Ekklesia, Tradition, and a Challenge to Sola Scriptura

   

 Sola Scriptura or "Scripture Alone," either as a doctrine or practice, never existed prior to the Protestant Reformation in the 1500s. In fact, throughout the initial 1500 years of church history, Sola Scriptura did not have any proponents, particularly because it was never seriously considered.  The formalized doctrine of Sola Scriptura, emphasizing the exclusive authority of the Bible for matters of faith and practice, emerged during the 16th-century Protestant Reformation. While early church fathers often emphasized the ultimate authority of Scripture, the specific formulation of Sola Scriptura as a doctrine took shape much later in history.

    And necessarily so. The idea that those who directly interacted with the apostles, such as Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, and Polycarp of Smyrna, would discard their firsthand experiences from months or years of discipleship in favor of a few written letters seems implausible. These early disciples had the unique advantage of personal, prolonged exposure to the apostolic teachings, and with the apostles, used them to lay the foundations of the apostolic churches. The notion that they would abruptly abandon these oral teachings for an exclusive reliance on written texts appears incongruent with historical context. Instead, the rise of Sola Scriptura as a doctrine for the church is necessarily a later theological development that arose as a response to changing circumstances, rather than a natural outgrowth of the early Christian experience.

    A fact frequently missed by advocates of Sola Scriptura is that the Church herself, with the apostles as members, birthed the Scriptures through the leading of the Holy Spirit ,and reverently preserved them through the millennia. The Scripture did not create the Church, the Church created the Scripture. The Church predates Scripture.

Scripture Alone is Not in Scripture

    Oddly enough, the idea of Scripture Alone is not found in Scripture itself either - which suggests those who believe in Sola Scriptura must begin by adhering to a foundational doctrine that is not in their ultimate authority, contradicting the principle itself. Sola Scriptura is therefore, itself, a pious tradition rooted in the Reformation. In fact, if anything, the Scripture supports the idea that the Scripture does not contain all things, and a holy tradition must be guarded as well.

"So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter." - 2 Thess. 2:15 ESV

    Within the basic framework of Sola Scriptura, here is a difficulty. The Bible itself tells believers to hold onto traditions from the apostles (2 Thessalonians 2:15). So, when practicing Sola Scriptura, one will follow Scripture and obey this command by recognizing and practicing traditions alongside the Bible. This creates a paradox – obeying the Bible's command to follow traditions challenges the idea of relying exclusively on the Bible, creating a contradiction within Sola Scriptura. To adhere to Sola Scriptura, one must either not obey the Bible, or undermine the logic of their own doctrine.

    Nevertheless, there are numerous traditions that Protestants take completely for granted that are also found no where in Scripture. For example: 

• The Scripture does not tell you what the books of Scripture are. The actual Canon of Scripture we have are received are by the tradition of the church.

• Certain doctrines, like the Divinity of Christ, are the received understanding of the testimony of Scripture.

    Some Protestants take a more nuanced definition of Sola Scriptura saying Scripture is the "only infallible rule of faith" rather than the more vague "Scripture Alone." Yet, if there is no other infallible rule of faith like Holy Tradition, then the Canon of Scripture, a tradition that we received, is itself only fallible and cannot be assuredly known to be true. How can you believe Scripture Alone, and not know definitively what the Scripture is? Therefore, under Sola Scriptura, the canon of Scripture is malleable and books can be included or excluded based on theological preference.

    Furthermore, if the traditional understanding of the Scripture on the Divinity of Christ is not authoritative and infallible as a rule of faith, then this interpretation becomes a matter of opinion and private interpretation, and ultimately, any Christology becomes equally viable. 

