This is Life!: Revolutions Around the Cruciform Axis

Wow. Puts a perspective on the whole Tradition discussion. However, protestantly, we know how the "teaching of Christ" gets defined. What part of the Church is the "teaching of Christ". You have a yearning for priestesses, or even perhaps sodomy - then it was never part of the "teaching of Christ" - only that rude Paul, or some later addition.

In a way, one can see how the whole history of schism and heresy (both Western and Eastern) is a kind of willful self assertion and intellectual confusion over the "teaching of Christ"...

Posted by: Christopher at February 17, 2005 08:58 PM

You do realize the cognitive disjunct that this post is causing for those of us who are Reformationally minded? If one approaches this from the perspective that the doctrine of Christ is comprised of both Church Tradition and the interpreted Word of God, then it is true that he has no a right to depart from either one. The problem on this side of the divide comes in the phrase, "Not only does one not have the right to introduce teachings which are not the doctrine of Christ." We whole-heartedly agree, defining non-Scripturally based Church Tradition in just this way. At some point or another, a specific tradition was introduced and, rather than the individual or individuals introducing it being condemned, some portion of the Church said, "Wow! New and Improved!" In and of itself, antiquity of practice or belief does not argue against these things being innovative.

Let me admit that many Protestants have taken sola scriptura too far. With no consideration of the teaching and authority of the Church, it has often turned into 'me and my Bible.' The result has been churches that are little more than innovative voluntary societies. This is wrong. The Church needs tradition. In no sense, however, does it need a tradition that stands along side of the teaching of Scripture. Rather, Scripture, which is the alone teaching of Christ, is the sole foundation and continual lifesource of that tradition. The Reformation acted as a corrective against rootless, authoritative church tradition gone bad. It recognized that the Church, though she is truly Holy, is not some entity that stands in abstraction from its people. The Church is its people: a gathering of sinners with all the fallibilites thereof. Unless the Church would stray along with various individuals within it, it must constantly ask itself, "Is this really what Scripture teaches?" And it must constantly study that Scripture to affirm that it is. If such affirmation cannot be made, then it is the Church's responsibility to say, "We have been ignorant of the teaching of Christ; let us now repent."

It is the case that the established doctrine of Christ precludes the introduction of any other doctrine. But the automatic corollary is not an indiscriminate, "No one has a right to depart from Tradition." In some cases, such a departure may be required.

Posted by: Kevin at February 18, 2005 12:18 PM

Kevin:

I think the disjunct may be addressed from this standpoint: Before there was New Testament Scripture, there was Tradition. Indeed, Scripture itself is part of Tradition.

In other words, the ancient Church (and the present-day Church) had (and has) no need to place Tradition and Scripture side by side as though they are in opposition. Rather, Scripture is in whole part of the Tradition. It's not an either/or because we are not talking about two separate realities, but one single reality: Tradition. Scripture is a manifestation of the Tradition, and as such cannot contradict Tradition, nor Tradition Scripture.

The problem is when Christians try to excise Scripture from Tradition and interpret it outside of the Tradition. It is inevitable that the meaning of Scripture will then be distorted beyond, if you will, authorial (and Authorial) intent.

Let me offer some ponder-ous points. In the Thessalonian Church, when the Thessalonians were being led astray by a letter purported to be from Paul, what did Paul do? Did he send them back to the Old Testament to confirm his message? Did he say, "Go take a look at the letter I sent to the Church in Galatia?" No, rather what he said was:

So then, brethren, be standing firm and holding fast the traditions which ye were taught, whether by word or by our epistle. (2 Thessalonians 2:15)

And then, when it was a matter of the proper conduct of Christians, what did he tell the Thessalonians?

Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to withdraw yourselves from every brother who walketh disorderly, and not according to the tradition which they received from us. For ye yourselves know how it is needful to imitate us . . . (2 Thessalonians 3:6-7a)

Clearly, then, to settle disputable questions, Paul did not resort to Scripture (or most definitely not to Scripture apart from the Tradition), but appealed to the Tradition itself.

