Kevin once again objects to my interpretation of his comments:
Clifton's latest response is largely filled with the claim that he had indeed substantively captured my argument and refuted it, even though I didn't, and still don't recognize this argument as put in his own words.
But this is all he has ever said about these things: that he doesn't recognize my purported interpretation. He says I've gotten his argument wrong. But it's not yet been demonstrated that I've in fact gotten him wrong or that the conclusions and implications I draw from his arguments are in fact themselves invalid. So, I maintain still that I have grasped Kevin's argument and drawn the proper valid inferences and conclusions. Kevin may not like the end result, but he can choose only from a few options: to keep his opinion in the face of the demonstration of its errors, revise his opinion to address the errors, or give up his opinion.
He next quibbles that I've misconstrued what connotations he intends by his use of tradition:
To the main point, though. Clifton concludes, "For the record we stand where we first did: Kevin arguing that (true) Tradition is nothing more than the propositional and inferential content of Scripture, and me arguing that Scripture is part of Tradition, the same in essence but different in material." For may part, this doesn't quite capture it. The fault could well be my own. I have said that the whole of tradition has been inscripturated; however, I did not mean to imply that it has been stripped of its life and is now nothing more than propositional and inferential content.
This is a diversion. I've never indicated that his understanding of tradition is void of life. But even if I had, the issue is whether his understanding of tradition is correct, true and valid. I have contended that it is not.
He next finally begins to address the main point of our extended dia-blog:
This discussion is limited to those who at least agree on the divine authority of Scripture (or, at a minimum, the "Protestant 66"). Within these parameters, those who add to this propositional base and those who do not are advocating contradictory claims. Furthermore, the burden of proof is on the one who wants to make the additions. Here is the place to bring up Clifton's refrain that one of my favorite fallacies is assuming that lack of proof for the other side consitutes proof for my own. I wouldn't go so far as to say that it constitutes proof of my own, since, any minute now, he could pull out all that proof that he's been saving back. But, until this happens, it does constitute excellent grounds to think that my position is the more reasonable option. Our positions (within the parameters described) are not merely contrary, such that only one of us might be right but both could be wrong. They are contradictory positions, such that one of us must be right and the other must be wrong. Add to this that the burden of proof is on his side and his own lack of proof is a bigger problem for his position than he seems willing to admit.
Here he claims to not be proving his argument through the purported absence of proof of my own argument, but in point of fact, when he demands a shifting of the burden of proof to me and that I must be the one to present proof that Tradition is legitimately larger than the inscripturated Tradition, he assumes his position by default. How does he put it? "I wouldn't go so far as to say that it constitutes proof of my own, since, any minute now, he could pull out all that proof that he's been saving back. But, until this happens, it does constitute excellent grounds to think that my position is the more reasonable option." But why should we assume that his position is the "more reasonable" one? That is exactly the point at issue. This begs the question, and despite his protestations it is a fallacy.
In the comments to the post to which I'm replying, he clarifies his "burden of proof" contention to one of his commenters who thinks the burden of proof is his:
As to the burden of proof, you're disagreement is begging the question. That he is "simply stating the ancient church's stance" and "has changed nothing" is what is in dispute. The debate is whether Holy Tradition, as understood by the Orthodox, really was a part of Christianity from the start. Our common ground will have to be found elsewhere. This is in Scripture. We both accept it is a rule of faith and practice, but I argue that it is the only binding rule. It may be that you are right about the church. However, burden of proof cannot be based upon what is in dispute, but upon what is not in dispute.
While it is true that Kevin and I agree on Scripture being a/the rule of faith and practice, what he wants to argue, "that Scripture is the only binding rule" is, indeed, in contention. I do not accept it. Just as he does not accept my argument regarding the Tradition. In other words, my contention is that Scripture is not the only binding rule. If what he is saying about burden of proof is going to be applied to my argument about the Tradition, then it must be applied to him as well. If he wants to reply that the Scripture itself makes this claim, then he can provide evidence for it.
As he sets up the examination of my views, he says (in a refrain familiar to our readers): "Not to worry, though, I can still assume the invalidity of expanded tradition based on the fact that he has not met that burden of proof." In point of fact, no, he cannot assume invalidity simply because the burden of proof hasn't been met. This is a logically fallacy. (I am mystified that he cannot see this.) The only valid and logical claim he can make is that I've not met the burden of proof. Or to say it more technically: if he can demonstrate the invalidity of my argument, he can say I have an invalid argument, that I haven't met the burden of proof. But he cannot assume that the claim itself is not true or that a valid argument cannot be made. And this, in fact, is what he is doing. It is convenient for him to do this, because he can then claim his opinion in correct. But that is an invalid and illogical claim. One ought not be fooled.
Think of it this way: We have been making two arguments both in parallel and in response to one another, he arguing for a view of inscripturated Tradition, me arguing for a view of Tradition in which Scripture is included. But these are two distinct arguments, they are not simply the positive and negative side of the same question. Therefore, he cannot claim "burden of proof." If they were truly the positive and negative sides of the argument, it would be me arguing that Tradition is authoritative alongside Scripture, and him arguing that there is only inscripturated Tradition. But my argument has never been that Tradition and Scripture are parallel authorities, but that the authority itself is the Tradition, one manifestation of which is the Scripture.
Furthermore, his intimation that I have not provided proof for my position is disingenuous. In point of fact, I have provided proof of my argument, itself limited to the very Scriptures he claims are the only legitimate form of the Tradition. That he disagrees with my interpretation of certain passages is evident. But primarily what he has done is gainsay my interpretations. And this is where the matter stands: we disagree on the proper understanding of the seminal texts undergirding our respective positions.
Kevin then goes on to rehash the different interpretations of Matthew 18:18-20, 1 Timothy 3:15, and John 16:13. With regard to Matthew 18, he says nothing new and again fails to address the promise of binding and loosing in matters of discipline that Christ gives to the Church and the infallible discernment necessary for such a promise to be realized. I'll leave it to our readers to determine who has the better read of this passage.
With regard to John 16:13, Kevin still attempts to make distinctions in Jesus' promise between the promise being one of the Apostles writing the Scriptures, and later followers interpreting them. He claims the infallibility adheres to the former and not to the latter. But this is a distinction unsupported by the text. Kevin has to limit what Jesus meant by "truth" here, because his argument demands it, but he cannot prove it. He can import his tendentious readings into the text, but this only begs the question, which is no proof. In point of fact, what Jesus promised was that the Holy Spirit would lead them into all truth. Kevin presumably knows his argument is weak here, so he does admit that the Holy Spirit goes on then to illumine the members of the Church to understand the Scriptures. But in so doing, he has simply confirmed the tenor of my reading of John 16:13. He's just gotten to it in a roundabout way. In other words, we once again disagree on the interpretation of John 16:13, but I'll leave it to our readers to determine whether it makes sense from the text itself to interpret it the way Kevin does or the way I do.
With regard to 1 Timothy 3, the only thing he adds is that for my interpretation of the Church's infallibility in this passage to be true, I must argue that the Church's infallibility is necessary. It's not clear what he means by this. For if the Church is, as he admits, a pillar and ground of the truth, then it is necessary that the Church be what Paul says She is. He further admits that this claim (the Church is a pillar and ground of the truth) is compatible with his own contention that the Holy Spirit and the inscripturated word are similarly infallible pillars and grounds of the truth. But he doesn't want to admit the reality of an infallible Church, so if we have the Holy Spirit and the inscripturated Tradition, there's no need, so he claims, for an infallible Church. But this only dances around the text. For if the Scripture is infallible, which he admits, and the Scripture calls the Church a pillar and ground of the truth, then it is necessary that the Church be that very thing. Where Kevin and I differ, then, is what it means for the Church to be a pillar and ground of the truth. I claim it means infallibility, for if the truth itself is upheld and founded upon the Church (in complete harmony with the Scripture and the Holy Spirit), then the Church cannot err, or fail in terms of the truth. Kevin hasn't addressed this claim from the infallible Scriptures. He's avoided it. He has to, because it is fatal to his argument. Whether our readers think Kevin or I have the better interpretation of 1 Timothy 3, I'll leave to them.
Though I have clearly stated that this issue is one of hermeneutics, Kevin wants to commit my argument to the terms of epistemology. Though I admit hermeneutics and epistemology are related, they are necessarily distinct. So I'm not persuaded it's a matter of epistemology. After all, neither of us is arguing as to whether knowledge is itself possible or impossible, rather, we are arguing as to whether any particular disputed interpretation of a given text can be trusted. This is not a matter of whether or not we can know anything at all, but how it is we can know the truth of the Scriptural texts. And that is a hermeneutical problem.
I should be clear: my argument on the Church's infallibility is based on the Scriptural texts and the proof of what the Church is and has been promised. I have not made the argument that since there is a need for authority in deciding between interpretations, therefore the Church must be infallible. Whether or not there is a need for such interpretive authority is beside the point of my argument. The question is whether Scripture predicates infallibility of the Church. I argue that it does. If my argument from Scripture is both valid and true, and if there is, indeed, a need for such an infallible interpreter, then the Church can fill that need. But whether or not the Church is infallible is not predicated upon the need. Or at least I have not done so in my argument.
So when Kevin replies to my uncovering of three of his red herrings--"But this is not a tu quoque [an logical fallacy]. The main reason is that Clifton has presented ecclesiastical interpretive infallibility as the answer to epistemological uncertainty. I am responding to his argument, not to Clifton himself, by denying this."--he is just simply incorrect. My argument is not that infallibility is an answer to the need of hermeneutic (and not epistemological) uncertainty. My argument is that infallibility is a quality of the Church. Period. Yet despite that I have clearly articulated this argument, Kevin still replies, "[G]iven that Clifton is the one who brought up the necessity of an infallible church for settling interpretive disputes, I find this point disingenuous." That may well be what he finds it, but in the face of my clear articulation of my argument, if he cannot substantiate that I am predicating infallibility on the need for settling hermeneutic uncertainty, he can call it disingenuous all he wants, but it will not refute the argument.
That being said, however, there is, in fact, such a need to guide interpreters through hermeneutical disputes. For if the matter of Scripture and Tradition does ultimately come to, as I contend, a problem of hermeneutics, then, as Kevin puts it,
How can one know what the Scripture means? . . . How does one know whose interpretation is authoritative?
As has been demonstrated in our exchange, the inescapable issue really becomes one of trust and authority. (And this is why, I think, Kevin keeps thinking that my argument is predicated on this need.) Kevin wants to claim that no matter how one states the question, it will always boil down to the decision of the individual interpreter: "The question of who to trust, whether it is one's own interpretation of Scripture or the interpretation of the group, including any and all churches, is still a matter of individual decision." And as he states again only sentences after that assertion: "[I]t is still up to the individual to indentify the infallible authority among competing claims."
Presumably Kevin thinks by this relativization to deflate my argument for the Church's infallibility. It seems that his argument is that instead of an infallible Church resolving interpretive differences, everything still boils down to the individual making the determination. But this relativization not only does not deflate my argument, it actually strengthens it.
First of all, Kevin has merely confirmed the conclusions I've traced from his argument, for if Christ did not, in fact, promise infallibility to His Church, then it ultimately makes little difference whether or not the Scriptures are infallible. For that claim itself (that Scripture is infallible) is a result not of an unequivocal, "Thus saith the Lord," book-chapter-verse, declarative statement in Scripture, but an inference--that is to say, an interpretation--made on the basis of other propositions one finds in Scripture. Indeed, in admitting from the start that Tradition is nothing more than the propositional and inferential content of Scripture, Kevin imports hermeneutics into his very definition of Tradition. This is the fundamental question-begging, and fallacious, nature of his account that I have been demonstrating from the beggining. His argument fails from the beginning because it is fundamentally circular.
Secondly, Kevin's relativization cannot escape its solipsism. If the scenario really is what he says it is, then not only do I, nor does anyone else, have any reason whatsoever to follow his interpretation, in the end, neither does he. It is another form of the cogito: "I interpret, therefore I am." I should be clear to note that he has, in an earlier post, admitted that in hermeneutical disputes one should submit to the interpretation of one's church's leaders. One would well ask why that should be the case, if in the end the individual interpreter is the final arbiter, but no sooner does one frame the question than Kevin adds that if one has a conviction that to obey one's leaders would be to disobey God, then one should disobey one's leaders. So, he does consistently finally return to the individual interpreter.
Thirdly, it appears that Kevin thinks that by denying the infallibility of the Church he has strengthened the case for the infallibility, and sole authority, of the Scriptures. But as is by now obvious, in reality he has only affirmed the practical infallibility of the individual interpreter. He resists this conclusion, indeed, he would likely deny it is a valid conclusion. But despite his denial, it is inevitable. An infallible Scripture will always, must always, be interpreted. If the Church is not an infallible authority, it will make no difference whether or not Kevin actually argues for an infallible interpreter, in the way he frames his argument the individual must necessarily function as though he were infallible. Not even Kevin can get around this, which he has shown here by explicitly resorting to it.
In actual fact, however, I dispute what Kevin contends. That an individual is always an interpreter when it comes to Scripture, and that an individual is called to discrimination and discernment of interpretive and authority claims, we may take as a given. But this does not necessarily end in hermeneutic uncertainty. As Kevin himself has concluded, it does boil down to trust. Indeed, I would contend that epistemology itself (as distinct from hermeneutics) ultimately comes down to faith, even if that is a faith in reason. Both Kevin and I would argue that our faith is placed in God's Spirit to lead us into all truth. The difference between us is that Kevin thinks the individual is finally and ultimately competent to be that conduit of truth, whereas I think the Church is that entity.
Kevin's final two paragraphs ask some questions as to the relation of the Church's infallibility and soteriology. As these paragraphs take us away from the argument proper, I will not address these in detail. I will only note briefly that the Orthodox understanding of salvation is predicated on the synergy expressed in Philippians 2:12-13, Ephesians 2:10, and James 2:17-26. I will also note that it is in that latter reference that the infallible text says: "You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone" (emphasis added).
Final Note: For all the posts in this discussion, cf. the following:
No, You Do NOT Have a Right to Depart from the Tradition (Initial post by Clifton)
Inscripturated Apostolic Tradition (Initial response by Kevin)
My Reply to Kevin re: Tradition and Scripture (Clifton)
Response to Tradition and Scripture (Kevin)
My Account of Scripture and Tradition (Secondary post by Clifton reflecting on Scripture and Tradition in general)
Voiding the Word (Kevin's reply to "My Account of Scripture and Tradition")
Tradition and Scripture Continued: My Response to Kevin (Clifton's reply to Kevin's "Response to Tradition and Scripture")
A-Voiding the Word: My Response to Kevin's Other Post (Clifton's Reply to Kevin's "Voiding the Word")
Epistemological Comfort Blankets (Kevin's combined reply to the previous two replies by Clifton)
Hermeneutics and Infallibility, or, As Expected, the Impasse Has Quickly Been Reached: A Reply to Kevin (Clifton's reply to Kevin)
Morphemics: Vicious Interpretive Circles (Kevin's reply)
Vicious Interpretive Circles, Indeed! (A Final Reply to Kevin?) (Clifton again)
What We Have Here (Kevin's penultimate [?] reply to the above post and that to which this post is a reply)
If Kevin replies to this post, I will link to it on the main page, and update this list of links to include both this reply and Kevin's last words, if any.
