The following is a paper I wrote for my Biblical Hermeneutics(Art and Science of Biblical Interpretation) class. It is a research paper, so none of the ideas are my own. If anyone has the desire and patience to read through this admittedly long paper, I first will applaud you, and secondly I believe you will be blessed by it. Let me know your thoughts and questions.
SCRIPTURE & TRADITION: SOLA SCRIPTURA
"How do we keep our balance? That I can tell you in one word: Tradition!"
–Tevye, Fiddler on the Roof[1]
As R.C. Sproul writes, "The Canon of the New Testament rests upon a 'tradition.' The term 'tradition' is often viewed by a jaundiced eye among Evangelicals. It suffers from the problem of guilt by association [with the role played by tradition in Rome.]"[2]
Both the aversion to the view of Tradition held by Roman Catholics, and Christ's rebuke of the Pharisees for supplanting the word of God with the traditions of men, has led to the outright rejection of tradition by some Evangelicals.[3] As R.C. Sproul goes on to write of this rejection,
The danger in this is to miss the important role tradition plays within the scope of Scripture itself. Scripture does not reject all tradition. It repudiates the traditions of men, but affirms another tradition—the divine tradition. Paul, for example, frequently speaks of tradition in a positive sense. He speaks of that body of truth that was given over to the church by Christ and the Apostles."[4]
One of the battle cries of the sixteenth-century Reformation was sola Scriptura, a Latin slogan meaning "Scripture alone." What is the relationship between Scripture and Tradition? This paper will give a broad overview of the history of views held from the time of the early church fathers to modern times, with special emphasis upon the Reformation call to sola Scriptura.
According to Keith A. Mathison, "The historical debate over the doctrine of sola Scriptura is often wrongly characterized in terms of a conflict between Scripture and tradition. It is actually a debate involving different concepts of tradition. There have been, during the church's history, essentially four main views of tradition."[5] A proper understanding of the historical debate over the understanding of tradition will help us to understand where the doctrine of sola Scriptura fits into that context. [6]
The first view of tradition sees the content of Scripture and tradition as identical. This first view is a 'one-source' theory of revelation, which has been termed "Tradition I" by Heiko A. Oberman. [7]As Keith A. Mathison writes of this first view of tradition.
According to this understanding of Scripture and tradition, the apostolic doctrine, which had been orally preached for decades after the death of Christ, was eventually written down in the books of the New Testament. This New Testament Scripture, along with the Old Testament, is the sole source of inspired revelation, and it is to be interpreted by the Church within the context of the apostolic rule of faith.[8]
A 'two-source' theory or revelation, termed "Tradition II," [9]views Scripture and tradition as "two equally authoritative and supplementary sources of divine revelation. On this view, the content of Scripture and tradition are not identical."
A third view of tradition "understands the real source of revelation to be the living magisterium (teaching office) of the church.[11] This view of tradition has been termed "Tradition III."[12]
The last view "rejects any role for tradition in any sense and argues that every individual is able to interpret Scripture correctly for himself according to his own private judgment, apart from the church, the creeds, and any other human help." [13] This final view is referred to as "Tradition 0," or solo Scriptura.[14]
According to Keith A. Mathison, "The early Fathers generally understood tradition to be the body of doctrine that had been committed to the church by Jesus and his apostles, whether orally or in writing. The content of this body of doctrine was the same, regardless of the form in which it was communicated." [15] It is worth noting that the message of the gospel was first an oral message, and not a written text. As D.H. Williams writes,
The apostolic Tradition had chronological and logical precedence over the texts which would eventually become the New Testament…The church received its Scripture in light of what had been handed down (tradere) by and about Jesus Christ…The gospel was not originally a text, but an oral message focused on the incarnation of the Living God. [16]
This oral message is the apostolic tradition. R.C. Sproul writes, "It was the apostolic tradition that was codified in the formalization of the New Testament Canon." [17]
Keith A. Mathison writes further of the origin of the New Testament Scriptures, that they were:
