Sola Scriptura

[9Rock9]

This is something I have been thinking about lately: Do we, as Baptists, really advocate sola scriptura, or are we more nuda scriptura?

The former states that the Bible is the highest authority (albeit the only infallible authority) for faith and practice, but things like tradition and history should still be taken into account, as long as they do not contradict clear teaching of Scripture.

The latter is the "just me and my Bible" attitude. It can be summed up as "The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it."

I feel like in theory we accept sola scriptura, but that most Baptists are actually moreso nuda scriptura in practice.

What are your thoughts? Do you agree or disagree? Why?

 

[SkyWriting]

Sure, I believe scripture. See also:
Sep 7, 2021#10

 

[JM]

This is something I have been thinking about lately: Do we, as Baptists, really advocate sola scriptura, or are we more nuda scriptura?

The former states that the Bible is the highest authority (albeit the only infallible authority) for faith and practice, but things like tradition and history should still be taken into account, as long as they do not contradict clear teaching of Scripture.

The latter is the "just me and my Bible" attitude. It can be summed up as "The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it."

I feel like in theory we accept sola scriptura, but that most Baptists are actually moreso nuda scriptura in practice.

What are your thoughts? Do you agree or disagree? Why?

Well, as a Reformed Baptist I believe our faith is informed by the church but all that must be believed for salvation is found in scripture with confessional Christianity acting as a safeguard against, "just me and my Bible!" kinda of thinking.

The London Baptist Confession of Faith, 1689:

"The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down or necessarily contained in the Holy Scripture..."

"All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of ordinary means, may attain to a sufficient understanding of them."

"The supreme judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Scripture delivered by the Spirit, into which Scripture so delivered, our faith is finally resolved."

The modern, average Christian living in North America is likely to be more radically individualistic and claim, "The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it" but we all do that with some kind of authority. All authority is circular so the Catholic will claim, "The teach says it, I believe it, that settles it (for me)" The Orthodox will make the same claim.

Dr. Ortland really does a great job discussing sola scriptura from a Reformed Baptist point of view. He has some great interactions with Traditionalist Christians as well.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[BNR32FAN]

This is something I have been thinking about lately: Do we, as Baptists, really advocate sola scriptura, or are we more nuda scriptura?

The former states that the Bible is the highest authority (albeit the only infallible authority) for faith and practice, but things like tradition and history should still be taken into account, as long as they do not contradict clear teaching of Scripture.

The latter is the "just me and my Bible" attitude. It can be summed up as "The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it."

I feel like in theory we accept sola scriptura, but that most Baptists are actually moreso nuda scriptura in practice.

What are your thoughts? Do you agree or disagree? Why?

I see many who claim to practice sola scriptura but in all actuality the scriptures often take a back seat to their doctrines. They’ll often say that some certain scriptures can’t be saying what they’re actually saying because that would contradict this doctrine or that doctrine. So they’ll disregard what is actually written and formulate interpretations based on what their doctrines teach instead of just accepting what is written in the scriptures as truth. By doing this they allow their doctrines to define the scriptures instead of allowing the scriptures to define their doctrines.