The Necessity of Some Circles: The Self-Attesting Nature of Scripture
The Westminster tradition makes a distinction between “self-evident” and “self-attesting” or “self-authenticating” (autopiston; see Calvin’s Institutes, I.vii.5) and claims that Scripture is “self-attesting.” For example, the Westminster Confession of Faith 1.4 reads,
“The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, depends not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.”
The Westminster divines are careful to say that the authority of Holy Scripture resides in itself, i.e., there cannot be any authority “behind” Scripture except for God himself who is known through that Scripture. In other words, the Bible as Scripture has resident within itself its own authority. Self-attestation does not mean self-evident (as a subjective property—“it is self-evident to me”) in the way in which philosophers use the term. Rather, self-authority is an objective attribute of Scripture itself. This is no way means that Scripture compels agreement, as Scripture can of course be rejected. However, the point is that Scripture carries its own justification within itself.
Calvin as well seems to have similar thoughts as to the authority of Scripture:
“It is utterly vain then to pretend that the power of judging Scripture so lies with the church that its certainty depends upon churchly assent. Thus, while the church receives and gives its seal of approval to the Scriptures, it does not thereby render authentic what is otherwise doubtful or controversial. But because the church recognizes Scripture to be the truth of its own God, as a pious duty it unhesitatingly venerates Scripture. As to their question […] How can we be assured that this has sprung from God unless we have recourse to the decree of the church? – it is as if someone asked: Whence will we learn to distinguish light from darkness, white from black, sweet from bitter? Indeed, Scripture exhibits fully as clear evidence of its own truth as white and black things do of their color, or sweet and bitter things do of their taste” (Calvin’s Institutes, I.vii.2, p. 76, Ford Lewis Battles trans.)
Of course the question naturally arises, “How can we be assured that this is from God?” Calvin seems to say that this is like asking, “How do you distinguish between white and black, sweet from bitter—those things carry their attributes within themselves.” In section 5, Calvin writes, “It is not right to subject it to proof or reasoning.” In other words, Calvin is stressing that there is no higher authority to which we can appeal for truth. If you need a proof to establish the authority of Scripture, then the authority of Scripture depends on that proof. It depends then at least on another authority in order to show it as authoritative. In sum, Scripture as self-attesting, self-authenticating, self-authoritative means that Scripture carries that attribute in itself.
However, self-attestation does not exist in a vacuum. Again, quoting Calvin,
“Unless this certainty, higher and stronger than any human judgment, be present, it will be vain to fortify the authority of Scripture by arguments, to establish it by common agreement of the church, or to confirm it with other helps. For unless this foundation is laid, its authority will always remain in doubt. Conversely, once we have embraced it devoutly as its dignity deserves, and have recognized it to be above the common sort of things, those arguments – not strong enough before to engraft and fix the certainty of Scripture in our minds – become very useful aids” (Calvin’s Institutes, I.viii.1, pp. 81-82, Ford Lewis Battles trans.)
Here we note an interesting progression. First, we have the self-attestation of Scripture as our foundation, then given that, we can utilize evidence and arguments that are useful in our reasoning with others.
The notion of self-attestation might cause one to ask, “What then is the role of the Church in regard to Scripture?” We should not see Calvin’s emphasis on the autopiston of Scripture as a “doing away with the Church.” The Westminster Confession of Faith section 1.5 is instructive on this matter.
“We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to a high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture. And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it does abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God: yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.”
Here the divines are not dismissing the Church, but they do subordinate the Church to the authority of Scripture. Two things are mentioned in section 5: (1) objectively there are evidences in Scripture that we can point to in order to help people understand the authority of Scripture; (e.g. scope of the whole, many excellencies, consent of all the parts etc.). Hence, we have Scripture evidencing itself to be the Word of God; (2) subjectively we have the inward testimony of the Holy Spirit—hence, “our full persuasion and assurance is from the inward work of Holy Spirit.” For Calvin, there must be both an objective and a subjective element.
18 Responses so far
10:58 pm
C, I really think you should write a book on this subject. How about calling it, “The Self-Attestation of Scripture — For Girls” ?
[fyi to other readers --inside joke!]
11:29 pm
Rach,
Yeah, I could call it “Sassy Self-Attestation for Girls” or “Scripture and Circles for Females.” Ba-ha-ha-ha.
