Chrysostom On Scripture and Tradition

The previous Sola Scriptura blog was on a couple of church fathers whom I do not like because of the destructive allegorical biblical interpretation methodology they introduced into the church, but as we begin part 23, we come to one of the most beloved and arguably the greatest preacher of the early Greek church fathers, John Chrysostom.

As you will remember from my previous blogs, I have been building a firewall between the Apostles and the later church fathers to show that the current Catholic concept of ‘tradition’ simply did not exist in the early church. In my last blog, that firewall was extended into the early 4th century, as I continued to strengthen it against any mention of a modern day concept of ‘tradition.’ And remember, the tradition I’m talking about is the unwritten body of oral teachings that comprise ‘sacred tradition’ and that were supposedly handed down by the Apostles to the modern day Catholic Church, and that are co-equal in authority with Scripture. Thus far, there has been no evidence that this type of tradition existed prior to the early 4th century.

We now move into the later 4th and early 5th century as we look at John Chrysostom (347-407 AD), the golden mouthed orator of Antioch and Constantinople. I had hoped to get to Athanasius, but he will have to wait because there is just too much that needs to be shared about John’s reverence for Scripture. Normally I give the reader a little history about the church father being discussed but I will forgo that for this blog. So, I will provide this link to his historical background and leave it to the reader to follow the link. The one thing I will say about him is that he would not be a popular pastor today, as he railed against sin, like abortion and prostitution. Yes, just let that sink in for a minute or two.

His View of Scripture

When it comes to Chrysostom, we have a much clearer understanding of his heart because we have more of his writings than any other early church father. He was a prolific writer, especially of homilies which he wrote on 17 of the 22 New Testament books. His desire was for the believers under his charge to know what Scripture said and the implications of what it meant in their lives. As William Webster put it,

His sermons are significant, then, in revealing what he thought the priorities of the Christian life should be. Throughout his writings, one truth is emphasized repeatedly: the primacy of the written Scriptures. He teaches that they are the all-sufficient source of truth, the indispensable means of sanctification, and the all-important weapon for spiritual warfare in the Christian life. Chrysostom never tired of exhorting his congregation to read, study, meditate upon and obey the Scriptures. [1]

Unfortunately, he did not mention anything about papal infallibility, purgatory, or indulgences. And, he never mentioned anything about an unwritten ‘tradition’ of oral teachings handed down from the apostles that were co-equal in authority to Scripture. If any of these were that important for believers to know, John would have mentioned them, somewhere. Because he did not do so, must mean something.

As we have seen with other early church fathers, John viewed the Scriptures as divine, holy, and sacred. And we can see his reverence for Scripture in the following quotes.

They who receive the wild doctrines of Valentinus and Marcion, and of all whose minds are similarly diseased, exclude the Law given by God to Moses from the catalogue of the Divine Scriptures. (On the Priesthood, Book 4.4) [emphasis added]

… or what need is there to give attention to reading and to the Holy Scriptures, if such a state of unskillfulness is to be welcome among us? (On the Priesthood, Book 4.8) [emphasis added]

… their minds are at once thoroughly persuaded, and they have also regulated their whole course of life by such hopes as these; and have become superior to all worldly show, instructed as they have been by the sacred Scriptures … (Concerning the Statues, 19.3) [emphasis added]

For the divine oracles are a treasury of all manner of medicines, so that whether it be needful to quench pride, to lull desire to sleep, to tread under foot the love of money … (Homilies on the Gospel of John 5:6-7, Homily 37) [emphasis added]

Nothing is placed in the Holy Scriptures without a reason, for they were uttered by the Holy Ghost, therefore let us enquire exactly into every point. (Homilies on the Gospel of John 7:25-27, Homily 41) [emphasis added]

Knowing then these things, and collecting instances of the like kind from the inspired divine Scriptures … (Treatise to Prove, 17) [emphasis added]

And justly, for the angels, though mighty, are but servants and ministers, but the Scriptures were all written and sent, not by servants, but by God the Lord of all. (Homily on Galatians, 1:9) [emphasis added]

As the instruments of their art are the hammer and anvil and pincers, so the instruments of our work are the apostolic and prophetic books, and all the inspired and profitable Scriptures. (Four Discourses of Chrysostom, Discourse III.2) [emphasis added]

