:-) I might argue that *this* is the single biggest hurdle many, if not all, western/protestant/low-church Christians have to cross. It is the Enlightenment--and frankly quite arbitrary--concept that the text, written down, has a primacy over oral tradition handed down. In reality, the written text is just as much a Tradition as the Liturgy or the Rudder or the Philokalia (all written down). Perhaps more so. None of the authors of the books of the NT taught and wrote in a vacuum, and the biblical texts were not handed down and passed on in a vacuum, either. All were as a result of careful the deliberation of The Church, over time. And, we need also to be careful with the OT--Irenaeus' "scriptures" while including some of the proto-NT-Canon, consisted mainly of the Septuagint (as was +Paul's, +John's, +Peter's, even Jesus') How many of us currently use the LXX as our OT... no, the western *tradition* has been to use the Masoretic. I only mention this to show that the separation and elevation of Scripture, apart, over, and above Tradition, is not based on any objective, absolute, or foundational truth. Rather it is a modern assumption.
Scripture, as we have it today, *is* a "tradition of men," if you will. I just think we need to be very, very careful, as people steeped in western protestantism and its sensibilities, to approach scripture as the Church always has, in community and in the context of the Traditions handed down. Not doing so has led us to the condition we're in, currently.
Switching gears, to support your effort here, BM, I would like to also suggest a few compilations of Saints and Fathers' writings... not for discussion just for everyone's edification:
- *The Ante-Nicene Fathers* (by any editor)
- *The Wisdom of the Desert* (by Thomas Merton) or any compilation of The Desert Fathers and Mothers.
- *On the Incarnation* (by Athanasius) or anything else by Athanasius (bonus points for *Against the Heathen*)
- *The Ascetical Homilies of Saint Isaac the Syrian* (by any editor)
Any reader here can gain as much as you wish by reading any part or all of these.
Yes, I was raised and continue to attend a protestant low church. I also attend (once every 4 or 6 weeks) and Orthodox Church (one that allows any baptized Christian to participate in the Eucharist, happily). I take value in both. I think the issue you point to is a Renaissance issue, when the idea of a return to the text (not just Scripture, but Greek and other ancient texts) was emphasized.
With that said, I believe there is a need for some standard that doesn't change. Yes, I understand, just by translating there is change, etc., etc. But I trust this more than I trust even well-meaning humans over the course of 2000 years. And we know, not all of the humans in these links were well-meaning. I see this in our current bishop, for example.
Tradition: I value it, as long as a) it doesn't contradict clear Biblical language, and b) it doesn't turn into a dogma - considered necessary for salvation - something that isn't well grounded in Scripture. I think there are many examples of both, and without some external standard, there is no way to judge.
All of this to say, I think Prima Scriptura is a better understanding of what Protestants actually mean.
As to the book suggestions:
The Ante-Nicene Fathers: I see a ten volume set for $1000, and a 300 page paperback for about $22. I will go with the paperback!
In this current series, there will be a couple of posts from the Desert Fathers upcoming.
I Have read and written about On the Incarnation. Take a look through the bibliography tab at the top of this page. I will buy Against the Heathen.
"Yes, but they did leave us writings…."
"I accept tradition; just not above Scripture."
:-) I might argue that *this* is the single biggest hurdle many, if not all, western/protestant/low-church Christians have to cross. It is the Enlightenment--and frankly quite arbitrary--concept that the text, written down, has a primacy over oral tradition handed down. In reality, the written text is just as much a Tradition as the Liturgy or the Rudder or the Philokalia (all written down). Perhaps more so. None of the authors of the books of the NT taught and wrote in a vacuum, and the biblical texts were not handed down and passed on in a vacuum, either. All were as a result of careful the deliberation of The Church, over time. And, we need also to be careful with the OT--Irenaeus' "scriptures" while including some of the proto-NT-Canon, consisted mainly of the Septuagint (as was +Paul's, +John's, +Peter's, even Jesus') How many of us currently use the LXX as our OT... no, the western *tradition* has been to use the Masoretic. I only mention this to show that the separation and elevation of Scripture, apart, over, and above Tradition, is not based on any objective, absolute, or foundational truth. Rather it is a modern assumption.
Scripture, as we have it today, *is* a "tradition of men," if you will. I just think we need to be very, very careful, as people steeped in western protestantism and its sensibilities, to approach scripture as the Church always has, in community and in the context of the Traditions handed down. Not doing so has led us to the condition we're in, currently.
Switching gears, to support your effort here, BM, I would like to also suggest a few compilations of Saints and Fathers' writings... not for discussion just for everyone's edification:
- *The Ante-Nicene Fathers* (by any editor)
- *The Wisdom of the Desert* (by Thomas Merton) or any compilation of The Desert Fathers and Mothers.
- *On the Incarnation* (by Athanasius) or anything else by Athanasius (bonus points for *Against the Heathen*)
- *The Ascetical Homilies of Saint Isaac the Syrian* (by any editor)
Any reader here can gain as much as you wish by reading any part or all of these.
Good series, BM. Thank you.
Justin,
Yes, I was raised and continue to attend a protestant low church. I also attend (once every 4 or 6 weeks) and Orthodox Church (one that allows any baptized Christian to participate in the Eucharist, happily). I take value in both. I think the issue you point to is a Renaissance issue, when the idea of a return to the text (not just Scripture, but Greek and other ancient texts) was emphasized.
With that said, I believe there is a need for some standard that doesn't change. Yes, I understand, just by translating there is change, etc., etc. But I trust this more than I trust even well-meaning humans over the course of 2000 years. And we know, not all of the humans in these links were well-meaning. I see this in our current bishop, for example.
Tradition: I value it, as long as a) it doesn't contradict clear Biblical language, and b) it doesn't turn into a dogma - considered necessary for salvation - something that isn't well grounded in Scripture. I think there are many examples of both, and without some external standard, there is no way to judge.
All of this to say, I think Prima Scriptura is a better understanding of what Protestants actually mean.
As to the book suggestions:
The Ante-Nicene Fathers: I see a ten volume set for $1000, and a 300 page paperback for about $22. I will go with the paperback!
In this current series, there will be a couple of posts from the Desert Fathers upcoming.
I Have read and written about On the Incarnation. Take a look through the bibliography tab at the top of this page. I will buy Against the Heathen.
I will take a pass, for now, on St. Isaac.
I thank you for your comments and feedback.