The Authority of the Faith
There is a concept floated within Protestant-dom that the Bible speaks for itself. That the Bible presupposes things for us.
I disagree.
The Bible does not speak for itself. Nor does it presuppose for me.
What it does is speak of the body of believers that came before me. It speaks of the presupposition of the body of believers that came before.
Now, you may think that’s splitting hairs… but this is very big hair.
The problem with the Bible being the end-all be-all for Christian faith is that it does not properly and wholly communicate the faith of those who brought it to you. God has chosen to bring salvation to His people through His people - not through the Bible. (don’t rail against this point, read on)
The Scriptures are a product of that. God revealing His Truth to His people, and some of them recording some of that for the posterity of the faith.
Can we be certain then that Scripture communicates the fullness of that faith? By mere misunderstanding of scriptural context, I daresay no… but I also think there is more to the faith than just misunderstanding context. Regardless, that there is something “extra-Biblical”, whether it be history or philosophy or sociology or whatever, that exists for the purpose of explaining Scripture suggests that the Bible is not the ultimate authority but rather a treasure trove that is dependent on maintaining the fullness of faith. This is known as the dreaded T-word. Though Protestant scholars do not use the term, that is exactly what they do in researching and understanding Scripture - it is what their students are doing right now. Studying Tradition to further understand Scripture.
Being that as it is, I cannot believe in an interpretation akin to Reformed Theology because it exists deliberately and purposefully to not accept wholly the Tradition of faith. It picks and chooses among the forefathers to recognize, and among those, it picks and chooses among their beliefs what it wants to believe. And all of that to serve its presuppositions.
So… lets bring this home now. It was asked of me if I believe in the true, inerrant nature of the Bible. No. I believe in the true, inerrant nature of the fullness of faith - of Tradition. The Bible is a part of that - the most prominent part for the past centuries. But it cannot be understood in a vacuum. And, so, I look to understand it in the fullness of faith. And in that, Reformed Theology dies a quick death and blossoms into something better.
![[caedmonscall.net]](http://rmfo-blogs.com/images/ccneticon.jpg "The official unofficial fan site of Caedmon’s Call.")
![[derekwebb.net]](http://rmfo-blogs.com/images/dwneticon.jpg "The official fan site of Derek Webb.")
![[rmfo-blogs.com]](http://rmfo-blogs.com/images/rmfoblog.png "About the [rmfo-blogs.com] service.")
Some of what you’re saying here is related to my interest in the Orthodox Church. I think even more broadly than Reformed Theology… it seems that almost all of Protestanism wants to reject so much of the tradition of the church.
The picking and choosing drives me crazy, too.
*sigh*
Comment by Lara — 3/15/2005 @ 2:41 am
Don’t lump all of us Protestants in there!
Comment by Geof F. Morris — 3/15/2005 @ 8:19 am
What extra knowledge about God do you think you can find outside of Scripture? How is this a “Protestant” or “Reformed” belief? This seems totally non-sequitor to me.
Comment by Woodrow — 3/15/2005 @ 8:38 am
I’m not certain I’m following you, Jeff.
I’m saying that the Reformed practice is to deliberately ignore knowledge outside of Scripture about God so that it can believe what it wants to believe. You only have to read the latest of my TRIT posts to see how.
I don’t see what’s non-sequitor.
Comment by AnotherCoward — 3/15/2005 @ 9:14 am
I wouldn’t call it “deliberately ignoring”, I’d call it “placing authority.” Who determines if knowledge outside of Scripture should hold equal footing with Scripture in authority?
Comment by Woodrow — 3/15/2005 @ 10:44 am
Those who maintained and gave us Scripture.
Comment by AnotherCoward — 3/15/2005 @ 10:48 am
I think your stance of those who are “Reformed” is often but not always correct. I’m “akin” to the Reformed faith (though I reject elements of it) precisely because I think it better expresses the Truth of God as revealed in Scripture. I can’t help it if not all those who have come before have seen the Truth with equal clarity.
Comment by Josiah — 3/18/2005 @ 3:15 pm
Josiah!! Welcome to my blog!
Your implied argument is that somewhere along the way, the early Christians were foundationally wrong and in the course of moving from then to now, we have corrected that foundational error.
I don’t believe in that. That’s relativism.
Certainly we expound upon the moral and theological beliefs of our forefathers and come to new and deeper understanding… but never to the outright and irreconcilable contradiction of those beliefs of our forefathers.
Comment by AnotherCoward — 3/21/2005 @ 8:18 am