Sola Scripture from a former Nazarene now Orthodox

[Steven Burton]

I stumbled upon this when searching about Sola Scripture and wonder what your thoughts are on this.

http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/tc...scriptura.aspx

[Dennis M. Scott]

Whitehead would have benefited from a course or two at NTS, or a couple weeks on naznet. It's always a little self seeking when someone who has left a group has to criticize before the door shuts behind them. I suppose he is writing about his personal experience in Protestantism, which apparently is somewhat scant. Maybe he's just trying to scam the Orthodox Christian church. I admit I quite reading a little after halfway.

[Scott Moseley]

I didn't know that the Jehovah Witness are part of the traditional protestant fold. The Jehovahs clearly do not believe in Sola Scriptura but rather have deleted scriptures and stand on their own traditions and writings.

[Kevin Rector]

He does a really great job of beating up the straw man that he built.

[Paul DeBaufer]

Like Dennis, I couldn't finish the article. For one I thought it poorly written and for the first quarter he really didn't say anything.

[Dennis Bratcher]

Whitehead would have benefited from a course or two at NTS, or a couple weeks on naznet. It's always a little self seeking when someone who has left a group has to criticize before the door shuts behind them. I suppose he is writing about his personal experience in Protestantism, which apparently is somewhat scant. Maybe he's just trying to scam the Orthodox Christian church. I admit I quite reading a little after halfway.

Actually, John's issues do not arise from a lack of education nor from any level of naiveté (he is one of my former students at SNU). John is well read, although within certain parameters. He moved from Protestant fundamentalism to Orthodoxy, which in some ways is not too big a step intellectually or emotionally, without taking the time and effort to understand Protestantism, and Scripture, very deeply. Both fundamentalism and Orthodoxy are ways to have certainty and know that whatever you believe is the absolute correct way and that other views are inherently wrong. Both are defensive, conservative positions. Much of John's views of the Bible are a rejection of critical engagement with Scripture as presented by the Bible faculty at SNU: Jirair Tashjian, Roger Hahn, and myself (all full time or adjunct NTS faculty). The article, well more than a decade old now, epitomizes that rejection. So, rather than engage Scripture, the appeal is to Tradition as primary authority, a position shared with classic Roman Catholicism.

I cannot fault John for his commitment to the Christian Faith and to certain causes (primarily anti-abortion). However, as I have told him before, he views the world and the Faith through a very narrow and very exclusivist lens. I'd prefer the always reforming (that is, progressive) "dangers" of Protestantism.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[Marian Schwaller Carney]

"Father" John writes, "Despite all that stands in their way, there definitely is hope for Protestants." Then goes on blah blah blah. How arrogant. Who needs this? I've lost my patience with such organizations.

[Jim Chabot]

Actually I thought he defended Sola Scriptura rather well. He properly defined it through Luther's usage against RCC excesses and abuses introduced through church authority. And he showed how Sola Scriptura would be incorrect should a literal meaning of the term be employed. He did miss the fact that those using a literal definition of the term are most often it's critics rather than it's adherents.

I did find this to be interesting, although not surprising;

Obviously, one of three statements is true: either (1) there is no correct Tradition and the gates of hell did prevail against the Church, and thus both the Gospels and the Nicene Creed are in error; or (2) the true Faith is to be found in Papism, with its ever-growing and changing dogmas defined by the infallible "vicar of Christ;" or (3) the Orthodox Church is the one Church founded by Christ and has faithfully preserved the Apostolic Tradition. So the choice for Protestants is clear: relativism, Romanism, or Orthodoxy.

He seems to have missed out on option 4, which states that believers have attached themselves to the faith tradition that they feel best fits how scripture speaks to them. Somehow he feels that Romanism and Orthodoxy by virtue of pedigree get a seat at a table where others aren't considered. Sorry, but faith traditions have no heirs, we live by the Spirit.

Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham’s offspring—not only to those who are of the law but also to those who have the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all.

Sorry, but length of tradition is a false claim to the throne. He is available to all, and He is clearly available outside of the constructs of organized religion. I have no issue whatsoever with the principle of Sola Scriptura, it rightly defends us against the abuse of the church politic, it rightly brings us back to the source of our faith. And of course those who employ Sola Scriptura in proper fashion will do through through the quad. Sola Scriptura does not preclude hermeneutics.

