Nov 22 2009
Thoughts on Sacred Tradition and the Divine Voice
The alleged clash of authority between Tradition and Scripture is the primary epistemological issue between Roman Catholics and Protestants. For Protestants, the Scriptures and Tradition are identifiable. For Roman Catholics, the Scriptures and Tradition are different. For Roman Catholics, the issue is “Who has authority to interpret the Word of God?” For Protestants, the issue is “Has the Word of God interpreted you yet?” For Reformed Catholics, the Word of God is a living, breathing thing, a subject, not an object. It has its own constitution. Moreover, reality itself is a linguistic construction of God’s Word (I’m reading an intriguing book on this subject). The world was created at the Word of God. Our souls are regenerated by the Word of God. The church is a people called from the world by the Word of God (”my sheep hear my voice”). Consequently, we are creatures of the Word, and a people of the Word. And there are two forms only by which we have heard God’s voice to the Church: the Word of God written (Holy Writ) and the Word of God incarnate (Jesus), both of which are God’s power. But after the ascension and before the parousia, we live in a time of eschatological tension, where Jesus is at once really present with us, but also really absent from us. Where is the human person, Jesus? He is in heaven. With the real absence of the Incarnate Word, we have in this age the living Word of God written, aided by the presence and activity of the Holy Spirit. Yet the Holy Spirit does not embody an institution like a ghost in the machine, a zeitgeist haunting the halls of the Vatican or the pastor’s study, but breathes through the Word of God. Fidelity to the Word of God written is the preeminent task for preserving the power of the Divine Voice, the divine message of the Gospel. The Tradition is the Word of God written, and the Writ is the Tradition. The Word of God written we hand down to our children and to posterity is the Tradition, and human application and extrapolation is always provisional and contingent. Why? Because our existence and our faith is contingent on the living Word of God, not the other way around. This, it seems to me, is the doctrine of sola scriptura.
Why else would St. Paul become so flustered when the Galatians diverged from the Gospel message he delivered (handed over, “traditioned”) to them? ”I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ to a different gospel. . . but even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be anathema . . . for I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ” (Gal. 1:8, 12). Clearly Paul is judging the Galatians for substituting their own ideas about the message they received for the message itself; that is, they failed to follow the tradition of the apostle himself, and were beginning to follow a false tradition. What is the significance of this passage? Clearly, 1) That the traditions deriving from Christian practice and belief about the Gospel can themselves contradict, violate, and fail to contain the Scriptural Tradition, which is the true Gospel; and 2) that we can distinguish between the true Tradition and false traditions. Put these two premises together and the Word of God is clearly preeminent to church interpretation, but true knowledge of the Word of God is still accessible to the church. Specifically in verses Galatians 1:11-17, Paul teaches that the Word of God creates the church by creating believers. Moreover, in chapter 3:8, Paul treats Scriptural Tradition as a living thing, personifying and anthropomorphizing it with the following language: “And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the Gospel to Abraham beforehand saying. . .” The Apostle ascribes to the Scriptures themselves their own agency, doing things like “foreseeing” and “preaching” even though human mediators were used. Thus, the Word of God is itself the living Tradition, creating the church by creating believers, and our subsequent opinions must be judged by it. Therefore, the answer to “Who has the final authority to interpret Scriptures?” is “Not Us.” Church tradition is vital–and as an orthodox Anglican I will be the first to say that–but the substantive point is that it is provisional because we are provisional: creatures and people of a Word spoken to us.
(CC) 2010
“For Protestants, the Scriptures and Tradition are identifiable. For Roman Catholics, the Scriptures and Tradition are different.”
I’m quite sure Catholics would disagree on this assessment.
“Therefore, the answer to “Who has the final authority to interpret Scriptures?” is “Not Us.” Church tradition is vital–and as an orthodox Anglican I will be the first to say that–but the substantive point is that it is provisional because we are provisional: creatures and people of a Word spoken to us.”
So you simply leave the question unanswered? Scripture simply interprets itself, and that’s that? Seems kinda magical and logically circular to me. And also woefully unstable.
And for the sake of argument, I wonder how such an interpretive matrix would apply to other documents, such as the Constitution?
“With the real absence of the Incarnate Word, we have in this age the living Word of God written, aided by the presence and activity of the Holy Spirit.”
Is Christ really absent, or do we exist in Him by means of his body, the Church? And what exactly do you mean by “church”? What is “church”?
And I wonder, how did the Church exist in the 30-odd years before the scriptures were written, or the few hundred years it took for them to be made canon?
Really, the issue is that Protestants and Catholics mean completely different things by the word “Tradition” (and for non-magisterial prots, it is usually used as a pejorative), and they’ve been yelling past each other about it for the last 500 years.
The Orthodox understanding is different yet, and I think it avoids the conflict between “Church as institution” and “Sola Scriptura” quite well. That is, it retains interpretive stability while stile allowing for the radical freedom inherent in the revolutionary nature of the Christian life. But I suppose I’m biased.
I always find the Protestant objections to the Catholic notion of tradition amusing. I’ve yet to meet a Protestant that celebrated Christmas on a day other than December 25. I’ve yet to meet a Protestant that celebrated Easter any day other than every other Catholic in the world does the same. Are Protestants comfortable with these aspects of life because they’re (!) traditional? I’m reasonably certain neither one is specified in the Bible (like most Catholics, the Church has seen to it that I am kept illiterate and in the dark). I even heard somewhere that there is a strange band of ethnic cults in the East (if there is one thing I learned from J.R.R. Tolkien, it is to fear the East!) which celebrates Easter on a different, later date some years. If that’s true, it really must not be written in the Bible, but that may just be a legend.
