Which is the historical Sola Scriptura?

Status
Not open for further replies.
[quote:3a695fc89f][i:3a695fc89f]Originally posted by Scott[/i:3a695fc89f]
Tradition 0, if held consistently, necessitates each individual believer rejecting the tradition of the canon and making an individual assessment of each particular book to determine if it is inspired. This would be absurd and beyond the skill of everyone, or nearly everyone.
[/quote:3a695fc89f]

I have met evangelicals who believe that each Christian should decide on the canon of Scripture for himself.

[Edited on 3-26-2004 by raderag]
 
As far as the meaning of Sola Scriptura is concerned, is it Keith Mathison alone? I think we could probably do a little better in defining what Sola Scriptura means. I agree with Fred that these definitions lack something. If the Church's authority comes from the Word, but is not absolute like the Word, then it cannot be right to include the church's authority as if it were something extra-biblical. It cannot be right to divide the church from it's head, nor to make it equal with it's head. It is not as though the church's authority comes from some other source when it rules the same throughout the church's history. So church decisions based on the Word that have stood the test of time is an attestation to the unchangeableness of the Word, and is not separate from it.

I don't think that we should be too quick to throw out traditions just because they are traditions. Too often I have seen traditions thrown out only to find out later that those traditions stood on solid biblical ground, only that wasn't realized until afterward. In those cases there was kind of greedy liking for new apporaches and new ideas, and there was also a mirroring disrespect for the old ways for no other reason than that it was old. Some traditions are very valuable, and only upon careful reflection are some of them seen as being very Biblical. The Apostle Paul also appeals to tradition in 1 Cor. 11:2.

So when we appeal to Sola Scriptura, it is not automatic that the testimony of all traditions is worthless to us, for they do help us to understand Scripture. And they do have a normative effect, for that is their purpose. But they do have to be guarded in the light of Scripture. That is, Biblical traditions ought to be taught and explained from generation to generation, so that they will not become traditions separated from the Word. In the same way, we do not regard ecclesiastical authority as binding if it is separated from the Word.

If we aren't careful we may throw out the firm social footing that our next generation will be standing on so that they will receive the Word with a proper understanding, and not have to start over with each new succeeding generation, only to impart the same traditions anew.

I believe in Sola Scriptura, but that doesn't mean that I eschew all traditions, or that I despise the church's authority altogether. But only if they have weight because of the Word, not in spite of it.
 
John....

[quote:8c8b4ac8a5]As far as the meaning of Sola Scriptura is concerned, is it Keith Mathison alone? I think we could probably do a little better in defining what Sola Scriptura means. I agree with Fred that these definitions lack something.[/quote:8c8b4ac8a5]

I don't know if I have done the best job explaining what Mathison puts forth. One really needs to read his book to get a fuller explanation and argument. He has done his homework, I think.

I am sorry I have bungled the definitions. But his book struck a chord with me and confirmed what I have believed about the Scriptures and the authority of the church.

He also does a good job showing the various arguments. Often, evangelicals are arguing with reformed types because they think the definition of Sola Scriptura does not include tradition. Because they think this, they argue against the RCC or tradition 2 and talk past those who hold to tradition 1.

I thought the book was helpful. By no means is it the only authority on Sola Scriptura, but it has to be one of the best places to start.

If someone believes him to be wrong, they should refute his book and tradition 1. They should not argue against his position as though it were the RCC position, because that is just plain wrong and misunderstands the whole thing.

Here are a few quotes from John MacLeod from, "Scottish Theology"

[quote:8c8b4ac8a5]"...the further light that is to break out will not cancel nor challenge nor detract from the brightness with which the light of the Word already shines. What is new will only intensify what is old. It will not darken it nor throw it in the shade. It will not open up the light or message of another Gospel than that which our Lord and His Apostles have left us. It will be a thing of detail and not of wide-sweeping principle. We need not, then, look for results of a revolutionary kind as the outcome of the shining of New Light if it is light indeed."

"The truth already known may be known more fully and perfectly. It may be seen better in its own setting and in the connection and relations of its various parts. Its power and its beauty and its sweetness and its glory may be more richly known. Yet those who have learned the Gospel of the Glory of the Blessed God may rest assured of this, that any further truth which as light will break forth from the Word will have no quarrel with the truth and the proportion of what they have already come to know. They may well keep their windows open to the east to welcome the light that a new day brings with it; but no shining of the rising sun will do more than confirm them in the knowledge and faith of what their confessing fathers learned from the Apostles - what, indeed, in Holy Writ is set forth with great plainness of speech."[/quote:8c8b4ac8a5]

This has a great deal to do with the light we have. Some would say that the light has to be new in each generation or that it has to be different in some way.

My question is why? If the self-same Spirit has made the light shine in previous generations, why would the light be different in ours?

This has to do with the Scripture's self-attesting nature. Not only does Scripture interpret Scripture, but also, by the Spirit, the testimony of its truth is shared by all. How then could the Spirit testify in one, a truth opposed by the testimony of another? The Spirit cannot be behind two opposed "truths", and neither can the Scriptures.

In Christ,

KC
 
Kevin:
I did not mean to slight either you or Mr. Mathison. In fact my careless wording slighted myself instead. In my zeal to juxtapose one sola with another to make my point I only discredited my own self. Please forgive me.

And I don't mean to derail your intention here at all. I think that your an my interests are the same, though we may have different particular cases in mind. While I am thinking of an aplogetic consistency and the role of music in the Church as two particular cases, you may have something else in mind; and so with each one's contribution. But I think we are both aware that the longstanding, generation to generation, historical, or whatever adjective with the same meaning one wishes to use, it stands squarely on the Word alone, and not on traditions that are devoid of Biblical grounding, such as men's edicts or practices from culture or self-interest, rather than from carefully walking in the Way.

Again, please accept my apologies.
 
Don:

So, your methodology is that each Christian alone should individually determine what is inspired and is not inspired?

