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?

[1213]

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?

I think Christians are disciples of Jesus and should remain loyal to Jesus and his word.

Okay, but that doesn't answer the question under consideration. Do you agree with (a), (b), or (c) above?

My answer means, if Jesus didn't say a, b or c, Christian don't have to choose any of those.

[2timothy316]

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?

The word 'scriptura' is the key. What does that word mean? It means sacred writings. Are creeds and other literature scripture or sacred writings? No. Are magazines or any other publication produced by anyone today scripture? No. Do they help understand scripture? Some do, sure. Creeds are defined as "a short, formal statement of Christian religious belief, said in church". Creeds are not scripture or sacred writings. They are not sacred at all. Their purpose is not to explain the Bible but to establish what one should believe.

Sacred means "connected with God". This is where things get interesting. Some say that Creeds are 'connected with God'. Yet, many of these 'formal statements of belief' are contradictory to what the Sacred Writings say. That is where the choice is. Choose the sacred writings or chose the creed when there is conflict. MANY choose the creed. Few choose the sacred writings and will not read the sacred writings without the rose colored glasses of the creed. Because a creed is a belief and this in most cases is taught first in churches and scripture second..if at all. This is not a good thing. Even in my religion I understand it is not good to view the beliefs and view it as a creed to follow. Does my religion have a creed. It does have a few short statement of religious belief and there is only one that is not quoted directly from scripture. We believe is it extremely important for a person that wishes to serve God correctly to, 'make the truth their own'. Based on Proverbs 3:1, 2. Where is this truth found? Sacred writings, writings connected with God, that is where. Nowhere else. Sola Scriptura.

[historia]

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?

I think Christians are disciples of Jesus and should remain loyal to Jesus and his word.

Okay, but that doesn't answer the question under consideration. Do you agree with (a), (b), or (c) above?

My answer means, if Jesus didn't say a, b or c, Christian don't have to choose any of those.

But (c) is the "none of the above" answer. So if you don't agree with (a) or (b) then you, by definition, agree with (c).

[historia]

[Replying to 2timothy316 in post #12]

So do you agree with (a) or (b)?

[1213]

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?

I think Christians are disciples of Jesus and should remain loyal to Jesus and his word.

Okay, but that doesn't answer the question under consideration. Do you agree with (a), (b), or (c) above?

My answer means, if Jesus didn't say a, b or c, Christian don't have to choose any of those.

But (c) is the "none of the above" answer. So if you don't agree with (a) or (b) then you, by definition, agree with (c).

Yes, but if Jesus didn't say you should choose c. then you don't have to choose it either. The point is, Christians should remain in word of Jesus, they don't have to choose anything Jesus didn't say and they should not choose anything that is against what Jesus said.

[JehovahsWitness]

I dont know how we would be defined but as Jehovahs Witnesses we believe all doctrine should be determined by scripture alone. If there is teaching ,tradition, process which cannot be supported with scripture as long as it doesnt violate bible law or principle, then it is a matter of individual conscience, but there should be no official organisational doctrine that is not supported by the bible.

In practice terms this is why we do not use sacred symbols or idols in worship, do not believe in the a celibate priesthood class, are not trinitarians and indeed reject all religious traditions and teachings, costumes and holidays we believe conflict with bible law and/or principle.

I'll leave the readers to say with which letter the above corresponds.

[2timothy316]

[Replying to 2timothy316 in post #12]

So do you agree with (a) or (b)?

C

Both principles as you have described them shouldn't be rigidly followed. One shouldn't try to build their faith using scripture alone refusing help from others who read the same scriptures. At the same time one shouldn't view a creed from a religion as sacred and as from God and understands that man's creeds can be wrong.

The correct way, as I see it, is scripture is a rock. Unchangeable and yes infallible. Creeds, while useful, can't be ridged and shouldn't be viewed as a higher authority than the Bible. Not even equal to the Bible. They need to be in pencil as it were. Having the humility to change the creed as need as more understanding of the higher authority, the Bible, becomes apparent. Traditions have there place and in of themselves not bad. But a tradition that becomes ridged and viewed as equal in authority to the Bible can become spiritually deadly. Thus why I can't agree with "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." Because in my belief, scripture can and does exclude other authorities.

As a JW we have what is called the Governing Body. These are men that do set what many would call creeds in my religion. However, unlike other religions they do not hold the same authority as the Bible. They acknowledge this. Therefore, if lets say for whatever reason the Governing Body was to make a new creed that everyone give blood once a month, I would refuse that creed because the Bible's view that blood belongs to God trumps the GBs creed. Of course a good GB would never demand such a thing and I don't agree with religions that do demand of its members things that are not scripturally sound.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to 2timothy316 in post #17]

"Ridged" = "rigid

[2timothy316]

[Replying to 2timothy316 in post #17]

"Ridged" = "rigid

LOL indeed.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to 2timothy316 in post #17]

"Ridged" = "rigid

LOL indeed.

You wrote the word phonetically LOL