Cell
Studies: Vol. 26
The
Brotherhood of Orthodox Servant of Jesus
Archpriest
Symeon Elias – Senior Pastor
"Let our keeping of Traditions
spring from the fountain of blood warmly flowing from our hearts. (A
Broken Spirit - A Broken and Contrite Heart, O God - You will not
despise.) Or let us remain silent and still and not be false in any
spoken or acted religious expression."
THE
WAY
The most ancient name for the Christian Experience was The
Way. "About that time there rose no little stir concerning the
Way." Acts 19:23 Felix the Roman governor of Caesarea, had "a
rather accurate knowledge of the Way" Acts 24:22
I am the
Way, the Truth and the Life. John 14: 6
The Church gives us
not a system, but a key; not a plan of God's City, but the means of
entering it. Perhaps someone will lose his way because he has no
plan. But all that he will see, he will see without a mediator, he
will see it directly, it will be real for him; while he who has
studied only the plan risks remaining outside and not really finding
anything. - Fr. Georges Florovsky
______________________
Which
Came First: The Church or the New Testament?
By
Fr. James Bernstein (Orthodox Priest of the Ancient Church of
Antioch)
As a Jewish convert to Christ via evangelical
Protestantism, I naturally wanted to know God better through the
reading of the Scriptures. In fact, it had been through reading the
Gospels in the "forbidden book" called the New Testament,
at age sixteen, that I had come to believe in Jesus Christ as the Son
of God and our promised Messiah. In my early years as a Christian,
much of my religious education came from private Bible reading. By
the time I entered college, I had a pocket-sized version of the whole
Bible that was my constant companion. I would commit favorite
passages from the Scriptures to memory, and often quote them to
myself in times of temptation-or to others as I sought to convince
them of Christ. The Bible became for me-as it is to this day-the most
important book in print. I can say from my heart with Saint Paul
the Apostle, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and
is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for
instruction in righteousness" (2 Timothy 3:16).
That's
the good news!
The bad news is that often I would decide for
myself what the Scriptures meant. For example, I became so
enthusiastic about knowing Jesus as my close and personal friend that
I thought my own awareness of Him was all I needed. So I would mark
verses about Jesus with my yellow highlighter, but pass over passages
concerning God the Father, or the Church, or baptism. I saw the
Bible as a heavenly instruction manual. I didn't think I needed the
Church, except as a good place to make friends or to leans more about
the Bible so I could be a better do-it-yourself Christian. I came to
think that I could build my life, and the Church, by the Book. I
mean, I took sola scriptura ("only the Bible") seriously!
Salvation history was clear to me: God sent His Son, together they
sent the Holy Spirit, then came the New Testament to explain
salvation, and finally the Church developed.
Close, maybe, but
not close enough.
Let me hasten to say that the Bible is all
God intends it to be. No problem with the Bible. The problem lay in
the way I individualized it, subjecting it to my own personal
interpretations- some not so bad, others not so good.
A
STRUGGLE FOR UNDERSTANDING
It was not long after my conversion to
Christianity that I found myself getting swept up in the tide of
religious sectarianism, in which Christians would part ways over one
issue after another. It seemed, for instance, that there were as many
opinions on the Second Coming as there were people in the
discussion. So we'd all appeal to the Scriptures. "I believe in
the Bible. If it's not in the Bible I don't believe it," became
my war cry. What I did not realize was that everyone else was saying
the same thing! It was not the Bible, but each one's private
interpretation of it, that became our ultimate authority. In an age
which highly exalts independence of thought and self-reliance, I was
becoming my own pope! The guidelines I used in interpreting Scripture
seemed simple enough: When the plain sense of Scripture makes common
sense, seek no other sense. I believed that those who were truly
faithful and honest in following this principle would achieve
Christian unity. To my surprise, this "common sense"
approach led not to increased Christian clarity and unity, but rather
to a spiritual free-for-all! Those who most strongly adhered to
believing "only the Bible" tended to become the, most
factious, divisive, and combative of Christians-perhaps
unintentionally. In fact, it seemed to me that the more one held to
the Bible as the only source of spiritual authority, the more
factious and sectarian one became. We would even argue heatedly
over verses on love! Within my circle of Bible-believing friends, I
witnessed a mini-explosion of sects and schismatic movements, each
claiming to be "true to the Bible" and each in bitter
conflict with the others. Serious conflict arose over every issue
imaginable: charismatic gifts, interpretation of prophecy, the proper
way to worship, communion, Church government, discipleship,
discipline in the Church, morality, accountability, evangelism,
social action, the relationship of faith and works, the role of
women, and ecumenism. The list is endless. In fact any issue at
all could-and often did-cause Christians to part ways. The fruit of
this sectarian spirit has been the creation of literally thousands of
independent churches and denominations. As I myself became
increasingly sectarian, my radicalism intensified, and I came to
believe that all churches were unbiblical: to become a member of
any church was to compromise the Faith. For me, "church"
meant "the Bible, God, and me." This hostility towards the
churches fit in well with my Jewish background. I naturally
distrusted all churches because I felt they had betrayed the
teachings of Christ by having participated in or passively ignored
the persecution of the Jews throughout history. But the more
sectarian I became-to the point of being obnoxious and antisocial-the
more I began to realize that something was seriously wrong with my
approach to Christianity. My spiritual life wasn't working.