The reasoning from the article you give is dangerous It precludes some forms of Christian growth. There are many times in a Christian's life when he will read the Bible as teaching two different and contradictory beliefs. James and Paul on justification are examples tghat often arise. If each individual is allowed to simply say that anything (he perceives to be) contradictory is not inspired, then he can jettison one or more books he does not understand. Indeed, Luther did just this with James. This was wrong.

Let me use an example that won't suffer the criticisms you level against Hermas (and I don't think those are necessarily valid criticisms - Hermas can be read in ways consistent with Protestant doctrine). How can you determine that the Epistle to the Laodecians is uninspired? It claims Pauline authorship and is so tepid that it should contain nothing contradictory to any Protestant doctrine.

Here is the epistle:
http://www.georgetown.edu/faculty/jod/texts/Laodiceans.html

Scott

[Edited on 3-26-2004 by Scott]
 
Radarag wrote: "I have met evangelicals who believe that each Christian should decide on the canon of Scripture for himself."

I have too. This is absurd. I would challenge the credentials of virtually anyone who tried to do this. Most don't even know Greek and have no training or other expertise in ancient near eastern documents. Most cannot even explain the peciniples of canonization or the history of canonization. Yet will start making precisely those kinds of arguments (parroting some apologetic work they read).

Perhaps a professor of ancient near eastern texts could make reaonable arguments along these lines. As it stands, the man on the street who tries to do this is like a non-doctor trying to render a medical opinion on a very complicated issue.

Luther's standard was odd. He claimed something like the book must speak with the voice of Christ or something. Anyway, the practical import was that nothing could contradict his understanding of Paul.

Scott
 
It may be helpful to state what Tradition 1 does not teach:

[1] Tradition 1 does not teach that the church authoritatively authorizes the Bible, as if the Bible's authority is dervied from the Church. The Bible is the Word of God its authority dervies from Him.

[2] T1 does not teach that the Church is infallible or irreformable.

[3] T1 does not teach that the efficacious persuasion of someone to the truth of the scriptures is something other than the Holy Spirit.

Scott

[Edited on 3-26-2004 by Scott]
 
John...

There is nothing whatsoever to apologize for. You made an astute observation. I agree my points could have been clearer.

Keep on, brother.

In Christ,

KC
 
[quote:55d1cc840d][i:55d1cc840d]Originally posted by Scott[/i:55d1cc840d]
Radarag wrote: "I have met evangelicals who believe that each Christian should decide on the canon of Scripture for himself."

I have too. This is absurd. Scott [/quote:55d1cc840d]

Twas me a couple of years ago.
 
It seems to me that Tradition 1 and Tradition 2 only vary in identifying the "tradition" you use to verify proper interpretation. Tradition 1 says it is the councils and other formulations that meet the standards of reformed theology. Tradition 2 says it is the councils and traditions of the RCC. What is the difference? Both require something outside of Scripture in the pursuit of orthodoxy.

Here is a for instance that will help you see my position.

A missionary is sent to a foreign land that has never had the gospel or the Word of God before. He is used of God to win converts to Christ. He begins to disciple them in the Word. He leaves. Those he has trained from the Word alone and appointed as leaders in the new church there are now acting as elders in the local church. They lead and preach and teach. They have never heard of any council, creed, and have not read church history. But they have the Bible in their language and have been taught proper principles of hermeneutics. They are a duly constituted New Testament Church.

As they rightly divide the Word they do not ever need to know about any council, creed, or history. The Spirit illumines their minds to the truth of the doctrines of the Trinity, the dual natures of Christ, the active obedience of Christ, justification by faith alone, etc, etc.

In Tradition 1, this is impossible, and so relegates the effectiveness of the Word of God to the [i:461dfd2f6d]authoratative[/i:461dfd2f6d] interpretation of men written down in historical traditional documents. (the same thing the RCC claims....with the catch being that it must be the RCC that determines proper interpretation).

In Tradition 0 we see that the ability of God to uphold His Word alone without the input of any history or tradition is a reality, a real posibility, because the work depends on God and not men!

I mean really, when the first councils met, what did they rely upon to formulate their confessions and decrees? The Word of God alone. So why do we think it is necessary to refer to their decrees plus the Word in order to discover, understand, and apply truth?

Tradition 1 means in every day application that the Word of God cannot be understood rightly by an individual without the input of tradition and history of some sort. That is not Sola Scriptura.

Please note, I am not arguing against councils or the church. I am not preaching rabid individualism. But I insist upon the fact that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura means that any individual on this planet can read the Word of God and understand it alone! I am really even going further. I am saying that every individual believer is responsible to challenge and question what the "church" teaches to make sure it lines up with the Bible.

And NOTE: That does [i:461dfd2f6d]not[/i:461dfd2f6d] make the individual the final authority. It makes the Word of God illumined by the Holy Spirit and upheld by God Himself the final authority.

And that is Sola Scriptura!

Phillip
 
Phillip...

[quote:89a86fb8fa][i:89a86fb8fa]Originally posted by pastorway[/i:89a86fb8fa]
It seems to me that Tradition 1 and Tradition 2 only vary in identifying the "tradition" you use to verify proper interpretation. Tradition 1 says it is the councils and other formulations that meet the standards of reformed theology. Tradition 2 says it is the councils and traditions of the RCC. What is the difference? Both require something outside of Scripture in the pursuit of orthodoxy.[/quote:89a86fb8fa]

Huge difference. One has a light passed down in Scripture. The other looks to a "light" that is made up of oral and written tradition outside of Scripture. See the difference?

[quote:89a86fb8fa]Here is a for instance that will help you see my position.

