The regula fidei as basis for theology

In my thread on the regula fidei as the basis for theology, I have outlined its nature for the early church (and here), and its significance and its content for Irenaeus (who is similar to Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria). The next five posts will consist of my translation of Hägglund's essay which deals with the implications all this has for the contemporary task of theology. Today we look at the first of five implications (I should add that this is required reading for those interested in comprehending B.S. Childs' complex theological hermeneutics):

The regula fidei presupposes that from the outset the content of Christian faith constituted a unity. The doctrinal system of Christian theology was created neither by a retrospective systematizing nor by the exigency of the fight against heresy, even though the various explanations of this system are secondary. Rather, the content of faith existed originally as a totality, a coherent “system”/“arrangement” (Ordnung), which coincides with the regula fidei and with the divine ordo salutis (Heilsordnung), as witnessed to in scripture. At the same time, this unity is a unity of both testaments. The new covenant or the Gospel, witnessed to by the New Testament, is inseparably connected to the Old Testament, i.e. with the divine reality witnessed to in the Old Testament scriptures. If one were to accept only the gospels or only the New Testament as the basis for Christian doctrine, then the rule of faith would never be heard. Doctrine would be deformed, so that it would not be a faithful representation of the actual way of salvation. The message of the New Testament, in other words, must be interpreted and understood in accordance with (in Übereinstimmung mit) the Old Testament revelation. The content of the Old Testament does not only form the historical background of the Christian religion. Rather, it belongs itself to the same divine plan of salvation, which finds its consummation and conclusive clarification in Jesus Christ. That means that not only is a christological use of the Old Testament from the perspective of the New Testament authoritative. An interpretation of the New Testament from the perspective of the Old Testament must also be authoritative. It is not the case that the antetypes and promises are only to be interpreted from the perspective of the revealed reality and the fulfilment. The witness to the facts underlying the New Covenant (i.e. the deeds and passion of Christ) must also be so understood in such a way that it harmonises with the Old Testament revelation. Together, these two witnesses form a single, unitary order of salvation (Ordnung der Heilsgeschichte).

...

It is therefore not the task of dogmatics to discover the unity of theology within a basic “Christian idea”(Grundidee des Christentums). Rather, it should assume a literal, primal unity of revelation which is rooted in the actual order of salvation history (Ordnung der Heilsgeschichte), as opposed to retrospectively accomplishing an inner connection between various dogmatic statements. This unity is not the creation of a systematic meditation on the objects of faith, it is much more the actual presupposition of Christian theology in the first place. Even the formal order (äusserliche Ordnung) which exists in the various theological methods can impede a correct presentation of belief precisely because such an order represents an attempt to set up a secondary unity based on a logical or anthropological principle. One thinks, for example, of the res-et-signa method of the Middle Ages, the analytical method of Lutheran orthodoxy or the ordo salutis of pietistic theology. Just as the various idealistic theological systems often signify a genuine deformation of the primal unity (ursprünglich Einheit), so these older methods regularly—even though in themselves pedagogically enlightening—bring about a certain obscuring of the actual “order” (Ordnung), i.e. the inner structure of Christian doctrine.

There is, as it were, a “natural” order for dogmatics, which is not grounded in a common idea but rather in the unity of the Old and New Testaments, an order which, according to its nature, is not so much systematic as historical. It is not only a formal scheme for the presentation of theological teaching, it is rather totally determined by its content. For this reason it coincides with the regula fidei, and the regula is at the same time a witness to this original order, grounded in the genuine events of salvation history.

Ooh, a patristics carnival!

Up until now I've only ever been linked to, if at all, on biblical studies Carnivals (see Getz for the most recent contribution). I was delighted, however, to see that there is such a thing as a patristics carnival and that the extremely industrious blogger at The God Fearin' Forum has taken time to read my recent postings.

So thanks to Tim A. Troutman for his time and especially for the really quite exhaustive work he's done on all things patristic within the blogosphere. He divides the relevant blogging activiy into the following helpful subcategories:

Hall of Fame: My hand-picked recommendations.

Introduction to & Biographies of the Fathers. New to the fathers? This is the place to start.

