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 you will note any JW teaching is an attempt at understanding certain scriptures in the Bible. if they have not been fulfilled, then the teaching isn't completely solid, we must always be ready to make an adjustment and wait on Jehovah God to reveal what a prophecy actually was.

Not so with such creeds as the trinity where there is no fulfillment to be observed, there so revealing of what it means coming, it's just there

I'm going to come back to the rest of your comments in a later post. But I wanted to clarify one thing first: It seems like you are drawing a distinction between "prophecy" and other teachings.

As I understand it, the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses teaches that Jesus is the Archangel Michael. There is no "fulfillment to be observed" with that doctrine, since it's not a prophecy. It's "just there." So are Christians at liberty to believe that Jesus is not the archangel Michael?

Prophecy is still very much apart of Michael being the Archangel.

But identifying Michael the Archangel as Christ is not, in and of itself, a prophecy.

Again, I'm just trying to clarify whether you are drawing a distinction between "prophecy" and other teachings, rather than trying to debate these peculiar doctrines themselves.

If that last example proved distracting, let's consider another one: As I understand it, the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses teaches that Jesus was crucified on an upright stake, rather than on a cross (a pole with a transverse beam). There is no "fulfillment to be observed" with that doctrine, since it's not a prophecy. So, in your opinion, are Christians at liberty to believe that Jesus was crucified on a cross, rather than a stake?

Note I quoted no Watchtower magazine or some other book from the GB or FDS.

Why did you think it was important to point this out?

Even though you didn't quote directly from Watchtower literature, it's clear to me from the argument you gave in support of your belief that Christ is Michael the Archangel that you've been heavily influenced by that literature.

It's not just the GB making something up out of thin air like the trinity.

I think it's rather naive for anyone to think that Christians who hold different beliefs from them are just "making something up out of thin air." Surely, participants in this forum can be more objective than that.

[historia]

As far as until around the first century after the passing of The Lord, I would agree with you.

Okay, but why do you think that stopped a century after Jesus' death?

And specifically where in Scripture does it say that the oral Tradition that the apostles handed on suddenly stops having authority at that time?

Thank you for staying with me on this subject. It is appreciated.

To avoid a massive post, how many scriptural answers do you wish me to provide?

Since I gave you five verses in post #51, it seems only fair for you to give me five in return.

[2timothy316]

If you will note any JW teaching is an attempt at understanding certain scriptures in the Bible. if they have not been fulfilled, then the teaching isn't completely solid, we must always be ready to make an adjustment and wait on Jehovah God to reveal what a prophecy actually was.

Not so with such creeds as the trinity where there is no fulfillment to be observed, there so revealing of what it means coming, it's just there

I'm going to come back to the rest of your comments in a later post. But I wanted to clarify one thing first: It seems like you are drawing a distinction between "prophecy" and other teachings.

As I understand it, the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses teaches that Jesus is the Archangel Michael. There is no "fulfillment to be observed" with that doctrine, since it's not a prophecy. It's "just there." So are Christians at liberty to believe that Jesus is not the archangel Michael?

Prophecy is still very much apart of Michael being the Archangel.

But identifying Michael the Archangel as Christ is not, in and of itself, a prophecy.

Now you're splitting hairs. Can you show where the word trinity shows up in even one prophecy? Or show where the trinity needed to be identified to understand a prophecy? No.

Again, I'm just trying to clarify whether you are drawing a distinction between "prophecy" and other teachings, rather than trying to debate these peculiar doctrines themselves.

The trinity is a completely man made creed. There is nothing to identify for prophecy sake or for any reason what so ever. It stands alone with no reason even look for a trinity in the Bible. Compared to identifying who is this prophesied Michael that is supposed to come sometime perhaps in our lifetime.

What I mean by stand alone is something that is pulled out of thin air like the trinity. No one was looking for a trinity to explain God. For thousands of years no one was looking for a trinity. Noah wasn't looking for it. He didn't need to accept the trinity to survive the flood. Moses didn't need to accept the trinity to part the Red Sea. John the Baptist wasn't baptizing people in the name of the trinity. Yet out of nowhere for no reason after the 3rd century it suddenly became THE thing that everyone must accept or go to Hell.

Compared to the identifying who is this Michael is in prophecy that is so powerful. There is a reason to try to identify who Michael the Archangel is. Who Michael? That question is actually worth looking for the answer to. The identification of Michael isn't a stand a lone teaching pulled out of thin air looking for something that no one was looking for.

If that last example proved distracting, let's consider another one: As I understand it, the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses teaches that Jesus was crucified on an upright stake, rather than on a cross (a pole with a transverse beam). There is no "fulfillment to be observed" with that doctrine, since it's not a prophecy. So, in your opinion, are Christians at liberty to believe that Jesus was crucified on a cross, rather than a stake?

