The truth of a doctrine is not determined by its age or by a historical consensus, and yet we naturally assign great weight to doctrinal tradition. After all, there’s something to be said for a historical consensus, and it should not be dismissed lightly. We should not ignore the understanding and insights of the majority who have preceded us. And in general, we should not dismiss a doctrinal tradition unless we have compelling reasons to do so.
I find it interesting, however, that when Protestant theologians agree with a doctrinal tradition, we appeal to that tradition as evidence that our understanding is right. When we disagree with a doctrinal tradition, however, we dismiss the significance of doctrinal tradition by noting that many people can be wrong – and be wrong for a long time. If tradition is a mark in favor of a view, then it is also a mark against contrary views. That doesn’t mean a view that is contrary to doctrinal tradition must be mistaken, but we should at least be willing to admit that it’s a mark against the view.
For example, I recently argued against a particular doctrine on the basis that no one taught this doctrine for the first 1900 years of the church. And yet, a Roman Catholic could argue against my understanding of divorce and remarriage on the basis that it was not taught by anyone in the church for 1600 years. I must admit that this is a mark against my view, but I do not think it is decisive because the evidence decisively favors the Protestant interpretive tradition. The same could be said of the Protestant understanding of justification by faith. Luther’s view flew in the face of a thousand years of traditional doctrine. That didn’t make Luther wrong, but it did make his view immediately suspect. Fortunately, the evidence is such that we should conclude that Luther was right and the traditional doctrine was wrong.
Thinking to Believe 
June 6, 2024 at 1:25 pm
Sure. Although, the ‘majority’ view is somewhat indiscernible thanks to the early theological apologists. On the contrary, I think we should only consider a doctrinal tradition once it passes the scrutiny of Holy Scripture.
I understand your plight here, Jason. However, this is my pet peeve with Apostolic Pentecostals identifying under ‘Protestant.’ Our movement never started with the appeal to reforming church traditions. Rather, we based it upon the tradition of Holy Scripture, the guiding of the Holy Spirit, and obeying the teachings and commands we see in the tradition of Scripture (i.e. Book of Acts). This, I think, solidifies our stance apart from Protestant presuppositions.
Luther, from what I understand, held that justification was an event while sacrificing the possibility it is a process. He also held that the event of justification was monergistic. Those two points, I believe, clash with classic Apostolic understanding. We hold an ‘event’ (Titus 3:5) and ‘process’ (Phil. 2:12) view salvation as the Scriptures outline. We also hold that salvation is synergistic. I will use James 2:22 as a proof text for synergism:
These two points show how the Biblical evidence does not favor Luther’s Sola Fide.
LikeLike
June 6, 2024 at 2:47 pm
Good afternoon. After I read your post, I ended up thinking that the tradition that Martin Luther was opposing is not a universal tradition. The Western Latin tradition diverged significantly from the Eastern tradition after the 11th century.
I was just reading “The Soul’s Longing: An Orthodox Christian Perspective on Biblical Interpretation” which you might find very interesting.
Christ assumes the fallen human nature in the East. He assumes “unfallen” human nature in the West. That leads to a different Christology, and thus a different view of salvation itself.
Do you still have the Amazon wish list? Perhaps I will get it for you, I think you would really enjoy it.
LikeLike
June 6, 2024 at 3:20 pm
Jason,
You write:
> “We should not ignore the understanding and insights of the majority who have preceded us. And in general, we should not dismiss a doctrinal tradition unless we have compelling reasons to do so.”
Contrarily, we should dismiss a doctrinal tradition unless we have compelling Scriptural reasons to not do so.
> “I find it interesting, however, that when Protestant theologians agree with a doctrinal tradition, we appeal to that tradition as evidence that our understanding is right. When we disagree with a doctrinal tradition, however, we dismiss the significance of doctrinal tradition by noting that many people can be wrong – and be wrong for a long time.”
I understand your plight here. However, this highlights my pet peeve with shoehorning OP theology under the Protestant camp. Our rule of faith is significantly nuanced from that of Protestants.
> “If tradition is a mark in favor of a view, then it is also a mark against contrary views. That doesn’t mean a view that is contrary to doctrinal tradition must be mistaken, but we should at least be willing to admit that it’s a mark against the view.”
What are we meaning by ‘tradition’ here? Holy Scripture, church councils, theologians? If you mean Holy Scripture, then I agree completely. However, I assume you are presuming a tradition that is not merely Holy Scripture. If so, then I unfortunately would have to disagree with you here.
> “Fortunately, the evidence is such that we should conclude that Luther was right and the traditional doctrine was wrong.”
