Apostolic Tradition and Scripture

All4Christ · Mar 15, 2016

In the recent past, I've noticed that there seem to be some misconceptions on the various Traditional denominations / churches' views on Tradition and Scripture. I'd like to propose a discussion to explain and dialogue on each other's church's view on the relationship between Scripture and Tradition.

What is your church / denomination's view (or your personal view) on the relationship between scripture and apostolic tradition and why?

---------------------------------------

Based on past discussions here, I have seen the following views (with a million variations [emoji4] ):

1. Holy Tradition and Scripture are parallel sources of doctrine; they are equally important, yet distinct. They should work together hand in hand without any division. (I believe this is the Catholic view? I'm sure it is very oversimplified)

2. Scripture is a part of Holy Tradition. It is the most important part of Holy Tradition and all else flows from within it. No other part of Holy Tradition may contradict Scripture, yet Holy Tradition includes additional needed doctrines and practices (Church Fathers, Councils, Creeds, etc.). Not all parts of tradition are determined in the same way, but all are important and needed.

Tradition is the manner of propagating and preserving divine revelation. It is the paradosis, the handing down of what God chose to disclose and communicate to men. It is not a particular "source" of truth or doctrine. Tradition does not and cannot add anything to Scripture, but only elicits what is contained in Holy Scripture and puts it in the right perspective. A faithful guide is required for true exegesis of Scripture. Therefore, Scripture is given and preserved in tradition. Tradition and Scripture are inseparable. (Orthodox Christianity holds this view, though I welcome clarification from my fellow Orthodox Christians)

3. Scripture interprets scripture. Scripture is the test for Tradition. If it is supported by scripture, Tradition is followed. If it is neither supported nor refuted, it is adiaphora (optional?). If it contradicts, Scripture trumps Tradition. (Lutheran and Anglican?)

4. Tradition has no place in determining theology, though some who hold this accept some of the councils. Christians are given the capability and requirement to analyze and interpret Scripture.

A variation may be using scripture with the lens of Tradition while also using culture to further define it.

5. Alternative views that I am not aware of...please also elaborate if you fit in here!

Before we start discussing this topic, as this is the Traditional Theology forum, I'd like to ask everyone to respect the Statement of Purpose (http://www.christianforums.com/thre...y-statement-of-purpose.7859802/#post-66879526) and remember that the forum is designed for respectful discussion of doctrines and practices of churches and individuals that respect and / or hold to some form of Tradition.

A forum dedicated to the respectful discussion of traditional, historic theology; liturgical practices, doctrines, dogmatics; Holy Scripture as found in the various canons of the Church; Church History, etc.
...
This is a Topic driven forum to bridge open discussion for those interested in all the ways Traditional Theology is expressed and lived around the world. Its not meant to exclude those who don't practice Traditional Theology but it is meant to be topic restrictive and non combative to Traditional ideas and structure. If you need to prove Traditional Theology as unbiblical or incomplete, we respect your right to do this in GT and not in this Topical forum ....This is a place to explore with in the defined topic not debate against it.

I'd like us to discuss this while respecting each other's views and to learn what we believe and why. [emoji4]

~Anastasia~ · Mar 15, 2016

Stretched very thin right now but I'm hoping to participate. A good beginning, I think.

Cappadocious · Mar 15, 2016

As I've said elsewhere, the
"Using tradition to interpret" is not so much a view, as it is a necessity for beings like us if we are to read anything, especially the Scriptures.

Albion · Mar 15, 2016

I have the feeling that you've laid so much before us at once that any discussion is going to be quite unfocused.

All4Christ said:
In the recent past, I've noticed that there seem to be some misconceptions on the various Traditional denominations / churches' views on Tradition and Scripture. I'd like to propose a discussion to explain and dialogue on each other's church's view on the relationship between Scripture and Tradition.

So far, I have seen the following views (with a million variations [emoji4] ):

1. Holy Tradition and Scripture are parallel sources of doctrine; they are equally important, yet distinct. They should work together hand in hand without any division. (I believe this is the Catholic view? I'm sure it is very oversimplified)

2. Scripture is a part of Holy Tradition. It is the most important part of Holy Tradition and all else flows from within it. No other part of Holy Tradition may contradict Scripture, yet Holy Tradition includes additional needed doctrines and practices (Church Fathers, Councils, Creeds, etc.). Not all parts of tradition are determined in the same way, but all are important and needed.