[Kevin Rector]

Actually I thought he defended Sola Scriptura rather well. He properly defined it through Luther's usage against RCC excesses and abuses introduced through church authority. And he showed how Sola Scriptura would be incorrect should a literal meaning of the term be employed. He did miss the fact that those using a literal definition of the term are most often it's critics rather than it's adherents.

I did find this to be interesting, although not surprising;

Obviously, one of three statements is true: either (1) there is no correct Tradition and the gates of hell did prevail against the Church, and thus both the Gospels and the Nicene Creed are in error; or (2) the true Faith is to be found in Papism, with its ever-growing and changing dogmas defined by the infallible "vicar of Christ;" or (3) the Orthodox Church is the one Church founded by Christ and has faithfully preserved the Apostolic Tradition. So the choice for Protestants is clear: relativism, Romanism, or Orthodoxy.

Interesting, that's the exact same paragraph that jumped out at me as being poorly considered. The fourth option I conceived is a bit different than yours but OBVIOUSLY there are more than the three constraints he postulated.

[Dennis M. Scott]

My thought was not that his formal education was lacking, but that he must have missed the part where some protestants are different from those he depicts. I attempt to not be critical of faculty I've not encountered - and even most I have.
Your correction here, is appreciated.

Actually, John's issues do not arise from a lack of education nor from any level of naiveté (he is one of my former students at SNU). John is well read, although within certain parameters. He moved from Protestant fundamentalism to Orthodoxy, which in some ways is not too big a step intellectually or emotionally, without taking the time and effort to understand Protestantism, and Scripture, very deeply. Both fundamentalism and Orthodoxy are ways to have certainty and know that whatever you believe is the absolute correct way and that other views are inherently wrong. Both are defensive, conservative positions. Much of John's views of the Bible are a rejection of critical engagement with Scripture as presented by the Bible faculty at SNU: Jirair Tashjian, Roger Hahn, and myself (all full time or adjunct NTS faculty). The article, well more than a decade old now, epitomizes that rejection. So, rather than engage Scripture, the appeal is to Tradition as primary authority, a position shared with classic Roman Catholicism.

I cannot fault John for his commitment to the Christian Faith and to certain causes (primarily anti-abortion). However, as I have told him before, he views the world and the Faith through a very narrow and very exclusivist lens. I'd prefer the always reforming (that is, progressive) "dangers" of Protestantism.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[Billy Cox]

I stumbled upon this when searching about Sola Scripture and wonder what your thoughts are on this.

http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/tc...scriptura.aspx

Wow... I'll have to give it a closer read to find out what has so many panties in a bunch.

[Dennis Bratcher]

My thought was not that his formal education was lacking, but that he must have missed the part where some protestants are different from those he depicts.

It was a classic case of an unwillingness to be teachable, assuming that whatever one already thinks is the truth. That almost inevitably leads to militancy about one's own opinions, and the development of rationales of why they are correct. It was not an uncommon scenario among young Nazarenes of that place and time (SNU educational zone, 1980s and early 1990s), taught and fostered by local traditions as well as elders and Elders. Some of that has changed. Some has not. Both there and elsewhere.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[Craig Laughlin]

It was a classic case of an unwillingness to be teachable, assuming that whatever one already thinks is the truth. That almost inevitably leads to militancy about one's own opinions, and the development of rationales of why they are correct.

Might even bump into a little of this on Naznet from time to time. - Very well said Dennis.

[Steven Burton]

Wow... I'll have to give it a closer read to find out what has so many panties in a bunch.

I have gotten use to what many on here are complaining about, from others sites I have visited with Eastern Orthodox views. I have found they have some interesting insight to an outside view of Protestantism.

[John Kennedy]

Actually I thought he defended Sola Scriptura rather well. He properly defined it through Luther's usage against RCC excesses and abuses introduced through church authority. And he showed how Sola Scriptura would be incorrect should a literal meaning of the term be employed. He did miss the fact that those using a literal definition of the term are most often it's critics rather than it's adherents.

I did find this to be interesting, although not surprising;



He seems to have missed out on option 4, which states that believers have attached themselves to the faith tradition that they feel best fits how scripture speaks to them. Somehow he feels that Romanism and Orthodoxy by virtue of pedigree get a seat at a table where others aren't considered. Sorry, but faith traditions have no heirs, we live by the Spirit.



