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]

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.

Maybe a couple of examples would help illustrate my point.

From my point of view, the areas that divide the various Protestant churches are areas where the Bible taken on its own can, reasonably, be interpreted differently: Should infants be baptized? What is the nature of the Eucharist? How should church governance be structured? What is the relationship between free will and God's providence?

Are these all "questions of conscience" in your opinion?

Paul wrote scripture would enable believers to be "completely equipt" for Gods work, that it would be enough to set things straight.

What do you mean by "set things straight"?

Would those "things" include the doctrinal questions I just listed above?

(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?

I would say no. The ongoing and proliferating divisions brought about by the Reformation are, in my opinion, lamentable.

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?

I think the problem here is that Scripture was never meant to be used on its own outside of the context of Tradition. That is not a "design fault" of the Bible, but a usage error.

[2timothy316]

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

I was simply asking you to clarify your position.

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

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?

You have not answered my question. What should I be doing to follow the creed of 'this generation'? How does that creed carry authority? Remember, we're talking about a creed having authority. Explain how a creed has authority, because you're not being clear. The governing body has authority not the creeds they give us. It goes back to my original statement that creeds have no authority. I think you have forgot that what we are discussing is, "That doesn't, in itself, exclude the place of other authorities, including tradition and the creeds." You have said that creeds have authority. But I don't understand how you can say a creed has authority. From my pov the Governing Body as authority, but their creeds do not as they are not inspired of God. They are spirit directed but they do not speak for Jehovah like the Bible does.

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. It is not a man made decree like the trinity. The date was always in the Bible. JWs just did the math and there are no other calculations that fit. Its like when people discovered the Earth revolved around the Sun. It always did that. Those that discovered it don't get credit for making the Earth revolve around the Sun. JWs don't get credit for making 1914 as the year Jesus became King in heaven, it was always going to happen, no matter if we figured it out or not.

The 'this generation' creed is not as solid. What the Bible calls a 'generation' is becoming more clear but perhaps we still have no discovered what it exactly means. Like many prophecies, sometimes the Bible doesn't make since until the prophecy has come to pass, like the 1914 discovery. While sure the Bible Students got the year right but everything they thought would happen in that year didn't happen. For the discerning JW this is a teaching point. Though the FDS are spirit led they are not perfect and their creeds are not God Breathed. Unlike the those that believe the trinity creed as God breathed. Which in my opinion it most certainly is not.

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."

Yet, those creeds change and we can't be dogmatic and stick with them. Unlike the trinity, the eternal soul and many other things. When the GB makes a change, we as JWs can't be dogmatic and stick with old teachings that don't fit with the Bible. The Jews made this mistake when they didn't accept Jesus as the Christ.

Dogmatic means: "characterized by or given to the expression of opinions very strongly or positively as if they were facts."
The GB constantly reminds us that we can't do this with everything. Some things, we can, like scriptural commandments.

To 'openly express a difference of opinion' is to violate 1 Cor. 1:10. To say the FDS is not on the right track is to deny that there is a faithful and discreet slave at all. That me as the individual knows better. That would mean I would lack humility thinking that I know better. I can assure you, I have not come up with anything better or more scriptural than the FDS has come up with ever. That is because unlike most of who calls themselves Christian, I do no hold on to creeds and tradition as having more authority than the ones that make them. Unlike the trinity which seems to hold more authority than the Bible itself.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to historia in post #40]
The Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses feel that 1914 was significant, even if not the end of the system of things. That was the year that the "times of the nations" were fulfilled. Their unrestrained ruling had ended and God's own Kingdom government was established in the heavens. (See Luke 21:24)

And I have to say. Someone here said that the writers of the Scriptures were illiterate and poor and wouldn't have had anything to write on. That is not true. Moses wrote 5 books and he had been educated in the court of the Pharaoh in Egypt. Matthew was a tax collector and undoubtedly had access to many things because of his previous over-charging of the people. Luke was a doctor and was certainly educated. They all could have taken notes.

[Ross]

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.

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)?

Yes, and no.

[historia]

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)?

Yes, and no.

Tell us more. What do you mean by that?

[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?

[Ross]

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)?

Yes, and no.

Tell us more. What do you mean by that?

Yes, The Lord's teachings were authoritative when he spoke them.
No, they were not only authoritative later.

[onewithhim]

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. They consider ALL of the Bible, not just the NT or not just the OT like some groups. It is helpful because they have studied the Scriptures intensely for over a hundred years, since Brother Russell found a way to stand up to the Babylon of his time that has stretched into our time. They consider every verse. It is the Watchman's duty to warn the people of a great tribulation coming and so hopefully they will start listening to Jehovah, the only true God. (John 17:3) I have studied the Scriptures myself and have come up with the same ideas as the GB.

[historia]

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.

So, it would be anachronistic to project our modern assumptions about writing into the past. An average Joe, like you and me, didn't have the means to just jot down their observations whenever they felt like it -- not because they were somehow mentally deficient, but because they just didn't have the resources to do so.

[historia]

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.

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?

From my pov the Governing Body as authority, but their creeds do not as they are not inspired of God. They are spirit directed but they do not speak for Jehovah like the Bible does.

Okay, but, just because a creed doesn't have the highest authority that you think Scripture possesses, that doesn't, in and of itself, necessarily entail the further conclusion that that creed therefore has no authority at all.

Recall that position (a) from the OP holds that creeds and tradition have a lesser authority to that of Scripture. On that view, creeds aren't considered "inspired," but they still have authority, just a lesser authority to that of the Bible. So, I'm trying to understand why you think that the creeds of your own religious community have no authority at all, rather than just having a lesser authority to the Bible. Saying that they aren't inspired doesn't fully answer that question.

I'm pressing that finer point because, frankly, it seems unusual to me for someone to believe that a religious organization, like the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses, has authority -- and, more than that, is "spirit directed" -- but somehow its teachings don't have any authority.

To my mind, that's like saying that Jesus has authority but somehow his teachings don't. Or that the Supreme Court of the United States has authority, but somehow its rulings don't. It seems evident to me that, if some person or some organization has teaching or interpretive authority, then their teachings and interpretations (of the law, the Bible, etc.) also have authority.

(Again: the issue here is not whether you think that the 'creeds', or teachings, of the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses have the same authority as that of the Bible, but whether those creeds have (a) a lesser authority to that of the Bible, or (b) no authority at all.)

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.