Scripture and Tradition

It's been a long time, hasn't it? But talking to Jeremy, as I was waxing enthusiastic about Alexander Schmemann's "The Eucharist: Sacrament of the Kingdom" (another gift from the amazing Bill Tighe), he told me he'd never read it for two reasons: 1) he probably doesn't have time; and 2) he got the feeling that people who start reading Orthodox books always end up converting, and he was not in the market for a new church. OK, I said, then I'll have to blog the best passages, otherwise he'll never have a chance to read them.

What makes Schmemann special is his ability to do the "not either/or, but both/and" trick and not have it be simply a flabby refusal to think clearly (as it too often is), but a real insight. Here he is writing about Scripture and Tradition:

Here we see why all church theology, all tradition, grows precisely out of the "assembly as the Church," out of this sacrament of proclamation of the good news. Here we see why in it is comprehended the living, and not abstract, meaning of the classic Orthodox affirmation that only the Church is given custody of the scriptures and their interpretation. For tradition is not another source of faith, "complementary" to the scriptures. It is the very same source: the living word of God, always heard and received by the Church. Tradition is the interpretation of the word of God as the source of life itself, and not of any "constructions" or "deductions." When St. Athanasius the Great said that "the holy and God-inspired scriptures are sufficient for the exposition of truth," he was not rejecting tradition, and still less preaching any specifically "biblical" method of theology -- as a formal, terminological faithfulness to the scriptural "text" -- for as everyone knows, in expounding the faith of the Church he himself daringly introduced the nonbiblical term homoousios. He was affirming precisely the living, and not formal or terminological, link between scripture and tradition, tradition as the reading and hearing of scripture in the Holy Spirit. The Church along knows and keeps the meaning of scripture, because in the sacrament of the word, accomplished in the church assembly, the Holy Spirit eternally gives life to the "flesh" of scripture, transforming it into "spirit and life." Any genuine theology is rooted in this sacrament of the word, in the church assembly, in which the Spirit of God exhorts the Church herself -- and not simply her individual members -- into all truth. Thus, any "private" reading of scripture must be rooted in the Church: outside of the mind of the Church, outside of the divine-human life of the Church it can neither be heard nor truly interpreted. So the sacrament of the word, accomplished in the church gathering in a twofold act -- reading and proclaiming -- is the source of the growth of each and all together into the fulness of the mind of truth (pp. 78-79).

Adding my own banal prose translation into this rapturous hymn, tradition is the word we use for the use of scripture, specifically its gospel use, to call sinners to repentance, to believe in Jesus, and to be saved in the Church from the wrath to come. Only when the scripture is used in that way is the Bible being used in accordance with tradition. Any preaching that diminishes the need for repentance is against the tradition. Any preaching that leads to complacency and mere historical faith is against the tradition. Any preaching that leads to self-righteousness and Phariseeism is against the tradition. Any preaching that misleads sinners into a Christianity without the Church is against the tradition.

For this reason the speculations of theologians are not and never can be traditions, until they find their way into preaching, whether evangelistic on the street corner or liturgical on Sunday. This tradition is St. Irenaeus's rule of faith, the creed, understood in itself as bringing salvation -- by saying "I believe . . ." in faith I am saved apart from all the works of the law. The Church holds tradition, not by having bits of knowledge not in Scripture, but by holding the use of scripture and its proclamation to salvation.

More crunchy both/and goodness later on!

Where Is Justification by Faith Alone in the Creed?

Going from the Presbyterian (PCA) church to the Lutheran church (LCMS), one of the things that was different in worship was the regular recital of the creed. This was an interesting thing, in which we say things like "I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins" and so on. But one thing I wondered about is, "Where's the distinctive Evangelical doctrine in this?" If it isn't there, does that mean the "evangelical" part of our teaching is somehow secondary or less important than the "catholic" part?

It occurred to me a while ago, that the evangelical teaching, that we are justified by faith apart from the works of the law is right there in the beginning of the creed, and repeated more than any other article: it's there in the "I believe . . ."

Remember the creed has two uses, one old, primary, and vital, and the other recent, secondary, and not so important. The primary use is as a baptismal creed, in which we confess our faith as we are baptised, "Do you believe in God the father almighty . . . ? , Do you believe in Jesus Christ . . . ?, Do you believe in the Holy Spirit . . ?" "Yes I believe in God the father . . . , Yes, I believe in Jesus Christ . . . , Yes I believe in the Holy Spirit . . ." By believing these things (directly or with sponsors speaking for us), we show that we do indeed accept as true the promise of the baptism we are about to receive, and so receive what the creed concludes with: "the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting."

This is how baptismal creeds started, with affirmation of that "Jesus is Lord" (cf. 1 Cor. 12:3) and slowly responded to emerging issues. Already in the apostolic era, baptism in the name of the Jesus and baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were two possibilities (cf. Acts 19:5 and Mat. 28:19) with the latter prevailing. As the trinitarian baptismal formula prevailed, so did the trinitarian creed, already foreshadowed in places like 2 Cor. 13:14, Eph. 4:4-6 (in reverse order) and 1 Peter 1:2, prevail . By the third century a creed like this was being used:

I believe in God the Father Almighty.

I believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who was born of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and died, and rose on the third day living from the dead, and ascended into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of the Father, the one coming to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit and the Holy Church and the resurrection of the flesh.

Compared to this, the use of the creed in the divine service is recent and secondary. As told by Dix, its origin is all too typical: the Monophysites in Egypt, stung by accusations from the Chalcedonians that they were heretics, in the late fifth century began adding the Nicene creed into their regular liturgy as if to prove, "See, we're not heretics; if we were how could we so boldly confess the creed?" Of course once the Monophysites had upped the ante, the orthodox Chalcedonians could no longer refuse to say it themselves, and the rest is history.

Thus creed as an indicative statement, a description to others of the faith I have, is always secondary to the creed as the baptismal response of belief in the facts of redemption. Believe these things, and you have them. We say "I believe" and not "I repent" or "I will amend my life" or "I will rededicate myself to Jesus."

But what about the other question that precedes baptism: "Do you renounce the Devil and all his works?" "I do renounce them." Isn't that a work? Doesn't that show that a work is condition of baptism, which is the promise of salvation?

The answer lies in what is "renunciation" -- is it a work? Is it a work on behalf of IU, for example, for me to declare, I support IU and renounce Purdue and all its boilermaking? Not in normal usage. Rather, renouncing Purdue is the precondition for then doing works for IU (attending games, cheering, and so on). Receiving the promise of baptism involves knowledge (of what the promise involves), assent (to what is promise), and faith (that I will get what has been promised from this source only). Renouncing the devil is simply the logical inverse of saying that Jesus Christ is our Lord. You can't believe that Jesus is our Lord, without disbelieving that Satan is our Lord. Likewise you cannot believe that Jesus promises you the "forgiveness of sins" unless you also believe that He has the authority to say what is sin and what is not, that is to say what is a work of the Devil and what is a work of God the Father. Renouncing the Devil's works is simply the inverse of accepting God's definition of what is sin and what isn't.

How good of a subject will I be of my new Lord? How good will my works be? How pure will my service be? These are good questions, but unlike the renunciation of the Devil they have nothing to do with the validity of the baptismal promise, or of my faith in the truth of the promise, the truth of the Lordship of Jesus, and in the fact that what He declares to be sin, really is sin.

The creed can be, and sometimes must be, used as a test, and indicative statement -- "Here's what I believe, what do you believe?" But such a usage is merely derivative from its first and greatest use as our baptismal confession.

"I believe . . ." and because this "I believe . . ." involves full knowledge, believing means "I renounce . . ." And by so renouncing and by so believing, I have what is promised: "the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting." Amen.

What Mattered Most to Luther

In 1528, Luther wrote his Confession Concerning Christ’s Supper. In the third part of this he offered what he said was his final confession of faith, "lest any persons during my lifetime or after my death appeal to me or misuse my writings to confirm their error, as the sacramentarian and baptist fanatics are already beginning to do." He structured this confession according to the creed, affirming the three articles and then anathemizing the contemporary views that denied these articles. While there is nothing new here for those familiar with the Lutheran confessions (especially the Smalcald articles) I found this a very useful summary of the faith that the mature Luther lived and died by. I have summarized the main points of this under the rubrices of the Nicene Creed (slightly rearranged) in red (cf. Luther’s Works, vol. 37, pp. 360-372):

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

After summarizing the Trinity and the incarnation, Luther anathemizes the ancient heresies on this teaching: the Arians (who denied the full divinity of the Son), the Macedonians (who denied the full divinity of the Holy Spirit), the Sabellians (who like the Oneness or "Apostolic" Pentecostal churches today taught that the Father, Son, and Spirit are only modes of one God).

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man,

Luther anathemized the ancient heresies that taught the incarnation of the Father or the Spirit, and the Apollinarians who taught that Christ had a true human body, but not a true human soul. He also anathemized the Nestorians who separated Christ’s human and divine natures into two persons.

and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again with glory to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.

After summarizing the doctrine of original sin, here Luther anathemized "all doctrines which glorify our free will, as diametrically contrary to the help and grace of our Savior Jesus Christ." He also anathemized all old and new Pelagians "who will not admit original sin to be sin, but make it an infirmity or defect."He also anathemized "all monastic orders, rules, cloisters, religious foundations, and all such things" since they have been "founded and perpetuated with the idea that by these ways and works men may seek and win salvation" and so are a "notorious, abominable blasphemy and denial of the unique aid and grace of our only Savior." He admitted though that many great saints had lived in them, even "as the elect of God are misled by them even at this time, yet finally by faith in Jesus Christ have been redeemed and have escaped." (On this see more here).

Such orders might be salvaged, though, if they made themselves useful by teaching boys and girls.

