Sola Scriptura and Tradition

[cthorn14]

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.

I agree with the WSC's definition of the visible church. I also see the problem of church membership becoming a quasi-sacrament. However, if we are comfortable saying that good works are required for salvation, I don't see why we wouldn't maintain that particular church membership is required (as opposed to optional) in ordinary circumstances.

 

[Northern Crofter]

I agree with the WSC's definition of the visible church. I also see the problem of church membership becoming a quasi-sacrament. However, if we are comfortable saying that good works are required for salvation, I don't see why we wouldn't maintain that particular church membership is required (as opposed to optional) in ordinary circumstances.

It is Christ's good works that are required for our salvation. Thus it is Christ's good works - alone - that should be required for membership in any and all branches of the visible Church.

 

[cthorn14]

It is Christ's good works - alone - that should be required for membership in any and all branches of the visible Church.

What about profession of the true religion?

 

[jwright82]

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.

Thanks. Yeah I thought someone would point that out. I was merely playing on the extreme view (that no one I can tell adheres to) of "no traditions of men only submit to the Word" as an idea is contradicting church membership. it's at least a limit to the discussion all can agree upon. But thanks again.

 

[jwright82]

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.

Ideally yes you're correct but we're not ideal creatures. That's why we have study committees in denominations. I think it's levels of authority that may be missing here.
The Word has the ultimate authority. As you said anything that contradicts that is wrong. Next we have our confessions that are subordinate to the Word but to be an officer in our churches you must affirm them in some way.
Than you have tradition which shows us how these things have been interpreted by our church in it's history. I think that's a healthy way to look at it. If someone comes in with a totally idiosyncratic view on an issue of doctrine then it's up to them to prove it from scripture. Then study committees are held to determine the right course of action.

I did (or was this not a personal comment?) by pointing out the contradiction.

Not exactly but somewhat. Out of curiosity, how did that work out?

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.

I completely agree if ordinary members are in view (I'm PCA).

No Church can prevent a man from joining by making a vow a requirement.

Again agree for ordinary members.

Vows are not a Biblical condition for membership so they cannot be binding and thus should not be part of a tradition.

Yes but once officers are in view than tradition does matter.

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).

Completely agree, if I misunderstood the whole discussion than my apologies.

Churches do not make someone a member - they only have the authority (and obligation) to recognize someone as a member.

This seems like a mere difference in semantics, you still have to call them something. Is the new name different in substance or just a different name? This statement seems simple but I think has a lot more baggage attached unless it's merely semantics.

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.

Again semantics. I agree with Hodge but I don't see how that affects membership? All churches I've joined don't treat it in some radical TR fashion that seems to be more than what Hodge is saying. It's basically are you a Christian and do you submit to our authority (teaching/tradition and government)?

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.

Ok that's what I said, so what is the problem you have with tradition? Do you agree with the levels of authority I layed out above? If so then I misunderstood the thread or there's some semantics going on about nothing.
I can pretty well guess, after knowing and interacting with Mathew all these years (to my blessings I might add), that Mathew probably is only saying what I'm saying about levels of authority.

 

[Northern Crofter]

What about profession of the true religion?

That is all that should be required to be recognized as a member in the visible Church.

Next we have our confessions that are subordinate to the Word but to be an officer in our churches you must affirm them in some way.

I agree but that (requirements for Church officers) is separate from the issue of communicant membership.

This seems like a mere difference in semantics

I disagree.

I agree with Hodge but I don't see how that affects membership?

He is literally talking about membership in the quote.

Ok that's what I said, so what is the problem you have with tradition?

I don't have a problem with tradition in its subordinate uses. I have a problem with elevating tradition to where it binds the conscience. That is my issue with vows of Church membership - it is a manmade tradition which binds the conscience.

If so then I misunderstood the thread

Perhaps this comment and this thread might help you grasp the issue more fully.

 

[Logan]

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.

You seem to be reading too much into Hodge here (and a careful distinction between invisible and visible churches should be drawn). Every visible church has "conditions" that are not necessary for salvation. You can be genuinely saved and yet not allowed membership if you insist that you be allowed to attend services nude.

"But that's not a condition for salvation!"

If you do not participate in the sacraments, the church can deny membership or exercise discipline.
"But that's not a condition for salvation!"

If you come in sowing dissension in the local body you can be denied membership.
"But that's not a condition for salvation!"

If you come into a Reformed body declaring yourself a hardened Arminian going to convince them all of their wrong, you can be denied membership.
"But that's not a condition for salvation!"

I don't think you would really say that a mere profession of faith should grant full membership regardless of anything else.

If you read Hodge too narrowly, you make his position untenable. Now, are vows (or oaths) of membership lawful? I'm not sure, but in the past they were essentially implicit. In today's context where people are so individualistic, unsubmissive, and ready to hop churches at the drop of a hat, I do think oaths can serve a good purpose of reminding, explicitly, of what they should already know but sadly don't. When a person joins a body, they are making a commitment. I don't have a problem making that commitment explicit or verbalizing it.

 

[No Other Name]

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.

There is nothing in here that I disagree with.

Ok, now take what you say here and apply it to certain traditions:

1) "Thomas evangelized India". Not much to apply here really. This seems as doctrinally neutral as it can get.

2) "Jesus is two Persons - one human, one divine - in One Being" Nestorius and all his followers. When that is said, then applying 2 Tim. 2:2, we can discern that those things that we hear across time of many witnesses are not from faithful men because as we begin to analyze that statement using primarily textual evidence and secondarily historical evidence, we can prove this statement false. I know we are both 100% agreed on this point.

3) "Paul wrote Hebrews" These verses you posted hold true as we begin to analyze that statement and consider primarily textual evidence and secondarily historical evidence for and against.

4) "Mary was a perpetual virgin". These verses you posted still hold true as we begin to analyze that statement and consider primarily textual evidence and secondarily historical evidence for and against.

The verses you posted do not account for accepting any father or Reformer's word over and against textual evidence for and against any issue in question.

You have consistently and unfairly judged our position as not allowing or accounting for tradition among luminaries, whereas we have read and allowed with due consideration those traditional exhibits of evidence but not over and against the Scriptural evidence as interpreted by historical-grammatical methodology.

If you are saying we have approached the Bible as individualists as a negative, I disagree. Reformed tradition allows that.

If you are saying I have come to a conclusion from engaging the Bible without accounting for fathers and Reformers and their views, I would disagree and ask for evidence in the interpretive manner in which I myself approached Matt. 1:25

If you are merely warning against any possibility of individualism ignoring history and traditional views while allowing that I have not done so in my work with Matt. 1:25 in these threads, then I thank you and count myself warned by an honorable elder.

 

[Logan]

That is all that should be required to be recognized as a member in the visible Church.

Here's another thought experiment: The RPCNA vow (oath) of communicant membership includes the following items that the member promises to keep:
- Belief in the scriptures
- Belief in the triune God
- Confession of guilt and repentance of sin
- Submission to the Lord and the teaching of the church and to discipline.
- To read the Bible and pray diligently, to attend worship services
- To perform duty to the Kingdom and seek to win others

So imagine a person walks in and wants to be a member. They have a credible confession of faith but they explicitly state:
"I refuse to read my Bible regularly.
I refuse to attend the worship services regularly.
I refuse to respect the discipline of the church.
I refuse to partake of the sacraments.
I refuse to submit to the teachings of this church."

None of these are conditions for salvation, therefore none of these should be conditions for membership? As I noted before, I think that membership implies all these commitments already so I don't have a problem with the act of stating them explicitly. Membership in any body implies certain expectations, and it's in everyone's interest (including the members) to agree to those expectations.

