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?

[Ross]

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?

The principle of nuda scriptura is one that I follow, (though that is what I thought that sola scriptura meant) because of the fact that the Bible is or claims to be 'God breathed' or inspired by God. 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. Therefore I do not recognise any modern day church authority.

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. And for this reason I do not consider today's 'Bible' to be infallible.

[2ndpillar2]

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?

You have several fallacies. 2 Timothy 3 was supposedly written by the false prophet Paul, and the term "sacred writings", "inspired by God, were used, is referring to what was read from youth, and would not include the NT. Other fallacies, such as the editor and compiler of the NT canon (the daughter of Babylon, the Roman Catholic church) is holy. (Rev 17:1-8). If you want to escape the "plagues" of her (daughters of Babylon) then one must "come out of her" (Rev 18:4).

[otseng]

You have several fallacies. 2 Timothy 3 was supposedly written by the false prophet Paul, and the term "sacred writings", "inspired by God, were used, is referring to what was read from youth, and would not include the NT. Other fallacies, such as the editor and compiler of the NT canon (the daughter of Babylon, the Roman Catholic church) is holy. (Rev 17:1-8). If you want to escape the "plagues" of her (daughters of Babylon) then one must "come out of her" (Rev 18:4).

Moderator Comment

Please read Guidelines for the TD&D subforum

Please review the Rules.





______________



Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Revelations won]

I have a question:

Who has authorized authority to declare which of the many man made versions of the Bible translations is correct?

[historia]

I have a question

If you would like to debate a different question, you should start a new thread on that topic.

[1213]

...
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?

I think Christians are disciples of Jesus and should remain loyal to Jesus and his word. The reason is these:

For it has been reported to me concerning you, my brothers, by those who are from Chloe’s household, that there are contentions among you. Now I mean this, that each one of you says, “I follow Paul,” “I follow Apollos,” “I follow Cephas,” and, “I follow Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized into the name of Paul?
1 Cor. 1:11-13

Jesus therefore said to those Jews who had believed him, “If you remain in my word, then you are truly my disciples. You will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.”
John 8:31-32

…The disciples were first called Christians in Antioch.
Acts 11:26

[onewithhim]

[Replying to historia in post #1]
It would be "B." This is the first I've heard of nuda scriptura but it makes sense. We don't need anything from other sources to understand and apply the Bible in our lives. Exactly why would we?

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." (2 Timothy 3:16, KJV)

[historia]

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?

I think Christians are disciples of Jesus and should remain loyal to Jesus and his word.

Okay, but that doesn't answer the question under consideration. Do you agree with (a), (b), or (c) above?

[Difflugia]

arguing that Christians should ignore tradition and the creeds and treat the Bible as the only authority for Christian faith and practice, period.

Does "tradition and the creeds" include such traditional as inerrancy and that one could derive a single, coherent theology? 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?

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.