For centuries Christians have sought the Holy Grail. This relic captivates the imagination. To have the grail is to hold in your hands the very cup that Jesus shared with His disciples…to touch salvation history. How glorious would that be? Just as these types of relics hold a particular fascination for many, there are also theological concepts that have gained great prominence. In fact, there are many “grails” we hold with religious fervor. My hope is to begin a reasoned discussion about these dearly held beliefs. Ultimately, the objective is to foster positive dialogue that may help bridge gaps rather than create new ones. With this in mind, here is the first “grail”.
Let's talk about Sola Scriptura. Protestants hold unwavering to this concept of Scripture alone as our spiritual authority. Without question this high view of Scripture along with Sola Fide (faith alone) are the “holy grails” of the Reformation. In Sola Scriptura, the Bible is the pillar and foundation of truth - the authority. That seems apparent, right? Oops, we have a Biblical dilemma. The Scriptures state that the Church is the pillar and foundation of Truth (1 Timothy 3:15). What are we to make of that?
Consider that the Church existed before the New Testament Scriptures. Was Sola Scriptura in effect before the books of the New Testament were in existence? How can that be? Did Sola Scriptura take effect after the Scriptures were canonized at Hippo in 393 and Carthage in 397? When did it apply and how did the Church survive without it? Where is Scripture alone as the Authority taught in the Scriptures? Paul states in 2 Timothy 3:16, "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness..." This reference to the Old Testament does not claim authoritative exclusivity. (Stay with me...please read on.)
Clearly, the Church after Pentecost forged her way into the future with dedication to Truth, but what Truth? Without the New Testament Scriptures in place, what was their source of authority in spiritual matters? May I suggest it was the Tradition that was handed down by Jesus to the Apostles and by the Apostles to the bishops, and so on down the time line? The Apostle Paul said, “So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings (Tradition) we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.” As Christians, according to 2 Thessalonians 2:15, we are to hold on to the Tradition – by word of mouth or by letter. Note that Paul does not see the oral Tradition (kerygma) to be in contrast with his written documents. In his book, "Evangelicals and Tradition," D. H. Williams notes, "Paul does not set these traditions and his letter in opposition to each other. Rather, he sees them as complementary..." Acts 2 holds another clue. The early Church, "dedicated themselves to the Apostles teaching..." These students of Jesus taught to their students what Jesus had taught them. Obviously orthodoxy was established by the Lord and as Paul said, "What I received from the Lord I also passed on to you..." (1 Corinthians 11:23). The Tradition was handed down by and within the Church, "the pillar and foundation of the Truth."
This raises several questions about the Church today. Do we really see the Church as the pillar and foundation of Truth? Which one is still faithfully passing on the Tradition? Or, regardless of what the church says, does my personal interpretation of Scripture and what I believe trump everything else? Looking at the results of the Reformation teaching of Sola Scriptura can it be said that this view has led to a “subjectifying” of the Scriptures? Truly, the Holy Spirit will lead us into all Truth, but what happens when sincere believers are led to different interpretations or understandings of the Sciptures? Is there more than one Truth? Who settles the debate?
I want to affirm the Scriptures as our source of authority in spiritual matters. They certainly are. My questions concerning Sola Scriptura are born of sincere inquiry into God’s Word concerning authority in the Church. I am amazed that with the Bible alone as the authority, the Body of Christ has not become unified but rather it has fractured into many denominations. Compare the reality of ecclesial diffusion and division to what the Scriptures teach - that, "There is one Body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called, one Lord, one faith, one baptism..." (Ephesians 4:4-5).
What solution can there be to this conundrum? If the Scriptures are to be our authority in spiritual matters - and I believe they should - we must have a rule or standard by which to interpret what the Bible is teaching. At this point the early Church becomes vital to us. The Traditon that was passed to them can be the measuring stick for interpreting the Scriptures correctly. When this God given Tradition is operating as the corrective to wrong interpretation in the Church - as a sort of check and balance on approaching the Scriptures with integrity, then the Scriptures are accurate in claiming the Church as "The pillar and foundation of truth." Without this dual track of accountability, the Tradition and the Scriptures, we have demonstrated through Church history an amazing capacity to make the Bible say what we want it to say.