More seriously, I don’t understand why it is so hard to accept that, if you are willing to concede the existence of the Holy Spirit, that it would guide a teaching authority consisting of people of good will towards accepting true faith, even if expressed in the form of “Tradition.”
Oh, you reminded me Adam – I find it eminently amusing that the Protestants protest papal authority and a Roman conception of Tradition, while still holding to the papally instituted doctrine of the double procession of the Holy Spirit within the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed.
They reject your Pope, but retain many of his traditions.
It is Christ Himself, not the Bible, who is the true Word of God. The Bible, read in the right spirit and with the guidance of good teachers, will bring us to Him.
* Letter (8 November 1952); published in Letters of C. S. Lewis (1966), p.247
Tradition tells us what is scripture and what is not. Jesus did not in his lifetime write a Bible. Many pamphlets and letters and pretenders-to-scripture emerged in his death. What Peter is exemplifying to me there is that he has authority as the head of the Church established by Jesus Christ. And this same Church has spent much of its history, including its first 500 years, describing errant and proper practice, excluding among others the Pelagians, Arians, Gnostics, Nestorians etc. It is the Church that excluded the Gospel of Thomas and other gnostic literature in the Nicean Council. It is the Church that used reason combined with Jesus’ teachings to abandon the dietary requirements of the Old Law.
We know not just from scripture that Jesus lived and created a Church. We know this Church lacked a bible in its early years. We know also that this Church behaved a certain way, disciplining member Churches, expounding on Jesus teachings, replacing its members with the laying on of hands and annointing with oil, etc. And we know this Church’s leadership wrote down Jesus’ teachings and preserved its esteemed early leadership’s directions, and that this same Church sifted through this literature and decided which among it was the inspired Word of God in a definitive final way at the Council of Nicea.
Protestants believe in the Bible, but they have no real authoirtative reason to know what is and what is not the Bible outside of the Magesterium.
To start, I largely agree with the comments above (except that I see no irony or problem in rejecting absolute papal authority while retaining western traditions). But I thought I would add some comments of my own.
As Tom said, Christ is the Word of God. Christ is the Logos. You write:
But after the ascension and before the parousia, we live in a time of eschatological tension, where Jesus is at once really present with us, but also really absent from us. Where is the human person, Jesus? He is in heaven. With the real absence of the Incarnate Word, we have in this age the living Word of God written, aided by the presence and activity of the Holy Spirit.
I’m troubled that you say Jesus is “really absent from us.” No, as you allude, he is really present. What is more, the Church is the Body of Christ. Christ is the Logos. The Church is, then, the body of the Logos. That is why it is the place of the Church to interpret the scriptures that they may reveal the Word. As noted above; Christ is the Word, the scriptures lead to (or contain) the Word.
The Tradition is the Word of God written, and the Writ is the Tradition. The Word of God written we hand down to our children and to posterity is the Tradition, and human application and extrapolation is always provisional and contingent. Why? Because our existence and our faith is contingent on the living Word of God, not the other way around. This, it seems to me, is the doctrine of sola scriptura.
Tradition and scripture are not the same thing. For one thing, Christian tradition predates the scriptures and the canon. It not only predates them, it has historically been used to interpret them. What you’re saying is akin to saying the Constitution is the American tradition. It’s a nonsensical statement.
When we say our lives are contingent on the Word of God, we are referring to Christ (as was John). My life is not dependent on the Scriptures. I revere them, and they are holy, but they are not Christ Himself, Who sustains me. This is why I reject sola scriptura. I don’t want “scripture alone.” I want scripture through and with Christ. Man alone is nothing.
Put these two premises together and the Word of God is clearly preeminent to church interpretation, but true knowledge of the Word of God is still accessible to the church.
Wrong. This is saying that Church interpretation (that is to say, apostolic interpretation) trumps individual, private, unorthodox interpretation.
I’ve been meaning to write a post about it, but as I’ve noted to friends, I view the scriptures as analogous to our constitution. The American people predate and wrote the Constitution, but it is binding on them. Yet, while it is binding, its interpretation must be faithful to the original intent and be promulgated by the proper authority (that being said, were America a church, its constitutional interpretation would, by analogy, make it Unitarian). I can’t get a few friends together in my living room with a copy of the constitution and just decide for myself what it means and what it obligates me to do.
Likewise, the Scriptures are not some ethereal demi-god of Christianity reigning supreme over all ecclesiological questions. They are a product of the Christian tradition and apostolate. And while they are absolutely binding, their interpretation cannot be done in a vaccum, irrespective of apostolic interpretation and application.
I wrote a piece on this issue of interpretation in relation to Hariett Myers a ways back.
http://mansizedtarget.com/2005/10/11/miers-a-fundamentalist-through-and-through/
Among other things, I wrote:
A type of fundamentalism certainly influences her defenders who argue, like Hugh Hewitt, that the Constitution is basically simple and easily understood and that the complexity of constitutional law represent the accretions of too-smart-for-their-own good activist judges. These folks, we are told, use fancy words and theories to obscure the plain and simple meaning of the constitutional text. Her own words reveal the roots of such a view; she thinks her statement that she wants “to strictly [sic] apply the law and the Constitution” is actually saying something meaningful and precise. There is good reason to believe that judicial and theological understandings mirror one another in this case, both representing a type of populist fundamentalism.
