Tradition Grounded in Scripture

According to Irenaeus, his opponents’ response to the charge that their teaching is not to be found in Scripture is simply to assert that these Scriptures are not authoritative, that they are inadequate for full knowledge, that they are ambiguous and need to be interpreted in the light of tradition which is not handed down in writing but orally.

The Way to Nicaea, John Behr

Irenaeus is writing against the Marcions and the Gnostics. But, admittedly, (and I have to say it): doesn’t this sound quite a bit like the arguments of a sola scriptura protestant?

Enough of that, as I have committed to not make too strong a point on divisive topics with just the fragments of knowledge to which I have been exposed. And, as will be seen in this post, Irenaeus’ thoughts on this topic of Scripture and tradition are too nuanced to draw any black and white statement out of it.

So, returning to Behr and Irenaeus. In this manner, the heretics can be exposed: when confronted from the Scriptures, they negate the Scriptures in favor of some other authority – tradition as they have secretly found it, for example.

It isn’t that Irenaeus dismisses tradition: he is a strong advocate of tradition. But what he means by tradition is important: it is tradition from the apostles and preserved by the succession of presbyters in the churches. This tradition has been maintained publicly by these presbyters. It is tradition that is grounded in the Scriptures and the Gospels, and also what is written in the letters.

It is the preaching of the truth, preserved by the presbyters/bishops throughout their successions, that is the ecclesiastical tradition deriving from the apostles. Irenaeus demonstrates this through the history in Rome. Not that there was a monarchical episcopy from the beginning, but there were leaders in what would look like philosophical schools (as these were understood at the time in the intellectual climate of Rome).

But Irenaeus also considers succession in a nuanced manner:

More important than the office itself is the continuity of teaching with which the successors are charged.

Here again, this sounds a bit protestant, as I have heard succession in low-church Protestantism say something similar to this today. In any case, just as Irenaeus demonstrated this succession in Rome, he also turned to Smyrna and Ephesus for further examples.

After again emphasizing the completeness and authority of the apostles, Irenaeus offers a hypothetical case: supposing there is some dispute on an important question and we had no writings from the apostles; should we not have recourse to the most ancient churches to which the apostles established and taught? Therefore, why not utilize this resource in any case?

To summarize: Irenaeus’ appeal to tradition is fundamentally different than the appeal made by the heretics:

While they appealed to tradition precisely for that which was not in Scripture, or for principles which would legitimize their interpretation of Scripture, Irenaeus, in his appeal to tradition, was not appealing to anything else that was not also in Scripture.

Irenaeus thus could appeal to tradition, while at the same time maintaining that Scripture can only be understood on the basis of Scripture itself – returning to the idea developed in the last post: the hypothesis that forms the basis for further interpretation and development.

Scripture, as written, is fixed, and though the tradition maintained by the succession of presbyters is similarly fixed in principle, in practice it is much less secure, and, in any case, it can never be, for Irenaeus, a point of reference apart from the Scripture.

So, what does the Scripture say about Christ? Our Lord Jesus Christ is the truth, and there is no lie in Him.

The doctrine concerning God, and the truth that is Christ, is to be found in the exposition of the Scriptures as interpreted by the apostles, who alone proclaimed the Gospel, handing it down in both Scripture and tradition.

There is one Gospel, a Gospel which is of God and not of man. The Scripture is understood based on its own hypothesis, not based on one invented by man. It is to be understood based on the canon and tradition delivered by the apostles.

The reverse side of the affirmation of truth is the recognition of error.

It was on this basis that Irenaeus and others in his time could reject the heretics.

Conclusion

That there is indeed one Christ made known through the one Gospel, means that the question, “Who do you say that I am?” is meaningful, one to which an answer is possible.

Once the basis of hypothesis and a canon is established, inquiry can be made. The subsequent centuries offered significant reflection on this canon, within this interpretive framework. The writings of the early Church Fathers, the various saints, schools of iconography and hagiography – all have authority as long as they have worked within and through this framework.

The Word grows, as Acts puts it (Acts 6:7), in that as more and more people believe on it and reflect on it, there are ever new, more detailed and comprehensive explanations elaborated in defense of one and the same faith, the faith in what has been delivered from the beginning, the Gospel according to the Scriptures, the same Word of God – Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today, and forever.

As mentioned before, this was just the beginning of the work undertaken to answer the question. A monumental task, knowing something about the God we are to love and to worship, and the Son, Jesus Christ.

It really shouldn’t be a surprise that the most unfathomable event in human history took some time to process.