This post continues the discussion concerning Scripture and Tradition. It answers first this post and then this one.
(Justification from Properly Exegeted Scriptures)
The content of Scripture is not limited to mere propositions but includes whatever it was intended to teach. This is what I mean by saying that any particular tradition that the Church has, especially if this tradition may authoritatively bind the conscience, must be capable of being justified from Scripture properly exegeted. The WCF I.6a puts it like this, "The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men."
It is possible for something to be in no contradiction whatsoever with Scripture yet still fail to be justified by Scripture properly exegeted. The idea is not that Scripture must deny a particular tradition in order for it to be invalid; rather, a tradition is deemed invalid if Scripture does not support it. The burden of justification is on those who would add to Scripture.
Let me clarify something. My stress on "proper exegesis" is to determine those things that are acceptable for the Church to believe. If something is improperly exegeted, this does not, at least in the sense that I am using the term, make it "extra-Biblical tradition." There is, at least, an attempt to follow Scripture. Improper exegesis is a problem and a discussion in which I am interested. However, it does not fall under the parameters of this discussion. Here, I am objecting to tradition that does not claim to have its authority in Scripture. If the entire matter is a difference of interpretation (which I would be glad to take up in its place), then my objection to extra-Biblical tradition, while I still stand by it, is moot regarding the Orthodox Church. Since you believe it it possible "to go through the Tradition and show its complete consonance in its entirety with properly exegeted Scripture," I can't really see that you believe what I have denied. Would you happen to know, then, what is the position of the Orthodox Church? Is it just that certain of the traditions do not contradict Scripture, perhaps, because Scripture does not address them? or is it that all of the traditions can be positively justified by means of Scriptural exegesis?
If it is the latter, then I have no quarrel with the Orthodox conception of Tradition per se. However, before we can move on to matters of specific exegesis, there is still the matter that the Orthodox Church assigns to itself an infallible ability to interpret Scripture. While I freely acknowledge that the Orthodox Church has many things right and that it may even be right on certain points over which I disagree, I can't help but to question the ultimate fruitfulness of many of the specific exegetical points. For one who believes that his church's interpretation is infallible, there must be an a priori assumption that all cases to the contrary are without merit. I may be able to defend my positions against possible misunderstandings, but the game is set up in such a way that I can never make an effective offensive move.
It occurs to me as I read your paragraphs on various scriptural interpretations, with the refrain of "How do you know?" that your own attraction to Orthodoxy may have less to do with the its ability to justify its claims and more to do with your concept of epistemology. You seem to want to define knowledge in terms of Cartesian certainty. One way of doing this when it comes to matters of Scriptural interpretation and general faith is to postulate the existence of infallible interpreters who can tell you precisely what to think. I do not share this view. This kind of epistemological certainty is a myth. I firmly believe in objective truth, but I do not believe that God ever intends to spoonfeed it to us. Those matters that are essential to our salvation are clear from Scripture. These are those matters upon which the Church as a whole is agreed in its common confessions. But there are other matters that require serious study. While a maximum of one interpretation can be correct, these are matters over which individuals and even churches may disagree. This does not mean that knowledge of the truth, which is essential to the life of the Church, is ultimately lost. Rather, it implies that a deepening of faith, which is just as essential to this life, is ultimately gained. There must be some sense in which faith concerns that which is unseen; otherwise, it is not faith, but sight. In a very real sense, and not discounting the necessary function of the Word and the Sacraments, faith grows when it wrestles with the unknown. Furthermore, it is through this process that the Church is guided into the truth.
As to choosing a particular interpretive method, you paint too bleak a picture. It is possible to narrow down the options without resorting to infallible interpretation. If the doctrine of Scripture's infallibility implies anything, it is that there are intended parameters on the range of interpretation. Allegorical and "what does it mean to me" are both far too open to eisegesis to be of any use. On the other hand, the woodenly literal interpretation of many fundamentalists completely misses the intent of the various biblical genres. The Bible is, at the very least, a book of literature. As to the suggestion that Scripture itself cannot suggest an interpretive method, this is not entirely true. My own approach to hermeneutics was greatly helped when I noticed that the authors of the NT have a way of interpreting the OT that is not at all in keeping with what I had been doing. In any event, even if correct exegetical methods were nearly impossible to come by, this would not necessitate an infallible interpreter. The promise that the Church will be led into all truth is not based on her own skills but upon the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Many times I have read various authors throughout church history and have been able to affirm their conclusions even amidst their oftentimes bizarre methodology.
