Scripture Alone (4 of 5)

Orthodoxy and interpreting Scripture

Not only did the Christian leaders of the first centuries after the Messiah and the Apostles consider that a final collection of set apart writings had to be collected to provide an agreed set of approved writings that were suitable for use as a rule for faith and behaviour. In addition, such approved authoritative writings had to be interpreted and understood correctly. But from the beginning of the ministry of Jesus himself, as well as the Apostles, various interpretations of their teaching were made and came into circulation. At the time of Jesus some thought of him as a Prophet, some as a healer, some as a teacher, and some as the Messiah, whilst others considered him to be a charlatan. Some groups, such as the Christian Gnostics, appropriated the words of Jesus and interpreted his teaching within the already existing Gnostic system of spiritual beliefs. Some Jews regarded Jesus and his followers as forming and belonging to a new Jewish sect, and so they wanted male Gentiles who joined this ‘Jewish sect’ as Christians to be circumcised according to Covenant Law. Thus, from the start, different ideas emerged as to the identity and nature of Jesus, what the resurrection was, and so on. Those who followed the Apostles categorised those who disagreed with the teaching of Jesus and the Apostles as ‘heretics’, and labelled those who abandoned the teaching and practice of Jesus and the Apostles as ‘apostates’.

The Apostles had been appointed and commissioned by Jesus to herald the gospel and so on, and they declared that they were witnesses of the teaching, life, death and resurrection of Jesus and that as such they bore faithful evidential testimony to what they had seen and heard. The exception was Saul/Paul, a Jew and Roman citizen who was called by Jesus to be an Apostle to the Gentiles after Jesus had ascended to the heavenly realm and who thus described himself as ‘one born out of time’. Nevertheless, in due course, he conferred with the other Apostles in Jerusalem so as to ensure that his understanding and teaching was in agreement with theirs, and he received their approval.

When announcing the gospel to Jews, the Apostles either met in the Temple in Jerusalem, or they went to Jewish synagogues to meet with their spiritual-minded countrymen. There they referred to the Hebrew Prophets, Covenant Law, Jewish history and set-apart Hebrew writings in order to demonstrate that Jesus was indeed God’s anointed Messiah whom God had promised to the Jews. But these themes were of little or no relevance to non-Jews or Gentiles. Even so Paul also initially presented the gospel to Jews in synagogues. But he often met with a hostile reaction, and at this point Paul would then make use of his commission to be an Apostle to the Gentiles. In presenting the gospel to Gentiles, Paul did not tend to point Gentiles to the Hebrew set-apart sacred writings. Rather he initially made comments on whatever familiar Gentile religious traditions and customs that he could, and made reference to creation and providence, using all of these as a starting point and ‘springboard’ of commonality from which to announce the gospel or good news of Jesus. What we find in the gospel accounts and the letters of the Apostles is the ‘Apostolic Tradition’ of teaching and practice set down in writing.

Nevertheless, ‘heresies’ and disputes quickly emerged between Christian groups and ‘outsiders’, and also within Christian groups themselves. Could non-Jews or Gentiles be admitted to Christianity that was essentially and initially a Jewish movement? Should male Gentile Christians be circumcised? Were Christians still under Covenant Law? Did Jesus come in the flesh? Was Jesus God? Was the resurrection a physical or a spiritual event? Councils of Christian leaders were convened in order to establish correct and proper perspectives. It was out of such councils that the documents that constitute the Bible were collated and basic creeds or fundamental statements of Apostolic or Christian belief and practice were formulated. In response to such disputes and conflicts, councils like these decided for example that Christian Gnostics were in error, and teaching such as that of the Trinity and the divinity of Jesus were formulated. Such decisions became orthodox belief and practice. In constructing defences against unorthodox teaching and practice, well-meaning Christian leaders began to draw on principles from outside of the Bible documents and Apostolic tradition. Concepts drawn from leading non-Christian philosophers such as Aristotle began to be used to support ‘orthodox’ concepts. Appeals to secular logical thought and reasoning began to be used in defence of orthodox Christianity. Nevertheless, despite these council decisions, different opinions, perspectives and ‘heresies’ were commonplace and appeals to secular philosophies were sometimes misplaced.

