The Kingdom Come

 

This is a chapter-by-chapter review of the book "The Shape of Sola Scriptura" by Keith Mathison. This review began on March 30, 2009 & is expected to end before September 2009.

The purpose for the review is to enhance Bible study by first studying how to approach the Bible. In modern Evangelical denominations, it is common to take a "private interpretation" approach where every individual gives their own private interpretation & then perhaps shares it with a larger group. Sometimes, all such interpretations are considered equally valid. This method is NOT what the Reformers had in mind when they articulated Sola Scriptura (Bible Alone). The Reformers did not intend to divorce Bible interpretation from historic Christian interpretation but merely question Papal/Church infallibility.

PAGES 19-45

Mathison begins by correctly observing:

"Much of the problem invovled in the historic debate over the authority of Scripture concerns the ambiguity surrounding the meaning of the word 'tradition'" (pg 19)

Perhaps the overarching premise of the book is summed up in this sentence:

"...througout the history of the Church, including the Protestant Reformation, what we find is a battle that cannot often be characterized accurately in terms of Scripture v.s tradition." (pg 20)

This is a truism that plays out in every Bible discussion you find yourself.  Invariably, someone will use the "I don't follow traditions" defense when their interpretation of a passage is questioned.

Mathison's goes on to outline how at the beginning the Church did not distinguish between apostolic teaching & tradition -- the apostolic teachings WERE the traditions of the Church & visa-versa.  After all, the Church hadn't been around long enough to develop "tradtions" that may have been opposite of the apostles' teachings.

Mathison shows us that if anything, the rise of Gnosticⁱ teachings which claimed SECRET traditions/teachings had caused the Church to clarify what had already been held in common (pg 22).  In doing so, the Church developed what is called "regula fidei" or the rule of faith.  This is perhaps another way of saying the accepted/received/common/shared doctrines of the Church.  The Rule of Faith stood in opposition to "new" or secret beliefs. (p 23-24)

Mathison goes on to cite several early Christian theologians who although sound much like a modern Christian who might say, "By Scripture alone" these theologians understood that the interpretation of that Scripture was not alone...but was within the context of what the Church as a whole has believed. (pg 24-25)

The first hint that we see of a battle between Scripture & "man-made traditions" is ironically enough found when a theologian named Cyprian (cir 200-258) questions the teachings of a pope. (pgs 27-29)  But even then, Cyprian's supporters appeal to the "things which where handed down from the beginning"  --ie. apostolic teaching (p 29).

As Mathison makes his way through a summary of how apostolic teaching, scripture, & Christian tradition were at one time mutually synonymous he then reaches the 4th & 5th centuries wherein Mathison tells us:

"The fourth & fifth centuries of the Church's history were a period of great theological controversy & great thelogical consolidation." (p 29)

The phrasing of that sentence is extremely important since many modern Evangelical (Anabaptistic) Christians think of the Church IMPOSING beliefs on people.  Rather, the Church was being challenged from outside & in & she needed to clarify what her belief had ALWAYS been.  This "period of great theological controversy" was simply 1 Cor 11:19 playing out as it did & always will  -- the factions/heresies were causing the Church to show it's "approved" doctrine more & more.  In the darkness, the light shines brightest.

This brings us to perhaps the first real challenge to the Church.  Unlike the Gnostics who were so foreign to the Church that they were easily dismissed but now the Arians who seemed more legitimate were acting from within the Church.  The Arians, like the many heresies that were to come even quoted Scripture to support their case.

Defending the historic Christian position against the Arians, Athanasius calls Holy Scripture the "paradosis" or "tradition", again showing how Scripture was considered the tradition of the apostles as 2 Thes 2:15 so aptly relates. (p 30)

Although "apologetics" (giving a defense -- 1 Pe 3:15) has always been an important part of Christian life, we see its initial rise in importantance among the Church as more & more began to challenge the Christian teachings.  Mathison quotes Hilary of Poiters (cir 300-367) concerning people who quote Scripture without the context of the rule of faith:

"Such is their error, such their pestilent teaching; to support it they borrow the words of Scripture, perverting its meaning & using the ignorance of men as their opportunity of gaining credence for their lies" (pg 31)

So, early on people were quoting Scripture & claiming their teachings were valid but they lacked the backing of historic Christianity even then.

