Click to join the conversation with over 500,000 Pentecostal believers and scholars
Click to get our FREE MOBILE APP and stay connected
| PentecostalTheology.com
In chapter 24.1 of his authoritative book on the fourth century Arian Controversy – The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God – Bishop RPC Hanson discusses how the various parties in that controversy used the Bible to defend their positions. He concludes with an overview of the approach to Scripture of these parties.
Hanson begins chapter 24 by saying that, thus far in the book, he had refused to take sides. As shown below, in this chapter he does provide his personal opinion and explains why he accepts the Nicene Creed.
But he is hesitant to take sides because “the subject of the Arian controversy has suffered from a great deal too much partisanship [bias] at the hands of those who have written about it” (page 824). He concludes: “The diatribes of Gwatkin and of Harnack can today be completely ignored” (page 95).
As a 2001 book by Archbishop Rowan Williams (Arius, Heresy & Tradition) shows, given the new information about the fourth-century Arian Controversy that has become readily available during the 20th century, the latest books on this subject paint a very different picture of that Controversy.
The Same Exegetical Assumptions
The first important principle that Hanson mentions is that “all parties to the controversy shared very much the same exegetical assumptions” (RH, 825). For example:
“They all expected to find direct prophecies of Christ in all parts of the Old Testament” (RH, 825).
The key-text, Proverbs 8:22 … was
allowed by everybody to refer to Christ” (RH, 825).
Allegory
With respect to allegory, Hanson says:
“Nobody rejected allegorization altogether” (RH, 828-9).
“But when all is said and done, it must be conceded that the Arians
are less inclined to use allegory than the pro-Nicenes” (RH, 830).
As Hanson notes, the risk of allegory is that “it tends to read meanings into the text which … are simply not present in the text” (RH, 829).
Tradition
Concerning tradition, Hanson notes:
“There is some truth in [the] assertion” that “Arians clung blindly
and woodenly to Scripture whereas the pro-Nicenes were ready to accept
Scripture within the context of tradition and a broad philosophical
outlook” (RH, 827).
This comment reveals something about Hanson’s own hermeneutical preferences. As a bishop in the Church of Ireland, he condones reading Scripture “within the context of tradition.” But, to cling to Scripture as the only basis for doctrine, he rejects as a blind and wooden approach to Scripture.
If we then remove Hanson’s own hermeneutical preferences from the comment above, we see that the Arians clung to Scripture while the pro-Nicenes were ready to accept Scripture within the context of tradition. Hanson explains why the pro-Nicenes appealed to tradition:
“The pro-Nicenes were always a little apprehensive of entering the
ground of Scripture in encounter with the Ariansm ‘because … their
language tended to support the archaising theology of the Arian’. The
pro-Nicenes were in consequence much readier to appeal to tradition.”
(RH, 847)
He also explains what "tradition" means in this context:
"The pro-Nicenes did indeed appeal to ‘the tradition of the Fathers’,
very often meaning the creed N [the Nicene Creed]” (RH, 828)
The pro-Nicene were unable to appeal to ‘tradition’ earlier than the Nicene Creed because the controversy was essentially about the words ousia, homoousios, and hypostasis in the Nicene Creed and, as Hanson states, these were “new terms borrowed from the pagan philosophy” (846) and, therefore, not supported by earlier ‘tradition’.
Sola Scriptura
While the pro-Nicenes appealed to ‘tradition’, the Arians insisted on Scripture as the only norm of faith. For example:
“The pro-Nicenes often remark on the invariable demand of the Arians
for Scriptural proof, and how they accuse the champions of Nicaea of
introducing the non-Scriptural term homoousios into the creed!” (RH,
827)“’We do not call the Holy Spirit God’ says an Arian writer, ‘because
the Bible does not say so, but subservient to God the Father and
obedient in all things to the commands of the Son as the Son is to the
Father.” (RH, 830)Maximinius – a famous later ‘Arian’, “is more explicit: ‘the divine
Scripture does not fare badly in our teaching so that it has to
receive improvement from us.” (RH, 831)
But the pro-Nicenes also at least attempted to find their theology in the Bible:
“The pro-Nicene writers are equally insistent upon the unique
position of Scripture as a norm of faith.” (RH, 827)“A number of passages from pro-Nicene writers can be produced which
make them seem as devout observers of the text of the Bible as any
Arian. … Earnest but futile attempts are made to prove that the Bible
really does use the word ousia or substantia.” (RH, 829)“The pro-Nicenes are at their worst, their most grotesque, when they
try to show that the new terms borrowed from the pagan philosophy of
the day were really to be found in Scripture. The Greek speakers
cannot pretend that ousia appears in either Septuagint or New
Testament, but they rack the Bible to find examples of hypostasis, and
when they find it do their best to make the context appear relevant.”
