Reconstructing the Relationship of Scripture and Tradition in the Light of Sola

The sola Scriptura principle inevitably poses a question about the relationship between Scripture and tradition because it appears to put aside any reference to tradition in the formation of Christian doctrine. However, unlike the radical wing of the Reformation, the magisterial Reformers had a very positive understanding of tradition. As McGrath (1999:155) points out, the idea of a traditional interpretation of Scripture was acceptable to the magisterial Reformers, ‘provided that this traditional interpretation could be

justified’ [McGrath’s italics]. From such a point of view, the magisterial Reformers

retained most traditional doctrines of the church, such as the divinity of Christ, the doctrine of the Trinity, and infant baptism, which were rejected by the radical wing for the reason of “non-scriptural.” The magisterial Reformers were convinced that those traditional interpretations of Scripture were consistent with Scripture and hence correct. In addition, the Reformers used to appeal to the fathers of the church as generally

134

reliable interpreters of Scripture. For example, Calvin’s writings contain plenty of references to the church fathers.71 _{In particular, Calvin seemed to align the programme}

of the Reformation with Augustine.72

In spite of the magisterial Reformers’ affirmative, yet qualified, attitude towards tradition, however, the Reformers’ elevation of sola Scriptura in the context of ongoing polemic against the Catholic Church served as a cause of the so-called “Protestant antitraditionalism.” The Reformation loyalty to Scripture eventually issued a serious theological challenge to tradition. The significance of tradition within the trajectory of Protestantism has been continually diminished — though not eclipsed —, and the separation of Scripture and tradition has been exacerbated (Franke 2004:198-199). Concerning the consequence of this historical trajectory, John Franke (2004:200) states succinctly as such:

Since the sixteenth century, Protestants have generally looked on tradition with considerable suspicion. The constant polemic against the Catholic position became, and continues to be in some contexts, a staple of Protestant theological exposition. In many respects, the denial of tradition as an authoritative source for theological construction has even constituted the Protestant raison d’être. This negative attitude toward tradition born in the Reformation came to maturation in three contexts: the elimination of tradition in Anabaptist theology, the devaluation of tradition in Protestant orthodoxy and the undercutting of tradition in the Enlightenment.73

To be sure, the profound influences of these historical contexts contributed significantly to the shape of conservative-evangelical thought towards the virtual elimination of tradition.

71 _{On Calvin’s use of the early church and medieval traditions, see Lane (1981). According to Lane}

(1981:159), ‘Calvin’s use of the fathers is primarily, but not exclusively, polemical.’ That is, by naming and citing the fathers, Calvin considered them as authorities, although they might be seen as lesser authorities in that their teachings should be subject to the final authority of Scripture.

72 _{On the uniqueness of Augustine among the church fathers in Calvin’s writings, see Han Sung-Jin’s}

Stellenbosch doctoral dissertation, Augustine and Calvin: The Use of Augustine in Calvin’s writings (2003).

135

In my view, historical development that eventually resulted in the mutually exclusive relationship between Scripture and tradition has brought about the subsequent alienation between authoritative text and interpreting community, between authority and hermeneutics, and so on. However, a proper understanding of the Reformation principle of sola Scriptura would open up the way forwards reconstructing the relationship between Scripture and tradition in a way that integrates them. To this end, we need to draw out some helpful implications of sola Scriptura as below.

Firstly, the Reformation sola Scriptura principle means in no sense nulla traditio. As Vanhoozer (2005:233) cogently puts it, sola Scriptura was not meant for ‘a protest against tradition as such but against the presumption of coincidence between church

teaching and tradition’ [Vanhoozer’s italics]. ‘The Reformation,’ goes on Vanhoozer

(2005:233), ‘was not a matter of Scripture versus tradition but of reclaiming the ancient tradition as a correct interpretation of Scripture versus later distortions of that tradition.’ The sola Scriptura principle does not obviate the necessity of interpretation and of interpretative tradition. Scripture must be interpreted and this interpreting activity always takes place and is shaped in the theological and cultural context in which interpreters participate. Thus, as Bloesch (1994:155) felicitously expresses it, ‘[t]he church without Scripture is blind; Scripture without the church is empty.’ It must be affirmed without reservation that Scripture alone is the supreme norm for Christian faith and practice; however, the other side of the dialectic must be asserted, namely that this norm is not effective apart from the church. The church is ‘an interpretative tradition, a communally embodied, living, and active commentary on Scripture’ (Vanhoozer 2003a:168). From this, it would be justifiable to say that without the Christian community, the biblical texts would not have taken their distinctive shape; furthermore, the Christian Bible would not even exist.

Secondly, the church or tradition has a ministerial authority in determining matters of doctrine and life in the community, whereas the authority of Scripture remains always

magisterial (Fackre 1987:94; Horton 2009:22-23). Tradition is necessary to Scripture,

yet corrigible by Scripture. Ecclesiastical authority is derived from Scripture through which God the Holy Spirit is speaking and thus is subservient to the authority of

136

Scripture. To recognise the ministerial authority of tradition is not to say that tradition stands alongside Scripture as a parallel source of authority. Scripture as “norming norm” has the sovereign authority; tradition as “normed norm” has the subordinate authority. If the relationship of Scripture and church is to be referred to in terms of speaking and

hearing, church tradition is best described as ‘a hearing of the Word rather than a fresh

act of speaking’ (Webster 2003:51).

Thirdly, the Reformation principle sola Scriptura is a critical principle asserting that church tradition, which presents itself as an interpretation and application of Scripture, must be tested and evaluated by Scripture. Sola Scriptura is a claim that Scripture is something over against tradition — even if it is also within tradition —, by which the authenticity of tradition may be assessed and by which the development of tradition may be guided (Wood 1987:9). Insofar as sola Scriptura has a key role to call into question the authenticity of any human tradition, it can be rehabilitated in and carry considerable implications in our postmodern context. In the following section, I will develop and press this crucial point.