Athanasius On Scripture and Tradition

It’s been a while since I last published a blog, but in my previous one, I got a little excited and skipped over Athanasius and jumped right into Chrysostom, a church father I really like. So, I’m taking a step back in time so I can fill in a gap in the middle of the 4th century, right where Athanasius fits. For those of you that may not know a lot about church history, it is more likely that you may have heard of this specific church father, as he is famously known for, Athanasius Contra Mundum, or in English, ‘Athanasius Against the World.’ Almost single handedly, he made a courageous stand against the Arians, that included opposing bishops, popes and emperors, all of whom denied the deity of Christ, calling Jesus a created being. His position may have prevailed, but he paid a heavy price, at least as we would count it here on earth.

The early church was forced to deal with a number of doctrinal issues in its first 300 years, mainly because of Gnosticism which spawned all sorts of doctrinal challenges because of its attempted synthesis of some Christian doctrines into its pagan religious teachings. But in the 4th century it was the Arian controversy which encompassed nearly Athanasius’ entire lifetime. Athanasius was the bishop of Alexandria for 45 years, having been banished and exiled 5 times throughout that 45 years by four different Roman emperors, which totaled 17 of those 45 years in some form of banishment. For Athanasius, this all started when he was 27 years old and a deacon and an assistant to the Bishop of Alexandria where he participated in the most famous and most misunderstood and misrepresented of the church councils, the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. At the time, his writings and presence at the council helped turn the tide from Arianism back to orthodoxy.

Even though it would be a great little sidetrack to provide some history for this council, like always, we’re going to stick to the subject at hand. It would also be great to delve deeper into the Arian controversy for which Athanasius is so famous and for which he devoted his life, but we need to focus on his view of Scripture and Tradition, which as we will see, is really no different from the other church fathers we’ve looked at so far.

Who He Was

For most, this is the one church father they have likely heard of. His name is synonymous with the doctrine of the Trinity, but who was Athanasius?

Athanasius was born sometime around 296 AD and died in 373 AD. Unfortunately, very little is known about his early life, although we do know that he was born into a Christian family. He came into prominence after writing Against the Heathen and On the Incarnation, two of his earlier works and both were written before 319 AD, where the latter is his best known work.

Athanasius lived at a very pivotal time for the history of the church as its leaders struggled to hold onto orthodox doctrines. Of all the fathers of the church, Athanasius demonstrated what it meant to “contend earnestly for the faith.” (Jude 1:3)

Interestingly, Arius (256-336 AD) was a presbyter who was also from Alexandria, as was Athanasius, and began teaching that Jesus was a created being since Scripture states that the father ‘begat’ the Son. To Arius his understanding of Scripture meant that Jesus was not eternal and therefore could not be God. As a newly ordained deacon, Athanasius began refuting his teachings. Even though the bishops of Egypt condemned Arius’ teachings, one might think that that was the end of the story, but it was sadly only the beginning, as his teachings gained followers, all the way up to the Roman emperor.

As Athanasius progressed throughout his life, his writings kept showing exactly what the other church fathers we’ve looked at were showing, he kept pointing his readers back to Scripture as the source and foundation of Christian doctrines, not tradition. Just as this study has shown that other church fathers pointed to Scripture as the source for their knowledge about who God is, we will see that Athanasius was no different.

His View of Scripture

It is important to know that Athanasius constantly used Scripture to support his view that Jesus was and still is God, the second person of the trinity. And as with many of the church fathers, I could easily quote much more than the few passages of his I have listed below to prove that point:

But this all inspired Scripture also teaches more plainly and with more authority, so that we in our turn write boldly to you as we do, and you, if you refer to them, will be able to verify what we say. For an argument when confirmed by higher authority is irresistibly proved. (Against the Heathen, Part III, 45) [emphasis added]

But that the providence and ordering power of the Word also, over all and toward all, is attested by all inspired Scripture, this passage suffices to confirm our argument, where men who speak of God say, “Thou hast laid the foundation of the earth and it abideth. The day continueth according to Thine ordinance.” (Against the Heathen, Part III, 46) [emphasis added]

