There are different species of tradition. Believing that a particular person within the apostolic enterprise wrote Hebrews, or whether Peter was ever in Rome, or decisions determining the local circumstances of worship, have no necessary doctrinal implications. Something like believing PV was needed to facilitate a certain theological status within the incarnation, does.
Sola Scriptura and Tradition
- Thread starter MW
- Start date
- Status
John Nyberg
Puritan Board Sophomore
It is hard for me, as a lay-person, to read the LBCF or WCF and believe that they are documents that strongly favor church tradition.
For in LBCF 1.4 we have the authority of the Word "depends not upon the testimony of any man or church"
However (LBCF 1.5) "We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the church of God to a high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scriptures;"
So clearly the Testimony serves only as an additional supporting reason to trust the scripture. Understanding comes from the Spirit.
As for tradition, it seems to be explicitly against tradition when it comes to issues that touch salvation LBCF 1.6 "The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down or necessarily contained in the Holy Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelation of the Spirit, or traditions of men. Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word, and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed."
And LBCF 1.10 "The supreme judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Scripture delivered by the Spirit, into which Scripture so delivered, our faith is finally resolved"
Again, as a lay-person, it is hard for me to read these things and then stock in church traditions that have no scriptural basis.
For in LBCF 1.4 we have the authority of the Word "depends not upon the testimony of any man or church"
However (LBCF 1.5) "We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the church of God to a high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scriptures;"
So clearly the Testimony serves only as an additional supporting reason to trust the scripture. Understanding comes from the Spirit.
As for tradition, it seems to be explicitly against tradition when it comes to issues that touch salvation LBCF 1.6 "The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down or necessarily contained in the Holy Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelation of the Spirit, or traditions of men. Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word, and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed."
And LBCF 1.10 "The supreme judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Scripture delivered by the Spirit, into which Scripture so delivered, our faith is finally resolved"
Again, as a lay-person, it is hard for me to read these things and then stock in church traditions that have no scriptural basis.
SolaScriptura
Puritanboard Brimstone
Which is why I've been saying that the glorious and faithful manner in which the truly Reformed interpret Scripture - and do theology - is faithfully and deeply Reformed - it flows directly from the principles they rediscovered and shares the same theological concerns and priorities, and the specific propositions in the Westminster Standards are the things that matter to me.
"Your commitment to Scripture is formed by tradition." - Maybe, perhaps, but we need to be self-critical or else we've departed Sola Scriptura. Definitely safer to say "influenced." But still, even for the Reformers and in the first generations of the Reformed believers - the ones (who on the one hand) you are adamant to that they held Scripture in one hand and Tradition in the other) yet on the other hand (ha!) in their reading of Scripture and in the formation and articulation of doctrine, the freshly rediscovered principle of Sola Scriptura with the attendant hermeneutics, required them to kind of start from the ground up (even though that notion is denied in other places) - or maybe you'd prefer to say: simply re-explained. Note the use of a key verb:
"The Protestant orthodox, however, were left with the task of reconstructing a churchly and confessionally governed dogmatics in the context of a hermeneutical revolution. Doctrines like the Trinity, the Person of Christ, the fall and original sin, which had developed over centuries and with the assistance of an easy mingling of theological and exegetical traditions and of an exegetical method designed to find more in a text than what was given directly by a grammatical reading, would now have to be exposited and exegetically justified—all in the face of a Roman Catholic polemic against the sole authority of Scripture as defined by the Reformers over against the tradition and the churchly magisterium, a polemic made all the more telling by the presence of the teachings of the Radicals."
Note: exegetical justification is required. Even for those doctrines which were viewed as established. So much for the weight of tradition. This is a far more rigorous standard than "tradition - something affirmed or practiced given to us by the Church - stands unless it is repudiated by Scripture"
And note, Muller acknowledges a "hermeneutical revolution." Ok, this is ALL I have been trying to say: a revolution is messy and takes a while for all the pieces to settle down and for the implications to be worked out. And that's what I've been saying: the Reformers and early generations got things going, and so they can be forgiven for being inconsistent at times or whatever, but over time, the implications of that "hermeneutical revolution" got settled, and thankfully: the historical-grammatical hermeneutic kills superstitious ideas like the perpetual virginity of Mary.
As to who gets to decide what the Tradition IS: Again...Who gets to determine what "we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..." means: the brilliant luminary who penned it... or do we, the living, get a voice in the matter?
And no, brother, you dance around, but Tradition not just a nebulous "interpretive grid" - tradition posits specific ideas. The grotesque idea of the perpetual virginity of Mary is one such idea.
Remember, you repudiated the idea (at least when I wrote it) that a Tradition must have positive warrant in Scripture for us to affirm it, saying that tradition stands unless contradicted by Scripture.
So: what other traditions stand? Come on, name some.