R. Grant Jones' Notes on the Septuagint is a wealth of information on the apostolic use of the Septuagint in the New Testament. Jones admits he is not a Septuagint specialist, but rather a person with a love for the subject. Many good links to other sites. Well-researched.
Joel Kalvesmaki's The Septuagint Online: Electronic Resources for the Study of the Septuagint and Old Greek Versions is a treasure trove of information and links to all facets of the Septuagint. Kalvesmaki is studying patristics and is well-versed in the subject.
Another fascinating essay on the Septuagint is Dr. Albert C. Sundberg, Jr.'s "The Old Testament of the Early Church" Revisited. Those who reject the apocrypha on the basis of the Hebrew canon will want to read this essay which demonstrates conclusively that the Jewish canon was fluid through the end of the first century, and included some of the works in the apocrypha. Heavily footnoted.
And one of the Pharisees was asking Him that He would eat with him. And He entered into the house of the Pharisee, and reclined at table. And behold, a woman in the city who was a sinner, when she found out that He was reclining at table in the house of the Pharisee, brought an alabaster flask of perfumed ointment, and she stood beside His feet behind Him, weeping; and she began to wet His feet with tears, and was wiping them off with the hairs of her head; and she was kissing His feet ardently and anointing them with the perfumed ointment. Now when the Pharisee who invited Him saw it, he spoke within himself, saying, "This One, if He were a prophet, would know who and of what sort the woman is who toucheth Him, for she is a sinner." And Jesus answered and said to him, "Simon, I have something to say to thee." And he saith, "Teacher, say it." "There were two debtors to a certain creditor: the one was owing five hundred denarii, and the other fifty. But when they had nothing to pay back the debt, he showed himself gracious to both. Say which of them then will love him more?" Simon answered and said, "I suppose that he, to whom he showed himself the more gracious." And He said to him, "Rightly thou didst judge." And He turned to the woman and said to Simon, "Seest thou this woman? I entered into thy house; water thou gavest Me not for My feet, but she with tears did wet My feet, and with the hairs of her head wiped them off. A kiss thou gavest Me not, but she from the time that I entered did not cease from ardently kissing My feet. With oil thou didst not anoint My head, but she anointed My feet with perfumed ointment. For which reason I say to thee, her sins, which are many, have been forgiven, for she loved much. But to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little." And He said to her, "Thy sins have been forgiven." And those reclining at table with Him began to say among themselves, "Who is this Who even forgiveth sin?" And He said to the woman, "Thy faith hath saved thee; go thy way in peace." (Luke 7:36-50, The Orthodox New Testament, © 2004 Holy Apostles Convent)
Kevin claims, in his reply "Vicious Interpretive Circles," that I've apparently been arguing with another Kevin and not him. This is just his nice way of saying I've been arguing the straw man. This would be a most embarrasing state of affairs, let me tell you. Vicious interpretive circles, indeed!
I say "would be" because I have to say, looking over Kevin's objections, it's not clear to me that I actually have set up another argument than his only to knock it down and leave his still standing. If I have put words in Kevin's mouth, they are only the implications of his own argument, or the necessary conclusions which he refuses to accept.
But that being said, let's take a look at the objections, and let's once again, as clearly as can be stated, identify the impasses.
Kevin first addresses my contention that he objects to icons because the Scripture does not explicitly command their veneration. No, he says, that's not at all why he objects to their veneration. Rather, it's because, he claims, they violate the Second Commandment. I hope Kevin will forgive the oversight on my part. When Kevin first mentions icons he does so in this way:
In affirming the sufficiency of Scripture, I am not denying the necessity of such secondary standards as creeds or confessions, or of preaching. In each case, however, these are examples of tradition justified from Scripture properly exegeted ( and where they are not, such as Nicea II, we are required to ignore them).
What does one get from this? That icons cannot be justified from the proper exegesis of Scripture, and on that basis, must be rejected. And through our discussion, Kevin nowhere makes it apparent that his objection is based on anything other than his own rejection of what he takes to be the improper biblical exegesis of Scripture by the Tradition. Consider, for example, the most explicit comments he makes on the matter:
Concerning icons- they're probably a lot older than the eighth century. As to your evidence of iconography in first century practice, please produce it. I would like something more substantial than the fact that the catacombs had pictures. Nevertheless, I must acknowledge that the practice came from somewhere. A likely source may be found in various Gentile converts who imported their cultural idol worship into the church. Moreover, I have a particularly hard time accepting iconography. Even if I did agree to the validity of extra-Biblical tradition, I could not see my way to making icons a part of it. Considering the predominance of Jews in the early church coupled with the post-exilic Jewish aversion to anything that even smelled like an idol, I would have expected historical evidence (preferably Scriptural) that this issue had been addressed to the satisfaction of the Jews. I have read some early material on the subject, it may have even been John of Damascus. As I recall, the argument was two-fold. One part appeared to the Platonic chain of being; the other argued that the incarnation had changed the terms whereby the Second Commandement, the one prohibiting graven images, was to be understood. While I believe this to be enough, technically, to take iconography out of the category of extra-Biblical tradition, it strikes me more as rationalization of a prior belief using Scripture rather than an example of sound exegesis. In light of such a specific prohibition, I want more than an argument that the incarnation may allow for iconography; I want the incarnation to require iconography.
Once again, his objection to icons is not said to be based explicitly on the Second Commandment, but on the fact that he doesn't buy St. John Damascene's exegesis of the Second Commandment. I don't see how I've misconstrued his actual words. But to the degree that he has clarified himself, I welcome his clarification.
I would also take the time to point out that what separates us is precisely the hermeneutic applied to the Scriptures. Kevin himself admits that the justification of icons, in part, on the basis of Scriptural exegesis takes icons out of the realm of extra-biblical tradition. So it's no longer a case of Scripture and Tradition in opposition, so much as it is a matter of hermeneutics. Kevin interprets the Scriptures differently from the historic Church. (Hint of foreshadowing: This will become a refrain.)
Kevin next objects to my characterization of his views of Scripture and its teaching on the Trinity. He writes:
Clifton puts more words in my mouth concerning the doctrine of the Trinity. I said, "Scripture clearly teaches it." I did not say that the inference from the Scriptures is "clear and unequivocal." This adds a connotation and spin to my position that I never intended. It makes it sound as though I believe that any individual with a Bible could just come to the correct and well formulated conclusion.
I'm not sure how "unequivocal" adds a "connotation and spin" to his position. After all, if something is clear, we should be able to get the message right? We would not be in doubt as to its intended meaning or meanings. There would be no equivocating on our part as to what the Scripture actually says. Still, Kevin thinks I'm conveying something in his words that he does not intend, so let his objection stand.
But I should note that Kevin does admit, or rather, strongly implies, that individuals will misinterpret the Scripture, even if its message is clear. Again: What separates us? A difference of interpretation.
Infallibility
Kevin next objects to what I have done with his exegesis of the passages formerly under consideration. Given that we are specifically dealing with biblical passages, it's fairly obvious that in all these disagreements, one of the things that will separate Kevin and me is hermeneutics. But, too, he claims I have mischaracterized his words and arguments, making up this other Kevin that is not him, so we need to address these matters.
For Matthew 18, he objects that I have taken the term "Scripture" in his exegesis of the passage and construed it to mean the canon of the Old and New Testaments. Here I hope Kevin will once again forgive my error. But I'm afraid that his objection is a bit surprising to me. After all, for Kevin, all the Apostolic Tradition is inscripturated, which means that even what Christ said to his Apostles in Matthew 18, even though it was not, when Christ was speaking, yet Scripture, necessarily would become so. I'm often at a loss here, for Kevin apparently means by Scripture both what actually is Scripture and what will also become Scripture. But if it will become Scripture, then doesn't it mean it isn't yet Scripture?
In any case, as it turns out, Kevin has a different exegesis of Matthew 18:
Still, the passage is not teaching that whatever the Church decides, without qualification, will automatically be in concert with the revelation of God. It is saying that when these decisions are in concert with the revelation of God, then they will reflect what is true in heaven. Something needs to be done with the phrase "in my name." The immediate context is of no help in defining the nature of the church. If it is true that the church is infallible, then the phrase functions as a description: the true church always acts in the name of Christ. If it is not true that the church is infallible, then the phrase functions as a qualifier: the church will be correct in its decisions only insofar as it has acted in the name of Christ. In short, the text itself does not address the issue of infallibility. Notions for or against must be imported into it.
Kevin's careful distinctions between descriptions and qualifiers, between "the true church always acts in the name of Christ" and "the church will be correct in its decisions only insofar as it has acted in the name of Christ" don't help his case at all. They do in fact, contrary to his assertion, "define the nature of the Church." More to the point, this is not only not a defeasor to infallilibilty, but only serves to strengthen the case that the true Church is, indeed, infallible. Kevin does not think so, of course, because Kevin does not think any such Church exists.
Kevin next objects to my limiting his understanding of what is taught and preached, in his exegesis of Ephesians 4, to the Scriptures. He claims that my objection is to the other Kevin. But let's put the Kevin's back-to-back with Kevin. Here's his original exegetical conclusion:
Paul's admonition to Timothy, the pastor at Ephesus, was, "Preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching" (II Timothy 2:2). Just prior to this, Paul had identified the Scripture as being sufficient unto these things, "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitiable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteosness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work" (3:16,17). Back in Ephesians 4, these officers are given as gifts to the Church in order that they might "equip the saints for the work of the ministry" (v.12). They are to "attain to the unity of the faith" (v.13) and not be "carried about by every wind of doctrine" (v.14). The pastor accomplishes this through the faithful preaching of the Word. The result is that the Church, "speaking the truth in love" (v.15) will grow into maturity in Christ. And so the prayer of Christ is answered, "Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth" (John 17:17). Scripture, considered in the abstract as a collection of propositions, has no power. But this has nothing to do with sola scriptura. Scripture preached and lived is another matter altogether. "For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart" (Hebrews 4:12).
And here's his most recent conclusion:
Speaking the truth in love is not possible apart from those ministries whereby the Word is preached and taught. But it goes beyond this. It defines a life and a practice of love. It is informed by the content of Scripture, but not limited thereto (which would constitute a caricature of sola scriptura). In building one another up, the members of the church must also think in terms of those unique lives and circumstances that surround them. We interpret the comtemporary in accordance with the preaching of the Word. Now to his [i. e., mine] mantra that any mention or implication of Scripture must be limited to the OT. In II Peter 3:15, 16, Peter mentions Paul's letters and compares them to the "other Scriptures." That is, there were some NT letters that had already been recognized as Scripture. I believe that more can be inferred from this, but I'll leave it at a minimum. "Scripture" is used in Scipture to refer to more than OT Scripture. Furthermore, there is a difference between direct reference and implication. When Paul says in II Timothy 3:16 that "All Scripture is breathed out by God," the direct reference can only be to whatever had been written at the time. However, by implication it must include all Scripture that was to be written thereafter. Either that or anything from a later date is less important. There is no textual reason for me to limit "Scripture" or "Word" to the OT when Scripture itself does not do this.
And here's my original critique of his first set of exegetical comments:
Now he goes to great lengths, pulling in some passages from 2 Timothy, to show that this "Word" is nothing more nor less than the Scriptures. Once again, however, his eisegesis is manifest, for Paul could not have meant the Scriptures that we have today (Old and New Testaments), but could only have meant the Old Testament. Thus, if Kevin wants to import these extratextual meanings into the context of Ephesians, he is going to have to limit himself to only the body of the Old Testament writings. It's clear, however, that he does not want to do this but wants to anachronistically read "Protestant 66" into every instance of the word "Scriptures" or "Word" in the passages under consideration.
Maybe it's not so much that I am arguing with a different Kevin as that Kevin has a split personality.
Next, his objection that I took as part of his argument against my interpretation of 1 Timothy 3:15 something he only meant in jest is, embarrassingly, a valid one. On reflection, it is clear he meant the talk about noun genders as a jest, but I missed all the connections. More the worse for me. However, the remainder of my critique he acknowledges and lets stand my understanding of his exegesis. But what does he say about 1 Timothy 3:15?
The passage is not teaching that the Church stands alone in this regard. The truth is also anchored in the guidance of the Holy Spirit and in the infallible Word. There is no need for the Church to be infallible when it is in such company.
Here Kevin commits the logical fallacy of the false dilemma. He did it originally, too:
Assuming the presence of both the Holy Spirit and of Scripture (or, at the time, that tradtion which had yet to be inscripturated), there is no need to postulate infallibility for the Church in order for it to function in this regard.
In other words, for Kevin, either you have the Holy Spirit and the infallible Scripture or you have an infallible Church. If you have the first two (Spirit and Scripture) you don't need the second. But he never actually argues how it is that the Holy Spirit and an infallible Scripture are incompatible with an infallible Church. We're just told the latter is not necessary. This, however, is just simply gainsaying. It's not an argument. And since Kevin must invent a false dilemma to reach his interpretation he has not actually explained the passage as explained it away.
Kevin's objection to my characterization of his exegesis of John 16:13 is that my summation of his position is "close" but "significantly different." What is his summation of his position?
I take this text as referring to the receiving of tradition (which I believe is eventually inscripturated, thus the necessity of an infallible element). The process of which I spoke was in reference to the Church's interpretation of Scripture. One may attempt to argue that the distinction is not valid, but there is no contradiction.
But what did I actually say of Kevin's position?
If Kevin wants to argue that this progressivist interpretation was indeed fulfilled in the completion of the Scriptures, then it necessarily follows that the promise of the leading of the Holy Spirit into all truth is no longer in effect. . . . But if Kevin does indeed tie the promise of the Holy Spirit's leading to both the completion of the canon and the proper interpretation of it, he once again begs the question as to how to determine between interpretations.
So, apparently, I did have Kevin's (or both Kevins') argument right.
Let's look at Kevin's exegesis and see if it substantiates his argument.
As I've reflected further on the passage, it's grammar and it's meaning, I'm inclined to agree with Kevin's judgment that the verb for "to lead" here (hodegesei) is, indeed, a future indicative. In my original argument this grammatical point did not feature prominently (after all, I indicated it was ambiguous), and indeed, as I see on reflection, the weight of my argument lent itself more to the grammatical force of hodegesei as a future indicative. In point of fact, there is no dichotomy necessary between the future indicative voice in this subjunctive clause and the state of fulfillment and ongoing effect of the fulfillment. Given the indefinite temporal clause, in fact, one of the perfect indicatives could not be used, and the future indicative can function nicely in that role, though nothing of the future indicative necessitates a perfective understanding. That is to say, the future indicative does not necessitate the progressivist position I was arguing against, and, indeed, works better with my own position.
