Sola Scriptura and Tradition

[No Other Name]

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.

I don't know.

I mean, for example: I can see my own past differences between a) my credobaptism and Presbyterians and the disagreements hinging on interpretative differences of certain key texts and the light of Scripture as a whole and the differing systems of federalism

and now b) the more streamlined and narrower issue of PV.

The former (a) seems more of a systemic difference and there are complex layers of disconnect that all sum to a disagreement, but they do sum to a certain mutual confessional agreement to disagree because while our interpretations differ, the role of Scripture as ultimate authority while acknowledging different readings itself is agreed upon the entire time by both credo and paedo.

The latter case (b) is certainly less complex, more specific and as such has fewer "moving parts" in the analysis which leads more to a question of any methodology that somehow allows a priori for views not included in Scripture at all.

At that point, it would not really be a matter of one of us "binding the conscience [against] permitting a reading that supports the idea of PV" rather that the hermeneutical methodology itself as a whole is in question since it seems very different than the long-established norm.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

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.

I think this is one of the reasons there is a theological prologomena in serious theological works.

The archetypal/ectypal distinction is another great example of something grounded both exegetically and historically. When erstwhile "Reformed" theologians depart from this and argue that God and man can think of the same thing univocally, it is proper for us to recognize he is not "Reformed" on a very basic theological tradition. He may even marshall Biblical passages to argue his point, and it's not that the Reformed tradition lacks the same, but it rejects a theological tradition in which this historical theological tradition is ignored.

 

[MW]

The latter case (b) is certainly less complex, more specific and as such has fewer "moving parts" in the analysis which leads more to a question of any methodology that somehow allows a priori for views not included in Scripture at all.

I like the idea of moving parts. Both a) and b) has them because meaning shifts in each system. Different weight is accorded to different things depending on where an idea lies in the overall scheme. The real difference is that b) doesn't really matter. One has an effect on whether you baptise your children. The other makes absolutely no difference in the world.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I don't know.

I mean, for example: I can see my own past differences between a) my credobaptism and Presbyterians and the disagreements hinging on interpretative differences of certain key texts and the light of Scripture as a whole and the differing systems of federalism

and now b) the more streamlined and narrower issue of PV.

The former (a) seems more of a systemic difference and there are complex layers of disconnect that all sum to a disagreement, but they do sum to a certain mutual confessional agreement to disagree because while our interpretations differ, the role of Scripture as ultimate authority while acknowledging different readings itself is agreed upon the entire time by both credo and paedo.

The latter case (b) is certainly less complex, more specific and as such has fewer "moving parts" in the analysis which leads more to a question of any methodology that somehow allows a priori for views not included in Scripture at all.

At that point, it would not really be a matter of one of us "binding the conscience [against] permitting a reading that supports the idea of PV" rather that the hermeneutical methodology itself as a whole is in question since it seems very different than the long-established norm.

I was illustrating a principle and not arguing for PV. The point is that any man who argues that they are not doing theology from any theological tradition is blind to his own traditions. The tradition includes some methodological and theological commitments. It has nothing to do with the Scriptures as the "morning norm"or denying that someone is committed to that principle. It's simply an acknowledgment that a set of ideas informs theology. Every heretic in history has generally thought they were just teaching Scripture and it is almost always the case that they thought they were being faithful where all theological traditions were simply blind to the obvious.

 

[Northern Crofter]

...where Scripture alone is the source of authority and tradition aims to pass down what the Scripture teaches.

...makes absolutely no difference in the world.

How can both of these be true?

 

[No Other Name]

I am still not being clear enough. I will try another metaphor to help. (I am not condescending, I am looking at myself in the mirror and saying "Brad, be clearer".)

No one that I know disputes we have theological traditions. I approach the doctrines of grace as a Calvinist in tradition and not Arminian. I approach the covenant of grace as a 1689 adherent and not a NCT or progressive semi-dispensationalist.

This took time. A long time. And it is still ongoing. I am discussing soteriology with a friend from Bible college who is arguing Arminianism and so even now, I am going back in my "truth tree" and trimming and pruning according to Scripture.

(I have used John 3, Romans 8 and Ephesians 2 so far in much the same way all of you would expect as is needed here). It makes me sharper. It makes my views more focused and more Scripturally based, not less.

When these discussions happen, it is my use of Scripture that gets sharper, not the tradition of Dort or Calvin's Institutes as helpful and as critical as these contributions are. My sword is the Word of God, not theological traditions.