Perhaps so far it appears like a circular argument, that yes indeed Scripture is our authority but Scripture must be interpreted within the framework of united Christian belief.  It is perplexing how one doesn't negate the other, & therein lies the erroneous dichotomy that has been constructed between apostolic tradtion & Scripture.  Scripture is Scripture because Jesus & the apostles confirmed it.  That MUST be our starting point.  After all, the utterances of these former fishermen & tax collectors turned apostles are inspired because of why?  The Holy Spirit's leading, guidance -- not because these men were renowned scholars or logicians.

Mathison then begins to set out some terminology that will be helpful to understand when reading the rest of the book.  So, far he has been making the case that initially, the Church saw Scripture & apostolic tradition as one in the same.  To this concept, Mathison via Church historian Heiko Oberman labels this TRADITION I. (p 32)

Maithson says:

"It is this view which was universally held for the first three centuries of the Church. During the fourth century, however, a transitional period began as several prominent father started to hint at a two source concept of tradition." (pg 32)

As a matter of fact, the two-source view sounds a lot like the original Gnostic concept.  Quoting the theologian named Basil (cir 330-379) as perhaps one of the first to relate the two-source view:

"the Christian owes equal respect & obedience to written & to unwritten ecclesiastical traditions, whether contained in canonical writings or in secret oral tradition handed down by the Apostles through their successors" (p 33)

There are many problems with this comment from Basil.  First, working backwards the apostles explicitly did NOT have "secret tradition" -- that again is Gnostic in nature & was opposed from the outset by Christianity. Secondly, apostles were apostles & hand-picked by Jesus, guided by the Holy Spirit into all truth (inspiration), not so they could hand down unrelated, unverifiable teachings to others to pass on.  This entire reasoning goes counter to having apostles in the first place.  Basil is simply redefining what "apostolic tradition" had meant for 300 years.

It is Basil's sentiments which are labeled TRADITION II -- a two-source authority. (p 33)  However, Mathison goes on to cite supporting documentation that Basil probably wasn't at that time advocating what would come to be known as Tradition II, & that he is wrongly blamed as being one of the first advocates. (pg 34-35)  The same case is made of Basil's peer, Gregory of Nyssa (cir 335-394) that while in some instances, it seems Gregory may be advocating a sort of two-source authority, further reading seems to indicate he too actually held to the original mutual Tradition I. (pgs 37-38)

Mathison indicates that John Chrysostom (cir 347-407) may have been the first unambiguous advocate of Tradition II. (pgs 38-39)  Again, exception is given that Chrysostom may have not meant to give so much credence to extra-biblical tradition but Mathison is trying to show a transition of thought on the part of theologians.

Surprisingly enough, Augustine (cir 354-430) a typical hero of the Reformed/Protestants is identified by Mathison as "clearly an early proponent of Tradition II" (pg 39).  After showing how Augustine states in some places comments that put him well within advocacy of Tradition I, Mathison gives us quotes from Augustine that make him too as Basil look as if he is asserting a two-source view (pgs 40-41)  Mathison implies that more likely, it is that later Roman Catholic apologists have used selected quotes by Augustine to make him appear to support the Roman Catholic concept of Papal authority where such Papal affinities would have been the furthest thing from Augustine's intention. (pgs 41-42)

Lastly, Mathison cites a quote by Vincent of Lerins (cir 450) from a writing called the Comonitory wherein Vincent makes a statement that on the surface seems to be very much in support of a two-source authority. (pg 43-44)  Whether it is the case or not, what is clear is that the Church is coming under increasing attacks from the private interpretations of heretics.  Perhaps in their zeal, some otherwise well meaning "orthodox" theologians wandered into advocacy of a two-source view.  At any rate, in due time the distinction between non-intentional & intentional two-source proponent will be seen.

 

PAGES 45-50

I purposely ended the previous segment with page 45 instead of the end of the chapter because I believe it is important to separate the discussion of the "Authority of Councils, Creeds, & Fathers" from the general discussion of the "early church" because people already too often think that when we speak of "historic Christianity" we just mean "councils & creeds".  We must not become confused over the difference.  The early Church's beliefs are not completely ascertained from councils & creeds, especially since at the time such councils & creeds had not been formulated.  HOWEVER, what eventually comprises much of the councils & creeds is found in general Christian belief prior to any council or systematized creed.  That is, historic Christianity's positions are ascertained by reading the overarching concepts of Christian belief.  And, despite what some people will try to claim, there was enough unity to discern the basic beliefs of the early church.