And that you may not suppose that what I say is a mere conjecture, let us, I pray you, direct our discourse to the Scripture itself. (Concerning the Statues, 7.5) [emphasis added]

Wherefore I exhort and entreat you all, disregard what this man and that man thinks about these things, and inquire from the Scriptures all these things; and having learnt what are the true riches, let us pursue after them that we may obtain also the eternal good things. (2 Cor 5:11-12, Homily 13) [emphasis added]

I could fill several more pages with quotes from Chrysostom and his view of Scripture, but I think the above are more than sufficient. John never tired of encouraging his congregations to read Scripture. For him they were medicine for the soul. As a matter of fact, he encouraged all believers to have their own copy, which was quite expensive in his day, and to read it all the time and to seek their answers from the pages of Scripture. If you seek wisdom, if you have questions, if you want to understand the doctrines of God, read Scripture. For Chrysostom, Scripture was the solution.

One of the Scriptures that Protestants stand upon for Sola Scriptura is 2 Tim 3:16-17, which is the heart and soul of Sola Scriptura and the blueprint on knowing how to walk out the Christian faith. The following is an excerpt from his homily of 2 Tim 3:16-17,

“For I am now ready to be offered up” (2 Tim 4:6), he says. For this reason he writes: “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.” All what Scripture? all that sacred writing, he means, of which I was speaking. This is said of what he was discoursing of; about which he said, “From a child thou hast known the holy Scriptures.” All such, then, “is given by inspiration of God”; therefore, he means, do not doubt; and it is “profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.”

“For doctrine.” For thence we shall know, whether we ought to learn or to be ignorant of anything. And thence we may disprove what is false, thence we may be corrected and brought to a right mind, may be comforted and consoled, and if anything is deficient, we may have it added to us.

“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 wouldest 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! (Homily on 2 Timothy 3:16-17) [emphasis added]

Does this extended quote of his homily not sound like a Protestant might have written it? Go back and reread my blog, Part 8: God-Breathed Scriptures. There are quite a few similarities between this and what Protestants have written concerning these verses, and for my part, I did not consult Chrysostom’s homily when I wrote it. That’s because Protestants have understood this passage as Chrysostom did. Catholic apologists can pretend that Sola Scriptura is a myth, but by now, if you’ve been reading this blog series, you know that these early church fathers constantly wrote about the importance of Scripture, and barely used the word ‘tradition’ at all. And when they did, it was to describe either customs and practices or it was a reference to Scriptural doctrines found in the creeds.

What Chrysostom Taught

William Webster listed 6 ways in which Chysostom supported and used Scripture. [2] I will summarize his points, and will borrow from his work so as to communicate them properly.

First, he taught that truth can only be found in Scripture. Now, that does not mean that Scripture contains all the truths that can ever be learned about the natural world. Scripture is not a science book, yet Scripture does not contradict science. But since God is the creator of science, He can create laws that are higher than the laws that govern science. And we have that higher law, that revelation from God which He gave in the Old and New Testaments and still resides in the Scriptures we have today. Chrysostom believed that the Scriptures were given to us in place of the Apostles who are no longer with us. Their inspired revelation was encapsulated in the Scriptures we have today. So if Scripture does not teach some aspect of God, then it cannot be known. [3]

Second, he taught that if you want to win your argument for or against Christianity, that can only be done when you prove it and support it from Scripture. In other words, logic and philosophy alone are just fancy words, maybe even eloquently delivered, but ultimately meaningless if their so-called truths are derived outside of the Scriptures.

These then are the reasons; but it is necessary to establish them all from the Scriptures, and to show with exactness that all that has been said on this subject is not an invention of human reasoning, but the very sentence of the Scriptures. For thus will what we say be at once more deserving of credit, and sink the deeper into your minds. (Concerning Statues, 1.14)

Third, he constantly and consistently appealed to Scripture to support everything he taught, and his teachings prove that he believed that Scripture interprets Scripture. This simply means that the Bible is its own interpreter. To some that likely sounds like double-speak, but it really is not. Scripture needs to be read and understood within the context of the chapter and book it’s contained in, as well as the entire Bible. We do not read the Bible through the lens of science or philosophy because those secular concepts warp what Scripture teaches to fit within those belief systems.

