Tradition as Interpretation: Misrepresentations

 In this installment, part 29, of my Sola Scriptura series I am going to take a more in depth look at the type of tradition that more closely aligns with how the Catholic Church would understand the use of the word, ‘tradition.’ I have traveled through quite a few topics trying to show how the Church fathers understood ‘tradition’ when they used the word. In the last two blogs I looked more critically at what the term, ‘unanimous consent of the fathers,’ actually meant because it was important to prevent the misuse of this phrase from encouraging anyone to believe there was any truth to this Catholic belief. And it would help everyone to better understand the next section I’m about to step into. Each of these topics have built upon the previous in an attempt to create an ironclad case for Sola Scriptura. 

We also needed to look at the allegorical interpretive method because it will play a key role in this blog. Remember, as we saw in the previous two blogs, the allegorical methodology allowed the Church fathers attempting to interpret Scripture to ignore the literal sense of Scripture and create a spiritual meaning, regardless of whether one could or should exist for the verse or passage being interpreted. 

So, it was important to properly understand “... the terms used by Church fathers when referring to tradition and authoritative interpretation. By placing the terms in their proper historical context, we can understand what the fathers meant by them.” [1] In other words, if we don’t understand how the Church fathers interpreted Scripture, it would be impossible for anyone to determine if their interpretations were valid, especially a Church father that was attempting to integrate ‘secular philosophy’ into their views of the meaning of Scripture. 

We now move into how three Church fathers, Clement, Origen and Athanasius, used the word ‘tradition’ and how it was misused by Catholic apologists. This needs to be done because it is key to understanding what these Church fathers meant when they used the term and how a different meaning was poured into the word by Catholic apologists, a meaning that these Church fathers never intended. 

Clement of Alexandria

If you will remember in a previous blog, Clement (150-215 AD) was the first Church father to purposely attempt to integrate philosophy into Scripture interpretation. Like other Church fathers we’ve looked at, Clement used the term ‘tradition’ but in a completely different way. Per William Webster, 

Clement explains that the Gnostic heretics departed from the truth because they had departed from the authoritative tradition of the Church. He used the term ‘tradition’ to mean a secret, unwritten rule of interpretation handed down from the apostles to the spiritual elite within the Church, those who were intellectually capable of understanding. [2] [emphasis added]

What surprised me about this statement was that Clement seemed to have been completely obvious to the fact that this was exactly how Gnostics thought, talked and taught. They were all about a secret knowledge for the spiritual elite. That made me ask a simple question — was Clement really a Gnostic at heart? Or had philosophy so warped his views that he just could not recognize what was right in front of him? I guess I’ll believe the latter, opting to believe he was oblivious. R.P.C. Hanson went on to explain how Clement saw ‘tradition,’

The secret tradition is, moreover, a completion of the ordinary faith. S. Paul, he says, (Strom. vi.xviii), preached the ‘gnosis’ at Corinth, and this ‘is perfecting of faith, and goes beyond the ordinary instruction, following the abundance of the Lord’s teaching and the Church’s rule of faith.’ … Clement specifically refers to this tradition as unwritten (Strom. vi.xv) … This clearly refers to an unwritten tradition of interpreting the Scriptures delivered by our Lord to his apostles and by the succeeding generations, independent of the Bible and available to Clement in his own day. [3] [emphasis added]

Since Webster’s analysis was so succinct, I’ll just quote him,

According to Clement, the Scriptures are the only source for doctrine for the Church, but they must be interpreted by the ecclesiastical rule, or the secret tradition of interpretation handed down from the apostles. This secret tradition was, in fact, Clement's personal approach to the allegorizing of Scripture, which he included as part of the rule of faith of the Church. [4] [emphasis added]

An example of his interpretation can be found here, ANF Vol II, Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, Book VI, 16: The Gnostic Exposition, which is about the Ten Commandments. Unfortunately, it is all allegorical and is not an example of what was ‘handed down from the apostles’ as some authoritative ecclesiastical interpretive rule for the Church. It was an example of the allegorical method that originated from Philo and the Epistle of Barnabas. [5] 

R.P.C. Hanson gives the details on why this had nothing to do with a tradition handed down from the apostles, 