Be that as it may, the bulk of the argument centered on the audience and scope of the promise. What does Kevin assert about these things?
Now, I would say that the promise made in John 16:13 was not made to the Eleven as such, but as they represented the foundational offices of the church, which include both apostles and prophets. It extends to more than the Eleven, but it does not need to extend to the whole church. This promise concerns their role as the church's foundation. It is about the receiving and future inscripturation of tradition. While the Spirit does lead in other capacities, this verse does not address these and cannot be set in opposition to those passages that do.The promise in John 16:13 applies to the formation of tradition, not to its subsequent interpretation. It need not be applied to anything beyond the foundational offices. I will agree that, in context, the truth refers to Jesus. But, just as we can go back to 14:6, we can also jump forward to 17:17 where the word is truth. John himself ties the two concepts together at the opening of his gospel, "In the beginning was the Word." There is a double referent. The Spirit will lead into the truth, which is Christ, who is fully revealed in the canons of Scripture. This verse was fulfilled in the completion of the Scriptures. But it does not follow that the Holy Spirit no longer leads into truth in other capacities. This would only be the case if this were the only passage from which such an activity could be inferred. Yet, even Clifton notes other passages that imply the leading of the Spirit as it relates to truth. But these were in reference to the members of the church. A verse about leading the foundation of the church into truth as it relates to the formation of tradition should not be confused with verses in which the members are led into truth as it relates to the interpretation of tradition.
In other words, the promise to lead the Apostles into all truth only means the completion of the biblical canon. But Kevin knows that the Holy Spirit has to illumine the understanding of the members of the Church as they read "all the truth" in the Scriptures, so he concedes my point that "leading into all truth" does actually involve more than inscripturation. He, however, without any warrant, asserts that the promise only applies to inscripturation. And then goes on to make another unwarranted distinction between the individual members of the Church and the Church as a whole. If the Holy Spirit can lead individual members into all truth, I see no reason to think He cannot do so with the entire Body. Kevin does, however. Though he gives no argument for why this must be the case. He merely asserts it.
Hermeneutics
Where the, at present, irresoluble matters come to a head, however, is in the final matter under consideration: hermeneutics. Kevin affirms that an infallible Scripture will always be interpreted by fallible interpreters. There's no help for it, really, so he says,
the people must study Scripture to see whether what was preached is so; the pastors must be under constant review of their peers; local churches must submit to larger bodies; confessions and creeds should be maintained. Authority does not imply that the one in authority is always right. Many disagreements between those in authority and those being led need to be resolved by submission. Nevertheless, it is also the case the Holy Spirit illumines the minds of individuals. We all stand under a dual authority: that of God and that of men and, forced into a decision, we ought always to obey God.
Ah, and there's the rub. What, really, is the voice of God in this scenario? Our interpretation of the Scriptures. That is to say, "God" here is always and only our interpretation of what we think is God. In other words, put baldly, we either obey the interpretations of others, or we obey our own interpretations. Kevin admits this, in fact:
Clifton states that the only way that I can know that some people are teaching heresy is because they do not agree with my interpretation. As stated, this is both true and painfully obvious. Knowledge is not possible unless it is filtered through individual interpretation. This is how we were created.
What Kevin fails to address is why anyone should take his views over mine, or his views over the historic Church's understanding?
Witness the disagreement over the Matthean, Johannine and Pauline texts above. I read the texts to affirm the Church's quality of infallibility. From that infallibility I then argue an authority to offer binding interpretation. I have demonstrated how my interpretation of these Scriptural texts is better and more consistent than Kevin's (which depends in every case on unwarranted eisegesis, or importation into the texts meanings they do not have). Kevin, of course, disagrees that his case is eisegesis but is, in his terminology, "Scripture properly exegeted."
Kevin argues that in these cases of irresoluble disagreement, we'll have to submit either to our leaders or to God. But why should we trust those in authority over us more than we do our own leading? Kevin can give no answer. How do we know when our leaders are usurping God's will? Again, all we can go on is our own leading. But whether we can ever know that our leading is indeed God's will he does not say.
Now Kevin pooh-pooh's this notion of actually knowing that one's interpretation is, indeed, true, by constructing a regressus ad infinitum of my assertion of the infalliblity of the Church.
Clifton asserts that only an infallible interpretor can settle disputes between intepretive options. There is a problem with this. The infallible interpretor is outside of the individual. Once it states its infallible interpretation, the relationship between this interpretation and the individual is the same as that which existed between the individual and the thing interpreted. The interpretation now needs to be interpreted. Add as large a regress of interpretation as you will, at some point, the individual will have to interpret what he has heard. And unless this final individual interpretation is also infallible, it begs the question of why a particular link in the interpretive chain had to be infallible. Whether my beliefs run contrary to what any other part of the church has ever said or whether, to the best of my ability, I follow the creeds and councils, it is, in the end, my interpretation that has decided the matter. Clifton is no different. He has chosen to follow Orthodoxy because, by his interpretation, it is the true religion. By his interpretation, infallibility is necessary. For each article of faith and practice in the Orthodox church, he chooses to agree with it because, by his interpretation, it is correct. Or if, failing to understand an article, he submits anyway, then, by his interpretation, this was the correct thing to do. In short, Clifton has not escaped the viscious interpretive circle either. He believes and practices all that he does because it agrees with his interpretation. The interpretive device that asks, "What does it mean to me?" such that objective truth is irrelevant, is, at all times, to be avoided. On the other hand, meaning is meaningless unless it means something to me.
Of course, Kevin's assertion that the Church's infallible interpretation must itself be interpreted, leading to infinite regress, is a red herring. It is a red herring because it is precisely the problem with his own account, so to point the finger and call "Thou art the man!" is simply to direct attention away from one's own self. It is also a red herring because the infallibility of the Church is not predicated upon the need for settling interpretive disputes, but is predicated upon the nature of what the Chuch is and the promises made by our Lord to the Church. It is finally a red herring because the operative function of infalliblity is not clarity of interpretation but of authority. Only an infallible authority can say, "This is the mind of Christ." But in point of fact, the Church has not settled every interpretive dispute, but has let stand the lack of clarity as to what is, for example, the meaning of the number of the beast in the Apocalypse, or what exactly was Paul's thorn in the flesh. Her infallibility, rather, is directed to the salvation of our souls. Where authoritative interpretations may be considered necessary for that, then the Church can, on the basis of her infallibility, make known the mind of Christ. Witness, for example, the infalliblity promised in Matthew 18. The whole point is to win back one's brother.
The trouble, however, is that Kevin's own infinite regress circles back on him. He need merely only replace the infallible Church with his own fallible self, or the fallible church leaders to whose authority we must submit when there is disagreement . . . er, unless our interpretation is such that we presume ourselves to be disobeying God by submitting to our leaders.
All of which to say is that Kevin offers no better alternative, and, despite his best efforts, has only come round to my own argument, except that he ultimately subsitutes himself as the fallible, but finally authoritative, interpreter.
And, in the end, when we come right down to it, does Kevin reject my interpretations of these biblical passages on demonstrable, reasonable, logical grounds? I have shown he does not. No, in the end, he rejects them for his subjectivist presuppositions. He has stated it baldly:
[T]he only way that I can know that some people are teaching heresy is because they do not agree with my interpretation. As stated, this is both true and painfully obvious. Knowledge is not possible unless it is filtered through individual interpretation. This is how we were created.
I leave you with Kevin, the fallible but ultimately and finally authoritative interpreter.
Conclusion
As it turns out, I haven't been arguing the straw man after all, but have substantively captured Kevin's argument and refuted it. That he doesn't like what I do with his argument is evident. But all he has done thus far is gainsay me. That is why I have quoted much more extensively from Kevin in this reply than previously, and also why I have been careful to show that my summations of his argument are both accurate and substantive.
As I noted in my formerly penultimate reply, we have reached an impasse. Regrettably, Kevin's response (linked in the first sentence of this post) to my formerly penultimate reply has done nothing to advance the argument any further. For the record we stand where we first did: Kevin arguing that (true) Tradition is nothing more than the propositional and inferential content of Scripture, and me arguing that Scripture is part of Tradition, the same in essence but different in material. We have clarified our positions, and examined each other's arguments. But we can go no further, unless Kevin wants to offer a whole new set of arguments. For myself, I am quite content with my own.
Kevin will doubtless disagree vociferously that I have substantively refuted his argument or that he needs to offer a new argument. He has certainly given me no reason to think that I should offer anything new myself. So here we sit, deadlocked.
But I trust this exercise has been useful to our readers, and if any of them have been moved to further interest in the substance of my argument, or, as I fervently hope, have been moved to accept my argument, I will have been repaid more than I deserve.
May the Lord bless us all, and pray for me, a sinner.
In my earlier post, I utilized three biblical texts to establish the foundation for the infallibility of the Church, Matthew 18:18-20, John 16:13, and 1 Timothy 3:15. (A fourth, Ephesians 4:16 was not meant so much to establish infallibility so much as to establish the Church's sufficiency, given Her in Christ, for Her own maturity apart from, or at least not dependent exclusively upon, the Scriptures.) I did not, due to the parameters of the discussion, include extracanonical evidence (from the apostolic fathers and later Church writings) precisely because these would have been called into question. However, if it is true, as it is clear from Scripture that it is, that the Church has infallibility based on who She is, the Body of Christ, united inseparably to Him, then one may simply take the infallibility as fact and go on to support it with other texts.
The only passage which speaks of Scripture in similar lights is 2 Timothy 3:16-17:
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be proficient, having been thoroughly equipped for every good work.
Of course, the "Scripture" here spoken of is the Old Testament, but I have no quibble with those who want to apply this promise to the New Testament as well. Certainly Christians have, from the moment the New Testament writings individually were complete, viewed the canonical writings as on par with the Old Testament and equally inspired.
Now, the only ones who have a problem with the dual infallibility of the Scriptures and of the Church are those who have a reason to deny to the Church the infalliblity rightly and clearly given Her, to which Scripture testifies, those who must oppose (for whatever reason) the authority of the visible Church. (It is, after all, always easier to invoke the authority of the invisible Church by simply ascribing one's own position to Her.)
Now this denial of the visible Church's authority rests on a plurality of grounds, whether that be for the sake of the individual believer's autonomous conscience, a suspicion of any and all earthly power (even and especially if wielded in and for the Church), a reaction to the abuses of the Western Church (i. e., the Roman Catholic Church), or to abuses of specific hierarchs (not themselves acting in the name of the Church, such as the recent scandals among certain hierarchs in the Church in Greece), or any other of a number of related reasons. But the result of all these denials to the Church the infallibility due Her is the replacement of the infallibility of the Church with the (practical) infallibility of the interpreter. The vacuum will not be denied. It will be filled with something or someone.
One may be as careful as one wants to avoid taking such a practically necessary step. But in the end, whenever there are two competing and contradictory interpretations of the infallible Scriptures, the issue will have to be settled on some authority. If that authority is not the charism of the Church, it will be the charism of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the individual believer. But what evidence could there be that the Holy Spirit has, indeed, spoken through this individual? Either such interpretations will be consonant with the historical understanding of the Church, or they will be innovations in whole or in part, which innovations are predicated upon the individual interpreter's rationale. If they are consonant with the Church, then we have merely given a soft assent to the infallibility of the Church. If they are only one believer's interpretation, or perhaps the interpretation of a group, we still have the phenomenon of an assertion of infalliblity to a particular interpretation wrought by a believer or segment of believers in contradistinction to the entirety of the Church as a whole.
This still, ultimately, begs the question as to how, if the Scriptures are infallible but not the Church, such infallibility passes to the interpretation. Answers such as its being consonant with the truth of the Scriptures only begs the question. Why should I trust such an interpretation when I, or the historical Church, reads the text differently?
Take, for example, the disagreement over the aforementioned texts as to the infallibility of the Church. That these texts do not apply to the Church and are not promises of infallibility cannot be resolved by those who appeal to the infallibility of Scripture over against the infallibility of the Church. For if I invoke the leading of the Holy Spirit on my interpretation, and if mine is fully consonant with the historical Church's understanding of these texts, all I have in support of my thesis is numerical superiority; i. e., more Christians have believed what I've believed than have believed the opposite. But appeal to the majority is hardly a good argument. Otherwise, if my interpretation is not consonant with the historical Church's understanding, I must somehow invoke an authority which undergirds my minority position--which may simply be the unsubstantiated assertion that the Church was wrong.
So, in the end, it simply comes down to one interpreter asserting his interpretation on their grounds, and another doing so on her grounds. But we are left with no resolution of the matter.
But of course, it is precisely the view that only the Scriptures are infallible that has led to the tens of thousands of schisms in the body of Christ: for if there is no mechanism for determining the mind of Christ in the Scriptures save individual interpretation, one only has the resort to allegiance of like minds.
Thankfully, those of us who affirm the infalliblity of the Church do not have to do so in opposition to the infalliblity of the Scriptures: we can have our cake and eat it, too. For we know that the mind of Christ is revealed in both the Church and the Scriptures, and both deserve our trust on matters of faith and practice. This has been manifested for us through the centuries. It is manifestly demonstrable that the Church has had a single mind on matters of dogma from the beginning. Schisms and heresies are not, to the contrary, demonstrations of uncertainty or double-mindedness. Rather, as has historically been demonstrated time and again, the Church has reiterated the single revelation given to Her in and by the Christ in the face of such heresies and schisms. We now have two millennia of such evidence, and it seems to me that ignorance (willful or no) of such history is the seedbed for denying to the Church the infallibility that rightly is Hers, and such ignorance is also the seedbed for schism and heresy.
[Edited for typos, grammar and clarity at 8:20 pm CDT.]
Kevin has taken the time to reply in a single post, "Epistemological Comfort Blankets," to my last two posts responding to him. Regrettably, however, though Kevin has obviously taken time to carefully argue his point, he has not quite taken the care necessary to address the actual substance of my previous replies. But this may have less to do with his avoidance of the fundamental items in the debate and more to my own inability to carefully articulate what are those fundamental matters. So I am grateful for the opportunity to sharpen the focus.
Before I do that, however, I want to just briefly address some tangential matters so that I, myself, may not be accused of avoiding them, and also so as to clear them out of the way as so much distracting debris. First is the historical matter of iconography and the Church. If Kevin will peruse the information on the following links on icons, he will find that his own position cannot be substantiated:
--Christian Iconography on Encyclopedia.com 2002
--Icon at Wikipedia
--Byzantine Icons: General References: Byzantine Empire, History of Icons and Mosaics, Eastern Orthodoxy
That latter, especially, is a wealth of archaeological and scholarly information. I'm certain, however, that Kevin will remain convinced in his own mind that icons are an anti-biblical tradition unjustified from Scripture, since there is no Scripture that commands all Christians everywhere to venerate icons. Thus, his logical fallacy of assuming absence of proof as proof of his own position will once again be committed by him, though he has failed to actually delineate what constitutes proof and whether his rules concerning such constitution are themselves valid.
