‍  

Dialogue on the Church and 

the Bible

 

Do Protestants pit Scripture and Church against each other?

‍ 

Gary Hoge

‍ 

 

 

Both you and Mark Shea have accused me of opposing the Bible and the Church, but in reality, it would seem to be you folks who do this. Of course, you don’t see it that way, so let me try to explain why I say that.

 

All Christians agree that Scripture is God’s Word – e.g., words spoken by God through men moved by the Holy Spirit. So Scripture is direct communication with man by means of God’s own words.

 

Not to be too nitpicky, but when God speaks to you from a flaming bush, that is “direct communication.” When you read what other men say God said, that is called “indirect communication.” However, since we agree that the men who wrote Scripture wrote only what God wanted them to write, I suppose it’s a distinction without a difference.

 

On the contrary, the Bible is not the record of “what other men say God said” – it IS God speaking. That is its own claim for itself, and apart from this claim, you have no reason whatsoever to even begin to think that the Bible is God’s Word.

 

What kind of logic is that? The Koran and the Book of Mormon claim to be the Word of God, too. So there’d better be some reason, other than the mere claim, to believe that the Bible really is the Word of God. In fact, if I have “no reason whatsoever” to think that that the biblical books are inspired “apart from this claim,” then I’m in trouble, because most of the biblical books never even make the claim. In the New Testament, only one of the twenty-seven books (i.e., Revelation) makes any claim to be God’s word. But even though most of these books never claim to be the Word of God, I still know that they are, because . . .

 

“The Church” says it is, but what is “the Church” that anyone should listen to her?

 

“If he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.” (Matt. 18:17). That’s Jesus speaking. I would listen to him, if I were you.

 

The Bride of Christ, you say? Where did you get that idea? From Scripture? And why should you believe what Scripture says? Because it is God speaking, period.

 

So Scripture and the Church bear witness to each other. Now tell me something I don’t know. :-)

 

The words of the Church, however, if they may be said to be communication from God, are indirect communication via second-hand explanations of God’s words by men who are not inspired, but (on the Catholic view) only negatively protected by a charism of infallibility.

 

Protestants say there is no infallible charism in the Church, and therefore, that the relationship between the Bible and the Church is exactly what the marriage analogy in Ephesians 5 says: the husband (Christ) oversees the sanctification of His wife (the Church) by the means of His Word. The authority flows down from the Word to the Church and her “Tradition,” not across in some kind of primum inter pares relationship. Just as the wife isn’t equal to the husband in terms of authority, so the Church and her Tradition are not equal to Scripture in authority.

 

The biblical analogy is between Christ and the Church, not the Bible and the Church. It’s interesting that you once again make Christ and Scripture just about interchangeable. In fact, this, plus your earlier comments, has me concerned. It almost sounds as if you have a quasi-modalist view of Christ: sometimes he appears as the man “Jesus,” other times as the book called “Scripture.” Different forms, same essence.

 

Nope. No modalism in my thinking. Christ is God and Scripture is His Word. Two different entities there, not one masquerading under different guises at different times.

 

Good. I take it then, that you are ready to agree that Scripture is a created thing? I hope so, because there are really only two things in the universe:

 

1) God

 

2) stuff God made.

 

If Scripture is uncreated, then it is God, and if you think that, then you really are a “bibliolater.”

 

Of course the Scriptural analogy in Ephesians 5 is between Christ and the Church, but just how do you think that Christ communicates with His Church?

 

“It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to prepare God’s people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.” (Eph 4:11-13)

 

Unless you are claiming theopneustos inspiration for the infallible statements of the Church (which you can’t do without contradicting your own theology), then the only infallible material source of God’s (Christ’s) words is in Scripture (“Tradition” is subordinate, since it is merely the oral proclamation of what is in Scripture). So Christ’s authority is transmitted to the Church through Scripture. She has no existence, no charter, and no authority otherwise.

 

One wonders, then, how she was able to exist, organize, evangelize, and grow for many years before the first word of the New Testament was written.

 

Christ’s Body is NOT Christ’s Word. The authority does not come from the Body, but from the Word.

 

I don’t understand why you continually oppose Christ’s Body to His Word. Of course His Word is authoritative. But His Word tells me to obey His Church, which is His Body.

