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]

The correct way, as I see it, is scripture is a rock. Unchangeable and yes infallible. Creeds, while useful, can't be ridged and shouldn't be viewed as a higher authority than the Bible. Not even equal to the Bible. They need to be in pencil as it were. Having the humility to change the creed as need as more understanding of the higher authority, the Bible, becomes apparent. Traditions have there place and in of themselves not bad. But a tradition that becomes ridged and viewed as equal in authority to the Bible can become spiritually deadly. Thus why I can't agree with "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."

Okay, but it seems to me that what you are describing here is just (a). Your concerns (bolded above) are already covered by the remainder of the description that you didn't quote here: "just so long as these are considered as lesser authorities to the Bible."

Because in my belief, scripture can and does exclude other authorities.

As a JW we have what is called the Governing Body. These are men that do set what many would call creeds in my religion.

These two statements seem to be in tension with each other. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that Jehovah's Witnesses consider the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses to have authority. They don't have the same authority as the Bible, as you noted, but that doesn't mean they don't have any authority, right?

However, unlike other religions they do not hold the same authority as the Bible. They acknowledge this.

As do all Protestant churches that subscribe to sola scriptura. Again, your description here seems to be just (a).

[2timothy316]

The correct way, as I see it, is scripture is a rock. Unchangeable and yes infallible. Creeds, while useful, can't be ridged and shouldn't be viewed as a higher authority than the Bible. Not even equal to the Bible. They need to be in pencil as it were. Having the humility to change the creed as need as more understanding of the higher authority, the Bible, becomes apparent. Traditions have there place and in of themselves not bad. But a tradition that becomes ridged and viewed as equal in authority to the Bible can become spiritually deadly. Thus why I can't agree with "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."

Okay, but it seems to me that what you are describing here is just (a). Your concerns (bolded above) are already covered by the remainder of the description that you didn't quote here: "just so long as these are considered as lesser authorities to the Bible."

Because in my belief, scripture can and does exclude other authorities.

As a JW we have what is called the Governing Body. These are men that do set what many would call creeds in my religion.

These two statements seem to be in tension with each other. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that Jehovah's Witnesses consider the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses to have authority. They don't have the same authority as the Bible, as you noted, but that doesn't mean they don't have any authority, right?

That is correct. It doesn't mean that they don't have any authority. They make decisions and have the authority on many things. Just because scripture CAN exclude an authority, don't think that it DOES exclude any authority. So there is no tension. Like the GB has no say in my eternal future. That would go beyond their authority. But they do have authority over where a Kingdom is built along with many other things.

Governments have been given a measure of authority by God over many things. But they do not superseded God's commandments.

However, unlike other religions they do not hold the same authority as the Bible. They acknowledge this.

As do all Protestant churches that subscribe to sola scriptura. Again, your description here seems to be just (a).

It's not quite, but what I believe can't be easily labeled and placed in a box. Because if your description of (a) is absolute, there are things about it that I don't agree with, as Luther and Calvin understood it.

[historia]

The principle of nuda scriptura is one that I follow, (though that is what I thought that sola scriptura meant)

Indeed, those who follow (b) invariably call their position "sola scriptura." It's just that confessional Protestants who follow (a) tend to call (b) "nuda scriptura" in order to distinguish that position from their own.

That having been said, the true Bible left to us today is in manuscript form, and is not any one translation or interpretation from scholars or translators of Greek and Hebrew. Also many manuscripts, especially Greek ones vary, and their translation can be ambiguous when trying to establish fixed doctrine.

Okay, interesting point. It seems to me, though, that this caveat would apply equally to the verses you quoted in support of the doctrine of sola scriptura itself.

You said:

Any tradition or institution or code of practice that goes 'beyond what is written' which the same Bible instructs us not to do, is from men rather than God.

The challenging thing about 1 Cor. 4:6 -- as biblical commentators have long noted -- is that it is not at all clear what Paul means there by "what is written."

