Orthodox-Reformed Bridge

A Meeting Place for Evangelicals, Reformed, and Orthodox Christians

Tag: Irenaeus of Lyons

Resurrection Sunday 2025

April 21, 2025 / / 1 Comment

Christ’s Descent Into Hades (Source)

Christ is Risen! Truly He is Risen!

Dear Folks,

The year 2025 has gotten off to a tumultuous start here in the United States as well as in other parts of the world. We do not know where history is taking us, but we do know that the God of history has entered into history in Christ’s Incarnation and has altered the course of history decisively in Christ’s third-day Resurrection. For Orthodox Christians, Christ’s resurrection is our anchor in these times of uncertainty.

The one constant in human history, even with the repeated rise and fall of kingdoms, societies, and civilizations, has been the reign of death over all humanity. The inexorable approach of death has long haunted humanity causing many to seek refuge in God. The Christian religion has presented Jesus Christ as God’s answer to the problem of death. Protestans and Orthodox have rather different understandings of death and Christ’s Resurrection. Where many Protestants and Evangelicals view death as punishment for our sins, Orthodoxy view death as our great enemy. Protestants may be surprised at the Orthodox understanding, but this is consistent with the biblical teaching that death is the great enemy that needs to be vanquished. The Apostle Paul wrote:

The last enemy that will be destroyed is death.

(1 Corinthians 15:26; NKJV)

The understanding of death as our enemy is consistent with the Christus Victor paradigm of salvation. In this theological paradigm, Christ is the Hero who undertakes a rescue mission into the depths of Hades liberating fallen humanity from the tyranny of Death.

The theme of Christus Victor runs through the Bible. It can be found in the Old Testament. In Isaiah 25 is a prophecy that describes how God would in the future destroy death.

6 On this mountain the Lord Almighty will prepare
a feast of rich food for all peoples,
a banquet of aged wine—
the best of meats and the finest of wines.
7 On this mountain he will destroy
the shroud that enfolds all peoples,
the sheet that covers all nations;
8 he will swallow up death forever.

(Isaiah 25:6-8; NIV, emphasis added)

The Christus Victor motif is likewise present in the New Testament. We find in the book of Hebrews Christ’s triumph over Death and the Devil:

14 Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, 15 and release those who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.

(Hebrews 2:14-15; NKJV, emphasis added)

Hebrews 2:14 teaches us that through the Incarnation, that is, by taking on human flesh, God the Son was able to share in human existence and experience death on our behalf. One could say that God the Son entered into the boxing ring to fight Death on behalf of humanity. This is substitutionary atonement–Christ taking our place in the boxing ring. By taking our place–suffering death on our behalf, Christ’s victory became our victory. In the Holy Saturday Liturgy, I came across a hymn concerning Death’s encounter with just-crucified Jesus.

Today Hades cried out groaning: “My authority is dissolved; I received  a mortal, as one of the mortals; but this One, I am powerless to contain; with Him I lose all those, over which, I had ruled. for ages I had held the Dead, but behold, He raised up all.” (Greek Orthodox Holy Week and Easter Services, p. 415)

Knowing this results in the explosion of joy on late Saturday night/early Sunday morning in the climactic Easter Liturgy, when after a few minutes ot total darkness inside the sanctuary the priest comes out holding the Paschal candle shouting: “Christ is Risen!” And the congregation shouts back: “Truly He is Risen!” Over the next several weeks, the Orthodox Faithful will greet each other with: “Christ is Risen!” and respond with: “Truly He is Risen!”

A New Perspective

Christ’s third-day Resurrection imparts to the Orthodox Christian a new perspective on world events. Christians are in the world but not of the world (see John 17:11, 14-16). The Apostle Paul reminded the Christians in Colossae that their citizenship is in heaven (Colossians 3:20). The early Christians were keenly aware of their dual citizenship. We read in one of the earliest post-apostolic writings, The Letter to Diognetus:

But, inhabiting Greek as well as barbarian cities, according as the lot of each of them has determined, and following the customs of the natives in respect to clothing, food, and the rest of their ordinary conduct, they display to us their wonderful and confessedly striking method of life. They dwell in their own countries, but simply as sojourners. As citizens, they share in all things with others, and yet endure all things as if foreigners. Every foreign land is to them as their native country, and every land of their birth as a land of strangers. (Letter to Diognetus 5.4-5; emphasis added)

