The Church Fathers' Support of Sola Scriptura

#Scripture #Protestant #Catholic #Faith #Christianity #Authority #Fathers

Swiss Protestant Reformer Heinrich Bullinger (1504–1575)

It is not uncommon on social media nowadays to find attacks on Protestants from Roman Catholic apologists. Certainly some criticisms, especially of some of the practices and representatives of contemporary American evangelicalism, are warranted. However, the attacks inevitably fall short when they are leveled against the two foundational pillars of Protestantism, Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide — that Holy Scripture is the sole authority and sufficient for all matters of Christian faith and practice and, grounded in that truth, that justification is by faith alone, apart from all works.

One form of such an attack is the mocking of Protestants for allegedly being ignorant of the Church Fathers. While the Church Fathers are not considered infallible by the Roman Catholic Church, a certain measure of authority is attributed to them, as part of Roman Catholicism's view that Scripture plus Tradition, together infallibly interpreted by its Magisterium, are what's authoritative for matters of faith and practice. While Roman Catholicism holds the Bible to be holy, it does not believe that the Bible is sufficient as an authoritative source of truth for the church. Since the Roman Catholic Magisterium ultimately decides for Roman Catholics what the Bible and church Tradition teach, the authority of the Roman Catholic Church could be fairly characterized as Sola Roma. In any case, a Roman Catholic apologist sees ignorance of the Church Fathers as an impoverishment of understanding Christian truth.

As one example of this type of attack, Patrick Neve, host of a comedy podcast for young Roman Catholics, somewhat tongue-in-cheek, posted on X not too long ago, "Protestants be like 'yeah I've read the Church Fathers." Below the post are photos of Joel Osteen, C.S. Lewis, Billy Graham, and Dave Ramsey.

The biting humor of the post does (unfortunately) hit its mark with contemporary evangelicalism, which largely lacks a sense of history beyond the the middle of the 20th century and seems more focused on charismatic personalities, celebrities and influencers, gurus who claim to show the way to a better life in this world, and Christian entertainers than even on the teaching of Scripture itself. The Protestant Church could certainly benefit from more attention to the writings of great teachers of the past from the time of the early Church Fathers through the time of the Protestant Reformation and into the 20th century. However, implicit in Mr. Neve's criticism is the underlying notion that the Church Fathers are integral to the proper authority of the church for matters related to faith and practice.

What Roman Catholic apologists like Mr. Neve doubtless miss is the fact that all the major Protestant reformers were extremely well read in and influenced by the early Church Fathers, and that this significantly contributed to the Protestant Reformation. How so? The answer is exemplified in the experience of the great Swiss reformer Heinrich Bullinger (1504–1575), who, though not well known by most English-speaking Christians, has been called "the common shepherd of all Christian churches."

Prior to entering the University of Cologne in 1519, Bullinger's ambition was to become a Carthusian monk. Awakened to the private study of theology (while earning his MA) by the controversy surrounding Martin Luther, he discovered in reading the works of early Church Fathers such as Augustine and Chrysostom that they appealed exclusively to Scripture in support of their theological propositions and in defense of the Christian faith. This led Bullinger to purchase his first New Testament and read it thoroughly. Historian George Ella, in his biography of Bullinger, gives a more detailed account of Bullinger's experience after his interest in theology had been awakened by Luther.

"Bullinger gained access to the local Dominican library which had a good store of works on the Fathers and consulted Peter Lombard and Gratian on them. Studying literally day and night, although it was not in his MA curriculum, Bullinger read as much as he could find on theology. He discovered that the Roman Catholic writers claimed their authority came from the Church Fathers and so he made a careful study of the sermons and expository works of the earliest Christian saints, especially John Chrysostom on Matthew's gospel, Origen, Ambrose and Augustine. He found that they appealed to Scripture, so Bullinger bought his first New Testament and he tells us in his diary account of his conversion that he read it day and night throughout 1521–1522 parallel with Jerome's commentaries. He discovered that not only did the Church Fathers teach in full opposition to Rome's 16th century novelties but that the Scriptures presented the faith and fellowship of Christians in a radically more spiritual and far less legal and 'churchy' manner than Rome. He also discovered that Luther, who was now under the pope's bull Exsurge domine, stood much closer to the Church Fathers than the 12th and 13th century papist scholars he had been studying and who professed to interpret the Church Fathers correctly."

Through the reading of Scripture, while still at the University of Cologne, Heinrich Bullinger came to a living faith in Jesus Christ. He also came to a conviction, from the Scriptures, that the Scriptures are to be, as Ella explains, the "sole guide (Richtschnur) in matters of faith and Christian practice."