In the fundamentalist viewpoint, interpretation of any text is simply a matter of a good faith reading of the words to figure out the meaning of a text. Within very narrow limits, fundamentalists believe that all reasonable people will agree about the text of the Constitution, just as they’ll all agree about the meaning of the Bible. Going back to Martin Luther, the importance and possibility of individual interpretations is fundamental to Protestantism, which finds its truest expression in today’s evangelicals. While individual fundamentalist communities may come to some consensus on these issues, such a temporary consensus is not a function of converging individual minds; rather such an equilibrium relies on a variety of hidden, controversial, and historically imparted individual understandings, coupled with the leadership of charismatic individuals. (Or are we to believe all Pentecostals somehow differ from all Jehovah’s Witnesses because of some freak uniformity of the Churches’ members’ individual interpretations of the Bible?) The reality of dissensus among unguided individual interpretations is why “fundamentally simple” Christianity has proliferated into so many divergent sects after the Protestant “reformation.”
The fundamentalist viewpoint has a deep conflict with the notion of authority, that some types of decisions should be reserved to properly trained and appointed experts. The essence of authority is the view that individual human reason must be guided and restrained both by established tradition and trained leadership. Both fundamentalists and tradition-based belief systems, of course, rely on authority and leadership. The difference with true conservatives (and Catholics) is that their concept of authority is defended openly and explicitly. Pace the fundamentalists, in our view not everything is simple and self evident, most especially the esoteric realm of constitutional law. It’s true that some 1960s era decisions went so far beyond the text as to be laughable, and even nonspecialists could see something wrong. But it does not follow that every constitutional decision is easy or self-evident or within the abilities of lay-people and average, untrained lawyers.
Take the executive power to which Miers is so attached. It’s textual roots are very thin; executive warmaking power has been justified by the Courts historically from the constitutional structure and the laconic grant of war-making power under Article II. These grants are augmented by traditional understandings of the executive’s natural role in war time. But I’d challenge Miers’ to find a clear textual source for her understanding of this issue. And in the absence of such a textual grant, I’d ask her why her resort to tradition, precedent, structure, or universal practice does not violate her putative textualism?
Two images inform Miers’ defenders. Critics of “elitism” often decry the notion that we, a free and self-governing people, would submit to “philosopher kings.” In contrast, defenders of populism point to the “practical, real world” experience of Miers, the emblematic person of action and practical experience who has disabused herself of troubling, abstract beliefs that do not function properly in the “real world.” But between these extreme images, another image has been lost, that of the priest. The priest is no philosopher-king. His understanding and authority is thoroughly tied to his capacity to be persuasive, within a traditional role with a preordained sphere of influence. The priest performs his function at the intersection of the abstract realm of the spirit and the concrete material world, an intersection brought to completion in the Eucharist. The priest’s communion with divine mysteries may not always be understood by the community, but it is also respected, partly for the same reason.
I intend to write a significantly lengthy reply to the criticisms above, hopefully tomorrow, but at the moment I want to clear some misundestandings and clarify the implications of my post.
I have zero problems with the dates of holidays and feasts set by the Western catholic Church, from which the form of my faith derives. I echo Mark’s point: there is no irony in accepting, for example, the Christmas date of Western Christendom and protesting the extravagant claims of the bishop of Rome. On the filioque clause, however, I think Tom has a point. Still, my response is that dates and feast days are not the kind of traditions I was addressing. I was addressing the claim of magisterium and the denial of the claim that the Scriptures are the only *infallible* rule of faith and practice. Sola Scriptura does not deny that there are other rules for faith and practice, secondary standards, but that Holy Writ is the inspired Word of God, and as such is infallible and the final authority for us. This articulation is no different from Article XX of the 39 Articles.
Mark, I think your analogy from the Constitution to Holy Writ is understandable, but misleading and actually false. It betrays an insufficiently high and insufficiently sacramental view of Holy Writ. As you said, the American people (or, their representatives) created and ratified the Constitution. This is not the case with the kingdom of God. The same Word that created the world ex nihilo, and spoke to the patriarchs, and through the prophets, and became Incarnate and dwelt among us, is the same Word proclaimed by the mouth of the apostles after the ascension, and enscripturated (just as the prophets enscripturated the Word delivered to them) and proclaimed throughout the world. This Word, proclaimed by mouth and word, creates believers and is Christ’s power present for salvation. Read Hebrews on this point. The Word of God is constitutive of the church, and the Word of God written (what makes the writ holy, after all, is its inspiration by the power of God), continues to create believers. (I am shortening the argument by leaving out references of Scriptural support at the moment.) Mark, by dividing Scriptures from the Word of God–saying they only “contain” the Word–is not the orthodox understanding of Scriptures, and seems to me very tainted with the neo-orthodoxy of a Paul Tillich. Consider what Christ himself said:
Matt 15:6, “. . . he is not to honor his father or his mother. And thus you invalidated the Word of God for the sake of your tradition.”
Mark 7:13, “. . . thus invalidating the Word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”
John 10:35 “If he called them gods, to whom the Word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken). . .”
Christ is not arguing that the Scriptures (the Old Testament at that point) “contain” the Word of God, he very explicitly *identifies* them as the Word of God. I will extrapolate on this further tomorrow. Moreover, you say Scriptures are not a “demi-god” ruling over all ecclesiastical quesions–which is not something I did say–but again I challenge what I think is a rather low view of Holy Writ you seem to have by such a statement. Consider again the words of Christ himself: “the Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35), and “For assuredly I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one JOT or one TITTLE will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. Whoever therefore breaks one of the LEAST of these commandments, and teaches men to do so, shall be called the least in the kingdom oh heaven” (Matthew 5:18).
The Scriptures will endure until the eschaton. They are not mere words of men, a “product of Christian tradition.” They are divine.
More later.
[...] passing and ephemeral. Spiritual questions remain. I participated in an interesting discussion of sola scriptura over at Protestant Pontifications. [...]
A few points in reply:
It betrays an insufficiently high and insufficiently sacramental view of Holy Writ.
Um, what? Where in anything are the scriptures described to as a sacrament? I don’t think you’re using “sacramental” properly.
