Tradition as Interpretation: Unanimous Consent

As I start this topic, it still surprises me that I’ve written 26 blogs on different aspects of Sola Scriptura when most Protestant websites on the Internet barely give the topic a paragraph. But hopefully, as you have followed me on this journey, you are seeing that there is quite a lot to look at and evaluate, and I’m nowhere near completing this subject. I’m focusing this blog on “unanimous consent” because it is what Catholic apologists say over and over about the unity of the Church fathers on tradition and their outright denial of Sola Scriptura in their quest to prove that Scripture is not sufficient in and of itself to lead a believer to Christ. Nor is Scripture able to teach the believer how to live a Godly life, since the Catholic Church teaches that the believer needs the addition of tradition and the Church’s teachings to be complete. One of their favorite examples for why Sola Scriptura cannot be true is the supposed 30,000 Protestant denominations (which I will not be covering in this blog) and an equal number of private interpretations of the meaning of Scripture. Somehow this ‘proves’ that Protestantism is wrong as well as proving that Scripture is too hard for the individual believers to read and understand. For the Catholic Church, Scripture cannot be understood by individual believers because it's simply too difficult to extrapolate the true meaning of the verse or verses in Scripture. People need the Church to provide them with the proper interpretation of Scripture because people cannot be trusted to come up with the proper (i.e., Church approved) meaning on their own.

So, in the next few blogs, I am going to investigate this from an historical viewpoint to see exactly what the Church fathers believed and taught to see whether there really was “unanimous consent” of the Church fathers as stated by the Catholic Church.

Unanimous Consent

The first thing we need to do is understand exactly what is meant by “unanimous consent of the fathers.” From the Catholic apologist perspective, the insinuation is that all or mostly all of the early Church fathers believed a specific way about a specific verse, passage or subject, and in this case we are referring to the interpretation of biblical verses or passages. Likewise, if the majority of Church fathers believed the same way, then their interpretation of those same verses or passages should be in agreement and should reflect the same viewpoint. Now, I’m not trying to say that they would have all written the same exact words for a specific verse or passage, but the majority should be in agreement on how that verse or passage should be interpreted. For the vast majority of commentaries on Scripture, Protestants actually demonstrate this to be true, even if there are some minor nuanced differences, or at least did until some of the more liberal denominations came along, but I’m not going to go down that rabbit hole here either. And I can say this with confidence because I’m using John Gill, John Calvin, Albert Barnes, John MacArthur and a number of other commentators to create a Bible study on Colossians, and I’ve found very few differences between any of them. So, the 30,000 views of Scripture are rather ridiculous and hyperbolic.

But that doesn’t stop the Catholic Church from believing that view from the Reformation up to today. So, for instance, concerning the Council of Trent, when all of this exploded into full view, it made the following statement,

Furthermore, to check unbridled spirits, it decrees that no one relying on his own judgment shall, in matters of faith and morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, distorting the Holy Scriptures in accordance with his own conceptions, presume to interpret them contrary to that sense which holy mother Church, to whom it belongs to judge of their true sense and interpretation, has held and holds, or even contrary to the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, even though such interpretations should never at any time be published. Those who act contrary to this shall be made known by the ordinaries and punished in accordance with the penalties prescribed by the law. [emphasis added]

(Fourth Session Council of Trent)

There are several points to make about the above quote. First, no one is supposed to reply upon their own judgment about what a verse or passage means. Catholic apologists like to use the term, ‘private judgment,’ to separate ‘your’ interpretation from that of the Catholic Church’s. Second, only the Catholic Church can be trusted to interpret Scripture properly. In other words, if you want to know, go ask them instead of reading and determining what it might mean yourself. Third, there is an underlying meaning coming out of this quote that seems to be saying, ‘you should not trust yourself because we don’t trust you either.’ That is a bit crude, I know, but when the entire quote is taken as a whole, that is what is being said. Fourth, if, by chance or on purpose, you come to a conclusion that differs from the Catholic Church, they will expose you and you are likely to come under their judgment and punishment. And fifth, interpreting Scripture is dangerous and they’ve warned you ahead of time. So, think long and hard before picking up that Bible on your shelf.