Two tell-tale facts compel us to discard Clement’s claim to be in possession of a secret, unwritten tradition of doctrine of the Bible, on the grounds that it is entirely untrustworthy. The first is that when we examine the contents of this tradition we find it to consist of theological speculations which have a suspiciously Alexandrian ring about them, and which we cannot possibly imagine to have emanated from our Lord and his apostles. The second is that we can with very fair probability determine whence Clement derived both the idea that such a tradition might exist and the conviction that it did exist. The first of these sources is Philo. We have seen how Clement borrowed both vocabulary and ideas on this subject from him. The other is the Epistle of [Barnabas]. Writers on Clement have noticed that he seems to have borrowed his phrase [leaving out the Greek words for:] (the gnosis) from this work, but no one has apparently gathered all the evidence, as it can be gathered, to show how likely it is that Clement derived his whole theory of secret tradition from the Epistle of [Barnabas]. Clement quotes the epistle several times and seems to regard it as tradition as authentic as that of any New Testament epistle. [6] [emphasis added]

So, what the experts believe is that Clement created his own notion of a tradition to interpret Scripture which he believed should be used by the entire Church, since we know it wasn’t used before Clement’s time. So, let’s parse through this a little so no one misunderstands what the text above is saying. There are two reasons why scholars do not accept that Clement somehow acquired a secret and unwritten tradition of interpretation from Jesus and the apostles. The objections are:

1. When someone actually looks at the content of this tradition, it is filled with theological speculations which seem far too consistent with someone following the allegorical method of the Alexandrian school. 
2. Scholars have very little trouble determining that Clement seems to have derived the interpretive ‘tradition’ on his own and most likely even convinced himself the tradition was passed down to him. 

The reason that scholars believe this is that Clement was a lover of Philo’s philosophy and that actually seems to be the true source for his methodology. And why are they so sure? Because Clement borrowed both vocabulary and ideas from Philo. In other words, reading through the lines a little, what Clement wrote sounds like Philo, not Clement. This type of analysis is what scholars do all the time to understand what the Church fathers wrote. As a matter of fact, this type of critical thinking has helped to identify a number of works that turned out to be forgeries, like the Donations of Constantine, which even fooled Thomas Aquinas. The other reason they seem so sure is Clement’s love for the Epistle of Barnabas. His writings seem to have borrowed some key ideas and concepts from that document. His numerous quotes of this epistle seem to indicate that he considered this writing to be as authentic as any New Testament epistle. 

But the more devastating part of this whole charade perpetrated by Clement is that the Antiochene school seems to have had no idea that this secret, unwritten interpretive methodology said to have been handed down from the Apostles ever existed. If it was truly handed down from the Apostles to the successive Church fathers, why didn’t the Antiochene school know about its existence? If you disagree, ask yourself a simple question – why did the Antiochene school despise allegorical interpretations if Jesus and the Apostles had handed them down? Or was it selectively handed down? Did some Church fathers know that only those that wanted to interpret the Scriptures allegorically could be trusted with this secret ‘tradition?’ And if so, how did they know that Clement could be trusted? Even more, was there some secret group of Church leaders that decided who could know and who could not? Did Irenaeus and Tertullian know about this secret methodology? Did Augustine and Chrysostom know or were these Church fathers untrustworthy? What about Thomas Aquinas? He brought the interpretive model back to a more literal interpretation. So, did he know or was he omitted from the chain as well? Do you see how a couple of questions can cast doubt on Clement’s ‘tradition’? 

He continues, 

In a fragment of Hypotyposeis [which is a 7 volume set of academic books that were likely destroyed in one of the Crusades] (Book VII) quoted by Eusebius, he says: ‘The Lord gave the secret knowledge (...) to James the Just, to John, and to Peter, after the resurrection. They handed it on to the other apostles, and the other apostles to the seventy, of whom [Barabas] was one.’ … The conclusion is almost irresistible that Clement of Alexandria was influenced enough by his reading of the Epistle of [Barnabas], and by the existence of quite a large body of legend about [Barnabas] of the New Testament, to exalt the Epistle’s ‘gnosis’ – that is its system of allegorizing the Old Testament and especially the Law-book – into a theory that [Barnabas] received a special secret tradition through the apostles from Christ. The main content of this tradition Clement apparently believed to be the allegorization of the Old Testament so as to yield support for all kinds of speculations appealing to his own mind and the mind of his teachers. And he persuaded himself that this supposed secret teaching of [Barnabas] had been maintained independently of the New Testament up to his own day. [7] [emphasis added]

And there you have it – the modern concept of tradition which can easily be pulled out of his concept. It may have started with a limited application to the Old Testament ‘law’ books, but as we have seen from modern Catholic apologists, this ‘tradition’ has been applied to anything the Catholic Church ‘developed’ – which is a nicer way of saying ‘invented’ – from that time forward. And what are we talking about here? The main Catholic doctrines which cannot be found in Scripture or the early church are: 1) Papal infallibility, the Marian dogmas of her 2) perpetual virginity (which includes her own virgin birth), 3) immaculate conception (which includes her sinless state), and 4) assumption, then 5) purgatory and 6) indulgences. None of these are biblically or historically part of the early Church. Yes, there were certain early beliefs that can be warped into a couple of these but none of them existed in the early Church. They were all developed over time where some were misunderstandings based on the Greek to Latin translation, or developed from Gnostic literature or evolved from unverifiable legends.