Sola Scriptura Leads to Private Interpretation

"Knowing this first, that no prophecy of scripture is of any private interpretation." - 2 Pet.1:20

    The verse suggests that relying solely on individual understanding is problematic due to the inherent fallibility of human interpretation. Personal biases, cultural context, and theological predispositions can influence the interpretation of scripture, introducing the potential for diverse and conflicting understandings. Depending solely on individual interpretation, as proposed by Sola Scriptura, will lead to doctrinal divisions and theological fragmentation within the Christian community, as is demonstrated within the Protestant movement. For those that would contend that the Holy Spirit will be their guide, the body of evidence suggests that diversity of understanding is the norm rather than the exception.     Therefore, the interpretation of Scripture should be approached within the broader context of the Christian community's shared understanding and tradition, acknowledging the fallibility of individual interpretation.

How Did the Early Church Fathers Use Apostolic Tradition?

    An interesting fact about the earliest church fathers is that when confronted by an erroneous interpretation of Scripture, they frequently did not battle verse for verse against the heretics. They recognized that anyone can twist the scriptures to make them say anything they desire. Instead, they appealed to the teachings within the apostolic churches. What did they believe in Ephesus? What did they believe in Rome? What did they believe in Antioch? What of Thessalonica? Since the apostolic teaching was consistent throughout the world, recognizing that churches a thousand miles away from each other, yet maintaining consistent teachings that were sourced from the apostles gave pedigree and apostolic authority to those interpretations.

    St. Vincent of Lerins summed up Holy Tradition in 434 AD as, "That which has been believed always, everywhere, by everyone," emphasizing the importance of teachings that are consistent across time, space, and among the entire body of believers.

    Tertullian relates the concept perfectly:

"No other teaching will have the right of being received as apostolic than that which is at the present day proclaimed in the churches of apostolic foundation... If that [doctrine] has existed from the beginning which has the apostles for its authors, then it will certainly be quite evident that the doctrine which came down from the apostles is that which has been kept as a sacred deposit in the churches of the apostles." -Tertullian, 207 AD

    Elsewhere, Tertullian explains how heretics misuse and abuse Scripture, the same as today:

"This heresy... does not accept certain Scriptures. And those Scriptures it does receive, it perverts by means of additions and diminutions. It does this to accomplish its own purpose. And such Scriptures it does receive, it does not receive in their entirety. But even when it does receive any Scripture up to a certain point as entire, it nevertheless perverts even them by the contrivance of diverse interpretations. Truth is just as much opposed by an adulteration of its meaning as it is by a corruption of its text.

Consequences of Sola Scriptura 

    However, for those who advocate Sola Scriptura, there can be no appeal to tradition to fully justify their interpretation. Their understanding of the Divinity of Christ, for example, is on equal footing with those who deny it because tradition is not an infallible rule of faith. Theological disputes become an unwinnable battle of opinion and interpretation.

    Even if tradition is considered useful, if its not an infallible rule of faith, one cannot know when it can be trusted and when it cannot. Even if Protestants borrow from it when its convenient, [ie, Canon, Trinity] it is not authoritative, but mere preference. Everything devolves into a matter of opinion, or "private interpretation." For this reason, the Protestant Reformation has become the greatest engine of heresy in the history of the church, as evidenced by the thousands of denominations, and many unique cults like the Jehovah's Witnesses and Latter-Day Saints [Mormons] that now exist, but never would have otherwise.

    Sola Scriptura advocates for the use of Scripture as a rule of faith based on what is says, but that is not sufficient for the believer, because one also has the need to know what it means. But, meaning can be completely subjective. The Scripture alone can tell us what it says, but only tradition can tell us how it ought to be understood. Without this, the interpretive imagination of individuals has no limit.  

Tradition is Inevitable

    In critiquing the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, it becomes evident that while Protestants profess to adhere solely to the authority of Scripture, the reality is far more nuanced. The assertion that "tradition is inevitable" rings true within the Protestant framework, as despite the rejection of historical church traditions, new traditions have emerged since the Protestant Reformation. While ostensibly advocating for a return to the primacy of Scripture, Protestants have developed their own set of traditions, which they often hold with the same level of authority as non-Protestants uphold the historical traditions of the early church. These post-Reformation traditions, whether in worship practices, theological interpretations, or ecclesiastical structures, serve as guiding principles and authoritative sources within Protestant communities, effectively replacing the traditional practices and beliefs of pre-Reformation Christianity. Thus, while Sola Scriptura may seek to prioritize the Bible as the sole source of authority, the reality is that Protestantism has not escaped the inevitability of tradition but has rather replaced one set of traditions with another. Yet many of these new traditions have grounding in historic Christianity.