Finally Luther confessed that there were only three "holy orders and true religious institutions": the office of priest, the estate of marriage, and civil government. Above them all is "the common order of Christian love" which "serves every needy person in general with all kinds of benevolent deeds."

And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son; who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified; who spake by the Prophets.

After summarizing how the Father’s giving us creation and the Son’s giving of himself for our sins would profit us nothing with the Holy Spirit help us understand this grace, receive it, preserve it, use it to our advantage, , impart it to others, and increase and extend it. Luther confessed that the Holy Spirit works inwardly and outwardly -- "inwardly by means of faith and other spiritual gifts, outwardly through the gospel, baptism, and sacrament of the altar."

I acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins;

He thus anathemizes all the Anabaptists (i.e. Baptists) and Donatists, who claim that the gospel or baptism are invalid "if some have received it without faith or otherwise misused it."

In the same way, he confesses that in the sacrament of the altar "the true body and blood of Christ are orally eaten and drunk in the bread and wine." This is true only by the "Word and ordinance of God" regardless of the man’s belief or unbelief. But those who change God’s Word and ordinance and misinterpret it (i.e. the Reformed and Baptists) have only bread and wine.

And I believe in one holy, Christian, and apostolic Church.

In this church, which is "the community or number or assembly of all Christians in all the world," the bishops are not heads or lords, or bridegrooms, but servants, friends, and stewards."

This Christian church exists not only in the realm of the Roman church or pope, but in all the world." It is "physically dispersed among pope, Turks, Persians, Tartars, but spritually gathered in one gospel and faith."He anathmizes the Roman hierarchy saying "the papacy is assuredly the true realm of Antichrist" as prophesied in Matthew 24 and 2 Thessalonians 2; although the Turk (i.e. Islam) and all other heresies are also part of this abomination.

In this Christian faith alone is the forgiveness of sins, "for in it are the found the gospel, baptism, and the sacrament of the altar" not to speak of Christ and his Spirit and God. "Outside this Christian church there is no salvation or forgiveness of sins but everlasting death and damnation" and this is so despite all works of holiness that might appear. This forgiveness of sins comes not just once but frequently, as often as needed, until death.

Luther therefore commends private confession as a "precious, useful thing for souls" as long as no one is compelled to do so or to enumerate all ones sins as opposed to "those which oppress him most grievously."

Luther anathemizes papal pardons and indulgences as "a blasphemous deception" which "desecrates and nullifies the general forgiveness" and bases satisfaction for sins on the works of man and merits of saints, rather than on Christ alone.

But prayers for the dead are no sin, if offered freely without paid requiem masses and vigils and all the rest of the "devil’s annual fair." (See more below.)

Purgatory could of course be possible, but there is nothing about it in Scripture, so Luther anathemizes it, saying "It too was certainly fabricated by goblins." There is another purgatory (that of the suffering in the hour of death) "but it would not be proper to teach anything about it in the church" or establishe endowments or vigils for it.

Luther notes with pleasure how others have criticized the invocation of saints and likewise anathemizes it. "Christ alone should be invoked as our Mediator."

Unction might be practiced as in the Scriptures (Mark 6 and James 5), "but to make a sacrament out of it is nonsense." If any wish to visit the sick, pray for, and admonish them, and also annoint with oil, let them be free to do so in the name of God."

Neither is there any need to make sacraments out of marriage and the office of the priesthood. These orders are sufficiently holy in themselves. So too, penance is nothing else than the practice and the power of baptism."

Yet what Luther anathemizes "as the greatest of all abominations" is the mass itself "when it is preached or sold as a sacrifice or good work, which is the basis on which all religious foundations and monasteries now stand." Looking back on his youth, the crime that most tormented his conscience was his participation as a "holy monk" in this trade that "so horribly angered, tortured, and plagued my dear Lord."

Accordingly he advised people to abandon such foundations and monasteries and vows and come into the three true Christian orders, and so escape "these abominations of the mass and this blasphemous holiness, i.e. ‘chastity, poverty, and obedience,’ by whcih men imagine they are saved." Viriginity was once an excellent thing, but now being "used to deny the aid and grace of Christ" it is abominable; although viriginity, widowhood, and chastity can well be maintained "without these blasphemous abominations."

"Images, bells, eucharistic vestments, church ornaments, altar lights, and the like I regard as things indifferent. Anyone who wishes may omit them." Scriptural and historical illustrations are useful for teaching and he says "I have no sympathy with the iconoclasts."

and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come.

Here Luther denies those who teach the devils will also be restored to salvation.

He concludes by asking: "I pray that all godly hearts will bear me witness of this, and pray for me that I may persever firmly in this faith to the end of my life. For if in the assault of temptation or the pangs of death I should say something different – which God forbid – let it be disregarded; henceforth I declare publicaly that it would be incorrect, spoken under the devil’s influence. In this may my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ assist me: blessed be He for ever, Amen."

Originally posted to Here We Stand