Traditional Theology vs Biblical Theology

[MennoSota]

It seems to me that people view theology from two different perspectives. The first group I will call Traditional Theology.
Traditional Theology looks at the traditions and beliefs passed down through their church leadership and parrots the belief. They look at whatever Bible references the church provided for that theological position and they accept the verses as proof that the church has legitimate proof for it's theological position. Therefore, all theology is argued from the position of church tradition, not from scripture itself. Scripture is assumed to support the church tradition.
The second group I will call Biblical Theology.
Biblical Theology reads the scripture and wrestles with what God has said. It listens to Traditional Theology and compares the arguments to what Biblical Theology reads in the Bible. When a theological position and verses cited by Traditional Theology do not match up with what scripture states, Biblical Theology rejects the Traditional position. Biblical Theology calls for Reformation of the Traditional Theology proponents, stating that the theology position of Traditional Theology has failed to ground itself in scripture.
Many person's who promote a Traditional Theology of their church, don't study the Bible to question their church. They read the Bible to accept what the church has traditionally stated. They are content with church traditions.
Biblical Theology finds no comfort in traditions when tradition seems to have little to no biblical roots. It fights against the tradition and calls for a discussion. Thesis's are nailed to the church door and traditionalists get upset, calling the person who questions them a bully for demanding biblical proof. Fighting often occurs and the traditionalists seek to snuff out the voice that calls for reformation.
Sadly, the Reformation has always had to stand up and call on tradionalists to consider their positions. The same call is still invoked 500 years later and now discussion boards are the place where the tensions can be brought to light.

 

[Josiah]

MennoSota, IMO you are "painting" this entirely wrong.


If I may...


Many embrace the Bible as the source and norm of theology. In a sense, this is true for most of Protestantism - and in a sense, it's true for Catholicism too (although for the RCC, it's complex). There are FEW Christians, churches, denominations, sects or cults that do not claim to be "biblical" and claim that their teachings are the Bible's teachings. They MAY have something additional (Book of Mormon for example) but they still consider themselves "biblical" theologians, "biblical" Christians, "biblical" churches. What MennoSota is getting at is individualism vs. community, not "traditional" and "Biblical."


Community embraces that God gave the Bible to US - to the entire community of believers, the whole corpus of Christians (alive and in heaven), the one holy catholic church. The Holy Spirit is given to US. The Holy Spirit leads US. The Bible was not given to any individual person, church, denomination, sect or cult. The Holy Spirit does not particularly teach any one individual person, church, denomination, sect or cult. It is corporate. It is catholic. Thus, while the Bible is the "source" for theology and (for some also the norma normans for disputes regarding theology), the "community" view holds that ALL have the responsibility to read, interpret and apply it (prayerfully and with the guidance of the Holy Spirit). So, when wondering what a verse "means" or how it should be "applied" these Christians look first to the WORDS (the actual, black-and-whtie words on the page, of course in the original Hebrew or Greek), then under that, to see how WE have handled those printed words. This is the meaning of the word "Tradition" in Reformation Theology (the historic, ecumenical understanding of the words in the text). The community or collective view sees this as the Bible and WE. It will look to the history of this issue, to Ecumenical Councils and Creeds, to esteemed Christians over the years.



Individual. This view proceeds with a radical individualism, "God and ME." It views all religion as essentially personal and individual; the Bible was given to ME (well, to 2.2 billion others too but that's irrelevant), God promised that the Holy Spirit would guide and teach ME. It's personal, not corporate. It is up to ME to flip open my Bible..... pray..... and see how the Holy Spriit uses these words to speak to ME. Here, the printed, black-and-white words on the page are often less important than what the Holy Spirit has lead me to understand/feel about them.


In practice, it's rarely WHOLLY one or the other. But for most of our history, the community view prevailed. Luther and Calvin, while disagreeing with a FEW things in the Catholicism of their day, nonetheless had a profound sense of Christian history, qyoted the Fathers often, embraced the Ecumenical Councils and the Creeds. Luther felt he had an enormous "burden of proof" if he suggested something "new" which is why his apologetics to the RCC was supersaturated with quotes from the Fathers, the Councils, etc. and not ONLY the printed words of Scripture. Never once did Luther or Calvin EVER say, "But the Holy Spirit lead ME to......" Never once did either say, "It seems to ME...." They talked about the printed words on the page..... and they hold in high esteem the historic understanding. And where they did not (Luther for example rejecting the RCC's evolution of Purgatory), they felt a HUGE burden.... to show a denomination (even if just one) as big and as important as the RCC was wrong in something NOT (yet) dogma but long embraced was a huge task that was entirely his own. It's why Luther and Calvin (and the early Anglican Church) were REFORMERS, not revolutionaries (as some of the later-day followers of Luther, Calvin and others sometimes were, and as the Anabaptists, etc., certainly were). Those that embrace the community view do not entirely discount the individual (St. Anselm and others spoke of the importance of conscience, for example) but the emphasis is on the community. The Bible and US.

