1

R. Arakaki 2001

IF NOT SOLA SCRIPTURA THEN WHAT? The Biblical Basis for Holy Tradition

Copyright © Robert K. Arakaki, 2001

Sola scriptura -- "the Bible alone", one of the foundational tenets of Protestantism -- is

undergoing serious challenge in recent times as growing numbers of Evangelicals abandon this

doctrine. Scott Hahn, a Presbyterian seminary professor, was dumbfounded when one of his stu-

dents asked him, "Professor, where does the Bible teach that 'Scripture alone' is our sole author-

ity?" (Hahn 1993:51). Unable to adequately answer his student's question, Hahn went to some of

Evangelicalism's leading theologians who greeted his question with shock and disbelief that he

would question one of the unspoken assumptions of Protestantism: that sola scriptura is biblical.

This question precipitated a major theological crisis for Hahn that eventually led him to join the

Roman Catholic Church1.

For this particular author the theological crisis surrounding sola scriptura came about in a

different manner. It began when I was at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary studying to

become an Evangelical seminary professor working to bring the United Church of Christ, one of

the most liberal denominations, back to its biblical roots. While at seminary I became uncom-

fortably aware of the many competing readings of the Bible among the liberals (liberation theol-

ogy, feminist theology, gay/lesbian theology, Third World theology etc.) and among Evangeli-

cals (Calvinist, Arminians, classical Pentecostals, dispensationalists, covenant theology, health

and wealth gospel). This painful awareness of Protestantism's hermeneutical chaos raised seri-

ous questions about the viability of sola scriptura. This precipitated a theological crisis that led

to the collapse of my Protestant theology and my becoming Orthodox.

This raises the question: If the Bible does not teach sola scriptura, then what does the

Bible teach? In this essay I will argue that the Bible teaches Holy Tradition as the basis for the

2

R. Arakaki 2001

Christian Faith. The Orthodox understanding of Holy Tradition is based upon three premises:

(1) that Jesus entrusted to his apostles a body of teaching and practices, Holy Tradition, (2) that

the apostles spread Holy Tradition through a variety of means: oral, written, and personal con-

duct, and (3) that the integrity of the traditioning process is guaranteed by the Holy Spirit who

guides the Church in unity and in truth.

The argument of this paper will rest upon the assertion that the Bible teaches transmis-

sion, reception, and protection of a body of doctrines and practices originating in the life and

ministry of Jesus Christ. The argument is based especially upon the recurrence of the words: to

receive ( ) and to pass on ( ). For those unfamiliar with Latin and

Greek, it may be helpful to know that Latin equivalent for the Greek word paradosis is traditio

from which the English word tradition is derived and that the Latin equivalents for the Greek

word paralambano ( ) are accipio and recipio from which the English words ac-

cept and receive are derived. Italics and bold emphases will be inserted to support the arguments

made in this paper.

Part I: The Biblical Evidence for Holy Tradition

Evangelism and the Traditioning Process The traditioning process played a key role in the way Paul did evangelism. In I Corin-

thians 15:1-3 Paul defines the Gospel within the framework of the traditioning process. In verse

1 he reminds the Corinthians that he had preached the gospel, that they had received it and had

taken their stand on it. Then in verse 3 is a clear reference to the traditioning process when Paul

says that what he had received, they had received.

1 On why Hahn failed to meet Orthodoxy read at http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/tca_carltonrome.aspx - Ed

3

R. Arakaki 2001

Now brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. (I Corinthians 15:1-6)

In verse 3-4 Paul uses the same phrase "according to the Scriptures" two times. The word "ac-

cording" points to congruence and harmony between oral tradition and written tradition. Thus,

for Paul there exists an organic interrelationship between written tradition (Scripture) and oral

tradition (the gospel message). Paul did not put oral tradition over Scripture, neither did he put

Scripture over oral tradition. Thus, what we see is neither the Protestantism's placing Scripture

over tradition nor Roman Catholicism's placing Scripture under the Papacy but Orthodoxy's ap-

proach of accepting Scripture in Tradition.

The traditioning process likewise was foundational to Paul's apostolic calling. In Gala-

tians 1:8-9 the two phrases "we preached" and "you accepted" point to the traditioning process at

work in Paul's missionary strategy. He writes,

But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you ac-cepted, let him be eternally condemned! (Galatians 1:8-9)

Paul's apostolic authority derived from the fact that his gospel came directly from Jesus Christ

and was "not something that man made up". Paul does not base his anathemas on the principle

of sola scriptura but on that of the traditioning process.2 Twice in verse 11 Paul asserts that he

received his gospel directly from Christ.

2While Paul's extensive biblical exegesis in Galatians 3 and 4 affirms the authority and divine inspiration of the Old Testament, they do not imply that Scripture is normative over all other sources of knowledge which is what sola scriptura calls for.

4

R. Arakaki 2001

I want you to know, brothers that the gospel I preached to you is not something that man made up. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ. (Galatians 1:11)

Paul's thundering anathemas against anyone preaching an alternative gospel stems from his con-

viction that there can only be one gospel. The warning here is that any attempt to do evangelism

independent of the apostolic traditioning process is to risk preaching a false gospel or at best a

partial gospel.

The traditioning process can also be seen in the preamble to Luke's gospel. In his intro-

duction to his gospel Luke describes the method by which he wrote his gospel.

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been surely believed among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught (Luke 1:1-4).

The phrase "handed down" points to the traditioning process as the foundational basis for Luke's

gospel. The traditioning process began with those who were eyewitnesses to Jesus' life and min-

istry. What Luke did was to compile these accounts, sift through them, and commit them to writ-

ing. In the oral tradition there is a certain amount of fluidity in the content and format of the cen-

tral message, with the transition to the written form the fluidity becomes fixed and acquires per-

manence. There is no indication that Luke opposed the written form of the gospel against the

earlier oral form.

