Which is the historical Sola Scriptura?

[C. Matthew McMahon]

At any time, we ALWAYS first use private judgment (the operation of the intellect) to make any decision. Even Catholic s first have to become Protestant before they cna become Catholic on nay doctrine because it is ALWAYS by private interpretation that any doctrine first comes to the floor to be discussed.

 

[raderag]

[quote:dfd31d6afb][i:dfd31d6afb]Originally posted by Scott[/i:dfd31d6afb]
Brett:

Perhaps it may also help to clarify what is meant when we say collective judgment over private judgment. Accepting and submitting to a collective judgment is a personal decision and involves personal judgment.

Still, it is proper for a person under authority (any authority) to say, I am not going to follow my own will or ideas and will submit to those of the authority. The decision to submit is a personal decision, but in a different way. If I have idea X and an authority over me has idea Y, when I make a decision to accept idea Y (and not follow idea X), there is a sense in which I am rejecting my own will in favor of the authority. Yet, in a second sense, I am using my own will to submit to the authority.

BTW, I don't think failure to affirm of Calvinism is heresy. I do think that affirmation of full pelagianism is.

Scott [/quote:dfd31d6afb]

Ok, I think we are in agreement here on the theory, but now I would like to get more into the application.

You seem to be implying that semi-Pelagianism is not a heresy. By what standard is it not a heresy? Orange and Dordt both condemned it as heresy.

Another question would be what doctrines should we be willing to compromise on for the sake of unity? Would a good ecumenicism start out with a "main and plain" set of doctrines, or would it attempt to bring all Christianity into Westminster?

 

[kceaster]

Brett...

[quote:a1edae5324]You mean that in your own view of Scripture, Westminster is more correct than Trent, right?[/quote:a1edae5324]

No, in the testimony of the Church through the ages to what the Scripture teaches. My testimony is not over and above that of the Church. I have adopted her testimony, not the other way around.

I can honestly say this, because there are certain things that I would never have agreed to unless I had submitted myself to them.

[quote:a1edae5324]I understand that you are willing to submitt to things you don't understand, but only as long as the overall thrust of the Church aligns with your personal view of Scripture. Otherwise, you would accept the mass.[/quote:a1edae5324]

I would not accept the mass, not because I have weighed in against it with my own view of Scripture, but because the Church of the Apostles and the Reformation weighs in against it. The Reformers did not consider the RCC to be a true Church and neither do I. So theirs, along with the Greeks, are not a Church to whom we should submit ourselves. They do not agree with the early Church, as their light has eclipsed the old, instead of been in concert with it.

[quote:a1edae5324]Only if they more or less agree with your personal view of scripture.

I don't disagree with what you are saying, but you are using your personal view of scripture as the final authroity, not the Church's. That is my point. [/quote:a1edae5324]

I have differing views than that of the Church. And where I am different, I submit. In my local body, there are things that I disagree with, but I am in submission to them and not the other way around. I do not fully understand the RPW, nor do I fully understand eschatology. I submit on both of those points. But where our beliefs are the same, it is more appropriate to say that I have conformed to their view, they have not conformed to mine. I was not the first to believe it. I believe it because they believe it. I am orthodox only where I agree with them. They are not orthodox because they agree with me.

Don't get me wrong. It is not as if I do not have to crucify my flesh and my pride in these matters. But I strive daily to be at one with the holy catholic and apostolic church. They do not come to my side. I have gone to theirs. In my natural theology, the Spirit turned my ship in a 180. If it were left to my thinking and my opinion, I would be headed in a different direction.

In Christ,

KC

 

[raderag]

[quote:e6c5803498][i:e6c5803498]Originally posted by kceaster[/i:e6c5803498]
I would not accept the mass, not because I have weighed in against it with my own view of Scripture, but because the Church of the Apostles and the Reformation weighs in against it. The Reformers did not consider the RCC to be a true Church and neither do I. So theirs, along with the Greeks, are not a Church to whom we should submit ourselves. They do not agree with the early Church, as their light has eclipsed the old, instead of been in concert with it. KC [/quote:e6c5803498]

How do you know the Reformed CHurch is true and Rome is not?

 

[kceaster]

Brett...

[quote:72b06526c9][i:72b06526c9]Originally posted by raderag[/i:72b06526c9]
[quote:72b06526c9][i:72b06526c9]Originally posted by kceaster[/i:72b06526c9]
I would not accept the mass, not because I have weighed in against it with my own view of Scripture, but because the Church of the Apostles and the Reformation weighs in against it. The Reformers did not consider the RCC to be a true Church and neither do I. So theirs, along with the Greeks, are not a Church to whom we should submit ourselves. They do not agree with the early Church, as their light has eclipsed the old, instead of been in concert with it. KC [/quote:72b06526c9]

How do you know the Reformed CHurch is true and Rome is not? [/quote:72b06526c9]

Since the early Church is inscripturated, and Rome is not, the testimony of the early Church stands in judgment against Rome. This is completely objective.

