Tradition Still Requires Interpretation

The Gospel Coalition ^ | 02/09/2011 | Kevin DeYoung

[RnMomof7]

One of the common Catholic objections to the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura is that without the Church to offer authoritative interpretations we are all just left with our own personal readings of Scripture. So, the argument goes, evangelicals may talk a big game about the Bible being our ultimate authority, but actually the final authority rests with each individual interpretation of Scripture. In light of this chaotic free-for-all, consider how much better is the Catholic understanding of authoritative Tradition with a capital T.

There are a number of ways an evangelical could respond to this argument.

1. Illumination. We believe the Spirit opens the eyes of his people so that spiritual things can be spiritually discerned (1 Cor. 2:6-16). This illumination is not limited to church councils.

2. Perspictuity. We believe that the main things of the Bible–sin, salvation, Christ, man, God, faith–can be clearly understood. Our God speaks and knows how to speak. Jesus and the apostles quoted Scripture all the time as if they believed there was a meaning in the text that they could understand and others ought to have understood as well.

3. History. At our best, evangelicals do not confuse sola scriptura with solo scriptura, the latter entailing a complete rejection of theological tradition. Creeds and confessions matter. The historic Christian faith matters. All councils, catechisms, and theologians are fallible, but this doesn’t mean we ignore the communion of the saints that have gone before. Biblical interpretation must be informed by and rooted in tradition, just not controlled by it.

Those three points could be elaborated for a thousand pages, but I want to focus on one other response to the Catholic argument against sola scriptura.

Interpretations Need Not Apply?

I respect Catholic theology for its intellectual history, its commitment to doctrinal precision, and for the many places it promotes historic orthodoxy. But I do not see how an appeal to authoritative church tradition, in its practical outworking, makes the interpretation of Scripture any more settled. In my experience, what it does is push the boundaries of the debate away from Scripture out to papal encyclicals and the like. This is fine to do as a means for establishing what Catholics have believed about Christian doctrine (much like I don’t think it’s a waste of time for Presbyterians to discuss the Westminster Confession of Faith). But here’s my point: just because you have an authoritative tradition doesn’t mean you won’t argue over the interpretation of that tradition.

For example, take the immigration debate. How should Christians view the ethics of immigration? Two evangelicals might both turn to the Bible and come up with a difference response. I’m not saying one answer wouldn’t be more right than the other (we’re not relativists or hard postmodernists when it comes to texts), but they could very well disagree even though they both adhere to sola scriptura. So do Catholics have an easier time giving a definitive answer? Clearly not.

In May 2008, First Things printed an exchange between two Catholics on the issue of immigration. This was how the “conservative” author began (three paragraphs in):

Is there a Christian answer to these urgent question? For Catholics at least, there are relevant teachings in the Catechism: (1) The “more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able,” to welcome foreigners in search of security or a livelihood; (2) there should be not “unjust discrimination” in employment against immigrants, and (3) the immigrants themselves should “obey” the receiving country’s laws. (40)

The author on the “left” also began with an appeal to Catholic Social Teaching:

Deriving its understanding from revelation and reason, the Catholic Church teaches (1) that persons have right to emigrate in search of a better life when poverty, hunger, unemployment, unrest, and similar factors greatly hinder human flourishing; (2) that states have a right to limit immigration when the common good of society requires it in due consideration of such factors as national security and the domestic economy, but not out of inconvenience, selfishness, or minor cost; and (3) that “more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin,” as the Catechism puts it. (44)

Both authors are obviously working with the same material, and both quote the part about prosperous nations being obliged to welcome immigrants. But you can already see they are going in different directions. The first author’s third point highlights the need for immigrants to obey the laws of the land, while the second author’s second point goes out of the way to say that nations cannot refuse immigrants out of selfishness. Same tradition, but still a debate.

Interestingly, both authors go on to interact with various Cardinals and Bishops, but neither quotes from Scripture. This doesn’t mean their arguments can’t be scriptural, it is simply to make the point that the debate centers on interpretations of interpretations.

A Tangled Mess Too

This leads to one last thought. Just because Protestants have a bazillion denominations and Catholics have, well, the Catholic Church, doesn’t mean that the Catholic Church is any less a mishmash of traditions. They have under a more formal unity just as many competing ideologies and theologies.

