The Reformers and Sola Scriptura

[MoreCoffee]

Judging by the number of people who feel that their reading of scripture is completely unbiased, I would have to argue with that.

If it were merely reading we had to contend with I'd be happy but it is much more "reading into" that we contend against and that usually comes from long exposure to poor exegesis.

 

[Targaryen]

If it were merely reading we had to contend with I'd be happy but it is much more "reading into" that we contend against and that usually comes from long exposure to poor exegesis.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

The idea that man has been given the authority but not the wisdom of Christ is not very comforting...

Man has neither the authority nor the wisdom of Christ, but we have enough authority to teach and enough wisdom to teach rightly, but only when we do those within proper understandings of scripture and tradition.

And I'm still waiting for you to explain how you think it should work.

 

[seeingeyes]

Man has neither the authority nor the wisdom of Christ, but we have enough authority to teach and enough wisdom to teach rightly, but only when we do those within proper understandings of scripture and tradition.

And I'm still waiting for you to explain how you think it should work.

That's a very good question. I'm not trying to be evasive at all...I guess that if you are building an institution, you have to lay certain objective ground rules. I'm just not very institutionally minded.

 

[BobRyan]

All doctrine and practice is to be tested "sola scriptura" to see if it is in harmony with the Word of God.

This does not mean that tradition is worthless or invalid - but if that tradition is in violation of the Word of God - then it is invalid.

That is the teaching of Christ in Mark 7:13-16.

That is the teaching that we find in Acts 17:11 "they studied the SCRIPTURES daily to SEE IF those things spoken to them by the Apostle Paul - were SO".

It does not say "they studied scripture PLUS long standing tradition to see if those things spoken to them by the Apostle Paul - were SO".

Yes....but these are positions taken as a matter of interpreting Scripture. There's no input from anything like "Sacred Tradition" involved. Of course, believing in Sola Scriptura doesn't guarantee that there will be only one interpretation, and that's why we have different denominations.

And each denomination has its own magisterium and so we could imagine that if everyone just believes whatever their magisterium tells them to think - all will be well. All will be well divided.

The only hope for unity is that all forsake the myopic focus on magisterium and return to the one source - the Bible.

While the reformers were able to make their reforms by returning to the Bible - yet to the extent that the clung to any form of man-made tradition over the Bible they had some form of division just as did the RCC that they were trying to reform.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Man has neither the authority nor the wisdom of Christ, but we have enough authority to teach and enough wisdom to teach rightly, but only when we do those within proper understandings of scripture and tradition.

And I'm still waiting for you to explain how you think it should work.

Tradition is not protected, is not inspired by God, is not infallible.

If it WERE - then the Jews were right to cling to their traditions and reject Christ.

The Jews had BOTH sacred tradition and the Bible.

And in Mark 7:6-13 Christ declared that it was destroying them.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Gxg (G²)]

...there WAS a Canon in place for the Churches that developed later, and they never had the task (not really) of deciding which writings were representative of Christian belief and which were not, and so on. I know there was a bit of wrangling, but for the most part, that was decided.

Unfortunately, when it comes to the subject of the Canon, the reality is that the writings of scripture alone were never representative of what Christian belief were since even the scriptures at various points were interpreted differently due to the translation issue alone...

For reference, one can go to The Politics of Bible Translations.

 

[Albion]

Unfortunately, when it comes to the subject of the Canon, the reality is that the writings of scripture alone were never representative of what Christian belief were since even the scriptures at various points were interpreted differently due to the translation issue alone...

What's the point except that we mortals can get things wrong at times?

There's no alternative to Scripture. We have God's word and yet it's possible to misunderstand it just as some people misunderstand everything else that's ever been put on paper, from the US Constitution to the cash register receipt handed them in the grocery store. That makes them wrong, not the information.

Certainly, it makes no sense to look elsewhere in preference to God's word.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Unfortunately, when it comes to the subject of the Canon, the reality is that the writings of scripture alone were never representative of what Christian belief were since even the scriptures at various points were interpreted differently due to the translation issue alone...

For reference, one can go to The Politics of Bible Translations.

I can appreciate that GxG, but you pulled a very small quote out of what I was saying and made it seem to say something different than it was intended within the context.

But thank you for the comment.

 

[Rick Otto]

Yes, that's true. But I was speaking on this specific debate topic.

Neither scripture alone nor scripture in light of tradition is sufficient.

 

[BobRyan]

It strikes me, and I may be wrong, but it has been seeming to me that a large part of the difference between the way Orthodox handle Scripture and the way those Churches that came about much later handle Scripture has to do with the way they view it.

The Catholic reformers - the catholic "protesters" trying to reform the catholic church were themselves trained by the RCC to interpret scripture as they did. They were not the laity they were the scholars, the theologians doing this "reforming" and the peasants followed to some degree.

