Reading the Church Fathers discussion
Doctrine Matters
>
The Rule of Faith
date
newest »
newest »
Content of FaithTertullian's summary of core Christian doctrines (in On Prescription Against Heretics ch. 13):
there is one only God, and that He is none other than the Creator of the world, who produced all things out of nothing through His own Word, first of all sent forth; that this Word is called His Son, and, under the name of God, was seen in diverse manners by the patriarchs, heard at all times in the prophets, at last brought down by the Spirit and Power of the Father into the Virgin Mary, was made flesh in her womb, and, being born of her, went forth as Jesus Christ; thenceforth He preached the new law and the new promise of the kingdom of heaven, worked miracles; having been crucified, He rose again the third day; (then) having ascended into the heavens, He sat at the right hand of the Father; sent instead of Himself the Power of the Holy Ghost to lead such as believe; will come with glory to take the saints to the enjoyment of everlasting life and of the heavenly promises, and to condemn the wicked to everlasting fire, after the resurrection of both these classes shall have happened, together with the restoration of their flesh.
Origin of FaithThere is a story of Tolstoy that goes like this: A young man wrote to Tolstoy a few months before the latter died, and asked how a Jew could believe his teachings which were based on Jesus' Sermon on the Mount. Tolstoy replied, "The words of Christ are not important because they were said by Christ, on the contrary, they were said by Christ because they are true and inscribed on the heart of every human being".
I think the early Church Fathers would have disagreed with Tolstoy. They would say that the Christian doctrines are true, precisely because they were taught by Christ Himself about Himself, and not because they already knew in their hearts that those doctrines are true, for they could not possibly have known Christ unless He had revealed Himself to them personally.
This is something that I never thought about before: when determining the orthodoxy of a particular doctrine, we need to not only examine its content, but also discern its ultimate origin. As in the Parable of the Tares in Matthew 13, doctrines are ultimately derived from two sources, either Christ or the devil.
Transmission of FaithLike Ignatius of Antioch and Irenaeus, Tertullian speaks of the importance of the Apostolic Succession, i.e., how the teachings of Christ were transmitted to the believers through the ages by a succession of faithful men that can be traced back to the Apostles.
To use a a couple of analogies, it is like the idea of "provenance" used in the art world to determine the authenticity of a work of art, whether it is produced by a virtuoso or a forger; or the idea of "chain of custody" used in legal proceedings, to make sure that evidence in a trial is not mishandled, contaminated or planted.
One of the Church Fathers' arguments against the Gnostics is that, although the Gnostics claim that they have received revelation from Christ, they cannot provide evidence that the original proponents of their doctrines can be traced back to Christ like the Apostles.
One of the many issues that the early Church Fathers dealt with is the relationship between Christianity and Greek philosophy.Tertullian seems to believe that philosophy is irrelevant at best, detrimental at worst, to the Christian faith, and that heretics err by delving into deceitful philosophies, whereas Clement of Alexandria seems to think that philosophy is perfectly consistent with Christianity, as reason is consistent with faith, both being implanted by God in us.
As an amateur philosopher myself, I tend to agree with Clement in principle, but in practice, I have to admit Tertullian is right. All the philosophies I've learned have not built me up spiritually, but only satisfied intellectual curiosity.
Re: messages 3 -I thought when the Old Covenant was superseded by the New Covenant, the old law on the tablets was transitioned to the natural law or 'law of Christ' I think Tim Staples in "Living Bread" quoted St. Paul as saying, and that God did imbue the human heart with this (if that is the right word). (Tim goes on to explain that the reason Christians are obligated to obey the Commandments is not because Moses proclaimed them, but because they are in conformity with natural law (all except the third regarding the Sabbath).)
And Kreeft in the book explaining Augustine's "Confessions" writes, "The natural law, the Golden rule, is something that, in J. Budziszewski's words, 'we can't not know'. or in Aquinas' words, "cannot be eradicated from the heart of man."
So I think Tolstoy's words make sense.
I am probably going to express my thought wrong, but could we, by saying what Jesus said is only important because He was Jesus (vs. He said them because they were important/Truth) in effect, sort of make Jesus into an idol somewhat, meaning, sort of separating Him from the Trinity and all that He is, sort of worshipping 'Jesus' instead of the Truth that He 'is'? Making Him an end to Himself. If you really think about Tolstoy's comment, he seems to be making a profound distinction. Or maybe, because in the very unique case of Jesus, where He IS Truth, it is a mute point.
