The Other Lent Thread

[Higgaion]

Since the mods asked that the original Lent thread not be steered off course, I opened this one to respond to more questions that were addressed to me.

Fasting was passed on in the early Church from Jewish practice. In Matthew, Christ says, "When you fast do not be like the hypocrites," which indicates that the Jews fasted -- it also indicates that Christ assumes that one fasts, for He says "when you fast" not "if you fast." Fasting is not something that only developed alongside Christianity; rather, it is a practice that had been followed by the Jews, and even Scripture mentions that Christ fasted.

Choir,

That’s as may be. Not sure I’d entirely concur, but it really isn’t my desire to debate the fasting issue right now. I’m not even necessarily against it and didn’t mean to give that impression. Honestly, I haven’t studied it that much.

You state you don't celebrate Christmas. If Jesus Christ is your Saviour why wouldn't you celebrate our Saviour's Nativity? Do you celebrate Easter?

Right, I don’t celebrate Christmas or Easter. Why not? Well, first of all because I believe sola scriptura rules them out, as neither are mentioned in the Bible or commanded, and since I don’t hold to the RC or EO idea of Tradition, I can pretty safely conclude that neither was started by the Apostles or practiced by the Church for the first couple of centuries, at least, and that they got started later for other reasons.

Furthermore, I think that since they aren’t commanded by God that they are forbidden. I can and do celebrate not only the Saviour’s birth, but His whole life, every Lord’s Day, which is what I truly believe God intended for us. Not to chop His life up into different little parts and sprinkle the year with special “holy” days.

 

[Oblio]

I can and do celebrate not only the Saviour’s birth, but His whole life, every Lord’s Day, which is what I truly believe God intended for us. Not to chop His life up into different little parts and sprinkle the year with special “holy” days.

You mean like 52 little Paschas (Sunday) sprinkled throughout every year ?

 

[Lotar]

Why would you believe that if it isn't mentioned, it is forbidden? Do you not believe in Christian liberty?

Do you go to church on Saturday or Sunday?

If you do not believe in any use of tradition, then how do you know of what books of the bible to accept? Where did you get this idea of sola scriptura?

 

[pmarquette]

Since the mods asked that the original Lent thread not be steered off course, I opened this one to respond to more questions that were addressed to me.
as per what is written ... to strengthen the spirit , to overcome the flesh , to pray through , to deny self to bless others .... to break habit .... to overcome
Isa 58:4 Behold, ye fast for strife and debate, and to smite with the fist of wickedness: ye shall not fast as [ye do this] day, to make your voice to be heard on high.

Isa 58:5 Is it such a fast that I have chosen? a day for a man to afflict his soul? [is it] to bow down his head as a bulrush, and to spread sackcloth and ashes [under him]? wilt thou call this a fast, and an acceptable day to the LORD?

Isa 58:6 [Is] not this the fast that I have chosen? to loose the bands of wickedness, to undo the heavy burdens, and to let the oppressed go free, and that ye break every yoke?
Mar 9:29 And he said unto them, This kind can come forth by nothing, but by prayer and fasting.


Choir,

That’s as may be. Not sure I’d entirely concur, but it really isn’t my desire to debate the fasting issue right now. I’m not even necessarily against it and didn’t mean to give that impression. Honestly, I haven’t studied it that much.
if the fast is done half heartedly go to Isaiah 58.1-3 as the pharisees and saducees did ....



Right, I don’t celebrate Christmas or Easter.
Christ was born in summer v's winter .... but to not rejoice ? Isiah 9.5-6 ?
Without Easter , we have no faith ?

Why not? Well, first of all because I believe sola scriptura rules them out, as neither are mentioned in the Bible or commanded, and since I don’t hold to the RC or EO idea of Tradition, I can pretty safely conclude that neither was started by the Apostles or practiced by the Church for the first couple of centuries, at least, and that they got started later for other reasons. so you side with the Jehovah's witnesses and 7th day adventists..
all holidays , festivals , music , parties ... heathen ?

Furthermore, I think that since they aren’t commanded by God that they are forbidden.
as often as you fellowship , remember me ... proclaimin my death and resurrection ?

