The Bible NETWork ~ Impacting the World for Christ one post at a time!

_________________
I'm a bot, please do not email, pm or otherwise try to contact me as there will be no response.

Please contact one of the Global Moderators, a Moderator or the Site Administrator if you need assistance. Thank you.

I find that I fall under Tradition 1 and Sola Scriptura. I wonder, seriously, if anyone can actually truly hold to Solo Scriptura. I can imagine that someone might think they do, but to truly find answers only in the Bible is awfully difficult. It would also seem destructive towards any unity or form of structure in the body of Christ. Issues of submission could be easily passed over by a "trumping" view of the role of the Bible. As for Sola Ecclesia this also seems a recipe for abuse of authority. Of course, if one believes that the Holy Spirit guides and keeps the leaders from such error, this would be understandable. However, I don't see that anywhere in the Bible either. It seems that when the church had to be ruled by this Regula Fidei, it was when the apostles were then accompanied with signs from God to show this authority. This doesn't happen with the Pope or bishops, as far as I know.

Scott

Hello Scott.

Did I read you correctly? That all of our options have serious problems? If so, what is your solution to the question of "authority" in matters religious?

jds

This is precisely why some "brands" of fundamentalism turn cultish, or even become a cult in itself.."Nothin' but the bible for me." they say... and off the go in their merry way.

But please remember this, solo or nuda scriptura, has never produced any spiritually healthy form of Christianity. Neither today, nor since there have been scriptures to read and study on one's own.

If you look to early church history, you would see the very same issues arising...beginning right after the crucifixion and resurrection of of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. People want easy answers to some, sometimes, very difficult and complex issues and problems, and are told, "well what does the Bible say?"

God created us with an intellect, some people more than others, to be able to sift through the sometimes difficult passages found in scriptures. And expects us to use it for his glory and honor and praise. God does not want blind faith. He wants believers who not "I know, because I know, because I know", or that your faith is more "caught than taught"

_________________
MikeC1956
Asst Admin

know that your sin will find you out. Numbers 32:23b NET

Statement of beliefs
Code of Conduct
The Bible NETwork Blogs
The NeXt Bible Learning Environment
BeneSHOP: Help support Bible.org at no additional cost to you when you shop!

fides quarens intellectum, credo ut intelligam
faith seeking knowledge, believe to understand

all quotations are by bible translation indicated.

As I am not Scott, I don't know if this is what Scott was setting out to say, however you have highlighted exactly where I am with all of this.

Having the read the various options,
1. Sola Ecclesia
2. Prima Scriptura
3. Regula Fidei
4. Sola Scriptura
5. Solo Scriptura
, I found myself coming to the end of the list wondering.. are there not more options than this? As i struggle with all 5.

I think, If I'm honest, I struggle with each view, because each view believes that they are right, and the other views are therefore wrong. What makes us so sure?

I struggle to place authority with human beings, because human beings are, after all, human, and I struggle to place authority with Scripture, because even if it's God breathed, it's still at the hands of, once again, humans, who wrote it, translated it, and interpret it.

How can anybody be sure we are definately hearing God correctly, if both God speaking through humans, and God speaking through Scripture is filtered through imperfect humans? The bible was, unfortunately, not handed to us on a plate like the ten commandments were, but filtered through humans who may not have even intended for their words to ever be interpreted as holy scripture?

So, in response to the above quote, I struggle with all 5 options, but unfortunately I do not have a solution.

I guess this is why I am trying this course out, to try to get somewhere closer to a solution.

Would appreciate anybodys comments or suggestions.

Your entire post is useful and thought provoking. I want to respond to just one point you made.

The question of whether humans wrote the scripture or whether God gave the humans the words to write is a very interesting one. I believe there are serious Christians on both sides of that issue. I believe the exact wording was chosen by the human author, but God's will is not thwarted by human choices.

For example, Gen. 1:3 says, "And God said, 'Let there be light,' and there was light." Why didn't the author of Genesis write, "And God said, 'Let there be electromagnetic radiation,' and there was electromagnetic radiation"?

For me, the answer is simple. The both the concept and the term "electromagnetic radiation" would have been outside the field of knowledge of the author of Genesis. It would have been gibberish at the time, and it would have remained gibberish for thousands of years. Does that mean that God did not create electromagnetic radiation in the first act of creation? Not necessarily. After all, light is a form of electromagnetic radiation.

My point from this example is that we can't rule some piece of human discovery false simply because it isn't what it says in the Bible. If what it says can't be reconciled with what it says in the Bible, that's another story.

_________________
Not all those who wander are lost.

Isn't it the case that authority is always exercised by a person?
So isn't there an assumption of this (that may be overlooked) when talking about the authority of scripture? Even the meaning of the 10 commandments is mediated through someone's interpretation.

_________________
John

My soul looks back in wonder at how I got over

We who believe in freedom cannot rest until it comes

You're absolutely right John. I don't really know of anyone who hasn't asked himself the same questions. Again, though, for as many people you ask, that's how many different answers you'll get. Some may be "closer" to "the truth" than others. In the end though, and this is "my answer" to the "dilemma" (which in terms of logic might be called a "false dilemma" (in my opinion))is this: "What do you think we need a savior for?" (Rhetorical question) What we have, if the timeline is correct, is roughly four, to any number of millenia, depending on how long you want to take into consideration for the Torah. Remember, though considered to be narrative literature, it is not an exhaustively precise narrative literature. It tells of the creation of the world, the creation of humanity, the fall from moral obedience to a form of fallen moral obedience.

