Evangelicals and Tradition, part 2

This is the second post based on from what I read from of a book by D.H. Williams Ph.D., Professor of religion in patristic and historical theology at Baylor University. 

One and perhaps the main issue that divides Catholics and Protestants is Justification.  Is Justification a process through which we are made righteous where our righteousness comes from infusion of God’s righteousness through Christ in us (Catholic position)?  Or is it one time event where we are declared righteous through and only by faith in Christ where His righteousness is imputed on us (Protestant position)? To express the difference in other words: Does Justification comprise faith and Sanctification (Catholic position) or is Justification by faith alone, which then must be followed by Sanctification (general Protestant position where Sanctification is separated from Justification but these two must come together)?

The author noted that the early Reformers believed they were seeking to restore the faith of the early church (page 120). Both Luther and Calvin claimed that they learnt justification by faith from patristic Christians, notably from Augustine (pages 122-123). Yet the author wrote on page 128: ‘As long as the sixteenth-century Reformation is viewed as the restoration of apostolic Christianity and the bar by which the rest of church history is judged, then patristic and medieval Christianity are incomplete or inadequate attempts at expressing the gospel (underlined emphasis added) and on page 139: ‘the theologians of the early church did not articulate soteriology [teaching/study of salvation] in the same way as the sixteenth-century Reformers, nor should we expect them to have done so.’  Based on his study on early Christianity the author further concludes: ‘Making firm differentiations between justification and sanctification was not the essence of doctrinal discourse for them’; ‘a definitive conversion was important, but the majority of early fathers stressed that God’s work in the life of a Christian was more a process than a point’ and ‘the early fathers believed that God’s salvation through the life, death, and resurrection of Christ meant providing a believer with the means to perceive God and thereby share in his divine life. That is, salvation was supposed to culminate in divine theosis or deification – becoming transformed according to God (page 140, underlined emphasis is added).  Finally in page 144 the author wrote: ‘The Protestant principles of sola scriptura and sola fide do not themselves constitute orthodox Christianity, nor do they constitute the very heart of the historic Christian faith. These were originally intended to subsist under the umbrella of the ancient tradition. The purpose here is not to mitigate their place or force within Protestant Christianity; it is to insist that the proper way to assess their value is to situate them within the broader contours of catholicity. The ancient rule of the church’s faith is better suited to designate the central identity of historic Christianity than the Protestant solas, just as the tradition remains the foundation on which these later Protestant ‘traditions” build.

Evangelicals and Tradition (part 1)

The title of this post comes from that of a book by D.H. Williams Ph.D., Professor of religion in patristic and historical theology at Baylor University.  The front-cover of the book carries the phrase “evangelical ressourcement” and it is the intention of the author to make his (evangelical) readers to realize that (1) Scripture and the early tradition were both necessary for the process of orthodox teaching, (2) there is a reciprocal relationship between theology and the life of the church, (3) the liberty of the Spirit in a believer’s life must be balanced with the continuity of the church in history, and (4) the Protestant Reformation must be integrated within the larger and older picture of what it means to be catholic.  The author argues that the Catholicism of the earliest Christian centuries does not only relate to the development of the present (Roman) Catholic Church but to those of Eastern Orthodox and Protestants as well.

Prof. Williams admitted that to Protestants (and Evangelicals) the word “tradition” has negative connotation, as competing authority to biblical authority. It is generally associated with the practices of Roman Catholic Church. In short Evangelicals and Tradition usually do not go together – the title of the book is a paradox at first glance.  When I was evangelical my evangelical mentor ridiculed Catholic belief of placing Tradition (whatever it may mean to him) in par with Scripture.  Ironically it was through him I heard the word “Tradition” for the first time. Yet the author also argues that ‘every Protestant grouping has its traditions no matter how anti-traditional and anti-credal it may be‘ (page 24).  The term “tradition in his book refers to the one that forms the foundational legacy of apostolic and patristic faith, most accurately enshrined in Scripture and secondarily in the great confessions and creeds of the early church.  The term “apostolic” refers to church of the first and early second century, which is followed for the next five or six hundred years by “patristic” Christianity.  It is not his intention of the author to defend tradition or its place within Christianity, what he wants to convey to his (Protestant and/or Evangelical) readers is tradition’s illuminating place within Christian thought and practice so that Protestants of all stripes can see the value and necessity of its resources for appropriating the faith today (page 18).  He also stated ‘if contemporary evangelicalism aims to be doctrinally orthodox and exegetically faithful to Scripture, it cannot do so without recourse to and integration of the foundational tradition of the early church‘. In short Protestants need to recover its catholic roots in the church’s early spirituality and theology.  ‘Protestants of all stripes must comprehend once and for all that “catholic” is not the opposite of “Protestant“‘, he wrote on page 42. As Catholic my question is: will they be able to find it?  Let’s look at some author’s statement from the book:

