Like, Who's that Naked Guy?

It's no accident that there are four gospels. God intentionally gave us four records of the life of Jesus. More so, God gave us four records that are fairly similar (obviously), and they were canonized as the first four books of the New Testament. This means that the faithful, diligent reader must read through the same material four times.

This means that thinking through the literary and theological effects of four gospels seems a worthy pursuit. Assuming that the Bible is meant to be read straight through, we run into repetition in a few places in the Old Testament. Chronicles is a retelling of Kings, and there are portions of stories that are retold such as 2 Kings 18-20 and Isaiah 36-39 as well as songs (compare 2 Sam. 22 and Psalm 18). Deuteronomy recaps various portions of Exodus and Numbers and Leviticus. Judges overlaps with Joshua. And the instructions of the building of the tabernacle are repeated at the end of Exodus as those instructions are carried out. We might also point out the genealogies that repeat names and family lines in various places of Scripture.

But when a reader comes to the gospels there is something even more obvious and startling going on. The three synoptics with John's fourth gospel piling on top emphasize, underline, and echo with various stories, parables, sermons, teaching, miracles, and of course the passion narratives in particular. If there are various portions of Old Covenant Scriptures that repeat themselves, the gospels are way over the top.

What kind of readers/hearers does this kind of repetition create? What is usually called the "synoptic problem" with regards to sources and dissimilarities seems rather actually to be something of an intentional solution, part of the plan. As the Word has its way with God's people, there are a number of tracks that are meant to be played repeatedly. If God wanted us to have to plow through the same material four times every time we started the New Covenant Scriptures, we might ask 'why?'.

What does a fourfold repetition of very similar stories do to us? For example, the repetition makes minor characters closer to major characters. Mary, the mother of Jesus is important as the Virgin Mother of Jesus, but she really does not play much of an explicit role elsewhere in the New Testament, but her presence in the gospels gives her a four-fold standing in the story. By the time we get to John, and she is asking Jesus to help with the wine-shortage problem at the wedding in Cana, we feel like we really know this woman a bit more than when we began in Matthew's gospel. A relatively minor character (in terms of time on stage) grows and expands and matures over the course of four gospels.

But this works not only by repetition, but also by absence. Because of the similarities, there is a constant invitation to compare the gospels, and therefore especially the first three. And then not only do the similarities stand out, but so do the dissimilarities. Like, who's that naked guy running in the garden after Jesus is arrested in Mark's gospel? A seemingly tiny detail becomes huge, startling, and seemingly important. We might not remember a random event like that in Judges as well as we ought to if we're regularly reading straight through the four gospels.

What else does having four gospels do to readers? What kind people does a fourfold repetition of the central story of our faith create?

Read More...

Summary only...

Contrary to Nature

John Starke quotes from a letter Bonhoeffer wrote his brother in a new biography:

"If it is I who determine where God is to be found, then I shall always find a God who corresponds to me in some way, who is obliging, who is connected with my own nature. But if God determines where he is to be found, then it will be in a place which is not immediately pleasing to my nature and which is not at all congenial to me. This place is the Cross of Christ. And whoever would find him must go to the foot of the Cross, as the Sermon on the Mount commands. This is not according to our nature at all, it is entirely contrary to it. But this is the message of the Bible, not only in the New Testament but also in the Old Testament."

Read More...

Summary only...

Serious Problems

Just got catholic theologian Francis Sullivan's book From Apostles to Bishops, and here are a few excerpts from the introduction and first chapter to wet your appetite.

"[Christian scholars both catholic and protestant] agree, rather, that the historic episcopate was the result of a development in the post-New Testament period, from the local leadership of a college of presbyters, who were sometimes also called bishops (episkopoi), to the leadership of a single bishop... Scholars differ on details, such as how soon the church of Rome was led by a single bishop, but hardly any doubt that the church of Rome was still led by a group of presbyters for at least a part of the second century." (viii)

Distinguishing between the catholic and protestant views of the development of the episcopacy in the early church, Sullivan writes: "The 'catholic' view, on the contrary, will see some developments in the early Church as so evidently guided by the Holy Spirit that they can rightly be recognized as of divine institution." (7) Sullivan rightly recognizes that the Protestant view is that outside of the New Testament whatever helpful and wise developments may occur remain nevertheless human and subject to correction or alteration in accordance with Scripture.