In my own case I have been given a love for history. (Anyone who knew me BC (before Christ) would certainly be at least surprised, others might look at you and ask if you were talking about the same Mike! Looking at the practice of Judaism, then Christianity, one sees a great variety in form of worship, schools of hermeneutics, interpretation of specific passages, etc.... It all points to one thing, we need a savior, and we suffer from what some have labeled "double ignorance," we don't know what we don't know. Couple that with humanities "natural inclinations," and suddenly it becomes very clear that what humanity needs... a savior.

So, we have ancient texts.... and history.... they each influence each other. I place my trust in the text... and history.

in the end we must remember
sola gratia, sola fide, solo Christo, sola scriptura, soli gloria Dei

saved by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, in the scriptures alone, for the glory of God alone.

Sorry for the lateness of my reply...

Mike

_________________
MikeC1956
Asst Admin

know that your sin will find you out. Numbers 32:23b NET

Statement of beliefs
Code of Conduct
The Bible NETwork Blogs
The NeXt Bible Learning Environment
BeneSHOP: Help support Bible.org at no additional cost to you when you shop!

fides quarens intellectum, credo ut intelligam
faith seeking knowledge, believe to understand

all quotations are by bible translation indicated.

I have again begun this study, since I didn't finish last time.

I still find that I fall under the Sola Scriptura label. I have spoken with people with other views. One told me I should read 90% Bible and 10% other Christian books. Another I know seems to hold a similar view, sometimes frowning upon my reading of a catechism. I personally think that scripture is definitely the ultimate authority. I view tradition and reason kind of like the edge of a trail. If I get to the edge, I have to wonder why...furthermore I have to have a good reason to cross beyond it. The only reason could them be scripture.

One friend of mine doesn't have a high regard for tradition, and therefore has adopted a belief that is not orthodox, namely that eternal punishment isn't everlasting.

As for the comments above about questioning the legitimacy of the stages of truth, that kind of questioning leads to a distrust in all things. How could we ever know anything? I couldn't even be sure if I know what I know. If I'm a human thinking about my human knowledge, who knows it I am correct in my own thinking about my thinking. It's an endless spiral of craziness that leads to insanity, distrust in anything labeled truth, an acceptance that everything must be true (if it's true for you), or maybe experience becomes the authority.

Scott

You're right Scott, I do have trust issues.

Mike has stated: "I place my trust in the text... and history."

The reason I struggle to place my trust in history, is history has got it wrong. And not just sometimes. A lot of the time.

In history, the Bible has been used as an "authority" to
- believe the world is not round, and justify imprisoning people who believed otherwise
- justify the slave trade
- justify women being restricted of freedom.

This is not just cases where you have a crazed lunatic, who uses the bible as a justification to murder his victims. In such a case you can just claim that this does not happen often, and, usually, we get it right, and, usually, placing trust in society, and history's, current interpretation of the bible is safe enough.

But with the above examples of where people have used the Bible as an authority , these beliefs were the "norm" in society, and most people genuinely believed that the Bible justified and condoned these things.

Surely it is dangerous to blindly trust in scripture and history? Surely there's more to it than that?

Mike, you refer to the "great variety in form of worship, schools of hermeneutics, interpretation of specific passages, etc.... " and use it to show our need for a Saviour, who brings us all together.

I have no issues with different people believing different things. This is natural, and I think, healthy, because it shows people are grappling with Scriptures, and trying to come to their own conclusion, based on what they, personally know.

My issue is when people decide that their interpretation is the absolute truth. How do they know? As Scott pointed out, we are only human beings, with a limited amount of knowledge - we only know what we know - and there is a world of knowledge and wisdom out there that we don't yet know.

We've got to work with what we've got, the brains we've got, yes, the scripture we've got, and the wisdom that has been acquired from experience, and come to the best conclusion we can. But once we've got that conclusion, we need to not get too confident or brash, and pretend that we know we're definately right. Because we can't.

I'm quite aware that my words may just sound like someone who has embraced postmodernism too much. I think there is a genuine fear of getting stuck with the question "what is true? how do we know what is true?" - reflected in Scott's words: "It's an endless spiral of craziness that leads to insanity". I think we need to be responsible followers of God, and ask this question, instead of avoiding it.

Perhaps we have a fear of grappling with this dillemma, because it may require a complete restructuring of our belief system. I certainly avoided it for a long time. But, having been forced into asking this question I have realised that it's a very worthwhile place to be.

Us Christians, especially those of us who have certain positions of leadership, feel a great need and burden to "have the answer". And this may result in us accepting an answer prematurely before we have properly grappled with it.

I guess where I am with this, is to implore Christians to be more... cautious?

I can understand your warning to be cautious and avoid saying you have the absolute truth. The thing is no matter what we say, if we believe it, it is also a truth claim. When I agree with Sola Scriptura, it is because I can find no model. I think we have to be open to the fact that we could be wrong, but we don't have to assume that we are wrong just because we are human. I try to be critical about my choice and think it through. If I hear another idea, I try to consider it and not just dismiss it for the sake of sticking with what I already believe. It's been challenging speaking to some of my friends who believe different things, including different religions. We can't just put up a wall of ignorance, but we also can't abandon our beliefs just because of arrows of doubt, shot by another. I think we spend time in prayer, ask for wisdom and follow the path of truth. The Bible provides us with many passages for finding wisdom. Instead of doubting that we can find truth, I trust that God brings light to our path and makes it straight, not showering it with darkness and potholes.

Agreed - if only more Christians were like you Scott!

Well my friends, I think i have found my box to fit into!

According to this article, I believe in Sola Scriptura!

Have a read: http://bible.org/article/danger-sola-scriptura

Thanks for helping me on my journey

I'm glad you were able to find some stability in regards to scripture and authority. The article was great to read, thanks for posting it.

Scott

I was thinking about the stages of truth. There wasn't prophecy on any of those (meaning modern prophecy, not old testament). Why is that?

Scott