The traditioning process can also be found at the end of Matthew's gospel in the famous

Great Commission passage:

Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey every-thing I have commanded you.

5

R. Arakaki 2001

Many Evangelicals have memorized the Great Commission, but they overlook the integral part

that the traditioning process plays in Christian missions. Christ's command to the apostles that

they teach the new believers all that he taught them can be understood as a reference to the tradi-

tioning process. Similar references can be found that link the traditioning process to Christian

missions. In Matthew 10:40 Jesus said to his apostles: "He who receives you receives me...."

and in Luke 10:16 is an emphasis on the oral component of the traditioning process: "He who

listens to you listens to me...." There is no hint of the principle "bible alone" being foundational

to Christian missions.3

Tradition in the New Testament Church The traditioning process was a part of the New Testament Church. This can be seen in

Acts 2:42, a familiar passage to many Evangelicals.

They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to the prayers.

The phrase "devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching" is a reference to the traditioning proc-

ess. During those early days the new believers listened carefully to the apostles' recalling the life

and teaching of Christ. This verse contains other references to Holy Tradition: Eucharist indi-

cated in "the breaking of bread", formal liturgical prayers indicated by the definite article in "the

prayers"; both of these components of Tradition can be found in the Orthodox Church but is

largely absent among Evangelicals.

3This extreme position can be found in the Amsterdam Declaration: "Scripture and Evangelism: The Bible is indis-pensable to true evangelism. The Word of God itself provides both the content and authority for all evangelism. Without it there is no message to preach to the lost (In Other Words (Winter 2000), page 21)". This statement came out of the Amsterdam 2000 Conference which represents the position of many Evangelical leaders, evangelists and mission strategists. Historic Orthodoxy recognizes Holy Scripture to be an integral part of Holy Tradition and for this reason supports the bible translation (cf. Sts Cyril and Methodius). However Orthodox Christians will find the above statement flawed because of its implicit stress on the Bible alone to the exclusion of Holy Tradition.

6

R. Arakaki 2001

Many Evangelicals see the Bereans who "examined the Scriptures everyday to see if what

Paul said was true" as an example of bible-based Christianity (Acts 17:11). What they overlook

is the fact that the phrase "what Paul said" is a reference to oral tradition. In other words, every-

day the Bereans were checking out Paul's oral tradition against the Old Testament scriptures.

Thus, one of Evangelicalism's favorite proof-text is actually a good illustration of the Orthodox

approach to Scripture and Tradition!

In II Thessalonians 2:15 is one of the clearest supports for Paul's understanding that the

apostolic witness could be valid under both written and oral forms. In no way does Paul indicate

that the one was superior to the other.

So, then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter. (II Thessalonians 2:15)

Orthodox Christians often appeal to this passage in the face of Protestantism's sola scriptura.

For Protestant Evangelicals the challenge is proving that the apostolic tradition is available ex-

clusively in the written form. Another significant support for the Orthodox position can be found

in I Thessalonians 1:13. In this passage Paul commends the Thessalonian Christians for their

acceptance of the Christian message which came by word of mouth.

And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it actu-ally is, the word of God, which is at work in you who believe. (I Thessalonians 1:13)

What is surprising about this passage is that Paul attributes to oral tradition the same standing as

the word of God. Thus for Orthodox Christians the other components of Holy Tradition are just

as inspired and authoritative as the Bible, the written word of God.

Another aspect of the traditioning process is imitation. Paul made frequent references to

imitation. In I Corinthians 11:1 Paul writes, "Follow my example, as I follow the example of

7

R. Arakaki 2001

Christ." In Philippians 3:17 Paul writes, “Join with others in following my example, brothers,

and take note of those who live according to the pattern we gave you." In Philippians 4:9 Paul

writes, "Whatever you have learned or received or heard from me, or seen in me -- put it into

practice. And the God of peace will be with you." Using Philippians 4:9 we can liken the tradi-

tioning process is like a strong rope made up of five strands: (1) learning, (2) receiving, (3) hear-

ing, (4) seeing, and (5) putting into practice. Imitation as a means of passing on Holy Tradition

is consistent with the Incarnation -- the Word made flesh, not the word written down on paper.

Worship in the early church was likewise based upon the traditioning process. In I Corin-

thians 11 Paul commends the Corinthians for being faithful to the traditions he gave them.

I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the traditions, just as I passed them on to you. (I Corinthians 11:2)

Paul makes a clear reference to the traditioning process when he talks about the Eucharistic cele-

bration:

For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me." (I Corin-thians 11:23-34)

Paul ends his section on the Eucharist with: "And when I come I will give further directions." (I

Corinthians 11:34) This tells us that what Paul gave the Corinthians was not a complete set of

instructions on how to celebrate the Lord's Supper; he would be coming later to give them fur-

ther oral instructions. Thus, any Evangelical who seeks to base their theology of the sacraments

upon I Corinthians 11 need to recognize that the written instructions that Paul gives in this sec-

tion is incomplete.

8

R. Arakaki 2001

Guarding the Apostolic Tradition

Protecting the Church against heresy and immorality is integral to the traditioning proc-

ess. Without this vigilance, Tradition would undergo significant modification and cease to be the

Tradition received from Christ. In Paul's letters to Timothy we find a strong emphasis on the

protection of the Gospel. By the time we get to Paul's letters to Timothy we find Paul in the last

days of his ministry. It is interesting to note that in light of his impending execution Paul re-

mained committed to the traditioning process with no indication that he had made the shift to the

principle of sola scriptura. This is significant because it would be at this time if any that Paul

would have given thought to committing his teachings to writing for posterity.

Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to your care. (I Timothy 6:20)

What you heard from me, keep as the pattern of sound teaching, with faith and love in Christ Jesus. Guard the good deposit that was entrusted to you--guard it with the help of the Holy Spirit who lives in us. (II Timothy 1:13-14)

A supporter of sola scriptura may point to the fact that in his letters to Timothy Paul clearly

holds to a high view of Scripture. In I Timothy 4:13 Paul admonishes Timothy to the public (li-

turgical) reading of the Scripture and in II Timothy 3:15-17 Paul affirms the divine inspiration of

Scripture. However it would be a non sequitur to argue that this means that Paul was teaching

sola scriptura. This argument can only be made if it can be shown that Paul was teaching that

the Scripture was authoritative over against other components of Tradition. However Paul no-

where makes such a claim.

Another means of maintaining the integrity of the traditioning process was church disci-

pline. Paul wrote to the Thessalonian Christians,

In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers, to keep away from every brother who is idle and does not live according to the tradition you re-ceived from us (II Thessalonians 3:6).

9

R. Arakaki 2001

A similar approach can be seen in II John. The apostle John wrote his epistle at a time when the

Gnostic heresy was threatening to infiltrate the early Christian community. John instructed that

only those who continued in the "teaching of Christ", i.e., Tradition, were to be admitted into

Christian fellowship. He writes,

Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house or welcome him. (II John 9-10)

Although a drastic action, excommunication was often necessary to preserve both the Christian

community and Holy Tradition.

The Promise of the Holy Spirit One fact that ought to puzzle Evangelicals is the fact that our Lord Jesus Christ never at-

tempted to commit to writing his teachings. Even when Jesus knew of his impending death he

did not sit down to write up a summary of his teachings, neither did he instruct his disciples to

write down his teachings for posterity. Instead up to his last night on earth Jesus continued to

use the oral method of teaching. In the Upper Room discourse in John's gospel Jesus did not

promise an infallible all sufficient Bible but the Holy Spirit who would guide the Church into all

truth (John 16:12-15). Thus, it is the promise of the Holy Spirit that makes Holy Tradition work.

The same Holy Spirit who inspired the apostles in their writing the New Testament documents

also inspires the Church, the Body of Christ.

Patristic theology forms one part of Tradition. The teachings of the Church Fathers are a

fulfillment of Jesus' promise that he would give the Holy Spirit who would guide us into all truth

(John 14:23, 16:13). The teaching ministry of the Church Fathers is based upon the charismatic

10

R. Arakaki 2001

gifts that the Holy Spirit would bestow upon the Church, e.g., the gift of teaching and pastor-

teachers (Ephesians 4:11, I Corinthians 12:28).

Another important part of Tradition is the Ecumenical Councils. In Acts 15 the Jerusa-

lem Council was convened to deal with a theological crisis that threatened to split the Church

and undermine the gospel. The Jerusalem Council announced its decision with, "It seemed good

to us and the Holy Spirit..." (Acts 15:28). The Jerusalem Council set the precedent for future

Ecumenical Councils that would be convened whenever the Church was confronted with heresy

or other critical questions about the meaning of Scripture. The same Holy Spirit who inspired

the apostles in their writing of the New Testament also guided the bishops at the Ecumenical

Councils. Therefore, the Ecumenical Councils are not something added to the Bible but are the

result of the same Holy Spirit who inspired the Holy Scriptures.

Part II. The Early Church and the Traditioning Process Critical to the argument of this paper is the transitional period when the apostles were

succeeded by the post-apostolic generation. Continuity between the apostles and the post-

apostolic leadership can be seen as support for the traditioning process. In II Timothy 2:2 Paul

describes the process by which the Christian Faith was to be passed on to future generations.

And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others. (II Timothy 2:2)

What is notable about this verse is Paul's emphasis on the careful selection and training of the

post-apostolic generations of Christians who were to be entrusted with Holy Tradition. In this

verse we find four links in the chain of tradition: (1) Paul, (2) Timothy, (3) "reliable men", and

(4) the "others". What is striking about these passages is the aural component: what Timothy

heard from Paul he was to pass on to others. Although many Evangelicals confine II Timothy

11

R. Arakaki 2001

2:2 to the ordination ceremony of pastors, it makes more sense to understand the passage as re-

ferring to the passing on of apostolic tradition to future generations.

In Irenaeus we see how the early Church applied II Timothy 2:2. For Irenaeus the ability

of a church to trace its roots back to the apostles was an important means to verifying its claim to

correct doctrine and practice.

The tradition of the apostles, made clear in all the world, can be clearly seen in every church by those who wish to behold the truth. We can enumerate those who were established by the apostles as bishops in the churches, and their succes-sors down to our time, none of whom taught or thought of anything like their (the heretics) mad ideas (Richardson 1970:371).

For Irenaeus "apostolic succession" was essential to the truth claims of the Christian faith. Apos-

tolic succession is based not just on formal ritual succession but also in the holding of the same

faith and practice as the apostles. Apostolic succession in both forms has been kept by the Or-

thodox Church for the past twenty centuries. Each and every bishop and patriarch in the Ortho-

dox Church can trace their link back to the Twelve Apostle. This is a claim that Protestants can-

not make.4

After the apostles died, the traditioning process continued without interruption. Papias,

bishop of Hierapolis (c. 60 - c. 130), lived during the crucial transitional period of the apostles

and their successors. The passage below shows Papias' strong and active commitment to the tra-

ditioning process.