General Patristics. Posts surrounded by asterisks are especially worth viewing and should have broad appeal.

General Patristics. Posts surrounded by asterisks are especially worth viewing and should have broad appeal.

Book Review: Books of interest regarding the early Church & patristic literature.

Apocryphal Corner

Patristic Obituaries

That really is a phenomenal and benefical amount of work.

The content of the rule-of-truth: Irenaeus' take

In my last post I pointed out that for Irenaeus the regula veritatis, or rule-of-truth, refers to the divine reality itself and not to any one formulation of it. These formulations are true to the degree that they mediate the reality to which they witness. The formulations may vary, but the truth remains stable.

But what is this truth? In other words, what is the gospel?

Irenaeus' own formulation mirrors very closely the Roman baptismal formula, which is explicated as faith in God the Father, Christ the Son,and the Holy Spirit:

God is the Father is unique, omnipotent, uncreated, eternal, invisible, only true, creator of heaven and earth and everything within—seen and unseen. He accomplished the creation through the Son and the Spirit. He is the father of Jesus Christ.

Christ is the Word of God, the Son, a man amongst men, visible, corporal in order to overcome death and reveal life, and to bring about peace and communion between God and man. He became flesh, was born of the Virgin, suffered under Pontius Pilatus, died and rose again and was received into Heaven. He will return in majesty in order to reconstitute everything, to redeem and to judge. He has saved us by his blood, has poured his the Spirit of his Father upon us in order to unite us to God. As true Man he summarises the image Adam within himself.

The Holy Spirit is the spirit of God, through whom everything was created. He preached the way of salvation (τας οικονομιας). In the fullness of time he was poured out upon mankind in order to create them anew for God. He is the mediator of the knowledge of the truth, indeed, he is truth itself.

To summarise: for Irenaeus the term regula veritatis does not primarily refer to the formula of the baptismal confession, neither to the books of holy scripture, nor to the ecclesial doctrinal tradition, but rather to the truth itself, i.e. the way of salvation as revealed by the Holy Spirit.

I should add that in this interesting interview with N.T. Wright, Wright makes a similar statement about the nature of the Gospel as a reference to a reality that is the case (Jesus is Lord) and not the process of salvation (justification by faith). To quote: "The problem with us Evangelicals is that we use the word "Gospel" to denote the system of how someone gets saved. I really want to emphasise this: we are not justified by believing in Justification by Faith, we are justified by believing in Jesus." Great point! Wright's presentation of the content of the gospel, however, is very Pauline, whereas I think Irenaeus has the entirety of Scripture in view. Perhaps that is the advantage of reading Paul in his canonical, and not just historical context. On this, see Childs' latest book.

Irenaeus and the regula veritatis

For Irenaeus, the regula veritatis refers to that which was there from the beginning: an unshakeable, unchangeable truth, proclaimed by Jesus and the apostles and preserved by the church in Scripture. It is truth itself, revealed in the proclamation of the prophets and apostles and passed on to the Christian at baptism. It is this reality itself that is the unique, absolute norm for faith and practice. This reality is not to be identified with either scripture or tradition, it is rather the reality to which scripture and tradition witness. It lies behind the church's tradition, within which it finds its continual witness. The regula veritatis, then, is the “really real,” the actual content of faith, the revelation itself, the actual events of salvation history, and as such is universal, unitary, and self-consistent. The function of the baptismal creed is to to summarise this reality; the function of scripture is to witness to this reality; and the function of tradition is to preserve the teaching of the scripture concerning this reality. Hägglund says,

It is not dependent on the letters or the wording of the [Baptismal] Confession, but rather on the reality which is behind it, which is presented in the sentences of the Confession. It is evident that the various formulations can change, without the truth being changed in the process (12).

German: “Es kommt nicht auf den Buchstaben oder dem Wortlaut des Bekenntnisses an, sondern auf die dahinterliegende Wirklichkeit, die in den Sätzen des Bekenntnisses kurz dargestellt wird. Es ist selbstverständlich, dass die Formulierungen wechseln können, ohne dass damit die Wahrheit verändert wird.” (12).