Tradition is the manner of propagating and preserving divine revelation. It is the paradosis, the handing down of what God chose to disclose and communicate to men. It is not a particular "source" of truth or doctrine. Tradition does not and cannot add anything to Scripture, but only elicits what is contained in Holy Scripture and puts it in the right perspective. A faithful guide is required for true exegesis of Scripture. Therefore, Scripture is given and preserved in tradition. Tradition and Scripture are inseparable. (Orthodox Christianity holds this view, though I welcome clarification from my fellow Orthodox Christians)

3. Scripture interprets scripture. Scripture is the test for Tradition. If it is supported by scripture, Tradition is followed. If it is neither supported nor refuted, it is adiaphora (optional?). If it contradicts, Scripture trumps Tradition. (Lutheran and Anglican?)

4. Tradition has no place in determining theology, though some who hold this accept some of the councils. Christians are given the capability and requirement to analyze and interpret Scripture.

A variation may be using scripture with the lens of Tradition while also using culture to further define it.

5. Alternative views that I am not aware of...please also elaborate if you fit in here!

Before we start discussing this topic, as this is the Traditional Theology forum, I'd like to ask everyone to respect the Statement of Purpose (http://www.christianforums.com/thre...y-statement-of-purpose.7859802/#post-66879526) and remember that the forum is designed for respectful discussion of doctrines and practices of churches and individuals that respect and / or hold to some form of Tradition.

I'd like us to discuss this while respecting each other's views and to learn what we believe and why. [emoji4]

All4Christ · Mar 15, 2016

Albion said:
I have the feeling that you've laid so much before us at once that any discussion is going to be quite unfocused.

Ok. Could explain the relationship of Tradition and Scripture in your church without any of what I tried to summarize above? It wasn't meant to distract from others' views, but rather to jump start the conversation.

Albion · Mar 15, 2016

All4Christ said:
Ok. Could explain the relationship of Tradition and Scripture in your church without any of what I tried to summarize above? It wasn't meant to distract from others' views, but rather to jump start the conversation.

In my own church??

OK. We believe that the Bible is the ultimate, or final, basis for doctrine. To understand Scripture, however, it is valuable to utilize tradition (meaning history, especially the church's history) and reason. But they are merely aides to our understanding of God's word. Whatever is not found in Scripture is not necessary to salvation and may not be imposed upon the laity as dogma.

MoreCoffee · Mar 15, 2016

The Glossary of the Catechism of the Catholic Church offers this brief definition of the term Tradition:

The body of the CCC offers this on Scripture and Tradition:

Tigger45 · Mar 15, 2016

Albion said:
In my own church??

OK. We believe that the Bible is the ultimate, or final, basis for doctrine. To understand Scripture, however, it is valuable to utilize tradition (meaning history, especially the church's history) and reason. But they are merely aides to our understanding of God's word. Whatever is not found in Scripture is not necessary to salvation and may not be imposed upon the laity as dogma.

Being a Lutheran I will ride Albion's view of the relationship of Scripture and Tradition. And I probably hold Tradition in higher regards than most protestants do. Case in point, it helped solidify my understanding of the Eucharist after reading what the main consensus was of it by the ECF's.

MarkRohfrietsch · Mar 15, 2016

3. Scripture interprets scripture. Scripture is the test for Tradition. If it is supported by scripture, Tradition is followed. If it is neither supported nor refuted, it is adiaphora (optional?). If it contradicts, Scripture trumps Tradition. (Lutheran and Anglican?)

The way you have put it, it would be more Confessional Lutheran. Anglicans and more liberal Lutheran Synods will, as Albion stated, employ both textural criticisms as well as "reason", hence STR being the name of the Anglican Forum. Adiaphora can be optional, but is usually called "things of indifference". Adiaphora is sometimes spoken of as being held as "pious opinion".

MoreCoffee · Mar 15, 2016

The Catholic view is that holy tradition never contradicts holy scripture but it may enhance it and expand on it and add to it but only what is consistent with holy scripture.

Albion · Mar 15, 2016

MarkRohfrietsch said:
Anglicans and more liberal Lutheran Synods will, as Albion stated, employ both textural criticisms as well as "reason", hence STR being the name of the Anglican Forum. Adiaphora can be optional, but is usually called "things of indifference". Adiaphora is sometimes spoken of as being held as "pious opinion".

