Sola Scriptura

Though not espoused by name, most Pentes I know adhere to the concept of Sola Scriptura at least in a theoretical way. To state the theory as succinctly as possible (following James White) one might say that Sola Scriptura is the belief that the Bible alone provides a sufficient and infallible rule of faith for the Church. Therefore, no other guide is needed and nothing not found in or implied by Scripture is necessary for us to believe.

In A. A. Hodge’s Outlines of Theology the following explanation is presented:

What is meant by saying that the Scriptures are the only infallible rule of faith and practice?
Whatever God teaches or commands is of sovereign authority. Whatever conveys to us an infallible knowledge of his teachings and commands is an infallible rule. The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the only organs through which, during the present dispensation, God conveys to us a knowledge of his will about what we are to believe concerning himself, and what duties he requires of us. [available at http://homepage.mac.com/shanerosenthal/reformationink/aahsolascrp.htm]

There are some big problems that immediately present themselves, even with only this short synopsis of Sola Scriptura. The first and most obvious is that NOWHERE do the Scriptures say or imply this idea of exclusivity that is the bedrock of the theory. So by its own criteria, we are not bound to believe that theory of SS because it isn’t in the Bible.

SS proponents, of course, will quote one passage in a knee-jerk reaction to the above: 2 Timothy 3:14-17:

“But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; (15) And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. (16) All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: (17) That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.”

The problem is there seems to be a word, phrase or idea missing here: that Scripture is the exclusive rule of faith or “the only supernatural revelation that God does now make to man.” (Hodge) When this statement was penned the only Scripture that Timothy has was the Old Testament, so then can we too depend only on the OT to lead us? If the OT was alone sufficient, why did the Spirit even give us a New Testament at all?

In reading Hodge, we also find out that a large part of the Sola Scriptura mantra is the idea that every person can interpret the Scripture by using his/her private judgment. Will that offer and infallible guide? Let’s listen to Hodge’s answer:

We do not pretend that the private judgment of Protestants is infallible, but only that when exercised in a humble, believing spirit, it always leads to a competent knowledge of essential truth.

Thank God, Mr. Hodge does not claim that Protestant private judgment is infallible! What he does claim is, however, equally problematic. Consider the following:

a. How does one know then it is exercised in a “humble, believing spirit”? Doesn’t Jeremiah tell us that the heart is exceedingly deceitful? So how can we know if we are humble and believing or just believing that we are humble and believing?
b. What do we do when two Protestant private judgments lead to two very disparate conclusions? Which one is true? How do we tell? Is there a humble and believing test that we can give to the interpreters to see which one really is?
c. Who has the authority to decide what a competent knowledge is? Who decides what essential truth is?
d. If a person seems to be humble and believing and espouses a doctrine that other humble and believing Protestants deem heretical, is there any way to tell which one is right?

Now consider this from Hodge:

Each Christian must know and believe the truth explicitly for himself; on the direct ground of its own moral and spiritual evidence, and not on the mere ground of blind authority.

So instead of tradition that has been handed down to us over 2000 years of Church history and attested by the Councils and Fathers of the Church, we should depend solely on ourselves on the ground of our own moral and spiritual evidence. If he were not being serious, that statement would be comical. Does one not need to have faith in God’s Word on “blind authority?” Faith, after all, is not build on evidence (Hebrews says “faith is the evidence), but on “hearing the Word.”

I amazed at the very this very ludicrous set of assertions is given any credibility. According to the website, Hodge’s book is “still regarded as a great introduction to classical Protestant theology. “ To me that is really scary. But what is more frightening is that there are millions of Protestant Popettes running around with their own private Scriptural interpretations who are certain that they are correct although no one in all of church history has held the interpretations or opinions that they hold.

Halloween

In a sharp departure (and some may say “declension”) from my generally historical-theological postings, I embark now on a more schizophrenic rant on the very timely subject of Halloween. Before anyone has a chance to think the question, I will answer: No, the Church Fathers and Councils do not offer any guidance on this subject particularly.

At the outset let me warn the kind reader not to expect any sense of conclusiveness or feeling of closure in this post. Rather, I will offer some random (and some not so random) thoughts and observations on the subject. For these offerings, I will be branded a “compromising liberal” by some and a “Puritanical Pharisee” by others. Be that as it may!

I have been around church people from all parts of the spectrum when it comes to Halloween. I have known those who had a haunted house in their church building and those who would not allow the use of the word “Halloween.” At this point in my life, I am probably somewhere in the middle of these two extremes (well, I am middle-aged). I have no illusion that I will satisfy either extreme and probably not the middle either. Nonetheless, I offer these observations.

First, I am compelled to say that I feel it is disingenuous at best and totally hypocritical at worst to have a party (or festival or whatever) on or about October 31 and have essentially the same activities as a Halloween party, and yet call it “harvest festival” or (puke!) “Hallelujah.” After all, a rose by any other name is still a rose.

If something is truly a “harvest festival,” it might well be held any time between August and December. And I am certain that a “Hallelujahfest” would be appropriate any time of the year and would not involve dressing up in costumes. This kind of self-deceptive word play is quite nauseating from my point of view and serves mainly to assuage the conscience of the conscientious (because most people don’t actually give a rat’s rump either way).

A second point that I must put forward is that I do believe that there can be psychological harm inflicted by gory, scary, and violent costumes, games, and decorations. (This would apply equally to movies and TV shows of the same genre.) I know for a fact that children can be traumatized to the point of needing counseling because of such things; therefore, I cannot in good conscience endorse them.

But what about the other issues? Well this is where the schizoid side will begin to show.

