INTRODUCTION
Stephen R. Holmes in his book, Listening to the Past: The Place of Tradition in Theology, seeks to convince the reader of his proposition that tradition (more or less defined by him as the generally accepted theological declarations, arguments, conclusions, and creeds of earlier Christian intellectuals) should be considered authoritative in some way. He suggests numerous arguments and hypotheses which cannot be addressed individually in the narrow scope of this paper. Therefore, the writer of this paper will select certain of these and deal with them as representatives of Holmes’s greater proposition. Since the foundation of Holmes’s proposition is found largely in the first chapter, somewhat more attention will be given to the arguments therein.
Chapter One
Holmes’s liberal view of the role of tradition in theology is more as an end than a means to arriving at a valid theology. He begins chapter 1 with a false statement regarding the role of history in theology (p. 1). Contrary to his assertion, theology does not need history. Theology is the study of God, the revelation of whom is contained in the Holy Scriptures of the Christian Bible. Thus, theology needs the Scriptures, not history.
Each of Holmes’s successive arguments builds upon this false premise. For example, he argues that since John the Apostle was the teacher of Polycarp, and since Polycarp was the teacher of Irenaeus, that the writings of Irenaeus have been successively handed down as an accurate witness to the doctrines taught by the apostles, and should thus be considered authoritative (p. 2). He ignores the distinction, however, between the inspired writings of the apostles who wrote the Bible and those of all who have come after. The writers of Scripture were stenographers who took dictation of the Holy Spirit. Their tongues were the pen of God the ready writer (Psalm 45:1). Anyone who comes after these very special men will fall short of the perfection of Scripture.
Error must necessarily creep into every person’s understanding of doctrine, even those who studied directly under the apostles. Consider that every New Testament epistle is to some extent a correction of the doctrinal misunderstandings of the first century churches. Paul himself founded the church at Ephesus, and personally trained its first pastor, Timothy, and yet Paul wrote three epistles (Ephesians and I and II Timothy) to address numerous incorrect interpretations of Scripture, as well as outright heresies. Tradition comes from fallible men seeking to understand and systematize theology. All human attempts to systematize theology will fall short of a complete and accurate theology in some way, and thus can never be considered authoritative. Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 13 that “we see through a glass darkly.” It will only be at the return of Christ when “the perfect comes” that we will “know fully, even as we have been fully known.” Extra-biblical writings cannot, be considered authoritative, since they cannot be considered wholly accurate.
Starting on page 6, he begins a series of arguments that go on for several pages regarding the importance of the theology student’s relative place in history (locatedness). He builds a spindly scaffolding of layered arguments, each gingerly and precariously resting upon the other. The conclusions of these he has not drawn so much from sound analysis as from intellectual whim. Ultimately, this line of thinking seems irrelevant and does not help his claim of tradition’s authority.
If tradition has any value, it is found in the opportunity for interaction that it affords the student of theology as a means to refine his own views. But, then, those views are not static. They are dynamic. The student may hold various doctrinal positions at any given time. But, as he interacts with tradition, he will likely abandon some of those positions for what he considers to be more accurate doctrinal positions, and so on, as he works out his own theology. Christian intellectual thought (tradition), is expressed in the writings of such students, however revered they may be. But, tradition must not be elevated to the status of offering any settled theology. The Scriptures are the only repository of settled theology. At one point, Holmes allows that church reformations have always been fueled by a deep desire to discard tradition and embrace the Scriptures as sole authority for doctrine and practice (p. 7). But, his acknowledgment does not diminish the fact of Scripture’s singular authority.
Later in the first chapter (p. 13), Holmes claims that God intended that the doctrine and Scriptures of the apostles (what he calls their witness) be handed down through the agency of tradition. He bases his argument, at least in part, on the idea that since history is the stage across which the creation of God is manifest, that history is not improper. From this premise he leaps to his conclusion that one should see tradition as the proper means by which apostolic witness is received. This hardly seems credible. For what tradition did the early church have? The early church received its doctrinal revelation through the agency of the Scriptures, in the form of inspired historical accounts of the life and meaning of Christ (the gospels), the epistles of the New Testament and the revelation of John.
Holmes attempts to head off this argument by, for instance, suggesting that translations of the Scriptures by fallible men are imperfect and thus problematic in arriving at sound theology apart from the aid of tradition (p. 6). But, this view of translated Scripture denies the operation of the Holy Spirit in the work of revelation. Moreover, Scripture does not require an exact translation to get its meaning across. No doctrines of the faith are seriously injured by the incorrect translation of any particular passage of Scripture. For God has deposited His doctrines throughout the Scriptures, “line upon line, precept upon precept…a little here, a little there” (Isaiah 28:10-13).
Chapter Two
Here, Holmes suggests that the aim of theology is to discover about God that which He does not intend to reveal (p. 20). In this regard, he reasons, tradition is valuable and authoritative. However, God does not withhold the knowledge of Himself from His creation. His creation declares “His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature” (Romans 1:20). He has also made Himself known through His Son (John 14:9).
