"Sola Scriptura sa Panahon ng mga Early Eastern Fathers"

Today, we are diving deep sa a fascinating topic na madalas pag-usapan when we look into the roots of our Christian faith. Marami kasing tao ngayon ang nag-e-explore ng mga ancient traditions, and many are drawn sa Eastern Orthodox Church. But here is the thing: ang second primary reason kung bakit ang early church ay hindi Eastern Orthodox Church ay eksaktong the same reason kung bakit hindi rin sila Roman Catholic.

The early church viewed the Word of God, na makikita sa Holy Scriptures, as the sole rule of faith para sa ating Christian life. Bakit? Kasi, the Scriptures contain the actual teachings of the apostles.

Sa ating Filipino culture, we have a very strong attachment to tradition. From fiestas hanggang sa mga pamahiin at passed-down religious customs, tinuruan tayo to just nod and say "amen" sa kahit anong sabihin ng mga elders or religious leaders natin. Pero, when we look at the early church fathers, they operated differently. Lagi silang humihingi ng resibo (receipt/evidence), and that resibo was always the Bible.

Let's get into it!

Q: Ano ba ang Sola Scriptura?

Answer:

Ang pag-recognize sa Scripture as the sole rule of faith ay ang foundational principle ng tinatawag nating Sola Scriptura. Ngayon, marami kasing na-mi-misunderstand dito, especially those from other traditions. They often confuse Sola Scriptura with Solo Scriptura.

Let's clear the air: Sola Scriptura does not mean reading the Bible in isolation, ignoring the history. The early church absolutely recognized and submitted to authorities like:

• Tradition

• Church councils

• The ministry of bishops and presbyters

Classical Protestants today recognize these, too! But here is the defining line: ang Salita ng Diyos sa Scriptures ay ang nag-iisang authority that inherently possesses the ability to bind a person's conscience para paniwalaan ang itinuturo nito. Other authorities only have legitimate power, kung ang teachings nila ay makikita sa, or deduced from, the Holy Scripture. Naka-subordinate lang sila sa Bible.

Q: Nag-agree ba ang early church dito?

Answer:

Absolutely. When you examine the writings of the early church fathers, ang Protestant epistemology na ito, na ang Scripture is the ultimate measure of truth, was the prevailing view.

Isang extremely early example ay si Irenaeus of Lyons (around 180 AD). He described the Scripture as that which contains what the apostles publicly proclaimed, na nag-o-operate as the "ground and pillar of our faith." Yes, Irenaeus talked a lot about tradition, pero kung babasahin mo siya nang mabuti, ang tinutukoy niyang "tradition" is simply what is already in the Scripture, ipinasa lang verbally.

“We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.”  (Against Heresies, Book III, Chapter 1, c. 180 AD)

Malinaw na in-identify ni Irenaeus ang Scriptures as the ultimate basis ang “ground and pillar”ng ating faith. Pinapakita niya na 'yung apostolic proclamation was initially shared orally, pero later on ay isinulat din by divine will.

Totoo na madalas siyang mag-mention ng “tradition,” pero with careful reading, you'll see na ang "true tradition" para sa kanya is actually the exact same apostolic teaching na naka-preserve na sa Scripture. Ang main concern lang naman talaga niya, kaya niya binanggit ito, is to refute 'yung claims ng mga Gnostics na meron daw silang mga "secret traditions."

'Yung phrase na “ground and pillar” is an echo ng description ni Apostle Paul about the Church sa 1 Timothy 3:15.

"If I delay, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of the truth." 1 Timothy 3:15(ESV)

Ang pag-apply ni Irenaeus ng language na ito directly sa Scripture underscores its foundational role sa ating mga believers.

In fact, he accidentally showed us exactly why oral tradition is risky. Para 'yang chismis, the message gets altered the more na ipinapasa ito sa iba. Irenaeus claimed na tinuro daw ng mga apostles na Jesus lived to be over 50 years old! Obviously, that is false. But even when Irenaeus was wrong, sinubukan pa rin niyang i-prove ang claim niya by appealing to the Scriptures. That shows his underlying Protestant paradigm: the Bible is the ultimate testing ground.

Q: Paano naman ang mga Eastern fathers?

Answer:

That is the real test, right? Since we are talking about Eastern Orthodoxy, let's look at the Eastern fathers. They held the exact same view.

Take Athanasius of Alexandria, the famous defender of the divinity of Christ. Sa work niyang De Synodis (On the Councils), he actually rebuked those who tried to use church councils as the ultimate authority to establish faith. Para sa kanya, "divine scripture is sufficient above all things."

"Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faith's sake; for divine Scripture is sufficient above all things; but if a Council be needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene Bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrine so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced in divine Scripture." (De Synodis, On the Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia)

Sa part na ito ng De Synodis, diretsahang ni-rebuke ni Athanasius 'yung mga Arians na panay ang push for new church councils para i-validate ang mga heretical views nila. He argued na the Bible is already entirely sufficient para ma-settle ang isyu. At kung magre-refer man sila sa council, sapat na ang Council of Nicaea (325 A.D.) dahil ang mga Nicene fathers ay bumase lang din nang eksakto sa kung ano ang tinuturo ng Scriptures.

Athanasius respected the Council of Nicaea, pero sinabi niya na kaya naging accurate ang doctrine ng mga bishops doon ay dahil kung may honest reader, ma-re-remind agad sila kung ano ang nasa Bible. In short, Nicaea is authoritative because it aligns with Scripture, not because a council of bishops has independent infallible power. That is the classical Protestant view!

Q: Susunod na lang ba sila basta-basta sa mga bishops?

Answer:

Not blindly! This is a huge point of reflection para sa ating mga Filipinos, kasi minsan we just blindly follow anyone na nakasuot ng religious robe.

