Clement, Origen and Cyril on Tradition

From my perspective, my last two blogs have created what one could call a ‘firewall’ between the Apostles and the later 3rd century church fathers of about 200 to 250 years where there is no mention of ‘tradition’ as would be understood by modern day Catholicism. By firewall I mean a gap between the Apostles and the first mention of something that could be construed as the type of ‘tradition’ modern day Catholicism says they believe in. So far in my Sola Scriptura series we have seen how the word ‘tradition’ has been used by the early church fathers and it is quite different from how it is being used today as it has had nothing to do with unwritten oral teachings co-equal in authority with the Scriptures. But it also has to be acknowledged that much of the early church writings have been lost through the centuries to wars, accidents, actual usage and purposeful destruction. What survived, though, does not support the modern day concept of ‘tradition.’

As I begin part 22 of this series, we come to a couple of church fathers that are hard to like, especially if you have issues with philosophy being imported into the Christian faith. These next two church fathers, Clement and Origen, embraced philosophy and attempted to incorporate it into Christian theology, which was completely opposite of Tertullian’s view, who utterly rejected philosophy. He famously said,

“Indeed, what has Athens got to do with Jerusalem?” That was the timeless question that the early church father, Tertullian, already posed to his fellow Christians in the third century—concerned, as he was, that Christians not become so enamored of Greek philosophy that they scorn the simplicity of the Hebrew Scriptures and Gospel texts or argue about them on the basis of pagan philosophers’ terminology. (“What has Athens got to do with Jerusalem?”) [1]

I could not agree more with Tertullian. Philosophy may be helpful for some college courses, as argued in the blog that contains the above quote, but as far as supplying content to your theology, absolutely not! Yet, that is exactly what these next two church fathers did. Nevertheless, they still have some important information to provide us for this Sola Scriptura topic.

So towards that goal, it will not be my intent to discuss all aspects of these three men (Clement, Origen and Cyril of Jerusalem), but only to touch upon their view of Scripture, as that is the overall purpose of this blog. So, with that as our introduction, let’s get to it!

Clement of Alexandria

Clement (c.150 - c.215 AD) was born into a pagan family and prior to his conversion to Christianity, he embraced a number of the schools of Greek philosophy since he saw the men in these schools as ‘lovers of truth’ and he was on a quest for truth. One can only assume that there was still something missing in all that he learned from philosophy, and when he heard about the one true God of Christianity, he pursued that knowledge, which in turn, led to his conversion. Unfortunately, it did not lead him to abandon several of the schools of philosophy he continued to embrace. One of the troublesome aspects of this embrace was his usage of their language and terms which came across as very Gnostic. In his defense, ‘gnosis’ is the Greek word for knowledge, but with Gnosticism in full swing, it caused some confusion, especially for those that followed in his footsteps. Clement succeeded Pantaenus and became the head of the School of Alexandria, and it was under his leadership that the first elements of Greek philosophy were introduced into the school. Far worse was the influence it had on his star pupil, Origen, as he introduced the allegorizing of Scriptural interpretation. For Clement’s part though, he sought to train his students to defend Christianity with anything available, so for him it made sense to use Greek philosophy in that pursuit.

But it was his integration of philosophy that was so troublesome for decades and centuries to come. Knowing that the church was struggling to respond to Gnosticism, a philosophical system that sought to incorporate the values of any and all religions, he employed the language of the church’s major opponent while embracing major tenants of Platonic and Stoic philosophies. (Clement of Alexandria)

Clement counseled his students to shake off the chains of the flesh as far as possible, to live as if already out of the body, and thus, to rise above earthly things. (The New World Encyclopedia)

This was gnostic language and helped to push the church farther into monasticism which would become ingrained in mysticism. As David King wrote,

When we venture into the realm of philosophical Christianity as expounded by Clement of Alexandria, we are headed into a decidedly different environment from that of Irenaeus and Tertullian and the vast majority of later fathers. While the emphasis is still placed on the ultimate and final authority of Scripture, its message is often obscured by the philosophical bent and hermeneutical principles (also heavily influenced by philosophy) employed by Clement. Nevertheless, Clement shared the position of Irenaeus and Tertullian, that the Scriptures are materially sufficient and the ultimate authority for the Church. [2]

With such a strong philosophical approach to his teachings, it is refreshing to know that Clement was also a strong proponent of Scripture, calling it ‘divine,’ ‘the voice of God’ and ‘inspired’ as these quotes from his writings show.

