C.S. Lewis once complained about something he called “chronological snobbery.” He described this as the assumption that new ideas and discoveries are always better than those that have “gone out of date.”[1] Thankfully, chronological snobbery is losing some of its charm. Evangelicals are discovering their rich theological heritage through a process called “retrieval”: unearthing the best Christian thought from previous centuries and appropriating it for today. This retrieval includes, or even emphasizes, patristic and medieval theology.
1. C.S. Lewis, Surprised by Joy: The Shape of My Early Life (New York: Harcourt, 1955), 201.
It used to be suspicious and slightly scandalous for an Evangelical to enjoy reading theologians such as Ambrose, Pseudo-Dionysius, John of Damascus, Maximus the Confessor, Boethius, and Aquinas. When I was in seminary a little over ten years ago, I remember a well-known teacher urging students to avoid pre-Reformation theologians. He insisted there was enough treasure in Reformation and Puritan theology. Now, however, this interest is encouraged, and there is a gold rush to the deep and unknown mines of theology, especially theology before Reformation Day in 1517.
The wonder of discovery and the benefit to the church offered by theological retrieval almost guarantee that it will flourish and expand in the years ahead. In a way reminiscent of the surge of interest in Jonathan Edwards in the “Young, Restless, and Reformed” movement, churches will soon have young seminarians discussing the theology of Augustine, Dante, and Thomas Aquinas. This newfound excitement should be celebrated.
As always, we need discernment. Theology from the past must be evaluated by the principle of sola Scriptura and the clarity of the gospel. The Bible alone gives wisdom to discern the difference between excavated fool’s gold and authentic treasure. A look at Reformation debates reminds us that theological retrieval can either undermine or emphasize the authority of Scripture and the message of the cross.
Rival Retrievals in the Reformation Era
The nature of tradition and authority was central in the Reformation debates. Some debates in the Reformation era represent rival visions of theological and philosophical retrieval. I will focus on the difference between Renaissance humanist retrieval and Reformation retrieval, demonstrated in Erasmus and Luther.
The Roman Catholic Erasmus was shaped by and helped shape Renaissance humanism and its rallying cry of ad fontes, or “back to the [original] sources!” Roman Catholic Cardinal Henri de Lubac (1896–1991) found Erasmus’s retrieval of the church fathers inspiring. He said there was “nothing more sincere than Erasmus’s enthusiasm for the Fathers. He loves to love them; he literally lives with them.”[2] Erasmus’s retrieval was marked by his typical scholarly rigor and excellence. He edited the works of Irenaeus, Origen, Cyprian, Arnobius, Hilary, Chrysostom, Jerome, Ambrose, Athanasius, Faustus of Riez, Gregory Nazianzen, and Basil.[3] In many ways, Erasmus was a retrieval theologian par excellence.
2. Thomas P. Scheck, “Author’s Preface” in Erasmus’s Life of Origen: A New Annotated Translation of the Prefaces to Erasmus of Rotterdam’s Edition of Origen’s Writings (1536), trans. Thomas P. Scheck (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press), xix.
3. Scheck, “Author’s Preface” in Erasmus’s Life of Origen, xix.
There was one problem with Erasmus’s methodology, however. In Erasmus’s recovery of the patristics, he did not sufficiently recognize the bondage of sin and the only solution provided in the cross. Luther viewed this as a critical error.
In the Heidelberg Disputation of 1518, Luther produced a manifesto for life under the cross. Luther recognized that he was not being theologically innovative. His theology of the cross presented in the Disputation was a self-conscious retrieval of Augustine’s soteriology.[4] Beyond Augustine, Luther was recovering the heritage of cross-centered theology found in theologians such as Athanasius, Bernard of Clairvaux, Johannes Tauler, and Nicolas of Cusa.[5] Luther retrieved a tradition governed by Scripture and in step with the gospel.
4. See Marco Barone, Luther’s Augustinian Theology of the Cross (Eugene: Resource, 2017).
5. Rosalene Bradbury, Cross Theology: The Classical Theologica Crucis and Karl Barth’s Modern Theology of the Cross. (Cambridge: James Clark & Co.), ix. For example, Athanasius: “By what seems His utter poverty and weakness on the cross He overturns the parade of idols.” Athanasius. On the Incarnation, trans. A. Religious (Crestwood: St Vladimir’s Seminary, 1996), 24.
While humanists like Erasmus emphasized the patristic theologians and writings with a more optimistic view of man, Luther argued that this optimism was nothing more than a “theology of glory” opposed to the message of the cross. Theses 1–18 of Luther’s Heidelberg Disputation demonstrate humanity’s failure to keep the law of God and their bondage to sin. Thesis 3 responds directly to a positive view of man by saying that the works of man may appear good but are actually mortal sins.
Luther wanted nothing to do with a man-centered religion and morality that rejected suffering and the cross. He rejected this “theology of glory” wherever it was found, whether in Aristotle, the early church, scholastic theology, nominalists, or humanists. Luther’s solution was that this theology of glory must pass through the judgment and suffering of the cross. After the humble recognition of depravity, everything must pass through the cross and be tested by the cross. His theses 22–24 imply that once this happens, natural wisdom and law may become a tool in the careful hands of the theologian of the cross.
The cry of the humanists in the Renaissance was to go “back to the sources,” but Luther recognized that the “sources” were only reliable if they did not contradict or undermine the gospel. The issue was not tradition against Scripture but the nature of tradition and how it relates to Scripture and the gospel or not.[6]
6. This is also the case in current debates about the meaning of sola Scriptura and the Bible’s relation to tradition. It should be noted that this article uses sola Scriptura in its nuanced sense (Scripture is supreme, and the tradition of Christian history may help us understand it) and not in a nuda Scriptura sense (scripture is supreme and the tradition of Christian history is worthless). Carl Trueman, The Creedal Imperative (Wheaton, IL: Crossway), 16–17.