In contrast, my friend who is being kind is sharpening his Leighton Flowers and his whomever else he is obviously quoting from. His tradition is becoming sharper as he talks with me and the Word is not being used yet at all.

The trunk of my "truth tree" is the Word of God and yes, tradition is the shape of the branches as it is grafted to the trunk. It defines how I prune its branches, but the tradition must and can only be grafted as far as it aligns with a regulative philosophy of reading and interpreting Scripture (adding nothing to it and taking nothing away from it).

So, while I hold to not baptizing children, I cannot imagine my belief to be one that is directly tied since no Biblical verse directly says: "Thou shalt not baptize children". It is implicitly and necessarily tied by a string of verses and interpretations. And I have - and I will - go back and re-visit or re-discuss that issue regularly until the day I die so that each branch can be scrutinized for any disjointed imperfections in the reasoning. I must do so.

Otherwise, I will become like my Arminian friend who is peaching tradition and incapable of engaging Biblically. (may that never be us). He has broken branches from his conclusions to the Scriptures and it is making him seem almost panicky in his replies.

In this conversation here, the issue is often laid out independent of the participants. I - for one - had no idea Calvin believed PV also Perkins and a lot of others. In reading the quotes and the sermon given, I was astonished to find appeals to secondary meanings of words but no actual proof that these secondary meanings must follow or even a proof that the normal primary meaning does not hold in the specific verses that are applicable.

The fact that historical figures had a certain PV pre-grafting in their Biblical trunks (or at least a pre-grafting in their branches far closer to the trunk than we do today) is a fact that is not unimportant, but does not demand that it thereby needs to be considered on equal footing to the non-PV grafting of our own trunks and branches today.

And you all are right in saying PV is not even the issue. It really isn't.

The issue is it is heavily implied that not knowing Calvin believed PV hinders my interpretation of Matt. 1:25 since he interpreted it differently.

After all, who am I to say "heOs" retains its primary meaning? Calvin said that "heOs" can mean the secondary meaning (although as I read here, he never felt the need to explain since majority opinion at that time holds that secondary reading).

This introduces a normative line of branches allowing for a belief in something Scripture does not implicitly nor necessarily teach. When all other branches are regulative in principle and application. (<- this issue does not arise in discussions of EP/baptism/covenant theology etc. Even in our disagreements the regulative principle of reading the Bible holds true in our replies from one to the other).

It also has strong implications that an everyman like me needs to know how fathers and Reformers interpreted Scripture before I can - or should - begin.

I am not done reading Schnittjer, but I know enough to say that these implications are wrong.

And if I am wrong in that these implications have not been made and my interpretation of my interlocutor does not follow from the case made in defense of PV tradition being accounted for, then I will ask again how and where and why I am wrong in not accounting for tradition in my interpretation of Scripture.

 

[Frisian Gardener]

The New Testament records details of the Old Testament narrative that were not recorded in the Old Testament itself. Examples include:

• Moses living for 40 years as an Egyptian and 40 years as a shepherd (Acts 7:23)
• 23,000 died as a consequence of the Golden Calf (1 Corinthians 10:8)
• the names Jannes and Jambres (2 Timothy 3:8)
• Isaiah's death by saw (Hebrews 11:37)
• Abraham's belief that Isaac would be resurrected after his sacrifice (Hebrews 11:19)
• Michael and Satan contending for Moses' body (Jude 9)

Granted, at least the reveal of Abraham's thoughts may have been immediate revelation, not a tradition received and passed down at the time of the writing of Hebrews. But we do see instances of extra-Biblical tradition acknowledged as true and endorsed by the inspired writers. Obviously we don't have new revelation anymore to confirm or deny any traditions of interpretation, but how much precedential weight should we give to these inspired examples as forming a principle, and how can we distinguish this from Rome using them as a prooftext to endorse its use of Tradition?

 

[SolaScriptura]

One thing for sure, this recent topic has led me to books on my shelf I haven’t looked at in years. So, thank you to my chief interlocutor, @MW, for being the impetus to blow the proverbial dust off some of these volumes.

I was looking at Letham’s “The Westminster Assembly: Reading Its Theology In Historical Context” … and to be upfront and honest, it is safe to say that Letham personally holds to a very high view of tradition somewhat akin to Matthew. This perspective is clear in his comments throughout the book and leads him to bemoan the Assembly’s process and work at multiple points, but from my vantage point it is precisely the Assembly’s willingness to keep tradition firmly in check that underscores the fruit and effect of Reformational principles being applied.

