We affirm that the Scriptures are the supreme written norm by which God binds the conscience, and that the authority of the Church is subordinate to that of Scripture.
We deny that church creeds, councils, or declarations have authority greater than or equal to the authority of the Bible.
The second article continues with the theme of authority but now moves to deal specifically with “the unique authority of the Bible with respect to binding the consciences of men.”30 Accordingly, Article II affirms that the Scriptures are the
“supreme written norm” to which human conscience is bound, while other written documents, although important, do not possess authority equal or superior to that of the Scriptures. Sproul notes, nevertheless, that the statements in Article II are not meant to imply that Christians can disregard authority structures or other written norms, for “the Bible itself exhorts us to obey the civil magistrates,” and there are extra-biblical
documents that are significant for the life of the church.31 Rather, the intention of the article is to designate Scripture as the highest authority under which all other authorities
30Sproul, Explaining Inerrancy, 9.
31Ibid., 10.
exercise their authority, and that which Christians are finally beholden to obey if conflict arises between the Bible these other authorities.
It is concerning this issue of tradition, however, that Grenz and Franke register their concern that evangelicals have not rightly understood biblical authority.32 In their view, because the Spirit is the one responsible for “both the development and formation of the community as well as the production of the biblical documents and the coming together of the Bible into a single canon,”33 the “authority of both Scripture and tradition is ultimately an authority derived from the Spirit.”34 They continue,
Each is part of an organic unity, so that even though scripture and tradition are distinguishable, they are fundamentally inseparable. In other words, neither scripture nor tradition is inherently authoritative in the foundationalist sense of providing self-evident, noninferential, incorrigiable grounds for constructing theological assertions. The authority of each—tradition as well as Scripture—is contingent on the work of the Spirit, and both scripture and tradition are
fundamental components within an interrelated web of beliefs that constitutes the Christian faith. To misconstrue the shape of this relationship by setting scripture over against tradition or by elevating tradition above scripture is to fail to
comprehend properly the work of the Spirit. Moreover, to do so is, in the final analysis, a distortion of the authority of the triune God in the church.35 Although it is true that God has delivered his Word through historical means and incorporated theological tradition as a vital component for interpreting this Word, it is incorrect to place Scripture and tradition on the same plane of authority. The main error
32Although Article II originally sought to establish a clear distinction between a Roman Catholic and Protestant understanding of authority vis-à-vis Scripture and tradition, I am placing my discussion of Grenz and Franke under this section because their concerns relate specifically to these issues (of authority, Scripture, and tradition) even if they are not taken up from within a Roman Catholic framework.
33Stanley Grenz and John Franke, Beyond Foundationalism: Shaping Theology in a Postmodern Context (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001), 116.
34Ibid., 117.
35Ibid.
that Grenz and Franke make at this point is that they have conflated the Spirit’s work of inspiration in Scripture with the Spirit’s work of guidance in tradition. Protestants have typically (with the exception of some radical groups) regarded tradition as one of the Spirit’s tools for affirming biblically faithful theological formulations and correcting wayward ones. God has used the rule of faith/canon of truth (Irenaus, Tertullian), the early creeds (e.g., Nicene, Chalcedon), the writings of Christian theologians throughout the centuries (e.g., Anselm, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Edwards, Bavinck, Warfield) and the development of robust statements of faith (e.g., The Westminster Confession, The Helvetic Confession, The London Confession) to help establish sound doctrine in his church and mark parameters within which it can safely practice its theological reflections.
In a very real sense, then, the Spirit is doing a genuine work of doctrinal guidance in the church for its well being and blessing. But we can only affirm this work of guidance—
and herein lies the need for a clear distinction between Scripture and tradition—inasmuch as such guidance is found to be in accordance with Scripture. The Spirit’s work of
inspiring Scripture and his work of guiding the church in its theological tradition are two qualitatively different works: the former produced the very word of God while the latter serves as a tool to help the church rightly understand and affirm the teaching of that word. Peter Jenson rightly comments,
However respectful we may rightly be of tradition, which gives a vote to the past, we need to recognize that it is at its most useful in helping us to interpret Scripture.