Again, I'm not saying you're wrong, but I don't think your argument is as clear as you think it is. It seems like your principled position is that "I absolutely should do all these things as a member, and if I don't then I should be disciplined...but I shouldn't have to say that I will do all these things."

In other words, "I shouldn't have to promise to behave like a member, in order to become a member." I get the scruple but I'm not sure it's helpful.

 

[Northern Crofter]

Now, are vows (or oaths) of membership lawful? I'm not sure, but in the past they were essentially implicit. In today's context where people are so individualistic, unsubmissive, and ready to hop churches at the drop of a hat, I do think oaths can serve a good purpose of reminding, explicitly, of what they should already know but sadly don't. When a person joins a body, they are making a commitment. I don't have a problem making that commitment explicit or verbalizing it.

Yes, you've said this before. I also don't have a problem making a commitment explicit or verbalizing it, but not to the level where it binds the conscience (for example, where exceptions cannot be stated or declared). Practically speaking, have the addition of membership oaths solved the issue of "people are so individualistic, unsubmissive, and ready to hop churches at the drop of a hat"? In my experience, I see people make membership promises which do nothing to stop them from leaving - but I do see it adding to their sin and judgment by being covenant-breakers on top of whatever other issues they had when they left and it exasperates the situation of trying to discipline/discipleship them when such promises are held over their head. Is this perhaps not part of Christ warned of in Matthew 5.37: "But let your communication be Yea, yea: Nay, nay. For whatsoever is more than these, cometh of evil."?

So imagine a person walks in and wants to be a member. They have a credible confession of faith but they explicitly state:
"I refuse to read my Bible regularly.
I refuse to attend the worship services regularly.
I refuse to respect the discipline of the church.
I refuse to partake of the sacraments.
I refuse to submit to the teachings of this church."

If they are saying that, then they don't have a credible profession of faith!

A credible profession of faith requires evidence of fruit: "For it is not a good tree that bringeth forth evil fruit: neither an evil tree, that bringeth forth good fruit. For every tree is known by his own fruit: for neither of thorns gather men figs, nor of bushes gather they grapes." (Luke 6.42-43) And we know what those fruits are (Galatians 5 / Ephesians 5)

In other words, "I shouldn't have to promise to behave like a member, in order to become a member."

This conflates 2 separate issues: who should be received as a member, and how should they operate once under the discipline/discipleship of a local congregation. Promising to act as a Christian is implicit (as you stated above: "in the past they were essentially implicit") in asking to be received into communicant membership - something that should be made clear by a session in speaking with the person.

 

[Logan]

To be clear, the issue I focused on was your taking Hodge's words to extent you are. Because it quickly becomes an untenable position. There are conditions for membership in any organization that are not conditions for salvation. It is certainly debatable whether some are lawful or not, but it is not debatable that they exist so that alone cannot be used as a supporting argument.

 

[jwright82]

That is all that should be required to be recognized as a member in the visible Church.

I agree but that (requirements for Church officers) is separate from the issue of communicant membership.

I disagree.

He is literally talking about membership in the quote.

I don't have a problem with tradition in its subordinate uses. I have a problem with elevating tradition to where it binds the conscience. That is my issue with vows of Church membership - it is a manmade tradition which binds the conscience.

Perhaps this comment and this thread might help you grasp the issue more fully.

Than my one real line of questions is what do you want to call it (a person joining the church)? They do what? Are they not voluntarily joining an organization (tax exempt and in some way under laws for how it conducts business to keep that status in the US)?
Can anyone willy-nilly come in off the street one time and vote on congregational matters? You have to call that something. Whatever it is will function the same way as membership vows hence semantics.
So how does changing the name, without changing the process not amount to semantics? IDK but what if you have to take vows from a legal perspective to keep the tax exempt status because the church functions in some ways like a corporation?
I think you're taking a hard moral stand on something debatable without thinking about all the ramifications. You've offered nothing in place of membership vows that are different in function from the probably legal requirements to abide by the law, it's just don't call it vows.
Maybe instead of just being critical of a practice, provide a moral/legal alternative that satisfies your conscience but still keeps the church legal.

 

[Northern Crofter]

There are conditions for membership in any organization

The Church is not just "any organization."

To be clear, the issue I focused on was your taking Hodge's words to extent you are. Because it quickly becomes an untenable position.

Hodge is speaking about being a member of the visible Church. I don't see any place where he specifically parses the issue between being a member of the universal visible Church or a local body of it, but he does draw the distinction between "private members" and "office-bearers." This seems to indicate to me that he, as a presbyterian, has local, visible bodies in mind as presbyterians only have office-bearers at the congregational level. Here is his paragraph in full (I've bolded what I believe he applies to "private members" and underlined what he applies to "office-bearers"). Note that he speaks of membership only when referring to the former and uses words like "constitution" and "laws" when referring to the latter:

"In all churches a distinction is made between the terms upon which
private members are admitted to membership, and the terms upon
which office-bearers are admitted to their sacred trusts of teaching
and ruling. A Church has no right to make anything a condition of
membership which Christ has not made a condition of salvation. 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. This credible profession of course involves a competent
knowledge of the fundamental doctrine of Christianity—a declaration
of personal faith in Christ and consecration to his service, and a
temper of mind and habit consistent therewith. On the other hand,
no man can be inducted into any office in any Church who does not
protest to believe in the truth and wisdom of the constitution and
laws which it will be his duty to conserve and administer. Otherwise
all harmony of sentiment and all efficient co-operation in action
would be impossible."

I agree with everything he states here, and I do not find anything untenable about it. If it was untenable, how did the Church exist for hundreds of years without such manmade conditions for membership? Yes, they were conditions, but they were tied to professing the faith, as Hodge points out later when he discusses how the The Apostles’ Creed came into "universal use among all the churches" for use "in the reception of its members." In his study questions at the end of the section "The Creeds and Confessions of the different branches of the Church since the Reformation" he asks these questions:
12. What are the terms upon which private members are admitted to the Church?
13. What are the terms upon which preachers and rulers are admitted to office in the Church?
14. Why should the terms be so far different in the two cases?

He speaks elsewhere of:

"the voluntary members of any denomination of Christians, according to their own profession" (p.354).

"The truth also that since the Church is rendered visible by the profession and outward obedience of its members; and since no class of men are ever endowed with the power of discriminating with absolute accuracy the genuineness of Christian characteristics, it necessarily follows that a credible profession, as presumptive evidence of real religion, constitutes a person a member of the visible Church. By a credible profession is meant a profession of the true religion sufficiently intelligent and sufficiently corroborated by the daily life of the professor to be credited as genuine. Every such profession is ground for the presumption that the person is a member of the true Church, and consequently constitutes him a member of the visible Church, and lays an obligation upon all other Christians to regard and treat him accordingly." (pp.374-5)

"the universal visible Church consists of all the professors of the true religion in the world" (p.375)

"Why does the mere fact of profession of the true religion constitute a person a member of the visible Church?" (p.382)

"all members of the Church have not a right to all privileges of church membership.... baptized members have no right to come to thecommunion until they make a profession of personal faith." (p.418)

"The principles of government laid down in the Scriptures bind the whole Church. The terms of admission and the legitimate grounds of exclusion are everywhere the same. The same qualifications are everywhere to be demanded for admission to the sacred office, and the same grounds for deposition. Every man who is properly received as a member of a particular church becomes a member of the Church universal; every one rightfully excluded from a particular church is excluded from the whole Church" (pp.449-450) https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/sdg/aahodge/TheWestminsterConfessionAAHodge.pdf

It's probably easier if I insert my answers (in bold) to your many questions:

Than my one real line of questions is what do you want to call it (a person joining the church)? They do what? They are received as members after making a profession of faith, as your own standards state: "Communing members are those who have made a profession of faith in Christ, have been baptized, and have been admitted by the Session to the Lord's Table." (6.2)
Are they not voluntarily joining an organization (tax exempt and in some way under laws for how it conducts business to keep that status in the US)? Yes, but, again,
The Church is not just "any organization."
Can anyone willy-nilly come in off the street one time and vote on congregational matters? No - see your denominations Biblical standards quoted above. You have to call that something. No one is arguing it isn't called "membership." Whatever it is will function the same way as membership vows hence semantics.
So how does changing the name, without changing the process not amount to semantics? How something functions and the order of the process is not semantics. IDK but what if you have to take vows from a legal perspective to keep the tax exempt status because the church functions in some ways like a corporation? We must obey God before the State - we cannot betray and destroy true liberty of conscience just to escape taxation.
I think you're taking a hard moral stand on something debatable without thinking about all the ramifications. You've offered nothing in place of membership vows that are different in function from the probably legal requirements to abide by the law, it's just don't call it vows. I have offered what Scripture requires - a credible profession of faith. Again, how did the Church exist for hundreds of years without such manmade conditions for membership?
Maybe instead of just being critical of a practice, provide a moral/legal alternative that satisfies your conscience but still keeps the church legal. I'm not "just being critical of a practice" and it's not just about my conscience - I'm questioning the existence of a manmade tradition that tramples true liberty of conscience (I'm not really sure what you mean by keeping the church legal). Did you read the pastoral concern expressed in post #28 above?

 

[Logan]

Hodge is speaking about being a member of the visible Church. I don't see any place where he specifically parses the issue between being a member of the universal visible Church or a local body of it, but he does draw the distinction between "private members" and "office-bearers." This seems to indicate to me that he, as a presbyterian, has local, visible bodies in mind as presbyterians only have office-bearers at the congregational level. Here is his paragraph in full (I've bolded what I believe he applies to "private members" and underlined what he applies to "office-bearers"). Note that he speaks of membership only when referring to the former and uses words like "constitution" and "laws" when referring to the latter:

I think you again miss my point. Hodge's words must be limited to their specific context. They cannot be apply broader than that context or it becomes meaningless. I gave numerous examples of "conditions" for membership that are not conditions for salvation. Therefore, you cannot use Hodge's words here as you have been.

Hodge's context is specifically requirements for office bearers that are beyond that for lay persons. Whether a vow for membership would be permissible cannot be determined from Hodge's statement. You think it can, but that cannot be true because of what I've highlighted above. Again, whether a membership is lawful or not is beside the point here. But you can't use Hodge's statement to support your position because doing so proves too much so as to become nonsense.

In Hodge's day the Directory for Worship of the PCUSA (to which he belonged) had these requirements of an adult being baptized:

• The person was to give satisfaction with respect to their knowledge and piety (not a requirement for salvation)
• Make a public profession of faith in the presence of the congregation (again, not a requirement for salvation)
• Specifically answer in the affirmative several questions (again, not a requirement for salvation).

Hodge was surely aware of these requirements. Those requirements are not requirements for salvation. But it was a requirement for baptism in the church, and therefore membership. Therefore Hodge cannot have meant what you are saying he meant.

 

[Northern Crofter]

I think you again miss my point. Hodge's words must be limited to their specific context. They cannot be apply broader than that context or it becomes meaningless. I gave numerous examples of "conditions" for membership that are not conditions for salvation. Therefore, you cannot use Hodge's words here as you have been.

Hodge's context is specifically requirements for office bearers that are beyond that for lay persons. Whether a vow for membership would be permissible cannot be determined from Hodge's statement. You think it can, but that cannot be true because of what I've highlighted above. Again, whether a membership is lawful or not is beside the point here. But you can't use Hodge's statement to support your position because doing so proves too much so as to become nonsense.

In Hodge's day the Directory for Worship of the PCUSA (to which he belonged) had these requirements of an adult being baptized:

• The person was to give satisfaction with respect to their knowledge and piety (not a requirement for salvation)
• Make a public profession of faith in the presence of the congregation (again, not a requirement for salvation)
• Specifically answer in the affirmative several questions (again, not a requirement for salvation).

Hodge was surely aware of these requirements. Those requirements are not requirements for salvation. But it was a requirement for baptism in the church, and therefore membership. Therefore Hodge cannot have meant what you are saying he meant.

The context of Hodge's words is within an introduction to his whole work. I have quoted other parts of the work to show Hodge's words consistently include the idea that a credible profession of faith is required to be received into communicant membership. All of the conditions and requirements you provide are tied to a credible profession of faith. Of course no human knows if that profession is true and whether or not the person being received into membership is part of the Church invisible. But those who are truly saved will profess their faith and so should not be kept out of the Church visible because of manmade traditions.

That some will falsely profess faith and be received into the visible Church does not mean additional conditions/requirements need to be added - they will do nothing but increase the guilt of the false professor, and, in the case of requiring a vow to become a member, may add something that contradicts both Scripture and the very standards one professes to believe. Appealing to Hodge again, "The vow is a promise made to God. In the oath, the parties are both men, and God is invoked as a witness. In the vow, God is the party to whom the promise is made....The Word of God in the Scriptures imposes upon us by his authority all that it is his will or for our interest for us to observe. The multiplication of self-imposed duties dishonours him, and greatly harasses us and endangers our safety." (pp.347-8)

Again, this seems like a side trail from the OP - maybe a PM or new thread on this topic would be better?

 

[jwright82]

The Church is not just "any organization."


Hodge is speaking about being a member of the visible Church. I don't see any place where he specifically parses the issue between being a member of the universal visible Church or a local body of it, but he does draw the distinction between "private members" and "office-bearers." This seems to indicate to me that he, as a presbyterian, has local, visible bodies in mind as presbyterians only have office-bearers at the congregational level. Here is his paragraph in full (I've bolded what I believe he applies to "private members" and underlined what he applies to "office-bearers"). Note that he speaks of membership only when referring to the former and uses words like "constitution" and "laws" when referring to the latter:

"In all churches a distinction is made between the terms upon which
private members are admitted to membership, and the terms upon
which office-bearers are admitted to their sacred trusts of teaching
and ruling. A Church has no right to make anything a condition of
membership which Christ has not made a condition of salvation. 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. This credible profession of course involves a competent
knowledge of the fundamental doctrine of Christianity—a declaration
of personal faith in Christ and consecration to his service, and a
temper of mind and habit consistent therewith. On the other hand,
no man can be inducted into any office in any Church who does not
protest to believe in the truth and wisdom of the constitution and
laws which it will be his duty to conserve and administer. Otherwise
all harmony of sentiment and all efficient co-operation in action
would be impossible."

I agree with everything he states here, and I do not find anything untenable about it. If it was untenable, how did the Church exist for hundreds of years without such manmade conditions for membership? Yes, they were conditions, but they were tied to professing the faith, as Hodge points out later when he discusses how the The Apostles’ Creed came into "universal use among all the churches" for use "in the reception of its members." In his study questions at the end of the section "The Creeds and Confessions of the different branches of the Church since the Reformation" he asks these questions:
12. What are the terms upon which private members are admitted to the Church?
13. What are the terms upon which preachers and rulers are admitted to office in the Church?
14. Why should the terms be so far different in the two cases?

He speaks elsewhere of:

"the voluntary members of any denomination of Christians, according to their own profession" (p.354).

