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 Lord's teachings were authoritative when he spoke them.

Okay, cool. So, if Jesus' teachings were authoritative from the moment he spoke them, and those teachings were passed on orally for decades by his disciples before even the first gospels were written -- and those oral traditions continued to be passed on over the next few centuries before the gospels achieved the status of scripture -- then that means that oral tradition necessarily had authority within the early Christian community.

It's worth reflecting on that point for a moment: If the only authority for determining Christian faith and practice is supposed to be Scripture, then why didn't Jesus write down his own teachings? Why didn't Jesus himself produce any scripture?

Consider, too, that Paul tells us that the teachings of the apostles (i.e., Tradition) is authoritative, whether it is given orally or in writing:

I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions just as I handed them on to you.

As for the things that you have learned and received and heard and noticed in me, do them, and the God of peace will be with you.

So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter.

Now we command you, brothers and sisters, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to keep away from every brother or sister living irresponsibly and not according to the tradition that they received from us.

And what you have heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will be able to teach others as well.

With that last example we are back to 2 Timothy, the letter that three people in this thread quoted in support of their view that Scripture alone is authoritative. And yet, not only does the author of that letter rely on Jewish tradition, as we saw in post #32, but in this verse here he explicitly commands Timothy to pass on the oral tradition that Timothy had received from him (via other people) to others who are to do the same.

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?

[historia]

The Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses feel that 1914 was significant, even if not the end of the system of things.

Are the feelings of the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses authoritative in determining Christian doctrine?

They have the authority to present to us Christian doctrine after having studied and prayed over the Scriptures to find the harmonious meanings in the texts.

Okay, so, in your opinion, are the doctrines that the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses presents to you authoritative?

If they aren't, then why would anyone care what they feel about the year 1914?

[tam]

Peace to you,

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?

(c) Neither.

A Christian should follow Christ.

HE is the Truth.
HE is the Master.
HE is the Word of God.
He, HIMSELF, said "Follow me."

These things are even written in the book that many people claim to be the source of authority for Christians; yet it seems to go unseen.

My authority is Christ - and so also His Father, who drew me to His Son, and who has said to listen to His Son.


Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[2timothy316]

I was simply asking you to clarify your position.

I wish that were true. But That doesn't seem to be the case.

Look, I can appreciate why you might be defensive here. My overarching goal in this thread is to critically engage with the viewpoints being expressed -- this is a debate forum after all -- rather than merely to inquire after other people's opinions.

But, at this point, I'm still not entirely sure what your position entails. My prior request for you to reconcile two statements that appeared to be saying different things wasn't a criticism. It was just a way to have you clarify your position.

My critique of your position will come later, trust me.

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?

No, because that year comes from the Bible.

Okay, so let me ask you here the question you asked above: What are you supposed to do to "follow" this? Does your eternal life depend on you believing that Christ's supposed 'invisible presence' began in the year 1914 -- rather than, say, 1874, as Russell originally taught, or that the so-called 'end of the Gentile times' should actually be 1934, as some Bible Students in the 1920s held?

The date was always in the Bible.

We'll come back to this claim later, as it's a useful example to consider, I think.

Its no longer a man made creed since the 1914 date has past and we now know what that date means. To JWs its a fulfilled prophecy of when the 'times of nations' ended, Jesus was made king in Heaven and Satan was hurled down to the earth. If a person rejects it then they are rejecting, not a creed, but many things the Bible said would happen in the last days leading up to Jehovah's Day and what would be the signs of the presence of Jesus Christ.

The 'this generation' creed is not as solid.

Okay, so it sounds like you're saying here that some Jehovah's Witness 'creeds' are more solid than others. Do the most solid 'creeds', then, have authority?

I do not know of a creed that has authority. The Governing Body has authority to tell us what is to be taught but the teachings themselves do not have authority by themselves. Unlike the trinity that seems to have more authority than any church authority. For example, if the Pope said today there is no trinity, the fallout would be catastrophic for the Catholic Church. Jehovah's Witnesses have learned that no man made creed should carry that kind of authority where it outweighs those that God has put into positions of authority. Every time that happens people fall victim to following the creature and not the Creator. Even the most sold of creeds or teachings JWs. 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, credulously believe it or be tossed to hellfire.