Luther’s ministry was plagued by his bombastic and rude rhetoric that was sometimes downright sinful. But in the Heidelberg Disputation, he represented the simple truth of the gospel. The different approaches of Erasmus and Luther demonstrate the need for a theology of the cross to evaluate the theology retrieved and the theological projects of those who are retrieving. Theological retrieval is not an intrinsic good but requires evaluation and discernment.
Two Diagnostics for Theology: Sola Scriptura and Crux Probat Omnia
For the Protestant, the issue of authority is firmly settled. When the Evangelical Protestant retrieves theology, it is always under the final authority of Scripture. A counter-example of this is found in the twentieth century with the Roman Catholic retrieval movement. The Roman Catholic retrieval (known as ressourcement theology) ignited intense debates. This controversy is understandable when one considers what was at stake in these debates. They were recognizing and re-establishing what constituted Sacred Tradition for the Roman Catholic Church. Alongside Scripture, Roman Catholics believe this to be the highest level of authority. This Tradition is identified and developed by the Church’s magisterium. Those retrieval debates reverberated within the magisterium to determine which tradition (small t) to emphasize and develop as a continuation of Sacred Tradition. The Roman Catholics could not appeal to the final authority of Scripture in these debates, and Evangelicals who resource Catholic ressourcement should keep this in mind.
For indeed, Evangelicals who believe in the authority of Scripture alone do not need to follow the path of divisiveness that the Roman Catholic retrieval went down.[7] We are not debating where our authority comes from. Any retrieved theology is subjected to the authority of Scripture, the norma normans (the norm that norms). The Reformation principle of sola Scriptura—Scripture alone—should give the project of theological retrieval freedom and joy. Unlike the Roman Catholic retrievals of the twentieth century, Evangelical Protestants are not the magisterium, trying to discern “Sacred Tradition”; the best kinds of retrievals are simply reading and growing in dialogue with theologians past who were “stewards of the mysteries of God” (1 Cor. 4:1).
7. While the Roman Catholic debates were often cast as tradition (patristic) against tradition (medieval scholastic), evangelical debates have been around the meaning of sola Scriptura and how tradition relates to it.
Evangelical Protestants must maintain their emphasis on a correct understanding of sola Scriptura. Theological retrieval and historical theology (and systematic theology, for that matter) are important and even essential disciplines, but under the clear authority of Scripture. For example, while it is interesting what Origen, Augustine, Jerome, Chrysostom, Erasmus, or Edwards said about some portion of Scripture, what is ultimately more important is if the interpretation fits the literal meaning of that Scripture. Again, it is interesting what Hilary of Poitiers and Richard of St. Victor said about the Trinity, but is it faithful to what the Scripture says and what can be inferred by good and necessary consequence?[8] Our love for theological discovery and the riches offered by past theologians must never detract from the primacy of the Bible. As the Second Helvetic Confession points out, “The holy Greek and Latin fathers… will not have their writings equated with the canonical Scriptures, but command us to prove how far they agree or disagree with them, and to accept what is in agreement and to reject what is in disagreement.”
8. Expectantly take up Hilary and Richard and search and reason from the Scriptures to see if what they say is true.
In the rush to mine the past for its riches, evangelical Protestants are (or should be) keenly aware of the need to emphasize the final authority of Scripture. But a more subtle danger is to forget a theology of the cross or move it to the background.
The theology of glory that Luther saw as contrary to the gospel is enticing without proper discernment. As we walk through the wonder of the intellectual and moral systems that have been buried away, we must keep our bearings lest we are taken captive (Col. 2:8). Any theology or philosophy retrieved must pass through the sifter of the cross.
Crux probat Omnia—the cross tests everything—even the theologies of the past. The word of the cross may appear foolish or simple, but the true theologian of the cross will evaluate the worth of any retrieved theology through it.
In light of this, a diagnostic test for any theology is: does this theology or theologian sufficiently recognize the authority of Scripture? Does the theology recognize humanity’s bondage to sin and the only solution provided by God in the incarnation of Jesus Christ, the cross, and resurrection? Someone may respond that some of these diagnostic questions only fit when discussing soteriology. Maybe, then, the diagnostic questions can have a more personal edge: Am I submitting myself and my theology to the authority of Scripture? Am I sufficiently recognizing my own sin and the only solution provided by God in the incarnation of Jesus Christ, the cross, and resurrection? Am I boasting in man or in the cross (1 Cor. 3:1; Gal. 6:14)? Am I representing that in my theology?
The theology of the cross creates theologians of the cross, a people who see everything through a recognition of their own sin and limits. But then . . . the cross. The cross becomes the place where I am crucified with Christ and am risen again. All things become mine in blessed union with Jesus: all things, whether Paul or Apollos, Tertullian or Boniface, Zwingli or Stott. The joy of the cross generates this freedom and humility so that I can approach theologians of the past in light of who I am in Jesus. This freedom and joy generate a cross focus, but also a humility and love in our approach to others, in the past or present.
Under the clear guidance of sola Scriptura and a theology of the cross, theological retrieval will benefit and bless the church. However, the Bible alone is our final authority. Luther’s caution also rings true: without a theology of the cross and being a theologian of the cross, we will misuse any retrieved theology or any other gift of God in the worst way.[9]