Luther, from what I recall, regarded justification as a monergistic event. I believe his interpretation clashes with classic Apostolic theology. Firstly, we would hold that justification, like salvation itself, is an event (Titus 3:5) and process (Phil.2:12). We also hold that justification is synergistic as exhibited in James 2:22:
> “Seest thou how faith wrought (synergeō) with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?”
These two points show how the Biblical evidence doesn’t favor Luther’s Doctrine of Justification. I would appreciate your response.
LikeLiked by 1 person
June 7, 2024 at 12:44 am
Jason writes:
The “we” here does not include me. I couldn’t care less what trinitarian doctrinal traditions are. Any doctrinal position must make biblical and logical sense. If it doesn’t, it should be rejected regardless its age.
You do not explain why the age of a tradition is relevant in the face of biblical teaching. If a particular position is biblical, the length of time people believed it is tangential to the Bible; it doesn’t serve to interpret the Bible. If a position is biblically unclear, the fact that a group a long time ago thought they had the answer does nothing to improve our understanding of an ambiguous text. It only helps us understand how people interpreted it. And if the group in question was way off theologically with respect to the Godhead and/or soteriology, why would their other views lend any credence to the doctrine in question?
False doctrine was active enough in the Apostles’ day for them to repeatedly warn against it. It is therefore no surprise to find abberrent teachings almost as old as Christianity. That fact alone makes the length of time a position is held entirely irelevant.
LikeLike
June 7, 2024 at 3:43 pm
I think this is probably generally true of most things in life. I don’t know that I would say that it is a mark against one’s belief, but I think it is definitely cause for a deeper evaluation of your beliefs to make sure you haven’t missed something obvious that everyone else hasn’t.
Assuming that traditions and beliefs are arrived at by an honest pursuit of the truth is a mistake, IMO. After all, is that true of most things in life? Politics? Government? Much of science ?
As for Protestant tradition, I find it hard to place any value in any of their traditions. They do get many things right, but they’ve been badly wrong on many things as well. They have been fundamentally wrong on the purpose and significance of baptism. Catholic/Protestant views on this have been wrong on its face for well over a millennium. Not just wrong, but so wrong that it’s not even close or even debatable
The leaders of those traditions spent considerable effort persecuting and destroying any dissenting voices. Consider Sabellius : He was said to be a prolific writer and yet none of his writings survived. We only know what he believe via his enemies( and if memory serves me correctly, Tertullian admitted that Sabellius’ views represented the majority of the believers of that time).
Similar could be said of Calvin and Servetus. Calvin, a leading figure in the Reformation, essentially had Servetus murdered for his Oneness and anti-infant baptism beliefs.
I brought those examples up for this reason : How are we to take seriously a series of traditions formulated by people who not only weren’t interested in an honest search for truth , but were willing to persecute and murder those with who they disagreed ? Coupled with what Scalia said concerning false doctrine in the Apostles’ day, I don’t think de facto acceptance of ancient tradition is warranted.
I think I do stand apart from my fellow OPs here though. I am of the opinion that many/most OPs accept Protestant/generic church traditions de facto. I would argue that aside from Godhead and Soteriology , we accept more than a few non-Biblical traditions formulated by Catholic/Protestant traditions.
LikeLike
June 10, 2024 at 12:43 pm
Andrew, let me respond to your two comments separately. Here is my response to comment #1.
I’m not sure what you mean by saying “Although, the ‘majority’ view is somewhat indiscernible thanks to the early theological apologists.” I’m referring to what the majority of people believed over a long period of time. And while I would generally look to the beginning of the church as the starting period for measuring traditional doctrine, it doesn’t have to go back that far. For example, we could consider the Reformers’ view of justification to be a traditional doctrine, and that tradition is only 500 years old.
Whether Oneness believers should identify with Protestants or not is not the point. I’m referring to a human tendency to point to doctrinal tradition in favor of views we agree with, but dismiss the value of doctrinal tradition when we disagree with that tradition. For example, when debating whether the Bible allows same-sex relationships of any kind, we would surely appeal to the univocal voice of tradition that all same-sex activity is sinful, and think that this fact strongly favors our POV. But, when the whole of church tradition supports baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, we dismiss that as “people can be wrong for a long time.”
As for the nature of justification, this is a separate question from the monergism vs. synergism debate. And whether justification is instantaneous or a process is a question of the timing of justification. It doesn’t appear to me that Oneness believers have any consensus on this. Bernard has advocated the process view, while Segraves has advocated for the instantaneous view. I think Segraves is right. But the question of whether justification occurs in an instant or is a process is a separate question as to whether salvation occurs in an instant or is a process. One could hold that justification is instantaneous while salvation is a process (which includes justification at one point in that process). All of that aside, what Luther was right about is that we are made right with God based wholly on our faith in Jesus, not on the basis of our good works.