So as I did above, let’s step through what Hanson said. The fragment of Hypotyposeis, which was quoted by Eusebius, indicated that this interpretative method was passed down from Jesus through the Apostles. But what scholars actually think occurred is that Clement was influenced by the Epistle of Barnabas for all the reasons previously stated. Something to keep in mind, just because a Church father said some ‘tradition’ was passed down, does not mean their beliefs were accurate. Remember, Irenaeus said Jesus lived into His 50s, which no serious scholar believes. And Eusebius was an historian from the 4th century and Clement lived in the early 3rd century and no one knows who wrote the seven volume work or when. Also, the allegorical interpretive method supposedly inherited by Clement was to be used on the Old Testament books of the law, not the New Testament. For some of the ‘developed’ dogmas listed above, Catholic apologists have gone through great lengths to extract the doctrinal ‘seed’ from something written in the Old and New Testaments. 

So, what did Catholic apologists do with this knowledge? Joe Gallegos said this in Not by Scripture Alone,

Clement of Alexandria applies the same methodology (as Irenaeus, Tertullian and Origen) regarding the interpretation of the Scriptures. According to Clement, one must read the Scriptures within the milieu [context] of the rule of faith (‘canon of truth’) which has been handed down from the Apostles to the Church … Similarly, as with the Fathers before and after, Clement finds that the fundamental error of the heretic is that he doesn’t apply the Church’s inerrant Tradition when interpreting the Scriptures. Instead the heretic selects and interprets the passages of the sacred text according to his own judgment and desires apart from the traditional truth contained in the Church. [8] [emphasis added]

So, Gallegos rightly stated that one must read Scripture within the context of the ‘rule of faith’ which we have already looked at and Protestants ‘mostly’ agree with. [9]  But there were a host of Church fathers who disagreed with Clement’s interpretive methodologies, or the Church’s ecclesiastical canon (which is to say certain rules or norms of conduct or belief prescribed by the Church), whatever that means. To Clement, this was an ‘authoritative method of interpreting Scripture with its significant insistence and priority upon allegory. Gallegos added, in essence, only a ‘heretic … interprets the passages of the sacred text according to his own judgment and desires apart from the traditional truth contained in the Church.’ And in 200 AD, what exactly was the ‘traditional truth contained in the Church’? During that time, it was the Gospel and the Creeds, right?

Webster goes on to help us understand what Gallegos was saying, 

It was a means of eliciting what he considered to be the spiritual meaning behind the literal words of Scripture. We have seen an example of Clement’s interpretation which he refers to as the Church’s ecclesiastical canon and which Gallegos suggests is the Church’s authoritative tradition in his exegesis of the ten commandments. Is Gallegos willing to embrace this particular interpretation and elevate it to the status of the Church’s authoritative tradition? Probably not. In fact, the Church of Rome would repudiate Clement’s interpretation today. [10] [emphasis added]

Once again, I’m going to ask for that inerrant and infallible set of commentaries that we all know does not exist. If all Scripture is to be interpreted based on this ‘tradition,’ then please produce those infallible commentaries so that those infallible interpretations can be read and understood by all. But we know they do not exist and will never exist. So, Webster is correct when he says that the Catholic Church and her magisterium would never endorse Clement’s allegorical interpretation of the ten commandments. (See here: ANF Vol II, Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, Book VI, 16: The Gnostic Exposition) 

Another aspect of this is the mistake that Catholic apologists continually make: anytime a Church father mentions the word ‘tradition,’ an assumption is made that the intended meaning is that of the modern-day understanding of the word ‘tradition.’ And we have seen this several times already in this series when a Catholic apologist has referenced a Church father’s usage of the word. There is always an immediate assumption that its meaning is that of their modern definition of ‘tradition,’ and we saw this with each of the Church fathers we examined in this Sola Scriptura series. 