Die Natur der >Regula Fidei< bei Irenäus

Die "regula fidei," oder mit dem bei Irenäus gebrauchten Terminus "regula vertatis," bezieht sich immer auf das Ursprüngliche, auf das, was von Anfang an feststeht und als eine unveränderliche, unerschütterliche Wahrheit in der Kirche bewahrt wird. Nicht eine im Kampfe gegen die Häresien erfundene oder formulierte Lehrzusammenfassung wird damit gemeint, sondern der Glaube selbst, die Wahrheit selbst, die in der heiligen Schrift, in der Verkündigung des Herrn und der Apostel, geoffenbart und bekanntgemacht worden ist, und in der Taufe einem jeden Christen übergeben und anvertraut wird.

Bengt Hägglund, "Die Bedeutung der "regula fidei" als Grundlage theologischer Aussagen," 4.

Irenaus on the κανων της αληθείας

[Es ist] klar, dass der Ausdruck κανων της αληθείας (regula veritas) eigentlich nicht einen Text, auch nicht eine fixierte Summe von Lehrsätzen bezeichnet, sondern im Grunde das besagt, was Irenäus selbst hervorhebt, dass die Wahrheit als solche, d.h. die in der Offenbarung deutlich bezeugten Tatsachen der Schöpfung und Erlösung, die Richtschnur der Verkündigung sind. Der Begriff führt uns also nicht zu einer im Kampfe gegen die Häretiker gebildeten Kanon der kirchlichen Autorität sondern zu der hinter der kirchlichen Verkündigung liegende und darin fortlaufend bezeugten Offenbarung

Bengt Hägglund, "Die Bedeutung der "regula fidei" als Grundlage theologischer Aussagen," 9, 10.

Unity of the Faith of the Church Throughout the Whole World

This is the title of chapter ten in Irenaeus' Adversus Heareses. He opens by defining this faith in what he, and the church after him, called the "rule of truth." How universal is this rule today within the global church?

The Church, though dispersed throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith:

[She believes] in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His [future] manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father “to gather all things in one,” and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Saviour, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, “every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess” to Him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all; that He may send “spiritual wickednesses,” and the angels who transgressed and became apostates, together with the ungodly, and unrighteous, and wicked, and profane among men, into everlasting fire; but may, in the exercise of His grace, confer immortality on the righteous, and holy, and those who have kept His commandments, and have persevered in His love, some from the beginning [of their Christian course], and others from [the date of] their repentance, and may surround them with everlasting glory.

Roberts, A., Donaldson, J., & Coxe, A. C. (1997). The Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol.I : Translations of the writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325. The apostolic fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus. Against Heresies, I.x (330). Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems.

Although you can read the whole book for free on the Internet, the version here is citable for an essay.

Israel's Memory and the Rule of Faith

After a massive hiatus, I return to my ongoing discussion of Childs' canonical approach and it's implications for theological interpretation. The thread started an eternity ago here, where I outlined the overall structure of what I want to say. I'm still in stage 1: "The Authority of Scripture." Once this stage is finally finished, I'll move on to 2: "The Literal and Spiritual Sense of Scripture."

At the beginning of his career Childs worked as a form critic, which meant that his primary concern was identifying the unique ways in which Israel responded to its tradition and proclaimed its message. From this historical critical perspective Childs made the following statement about the theological function of Israel's traditions:

“Israel's memory ... serves a far more important role than merely providing illustrations from the past. It serves in making Israel noetically aware of a history which is ontologically a unity. There is only one redemptive history.”[*]

Childs seems to believe that this redemptive history finds its maturest expression in Irenaeus' rule of faith (Creation – Incarnation – New Creation). This rule functions as a boundary within which Christian exegesis can take place, as it sums up the true substance of Scripture. Yet the rule is not detached from the witness on which it is based, as if it were an external ideology imposed upon an innocent text. The very hermeneutical shape given to the text throughout its long canonical (kerygmatic) development adumbrates in complex ways the reality that would find its fullest expression in Irenaeus' rule. It would seem that for this reason Childs at times calls the canonical shape of the Bible itself a regula fidei.

[*] Memory and Tradition in Israel (London: SCM Press, 1961), 51.