: )
4:18 pm
“Evangelio non crederem, nisi me auctoritas Ecclesiae admoneret” (St. Augustinus, Contra Ep. Manichaei quam vocant Fund. c. v.).
If Scripture’s “evidencing of itself” is so black and white, what makes St. Paul’s Letter to Philemon so “obviously canonical” and James’ Letter so “obviously uncanonical”?
4:57 pm
Greetings Otets Gregory,
Glad that you are back! The Westminster tradition would not claim that St. James’ epistle is “uncanonical.” Perhaps, you are referring to certain statements by Luther — a right “strawy epistle”. Even in light of such comments, Luther still included James epistle in his Bible (though he said he wanted to remove it). Calvin did not hold the same opinion as Luther, nor did the Westminster divines. See chapter 1, section 2 of the Westminster Confession of Faith. (The WCF is accessible through my blog–look on the “links of interest” section).
10:43 pm
The question remains: How is the canon of Sacred Scripture determined? Let’s modify the question for the Westminster tradtion: If Scripture’s “evidencing of itself” is so black and white, what makes Ecclesiastes (Qoheleth) so “obviously canonical” and the Book of Wisdom (I didn’t find it on the list of the Westminster Confession of Faith) so “obviously uncanonical”?
:)
11:34 pm
Let me try to answer your question with a question(s) :) Why did Simon Peter respond to Jesus’ question, “Who do you say I am?,” with, “You are the Christ, the Son of God.” What was Jesus’ answer? Was it you, Peter, have verified that I perform miraculous deeds? Or you have weighed the evidence and you have logically determined that I am the Christ? Also, which comes first believing that Scripture is the true Word of God or believing that Christ is God? Again, self-attestation is not the same as self-evident (what you seem to imply with your use of “so black and white”). Scripture attests to its own authority because it is from God (its objective quality) and the Holy Spirit bears witness to our hearts that it is indeed the Word of God (subjective aspect). Though there is certainly a form of circularity involved here, it is not a “vicious” circle and could perhaps be articulated along the lines of a necessary epistemic circularity. See William P. Alston’s article, “On Knowing that We Know: The Application to Religious Knowledge,” as found in Christian Perspectives on Religious Knowledge, edited by C. Stephen Evans and Merold Westphal. (Grand Rapids: Eerdman’s, 1993), pp. 15-39.
1:44 am
Your questions furnished only more questions! :)
You ask: Why did Simon Peter respond to Jesus’ question, “Who do you say I am?,” with, “You are the Christ, the Son of God.” What was Jesus’ answer? Was it you, Peter, have verified that I perform miraculous deeds? Or you have weighed the evidence and you have logically determined that I am the Christ?
No, Jesus answer was “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Christ establishes Peter as rock solid foundation for the authority of the Church as the “created infallible rule” in proposing and explicating those things that are to be held by faith.
The great reformed Biblical scholar, Herman Liderboss, in his Matthew commentary says, “The slight difference between these two words, petra and petros, has no special importance. The most likely explanation for the change from petros, Peter, masculine, to petra is that petra was the normal word for rock, because the feminine ending of this noun made it unsuitable as a man’s name; however, Simon was not called Petra but Petros. There is no good reason to think that Jesus switched from petros to petra to show that He was not speaking of the man Peter but of his confession as the foundation of the Church. The words “on this rock,” petra, indeed, refer to Peter. Because of the revelation he had received and the confession it had motivated in him, Peter was appointed by Jesus to lay the foundation of the future Church.”
You ask: Also, which comes first believing that Scripture is the true Word of God or believing that Christ is God?
Obviously, the nascent Church believed for many years before the New Testament was even written. Isn’t it just revelation that is necessary for belief?
You state: Again, self-attestation is not the same as self-evident (what you seem to imply with your use of “so black and white”).
That is what Calvin seems to imply: Indeed, Scripture exhibits fully as clear evidence of its own truth as white and black things do of their colour, or sweet and bitter things do of their taste” (Calvin’s Institutes, I.vii.2, p. 76, Ford Lewis Battles trans.)
You state: Scripture attests to its own authority because it is from God (its objective quality) and the Holy Spirit bears witness to our hearts that it is indeed the Word of God (subjective aspect).
