*I am reposting this post because I like it.
In light of this oft confusing issue in Protestant (and Evangelical) circles, in particular; I thought it would be appropriate to share how Oliver Crisp seeks to parse the inter-relations between Scripture and Tradition for a Protestant understanding of “authority,” relative to her principled commitment to sola scriptura. It seems to me, that for many “Evangelical Christians,” in particular, that we believe that sola scriptura (scripture alone) is 
solo scriptura (scripture all by itself, with no history of interpretation to consider); but this is just never really the case, even if we think it is. Scripture, indeed is the norma normans (norming, norm) for all theological development; but this does not also mean, that Scripture is not something that goes without interpretation, it clearly presupposes that it is interpreted. It behooves us to pay attention to how the Holy Spirit has worked in Christ’s Church through the centuries; it behooves us to consider the fact that God has provided His Church with teachers, and that these “teachers” have said something substantial and “churchly” shaping that we all are partakers of. This is not to say that the so called Tradition of the Church is sacrosanct, or above critique, it is not! But it is to say, that as contemporary interpreters today, that we should not run rough-shod over the history of interpretation by marginalizing it through contextualizing it to a nether-socio/cultural situation that necessarily particularizes it to a certain period; thus implying that the past has no universal force (in providing meaning) for the present and the future. Let’s consider what Crisp has to say on this, and then hear what you think about it in the comment meta.
- Scripture is the norma normans, the principium theologiae. It is the final arbiter of matters theological for Christians as the particular place in which God reveals himself to his people. This is the first-order authority in all matters of Christian doctrine.
- Catholic creeds, as defined by and ecumenical council of the Church, constitute a first tier of norma normata, which have second-order authority in matters touching Christian doctrine. Such norms derive their authority from Scripture to which they bear witness.
- Confessional and conciliar statements of particular ecclesial bodies are a second tier of norma normata, which have third-order authority in matters touching Christian doctrine. They also derive their authority from Scripture to the extent that they faithfully reflect the teaching of Scripture.
- The particular doctrines espoused by theologians including those individuals accorded the title Doctor of the Church which are not reiterations of matters that are de fide, or entailed by something de fide, constitute theologoumena, or theological opinions, which are not binding upon the Church, but which may be offered up for legitimate discussion within the Church. [Oliver Crisp, god incarnate, (New York: T&T Clark International, 2009), 17.]
This is how Crisp conceives of how sola scriptura works in an ascending order of relative authority, Scripture being the final and norming voice upon all other pronouncements. So the ecumenical creeds (like Nicene-Constantinopolitan-Chalcedonian-etc.) have more established authority relative to their echo of Scripture; then subordinate to that, Confessions (like the Scots, Belgic, Westminster, etc.) have relative authority per their positioning vis-Γ‘-vis the ecumenical creeds and then Scripture; then subsequent to this comes the voices of the theologians and biblical exegetes. The claim is not that the Creeds, Confessions, or Theologians cannot be debated (just the opposite); but it is the idea that if a theologian or biblical exegete want to disagree with a Creed/Confession, that they will have to assume their relative authority and validity and work through them (supposing that they are representations of what the “Church” has believed as formative norms) versus working around them (supposing that they have no relative authority or interpretive force whatsoever for the contemporary Church β which is the posture and attitude that produces solo scriptura).
What do you think about Crisp’s accounting; is it too Traditional and shackling for your Free Church sensibilities, or do you think that he presents something here that must be considered with seriousness?
“Scripture being the final and norming voice upon all other pronouncements.”
If you have Scripture as the ‘norma normins’ that’s good and all, but who is actually interpreting it correctly? I agree that Scripture has to be the ultimate authority, but how does one know how to interpret it so that is possible?
I suppose that’s the riddle that the Priesthood of all believers hands us, Cody π .
I would suggest that there are certain principles of biblical interpretation that arise out of the text (i.e. like the way Scripture interprets Scripture) that ought to serve as the grid through which we engage the interpretive process. I would, of course argue that Jesus is the principled point of all of Scripture’s witness; and thus this will give a unique shape to the way I interpret. One that reflects something like the regula fidei or the rule of faith that someone like Irenaeus employed, amongst others, in the patristic church. Of course this has been modified through the history of interpretation; but in principle this is where I would work from.