For Jews in their incredulity may be refuted from the Scriptures, which even themselves read; for this text and that, and, in a word, the whole inspired Scripture, cries aloud concerning these things, as even its express words abundantly shew. (On the Incarnation, 33) [emphasis added]

Since then nothing is said in the Scriptures, it is evident that these things had never taken place before. (On the Incarnation, 38) [emphasis added]

And we have proof of this, not from external sources, but from the Scriptures; (Defense of the Nicean Definition, IV, 17) [emphasis added]

For the true and pious faith in the Lord has become manifest to all, being both ‘known and read’ from the Divine Scriptures. (Letter of Athanasius, LV.1) [emphasis added]

But our faith is right, and starts from the teaching of the Apostles and tradition of the fathers, being confirmed both by the New Testament and the Old. For the Prophets say: ‘Send out Thy Word and Thy Truth,’ and ‘Behold the Virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call His name Emmanuel, which is being interpreted God with us.’ But what does that mean, if not that God has come in the Flesh? While the Apostolic tradition teaches in the words of blessed Peter, ‘Forasmuch then as Christ suffered for us in the Flesh;’ and in what Paul writes, ‘Looking for the blessed hope and appearing of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ, Who gave Himself for us that He might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto Himself a people for His own possession, and zealous of good works. (Letter of Athanasius, LX.6) [emphasis added]

These are fountains of salvation, that they who thirst may be satisfied with the living words they contain. In these alone is proclaimed the doctrine of godliness. Let no man add to these, neither let him take ought from these. For concerning these the Lord put to shame the Sadducees, and said, ‘Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures.’ And He reproved the Jews, saying, ‘Search the Scriptures, for these are they that testify of Me.’ (Letters of Athanasius, Festal Letter, 39.6) [emphasis added]

Since, therefore, such an attempt is futile madness, nay, more than madness!, let no one ask such questions any more, or else let him learn only that which is in the Scriptures. For the illustrations they contain which bear upon this subject are sufficient and suitable. [1] [emphasis added]

For his defense of Jesus’ deity, he wrote:

Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faith's sake; for divine Scripture is sufficient above all things; but if a Council be needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene Bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrine so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced in divine Scripture. (Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia, Part 1.6) [emphasis added]

It is obvious from the above quotes that Athanasius revered Scripture above all else. But if you want more proof, I’d encourage you to visit the provided links and read further. As I have said in the past, don’t take my word for it or anyone else’s, read it for yourself.

His View of Tradition

As we have seen with other church fathers, Athanasius used the word ‘tradition’ and Catholic apologists are always quick to jump on just about any usage of the word as their proof that the church father in question believed what modern day Catholics believe. This has not been true for any of the other church fathers we’ve looked at, and as you will see, it is not true for Athanasius either. In the book, “Sola Scriptura: The Protestant Position on the Bible,” James Whites’ section on Athanasius starts off with what he considers is his opposition’s strongest argument against Sola Scriptura (pp. 26-31) [2], as does William Webster in his book Holy Scripture, Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol II, [3], and for the purposes of this blog, so will I.

In his first of four letters to Serapion, Athanasius used the word ‘tradition’ and as one would expect, the opponents to Sola Scriptura used it as their proof that Athanasius was using the word the same way modern Catholic apologists do today. So let’s take a look at this passage to see what he was really saying to Serapion. In his first letter, chapter 28 we see this:

But, beyond these sayings, let us look at the very tradition, teaching, and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning, which the Lord gave, the Apostles preached, and the Fathers kept. Upon this the Church is founded, and he who should fall away from it would not be a Christian, and should no longer be so called. There is, then, a Triad, holy and complete, confessed to be God in Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, having nothing foreign or external mixed with it, not composed of one that creates and one that is originated, but all creative; and it is consistent and in nature indivisible, and its activity is one. … And that they may know this to be the faith of the Church, let them learn how the Lord, when sending forth the Apostles, ordered them to lay this foundation for the Church, saying: ‘Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.’ [Mat 28:19] The Apostles went, and thus they taught; and this is the preaching that extends to the whole Church which is under heaven. (Athanasius: Letters to Serapion Concerning the Holy Spirit, E1.28) [emphasis added]