Clearly, my privately held beliefs in the Bible and what it taught
were leading me away from love and community with my fellow
Christians, and therefore away from Christ. As Saint John the
Evangelist wrote, "He who does not love his brother whom he has
seen, how can he love God whom he has not seen?" (1 John 4:20).
This division and hostility were not what had drawn me to Christ. And
I knew the answer was not to deny the Faith or reject the Scriptures.
Something had to change. Maybe it was me. I turned to a study of the
history of the Church and the New Testament, hoping to shed some
light on what my attitude toward the Church and the Bible
should
be. The results were not at all what I expected.
THE
BIBLE OF THE APOSTLES
My initial attitude was that whatever was
good enough for the Apostles would be good enough for me. This is
where I got my first surprise. As I mentioned previously, I knew that
the Apostle Paul regarded Scripture as being inspired by God (2
Timothy 3:16). But I had always assumed that the "Scripture"
spoken of in this passage was the whole Bible-both the Old and New
Testaments. In reality, there was no "New Testament" when
this statement was made. Even the Old Testament was still in the
process of formulation, for the Jews did not decide upon a definitive
list or canon of Old Testament books until after the rise of
Christianity. As I studied further, I discovered that the early
Christians used a Greek translation of the Old Testament called the
Septuagint. This translation, which was begun in Alexandria,
Egypt, in the third century B.C., contained an expanded canon which
included a number of the so-called "deuterocanonical" (or
"apocryphal" ) books. Although there was some initial
debate over these books, they were eventually received by
Christians into the Old Testament canon. In reaction to the rise of
Christianity, the Jews narrowed their canons and eventually excluded
the deuterocanonical books-although they still regarded them as
sacred. The modern Jewish canon was not rigidly fixed until the third
century A.D. Interestingly, it is this later version of the Jewish
canon of the Old Testament, rather than the canon of early
Christianity, that is followed by most modern Protestants today. When
the Apostles lived and wrote, there was no New Testament and no
finalized Old Testament. The concept of "Scripture" was
much less well-defined than I had envisioned.
EARLY
CHRISTIAN WRITINGS
The second big surprise came when I realized
that the first complete listing of New Testament books as we have
them today did not appear until over 300 years after the death and
resurrection of Christ. (The first complete listing was given by St.
Athanasius in his Paschal Letter in A.D. 367.) Imagine it! If the
writing of the New Testament had been begun at the same time as
the U.S. Constitution, we wouldn't see a final product until the year
2076! The four Gospels were written from thirty to sixty years after
Jesus' death and resurrection. In the interim, the Church relied on
oral tradition-the accounts of eyewitnesses- as well as scattered
pre-gospel documents (such as those quoted in 1 Timothy 3:16 and 2
Timothy 2:11-13) and written tradition. Most churches only had parts
of what was to become the New Testament. As the eyewitnesses of
Christ's life and teachings began to die, the Apostles wrote as they
were guided by the Holy Spirit, in order to preserve and solidify the
scattered written and oral tradition. Because the Apostles expected
Christ to return soon, it seems they did not have in mind that these
gospel accounts and apostolic letters would in time be collected into
a new Bible. During the first four centuries A.D. there was
substantial disagreement over which books should be included in the
canon of Scripture. The first person on record who tried to establish
a New Testament canon was the second-century heretic, Marcion. He
wanted the Church to reject its Jewish heritage, and therefore he
dispensed with the Old Testament entirely. Marcion's canon included
only one gospel, which he himself edited, and ten of Paul's epistles.
