Monday, September 26, 2022

Paul Tambrino (Reformed) on Tradition being Theopneustos/Inspired and Red-editing thereof in Inscripturation

  

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