we posit the requirement of faith to understand the Bible fully and then look to the Bible to understand God’s self-revelation in Christ in whom we have faith, the process has a definite circularity to it.143 Recognizing the role of our pre-understanding, however, does not doom us to a closed circle—that we find in the text what we want to find in the text. The honest, active interpreter remains open to change, even to a significant transformation of pre-understandings.144
Hence, the important thing is not whether we come to the Bible with total neutrality (none of us really do), but whether our guiding theological presuppositions conform to Scripture. Klooster correctly concludes that “a sound biblical hermeneutic demands that one approach Scripture with a pre-understanding that is wholly consonant with it.”145 When our presuppositions are not formed by Scripture, then we are left with some sort of tradition setting itself up to be normative and irreformable over the Scriptures, to use Lane’s words.146
One final explanation regarding the origin of the following principles may be appropriate before delving into the principles themselves. In other words, from where did they originate? Were they randomly picked with the purpose of ultimately “conforming” polity passages to our own theological system, or was there more objectivity to it?
The process of compiling the principles outlined below was neither random nor prejudiced. In reading through the various models of church polity, I found that they depend largely on their understanding of the six guiding theological principles that formed the nucleus of this work. The position that each of us takes with regard to these guiding principles, therefore, affects our understanding of church polity. These six guiding theological principles deal with (1) the relationship between Scripture and tradition; (2) literal versus allegorical readings of the Bible; (3) the timing of the origin of the church; (4) the nature of the New Testament offices of apostle and prophet; (5) the relationship between the New Testament offices of elder, overseer, and pastor; and (6) the connection between interpretation and application of biblical passages. Each of the principles is either directly drawn from or indirectly sanctioned by the word of God and enjoys the support of not just one stray verse, but a number of related passages.
Six Guiding Foundational Theological Principles
Listed below is a position on the six principles that is closely linked with the word of God and will serve as a springboard for subsequent inquiry into the most biblically defensible model of church polity.
First Principle: The Supremacy of Scripture
The first principle delineates the supremacy of Scripture over human traditions, including the church, reason, and experience. In saying this, I do not deny the value of tradition, the community within which we live and develop our interpretation of Scripture, our ability to reason, or our personal experiences. Each is valuable and helpful in its own right, though with various degrees of import. None of them, however, can enjoy the same level of authority as the word of God.
Since we have already discussed the role of tradition in our understanding of Scripture, it may be helpful to pick up the discussion where we left it and add to it here. William Kiffin, a seventeenth-century British theologian, ably outlined the importance of careful and complete obedience to the Lord exactly as prescribed in Scripture, especially in those areas where it may be “enhanced” by human traditions:
If the Conquest of an Enemy against the Command of his General, cost a Roman Gentleman his life, though his own Father were the Judge: If the killing of a Lion contrary to the Laws of the Kings Hunting (though to rescue the King himself) cost a poor Persian his Head: If the Architect that brought not the same (but as he judged a fitter) piece of Timber than he was commanded, to a Roman Consul, was rewarded with a bundle of Rods: If Nadab and Abihu came to a Tragical [sic.] end for their prohibited service, in offering not the same that was commanded, but strange fire before the Lord, what shall we say to such as mix their Inventions with the Sacred Institutions and Prescripts of the Great Sovereign? . . . And may it not be truly said that whoever Practices any Institution otherwise than as was appointed by the Supreme Law-giver does not Honour the Ordinance, but an Idol of his own making? Mixtures are useful for two purposes; viz. either to slaken and abate something that is excessive, or to supply something that is deficient: and so all Heterogeneous mixtures do plainly intimate, either a Viciousness to be Corrected, or a Defect to be Supplyed [sic.]. Now it is no less than Blasphemy to charge either of these upon the Pure and Perfect Word of God, and any Glosses that take away or diminish the force of it, or human Traditions that argue any defect, are equally dangerous and impious. To stamp anything of a humane Original with a Divine Character, and father it upon God, is one of the highest and most daring Presumptions the Pride of man can aspire unto, and is provided against by special prohibitions and threatening.147
Later, Kiffin emphasizes again the high import that the Scripture places on meticulous compliance with its propositions:
. . . if Military Commanders expect a punctual and regular Obedience from their Soldiers; and severely punish such as break their Array, or quit their Stations; The Lord (who is a Jealous God with respect to his Worship, and positive Institutions) will call any, that presume to break the Order he has prescribed, to a severe account.148
But what is tradition?149 Fee identifies at least five levels of tradition, which we may acknowledge, embrace, reject, or utilize, consciously or otherwise:
“Tradition” tends to have five distinct nuances, which can be illustrated in the following nearly impossible sentence: The New Testament documents record the tradition (1) of Christ and the apostles, which early church tradition (2) understood to be inspired and authoritative Scripture; the later church codified tradition (3) so that it became equally authoritative with Scripture, an understanding which those within the evangelical tradition (4) reject, but who nonetheless frequently interpret Scripture through the lenses of their own personal and theological traditions (5).150
It is tradition in the third sense with which I am mainly concerned in this section. This is the tradition found especially in the Roman Catholic communion, where church tradition holds an official and authoritative role in the church’s life, equal to Scripture itself.151 The official Roman Catholic position is that the Spirit’s activity did not cease when the last New Testament book was completed, but that he also makes his will known through the traditions of the living organism that is the church.152
Before engaging in any further discussion of this topic, a short historical overview of the relationship between Scripture and tradition may be helpful. Following the establishment of the New Testament church,
. . . well into the second century, the Old Testament remained the early Christians’ only authorized text, but the needs of churches and the assaults of heretics led to a relatively rapid formation of the canon of the New Testament by the late second century and its fixation by the mid-fourth. The essential criterion was that these writings contain authentic apostolic tradition.153
Thus, the earliest view of the relationship between Scripture, tradition, and church may be called the coincidence view: that the church teaches what the apostles taught, which it receives from the apostolic Scriptures and from the apostolic tradition.154 During this period, Scripture, tradition, and church were assumed to teach one apostolic message.155
There is no conflict between them, and the whole Christian message is found in each.156 This approach proved extremely useful to Irenaeus157 and Tertullian158 in their struggle against the Gnostics who appealed to their own Scriptures and to their own secret traditions. In his response, which provided the most effective answer to Gnostic heresy, Irenaeus claimed that the apostles’ teaching, found in their genuine writings, was handed down in an open public tradition of teaching in those churches which they had founded, where it was still taught.159
In time, the coincidence view gave way to the supplementary view: that tradition is needed to supplement Scripture by providing teaching not found in Scripture.160 In the fourth century, Saint Basil of Caesarea became one of the first to apply such a method in his defense of the deity of the Holy Spirit when he stated that some Christian beliefs are not found in Scripture.161 To count as authentic apostolic tradition, such fathers as Saint Augustine162 and Saint Vincent of Lerins163 in the fifth century West required that these be recognized and practiced throughout the whole church.