With that, we continue on page 50 & The Authority of Councils, Creeds, & Fathers.

Mathison reminds us that the councils & creeds were NOT pulled out of thin air & imposed upon the Church -- as some would have us believe, but rather they were built on the concept of regula fidei (rule of fath).

Mathison says,

"The Creed was essentially a continuation of regula fidei, expressing the same truths in a fuller way." (p 46)

Though Mathison will get into this more later, I think it is important at this point, especially in light of Modern Evangelicalism's complete pretended disconnect from "credo" to define the word "creed".  Creed is the English form of "credo" which literally means "I believe".  So, unless a person is trying to say they don't believe anything, EVERYONE has some sort of "creed".  The question is, is it a personal creed or one that comports with what has been considered Christianity for 2000 years?

Councils, as Mathison relates were originally held more as "charismatic events...& were never accepted as valid in advance in spite of the appearance of formal regularity". (p 46)

In time, councils became more important due to their role as defenses of the faith delivered to the saints against many heresies, but were never meant to supplant Scripture but merely affirm what had always been believed by Christians.

Mathison goes on to say how appeals to "church fathers" (patrists), was done not to be equal with Scripture but in an attempt to look at the interpretations of those dedicated to the exposition of the text AND to the knowledge of the earliest beliefs of the Church -- whereas new heresies & their leaders would often try to introduce something "new", either as an interpretation or new tradition. (p 48)

Mathison summarizes that,

"For the first three centuries...Scripture was to be intepreted by the Church & in the Church within the context of the regula fidei" (p 48)

By the fourth century, the two-source model began to gain a little ground.  So, as we enter an examination of chapter 2 of SoSS & into the Middle Ages, let us keep in mind that labels to help us understand the positions:

• TRADITION I = One-source model, but as interpreted by the collective of Christianity
• TRADITION II = Two-source model with oral & possible secret traditions to be considered.

The reason I wanted to just introduce the "Middle Ages" in this segment but spend the bulk of segment 3 covering it, is because of this quote by Mathison:

"...the Middle Ages spands approximately a thousand years, yet for most Christians it is one of the least familiar eras of Church history". (p 49)

This is significant on many levels, the first being that many of us modern Christians have this subconscious notion that Church history began whenever our denomination came into being or that the Middle Ages was just nothing but Roman Catholicism's era of rule & thus it is unimportant to study.  While it is true that Papalism grew in influence during the Middle Ages, the Papal model didn't dominate the entire era.  There actually was a pre-Roman Catholic Christianity which thrived & should be considered -- and it isn't just some almost unheard of faction in some secluded region --historic Christianity has continuity.

Mathison will open up the Middle Ages to us & help us understand the Christianity of our forefathers.

 

PAGES 50-61

 

We begin this part of the review of The Shape of Sola Scriptura at a very crucial marker — The Papacy of Roman Catholicism.  So much tension resides around the claim of the Papacy & its impact on modern Christianity, it is important that we fully understand it.  The first issue is the lineage/history of the concept of a Papacy or Pope ruled Church.  Mathison jumps right into the issue with this quote:

“Although Rome traces the origins of the papacy to the Apostle Peter, the historical evidence indicates that there was no monarchical bishop in Rome until sometime between A.D. 140-150.” (pg 51)

Mathison goes on to cite how various other bishops outside of Rome viewed the Roman bishop, which clearly was not with any specific authoritative deference.  Mathison indicates that it was not until the rule of the Roman bishop, Leo I A.D. 440-461 before the position of Roman bishop really took on any resemblance to what we think of as a Pope (pg 51-52)

Further, Mathison relates that as the Eastern/Constantinople part of the Christian/Roman empire began to settle, the Western Roman part was in constant conflict as the various regional kingdoms vied for power.  This unique situation in the West pushed the Roman Bishop into a more important role of mediator — but perhaps it was an artificial role, in that each king/leader sought to use the Church to legitimize themselves.  To claim to have the blessing of God & give to the Roman bishop that sole authority would have been advantageous to the king/leader.  But as well, the Papacy often “played off one party against another” for its own benefit. As the secular powers were weakened more & more, the Papacy was in position to fill the void. (pgs 52-53)

Further, the erosion of communication & community between the East & West Church left the West/Latin Church to fend for itself.  Eventually, the East & West Church would be in open conflict & by the time of Leo IX’s papacy (1049-54), the East & West Church conflict had peaked & marked the supposed 1054 break of East from West — declining further during the Crusades. (pg 55)  It was probably that arrogant claim of the Papacy & its attempt to exert authority it did not rightfully have, that destroyed whatever unity the visible geo-political Church had.

