Scripture vs. History

Mary Meg said:

Thanks for your kindness. I really do feel ganged up on today. I mean, I did ask for it, and I'm mostly enjoying it, but what happened to all the Orthodox and Catholic folks who were in my corner yesterday? There are still a couple of you here; thanks!

The funny thing is, I didn't mean my post to be antagonistic. I am really looking for answers here. Protestants take my words to be a critique of Protestantism, when really what I'm trying to ask is, more than anything else, how can a Protestant deal with these ambiguities in Scripture? No matter how many times I'm told to "interpret Scripture with Scripture" -- I really have no idea how to do that or see how it's possible. Scripture doesn't tell us everything. Maybe it tells us "everything we need for salvation," but it doesn't really tell us everything we need to have an understanding of the faith and practice of the Early Church.

I kind of thought "Scripture Vs. History" would be a sensational title... but I guess it's attracted the wrong kind of sensation!

Click to expand...

Hey, I'm still around. Didn't mean to leave you. And I didn't take your posts as digs at Protestantism.

I think it's worth thinking and talking about these things, regardless of where exactly you stand.

On another note:
This "nakedness-uncovering" stuff is a bunch of nonsense, in my opinion. Every single Christian confession behaves poorly in some ways. Now, personal matters don't need to become hot gossip, but when our hierarchs or other leaders lead us astray, we need to know about it so we learn what we need to do better at.

Mary Meg said:

But I don't really see how this is possible or intellectually honest. As I said in the OP, there are a lot of gaps -- places where we have to interpolate, where a lens of "Scripture interpreting Scripture" isn't enough to inform us. The question is, where do we draw that interpolation from? From the earliest sources? From the musings of later theologians? From our own feeble consciences? It seems your tradition has a lot of answers, but how can it answer this?

Click to expand...

Perhaps I am not being clear. There is a hierarchy of authority and it begins with Scripture but also includes patristic sources. Meaning if one cannot find where where there is a definite answer in Scripture and it is not mentioned or addressed in our confessions (which are normed by scripture as a secondary source) then we look to the ECF for guidance. That said our confessions nor tradition is on the same level as Scripture.

I think @FireDragon76 has mentioned it before but there is a video by Dr Pr Jordan Cooper where he discusses the ECF and and the Lutheran view. He’s Frankly Brilliant and is becoming one of my favorite modern Lutheran theologians.

Mary Meg said:

Yes, I acknowledge that's basically the case, though I think they would consider the term "sola ecclesia" pejorative. It's not the "Church alone." It's the Church, through Christ's appointed teachers, as servants to Scripture and Tradition, the revelation that's been given to them to teach. So it comes down basically to whether we accept whether a Church has the authority to teach or not.

Click to expand...

The fact is, though, that you can't turn to the Scriptures and challenge Rome's interpretation, because they reference no authority outside themselves. They say they are servants, but when they add in things that are extra-Biblical or anti-Biblical, it's ok because they say so, basically. They are the sole channel through which Scripture and Tradition flow to you, and that makes the term sola ecclesia accurate.

What denomination are you now? A lot of Protestants here (Lutherans and Anglicans mostly) are insisting to me that "sola scriptura does not mean a rejection of tradition". Or is "infallible" the distinction you are making here?

Click to expand...

I attend a non-denominational church. I am probably closest to Reformed, and I would agree that sola scriptura does not mean a rejection of tradition. Infallible is the distinction I am making here.

Mary Meg said:

Thanks for your kindness. I really do feel ganged up on today. I mean, I did ask for it, and I'm mostly enjoying it, but what happened to all the Orthodox and Catholic folks who were in my corner yesterday? There are still a couple of you here; thanks!

The funny thing is, I didn't mean my post to be antagonistic. I am really looking for answers here. Protestants take my words to be a critique of Protestantism, when really what I'm trying to ask is, more than anything else, how can a Protestant deal with these ambiguities in Scripture? No matter how many times I'm told to "interpret Scripture with Scripture" -- I really have no idea how to do that or see how it's possible. Scripture doesn't tell us everything. Maybe it tells us "everything we need for salvation," but it doesn't really tell us everything we need to have an understanding of the faith and practice of the Early Church.

I kind of thought "Scripture Vs. History" would be a sensational title... but I guess it's attracted the wrong kind of sensation!

Click to expand...

