Sola Scriptura and Tradition

[Eyedoc84]

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.

Yes, it is not the word “eos” that tells you anything about “after”. It has to come from elsewhere. There’s nothing magical about changing a noun in the sentence or adding a pronoun that makes “eos” something other than it is. If you want to know what comes “after” the “until/before”, you have to see if the story tells you elsewhere.

 

[MW]

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.

I'm at a loss to know why you are quoting WCF 1.9. I am responding to the idea that a certain reading is "straightforward," but you are raising a principle which has to do with a "question." In other words,, it applies to something that is not straightforward. My whole point is that it is not straightforward. The tradition teaches me this.

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.

If you cannot define a word by its use in other parts of Scripture, what is the point of quoting WCF 1.9? Again, if you want to make this a "question," then it is not straightforward, as alleged. We are going to rely even further on the interpretative tradition as it develops lexical aids to help us in this matter.

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.

But, according to the assistance I derive from tradition while I am engaging in contextual exegesis, those passages are not really straightforward either. I now have to engage in the process I described numerous times over.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Wow! Checked back in to see and huh.

In a sense this entire thread is a case study in hermeneutic methodology.

See, I challenge everyone to go back and read the OP. Carefully. Note the specific words used because words matter, and not just in contract law.
Specifically - read what was attributed to me from "the other thread" - and then I engage calling out misrepresentation and definition switching... Of course the poster of the OP denied doing so and in Post #14 I posted an actual screenshot of what I had said in the other post. Neither the wording, the or topic was what was attributed or addressed by me. Even after the screen shot, the OP *still* refused to acknowledge misquoting or misattributing me. If you're into profiling, draw your own conclusions.

But anyway: the case study in hermeneutic methodology - it is clear that hermeneutics changed over the course of time, and and Muller's 7th chapter in PRRD 2 sort of chronicles that development and if one is interested, one may look it up for themselves in that section. That was my point and that was in line with what I said. But when you approach a text with something else in mind you allow the text to mean whatever you want it to, as the OP poster consistently asserts in the face of my screenshot.

This, dear reader, is an illustration of how one's hermeneutic affects the meaning one finds in a text.

 

[MW]

In a sense this entire thread is a case study in hermeneutic methodology.

Not, "in a sense." It was the whole point of the thread.

I responded to your screenshot to clarify that your point concerned "development," then I quoted Muller again for the fourth or fifth time to show that there was "continuity."

 

[MW]

Just to refresh the memory here is Muller again:

"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."

 

[SolaScriptura]

I'm dismayed at the permissive attitude taken toward the shifting of definitions. In the previous threads "tradition" was (the more classic understanding) of specific doctrines, as in the definition provided by Perkins.

Importantly and sadly, a number of posts have fundamentally repudiated in ethos and tone that most core principle of the Reformation: that the Word of God can should must be read by each man for himself.

Indeed, as Fesko observes in his Theology of the Westminster Confession of Faith, "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." This fact is underscored in each and every systematic theology text on my bookshelf, and it is fundamentally unreformed and indeed unprotestant to assert that the word of God can only be understood with the "aid" of an interpretative tradition. I hope I'm misreading what is being said and that this point is not really being denied or undermined.

So in a great paradox, a core tenant of the "tradition" is that people don't need "tradition" to read and understand the Word of God.

And what is further a great source of sadness to me is that some are simply unwilling to acknowledge the fact that the Reformation asserted principles that took a while to become ensconced. As if the method and positions functionally emerged in full-bloom from the start. No, so revolutionary was the premise and ensuing implications - that each person can and should read the Bible for themselves and they don't need human assistance to understand it's message - that it unleashed waves that took quite a while to become fleshed out.

It is Muller, not me, who wrote: "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..."

But this is ignored - as are most of the arguments made - and instead I'm supposed to pretend Muller didn't write this and instead imagine that "continuity of argument" means everything just kept chugging along just as it had before. WRONG.

Now, maybe Muller doesn't know what "reconstructing" means or what a "revolution" is - though of course he does. But those are his words. And it illustrates the monumental task they faced - a hermeneutical revolution - that resulted in "churchly and confessionally governed dogmatics" having to be reconstructed on the basis of exegetical justification. No more using tradition is a justification! It would be appreciated if instead of engaging in a proof text battle trying to cancel out what Muller says here by pointing to places where he speaks highly of tradition if the basic revolutionary fact with its cascading effects would be recognized.

After all, I've been acknowledging all along: the Reformers and early Reformed DID have a high view of tradition... that's obvious to any and all... and it resulted in great inconsistency at times... but still the proverbial gun had been fired and those reformational principles associated with Sola Scriptura would eventually take hold...

But to add another wrinkle... of course, people love tradition. Every people group and every religion all bear the same sad tale: for most, tradition becomes paramount. And sadly, the untenable "an authority just not ultimate" resulted in a most sad state of affairs in Europe as Bavinck records this inevitable tragedy:

"The scholastic method already surfaced in Reformed theology toward the end of the 16th century... Tradition became a force to be reckoned with. Not only Scripture, but also the creed, indeed even the dogmatic treatment of dogma, acquired an aura of inviolable authority, causing Cameron to utter the lament that in doctrine one could not disagree with those who "were reputed to be pillars" without being persecuted."

