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?

[historia]

It seems to me, then, that, far from saying that Christians are to follow Scripture alone, the Bible itself is replete with instances -- both implicit (in the oral teachings of Jesus) and explicit (in the instructions of the Epistles) -- where Christians are supposed to follow both the written and oral Tradition of the Church. That is certainly how the Early Church Fathers, the successors to the Apostles, understood things as well.

As far as until around the first century after the passing of The Lord, I would agree with you.

Okay, but why do you think that stopped a century after Jesus' death?

And specifically where in Scripture does it say that the oral Tradition that the apostles handed on suddenly stops having authority at that time?

[historia]

(c) Neither.

. . .

My authority is Christ - and so also His Father, who drew me to His Son, and who has said to listen to His Son.

Correct me if I'm wrong, tam, but, as I recall, you previously explained that, for you, what is authoritative is not just Jesus' teachings as recorded in the gospels, but also what you consider to be direct, private revelation from Christ?

Do you consider any other part of the Bible to have authority? What about oral tradition?

[historia]

Writing materials were expensive in the ancient world, and few people had the education and means to just put their observations into writing. It wasn't like today where almost anyone can readily jot down notes in a diary.

Someone here said that the writers of the Scriptures were illiterate and poor and wouldn't have had anything to write on.

Nobody in this thread said that.

You did imply that.

I absolutely did not. Obviously, the people who wrote scripture were, by definition, able to write.

My comment that few people in the ancient world had the ability to write should not be confused with a claim that nobody could.

Where do people get the idea that the writers were uneducated?

The better question to ask here is: where did you get the idea that anyone thinks this? No one is making that claim.

[historia]

If you will note any JW teaching is an attempt at understanding certain scriptures in the Bible. if they have not been fulfilled, then the teaching isn't completely solid, we must always be ready to make an adjustment and wait on Jehovah God to reveal what a prophecy actually was.

Not so with such creeds as the trinity where there is no fulfillment to be observed, there so revealing of what it means coming, it's just there

I'm going to come back to the rest of your comments in a later post. But I wanted to clarify one thing first: It seems like you are drawing a distinction between "prophecy" and other teachings.

As I understand it, the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses teaches that Jesus is the Archangel Michael. There is no "fulfillment to be observed" with that doctrine, since it's not a prophecy. It's "just there." So are Christians at liberty to believe that Jesus is not the archangel Michael?

[2ndpillar2]

Peace to you,




Are you actually comparing the GB to Christ?

The GB is not Christ.

We are supposed to be obeying Christ, listening to Christ, following Christ.


The GB teaches false things (just as human as 'the pope' and other religious leaders.) The GB teaches people to listen to them instead of to Christ. Oh, they might not come straight out and say that. But the end result is the same.


**I apologize for the quick tangent (though obviously a conversation about following the bible and/or men and creeds/traditions may include a discussion about the GB as just one leader of religion.)


Peace still to you and to you all,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

The GB is not being compared to Christ. And they don't tell us not to listen to Christ. They listen to him as well, and relay His instructions on to us. Christ is the head of our world-wide congregation and we follow Him.

Why do you need a GB to "relay His instructions"? Weren't they written down? Isn't the "anointing" the source of one's teachings (1 John 2:27)?

1 John 2:27 And as for you, the anointing you received from Him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But just as His true and genuine anointing teaches you about all things, so remain in Him as you have been taught.

i am not anointed. The GB are all anointed. They are Christ's brothers. We show them respect and listen when they direct us to the Scriptures.

The anointing means to be anointed by the Spirit of God, such as being baptized, born in the Spirit of God (1 John 3:9). If you are not baptized in the Spirit of God, what are you doing teaching those on this medium. 1 John 2:24-27 is about abiding in the message from the beginning, which would be the Word of God, the Law and the prophets, and this message in 1 John 2:27 was to the "little children", not to some self-appointed GB.

“Who really is the faithful and discreet slave whom his master appointed over his domestics, to give them their food at the proper time?”​—Matthew 24:45.
Explain who this scripture is talking about. Who is appointed over the master's domestics?