But it can achieve this role satisfactorily only if we recognize that the word of God (even a traditional word of God) must take sovereign priority over tradition, no matter how venerable the latter may be or how suitable it was for a bygone age. The sharpness of the gospel must not be compromised.36
36Jenson, The Revelation of God, 171.
These two works of the Spirit, therefore, must be kept distinct and in their proper order with inspiration viewed as the ontologically superior work.37 Indeed, by granting Scripture and tradition equal authority as Grenz and Franke have done is to, using their own words, “misconstrue the work of the Spirit.”38
There is a growing tendency, however, especially within contemporary
evangelicalism, to disregard the doctrinal consensus of the past and view tradition with a measure of distrust. Instead of using an appeal to tradition to sanction unbiblical
practices, “much contemporary church life seems to suggest that we are the first Christians, and that we begin with the Bible and nothing else.”39 Yet, such a mind-set toward tradition forgets that “every Christian is heir to the interpretation of the Bible that issued in the great Christological and trinitarian dogmas. These shape the very nature of our Christianity, whether we know it or not.”40 How important are these theological traditions? Jenson explains, “They constitute authorized, traditional ways of reading the Bible. The Bible stands over them and independent of them in principle, but every generation that passes simply confirms that they are, in essence, the true reading of
37Although God’s guidance in tradition and God’s inspiration of Scripture are both works of the Spirit, I believe it is correct to claim an ontological superiority for inspiration because its final product (Scripture) is ontologically superior to tradition’s final product (agreed-upon theological formulations).
That is, the very nature of Scripture is fundamentally different from the nature of tradition because the former is the very word of God while the latter is not.
38My critique of Grenz and Franke at this point assumes the inadequacy of their anti- foundationalist epistemology. For a critique of antifoundationalism and a proposal of modest
foundationalism, see J. P. Moreland and Garrett DeWeese, “The Premature Report of Foundationalism’s Demise,” in Reclaiming the Center: Confronting Evangelical Accommodation in Postmodern Times, ed.
Millard J. Erickson, Paul Kjoss Helseth, and Justin Taylor (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2004), 81-107.
39Jenson, The Revelation of God, 171.
40Ibid.
Scripture and so unrepealable.”41 So while Grenz and Franke do not maintain a sharp enough distinction between Scripture and tradition, evangelicals must take care not to react in such a way so as to banish tradition from its rightful place as a God-ordained parameter within which to conduct our interpretative work. To do so actually would be to depart from our Protestant heritage. Daniel Treier comments,
The Protestant distinctive of sola Scriptura, “Scripture alone,” rejects the
“coincidence” and “supplementary” views of Tradition’s relation to Scripture in favor of an “ancillary” view: contrary to popular misconceptions of nuda scriputura, tradition plays a vital role when understanding God’s revelation via Scripture, but the role is “ministerial” rather than magisterial. Scripture is the final authority over, but not the sole source of, Christian belief and practice.42
For the reasons outlined above, the clarity with which the CSBI distinguishes Scripture and tradition in Article I and Article II is essential in order to maintain an evangelical doctrine of Scripture. Nevertheless, without corresponding references to the value of tradition alongside these two articles, one wonders if the CSBI might aid in perpetuating a kind of nuda Scriptura among evangelicals. The CSBI is right to clearly affirm that Scripture is the Church’s “supreme written norm” and deny that tradition in the form of church pronouncements, creeds, or councils supersedes the authority of Scripture. But does such a strong contrast between Scripture and tradition without a balancing reference to the usefulness of tradition leave the statement vulnerable to
charges of obscurantism? In my judgment, Article II can be strengthened by maintaining a clear distinction between Scripture and tradition while also offering positive comment
41Ibid.
42Daniel J. Treier, “Scripture and Hermeneutics,” in The Cambridge Companion to
Evangelical Theology, ed. Timothy Larson and Daniel J. Treier (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 35. By “coincidence” Treier refers to the Orthodox view that sees Scripture authority as a “subset of the Church’s great Tradition” (ibid.). By “supplementary,” Treier refers to the Roman Catholic position that affords Tradition “the decisive role in [Scripture’s] interpretation” (ibid.).
about the place of tradition within the context of biblical authority. Before I note these changes, however, we must probe a little deeper into Grenz and Franke’s work.