This is not the case with the kingdom of God. The same Word that created the world ex nihilo, and spoke to the patriarchs, and through the prophets, and became Incarnate and dwelt among us, is the same Word proclaimed by the mouth of the apostles after the ascension, and enscripturated (just as the prophets enscripturated the Word delivered to them) and proclaimed throughout the world. This Word, proclaimed by mouth and word, creates believers and is Christ’s power present for salvation.
You’re still just begging the question Mr. Roach raises: who is to say what the scriptures mean? They are frequently not straight forward. There is often no plain meaning easily discerned by a facial reading. Augustine recognized this in his Confessions and wrote of multiple layers and depths of the scriptures. Again, see Mr. Roach’s comments. They apply equally to scripture as they do constitutions and laws.
Regarding your quotations of Christ, let me ask you: is he referring to the Gospel? Of course not! Is he referring to the OT? That’d be a hard statement to make, seeing as there wasn’t an official canon at the time. That you miss this, ironically, only reinforces our point regarding individual interpretation.
“For Reformed Catholics, the Word of God is a living, breathing thing, a subject, not an object. It has its own constitution.”
Nathan, would you explain this? Would you say that the Logos (the Word of God) is created?
Mark,
Yes, I wasn’t using “sacramental” in the strict sense of pertaining to the sacraments of baptism or Eucharist, but in sensu lato as pertaining to a means of grace. My challenge to you stands, however, and you haven’t answered it. Scriptures are the Word of God written and as such have authority. Their composition by human agents does not obscure God’s divine voice. Again, consider Hebrews on this point, for example Hebrews 2:10-18. Notice how the author ascribes to the Son of God the authorship of Old Testament passages. Moreover, the power of the Old Testament is that it makes Christ known, and makes readers of Holy Scriptures wise unto salvation (see 2 Timothy 3:15 and Paul’s commendation of Timothy).
Moreover, you seem to deny that at no point is Holy Writ perspicuous. You certainly have’nt made any nuanced position on this. I for one have never affirmed that Scripture is equally perspicuous at all points–that is blindingly obvious–and no Protestant confession to my knowledge says that Scripture is equally clear on all points. Unclear passages must be interpreted in light of clearer passages. But Scripture is indeed perspicuous on many points. You apparently don’t know that we confess that proposition as Anglicans. Read for example, the words of Article 28: “…Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, *cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture,* overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.” Also, read Article 20: “…and yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God’s Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another.” So, we confess that there are plain words in Scripture, but also less plain.
In addition, haven’t you read where Paul declares that “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16)? Notice that Paul says that Holy Writ has the power to make the man of God COMPLETE, and equipped for EVERY good work. That means that Scriptures are sufficient for us.
And for all of you who wish to either detract from the sufficiency of Scripture, wishing to add authorities equal in weight to God’s Word, I urge you to meditate on this frightening verse: “Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. . . For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, THEY WILL HEAP UP FOR THEMSELVES TEACHERS; and THEY WILL TURN AWAY FROM THE TRUTH, and be turned aside to fables” (2 Tim 4:2-4). St. Paul declares that there will be people with “itching ears” people who want to hear more than the Gospel preached, itching for more, more, more than the divine word, the divine word plus human words. He specifically says how these people will act. They will add human voices to the Divine Voice, implicitly suggesting that the Word of God is insufficient, that it needs heaps of teachers to tell you more than what is written. They will “heap up teachers” for themselves. . . and by that way turn away from the truth. What is the truth? I’ll appeal to Jesus Christ: “Your word is truth” (John 17:17, said in the context of Christ’s high priestly prayer). That is the mark of people turning away from the truth, the word of God: They heap up teachers for themselves. Sobering?
Lastly, Mark, you clearly did not read any of the Scriptures I referred to. You ask, “is he referring to the Gospel? Of course not! Is he referring to the OT? That’d be a hard statement to make, seeing as there wasn’t an official canon at the time. That you miss this, ironically, only reinforces our point regarding individual interpretation.” Will you not just read for yourself? (As for St. Augustine, in his Confessions, he reports that as he met his crisis of belief in a garden he overheard some children behind a wall chanting “tolle, lege” meaning “take, read” which is what I urge you to do.) But, I will quote Matthew’s Gospel here below (15:1). CLEARLY Christ and his interlocutors are discussing the Old Testament, specifically the Ten Commandments of Exodus and the Torah of Deuteronomy. If there is anything ironic, it’s that in emphasizing the corporate teaching of Scripture, you don’t seem to study Scripture very seriously.
Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, 2“Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat!” 3Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? 4For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’ and ‘Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.’ 5But you say that if a man says to his father or mother, ‘Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is a gift devoted to God,’ 6he is not to ‘honor his father’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. 7You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:
8”‘These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
9They worship me in vain;
their teachings are but rules taught by men.’†”
Btw, that wasn’t the reply I mentioned.
Tom, I was referring to the Word of God enscripturated. As to the eternal Divine Word (Logos), the son of God, I would simply say that the Word was in the beginning and was with God and was God.
OK, I’m going to get nit-picky now, because some of your debating habits that irk me are rearing their head again. Since we’re good friends, I’m not going to pull any punches.
My challenge to you stands, however, and you haven’t answered it. Scriptures are the Word of God written and as such have authority. Their composition by human agents does not obscure God’s divine voice. Again, consider Hebrews on this point, for example Hebrews 2:10-18.
What challenge? I never argued that God’s voice is not in scripture. My point is and has simply been that you’re begging the question. Who is to say what scripture means when it is not plain? Heck, who is to say what is plain? You haven’t answered this. You just keep shouting about something else and telling me I haven’t proven that wrong, when it was never at issue in the first place.