 

As I see it, all authority comes from Christ. The Bible has authority because it contains His words; the Church has authority because it is His Body, animated by His Spirit. This is incarnational theology, Tim. God works through His creation, not against it. The Church and the Bible were both God’s idea, and he is the author of both. They are not in competition, but function quite harmoniously.

 

“Incarnational theology” has nothing to do with the claim that there are “three legs” of authority which, unless the edifice they support is lopsided, implies that all three legs are equal in length (authority). Certainly the classical Protestant idea is that Scripture and Church “are not in competition, but function quite harmoniously”. The point of my post was that the Catholic view “opposes” them by making the Church the source of the authority rather than the Word itself.

 

No, Christ is the source of authority. He wrote the Bible; he created the Church. They both derive their authority from him, and therefore, I obey them both.

 

Tradition is simply the teaching of Christ as taught by the apostles and lived by the Church. That part of the Tradition that the apostles committed to writing is called “Scripture” (and it is irrelevant to this discussion whether Scripture and Tradition have the same content). Arguing about which has more authority, Scripture or Tradition, is like arguing about whether Paul’s teachings had more authority when he stated them in person, or when he wrote them down. (“Sorry, Paul, but your words are just the words of man. But, if you put them in writing, then we’ll venerate them as the Word of God.”)

 

Ah, here’s that ever handy vacillation between the material sufficiency view and the partim-partim view. Indeed, the above paragraph is kind of a mutant hodgepodge of both views, as far as I can tell. By ignoring the issue of the content of Tradition, you leave room for some doctrines to have been transmitted that way instead of in Scripture alone, but by not explicitly stating that, you allow yourself room to retreat should someone point out that some of Rome’s doctrines do not appear in Scripture. Very handy, indeed. But quite inconsistent.

 

I specifically said that I thought this was irrelevant to the issue at hand. To quote myself: “it is irrelevant to this discussion whether Scripture and Tradition have the same content.” Show me why this is revelant to this discussion, and I’ll address it.

 

I tire of hearing about Paul’s “oral traditions”, since it is plain from the texts adduced to support their existence that these were things spoken directly by Paul to the Thessalonians, not things spoken to you and me today by alleged “apostolic successors”. There’s a good bit of context missing in such appeals, I’m afraid.

 

Perhaps you’ve misunderstood the nature of the appeals. The point is that the standard of orthodoxy in apostolic Christianity was the teaching of the apostles, whether they wrote it down or not. We also know that the apostles commanded their disciples to pass on their teachings to reliable men who would also be able to pass it on to others (2 Tim. 2:2). It remains for Protestants to prove (not just assume) that at some point this oral propagation of the Gospel was supposed to give way to sola Scriptura such that only the stuff the apostles wrote down is of any lasting authority. I return, again, to the example of infant baptism. The early Christian communities knew that they were supposed to baptize infants, and they did so. It doesn’t matter that this was not explicitly commanded in Scripture, it was explicitly commanded by the apostles, and the Church has never been in any doubt that infants are to be baptized, Scripture or no Scripture.

 

And since the whole concept of “Apostolic Tradition” comes from the Fathers, we have to look at the Fathers to tell us what they meant by the term. And what they meant, according to their own writings, was that all DOCTRINE is transmitted only in Scripture (material sufficiency),

 

Uh, Tim, you may not have noticed this, but most of what the Fathers wrote was to teach doctrine. What do you think books like Cyril of Jerusalem’s Catechetical Lectures were all about? It would be kind of silly for the Fathers to claim that all doctrine is transmitted only in Scripture while they were busily transmitting it in their own writings, don’t you think? The truth is, “material sufficiency” means simply that all doctrine can be found in Scripture, however germinally, but that the same doctrine is also found in Tradition in the life, prayers, and practice of the Church.

 

Protestants see the Church as God’s ordained means of proclaiming His revealed truth to the world, you folks see the Church as being on the same level as that revealed truth (the Church being one of the three legs of authority without which the truth can’t be rightly understood). For, as Dei Verbum 2.10 so eloquently puts it:

 

It is clear, therefore, that sacred tradition, sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God’s most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others, and that all together and each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation of souls. (emphasis added).