Likewise, the same type of statement was made at the Vatican I Council (1869-1870),

And as the things which, in order to curb rebellious spirits, the holy Synod of Trent decreed for the good of souls concerning the interpretation of divine Scripture have been wrongly explained by some, We, renewing the said decree, declare this to be its meaning: that, in matters of faith and morals, appertaining to the building up of Christian doctrine, that is to be held as the true sense of Holy Scripture which our holy Mother Church hath held and holds, to whom it belongs to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures; and, therefore, that it is permitted to no one to interpret the Sacred Scripture contrary to this sense or likewise contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers. [emphasis added]

(The Decrees Of The Vatican Council)

So, in Vatican I, the Catholic Church renewed the decree of Trent that only she could interpret Scripture but then added in clearer words the concept of the ‘unanimous consent of the Fathers.’ The intent of both of these statements is to claim to be in uninterrupted historical agreement with the writings and beliefs of early Church fathers. It was also the intent of both Trent and Vatican I to link the authority of the Catholic Church to the historic teachings of the early Church fathers and thus show that the current Church’s teachings were exactly what had always been taught. So, if the Church’s teachings were conforming to the teachings of the early Church fathers, then the Reformers could not be correct in their assertions that Catholic Church teachings had strayed from the teachings of those same early Church fathers. In addition, Trent had set the standard for interpretation to be the Church herself. William Webster summarized it this way,

Furthermore, Trent has interpreted the meaning of unanimous consent to include not just the broad and general truths of Scripture, but its actual interpretation. Trent was attempting to blunt the effective Protestant apologetic, that its teachings were a departure from and perversion of the revelation of Scripture. The Council took refuge in an historical appeal, identifying with the fathers of the Church, branding the Reformers as rebels outside the mainstream of the Church historically. [1] [emphasis added]

Not only does the Catholic Church maintain she has the only right to interpret the general truths of Scripture, but she is the only one that can interpret the meaning of specific verses within Scripture. Their goal was to claim to be consistent with the early Church fathers and intentionally avoid any appearance of coming up with new teachings in their doctrinal beliefs that no one had ever heard or spoken of before, while looking to the past for validation of their present teachings. It should not be too surprising that both Trent and Vatican I borrowed this concept from the Gallic monk, Vincent of Lerins, who first formulated the concept in the 5th century, and wrote the following,

Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense ‘Catholic,’ which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally. This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consent. We shall follow universality if we confess that one faith to be true, which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity, if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy ancestors and fathers; consent, in like manner, if in antiquity itself we adhere to the consentient definitions and determinations of all, or at the least of almost all priests and doctors. [emphasis added]

(NPNF2, Volume XI, Vincent of Lerins, A Commonitory, 2.6) [2]

To make sure that everyone understands what he was saying, here is Webster’s succinct summary of his concept,

Vincent stated that those teachings are truly catholic and apostolic which have been believed everywhere, always and by all (...). In other words, the principle of unanimous agreement encompassing universality (believed everywhere), antiquity (believed always) and consent (believed by all). [3] [emphasis added]

Also noted by Webster was that Vincent was only repeating a principle that had first been taught by Irenaeus in the 2nd century. You can find the concept he developed in these 3 sections of his 5 volume work, Against Heresies.

Universality: The Universal Church, moreover, through the whole world, has received this tradition from the apostles. (ANF, Vol. 1, Irenaeus, Against Heresies II.9.1)

Consent: the preaching of the Church is everywhere consistent, and continues in an even course, and receives testimony from the prophets, the apostles, and all the disciples (Ibid., Against Heresies III.24.1)

Antiquity: True knowledge is [that which consists in] the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient constitution of the Church throughout all the world, and the distinctive manifestation of the body of Christ according to the successions of the bishops, by which they have handed down that Church which exists in every place, and has come even unto us, being guarded and preserved without any forging of Scriptures, by a very complete system of doctrine, and neither receiving addition nor [suffering] curtailment [in the truths which she believes] … (Ibid., Against Heresies IV.34.8) [4]

For the Catholic apologist, the problem with this line of reasoning is that according to Webster and what we’ve already learned about Irenaeus and his view of both Scripture and tradition, they both were referring to the ‘rule of faith,’ which again, we’ve already seen was encapsulated the Creeds, which incorporated the doctrines of the Gospel pulled from Scripture. Webster wrote,

But what he and Irenaeus were referring to was the rule of faith; the general truths of Christianity and the interpretations of Scripture which were foundational for the defense and proclamation of the specific doctrines which made up the rule, and not to the general interpretation of individual passages of Scripture. [5] [emphasis added]

Since we already know that when Irenaeus wrote about tradition he was referring to the ‘rule of faith,’ here we see that the same is true for Vincent of Lerins,