…the inscripturation of the apostolic proclamation. It was the same apostolic proclamation that had previously been preached orally. Together with the Old Testament, it was the church's source of divine revelation, and it was the sole doctrinal authority. The early Christians also believed that this written Scripture was to be interpreted in and by the church within the context of the general rule of faith taught by the apostles. At this early point in history, however, there is no indication that the Fathers believed that they had recourse to any second source of revelation that contained things not found in the New Testament. In other words, in the first three centuries, the church taught the concept of tradition described above as Tradition I. [18]
Roman Catholics often cite early church fathers to support a two-source view of tradition. Though a thorough treatment of the early church fathers is beyond the scope of this paper, a few examples of those most frequently cited by Roman Catholics must suffice. Take for example Basil's letter to Eustathius the physician:
They are charging me with innovation, and base their charge on my confession of three hypostases, and blame me for asserting one Goodness, one Power, one Godhead. In this they are not wide of the truth, for I do so assert. Their complaint is that their custom does not accept this, and that Scripture does not agree. What is my reply? I do not consider it fair that the custom which obtains among them should be regarded as a law and rule of orthodoxy. If custom is to be taken in proof of what is right, then it is certainly competent for me to put forward on my side the custom which obtains here. If they reject this, we are clearly not bound to follow them. Therefore let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the word of God, in favour of that side will be cast the vote of truth. [19]
Here, Basil notes that he does not consider it fair that the custom of his opponents should be valued as authoritative proof of orthodoxy. Instead, it is the Scriptures inspired by God, and not a secondary source of tradition, which is the final arbiter of truth.
Another father oft cited by those who hold to a two-source view of tradition is Athanasius. In a letter to Egyptian Bishops, Athanasius writes "But since holy Scripture is of all things most sufficient for us, therefore recommending to those who desire to know more of these matters, to read the Divine word." [20] Athanasius could well have written about two authorities, but instead cited Scripture as being sufficient of all things. Elsewhere, Athanasius writes:
Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faith's sake; for divine Scripture is sufficient above all things; but if a Council be needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene Bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrine so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced in divine Scripture. [21]
Athanasius makes it clear that Councils and other independent traditions are not necessary, as divine Scripture is sufficient above all things, that there is no separate authoritative tradition outside of Scripture. Even more interesting, though, is Athanasius' testimony regarding the statement of the Nicene Bishops, that it is an exact statement or summary of the doctrine in divine Scripture. The use Athanasius finds for Councils in settling matters of orthodoxy is precisely that they are summaries of the doctrines found in Scripture, not that they are bearing out an independent authoritative tradition.
A two-source concept of revelation (Tradition II) can first be observed "in the writings of certain fourth-century church fathers. Such a view is strongly suggested in the writings of John Chrysostom, for example, and is possibly suggested in the writings of Basil and Augustine."[22]As it was already noted, at least in the case of Basil we can see from other writings clearly that he did not hold to a two-source view of revelation. Keith Mathison points out, that "there is good evidence, however, that neither Basil nor Augustine actually intended to teach a two-source view. Unfortunately, however, the hints of such a concept in the writings of these influential theologians ensured it a place in the thinking of the later medieval church."[23]
Though the later medieval church would develop a two-source concept of revelation, as Mathison write, "The general consensus of the early church remained the consensus throughout most of the middle ages…most Christian theologians continued to adhere to a form of Tradition I."R.E. McNally agrees, writing that the "Early medieval man did not consider scripture and tradition as two separate and distinct receptacles in which God's revelation was preserved and through which it was transmitted."[25]
During the twelfth-century, a gradual rejection of allegorical hermeneutical methods of biblical interpretation occurred. As a result "Many medieval doctrines and practices that had been defended from Scripture on the basis of an allegorical method of interpretation were indefensible if Scripture was interpreted more literally. In order to defend the apostolicity of some of these doctrines and practices, a second source of apostolic revelation was posited."[26] The late medieval church questioned whether two separate and distinct sources of revelation might exist: Scripture and tradition. Tradition, it was thought, contained revealed truths not found in Scripture.[27]