D. H. Williams provides clarity on this point by saying, "Though the Word in Scripture comes from God, it is revealed through a process in which the community of faith, appropriating both the Old and the New Testament, is profoundly involved. Indeed, it is fair to say that we will rightly hear God's Word only as we hear it in the corporate and historical voice of the church." He goes on to claim, "The Bible is capable of being understood only in the midst of a disciplined community of believers whose practices embody the biblical story. As part of this embodiment, we are in need of 'spiritual masters,' namely, the venerable voices of the historical church whose journeys empower and enlighten our own pilgrimage toward what is authentically Christian."
What do you think?
Blessings,
Carl Peters
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Thanks for the insight into the insufficiency of Sola Scriptura. The same can be said, as you've pointed out, for Sola Fide. I think we also can easily discover the insufficiency of Sola "Hero" when we nearly deify the giants of the faith, making their writings and decisions almost a faith unto themselves. Of course, that's not what your article suggests. What I read is the suggestion that scripture, personal faith and the faith community - past and present - all serve to inform the individual in a quest for confirmation of a true faith experience or direction - a "testing of the Spirits," if you will.
As you mention, it is possible for one to interpret - even twist - scripture to benefit any position or direction. I assert that it is likewise possible to rely on faith and life experiences to benefit any preferred position or direction. Any spiritual revelation or suggestion, taken on its own without benefit of scriptural or faith community examination and confirmation, can develop into its own gospel of error, deception and heresy. I believe that truth demands open consideration of such revelations and should become part of one's personal canon, if you will, only after benefitting from the full light of open consideration of the effect of scripture, faith community and tradition on the revelation, and the revelation's effect on interpretation of scripture, the faith community and tradition.
If any revelation requires a new interpretation of scripture, a new direction for the faith community, or a direct contradiction of the faith tradition, I believe it is at best a personal preference; at worst it is a spiritual deception and should be treated with our Lord's admonition to "Get behind me, Satan!"
Further, I believe that most great historical departures from scriptural or faith community traditions to present themselves as new truths have been the result of an imbalanced relationship between these disciplines. the faithful follow to their peril. I believe that dominance of church tradition over scripture and personal faith resulted in the theological inventions of church leadership being magnified until they became new doctrine that, independent of scriptural and traditional faith verification, opposed spiritual truth. What is purgatory, anyway, and who has to be there (who doesn't?) How many relics must I buy to avoid getting hung up there? Why? Such issues aren't scriptural, but were impossible obstacles to thousands of believers. Martin Luther was right to oppose these departures from the true faith so openly.
Similarly the "Charismatic Movement" recognized spiritual impulse and personal revelation above scrutiny and confirmation by scripture and the broader faith community. "Name it and claim it" prosperity doctrine has ruined thousands and alienated many more with the result that quoting John 14:13,14 just ends the discussion for more balanced traditionalists.
Just as ealily we can see that over indulging the opinion of the faith community results in error. Look at Joseph Smith and followers locating new scripture, receiving new revelation and subjugating the broader faith community's caution - even sanction - headed into a new faith entirely.
I believe that to be orthodox with Christ's orthodoxy, one's personal faith must be informed by scripture, nurtured by collective interpretation of the broader faith community and inspired by personal revelation to conform to the faith our Lord handed to His disciples when he commanded them to guide us into it. The faith I want to follow is that which Paul found on the Damascus road - given by Jesus Himself, informed by a broad, global faith community irrespective of denomination and preferential practice (wow! Even gentiles can believe!), and by the whole of scripture (he had only the Old Testament to inform him; today we have letters inspired by God and penned by the early church fathers to add to that). That faith is the same one in which the Disciples that Saul persecuted were already walking; the same available to every lost soul and true believer from the second birth until home-going.