It should also be pointed out that neither Irenaeus or Tertullian would agree with Clement’s philosophical speculations and allegories. Tertullian, for one, despised philosophy. As Webster pointed out, 

Though Clement called his interpretative method the ecclesiastical canon, it could claim no universal application in the Church of his day and would be rejected by the Roman Church in our own. Consequently, the Roman appeal to Clement for support of her tradition and authoritative interpretation is baseless. [11] [emphasis added]

So the experts, which includes Hanson, are convinced that, 

Clement’s secret teaching did, as far as we can reconstruct it, consist of speculations, intuitions, and inspired (or not so inspired) theologizing, which had no connection with any oral teaching given by our Lord or His Apostles; and…it was intimately connected with his own devotional life…It is clear, that Clement has confused in his theory of secret tradition at least three separate things: First, his own private speculations, which are often of a Gnostic cast; second, a tradition of doctrinal speculation inherited from eminent teachers before him, not least among whom were (as we can see from Clement’s own writings) Philo, and (as he tells us himself) Pantaenus, a tradition which he attributed quite mistakenly to [Barnabas], whom he imagined to have derived it through the Twelve from our Lord; third, … the Church’s interpretation of her tradition in teaching and preaching. [12] [emphasis added]

Origen 

Origen (185-253 AD) was another Church father that believed in two classes of Christians, the common people and the spiritual elite. Like Clement, Origen believed the common person could only understand the ‘rule of faith,’ while the spiritual elite could comprehend the hidden mysteries and meanings within the plain and clear passages of Scripture. Origen wrote this,

Then, finally, that the Scriptures were written by the Spirit of God, and have a meaning, not such only as is apparent at first sight, but also another, which escapes the notice of most. For those (words) which are written are the forms of certain mysteries, and the images of divine things. Respecting which there is one opinion throughout the whole Church, that the whole law is indeed spiritual; but that the spiritual meaning which the law conveys is not known to all, but to those only on whom the grace of the Holy Spirit is bestowed in the word of wisdom and knowledge. [emphasis added]

Anti-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 4, Origin, De Principiis, Preface 8

This is a dangerous viewpoint and is completely out of step from most of the Church fathers we’ve already looked at, with the exception of Clement, of course. Over and over the Fathers have stated their belief in the clarity of Scripture. Suddenly when allegory comes on the scene, the Scriptures are filled with hidden meanings that only the spiritual elite could see and understand, utilizing this new authoritative, allegorical method of interpretation that no one knew had ever existed. Webster summarizes Origen this way,

This rule of interpretation was a step beyond the rule of faith and capable of being apprehended only by a minority of elite Christians. To Origen, allegory was the Church’s way of spiritually interpreting Scripture. Tradition, then, included not only the passing down of fundamental doctrines but also an authoritative method of interpretation, the principle part of which was allegory. [13] [emphasis added]

My issue is that the only proof this spiritual interpretation existed is through the writings of Clement and Origen. No Church fathers before wrote of this, and most after were either referring to what Clement and Origen had written or were using their works to create even more speculative interpretations. The only proof that can be presented for the existence of this interpretative methodology is if there was a set of authoritative commentaries demonstrating this methodology. Unfortunately, as previously noted, these do not exist, which makes the claims by Clement and Origen far-fetched at best, and an outright fabrication at worst. No pope, bishop or priest, and no Catholic apologist had ever presented this interpretive method as part of the universal ‘tradition’ of the Church, nor have they demonstrated that it was handed down by the Apostles. Without that proof our only recourse is to reject this speculative interpretation model. 

Modern Catholic apologists assume the ‘tradition’ spoken of here is the same as was vaguely defined by Trent. It is within these vague and general terms that Christians today are expected to believe the Catholic Church’s view of ‘tradition’ as being similar or even one and the same to Clement’s and Origen’s interpretive model. But Roman Catholicism would never agree with Origen’s allegorical interpretations of Scripture. 

Still, Gallegos persists saying, 

In a later chapter Origen replays the consistent theme of the Fathers, that is, one must interpret the sacred text according to the ecclesiastical standard established in Tradition, one which is authenticated by the order of succession from the apostles:

Now the cause, in all the points previously enumerated, of the false opinions, and of the impious statements or ignorant assertions about God, appears to be nothing else than the not understanding the Scripture according to its spiritual meaning, but the interpretation of it agreeably to the mere letter. 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, we must point out the ways (of interpreting them) which appear (correct) to us, who cling to the standard of the heavenly Church of Jesus Christ according to the succession of the apostles. [14] [emphasis added] [emphasis added]

The assumption being made here was that Origen’s principle of interpretation was the same as was being used within the entire Church before and during his lifetime, which we know was not the case. The bigger problem was, this was Origen’s ‘private interpretation’ using his allegorical methodology and had no support from earlier Church fathers. But that doesn’t seem to have bothered Gallegos at all. According to Catholic apologists, I thought private judgment (interpretation) was wrong. And I thought Origen was declared a heretic. So, wouldn’t that disqualify him as a usable source for their concept of ‘tradition’ – both him and his allegorical private interpretations? 