I can and do celebrate not only the Saviour’s birth, but His whole life, every Lord’s Day, which is what I truly believe God intended for us.
Good .... so every week you give gifts , according to Matthew 25.32-42 ?

Not to chop His life up into different little parts and sprinkle the year with special “holy” days.

and evidently you attend a strange christian sect .... for most local bodies , take advantage of holidays to make homilies , to speak to both saved , lost , and backslidden ....

 

[Lotar]

BTW, Easter was celebrated by the early Church.

 

[EdmundBlackadderTheThird]

Since the mods asked that the original Lent thread not be steered off course, I opened this one to respond to more questions that were addressed to me.



Choir,

That’s as may be. Not sure I’d entirely concur, but it really isn’t my desire to debate the fasting issue right now. I’m not even necessarily against it and didn’t mean to give that impression. Honestly, I haven’t studied it that much.




Right, I don’t celebrate Christmas or Easter. Why not? Well, first of all because I believe sola scriptura rules them out, as neither are mentioned in the Bible or commanded, and since I don’t hold to the RC or EO idea of Tradition, I can pretty safely conclude that neither was started by the Apostles or practiced by the Church for the first couple of centuries, at least, and that they got started later for other reasons.

Furthermore, I think that since they aren’t commanded by God that they are forbidden. I can and do celebrate not only the Saviour’s birth, but His whole life, every Lord’s Day, which is what I truly believe God intended for us. Not to chop His life up into different little parts and sprinkle the year with special “holy” days.

So if the Bible doesn't mention it, then it is forbidden? I take it you don't drive a car, work in an office building, use electricity, watch television, use a computer, have indoor plumbing, or myriad other things. That logic is fallacy at it's very core. We choose to celebrate certian events in life of Christ at different times during the year, while thinking about his whole life all the time. The fact he was born is important, hence Christmas, the death and subsequent resurrection is also equally important hence Easter and the preceding days Ash Wednesday and Good Friday. It is good to reflect on these important aspects and we choose certain times of the year to do that, there is nothing in the scripture that forbids this. In fact at those times of the year we are giving glory to the Lord, and that is what we are told to do. We just happen to use those holidays to be thankful for specific parts of God's gift to us.

 

[Oblio]

The fact he was born is important ...

In fact it is so important (for if he came as an Angel we would not have Salvation) that it is formally (in the EOC) know as The Nativity of our Lord in the Flesh

 

[EdmundBlackadderTheThird]

It was so important that God the Father sent angles down to earth to announce it, with great fanfare according to the scripture. Now my family does not celebrate Christmas as the world does, we follow Advent and celebrate each part of that. We do not buy into the commercialism as I feel that it takes away from the glory that we should be giving the Lord during that time.

 

[HiredGoon]

Right, I don’t celebrate Christmas or Easter. Why not? Well, first of all because I believe sola scriptura rules them out, as neither are mentioned in the Bible or commanded, and since I don’t hold to the RC or EO idea of Tradition, I can pretty safely conclude that neither was started by the Apostles or practiced by the Church for the first couple of centuries, at least, and that they got started later for other reasons.

Furthermore, I think that since they aren’t commanded by God that they are forbidden.

This is not the Reformed view of sola scriptura. For a good, brief overview of the Reformed doctrine of sola scriptura, I suggest taking a look at Keith A. Mathison's The Shape of Sola Scriptura. It's relatively short and easy to follow. I believe what you are describing is what some call solo scriptura, and is not what was taught by the Reformers.

"Although it is often suggested that the reformers had no place for tradition in their theological deliberations, this judgment is clearly incorrect. While the notion of tradition as an extra-scriptural source of revelation is excluded, the classic concept of tradition as a particular way of reading and interpreting scripture is retained. Scripture, tradition and the kerygma are regarded as essentially coinherent, and as being transmitted, propagated and safeguarded by the community of faith. There is thus a strongly communal dimension to the magisterial reformers' understanding of the interpretation of scripture, which is to be interpreted and proclaimed within an ecclesiological matrix. It must be stressed that the suggestion that the Reformation represented the triumph of individualism and total rejection of tradition is a deliberate fiction propagated by the image-makers of the Enlightenment."