So as you can see, Athanasius starts off the chapter using the word ‘tradition’, but the question that has to be asked is, how is he using that word? What is the meaning he’s pouring into that word? First, one needs to understand this letter (as well as the others to Serapion) is his scriptural defense of the Trinity (or Triad). He says that the ‘tradition, teaching and faith of the church’ was founded upon this understanding, that the Trinity (or Triad) was confessed to be ‘God in Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, having nothing foreign or external mixed with it, not composed of one that creates and one that is originated, but all creative; and it is consistent and in nature indivisible, and its activity is one.’ This was not a teaching that was unwritten and thus orally passed down through the last 2000 yrs as ‘tradition’, as is presupposed about what ‘tradition’ means to the modern day Catholic apologists. Quite the contrary. Although never formally developed before Athanasius, we see this teaching clearly in the Gospels and Paul’s epistles, as well as in Acts, Hebrews, James, Peter and John’s epistles. One can also see the Trinity in the Old Testament if one really cares to look; but the bottom line is this: it was not hidden and it did not need the modern concept of ‘sacred tradition’ for Athanasius or the previous church fathers to understand what it was. That makes any comparison with today’s understanding of ‘tradition’ null and void. This cannot be Athanasius’ meaning when he uses the word, ‘tradition.’ Case closed. But, let’s go a little further.

We also see from the passage above that Athanasius quoted Matt 28:19, which was the direct reference for his statement about the ‘tradition, teaching and faith of the church’ concerning the Trinity. This was the teaching of Jesus Christ that was passed onto the Apostles and the church fathers after them via the Scriptures they wrote for them and us. It was one of the basic parts of the creeds that were developed to help maintain orthodox beliefs in the early church. This was the tradition and teaching that Athanasius was referring to. So, again, case closed. But let’s go a little deeper.

To drive this point home, in the book, “Sola Scriptura: The Protestant Position on the Bible,” James White wrote,

    The rest of the first discourse is taken up with providing an orthodox interpretation of the various passages put forth by the heretics. Here again we have an opportunity of seeing Athanasius’ view of authority, for this section begins thus: “But since they allege the divine oracles and force on them a misinterpretation, according to their private sense, it becomes necessary to meet them just so far as to vindicate these passages, and to show that they bear an orthodox sense, and that our opponents are in error.”

    And how did Athanasius do this? Did he appeal to unwritten tradition to prove that the interpretation of the heretics was in error? No, he exegeted the passages themselves and showed the inconsistencies of the Arian interpretations. Just as I would reply to a Jehovah’s Witness who would use the same passage, Athanasius did fifteen hundred years ago. [4] [emphasis added]

So as you can see from the quote by White, the downfall of the Arians in the 4th century is the same downfall of the Jehovah’s Witness as well as the Catholic, which is: the believer’s ability to show in Scripture what it clearly teaches. A clear and consistent understanding of Scripture is always the way to refute error. It’s what Paul and the other Apostles did in their writings, it's what the early church apologists like Justin Martyr and Irenaeus did, and it was what Athanasius did to refute the Arians. Again, case closed, right?

To yet again drive this point home, Athanasius makes it clear just what ‘tradition’ he is referring to.

Such then, as we have above described, is the madness and daring of those men. But our faith is right, and starts from the teaching of the Apostles and tradition of the fathers, being confirmed both by the New Testament and the Old. (Personal Letters, # 60: To Adelphius) [emphasis added]

As you can clearly see, the teaching of the Apostles and the traditions of the fathers is confirmed by both the Old and New Testaments - meaning that what was taught by the Apostles and the early church fathers is what we have in Scripture. To believe otherwise is to completely misunderstand all that Athanasius says. Webster elaborates,

Athanasius emphasizes that the faith is derived from the teaching of the apostles, by which he meant Scripture, and the tradition or teaching of the fathers, which he says, is confirmed by Scripture. In other words, the proof that the teaching of the fathers was truly apostolic is conformity to Scripture. [5] [emphasis added]

And to show that all of this is tied together, let’s look at his usage of the Greek word, ‘homoousios’, which was a word used to describe Jesus’s nature but is not a term found in Scripture. The word ‘homoousios’ means ‘of the same substance’ or the ‘same kind.’ Arians believed Jesus was divine but did not believe He was fully God, as the Father is. But the question that needs to be asked is why Athanasius felt he could use a non-biblical term to describe who Jesus is. The answer isn’t quite as complex as you might expect.