From these sources we learn that Christians possess a stereo vision of the world–our American identity is overlaid with  our citizenship in the kingdom of God. I became aware of this fact a few years back when I venerated the Kursk Root Icon which dates back to 1295. Upon seeing the icon, I was struck by the fact that this particular icon, which is relatively recent by Orthodox standards, is five centuries older than the United States, which was founded in the late 1700s. To be Orthodox is to belong to an ancient Church that has seen the rise and fall of many kingdoms and nations, and will outlive them all–even the United Stats of America is a mortal entity that will eventually fade away into the backdrop of human history. A stark reminder of this fact is Great Britain of which it was believed that the sun would never set, yet today is fading into the sunset. I grew up during the Cold War in which the U.S. faced off against the mighty U.S.S.R. until the unexpected collapse of Communism in 1991. And, it was just a hundred years ago that the great Ottoman Empire, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and the Russian Empire all vanished from the face of the earth. The mortality of these political entities all confirm Isaiah’s prophecy about the shroud of mortality that covers all nations. The Book of Isaiah is full of prophecies about the imminent demise of nations and peopes, and about the coming of the Messiah (the Christ). The only eternal entity is the Church, which Christ promised the gates of Hell would never overcome. One sign of the Church’s permanence can be seen in our worship–we still use the Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom which dates back to the fifth century.

Recently in my research, I came across a passage that sketches a very early political theory by a Church Father. Irenaeus of Lyons in Against Heresies explains that as a result of the Fall the human race fell into a state of disorder such that man came to “look upon his brother as his enemy.” This echoes Thomas Hobbes’ political science classic work Leviathan in which the natural state of man is described as “a war of all against all.” Irenaeus then proceeds to teach that God instituted government to restore order to humanity. He points out that since people were not prepared to acknowledge the fear of God, they would need to be induced to conduct themselves decently and orderly out of fear of the government’s sword–the power to punish and kill.

2. For since man, by departing from God, reached such a pitch of fury as even to look upon his brother as his enemy, and engaged without fear in every kind of restless conduct, and murder, and avarice; God imposed upon mankind the fear of man, as they did not acknowledge the fear of God, in order that, being subjected to the authority of men, and kept under restraint by their laws, they might attain to some degree of justice, and exercise mutual forbearance through dread of the sword suspended full in their view, as the apostle says: “For he beareth not the sword in vain; for he is the minister of God, the avenger for wrath upon him who does evil.” (Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies ANF Vol. 1 5.24.2;, p. 552) (Emphasis added.)

Irenaeus’ understanding of government echoes the ancient Chinese concept: the Mandate of Heaven–although given great power by God (Heaven) the emperor was morally obligated to use it for the good of the people. And like the Chinese theory of the Mandate of Heaven, Irenaeus believed that should the ruler abuse his power through corruption, impiety, and tyrannical rule, “they also perish.” The American concept of “popular sovereignty”–that  is, the authority of government comes from the people–is very this-worldly. Irenaeus give us a different political theory–that political authority ultimately comes from God (see also Jesus’ dialogue with Pilate in John 19:11). And that from a Christian point of view, governmental authority cannot be divorced from justice and morality. Just as bad people ought to fear governmental authority, so too governmental authorities ought to carry out their duties out of fear of God. According to Irenaeus, tyranny–cruel and oppressive government–will come under divine judgment.

