Time Immortal

John da Fiesole wonders:

You know the parable of the dishonest steward in the Gospel according to St. Luke, in which the steward reduces the debts of his master’s debtors so that they will welcome the steward into their homes after he’s fired.

What if we interpret dismissal as death? Then the steward’s reduction of debt is an act of kindness intended to obtain prayers for his soul.

That would make a lot of sense out of a parable that, at first glance, appears to commend the obvious wrongdoing of the steward. Moreover, it would be another example of the way in which the Bible ultimately affirms the teachings of Catholicism; most of Protestantism doesn’t accept the validity of prayers for the deceased (I believe Martin Luther, especially, was dead set against them). And yet, there it is.

Charles Tysoe writes in with some comments and questions concerning Dr. Denis O. Lamoureux’s new book, Evolutionary Creation: A Christian Approach to Evolution, which I had previously urged the good Reader to purchase.

Full disclosure: you’ll be supporting Time Immortal by doing so, as I contributed a few of the illustrations to the book.

It’s an important work, for one simple reason: it demonstrates that faith and reason, science and Religion, can go hand in hand without any kind of conflict.

Depends on how you define the terms; Religion is a very broad field, Biblical Christianity a very narrow one.

DOL privileges scientific method as a hermeneutical sieve for what the Bible says about creation. There is no warrant for this epistemologically.

I would like to know just what is the “method-incident’ principle, where did it originate, who uses it? I looked up the indexes of the major works on hermeneutics cited and couldn’t see it anywhere. On Google I found six hits, next to nothing by Google’s standards; I found an allusion to its use by (some?) Roman Catholic writers on a Catholic blog.

What’s up?

DOL sent me a working draft (much shorter) years ago, I emailed him after listening to tapes of the pilot course he taught at Regent.

I don’t agree with his “science of the day” conclusions, they are very poorly supported.

Anyway, thanks for your time.

I’d really like to know about the method-incident principle. If you give me some references I’ll hunt them down.

I really think DOL has “reconciled” evolution, Christianity and Biblical “inerrancy with a sort of Mad Hatter (Lewis Carroll) method; “a word means precisely what I want it to mean”.

I’ve read most of Dr. Lamoureux’s papers online, including his most recent in PSCF. In another paper, I believe in Christian Scholars’ Review on Darwin’s religious beliefs I think he was very selective in trying to demonstrate that Darwin remained a Christian theist.

DOL seems most anxious on a personal level for evolution to be true. More so that other writers like F. Collins.

regards,

Chuck Tysoe

Who’s anxious? Evolution — the scientific theory, as demonstrated by the evidence — is true! Would that more Christians — even and especially Catholics — could accept this simple fact and get on about the business of understanding that there is nothing fundamentally conflicting or contradictory about accepting that human beings evolved from earlier primates and that all life was created by God (and the attendant belief that human beings occupy a special place in the order of creation because they have been made in the image and likeness of God).

Christians need to step beyond viewing “creation” and “evolution” as being concepts which one must debate between. To believe that God exists and that He created all life in the world is not the antithesis of accepting the extant evidence for evolution; truth cannot contradict truth, and as Christians in search of the truth we must strive to achieve a synthesis in regard to this issue. More simply put, we have to get over ourselves and drop the “debate model” approach to discussions of science and religion; we must understand that Biblically sound Christianity is compatible with the belief that a providential, present, creator God effected the creation of all life, including mankind, “through an ordained and sustained evolutionary process.”

Now, good Reader, what Chuck is referring to when he speaks of the “method-incident” principle is actually the “message-incident” principle. I’m honestly not sure whether it is a principle of Dr. Lamoureux’s own devising, or whether it has roots in other academic sources; the principle itself draws heavily, I think, on Aristotle.

In its broad strokes, the principle is thus: the Bible — all of it taken together, or any portion thereof — must be interpreted with attention given to two separate aspects that may be present in the text: the “message” or divine teaching that the text is attempting to convey to the reader, and the “incident” or phenomenological perspective of the writer. And although Google only reveals a handful of references to this principle in a formal sense, it should be noted that Christian hermeneutics actually make fairly heavy use of it in several respects already.

