Daniel B.
Wallace, Professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary
(perhaps the leading dispensational seminary in the world), wrote a thoughtful
blog posting: “The Problem with Protestant Ecclesiology.”
He starts
off by unabashedly proclaiming his Protestant convictions. Then, amazingly, he
points out what he sees as Protestantism’s weakness, its ecclesiology.
Prof.
Wallace notes that: 1) there is a lack of consistency in Protestant worship
services; 2) many Protestant congregations are ill prepared to deal with a
pastor who forsakes the historic Christian faith; 3) recent scholarship is
drawing attention to the fact that canonicity – which books belong to the Bible
– cannot be understood apart from the authority of the church. Orthodox Christians have made similar
criticisms, but these are stunning admissions and observations coming from
within the Protestant camp. Protestants,
whether of dispensationalist, fundamentalist, or more mainstream persuasion,
should give attention to what Prof. Wallace has to say.
He closes
with the suggestion that Protestants be open to learning from the more ancient
branches of Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. He also recommends that Protestants listen to
the voice of the Holy Spirit speaking through the early church fathers and
embrace the ancient historic forms of worship.
This blog
posting has three parts: 1) my personal reactions to Prof. Wallace’s posting; 2) a discussion of the evidence that point to the role of the traditioning
process in canon formation; 3) a discussion of an Orthodox approach to
canon formation.
1. My Reactions
As I read
through Prof. Wallace’s blog posting I had a sense of déjà vu. It reminded me of the time I had graduated
from Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary with an M.A. in Church History and was
committed to helping to bring the United Church of Christ back to its biblical
roots. Yet unbeknownst to me at the time
were the tiny cracks in my Protestant theology that would in time become major
fissures that would result in a theological crisis. The concerns voiced by Prof. Wallace are
quite similar that I and others were asking when we embarked on our journey to
Orthodoxy. I was just a seminary
graduate then, here we have similar critical questions being voiced by a
seminary professor at a major Protestant seminary!
My
studies in church history made me keenly aware of Protestantism’s theological
anarchy. My involvement in the
evangelical renewal movement put me squarely in the middle of the Cold War
hostilities between Evangelicals and Liberals who belonged to the same
denomination. Prof. Wallace recounted
the struggle of one Protestant congregation with an apostate pastor; I had to
struggle with the question of a denomination that had gone apostate. Could I as an Evangelical belong to a
denomination with historic roots in Puritan New England and yet had many
pastors and theologians who had become de facto Arians?
As I
wrestled with the doctrinal controversies of modern Protestantism I was at the
same time haunted by voices from the early church. It took the form of quotes from two church
fathers. Irenaeus of Lyons, a second
century church father, wrote:
Having received this preaching and this
faith, as I have said, the Church, although scattered in the whole world,
carefully preserves it, as if living in one house. She believes these things [everywhere] alike,
as if she had but one heart and one soul, and preaches them harmoniously,
teaches them, and hands them down, as if she had but one mouth.
This
quote by Irenaeus described the organic connection between church unity and
doctrinal orthodoxy in the early church.
What I longed for was not an impossible ideal but had existed in fact in
the early church. It caused me wonder:
How did Protestant Christianity get into such a mess and how could we recover
the church unity and orthodoxy of the early Church?
The other
quote came from Augustine of Hippo, the towering giant of Western
theology. He is reputed to have said:
If you believe what you like in the gospels,
and reject what you don’t like, it is not the gospel you believe, but yourself.
This
quote by Augustine shone a spotlight on the egocentric core of the Protestant
approach to doing theology. I realized
that my evangelical theology was at its core my personal interpretation of the
Bible and my church identity the result of which denomination I chose to
affiliate with.
Even the
Reformed tradition with confessional statements like the Westminster Confession
suffered from this egocentric flaw.
There were not one but a variety of confessions one could choose
from. Moreover, the authority of these
confessions was contingent and provisional at best. These confessions had no authority in
themselves but were dependent on their faithfully reflecting Scripture. Absent from the Reformed creeds were any
claim to a universal binding authority on all Christians. Among Presbyterians the conservatives view
the confessions as prescriptive and binding while the liberals understand them
to be historic witnesses and no longer binding.
I had no objective guarantee that this was the true Christian
faith. As a Protestant I had no external
authority like the Church to fall back on.
As Prof.
Wallace suggested, I started listening to what the Holy Spirit had to say
through the early church fathers and the ancient liturgies. This led me to follow in the paths of the
Mercersburg theologians, John Nevins and Philip Schaff, who advocated a catholic
and Reformed Christianity. This took me
to the Seven Ecumenical Councils that claimed to make decisions binding on all
Christians. But the weakness of
Mercersburg theology was that the early church fathers for the most part were
books on my bookshelf and most people in my former home church couldn’t care
less about patristics and ancient liturgies.
Ultimately I found myself caught between a Protestantism that suffered
from extensive historical amnesia and the Orthodox Church which claimed to have
unbroken historic continuity going back to the original Apostles.