For example, here’s Russell Hittinger, Professor of Catholic Studies at the University of Tulsa, writing about the thought of Thomas Aquinas:

The past century and a half of papal teaching on modern times often seems like a tangle: any number of different strands–theology, Thomistic philosophy, social theory, economics–all snarled together. And yet a little historical analysis may help loosen the know.
In fact, a careful reading of papal documents reveals one of the main causes of the tangle.
Throughout Catholic thought over the past hundred and fifty years, they have run two quite different uses of Thomism–a combination of four threads weaving in and out of the Catholic Church’s response to the strangeness of modern times. (First Things June/July 2008, 33)

Later, as a case in point, Hittenger explains (in a sentence that will make sense to few Protestants):

The affirmations to be negated in Pius IX’s 1864 Syllabus became affirmation to be affirmed in Leo XIII’s famous 1892 encyclical Rerum Novarum–positive statements on Catholic teaching on modern social and political issues. (35)

In the end, the best arguments of sola scriptura come from the way Scripture views Scripture. I recognize I haven’t done much of that here. But clearing away counter-arguments is important too. And one of the most common is the charge that Protestantism got rid of one infallible Pope, just to put a million little popes in his place. Makes a good evangelical wince a little, doesn’t it? But before you take a step or two in the direction of Rome, remember that even one Pope has a million interpreters.

[HossB86]

You need to read some more Scripture. The New Covenant fulfills the Old Covenant. The New Testament fulfills the Old Testament.

Really? I'd a never known that. Puh-lease. I think you need to ACTUALLY READ the Scripture yourself, seeking discernment through The Holy Spirit and see what God actually wrote instead of what the Magicsterium* tells you God wrote.

You really should; Rome has you (and sadly many,many more) snowed.

Hoss

*Quixificated description

[HossB86]

Tradition is the Word of God that was handed down from person to person in ancient times until it was written down in the Bible.

Really? Did the Vatican change definitions on you again? Maybe you forgot to read the latest set of errata?

Roman Catholics on here have been pounding the "fact" that there is "holy" tradition AND Scripture--now you're saying tradition IS scripture...

Y'all need to take a minute and get back on the same (wrong) page before you all start looking foolish....

Er... Strike that. Too late.

Hoss

[paladinan]

Have you not read that RnMomof7 is not the author of the piece?

Of course, I did. But she introduced and praised the piece here, did she not? Are you suggesting that it's forbidden for me to ask questions of anyone but the original author? That's... odd. And I do think I was civil in my questions/comments, wasn't I... especially since RnMomof7 had no scruples against posting a direct criticism of the Church to Whom I belong? I have no animus against her... but it's bizarre for you to suggest that I not broach the subject with the one who brought up the topic in the first place!

Care to argue your points with the author?

If you can persuade the author to come to this thread, I'd be happy to debate the points with him/her. Otherwise, no... sorry. I have little enough free time as it is, without chasing down every random website of every last author obliquely referenced on FR. I assume that, if someone introduces and defends article [x], then that someone shouldn't be surprised at questions/comments about it... and nor should other random post-ers (such as yourself). I'm not quite sure why you took this [i.e. my comments to RnMomof7] up as an issue, anyway.

If others happen to agree that’s one thing. But your post seems to ascribe the authorship to RM7.

I have no idea, whatsoever, how you get to that conclusion. It doesn't follow from anything I said or did. Again, what's your particular beef, here?

[paladinan]

Hint, FRiend: you may get more civil and pertinent replies if you make some efforts not to come across as less crowing, less self-congratulating, and less mocking. If your arguments are sound, they should stand up without that sort of nonsense.

More later, as time allows...

[paladinan]

(*sigh*) Speed-typing gets me, again! The above, of course, should read:

"...if you make some efforts not to come across as less crowing, less self-congratulating, and less mocking."

[HossB86]

I do not doubt that I could have mis-read what was written; however, the tone of the replies struck me as more of addressing RnMomof7 as the source of the piece as opposed to the poster.

If I took it in error, my mistake and my apologies.

As for my the ‘hint’ — well, call it my sense of humor. As to sound arguments, based on other posters (not necessarily you, mind you), the soundness or accuracy of what I say means nothing.

Again — apologies if I mistook the reply —

Hoss

[HossB86]

Speed typing and speed reading both get me sometimes. May have been my problem this morning. Too early and no coffee.