Though argued against by Roman Catholics, the fourteenth-century theologian William of Ockham is credited for being the first to medieval theologian to define a fully developed two-source theory of revelation. The fourteenth century saw the parallel development of two concepts of tradition, Tradition I and Tradition II. The Protestant Reformation of the sixteenth century needs to be understood as having occurred in the context of this ongoing debate.[28]
Classical Reformers like John Calvin and Martin Luther were not creating a new doctrine with a call to the doctrine of sola Scriptura. Instead, to combat the apostate teaching and practices of the Roman Catholic Church, the classical Reformers called the church back to Tradition I, a one-source view of revelation that was to be interpreted in and by the church according to the ancient rule of faith as summarized in the Christian Creed.[29]
The classical Reformers emphatically rejected the dual-source view of special revelation held by the Roman Catholic Church. It was "at the Fourth Session of the Council of Trent, [that] Rome declared that the truth of God is found both in the Scriptures and in the tradition of the church."[30]The advocates of Tradition I and Tradition II had up to this point the two views had been debated since the twelfth century within the church, but this move by the Council of Trent widened the gap between the adherents of the two views. The call for the church to return to a one-source view of revelation, by classical Reformers such as Martin Luther and John Calvin, caused "their Roman Catholic opponents [to become] more adamant in their proclamation of Tradition II. Eventually the two concepts were no longer able to coexist within the same ecclesiastical communion. Also, at the same time that this debate was taking place, a more radical group of Reformers began to proclaim a new concept of tradition."[31]
The radical Reformers, unlike the classical Reformers, took a very negative approach to all traditions, believing that Luther and Calvin had not gone far enough in their application of sola Scripura. The radical Reformers believed the classical Reformers were making a serious error in continuing to hold the creeds of the ancient church. The radical Reformers placed the private judgment of individual believers above the corporate judgment of the body of Christ. This view of tradition, called solo Scriptura or Tradition 0, posits that Scripture is not only the sole inspired and infallible authority, but that Scripture is the sole authority altogether. As Keith Mathison writes, "It is important to understand that two completely different views emerged from the Reformation, and that Tradition 0 was not the position held by such men as Martin Luther and John Calvin.[32]
As discussed briefly before, at the Council of Trent the Roman Catholic Church made the view of revelation described as Tradition II official church dogma, a view that persisted for roughly three hundred years. Since the mid eighteenth-century a new view of tradition has emerged within the Roman Catholic Church. Keith Mathison writes that
Rome is gradually moving toward a one-source concept of revelation, but the one source of revelation is the Roman magisterium. In practice, what this means is that whatever Rome now teaches is, by definition, the tradition of the church. This is, of course, the logical implication of the doctrine of papal infallibility, but it is also a virtual declaration of autonomy that places all authority in the hands of the 'magisterium of the moment.'[33]
The modern debate over the doctrine of sola Scriptura is often wrongly framed by those who hold to solo Scriptura, as a debate over Scripture versus tradition. In truth, we will all teach a concept of tradition. The real question, then, is which concept of tradition will we teach? Only the view of revelation held by the classical Reformers, the one-source view known as Tradition I, can make a plausible claim to be the teaching of the early church. The classical Reformers, using the slogan sola Scriptura, "insisted that Scripture was the sole source of revelation, that it was the final authoritative norm for doctrine and practice, that it was to be interpreted in and by the church, and that it was to be interpreted within the context of the rule of faith."[34] To understand the doctrine of sola Scriptura, each of those points of insistence must be examined separately.
Essentially, the perfection of Scripture refers to its completeness as a source of revelation. Conservatives on all sides of the debate would grant that Scripture, as the Word of God, is perfect in the sense of being inspired. However, "Proponents of Tradition II would deny that Scripture is perfect in the sense of its being complete and adequate source of revelation."[35] They would say that all of revelation is necessary for obedience to the law of God, but that there are two sources of revelation.