For example, when we interpret Ephesians 5, it is common to separate the “incident”al aspects of the text — some of which can seem sexist at first — from the theological “message” that Paul is attempting to convey, by illustrating the relationship of Christ to the Church through the imagery of the relationship between husband and wife. The purpose of the passage is not to convey a somewhat sexist message; it is to present a model of the way we relate to Christ, and Christ to the community of His faithful. But to understand as much, we need to separate, categorically, the teaching from the imagery used to present it.

I will go into more detail on this in the coming weeks, as I have obtained permission from Dr. Lamoureux to do a chapter-by-chapter review of his book. The principle under discussion is outlined in the book’s fourth chapter, and so I would instruct Chuck — any any other interested readers — to stay tuned as I work my way through the text.

In the meantime, I would like to address a few other points:

1. Chuck notes the distinction between the broader category of “religion” and the narrower category of “Biblical Christianity.” While this categorical distinction is correct, I find that I nevertheless bristle at the term “Biblical Christianity,” because I am used to seeing it used almost exclusively in a sola scriptura sense — and I reject, categorically, the validity of that particular doctrine of Martin Luther’s.

   The facts are thus: the Bible does indeed contain the inerrant, infallible message of God to His people. But the Bible is not the sole vector by which we can discover truths; indeed, the Bible tells us as much. In the Book of Job, chapter 12, it is said:

   [7] “But ask the beasts, and they will teach you;
   the birds of the air, and they will tell you;
   [8] or the plants of the earth, and they will teach you;
   and the fish of the sea will declare to you.
   [9] Who among all these does not know
   that the hand of the LORD has done this?
   [10] In his hand is the life of every living thing
   and the breath of all mankind.

   Is this not true? All things are of God’s making, but can we not look to these things to learn more about that wondrous creation? Will not the very Earth grant us to find answers, if we but seek them out?

   Science is — or should be — a search for truths about the physical world in which we live, and the physical realm with it occupies. That’s a limited category — and then a subset — of truth, but it is still truth in its own right. Logically, one truth cannot contradict another. So if it is true (and it is) that God is the creator of all things, and if it is true (and it is) that humanity evolved from a succession of “lower” life forms, then these truths must be compatible. It must be the case that God effected the creation of humanity in His own image through an ordained, sustained process of evolution. The Lord is creator. The study of the world reveals this to us, in that it reveals the manner by which the Lord effected creation.

   If we adopt the sola scriptura approach and bury our heads in the sand, refusing to acknowledge that there are other sources of truth that exist in addition to Scripture (if, that is, we bald-facedly ignore that “the heavens declare the glory of God,” among other things), then of course we will miss this point. But our missing out does not mean that evolution is incorrect; it means that we are incorrect. Christians would do well to keep in mind that just because we claim the Bible to be on our side in a debate does not mean that it actually is on our side, nor does it mean we are agents of truth.

   So I question what Chuck means by “Biblical Christianity.” If he means sola scriptura, he’s off base. If he means a Christianity whose teachings and tenets are in conformity with the teachings of Scripture, then I whole-heartedly agree with his categorization.

2. Chuck also notes that Dr. Lamoureux “privileges scientific method as a hermeneutical sieve for what the Bible says about creation,” and asserts that there “is no warrant for this epistemologically.”

   The first statement is essentially true, the second essentially false.

   In his book The City of God (or get it for Kindle!), Augustine of Hippo (St. Augustine) remarked on a matter about which would-be Christian evangelists should take great care:

   Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men…. Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by these who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.

   What Augustine is driving at here is that there are other modes of learning apart from the theological, and that even those who have not received the Bible can be very wise about many aspects of God’s “very good” creation, including at a scientific level. They may understand many things which are true about the natural world, its operation, and its origins. Augustine warns that it would be folly of the worst order for a Christian evangelist to such people to be seen “talking nonsense on these topics” about which the non-Christians may be wise, and instructs that “we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn.”

   What does this mean?