Unlike the great multitude, I did not take pleasure in those who talk much but those who teach the truth; not in those who stamp alien commandments on the memory but in those who keep the traditions given to the believers by the Lord and derived from truth itself. If by chance, though, someone came my way who had been a pupil and follower of the first elders, I inquired into the teachings of these elders: what Andrew or Peter said or what Philip or Thomas or James or

4One such attempt known as Landmarkism made the claim that there existed an unbroken baptist tradition from the time of Christ through the Dark Ages of the papacy until it reemerged during the Protestant Reformation. This popular movement generated enormous controversy among the pre-Civil War Baptist churches (see Ahlstrom's A Religious History of the American People Vol. II pp. 178-181).

12

R. Arakaki 2001

John or Matthew or any other disciples of the Lord said.... (in Arnold 1970:168-169).

Papias approached Tradition primarily through person-to-person and oral contact. There is no

evidence of the traditioning process becoming confined to the apostles' writings.

1 Irenaeus of Lyons, regarded as the second century Church's most important theologian, is

a good example of the traditioning process. He was intimately acquainted with Polycarp, the

spiritual son of the apostle John. Irenaeus' letter To Florinus in Eusebius' Church History (5.20)

illustrates how the traditioning process was still going strong one century after the last of the

apostles died.

...so that I can describe the place where blessed Polycarp sat and talked, his go-ings out and comings in, the character of his life, his personal appearance, his ad-dresses to crowded congregations. I remember how he spoke of his intercourse with John and with others who had seen the Lord; how he repeated their words from memory; and how the things that he had heard them say about the Lord, His miracles and His teaching, things that he had heard direct from the eye-witnesses of the Word of Life, were proclaimed by Polycarp in complete harmony with Scripture (Eusebius 1965:227-228).

Irenaeus' personal testimony shows how seriously and diligently the early Christian community

committed itself to remembering the teachings of the apostles. Thus, the Church in the second

century did not fall away as many Protestants assumed happened after the death of the apostles

but continued to hold on to the teachings of the apostles. Another striking fact is how Irenaeus'

high view of Scripture complemented his commitment to oral tradition.

The Bible in the Early Church Among the early Church Fathers there is clear evidence of their high regard for the Bible,

but there is no evidence of the New Testament superseding the earlier oral traditions. Rather the

emergence of the written New Testament was seen as a natural outcome of the overall tradition-

13

R. Arakaki 2001

ing process. In his Against the Heretics Irenaeus of Lyons describes the emergence of the four

Gospels.

For we learned the plan of our salvation from no others than from those through whom the gospel came to us. They first preached it abroad, and then later by the will of God handed it down to us in Writings, to be the foundation and pillar of our faith.... They went out to the ends of the earth, preaching the good things that come to us from God, and proclaiming peace from heaven to men, all and each of them equally being in possession of the gospel of God. So Matthew among the Hebrews issued a Writing of the gospel in their own tongue, while Peter and Paul were preaching the gospel at Rome and founding the Church. After their decease Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, also handed down to us in writing what Peter had preached. Then Luke, the follower of Paul, recorded in a book of the gospel as it was preached by him. Finally John, the disciple of the Lord, who had also lain on his breast, himself published the Gospel, while he was residing at Ephesus in Asia. All of them handed down to us that there is one God, maker of heaven and earth, proclaimed by the Law and the Prophets, and one Christ the Son of God (Richardson 1970:370).

A thoughtful Evangelical cannot but notice that the names that roll so easily off his/her tongue

(Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) are not derived from Scripture but are extra-scriptural in

source, i.e., they are part of the tradition of the early Church. Thus, for Irenaeus of Lyons the

New Testament did not stand apart from Tradition but was an integral part of Tradition. He saw

the apostolic witness whether oral or written as valid.

For Irenaeus it was conceivable to have a Christianity without the Bible, but not Christi-

anity without Tradition.

Even if the apostles had not left their Writings to us, ought we not to follow the rule of the tradition, which they handed down to those to whom they committed the churches? Many barbarian peoples who believe in Christ follow this rule, having [the message of their] salvation written in their hearts by the Spirit without paper and ink (Richardson 1970:374-375).

1In a missionary situation where the bible has yet to be translated or the new believers belong to

an oral culture, the newly planted church was expected to follow oral tradition.

14

R. Arakaki 2001

One of the strongest arguments against sola scriptura can be found in Basil the Great (c.

329-379), a fourth century Church Father. In his On the Holy Spirit we find a clear discussion of

the relationship between Scripture and Tradition.

Concerning the teachings of the Church, whether publicly proclaimed (kerygma) or reserved to members of the household of faith (dogmata), we have received some from written sources, while others have been given to us secretly, through apostolic tradition (1980:98).

For Basil the two sources are integrally related and cannot be separated without doing harm to

one or the other. In the passage below Basil constructs a hypothetical scenario of what would

happen if the Bible was separated from Holy Tradition.

Both sources have equal force in true religion. No one would deny either source--no one, at any rate, who is even slightly familiar with the ordinances of the Church. If we attacked the unwritten customs, claiming them to be of little im-portance, we would fatally mutilate the Gospel, not matter what our intentions--or rather, we would reduce the Gospel teachings to bare words (1980:98-99).

With uncanny prescience Basil anticipates the seventeenth century English Puritans who sought

to purge the church of non-biblical customs on the basis of sola scriptura. Many of the customs

in the early Church: the making of the sign of the cross, the practice of facing eastwards when

praying, the wording to be used for eucharistic prayers, the proper format for baptizing new con-

verts would be eliminated. Basil's clear rejection of this principle shows conclusively that sola

scriptura cannot be considered part of the historic Christian faith.