By saying that Scripture is perfect, the doctrine of sola Scriptura affirms "All the revelation that we need for salvation may be found in Scripture. It is a perfect and complete source of revelation for the Christian church."[36]
The doctrine of sola Scriptura asserts that Scripture alone is the infallible and authoritative norm for Christian faith and practice, but it does not assert that Scripture is the only authority at all. That is the view held by the radical Reformers in the doctrine of solo Scriptura. "There are other authorities that are subordinate to Scripture, but Scripture is the only inspired and inherently infallible authority, and therefore it is the only final and authoritative norm."[37]
Infallibility actually the inability to err. Infallibility entails inerrancy, the actual absence of error. Within conservative circles, whether Protestant or roman Catholic, all would agree to those premises, so the point will not be belabored. The difference come when we say that because Scripture alone is inspired or God-breathed, it alone is inherently infallible. As Mathison states his argument, "Scripture alone can plausibly claim full and complete inspiration; therefore, Scripture alone can plausibly claim full and complete infallibility and inerrancy."[38] (For more, see: Lemke, Biblical Hermeneutics, 158)
As the God-breathed and infallible word of God, Scripture carries a unique authority. This unique authority is the absolute authority of God himself. The Roman Catholic Church has claimed that Scripture derives its existence and therefore its authority from the church.[39]
No man or church can claim to have an authority greater than or equal to that of God, as almighty God is by his very nature unique and sovereign. Since Scripture is the word of the uniquely sovereign and authoritative God, it carries all the authority of God himself. Though no church explicitly claims to have an authority equal to or greater than that of God himself, some churches do claim that they have authority equal to or greater than that of Scripture, God's very word. As Keith Mathison writes, "What these churches do not seem to understand is that a claim to greater authority than that of Scripture is a claim to greater authority than that of God. Such a claim is nothing short of blasphemy. If Scripture truly is the word of almighty God, then the issue of final authority is settled."
John Calvin criticized the view that the authority of Scripture is owed to the authority of the church. In his book, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Calvin writes:
"For if the Christian Church was founded at first on the writings of the prophets, and the preaching of the apostles, that doctrine, wheresoever it may be found, was certainly ascertained and sanctioned antecedently to the Church, since, but for this, the Church herself never could have existed. Nothings therefore can be more absurd than the fiction, that the power of judging Scripture is in the Church, and that on her nod its certainty depends. When the Church receives it, and gives it the stamp of her authority, she does not make that authentic which was otherwise doubtful or controverted but, acknowledging it as the truth of God, she, as in duty bounds shows her reverence by an unhesitating assent."[41]
The divine Traditions of the church, namely the writing of the prophets and the preaching of the apostles as Calvin points to, preceded the church. They are in fact the foundation of the church. Any stamp of authority by the church upon the Scriptures, that divine Tradition, is merely the due acknowledgment of it as the truth of God.
Another essential element of the doctrine of sola Scriptura is that the God breathed Scriptures stand as the supreme norm and standard for the faith and practice of the church, the norma absoluta. This must be the case if Scripture is the unique, final, and infallible authority, and carries with it the very authority of God himself. No other proposed norms or standards can claim such attributes for themselves. Neither the writings of the Fathers, or the creeds of the church, are God-breathed. Nor does the church speak with the inherent authority of God himself. As Mathison writes, "Scripture is absolutely unique in this respect, and it is for this reason that 'Scripture alone'—sola Scriptura—is the supreme norm and standard for the church's faith and practice."[42]
Another element of the doctrine of sola Scriptura is that concept that that Scripture is to be interpreted in and by the church within the context of the rule of faith. This is a major difference between the sola Scriptura of Tradition I and the solo Scriptura of Tradition 0. Mathison writes that "the doctrine of sola Scriptura asserts that Scripture is truth (John 17:17), and that the church is the pillar and ground of truth (1 Tim. 3:15). There is, therefore, a necessary relationship between the Spirit-inspired word of God and the Spirit-indwelt people of God."[43]
The assertion that Scripture is the only inspired and infallible authority does not rule out the necessity of lesser authorities. The church is such a secondary authority. The church is necessary because the Bible cannot preach itself., and the church is the only human agency with the authority and ability to speak. This is the clear teaching of the Scriptures themselves, as Mathison writes, "The church was established by Jesus Christ (Matt. 16:18); the church is given authority to teach and disciple the nations (Matt. 28:18-20); the church is the instrument through which God makes the truth of his word known (Eph. 3:10)."[44]
But what about the right and responsibility of the individual Christian to read and study Scripture? The rightful authority of the church does not remove that responsibility from the believer. While the Word of God, as we read and study Scripture, binds our individual consciences, church authority cannot rest on the individual judgment of each member of the church. This is a challenge to our modern sense of individualism. The corporate judgment of God's covenant community is not replaced by individual private judgments.[45]
The corporate judgment of church normally operates through those who have been given gifts of teaching and leadership in the church. The spiritual gifts of teaching and leadership to certain members bring with them a level of authority not shared by every member of the church. While the authority of the church is not an infallible authority like the Scriptures, it is still a real and binding authority. The reason that this authority has been given to the church is "in order that she may preserve the unity of the faith and reject the errors of heretics."[46]
The last elements of the doctrine of sola Scriptura are the creeds and the rule of faith, to which the doctrinal authority of the church is intimately connected. A proper doctrine of the authority of the church requires us to acknowledge both the communal nature of the work of interpretation, and that the community is not limited to the living, but instead encompasses all who have passed before us.[47]
The assertion that Scripture is self interpreting may be true for the most immediate aspects of the gospel, but a brief review of the history of biblical interpretation should be sufficient to demonstrate that the piling up of biblical date offers no guarantee of a faithful Scriptural interpretation, even less a Christian doctrine of God. As D.H. Williams writes, "Scripture can never stand completely independent of the ancient consensus of the church's teaching without serious hermeneutical difficulties." [48] The issue at hand, as stated before, is not whether we will use tradition to interpret Scripture. The issue is then, which view of tradition will we use?