"Admittedly the Catholic position, that bishops are the successors of the apostles by divine institution, remains far from easy to establish. It is unfortunate, I believe, that some presentations of Catholic belief in this matter have given a very different impression... To speak of "an unbroken line of episcopal ordination from Christ through the apostles" suggests that Christ ordained the apostles as bishops, and that the apostles in turn ordained a bishop for each of the churches they founded, so that by the time the apostles died, each Christian church was being led by a bishop as successor to an apostle. There are serious problems with such a theory of the link between apostles and bishops." (13)

All for now.

Read More...

Summary only...

Tongues, Prophecy, and Sola Scriptura

After a lengthy discussion on the gifts of the Spirit that have been poured out in the church, the chief of which is love, Paul addresses the issue of tongues in 1 Cor. 14. He says "How is it then, brethren? Whenever you come together, each of you has a psalm, has a teaching, has a tongue, has a revelation, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification. ... Therefore, brethren, desire earnestly to prophesy, and do not forbid to speak with tongues. Let all things be done decently and in order." (I Cor. 14:26, 39-40)

Paul is addressing a number of issues together here, but I wonder if his instructions don't apply to some of our conversations regarding scripture, tradition, and authority. At first glance at least, it would seem that certain readings of Scripture and Tradition end up doing the very thing Paul forbids here. He certainly limits how "wide open" the open mic is at Corinth, and the preceding chapters give an order to church society which prioritizes the apostles, prophets, teachers, etc. (12:28) And Paul clearly states that not all are teachers, prophets, etc. That would seem to have a limiting effect on who would speak in the assembly as well. But Paul clearly does not say that psalms, teachings, revelations, and interpretations may only come from those special people. He insists that the Corinthians must exercise wisdom, showing honor to those over them, and use discretion and deference in the assembly.

My point is merely to insist again that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is meant to be a doctrine that is open to the working of the Spirit in the entire body of Christ. Remember the whole discussion of spiritual gifts begins with the common Spirit that we all share, and the prohibition against saying we don't need some bodily appendage. Isolating authoritative church teaching to councils, bishops, popes, or (for us Presbyterian types) confessions, does the very thing that Paul says not to do: Do not forbid the speaking in tongues and do not discourage any from earnestly desiring to prophesy. As Paul makes clear, this does not mean that meaning and authority and order is all up for grabs, but it does mean that there ought to be a generous spirit of patience and humility bound into the body of Christ, for we have all been made to drink into one Spirit, and we were all baptized into one body.

Read More...

Summary only...

Irenaeus on Scripture and Tradition

St. Irenaeus was no stranger to the claims that the Scriptures are insufficient. He writes: "When, however, [heretics] are confuted by the Scriptures, they turn around and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition." (Against Heresies III.2)

Read More...

Summary only...

Irenaeus on Scripture

Irenaeus (c. 202 A.D.) explains that the plan of our salvation, the Gospel which has come down to him and his contemporaries was that which "they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures." (Against Heresies III.1)

Read More...

Summary only...

Toward a Theology of Scripture or Sola Scriptura is Latin for the Freedom and Sovereignty of the Holy Spirit

Thanks, Brad for your thoughtful comments. I appreciate some of your criticism, though I think you've misread me on a couple of points. Also, I hope this continues the conversation to some extent with Josh.

Let me suggest several principles for thinking about the catholic doctrine of sola scriptura.