So there is no dichotomy, no tension, no opposition between Scripture and Tradition.

More to the point, if New Testament Scripture is fundamentally necessary for determining the parameters and content of Christian life and doctrine, what did Christians do for the two or three decades when all they had was the Old Testament? If if you reply, "Well, they had the apostles." I say to you that there were only twelve apostles, and dozens of Churches. Paul was an apostle, but so far as I know, apostleship does not include the gift of bilocation. And more to the point, why didn't Paul invoke his apostleship in the above verses from Thessalonians? He could have said, "As an apostle sent from God, I command . . ." Instead, he invokes the tradition: "Live according to the traditions you were taught, which you received from us." No, apostolic Christianity, New Testament Chritianity is Traditional Christianity.

Posted by: Clifton D. Healy at February 18, 2005 01:33 PM

"Scripture, which is the alone teaching of Christ, is the sole foundation and continual lifesource of that tradition"

Kevin, you do realize the cognitive disjunct such a post causes to those of us who are of Christ's Church?....;)

Posted by: Christopher at February 18, 2005 01:41 PM

It might also be worth mentioning, in response to Kevin's post, that from an Orthodox perspective, the Roman Catholic church at the time of the Reformation taught and practiced such things that the Orthodox would in fact consider alien to Apostolic Tradition: purgatory, indulgences, etc.

I love that translation, by the way, Clifton. I see what you mean about it being a little quirky, though. Quirky but rather charming. It gives the impression of extreme literalism. I'm going to be very careful next time I tell someone "Fare thee well!"

Posted by: Doug at February 18, 2005 06:01 PM

I wrote this several years ago, during my "Orthodox" period. Perhaps this piece may contribute to this conversation.

http://www.thechristianactivist.com/vol10/holytradition.html

In Christ,
P.

Posted by: POV at February 19, 2005 06:27 PM

Christopher- Point well taken (even if I do object to my implied exclusion from the body of Christ).

Doug- I'm glad to see a point of agreement between the Orthodox and the Reformed. We would argue, however, that this departure from Apostolic Tradition is the result of not rooting the justification for any part of that tradition in Scripture.

Clifton- My response is in the final six paragraphs over here.

Posted by: Kevin at February 19, 2005 07:42 PM

Kevin:

I appreciate your taking time to reply, and especially appreciate the strong effort at both affirming that with which you agree while opposing that with which you disagree.

It will come as no surprise, then, that I find some significant flaws in your reasoning. For example, I find it strange that you refer to the Christian departed as "dead people." You clearly completely misunderstand the nature of the Church's tradition of asking the intercessions of those believers who have gone before us, but even more so you seem to have some difficulty believing in the reality of the Christian afterlife. If Jesus himself points out that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are not dead (because God is not a God of the dead but of the living), how much more so is this the case for the Christian "dead." Your opposition to the asking for the prayers and intercessions of the saints is deeply, deeply flawed, and thus you can in no way reason rightly about it until your understanding is corrected. (You should start with 1 Thessalonians 4-5.)

As to the substance of your reply, though, you do a bit better, though it will come as no surprise that I find you seriously mistaken in both what you assume and in your argument.

For example, your mention of the limited efficacy of the oral transmission is mistaken not only in fact (anthropological studies have shown the extremely powerful efficacy of the transmission of truths in an oral/aural culture), but also in argument. You assume its limited efficacy, but you cannot prove it from Scripture, nor its earliest transmissions in the so-called sub-apostolic period (second century). What evidence do you have to show that the oral transmission of apostolic teaching was insufficient? (Remember, you cannot claim the fact of the Scripture's existence proves your case, as this is begging the question.)