LikeLike
June 10, 2024 at 12:44 pm
Brady, I’ve never heard either of those two ideas before. I would accept the book, but honestly, I have no time to read it right now. Too many other priorities.
LikeLike
June 10, 2024 at 12:44 pm
Andrew, here is my response to comment #3:
Why would you think that “we should dismiss a doctrinal tradition unless we have compelling Scriptural reasons to not do so”? That doesn’t make any sense. It starts by assuming that everyone before you must be wrong. They are guilty of error until you prove them to be right. When a doctrine began early, was widespread, and persisted for hundreds of years, we should give it the benefit of the doubt unless and until we have reason to think it is false.
What I mean by “tradition” is the longstanding, univocal teaching of the church. For example, the church has always taught against abortion. We think they are right about that. The church has also always taught that the innocent victim of adultery could not remarry. We think they are wrong about that. Both assessments are made by a comparison to Scripture.
LikeLike
June 10, 2024 at 12:54 pm
Scalia,
If that is your posture toward the thoughts of thousands of Christians that came before you, I don’t think it is wise one. Well-meaning Christians have been reading the same Bible as you and doing their best to interpret it for two thousand years before you came on the scene. Don’t you think their thoughts and insights are worth something? When tens of thousands of Christian theologians have understood the text in a certain way, there’s something to be said for that. Again, that doesn’t mean they are right. Many people can be wrong and can be wrong for a very long time, but there is a value in views that are ancient, believed by a consensus of Christians, and persist for hundreds of years.
Of course, the Bible is the ultimate authority, and that is how we are to judge any doctrinal position, regardless of its antiquity, its longevity, or how many people believe it.
What I am opposed to is the dismissive attitude that many exhibit toward doctrinal traditions. We should be more suspicious of doctrinal novelty than doctrinal tradition. When we have an interpretation that virtually no one has ever held for 2000 years, that’s a mark against the interpretation rather than for it. That’s not to say it can’t be right, but we should be much more suspicious of doctrinal novelty than doctrinal tradition.
LikeLike
June 10, 2024 at 1:05 pm
Apollos21, I think it is a mark against one’s POV, although it’s not a mark that cannot be overcome with good evidence. When hundreds of millions of people have believed X for hundreds of years, and then you come along and say Y is right and X is wrong, the odds are against you being right. Obviously, those odds can be overcome with evidence. As someone has said, truth always begins with a minority of one. But there is epistemic weight with majorities and traditions.
I agree that not all are pursuing truth in theology, but I think it is a mistake to think that everyone who disagrees with us does so because they aren’t pursuing the truth. There are many reasons that people disagree with one another. I have always pursued truth at any cost. Many years ago, I debated a particular doctrine with an individual, absolutely convinced that he was wrong. Years later, I came to adopt the very view I once opposed. Was I any more committed to the truth years later than I was years earlier? No.
Obviously the Protestant movement is not without its faults, but this is not relevant to my point because I’m not arguing that doctrinal traditions must be correct because they are old and believed by majorities. We are all fallen, and we all get things wrong. Scripture is the judge of all.
LikeLike
June 10, 2024 at 10:29 pm
Jason, you write:
Worth something? Not with respect to biblical interpretation. I do not need them to interpret the Bible. As I stated, which you do not appear to have considered in your reply, if the biblical message is clear, what they believed or didn’t believe is tangential to the biblical record. It may be an interesting historical fact that they followed biblical doctrine, but that does absolutely nothing to help me understand the Bible.
On the other hand, if a biblical passage is unclear, we have a similar situation. How they interpreted that passage only helps me to understand how they interpreted it. I can acknowledge that their explanation, like current commentaries, can assist me in looking at said passage more comprehensively, but the length of time they held that view is irrelevant because, again, as stated, the Apostles were confronted with false teachers. Anything older than the record, except the Bible, does not imply that it is true.
I’m sorry, but this makes no sense whatsoever. How can there be “something to be said for” something that is false? If you can acknowledge that tens of thousands can be wrong for a very long time, then their belief does nothing to help me understand the Scriptures. If the Scriptures clearly teach X, I don’t need the “tens of thousands.” If the Scriptures do not clearly teach X, then the above applies.
That’s precisely my position, and that is precisely why I DO NOT assign any weight, let alone great weight, to tradition when it comes to the clear teaching of Scripture.