Thus, early church history does not support the Protestant understanding of Scripture

standing separate from Tradition. The early Christians saw the emergence of a written New Tes-

tament as a natural step in the development of the Christian faith. The early church saw oral and

written tradition as complementary and together forming a harmonious whole. Therefore, early

church history refutes the Protestant claim of sola scriptura. It was only among the heterodox or

heretics that we can find early precedents for sola scriptura (See D.H. Williams "The Search for

15

R. Arakaki 2001

Sola Scriptura in the Early Church"). None of the early Church Fathers ever held or taught sola

scriptura. Basil the Great's clear rejection of sola scriptura shows that this principle was never

part of the early Church and for that reason cannot be considered part of the historic Christian

faith.

Part III. The Protestant Rejection of Tradition The Protestant rejection of Holy Tradition can be traced in large part to the Reformers'

struggle against medieval Catholicism in the 1500s. In their struggle to reform the Catholic

Church the Reformers asserted the authority of the Bible "sola scriptura" against the tyranny of

the Roman papacy. From the Orthodox perspective many of the doctrines and practices rejected

by Protestantism (purgatory, indulgences, the supremacy of the Pope, transubstantiation) are not

part of Holy Tradition but innovations that emerged in post-Schism medieval Western Europe.

Thus, it is important to keep in mind that when Protestants speak against 'tradition', they are

thinking of something quite different from what Orthodox refer to as 'Holy Tradition'.

Evangelicals' aversion to tradition is also rooted in their being children of modernity.

Modernity encourages the attitude that the old and traditional are inferior to the new and modern

and that the new will supersede the old. This leads to Evangelicals distrusting the past or view-

ing the past as irrelevant or having no practical relevance. Much of this attitude can be traced to

the American Revolution, the American frontier in the early 1800s, and the Civil War (see Mark

Noll's The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind, pp. 59 ff.).

The Traditions of Men Evangelicals often point to Jesus' confrontation with the Pharisees in Matthew 15:1-20

(see also Mark 7:17) as providing a biblical basis for their opposition to tradition. It is important

16

R. Arakaki 2001

that we note that Jesus did not issue a whole scale condemnation of tradition but the tradition of

the Pharisees. The "tradition of the elders" is a reference to an elaborate system of rules con-

structed by the rabbis during the Babylonian exile. This system of rules and regulations existed

primarily in oral form until it was put down into writing around AD 200 in what is now called

the Mishnah.

It should also be noted that the New Testament writers seemed to have no hesitation

drawing the oral tradition that paralleled the Old Testament scriptures: (1) the prophecy "He

shall be called a Nazarene" (Matthew 2:23), (2) the injunction that respect be given to those who

sit on "Moses’ seat" (Matthew 23:2), (3) the reference Paul made to the rock that followed the

Israelites during their 40 year sojourn in the desert (I Corinthians 10:4), (4) the confrontation be-

tween the archangel Michael and Satan over Moses' body (Jude 9), and Paul's knowledge of the

names of the Egyptian magicians (Jannes and Jambres) who opposed Moses (II Timothy 3:6-8).

The above references show that the New Testament writers did not apply the principle sola

scriptura to the Old Testament. The New Testament writers’ willingness to draw upon the Jew-

ish oral tradition that paralleled the Jewish Scripture can be seen as evidence against sola scrip-

tura.5

The closest we can find to a blanket condemnation of tradition is in Colossians 2:8 where

Paul writes:

See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ. (Colossians 2:8)

Here Paul criticizes the false teachings not because they are based on tradition per se but because

these traditions were not based upon Jesus Christ. Furthermore anyone who wishes to use this

5For an excellent discussion of these oral traditions and how they undermine the Protestant sola scriptura, see "The Bible/The Holy Scriptures: What We Believe and Teach" at www.webcom.com/oghp/teach_14.html.

17

R. Arakaki 2001

verse to argue that Paul condemned all traditions must reconcile this verse with other verses by

Paul that spoke favorably of tradition (e.g., II Thessalonians 2:15).

The Traditions of Modern Evangelicalism Ironically, however, modern Evangelicalism does in fact have many traditions. Many

Evangelicals equate "tradition" with the Christmas tree, but "tradition" is more than that: it is the

way we do worship; the way we define church government; the way we understand Scripture;

and the way we do theology. These traditions are not peripheral to Evangelicalism; they play an

important function in the maintenance of the distinctive Evangelical sub-culture.

What is really ironic is the fact that many of these Evangelical traditions are very recent

developments. The altar call where people are invited to come forward and give their life to

Christ has its source in the sinners’ bench which first began in the early 1800s on the American

frontier. The popular evangelistic crusade by Billy Graham has its roots in earlier crusades led

by Billy Sunday and D.L. Moody in the 1800s. Phrases such as "deciding for Christ", "personal

relationship with Christ", "making a personal commitment to Christ" are novel extra-biblical

ways of describing how to become a Christian. From the standpoint of historic Christianity what

is so striking about modern Evangelicalism is the way it has divorced evangelism from the sac-

rament of baptism and membership in the Church.

Another tradition is the Sunday School. The Sunday School is just over a hundred years

old having its origins in England. What began as an outreach to the lower classes ended up as

one of the pillars of the Evangelical sub-culture. Today Evangelicals cannot imagine a church

without a Sunday School. What is so striking about the Sunday School is how it reinforces the

didactic qualities of the Protestant church. Historically the center of Christian worship was the

Eucharist, not the sermon. When one considers the strong emphasis on the sermon and the infre-

18

R. Arakaki 2001

quent practice of Holy Communion in many Protestant churches, it becomes apparent how Prot-

estantism has developed a new tradition of worship with no historical precedent.

