Evangelicals and Tradition: The Canon of the Faith

Greek Evangelical Church, Nicosia

Last Saturday morning, with the able help of a volunteer from the Greek Evangelical Church, I gave a seminar on ‘Evangelicals and Tradition.’ What I hope from this seminar is for evangelicals to be less … wary? afraid? of tradition but to develop the necessary skills of discernment to judge which parts of it are good, which are bad, and which are … adiaphora. Marginal. Not worth fussing over every time you meet an Orthodox or Roman Catholic Christian.

Following D H Williams’ lead in the very good book Evangelicals and Tradition: The Formative Influences of the Early Church, I started us off with a discussion of the history and usefulness of the Canon of the Faith, beginning briefly with the Apostles’ Creed as a summary of the Gospel that we, as evangelicals, claim to be attached to so fiercely. Then I gave a wee history of such things, starting with Justin’s proclamation at his martyrdom in the mid-100s and Irenaios’ ‘Rule of Faith’ of the late 100s, then moving on to baptismal creeds such as the Dêr Balyzeh Papyrus of the early 100s and Hippolytos of the early 200s:

When each of them to be baptized has gone down into the water, the one baptizing shall lay hands on each of them, asking, “Do you believe in God the Father Almighty?” 13And the one being baptized shall answer, “I believe.” 14He shall then baptize each of them once, laying his hand upon each of their heads. 15Then he shall ask, “Do you believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who was born of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and died, and rose on the third day living from the dead, and ascended into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of the Father, the one coming to judge the living and the dead?”  16When each has answered, “I believe,” he shall baptize a second time.

17Then he shall ask, “Do you believe in the Holy Spirit and the Holy Church and the resurrection of the flesh?” 18Then each being baptized shall answer, “I believe.” And thus let him baptize the third time. 19Afterward, when they have come up out of the water, they shall be anointed by the elder with the Oil of Thanksgiving, saying, “I anoint you with holy oil in the name of Jesus Christ.” 20Then, drying themselves, they shall dress and afterwards gather in the church. (From an online translation of Hippolytos.)

This led to a fruitful, I believe, discussion of how similar Hippolytos’ baptismal ceremony is the Orthodox ceremony — triple immersion and anointing with oil! I said that the Orthodox got this from the ancient days; it is a tradition that they have maintained since the earliest days of the Church. Perhaps one evangelical-Orthodox wall was weakened by that realisation.

From there, I brought forth the Nicene and Constantinopolitan Creeds of 325 and 381. The complaint could be made that the statements of 325 and 381 use non-biblical language, and that the Bible already teaches all of these things. However, as with Irenaios vs Gnostics who used Christian Scripture, so also in the battle against those who denied the divinity of Jesus. The argument was not over what was Scripture but how we understand it; so the Church came up with an interpretative lens, almost as old as the apostles themselves, drawn from Scriptural ideas and truths but using the language of Greek philosophy, to state unequivocally what the Scriptural and Traditional teachings about Jesus are.

And at the complaint that the Eastern Orthodox believe these creeds more than the Bible, I must protest. These creeds are but summaries of Gospel truth, created to meet a need that the Church had at that time. It is impossible to believe them more than the Bible. Ioannis Kassianos, a Romanian monk who lived for a time in Bethlehem then Egypt before settling in Marseilles, wrote this in the early 400s:

There is nothing wanting then in the Creed; because it was formed from the Scriptures of God by the apostles of God, it has in it all the authority it can possibly have, whether of men or of God. (De Inc. 6.4, NPNF trans.)

Another complaint I know of is that encapsulating the Gospel in such statements takes the life from it. This is a possibility—but it is a possibility even with the writings of Scripture, depending on how we use them. I prefer to view these statements of the centre of Christian tradition as fences or the boundaries of a playing field. We can say things they do not say, but if we say things that are counter to them, we find ourselves standing outside of the biblical, apostolic tradition that the Church has handed down to us as encapsulated in these creeds.

The purpose of all of this was to show how unchanging the central core of Christian tradition was throughout the ancient church, and how it is important for us today. Furthermore, when we go back to Irenaios, we see the importance of a central, unwritten Apostolic tradition that exists in tandem with the Scriptures, because the Gnostics, using the same Scriptures, claimed that their interpretation was the right one, and their unwritten tradition the true one. So what are we to do? Recourse to the Scriptures alone cannot save us when they, too, are using the Scriptures.

When most evangelicals think of tradition, we think of these ‘unwritten’ aspects of Christianity, we think of accretions adding up over time, we think of bishops, priests, and deacons, we think of saints and theologians, we think of stained glass, of Gothic architecture and Byzantine domes. In a very large, encompassing vision of tradition, these things are all part of tradition.