Athanasius wrote that its use had historical precedent in the writings of four fathers: Dionysius of Alexandria, Theognostus, Origen and Dionysius of Rome. He appealed to two bishops and two heads of the catechetical school at Alexandria, calling them all fathers, including Origen. However, he did not accept their teaching uncritically; he accepted it only because it could be confirmed by Scripture. [6]

So, since these church fathers had already shown that this technically extra-biblical Greek word should be applied to Jesus because these other church fathers had already shown from Scripture that Jesus was and is ‘of the same kind’ as the Father, Athanasius did not have to re-prove or restate what they had already proven. So, it was not tradition that Athanasius was appealing to, as some might want to presuppose, but once again, it was Scripture itself that he was validating the church fathers against.

His Usage of the Word, ‘Saints’

Another example of a word that is used by Catholic apologists to promote the supremacy of the Church’s authority and its view of tradition over the primacy of Scripture is how Athanasius used the word, ‘saints.’ Yes, I know, not exactly what you were expecting, was it? William Webster points to this example, [7]

But after him and with him are all inventors of unlawful heresies, who indeed refer to the Scriptures, but do not hold such opinions as the saints have handed down, and receiving them as the traditions of men, err, because they do not rightly know them nor their power. (Festal Letter, 2.6) [emphasis added]

Catholic apologists like to assume that just about anything a church father uses either has a reference to their modern concept of ‘tradition’ or in some way is a reference to the church fathers acknowledging the handing down of the church’s authority concerning correct teaching. In other words, Catholic apologists “... use this statement to support the contention that the fathers looked to the Church and her tradition as the ultimate authority over Scripture.” [8]

Without the proper context, the above quote of Athanasius’ “Festal Letter” would seem to be saying that heretics used the Scriptures to invent the very heresies Athanasius was fighting against. The presumed meaning is that these heretics did not hold the same views as the ‘saints’ (i.e., previous church fathers) had handed down to the church, and received these twisted Scriptural views as the ‘traditions of men’ because they did understand the ‘traditioned’ or handed down views and the power they possess for those that believe them.

This is, of course, how all heresies develop. Take the Jehovah’s Witnesses as an example. They twisted parts of Scripture to confuse the whole, to make Scripture in certain places say what they wanted it to say. Instead of looking at the whole of Scripture, they focused on a couple of verses. But when all of Scripture is consulted, the errors of the Jehovah’s Witnesses jump out for anyone to see. And that was true with the Arians, whom Athanasius opposed as well.

As has previously been stated, Athanasius used a lot of Scripture to refute the Arian heretics he was opposing. Do you really think it makes sense to say that Scripture was the source of the false teachings the heretics used and that Rome’s view of ‘tradition’ (i.e., that unknowable set of teachings that were never written down) was what actually refuted the views of these same heretics? Of course not, that is absurd.

But there is a problem with their ‘jumping to conclusions’ in the context of this reference. The context of this quote about the ‘saints’ is not referring to previous church fathers but to the Apostles themselves as those ‘saints.’ Reading a little further in chapter 7 of this “Festal Letter” we see:

For there is no fellowship whatever between the words of the saints and the fancies of human invention; for the saints are the ministers of the truth, preaching the kingdom of heaven … (Festal Letter, 2.7) [emphasis added]

The word, ‘saints’ in the above context is obviously about the writers of Scripture, and not previous church fathers. In the next sentence he refers to Luke, showing who the ‘saints’ actually are.

Therefore blessed Luke reproves the inventions of men, and hands down the narrations of the saints, saying in the beginning of the Gospel … For as each of the saints has received, that they impart without alteration, for the confirmation of the doctrine of the mysteries. (Festal Letter, 2.7) [emphasis added]

Remember, Luke was not an Apostle, but he traveled with one, and he knew at least several others. Remembering that puts the above quote in its proper context.