Rome stands in stark contrast with the historical narrative of the Church in the NT. Therefore, they are not a true Church.

In Christ,

KC

 

[luvroftheWord]

Brett,

I don't want you to misunderstand my position. I agree with much of what you are saying, and I am not trying to imply that personal interpretation and the church's interpretation are at odds. I believe both are necessary. As I said, it was my personal decision to join the PCA. But I also submit to the PCA on issues like communion. I only brought it up to counter the idea that any affirmation of the church's authority in interpreting the Scriptures is a denial of [i:d47b8fbe29]Sola Scriptura[/i:d47b8fbe29]. It is clearly not.

 

[raderag]

[quote:e06b1d4615][i:e06b1d4615]Originally posted by kceaster[/i:e06b1d4615]

Since the early Church is inscripturated, and Rome is not, the testimony of the early Church stands in judgment against Rome. This is completely objective.

Rome stands in stark contrast with the historical narrative of the Church in the NT. Therefore, they are not a true Church.

In Christ,

KC [/quote:e06b1d4615]

inscripturated? I am not familiar with the term, and couldn't find it in the dictionary. I assume it deals with scripture.

Are any of Rome's doctrines objectivly declared as heresy in the Early Church? If not, then it is no more objective than me saying it is not true because it is wrong according to my view of scripture. In fact, it is less objective since it is your view of history, not the Church's. The Roman CHurch puts forth a very good case of their historicity. Why is theirs wrong and yours correct? In fact, even Protestants disagree on which creeds are right, and which are wrong. Anglican accepts the 7th, while reformers typically don't.

Also, the tradition of inventing new doctine started very early in the Church. Just ask Tertullion. Therefore, the early Church is not a capable judge on Roman doctrine where it is silent (Eucharist). They certainly didn't deny the ROman view, they just didn't teach it.

So, Rome is not true because they are not Biblical. I agree. At least that is my own view on it.

I don't mean to sound crass, but I believe you are engaging in circular argumentation here.

[Edited on 3-30-2004 by raderag]

 

[raderag]

[quote:83b12c7d5f][i:83b12c7d5f]Originally posted by luvroftheWord[/i:83b12c7d5f]
Brett,

I don't want you to misunderstand my position. I agree with much of what you are saying, and I am not trying to imply that personal interpretation and the church's interpretation are at odds. I believe both are necessary. As I said, it was my personal decision to join the PCA. But I also submit to the PCA on issues like communion. I only brought it up to counter the idea that any affirmation of the church's authority in interpreting the Scriptures is a denial of [i:83b12c7d5f]Sola Scriptura[/i:83b12c7d5f]. It is clearly not. [/quote:83b12c7d5f]

Agreed. The church is the Pillar of truth, and has that responsibility.

 

[kceaster]

Brett...

[quote:f13b90a328]inscripturated? I am not familiar with the term, and couldn't find it in the dictionary. I assume it deals with scripture.[/quote:f13b90a328]

To be inscripturated means that a particular historical narrative or circumstance is placed into Scripture. Thus, the practice of the early Church is inscripturated because it is recorded for us in Acts.

Now, theology aside, we can from a plain reading of the words, see that the Church met on the first day of the week. We also know what they did during their meetings. We also know how they practiced the ordinance of communion. We can find out all of this from historical narrative. Thus the early Church may serve as a testimony against any Church who practices differently or does anything contrary to that pattern.

[quote:f13b90a328]Are any of Rome's doctrines objectivly declared as heresy in the Early Church?[/quote:f13b90a328]

The early Church did not know about Rome's doctrines, so how could they declare them as heresy? Paul does give us a glimpse of what is coming though, in his words to both Titus and Timothy. This is not theology. From a plain reading of his words, we can see what he says is coming.

It also does not take theology to see that the Romish mass is quite different from the ordinance of communion. Just by using the narrative, we can see that the RCC does not agree with the early church practice. This is not my opinion. It is just bare bones comparing one tradition to the other. Where Rome does not like this is where the Reformation has said that there are traditions upheld in Scripture, just not the ones they hold to.

So it takes no interpretive prowess to see that the mass and the ordinance are two separate things. Where everyone got confused in the middle ages is when they started accepting extra-biblical historical tradition instead of the inscripturated tradition. But just a cursory look can defeat the comparison. If it doesn't line up, it is not valid.

[quote:f13b90a328]If not, then it is no more objective than me saying it is not true because it is wrong according to my view of scripture.[/quote:f13b90a328]

Again, it does not take a "view". It is simply fact. Compare one to another and the difference is plain. That is as objective as it gets.

[quote:f13b90a328]In fact, it is less objective since it is your view of history, not the Church's. The Roman CHurch puts forth a very good case of their historicity. Why is theirs wrong and yours correct?[/quote:f13b90a328]

Because it doesn't line up with the early church and what the Reformation returned to.

