The Ultimate Authority of Scripture
Have thou in thy mind this seal, which for the present has been lightly touched in my discourse, by way of summary, but shall be stated, should the Lord permit, to the best of my power with the proof from the Scriptures. For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell thee these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures.
-NPNF2: Vol.VII, Cyril of Jerusalem's Catechetical Lectures, Lecture IV:17.
-
15 comments:
Catz--
I noticed that you categorized this post under "Sola Scriptura". So I am curious what relevance you consider this to have for the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Do you think Cyril's quote shows that he believed it, or would have supported it?
Do you think Cyril's quote shows that he believed it, or would have supported it?
Whenever we think of "sola" we have to keep in mind we're talking about the infallible voice of God. Therefore, the question should be framed this way: Did Cyril affirm another infallible authority other than the Scriptures? Was there another infallible voice of God he directed his readers to?
James--
The Scriptures are not an authority. They are authoritative. Authorities are people, the Scriptures are books.
It is important, also, to realize that Sola Scriptura is not simply the idea that the Scriptures are the only infallibly authoritative content that serves as a rule for faith and practice. Sola Scriptura denies that there are any infallible interpreters of this rule. There are non-Sola Scriptura Christians (such as the Prima Scriptura position of some Anglicans and Orthodox) who accept that the Scriptures are the only infallibly authoritative rule for the content of Christian faith and practice. They just think that some interpreters of this rule are infallible.
It seems the pertinent question, then, is whether some persons' interpretive judgments with respect to Scripture are infallible. Do Cyril's teachings (a) preclude, (b) permit, or (c) require that we think some persons' interpretations are infallible? I would say that his theology is that (c) is true.
had a typo earlier
MG,
Anytime the word "infallible" is used in a Christian context, we're speaking about the voice of God, even if it means "infallible interpretation." If some authority (like say, a magisterium) claims anything they do is infallible, they're claiming the voice of God. They're claiming this is exactly what God means, and can't be wrong, because the Holy Spirit is informing this infallibility.
If you have any statements from Cyril that prove he believed "some persons' interpretations are infallible" I'd like to see them. As a word of caution, I would avoid using Catechetical Lectures 18:23.
MG-
“I noticed that you categorized this post under "Sola Scriptura". So I am curious what relevance you consider this to have for the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Do you think Cyril's quote shows that he believed it, or would have supported it?”
I think I labeled it under “The Ultimate Authority of Scripture.” This is its relevance to Sola Scriptura. For example, if I wanted I could have provided a different quote under something like “The Material Sufficiency of Scripture” and used NPNF2, Vol.VII, Catechetical Lectures, Lecture IV.17.
I think the quote indicates a tradition 1 concept of Scripture. I hope to go into more detail on all of this in some upcoming posts. I am not sure yet how to organize all of the information from my notes…ect into a case for SS from early Church fathers yet. One thing I will hopefully be able to get down soon is a def and basic outline of the case I will be making. It all depends on how busy I am.
“The Scriptures are not an authority. They are authoritative. Authorities are people, the Scriptures are books.”
The Scriptures are, as James says, the voice of God. They are also the words of the apostles and others associated with them. We refer to Scripture as the authority because see all the words of these people as coming from a sole and personal source.
*I said "different quote and put the same quote as an example. That one can also be used for the material sufficiency but for a "different" one you can look in NPNF2 Vol. VII, Catechetical Lectures, Lecture XI.12.
James—
You wrote:
“Anytime the word "infallible" is used in a Christian context, we're speaking about the voice of God, even if it means "infallible interpretation." If some authority (like say, a magisterium) claims anything they do is infallible, they're claiming the voice of God. They're claiming this is exactly what God means, and can't be wrong, because the Holy Spirit is informing this infallibility.”
I wouldn’t dispute what you just said about infallibility. I just thought there was a need to clarify in what sense a non-Sola Scripturaist could claim to believe in infallible authority/authorities/authoritative teachings and disagree with the Protestant take on authority. It seemed important to be clearer on what “another infallible voice of God” amounted to.