The ‘spiritual’ meaning of Scripture referenced here was not an ecclesiastical standard established in ‘Tradition,’ but to his own standard. As Hanson wrote, 

If we agree (as I think we must) that in respect to allegorizing, Origen did as he probably did with all his esoteric doctrines, that is, he himself taught and believed them, and assumed that Christ and his apostles taught and believed them, but could not prove, and never claimed that he could prove, that they had been taught and believed continuously from the apostles’ day to his own independently of the Bible, then Origen’s contention that allegorism was an original article of the Church’s rule of faith becomes worthless. It becomes about as likely as Clement’s claim to possess esoteric doctrine derived from Christ and his apostles independent of the Bible. [15] [emphasis added]

So, we are left with the inescapable perspective that Origen’s allegorical method was merely his speculations, something that Irenaeus and Tertullian would have rejected since each believed that speculation was illegitimate. 

Quite honestly, Origen does exactly what the Catholic Church does. Origen read his view of allegorical interpretation back into the history of the Church up to his day, which is what the Catholic Church has done for her belief in ‘tradition,’ as well as a host of other unbiblical beliefs. There is no hint of an orally transmitted secretive interpretation model that only the spiritual elite could tap into and utilize to understand Scripture before Clement and Origen, just as there is no orally transmitted secret ‘Tradition’ of the Church before the Council of Trent. Remember, we don’t see this in the Church fathers before the Antiochene and Alexandrian schools emerge or used in the Antiochene school after it is created. Nor do we see any hint of this from Augustine. Yes, Augustine believed that allegory was a valid methodology for interpreting Scripture, but it was a distant second to the clear meaning of Scripture which he believed permeated the books of the Bible. Allegory was only valid for the obscure passages and in those cases, it was the clearer passages of Scripture that gave understanding to the obscure ones. Augustine believed and taught that Scripture interprets Scripture, even if he did not use those exact words. 

Athanasius 

Like other Church fathers, Athanasius spoke of ‘tradition’ as well, 

These sayings concerning the Holy Spirit, by themselves alone, show that in nature and essence he has nothing in common with or proper to creatures, but is distinct from things originate, proper to, and not alien from, the Godhead and essence of the Son; in virtue of which essence and nature he is of the Holy Triad, and puts their stupidity to shame. But, beyond these sayings, let us look at the very tradition, teaching, and faith of the Catholic Church from the very 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. [16] [emphasis added]

In the quote above, Athanasius uses the word, ‘tradition,’ and in the minds of Catholic apologists immediately he is yet another Church father that concurs with the modern Catholic Church’s view of ‘tradition’ even though it is difficult to read that into the quote above, especially for the statement, “Upon this the Church is founded …”. But the Church was not founded upon an unwritten, orally transmitted ‘tradition’ that virtually none of the Church fathers in the first 400 yrs of the church’s existence ever conceived of! (It's actually much more than 400 yrs but we stepped through the main Church fathers up through Augustine.) As every Christian knows, the Church was founded upon the Gospel of Jesus Christ: taught by Jesus, transmitted, preached and written down by the Apostles or those directly with them (Mark, Luke and the writer of Hebrews), and handed down to the Church fathers who codified that Gospel in the Creeds as they struggled to keep and hand the faith down to other Church fathers without it being corrupted by the heresies of the day. 

And right on queue Gallegos steps in to reinterpret the meaning by stating, 

Following his appeal to Scripture Athanasius explains that he does not rely on the inherent force of the Scriptural passages alone to provide their meaning. Athanasius affirms that although the various passages of Scripture justify the doctrine of the Holy Spirit, the traditional faith obliges him to interpret the text in a certain way … According to Athanasius, Tradition is substantive in content and authoritative. He receives these ecclesiastical doctrines through Tradition and it is within the Traditional milieu that the Scriptures are to be understood. [17] [emphasis added]

So, even though Athanasius never said anything about an ‘ecclesiastical doctrine’ given through ‘tradition,’ Gallegos read it that way because of his preconceived belief in a modern-day definition of ‘tradition’ that extended back to the days of the Apostles, and as defined at Trent and beyond. Is Gallegos’ intent to insinuate that Athanasius arrived at his understanding of the Trinity through some allegorical interpretation of the clear passages of Scripture? If so, where is his proof? There isn’t any because we already know that Athanasius’ case for the Trinity was founded completely upon Scripture. 