To advance his proposition, Holmes at one point (p. 24) holds up the interdependence of the variously spiritually gifted members of the body of Christ, who are, to his thinking, unable to survive without each other (an erroneous assumption), as an example that tends to support the idea of tradition being necessary to the proper apprehension of theological truth. His reasoning is that since the church can only survive as a unit, that the unit’s byproduct of tradition is also necessary to its survival as well. To further this point he appeals to a vision in which Ezekiel sees bones come together to form a living man. But his interpretation of this vision, that God will not give life to anything (including theology) that is not communal in some way, is not scripturally supported.
Even if one concedes that God works through the agency of man to perform many functions in the body, as indeed He does, this gives man no theological authority, nor would such authority extend to tradition on the basis of this argument. God has frequently revealed truth apart from even the Scriptures, for example, through dreams (Joseph), visions (Peter), or the wondrous creation as previously stated above (Romans 1:20).
Holmes’s ideas concerning the importance of the relationship of Christians across time and space (connectedness, pp. 26-31), and the relative value of these ideas to his original proposition is not readily evident in his arguments, although the exemplary lives of so-called saints can certainly be instructional in an inspirational sense.
As chapter two progresses, Holmes seems to soften his stance somewhat on the authority of tradition with a seeming willingness to accept the consolation of acknowledgment of at least the usefulness of tradition in the study of theology (p. 31). Shortly thereafter, (p. 31) he seems to have almost won himself over to the opposing argument that all truth may be found in Christ alone, and that earlier non-canonical writers have the honor, virtue and purpose of pointing the student of theology ultimately to Him. Then he posits the notion that insofar as tradition is determined by a great consensus to be shaped by the gospel, it can, in fact, be considered authoritative (p. 33). This notion ignores the obvious point that the gospel is what informs tradition and, since it is the foundation of that which tradition claims to know something, it, rather than tradition, must be the object of the student’s endeavor.
At the end of the chapter, Holmes returns strongly to his theme of the authority of tradition, likening a refusal to learn from it as equivalent to one spiritually gifted member of the body arrogantly claiming to have no need of another (p. 34). Because of the necessary fallibility of tradition, it may be used as a platform or reference point for exploring the depths of theology and identifying many of the theological questions to consider, but it is not arrogant to prefer the original article, with its attendant and self-revelatory power (2 Timothy 3:16, Hebrews 4:12), over lesser commentaries on the original article.
Chapter Ten
In this chapter Holmes tries to present an argument that incorporates both the need to appeal to tradition in theology and the doctrine of solo scriptura. Here (p. 154) he identifies Christ’s instruction regarding the nature and work of the Holy Spirit in John 15 and 16 as not intended to deliver to the saints any new revelation, but rather to explain what was already reveled through Christ. But, this cannot be so. Christ’s instruction here regards the completion of the canon of Scripture by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and it regards the Holy Spirit’s lifting of the veil that protects the Scriptures from the profanity of sinful men.
It is interesting that Holmes offers a definition of theology (that it is the study of the gospel) that more appropriately defines soteriology (p. 156). This may be partially responsible for his confidence in tradition as authoritative in theology. Perhaps more interesting is that he maintains the authority of tradition while he allows that it contains error (p. 158). The two cannot coexist, however. Either tradition is without error and thus authoritative, or else it is errant and without authority. Error and authority are mutually exclusive and cannot be reconciled by any logical means.
Finally, Holmes’s Nicene Creed argument (pp. 160-163) almost convinces that there may be some merit to his proposition. But the effect is only fleeting. Careful consideration of the creed reveals that it is very limited, and serves only to collect or sum up and agree with (not inform) Scripture in such a general way as to be a restatement of it. The base doctrinal simplicity of the Nicene Creed negates it as tradition in any real informative and authoritative sense.
CONCLUSION
Scripture is its own best commentary. Paul, for example, writes much commentary on Old Testament Scripture and doctrine, but his is authoritative via inspiration. This is in contradistinction to the commentary of non-inspired writers. The whole of Scripture is sufficient on its own to comment on itself. It does not need tradition to help it along. As a study aid, it can be helpful, but, as a necessary medium for the revelation of theological truth, it has no ground upon which to stand. Uninspired human commentary is useful to a point, but only when it points out where, how and why Scripture is applicable and sufficient as its own commentary.
The three chapters covered by this paper are fraught with arguments that use “if,” “most,” “generally,” “likely,” and similarly vague terms. Ultimately, Holmes’s proposition fails under the weight of both Scripture and reason. This writer does not consider this book to be an important theological work in any sense. If Holmes’s aim had been to get his reader to think critically about tradition’s role in theology, or more importantly, to force his reader to arrive at his own conclusions about tradition’s role theology, then he could have claimed some success.