I beg to differ. If you were to do a study on God's commands in the New Testament and not the Old Testament, you will have plenty of stuff to do to keep yourself busy in regards to the faith (within the New Covenant, i.e. New Testament). If something is not mentioned, like how to deal with mental illnesses, etc. you pray to the Lord about it and seek to love them as God would desire you to do. Life challenges can be resolved with the help of the Lord and following His Word (the Bible). But the practice of the faith? There is not enough in the New Covenant for you? Well, when I look at the New Testament, there is lots of things that we are told to do. So I beg to differ. If there are not details on certain things, obviously God does not want us to get too caught up on those other topics or subjects. The Lord wants us to love God, preach the gospel, love the brethren, love the poor, love your enemies, and live righteously according to the moral commands within His Word, etc. Not sure what else you think is missing.

@Mary Meg

Again, I challenge you to PROVE that these so called traditions and or history is on the same level of authority as Scripture in regards to it being divine. Personally, I think this is not about the evidence, but you are simply going by your distaste of Protestantism. Please keep in mind that I do not believe in Protestantism or Catholicism, Orthodox churches, etc. You don't have to fit a certain mold or group of people so you can feel like you can belong. Following the Lord Jesus is not really about meeting our needs only, but it is about meeting the needs of others and the Lord. The moment we realize that following the truth or following Jesus is about not what we want, it is the moment that we start to hear His Word in what it says plainly (Instead of trying to listen or hear the traditions of men or even church history). For in the end, we are going to have to explain our actions to the Lord. Did we stay true to His Word alone or did we decide to stray away from what God said? I would rather play it safe than be sorry. For the Bible makes NO mention.... I repeat... NO mention of how if you do not obey these extra biblical traditions than you are damned. Please read 2 Timothy 3:16-17 over and over and over again in prayer. Also, please read the words of Jesus on the traditions of men in Scripture, as well.

Scripture in and of itself is not divine. Scripture is not a god to be worshiped and idolized. God can and does certainly speak to us *through* scripture, but is not limited to speaking solely through scripture. God can also speak through prayer, Christian meditation, prophets, preachers, hymns, liturgy, etc. All of these methods are expressions of God's Word when he speaks to us through them.

bekkilyn said:

Scripture in and of itself is not divine. Scripture is not a god to be worshiped and idolized. God can and does certainly speak to us *through* scripture, but is not limited to speaking solely through scripture. God can also speak through prayer, Christian meditation, prophets, preachers, hymns, liturgy, etc. All of these methods are expressions of God's Word when he speaks to us through them.

Click to expand...

Oh boy. You did not just say that.

I can prove it to you that God’s Word is divine.

Check out this blogger article:
Love Branch: Evidences for the Word of God

Mary Meg said:

Thanks for your kindness. I really do feel ganged up on today. I mean, I did ask for it, and I'm mostly enjoying it, but what happened to all the Orthodox and Catholic folks who were in my corner yesterday? There are still a couple of you here; thanks!

The funny thing is, I didn't mean my post to be antagonistic. I am really looking for answers here. Protestants take my words to be a critique of Protestantism, when really what I'm trying to ask is, more than anything else, how can a Protestant deal with these ambiguities in Scripture? No matter how many times I'm told to "interpret Scripture with Scripture" -- I really have no idea how to do that or see how it's possible. Scripture doesn't tell us everything. Maybe it tells us "everything we need for salvation," but it doesn't really tell us everything we need to have an understanding of the faith and practice of the Early Church.

I kind of thought "Scripture Vs. History" would be a sensational title... but I guess it's attracted the wrong kind of sensation!

Click to expand...

Sorry, Meg, I'm trying to internet less for Lent!

I hear you. And agree that there are some pretty massive gaps. Christian faith and praxis continued and developed beyond Scripture. It was lived, not only read.

Understanding how the earliest Christians lived and interpreted Scripture takes the Early Church Fathers, the Saints, and the living Tradition of Liturgy, prayers, devotions, and practices.

Jason0047 said:

Oh boy. You did not just say that.

I can prove it to you that God’s Word is divine.

Check out this blogger article:
Love Branch: Evidences for the Word of God

Click to expand...

Only God himself is divine. The tools he uses to communicate with us in various ways are not divine. To put the tool on the same level or on a greater level than God is idolatry.

bekkilyn said:

Only God himself is divine. The tools he uses to communicate with us in various ways are not divine. To put the tool on the same level or on a greater level than God is idolatry.

Click to expand...

Maybe you missed these parts of the Bible.

“Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures” (Romans 1:2).

“And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.” (2 Timothy 3:15).

Even ground can be made holy by the presence of God.

“And he said, Draw not nigh hither: put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground” (Exodus 3:5).

Even the ark of the covenant was called holy.