Of these and the like, who devote their attention to empty words, the divine Scripture most excellently says, “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.” (The Stromata 1.3) [emphasis added]

He who believeth then the divine Scriptures with sure judgment, receives in the voice of God, who bestowed the Scripture, a demonstration that cannot be impugned. (The Stromata 2.2) [emphasis added]

But those who are ready to toil in the most excellent pursuits, will not desist from the search after truth, till they get the demonstration from the Scriptures themselves. … Now such to us are the Scriptures of the Lord, which gave birth to the truth … But such people, in consequence of falling away from the right path, err in most individual points; as you might expect from not having the faculty for judging of what is true and false, strictly trained to select what is essential. For if they had, they would have obeyed the Scriptures. … And He leads us in the inspired Scriptures. (The Stromata 7.16) [emphasis added]

He also said,

Faith will lead you in; experience will teach you; Scripture will train you, for it says, “Come hither, O children; listen to me, and I will teach you the fear of the Lord.” (Exhortation to the Heathen, Ch 9) [emphasis added]

And is not the demonstration, which we possess, that alone which is true, as being supplied out of the divine Scriptures, the sacred writings, and out of the “God-taught wisdom,” according to the apostle? (The Stramata, Book 2, Ch 11) [emphasis added]

As a couple of the above quotes demonstrate, Clement used some of the same language as Tertullian and Irenaeus to describe Scripture, as we also see in this next longer quote.

But those who are ready to toil in the most excellent pursuits, will not desist from the search after truth, till they get the demonstration from the Scriptures themselves. … But such people, in consequence of falling away from the right path, err in most individual points; as you might expect from not having the faculty for judging of what is true and false, strictly trained to select what is essential. For if they had, they would have obeyed the Scriptures. … But he who has returned from this deception, on hearing the Scriptures, and turned his life to the truth, is, as it were, from being a man made a god. For we have, as the source of teaching, the Lord, both by the prophets, the Gospel, and the blessed apostles, “in divers manners and at sundry times,” leading from the beginning of knowledge to the end. … He, then, who of himself believes the Scripture and voice of the Lord, which by the Lord acts to the benefiting of men, is rightly [regarded] faithful. … Therefore, as is reasonable, grasping by faith the indemonstrable first principle, and receiving in abundance, from the first principle itself, demonstrations in reference to the first principle, we are by the voice of the Lord trained up to the knowledge of the truth. … Since also, in what pertains to life, craftsmen are superior to ordinary people, and model what is beyond common notions; so, consequently, we also, giving a complete exhibition of the Scriptures from the Scriptures themselves, from faith persuade by demonstration. … And He leads us in the inspired Scriptures. (The Stromata 7.16) [emphasis added]

Clement saw Scripture as the sole source of all doctrine.

He affirmed Scripture alone as the criterion for all truth so that all doctrine must be subjected to the bar of Scripture for validation. In refuting heretics and presenting the truth, Clement emphatically stated that all arguments must [be] rooted in and derived from Scripture. He disdained personal opinion void of Scriptural proof, and believed that those who are spiritual and orthodox are led by God in Scripture. [3]

Origen

It’s not going to be easy for me to write anything nice about Origen. I admit that I am biased against him because of the destructive teaching style he used in allegorizing everything in Scripture. That and I think he was supremely arrogant. Anyone that had a team of people follow him wherever he went writing down literally everything the man said cannot possibly be humble. There are volumes and volumes of untranslated ‘stuff’ from him and likely some of it may never be translated.