1. In an important sense, the doctrine of sola scriptura is really nothing less than an unfolding of the doctrine of the Holy Spirit. We confess every week that the Holy Spirit is "the Lord and Giver of Life... who spoke by the prophets." It is the Holy Spirit who speaks in Scripture, in the Church, in tradition, through creation, in groanings which cannot be uttered. Peter says that Scripture is the result of holy men being moved by the Holy Spirit (1 Pet. 1:20-21). While the written Scriptures are themselves a permanent and unbreakable record of the Word of God, I would certainly agree that there is a kind of imprecision in the doctrine of sola scriptura, there is a certain unpredictability in the way truth and light emerge in the history of the Church. But I would want to argue that this is one of its greatest glories. The Spirit is not bound by our tidy categories. The Holy Spirit is not frustrated by our attempts to bottle and distribute his blessings. The Spirit is like the wind, Jesus says, it blows where it wishes. This does not mean that there is nothing certain, but it does mean that we walk by faith here just like everywhere else and not by sight. This means that the doctrine of Scripture is not a science, a pseudo-rationalistic enterprise wherein theologians and pastors and laymen may put words under a microscope under certain fixed conditions and following certain prescribed methods arrive at a certain, infallible conclusion. The doctrine of Scripture is the study of a person, it is the dogma of the Holy Spirit. Sola Scriptura in its fullest sense means submission to the third person of the Trinity as He leads us into all truth.

2. As Mathison and many others have pointed out, sola scriptura is not antagonistic toward tradition, but rather it insists that faithful tradition be grounded in and consistent with the Scriptures since they are from the same source: the mouth of Christ and the apostles and prophets. And should there be conflict, our appeal must be to the law and the testimony. The early Church fathers clearly taught this, and many RCs and EOs (I think) would happily affirm this as well. This also means that time is an important part of our doctrine of scripture. More on this below.

3. St. Vincent famously quipped, "Now in the Catholic Church itself we take the greatest care to hold that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all." But this itself is qualified by St. Vincent who recognizes that there may be a disease or infection that works its way into a large portion of the church such that the orthodox and catholic position becomes a minority. Vincent says to "cleave to antiquity," and one would assume that this includes ultimate recourse to the Scriptures themselves. The point here is to establish the fact that the "catholic" position on any given subject, while it is ordinarily a universally held position, may sometimes be so distorted or lost or subverted that it actually becomes a minority position, and St. Vincent urges us back to the law and the testimony, back to the apostles, back to the fathers, back to the sources, back to Christ and His Spirit.

4. The Church is the body of Christ, and Christ is her head. Ever since Pentecost, when the Spirit was breathed into the Church and she became a living being, we have been commissioned to be Christ for the world. The Church as the Bride, and animated by the Bridegroom's Spirit, is authorized to be Christ. We are not identical with Christ, but we share His Spirit, and we have become one flesh in his flesh and blood. This means that what the Church proclaims in union with Christ is to be the Word of Christ. And thus the question becomes what has Christ declared over the last 2000 years. We all agree that the words of Scripture are the words of Christ. But what about beyond that? Again, we all agree that the canon is closed, the apostolic foundation of the Church has been laid once and for all. But the Church has continued to grow up into Christ. Our actions, speech, understanding, practice, etc. is being perfected by the indwelling Spirit. Our world is being hovered over, and the old, degenerate creation is being fanned into the new, regenerate Jerusalem. But again, where is the authoritative voice of Mother Kirk to be heard? In the sea of competing words, whose is the Shepherd's voice? One of the fundamental problems with isolating the vox dei to councils, the ordained clergy or (worse still in my view) one member of the ordained clergy is that this ignores the fact that all have been given the Spirit. All have been made priests and kings to God. And while this does not justify some kind ecclesiastical democracy or anarchy, it does mean that there needs to be more humility and openness in the process of discerning the Spirit.

