From: andrewb@fgh.fgh.oz.au (Andrew Buchanan)
Newsgroups: aus.religion
Subject: Re: Interpretation of Scripture
Date: 11 Dec 92 09:16:38 GMT
Distribution: aus
Organization: FGH Decision Support Systems Pty Ltd, N. Sydney, NSW, Aus.

In article <ricko.723955451@ee.uts.EDU.AU> ricko@ee.uts.edu.au (Rick Jelliffe) writes:
>Perhaps this is clearer:
>
>2/ Protestants, who claim to reject Tradition, actually still
>work within a tradition (e.g. that Jesus is God, Trinity)
	
	You are setting up a polarity that is understandable given much
	Protestant rhetoric.  However, it is one thing to say that
	tradition must stand under the Bible and not vice versa, another
	to reject tradition altogether.  Some try to do the latter, few
	mainstream Protestants do (by definition of mainstream?!).  I
	think you recognise this below.

>3/ strict bible-believing protestants claim (or at least seek) to reject
>tradition in favour of following what is explicit in the
>bible; though, because the Bible is not explicit on some areas, in
>practise they have to synthesize some doctrines that are implicit
>(e.g. Trinity). 

	Yes.

>4/ But acceptance of implicit doctrines is an acceptance of tradition.
>So there is a contradiction in this type of bible-bevelieving
>protestant's methodology.
	
	Why are implicit doctrines tradition?  It may be that a tradition
	informs us and persuades us, but in principle only as it
	illumines the text.  In principle Protestants stand loose to
	all traditions.  Some, like the Trinity, continue to persuade,
	others likes God's impassibility (inablility to suffer) no longer
	persuade many, as the Bible's evidence of God's suffering is
	read in a philosophical climate (less influenced by Aristotle
	and more by Heraclitus) which doesn't obscure it as much.

>5/ not-so-strict bible-believing protestants accept implicit doctrine,
>but want them to be derived from first principles from the scriptures:
>if they are liberal they will refuse tradition and adopt secular methodolgies,
>no matter where that takes them.
>
>6/ If they are conservative, they will use some hierarchy of scriptural
>passages which lets them understand scripture from first principles but
>within certain boundaries. For example, to Luther, Romans was the key
>book to the Bible, and James and Revelation were right down the list.
>But this hierarchy is adopted externally to the scriptures, and is
>therefore an adoption of tradition.
>Or, they will only adopt a very conservative set of first principles:
>but this set of first principles will in fact be derived in order to
>maintain certain christian views, and thus again tradition comes first.

	Now you are describing here the "implicit knowledge" that is
	necessary to know anything at all.  In other words, if we want
	to understand even what our eyes see, we need to have learnt
	about 3-dimensionality, colour &c.  To understand the Bible
	we learn certain key ideas in a form accessible to us (e.g. some
	gospel presentation, or getting to know some Christian friend)
	that help us to begin making sense of it.  Some preunderstandings
	will be unhelpful, others more helpful.  But the existence of
	preunderstandings or implicit knowledge doesn't override the primacy
	of the knowledge itself.  Taking sight again, we don't say that
	our sight is only true because our visual system says so, that
	our visual system is a separate authority to our sight!  Similarly,
	the church tradition exists to help us understand the Bible, not
	for its own sake.  And at times (like the Reformation), the
	tradition gets so out of wack that it needs to be challenged
	and radically changed, like getting a new pair of spectacles.
	This is perhaps the key point:

>Catholicism makes this explicit, and doesn't pretend
>to be working outside a tradition, and goes so far as to say that Jesus
					^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>actually established a sacred Tradition.
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
	
	which must stand over the Bible, if it from Jesus himself!  We
	need tradition, but tradition doesn't give us the answers, just
	maybe helps us find them.

	So I think I agree with alot of what you say, but I think the RC
	emphasis on tradition overrates something that is necessary,
	turning it into something potentially harmful.  I think
	Protestant traditions can be harmful too, and more insidious,
	because as you point out they can go unrecognised for what
	they are.
-- 
Andrew Buchanan				| andrew@fgh.fgh.oz.au
FGH Decision Support Systems Pty Ltd	| ..!uunet!fgh.fgh.oz.au!andrew