Is it really that obvious? A case for Tradition

That without which Christianity could never do…or could it??

If I asked you this question, “What’s the most basic Christian doctrine?” What would your answer be? Take a moment to think about it.

You might say, for example, the Resurrection of Jesus from the dead, or, the virgin birth. Undoubtedly, these two are distinctive beliefs that Christians hold. But I’m confident that most of you would say almost instinctively: “Well, the Trinity, of course!” Seems pretty obvious, right? After all, what could be more foundational? what else could so decisively set Christianity apart from all other world religions? “Without the Trinity, you lose Christianity!” Some may even claim.

As a Catholic, I can wholeheartedly agree that the Trinity is the sine qua non belief of Christianity. The Catechism of the Catholic Church affirms this in rather forceful language: The mystery of the Most Holy Trinity is the central mystery of Christian faith and life. It is the mystery of God in himself. It is therefore the source of all the other mysteries of faith, the light that enlightens them. It is the most fundamental and essential teaching in the “hierarchy of the truths of faith.” (CCC 234, emphasis added)

My goal in this post is to reflect on the following question: “On what basis, or principle, is the Trinity considered a foundational doctrine of Christianity?”

The Reformed and Catholic answers

For Reformed Protestants the answer lies in one of the corollaries of Sola Scriptura, namely perspicuity.

The Westminster Confession of Faith puts it this way: “Those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned , in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them. “(WCF 1.7) Since the Bible clearly and plainly proposes the Trinity, therefore it is essential to believe it for salvation. Hence its status as a foundational Christian doctrine.

For Catholics the answer lies in Tradition, which includes Scripture, and the authoritative doctrinal judgments of the Church’s Magisterium. As Catholics we firmly believe that Scripture is the word of God and that everything in it has been written for the sake of our salvation. However, we deny that Scripture alone is sufficient for proposing a belief both as binding on the conscience of Christians and as an article of faith in the absence of a divinely appointed interpretive authority.

But isn’t this what Christians have always believed?!

To which I give my most resounding “Absolutely!” We Catholics believe that the witness of Sacred Tradition is authoritative and normative for theology. We don’t derive the certainty of everything revealed from Scripture alone. If there were a Catholic who denied the Trinity, we could present him with the testimony of the Fathers and the authoritative pronouncements of Popes and Councils and correct his erroneous view.

But what about Protestants? What would they do in case someone in their community arrived at the conclusion that the Trinity is an unbiblical doctrine, indeed, a tradition of men ?

Appealing to church tradition won’t work. As Trent Horn put it in his book “The Case for Catholicism“, no Protestant “believes that tradition has any ability to overrule an individual Christian who believes his interpretation of Scripture is correct, no matter what long-standing doctrine of the faith it may reject.” (emphasis added)

A conundrum

Case in point, what would they say to someone like Patrick Navas?

Several years ago Navas published a lengthy tome called “Divine Truth or Human Tradition?: A Reconsideration of the Orthodox Doctrine of the Trinity in Light of the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures

He writes in the introduction of his book: “Although the doctrine has long been regarded as an established hallmark of orthodox Christian belief , I was always aware of ( and yet seriously perplexed by ) what most Trinitarian scholars themselves normally recognize ; namely , that the actual doctrine itself — as defined by the historic ecumenical creeds — is not one that is directly or formally taught to us by Jesus or by Scripture . But how could a doctrine as important as this — the very nature and identity of God — not have been directly taught in the very revelation of himself that God gave to humanity ? This is , of course , what ultimately led me into a deeper investigation into the matter , in order that I might “ examine everything carefully ” and “ test the spirits ” so to speak , in accordance with the apostles ’ instructions to the Christians that lived in their own day” (emphasis in original)

And also this:

My own conviction is that the authoritative pronouncements of the Scriptures themselves actually—and adequately—fulfill the role of defining Christian “orthodoxy,” and that the historic (4th and 5th century) creeds and their dogmatic formulations are ultimately irrelevant and unnecessary, especially so in terms of determining true or original Christian doctrine.

This is why the reader should know that the views expressed and points made in this book were sincerely and, I believe, reasonably made on the basis (and with deep reverence for the sanctity) of the inspired Scriptures, with the ultimate goal of inciting others to the worship of the one God “in spirit and in truth.” (emphasis added)

The Protestant’s dilemma

Could those Protestants who disagree with Navas say that he is simply engaging in dishonest and careless exegesis? Possibly, but that seems unreasonable given that Navas clearly indicates to have interacted with the views and scholarship of some of the most well-known and respected theological heavyweights in the Protestant community (check link to his book’s product page).

Could they say that Navas is simply too blind, evil or stupid to understand what the Bible clearly and plainly teaches? Could they say that he’s wickedly suppressing the witness of the Holy Spirit in his exegetical endeavors? Possibly, but then again, that seems unreasonable given the foregoing quotations from the introduction of his book.