And here I perceive that, as a necessary sequel to the foregoing, I ought to show by examples in what way, by collating the consentient opinions of the ancient masters, the profane novelties of heretics may be detected and condemned. Yet in the investigation of this ancient consent of the holy Fathers we are to bestow our pains not on every minor question of the Divine Law, but only, at all events especially, where the Rule of Faith is concerned. [emphasis added]

(NPNF2, Volume XI, Vincent of Lerins, A Commonitory, 28.71)

So, Vincent understood that the ‘consent of the holy Fathers’ meant he and the early Church fathers would need to apply his concept to the ‘rule of faith.’ And former ancient Chirstian historian, Robert Grant (1917-2014), concurred with Lerins,

But the heretics also make great use of scripture … In the face of these difficulties what is the Catholic exegete to do? He is to follow the rule set forth at the beginning of Vincent’s work; and handed down to him by holy and learned men: they are to interpret the divine canon ‘according to the traditions of the universal church and according to the rules of Catholic dogma.’ In effect this interpretation is to be found in the general decrees of a universal council, and also in the consentient opinions of many great masters. This rule is not intended to apply ‘in every little question of the divine Law’ but only in matters concerning the rule of faith. [6] [emphasis added]

Protestants have always been in agreement with the ‘rule of faith’ as understood by the early Church fathers. But as we have seen in this series multiple times, Catholic apologists, as well as the Catholic Church herself, in their zeal to refute the Reformers and Protestants in general, have misrepresented the early Church fathers, which is, once again, what has happened here.

So, the Catholic Church’s appeal to its own ‘historic’ authority becomes less and less convincing every time we run across another example of what appears to be another misrepresentation of their usage of the early Church fathers. If the Catholic Church is the only entity that can interpret Scripture, then where is the infallible commentary of Colossians? The Gospel of John? The book of Isaiah? Of Romans? None of these exist. In fact, the Catholic Church has only infallibly interpreted 5 or 6 verses in all of the Bible, and even some of those are in dispute! After 2000 yrs of Church history, where are those commentaries? Did they not have enough time to compile them? If she is the only one that can interpret Scripture, then why hasn’t she done so?

But the Catholic Church has not done any and will never do any because ‘unanimous consent’ isn’t even a truthful representation of the history of Scripture interpretation. Yes, that’s right, ‘unanimous consent’ is a complete fabrication as we are about to see. The only agreement among the early Church fathers was on the “truths used to defend and explain the ‘rule of faith.’” [7]

History of Interpretation [8]

We begin our investigation with this,

It is well known that there was a long standing disagreement and conflict in the early Church on the approach to Scripture and the method of interpretation which should be employed for its interpretation, leading to wide spread differences in the actual interpretation of individual verses and passages. [9] [emphasis added]

Anyone that has spent any time actually reading about the early Church and what early Church fathers wrote has to have run across the two competing approaches to the interpretation of Scripture. Those two competing interpretive views were: 1) the literal-historical and 2) the allegorical, and each has roots in a school, one in Antioch and the other in Alexandria. The school in Alexandria promoted an allegorical interpretive method and was significantly influenced by Platonic philosophy. Those that employed this methodology were always looking for hidden meanings as well as spiritual and mystical meanings to Scripture verses and passages. The only way to see these spiritual and mystical meanings was to read allegories into the text of Scripture. [10] This is actually called ‘eisegesis,’ or reading a meaning into a passage. This describes the Alexandrian school to a “T.”

The opposite approach to Scripture is eisegesis, which is the interpretation of a passage based on a subjective, non-analytical reading. The word eisegesis literally means “to lead into,” which means the interpreter injects his own ideas into the text, making it mean whatever he wants. … Eisegesis is a mishandling of the text and often leads to a misinterpretation. … Eisegesis is concerned only with making a point, even at the expense of the meaning of words.

(What is the difference between exegesis and eisegesis? | GotQuestions.org)

We will see in upcoming sections of this blog how this can so easily be applied to the Alexandrian school.

The school in Antioch, which was influenced by Aristotle, promoted the literal-historical methodology. They did use allegory as a secondary approach, but was only used under limited and strict standards. By the way, please don’t think that I’m saying Aristotle was good and Plato was bad, I’m not a fan of philosophy, no matter who it's from. Christians are to live in the word of God, not looking to see how some secular thinker can improve their understanding of Scripture. But there are differences between the two. Without going too deeply into their views, Plato denied the reality of the material world, so, for instance, Genesis wasn’t about a real event, it needed to be understood outside of a material world context. Aristotle, on the other hand, developed a system of logic, which was easily applied to argumentation. There was more to each on what they believed and taught, but this very brief synopsis can give us context for the rest of this blog.