Some Trinitarians, to this day, try to make that argument against Oneness Pentecostalism. Even if we find aberrant modalist teachers in antiquity, there is no evidence that they were Pentecostals. As a package deal, practically nobody in history was a Oneness Pentecostal until the early part of last century. To me, that’s an entirely irrelevant argument. Either the Pentecostal experience is biblically valid or it isn’t. Either the Oneness doctrine is taught in the Bible or it isn’t. These are not obscure doctrines. If the Bible says anything about any subject, it certainly the Oneness of God and the plan of salvation. The fact that Trinitarians very early asserted a plurality of persons in the Godhead means nothing, and I mean nothing against the singular personhood of God taught in the Bible and by natural revelation. So, unless you’re rethinking your theology, I’m wondering what other doctrines have sprung up that you think a traditional argument is effective against.
LikeLike
June 19, 2024 at 3:04 pm
Jason, you wrote :
I agree with this. My point wasn’t at all that everyone who disagrees with us does so because they aren’t pursuing truth. Rather, it was that at least some major traditions were cemented/furthered by people willing to murder and silence the dissenters who challenged those traditions. Those are the ones who I view as not pursuing truth.
But to your main point in your original post, don’t we do this with many things?
Take the Design vs Materialism debate. We’ll disagree with the evolutionary biological tradition on one hand, and then quote an evolutionary biologist on the other when it supports our Design position. We’ll quote Stephen Jay Gould as an authority when it suits our anti-darwinism position , but never mind when he says something that supports Darwin. We’ll cite Hawking’s Singularity Theorems and then ignore his other claims. Same with Guth.
LikeLike
June 21, 2024 at 10:37 am
Jason said:
Fair enough. You might glean something profitable, even if it’s for five minutes by flipping it open to the middle. Here’s the Amazon URL: amazon.com/Souls-Longing-Christian-Perspective-Interpretation/dp/0990502961
I’ve read your endeavor keep a Chalcedonian Christology while holding that the difference between the Father and the Son is external to the Person of Christ.
This book discusses the corollary of that, regarding Christ and his relationship to other humans:
LikeLike
June 24, 2024 at 12:36 pm
Scalia, we both agree that the Bible is the ultimate authority when it comes to doctrine. We just seem to have differences of opinion on how we should value how others have understood the text throughout history. I assign more value/weight to doctrinal tradition than you do, such that I would consider it to be a mark against a view if that view cannot be found in the doctrinal tradition of the church. That’s not to say a view can’t be right if it’s not found in the doctrinal tradition of the church, but epistemically, it does not count in its favor. When I say “the Bible teaches that homosex is morally wrong, and Christians have always believed that,” there are two points in my favor: (1) My Biblical exegesis; (2) Doctrinal tradition. That gives me a leg up on Christians who try to show that the Bible is not opposed to homosexuality. They not only have to show how their exegesis is superior to mine, but they also have to explain why nobody in the last 2000 years of the church has agreed with them. Any unbiased bystander who knows nothing of the debate would surely think that prima facie, the traditional Christian has a leg up on the debate. While theoretically, the pro-homosexual interpreter could carry the day, he is starting at a disadvantage because he is claiming the text means something that hundreds of millions of Christians that preceded him have never seen in the text.
LikeLike
June 24, 2024 at 12:36 pm
Apollos21, many ancient Christians behaved badly, but that does not make what they believed false.
As for the design vs. naturalism debate, I don’t think this is analogous. Citing “hostile witnesses” is a strategic move. We don’t quote them because we agree with everything they say, and we don’t quote them to pretend they agree with us on everything we say, but rather, we quote them to demonstrate that it’s not just people who are ideologically friendly to our view that agree with a certain aspect of our view. Even our ideological “enemies” agree with us on the point. Citing a hostile witness who agrees with you on some point X is always more persuasive to the ideologically uncommitted than citing someone who agrees with you ideologically.
LikeLike
June 26, 2024 at 9:48 am
Jason, yes the lines are pretty clearly drawn here, but with respect to your specific example (the morality of same-sex relationships), I still don’t see the relevance of the tradition you appeal to. Those disagreeing with us will cite our commitment to the primacy of Scripture as justification for departing from tradition. They will argue that tradition embraced the biases of their cultures, including things like slavery and misogyny, which we automatically reject in spite of their traditional attractiveness. In my experience, appeals to tradition branch into these tangents which are time wasters.
A stronger extra-scriptural approach is natural law (since nature, too, is the witness of God). It can thus be shown that God’s witness in Scripture corresponds with His witness in nature. The appeal to tradition is weaker because we all acknowledge that tradition can be wrong, especially when it comes to major doctrines like the Godhead and salvation. Given your Oneness Pentecostal background, it seems that point is rather obvious. But if our understanding of the Bible and nature is correct, they cannot be wrong.
LikeLike