And for this reason too, magistrates themselves, having laws as a clothing of righteousness whenever they act in a just and legitimate manner, shall not be called in question for their conduct, nor be liable to punishment. But whatsoever they do to the subversion of justice, iniquitously, and impiously, and illegally, and tyrannically, in these things shall they also perish; for the just judgment of God comes equally upon all, and in no case is defective. (Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies ANF Vol. 1, Book 5.24.2;, p. 552)

It is concerning that there are some who regard governent as a problem, a burden on the people. One gets the sense from some of the more extreme points of view that government is an evil to be eradicated. As Orthodox Christians we ought to take heed of Irenaeus’ teaching on governmental authority. We learn that government (earthly rule) has been established “for the benefit of nations.” The phrase “benefit of nations” is not spelled out in detail but we can guess that it means for the benefit of the general public, not for the enrichment of the few. Governments are called to establish laws that “keep down the excess of wickedness” and encourage people to live quiet, peacable lives. Irenaeus uses the vivid imagery of government preventing people from “eating each other like fishes”! This can be read as government preventing or constraining ruthless Darwinian competition. In the divine order, society consist of people living and working together, not eating each other.

Earthly rule, therefore, has been appointed by God for the benefit of nations, and not by the devil who is never at rest at all, nay, who does not love to see even nations conducting themselves after a quiet manner, so that under the fear of human rule, men may not eat each other up like fishes; but that, by means of the establishment of laws, they may keep down an excess of wickedness among the nations. And considered from this point of view, those who exact tribute from us are “God’s ministers, serving for this very purpose.” (Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies;  ANF Vol. 1 Book 5.24;2; p. 552) (Emphasis added.)

Irenaeus’ teaching on governmental authority does not stand alone but should be understood in light of the prayers the Church offers in the Liturgy in the opening Litany of Peace:

For our country, the president, all those in public service, and for our armed forces everywhere, let us pray to the Lord. (Source; emphasis added)

In the Liturgy, the Orthodox faithful pray, not just for the top echelons of government, but also for the rank and file military personnel and civil servants. Orthodox ethics is also based on solidarity with our fellow humans, which is why we pray for “the sick, the suffering, and those in captivity.” We find this in the opening Litany of Peace as well:

For those who travel by land, sea, and air, for the sick, the suffering, the captives and for their salvation, let us pray to the Lord. (Source; emphasis added)

Ultimately, we pray for God’s will to be done here on earth as it is in heaven. Everytime Orthodox Christians attend the Liturgy, they are renewing and reaffirming their citizenship in heaven and renewing their allegiance to Jesus Christ the Ruler of All.

This addendum–A New Perspective–was not part of my original plan for the 2025 Paschal blog posting; however, recent events in the United States and around the world have led me to change my mind. I wrote it for my American readers and also for my international readers as well. Regardless of our nationalities, Orthodoxy transcends national identities–we belong to each other and our ultimate allegiance is to Jesus Christ the Pantocrator. Recently, several people have expressed to me their fear and deep concern about recent events in the United States. As I listened, I was reminded of 2 Thessalonians. In this letter, the Apostle Paul was writing to a group of Christians that recently become “unsettled or alarmed” (2 Thessalonians 2:2). Paul reminded them to “stand firm” on Apostolic Tradition (2 Thessalonians 2:15).

The Orthodox Church, through the Liturgy and through the Church Fathers, offers the Orthodox Faithful the spiritual resources to stand firm in these troubled times. The challenge of chaos and social upheavals may tempt one to  compromise and resort to expediency. Even as circumstances change, Orthodox Christians are called to not abandon the teachings of Christ and to remember that our ultimate allegiance is to Jesus Christ the Pantocrator (the Ruler of All). My prayer is that Orthodoxy not be seen as aligned with a particular political party or with a particular ideology. But that no matter which group an Orthodox Christian may be part of, they will be seen as citizens of the Kingdom of God. Likewise, my prayer is that when discussing politics, Orthodox Christians will reflect the teachings of Irenaeus of Lyons and the prayers found in the Litany of Peace.

Lastly, as Orthodox Christians celebrate Christ’s triumph over Death, let us remember Palm Sunday when Christ entered Jerusalem on a donkey instead of a war horse and his telling his followers that he came as the Suffering Servant who came to serve others. And, let us learn from the tragic failings of Judas Iscariot (who once was part of the Christian community), the Jewish leaders and the Roman governor, Pontius Pilate, who succumbed to the temptations of power seeking, moral compromise, self-justification, and expediency.

Robert Arakaki

 

Irenaeus of Lyons

Did Irenaeus of Lyons teach sola scriptura?