"The truth also that since the Church is rendered visible by the profession and outward obedience of its members; and since no class of men are ever endowed with the power of discriminating with absolute accuracy the genuineness of Christian characteristics, it necessarily follows that a credible profession, as presumptive evidence of real religion, constitutes a person a member of the visible Church. By a credible profession is meant a profession of the true religion sufficiently intelligent and sufficiently corroborated by the daily life of the professor to be credited as genuine. Every such profession is ground for the presumption that the person is a member of the true Church, and consequently constitutes him a member of the visible Church, and lays an obligation upon all other Christians to regard and treat him accordingly." (pp.374-5)

"the universal visible Church consists of all the professors of the true religion in the world" (p.375)

"Why does the mere fact of profession of the true religion constitute a person a member of the visible Church?" (p.382)

"all members of the Church have not a right to all privileges of church membership.... baptized members have no right to come to thecommunion until they make a profession of personal faith." (p.418)

"The principles of government laid down in the Scriptures bind the whole Church. The terms of admission and the legitimate grounds of exclusion are everywhere the same. The same qualifications are everywhere to be demanded for admission to the sacred office, and the same grounds for deposition. Every man who is properly received as a member of a particular church becomes a member of the Church universal; every one rightfully excluded from a particular church is excluded from the whole Church" (pp.449-450) https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/sdg/aahodge/TheWestminsterConfessionAAHodge.pdf

It's probably easier if I insert my answers (in bold) to your many questions:

Well first off, for better or worse the church as an organization exists in the USA under certain laws. If (I'm not sure if this is the situation) the laws dictate a bare minimum of something like vows for voting members to vote on monetary (among other things) matters to conduct business than that's the law.
That's what I mean by legal. If whatever church down the street is required by law to handle it's money in a particular way that requires only members to be able to vote on those decisions, then that's the way it is.
So my denomination requires a vow to submit to the government of my church and denomination. Is that the man-made tradition you refer to? We also have to say upfront any doctrines we disagree with for the sessions' consideration. So I don't know what NAPARC church you have in mind and what man-made traditions said hypothetical church practices? I think laying out one of those practices for discussion would be helpful or this is just some abstract exercise in the obvious.
Ok profession of faith only. You even quoted my denomination, I appreciate that. So forgive me if I sound smart-alaky here, I mean no offense, where is this boogyman church you're referring to? Your quote from my denomination proves it's not officially us, so who is it? Is it your denomination? IDK I've never been to one of your churches.
Also profession of faith is a vow when you imply that you honestly believe it, your vowing that you believe the Gospel unto salvation. Hence semantics. You can strip all the other vows out (because no vows allowed) to just one but that contradicts the no vows stance, unless you call it something else (hence semantics) but it functions the same way.
Unless you're saying "simply voicing a profession of faith is stating something about me, not vowing anything". But the vow of telling the truth is implicit in the profession. Testifying to the police about a crime is implicitly vowing that you're telling the truth or you get charged with a crime.
You can reduce the vow's down to one and then call it something else but it's still implicitly a vow.
So to reduce my queries down to manage the discussion, what grand problem are you trying to solve? Who, in NAPARC churches, is the boogyman man here? Should membership not require submission to the church? If you legally have to vow to submit because of the law, how does your solution (whatever it is) get around that? Is a profession not an implicit vow of some kind for membership?
Again I think you're starting from an abstract moral principal on vow's but not considering the practical problems with it. Most people do this, we all know because we all do it, but once the rubber meets the road one can see how well or not it works out.
I'm all for civil disobedience if the state requires the church to do things immoral and anti-biblical but what is immoral and/or anti-biblical about a corporation of voluntary members taking vow's to be able to vote on monetary matters? At the end of the day that's what really matters to the government money. That's how they look at us. If it's the law than it's the law.
Have you thought out the consequences of your idea? Possibly no vow's equals no tax exempt status. Now every penny is accounted for and taxed, that's less money for the building of the Kingdom (which involves mercy ministries I might add).
Every church would need an accountant to keep it paying taxes correctly, last time I checked they don't work for free (especially when they're license is on the line). Less money. But if churches are affected by this than all non-profit's are equally affected, so less charitable money being given to mostly good causes.
No more tax write off's for greedy billionaires trying to look not so bad, more people suffer. And on and on down the line just for you to bind the consciences of people not taking vow's, for what seems like an idiosyncratic view here (I for one have never heard anyone make this argument).
On top of that you have one requirement for membership that you claim is not a vow but implicitly is. But no submission to the church because that requires making some kind of vow. All just to avoid one idiosyncratic interpretation of the confession, all that suffering (which is not hypothetical but quantifiable) for an abstract moral principal.
Or perhaps you're, respectfully of course, just wrong. Or if you're right it may qualify as a necessary evil (the good out ways the bad). The end result is the same, don't change a thing in the vow department, less problems overall.
You could also bring it up to your denomination for study but they might object for the same reasons I do. You could also just go start your own church and show in real time that it can work. But I admire you taking a stand on an issue your conscience is clearly troubled about, how did that go with your church and questioning this practice?

 

[Northern Crofter]

There's quite a bit in this stream-of-consciousness post but I sense you are genuine in your inquiries and will do my best to answer you, again by inserting my bits in bold:

Well first off, for better or worse the church as an organization exists in the USA under certain laws. If (I'm not sure if this is the situation) the laws dictate a bare minimum of something like vows for voting members to vote on monetary (among other things) matters to conduct business than that's the law. I know of no such bogeyman laws (dictating the requirements of church membership) in the US
That's what I mean by legal. If whatever church down the street is required by law to handle it's money in a particular way that requires only members to be able to vote on those decisions, then that's the way it is.
So my denomination requires a vow to submit to the government of my church and denomination. Is that the man-made tradition you refer to? Yes We also have to say upfront any doctrines we disagree with for the sessions' consideration. So I don't know what NAPARC church you have in mind and what man-made traditions said hypothetical church practices? To my knowledge, all of the NAPARC churches require some type of vow to be received into membership. I think laying out one of those practices for discussion would be helpful or this is just some abstract exercise in the obvious.
Ok profession of faith only. You even quoted my denomination, I appreciate that. So forgive me if I sound smart-alaky here, I mean no offense, where is this boogyman church you're referring to? To my knowledge, all of the NAPARC churches require some type of vow to be received into membership. Your quote from my denomination proves it's not officially us, so who is it? To my knowledge, all of the NAPARC churches require some type of vow to be received into membership. Is it your denomination? To my knowledge, all of the NAPARC churches require some type of vow to be received into membership. IDK I've never been to one of your churches.
Also profession of faith is a vow when you imply that you honestly believe it, your vowing that you believe the Gospel unto salvation. Hence semantics. You can strip all the other vows out (because no vows allowed) to just one but that contradicts the no vows stance, unless you call it something else (hence semantics) but it functions the same way. No, it is not semantics. Both Scripture and the WCF very carefully distinguish between a vow and an oath. Saying it's just semantics is simply not true - it would be like saying justification and imputation are the same thing (they are related and share some characteristics, but they are two different concepts and thus 2 different words). Have you read WCF Ch.22 recently?
Unless you're saying "simply voicing a profession of faith is stating something about me, not vowing anything". But the vow of telling the truth is implicit in the profession. Testifying to the police about a crime is implicitly vowing that you're telling the truth or you get charged with a crime. This is an oath, not a vow. That's not semantics - this is a confessional position (albeit relatively minor compared to doctrines such as justification and imputation).
You can reduce the vow's down to one and then call it something else but it's still implicitly a vow. No - if made to God, Biblically/confessionally it is a vow; if made to another person(-s) it is Biblically/confessionally an oath. One is voluntary, the other can be imposed.
So to reduce my queries down to manage the discussion, what grand problem are you trying to solve? Who, in NAPARC churches, is the boogyman man here? Have you read the pastoral concern expressed in post #28 above? What do you think of what this minister has expressed? (please note that I am answering your questions in good order - feel free to reciprocate) Should membership not require submission to the church? Of course - it wouldn't be a very credible profession of faith if you did not. If you legally have to vow to submit because of the law, how does your solution (whatever it is) get around that? This needs no solution - appeasing secular laws to make life easier is not something I believe the Church is called/obliged to do. Is a profession not an implicit vow of some kind for membership? No - the profession is made to man, not God.
Again I think you're starting from an abstract moral principal on vow's but not considering the practical problems with it. No - this is coming from years of experience - when I have time I can try to summarize my personal history if that helps. Most people do this, we all know because we all do it, but once the rubber meets the road one can see how well or not it works out.
I'm all for civil disobedience if the state requires the church to do things immoral and anti-biblical but what is immoral and/or anti-biblical about a corporation of voluntary members taking vow's to be able to vote on monetary matters? At the end of the day that's what really matters to the government money. That's how they look at us. If it's the law than it's the law.
Have you thought out the consequences of your idea? Possibly no vow's equals no tax exempt status. Now every penny is accounted for and taxed, that's less money for the building of the Kingdom (which involves mercy ministries I might add).
Every church would need an accountant to keep it paying taxes correctly, last time I checked they don't work for free (especially when they're license is on the line). Less money. But if churches are affected by this than all non-profit's are equally affected, so less charitable money being given to mostly good causes.
No more tax write off's for greedy billionaires trying to look not so bad, more people suffer. And on and on down the line just for you to bind the consciences of people not taking vow's, for what seems like an idiosyncratic view here (I for one have never heard anyone make this argument So you have not yet read post #28 above?). Appeasing secular laws to make life easier is not something I believe the Church is called/obliged to do.
On top of that you have one requirement for membership that you claim is not a vow but implicitly is. No - there is no such thing as an implicit vow. Vows are promises voluntarily made to God alone - there can be nothing implicit about that. But no submission to the church because that requires making some kind of vow. (see my answer below to your final question) All just to avoid one idiosyncratic interpretation of the confession, all that suffering (which is not hypothetical but quantifiable) for an abstract moral principal. (again, see post#28 - this is not merely an abstract issue for some of our brethren)
Or perhaps you're, respectfully of course, just wrong. Or if you're right it may qualify as a necessary evil (the good out ways the bad). The end result is the same, don't change a thing in the vow department, less problems overall. I don't believe in necessary evil.
You could also bring it up to your denomination for study but they might object for the same reasons I do. I've been told it is being currently studied in my denomination as it has affected several families throughout the denomination - just because it is not a matter of conscience for you does not mean it cannot be for others. Again, read post #28 above. You could also just go start your own church and show in real time that it can work. No, that would be immoral (the sin of schism) But I admire you taking a stand on an issue your conscience is clearly troubled about, how did that go with your church and questioning this practice? I was received as a communicant member in good conscience after a rather lengthy working-out of this issue with a gracious session.