“And said unto the Levites that taught all Israel, which were holy unto the LORD, Put the holy ark in the house which Solomon the son of David king of Israel did build; it shall not be a burden upon your shoulders: serve now the LORD your God, and his people Israel,“ (2 Chronicles 35:3).

Are all Bible’s that have the words “Holy Bible” on the cover lying?

More and more I'm realizing why I have a difficult time with these sorts of conversations, and I think I've been able to pinpoint what it is. Most of the time these sorts of conversations end up involving all of us--Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant (doesn't matter) entering into the conversation largely with a narrative that effectively divides the history of the Church into two halves, Before Protestantism and After Protestantism. The Catholic and Orthodox way of doing this is largely to assert that before Protestantism things were good and after Protestantism things got bad; whereas the Protestant way of doing this is largely to assert that before Protestantism things were bad and after Protestantism things got good.

And the problem with this Before Protestantism/After Protestantism narrative is that it ultimately sees what happened in Western Europe in the 16th century as some kind of interruption in the long story of the Christianity, rather than as another part of the long story.

So instead of really taking the time to see what happened in the 16th century as part of the larger narrative of the Church in history, it really does just boil down to arming ourselves with our flags and heading into battle, often over things that we have long since forgotten.

What were the political issues of the time? What were the ecclesiastical issues of the time? What were the theological issues of the time. What actually IS the conversation even about anyway? This seems to all get swept under the rug and any actual dialogue dies before it begins.

-CryptoLutheran

Jason0047 said:

Maybe you missed these parts of the Bible.

“Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures” (Romans 1:2).

“And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.” (2 Timothy 3:15).

Even ground can be made holy the presence of God.

“And he said, Draw not nigh hither: put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground” (Exodus 3:5).

Even the ark of the covenant was called holy.

“And said unto the Levites that taught all Israel, which were holy unto the LORD, Put the holy ark in the house which Solomon the son of David king of Israel did build; it shall not be a burden upon your shoulders: serve now the LORD your God, and his people Israel,“ (2 Chronicles 35:3).

Are all Bible’s that have the words “Holy Bible” on the cover lying?

Click to expand...

Being designated as holy is not the same as being divine. Being holy means to be set apart by God for some purpose. Being divine means to *be* a god.

God is both holy AND divine. Scripture is holy for a particular purpose *by* God, but is not divine and not to be worshiped *as* a god.

bekkilyn said:

Being designated as holy is not the same as being divine. Being holy means to be set apart by God for some purpose. Being divine means to *be* a god.

God is both holy AND divine. Scripture is holy for a particular purpose *by* God, but is not divine and not to be worshiped *as* a god.

Click to expand...

No. The Bible uses the word “divine” just like it does the word “holy.”

“Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary.” (Hebrews 9:1).

God is spirit but He can make certain things holy or divine. They are not God

Pavel Mosko said:

Interesting, I sort of had stumbled on that sort of thing accidentally, but didn't know the name of it. On other message boards, I would spend some times talking about Sola Scriptura and other parts of Protestantism that I had some issues with. But I tried to be even handed, and mentioned areas of Orthodoxy that I thought were problematic to show that I was not just some one sided ideologue. But boy did that get me into trouble! In a personal email one EO guy did use the "uncovering the nakedness of my brother" type line (I mentioned how the Russian Church patriarch had compromised with the Communists) aka Sergianism. And I had to correct him, that it was not the same as revealing a private sin; because this is a matter of history that even his Church acknowledges on some of their official web sites!

And I had a similar thing with my ex-wife when we were married. In a discussion, in a similar vein, I mentioned how the ancient Coptic monks burned the library of Alexandria. And my wife, had similar words for me, and I mentioned how I got that fact from Coptic.Church.net!

Click to expand...

I think its a common near-eastern cultural thing, the whole "face" thing of Asian culture is present in the near east and eastern Europe (and you can see similar honor-shame dynamics at play in the New Testament in many places). Whereas I think western and especially northern Europeans value transparency traditionally.

When I first became Lutheran @ViacCruis , I was more comfortable with a hermeneutic of continuity, but now I'm closer to also valuing the hermeneutic of rupture around the Reformation.

Gracia Singh said:

Understanding how the earliest Christians lived and interpreted Scripture takes the Early Church Fathers, the Saints, and the living Tradition of Liturgy, prayers, devotions, and practices.

Click to expand...

What I actually didn't realize before I started looking into Christianity is that the earliest Christians didn't have Scripture. They didn't have the Bible to reference. Even after, once the canon was decided on, the vast majority of Christians didn't have copies until much later.