2. The Importance of the Traditioning Process
to Canon Formation
The
unexpected surprise in Prof. Wallace’s blog posting was his discussion of what
Eusebius of Caesarea, the fourth century church historian, had to say about the
formation of the biblical canon. Unlike
today’s bibles that have neatly printed table of contents in the front, the
early church had no clear cut listing.
Even by the fourth century there were still some debate as to what books
belonged to the canon, that is, were divinely inspired and authoritative
Scripture. So Eusebius needed to
distinguish between homolegoumena (that which everyone agreed was Scripture),
antilegomena (that which was in question or disputed), apocrypha (that which
was rejected by many but accepted by some), and pseudepigrapha (that which was
rejected by all) (Church History 3.3.6).
Prof. Wallace paraphrasing David Dungan observes:
What is
significant is that for the ancient church, canonicity was intrinsically linked
to ecclesiology. It was the bishops
rather than the congregations that gave their opinion of a book’s
credentials. Not just any bishops, but
bishops of the major sees of the ancient church.
This
observation points to a tension embedded in the Protestant view of Scripture;
despite Protestantism’s assigning supreme authority to Scripture, Scripture
itself is unavoidably a product of the Church.
It did not come into existence independently of the Church. Moreover, the early bishops played a key role
in determining which books would comprise Scripture. One cannot understand the formation of the
biblical canon without taking into account the early bishops. To ignore the bishops is to create an
artificial mental construct that has no historical basis.
For
modern Christians, Protestant, Roman Catholic, or Orthodox, to grasp the nature
of canon formation they must beware of inadvertently imposing their modern
assumptions on the early church. They
should research the early church and try to imagine themselves in the early
church service when there were no electric guitars, PowerPoint overheads,
worship bulletins, or leather bound gold leaf Bibles. Early Christians did not have personal
Bibles. Scripture in the early church consisted of a limited number of copied
scrolls or codices in the safekeeping of one of the clergy. This was especially critical in times of
persecution. Back then Christians would
painstakingly copy by hand whatever Scripture they could borrow from another
church. There were no denominational
publishing houses back then! Early
Christians experienced the Bible in the context of the Sunday worship. A reader would stand in the front of the
assembly and read out loud the Scripture.
The bishop was responsible for deciding what would be read in the Sunday
Liturgy. This meant that he needed to
identify spurious books be excluded from the Sunday worship.
What is
fascinating about Book 3 of Eusebius’ Church History is his juxtaposing of
accounts of canon formation with accounts of apostolic succession. Church History 3.4 describes the immediate
successors to the Apostles: Timothy was bishop of Ephesus and Titus of
Crete. Linus who was mentioned in II
Timothy was Peter’s successor to the episcopacy in Rome. We learn that the third bishop of Rome was
Clement. Church History 3.22 describes
Ignatius as the second bishop of Antioch.
Thus, Eusebius provides a valuable external witness to some of the early
post-apostolic writings.
In Church
History 3.9-10 Eusebius draws on Josephus for a description of the Old
Testament canon. In Church History 3.25
Eusebius describes the undisputed and disputed books of the New Testament
writings.
What is
striking about Eusebius’ discussion of the biblical canon are his references to
the traditioning process. In Church
History 3.26.6 Eusebius wrote:
But we
have nevertheless felt compelled to give a catalogue of these also,
distinguishing those works which according to ecclesiastical tradition are true
and genuine and commonly accepted, from those others which, although not
canonical but disputed, are yet at the same time known to most ecclesiastical
writers…. (Emphasis added)
In Church
History 6.12, Eusebius quotes from a letter by Serapion, bishop of Antioch,
concerning a question about a so-called Gospel of Peter. Serapion wrote:
For we,
brethren, receive both Peter and the other apostles as Christ; but we reject
intelligently the writings falsely ascribed to them, knowing that such were not
handed down to us. (Emphasis added)
Bishop
Serapion’s principal criterion for determining canonicity was apostolic
tradition. The way the early Christians
approached canonicity is at variance with the more recent discussion about
canon formation which asume a tension between the authority of the writings and
the authority of the church. The issue
of Scripture versus the Church was not a concern of the early Christians. Instead they were more concerned about the
traditioning process: Could a bishopric, a liturgical practice, or an alleged
apostolic writing be shown to have apostolic origins?
Many
Protestants and Evangelicals admire Athanasius the Great for his staunch
defense of Christ’s divinity. But many
are not aware of his role as a bishop in the early church. Athanasius’ Letter 39 which provides one of
the earliest listing of canonical books also affirmed the traditioning process
as critical to canon formation. He
wrote:
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 Scriptures,
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…. (Emphasis added)
Letter 39
was not an ordinary correspondence. It
was the custom for the Patriarch of Alexandria to send a letter to the churches
in the diocese every Easter. In other
words this was an authoritative letter by the bishop to all those under his
care. There was a practical aspect to
the letter. Apparently there was some
confusion as to which books ought to be read out loud in the Sunday
Liturgy. As bishop Athanasius sought to
bring order and regularity to the congregations under his care. What is striking here is that Athanasius did
not invoke the institutional power of the church but rather he referenced the
traditioning process that he was part of.