 

[jwright82]

There's quite a bit in this stream-of-consciousness post but I sense you are genuine in your inquiries and will do my best to answer you, again by inserting my bits in bold:

Sorry for that BTW.

 

[MW]

You have consistently and unfairly judged our position as not allowing or accounting for tradition among luminaries, whereas we have read and allowed with due consideration those traditional exhibits of evidence but not over and against the Scriptural evidence as interpreted by historical-grammatical methodology.

You are arguing an issue from another thread. This thread examines the claim that Muller upholds the idea that reformed "development" leads to a disuse of "Tradition I." Muller has been quoted to refute that idea. The person who made the claim has declared his opposition to the quotation from Muller. This thread has served its purpose.

As for being unfair, you are excluding the claim that this is the "straightforward" reading of the text. If I am exegeting the text with the tradition (Tradition I), and I end up holding a contrary position, it should be obvious that what I have read is not "straightforward."

 

[No Other Name]

You are arguing an issue from another thread.

No I am not. I am arguing against you about this issue of Sola Scriptura and (T)radition while making reference to the issue from the other thread for the sake of clarity and applicability.

This thread examines the claim that Muller upholds the idea that reformed "development" leads to a disuse of "Tradition I." Muller has been quoted to refute that idea. The person who made the claim has declared his opposition to the quotation from Muller. This thread has served its purpose.

The person who made the claim did not declare his opposition to Muller. He claimed it is you who have misapplied Muller. You have not responded to him.

For reference:

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.

Your position here has been called out. Out of Reformed tradition not just by Muller's quote here but also Charles Hodge and others. You are ignoring them.

You just carefully select one sentence out of a large post and cast that sentence back into your claim that it is "more Reformed" to hold to an exegesis of tradition before Scripture. You hold to ONE sentence from Muller about "continuity of argument" (which others have pointed out is not Muller's intention to create a Reformed hermeneutic from) and you keep ignoring the other quotes from Muller and arguments from Muller put forward to you.

As for being unfair, you are excluding the claim that this is the "straightforward" reading of the text. If I am exegeting the text with the tradition (Tradition I), and I end up holding a contrary position, it should be obvious that what I have read is not "straightforward."

With all your obfuscation, it is even difficult to know what you mean here. Do you mean:

a) tradition as a specific position on an issue? Like PV? Or whether the sermon on the Mount is the same as the sermon on the Plain?

Or do you mean

b) the latest iteration you have now posited here by tradition being basically the air we breathe and the summative "grid" of all the thoughts that have formed long term in our minds from reading Scripture and books?

These two meanings are clearly not the same.

I. The Most Charitable View I Can See Here

If you mean definition b, then it suffers from being a tautology.

It would be akin to saying that "if I am exegeting Romans 9 with the 1689 tradition, and an Arminian holds a contrary position, it would be obvious to the Arminian that my Reformed claim for Romans 9 being straightforward is not at all "straightforward".

You would then reduce the definition of "straightforward" to subjectivity and not account for the supremacy of textual exegesis itself - a grave disservice to all the Reformers and Puritans who put in all the work to develop and teach principles of plain reading and plain exposition for the everyman.


II. A More Concerning View I Can See Here

If you mean definition a, then you are the one out of the Reformed confessional tradition. I can link arms with Westminster here gladly and quote J.V. Fesko in The Theology of the Westminster Standards:

The opening chapter of the Confession reveals the commitment to what has been called the formal cause of the Reformation, namely, the centrality of the doctrine of Scripture. From the earliest days of the Reformation and the writings of Ulrich Zwingli (1484-1531), such as his "Of the Clarity and Certainty or Power of the Word of God" (1522), the Reformed tradition has affirmed that the Word of God is clear and that people can understand it without human direction if they have the assistance of the Holy Spirit.

In his famous and widely cited Disputations on Holy Scripture, Cambridge theologian William Whitaker (1548-1595) argued that 'all doctrine is to be judged by the scriptures' and that the 'apostles preached nothing which could not be established by the scriptures of the prophets, and did perfectly agree with them.' This is the pulse that throbs through the Westminster Standards and finds its source in this first chapter.

Given the Confession's place in history at the threshold of high orthodoxy (1640-1700), as well as the theological traffic between England and the rest of the European continent, Westminster's doctrine of Scripture therefore represents a summary of the early modern Reformed doctrine of Scripture given in confessional form.

If you mean definition a, then you have this whole thing backwards.

In that case, you would deny individual right to read and interpret Holy Writ for oneself. You would demand prior knowledge of fathers and Reformers from all beforehand, and only then can one fully exegete the Word of the Living God. Ben would be absolutely right in calling you out for trying to establish - as he put it - "a quasi-Reformed Magisterium".

 

[Elias_Amare]

As another interested bystander, what is Muller saying here?