The early Christians did not have Bible as we understand the term today (page 31).  There was no standardized collection of (inspired) text – in short Scripture was not available to early believers.  The author noted that it did not matter much as most people were illiterate.  Thus they would have acquired the rudiments of Christian faith through the early tradition as it was relayed via confessions, hymns, and baptismal instruction (page 31).  Quoting apostle Paul’s statement in 2 Thessalonians 2:15, 3:6, 1 Corinthians 11:2, 23 and 15:3 the author stated that there is no tension between the gospel as revelation and the gospel as tradition – they were two sides of one coin (page 33).  Later he wrote that while New Testament was written by apostles and the earliest followers of Christ in the first century, its formation into a concrete and recognized collection, along with Old Testament, was a uniquely patristic accomplishment (page 55).  Other interesting point the author raised is inspiration is not equal to canonicity. ‘Within the New Testament itself, one can point to the prophecy of Enoch in Jude 14. It is apparent that the writer of Jude is using 1 Enoch (60:8), an oft-used Jewish apocalyptic text, as an inspired text, introducing it by the term prophesied. Many Jews and Christian Jews considered the text of 1 and 2 Enoch “God breathed” (i.e., inspired). Modern Christian readers may be disturbed by such a citation if they assume that inspiration was equivalent to canonicity at this early date.’ (page 54).  On page 80 the author wrote: ‘the terminology of “canon” or “rule” is virtually never used for sacred books until the later fourth century, and even then there is only sparse mention. The fact that there was very little interest on the part of the patristic church to formulate a canonical list of books testifies to its lack of importance.

Tradition is not something static. The author stated that Christian tradition was and always is in the process of development (page 35).  It is impossible to speak of passing on something unchanged. He gave the reason: tradition must respond to its present in light of its past. Transmission was not a matter of simply throwing ancient formulas or solutions at new problems and expecting them to be effective. Nor was it trying out new solutions without recourse to the resources of the existing tradition.  While the author wrote that tradition was not infallible process of delivering the true doctrine of the church, he also stated that Protestants of all stripes must place their confidence in the Lord of the church and trust that the essential tradition and Scripture are the sovereign work of the Holy Spirit operating in the early church.

On page 56 the author wrote that the faith articulated during the first five centuries set in place two pillars of authority on which Christians have stood: (1) an apostolic canon of Scripture (the Bible) and (2) a theological canon of apostolicity(cardinal doctrines and confessions of the Trinity, Christology, etc.). On the same page he further wrote apostolic tradition is as primitive as the Christian Scripture.  The scriptural canon came about in its shape and content as an embodiment of the canonical tradition, and the tradition could only be legitimated by standing in unity with the teaching of Scripture. His statement may scandalize Protestants – but not the early Christians, he wrote: ‘The ancient fathers themselves taught that the tradition was the epitome pf the Christian faith, the very purport of Scripture. A true interpretation of Scripture would always lead one to the tradition.’ (page 56) and ‘Historical analyses of the ancient Christian concepts of canon show that the canonization of Scripture occurred within the context of canonical tradition and that both emerged out of the life of the patristic church. (page 57).   Did the apostolic and patristic Christians adopt sola scriptura or only the Bible as authority?  The author wrote on page 96: ‘The fathers would not have appreciated the principle of Scripture alone, since the historical and theological issues that gave rise to it were particular to late medieval Christianity. To treat the Bible in isolation from the tradition of the church, as it was located in the ancient rule of faith, baptismal confessions, and conciliar creeds, would have been incomprehensible to the Christian pastors and thinkers of the patristic era.  Strangely the author wrote on page 88: ‘the idea that extra-biblical traditions possess the same authority as Scripture is a development of the later Middle Ages.’

To be continued

Augustine on Grace and Free Will

Catholics understand Grace as favour, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life (Catechism of the Catholic Church # 1996).  Grace depends entirely on God’s gratuitous initiative and demands man’s free response (ibid $ 1998, 2002).  Without His Grace we cannot achieve our Justification.  Quoting from Council of Trent’s declaration Catechism of the Catholic Church states (emphasis added):

The Synod furthermore declares, that in adults, the beginning of the said Justification is to be derived from the prevenient grace of God, through Jesus Christ, that is to say, from His vocation, whereby, without any merits existing on their parts, they are called; that so they, who by sins were alienated from God, may be disposed through His quickening and assisting grace, to convert themselves to their own justification, by freely assenting to and co-operating with that said grace: in such sort that, while God touches the heart of man by the illumination of the Holy Ghost, neither is man himself utterly without doing anything while he receives that inspiration, forasmuch as he is also able to reject it; yet is he not able, by his own free will, without the grace of God, to move himself unto justice in His sight.

Did the Catholic Church invent this teaching in sixteenth century AD to counteract Reformation?  We look at some statement by Augustine regarding Grace and our Free will (English translation from Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament, Vol. VIII, page 258)

It is not in God’s power that anyone should be forced against his will to do evil or good but that he should go to the bad, according to his own deserts, when God abandons him. For a person is not good if he does not will it, but the grace of God assists him even in willing. It is not without cause that it is written, God is the one who works in you to will and do, of his own good will.