It seems to me that few critical commentators actually interpret this as Paul appealing to some general principle akin to sola scriptura. Rather, "what is written" may simply refer to one of the verses of Scripture Paul referenced earlier in the text, or perhaps instructions Paul had previously given the Corinthians, or perhaps even some other document, like a community bylaws, that the Corinthians were familiar with.

In fact, many commentators, following the work of Baljon (1884) and Strugnell (1974), think that "not beyond what is written" was likely a scribal note that was accidentally copied into the main of the text early in its transmission history.

The verse literally reads:

Now these things, brothers, I made into a figure [of speech] with respect to myself and Apollos for you that by us you may learn not beyond what is written that you not be puffed up one for one against the other.

If you just remove the phrase "not beyond what is written" it reads:

Now these things, brothers, I made into a figure [of speech] with respect to myself and Apollos for you that by us you may learn that you not be puffed up one for one against the other.

That's actually much clearer.

Strugnell has hypothesized that the manuscript that this scribe was copying from had essentially the above text, but it accidentally lacked the word "not," which wouldn't make sense. And so when copying this verse he added the word "not" with a note that "not" is "beyond what is written." An entirely plausible explanation.

Those ambiguities, coupled with the fact that even the Reformers didn't appeal to this verse in support of their position of sola scriptura makes this a fairly weak point on which to hang your argument.

You also made a reference to 2 Tim. 3:16, which says that "every scripture is inspired by God." But it's not clear why that, in itself, would mean that there can be no other authority, like tradition, within Christianity.

I have lots of other questions about your argument. But perhaps we can start with those.

[historia]

We don't need anything from other sources to understand and apply the Bible in our lives. Exactly why would we?

For many reasons, I think, one being that the Bible was never intended to be a collection of texts that people read on their own in order to "understand and apply it in their lives."

Difflugia's comments above get at other problems with this view.

[historia]

Is there a sort of minimal set of traditions to bootstrap the process to ensure orthodoxy, or would those that claim the principle of nuda scriptura also claim that they truly avoid all preconceived standards when approaching the text?

This is a rather perceptive question, and gets at one of my objections to the idea of nuda scriptura.

It is quite evident to me that those who hold to the position of nuda scriptura are coming to the Bible with a fair number of a priori assumptions, which they necessarily have to make in order to "bootstrap the process" of doing theology, as you put it. Those assumptions are, by definition, outside of scripture, and so defeat the idea of "scripture alone."

I find the Bible much more interesting in terms of both literature and theology when I don't assume that the various authors necessarily share the same understanding of God. I'm often surprised at how difficult that is, because the interpretations I initially learned assumed an internal consistency that isn't necessarily apparent from the texts alone.

This gets at one of the other objections I have to the idea of nuda scriptura. Every Christian who reads the Bible is influenced to one degree or another by prior Christian interpretations of the text, to say nothing of their own cultural assumptions. Even those who eschew all modern churches and are just off doing their own thing cannot help but be influenced by Christian tradition, especially when they've made no effort to engage in any kind of historical-critical analysis of the Bible, as is often the case. Anyone who thinks that they are just reading the Bible "straight" is fooling themselves.

In that way, nuda scriptura is little more than an idealized conception. It cannot work in practice.

[historia]

Because in my belief, scripture can and does exclude other authorities.

Just because scripture CAN exclude an authority, don't think that it DOES exclude any authority.

Reconcile these two statements for me, as it seems like the first one is saying that you believe Scripture excludes all other authorities, while the second doesn't.

Because if your description of (a) is absolute, there are things about it that I don't agree with, as Luther and Calvin understood it.

I don't know what (a) being "absolute" means here. Or what, exactly, you disagree with in the description of (a), as your earlier objections are already excluded by that definition, and are points that Luther, Calvin, and modern proponents of sola scriptura would also object to.

[Ross]

You also made a reference to 2 Tim. 3:16, which says that "every scripture is inspired by God." But it's not clear why that, in itself, would mean that there can be no other authority, like tradition, within Christianity.

