Revelation - a "type" of the Trinity?

[awfulthings9]

I thought I posted on this before, but couldn’t find it through the search engine. Has it occured to anyone before that our three-legged revelation (Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium) is a model, or type, of the Trinity? That perhaps God gave us revelation in this way to help us understand the mystery of a three-person God.

Of course, all “types” ulimately fall short of their divine fullfillment, but here’s my theory:

Tradition relates to God the Father
Scripture relates to Christ
Magisterium relates to the Holy Spirit

The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are not parts of God, but each is fully God. Likewise, Tradition, Scripture are not parts of Revelation, but each is the fullness of the faith, transmitted in different, but complementary ways. One could argue the same for the Magisterium (though it is not a source of revelation, but the containment of it)

The Son is eternally begotten of the Father, just as Scripture is begotten from Tradition. Though Scripture is not any more subordinate to Tradition than Christ is to the Father.

The Son is the Word made flesh, or material. Scripture is revelation made material (ie. ink and paper).

Even before a word of Scripture was written, it was part of God’s divine plan for revelation. Even before Christ took on flesh, it was part of God’s divine plan for revelation.

Christ as a two-natured person is the fullfillment of what Christ was as a purely spiritual being before his incarnation. The New Testament is the fullfillment (or at least a testimony to the fullfillment) of the Old.

The Spirit is the advocate, or teacher, that guides the Church after Christ and the Father delivered Revelation. Likewise, the Magesterium is the teacher that guides (through the Holy Spirit) the Church based upon that revelation.

The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit work within and through one another (circumincession). Likewise, Scripture and Tradition cannot be taken apart from one another. Scripture is understood through the intepretive lenses of Tradition, and Tradition is understood through the material sufficiency of Scripture. Of course both work through the Magisterium and both were revealed through the Magisterium (though it might have been in the form of prophets or inspired apostles).

It his heresy to go by Scripture alone. It is heresy to claim that our God is not Trinitarian.

Any thoughts? Disagreements? Anyone see any essays on this idea online somewhere?

-Spencer

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Why would you say that Tradition is God the Father? It seems like Tradition proceeds from Scripture, not the other way around.

 

[awfulthings9]

Thanks for responding, Prodigal.

Prodigal_Son:

Why would you say that Tradition is God the Father? It seems like Tradition proceeds from Scripture, not the other way around.

If Tradition proceeds from Scripture, then we would be building our Traditions solely from our interpretation of Scripture.

Think of it this way. Most of what we have in Scripture was passed on orally before it was written down. Take the gospels, for instance - these were composed years (not too many) after the events. They were inspired, but they were recordings of the stories passed orally. In the Old Testament, just one example would be the Kings, Samual, and Chronicles books, which were records of history, but that history was Tradition before it was written down. Even Paul’s epistles are mostly correction on those points which had already been handed on to the communities through a teaching Church (tradition).

The Christian Church operated for years before much of Scripture was written and definitely before it was collected, which shows that it was a teaching church that instructed the early Christians and Scripture was born of that teaching church. It was through Tradition that we even know which books of the Bible should be part of canon in the first place.

Tradition and Scripture are from the same fountain of revelation, but chronologically, Tradition almost always proceeded Scripture (except, one could argue, the book of Revelation, which John supposedly wrote after receiving a direct image and message).

If Tradition proceeded from Scripture, then we would be bound to have nothing in Tradition but what our interpretation of Scripture gives us, which would mean we would be just another sola-Scriptura chuch.

God Bless,
Spencer

 

[CathChemNerd]

awfulthings9:

Any thoughts? Disagreements? Anyone see any essays on this idea online somewhere?

-Spencer

That’s a nifty little argument; it has given me much food for thought. One of the more difficult things to comprehend in our faith is the Trinity, but your analogy is a very useful way of doing just that. Our familiarity with Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium can indeed shed some light on the triune nature of God.

Good stuff!!
CCN

 

[Prodigal_Son]

awfulthings9:

Thanks for responding, Prodigal.

If Tradition proceeds from Scripture, then we would be building our Traditions solely from our interpretation of Scripture.

Think of it this way. Most of what we have in Scripture was passed on orally before it was written down. Take the gospels, for instance - these were composed years (not too many) after the events. They were inspired, but they were recordings of the stories passed orally. In the Old Testament, just one example would be the Kings, Samual, and Chronicles books, which were records of history, but that history was Tradition before it was written down. Even Paul’s epistles are mostly correction on those points which had already been handed on to the communities through a teaching Church (tradition).

The Christian Church operated for years before much of Scripture was written and definitely before it was collected, which shows that it was a teaching church that instructed the early Christians and Scripture was born of that teaching church. It was through Tradition that we even know which books of the Bible should be part of canon in the first place.

Tradition and Scripture are from the same fountain of revelation, but chronologically, Tradition almost always proceeded Scripture (except, one could argue, the book of Revelation, which John supposedly wrote after receiving a direct image and message).