The Individual view appeals to each person. People tend to think self is smart. Individualism impacted the church since the earliest of days, as it moved from the milieu of the Near East to that of Rome. Like a cancer, it infected things. It got much worse with the Enlightenment - which spun off a whirlwind of denominations and theologies, often because some INDIVIDUAL had a special 'hotline" to God and learned something new and different. Individualism. Revolution. Today, this is everywhere. "What this means to ME is....." "What's in it for ME?" "What makes sense to ME?" 2.2 billion individual religions. 2.2 billion individual churches. MennoSota calls this "Biblical Christianity" but actually it's just individualistic Christianity.




.

 

[MennoSota]

MennoSota, IMO you are "painting" this entirely wrong.


If I may...


Many embrace the Bible as the source and norm of theology. In a sense, this is true for most of Protestantism - and in a sense, it's true for Catholicism too (although for the RCC, it's complex). There are FEW Christians, churches, denominations, sects or cults that do not claim to be "biblical" and claim that their teachings are the Bible's teachings. They MAY have something additional (Book of Mormon for example) but they still consider themselves "biblical" theologians, "biblical" Christians, "biblical" churches. What MennoSota is getting at is individualism vs. community, not "traditional" and "Biblical."


Community embraces that God gave the Bible to US - to the entire community of believers, the whole corpus of Christians (alive and in heaven), the one holy catholic church. The Holy Spirit is given to US. The Holy Spirit leads US. The Bible was not given to any individual person, church, denomination, sect or cult. The Holy Spirit does not particularly teach any one individual person, church, denomination, sect or cult. It is corporate. It is catholic. Thus, while the Bible is the "source" for theology and (for some also the norma normans for disputes regarding theology), the "community" view holds that ALL have the responsibility to read, interpret and apply it (prayerfully and with the guidance of the Holy Spirit). So, when wondering what a verse "means" or how it should be "applied" these Christians look first to the WORDS (the actual, black-and-whtie words on the page, of course in the original Hebrew or Greek), then under that, to see how WE have handled those printed words. This is the meaning of the word "Tradition" in Reformation Theology (the historic, ecumenical understanding of the words in the text). The community or collective view sees this as the Bible and WE. It will look to the history of this issue, to Ecumenical Councils and Creeds, to esteemed Christians over the years.



Individual. This view proceeds with a radical individualism, "God and ME." It views all religion as essentially personal and individual; the Bible was given to ME (well, to 2.2 billion others too but that's irrelevant), God promised that the Holy Spirit would guide and teach ME. It's personal, not corporate. It is up to ME to flip open my Bible..... pray..... and see how the Holy Spriit uses these words to speak to ME. Here, the printed, black-and-white words on the page are often less important than what the Holy Spirit has lead me to understand/feel about them.


In practice, it's rarely WHOLLY one or the other. But for most of our history, the community view prevailed. Luther and Calvin, while disagreeing with a FEW things in the Catholicism of their day, nonetheless had a profound sense of Christian history, qyoted the Fathers often, embraced the Ecumenical Councils and the Creeds. Luther felt he had an enormous "burden of proof" if he suggested something "new" which is why his apologetics to the RCC was supersaturated with quotes from the Fathers, the Councils, etc. and not ONLY the printed words of Scripture. Never once did Luther or Calvin EVER say, "But the Holy Spirit lead ME to......" Never once did either say, "It seems to ME...." They talked about the printed words on the page..... and they hold in high esteem the historic understanding. And where they did not (Luther for example rejecting the RCC's evolution of Purgatory), they felt a HUGE burden.... to show a denomination (even if just one) as big and as important as the RCC was wrong in something NOT (yet) dogma but long embraced was a huge task that was entirely his own. It's why Luther and Calvin (and the early Anglican Church) were REFORMERS, not revolutionaries (as some of the later-day followers of Luther, Calvin and others sometimes were, and as the Anabaptists, etc., certainly were). Those that embrace the community view do not entirely discount the individual (St. Anselm and others spoke of the importance of conscience, for example) but the emphasis is on the community. The Bible and US.

