I’d like to mention once again that I’m not saying these passages are the final word on what the Fathers taught about authority. I am simply presenting them to you as honestly as I understand them, and encourage you to read them in their fuller context. And also to read Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics. Hear their arguments and see if you find them convincing. I’ve had some interaction with a user on YouTube who is a proponent of Eastern Orthodoxy. Read his arguments. He posted a link that compiles some quotes from the Fathers about tradition. I’ll link it here. I’m not trying to make the Fathers say something they are not. In some cases they appear to affirm the sufficiency of tradition. But in other cases they appear to affirm the sufficiency of Scripture. In most cases when they talk of tradition and Apostolic succession, I don’t think it does much to support the Eastern and Roman claims. If anything it appears to me that Roman and Eastern readings of these passages are usually not as honest with them. If you find the Roman and Eastern harmonizations and explanations of these things satisfying then so be it. I am simply saying I do not find their harmonizations and explanations satisfying. Some will say that I am cherry-picking. I suppose any time anyone decides zero on certain passages, they are cherry-picking. But I think I am doing so honestly, in good faith, with an aim at exposing the reader, listener, viewer, with fuller understanding of the early fathers. That they were more complex than what is often suggested by popular Roman and Eastern apologists.

Alright, so let’s get back to the hysterical cherry-picking, shall we?

John Chrysostom

Chrysostom is a late 4th century minister whose name means golden mouth. He was like a 4th century version of George Whitefield or Charles Spurgeon. He was a deacon and priest in Antioch. And in line with the Antiochean heritage he was less allegorical in his exposition of Scripture, as in contrast to the Alexandrean school which tended to be more allegorical. He eventually became the archbishop of Constantinople. He often preached against the extravagance of wealth, and eventually got into a tiff with the Emperor’s wife, and was ultimately exiled, and essentially killed as an old man.

If you read some of his work, he frequently encourages his parishioners to read the Scriptures for themselves. Here’s a sample.

“This, also, I am ever urging, and shall not cease to urge, that you give attention, not only to the words spoken, but that also, when at home in your house, you exercise yourselves constantly in reading the Divine Scriptures. This, also, I have never ceased to press upon those who come to me privately.” (Third Discourse on Lazarus and the Rich Man)

Chrysostom goes on to bring up all the excuses people use to not reading the Scriptures. That they are too busy, etc. But he affirms that reading them is an indispensable support in attaining salvation.

“We must thoroughly quench the darts of the devil and beat them off by continual reading of the divine Scriptures. For it is not possible, not possible for anyone to be saved without continually taking advantage of spiritual reading.” (Third Discourse on Lazarus and the Rich Man)

Perhaps he’s being a bit hyperbolic here, as there can be irregular circumstances of salvation, but what we can affirm from this is that the regular mode of working out one’s salvation will be marked with continually feeding on the Word of God. Otherwise, one will very likely starve to death.

None of these address authority directly, but it does show Chrysostom’s high regard for personal Scripture reading. Something that I think is a Protestant strength.

In another place he again is speaking about wealth and poverty, while expositing Scripture, and says this:

“Wherefore I exhort and entreat you all, disregard what this man and that man thinks about these things, and inquire from the Scriptures all these things; and having learned what are the true riches, let us pursue after them that we may obtain also the eternal good things.” (Homily 13 on Second Corinthians)

Again, Chrysostom directing his people to inquire from the Scriptures themselves. And to not simply read them, but to purse them in our lives as to obtain eternal good things. And also to not have regard for the opinions of men, but for what the Scriptures say. This is getting closer to a Prima Scriptura understanding of authority.

Let’s look at one more passage from Chrysostom. A lengthy one. In this homily (Homily 33, Acts of the Apostles), he describes a situation much like the situation that popular Roman and Eastern apologists will use. That because there is disagreement among Christians, how can one who wants to be a Christian know who to believe? The Roman answer is in submitting to infallible Magisterium. The Eastern answer is in submitting to tradition as they articulate it. But Chrysostom never mentions submitting to a magisterium. Never makes an appeal to those in apostolic succession. Never says to believe the tradition. He simply says you have used your judgment and reason in deciding that Christianity is true, now continue to use that reason in reading the Scriptures yourself. This, to my mind, sounds very much like a Protestant answer.

