Scripture and the Authority of Church Traditions

                                                             

                                                                      Introduction: 

It is frequent for many Fundamentalist ''Christians'' in today's society to say that nothing should be used but the Bible. Many of these heretics have completely rejected church history and have painted everything before the Protestant Reformation (or at least after the fourth century) as being ''The Dark Ages.'' To this religious group, the early Protestants were far too Catholic but the Baptists are the perfected denomination of church history. 

Concerning their claim that nothing should be used but the Bible, I wish to refute that Biblically and historically in this post (as well as show their own hypocrisy concerning the matter). I will demonstrate Biblical evidence for the church has always held to traditions outside of the New Testament. Indeed, I wish to show that the ''Bible only'' is actually not found in scripture at all. 

It should be noted that Sola Scriptura is quite different from ''Bible only.'' Luther, for example, embraced infant baptism (I've previously defended infant baptism according to scripture and church history ins even posts)., crossing oneself, and other practices that are not explicitly mentioned in scripture (though he did believe that infant baptism is a Biblical concept). Sola Scriptura also does not deny the importance of other arguments being used in a theological debate (such as Christian philosophy or knowledge of church councils). It simply asserts that scripture is the only source guaranteed with infallibility. This contrasts with the Fundamentalist Bible-only view, which believes that nothing the church has historically practiced matters at all. 

As someone who advocates Prima Scriptura, I believe that the Anglican Richard Hooker held closer to Luther's original thought on the authority of scripture and tradition than did the English Puritans. 

Throughout this post, I will be appealing to church history. However, I recognize that a millennium of Christian history means nothing to many Fundamentalists. Still, I will share information from it to expose the new traditions that Fundamentalists hold to. 

Biblically, I wish to refute the Bible-only belief. I believe that my thoughts on this matter are largely in agreement with those of the early English Reformation. 

Bear patience with my post. First, I will make claims that will offend many who hold to doctrines that originated within the last five hundred years. Last, I will use scripture to back up my claims. The reason why scripture will be listed last is that I wish the reader to have clarity with my arguments before I proceed to refute the claims of Fundamentalist Christians. 

                                       1. Some Reasons that Church History Matters

The history of the church is typically divided into four eras: Ancient, Medieval, Reformation, and Modern. One of the purposes of historical theology is to trace different doctrines (whether those doctrines be Biblical or heretical) throughout history by seeing where they came from and who was the first to teach them. For example, while some people may say that Luther's understanding of Sola fide is found in the New Testament, I would argue against this position. Despite the fact that I agree with Luther that man is justified by God through faith alone, many of the theological terms and explanations that Luther used for justification such as ''forensic justification'' are nowhere found in the New Testament. I don't think that this means Luther was theologically wrong, however. It simply means that we have to study the history of the church to come up with Luther's direct thoughts on the matter. For instance, by studying the history of justification, we see that Sola fide was taught by Saint Bernard of Clairvaux in the twelfth century, long before Luther. 

Another example of historical theology would be us looking at the development of the Trinity and Christology. While I believe that many of the concepts of the Trinity are Biblical in the Ancient Creeds, many of the terms used for God are not mentioned there at all. Yet, orthodox Christians read these creeds because they do not conflict with scripture and have been a faithful representation of church teaching for two thousand years. 

By studying the history of the church, it lets us see doctrines that were nor taught in the first century and why for the good or the bad they were later thoughts. But if someone never studies the history of the church then they will simply accept the doctrines of their given church and never question them in light of the scriptures or church history. 

                                                     2. Definition of Heresy

Before I proceed with my arguments in favor of Prima Scriptura, this is probably where I'm going to be the most controversial. Many religious groups have their own definitions of heresy (and have often changed the meaning throughout church history). Let me define my own view of heresy here, which I believe is the historical one as well. In fact, I will define it twofold: 

1. Heresy is any teaching that conflicts with scripture. It must promote an idea or practice that it is inconsistent with Biblical teaching. Simply not being mentioned in scripture, however, does not make it anti-Biblical.  

2. Heresy is any acceptance of a doctrine or church practice that conflicts with the historical teachings of the universal church, with the common thought of Christendom. By this, I do not mean that if 97 percent of Christians tomorrow reject the Trinity that the Trinity is no longer orthodox. What I mean, rather, is once the teaching of the church has become widely known and accepted (as it already has in centuries past) then to change from traditional teaching is heresy itself. Luther did not change teaching on justification from Catholic teaching as there had never been an ecumenical council before hi that taught a particular view on the topic. While many Roman Catholics would point to Trent as evidence that there is now an official teaching on justification, the Council of Trent did not receive recognition from both east and west. In general, this is one of several reasons (besides Trent conflicting with scripture) that many traditional Protestants disregard it as a traditional council. Conflicting with the Roman Church is not necessarily heretical but teaching anything contrary to the historical universal practices of both western and eastern Christianity is itself a heresy. More of that, now. 

