Sola Scriptura and Tradition

[MW]

On another thread we were challenged with the doctrine of sola scriptura to believe in the "straightforward reading " of Scripture and to discard tradition if it does not agree with a "straightforward reading." We were even invited to read Richard Muller to see what sola scriptura really means. I was surprised by this. It has been some years since I read Muller. Had my memory failed me? No. Richard Muller is very clear that the Reformed doctrine of sola scriptura does not view Scriptural interpretation as being without difficulty, but regards churchly tradition as a positive help for interpreting the meaning of Scripture. He writes in PRRD 2:

"Like most of the Reformed theologians of his generation and, indeed, like the majority of Reformers, Rollock’s assertion of sola Scriptura and his assumption of the doctrinal and soteriological perspicuity of the text function in a churchly manner and stand in the interpretive model identified by Oberman as “Tradition I”: sola Scriptura in no way negates the churchly tradition of doctrine and exegesis. Indeed, Rollock’s comments on the various aids to interpretation identify tradition as a positive guide on a par with the other hermeneutical tools available to the theologian.

Here, again, we can note the continuity of argument between the Reformation, the early orthodox and the high orthodox periods. The doctrinal point becomes, perhaps, more stylized in its formulation, if only by reason of repetition, but substantially, it remains the same. The points that we have drawn out of Whitaker, Rollock and Leigh, are summarized by Pictet in an argument both for the perspicuity of the text, the need for concerted exegetical work to overcome difficulties, and the importance of the testimony both of the preaching church and the biblical commentator."

The claim for a straightforward reading of the text at the expense of churchly tradition is not Reformed, and is no part of the doctrine of sola scriptura.

There are other sections of Muller which state the same thing, but this singularly clear reference suffices to make the point.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Wow. Brother you seem to have a knack for carefully curating source documents. My point in bringing up Muller was to trace the development of principles of interpretation and exegesis... which are the fruit of the most faithful and consistent expressions of Sola Scriptura, and which find ensconcement in the Westminster Confession (a la Hodge's commentary, and even Van Dixhoorn's comments on those same sections).

But as to your curated source: yes, in his discussion of Rollock and what he taught, yes Muller writes what you wrote in regard to "Tradition I"...

And I'd say that Rollock - whoever that was, seriously - was in gross error for saying that tradition is a "positive guide on a par with the other hermeneutical tools available to the theologian." There's no nice way of putting it: that is NO BUENO.

Going further down, in regard to Tradition II, Muller writes:

"These doctrines and definitions, in turn, provide the basis for a definition of the authority of Scripture quoad nos, in respect of us, which is to say, the authority of Scripture considered as a property of the written Word according to which the Word has a canonical, normative, or regulatory function in all debates concerning Christian doctrine—specifically for the sake of countering the “Tradition II” model of the Council of Trent and the subsequent polemic of Bellarmine. This authority of Scripture quoad nos is the central issue of the orthodox Protestant doctrine of Scripture: it is grounded, by both the Reformers and the orthodox in the nature of Scripture as inspired, living Word of God, but it is also, quite clearly the reason for the stress placed on these preceding definitions and the reason for the discussion of the attributes or properties of Scripture found in most of the orthodox Protestant theological systems.
The Reformation itself was rooted in the question of authority, which it answered with the language of sola Scriptura and of the priority of Scripture as the ultimate norm of doctrine over all other grounds of authority. The Protestant orthodox doctrine of Scripture is a codification of this answer—and the focus of the entire doctrinal exposition is clearly the character of Scripture as rule or norm and the way in which Scripture ought to be considered as prior to the church and its traditions. This issue is the underlying reason for the form taken by the Protestant doctrine of Scripture in its development from the Reformation through the era of orthodoxy."

It is true that Muller points out that there was a common trend to affirm Sola Scriptura without "denigrating" tradition, for example he writes:
"The strongly worded arguments of Protestant theologians of both the Reformation and orthodox eras against the idea of coequal authority of Scripture, tradition, and church, typically summarized by the phrase sola Scriptura, must never be taken as a condemnation of tradition or a denigration of the authority of the church as a confessing community of believers." Ok, and you - and others - want to hang your hat there.