Grenz and Franke’s refusal to recognize Scripture’s inherent authority also leads them to separate Scripture’s authority from God’s authority. Ultimate authority is now situated in God and not in Scripture as such.
A nonfoundational understanding of Scripture and tradition locates ultimate
authority only in the action of the Triune God. If we speak of a ‘foundation’ of the Christian faith at all, then, we must speak of neither Scripture nor tradition in and of themselves, but only in the triune God who is disclosed in polyphonic fashion through scripture, the church, and even the world, albeit always normatively through Scripture.43
Yet it is difficult to reconcile such statements with the biblical declarations that indicate God speaks in the Scriptures themselves (e.g., Rom 9:17). If the Bible is truly God’s word, than any bifurcation between the authority of God and the word he has spoken is illegitimate.44 Ironically, by separating God’s authority from Scripture’s authority, we run the risk of robbing God of his proper authority in the church. The continued need to
43Grenz and Franke, Beyond Foundationalism, 117-18. Grenz and Franke’s concern over the misplacement of divine authority echoes a similar concern voiced by James Dunn fourteen years prior. “By asserting of the Bible an indefectible authority, they are attributing to it an authority proper only to God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. If we say the biblical authors wrote without error, we attribute to their writing what we otherwise recognize to be true only of Christ. We do for the Bible what Roman Catholic dogma has done for Mary the mother of Jesus; and if the charge of Marioltry is appropriate against Catholic dogma, then the charge of bibliolatry is no less appropriate against the inerrancy dogma.” James Dunn, The Living Word (London: SCM, 1987), 106. Dunn’s book received a recent update through a different publisher: The Living Word, 2nd ed. (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2009). The content of the above quote, however, is identical in the second edition.
44Jenson observes that normal communication requires that we assume a vital connection between the person and the letter he has written. “If one person communicates with another, say through a letter, the recipient neither confuses the instrument with the sender nor separates the inseparable. It would be intolerable for the recipient to say, for example, that he did not keep to arrangements for a meeting, set out in the letter, because they were only words and not the person. One can never plausibly say, ‘I did not believe your words, because they were not you.’ Even in human affairs we stand by our words. As you treat my words, so you treat me. I am rightly offended, in a personal way, if you slight, disregard, disobey, or contradict my words. I think you have done these things to me. Likewise, if you trust my word, you are trusting me; if you obey my word, you are honouring me. That is the nature of language and persons in everyday experience” (Jenson, The Revelation of God, 165).
assert the denials found in Article I and Article II of the CSBI is thus apparent.
Nevertheless, in light of the challenges presented by postmodernism generally and Grenz and Franke specifically, I propose a reformulated affirmation and denial statement that addresses specifically the matter of God’s authority in Scripture. The revised statements would read:
Because divine authority resides in Scripture, we affirm that the Bible is the only written norm by which God teaches his people, binds the conscience, and guides his church. We further affirm the authority of the Church and her theological traditions reside solely in its faithful exposition and application of Scripture.
Although a useful tools for aiding in our interpretation of Scripture and our
theological formulation, we deny that church creeds, councils, or declarations have authority greater than or equal to the authority of Scripture. We further deny that the Spirit’s work of inspiration in Scripture is equal to his work of guidance in tradition, or that the authority of Scripture can be separated from the authority of God himself.
This revised version of Article II maintains a clear distinction between Scripture and tradition positively, by affirming the subordination of all tradition under Scripture, and negatively by denying an ontological identity between God’s work in inspiring Scripture and his work in guiding the church in her theological formulations. Article II also reflects changes in Article I by emphasizing, from a slightly different angle, the claim in that Scripture’s authority resides in the text of Scripture. Article II clearly denies that one can legitimately create a division between the authority of God’s Word in Scripture and the authority of God himself. I now turn to Article III to examine specifically the matter of revelation and its relation to Scripture.