#967 What Role for Ecclesiastical Tradition?

Dr. craig’s response

The excellent questions that you raise, Gunner, also come up in the panel discussion on Vol. I of my Systematic Philosophical Theology at this year’s annual convention of the Evangelical Philosophical Society in Boston.

One of the most important questions raised by theologian Thomas McCall in his contribution to the panel is the question of the authority of ecclesiastical tradition, especially the ecumenical creeds. Here I think that we do well to distinguish between the importance of tradition and the authority of tradition. Importance has to do with the significance of something; authority has to do with something’s ability to command assent. I do think that ecclesiastical tradition is very important simply because it represents the accumulated wisdom of centuries of Christian reflection on important topics and therefore can be a source of significant insight. So I make an effort to include in most of the chapters of my Systematic Philosophical Theology a historical survey of Christian thought on the relevant locus. But it is pretty obvious from my work that I do not regard ecclesiastical tradition as possessing much authority.

This is due to my commitment to sola Scriptura. Since Scripture is the only divinely inspired communication we have from God, it is our ultimate authority for matters of faith and practice. I recognize Wesley’s point that the ultimacy of Scripture’s authority does not rule out subsidiary authorities. But why think that ecclesiastical tradition is such an authority? I see no reason in Scripture to think that ecclesiastical tradition possesses authority. It would be fanciful to think that Jesus’ promise that the Holy Spirit would lead the disciples into all truth is a reference to ecclesiastical tradition.

Moreover, it seems to me that the tradition often goes astray and needs to be corrected. Let me give an example from my current work on the doctrines of baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Everett Ferguson in his magisterial volume Baptism in the Early Church shows that the Church Fathers from the second century forwards were unanimous in their affirmation of baptismal regeneration, that is to say, that it is in water baptism that we first receive divine remission of our sins, the gift of the Holy Spirit, and regeneration to new life. But I think that the Church Fathers are mistaken in this affirmation. First, in the Gospels and Acts the baptism of the Holy Spirit never coincides with water baptism. Second, the doctrine of baptismal regeneration flies in the face of Christian experience. For example, John Wesley testifies of his conversion experience on May 24, 1738, at a Moravian society meeting in Aldersgate Street, London, during which, interestingly, he heard Martin Luther’s Preface to his commentary on Romans being read aloud:

Wesley was able to specify exactly the place and time at which he trusted in Christ for salvation and experienced assurance of the forgiveness of his sins. The authenticity of his conversion is evident in his reaction of earnestly praying for his persecutors and his boldly testifying publicly to the change within his heart. Wesley’s experience is shared by untold millions and millions of Christians, including me,[2] who know that they are saved prior to following the Lord in water baptism. Any biblical interpretation that so flies in the face of Christian experience needs to be rethought. So despite the unanimous ecclesiastical tradition from the second century onwards that regeneration takes place in baptism, I cannot agree. Since the tradition is so badly mistaken in that regard, I cannot regard it as authoritative.

As for the ecumenical creeds, it has been said by some Protestants that if a statement of an ecumenical creed is inconsistent with Scripture, then we should not accept it. I should go further:  I think that if a statement of an ecumenical creed is not supported by Scripture, then we need not accept it. In a recent interview, the Catholic apologist Trent Horn said to me, “I think you’re the only Protestant theologian I know who really believes in sola Scriptura. The others give lip service to it, but then they turn around and confess many credal statements not supported by Scripture.” To give an example, New Testament scholars tell us that the affirmation of the Nicene Creed that Christ is begotten, not just in his human nature, but in his divine nature, is not supported by the New Testament; rather it is a vestige of the Logos Christology of the early Greek Apologists. So you can believe it if you want; but we are not obligated to do so. I like the term that Michael Bird gives to the creeds in his systematic theology: they are “consultative norms.” We may consult them as human guides to formulating sound Christian doctrine.

Now you say that your “biggest hangup” with such a position is that “any attempt to divorce Scripture from Tradition seems to me to be epistemically flawed as we derive Scripture from Tradition.” I deny that we accept Scripture on the authority of ecclesiastical tradition. I find the Catholic position, that there is an authoritative teaching magisterium that has decided which books are inspired, to be utterly unconvincing because it simply kicks the can down the road, inviting the question, on what basis should we believe that the teaching of the Catholic church is authoritative? I think this is what you’re getting at when you say, “The question obviously implicates the question of ‘what Tradition is accorded infallibility?’”

In our panel discussion at the EPS convention, the New Testament scholar Craig Blomberg raises the question, On what grounds can we believe that the scriptural books are inspired by God? In the locus On Sacred Scripture in Vol. I , I make three points in defense of the belief in scriptural inspiration that together constitute a cumulative case for that belief.

1. If God exists, is by nature perfectly good and loving, and has revealed himself decisively in Jesus, as indicated by the arguments of natural theology and Christian evidences, then the probability of inspired Scripture is far greater than it otherwise would have been. These considerations will make it easier to justify regarding Scripture as an objective revelation or communication from God. In other words, if Christianity is true, then it is much more probable that God would reveal to us a communication from him.

2. Christians, around the world and for millennia, have the experience that God speaks to them through the Scriptures. They experience the Scriptures as God’s Word to them. On this account, belief in Scripture as God’s Word is what epistemologists call a properly basic belief, grounded in the experience of hearing Scripture as God’s speaking. It is a basic belief because it is not inferred from other, more foundational, propositional beliefs. It is properly basic because it is appropriately grounded rather than simply arbitrary. Among contemporary epistemologists the rationality of such properly basic beliefs is widely recognized. In the absence of some defeater, then, the belief that the Scriptures are God’s Word may be epistemically justified. The rationality of belief that Scripture is God’s Word will require a robust defense of Christian teaching against such putative defeaters. This is not to say that the Holy Spirit testifies to the limits of the New Testament canon, but that Christians of all sorts experience the canonical New Testament books as God’s Word.

3. We can offer a historical case for the inspiration of Scripture. A case for scriptural inspiration might rely on premisses such as the following:

Premise (4) is so stated that looking back we may plausibly interpret Jesus’ teachings to imply the inspiration of Old and New Testament Scriptures. Notice, moreover, that (4) is formulated so as to leave open the question of which books are to be included among the inspired Scriptures. Jesus’ bestowal of his divine authority upon the twelve apostles gives grounds for regarding apostolic writings as having that same authority in their teaching, leaving us then to inquire which books are apostolic. I show that very early on the Gospels and a collection of Paul’s letters were regarded as Scripture, on a par with the Old Testament. Whether other books like Jude or Hebrews should also be included among the apostolic writings can remain an open question for further investigation. Fortunately, not much hangs doctrinally upon how this question is answered, since the Gospels and Paul are adequate for a full formulation of Christian doctrine.

In summary, the witness of God himself and of history thus combine to justify belief in scriptural inspiration and authority.