July 8, 2017 / / 6 Comments

Irenaeus of Lyons

Sola Scriptura’s Epistemological Problems (3 of 4)

A Response to David Roxas (3 of 4)  See also: (2 of 4) and (1 of 4)

David Roxas asked:

2. Are you contradicting the above statement of Irenaus [sic] which says the Scriptures are “the ground and pillar of our faith” or do you equate the later corpus of the Fathers and the body of oral (and mostly liturgical) tradition with Scripture? 

Answer: It is good that Mr. Roxas cited Irenaeus of Lyons, an early Church Father, who wrote:

We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. (Against Heresies 3.1.1; ANF p. 414; emphasis added)

However, Mr. Roxas made the error of cherry-picking a quote of a Church Father in order to claim support for the doctrine of sola scriptura, while ignoring other passages that support Apostolic Tradition. In the quote provided by Mr. Roxas, Saint Irenaeus noted that the Gospel was first proclaimed orally, then later transmitted in writing, but nowhere did he put the written Apostolic teaching over the oral proclamation.  Consider also the following quotes from Irenaeus in the passage that follows the one cited by David Roxas.

In the next chapter, we see Irenaeus affirming Apostolic Tradition — “that tradition which originates from the apostles.”

2. But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they [Gnostics] object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth. (Against Heresies 3.2.2; ANF p. 416; emphasis added)

In this passage we learn that Apostolic Tradition is preserved through the episcopacy — “the succession of presbyters.”  This is significant.  A Protestant would say that Apostolic Tradition is preserved through Scripture alone, but this is not what Irenaeus teaches.  In the next chapter Irenaeus likewise links Apostolic Tradition to the succession of bishops.

1. It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times . . . . (Against Heresies 3.3.1; ANF p. 416; emphasis added)

The danger of cherry-picking the Church Fathers is that an isolated sentence can be misread and made to support the Protestant position.  This is why it is important that the early Church Fathers be read in context.  At the beginning of the third book of Against Heresies, Irenaeus recounts how he sought to refute the Gnostic heretics.  First, he appeals to Scripture, which is written Apostolic Tradition.  When that does not work, then he appeals to oral Apostolic Tradition – an approach different from Protestantism’s sola scriptura!  Irenaeus treats written and oral Apostolic Tradition as equal and complementary to each other.

One might argue that Irenaeus was advocating sola scriptura when he referred to Scripture as the “ground and pillar of our Faith,” but then we must also take into account the witness of Scripture.  In 1 Timothy 3:15 Apostle Paul referred to the Church as the “pillar and foundation of the truth.”  We find no historic reference of a breach between the Apostle Paul and Irenaeus. Rather, the Church’s magisterium (teaching authority) is complementary to Scripture as the source of Christian doctrine and practice.

If Mr. Roxas wants to show that Irenaeus held to sola scriptura, he will need to show where Irenaeus taught: (1) that written Apostolic Tradition is more authoritative than oral Apostolic Tradition, (2) that true Apostolic Tradition is preserved exclusively through Scripture, not through the succession of bishops, and (3) that the Church can fall into error, but Scripture will be there to correct the Church.

 

Church Fathers and Scripture

Mr. Roxas asked: 2. “Are the writings of the Fathers and the liturgy of the church ‘theopneustos?’ [God-breathed]”

Answer: Yes. If we believe that Christ bestowed the Holy Spirit on the Church at Pentecost (Acts 2) and that as a consequence of Pentecost there is a charismatic gift of teaching (1 Corinthians 12:28, Ephesians 4:11, Romans 12:7) then we must conclude that the gift of teaching is inspired by the Holy Spirit.  This is the basis for Orthodoxy’s understanding that the writings of the Church Fathers are inspired by the Holy Spirit. Without this belief that the Holy Spirit is at work in the Church, we are left with the situation of fallible men doing their best figuring out what Christ’s words and the later epistles meant.  Or worse yet, that the Church suffered a catastrophic fall into spiritual darkness early on.

Mr. Roxas’ question assumes that the writings of the Church Fathers and the Church’s liturgy stand apart from Scripture, but that is quite impossible.  First, much of the writings of the Church Fathers are exposition or application of Scripture.   The lesser inspiration of the patristic literature can be seen in the weight that the Orthodox Church gives to the patristic consensus over the particular writings of individual Church Fathers.