Finally, regarding cessationism and 1 Corinthians 13, I simply point him to this reasonable and logical exegesis which says it better than I could:
Questions Cessationists Should Ask: A Biblical Examination of Cessationism
Besides all which, aberrant interpretations such as the one he applies to 1 Corinthians 13 only take us further afield from the issues under discussion.
But now let us turn to the matters at hand, namely hermeneutics and infallibility. It will become clear, however, that the argument has reached an impasse beyond which it is likely not to go further. I have taken due warning from one of Kevin's comrades-in-arms (in the comments here), however, and have no obsessive need to circle the axis of a dia-blog that has run out of tether. If we can advance the argument from here, well and good. Otherwise, I thank Kevin for the opportunity's he's given me to manifest the beauty and strength of the historic Faith once for all delivered to the saints and the Church which has been called both to guard it and to transmit it.
(A list of all the posts and replies between Kevin and myself follows at the very end of this post.)
The Question of Authority
It is not coincidental that when Kevin invited this online dia-blog via his response to the precipitating post I made affirming that one does not have the authority to change the Church's Tradition, from the very start the specter of hermeneutics and authority was raised. In his initial comments to that post, he wrote:
In affirming the sufficiency of Scripture, I am not denying the necessity of such secondary standards as creeds or confessions, or of preaching. In each case, however, these are examples of tradition justified from Scripture properly exegeted ( and where they are not, such as Nicea II, we are required to ignore them).
There is no equivocation here: the point of focus will be on the role of hermeneutics and the authority attendant upon such interpretations. But inextricably bound up with this notion of authority must be the issue of infallibility. After all, if one is faced with two competing and contradictory interpretations, one will have to decide between the two alternatives. And if the matters are of sufficient gravity, a decision will have to address the question of authority. For example, Kevin thinks the inference of the Holy Trinity from the Scriptures is clear and unequivocal, but he readily admits that his thinking on this has been shaped by the Church in her dogma of the last eighteen hundred years. I would argue that, historically, such an inference from the Scriptures was not so clear and unequivocal given the actual wranglings at Nicea I and after. What settled the matter was primarily the authority of the Tradition--plus, I like to think, a "donchew-talk-ta-yer-Momma-the-Church-that-way" cheek-slapping St. Nicholas and a much-persecuted St. Athanasius, who each instantiated the mind of the Holy Spirit for the Council.
In any case, let me address these two matters, fundamental to our entire discussion, in turn.
The Question of Infallibility
First, let's deal with Kevin's misconstrual of my argument regarding the Church's infalliblity. He confuses two things here: the Church's essence and how infallibility is a characteristic of that essence with the obvious need for an authority to discern between two competing claims about the truth of Scripture. In other words, contra Kevin's assertion, the Church did not invent her quality of infallibility so as to authoritatively determine Scriptural interpretations, but rather her infallibility came as a result of who She is, indeed, as a result of dominical promise.
In my earlier post, I made reference to three Scriptures which promised to the Church authority to bind and loose (Matthew 18:18-20), delineated her capacity on the basis of her own members to grow and mature into the Head, Who is Christ (Ephesians 4:16), and in which she is called the "pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Timothy 3:15). I might just as well have quoted Jesus' words to his Apostles during the last supper that the Church would be led into all Truth by the Holy Spirit (John 16:13).
Kevin attempts to address these passages through such tortured and tortuous exegesis that his desperate desire to avoid reading the Scriptures on their face is continuously manifest. For Matthew 18 he concludes, "The idea is that they are acting according to the will of Christ, presenty [sic] known by its revelation in Scripture. The idea is not a license for the Church to do as it pleases knowing that she can't be wrong. It is that, provided she is acting according to the revealed will of God, then her verdicts will reflect those that are true in heaven." Funny thing, though, nothing in the context of the Matthew 18 passages says anything about the Church exercising discipline in terms of what is "presently known by its [i. e., the will of Christ] revelation in Scripture." In point of fact, what are the conditions the passage notes? "Again, assuredly I tell you, that if two of you will agree on earth concerning anything that they will ask, it will be done for them by my Father who is in heaven" (v. 19). While I don't disagree with Kevin that such things must be done in concert with the revelation of God, I do not, like Kevin, limit such revelation to a body of written texts. Nor does Matthew. And, again, I would have to stress, since all of the New Testament had not yet been written, let alone canonized, even if there were the connotation of Scripture in this passage, it would have to be the Old Testament, not the New, which wasn't, properly speaking, yet in existence.
I'll save 1 Timothy 3:15 for last, since it is the most egregious of all, so let's go on to his account of Ephesians 4. In short, he attempts to show that the only thing Paul means by "speaking the truth in love" (which is, in part, how the Church builds herself up into the Head, Who is Christ), is, in the end, only by the preaching and teaching of the Word. Now he goes to great lengths, pulling in some passages from 2 Timothy, to show that this "Word" is nothing more nor less than the Scriptures. Once again, however, his eisegesis is manifest, for Paul could not have meant the Scriptures that we have today (Old and New Testaments), but could only have meant the Old Testament. Thus, if Kevin wants to import these extratextual meanings into the context of Ephesians, he is going to have to limit himself to only the body of the Old Testament writings. It's clear, however, that he does not want to do this but wants to anachronistically read "Protestant 66" into every instance of the word "Scriptures" or "Word" in the passages under consideration. I need not here worry over much that Kevin is also reading his cessationist interpretation into the gifts listed in Ephesians 4, but as this also begs the question of his premises, then I ought at least note it.
But finally, most strange of all, Kevin misses the forest for the trees in 1 Timothy 3:15. He wants to spend much time on the gender of the nouns "pillar" and "ground" and to offer some definitions, all in the effort to deny that pillar and ground refer to the Church. But, and I really hate to embarrass Kevin so, he really should have read the whole verse. I reproduce it here for the benefit of our readers:
but if I am delayed, I write so that you may know how it is necessary to conduct oneself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, [a] pillar and bulwark of the truth.
Note the development of the phrases, "the house of God" followed by the appositive "which is the church of the living God" followed by yet another appositive "the pillar and bulwark of the truth." Kevin is correct that the definite article "the" is not actually in the Greek, so I have replaced it with an indefinite article (assumed by the Greek construction). The house of God is called the church of the living God and a pillar and bulwark of the truth. In other words, had Kevin not paid so much attention to noun genders and articles, and simply read the entire verse, he would have seen that contra his assertion the Church is indeed called the pillar and ground of the truth. This is what she is, not something she argues about herself so as to consolidate here authority.
In other words, because of what the Church is--the house of God, the dwelling place of the living God, She in Whom Christ is in Her midst--results in her having the quality of infallibility. If the prayer prayed in Christ's name in matters of discipline results in binding and loosing in heaven, then the Church must be infallible, for what is bound or loosed in heaven is infallibly so bound or loosed (unless one would attribute to God fallibility). If the Church is the house of God, the assembly of the living God--then on that basis she is infallible. The Church did not invent infallibility, she received it in her birth, for she is the Body of Christ, necessarily united to him to even be what she is.
Now Kevin does admit that the Holy Spirit will lead the Church into all Truth. But he has a non-biblical notion as to what that leading will do:
The Holy Spirit will lead the Church into all truth. But he will not do this immediately nor will he do it by gifting the Church that remains on this earth with infallibility. The Church is led into truth by dealing with her error; into strength by struggling with her weakness.
But if we look at the text of John 16:13, we do not see this sort of "gradual" process. And even if such an interpretation is made, it leads to irresoluble logical contradictions.
First of all, on sheer grammatical grounds, the aorist subjunctive (which is the verbal mood of the verb "to lead") does not of itself lead to progressive interpretations. It is a simple snapshot of action located in future time (future to when Christ was speaking). That the promise to the Apostles was fulfilled in Acts 2 few will dispute, not even Kevin, I think. It does not follow grammatically that the fulfillment necessarily happens in full. In that case one would expect some sort of perfect tense (Jesus looking back in future time on the fulfillment; e. g., "when that day will come the Holy Spirit will have led you into all truth" or something of the sort). But an aorist subjunctive certainly lends itself to an interpretation of complete fulfillment, if it doesn't settle the matter unequivocally.
Let us consider also one other aspect necessary to the passage: the audience to whom the promise was made. I suspect that Kevin will gleefully point out that this promise was made to the Apostles (minus Judas) and not to the Church, and that such a promise was made toward the end of, as Kevin puts it, "inscripturating" the apostolic tradition. And certainly I agree with Kevin that, the promise was made to the Apostles (minus Judas) and that Scripture is included in that promise. Obviously, however, Kevin and I disagree as to the extent of that promise.
That it is a promise that is made to a wider audience than the Eleven in the upper room can be reasonably inferred from the following. First, other Apostles than the Eleven were given to the Church, namely Matthias and Paul. If the promise was only to the Eleven, and not, by extension, to the wider group of later Apostles, then Matthias and Paul are excluded. And yet, Jesus says in John 14:26, "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and will remind you of all things which I said to you." and in John 15:26-27, " "But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me. And you also will testify, because you have been with Me from the beginning." Matthias was, we know, with Jesus from the beginning. Yet, if we limit the promise only to the Eleven, he is excluded. So neither Matthias nor Paul were, on this interpretation, to be included in the promise that the Holy Spirit would lead them into all truth.
This, of course, makes no sense, because we have writings in the New Testament which do not come from the Eleven, even if we take the traditional authorial ascriptions as givens. The Gospel of Mark is by the hand of a non-apostle, as is Luke's Gospel. We may well ascribe Petrine authority to Mark, as the Tradition does, but we have no clear-cut ascription to Luke who avowedly used many sources, though he could not have used Paul as an eyewitness. Then there is the entire body of Pauline writings, with Hebrews, for whether we ascribe Hebrews to Paul or not, we have no certainty of its authorship by one of the Eleven. One ought not forget James and Jude, for even if these are brothers/kinsmen of the Lord, they were not part of the Eleven. Which leaves us with more than half of the New Testament writings not covered by this promise presumably made only to the Eleven.
But even more to the point, we have instances, "inscripturated from the Tradition" in which the Holy Spirit did lead the Church. Cf. if you will Acts 15:28 in which James, not of the Eleven, speaks for the whole Church and says, "For it seemed best to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to put on you no greater burden except for these necessary things." Or consider Acts 8:29, "Then the Spirit said to Philip, 'Go near, and join yourself to this chariot.'" Now this is about one of the Eleven, but note there is no distinction made between the Spirit's guiding him and the Spirit's guidance of James. Or Acts 16:6, "Now when they had gone through Phrygia and the Galatian region, they were forbidden by the Holy Spirit from speaking the word in Asia" where Paul and his companions are led by the Spirit. Again, no distinction is made here between Paul and Philip; the Holy Spirit leads them both.
In short, this promise to the Eleven is meant more widely than just to the Eleven, as we can see from Scripture itself. Kevin may well challenge that even these other instances are only instances of Apostles, whether the Eleven or not, and he would be correct. But from here it is a simple matter to consider the passages about the Holy Spirit and the members of the Church:
Romans 8:5-9:
For those who are fleshly set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. For the mind of the flesh is death, but the mind of the Spirit is life and peace. Therefore the mind of the flesh is enmity against God; for it does not submit to the law of God, nor indeed can it. And those that are in the flesh cannot please God. But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His.
1 Corinthians 2:10-16:
But God has revealed them to us through His Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God. For who among men knows the things of a man, except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so, no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God. Now we did not receive the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is from God, in order that we might know the things granted to us by God; which things we also speak, not in words taught in human wisdom, but in words taught by the Holy Spirit, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he that is spiritual discerns all things, yet he himself is discerned by no man. For "Who has known the mind of the LORD, that he may instruct Him?" But we have the mind of Christ.
1 John 2:20-21:
But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you know all things. I did not write to you because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and because no lie is of the truth.
I could go on, but it is clear from the whole of Scripture that the audience to whom Jesus' promise that the Holy Spirit would lead them into all truth is, in full, the Church of God.
Indeed, Kevin must so ascribe the promise to the whole of the Church, for as will be seen Scripture is and always will be interpreted, and on Kevin's own reading of Scripture, it is the Holy Spirit that confirms these interpretations. So if the only way to know the truth contained in Scriptures is by the interpretation given by the Holy Spirit, then the promise, on Kevin's own argument, that the Holy Spirit will lead into all truth must apply to the Church else it does not apply to anyone who is not an Apostle or did not write Scripture, not even Kevin.
Furthermore, there is no promise given to the Apostles or the Church such that the "leading into all truth" refers only to the full canon of the Scriptures. The truth here is all the truth. Indeed, if we are going to be sticklers about context, which I suggest is a good thing, this promise of John 16:13 about the truth must refer fundamentally and ultimately to the Person of Jesus who is the Truth (John 14:6).
But let's consider an alternative interpretation, that the promise was a progressive one and not meant to be fulfilled all at once on the day of Pentecost when the Holy Spirit was given, and what a progressivist interpretation would mean; i. e., that the Holy Spirit will gradually, over time, lead the Church into all truth. It would, in its most obvious effect, mean that the promise would not be fulfilled until such time as the Church had all the truth, which would mean that until the Church had all the truth the promise remained unfulfilled. Which raises the necessary question: when is the promise fulfilled?
If Kevin wants to argue that this progressivist interpretation was indeed fulfilled in the completion of the Scriptures, then it necessarily follows that the promise of the leading of the Holy Spirit into all truth is no longer in effect. (Indeed, if it could only have been claimed by the Eleven or any Apostle, then it necessarily is void today.) But this is a strange promise that the Holy Spirit would lead the Church into all truth vis a vis the Scriptures, but then leave the message of the Scriptures subject to the whims and fallible reason of human interpreters. What would be the point of such a promise? Apparently the Holy Spirit can lead interpretive horses to water, but cannot make them drink, or even if they do drink, will not slake their thirst. This is tantamount to saying to the sick, "I promise you to lead you to the hospital in which are all things necessary for your full healing. But once you get there, you'll just have to figure it out for yourselves."
Please note: I am intentionally not drawing out any implications as to the infallibility of the Church. Such implications are not necessary, given the logical absurdity of Kevin's own position.
But if Kevin does indeed tie the promise of the Holy Spirit's leading to both the completion of the canon and the proper interpretation of it, he once again begs the question as to how to determine between interpretations.
And that leads necessarily to the next fundamental matter.