ALL: THAT is what ALWAYS happens when tradition is given authority. Even if you call it a "subordinate authority" it is still an authority - and authorities bind. An element of the Reformed quickly deformed and like the Israelites out of Egypt, quickly gravitated right back to the same type of nonsense they left. Thankfully the shockwaves sent out by the Reformation were too great to be stopped. Light and liberty had been reintroduced and would not so easily be extinghuished.

Yet you hear the echoes of Bavinck's sad observation even in the writings of some contemporary writers with their appeals to tradition as if it is binding, and their imagined body of authoritative/regulative "tradition" beyond specific confessional documents.

Whenever you hear someone waxing eloquent about the sublime beauty of tradition, remember that the truly Reformed repudiate tradition as being authoritative. And yes, I do mean "the truly Reformed."

See, we all agree that the Westminster Confession of Faith represents mainstream Reformed thought at its time. And what does it teach us?

According to AA Hodge -
The Protestant doctrine is, (1) That the Scriptures are the only rule of faith and practice; 2) Negatively, that there is no body of men qualified or authorized to interpret the Scriptures or to apply their teachings to the decision of particular questions in a sense binding upon their fellow Christians. (3) Positively, that the Scriptures are the only authoritative voice in the Church. "which is to be interpreted and applied by every individual for himself, with the assistance, though not by the authority, of his fellow-Christians. Creeds and confessions, as to form, bind those only who voluntarily profess them; and as to matter, they bind only so far as they affirm truly what the Bible teaches, and because the Bible does so teach."

That is so important - "with the assistance, though not by the authority, of his fellow-Christians" - amen and totally agree.

Chad Van Dixhoorn in his fine work on the Confession articulates the same thing. (Already cited.) Fesko likewise asserts that Bible alone is the authoritative voice in the church.

And (where I get the "truly Reformed") from - GI Williamson in his wildly popular study guide on the Westminster Confession, commenting on WCF 1.10, "Reformed Christianity refuses to allow the conscience to be bound by anything except the infallible Word of God itself, as it interprets itself to the individual conscience of the believer. This does not mean that the truly Reformed church will remain silent on controversial matters. It means only that a truly Reformed church will make no attempt to require the conscience to bow to anything other than the Word of God."

In fact EVERY resource on the Westminster Confession that I can find all the same the thing:
1. the Bible ALONE - without tradition - is the authority.
2. And every tradition that does not derive from Scripture by positive warrant is to be eschewed. (So no PV of Mary, etc.)

Tradition is a very dangerous thing. As Bavinck noted, by the end of the 16th Century - the 1500s! - elements of traditionalism were ensconcing.

You will never cease to find those who imagine that shackles are liberating, but remember: ALL the best scholars who have written on the Westminster Confession agree that the Westminster Confession's teaching is full-throated liberty of the conscience bound only by the Word of God.

This isn't radical individualism, its full-orbed Westminsterianism... though admittedly, the best of those who affirm Westminster, or their descendants, came to America and were instrumental in its founding. Which helps explain in small part our incomparable greatness.
[automerge]1737326047[/automerge]
Setting aside for the moment the authority of tradition - what obligation a person has to find themselves in compliance with it or in conformity to it...

I think it's worth asking: Who gets to define "the tradition?" Is tradition "living" or "dead?" That is, is it set in stone and its perimeters are fixed or is it responsive and mutable?

 

[MW]

Importantly and sadly, a number of posts have fundamentally repudiated in ethos and tone that most core principle of the Reformation: that the Word of God can should must be read by each man for himself.

Again, you are not taking into account "tradition I." Your comments address "tradition II," which is the Romish view.

Here is another portion from Muller:

2. 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.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Again, you are not taking into account "tradition I." Your comments address "tradition II," which is the Romish view.

Here is another portion from Muller:

2. 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.

No, tradition I becomes tradition II as soon as it is seen as authoritative. (See Bavink for that sad recap of the scenario amongst the Reformed.)

And again - Fesko's introductory summary about the sacred place of Scripture citing Zwingli... that everyone has the right to read it for themselves without the "assistance" of others... that's too basic to ignore. IF you can't see how the implications of this spell doom for "the community has to guide interpretation" well, that's on you.

And again - Westminster teaches it, and it didn't just come out of nowhere.
[automerge]1737326863[/automerge]
Again - you'll NEVER EVER hear me accuse the Reformers and early Reformed of being entirely consistent. How could they be? They were recovering ideas that ushered in the modern age while still having late medieval worldviews.

But they said true things and established principles that were true - such as the grammatical historical method and the emphasis on the plain straightforward meaning of the text.

 

[MW]

No, tradition I becomes tradition II as soon as it is seen as authoritative. (See Bavink for that sad recap of the scenario amongst the Reformed.)