And I and the faithfully Reformed point out that unless they were just gassing, the principle of Sola Scriptura - especially in light of the "regulative" nature of Scripture which we Reformed love to assert - actually does result in the condemnation of every tradition which is not established and upheld by the word, same with the authority of the church.

The point is that - when one gets further along the exegetical principles rediscovered at the Reformation - the superstitions of the Medieval and Early church were more effectively weeded out.

So that we finally reached the faithful point: doctrine must be established by the Word.

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

If tradition is at odds with the "straightforward reading of scripture", then tradition has to go.

That's literally how we got the Protestant Reformation.

 

[MW]

And I'd say that Rollock - whoever that was, seriously - was in gross error for saying that tradition is a "positive guide on a par with the other hermeneutical tools available to the theologian." There's no nice way of putting it: that is NO BUENO.

I like the way you just come out and say things, Ben. There is no mistaking your position, and there is no way your position can be reconciled with the principles of the reformation, as much as you want to claim that you are standing in this "tradition."

 

[SolaScriptura]

I like the way you just come out and say things, Ben. There is no mistaking your position, and there is no way your position can be reconciled with the principles of the reformation, as much as you want to claim that you are standing in this "tradition."

What is stunning is your willingness to assert yourself as arbiter of who is and isn't in this tradition.

You wish to vest sole legitimacy for determining the limits of interpretation with the guys who were best suited with simply getting the movement started. As I demonstrated in regard to Thomas Jefferson and the Declaration of Independence... though we take the words "all men are created equal" in a different application, nonetheless it is we - and not he - who is most faithfully applying the principles he laid down - indeed the words he penned.

It is the EXACT same: For all this desire to assert that sola Scriptura wasn't really full-throated... show me the "traditions" which were (and still are) affirmed apart from the Word. It took time but the imbalance was righted over time by the consistent application of the theological perspective and hermeneutic they recovered. Just as Warfield said of Augustine, that the Reformation was the triumph of Augustine's soteriology over Augustine's ecclesiology... for in the man was contradiction... the enduring principle of the Reformation voiced with great clarity at Worms "unless I am convinced by Scripture or plain reasoning... my conscience is captive to the Word of God" - the Bible was the formal principle of the Reformation... but it took a while for the implications of that great truth to be fleshed out. Those early guys struggled with a lot of baggage, and they had a lot of cultural baggage like Marian devotion, flat earth, and of course, thinking it was ok to drown opponents... but while they were instrumental, by no means should a "snapshot" be taken of them as if THEY represent the ideal. For they do not.

But here's the thing about "tradition" - no officer of any church swears fealty to "the Reformed tradition"... we subscribe to specific Standards. And those standards in my case are the Westminster Confession. And as I showed, Hodge in his commentary said basically what I've been saying... do you have the nerve to boldly claim he's outside the "tradition" too? Oh, check out Chad Van Dixhoorn's comments on those same sections... he says what I've been saying too.

This is the rash folly of trying to erect a quasi-Reformed Magisterium.

 

[MW]

What is stunning is your willingness to assert yourself as arbiter of who is and isn't in this tradition.

I quoted Muller quoting Rollock. You rejected Rollock. You are "asserting yourself as arbiter." And in doing so, you are placing yourself outside of it.

 

[SolaScriptura]

I quoted Muller quoting Rollock. You rejected Rollock. You are "asserting yourself as arbiter." And in doing so, you are placing yourself outside of it.

Rollock is the tradition.

OK.

 

[MW]

Rollock is the tradition.

OK.

Did you read Muller? This was your recommendation afterall. Here it is again in case you missed it. "Like most of the Reformed theologians of his generation and, indeed, like the majority of Reformers ..." "Here, again, we can note the continuity of argument between the Reformation, the early orthodox and the high orthodox periods."