If one spends time reading Chrysostom's sermons or Augustine's City of God, one will notice, as Bullinger did, that the only absolute authority appealed to is Sacred Scripture. Even though these two men lived well over three hundred years after the time of the apostles, they make no appeal to any Tradition, much less to a Magisterium. Rather, they always cite the Bible, God's holy, infallible word, as the basis for their teaching and exhortations.

2 Timothy 3:16 reads, "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." The underlying Greek word for "thoroughly equipped" has the meaning of "complete" or "exactly fitted." In other words, nothing more is needed. Scripture, which is God-breathed, and therefore infallible and absolutely authoritative, is sufficient. And we must not forget the closely connected truth, also recovered by the Protestant reformers, that the best interpreter of Scripture is Scripture.

Lauren Boebert: A Case Study in Hypocrisy

Everyone with some kind of understanding of moral truth in the United States knows that the political left-wing represents a danger to the country, to the degree that it militantly and aggressively seeks to inculcate and legislate ideas that undermine and even overturn Biblical moral truth. However, what is perhaps not so clear to those with some kind of understanding of morality, is that the Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement, which originally began at least in part as a reaction to the overreach of the progressive left, has become a danger to this country, and to moral values, in its own right. That is because it is increasingly no longer about a set of policies that political conservatives can rally around, but about absolute allegiance to Donald Trump. Mr. Trump's leadership over MAGA, which now dominates one of the two major parties in the United States, has drawn a new breed of politicians into the Republican Party who have, to varying degrees, behavioral and personality traits similar to their leader. Foremost among these traits are, on the positive side, the ability to entertain on stage and in front of a camera, the ability to draw a crowd and gain a following, and skill in the use of social media; and on the negative side, narcissism, egoism, dishonesty, sexual immorality, shamelessness, contempt for the notion of admitting when one is wrong, anti-intellectualism, and a hero complex. When all or a subset of such traits are coupled with a Christian profession, we get what is perhaps the worst trait of this new breed of MAGA politicians, hypocrisy. Congresswoman Lauren Boebert, who recently won the Republican congressional primary in Colorado's 4th District, is an illustration of this dynamic.

Boebert's political platform has largely consisted of full and unqualified support for Trump, and the twofold claim that she is a Christian and is "fighting" for families with traditional moral values against the immorality of the "radical left." She is touted within MAGA circles as a "conservative firebrand." The woman has spoken at conferences and in churches about Christian values, often quoting the Bible and praying in the name of Jesus. She had someone film her praying a very evangelical sounding prayer out loud in the Capitol rotunda, the footage of which can be found on YouTube. She has shared her "personal testimony" publicly, and has collaborated with Christian musician, political activist, and evangelist Sean Feucht. Boebert has also advocated for the eradication of the separation of church and state, and even for a theocracy. When evangelical Christian Mike Johnson was elected Speaker of the House Boebert managed to position herself front and center, just next to him in a widely distributed photograph. In short, whether or not one agrees that all of her behavior and views (e.g., the idea that America should be a theocracy) are consistent with the teaching of Scripture, she appears on the surface to be an evangelical Christian. What's the problem?

One incident, which occurred in September 2023, sheds significant light on the real character of Lauren Boebert. I am referring to her being asked to leave a Denver theater midway through a performance, which made national news. The details of the incident not only reveal a radical inconsistency between this woman's profession of Christian faith and her character, but also serve as an example of how bad this nation's political leaders have become. It can be safely said that Boebert's behavior in that theater was not only inconsistent, on multiple levels, with her Christian profession, but also worse than 98% of the population. Don't believe me, or think I'm being too harsh with that latter assertion? Think of the number of times you have been to a theater or show. How many times have you seen someone escorted out of a show for disruptive behavior? Divide that by the estimated collective total number of people with whom you have attended theater or show performances. Perhaps it's just my experience, and I realize this point is anecdotal, but such an occurrence is quite rare. Yet on the occasion we are speaking of, a United States Congresswoman was escorted out of a Denver theater for inappropriate behavior. Members of Congress should theoretically be more upstanding than the average citizen, not more incorrigible. Depraved leaders are a sign of God's judgment on a nation.

