We continue our examination of the Early Fathers and their views on the authority of Scripture. So, let’s jump right in.

Gregory of Nyssa

Gregory of Nyssa is one of the Cappodocian Fathers. He was bishop of Nyssa in the 4th century. Basil the Great is another. He is Gregory of Nyssa’s older brother was the bishop of Caesarea. Gregory of Nyssa’s close friend, Gregory Nazianzus is the third. He was the Arch-Bishop of Constantinople. These three men are known as the Fathers who solidified the orthodox position in the Trinitarian debates of the first few centuries. Specifically, in affirming the full divinity of the Holy Spirit. They acted as a kind of capstone to the conflicts revolving around the doctrine of the Godhead. Macrina, the sister of Basil and Gregory, is sometimes known as the 4th Cappadocian.

Gregory of Nyssa, in a letter to a doctor named Eustathius, writes against those who deny the full deity of the Spirit (the Pneumatomachi). He’s arguing that the Spirit has the same nature as the Father and Son, that the Godhead is one, that there isn’t a diversity in the substance of God. He says,

“But the ground of their complaint is that their custom does not admit this [The Trinity], and Scripture does not support it. What then is our reply? We do not think that it is right to make their prevailing custom the law and rule of sound doctrine. For if custom is to avail for proof of soundness, we too, surely, may advance our prevailing custom; and if they reject this, we are surely not bound to follow theirs. Let the inspired Scripture, then, be our umpire, and the vote of truth will surely be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words.” (On The Holy Trinity)

In this entire letter, Gregory does not make appeal to councils, or Popes, or to Apostolic Succession. He goes on to make his case solely from Scripture.

He says in another work,

“Whatever is not supported by the testimony of Scripture we reject as false.” (De Cognitione Dei,  PG 46:1115)

This does not mean that they did not employ words not found in Scripture. They defended the ability to not be slavishly bound to using only the words in Scripture. They weren’t advocating a radical Biblicism, but they were appealing to Scriptural authority in a way I don’t see Roman Catholics or Eastern Orthodox talking about Scripture. Of course, they affirm Scripture. They just don’t affirm it as the umpire of debates, as Gregory says.

Basil the Great

Basil says virtually the same thing in his own letter to Eustathius, which strangely appears to be almost identical to Gregory’s. If anyone knows the story behind the similarities of these letters, let me know.

In an argument over the use of certain words in a doxology regarding the Spirit, Basil says this:

“We do not rest only on the fact that such is the tradition of the Fathers; for they too followed the sense of Scripture, and started from the evidence which, a few sentences back, I deduced from Scripture and laid before you.” (On The Holy Spirit, 7:16)

He says, yes, this is the tradition of the Fathers, but we don’t hold to this tradition merely because of this. The Fathers were following the sense of Scripture, just as Basil makes his argument from Scripture, as well.

On how a minister should inform what he commands, Basil says this:

“What mind ought a prelate to have in those things which he commands or appoints? To which the reply is, Towards God, as a servant of Christ, and a steward of the mysteries of God, fearing lest he should speak or order anything beyond the will of God, as declared in the Scriptures, and be found a false witness of God, or sacrilegious, in either introducing anything foreign to the doctrine of the Lord, or omitting anything acceptable to God.” (Regulae Brevius Tractate, Interrogatio et Responsio XCVIII. PG 31:1149-1152. Translation by William Goode, Vol. III, p. 132.)

Ministers are to have an eye toward God and his revelation in Scripture when teaching, preaching, counseling, etc.

On how a parishioner should hear those who preach and teach, Basil says,

“Concerning the Hearers: that those hearers who are instructed in the Scriptures should examine what is said by the teachers, receiving what is in conformity with the Scriptures and rejecting what is opposed to them; and that those who persist in teaching such doctrines should be strictly avoided.” (FC, Vol. 9, Basil, Ascetical Works, The Morals, Rule 72, pp. 185–186)

Again, the adjudicating authority of what is True is found in the Scriptures. Basil adds that those who persist in teaching contrary to Scripture should be strictly avoided. So, not only does the Scripture have the supreme authority, if a teacher insists on teachings things contrary to the Bible, they should be avoided. For Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, this is impossible to do, since only in their church is found the true sacraments, and only in their church is found the fullness of the truth. The moment someone in those communions begins to judge that someone is teaching something contrary to Scripture, they have crossed over into operating on the Protestant principle. The Roman and Eastern churches have insulated themselves against anyone leaving, even if they teach something apart from Scripture. Protestants do similar things in various ways, but my purpose isn’t to go into those here.

Let’s move on.

I have written previously on the idea that ministers should in some sense be working themselves out of a job. They do this in the same way a mother raises her children so that one day they are no longer dependent on her. The pastor is to be pointing their flock to God and reliance on the Holy Spirit and His Word.

Basil does this with a widow. She had written to him a letter concerning various things, and Basil ends his letter of reply with this.