[quote:f13b90a328]In fact, even Protestants disagree on which creeds are right, and which are wrong. Anglican accepts the 7th, while reformers typically don't.[/quote:f13b90a328]

Now we get into theological debates. It gets tougher. That is where I will argue as my forbears. Remember, I follow them. They don't follow me.

[quote:f13b90a328]Also, the tradition of inventing new doctine started very early in the Church. Just ask Tertullion. Therefore, the early Church is not a capable judge on Roman doctrine where it is silent (Eucharist). They certainly didn't deny the ROman view, they just didn't teach it.[/quote:f13b90a328]

Paul said this as well, so did James. But the early Church is judge where innovations have been made. It doesn't really matter if they didn't see it coming. The fact is that it came, and therefore, since it is both new and divergent, it must be false. After the Apostles, there is no new revelation. Whatever light shines, must be in accord, or it is no light at all.

[quote:f13b90a328]So, Rome is not true because they are not Biblical. I agree. At least that is my own view on it. [/quote:f13b90a328]

If you are not the first to view it this way, then I say you are submitting to the Reformed Church on the matter. It all depends on your perspective. Do I come first, or do they? Since we did not fight the original fight, how can we say it is our opinion. Do we own it if it is true? What do we have we have not received?

[quote:f13b90a328]I don't mean to sound crass, but I believe you are engaging in circular argumentation here.[/quote:f13b90a328]

Again, Brett, perspective is everything. I hear what you're saying. And it sure must look as if I am judging for myself what is right. I am in a way, I guess. But, since it was not my idea, nor my original thought, I count it as submission. I am in agreement with them, not them with me.

In Christ,

KC

 

[raderag]

[quote:e73f706c78][i:e73f706c78]Originally posted by kceaster[/i:e73f706c78]
[quote:e73f706c78]inscripturated? I am not familiar with the term, and couldn't find it in the dictionary. I assume it deals with scripture.[/quote:e73f706c78]

To be inscripturated means that a particular historical narrative or circumstance is placed into Scripture. Thus, the practice of the early Church is inscripturated because it is recorded for us in Acts.
[/quote:e73f706c78]

Ok, I didn't know that you meant the apostolic church.

[quote:e73f706c78]
Now, theology aside, we can from a plain reading of the words, see that the Church met on the first day of the week. We also know what they did during their meetings. We also know how they practiced the ordinance of communion. We can find out all of this from historical narrative. Thus the early Church may serve as a testimony against any Church who practices differently or does anything contrary to that pattern.
[/quote:e73f706c78]

Ok, well I see more where you are coming from, but would you agree that you must apply the regulative principle to conclude that Rome violates the practices in Acts?


[quote:e73f706c78]Are any of Rome's doctrines objectivly declared as heresy in the Early Church?[/quote:e73f706c78]

[quote:e73f706c78]The early Church did not know about Rome's doctrines, so how could they declare them as heresy?
[/quote:e73f706c78]
JW doctrine is declared as heresy (Arianism) way before they were around.

[quote:e73f706c78]
Paul does give us a glimpse of what is coming though, in his words to both Titus and Timothy. This is not theology. From a plain reading of his words, we can see what he says is coming.

It also does not take theology to see that the Romish mass is quite different from the ordinance of communion. Just by using the narrative, we can see that the RCC does not agree with the early church practice. This is not my opinion. It is just bare bones comparing one tradition to the other. Where Rome does not like this is where the Reformation has said that there are traditions upheld in Scripture, just not the ones they hold to.
[/quote:e73f706c78]

It is a mere semantical exercise to say that scripture is so clear it is not your view of scripture that declares Rome as false. Many educated men would disagree. I agree it is objective, but it is still you personal view.

[quote:e73f706c78]
So it takes no interpretive prowess to see that the mass and the ordinance are two separate things. Where everyone got confused in the middle ages is when they started accepting extra-biblical historical tradition instead of the inscripturated tradition. But just a cursory look can defeat the comparison. If it doesn't line up, it is not valid.
[/quote:e73f706c78]

A sidebar: Do you believe communion to be an ordinance rather than a sacarament?




[quote:e73f706c78]In fact, it is less objective since it is your view of history, not the Church's. The Roman CHurch puts forth a very good case of their historicity. Why is theirs wrong and yours correct?[/quote:e73f706c78]

[quote:e73f706c78]
Because it doesn't line up with the early church and what the Reformation returned to..[/quote:e73f706c78]

But there is not objective standard before the reformation directly saying that the Eucharist as Rome believes it is wrong. In fact many reformed today view John 6 in the same light as do Roman Catholics. It still boils down to our interpretation. I can find plenty of ECFs to support Rome on this issue, and the Bible speaks against only in a deductive form.

I agree that their view is heresy, but only by the standard of the Gospel, not by any direct statement in scripture.


[quote:e73f706c78]In fact, even Protestants disagree on which creeds are right, and which are wrong. Anglican accepts the 7th, while reformers typically don't.[/quote:e73f706c78]

Now we get into theological debates. It gets tougher. That is where I will argue as my forbears. Remember, I follow them. They don't follow me.