 

On the contrary, Scripture isn’t one “leg” on a tri-leg stool; it isn’t “verified” by Tradition and Church. Rather, Scripture stands on its own as the Word of the God who made all people and holds them all accountable for what He says they know to be true beyond any shadow of a doubt. Tradition and Church merely witness to the truth that they themselves recognize – the voice of the True Shepherd speaking in Scripture.

 

If Scripture “stands on its own” and is self-evident here at the dawn of the twenty-first century, that must also have been true at the dawn of the fourth century. Tell me then, in the year 300, what was the universal, self-authenticating canon of Scripture that all Christians recognized “beyond any shadow of a doubt” as being obviously “the voice of the True Shepherd”?

 

This is the fallacy known as complex question. You ask me a question that is loaded such that no matter what answer I give, you will say I am wrong. But I don’t have to accept your question as stated. Why?

 

Because you are confusing the issue of the extent of the canon with the nature of Scripture. These issues are related, but not identical.

 

I’m not confusing anything, Tim, I’m merely holding you to your own words. You claim that Scripture is self-authenticating, and the people just “know” in their spirit “beyond any shadow of doubt” when they hear the voice of their Shepherd. Well, that sounds lovely, but if it’s true, why was there any confusion in the early Church over the canon of Scripture? Why did many of these people not recognize the voice of their Shepherd in books like Hebrews and Revelation, or 2 Peter? And why did they mistakenly think they heard the voice of their Shepherd in books like the Didache and the Shepherd of Hermas?

 

You know that a bare handful of books were ever disputed, and even then, they weren’t universally disputed (else they never would have made it into the canon at all). It doesn’t matter that in the year 300 congregation X didn’t “know for sure” that Revelation was Scripture while congregation Y did know that for sure.

 

It doesn’t matter to me, but it sure blows your “self-authentication” theories out of the water.

 

The salient point is that whatever books they recognized as being Scripture were taken as the very words of God, and therefore, the final authority for faith and practice.

 

Non-sequitur, Tim. We weren’t discussing whether they considered these books as the very words of God, we were discussing whether the actual Scriptures are self-authenticating, such that the people recognized “beyond any shadow of doubt” the voice of their Shepherd when they heard it. Obviously, many of them didn’t.

 

“Scripture” was self-authenticating to the congregations that received it.

 

Then why did some congregations reject genuine Scripture like Revelation and Hebrews? And why did they accept spurious books? Your theories sound nice, but they just don’t mesh with reality.

 

If this is not the case, you have to say that the books were received solely because the Church “said so”, and that takes us back to the un-Christian idea that God’s words have to be (and even can be!!!!) “proven” to be His words by mere creatures of His. This is not how the patriarchs, prophets, Apostles, and Fathers viewed the matter.

 

Really? Let’s hear what they themselves said:

 

“These [Philemon, Titus, 1 Timothy, and 2 Timothy] were written in personal affection, but they have been regarded as holy in honor by the universal assembly, for the ordering of discipline in the assembly.” (Muratorian Canon).

 

“These are the books which the Fathers have comprised within the Canon, and from which they would have us deduce the proofs of our faith.” (Rufinus, A Commentary on the Apostle’s Creed, 37, c. 407).

 

“Forasmuch as some have taken in hand to reduce into order for themselves the books termed apocryphal, and to mix them up with the divinely inspired Scripture, concerning which we have been fully persuaded, as they who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word, delivered to the fathers; it seemed good to me also, having been urged thereto by true brethren, and having learned from the beginning, to set before you the books included in the Canon, and handed down, and accredited as Divine; to the end that any one who has fallen into error may condemn those who have led him astray; and that he who has continued stedfast in purity may again rejoice, having these things brought to his remembrance.” (Athanasius, Festal Letter 39, 3).

 

“Study earnestly these only which we read openly in the Church. Far wiser and more pious than thyself were the Apostles, and the bishops of old time, the presidents of the Church who handed down these books. Being therefore a child of the Church, trench thou not upon its statutes.” (Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, IV, 35).

 

“These are the things which we have received from our fathers to be read in the church.” (Council of Carthage, African Code, Canon 24 (A.D. 419), in NPNF2, XIV:453-454).

