A friend of my has a nice essay on the role of scripture and tradition in the evangelical context. See here: Tradition & Scripture: How Tradition Can Contribute to Evangelical Alchemy. Responding the the abuse of sola scriptura, he promotes the concept of prima scriptura. I’ve not read much [ok, nothing] in the area of sola vs prima, but it seems like sola presents the ideal while prima captures what actually happens. That is, we say we rely on the Bible alone for our theology, but so much of our interpretation of the Bible is mediated through tradition, whether we admit it or not. (See Gadamer and Jauss on the place that our historical position plays in our interpretation). Thus, while we critique tradition based on the Biblical witness, we are inherently biased interpreters of scripture.
In another area, it seems that the progeny of the Reformers were the ones who took sola scriptura too far. Calvin and Luther were both very connected to patristic writers, allowing their theology to be very formative, but their progeny seemed to move further on the spectrum than what their mentors modeled. This I think was also heavily influenced by the enlightenment and the historical-critical method of ignoring tradition as well (See Louth’s Discerning the Mystery). But, I don’t know reformation history at all, so I could be off with that. By the way, here’s Vatican II’s take on Scripture and tradition.
Anybody got any thoughts to argue for one or the other? I’m working on the justification for my thesis methodology–why is it good to re-interpret Paul in light of patristic exegesis of him. I doubt I’ll go too far into sola vs prima since this debate is more ecclesiastical in nature, but it’s a close corrollary.
Dunelm Road 
Wednesday, 6 August 2008 at 8:42 pm
Ben,
Thanks for this. In seminary I had to read a book that addressed this very issue: ‘The Shape of Sola Scriptura’ by Keith A. Mathison. Without having read your friend’s blog, I can imagine that they reach similar positions. In any case, I found it a helpful place to start.
Also, I’m ignorant, so can you provide more bibliographic information about ‘Gadamer and Jauss’?
Thanks,
John
Thursday, 7 August 2008 at 4:31 am
Hey Ben:
Thanks for the plug! I was recently speaking with a gentleman who attributed the idealistic approach of a strict adherence to Sola Scriptura as a consequence of Scottish Common Sense Realism. The idea here is that we have full access to the text’s meaning through a straightforward reading and have no real need for tradition, the regula fidei, etc. This idea proliferated (he said) from Scottish philosophy into American theology, particularly finding a strong settlement in American dispensationalism. Lewis Sperry Chafer (whom I’m sure you are familar with!) took it as a badge of honor that he had never had any formal theological training b/c this enabled him to read the text without any biases. He states:
“The very fact that I did not study a prescribed course in theology made it possible for me to approach the subject with an unprejudiced mind and to be concerned only with what the Bible actually teaches.”
This quote is taken from his Systematic Theology intro and is quoted by many (D.H. Williams, Simon Chan in his Liturgical Theology, etc.) who think that it is symptomatic of the naive approach of some evangelicals concerning Sola Scriptura…as if Chafer was really only expositing on what the Bible Alone teaches, and not importing any foreign, or extra-biblical categories/notions into his reading.
I don’t know if the connection b/t Scottish Common Sense Realism and a Strict concept of Sola Scriptura is justifiable (due to my lack of study here), but it certainly was an interesting observation which I think needs more attention (at the very least…from myself!).
Blessings
Clint
P.S.-Did you receive my reply to your email that you sent me a while back concerning some of my interests in doctoral work?
Tuesday, 26 August 2008 at 6:35 pm
I have quite a few thoughts, mostly from the Catholic viewpoint (although I was a Protestant for a number of years, and studied to be a pastor). I was just reading a passage (that I also blogged a bit about) on part of these topics. I think the real argument of the Reformation was not Scripture versus Tradition. The core of the argument had to do with who had the authority to interpret scripture. As Alister McGrath put it in his Introduction to Christianity’s Dangerous Idea, “At its heart, the emergence and growth of Protestantism concerned one of the most fundamental questions that can confront any religion: Who has the authority to define its faith? Institutions or individuals? Who has the right to interpret its foundational document, the Bible?
“Protestantism took its stand on the right of individuals to interpret the Bible for themselves rather than be forced to submit to ‘official’ interpretations handed down by popes or other centralized religious authorities. For Martin Luther, perhaps the most significant of the first generation of Protestant leaders, the traditional authority of clerical institutions had led to the degradation and distortion of the Christian faith. Renewal and reformation were urgently needed. And if the medieval church would not put its own house in order, reform would have to come from its grass roots – from the laity.” (Christianity’s Dangerous Idea, p. 3).
Sunday, 7 September 2008 at 4:08 pm
C.C., That does make sense.
John, Gadamer and Jauss:
Truth and Method. By Hans-Georg Gadamer. 2nd rev. edition. trans. J. Weinsheimer and D.G.Marshall. New York: Crossroad, 1989. ISBN 978-0826476975
Hans Robert Jauss:
Toward an Aesthetic of Reception. Translated by Timothy Bahti. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1982.
“Question and Answer: Forms of Dialogic Understanding”. Translated by Michael Hays. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. 1989.