Second, much of the Liturgy is either Scripture or paraphrase of Scripture.   The Sunday Eucharist should be seen as a continuing Pentecost flowing from Acts 2 down through history for two thousand years until today.  Since it is impossible to confess that Jesus is Lord without the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:3) or to pray without the Holy Spirit (Ephesians 2:18), we can only conclude that our worship in the Sunday Liturgy is inspired by the Holy Spirit.  So, the answer to Mr. Roxas question is: “Yes” and “Yes.”

 

Dositheus – Patriarch of Jerusalem  Source

Irenaeus and the Confession of Dositheus

David Roxas asked:

How does the Confession of Dosiethus [sic] agree with Irenaus [sic] when said confession is adamant that Christians should not read the Scriptures because they are obscure and require initiation into the secrets of theology?

Answer: David Roxas’ question here assumes that Irenaeus and the Confession of Dositheus are at odds with each other. (Note: In 1672, the Orthodox Church issued the Confession of Dositheus which formally condemned Reformed theology.) However, as noted earlier, Mr. Roxas took Irenaeus out of context and misconstrued him to teach sola scriptura (Against Heresies 3.1.1). The larger context of Against Heresies shows that Irenaeus believed that Scripture must be understood with Apostolic Tradition (Against Heresies 3.2 & 3.3).

 

Similarly, it is important that we read and understand the Confession of Dositheus (1672) in context.  The excerpt below is taken from the response to Question 1: “Ought the Divine Scriptures to be read in the vulgar tongue by all Christians?”

No. Because all Scripture is divinely-inspired and profitable {cf. 2 Timothy 3:16}, we know, and necessarily so, that without [Scripture] it is impossible to be Orthodox at all. Nevertheless they should not be read by all, but only by those who with fitting research have inquired into the deep things of the Spirit, and who know in what manner theDivine Scriptures ought to be searched, and taught, and finally read. But to those who are not so disciplined, or who cannot distinguish, or who understand only literally, or in any other way contrary to Orthodoxy what is contained in the Scriptures, the Catholic Church, knowing by experience the damage that can cause, forbids them to read [Scripture]. Indeed, it is permitted to every Orthodox to hear the Scriptures, that he may believe with the heart unto righteousness, and confess with the mouth unto salvation {Romans 10:10}. But to read some parts of the Scriptures, and especially of the Old [Testament], is forbidden for these and other similar reasons. For it is the same thing to prohibit undisciplined persons from reading all the Sacred Scriptures, as to require infants to abstain from strong meats. (Emphasis added.)

The first thing to note from this excerpt is that the Confession of Dositheus affirms the divine inspiration of Scripture.  The second thing to note is that all Orthodox Christians are permitted to hear the Scriptures: “it is permitted to every Orthodox to hear the Scriptures.”  This makes sense as one cannot avoid hearing the Scriptures read out loud during the Sunday Liturgy.  If one listens attentively to the hymns and prayers in the Liturgy, one will learn to understand the Bible in accordance with the teachings of the Church.  This might rub certain Protestants the wrong way, especially those who have the attitude: “Nobody can tell me what the Bible means; I can read the Bible for myself.”  The third thing to note is that the Confession recognizes that without the proper training and education, one could very well end up misreading Scripture and teaching heresies.  This agrees with what the Bible clearly teaches in 2 Peter 3:16 in which the Apostle Peter wrote:

He [Apostle Paul] writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters.  His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. (Emphasis added.)

Here the Apostle Peter acknowledges that people who lack the necessary preparation are likely to misinterpret the meaning of Scripture.  It is important to keep in mind that this passage in the Confession of Dositheus was in reaction to the plethora of strange readings of Scripture coming out of the Reformation that the Orthodox bishops in the 1600s found at odds with Holy Tradition.  Thus, the stress on the need for supervised reading of Scripture is well founded.

