In these times of endless Bible studies and countless interpretations of Scripture, it’s no wonder that each of us and our favorite teachers are the sole depositories of correct biblical exegesis (A.K.A. our own interpretation, teacher or denomination is correct). Afterall, is it not the contention of many Christians and denominations today that the Bible has such perspicuity or clarity that seeking the Church and its traditions has become. . . well, obsolete? With this sort of gunslinger attitude regarding Scripture, it seems blatantly obvious as to why there is so much division and animosity towards those that hold a differing view on a given doctrine or teaching. But if that type of approach is what we use today, then by what authority do you or I have to tell a Jehovah’s Witness (when exegeting a passage) that their interpretation is inferior to ours? Of course, there are some that will make an appeal to the Holy Spirit’s revelation to them, thus confirming that the opposing party is wrong and ending the discussion. But what happens when they make the same appeal? How does one respond when they say that they too prayed about a passage and the Holy Spirit revealed to them the correct interpretation? My whole point here is, Scripture is not enough. Now those are fighting words to an ardent adherent of Scripture Alone, but what I want to demonstrate in this piece is that the Church has always held to a very healthy view of tradition over Scripture when controversies arise, and the Church not the individual has been given the final authority.
The single largest problem that has handicapped the modern church today (speaking of biblical exegesis) is its lack of knowledge about the teachings of the Church and tradition; as this is something many of us, including myself simply take for granted. In an age where hundreds of Bible translations permeate shelves at book stores, and nearly every single household and hotel possess some form of the Bible—all notions of the Church’s great history of interpretation and tradition have been dispensed with by a subjective interpretation which often leads to heresy and confusion. So here we will look at what some of the earliest Fathers said about the Church and Her authority to override individual interpretation, and how doing so actually protected the Church from being destroyed by heresy. We begin in the second century, as by this time any living witnesses to the Lord Jesus are now deceased and in His presence. Also, those that knew the Apostles directly were also likely gone. Of course some of the letters of Saint Paul and the gospels were being circulated and dispersed more widely; still, the vast majority of the proclamation of the good news or the gospel was relegated to oral traditions that were handed down directly from the Apostles to those whom we have since come to know as the early Church Fathers. So when the question was asked to the ancient Church, where does the bedrock of the Christian faith and doctrine reside? The answer was simple, it was found in the Church’s continuous unbroken “tradition” of teaching as authority. Sadly, it is presupposed by many today that the Bible was the Church’s authority in matters of settling disputes, and while yes, there is some truth to that claim, one can see as already alluded to that an appeal to personal interpretation doesn’t hold much weight. So for centuries and centuries, Catholic’s and Orthodox have adhered to what is known as “the material sufficiency of Scripture”. Meaning the Bible contains all doctrines and teachings of the faith both explicitly and implicitly and is sufficient for teaching and correcting (so long as it coincides with tradition). Until fairly recent times the Church had always appealed to “tradition” as a guardian coinciding with Scripture as the final court of arbitration that protects the sacred. And it is a historical fact that the Church Fathers appealed to tradition as the means of an unbroken chain beginning with the original Apostles, that God gave them an orthodox understanding of doctrine that was carefully preserved as tradition and passed down. In the second century as the Church grew, it was facing its first real theological challenge with Gnosticism or those that knew about certain hidden features in Scripture regarding Jesus that drastically differed from the Church. It is here where we see famous Fathers such as Clement of Alexandria (150-215 AD) who rather than combating the Gnostics with Scripture as the final rule and authority, instead appealing to the “rule of our tradition” or what the Apostles taught to their predecessors which the Gnostics could not respond to or refute. Likewise, when Polycarp in a different situation summons the Philippians, he tells them to accept as their standard Christ Himself along with the apostles who preached the gospel to us and the prophets who announced the Lord’s coming in advance. Justin Martyr also spoke of the “handing down” of the Eucharist as a tradition to the Church. Irenaeus was also insistent that Christians must not pick and choose their doctrines according to their whims, as their sole authorities were the traditions of the Apostles. Irenaeus likewise appealed to tradition as the final authority delivered by the Apostles and that the Church had preserved them and passed them onto her children. So when Irenaeus battled Gnostics who took their own liberty to reinterpret certain doctrines and teachings, he refrained from doing the same thing as it would have lead to a vicious circle of finger pointing and the back and forth of I’m right and you’re wrong. Instead, Irenaeus used a healthy appeal to what the Church had taught since its inception and carefully handed down from generation to generation. Tertullian, a contemporary of Irenaeus did not differ regarding this teaching. And Tertullian one could say was a true innovator in the early Church as he extended the meaning of “tradition” to the customary. So when the Orthodox Church practices the triple renunciation of Satan or the triple immersion of Baptism and the sign of the cross—these are all things that were taught prior to Tertullian, but later infused into the Church as tradition. Again, like his contemporaries, when controversy broke out from the heretics the right interpretation was only found in the Church and not the individual. Now as the Church grew in the third and fourth centuries and Gnosticism was by and large destroyed, a new meaning of tradition began to emerge—meaning tradition became broader and more explicit. With great minds like: Athanasius, Clement of Alexandria, John Chrysostom, Augustine and Origen we see formal creeds and divine liturgy emerging along with Synods and Councils. Teachings and creeds like the Nicaean Creed embodied the truth which had been taught by those from the beginning which were passed down and codified in the creed. Athanasius himself, after dwelling on Scripture stated that sound teachers were needed to expound on it. Augustine likewise took this further saying, it was the Church alone that guaranteed the correct interpretation. Sadly, many reading this are potentially disgusted by the notion that the Church and the Fathers are the final court of arbitration regarding a correct final interpretation of Scripture, but facts are facts whether we like them or not. Often times because we don’t like that or it collides with our view of Christianity, or perhaps because we are highly individualistic and untrained when it comes to understanding the richness of the Christian faith as a whole—we get upset. Remember, having a translation of the Bible is very new to the Christian faith. Even going back 200 years, most people either couldn’t read or they didn’t have a personal translation of the Bible. Now don’t get me wrong, it is a great thing to have the Word of God as readily accessible; as some of the easiest most understandable teachings about Jesus and salvation are found there. But within the Protestant movement particularly, unanimity and clarity regarding many interpretations are simply up for grabs, and if you don’t like my interpretation—then go somewhere else (is sadly the way some debates end). In the end, it is the Church and Her authority that we must submit ourselves too, Jesus established the Church and within Her the deposit of the faith has been bestowed. Saint Paul, instructed Timothy to “guard the deposit” given to him. We can’t read that passage and apply it to ourselves, rather we must recognize that Timothy was a near eyewitness who was responsible for carrying on the traditions of the Church after Saint Paul was gone.
0 Comments
|
|