I've pointed out that the Reformed principle of the regulative nature of Scripture - which most happily acknowledge most of the time - requires positive warrant... but yet (some) jump to a normative principle at times so that we can pretend that the contradictions in our luminaries are actually baked into the cake. But they're just contradictions, and in trying baptize their contradictions it is demonstrated
And yes, the reason I reference WCF 1.10 with Hodge's commentary is that is precisely what has been disputed by you: the Bible - and the Bible alone - is the authority. You can tap dance - you're a great tap dancer - and claim that you're not disputing it, but nearly 30 posts from you all with one thrust cannot be ignored.
Which is why PV and other traditions are dead out of the gate. Even if Calvin believed it.
Last edited:
clawrence9008
Puritan Board Freshman
I could very much be wrong about this (especially considering the PV thread that this thread came out of was almost 500 posts long, most of which were dedicated to this issue of sola scriptura and tradition), but it almost seems like people are talking past each other when it comes to defining "tradition." It seems like some people are using "tradition" to refer to the way the church has historically interpreted a text / set of texts to arrive exegetically at a specific doctrine, while others are using "tradition" to refer to manmade traditions that the church has historically believed but have no basis in Scripture. I'm not sure though, I've honestly gotten lost in the argument at this point.
SolaScriptura
Puritanboard Brimstone
Which is why I want to know specifically WHAT we're talking about: I want the one telling me that if I don't hold Tradition near and dear then I'm "outside the tradition" - and so too is anyone else for that matter - to straight up tell me which traditions are the Tradition. From the other thread it was asserted that traditions don't need positive warrant from Scripture, they only need to not be contradicted by Scripture. And PV was an illustration: this doctrine is not found in the Bible, but is rather given to us by Tradition, and certain luminaries assumed it and then came to the Bible with the aim of saying "see, the Bible doesn't REQUIRE me to jettison the tradition" (and a great deal of posts were in showing how deference to a tradition required in every case the abandonment of the plain reading of Scripture and the torturing of the straightforward).
Ok, so at least in the case of PV, there's a definite doctrine that is on the table because of Tradition. I want proponents of Tradition to put some more so that we can see what it is they're wanting us to buy.
But the issue of PV demonstrates that while some may pretend the issue is simply about "how has the Tradition traditionally interpreted texts" that's not true: the issue of PV conclusively PROVES that Tradition is interested in specific positions, whether those positions originate in the text of Scripture OR whether those positions originate outside the Bible. Tradition is more than a lens: it always is in reference to specific conclusions.
chuckd
Puritan Board Junior
What are Traditions?
Traditions, are doctrines delivered from hand to hand, either by word of mouth, or by writing, beside the written word of God.
-William Perkins
He sites 2 Tim. 3:8, Heb. 12:21, and Jude 1:9 as examples.
Mary's PV, for example, is not "needed to facilitate a certain theological status within the incarnation." It's simply a historical fact that was passed down orally. The church may have deduced something from it and now denial of PV means a denial of that long held deduction. But the tradition itself is just a belief that it occurred. Like that Matthew wrote the gospel of Matthew.
D
Deleted member 9611
Guest
SolaScriptura
Puritanboard Brimstone
But here's the thing, the idea of Mary's PV is not just a "fact of history" - in fact, there were those who opposed the idea even in the early days of it. It's a doctrine that flowed from a specific set of beliefs about Mary. And the "facts" that didn't comport with the specific set of beliefs were crushed. Further, we know it isn't a fact of history because it is a belief that developed apart from what the Bible says, and I take the Bible to teach history.
(This doesn't surprise me - we have false doctrine and manmade traditions emerging even within the lifetime of the Apostles. Baptism for the dead, anyone?) People love their false doctrine!
Last edited:
No Other Name
Puritan Board Senior
Rather a denial that this "long held deduction" even exists as a deduction per se at all.
As an example: where is the differentiating factor between Scripture re: PV and apocrypha re: PV (see Phil's post on Protoevangelium of James) that allows for acceptance of PV while denying all the extraneous bells and whistles therein.
If any church father believed PV but denied the visions of sparrows (or however it went) by Mary's mom, all well and good so far.
But from there: where is the argument from Scripture that leads necessarily - no, even sufficiently - to PV?
None has ever been offered by any defender of PV as a doctrine that is "not-dogmatic-yet-pious". Simply claiming "heOs" may not mean a change in status does not demonstrate how and why "heOs" does not mean a change in status in Matt. 1:25.
[automerge]1736869380[/automerge]
Momentary reminder to all that if I recall, no one - not even Rev. Winzer - affirmed PV for themselves. So while PV is important to the discussion of Sola Scriptura and tradition, that is one false doctrine that no one here affirms.
Having said that, it might be productive and instructive if anyone were to explain how and why they do not affirm PV. If anyone comes to the same conclusion as I do (PV is not established as true) but using a different methodology that allows for tradition more so than the historical-grammatical method as has been used here, that might move the discussion from theory to practice.