The account of the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts subverts sola scriptura.  In response to Deacon Philip’s question: “Do you understand what you are reading?,” the Ethiopian answered: “How can I unless someone explains it to me?” (Acts 8:31-32)  Here we have a literate and pious man requesting help to rightly understand God-breathed Scripture.  Note that Philip did not advocate the sola scriptura approach – that all Scripture being God-breathed is perspicuous (clear in meaning) and that all that is needed for right understanding is more prayer or more careful study of Scripture.  Instead what we see here is an ordained clergyman – Philip was ordained to the office of deacon in Acts 6:5 – giving him the authoritative Apostolic interpretation of Scripture.  Philip as a deacon was part of the Apostolic traditioning process.

So my answer to Mr. Roxas’ question is: There is no disagreement between Irenaeus and the Confession of Dositheus to begin with.  Both affirm that Scripture must be read in the context of Tradition.  The Confession’s strictures on the reading of Scripture make sense in light of the misreadings then stemming from the Protestant Reformation which was causing confusion and conflict in the Christian world.

In conclusion, Irenaeus of Lyons did not teach sola scriptura.  Rather, he taught Scripture-in-Tradition which is the Orthodox Church’s approach to the Bible.  Given that Irenaeus was the disciple of Polycarp, who in turn was the disciple of the Apostle John, and in light of Irenaeus’ reputation as the leading theologian of the second century, Protestants need to reconsider their position on sola scriptura.

Robert Arakaki

 

 

Early Christian Worship

Sola Scriptura’s Epistemological Problems (2 of 4)

July 1, 2017 / / 4 Comments

Early Christian Worship

A Response to David Roxas (2 of 4)  (1 of 4)

Can Christianity Exist Apart From Oral Tradition?

David Roxas asked:

1. Absent a body of oral tradition and the corpus of the church Fathers, which both developed over centuries and which the Fathers themselves did not have (Irenaus [sic] was not reading the Cappadocian Fathers nor was he celebrating the liturgy of Chrysostom) what is the source of Christian knowledge of God, the law, and the Gospel of Jesus Christ? From whence did the later developed corpus of the Fathers and the oral tradition receive it’s knowledge of the Gospel? (Emphasis added.)

Answer: To assume the absence of an identifiable Tradition for the first hundreds of years – that the Church Fathers presumably had no access to – betrays a woeful ignorance of Scripture and church history. In light of what the Apostle Paul wrote to Timothy about safeguarding the deposit of oral Tradition (see my prior article), it is impossible for the Church to have existed apart from oral Tradition.  As a matter of fact, it is contrary to Scripture!  The issue is not whether there was an oral Apostolic Tradition.  Rather, the question should be: What evidence is there of oral Apostolic Tradition closer to the time of the Apostles than a fourth century witness like Basil the Great?

Ignatius of Antioch (c. 98/117)

One important source is the Didache which dates to A.D. 100.  We learn from the Didache: (1) the threefold baptism (7.1), (2) only the baptized may be allowed to partake of the Eucharist (9.5), and (3) Christians were expected to keep the Wednesday/Friday fasts (8.1).

Another important witness to oral Tradition is Ignatius, the third bishop of Antioch, whose death has been dated to either A.D. 98/117.  From Ignatius we learn: (1) a baptism or celebration of the Lord’s Supper needed the bishop’s approval to be valid (Smyrnaeans 8.2), (2) the real presence of Christ’s body and blood in the Lord’s Supper (Smyrnaeans 7.1), and (3) the threefold order of bishop, presbyters, and deacons (To Polycarp 6.1).  It is important to keep in mind that Ignatius was bishop over Antioch, Apostle Paul’s home church! (Acts 13:1-3)  Ignatius’ connection to the New Testament can be seen in the tradition that he was the child on Jesus’ lap when he said: “Let the children come to me.” (Matthew 19:14-15)

 

 

Justin Martyr (c. 100-165)

Then there is Justin Martyr (c. 100-165) who in his First Apology (Chapters 65-67) described early second century worship as taking place on Sunday instead of the Jewish Sabbath (Ch. 67), being liturgical (see “the prayers” in Ch. 65), and affirming the real presence of Christ’s body and blood in the Eucharist (Ch. 66).