The Role of Hermeneutics
Kevin will claim that the authority of Scriptural interpretations does not rest in the interpretation itself, but insofar as it accurately conveys the message of the Scriptures. He must, in fact, claim this, or else he will have to give up his argument of the sufficiency of the Scriptures for all faith and practice. Because if an interpretation can be as authoritative, or authoritative in the same way, as Scripture, then it begs the question as to why one must decide between such an authoritative interpretation and an uninterpreted Scripture. The authority of the interpretation will be, then, a derived authority, secondary to Scripture. That derivative authority may still be authoritative, because it may, through the illumination of the Holy Spirit on the interpreter, be completely consonant with the Scriptures, but such an interpretation can never be binding in the same way that the authority of the Scriptures bind, because an interpretation is not, however consonant it may be, Scripture, it is only and always an interpretation.
But if all that we have is interpretation, what does one do with equally compelling but contradictory interpretations?
This is no mere academic exercise, for if Kevin is correct, my assertion that even the Tradition that is properly justified from Scripture but is otherwise extra-biblical is necessary for life and faith, is, indeed, heresy, or at best liable to lead many believers astray. But how does one decide such momentous controversies? Apparently by sheer hope and patience:
Churches can fall into heresy becase [sic] of their interpretation of the Scripture. More often, this is not the sole cause. They are are [sic] either ignoring other parts of Scripture or they are adding what is not contained in Scripture. Furthermore, they are paying no attention to the general consensus of thought within the historical Church. I would also say that, depending on the seriousness of the heresy, they are not being led by the Holy Spirit. In short, churches that have fallen into and persist in serious heresy may soon cease to be a part of the Church. Interpretation is no problem for my thesis. I am perfectly confident that the Holy Spirit can overcome any and all epistemological objections.
So, what evidence does Kevin have that some persons are teaching heresy and are not led by the Holy Spirit? Ultimately it can be one and only one thing: they do not agree with his interpretation. It really is as bald and straightforward as that. For let us suppose that on any matter of interpretation, both Kevin and I put forward stellar biblical exegesis, each of us has a truckload of historical data, and more to the point, our arguments are logical, valid and for all intents and purpose unassailable. But we both make contradictory interpretations. How does Buridan's ass choose between the two? If it is the leading of the Holy Spirit, this only begs the question as to whether our leadings are, indeed, the Holy Spirit.
Though Kevin's assertion about his own state may well do him just fine--"If I attend to the means of grace, if I add to my faith those things by which I make my calling and election sure (II Peter 1), then I may be assured that, although I may not have everything just right, my grasp of the truth is sufficient unto life."--this simply enshrines his own mind and thinking as at least the penultimate arbiter (assuming the Holy Spirit will be the final one) of all his interpretive difficulties. He can assume the leading of the Holy Spirit. He cannot however, prove it, and certainly not so in the face of equally compelling evidence.
So, although Kevin makes nice not to give in to the actual need of his argument to affirm the individual believer as the penultimate authority in interpretive matters, the conclusion actually is inescapable from his premise. He may make whatever necessary distinctions he wishes, in practical effect, Kevin is the source of authority of his interpretations of Scripture--all other evidence he may present otherwise as to the mind of the Spirit and His leading only begs the question.
Now the immediate problem with hermeneutics is that there are many methods and many disagreements between interpreters not only on what is the correct interpretation, but also on which sort of interpretive practice is warranted for any particular passage or series of passages. Kevin, however, thinks this a non-issue:
It is possible to narrow down the options without resorting to infallible interpretation. If the doctrine of Scripture's infallibility implies anything, it is that there are intended parameters on the range of interpretation. Allegorical and "what does it mean to me" are both far too open to eisegesis to be of any use. On the other hand, the woodenly literal interpretation of many fundamentalists completely misses the intent of the various biblical genres. The Bible is, at the very least, a book of literature. As to the suggestion that Scripture itself cannot suggest an interpretive method, this is not entirely true. My own approach to hermeneutics was greatly helped when I noticed that the authors of the NT have a way of interpreting the OT that is not at all in keeping with what I had been doing. In any event, even if correct exegetical methods were nearly impossible to come by, this would not necessitate an infallible interpreter.
I find it interesting that Kevin disparages the allegorical method of interpretation, when this very method itself is enshrined in the infallible and inspired Scriptures he rightly reveres (cf. Galatians 4 and the inimitable St. Paul). Apparently the allegorical method was of such a use to St. Paul that he included it in his own inspired writings, which writings were also included in the canon of Scripture. Kevin will doubtless reply that when one is an inspired author of Scripture, one may do as one wishes, but this begs the question and still avoids the central issue. And in any case, if Scripture itself suggests a single interpretive method, such a method will have to include allegory, since Scripture itself does so and to exclude it would be a self-contradiction.
But ultimately, the justification of hermeneutical methods, of what counts as evidence, the use of logical, the role of faith, all of these arguments will and must be made in extra-biblical fashion. To discern an interpretive method from Scripture is, itself, an interpretation and one is caught in a vicious circle from which there is no escape. Kevin is right to note that the use of the New Testament authors of the Old Testament will run counter to the favorite method of biblical interpretation among evangelicals: the historical-grammatical method. But once he has begun to draw up principles of interpretation, he has already interpreted the Scripture.
Kevin will likely say that the Holy Spirit is involved in proper Scriptural exegesis. But he cannot validate or substantiate his argument from Scripture itself. He must interpret it.
This is not to say that hermeneutics is unnecessary or useless in our dealing with Scripture. Indeed, it is necessary. (I note here for the record that Kevin did not at all touch on my claims that all Scripture is always interpreted by the reader/hearer.) But it is to say that Kevin has caught himself in a vicious argumentative circle from which he cannot extricate himself and lay claim to his argument that only the only true Tradition is the one properly exegeted from Scripture. For throughout his entire argument Kevin has recourse to extra-biblical tradition and question-begging hermeneutics. Perhaps I am not the only one to notice that Kevin's own claims are apparently justified with recourse to the Westminster Catechism.
How ironic.
Final Note: For all the posts in this discussion, cf. the following:
No, You Do NOT Have a Right to Depart from the Tradition (Initial post by Clifton)
Inscripturated Apostolic Tradition (Initial response by Kevin)
My Reply to Kevin re: Tradition and Scripture (Clifton)
Response to Tradition and Scripture (Kevin)
My Account of Scripture and Tradition (Secondary post by Clifton reflecting on Scripture and Tradition in general)
Voiding the Word (Kevin's reply to "My Account of Scripture and Tradition")
Tradition and Scripture Continued: My Response to Kevin (Clifton's reply to Kevin's "Response to Tradition and Scripture")
A-Voiding the Word: My Response to Kevin's Other Post (Clifton's Reply to Kevin's "Voiding the Word")
Epistemological Comfort Blankets (Kevin's combined reply to the previous two replies by Clifton)
And this post today constitutes the most recent, and possibly penultimate, post.
[The following is the substance of a second email I sent to a correspondent who asked me what New Testament justification the Orthodox have for their understanding of the priesthood.]
The reason I answered the question on the Lord's Supper first is that, historically speaking, the functions of the offices/ministries of bishop, priest and deacon have flowed directly from an understanding of the Eucharist and not the Eucharist from that of the functions of these ministries. Once one understands that from the very time the New Testament was being written, from the first days of the Church, the bread and wine of the Lord's Supper were understood to be the Body and Blood of Jesus, it necessarily changes the way one looks at the New Testament evidence, such that it is, for these three ministries.
Another matter we must confront head-on with no dissembling is the simple fact that the New Testament does not really tell us all that much about these offices/ministries. We are not told, for example, whether the leadership of a local congregation must be one of a plurality of elders assisted by the deacons (which has been the typical Restoration Movement understanding), or whether one of those elders can serve in a full-time function as the primary pastor of the congregation, or even whether we can name an individual who is not an elder or deacon to lead the congregation on a full-time basis, whether we call that man—and it has always been a man among the independent Christian churches and among the a capella churches of Christ—a minister (a Latin synonym for the Hellenic deacon) or evangelist (which the New Testament says very little about), or even a pastor or teacher or pastor/teacher. To the degree that we dogmatize about these matters we are that much further from actually understanding what is “the New Testament pattern” for the Church.
That fact, that the New Testament is not all that clear about the functions of these various offices/ministries, is inescapably joined to another fact: If we are to properly understand what the New Testament does say about these things, we are going to have to look at the earliest history of the Church and the earliest Church writings to see what they say about these things and then offer reasonable inferences about what the New Testament says about these things in light of the later earliest historical realities.
That being said, I will limit my comments, as you asked, to the New Testament because there are, I think, suggestive elements in the New Testament that will lay the foundation for a case of understanding the New Testament polity of the Church as being the traditional historical threefold ministry of bishops, priests and deacons.
The normal texts that one looks at for the leadership roles in the Church are 1 Timothy 3:1-13 and Titus 1:5-9. We also look to Acts 20:28, 1 Peter 5:1-4, James 5:13-16 and Acts 6:1-7. From these texts we learn more about who an elder or deacon is than we do what an elder or deacon does. We know that an elder shepherds the church (Acts 20.28; 1 Peter 5.1-4), visits and prays for the sick (James 5.13-16), preaches and instructs (1 Timothy 5.17; Titus 1.9), shows hospitality (1 Timothy 3.2; Titus 1.8), gives proper care and leadership to his own household (1 Timothy 3.4-5; Titus 1.6), guards the church from those who would destroy it by sin, divisiveness, or a false gospel (Acts 20.28; Titus 1.9; cf. Matthew 18.15-20). What we know of the responsibilities of a deacon is even less: Cares for and leads his household well (1 Timothy 3.12), and perhaps provides food for needy widows (see Acts 6.1-7), assuming it is possible to equate the Acts 6 deacons with the 1 Timothy 3 deacons. I need not here answer the question as to whether the “women” of 1 Timothy 3 refers to deacon's wives or to deaconesses, and besides, even if it is the latter, the New Testament nowhere gives any specific function associated with such an office/ministry.
So there you have it. Nothing is said about elders and deacons in terms of the Lord's Supper or in any other more specific things with regard to their ministry. We do not know, on the basis of the New Testament alone, whether or not they had functions associated pretty closely with what we now understand to have been the case by the end of the first century; which is to say that the bishop presided over the liturgy of the Lord's Supper assisted by priests and the deacons (cf. the Epistles of Ignatios of Antioch c. A. D. 107). There is nothing in the New Testament that would forbid such functions, but very little that is suggestive of those functions as well.
I do think it important, before I get to the little that is suggestive of the roles of elder and deacon in the New Testament, to comment briefly on terminology. We both know how important it is in the Restoration Movement to use “Bible names for Bible things.” That is why we call it the “Lord's Supper” because this is what Paul calls it in the Corinthians passages. It is why our churches prefer the terminology “churches of Christ” or “Christian churches,” as these reflect, we think, the better New Testament terminology. And, it is why we call presbyteroi “elders,” because that is what the New Testament term means.
That being said, however, it is a bit disingenuous that we don't call our deacons “servants,” but instead transliterate the term. Also, though our Restoration Movement brethren object to the term “bishop” it is a perfectly good New Testament term. It is, in fact, what elders were called in Ephesus, “bishops.” In 1 Timothy 3, the office/ministry we usually call “elder” (presbyteros) is actually “overseer/bishop” (episkopos). So, too, in Acts 20:28, where Paul says of the elders of the assembly/church (as it says of them in v. 17) who have come out to meet him, “the Holy Spirit has made you overseers [bishops, episkopoi]” over the flock. And in 1 Peter 5:2, Peter says to the elders that they must “exercise the oversight” (i. e., they must be bishops) over the flock of God. And in fact, Jesus himself is called, in 1 Peter 2:25, our Chief Shepherd and Overseer (or Bishop). So, in point of fact, there are bishops all over the New Testament, though, as has already been said, what we know of their functions is limited--and I will also readily admit that the New Testament does not make enough of a distinction between episkopoi and presbyteroi to be dogmatic about such a distinction. That distinction came as a later historical development.
However, there are at least some important suggestions made by Paul in Romans 15 that I think may, if not absolutely settling the matter, bring more to light than we currently have. In Romans 15:16, Paul notes that by the grace of God it has been given to him to “work as a priest” in the service of the Gospel. This is a hapax legomena, the only time this verb is used in the New Testament. Etymologically it is made up of the words for priest (hieros) and work (ergeo). But this provides us little help. After all, what does it mean to “work, or serve, as a priest in the service of the Gospel"?
Earlier in that verse, Paul calls himself a “servant of Jesus Christ.” This word for servant is leitourgos (from which stem our word liturgy is related). This word leitourgos is only used three other times in the New Testament, once at Philippians 2:25 in which Epaphroditus is called by Paul, his “minister” of his need. It is used in Hebrews 1:7, where angels are said to be God's “servants” of fire. And it is used in Hebrews 8:2, where Jesus is called our leitourgos or servant of the sanctuary, the heavenly tabernacle not pitched by men. Indeed, when we look at the other related words to leitourgos, such as the verb, leitourgeo (I serve or minister), or leitourgia (service or ministry), leitourgikos (used only once of angels as ministering spirits in Hebrews 1:14), and leitourgos (used only once of the public servants in Romans 13:6), we see that the word group used in a somewhat generic sense of ministry and service. We do have an instance of the noun, leitourgia, used in Luke 1:23, to speak of Zachariah's priestly service. But there is also one instance of the verb, leitourgeo, in Hebrews 10:11 that is also suggestive. There it speaks of the priests of the old covenant standing day by day “offering sacrifices” (our verb leitourgeo). This of course, is contrasted with the once and for all sacrifice that Jesus offered of himself that is far better.
So, it seems that we do have some strong warrant for tying Paul's “working as a priest in the service of the Gospel” to the priestly ministry of Jesus himself whose once-for-all sacrifice of himself is the one offered in the true sanctuary in the holy of holies in heaven. I am not here tying the functions of bishops, priests or deacons to this verse in Roman 15 and the related verses in Hebrews. But I am saying that if Paul, whose ministry was of such a nature as I believe the New Testament to suggest, and if Paul was responsible for appointing elders in all the churches he established, and if the Lord's Supper is to be a continual observance in the Church, then one can, on the New Testament alone, build a strongly suggestive case that the episkopoi, presbyteroi and diakonoi served the Body and Blood of Christ in the elements of the bread and wine of the Lord's Supper.
It is, admittedly, only strongly suggestive. However, when one looks to the historical evidence, and especially to the earliest extrabiblical evidence we have (in 1 Clement and in the Epistles of Ignatios of Antoich), the case does become not only clear but unequivocal: bishops, priests and deacons were part of the original New Testament Church founded by the Apostles whose roles of service included their functions in the observance of the Lord's Supper.
My dia-blog with Kevin on the Tradition continues.
I'm glad we do have points of agreement, so I am grateful to hear you say things like, "I wish everyone believed that the church's life was something given to it by Christ; that this life is no mere doctrinal concept. To this extent, we agree."
