Sola Scriptura

[mitchellmckain]

Yes, I have no problem with the idea that God can "make the text say what it needs to say." But the claim that all other authorities are subject to the text doesn't make sense to me at all. The Bible doesn't sit up on a lectern by itself and tell people what to do. People read the Bible and then tell other people what to do.

Agreed. Absolutely!

The first aspect of the doctrine, that the Bible is all people need to come to proper knowledge of God (as opposed to them having to be a member of a particular religious club) to know anything true about God) is a good idea in theory, as it removes one level of bureaucracy between people and God. But the second part, that all other authorities are to be corrected by the word of God, doesn't really happen. What happens is that people with similar ideas about the most plausible interpretation band together and hold to that as the "true" teaching of the Bible, with varying degrees of confidence and arrogance. There's only correction within a particular hermeneutic community, there's not much inter-community correction happening, because interpretations can be and are disputed all over the place.

Yeah, I think it is quite clear that what you say is correct and true. Just because some evangelicals make the role of tradition less obvious does not mean that it isn't there. They learn from one another and those that dispute the accepted understanding there simply go elsewhere. So the idea that their understanding comes from the Bible only is just nonsense.

[mikedsjr]

@ mitch--

Yes, I have no problem with the idea that God can "make the text say what it needs to say". But.....

Tgrrl, Sorry, but don't lie. You do, because you added a BUT.

[mikedsjr]

Scott, I don't think you answer this way way back on the 2nd page.

Scott,
1) I know that you have said things like, "i believe Jesus is God" or "I believe the Trinity" Or other list of other traditional beliefs. Based on "I think that circular reasoning is not a good way to argue.", How do you support the claims you make? Is it an appeal to majority? Is it an appeal to authority? Is it an appeal to tradition?
2) So your primary concern with all the canons, for the most part, is whether the additional books are scripture or not? Would I be correct to say that the 66 books of the "protestant" bible are not the primary concern of what is scripture to you, since they are practically in all canons (except the Jewish)?
3)Let me add a third line to deal with scripture. Deut 31 says

24 When Moses had finished writing the words of this law in a book to the very end, 25 Moses commanded the Levites who carried the ark of the covenant of the Lord, 26 “Take this Book of the Law and put it by the side of the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God, that it may be there for a witness against you.

And then Joshua 24 says

26 And Joshua wrote these words in the Book of the Law of God. And he took a large stone and set it up there under the terebinth that was by the sanctuary of the Lord. 27 And Joshua said to all the people, “Behold, this stone shall be a witness against us, for it has heard all the words of the Lord that he spoke to us. Therefore it shall be a witness against you, lest you deal falsely with your God.” 28 So Joshua sent the people away, every man to his inheritance.

Does this equate to Joshua adding to originals that Moses wrote?

[ScottBarger]

Mike,

Sorry to have missed that part. Here's my responses:

1) My doctrine comes from the Bible and church tradition.
2) I have no problem with the various canons. I don't really have a "problem" with sola scriptura, really, it is more of a critique of the "sola" part since the "scriptura" part is defined ("canon") from outside scripture.
3) Yes, I think that many of the texts of the bible were edited and redacted after they were written.

[tirtlegrrl]

@ mitch--

Yes, I have no problem with the idea that God can "make the text say what it needs to say". But.....

Tgrrl, Sorry, but don't lie. You do, because you added a BUT.

Then it's God who has the authority, not the text.

The "but" criticism is aimed at one specific idea contained under the sola scriptura umbrella; the idea that a "text"; which is squiggles on a page, possesses authority. That is a totally absurd idea, it's mistaking the medium for the message. God is not the text, the interpretation of the text (and both of those could be said to possess authority) is not the text. It's like saying the Constitution is the supreme authority for correction of the United States. That doesn't MEAN anything, except as a commitment that seperates Americans from citizens of other countries. Within the country itself, the real authorities are the ones with the power to interpret and enforce. Republicans and Democrats "correct" each other with the Constitution all the time, both claim to possess the true reading, the true ideas behind the words. Their verbal commitment to the Constitution unites the parties under a single banner of "patriotism", but within the country, who has the real "authority"? The people who wrote the text, the people who interpret the text, and the people who enforce the interpretation of the text. The physical text has "authority" in name only. It's a tool of power, not the power itself.

[mikedsjr]

Tgrrl, so your a deist, and not a christian?

[tirtlegrrl]

What? How does an objection to a particular part of a particular Protestant doctrine make me not a Christian?

Wait--Ok, I might see what you're getting at. IF you take as true the idea that God leads all regenerate people to the true reading of the text, or that regenerate people are the only ones capable of reading the text correctly, then within the community of all regenerate people (all "true Christians" as you might put it) it could be possible that the text could act as an authority because everyone presumably would agree about what, and consider themselves bound to do what, it says. Is this what you mean?