Cyril of Jerusalem highlights Sola Scriptura perfectly sa kanyang Catechetical Lectures. He told his followers na not even a casual statement concerning the faith should be delivered nang wala ang Scriptures. He practically told them, "Huwag kayong maniwala sa akin kung wala akong proof sa Bible." Even as an honorable bishop, Cyril knew na hindi niya pwedeng i-bind ang Christian's conscience on his own authority.

"For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell thee these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures." (Catechetical Lectures (Specifically from Lecture 4 Section 17: "On the Ten Points of Doctrine")

Sobrang solid i-cite ito dahil si Cyril is literally instructing new believers dito. Kahit siya na ang nagtuturo at eventually magiging isa sa mga highly venerated figures ng early church, sinasabihan niya ang audience niya na huwag basta-basta maniwala sa kanya ("give not absolute credence") kung walang resibo from the Bible. Hindi niya ginamit ang personal authority niya o umapela sa "secret tradition" para ma-convince sila, kundi umasa siya sa "demonstration of the Holy Scriptures." Perfect fit ito sa argument mo against blind submission to religious leaders!

He also taught that ang Nicene Creed is authoritative simply because it confirms the contents of Holy Scripture. Ang intindi ni Cyril sa "holding fast to traditions" (like Paul mentions sa 2 Thessalonians) means holding fast to traditions na proven by the Word of God.

Q: Paano nila nilabanan ang mga heresies?

Answer:

They used the Bible as the final judge. Si Basil of Caesarea ay isang beloved father sa Eastern Orthodox Church. Sa kanyang Letter 189, he dealt with anti-Trinitarian heretics. These heretics rejected the Trinity, at sinusuportahan sila ng sarili nilang tradition.

"If custom is to be taken in proof of what is right, then it is certainly competent for me to put forward on my side the custom which obtains here. If they reject this, we are clearly not bound to follow them. Therefore, let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the word of God, in favour of that side will be cast the vote of truth." (Letter 189, Section 3 (Addressed "To Eustathius the physician")

Sa letter na ito, Basil was dealing with anti-Trinitarian opponents na gumagamit ng sarili nilang "custom" or tradition para i-justify ang mga false teachings nila about the Godhead. Ang galing ng naging approach ni Basil dito: sabi niya, kung custom lang din naman ang pagbabasehan, puwede rin siyang mag-present ng sariling custom ng church nila na pabor sa orthodox Trinity.   

Pero imbes na makipagtalo kung kaninong tradition ang mas superior, he completely bypassed the "tradition war." He established that the ultimate tie-breaker and final referee must be the "God-inspired Scripture." This beautifully demolishes the claim that ang early Eastern Church ay umasa sa unwritten tradition as an equal authority to the Bible! Kahit mismong ang isa sa mga pinaka-revered fathers ng Eastern Orthodox Church ay Sola Scriptura ang naging paradigm kapag doctrines na ang pinag-uusapan.

Did Basil respond by saying, "Well, my church tradition is older and better than yours"? No! Hindi niya ginamit ang tradition to settle the debate. Instead, sabi niya, "Therefore let God-inspired Scripture decide between us." Ginamit niya ang Bible as the ultimate referee para ma-determine ang truth mula sa falsehood.

Similarly, si John Chrysostom, na mas nag-value sa unwritten tradition kumpara sa iba, still called Scripture the "exact balance, and square and rule for all things."

"For how is it not absurd that in respect to money, indeed, we do not trust to others, but refer this to figures and calculation; but in calculating upon facts, we are lightly drawn aside by the notions of others; and that too, though we possess an exact balance, and square and rule for all things, the declaration of the divine laws? Wherefore I exhort and entreat you all, disregard what this man and that man thinks about these things, and inquire from the Scriptures all these things; and having learnt what the true riches are, let us pursue after them that we may obtain also the eternal good things..." (Homilies on 2 Corinthians (Specifically from Homily 13, where he comments on 2 Corinthians 7:1)

Sa homily na ito, Chrysostom is making a very practical analogy. Sabi niya, kapag pera ang pinag-uusapan, hindi tayo basta-basta naniniwala sa sinasabi ng iba; nagko-compute tayo at tinitingnan natin ang exact figures. Pero bakit pagdating sa spiritual facts at doctrines, ang bilis nating magpadala sa mga opinyon ng ibang tao ("notions of others")?   

Dito niya ipinasok 'yung description niya sa Scriptures as the "exact balance, and square and rule for all things." Sa construction at negosyo, ang "square", "rule" (ruler/panukat), at "balance" (timbangan) ang absolute standard para masigurong tuwid at tama ang ginagawa mo. Kahit gaano pa ka-respected ang isang tradition o isang tao, ang Bible lang ang kaisa-isang perpektong timbangan (balance) at panukat (rule) para malaman kung ano ang totoo. Kaya ang final advice niya sa church ay kalimutan ang opinyon ng kung sinu-sino at mag-inquire nang direkta sa Scriptures!

The Final Verdict

Q: Ano ang conclusion natin dito?

Answer:

The Eastern Orthodox Church often insists that the early church rejected the principles of Sola Scriptura. May mga modern apologists na nagke-claim na kailangan daw natin ang Eastern Orthodox concept of phronema (the mind of the church) as an equal pillar sa Scripture. But as we have just seen, ang testimony ng mga early church fathers both, East and West, proves that claim to be completely false.

If you are exploring Eastern Orthodoxy or just trying to figure out ang church history, you have to ask yourself: Did the early church view Scripture alone as the singular, infallible rule of faith? The historical evidence says a resounding yes.

Kung gusto nating maging truly consistent with the early church fathers, we must hold the Scriptures as our highest and final authority. Ang Salita ng Diyos dapat always ang may final say.