It might be worth mentioning that "Reason" in the historically-famous STR expression doesn't refer to Reasoning in the way that the "Age of Reason" saw it, but to something closer to what we'd call Common Sense. If Scripture can be thought to suggest X and Tradition shows that some churchmen from the past entertained or supported the idea, it still would be considered unacceptable if the only way for it to be as represented didn't make sense in the absence of some unknown miracle or a "once in a billion years" scenario. Something like that. I think that some of the arguments used to defend the Book of Mormon fall into that category.

MarkRohfrietsch · Mar 16, 2016

Albion said:
It might be worth mentioning that "Reason" in the historically-famous STR expression doesn't refer to Reasoning in the way that the "Age of Reason" saw it, but to something closer to what we'd call Common Sense. If Scripture can be thought to suggest X and Tradition shows that some churchmen from the past entertained or supported the idea, it still would be considered unacceptable if the only way for it to be as represented didn't make sense in the absence of some unknown miracle or a "once in a billion years" scenario. Something like that. I think that some of the arguments used to defend the Book of Mormon fall into that category.

Thanks for the further explanation. :oldthumbsup:

hedrick · Mar 16, 2016

The Reformed tradition, and I think de facto mainline Christianity as a whole, tends to use the Church rather than Tradition. That is, your alternatives don’t seem to include the one I see most commonly. We certainly don’t see tradition and Scripture as equal, but your alternatives 3 and 4 are a bit too much Baptist for me. Part of that is because Tradition isn’t really the way I’d define the context of understanding Scripture, though it’s certainly part of the picture.

Reformed Christians believe that Scripture is interpreted by the Church. They’re not independent sources of knowledge exactly, and the Church isn’t above Scripture. But still, we work out the implications of Scripture as a community, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. For us it’s an the mainline version of being confessional, but of course not all mainline churches are officially confessional. Still, I think they all work pretty much the same way de facto.

Tradition is the collection of decisions of the Church, so it’s part of the picture. It informs the Church. But to me the active partner in understanding Scripture is Church, not Tradition.

I note that this model may not be all that different from the current Catholic one. I don’t actually think the distinction between Catholic and mainline is in methodology, but in the fact that the mainline is more willing to change. Of course many readers here probably know that I think the Catholic Church is basically mainline — they’re just going to take a century or two longer to officially adopt the current conclusions of mainline scholarship and theology.

Athanasias · Mar 16, 2016

Vatican II the most recent ecumenical council in the catholic view binds this understanding of divine revelation on all catholics:

9. Hence there exists a close connection and communication between sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. For Sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, while sacred tradition takes the word of God entrusted by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, and hands it on to their successors in its full purity, so that led by the light of the Spirit of truth, they may in proclaiming it preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known. Consequently it is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence.(6)

10. Sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God, committed to the Church. Holding fast to this deposit the entire holy people united with their shepherds remain always steadfast in the teaching of the Apostles, in the common life, in the breaking of the bread and in prayers (see Acts 2, 42, Greek text), so that holding to, practicing and professing the heritage of the faith, it becomes on the part of the bishops and faithful a single common effort. (7)

But the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, (8) has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, (9) whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed.

It is clear, therefore, that sacred tradition, Sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God's most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others, and that all together and each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation of souls." ( Vatican II ,DEI VERBUM 9-10)

Pope Benedict XVI in his post-apostolic exhortation "Verbum Domini" also clarifies a few things in regards to this relationship and the role sacred tradition and the Holy Spirit plays in the development of Christian biblical doctrine through the centuries.

"The Second Vatican Council also states that this Tradition of apostolic origin is a living and dynamic reality: it “makes progress in the Church, with the help of the Holy Spirit”; yet not in the sense that it changes in its truth, which is perennial. Rather, “there is a growth in insight into the realities and the words that are being passed on”, through contemplation and study, with the understanding granted by deeper spiritual experience and by the “preaching of those who, on succeeding to the office of bishop, have received the sure charism of truth”.[57]

The living Tradition is essential for enabling the Church to grow through time in the understanding of the truth revealed in the Scriptures; indeed, “by means of the same tradition, the full canon of the sacred books is known to the Church and the holy Scriptures themselves are more thoroughly understood and constantly made effective in the Church”.[58] Ultimately, it is the living Tradition of the Church which makes us adequately understand sacred Scripture as the word of God. Although the word of God precedes and exceeds sacred Scripture, nonetheless Scripture, as inspired by God, contains the divine word (cf. 2 Tim 3:16) “in an altogether singular way”.[59]