But doesn’t the “subjective aspect” undermine the “objective quality?” You write that subjectively we have the inward testimony of the Holy Spirit — hence, “our full persuasion and assurance is from the inward work of Holy Spirit.” However, what happens if a person claiming to be equally enlightened by the inward testimony of the Holy Spirit believes another interpretation to be true? Who arbitrates? I mean, if you look around at how the Church spreads throughout the world, and how the Church encounters all kinds of crazies down through the ages, do you suppose that Jesus would say, “Well, once I give the Church this infallible scripture (the objective quality), there really is no need anymore for infallible interpretations of Scripture. The Church can hold together just with the infallible Bible.”
Oh, really? In just 500 years, there are literally thousands and thousands of denominations that are becoming ever more numerous continuously because they only go with the Bible. It points to the fact that we need an infallible interpretation of this infallible book. Don’t we? I mean, can you imagine the fathers of your country putting together the U.S. Constitution and mailing it out to every citizen and saying, “Fend for yourselves. Go it alone; with the spirit of Washington (subjective aspect) you will be guided to your proper interpretation.” What do you call that? Anarchy? You wouldn’t have lasted a month as a nation. The Constitution established a governmental structure with a court of final appeal, the Supreme Court, that is final in all matters of constitutional interpretation.
9:32 am
Greetings Otets Gregory,
The point of the Simon Peter example was to show that just as one must be given faith and divine illumination to “see” Jesus as God, so, too, one must be given faith and illumination to “see” and receive Scripture as the Word of God. When Jesus became Incarnate and walked on the earth, he was just as “objectively” God as He was prior to his Incarnation. However, He did not “compel” belief from everyone who simply encountered Him, even many who saw his miracles rejected him and attributed his works to Satan. Nonetheless, the “objective” truth so to speak of his Deity was not diminished. Those who did receive Him and believe in his name, did so because they were given the gift of faith. The same is true for belief in Scripture (or I should have said more broadly speaking, any “special revelation” of God speaking, which of course takes us all the way back to the Garden and is not limited to just the NT written scriptures. Of course in the Garden, we didn’t have the issue of a sin nature to deal with so Adam and Eve received God’s Word and didn’t have the “restistance/suppression” issue that we have in our postlapsarian state. There is of course the mystery of why they ate from the tree, but that is another topic…).
As to Calvin’s use of “black and white” and “sweet or bitter”. This has to be understood in light of the complexity of our postlapsarian state. Calvin is not saying that the truth of Scripture is so clear that people are just falling all over themselves to become Christians. That would be more along the lines of claiming that Scripture is self-evidently true and thus compels belief. Rather, Calvin’s emphasis is on the autopiston, self-authenticating, self-attesting nature of Scripture, which though having its authority resident within itself and being objectively true, can yet, because of our sinful nature be rejected, perverted and the clear truth of it suppressed. As one author explains,
“The psalmist [Ps. 19] readily speaks of God’s revelatory work through both nature (“the heavens”) and Scripture (“the law”). It is the same God who discloses Himself in both cases, through His works as well as His word. And God does not mumble. Men have been made to recognize His voice[…]The evidence is directly apprehended, and it is persuasive—leaving men without excuse. What we have said here about God’s revelation in the natural order is just as true of God’s revelation in Scripture. Men are so constituted as to recognize the words of the Bible as the authoritative voice of their Maker speaking to them. Scripture’s divine quality is perceived directly, just as the sweetness of candy or the wetness of water is immediately experienced without discursive argumentation (G. Bahnsen. Van Til’s Apologetic: Readings and Analysis, pp. 199-201.) The point here being that as Romans 1 indicates, though knowing God (gnotes ton theon), they suppressed the truth of God—(one must “possess” knowledge or truth before one can “suppress”). In light of our creation in God’s image and what Calvin refers to as an implanted sensus divinitatis–a kind of “pre-theoretical” knowledge of God, we know God and the truth of God, and this knowledge is not obtained at the end of syllogism, rather it is implanted by God in our own constitution and confronts us everywhere in creation—yet, because we are covenant breakers, we suppress it. The same author above continues, “At some point, the message claiming to be from God would have to be its own authority, and there is no reason, then, why that should not be at the first point. Thus, only God is adequate to bear witness to Himself or to authorize His own words. As Heb. 6:13 teaches, God can swear by nothing greater than Himself, in which case His word can be truly authorized only by His own word.” In other words, the most basic evidence that Scripture is God’s Word is its own testimony (it is self-attesting). Consequently, the Reformed tradition affirms that God speaks clearly both in nature and in His Word and has so created human beings as imago Dei (and has “implanted” in them a sensus divinitatis) that they cannot escape the knowledge of their Maker.