Notice how the author ascribes to the Son of God the authorship of Old Testament passages.
Actually, he doesn’t. Saying something is the word of X is not the same as saying X is the author. That being said, I think we both agree that scripture is the inspired word of God as given through the prophets. In some senses, you can say that God is the author. In others, you can’t. Be careful with your logic, though.
Moreover, you seem to deny that at no point is Holy Writ perspicuous.
Where on earth could you get that? I wrote, “They are frequently not straight forward. There is often no plain meaning easily discerned by a facial reading.” That is very obviously not an absolutist statement.
You apparently don’t know that we confess that proposition as Anglicans.
You should avoid sentences like this; it’s ad hominem and has no value in logic.
So, we confess that there are plain words in Scripture, but also less plain.
No one ever denied that.
In addition, haven’t you read where Paul declares that “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16)? Notice that Paul says that Holy Writ has the power to make the man of God COMPLETE, and equipped for EVERY good work. That means that Scriptures are sufficient for us.
Again, you’re making leaps in logic. This does not say what you think it says. That scripture is profitable for doctrine, etc., that the man of God may be complete does not mean that it alone is enough. That is akin to saying that “Wheaties are profitable for health, that the man of sport may be perfect” means Wheaties are the only thing you need to eat to be healthy.
Now, we do confess that the scriptures contain all things necessary for salvation. That is uncontested. But that being said, that is not what your quotation says. And it does not mean you should try to get by on scriptures alone. And it most certainly does not tell you how to read or interpret scripture. In fact, “contains all things necessary” begs the question.
And for all of you who wish to either detract from the sufficiency of Scripture, wishing to add authorities equal in weight to God’s Word, I urge you to meditate on this frightening verse: “Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. . . For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, THEY WILL HEAP UP FOR THEMSELVES TEACHERS; and THEY WILL TURN AWAY FROM THE TRUTH, and be turned aside to fables” (2 Tim 4:2-4).
Once again, you’re reading your own emotions into things. Tom or I could use the exact same scripture to refute you. “Preach the word!” Whose version or interpretation of the word? “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine.” Who decides what is sound doctrine? The scriptures? If so, who elicits the doctrine from the scriptures? Who says the doctrine is properly drawn from the scriptures? Who do you think Paul is afraid the people will listen to? Apostles interpreting the scriptures? Or that they will turn to novices rendering their own, unorthodox interpretations?
St. Paul declares that there will be people with “itching ears” people who want to hear more than the Gospel preached, itching for more, more, more than the divine word, the divine word plus human words. He specifically says how these people will act.
Where are you getting “more than the divine word” from? It reads to me like he’s wary of unsound doctrine. (Maybe I should consult the Church fathers).
They will add human voices to the Divine Voice, implicitly suggesting that the Word of God is insufficient, that it needs heaps of teachers to tell you more than what is written.
Isn’t any form of exegesis or interpretation “tell[ing] you more than what is written”?
They will “heap up teachers” for themselves. . . and by that way turn away from the truth. What is the truth? I’ll appeal to Jesus Christ: “Your word is truth” (John 17:17, said in the context of Christ’s high priestly prayer). That is the mark of people turning away from the truth, the word of God: They heap up teachers for themselves. Sobering?
It should be sobering to you. Because those teachers Paul is afraid they will heap up are being juxtaposed to the teachings of the CHURCH. You, Joe Sixpack in your Wednesday night bible study at Starbucks, you are the one with itching ears, preaching according to your desires and heaping up teachers.
Lastly, Mark, you clearly did not read any of the Scriptures I referred to. You ask, “is he referring to the Gospel? Of course not! Is he referring to the OT? That’d be a hard statement to make, seeing as there wasn’t an official canon at the time. That you miss this, ironically, only reinforces our point regarding individual interpretation.” Will you not just read for yourself? (As for St. Augustine, in his Confessions, he reports that as he met his crisis of belief in a garden he overheard some children behind a wall chanting “tolle, lege” meaning “take, read” which is what I urge you to do.)
I don’t understand your point here, as this passage has no argument in it. But thank you for the condescension.
But, I will quote Matthew’s Gospel here below (15:1). CLEARLY Christ and his interlocutors are discussing the Old Testament, specifically the Ten Commandments of Exodus and the Torah of Deuteronomy. If there is anything ironic, it’s that in emphasizing the corporate teaching of Scripture, you don’t seem to study Scripture very seriously.
Again with the ad hominem. And I apparently study it as closely as you read my remarks. Of course there were Jewish scriptures to which Christ refers. But my point was that your analogy falls short, because they were not canonized like the modern Bible. You’re stretching Christ’s words to say something that, from the context, they were clearly not trying to say. More simply: you’re reading too much into scripture, trying to find support for your view.
That’s my line-by-line response. Overall, you’re missing the point if you think we’re arguing over the importance of scripture or whether they are inspired by God. Or if you think I think every verse is opaque.
The disagreement here is less about the place of scripture, and really about who has authority to interpret the scriptures. Sola scriptura denies the necessity of the institutional church for the faithful interpretation of scripture. Seeing as apostolic succession derives from the very men who wrote down these scriptures, this seems a foolish mistake to me.
Mark,
First off, I apologize for irking you. Secondly, by way of clarification, when I use caps it’s not because I’m “shouting” at you or being emotional–I’m drawing attention to the particular words and would rather use italics but don’t know how to in the comments format. I dislike internet discussions that take on a line-by-line format, though I understand the need for that format at points, because it tends to disintegrate the conversation; so I’m going to do my best to incorporate my responses to your line-by-lines into an integrated whole.