Sad but true, the first attempted New Testament was heretical. Many
scholars believe that it was partly in reaction to this distorted
canon of Marcion that the early Church determined to create a clearly
defined canon of its own. The destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70,
the breakup of the Jewish-Christian community there, and the
threatened loss of continuity in the oral tradition probably also
contributed to the sense of the urgent need for the Church to
standardize the list of books Christians could rely on. During this
period of the canon's evolution, as previously noted, most churches
had only a few, if any, of the apostolic writings available to them.
The books of the Bible had to be painstakingly copied by hand, at
great expense of time and effort. Also, because most people were
illiterate, they could only be read by a privileged few. The exposure
of most Christians to the Scriptures was confined to what they heard
in the churches-the Law and Prophets, the Psalms, and some of the
Apostles' memoirs. The persecution of Christians by the Roman Empire
and the existence of many documents of non-apostolic origin further
complicated the matter. This was my third surprise. Somehow I had
naively envisioned every home and parish having a complete Old and
New Testament from the very inception of the Church! It was difficult
for me to imagine a church surviving and prospering without a
complete New Testament. Yet unquestionably they did. This may have
been my first clue that there was more to the total life of the
Church than just the written Word.
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO
WHOM?
Next, I was surprised to discover that many "gospels"
besides those of the New Testament canon were circulating in the
first and second centuries. These included the Gospel according to
the Hebrews, the Gospel according to the Egyptians, and the Gospel
according to Peter, to name just a few. The New Testament itself
speaks of the existence of such accounts. Saint Luke's Gospel
begins by saying, "Inasmuch as many [italics added] have taken
in hand to set in order a narrative of those things which have been
fulfilled among us . . . it seemed good to me also . . . to write to
you an orderly account" (Luke 1:1, 3). At the time Luke wrote,
Matthew and Mark were the only two canonical Gospels that had been
written. In time, all but four Gospels were excluded from the New
Testament canon. Yet in the early years of Christianity there was
even a controversy over which of these four Gospels to use. Most of
the Christians of Asia Minor used the Gospel of John rather than the
Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Based upon the Passion account
contained in John, most Christians in Asia Minor celebrated Easter on
a different day from those in Rome. Roman Christians resisted the
Gospel of John and instead used the other Gospels. The Western Church
for a time hesitated to use the Gospel of John because the Gnostic
heretics made use of it along with their own "secret gospels."
Another debate arose over the issue of whether there should be
separate gospels or one single composite gospel account. In the
second century, Tatian, who was Justin Martyr's student, published a
single composite "harmonized" gospel called the
Diatessaron. The Syrian Church used this composite gospel in the
second, third, and fourth centuries; they did not accept all four
Gospels until the fifth century. They also ignored for a time the
Epistles of John, 2 Peter, and the Book of Revelation. To further
complicate matters, the Church of Egypt, as reflected in the
second-century New Testament canon of Clement of Alexandria, included
the "gospels" of the Hebrews, the Egyptians, and
Mattathias. In addition they held to be of apostolic origin the First
Epistle of Clement (Bishop of Rome), the Epistle of Barnabas, the
Preaching of Peter, the Revelation of Peter, the
Didache, the
Protevangelium of James, the Acts of John, the Acts of Paul, and The
Shepherd of Hermas (which they held to be especially inspired).
Irenaeus (second century), martyred Bishop of Lyons in Gaul, included
the Revelation of Peter in his canon.
OTHER
CONTROVERSIAL BOOKS
My favorite New Testament book, the Epistle to
the Hebrews, was clearly excluded in the Western Church in a number
of listings from the second, third, and fourth centuries. Primarily
due to the influence of Augustine upon certain North African
councils, the
Epistle to the Hebrews was finally accepted in the
West by the end of the fourth century. On the other hand, the Book of
Revelation, also known as the Apocalypse, written by the Apostle
John, was not accepted in the Eastern Church for several centuries.
