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]

[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]