If we look at the history of Christianity we see different rules regarding how to interpret Bible documents being used. Some placed great emphasis on allegorical interpretations, whilst others insisted on literal interpretations for example. We see various aspects of thought and practice coming to the fore in societies and cultures at different times, and these currents, trends, human philosophies, movements and counter-movements are sometimes seen to take precedence over Scripture when it comes to understanding God and the unseen spiritual realm. During the so-called ‘Enlightenment’, ‘rational thought’ emerged to the fore to such a degree that ‘rationalists’ divested Scripture writings of their miraculous and supernatural content because miracles are not seen as ‘rational’ and rationality took precedence over Scripture content. Divested of supernatural and miraculous content by ‘rationalist’ interpretation, Jesus came to be understood by ‘rationalists’ as being a ‘moral exemplar’. The ‘quest for the historical Jesus’ began, with the aim of seeking out the ‘real man’ that existed beneath the ‘false supernatural interpretations and overlays’ that ‘rationalists’ considered had been falsely placed on him by the Apostles. Similarly, human feelings have sometimes taken precedence in reaction to the cold detachment of logic and reason, and for such proponents Christianity became a matter of ‘personal felt experience’ as opposed to abstract theological debate. Then ‘Liberal theology’ optimistically focussed on culture and ethics. Christianity was interpreted as consisting of an ethical focus on life as it was understood in the communities of the time. Once again themes such as the resurrection and miracles were interpreted as ‘fables’ that suited those times and cultures and served to illustrate universal moral principles that are present within humanity. The horrors of World War I dented the optimism that had been placed in human morality. Various minority groups have also come to the fore and thus we see ‘Feminist Christianity’, ‘Black theology’ and ‘Liberation theology’, all of which focus on what was seen as the inadequate response of ‘colonial’ Western European Christianity and its theologians towards minorities, exploited groups and so on. Modern philosophical trends have come to the fore to take precedence over Scripture as well and thus we have had Psychological, Sociological, Secular, Humanist, Pluralist, Existentialist, ‘Modernist’ and ‘Post-modernist’ perspectives on Christianity and spiritually minded communities in general. Post modernism has even come to question the very concept of ‘objective truth’ and whether language signifies anything at all.

What happens, especially for ‘outsiders’ who are not persuaded of the existence of God and the unseen spiritual realm, or who subscribe to different spiritual belief systems, is that these various perspectives form a kind of ‘lens’ through which they evaluate and interpret Scripture. These human perspectives form a framework of presuppositions within which they perceive, interpret, understand and evaluate Scripture. This framework becomes something of a self-fulfilling perspective. If we take a ‘rationalist’ approach as an example, because ‘rationalists’ approach the Bible presupposing that miracles, the supernatural and the resurrection cannot literally exist, they interpret and evaluate such biblical references as ‘myths’ or ‘fables’. If we look at other human perspectives, supernatural events such as miracles and the resurrection are interpreted and judged to be ‘the now outdated beliefs of primitive societies’, or ‘allegorical moral exemplars’, or ‘pointers to subjective felt experience’ or ‘reflections of the existential experience of being’. In these ways the miraculous and supernatural is negated or placed into the margins. The same situation occurs when ‘science’ – especially ‘popular science’ – is placed to the fore. Passages in the bible that do not fit into the current scientific paradigm, or popular understanding of science, are in one way or another dismissed or reduced in value.

This does not mean that Christians are therefore to dismiss or negate these human philosophies, perspectives and schools of thought. But it does mean that the relationship between the interpretation of the bible and worldly or human perspectives and values, especially those that are popular and dominant at any given time, is a complex one. The insights of science, psychology, archaeology, philosophy, Feminism, critiques of colonialism and so on cannot simply be dismissed or summarily ignored. But even the so-called facts of ‘science’ do not speak for themselves. Rather, ‘facts’ require interpretation and evaluation and this is once again done through the ‘lens’ of the current scientific paradigm. This means that the dogmatic and bold assertions of the scientific community of yesteryear sometimes come to be rejected and superseded by the equally confident scientific theories and hypotheses of today. It is important for Christians to note that this is an accepted process. It is seen as ‘progress’. When a scientific perspective is at some point shown to be wrong, ‘Science’ as a discipline is not thrown out of the window and rejected because these changes of opinion take place. At the time prior to the first moon landings, there was much speculation as to how deep the layer of moon dust was going to be. The long period of time with regard to the age of the moon, and the assumed constant rate of dust that was falling on the moon suggested that the soft dust on the surface of the moon might be very deep indeed. When this proved not to be the case, ‘science’ was not dismissed. The ‘baby’ was not thrown out with the ‘bath water’. Rather, different interpretations and theories were constructed to explain this finding.