I think that the question we each must answer is one of how we can glorify God by observing and celebrating verifiable tenets of the pure faith in our personal and corporate worship. That requires commitment to study of scripture, submission to the local and broader faith community, obedient service before God and a humble pursuit and determined grasp of the balance between what is written, what is believed and what is practiced. Therein, somewhere, is an orthodoxy commissioned by Christ Himself, handed down through generations of His true disciples.
I believe, based on my own salvation and Christian life experience and informed discussion with mature Christians, that a yearning for that orthodoxy is instilled in each of us by the Holy Spirit at our rebirth. I believe that Jesus Himself draws us into closer conformity the Faith He practiced. That same Faith which He commissioned the twelve to propogate.
I believe that when Jesus returns He will find faith among the remnant who work to walk the balanced life between what scripture says, what the Church is doing and what those faithful folk earnestly believe the Spirit has revealed to them (Ephesians 8:2-10). I also believe that throughout God's interaction with mankind there has always been a select few who have proven capable of taking Him as He is, without remanufacturing a lesser idol of Him - or themselves - and walking in the Light as He gave them Light. I believe they have - and are - walking in the Truth.
What do you think?
Hey Mark,
Thanks for your response. I think we both affirm that the Scriptures are so important to our world view and embracing Truth that we dare not interpret them based on our opinion. I had a Greek Orthodox friend who made an interesting comment about personal interpretations of Scripture. When someone would say to him, "Here's what the Scripture says to me...," he would reply, "Who cares what the Scripture says to you...the real question is, 'what has the Church always believed about that passage?'" I believe it is important that we do not remake the wheel when approaching the Scriptures. We must ask, what did the Church teach from the beginning about this passage. That's a great place to start.
Blessings,
Carl
Yo, Carl:
Agreed. When we start this life, corruptable and corrupt, none of this matters much to us. We are part of the dog-eat-dog world system.
Once we are reborn though, we become part of a much older plan. That timeless plan is so vast that we who are born into this world system have no reference - in and of ourselves - with which to fix our place within the plan or the plan's reference to all creation. We need to redefine the "ME", the "US", the "THEM". Where do we fit in all this? Where do I fit? - the ancient, primal questions of a searching soul - who am I? What is my purpose? What am I to do?
That search requires absolutes in a world system lacking direction by anything beyond personal impulse and individual mores. That is why scripture, as well as its interpretation by the body of Christ OVER TIME is so essential to a well considered readjustment of the individual world view I brought with me into the new life; I must change but HOW? WHY?
If we were following a human idol, we could see, handle and touch him in the whole. We could learn his motives and his preferences, and find him - in the end - predictable. He would be like us - familiar from within our own internal drives. Knowing my own limitations and predilection for wrong doing and moral failure, I cannot worship so familiar and weak a god.
But thanks be to my Lord and savior through whom I have access to so powerful and unfamiliar a God as the Father of all Creation! Through His Word, by His Spirit and in His omnipotence He spoke all that is into being. By His Grace He removed my fallen father Adam and mother Eve from the garden before they could eat from the tree of Life and thus be doomed to a fallen condition forever! Thanks be to the Lord Jesus for His obedient, sinless life and His submission to the Father's will even to His sinless sacrifice upon the cross - that same cross where my sin was nailed and taken out of this world! Thanks be also to the Father who raised Him from the dead and in raising Him, also raised all who died with Him. That same Father who sent the Holy Spirit to live within all who believe, convicting of sin and guiding into the precious light new life brings!
Now there's a point of reference to start each day, and enough light to accomplish your Ephesians 2:8-10 day's work.
For some reason, I find great joy in riding the fence on issues such as these and provoking both sides for the sake of discussion. I hope my role as the "devil's advocate" does not frustrate you.