According to Mathison, the first Roman bishop to emphasize the title of “vicar of Christ” was Pope Innocent III (A.D. 1198-1216).  It is difficult to say when the Roman Church ceased to represent Christianity & instead had become a new religion with a Christian veneer, but most historians would say that at least by the time of Pope Innocent III, the Roman Church had taken on, fully its present character.  I know some Christians will claim the Roman Catholic Church was NEVER really Christian. (pg 56)

The more I read about how the concept of the Papacy was developed, both purposely & due to situations surrounding the existence of the Roman Church, I almost feel sad & pity what has happened to create such an anti-Christian environment.  By the time we reach the era of the Reformation (1300-1500s), the Papacy had degenerated into a political machine no less corrupt than many of our modern political machines. Nepotism, buying positions, including bishoprics over entire regions.  It was against this Papacy which the Reformers preached, not against historic Christianity.  Many modern wanna-be Luthers will often rail against historic Christianity & call for full revolt.  The Reformers would not & did not join such sentiments (more on that in later parts). (pg 57)

PAPAL INFALLIBILITY

It is interesting to understand that not all of the Roman Catholic government originally went along with what is now considered a hallmark of Roman Catholicism; Papal Infallibility.  As a matter of fact, Mathison notes that theologians & “canon lawyers” had originally said:

“they did not know of any magisterium conferred on Peter with the power of the keys; they believed in matters of faith a general council was greater than a pope; they did not maintain that papal pronouncements were irreformable - ex see” (pg 58)

This reminds me of the political tension that purposely exists within various government structures; such as between senate & president or parliament & prime minister.

Mathison brings out a very, very interesting aspect of the development of the Papacy when he relates to us the contention of the Franciscan monks who advocated that their concept of “apostolic poverty” was not merely a good way of life or even the best way of life but that is was an essential aspect of the perfect way of life Christ taught His apostles.  But it is really this next quote that is intriguing:

“Many of them claimed St. Francis was the first Christian to correctly understand the gospel since the time of the Apostles and that Franciscans were the only members of the Church leading truly Christian lives” (pg 59)

I am seeing more & more a repeating pattern with cults & heresies — they all claim that the historic Church has somehow failed & that instead they & they alone recover or maintain the only “true” Church.  But this quote is also connected to the concept of Papal Infallibility because it was a member from this order that was one of the first to advocate papal infallibility in an attempt to safe-guard his order from being overturned by theologians & canon lawyers (since popes were traditionally friendly to the Franciscan order). (pg 59)

The concept, though at first seemed to strengthen the position of pope, had to be amended because as put forth, it did not allow future popes to recind pronouncements of former popes. So, against the wishes of the Franciscans, Pope John XXII in 1322 issued a decree redefining Papal Infallibility.  The Franciscans eventually & ironically declared that Pope John XXII was a heretic. (pg 60)

During this ongoing dispute between the Pope & the Franciscans, the concept of The Petrine Keys (based on Matt 16:18-19) was developed.  The irony in it all is that it was NOT the Papacy that was pushing this concept, but instead it was the Franciscans.  The Pope originally considered the idea to be a “pernicious novelty”. (pg 61)

Mathison even states:

“The doctrine of papal infallibility was not declared official Roman Catholic dogma until Vatican I in 1870, but its origins can be traced to this obscure thirteenth-century battle between radical Franciscans and the papacy.” (pg 61)

Again, it cannot be stated more adamantly that whenever a group claims that all of historic Christianity except for themselves has been wrong, that no good thing can come of such a claim.  Whether it be the origin of the concept of Papal Infallibility (which no doubt was eventually embraced by those who originally rejected it, when it suited their purposes), or whether this individualistic & disdaining view of Christianity rears its head in some modern day heresy.  Disconnecting from historic Christianity has ALWAYS led to cultic ends.