As to your last comment, “doesn’t the “subjective aspect” undermine the “objective quality?” No—that is, it doesn’t have to. As I noted in my post, neither Calvin nor the Westminster divines are dismissing the Church, but they do subordinate the Church to the authority of Scripture. E.g., in my denomination (Presbyterian), if a church member claimed to have some “vision” from the Holy Spirit or something of this sort that was clearly against Scripture, of course, that person would be questioned by the church elders who would exhort him/her to submit to the teaching of the Scripture and to the authority of the church and if he/she refused disciplinary action would be taken. Moreover, Calvin nor the Westminster tradition would claim that as you put it, “the Church can hold together just with the infallible Bible.” Not only do believers need the Word of God, but they need community with other believers, they need to partake in the sacraments, they need corporate prayer and to come together for worship—entering into the procession of the saints from all ages. Honestly, the picture that you present of Protestant “anarchy” strikes me as a bit of a caricature—the magisterial Reformers were not anti-tradition, nor are Anglicans and the Protestant Reformed today. (Though no doubt there are some expressions within Protestantism with which I cannot identify and would perhaps better fit your description–e.g., those who appear on TV). There is more to say, but I’ve got to rush off to school as I’m late!
Thanks for writing, Otets Gregory. This is a helpful converation.
Cynthia
3:48 pm
Since you are not anti-tradition, would you not agree that it is the “canon of tradition” that guarantees the “canon of scripture”?
Many are fond of claiming that the writer of Psalm 119 [you referred to Psalm 19?] knew what God’s word was [the subjective aspect] even though the Catholic Church wasn’t around to tell him what it was. But unless he was a prophet or had access to a prophet, the Psalmist did not have an infallibly known canon in his day. The canon was not yet finished, much less settled
How do we know which books belong in the Bible? The early Church’s answer was: Those books which are apostolic belong in the canon of scripture. If a book had been handed down by the apostles as scripture (like the books of the Old Testament) of if it was written by one of the apostles or their associates (like the books of the New Testament), it belonged in the Bible. Apostolicity was thus the test for canonicity.
The brilliant Protestant early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly writes:
“Unless a book could be shown to come from the pen of an apostle, or at least to have the authority of an apostle behind it, it was peremptorily rejected, however edifying or popular with the faithful it might be” (Early Christian Doctrines, 60).
But how could one know which books were apostolic? Certainly not by a book’s claim to be apostolic, since there were many false gospels and epistles circulating under the names of apostles. Neither did the Holy Spirit promise a revelation to each individual Christian of what books belonged in the Bible. But how was the test for apostolicity carried out in the early Church? Basically, there were two tests, both of them involving tradition.
First, those books were reckoned as apostolic which agreed with the teachings the apostles handed on to the Church. Gnostic scriptures and other writings which did not agree with the apostolic tradition were rejected out of hand.
Second, those books were regarded as apostolic which were preached in the various churches as being from the pen of an apostle or the associate of an apostle—not just its doctrines, but the book itself. If a given work was not regarded as apostolic and was not preached as such in the churches, then it was rejected. This was also an appeal to tradition because it looked to the tradition of the churches as a guide for apostolicity. If the tradition of the Churches did not recognize a book as apostolic, it was not canonized.
But of course not all of the Churches agreed. Some Protestant apologists are fond of pointing out that the Muratorian fragment, an early canon list dating from the A.D. 170s, includes most of the New Testament. But they fail to point out that the Muratorian fragment also omitted certain works from its canon. It did not include Hebrews, 1 and 2 Peter, and 3 John. Furthermore, it included works that the certain Protestant apologists would not regard as canonical: the Apocalypse of Peter and the Wisdom of Solomon. So there was obvious disagreement on the extent of the canon.
Eventually, the New Testament canon was settled at the Council of Rome in the year 382 under Pope Damasus I. Up to this point, its specific books were not firmly settled.