Last edited:
SolaScriptura
Puritanboard Brimstone
Correct, I did not mean to infer or imply that it was believed by anyone here. My statement was intended only as a commentary on the fact that even while the apostles lived, people were busy devising and accumulating false doctrines. And precisely because, as Calvin observes, the human heart is an idol factory, there seems to be a strange soft spot in the human heart for false doctrine in various forms. But my statement was in no way intended to be an indictment of any person in particular.
I apologize to anyone, especially Matthew, if it seemed as if I was claiming you love false doctrine. I know you do not.
Every tradition has a why component. Expositions on PV consistently give a theological reason why it supposedly happened. If not theological, what was its intended purpose?
No Other Name
Puritan Board Senior
This is actually more helpful than I first realized.
As Perkins defines traditions as "beside the written word of God" he cites examples of Scriptures that used traditions that had been in the category of "beside the written word of God" like Moses saying "I tremble with fear" and the archangel disputing with the devil over the body of Moses. All "beside the written word of God" until of course they were then actually included in the word of God by the Holy Spirit through the author of Hebrews and Jude respectively.
Last edited:
SolaScriptura
Puritanboard Brimstone
Perkins' definition is helpful because it nails down in place the idea that traditions are doctrines.
And remember, I - and others - have been saying that the Reformed system requires that only those doctrines which are established and upheld by the Word be accepted. (This idea was rejected as being unReformed.) And I note that while some have the audacity to claim that "my" approach is "outside the tradition," for my part I have consistently attempted to be charitable - the Reformers and early Reformed were indeed inconsistent and sometimes contradictory, but I do not with a wave of my hand dismiss them from being "in the tradition." No, they were vital and precious forefathers who did far more good than bad, and they were brilliant and luminous, but not without their own biases and imperfections. We can embrace them without elevating them to untouchable status.
And they provided us with a "continuity of argument" (as much has been made of in earlier posts in this thread) - so that while the specific positions affirmed may change, there are some principles that run through our Camp, and it is to those principles that we adhere: The principles of the Reformation, especially as fleshed out amongst the Reformed camps, affirm a strong Sola Scriptura which - when applied consistently - means that any and every tradition that does not have positive scriptural warrant is to be rejected.
Muller points out the monumental task facing our forefathers as they wrestled with the implications of this principle:
"The Protestant orthodox, however, were left with the task of reconstructing a churchly and confessionally governed dogmatics in the context of a hermeneutical revolution. Doctrines like the Trinity, the Person of Christ, the fall and original sin, which had developed over centuries and with the assistance of an easy mingling of theological and exegetical traditions and of an exegetical method designed to find more in a text than what was given directly by a grammatical reading, would now have to be exposited and exegetically justified—all in the face of a Roman Catholic polemic against the sole authority of Scripture as defined by the Reformers over against the tradition and the churchly magisterium..." (emphasis mine)
And this requirement of "exegetical justification" - positive Scriptural warrant - is precisely what the Westminster Confession teaches.
Reference has already been made to AA Hodge's commentary on the Westminster Confession in which he strongly asserts:
"The Protestant doctrine is, (1) That the Scriptures are the only rule of faith and practice;" 2) Negatively, that there is no body of men qualified or authorized to interpret the Scriptures or to apply their teachings to the decision of particular questions in a sense binding upon their fellow Christians. (3) Positively, that the Scriptures are the only authoritative voice in the Church."which is to be interpreted and applied by every individual for himself, with the assistance, though not by the authority, of his fellow-Christians. Creeds and confessions, as to form, bind those only who voluntarily profess them; and as to matter, they bind only so far as they affirm truly what the Bible teaches, and because the Bible does so teach."
Chad Van Dixhoorn, a living contemporary of ours, concurs in his esteemed "Confessing the Faith: A Reader's Guide to the Westminster Confession of Faith" - when, in commenting on WCF 1.6 he writes, "The sufficiency of Scripture applies to all matters pertaining to our salvation. We need go nowhere else - we cannot go anywhere else - to find the way of salvation. This applies too for all matters of faith - all Christian doctrine is to derived from the Bible alone." (Italics mine)
Remember: according to Perkins, traditions are doctrines, and the WCF teaches that all doctrine must be "derived" from the Bible alone (that is: positive warrant from Scripture is required). Thus, any tradition - for it to be received - must be derived from the Bible by positive warrant.
And we see the exaltation of the Word over every expression of human tradition and opinion in WCF 1.10 - "The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be settled and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined; and in whose sentence we are to rest; can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture."
Now, I realize that no one is contesting WCF 1.10... BUT... we have been repeatedly told that opinions of ancient writers are the lens by which we read Scripture, which is putting the cart before the horse.