As Mathison writes of the rule of faith, it "was a summary of apostolic doctrine that was preserved by the church, taught to new catechumens, and eventually inscripturated in complete form by the apostles in the canonical books of the New Testament." [50] This summary of the faith was eventually expressed in the writing of the early creeds of the church to combat heresy. The rule of faith functioned as a standard hermeneutical device for the early church. Heretics were recognizable because they did not interpret Scripture in the context of the summary of the Apostles teaching, the rule of faith. To say it another way, heretics do not interpret Scripture according to the Christian faith. [51]
Scripture can only be handled rightly and responsibly by the church, in reference to the historic Tradition of the church, as summarized in the rule of faith and Apostles Creed. Outside of that reference, "any heretical notion can arise taking sanction under a 'back to the Bible' platform. The early church was only too well aware that a Scripture-only principle (no less than biblical inerrancy) is no guarantor of orthodox Christianity." [52]The issue before us today is not whether we will adhere to a view of tradition, but instead, which view of tradition we will hold.
As Tevye, a character from Fiddler on the Roof said:"Without our traditions our lives would be as shaky as a fiddler on a roof!" [53]
--> -->
--> -->
[1]
Fiddler on the Roof, DVD, prod. and dir. Norman Jewison, 179 min. (Metro Goldwyn Mayer, 1971).
[2]R.C. Sproul, The Establishment of Scripture, in Sola Scriptura! The Protestant Position on the Bible, ed. Don Kistler (Morgan: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 1995), 70-71.
[3]Ibid., 70-71.
[4]R.C. Sproul, Sola Scriptura!, 70-71.
[5]
Keith A. Mathison, Sola Scriptura, in After Darkness, Light: Essays in Honor of R. C. Sproul, ed. R.C. Sproul Jr (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2003), 32.
[6]Ibid., 33.
[7]Heiko A. Oberman, The dawn of the Reformation : essays in late medieval and early Reformation thought (Grand Rapids: W.B. Eerdmans Publishing Co, 1992), 280.
[8]Keith A. Mathison, After Darkness, Light, 33.
[9]Heiko A. Oberman, The dawn of the Reformation, 280.[10]
Keith A. Mathison, After Darkness, Light, 32-33.
[11]Ibid., 33.
[12]Heiko A. Oberman, The dawn of the Reformation, 280.
[13]Keith A. Mathison, After Darkness, Light, 33.
[14]Heiko A. Oberman, The dawn of the Reformation, 280.
[15]Keith A. Mathison, After Darkness, Light, 33.
[16]D.H. Williams, Reviving the Tradition & Renewing Evangelicalism: A Primer for Suspicous Protestants (Grand Rapids: Wm. b. Eerdmans Publishing Co, 1999), 230.
[17]R.C. Sproul, Sola Scriptura!, 72.
[18]Keith A. Mathison, After Darkness, Light, 33-34.
[19]Philip Schaff, ed., The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, series 2, vol. VIII, Letter CLXXXIX. To Eustathius the Physician.. (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans publishing company), http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf208.ix.cxc.html. (accessed November 5, 2006).
