The way we’ve always done it: How is Tradition related to Revelation?

Christ is the head of the church over which he rules through the Scriptures, and so of its tradition. Tradition refers to “the handing down of the faith from generation to generation”[1]. All Christians are shaped by tradition, whether they are acknowledged or implicit.

Tradition is not regarded as a separate and distinct source of revelation in addition to Scripture[2]. While the teachings and traditions the apostles received directly from Christ and passed onto the earliest Christians existed before the authoring of the New Testament canon, the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments serve as the definitive witnesses to Christ. Fidelity to the revelation of God in Christ is maintained through conformity to Scripture, as the reliable public written record of these traditions, rather than to the teachings of the church, which may err, although not ultimately.

Formal traditions such as creeds, confessions, and dogmas, and informal traditions that operate within a faith community such as the authority of a pastor, or the “private judgement” of individuals must be tested against the revelation found in Scripture. Tradition is a response to revelation and is authoritive only to the extent that it is consistent with Scripture. The relationship between Scripture, tradition and the church is thus ancillary, subordinating the tradition and the teaching authority of the church to the supreme authority of the Scriptures[3].

Tradition is also understood to mean “a traditional way of interpreting Scripture within the community of faith”[4]. Thus how Scripture is handled in a tradition of interpretation becomes salient. Traditions of interpretation can be regarded as providing a guide to the interpretation of Scripture. Migliore identifies that “Scripture must be interpreted ecclesially”[5], that is, “in the context of the life and witness of the church”[6]. The church as an interpretive community has certain rules of understanding (“traditions”) of the scared writings, including the Christocentric rule of faith, the rule of love, and the rule of hope. Theses rules are not arbitrary, but informed by the Scriptures themselves. Thus Scripture “only functions as such when it is embedded within a tradition of pious use it both informs and is informed by”[7].

This is not to then elevate these hermeneutical principles above Scripture. Rather, it is to identify the extent to which Christ is revealed when such ecclesial interpretive traditions represent faithful interpretations of Scripture. Although tradition is worthy of respect and can provide an interpretive framework which guides the reading of Scripture, “[t]he Scriptures remain the decisive and final authority, the norm by which all the teaching of tradition and the church is to be tested”[8].

---

[1] Anthony N. S. Lane, “Tradition” in Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible, ed. Kevin J. Vanhoozer (Michigan: Baker Academic, 2005), 809.

[2] Alister E. McGrath, Christian Theology: An Introduction (Victoria: Blackwell, 2001), 186.

[3] Lane, “Tradition”, 811.

[4] McGrath, Christian Theology: An Introduction, 186.

[5] Migliore, Faith Seeking Understanding, 58.

[6] Migliore, Faith Seeking Understanding, 58.

[7] Gerard Loughlin “The basis and authority of doctrine” in Colin Gunton (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Christian Doctrine (Cambridge: CUP, 1997), 48.

[8] Packer, “Scripture”, 628.

What is Revelation

Attempts to explain what Christians know about God and how they have access to this knowledge appeal to “revelation” – the epistemological basis for theology[1]. The sources of theology – Scripture, Tradition, Reason and Experience – diversely and interdependently relate to Revelation in a variety of ways. Revelation itself is variously defined as an unveiling or disclosure initiated on behalf of God. This first step on God’s part is necessary because revelation expresses a previous mystery, by its very nature inaccessible to human understanding and inquiry. Such revelation is also a demonstration of grace. God’s revelation is particularly personal, showing his willingness to share with us aspects of the very nature of God. This personal revelation is decisively embodied in the person of Jesus Christ, and is “unique, normative and unsurpassable”[2]. The word of God in the person of Jesus Christ Jesus is the content of revelation, while its purpose is directed towards a fallen humanity to achieve a salvific intent.

Thus, Christ as the revealer of the Father is diversely but not equally made known through each of these ‘sources’ of theology. Christ is in Scripture, the living word to whom they testify; in Tradition, as the head of the Church; in Reason, as the ordering principle that makes reason function; and in Experience, as the One who meets us in our experience[3]. As Jesus said, “Don’t you know me…? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father; No-one comes to the Father except through me” (Jn 14: 6, 9).

---

[1] George Stroup, “Revelation” in Peter C. Hodgson and Robert H. King (eds), Christian Theology: An Introduction to Its Traditions and Tasks 2^nd rev. edn. (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985), 114.

[2] Daniel Migliore, Faith Seeking Understanding: An Introduction to Christian Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 52.