In Van Dixhoorn's words, "Ask yourself: are there 'controversies of religion' that need to be settled? Then there is only one standard that is necessary for us to use, one court to which ever Christian and church must appeal. Are there 'decrees of councils' that need to be evaluated? Then there is only one canon by which these councils and their decrees - including the decisions of the Westminster assembly and this confession of faith - can be authoritatively considered right or wrong. Have you or your friends encountered weighty 'opinions of ancient writers'? There is only one balance in which they can be weighed. Do we meet the 'doctrines of men' in conversation, in reading, and in preaching? There is only one light by which they can be examined. Are there 'private spirits' or personal opinions in the church? Then there is only one way in which they are to be judged. There is one 'sentence' in which 'we are to rest'. And that 'can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.'"
Amen!
Now, dear reader: do we see much room there for Tradition in any form?
No wonder AA Hodge felt comfortable stating that the Scriptures are the only authoritative voice in the church.
Even if it is a challenge epistemologically, one implication of WCF 1.10 is that we must be as careful as possible to ensure that a tradition is not the lens by which we understand the Bible, but rather the Bible is to be the lens by which we understand a tradition. Otherwise, the Bible is subordinated to that tradition.
And remember, I - and others - have been saying that the Reformed system requires that only those doctrines which are established and upheld by the Word be accepted. (This idea was rejected as being unReformed.) And I note that while some have the audacity to claim that "my" approach is "outside the tradition," for my part I have consistently attempted to be charitable - the Reformers and early Reformed were indeed inconsistent and sometimes contradictory, but I do not with a wave of my hand dismiss them from being "in the tradition." No, they were vital and precious forefathers who did far more good than bad, and they were brilliant and luminous, but not without their own biases and imperfections. We can embrace them without elevating them to untouchable status.
And they provided us with a "continuity of argument" (as much has been made of in earlier posts in this thread) - so that while the specific positions affirmed may change, there are some principles that run through our Camp, and it is to those principles that we adhere: The principles of the Reformation, especially as fleshed out amongst the Reformed camps, affirm a strong Sola Scriptura which - when applied consistently - means that any and every tradition that does not have positive scriptural warrant is to be rejected.
Muller points out the monumental task facing our forefathers as they wrestled with the implications of this principle:
"The Protestant orthodox, however, were left with the task of reconstructing a churchly and confessionally governed dogmatics in the context of a hermeneutical revolution. Doctrines like the Trinity, the Person of Christ, the fall and original sin, which had developed over centuries and with the assistance of an easy mingling of theological and exegetical traditions and of an exegetical method designed to find more in a text than what was given directly by a grammatical reading, would now have to be exposited and exegetically justified—all in the face of a Roman Catholic polemic against the sole authority of Scripture as defined by the Reformers over against the tradition and the churchly magisterium..." (emphasis mine)
And this requirement of "exegetical justification" - positive Scriptural warrant - is precisely what the Westminster Confession teaches.
Reference has already been made to AA Hodge's commentary on the Westminster Confession in which he strongly asserts:
"The Protestant doctrine is, (1) That the Scriptures are the only rule of faith and practice;" 2) Negatively, that there is no body of men qualified or authorized to interpret the Scriptures or to apply their teachings to the decision of particular questions in a sense binding upon their fellow Christians. (3) Positively, that the Scriptures are the only authoritative voice in the Church."which is to be interpreted and applied by every individual for himself, with the assistance, though not by the authority, of his fellow-Christians. Creeds and confessions, as to form, bind those only who voluntarily profess them; and as to matter, they bind only so far as they affirm truly what the Bible teaches, and because the Bible does so teach."
Chad Van Dixhoorn, a living contemporary of ours, concurs in his esteemed "Confessing the Faith: A Reader's Guide to the Westminster Confession of Faith" - when, in commenting on WCF 1.6 he writes, "The sufficiency of Scripture applies to all matters pertaining to our salvation. We need go nowhere else - we cannot go anywhere else - to find the way of salvation. This applies too for all matters of faith - all Christian doctrine is to derived from the Bible alone." (Italics mine)
Remember: according to Perkins, traditions are doctrines, and the WCF teaches that all doctrine must be "derived" from the Bible alone (that is: positive warrant from Scripture is required). Thus, any tradition - for it to be received - must be derived from the Bible by positive warrant.
And we see the exaltation of the Word over every expression of human tradition and opinion in WCF 1.10 - "The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be settled and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined; and in whose sentence we are to rest; can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture."
Now, I realize that no one is contesting WCF 1.10... BUT... we have been repeatedly told that opinions of ancient writers are the lens by which we read Scripture, which is putting the cart before the horse.