If the Protestant belief and understanding in the perspicuity of Scripture is true, then they must either admit that all those who fail to see the Trinity leap off the pages of Scripture are intellectually dishonest, morally obtuse or just plain evil, or, recognize that it is possible for sincere and God-fearing Christians to arrive at conclusions that overturn centuries, even millennia, of historic theological reflection, indicating in the process that the individual Protestant remains his/her own ultimate interpretive authority and that beliefs held to be foundational for Christian orthodoxy aren’t rationally necessitated by the available Scriptural data.

As Navas so eloquently put it: ”

Even if one were to accept, in theory, that the creeds serve as a protection against false teaching, we would still have to keep in mind the existence of the various and conflicting creeds that have come down to us, all of course claiming to reflect true Christian “orthodoxy.” But who has the authority to say which creed or confession is the one Christians should look to and why? (emphasis added)

That is indeed the crux of the matter at hand.

(Originally published on 3-26-18. Revised on 4-2-18 following feedback from Casey Chalk, administrator at Called to Communion)

Misunderstanding Sacred Tradition

Byzantine Church of the Holy Apostles (Athens)

My Evangelical friend Dave and I have continued our discussion, and the topic switched to sacred Tradition. He sent me something he wrote attempting to rebut the notion of Tradition (my comments in blue):

— Begin Dave’s correspondence —

Catholicism states that sola Scriptura or Scripture alone (a Protestant standard or principle) is not Biblical.  They have a verse or two they say supports their position that traditions are also an integral part.  Let’s look at those, shall we?

“Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you.” (1 Corinthians 11:2 NKJV)

“Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.” (2 Thessalonians 2:15 NKJV)

“But we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us.” (2 Thessalonians 3:6 NKJV)

There are a few common themes here.  First, all are written by the same apostle—Paul.  Second, all three are past tense: “traditions…I delivered,” “traditions which you were taught,” “tradition which he received.”  None of the verses Catholics use to support continuing traditions actually support continuing traditions! [Here’s the error in his understanding: sacred Tradition is not new revelation or continuing traditions. It is not added to over time but was given once for all by Christ, yet it also is something that is enlivened by the Holy Spirit.]

Paul says, “Keep the traditions I delivered to you…the traditions I taught you whether when I was with you in person or by one of my letters…the traditions you received from me or the other apostles.”  Third, as already alluded to, these are traditions taught by the apostles.  All of our doctrines that we follow as Christians were taught to us by either Jesus or His apostles.  The Pope is NOT an apostle! [Yes, so those traditions were delivered (past tense) but as part of the deposit of faith they are preserved by God in His Church through Apostolic Succession. Of course, the pope is the bishop of Rome. Peter was the first bishop of Rome, and he was an Apostle. But I’ve learned arguing this kind of thing isn’t really helpful, so I don’t usually try.]

Remember.  The Bible had not yet been canonized and assembled as a single book.  All the Christians of that period had were the letters and traditions of the apostles.  Once all the apostles had graduated and gone to heaven there were no new revelations! [Agreed, public revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle; more on this later.] There aren’t any verses of Scripture to support that traditions continue!  (Only Catholic tradition says traditions are continually viable…hmm [Wrong])  Before the letters and apostolic traditions could peter out, vanish, disappear, God had the Bible canonized and available to all. [And…what verse says that would happen? This is his opinion, and it makes sense given the presupposition of sola Scriptura: God instantly canonized the Bible when the last Apostle died and so the Church had the crystallized truth–the only infallible rule of faith–in the Scriptures. The only problem with this theory is that it bears little resemblance to historical reality.]

Traditions were an integral part of the Church’s beginning.  The traditions taught by the original 12 (13) apostles and our Lord only; and since those traditions have been forever placed in antiquity in the written Word, there is no need for additional ones. [Again, what verse says that all tradition would be placed in the written word?]

— End correspondence —

One interesting thing Dave asserted in there is worth looking at again: “Once all the apostles had graduated and gone to heaven there were no new revelations!”

In other words, public revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle. Catholics affirm. But(!), Catholics have a consistent basis for affirming this–sacred Tradition–while Protestants do not, because they reject Tradition. So Protestants need a verse from the Bible that says that public revelation will end when the last Apostle dies. But that verse doesn’t exist, and instead they have to borrow from the very Tradition they think they reject in order to affirm this truth.

And they must affirm this truth, otherwise they have no reason to believe that God couldn’t inspire more books to be added to the Bible! Which would blow sola Scriptura up right in their face.

I informed Dave tactfully that he misunderstood Tradition–it’s not ongoing revelation–and he humbly accepted his misunderstanding. No blame there. Tradition is mysterious, especially to Protestants, who mistrust something that purports to sit alongside Scripture and yet isn’t analyzable in the same way the Bible is.

Sacred Tradition is intimately connected to Apostolic Succession. It’s a river that flows from Christ its source through the Church in her sacramental life and liturgy. The Spirit vivifies it. All this is so far off American Evangelicalism’s radar that it is not surprising that they don’t understand it, much less believe it. That only comes with time, prayer, and study.