And again - Fesko's introductory summary about the sacred place of Scripture citing Zwingli... that everyone has the right to read it for themselves without the "assistance" of others... that's too basic to ignore. IF you can't see how the implications of this spell doom for "the community has to guide interpretation" well, that's on you.

And again - Westminster teaches it, and it didn't just come out of nowhere.

Here is Muller again: "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."

Do with this as you please but how about acknowledging what Muller actually says on this point. You are the one who recommended Muller for this particular conversation.

 

[SolaScriptura]

A denomination does not die because it departs from the traditions of its founders. It dies because it departs from the Bible.
[automerge]1737327279[/automerge]

Here is Muller again: "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."

Do with this as you please but how about acknowledging what Muller actually says on this point. You are the one who recommended Muller for this particular conversation.

I recommended Muller's section on the development of hermeneutics as an interesting historical survey.

You absolutely refuse to engage with what Muller writes about the monumental task facing them because of the "hermeneutic revolution" and that this resulted in them having to "reconstruct" churchly dogmatics... and yet you want me to engage with your citations.

Well, I'm apparently more gracious than you so ok: look, the church is a thing. the community of faith is a thing. And Jesus gave the church teachers. And as a teacher myself I hope that my teaching teaches accurately and faithfully, but I straight up tell my people: "I hope I'm a faithful guide, but in the words of Reagan, 'trust but verify.'" I think AA Hodge says it well that we should approach the Word of God with the assistance of others, but not as if they are authorities.

 

[MW]

A denomination does not die because it departs from the traditions of its founders. It died because it departs from the Bible.
[automerge]1737327279[/automerge]

I recommended Muller's section on the development of hermeneutics as an interesting historical survey.

My fault for taking you seriously, I suppose. I will know better next time.

 

[SolaScriptura]

My fault for taking you seriously, I suppose. I will know better next time.

But that's what I said. Maybe next time limit your interpretation to the plain straightforward words of the text...
[automerge]1737327826[/automerge]
Anyway, I did mean what I said in whatever post it was last week when I punched out for the week: I do think we're talking past each other. Or at least we're not communicating. I think so because every now and then someone will reference something and you'll reply that THAT isn't what is being argued and then you'll say something and I'm like THAT isn't what's being argued... I think that's a telltale sign that miscommunication is occurring even if we each think (are certainly certain!) that we understand the other.

As I shared, I don't believe in an interpretive Wild West. I shared that I was talking to one of my REs about how our confessional perimeters serve as guide rails... and I don't think you disagree. I do hear you saying that ultimately we are accountable to God for how we read and receive the Word of God personally.

 

[SolaScriptura]

If you're open to it I would love to have a discussion as I mentioned above - Who gets to define "the tradition?" Is tradition "living" or "dead?" That is, is it set in stone and its perimeters are fixed or is it responsive and mutable?

Maybe a different thread? Or maybe sometime later?

 

[MW]

If you're open to it I would love to have a discussion as I mentioned above - Who gets to define "the tradition?" Is tradition "living" or "dead?" That is, is it set in stone and its perimeters are fixed or is it responsive and mutable?

Maybe a different thread? Or maybe sometime later?

According to your recommendation we were allowing Muller to define "the tradition." I am happy to have a serious conversation about Muller since he is the best equipped historical theologian to discuss this. Fesko doesn't go into tradition I and II, so I doubt he is going to help. According to Muller the tradition is living. The church today continues to make authoritative and deliberative statements about the teaching of Scripture but does so in a line of continuity with the "catholic" church. There is a norma normata, a normed norm -- that which has been normed by Scripture itself.

According to our Confession of Faith the church has authority: "It belongeth to synods and councils, ministerially, to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his Church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same: which decrees and determinations, if consonant to the Word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission, not only for their agreement with the Word, but also for the power whereby they are made, as being an ordinance of God, appointed thereunto in his Word."

The Word recognises that authority exists in entities beside itself. Our doctrine of sola scriptura must acknowledge these entities, otherwise Scripture is not norming our doctrine of sola scriptura.

 

[SolaScriptura]

According to your recommendation we were allowing Muller to define "the tradition." I am happy to have a serious conversation about Muller since he is the best equipped historical theologian to discuss this. Fesko doesn't go into tradition I and II, so I doubt he is going to help. According to Muller the tradition is living. The church today continues to make authoritative and deliberative statements about the teaching of Scripture but does so in a line of continuity with the "catholic" church. There is a norma normata, a normed norm -- that which has been normed by Scripture itself.

According to our Confession of Faith the church has authority: "It belongeth to synods and councils, ministerially, to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his Church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same: which decrees and determinations, if consonant to the Word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission, not only for their agreement with the Word, but also for the power whereby they are made, as being an ordinance of God, appointed thereunto in his Word."

The Word recognises that authority exists in entities beside itself. Our doctrine of sola scriptura must acknowledge these entities, otherwise Scripture is not norming our doctrine of sola scriptura.

Ok, to be clear - I never recommended that we allow Muller to define "the tradition" - maybe it would help me better understand how I'm communicating if you would show me what I wrote that gave you the impression that I made such a recommendation (with its inference that I personally believe he should have that prerogative).