My challenge to you was regarding your analogy of the church and Scriptures to America and the Constitution, that it is a false analogy that betrays a low view of Scripture, and that particularly your statement “the scriptures lead to (or contain) the Word” is not orthodox. My intention in quoting the passages of Jesus and the pharisees (Matt 15, et. al.) was actually less a point about the relationship of human tradition to God’s Word than about highlighting the fact that Christ identifies the Old Testament passages as God’s Word written (not “containing” or merely “leading to” God’s Word).
To answer your question about difficulties of interpreting Scripture that is not plain: it is the office of presbyter-bishops to rule and teach their congregations the Scriptures, and so ordained ministers of God’s Word must seek to faithfully explicate the Bible in light of doctrinal orthodoxy, by the secondary standards which they confessed at ordination, and by right reason. (Even within those strictures, that doesn’t guarantee their fidelity to the Gospel Tradition: exhibit A, your honor, the Episcopal Church of the United States.) There are many hermeneutical principles by which they go about this–one being the analogy of Scripture, that the Bible must be interpreted with coherence, with unclear passages interpreted by clearer passages–but as I am not an ordained presbyter-bishop or anything else, I won’t say more. One could call this process an interpretive work within a tradition, but it is a tradition seeking to rest itself on Scripture, which is fine. But the tradition rests on Scripture, and so Scripture can always be summoned to test an interpretive tradition (which it may pass, and as such I would have more trust in that tradition as true, rightly guided, etc., and a worthy secondary standard).
Your point about my missing the necessary condition/ sufficient condition distinction from the verse I quoted is well taken. However, to explain, I was reading from all of 2 Timothy 3 (as you can see from the surrounding verses I used) and the verses immediately prior to the one I quoted were still in my thinking: “But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus” (3:14-15). So, it seems that Paul is affirming that the Word of God in the Old Testament has the power to make us “wise for salvation,” which is to say they are sufficient to make us “wise for salvation.” This also agrees with Christ’s own affirmation to the disciples on the road to Emmaus: “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! Ought not the Christ to have suffered these things and to enter into His glory? And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself” (Luke 24:25-27). In other passages Jesus rebukes the Pharisees for not interpreting rightly “Moses and the Prophets” because by reading them, they ought to have known of Messiah’s coming. Now, Christ is the new Word (Hebrews 1:1) who fulfills all the Old Testament, so in this way Old Testament believers had faith in a future completion of the promises they had inherited, and as the Word incarnate is God’s final and most complete revelation of Himself, which makes the witness of the apostles and their New Testament all the more clarifying of the Old Testament. I’m not saying you disagree with this, I’m just clarifying what I meant by saying “the Scriptures are sufficient for us”–I wasn’t saying that it’s “me, Jesus, and the Bible.”
Incidentally, Christ’s incarnation and own words DOES tell us one way in which we interpret the Bible: the prophesies and promises of the Old Testament foretell Jesus, that He is their fulfillment, and thus by “reading backward” our eyes are uncovered as to the meaning and purposes of many passages that were mysterious to many pre-Adventen Jews.
You say the following: “Once again, you’re reading your own emotions into things. Tom or I could use the exact same scripture to refute you. “Preach the word!” Whose version or interpretation of the word? “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine.” Who decides what is sound doctrine? The scriptures? If so, who elicits the doctrine from the scriptures? Who says the doctrine is properly drawn from the scriptures? Who do you think Paul is afraid the people will listen to? Apostles interpreting the scriptures? Or that they will turn to novices rendering their own, unorthodox interpretations?”
What “emotions” have I read into 2 Tim. 4:2-4? Anger? Fear? Aggression? (the Dark Side are they… ;) I did not identify any person or group or denomination or historical confession or church tradition AS those who turn away from sound doctrine. You simply filled in that content in your mind–which is to say you read into my statement. All I said was that THOSE WHO DO turn away from sound doctrine “heap up teachers” for themselves, and that anyone who wishes to make any authority equal to God’s Word written need to meditate on that verse. Who do I think Paul is afraid people will listen to? I think Paul was afraid that people would turn away from the “pattern of sound words” that he entrusted to Timothy (2 Tim 1:13), which he received from God (1 Tim 1:10) and the means by which they would do so will be by “heaping up teachers” for themselves that teach more than and contrary to the message God entrusted Paul, which he passed to Timothy in word and letter. For example, the Gnostics frequently asserted that they had received from the Apostles an oral tradition that revealed higher truths than the ones given to the successors of the apostles, and so were claiming a line of teachers in an oral tradition that rivaled the written tradition handed down. So, only a little later in church history, there is a clash between oral tradition and written tradition and which is the true “pattern of sound doctrine.” Suffice it to say, written tradition (the New Testament letters) is identified as the faithful message of Apostolic Tradition. We have the faithful pattern of sound doctrine, says the church against the Gnostics, and it’s here in these epistles and letters from the apostles–the Gospel given by word of mouth is also given here in writing. On the several points you raise here, I plan to address in another post hopefully soon, on the exact nature of the “Tradition” we ought to be talking about.
So, this warning against “heaping up teachers” is NOT being juxtaposed with the teachings of the Church: they are being juxtaposed with the *divine message* given to Paul who is entrusting it to Timothy. It’s against the Gospel. The Church is a steward of the divine message, but it is the divine message that false teachers–inside and outside the Church–that is the target. So, Paul is describing the means and the characteristics of deniers of sound doctrine: with the “itching ears” Paul is using this phrase referring to many of the false teachers he names in his two letters to Timothy, describing them variously at times as “always learning but never coming to the truth,” who say the general resurrection has already occurred, always babbling, and having a form of godliness but denying its power, etc. In the context it’s clear he is identifying people who want more than the message Paul is giving to Timothy (as the Gnostics did) or who want a different message.