Holy Communion is another area where Evangelicals have incorporated recent customs

and practices that deviate from the historic Christian faith. Widespread among Evangelicals is

the belief in the bread and the wine being purely symbolic. This is a significant break from the

early Church, the medieval catholic Church, the Orthodox Church and the major Protestant Re-

formers all who in one way or another affirmed the doctrine of the real presence. Another

change has been the widespread use of grape juice instead of wine. Along with this was the

change in the way the communion elements were distributed. Where the historic pattern has

been for people to come forward to receive Communion, the elements are brought forward by the

servers on trays and passed along the pews. Thus, the Evangelical practice of Holy Communion

is an example of a striking departure from the historic pattern of worship.

Evangelicalism's Debt to Holy Tradition Despite their disavowal of Holy Tradition, Evangelicalism is heavily indebted to Holy

Tradition. When Evangelicals accept the twenty-seven books of the New Testament as canoni-

cal, they are in effect accepting the decision of the Sixth Ecumenical Council. When Evangeli-

cals affirm that Jesus Christ is fully God and fully human they are in effect accepting the deci-

sions of the Council of Nicaea and the Council of Chalcedon. When they affirm their belief in

the Trinity, one God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit, they are accepting the way the early

Church prayed to God in its liturgy. By their very use of the word "Trinity" the Evangelicals

show themselves to be inheritors of the theological traditions of the early Church. Evangelical-

ism's indebtedness to Holy Tradition can be seen in their insistence on worshiping on Sundays

19

R. Arakaki 2001

and not on Saturdays as do the Seventh Day Adventists and their strong pro-life stance against

abortion.

Part IV. Paradigmatic Differences Orthodoxy and Protestantism operate from different paradigms, which results in radical

differences in the way they do theology and construct church order. Scientists rely on paradigms

to organize and interpret their data (see Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions).

For example, before Copernicus made his famous discovery, many thought that the sun revolved

around the earth and not the other way around. The paradigm shift from a geocentric model to a

heliocentric model marked a major advance in astronomy. Paradigms are like lenses through

which we see and interpret the world around us. A critical awareness of paradigms can help us

appreciate the way we understand our data and why our conclusions differ from others even if

we both share the same data base.

One of the major differences between Orthodoxy and Protestantism is their source for

faith and practice. The Orthodox Church believes that Christ committed a body of teaching and

practices to his apostles and authorized them to pass this tradition on to the nations. The Ortho-

dox Church sees the New Testament as the written record of the teachings of Christ and his apos-

tles, the Liturgy as continuing the pattern worship that Jesus taught his disciples, and the office

of the bishop as a continuation of Jesus' formal teaching office. For the Orthodox Christian it is

possible to access the life and teaching of Christ through the Church, the recipient and guardian

of Holy Tradition. While Protestantism would agree with Orthodoxy that Christ committed a

body of teaching and practices to his apostles, it believes that the life and teachings of Christ can

only be accessed through New Testament. All other means of accessing the life and teachings of

20

R. Arakaki 2001

Christ are suspect or limited. On the basis of sola scriptura Protestants seek to ground their the-

ology, worship, ethics, and church government upon

the Bible and nothing else.

Source of Faith and Practice These differences between Protestantism and Orthodoxy arise from their different ways

of understanding church history. The Protestants see church history as discontinuous: there took

place a break or a "Fall" in which the early church fell into heresy, corruption, and formalism

soon after the apostles died. Christianity then entered into the Dark Ages until the Martin Luther

and the Protestant Reformers rediscovered the pure Gospel and restored the New Testament

Church as described in the Scripture. This kind of outlook renders church history suspect on two

grounds: (1) learning from church history would undermine the principle "the Bible alone" and

(2) relying on church history is to rely on a church that had fallen from the pristine purity of the

New Testament Christianity into corruption and decay.

The Orthodox Church on the other hand has a continuous view of church history. It be-

lieves that the Holy Spirit continued to work actively in the Church even after the apostles

passed. It does not differentiate between the first century in which the apostles lived from the

following centuries. The continuous view of church history is based upon Christ's promise that

Protestant Paradigm

Jesus Christ

Bible

Doctrine Worship Government

Orthodox Paradigm

Jesus Christ

the Apostles

Liturgy Scripture Episcopacy

21

R. Arakaki 2001

the Holy Spirit would continue to guide the Church (John 14:26) and upon Christ's promise that

the Church would be preserved against the gates of hell (Matthew 16:18). For Orthodoxy there

was no "Fall". This is because the Orthodox Church has kept Holy Tradition without change.

Thus, because there was no "Fall" there is no need to rediscover the Gospel, neither is there a

need to restore the New Testament Church for the

Orthodox Church is the same church as the New Testament Church.

Single Point vs. the Matrix

One way to describe the differences is to liken Protestantism to a single point and Ortho-

doxy to a matrix. For Protestants the Bible is the sole source for faith and practice. For the Or-

thodox Church the source of faith and practice is Tradition with a capital "T" which consists of

the Bible, the Liturgy, the Sacraments, the Ecumenical Councils, and the Church Fathers all of

which taken together form an interlocking and internally consistent matrix.

In the Orthodox matrix paradigm the various components of Holy Tradition form a singu-

lar coherent entity. Scripture is not subordinated to Tradition but is integrally linked to the other

parts of Tradition. This means that the Bible cannot but agree with the other components of the

tradition. (For example, Protestants would not put the Gospels over the Pauline epistles but see

both as integral to the New Testament canon.) The Orthodox Church has several safeguards in

place to prevent any hermeneutical chaos from distorting or mutating the Christian Faith: the

Protestant Paradigm

Bible

Doctrine Worship Government

Orthodox Paradigm Liturgy Creeds Sacraments Icons Bible Calendar Ecumenical Councils Bishops Church Fathers

22

R. Arakaki 2001

bishops, the Church Fathers, the Liturgy, the Ecumenical Councils, and the Nicene Creed. Thus,

the Orthodox matrix paradigm provides a stable framework because the various components of

Tradition reinforce and regulate each other.