 

“Now, in regard to the canonical Scriptures, he must follow the judgment of the greater number of catholic churches; and among these, of course, a high place must be given to such as have been thought worthy to be the seat of an apostle and to receive epistles. Accordingly, among the canonical Scriptures he will judge according to the following standard: to prefer those that are received by all the catholic churches to those which some do not receive. Among those, again, which are not received by all, he will prefer such as have the sanction of the greater number and those of greater authority, to such as are held by the smaller number and those of less authority. If, however, he shall find that some books are held by the greater number of churches, and others by the churches of greater authority (though this is not a very likely thing to happen), I think that in such a case the authority on the two sides is to be looked upon as equal.” (Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, 2:8, 12 (A.D. 426), in NPNF1, II: 538-539).

 

It certainly doesn’t sound as if these people thought the Scriptures were “self-authenticating,” does it?

 

Protestants see the Church as being a supplementary aid to understanding (creeds and catechisms help because they are convenient systematizations of the Bible, which is not a systematic theology textbook); you see her as being epistemologically necessary for understanding.

 

No, we see her as being practically necessary for understanding. You can theorize all you want about how clear the Bible is, and how people ought to be able to understand it without the Church, but the fact is, they don’t.

 

Says you.

 

Actually, says you: “It’s no wonder that we often misunderstand the Bible.” (Timothy G. Enloe, “Re: My premise is that ‘clear’ means ‘clear’,” posted on June 20, 2000). I’m just agreeing with you, and I’m pointing out that your theories look great on paper, but they don’t work with real people.

 

Looking around you, you can easily see that Christian unity is directly proportional to the extent to which believers submit to the doctrinal judgments of their church, and to the extent that they rely on creeds and confessions to define their faith. As a practical matter, it has simply proved to be impossible to maintain Christian unity without an authoritative interpreter of Scripture. We believe that this is by design. God didn’t create a Church just for the fun of it; he intended to teach through it, which is why he called it, “The pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15).

 

You think I dispute any of this? What I dispute is that God’s act of creating and appointing a visible authority structure to keep harmony in a Body full of sinners has anything whatever to do with the horrible notion that God’s Words are so muddled as to require “infallible interpretation” by that visible authority structure.

 

Since you acknowledge that we “often misunderstand the Bible,” I would think that the need for an infallible interpreter would be obvious, unless you think that widespread misunderstanding of Scripture, and the resultant disunity and proliferation of sects is what God had in mind.

 

For, as many of you argue, it is impossible to establish even the central doctrine of the Trinity from Scripture alone since those nasty heretics quote Scripture too. (Never mind that those nasty heretics also claim to be “the Catholic Church” – that’s not important since it’s somehow perfectly clear who is “really” the Church.)

 

It’s not “impossible” to establish the Trinity from Scripture, nor is it impossible to assert that the Trinity is the best explanation of the Scriptural data. But that is a far cry from saying that Trinitarianism is the “plain and very obvious” teaching of Scripture. If you gave a Bible to 100 brand-new Christians who had no prior knowledge of Christianity, and asked them what the Bible teaches is the nature of God, it’s possible that some of them would correctly articulate the doctrine of the Trinity, but I suspect that many would not. And since God wants everyone to believe the same things about him, he did more than just hand us a book and say, “Here, read this.” He also created a church, and said, “If he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector” (Matt. 18:17).

 

It is this claim that the Church and her Tradition are epistemologically necessary for understanding Scripture that causes me to say it is Catholics, not Protestants, who oppose Scripture and Church. For in the final analysis, if Scripture cannot be rightly understood apart from Tradition and the Church, and it is the Church’s word as to what constitutes Tradition and correct interpretation, then it is plain that all denials notwithstanding, the Church is considered to be a higher authority than the Scriptures themselves.

 

Then I guess because you interpret the Scriptures when you read them, and are a Presbyterian only because you personally agree with their interpretation of the Scriptures, then you must be a higher authority than the Scriptures themselves. But tell me, when God told Moses to “appoint judges and officials for each of your tribes in every town the LORD your God is giving you” (Deut. 16:18), were these judges a higher authority than the Law they were administering?