In Van Dixhoorn's words, "Ask yourself: are there 'controversies of religion' that need to be settled? Then there is only one standard that is necessary for us to use, one court to which ever Christian and church must appeal. Are there 'decrees of councils' that need to be evaluated? Then there is only one canon by which these councils and their decrees - including the decisions of the Westminster assembly and this confession of faith - can be authoritatively considered right or wrong. Have you or your friends encountered weighty 'opinions of ancient writers'? There is only one balance in which they can be weighed. Do we meet the 'doctrines of men' in conversation, in reading, and in preaching? There is only one light by which they can be examined. Are there 'private spirits' or personal opinions in the church? Then there is only one way in which they are to be judged. There is one 'sentence' in which 'we are to rest'. And that 'can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.'"
Amen!
Now, dear reader: do we see much room there for Tradition in any form?
No wonder AA Hodge felt comfortable stating that the Scriptures are the only authoritative voice in the church.
Even if it is a challenge epistemologically, one implication of WCF 1.10 is that we must be as careful as possible to ensure that a tradition is not the lens by which we understand the Bible, but rather the Bible is to be the lens by which we understand a tradition. Otherwise, the Bible is subordinated to that tradition.
Last edited:
Knight
Puritan Board Sophomore
Thank you. Can you offer some clarification? Hodge:
"...there is no body of men qualified or authorized to interpret the Scriptures or to apply their teachings to the decision of particular questions in a sense binding upon their fellow Christians."
Vows:
Vows of Church Membership
1. Do you believe the Bible, consisting of the Old and New Testaments, to be the Word of God, and its doctrine of salvation to be the perfect and only true doctrine of salvation?
2. Do you admit you are a sinner and hating your sinfulness, do you humble yourself before God and trust for salvation not in yourself but in Jesus Christ alone?
3. Do you acknowledge Jesus Christ as your sovereign Lord and do you promise, in reliance on the grace of God, to serve him with all that is in you, to forsake the world, putting to death your old nature and to lead a godly life?
4. Do you agree to submit in the Lord to the government of this church and, in case you should be found delinquent in doctrine or life, to obey its discipline?
The "particular question" is, "are you able to join our local body as a member?" The vows seem to be an interpretation of Scripture. Your view (correct me if I'm wrong) seems to be that the vows are not binding upon fellow Christians, so it escapes Hodge's critique:
No church can force a man to join. We agree on that. But I still don't understand how, given that vows are a condition for membership, it's possible to say that vows are not "in a sense binding" upon fellow Christians; contingently, sure - i.e. if they want to join - but nevertheless binding.
This comment and thread (in which you partook) was interesting. Have your views changed in the last 6 months at all?
Solparvus
Puritan Board Senior
I appreciate @SolaScriptura on this matter. Very much. This thread and the other.
Yes, we come with received traditional grids, for better or worse. How good for us if our default mode of interpretation is built upon sound Scriptural principles hammered out by godly and learned men. The quality control of church history is invaluable. Still, it's Christ's own will that every tradition be held to Scripture, no matter how pious it sounds, or how helpful it may seem.
Christ himself called into question ritual handwashing in Mark 7. Many believed the tradition to have come from Moses. Who would dare question Moses? His spiritual privilege and wisdom was unlike any until Christ. The tradition itself reflected a desire to maintain spiritual purity, and to be separate from anything unclean. The tradition was held in high regard. Mk. 7:2, when Christ didn't do it, "they found fault." Who all kept the tradition? If it indeed came from Moses, then scores of godly men from Joshua to Joseph possibly kept it.
And yet to Christ, with no lack of love for Moses, the faithful servant in the house (if indeed the teaching came from Moses), it is merely "the teachings of men." (Mk. 7:7); not because there was no reason to think Moses actually said it, or because it lacked historical patronage, but because it is simply nowhere in "the teaching and to the testimony." It's serviceability as a reminder of the need for spiritual purity held no basis for its continuance whatsoever.
It's difficult to stand outside one's received tradition and question it, but it is doable. Was the Jew of that day stuck in a tradition of hermeneutic? The hermeneutic he would have grown up with would have justified the Pharisees and condemned Christ. There is no choice but to "step out," and at least faithfully modify the hermeneutic. In any case, he can't afford the conclusions he would have come to before.
In any case, whatever the reason for a tradition, the truth will always set free, and the Scriptures have all the truth necessary for life and godliness and for the Man of God to be complete and fully furnished. If it's not there, you don't need it.
Yes, we come with received traditional grids, for better or worse. How good for us if our default mode of interpretation is built upon sound Scriptural principles hammered out by godly and learned men. The quality control of church history is invaluable. Still, it's Christ's own will that every tradition be held to Scripture, no matter how pious it sounds, or how helpful it may seem.
Christ himself called into question ritual handwashing in Mark 7. Many believed the tradition to have come from Moses. Who would dare question Moses? His spiritual privilege and wisdom was unlike any until Christ. The tradition itself reflected a desire to maintain spiritual purity, and to be separate from anything unclean. The tradition was held in high regard. Mk. 7:2, when Christ didn't do it, "they found fault." Who all kept the tradition? If it indeed came from Moses, then scores of godly men from Joshua to Joseph possibly kept it.