 

[CasualWestminsterEnjoyer]

Indeed, Rollock’s comments on the various aids to interpretation identify tradition as a positive guide on a par with the other hermeneutical tools available to the theologian.

Let's take that at face value. Ok, for Muller, "tradition as a positive guide on a par with the other hermeneutical tools available to the theologian." (This really is Muller's view of the importance of history, which he has expressed elsewhere).

I think Muller overstates his position a little, but for the sake of argument, let's assume it's correct, and church history / tradition is a "hermeneutical tool."

Well, hermeneutics is the science of interpreting the text. Which text are you claiming says Mary remained a virgin until death?

Even if tradition is a "hermeneutical tool," there still has to be a text that says that, doesn't there?

 

[SolaScriptura]

Did you read Muller? This was your recommendation afterall. Here it is again in case you missed it. "Like most of the Reformed theologians of his generation and, indeed, like the majority of Reformers ..." "Here, again, we can note the continuity of argument between the Reformation, the early orthodox and the high orthodox periods."

Brother - for the 3rd time - I referenced a specific section on the development of hermeneutics and exegesis. Which is helpful because as all the best commentaries on the Westminster Standards demonstrate - the view of Scripture had reached a clarified point by then. (Unless, again, you wish to argue with Hodge and others.)

Yet you are seeking to absolutize something as if to undermine the idea that there was any development in the understanding and use of Scripture. For (as I've pointed out above) you think the only legitimate voices for defining and shaping "the tradition" are those of a carefully curated timeframe.

My Standards trump your "tradition"... Because the Standards to which I subscribe represent a more full-flowered expression of the principles recovered in the Reformation.

The error is in thinking that the Reformers and post-Reformation era were the end all, when what they were, were helpful links in the chain.

So: unless something is established by the Word, it has no business being asserted as an article of belief. And we can all thank them for helping us with that!

 

[MW]

Well, hermeneutics is the science of interpreting the text. Which text are you claiming says Mary remained a virgin until death?

That question has been left behind in another thread. I don't see the point of raising it again. This thread is dealing specifically with the relationship between sola scriptura and tradition. But thankyou for recognising Muller's position is what it is.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Let's take that at face value. Ok, for Muller, "tradition as a positive guide on a par with the other hermeneutical tools available to the theologian." (This really is Muller's view of the importance of history, which he has expressed elsewhere).

I think Muller overstates his position a little, but for the sake of argument, let's assume it's correct, and church history / tradition is a "hermeneutical tool."

Well, hermeneutics is the science of interpreting the text. Which text are you claiming says Mary remained a virgin until death?

Even if tradition is a "hermeneutical tool," there still has to be a text that says that, doesn't there?

Good point, which is why I believe there is nonstop special pleading and equivocation in regard to the using of tradition as a tool on par with the words that are exegeted.

 

[MW]

My standards trump your tradition. Because the Standards to which I subscribe represent a more full-flowered expression of the principles recovered in the Reformation.

So your tradition trumps my tradition because of "development." I don't dispute your standards are a full-flowered expression of something. But as we have already determined from Muller, it wasn't "the principles recovered in the Reformation." But apparently we can dispense with Muller if he happens to become inconvenient to our standards or tradition or flowering or whatever else one pleases to call it.

 

[SolaScriptura]

All - please note, this is the type of of sleight of hand of which we are dealing. This ABOVE is what I said in the other thread. And it's true: read the latter section on the development of interpretation and exegesis, for there was development, and its a helpful discussion which includes the "plain meaning" of the text at numerous points.

But now in this thread Matthew introduced it by suggesting that Muller had been invoked to discuss "sola Scriptura" ... and he's trying to have the audacity to suggest that only those who agree with his curated sources can claim to be "in the tradition."