Actually once again that was a prophecy that needed identification.
Compare Deuteronomy 21:23 and Galatians 3:13.

I believe it was a stake not only because that is what was prophesied but that is that the Greek word stauros originally meant. Those that heard or read the word stauros would not have thought of a cross in the 1st century.

Note I quoted no Watchtower magazine or some other book from the GB or FDS.

Why did you think it was important to point this out?

I show that what they write or say isn't what I build my faith on. Only God's Written Word and God's Book of Creation are worth building faith on. Not the made up creeds of men.

Even though you didn't quote directly from Watchtower literature, it's clear to me from the argument you gave in support of your belief that Christ is Michael the Archangel that you've been heavily influenced by that literature.

But not made up by their literature. The scriptures are there and they point to other scriptures that I can compare to identify who Michael is. Then take that explanation and compare it with other's explanations. I agree with their assessment compared to others because their assessment makes the Bible harmonious where other assessments do not. Those that take into account things such as man made creeds I do not accept. It must be all Bible based.

It's not just the GB making something up out of thin air like the trinity.

I think it's rather naive for anyone to think that Christians who hold different beliefs from them are just "making something up out of thin air." Surely, participants in this forum can be more objective than that.

And yet that is where some creeds like the trinity came from. There was no reason to be looking for a trinity in the 3rd century. The majority of people I talk to believe what they do simply because that is what they were brought up to believe. They see no reason to change it. They don't investigate why they believe what they believe. I think it is naive to think that people have deep knowledge in what they believe or even have a drive to attain a deeper knowledge of where their beliefs come from. As someone who has talked to uncountable number of people at their very door, I say many of the people I have talked to don't care if their beliefs where made out of thin air or not. I can include atheists in this group as well. Those that believe there is no God don't care if a theory is unproven and made up out of thin air. If it sounds good, they accept it.

[Ross]

Okay, but why do you think that stopped a century after Jesus' death?

From Pentecost, and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, the Gospel was preached throughout the then known world by the Apostles with temporary miraculous gifts, authenticating their authority and God given positions. Churches or more correctly, congregations, were established far and wide.

However there are many instances recorded in scripture where this pure Holy Spirit inspired teaching, was adulterated, distorted and disputed by persons within these congregations. And writers of what became the NT foretold that after their absence, the early Christian congregations would become corrupted

Acts 20:29

"For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock"

1 John 2;18

"Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that the Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know that it is the last hour"

Then there is the parable of wheat and weeds, which contains a clear description of its meaning.

Matthew 13: 24 -29

“The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away.
The field is the world, and the good seed stands for the people of the kingdom. The weeds are the people of the evil one, and the enemy who sows them is the devil. The harvest is the end of the age, and the harvesters are angels"

By around one hundred years after Christ's death the apostles would be gone, however, by then what became the NT had been recorded and would serve as future true testimony rather than mere word of mouth to the teaching of The Lord, and the apostles.

[Ross]

And specifically where in Scripture does it say that the oral Tradition that the apostles handed on suddenly stops having authority at that time?

While it doesn't say this; it does signify that recorded written text by the apostles would serve as authority.

Luke 1:1-4
"Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught"

John 20:31

"But these things have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name"

Revelation 21:5

"Then He who sat on the throne said, “Behold, I make all things new.” And He said to me, “Write, for these words are true and faithful.”

Revelation 22:18,19

"I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book.
And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book"

[historia]

It seems to me, then, that, far from saying that Christians are to follow Scripture alone, the Bible itself is replete with instances -- both implicit (in the oral teachings of Jesus) and explicit (in the instructions of the Epistles) -- where Christians are supposed to follow both the written and oral Tradition of the Church. That is certainly how the Early Church Fathers, the successors to the Apostles, understood things as well.

Agreed?

As far as until around the first century after the passing of The Lord, I would agree with you.

Okay, but why do you think that stopped a century after Jesus' death?

From Pentecost, and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, the Gospel was preached throughout the then known world by the Apostles with temporary miraculous gifts, authenticating their authority and God given positions. Churches or more correctly, congregations, were established far and wide.

However there are many instances recorded in scripture where this pure Holy Spirit inspired teaching, was adulterated, distorted and disputed by persons within these congregations. And writers of what became the NT foretold that after their absence, the early Christian congregations would become corrupted.

Okay, interesting argument. It seems to me, though, that the verses you quoted here -- especially when viewed in context -- aren't sufficient to establish the claim that the early Christian community as a whole became "corrupted."

Below are the three verses you cited, in context, with the sections you highlighted in red, and other aspects that I think are worth noting in blue:

Keep watch over yourselves and over all the flock, of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God that he obtained with the blood of his own Son. I know that after I have gone, savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. Some even from your own group will come distorting the truth in order to entice the disciples to follow them. Therefore be alert, remembering that for three years I did not cease night or day to warn everyone with tears. And now I commend you to God and to the message of his grace, a message that is able to build you up and to give you the inheritance among all who are sanctified.