As a bishop of the early church he was obligated to safeguard the sacred
deposit of Faith which included the writings of the Apostles.
Eusebius
and Athanasius were bishops who lived in the fourth century. When we look for earlier evidence we find
similar evidence in the second century church father, Irenaeus of Lyons. In his
defense of the four Gospels, Irenaeus made reference to the traditioning
process. He wrote:
For if
what they [the heretics] had 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 the Heretics
3.11.9, p. 429; Emphasis added)
Therefore,
brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by
word or our epistle. (NKJV; emphasis added)
What is
striking in this verse is Paul’s use of the word “whether.” This means that oral tradition is just as
authoritative as written tradition. We
also find Paul exhorting Timothy to pass on the deposit of faith to other
faithful men when ordaining the future generation of clergy (II Timothy 2:2).
And the
things you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful
men who will be able to teach others also. (NKJV)
The word
“commit” used by Paul is similar to: “delivered,” “pass on,” and “hand down”
terms used by the church fathers; they are all refer to the traditioning
process.
When we
consider that I and II Thessalonians were among Paul’s earliest letters and
that the two letters to Timothy were written just before his death we find that
the traditioning process was an integral to the Apostle Paul’s ministry. So I
was shocked when I read Eusebius’ Church History and discovered that II Timothy
2:2 did not disappear into the foggy mists of church history but continued like
a strong iron chain in the form detailed listings of bishops. Eusebius’ Church History gives us long
detailed lists of bishops tracing their lineage back to the Apostles! Thus, the traditioning of Scripture was a
widely known practice endorsed by both Scripture and the early church fathers.
(See my article on Sola Scriptura and the Biblical Basis for the Tradition.)
3. An Orthodox Approach to Canon Formation
The
significance of the patristic and biblical witness to the importance of
traditioning process to canon formation is that they alter the framework of
debate. The tension between an
authoritative Scripture and an authoritative Church is no longer an issue. This is because both have a common source,
the Apostles who were commissioned by Christ via the Great Commission.
The
dichotomy underlying the canon formation debate – an authoritative listing versus
a listing of authoritative books — becomes suspect. This tension apparently stem from the
Protestant versus Catholic controversy of the 1500s. Defining the canon as an authoritative
listing of books supports the Roman Catholic view that Scripture is
authoritative because it has the backing of the Church. Defining the canon as a listing of
authoritative books reflects the Protestant view that Scripture’s authority is
independent of the church.
The
Orthodox approach is to understand the biblical canon as an authoritative
listing of authoritative books. The
apostolic writings were authoritative because they were written by the apostles
and the bishops were authoritative because they were the apostles’ successors
and the guardian of Scripture. For Orthodoxy,
Scripture and Church cannot be separated because they comprise one organic
whole.
This
makes for some troubling practical consequences for Protestants. Scripture can
no longer be viewed as existing independently of the Church. The Bible is the property of the Church, much
like the bags of money stored in Brinks armored trucks. The money does not belong to the guards, but
are nonetheless the guards’ responsibility.
Similarly, Scripture is the word of God left in the care of the bishops.
There are
problems with the Protestant approach to the biblical canon as just a
list. How should a Protestant respond to
Martin Luther wanting to exclude the book of James from the New Testament or
Thomas Jefferson excising passages from the Bible based upon his well informed
judgment? And how should a Protestant
respond to a “prophet” like Joseph Smith who wants expand the canonical
collection? Or a university scholar who
discovered a “lost gospel”? Without
being able to appeal to an authoritative listing, a Protestant will be forced
to fall back on reason, scholarship, or inner conscience. But would one have confidence in a round
table of scholars like the Jesus Seminar voting by means of colored slips? An Orthodox Christian can simply reply that
to tamper with the biblical canon is to break with the historic Christian faith
that goes back to the Apostles. This is
because the Church as the recipient and guardian of Scripture has the authority
to draw up an authoritative listing of biblical books.
The
Jurassic Park Experience
Professor
Daniel Wallace is perceptive when he recognizes that Protestantism’s
ecclesiology is its weakness. This
leaves him yearning for a church unified in worship and doctrine but he
dismisses that as just a dream. My
response is that the true church is not wishful thinking but a living
reality. Professor Wallace wrote
positively about his visits to the Orthodox Church. He may not know it but every time he visits
an Orthodox Liturgy he is seeing a living walking dinosaur straight from the
ancient church. The Orthodox Church
today is the same church as the church described by Irenaeus of Lyons. This is because it has not suffered a break
in the traditioning process like Protestantism.
Orthodoxy’s strong ecclesiology has enabled it to maintain unity in
worship and doctrinal orthodoxy for the past two millennia.
Source: https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/orthodoxbridge/holy-traditions-importance-to-canon-formation/
CONVERSATION