    Additionally, to truly adhere to Sola Scriptura and not regard any tradition as authoritative, each generation would need to discard the traditions that have developed over time. This would be necessary to maintain a commitment to the primacy of Scripture alone as the ultimate authority in matters of faith and practice. In essence, adherents of Sola Scriptura would need to continually return to the text of the Bible, interpreting it afresh without being bound by the accumulated traditions of previous generations.

    However, in practice, this approach would be challenging, if not impossible, as human beings are inherently influenced by the traditions and interpretations that have shaped their understanding of Scripture. Moreover, traditions often serve as important guides and markers of identity within religious communities, providing stability and continuity across generations. Again, tradition is both inevitable, necessary, and is viewed as naturally authoritative by the community that receives it. This is precisely what we see in Protestantism - repudiating the authority of tradition, while authoritatively upholding tradition at the same time (both Protestant distinctive interpretations, like the Eucharist, Baptismal regeneration, but also historic Christian traditions like the Trinity and the Canon).

The Use of 'Ekklesia' as an Indication of the Role of the Church

Matthew 16:18 (ESV): "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

    When Jesus Christ himself instituted the Church, He used the word, 'Ekklesia' - a word that had a long pre-Christian usage in the Greek language. This was not accidental, but was a deliberate choice in wording used by the gospel writers. This word was already understood within its proper context by those that heard it.

    In the times before Christ, the Greeks utilized a confederation of independent City-States, each called a "Polis." Polis is where we get our words like Policy, and Politics. Within the Polis, the governing body, for example in Athens, was a democratic institution called the Ekklesia, which was part of the governing body of the Polis.

    The Ekklesia was composed of free, land owning men who each had voting rights on the administration of the Polis. The Ekklesia has baked within it a concept of decision making and self-determination, policy, and politics.

    Jesus Christ connects his Ekklesia as the governing authority of the Kingdom of God on earth. In doing so, He is granting decision -making authority to His Ekklesia to settle issues, determine right doctrine, uproot heresy, and discipline the citizens of His Kingdom. All of this, with the promise that the Holy Spirit would guide the people of God and lead them into all truth (John 16:12-13). Therefore, this even encompasses not only the initial apostolic deposit, but even the overall direction of the Church over time.

    It should be noted that the Ekklesia did not have a singular figurehead as part of its governance. Therefore, a position like the Pope would not accurately reflect the Greek concept of the Ekklesia. The Ekklesia functioned more by consensus and disputation as seen in Church councils. This was the practice of the entire unified Church, East and West, for 1000 years until the Great Schism of 1054. This model of the Church is still used in Orthodoxy to this day.

    This becomes especially significant when examining the implications for the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura emphasizes the exclusive reliance on Scripture for matters of faith and practice. However, the choice of 'Ekklesia' implies a communal, participatory, and authoritative structure — a departure from an individualistic approach to interpreting Scripture that entrusts this authority and administration to the leadership of the Church as a whole. For this reason, Paul refers to the church as "the pillar and ground of the truth." (1 Tim. 3:15 NKJV)

    Those who do not recognize this role of the Church are not aligned with the historic meaning of the word Ekklesia, nor the intended meaning Jesus used when He chose it.

Implications for the Late Date of Sola Scriptura

    Considering that Sola Scriptura is a Reformation concept that had no previous history in the Church, it is subject to certain historical critiques about doctrinal innovation. This is confirmed again by Tertullian when he said, "[The Church] lays down a rule that this faith has its solemnities appointed by either the Scriptures or the tradition of the forefathers, and that no further addition in the way of observance must be added, because innovation is unlawful.... From here on, in the following principle, we find a presumption of equal force against all heretics whatsoever: The principle is that whatever is first is true. Therefore, that which is later in date is spurious... for truth must precede error." - Tertullian, 213 AD.

