What exactly is the relationship between the church and Scripture. More poignantly, what is the relationship between tradition and Scripture? This is the question that Bloesch addresses in the next chapter, "Scripture and the Church." He lays out the relationship clearly. Scripture is the norma normans (the rule that rules) and tradition as norma normata (The rule that is ruled). There is a place for tradition, but its place is subordinate to Scripture. We should not jettison church tradition, but definitely relegate it to secondary status on the grounds that Scripture has primacy. We value both, but Scripture defines and forms tradition, not the other way around. Quoting Barth, "Scripture is in the hands, but not in the power of the church" (147). He presents a final analogy by Robert Stroud - a tree. Scripture is the roots and the branches are church tradition. Tradition is fed by the Scriptures, but sometimes branches (or traditions) need to be severed. A tree is not a tree, though, without the roots AND the branches.
From this analogy Bloesch affirms that "both Scripture and the church share in the infallibility of the incarnate and living Christ" (148). He goes out to point out that Luther believe that a church founded on the Word of God could not err, because the Word that it teaches does not err. I wish that Bloesch would have written more about the church being "infallible" (as he describes Scripture in previous chapters). Given his understanding of infallibility, I'm guessing he means that the church is unable to err in terms of its communication and witness to Christ, specifically relative to salvation. This seems to be affirmed in a lengthy quote by Barth.
This idea of the church being infallible because Scripture "is in the hands, but not the power of the church" (Barth, 147), is interesting. it is not a concept I had thought of previously. Nevertheless, it makes sense. Further, given its status as the "bride of Christ," the Holy Spirit is present and interpreting the text for the church. I think there is more here, but I have to think a bit more - interesting for sure.
From this analogy Bloesch affirms that "both Scripture and the church share in the infallibility of the incarnate and living Christ" (148). He goes out to point out that Luther believe that a church founded on the Word of God could not err, because the Word that it teaches does not err. I wish that Bloesch would have written more about the church being "infallible" (as he describes Scripture in previous chapters). Given his understanding of infallibility, I'm guessing he means that the church is unable to err in terms of its communication and witness to Christ, specifically relative to salvation. This seems to be affirmed in a lengthy quote by Barth.
This idea of the church being infallible because Scripture "is in the hands, but not the power of the church" (Barth, 147), is interesting. it is not a concept I had thought of previously. Nevertheless, it makes sense. Further, given its status as the "bride of Christ," the Holy Spirit is present and interpreting the text for the church. I think there is more here, but I have to think a bit more - interesting for sure.
RSS Feed