Is "depraved" too harsh a word for Boebert? Even if she didn't profess Christian faith, her behavior would be reprehensible, but is it not that much more so in light of her claim to be a woman of faith? Here's what she did. During a showing of Beetlejuice at Denver's Buell Theatre she was creating a disturbance by being loud and, against theater rules, vaping and using her cell phone to record the show. Who does that?! Multiple guests complained and Boebert and her date were given a warning by the theater, but Boebet refused to alter her bad behavior, and defiantly continued to do what she was doing. Leaving the theater no choice, security asked Boebert and her guest to leave. She gave the security guards a hard time, but eventually relented. On her way out of the theater, she apparently gave the middle finger to the security guards and said things like, "Do you know who I am?"

Let it be added that Boebert was attending the show on a Sunday, which is the Lord's Day or the Christian Sabbath; was dressed like a tart, in a low-cut, tight-fitting dress, with half of her cleavage hanging out; and was on a date with a man who owns a bar that has been known to host ungodly events. Needless to say, all of such behavior is directly contrary to a genuine Christian profession. Indeed, is it not rather an example of what would be expected to come from "the children of disobedience" in whom the prince of the power of the air works (Ephesians 2:2)? What is perhaps the worst aspect of Boebert's behavior in the theater is the utter selfishness and disregard (to the point of contempt) for others that she displayed. Here's a question. Can we expect someone with such an attitude to use political office to serve the public or to serve herself?

When news of Boebert's ejection from the theater first got out to the public, but before Boebert knew that the whole incident had been captured on video, Boebert quickly attempted to do damage control. She went on the One America News Network (OAN) and chalked the incident up to her being "a little too eccentric" and being overly boisterous in enjoying the show. She also had an official spokesperson deny that she was vaping, and she tweeted to her followers on X, "It's true, I did thoroughly enjoy the AMAZING Beetlejuice at the Buell Theater and I plead guilty to laughing and singing too loud!" In other words, she lied and remained completely unrepentant. No apparent shame or humility from the experience anywhere in sight. Watch the OAN video clip and note what she said as well as her demeanor. If video footage of her behavior in the theater had not subsequently emerged, one would have been left with the impression that she's just a very enthusiastic, impassioned person, who let her exuberance get the better of her, and that the radical left was simply trying to sieze on this situation to smear her.

Release of the video footage in the theater, however, showed not only that she was in fact vaping and using her cell phone during the show, but that she and her date were groping each other sexually during the performance. It shows her being asked by a woman behind her to stop her highly disruptive behavior, and her impudently ignoring the request. It shows her defiant and obnoxious departure from the theater. Again, Lauren Boebert behaved worse than 98% of Americans (and this is being generous) that night in the theater. Moreover, she brazenly lied about the incident on OAN to a national audience only days later. The Bible says some very strong things about unrepentant liars. Note, for example, Revelation 21:8, which says that "all liars" will have their place in the lake of fire. Lying is a serious and grave sin.

When the video footage came out, and Boebert was cornered, she went on Fox News to tell everyone she "messed up." What else could she possibly do at that point? Even then, she didn't fess up to all of her bad behavior during the incident, nor did she apologize for misrepresenting the incident on national cable television earlier in the week, before she knew that all of it had been captured on video. There is even a note of her playing the victim in the Fox News appearance, suggesting that it was somehow a violation of her rights for her behavior to have been caught on video.

This story has been detailed six ways to Sunday by news and social media outlets, so what's the point of recounting it here? This woman seems to be a quintessential example of a spiritually dangerous dynamic taking place within the context of the ever-evolving MAGA movement. As Christian profession somehow gets mixed together with political activism, we have the emergence of wolves in sheeps clothing in the political sphere, who make use of Christianity for selfish and worldly ends.

The danger is twofold.

1) As political figures like Boebert very publicly live lives characterized by "taking God's name in vain" the world is turned off to what it thinks is Christianity. Certainly, the extreme antinomian behavior of Boebert is the opposite of "letting your light shine" before a fallen world, but the world does not know that. It sees a woman regularly touting family and traditional Christian values, quoting the Bible, and even praying, while living a life characterized by deceit and an almost utter lack of integrity. Since she confidently claims to be a representative of Christianity, and gets away with her egregious behavior within conservative and evangelical circles, being recently given another opportunity to remain in Congress by so-called conservative voters, for example, what is the world to think?