Also, just as the Alexandrian school’s allegorical interpretive method can be associated ‘eisegesis,’ the same is true of the Antiochene school’s literal historical method can be associated with ‘exegesis,’ or pulling the meaning out of the text,

Exegesis is the exposition or explanation of a text based on a careful, objective analysis. The word exegesis literally means “to lead out of.” That means that the interpreter is led to his conclusions by following the text. … Exegesis is concerned with discovering the true meaning of the text, respecting its grammar, syntax, and setting.

(What is the difference between exegesis and eisegesis? | GotQuestions.org)

As with Alexandria, we will see in upcoming sections of this blog how this can so easily be applied to the Antiochene school.

And finally, concerning the Western Church, Webster wrote,

The Western Church likewise possessed no consistent unified interpretive method. We find the influence of both Eastern schools on various fathers of the West until finally with Augustine there was a synthesis of the two. An examination of the schools of Alexandria and Antioch will reveal the contradictory positions on Scripture interpretation held in the early Church. [11]

I have openly stated my agreement with Tertullian’s dislike of philosophy and my disdain for Origen because of his focus on allegorical Scripture interpretation. So, right about now I would hope, whether for or against my views, you would be questioning how there could have been ‘unanimous consent’ if there were two approaches to Scripture interpretation with equally formidable church fathers. Since each would approach Scripture from different perspectives, there was no way they would ever arrive at the same place. In other words, their interpretations would always be different. The very fact that there were two competing interpretive approaches means there was no single interpretive standard and therefore there could not have been ‘unanimous consent’ on how to interpret Scripture. There; point proven - there is no such thing as ‘unanimous consent.’ Now, let’s look at why this is true.

The School of Alexandria

It might seem a little strange but the father of Christian allegorical interpretation was an Alexandrian Jew named Philo (20 BC to 50 AD). Webster wrote,

Philo sought through allegory to demonstrate the compatibility of Greek Platonic philosophy with the revelation of Scripture. The allegorical method aimed at the discovery of spiritual and moral truths supposedly hidden under the veil of the literal words and actions. Thus, the literal meaning is set aside for that which is mystical and spiritual. The literal words are only symbols. … Clement [of Alexandria] relied heavily on Philonic principles of allegory. But it was through Origen that the Church of both East and West became deeply influenced by the allegorical method of interpretation. [12]

So, Clement (150-215 AD) imported Philo’s philosophical principles into Christian Scriptural interpretation, but it was Origen (185-253 AD), likely the most influential early Church theologian, that shaped the thoughts of theologians throughout the later centuries with his interpretive methods. He influenced men like Dionysius the Great (d. 264 AD), Didymus the Blind (313-398), Eucbius of Caesarea (d. 339), Gregory of Nyssa (335-39), Gregory of Nazianzus (329-390), Rufinus (345-411 AD), Ambrose (339-397), Hillary of Poitiers (310-367 AD), Cyril of Alexandria (376-444 AD), and in his early days, Jerome (345-420 AD). [13]

Now, I know you have likely only heard of a few, if any, of these early Church fathers, but these were some very influential other bishops in their day, who influenced bishops long after their time. Some of their allegorical interpretations were inventive to say the least and differed greatly from each other as well as from the type of interpretations from the theologians who came out of the Antiochene school.

The School of Antioch

Unlike Alexandria, the Antiochene school taught that the Scriptures should be understood and interpreted in their literal and historical sense. Now to be clear, so that no one thinks that the Alexandrian school allegorized every part of both the Old and New Testaments, or the doctrines that define the Creeds, we are really talking mostly about the Old Testament being allegorized (and possibly the Revelation). Some of the leading minds of this literal historical method were: Lucian of Antioch (240-312 AD), Theophilus of Antioch (d. 185 AD), Diodore of Tarsus (d. 390 AD), Basil of Caesarea (330-379 AD), Theodore of Mopsuestia (350-428 AD), Dorotheus (505-565 AD), Eusthasius (d. 337 AD), John Chrysostom (347-407 AD), and Theodoret (393-458 AD). The two most recognizable names on this list are Basil of Caesarea and John Chrysostom. Chrysostom wrote volumes and most of his writings were straightforward and definitely used the literal historical methodology. [14]