What about costumes depicting devils and witches and such? Generally speaking, I have not been in favor of them but there is another side to it. What if by doing these things, we are actually trivializing the demonic rather than glorifying it? Could this be a way of mocking the evil one and his minions? Even so, could this not be unacceptable somewhat like bringing a railing accusation against the devil (see II Peter 2: 10-12)?

What of the extortion of treats by threat of tricks? I would really have a problem with this if it were the case. I am aware that some have taken this day as a license to commit all sorts of malicious acts in the name of “tricks.” For the most part, however, the refrain “trick or treat” might be translated, “Please give me the candy you were going to give me anyway even if I hadn’t asked.” I would guess this is about as harmless as the Christmas “threat” “Bring us some figgy pudding…we won’t go until we get some, so bring some out here.” In fact, I would be more fearful of the singing pudding bandits than the neighborhood candy gobblers.

Bobbing for apples while receiving a bad rap of late for being very unsanitary (but then again so is everything else according to the Lysol Generation), has been trashed by others for being some sort of prognostication on the subject of romance. In either case, it is much ado about nothing. Does anyone seriously take marital advice from an apple? Possibly these are the same ones who are guided by fortune cookies in their lives.

As to the religious implications of the holiday, I can only say that the main religion of Halloween is hedonism. Nobody I know worships the dead or anything else much but the Mighty White (pure Cane Sugar in all its lovely forms). It is an excuse to eat way too much delicious candy that has been given to the kids at someone else’s expense.

Yeah, I know…Druids, Saimhain, etc. But just because of its ancient connections does that mean that it is still the same thing? If so, we had better junk Valentine’s Day and change the names of all our days of the week because of their ancient meanings. Besides, who in the world demands these treats to offer to the dead or to whomever else they were supposed to have been offered?

I sympathize with the intent of those who wish to distribute tracts on Halloween; I am not sure about the method. First of all, the surest way to tick off a sugar-starved gobbler is to give them a tract with no candy (or for that matter any “healthy” treat that does not contain a healthy dose of sugar). Besides, how many of those tracts ever actually get read?

Then again, many of them contain some quite inane drivel about Halloween that would only aggravate people rather than draw them to the Lord. If one must offer tracts, be sure to sweeten them with a good treat (which means no artificial chocolate) and offer them the truth of the gospel instead of some mind-numbing sermon against some ancient unpronunceable, irrelevant and uninteresting festivals and deities.

Anyhow, happy Halloween, or Hallelujah or Harvest Festival. And don’t forget the day after is much more important as it is a remembrance of All Saints in the Western Christendom.

New Revelation=Old Heresy

Sometime back, I got a real shock. I have been a listener of gospel music for many years and one of the groups that I had listened to (and even seen in person) was the Hemphills. Then a letter comes from Joel Hemphill in which he is hawking his new book. Rather quickly I was dissuaded from purchasing his new tome when I discovered that in it he was contending that Jesus Christ was not God incarnate in any sense of the word. His “new revelation” is that Jesus was created in the womb of Mary and was the Son of God and a man full of God but was not God.

Anyone who knows anything at all about church history will realize that this “new revelation” is not new at all. In fact, another popular minister had the same enlightening experience as Hemphill. This minister’s name was Arius of Alexandria. His doctrine became so popular, in fact that it came close to completely subverting the Christian Church.

Arius’ revelation led eventually to the calling of an Ecumenical Council in 325 near Constantinople. Out of this Council came the Nicene Creed. While one cannot correctly say that this Council ended the controversy stirred by Arius, it certainly laid the foundation for ending his heresy.

Of course, I can hear the disgruntled hullabaloo of the Restorationist crowd decrying the Creed as being a “Catholic” invention imposed upon the pure, unsullied Apostolic faith. Only sheer and/or willful ignorance of the pre-Nicene period could allow someone to come to such an inane conclusion.

David Bercot, editor of A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs, correctly sums up the available data: “the Nicene Creed is an encapsulation of what the pre-Nicene church believed about the Father and the Son.” (p. 113). A few quotes should suffice to prove this point:

Ignatius of Antioch

“For there are some vain talkers and deceivers, not Christians, but Christ-betrayers, bearing about the name of Christ in deceit, and “corrupting the word” of the Gospel; while they intermix the poison of their deceit with their persuasive talk,… [and] say that the Son is a mere man, and that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are but the same person, and that the creation is the work of God, not by Christ, but by some other strange power.” [ANF 1.68]

What did the venerable Antiochian bishop instruct Christians to do in regards to this kind of poisonous doctrine?

“Be on your guard, therefore, against such persons. And this will be the case with you if you are not puffed up, and continue in intimate union with Jesus Christ our God, and the bishop, and the enactments of the apostles.” [ANF 1. 68-69]

Justin Martyr

“For they who affirm that the Son is the Father, are proved neither to have become acquainted with the Father, nor to know that the Father of the universe has a Son; who also, being the first-begotten Word of God, is even God.” [ANF 1.184]

Hippolytus

“For the Son, being the power of God the Father, endued the temple of His own body again with life. Thus is He said to have been saved by the Father, as He stood in peril as a man, though by nature He is God, and Himself maintains the whole creation, visible and invisible, in a state of wellbeing.” [ANF 5.166]

Since there are hundreds of more examples, I will leave off with these few. Now, let us consider why Mr. Hemphill has made such an egregious doctrinal error considering all the evidence to the contrary.

And there is the crux of the problem: he has not considered all the evidence to the contrary. Rather, in his “wisdom” and “revelation” he has found sufficient warrant to disregard the Church and to interpret the Bible all on his own without regard to anyone before himself.

What gives him the right to disregard the wisdom of all the saints and Fathers of the Church? How can he consider his interpretations of the New Testament as more valid than the very church who gave us the New Testament?

