Nuda Scriptura?

[historia]

One of the foremost principles of the Protestant Reformation is sola scriptura, or "Scritpure alone."

For the Reformers, sola scriptura entailed the belief that the Bible is the sole infallible source of authority for Christian faith and practice. That doesn't, in itself, exclude the place of other authorities, including tradition and the creeds -- as Luther and Calvin's regular quoting of Augustine and other Church Fathers demonstrates -- just so long as these are considered as lesser authorities to the Bible.

However, in 19th Century America, some Protestants of a Baptist persuasion began to take this Reformation principle further, arguing that Christians should ignore tradition and the creeds and treat the Bible as the only authority for Christian faith and practice, period. In 1826, Alexander Campbell famously put it this way: "I have endeavored to read the scriptures as though no one had read them before me; and I am as much on my guard against reading them today, through the medium of my own views yesterday, or a week ago, as I am against being influenced by any foreign name, authority, or system, whatever" (source).

This latter view is sometimes called nuda scriptura, or "bare Scripture," to distinguish it from the historic Reformation view.

Question for debate:

Should Christians:

(a) follow the principle of sola scriptura (as Luther and Calvin understood it)
(b) follow the principle of nuda scriptura (as defined above)
(c) follow neither principle

And why?

[historia]

If Scripture alone is authoritative, then we need to know which texts are Scripture and which are not. How do we do that?

If we just accept the 27 books of the New Testament as a given, then we do so on the basis of Tradition, since it was the 4th Century Church (the one you think was "corrupted") who decided the NT canon. And if we are accepting Tradition on this or any other point, then we can no longer say we're following nuda scriptura.

I accept your reasoning and argument; however the Jewish community was also corrupt and somehow managed to compile the Old Testament.

But even this is a bit problematic. In the time of Jesus and the apostles, there was no fixed canon of Jewish scripture. Outside of the Torah, which was universally accepted, different Jewish groups in the Second Temple period considered different books to be authoritative.

One of those groups was the early Christian community. This is why Christians have historically accepted some books -- like 1 & 2 Maccabees, Tobit, the Wisdom of Sirach, and others -- as part of the Old Testament, even though those were not accepted by the Rabbis, the successors to the Pharisees, when they fixed their own canon -- likely in the 2nd Century AD, and likely in response to the 'heresy' of Christianity.

As for me, I don't trust men or institutions and would prefer to follow what is left of the writing of Jesus and the apostles.

I think you mean to say the writings about Jesus, since he didn't leave any writings. You also seem to accept the writings of non-apostles, as you quoted from Acts earlier, which is by all accounts not written by an apostle.

But, more directly to your point here: It seems to me these texts were never intended to be read on their own apart from the teachings and traditions of the community that brought them together in the first place. Certainly, that is the view of the churches who compiled the New Testament canon.

This is like saying you don't trust the government so you're just going to follow your own interpretation of the Constitution. Some Americans earnestly take that view. But the Constitution was never designed to be interpreted by individuals on their own, as these people rudely realize when they are inevitably hauled into court for breaking the law and discover the judge doesn't care what they think the Constitution says.

[Ross]

I do not claim that the entire community fell astray at this time because Jesus said in Matthew 28: "And behold, I am with you all the days until the end of the age"

And by "this time" you mean the first century? Do you interpret "the end of the age," then, to mean the end of the first century?

No. I interpret it as the same "end of the age" as in the Wheat and Weeds explanation by Jesus.

But the Christian community was already divided well before the last apostle died. One of the earliest Christian texts we have is 1 Corinthians (probably written about 53), and there Paul is already talking about divisions in the community:
Heck, in Galatians, another one of the earliest Christians texts we possess (likely written in the late 40s), Paul is arguing with other apostles! He criticizes James and Peter, in particular, saying that some of their teachings and practices regarding non-Jews and the Law were wrong and creating divisions in the community.

Yes, you are correct. The scriptures I quoted say "many Antichrists have already come" and "this lawlessness is already at work"

The idea, then, that the time of the apostles was this pristine era when there was an undivided Christian community seems to run contrary to the evidence.
if the Christian community has "always been corrupted," then we can't really say that it "would become corrupted" after the apostles died, as you originally suggested
Fair enough. But this is a fundamental presupposition underlying your position, wouldn't you say? If that is uncertain, then it seems to me your whole position is uncertain.
Clearly, you've come to the conclusion that the Church fell into apostasy based on later historical events. This is a presupposition you bring to your reading of the Bible.
Presuppositions.... ultimately come from sources outside the Bible.