You claim that "Scripture is the whole of Tradition" yet this is clearly and historically not the case. For example: Where in Scripture does it indicate that it, itself is the whole of Tradition? Where in Scripture is it clear that the Bible is to be the 66 books that you doubtless have in your Bible? Where is Scripture does it say that "Any belief or practice to which the Church holds must either be explicitly taught in Scripture, or be capable of being justified from Scripture properly exegeted"? (You will doubtless assert that this principle is inferred from Scripture, but while I don't think it can be, even so, it is an invalid argument since it assumes in the premises that which you are trying to argue in the conclusion.) And yet, you argue from these assumptions that Scripture is the whole of Tradition? If it were, surely these essential components of your argument (without which it fails) would be there, no?

You claim that "The Tradition is passed down to the Church defined corporately. It is designed to be understood by the Church, taught by the Church, and used by the Church" which is well and good. But then you undercut yourself when you go on to say:

The Church is composed of individuals. As these individuals are fallible, so are churches. The individual is to submit to the teaching of the Church. A particular church may fall into false teaching. The individual is to know both Scripture and the consensus of the historical Church's teaching on Scripture in order that he may detect false teaching. A particular church is to know both Scripture and the consensus of the historical Church's teaching on Scripture in order that it may avoid false teaching.

But if every individual is fallible, if every particular church is fallible, how can you ever work your way to the "corporate Church" authority necessary to determine in every generation whether or not the apostolic teaching has been continued? You claim (as I noted above) that praying to "dead people" and "venerating their body parts" is "horrifying" and that "such traditions do exist in opposition to Scripture"--but how can you know this, if you, a fallible individual belong to a fallible local church, in a long line of fallible individuals and fallible churches? Where can you make the jump from fallibility to authority?

You disagree with my interpretation of the Thessalonian passages above. But your argument not only does not provide support for your own case, it only serves to strengthen mine. Despite your efforts to narrow Paul's use of "the traditions" to only that which he spoke to the Thessalonians (and seemingly even more narrowly, only that related to working for one's own necessities), it is legitimate to ask: What would it be necessary for Paul to have taught the Thessalonians given that he was there a mere "three Sabbaths"? When one looks at the Epistles it is absolutely clear that Paul necessarily gave the Thessalonians the whole of the tradition.

*The relationship of God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ to one another, and that of the Holy Spirit to these, thus the Trinity
*Their election by God
*The resurrection of Jesus from the dead
*Their deliverance from the coming wrath (presumably the judgment at the second coming)

And all that's just from 1 Thessalonians' first chapter--yet it would fill a good-sized textbook in a seminary class.

But waith, there's more!

*There's the death of Jesus
*The going forth of the Gospel among the Gentiles after the Jewish rejection of the Gospel
*The existence and role of Satan
*The doctrine of sanctification
*The indwelling and empowerment of the Holy Spirit
*Christian sexual morality
*The afterlife and the second coming (most of the content of 1 and 2 Thessalonians is this)

In fact, not only did Paul teach them all these things, but they became (in just a few short weeks) an example to all the other believers in the entire region of Achaia and Macedonia.

More to the point, and this is something quite important that you missed. When Paul couldn't return to Thessalonica, he sent Timothy "our brother and minister of God, and our fellow worker in the gospel of Christ, in order to establish you and encourage you concerning your faith" (1 Thessalonians 3:2). And yet Timothy was not an Apostle, yet he transmitted the apostolic Tradition.

Now, while you rightly claim that the "inscripturation" process happened quite quickly, you fail to adequately take into account the specifics of the argument I made above; namely, in summation, the Apostles couldn't be everywhere at once. Indeed, the Church at Rome was without the presence of the Apostles till the A. D. 60s. What did they do for some thirty-odd years with nothing but oral tradition?

More to the point, though the process of inscripturation happened quickly, the ability of a local congregation to have all of the New Testament in their possession didn't happen for decades, indeed, for most, centuries. What then? What was a local church to do without the entirety of the Bible for hundreds of years? It would seem all that they could do was rely on the Tradition. And when they got what Scriptures they could, they could discern the entire unity between the two.