Soli Deo Gloria

 

[Oblio]

St. John the Forerunner celebrated His coming birth by leaping in Elizabeth's womb !

 

[Lotar]

Lotar got in trouble again.​

 

[nyj]

My dog after hearing someone try to pass solo scriptura off as sola scriptura.​

Domini Canis?

 

[HiredGoon]

LOL, that's awesome Lotar.

 

[Lotar]

Yep. I'm pretty sure she sneaks into my room and reads my books while I'm off at school, and she prays all the time too.

 

[Higgaion]

You mean like 52 little Paschas (Sunday) sprinkled throughout every year?

No, I don't mean like that. And I had in mind a discussion with other Protestants who hold a nominal belief in SS, not to get bogged down debating those who don’t, because I don’t think they necessarily have a lot to contribute. This is the PRE, after all. But again, no, that’s not what I mean and I really fail to see how anything more than a superficial reading of my post could have yielded such a conclusion. There is an Apostolic example in Scripture for coming together as one body on the first day of the week and an admonishment not to forsake the assembly, which is why I said of course I go to church on Sunday but decline these other man-made holidays. There is no contradiction at all.

Why would you believe that if it isn't mentioned, it is forbidden? Do you not believe in Christian liberty?

Because I believe in the Regulative Principle of Worship, which says in effect that our religious practice and worship is limited by and should conform to God’s revealed will in this area, found in Scripture. Either from a direct command, example or reasonable inference. In other words, God has told us how to worship Him and expects us to not add or subtract from it, even if we are sincere and think it will please Him. He is pleased when we humbly submit to His will. To obey is better than sacrifice. I do believe in Christian liberty, but true liberty frees us to more fully walk with God and pursue His holiness. It’s not a license to sin.

Do you go to church on Saturday or Sunday?

Sunday. Why?

If you do not believe in any use of tradition, then how do you know of what books of the bible to accept?

You almost sound like a Catholic. What does Tradition have to do with the Canon formation? The Bible defines and limits the Church, not vice-versa. But let me be more clear, my objection to extra-biblical tradition is in relation to worship and religious practice. These things get started by men, without biblical justification, and really there’s no logical stopping point. Not to mention that only Scripture has the power to bind the conscience, but when men’s traditions get going and entrenched, they become normative in most people’s eyes and despite their pleading the contrary, the traditions come to be seen not as optional, but more or less given official approval and promotion by individual churches and denominations until they are in effect “required” and more or less forced upon everyone, unless they have the fortitude to withstand the extreme pressure to conform, in which case they’re usually considered to be weirdos, oddballs and kooks.

Where did you get this idea of sola scriptura?

Calvin, the English Puritans and especially the Scottish Presby’s. They held to a more strict definition and application than the Anglican and Lutherans generally did, and since you are Lutheran I can understand why you may not have been exposed to it much.


PS- Great avatar. That’s classic, lol.

and evidently you attend a strange christian sect ....

No, not really. I’m a Truly (or Totally) Reformed Presbyterian, though as I noted, Presbyterians are not the only denomination who have held to a “regulativist” position at one time or another. Granted, we’re a small remnant group, not very in vogue at the moment, and unfortunately, not even the vast majority of Presby’s are on board at this time. However, I’m sure you’d agree, popularity and/or numbers has never been the test of truth.

for most local bodies , take advantage of holidays to make homilies , to speak to both saved , lost , and backslidden ....

What prevents them from doing this on a regular basis in worship, and shouldn’t they be? Therefore, holidays are utterly superfluous.

BTW, Easter was celebrated by the early Church.

It was? I’ll need more than bare assertion to accept that. I guess the main thing there I would immediately pick on is, How do you define “early”? If you mean the Apostolic church, I dispute that, because it is clearly not the case. There is no such thing as Easter in the Bible, either by name or concept. The Resurrection and Easter are two different things.

So if the Bible doesn't mention it, then it is forbidden?

In the sphere of religious practice, correct.

I take it you don't drive a car, work in an office building, use electricity, watch television, use a computer, have indoor plumbing, or myriad other things. That logic is fallacy at it's very core.