Re: message 5 -
Kreeft later says, "Augustine's first point is essentially this: that pagan philosophy at its best, natural human reason at its best, unaided by faith and divine revelation, did in fact come to know, in however vague and confused a way, the nature of God as eternal truth. That was St. John's point when he wrote that the Logos, or eternal Word, the Mind or Reason of God "that enlightens every man was coming into the world" (Jn 1:9). Christ said, "I am...the truth" (Jn 14:6), and therefore whenever anyone knows truth, they know Christ. But they (pagan philosophers) do not know that they know Christ. They know His 'what' but not His 'who'. They know 'of' Him but they do not know Him. No human reason, by itself, could have known the Incarnation and the Gospel, There was in paganism at its best a "way up", from the knowledge of Man and Nature to the knowledge of God. Everyone, Gentile as well as Jew, could walk on that road by natural reason (Rom 1:19-20) and conscience (Rom 2:14-15). But no man's mind could know the "way down" from God to Man in Christ. Only the One who said "I AM the way" knew that way. It was a "Him", not an 'it'. Man could enter it only by faith, by personal trust, not by reason alone."
So it seems like philosophy can be a very helpful stepping stone, as it seems to have been for Augustine, but not the whole story. Augustine seems to credit philosophy for his eventual conversion.
The golden rule gives us some notion of morality, but it does not necessarily lead us to God. Atheists and deists can choose to live by the golden rule to some extent, while denying that the Judeo-Christian God exists.Idols are false gods, and all things that men set up in place of God are idols. In other words, the golden rule can become an idol if separated from its origin. Jesus is truly God and worthy of worship. He cannot be the Truth without being God.
The distinction between revelation vs. reason that Kreeft makes is another way to look at this.
Just imagine being in the company of Jesus. It must have been beyond words. He didn't just dispense wisdom and rules of conduct, but he performed real miracles. It wasn't just the Apostles who witnessed them, but a much larger following witnessed healings, the multiplication of loaves, etc., and later encountered the resurrected Christ. These were extraordinary experiences and gave those who witnessed them credibility, not to mention changed their lives. Their testimony could be trusted. And it is here where the Apostolic Succession is grounded, in this personal witness of the Apostles, the earliest Christians who had witnessed Jesus as well, and the individuals among them who became credible and trusted teachers to the next generations - the Church Fathers. False teachers came around pretty quickly. The Gnostics sought to paganize Christianity, hence the herculean effort of people like Irenaeus to draw distinctions. I am still chuckling over the episode with the cucumbers and the gourds!
As these heresies emerged we see how difficult it was for people to grasp the person of Christ. Who is he? I don't think Arius or Nestorius, etc. set out to preach false teachings. But the Church had to wrestle with these new interpretations and sort out what the correct teaching should be in accord with Tradition. In this sense we owe much to the heresies as it helped the Church in clarifying what the true faith is and defining doctrine.
Kerstin wrote: ". In this sense we owe much to the heresies as it helped the Church in clarifying what the true faith is and defining doctrine.."If I remember correctly, Augustine wrote something to that effect as well: he was thankful that the heretics provided the Church both the challenge and opportunity to delve deeper into the contemplation of the mystery of Christ, as well as sharpening the intellect and apologetical skills of the believers.
Nemo wrote: "Kerstin wrote: ". In this sense we owe much to the heresies as it helped the Church in clarifying what the true faith is and defining doctrine.."If I remember correctly, Augustine wrote something..."
Philosophy ties into this as well. Here is what Aquilina wrote leading into the second segment of his book, "Ante-Nicene Fathers - The Church Finds a Voice":
Through the writings of the second- and third-century Fathers, we can identify a growing emphasis on the sustained, disciplined study of the revealed truths of Christianity. What, today, we call theology was just then emerging. Heretics and pagans forced the Church and its teachers to be ever clearer in their expression of faith. To this end, the Fathers struggled to find appropriate vocabulary and method. For some, like St. Justin and St. Clement of Alexandria, the language of Greek philosophy, especially Platonism, suited their purposes adequately well. Others, such as Tertullian, believed the pagan science had nothing to offer Christians, and so resisted the movement toward "Hellenization." What indeed, demanded Tertullian, has Athens to do with Jerusalem?
The Hellenization prevailed, for several reasons. First, because Greek was the common language of the educated and merchant classes in the eastern empire, and these classes needed to be evangelized. But perhaps the most pressing reason was the inadequacy of any terminology - outside of the most rarefied philosophical language - in dealing with the basic facts of Christianity. How was God one and yet three? How could Jesus be both God and man? How can grace coexist with free will? To address these questions, teachers needed to define what they meant by person, substance, will, essence, and nature, a task that Greek philosophers had already done remarkably well.
(The Fathers of the Church: An Introduction to the First Christian Teachers, page 81)
I think this is especially relevant today because of all the debates surrounding the historical Jesus, the reliability of the New Testament manuscripts, and the resurgence of Gnosticism.
It also pertains to a basic question in epistemology: how do we know the truth (to the extent that it is possible to know anything)?