What we have here is a classic case of Protestantism gone to seed. Since we have no creed but Christ and no authority above our own personal interpretation of God’s Word, we interpret ahistorically, without any reference to all that have gone before us. In our pride, we assume we know better what was said and what it meant than our predecessors. Once we disregard the authority of the Church under the direction of the Holy Spirit to interpret Scripture correctly, we are then left to our own “infallible” interpretations. May it never be!

Having learned nothing from history, such interpreters are bound to fall into the same pitfalls and errors that others have fallen into before now. The Church, led by the Holy Spirit, gave us a sure way to avoid such errors; when we ignore the Church, we leave ourselves open to any and all doctrines of demons. The new revelations are generally nothing but old heresies! If we would only hearken to the voice of history and the Holy Spirit in the Church, we could easily avoid the heresies and cling to the Truth.

Two Tertullian Quotes

I ran up on two quotes from Tertullian last night that really spoke to me—they spoke volumes in fact. Although the particulars that Tertullian dealt with are completely different from the ones with which we have to deal, the principles he presents are solid and very timely.

Tertullian (born ca. 160; died ca. 220), a writer of extraordinary ability, wrote to safeguard as well as define the faith of the church. Around 207, he went into schism with the Montanist sect.

Though a little lengthy, I feel they are worthy of being viewed in their entirety:

“Grant, then, that all have erred; that the apostle was mistaken in giving his testimony; that the Holy Ghost had no such respect to any one (church) as to lead it into truth, although sent with this view by Christ, and for this asked of the Father that He might be the teacher of truth; grant, also, that He, the Steward of God, the Vicar of Christ, neglected His office, permitting the churches for a time to understand differently, (and) to believe differently, what He Himself was preaching by the apostles,—is it likely that so many churches, and they so great, should have gone astray into one and the same faith? No casualty distributed among many men issues in one and the same result. Error of doctrine in the churches must necessarily have produced various issues. When, however, that which is deposited among many is found to be one and the same, it is not the result of error, but of tradition. Can any one, then, be reckless enough to say that they were in error who handed on the tradition?”

[Tertullian, The Prescription Against Heretics, ANF 3.256]

“In whatever manner error came, it reigned of course only as long as there was an absence of heresies? Truth had to wait for certain Marcionites and Valentinians to set it free. During the interval the gospel was wrongly preached; men wrongly believed; so many thousands were wrongly baptized; so many works of faith were wrongly wrought; so many miraculous gifts, so many spiritual endowments, were wrongly set in operation; so many priestly functions, so many ministries, were wrongly executed; and, to sum up the whole, so many martyrs wrongly received their crowns!”

[Tertullian, The Prescription Against Heretics, ANF 3.256]

While I am cognizant that Tertullian defected to Montanism, I believe that these quotes are on target.

The first quote asks us to consider if it is reasonable that ALL the churches left behind by the Apostles would have gone into error. And to ask ourselves even if that had happened, would all of them have ended up with an identical faith. He rightly says that “error of doctrine must necessarily have produced various issues.” If the churches erred, why do they all keep the same doctrine? It is evident from observing the modern church world that once groups fall into error and divide, they go in every doctrinal direction. The varied groups never all confess, teach, and believe the same things.

In the second quote, if one replaces “Marcionites and Valentinians” with “Calvinist and Pentecostals,” it puts the whole thing in perspective. This is precisely the contention that most modern Christians have been asked to adopt. Actually, “asked” is hardly the right word; “commanded, ordered and demanded upon pain of eternal damnation” might be more appropriate.

Tertullian asks us to consider whether it makes any sense that the True Gospel could lay hidden for so many years from so many people. Are we being asked to believe that nobody had the truth before 1896 or 1906 or whenever? Can we seriously be expected to put any credence in the belief that everybody throughout Christian history has been wrong until our group and tradition came along to straighten them out?

I was very interested a while back in doing a study of Mormonism to find that they use the exact same restorationist arguments that I have heard Pentecostals use. But it isn’t surprising! In order to “start over” and “reestablish original Christianity” one must first do away with everybody in history. How does one do that? There are two ways: 1) Ignore their existence; 2) Divest them of validity. These two tactics have been successfully used by all groups and individuals who have a Restorationist outlook.

The continuity of the Faith is much easier to fathom than the whole restoration theory. If we trust Jesus and the Holy Spirit, it is not difficult to believe that they can preserve the faith once delivered to the saints. We believe God preserved His written word all this time; why is it hard to believe He could do the same with the doctrine of the Early Church?

Reflections and Questions

I have been reflecting on a query I posed in the last post: “It makes me wonder why we can accept the books on the Church’s authority but reject other things that are based on that same authority.” I think I may have some ideas about that after thinking on it.

Since the canon of the New Testament is accepted so widely by Christians, it follows that they believe that this was indeed composed of the books that should be there. Thus, the Church must have been guided by the Holy Spirit or else they could hardly have chosen the books that everyone accepts. Now if they were not guided by the Spirit, why do we accept their list? Why aren’t there a number of competing lists drawn up by Protestant scholars who have chosen better books for the “real” canon?

If we then admit that the Church was lead by the Spirit to choose the correct books, we are then faced with another set of questions. Not the least of which is if the Spirit led them in this instance, how can we be so sure He was not leading them in other instances? If we are willing to repudiate their views on baptism, communion and a host of other things, what sense does it make to trust them with such a foundational matter as the canon of Scripture?

I briefly mentioned the Nicene Creed last time. Again, it is acknowledged by the majority of Christians today as a valid exposition of the Biblical faith. If the Church was in tune enough with Scripture and the Holy Spirit to write such a document as this, why would we conclude they had become apostate much earlier?