A missionary is sent to a foreign land that has never had the gospel or the Word of God before. He is used of God to win converts to Christ. He begins to disciple them in the Word. He leaves. Those he has trained from the Word alone and appointed as leaders in the new church there are now acting as elders in the local church. They lead and preach and teach. They have never heard of any council, creed, and have not read church history. But they have the Bible in their language and have been taught proper principles of hermeneutics. They are a duly constituted New Testament Church.[/quote:89a86fb8fa]

We've heard this one before. Since Christ's command is to disciple and not merely make converts, this missionary or whoever sent him is sinning because they did not follow through with the proper discipleship. So, no, these people did not simply use Scripture to understand the rule of faith. They were taught, ever so slightly, a few things, then they had to continue on in whatever light they had. The Spirit still works in them and they still gain understanding by Him. And they will have whatever light God wills. HOWEVER, this light will be no different than the light of the ages. If the Spirit is with them, they will come to the exact same theology that all true disciples have been given.

So your example does not negate Scripture, but it does skew the view of what the Spirit would accomplish among these people. You make it sound like they will come to truth OPPOSED to biblical doctrines. They will not. They will have the same rule of faith we do, if the Spirit is with them.

[quote:89a86fb8fa]In Tradition 1, this is impossible, and so relegates the effectiveness of the Word of God to the [i:89a86fb8fa]authoratative[/i:89a86fb8fa] interpretation of men written down in historical traditional documents. (the same thing the RCC claims....with the catch being that it must be the RCC that determines proper interpretation).[/quote:89a86fb8fa]

You don't understand it at all. Tradition 1 is not man made rules or oral or extrabiblical tradition. It is the truth as is written in the Word and as is confirmed in the church of God. The church did not confirm the Word. The Word confirmed the church. It is self-attesting. But part of its self-attestation is that it makes witnesses of all true disciples who believe the exact same truth and are one in all essential doctrines. This is why we know heresy is heresy. The Scriptures tell us and then witness between us that they are truth.

[quote:89a86fb8fa]In Tradition 0 we see that the ability of God to uphold His Word alone without the input of any history or tradition is a reality, a real posibility, because the work depends on God and not men![/quote:89a86fb8fa]

Wherever there is truth it is because of God. Wherever you differ from other men, who determines the truth? YOU DO. Sorry, Phillip, this makes you supreme authority in all matters of faith and practice. You determine what is right. This is tradition 0. It is autonomous and individual.

[quote:89a86fb8fa]I mean really, when the first councils met, what did they rely upon to formulate their confessions and decrees? The Word of God alone.[/quote:89a86fb8fa]

They did not interpret it in a vacuum. They had apostolic tradition. They had elders who had been discipled by disciples. Paul didn't just give Timothy a Bible and let him learn for himself. He taught him. In turn, Timothy taught. In turn, those who were taught by him, taught others.

[quote:89a86fb8fa]So why do we think it is necessary to refer to their decrees plus the Word in order to discover, understand, and apply truth?[/quote:89a86fb8fa]

Because they are witnesses. They confirm the Word in us. They help us know what the truth is.

[quote:89a86fb8fa]Tradition 1 means in every day application that the Word of God cannot be understood rightly by an individual without the input of tradition and history of some sort. That is not Sola Scriptura.[/quote:89a86fb8fa]

Obviously, Phillip, you were the first person ever to read the whole Bible all the way through. You had no teachers except for the Bible and the Spirit. If this is true of you, that is not Sola Scriptura, it is SOLO Scriptura. It makes me angry that you deny the command of Christ in discipleship. You negate what it means to everyone who reads the Bible. And, you preach to hear yourself talk, for that is the only good it will do if you truly believe that we know how to apply the Scriptures only on our own interpretation.

We have been saying the same thing for almost 2 years now. It is still true of you that you are the supreme judge of the truth of Scripture. What is sad is that you do not admit it, nor can you see it. That is the logical step of what you believe. And there are many witnesses against you, including those you wrongly cite, like the Hodges.

[quote:89a86fb8fa]Please note, I am not arguing against councils or the church. I am not preaching rabid individualism. But I insist upon the fact that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura means that any individual on this planet can read the Word of God and understand it alone! I am really even going further. I am saying that every individual believer is responsible to challenge and question what the "church" teaches to make sure it lines up with the Bible.[/quote:89a86fb8fa]

You may insist all you want to, but you are ignoring the doctrine and making up one for yourself. You have no idea what Sola Scriptura is. You have a great idea of what you think it is, but unfortunately the doctrine did not originate with you.

And why are they to challenge the church? Has God spoken only to them, to you? You think this position takes away the responsibility for everyone to know the Word, and that is simply not what we're saying. What we're saying is that if the individual reads the Word and comes to a completely different conclusion than the light we've been given, then they are wrong. There is no need to challenge the church. The church has the light. It can only get brighter, but it is the same light. A person cannot come to a "new" truth. It doesn't exist.

[quote:89a86fb8fa]And NOTE: That does [i:89a86fb8fa]not[/i:89a86fb8fa] make the individual the final authority. It makes the Word of God illumined by the Holy Spirit and upheld by God Himself the final authority.[/quote:89a86fb8fa]

Phillip, consider what you just said. In every individual that reads the Scripture the Spirit speaks? That is simply untrue. Many twist the Scripture and call it truth. They claim that God has spoken, too. Yes, God is the final authority, but He did not allow you, solely, or anyone else for that matter, to speak for Him. You cannot interpret Scripture and then say it is authoritative unless there are witnesses to that effect. This is exactly where cults come from. They say the Bible says this or that, but it doesn't. They claim that God Himself has showed them the truth, but He hasn't. How do we know? Because there is no UNIVERSAL EXPERIENCE to back it up.

[quote:89a86fb8fa]And that is Sola Scriptura!

Phillip [/quote:89a86fb8fa]

Well, you must be right. If you are the sole authority of what you believe the Scriptures to teach, then you certainly are an authority on what Sola Scriptura is.

You really can't see it, can you?

In Christ,

KC
 
Just checking in one last time, then I'm gone for the weekend.

Scott said:
[quote:f4c9b73912]So, your methodology is that each Christian alone should individually determine what is inspired and is not inspired? [/quote:f4c9b73912]

Nope. Never said that. I contend that Almighty God can preserve His Word throughout time and history and illuminate His elect according to His good pleasure.

