It has been a long time since I have blogged, and much of the reason for this is because life in the theological world and in general has been rather peaceful as of lately and I have had nothing to complain about (LOL!). To be honest I have enjoyed life minus the numerous debates :D (though there are the occasional little ones that pop up and end peacefully). Nevertheless my time without big debates has come to an end, and a classical theological leviathan has once again reared its ugly head........This particular leviathan is the relationship between Scripture and Tradition, and whether one should be chosen over the other.
As a good Reformed Protestant I will first and foremost say that I believe in Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone) with all of my heart, and will defend this doctrine until I give up the ghost (KJV English meaning "die"). Yet, as I defend this pillar of Protestant Church tradition, I REFUSE to defend the popular and nebulous misunderstanding of this pillar that is rampant among many fellow Protestants. When the Reformers (I am speaking of the magisterial Reformers: Luther, Calvin, Farel, Zwingli, Bullinger, Oecolampadius, and Melanchton) said "Sola Scriptura", they did NOT mean Scripture without tradition, they were talking about the relationship between Scripture and tradition. In the minds of the Reformers, tradition was secondary to Scripture because Scripture is in one sense God's voice (or a means by which God speaks to us and reveals Himself) while tradition is in one sense the voice of the church (or a means by which the church bears witness to God, and in a way reveals Him to the world).
It would be foolish to say that tradition should go out the window, for tradition is the compiled prophetic witness of Christians throughout the centuries handed down to us in the present day, and it by tradition that we believe that the Bible IS God's Holy Word. Without the witness of tradition (or God's saints throughout the ages), the Bible would be seen as another book and not given the place of honor that is due to such a gift of God and means of revelation. It is because of Holy Fathers and Mothers of old like St. Thomas Aquinas (who looked to the Church Father St. Augustine when speaking of the Scriptures) that I personally came to firmly believe in Sola Scriptura. Aquinas once said:
"Nevertheless, sacred doctrine makes use of these authorities [the pagan Greek philosophers] as extrinsic and probable arguments; but properly uses the authority of the canonical Scriptures as an incontrovertible proof, and the authority of the doctors of the Church as one that may properly be used, yet merely as probable. For our faith rests upon the revelation made to the apostles and prophets who wrote the canonical books, and not on the revelations (if any such there are) made to other doctors. Hence Augustine says, 'Only those books of Scripture which are called canonical have I learned to hold in such honor as to believe their authors have not erred in any way in writing them. But other authors I so read as not to deem everything in their works to be true, merely on account of their having so thought and written, whatever may have been their holiness and learning.'" (Epis. ad Hieron. xix, 1)
From Aquinas one can see how tradition plays a role in our belief that Scripture IS God's Holy Word, and this is why the Reformers held that tradition is secondary to Scripture, for it is only a witness to the authority of Scripture. Looking back on the previous sentence I would like to point out that Sola Scriptura is ultimately about the authority of Scripture, and Church tradition does not work against this authority but heralds and proclaims it with a trumpet blast. But what of the times where the Reformers railed against tradition?. How does one explain this?......Well the answer is simple. There are two facets of tradition which a fellow minister pointed out; these facets are Big "T" tradition and Little "t" tradition.
Big "T" tradition (ex. Belief in the Holy Trinity, the sacraments, belief that the Bible is God's Holy Word, the hypostatic union) is the tradition of the Apostles and Early Church that can be found in Scripture and has been historically passed down since the early ecumenical councils. Though this facet of tradition is not perfect (for it comes from human understandings of God's Word), it is what all the orthodox Christian churches believe no matter what denominational stream they are in (in other words it is the foundation of the Christian faith; what Christians MUST believe). Little "t" tradition on the other hand are church traditions and customs that are locally made and handed down (ex. Greek Orthodox wedding crowns, Reformed Psalm singing, or the way some Baptist groups immerse and dress in white during baptisms), and though they are not found within Scripture they can serve as a way of helping one with their devotion to Christ. Unlike Big "T" tradition, Little "t" tradition is not necessary for one to be a Christian, and if this facet of tradition is misused then the consequences can be dire.......During the Reformation period Little "t" tradition was essentially out of hand (for various reasons such as Scholasticism in theological education and corrupt church authorities who used it for ungodly purposes), and the Reformers had to put it in check because it was leading to unChristian folk beliefs (a.k.a. superstitions) that went away from the heart of Scripture and the faith of Christ. Nevertheless the Reformers did not get rid of Big "T" tradition or the church authorities of the past whom they looked at through a critical lens for these authorities were still human and possessed their own flaws. When speaking of the role of tradition in John Calvin's interpretation of Scripture, Justo González states that although he insisted upon the sole authority of the Holy Scriptures [Sola Scriptura], he interpreted them in the light of the early ecumenical councils. Furthermore Calvin also looked to ancient Christian writers, and in his writings one can observe him quoting them often, and quoting them with approval (See Justo L. Gonzlez's work titled, "A History of Christian Thought: From the Protestant Reformation to the Twentieth Century", pg. 48 ).
So when it is all said and done, Sola Scriptura is simply a proper understanding of the relationship between Scripture and tradition, and sadly many Protestants are clueless when it comes to this. Furthermore I have observed that the common misunderstanding of Sola Scriptura has led to an epidemic of bad Little "t" tradition, for every individual is their own source of authority. Unlike many Protestants of today, many of the classical confessional Protestants did as the church had always done and looked back to the voices of the past as they read the Scriptures; sure their interpretations were not always the best, but they were a lot better than Joe Schmoe who studies Scripture and only asks "what does this mean to me?". The healthy appeal to tradition (where one uses it critically) is an act of humility, for when one goes to the authorities of the past who carried on the work of the Gospel and gave their lives for it, then they are putting their own interpretations last to consider the interpretations of others throughout the ages.