Now a Protestant apologist will either have to agree that the men at the Council of Rome included all of the right books and only the right books in the canon or he has to disagree. If he disagrees, then he is going to have to disagree with the New Testament canon in the very Bible he uses, because it was the Council of Rome that established that canon.
But if he agrees that the Council of Rome included all the right books and only the right books in the New Testament canon then he is going to have to say that the early Church made an infallible decision (infallible because they included all the right and only the right books, thus making an inerrant decision under God’s providential guidance—which is infallible guidance). They made this infallible decision three hundred years after the death of the last apostle. But if Church councils are capable of arriving at infallible decisions three hundred years after the death of the last apostle, the Protestant apologist has no reason to claim they are incapable of this later on in Church history.
The fact that when the Church made its decision it did so hundreds of years after the death of the last apostle is significant, but no less significant is the fact that when it made the decision it did so on the basis of tradition.
As we noted, the Church was confronted by conflicting traditions concerning which books should be included in scripture. Some traditions, for example, said that the book of Hebrews belonged in the canon; others said it did not. One of these traditions (the one indicating inclusion in the canon) was apostolic, the other (the one indicating exclusion) was merely human. In order to decide whether the book of Hebrews belongs in scripture, the Church had to decide in favour of one tradition over the other. Thus in order to settle the apostolicity of a scripture, it had to settle the apostolicity of a tradition.
As a result, the Church can not only make rulings of what is apostolic and what is not hundred of years after the death of the last apostle, it can also rule on which traditions are apostolic and which are not—and do so centuries into the Church age.
Therefore, the Church can rule on the “canon of tradition” the same way it ruled on the “canon of scripture.” The Church is the living Bride of Christ, and she recognizes the voice of her husband. She is able to point at proposed scriptures and say, “That one is apostolic; that one is not.” And she is able to point at proposed traditions and say, “That one is apostolic; that one is not. In this one I recognize the voice of my husband; in that one I do not.”
The mechanism by which we establish the canon of tradition is thus the same as the way we established the canon of scripture. The same principle works in both contexts. The Church is the witnesses to both canons.
Of course the Church has tests she uses to figure out what traditions are apostolic, just as she had tests to establish what scriptures were apostolic.
One test is whether a given tradition contradicts what has previously been revealed. As anti-Catholics often point out, proposed traditions must be tested against scripture. If a proposed tradition contradicts something God has said in scripture (or something said in already known apostolic tradition) then that shows it is merely a tradition of men and may be disregarded. The Church is thus more than happy to test proposed traditions against scripture.
Of course the Church also applied the flip-side of this test: In the early centuries any proposed scripture that did not match up with apostolic tradition was rejected from the canon of scripture. Thus when, in the second and third centuries, the writings of the Gnostics taught that Jesus was not God or that the God of the Old Testament was not the God of Jesus Christ, these books were summarily rejected on the basis of not matching up to the apostolic tradition.
Naturally, once a scripture has been tested and found to be canonical it is no longer subject to testing. Once a scripture has been shown to belong to the canon of scripture, it is no longer up for debate. Similarly, once a tradition has been tested and found to be canonical it is no longer subject up for debate either. Once a tradition has been shown to belong to the “canon of tradition”, it is no longer up subject to testing.
Apostolic Tradition was the key to the canon of scripture in two ways—by telling us what doctrines apostolic books must teach (or not teach) and by telling us which books themselves were written by the apostles and their associates.
Thus would you not agree that those who normally scoff at a “canon of tradition”, themselves are using a Bible based on tradition?
9:13 am
Otets Gregory,
I am familiar with the doctrine of apostolicity as the test for canonicity. Again, according to what I’ve been explaining as the self-attesting nature of Scripture, making apostolicity the test for the canon would be to put something “above” the canon to judge the canon. So in essence what I’m saying is that I reject your premises.
Consequently, your either/or (”Now a Protestant apologist will either have to agree that the men at the Council of Rome included all of the right books and only the right books in the canon or he has to disagree. If he disagrees, then he is going to have to disagree with the New Testament canon in the very Bible he uses, because it was the Council of Rome that established that canon.
But if he agrees that the Council of Rome included all the right books and only the right books in the New Testament canon then he is going to have to say that the early Church made an infallible decision (infallible because they included all the right and only the right books, thus making an inerrant decision under God’s providential guidance—which is infallible guidance). They made this infallible decision three hundred years after the death of the last apostle. But if Church councils are capable of arriving at infallible decisions three hundred years after the death of the last apostle, the Protestant apologist has no reason to claim they are incapable of this later on in Church history”)” doesn’t apply.
I’m beginning to wonder if we haven’t reached somewhat of a “dead-end” on this post?
11:35 am
I don’t know if I have reached a dead-end, but I definitely hit stone. Theologically, I can only maintain the premise (which you reject)that the canon of Scripture stands firmly on the canon of Tradition – on the very Rock of Peter.
“Of the dogmas and messages preserved in the Church, some we possess from written teaching and others we receive from the tradition of the apostles, handed on to us in mystery. In respect to piety, both are of the same force. No one will contradict any of these, no one, at any rate, who is even moderately versed in matters ecclesiastical. Indeed, were we to try to reject unwritten customs as having no great authority, we would unwittingly injure the gospel in its vitals; or rather, we would reduce [Christian] message to a mere term” (St. Basil the Great, “The Holy Spirit” 27:66 [A.D. 375]).
12:39 pm
Nice metaphor, Otets G. : )
Protestants, however, are not the only ones who reject this stone, viz., if by “very Rock of Peter” you imply papal authority. The Greek/Eastern Church does as well, focusing on a pneumatic/internal authority (Holy Spirit) rather than an external authority (pope). An excellent article on this topic is by Daniel Clendenin, “Orthodoxy on Scripture and Tradition: A Comparison With Reformed and Catholic Perspectives
Westminster Theological Journal. 1998.” As Clendenin points out, “A number of factors have contributed to the historical estrangement between Orthodoxy and Catholicism: liturgical differences, debate over the filioque clause, the Photian Schism of the ninth century, the mutual anathematizations in 1054, and the pillage of Constantinople in 1204 by Catholic Crusaders, not to mention a host of sociocultural issues. Important as all of these were (and are), they pale in comparison with the more fundamental issue of ecclesiastical authority, which issue emerges as the central question that still divides the two bodies of Christians. Its own pneumatic understanding of authority, in contrast to an external authority, has made Orthodoxy stubbornly resist the papacy as the criterion of truth. Succinctly put, the root of the divisions was and is the question: “What comes first, the institution guaranteeing the Truth, or Truth itself?” Furthermore, whatever similarities there are between Catholics and Orthodox regarding Scripture and tradition, such as granting equal respect to both sources as divine revelation, or the central role of the church over Scripture as its necessary interpreter, Orthodoxy considers the issue of the papacy so important that it sees its relationship with Rome as a discontinuous rather than continuous one.”
It doesn’t seem to me that accepting self-attestation of Scripture the way it is taught by WCF and Calvin in any way necessarily means that one rejects or eschews tradition. Perhaps one could say its more an issue of seeing “Tradition” with a big “T” vs. “tradition” with a little “t.” Clendenin gives in my opinion both a charitable and more accurate account the Reformers view of tradition, “the difference between the Reformers and Orthodoxy is not one of ‘Scripture or tradition’ but rather one of two different conceptions of tradition, the difference residing in two related aspects of the sola scriptura principle.
First, the principle of sola scriptura differentiates between the normative value of Scripture and tradition, and places the former squarely above and over the latter. It denies that Scripture and tradition are coequal norms for theology. For the Reformers the Bible was the divine, primary, absolute norm of God’s revelation, whereas tradition, valuable as it might be, was human, secondary, and relative. From their perspective this truth had been lost, so much so that the gospel had been obscured. [...] Given their own historical context, it is easy to understand their insistent distinction between Scripture and tradition. Luther would write, “What else do I contend for but to bring everyone to an understanding of the difference between the divine Scripture and human teaching or custom, so that a Christian may not take the one for the other and exchange gold for straw, silver for stubble, wood for precious stones?” As an ‘eloquent symbol and seal’ of the Reformers’ refusal to subordinate Scripture to tradition, Oberman recalls Luther’s burning of the books of canon law at the Elster Gate at Wittenberg on December 10, 1520.