There is a fascinating discussion on pp.153-158 under the heading “Scripture and the Creeds” and it contains information I hadn’t remembered about the Assembly’s work in editing the 39 Articles. Fascinating stuff and definitely worth reading no matter where one lands on the subject under debate in this thread. I’m not going to reproduce here the text of this section, not sure it would even be legal to do so because of its length, but this section is definitely worth reading for your edification.

But here’s Letham’s opening paragraph in this section (and you see his own opinion on full display in his commentary): “On the relationship between Scripture and tradition, the Assembly give clear primacy to Scripture as the Word of God (cf. 1.6 on the “traditions of men”). However, there was great confusion at the Assembly on this point. It was by no means its finest hour. The divines came close to deviating from the rest of the Reformed churches and placing themselves outside the historic Christian tradition.”

Then proceeds a truly informative and fascinating discussion about the Assembly’s work related to the 39 Articles and the place of the Creeds in them… And it is the back and forth that I find so fascinating. This discussion goes from p.153 to midway through p.156 and the nature of the back and forth is summarized by Letham's commentary from Van Dixhoorn, "As Van Dixhoorn comments, the relationship between Scripture and the creeds was not self-evident for some divines."

But then picking up at the bottom of p.156, “Despite the pledge to Parliament that the Apostles’ Creed would be included” - I had no idea such a pledge had been made - “neither the Larger Catechism nor the Shorter Catechism includes anything about creeds. This is particularly notable since the classic catechetical form consisted of the Apostles’ Creed, the Ten Commandments, and the Lord’s Prayer. The Westminster Catechisms incorporate the latter two into their structure, but not the Apostles’ Creed. This can hardly be anything other than studied indifference and deliberate exclusion. It indicates that a significant portion of the Assembly’s members were verging on a separatist mentality and that a firm historical consciousness was in the process of being lost. This was by no means uniform; there were sufficient members with a thorough knowledge of, and appreciation for, the past teachings of the church, the Reformed churches, and the church fathers to prevent this from being a blanket judgment. However, it is unfortunate that they were unable to carry the Assembly with them, and it weakens the claim that it is a body thoroughly representative of the historic Christian church… Van Dixhoorn points out that in their published writings the Assembly men all use the creeds, cite them, and support them. They never call for their removal or revision. Yet ‘most notable about the Assembly’s corporate writings, by way of contrast, is not their contribution to an ongoing conversation, but their attempt to end the conversation by removing the creeds from the life of the church.’… It seems to be self-contradictory, for the Assembly to spend several years painstakingly composing a Confession of Faith and two Catechisms in order to provide a solid foundation for the Church of England, while at the same time cutting the ground from under its feet by undermining the principal basis for producing such documents in the first place.”

From my vantage point - especially in view of Letham’s discussion of the back and forth re: the inclusion of the Creeds in the 39 Articles - which is just too long to type - that the Divines weren't "self-contradictory" at all, but rather made a vigorous, rigorous, full-throated assertion of the absolute primacy of the Word. And I believe it is this intentional act flowing from a full-flowered commitment to Sola Scriptura that helped avoid the inevitable functional reestablishment of tradition as an almost “inviolable authority,” as noted previously by Bavinck, on the continent.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

rom my vantage point - especially in view of Letham’s discussion of the back and forth re: the inclusion of the Creeds in the 39 Articles - which is just too long to type - that the Divines weren't "self-contradictory" at all, but rather made a vigorous, rigorous, full-throated assertion of the absolute primacy of the Word

I thnk his point about the "self-contradictory" nature of it would be for the Assembly to create a Confession that immediately has no "weight" in the Church's use. In other words, if the Assembly really cut itself off from Creeds then the Confession they produced would have been interesting but useless. Note, I'm not arguing for a fuller throated embrace of "Tradition" but simply to note if "tradition" in some sense has no actual authority (when derived from the morning norm) then there's no point in having a Confession.

 

[MW]

How can both of these be true?

The names of "Jannes" and "Jambres" make no difference to me. Knowing it doesn't change what I believe concerning God or the duty I owe to Him. Some ideas are simply filling in details.

 

[MW]

From my vantage point - especially in view of Letham’s discussion of the back and forth re: the inclusion of the Creeds in the 39 Articles - which is just too long to type - that the Divines weren't "self-contradictory" at all, but rather made a vigorous, rigorous, full-throated assertion of the absolute primacy of the Word. And I believe it is this intentional act flowing from a full-flowered commitment to Sola Scriptura that helped avoid the inevitable functional reestablishment of tradition as an almost “inviolable authority,” as noted previously by Bavinck, on the continent.

