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]

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,

So, what you've described here is really more (a) than (b).

But I would also point out that the Bible is not a work of systematic theology. On many matters, it simply does not provide a clear or comprehensive statement concerning what Christians ought to believe or do. It's authors often touch on various matters of doctrine and practice only obliquely, and sometimes from different (and some would even say conflicting) perspectives, which later readers of the text have to negotiate in some way.

My critique here is not that various Christian communities can't come-up with their own 'way' (i.e., tradition) for negotiating the text -- surely, they must in order to function as a religious community. Rather, my critique here is:

(1) Whatever 'way' you've devised for negotiating the text will necessarily entail making a priori assumptions that you bring to the text before you read it. Those are, by definition, beyond the Bible itself, and so your 'way' is not "scripture alone."

(2) There are many different 'ways' one could negotiate the text, which is precisely why we see hundreds of different Protestant denominations and sects that all have differing beliefs and practices.

In fact, those who are the most insistent on disregarding historical Christian tradition -- this view is sometimes referred to as Restorationism -- have the most diverse beliefs, even just from each other. This forum attracts a lot of such people, and the discussions here are clear evidence of how little agreement there is among those who are "just following the Bible".

And while it's tempting to think that everyone else is just confused or wrong in their interpretation of the Bible, I think a more objective appraisal of the situation is that the Bible is legitimately open to different interpretations, and so divergent beliefs and practices will naturally follow from "scripture alone."

[historia]

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."

I agree with you that what the author of the Pastorals is saying here is that the Old Testament books are inspired and useful. But that doesn't, in itself, tell us whether there can be sources of doctrinal authority outside of Scripture or not.

Consider, for example, that in 2 Tim. 3:8 -- just a few verses before the section you quoted -- the author refers to the Egyptian magicians who opposed Moses as "Jannes and Jambres." Nowhere in Exodus, or anywhere else in the Old Testament, are they called that. These two names come straight from Jewish tradition.

Likewise, as is well known, Jude 9 refers to a story from the apocryphal Assumption of Moses and Jude 14-15 quotes directly from 1 Enoch 1:9, as if those two texts are authoritative.

So it seems that some New Testament authors (including the one you just cited in support of sola scriptura) viewed certain Jewish traditions, and not just the Old Testament alone, as having at least some kind of authority.

Paul was making reference to the Masoretic Text

A minor point: I wouldn't say that the author of the Pastorals is referring to the Masoretic Text here, since, strictly speaking, that particular recension of the Hebrew Scriptures doesn't take shape until the Middle Ages.

I wouldn't even say he's likely referring to the (let's call it proto-Masoretic) Hebrew text of his day, as he and Timothy are obviously Greek speakers, and so he may well have in view here the Septuagint.

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.

Let me ask you this: When Jesus was teaching in Galilee and Judea, were his words at that time authoritative? If you had been there, would you have said, "Cool story, Jesus, but until someone writes down what you've said, your teachings have no authority"?

[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,

So, what you've described here is really more (a) than (b).

If you say so; I'm not going to agree or disagree with a conclusion on subjects - (a) and (b) - of which I have nor studied.

[JehovahsWitness]

But I would also point out that the Bible is not a work of systematic theology. On many matters, it simply does not provide a clear or comprehensive statement concerning what Christians ought to believe or do.

We call those questions of conscience; in other words a Christian is free to decide for himself what to do - all the while respecting the principles the bible is clear about. Nobody can dictate what a person believes but the leadership has the responsibility to do their very best to teach what Jesus taught (see Matthew 28:19, 20)

(1) Whatever 'way' you've devised for negotiating the text will necessarily entail making a priori assumptions that you bring to the text before you read it. Those are, by definition, beyond the Bible itself, and so your 'way' is not "scripture alone."

Which is why we dont use this language, we try not to go beyond the classifications found in scripture. Paul wrote scripture would enable believers to be "completely equipt" for Gods work, that it would be enough to set things straight. But part of that scripture also speaks of the need for holy spirit and a channel of appointed men to make needed understanding available at the right time. I'm sure you've picked up that I for one, don't care about the expression "scripture alone"; what is more important is scripture first meaning scripture must be the priority.

[JehovahsWitness]

(2) There are many different 'ways' one could negotiate the text, which is precisely why we see hundreds of different Protestant denominations and sects that all have differing beliefs and practices.