I do agree that the church has real authority. And WCF 31 does rightly reflect biblical teaching. But it asserts ecclesial authority by explicitly acknowledging their fallibility and proneness to err thus they (and their decisions) are not to be made the rule of faith or practice, but only as a help in both. So the authority of the church is limited to the extent that it conforms to the Bible, and in no way does it undermine what the WCF teaches in chapter 1.

In your mind does "line of continuity" mean that specific propositions are to be understood in the same way by us as they were by our forefathers?

 

[MW]

Ok, to be clear - I never recommended that we allow Muller to define "the tradition" - maybe it would help me better understand how I'm communicating if you would show me what I wrote that gave you the impression that I made such a recommendation (with its inference that I personally believe he should have that prerogative).

"For any who are interested... Richard Muller, in the 2nd volume of PRRD (which is all about the Bible) has a good section on the development of how Scripture was interpreted and exegeted."

Muller clearly states that the development continued within the lines of what is defined by historical theologians as "Tradition I." He draws the lines from the patristic to the medieval to the reformers to the reformed orthodox to high orthodoxy. Hence I started this thread. The Reformed take over "Tradition I" from the medieval church. There is no break with the medieval church to posit a new doctrine of sola scriptura.

In your mind does "line of continuity" mean that specific propositions are to be understood in the same way by us as they were by our forefathers?

The tradition gives us continuity on a whole range of things so that they can be held together in a coherent whole. Some of these are essentials, some are non-essentials. But the tradition itself determines these things. If we are keeping within the lines of tradition we might disagree with some particulars but we don't proclaim against the tradition that we are somehow holding to sola scriptura over against it.

 

[Northern Crofter]

I'm at a loss to know why you are quoting WCF 1.9. I am responding to the idea that a certain reading is "straightforward," but you are raising a principle which has to do with a "question." In other words,, it applies to something that is not straightforward. My whole point is that it is not straightforward. The tradition teaches me this.

You've lost me here, brother. You are saying WCF 1.9 "applies to something that is not straightforward." Then you said that "it is not straightforward." So then it applies, no? Perhaps I am misunderstanding what you are referring to with "it" and "it."

If you cannot define a word by its use in other parts of Scripture, what is the point of quoting WCF 1.9? Again, if you want to make this a "question," then it is not straightforward, as alleged. We are going to rely even further on the interpretative tradition as it develops lexical aids to help us in this matter.

WCF 1.9 refers to "the true and full sense of any scripture," not how we, in your words, "define a word." The "question" is which portion of Scripture is paramount when conducting contextual exegesis. In other words, in the case of PV, for a plain reading, do we give priority to the written narratives of contemporaneous NT writers or to a word search via concordance? If the context of the narrative gives a plain reading, why the need to appeal to tradition?

I'm curious, too - how far back does this tradition that you claim exists (see your comment I bolded below) go in invoking II Samuel 6 into the lexical discussion of "until"?

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.

The Geneva translation/tradition reads "unto," not "until." Perhaps for a reason?

I'm not sure how any English reader would read "Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death" and ever have the impression that, in your words, there was any possibility that "she subsequently brought forth other children" after a certain terminating point. No commentator I can find mentions that as a possibility because the terminating point in the text was her death so of course there is not going to be "anything after the terminating point" as multiple Puritan commentators state (my emphasis):

Poole: "Unto the day of her death, i.e. never; for if she ever had any, it must be before her death. Compare 1 Samuel 15:35 Matthew 1:25."

Gill: "...she had none after this time, whatever she had before, and it does not appear that she had any.... And thus she that vilified David brought a reproach upon herself, as barrenness was always reckoned." (Note: Gill appeals to Jewish tradition - but clearly identifies it as such - in further discussing the possibility that she never had children)

Henry: "God punished her for it, writing her for ever childless from this time forward, 2 Sam. 6:23. She unjustly reproached David for his devotion, and therefore God justly put her under the perpetual reproach of barrenness."

For the record, the Geneva notes say nothing like what you have stated they say ("The Geneva notes point to Michal having no children till her death.") The text (plainly) states that she had not children for the rest of her life - the notes comment that this was a punishment:

 

[MW]

You've lost me here, brother. You are saying WCF 1.9 "applies to something that is not straightforward." Then you said that "it is not straightforward." So then it applies, no? Perhaps I am misunderstanding what you are referring to with "it" and "it."

My post was outlining the place tradition has in my thought process. The reason for my post is to show that if I am heeding tradition the reading is not as straightforward as I might have thought. So when you raise WCF 1.9, I cannot see the relevance because it presupposes what I am saying -- it is a rule that deals with a "question" that arises from the reading of a text. The answer obviously isn't straightforward.

WCF 1.9 refers to "the true and full sense of any scripture," not how we, in your words, "define a word." The "question" is which portion of Scripture is paramount when conducting contextual exegesis. In other words, in the case of PV, for a plain reading, do we give priority to the written narratives of contemporaneous NT writers or to a word search via concordance? If the context of the narrative gives a plain reading, why the need to appeal to tradition?