   Well, at a basic level, it means that as Christians, we have to be wise not only about the teachings of Scripture, but also about what is being learned — by Christians and non-Christians alike — about the natural world through processes of inquiry. We have to be able to expand our own understanding accordingly, so that we can present the message of faith to those who have not heard it in a wise manner, so that Christ and His message of salvation are not, by proxy, “taken to task by these who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books.” We must not be “[r]eckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture,” who “understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.” For if we do, we bring no glory to Christ, but are in fact as a stumbling block for those to whom we are trying to bring his message.

   And we know what Christ says about those who cause others to stumble in their journey toward Christ (c.f. Mark 9:42).

   In other words, we have to admit, in our honesty, that what is true cannot contradict what is true. If there appears to be a conflict between the revelation of Scripture and the revelation of science, and if the revelation of science in question is amply justified by evidence and reasoning, then we can only assume that our own preconceived interpretation of Scripture must be incorrect in some manner. In that sense, we should indeed use science — including the scientific method — as a kind of “hermeneutical sieve” for what the Bible says. The alternative is to become “a disgraceful and dangerous thing…talking nonsense on [those] topics” about which others may well be very learned.

   And there is excellent epistemological warrant for this approach. Revising a hypothesis in the face of new evidence is a cornerstone of the scientific method (one kind of epistemic system), and the Bible likewise instructs us to apply wisdom in the interpretation of Scripture.

   For example, consider 2 Thes. 2:

   [13]But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God chose you from the beginning to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth.
   [14] To this he called you through our gospel, so that you may obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.
   [15] So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.
   [16] Now may our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God our Father, who loved us and gave us eternal comfort and good hope through grace,
   [17] comfort your hearts and establish them in every good work and word.

   We can see here that St. Paul actually places great importance on the Church holding fast to the traditions which the apostles taught to them. The traditions themselves go unspecified here, but the point is nevertheless that tradition forms an integral, necessary part of the practice of the Christian faith, and is itself a mode of teaching which the Church should strive to consider and convey.

   Right here, we see the rejection of all tradition as a mode of Christian practice to be unbiblical. Moreover, we also begin to see the seeds of something else emerging — Scripture is not the only teaching authority which Paul himself recognizes or suggests the use of (which further argues against sola scriptura). Turning, briefly, to Ephesians 3, we can also observe that Paul taught thusly:

   [7] Of this gospel I was made a minister according to the gift of God’s grace which was given me by the working of his power.
   [8] To me, though I am the very least of all the saints, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ,
   [9] and to make all men see what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things;
   [10] that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places.
   [11] This was according to the eternal purpose which he has realized in Christ Jesus our Lord,
   [12] in whom we have boldness and confidence of access through our faith in him.

   Here we see that Paul further expands the notion of where teaching authority, which would include interpretive authority over Scripture, is found: the Church itself is, in Paul’s desire, the means by which the wisdom of God should be made known to the world. This is confirmed in the first letter to Timothy, chapter 3:

   [14] I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these instructions to you so that,
   [15] if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.

   The Church — not Scripture — is “the pillar and bulwark of the truth.” That is a Biblical teaching. So let’s tie this all back. We have the Church as the pillar and bulwark of truth, the means by which the wisdom of God (expressed in the Word of God) is to be made known to all nations and peoples. That means that the Church must be possessed of authority to interpret Scripture (the Word of God), and that it should do so while holding fast (and thus considering) the traditions which have been taught to it (which, presumably, could include academic and scientific traditions, as exemplified by the Church’s operation of e.g. the Vatican Observatory in this day and age).

   This does not mean that Christians lack the right of private judgement, of course — each person must work out his or her own salvation with fear and trembling, as Paul noted. But it does begin to suggest that each Christian should establish a relationship to the Church as that of a student to a teacher. Right of private judgement, again, exists, as does the right of each person to interpret out of Scripture for him or herself. But that interpretation must ultimately be in harmony with the teaching and interpretation of that which is the pillar and bulwark of God’s truth, as expressed through God’s Word: the Church. And pace Augustine, it is thus on the Church where the responsibility of preventing its people from speaking the language of folly to the learned, about the workings of the natural world, is placed. And those of us who would seek to speak on such matters should take pains to ensure that what we say is informed by the traditions of the Church on the matter, including the excellent academic traditions thereof.