But even with this bias of mine, there are some things that he said that will be helpful in this series. But before we get to that, you should know a little about the man, even though it is difficult to determine whether what we have about him is 100% accurate.

Almost everything we know about Origen (185-253 AD) comes from Eusebius’s Ecclesiastical History, and its author, Eusebius (265-339 AD), considered him a hero of the faith. He was born around 185 AD in Alexandria, Egypt into a Christian family. His father was martyred around 202 AD. A year after his father’s death, at the age of 18, Origen was appointed a teacher in the Catechetical School of Alexandria. While there he adopted an ascetic lifestyle and is said to have castrated himself to maintain chastity. Unfortunately, Origen got pulled into Gnosticism by the philosophical teachings he became enamored with. Thankfully, his association with a wealthy Christian named Ambrose helped him see the errors of the heretic, Valentinus, but he never seemed to repudiate the philosophies that led him into the Gnostic heresies from which he had to be rescued. He eventually rose to lead this same school in Alexandria.

But these philosophies he so loved led to his allegorizing of virtually all of Scripture, Old and New Testaments, which would then plague the Church in various ways for over a millennium. It may have been true that he was a brilliant man, but his erroneous allegories led Church leaders and people away from the simple understanding of Scripture, and in this author’s mind, a main reason for the rise of Tradition as a second source of revelation in the church. Within a hundred years as it moved more towards Latin, the Western Church would begin the process of removing the Scriptures from the hands of Christians since its meaning, according to the Church, was too difficult to understand and thus would too easily lead believers into heresy. Within the next 200 years the Roman Empire would fall and the process of removing the Scriptures from the people of God would accelerate and become entrenched in the minds of Church leadership (i.e., popes and bishops). This mindset would remain a problem to this day, prompting studies like this one and numerous books and debates over the last 500 years (i.e., since the Reformation).

But even with this horrendous change in the understanding of Scripture, Origen never changed his overall view that Scripture was divine, holy, and inspired. [4]

All who believe and are assured that grace and truth were obtained through Jesus Christ, and who know Christ to be the truth, agreeably to His own declaration, “I am the truth,”derive the knowledge which incites men to a good and happy life from no other source than from the very words and teaching of Christ. And by the words of Christ we do not mean those only which He spake when He became man and tabernacled in the flesh; for before that time, Christ, the Word of God, was in Moses and the prophets. For without the Word of God, how could they have been able to prophesy of Christ? And were it not our purpose to confine the present treatise within the limits of all attainable brevity, it would not be difficult to show, in proof of this statement, out of the Holy Scriptures, how Moses or the prophets both spake and performed all they did through being filled with the Spirit of Christ. (Origen, First Principles, preface 1) [emphasis added]

Now it ought to be known that the holy apostles, in preaching the faith of Christ, delivered themselves with the utmost clearness on certain points which they believed to be necessary to every one, even to those who seemed somewhat dull in the investigation of divine knowledge; (Origen, First Principles, preface 3) [emphasis added]

Every one, therefore, must make use of elements and foundations of this sort, according to the precept, “Enlighten yourselves with the light of knowledge,” ... that by clear and necessary statements he may ascertain the truth regarding each individual topic, and form, as we have said, one body of doctrine, by means of illustrations and arguments,—either those which he has discovered in holy Scripture, or which he has deduced by closely tracing out the consequences and following a correct method. (Origen, First Principles, preface 10) [emphasis added]

And so far, indeed, as the credibility of Scripture is concerned, the declarations on such a matter seem easy of proof. Even the heretics, although widely opposed on many other things, yet on this appear to be at one, yielding to the authority of Scripture. (Origen, First Principles, part 3, chapter 5.1) [emphasis added]

