This clip was taken from a blog I just came across (as a result of Maximus’ comment in the last post) over at Classical Christianity. The speaker (I didn’t catch his name) is making an argument against the Protestant principle of sola scriptura. As you listen to his arguments you will realize something, at least I did; and that is that the speaker silently presumes a premise (or makes an argument from silence himself) about the normativity that the role of Tradition should take within his ‘Orthodox’ assumptions. In other words, he argues against ‘sola scriptura’ based on the premise that it is an argument from silence because nowhere does scripture make the claim that it should be the sole arbiter for faith and doctrine (as Protestants suppose). Instead, the speaker argues that the Scriptures argue for the normativity of oracular or oral tradition within the formation of the Christian Church. Of course what he fails to identify is that even though oral tradition is appealed to by Jesus, Paul, Jude, et. al.; nowhere is this appeal given the kind of normative status (and I mean the appeal to ‘Tradition’) that the speaker presumes in his argument against ‘sola scriptura’.
The speaker also appeals to the writings of Patristic Irenaeus. He does so to establish the lineage of Apostolic Succession and the regula fidei or the rule of faith (which was the oral tradition of the Church that Irenaeus appealed to in his arguments against the heretics known as the Gnostics) as the normative mechanisms that not only gave the early church shape, but also operated with a normative oral tradition that in effect establishes the normativity of extra-biblical tradition; or so the speaker hopes to be the case. Of course what the speaker fails to note is that the regula fidei (or rule of faith) was not considered to offer anything different, conceptually, than what we have Apostolically Deposited for us in the canon of the New Testament scriptures. In other words, to appeal to the reality of the regula fidei for establishing the normativity of extra-biblical tradition (as if this tradition making is organically authoritative for the life and faith of the Church) creates a false-dilemma (thus representing a non-starter) between the oral tradition of the early Church and what is materially contained within the canon of the New Testament. If there is no distinction between the two, then the argument for the normativity of the tradition of the Church never gets started; in fact this could be made into an argument For sola scriptura, and not Against.
Last point, the speaker, in the video, argues that because Jesus, Paul, and Jude appeal to extra-biblical tradition (such as the: Mishna, Apocrypha, & Deutero-canonical books); that this also should be taken as a reality that challenges the notion of sola scriptura; since all of these sources appealed to are, well, extra-biblical (relative to a Protestant understanding of the canon). Of course, what the speaker, once again, fails to inform us un-informed listeners; is that all of these appeals to so called ‘extra-biblical’ tradition are contained within the ‘Apostolic Deposit’, or New Testament. This wouldn’t seem to support, then, the normativity of tradition for the life of the Church; instead, it would fit better within the Protestant understanding of ‘sola scriptura’. In other words, to argue that because extra-biblical literature/tradition is cited makes it normative; fails to recognize that what makes these citations normative is not that they are extra-biblical, but that they are cited/deposited within the normative framework that Protestants call the canon of Scripture. These usages of Jesus, Paul, and Jude represent something like a Midrashic type of pre-textual appropriation of ‘extra-biblical’ passages placed within a new context which provides these passages with new authoritative meaning per their Apostolic usage within the deposit known as Holy Scripture. Sola Scriptura can make better sense of this reality than can something like a Verbum Dei (or “our” speaker’s ‘Orthodox’ position).
Just some observations.
One more point I didn’t make.
The speaker presupposes that because the Church recognized the canon of Scripture; that this recognition itself (or Tradition) becomes normative a priori; or that sense the identification of the canon of Scripture was made by the Church that this then presupposes that the Church precedes Scripture and thus Scripture becomes subordinate to the authority or tradition of the Church that made it so—or recognized that Scripture is Scripture. But of course what this fails to recognize is that the esse of the Church is not inherit or deposited from within itself; rather, the essence or being of the Church finds its concrete reality in the triune life of God who in Christ as the Head remains distinct from the Church. So instead of the Church having the keys, or instead of the Church’s tradition being nominated as the rule of faith or regula fidei; what in fact should serve as the inner-logic of Scripture or what was ‘Deposited’ by the Apostles in Holy Scripture (Mt 16 the ‘keys’) was the witness and reality of Jesus himself. Both the Church and the Scriptures need to find their proper dogmatic location; that is in the mediation of Christ himself. We get ahead of ourselves if we try to collapse either Scripture or the Church into a place that becomes the instantiation of Christ himself. As the analogy goes, the head, is distinct (but inseparably related) to the body. The Church and the Scriptures can be said to find their telos and reality in whom they sacramentally are related; or in Christ.
So are you saying that the Apostolic Deposit helped them to recognize which books to include in the canon, and now this has taken the place of the tradition thus becoming the Apostolic Deposit?
Because they would also say that the canon was never meant to say completely everything that the Church teaches, and that one could only determine what the text even means within their context.
Which we do have to admit that we must use some form of tradition to interpret scripture, or you could use the whole, clear passages interpret the not so clear ones. Though that kinda presumes that you know what the clear ones are.
Bobby and Cody,
There is a new blog called Orthodox-Reformed Bridge. The author seeks to dialogue with Reformed in an irenic way. He has many posts on Sola Scriptura and you would guys would definitely get something out of his articles and the comments even if you don’t agree. The Reformed do respond and the discussions get quite interesting.
http://orthodoxbridge.com/?p=96
http://orthodoxbridge.com/?p=204
http://orthodoxbridge.com/?p=242
http://orthodoxbridge.com/?p=259
No, Cody. I’m not denying the reality of tradition; just the normativity that the Greek Orthodox have imbued into it.
My basic point is that to simply assume that because the Church recognized the canon; that this then makes the tradition normative in the way the Greek Orthodox say, is ad hoc.
I’m definitely not denying the reality of tradition or interpretive tradition; just the placement of that into ecclesiology in the form that our Greek brethren have done.
Maximus,
Thank you, I’ve visited there before. The dialoguing, to be honest, gets too involved for my “bloggy” tastes π . Thanks for the heads up though.
Nice response. There is a book I’ve wanted to get that deals with the issue of the rule of faith called Tradition and the Rule of Faith in the Early Church: Essays in Honor of Joseph T. Lienhard, S.J.. Also, I think the early bishop succession lists need to be challenged. The closer one gets to the NT, the fuzzier it gets, and even Andrew Louth admits that in his introduction to the Penguin edition of Eusebius’ The History of the Church.
Hi Ryan,
Thanks. That books sounds excellent; that is something that I will try to get my hands on as well. Thanks for the recommendation! And I agree, succession is virtually impossible to establish from a purely genetic approach (which really is what is required to establish it all, or at least in the “way” that both Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox seek to).