If Tradition proceeded from Scripture, then we would be bound to have nothing in Tradition but what our interpretation of Scripture gives us, which would mean we would be just another sola-Scriptura chuch.

God Bless,
Spencer

Interesting. Your definition of tradition seems broader than most, but working within that definition, I think you have something here.

 

[awfulthings9]

Prodigal_Son:

Interesting. Your definition of tradition seems broader than most, but working within that definition, I think you have something here.

Hmmm. Not to disagree with you, but I would be interested what others have to say on that topic. If I’m wrong on my view of Tradition, I hope to be corrected.

Thanks man.

 

[Gray_Mouser]

awfulthings9:

Hmmm. Not to disagree with you, but I would be interested what others have to say on that topic. If I’m wrong on my view of Tradition, I hope to be corrected.

Thanks man.

No, you’re dead on. Your presentation of Tradition and its relationship to Scripture is, in fact, rather reminiscent of Dei Verbum. The notion that Scripture precedes Tradition is Protestant in its origin, as far as I can tell, and overlooks the fact that the Church produced the Bible (individual books as well as the canon).

Gray Mouser

 

[awfulthings9]

Gray Mouser:

No, you’re dead on. Your presentation of Tradition and its relationship to Scripture is, in fact, rather reminiscent of Dei Verbum. The notion that Scripture precedes Tradition is Protestant in its origin, as far as I can tell, and overlooks the fact that the Church produced the Bible (individual books as well as the canon).
Gray Mouser

Thanks. I’ll have to look Dei Verbum up. I’m sure it’s online.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

awfulthings9:

Hmmm. Not to disagree with you, but I would be interested what others have to say on that topic. If I’m wrong on my view of Tradition, I hope to be corrected.

Thanks man.

Oh, I’m not saying that your definition is wrong, by any means. It’s just that usually, when people talk about tradition and the Church, they are talking about the Anno Domini Church – that is, the Church after Christ’s Incarnation. But you are talking about the Church as a continuation of the Hebrew church. That’s what I meant by finding your view unusual.

Your definition is broader and more interesting.

 

[awfulthings9]

Prodigal_Son:

Oh, I’m not saying that your definition is wrong, by any means. It’s just that usually, when people talk about tradition and the Church, they are talking about the Anno Domini Church – that is, the Church after Christ’s Incarnation. But you are talking about the Church as a continuation of the Hebrew church. That’s what I meant by finding your view unusual.

Your definition is broader and more interesting.

Don’t worry about it.

I would say that even in the Church after Christ’s incarnation, most (if not all) of the New Testament was oral, or Tradition, before being written down.

But it’s not really a big deal. I appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut and am glad you found it interesting.

Peace, brother

 

[awfulthings9]

awfulthings9:

Scripture is understood through the intepretive lenses of Tradition, and Tradition is understood through the material sufficiency of Scripture.

I’ve decided to change my own terminology, which I had used here and on other threads (the foundations thread with Fredericks, in case anyone followed that). I’ve called Tradition our “interpretive” authority, in contrast to the material sufficiency of Scripture. What I meant by that was that, while Scripture tells us we must be baptised, Tradition lets us see exactly what baptism is supposed to look like. Similarly, a book of baseball rules tells us we must hit a ball with a bat, but the history of good coaching tells us how to hold the bat, stand, follow the ball, and follow through.

I’ve decided, though, after reading Church documents (Dei Verbum) and the Catechism, that “interpretive” authority sounds too similar to the role that the magisterium plays. I want, though, sufficient terminology to understand the role that Tradition plays (as too many Protestants think that we believe it contains “all the other stuff” that Scripture left out). Our Catechism and documenst such as Dei Verbum made it clear that both Scripture and Tradition contain come from the same fountain of revelation and both contain the fullness of the truth. Yet, one is not sufficient without the other.

So … whereas we would refer to the material sufficiency of Scripture (that it contains everything revealed about salvation, though not in a formally sufficient - self-interpreting way), would it be fair to refer to the “applicative” sufficiency of Tradition. In other words, we learn about the teachings of Christ through studying the how they were recorded in the material of Scripture, but also by observing the application of those teachings through the 2000 years of the Church. Thus, I am not undermining the role of our true “interpretive” authority, which is the magisterium.

If anyone else has a better counter-point term than “applicative sufficiency” for Tradition to express, as “materially sufficiency” does for Scripture, its purpose in our Church, please let me know. I want to be precise in my writing, but not contradict what one would find in official documents. However, I haven’t found in those official documents, such terminology, so my best hope is not to contradict it with any I may use in something I write.

So, the above quote would be ammended to read:

awfulthings9:

Scripture is understood through the applicatively sufficient lens of Tradition, and Tradition is understood through the material sufficiency of Scripture.