Children, it is the last hour! As you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come. From this we know that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they did not belong to us, for if they had belonged to us they would have remained with us. But by going out they made it plain that none of them belongs to us. But you have been anointed by the Holy One, and all of you have knowledge. I write to you, not because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and you know that no lie comes from the truth. Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son. No one who denies the Son has the Father; everyone who confesses the Son has the Father also. Let what you heard from the beginning abide in you. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, then you will abide in the Son and in the Father. And this is what he has promised us, eternal life.

I write these things to you concerning those who would deceiveyou. As for you, the anointing that you received from him abides in you, so you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and is true and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, abide in him.

Just reading through these first two texts, I simply do not get the impression that they are saying that everything is going to go to pot once the apostles are gone.

On the contrary, both authors emphasize that the leaders left in charge of these congregations -- Luke refers to them as episkopoi, "bishops" -- have been put in place by the Holy Spirit and so are "anointed" by God. Because of that, as a group, they "know the truth" and have a "message that is able to build you up and to give you the inheritance among all who are sanctified." John says it is "what you heard from the beginning" -- that is, the oral Tradition -- that allows them to "abide in the Son and in the Father."

Now, to be sure, both Paul and John are warning their successors to "be alert" against heresy. But it's not clear to me why we should assume, as you apparently have, that the bishops were not ultimately successful in combating heresy. Warnings against people who are trying to deceive a congregation is not, in itself, evidence that false teachers did deceive all congregations.

He put before them another parable: "The kingdom of heaven may be compared to someone who sowed good seed in his field, but while everybody was asleep an enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat and then went away. So when the plants came up and bore grain, then the weeds appeared as well. And the slaves of the householder came and said to him, 'Master, did you not sow good seed in your field? Where, then, did these weeds come from?' He answered, 'An enemy has done this.' The slaves said to him, 'Then do you want us to go and gather them?' But he replied, 'No, for in gathering the weeds you would uproot the wheat along with them. Let both of them grow together until the harvest, and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, Collect the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn.'"

. . .

Then he left the crowds and went into the house. And his disciples approached him, saying, "Explain to us the parable of the weeds of the field." He answered, "The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man; the field is the world, and the good seed are the children of the kingdom; the weeds are the children of the evil one, and the enemy who sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the age, and the reapers are angels. Just as the weeds are collected and burned up with fire, so will it be at the end of the age. The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will collect out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all evildoers, and they will throw them into the furnace of fire, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Let anyone with ears listen!

As I read it, this parable is concerned with evil and righteous people in the world. If the mere presence of evildoers or false teachers in the world means that the Christian community as a whole is therefore "corrupted," then we would have to conclude that the Christian community has always been "corrupted," as there were evildoers and false teachers in the world in the time of Jesus and the apostles, too, as the gospels and Paul's letters readily attest.

With all three of these verses -- as with so many other passages in the Bible -- the assumptions that each of us bring to the text significantly colors how we interpret it. Someone who already thinks that the Church fell into apostasy will read that conclusion into these passages, even though, on their own, I simply don't think they say that.

[historia]

By around one hundred years after Christ's death the apostles would be gone, however, by then what became the NT had been recorded and would serve as future true testimony rather than mere word of mouth to the teaching of The Lord, and the apostles.

A couple of thoughts here:

First, we do have a number of early Church Fathers who wrote before "one hundred years after Christ's death." They were recipients of -- and their writings therefore serve as witnesses to -- the oral Tradition of the apostles. Many were direct disciples of the apostles. Shouldn't their writings serve as a "true testimony," too?

But, second, even if, for the sake of argument, we accept your earlier premise that the Christian community as a whole became "corrupted" by the mid-2nd Century, it's not clear to me why that would only impact the oral Tradition.

Consider, for example, the fact that over 90% of the text of the NT was written anonymously. How do we know that all of the books that "became the NT" contain true testimony? How can you personally be certain that some of those anonymous authors didn't include false teachings? Conversely, how do we know that one or more of the early Christian texts that didn't make it into the NT canon is actually inspired and therefore should be counted as Scripture?

And specifically where in Scripture does it say that the oral Tradition that the apostles handed on suddenly stops having authority at that time?

While it doesn't say this;

Right, so we'd have to say, then, that the strictly 'biblical' position on this issue is that Christians should follow both the oral Tradition and the written Scriptures of the apostles. That is never contravened in Scripture itself.

As you've generously demonstrated in your various replies above, the idea that we should follow Scripture alone comes from concerns some people have about later Church history that are ultimately external to Scripture itself. In that way, ironically, the principle of nuda scriptura is not itself based solely on the Bible.

it does signify that recorded written text by the apostles would serve as authority.