Among Eastern authorities who rejected this book were Dionysius of
Alexandria (third century), Eusebius (third century), Cyril of
Jerusalem (fourth century), the Council of Laodicea (fourth century),
John Chrysostom (fourth century), Theodore of Mopsuesta (fourth
century), and Theodoret (fifth century). In addition, the original
Syriac and Armenian versions of the New Testament omitted this book.
Many Greek New Testament manuscripts written before the ninth century
do not contain the Apocalypse, and it is not used liturgically in the
Eastern Church to this day. Athanasius supported the inclusion of the
Apocalypse, and it is due primarily to his influence that it was
eventually received into the New Testament canon in the East. The
early Church actually seems to have made an internal compromise on
the Apocalypse and Hebrews. The East would have excluded the
Apocalypse from the canon, while the West would have done without
Hebrews. Simply put, each side agreed to accept the disputed book of
the other. Interestingly, the sixteenth-century father of the
Protestant Reformation, Martin Luther, held that the New Testament
books should be "graded" and that some were more inspired
than others (that there is a canon within the canon). Luther gave
secondary rank to Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation, placing them
at the end of his translation of the New Testament. Imagine-the man
who gave us sola scriptura assumed the authority to edit the written
Word of God!
THE
NEW TESTAMENT MATURES
I was particularly interested in finding the
oldest legitimate list of New Testament books. Some believe that the
Muratorian Canon is the oldest, dating from the late second century.
This canon excludes Hebrews, James, and the two Epistles of Peter,
but includes the Apocalypse of Peter and the Wisdom of Solomon. It is
not until A.D. 200-about 170 years after the death and resurrection
of Christ-that we first see the term "New Testament" used,
by Tertullian. Origen, who lived in the third century, is often
considered to be the first systematic theologian (though he was often
systematically wrong). He questioned the authenticity of 2 Peter and
2 John. He also tells us, based on his extensive travels, that there
were churches which refused to use 2 Timothy because the epistle
speaks of a "secret" writing-the Book of Jannes and
Jambres, derived from Jewish oral tradition (see 2 Timothy 3:8). The
Book of Jude was also considered suspect by some because it
includes a quotation from the apocryphal book, The Assumption of
Moses, also derived from Jewish oral tradition (see Jude 9). Moving
into the fourth century, I discovered that Eusebius, Bishop of
Caesarea and the "Father of Church History," lists as
disputed books James, Jude, 2 Peter, and 2 and 3 John. The
Revelation of John he totally rejects. Codex Sinaiticus, the
oldest complete New Testament manuscript we have today, was
discovered in the Orthodox Christian monastery of Saint Catherine on
Mount Sinai. It is dated as being from the fourth century and it
contains all of the books we have in the modern New Testament, but
also includes Barnabas and The Shepherd of Hermas. During the
fourth century, Emperor Constantine was frustrated by the controversy
between Christians and Arians concerning the divinity of Christ.
Because the New Testament had not yet been clearly defined, he
pressed for a
clearer defining and closing of the New Testament
canon, in order to help resolve the conflict and bring religious
unity to his divided Empire. However, as late as the fifth century
the Codex Alexandrinus included 1 and 2 Clement, indicating that the
disputes over the canon were still not everywhere firmly
resolved.
WHO DECIDED?
With the passage of time the Church
discerned which writings were truly apostolic and which were not. It
was a prolonged struggle, taking place over several centuries. As
part of the process of discernment, the Church met together several
times in council. These
various Church councils confronted a
variety of issues, among which was the canon of Scripture. It is
important to note that the purpose of these councils was to discern
and confirm what was already generally accepted within the Church at
large. The councils did not legislate the canon so much as set forth
what had become self-evident truth and practice within the churches
of God. The councils sought to proclaim the common mind of the Church
and to reflect the unanimity of faith, practice, and tradition as it
already existed in the local churches represented. The councils
provide us with specific records in which the Church spoke
clearly and in unison as to what constitutes Scripture. Among the
many councils that met during the first four centuries, two are
particularly important in this context: (1) The Council of Laodicea
met in Asia Minor about A.D. 363. This is the first council which
clearly listed the canonical books of the present Old and New
Testaments, with the exception of the Apocalypse of Saint John. The
Laodicean council stated that only the canonical books it listed
should be read in church. Its decisions were widely accepted in the
Eastern Church. (2) The third Council of Carthage met in North Africa
about A.D. 397. This council, attended by Augustine, provided a full
list of the
canonical books of both the Old and New Testaments.