There were earlier fathers like Clement of Rome (18-100 AD), Papias (60-130 AD), Polycarp (69-155 AD), Justin Martyr (100-165 AD), and Melito of Sardis (100-180 AD), but they all wrote before the schools at Alexandria and Antioch were created. I also think it's pretty clear that Tertullian (160-220 AD) and Irenaeus (130-202 AD) would have been opposed to the Alexandrian school. Many of the earliest writers were more concerned with defending the faith against heresies like Gnosticism, or laying down basic and foundational theological positions used in those defenses. Unfortunately, much of the writings of the earliest Church fathers were lost to time, persecution, and wars. Although it might be easy to see that most of these writers would have used a literal historical interpretive method, without their writings it ends up being nothing more than speculation, which I’m generally against. None of these early Church fathers had time to get into the fanciful interpretive creations because of what was happening around them. Regardless, if you were looking for the ‘unanimous consent of the fathers,’ the school in Antioch is where you would likely find that, but definitely not from the Alexandrian commentators. [15]

Per Webster, Diodore and Theodore were very critical of the Alexandrian allegorical interpretation methodology because it tended to set the literal and historical sense of Scripture aside as an inferior position of secondary importance or it completely disregarded it. This allowed the allegorical interpreter of Scripture to use their own ‘private judgment’ and speculation on what Scripture was saying. Many times the allegorical interpretation had nothing to do with the plain meaning of the verse or passage. [16]

Concurring with this view of the school of Antioch, Joseph Trigg, a scholar of early Christianity, wrote,

They tended toward an approach which shied away from allegory and sought the sense intended by the author, which they determined by close attention to the historical meaning of individual words of scripture. Fragments of Lucian of Antioch (d. 312) attest to the strong concern for the plain meaning of the scriptural texts themselves. [17]

An Example of differing Interpretations

I am not going to try to defend the Alexandrian allegorical interpretive methodology in any way. I do not agree with fanciful allegories to explain Scripture, because I believe that ‘Scripture interprets Scripture.’ I think that allegorical interpretations outside of that framework are categorically wrong, and I believe it's rather obvious that they should be rejected because there is no basis for understanding how such allegorical interpretations were arrived at. The vast majority of Scripture is quite plain and understandable, but there are difficult prophetic passages in Scripture and frankly, I’m ok with not knowing how to understand some of those difficult sections. But when a commentator takes a passage that seems to be straightforward and attempts to allegorize it because they don’t like the plain and clear meaning of the text or they think there is a secret and hidden meaning in those passages, I tend to reject those interpretations out of hand, as well as most of their other writings, regardless of the subject. Hence, my dislike of Origen. And it doesn’t help that their inspiration came about by an outside methodology, like Greek philosophy, or even modern-day existentialism. Our interpretive influence should not come from outside secular sources. If Scripture is “God’s word” and God gave His word to His people, then He made it understandable for His people. And if there are things we don’t understand, like part of the Revelation, then when we need to know, God will reveal it to us. But that is a small portion of Scripture and we need to not lose sight of that fact.

So, let’s start with an example of the Antiochene criticism of the Alexandrian allegorization of Scripture by Theodore, who wrote,

There are people who take great pains to twist the senses of the divine Scriptures and make everything written therein serve their own ends. They dream up some silly fables in their own heads and give their folly the name allegory … When they start expounding divine Scripture ‘spiritually’ – ‘spiritual interpretation’ is the name they like to give their folly – they claim that Adam is not Adam, paradise is not paradise, the serpent is not the serpent. I should like to tell them this: If they make history serve their own ends, they will have no history left. But if this is what they do, let them tell us how they can answer questions such as these: Who created the first human being? How did disobedience come about? How was our death sentence introduced? Now, if they gleaned their answers from the Scriptures, then their so-called allegory is unmasked as being foolishness, for it proved superfluous throughout. But if their assertion is true, if the biblical writings do not preserve the narrative of actual events but point to something else, something profound which requires special understanding – something ‘spiritual’ as they would like to say, which they have discovered because they are so spiritual themselves, then what is the source of their knowledge? Whatever name they may give to their interpretation, have they been taught by divine Scripture in their speaking? [18] [emphasis added]

This is a man after my own heart! This new type of ‘spiritual interpretation’ has more in common with Gnosticism than it does Christianity. The Gnostics had to have some secret knowledge to understand the hidden meanings within the plain text of Scripture. So, how is what Theodore says about allegory any different than what we’ve seen in Gnosticism?