5. If the entire body of Christ is bound together by the One Spirit (and it is), then the authoritative voice of Christ cannot be limited to one class or one office or one action of the Church. Sola Scriptura is an attempt by many throughout the centuries of the Church to articulate to greater or lesser degrees of clarity the need for an organic, personal, and patient co-mingling of the entire body of Christ. In other words, Sola Scriptura is the Spirit-guided result of the meditations, proclamations, declarations, sermons, treatises, prayers, conversations, excommunications, liturgies, and councils based on the Holy Scriptures. This means that church councils are a significant part of this conversation. This means that pastors, priests, bishops, and deacons are also significant parts of this conversation. Theologians, dogmaticians, philosophers, and other sciences contribute their part to this conversation. And even the Bereans of the world contribute to this universal meditation on the Scriptures, searching daily to see if these things are true. Sola Scriptura insists that the Holy Spirit is the Lord and Giver of Life, and this means that the Spirit is sovereign over the spiritual life and vitality of the Church no less than individuals. Bottling the Spirit in the councils of the Church is too obvious. Of course we should give great weight and honor to those gatherings, but we should not expect the Spirit to limit his work to those events. We should expect pastors and priests and bishops to be exemplary men, full of the Spirit, and their writings, rebukes, sermons, prayers, exhortations, and counsel should be received with thanksgiving and humility. But the Spirit is not bound to them either. The Spirit has been poured out in the entire Church, and if this is true, we should expect to be led by children. We should expect that the occasional no-name monk will be used of the Spirit to give great light to the Church. We should expect donkeys to speak and rocks to cry out and the very heavens to declare the glory of God.

6. And this leads to my last point concerning time. All of this means that patience and humility are part of this process. There will be moments in history when an Athanasius will be called to step forward in the face of great opposition and risk his neck for the truth of the gospel. That was a dark day in the history of the Church, and for all appearances Athanasius seemed to be one man against the world. Was his the catholic position, though it appeared to be the extreme minority? It most certainly was though that was not readily clear to all involved at that time. There will be other points where a council will take several hundred years to be reckoned "ecumenical," and that's OK. And there may be some issues upon which there really has not been a universal opinion held (though some have held their views vigorously), and those in authority need to teach according to the best of their abilities but not force issues that the Spirit has not yet solidified. And there are some doctrines or practices which may (demographically/democratically speaking) be rather universal which nevertheless are incorrect. Which is to say, there are some things in the Body of Christ which time will sort out, and if the Spirit is OK with that, so should we.

7. One of the points that I have tried to make in a number of different conversations, posts, and sermons is that we need to be thankful for the Protestant Reformation. For whatever mistakes were made, for whatever errors our people committed, the Reformers breathed life into the world. There was a spiritual cancer that had filled the Church, and the Reformation was the beginning of a great surgery wrought by the Lord of Life. The Reformation is nothing close to the last word on many subjects, but it is at least one significant contribution to the conversation. The fact that three or four no-names wrote a few books and set the civilized world on fire is no accident. The fact that ignorance and superstition were rolled back in many lands, and the fact that the gospel began to be preached with clarity, and the Scriptures were translated freely into the common tongues of the people is evidence that the Reformation was a work of the Spirit. Orphanages and hospitals and missions exploded throughout the lands of the Reformation. The arts and humanities and sciences and commerce similarly took off, filled with the exuberance of life and freedom and forgiveness. Now I would certainly contend that there is still much work to be done, and for all the blessings of the Reformation there were plenty of failures, errors, and inconsistencies. But this is part of the conversation, that co-mingling of the Body of Christ in the communion of the Spirit in obedience to the Word of God. Through the mysterious working of the Spirit, we are being led into the truth, we are being built up into that spiritual house, the dwelling of the God of heaven.

More than anything, sola scriptura is a plea for the freedom of the Spirit, openness to the working of God through his Word in numerous different ways (while seeking to prioritize them Biblically), and trusting the wisdom and goodness of the Spirit to preserve us safe and secure in the holy ark of Christendom. We need to honor our past, honor tradition, honor our fathers in the faith, love the Scriptures, and trust the Spirit for the details, trust the Spirit through the messiness of history.

Read More...

Summary only...

My Favorite Quote So Far on Sola Scriptura

Cyril, bishop of Jerusalem writes in his Catechetical Lectures: "For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell thee these things, give not absolute creedence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures." (IV:17)

Notice that Cyril does not appeal to his authority as a bishop but rather insists that all Christians must search the Divine Scriptures for themselves. They cannot take his word for it unless they have demonstration from the Holy Scriptures. Salvation and those things necessary for it do not depend upon "ingenious reasoning." The Scriptures are clear and sufficient to serve as the ultimate, infallible authority for matters of faith and piety.