Yes, I do most of those.They are matters of indifference or adiaphoa that are neither good or bad in and of themselves, and they have nothing to do with religious practice, which is what we’re talking about here, and which I believe I covered pretty thoroughly somewhere above. Hopefully that cleared it up for you.

We choose to celebrate certian events in life of Christ at different times during the year, while thinking about his whole life all the time.

Some of us do, others such as myself don’t. Again, I don’t think there’s any warrant for dividing up Christ’s life and making holidays out of those events or that the Church has any authority to do so.

This is not the Reformed view of sola scriptura.

I take it then that you’re Reformed, or at least committed to the doctrines of Sovereign Grace, which Reformed is often used to denote these days, although in my view that is a looser sense of the term e.g. “Reformed” Baptist etc. Is that correct? You must understand that those of my persuasion tend to consider those who reject a “regulativist” view of worship (or promote a sufficiently defective one) as non-Reformed or “barely” Reformed, regardless of their soteriology. Therefore, I must quibble with the assertion that my view of SS isn’t in line with that of the Reformed, because I believe it to be eminently so.

For a good, brief overview of the Reformed doctrine of sola scriptura, I suggest taking a look at Keith A. Mathison's The Shape of Sola Scriptura. It's relatively short and easy to follow. I believe what you are describing is what some call solo scriptura, and is not what was taught by the Reformers.

Thanks. As I said, I’m already well acquainted with the doctrine, but I know of Mathison and his book on Postmillennialism is quite good. I also know about The Shape of Sola Scriptura and been interested in reading it, but not gotten around to it yet. Again, I don’t think I’m advocating for what you call “sola scriptura but I would just have to have a cleared idea of what you mean by that before adding more, so if you’d care to elaborate I can probably speak to it.

"Although it is often suggested that the reformers had no place for tradition in their theological deliberations, this judgment is clearly incorrect. While the notion of tradition as an extra-scriptural source of revelation is excluded, the classic concept of tradition as a particular way of reading and interpreting scripture is retained. Scripture, tradition and the kerygma are regarded as essentially coinherent, and as being transmitted, propagated and safeguarded by the community of faith. There is thus a strongly communal dimension to the magisterial reformers' understanding of the interpretation of scripture, which is to be interpreted and proclaimed within an ecclesiological matrix. It must be stressed that the suggestion that the Reformation represented the triumph of individualism and total rejection of tradition is a deliberate fiction propagated by the image-makers of the Enlightenment.”

I don’t feel that I can do much with that snippet of Mathison’s without fuller context, and not to continue beating a dead horse, but suffice it to say, basically, is that my view is essentially that of the majority of the non-Lutheran, non-Anglican wing of the Reformation, especially the Puritan and Scottish Presbyterians, and I believe the Westminster Assembly. The more latitudinarian view favored by most today, and which I gather you do as well, is a relatively recent and novel development within Reformed thinking and represents a sharp decline in orthodoxy that came about primarily as a result of a lack of vigilance, and congregations clamoring to adopt the more wordly, entertainment oriented worship paradigm that becamse increasingly popular due to the influence of Finney and other revival tent types who succeeded him, as opposed to sober exegesis of Scripture. I also have a book recommendation for anyone interested in the topic. It’s called The Songs of Zion by Michael Bushell. It deals more with pslamody in worship than holidays, but has a more general section on the Regulative Principle and it’s all relevant. Also the following is very good and available free: http://reformed.com/pub/sola.htm Especially noteworthy are the sections entitled “Protestant Inconsistencies” and “Some Contemporary Objections…Considered and Refuted”.

 

[Oblio]

It was? I’ll need more than bare assertion to accept that. I guess the main thing there I would immediately pick on is, How do you define “early”? If you mean the Apostolic church, I dispute that, because it is clearly not the case.