[quote:f4c9b73912]The reasoning from the article you give is dangerous It precludes some forms of Christian growth. There are many times in a Christian's life when he will read the Bible as teaching two different and contradictory beliefs. James and Paul on justification are examples tghat often arise. If each individual is allowed to simply say that anything (he perceives to be) contradictory is not inspired, then he can jettison one or more books he does not understand. Indeed, Luther did just this with James. This was wrong. [/quote:f4c9b73912]

Luther was wrong? Isn't he considered part of the Reformed Tradition?

[quote:f4c9b73912]Let me use an example that won't suffer the criticisms you level against Hermas (and I don't think those are necessarily valid criticisms - Hermas can be read in ways consistent with Protestant doctrine). How can you determine that the Epistle to the Laodecians is uninspired? It claims Pauline authorship and is so tepid that it should contain nothing contradictory to any Protestant doctrine. [/quote:f4c9b73912]

I can't determine anything. My whole point is this: man did not canonize the Scriptures. God did.

[quote:f4c9b73912][b:f4c9b73912]Isaiah 40[/b:f4c9b73912]
8 The grass withers, the flower fades,
But the word of our God stands forever."

[b:f4c9b73912]1 Peter 1[/b:f4c9b73912]
25 But the word of the LORD endures forever."
Now this is the word which by the gospel was preached to you.
[/quote:f4c9b73912]

Over and out. See y'all Monday.
 
KC,

It seems you are bound by tradition and I am a lone, blind fool. So be it.

I have not argued against discipleship, the church, etc etc. I have simply stated that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura means that the Bible alone is our rule. Not the interpretation of our church. The Bible.

In my illustartion you say that the missionary who went preaching and making disciples, planting a church and then had to leave (or died) is sinful???? Whatever. We cannot say that a properly planted church with qualified elders is incapable of functioning and preaching/understanding the Word and sound doctrine without first studying history and tradition. To say so denies the truth about the work of the Holy Spirit. In fact, it almost seems in your argument that you replace the Spirit with the "rule of faith" (ie reformed tradition).

If it were as simple a case as you make it out to be then we would all be one happy unified catholic church. But there are varying traditions and interpretations. The believer then must rely upon the ability of the Spirit to fulfill the promise to lead us into all truth - with or without the help of history.

Neither the LBCF nor the WCF is the faith once for all delivered ot the saints. Neither are the councils or any other confession. The Word of God has been preserved and given to us so that God might reveal Himself to us. As the church speaks for God, we all must test what is said and hold fast to what os good while abstaining from every form of evil (this in context is doctrinal error!).

The Word is infallible. The church is not. History is not. Tradition is not. The councils are not. The confessions are not.

Perhaps we should all re-read the Theological Traditionalsim thread as it seems to be the starting point for every disagreement you and I have about the Word of God.

http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=1710

That is all I will say in this discussion. I'm done for now.

Phillip
 
Phillip...

What is amazing in all of this is that I have not mentioned the confessions or the creeds once. I have mentioned Scripture and the apostolic rule of faith, but I have not given shape to what that is. You are assuming what I would say, and it is simply not what I am saying.

And btw, you said the missionary went to make converts, and taught them a bit and then left. We are not told to make converts, but disciples. That still happens in the same way, teaching. Teaching is not just handing them the Bible and telling them to read it and then tell you what they think it says.

Also, I said that the Holy Spirit would lead them into truth and that He would bring them to the self-same truth that the whole church has. On the essentials, they would be in line with the apostolic church, or, they would not be led by the Spirit.

But the Spirit would not give them light different from the rule of faith.

The logical conclusion of your train of thought is autonomy. I am not the only one to say this. I am sorry if that does not sit well with you. I am just being honest. If you don't like being outside, then by all means, come in.

But don't restate a doctrine using todays terms. It doesn't equal what you say it equals. The people who first used it would not agree with your position.

In Christ,

KC
 
I know Phillip said he was done with this thread, but maybe sometime he'll come back and answer a question. Or perhaps somebody else can answer it.

[quote:517b17a8b5]As they rightly divide the Word they do not ever need to know about any council, creed, or history. The Spirit illumines their minds to the truth of the doctrines of the Trinity, the dual natures of Christ, the active obedience of Christ, justification by faith alone, etc, etc.

In Tradition 1, this is impossible, and so relegates the effectiveness of the Word of God to the authoratative interpretation of men written down in historical traditional documents. (the same thing the RCC claims....with the catch being that it must be the RCC that determines proper interpretation).[/quote:517b17a8b5]

Don A was honest enough to admit that Tradition 1, not Tradition 0, represents the HISTORIC view of [i:517b17a8b5]Sola Scriptura[/i:517b17a8b5]. Keith Mathison has documented this as well in his book on this subject, which was also his doctoral dissertation at Whitefield Seminary in book form. He knows his stuff.

Now, the question is if historic [i:517b17a8b5]Sola Scriptura[/i:517b17a8b5] is Tradition 1, why do you affirm Tradition 0 and claim to believe [i:517b17a8b5]Sola Scriptura[/i:517b17a8b5]? I mean, it is okay for you to claim to believe Tradition 0. But I don't understand why you would pretend that Tradition 0 is the same as [i:517b17a8b5]Sola Scriptura[/i:517b17a8b5] when it is clearly not, given the testimony of history. You may believe that it SHOULD be Tradition 0. But that doesn't change what it is. It would be better for you to deny [i:517b17a8b5]Sola Scriptura[/i:517b17a8b5] and claim what Doug Jones has called SOLO [i:517b17a8b5]Scriptura[/i:517b17a8b5]. Just my thoughts on that.

[quote:517b17a8b5]I am saying that every individual believer is responsible to challenge and question what the "church" teaches to make sure it lines up with the Bible.[/quote:517b17a8b5]

So why exactly should I trust my own ability to interpret the Scriptures over the ability of the church?

Also, Don A said:

[quote:517b17a8b5][quote:517b17a8b5]I'll stick with the Reformers on this one, rather than embrace hopeless subjectivism.[/quote:517b17a8b5]

Fair enough. I'll stick with the apostles...[/quote:517b17a8b5]

Would that be your INTERPRETATION of the apostles? What about MY interpretation? And how do you know you're right and I'm wrong?
 