“”What then shall we say to the heathen? There comes a heathen and says, I wish to become a Christian, but I know not whom to join: there is much fighting and faction among you, much confusion: which doctrine am I to choose? How shall we answer him? Each of you (says he) asserts, ‘ I speak the truth.’ No doubt: this is in our favor. For if we told you to be persuaded by arguments, you might well be perplexed: but if we bid you believe the Scriptures, and these are simple and true, the decision is easy for you. If any agree with the Scriptures, he is the Christian; if any fight against them, he is far from this rule.”

He points to Scripture. He says they are simple and true. The perspicuity of Scripture. If any agree with the Scriptures, he is a Christian.

“But which am I to believe, knowing as I do nothing at all of the Scriptures? The others also allege the same thing for themselves. What then if the other come, and say that the Scripture has this, and you that it has something different, and you interpret the Scriptures diversely, dragging their sense (each his own way)? And you then, I ask, have you no understanding, no judgment? And how should I be able (to decide), says he, I who do not even know how to judge of your doctrines? I wish to become a learner, and you are making me immediately a teacher. If he say this, what, say you, are we to answer him? How shall we persuade him? Let us ask whether all this be not mere pretense and subterfuge.”

In the chaos of multiple interpretations, how am I to know what is true? Chyrsostom has little patience for this, it appears. Suggesting that this is all just pretense and subterfuge. That it’s not supported by the reality of the situation. That it’s not a legitimate objection, and really only a way of escaping the reality of the situation.

“Let us ask whether he has decided (κατέγνωκε) against the heathen (that they are wrong). The fact he will assuredly affirm, for of course, if he had not so decided, he would not have come to (enquire about) our matters: let us ask the grounds on which he has decided, for to be sure he has not settled the matter out of hand. Clearly he will say, Because (their gods) are creatures, and are not the uncreated God. Good. If then he find this in the other parties (αἰρέσεις), but among us the contrary, what argument need we? We all confess that Christ is God. But let us see who fight (against this truth), and who not. Now we, affirming Him to be God speak of Him things worthy of God, that He has power, that He is not a slave, that He is free, that He does of Himself: whereas the other says the reverse. Again I ask: if you would learn (to be) a physician, * * *? And yet among them are many (different) doctrines. For if you accept without more ado just what you are told, this is not acting like a man: but if you have judgment and sense, you shall assuredly know what is good.”

He makes a great statement here saying that if you are suddenly abandoning your own ability to exercise judgment and sense you are not acting like a man. That if you decided to be physician, you would encounter different teachings and schools of thought there, but you would still have to decide which are true, and that the mere different schools of thought are not enough to evade becoming a physician. He also brings in the full deity of Christ as another standard of orthodoxy. This doctrine is made plain from Scripture. One which all orthodox Christians affirm. And if the heathen has decided to become a Christian because he has decided that we worship an uncreated God, well then this is one step in adjudicating where the true teachers are and where the heretics are.

“We affirm the Son to be God, we verify (ἐ παληθεύομεν) what we affirm: but they affirm indeed, but (in fact) confess not.— But to mention (something) even plainer: those have certain persons from whom they are called, openly showing the name of the heresiarch himself, and each heresy in like manner: with us, no man has given us a name, but the faith itself.”

Here he makes mentions of those with false doctrine taking upon themselves the names of the heretical teachers, whereas the orthodox simply takes no name of a man, but simply has the faith itself. This, he will bring up again, later.