On the celbration of Easter (Pascha) in the Early Apostolic Church

In the early Church the term Pascha was used for the festival next preceding Pentecost, whatever it was that that festival commemorated (see PENTECOST). It remains to show whether the term stood only for the festival of the death of Christ, or for both the festivals of the death and resurrection, or for the festival of the resurrection alone. It is certain that if the resurrection of Christ was annually commemorated, the festival of commemoration was called pascha and by no other distinctive term. The word pascha. was at first derived from Gk. paschein, " to suffer " (so Tertullian, adv. Jud.; Irenaeus, Hcrr., iv. 23, etc.). Later the true derivation from the Hebrew pesah was recognized and the meaning diabasis, transitus, " passing over " was given to it (e.g., by Gregory Nazianzen, Sermo xlv., MPL, zxxvi. 636; Augustine, EPist., Iv., MPL, xxxiii. 205). After the year 300 the day of the resurrection was called the " day alone great " by Leo I. (Sermo de resurrections Domini, MPL, liv. 498), " the most royal day of days," by Gregory Nazianzen (MPG, xxxv. 101?); " the festival of festivals," " the happiest of days," and by other designations which show that it was looked upon after that date, if not before, as the most joyous and important festival of the year. John of Damascus has given expression to the devout feelings of the ancient Church in regard to Easter in his resurrection hymn:

 

[HiredGoon]

I believe there are two views which came out the Reformation, and have been associated with the name sola scriptura, one from the classical or magisterial reformers, and one from the radical reformers.

The first view is sola scriptura, also called "Tradition 1." This is the view advocated by the magisterial reformers such as Luther and Calvin. The magisterial reformers sought to maintain a continuity with the ancient patristic Church, or the Church Fathers. Both Luther and Calvin consulted the Church Fathers when interpreting scripture. The magisterial reformers asserted Scripture as the sole source of revelation and denied the existence of equally authoritative extra-scriptural revelation. They asserted that Scripture was to be interpreted in and by the Church according to the ancient apostolic teaching of the Church, the rule of faith.

"For although we hold that the Word of God alone lies beyond the sphere of our judgment, and that fathers and Councils are of authority only in so far as they accord with the rule of the Word, we still give to Councils and fathers such rank and honor as it is meet for them to hold, under Christ." - John Calvin

Basically in it's most paraphrased form, the doctrine of sola scriptura says that Scripture is the only infallible source of authority, not the only source of authority. (Sorry for mutilating the intricacies of the doctrine)

The radical reformers took sola scriptura farther than it was meant, and advocated a view which has been called "Tradition 0, " or solo scriptura. This is the view that scripture is the only source of authority. This view allows no role for tradition, the fathers, or the creedal formulations of ancient Christianity. It basically results in anarchy and individualism where the private judgment of the individual is raised above the corporate judgment of the church.

Suffice it to say, I believe the proper reformed view of sola scriptura is that which was advocated by the magisterial reformers, or that which has more recently been termed "Tradition 1."

 

[Lotar]

Because I believe in the Regulative Principle of Worship, which says in effect that our religious practice and worship is limited by and should conform to God’s revealed will in this area, found in Scripture. Either from a direct command, example or reasonable inference. In other words, God has told us how to worship Him and expects us to not add or subtract from it, even if we are sincere and think it will please Him. He is pleased when we humbly submit to His will. To obey is better than sacrifice. I do believe in Christian liberty, but true liberty frees us to more fully walk with God and pursue His holiness. It’s not a license to sin.

What scriptural support do you have for this doctrine?

Sunday. Why?

Because though some solo scripturists claim that the early church met on Sundays in the bible, there is much more scriptural evidence of the early church attending on saturdays. Historically the some churches would meet on either saturday or sunday, or many times both. It was not until a much later date that Sunday became the traditional day of worship.

You almost sound like a Catholic. What does Tradition have to do with the Canon formation?

Catholic? Me? Why I never
It was through tradition and church history that we formulated the cannon. It did not just drop out of thin air.

The Bible defines and limits the Church, not vice-versa.

Somewhat.

But let me be more clear, my objection to extra-biblical tradition is in relation to worship and religious practice. These things get started by men, without biblical justification, and really there’s no logical stopping point. Not to mention that only Scripture has the power to bind the conscience, but when men’s traditions get going and entrenched, they become normative in most people’s eyes and despite their pleading the contrary, the traditions come to be seen not as optional, but more or less given official approval and promotion by individual churches and denominations until they are in effect “required” and more or less forced upon everyone, unless they have the fortitude to withstand the extreme pressure to conform, in which case they’re usually considered to be weirdos, oddballs and kooks.