Let’s look at another criticism leveled by Basil of Caesarea of the Antiochene school against his own younger brother, Gregory of Nyssa of the Alexandrian school. Joseph Trigg wrote the following about the two brothers,

Antiochene interpretation significantly influenced biblical exegesis in the Greek, Latin and Syriac traditions. If Gregory of Nyssa represents a brilliant culmination of Alexandrian exegetical tradition, his older brother Basil of Caesarea (c. 330-379) is uncompromisingly Antiochene in his approach to the Bible. In On the Hexaemeron, Basil explicitly rejects the Alexandrian approach to the creation narrative in Genesis as firmly as Thedore did. He alleges that allegorists, out of embarrassment with the actual content of the Bible, treat things mentioned in it like symbols to be decoded from a dream … [19] [emphasis added]

But it should also be stressed that the Antiochene school did not reject all usages of allegory. They simply “... restricted its use and grounded it upon the literal-historical interpretation of Scripture, looking to Scripture itself to guide in the use of allegory, if such an interpretation was warranted.” [20]

In other words, they allowed Scripture to interpret Scripture, which is exactly how Chrysostom described it.

There is something else we can learn here. What sort of thing is it? It is when it is necessary to allegorize Scripture. We ourselves are not the lords over the rules of interpretation, but must pursue Scripture’s understanding of itself, and in that way make use of the allegorical method. What I mean is this. The Scripture has just spoken of a vineyard, wall, and wine-vat. The reader is not permitted to become lord of the passage and apply the words to whatever events or people he chooses. The Scripture interprets itself with the words, ‘And the house of Israel is the vineyard of the Lord Sabaoth.’ [21] [emphasis added]

In other words, verses before and/or after will generally always give the reader the context of the intended meaning. That is one of the ways one can say with confidence, ‘Scripture interprets Scripture.’ Chrysostom goes on with another example of that,

… Ezekiel describes a large, great-winged eagle which enters Lebanon and takes off the top of a cedar. The interpretation of the allegory does not lie in the whim of the readers, but Ezekiel himself speaks, and tells first what the eagle is and then what the cedar is. … This is everywhere a rule in Scripture: when it wants to allegorize, it tells the interpretation of the allegory, so that the passage will not be interpreted superficially or be met by the undisciplined desire of those who enjoy allegorization to wander about and be carried in every direction. [22] [emphasis added]

So, we see that Chrysostom provides examples on how to interpret Scripture by using a principle that many Catholic apologists scoff at and mock Protestant on, that being the principle that ‘Scripture interprets Scripture.’ Not surprisingly, we see that this supposed Protestant view was clearly understood and believed by the prince of early preachers, Chrysostom, whom we covered earlier in this series.

The Western Church

Unfortunately, the Western Church was similar to the Eastern, in that there were fathers on both sides of the interpretive divide. Hilary of Poitiers (310-367), Rufinus (345-411) and Ambrose (339-397) were influenced by the methodologies of Origen. Hilary even wrote an exegetical handbook, Treatise on the Mysteries, promoting Origen’s allegorical principles. But the Western Church also had strong opponents to Origen’s methodologies, similar to Tertullian and Irenaeus. Both Jerome (345-420) and Augustine (354-430) initially embraced allegorical interpretation but later soured on it and embraced the Antiochene literal-historical approach. [23]

Frederic Farrar (1831-1903) wrote about Jerome’s later disdain for Origen’s methodology, which came out quite clearly in his views of Ambrose’s commentaries, saying,

Jerome says of his two commentaries on St. Matthew and St. Luke, that the latter trifles in the words and drowses in the meanings, and the other is dull in both. Jerome, however, was strongly prejudiced against him. In his Catalogue he only says that he will make no remark about him, because he is still living, and that he may not be blamed either for flattery or plain-speaking. He compares the superficial and meager commentary of Ambrose to the croaking of a raven which makes sport of the colours of all other birds, and yet is itself dark all over. [24] [emphasis added]

I do hope you catch the humor and disdain in the above quote. Even though he tried to maintain some decency toward Ambrose, he clearly thought very little of his views.

