Positively, the tradition has taught me what I can and cannot say about God. We can know God because he has revealed himself to the world in Christ and Scripture. We apprehend God according to this revelation, we do not comprehend God. BIG difference. I cannot ever suppose to fully grasp the nature of God, I can only describe him according to how he has revealed himself. My thoughts and words are completely inadequate to describe him. An axiom by which my theology works is found in Augustine’s On The Trinity book 7.7, “God can be thought aboout more truly than he can be talked about, and he is more truly than he can be thought about.”
This means I do not try to come up with the new “bestest” way of describing God and his relationship to the world. My thoughts and words are inadequate. I seek to take up a defensive position. I hope to understand what the Scriptures positively teach, assert these truths, and then defend against all the “stuff” that is flying out there. To put it another way, theology is a grammar. We seek to find ways to talk about God to mirror how he has revealed himself, and more importantly, make sure we do not talk about him inappropriately. Creeds such as Nicaea sought to separate the orthodox from the Arian. They wanted to make sure there was clarity on the Son being fully God. Chalcedon sought to provide a grammar to talk about how Chirst is fully God and fully man. And the examples could just continue.
I have not answered Bruce’s question, which would be hard to do completely on a blog since books are written on these things. But, he asked and here is a starting list. First, the tradition lets me see how to use language when describing God. Second, the tradition provides boundaries as to what I should say about God and what one cannot say about God. Third, studying those before me provides excellent test cases for how to use common, contemporary habits of speech to express eternal truths. An example of this is Augustine admitting the Eastern theologians may use a word (hypostasis) to express person that works in their common usage, but the term carries over negative implications in the Western usage. This is important because many are seeking to “postmodernize the faith” which means expressing it with different terms and really with a different understanding of the cosmos. I love this one-on-one time with Bruce, but I do miss our other elders.
Semper Eadem, Latin for “ever the same,” was the motto of Queen Elizabeth I. I think it is a great motto. As one who abhors novelty for the sake of novelty, my heart is warmed by your affirmation of tradition Keith. Even though I am a traditionalist, I would, like you, subject tradition to the continued review of the Scriptiures. While I understand how you would critique the councils and tradition by the Bible, how does tradition function for you positively? Is it a restraint? Is it to be accepted until proven faulty? Is it only in the area of theology? Aren’t our methodologies of interpreting scripture supported by tradition? Augustine, for example, had some very different approaches to interpreting the Old Testament. Since you’re the only elder who has time to write anything, what do you say?
The baptist tradition is not the Catholic tradition. We do not place the ecumenical councils over the Scriptures. Rather, we affirm and assert Sola Scriptura. The councils do function as part of the rule of faith and defined orthodoxy for generations. However, if they do not articulate the truths found in Scripture they are only helpful for us to understand history, not truth. Catholics read the Scriptures with the councils as their grid, the Pope as their grid, their biship’s interpretation as a grid. I judge my preacher, elders, the councils, everyone and everything according to God’s revelation. I do seek help from others concerning how to read God’s Word because I am not going to reinvent the wheel, but get on the bus (or the Jesus train if you are a big Toby Mac fan).
Some do critique the councils. Warfield questioned Nicaea because of the language of eternal generation. This sounded like the Son was derived from the Father to him and this would deny the Scriptures teaching that he is wholly God (God has life in himself). Well, the early fathers used this language technically to teach exactly what Warfield was seeking to defend, the lesson being that the Scriptures can correct tradition.
All this to say, I read the Scirptures with many safeties in my heart and mind. One must read and understand for himself/herself, but not in a way that removes them from accountability to a church. Nor should they be irresponsible so as to ignore all the saints before them. God had others write so that we might be blessed. The big decision is knowing who to read–you know because you judge them according to the Scriptures. So we kind of have a checks and balances approach. I read the Bible, and my church and the saints before me check and balance me. Read the Bible with the newspaper, the recent systematic and a church history beside you, your brothers all around you, and the saints before you!