:D

Hoss

[paladinan]

:) No harm, no foul!

[dartuser]

through both Scripture and the Tradition as passed on from the Apostles,

This RCC belief ... that the traditions of the RCC not contained in the Bible, are apostolic ... is itself an RCC tradition.

[RnMomof7]

When the Holy Spirit inspired the roles for the NT church.. there is no priest, no pope, no confessional. no mass, and no prayers for the dead.. quoting the roles in the jewish temple or Jewish practices does not "help " your cause." .

We are under a new and everlasting covenant..

Those OT points to Christ.. and He fulfilled it..

No where do you read anywhere in the NT that the NT church had priests or a pope..

The Roman church is NOT the NT church as the apostles and disciples outlined it

Greg Dues has written Catholic Customs & Traditions, a popular guide (New London: Twenty Third Publications, 2007). On page 166 he states,

"Priesthood as we know it in the Catholic church was unheard of during the first generation of Christianity, because at that time priesthood was still associated with animal sacrifices in both the Jewish and pagan religions."

"A clearly defined local leadership in the form of elders, or presbyteroi, became still more important when the original apostles and disciples of Jesus died. The chief elder in each community was often called the episkopos (Greek, 'overseer'). In English this came to be translated as 'bishop' (Latin, episcopus). Ordinarily he presided over the community's Eucharistic assembly."

"When the Eucharist came to be regarded as a sacrifice, the role of the bishop took on a priestly dimension. By the third century bishops were considered priests. Presbyters or elders sometimes substituted for the bishop at the Eucharist. By the end of the third century people all over were using the title 'priest' (hierus in Greek and sacerdos in Latin) for whoever presided at the Eucharist."

[RnMomof7]

The Catholic Church had a foundation in Holy Tradition long before the Bibble was recorded (even the Old Testament.)

Sal you are too smart to say something this foolish

[RnMomof7]

Sal,

Protestant scholars and theologians will study and debate the meaning of Scripture.. Catholics scholars and theologians study and debate the church Fathers and tradition

The fact is Catholics can say tradition is not a "present thing" ..but the interpretation of it is

The best example is of course the immaculate conception and the assumption ...centuries went by without them being seen as a TRUTH

So tomorrow the magisterium could discover another tradition that has always been there but never discovered and call it doctrine..

That is the problem with basing your faith on the tradition men dig up.. they are truly the traditions of men..

[bkaycee]

John 21: (We'll be using the KJV today, kids, to keep things on even footing):

"And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen."

The Bible Itself declares that it doesn't contain everything.

Offcourse that verse is talking about, "things which Jesus did", not doctrine or oral tradition.

Can you give us a list of these Apostolic Oral traditions we keep hearing about?

[paladinan]

When the Holy Spirit inspired the roles for the NT church.. there is no priest, no pope, no confessional. no mass, and no prayers for the dead

I think we covered this, already. If you're looking for the English words "priest", "Pope" or "confessional" (and you do remember what I said about confessionals being an optional structure? Confessions can be heard anywhere, if there's need), then I really don't know what to tell you, aside from wondering why you'd expect them. The approach of "if I don't see the English word in my English Bible, I won't believe it", isn't the best way to discern truth from error... especially since the Bible wasn't written in English.

quoting the roles in the jewish temple or Jewish practices does not "help your cause."

Well... since you're insisting on the "if it isn't in the Bible, don't believe it" standard, isn't it fair for me to ask you to show me where, in the Bible (book, chapter and verse), it says that every last "Jewish practice" (such as honouring your father and mother, refraining from murder, etc.) is now eliminated? Obviously, some of them were eliminated (such as kosher dietary laws), and some were not (such as the Ten Commandments). Can you tell me how (from Scripture alone) you arrive at an itemized list of which are still "binding"?

We are under a new and everlasting covenant..

Of course.

Those OT points to Christ.. and He fulfilled it..

Of course. But "fulfilled" doesn't translate as "threw everything even remotely resembling it into the dust-bin"!

No where do you read anywhere in the NT that the NT church had priests or a pope..