So, Gallegos tells us what Athanasius meant by his use of ‘tradition’ but maybe we should let Athanasius tell us what he meant. 

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’ (Mt. 28:19). The Apostles went, and thus they taught; and this is the preaching that extends to the whole Church which is under heaven. Since then the Church has this foundation of faith, let these men tell us once again and let them make answer, Is God tryad or dyad? [18] [emphasis added]

So, what was it that was taught by Jesus and handed down to the Apostles? Was it some secret allegory? No, it was the Gospel that was to be preached to all people for the purpose of making disciples in all nations. That’s not a secret knowledge for the spiritual elite - that is the knowledge for and the job of all Christians everywhere, which started first with the Apostles and was handed down to all who believe. First to the Apostles and then to all of us. This is what Athanasius meant when he said, “... let us look at the very tradition, teaching, and faith of the Catholic Church from the very beginning, which the Lord gave, the Apostles preached, and the Fathers kept.” Athanasius was referring to the orally preached Gospel which was later written down as the very Scriptures we have to this day, which in turn were handed down through the centuries by the Church to its believing members. And it was those very same Scriptures that Athanasius utilized to defend the deity of the Holy Spirit and the Trinity. As Webster penned, 

This tradition is found in Scripture in the words of Jesus to his apostles, proving that the faith proclaimed by the Church has been the same faith from the beginning. Tradition, then, according to Athanasius, is rooted in Scripture. The tradition of the apostles was passed on to the Church in Scripture and verified by Scripture. This is why Athanasius referred to Scripture as the Apostolic Tradition. Scripture is not just a part of overall tradition, it is that tradition. … he [Athanasius] was referring to Scripture, not, as Gallegos suggests, to a traditional ecclesiastical norm of interpretation by which he determined the meaning of Scripture. [19] [emphasis added]

And this is the same thing we have consistently seen throughout this study when referring to the Church fathers. What was passed down to the Apostles and the Church fathers was the Gospel, which is what was captured in the New Testament Scriptures penned by Paul, Peter, James, Jude, Matthew, John, Luke, Mark, and the writer of Hebrews. 

Then we have this from C.R.B. Shapland, the translator of Athanasius’ letters to Serapion, 

It is important to understand what Athanasius is appealing to here. The passage from ad Adelph. which we have already quoted makes it clear that tradition to Athanasius is not an indefinite source of knowledge, independent of Scripture. Not only does he insist on the sufficiency of Scripture…he does not strictly distinguish tradition and Scripture…nor is he appealing to the authority of earlier Fathers. [20] [emphasis added]

So, Shapland makes it clear that Athanasius was not appealing to the Church fathers because his appeal was straight to Scripture. And to support this, one only has to turn to his defense of the Holy Spirit as God. His argument for this as well came from Scripture and only Scripture. And we know it was only Scripture because there was no tradition to appeal to concerning the Holy Spirit. There was no interpretive history to appeal to at all. Gallegos can ‘believe’ that Athanasius appealed to some form of ‘tradition’ for the views he penned but there is no tradition spoken of or written about in church history concerning this truth clearly found in only Scripture. If it were from some orally transmitted, unwritten ‘tradition,’ why was it never mentioned before or by Athanasius? 

And lastly, as Webster summed up, 

Gallegos writes that the fathers did not consider themselves private exegetes [interpreters] of Scripture but looked to the Church for its meaning. But in his scriptural defense of the Holy Spirit that is precisely what Athanasius was, a private exegete. There was no ecclesiastical exegetical committee in the Church to which fathers such as Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian or Athanasius could appeal to in order to make sure their exegesis of Scripture was correct. They were all private exegetes who adhered to the rule of faith in their interpretation of Scripture. Sometimes, as was the case with Athanasius when defending the deity of the Holy Spirit, their interpretation became foundational and normative for the rest of the Church. [21] [emphasis added]

Conclusion

In this blog we looked at some examples from three Church fathers: Clement, Origen and Athanasius, and we are left with one inescapable conclusion – If there is a mention of the word ‘tradition,’ a Catholic apologist will see modern-day tradition in that reference, guaranteed. We started with Clement and found out that he seemed to have sincerely believed that his concept of allegorical interpretation was an historical belief passed down by the Apostles. But we also saw that when we actually looked at history and compared his words with the writings of those he followed, we saw that he borrowed their words and concepts. We then saw how Catholic apologists jumped on the usage of the word ‘tradition’ and their attempt to incorporate the reference into a modern-day view of the same, when they would never accept the allegorical views of this Father. 