We are left with several options in regard to these things:

1. The Church was not guided by the Spirit—we should not trust them to set the canon or write the creed.
2. The Church was guided by the Spirit but only for certain things.
3. The Church was guided by the Spirit and should be listened to in other matters.

In my opinion, only numbers 1 and 3 are consistent positions. If we acknowledge #1, we then have to rethink many things about our faith.

First, we have to decide which books are valid out of all the ones that are available to us. This would be no easy task. Since the Early Church was much closer to the time of composition, it would stand a much better chance of being able to separate the authentic from the spurious. But since they were “apostate” we obviously cannot trust them and need to throw out the whole thing and start over.

Thinking of the books that have been accepted, one might question why some of them were included at all (as when Martin Luther rejected the Epistle of James as “an epistle of straw). For example, the book of III John could be held up to such scrutiny. Would we choose it? On what basis?

Secondly, we ought to question the basics of the faith as set out in the Creed. For instance, are we so sure that Jesus Christ is of one substance with the Father? Maybe if we have no Creed (and no tradition) to guide us, we could accept the doctrinal formulation of Arius that Jesus was LIKE the Father. Wouldn’t that be close enough?

From there who knows what would come under scrutiny next? But wait…this has already happened. It’s called Liberal Christianity. They have questioned the leading of the Holy Spirit within the Church over the period of the last 2000 years. Then they have come to very opposite conclusions.

This is the height of arrogance. To believe that we 21st Century Christians are smarter and better equipped to decide what is true, valid and Christian than the 20 centuries of saints that preceded us. We have arrogated to ourselves a status of enlightened and “professing ourselves to be wise, we have become fools.” We have been beguiled into believing we are more spiritual and smarter than “our ignorant ancestors” were. The siren song of spiritual pride has drawn us into shipwreck.

It seems to make a great deal more sense to believe the Church, which we have already allowed to choose the books we call the New Testament and set up the doctrines we call the Creed. It is much more reasonable to suppose that the Spirit, whom Jesus promised would guide into all truth, has done just that. The Church after all is “the pillar and ground of the truth” according to I Timothy 3:15.

It might do us well to begin looking not just at what we believe and why, but also at the implications and logical conclusions that follow from our beliefs. If we do that, we may well come to some very shocking (and quite revealing) conclusions.

A Question of Canon

When one mentions the word “canon” there are many things that come to mind.

1. The group of works by a certain author—e.g., the Hemingway canon
2. A group of accepted rules in a discipline—e.g., the Neoclassical canon
3. Ecclesiastical rules—e.g., the Orthodox canons
4. A portion of the Mass or Divine Liturgy

We will, however, consider another canon, namely the canon of Scripture. When used in this sense, the word “canon” refers to that group of books which are accepted as authentic and inspired. Books that make the list are referred to as “canonical.”

While the Old Testament canon is a subject of some dispute (between Catholic, Orthodox and Protestants), the canon of the New Testament is the same in all major branches of Christianity. Thus, all of them accept the 27 books that are found in the New Testament and no others are placed on equal or greater footing than these.

So how did we come to have twenty-seven books? Who decided it would be these and not others? The answers to these questions is both interesting and (for some) disturbing.

First, let us consider how the NT was written. As books were written during the Apostolic period, they were generally circulated. Some areas had some books; other areas would have other books. As time went by there began to be a general acceptance of some books; others (Revelation and II Peter are two examples) took much longer to gain general acceptance.

As strange as it may seem, the first person to attempt a canonization of books was the arch heretic Marcion. He rejected all the Old Testament and accepted the following New Testament books: the Gospel of Luke, Galatians, I Corinthians, II Corinthians, Romans, I Thessalonians, II Thessalonians, Ephesians, Colossians, Philemon, and Philippians. Even these were subject to emendation by Marcion.

As has often happened throughout church history, when heresy arose, the Church was impelled to respond. In reaction to Marcion’s mangling of the Scripture, various individuals prepared lists of accepted books. While these vary, there were some books that appeared almost universally.

The Council of Laodicea (362) formalized the list of books at 26, excepting only the book of Revelation. The first list that exactly matches the present-day canon is found in St. Athanasius’ Paschal Letter of 367(Letter XXXIX NPNF 2-04). Then at the Third Council of Carthage (397) the final formulation was made.

Since that time this has been (pretty much) THE canon. As we stated above, it is accepted by Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox. The question Protestants need to think about is why they accept it? Why do they take this list as authoritative?

After all by 367 (according to most accounts anyway), the Church has already crash-landed into full-blown Catholic heresy. If this is the case, how can we trust these apostates to tell us which books are canonical? As a matter of fact, if, as some maintain, the Church fell into apostasy shortly after the Apostles died, we need a list from the pre-100 A.D. era in order to get one that is not blighted by false doctrine and “Catholicism.” Since such a record does not exist, we can only hope to guess which books are authoritative but will never be able to say definitively. We are left with everyone being able to pick and choose for him/herself which books are authentic. (A horrid thought to say the least.)

But everyone knows that is not the way it is. We do have 27 authoritative books. How can that be? The fact is these are accepted because the Church said they were to be accepted—that’s right, that apostate, backslid, formalistic Church is the one who gave us the received list.

It makes me wonder why we can accept the books on the Church’s authority but reject other things that are based on that same authority. How can one in sincerity reject the Church itself and yet accept its authority to choose the books of the New Testament?

The Church existed before the New Testament and the Church was the one who (by the Holy Spirit) gave us the New Testament. If they were apostate, why do we accept their judgment? In truth, the same question might be posed in regard to the Creed of Nicaea also which is almost universally accepted as valid by Christian groups.