I say that it is important for Christians to note this process because the same has to be true when it comes to the discipline of theology and the interpretation of Scripture. The orthodox theological interpretation which says that there was a literal seven day creation of the universe about 6,000 years ago made sense in the Middle Ages and in the period prior to it. The fact that this particular interpretation has been seriously brought into question as the result of more recent discoveries does not mean that the Bible and the discipline of theology must therefore be rejected and dismissed, any more than the discipline of science must be rejected and dismissed because of the emergence of new discoveries. Rather, such new discoveries sometimes require theologians to construct a new interpretation of Scripture that is both consistent with Scripture itself as well as any such unquestionable discoveries – just as happens within the scientific community.

It may seem to be advantageous to us if we could remove the ‘lens’ of presuppositions and assumptions of current world views and values and put them aside, but this is not possible. We all live within the context of our time and culture, and these shape and inform our perspective. With regard to spirituality and the spiritual realm we see obscurely, as if looking at a poorly polished and distorting mirror. All that Christians can do is to try to give the Word of God priority with regard to spiritual themes. Each of the approaches, movements and trends that I have just been looking at has its own domain, its own bounded sphere of reference, focus, speciality and influence. In relation to the unseen spiritual realm, worldly, human theories, trends, perspectives and values do not override or take priority over the disclosures of God revealed in Scripture. Yet at the same time, it is important that Christians remain open to the fact that some traditional and long-held orthodox interpretations of Scripture, including the decisions made, and interpretations promoted, by councils of Christian leaders, may be mistaken and require re-evaluation in the light of new evidence. But this is a very complex process and relationship. These various schools of thought, human philosophies and disciplines have their own limited domains. The domain of science, in its more strict definition, is factual evidence and replicable results obtained through careful experimentation, observation and measurement. Its domain is the objective, measurable, observable, material or tangible realm, not the unseen intangible spiritual realm, or the realm of ethics and morals. When scientific endeavour and its proponents pontificate about the unseen intangible spiritual realm and God they often step outside of the proper realm or domain of science.

The result of all of the influences of these philosophies and disciplines over the past two millennia has been to add to the emergence of a multifaceted, confusing and contradictory set of interpretations of and within Christianity. Any attempt by Christians to maintain pure orthodoxy or one right teaching, let alone orthopraxy or one right practice, has proved to be futile. The wheat grows alongside the weeds. Attempts by Christians to impose orthodoxy in movements such as the Spanish Inquisition result in authoritarian oppression and an approach not advocated in Scripture. In any case, Christians do not agree on such uniformity and singleness of belief and practice. Thus the Christian Church is not a unified monolithic organisation or institution. Attempts to ‘ring fence’ the authority the Bible, or the traditional decisions of Christian councils, or the theological decisions of the Pope, in the face of such diversity and internal division constitute a resort to increasingly dogmatic – even bigoted – assertions that are to say least, dubious. There is absolutely no doubt that it is possible to interpret Scripture in different ways, and even in a distorted, unbalanced and twisted way, and that some people do this to suit their own aims and goals. ‘Our beloved brother Paul, writing to you down from the wisdom given to him, as in the manner within all his letters, speaks within them around these things, among which some things are difficult to understand, which the unlearned and unstable twist and distort even as also they do the remaining writings, moving towards their own cutting off’, (II Peter 3 v 15b, 16).

Scripture Alone (3 of 5)

Establishing or Judging Scripture?

The emergence, growing popularity and increasing influence of Protestant movements, and leaders such as Luther, Zwingli and Calvin, demanded a response from Roman Catholic leaders. Initially it was Martin Luther and his ideas that formed the prime focus of their attention. The Council of Trent was convened to produce a response, and indeed, some changes were made. But with regard to Scripture and the Bible, the Council re-affirmed Roman Catholic use of the Latin Vulgate translation, the continued inclusion of the Apocrypha, and the importance and authority of Church Tradition including the oral tradition handed down within the Church from the Apostles. One of their criticisms was that the Protestant leaders were ‘judging Scripture’ and that in their arrogance these leaders were setting themselves up above God as the arbiters of Scripture and Apostolic tradition.