On another thread we were challenged with the doctrine of sola scriptura to believe in the "straightforward reading " of Scripture and to discard tradition if it does not agree with a "straightforward reading." We were even invited to read Richard Muller to see what sola scriptura really means. I was surprised by this. It has been some years since I read Muller. Had my memory failed me? No. Richard Muller is very clear that the Reformed doctrine of sola scriptura does not view Scriptural interpretation as being without difficulty, but regards churchly tradition as a positive help for interpreting the meaning of Scripture.

Matthew - please don't put words in my mouth or try to engage in a Jesuitlike tactic of switching topics while giving the appearance of continuing with the first.

Anyone who claimed or claims to believe in Sola Scriptura yet thinks that doctrine can be established by tradition is as Thomas Jefferson writing "all men are created equal." Not a liar, just unclear on the application of their own principles.

 

[MW]

Matthew - please don't put words in my mouth or try to engage in a Jesuitlike tactic of switching topics while giving the appearance of continuing with the first.

You spoke about the "development" of how Scripture was interpreted. I haven't put any words in your mouth. You have just substantiated my point.

And, in case you missed it the second time -- "Here, again, we can note the continuity of argument between the Reformation, the early orthodox and the high orthodox periods."

 

[CasualWestminsterEnjoyer]

That question has been left behind in another thread. I don't see the point of raising it again. This thread is dealing specifically with the relationship between sola scriptura and tradition. But thankyou for recognising Muller's position is what it is.

I think it's a helpful example. If the role of tradition is as a "hermeneutical tool," in theory it should not be used to assert anything outside Scripture.

The closest I've seen to what Muller says is A. A. Hodge, who says the following:


Hodge really just thinks that history is a means by which our hermeneutics and doctrines come to be ours, though. He doesn't state that such a situation actually gives them any authority, per se.

Regarding the actual rule of what we are to believe, he is very critical of tradition:

 

[SolaScriptura]

You spoke about the "development" of how Scripture was interpreted. I haven't put any words in your mouth. You have just substantiated my point.

And, in case you missed it the second time -- "Here, again, we can note the continuity of argument between the Reformation, the early orthodox and the high orthodox periods."

Man it really is like arguing with a Jesuit. You literally claimed that I invited people to read and "see what sola Scriptura means." And that's not what I wrote.

But of you seeking legitimacy in continuity with tradition, Muller writes of the development to which I'm referring!!!

"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."

 

[MW]

If the role of tradition is as a "hermeneutical tool," in theory it should not be used to assert anything outside Scripture.

That is a given. But as a hermeneutical tool it helps to us to get a grip on the difficulties of Scripture and that things might not be as straightforward as our naive approach to Scripture suggests.

It is also a dogmatic tool. The system of doctrines has a development. What is fundamental, what is not, and such like things.
[automerge]1736826136[/automerge]

Man it really is like arguing with a Jesuit.

Lovely!

 

[SolaScriptura]

But enough talk - Matthew, which church traditions specifically, have we been given by the church's own authority? For all the talk about tradition I'd like to know what traditions we're talking about.

[automerge]1736826498[/automerge]
And I hope the inconsistency was noted in the Muller quote I just shared... and yes, I note that because earlier - as you relish in observing - he writes about how the Reformers supposedly were willing to grant a lot of weight to tradition, yet here he wrote of "the sole authority of Scripture as defined by the Reformers" ... and I get it, some here will argue strenuously that "sole" doesn't mean "sole" ... but again, with Muller making such statements is there any wonder why, practically, we wind up with the direction we got?

 

[MW]

But enough talk - Matthew, which church traditions specifically, have we been given by the church's own authority?
[automerge]1736826498[/automerge]
And I hope the inconsistency was noted in the Muller quote I just shared... and yes, I note that because earlier he writes about how the Reformers supposedly were willing to grant a lot of weight to tradition, yet here he wrote of "the sole authority of Scripture as defined by the Reformers" ... and I get it, some here will argue strenuously that "sole" doesn't mean "sole" ... but again, with Muller making such statements is there any wonder why, practically, we wind up with the direction we got?

Nothing is "given" by tradition. The question is loaded to make it sound like Roman tradition.