. . . so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. (First Apology Ch. 66)

What we have here is oral tradition that describe the application of New Testament teachings.  What we do not see here is biblical exegesis like that favored by Protestants.  The Didache, Ignatius’ letters, and Justin’s apologia all touch upon practices which are quite unfamiliar to modern day Protestants but familiar to Orthodox Christians.  For example, as a Protestant I did not know of the Wednesday/Friday fasts observed by Orthodox Christians.  After I learned about the Orthodox fasts, I was pleasantly surprised to find Orthodoxy’s ascetic disciplines supported by the first century Didache.  So likewise, I was pleasantly surprised that Irenaeus’ belief in the real presence of Christ’s body and blood in the Eucharist (Against Heresies 4.18.5; ANF p. 486) agreed with that of Ignatius of Antioch.

Father John Whiteford – a former Protestant, now an Orthodox priest – describes how reading Ignatius made a profound impact on his theology.

I also began reading the Fathers themselves, not just reading about them, with the occasional quotation one might encounter. Coming from Protestant assumptions, the earlier the Father was, the more trustworthy he was likely to be. One of the earliest Fathers to be found outside of the New Testament is St. Ignatius of Antioch. He was a disciple of the Apostle John, was consecrated Bishop of Antioch by St. John himself, and martyred in the arena of Rome in 112 A.D. So I read his seven epistles with great interest, and was again and again struck by the fact that he was not a protestant [sic]. (Source)

Another important early witness to the Scripture-in-Tradition paradigm is the early Latin apologist Tertullian (c. 155-c. 240).  In De Corona, chapter 3, Tertullian describes some of the Christian practices not mentioned in Scripture, e.g., triple immersion baptism, receiving Holy Communion from the hands of the priest, memorial services for the dead, and making the sign of the Cross.  Apparently back then, there were some who insisted in a very Protestant manner that there be biblical justification for these Christian practices.  Tertullian refutes them by posing the question:

For how can anything come into use, if it has not first been handed down?  Even in pleading tradition, written authority, you say, must be demanded.  Let us inquire, therefore, whether tradition, unless it be written, should be admitted.  Certainly we shall say that it ought not to be admitted, if no cases of other practices which, without any written instrument, we maintain on the ground of tradition alone, and the countenance thereafter of custom affords us any precedent.  (De Corona Ch. 3, ANF p. 94; emphasis added)

Here Tertullian admits outright that there is no explicit biblical warrant for these practices because these are grounded in unwritten Tradition.  For Tertullian the lack of biblical proofs is no obstacle for following these customs.

If, for these and other such rules, you insist upon having positive Scripture injunction, you will find none.  Tradition will be held forth to you as the originator of them, custom, as their strengthener, and faith as their observer.  That reason will support tradition, and custom, and faith, you will either yourself perceive, or learn from some one who has. (De Corona Ch. IV, ANF p. 95; emphasis added)

Where Irenaeus refutes sola scriptura implicitly, Tertullian refutes it explicitly on the grounds that Christianity follows tradition along with Scripture.  It would not be until the idea of oral Apostolic Tradition came under direct attack in the fourth century that Basil the Great (330-379) felt obliged to list them in his classic On the Holy Spirit (see Ch. 27 §66).

To sum up, oral Apostolic Tradition does not comprise a corpus parallel to Scripture.  Rather, early Christianity comprised a totality: Scripture, a received way of worship, a received moral code, a received set of spiritual disciplines, and a received church structure.  All these informed the early Church’s understanding of Scripture.  This ancient Christian way of doing things continues on today in Orthodoxy.

As a religion, Orthodoxy is centered around the Liturgy and the Eucharist.  A strong similarity can be seen between Orthodoxy and first-century Judaism which likewise was almost entirely centered around the sacrificial worship of the temple in Jerusalem.  The text-centered religion that Protestants favor would be alien to the first century Judaism, Jesus and Paul were acquainted with.  Protestantism’s text-centered religion more strongly resembles rabbinical Judaism which emerged in the wake of the destruction of the Temple in A.D. 70.  Where Orthodoxy represents a continuation of the Judaism of the Bible, Protestantism is rooted in post-biblical rabbinical Judaism.  See Gabe Martini’s article: “The Temple Cult and Early Christian Worship.”

