The Written Word
When
it comes to the written form of the Word of God, there were several points of
formal consensus among Reformed theologians and considerable variety in the way
those formal points were applied in the actual interpretation of Scripture to
the life of the Church (Osterhaven, ch. 5). Some Reformed theologians
maintained the authority of Scripture as an infallible and verbally inerrant
document; that it is true in all that it all it affirms. This researcher also
holds this position. The Scriptures are inspired and infallible. Put another
way, Scripture is inerrant within the context in which it was written. The real
authority of Scripture consist in the way it, in different ways according to
differing contexts and literary forms, witnessed to God’s decisive
self-disclosure in Jesus Christ to the Church. Although in the Old Testament we
found a great diversity of proclamation, such as historical narratives, hymns,
poetry and wisdom sayings, these cumulative witnesses were best understood
retrospectively in the light of the apostolic communities’ proclamation of
Jesus to be the Christ. This discerning unity that encompassed the diversity of
Scriptures was not imposed externally but reflected the contention we found in
the New Testament itself.
This
discernment of an encompassing unity to Scripture was an application of a principal
of Reformed theology, namely, as stated in the Westminster Confession, that the
Scripture was its own best interpreter (Book of Confessions, Presbyterian Church
(USA), par. 6.009). This principle had to be understood in the sense that
attention had to be given to what portions of Scripture meant in their
respective historical, linguistic, and cultural contexts. The task of this
historical research was not to be seen as alien to this principle of Scripture
being its own best interpreter. This study did not assume a sharp dichotomy
drawn between Scripture and tradition. Rather Scriptures came into their
present form by the writing down of traditions and then by the process of re-editing
some written traditions in the light of other traditions in new cultural contexts.
This process of re-traditioning was not incidental to, but belonged to both the
very character of the Scriptures and to the confessions of the Reformers
themselves. Traditions and confessions, as well as dogmas, must conform to and
be in accord with the Word of God. Rather than making a sharp dichotomy between
Scripture and tradition, the Scriptures of the Old and the New Testament are
the normative form of the tradition, which must judge all subsequent traditions
including confessions and dogmas (Barth, 1965, pp. 75-94). (Paul Tambrino, Mariology:
Past, Present and Future [Winter Springs, Fla.: Winter Springs, 2021], 154-55,
emphasis in bold added)
Further Reading:
Not By Scripture Alone: A Latter-day Saint Refutation of Sola Scriptura