Elaberate on what you define as worship and religious practice. Are you saying that tradition is fine for defining cannon, but nothing else?

Calvin, the English Puritans and especially the Scottish Presby’s. They held to a more strict definition and application than the Anglican and Lutherans generally did, and since you are Lutheran I can understand why you may not have been exposed to it much.

Calvin agreed with Luther on this subject, not the Puritans.

PS- Great avatar. That’s classic, lol.

Thanks. Gotta love my sister's dog

 

[Oblio]

From the work on the passover.57 When Servilius Paulus was proconsul of Asia, at the time that Sagaris58 suffered martyrdom, there arose a great controversy at Laodicea concerning the time of the celebration of the Passover, which on that occasion had happened to fall at the proper season;59 and this treatise was then written.60

Note 59 The churches of Asia Minor kept Easter on the fourteenth day from the new moon, whatever day of the week that might be; and hence were called Quartodecimans. Other churches, chiefly those of the West, kept it on the Sunday following the day of the Jewish passover. In the case here referred to, the 14th of the month occurred on the Sunday in question.

Melito (c. 170)


For4 the controversy is not merely as regards the day, but also as regards the form itself of the fast.5 For some consider themselves hound to fast one day, others two days, others still more, while others [do so during] forty: the diurnal and the nocturnal hours they measure out together as their [fasting] day.6 And this variety among the observers [of the fasts] had not its origin in our time, but long before in that of our predecessors, some of whom probably, being not very accurate in their observance of it, handed down to posterity the custom as it had, through simplicity or private fancy, been [introduced among them]. And yet nevertheless all these lived in peace one with another, and we also keep peace together. Thus, in fact, the difference [in observing] the fast establishes the harmony of [our common] faith.7 And the presbyters preceding Sorer in the government of the Church which thou dost now rule-I mean, Anicetus and Pius, Hyginus and Telesphorus, and Sixtus-did neither themselves observe it [after that fashion], nor permit those with them8 to do so. Notwithstanding this, those who did not keep [the feast in this way] were peacefully disposed towards those who came to them from other dioceses in which it was [so] observed (although such observance was [felt] in more decided contrariety [as presented] to those who did not fall in with it; and none were ever cast out [of the Church] for this matter. On the contrary, those presbyters who preceded thee, and who did not observe [this custom], sent the Eucharist to those of other dioceses who did observe it.9 And when the blessed Polycarp was sojourning in Rome in the time of Anicetus, although a slight controversy had arisen among them as to certain other points, they were at once well inclined towards each other [with regard to the matter in hand], not willing that any quarrel should arise between them upon this head. For neither could Anicetus persuade Polycarp to forego the observance [in his own way], inasmuch as these things had been always [so] observed by John the disciple of our Lord, and by other apostles with whom he had been conversant; nor, on the other hand, could Polycarp succeed in persuading Anicetus to keep [the observance in his way], for he maintained that he was bound to adhere to the usage of the presbyters who preceded him. And in this state of affairs they held fellowship with each other; and Anicetus conceded to Polycarp in the Church the celebration of the Eucharist, by way of showing him respect; so that they parted in peace one from the other, maintaining peace with the whole Church, both those who did observe [this custom] and those who did not.10

Irenaeus (c. 180)

Here we see the Churces coming together in unison c. 180 to celebrate Pascha together on the same day

From His Epistle on the Question of the Passover, Written in the Name of the Synod of Caesarea.1

Endeavour also to send abroad copies of our epistle among all the churches, so that those who easily deceive their own Souls may not be able to lay the blame on us. We would have you know, too, that in Alexandria2 also they observe the festival on the same day as ourselves. For the Paschal letters are sent from us to them, and from them to us: so that we observe the holy day in unison and together.

Theophilus of Caesarea (c. 180)

There are many more that stretch well into the end of the 4th c AD

 

[Higgaion]

I believe there are two views which came out the Reformation, and have been associated with the name sola scriptura, one from the classical or magisterial reformers, and one from the radical reformers.