It only requires one use of a word in a different context to provide a different sense of that word either to a greater or a lesser degree. WCF 1.9 is not going to work on a lexical level if you can't necessarily impose the meaning of a word from one place onto another place. The analogia scripturae relates more to concepts than words, to ensure that the sense derived from a passage is in keeping with the general sense of Scripture. Hence I cannot understand why this rule has been introduced into the discussion.

I'm curious, too - how far back does this tradition that you claim exists (see your comment I bolded below) go in invoking II Samuel 6 into the lexical discussion of "until"?

I'm not sure. 2 Sam. 6 is only an example. Various others examples are given in the tradition going back to the fathers.

The Geneva translation/tradition reads "unto," not "until." Perhaps for a reason?

I'm not sure how any English reader would read "Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death" and ever have the impression that, in your words, there was any possibility that "she subsequently brought forth other children" after a certain terminating point.

That's the point. It gives an example of usage that can't be taken any other way. It helps to set the lexical range of meaning.

The Geneva uses this parallel in its comments on Matt. 1:25.

 

[SolaScriptura]

"For any who are interested... Richard Muller, in the 2nd volume of PRRD (which is all about the Bible) has a good section on the development of how Scripture was interpreted and exegeted."

Ok, well I thank you for citing what I had written that gave you the impression I was recommending Muller to be the definer of the tradition, etc. This represents to me a fascinating window into your thought process: I made a general recommendation that (someone) had written (in some book) a good discussion of a particular topic... and that means to you that I'm saying or suggesting that the author is the be end all and should (must!) be read and followed en toto. I'll let others decide if yours is a conclusion justified by normal hermeneutics.
[automerge]1737340583[/automerge]

Muller clearly states that the development continued within the lines of what is defined by historical theologians as "Tradition I." He draws the lines from the patristic to the medieval to the reformers to the reformed orthodox to high orthodoxy. Hence I started this thread. The Reformed take over "Tradition I" from the medieval church. There is no break with the medieval church to posit a new doctrine of sola scriptura.

As to this... I'm just gonna put this here with only 2 comments:

1. "hermeneutic revolution" "reconstruct churchly dogmatics" and "exegetical justification" and
2. Praise the Lord that contra the medieval church, and apparently (in your, er, Muller's estimation) "the Reformed," Sola Scriptura is at the heart and soul of WCF 1 and therefore the entire Confession.

Gotta go - it's gonna be cold here the next few days and it felt good to be away from this the better part of the week. I might pop back in at the end of the week, maybe not. Have a good one!

 

[MW]

Gotta go - it's gonna be cold here the next few days and it felt good to be away from this the better part of the week. I might pop back in at the end of the week, maybe not. Have a good one!

I see no point in carrying on a discussion with a bobbing head. Stay warm!

 

[Northern Crofter]

My post was outlining the place tradition has in my thought process. The reason for my post is to show that if I am heeding tradition the reading is not as straightforward as I might have thought. So when you raise WCF 1.9, I cannot see the relevance because it presupposes what I am saying -- it is a rule that deals with a "question" that arises from the reading of a text. The answer obviously isn't straightforward.



It only requires one use of a word in a different context to provide a different sense of that word either to a greater or a lesser degree. WCF 1.9 is not going to work on a lexical level if you can't necessarily impose the meaning of a word from one place onto another place. The analogia scripturae relates more to concepts than words, to ensure that the sense derived from a passage is in keeping with the general sense of Scripture. Hence I cannot understand why this rule has been introduced into the discussion.




I'm not sure. 2 Sam. 6 is only an example. Various others examples are given in the tradition going back to the fathers.




That's the point. It gives an example of usage that can't be taken any other way. It helps to set the lexical range of meaning.

The Geneva uses this parallel in its comments on Matt. 1:25.

But as been brought up above:

If you want to know what comes “after” the “until/before”, you have to see if the story tells you elsewhere.

In II Samuel 6 and the other passage alluded to in the Geneva notes on Matt.1.25 (Matthew 28:20: "Teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I have commanded you: and lo, I am with you alway, until the end of the world, Amen." my emphasis) what comes after is not only clear but is clearly terminal: the end of Michal's life, the end of the world. In the case of Mary in Matt.1.25 the "after" ("But he knew her not, till she had brought forth her first born son") is just as clearly not terminal as Mary did not die before Christ did many years later. The "terminal" event in relation to "until" was giving birth. How is this then not the plain reading: after her first born he knew her?

The telling question remaining in my mind is this: did the tradition of alluding to "until" passages dealing with terminal situations (death, end of the world) in a way that supports PV begin before or after the PV became tradition (c.300)? Do Ambrose, Augustine, and Jerome refer to such exegesis? Or were they drawing from a preexisting tradition? The only prior tradition I can find is in Irenaeus (though I'm not sure it can be called a tradition because he seems to be the only one saying it until the other 3 come along) and he is trying to establish Mary as the "New Eve" and the one who, by her obedience, counteracts the disobedience of Eve, implying just as Eve’s sin involved a disruption of the original harmony of creation, Mary's purity helped restore that harmony, suggesting her virginity is symbolic of her purity and special role (see below).