Explain how a creed has authority

A creed, or statement of faith, defines the shared beliefs of a religious community. Creeds typically only entail the most essential religious beliefs of the community, so not everything the community's leaders might currently teach. A creed's authority is derived from the teaching authority of the ecclesiastical body that issued it. By affirming a creed, you are assenting to its propositions. That is how you "follow" a creed.

It seems to me that, in any religious community, there is a need to define what constitutes correct beliefs and practices. Even if a Christian community thinks (naively in my estimation) that their beliefs come straight-forwardly from the Bible, the Bible on its own can be interpreted differently, and so any Christian community has to, at the very least, spell out its particular interpretation of the Bible in order to clearly state what it believes.

No argument here. JWs is easy, the Bible explains the Bible. Even with this method, it is not perfect because it's humans trying to explain the Bible using the Bible, man-made ideas still creep into explanations. This is why JWs are always cautious about explanation of scripture, especially prophecy. Everything is pencil until the prophecy passes, then it's put in ink. Most can't accept their beliefs changing. The biggest example are the 1st century Jews. To view an example of what NOT to do, study them.

[onewithhim]

This is neither here nor there in our discussion, but I thought I'd address these historical points, for prosperity:

Someone here said that the writers of the Scriptures were illiterate and poor and wouldn't have had anything to write on.

Nobody in this thread said that.

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.

Well you asked me what I would have done, not some uneducated halfwit.

This is a common misconception. In our time, writing materials are trivially inexpensive, and so pretty much everyone is taught how to write. Anyone who cannot write, then, is assumed to either lack education or have some kind of mental deficiency.

But, in ancient times, writing materials were very expensive. Few people could afford them, and so the vast majority of people were simply not taught how to write. Most of those who were did so in order to record simple business transactions.

You did imply that. And I said that the Bible writers were not illiterate, nor were they some kind of poor halfwits. Moses: court of Pharaoh; Luke: a doctor; Paul: an educated Pharisee; Matthew: a tax collector. Where do people get the idea that the writers were uneducated?

[Ross]

The Governing Body has authority to tell us what is to be taught but the teachings themselves do not have authority by themselves.

With respect, as an ex Jehovah's Witness of 9 years in the movement, I do not believe you are being completely honest or transparent here.

If you or any Jehovah's Witness since around 1980 makes statements that disagree with official Governing Body doctrine, and maintains such disagreements, this is grounds for disfellowshipping,
(excommunication from the faith.)

It is perceived as apostacy against Jehovah's visible organization, the 'faithful and discreet slave' whom the Governing Body now claim to be.

This is why all members staunchly and without exception believe exactly the same, and defend such.

[onewithhim]

The Governing Body has authority to tell us what is to be taught but the teachings themselves do not have authority by themselves.

With respect, as an ex Jehovah's Witness of 9 years in the movement, I do not believe you are being completely honest or transparent here.

If you or any Jehovah's Witness since around 1980 makes statements that disagree with official Governing Body doctrine, and maintains such disagreements, this is grounds for disfellowshipping,
(excommunication from the faith.)

It is perceived as apostacy against Jehovah's visible organization, the 'faithful and discreet slave' whom the Governing Body now claim to be.

This is why all members staunchly and without exception believe exactly the same, and defend such.

This will be my last communication with you. All members do not just accept what the GB has said without formerly researching the subject and drawing their own conclusions. We are not blind sheep just following after the shepherd. I have researched the Bible, using many versions, and I have come up with my own conclusions and they just happen to agree with the GB's outlook on things.

[Ross]

The Governing Body has authority to tell us what is to be taught but the teachings themselves do not have authority by themselves.

With respect, as an ex Jehovah's Witness of 9 years in the movement, I do not believe you are being completely honest or transparent here.

If you or any Jehovah's Witness since around 1980 makes statements that disagree with official Governing Body doctrine, and maintains such disagreements, this is grounds for disfellowshipping,
(excommunication from the faith.)

It is perceived as apostacy against Jehovah's visible organization, the 'faithful and discreet slave' whom the Governing Body now claim to be.

This is why all members staunchly and without exception believe exactly the same, and defend such.