Here's the same problem: you seem to be looking for the words "priest" and "pope", and--not finding them--you assume that they don't exist. Are you familiar with the origin of the word "Pope", for example? It comes from the Greek word "Pappas", meaning "Father" (and you may already know that Catholics address the Pope as "Holy Father"). The Pope is the successor of St. Peter (Pope Benedict XVI is the 265th pope, in unbroken succession, from St. Peter), and the Bishop of Rome; he is the "prime minister" (Hebrew: "al-bayyit" = "over the household") of the King of Kings. Compare the texts of Isaiah 22 and Matthew 18, and see if you can notice a parallel. The word "Pope" is a convenience (albeit one laden with deep meaning); if you changed his title, his office and authority would still be the same.

My earlier question stands, as well: do you (personally) believe in the Trinity (i.e. God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit = One God)? If so, do you have a problem with the fact that the word "Trinity" is nowhere to be found in Scripture?

The Roman church is NOT the NT church as the apostles and disciples outlined it

You'll have to explain your reasoning for saying so, before I could answer further on that point.

Greg Dues has written Catholic Customs & Traditions, a popular guide (New London: Twenty Third Publications, 2007).

Er... that's interesting, to be sure... but how, exactly, do you judge him to be an incontrovertible authority on all things Catholic? If you want to know what the Church says about Herself, wouldn't it be more logical to go to the Catechism, or to official documents, rather than a random author with no particular pedigree?

[RnMomof7]

I think we covered this, already. If you're looking for the English words "priest", "Pope" The approach of "if I don't see the English word in my English Bible, I won't believe it", isn't the best way to discern truth from error... especially since the Bible wasn't written in English.

No YOU covered it ...I looked for the GREEK words in the NT church and they were not there. NOT THERE , that is because the priesthood was a type of Christ in the OT...Christ offered the final sacrifice that fulfilled the type..NO MORE FUTURE sacrifices were needed.

If there was to be a priesthood in the NT the role would have been designated ...not there..

The role of a Priest was to sacrifice ...there were to be no further sacrifices for sin after Christ, the sacrifices were a type of Christ, the priest was a type of Christ.. all complete at the cross.. THAT is why there no longer a need for priests .

God put an exclamation point on the end of the priesthood in 70 AD when the temple was destroyed and all the genealogies that were needed for the priesthood were destroyed.. God destroyed the type as it was no longer necessary.. but Rome in her apostasy decided to over rule God and start a priesthood for itself

There was no one on one confessions in the NT church ...the early church had a time for public confessions in their services ...but there is no record that Peter or any of the apostles ever "heard" a confession" , in fact the NT tells us to go directly to the throne of God for mercy..

Here's the same problem: you seem to be looking for the words "priest" and "pope", and--not finding them--you assume that they don't exist. Are you familiar with the origin of the word "Pope", for example? It comes from the Greek word "Pappas", meaning "Father

Is there ANY record of Peter being called "Father "..... nope not a one

Mat 23:9 And call no [man] your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

The Pope is the successor of St. Peter (Pope Benedict XVI is the 265th pope, in unbroken succession, from St. Peter), and the Bishop of Rome; he is the "prime minister" (Hebrew: "al-bayyit" = "over the household") of the King of Kings. Compare the texts of Isaiah 22 and Matthew 18, and see if you can notice a parallel. The word "Pope" is a convenience (albeit one laden with deep meaning); if you changed his title, his office and authority would still be the same.

Actually there is no clear line of the papacy if one is HONEST

But even if there was a clear line of succession ..it means nothing ... because there is no papacy in the scriptures.. it is a man made institution ...and one that can not even prove peter was ever the bishop of Rome

In the early church those leading worship were called the clerk, not the priest You'll have to explain your reasoning for saying so, before I could answer further on that point.

I have, but will do it again

the greek word for elder is different than the greek words for priest.. archiereus which translates into "High Priest" and hiereus which translates one that OFFERS SACRIFICES.

The role of the priesthood in scripture was to offer sacrifices.. That is what a priest does in scripture.. God set aside one tribe to be priests, they were not granted any land as God was their inheritance .

The bible is written in greek there are a couple words for priest the holy Spirit could have used if that was Gods design..

hiereus

1) a priest, one who offers sacrifices and in general in busied with sacred rites
a) referring to priests of Gentiles or the Jews,
2) metaph. of Christians, because, purified by the blood of Christ and brought into close intercourse with God, they devote their life to him alone and to Christ

and archiereus

1) chief priest, high priest
2) the high priests, these comprise in addition to one holding the high priestly office, both those who had previously discharged it and although disposed, continued to have great power in the State, as well as the members of the families from which high priest were created, provided that they had much influence in public affairs.
3) Used of Christ because by undergoing a bloody death he offered himself as an expiatory sacrifice to God, and has entered into the heavenly sanctuary where he continually intercedes on our behalf.