The answer to that question is the key (for me) in determining whether or not a tradition is warranted - is there evidence that such exegesis came first and that the tradition developed from that, or did a tradition develop (for whatever reason) and then exegesis was produced to support it? It seems to me that in many traditions (Eastern and Roman are the obvious ones) systematic theologies are developed and certain parts become traditions because they are necessary to make the system work, and then exegesis follows to support the system regardless of whether or not that exegesis adopts or adapts the plain meaning of the text (such as Ezekiel 44:2 in the case of PV). This seems to be the case as far as Irenaeus is concerned - part of what he is doing in Against Heresies is trying to systematically show the unity of the Old Testament and the Gospels, so he (novelly) builds a case for Mary as the New Eve just as he (rightly - because it is plain in Scripture) shows that Christ the New Adam based on Paul's Christ-Adam parallel in Romans 5:12–21. He feels the need in his systematic defense against Gnosticism to bring Eve into it. I know MW desires to not make this about PV, but I am using it as an example of what appears to be a tradition formed from systematic necessity, not plain exegesis. Nowhere in what Irenaeus writes about Mary does he bring in an exegesis of our "until" texts - that doesn't seem to happen until hundreds of years later. Here are some samples from Irenaeus (my emphasis) - as far as I can tell, this is where the tradition of PV begins:

"10. For as by one man's disobedience sin entered, and death obtained [a place] through sin; so also by the obedience of one man, righteousness having been introduced, shall cause life to fructify in those persons who in times past were dead. Romans 5:19 And as the protoplast himself Adam, had his substance from untilled and as yet virgin soil (for God had not yet sent rain, and man had not tilled the ground Genesis 2:5), and was formed by the hand of God, that is, by the Word of God, for all things were made by Him, John 1:3 and the Lord took dust from the earth and formed man; so did He who is the Word, recapitulating Adam in Himself, rightly receive a birth, enabling Him to gather up Adam [into Himself], from Mary, who was as yet a virgin. If, then, the first Adam had a man for his father, and was born of human seed, it were reasonable to say that the second Adam was begotten of Joseph. But if the former was taken from the dust, and God was his Maker, it was incumbent that the latter also, making a recapitulation in Himself, should be formed as man by God, to have an analogy with the former as respects His origin. Why, then, did not God again take dust, but wrought so that the formation should be made of Mary? It was that there might not be another formation called into being, nor any other which should [require to] be saved, but that the very same formation should be summed up [in Christ as had existed in Adam], the analogy having been preserved." (Against Heresies Book III, Chapter 21.10)

"In accordance with this design, Mary the Virgin is found obedient, saying, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to your word. Luke 1:38 But Eve was disobedient; for she did not obey when as yet she was a virgin. And even as she, having indeed a husband, Adam, but being nevertheless as yet a virgin (for in Paradise they were both naked, and were not ashamed, Genesis 2:25 inasmuch as they, having been created a short time previously, had no understanding of the procreation of children: for it was necessary that they should first come to adult age, and then multiply from that time onward), having become disobedient, was made the cause of death, both to herself and to the entire human race; so also did Mary, having a man betrothed [to her], and being nevertheless a virgin, by yielding obedience, become the cause of salvation, both to herself and the whole human race. And on this account does the law term a woman betrothed to a man, the wife of him who had betrothed her, although she was as yet a virgin; thus indicating the back-reference from Mary to Eve, because what is joined together could not otherwise be put asunder than by inversion of the process by which these bonds of union had arisen; so that the former ties be cancelled by the latter, that the latter may set the former again at liberty. And it has, in fact, happened that the first compact looses from the second tie, but that the second tie takes the position of the first which has been cancelled. For this reason did the Lord declare that the first should in truth be last, and the last first. Matthew 19:30, Matthew 20:16 And the prophet, too, indicates the same, saying, instead of fathers, children have been born unto you. For the Lord, having been born the First-begotten of the dead, Revelation 1:5 and receiving into His bosom the ancient fathers, has regenerated them into the life of God, He having been made Himself the beginning of those that live, as Adam became the beginning of those who die. 1 Corinthians 15:20-22 Wherefore also Luke, commencing the genealogy with the Lord, carried it back to Adam, indicating that it was He who regenerated them into the Gospel of life, and not they Him. And thus also it was that the knot of Eve's disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. For what the virgin Eve had bound fast through unbelief, this did the virgin Mary set free through faith." (Against Heresies Book III, Chapter 22.4)

I strongly support tradition - I don't think as a modern Covenanter I have any other choice - but it has to be a tradition necessitated by exegesis, not the other way around. In this case it seems to me that the exegesis supporting the PV view is needed to support the Eve-Mary tradition first invented by Irenaeus. I don't see how the Eve-Mary tradition is deduced by good and necessary consequence from Scripture, let alone necessary unto salvation, so the baby (PV) goes out with the bathwater (Eve-Mary).