(846)
Hanson mentions another area in which the pro-Nicenes did their best but failed to reconcile their doctrine with the Bible:
“We have seen several examples of similar
exegetical contortions in the work of Athanasius and Hilary when they
are dealing with the human limitations of Jesus Christ.” (RH, 826)
Hanson concludes:
“The best that can be said for this kind of juggling is that it showed
the almost desperate desire of the theologians to base their doctrine
on Scripture.” (847)The pro-Nicenes attempted “to read their doctrine into the Bible by
hook or by crook” (848).
So, both sides in the Controversy accepted the principle of sola scriptura. Hanson explains:
“In this matter they were of course only reproducing the
presuppositions of all Christians before them, of the writers of the
New Testament itself, of the tradition of Jewish rabbinic piety and
scholarship.” (849)
Sola scriptura, therefore, is one of the principles which all sides of the Controversy inherited and accepted. The difference was that the pro-Nicenes were less successful in showing that their doctrine is Biblical:
“The Arians did certainly tend to regard themselves as the party who
kept to the Bible in contrast to the pro-Nicenes who added to it or
distorted it.” (RH, 830-1)
The Problem
Hanson explains what the pro-Nicenes did wrong. He refers to both sides of the Controversy when he says:
“The impression made on a student of the period [Hanson himself] that
the expounders of the text of the Bible are incompetent and
ill-prepared to expound it.” (RH, 848)“It was … the presuppositions with which they approached the Biblical
text that clouded their perceptions.” (RH, 849)“It was … the tendency to treat the Bible … apart from … the
‘oracular’ concept of the nature of the Bible.” (RH, 849)”The very reverence with which they honoured the Bible as a sacred
book stood in the way of their understanding it.” (RH, 849)
The Solution
Hanson also offers a solution:
“The defenders of the creed of Nicaea … were themselves engaged in
forming dogma … pro-Nicenes recognized that in forming their doctrine
of God they could not possibly confine themselves to the words of
Scripture, because the debate was about the meaning of the Bible, and
any attempt to answer this problem in purely Scriptural terms
inevitably leaves still unanswered the question ‘But what does the
Bible mean?’” (848)“If the long and involved dispute
resulted in leading figures like Athanasius to some extent standing
back from the Bible and asking what was its intention, its drift (or
skopos), instead of plunging into a discussion of its details based on
an imperfect understanding of them, this was a gain and not an
unworthy attempt to evade [avoid, dodge] the strict meaning of
Scripture.” (849)
The Question
Following the principles mentioned above, I propose that Christian doctrines may be categorized as follows:
(1) Doctrines that explain the Bible using the Bible’s own words;
(2) Doctrines that use non-Biblical words to describe things stated by
the Bible;(3) Doctrines that say things that are not in the Bible but that do
not necessarily contradict the Bible; and(4) Doctrines that contradict the Bible.
I would assume that scholars would be able to significantly improve on my proposed categories, but if we accept these four, my question is fourfold:
(a) Which of these categories of doctrines would be allowed by the
Protestant principle of sola scriptura?(b) Given the analysis above of the role of Scripture on the
development of the Trinity doctrine, to which category should we
allocate the Nicene Creed?(c) And, consequently, would the Nicene Creed be acceptable within the
principle of sola Scriptura?(d) In another article, Hanson claims that the Trinity doctrine,
although not in the Bible, is the inevitable consequence of other
principles that are in the Bible, namely, of monotheism and the worship
of Jesus. If that is correct, would the Trinity doctrine be acceptable
given the principle of sola scriptura?