   Even if that means altering or outright correcting our interpretations of particular Biblical teachings because of scientific discoveries.

Anyhow, good Reader, do stay tuned: the book reviews will commence in the next few days.

Update: Welcome, Steynians!

How have Christians throughout history regarded Mary, specifically in regard to her perpetual virginity? Is there a major difference in regard to Marian theology that is discernible along the historic Catholic/Protestant divide?

In the modern era, we might answer “yes” to such questions. Nestorianism seems to be making a bit of a return, in the form of modern Protestants and non-denominational Christians actively denying the ancient doctrine of the Church that Mary is the Theotokos, the God-bearer, the Mother of God. But historically, the answer is actually a resounding “no!”

Martin Luther didn’t think the doctrine was critical to Christian faith, but maintained that “we should simply hold that (Mary) remained a virgin after the birth of Christ because Scripture does not state or indicate that she later lost her virginity.” (c.f. ‘That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew’, Luther’s Works, 1962, Concordia Publishing House)

Luther was insistent that Jesus was “the real and natural fruit” of Mary’s womb, and that she “bore no children besides Him.” Additionally, Luther fully agreed with interpretations of Scripture that identified the “brothers and sisters” of Jesus as being more distant relations (e.g. cousins).

Moreover, John Calvin also rejected the notion that the mention of the “brothers and sisters” of Jesus in the Bible were meant to refer to siblings born of Mary. John Wesley believed that Mary “continued a pure and unspotted virgin” after giving birth to Christ. (c.f. ‘Letter to a Roman Catholic’, 1749) Huldrych Zwingli likewise believed that Mary’s virginity remained perpetually intact after Jesus was born. (c.f. ‘Eini Predigt von der ewig reinen Magd Maria.’, Huldreich Zwinglis sämtliche Werke, 1905)

Diarmaid MacCulloch — a Reformation historian — noted the reason why the affirmation of Mary’s virginity was almost wholly universal across all the major strains of Protestantism and its offshoots: by affirming the ongoing virginity of Mary, the Reformers (not unlike the Catholics) ensured themselves “the guarantee of the Incarnation of Christ.” Sola Scriptura may have prevented the believe in Mary’s virginity from being formally adopted as a doctrine in many (if any) of the churches which emerged out of the Reformation, and I suspect that this may have done a grave disservice to subsequent Protestant theologians where the issue of Mary was concerned, many of whom have since come to deny the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity. (c.f. The Reformation: a History, 2003, Penguin Books)

And while it sounds like this should be a minor issue, look at where that denial has led us to: now we see again some Christians stumbling into false teachings like Nestorianism, and uttering denials of Mary as the Mother of God that they have no idea also necessarily imply that Christ was not fully human and fully divine all at once.

The Catholic Church obviously holds the belief that Mary was perpetually virginal, and has held that belief since…well, since the Church was still one denomination, way back when the year took less than four numbers to write out. The formal doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity was promulgated in about 533 A.D. (at the Council of Constantinople). That’s not to say that Catholicism has not been marked by a few disagreements over the issue, though.

Tertulian, for example, believed that the virginity of Mary was not preserved by the act of giving birth. While he evidently felt this was a proper emphasis on the nature and reality of Jesus’ human body, it should be noted that in reality, this position actually makes the very idea of a “virgin birth” (an integral part of Christian theology) impossible. Jovinian, who lived over a century later, set himself against Paul (c.f. 1 Corinthians 7) when he denied that virginity/celibacy was indeed a higher state than marriage. Helvidius repeated this commentary shortly thereafter, but was soundly denounced by, among others, Jerome.