I propose that this criticism falls into a trap and is mistaken. The core of the problem is the confusion that often exists between Scripture, the Bible and oral Apostolic tradition. From the Roman Catholic viewpoint all of these are seen as the authoritative ‘Word of God’ and therefore beyond question or human criticism. But earlier in this study I have already pointed out that the Word of God, Scripture, the Bible and tradition each have different definitions and different scopes of meaning. Fallible leaders within the Christian Church agreed upon the documents that have been included or excluded from the Bible. These leaders, in their councils, made human judgements – judicial decisions – with regard to which documents did or did not merit being part of an acceptable, authoritative Christian ‘canon’ or ‘rule of faith and conduct’. When the Protestant leaders inquired into these decisions they were in many ways continuing the work and spirit of these early councils. They were not arrogantly setting themselves above God or the Word of God. Rather, they were weighing up the validity of what these Councils had decided as well as weighing up the merits of the documents that were included in the Bible. The Apostle Paul endorses this kind of process. When a prophet speaks, when someone says, ‘Thus says the Lord…’ then other prophets should carefully weigh what is said’, (I Corinthians 14 v 29). The Apostle John says the same: ‘Dear friends, do not believe every breath, but test the breaths to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world’, (I John 4 v 1). Similarly in Deuteronomy 13 v 1 – 3 the Jews were given marks or tests whereby they could judge, weigh or assess whether a prophet or dreamer was from God or not. Martin Luther questioned the validity of the letter to the Hebrews and Book of Revelation as to whether they should be included in the ‘rule of faith’. This was a valid weighing up as to what was to be included in the Bible, but his view to exclude them was a minority one and other leaders were happy to include these documents. In later generations, John Wesley would also undertake similar evaluations.

The point that I am concerned to make is that the boundaries of the Bible are based on human judgements and these judgements have varied throughout church history. Such evaluative weighing up by responsible, appointed leaders is not to arrogantly question God or the word of God – it is a principle laid down in commonly accepted documents that constitute part of the Christian ‘rule of faith and conduct’, it is part of Apostolic teaching.

However, as part of the defence of the collection of documents that constitute the Bible as an authority for Christian faith and conduct, we have seen a merging and confusion of the definitions of ‘Scripture’ and the ‘Bible’. For many Christians and their leaders of different denominations, these have come to mean the same thing, namely ‘the Word of God’. Defining the Bible as Scripture and as the ‘Word of God’ seems to bolster what is proposed to be the Bible’s unquestionable authority – to question the Bible and its contents is to arrogantly question or oppose the Word of God and therefore God Himself. This confusion of definitions brings with it some important implications. They boil down to something like this. The proposition is that God is Perfect. God is Truth and cannot lie. God is consistent with Himself. The Bible is equivalent to Scripture and the Word of God therefore the Bible is perfect truth and completely consistent within itself. There can be no errors or contradictions within and between its statements either with regard to God and the spiritual realm, or with regard to the historical events that these documents describe and portray. That is the proposition of Christian Fundamentalism. Thus the common watchword of today’s conservative Christians, and particularly Protestant Fundamentalists is not only their appeal to ‘Scripture alone’, but to also closely follow this assertion with a quote from II Timothy. Here is the popular quote from the NIV translation: ‘from infancy you have known the set-apart Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work, (II Timothy 3 v 15 – 17). Translated in this way from the Greek text, some Christians make the implication that the Bible is the God-breathed, inspired word of God. If challenged with the fact that the ‘canon’ or rule of faith of the New Testament had not yet been determined when these verses were written, then they propose that the ‘set apart Scriptures’ is a reference to the Old Testament. But exactly when the Old Testament ‘canon’ was formed is a matter of debate, and in any case the number of writings included in the Hebrew ‘canon’ varies from one group of Jews to another.

Here is the amplified quote of II Timothy from the Greek text. ‘You know the, set apart writings from infancy, which continue to have the power to make you wise within the sphere of deliverance through obedient persuasion within Jesus the Messiah, 16 each and every writing breathed out by God, useful and advantageous, leading towards instruction, leading towards persuasion, moving towards correction, moving towards training, education and instruction within judicial approval, 17 in order that the man of God may be thoroughly prepared, moving towards every kind of intrinsically good action, fully equipped’. This amplified translation, which has been established by reference to various expert translators, gives a better sense of these verses. The Greek word for ‘writings’ is ‘gramma’, derived from ‘grapho’, meaning ‘that which is drawn or written’. Once again this word has a wide range of applications, but here the reference is to ‘set apart writings’ which the Jews generally considered to be equivalent to Covenant Law or the written Law of Moses. Christians agree that it was not Moses who thought up or originated Covenant Law, but rather that it was YHVH Who was the source of these laws. As such YHVH breathed out the writings of Covenant Law and therefore they are profitable for instructing those who seek to serve God faithfully. We can say the same about those who experienced prophecies and visions. There is a similar sense in which God also breathed out these experiences of prophecies and visions and the recipients were ‘caught up’ in this breath. Thus the watchword was not ‘Scripture alone’, but rather, ‘to the Law, to the testimony or evidential witness, to the prophets’. This is somewhat different from saying that the Bible is the Word of God and therefore without error.