One of the troubling aspects of the Protestant single point paradigm is the fact that Scrip-

ture cannot be separated from the interpretation of Scripture.6 If one's understanding of Scripture

changes, then one's faith and practice will likewise change. This makes for a rather tenuous and

unstable basis for faith and practice. This can be seen in the bewildering variety of Protestant

denominations that have come about as a result of people interpreting the Bible in different ways

and being unable to reconcile their differences. This raises the conundrum of how so many dif-

ferent readings can emerge while the text remains unchanged.7

V. How I Came to Accept Holy Tradition

My Protestant Theology Falls Apart As I mentioned at the beginning of this paper I went to seminary with the purpose of be-

coming an evangelical seminary professor working to bring the United Church of Christ, one of

the most liberal denominations, back to its biblical roots. One of the challenges of being an

Evangelical in the UCC is the rampant relativism in which one interpretation of the Bible is re-

garded as good as another. I countered this theological relativism by asserting that the biblical

position was the same as the historic Christian faith. However this backfired when as a church

history major I discovered much to my surprise that many Evangelical beliefs and practices have

6The principle "Scripture interprets Scripture" is nonsense if taken literally. It would be like saying: Scripture reads Scripture. The Bible is read by people who at the same time interpret what they are reading. What the Protestant Reformers meant here was that Scripture is internally consistent in meaning. However the Marburg Colloquy brought out the fact that there are some passages that can be understood in quite different ways and which do not provide any further means for ascertaining the precise meaning of the contested text. 7The first major division took place as early as in 1529 at the Marburg Colloquy where the Protestant Reformers were split over how to interpret the words of Christ: "This is my body". It is quite unsettling that Protestantism's first division took place within its first decade of existence.

23

R. Arakaki 2001

their roots in the nineteenth century. In other words Evangelicalism like Liberalism cannot be

considered part of the historic Christian faith but a very recent development.

After I graduated from Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, I went to the Graduate

Theological Union in Berkeley, California, to do doctoral studies in comparative religions. I

went from a conservative Evangelical setting to a theologically diverse setting. While there I had

many opportunities for conversations with people from theologically liberal backgrounds. I

found myself often citing the early Church Fathers and the Ecumenical Councils in order to de-

fend my Evangelical positions.

During this time Jude verse 3 began to haunt me. This verse is one of Evangelicalism's

favorite, which they use to defend the fundamentals of the Christian faith.

Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt I had to write to you and urge you to contend for the faith that was once and for all entrusted to the saints.

There are three aspects of this verse that are pertinent to our argument: (1) the use of the definite

article in the phrase "the Faith", (2) the clear reference to the traditioning process "entrusted",

and (3) the phrase "once and for all" ( or hapax). I was struck by the use of the definite ar-

ticle in "the Faith" which refers to an already existent specific body of doctrines and practices.

This indicates that the Christian Faith was something received as a result of divine revelation, not

something to be discovered by theological research or mystic gnosis or the result of doctrinal

evolution.

Also from an exegetical standpoint I was struck by the fact that the Greek word hapax

"once for all" is used to condition the traditioning process paradotheisee "entrusted" or "handed

over". The word hapax is the same Greek word used in Hebrews 9:28 in reference to Christ's

unique once for all time redeeming death on the Cross. The word hapax rules out new doctrines

24

R. Arakaki 2001

and practices. The word hapax rules out the possibility of later revelations like the Book of

Mormons or "new light yet to break forth" touted by the liberals. It points to a fixity and perma-

nence in the content of the Christian faith, i.e., Tradition cannot change. This implies that a his-

torical continuity in the Christian faith must exist from the first century to the present century.

Doctrinal innovation is to be viewed with grave suspicion.

This verse began to haunt me as I reflected on the fact that so much of Evangelical theol-

ogy and practice has its roots in the nineteenth century. I also became uncomfortably aware of

how much Evangelicalism diverged from the early Church. This verse is devastating because if

the Christian Faith cannot change, then either Evangelicalism must prove doctrinal continuity

with the early church or else admit that it is a modern innovation. Protestants tracing their his-

torical roots can go only as far back as the Protestant Reformation before they hit a blank wall.

All this forced me to take a serious look at the claims of the Orthodox Church to have kept the

Faith unchanged. As my Protestant theology began to crumble I began to accept the fact that it

is the Orthodox Church, not Protestantism, that can rightfully claim to possess "the faith that was

once and for all entrusted to the saints."

As I reflected on my Evangelical beliefs in light of historic Orthodoxy I found that I

could hold to many of Evangelicalism's core beliefs: the divine inspiration and authority of

Scripture, the divine nature of Jesus Christ and his death on the cross for the salvation of the

world, the necessity of faith in Christ for salvation, and the Second Coming of Christ. However I

found the two of Protestantism's foundational tenets, sola fide and sola scriptura, to be recent

innovations and not part of the historic Christian faith. It is these two doctrines that forced me to

break with Protestantism. What I found assuring was the fact that I could continue to be an

Evangelical in the Orthodox Church even as I ceased to be Protestant.

25

R. Arakaki 2001

But What if Scripture and Tradition Contradict Each Other? An Evangelical friend once asked me, "But what if Tradition contradicts the Bible?" To

answer this question, one must ask two questions for clarification: (1) what do you mean by

'Scripture'? And (2) what do you mean by 'Tradition'? What needs to be recognized here is the

fact that when we speak of Scripture we are at the same time speaking of our particular under-

standing of Scripture. The Bible can be interpreted in a number of different ways, some of

which are correct and others that are erroneous. The question then becomes: Who has the right

interpretation? What needs to be recognized here is that so-called contradictions in reality reflect

the contradiction between Holy Tradition and particular interpretations of Scripture.