                                                 3. Common Examples of Heresy

With my previous definition of heresy explained, I will now argue that the following are some examples of heresy: 

1. Memoralism. Not only do I believe that a memorial view of the Lord's Table is contrary to scripture (1 Corinthians 11), but it is simply devoid from the history of the church. It has never been accepted on a massive scale across Christendom and it only became a more popular view in recent years. 

2. Denying the importance of the sacraments for grace. I could write an entire post on this. However, let me briefly say that absolutely no one in early Christianity believed that baptism is merely a symbol of our walk with Christ. Christendom has universally understood the importance of baptism as connected to our salvation until again, in more recent years. Now, it is a popular belief among many evangelicals that baptism is merely a symbol---which, as I have discussed in previous posts, I believe completely contradicts scriptural teachings. 

3. Rejection of Infant Baptism. Even Tertullian of Carthage, who did not prefer infant baptism, never questioned its validity. Within a few centuries, infant baptism was universally practiced by Christendom. Infant baptism is not simply a good choice that a parent should make for their child. By denying a child infant baptism, a child is being denied the grace of God which accompanies water baptism. 

4. An acceptance of papal infallibility. Brian Tierney, an important modern medievalist, is now widely respected by many historians for his claim that papal infallibility originated in the fourteenth century. The fact that papal infallibility conflicts with Peter's role as an elder (1 Peter 2)  and is a doctrine which has not only not been embraced in scripture, but never embraced by an ecumenical council that received acceptance among Christians of east and west, is further proof of it being heretical. Indeed, many past Roman Catholics did not accept this doctrine! 

                                         4. Jewish Traditions vs. Church Traditions

Before I back up my claims with scripture, let us recite one of the common objections that fundamentalist makes against the orthodox Christian faith: ''Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for holding onto their traditions...'' Since this is such a common argument made by them against the traditions of Catholic Christianity, it is important that I rebuke it within this post. 

First, Jewish traditions are not church traditions. The laws which the Pharisees attempted to bind on Christ such as keeping the Sabbath, were done away with by the New Covenant. Secondly, scripture condemns the Jewish traditions such as the attempts of the Judaizers (Acts 15). Scripture, however, nowhere condemns the church practicing traditions of its own outside of the New Testament. In fact, it encourages it. 

In 2 Thessalonians 2: 15, Paul encourages the church of Thessalonica to hold fast to the traditions of the apostles. He distinguishes the traditions in his letter from those spoken to them in word. indeed, Paul never taught that the only valid traditions are those found in the New Testament. This is simply an assumption about the Bible that many Fundamentalists make. 

Now, some Fubdamelistys may attempt to make their own counter-argument about 1 Thessalonians 2: 15. They would probably argue that Paul only spoke the same things to the church in word as he wrote down. However, for this to be true, serious problems would arise. It would mean, for example, that the Fundamentalists would have to concede that the church accepted Paul on his own infallible authority without proof of him writing a letter inspired by God. However, although they try to get around this passage, I believe that their attempts are futile. Paul upheld the importance of traditions outside of scripture. 

Many Fundamentalists Baptist are use to putting people on the defensive. They often question people by asking,'' Where is that practice in the Bible?'' without ever showing any scriptural support that all church traditions must be in the Bible. Their argument, thus, starts off with an assumption of what is scriptural, then tey proceed by judging anyone who practices orthodox actions (such as crossing oneself) even though using the sign of the cross is not mentioned in the New Testament. 

Before I proceed with my next argument against the Fundamelists, let me summarize this one. The New Testament condemned the binding of old covenant traditions being still relevant to Christians. Nowhere, however, did the New Testament ever claim that all traditions must be found in scripture alone. In fact, Paul spoke of the church receiving traditions outside of his letter.

                                         5 . Where Did the Bible come from? 