 

PAGES 62-72

 

We now go on to perhaps the meat of the issue, SCRIPTURE!  But what do we mean when we say Scripture?  Is it the 66 books considered the Bible by most Protestants or is it something else?  We can't really debate or claim we are merely using Scripture if we don't or can't define what we mean by Scripture.  Mathison tackles this issue.  For the issue among Christians ISN'T who is or isn't quoting Scripture, but what is Scripture and HOW is it to be interpreted.

First, Mathison claims:

"It is often assumed that medieval Christians were naive in their approach to textual issues, but historical evidence does not support this stereotype" (pg 62)

Mathison goes on to cite many medieval scholars that were constantly engaged in making sure the Church had a better grasp of the Scriptures in their original languages (not just Latin).

As early as 397AD there was discussion over the so-called apocryphal books, even though since before that time it was commonly understood that while these books were interesting for historical value they were not canonical (inspired, part of the Bible).  Bible translations continued to contain both the now accepted canonical 66 books & apocryphal books & even some writings by "church fathers". (pg 63)  Though we may now think it is wrong to have in our Bibles anything but the accepted books, there were pros & cons to having historical yet non-canonical books at hand.  Think of them as commentary, linking the reader with the Jewish mind & with the early commentaries of theologians.  However, the drawback would be the possibility that someone would consider the non-canonical books as equal with Scripture...or worse yet, think it is Scripture.

Mathison, quoting Richard Muller points out that --

"The Bible was, before the late twelfth century...the only 'set text' in the medieval schools" (pg 64)

This again is significant in dispelling the stereotype that only we modern Christians can really understand the Bible with all of our retrospect, lexicons, concordances, & insta-verse lookups.  We must understand that for many centuries, the main text book & perhaps the book from which people learned to read was the Bible.  Whereas we modern Christians may spend 2-5 hours a week reading the Bible, many medieval peoples' entire education revolved around reading, studying, interpreting, understanding, & applying the Bible.

In fact, Mathison further notes that what we might consider "creedal" or purely doctrinal education didn't really enter into education until around 1150 with the use of Peter Lombard's  book called, Book of Sentences which was a compilation of doctrinal statements  by "church fathers" & medieval writers.  Before that time, students studied directly from the Bible & almost nothing else.  This seemed to give rise to running, marginal commentaries or "Glosses" which were added to the textbook Bibles of the day. (pgs 64-65)

Another aspect of Bible study that was occurring in the Middle Ages was a shift from primarily "literal" interpretation to "allegorical" interpretation.  This allegorical or figurative/metaphorical shift led to the development of a hermeneutical or method of interpretation that Mathison tells us was called the Quadriga or the "four senses" of the text. (pgs 65-66)

• Historical -- literal sense
• Allegorical -- spiritual/figurative sense
• Tropological -- moral sense
• Anagogical -- heavenly/hopeful sense

There seems to be ebbs & flows in biblical interpretative method as Mathison relates how there was a shift back to a literal or rather literary sense of interpretation beginning about the thirteenth century with the rise of the Aristotelian/Scholastic theologians.

Mathison perhaps best defines the Aristotelian/Scholastic method as represented by this statement:

"The 'spirit' of Scripture is not hidden behind the text; instead it is only expressed in and by the text." (pg 67)

Perhaps we can see in the rise of the Aristotelian/Scholastic method, a sense of decontructionism, of taking apart the text & analyzing its segments, grammatically, contentually, & historically.  But this approach also seemed to relegate the Bible as a mere human literary work like any other form of literature.  We thus must understand the difference between the original "literal" interpretation of the Bible & the Aristotelian/Scholastic method of literary interpretation.

Mathison notes:

"The gradual abandonment of the allegorical method of scriptural interpretation had enormous repercussions for the Church...at the same general time the allegorical method of interpretation begins to decline, the two-source concept of tradition begins its ascendancy." (pgs 67-68)

I cannot emphasize enough that the "literal" reading of Scripture was not new, Christians had always read the Bible at face value, as a book of truth.  What we see throughout history is an ebb & flow of theologians that focus on different aspects of interpretation over others & often to a more liberalizing view.