The twenty-seven books of the present-day New Testament were accepted
as canonical. The council also held that these books should be read
in the church as Divine Scripture to the exclusion of all others.
This Council was widely accepted as authoritative in the West.
THE
BUBBLE BURSTS
As I delved deeper into my study of the history of
the New Testament, I saw my previous misconceptions being demolished
one by one. I understood now what should have been obvious all along:
that the New Testament consisted of twenty-seven separate documents
which, while certainly inspired by God nothing could shake me in that
conviction-
had been written and compiled by human beings. It was
also clear that this work had not been accomplished by individuals
working in isolation, but by the collective effort of all Christians
everywhere-the Body of Christ, the Church. This realization forced me
to deal with two more issues that my earlier prejudices had led
me to avoid: (1) the propriety and necessity of human involvement in
the writing of Scripture; and (2) the authority of the Church.
HUMAN
AND DIVINE
Deeply committed, like many evangelicals, to belief in
the inspiration of Scripture, I had understood the New Testament to
be God's Word only, and not man's. I supposed the Apostles were told
by God exactly what to write, much as a secretary takes down what is
being dictated, without providing any personal contribution.
Ultimately, my understanding of the inspiration of Scripture was
clarified by the teaching of the Church regarding the Person of
Christ. The Incarnate Word of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, is not only
God but also man. Christ is a single Person with two natures-divine
and human. To de-emphasize Christ's humanity leads to heresy. The
ancient Church taught that the Incarnate Word was fully human-in
fact, as human as it is possible to be-and yet without sin. In His
humanity, the Incarnate Word was born, grew, and matured into
manhood. I came to realize that this view of the Incarnate Word of
God, the Logos, Jesus Christ, paralleled the early Christian view of
the written Word of God, the Bible. The written Word of God reflects
not only the divine thought, but a human contribution as well. The
Word of God conveys truth to us as written by men, conveying the
thoughts, personalities, and even limitations and weaknesses of the
writers-inspired by God, to be sure. This means that the human
element in the Bible is not overwhelmed so as to be lost in the ocean
of the divine. It became clearer to me that as Christ Himself was
born, grew, and matured, so also did the written Word of God, the
Bible. It did not come down whole-plop-from heaven, but was of human
origin as well as divine. The Apostles did not merely inscribe the
Scriptures as would a robot or a zombie, but freely cooperated with
the will of God through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
A
QUESTION OF AUTHORITY
The second issue I had to grapple with was
even more difficult for me - the issue of Church authority. It was
clear from my study that the Church had, in fact, determined which
books composed the Scriptures; but still I wrestled mightily with the
thought that the Church had been given this authority. Ultimately, it
came down to a single issue. I already believed with all my heart
that God spoke authoritatively through His written Word. The written
Word of God is concrete and tangible. I can touch the Bible and read
it. But for some strange reason, I was reluctant to believe the same
things about the Body of Christ, the Church-that she was visible
and tangible, located physically on earth in history. The Church to
me was essentially "mystical" and intangible, not
identifiable with any specific earthly assembly. This view permitted
me to see each Christian as being a church unto himself. How
convenient this is, especially when doctrinal or personal problems
arise! Yet this view did not agree with the reality of what the
Church was understood to be in the apostolic era. The New Testament
is about real churches, not ethereal ones. Could I now accept the
fact that God spoke authoritatively, not only through the Bible, but
through His Church as well-the very Church which had produced,
protected, and actively preserved the Scriptures I held so dear?
THE
CHURCH OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
In the view of the earliest
Christians, God spoke His Word not only to but through His Body, the
Church. It was within His Body, the Church, that the Word was
confirmed and established. Without question, the Scriptures were
looked upon by early Christians as
God's active revelation of
Himself to the world. At the same time, the Church was understood as
the household of God, "having been built on the foundation of
the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief
cornerstone, in whom the whole building, being fitted together, grows
into a holy temple in the Lord" (Ephesians 2:20, 21). God has
His Word, but He also has His Body. The New Testament says: (1) "Now
you are the body of Christ, and members individually" (1
Corinthians 12:27; compare Romans 12:5). (2) "He [Christ] is the
head of the body, the church" (Colossians 1:18). (3) "And
He [the Father] put all things under His [the Son's] feet, and gave
Him to be head overall things to the church, which is His body,
the fullness of Him who fills all in all" (Ephesians 1:22, 23).