And yet to Christ, with no lack of love for Moses, the faithful servant in the house (if indeed the teaching came from Moses), it is merely "the teachings of men." (Mk. 7:7); not because there was no reason to think Moses actually said it, or because it lacked historical patronage, but because it is simply nowhere in "the teaching and to the testimony." It's serviceability as a reminder of the need for spiritual purity held no basis for its continuance whatsoever.
It's difficult to stand outside one's received tradition and question it, but it is doable. Was the Jew of that day stuck in a tradition of hermeneutic? The hermeneutic he would have grown up with would have justified the Pharisees and condemned Christ. There is no choice but to "step out," and at least faithfully modify the hermeneutic. In any case, he can't afford the conclusions he would have come to before.
In any case, whatever the reason for a tradition, the truth will always set free, and the Scriptures have all the truth necessary for life and godliness and for the Man of God to be complete and fully furnished. If it's not there, you don't need it.
Last edited:
SolaScriptura
Puritanboard Brimstone
Bless you, my son.
Northern Crofter
Puritan Board Junior
I'm afraid I'm not sure what clarification you are looking for. Maybe my comments below will suffice?
It's interesting that the official OPC link you provided is to an article which only lists 4 (seemingly abbreviated) "Do yous" under "Vows of Church Membership" but the OPC Book of Church Order lists 5 - see "2. The Baptism of Adults" (2)"The Covenant Commitment of the One Receiving Baptism" (III.B.) and the "Reception into Full Communion of Noncommunicant Members by Profession of Faith" (IV.F.) The screenshots of the 3 are below:
I note that the article defers to The Merriam-Webster Dictionary definition of a vow ("The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines a vow as "a solemn promise or assertion; specifically: one by which a person is bound to an act, service, or condition."") instead of the confessional/Biblical definition. The article in par.2 states that "vows are solemn promises" and then provides this example: "as is seen in Deuteronomy 23:21-23, "If you make a vow to the LORD your God, you shall not delay fulfilling it, for the LORD your God will surely require it of you, and you will be guilty of sin. But if you refrain from vowing, you will not be guilty of sin. You shall be careful to do what has passed your lips, for you have voluntarily vowed to the LORD your God what you have promised with your mouth." But this confuses what the WCF teaches - a vow is like a promise or an oath but there are two major differences (as Deuteronomy 23 highlights and I have emphasized): vows are made to God and are voluntary. An oath can be required - "imposed" (WCF 22.2) and not refused (WCF 22.3) - but not so with a vow.
Vows are made only to God per the WCF (and the testimony of Scripture unless someone can show a case where someone vows (Hebrew nadar [v.] / neder [n.]) to another human in Scripture so I don't see how any vow can be "binding upon fellow Christians" because they cannot be to anyone other than God. We have become ecclesiastically sloppy in our terminology - a vow is something distinct from a promise or an oath or a covenant. A Westminster confessing congregation or Church that requires a "vow" to become a member is seemingly at odds with its own confession. Note that many of the NAPARC "covenants of church membership" or "membership vows" are really "promises" which is a different Biblical word (and meaning) than a vow. You may find this recent thread regarding marriage "vows" of interest.
I think this is seeing it backwards - no Church can prevent a man from joining by making a vow a requirement. This is what Hodge is getting at when he says "A Church has no right to make anything a condition of membership which Christ has not made a condition of salvation." Do you have to take a vow in order to be saved? No. Vows are not a Biblical condition for membership so they cannot be binding. Churches do not make someone a member - they only have the authority (and obligation) to recognize someone as a member. To quote a bit more of what Hodge wrote following his words quoted above (my emphasis added): "The Church is Christ’s fold. The sacraments are the seals of his covenant. All have a right to claim admittance who make a credible profession of the true religion—that is, who are presumptively the people of Christ." If one has a credible profession of faith, they should be recognized as members of the visible Church and brought into communion, most notably at the Lord's Table. I see the modern introduction of "covenants of church membership" or "membership vows" falling under the dangers mentioned in WCF 22.7 - one of the proof texts provided is I. Cor. 1.23: "Ye are bought with a price: be not the servants of men." Christ paid the price of my membership, not fellow Christians.
I'm not sure which comment you found interesting (perhaps quote and explain your interest?). No, my views have not changed. This seems like a side trail from the OP - maybe a PM or new thread would be better to discuss?
SolaScriptura
Puritanboard Brimstone
I'm willing to grant that it may be true that we think we're talking to each other, but in reality talking past one another. The reality, I believe, is that we want to affirm the absolute unassailable authority of the Bible, while simultaneously valuing in real practical ways that which came before. And that can create tension and sometimes apparent contradiction. Or in some instances we can lean one way to such an extent that it appears we are absolutizing one aspect and being inconsistent in our affirmation of the other aspect.