Fourth, only someone that has an intimate knowledge of Scripture and teaches in accordance with it can be considered a true teacher from God. Why? Because it is Scripture, the Word of God, that builds the church. The church does not build Scripture.

It is by fidelity to Scripture that the sheep will discern the true shepherds from the false. That one who does not teach according to the Scriptures he calls a robber, a thief and a false prophet. The true Christian is one whose profession and practice agrees with Scripture. [4]

Fifth, he never stopped encouraging his congregation to fill their hearts and minds with Scripture. As a matter of fact, he encouraged his congregations to purchase Bibles, even if it cost them a lot of money. And not for them to sit on a shelf, but to diligently and constantly read them, study them and live them. He further exhorted them by listing a whole host of benefits for doing so. Here are only a few of the benefits: to guard the believer from the attacks of heretics and false teachers, they are food for the soul, to teach them correct doctrine, and to aid believers against sinning. Chrysostom believed that no one could be saved unless they were consistently reading and applying Scripture to their lives. What he wanted was for his hearers to saturate their hearts and minds with God’s Word. He believed that reading Scripture was the single most important thing a believer could do.

Sixth, he taught about the numerous harms that come from neglecting the reading and studying of the Scriptures. And like the fifth point above, he lists quite a few, but I will only list a few here: neglecting the Word would make one incapable of resisting sin, leave someone defenseless and without the Holy Spirit, and cause one to become a slave and leave them captive to the world. Ignorance of Scripture causes heresies, and is a betrayal of their salvation. He even said it makes salvation impossible.

One cannot read the above six points without concluding that Chrysostom believed in the concept of Sola Scriptura even if he never used the term. As the above makes clear, Chrysostom definitely held to its principles.

But as you will see below, some Catholic apologists have argued that Chrysostom affirmed the existence of ‘tradition’ simply because he mentioned 2 Th 2:15 in a homily.

His View of Tradition

Chrysostom did not write about ‘tradition’, he wrote homilies, which are short commentaries on passages of Scripture whose purpose is to help a congregation understand the meaning of the passage so it could be applied to one’s life. And since he wrote homilies on 2 Thessalonians, he wrote about 2 Th 2:15, a Catholic apologist’s favorite verse. This verse says,

So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us. (2 Th 2:15)

In the book, Not by Scripture Alone, Catholic apologist Robert Sungenis quoted the following from Chrysostom,

Likewise, John Chrysostom [inter A.D. 344/345-407], as if to anticipate the claims of sola scriptura, appeals to 2 Thess. 2:15 in defending the coordinate authority of the Church and her inerrant Tradition. [5]

‘So then, brethren, stand fast, and hold to the traditions which ye were taught, whether by word, or by Epistle of ours.’ Hence it is manifest, that they did not deliver all things by Epistle, but many things also unwritten, and in like manner both the one and the other are worthy of credit. Therefore let us think the tradition of the Church also worthy of credit. It is a tradition, seek no farther. (Homily on 2 Thess 2:15)

What I found interesting was that the book provided the quote with no commentary at all. It is simply presented as is, as if it makes some bold statement that anyone should be able to see with no explanation. I suppose that Catholic apologists think this actually proves something about ‘tradition’ that those who believe in Sola Scriptura are supposed to assume is convincing, simply because Chrysostom penned the word. But so far in this study, what have we seen described as ‘tradition’? Well, one of the traditions that we’ve seen the church fathers reference were the customs and practices that were being handed down to each successive generation, some of which were different from one regional area to another, and some of which were only practiced for a short period of time. One could imagine the liturgy as one of those customs and practices. One could also imagine some of the customs and practices discussed in a previous blog, Real Tradition: Customs and Practices. But the point here should be clear – all we can do is speculate, and speculation is neither proof nor evidence. Nor is it likely he meant the biblical doctrines encapsulated in the creeds.