Read More...

Summary only...

Cyprian, Firmilian, and the Bishop of Rome on Sola Scriptura

Cyprian (c. 200-258) carried on a controversy with Stephen, the bishop of Rome, over how lapsed (but penitent) Christians were to be viewed and received by the Church. Their arguments deal with the basis for their stance, and Cyprian describes the stance of Stephen as the following: "Let nothing be innovated, says he, nothing maintained, except what has been handed down." But Cyprian asks, "Whence is that tradition? Whether does it descend from the authority of the Lord and of the Gospel, or does it come from the commands and the epistles of the apostles? For that those things which are written down must be done, God witnesses and admonishes, saying to Joshua the son of Nun: 'The book of this law shall not dpart out of they mouth; but thou shalt meditate in it day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein.'" (Epistle 73:2)

During this same controversy, Firmilian, the Bishop of Caeserea wrote to Cyprian and explained his view that "they who are in Rome do not observe those things in all cases which are handed down from the beginning, and vainly pretend the authority of the apostles." Here we see that it certainly was not the universal understanding that the bishop of Rome had some sort of special dispensation from Christ or Peter. Firmilian actually goes on to explain that Stephen the bishop of Rome is guilty of heresy and dividing the unity of the Church.

Again, my primary point being that clearly the early church fathers believed that the written Scriptures ("book of the law") was the authoritative source of the teachings of Christ and the apostles.

Read More...

Summary only...

Hippolytus on Sola Scriptura

Hippolytus (c. 170-236): "There is, brethren, on God, the knowledge of whom we gain from the Holy Scriptures, and from no other source."

Read More...

Summary only...

Sola Scriptura

Josh says in the comments that he was taught to ask the questions "Says who?" and "On what authority?" And it is those questions that has led him to question the reliability of some protestant doctrinal stances (Josh, correct me if I'm misrepresenting you).

Of course this goes to the heart of one of the central points of difference between Protestants and Orthodox and Roman Catholics. Protestants say that Scripture is the only ultimate, infallible authority, Orthodox point to Tradition/the Church as the ultimate authority, and Roman Catholics have the Pope. Orthodox and Roman Catholics object to the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura on the grounds that this introduces anarchy into the Church. Instead of one Pope, we now have millions. And granted, there are plenty of anabaptists still carrying on like they are in fact descended from St. Peter, and some of them call themselves "presbyterian" or "reformed."

But the Magisterial Reformers have always been at war with such unbridled autonomy. At the same time, they also insisted that the Church could submit to the Scriptures as ultimate without resulting in relativistic splintering. They said that the Scriptures could be (and are) ultimate, and what they authoritatively say is not a secret so deep we need bishops to decipher the code nor is it so mysterious that disagreement between interpreters means it is insufficient. Of course all branches of Christendom hold the Scriptures in high regard, please don't misunderstand me. The question that we keep bumping into is whose interpretation is correct? And how do you know?

But one of the fundamental problems with asking the question this way is that it already assumes that Scripture isn't clear. Is the Word of God unclear? Or do reckless men twist the Scriptures to their own destruction? Yes, I know that there are some things that are hard to understand, but it is our problem, not God's, right?

And the comeback I anticipate is: Well, why do we have denominations and sects breeding like maggots in a trash can? How come every time you blink there's a new group of people and churches forming a new association and excommunicating the rest of Christendom? But my point is that in so far as these are acts of schism, bitterness, envy, and arrogance, they are acts of sin. And anyone who's been around the block in Eastern Orthodoxy or Roman Catholicism knows that those sins are not absent there either. Unity on paper is not closer to real unity of purpose, unity of mind, communion of the saints, etc. And often this counterfeit unity passes for the real deal. We have apostolic succession, they solemnly insist, and meanwhile various branches of the church transfer their allegiance to a different archbishop, a different metropolitan, and they can call it "autocephalous" or "transferring jurisdictions" and claim they cannot be accused of being protestant schismatics. Come on, people. Just because Protestants tend to do their laundry out in public for everyone to see doesn't mean our Roman and Eastern brothers aren't busy bickering and dividing over their issues.

