Tradition of the Fathers verses Bible Only
I have been studying the 1st thru 3rd century of
Christianity so I could get a better understanding of what was happening and
being said before the Bible was canonized.
Before I started, I was skeptical about the “tradition of
the Fathers” and its spiritual importance on the Church. My mind has been
changed to a degree that I can now respect some of their efforts during the hard
times they went through. The 1st century Church was rather healthy because it
was led by the original apostles, chosen by Jesus. At least I can respect the
fact that the tradition of the Fathers helped guide the 2nd through 4th century
Church. Also, I blame the tradition of the Fathers for watering down the power
of the Gospel.
For these first three centuries of the Church there was
great opposition. The Christians lived under the threat of persecution unto
death in all sectors of society. The two main forces in culture they faced was heathenism
(the prevailing idol religions and philosophies in the day) and the Jewish
religion. As we know Jesus was brought forth from God’s special election of the
Jewish people. I dare not speak negatively of the Jews, but the Church in their
attempt to complete the Jewish religion, break the yokes of Judaism and present
the Gospel to the world (Gentiles), they faced many adversaries and pushback
from the believing and non-believing Jews. I don’t want to minimize God’s plan
to one day see the Jews embrace Jesus as Messiah.
The first ten to fifty years of the Church was a struggle to
legitimize how God had by design brought the Gospel out of the progression of
the Jewish culture. All Christian theologians will agree, God’s dealings with
Israel was a grand design to introduce Jesus and the Father’s redemptive plan to
the world (nations). But the Jewish traditions where not that easy to break
away from. (Jesus Himself often spoke against His people’s traditions.)
The heathen world was a different story. Their pagan gods
and the philosophies of their sages helped them merge nature with human behavior.
Overall, the heathen world was morally broken and always needed strong
government to keep it from imploding on itself. We can see how the Roman Empire
had to wielded brutal force at times to control populations.
The Church, early on, started to take the Gospel to the
non-Jewish world.; first through Peter and then through Paul.
Let me get back to my subject; tradition of the Fathers
verses the Bible. (I use the Bible here to mean scripture only, or the
canonized books of the Bible)
I know that some of the things I am about to say are my
opinion. I have availed myself of the knowledge of the Christian writers from
the 1st thru 3rd centuries. (My main sources have been
Schaff, Philip. History of the Christian Church & Ecclesiastical History:
The Complete 8 Volume Edition of Schaff's Church History & The Eusebius'
History of the Early Christianity. I am impressed by their scholarly
presentation of information from those times.)
The canonized Bible came into major acceptance in the 4th
and 5th centuries. Before then the scriptures were mainly letters
circulated among the Christian communities. These letters were considered
divinely inspired because the writer had to be one of Jesus’ direct apostles or
having been mentioned by one of them. Also, there was many letters circulating that
did not carry the original apostle inspired standard.
Now where the “tradition of the Fathers” carries weight is
through the ecclesiastical leaders that followed the original apostles. They
were charged with taking the Apostles’ doctrine to the next generation. The
question was, did they agree and stay on point?
The standard, for both the canonized Bible and the tradition of
the Father, must line up with the Apostles’ Doctrine.
Acts 2:42 And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’
doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers.
Matthew 28:20 “Teaching them to observe all things that I
have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”
Romans 16:17 Now I urge you, brethren, note those who
cause divisions and offenses, contrary to the doctrine which you learned, and
avoid them.
Now Apostle Paul did warn of deceptive doctrines in the
following verse.
1 Timothy 4:1 Now the Spirit expressly says that in
latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits
and doctrines of demons,
The teachers that followed the original apostles were called
Apostolic Fathers. After studying these Apostolic Fathers, I have respect for
them but am cautious of some of their deviations from “sound” doctrine. They
were interpreting what had been passed down to them.
Let me insert
a NOTE: I know there is the logos Word and the rhema Word. Logos, the word
written being clear in its meaning and the Rhema, being the Word breathed on or
enhanced by the Holy Spirit. The fact is, there is no way a person or one
church can know the fullness of God. I do believe that the Bible has the full
counsel of God but to know and understand it all is beyond our human ability. God
opens our understanding as He wills (releasing the rhema, deeper meaning). Therefore,
there are going to be differences in interpretation that reflect personal, cultural
and regional needs. I am confident if we are truly seeking with a pure heart,
we will find what God has meant for us to understand and in the end it will not
be a matter of contention. Unity does not have to be uniformity.
But there was contention among these Apostolic Fathers. At
times it got bad. The original apostles did set a good example in Acts 15 at
the Jerusalem Counsel. The Church leaders (Bishops, Deacons, Priest) would at
times pull these counsels together to air out their differences. The counsels
helped to limit the differences by setting forth creeds. They would meet, come to agreements in light
of scriptures (or in light of the traditional teachings of the original
apostles) and then put forth a creed for the believers to follow.
Then there arose the Catholic church, specifically the Roman
Catholic Church. Now the RCC will say they just naturally emerged from Jesus
and the Apostles. As the Gospel penetrated the Roman Empire there was many
streams or regional churches that formed. In those days, everything flowed in
and out of Rome. Therefore, Rome became the central point of Christianity and
the Church leaders there were looked to as having a perceived authority.
I grew up among Protestants. As Protestants, they rarely had
anything good to say about the Catholics. After this study I now have a respect
for how the Catholics helped eliminated the excessive interpretations of
doctrine.
Now here is where I get in trouble with my Catholic
brothers. I feel like they over institutionalized the church. In the
organization of the Church I feel there was a quenching of the Spirit. Then I
look at the Protestant churches and I actually see the same thing. As we
organize and put in place human structure it is easy to corner the spirit; that
is, we pay less attention to the guidance of the Holy Spirit. I have seen healthy church structures where leaders
pay close attention to the Holy Spirit.
Let me finalize.
The conflict over the “Bible only” and “tradition of the
Fathers” is not really a conflict at all. Both must be empowered by the Holy
Spirit or they are dry. I did not mean the Bible is dry. What I mean here is that
the Bible and the traditions of the Fathers must be understood from a divine
perspective.
I am convinced that if my heart is right and not judgmental,
I can be in the mist of any church service, liturgy, traditional or
charismatic, and be blessed. I need to always look for the redemptive element.
I remember once hearing Eric Johnson say the following. He
talked about a liturgical minister that made this statement, “Problems are like
walls, you Charismatics aggressively attack it until it is demolished, where
with us, we rise above it with liturgy.”
My renewed interest in Church history came about because a
Catholic brother encouraged me to read the “Tradition of the Fathers”. I now
have a greater understanding of how they influenced the Church, for good and
for bad. I intend to continue reading on through the other centuries of the
Church and may add future articles to this blog.
Please comment and give feedback
No comments:
Post a Comment