2) The behavior of political and media figures like Boebert is bound to have a deleterious effect on the visible Christian church. If her claim to be a Christian is uncritically accepted, and people like her are even considered to be heroes for the good within today's society, the doctrinal and behavioral standards within the church are bound to deteriorate further. The message of the Lauren Boeberts of the world to the church today seems to be, "it's ok to live any way you want and to have no shame about any of it, as long as you continue to boldly and confidently confess the name of Christ and fight against the radical left." Needless to say, this is not Biblical Christianity but rather a blasphemous counterfeit. True faith in Jesus Christ will produce love, a fear of God, and good works. True faith trembles at God's word (Isaiah 66:2). Believers are saved by faith alone, but not by a faith that is alone. You will know them by their fruit.

As harmful and wicked as the ideology of the godless progressive left is, the church needs to be warned of the serious danger now coming from within the MAGA-wing of the Republican Party — from people who use Christianity as a tool for political activism and to build their own personal platform, following, power, and wealth. Such people may even enunciate the words "Christ is king," which has been trending on X of late, but are preaching a different Jesus and a different Gospel. May God protect his true church from this new form of attack!

Jesus Was Raised Because of Our Justification

#Easter2024 #Resurrection #Christianity #Bible #Romans #Salvation

Excerpted from Frederic Godet's Commentary on Romans*

"Who was delivered on account of our sins and was raised again on account of our justification" (Romans 4:25).

In the title our Lord there was involved the idea of a very intimate relation between Jesus and us. This mysterious and gracious solidarity is summed up in two symmetrical clauses, which in a few clear and definite terms present its two main aspects.

He was delivered on account of our offenses (Romans 4:25a). Perhaps Paul intends in the phrase being delivered to remind us of the description of the servant of Jehovah in Isaiah 53: "His soul was delivered (παρεδόθη) to death" (verse 12). He who delivers him, according to Romans 8:32, is God himself, "who spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all." Paul has told us, in Romans 3:25, for what end this act was necessary. It was required to manifest conspicuously the righteousness of God. Every sinner needed to be brought to say: "See what I deserve!" Thus justice was satisfied and pardon possible.

And he was raised again on account of our justification (Romans 4:25b). Commentators are unanimous, if I mistake not, in translating: for our justification, as if it were πρός or εἰς, and not διά (on account of). This for is explained in the sense that the resurrection of Christ was needed in order that faith might be able to appropriate the expiation which was accomplished, and that so justification, of which faith is the condition, might take place. But what a roundabout way of arriving at the explanation of this for! And if the apostle really meant for (with a view to), why repeat this same preposition διά which he had just used in the parallel proposition, in its natural sense of on account of, while the language supplied him with prepositions appropriate to the exact expression of his thought (πρός, εἰς; see Romans 3:25, 26)? I am not surprised that in this way several commentators have found in this symmetry established between the facts of salvation nothing more than an artificial distribution, belonging to the domain of rhetoric rather than to that of dogmatics, and that one has even gone the length of reproaching the apostle "for sacrificing to the mania of parallelism." If we were shut up to the explanation referred to, we could only join regretfully in this judgment. But it is not so.

Let us take διά in its natural sense, as we are bound to do by its use in the first proposition. In the same way as Jesus died because of our offenses, that is, our (merited) condemnation, He was raised because of our (accomplished) justification. Our sin had killed him; our justification raised him again. How so? The expiation of our trespasses once accomplished by his death, and the right of God's justice solemnly demonstrated, God could pronounce the collective acquittal of future believers, and he did so. Over the blood of the sacrifice a sentence of justification was pronounced in favor of guilty man; his condemnation was annulled. Now, in view of this divine fact, a corresponding change must necessarily be wrought in the person of Christ himself. By the same law of solidarity whereby our condemnation had brought him to the cross, our justification must transform his death into life. When the debtor is proved insolvent, his security is thrown into prison; but as soon as the latter succeeds in clearing the debt, the debtor is legally set free, and his security is liberated with him. For he has no debt of his own.

Such is the bond of solidarity formed by the plan of God between Christ and us. Our lot is as it were interwoven with his: we sin, he dies; we are justified, he lives again. This is the key to the declaration, "If Christ is not risen, you are still in your sins" (1 Corinthians 15:17). So long as the security is in prison, the debt is not paid; the immediate effect of payment would be his liberation. Similarly, if Jesus were not raised, we should be more than [merely] ignorant whether our debt were paid; we might be certain that it was not. His resurrection is the proof of our justification only because it is the necessary effect of it. Therefore, Paul had to use διά, on account of, and not εἰς, with a view to. If in the death of Christ humanity disappeared condemned, in the rising of Christ it reappears absolved.

*This exposition of Romans 4:25 is from the first edition of Frederic Godet's (1812-1900) Commentary on Romans (1879 in French, 1883 in English).