Unfortunately, while it is clear that you grasp the claims of the Orthodox Church, you mistake the actual force of those claims. For example, you say, in summarizing my points, "The Orthodox Church is the true church of Christ. It has a specific way of doing things, which it defines as its 'Tradition.' This, it claims, is given in infallible and unbroken form all the way from Christ. The proof of such a pedigree is found in the fact that it is this church that does these things." This is, indeed, true. The Orthodox Church claims to be the true Church of Christ, that very Body Christ Himself founded on the Apostles and Prophets. As such, the Church's Tradition is, then, that which is the Tradition of the Orthodox Church. All of this is consistent with my claims.
But just prior to that summation, you write, "This statement would be fine if 'Tradition' meant those beliefs and practices which exhibit the truths of the Gospel and are common to all those who profess the name of Christ. But it does not. It refers to the beliefs and practices of a specific denomination." Here you slip. In point of fact, if the Orthodox Church claims to be the Church of Christ, She is not merely just another denomination, but is the sole visible Body of Christ. If the Orthodox Church thought of herself as simply the most pure of, the most correct of all other denominations, then she could not claim to be the Body of Christ, but only one branch among many. This in fact is precisely what she rejects about Herself, that she is merely one among many more or less correct "options."
Similarly, you go on to extrapolate, apparently via logical categories, from the statement that if Orthodoxy and Orthodoxy alone has Life and is the Church, then no other denominations have any of this Life and are not the Church. This in fact is a distortion, nor is it logically required. It is true that the exclusivity of Orthodoxy's claims to being the Church, seems to require that all other Christian groups are not the Church, but it is not true that Orthodoxy claims all else are dead.
Think of it this way. That the Orthodox consider themselves the Church of Christ is an exclusive claim. It either is the case or it is not. If it is the case, then no other church can make the same claim. And, to the degree that Orthodoxy is that which she claims (the Church), she is only witnessing to the truth She has been given. Orthodoxy does not make her claim out of pride, but out of the utmost humility. For Her to reject Her claim is to reject Her Lord.
However, when it comes to the claims about Life, the same dynamic operates (i. e., that this Life has been given to Her as a charge to keep), but the same conclusion of exclusivity does not operate. For the Body is the Body and not the Head. The Body has life only insofar as it is connected to the Head. But this property of Life does not inhere in the Body per se, but only by way of union. Thus, it is God who always is the source of Life. It is the Holy Trinity Who makes alive, and who are we to gainsay that which He enlivens? The Church does not dispense Life, or rather only does so in the way that Her Lord has given Her to do. But that she does so is only at the behest of Her Lord and through His very own Life and Power. So, does God enliven those who believe on the name of the Church's Lord but yet who are outside Her doors? We can only offer a charitable and humble, "This is the Lord's doing and we are made humble in our own eyes." That is to say, that the Orthodox Church is the Church, which charge can be given no other body of Christians does not logically entail that there is no Life anywhere outside the Church's doors. For God is everywhere, and everywhere God is there is Life for those who will accept it.
You then go on to state what you cannot substantiate on the basis of Scripture alone:
I am saying that Scripture sets the parameters both of the Gospel and of the Church. I am saying that Scripture gives no warrant whatsoever for a particular church to say, "plus all the things that we've been doing," and then call this, "Life." Even more, I am saying that Christ has given no such authorization. It is unthinkable that the One whom Scripure so fully reveals in the simplicity of the Gospel should have entrusted extra conditions for Life to a particular church with no indication that he had done so, no indication of what these conditions are, and no way of determining which church has this extra-Biblical but oh so essential truth.
Where does Scripture say that it does these very things? What do you make then of the authorization of Christ given to the Church to bind and to loose in Matthew 18:18-20? Doesn't the very context there give the Church quite broad parameters in the matters of discipline to bind and to loose? What about St. Paul's words in 1 Timothy 3:15 in which the Church is called the "pillar and ground of the truth?" Where in all of Scripture does Scripture say this about itself? What else can one make of Ephesians 4:16 where St. Paul indicates that it is in and among the very constituent members of the Body that it builds itself up into love into Him Who is the Head? Doesn't this indicate that the Church has within Herself all that is necessary for maturing into the fullness of Christ? (Not, of course that She has this of Her own self, but that it is both given to Her in and by Her Lord and held and given back to Her Lord fivefold.) But where does it say in Scripture that Scripture has this capacity to bring the whole Church into full maturity in Christ? And doesn't this all logically entail that the Church will necessarily incarnate these things in ways that must be "in addition" to what the Scriptures say? You'll have a hard time arguing otherwise.
You then say, "I have seen particular churches throughout history fall into heresy or some other sin far too often to think that it can't happen to any other church." And this is indeed a great danger. But now let me ask you this? How do you know what is and isn't heresy? Why, for example, don't you reject the Trinity? I know you can infer it from Scripture. But you can also infer Arianism. How are we to decide between these two interpretations?
Furthermore, name one heresy that the Orthodox Church as a whole has espoused.
You then follow your statement on heresy with, "The only defense against this, and only sure way by which the Church will triumph agaisnt the gates of Hell, is to know the will of God as it has been given in Scripture." But in point of fact, isn't it the case that churches and groups have fallen into heresy precisely on the basis of their interpretation of the "will of God as it has been given in Scripture"? This is the largest problem with your entire thesis: you fail to take into account that there is never a case in which the Scripture is not interpreted. Or, to state it in the affirmative: every encounter with Scripture is interpretation.
In fact, I'm willing to bet that you read the Scripture almost exclusively in translation. Which means that you always encounter Scripture with two layers of interpretation between you and it: a) first your own presuppositions and worldviews and b) those of the translators. Even if you read the Scriptures in the original languages you will never divest yourself of a).
So it will always be the case that we will be asking the question, "Whose interpretation?" and "On what authority?" If you just naively assume that your interpretative methods are better than the Church's, your interpretation better than Hers, you have not merely voided the Word, you have avoided it by enshrining your own mind and thinking over it--even if done naively and without malice.
Finally, you are right to note that if the Orthodox Church is the Church of Christ, then She is the pillar and ground of the Truth, She has been led by the Spirit into all Truth (John 16:13), then She cannot be in error, She is, in a word, infallible.
But your final conclusion is both illogical and deeply offensive: "It is a church that has outgrown the need both for humility and for repentance. I can think of nothing more devastating to the soul." I wonder that you have the courage to say such a thing of a body of Christians who preceded you, who gave you your Bible, who gave you the standard of orthodox doctrine that you use every day, who kept and guarded the mystery of the Holy Trinity for you so that each day you can pray in His name, a body of Christians who have been persecuted and killed for the Pearl of Great Price they have been charged to keep. Though Orthodoxy claims to be the Church, she does not judge those outside her bounds as having outgrown the need for humility and repentance.
That being said, it is not a wonder that even in Her deep humility, Her sorrowful repentance, the very claim She has been given Her by Her Lord is offensive to you. It is a bracing jolt. It offended me when I first came across it. And it turned me off to Orthodoxy on my first very superficial encounters many years ago now. But there is no help for that. She cannot take out the sting without draining Herself of the Truth that is Hers.
Kevin continues our dialogue on Scripture. And I am duty-bound to respond--besides, he's very polite, a good arguer, and we apparently both find this an interesting exchange. Now, let's hope I can continue to do justice to the honorable parameters of our discussion.
(Justification from Properly Exegeted Scriptures--was "Sufficiency of Oral Transmission")
You are right to note my failure to take account of your backing off of your thesis. And in fact, you make such distancing even more explicit when you write, "I am willing to extend this necessity for oral transmission of the Tradition for as long as the entire canon had not been made available." But then you go on to claim that this does not entail an argument that Tradition is not limited specifically to the content of Scripture (which you clarify is both OT and NT, though we may quibble over OT canonical matters).
But I'm afraid that here you leave yourself open to the great weakness of your claim: what exactly is the "content" of the Scripture? I'll stipulate, for the sake of our argument here, that the canon of the Scriptures is the Protestant 66. Is the content nothing more and nothing less than the verifiable propositions of (that which can be explicitly enjoined from) the Scriptures? Or is it also that which can be reasonably inferred from them? You have indicated in previous comments that you accept "examples of tradition justified from Scripture properly exegeted (and where they are not, such as Nicea II, we are required to ignore them)." But this simply leaves you wide open to the simple fact that if there is no contradiction between Tradition and Scripture--which is to say, Tradition is "justified from Scripture properly exegeted"--then you have no case. You must accept all those things you now think to be extra or additional.
I know, I know, you will stress the phrase "properly exegeted"--and I note that you dismiss Nicea II quite handily, but I suspect you have not read St. John of Damascus' three treatises on the icons, nor the work of St. Theodore the Studite on the same matter, because both of these illumined gentleman do a great deal of "proper Scripture exegeting."
But this really is the final rub, isn't it? Difference in interpretation. I believe it entirely possible--though I am far from wholly competent to do it--to go through the Tradition and show its complete consonance in its entirety with properly exegeted Scripture. I know that there are some big issues in which this has already most ably been done: the nature of the Lord's Supper, the necessity of an episcopal polity itself grounded in and on the reality that is the Lord's Supper, the role of Mary, the nature of proper Christian worship, the communion of all the saints, and so forth.
But I suspect, which you indicate by graciously passing over the issues of asking the intercessions of the sainst in your response, that such justifications would not satisfy you because you would claim that "proper exegesis" has not been done. I am not without standing to ask: How do you know? Because that's not the way you, or your denomination, or your denomination historically, or any other evangelical interprets Scripture? But how do these know? And why should not the fact that the entire Church historically understood the Scriptures this way count in light of your (presumably) contrary interpretations?
What if I want to use an allegorical interpretation as my primary exegetical tool? What if I decide the historical-grammatical is best? Or, what if I just want to go with what the Bible "says to me"? On the basis of your argument, how can you gainsay me? There's nothing in Scripture that enjoins a particular interpretative method. And if we "justify from properly exegeted Scripture" a particular interpretive method we have only begged the question.
No, your argument has to be narrowed to the fact that Tradition is limited to the explicit (propositional?) content of Scripture. But then you have only checkmated yourself.
(Cessationism and Not Adding/Deleting--was "Sufficiency of Scripture for faith and practice")
Since the extent of the OT canon is not necessary for the main argumentative points I wish to make, for the sake of this specific discussion, I'll simply stipulate, as I did above, the Protestant 66. So I'll not here take the time to substantiate my claims, and concede the limit.
Your cessationist intepretation of 1 Corinthians 13 is, and I mean no offense, fanciful in the extreme. "To teleion" does not mean the completed canon. The gender of the noun does not match the typical feminine of "e graphe," and nothing in the context could be construed to actually refer to the Scriptures. More to the point, when St. Paul speaks of the Scriptures, he means the Old Testament, not the completed canon. There is nothing in the context to justify such a cessationist interpretation, and indeed, your uncertainty in your exegesis--"it appears," "is a bit more illusive," "it might be," "whatever it is," "the general idea"--does not lead to the dogmatic affirmation that "Scripture teaches its own sufficiency." Besides all that, the fact that you affirm that this is the "cessationist" intepretation only begs the question: Why should I, or any other Christian, accept it? If I interpret "to teleion" as the Parousia, the coming age, who would you be to argue against it? Indeed, wouldn't a better reading of v. 12 be that of the coming age? But I've dealt with exegesis above, so I'll move on.
You mentioned the Revelation passage, itself an echo of that from Deuteronomy, and agreed that in context the prohibition against adding and deleting was primarily about Revelation but could be taken to refer to the whole of Scripture. And I would agree with that. But it's a stretch to say: Don't add to this book, or Don't add to this canonical list, and then to go on to say, Don't add any traditions either. First you would have to prove that was the original intent of the author, otherwise you're begging the question. Second, you would have to prove that the addition of traditions that are "justified from a proper exegesis of Scripture" are not adding to the Scripture.
As a bit of an aside here, I found the riposte of the following absolutely and cleverly hilarious:
In the absence of an argument that would necessitate the validity of such a an oral tradtion beyond what was needed to supplement incomplete scripture, my claim that extra-Biblical traditions are invalid is not circular. Rather, your own attempt to justify a post-canonical practice by a narrower pre-canonical necessity is a red herring.
Well said! But let me add that you still commit a logical fallacy: assuming the absence of a proof for the opposing position as proof of your position. Touche!
To continue:
(The Foundation of Tradition and Scripture in the Holy Spirit--was "Limiting the Tradition to the Body of Scripture")
When you write, "Tradition is not the foundation of Scripture nor is the reverse true," you miscontrue what I said. You quoted me accurately, but substantiating the Scripture from the Tradition they had received from St. Paul is not the same thing as founding Scripture on Tradition. Scripture is, as I've said all along, part of the Tradition, not different from it, nor parallel to it. It's all one cloth, with Scripture woven in over here, the Liturgy here, the Creeds here, and so forth. The whole of Tradition itself is founded in the Holy Spirit, and here I agree with you completely.
A brief reply to your comment, "The scriptural warrant for Sunday worship is found in Apostolic practice as recorded in Acts." There is only one verse in Acts 20 that could possibly be construed as sanctioning the normal practice of Sunday as the primary day of worship. And even that verse is not explicit that this was the purpose for the meeting. But let's grant that it is explicit about the day and it's primacy for worship. We still have only the evidence that it was true of this particular congregation and not that it was a widespread practice in the Church. In other words, we get the primacy of Sunday from the extra-biblical Tradition--but of course not in contradiction to Scripture!
(The Stable Content of Tradition--was, "Obsolescence of Tradition Based on Completed Canon")
You write of the attestation of Paul's apostleship and say, "Arguably, these may be categorized as holy Tradition, but their function at the time does nothing to demonstrate the fuller tradition that you wish to advocate for today." But there is no distinction between that which you agree "may be categorized as holy Tradition" and something else you call the "fuller tradition." Your construing it in this way implies that Tradition is little more than centuries of accretion upon accretion.
I suspect, though you haven't said so, that you think icons to have been something added to the Tradition sometime shortly before the end of the eighth entury A. D. But in point of fact, we have evidence of iconography dating back to the catacombs and first century practice. Or perhaps you think the whole doctrine about "Body and Blood of Jesus" in the Eucharist to have been a later addition, but once again, the New Testament makes these explicit claims (and these are attested to as early as the letters of St. Ignatios at the end of the first century/beginning of the second century A. D.). I could go on. In point of fact, the content of the Tradition has been pretty much stable from the time of the Apostles. Specific practices that exhibit that content do change and grow and subside dynamically through history, culture and languages, but the content remains the same. We may now have specific rules by which an icon is painted and displayed, but what it is and that it is venerated hasn't changed in 2000 years. We may now serve the Communion in a gold chalice with a spoon, but the fact that it's the Body and Blood of the Lord hasn't changed in 2000 years.
In any case, thank you again, for your continued dialogue.
I'll answer your other reply to my own account of Scripture and Tradition in another post. (We'll probably have to combine these posts somehow to avoid further confusion and repetition!)
[Note: I edited the post for spelling and grammar about 9:00 am, and added one or two clarifying phrases for what were otherwise periphrastic nouns/pronouns.]