And as was so ably noted by Mark Shea, “the Tradition of the Church in union with the biblical text [affirms that] Mary had no other children, a fact so commonly known throughout the early Church that when Jerome attacks Helvidius for suggesting otherwise, nobody makes a peep. In a Church quite capable of tearing itself to pieces over distinctions between homoousious and homoiousious, you hear the sound of crickets in response to Jerome, punctuated with the sound of other Fathers singing hymns to “Mary, Ever-Virgin.” The early Church took it for granted and thought Helvidius as credible as Dan Brown.”

And indeed, after Helvidius, no credible arguments were presented against the perpetual virginity of Mary until near-modern Protestantism jettisoned the doctrine.

Possible Objection #8: could not the early Church have been wrong? Could the early Church have mis-interpreted those passages from Scripture which make clear reference to the siblings of Jesus?

Response to Objection #8: it’s possible, I suppose, that this could be the case. But to believe as much, we would have to believe that over 1700 years of Christian scholarship was wrong about this particular issue, that 1700 years’ worth of Christian theologians and scholars had somehow remained ignorant of very commonly cited verses of Scripture, and that in 1700 years nobody had actually thought to read the original-language manuscripts in a proper context.

Which seems a bit…incredible. It makes more sense, I think, to assume that modern theologians who set themselves against the perpetual virginity of Mary have simply gone awry in their thinking, as did the Nestorians, as did Helvidius, and as did Tertulian.

It is interesting to note how quick many Christians are to take the worldly view and deny that Mary, after giving birth to Christ, remained celibate for the remainder of her days. Exactly why some Christians feel the need to argue against Mary’s virginity mystifies me — did not Paul teach us that to remain celibate for the sake of the Kingdom was a high calling indeed? (c.f. 1 Corinthians 7) Is it not possible that Mary chose this path of devotion for herself, knowing that it was pleasing to the Lord? Is it not possible that Joseph, her faithful and righteous husband, would have been unwilling to defile his wife in the sexual act (c.f. Leviticus 15) after her body had given birth to the Son of God, meaning in turn (as Luke reminds us, in how he structures his account of the Annunciation) that she was the New Ark of the Covenant?

We live in a sex-obsessed world, and moreover we live in a world which has been getting more sex-obsessed as the centuries have rolled along. Look back at the early church; even in Martin Luther’s time, as well as long before that, the virginity of Mary was an accepted part of Christian teaching. Martin Luther certainly believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary, and it should be noted that his tomb is inscribed with an image of the Assumption of Mary, the Blessed Virgin.

Indeed, the mainstreaming of the denial of Mary’s virginity is a fairly recent thing, and I think it has quite a lot to do with the direction the world’s attitude toward sex has taken. Many Christians don’t even want to acknowledge that Mary is, according to the Bible, to be called “blessed” by all nations (and then presumably in all ages). I would wager that many Christians also don’t want to admit, with any kind of frequency, that Mary is the foremost example of Christian devotion to the will of the Lord.

And I’d wager, following along from that, that many Christians, too worldly in their thinking about sexuality, don’t want to consider the possibility that the Mother of the Son, the foremost example of Christian devotion to God’s divine will, she who is “blessed” to all the nations, the woman clothed with the Sun…was also virginal for the remainder of her life on Earth. The Church sets forth this example against the changes of the ages, as a reminder to all that God’s way is a higher way, above the whims and fancies of men. The example of Mary is many lessons all bundled into one, not the least of which is that the world does not revolve around pelvic issues, despite what the magazines tell us.

Lately, though, this special recognition of Mary has been dismissed, by some Christians, as a “vain philosophy” and a “tradition of men”, yet one more example of how Scripture has apparently been “twisted” by the Church. This despite the fact that historically, Christians of all stripes have accepted the perpetual virginity of Mary as factual.

Moreover, the Catholic belief (and, by extension, the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox belief) concerning Mary’s perpetual virginity is attacked as being against Scripture. Verses that are often cited in support of this claim are sourced from all four of the Gospels, and much of the rest of the New Testament, and include verses which reference the “brothers and sisters” of Christ (Matthew 13:55-56, Acts 1:14), logistical analysis of e.g. the flight to Egypt (c.f. Matthew 2:13-15), or the implication of sexual relations between Mary and Joseph after the birth of Christ (Matthew 1:25).