The Individual view appeals to each person. People tend to think self is smart. Individualism impacted the church since the earliest of days, as it moved from the milieu of the Near East to that of Rome. Like a cancer, it infected things. It got much worse with the Enlightenment - which spun off a whirlwind of denominations and theologies, often because some INDIVIDUAL had a special 'hotline" to God and learned something new and different. Individualism. Revolution. Today, this is everywhere. "What this means to ME is....." "What's in it for ME?" "What makes sense to ME?" 2.2 billion individual religions. 2.2 billion individual churches. MennoSota calls this "Biblical Christianity" but actually it's just individualistic Christianity.




.

Perhaps some truth in your perspective, however, I would argue that the Mennonite community is much, much more of a community than anything found in Lutheranism. Community is important, but intensely testing the scriptures is also important.

 

[hedrick]

Perhaps some truth in your perspective, however, I would argue that the Mennonite community is much, much more of a community than anything found in Lutheranism. Community is important, but intensely testing the scriptures is also important.

But everyone uses Scripture. For better or worse, different groups come to different conclusions. That means that how you do your interpretation is important. Individual vs community interpretation is one difference, though by no means the only.

In the end, I maintain that you can't really explain different positions by either of these things. Every major theological tradition is a tradition. Whether they claim Scripture or Holy Tradition, in practice they are traditions and they operate as their particular tradition has developed. This includes even traditions that claim they don't have a tradition.

In the end, Catholics, Confessional Protestants, Pentecostals, and mainline Christians are different communities with different histories and different approaches to major issues. They have come to different conclusions. The typical arguments over sola scriptural, Holy Tradition, etc, don't explain the differences.

I'm part of the Reformed family. My observation is that there's no actual difference between how Catholics and confessional Reformed deal with tradition or Scripture. Both use Scripture, but their reading of Scripture is controlled by their tradition. Sure, confessional Reformed claim this isn't true, but they're just as committed to interpreting Scripture as dictated by the Westminster Confession as Catholics are to interpreting it in light of their tradition. They're just different traditions. The only group that is actually willing to make major changes in light of changes in understanding of Scripture mainline Protestantism.

 

[MennoSota]

One of my points in this thread is regarding the level in which we accept our churches theology without question. In some cases the theology is built on church tradition and stories rather than the Bible. The Bible is merely used as a prooftext for legitimizing the stories/tradition.
Traditionalists seem to accept church dogma without question and dig their heels in when pushed to question their church dogma. Biblical Theology tends to push and question traditionalists. The downside to biblical theologists is the tendency to create new doctrines from thin air and thus hold heresies that deny the person of Jesus as both fully man and fully God.
I believe the tension of questioning tradition and reforming where necessary is a good thing. It can lead to heated discussions (ie baptism) but it is good for the church universal to wrestle with these battles and not remain stagnant.

 

[atpollard]

But everyone uses Scripture. For better or worse, different groups come to different conclusions. That means that how you do your interpretation is important. Individual vs community interpretation is one difference, though by no means the only.

In the end, I maintain that you can't really explain different positions by either of these things. Every major theological tradition is a tradition. Whether they claim Scripture or Holy Tradition, in practice they are traditions and they operate as their particular tradition has developed. This includes even traditions that claim they don't have a tradition.

In the end, Catholics, Confessional Protestants, Pentecostals, and mainline Christians are different communities with different histories and different approaches to major issues. They have come to different conclusions. The typical arguments over sola scriptural, Holy Tradition, etc, don't explain the differences.

I'm part of the Reformed family. My observation is that there's no actual difference between how Catholics and confessional Reformed deal with tradition or Scripture. Both use Scripture, but their reading of Scripture is controlled by their tradition. Sure, confessional Reformed claim this isn't true, but they're just as committed to interpreting Scripture as dictated by the Westminster Confession as Catholics are to interpreting it in light of their tradition. They're just different traditions. The only group that is actually willing to make major changes in light of changes in understanding of Scripture mainline Protestantism.