[3] Anonymous, “Sources for Theology”. Retrieved on March 16^th 2006 from http://digitalstudio.calvin.edu/rel131/help/hques1.htm

I think therefore I AM: How is Reason related to Revelation?

Christ is the ordering principle that makes reason function. He is the power of God and the wisdom of God (1 Cor 1:24), and all things were created through, by and for the divine Logos (Jn 1:1-3). Hence, in the created handiwork of God, Christ is revealed in the faculty of human reason by merit of its status as a member of that created order. As bearers of the image of God (Gen 1:26), we share God’s capacity for rationality, although humanity appropriates the divine reason in a derivative rather than original manner. Humans are rational beings, capable of “argument, logic and the rest”[1] using reason “in seeing, hearing and judging…revelation…[which is] not set in opposition or sharp contrast to reason”[2]. Reason is the faculty by which revelation is apprehended, however perspectively as a function of human finitude. Thus, the created does not enjoy the same freedom of action in reasoning as the creator working through the divine logos.

This implies a broader view, an “ontological” sense, which describes reason’s capacity to grasp the very nature of reality to a greater or lesser extent[3]. It is important to avoid two extremes of conviction. The first is the over-confidence in reason inspired by the Enlightenment project, in which the faculty of reason is elevated to be the supreme authority on ultimate truth. Reason is used to lead into a rationally defensible theism or used to antagonistically deny revelation as empirically inaccessible[4]. The second conviction is the “hermeneutics of suspicion”[5] inspired by a postmodern rejection of reason as a way of knowing anything with certainty. Reason is relativised from its privileged position as final arbiter of truth, and is located as a socially and cultured constructed product rather than as a means for engaging with ‘real world’ ‘out there’.

However, from ‘general revelation’ the knowledge of God is abundantly made available to all in the created order (Ps 19:1) and in human conscience (Rom 1:20). Despite this, reason is still limited because of the effects of sin as a consequence of the fall. Reason is rightly an object of suspicion, as the human ability to rationally comprehend unaided how “general revelation” reveals the character of a saving God is ultimately limited.

It is only in the special revelation, that testifies to the saving nature and character of God made known in the person of Christ as found in the Scriptures, that reason is able to apprehend God. This revelation of God through Christ is publicly made known through the empirical emphasis of the gospel reports, the significance of which “provides grounds for believing that are within the objective capacity of human reason to comprehend”[6] Nevertheless, knowledge alone about Jesus as presented in the gospels is insufficient to compel faith on the basis of reason alone. It is indeed “foolishness to the Greeks” (1 Cor 1:23). Ultimately, the cause of personal conviction and certainty lies in the operation of the Spirit of God, testifying to Christ, who is the revealer – a saving knowledge that dispels spiritual ignorance.

---

[1] Gunton, “Historical and systematic theology”, 13.

[2] Stephen N. Williams, “Revelation” in Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible, ed. Kevin J. Vanhoozer (Michigan: Baker Academic, 2005), 679.

[3] Gunton, “Historical and systematic theology”, 13.

[4] Gunton, “Historical and systematic theology”, 10.

[5] Bowald, “Grace”, 269.

[6] Williams, “Revelation”, 680.

Can you feel it? How is Experience Related to Revelation?

Christ is revealed to us by the Spirit as he meets us in our experience of the true church. Wherever the gospel is truly preached, and the sacraments rightly administered, there is Christ. Special revelation provides the framework for contextualising our subjective experiences. The objective dimension of special revelation deals with the historic events narrated by Scripture and divine speech[1], which has at its heart the incarnation of the Son of God. The subjective dimension addresses how this is received.

Formerly, appeals to experience were descriptions of what happens in the Christian life. Now experience is taken as an authority all on its own. However, an over-emphasis on experience to the point of marginalizing or excluding the controlling witness of Scripture produces highly subjective interpretations. Inner experience, self-referentially regarded as true and authentic, becomes the privileged starting point.

Such a strong emphasis on the inner workings of the Spirit over and above the function of the Scriptures, the external Word, produces a totally subjective approach to ‘religious experience’, leaning heavily towards a ‘Christian mysticism’ that rejects both Scripture and tradition. Vague and ambiguous transcendent experiences, located in the private realm, are unreliable and unverifiable as they are can only be judged internally. Indeed, such experiences may be no more than a psychological response evoked by the demands of the situation or the phenomenological realm of the ‘believer’.