[quote:e73f706c78]Also, the tradition of inventing new doctine started very early in the Church. Just ask Tertullion. Therefore, the early Church is not a capable judge on Roman doctrine where it is silent (Eucharist). They certainly didn't deny the ROman view, they just didn't teach it.[/quote:e73f706c78]

[quote:e73f706c78]
Paul said this as well, so did James. But the early Church is judge where innovations have been made. It doesn't really matter if they didn't see it coming. The fact is that it came, and therefore, since it is both new and divergent, it must be false. After the Apostles, there is no new revelation. Whatever light shines, must be in accord, or it is no light at all.
[/quote:e73f706c78]

But, there is development of doctrine, right?


[quote:e73f706c78]So, Rome is not true because they are not Biblical. I agree. At least that is my own view on it. [/quote:e73f706c78]

[quote:e73f706c78]
If you are not the first to view it this way, then I say you are submitting to the Reformed Church on the matter. It all depends on your perspective. Do I come first, or do they? Since we did not fight the original fight, how can we say it is our opinion. Do we own it if it is true? What do we have we have not received?
[/quote:e73f706c78]

First of all, it was introduced to me by tradition, and I had to verify it by scripture. We have no doctrine we haven't recived, but we have more fully developed doctrine due to necessity.

 

[kceaster]

Brett...

[quote:04a8809f29]Ok, I didn't know that you meant the apostolic church.[/quote:04a8809f29]

Perfectly fine.

[quote:04a8809f29]Ok, well I see more where you are coming from, but would you agree that you must apply the regulative principle to conclude that Rome violates the practices in Acts?[/quote:04a8809f29]

All I'm going for is a difference. That is enough to show that the testimonies do not match.

[quote:04a8809f29]JW doctrine is declared as heresy (Arianism) way before they were around.[/quote:04a8809f29]

For that matter, everything is heresy that is not the gospel Paul preached. He says so in the first chapter of Galatians.

[quote:04a8809f29]It is a mere semantical exercise to say that scripture is so clear it is not your view of scripture that declares Rome as false. Many educated men would disagree. I agree it is objective, but it is still you personal view.[/quote:04a8809f29]

But again, not mine. I do not need me to prove the veracity. It didn't come to me first. I am agreeing with it, not the other way around.

[quote:04a8809f29]A sidebar: Do you believe communion to be an ordinance rather than a sacarament?[/quote:04a8809f29]

WCF uses both, so I use them both. It is perfectly fine to call it an ordinance, just so long as we're not using the Zwinglian connotation.

[quote:04a8809f29]But there is not objective standard before the reformation directly saying that the Eucharist as Rome believes it is wrong. In fact many reformed today view John 6 in the same light as do Roman Catholics. It still boils down to our interpretation. I can find plenty of ECFs to support Rome on this issue, and the Bible speaks against only in a deductive form.[/quote:04a8809f29]

Again, I am not talking about the theology of the mass. I am only pointing out that they did not pattern the practice after the apostolic Church. The first flag should be that it does not resemble the Apostles in practice. We can go from there to show the theological problems with it.

[quote:04a8809f29]But, there is development of doctrine, right?[/quote:04a8809f29]

Absolutely as long as it makes the light brighter and not more dim.

[quote:04a8809f29]First of all, it was introduced to me by tradition, and I had to verify it by scripture. We have no doctrine we haven't received, but we have more fully developed doctrine due to necessity. [/quote:04a8809f29]

Same with me. But where my interpretation differed, like paedobaptism for instance, I submitted even though I did not fully understand it. I was satisfied to know that the Reformation believed it.

In Christ,

KC

 

[pastorway]

It is very interesting to me how "church tradition and history" seems in this discussion to eclipse the [i:ef827e100b]priesthood of all believers[/i:ef827e100b].

Just noticed how absent that whole idea was in the thread......


Phillip

 

[luvroftheWord]

Probably because that's not the doctrine being discussed.

 

[Don A]

[quote:6ef04d67a8][i:6ef04d67a8]Scott said:[/i:6ef04d67a8]

[1] Were is there an inspired list of the books of the Bible?

[2] Where did God say that the Book of Hebrews is part of the Bible?[/quote:6ef04d67a8]

1) I don't think you'll find a "God breathed" list, but there will be a table of contents in front of most Bibles. If not, you can make your own; Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus,........stop at the Revelation. There should be 66, all together. This will be a list of the inspired books.

2) When He put it in there.

Scott, I think I remember you having said that you are a lawyer. I perceive from your line of questioning that you are somehow trying to trigger a certain response from me so that you can follow with the "AH HA, so you admit........"
Well, my answers may seem a bit simplistic to a man of your profession and position, but I believe I have clearly answered all that has been asked of me. Now, if you would, simply answer a couple for me:

1) Do you believe that the Bible is God's Word; complete and infallible?

2) If "yes", who revealed that to you?

3) If "no", why are we even discussing Sola Scriptura?