    Therefore, simply based on its lateness, it ought to be rejected as innovation.

    

    It should be acknowledged that not all tradition that is handed down is apostolic in nature - that was never the argument. But that which is early and universal can generally be stated to be apostolic by fulfilling the maxim, "that which has been believed everywhere, always, and by all." And this, we are assured, is the deposit of faith which has been guaranteed to be preserved to all mankind by the Holy Spirit.

    "By this [succession], they have handed down that Church which exists in every place and which has come down even unto us. She is guarded and preserved without any forging of Scriptures, by a very complete system of doctrine. She neither receives any addition to, nor does she allow any diminishing of the truths which she believes." - Irenaeus of Lyons, 180 AD.

    "Let the heretics contrive something of the same kind [ie, a list of succession back to the apostles]... However, even if they were to produce such a contrivance, they will not advance even one step. For when their very doctrine is compared with that of the apostles, its own diversity and discrepancy proves that it had neither an apostle nor an apostolic man for its authorship." - Tertullian, 197 AD.

    "Those who seek to set up any new dogma have the habit of very readily perverting into conformity with their own notions any proofs they care to take from the Scriptures.... The apostolic word marks out the case in these words. "If anyone preaches any other gospel to you other than that which you have received, let him be accursed" (Gal. 1:8-9). Consequently, in addition to what has been once committed to us by the apostles, a disciple of Christ should not receive anything new as doctrine." - Disputation of Archelaus and Manes, 320 AD.  

Sola Scriptura - A Doctrine from God, or from Man?

    The question of whether Sola Scriptura is a doctrine from God or from man presents a significant challenge to its validity. If Sola Scriptura is indeed a doctrine from God, since it is absent within Scripture itself, it undermines its own pretext. since it is a foundational, authoritative, doctrine that is discovered from outside revelation. On the other hand, if Sola Scriptura is considered a tradition of man that is authoritative, it begs the question of why one would choose to adhere to it without divine sanction. If a doctrine is merely a human tradition, what justification is there for its adoption as a guiding principle in matters of faith and practice? This dilemma forces a critical examination of the foundation of Sola Scriptura and challenges its proponents to reconcile its purported divine authority with its apparent human origins.

Conclusion

    In summary, the question remains: how can we assuredly discern the authenticity of the gospel message if we do not acknowledge the authority of the received tradition? How do we distinguish what gospel is accursed (Gal. 1:8-9)? Merely asserting the self-evidence of Scripture fails to address the diverse interpretations that have led to the proliferation of cults and heresies. Likewise, claiming to "rightly divide the word" (2 Tim. 2:15) while diverging from the foundational teachings of the early Church falls into the trap of private interpretation.

    Yet, the imagery of the Ekklesia as the "body of Christ," with Christ as its head (Ephesians 1:22-23), offers profound insight. It illustrates Christ's direct and continual guidance of the Church throughout time. As members of this body, we are interconnected and united with Him as the Church (1 Corinthians 12:12-27), and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it (Matt. 16:18), for that would mean prevailing against Christ himself.

    In John 16:12-13, Jesus tells his disciples, "I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come." This indicates that there is a teaching and a fullness that will continue to be communicated to His followers that will not necessarily be written down and will come afterward. Yet, since it is revealed by the Holy Spirit, it is not only true, but it is also authoritative. Since the Church is the repository for these truths, that is why Paul exhorts us to hold fast to the tradition we received, whether in word or in letter (2 Thess. 2:15). This is why, holding the fullness of revelation communicated both while Christ was in the flesh, and also in the revelation of the Holy Spirit afterward, the Church is called the "pillar and ground of truth" (1 Tim. 3:15).

    Thus, the Church stands as the bearer of both truth and tradition, reflecting the eternal will of Christ, who leads and sustains it.