Apparently, what is important, is who will dig out, "gather" out the "tares"/"wicked" (Mt 13:27-42), the followers of the false gospel of grace/lawlessness, and then throw them into the "fire"/"furnace of fire" (great tribulation)(Mt 13:30), and that would be the "reapers"/"angels" (Mt 13:41). The head of the Gentile church is Peter and Paul, and Peter was placed "in charge of the royal house" (Isaiah 22:15 & Mt 16), who was soon "deposed" (Isaiah 22:19) , and "cast into a vast country" (Rome), and who was given the keys of David, which were handed down to his heir, the pope (Isaiah 22:15-25), who will "fall" "in that day", the day of the LORD, and all hanging onto him, will be cut-off (Is 22:25). In the end, as described in Ezekiel 34, the leaders/fat shepherds, such as Peter's heir, the pope, will be judged, and destroyed, for not feeding or healing the sheep. As for Mt 24:45, it is the "sensible slave", who will be put in charge, and he will "cut in pieces" those who drink with drunkards.

This doesn't explain Matthew 24:45 though. There is no mention of a false gospel at Matthew 24:45. What you have posted is just a mess of broken scriptures that don't go together. What is important to you doesn't really matter vs Matthew 24:45. Care to try again? Or can you not identify the "faithful and discreet slave" today?
What is the food that is being given? What does it mean to give 'food at the proper time'?

The "food" that Yeshua gave, and ate, was the "bread of life", without the "leaven" of the Pharisees (Paul), such as what was eaten at the last supper, such as pointed out in Mt 4:4, which is "every word that proceeds out of the Mouth of God", which is glorified as the "Word made flesh". The food, water, clothing, healing (James 5:16), and shelter of Mt 25, is with respect to the physical needs being given to the hungry, thirsty, etc.. With respect to the "end", well, the "shepherds", "fat" leaders, will be judged for eating the "fat" of the fat sheep, and not feeding, or healing the flock. They will be "destroyed" (Ezekiel 34:1- 16). Do you "heal" the flock? If not, then you have apparently fallen short of the expectations you are expounding on. Your emphasis on one quote, out of context of the whole actual scripture, kind of falls short. The "faithful" would include "the saints who keep the commandments of God" (Rev 14:12) and escape drinking from the "cup of His anger" (Rev 14:10).

You're still short on what that scripture means for us today. It is not of out context either as I am asking for the explanation of the scripture from you and I'm still waiting for an answer that isn't some slap-dash response of scripture fragments from 5 different books of the Bible to make sentences.

I will say that your food explanation is not in harmony with scripture. It was not just what was eaten at the last supper. Luke 12:42 which is a parallel scripture says, "Who really is the faithful steward, the discreet one, whom his master will appoint over his body of attendants to keep giving them their measure of food supplies at the proper time?"

What food are the steward to keep giving? You say the food given was a one time deal at the last supper but that doesn't fit with scripture. Also, in context there is no indication that the food is literal. Ready to try again and back peddle? Also, just pulling bits a pieces of scriptures from all around the Bible to make sentences isn't a convincing argument as there is no indication that the scriptures you post have anything to do with the who the steward is or what the food represents.

What was represented at the "last supper" was the "Word of God made flesh", the "bread of life" without the leaven of the Pharisee being eaten, the same bread of life Yeshua ate in the desert (Mt 4:4). The wine is in representation of the blood, where the Spirit of God resides. The "shepherds" of Ezekiel 34 did not feed, heal, or gather the sheep, much like what Peter was told to do in John 21:15-16, because he was the "worthless shepherd" of Zechariah 11:17, who would not feed, care or tend the sheep. Matthew 25:45 was more directed to actually feeding the hungry with actual bread, and that is to be done by righteous seated on the right, and the ones who "beat his fellow slaves, would be those on the left. Matthew 24:45 was directed to one of two options (two men, or two women), that when the "son of man" comes, there will be the righteous and the wicked. The "righteous" (Mt 25:37) will feed the hungry, and per Matthew 24:48, the "evil slave" will beat the "fellow slaves". Much like the pope, who says he is Peter's heir, and who subjected the fellow slaves to his Inquisition, will wind up being where there is "weeping and gnashing of teeth", which is the same place that the "wicked" are cast per Matthew 13:41-42. His followers will be "cut off" per Isaiah 22:25. The "tares" are signified by those who "commit lawlessness" (follow the false gospel of Grace). The angels will also gather out all "stumbling blocks" (Mt 13:41) which would allude to your leader Peter (Mt 16:23), all at the "end of the age" (Mt 13:30). As far as Matthew 24:40-45, the gathering will happen "first" with the tares/wicked (Matthew 13:30), at which time they are burned up, or as stated in Mt 13:42, cast into the furnace of fire, which is to say, cast into the great tribulation (Mt 24:21), which appears to be right at the door (Mt 24:33).