In early times there was no organic separation between Bible and
Church, as we so often find today. The Body without the Word is
without message, but the Word without the Body is without foundation.
As Paul writes, the Body is "the church of the living God, the
pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Timothy 3:15). The Church is
the Living Body of the Incarnate Lord. The Apostle does not say that
the New Testament is the pillar and ground of the truth. The Church
is the pillar and foundation of the truth because the New Testament
was built upon her life in God. In short, she wrote it! She is an
integral part of the gospel message, and it is within the Church that
the New Testament was written and preserved.
THE WORD OF GOD
IN ORAL TRADITION
The Apostle Paul exhorts us, "Therefore,
brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught,
whether by word or our epistle" (2 Thessalonians 2:15). This
verse was one that I had not highlighted because it used two phrases
I didn't like: "hold the traditions" and "by word [of
mouth]." These two phrases conflicted with my understanding of
biblical authority. But then I began to understand: the same God who
speaks to us through His written Word, the Bible, spoke also through
the Apostles of Christ as they taught and preached in person. The
Scriptures themselves teach in this passage (and others) that
this oral tradition is what we are to keep! Written and oral
tradition are not in conflict, but are parts of one whole. This
explains why the Fathers teach that he who does not have the Church
as his Mother does not have God as his Father. In coming to this
realization, I concluded that I had grossly overreacted in
rejecting
oral Holy Tradition. In my hostility toward Jewish oral tradition,
which rejected Christ, I had rejected Christian oral Holy Tradition,
which expresses the life of the Holy Spirit in the Church. And I had
rejected the idea that this Tradition enables us properly and
fully to understand the Bible. Let me illustrate this point with an
experience I had recently. I decided to build a shed behind my house.
In preparation, I studied a book on carpentry that has "everything"
in it. It's full of pictures and diagrams, enough so that "even
a kid could follow its instructions. " It explains itself, I was
told. But, simple as it claimed to be, the more I read it, the more
questions I had and the more confused I became. Disgusted at not
being able to understand something that seemed so simple, I came to
the conclusion that the book needed interpretation. Without help, I
just couldn't put it into practice. What I needed was someone with
expertise who could explain the manual to me. Fortunately, I had a
friend who was able to show me how the project should be completed.
He knows because of oral tradition. An experienced carpenter taught
him, and he in turn taught me. Written and oral tradition together
got the job done.
WHICH CAME FIRST?
What confronted me at
this point was the bottom line question: Which came first, the Church
or the New Testament? I knew that the Incarnate Word of God, Jesus
Christ, had called the Apostles, who in turn formed the nucleus of
the Christian Church. I knew that the Eternal Word of God therefore
preceded the Church and gave birth to the Church. When the Church
heard the Incarnate Word of God and committed His Word to writing,
she thereby participated with God in giving birth to the written
Word, the New Testament. Thus it was the Church which gave birth to
and preceded the New Testament. To the question, "Which came
first, the Church or the New Testament?" the answer, both
biblically and historically, is crystal clear. Someone might protest,
"Does it really make any difference which came first? After all,
the Bible contains everything that we need for salvation." The
Bible is adequate for salvation in the sense that it contains the
foundational material needed to establish us on the correct path. On
the other hand, it is wrong to consider the Bible as being
self-sufficient and self-interpreting. The Bible is meant to be read
and understood by the illumination of God's Holy Spirit within the
life of the Church. Did not the Lord Himself tell His disciples,
just prior to His crucifixion, "When He, the Spirit of truth,
has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on
His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will
tell you things to come" (John 16:13)? He also said, "I
will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail
against it" (Matthew 16:18). Our Lord did not leave us with only
a book to guide us. He left us with His Church. The Holy Spirit
within the Church teaches us, and His teaching complements Scripture.