As Europe began its foray into "Rationalism" & Reason, theologians began to consider how human reason factored into biblical interpretation (perhaps these "theologians" were more philosophers than really theologians).  But before this time, the general historic Christian view was "presuppositional", in that one must first START with (presuppose) that God is true & the Bible is true.  Or as Mathison relates of the theologian Augustine:

"The position early medieval Christians adopted on this question [of human reason] was essentially that of Augustine.  Unaided human reason, according to Augustine, is an insufficient means to reach truth. Instead one must begin with faith [presuppositionalism] as the starting point of rational thinking...For Augustine, the truths of the Christian faith are true because they are revealed by God." (pgs 68-69)

Mathison goes on to detail the variations of Scholasticism & the newer branch called Humanism which originally didn't necessarily mean godlessness, but more a focus on humanity & its ability to interact with its culture & to/with God. (pg 72)

In this segment, we have seen how the approach to the Scriptures has been cyclical in that there has been eras of more & eras of less adherence to the face value reading & interpretation of Scripture.  All of this is leading up to the real definition of the phrase, "Sola Scriptura".

Between pages 72-81, Mathison continues to explain the development of what is termed as “Tradition II” which ultimately is the Roman Catholic concept of tradition dictating meaning whereas so-called “Tradition I” is the historic Christian concept of tradition dictated by Scripture. The common, minimum shared beliefs of historic Christianity. The idea that the “traditions” of historic Christianity are not merely some forced imposition upon individual Christians by the power of an institutional body, but rather that these common beliefs are the combined and united understanding of Christians from across centuries, across cultural lines, across denominational lines. These common beliefs, the real “traditions” of Christianity are the culmination of this unity.

PAGES 83-



In chapter 3, Mathison unpacks the Reformation, or more specifically he addresses the icons; Luther and Calvin. Mathison relates the background of the Reformation, which unlike how some people may think -- as if everything was plodding along and suddenly here comes Luther questioning everything – rather the Reformation had been brewing for over 200 years. Mathison quotes Jaroslav Pelikan:

“In Luther’s day there were several theories of biblical inspiration being taught by various theologians, and the doctrine of the supreme authority, if not the sole authority, of the Scriptures was widely acknowledged by medieval scholastic theologians. The church did not need a Luther to tell it that the Bible was true.” -- pg 84

The point is, the Reformation was NOT a case where the Church had been neglecting the Bible for 1500 years and Luther suddenly came on the scene and pointed this out. Much of the Church, independent of Papalism understood and acknowledged the sole authority of the Scriptures.

Next Mathison gives us the historic background of Luther, his turmoil and grappling with the concept of the “justice of God” and how a “just” God could ever condemn anyone. From this, we begin to see how Luther’s conflict with Papalism grew. With Papalism more or less selling justice, Luther found this offensive. (pgs 86-93)

On pages 94-95 is related that the dispute Luther had with the Roman Catholic Church was more over the powers invested in the Pope and less about the powers invested in the Church. Luther was completely supportive of an authoritative Church. Pelikan states:

“Martin Luther was the first Protestant, and yet he was more Catholic than many of his Roman Catholic opponents” – pg 95

What is meant by this is that Luther acknowledged and advocated the universal Church, the catholicism of Christianity where catholic simply means universal.

Next, Mathison contrasts the typical depiction of Luther as a man who rejected the Church and what Luther meant by “Sola Scriptura”. This is done by seeing how Luther spoke of the supremacy of Scripture, yet also spoke of the Church as being the “mother that begets and bears every Christian through the Word of God” (pg 96). Luther clearly relates that Sola Scriptura is nothing like our modern Solo Scriptura where today we act as if every Christian is born immaculately without the “mother”. Indeed, were perhaps Luther is more “catholic” than the Roman Catholic, perhaps many modern evangelicals , in their quest to throw off their mother are indeed more Roman Catholic then the Roman Catholic in that they see themselves not only “virgin born”, but born without a mother at all.

However, Mathison does quote Luther on the Anabaptists wherein Luther chides the Anabaptists’ for rejecting everything; and in that quote Luther says, “…all Christian good, is to be found in the papacy and from there it descended to us” (pg 96). We have to be careful in our quotation of Luther. Luther was a man in flux for many years. His earlier and latter quotes would appear to be if not actually be outright contradictions. This doesn’t mean Luther had no idea what he was talking about, but rather that he was working out his theology to be more in line with historic, biblical Christianity than with the papacy.