I received in the mail yesterday, from Orthodox Christian Recorded Books, the Psalter According to the Seventy on a set of four CDs (scroll down the page).
From the jacket on the case:
The present recording is entirely 'read' or chanted in accordance with the way it is chanted during the divine services of the Russian Orthodox Church. There are separate tracks for each kathisma and each stasis, making it easy for the listener to forward through the recording to a favorite section of the Psalter. The reader names each psalm throughout so that the listener who is listening outside the context of the services, can be aware of exactly which psalm is being read . . . .
Each CD is about an hour and ten or fifteen minutes (the fourth is only about a half hour) long. The sound quality is excellent!
The Russian chant is essentially monotonic, which is an incredible aid to meditating on the Psalms.
The text can be found here. (Note: The psalster is divided according to the reading of the Kathismata according to each weekday--Kathisma 1, beginning with Psalm 1, is found at the end of Saturday; which is Saturday evening, or the liturgical beginning of the week.)
(I should note that Orthodox Christian Recorded Books provides "a special 20% discount to visually impaired persons.")
[As is no doubt obvious from the previous week's posts, this reflection has come out of the exchange I've had on the relationship between Scripture and Tradition. I'm thankful to Kevin who has pushed me to more concretely express my thoughts on the matter.]
The Tradition is that way of Life whose content and shape is Christ and was given by Christ to the Apostles and from the Apostles to the Christians to whom they gave it, and so on in unbroken succession down to the present age. This Life was and is no mere doctrinal concept but was and is Life, which is to say, it is all that makes a human being truly and fully human. So this Life given by Christ is His own, and is a way of living as much as it is the Life that makes living possible. As a way of Life it entails certain beliefs, concepts and wills. But it is not merely or purely psychic, or mental/volitional, but is, indeed, everything about what it means to be really and truly and fully human: speech and acts and all that we do with our bodies, as well as all our thoughts, emotions, words, and willing.
That Tradition was always present in full—nothing needed ever to be added to it, nor could anything ever be taken from it—from the very moment Christ ascended into Heaven and gave the gift of the Spirit to His Church. Because that Tradition was, and is, a way of Life, whose entire essence and content is Christ, it is a dynamic thing, always the same, yet ever concretely lived in specific ways of life. It does not change or adapt in its essence, since Christ Himself, Who is the Life of the Church, is the same yesterday, today and forever. But just as the exact same Gospel can be communicated in a thousand different languages without change or alteration, so this way of Life was and is expressed concretely in every place and people and language on earth. Because this Tradition is filled with the Life of Christ himself, it carries His authority, and is thus infallible. But this Tradition is not, nor ever could be, separable from the Church, for the Church Herself is the Body of Christ, and is filled with Christ in whom is the fullness of the Godhead. The Church's Life, the Tradition, is thus not Her own but is always and only that which Christ gives her. Thus the Scriptures are not separate or separable from the Life of the Church, from Her Tradition, for the Scriptures are the Word of God, out-breathed by God in the Church, to the Church, for the Church. The Church wrote the Scriptures by the hand of God, and this Word given in and to and for Her is Her Life, for it is the Word of God. But Life is not opposed to Life, for it is all the same Life, which is to say, Christ. Christ is the shape and content of the Old Testament and the New Testament, and He is the shape and content of the Liturgy, the decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, the teachings of the Church Fathers, the lives of His Saints, and so forth. The Church knows what is Life and what is not Life in all these things, for She knows the Lord Who calls Her by name and recognizes His voice. Thus, that which She takes up to Herself as Her Life is, indeed, Life.
It is true that the Scriptures have a unique place in the Life of the Church and are given special prominence, and this is due to their unique quality of being out-breathed by God. But while their authority may have a different shape than the authority of the Liturgy, or of the Creeds, or of the Councils, on account of their uniqueness, the quality of that authority remains the same, which is the Life of Christ, for all authority in heaven and on earth is His, and all things have been given Him by the Father. And it is because this authority the Scriptures have is of the Life of Christ that the Scriptures do not stand as an opposing authority to the rest of Tradition. For if it is true that the Scriptures are unique in their being out-breathed by God, it is still the Church that recognizes in them Her Master's Voice, and claims them for Herself as what they really are: the Word of God. The Church does not make them Scripture so much as she recognizes them as such. Yet we must always speak of both realities as, in fact, true. The Scriptures were so out-breathed and the Church did discern them as such. Both historical realities must always be held together in the Truth as true. For even if the Scriptures were so out-breathed of God as they are, and yet the Church did not discern them as such, we would still be reliant on the Church to transmit to us the content of the Scriptures. The Church is ever the one who tells us what is this Scripture which is the out-breathed of God, given in the Church, to the Church, and for the Church.
According to Tradition, the Scriptures have a unique place in the Life of the Church, given their unique out-breathed status. Apart from the Tradition, this is something we would not know of ourselves. Indeed, we know this precisely because of how the Scriptures function, as a manifestation of what they really are, in the Life of the Church. The Scriptures are given prominence in the Life of the Church, in her Doctrine and her piety. In fact, certain of those Scriptures themselves are given additional prominence. Each Sunday we read from the New Testament Acts and Epistles, and we read from the Gospels. And to the Gospels are given a special prominence over the rest of the Scriptures, for they, unique above all the Scriptures, are a verbal icon of Christ. Now in a certain sense all the Scriptures are a verbal icon of Christ, for He is their content and the key to understanding them. But the Gospels focus uniquely on the Life of our Lord and are recognized as worthy of special attention. Still and all, we do not read from St. John Chrysostom's Commentary on Matthew in the place of the Gospel of Matthew. Not because St. John is in opposition to the Gospel, or not worthy of contemplation, or has no authority, but because the Gospel of Matthew is unique, both in its authorship/Authorship and in its place in the Tradition.
In other words, in the classical conception of Tradition, there is no opposition, nor need there be, between Scripture and Tradition, and precisely because there is no opposition, each way of Life that is the Tradition (Liturgy, Scripture, Creed, etc.) can be given its due place and honor. We do not honor Scripture but disparage the Creed. Rather we honor Scripture as the Scripture and the Creed as the Creed, and both as the way of Life given the Church by and in and through Christ.
[See the start of this thread and comments here.]
Let me take your points as you've presented them.
(Asking the intercessions of the “dead.”)
The Church has always interpreted Hebrews 12:1 (on the basis of the faithful of the Old Testament who have died and gone before us spoken of in chapter 11) as that the many witnesses are the “dead” who are alive in Christ God. Furthermore, Revelation 8:3-4 speaks of the prayers of the saints going up as incense before the Lord. In context, it is probably best to interpret these saints as the martyrs of 6:9-11 and 7:13-17. And while it is true that the content of their prayers are not manifest (except maybe for the justice of God to be realized as pace chapter 8, if the dead who are alive in Christ are witness to our struggles in the race set before us, it seems reasonable to conclude that they pray for us as well. After all, in this life they were charged by the Apostle Paul to offer “supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings . . .on behalf of all men, on behalf of kings and all those who are in authority, that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity. For this is good and acceptable before God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the full knowledge of the truth” (1 Timothy 2:1-4). On what basis would they be free of this obligation simply because they are now with God in the heavenlies? These intercessions do not in anyway negate Christ's mediation, for these prayers are offered precisely on the basis of such mediation, as Paul goes on to say, “For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself a ransom for all, the testimony in due time . . .” (1 Timothy 2:4-5). We no more short circuit Christ's mediation to us by asking the prayers of our presently alive Christians brothers and sisters, than we do asking those who've gone before us, absent from the body but present with the Lord (2 Corinthians 5:8), to pray for us.
More to the point, asking the intercessions of those who've gone before us is a practice directly testifying to the victory of Christ over death, that is to say, a faith in the Resurrection. It would seem that, despite good intentions, to forbid the invocations of the saints who've gone before us precisely because they have died is to deny the present reality of Christ's victory over the last enemy. It means death is stronger than Christ. But Paul has something to say about that: Romans 8:37-39.
(Sufficiency of Oral Transmission)
As you acknowledge, your argument depends upon your own assumptions. You then think to bolster your claims by asserting that I assume the efficacy of oral transmission, thus invalidating my own claims.
But I see that you continue to fail to deal with the actual historical evidence I present. You seem to assume that since the NT Scriptures were written down within the first two generations of the Church (from, presumably, A.D. 50s-90s), that all had ready access to those Scriptures. This is not the case. In point of fact, for the first several centuries in the Church, the bulk of Christ's Body was illiterate, nor of sufficient means to own the entirety of the Old and New Testament Scriptures. At most, a particular local Church would have copies of one of the canonical Epistles written to them, as well as other canonical writings associated with them. Thus we can presume that the Church in Ephesus would have had the epistle to the Ephesians (if we assume the ascription to be genuine), perhaps the letters to Timothy who was their bishop, and the Gospel of the John, to whom Tradition ascribes to the Apostle, and whom himself was a leader at Ephesus. This in itself would have been a rich storehouse. And it does seem that the body of Paul's Epistles did circulate widely and early. Nonetheless, your argument requires that all the OT and NT Scriptures be available to all the Churches within the first generation or two of the Church. If they weren't then most of what they had to go on was the Tradition. And, in fact, this state of affairs held true for some time, especially for those Churches far outside the geographical communications with the major urban centers. The Scriptures the early Christians received was mostly that which they heard as the Liturgy and in the Liturgy.
So, in the end, the argument from history must be greater than your argument from silence and assumptions. Indeed, if oral transmission is insufficient to ground Apostolic Truth for two millennia, it would hardly be scandalous to say that it insufficient to ground such for two centuries. And yet, for two centuries, the Churches of God had slightly differing canons of what constituted God's NT Scripture, and nearly all were without the entire Church's full canon. Yet, mirabile dictu, without the Scriptural evidence necessary from your own argument to substantiate your claims, they were guided surely and rightly to the full canon and to the fullness of the Aposotlic Faith.
(Sufficiency of Scripture for faith and practice)
I agree with much of what you have to say, except for this claim: “I find it rather ironic that it is the Protestant church that has not tampered with the traditional canon as recognized by the ancient Jewish church.” It's clear that you have not studied the history of OT canonization, nor of the recent history of the recovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls and their contents. These resources are readily available, so I will simply summarize here: The OT canon as most all Protestants use (less the so-called “Apocrypha” or “Deuterocanon”) was not promulgated till at or after the council of Jamnia c. A.D. 90-ish (if I recall correctly), itself a reaction to Christianity. The almost-exclusive use of the LXX by the Apostles (itself readily attested by the NT), gives tangential support to the fuller canon, but even more to the point, the early Church itself readily and often used these texts, and included them in their copies of the Scriptures. Not until Martin Luther and other Reformers threw them out, in reaction to the real and perceived excesses of the Roman Church, did any part of the Church reject them. Again, history and Church practice is on the side of the fuller OT canon.
But to the point of your argument, that Scripture itself is “ sufficient for the faith and practice of the Church” cannot be in any way justified from Scripture itself. I need not prove Scripture to be insufficient in itself, because a) it creates a false dichotomy between Scripture and Tradition which I don't accept, and b) I'm not denying the sufficiency of Scripture but rather pointing out to you that your argument does not work on its own terms. I need prove nothing if your argument cannot stand on its own. And it clearly does not. So, on your own terms, you cannot claim what you do about Scripture.
Furthermore, your argument falls apart when you admit, “I have no problem with non-Apostles transmitting apostolic Tradition, even if such transmission is oral. Given the incomplete status of Scripture at the time, this would have been necessary. Conversely, given that Scripture is now both complete and sufficient, I would argue that if it's not in Scripture, then whatever is being transmitted is not apostolic Tradition.” You are caught in an irresoluble dilemma, for if oral transmission is fine until the completion of the canon, then it must be fine afterwards. That you assume it is fine before but invalid after is a circular argument which is invalid. Furthermore, you either do not mean by “completion of Scripture” the writing of the last canonically received text (presumably John's Gospel), because even if Scripture were then complete, it would make no practical difference to those who did not have the complete canon. So you must mean that the completion is when the final canon was authorized, but then you have oral Tradition, for the most part, for some three centuries after the start of the Church. But if oral Tradition is good for a few hundred years, it must be good for longer than that.
But once again, this is not a claim you can even substantiate from your premise of Scripture alone being the Tradition, because Scripture alone does not ever say that.
(Fallibilty and Infallibility)
The infalliblity of the Church founded upon the claims of Scripture itself, and thus should be authoritative for you. Cf. the following:
Matthew 18:15-20: Here Jesus speaks of the Church judging certain disciplinary matters. And whatever the Church decides, Jesus says, “Assuredly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven. Again, assuredly I say to you that if two of you agree on earth about anything that they may ask, it will be done for them by My Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst." The decision, then, is an infallible one; i. e., “bound/loosed in heaven and on earth.”
1 Timothy 3:15: Perhaps the most explicit reference in Scripture of the Church's authority vis a vis the truth: “the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.” Why is the Church called something Scripture never is? Because, primarily of John 14:6: Jesus calls himself, “the Truth.” The Church is the Body of Christ, and therefore by her participation in the Truth (Christ), is herself, as a whole, “the pillar and bulwark of the Church.” This is not to downplay or mitigate the authority of Scripture, for Scripture, too, participates in the divine Life, as it is “out-breathed” from God. Again, I need not resort to false dichotomy. I own both the infallibility of Scripture and of the Church. You, however, are forced by your own argument to deny the Church's infallibility so as to make way for the sole infalliblity of the Scriptures. Yet Scripture itself witnesses to this infalliblity, this grounding of Truth in and on the Church as she eternally participates in Christ.
How does the fallibility of men become the infalliblity of the Church? In short, the mystery of divine Grace, but Christ himself indicates that it is by the participation in Christ that the Church, as a whole (remember it is the “whole church” in Matthew 18) that individually fallible members are gifted in the Church as the Church with infallibility. That is, they teach not their own opinions and private interpretations (2 Peter 1:20ff), but the mind of the Church, which has put on the mind of Christ (cf. Philippians 2:5; Ephesians 4:13-15).
(Limiting the Tradition to the Body of Scripture)
The point I was trying to make, however, is that the Tradition they received, they received prior to the completion of the inscripturation of Scripture. That these points later were inscripturated does not invalidate my case, so much as strengthen it. It was by oral transmission of the Tradition that they received these things. And when they received these written Scriptures, how were they to verify their authority and divine origin? By way of the Tradition; i. e., Tradition substantiated itself in Scripture. This process, by the way went on long after the “closing” of the inscripturation process, as the testing of various books for inclusion in the canon went on for a few centuries. So, if we must force ourselves into stating these things according to the setup of your argument, it is the Tradition that is the foundation of the Scripture, not the other way around. This, at least, is the historical record.