Even though Chrysostom is very unclear here, it is more likely his meaning is what we previously discussed in Tradition: Oral and Written, 2 Th 2:15. Paul is referencing the verbal teachings that he had given to the Thessalonians when he was there with them, but also the two letters which we see in our current New Testament. Most Protestants believe these teachings were encapsulated in the Gospels and the two letters to the Thessalonians, all of which are in the New Testament. 

But he most assuredly was not referring to the modern day concept of the unknowable and unwritten oral teachings that were passed down by the apostles and which are supposedly co-equal in authority with Scripture. In all of the writings we have of Chrysostom, and we have quite a lot, there is nothing that even remotely references the type of ‘tradition’ that Catholic apologists assume was meant here. In addition, it must also be acknowledged that what Chrysostom wrote concerning 2 Th 2:15 is vague at best. If there were such ‘traditions’ as promoted by the Catholic Church, Chrysostom would have given an example in one of his homilies, and this would have been a great place to have done so. But he did not.

In his book, “A Disputation on Holy Scripture”, this was the reply William Whitaker (1548-1598) gave to the Council of Trent, Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621) and Thomas Stapleton (1535-1598) concerning Chrysostom’s mention of 2 Th 2:15,

Next follows CHRYSOSTOM, who, upon 2 Thess.ii.15, commenting upon the words, " hold the traditions," drops some expressions favourable to tradition. 'Hence," says he, "it is plain that the apostles did not deliver everything in epistles, but many things also without writing." I answer: Unless those many things of which Chrysostom speaks be founded upon the authority of scripture, he contradicts himself, as shall afterwards be made clear in the defence of our side. But Chrysostom says that both these classes are equally deserving of credit, ὁμοίως ἀξιόπιστα. And afterwards he says, “It is a tradition ; let that suffice.” I answer : It was an inconsiderate word, and unworthy of so great a father. Must whatever is obtruded [imposed] on us under the name of a tradition be immediately received? Nay, the apostle tells us to “try the spirits,” and to “prove all things.” [6]

So Whitaker’s case was built upon Chrysostom’s view of the authority of Scripture, meaning, if he meant the type of ‘tradition’ that Sungenis intended the reader to assume, then Chrysostom had contradicted himself by his many, many references to Scripture and its sole importance in the life of the believer. Whitaker further contended that Chrysostom gave what amounts to an ineffective reply that has no real meaning in its context. It leaves the reader asking, ‘Ok, but what traditions are you referring to?’ And since the Catholic Church cannot even define those unwritten oral teachings handed down (traditioned) by the Apostles, what traditions are we supposed to assume here? For Whitaker, and I would concur, it was a meaningless explanation of 2 Th 2:15 that provided no context and no way of understanding what Chrysostom understood tradition to be.

And one more aspect of this to consider, given the quotes I’ve already provided for Chrysostom’s view of Scripture, it is inconsistent of Catholic apologists to assume that the above quote meant their modern day concept of tradition, especially since he did not bother explaining what tradition actually meant to his congregation. And if his congregation knew what tradition was, then why don't we know what it was today? That much is obvious as Sungenis seemingly had no idea what it was either, since he did not attempt to provide a definition of what he thought Chrysostom meant in his homily on 2 Th 2:15. 

Conclusion

One of the beliefs integrated into the Protestant position of Sola Scriptura is that they can see both the good and that bad in the early church fathers. Just because a church father wrote something they agree with, does not mean they unquestioningly accept all that father wrote. Likewise, just because a church father said something that they disagree with, does not mean they reject everything that father said. If you will remember in a previous blog, that is exactly what I did with Origen. Sometimes the church fathers contradicted themselves, and sometimes they contradicted each other. So, Protestants can no more expect perfection from a church father than they can expect perfection in themselves. They were human; they made mistakes. But Protestants can certainly get an understanding of how a particular church father viewed Scripture or tradition by what they wrote about each. Was it consistent throughout all of what they wrote? Did they explain themselves? Did it contradict Scripture?

And for Chrysostom, what we see is his consistency throughout all of his writings when we look at his view of Scripture. When compared with other church fathers, he held an extremely high view of Scripture. But concerning ‘tradition,’ this seems to be the only reference, and he gave no clear explanation as to what was actually meant. He had the opportunity to write volumes but this was the only reference he made to a subject that is supposed to be ‘co-equal’ in authority to Scripture. He harped on how important Scripture was and still is in the life of a believer, and barely mentioned tradition.