Don:

I will cleary and adamantly say that Luther was completely wrong in rejecting the Book of James. Just because he was a key figure in the Reformation does not mean he was right in this.

Also, I think you are missing the point on canonization. All agree that God determines the canon. The question is which entity or entities are authorized to auhoritatively recognize what God has done? Is it the lone individual, the collective mind of the church, or is it something else?

One places the individual mind of man (allegedly inspired by the Spirit) as the final earthly authority. One places God's Bride, the Church, as the final earthly authority.

BTW, please answer my questions on the specific books (there are two, including one concerning the Epistle to the Laodecieans) when you get a chance. I think your answers, whatever they are, will reveal a lot about your view of the canon.

Scott
 
A couple of other general notes.

[1] It is through the church that God manifests His glory. "His intent was that now, [i:54979d3e8c]through the church[/i:54979d3e8c], the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms . . ." Eph. 3.

[2] "Tradition" should not be a bad word. It is used commonly in the Pauline epistles and almost always in a positive context (exception to the traditions of the Jews). For example, 2 Thes. 2:15 reads: "Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle."

Note that the the Thessaolnians are commanded to observe traditions of "word" (oral) and "epistle" (written). The scripture are a tradition, albeit a written one.

The great danger is the "tradition of men." See Matt. 15, for example.

[3] In Phillip's example of the missionary, simply bring a Bible to the natives carries with it an unwritten tradition, the canon. Great men in the early church debated and fought long and hard over the canon. Eventually a consensus emerged among all orthodox churches. This consensus is brought to natives when we choose to include Hebrews in our Bible (which many Eastern churches did not for hundreds of years), yet we exclude the Shepherd of Hermas. There is no written tradition (scripture) of which books are inspired and which are not.

God created canon and His Wife, the Church, recognized His voice. The church does not authorize the canon, but receives it. Yet, She - and not billions of maverick individuals each operating autonomously from the church - is the one who may authoritatively properly receive this.

Scott
 
Could someone more acuratly restate T0 and T1?

I may have to change my position to T0. It seems as if Protestant tradition may contradict T1. If so, I have to go with T0. Anyway, I am not sure I fully understand yet, so please restate.
 
What Westminster says...

[quote:2926a056ab]
IV. The authority of the holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed and obeyed, [b:2926a056ab]dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or Church, but wholly upon God (who is truth itself), the Author thereof; and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.[/b:2926a056ab]
[/quote:2926a056ab]


So the canon must be recieved not because of the Church, but because it is truth. That sounds like the individual must judge it to be so?

[quote:2926a056ab]
V. We may be [b:2926a056ab]moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the holy Scripture;[/b:2926a056ab] and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God; yet, notwithstanding, [b:2926a056ab]our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.[/b:2926a056ab]
[/quote:2926a056ab]

Westminster gives the church a very secondary role to the role of the Holy Spirit working in the individual (our hearts).


[quote:2926a056ab]
IX. The [b:2926a056ab]infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture, is the Scripture itself;[/b:2926a056ab] and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it may be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.
X. The Supreme Judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and [b:2926a056ab]all decress 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 Spirit speaking in the Scripture. [/b:2926a056ab]
[/quote:2926a056ab]

So the Judge of councils, opinions, tradition, etc is scripture. We are talking about scritpure judging the Church, so how can the Church judge itself with Scripture?

...
[quote:2926a056ab]
III. It belongeth to synods and councils, ministerially, to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his Church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same: which decrees and determinations, if consonant to the Word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission, not only for their agreement with the Word, but also for the power whereby they are made, as being an ordinance of God, appointed thereunto in his Word.
IV. All synods or councils since the apostles' times, whether general or particular, may err, and many have erred; therefore [b:2926a056ab]they are not to be made the rule of faith or practice, but to be used as a help in both.[/b:2926a056ab]
[/quote:2926a056ab]

Ok, so as I understand it, Westminster takes the T0 position. Since T1 would rely on Protestant tradition, it nullifies itself. Perhaps, I am wrong, but I am leaning away from T1.
 
[quote:96dae50e60][i:96dae50e60]Originally posted by Scott[/i:96dae50e60]
Also, I think you are missing the point on canonization. All agree that God determines the canon. The question is which entity or entities are authorized to auhoritatively recognize what God has done? Is it the lone individual, the collective mind of the church, or is it something else?
Scott [/quote:96dae50e60]

The Church has a responsibility as the Pillar of truth to affirm the Canon, but its affirmation does not bind the canon. It is the Providence of God that makes the Canon true, not the Churches discovery of it. Furthermore, we know the Canon is the true because of the Holy Spirit working in our hearts (WCF Ch 1, Part V), and can be further assured by the Church (WCF Ch 1, Part V).

Therefore, the Churchs job in determining the Canon is secondary to the individual through the Holy Spirit, at least according to Protestant tradition. I tried to find Protestant writings before the 20th century to support the T1 position without any luck. I have to admit to being very confused right now about proper ecclesiology.

I think Greg Bahansen does a good job of summerizing it here:

http://www.reformed.org/bible/bahnsen_canon.html
[quote:96dae50e60]
To recapitulate: we know from God's Word (1) that the church of the New Covenant recognized the standing canon of the Old Testament, and (2) that the Lord intended for the New Covenant church to be built upon the word of the apostles, coming thereby to recognize the canonical literature of the New Testament. To these premises we can add the conviction (3) that all of history is governed by God's providence ("...according to the plan of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His own will," Eph. 1:11). So then, trusting Christ's promise that He would indeed build His church, and being confident in the controlling sovereignty of God, we can be assured the God-ordained recognition of the canon would be providentially accomplished -- which, in retrospect, is now a matter of historical record.