Plus, it is important to bear in mind that Scripture is literature; and thus there are literary rules that govern its interpretation (like paying attention to the 3 types of lit., the 7 genres, and the multiple forms).
In this view though how does one fight heresy? If it is left up to the individuals interpretation, how can one ever show the other that theirs is wrong? Wouldn’t you have to ultimately go back to tradition to see these texts have been interpreted throughout the history of the church? I mean otherwise it seems that heresies that have already been called out by the Church will just continue to be repeated because anybody can just take a Bible and interpret it. That doesn’t actually seem to be working so well among all the different denominations. The rule of faith is a good one, Irenaeus also spoke of bishops as well, and apostolic succession as being the mark of orthodoxy. I agree with you that Christ is the pinacle of interpreting the Scripture, but what if another says it’s not, unless you can show them that this is how the Church has always done it, it seems that you would be on the same ground as he, and then either view could be just as valid.
Cody,
I didn’t realize you were of the Eastern Orthodox faith; that changes things, a bit. As Protestants we follow sola scriptura, and the notion of the priesthood of all believers. In this approach, contra a strict regula fidei we follow what Martin Luther called the analogia fidei (which Barth reifies further); or the analogy of scripture, scripture interpreting scripture. Further as a Reformed Protestant, we hold to the perspicuity of the Scriptures; which entails what has been called the inner and outer clarity of Scripture. This means that Scripture, on the basics of the Gospel, is very clear (so clear a child could “get it”); and then of course there are those things of more peripheral weight that we debate, and continue to struggle with interpretively.
If you haven’t; you should read J.N.D. Kelly’s classic text on patristic theology (his “Early Christian Doctrines”). He would take issue with the way you have characterized Irenaeus (and so would I). Ir. did not collapse his “rule of faith” into the episcopate (that came later esp. with Augustine); he believed that the “rule of faith” was the oral tradition that was isomorphic or self-same with the Apostolic Deposit (or the NT). I think this fits better with a Prot. Reformed understanding of sola scriptura than it does with the EO or Roman Catholic approach of seeing the Church (and her tradition) as the guardian against heresy.
Anyway, I am surprised that you are of the EO persuasion; at least that’s what your questions/points above make me think you are.
I’m not EO, but that’s funny that you would say that. I just see their point on this particular arguement. I didn’t mean to colapse the rule of faith into episcopate. I was just simply stating how Irenaeus also pointed out who the true body of Christians were, and that those were the ones he claimed to be actually holding the deposit of faith. The deposit of faith seems to be more than just the scriptures themselves, but how to understand the scriptures. The understanding of what Paul meant when he wrote his letters would be part of that deposit. Otherwise anyone could come along and make Paul say whatever they want, just like what happens today. It seems obvious that it’s not so clear how to always understand what the scriptures say, hence all the denominations, that’s all I was saying. Therefor I would say to look back to the fathers to see how they interpreted the texts. What do you think?
Cody,
I was somewhat jesting with you; only to make a little point. That is that what you were communicating might as well been coming from an EO.
I think you should check out how Irenaeus understood the “rule of faith” (like read Kelly). The reality is is that the Gnostics weren’t making the scriptures say what they wanted them to say; they were providing their own revelation contra scripture through their own writings etc. Irenaeus, for example, argued directly from the rule of faith or the Apostolic deposit. I think looking back to the Fathers is a good place to start, but I also believe the Spirit has been working (and is currently) in the Church ever since; and thus the Patristic era respresents an era (an important one) amongst many eras in the history of interpretation.
If you would say that the patristic era was one era among many others, as if we continue to move into greater knowledge of the truth as time goes on, then why are we looking to the scriptures? I mean if we know more than the patristic fathers, then we must know more than the apostles too huh?
Do you think that those taught by the apostles weren’t able to keep what they were taught? If so how do you trust the scriptures since they were collected, and others were disgarded according to what they deemed according to the tradition?
How can anyone know that they interpret the scriptures correctly if there is nothing to base one’s interpretation off of except for their own intuition? If that’s the case it seems that everyone is on the same level, and ultimately there is no sure fire way to tell the heretics from the christians except your word against theirs.
It’s my experience that everyone refers to tradition to some extent. So which tradition is it? Is it the fathers, the reformation, or maybe the emergent church? Is it penal substitution, or recapitulation? How can one interpret certain texts to read that the Father enjoys punishing sinners, and others say He loves them? They all have proof texts! Unless I can apeal to a source for an interpretation I don’t really know how we can truely refute false beliefs.
Don’t you think Irenaeus or Athanasius may have a little more credible interpretation than say James White? Maybe because they were handed down not only scriptures but the context in order to read those scriptures? After all they actually had more texts than we use, and from what I understand Athanasius was the first to write down the books we have in our canon as the ones to be read. They were able to sift through the other texts and see that those did not flow with the traditions.
Torrance heavily relied upon Athanasius, and Nicene theology as his basis for understanding scripture. Why is that the best way? Did they infact know things that we should listen too? Was the fullness given or not? And if it was, then why are we trying to interpret things in ways they did not? Are we somehow more knowledgable about what Paul said than they?
Wow, Cody, it’s been awhile!
Cody, why not just go straight to the Apostle Paul and let him interpret himself? Why not just go to the Dominical sayings of Jesus and let him interpret himself? Why not just go to Moses, and let him interpret himself? Why not just go to Elijah, and let him interpret himself? You can’t get any closer than that!
I’ve never denied the existence of interpretive tradition; in fact it is one of things I might be known for identifying in the blogosphere.
I really don’t understand your point, Cody. There are finite alternatives; what is yours? Are you advocating for some sort of magesterial interpretation of the Text; that the Church and its Apostolic succession has the interpretive keys? What are you trying to say?
Bobby everyone is trying to let them interpret themselves that seems to be the problem. How can one really know what they meant, because it seems two different people can go back to Jesus Himself and come away with two different Jesus’ and feel that the Holy Spirit lead them right to their view.
I’m saying that yes, it seems to me there must be an interpretive tradition. I don’t see any other way to really know what they were saying. I’m trying to work out actually what I believe on this issue, but it seems to me in order to find the objective meaning of the text, it would be more plausible to see how the early church interpreted it, and if a particular view didn’t show up until say the 15th century, then it’s probably not very trust worthy.
I see the EO’s point when they argue from this position. It seems that they have a stronger premise than we do. I don’t believe that the church somehow became apostate untile the reformation. I trust the council of Nicea and their theology as being true to the deposit of faith. What do you think?
I think you’re very close to Orthodoxy, Cody.
Of course there is “interpretive tradition;” who is saying there isn’t, except fundies who follow solo scriptura (vs. sola)—which itself is a tradition. But we aren’t really talking about hermeneutics anymore (even though it is related), we—or you—are talking ecclesiology. What do you think about EO or Roman Catholic ecclesiology? And by the way, your current thinking won’t solve what you seem to see as a slippery slope; you’ve just moved the goal posts—again, to ecclesiology and a particular theory of authority.
At one point I can see that Christ is the head of the Church, and to be in Christ is to be in the Church, period. Christians are those who trust in Christ and follow Him daily, so I wouldn’t want to say that there is one particular institution that you must be apart of if you wish to be a Christian, and if you are a Christian then you are by default apart of the Church whose head is Christ.
The problem I see is that if all we can do is argue interpretations then it doesn’t seem that we can ever overcome these divisions, nor does one really have a solid foundation to stand on since that really seems to be an existentialist position to me. It seems that truth just becomes relative, even though there may be some objective truth out there, there really is no way of showing that, everyone is left to their own experience.
We do use tradition of course, we are after all trinitarians, we’re not arians. If arians are not Christians then we do draw the line somewhere, so where does that line stop? Does someone have to agree with Nicea, or Constantinople? Athanasius did after all use traditional interpretation of scripture to refute arius, the Church always worshiped and prayed to Jesus, and why would you be baptized in the name of two creatures, etc., Arius had his own interpretation of the text, and Athanasius was able to refute that. If that be the case, and so did all the other fathers, because after all arius did use scripture, then why should be try to make our own traditions? Would it not be better to see what they have said about the texts? Th
I don’t know if I’m close to EO ecclesiology, actually that’s one place where I struggle with them. I do see an importance for passing on the deposit to faithful men who will be able to carry it on, and can see that in scripture itself. Though there are some things about their ecclesiology I’m not too sure about.