[2timothy316]

If you will note any JW teaching is an attempt at understanding certain scriptures in the Bible. if they have not been fulfilled, then the teaching isn't completely solid, we must always be ready to make an adjustment and wait on Jehovah God to reveal what a prophecy actually was.

Not so with such creeds as the trinity where there is no fulfillment to be observed, there so revealing of what it means coming, it's just there

I'm going to come back to the rest of your comments in a later post. But I wanted to clarify one thing first: It seems like you are drawing a distinction between "prophecy" and other teachings.

As I understand it, the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses teaches that Jesus is the Archangel Michael. There is no "fulfillment to be observed" with that doctrine, since it's not a prophecy. It's "just there." So are Christians at liberty to believe that Jesus is not the archangel Michael?

Prophecy is still very much apart of Michael being the Archangel. It isn't 'just there'. If not accepted then there are Bible prophecies that will not make any sense. It's not just the GB making something up out of thin air like the trinity.

Jude 9 says plainly there is only one archangel. "Miʹcha·el the archangel..."
Michael has the title of prince and makes him a leader. Daniel 12:1 says “During that time Miʹcha·el will stand up, the great prince who is standing in behalf of your people."

There are things in the Bible that only Michael the Archangel will do.

"...the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice and with God’s trumpet, and those who are dead in union with Christ will rise first." Thessalonians 4:16

The prophecy at Revelation 12:7 says, "And war broke out in heaven: Miʹcha·el and his angels battled with the dragon, and the dragon and its angels battled but they did not prevail, nor was a place found for them any longer in heaven. So down the great dragon was hurled, the original serpent, the one called Devil and Satan, who is misleading the entire inhabited earth; he was hurled down to the earth, and his angels were hurled down with him."

If one doesn't think Michael is the Jesus Christ then who is he that will be doing all these things in the Scriptures? Who has a "commanding call" other than Jesus or Jehovah? Who has the right to be a prince and stand in behalf of God's people? Why are angels who battled Satan called Michael's angels? Who is this Michael who is so powerful that Satan and every demon in Heaven can't beat him?

Note I quoted no Watchtower magazine or some other book from the GB or FDS.

[2timothy316]

[Replying to 2ndpillar2 in post #85]

You're no longer addressing my questions, so we are done here.

[2ndpillar2]

[Replying to 2ndpillar2 in post #85]

You're no longer addressing my questions, so we are done here.

If you think I haven't answered your question, then feel free to expose your answer to the scrutiny of this forum. If you are ashamed of your answers, well, I can appreciate that. You will really be ashamed when you find yourself listed among those "who commit lawlessness" and get thrown into the "furnace of fire" (Mt 13:42), or "fire" of Mt 25:41, or "place with the hypocrites of Mt 24:51, all being the same place, where the cup of the anger of God is drank (Rev 14:10. Good luck with those consequences. We are now in time when "we call the arrogant blessed", and the "doers of evil are built up" (Malachi 3:15).

[otseng]

If you are ashamed of your answers, well, I can appreciate that. You will really be ashamed when you find yourself listed among those "who commit lawlessness" and get thrown into the "furnace of fire" (Mt 13:42), or "fire" of Mt 25:41, or "place with the hypocrites of Mt 24:51, all being the same place, where the cup of the anger of God is drank (Rev 14:10. Good luck with those consequences. We are now in time when "we call the arrogant blessed", and the "doers of evil are built up" (Malachi 3:15).

Moderator Final Warning

Personal comments and attacks are not allowed.

Please review the Rules.





______________



Moderator final warnings serve as the last strike towards users. Additional violations will result in a probation vote. Further infractions will lead to banishment. Any challenges or replies to moderator warnings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Ross]

As far as until around the first century after the passing of The Lord, I would agree with you.

Okay, but why do you think that stopped a century after Jesus' death?

And specifically where in Scripture does it say that the oral Tradition that the apostles handed on suddenly stops having authority at that time?

Thank you for staying with me on this subject. It is appreciated.

To avoid a massive post, how many scriptural answers do you wish me to provide?