 

Who Made this List?

Is the Biblical Canon Holy Spirit Inspired?

Many Protestants who assert sola scriptura are unaware of the multiple debts they owe to the early Christians.  One debt is the physical Bible.  The clergy of the early Church were responsible for the preservation of the physical copies of the Bible.  During the early persecutions, the Roman authorities knew that to destroy Christianity they needed to destroy the copies of the Bible.  Early Christian clergy hid the sacred Scriptures during the week and brought them to the liturgical gatherings on Sunday.  For a cleric in the early Church to hand over Scripture to Roman authorities was a grave sin.  The early Christians also faced the challenge of discerning which writings were to be read as Scripture during the Sunday worship and which writings were to be left out.  This spurred the making of a list of writings recognized as divinely inspired and authoritative Scriptures which would in the biblical canon we have today.

Another debt Protestants owe the early Church is the biblical canon. Many Protestants stress that the writings of the New Testament were all written by the end of the first century, but what they fail to note is that there were many other writings (including some so-called Gospels) that were in circulation at the same time.  Thus, one of the challenges facing the early Church was discerning which writings were apostolic and which were not.  Irenaeus of Lyons faced this challenge when the Gnostics circulated their heretical version of the Gospel.  To combat this Irenaeus fell back on oral Tradition to discern right doctrine.  He writes:

For if what they [the Gnostics] have published is the Gospel of truth, and yet is totally unlike those which have been handed down to us from the apostles, any who please may learn, as is shown from the Scriptures themselves, that that which has been handed down from the apostles can no longer be reckoned the Gospel of truth. (Against Heresies 3.11.9; ANF p. 429; emphasis added)

At this early period when there was no definitive listing of apostolic writings (canon) — no Bible book with a table of contents in the front.  Irenaeus fell back on what he had received from his predecessor, Polycarp, the disciple of Apostle John.  Because the “Gospel” the Gnostics propagated was unlike anything he had received, Irenaeus was obliged to reject them outright.  Here we see how the biblical canon emerged out of a traditioning process.

By the end of the second century, a consensus emerged around the four Gospels and Paul’s letters, but it took much longer for a consensus to be formed around Hebrews, James, 1 and 2 Peter, the letters by John, and Revelation.  A consensus emerged gradually with respect to the exclusion of the Shepherd of Hermas and 1 and 2 Clement from the New Testament.  It was not until the late fourth century that the biblical canon was formally closed by the Church.  Athanasius’ listing dates to A.D. 367 about the same time as the Divine Liturgy of St. Basil the Great, and between the First Ecumenical Council (Nicea I in A.D. 325) and the Second Ecumenical Council (Constantinople I in A.D. 381).  In the Latin West, similar lists were disseminated by Augustine of Hippo (On Christian Doctrine, Chapter 8 §12-13) and Saint Jerome (Prologue to the Book of Kings).

With respect to the biblical canon, Protestants must ask themselves whether the early Church was guided by the Holy Spirit in the determination of the biblical canon? Or was the biblical canon the result of church politics?  A divinely inspired Bible requires a divinely inspired listing (canon) but then this assumes that there was a spiritually vibrant Church led by the Holy Spirit in the first four centuries. The Church of the fourth century that finalized the biblical canon is the same Church that held the First and Second Ecumenical Councils that formulated the Nicene Creed.  The fourth century was also a time when Church Fathers like Athanasius had to defend the Gospel against the heresy of Arianism.  The fourth century was also the time of great Church Fathers like Athanasius the Great, Ambrose of Milan, John Cassian, Basil the Great, John Chrysostom, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzus.  Can we not say that the Church Fathers were guided by the Holy Spirit in defending the Faith against heresies? Protestants may want to ignore or even deny that there was a vibrant Holy Spirit inspired Church during the first four centuries, but if we assume a compromised Church riddled with heresies then how can we have confidence in the biblical canon? Such an understanding of the early Church does not reflect the historical evidence, nor does it respect Christ’s promise of a continuing Pentecost in the Church.

Robert Arakaki

 

 

© 2025 Orthodox-Reformed Bridge

Theme by Anders Noren — Up ↑