This will be my last communication with you. All members do not just accept what the GB has said without formerly researching the subject and drawing their own conclusions. We are not blind sheep just following after the shepherd. I have researched the Bible, using many versions, and I have come up with my own conclusions and they just happen to agree with the GB's outlook on things.

Millions of Jehovah's Witnesses of one mind "formerly researching the subject and drawing their own conclusions." ???

I do not think so. And I speak from experience, years of it. Any 'formal' research is what is presented in Watchtower books and magazines. Someone else doing the research and presenting it to the sheep.

Jehovah's Witnesses MUST follow the teachings of their 'faithful and discreet slave'

As for your last post to me, then so be it.

[2timothy316]

This will be my last communication with you. All members do not just accept what the GB has said without formerly researching the subject and drawing their own conclusions. We are not blind sheep just following after the shepherd. I have researched the Bible, using many versions, and I have come up with my own conclusions and they just happen to agree with the GB's outlook on things.

I know that personally have not come up with anything better than what the FDS and GB has come up with. They have the authority and the duty to take the lead when it comes to what is being taught and what as a religion we teach others. The authority belongs to the GB and not their creeds. Why? Because creeds/teachings change but who has authority to set those teachings doesn't.

The Bible says, "Now I urge you, brothers, through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you should all speak in agreement and that there should be no divisions among you, but that you may be completely united in the same mind and in the same line of thought." - 1 Cor 1:10
I've brought out this scripture before but I don't think anyone is reading what it says. If I began causing divisions in what is being taught, many think that I'm going against the GB and their creeds. But according to scripture it is not the GB I'm offending, it's Jehovah God and His Son Jesus. Like Korah's displeasure with Moses, so many can't get past the human element of God's organization. From what I have seen, it is the nearly the number one reason people leave the my religion. It's not the creeds, it's who makes them.

The Bible says, "Finally, all of you have unity of mind, fellow feeling, brotherly affection, tender compassion, and humility."
All of the things mentioned here are crucial to please God. However, that last thing, humility, is a big requirement. So many lack this and those that do lack or lose that quality do not continue on as Jehovah's Witnesses. Because once they do, unity of mind, fellow feeling, brotherly affection and tender compassion are soon tossed aside as well.

Then hate sets in and do you know what the Bible says about those that hate those they once called brother or sister? "If anyone says, “I love God,” and yet is hating his brother, he is a liar. For the one who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen." - 1 John 4:20

[tam]

Peace to you,

The Governing Body has authority to tell us what is to be taught but the teachings themselves do not have authority by themselves.

With respect, as an ex Jehovah's Witness of 9 years in the movement, I do not believe you are being completely honest or transparent here.

If you or any Jehovah's Witness since around 1980 makes statements that disagree with official Governing Body doctrine, and maintains such disagreements, this is grounds for disfellowshipping,
(excommunication from the faith.)

It is perceived as apostacy against Jehovah's visible organization, the 'faithful and discreet slave' whom the Governing Body now claim to be.

This is why all members staunchly and without exception believe exactly the same, and defend such.

This will be my last communication with you. All members do not just accept what the GB has said without formerly researching the subject and drawing their own conclusions. We are not blind sheep just following after the shepherd. I have researched the Bible, using many versions, and I have come up with my own conclusions and they just happen to agree with the GB's outlook on things.

Millions of Jehovah's Witnesses of one mind "formerly researching the subject and drawing their own conclusions." ???

I do not think so.

You're right. That is not possible. The proof is this: those same 'millions of jws who formerly researched the subject' just also happened to make the exact same mistakes.

Millions of people do not make the exact same mistakes (plural) unless they are copying one another (or copying the source of the error, such as the GB.)

Did millions of jws conduct their own research and each one come up with the same mistake that 1914 was the time Christ would return (or whatever the teaching was originally)? Did millions of jws conduct their own research that just happened to change each time the GB changed their teaching of when the separating of the sheep and the goats would begin? Of course not.

Just because a person reads the scriptures (that they were directed to read in a specific order) and accepts the interpretation that their religion has assigned those scriptures, doesn't mean that person conducted independent research to come up with the same conclusions. Otherwise, those same millions of people would not be making and accepting the exact same mistakes as their leaders.


Peace to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy