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 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?
Hi Bobby,
(I’m so thankful to know you have a job. π
You know my position here but I really do try to remain open on this. Here are some of my questions and concerns:
Regarding creeds; which versions are to be considered de-fide and by what authority? If I reject the authority of a given creed am I in a state of sin? What is the consequence for one who fails to adhere to a given creed or confession?
Regarding confessional and conciliar statements; is there really more than one body of Christ? It seems that these statements serve to create this unintended circumstance, that is, the dividing of Christ body.
Regarding theologians; who or what determines who is a βDoctor if the Churchβ? What are the requirements?
Finally it seems it would be very easy to fall into βbibliolotyβ given this hierarchy. What is Christ’ authority in this scenario?
Hey Kc,
I am thankful that I have a job too! Although, you might be praying that I will be able to find a job that is involved in pastoral ministry or Christian higher education; I am continuing to look for this kind of employment.
1) I think Creeds represent a consensual voice of the early Church; so much so that they’ve been labeled “ecumenical.” Are they binding? Only insofar as they accurately articulate or provide the grammar necessary needed to communicate the God revealed in Jesus in clear and understandable ways. So the creeds are only relative and provisional statements and concepts that ideally are intended to be in the service of the Gospel who is Jesus Christ and God’s life.
2) Conciliar statements, again, would only have relative and even regional force (at points). If certain councils serve to divide the body of Christ, then of course they are no longer accurately reflecting or articulating the Gospel; and in these cases should be jettisoned.
3) “Doctors of the Church,” I would suggest, are those who have spent their time, in the service of Christ and his Church, in working out the once and for all faith delivered to the saints. Meaning, I would see these as those who are the Apostle Paul’s “Teachers” in Ephesians 4; it is this vocation, that again is a provisional one, until we all attain to the unity of the Faith. What qualifies someone in this vocation? I would think that they have been identified to be those with this particular gifting by the Church, and that they have not neglected this gift but exploited it for the purpose of edifying God’s people.
4) As far as the concern about “bibliolatry,” you haven’t been reading my previous posts on Scripture very closely then π . A proper ontology of Scripture sees it as “instrumental” and as the “Witness” to Christ as God’s triune speech for us to know Him through. I do think that w/o a proper theory of revelation that we can fall into bibliolatry and/or traditionolatry — or working with a “paper pope” and/or “personal pope”. Both are errors of operating from a theory of revelation that has a disordered notion of revelation; we need a theory that has ontology (or God in Christ) preceding and shaping epistemology (or “our” spiritual/intellectual equipment). Instead, I am afraid that Crisp’s as well as the Traditional Protestant approach has reversed this order, and has placed epistemology prior to ontology relative to a theory of knowledge/revelation; and thus, in effect, have engaged in starting with anthropology (methodologically) prior to theology. So what I would call for is a “Radical” Protestant approach to Revelation; one with a proper orientation. If we go this route, bibliolatry and/or traditionolatry will not be the issue that you fear, Kc π !