 

[pastorway]

Consider:

[b:4c549e8307]LBCF[/b:4c549e8307]
The supreme judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and by which must be examined all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, and doctrines of men and private spirits can be no other than the Holy Scripture, delivered by the Spirit. And in the sentence of Scripture we are to rest, for it is in Scripture, delivered by the Spirit, that our faith is finally resolved.

[b:4c549e8307]WCF[/b:4c549e8307]
The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees 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.

Who decides? Who is the final judge? Can a council that is being judge be itself the final judge? No. Each individual, as a priest before God through Christ, must study the Scripture and judge whether the council, history, tradition, and church is rightly handling the Word of God.

When we, as individuals, do this, that does not make us, the inidividual, the final judge and authority. That keeps popping up and it is simply a wrong notion and a fallacious argument.

If the individual is rightly handling the Word and appealing to it alone to judge councils, history, tradition, etc, then that individual has made sure that the Spirit speaking through the Word itself is the final authority and "supreme judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined."

When the individual appeals to Scripture that does not make him the final authority. It makes the Scriptures the final authority. Indeed, the one who appeals always to tradition and orthodoxy is the one who elevates the Church above the Scripture as the final authority and supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are are to be determined!

Which is the supreme judge? The Word, or the Church? If it is the Church then the individual has no ability to challenge what is being taught and must submit even to error. But if it is the Word that is the supreme authority and judge, then the individual has recource to challenge the Church when it errs. And it will! For only the Word is infallible.

Phillip

 

[JonathonHunt]

Amen Phillip.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Help! I'd like to vote...

... but I can't just now, not without some clarity.

What is the real issue? Are we affirming the place of Scripture or the place of tradition? Or are we just "discussing" the relationship between them, using [i:d70baab492]Sola Scriptura [/i:d70baab492]as a lightning-rod?

If its a matter of [u:d70baab492]final authority [/u:d70baab492]then its the Scripture plus nothing. In other words, we can place the Bible over against anything and everything, even orthodox statements, and judge them. In fact, I daresay every generation needs to renew their faith in the old, solid orthodoxy. New, uhuhuhrrr, I mean [i:d70baab492]ancient[/i:d70baab492] heresy keeps demanding this of us, right? We hold to Nicea and Chalcedon (and WCF) because we're convinced they are biblical, not because they are one tradition or another. We don't reinvent the wheel, but in contest we don't appeal to the councils to prove the same points they proved. We use their Scripture proofs! It is within the pale of (our) orthodoxy that we appeal, on occasion, to a common subordinate standard we all claim to believe.

As to the question of [i:d70baab492]why[/i:d70baab492] we accept the 66 books and no others, I once made the mistake of affirming to a seminary professor I thought we accepted them because the church had already accepted them (not in the RC sense of majesterium, but with the weight of tradition). "No Way," said he. We accept them because as God's sheep we recognize the voice of our Shepherd speaking in them.

You and I may accept the standard Protestant Bible on church Authority, but that is not [i:d70baab492]the reason[/i:d70baab492] those books are authoritative. We recognize God's Word the same as God-fearers in every age from Moses to the earliest apostolic converts did. And if we felt we [i:d70baab492]had[/i:d70baab492] to go back and confirm that we could.

It is also true that we grow in our understanding and appreciation of that Voice as well. We are subjected to it in pulpit exposition and in private reading. We grow to know it better. And we get better, humanly speaking, in detecting false teaching, i.e. heresy. [b:d70baab492]BUT[/b:d70baab492] only if we are getting the good stuff. Even if we never read a page of church history (and neither does the pastor ) we will [i:d70baab492]inescapably[/i:d70baab492] have a "tradition" of interpretation starting on day one of our Christian indoctrination. So, the pastor who prides himself on his lack of a library is only "traditionalizing" his congregation in his own personal tradition, which (because of his pride) is likely to be wrong as often as it is right.

So, church tradition is useful for bounding our pride. We must not despise the faithful teachers, living and dead, God has given to his church. They are of incalculable worth. But ultimately we are dependent on God alone, and his Voice alone for sustenance. Only by his grace can we stand faithfully with the majority (sometimes) and minority (sometimes) who have the Truth. We are ever so dependent.


[b:d70baab492]Athanasius, the whole world is against you!
Then I am against the world![/b:d70baab492]

 

[kceaster]

[quote:2ee7d49cbf]Consider:

[b:2ee7d49cbf]LBCF[/b:2ee7d49cbf]
The supreme judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and by which must be examined all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, and doctrines of men and private spirits can be no other than the Holy Scripture, delivered by the Spirit. And in the sentence of Scripture we are to rest, for it is in Scripture, delivered by the Spirit, that our faith is finally resolved.[/quote:2ee7d49cbf]

The operative terms of your own confession explicitly state that the Scriptures must be delivered by the Spirit.

Would you agree?

If you do, then explain for us how the Spirit can tell you one thing, and the self-same Spirit tell me another.

Can both be true?