We previously looked at Athanasius’ letters to Serapion, so here is one that refers to saints but is also clearly about the writers of Scripture,

The divine Scriptures, then, consistently show that the Holy Spirit is not a creature, but is proper to the Word and to the Godhead of the Father. Thus the teaching of the saints joins in establishing the holy and indivisible Triad; and the Catholic Church has one faith, even this. (Athanasius: Letters to Serapion Concerning the Holy Spirit, E1.32) [emphasis added]

This, again, is another example of Catholic apologists not doing their homework of reading before or after the citation they think gives them an example of ‘tradition’ or the church authority they think can establish such ‘tradition.’ In the end, they wind up giving an improper view of a church father’s beliefs and undermining their own argument.

Conclusion

I’ve gone to great lengths to point out the way Catholic apologists attempt to use words to redirect one's attention away from the main point of everything Athanasius did – prove the Trinity was Scriptural. Athanasius bathed his writings on the deity of Christ and the Trinity in Scripture. Why? Because it is the only thing that can be used to defend the doctrines of God.

Trying to point to a word like ‘tradition’ or ‘saints’ to prove your theological bent, all while missing the most important aspect of what Athanasius did seems self-defeating. Athasnasius wrote volumes about the Trinity and consistently pointed the reader to Scripture, whether he referred to a church father or to the biblical texts. Everything he wrote pointed the reader back to Scripture.

As I have researched this topic, I have continually seen Catholic sources that stated this or that Church fathers “did not disprove ‘tradition’.” OK, that might actually be true if one ignores all of the examples that no church father through the 4th century ever once referred to the type of tradition assumed to be true by the modern day Catholic apologist. But what these same Catholic apologists failed to tell you is that these church fathers never once “proved” there was anything even remotely similar to the type of ‘tradition’ that is promoted by the Catholic church and her representatives today. It is also true that no one coined the term, ‘sola scriptura’ until the 16th century but that does not mean that these same fathers never believed in what we understand ‘sola scriptura’ to be today. But what we DO see is that these church fathers continually spoke about the importance of Scripture and almost never used the word, ‘tradition’ outside of the context of it referring back to Scripture in some way.

So if you want to refute me, then please, provide something that shows a single modern-day ‘tradition’ that dates back to the Apostles AND is of the same authority as the Scriptures are and have always been for the Christian. Please don’t give me some nebulous usage of the word ‘tradition’ that upon further inspection only shows that its reference is actually to Scripture. That is what we keep seeing as we examine this topic, just as we keep seeing that firewall continuing to expand and be strengthened.

What shadow of such a notion did he find in Scripture, that he ventures upon this assertion? By deduction from what premises did he bring his profanity to such a conclusion as this? Which of the Evangelists says it? What apostle? What prophet? Nay, on the contrary every scripture divinely inspired, written by the afflatus [divine creative inspiration] of the Spirit, attests the Divinity of the Spirit.

Gregory of Nyssa (c. 355-395 AD, Against Eunomius)

Footnotes

1. William Webster, Holy Scripture, Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol II, (Battle Creek, WA: Christian Resource, Inc, 2001), p. 58.
2. Sola Scriptura: The Protestant Position on the Bible, Don Kistler, editor, (Lake Mary, FL: Ligonier Ministries, Reformation Trust Publishing, 2009), pp. 26-31.
3. William Webster, Holy Scripture, Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol II, (Battle Creek, WA: Christian Resource, Inc, 2001), pp. 59-60.
4. Sola Scriptura: The Protestant Position on the Bible, Don Kistler, editor, (Lake Mary, FL: Ligonier Ministries, Reformation Trust Publishing, 2009), pp. 29, the quoted text White’s statement above can also be found here, Discourses Against the Arians, Ch 11, Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers: Vol 2, Part 4.
5. William Webster, Holy Scripture, Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol II, (Battle Creek, WA: Christian Resource, Inc, 2001), p. 60.
6. Ibid, p. 60.
7. Ibid, p. 61.
8. Ibid, p. 61.

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.