I grant that. In this and the other thread, when faced with certain traditions, I've come down pretty staunchly on the side that can seem opposed to any and all tradition or even "input from the past." Just like it is possible to read the posts of some others and it seem like an understanding of Scripture is only possible with the help of tradition. But I don't really believe either side is intending to give the respective impression. At least I'm not.
As for me, I find it a bit surreal that on the one hand I'm having this conversation, but on the other hand I'm talking to one of my REs about how being Reformed doesn't mean we wind up with a Wild West anything goes free-for-all, and we can't do any-ole-thing and claim to be playing baseball: to play baseball is to conform to rules and engage in an activity that exists prior to us, and apart from us.... So in that context I'm coming across as a Tradition I guy.
Anyway, I think I've said all I can or should say. Just understand this: there is a way to go in any direction that goes too far and we fall into error.
But the Word of God is the standard by which every doctrine and opinion - and tradition however articulated and defined - must be established and judged.
Someone please help: HOW do I "unfollow" this thread so that I'm not alerted to it? I know someone posted it in another thread but I cannot seem to figure it out. HELP!!!
I grant that. In this and the other thread, when faced with certain traditions, I've come down pretty staunchly on the side that can seem opposed to any and all tradition or even "input from the past." Just like it is possible to read the posts of some others and it seem like an understanding of Scripture is only possible with the help of tradition. But I don't really believe either side is intending to give the respective impression. At least I'm not.
As for me, I find it a bit surreal that on the one hand I'm having this conversation, but on the other hand I'm talking to one of my REs about how being Reformed doesn't mean we wind up with a Wild West anything goes free-for-all, and we can't do any-ole-thing and claim to be playing baseball: to play baseball is to conform to rules and engage in an activity that exists prior to us, and apart from us.... So in that context I'm coming across as a Tradition I guy.
Anyway, I think I've said all I can or should say. Just understand this: there is a way to go in any direction that goes too far and we fall into error.
But the Word of God is the standard by which every doctrine and opinion - and tradition however articulated and defined - must be established and judged.
Someone please help: HOW do I "unfollow" this thread so that I'm not alerted to it? I know someone posted it in another thread but I cannot seem to figure it out. HELP!!!
Last edited:
No Other Name
Puritan Board Senior
I'm willing to grant that it may be true that we think we're talking to each other, but in reality talking past one another. The reality, I believe, is that we want to affirm the absolute unassailable authority of the Bible, while simultaneously valuing in real practical ways that which came before. And that can create tension and sometimes apparent contradiction. Or in some instances we can lean one way to such an extent that it appears we are absolutizing one aspect and being inconsistent in our affirmation of the other aspect.
I grant that. In this and the other thread, when faced with certain traditions, I've come down pretty staunchly on the side that can seem opposed to any and all tradition or even "input from the past." Just like it is possible to read the posts of some others and it seem like an understanding of Scripture is only possible with the help of tradition. But I don't really believe either side is intending to give the respective impression. At least I'm not.
As for me, I find it a bit surreal that on the one hand I'm having this conversation, but on the other hand I'm talking to one of my REs about how being Reformed doesn't mean we wind up with a Wild West anything goes free-for-all, and we can't do any-ole-thing and claim to be playing baseball: to play baseball is to conform to rules and engage in an activity that exists prior to us, and apart from us.... So in that context I'm coming across as a Tradition I guy.
Anyway, I think I've said all I can or should say. Just understand this: there is a way to go in any direction that goes too far and we fall into error.
But the Word of God is the standard by which every doctrine and opinion - and tradition however articulated and defined - must be established and judged.
Someone please help: HOW do I "unfollow" this thread so that I'm not alerted to it? I know someone posted it in another thread but I cannot seem to figure it out. HELP!!!
Scroll all the way up to the top of the thread. In the right hand corner above the first post on the page, you should see two clickable boxes.
The one on the left says "Jump to new" and the one on the right says "Unwatch".
Click "Unwatch" and you will not be notified when the next post comes - which seems as inevitable as the spin of the Earth on its axis.
SolaScriptura
Puritanboard Brimstone
Mine says "Jump to new" and "Watch" ... so maybe I just have to ignore if it pops up that someone is replying to what I've written?
No Other Name
Puritan Board Senior
Ok so you are already not watching.
Click on the notification bell up top towards the right.
At the bottom of your notifications you should see:
"Show all" and "Mark read" and "Preferences".
Open "Preferences".
Scroll down until you get to the section titled: "Receive a notification when someone ..."
You are probably checkmarked for
Quotes your message
- Alert
- Alert
- Alert
Can you see the difference between your opening and closing statement? The very fact you are reading the LBCF or WCF is tradition. But that is a different proposition to a tradition that has no scriptural basis.
[automerge]1736883578[/automerge]
You just said it -- tradition is the tradition. That is the point Muller made in the OP. Tradition I is part of the reformed tradition. That is what you rejected in your opening salvo. I'm not sure why you need specific examples. The matter seems rather basic to me.