Augustine, On Two Letters of Pelagius 1.36

It is not that the will or the deed is not ours, but without his [God] aid we neither will nor do anything good.

Augustine, On the Grace of Christ 26

It is certain that when we do a deed, the deed, is ours; but he [God] is the one who makes us do the deed by giving us strength fully sufficient to carry out our will.

Augustine, On Grace and Free Will 32

On John 20:22-23

Catholics understand that John 20:22-23 as the scriptural support of Sacrament of Reconciliation or Penance.  And when he had said this, he breathed on them [the apostles], and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.” We look at the testimony of two early Christians, Ambrose and John Chrysostom, on how they interpreted these verses.

Ambrose (c. 338 to 397 AD) was bishop of Milan, Italy from 374 to 397 AD.   In one of his works, Concerning Repentance, he wrote commentary on John 20:22-23 (English translation from Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers or NPNF, Series II, Vol. 10):

Consider, too, the point that he who has received the Holy Ghost has also received the power of forgiving and of retaining sin. For thus it is written: “Receive the Holy Spirit: whosesoever sins ye forgive, they are forgiven unto them, and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained. So, then, he who has not received power to forgive sins has not received the Holy Spirit. The office of the priest is a gift of the Holy Spirit, and His right it is specially to forgive and to retain sins. How, then, can they claim His gift who distrust His power and His right?

Ambrose, Concerning Repentance, Book I, Chapter 2: 7 to 8

Echoing the same view, John Chrysostomos (c. 347 to 407AD), bishop of Constantinople wrote (English translation from Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers or NPNF, Series I, Vol. 9 with added emphasis):

For if any one will consider how great a thing it is for one, being a man, and compassed with flesh and blood, to be enabled to draw nigh to that blessed and pure nature, he will then clearly see what great honor the grace of the Spirit has vouchsafed to priests; since by their agency these rites are celebrated, and others nowise inferior to these both in respect of our dignity and our salvation. For they who inhabit the earth and make their abode there are entrusted with the administration of things which are in Heaven, and have received an authority which God has not given to angels or archangels. For it has not been said to them, “Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven, and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven. They who rule on earth have indeed authority to bind, but only the body: whereas this binding lays hold of the soul and penetrates the heavens; and what priests do here below God ratifies above, and the Master confirms the sentence of his servants. For indeed what is it but all manner of heavenly authority which He has given them when He says, “Whose sins ye remit they are remitted, and whose sins ye retain they are retained?” What authority could be greater than this? “The Father hath committed all judgment to the Son?” But I see it all put into the hands of these men by the Son. For they have been conducted to this dignity as if they were already translated to Heaven, and had transcended human nature, and were released from the passions to which we are liable. Moreover, if a king should bestow this honor upon any of his subjects, authorizing him to cast into prison whom he pleased and to release them again, he becomes an object of envy and respect to all men; but he who has received from God an authority as much greater as heaven is more precious than earth, and souls more precious than bodies, seems to some to have received so small an honor that they are actually able to imagine that one of those who have been entrusted with these things will despise the gift. Away with such madness! For transparent madness it is to despise so great a dignity, without which it is not possible to obtain either our own salvation, or the good things which have been promised to us. For if no one can enter into the kingdom of Heaven except he be regenerate through water and the Spirit, and he who does not eat the flesh of the Lord and drink His blood is excluded from eternal life, and if all these things are accomplished only by means of those holy hands, I mean the hands of the priest, how will any one, without these, be able to escape the fire of hell, or to win those crowns which are reserved for the victorious?

John Chrysostom, On the Priesthood, Book 3, Chapter 5

In contrast Reformer John Calvin, in his commentary on the Gospel of John, denied that the authority to forgive sin was given to the apostles. 

While Christ enjoins the Apostles to forgive sins, he does not convey to them what is peculiar to himself. It belongs to him to forgive sins. This honor, so far as it belongs peculiarly to himself, he does not surrender to the Apostles, but enjoins them, in his name, to proclaim the forgiveness of sins, that through their agency he may reconcile men to God. In short, properly speaking, it is he alone who forgives sins through his apostles and ministers.

Calvin, Commentary on John 20:22-23

Following Calvin, Protestants generally interpret those verses as commandment to preach Gospel.

Most absurdly do the Papists, on the other hand, torture this passage, to support their magical absolutions. If any person do not confess his sins in the ear of the priest, he has no right, in their opinion, to expect forgiveness; for Christ intended that sins should be forgiven through the Apostles, and they cannot absolve without having examined the matter; therefore, confession is necessary. Such is their beautiful argument. But they fall into a strange blunder, when they pass by the most important point of the matter; namely, that this right was granted to the Apostles, in order to maintain the credit of the Gospel, which they had been commissioned to preach. For Christ does not here appoint confessors, to inquire minutely into each sin by means of low mutterings, but preachers of his Gospel, who shall cause their voice to be heard, and who shall seal on the hearts of believers the grace of the atonement obtained through Christ. We ought, therefore, to keep by the manner of forgiving sins, so as to know what is that power which has been granted to the apostles.

Calvin, Commentary on John 20:22-23