Luke 1:1-4
John 20:31
Revelation 21:5
Revelation 22:18,19

I would just make the same comment here that I made above in regard to 2 Tim. 3:16. Passages that say that the Old Testament scriptures or the writings of the apostles have authority don't, in and of themselves, establish the claim that those writings alone have authority. Especially when we have other texts, as we already agreed above, that expressly say the oral Tradition of the apostles also has authority.

[Ross]

Just reading through these first two texts, I simply do not get the impression that they are saying that everything is going to go to pot once the apostles are gone.

On the contrary, both authors emphasize that the leaders left in charge of these congregations -- Luke refers to them as episkopoi, "bishops" -- have been put in place by the Holy Spirit and so are "anointed" by God. Because of that, as a group, they "know the truth" and have a "message that is able to build you up and to give you the inheritance among all who are sanctified." John says it is "what you heard from the beginning" -- that is, the oral Tradition -- that allows them to "abide in the Son and in the Father."

Now, to be sure, both Paul and John are warning their successors to "be alert" against heresy. But it's not clear to me why we should assume, as you apparently have, that the bishops were not ultimately successful in combating heresy. Warnings against people who are trying to deceive a congregation is not, in itself, evidence that false teachers did deceive all congregations.

The words you highlighted emphasised the situation during the time of writing while many apostles were still be alive when the church still retained its purity. I do not propose that everything went suddenly corrupt within the congregations after the apostles departed, but that then began a deterioration of what was originally established, a dilution, a contamination and indeed an apostasy, the process of which lasted several centuries.

As I read it, this parable is concerned with evil and righteous people in the world. If the mere presence of evildoers or false teachers in the world means that the Christian community as a whole is therefore "corrupted," then we would have to conclude that the Christian community has always been "corrupted," as there were evildoers and false teachers in the world in the time of Jesus and the apostles, too, as the gospels and Paul's letters readily attest.

While it is true that the "field is the world" in the parable; please consider this:

The good seed was sown in the world.
Col 1:23 says;
" The Good News has been preached all over the world, and I, Paul, have been appointed as God’s servant to proclaim it."

You have acknowledged and even emphasised the fact that congregations were formed all over the then known world, with overseers, leaders, bishops and teachers in place, under the direction of Holy Spirit.

While the field where the good seed was planted which resulted in these churches with Fathers, children of the kingdom and communal growth of pure Christianity was 'the world', you appear to overlook the specific indication that the weeds or tares were planted among the wheat, not just somewhere else in 'the world' and that they would be difficult to separate, and that they would grow together, so close together that one could not separate them concisely.
This certainly convinces me that the early churches are where the weeds were planted.

Additionally,
2 Thess 2 and the first few verses:

" concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, ... that Day will not come unless the falling away ( Greek APOSTASIA ) comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God... now you know what is restraining, that he may be revealed in his own time. 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."

Again a falling away or apostasy is referred to specifically, 'sitting in the temple of God' ( within Christianity or a perception of it )

Your questions to me were why I believe the the oral authority of the early churches after the death of the apostles diminished and where in scripture is this indicated.

"After I have gone" Acts 20:29 Death of Paul.

" He who now restrains will do so until He is taken out of the way." 2 Thess 2 Restraint of the apostles

" While everybody was asleep, Mat 13 Death of the apostles.

While I do not expect you to change your views, I hope you see that mine are based on scripture, not prior presumptions.

[Ross]

First, we do have a number of early Church Fathers who wrote before "one hundred years after Christ's death." They were recipients of -- and their writings therefore serve as witnesses to -- the oral Tradition of the apostles. Many were direct disciples of the apostles. Shouldn't their writings serve as a "true testimony," too?
But, second, even if, for the sake of argument, we accept your earlier premise that the Christian community as a whole became "corrupted" by the mid-2nd Century, it's not clear to me why that would only impact the oral Tradition.
Consider, for example, the fact that over 90% of the text of the NT was written anonymously. How do we know that all of the books that "became the NT" contain true testimony? How can you personally be certain that some of those anonymous authors didn't include false teachings? Conversely, how do we know that one or more of the early Christian texts that didn't make it into the NT canon is actually inspired and therefore should be counted as Scripture?

I would not personally consider views of early Church Fathers with the same authority as the apostles.
As regards your comments on the NT canon, I acknowledge that they are questions to which we cannot be certain of the answers. Only to reply that as there existed a Hebrew Bible that was handed down through antiquity that Jesus quoted from as having extraordinary authority, that I believe that the same medium would be used for this new revelation to us of The Lord Jesus Christ, as attested to in the verses that you gave little comment on, namely:

Luke 1:1-4
John 20:31
Revelation 21:5
Revelation 22:18,19