Moving on to Origen, we found virtually the same thing with this Church father. Catholic apologists today love his concept of a spiritual elite because it can so easily be used to justify a ‘magisterium’ with the power to interpret Scripture infallibly. But again, the struggle was that there have been no inspired commentaries created by the spiritual elite within the magisterium. And once again, we have a ‘tradition’ devoid of content, proof or substance. 

We ended with Athanasius, the one man whom God used to single handedly pull the Church out of Arianism and back into Orthodoxy. In his defense of the Trinity and the deity of the Holy Spirit, Athanasius used the word ‘tradition’ to refer to Mat 28:19, the one calling all believers have – ‘go and make disciples.’ And once again, a Catholic apologist used the reference to pour in a completely different meaning in support of their modern-day concept of ‘tradition.’ This twisting was easily refuted by simply looking at what Athanasius said in context, as well as reading the words of an expert who corroborated that context. 

After looking at each of these Fathers, what emerges is what appears to be Catholic apologists promoting a specific agenda when they misuse some of the writings of the Church fathers. I am sure that would be the charge if or when Protestants do the same. The only way to properly quote the Church fathers is to provide a context for what they mean. It is not our place to redefine their words for some modern-day understanding where that meaning is the opposite of the intent of their original words. 

So, this ends our study of Tradition as interpretation. We have covered a lot of deep topics in this section as we did in previous sections. But we continually come back to the same conclusion – Sola Scriptura is much more ingrained in what the Church fathers actually wrote than the Catholic Church assures us exists in their writings. Their apologists are always coming up with new and inventive ways of denying its existence during the patristic and Middle Ages. But what is interesting is that virtually all of their arguments are what one might call ‘trial balloons,’ an argument which is floated out to see if it will stand up to constructive criticism from Protestant sources. And if it does not, that idea is discarded and another is found to float in its place. 

That is not to say there are no arguments against Sola Scriptura which might have merit, but to date, through 29 lengthy blogs and in the 3-volume set of Holy Scripture, Ground and Pillar of Our Faith, there are none of merit in this study so far. But I will get to some additional arguments to evaluate their merits. 

Until I do, I leave you with one final quote from a book I found by accident on my shelf, Protestant Biblical Interpretation, by Barnard Ramm, 

In studying Catholic pronouncements on hermeneutics [biblical interpretation] it is very clear that the advancement of Biblical studies by Protestants has had a telling influence on the very spirit of the Catholic approach. (i) Catholic scholars admit the extremes that allegorism was carried to by some of the Fathers and some of the Scholastics. There is no stout defense of these exaggerations in Catholic hermeneutical literature except from real patristic sentimentalists. (ii) The importance and primacy of the literal meaning of Scripture is extolled. No longer is the literal declared to be for spiritual infants or to be the mere surface of the Scripture. The position of the Alexandrians at this point especially is repudiated. [22] [emphasis added]

And if this is still the case, that the literal meaning reigns supreme and that Protestants have made a huge impact of the hermeneutics [the theory and methodology of biblical interpretation] of Catholicism, then there is no wind in the sails of the Catholic view of ‘tradition’ since their view can only depend upon the statements of these three Fathers, and we now know that none of these Fathers understood ‘tradition’ to be the modern-day Catholic concept. 

But why then does Christ say, “Seek and ye shall find, knock and it shall be opened unto you” (Matt 7:7); and, “Search the Scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal life”? (John 5:39) The seeking there is meant of prayer and vehement desire, and He bids “search the Scriptures,” not to introduce the labors of questioning, but to end them, that we may ascertain and settle their true meaning, not that we may be ever questioning, but that we may have done with it.