On a popular level the baptist tradition may be that we have no tradition. I find this unacceptable as a theologian and chruchman. First, the church will be more able to avoid heresy if they understand church history and how previous generations of saints defended the gospel. Second, I am fearful of becoming too contextualized. Attempts to reduce the truth to the most basic elements or modify it to appeal to the new generation have usually ended in heresy. Think of Immauel Kant, Fredrick Schleiermacher, Paul Tillich, and our modern day man John Shelby Spong and his work “why the church must change or die.” These men hoped to save Christianity from absurdity by interpreting the truth differently, usually by reading the Scriptures through a philosophical grid borrowed from contemporary culture. Third, I just do not think we should say anything new. I hope to echo the Scriptures and if I come up with an interpretation that is novel I should repent of it.
Now, am I able to come to an objective understanding of the Scirptures? My postmodern friends say no–I agree partially, not because words lack meaning, but because I am wicked deep down and this effects the way I think. (another topic to grapple with later) I read the Scriptures believing they are completely clear and knowing the Spirit indwells me so that I am convicted according to God’s Word. I read the Scriptures in a church so that I have other brothers who correct my wrong interpretations. I interpret Scripture with an understanding of how the Fathers and saints through the history of the church have interpreted them so that I keep good company. Every heresy is flirted with again in each generation and it is important to know how the previous brothers dealt with them so I can recognize them in their new garb and expose them.
Keith, while I contemplate how to respond to your Baptist uncertainty, would you summarize at least one or two ways that you navigate the questions of authority/tradition in your theology and for our church life? One “given” for most Proestants has been the acceptance of the doctrinal formulations from all of the major ecumenical councils. Would you accept their conclusions?
As seen in previous posts I have firm baptist convictions concerning baptism and I would add congregationalism as a distinctive. I quesiton my baptisticness (not a word) sometimes because I desire to keep a “tradition.” I am not a Catholic, there is only one authority (Sola Scriptura), but I certainly stand on the shoulders of men before me. Luther and Calvin saw themselves continuing a tradition when they sought to reform the Catholic church, and then when they protested against it. They both rely upon Augustine, Athanasius, the saints before them.
Studying church history seems to put theology in perspective. Testimony time: I once hoped to provide cutting-edge theology. I thought I could come up with the new theology and be hip. I now see the goal must be to say the same glorious truths that have been revealed in Scripture and proclaimed by the saints over centuries. Sola Scriptura is certainly the rule–but I am not interpreting God’s Word in a Vacuum. I have received truth and hope to preserve truth. Reformed and being reformed. I am in a tradition and will continue to reform it according to the Scriptures. All this to say, are we as baptists too bent upon the autonomy of the local church and the autonomy of the individual so that the saints before are somehow lost.
Where is the balance, what are the rules, how do we remain Baptists and keep a tradition outside of our local church? Where are Aaron and Greg in this time of baptist uncertainty?
I believe there is a legitimate reason to gather with some Presbyterian Brothers and Sisters. You are gathering around the gospel. Many times denominations have split over mission societies. Within these denominations (some have been Baptists and Presbyterians) many were concerned with what gospel was being preached by the missionaries on the field and who was being ordained to preach the gospel. I can appreciate many Presbyterian friends because I know we can fellowship around our most central identity as Christians–the gospel of Christ.
Now, should we work together on the mission field? We would preach the same gospel, but would teach them (and their children) differently after that. Baptist and Presbyterian churches are different, and how they define a “covenant community” with children being baptized is the most difficult difference. But, I must say I love them and am glad we have Presbyterians who worship with us in our little congregation. They are not members because we both recognize our differences, but they recognize the great similarities we have concerning the gospel, God and how he should be worshipped.
One step further: Should a Baptist financially support Presbyterian missionaries. I am thinking of a Campus Crusader or short term mission. I know they will preach a good word and serve Christ, but am I denying my convistions by paying for infants to be baptized?