One more thing, if it’s just scripture and a bunch of different traditions, which seems to be what you hint at being ‘sola scriptura’, then there is just this smorgus board to choose from for everyone, where they are free to pick and select in order to create their own hermeneutic for interpretation, and there is no boundary for who is a true Christian or not. People then begin to question all tradition, and say maybe we should read the gnostic texts, or maybe arius was right, who are you to say which interpretation is the right one. Maybe Nestorius was right, after all it seems to be a common belief among some calvinists, though they wouldn’t say that. I mean, how can we say what is heresy and what is not in your view. Please show me, give me some insight. I do see this as a slippery slope when I think about it in the long term. It does after all seem to be getting worse. It’s a free for all, and nobody gets to say whose wrong becuase that’s just their own particular interpretation. This whole blog is about telling people they’re wrong, which I agree with doing. After all, a person who believes they will stand in eternity looking on the damned in joy with the lord as they are being punished, and smile at them because god predestined those people to glorifty his justice, do not worship the same god as Christians. Though how could one show them that this is a flawed understanding of God’s justice unless they go back to the interpretive tradition of the early church on this subject?
I really don’t know what to tell you, Cody. I don’t agree with you. I don’t really understand your point. Maybe you should read John Webster’s “Holy Scripture: A Dogmatic Sketch,” he would help you maybe think about the ontology of Scripture, and its location relative to God’s speech to us.
But really, your rationale (i.e. the interpretive tradition of the Church as guardian from heresy) is exactly how Eastern Orthodox argue; exactly! I think Biblical interpretation is dynamic and involves tension because its speech and communication comes from a dynamic and Triune God.
Have you ever taken any classes on Hermeneutics or Historical Theology, Cody?
“the interpretive tradition of the Church as guardian from heresy” but Bobby you agree with this too, after all you do read the bible don’t you? How do you think these texts came together if it wasn’t for the Church? They didn’t just fall from heaven. Yes they are God’s words but you believe that because the Church believes that. What if someone came along and said you know what, the shepard of hermus should be read as well? It’s a fact that through the traditional interpretation of the church, they were able to decifer which texts were not accurate and which one’s were, by the Spirit of course.
Now what I’m saying is that if the Church can decide which books go into the canon then what’s so different about saying then the Church must also know what those books mean?
Do you believe that Nestorius was a heretic?
No I have not taken those classes, maybe next semester π
Oh and thanks for the book recommendation, I will def check it out
Cody,
I think “those classes” should help provide greater context for your questions.
Yes, but the Church didn’t just fall from heaven either.
Oh, I thought you might actually have an argument… thanks anyway
Cody,
I do, but don’t have the time required to work through this with you in this venue. What you are dealing with is a big issue, that’s why I mentioned the importance of taking some classes and getting more context (something I can’t provide here at the blog). Plus, I have suggested “how” I might argue by dropping little crass statements in my comments back to you; one of which is what I just said “Yes, but the Church didnβt just fall from heaven either.” That is a significant point!
Is that what you’re looking for, though, Cody; an argument? Jesus precedes both Scripture and the Church; so I look to him as the Word of God, and Scripture as His triune speech to us. I don’t buy arguments like yours that suggest that because the Church recognized the canon that therefore this then serves as some sort of norming norm as their normative vocation (i.e. as magisterium) for the “Church.” I really don’t know what you want from me, Cody. I am a Reformed Christian who rejects out of hand the kind of thinking you are entertaining (it appears). Certainly we all have to work through these issues, and I’m sure that that’s where you are on this particular issue; but beyond what I have written or responded back to you here, I don’t have the time or desire to get into this further (unless I post on it in the future) at the moment.
Blessings, Cody.
One more point; arguments like the one you’re making about the church and its capacity to recognize the canon, and then jumping from there to suggest that this vocation or role of the Church then is normative for the Church now (as its interpreter) is a logical fallacy (it is the post hoc fallacy — which means that there is no necessary causal relation between A and B, which you are assuming w/o argument … if want to argue with me about this, then you need to provide a substantial argument yourself, first; w/o appealing to fallacious thinking).
Pingback: Protestants, Evangelicals, and the “Problem” of Tradition « The Evangelical Calvinist