You keep repeating this same argument. It is scripture, not presupposition.

2 Thess 2: 1-11
"with regard to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and our gathering together to Him........
it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God........
And you know what restrains him now, so that in his time he may be revealed. For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only he who now restrains will do so until he is taken out of the way. And then that lawless one will be revealed.......
God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they might believe what is false, "

and Matthew 13:
"But while his men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went away. “But when the wheat sprouted and bore grain, then the tares became evident also.... Allow both to grow together until the harvest;.....
the harvest is the end of the age and the reapers are angels."

I have adjusted many, many of my Biblical views in recent years, but this discussion with you has only confirmed to me the view that these scriptures are definitive in describing the dissolution of and the corrupting of the early church. I think it is outright denial to read it in any other way.

But an Orthodox or Catholic reader of the text, who doesn't share your prior conclusion that the Church later fell into apostasy, can just as easily see these texts as saying that, while wicked people and false teachings have been there from the very beginning, the Holy Spirit has put in place bishops, serving as successors to the apostles, to preserve true Christian faith and practice.

The history of what happened to the early community of believers with the introduction of Popes and Catholicism reveal a grizzly catalogue of murders, debauchery, power hunger, political meddling, amassing of outrageous wealth, and dominance and neglect of the common man. The Dark Ages with so called Christian armies, wars, executions, bloodshed and massacres ordered and endorsed by Popes and Catholicism. This aptly depicts the words of Thessalonians. However, the true Christian followers were there also. The true 'church' is the body of Christ, his followers; not some authoritarian, secular man made organized institution with bishops, archbishops, cardinals and a pope.

[Ross]

But even this is a bit problematic. In the time of Jesus and the apostles, there was no fixed canon of Jewish scripture. Outside of the Torah, which was universally accepted, different Jewish groups in the Second Temple period considered different books to be authoritative.
One of those groups was the early Christian community. This is why Christians have historically accepted some books -- like 1 & 2 Maccabees, Tobit, the Wisdom of Sirach, and others -- as part of the Old Testament, even though those were not accepted by the Rabbis, the successors to the Pharisees, when they fixed their own canon -- likely in the 2nd Century AD, and likely in response to the 'heresy' of Christianity.

Problematic or not, the LXX, (indeed a Greek canon translation of scripture) contained the books which are currently our Old Testament, and so more than a mere Torah. Quoted extensively by Jesus and the writers of our New Testament.

I think you mean to say the writings about Jesus, since he didn't leave any writings. You also seem to accept the writings of non-apostles, as you quoted from Acts earlier, which is by all accounts not written by an apostle.

While Luke may or may not have been an apostle in the strictest sense of the term, he was a first century disciple and evangelist, and a right hand man of Paul. This is good enough for me.

But, more directly to your point here: It seems to me these texts were never intended to be read on their own apart from the teachings and traditions of the community that brought them together in the first place. Certainly, that is the view of the churches who compiled the New Testament canon.
This is like saying you don't trust the government so you're just going to follow your own interpretation of the Constitution. Some Americans earnestly take that view. But the Constitution was never designed to be interpreted by individuals on their own, as these people rudely realize when they are inevitably hauled into court for breaking the law and discover the judge doesn't care what they think the Constitution says.

It appears to me that you doubt God's hand in the compilation of the Bible, and place as much or even more authority in your church authoritarianism. This is your choice based on what you have learned and observed. I however see no exhortation in the Greek scriptures to follow a body of men through the centuries or in our present day who assume apostolic succession and are considered Most Holy and in between Christ and man.

[Ross]

I do not claim that the entire community fell astray at this time because Jesus said in Matthew 28: "And behold, I am with you all the days until the end of the age"

When Jesus said, "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it" (Matthew 16:18), does that not indicate that the entire Christian community cannot fall astray?

Where have I said in all of our lengthy discussion that the entire Christian community would fall astray?

[1213]

Should Christians:

(a) follow the principle of sola scriptura (as Luther and Calvin understood it)
(b) follow the principle of nuda scriptura (as defined above)
(c) follow neither principle

And why?

c) follow Jesus.

A christian means originally a disciple of Jesus. And person is a disciple of Jesus, when he remains in word of Jesus.

…The disciples were first called Christians in Antioch.
Acts 11:26
Jesus therefore said to those Jews who had believed him, “If you remain in my word, then you are truly my disciples. You will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.”
John 8:31-32

So, a Christian should be loyal to Jesus and follow his teachings. That doesn't necessary mean he can't also have other teachings, but if the other teachings are in contradiction with Jesus, a disciple of Jesus rejects them.