Without addressing these points and arguments, you cannot successfully advance the argument you've made.

Posted by: Clifton D. Healy at February 19, 2005 09:53 PM

One other point I want to add vis a vis Paul's apostleship:

It, too, was part of the Tradition. The Tradition gave to Paul the very kerygma he preached and the practical matters of Christian living he embodied and enjoined upon the Thessalonians (and others).

It is definitely true that Paul's Apostleship came as a charism of grace, a pneumatic gift. But this gift, this grace was no more separate from the Tradition than Christ is from the Father.

You see, the Tradition is not just a content-filled body of facts and commands, dogma and decrees. It is the very life of the Church itself. The life given it by Christ Jesus. In short, the Tradition is what Christ gives to his Body that she may know the truth, be set free, and remain in communion with the Holy Trinity. The Tradition tells us not only what to believe, but how to live.

Posted by: Clifton D. Healy at February 19, 2005 10:16 PM

Allow me to say how much I appreciate both discussion with someone who does't equate strong disagreement with personal insult and the consequent gracious tone of your responses.

I do not object to asking the intercessions of those believers who have gone before us based upon their being dead, but upon their being only human. I believe in the Christian afterlife. I do not believe that Scripture gives warrant for the notion that those in the afterlife have it within their nature to be able to hear, much less do anything about the number of requests that are being sent their way. The ability to hear and answer prayer is a divine attribute. Furthermore, prayer is an element of worship and is to be rendered to God alone. As to God being the God of the dead and not the living, the point here is not that the term "dead" is inappropriate to use concerning those who have, well, died. Several other places in Scripture do not hesititate to do so. In this case, Jesus was responding to the Sadducees, who did not believe in the resurrection. Their concept of "dead" did not include an afterlife and so Jesus makes this distinction.

I did not deny the efficacy of oral transmission for its intended and necessary function. I meant that oral transmission considered in itself (i.e., no corroborating written testimony and no living apostles or prophets) is insufficient for the transmission of truth from Aposotolic times to the present day; hence, the foresight to write it down. I would venture to say that, even in your own church, that part of the tradition that is not justified from Scripture is in written form somehwere else. If not, then there is no way of knowing that what is being practiced even goes back beyond living memory, much less to the Apostles. As to that period of time before Scripture could be written, I affirm the necessity of oral transmission and I do not deny its efficacy in the absence of Scripture (which would beg the question). This efficacy was certainly not hindered by the fact that the time it was needed was relatively short and that there were both apostles and prophets still alive to make sure it stayed on target. Remember, I am assuming the extreme long term limited efficacy of oral transmission, not the efficacy that would be required within the generation that it took to write the NT. No anthropological study has been devised that could demonstrate any attainment of the required accuracy for an oral transmission of a period of two millennia. In addition, the Church has not been composed solely of oral/aural cultures. To the extent that it isn't, the accuracy rate for exclusive oral transmission would drop even further. It would, in fact, be possible to find numerous cases in which even short term oral transmission in such cases was a dismal failure. My assumption of the limited efficacy of oral transmission under such conditions is a matter of common sense and does not require any Scriptural proof. It is possible, of course, that such oral transmission could attain the required accuracy as a result of divine providence. Lot's of things are possible, but where is the evidence that they're actually so? I won't say that the existence of Scripture proves the insufficiency of oral transmission. I will say that the existence of Scripture provides a strong argument against the necessity of a distinct tradition. Put another way, the claim to such a tradition is a de facto statement that Scripture is insufficient. If the Apostles were able to write down some of their tradition, then why not all of it? Additional tradition is certainly possible, but, if Scripture is sufficient, the extra traditions are not necessary.