And is that the "unity" Jesus said he wanted between his followers?

And while it's tempting to think that everyone else is just confused or wrong in their interpretation of the Bible, I think a more objective appraisal of the situation is that the Bible is legitimately open to different interpretations, and so divergent beliefs and practices will naturally follow from "scripture alone."

So this is a design fault that ultimately must be laid at the feet of God as a bad communicator?

[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.

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.\

There is not an implicit 'all'. You're reading what you want to read and not listening at all.

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.

Yet some governments try to enforce what doctrines a religion can cannot follow. If you live in a country that never does this, then good for you. In places like Russia, JWs are not allow to preach even though this is a huge doctrine of ours. So while your are not referring to non-religious authorities I have to include them because the do have carry some authority because in the Bible it says God gave them some authority.

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?

It does not. What authority does it have? What am supposed to do to follow it? My eternal life doesn't depend on whether I believe it or not. If I've learned anything is that even the most recent creed can change. We as Jehovah's Witnesses are taught that shouldn't be dogmatic especially when it comes to what we as humans think what something means. We can't be rigid like the rest of Christendom where I'm told if I don't believe in the trinity then I'm going to hell.

What that creed does depend on is if I'm asked what the current creed is about 'this generation' then I will say what that is as set by the Governing Body because we are to be unified in what we preach and teach. To be unified is not a creed it is a commandment. (1 Cor 1:10) That commandment has authority.

[Ross]

i

[Ross]

Consider, for example, that in 2 Tim. 3:8 -- just a few verses before the section you quoted -- the author refers to the Egyptian magicians who opposed Moses as "Jannes and Jambres." Nowhere in Exodus, or anywhere else in the Old Testament, are they called that. These two names come straight from Jewish tradition.

Likewise, as is well known, Jude 9 refers to a story from the apocryphal Assumption of Moses and Jude 14-15 quotes directly from 1 Enoch 1:9, as if those two texts are authoritative.

So it seems that some New Testament authors (including the one you just cited in support of sola scriptura) viewed certain Jewish traditions, and not just the Old Testament alone, as having at least some kind of authority.

Excellent points, and I would not disagree with you. Historical records have authority and credibility without question, as do writers from ancient times.

To add to your case is the Jewish tradition based cessation of the pronunciation and copying of the divine name from the Hebrew Scriptures to the LXX, which tradition was adopted into NT writings, though I believe there are doctrinal reasons for this also.

Let me ask you this: When Jesus was teaching in Galilee and Judea, were his words at that time authoritative? If you had been there, would you have said, "Cool story, Jesus, but until someone writes down what you've said, your teachings have no authority"?

Had I been there, I would without doubt have felt obliged to put my observations into writing.

[historia]

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.

Let me ask you this: When Jesus was teaching in Galilee and Judea, were his words at that time authoritative? If you had been there, would you have said, "Cool story, Jesus, but until someone writes down what you've said, your teachings have no authority"?

Had I been there, I would without doubt have put my observations into writing.

I think that's unlikely, actually. Writing materials were expensive in the ancient world, and few people had the education and means to just put their observations into writing. It wasn't like today where almost anyone can readily jot down notes in a diary.

But, more importantly, you've side-stepped the thrust of my question here: Were Jesus' teachings authoritative when he spoke them? Or did they only become authoritative to his followers once they were reduced to writing (decades later) and then designated as scripture (centuries later)?

[historia]

You're reading what you want to read and not listening at all.

I was simply asking you to clarify your position.

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?

It does not. What authority does it have?

For me, none. But, if someone thought that the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses was, say, a "holy spirit"-directed "channel of appointed men to make needed understanding available at the right time," then I would think that that "understanding" (i.e., those doctrines) carry authority for Jehovah's Witnesses. Is that not the case?

What am supposed to do to follow it? My eternal life doesn't depend on whether I believe it or not.

Okay, interesting. In your opinion, then, are Christians at liberty to conclude that the year 1914 has no special significance?

We as Jehovah's Witnesses are taught that shouldn't be dogmatic especially when it comes to what we as humans think what something means.

Okay, but it seems to me that the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses has taken a hard stance on a number of issues, including on many controversial topics. If rank-and-file Jehovah's Witnesses aren't allowed to openly express a difference of opinion on those issues, I have a hard time describing that as anything other than "dogmatic."