This does not mean that the Reformers categorically rejected tradition, or even disparaged it outright, as is sometimes suggested. It is clear that they even saw themselves as restoring the church to fidelity to the patristic consensus. A reading of Calvin’s Institutes, for example, shows his indebtedness to the church fathers. Neither were they unaware of the dangers of individualistic and private interpretation of Scripture, and of the importance of the church context for the life of faith. What they objected to was the church’s elevation of tradition to the status of Scripture, and its arrogation to place itself above the Scriptures as its mediator.”
1:50 pm
I will definitely read Daniel Clendenin’s article. As you stated in another post, St. John “was no doubt cognizant that his claim of the Word becoming flesh would sound completely “out” to his hearers.” I likewise realise the “out-ness” of the Catholic’s “fleshy” claims about the Eucharist and the “incarnational” aspect of the Church as the Body of Christ, with a Visible Head, animated by the Holy Spirit. Yes, the “jazziness” of Catholicism can be quite shocking!
P.S. I think it was J. Pieper that once wrote (jokingly) that Luther wanted to burn the Summa Theologica, but couldn’t find anyone who would part with his copy.
4:22 pm
Hi Otets G.,
I have the Clendenin article as a word document so, I will email it to you.
“J. Pieper that once wrote (jokingly) that Luther wanted to burn the Summa Theologica, but couldn’t find anyone who would part with his copy.” I wouldn’t burn my copy either :)
Despite our differences, I am so glad that we can correspond about these things and at the end of the day, see each other as brother and sister in Christ.
Blessings,
Cynthia
5:42 am
The first epistle of St. Clement of Rome was a very important and highly venerated epistle before the Council of Rome. In some churches it was actually read during liturgical celebration and considered as part of their unofficial cannon. However, the Council of Rome decided NOT to include Clement’s epistle in what we now know as the New Testament books, though many Christians at the time thought and used it as if it was. They could have also argued that Clement’s epistle is self-attesting, but they didn’t.
My point is simple, if you argue that the Biblical texts, and especially the New Testament books, are self-attesting, and for this reason the Council was able to pick them out from all the other texts, then why did the early Church at that point in time even need the declaration of the Council? Is it not true that many churches were using some texts that were finally not included in what we today recognize as the New Testament? But why should this happen if the texts are intrinsically self-attesting? Why did so many churches not perceive the self-attesting nature of the “correct” texts?
The argument of scripture being self-attesting only works if you have a set body of work to begin with. This was not the case before the Council.
A simple experiment would be to mix the “self-attesting” books with books we “know” today as not being “self-attesting” and see if a pool of “devout” Christians can pick out the correct books because of their self-attesting nature. But of course, how can we do this experiment today since any devout Christian already knows the Bible! Do this experiment 1650 years ago and I’m sure you would end up with different Bibles.
8:16 am
Hi Raphael,
See my comments above to Otets G. There is no need for me to repeat the same thing over again. I understand your position, but I’m not sure that you understand mine.
Cynthia
12:08 pm
Hi Cynthia,
I think I should apologize for my previous comments. I think one of my difficulties lies with how I have been trained to think. My area of study is neither philosophy nor theology, but natural science. I am a biochemist, an enzymologist, a molecular biologist…
I think of experiments, I set them up with the proper controls, and then obtain data. This data is then used to generate a theory. The theory rests upon the data, that is, if you obtain data from another experiment that in any way contradicts or doesn’t sit well with the initial theory, then the theory must be changed or modified to fit all the data. Or, you may obtain data that agrees with your theory, or supports it; in this case you don’t have to change or modify the theory.
I said all this for one simple reason… I see all of church history as the data, be it Catholic, Protestant, heretic, etc. However, there isn’t only data, there are also theories that are intimately connected with the data, and these theories are also given to me. On top of this, all the theories depend on each other, so if one fails then many others fail too, and so on and so forth.
With this said, I don’t see the theory of “self-attesting” as fitting with the data, furthermore this theory conflicts with other theories that are essential Christian precepts.
So with this said, again, my apologies for my comments!
Raphael
Mt 4:4
12:55 pm
Hi Raphael,
No need to apologize. I completely understand and respect that you have a different view on this topic. My last comment was directed more to the fact that in my (very helpful) exchange with Otets G. (my good friend), I feel that I’ve adequately explained my position and do not see any reason to elaborate it again. I am quite happy to interact with differing views, as I find this a great way to learn. Please do continue to post and interact on this blog–I simply don’t have anything to add to this thread.
Blessings,
Cynthia
Leave a comment