If the Church was guided by the Spirit to choose the correct books, it is no great leap to believe that they were also guided by the same Spirit in other areas. If this is the case, it would certainly affect our belief system dramatically. Think about it: can we reject the Church as apostate and still trust them to codify which books are authoritative? It seems exceedingly implausible at best and categorically preposterous at worst.

Interpeting John 6

One outstanding text illustrative of how different Scriptures can be interpreted very differently because of tradition is John 6. The most disputed verses:

Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. (54) Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. (55) For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. (56) He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

(6:53-56)

Having been a life-long Protestant, I have always heard these verses interpreted in a figurative or symbolic manner. When preachers or writers have broached this subject in my past, they have consistently ignored any idea of the Eucharist and focused merely on communing with Christ by believing on Him or by reading His Word.

What came as a surprise to me is Early Christians like St. Cyprian of Carthage (d. 258) interpreted this passage literally in the following text from On the Lord’s Prayer (section 18):

As the prayer goes forward, we ask and say, “Give us this day our daily bread.” And this may be understood both spiritually and literally, because either way of understanding it is rich in divine usefulness to our salvation. For Christ is the bread of life; and this bread does not belong to all men, but it is ours. And according as we say, “Our Father,” because He is the Father of those who understand and believe; so also we call it “our bread,” because Christ is the bread of those who are in union with His body. And we ask that this bread should be given to us daily, that we who are in Christ, and daily receive the Eucharist for the food of salvation, may not, by the interposition of some heinous sin, by being prevented, as withheld and not communicating, from partaking of the heavenly bread, be separated from Christ’s body, as He Himself predicts, and warns, “I am the bread of life which came down from heaven. If any man eat of my bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread which I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world.” When, therefore, He says, that whoever shall eat of His bread shall live for ever; as it is manifest that those who partake of His body and receive the Eucharist by the right of communion are living, so, on the other hand, we must fear and pray lest any one who, being withheld from communion, is separate from Christ’s body should remain at a distance from salvation; as He Himself threatens, and says, “Unless ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood, ye shall have no life in you.” And therefore we ask that our bread—that is, Christ—may be given to us daily, that we who abide and live in Christ may not depart from His sanctification and body.

Why had I never heard this before? Why had this obviously ancient interpretation completely overlooked? The answer has to be tradition.

The persons I had heard interpreting this passage had relegated this literal interpretation to the oblivion by calling it “Catholic.” (For so many, this one word is sufficient warrant to disregard even the most ancient and revered teachings of the church.) What is interesting to me is that the same ones who scream that “we must interpret Scripture literally” and who press the Book of Revelation into a literalistic interpretive mold (although it is a book of signs—see Revelation 1:1 and the word “signify”) are more than happy to interpret this passage figuratively.

The deciding factor for me in this text that pushed me toward the more literal interpretation is the reaction of the Jewish crowd that heard Jesus’ words in person. Notice verse 60 of John 6: “Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?”

If Jesus had intended this saying about eating his flesh and drinking his blood to be taken figuratively, He could have called out as the many walked away, “Hey, disciples, you all misunderstood what I was saying. I didn’t want you to take this literally and get offended by it.” He said no such thing. These disciples being Jewish were offended at the thought of eating flesh and drinking blood. The idea of doing so in a figurative manner would have been no problem for them.

So we have here a good example of different interpretations flowing from the same passages of the Bible. Which one is correct? Not to be redundant but…that can only be answered by reference to tradition. As we have seen previously, the Early interpretation of the Eucharist is a literal one; later on the figurative interpretation came to the fore. One has to answer the question: which interpretation are we to believe? And then another salient question: why did we choose the one we did?

Scriptural Interpretation

One of the ideas propounded by many is the perspicuity of Scripture—that is that the Bible is easily understood because it is clearly presented and expressed. Mark Hoeksema in his article “The Perspicuity of Scripture” explains the concept as follows:

“When this term is applied to Scripture, then it means that the Bible as the Word of God is understandable in the sense that the reader of that Word is able to know fully what he reads and gain insight into the truths which are set forth in the Scriptures. While this is not a Scriptural term, it is nevertheless a term which the church has historically used to describe the Bible.”

(http://www.reformedwitness.org/pmphltlst/Scripture/Perspicty.html)

Mr. Hoeksema’s opinion notwithstanding, I must boldly and forcefully disagree with him. If the Bible is so easily understood, then why, may I enquire, are there so many and varied interpretations of Scripture? If it is clear and simple to see, why do so many different people hold so many different opinions as to what it means?

One answer often proffered is that some people just won’t interpret correctly because of their prejudices or traditions. But the fact is, no one is free from some tradition. So who can say which tradition most correctly interprets Scripture? The answer to this question, of course, would depend on which tradition you have adopted. How can the Church of God and the Church of Christ read the same Bible, with both believing in the Bible alone as the rule of faith, and come to such opposed conclusions?

Obviously, at least one of them has to be wrong. But which? And then again, both of them could be wrong. If the Scripture is so clear and easily interpreted, should not both groups relying only on the Bible come to nearly identical conclusions? One would think so.

The reason they do not so is manifestly that between Scripture and interpretation the pane of tradition come into play. The Church of God (Cleveland, TN) has the Pentecostal background and thus, the Pentecostal tradition which dictates the manner in which the Bible should be interpreted. The Church of Christ has the Restorationist background and will for that reason, arrive at different conclusions.

This brings up a question: How can one be certain that his/her interpretation is the correct one?

The answer is simple and yet complex: we must have tradition. And in fact, we all do have it. But which tradition is correct?

