In lieu 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 bodiesΒ 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?
Hi Bobby!
Sounds about right. When I disagree with a doctrine, or dogma, or I hear another disagree, it enters into my thinking how much does the oposition weigh upon my responsibility to buttress my position. For example, the exact content and meaning of the Lord’s Supper. Scripture quoth “This Is My Body”…Do This in Rememberance of Me”, etc. The creeds don’t really delve into the
specifics, and the confessions disagree by wide margins, therefore, I can disagree with any of the confessions on this issue without a huge weight responsibility to justify my position. Same with baptism, actually, I believe confessions which propose water baptism to be salvific have the heavier weight of Scripture to contend with (just my opinion).
My position of Sola Fide is perhaps a leettle marginal compared to the confessions, and may lean against the intentions of the fathers of the creeds, therefore I feel more weight of responsibilty to be correct in my belief that Salvation is by grace through faith alone. This means that if one trusts in Jesus as his only possible Savior, that that alone brings a person into eternal relationship with God, and in fact, it is not the faith that brings, but the Savior who brings into relationship, but upon the faith, not before the faith. So, if my blood pressure rises, when someone proposes or assumes a more exertional faith, it is in part because there is a great weight of forebears who may disagree with me.
One then, who proposes that Hell will be empty of God’s enemies, should feel a very heavy weight to defend his position against virtually the whole Church, since the early Fathers. And a people who deny the deity of Jesus and the Homousion and the Hypostatic union, will have the whole weight of Scripture and the Church come crashing down on them in the last day.
.
“The Stone the builders have rejected has become the Chief Cornerstone, and anyone who falls on That Stone shall be broken, but the one on whom that stone falls shall be ground to powder.”
He left out bloggers and pew sitters. π I would draw a fuzzy line just below the ecumenical creeds. When we get into confessions and then theologians, history has a wide array of beliefs. Yes, many of the confessions are more traditional than others. There’s also a difference between a confession declaring “thus saith the Lord” and a confession setting up a tradition of practice based on a plausible interpretation.
Yes, I don’t think Crisp is saying that any of these should be absolutized, as far as authoritative, except of course Scripture. Thus the point that all that follows that standard are subordinate, and my point that they then have “relative authority”, which truly means “relative,” which fits with your point.
@Duane,
Yeah, I don’t think I want to say that every point of confessions or something, like baptismal regeneration are “Biblical,” which is the point that they are subordinate to Scripture. I just think we need to take each of the statements seriously, and not simply discard them as unimportant relics, per se.
Who’s in and who’s out and who gets to decide? Who decides which creeds and confessions are valid and which are only an ignorant attempt by men to put forth their understanding of God and His will? Who decides which seminary is qualified to produce a βDoctor of the Churchβ and which one can only create quacks? Who is it that determines which man has either the responsibility or the authority to interpret the scripture for any other than himself?
Hey KC!
Great to palaber with ya! Not answering for Bobby, but if I’m right he can simply say “what he said” (not to tell Bobby what to say ; ) ). Anythow, I thnk that that is the point: No-one is responsible for interpretting the Scripture except for ‘you’; however, since few of us are encyclopediae of theological knowledge, we each use a framework of theological tradition that was built by someone off of the confessions, or at least the creeds (typically) and developed forward into doctrinal statements. Each of us must decide (typically, by upbringing or by proselytization) which tradition we will follow, and hone that within our own reading of Scripture.
In this current blog we recognize that our individual belief systems, if backtracked, are spurs of the rail system of the body of Christ. There are rail yards at the confessions, which are in say “Westminster” or “Augsburg” etc, many of which were directed through Aquinas, and most through Augustine, or your track may bypass those cities and go straight to the big cities Nicean, Athenasian, etc. If one chooses a track that bypasses the confessions and then the creeds, or a portion of the creeds, he does so against the increasing weight of the “whole Body of Christ”: “What? You mean the Spirit has been silent to the body of Christ for 2,000 years but He has revealed something new to YOU?” e.g. Einstein did something new. I, my friend am no Eistein. It may be helpful to know what rail system you are on, so to own the fathers of those ideas, the reason with which they arrived at their particular conclusions, and to own or disown any baggage they may have left e.g. Augustian determinism or monasticism.
Hey Duane, great to E-see you!
I don’t deny the bearing of tradition on interpretation. What I question is the arbitrary assignment of authority to βcertainβ teachers and/or doctrines. I’ll confess I’ve never been comfortable with different levels or βtiersβ of truth and so I suppose it follows I’d find it hard to accept any hierarchy of authority in determining truth. Do you consider that some are pressed by the Holy Spirit to receive or reject a certain doctrine or do you see it all as being environmental? I’m sorry, but I’m not βtrackingβ with your rail analogy. π
Yeah KC,
I don’t reeally see it as levels or tiers of truth myself. It’s either true or it ain’t. I see the Church creeds, confessions and statements as lighthouses and bouys to mark shoals and channels (try blending that with railroad imagery π ). Those markers represent almost 2,000 years of Christian living in the Spirit, and study and interpretation. One goes out of the marked channels at one’s own peril, but hey, they could be right, but only if they are not wrong.
Aye, that’s the question isn’t it? Is it nature or nurture or the Holy Spirit or collaborative? Let me tell you that to the extent that it agrees with me, it is the Holy Spirit’s leading ;). A late revered radio Bible teacher said, “Now when someone comes to me for advice, and I give it, I expect them to take the advice. Don’t come to me for advice and then not go and do it.” That sounds like councelling ex cathedra. In all seriousness, it is a mystery to me why the Holy Spirit did not “lead [us] into all truth” from the foundation of the Church in such a way as to eliminate various interpretations, so that the only variation possible would be rejection, blasphemy and idolatry. Certainly, we must salt and pepper our disagreements over non-essential doctrines generously, with love and grace. The exersizing of this love and grace with in Christ’s Church may be the answer to the msytery of that “why”, so that we would learn to love one-another in spite of our differences.
“Certainly, we must salt and pepper our disagreements over non-essential doctrines generously, with love and grace. The exersizing of this love and grace with in Christβs Church may be the answer to the msytery of that βwhyβ, so that we would learn to love one-another in spite of our differences.”
Now I’m “on board” π though there may yet be some problem in recognizing who determines what is βessentialβ and what is not. I say it is all essential, just not clearly understood by any.
Kc,
As you’ll notice the list above still has a #1 π . But I don’t buy, Kc, “me-and-my-Jesus-hermeneutics.” As priests to God we certainly have the right to interpret Scripture for ourselves, but then that is never done in a vacuum. The Church and the Temple imagery that Paul uses in ref. to believers (like in I Cor 6) is plural, not singular. We clearly have the freedom to disagree with others in the church, and their interpretation; but even then, it’s still done from within the community of faith and not “individualistically.” I don’t think Jesus or Paul would ever advocate a go it alone kind of hermeneutic (in fact Jesus doesn’t in Mt 23 for example).
Bobby,
How does Crisp assign interpretive authority to the community of faith? I understood the list to assign a select (elite?) few with that power. If, by chance, I were to submit to the interpretive authority of those things and persons on the list then will they also be present with me-and-my-Jesus in judgment? π
With respect to developing theology, I honestly think it is better to perceive the teaching of Christ and the Apostles as foundational and all else as supportive, not authoritative. Theology is formed form the bottom up and not dictated from the top down.
Bobby,
I should have wrote that all else is βpotentiallyβ supportive. I suspect I can even learn from John MacArthur and Rob Bell but I sure wouldn’t want them on βmyβ list of authoritative Doctors! π
Kc,
The “list” does not absolutize anything except Scripture as authoritative; everything else is to be seen to have “relative authority,” that is relative to Scripture. What do you think about the doctrine of the Trinity, and what do you think about the hypostatic union? Both of these have come to represent historic and orthodox “articulations” of how we understand the theo-logic presented and assumed in Scripture’s disclosure of God to men; even the Anabaptists held to these things (the Trinity hypostatic union etc.). It’s not that the “Creeds” are the authority in principle, but in fact; or that they have served as formative for the Christian Church (West and East) for centuries. It’s not that they can’t be questioned or are sacrosanct, they aren’t, but they clearly serve as benchmarks that one must work through or from or within if one wants to say that he/she stands in relative relationship to the historic Christian faith — that’s the way I see it. And who’s to say that these Church Councils aren’t bottom up, in fact if you look at their composition they were bottom up (conciliar) vs. magesterial and top-down.
I don’t think the tone of what is being communicated by this “list” is being communicate clearly enough; which your last comment illustrates. The ultimate standard in all of this is Scripture, insofar as the Creeds and Councils and Theologians etc. reflect the teaching of Scripture, then what they say is authoritative; so in that sense, and on that principle sola scriptura, everyone and everything is suspect. The “list” is just intended to help think about how all of the subsequent churchly teaching and reflection on Scripture has played out, and what role and level of significance, historically, each “level” has had upon the formation of the Church. It’s a “descriptive” list vs. “prescriptive”, at least that’s the way I take it. π
Bobby,
A truly brilliant theologian recently wrote, βBig words mean nothing, its the coherence and concepts and realities that they signify that matter.β Give me Glen’s sketches with scriptural language any day over these creeds. You can call it βPictorianismβ if you want, but it’s orthodox and much more helpful than any creed or confession! π
I’m just not committed to defining orthodoxy through a philosophical lense and I certainly won’t anathemize anyone who rejects the terminology or fails to grasp it. Likewise I have no argument with those who prefer that lense. The problem is, as you and I both know, that a vast number of persons who hold to these creeds completely fail to grasp β the coherence and concepts and realities that they signifyβ and those that do vary greatly in their perceptions.
We’ve already agreed to disagree on the Councils so I won’t frustrate you with that again… unless you’d like to have another go at it. π With respect to the historical role and significance of theological development; I think you know I don’t perceive the Church as being formed through theological development but rather through the spread of the Gospel. The one credential that we possess, that we present to the world, as qualifying us as His witnesses is our love for one another. I perceive anything that would tarnish that credential as questionable, especially a division over philosophical terminology.
One more thing, thanks for all your time. π
Kc,
Maybe you should’ve been Greek Orthodox, they love pictures (icons) π .
I’m not willing to reject the lay person or pew-sitting Christian either, Kc; but this seems to me a different audience and concern than that. I think this has to do with providing the lay Christian with the resources to think about God in robust ways. I don’t believe that anything that I believe about the Trinity etc. goes beyond Scripture, but in fact Scripture demands the conclusions so well articulated by “some” Councils etc. And I do agree about the “failure” to grasp etc. but I don’t think then this then undercuts, necessarily, the veracity of “what” the Councils (some) communicate (again we have to test what they say by Scripture).
Oh no, you haven’t frustrated me, Kc, really I like when people push back (I just hope they like it in return π ). I don’t see a distinction between theological and Gospel, if there is, broadly construed, then we have a problem. I think Jesus is the Gospel (that the Gospel is personal and thus theo-logical . . . in other words the Gospel, Jesus makes sense [understatement]). I don’t disagree with your qualification, but what is love; and how is God love? I would suggest that Triunity explains that the best way, the most Evangelically and Biblically. That’s all I’m going to contend for π .
I have lot’s of time, I’m still unemployed π . Thanks brother, Kc.
Pingback: Canons and monkey-wrenches « "I am the King's Man."
Bobby,
Actually, I am decidedly Eastern (believers East of the Mississippi). π
We never seem to make the same distinctions. Who or what is a βlay Christianβ and who or what is not?
My argument here really isn’t against the veracity of the doctrine espoused by βsomeβ councils or generally expressed in βcertainβ creeds and confessions. It’s against the concept of defining βsomeβ creeds or βcertainβ councils as authoritative with respect to Christian Theology or Orthodoxy. Why must God be realized then considered, expressed and reconciled in βcertainβ philosophical terms?
Brother you know I truly appreciate your sharp rebuttal and reproof. π
Here again is our difference in distinction. I consider the Gospel the revelation of God and theology the attempt of men to understand God. It seems, to me, one thing to accept Him and another to understand Him.
With respect to love, I βloveβ these verses; -)
βLove is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never fails…β
I consider that Jesus expresses the love of God and that that love defines and describes the relationship of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit.
As much as I love your blogging, I’m confident you’ll be busy soon. Wouldn’t it be great if theo-blogging was a part of your work? (I can wish and dream, can’t I?) π