"The exegetical conversation: church, tradition, and trajectories of understanding. Granting the origins of the Reformation understanding of the biblical norm in the late medieval debate over Scripture and tradition, specifically in the trajectory of understanding that Oberman identified as “Tradition I,” Reformation-era and Reformed orthodox exegetes came to the task of biblical interpretation not as isolated scholars confronting the text armed only with the tools given to them by Renaissance-era philology. They also assumed the importance of the voice of the church, particularly in interpretive conversation, both positive and negative, with the living exegetical tradition: exegetes were advised, in manuals of interpretation, to consult commentaries in the older tradition, not as authorities in the Romanist sense but as sound sources of advice and precedent.' This conversation appears in the referencing of sources, named and unnamed, from the patristic and medieval periods and from among contemporary commentators, in the commentaries of the Reformers and in the continuing recourse to established lines of interpretation that can be documented in the later Protestant interpretive tradition. By way of example, the Augustinian reading of various texts, from the Psalter to Romans 7 and 9 stands in the background of the Reformation and orthodox-era commentaries on those texts—and a theologian like Arminius mounted his revisionist reading of texts like Romans 7 with lengthy referencing of the fathers, the medieval exegetes, and the exegetes of the sixteenth century. There is also a referencing of the medieval tradition by Protestant exegetes, often identifiable only when a theme is examined or, as in the case of Calvin’s exegesis, when traditional distinctions are identified at the point in the biblical text that had served medieval interpreters as its source.186 It becomes incumbent on the exegete, as he examines numerous commentaries, histories, and other aids to interpretation, to be conscious of the proper ranking of such subordinate authorities, lest the authority of Scripture be set aside."

PRRD Vol. 2, 483-84

 

[MW]

No I am not. I am arguing against you about this issue of Sola Scriptura and (T)radition while making reference to the issue from the other thread for the sake of clarity and applicability.

Only after this particular methodological point is resolved would there be any reason to go back to that issue. Dragging it back into this discussion is only going to confuse this subject, not bring clarity.

The person who made the claim did not declare his opposition to Muller. He claimed it is you who have misapplied Muller. You have not responded to him.

Read post 2. Here it is again in case you missed it. "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."

As Muller was using Rollock to show what he thought was typical of the "tradition" on this point, yes, he is disagreeing with Muller.

You just carefully select one sentence out of a large post and cast that sentence back into your claim that it is "more Reformed" to hold to an exegesis of tradition before Scripture. You hold to ONE sentence from Muller about "continuity of argument" (which others have pointed out is not Muller's intention to create a Reformed hermeneutic from) and you keep ignoring the other quotes from Muller and arguments from Muller put forward to you.

First, the whole of Muller's discussion revolves around this point. He links up reformers, post reformation theologians, and later orthodoxy in one line of continuity. I carefully selected the sentence because it wraps up his discussion and clarifies what he was drawing from it.

Secondly, the position is not "an exegesis of tradition before Scripture." The exegesis is of Scripture. By saying things like this you only demonstrate that you do not understand "tradition I," which means you do not understand what Muller is saying. That is probably because you come from a tradition of "tradition 0." Understandable; but it should make you willing to listen and learn, not argue.

With all your obfuscation, it is even difficult to know what you mean here.

Obviously the tradition has reasons for the way it reads the texts. Those reasons provide considerations which suggest the reading of the text is not as straightforward as I would have thought in my naive reading of it. I either take up those considerations and overcome them, or I ignore them altogether in order to maintain a "straightforward reading."

I don't think it is hard to understand if one is willing to receive it.

In that case, you would deny individual right to read and interpret Holy Writ for oneself.

Holy Writ wasn't written for oneself in the first place. "Hear, O Israel." Tradition I does not begin with an individualist perspective. We comprehend with "all saints" the dimensions of revelation. However, one must ultimately take responsibility for one's own interpretation. The solemnity of that should drive us to use every help we can get.

 

[No Other Name]

Only after this particular methodological point is resolved would there be any reason to go back to that issue. Dragging it back into this discussion is only going to confuse this subject, not bring clarity.

The lack of clarity is precisely due to the fact that specific examples like PV are disallowed by you. Calls for you to demonstrate practically the use of this methodological point (by many of us) have been ignored.

Holy Writ wasn't written for oneself in the first place. "Hear, O Israel." Tradition I does not begin with an individualist perspective. We comprehend with "all saints" the dimensions of revelation. However, one must ultimately take responsibility for one's own interpretation. The solemnity of that should drive us to use every help we can get.

Oh come on now. You said:

If I am exegeting the text with the tradition (Tradition I), and I end up holding a contrary position, it should be obvious that what I have read is not "straightforward."

I asked you what you mean by this. Notice how you are not answering. You are not engaging with me about what I am saying.

It now seems you are acting as if all you mean is we use every extra-Biblical, orthodox help we can get.

To use your own phrase here: Do you honestly think that is in dispute?

This is why this topic needs specific examples.

You want to move past my "individualistic" exegesis (that included dictionaries, concordances, and a rejection of Calvin's alternative hypothesis of "until" not involving a change in time or space because the referent is a man (Joseph) and not God who is outside time and space).

(^ pretty odd "individualism" there.)

But sure, it is "individualistic" in the case that I am going to the Bible all by myself and reading it all by myself and interpreting the Bible and the use of "heOs" using my own mind. Yes, I do reject Calvin's claim that "heOs" does not mean "until" here as that doesn't make sense and Calvin never really clarified how. You also declined to clarify how that would work specifically in Matt. 1:25. And yes, in my rejection of Calvin's claim I did use my own mind.

But I did not fail to account for his contribution.

Ok so far. Is what it is.

But no. You keep correcting me as if I am doing something wrong.

You claimed I was being "not Reformed" in my interpretation. You claimed "my" method was the method of "fanatics, sectarians and heretics" even after I accounted for all the steps of the Puritan hermeneutic as summarized by Beeke.

Can you please show how to exegete a text "with tradition (Tradition I)", or do you only want to keep this topic in the abstract? If so, why?

If you will not explain how or show why my exegesis is somehow "individualistic" and doesn't account for Calvin et al,

if you will not demonstrate HOW to exegete a text with tradition, then what purpose did this thread already serve? To prove Ben wrong with how he is using Muller? You haven't even proven that either.

Any text and any tradition you like.

Wait, don't reply yet. Think about this a moment.

If you want to reply by only quoting one portion of this long post, then please make it this one:

If you show how to exegete a text with tradition (Tradition I) using any text and tradition you like referring to Muller's method as much as you want in the way he intended to be used, you could right here and now prove (not just claim) two birds in error with one simple post already.

Even just link an article/sermon/essay/commentary that qualifies as a shining, specific and practical example of what you mean, please please just do so.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I'm admittedly jumping in at the end of two heated threads, but I can't help making a few observations.

First, I commend this work:

How to Study the Bible's Use of the Bible: Seven Hermeneutical Choices for the Old and New Testaments: Schnittjer, Gary Edward, Harmon, Matthew S.: 9780310142454: Amazon.com: Books

How to Study the Bible's Use of the Bible: Seven Hermeneutical Choices for the Old and New Testaments [Schnittjer, Gary Edward, Harmon, Matthew S.] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. How to Study the Bible's Use of the Bible: Seven Hermeneutical Choices for the Old and New...

www.amazon.com

It seems unrelated, but the authors do a good job of refuting notions that the Biblical writers in the NT were somehow writing according to Rabinnic tradition (e.g. the 2nd Temple Judaism thesis). The point made was that the Jewish Rabbis were studying the Scriptures and coming to their own conclusions about what the Scriptures taught.

The point this book makes is that the authors of the various Books in the Bible were interpreting and using the Scriptures that came before them in an authoritative way. There was, in a sense, a "tradition" within the Scriptures itself but not in the sense we are accustomed to. Thus, when Paul is interpreting the Scriptures that came before him, he is not "making things up" in some weird Rabbinic manner but falling within a manner that the Scriptural authors demonstrate. I'll leave it to those interested to read it.

Now, how does this deal with "tradition" in the Christian Church?

