|
|
Journeyman
A Journal for the Inquiring Christian
Vol. 1, No. 3, March 2002
Letter to the Editor
by Tracey Rich
Athanasius and the Self-Evident Nature of Scripture |
While Tim Enloe is correct in his assertion that
Athanasius has shown that Scripture does not teach
Arianism, his thesis relies far too much on the idea
that the self-evident meaning of Scripture was clear
to everyone. His very premise rests upon the already
deduced conclusion.
The point he is not considering in this example is the
fact that the Arians clearly did believe that Arianism
could be found in Scripture. Athanasius admits as much
when speaking of them:
"And however they may write phrases out of the
Scripture, endure not their writings; however they may
speak the language of the orthodox, yet attend not to
what they say; for they speak not with an upright
mind, but putting on such language like sheeps'
clothing, in their hearts they think with Arius, after
the manner of the devil, who is the author of all
heresies. For he too made use of the words of
Scripture, but was put to silence by our Saviour." (Ad
Episcopos Aegypt et Libyae Epistola Encyclica, 8)
Mr. Enloe has fallen into the trap of assuming
Athanasius ascertained the wrongness of Arianism "from
Scripture by normal principles of interpreting written
documents" while, I suppose, assuming that Arius was
unable to follow the normal principles of
interpretation, whatever that means, when he was
reading Scripture. Athanasius clearly felt that Arius
and his lot were dupes of the devil. This may very
well be the case but it is not an explanation of why
Arianism was considered heterodox.
Athanasius felt he had a better explanation of
Scripture than the Arians. The Arians held that they
had a better explanation of Scripture than the
orthodox. Simply arguing for the clarity of Scripture
is clearly not sufficient.
The argument against Arianism was primarily an appeal
to Tradition. Athanasius even mocks the Arians when
they proceed to convene an Arian council with the
words, "Having therefore no reason on their side, but
being in difficulty whichever way they turn, in spite
of their pretences, they have nothing left but to say;
'Forasmuch as we contradict our predecessors, and
transgress the traditions of the Fathers, therefore we
have thought good that a Council should meet...'"
(Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia, Part 1, 7)
He says elsewhere in his second Festal Letter, "But
after him (the devil) and with him are all inventors
of unlawful heresies, who indeed refer to the
Scriptures, but do not hold such opinions as the
saints have handed down, and receiving them as the
traditions of men, err, because they do not rightly
know them nor their power."
Mr. Enloe writes elsewhere, "(I)f Athanasius is clear
about anything it is that Scripture absolutely cannot
be made to teach Arianism - its words are incapable of
the meanings foisted upon them by the Arians." This
very statement can only a priori assume the Tradition
that Athanasius holds. The words of Scripture are
incapable of the meaning foisted upon them by the
Arians when one holds to the Traditions that came from
the Fathers. When one holds to the tradition of Arius
the Arian meaning is clearly capable of being found
within. This should be self-evident.
Athanasius reads Scripture in light of and informed by
Tradition. "(W)e may see easily, if we now consider
the scope of that faith which we Christians hold, and
using it as a rule, apply ourselves, as the Apostle
teaches, to the reading of inspired Scripture. For
Christ's enemies, being ignorant of this scope, have
wandered from the way of truth, and have stumbled on a
stone of stumbling, thinking otherwise than they
should think." Dis. Against Arians 3:28
If nothing else, this one statement makes it
abundantly clear that Athanasius holds the plain
meaning of Scripture can oftentimes only be found when
read in light of Tradition. Mr. Enloe raises the point
that by arguing as such I am introducing an element of
raw skepticism into Christian apologetics. I can only
counter that arguing the obvious does not connote
skepticism.
It is one thing to say that Scripture expresses itself
in "inartificial and simple phrases". It is something
else entirely to repeat this in the face of Arianism
when it is obvious that its proponents do not hold
those passages that deal with the divinity of Christ
to be simply apparent.
While it would fit in with Mr. Enloe's overall thesis
if Augustine, while supposedly speaking of claritas
Scripturae, had solely said that "the man who, being
in error, is ignorant of its incomparable usefulness,
or, being spiritually diseased, is averse to its
healing power".
However, Augustine preceded these remarks with the
following statement:
"Consider, moreover, the style in which Sacred
Scripture is composed, -- how accessible it is to all
men, though its deeper mysteries are penetrable to
very few. The plain truths which it contains it
declares in the artless language of familiar
friendship to the hearts both of the unlearned and of
the learned; but even the truths which it veils in
symbols it does not set forth in stiff and stately
sentences, which a mind somewhat sluggish and
uneducated might shrink from approaching, as a poor
man shrinks from the presence of the rich; but, by the
condescension of its style, it invites all not only to
be fed with the truth which is plain, but also to be
exercised by the truth which is concealed, having both
its simple and in its obscure portions the same
truth."
Augustine is not arguing claritas Scripturae as Mr.
Enloe has defined it, namely, "Scripture is clear on
all matters essential to the Christian faith."
Augustine distinguishes between plain truths and
concealed truths veiled in symbols. There is the
simple and there is the obscure which is penetrable to
very few.
Anyway you want to look at it, what Augustine has
written simply does not meet the standard of claritas
Scripturae. Augustine is not even referring, vaguely
or otherwise, to claritas Scripturae. Mr. Enloe has
read Augustine's statement colored by a pre-existing
belief in claritas Scripturae and has tried, but
failed, to find support within Augustine's words.
Tracey Rich
Beasejour, Manitoba
Canada
|
|