Neither role is given in scripture for the new church ..

There is no priesthood in the new church. Greek is very clear on that . There is a word for priest in greek and it is NEVER USED FOR THE NEW CHURCH. That word is "hiereus", the greek word for elder is presbyteros'''.

Elders is a leadership role, not a roll of sacrificer .

You see the scriptural division in passages like this

Mark 15;1And straightway in the morning the chief priests held a consultation with the elders and scribes and the whole council, and bound Jesus, and carried him away, and delivered him to Pilate.

Young's Literal Translation

Acts 4:5 And it came to pass upon the morrow, there were gathered together of them the rulers, and elders, and scribes, to Jerusalem,

Even the Douay-Rheims Bible does not translate that as priests.. Acts 4:5 And it came to pass on the morrow, that their princes, and ancients, and scribes, were gathered together in Jerusalem;

A poor translation from the greek, but non the less even they did not translate it as priest.

[paladinan]

I looked for the GREEK words in the NT church and they were not there. NOT THERE

I think you missed my point. Don't you see the irony in what you're saying? Your original post was about Catholic criticism of "sola Scriptura"... but now, you try to dismiss Catholic teachings *because* they're apparently "not in the Bible" (i.e. they violate "sola Scriptura"). That's what's called a "circular argument"--assuming your own conclusion in order to prove it--and it simply won't do. How do you justify defending sola Scriptura with sola Scriptura?

Case in point: if the words "pope", "priest", "Confession", etc., are not in the Bible (in whatever language you like) by name, per se, but they're in there by identity (e.g. the Trinity is in the Bible, as I think(?) you'll agree--but nowhere is the word "Trinity" mentioned in Scripture, even once), how does that advance your case? I'm not a "sola Scriptura" adherent (especially since "sola Scriptura", ironically enough, is nowhere to be found in the Bible, even conceptually--to say nothing of the actual words), so I'm really not distressed over the lack of explicit Scriptural mention of any of the above. If, for example, Christ gave His Apostles the authority to forgive sins (and He did: cf. John 20:23), then it makes no difference, whatsoever, if the mechanism for that forgiveness is called "Penance", "Confession", "Reconciliation", or (with apologies to G.K. Chesterton) "Rumtyfoo"; the fact is the fact.

By the way: DO you believe in the Trinity?

[editor-surveyor]

>> “The Bible Itself declares that it doesn’t contain everything” <<

.
Absolute falsehood!

Here is what the Bible says:

>> “And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.”

.
That speaks only of the acts and miracles that Jesus performed, not the basis of salvation, nor any function of the body of Christ. All of that is not only in the Bible, but in it in numerous places.

You don’t even have to have the New Testament to find Christ in the Bible.

[editor-surveyor]

>> I think you missed my point. Don’t you see the irony in what you’re saying? Your original post was about Catholic criticism of “sola Scriptura”... but now, you try to dismiss Catholic teachings *because* they’re apparently “not in the Bible” (i.e. they violate “sola Scriptura”). That’s what’s called a “circular argument”—assuming your own conclusion in order to prove it—and it simply won’t do. How do you justify defending sola Scriptura with sola Scriptura?<<

.
Now there is some circular reasoning!

What is wrong with most of catholic teaching isn’t just that they’re not in the Bible, but that they are in violation of what is in the Bible.

Capiche?
.

[Salvation]

It could be talking about doctrine and the traditions that Jesus set forth. How do you know it doesn’t talk about them in that one to one hand-me-down telling of the Gospel?

[RnMomof7]

I think you missed my point.

I think YOU miss the point.. your church claims its AUTHORITY from the bible. .but then dismisses everything they do not like

The only INFALLIBLE history of the foundation of the church is found in the bible.. and the bible is written in greek..so the greek has significance

The Holy Spirit made no allowance for a priesthood or papacy in the NT church

BTW the Trinity (unlike a NT priesthood) IS taught in the scriptures ... from the OT to the NT..