[mikedsjr]

What? How does an objection to a particular part of a particular Protestant doctrine make me not a Christian?

Wait--Ok, I might see what you're getting at. IF you take as true the idea that God leads all regenerate people to the true reading of the text, or that regenerate people are the only ones capable of reading the text correctly, then within the community of all regenerate people (all "true Christians" as you might put it) it could be possible that the text could act as an authority because everyone presumably would agree about what, and consider themselves bound to do what, it says. Is this what you mean?

You already claim yourself agnostic. There is no true christian would pride themselves of that. They know whom they believe and it is irresistible true.

It has nothing to do with every true christian presumably agreeing, though in a humanly manner that is the case. Sola Scriptura does not make Scripture God. Sola Scriptura acknowledges that Scripture is authored by God and thus Scripture has power of authority to answer all that God wants us to know about faith and sanctification and more.

[mitchellmckain]

1) My doctrine comes from the Bible and church tradition.
2) I have no problem with the various canons. I don't really have a "problem" with sola scriptura, really, it is more of a critique of the "sola" part since the "scriptura" part is defined ("canon") from outside scripture.
3) Yes, I think that many of the texts of the bible were edited and redacted after they were written.

To clarify my position

1) It is unavoidable that everyone's doctrine comes from tradition and/or interpretation as well as scripture. There is no such thing as anyone taking their beliefs from scripture alone. That most certainly is not an understanding of sola scriptura that I can support.
2) However I do say that scripture has authority because Jesus invested it with authority even though he did not define a canon. I think the point is that God does give authority to the written word whose canon is defined by the consensus.
3) The "Sola scriptura" that I do believe in, therefore says that the part of everyone's doctrine that comes from tradition and/or interpretation does NOT have any authority from God. Not my interpretation, not the tradition of the Catholics nor the tradition that Scott says is part of the source of his doctrine. None of that means that it is wrong. Any of these could very well be right, maybe even all of them in their own way. Any or all could in fact have been inpired by God. But they do not have God's authority behind them as a message to EVERYBODY, and that means that they are NOT something you have a right to hold other Christians to in any way. Sure you can say this is what our church believes and you have to accept that if you want to be a part of our church. But if you say that this is what God says or say that going to another church that believes differently means you are damned and going to hell, THAT is just wrong!

[ScottBarger]

Just started rereading "Scripture and the Authority of God" by N.T. Wright. In it he does a good job of centering the conversation on "authority" as opposed to "inerrancy" and addressing the challenges of interpretation from this vantage point.

A good read.

[mikedsjr]

Maybe something i might have to read, just to get his view.
Thanks for commenting about that book.

[mikedsjr]

1) My doctrine comes from the Bible and church tradition.
2) I have no problem with the various canons. I don't really have a "problem" with sola scriptura, really, it is more of a critique of the "sola" part since the "scriptura" part is defined ("canon") from outside scripture.
3) Yes, I think that many of the texts of the bible were edited and redacted after they were written.

To clarify my position

1) It is unavoidable that everyone's doctrine comes from tradition and/or interpretation as well as scripture. There is no such thing as anyone taking their beliefs from scripture alone. That most certainly is not an understanding of sola scriptura that I can support.
2) However I do say that scripture has authority because Jesus invested it with authority even though he did not define a canon. I think the point is that God does give authority to the written word whose canon is defined by the consensus.
3) The "Sola scriptura" that I do believe in, therefore says that the part of everyone's doctrine that comes from tradition and/or interpretation does NOT have any authority from God. Not my interpretation, not the tradition of the Catholics nor the tradition that Scott says is part of the source of his doctrine. None of that means that it is wrong. Any of these could very well be right, maybe even all of them in their own way. Any or all could in fact have been inpired by God. But they do not have God's authority behind them as a message to EVERYBODY, and that means that they are NOT something you have a right to hold other Christians to in any way. Sure you can say this is what our church believes and you have to accept that if you want to be a part of our church. But if you say that this is what God says or that if you go to another church that believes differently then you are damned and going to hell, THAT is just wrong!

1) agree
2) agree
3) agree

I'm going to play the lottery, now.

[Moonwood the Hare]

mike - a book you would probably like is 'The Shape of Sola Scrptura' by Keith Matheson
http://www.amazon.com/Shape-Sola-Scriptura-Keith-Mathison/dp/1885767749/ref=la_B001K81GN6_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1362598602&sr=1-4

[mikedsjr]

Moon, it does sound like a book i should take in. Thanks.