Sorry, but length of tradition is a false claim to the throne. He is available to all, and He is clearly available outside of the constructs of organized religion. I have no issue whatsoever with the principle of Sola Scriptura, it rightly defends us against the abuse of the church politic, it rightly brings us back to the source of our faith. And of course those who employ Sola Scriptura in proper fashion will do through through the quad. Sola Scriptura does not preclude hermeneutics.

In a spirit of full disclosure, this Congregationalist must own up to preferring the 'quad' (presumably the Wesleyan quadrilateral). I am somewhat intrigued by the gymnastics involved in employing 'Sola Scriptura in proper fashion through the quad'. There's a bit of mutual exclusivity there. The chief reason I prefer the 'quad' lies in my belief that a Sola Scriptura position is basically untenable.

[Dennis Bratcher]

The chief reason I prefer the 'quad' lies in my belief that a Sola Scriptura position is basically untenable.

No it is not, at least not in the way it is used in modern evangelicalism. But then Luther never understood it that way either. He was reacting against a tradition that elevated Tradition as a primary authority and that used Tradition as a lens through which to read Scripture. For Luther, sola scriptura was a way to place Scripture as primary. Yet by his own hermeneutic he clearly demonstrated that Tradition always has a place at the table. It just doesn't sit alone at the head of the table.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[John Kennedy]

No it is not, at least not in the way it is used in modern evangelicalism. But then Luther never understood it that way either. He was reacting against a tradition that elevated Tradition as a primary authority and that used Tradition as a lens through which to read Scripture. For Luther, sola scriptura was a way to place Scripture as primary. Yet by his own hermeneutic he clearly demonstrated that Tradition always has a place at the table. It just doesn't sit alone at the head of the table.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

So the analogy of the three-legged stool (reason, tradition, experience) resting on the 'base' of Scripture represents a somewhat more realistic (in that it conforms more to actual practice) point of view?

IMO many of the most vocal 'sola' proponents would best fit in the 'we don't have no theology/doctrine - we just teach/preach the Bible' category.

[Dennis Bratcher]

So the analogy of the three-legged stool (reason, tradition, experience) resting on the 'base' of Scripture represents a somewhat more realistic (in that it conforms more to actual practice) point of view?

Yes, with some qualification depending on what the analogy is trying to illustrate. I addressed this a couple of years ago:

http://www.naznet.com/community/show...14319#poststop

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[John Kennedy]

Yes, with some qualification depending on what the analogy is trying to illustrate. I addressed this a couple of years ago:

http://www.naznet.com/community/show...14319#poststop

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

To me, at least, the analogy would seek to illustrate the primacy of Scripture. A principle or teaching that would claim to be scriptural would need to pass muster with all three - reason, tradition, and experience.

[Dale Cozby]

It was a classic case of an unwillingness to be teachable, assuming that whatever one already thinks is the truth. That almost inevitably leads to militancy about one's own opinions, and the development of rationales of why they are correct. It was not an uncommon scenario among young Nazarenes of that place and time (SNU educational zone, 1980s and early 1990s), taught and fostered by local traditions as well as elders and Elders. Some of that has changed. Some has not. Both there and elsewhere.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

As iron sharpens iron....

No matter how sharp the edge of the sword may seem, it can always be refined further.

Perhaps a better way of looking at one's viewof truth is that it is not complete and perfect truth, but the best one has for now.
It is up to the professor to profess truth well enough to convince his students of a better way of seeing it.

Of course if a person sees his truth as complete(lacking nothing) and perfect(absolute) then there is nothing more a professor can do for him/her.

I struggle with casting self-doubt upon my views as willfully ignorant or or in error but accept they are not complete nor perfect.

[John Kennedy]

As iron sharpens iron....

No matter how sharp the edge of the sword may seem, it can always be refined further.

Perhaps a better way of looking at one's viewof truth is that it is not complete and perfect truth, but the best one has for now.
It is up to the professor to profess truth well enough to convince his students of a better way of seeing it.

Of course if a person sees his truth as complete(lacking nothing) and perfect(absolute) then there is nothing more a professor can do for him/her.

I struggle with casting self-doubt upon my views as willfully ignorant or or in error but accept they are not complete nor perfect.

Well, that sure beats being, as was said about a man I once knew, 'often wrong, but never in doubt'.

[Jim Chabot]

Well, that sure beats being, as was said about a man I once knew, 'often wrong, but never in doubt'.

We may know the same guy. If I remember right, he did think that he might have been wrong once, but found that he was mistaken.