Furthermore, the Tradition cannot be coextensive to the Scripture since there are many more things necessary for faith and belief than are clearly enjoined in Scripture. There is little to no warrant, on the basis of Scripture alone, for assigning to Sunday the day of the primary gathering of Christians for worship (a note you ignored in my previous post). Or if there is, there is much more warrant for believing that the elements of bread and wine become the Body of Christ in the Eucharist and the grace of God toward salvation is given to the recipients of baptism in the baptismal act. Yet how many Protestants deny these very things? (I do not know if you are one of them.)
But more to the point, there is no warrant in Scripture itself, and on this your whole argument hangs, that Tradition is coextensive with itself. Book-chapter-and-verse me, my friend, on that one.
(Obsolescence of Tradition Based on Completed Canon)
You still fail to make valid arguments.
Premise 1: If Scripture is incomplete, then Tradition is necessary.
Premise 2: Scripture is complete.
Conclusion: Tradition is unnecessary.
But here you have denied the antecedent (i. e., Scripture is not incomplete), which is an invalid argument.
You also, frankly, create a false dilemma, that one must choose between a completed canon and an oral Tradition that speaks to both those things Scriptures do address, and those they don't.
By the way, your claim that we know Paul's apostleship was part of the Tradition via Scripture is true, but it is not true of those who knew Paul prior to inscripturation. They knew Paul's apostleship was from God via holy Tradition, not Scripture.
Orthodox Christians are most definitely blessed with a plethora of resources for gaining the Church's understanding of the Holy Scriptures. Below I list several of these resources (in a rather idiosyncratical random order).
Orthodox Study Bible
Though only available currently in the New Testament and Psalms, later this year (July is the projected date), the entire Christian Old Testament (including the so-called "Apocrypha") along with the New Testament will be available through Conciliar Press. (Our parish's own, Fr Patrick, translated the book of Exodus and wrote the study notes for Exodus and the Psalms.)
The text of the Orthodox Study Bible is a "boilerplate" of the New King James Version, corrected and/or augmented according to the traditional Greek text of the Church's Scriptures. The study notes are of a similar nature and format as one will find in Protestant Bibles, such as the NIV Study Bible, but of course with citations from the Church Fathers and reflecting the historic Church's mind on various biblical passages. There are plenty of topical studies which take up an entire page scattered at appropriate places throughout the text. There are also headers on the pages indicating which feast days certain passages are associated with. The appendices include articles by his grace, Bishop Kallistos (Timothy) Ware, forms for Morning and Evening Prayer (in contemporary English) and a lectionary.
The Orthodox Study Bible is clearly geared more for those who've come from Protestantism into Orthodoxy and as an evangelistic tool to explain various aspects of the Orthodox Faith than it is for lifelong Orthodox or those wishing for an in-depth presentation of the Church's mind on particular texts, at least it is in its current New Testament and Psalms edition. I'm not sure what sort of revisions are being done to the study notes in light of the production of the entire Bible. Also, the citations from the Fathers and other explanatory notes are frequently extremely brief, since the formatting (notes at the bottom of the page under the biblical text) does not allow for lengthy quotes.
The Bible and the Holy Fathers for Orthodox, ed. by Johanna Manley
This large one-volume text is arranged according to the Orthodox lectionary, with the Gospel and Epistle readings the Sundays of the year (and Old Testament when called for--New King James Version for all but the "Apocrypha," which are taken from the New Jerusalem Bible). For every lection there is at least one commentary by a Church Father, or, occasionally, a recognized Orthodox writer from the modern era, such as Bishop Kallistos Ware and St. Justin Popovich. It is an amazing treasure trove of patristic commentary on the biblical texts, including the Matins Gospels and the lections for both the Great Feasts and general feasts and saints' days. It also contains a topical index, so that one can trace an idea as it is woven through different biblical texts and the Church Fathers, as well as a concordance of church fathers and other helps.
Although it is not a book one is going to tote to Church under one's arm, or toss in a bookbag (a wheelbarrow, maybe), still as a one-volume resource for the home or dorm room, it is invaluable. Unfortunately, I cannot find it on Amazon or at Light and Life, and not even the publisher, SVS Press, offers it online that I could find, though the latest printing is 2003, and I bought my copy less than a year ago at the NAPS conference at Loyola from the SVS booktable.
Orthodox New Testament, tr. by Dormition Skete and Holy Apostles Convent
On Saturday, I received in the mail the fourth (May 2004) edition of the two-volume Orthodox New Testament that I had ordered from Dormition Skete and Holy Apostles Convent. I had purchased the "pocket-sized" edition from Eighth Day Books in Wichita, Kansas, when I was home over Christmas, which contains only the text of the New Testament, and had so fallen in love with the at-times quirky translation that I decided to put my pennies together and order full New Testament with patristic commentary. I am glad I did.
The first volume contains the Gospels (the Evangelistarion), the second the Acts, Epistles and the Revelation (the Praxapostolos). Both volumes contain an identical preface, which is largely composed of a patristic exhortation to read the Scriptures as well as a brief rationale for the translation and commentary. The appendices to the two volumes are somewhat similar in terms of the manuscript background and the principles of translation that are offered, but in terms of the specific manuscripts discussed, each appendix is geard toward it's volumes contents (so the manuscripts discussed in volume one have to do with the Gospels, that in volume two the Acts, Epistles and Revelation). Volume also one has a helpful chronological Gospel harmony.
But the chief feature of the set, aside from the translation, is the commentary set in endnotes to each of the New Testament books. This commentary ranges from scholarly (though accessible) discussion of some of the more important manuscript questions (though, strangely, some of the more obvious ones are either barely acknowledged or brushed aside altogether), to extended commentary from various Church Fathers on a patricular passage. The commentary to the Gospel of Luke alone runs more than one hundred pages, that of John more than ninety.
Clearly, the two-volume format of the New Testament and commentary do not make it conducive to portability. If one happens to be studying a single New Testament book, say in a Sunday School class or Bible college class, then one might carry the particular volume needed. Otherwise, like The Bible and the Holy Fathers for Orthodox these volumes will be more for one's home or study.
That being said, if one likes the translation itself, the "leatherette" edition of the entire New Testament without endnotes, commentary or appendices, is a very handy edition to toss into one's purse or briefcase. I've more than once pulled it out of my bag to read on the bus. However, the key attraction to the Orthodox New Testament is the commentary and appendices, so if that is what one is after the pocket-sized edition is not going to meet that need.
Ante-Nicene and Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers
Another resource that should be kept in mind are the venerable, Ante-Nicene Fathers and the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series I and Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series II. And while one can get the entire set (38 volumes) for only a few hundred dollars from various vendors, one can also get the entirety on a CD-Rom, with various searchable capacites for $35.
Clearly the key feature here is the breadth (and in the case of some fathers, depth) of representation. There is just an entire life's worth of reading in this library. Not everything is here. And there are modern translations for individual works that far surpass the translations here, but sometimes quantity wins out over quality. You can read all of a work in its entire context, with often helpful introductions and notations that clarify difficult passages (and which scholarly work, though done in the nineteenth century, has not always been superceded by present-day scholarship).
It is possible to buy some individual volumes at the links given above. But if one is looking at buying even a good dozen of the 38 volumes, one may as well look at spending just a bit more to get the whole set.
Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture
The last resource I'll mention is the Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture. This is a projected twenty-eight volume commentary on all of the Scripture, from Old Testament and "Apocrypha" to the New Testament. Half of the volumes have now been completed (which includes all but four of the New Testament books, John, Acts, Hebrews and Revelation, the latter two commentaries set for release this year in July and December, respectively). (A CD-Rom containing twelve of the commentaries is set for release this year in May, but I suspect such a resource, though a steal compared to the price of twelve individual volumes, will be pricey). The basic structure is similar to that of The Bible and the Holy Fathers for Orthodox and the Orthodox New Testament: to have significant comments from the Church Fathers on most of the Scripture passages.
The methodology of the series is to take excerpts from patristic commentaries on certain biblical passages, as well as to take references to certain passages from homilies and treatises, and present a sort of florigelia or catena of connected patristic quotes on a passage. This methodology has a long and honored history, despite whatever limitations it imposes on one's reading of the Church Fathers (brief excerpts divorced from the context of a particular Father's broader thought and argument). The editors do, however, take an eclectic approach, including writings from early Christian leaders that became suspect or were judged to be heretical due to deficiencies in their teaching. This does not necessarily negate the passages included in the ACCS--after all not all of Origen's writings were condemned--but it does require discernment.
One of biggest drawbacks of the series is this excerpted, eclectic approach. One gets, indeed, an historical breadth as to how the various Christian writers handled the passages, but may be misled that all the writings stand on equally authoritative footing. Such is not the case. That being said, the editors have been, thus far, judicious in their selections (I've read through several of the volumes in their entirety).
Another huge drawback is the price. Each volume runs about $40 (though you can obtain a subscription membership, for a much reduced price of one of the volumes and a commitment to buy further volumes, which reduces the retail price by 20%), and with nearly thirty volumes expected, this will not be a small investment. However, I have found them quite useful and helpful, particularly when read devotionally (for which purpose they are an excellent resource). And since I buy the volumes as they are published, I pay out only about $35 (with shipping costs) three or four times a year--though the last time I received a volume was several months ago. In this way, I can obtain the entire set in a very reasonable way for my budget.
The discussion over at Tripp's has prompted this post. Interestingly, Tripp started the whole brouhaha by opining on the recent developments in the Episcopal Church of the confirmation of the election of an openly gay bishop and on the legitimacy of homosexual behavior. But the discussion very very quickly "strayed" from the topic and landed square on the question of authority: who gets to decide whether or not actions which the Episcopal Church took or private consensual sexual acts between two persons (of whatever gender and orientation) are right? Actually, the conversation didn't stray at all. In fact, the conversation is dealing with the central issue. For it's not really about Robinson or homosexual acts. It's really about authority.
On the one hand you have the consistent witness and interpretation of the Scriptures by the Church. On the other hand you have those who would introduce a new interpretation of the Scriptures. These contradict one another. (Note: I'm not saying that all new interpretations contradict old ones. When there is no contradiction, there would apparently be no problem.) The Church's interpretation (I'm not at this point going to deal with question as to whether there is such a thing as uninterpreted Scripture) prohibits x. (X could be homosexual acts or the ordination of women to the priesthood, or could be a positive command.) The new interpretation says x is allowed (or in the case of a positive command, the new interpretation would abrogate it). These cannot both be true at the same time. If one is prohibited from doing a particular act, one cannot at the same time be allowed to do that act. If one is commanded to do an act, one cannot at the same time be free not to do that act.
So, which is the proper interpretation?
Here the onus of proof rests with the folks who would posit the new interpretation. This is not to say that the Church's interpretation need not be defended at all. The Church certainly does need to be ready to "give an answer" to those who would question it. But by reason of antiquity, which is to say, by reason of having been tested in many cultures, languages, ethnic groups, geographies, and histories, it has stood the test of millennia, which is not a small thing. It has been questioned and defended within the parameters of human reasoning and has stood the test. But what about the new interpretation?
Here, it seems, there are several routes, but one real question.
1. Proponents of the new interpretation may offer a new interpretive paradigm.
This is completely legitimate in itself. The Church has frequently reassessed the Scripture and its own Tradition from a new perspective. But here's the difference: these reassessments have not abrogated commands or prohibitions. A frequently used paradigm today is that of "Love" and the use of the two great commmandments to test interpretation. But this new paradigm is never adequately clarified. What do the proponents of the new mean by "Love"? Can "Love" contradict Truth? Can "Love" prohibit and disapprove of specific acts? Must "Love" accept any and every act? But this new paradigm, if it is to be Churchly, must continue in harmony with the apostles' teaching.
2. Proponents of the new interpretation may assert the continuing revelation of the Holy Spirit.
Here again, this is not entirely illegitimate. Jesus himself said the Spirit moves as it will. But what the new proponents are unclear about is what they mean by "revelation." Is revelation a completely new thing? Or is it a reinforcement of that which has always been believed, everywhere by all? Can this continuing revelation contradict itself? But if so, wouldn't this make God a liar? Will God contradict himself? Has God ever contradicted himself? If so, why? And what about those who now claim, in contradiction to the new interpretation, that their interpretation is the revelation of the Holy Spirit? Would God contradict himself in the same time period?
3. Proponents of the new interpretation may assert the development of human understanding.
Humans certainly have developed in their understanding of the physical processes of our planet, the human body, the stars. Some would posit we have a better understanding of the human mind, but I'm not so sure. Still, I'll not argue that particular point. But here's my question: so what? Why is human reason to be preferred over the established testimony of two thousand years (or more)? Is human reason, and our "new understandings" of x, such that what we now know will not be set aside for "greater understanding" later? On what basis can we trust human reason over the Church? More to the point, why set human reason in conflict with the Church's witness? Is it not the case that Faith and reason are compatible?
4. Proponents of the new interpretation may assert the personal accountability of apprehending the Faith.
Once again, this, too, is true. We are called each to apprehend, to the degree we are able, the Faith of the Church. This, of course, will vary according to our age, mental development and ability, and, even more, our development in sanctity. In fact, it could be argued that the personal apprehension of the Faith is revealed by one's holiness of life. In the Liturgy, at the offering of the Sacred Gifts, the priest chants, "Holy Things are for the holy." And Hebrews 12:14 asserts that without holiness no one will see the Lord. So the question then remains, may one propose an interpretation that contradicts that which has previously always been believed? And is the authority to assert that interpretation founded on holiness? And if holiness of life is revelatory of apprehension of the Faith, are those who hold to the Church's interpretation and who are now being killed for the Faith, who live in poverty, are these interpreters to be discredited over our more learned selves?
5. Proponents of the new interpretation may assert the historical limitations of either the Scripture or the Tradition or both.
Once again, true on its face. The Scriptures partake of the paradigm of Incarnation as does the Church and the Mysteries. Scripture is the union of the human and the divine, and the human will reveal itself as located in time and space. Since Scripture is part of the Tradition, this is similarly true of the Tradition. But does this limitation mean then that we may set aside a two-thousand year old interpretation for the new one? And on what basis? Isn't the new interpretation just as rife with human limitation? Aren't we just as historically limited? Why are our limitations less limiting than the Scripture's and the Church's?
In each and every case, what we are back to is the inescapable issue of authority. Proponents of new interpretations which contradict the received interpretation of the Church have only their own authority to offer. They must critique the Church, the Scriptures and the Tradition to offer their new interpretation and to provide themselves the authority to do so. But that authority falls prey to the same criticisms with which they critique the Tradition. Is the Church prey to sin and not to be believed? So are they. Is the Scripture full of historical limitations and prejudices? So are they. Is the Tradition full of assertion of self over Other? So are they. For every criticism they offer they, too, fall under it. If they take down authority, they have none to offer themselves.
I, for one, know I have no authority to claim anything. And that's a very, very good thing. Instead, I'll take the Church. I'll use my mind to apprehend what the Church says. I'll interpret Scripture in conformity with the Tradition and the holy men and women of God who, on the basis of their sanctity and martyrdom, have a lot more to say about what's truly of God's mind than I or anyone I know does.