The first view is sola scriptura, also called "Tradition 1." This is the view advocated by the magisterial reformers such as Luther and Calvin. The magisterial reformers sought to maintain a continuity with the ancient patristic Church, or the Church Fathers. Both Luther and Calvin consulted the Church Fathers when interpreting scripture. The magisterial reformers asserted Scripture as the sole source of revelation and denied the existence of equally authoritative extra-scriptural revelation. They asserted that Scripture was to be interpreted in and by the Church according to the ancient apostolic teaching of the Church, the rule of faith.

"For although we hold that the Word of God alone lies beyond the sphere of our judgment, and that fathers and Councils are of authority only in so far as they accord with the rule of the Word, we still give to Councils and fathers such rank and honor as it is meet for them to hold, under Christ." - John Calvin

Basically in it's most paraphrased form, the doctrine of sola scriptura says that Scripture is the only infallible source of authority, not the only source of authority. (Sorry for mutilating the intricacies of the doctrine)

The radical reformers took sola scriptura farther than it was meant, and advocated a view which has been called "Tradition 0, " or solo scriptura. This is the view that scripture is the only source of authority. This view allows no role for tradition, the fathers, or the creedal formulations of ancient Christianity. It basically results in anarchy and individualism where the private judgment of the individual is raised above the corporate judgment of the church.

Suffice it to say, I believe the proper reformed view of sola scriptura is that which was advocated by the magisterial reformers, or that which has more recently been termed "Tradition 1”.

Goon,

Thanks for your reply. Regarding the “Tradition 1” version of sola scriptura-- I am not so familiar with the terms “magisterial” and “radical” reformers, and don’t really use them often. Till now I have been under the impression that the radical label was applied mostly to Anabaptists and similar groups, not to the Puritans and Scottish Presbyterians, most of whom (along with Calvin and Owen) held to the concept of the “Regulative Principle” if not by that exact name. I believe they did basically held to your “Tradition 1” definition, as I do also, and that they considered the Regulative Principle to be the natural result or outworking of Sola Scriptura, when carried to its logical end, with which I also agree:

Consider the following:

From Calvin’s The Necessity of Reforming the Church,

“[T]he rule which distinguishes between pure and vitiated worship is of universal application, in order that we may not adopt any device which seems fit to ourselves, but look to the injunction of him who alone is entitled to prescribe. Therefore, if we would have him to approve our worship, this rule, which he everywhere enforces with utmost strictness, must be carefully observed. For there is a twofold reason why the Lord, in condemning and prohibiting all fictitious worship, requires us to give obedience only to his own voice. First, it tends greatly to establish his authority that we do not follow our own pleasure, but depend entirely on his sovereignty; and, secondly, such is our folly, that when we are left at liberty, all we are able to do is to go astray. And then when once we have turned aside from the right path, there is no end to our wanderings, until we get buried under a multitude of superstitions. Justly, therefore, does the Lord, in order to assert his full right of dominion, strictly enjoin what he wishes us to do, and at once reject all human devices which are at variance with his command. Justly, too, does he in express terms, define our limits, that we may not, by fabricating perverse modes of worship, provoke his anger against us.

I know how difficult it is to persuade the world that God disapproves of all modes of worship not expressly sanctioned by his word. The opposite persuasion which cleaves to them, being seated, as it were, in their very bones and marrow, is, that whatever they do has in itself sufficient sanction, provided it exhibits some kind of zeal for the honor of God. But since God not only regards as fruitless, but also plainly abominates, whatever we undertake from zeal to his worship, if at variance with his command, what do we gain by a contrary course? The words of God are clear and distinct, "Obedience is better than sacrifice." "In vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men," (1 Sam. 15:22; Matt. 15:9). Every addition to his word, especially in this matter, is a lie.”

~ Emphasis mine

The Westminster Confession, Chap. XXI – Of Religious Worship and the Sabbath Day:

1. The light of nature sheweth that there is a God, who hath lordship and sovereignty over all, is good, and doth good unto all, and is therefore to be feared, loved, praised, called upon, trusted in, and served, with all the heart, and with all the soul, and with all the might. But the acceptable way of worshipping the true God is instituted by Himself, and so limited by His own revealed will, that He may not be worshipped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation, or any other way not prescribed in the Holy Scripture.