And, in case you missed it the third time -- "Here, again, we can note the continuity of argument between the Reformation, the early orthodox and the high orthodox periods."

Whatever the development in argument, it contained a commitment to Tradition I. There was continuity in this trajectory. Muller does not support your "development."

 

[SolaScriptura]

Nothing is "given" by tradition. The question is loaded to make it sound like Roman tradition.

And, in case you missed it the third time -- "Here, again, we can note the continuity of argument between the Reformation, the early orthodox and the high orthodox periods."

Whatever the development in argument, it contained a commitment to Tradition I. There was continuity in this trajectory. Muller does not support your "development."

Never said he did or didn't "support" it. But his work outlines the development of what I'm talking about. Which is all I ever said. Sheesh.

But no - it's really not fair for people like you to say we need to grant some measure of authority to tradition but then demure from pointing out specific examples. It seems more that we're being told that "the faithful thing to do" is to accept beforehand that church traditions stand unless out of accord with Scripture - I believe that's a faithful paraphrase if not restatement of what you said - (and we've seen how difficult it is to get someone to see a view as being out of accord with Scripture)... it's like signing a blank check. No thanks.

So, seriously: what traditions - traditions of practice or of belief - have the church given us that stand because they are not out accord with Scripture?
[automerge]1736827267[/automerge]
BTW - I knew you missed me. I missed you too.

 

[MW]

Never said he did or didn't "support" it. But his work outlines the development of what I'm talking about. Which is all I ever said. Sheesh.

And I am saying it doesn't support it. Do I have to quote his words for the fourth time? You immediately rejected Rollock when his view was presented. THis is the view which Muller says was continued in the reformed tradition into the era of high orthodoxy. Your "development" is not in continuity with this. I don't doubt it is a development but it comes from outside the tradition.

But no - it's really not fair for people like you to say we need to grant some measure of authority to tradition but then demure from pointing out specific examples. It seems more that we're being told that "the faithful thing to do" is to accept beforehand that church traditions stand unless out of accord with Scripture - I believe that's a faithful paraphrase if not restatement of what you said - (and we've seen how difficult it is to get someone to see a view as being out of accord with Scripture)... it's like signing a blank check. No thanks.

So, seriously: what traditions - traditions of practice or of belief - have the church given us that stand because they are not out accord with Scripture?

So you ask me the same loaded question again. It's not about what is "given," it's about what informs and shaped the interpretation of Scripture. We don't come at Scripture as if it overleaped two millennia and presents itself to us as its first and last expounders. We humbly take our place within the tradition to learn.

 

[SolaScriptura]

And I am saying it doesn't support it. Do I have to quote his words for the fourth time? You immediately rejected Rollock when his view was presented. THis is the view which Muller says was continued in the reformed tradition into the era of high orthodoxy. Your "development" is not in continuity with this. I don't doubt it is a development but it comes from outside the tradition.



So you ask me the same loaded question again. It's not about what is "given," it's about what informs and shaped the interpretation of Scripture. We don't come at Scripture as if it overleaped two millennia and presents itself to us as its first and last expounders. We humbly take our place within the tradition to learn.

This again. You will not get away from it: you cannot tell us to regard "tradition" without telling us what the traditions are. What traditions either doctrine or practice, are they that stand unless overthrown by Scripture? And if you can't (or won't) point to anything specific, then please quit arguing with me.

"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."

What he's describing is a process in which even established doctrine had to be exposited and exegetically justified - in short, the principles of Reformational hermeneutics require exegetical "justification" which is to say, something must be established and upheld by Scripture.
And in the case of something like PV, there is no exegetical "justification" for it. Ergo, over time as the principle became ensconced and it took priority over culturally conditioned affinity for Mary, it naturally went away as a completely natural consequence of the principles set in motion by the Reformation.

Let me work this through with you step by step:

Is Thomas Jefferson (and his contemporaries in Congress) the only one who gets to determine what "all men are created equal" means?
[automerge]1736828239[/automerge]
So for those who missed it, this is what I believe:

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 Spirit speaking in the Scripture.