To think otherwise would be, in actual effect, to deprive the Christian church of the sure word of God. And that would in turn (a) undermine confidence in the gospel, contrary to God's promise and our spiritual necessity, as well as (b) deprive us of the philosophical precondition of any knowledge whatsoever, thus consigning us (in principle) to utter scepticism.
[/quote:96dae50e60]
 
Scott,

Sorry to burn band-width, but I wanted to be sure that you knew that I did read this:

[quote:b58b641317]THE EPISTLE OF Paul THE APOSTLE TO THE LAODICEANS

1. Paul an Apostle, not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, to the brethren which are at Laodicea.
2. Grace be to you, and peace, from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ.
3. I thank Christ in every prayer of mine, that you may continue and persevere in good works, looking for that which is promised in the day of judgment.
4. Do not be troubled by the vain speeches of anyone who perverts the truth, that they may draw you aside from the truth of the Gospel which I have preached.
5. And now may God grant that my converts may attain to a perfect knowledge of the truth of the Gospel, be beneficent, and doing good works which accompany salvation.
6. And now my bonds, which I suffer in Christ, are manifest, in which I rejoice and am glad.
7. For I know that this shall turn to my salvation forever, which shall be through your prayer and the supply of the Holy Spirit.
8. Whether I live or die, to me to live shall be a life to Christ, to die will be joy.
9. And our Lord will grant us his mercy, that you may have the same love, and be like-minded.
10. Wherefore, my beloved, as you have heard of the coming of the Lord, so think and act reverently, and it shall be to you life eternal;
11. For it is God who is working in you;
12. And do all things without sin.
13. And what is best, my beloved; rejoice in the Lord Jesus Christ, and avoid all filthy lucre.
14. Let all your requests by made known to God, and be steady in the doctrine of Christ.
15. And whatever things are sound and true, and of good report, and chaste, and just, and lovely, these things do.
16. Those things which you have heard and received, think on these things, and peace shall be with you.
17. All the saints salute you.
18. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit. Amen.
19. Cause this Epistle to be read to the Colossians, and the Epistle of the Colossians to be read among you.[/quote:b58b641317]

Scott said:
[quote:b58b641317] BTW, please answer my questions on the specific books (there are two, including one concerning the Epistle to the Laodecieans) when you get a chance. I think your answers, whatever they are, will reveal a lot about your view of the canon.[/quote:b58b641317]

I'm really not sure what it is I am supposed to be revealing here. I believe that Paul probably wrote many letters (epistles) that were not chosen for the canon of scripture. And by that , I mean chosen by God. I doubt that the Lord prohibited the Apostle from writing to the churches whenever he felt the need, just as we would write, call, or visit those close to us, for whatever reason. No reason to believe that everything that Paul ever put on paper was "God breathed". In my understanding of scripture, God inspired Paul at specific times to write specific letters to specific churches so that His Word might be know to the Church through the ages.

[quote:b58b641317]Also, I think you are missing the point on canonization. All agree that God determines the canon. The question is which entity or entities are authorized to auhoritatively recognize what God has done? Is it the lone individual, the collective mind of the church, or is it something else?[/quote:b58b641317]

God is at liberty to authorize any entity He pleases. He has at times spoken through a bush, a cloud, and from thin air. He has written His Word with the pens of poets, the pronouncements of prophets, in epistles, and in stone with His own hand. He has now chosen to preserve His Word through His church, which is an assembly of individuals.

Have their not been apostate assemblies (false churches) that have tried to corrupt and contaminate His Word from the earliest times? How then do we know which "church" to believe? Because His Spirit testifies to His Truth. His elect will not ultimately be deceived nor forsaken.

[quote:b58b641317]One places the individual mind of man (allegedly inspired by the Spirit) as the final earthly authority. One places God's Bride, the Church, as the final earthly authority.[/quote:b58b641317]

Wrong on both counts. I have never suggested that man, individual or otherwise, has final authority. The final authority is the Head, earthly and heavenly.

[quote:b58b641317][b:b58b641317]Ephesians 1[/b:b58b641317]
21 far above all principality and power and might and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in that which is to come.
22 And He put all things under His feet, and gave Him to be head over all things to the church,
23 which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all.

[b:b58b641317]Colossians 1[/b:b58b641317]
18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. [/quote:b58b641317]

.
 
Tradition 1

From Mathison, page 275.

The Rule of Faith as Tradition

In the conception of the early Church, we have seen that the idea of tradition was not incompatible with an understanding of Scripture as the sole source of divine revelation. Tradition was simply the body of doctrine committed to the Church by Christ and His Apostles whether through written or oral revelation. The content of the revelation was identical regardless of the mode of revelation. Paul did not preach one gospel orally and another gospel when he wrote his epistles. The apostolic tradition was gradually written down over time in the canonical Scriptures. There were no secret, gnostic revelations given by Christ to a select few. Revelation was given to the Chruch as a whole in Scripture. The revelation of the gospel was public. The early Church was therefore able to view Scripture and tradition as coinherent concepts. There was no conflict because the content was essentially the same.

We have seen that this concept of tradition, which has been termed Tradition I, is not only the doctrine of the early Church, but also the doctrine of the classical Reformers. We have seen that the concepts of tradition currently advocated by Rome (Tradition II and Tradition III) and modern Evangelicalism (Tradition 0) are not only concepts unknown in the early Church, they are concepts that are inherently self-destructive. Each of these newer concepts of tradition confuses the locus of final authority, ultimately placing it in either the mind of the Church or the mind of the individual. This always results in autonomy and rebellion against the authority of God and His Word.

The Church today must regain the understanding of tradition held by the early Church and by the best of the Reformers. The fact that the Reformers did not use the exact terminology the early Church used to express this doctrine must not deter us from incorporating this necessary concept into our thinking. The Reformers used the language of sola scriptura because they were battling the concept of tradition (Tradition II) within Roman Catholicism that was not the doctrine of tradition found in the early Church. The newer Roman Catholic doctrine of tradition destroyed the final authority and normativity of inspired Scripture which was part of Tradition I.