Scripture Alone (1 of 5)

One of the fundamental themes of the Protestant Reformers in Europe in the sixteenth century was that of ‘sola scriptura’ – Scripture alone. This ‘watchword of the Reformation’ constituted an appeal for Christians to return to core sources of Christianity by establishing their beliefs and behaviours only from Scripture, from the Bible. This was part of their protest – hence the name ‘Protestant’ – against what these leaders saw as the error and corruption that had come to pervade the Roman Catholic Church. Errors had emerged through the Church’s emphasis on tradition and through the Bible only being available in Latin to priests who had ten misinterpreted it to the people it in many ways. Thus there was a movement to make the Bible available to people in their own language. The idea was that if any teaching or practice could not be found expressed in, or could not be logically deduced from Scripture, then such teaching and practice had no divine authority. In other words Christians were not under obligation to submit to such teaching and practices, such as for example the sale of indulgences. The aim if their protest against corrupt teaching and practice was to reform – to change the shape of – teaching and practice within the Roman Catholic Church so that its teaching and practice was more honouring to God. This call to return to Biblical sources alone was not was originated by the Reformation leaders, but rather was a movement that had already emerged in some sections of the Roman Catholic Church and Christian thought. This movement led to an emphasis on the Hebrew and Greek texts, and in the process, the Latin Vulgate translation of these texts on which the Roman Catholic Church had founded its teaching and practice, was found to be wanting. In places it was in error and this in turn meant that some Roman Catholic teaching and practice was considered to be in error.

The Reformer’s protest was in part against certain traditions and customs that the Roman Catholic Church leaders had sanctioned or adopted. For the Reformers, Roman Catholic leaders lay great stress not only on an inadequate translation of Scripture, but on human and sometimes erroneous traditions. Roman Catholic authorities argued that there was an ‘oral tradition’ within Christianity – a body of teaching and practices handed down by word of mouth from the Apostles through successive generations of appointed church leaders.

The Apostles remain important to both Catholics and Protestant Reformers, but who or what are ‘Apostles’? An Apostle is someone who is appointed and delegated for some specific service. Following the betrayal by and death of Judas Iscariot, Jesus appointed the remaining eleven closest disciples as Apostles, sending them out to declare the gospel not only to Jews but also to Gentiles, teaching and baptising those who were persuaded to the point of obedience. A line of succession is implied because Jesus promised to be with them until the consummation of the present age. (Matthew 28 v 19, 20). However, Jesus was not the only one who commissioned Apostles. In the first chapter of Acts, Peter, quoting from Psalm 109 v 8, proposes that someone must be chosen to take the place of Judas. ‘“Therefore what must happen, the men coming together with us within all the time that the Lord Jesus was coming in and going out upon us, beginning away from John’s baptism until the day in which he continued to be taken up from us, one of these is to become a witness of the resurrection with us.” And two were caused to stand, Joseph called Barsabbas, (also known as Justus), and Matthias. And praying, they said “Lord, you know everyone’s heart. Indicate which one of these two you select to be taking hold of the place of this, the service and sending away, away from which Judas went contrary to, to travel to his own place.” 26 Then they offered lots for them and the lot fell on the basis of Matthias, and he was counted in company with the commissioned eleven’, (Acts 1 v 21 – 26). The commissioned disciples were eyewitnesses who were sent away in service to give evidential testimony to the resurrection of Jesus, so it was important that they had been with Jesus from the beginning of his ministry, that they knew and witnessed that it was Jesus who had been resurrected.