John Chrysostom, Homilies on 1st Timothy, Homily 1

Footnotes

1. William Webster, Holy Scripture, Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol II, (Battle Creek, WA: Christian Resource, Inc, 2001), p. 184.
2. Ibid, p. 184.
3. R.P.C. Hanson, Origen’s Doctrine of Tradition (SPCK: London, 1954), p.57, as quoted by William Webster, Holy Scripture, Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol II, (Battle Creek, WA: Christian Resource, Inc, 2001), p. 184. Note: this book is available at the Internet Archive (https://archive.org). 
4. William Webster, Holy Scripture, Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol II, (Battle Creek, WA: Christian Resource, Inc, 2001), p. 185. 
5. Summarized from William Webster, Holy Scripture, Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol II, (Battle Creek, WA: Christian Resource, Inc, 2001), p. 185. 
6. R.P.C. Hanson, Origen’s Doctrine of Tradition (SPCK: London, 1954), p.68-69, as quoted by William Webster, Holy Scripture, Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol II, (Battle Creek, WA: Christian Resource, Inc, 2001), p. 185. Note: this book is available at the Internet Archive (https://archive.org). Also: I noted with [] the spelling correction for Barnabas, as it was originally spelled, “Barnabus” in Hanson’s work. Barnabus and Barnabas are one in the same.
7. Ibid, p.68-69, as quoted by William Webster, Holy Scripture, Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol II, (Battle Creek, WA: Christian Resource, Inc, 2001), p. 186. Note: this book is available at the Internet Archive (https://archive.org). Note: The ‘fragment of Hypotyposeis’ information was from an Internet search to give some context about what it actually was. 
8. Not by Scripture Alone, Joe Gallegos, What did the Fathers teach?, pp 418-419, as quoted by William Webster, Holy Scripture, Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol II, (Battle Creek, WA: Christian Resource, Inc, 2001), p. 186.
9. ‘Mostly’ agree because from the Protestant perspective, the Creed (the rule of faith) could be wrong because it attempts to repeat what Scripture teaches, it is therefore not infallible, but Scripture IS infallible. 
10. William Webster, Holy Scripture, Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol II, (Battle Creek, WA: Christian Resource, Inc, 2001), p. 187.
11. Ibid, p. 187.
12. R.P.C. Hanson, Origen’s Doctrine of Tradition (SPCK: London, 1954), pp. 71-72, as quoted by William Webster, Holy Scripture, Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol II, (Battle Creek, WA: Christian Resource, Inc, 2001), pp. 187-188. Note: this book is available at the Internet Archive (https://archive.org). 
13. William Webster, Holy Scripture, Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol II, (Battle Creek, WA: Christian Resource, Inc, 2001), p. 188.
14. Origen: De Prin 4.1.9, as quoted in Not by Scripture Alone, Joe Gallegos, “What Did the Fathers Teach?”, pp. 417–418, as quoted by William Webster, Holy Scripture, Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol II, (Battle Creek, WA: Christian Resource, Inc, 2001), p. 189.
15. William Webster, Holy Scripture, Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol II, (Battle Creek, WA: Christian Resource, Inc, 2001), p. 190.
16. C.R.B. Shapland, The Letters of Saint Athanasius, Concerning the Holy Spirit, Translator (New York: Philosophical Library, 1951), Epistle I.27–28, To Serapion, pp. 133–135, as quoted in William Webster, Holy Scripture, Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol II, (Battle Creek, WA: Christian Resource, Inc, 2001), pp. 190-191. You can find Shapland’s book here: Epistle 1.27-28, pp. 136-138 in the Scribd photocopied book. The footnotes for this section of the Epistle are very enlightening; take a moment to read them. 
17. Joe Gallegos, Not by Scripture Alone, What Did the Fathers Teach?, p. 426, as quoted by William Webster, Holy Scripture, Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol II, (Battle Creek, WA: Christian Resource, Inc, 2001), p. 191.
18. C.R.B. Shapland, The Letters of Saint Athanasius, Concerning the Holy Spirit, Translator (New York: Philosophical Library, 1951), Epistle I.28–29, To Serapion, pp. 135–136, as quoted in William Webster, Holy Scripture, Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol II, (Battle Creek, WA: Christian Resource, Inc, 2001), p. 191. This can also be found online here: Epistle I.28–29, To Serapion: End of epistle 28 and the beginning of 29. Please note: you now have two sources for this same Epistle. 
19. William Webster, Holy Scripture, Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol II, (Battle Creek, WA: Christian Resource, Inc, 2001), p. 192.
20. C.R.B. Shapland, The Letters of Saint Athanasius, Concerning the Holy Spirit, Translator (New York: Philosophical Library, 1951), Epistle I.27–28, footnote 28.2, To Serapion, pp. 133–135, as quoted in William Webster, Holy Scripture, Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol II, (Battle Creek, WA: Christian Resource, Inc, 2001), p. 192. Note: you can read the entire footnote here: Footnote 28.2 on pp. 136-137 of the Scribd photocopied book.
21. William Webster, Holy Scripture, Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol II, (Battle Creek, WA: Christian Resource, Inc, 2001), p. 193.
22. Bernard Ramm, Protestant Biblical Interpretation, (Boston: W.A. Wilde Company, 1956), pp. 38-39.

This blog has a heavy reliance upon the book, Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith, Volume II. pp 184 through 193.

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.

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/