It does seem important to nuance what is being said about infallibility. After all, a Catholic or Orthodox who claims their Church is infallible means something very specific by this. They do not mean that no teacher in their Church ever errs. Rather, they mean there are certain conditions under which we can discern real decisions of specific kinds of ecclesiastical authorities on specific matters. Furthermore, these real decisions of the relevant kind by the relevant ecclesiastical authorities concerning the relevant subject matters are divinely authoritative (infallible). These real decisions, because they are infallible, are (a) incapable of error, and therefore unrevisable—not capable of being revised in favor of a superior interpretation that rejects the previous interpretation; (b) absolutely normative, producing the obligation to believe or do what the divinely authoritative person(s) decides.
You wrote:
“If you have any statements from Cyril that prove he believed "some persons' interpretations are infallible" I'd like to see them. As a word of caution, I would avoid using Catechetical Lectures 18:23.”
Though that text may seem like it has nothing to do with the infallible normativity of the Church’s interpretations, on second look it does say that the Church teaches “universally and completely all doctrines that must come to man’s knowledge”. The fact that the Church’s teachings are complete and universal does seem to imply that it teaches perfectly—the whole truth is taught by the Church as a whole. This implies that human beings should submit their judgment to the Church’s interpretations, and hence that the Church is infallible. It also seems to imply the Church is indefectible—unable to apostatize. And if indeed the Church cannot cease to teach the Faith, it is hard to deny that the Church does not have a divine chrism that preserves it from errant teaching.
That was not the text I was thinking of, however. I was actually thinking of this one:
12. But in learning the Faith and in professing it, acquire and keep that only, which is now delivered to thee by the Church, and which has been built up strongly out of all the Scriptures. For since all cannot read the Scriptures, some being hindered as to the knowledge of them by want of learning, and others by a want of leisure, in order that the soul may not perish from ignorance, we comprise the whole doctrine of the Faith in a few lines. This summary I wish you both to commit to memory when I recite it and to rehearse it with all diligence among yourselves, not writing it out on paper, but engraving it by the memory upon your heart, taking care while you rehearse it that no Catechumen chance to overhear the things which have been delivered to you. I wish you also to keep this as a provision through the whole course of your life, and beside this to receive no other, neither if we ourselves should change and contradict our present teaching, nor if an adverse angel, transformed into an angel of should wish to lead you astray. For though we or an angel from heaven preach to you any other gospel than that ye have received, let him be to you anathema. So for the present listen while I simply say the Creed, and commit it to memory; but at the proper season expect the confirmation out of Holy Scripture of each part of the contents. For the articles of the Faith were not composed as seemed good to men; but the most important points collected out of all the Scripture make up one complete teaching of the Faith. And just as the mustard seed in one small grain contains many branches, so also this Faith has embraced in few words all the knowledge of godliness in the Old and New Testaments. Take heed then, brethren, and hold fast the traditions which ye now receive, and write them an the table of your heart.
Notice here two things. First, Cyril is speaking of “the Faith”, and he says it is delivered by the Church, built up strongly out of all the Scriptures. So he is talking about the Creed.
Secondly, he says that even if an angel came from heaven, or even if he started to teach otherwise, the Faith must not be rejected. This implies that the Faith is unrevisable—it is beyond the possibility of being overturned by human judgment.
So if the Faith is the Creed, and the Faith the Church teaches is unrevisable, then the creed is unrevisable. But if something cannot be overturned by human judgment, then it is established by divine judgment. Hence, the Church teaches the Creed with divine authority.
Catz—
I will keep an eye out for the upcoming quotes.
It seems more natural to speak of an authority as a person, and a text or teaching as authoritative. An authority seems to be someone who has the power to make normative judgments, and to apply authoritative rules. This is distinct from the rule being applied by the person. It looks like Scripture is not a judge (an authority) but a rule (an authoritative series of principles). Saying the Scriptures are a voice, and that they are someone’s words, is precisely to affirm that they are authoritative—not that they are people that wield authority.
MG-
“It does seem important to nuance what is being said about infallibility…they mean there are certain conditions under which we can discern real decisions of specific kinds of ecclesiastical authorities on specific matters. Furthermore, these real decisions of the relevant kind by the relevant ecclesiastical authorities concerning the relevant subject matters are divinely authoritative (infallible).”