And here's AA Hodge commenting on it.

"The Protestant doctrine is, (1) That the Scriptures are the only rule of faith and practice;" (Boom. Full stop. But I'll go on.) "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." (I can practically hear the anguished cries of "this is solo scriptura!" No... its good biblical Sola Scriptura.) "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."

 

[Knight]

And here's AA Hodge commenting on it.

"The Protestant doctrine is, (1) That the Scriptures are the only rule of faith and practice;" (Boom. Full stop. But I'll go on.) "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." (I can practically hear the anguished cries of "this is solo scriptura!" No... its good biblical Sola Scriptura.) "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."

Interested bystander in the conversation. Two questions:

- Regarding #2, I distinctly remember going through pre-membership classes to prepare my transfer from my old local church into the OPC. When the session was satisfied, I was told I would take membership vows, vows with a clear implication that my answers to the questions asked should be answered in the affirmative if I wished to join. What do you make of that process? Does it not seem to involve men interpreting the Scriptures binding me to it?

I suppose you can say the entire process is voluntary - I could have refused to submit to the session. On the other hand, one could say that regarding Scripture too - Scripture must be accepted voluntarily - people often refuse to submit to Scripture. Further, if there is binding in the sense that one must meet requirements to voluntarily join, how would you resolve that tension with what seems to be Hodge's position?

- How are you interpreting #3? For instance, would you not consider the "voice" of one's local session regarding the exact time a congregation is to meet for worship every Lord's day morning and evening worship as a matter of authority? If so, does Scripture specify said exact time worship must be conducted?

 

[MW]

This again. You will not get away from it: you cannot tell us to regard "tradition" without telling us what the traditions are. What traditions either doctrine or practice, are they that stand unless overthrown by Scripture? And if you can't (or won't) point to anything specific, then please quit arguing with me.

Your very question demonstrates you don't understand tradition I; you don't understand what you are rejecting. It's not about a set of data that we take away from tradition. Everything comes to us through tradition. Your commitment to the way you interpret Scripture is formed by tradition. You just can't see it or you don't want to see it. Either way, it is useless trying to persuade a blind man to see the sun. I would have thought you could at least feel it burning your skin.

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 Spirit speaking in the Scripture.

And here's AA Hodge commenting on it.

"The Protestant doctrine is, (1) That the Scriptures are the only rule of faith and practice;" (Boom. Full stop. But I'll go on.) "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." (I can practically hear the anguished cries of "this is solo scriptura!" No... its good biblical Sola Scriptura.) "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."

Do you honestly think this is under dispute? How ridiculous!

 

[B.L.]

This post isn't in response to this thread per se, but as it is the last one I read I figured it was as good of a place to park the below comments as any other.

I think our camp's greatest weakness is the incessant tendency to erect litmus tests for who is truly Reformed and who isn't. We sit inside this impregnable fort surrounded by a moat and post archers in the towers to defend against those wanting to lay claim to the name and on the inside of the fort we hunt down those we believe shouldn't be there and ready the catapult to cast them outside the walls. I'm as much for defending the faith and preserving right doctrine as the next guy, but in regularly skimming many of the threads on PB we sure can be a prideful bunch.

I heard this tale once of a fateful trip involving a tiny ship with five brave truly Reformed men that set sail from a tropic port. It was only supposed to be a three hour theology tour, but the weather got rough and the ship got tossed and came to rest on a tiny deserted island. Nine months later a missionary was flying in a helicopter to find an unreached people group and while passing over the island spotted a makeshift structure resembling a church. The missionary landed and out from the brush came one fella with a long well-groomed beard. The missionary asked "are you alone?" to which the man replied "I am now, but there used to be five of us"...The missionary then asked "where are the others?" and the man said "well...I devoured one, drowned two, and banished the fourth from the island after a disagreement over the Reformed faith." The missionary beckoned the man to board the helicopter, but the man declined since it was the Lord's Day.