The Orthodox Church has several safeguards that ensure the right interpretation of Scrip-

ture: the Liturgy, the historical linkages to the apostles through the bishops, the theological con-

sensus in the Ecumenical Councils and the Church Fathers. Because Scripture as well as the

other components of Tradition share a common apostolic source, they can be expected to be in

agreement with each other. Thus Orthodox interpretations will agree with Tradition, whereas

erroneous and heretical interpretations will contradict Tradition.

On the other hand I would ask, on what basis could Protestants claim to have a superior

interpretation of the Bible? What advantage do modern Protestant Evangelicals have over the

early Christians? And I would add, Can you claim that your interpretation is the Protestant in-

terpretation? Furthermore, how can Evangelicals be so concerned about the alleged contradic-

tions between the Bible and Tradition when there are so many rival interpretations among Evan-

gelicals that contradict each other? Protestantism is theologically incoherent being split as it is

into so many different denominations unable to come together in agreement over issues of faith,

sacrament, worship, and church governance.

26

R. Arakaki 2001

In my studies of the early Church I was drawn to the remarkable theological unity among

the early Church Fathers -- Irenaeus of Lyons, Ambrose of Milan, Pope Leo of Rome, Pope

Gregory of Rome, Athanasius of Alexandria, John of Damascus. I was especially drawn to

Irenaeus of Lyons who described the doctrinal unity of the early Church.

Having received this preaching and this faith, as I have said, the Church, although scattered in the whole world, carefully preserves it, as if living in one house. She believes these things [everywhere] alike, as if she had but one heart and one soul, and preaches them harmoniously, teaches them, and hands them down, as if she had but one mouth (Richardson 1970:360).

I found Irenaeus' emphasis on unity attractive but at the same time I also found his emphasis on

there being only one Church disturbing. He wrote,

But as I said before, the real Church has one and the same faith everywhere in the world (Richardson 1970:362).

As a Protestant Evangelical accepting of denominational differences I found this statement very

disturbing because it raises the question: Do I belong to the true Church? This created tremen-

dous inner tension as I became torn between my home church of over 20 years, a fine Evangeli-

cal church, and the Eastern Orthodox Church which claimed to be the "one holy catholic and ap-

ostolic church".

To return to my friend's question: "But what if Tradition contradicts the Bible?", my an-

swer is: Tradition will never contradict the Bible.8 This is based upon Christ's promises that he

would give the Holy Spirit to guide the Church into all truth (John 14:23, 16:13) and that the

Church would be preserved in the face of satanic opposition (Matthew 16:18). It is also based

upon Paul's description of the Church as the "pillar and foundation of truth" (I Timothy 3:15). If

Holy Tradition is indeed biblical (as has been shown in this paper), then Evangelicals should

have very little problem accepting the Orthodox Church's teaching on Tradition and Scripture.

27

R. Arakaki 2001

The Irony of Sola Scriptura One great irony of Protestant Reformation is that its anti traditionalism would become a

tradition of Protestantism (Pelikan 1984:11). The inescapable fact is that every church group

belongs to a particular tradition. When a Baptist church claims to hold to the Baptist distinctive

they are really speaking of faithfully adhering to the Baptist tradition. The choice that lies before

every Evangelical is whether they will hold to a tradition that is for the most part only two hun-

dred years old or receive Holy Tradition that has been kept intact by the Orthodox Church for

two thousand years.

Shortly before I joined the Orthodox Church, my friend Steve, a Baptist minister, warned

me: "Now you shouldn't add to the Bible." In light of the above discussion Steve's warning is

quite ironic, for if sola scriptura cannot be found in the Bible then Protestants are guilty of add-

ing sola scriptura to the Bible. Furthermore, if the Bible is the bottom line for Evangelicals and

if Holy Tradition is biblical then the real Evangelical is one who belongs to the Orthodox

Church.

8The opposite corollary is likewise true: whatever contradicts Scripture cannot be Tradition. The key here is what we mean when we say "Tradition".

28

R. Arakaki 2001

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ahlstrom, Sydney E. A Religious History of the American People. Volume 2. Garden City, New York: Image Books, 1975.

Arnold, Eberhard. The Early Christians in their Own Words. Translated from Die Ersten

Chriten nach dem Tode der Apostel, 1926. Printed 1997. Farmington, Pennsylvania: Plough Publishing House, 1970.

Basil the Great. On the Holy Spirit. Crestwood, New York: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press,

1980. Eusebius. The History of the Church: From Christ to Constantine. G.A. Williamson, translator.

New York: Penguin Books, 1965. Hahn, Scott and Kimberly. Rome Sweet Home: Our Journey to Catholicism. San Francisco:

Ignatius Press, 1993. Kuhn, Thomas S. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Second Edition, Enlarged. Interna-

tional Encyclopedia of Unified Science: Volume 2 Number 2. First published 1962. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970.

Noll, Mark A. The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B.

Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1994. Pelikan, Jarsolav. The Vindication of Tradition. New Haven and London: Yale University

Press, 1984. Richardson, Cyril C., ed. Early Christian Fathers. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc.,

1970. Williams, D.H. "The Search for Sola Scriptura in the Early Church" Interpretation: A Journal of

Bible and Theology Vol. 52 No. 4 (October 1998), pp. 354-366. Wycliffe Bible Translators. "Amsterdam 2000": In Other Words. Volume 26, Number 3 (Win-

ter 2000), pp. 18-21.