~Emphasis mine

Finally, John Owen:

“That the church hath power to institute and appoint anything or ceremony belonging to the worship of God, either as to matter or manner, beyond the orderly observance of such circumstances as necessarily attend such ordinances as Christ Himself hath instituted, lies at the bottom of all the horrible superstition, and idolatry, of all the confusion, blood and persecution, and wars, that have for so long a season spread themselves over the face of the Christian world.”

Clearly, all these are very strong statements and are but formulations of the same concept, namely the Regulative Principle. They display a remarkable level of agreement, and come from eminent, well known theologians who I’m guessing (hopefully correctly) you would consider to be representative of the “magisterial” wing of the Reformation, and indicate that whatever these men’s personal understanding of the doctrine of sola scriptura, they all deduced that it led directly to a strict regulation of religious practice and worship that ruled out any tinkering, experimentation or introduction of novel elements for any reason, regardless of motive.

I have great admiration for Luther, and would agree with you that his and Calvin’s views of SS were substantially the same, but it seems Calvin did see the implications of the doctrine as more broad and sweeping, whereas Luther didn’t. I believe Luther’s primary importance was the emphasis he placed on the truth of sola fide and absolute predestination, but that he came up short in the area of worship. He apparently didn’t see the need to go as far as some of his successors, and seems to have believed that if Scripture did not explicitly forbid certain things that they might then be introduced, which, to my knowledge, is more or less the Lutheran church’s position still as evidenced by their use of musical instruments, hymns, and celebration of holidays. As to their consulting the Church Fathers when interpreting Scripture, of course. I don’t deny that , but I don’t quite see how that’s “Tradition” in the sense that we’ve been talking about. Like you said, they “consulted”, not swallowed hook, line and sinker without critical analysis and…comparison to the biblical text.

In summary, I would just reiterate that I think the Reformers who held to a regulativist position i.e. virtually everyone outside of the Lutherans and Anglicans, believed in the definition of SS that you favor, as do I. They just applied it in the area of worship more consistency and zeal than most people today are used to and comfortable with, because they’ve been taught the more lenient (but defective) Lutheran-esque view their whole lives.

Your description of solo scriptura interests me, and I may want to comment on it later, but I think this post is going to be long enough as is.

What scriptural support do you have for this doctrine?

There is plenty, and also a very strong philosophical case can be made, though I’ll hold off for now as my time is limited. However, let me turn the tables if I may. It’s interesting how almost everyone automatically assumes that the burden of proof is on our position, when really I think it’s on the non-regulativists. The regulativist’s position is negative, it’s not asserting the “right” to do anything other than what God has commanded in Scripture. So let me ask, what scriptural support do you have for believing individuals or the church as a whole have the authority to innovate in worship, which includes creating special “holy” days?

Because though some solo scripturists claim that the early church met on Sundays in the bible, there is much more scriptural evidence of the early church attending on saturdays. Historically the some churches would meet on either saturday or sunday, or many times both. It was not until a much later date that Sunday became the traditional day of worship.

Well, first, as you may have noticed in my reply to Goon, I don’t think I fall under the label “solo scripturist”.

Catholic? Me? Why I never

LOL, perish the thought!

It was through tradition and church history that we formulated the cannon. It did not just drop out of thin air.

It didn’t just drop out of thin air, agreed. As to the rest, well that’s another huge topic that would be more appropriate for a new thread, I think. So I’d rather not go there right now if you don’t mind

Somewhat.

LOL, oh? Ok, for now.

Elaberate on what you define as worship and religious practice. Are you saying that tradition is fine for defining cannon, but nothing else?

As you know, my view of the canonization process differs markedly from that of Catholicism, and perhaps yours, but let me speak to the first part. My definition of religious worship and practice? It’s essentially the same as the historic Reformed one. See the above from the Westminster Confession, or go here http://www.pcanet.org/general/cof_chapxxi-xxv.htm#chapxxi for the full statement.

Calvin agreed with Luther on this subject, not the Puritans.

Hmm, I hate to disagree but I’m gonna have to this time, and if you read the Calvin quote in my reply to Goon, I think you'll see why.

Thanks. Gotta love my sister's dog

Yeah, I wet myself every time I see it. J/K