Finally, your last statements about my alleged ad hominems. Did you actually read from the three passages from which I quoted (Matt 15, Mark 7, and John 10) before you responded to them? I’ll let you answer that. Because it appeared to me you did not by asking, “Is he referring to the OT? That’d be a hard statement to make, seeing as there wasn’t an official canon at the time.” Why is that a hard statement to make? Because clearly Jesus is referring to the Old Testament, as the Pharisees had questioned him about passages in Exodus and Deuteronomy, both of which were part of the accepted Jewish scriptures (”Moses and the Prophets”). To call you out on having not read them is not ad hominem; it’s saying you need to know what they are talking about in order to discuss what they are talking about (since your question was, “is he referring to the OT?”)! The Pentateuch was as much “canon” for the Jews as later the Gospels for Christians, if not more so in the ways they treated it. The Pentateuch was constitutive of the Jewish community of believers in Yahweh. It’s not an analogy that falls short at all. Christ was contrasting their added traditions and interpretations with the meaning of the words themselves, exposing how they nullify the Word of God with their tradition. Besides, even for the sake of argument, had the Pentateuch NOT been “canon” as you say, what of it? The passages under discussion still derive from there, so Christ was referring to the Old Testament.
My specific reference to Augustine was in response to your vague reference to Augustine: when I was operating under the belief that you seemed to deny that Scriptures are perspicuous on numerous points, your Augustine reference seemed to be a support of that position, and so I responded with a more direct Augustine reference to refute that support. Since you say that I am mistaken about your belief that Scriptures are plain on numerous points, I’ll accept that (though as I said, you didn’t articulate a nuanced position, only saying Scripture is not plain on many points. But Scripture is also plain on many points, so what then?) If we confess that Scriptures are plain on numerous points–the basics of faith, that there is a God, we are sinners in need of repentance, He has revealed himself through Jesus on whom we must trust, and that there are eternal consequences for this life–then the only proper way to approach that is to, as I urged you to do, “tolle lege.” Plain things must be encountered directly to be known. So, read! You have been entirely critical (that is, simply criticizing my logic) but have not been engaging with any Scriptural text as I have. I would encourage you to do so.
So, these last few points mostly derived from troubles I had with your post. I’m aware of the main thrust of my original post and the criticisms that came after. But I wanted to press you on what I thought were some weaknesses in your understanding of Scripture.
I would still challenge you on your idea of an analogy between America and the Constitution and the Word of God and the Kingdom of God, as I think it is neo-orthodox rather than orthodox for reasons I’ve explained above and before.
I haven’t engaged in quoting scripture at you because I’m trying to get you to see that that is circular. How do you quote something to prove how to interpret it?
You write, But the tradition rests on Scripture, and so Scripture can always be summoned to test an interpretive tradition (which it may pass, and as such I would have more trust in that tradition as true, rightly guided, etc., and a worthy secondary standard).
Don’t you see the circularity in this? How can an interpretive tradition rest on that which it interprets? That’s like saying your theory of constitutional interpretation is right because the constitution implies so. If you can’t see this, I fear we are at an impasse. (And before you get all bent out of shape, there is nothing wrong with analogizing to the constitution. It’s an analogy, I’m not equating the two things. Such usage says nothing about the value of either document).
To cut through all the clutter and tangential issues we’ve both raised, the question I want to ask is this: What are the Scriptures without the Church?
Nathan,
Your admonition to Mark to reply with more proof texts is…unhelpful. Anyone can take quotes from scripture out of context to prove almost anything. Arius, for instance, was one of the best scripture scholars in the world of his day, and had numerous quotes from scripture (OT and NT) to prove his heresies. What stopped him and the spread of his heresies was not counter-bible-quotes – it was that the Fathers at the Council of Nicea stood up and said “No, this is not the Tradition which has been handed to us”. The problem with the Gnostics wasn’t the “orality” of their tradition (all written tradition in the ancient world began as an oral tradition) – it was the secrecy of it, and that it ran counter to the Teaching of the Apostles (A teaching which was crystallized in Scripture).
I don’t think that throwing verses back and forth at each other is going to get us far at all – the scriptures are not a scientific, discursive, philosophical or academic text. Using them as such is abusive and does violence to scripture, which we must read and receive in the spirit of humility only.
Also, I think what frustrates Mark and me (and the lawyers who have been commenting) is that you stubbornly refuse to see that all texts are read through some sort of “interpretive matrix”, if you will. Even the simplest of texts, even with a supposed “plain reading”, is still read through some sort of lens. It’s simply a part of the process of reading. Perhaps studying enough badly written legislation and the Constitution helps one know this – I’m not sure. Yet ignoring this and throwing verses around doesn’t negate the existence of the “matrix”.
Which leads to the next question – which matrix is the right one?
Furthermore, you never answered my initial question: “How did the Church exist before the New Testament existed?”.
You also said “This Word, proclaimed by mouth and word, creates believers and is Christ’s power present for salvation.” So I assume you would say that Scripture is all that is necessary to guide man to salvation. So I ask, in a corollary to my last question “How then were men even saved before the NT was written?”
Now, we’ve mentioned the Fathers – I hope that you will read the following link, which is a famous section from that Church Father who happens to be a favorite of Anglicans – St. Vincent of Lerins. (of the “Vincentian Canon”, which also happens to be in this selection) http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/vincent.aspx
Also, I’d add that quoting the “Articles of Religion” is especially pointless. I refuse to submit to the legislation of a foreign parliament in almost all matters, but especially religious ones. Even as an Anglican that was my view. Maybe I’m just too much of a Colonial or something (and I won’t even mention the Erastian character of the Articles of Religion, which lend them even less authority, at least in my mind). Yet even these Articles, “simple” as they are, are fully capable of any number of interpretations, as shown quite well by the Tractarians. Tract 90, for instance: http://anglicanhistory.org/tracts/tract90/ Even the Book of Common Prayer itself is subject to interpretations, as evidenced by the long co-existence of groups with the Anglican Communion who hold completely different ideas about what the Prayer Book means with what it says.