Were I of a more facetious bent, I might opt to congratulate an anti-Marian Christian for citing such verses, which the Church has obviously never encountered in its nearly 2,000-year history. Surely the existence of these new-found passages from the New Testament must be immediately brought to the attention of the Pope, I might suggest, and the whole of Catholic doctrine concerning the Blessed Virgin must be re-examined (if not cast down entirely). Because we all know that no Catholic has ever read the first few chapters of the Gospel of Matthew!

Actually, the Church is fully cognizant of the existence of these passages of Scripture, and yet stubbornly continues to promulgate the doctrine — long-accepted by the vast majority of Christians, it should be noted — that Mary remained virginal even after the birth of Jesus. Indeed, Catholic doctrine pertaining to the virginity of Mary makes reference to many of the same verses that are often thrown out against it!

How can this be?

Well, as it turns out, the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity is actually supported in Scripture; moreover, it is supported by all of Scripture, not just a handful of carefully chosen (read: cherry-picked) verses. I will be exploring this as thoroughly as I can as the day rolls on, beginning with what might be, for some, an unexpected foray into the Old Testament. But to get there, we have to take a detour through a discussion of hermeneutics.

SegaGenesisfan writes in with some rather heated commentary. You know, O Reader, I’ve been a blogger for…well, I’ve been posting stuff online since about the summer of 2004 (so I guess that makes it four years now), and I’ve been blogging about issues related to the Church for around three years.

And now — finally, now! — I have attracted my first anti-Catholic fundamentalist detractor. I think. At least as far as my memory is willing to recall, this is the first.

http://www.guidedbiblestudies.com/40_015.htm

“1 ¶ Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying, 2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread. 3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? 4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. 5 But ye say, Whosoever shall say to [his] father or [his] mother, [It is] a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; 6 And honour not his father or his mother, [he shall be free]. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. 7 [Ye] hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, 8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with [their] lips; but their heart is far from me. 9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching [for] doctrines the commandments of men.”

What your failing to realize that it is jesus talking against tradition in general Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. Plain and simple, I tell ye not to replyeth by the way, because all you do is minipulate the words of god to fit your own interpretation. You dont really believe in the living god, just your own version of him. In catholic tradition they say they believe in jesus, but inside they really dont believe because of their traditions make the commandment of god of non effect. Try to spew that towards me? I aint got no traditions, so you completely fail in this.

I love how people who have never met me can deduce the innermost thoughts of my heart better than I can for myself. SegaGenesisfan is very confidently sure that I don’t really believe in God, this despite the fact that I’m on the record as being willing to have the Nicene Creed be my death warrant, in the event of a renewed persecution of Christians. I’ve never thanked God that the issue of who is worthy of salvation has not been left in the hands of internet Christians who are also fans of dead gaming systems, but perhaps I should start.

That first bit is from Matthew 15, by the way, and in it Jesus berates the Pharisees for practicing traditions hypocritically, and thus in vain. Notably, Christ is not attacking tradition itself, for He practiced the traditions of the Jewish faith during His life and ministry, and bestowed upon His disciples at least one major tradition, which He commanded be done in remembrance of Him.

But there SegaGenesisfan goes, rejecting any and all tradition as, apparently, unbiblical and against Christianity.

I’m going to go out on a limb and hazard a guess that this is the sort of thing one might expect to be said by a person who harbours a deep-seated animosity toward Catholics, but it is also what one might expect to be argued by a person who believes that only Scripture can interpret Scripture (a common trope). It’s also something one might expect to be told by a person who greatly fears that giving any authority to Church tradition will only result in the message and content of Scripture becoming tainted and perverted. The explicit rejection of tradition is…well…striking.

I ain’t got no traditions. Ignoring the double-negative, this apparently Biblical Christian makes one critical error: he assumes that giving authority to tradition is against the Bible. While I might be tempted to speculate that this is a result of a sola scriptura way of thinking, I will note that the rejection of tradition is itself actually an anti-Biblical concept.