But what I hope to have shown here today is a core of tradition that remains very little modified over the centuries—that creed of 381 just discussed and on your handout is believed and affirmed by Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopian, and Syrian Orthodox, the Church of the East from Iran to China and India, Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians, the Dutch Christian Reformed, and the Nicosia International Church. Here is an aspect of tradition that we affirm today which was affirmed long ago by the Christians of the later Roman Empire.

If we want to get involved with ancient Christians, we must take the long view of Christian history. And in taking this long view, the question that arises is whether any given development is faithful to Gospel belief and Gospel living—to the Tradition as discussed above and enshrined in the Bible, as we’ll see in my next talk.

The Christians before the year 500 determined that Gnosticism, Monarchianism, Arianism in its various forms, Pneumatomachianism, Pelagianism, Nestorianism, Manichaeism, Eutychianism, certain strains of Origen’s thought, and many others were deviations from the truth handed down from the apostles, the paradosis, tradition in its truest sense. And we today owe much to this ancient tradition.


6 thoughts on “Evangelicals and Tradition: The Canon of the Faith

  1. Interested to your comments via an Orthodox leader (now resigned from his previous post, but still teaching etc…) to the ANCA here about what is happening in the church:


    I’m trying to organize my thoughts on how the classic Christian consensus of the first few hundred years (I’m willing to go up to John Damascene, Bede, and 787), can be a rallying point for Roman Catholics, Orthodox, and faithful Protestants/Evangelicals, given what the Metropolitan is talking about here. The “great realignment” sounds about right…

    I appreciate what you are doing here in regards to trying to reach those who are inherently suspicious of anything traditional.

  2. “Recourse to the Scriptures alone cannot save us when they, too, are using the Scriptures.” MJ, I greatly appreciate your vast learning (in one so young!), and passion for the gospel; for breaking down walls of (mis)understanding… not to mention how good you look in a kilt, and so many other wonderful things about you. But this statement gave my essentially reformed soul a mild case of the heeby-jeebies. I understand your purpose is to give a context for why and how reverence for the tradition developed; but surely the point is that Christ, Paul and the apostles understood the scriptures correctly (with the aid of the Spirit); and that this can be shown and supported from the scriptures themselves. The gnostics and other heretics I think by definiton can be shown to be misunderstanding scripture from the scripture itself. Am I understanding you correctly that “sola scriptura” is not part of your theological framework?

    • I can’t speak for M, but sola scriptura really needs to be defined, since what Lutherans and Anglicans mean by Sola Scriptura is very different than what a fundamental Baptist means. If by sola scriptura we mean a final/ultimate arbitrator, than I agree. If by sola scriptura we mean every individual interprets scripture in a vacuum and that we ignore the Spirit-filled church throughout history interpreting the scriptures and summarizing them in the consensual fathers, creeds, and councils, than I am against. This Scripture against tradition view, or me and my Bible alone view, is really nuda scriptura, and not what the magisterial reformers meant.

      • The question involves interpretation, not authority. Luther himself acknowledged other authorities in his famous “here I stand” speech, just different levels of authority.

    • Hey Jono,

      Although I may not be quite as Reformed as you, I still (after all these years) subscribe to the 39 Articles, and they say that ‘Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation (etc)’. The question is, who is the arbiter of Scriptural truth — how do we decide when there are divergent, incommensurable interpretations over issues that really matter? Irenaeus, in Bk 3, primarily uses the logic of the Scriptures to undermine the Gnostics; but throughout, he is also using multiple references to the Canon of the Faith. This is the central tradition, and it is largely a summary of Scriptural teaching.

      What I meant to say in Cyprus but didn’t was that this aspect of the unwritten tradition is as old as the New Testament; in an age when the canon was unfixed, this Canon of the Faith worked alongside agreed Scriptures as the arbiter of sound teaching. So, when someone starts reading the Gospel of Peter, at first the bishop is okay with that, although it’s ultimately destined to be uncanonical — until he reads the thing, and sees that it does not accord with the Canon of the Faith.

      Tradition is important if we use it properly in the interpretation of the Scriptures. If there is a teaching or practice not recorded in Scripture, it can be commended as beneficial but not as necessary. So, for example, I think keeping everything from ‘Lift up your hearts’ to the receiving of communion is an important part of tradition — but I cannot say that the Eucharist is invalid where people don’t say ‘Lift up your hearts.’ Does that make sense?

      In sum — tradition is invaluable as an arbiter between divergent opinions, and the core of the tradition is the Canon of the Faith.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.