Unfortunately many of the heirs of the Reformation rejected Tradition I as well, and in doing so they unwittingly rejected sola scriptura. In an extreme reaction against the abuses of ecclesiastical authority found in Rome, these men rejected all ecclesiastical authority. Their doctrine (Tradition 0) rejected the authority of the Church, of creeds and of tradition of any kind. This doctrine of solo scriptura has become the predominant doctrine within Evangelical Protestantism, but it has caused as many if not more problems than it sought to correct. By denying the authority of the corporate judgment of the Church, solo scriptura has exalted the individual judgment of the individual to the place of final authority. It is the individual who decides what Scripture means. It is the individual who judges between doctrines on the basis of his individual interpretation of Scripture. It is the individual who is sovereign.

If the Church is to regain a credible witness in the world, she must reject Tradition 0 as strenuously as she rejects Tradition II and III. She must regain the doctrine of the Apostles and of the early Church. She must regain this doctrine which the classical Reformers attempted to re-introduce into the Church. The traditional apostolic rule of faith is the foundational hermeneutical context of Scripture. To reject this rule of faith on the basis of an appeal to Scripture is to immediately read Scripture outside of its Christian context. For too long, the concept of tradition has been misused and abused in the Christian Church. it has been both unduly exalted and unnecessarily reviled. Neither of these attitudes is Christian.

Tradition, properly understood, plays an important part in the Christian concept of scriptural authority. It helps the Church to guard against passing theological fads and trends. It guards against a myopic parochialism which cannot see outside the boundaries of one's own denomination. And it also guards against the error of theological over-emphasis on particular doctrines. In other words it guards the Church from those individuals and groups who wrench the Scripture out of its context, twist its meaning to fit their own notions about what Christianity is or should be, and falsely propagate those notions under the banner of Christianity.

In Christ,

KC
 
In reading your post KC I had a thought.

Either you have the Scripture alone (T0), or you have the Scripture with someone's traditional interpretation (T1).

It matters not whose interpretation. For as soon as you add any tradition, even if it were the Apostles tradition (if we had extra-biblical apostolic tradition), you deny the sufficiency of the canon of Scripture as the written Word of God, the only rule for faith and practice.

It is either 2 Tim 3:16-17, or it is 2 Timothy 3:16-17 PLUS the teachings of the church.

The second choice cannot be defended as true Sola Scriptura.

So if you insist that T1 is the [i:dbe3bcfb77]historical, reformed[/i:dbe3bcfb77] understanding of Sola Scriptura, then the historical, reformed idea elevates their tradition to the level of Scripture. And I do not think any reformer did that.

Many are doing that today trying to hold to SS. But they are unwittingly adding their tradition as a necessary component to the working of the Spirit in the life of one reading the Bible.

We do not need a confession to understand the Bible. And we do not need any human tradition to grasp what He has revealed.

Phillip
 
Again, I think a good question is this: Why should I trust my own judgment as to what the Scripture says over against the judgment of the church?
 
Phillip...

[quote:1abcd28456]In reading your post KC I had a thought.

Either you have the Scripture alone (T0), or you have the Scripture with someone's traditional interpretation (T1).[/quote:1abcd28456]

What I am trying to get you to see is that no matter if you believe T0 or T1, you still do not have Scripture Alone. It is not the Scripture only that you put forth. It is Scripture plus your interpretation. Scripture only would just allow reading it, preferably in the original languages.

The tradition part is going to come in immediately when the Scriptures have been commented on, which is what you do every Lord's Day in your own pulpit. That is tradition. You are telling your people what you believe the Bible says.

[quote:1abcd28456]It matters not whose interpretation. For as soon as you add any tradition, even if it were the Apostles tradition (if we had extra-biblical apostolic tradition), you deny the sufficiency of the canon of Scripture as the written Word of God, the only rule for faith and practice.[/quote:1abcd28456]

Tradition is simply believing something to be true and practicing it. In this way, Mathison states rightly, that the Canon is tradition. But why is this safe? Because the Canon is the only inerrant and received by the church, tradition.

The RCC believes that there are other traditions outside of Scripture. There were other words spoken, some were written down and some were oral. They also believe that there are inerrant traditions outside the context of the Canon. This is where they have gone to T2 and T3.

[quote:1abcd28456]It is either 2 Tim 3:16-17, or it is 2 Timothy 3:16-17 PLUS the teachings of the church.[/quote:1abcd28456]

Phillip, look at the larger context of those verses. Paul is exhorting Timothy not only in the Scriptures, but in the pattern of his living. Look at verse 10 of the same section:

"But you have carefully followed my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, love, perseverance,"

Then he goes on to tell him about the Scriptures.

But we cannot skip over the part about the application of them. How do we apply them if we don't understand them correctly? How do we understand them unless the Spirit, by His illumination, has given us proper interpretation? How can the Spirit give us interpretation that is not witnessed to in both Heaven and Earth?

Paul's words to Timothy are not merely the Scriptures, but the Scriptures plus the regula fidei.

[quote:1abcd28456]The second choice cannot be defended as true Sola Scriptura.[/quote:1abcd28456]

Only because it has been redefined.

[quote:1abcd28456]So if you insist that T1 is the [i:1abcd28456]historical, reformed[/i:1abcd28456] understanding of Sola Scriptura, then the historical, reformed idea elevates their tradition to the level of Scripture. And I do not think any reformer did that.[/quote:1abcd28456]

You're right. No Reformer elevated tradition to the level of Scripture. That is not what we have been saying at all. I think you believe we are saying Scripture + Tradition places tradition equal to Scripture. We haven't said that at all. We are not adding two and two. We're adding more like a million to a thousand. The T is not equal to Scripture. The T is included in Scripture. See above. We are to put into practice what we have seen from the Apostles pattern.

Mathison cites numerous examples of where they did not elevate their tradition to the level of Scripture, but saw how to apply the Scriptures based upon their earliest interpretation. This is the rule of faith. It is not merely putting into practice what we have seen from the Reformation. It is putting into practice what we saw from the early church. Should we not practice our faith according to their pattern? And by the way, I am not advocating tradition that is divergent from the Scriptures. Everything we put into practice is properly aligned with Scripture, since that is the authority.

