The CFs: SS or STC

[guanophore]

Tertullian answers the objections that the apostles were ignorant of all truth and that they did not transmit all they knew to the churches. This is wrong, he says, because it makes Christ out to be incapable of sending forth men who would be capable of transmitting all that truth. They could not have been ignorant because Christ expounded all things to them in private, told them that they had the privilege of knowing mysteries, and promised the Holy Spirit to them, who would lead them into all the truth. Peter and the other apostles were all given the same truths. The Holy Spirit definitely led them into all the truth, since it says in Acts that He came down.

Well said Koineman.

Now since we are all in agreement that the ECF’s are not necessarily inspired (don’t rank with scripture) what is your opinion about his position here?

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

Fr of Jazz, what do you propose to be the definition for STC?

STC means . . .

God’s word (divine revelation : all that God wanted humanity to have for its salvation) is authoritatively transmitted down through time by the combined and organically-related process of Scripture and Tradition in the Church. They are inseparably linked in the transmission of God’s word.

Scripture is God’s word consigned to writing and it is inspired and in errant.
Because Scripture is a written document it possesses a special dignity given its objective, public character; its permanence and solidity; and, its verifiability.

Tradition in the broadest sense is the transmission in and by the church of the entire reality of the Christian faith (the Word of God) in any form stemming from the apostles and Pentecost.
Tradition in the narrow sense is the transmission of the entire reality of the Christian faith by a mode other than writing, e.g., preaching, teaching, liturgy, social interaction in community.

The Church is the community of believers, the body of Christ, stemming from the apostles and Pentecost and the subject of apostolic Tradition and includes the successors of the apostles as authoritative preachers.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

Christ revealed truth only to the apostles, whom He sent. That truth that they preached must be proven by the very churches that those men founded by preaching the gospel to them, first orally and then through their epistles. Therefore, doctrine that agrees with the churches must be true, and any doctrine that is contrary is false. In summary, Tertullian is saying that a doctrine can be true only if it is in agreement with the doctrine taught in the apostolic churches, since those churches have what the apostles received from Christ.

Good summary.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

Tertullian answers the objections that the apostles were ignorant of all truth and that they did not transmit all they knew to the churches. This is wrong, he says, because it makes Christ out to be incapable of sending forth men who would be capable of transmitting all that truth. They could not have been ignorant because Christ expounded all things to them in private, told them that they had the privilege of knowing mysteries, and promised the Holy Spirit to them, who would lead them into all the truth. Peter and the other apostles were all given the same truths. The Holy Spirit definitely led them into all the truth, since it says in Acts that He came down.

Likewise, agreed.

Keep in mind this whole work is in the form of a legal objection that these heretics cannot admit the Scriptures as evidence for their position (cite them) because they neither possess them nor a right to use them.

He is also, I would argue, implicitly making and argument from antiquity which he will more fully develop elsewhere.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Fr of Jazz:

STC means . . .

God’s word (divine revelation : all that God wanted humanity to have for its salvation) is authoritatively transmitted down through time by the combined and organically-related process of Scripture and Tradition in the Church. They are inseparably linked in the transmission of God’s word.

Or put simply: The Church is the oracle of Divine Revelation.

 

[Koineman]

STC means . . .

God’s word (divine revelation : all that God wanted humanity to have for its salvation) is authoritatively transmitted down through time by the combined and organically-related process of Scripture and Tradition in the Church. They are inseparably linked in the transmission of God’s word.

Scripture is God’s word consigned to writing and it is inspired and in errant.
Because Scripture is a written document it possesses a special dignity given its objective, public character; its permanence and solidity; and, its verifiability.

Tradition in the broadest sense is the transmission in and by the church of the entire reality of the Christian faith (the Word of God) in any form stemming from the apostles and Pentecost.
Tradition in the narrow sense is the transmission of the entire reality of the Christian faith by a mode other than writing, e.g., preaching, teaching, liturgy, social interaction in community.

The Church is the community of believers, the body of Christ, stemming from the apostles and Pentecost and the subject of apostolic Tradition and includes the successors of the apostles as authoritative preachers.

Since you mentioned successors of the apostles, I assume you mean that to include the papacy, right?

 

[Koineman]

Likewise, agreed.

Keep in mind this whole work is in the form of a legal objection that these heretics cannot admit the Scriptures as evidence for their position (cite them) because they neither possess them nor a right to use them.

He is also, I would argue, implicitly making and argument from antiquity which he will more fully develop elsewhere.

Thanks for pointing this out. Your knowledge of the context definitely helps to shed light on his intended meaning.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

Since you mentioned successors of the apostles, I assume you mean that to include the papacy, right?

I was referring to the bishops in general as successors of the apostles.

This would not exclude, of course, the bishop of Rome. And certainly in the fathers the see of Rome as an apostolic church, as consistently orthodox in faith, and as a sign of unity shows up. But the reference is to bishops in general as successors of the apostles.

 

[Koineman]

I was referring to the bishops in general as successors of the apostles.

This would not exclude, of course, the bishop of Rome. And certainly in the fathers the see of Rome as an apostolic church, as consistently orthodox in faith, and as a sign of unity shows up. But the reference is to bishops in general as successors of the apostles.

Okay, thanks for the clarification. More Tertullian to come. I’ve been doing some reading ahead, and it looks like he changes gears to talk about somewhat different topics. I might have to go back earlier in the book to see what comes before the chapters I’ve posted.

 

[adf417]

Got it! Look forward to continuing. Again, thanks for a quality thread!

 

[guanophore]

Since you mentioned successors of the apostles, I assume you mean that to include the papacy, right?

All Bishops are considered successors of the Apostles.

They bear the Apostolic directive:

Titus 2:15 “Declare these things; exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no one look down on you.”

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

For the record, I’m going by the Cambridge Declaration definition. But to your question: In another chapter of this work, which someone else quoted earlier and I plan to quote (I’m not done posting the Tertullian chapters), Tertullian pointed out that churches that cannot produce the roll of their bishops going back to the apostles (IOW, churches that can’t show they are the “offspring” of apostolic churches) can nevertheless still be tested by seeing if their teaching conforms to that of the apostles. In that latter test, it is not a successive line of bishops that is required but adherence to apostolic doctrine.

I think it’s easy for someone to make more out of this as a support of SS than it’s worth. To interpret this in favor of SS would be taking it to be saying simply that preaching the correct interpretation of Scripture, which is the Gospel transmitted to the Apostles and committed to writing, is by itself the source of apostolic authority. However, as you say, the apostolic tradition will only be found in “the Church.” This too could be taken to mean that preaching the Gospel is by itself what defines the Church, which would be an affirmation of SS. A different perspective, and what I think you are saying, is that even when bishops cannot produce a complete line of succession back to the Apostles, it can still be certain that they are successors of the Apostles since, if the doctrine of apostolic succession is the constant tradition of the Church, then it can be sure at any point in time that no one will be allowed to be called a bishop if he is not ordained by a bishop who does have a direct line of succession back to the Apostles, especially since Tertullian was writing only less than two hundred years after the ordination of the Apostles. By this reading, pure doctrine and pure lineage are both necessary for the office of the bishop. But I am saying this without having read the quote in its context (which, I don’t see posted yet). Please correct me if you think I am misrepresenting Tertullian.

 

[Koineman]

Continuing: I skipped a couple chapters as Tertullian was proving that Peter was not superior to Paul, among other things, which I thought are not very relevant to our purpose.

CHAP. XXV.—THE APOSTLES DID NOT KEEP BACK ANY OF THE DEPOSIT OF DOCTRINE WHICH CHRIST HAD ENTRUSTED TO THEM. ST. PAUL OPENLY COMMITTED HIS WHOLE DOCTRINE TO TIMOTHY

But here is, as we have said, the same madness, in their allowing indeed that the apostles were ignorant of nothing, and preached not any (doctrines) which contradicted one another, but at the same time insisting that they did not reveal all to all men, for that they proclaimed some openly and to all the world, whilst they disclosed others (only) in secret and to a few, because Paul addressed even this expression to Timothy: “O Timothy, guard that which is entrusted to thee;” and again: “That good thing which was committed unto thee keep.”2 What is this deposit? Is it so secret as to be supposed to characterize a new doctrine? or is it a part of that charge of which he says, “This charge I commit unto thee, son Timothy?”4 and also of that precept of which he says, “I charge thee in the sight of God, who quickeneth all things, and before Jesus Christ who witnessed a good confession under Pontius Pilate, that thou keep this commandment?” Now, what is (this) commandment, and what is (this) charge? From the preceding and the succeeding contexts, it will be manifest that there is no mysterious6 hint darkly suggested in this expression about (some) far-fetched doctrine, but that a warning is rather given against receiving any other (doctrine) than that which Timothy had heard from himself, as I take it publicly: “Before many witnesses” is his phrase. Now, if they refuse to allow that the church is meant by these “many witnesses,” it matters nothing, since nothing could have been secret which was produced “before many witnesses.” Nor, again, must the circumstance of his having wished him to “commit these things to faithful men, who should be able to teach others also,”9 be construed into a proof of there being some occult gospel. For, when he says “these things,” he refers to the things of which he is writing at the moment. In reference, however, to occult subjects, he would have called them, as being absent, those things, not these things, to one who had a joint knowledge of them with himself.

The heretics were apparently using Paul’s writing to Timothy to keep what was entrusted to him, as support for their claim that the apostles handed on some truths only to a select few. Tertullian refutes this by pointing out that the “deposit” was not secret but was part of the “charge” Paul had committed to Timothy in the presence of many witnesses, which must have been the church.

 

[Koineman]

CHAP. XXVI.—THE APOSTLES DID IN ALL CASES TEACH THE WHOLE TRUTH TO THE WHOLE CHURCH. NO RESERVATION, NOR PARTIAL COMMUNICATION TO FAVOURITE FRIENDS

Besides which, it must have followed, that, for the man to whom he committed the ministration of the gospel, he would add the injunction that it be not ministered in all places, and without respect to persons,12 in accordance with the Lord’s saying, “Not to cast one’s pearls before swine, nor that which is holy unto dogs.” Openly did the Lord speak,14 without any intimation of a hidden mystery. He had Himself commanded that, “whatsoever they had heard in darkness” and in secret, they should “declare in the light and on the house-tops.” He had Himself fore-shown, by means of a parable, that they should not keep back in secret, fruitless of interest,16 a single pound, that is, one word of His. He used Himself to tell them that a candle was not usually “pushed away under a bushel, but placed on a candlestick,” in order to “give light to all who are in the house.” These things the apostles either neglected, or failed to understand, if they fulfilled them not, by concealing any portion of the light, that is, of the word of God and the mystery of Christ. Of no man, I am quite sure, were they afraid,—neither of Jews nor of Gentiles in their violence;18 with all the greater freedom, then, would they certainly preach in the church, who held not their tongue in synagogues and public places. Indeed they would have found it impossible either to convert Jews or to bring in Gentiles, unless they “set forth in order” that which they would have them believe. Much less, when churches were advanced in the faith, would they have withdrawn from them anything for the purpose of committing it separately to some few others. Although, even supposing that among intimate friends,20 so to speak, they did hold certain discussions, yet it is incredible that these could have been such as to bring in some other rule of faith, differing from and contrary to that which they were proclaiming through the Catholic churches,—as if they spoke of one God in the Church, (and) another at home, and described one substance of Christ, publicly, (and) another secretly, and announced one hope of the resurrection before all men, (and) another before the few; although they themselves, in their epistles, besought men that they would all speak one and the same thing, and that there should be no divisions and dissensions in the church,22 seeing that they, whether Paul or others, preached the same things. Moreover, they remembered (the words): “Let your communication be yea, yea; nay, nay; for whatsoever is more than this cometh of evil;” so that they were not to handle the gospel in a diversity of treatment.

Jesus told the apostles to proclaim the truth openly and to hold nothing back, but if they failed to do this, then they either neglected the Lord’s command or did not understand it. That is unlikely, though, since they weren’t afraid of men, no matter how violent they were. Since they were so bold outside the church, they would have been even bolder within the church and thus would not have held anything back. Furthermore, it is unlikely that they would have communicated some truths secretly to a select few because these were the same men who wrote against divisions in the church.

 

[Koineman]

CHAP. XXVII.—GRANTED THAT THE APOSTLES TRANSMITTED THE WHOLE DOCTRINE OF TRUTH, MAY NOT THE CHURCHES HAVE BEEN UNFAITHFUL IN HANDING IT ON? INCONCEIVABLE THAT THIS CAN HAVE BEEN THE CASE
Since, therefore, it is incredible that the apostles were either ignorant of the whole scope of the message which they had to declare, or failed to make known to all men the entire rule of faith, let us see whether, while the apostles proclaimed it, perhaps, simply and fully, the churches, through their own fault, set it forth otherwise than the apostles had done. All these suggestions of distrust3 you may find put forward by the heretics. They bear in mind how the churches were rebuked by the apostle: “O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you?” and, “Ye did run so well; who hath hindered you?”5 and how the epistle actually begins: “I marvel that ye are so soon removed from Him, who hath called you as His own in grace, to another gospel.” That they likewise (remember), what was written to the Corinthians, that they “were yet carnal,” who “required to be fed with milk,” being as yet “unable to bear strong meat;”7 who also “thought that they knew somewhat, whereas they knew not yet anything, as they ought to know.” When they raise the objection that the churches were rebuked, let them suppose that they were also corrected; let them also remember those (churches), concerning whose faith and knowledge and conversation the apostle “rejoices and gives thanks to God,” which nevertheless even at this day, unite with those which were rebuked in the privileges of one and the same institution.

The apostles knew the entirety of the message they were given to preach, and they did not fail to make known the entire rule of faith. But is it possible that the churches somehow failed to teach that truth in the way the apostles had given it to them? These were things the heretics suggested, and they did so on the basis of apostolic rebukes recorded in Scripture, rebukes about being deceived, moving away from the true gospel, being carnal and immature, etc. According to Tertullian, the fact that they were rebuked also means that they were corrected.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

The apostles knew the entirety of the message they were given to preach, and they did not fail to make known the entire rule of faith. But is it possible that the churches somehow failed to teach that truth in the way the apostles had given it to them? These were things the heretics suggested, and they did so on the basis of apostolic rebukes recorded in Scripture, rebukes about being deceived, moving away from the true gospel, being carnal and immature, etc. According to Tertullian, the fact that they were rebuked also means that they were corrected.

Very good summaries. Agreed, we can ordinarily prescind from the subject matter in the text addressing specific heretical teachings.

 

[pablope]

Jesus told the apostles to proclaim the truth openly and to hold nothing back, but if they failed to do this, then they either neglected the Lord’s command or did not understand it. That is unlikely, though,
.

Correct…this is unlikely…remember Pentecost! Jesus said at the comin of the Holy Spirit, all that Jesus taught them, they will know and understand fully.

 

[pablope]

The apostles knew the entirety of the message they were given to preach, and they did not fail to make known the entire rule of faith. But is it possible that the churches somehow failed to teach that truth in the way the apostles had given it to them? .