The statement, "Any belief or practice..." both depends upon the veracity of and follows, "Scripture is the whole of Tradition," so I need only deal with the one. Another way of stating this is that Scripture is sufficient for the faith and practice of the Church ( I believe that the burden of proof is on those who would claim otherwise). In affirming the sufficiency of Scripture, I am not denying the necessity of such secondary standards as creeds or confessions, or of preaching. In each case, however, these are examples of tradition justified from Scripture properly exegeted ( and where they are not, such as Nicea II, we are required to ignore them). I am not equating Tradition with mere propositions, as though, somehwere, Scripture had to state which books belong in it. That which is scripture testifies of itself through the illumination of the Holy Spirit. The Church did not create either of the canons of Scripture; rather, it recognized them. Such recognition is the first step of and falls under the heading of the proper exegesis of Scripture. As to the different number of books in our respective Bibles, these are (correct me if I am wrong) limited to the OT canon. In this case, I find it rather ironic that it is the Protestant church that has not tampered with the traditional canon as recognized by the ancient Jewish church. Revelation 22:18,19 says, "I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life in the holy city, which are described in this book." This applies at least to the book of Revelation; however, I do not find convincing the argument that it applies only to Revelation. Rather, Revelation being the last portion of Scripture written, the application is to all of Scripture. What good would it do, after all, to forbid additions to this book if they could just as easily be tacked onto Luke? Extra-scriptural tradition does not escape. Inasmuch as it is presented with equal authority to Scripture, it constitutes just such a forbidden addition.

Insofar as you claim an extra-scriptural Tradition, the issue of fallibility seems to be more of a problem on your end. You claim an infallible church, but, if that church is made up of fallible people, where does this ecclesiastical infallibility come from? And, if I have misunderstood and you don't claim an infallible church, then where can you make the jump from fallibilty to authority? It's not a problem over here: Scripture is the infallible authority. [It may be an infallible authority for you, but this wouldn't cover that extra Tradition.]

I limited the tradition to work in the second example. Concerning the first, I wrote, "The traditions are, specifically, those things that Paul had already spoken and written to the church at Thessalonica." I have no problem saying that this included the whole of Tradition; but then, I define this as that which is now coextensive with Scripture. When I said that neither of these passages require reference to the whole body of Tradition, I meant that neither could be used to argue for the legitimacy of present day extra-Scriptural tradition. Your list of what this Tradition would include does nothing against my case, since every item you mention has been inscripturated.

I have no problem with non-Apostles transmitting apostolic Tradition, even if such transmission is oral. Given the incomplete status of Scripture at the time, this would have been necessary. Conversely, given that Scripture is now both complete and sufficient, I would argue that if it's not in Scripture, then whatever is being transmitted is not apostolic Tradition. This objection would not apply to Timothy.

Apostolic monolocality is not a problem. NT prophets shared the same authority as far as being the foundation of the Church, and who knows how many of them there were? But, even if the total number of apostles and prophets is quite meager, oral transmission by any number of other people would still be adequate to the task. The apostles and prophets need only initiate the Tradition. There were probably a number of churches that had nothing but Tradition for a while. But, I hope that you see that this is consistent with my case, even if you don't agree with it. The incomplete status of Scripture during the first century necessitated oral Tradition; the sufficiency of the completed Scripture today makes such oral Tradition obsolete.

Two options exist for those local congregations that did not have all of the NT: 1) They made do with what they had (unlikely, since the whole of Tradition is not only sufficient, but necessary); 2) they relied on oral Tradition. There is, however, no argument here that the legitimate content of that Tradition was any more than what is contained in the NT.

You are correct that Paul's apostleship was part of the Tradition. And how do we know this? Inscripturation.

I agree wholeheartedly with your final paragraph. Since I believe that the Tradition has been inscripturated, the only way that I can see for you to infer otherwise is if your own conception of Scripture is "just a content-filled body of facts and commands, dogma and decrees" Personally, I believe it to be the living Word of God.

Posted by: Kevin at February 20, 2005 11:02 PM

Kevin:

I have replied in a separate post today (22 Feb.). See my comments there.

Posted by: Clifton D. Healy at February 22, 2005 12:21 PM