… we must, in order to establish the positions which we have laid down, adduce the tes­timony of Holy Scripture. And that this testimony may produce a sure and unhesitating belief, either with regard to what we have still to advance, or to what has been already stated, it seems necessary to show, in the first place, that the Scriptures them­selves are divine, i.e., were inspired by the Spirit of God. We shall therefore with all possible brevity draw forth from the Holy Scriptures themselves, such evidence on this point as may produce upon us a suitable impression, (making our quotations) from Moses, the first legislator of the Hebrew nation, and from the words of Jesus Christ, the Author and Chief of the Christian religious system. (Origen, First Principles, part 4, chapter 1.1) [emphasis added]

Let us now ascertain how those statements which we have advanced are supported by the authority of holy Scripture. (Origen, First Principles, part 1, chapter 2.5) [emphasis added]

And therefore, to those who believe that the sacred books are not the compositions of men, but that they were composed by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, agreeably to the will of the Father of all things through Jesus Christ, and that they have come down to us (Origen, First Principles, part 4, chapter 1.9) [emphasis added]

I know that some of the above quotes are sometimes difficult to parse through, but it’s important to understand that his works translated so far, are filled with quotes like these. And as R.P. Hansen (1916-1988) noted,

The cogent argument for the view that Origen believed that Scripture was the sole source of doctrine for himself or any other Christians is that (unlike Clement) he never quotes any other source as his authority for doctrine, and usually assumes without question that in any discussion the deciding factor is the evidence of the Bible. [5]

Not surprisingly, Catholic apologists see any mention of the word ‘tradition’ as ‘proof’ that Origen was referring to the same 'tradition' believed to exist today, which is considered to be equal in authority to Scripture. In Not by Scripture Alone, the author attempts to equate the church and apostolic tradition to be one in the same as the type of ‘tradition’ spoken of today by the Catholic Church, simply because she descends from the apostles.

One of the most prolific writers of the third century is Origen of Alexandria. Like the Fathers before him, he testifies in his dogmatic treatise on the Christian faith of the necessity of holding fast to the traditional faith of the Church. This faith is transmitted and preserved through orderly succession from the apostles.

Since many, however, of those who profess to believe in Christ differ from each other, not only in small and trifling matters, but also on subjects of the highest importance, as, e.g., regarding God, or the Lord Jesus Christ, or the Holy Spirit; and not only regarding these, but also regarding others which are created existences, viz., the powers and the holy virtues; it seems on that account necessary first of all to fix a definite limit and to lay down an unmistakable rule regarding each one of these, and then to pass to the investigation of other points. For as we ceased to seek for truth (notwithstanding the professions of many among Greeks and Barbarians to make it known) among all who claimed it for erroneous opinions, after we had come to believe that Christ was the Son of God, and were persuaded that we must learn it from Himself; so, seeing there are many who think they hold the opinions of Christ, and yet some of these think differently from their predecessors, yet as the teaching of the Church, transmitted in orderly succession from the apostles, and remaining in the Churches to the present day, is still preserved, that alone is to be accepted as truth which differs in no respect form ecclesiastical and apostolical tradition. [6]

But the question that needs to be asked is, what did Origen mean by ‘ecclesiastical and apostolical tradition’? As William Webster points out,

He [Origen] was referring to the specific doctrines that made up the creed. Origen’s comments from the Preface of his treatise, On First Principles which is an explanation of and commentary on the creed. [7]

As proof of the point being made, I would encourage you to read Origen's First Principles, Preface 3-10. If you take the time to read the linked section from Origien’s work, you would have seen that this is the very same thing that both Irenaeus and Tertullian did with their reference to the ‘rule of faith’ or the 'Apostolic tradition,' which was a reference to the teachings in Scripture as encapsulated in the Creeds. Protestants agree wholeheartedly with the point that all of these church fathers have made about this apostolic tradition of the Church. Unfortunately, even though the Catholic Church might agree, unlike the Protestant Church, she cannot say she holds to the same ‘rule of faith’ since she has added doctrines like papal infallibility and the perpetual virginity of Mary, which none of these early church fathers had ever heard of or ever imagined. Since these doctrines deviate from the ‘apostolic tradition’ of the church, each of these church fathers would have rejected these added doctrines.