The Bible did not fall out of Heaven. This is a point that many fundamentalists simply get wrong. The history of its canon is far more complicated. In the second century, Melito of Cypurs was one of the first to list the same number of books in the Biblical canon as most Protestants currently embrace (except for the fact that Melito rejected Esther). The fourth-century Council of Carthage agreed on the same canon of scripture that Roman Catholics accept. The canon of Protestants and Eastern Orthodox came even later. Neither Jews nor Christians have totally ever agreed on the canon of the Old Testament (which is one reason why I see it as a non-dogmatic issue). Those who are super dogmatic about the Old Testament only being thirty-nine books are making a claim that has never been accepted by a church council. 

All of this is a reminder that those who scream Bible-only or sometimes, even Sola Scriptura, have no idea what they are talking about. Without the Jews, there would be no Old Testament canon, and without the church, there would be no canon for the New Testament. Saying that the Bible's composition was inspired by God is true, saying that His providence brought about its canon is true, but saying that it was not the Jewish Priests and church bishops that complied it is a direct denial of history. It is an example of people living in a fantasy by avoiding history so that they can hold onto their precious doctrines. 

Oftentimes, it is common for Fundamentalists to say that church traditions are built on man rather than on Christ. However, if these traditions be from the historical teachings of the church (as I will soon talk more about) then they are not traditions of men but traditions of Christ's true church. Those who reject church traditions but hold onto later church traditions build their faith on man rather than Christ. Only the historical view can be one of the apostles and represent the holy Catholic faith that the gates of hell will not prevail against (Matthew 16). 

Understanding where the Biblical canon comes from requires knowledge of both Jewish and Christian history. Likewise, whatever our view of the canon of scripture be, the canon that we accept is based on some sort of tradition about it that we have received as scripture never tells us in any of the Biblical books what books should be and should not be in scripture. 

Indeed, the study of church history and historical theology is just as important as the study of scripture. Without knowledge of the past, no Christian would know what books are part of the Biblical canon and what books are not (unless they simply base their view off of what someone else said, in which case, they are making another person the final authority rather than the church at large). All that we know of the Biblical canon is not from simply from the study of scripture, but also, of the church's history. Since the church gave us the New Testament canon it makes sense that we also study the history of the church as we study the written word. No church council is promised the same authority as scripture, but knowing the history of the church is no ways inferior to the study of the Bible itself. 

Those who say the study of church history is inferior to the study of scripture show either their ignorance of the history of the Biblical canon's formation or their refusal to appreciate the history of the Catholic Church (by Catholic, I mean that in a historic sense) is the one that gave them the New Testament. 

Even Martin Luther believed that the Catholic Church gave us the Bible (though, I would specify the New Testament as the Hebrews gave the Catholic Church the Old Testament.)

For example, if a person opens the King James Bible and says there are 66 books, this is based on their assumption that the Church of England got the canon right (a point, which I'm not arguing against historically). Rather, I am simply demonstrating here, that the Bible does do not tell us within any of its passages what books are canonical and which are not. We know what is canonical only by studying the history of the church.

Furthermore, the King James Bible was not only not the first Bible, but not even the first English Bible. Many English Bibles before the Reformation included books not currently in the Protestant canon (again, I'm not arguing theologically against the Protestant canon, simply demonstrating that we must know the history of the church to understand the canon). 

Denying the importance of church history and neglecting the study of the church councils (especially the first seven which are accepted by both east and west) allows an individual to make themself their own authority. What church history teaches us, is what has been commonly received as true doctrine throughout the church's history and to separate from her fold (either in schism or in heresy) is a great danger. 

Those who place the study of church history on par with the study of scripture will likely be accessed of idolatry. But who here is actually guilty of idolatry? It is the fundamentalist who makes themselves the final authority with no consent from the church's past. It is they who believe that they are the rule-makers of orthodoxy and Biblical Christianity. To them, much like the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses, there was no truth for centuries until their existence. Their arrogance blinds them from truth.