While I can agree with this to a point (Reformed Theology views scripture through its traditions), there is also a difference between “heterodox” traditions (traditions which differ, but have some potential biblical support) like “Covenant” and “Believer’s” baptism ... and “heretical” traditions (traditions which directly contradict the teaching of scripture) like ‘Jehovahs Witness’ denial of the deity of Christ, or the modern ‘Mainline’ view that the Gospels are all allegorical rather than historical (the events never really happened).

There are also traditions that make no claim to biblical support (like Hanukkah, which derives from non-canonical Jewish Sources (as determined by Jewish Cannon), or the assumption of certain saints (the Catholic Church makes no claim that their assumptions are recorded in scripture). Our Pentecostal tradition of “Third Wednesday of the month Dinner on the Grounds” also has no biblical support, but I am pretty sure that particular tradition does not impact our understanding of scripture.

 

[hedrick]

the modern ‘Mainline’ view that the Gospels are all allegorical rather than historical (the events never really happened).

Allegorical??

First, allegory is a very specific literary form. There’s little of it in the Bible, OT or NT. What you probably mean is legend.

Second, the Gospels are surely based on historical information. Where we differ is that we don’t think they’re inerrant. There are slight differences among the Gospel writers in how they understand Jesus, and comparisons make it clear that their quotations of Jesus aren’t word for word records. Quite likely they see miracles where we wouldn’t. (That doesn’t mean there were none, by the way. I don’t dismiss the possibility of miracle. But we have to face the fact that ancient historical accounts of famous people tend to include miracles.) But they still give us the basics of his life and teaching.

The major exception is the birth sections of Matthew and Luke. I doubt there’s much history in Matthew's birth story. Flight to Egypt? While Luke has him growing up in Nazareth? But I wouldn’t call it allegory. I’d call it legend. There were many witnesses for Jesus’ life, many of them still alive at least when Mark was written. But that doesn't apply to his birth. This is presumably why Mark and John don't include it.

 

[atpollard]

Then too, there is the LEGEND of Jesus resurrection to accompany the LEGEND of his virgin birth and the MYTH that a dead man could somehow forgive our sins.

Enjoy your house of cards ... I will pass on that Road.

 

[hedrick]

Then too, there is the LEGEND of Jesus resurrection to accompany the LEGEND of his virgin birth and the MYTH that a dead man could somehow forgive our sins.

Enjoy your house of cards ... I will pass on that Road.

Why do you insist on putting words in my mouth? There are several differences between the birth stories and the resurrection
* There were plenty of witnesses to the resurrection.
* It appears in all 4 Gospels and Paul
* The existence of Christianity would be hard to explain without it.

This does not mean that the accounts are perfect. There are elements that differ. But that's what you get with real human witnesses.

 

[atpollard]

Why do you insist on putting words in my mouth? There are several differences between the birth stories and the resurrection
* There were plenty of witnesses to the resurrection.
* It appears in all 4 Gospels and Paul
* The existence of Christianity would be hard to explain without it.

This does not mean that the accounts are perfect. There are elements that differ. But that's what you get with real human witnesses.

I was not attempting to place words in your mouth, I was attempting to express frustration at the inescapable conclusion of your initial assumptions.

If the original scripture is not “God breathed” (divinely inspired) and the scripture that we have preserved contain fictionalized “legends” (your word) rather than accurate accounts, then the Bible is NOT a reliable source for Truth about God. William Blake is correct, why should we all not just write our own mythology? You have embraced ‘truth’ (with a small ‘t’ indicating personal, relative truth) and rejected ‘Truth’ (with a capital ‘T’ indicating absolute, objective Truth).

I was raised believing all truth was relative and eventually embraced Nihilism (there is no objective morality). It was only a literal encounter with the Jesus of the Bible (not completely unlike the ‘road to Damascus’ experience) that changed my mind. So I vehemently reject ‘truth’ having encountered ‘TRUTH’.

If scripture contains false legends, then everything it says is open to doubt and potentially a myth. Perhaps Islam is right and Jesus did not really die. YOU cannot assume that the Bible got so much wrong, but that detail correct.

 

[hedrick]

I understand the attraction of an infallible Scripture. But the fact that you want it to be infallible doesn't mean that it is. All it takes is to read it, to appreciate that it expresses a variety of viewpoints, and includes many ancient ideas that we don't and shouldn't currently accept. (The problem, of course, is that you can't actually accept everything in it. There are contradictory ideas, and ideas no one actually accepts. E.g. the OT concept of holy war, slavery, most of the purity code in Leviticus. And no one does. "Literal interpretation" is curiously selective.)