Cyril of Jerusalem

We now leep ahead in our timeline into the 4th century. Cyril (313-386 AD) was born near Caesarea, which is in modern day Israel. Nothing is known of him before he became the bishop of Jerusalem in 350 AD. Cyril was right in the middle of the Arian controversy and suffered some persecution at the hands of the Arians.

His most important work is The Catechetical Lectures, which give details of the Christian faith preparing for baptism. William Webster wrote that Cyril provides,

… a systematic defense and explanation of ‘the canon of truth’ and ‘the rule of faith.’ This is an exhaustive treatise on what was taught the initiates into the Christian faith in the mid-fourth century. It is, in effect, the Creed. Following the example of the major fathers who preceded him, Cyril wrote with conviction of the divine inspiration and absolute authority of both the Old and New Testaments. He referred to them some fifteen times as holy, twenty-nine times as divine, 3 times as sacred and four times as divinely inspired by the Holy Spirit. 

Because he believed the Scriptures to be divinely inspired writings, Cyril taught that they are the ultimate authority for the Church and the sole source of doctrine and truth. Throughout his Lectures, Cyril defends each point of the Creed with Scripture, emphasizing repeatedly the necessity for every doctrine to be validated and proven from Scripture. [8]

That is a bold statement that can easily be shown to be true.

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. (Catechetical Lectures, 4:17) [emphasis added]

while from the frequent reading of the sacred Scriptures those of you who are diligent come to understand these things (Catechetical Lectures, 17:34) [emphasis added]

What else is there that knoweth the deep things of God, save only the Holy Ghost, who spake the Divine Scriptures? (Catechetical Lectures, 11:12) [emphasis added]

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… 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 on the table of your heart. (Catechetical Lectures, 5:12) [emphasis added]

In the above quotes we see just what Cyril thought about Scripture. He said that we should not even speak a causal statement without considering the Scriptures. He said to not even believe him or what he said about the faith unless there was proof that it comes from Scripture, and that salvation comes from Scripture. In the next quote he says that we only understand things as we continually read Scripture. In the last quote I provided, Cyril starts off by saying that what we believe comes from Scripture and that the Creeds comprise the whole doctrine of the Christian faith in a short paragraph, and that the Creeds were put together from Scripture. He ends by saying that our faith should be written on our hearts. In the words of WIlliam Webster,

by ‘tradition,’ Cyril meant the fundamental doctrines of the rule of faith which were derived from Scripture and passed down by Scripture. [9]

As one might expect, Catholic apologists zeroed in on the word ‘tradition’ in the last quote above and read into it the type of ‘oral tradition’ Catholics believe in today. This is what Robert Sungenis said in reference to something a Protestant apologist wrote,

Here Cyril is paraphrasing the famous passage in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 (“So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter”) which stipulates both oral (“word of mouth”) and written (“by letter”) as divine revelation and the Tradition Paul wanted the Thessalonians to preserve. Cyril’s citation of 2 Thess. 2:15 comes only two sentences after the quote extracted by the Protestant apologist which he used to teach that Cyril believed in sola scriptura. We must assume that this apologist did not bother to read Cyril’s entire paragraph, or, more likely was quoting a secondary source whose objectivity he did not question. [10]

But his statement is actually absurd as he seems to be imposing his own theological view into Cyril’s use of the word, ‘tradition.’ Go back to the link provided above and reread Cyril’s entire passage for yourself. Cyril is talking about the doctrines we find in Scripture as the ‘tradition’ we are to hold fast. And this was the very same way that both Ireaneus and Tertullian talked about ‘tradition’ when they were referring to the ‘rule of faith’ or the ‘tradition of the Apostles’ which was their way of referring to Scripture.