[quote:2ee7d49cbf][b:2ee7d49cbf]WCF[/b:2ee7d49cbf]
The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees 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.[/quote:2ee7d49cbf]

Just in case you think the LBCF and the WCF are not saying the same thing, you're wrong. The equivalence is in, "can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture."

Incidently, do you believe that the Spirit illumines all the same when they read Scripture? Does everyone have the same ability to know what Scripture means?

[quote:2ee7d49cbf]Who decides? Who is the final judge? Can a council that is being judge be itself the final judge? No. Each individual, as a priest before God through Christ, must study the Scripture and judge whether the council, history, tradition, and church is rightly handling the Word of God.[/quote:2ee7d49cbf]

You might be right, Phillip, IF the priests were actually the ones handling the Word. But they weren't. It was the Prophet. The priests were to bring the gifts and sacrifices of the people, not determine or interpret for themselves the Word of the Lord. Did the king turn to the priest to understand Scripture? Or, was it the Prophet?

This is why Christ is our Prophet, Priest, and King. He is our Prophet so that by His Spirit, we may know what the will of God is. He is our Priest to offer up Himself as a sacrifice and make intercession. He is our King to subdue us, rule and defend us, and conquer the enemies of the kingdom.

Our priesthood as believers allows us to come before the throne of grace there to minister and offer up sacrifices of praise. Our priesthood does not give us the right to interpret the Scriptures any way we want, devoid of the communion of the saints.

You seem to think that Sola Scriptura as we have defined it takes away the right of every individual to read and understand the Scriptures. WE ARE NOT SAYING WHAT ROME IS SAYING. Further, you are not hearing the standard by which we judge whether something is right or wrong. We aren't holding up a council or a confession to prove the Bible. We hold up a council or confession as a secondary witness to what the Bible says. The WCF is not the Bible. Everything in it points back to the Bible. It is a summary statement. It is a starting point for agreement on what the Scriptures say.

But the rule of faith is not the WCF. The rule of faith is the tradition of Scripture. That tradition has witnesses. And the Spirit, Who is the only way to know what Scripture says, has left witnesses.

The only reason you do not agree with Reformed Sola Scriptura is because it speaks against you. It never intended, "me and my Bible."

But on this same score, the Church of God is also a secondary witness and should uphold a standard of what is to be believed. The Church also has authority to enforce that standard. The individual does not have a derived power over the Church or the Word. If they did, they would never have to submit to one another and to the leaders God appointed.

Again, Phillip, we are not taking away the safeguard of the individual to correct and rebuke misuse of the Word. Where power is being abused, and wrongly derived from the Word, and misinterpreted the Word, the individual has every right to say something. In presbyterianism, they should bring charges if the person refuses to see their rebuke. In congregationalism, I forget how that works exactly. In the prelacy, I really don't know.

But if they say something contrary to the way the Scriptures have been interpreted by the witness of the whole Church (read universal body of believers), then they need to keep silent.

[quote:2ee7d49cbf]When we, as individuals, do this, that does not make us, the inidividual, the final judge and authority. That keeps popping up and it is simply a wrong notion and a fallacious argument.[/quote:2ee7d49cbf]

In what way is it fallacious? Could you be more specific?

[quote:2ee7d49cbf]If the individual is rightly handling the Word and appealing to it alone to judge councils, history, tradition, etc, then that individual has made sure that the Spirit speaking through the Word itself is the final authority and "supreme judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined."[/quote:2ee7d49cbf]

So how is it determined whether or not the Spirit has spoken to the individual? If you say it's because the individual is in agreement with what the Word says, then your argument is circular. The Word does not speak without the Spirit.

If I interpret the Word to say something contrary to the Synod of Dordt, then I say it is because the Spirit is speaking through the Word to me, then I am perfectly fine being an Arminian. That is what the Bible teaches, because the Spirit imparted it to me.

Now surely this is ludicrous. We would all disagree with this. And you, Phillip, would say that the Spirit couldn't possibly be speaking through me, because that is not what the Bible says. The only way you know that for certain is if the Spirit has indeed spoken to you and shown you the truth. Because we know that if I were an Arminian and you a Calvinist, both of us cannot be right. But if it is just between me and you, both of us priests, how do we know who is right and who is wrong? Do you automatically trump me? Do we part company with an equal truth?

Not at all. The witness of the Church would be standing against me. It should be my submission you're seeking. Not to you, but to the Word of God, first, and the Church second.

This is proper Sola Scriptura. You proved to me, from the Scriptures alone, that my view was incorrect and you gave me the witness of the Church, the judgment of my brothers who are to decide disputes, as a secondary authority who has every right to discipline and admonish me.

The bottom line, Phillip, is that, yes, the Spirit does speak to individuals and the Bible is the authority. But I have no right to speak where no one has spoken and say it is the Spirit. If I do, then I have no earthly arbiter or authority who can uphold it. The individual does not have power over another individual. Because that is the case, SOLO Scriptura can never work. Because it would be a free-for-all with no authoritative secondary witness. This is why God does not make us individuals, but we make up the body. This is why we need each other and this is why we need orthodoxy.