 

[Northern Crofter]

Interested bystander in the conversation. Two questions:

- Regarding #2, I distinctly remember going through pre-membership classes to prepare my transfer from my old local church into the OPC. When the session was satisfied, I was told I would take membership vows, vows with a clear implication that my answers to the questions asked should be answered in the affirmative if I wished to join. What do you make of that process? Does it not seem to involve men interpreting the Scriptures binding me to it?

I suppose you can say the entire process is voluntary - I could have refused to submit to the session. On the other hand, one could say that regarding Scripture too - Scripture must be accepted voluntarily - people often refuse to submit to Scripture. Further, if there is binding in the sense that one must meet requirements to voluntarily join, how would you resolve that tension with what seems to be Hodge's position?

From another interested bystander - I think Hodge is pretty clear elsewhere on this. He prefaced his commentary on the WCF by stating: "A Church has no right to make anything a condition of membership which Christ has not made a condition of salvation." (A.A Hodge, The Westminster Confession of Faith: A Commentary, "A Short History of the Creeds and Confessions"). Requiring a vow contradicts the confessional definition of a vow which is "of the like nature" with an oath but is different in that it is to be made "to God alone: and that it may be accepted, it is to be made voluntarily." (WCF 22.5-6)

 

[Rom]

From another interested bystander - I think Hodge is pretty clear elsewhere on this. He prefaced his commentary on the WCF by stating: "A Church has no right to make anything a condition of membership which Christ has not made a condition of salvation." (A.A Hodge, The Westminster Confession of Faith: A Commentary, "A Short History of the Creeds and Confessions"). Requiring a vow contradicts the confessional definition of a vow which is "of the like nature" with an oath but is different in that it is to be made "to God alone: and that it may be accepted, it is to be made voluntarily." (WCF 22.5-6)

The longer I have been in the church — and especially having experience now in various ecclesiastical bodies, the more I believe that this is the right way. I am glad that there are no vows / covenants / oaths for membership in my current body. I have watched men and women wrestle with conscience in prior communions, but feeling that they have a duty to the Lord to be a member of a church, perhaps pushed conscience down and took their membership oaths anyhow. Then, the resulting problems would become explosive when it was too much for them to bear. I have also seen vows weaponized by church elders. But these are, perhaps, discussions for another thread.

 

[No Other Name]

Unless there are concrete examples in Biblical interpretation employed here, then this thread is doomed to further erosion.

I was going to post on the issue of tradition and hermeneutics, but not as a historical theologian. All of you are my intellectual superiors in that field. I only hold mild expertise in the field of science. And is from that mindset that I approach this and make remarks on the science of hermeneutics.

Part of Rev. Winzer's claims is that everything we do and believe is tradition. No one gets around it. There is no straightforward reading apart from biases already instilled by our various readings of traditional interpretations. To an extent that is true.

But not all traditions are the same category and degree of dogmatism.

It is one thing to use Scripture and historical tradition to make a case for either

a) whether Year 3 Jesus performed Miracle X in Bethany or Jerusalem or

b) whether - in Year One - he performed the second miracle (nobleman's son if I recall) in Galilee before going to Jerusalem or if he went to Jerusalem first, observed Passover (overturning tables and talking with Nicodemus) and came back through Samaria, talked to the woman at the well and then came back to Galilee for Miracle # 2?

These types of traditions in interpretations are internally originating from the texts.

But it is another thing entirely to affix a historical tradition to one's interpretation that is external in origin to the narrative Scriptures (as in PV).

Even if it is granted that PV in and of itself is not dangerous, it still holds that if one holds PV and interprets Matt. 1:25 as a believer in PV, they must provide a valid interpretation using full exegesis.

It is not enough to say what "heOs" is not (the primary definition). It still has to be declared what "heOs" is if it is not the primary definition and how that textually works in the verse in question.

If Rev. Winzer is right. If it is "all traditions all the way down" no matter what. (and I am not sure that is true)

But let us grant him this premise, then it still doesn't help with the specific tradition of PV or anything else.