Now, to be fair, there are some things that Cyril believed which Protestants radically disagree with, but this blog is not about those topics. Our topic is about his view of Scripture. I have pages of quotes I could give you, but I think what I’ve provided, once again, proves the point that these early church fathers, like Cyril, considered the Scriptures to be the sole source of the true faith that was ‘once for all, delivered to the saints.’

Conclusion

We started this blog by showing that even with his importation of Greek philosophy into Christian theology, Clement of Alexandria still held strongly to Scripture as divine, the voice of God and inspired. He taught his students to obey the words of Scripture. We then moved to Origen, who I personally dislike, to see that even with his obsession with philosophy, he was of the same mind – Scripture was divine, holy, and inspired. For Origen, Scripture was the source of truth for the believer. And when he wrote about tradition, he was referring to the specific doctrines that made up the creeds. And we finished off with Cyril of Jerusalem, who, as Webster said, emphasized the necessity that every doctrine be validated and proven from Scripture. But as has been discussed in previous blogs, Catholic apologists assume any mention of the word 'tradition' supports their modern day view of tradition, even though we have consistently found that all of the early church fathers we’ve looked at so far, used 'tradition' as a reference to the doctrines we find in Scripture.

So as you can see, I have strengthened that firewall between the Apostles and the later church fathers who may have believed in a modern day concept of ‘tradition.’ But as we saw with Tertullian and Irenaeus, the ‘tradition’ these early church fathers like Clement, Origen and Cyril were talking about was the ‘tradition’ of Scripture, the doctrines we find in Scripture. They continually spoke of its divine nature, its inspired text and its importance in everything we do, think and say. Scripture is our sole source for all doctrines. And just because a Catholic apologist jumps on the word ‘tradition’ as an example of their modern day concept of ‘tradition,’ does not prove their point if these early church fathers never even hinted at their concept of ‘tradition’ in their writings. And they did not. But don’t take my word for it, read the linked church history for yourself.

Ultimately, our goal is to follow Christ in everything we think, say and do, and the only place where we can find that, is to consult the Scriptures. Our goal should never be to complicate the Gospel of Jesus Christ with unnecessary and unbiblical beliefs, but to hold fast to the simple truths of Scripture.

Shall I then prefer foolish wisdom to the oracles of the Holy Spirit? Shall I not rather exalt Him who, not wishing to fill our minds with these vanities, has regulated all the economy of Scripture in view of the edification and the making perfect of our souls? It is this which those seem to me not to have understood, who, giving themselves up to the distorted meaning of allegory, have undertaken to give a majesty of their own invention to Scripture. It is to believe themselves wiser than the Holy Spirit, and to bring forth their own ideas under a pretext of exegesis. Let us hear Scripture as it has been written.

Basil of Caesarea (329-379), The Hexaemeron, Homily 9 

Footnotes

1. Just because I quoted from the author of this article, please do not assume that I agree with this blog. I wholeheartedly agree with Tertullian's statement, not the content of this blog.
2. William Webster, Holy Scripture, Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol II, (Battle Creek, WA: Christian Resource, Inc, 2001), pp. 45.
3. Ibid, pp. 45.
4. Several of these quotes were found in the following blog entry, Bruce Baugus, Origen on Scripture. For additional information on Origen’s works being quoted, see the note at the bottom of the blog.
5. R.P. Hanson, Origen’s Doctrine of Tradition (SPCK: London, 1954), p.49, as quoted in William Webster, Holy Scripture, Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol II, (Battle Creek, WA: Christian Resource, Inc, 2001), p. 49.
6. Robert Sungenis, Not By Scripture Alone, ed. (Santa Barbara: Queenship, 1997), online PDF version from academia.edu, p. 383.
7. William Webster, Holy Scripture, Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol II, (Battle Creek, WA: Christian Resource, Inc, 2001), p. 50.
8. Ibid, p. 51.
9. Ibid, p. 53.
10. Robert Sungenis, Not By Scripture Alone, ed. (Santa Barbara: Queenship, 1997), online PDF version from academia.edu, pp. 272-273.

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.