The Bible teaches "something." That "something" exists not only in the Bible but in the church and in the soul. The Bible ordains means by which its teachings will be passed down from generation to generation: "For he established a testimony in Jacob, and appointed a law in Israel, which he commanded our fathers, that they should make them known to their children: That the generation to come might know them, even the children which should be born; who should arise and declare them to their children: That they might set their hope in God, and not forget the works of God, but keep his commandments" (Ps. 78:5-7). Or this: "And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2). Or this: "Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation. Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever" (Heb 13:7-8).
The Bible does not teach us to approach the Bible as individualists, although it does teach individual privilege and responsibility with respect to the Bible.
John Nyberg
Puritan Board Sophomore
Yes I can see my inconsistency on that point. And I appreciate the time you have spent on this post and the original PV post. I think what you are saying is that traditional interpretation should have some weight when it comes to our exegesis. I can sympathize with that to some extent. I grew up in a charismatic mega church where all traditions were spurned for "The latest and greatest". I feel that the church I go to now is not only more biblical, but also more grounded in reformation and church history. In my home we recite the Apostles Creed and Nicene creed with our children, and we have also begun singing Psalms together. This has been very encouraging, edifying, and faith deepening. I look forward to growing in my love for the church (past and present) in a biblically faithful way. Again, thanks for all the time you have spent expressing your position. It has given me much to think about. Peace in Christ,
jwright82
Puritan Board Professor
I agree with Knight, I think his point is that however you interpret it a church making vows a requirement for membership is a church tradition or interpretation that is binding for membership.
But if tradition is of no value for membership because we are bound only by Scripture as our confessions say than that's a contradiction. You can't quote tradition in anyway to disprove tradition.
Now I know you don't believe in no tradition but he's making a point of the absurdity of going about things that way. If I understand him correctly. Clarification on how tradition is to be used and confessional subscription for church members would be nice. The limits you could say.
Northern Crofter
Puritan Board Junior
A tradition cannot add something to itself which contradicts itself. Requiring a vow for membership in a WCF confessing Church contradicts WCF 22.6.
jwright82
Puritan Board Professor
Than what's the answer, call it something else? His point, I think, is you're still submitting (however you want to define that) to traditions of men. If you have scruples with church practice then take that up with your church.
The point is by submitting to membership one is submitting to tradition. If a person feels that that's a violation of Sola Scriptura then that person can argue their case. But membership by it's very nature is submitting to the confessions as interpreted by that denomination of men.
Clearly then membership is a limit on Sola Scriptura, however badly defined that can be. So we do submit in a voluntary way to a church usually in a denomination with a history and tradition because we think that that church is biblically based. That's a healthy limit and scenario that clears up scripture vs tradition problem.
B.L.
Puritan Board Sophomore
In the PCA one can become a member and not subscribe to the WCF. It's the officers in the church that make a good faith subscription. The only related vow a member must take is to submit to the government and discipline of the Church and promise to study its purity and peace. I see the point you are making, but there is a bit of a distinction.
Northern Crofter
Puritan Board Junior
The answer is: don't add something to your tradition that contradicts your existing tradition. If your tradition is based on God's Word, then it must not contradict itself as God's Word does not.
I did (or was this not a personal comment?) by pointing out the contradiction.
I think you are seeing it backwards - see #47 above. Nobody needs to submit to anything or anyone for membership other than submitting to Christ. No Church can prevent a man from joining by making a vow a requirement. Vows are not a Biblical condition for membership so they cannot be binding and thus should not be part of a tradition. Requiring them begins to tread on liberty of conscience: "God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are in anything contrary to his Word, or beside it, in matters of faith or worship. So that to believe such doctrines, or to obey such commands out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience; and the requiring of an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also." (WCF 20.2, my emphasis added). Churches do not make someone a member - they only have the authority (and obligation) to recognize someone as a member.
This is not the nature of membership. You become a member of the Church when you submit to Christ. The Church recognizes that membership when it hears you profess your submission to Christ. Which comes first? Again, see Hodge: "A Church has no right to make anything a condition of membership which Christ has not made a condition of salvation." Is a vow necessary for salvation? Of course not. Thus it cannot be a Biblical or confessional condition of membership.
Sure. But that it is not membership - that is just what a faithful member of the Church should and will do. They recognize our membership in the Church via a credible profession of faith, and we submit to their authority, accepting their traditions (in the form of confessions, creeds, orders, and the like) as the basis of how they will exercise their authority.
D
Deleted member 9611
Guest
Another way I have thought of this very thing in the past is by asking this question: is it the church’s job to make members of the visible church or to recognize members of the visible church? Or to put it another way, is particular church membership a requirement to be part of the visible church? I think a lot of Presbyterians would answer that last question in the affirmative unfortunately.
- Status