No, there is no reason at all that I need narrow my argument to limiting Tradition to the explicit propositional content of Scripture. The Holy Spirit will lead the Church into all truth. But he will not do this immediately nor will he do it by gifting the Church that remains on this earth with infallibility. The Church is led into truth by dealing with her error; into strength by struggling with her weakness. Ecclesiatical infallibility may be a logical solution to the problem of epistemological uncertainty, but, aside from answering an erroneous concept of epistemology, faith does not require such certainty. I do rest certain in the promise that God will not allow the Church to finally perish nor will he allow the same in me. If I attend to the means of grace, if I add to my faith those things by which I make my calling and election sure (II Peter 1), then I may be assured that, although I may not have everything just right, my grasp of the truth is sufficient unto life.
(Cessationism and Not Adding/Deleting)
No offence taken at your opinion of my interpretation of I Corinthians 13. Your answer to it is rather weak, though. Consider first your appeal to the Greek. The neuter gender of "teleion" is determined by the fact that it is a stand alone adjective. When paired with the definite article "to," it functions as a noun. Literally translated "the complete," the missing noun is understood, "the complete thing," or, as often translated, "that which is complete." The gender of an adjective need only match that of the noun it modifies, whether explicitly stated or implied. That the referent of such a noun may also be denominated by another noun of a different gender is irrelevant. Stipulating to your argument that, when Paul speaks of the Scriptures he means the OT, perhaps this is why he didn't use the term. Also, since the OT was complete, arguing for the completion of Scripture, when it could very well be understood in this sense, would be confusing at best. "To teleion" is much clearer and its precise meaning can be determined by the nature of those things that would come to an end at its arrival. While this nature cannot be determined from the immediate context of chapter 13, that of tongues can be determined from the surrounding chapters. Assuming that Paul is presenting a coherent argument, prophecy and knowledge should have a similar function. The foundational role of the prophet, mentioned in Ephesians, supports such an interpretation. My uncertainty had to do with the specific function of knowledge, not to whether this function is related to that of tongues or prophecy, nor to whether "to teleion" refers to the then incomplete NT canon. The cessationist argument can be made on the basis of Paul's explanation of toungues. It would be falsified by giving a more likely opposing account of prophecy and knoweldge. A Christian who is not a cessationist would probably not want accept this interpretation. However, for those who do deny the present validity of the charismatic gifts, I am hard pressed to think of a better account for "to teleion." Incidentally, I have no idea what the Orthodox position on the charismatic gifts is. I can only assume by your own standards that your suggestion of the Parousia or the coming age is not serious. Neither one matches the gender of "to teleion." As to v. 12, the coming age does make sense, but this does not contradict the cessationist argument. The coming age and revelation are related concepts.
I'm glad we agree that the Revelation passage can refer to the whole of Scripture. We do not agree, however, that it is a stretch to say, "Don't add traditions." The stretch is found in excluding tradition from the prohibition. Doing so fails to acknowledge the primary purpose of Scripture as a (the) rule of faith and practice. Inasmuch as tradition is intended to function in the same way, adding it to Scripture would have the same effect as adding to a book or canonical list. Also note that what is added to Scripture is not specified, whereas what is taken away is specified as "the words of the book of this prophecy." If the same phrase can be taken of all Scripture, then the prophibition is against taking away any Scripture, not just that contained in Revelation. More to the point, though. The prohibition is only against taking away Scripture: no mention is made of taking away from extra-Biblical tradition. The prohibition against adding is not limited to Scripture; rather, it is extensive enough to mean, "Don't add anything." A fully consistent account for this is that there is no valid extra-Biblical tradition from which to subtract or that can be added to Scripture. This, I believe, is John's original intent. As to those traditions that are justified from a proper exegesis of Scripture, these had always been latent within Scripture and cannot constitute an addition once such teaching of Scripture has been recognized.
I do not commit the logical fallacy of which you accuse me- assuming the absence of a proof for the opposing position as proof of my own. My position concerning extra-Biblical tradition is simply this: There is no proof of its validity. I infer from this that it is invalid. I will continue to assume that it is invalid until the burden of proof is met. Something simple like Acts 29:1, "And he gave them many infallible traditions, which are not recorded in the words of this book." I'm relatively easy to please.
(The Foundation of Tradition and Scripture in the Holy Spirit)
I don't get the distinction you're making in the first paragraph, although, I am happy to see that you're being more generous to the Holy Spirit than my first impression had led me to believe.
A single verse in Acts is sufficient to take Sunday worship out of the realm of extra-Biblical tradition. But, say that you're right, that it only applies to a particular congregation. In this case, the practice of corporate worship is still directed in Scripture. The specific day in this case would be a necessary matter of extra-Biblical tradition. However, such tradition would not be binding but could be changed by any church at any time. Having said this, there is more of a Scriptural basis for Sunday worship than a single passage in Acts. I Corinthians 16:2 specifies the first day of the week as the time to set aside for the collection for the saints. Taken alone, this would suffer the same problem as the Acts passage- it could be specific to the church at Corinth. Instead, both of these passages should be seen as standing in agreement with a broader theology of the Sabbath. The last day of the week was the established day for worship in the OT. It was the day of rest and its place in the week revealed its eschatological function. It was a continual reminder of the final rest that would be inaugurated in the last days by the advent of Christ. We are living in the last days in which the New Age has broken into this age by means of the resurrection of Christ. That to which the Sabbath pointed has now arrived. We acknowledge this by worshipping on the first day of the week, the day of Christ's resurrection.
(The Stable Content of Tradition)
You write, "But there is no distinction between that which you agree 'may be categorized as holy Tradition' and something else you call the 'fuller' tradition.' Your construing it this way implies that Tradition is little more than centuries of accretion upon accretion." Um,... Exactly.
Concerning icons- they're probably a lot older than the eighth century. As to your evidence of iconography in first century practice, please produce it. I would like something more substantial than the fact that the catacombs had pictures. Nevertheless, I must acknowledge that the practice came from somewhere. A likely source may be found in various Gentile converts who imported their cultural idol worship into the church. Moreover, I have a particularly hard time accepting iconography. Even if I did agree to the validity of extra-Biblical tradition, I could not see my way to making icons a part of it. Considering the predominance of Jews in the early church coupled with the post-exilic Jewish aversion to anything that even smelled like an idol, I would have expected historical evidence (preferably Scriptural) that this issue had been addressed to the satisfaction of the Jews. I have read some early material on the subject, it may have even been John of Damascus. As I recall, the argument was two-fold. One part appeared to the Platonic chain of being; the other argued that the incarnation had changed the terms whereby the Second Commandement, the one prohibiting graven images, was to be understood. While I believe this to be enough, technically, to take iconography out of the category of extra-Biblical tradition, it strikes me more as rationalization of a prior belief using Scripture rather than an example of sound exegesis. In light of such a specific prohibition, I want more than an argument that the incarnation may allow for iconography; I want the incarnation to require iconography.
As to the Eucharist, this is, as you indicate from the claims in the NT, a matter of interpretation. Consequently, it does not fall under the rubric of extra-Biblical tradition. Yes, the NT is explicit in its wording and the early church fathers did not shy away from such language. I acknowledge the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist; however, there is nothing either in NT language or that of the early church that requires such interpretive extremes as that which results from the Roman Catholic infusion of Aristotelian philosophy. As to the Orthodox view, I do not know what it is and so cannot say whether or not I would agree with its substance after any potentially confusing wording had been removed. I am not convinced that you have the historical evidence to say that "the Tradition has been pretty much stable from the time of the Apostles." Things such as Catacombian pictures might confirm such a hypothesis once it had been established, but are hardly sufficient to prove it otherwise.
-----------------------------------------
The remainder deals with the second post, "A-Voiding the Word."
Calling the Orthodox Church a "denomination" was not a slip but deliberate. It represents the view of every other denomination. The Orthodox Church would do well not to stick so close to its distinctives and listen to the judgment of everyone else who has been baptized into the name of the triune God. I am well aware of the Orthodox Church's opinion of herself. She is quite mistaken.
The strength with which you state the claims of the Orthodox Church does, indeed, lead to the conclusion that other denominations have no life. But then, may it never be said that I have forced anyone into being logical. Actually, I believe your explanation and understand it in an odd sort of way. I grew up in a number of Baptist Churches, some of which held to a belief called the "Baptist Bride." The idea was that since baptism was the only door into the church, since only believers were to be baptized, since it had to be by immersion, and since baptism was only valid if administered by someone in the church (i.e., a baptized believer), then there had to be an unbroken line of believers' baptism all the way back to John the Baptist. Conversely, any group that practiced any baptism besides the immersion of believers, or that could be traced back to such a group, could not be considered a true church. They could be saved, but would remain second class citizens in heaven. The same view of the Church that turned me away from any further possibility of accepting the Baptist Bride will not allow me to accept the Orthodox doctrine of the Church. The Church comprises all of the elect of all time. It consists of all those who are in union with Jesus Christ. Such union is, since the advent of Christ, sacramentally symbolized in baptism. The visible Church, then, consists of all those to whom this baptism rightly applies: those who profess Christ and their children. Most important, though, is the concept of union with Christ. Where this is the case, there is the Church and there is life. Where there is no union with Christ, there is neither. Your own account of other denominations is an odd chimera in which the head, though severed from the other parts, is still able to impart life. It is true that the Holy Trinity makes alive, but this is not done apart from justice. We are not just dead, but dead in sin. Life may only be granted to those who are united with Christ in his death and resurrection. But then, such union defines the church.
Matthew 18:18-20 is not an unconditional promise of the Church's infallibility in binding and loosing such that we can be sure that a thing is bound because the Orthodox say it is. The passage concerns local church discipline- two or three. The condition is found in v. 20, the two or three are gathered in my name, that is, in the name of Christ. The idea is that they are acting according to the will of Christ, presenty known by its revelation in Scripture. The idea is not a license for the Church to do as it pleases knowing that she can't be wrong. It is that, provided she is acting according to the revealed will of God, then her verdicts will reflect those that are true in heaven.
I Timothy 3:15. I could say that neither the masculine stulos nor the neuter hedraioma could possibly have anything to do with the feminine ecclesia, but I won't. :) As it is, I don't think it can support the weight of ecclesiastical infallibility. First, there is no article. It is not "the pillar..." but "a pillar..." Ho stulos simply means a pillar. The language is figurative and complements the next term to hedraioma, which means, "that which provides the basis or foundation for belief or practice." Assuming the presence of both the Holy Spirit and of Scripture (or, at the time, that tradtion which had yet to be inscripturated), there is no need to postulate infallibility for the Church in order for it to function in this regard.
To your question, "Where in all of Scripture does Scripture say this about itself?" the only positive statement I made to this effect in the relevant quote was that "Scripture sets the parameters both of the Gospel and of the Church." So far, the scriptural examples that you have have produced illustrate this quite nicely. As to the rest of the quote, I said, "Scripture gives no warrant..," and "Christ has given no such authorization." I don't have to show any place in Scripture where warrant is not given. I'm simply stating a fact; the evidence is not there. You have to show me that it is.
Ephesians 4:16. You ask, "But where does it say in Scripture that Scripture has this capacity to bring the whole Church into maturity in Christ?" Let's consider the immediate context. Christ gives the Church gifts, which include apostles, prophets, evangelists, and pastors and teachers (v.11). I've already mentioned the foundational role of the apostles and prophets (2:20). Now take the office whose present validity is undisputed; pastor and teacher (or, as some would have, two offices of pastor, and teacher). Paul's admonition to Timothy, the pastor at Ephesus, was, "Preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching" (II Timothy 2:2). Just prior to this, Paul had identified the Scripture as being sufficient unto these things, "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitiable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteosness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work" (3:16,17). Back in Ephesians 4, these officers are given as gifts to the Church in order that they might "equip the saints for the work of the ministry" (v.12). They are to "attain to the unity of the faith" (v.13) and not be "carried about by every wind of doctrine" (v.14). The pastor accomplishes this through the faithful preaching of the Word. The result is that the Church, "speaking the truth in love" (v.15) will grow into maturity in Christ. And so the prayer of Christ is answered, "Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth" (John 17:17). Scripture, considered in the abstract as a collection of propositions, has no power. But this has nothing to do with sola scriptura. Scripture preached and lived is another matter altogether. "For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart" (Hebrews 4:12).
I don't reject the Trinity because Scripture clearly teaches it. I suppose, though, that you want me to affirm what the Church has said about it. I do. I take the Church's declarations very seriously and, often, they have pointed me in the right direction for interpretation. But I would be a fool if I didn't double check. As to inferring Arianism, I know that this can be done, but I've never seen how. Isn't it nice how the Church, in agreeing on an essential doctrine, has reshaped the likely ways to think about it? I admit it, my views of the Trinity have been greatly influenced by the teaching of the Church.
"Name one heresy that the Orthodox Church as a whole as espoused." Do you mean that there are parts of the one infallible Church that have espoused heresy? In any case, this is a loaded request considerig the technical definition of a heresy, which is whatever is contrary to the ecumenical creeds and councils. As if these councils could have addressed the sum total of heresy before both sides of the Church, Orthodox and Catholic, decided to flaunt their immaturity and split from one another. Basically, anything that I might suggest will only be dismissed on the grounds that the Orthodox Church as a whole doesn't agree.
Churches can fall into heresy becase of their interpretation of the Scripture. More often, this is not the sole cause. They are are either ignoring other parts of Scripture or they are adding what is not contained in Scripture. Furthermore, they are paying no attention to the general consensus of thought within the historical Church. I would also say that, depending on the seriousness of the heresy, they are not being led by the Holy Spirit. In short, churches that have fallen into and persist in serious heresy may soon cease to be a part of the Church. Interpretation is no problem for my thesis. I am perfectly confident that the Holy Spirit can overcome any and all epistemological objections.
You present a false dichotomy. The options are not either accept the infallibility of the Orthodox Church or enshrine my own mind and thinking over it. Rather, the Church works in cooperation with her people in order to grow into a knowledge of the truth. There may be some deviation, which will be corrected, and some may ultimately fall away, but the general trend is always toward maturity in the knowledge of the truth. It is not up to the Orthodox to say to the rest of the Church, "No, you got it wrong. You must not be a part of us." No. The Orthodox Church is a denomination. As much as it would like to claim infallibility, that it alone of all those who profess Christ has remained united, it just ain't so. To the extent that we are all the recipients of baptism, to the extent that Christ claims all of the Church as his own, you're stuck with us.
Please understand that my final conclusion was not meant to be gratuitously offensive. I truly mean nothing personal. Nevertheless, I make no further apology and I cannot take it back. The nature of such a discourse, which is deeply held matters of faith, must necessarily offend in some points. In order to avoid such a thing, I will not resort to saying that religion is a personal thing that has no bearing on reality. One of us has to be wrong. My conclusion is only illogical if the Orthodox Church is, in fact, the one, true, and infallible Church. However, if it is not, as I firmly believe, if it is just a denomination that is mistaken about its infallibility; if it has added to the Scripture contrary to Scripture and then played the part of the schismatic by claiming that those who do not follow it in this heresy are no part of the Church, then it does stand in some serious need of repentance. My statement was not intended for that body of Christians who came before me. I honor both their sacrifices and what they have done for the Church. My statement is aimed at that particular and present day denomination that makes claims for itself the likes of which the early church never could have dreamed (well, the Novatians might have come close). As to Orthodoxy not judging "those outside her bounds as having outgrown the need for humility and repentance," wouldn't this beg the question? Most of them don't claim infallibility. As for those that do, think of black kitchenware.
Posted by kcourter at fevereiro 26, 2005 10:48 PM
I have replied here.
Posted by: Clifton D. Healy at fevereiro 28, 2005 11:30 AM