The real question seems to be – how do we evaluate what a church father said about Scripture and tradition? Not surprisingly, Protestants rely on Scripture to evaluate the beliefs of church fathers based on what they wrote, while Catholics and Orthodox believers integrate a modern concept of sacred tradition to accomplish this same task. Except, it seems they are more willing to read a modern understanding of what a church father said on ‘tradition,’ simply because the word appeared in their work, even without any details or explanation of what that ‘tradition’ actually was. This is one of the reasons why Protestants reject ‘tradition’ because it effectively means whatever the Catholic Church or her apologists say it means. Is that not exactly what a subjective standard is?

But it is Protestants who have a means to evaluate what is good and bad theology in what the church fathers have written. They have an objective infallible standard, and that standard is the Word of God, which is their final authority on all matters related to the faith and practice of the church. The objective standard of Scripture is what was intended to be used to evaluate what a church father said, and even what a modern day believer says.

And even though the Catholic Church says they believe Scripture is infallible, it is not their final authority since they add ‘tradition’ to create that authority. But since they cannot produce or even prove a single infallible ‘tradition’ exists, the Church must define how that standard works. And if the Church is defining what the standard is, then the Church is the final infallible authority. In other words, the Catholic Church believes in Sola Ecclesia, which is nothing more than, “because the Church says so!” It is the Catholic Church that defines what infallible ‘traditions’ exist, and then refuses to provide proof that any of them have existed for over 2000 years as she claims.

But more to the point of this blog, we have yet another church father that does not hold to a modern day understanding of tradition. And if there are no church fathers in the first 400 years of the church age that have mentioned the modern day, post-Trent, Catholic Church concept of tradition, why should we believe it has ever existed? Why would none of the early Church fathers through the beginning of the 4th century have written about it? None of them were shy about writing about their reverence of Scripture! Was it really so ‘secret’ that no church father was allowed to write about what ‘tradition’ was? Why would they not have alluded to it in their writings? The answer seems rather simple, because it is Scripture that is supposed to be guiding the believer and defining the doctrine of the church. It was Scripture that was supposed to be the infallible standard. And Chrysostom, like many of the other church fathers we’ve looked at, understood this, which is why he pointed his congregations to Scripture as their guide.

We did not evade objections, but we endeavored as far as possible to hold to and confirm the things which lay before us, and if the reason given satisfied us, we were not ashamed to change our opinions and agree with others; but on the contrary, conscientiously and sincerely, and with hearts laid open before God, we accepted whatever was established by the proofs and teachings of the Holy Scriptures.

Dionysius of Alexandria (ca. 265) [7]

Footnotes

1. William Webster, Holy Scripture, Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol II, (Battle Creek, WA: Christian Resource, Inc, 2001), p. 62.
2. Ibid, pp. 63-65. The six points he makes are summarized from these pages.
3. Ibid, p. 63.
4. Ibid, p. 64.
5. Robert Sungenis, Not by Scripture Alone, pp. 406-407. He also quoted Chrysostom’s homily for which I have referenced a place where you can read it in context.
6. William Whitaker, A Disputation on Holy Scripture Against the Papists, Especially Bellarmine and Stapleton, trans. And ed. William Fitzgerald (Cambridge: University Press, 1849), p. 595. As alluded to, there is more to this defense, and I leave it to the reader to examine the rest of that. The book can be downloaded from the Internet Archive location, here: A Disputation on Holy Scripture Against the Papists, Especially Bellarmine and Stapleton.
7. Sola Scriptura and the Church Fathers

All Scriptures quotes are from the New American Standard Bible, 1995 Revision, unless otherwise noted. Verse links from Blue Letter Bible, https://www.blueletterbible.org/

For the best treatment of Sola Scriptura in book form, please consider investing in the 3 volume set of: David T. King and William Webster, Holy Scripture, Ground and Pillar of Our Faith, Volume 1, Volume 2, Volume 3 (Battle Creek, WA: Christian Resource, Inc, 2001). It's the guide I'm using to integrate some of my own study on this important subject. This book set is inexpensive and worth every penny.