 

You say, “if Scripture cannot be rightly understood apart from Tradition and Church . . .” well, Scripture hasn’t been rightly understood apart from Tradition and Church. That is the historical reality, and all of your theorizing to the contrary is just so much wishful thinking.

 

No, it isn’t. The Fathers I’ve surveyed (Athanasius, Augustine, Chrysostom) are one in proclaiming that the orthodox understanding of Scripture arises naturally from the text itself, and that all heretics who quote Scripture in defense of their doctrines show by so doing that they are wresting the plain meaning of the text to their own destruction. The Fathers didn’t grant the heretics’ premises that Scripture could be made to support their blasphemies, so why do you?

 

You’re missing my point. I’m merely observing that apart from Tradition and Church, Scripture has been widely misunderstood. You’ve said so yourself on numerous occasions when critiquing the Fundamentalists, so I don’t know why you object to it now.

 

Regarding the Fathers, they always insisted that Scripture must be read in the context of Church and Tradition, as you’ll see in a moment.

 

The words of uninspired men are elevated above the inspired Words of God precisely because the former give “the correct meaning” of the latter – as if God needs an interpreter!

 

This doctrine is repugnant and contrary to the united testimony of fifteen centuries of Christian thought. Ironic that folks who claim that much of the impetus of their conversion came from the writings of the Fathers should depart from the Fathers in so crucial an area as this.

 

But here some one perhaps will ask, Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient, what need is there to join with it the authority of the Church’s interpretation? For this reason, – because, owing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another; so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters. For Novatian expounds it one way, Sabellius another, Donatus another, Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, another, Photinus, Apollinaris, Priscillian, another, Iovinian, Pelagius, Celestius, another, lastly, Nestorius another. Therefore, it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies of such various error, that the rule for the right understanding of the prophets and apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard of Ecclesiastical and Catholic interpretation. (Vincent of Lerins, Commonitory, 2:5, A.D. 434).

 

Need I say more?

 

Uh, yes, you do need to say more. A lot more, in fact. For one thing, you need to explain why you assume that Vincent’s “standard of Ecclesiastical and Catholic interpretation” was something that was imposed on the text (and can it be doubted that you think thus?) rather than arising from the text itself.

 

Did you even read what Vincent wrote? His whole point was that the text itself is deep and complex, “so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters.” That’s why it must be read in accordance with Ecclesiastical Tradition in order to ensure proper interpretation.

 

Then you should try to harmonize Vincent’s reasoning above with this from Athanasius:

 

Nor does Scripture afford them any pretext; for it has been often shown, and it shall be shown now that their doctrine is alien to the divine oracles. – Discourse 1 Against the Arians, 3.10

 

Athanasius would have thought that some of your doctrines were alien to the divine oracles, too. That’s because he, like the other Fathers, insisted that Scripture must be read in light of Tradition. Obviously, Athanasius believed that Scripture, rightly interpreted, was sufficient to destroy all heresy. I agree, otherwise I wouldn’t be doing apologetics. But Athanasius also thought that the Council of Nicea was sufficient to destroy all heresy, and for him, “Scripture rightly interpreted” meant “Scripture interpreted as the Fathers have taught it”:

 

The confession arrived at Nicea was, we say more, sufficient and enough by itself for the subversion of all irreligious heresy and for the security and furtherance of the doctrine of the Church. (Ad Afros 1).

 

[T]he very tradition, teaching, and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning was preached by the apostles and preserved by the Fathers. On this the Church was founded; and if anyone departs from this, he neither is nor any longer ought to be called a Christian. (Ad Serapion 1:28).

 

Afterward, because there were men who used his words, but chose to hear them as suited their lusts . . . he immediately proceeded to say, ‘And as I have delivered to you traditions, hold them fast.’ . . . But after him and with him are all inventors of unlawful heresies, who indeed refer to the Scriptures, but do not hold such opinions as the saints have handed down, and receiving them as the traditions of men, err, because they do not rightly know them nor their power. (NPNF, Easter Letter II, 4:511).

 

So much for Athanasius. The other fathers are much the same, so I won’t waste my time contextualizing the many other patristic citations you provided.