When would be the “relevant” time for an Eastern Orthodox believer and what are those relevant certain conditions?
Our friend wrote: “If you have any statements from Cyril that prove he believed "some persons' interpretations are infallible" I'd like to see them. As a word of caution, I would avoid using Catechetical Lectures 18:23.”
You responded: “Though that text may seem like it has nothing to do with the infallible normativity of the Church’s interpretations, on second look it does say that the Church teaches “universally and completely all doctrines that must come to man’s knowledge”. The fact that the Church’s teachings are complete and universal does seem to imply that it teaches perfectly—the whole truth is taught by the Church as a whole.”
I as an advocate of Sola Scriptura would go along with this. Luther sure did. He didn’t seem to think this implied an infallible interpretation by the Church and neither do I. Luther says:
“I believe that the Holy Ghost makes me holy, as His name implies. But whereby does He accomplish this, or what are His method and means to this end? Answer: By the Christian Church, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. For, in the first place, He has a peculiar congregation in the world, which is the mother that begets and bears every Christian through the Word of God, which He reveals and preaches, [and through which] He illuminates and enkindles hearts, that they understand, accept it, cling to it, and persevere in it.”
According to Luther the Holy Spirit begets Christians via the Church through the Word. The Word and what one needs to become a Christian is gained by the deeds of Christ working through His Church. Infallible interpretation? Still non-existent.
“This implies that human beings should submit their judgment to the Church’s interpretations, and hence that the Church is infallible.”
I see no such implication in the section you drew our attention to.
“Notice here two things. First, Cyril is speaking of “the Faith”, and he says it is delivered by the Church, built up strongly out of all the Scriptures. So he is talking about the Creed.
Secondly, he says that even if an angel came from heaven, or even if he started to teach otherwise, the Faith must not be rejected. This implies that the Faith is unrevisable—it is beyond the possibility of being overturned by human judgment.
So if the Faith is the Creed, and the Faith the Church teaches is unrevisable, then the creed is unrevisable. But if something cannot be overturned by human judgment, then it is established by divine judgment. Hence, the Church teaches the Creed with divine authority.”
Under this quote the creed is a summary of the Scriptures for the illiterate. The faith is contained in the Scriptures and represented in the creed. The creed is derived from the Scriptures and it is authoritative only in as far as it lines up with what Scripture actually teaches. What does this mean for your setup? The faith the Church teaches is unrevisable so long as it aligns itself to the tradition of the Holy Scriptures. If the creed were not lined up with Scripture it would have to be revised.
Cyril says at the end of your quote: “but at the proper season expect the confirmation out of Holy Scripture of each part of the contents. For the articles of the Faith were not composed as seemed good to men; but the most important points collected out of all the Scripture make up one complete teaching of the Faith. And just as the mustard seed in one small grain contains many branches, so also this Faith has embraced in few words all the knowledge of godliness in the Old and New Testaments. Take heed then, brethren, and hold fast the traditions which ye now receive, and write them an the table of your heart.”
Here we indeed have the necessity of the confirmation of Scripture after he repeats what Paul told the Galatians in 1:8 “But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!” Paul told the Galatians to hold to the traditions the apostles gave them first and not to pay any attention to new ones even if they appeared to come from an apostle or angel from heaven. Cyril points us to Paul’s words along with the expectation of confirmation in Scripture precisely because Scripture contains the very words of the apostle and are unrevisable. That is why it s so important that the creeds be confirmed from within them. The faith is preserved by the writings of the apostles and the creed takes all of this information and summarizes it for the illiterate. If it does not do so then it is not the faith.
“It seems more natural to speak of an authority as a person, and a text or teaching as authoritative.”
Maybe Chrysostom Homilies on II Timothy, IX might be of help. He says, “ ‘That the man of God may be perfect.’ For this is the exhortation of the Scripture given, that the man of God may be rendered perfect by it; without this therefore he cannot be perfect. Thou hast the Scriptures, he says, in place of me. If thou wouldst learn anything, thou mayest learn it from them. And if he thus wrote to Timothy who was filled with the Spirit, how much more to us!”
The Scriptures stand in the place of an apostle. When you read the Scriptures you are being taught by an apostle- an authority, an actual person.
Post a Comment