“Enjoying as you do the consolation of the Holy Scriptures, you stand in need neither of my assistance nor of that of anybody else to help you to comprehend your duty. You have the all-sufficient counsel and guidance of the Holy Spirit to lead you to what is right.” (Letter 283)

He says you have the Scriptures yourself and are not in need of anyone’s assistance to comprehend your duty since you have the Holy Spirit to lead you to what is right. This is an incredible statement. It flies in the face of the entire edifice upon which Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism is founded. That we need institutional clergyman, Tradition, and a magisterium as indispensable assistance to the people.

Now, of course, God has given teachers and pastors to assist us. And everyone does need them in some sense, just as all parts of the body need each other. We can’t say that one part of the body is not important, and cut off that part of the body. Every part of the body has its purpose and use. But when those other parts of the body start doing things that are not in accordance with the Head, that being Christ, then you have a dysfunctional body. A body that is disorderly. The members of the body need to be pointing back to the Head, and taking its orders from the Head. That is what Basil is doing here. You have the Words from the Head, you have the Holy Spirit, you are not in need my assistance here. And so the primacy of Scripture and the Holy Spirit are spoken of in terms here that I cannot fathom hearing from a Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox, and even some Protestants. If anything, this is a highly charismatic conception of Christian authority.

Unwritten Traditions

Now, it needs to be noted that Basil did defend unwritten traditions that he claims were passed down by the Apostles. He is often cited by Roman and Eastern apologists to defend their position. And some of his statements do seem to affirm their approach to authority. And that’s okay. The Fathers were not always consistent. The Fathers sometimes went too far. The Fathers were human, like us, and we are not bound to accept everything they say. However, I want to be fair in my presentation of them, and point out that at times they do sound more Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox.

However, when he gives examples of these unwritten traditions, they are all liturgical in nature. Crossing oneself. Facing east when praying. Standing when praying. Blessing the water of baptism. Using oil in chrismation. Employing certain words in the invocation and display of the bread and wine during the Eucharist ceremony. And then the use of a certain preposition in their doxology. Whether it is more appropriate to say in or with the Holy Spirit. So, these are really ticky-tack issues. They aren’t huge doctrinal things, but his statement about them does seem to ascribe them more authority than is due.

“Of the beliefs and practices whether generally accepted or publicly enjoined which are preserved in the Church some we possess derived from written teaching; others we have received delivered to us ‘in a mystery’ by the tradition of the apostles; and both of these in relation to true religion have the same force. And these no one will gainsay; — no one, at all events, who is even moderately versed in the institutions of the Church. For were we to attempt to reject such customs as have no written authority, on the ground that the importance they possess is small, we should unintentionally injure the Gospel in its very vitals; or, rather, should make our public definition a mere phrase and nothing more. (De Spiritu Sanctu, Ch. 27.66)

It is possible that Basil is contradicting himself here. That he is investing extra-biblical tradition with the same authority as Scripture, if the written teaching he refers to here is in fact a reference to Scripture. It’s also possible there is a subtle way of harmonizing these statements with other statements he has made concerning Scripture. I’m not going to attempt to harmonize them. It does seem to contradict in some sense his statements on the authority of Scripture. Ultimately I don’t think it does much damage to the weight of testimony from the Fathers in favor of the primacy of Scripture. But it is important to note that Basil, here does say that these unwritten traditions have the same force in relation to true religion, whatever that means. And he says that to say they are of little importance is to unintentionally injure the gospel. These statements certainly seem more in line with a Roman or Eastern conception of authority.

Most of these examples cited are simply liturgical practices. Many of which I personally practice in my daily devotions, and in our Sunday worship. And it is true that they may have been customs practiced by the Apostles. But we can’t be certain. I am satisfied with the Protestant categorization of adiaphora for these issues. They are indifferent practices. They are not essential to the faith, though they be of some benefit. The Anglicans have a saying, “All may. Some will. None must.” We can apply that here.

I wanted to give due diligence in pointing out that there does exist in the Fathers at times statements which most Protestants would not affirm, including myself. This statement from Basil is something that would much more easily come out of the mouth of an Eastern Orthodox or Papist. But, my main purpose in this series is to show that there also exists in the Fathers an overwhelming testimony of prima scriptura. Statements that would come much more naturally out of the mouths of Protestants.

Macrina

After Basil had died, Gregory of Nyssa visited his sister Macrina in order to mourn with her. He recorded their conversation about the soul and the resurrection. In discussing the nature of the soul, Macrina remarks that it isn’t sufficient to inquire about such things through pagan philosophers like Plato or Aristotle, but that the standard and measure of truth is the divine revelation in Scripture. She says,

“We make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet (dogma); we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings.” (Gregory of Nyssa, On the Soul and Resurrection)

Very straightforward. The Scriptures are the rule and the measure, which is what canon means. They are the canon for every tenet, every dogma.

I could give several more examples from the Cappadocians. Though I only found one or two from Gregory of Nazianzus and his were not as clear as the quotes provided above. So I will stop here, and continue this series with a few more installments dedicated to the Early Fathers and Scripture before moving on to other issues.