[quote:2ee7d49cbf]When the individual appeals to Scripture that does not make him the final authority. It makes the Scriptures the final authority. Indeed, the one who appeals always to tradition and orthodoxy is the one who elevates the Church above the Scripture as the final authority and supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are are to be determined![/quote:2ee7d49cbf]

No, as I have outlined above, it gives him the secondary authority he needs. One on one, you have no authority over me. It is my interpretation vs. yours. This is why we Reformed types always bring witnesses to bear.

[quote:2ee7d49cbf]Which is the supreme judge? The Word, or the Church? If it is the Church then the individual has no ability to challenge what is being taught and must submit even to error. But if it is the Word that is the supreme authority and judge, then the individual has recource to challenge the Church when it errs. And it will! For only the Word is infallible.

Phillip [/quote:2ee7d49cbf]

The Supreme judge is Scripture. No one is taking away the right of an individual to challenge what is being taught. If the witness of the Church is against him, AND IT IS LAWFUL, he should submit. If the witness of the Church is against him, AND THEY HAVE ABUSED THEIR AUTHORITY AND WITNESSES STAND AGAINST THEM, then he should take it before the Church if they refuse to be corrected.

With Luther, why was this not possible? Because they were an unlawful Church, and he had no secondary witness (alive) that could be brought against them. There was no court in which he could be heard. The only thing he could do was withdraw, just like the Reformers who came after him.

Such was not the case with the Anabaptists. There were lawful Churches who condemned them for their heresy, and rightly so. Such is not the case today. There are lawful Churches all over the world who can stand as secondary witnesses against all heresies. And all of these, use the Word of God alone.

In Christ,

KC

 

[kceaster]

Bruce...

[quote:b392ff717d][i:b392ff717d]Originally posted by Contra_Mundum[/i:b392ff717d]
... but I can't just now, not without some clarity.

What is the real issue? Are we affirming the place of Scripture or the place of tradition? Or are we just "discussing" the relationship between them, using [i:b392ff717d]Sola Scriptura [/i:b392ff717d]as a lightning-rod?

If its a matter of [u:b392ff717d]final authority [/u:b392ff717d]then its the Scripture plus nothing. In other words, we can place the Bible over against anything and everything, even orthodox statements, and judge them. In fact, I daresay every generation needs to renew their faith in the old, solid orthodoxy. New, uhuhuhrrr, I mean [i:b392ff717d]ancient[/i:b392ff717d] heresy keeps demanding this of us, right? We hold to Nicea and Chalcedon (and WCF) because we're convinced they are biblical, not because they are one tradition or another. We don't reinvent the wheel, but in contest we don't appeal to the councils to prove the same points they proved. We use their Scripture proofs! It is within the pale of (our) orthodoxy that we appeal, on occasion, to a common subordinate standard we all claim to believe.

As to the question of [i:b392ff717d]why[/i:b392ff717d] we accept the 66 books and no others, I once made the mistake of affirming to a seminary professor I thought we accepted them because the church had already accepted them (not in the RC sense of majesterium, but with the weight of tradition). "No Way," said he. We accept them because as God's sheep we recognize the voice of our Shepherd speaking in them.

You and I may accept the standard Protestant Bible on church Authority, but that is not [i:b392ff717d]the reason[/i:b392ff717d] those books are authoritative. We recognize God's Word the same as God-fearers in every age from Moses to the earliest apostolic converts did. And if we felt we [i:b392ff717d]had[/i:b392ff717d] to go back and confirm that we could.

It is also true that we grow in our understanding and appreciation of that Voice as well. We are subjected to it in pulpit exposition and in private reading. We grow to know it better. And we get better, humanly speaking, in detecting false teaching, i.e. heresy. [b:b392ff717d]BUT[/b:b392ff717d] only if we are getting the good stuff. Even if we never read a page of church history (and neither does the pastor ) we will [i:b392ff717d]inescapably[/i:b392ff717d] have a "tradition" of interpretation starting on day one of our Christian indoctrination. So, the pastor who prides himself on his lack of a library is only "traditionalizing" his congregation in his own personal tradition, which (because of his pride) is likely to be wrong as often as it is right.

So, church tradition is useful for bounding our pride. We must not despise the faithful teachers, living and dead, God has given to his church. They are of incalculable worth. But ultimately we are dependent on God alone, and his Voice alone for sustenance. Only by his grace can we stand faithfully with the majority (sometimes) and minority (sometimes) who have the Truth. We are ever so dependent.


[b:b392ff717d]Athanasius, the whole world is against you!
Then I am against the world![/b:b392ff717d] [/quote:b392ff717d]

Well said. In fact you said it way better than I have. Since I created the poll, I can tell you that what you described is what I meant by Tradition I. It is also what Mathison means by Tradition I.

Nice to have you here, by the way. How are things in your Church. I enjoyed being with y'all in January. You may send a u2u, if you are so inclined.