If everyone is allowed to interpret the Bible willy-nilly in the light of his/her own knowledge, we will have millions of “correct” interpretations. Protestant tradition says that everybody can do just that. This does not solve our problem.

What we have to have is a tradition that is accurate and unified because everybody cannot be right. A famous passage from St. Vincent of Lèrins in his "Commonitorium" narrows down for us the correct tradition as follows:

Moreover, in the Catholic [universal] 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.

Universality, antiquity, and consent—these sound like pretty good criteria to me. These would have to be much better than say, “emotion, experience, and speculation.”

Bizarre Ancestors

I have run into the theory before but was startled to encounter it again recently. It is a theory of history that is extremely interesting to say the least. What shocked me is that such a theory has actually survived and is still be propounded by some.

One early form of the theory was put forth by in a tome by John Spittlehouse and John More ominously titled A Vindication Of The Continued Succession Of The Primitive Church Of Jesus Christ (Now Scandalously Termed Anabaptists) From The Apostles Unto This Present Time (found at http://www.reformedreader.org/history/continuedsuccession.htm). This was published in London in the year 1652.

Probably the most famous exposition of this theory is found in J. M. Carroll’s The Trail of Blood subtitled Following the Christians Down Through the Centuries From The Days of Christ to the Present Time . This booklet was published in 1931 and can be read online at several sites (e.g. http://www.trailofblood.com/The%20Trail%20Of%20Blood.htm).

Strangely enough the theory has not been confined to Baptist; it has also been taken up by Pentecostals who (even more oddly) have claimed some of the same ancestors as the Baptist. The Pentes have tended to adopt anyone who has spoken in tongues in history as one of their own.

The problem with all of this is the people that are being claimed by these groups as their spiritual forebears. It seems that all these have accepted the maxim: “The enemy of my enemy is my friend. “ The balance of this post will review those groups being claimed.

The principle groups that have been lumped into the Baptist (or Missionary or Primitive Baptist) fold are the Waldenses, the Cathari, the Novatians, the Paterines, the Donatists, the Paulicians, and the Albigenses. The Pentecostals lay claim to the Montanists, the Albigenses, the Jansenists, and the Shakers. Being Pente myself I will examine the claims of the Pentes only (and leave the Baptists to their own research).

The most striking feature of this list (besides the fact that such varied groups as Primitive Baptists and Pentecostals claim some of the same groups) is most of the groups listed are heretical. While a complete exposition of each group would require many posts, a cursory examination should be sufficient to bear out this point.

1. The Montanists were heavy into prophesy. But they didn’t speak as the prophets of old (viz., “thus saith the Lord”) rather than spoke in the first person (“I am the Father”). Their prophecies were seen as fulfilling and superseding the Apostolic doctrines. Very much a “Puritan” group, they also taught that anyone who fell from grace could never be restored and excommunication was the punishment for all mortal sins. They fasted and practiced a rigid asceticism.
2. The Albigenses were dualist who believed that the material world was evil and had been created by someone other than the Father of Jesus. The creator was a malevolent God. This creator god was the maker of all material things and also created evil. Their highest goal was to escape the body and be free. There was no eternal punishment in hell and because the body is evil, no bodily resurrection.
3. Jansenist beliefs were strongly predestinarian and posited that man had no free will and was incapable of doing anything good. They were a strictly Roman Catholic phenomenon.
4. The Shakers were an eccentric group led by “Mother” Ann Lee. They refused marriage and did not have any children. Mother Ann was seen as a second coming of Christ. They also advocated a kind of dual sexuality of God—Jesus being the manifestation of the male in God and Ann Lee being the manifestation of female in God.

My brother and I have this running joke about buying ancestors. Since we do not have any very old photos of our family, we have considered (jokingly) buying pictures at antique stores and claiming them as our ancestors. When choosing forebears, we have always looked for people who actually looked like us. There can be no blonds or tall Nordic-looking types because they wouldn’t resemble us. The good thing about buying ancestors is we would get to pick our family. Peculiarly, in the choosing of forebears, the Pentes have selected a strange lot to claim as their heritage.

Then again is this due to the fact that the only ones they could find historically were heretical groups because there are no Pentecostals in the modern sense before the 1800’s? It’s a good question that should probably be researched very carefully.

The Didache on the Eucharist

John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, held a very high opinion of the Fathers of the Church: “The Fathers are the most authentic commentators on Scripture, for they were nearest the fountain and were eminently endued with that Spirit by whom all Scripture was given.”

Unfortunately, many of his followers and most Protestants have completely overlooked these “most authentic commentators” and now favor the more “relevant” (and less substantive) or the more alliterative ones. Maybe one reason they don’t like the Fathers is because their theology would have to change if they recognized the Fathers as the genuine Christian forebears that they are.

We will continue looking at The Didache.

Chapter 9:

9:1 But concerning the Eucharist, after this fashion give ye thanks. 9:2 First, concerning the cup. We thank thee, our Father, for the holy vine, David thy Son, which thou hast made known unto us through Jesus Christ thy Son; to thee be the glory for ever. 9:3 And concerning the broken bread. We thank thee, our Father, for the life and knowledge which thou hast made known unto us through Jesus thy Son; to thee be the glory for ever. 9:4 As this broken bread was once scattered on the mountains, and after it had been brought together became one, so may thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth unto thy kingdom; for thine is the glory, and the power, through Jesus Christ, for ever. 9:5 And let none eat or drink of your Eucharist but such as have been baptized into the name of the Lord, for of a truth the Lord hath said concerning this, Give not that which is holy unto dogs.