Hence, experience can neither be the starting point nor the decisive criterion for evaluating revelation – it is the consequence of an encounter with the Spirit of God who condescends to make himself known in ways we can know and understand subjectively.

The experience of Christ in the Spirit must be subject to the external standards and criteria set forth in Scripture, and validated by the faith community, in order to be consistent with the God who has spoken once for all. The enlightening ministry of the Spirit interprets to us the contents of Scripture rather than embolden fresh revelation[2]. The hidden work of the Spirit enables the exercise of faith needed to interpret the experience as an encounter with God[3]. Thus Scripture, the external Word of God, becomes revelatory and salvific on the reception of the inward testimony of the living Spirit, justifying, regenerating and sanctifying the believer within the community of faith.

This community is ordered in such a way that the experience of the revealed character of God also becomes accessible in ecclesiastical tradition – in histories of narrative performance, communal practices of prayer and charity[4]. The preaching of the word and the right administration of the sacrament are connected with the presence of Christ – and wherever Christ is, there his church is to be found as well[5].

---

[1] Migliore, Faith Seeking Understanding, 29.

[2] “The office of the Spirit…is not to form new and unheard of revelations or to coin new forms of doctrine, by which we may be led away from the received doctrine of the gospel, but to seal on our minds the very doctrine which the gospel recommends”. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. H. Beveridge (Michigan: Eerdmans, 1989), I.ix.2

[3] Packer, “Scripture”, 573.

[4] Loughlin “The basis and authority of doctrine”, 50.

[5] McGrath, Christian Theology: An Introduction, 489.

The beginning of the end, or the end of the beginning?

The relation of Scripture, Tradition, Reason and Experience to Revelation is diverse and interdependent. The saving character of revelation is seen in Christ: as he is revealed in the Scriptures; as the head of the Church and its tradition; as the ordering principle that makes reason function; and as the One who meets us in our experience. The gracious self-disclosure of God in the person and work of Christ is specifically salvific in nature, and is sufficient for those who exercise faith in the power of the Spirit. Hence, authentic “[c]hristian faith and life are inseparable from reliable knowledge of the character and purpose of God”[1].

However, “for eschatological reasons, we may wish to hold that because all our knowledge is provisional there are necessary limits to its completeness”[2]. Christians look forward to the coming revelation in the appearance of Christ in the parousia (1 Cor 1:7, Col 3:4). At that time, what is unknown shall be made fully known, and the person and nature of the triune God will be explored and enjoyed by humanity for all eternity.

---

[1] Migliore, Faith Seeking Understanding, 23.

[2] Gunton, “Historical and systematic theology”, 12.

Bibliography

Anonymous, “Sources for Theology”. Retrieved on March 16^th 2006 from http://digitalstudio.calvin.edu/rel131/help/hques1.htm

Bowald, Mark A. “Grace”. In Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible. Edited by Kevin J. Vanhoozer. Michigan: Baker Academic, 2005.

Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Translated by H. Beveridge. Michigan: Eerdmans, 1989.

Gunton, Colin. “Historical and systematic theology”. In The Cambridge Companion to Christian Doctrine. Edited by Colin Gunton. Cambridge: CUP, 1997.

Knapp, Henry M. “Protestant Biblical Interpretation”. In Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible. Edited by Kevin J. Vanhoozer. Michigan: Baker Academic, 2005.

Lane, Anthony N. S. “Tradition”. In Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible. Edited by Kevin J. Vanhoozer. Michigan: Baker Academic, 2005.

Loughlin, Gerard. “The basis and authority of doctrine”. In The Cambridge Companion to Christian Doctrine. Edited by Colin Gunton. Cambridge: CUP, 1997.

McGrath, Alister E. Christian Theology: An Introduction. Victoria: Blackwell, 2001.

Migliore, Daniel. Faith Seeking Understanding: An Introduction to Christian Theology Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991.

Packer, James I. “Scripture”. In New Dictionary of Theology. Edited by Sinclair B. Ferguson and David F. Wright. Illinois: IVP, 1988.

Pinnock, Clark. “Revelation”. In New Dictionary of Theology. Edited by Sinclair B. Ferguson and David F. Wright. Illinois: IVP, 1988.

Stroup, George. “Revelation”. In Christian Theology: An Introduction to Its Traditions and Tasks 2^nd rev. edn. Edited by Peter C. Hodgson and Robert H. King. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985.

Williams, Stephen N. “Revelation”. In Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible. Edited by Kevin J. Vanhoozer. Michigan: Baker Academic, 2005.