[quote:1abcd28456]Many are doing that today trying to hold to SS. But they are unwittingly adding their tradition as a necessary component to the working of the Spirit in the life of one reading the Bible.[/quote:1abcd28456]

Has it ever occured to you that the Spirit may want us to all have the same faith and practice? That is why the Bible is given. But every person who can read can get something different from it. That is not the Bible's fault, nor is it the Spirit's. If He has not illumined them, they will not see it, nor can they agree with what He has illumined in the past.

The Spirit does not tell us two different things.

Those who put into practice their life and faith like that of the early church, where do you suppose they get this? Just by reading the Scripture? No. They get it through the illumination of the Holy Spirit in Scripture. Therefore, if the Spirit is essential for understanding, which He is, then there has to be common understanding. This is the rule of faith.

[quote:1abcd28456]We do not need a confession to understand the Bible. And we do not need any human tradition to grasp what He has revealed.[/quote:1abcd28456]

Phillip, we need the Spirit. Do you agree? How does the Spirit illumine us? He uses the Scripture and the testimony. Otherwise, you are preaching just to hear yourself talk. We are to be His witnesses, are we not? How can we be a witness to something no one has ever heard? How can we be a witness to something that the Spirit has not given to anyone else in the church of God? How can we be a witness to something that is divergent from those who actually did witness it?

In Christ,

KC
 
[quote:322842c2ab][i:322842c2ab]Originally posted by luvroftheWord[/i:322842c2ab]
Again, I think a good question is this: Why should I trust my own judgment as to what the Scripture says over against the judgment of the church? [/quote:322842c2ab]

The problem is that you have to make a judgment of what church. Roman Catholic, Westminster, Lutheran, etc. That is still ultimatly personal judgment unless you believe in some kind of succession.
 
Don:

I don't think your response to the question to the Espitle to the Laodecians answers the question. Let's try another approach. Someone comes to you with the Epistle to the Laodecians and says, "What process should I go through to tell if this document is inspired or not?" What would you say?

Don wrote: "Wrong on both counts. I have never suggested that man, individual or otherwise, has final authority. The final authority is the Head, earthly and heavenly."

Think of it this way. Everyone agrees that Jesus is the final authority, even Catholics. So I am not sure if your point is helpful here.

This is the difficulty. Jesus is in heaven. We are not. He does not appear to you bodily and speak audibly to you, telling you which books are inspired and which are not.

What Jesus does do is this. He rules on earth through the officials He appoints to His kingdom. He has delegated His authority. They have been given the power of the keys, the power to bind and loose sins, etc. (Matt. 16, 18, etc.). Where these churchmen speak, He speaks (see Luke 10:16, for example). Those who reject His officials reject Him (again, Luke 10:16).

His Church is key to Him.

Scott
 
[quote:7e1e22a62e][i:7e1e22a62e]Originally posted by Scott[/i:7e1e22a62e]
What Jesus does do is this. He rules on earth through the officials He appoints to His kingdom. He has delegated His authority. They have been given the power of the keys, the power to bind and loose sins, etc. (Matt. 16, 18, etc.). Where these churchmen speak, He speaks (see Luke 10:16, for example). Those who reject His officials reject Him (again, Luke 10:16).
Scott [/quote:7e1e22a62e]

Scott, I have a question. Do you agree then that it is ultimately the individuals responsibility for deciding what the Church is? The individual must decide, based on their understanding of scripture, which confession or creed to accept and reject. The only other standard could be apostolic succession. Furthermore, if this is true, then individual understanding of scripture trumps the Church's, because it was used to decide which Church.

Am I missing something?


[Edited on 3-30-2004 by raderag]
 
"The problem is that you have to make a judgment of what church. Roman Catholic, Westminster, Lutheran, etc. That is still ultimatly personal judgment unless you believe in some kind of succession."

I think this is a great point. All issues of authority become hazy at some point. They also all involve personal responsibility at some point. When somone asks a child to do something, the child must make a couple of personal descisions. One is "is this my parent?" That is a personal decision. As strange as it may sound, some people have been mistaken about this (say children who were kidnapped as infants). Even after that decision is made, they must ask "will I obey or not?" These are personal decisions.

That does not change the fact that they have an obligation to obey their parents and to rely on their parents' ideas and instructions over their own.

Scott
 
[quote:d9106553cc][i:d9106553cc]Originally posted by Scott[/i:d9106553cc]

I think this is a great point. All issues of authority become hazy at some point. They also all involve personal responsibility at some point. When somone asks a child to do something, the child must make a couple of personal descisions. One is "is this my parent?" That is a personal decision. As strange as it may sound, some people have been mistaken about this (say children who were kidnapped as infants). Even after that decision is made, they must ask "will I obey or not?" These are personal decisions.

That does not change the fact that they have an obligation to obey their parents and to rely on their parents' ideas and instructions over their own.

Scott [/quote:d9106553cc]

Well, that is fine, but it still doesn't solve the problem of a subjective standard especially since one can find a Church or Statement of Faith to fit almost any sort of view of Scripture.

If it is ultimately the individuals responsibility to judge the Church based on Scripture, then logically T0 and T1 are the same. The only difference is that T0 requires that the individual determines the correct interpretation, and T1 requires that they choose the right Church based on the interpretation.

How is this any less subjective?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

sotzo
  • Locked
Sola Scriptura
Replies
13
Views
2K
Mathetes
Mathetes
jfschultz
  • Locked
Sola Scriptura
Replies
0
Views
1K
jfschultz
jfschultz
T
  • Locked
Sola Scriptura and the Church
Replies
1
Views
1K
RamistThomist
RamistThomist
J
  • Locked
  • Poll
Which form of church government is more scriptural?
2
Replies
32
Views
10K
Rich Koster
Rich Koster
Scott
  • Locked
There is no evidence of sola fide in the church from the clo
Replies
13
Views
7K
DTK
D
Back
Top