“However, this (talk of yours) is mere pretence and subterfuge. For answer me: how is it that if you would buy a cloak, though ignorant of the art of weaving, you do not speak such words as these — I do not know how to buy; they cheat me— but do all you can to learn, and so whatever else it be that you would buy: but here you speak these words? For at this rate, you will accept nothing at all. For let there be one that has no (religious) doctrine whatever: if he should say what you say about the Christians— There is such a multitude of men, and they have different doctrines; this a heathen, that a Jew, the other a Christian: no need to accept any doctrine whatever, for they are at variance one with another; but I am a learner, and do not wish to be a judge — but if you have yielded (so far as) to pronounce against (καταγινώσκειν) one doctrine, this pretext no longer has place for you. For just as you were able to reject the spurious, so here also, having come, you shall be able to prove what is profitable. For he that has not pronounced against any doctrine at all, may easily say this: but he that has pronounced against any, though he have chosen none, by going on in the same way, will be able to see what he ought to do. Then let us not make pretexts and excuses, and all will be easy. For, to show you that all this is mere excuse, answer me this: Do you know what you ought to do, and what to leave undone? Then why do you not what you ought? Do that, and by right reason seek of God, and He will assuredly reveal it to you. God, it says, is no respecter of persons, but in every nation he that fears Him, and works righteousness, is accepted with Him. “

Again, he is affirming that if you are willing to exercise judgment in judging against heathens and Jews, you can continue in that judgment in seeking out God for truth among varying interpretations among Christians, and he will reveal it to you. And he also connects this to living rightly. Again, he is simply saying, you have made judgments thus far, keep going.

“It cannot be that he who hears without prejudice should not be persuaded. For just as, if there were a rule, by which everything behooved to be put straight, it would not need much consideration, but it would be easy to detect the person who measures falsely (τὸν παραμετροὕντα λαβἕιν), so is it here. Then how is it they do not see it at a glance? Many things are the cause of this: both preconceived opinion, and human causes (αἰτίαι). The others, say you, say the same thing about us. How? For are we separated from the Church? Have we our heresiarchs? Are we called after men — as one of them has Marcion, another Manichæus, a third Arius, for the author and leader (of his sect)? Whereas if we likewise do receive an appellation from any man, we do not take them that have been the authors of some heresy, but men that presided over us, and governed the Church. We have no masters upon the earth — God forbid — we have One Master that is in heaven. Matthew 23:9-10 And those also, says he, say the same. But there stands the name set over them, accusing them, and stopping their mouths.”

This is kind of confusing, but it appears to me he is making mention of the names of the heretics, and that the Christian does not take a name of teacher for his authority. And that even if some name of a man is ascribed to a group within the Church, like Lutherans or Calvinists, it is because they are within the Church which acknowledges no master on earth with respect to ultimate authority, but One Master in heaven who is God. The objector may say that the heretics also claims to be following the One Master in heaven. At which point, Chrysostom appeals to the name of God by which the heretic appeals to and that God stands over them accusing them and stopping their mouths. Chrysostom makes God the final court of appeal.

He continues,

“— How is it, there have been many heathen, and none of them asked these questions: and among the philosophers there were these (differences), and yet none of those holding the right party (αἵρεσιν) was hindered (thereby)?— Why did not (those believers) say, when (the others) raised these questions, Both these and those are Jews: which must we believe? But they believed as they ought.”

Once again the same problems of sects within Judaism or pagan philosophy were present, but there were those who believed rightly, and others who did not. I’m assuming he’s referring to Jews who were faithful prior to the coming of Christ, and pagans who grasped after God more resolutely than others prior to the Advent.

And here he ends his homily,

“Then let us also obey the laws of God, and do all things according to His good pleasure, that having virtuously passed this life present, we may be enabled to attain unto the good things promised to them that love Him, by the grace and mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ, with Whom to the Father and the Holy Ghost together, be glory, dominion, honor, now and ever, world without end. Amen.”

Perhaps this is an unsatisfying answer to some. But Chrysostom does not make an appeal to a Magisterium or Tradition, but simply to obeying God, much like the Quoheleth of Ecclesiastes. And that by the grace and mercy of Christ we may attain the good things promised to those who love Him.

I love this because of it’s simplicity and insistence that each man must search after God using his own faculties of reason and judgment, not apart from the people of God, but in the chaos of the people of God. He appeals to the Scriptures as being simple and true. This in conjunction with his other statements, many of which I did not mention here, all sound very Protestant to me, or very small c catholic.