Perhaps a quote from Clement of Rome’s epistle to corinth:

earlychristianwritings.com/text/1clement-lightfoot.html
1Clem 42:4 So preaching everywhere in country and town, they appointed their firstfruits, when they had proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons unto them that should believe.
1Clem 44:2 For this cause therefore, having received complete foreknowledge, they appointed the aforesaid persons, and afterwards they provided a continuance, that if these should fall asleep,** other approved men should succeed to their ministration.**59:1 But if some should be disobedient to the things spoken by him through us, let them know that they will entangle themselves in no small transgression and danger,

 

[Koineman]

Fr of Jazz, do you want to tie in Tertullian with councils, as you suggested? If not, I’m going to move on to another CF soon. Others, of course, may post texts from Tertullian that are applicable. Or we can discuss Tertullian now that so much of his writing has been posted.

Jeremy

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

Fr of Jazz, do you want to tie in Tertullian with councils, as you suggested? If not, I’m going to move on to another CF soon. Others, of course, may post texts from Tertullian that are applicable. Or we can discuss Tertullian now that so much of his writing has been posted.

Jeremy

Hi Jeremy,
We aren’t really up to the Ecumenical Councils yet. So perhaps let’s hold off for a while.

Chap 32 in Praescriptione is significant because it discusses the bishops as successors in the apostolic churches and communion (i.e., unity in faith and charity) among the churches as tests for orthodoxy. And Chap 37 summarizes his objection to the use of scripture by the heretics.

Also to throw out there, in another work Against Marcian Tertullian further develops the theme of antiquity as a test for orthodoxy.

We must follow, then, the clue of our discussion, meeting every effort of our opponents with reciprocal vigor. I say that my Gospel is the true one; Marcion, that his is. I affirm that Marcion’s Gospel is adulterated; Marcion, that mine is. Now what is to settle the point for us, except it be that principle of time, which rules that the authority lies with that which shall be found to be more ancient; and assumes as an elemental truth, that corruption (of doctrine) belongs to the side which shall be convicted of comparative lateness in its origin.
[Tertullian, *Against Marcian

, IV, 4]

On the whole, then, if that is evidently more true which is earlier, if that is earlier which is from the very beginning, if that is from the beginning which has the apostles for its authors, then it will certainly be quite as evident, that that comes down from the apostles, which has been kept as a sacred deposit in the churches of the apostles. Let us see what milk the Corinthians drank from Paul; to what rule of faith the Galatians were brought for correction; what the Philippians, the Thessalonians, the Ephesians read by it; what utterance also the Romans give, so very near (to the apostles), to whom Peter and Paul conjointly bequeathed the gospel even sealed with their own blood.
We have also the churches fostered by John. For although Marcion rejects his Apocalypse, the orders of the bishops (thereof), when traced up to their origin, will yet rest on John as their author. In the same manner is recognized the excellent source of the other churches. I say, therefore, that in them (and not simply such of them as were founded by apostles, but in all those which are united with them in the fellowship of the mystery of the gospel of Christ that Gospel of Luke which we are defending with all our might has stood its ground from its very first publication; whereas Marcion’s Gospel is not known to most people, and to none whatever is it known without being at the same time condemned.
It too, of course, has its churches, but specially its own–as late as they are spurious; and should you want to know their original, you will more easily discover apostasy in it than apostolicity, with Marcion forsooth as their founder, or someone of Marcion’s swarm. Even wasps make combs; so also these Marcionites make churches. The same authority of the apostolic churches will afford evidence to the other Gospels also, which we possess equally through their means, and according to their usage–I mean the Gospels of John and Matthew–whilst that which Mark published may be affirmed to be Peter’s whose interpreter Mark was. For even Luke’s form of the Gospel men unusually ascribe to Paul.) And it may well seem that the works which disciples publish belong to their masters. . . . Such are the summary arguments which we use, when we take up arms against heretics for the faith of the gospel, maintaining both that order of periods, which rules that a late date is the mark of forgers, and that authority of churches which lends support to the tradition of the apostles; because truth must needs precede the forgery, and proceed straight from those by whom it has been handed on.
[Tertullian, *Against Marcian

, IV, 5]

Certainly with all this data we’re in a good position to discuss Tertullian’s thought. His commonality with Clement of Alexandria and also Irenaeus on this theme are also significant.