 

[MW]

The telling question remaining in my mind is this: did the tradition of alluding to "until" passages dealing with terminal situations (death, end of the world) in a way that supports PV begin before or after the PV became tradition (c.300)? Do Ambrose, Augustine, and Jerome refer to such exegesis? Or were they drawing from a preexisting tradition?

Are you asking if there is an independent witness to support this interpretation of "until" apart from the issue of PV? If so, yes; it comes up in various contexts. One other significant theological debate it bears upon is the eternal mediation of Christ dependent on the interpretation of "until" in Ps. 110:1.

If you are asking whether there is support in the tradition earlier than Irenaeus, I couldn't say. Irenaeus loved the idea of recapitulation, which is worked and reworked in the tradition in various ways. That is probably lying behind his parallel.

The tradition might accidentally stumble on the truth for which later exegesis provides the support. The covenant of works is a good example. So I wouldn't require a lineal development from Scripture to fact if the tradition has mediated it. If someone points me in the right direction it is useful even though I might need a map to locate the exact location. People's instincts can be good even if they can't give a good account of them.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Now, maybe Muller doesn't know what "reconstructing" means or what a "revolution" is - though of course he does. But those are his words. And it illustrates the monumental task they faced - a hermeneutical revolution - that resulted in "churchly and confessionally governed dogmatics" having to be reconstructed on the basis of exegetical justification. No more using tradition is a justification! It would be appreciated if instead of engaging in a proof text battle trying to cancel out what Muller says here by pointing to places where he speaks highly of tradition if the basic revolutionary fact with its cascading effects would be recognized.

I'm not entirely sure I agree with MW regarding all that he is asserting, but I do think you may be assuming more from the word "reconstructing" in this quote from Muller.

What it doesn't mean is "...bulldoze the house and build a whole new house." That's clear from the wider context of Muller.

It means that they take many of the same teachings in dogmatic and support them exegetically.

I think I quoted earlier that the Medieval Church had pretty much taught the scripture next to Tradition and assume that the former obviously corresponded.

The Reformation put Scripture first and was used to support the latter.

Now, the problem I have with this conversation is that if someone jumps into it, it may be lost to them that it was started over the perpetual virginity of Mary. I have no desire to support the idea that Muller has that doctrine, particularly in view as the basic superstructure of doctrines and ideas that were preserved.

I have in mind the catholic doctrines. It's clear that the Reformers, while they believed that the Scriptures could be and should be read by all, did not "reconstruct" theology in such a way or conceive of each man reading that they allowed SErvetus or the Sociniians or any number of groups to "revolutionize" certain catholic doctrines.

I guess what I'm saying is that we can't use Muller to conclude that the Reformation principle was that everything was up for grabs and that a man and his Bible may ultimately correct those ideas. I'm not sure if that's what you're trying to argue, and I'm certainly not arguing that the Perpetual Virginity of Mary falls into this category.

 

[Northern Crofter]

Are you asking if there is an independent witness to support this interpretation of "until" apart from the issue of PV? If so, yes; it comes up in various contexts. One other significant theological debate it bears upon is the eternal mediation of Christ dependent on the interpretation of "until" in Ps. 110:1.

If you are asking whether there is support in the tradition earlier than Irenaeus, I couldn't say. Irenaeus loved the idea of recapitulation, which is worked and reworked in the tradition in various ways. That is probably lying behind his parallel.

Largely the latter.

The tradition might accidentally stumble on the truth for which later exegesis provides the support. The covenant of works is a good example. So I wouldn't require a lineal development from Scripture to fact if the tradition has mediated it. If someone points me in the right direction it is useful even though I might need a map to locate the exact location. People's instincts can be good even if they can't give a good account of them.

Fair enough. But there is a danger when someone develops a line of thinking/reasoning in order to counter error, and then that line of thinking becomes a tradition, and then later generations feel compelled to defend that tradition (and interpret Scripture in a way that supports it) for fear of weakening the defenses against a particular error. And then, eventually, as in the case of Romanism, that tradition becomes dogma and attempts are made to bind the conscience. But many of these traditions are built on sand - they are quickly thrown up as a defense against error, but if time is allowed to examine them, many are not truly necessary to defend the Gospel. It may serve a purpose for a time, but it should be allowed to eventually crumble. The Reformation era did much to this end, but such necessary work did not end with this era - there are still castles made of sand that need to be washed away.

Simply because there is a tradition of a particular exegesis does not make it intrinsically worthy - there needs to be a close examination of the reason for the tradition that exegesis supports in the first place. If the tradition is founded on sand, it and the exegesis attached to it should be allowed to crumble.

 

[No Other Name]

I was with family this weekend and my dialogue here seems long buried.

On a brighter note, I clicked "Buy with 1-Click" on kindle version of Schnittjer's book

How to Study the Bible's Use of the Bible: Seven Hermeneutical Choices for the Old and New Testaments​

It has been fascinating to say the least. I will refrain myself until I go through it further.