In Christ,

KC

 

[luvroftheWord]

[quote:3aeb0ff7fa][i:3aeb0ff7fa]Originally posted by pastorway[/i:3aeb0ff7fa]
Consider:

[b:3aeb0ff7fa]LBCF[/b:3aeb0ff7fa]
The supreme judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and by which must be examined all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, and doctrines of men and private spirits can be no other than the Holy Scripture, delivered by the Spirit. And in the sentence of Scripture we are to rest, for it is in Scripture, delivered by the Spirit, that our faith is finally resolved.

[b:3aeb0ff7fa]WCF[/b:3aeb0ff7fa]
The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees 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.

Who decides? Who is the final judge? Can a council that is being judge be itself the final judge? No. Each individual, as a priest before God through Christ, must study the Scripture and judge whether the council, history, tradition, and church is rightly handling the Word of God. [/quote:3aeb0ff7fa]

Phillip, can you please explain to me where you get the following out of the above Confessional quotations:

[quote:3aeb0ff7fa]Each individual, as a priest before God through Christ, must study the Scripture and judge whether the council, history, tradition, and church is rightly handling the Word of God.[/quote:3aeb0ff7fa]

Your words plainly contradict what the confessions say. The confessions say that the supreme judge of all doctrines is the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scriptures. With your words, you are making the individual the supreme judge. You say that councils cannot be the final judge. But how is the individual any different than a council? Indeed, the individual is his own council.

[quote:3aeb0ff7fa]When we, as individuals, do this, that does not make us, the inidividual, the final judge and authority. That keeps popping up and it is simply a wrong notion and a fallacious argument.

If the individual is rightly handling the Word and appealing to it alone to judge councils, history, tradition, etc, then that individual has made sure that the Spirit speaking through the Word itself is the final authority and "supreme judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined."[/quote:3aeb0ff7fa]

See? Here it is again. The INDIVIDUAL makes sure! But this is EXACTLY what the church is supposed to be doing!

[quote:3aeb0ff7fa]When the individual appeals to Scripture that does not make him the final authority. It makes the Scriptures the final authority. Indeed, the one who appeals always to tradition and orthodoxy is the one who elevates the Church above the Scripture as the final authority and supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are are to be determined![/quote:3aeb0ff7fa]

What about when the church appeals to Scripture? Does that make the church the final authority?

You see, what you don't seem to understand is that the individual has an interpretation of what Scripture says. YOU have an interpretation of Scripture. And it is a FALLIBLE interpretation. The church also has an interpretation of Scripture that is also FALLIBLE. Now, please tell me why I should trust my own fallible interpretation of Scripture over against the fallible interpretation of Scripture given by the church?

And also, if I am debating somebody on the Trinity, is it wrong for me to justify my belief by saying, "The church has always taught that Scripture teaches the Trinity"? And if that is wrong, then why? What makes my own individual discernment more Spirit-led than the discernment of the church for 2,000 years? And why should a JW be more convinced by my personal interpretation of Scripture than the interpretation of the church?

You have (1) church interpretation, and (2) personal interpretation. You believe #1 should bow to #2. I say that neither should be placed over against the other.

 

[Scott]

Phile wrote: "When the individual appeals to Scripture that does not make him the final authority. It makes the Scriptures the final authority. Indeed, the one who appeals always to tradition and orthodoxy is the one who elevates the Church above the Scripture as the final authority and supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are are to be determined!"

I don't think so. If this kind of reasoning were applied to other authorities like government and family (parents over children), then governmental and parental authority would be destroyed. For example, I can say that the Constitution is the final legal standard in society. Yet, I can also say that the courts are the bodies properly charged with interpreting it. That does not make the courts the "real" final authority. It is a lawfully enacted secondary authority.

And I think you are wrong on your comments about the individual. Everything you say about the church or councils usurping the place of scripture is just as true for individuals who make themselves the final interpreter. Each man becomes a pope with a jurisdiction of one.

Scott

 

[Scott]

Just a sociological comment on the practical effects of interpretive individualism. I think the extremely low view of the organized church that we see today can at least in part be traced to the exaltation of the individual over the community. Schisms become very easy when people do not submit to a body like the church abd become their own final human authority in matter of interpretation.

Much of this is documented in Nathan O. Hatch's The Democratization of American Christianity (New Haven: Yale University Press 1989).

He links much of the devolution in the church to the prevalence of indivudalistic and rebellious ideas (rebellion against England at the time of the American Revolution). There has since been a corresponding decline in the status of pastors and other church officials b/c individuals don't value them as they used to.

For those interested, the above book is essential reading, BTW.

Scott

 

[luvroftheWord]

Is this thread dying off? :soul:

 

[kceaster]

Craig...

I'm extremely glad that we have a good number of people who responded. I hope that we have stated the case well. I am also glad that no one voted for Tradition II or III.

In Christ,

KC

 

[luvroftheWord]

I agree, Kevin. I think this thread has been helpful.