If the New Testament books were published or at least canonized after the kerygma and are seen as inspired (i.e. Polycarp regarding Paul's epistle to the Philippans as "the foundationstone of their faith" or Justin regards the gospels as "memoirs" of the apostles) it would seem to me that the New Testament was to be used to interpret or discern the kerygma and that the scriptures should be used to evaluate the Tradition. Should patristic tradition then be used to interpret the scriptures to interpret the Tradition/Kerygma?
Peter Jensen in his The Revelation of God describes scripture having a threefold relation to tradition. (It might be worth noting that Peter Jensen is the archbishop of the Diocese of Sydney Australia and was formerly the principal of Moor Theological College, Sydney.)
First, he claims that "Scripture is set over tradition in so far as the tradition is man-made." Jesus points out to the Pharisees that they "have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men." (Mark 7:8) "The pharisaic traditions were not intended to counter the existing word of GOd. Instead, they explained and elaborated that word in a legal tradtion that had gained in power over the years.Jesus' criticism was that the traditions of interpretation had secured such authority that the Pharisees failed to acknowledge that it was contradicting the intention of the command of God. It is by the word of God that faith arises (Gal. 3:1-5),the church owes its existence to the word of God (Eph.2:19-20), God's word is the powerful force that accomplishes his purposes (Heb. 4:12-13) and that the gospel is God's word that saves us (Rom.1:16) THe Bible cannot be sepated from this word, and the church annot rule the Bible, not even by claiming to be its sole licensed interpreter." (The Revelation of God p167)
Secondly, the New Testament contains elements that the writers themselves identify as traditions and that are identified with the word of God itself. It is widely known that among the early generations of Christiand, elements of the tradition about Jesus other than what we have in the written tradition may have survived and been used in preaching and teaching. This 'rule of faith' was used to distinguish truth from error. But what extent can we see these traditions as having an independent life from Scripture? While the Council of Trent appeared to endores ethe view that in Scripture and tradition we have two sources of revelation which should have "equal affection of piety, and reverance" R.P.C. Hanson points out that as far as independent tradtion is concerned "authentic oral tradition virtually died out by about 250" and all the fathers agreed that the content of the rule of faith 'is identical with that of Scripture'.
The third and final relationship present, according to Jensen is that "tradition safeguards the interpretation of Scripture" There is a genuine use of tradition that allows God-appointed teachers to speak beyond their own generation as they teach and apply Scripture. Further it is alwasy fair to ask, especially when some great change is proposed, whether it is of a piece with the tradtion of the understanding of God's word. Examples include the ordination of women. In this case, "to innovate is to say that generations of Christians from the very beginning, including the great teachers of the BIble have misunderstood the mind of God on this point. While such errors are possible as proven in the reformation, they should receive much examination.
I apologize if this response is too lengthy or my quoting of Jensen is unhelpful, but I found his discussion on the topic insightful. I would strongly recommend his book, although I have not read its entirety.
Let us be clear on the history of the Church. For at least twenty years the Church existed without even one New Testament book or letter. What they had was God appointed leadership (Peter and the Apostles and those who followed them) - the teaching of the Apostles (the Kerygma)and the Body of Christ - who embodied the Truths passed down to them through liturgy and into their lives. The Church was in place before the Scriptures and it was out of this living organism that the Scriptures emerged. Let us be very clear on this. While Pentecost was highlighted by the reception of the Holy Spirit, it did not feature the passing out of Gideon New Testaments.
Also, we must distinguish between man-made and God-given tradition. If God gives it to the Church, we should embrace it - whether it comes from the Kerygma or the Scriptures. Paul said, "So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thessalonians 2:15). Further, John claims that it is impossible to write down everything Jesus did on the earth. "Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written" (John 21:25).
Finally, to claim that the Scriptures are the ONLY authority in spiritual matters would require that Scriptures state that fact. Show me in the Bible where it claims to be the sole authority in Spiritual matters. Yes it is "profitable" and is "authoritative," but that does not equate to exclusivity.
Carl
Post a Comment