I think it is worth the time to read PRRD 2 for yourself, and I'm too lazy to find the quote, but I will gloss Muller where he points out that the Church had never really abandoned the idea that the Scriptures were the Word of God but the way they went about "using" it was to accept a Church doctrine and simply grab a verse or verses in some extraordinarily "creative" ways to support what they had received.

The Reformation is really a place where a full throated doctrine of the Scriptures itself came into full fruition and is encapsulated well by the WCF. It's not that the Reformers decided to start from scratch on all theological questions, but they did build their doctrinal systems by supporting them through exegesis. I need to point out that this wasn't purely proof-texting because a lot of established doctrines came with significant GNC and dogmatic formulations behind them, and they would be bolstered by specific texts.

The thread keeps using the word "tradition," and I suppose that's OK as long as we realize that the Trinity and the Hypostatic union are a form of tradition, but those are theologically, exegetically, historically, and philosophically grounded. The Reformers were not like the Anabaptists, who decided to throw off everything and decide that the Spirit was giving them a fully new set of ideas grounded by their unstable notions. Add to this, the problems with the Arminians and Siocinians weren't simply their denial of the doctrines of grace but the fact that they thought that their plain reasoning from the scriptures gave them ground to undo Trinitarian theology or basic doctrines concerning the very nature of God.

Perhaps it's better to say that there were patterns of "doing theology" the Reformed continued to use, but they were not wed to every tradition that came before for the sake of the idea that the Church had adopted it. They eclectically leveraged different schools of thinking from the past but were wed to the authority of the Scriptures themselves.

I also think it's important to note that there was a certain respect paid to creeds to the point that they wrestled with the phrase "...descended into Hell" from the Aposte's Creed precisely because they weren't willing to just jettison that language even as there were several Reformed interpretations of that usage.

I guess what I'm saying is that it's important to clarify in what sense the post-Reformation orthodox could be seen as operating with a theological "tradition" because it's a fairly consistent theme that they didn't just abandon theological developments or schools from he past even as they had to overthrow specific teachings that grew up in the Church. That said, however, I don't see any warrant for believing that the way they did theology was self-consciously deciding that anything that was "settled" was not also grounded in some sense in the Scriptures themselves.

 

[John Nyberg]

I'm admittedly jumping in at the end of two heated threads, but I can't help making a few observations.

First, I commend this work:

How to Study the Bible's Use of the Bible: Seven Hermeneutical Choices for the Old and New Testaments: Schnittjer, Gary Edward, Harmon, Matthew S.: 9780310142454: Amazon.com: Books

How to Study the Bible's Use of the Bible: Seven Hermeneutical Choices for the Old and New Testaments [Schnittjer, Gary Edward, Harmon, Matthew S.] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. How to Study the Bible's Use of the Bible: Seven Hermeneutical Choices for the Old and New...

www.amazon.com

It seems unrelated, but the authors do a good job of refuting notions that the Biblical writers in the NT were somehow writing according to Rabinnic tradition (e.g. the 2nd Temple Judaism thesis). The point made was that the Jewish Rabbis were studying the Scriptures and coming to their own conclusions about what the Scriptures taught.

The point this book makes is that the authors of the various Books in the Bible were interpreting and using the Scriptures that came before them in an authoritative way. There was, in a sense, a "tradition" within the Scriptures itself but not in the sense we are accustomed to. Thus, when Paul is interpreting the Scriptures that came before him, he is not "making things up" in some weird Rabbinic manner but falling within a manner that the Scriptural authors demonstrate. I'll leave it to those interested to read it.

Now, how does this deal with "tradition" in the Christian Church?

I think it is worth the time to read PRRD 2 for yourself, and I'm too lazy to find the quote, but I will gloss Muller where he points out that the Church had never really abandoned the idea that the Scriptures were the Word of God but the way they went about "using" it was to accept a Church doctrine and simply grab a verse or verses in some extraordinarily "creative" ways to support what they had received.

The Reformation is really a place where a full throated doctrine of the Scriptures itself came into full fruition and is encapsulated well by the WCF. It's not that the Reformers decided to start from scratch on all theological questions, but they did build their doctrinal systems by supporting them through exegesis. I need to point out that this wasn't purely proof-texting because a lot of established doctrines came with significant GNC and dogmatic formulations behind them, and they would be bolstered by specific texts.

The thread keeps using the word "tradition," and I suppose that's OK as long as we realize that the Trinity and the Hypostatic union are a form of tradition, but those are theologically, exegetically, historically, and philosophically grounded. The Reformers were not like the Anabaptists, who decided to throw off everything and decide that the Spirit was giving them a fully new set of ideas grounded by their unstable notions. Add to this, the problems with the Arminians and Siocinians weren't simply their denial of the doctrines of grace but the fact that they thought that their plain reasoning from the scriptures gave them ground to undo Trinitarian theology or basic doctrines concerning the very nature of God.

Perhaps it's better to say that there were patterns of "doing theology" the Reformed continued to use, but they were not wed to every tradition that came before for the sake of the idea that the Church had adopted it. They eclectically leveraged different schools of thinking from the past but were wed to the authority of the Scriptures themselves.

I also think it's important to note that there was a certain respect paid to creeds to the point that they wrestled with the phrase "...descended into Hell" from the Aposte's Creed precisely because they weren't willing to just jettison that language even as there were several Reformed interpretations of that usage.

I guess what I'm saying is that it's important to clarify in what sense the post-Reformation orthodox could be seen as operating with a theological "tradition" because it's a fairly consistent theme that they didn't just abandon theological developments or schools from he past even as they had to overthrow specific teachings that grew up in the Church. That said, however, I don't see any warrant for believing that the way they did theology was self-consciously deciding that anything that was "settled" was not also grounded in some sense in the Scriptures themselves.

Thanks for this well thought out post!

 

[MW]

If you show how to exegete a text with tradition (Tradition I) using any text and tradition you like referring to Muller's method as much as you want in the way he intended to be used, you could right here and now prove (not just claim) two birds in error with one simple post already.

I don't recall Muller setting forth a "method" or providing examples. He offers a corrective on a popular misunderstanding of the reformed view of sola scriptura. But if I return to your example of ἕως, which is read in English as "until" -- as an English reader my first impression of this word would lead me to think that it had a terminating point and that she subsequently brought forth other children. But then as I read in the tradition I discover that others before me have reflected on the use of the word and have found many places where it does not indicate anything after the terminating point. The Geneva notes point to Michal having no children till her death. This now alerts me to a consideration which I take with me into the reading of Scripture. As I read other places with this understanding I realise that it is actually quite common to use it without any reference to subsequent events. Moreover, as I read other passages of Scripture I also recognise that I have a whole range of simplistic, systemic biases which affect the way I understand Scripture, and that I really need to interpret Scripture with the help of a tradition that has itself been shaped by Scripture. And as I do so I come to appreciate that what I thought was straightforward is in fact rather complex, and numerous ideas from a great variety of fields is incorporated together to ascertain with any assurance the meaning of a word. That there are even reverberating issues pertaining to apostolicity and canonicity that I could not have imagined when I accepted my initial understanding of one small word.

You asked for an example. I have given it. Please do not consider this post an invitation to reopen the debate of another thread.

 

[TheInquirer]

I don't recall Muller setting forth a "method" or providing examples. He offers a corrective on a popular misunderstanding of the reformed view of sola scriptura. But if I return to your example of ἕως, which is read in English as "until" -- as an English reader my first impression of this word would lead me to think that it had a terminating point and that she subsequently brought forth other children. But then as I read in the tradition I discover that others before me have reflected on the use of the word and have found many places where it does not indicate anything after the terminating point. The Geneva notes point to Michal having no children till her death. This now alerts me to a consideration which I take with me into the reading of Scripture. As I read other places with this understanding I realise that it is actually quite common to use it without any reference to subsequent events. Moreover, as I read other passages of Scripture I also recognise that I have a whole range of simplistic, systemic biases which affect the way I understand Scripture, and that I really need to interpret Scripture with the help of a tradition that has itself been shaped by Scripture. And as I do so I come to appreciate that what I thought was straightforward is in fact rather complex, and numerous ideas from a great variety of fields is incorporated together to ascertain with any assurance the meaning of a word. That there are even reverberating issues pertaining to apostolicity and canonicity that I could not have imagined when I accepted my initial understanding of one small word.