I would also add that for the fundamentalists who say equating the study of church history with scripture is giving a high view of man and a low view of God that first, that is they who have both a low view of God and his church, the Bride of Christ. They have a low view of the Bride of Christ by neglecting the study of her history and ignoring her 2,000-year presence after the composition of the New Testament. Second, they have a low view of God for by believing that the church fell into heresy during the early Middle Ages or before, they would have to believe that Jesus meant not what He said in Matthew 16 that he promised that the gates of hell will not prevail against His Church (for Restorationism to be true, heresy would have had to prevail against the church until the rise of the Refsorationists and Fundamentalists). Third, they have a low view of God by replacing the historic interpretation of His true church with their false modern interpretation of it. In replacement of the ancient and medieval fathers, they take interpretations of scripture from the thoughts of modern baptists or Restorationists. Fourth, their heresy is a damnable one and makes their theology a little better than that of the Jehovah's Witness or the Mormons. Fifth, for a Fundamentalist to be consistent that all they use is the Bible, they would have to rid themselves of all Bible commentaries and sermons from themselves or their companions. They would also have to approach scripture with no prejudice as to its teachings, a command that they expect everyone else to live up to, but not themselves. Sixth, the fundamentalists need to be reminded that their own Bibles are translations made by man and not the inerrant original Word of God. If they admit this, they also need to see how they rely on others' interpretations of the Bible (as every translation is an interpretation) and that the most accurate way for anyone to know scripture is by reading it in its original language. Finally, they must be rebuked for their heresies and be reminded that it was the Catholic Church (Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican, etc.)  that gave them the Bible and its translations. The King James Version, for instance, (as mentioned in its preface) is a product of the Church of England. It was compiled by both Anglicans and Puritans (the same groups that they typically consider unbelievers). For them to be consistent, they would have to reject the KJV as they see it as having been written by the same people who they consider to be heretics. Indeed, many of them preach constantly that Calvinists and liturgical Christians are heretics but use a Bible written by such groups. 

Furthermore, the Bible is a library rather than a single book. Most fundamentalists tend to ignore this fact. It did not fall out of Heaven. Not only were multiple books of the Bible written over many centuries (as they would agree) but it also took centuries for the church to realize and determine what books God had inspired and which books were fraudulent. Likewise, Monks preserved various manuscripts of the Bible for much of the Medieval period. Even church clergy for centuries often did not have the entire Bible to access. 

The idea that the Bible is one book fits with the fundamentalist mentality that it is not a product of the church. Anyone who studies church history, however, will understand that the history of the Bible's formation into its present form was far more complicated than many realize. 

Ironically, many of the same arguments that Fundamealst Baptists use against the Catholic Church and its history are the same as the ones proposed by the ultra-left. To both of these groups, Jesus and His apostles may have been fine, but in time, the church was an evil institution. In this way, like in many other ways not covered in this article, there is nothing conservative about fundamentalism. Fundamentalism is not returning to the thought of Christ or the early Christians. It has created various chaotic and cultish groups that see their isolated churches as expressions of true Christianity. 

Considering the great heresies of Fundamentalist Baptists or any fringe modern liberal groups that hold similar ideas, I argue that no Christian should evangelize nor disciple with such heretics. If anything, the Fundamentalists need to be converted to true Christianity as many of them are living with a complete false sense of salvation. 

                                              6. The Hypocrisy of the Fundamentalists 

The Fundamentalists Christians partake in many traditions outside the New Testament including the piano that they often play during church worship. While David played the lyre (1 Samuel 16: 23), the use of the piano was as unknown to the New Testament as is the rosary that Roman Catholics use for praying. Likewise, nothing in scripture mentions wedding rings (a practice, which Puritans consistently rejected). Additionally, many o the hymns that Fundamentalists today sing did not exist at the time of the first century. 

In short, most things that Fundamentalists believe are not in the Bible. While the same is true about many Roman Catholic Christians, for instance, the latter does not claim that all they believe is in scripture. 

                                            7. The Authority of Church Traditions

In Luke 10: 16, Jesus assured His apostles that those who reject them, reject Him. Since the rejection of the apostles' teachings would also include rejecting established church traditions outside of scripture (1 Thessalonians 2), those who reject church traditions reject Christ Himself. Anyone who does so is a heretic. 

1 Thessalonians 2 is a reminder of the importance of early Christianity. It shows that many early Christian traditions such as using a fish as the symbol of early Christianity and crossing oneself to think of Christ are not unbiblical. The fundamentalists have added onto scripture and condemned themselves for not receiving the traditions of the church (1 Thessalonians 2). 

                                                                       Summary: 

Those who say that they need no knowledge of Judaism to understand both the Old and New Testaments arrogantly misrepresent scripture by interpreting it according to their given time than to the time in which it was written (such as the first century for the New Testament). Likewise, those who reject the study of church history are not only likely to repeat its mistakes but they are guilty of rejecting the authoritative traditions of the church which have been passed down outside of scripture. In conclusion, those who reject the church's traditions (such as the study of its history) but also its universal practices throughout Christendom before going astray in the sixteenth century hold to a serious error. 

Without Judaism, there is no Christianity and without church history, there would be no canon of scripture.