So with all that said I am done with this blog session after months of silence, and if anyone wishes to read a good article on the Reformers' view of Sola Scriptura go here:
As a good Reformed Protestant I will first and foremost say that I believe in Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone) with all of my heart, and will defend this doctrine until I give up the ghost (KJV English meaning "die"). Yet, as I defend this pillar of Protestant Church tradition, I REFUSE to defend the popular and nebulous misunderstanding of this pillar that is rampant among many fellow Protestants. When the Reformers (I am speaking of the magisterial Reformers: Luther, Calvin, Farel, Zwingli, Bullinger, Oecolampadius, and Melanchton) said "Sola Scriptura", they did NOT mean Scripture without tradition, they were talking about the relationship between Scripture and tradition. In the minds of the Reformers, tradition was secondary to Scripture because Scripture is in one sense God's voice (or a means by which God speaks to us and reveals Himself) while tradition is in one sense the voice of the church (or a means by which the church bears witness to God, and in a way reveals Him to the world).
It would be foolish to say that tradition should go out the window, for tradition is the compiled prophetic witness of Christians throughout the centuries handed down to us in the present day, and it by tradition that we believe that the Bible IS God's Holy Word. Without the witness of tradition (or God's saints throughout the ages), the Bible would be seen as another book and not given the place of honor that is due to such a gift of God and means of revelation. It is because of Holy Fathers and Mothers of old like St. Thomas Aquinas (who looked to the Church Father St. Augustine when speaking of the Scriptures) that I personally came to firmly believe in Sola Scriptura. Aquinas once said:
"Nevertheless, sacred doctrine makes use of these authorities [the pagan Greek philosophers] as extrinsic and probable arguments; but properly uses the authority of the canonical Scriptures as an incontrovertible proof, and the authority of the doctors of the Church as one that may properly be used, yet merely as probable. For our faith rests upon the revelation made to the apostles and prophets who wrote the canonical books, and not on the revelations (if any such there are) made to other doctors. Hence Augustine says, 'Only those books of Scripture which are called canonical have I learned to hold in such honor as to believe their authors have not erred in any way in writing them. But other authors I so read as not to deem everything in their works to be true, merely on account of their having so thought and written, whatever may have been their holiness and learning.'" (Epis. ad Hieron. xix, 1)
From Aquinas one can see how tradition plays a role in our belief that Scripture IS God's Holy Word, and this is why the Reformers held that tradition is secondary to Scripture, for it is only a witness to the authority of Scripture. Looking back on the previous sentence I would like to point out that Sola Scriptura is ultimately about the authority of Scripture, and Church tradition does not work against this authority but heralds and proclaims it with a trumpet blast. But what of the times where the Reformers railed against tradition?. How does one explain this?......Well the answer is simple. There are two facets of tradition which a fellow minister pointed out; these facets are Big "T" tradition and Little "t" tradition.
Big "T" tradition (ex. Belief in the Holy Trinity, the sacraments, belief that the Bible is God's Holy Word, the hypostatic union) is the tradition of the Apostles and Early Church that can be found in Scripture and has been historically passed down since the early ecumenical councils. Though this facet of tradition is not perfect (for it comes from human understandings of God's Word), it is what all the orthodox Christian churches believe no matter what denominational stream they are in (in other words it is the foundation of the Christian faith; what Christians MUST believe). Little "t" tradition on the other hand are church traditions and customs that are locally made and handed down (ex. Greek Orthodox wedding crowns, Reformed Psalm singing, or the way some Baptist groups immerse and dress in white during baptisms), and though they are not found within Scripture they can serve as a way of helping one with their devotion to Christ. Unlike Big "T" tradition, Little "t" tradition is not necessary for one to be a Christian, and if this facet of tradition is misused then the consequences can be dire.......During the Reformation period Little "t" tradition was essentially out of hand (for various reasons such as Scholasticism in theological education and corrupt church authorities who used it for ungodly purposes), and the Reformers had to put it in check because it was leading to unChristian folk beliefs (a.k.a. superstitions) that went away from the heart of Scripture and the faith of Christ. Nevertheless the Reformers did not get rid of Big "T" tradition or the church authorities of the past whom they looked at through a critical lens for these authorities were still human and possessed their own flaws. When speaking of the role of tradition in John Calvin's interpretation of Scripture, Justo González states that although he insisted upon the sole authority of the Holy Scriptures [Sola Scriptura], he interpreted them in the light of the early ecumenical councils. Furthermore Calvin also looked to ancient Christian writers, and in his writings one can observe him quoting them often, and quoting them with approval (See Justo L. Gonzlez's work titled, "A History of Christian Thought: From the Protestant Reformation to the Twentieth Century", pg. 48 ).
So when it is all said and done, Sola Scriptura is simply a proper understanding of the relationship between Scripture and tradition, and sadly many Protestants are clueless when it comes to this. Furthermore I have observed that the common misunderstanding of Sola Scriptura has led to an epidemic of bad Little "t" tradition, for every individual is their own source of authority. Unlike many Protestants of today, many of the classical confessional Protestants did as the church had always done and looked back to the voices of the past as they read the Scriptures; sure their interpretations were not always the best, but they were a lot better than Joe Schmoe who studies Scripture and only asks "what does this mean to me?". The healthy appeal to tradition (where one uses it critically) is an act of humility, for when one goes to the authorities of the past who carried on the work of the Gospel and gave their lives for it, then they are putting their own interpretations last to consider the interpretations of others throughout the ages.
So with all that said I am done with this blog session after months of silence, and if anyone wishes to read a good article on the Reformers' view of Sola Scriptura go here:
0 comments:
Post a Comment