I have lots of other questions about your argument. But perhaps we can start with those.

Thank you for your comments regarding "beyond what is written"; I was not aware of these alternative schools of thought, so thank you for that. I am content to leave that scripture out of the discussion for those reasons provided.

As regards 2 Tim 3:15-17, it appears to be self explanatory:

"But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, 15 and how from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God[a] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."

While the New Testament canon had not at this point in time been put together or even written in any form of entirety, it would seem evident that Paul was making reference to the Masoretic Text which he defines as being "God breathed" or "inspired by God."

Unlike the Bible, which is clearly described as an authority directly from God, and God ordained, I cannot see how this could apply to modern day or historical church tradition.

I will be interested to read your thoughts on this.

[JehovahsWitness]

In that way, nuda scriptura is little more than an idealized conception. It cannot work in practice.

Like others in this thread, I hesistate to comment on so called nuda scriptura because I havent really studied what it means. Biblically there is nothing wrong with being influencesd by traditions or oral teachings nor are modern day Christians expected to find religious truth without help. Indeed scriptures indicate there would be a "faithful and discrete slave" which would instruct and guide the whole of the Christian "brotherhood". But I think the point is that the authoritive final word must come from the bible canon. So not even church leadership has the authority to mandate a religious ceremony, teaching or practice without there being a biblical law or principle.

The above can and does work in practice,

JEHOVAH'S WITNESS

[2timothy316]

Because in my belief, scripture can and does exclude other authorities.

Just because scripture CAN exclude an authority, don't think that it DOES exclude any authority.

Reconcile these two statements for me, as it seems like the first one is saying that you believe Scripture excludes all other authorities, while the second doesn't.

Why do you keep adding the word 'all'. I didn't say all. For example, while a countries government has the right to make laws. They have that authority given to them in the Bible. (Ro 13:1) But governmental rulers do not have the authority to overrule God's commandments. When there is a conflict between God's laws and man's laws the Bible is clear. God's laws are superior. (Acts 5:29) Thus an entity can have authority but where it tries to overreach the law in the Bible, then that overreach can be dismissed in the eyes of God. I do not have to obey it.

One can't just make a blanket statement that all authority can be excluded as it seems you have mistakenly claimed I have done.

Because if your description of (a) is absolute, there are things about it that I don't agree with, as Luther and Calvin understood it.

I don't know what (a) being "absolute" means here. Or what, exactly, you disagree with in the description of (a), as your earlier objections are already excluded by that definition, and are points that Luther, Calvin, and modern proponents of sola scriptura would also object to.

I object that "tradition and creeds" carry any authority.

[historia]

Because in my belief, scripture can and does exclude other authorities.

Just because scripture CAN exclude an authority, don't think that it DOES exclude any authority.

Reconcile these two statements for me, as it seems like the first one is saying that you believe Scripture excludes all other authorities, while the second doesn't.

Why do you keep adding the word 'all'. I didn't say all.

Because, in English, if you refer to a set of things without any qualifier (e.g., 'some', 'many', 'most'), then the implicit assumption is that you are referring to all the members of the set.

So, for example, if I say, "I've seen the original Star Wars trilogy," you would naturally assume I've seen all three movies, unless I qualify my statement by saying I've only seen "some" or "part" of that trilogy.

Likewise, if you say "scripture can and does exclude other authorities," there is an implicit 'all' there, unless you clarify the scope of your statement, which is all I'm asking you to do here.

For example, while a countries government has the right to make laws.

Let me, likewise, clarify: By "authority" here I mean specifically bases of doctrinal authority -- which is to say, any authority that Christians should use to determine their community's faith and practice. So I'm not referring to non-religious authorities like, say, governments or scientific bodies.

I object that "tradition and creeds" carry any authority.

Any authority? A creed is just a statement of what a community believes. When the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses recently came up with a different interpretation regarding the 'generation of 1914' that would not pass away before 'Armageddon', does that change in teaching not carry any authority for you?