But then we also have Paul, who did not meet this qualification. Paul was a Jew who originally saw Christianity as a blasphemous sect that was corrupting Judaism and needed to be stamped out. Thus, until his conversion on the Damascus Road he was intent on persecuting Christians, especially Hebrew Christians. In his first letter to the Corinthians he describes himself in this way. ‘Because I delivered to you within first importance what I also continue receiving. That the Messiah died on behalf of our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he was seen by Peter, and furthermore, the Twelve. After that he was seen by more than five hundred brothers at the same time, of whom most abide until now, but some have fallen asleep. Then James saw him, then all the apostles. Then last of all, as if it were an untimely miscarriage, I also saw him. Because I am the least of the apostles, the commissioned delegates, who exists inadequate to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the assembly of God. But, gift of God, I am what I am, and his free gift toward me has not been empty. But on the contrary, I worked harder than all of them, yet not I, on the contrary, the grace of God that was with me’, (I Corinthians 15 v 3 – 10).

The ‘Twelve’ are distinguished as disciples who were with Jesus from the beginning of his ministry until his death, and who subsequently saw him resurrected. These are the twelve Apostles. Eleven of them were commissioned and sent out by Jesus as eyewitnesses to herald the gospel. Matthias was put forward by Christians along with Joseph, and it was Matthias who was indicated by the casting of lots during prayer to replace Judas Iscariot. However it is clear from verse 7 that the Apostles were not limited to being twelve in number. Commentators agree that Scripture portrays others as being apostles also. In Acts 14 v 14, Barnabas is called an apostle, and in I Thessalonians 2 v 7, Timothy and Silvanus are also designated in the same way. In Romans 16 v 7 we read, ‘Greet Andronicus and Junia, my fellow Jews who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles’.

In its broadest terms an apostle is a commissioned delegate, messenger or herald, who is sent out with orders. In the narrower sense, Jesus commissioned the ‘Twelve’ himself, but others, such as Matthias, Barnabas, Timothy and others were in many ways commissioned as delegated authorities by fellow Christians and their leaders. The purpose of the delegation or commission may vary, and as commissioned delegates the role of apostles is seen as being distinct from that of elders or leaders in the assembly, (Acts 15 v 22). Thus there are apostles, prophets, evangelists, deacons, pastors, teachers and so on.

The idea of ‘Apostolic Succession’ is that the Twelve Apostles officially established and anointed leaders in Christian communities by laying their hands on the heads of leaders. In turn and in due course, these leaders established their approved successors. In terms of teaching and practice, it is to the Twelve apostles in particular that reference is made. It is their teaching and practice that is to be preserved and maintained by subsequent generations of Christians leaders or elders, and evangelists, heralds or missionaries.

When it came to establishing set apart writing that was considered to be authoritative and suitable for use for teaching, especially in the face of increasing errors and wayward deviations, the leaders of the early Christian assemblies focussed on the apostles and what they considered to be their authentic writings. These writings included those of Paul, as one called ‘out of time’. This meant that the letter to Hebrews was included in the approved selection of texts because many leaders considered, though it would seem mistakenly, that Paul was the author of this letter. Many of the Twelve Apostles have left us with no writings at all. Possibly the writings of some of their successors have been included in the Bible, perhaps such as II Peter. But early Christian writings such as Didache, or the writings of Paul’s associates, such as Barnabas or Clement, are not included.

Roman Catholic leaders pointed out that various Councils of appointed church leaders had at certain times made important decisions with regard to Christian themes. These included establishing the concept of the Trinity and the use (or not) of icons. Catholic Church leaders argued that these decisions formed part of the formal established traditional beliefs and practice of the Church. To question or oppose these formal aspects of Christian tradition established by delegated leaders was to be in danger of ‘heresy’ or ‘apostasy’, of falling away from or opposing God and His appointed leaders. Such traditional decisions and practices were seen to constitute part of the historical continuity of Christianity.

The Reformers were also concerned with historical continuity and heritage within Christianity. What they were protesting about were beliefs, practices and traditions that had no basis in, or that contradicted Scripture, and they considered that these ‘impurities’ had emerged particularly during the Middle Ages or Medieval period. So in their concern to maintain historical continuity and to draw from and value Christian heritage, they sought for unity with earlier Christian generations that were not stained by these impurities, particularly Christian leaders such as Augustine and some of the patristic or early church ‘fathers’. To demonstrate the inner coherence of their reformed beliefs and practices, they began to formulate ‘confessions of faith’, ‘catechisms’ and systematic theologies’ such as John Calvin’s ‘Institutes of the Christian Religion’. These served to explain, educate and consolidate the Reformer’s teaching and practice and they quoted extensively from Scripture and from the writings of these earlier Christian leaders.