And the point: the sin of schism does not prove that Scripture is any less clear or any less sufficient for our needs. It does not prove that we need a class of gypsy priests to interpret the Scriptures like so many tea leaves for the ignorant masses. In fact, if anything, it proves our need for God's Word, and our insufficiency as sinful humans.

Read More...

Summary only...

Tertullian and Iranaeus on Sola Scriptura

Tertullian (c. 155-220): Arguing with Hermogenes' teaching that matter is eternal, "But whether all things were made out of any underlying matter, I have yet failed anywhere to find. Where such a statement is written, Hermogenes' shop must tell us. If it is nowhere written, then let it fear the woe which impends on all who add or take away from the written word." Tertullian "condemns as madness" the notion that there was some kind of secret unwritten tradition of the Apostles. This was the doctrine of the Gnostics who believed that there was "secret knowledge" known and revealed only to a select few.

Iranaeus (c. 130-200) in his Against Heresies argues that the Scriptures where the safeguarding of the traditions of the apostles. According to Iranaeus, there are no unwritten traditions of the Apostles. Scripture is the authoritative record of the doctrines, teachings, and practices of the Apostles (cf. Against Heresies, III.1,1.)

These fathers did indeed teach that the Scriptures were to be understood and read in accordance with the regula fidei (the rule of faith) which was itself the received summary of what the Scriptures teach. But the apostolic tradition and the regula fidei both had their source in the Scriptures themselves.

The Shape of Sola Scriptura, 22-26)

Read More...

Summary only...

Clement on Sola Scriptura

Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-215): "But those who are ready to toil in the most excellent pursuits, will not desist from the search after truth, till they get the demonstration from the Scriptures themselves." (Stromata, Bk. VII, ch. 16)

By the way, Matheson notes in a footnote that Clement declares the legend of Mary's perpetual virginity as false, despite the claims of some that this was a universally accepted belief.

(The Shape of Sola Scriptura, 24)

Read More...

Summary only...

Tradition

"In present day usage the term commonly denotes unwritten doctrines handed down orally in the Church. It is therefore often contrasted with Scriptures. However, a remarkable scholarly consensus shows that in the early church, Scripture and Tradition were in no way exclusive concepts because they coincided with each other completely.

...

The concept of "tradition" when used by these [apostolic] fathers, is simply used to designate the body of doctrine which was committed to the Church by the Lord and His Apostles, whether through verbal or written communication. The body of doctrine, however, was essentially identical regardless of how it was communicated. No evidence suggests that the apostolic fathers believed they had recourse to any type of secret oral traditions. At this point in the Church's history, Scripture and the Christian tradition were coinherent concepts..."

(The Shape of Sola Scriptura, by Mathison, 19, 21)

Read More...

Summary only...

Doug Jones on Sola Scriptura

From Doug Jones' Forward to Sola Scriptura by Keith Mathison:

"C.S. Lewis once quipped that the more medieval he became in his outlook, the farther from Roman Catholicism he seemed to grow. The history of the doctrine of sola Scriptura tends to produce the same effect in many of us. Once one gets beyond the superficial, individualistic, confused accounts of this doctrine presented in contemporary Evangelicalism, this teaching becomes very natural, organic, medieval, and apostolic.

In contrast, Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox accounts fall out of rather perfectionistic and rationalistic commitments that are alien to the earthiness of biblical reality. Submitting to an infallible magisterium requires relatively little faith; everything is, in principle, neat and clean, like a doctor's office or a robot husband. A perfect husband would make for a very easy marriage; faith wouldn't be hard at all... Submission takes on much more fascinating dimensions when marriage involves sinners...

In this light, the various widely publicized departures of many Evangelicals to Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy have the distinct aroma of youthful haste and short-term zeal. The Sanhedrin was far better organized than the fishermen, and it had a grand liturgy, an authoritative line of oral tradition, and a succession of leaders. In a healthy church, those forms are good and holy. But to have turned to the Sanhedrin at that time would have been to embrace apostasy. Truth, beauty, and goodness were with the fishermen."

Read More...

Summary only...