This chapter clearly presents an early form of liturgy. Most Pentecostals I know would be in absolute horror that such a thing could be so. “Liturgy? No way, that is too dead, too formal, too dry for us!” But that is what is being put forward in this passage. Written prayers to be used for a church service are contradictory to the extemporaneous type of prayers to which I am accustomed.

The idea that some have championed is that this kind of “dead, dry formality” came about only after the apostasy of the Church when Constantine made the church Catholic. This document flies in the face of that kind of thinking.

Another document from those days is the writing of St. Justin Martyr (ca. 100 to 165 A.D.). Let’s look at what he says on this subject:

“There is then brought to the president of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at His hands. And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent by saying Amen. And when the president has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who are absent they carry away a portion.” (First Apology, ch. LXV)

It is a surprise to some (no doubt) that they used wine but there is little to no doubt that they did indeed do that. So where did we get the tradition of not doing so? Not from the Early Church.

But the real shocker for the modern Pentes comes on the next chapter:

“And this food is called among us the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.” (First Apology, ch. LXVI)

No solely symbolic presence of Jesus? No just a memorial of his death? No, it teaches the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. And it uses the word “Eucharist,” which is so assiduously avoided by most Protestant types. He does not tell us how the bread and wine become “not as common bread and common drink” but he maintains that they certainly are “the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.”

What can be drawn from this cursory examination is that the Early Church has some ideas that are radically different from our own. Now, we must ask ourselves, “Who is right?” We need to consider the source, the Scriptures, and why we believe what we do.

There are only two options left to us. Either we trust the Fathers, none of whom contradict the doctrine of the Real Presence, to interpret Scripture correctly. Or we trust later writers (16th century and after), our tradition, and our own private interpretive abilities to do so. If all of the “most authentic commentators” believed one way, it would seem incumbent upon us to find out what they believed. Should we not then align with the more trustworthy witnesses even if they don’t agree with our 500-year-old tradition? It makes one wonder.

The Didache on Baptism

My meeting with the Early Church was an earth-shaking event in my life. What may come as a surprise to some is that I actually made my first real encounter with the Fathers of the Church while attending my denominational seminary. I took a class in the history of Christian thought and was introduced to these folks that I had only heard a scant amount. I recall having a Sunday School lesson while I was in the Junior class on Saint Polycarp and his martyrdom. That would probably be the extent of my Patristic knowledge for many years.

I would like to look at bit more at some of the passages from the Church Fathers that shook my theology and made me think deeply about what I believed and why I believed it.

The Didache is one of the earliest (if not the earliest) Christian writings extant. It was probably written somewhere ca. 80-100 A.D, well within the lifetime of many of the earliest followers of Jesus. Some of the early Christians actually used this book as Scripture. If nothing else, we are given a very good picture of the beliefs of the Early church and of some of their practices.

I understand that some people will already be gnashing their teeth and saying, “But it’s not inspired.” I am not saying it was and I am not aware of anyone that is contending such. What I am maintaining is that a document written at this point in history should be accorded a great significance. With so many devoted “true” followers of Christ still living, it is not likely that this book would have been around long had it not been considered true and useful.

Besides, it is repulsively arrogant for a 21st Century Christian to stand and pass judgment on this 1st Century document because it is unlike what he/she has heard before. Let us consider, who would have had the best chance of getting things right—the one living in the First Century or the Twenty-First? That is not a hard question.

Oh well, off the soapbox and into the text.

The Didache Chapter 7: 1 ">But concerning baptism, thus baptize ye: having first recited all these precepts, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in running water; 7:2 but if thou hast not running water, baptize in some other water, and if thou canst not baptize in cold, in warm water; 7:3 but if thou hast neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. 7:4 But before the baptism, let him who baptizeth and him who is baptized fast previously, and any others who may be able. And thou shalt command him who is baptized to fast one or two days before

The first surprise was that this early document commanded baptism in the Triune Name and not in the name of Jesus only as some modern Apostolic (Sabellian) believers hold. I do not and have never held to Jesus’ Name baptism but I was certainly glad to see someone from this era saying the same thing. The Neo-Sabellians try to convince everyone that the single-name baptism was all that was used up until the church apostasized. If they are correct, it must have fallen away very fast and very precipitously.

A second surprising element was that there was an allowance made for pouring if water was not available. This definitely did not fit into my preconceived “dunk’em-or-it’s-not-real-baptism” mold. While this is not blanket permission to pour (notice it doesn’t say “sprinkle”), it at least blows away the absolute requirement for immersion.

A third shocker was the command to fast prior to baptism. This command was for both the one doing the baptism and the one being baptized. Why would this be omitted by the later Christians? Is it too much against our way of living? Actually, I think to many it just sounds too “Catholic.” Heaven forbid! We wouldn’t want that, now would we?

There may be nothing earth shattering about all this. It is, however, interesting to see how far we have veered from what was SOP (standard operating procedure) in the early days.

Tradition Part 3

In the last post, we saw that even those claiming to have no tradition are actually just following the proud tradition of being traditionless.

What blew me out of my comfort zone was the realization that the tradition I had followed for so many years was actually only “the tradition of a few hundred years.” I was brought up in a tradition that began a little over 100 years ago. Whether we look to the mountains of North Carolina-Tennessee (where the Church of God started) or to Azusa Street in Los Angeles (where Pentecost became a worldwide phenomenon), we have slightly more than one hundred years of Pentecostal Tradition.

Many Pentecostals would dispute this by pointing to the New Testament and to various groups of Pentecostal-like persons throughout history (this is probably a topic for another post). The truth is, however, that we are much more reliant on the tradition of the recent past than on the tradition of the Apostolic past.