18. We see clearly, then, how important it is for the People of God to be properly taught and trained to approach the sacred Scriptures in relation to the Church’s living Tradition, and to recognize in them the very word of God. Fostering such an approach in the faithful is very important from the standpoint of the spiritual life.(Pope Benedict XVI Verbum Domini 17-18)

All4Christ · Mar 16, 2016

hedrick said:
The Reformed tradition, and I think de facto mainline Christianity as a whole, tends to use the Church rather than Tradition. That is, your alternatives don’t seem to include the one I see most commonly. We certainly don’t see tradition and Scripture as equal, but your alternatives 3 and 4 are a bit too much Baptist for me. Part of that is because Tradition isn’t really the way I’d define the context of understanding Scripture, though it’s certainly part of the picture.

Reformed Christians believe that Scripture is interpreted by the Church. They’re not independent sources of knowledge exactly, and the Church isn’t above Scripture. But still, we work out the implications of Scripture as a community, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. For us it’s an the mainline version of being confessional, but of course not all mainline churches are officially confessional. Still, I think they all work pretty much the same way de facto.

Tradition is the collection of decisions of the Church, so it’s part of the picture. It informs the Church. But to me the active partner in understanding Scripture is Church, not Tradition.

Thanks for clarifying this! I thought of your church when coming up with the definitions, but couldn't remember your church's perspective properly. I knew I was missing a few key views. [emoji846]

All4Christ · Mar 16, 2016

Albion said:
It might be worth mentioning that "Reason" in the historically-famous STR expression doesn't refer to Reasoning in the way that the "Age of Reason" saw it, but to something closer to what we'd call Common Sense. If Scripture can be thought to suggest X and Tradition shows that some churchmen from the past entertained or supported the idea, it still would be considered unacceptable if the only way for it to be as represented didn't make sense in the absence of some unknown miracle or a "once in a billion years" scenario. Something like that. I think that some of the arguments used to defend the Book of Mormon fall into that category.

It seems like there is a wide range of how much Anglicans use Tradition in their religious viewpoints. Are there variations in the various Anglican jurisdictions regarding Tradition? Or is that more of an individual variance? Is there a concept similar to what Mark referred to as adiaphora in the Angican church?

Albion · Mar 16, 2016

All4Christ said:
It seems like there is a wide range of how much Anglicans use Tradition in their religious viewpoints. Are there variations in the various Anglican jurisdictions regarding Tradition? Or is that more of an individual variance? Is there a concept similar to what Mark referred to as adiaphora in the Angican church?

I don't think it would be accurate to say that the various Anglican bodies vary much as regards Tradition, but we must be certain what we mean by the word. Anglicans do not see "Tradition" as a non-Scriptural supplement to the Bible, but just as traditions which may show us, to some extent, the mind of the church at certain points in time.

There are, of course, Anglicans who are similar to Presbyterians (with bishops) and others who are close to Roman Catholics, but you already know that. This all goes back to the fact that the church was the church in England before the Reformation, so the whole country moved with the reforming trends of the age, not springing into existence on the basis of this or that idea, as was the case with the Continental Reformation.

As for "adiaphora," yes, we do accept that. The word itself is much more commonly used in Lutheran circles, however. Among Anglicans, it's more common to hear of "pious opinions," and this explanation I referred to earlier: nothing which is not necessary for salvation and may not be proven by Scripture is to be required of the people.

All4Christ · Mar 17, 2016

MarkRohfrietsch said:
The way you have put it, it would be more Confessional Lutheran. .

That's probably because the third definition is primarily based on what I have heard and understood from your perspective on Scripture and Tradition [emoji4]

Apostolic Tradition and Scripture

✙ The Handmaid of God Laura ✙

† Handmaid of God †

Well-Known Member

Facilitator

✙ The Handmaid of God Laura ✙

Facilitator

Repentance works.

Attachments

Pray like your life depends on it!

Unapologetic Apologist

Repentance works.

Facilitator

Unapologetic Apologist

Senior Veteran

Regular Member

✙ The Handmaid of God Laura ✙

✙ The Handmaid of God Laura ✙

Facilitator

✙ The Handmaid of God Laura ✙

Similar threads