I also need to include a little about Augustine because he was seen as attempting to synthesize the two schools into a single cohesive interpretive approach. He did this partly because he believed that creating a set of principles would enable the common person to interpret any passage of Scripture. Yes, Augustine actually thought that the everyday ‘lay-person’ – I hate that term, by the way, but it gets the desired message across – should be able to understand and interpret Scripture, something that modern-day Catholic apologists and the Catholic Church herself do not believe is possible. For Augustine, the literal approach was the primary means to interpret Scripture, where the secondary means was allegorical and meant to be used for passages that he considered obscure and ambiguous. Webster noted these two perspectives on Scripture as,

… related to understanding its meaning, The first has to do with the principle of perspicuity, that is, with truths that are plain and clear. The second has to do with obscurity. Augustine taught that the essential truths of the Christian faith and those that relate to moral living are plain and unambiguous. [25] [emphasis added]

By the way, Protestants believe and teach the same principle of the ‘perspicuity of Scripture’ just like Augustine did, but this too is something else that modern-day Catholic apologists do not believe. But I also want to return us back to the concept of ‘Scripture interprets Scripture,’ because Augustine taught how one was to interpret those obscure passages of Scripture,

… [1] the obscure passages are to be interpreted in light of the clearer ones, [2] any passage must be interpreted within the context of that which precedes and follows it as well as the broader context of the rule of faith, [3] one must seek to understand the original intention of the author in his writings, [4] it is important to have recourse to the original language and an accurate translation, and [5] one must read, study and memorize the books of Scripture. [26]

And once again, Protestants hold to this same methodology. One of the biggest issues some Christians and churches have is interpreting Scripture within its context. It is much easier to cherry pick a verse so that it can be twisted into whatever meaning is desired to fit their specific theological bent. But forcing the verse to be interpreted within its context prevents you from making that mistake. The same is true of being forced to interpret a verse within the light of clearer verses. Another way to prevent getting off track is to go back to the original Hebrew or Greek. These are standard and obvious ways of preventing the wrong understanding of Scripture and using these principles will do exactly what Augustine said. I do, however, take issue with his last point, #6 – not included above – of leaving the interpretation of remaining obscure passages up to the ‘discretion of the reader.’ One can speculate on a difficult passage’s meaning as long as one does not create doctrine or dogma based off of that speculation. Any speculation is basically a guess, so don’t force your view on others. For me, however, I just say, “I don’t know what it means right now, and I’m ‘ok’ with that.” But I don’t say that because of some ecclesiastical authority. I dislike speculating because so many people have a bad habit of running with speculation as theological truth.

Conclusion

In this blog, I took a little time to detail what is meant by ‘unanimous consent’ so that there would be no misunderstanding of what I’m referring to. I then gave a brief history of interpretation and then explained the two schools and their interpretive methodologies. Next, I gave a couple of examples of the Alexandrian interpretation and how they were received by the Antiochenes. And lastly, I briefly discussed its impact on the Western church centered in Rome. I focused a little on Chrysostom (east) and Augustine (west) because they actually bothered to document rules for interpretation and why they thought any believer should be able to interpret the meaning of Scripture. Along the way, I showed how the concept of ‘Scripture interprets Scripture’ supports how these two approached the Word of God. This is definitely something that Catholic apologists and the Catholic Church today do not believe is possible. All of this helped make the point that ‘unanimous consent’ is a myth.

After detailing the differences between the two schools and their effect on the Western Church, the concept of ‘unanimous consent’ is even less believable, even though it wasn’t very believable to begin with. I understand if one wanted to use this type of argument against those that don’t know any Church history at all, because someone like that would have no easy way to defend their position. But this isn’t about winning an argument, even though the Protestant side easily wins, it's about what is truthful, what is factual, and ‘unanimous consent’ is neither. And then there is the morality of knowingly using an argument that is known to be false. When you do that, people are less likely to believe anything you say in the future.

Since this was a view expressed by the Council of Trent, one has to wonder if this was an attempted ‘sleight of hand’ on their part or did they just not know. Whatever the answer is, ‘unanimous consent’ did not exist in the early, middle or late Church and attempting to chastise the Protestant church for the same supposed ‘sin’ of multiple interpretations of the same passage of Scripture comes off as hypocritical. And it’s even more hypocritical when the Catholic Church says they are the only ones allowed to interpret Scripture but then never do.

After looking at the two schools, it should be clear that there is no such thing as ‘unanimous consent’ of the fathers, unless you want to limit that concept to the Antiochene fathers. The fact that there are two schools with vastly differing interpretive methodologies immediately means that there will always be at least two different interpretations for a passage, assuming that all of the allegorical interpretations agree with one another, which would be a physical impossibility. In a situation like this, ‘unanimous consent’ can never occur! One simply cannot escape this conclusion.