 

[MW]

Fair enough. But there is a danger when someone develops a line of thinking/reasoning in order to counter error, and then that line of thinking becomes a tradition, and then later generations feel compelled to defend that tradition (and interpret Scripture in a way that supports it) for fear of weakening the defenses against a particular error. And then, eventually, as in the case of Romanism, that tradition becomes dogma and attempts are made to bind the conscience. But many of these traditions are built on sand - they are quickly thrown up as a defense against error, but if time is allowed to examine them, many are not truly necessary to defend the Gospel. It may serve a purpose for a time, but it should be allowed to eventually crumble. The Reformation era did much to this end, but such necessary work did not end with this era - there are still castles made of sand that need to be washed away.

Agreed; once you start comparing these sandcastles with Scripture they are obviously something else. That is where the impetus comes from to take up "Tradition II."

Simply because there is a tradition of a particular exegesis does not make it intrinsically worthy - there needs to be a close examination of the reason for the tradition that exegesis supports in the first place. If the tradition is founded on sand, it and the exegesis attached to it should be allowed to crumble.

That is true. Exegetical considerations related to the doctrines of grace were revisited at the reformation on a large scale.
[automerge]1737410825[/automerge]

I guess what I'm saying is that we can't use Muller to conclude that the Reformation principle was that everything was up for grabs and that a man and his Bible may ultimately correct those ideas. I'm not sure if that's what you're trying to argue, and I'm certainly not arguing that the Perpetual Virginity of Mary falls into this category.

To be clear, this thread was a tributary to the PV issue. As a position was maintained on that issue a claim was made for a straightforward reading of Scripture on the principle of sola scriptura. This raised the question of the relation of Scripture and tradition, in which Muller's name was invoked.

 

[No Other Name]

To be clear, this thread was a tributary to the PV issue. As a position was maintained on that issue a claim was made for a straightforward reading of Scripture on the principle of sola scriptura. This raised the question of the relation of Scripture and tradition, in which Muller's name was invoked.

I am breaking silence in order to be clear here on my end as well. As one of the first to make a claim that a straightforward reading of Scripture using sound exegesis casts grave doubt on the issue of PV- even to the point of denial - I will own that position and still do.

But I am taking great care in defining "straightforward" in the light of historical use and triumphs of Biblical truths through the means of "plain sense reading". I need to make sure the definition is tight in my own mind and the responsible use of it is Scripturally sound from A to Z - from beginning to end - before I make any further comment.

I am interested in you (or anyone) who denies PV but also denies the position that a straightforward reading can disprove PV, well, ... how then does one of your persuasions come to the conclusion that PV is denied? Or do you stop short of denial? Kind of just a more general state of "not affirming"?

 

[MW]

I am interested in you (or anyone) who denies PV but also denies the position that a straightforward reading can disprove PV, well, ... how then does one of your persuasions come to the conclusion that PV is denied? Or do you stop short of denial? Kind of just a more general state of "not affirming"?

That is for another thread, I think. My position is that Scripture doesn't tell us either way, so there can be no dogma on it, but it is piously believed within the tradition. This thread aims to point out that sola scriptura does not mean denying the importance of tradition in terms of what historical theologians call "tradition I," where Scripture alone is the source of authority and tradition aims to pass down what the Scripture teaches.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

That is for another thread, I think. My position is that Scripture doesn't tell us either way, so there can be no dogma on it, but it is piously believed within the tradition. This thread aims to point out that sola scriptura does not mean denying the importance of tradition in terms of what historical theologians call "tradition I," where Scripture alone is the source of authority and tradition aims to pass down what the Scripture teaches.

I think that is helpful as an idea in general.

I would not want anyone binding another's conscience on a historical theological idea that permits a reading that supports the idea of PV, but I can at least recognize why a theologian came at it in good faith without simply assuming thy are blindly imbibing some authoritative tradition.

Incidentally, if we simply think of tradition as part of the hermeneutical method, then this is probably a way for someone to understand that our theology informs our exegesis. Let's zoom out from PV for a moment.

We might come to a contested Scripture, and someone insists that a plain literal reading of a passage rejects limited atonement. Some might argue that this is purely exegetical, but there is a systematic and GNC part of this that informs a theological "tradition" that helps someone see more broadly than a specific passage. The baptism debate likewise exists within theological traditions that color how an exegete understands a whole range of passages.

One of the things I realized when I learned Greek exegesis was that even the translation of a genetive is informed by a broader hermeneutic tradition. Whether a genetive is objective or subjective is often presented by a theologian and you can tell what tradition they are from when they render what kind of genetive they use and what they insist it must mean.

 

[MW]

We might come to a contested Scripture, and someone insists that a plain literal reading of a passage rejects limited atonement. Some might argue that this is purely exegetical, but there is a systematic and GNC part of this that informs a theological "tradition" that helps someone see more broadly than a specific passage. The baptism debate likewise exists within theological traditions that color how an exegete understands a whole range of passages.

That is a key element to this. We think within systems, and we are bound to do so if we desire to hold our beliefs coherently. We can speak of traditions in the plural because they represent coherent expressions to something fundamental in their system that has been worked out over time.