And finally, I’ll just throw out the truly Orthodox explanation of scripture, and why it is not self-sufficient:
“We cannot assert that Scripture is self-sufficient; and this is not because it is incomplete, or inexact, or has any defects, but because Scripture in its very essence does not lay claim to self-sufficiency… . If we declare Scripture to be self-sufficient, we only expose it to subjective, arbitrary interpretation, thus cutting it away from its sacred source. Scripture is given to us in tradition. It is the vital, crystallising centre. The Church, as the Body of Christ, stands mystically first and is fuller than Scripture. This does not limit Scripture, or cast shadows on it. But truth is revealed to us not only historically. Christ appeared and still appears before us not only in the Scriptures; He unchangeably and unceasingly reveals Himself in the Church, in His own Body. In the times of the early Christians the Gospels were not yet written and could not be the sole source of knowledge. The Church acted according to the spirit of the Gospel, and, what is more, the Gospel came to life in the Church, in the Holy Eucharist. In the Christ of the Holy Eucharist Christians learned to know the Christ of the Gospels, and so His image became vivid to them.” Fr. George Florovsky, Bible, Church, Tradition: An Eastern Orthodox View, pp. 48-49
Tom,
To answer your two questions:
1) The Church existed before the New Testament as a worshipping community of people who through their history and textual traditions worshipped the God of their fathers. They had a constitutive history (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as patriarchs, the exodus, Moses and the Law, and finally the Davidic monarchy and the prophets) and rituals (Passover, Jubilee, temple sacrifice, and temple worship) that formed a covenantal union between God and them. Their textual tradition (”Moses and the Prophets”) formed the coventantal documents from which they often strayed, and to which subsequent prophets called them back, built on, and referred.
2) Men were saved before the New Testament in the way men are saved after the New Testament, namely, by relying through faith on the righteousness of God, believing his promises, and entering the covenant God makes between us and Himself. Another way to put it is, in the Old Testament age God’s people were saved on credit by looking forward to what Messiah would accomplish–even though they did not know exactly what that would entail–and in the New Testament age we are saved by looking back on what Messiah did accomplish. But the means of salvation are the same: faith.
I would normally supply passages from the text and context of the Scriptures to show that I didn’t just pull this opinion out of my head, and refer to other more eminent men than myself who taught me this understanding, but maybe you’d prefer I not.
I understand your point about interpretive grids that we all have while reading. One grid you may not have had in mind is the first grid that we all are born with: the grid of unbelief, which prevents just any reader of the Bible from understanding what is written. Throughout the New Testament it is witnessed that Christ had to “open the eyes” of the disciples and others to understand what was written. You mention Arius and his hermeneutical brilliance. You could also mention the Pharisee and Sadducci sects of earlier times. Both studied their respective Scriptural texts and both got them wrong. But you misunderstand my point and position if you think I’m defending mere “plain reading.” The Word of God is indeed a spoken word before a written one, but one necessary condition to apprehending it rightly is the Spirit of God acting upon the hearer. In fact, the first condition for right apprehension is the Holy Spirit’s guidance, the presence of which cannot be proven by scientific or historical method. This first condition is God’s free gift. And we cannot say that the guidance of the Spirit of God is bound to any particular person, place, or institution, as that would be limiting God’s freedom. I would also suggest that not every heretical crisis of the Church can follow the model of Nicea, which cautions us from making the Arian controversy normative. There are other grids we all have, such as our experience, “chronological snobbery” (or historical location), and parochiality. Yet I don’t think these grids are as important in the sense most apropos to my post as the grid of unbelief: these “secondary” grids can be overcome by education, diologue within the catholic Chuch, and historical inquiry.
I would also say that the Scriptures are not meant to be privately studied by individuals as an end but to be proclaimed by word of mouth to the covenantal community. It is by sound, not by sight, that Gospel is communicated: faith comes by hearing. In God’s mysterious way, the ear and not the eye is the chosen means for divine revelation. This is one reason Jesus never wrote anything down–he says over and again that he must say every word the Father gave him. But to the apostles it was given to write and record all those things necessary for our salvation, which include the words of Christ, the Word of God.
It is to that written record our conversation must revolve around. Because, after all, the Apostles are dead. They don’t speak to us. Who does? Why, you know the answer to that. And what do our bishops speak? Well, we can tell when our bishops speak a language foreign to what has been believed always and everywhere, when they speak a language of parochial or chronological snobbery (modern day liberalism, for example), if we ourselves know the language of the Tradition, that sound pattern of words and doctrines that come from Holy Writ. But bishops and priests seeking to speak truth–in their minds–are not merely speaking their own words, but the words of a faith once spoken to them, that can be compared to the witness of faith in the whole counsel of God in Holy Writ. How do we know that the true faith once delivered has not been lost? We have our covenantal documents, Holy Writ, which was constitutive of our faith.
But, again, the end is not private understanding and individual interpretation, but comparing our belief with the witness of the Apostles. The Scriptures of Old and New Testament (our covenantal documents) are for public proclamation because as they are spoken aloud, the words again become flesh in a present way: the same “sound pattern of words” and the very words of Christ are vocalized and literally reverberate in public sound once again. And sound is the medium of community. Thus in community are the Scriptures meant to be read aloud. And the hearers of the Word–or, those who “have ears to hear”–can know the truth because it is a revocalization of what they once heard, what once saved them. As Christ himself said, “My sheep know my voice.” This is itself the Tradition.