There are things about God’s Word that we know for sure. First, God gave us His Word and He meant for us to read it, understand it and believe it. And one of the foremost theologians of the early Church, Augustine, clearly understood this. Second, the vast majority of Scripture is clear and understandable, and it is, therefore, not difficult to understand what it means. Third, there are passages that are harder to understand, and thanks to Augustine we have a set of reasonable rules on how to understand and interpret those difficult passages of Scripture. And fourth, there are passages that we may not be able to understand for various reasons, one being that it might still be a future prophecy so we might not have any way to understand right now. But these are rare within the pages of Scripture, and we don’t need to be overly concerned one way or the other about those passages.

With differing views of scriptural interpretation and differing views of how to allegorize a verse or passage, it becomes rather obvious that there was no real consensus on how Scripture should be interpreted, unless, of course, we are limiting that to the ‘rule of faith,’ where there actually was consensus. And without that set of infallible commentaries documenting the supposed ‘unanimous consent’ of the verse-by-verse interpretation of Scripture done by the ‘fathers,’ we supposedly can never know what the proper interpretation of any verse or passage is unless we ask the Catholic Church to interpret it for us. But they have never bothered to even start those infallible commentaries, let alone provide them for people to read. So, our quandary persists. For ‘unanimous consent’ to be true, something has to be ‘unanimous,’ don’t you think?

All things that are read from the Holy Scriptures in order to our instruction and salvation, it behoves us to hear with earnest heed. … that which shall make us strong against insidious [treacherous or crafty] errors, God has been pleased to put in the Scriptures, against which no man dares to speak, who in any sort wishes to seem a Christian), when He had given Himself to be handled by them, that did not suffice Him, but He would also confirm by means of the Scriptures the heart of them that believe: for He looked forward to us who should be afterwards; seeing that in Him we have nothing that we can handle, but have that which we may read.

Augustine, Ten Homilies on the First Epistle of John, Homily 2.

Footnotes

1. William Webster, Holy Scripture, Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol II, (Battle Creek, WA: Christian Resource, Inc, 2001), p. 162.
2. Ibid, p. 163. It can also be found here: Tradition As Interpretation: The Formal Sufficiency of Scripture
3. Ibid, p. 163.
4. Please note that the ‘Antiquity’ chapter linked in Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) shows it as Chapter 33. William Webster shows the reference as chapter 34, which for the sake of continuity with his source material, I have left the reference per his original. You can also find some of the same information here: Tradition As Interpretation: The Formal Sufficiency of Scripture
5. William Webster, Holy Scripture, Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol II, (Battle Creek, WA: Christian Resource, Inc, 2001), p. 163.
6. Robert Grant with David Tracy, A Short History of the Interpretation of the Bible (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), p. 81, as quoted in William Webster, Holy Scripture, Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol II, (Battle Creek, WA: Christian Resource, Inc, 2001), p. 163-164.
7. William Webster, Holy Scripture, Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol II, (Battle Creek, WA: Christian Resource, Inc, 2001), p. 163.
8. Ibid, pp. 165-166, was used for this section. Additional information can be found here: A Brief History of Biblical Interpretation – DR. RELUCTANT
9. Ibid, p. 163.
10. Ibid, p. 166.
11. Ibid, p. 166.
12. Ibid, pp. 166-167.
13. Ibid, p. 167.
14. Ibid, p. 168.
15. There does seem to be a move in recent years to call the differences between Alexandria and Antioch a ‘myth.’ See the following article: Alexandria and Antioch: a revised tale of two cities. This was much more applicable for their differences in views of the Old Testament, see: Brief survey of the history of hermeneutics – 8. Antioch - Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary. There was also a disturbing tendency of the Antiochene school producing heretics, see: Early Church Battle Royale: Alexandria vs. Antioch | Eric Hyde's Blog. I see the same disturbing tendency in the KJVOnly crowd.
16. William Webster, Holy Scripture, Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol II, (Battle Creek, WA: Christian Resource, Inc, 2001), p. 168.
17. Ibid, p. 168.
18. Ibid, p. 169.
19. Ibid, p. 169.
20. Ibid, p. 170.
21. Ibid, pp. 170-171.
22. Ibid, p. 171.
23. Ibid, pp. 172-173.
24. Frederic William Farrar, History of Interpretation (London: Macmillan and Co., 1886), 205–206. p/o Logos Bible Software, as quoted in William Webster, Holy Scripture, Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol II, (Battle Creek, WA: Christian Resource, Inc, 2001), p. 173.
25. Ibid, p. 173.
26. Ibid, p. 174. Numbers added for clarity.

This blog has a heavy reliance upon the book, Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith, Volume II. pgs 88 through 93.

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.