So if this tradition is so young, is there an older tradition we could adopt? Well, of course, there is. The Holiness Tradition, the Adventist Tradition, the Wesleyan Tradition, the Episcopal Tradition, the Reformed Tradition and the list could go on. When I started looking, I didn’t want to stop halfway to the goal; I wanted to get all the way back to authentic, apostolic tradition.

I had to face the fact: what we had called Apostolic and Pentecostal was NOT the same as the tradition that had been held by the Church since the days of the Apostles. For instance, I can find nowhere that the Early Church had “shouting services” in which the preacher didn’t get to preach. As one reads and examines the New Testament and the writings of the earliest Church Fathers (pre-200 AD), he/she will be immediately struck by the dissimilarity of these writings to anything in the Pentecostal/Charismatic church today.

This brings us to the most important question: What tradition will we follow? Which one should we grasp—the one in which we are comfortable or the one which is more closely aligned with the early Christians? It is a question that is haunting and should stir every serious Christian to serious reflection.

Unfortunately for some people the following quote by Hugo Demartini sums up their choice of tradition: “People are always talking about tradition, but they forget we have a tradition of a few hundred years of nonsense and stupidity, that there is a tradition of idiocy, incompetence and crudity.” Their tradition whether chosen consciously or not, has become for them a prison from which they feel they cannot escape.

G. K. Chesterton defined tradition as the “extension of the franchise…giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors.” We have to decide to which ancestors’ votes we will grant the most significance: those distant from us (in time, practice and theology) or those of the more recent past. It seems like a straightforward choice; when you are confronted with it, however, it becomes a very complex choice indeed. One might even call it a byzantine problem (pun intended).

Tradition Part 2

Last post we saw that the idea of tradition being necessarily negative from a Biblical point of view is sheer fallacy and only a tradition.

Now I want to turn to the endemic nature of tradition in religion. While it is true that tradition is not confined to religion, we will confine ourselves to that part of the subject.

Even the most anti, non, or untraditional church group has something in common with the most traditional church group: they all have tradition. “Even those in denominations that came from the radical Protestant Reformation (such as the Anabaptists) owe a large debt to Tradition, even though many are slow to admit it.” (David Bennett, The Christian Tradition: Holy, Living and Relevant http://www.ancient-future.net/tradition.html)

No matter how strong their contention to the contrary may be, they cannot escape the fact that they continue doing certain things in certain ways because someone passed it down to them. It may have been a person who died 100 or 1000 years ago or the person may still be living. But everyone has traditions and tradition.

Let’s look at my tradition. We are a part of what David Bennett calls the "anti-tradition tradition.” In Pentecostal circles, we generally have no written order of service—that’s a tradition that our tradition has rejected. But then again it is our tradition not to have an order of service generally speaking. We don’t read prayers but pray more or less spontaneously and extemporaneously. Some may be thinking this would lead to total chaos and disorder. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

You see our tradition is to be extemporaneous and sometimes spontaneous. Let’s say that we have a “good service where the pastor doesn’t get to preach.” That might be considered out of the ordinary and outside tradition but it’s not. We have different types of traditional services and that is just one of them. Most of the time there is preaching; tradition allows for some services where there is none.

Our extemporaneous prayers will be punctuated with traditional phrases, prayed at traditional volume, and based on traditional ideas. If someone were to read a prayer because he/she felt like doing that (a rather spontaneous act for a traditional Pentecostal), it would be outside of the tradition. While there are expendable parts of tradition, they are the parts that are traditionally expendable. One is not allowed to get rid of the traditionally non-expendable parts. Similarly, anything that is added has to follow the tradition of what can be added.

So the concept that we Pentecostals have no tradition is a tradition that has no basis in fact. We have strong traditions that are made even stronger by the fact that we refuse to admit that we have them and to denominate them as “tradition.” The fact is “the most powerful ones (traditions) are those we can't even describe and aren't even aware of.” (Ellen Goodman)

Tradition Part 1

For many years I have heard and read sermons, tracts, and literature which made the idea of tradition the whipping boy of the Church. According to these sources, tradition is antithetical to true religion (this word has fared no better) and against everything that is holy, pure and good.

In the faith tradition of which I am a part (Classical Pentecostal), the very word “tradition” is anathema. Everyone would strenuously object to the term even being mentioned in connection with us. I have heard sermons decrying the evils of tradition and heard one preacher say that every mention of tradition in the Bible is a negative one.

That statement needs desperately to be challenged because it is a fine example of willful ignorance which is fueled by blindly following tradition. The Greek term used in the NT for tradition is paradosis. It is used 13 times in the New Testament (Matthew 15: 2-3 [used twice], Matthew 15: 6,Mark 7:3, Mark 7:5, Mark 7: 8-9 [twice], Mark 7: 13, I Corinthians 11: 2, Galatians 1:14, Colossians 2:8, II Thessalonians 2: 15, and II Thessalonians 3: 6.)

We may concede for the sake of argument that the Matthew, Mark, and Colossians passages speak negatively of tradition (although I would contend that point is arguable); however, the others listed cannot be considered negative toward tradition by any stretch of the imagination. Let’s look at them:

Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you. (1 Corinthians11:2)

And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers. (Galatians 1:14)

Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle. (2 Thessalonians 2:15 )

Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us. (2 Thessalonians 3:6)

If anyone reads these as negative toward tradition per se, they are undoubtedly seeing something that I have completely overlooked and/or ignored. These don't even appear to be matters of interpretation. In fact, far from disparaging tradition, they are apparently promoting and encouraging it.

This should be sufficient to silence any blanket condemnation of tradition in itself. Whether tradition is positive or negative depends on how it is used, where it came from, and what kind of fruit it bears. It can be helpful, harmful or indifferent. As we will see in Part 2, it is never absent.