For example, consider 2 Thes. 2:

[13]But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God chose you from the beginning to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth.
[14] To this he called you through our gospel, so that you may obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.
[15] So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.
[16] Now may our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God our Father, who loved us and gave us eternal comfort and good hope through grace,
[17] comfort your hearts and establish them in every good work and word.

We can see here that St. Paul actually places great importance on the Church holding fast to the traditions which the apostles taught to them. The traditions themselves go unspecified here, but the point is nevertheless that tradition forms an integral, necessary part of the practice of the Christian faith, and is itself a mode of teaching which the Church should strive to consider and convey.

Right here, we see the rejection of all tradition as a mode of Christian practice to be unbiblical. Moreover, we also begin to see the seeds of something else emerging — Scripture is not the only teaching authority which Paul himself recognizes or suggests the use of. Turning, briefly, to Ephesians 3, we can also observe that Paul taught thusly:

[7] Of this gospel I was made a minister according to the gift of God’s grace which was given me by the working of his power.
[8] To me, though I am the very least of all the saints, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ,
[9] and to make all men see what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things;
[10] that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places.
[11] This was according to the eternal purpose which he has realized in Christ Jesus our Lord,
[12] in whom we have boldness and confidence of access through our faith in him.

Here we see that Paul further expands the notion of where teaching authority, which would include interpretive authority over Scripture, is found: the Church itself is, in Paul’s desire, the means by which the wisdom of God should be made known to the world. This is confirmed in the first letter to Timothy, chapter 3:

[14] I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these instructions to you so that,
[15] if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.

The Church — not Scripture — is “the pillar and bulwark of the truth.” That is a Biblical teaching. So let’s tie this all back. We have the Church as the pillar and bulwark of truth, the means by which the wisdom of God (expressed in the Word of God) is to be made known to all nations and peoples. That means that the Church must be possessed of authority to interpret Scripture (the Word of God), and that it should do so while holding fast (and thus considering) the traditions which have been taught to it.

This does not mean that Christians lack the right of private judgement, of course — each person must work out his or her own salvation with fear and trembling, as Paul noted. But it does begin to suggest that each Christian should establish a relationship to the Church as that of a student to a teacher. Right of private judgement, again, exists, as does the right of each person to interpret out of Scripture for him or herself. But that interpretation must ultimately be in harmony with the teaching and interpretation of that which is the pillar and bulwark of God’s truth, as expressed through God’s Word: the Church.

And where private interpretation leads to a conclusion different than that of the Church that is disharmonious with the teaching of the Church, the Christian should, in humility, submit to the learned judgement of the Church and its interpretation of Scripture, rather than forging out in his or her own new direction. That is, again, beacause it is the Church — and not the individual — who is the bulwark of truth, and the means by which the wisdom of God is to be brought to the world.

And as to what my correspondent has said, it must be noted that no Christian can be both Christian and free of any tradition. The Bible itself is a tradition, in the sense that it was canonized in 390 AD. The very canon of Scripture is the tradition in this case; while there are differences concerning whether or not the Deuterocanonical books should be included in the canon or not, the point is that each Christian acknowledges a canon of Scripture that has been handed down by tradition, rather than elected by the individual, private judgement of each successive believer.

Moreover, things like sola fide and sola scriptura are traditions, and so anyone who adheres to such beliefs is following in a tradition handed down from Martin Luther. Indeed, such a person gives a great deal of authority to those traditions, as they form a part of the core of that person’s understanding of salvation in Christ, a key aspect of Christian faith.

I weep for Christians who are so deluded as to think that to be Christian means to be free of any form of tradition, for it is by tradition that we — the faithful alive today — are connected in spirit with those who have gone before us in Christ. If we eschew tradition and its authority, we cut ourselves off from those who went before us as believers in Christ. And in so doing, we are rather like the ship which burns the port it leaves, and then casts off its maps and compass as well.

We become, in essence, blinded by our own hand when we reject the traditions of the faith. And we likewise set ourselves against the Bible itself.