It was not the interpretation - but rather the weight of importance the willingness to bend the text to fit the traditions of men.

Mark 7:6-13 is a perfect example of this.

6 And He said to them, “Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written:‘This people honors Me with their lips,
But their heart is far away from Me.
7 ‘But in vain do they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’

8 Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.”
9 He was also saying to them, “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. 10For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, is to be put to death’; 11but you say, ‘If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given to God),’ 12 you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother; 13 thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”


It is often the question of application and relative importance that is in doubt when choosing between tradition and scripture - as Christ points out.

There is nothing in this from Christ about 'the real debate is going to be about someone coming along 100 years later to tell us what is scripture'

Yet how often does the RC argument on this topic go there. knowing that as we saw with the RCC in the first century thread - there are no RC distinctive doctrines actually taught in the NT text.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

If it were merely reading we had to contend with I'd be happy but it is much more "reading into" that we contend against and that usually comes from long exposure to poor exegesis.

Which is the problem so often found with the RCC.

But notice that Christ exposes the issue clearly in Mark 7:6-13 for all to see.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[~Anastasia~]

The Catholic reformers - the catholic "protesters" trying to reform the catholic church were themselves trained by the RCC to interpret scripture as they did. They were not the laity they were the scholars, the theologians doing this "reforming" and the peasants followed to some degree.

It was not the interpretation - but rather the weight of importance the willingness to bend the text to fit the traditions of men.

Mark 7:6-13 is a perfect example of this.

6 And He said to them, “Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written:‘This people honors Me with their lips,
But their heart is far away from Me.
7 ‘But in vain do they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’

8 Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.”
9 He was also saying to them, “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. 10For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, is to be put to death’; 11but you say, ‘If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given to God),’ 12 you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother; 13 thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”


It is often the question of application and relative importance that is in doubt when choosing between tradition and scripture - as Christ points out.

There is nothing in this from Christ about 'the real debate is going to be about someone coming along 100 years later to tell us what is scripture'

Yet how often does the RC argument on this topic go there. knowing that as we saw with the RCC in the first century thread - there are no RC distinctive doctrines actually taught in the NT text.

in Christ,

Bob

Why is the assumption that there were no voices among the ECF until 100 years after Christ? Does one think that no one was talking about doctrine? Kind of funny given the fact that I don't believe the Apostles carried around a bound copy of the Bible in their back pockets. And why the reference to "the RCC in the first century" ... As if the Church existed as such? (And if one admits that she DID then the Catholics would happily agree anyway, wouldn't they?)


(No insult intended to our Catholic brothers and sisters - I am simply commenting on the absurdity of it all)

 

[Tzaousios]

Which is the problem so often found with the RCC.

But notice that Christ exposes the issue clearly in Mark 7:6-13 for all to see.

This is a major case of cognitive dissonance. I cannot recall a time when I looked at something an SDA had to say and thought: "Wow, that is excellent example of exegesis."

 

[Albion]

Why is the assumption that there were no voices among the ECF until 100 years after Christ? Does one think that no one was talking about doctrine? Kind of funny given the fact that I don't believe the Apostles carried around a bound copy of the Bible in their back pockets. And why the reference to "the RCC in the first century"

How one words it makes a difference, I suppose, but Bob does have a point here. Where does the notion come from that Christ intended that the disciples would develop his message through arguing among themselves until some compromise or consensus was achieved?

 

[Chesterton]

Where does the notion come from that Christ intended that the disciples would develop his message through arguing among themselves until some compromise or consensus was achieved?

The New Testament: wiki/Council_of_Jerusalem

 

[Albion]

The New Testament: wiki/Council_of_Jerusalem

Not what I asked, friend. And not what the preceding posts were discussing.

 

[~Anastasia~]

The New Testament: wiki/Council_of_Jerusalem

Beat me to it. Whatever Christ intended, this was clearly the way the early Church worked. Even according to Scripture.

 

[Albion]

Beat me to it. Whatever Christ intended, this was clearly the way the early Church worked. Even according to Scripture.

Excuse me, but I said not a word about councils. I was referring to the fond notion that it was Christ's intent that anyone and everyone would speculate, argue, and offer opinions over a matter of decades until some theory or other became the norm.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Tradition is not protected, is not inspired by God, is not infallible.

If it WERE - then the Jews were right to cling to their traditions and reject Christ.

The Jews had BOTH sacred tradition and the Bible.

And in Mark 7:6-13 Christ declared that it was destroying them.

in Christ,

Bob

I didn't even say whether I thought tradition was infallible, but merely that one's interpretative framework needs to have some sort of position on tradition. That position may be "tradition is worthless" just as well as it could be "tradition is infallible." I happen to believe neither, but that wasn't actually the conversion I was having.