I think this is true, but it leaves out of view a number of things. For example, what the Puritans suffered under a form of Tradition II; the Assembly's reaction to the sectaries in terms of Tradition I, etc. I could speak to these but it will suffice to note that the reason anyone would bring up the Westminster Assembly is owing to "tradition I." As Warfield says of the Westminster Confession, "The book was not one, however, which could easily be relegated to oblivion. Thrust aside by the established Church of England, it nevertheless had an important career before it even in England, where it became the Creed of the Non-Conformists. The Independents, at their Synod, met in 1658 at the Savoy, adopted it in the form in which it had been published by Parliament (1648), after subjecting it to a revision which in no way affected its substance; and the Baptists, having still further revised it and adjusted it to fit their particular views on Baptism, adopted it in 1677. By both of the bodies it was transmitted to their affiliated co-religionists in America, where it worked out for itself an important history. It was of course also transmitted, in its original form, by the Scotch Church to the Churches, on both sides of the sea, deriving their tradition from it, and thus it has become the Confession of Faith of the Presbyterian Churches of the British dependencies and of America."

 

[David Lamb]

The New Testament records details of the Old Testament narrative that were not recorded in the Old Testament itself. Examples include:

• Moses living for 40 years as an Egyptian and 40 years as a shepherd (Acts 7:23)
• 23,000 died as a consequence of the Golden Calf (1 Corinthians 10:8)
• the names Jannes and Jambres (2 Timothy 3:8)
• Isaiah's death by saw (Hebrews 11:37)
• Abraham's belief that Isaac would be resurrected after his sacrifice (Hebrews 11:19)
• Michael and Satan contending for Moses' body (Jude 9)

I agree with most of what you wrote about the New Testament, but I am just wondering where Hebrews 11 tells us that Isaiah in particular was killed by a saw. Hebrews 11:35-37 show that the passage is talking about various unnamed people:

“Women received their dead raised to life again. And others were tortured, not accepting deliverance, that they might obtain a better resurrection. Still others had trial of mockings and scourgings, yes, and of chains and imprisonment. They were stoned, they were sawn in two, were tempted, were slain with the sword. They wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins, being destitute, afflicted, tormented — ” (Heb 11:35-37 NKJV)

 

[paranymph]

I agree with most of what you wrote about the New Testament, but I am just wondering where Hebrews 11 tells us that Isaiah in particular was killed by a saw. Hebrews 11:35-37 show that the passage is talking about various unnamed people:

“Women received their dead raised to life again. And others were tortured, not accepting deliverance, that they might obtain a better resurrection. Still others had trial of mockings and scourgings, yes, and of chains and imprisonment. They were stoned, they were sawn in two, were tempted, were slain with the sword. They wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins, being destitute, afflicted, tormented — ” (Heb 11:35-37 NKJV)

It is an extrabiblical Jewish tradition possibly held by some Jews at the time. A pseudepigraphal text called Ascension of Isaiah speaks about it (probably written in the 2nd century AD):
"Because of these visions and prophecies Sammael Satan sawed Isaiah the son of Amoz, the prophet, in half by the hand of Manasseh."

Justin Martyr refers to the tradition in Dialogue with Trypho, ch. 120:
"... as they did those about the death of Isaiah, whom you sawed asunder with a wooden saw. And this was a mysterious type of Christ being about to cut your nation in two, and to raise those worthy of the honour to the everlasting kingdom along with the holy patriarchs and prophets;..."

 

[David Lamb]

It is an extrabiblical Jewish tradition possibly held by some Jews at the time. A pseudepigraphal text called Ascension of Isaiah speaks about it (probably written in the 2nd century AD):
"Because of these visions and prophecies Sammael Satan sawed Isaiah the son of Amoz, the prophet, in half by the hand of Manasseh."

Justin Martyr refers to the tradition in Dialogue with Trypho, ch. 120:
"... as they did those about the death of Isaiah, whom you sawed asunder with a wooden saw. And this was a mysterious type of Christ being about to cut your nation in two, and to raise those worthy of the honour to the everlasting kingdom along with the holy patriarchs and prophets;..."

Thanks, that explains it. The post to which I was replying gave Isaiah as an example of a detail from Old Testament times only revealed in the New Testament. If it was extra-biblical, then it can't have been in the New Testament