That is a very helpful example.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Muller:

1.2 Canon, Inspiration, and the Interpretation of the Bible in Medieval Scholastic Theology


2. The Glossa ordinaria and the interpretive tradition. The reading and study of Scripture was central to the theological enterprise of the Middle Ages. Indeed, before the late twelfth century, the Bible was the only “set text” in the medieval schools. In the late twelfth century, with the differentiation between study of sacra pagina and the science of theology, the study of Scripture was, typically, followed by a course on Christian doctrine organized topically into groupings of statements, or sententia. The examination of the method and form of theological exposition that led to the medieval practice of elaborating on and augmenting Lombard’s standard Sententiae in IV libris distinctae with more texts, further arguments, and preliminary discussion of the nature of theology also led to the more cohesive organization of the study of Scripture. In the case of biblical study, the early scholastics had a stronger foundation on which to build their exegetical edifice than did the builders of the sententia: they had the tradition of the gloss or, as it later came to be called, the Glossa ordinaria.
Although certain elements of the gloss were derived from commentaries written in the ninth and tenth centuries, the actual production of a running commentary on the whole text of Scripture belonged to the twelfth century and was the work of Anselm of Laon and his assistants. Between 1100 and 1130, the scholars of Laon gathered together all of Jerome’s prologues, joined them to other prefatory material, and copied out the whole together with the text of Scripture and with a composite, running commentary consisting in marginal and interlinear discussion of the text. Both the marginal and the interlinear comments draw on earlier medieval and patristic materials in, to borrow Smalley’s words, “varying degrees of thickness”: important doctrinal or moral passages receive lengthier comments. Later in the twelfth century, Gilbert de la Porrée and Peter Lombard expanded Anselm’s gloss. It also became the practice, at least from Anselm of Laon onward, not only to lecture in the form and on the basis of the gloss but to introduce quaestiones on important doctrinal topics into the lectures. Thus, Lombard’s expansion of the gloss on the Pauline Epistles draws out doctrinal themes at length in the form of carefully argued quaestiones.
The development of these various levels of gloss was intimately related with the common assumption of the medieval writers that Scripture and tradition spoke with one voice and that the meaning of the text had been embodied in the interpretations of the fathers. The text of Scripture, as in the case of the great Paris Bibles of the second quarter of the thirteenth century, was frequently copied out, together with the gloss, for use as a textbook for theological study. In many cases, the text itself was accommodated to the gloss on the assumption of the correctness of patristic interpretation. Loewe points out that “it is possible to illustrate the organic interdependence of the text in its twelfth-century form, and the gloss, and to point to the dependence of the sentences on both.” The gloss developed in the first half of the twelfth century by Anselm of Laon and his school became, through the efforts of Anselm’s pupil, Gilbert de la Porrée, and of Peter Lombard, the standard or ordinary gloss (Glossa ordinaria) used in basic biblical instruction from the twelfth century onward. Lombard also took the Anselmic gloss as the basis of his own lengthy exposition of the Psalter and the Pauline epistles, the Magna glosatura, which eventually became the standard exposition of these particular biblical books. In his compilation of the Sentences, Lombard drew on both the Glossa ordinaria and his own magna glosatura, with the result that the biblical-traditional amalgam of the various levels of gloss became the authoritative basis for doctrinal exposition in the basic medieval course in theology.
This mutual interdependence of text and tradition as evidenced in Scripture, the gloss, and the new theological science serves to identify and define the issue of the relationship and relative authority of Scripture and tradition as found in the Middle Ages and to distinguish it both formally and materially from the issue of the relative authority of Scripture and tradition as encountered in subsequent periods. Perhaps even more importantly, this intimate relationship of text, gloss, and sententia points toward the context and significance of medieval references to the inspiration and authority of Scripture in theology: the line between text and theology was drawn only with difficulty—just as the scholastic identification of sacra pagina and sacra theologia was a distinction, hardly a separation. The terms theologia and sacra scriptura were virtually synonymous. Both hermeneutically and linguistically, the Vulgate text and the work of theological formulation were so profoundly interwoven that the language of Scripture and the language of theology flowed into one another. Indeed, in the Middle Ages, one cannot distinguish firmly between biblical and theological language, but only between the fundamental elements of theological language learned from Scripture and the other aspects and elements of theological language learned from the larger tradition and used to interpret Scripture and to formulate doctrine.



Muller, R. A. (2003). Post-Reformation reformed dogmatics: the rise and development of reformed orthodoxy; volume 2: the cognitive foundation of theology (2nd ed.). Baker Academic.

Exported from Logos Bible Study, 7:38 PM January 17, 2025.

 

[MW]

Besides Muller, if anyone would like to pursue this further I highly recommend our own Keith Mathison's "Shape of Sola Scriptura" and the various secondary sources he recommends. Of these Heiko Oberman is a source Muller also shares. He adds important perspective from Alister McGrath, which I found very enlightening. For an interesting take on the "American" context, he provides the following from Nathan O. Hatch, "The Democratization of American Christianity."

"Taking seriously the mandate of liberty and equality, the Christians espoused reform in three areas. First, they called for a revolution within the church to place laity and clergy on an equal footing and to exalt the conscience of the individual over the collective will of any congregation or church organization. Second, they rejected the traditions of learned theology altogether and called for a new view of history that welcomed inquiry and innovation. Finally, they called for a populist hermeneutic premised on the inalienable right of every person to understand the New Testament for him- or herself."

It is this "tradition" more often than not that shapes "sola scriptura" in our modern evangelical and reformed churches. It is one which we need to account for as we take captive every thought, in Australia no less than the States.

 

[Northern Crofter]

But if I return to your example of ἕως, which is read in English as "until" -- as an English reader my first impression of this word would lead me to think that it had a terminating point and that she subsequently brought forth other children. But then as I read in the tradition I discover that others before me have reflected on the use of the word and have found many places where it does not indicate anything after the terminating point. The Geneva notes point to Michal having no children till her death. This now alerts me to a consideration which I take with me into the reading of Scripture. As I read other places with this understanding I realise that it is actually quite common to use it without any reference to subsequent events.

I'm not convinced this is a great example. The basic Reformed hermeneutic isn't simply that the infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself - it's also that "when there is a question about the true and full sense of any scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly." (WCF 1.9) How one Biblical author uses a particular word can be different than how another uses it. This example of ἕως demonstrates the potential fallacies wrought by "proof wording." Just because a particular word in Text A is also used in Text B does not alone establish that they are being used the same way, and even if one can establish the meaning of a word as used in Text B does not mean it trumps the rest of the context surrounding Text A. For example, I know you want to get away from the PV discussion and the associated rhetoric, but to briefly return to it, though I agree that ἕως in the Septuagint does not indicate anything after a terminating point in II Samuel 6, this does not mean the greater context of passages references Mary and her family in places such such as Matthew 1.18, 1.25, 13.55-57/Mark 6.3-4, Galatians 1.19. etc. can be ignored in favor of simply importing the meaning of ἕως from II Samuel. In other words, the context of of the statement "he knew her not, ἕως she had brought forth her first born son" in Matthew is very different than the context of the statement "Michal the daughter of Saul had no child עַד (H)/ἕως (G) the day of her death" in II Samuel.