How foolish to believe that God's full illumination ceased after
the New Testament books were written and did not resume until the
Protestant Reformation in the sixteenth century, or-to take this
argument to its logical conclusion-until the very moment when 1,
myself, started reading the Bible. Either the Holy Spirit was in the
Church throughout the centuries following the New Testament
period, leading, teaching, and illuminating her in her understanding
of the gospel message, or the Church has been left a spiritual
orphan, with individual Christians independently interpreting- and
often "authoritatively" teaching the same Scripture in
radically different ways. Such chaos cannot be the will of God, "for
God is not the author of confusion but of peace" (1 Corinthians
14:33).
A TIME TO DECIDE
At this point in my studies, I
felt I had to make a decision. If the Church was not just a tangent
or a sidelight to the Scripture, but rather an active participant in
its development and preservation, then it was time to reconcile my
differences with her and abandon my prejudices. Rather than
trying to judge the Church according to my modem preconceptions about
what the Bible was saying, I needed to humble myself and come into
union with the Church that produced the New Testament, and let her
guide me into a proper understanding of Holy Scripture. After
carefully exploring various church bodies, I finally realized that,
contrary to the beliefs of many modern Christians, the Church which
produced the Bible is not dead. The Orthodox Church today has direct
and clear historical continuity with the Church of the Apostles, and
it preserves intact both the Scriptures and the Holy Tradition
which enables us to interpret them properly. Once I understood this,
I converted to Orthodoxy and began to experience the fullness of
Christianity in a way I never had before. Though he may have coined
the slogan, the fact is that Luther himself did not practice sola
scriptura. If he had, he'd have tossed out the Creeds and spent
less time writing commentaries. The phrase came about as a result of
the reformers' struggles against the added human traditions of
Romanism. Understandably, they wanted to be sure their faith was
accurate according to New Testament standards. But to isolate the
Scriptures from the Church, to deny 1500 years of history, is
something the slogan sola scriptura and the Protestant
Reformers-Luther, Calvin, and later Wesley-never intended to do. To
those who try to stand dogmatically on sola scriptura, in the process
rejecting the Church which not only produced the New Testament, but
also, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, identified those books
which compose the New Testament, I would say this: Study the
history of the early Church and the development of the New Testament
canon. Use source documents where possible. (It is amazing how some
of the most "conservative" Bible scholars of the
evangelical community turn into cynical and rationalistic liberals
when discussing early Church history!) Examine for yourself what
happened to God's people after the twenty-eighth chapter of the
Book of Acts. You will find a list of helpful sources at the end of
this booklet. If you examine the data and look with objectivity at
what occurred in those early days, I think you will discover what I
discovered. The life and work of God's Church did not grind to a halt
after the first century and start up again in the sixteenth. If it
had, we would not possess the New Testament books which are so dear
to every Christian believer. The separation of Church and Bible which
is so prevalent in much of today's Christian world is a modern
phenomenon. Early Christians made no such artificial
distinctions. Once you have examined the data, I would encourage you
to find out more about the historic Church which produced the New
Testament, preserved it, and selected those books which would be part
of its canon. Every Christian owes it to himself or herself to
discover the Orthodox Christian Church and to understand its vital
role in proclaiming God's Word to our own generation.
SUGGESTED
READING
Bruce, F.F., The Canon of Scripture, Downers Grove,
Illinois:
InterVarsity Press, 1988.
Eusebius,
Ecclesiastical History, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book
House,
1990.
Farmer, William R. & Farkasfalvy, Denis, The
Formation of the New
Testament Canon: An Ecumenical Approach, New
York: Paulist Press,
1983.
Gamble, Harry Y., The New
Testament Canon: Its Making and Meaning,
Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1985.
Kesich, Veselin, The Gospel Image of Christ,
Crestwood, New York: St.
Vladimir's Seminary Press,
1992.
Metzger, Bruce Manning, The Canon of the New Testament:
Its Origin,
Development, and Significance, New York: Oxford
University Press,
1987.
Meyendorff, John, Living
Tradition, Crestwood, New York: St.
Vladimir's Seminary Press,
1978.
Histories of Christianity generally give some
information on the
formation of the Canon, although they are not
likely to discuss its
relevance to the authority and
interpretation of Scripture.
Used by permission.
Copyright--Conciliar Press