To me, it's primarily Jesus that is God's Word. Scripture is a human witness to him. Like all human witnesses it's imperfect. We depend on fallible evidence for all of our other knowledge about the world, but we cope.

 

[Tigger]

I understand the attraction of an infallible Scripture. But the fact that you want it to be infallible doesn't mean that it is. All it takes is to read it, to appreciate that it expresses a variety of viewpoints, and includes many ancient ideas that we don't and shouldn't currently accept. (The problem, of course, is that you can't actually accept everything in it. There are contradictory ideas, and ideas no one actually accepts. E.g. the OT concept of holy war, slavery, most of the purity code in Leviticus. And no one does. "Literal interpretation" is curiously selective.)

To me, it's primarily Jesus that is God's Word. Scripture is a human witness to him. Like all human witnesses it's imperfect. We depend on fallible evidence for all of our other knowledge about the world, but we cope.

I get this/your perspective but would add God used fallible human beings to share His message and that it’s still inspired within that context. What say you?

 

[hedrick]

I get this/your perspective but would add God used fallible human beings to share His message and that it’s still inspired within that context. What say you?

I generally accept the idea that the Bible is inspired, but just what that means depends upon the part of the Bible involved.

Is it right to say that Jesus' teaching is inspired? That may actually be too weak, since he represented God directly. The term probably applies best to the prophets, though I don't think they necessarily heard God perfectly. Other than that, we'd have to talk in more detail about specific parts. There are some really troubling things in the OT, and the earlier historical books aren't very accurate. I certainly accept that God chose Israel, had a covenant with them, and that the major issue in the OT is how he should deal with a people that didn't carry out their side of the covenant very well.

In the NT it also depends. I already mentioned Jesus. The largest section, Paul, is complex. He distinguished between what he had from the Lord and his personal viewpoint, e.g. 1 Cor 7:10. When he speaks of having something from the Lord, it often seems to match things we read in the Gospels, so I suspect that wasn't direct inspiration of Paul, but rather what he knew of Jesus' teachings. But he also claimed to have seen Christ and gotten a commission from him. His writing was also letters intended to advise specific congregations. That makes it dangerous to apply them directly to our situation without further consideration.

This is precisely why God gave his people the power of the keys. This was, I understand, a Jewish concept that referred to the authority to interpret Torah. We have plenty of basis in Jesus' teachings to know how to do this. He was clear that the letter yield to the welfare of people. (Luke 6:3) My concern is that church leadership has not used this power properly. Some people use it to follow a selectively literal implementation of things they shouldn't be implementing, others refuse to make decisions because once their church has decided something they're unwilling to change it.

 

[atpollard]

There are contradictory ideas, and ideas no one actually accepts. E.g. the OT concept of holy war, slavery, most of the purity code in Leviticus. And no one does.

the OT concept of holy war:
I believe that the American Civil War, the US involvement to stop the Nazi Holocaust, and the Seven Day War were all “Holy wars” (ordained by God for moral and religious reasons).

slavery
Slavery existed prior to Moses writing the Torah, however I am in favor of the Biblical limitations on the sin of slavery that made it unlawful to kill a slave (unlike all of the surrounding nations) and set a 7 year limit on the enslavement of the People of the Covenant (unlike the lifelong enslavement common in the surrounding nations).

most of the purity code in Leviticus
I believe that one living in a direct rule Theocracy, should obey the laws of the land decreed by the people of that nation.
I do not follow those laws because I was never under the Old Covenant. My ancestors were never in Egypt and made no Contract with God.

 

[hedrick]

the OT concept of holy war:
I believe that the American Civil War, the US involvement to stop the Nazi Holocaust, and the Seven Day War were all “Holy wars” (ordained by God for moral and religious reasons).

Our concept of holy war didn't include killing everyone.

 

[atpollard]

Our concept of holy war didn't include killing everyone.

Tell that to the civilian residents of downtown Hiroshima, London and Berlin that died in WW2.
God seldom ordered the killing of everyone. Jericho saw the death of everyone except the woman that became an ancestor of King David (and her family). The Jews chose to disobey God and spare the Palestinians, so how has that decision worked out?