On Different Types of Traditions

I imagine there would be traditions of varying degrees with regard to being saved and not being a heretic:

- dogmatic (doctrine of God, hamartiology, soteriology etc where those who disagree would be heretics like Socinians et al)

- less than dogmatic but vitally important (covenant theology as in Westminster federalism vs. 1689 federalism etc. where those who disagree might certainly form different denominations but not count the other as heretics sans dispensationalism because they disagree with dogmatic elements)

- and even less dogmatic (nature of atonement as in Davenant vs. Owen where the disagreement might be strong yet possible to co-exist even within a denomination/ eschatological differences sans dispensationalism because they disagree with dogmatic elements).

Now with the different types of traditions loosely established (and I am wide open for editing suggestions), then it comes down to why certain traditions are more or less tolerated within orthodoxy.

Evaluating Non-Dogmatic Traditions with Scripture

Focusing on non-dogmatic traditions (def: a traditional belief that may or may not be wrong so as to not ascend to a belief that is established as incontrovertible such as sola fide et al),

then it follows that they all have at least one common feature no matter how widely accepted or not: it could be wrong (it is falsifiable).

So whatever the non-dogmatic tradition, it must be either:

1) falsifiable but is not proven wrong
2) falsifiable and proven wrong

By what measure? The Scriptures of course. But this is regarded as too simplistic and we have uncharitably been painted as "me and my Bible" vs. all the theologians.

The method of Scriptural interpretation is historical-grammatical, and Ben is right. Luther, Calvin et al began the process and are invaluable with their works. But the science of hermeneutics has gotten sharper since their day.

It is analogous to Maxwell's view of the ether followed years later by Michelson and Morley proving there is no ether and years after that, Einstein proving why light needs no ether.

It would be inappropriate for any to charge that Einstein is not "accounting for the orthodox sense" in which Maxwell claimed there is an ether.

Before one objects that a scientific analog cannot be used, be careful.

Yes, the nature of the ether as a scientific possibility back in the 1800's is not at all the same as the nature of the PV as a theological possibility in the days of the fathers and Reformers. But the principle for falsification holds true since hermeneutics is a science.

In the case of PV or any tradition, the null hypothesis must hold first in logical order.

Example that is not PV: Paul wrote the book of Hebrews.

First order of logic: Since there is no Scripture that directly claims that Paul wrote Hebrews, the null hypothesis (Paul did not write the book of Hebrews) must hold, thus:

0: Paul did not write the book of Hebrews

Now, for any Puritan being convinced otherwise, he must construct an alternative hypothesis (alternative to the null). This is not impossible. This has been done.

A1: Even though Paul did not begin Hebrews with his customary greeting as other epistles, there follows textual evidence that his mind is behind several Scriptures in the epistle as follows etc etc

And in so doing, a positive case must be built from Scripture (and possibly historical exhibits as well) that Paul wrote Hebrews. I imagine this has been done and there are many books for and against.

And whatever one's opinion is on that is whatever one's opinion is on that. (I imagine that must be a very low degree of dogmatism one way or the other due to the low volume of directly Scriptural exhibits of evidence).

In the case of PV, no A1, A2, ... A(n) has been given with fully exegeted Scriptural evidence. Rev. Winzer even tacitly seems to agree and holds that none is needed. THAT is the primary point of contention as I see this.

I appeal to all posting to please not get too lost swirling in the excellent and erudite quotes of theologians and our interpretation of quotes by Muller and Hodge.

Not they are not important. They really are.

But that the critical issue may not get lost in the direct application that we all must do: interpret the Bible as we read the Bible.

I am WIDE OPEN to suggestions for being clearer or correcting any errors I may have made in posting this.

God bless you all

 

[chuckd]

But enough talk - Matthew, which church traditions specifically, have we been given by the church's own authority? For all the talk about tradition I'd like to know what traditions we're talking about.

Several books in the Bible are attributed to authors that are not explicitly stated in the text. They are attributed by tradition.