-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Theological Method: Is sola scriptura possible?
- Thread starter Daniel Dunivan
- Start date
Daniel Dunivan
New Member
Wow, I was gone for a while and this thread moved from sola scriptura to miracles.
It seems that sola scriptura is being defined very differently by each. This seems to be what causes so much confusion on this subject. Let us define it in the spirit of the reformers as scripture alone as the source of theological authority. However, let us not forget the quite medieval mindset of these reformers. Since the enlightenment, we do use reason for our theological reflection (these very words seem to suggest such). Many of the posts do not understand that the use of reason, experience, and tradition in our theological reflection does not necessarily mean that they override scriptural intent. The question that I am raising is whether sola scriptura is still possible as we recognize that we are always using our reason to draw out implications of the texts. We are using our reason as the authority by which we interpret scripture whether we take it as literal or figurative. It is not theological reflection to say that the sun standing still is literal, and it is equally not such to say that it was a figurative event from any angle. What is theological about the text from Joshua is that God fights on behalf of his people. To affirm this we must draw the conclusion from the interaction between the special revelation of scripture (rlvaughn, as you defined sola scriptura, I agree with you. However, if it isn't practically possible, then it isn't possible.) and our mental faculty/reason (which is no doubt informed by our experience and tradition).
The question that must be answered is can the idea of sola scriptura support itself. If we take it as a theological precept, what authority is our source on this understanding. I would say that it is overwhelmingly not from scripture itself, but from our tradition and experience.
It seems that sola scriptura is being defined very differently by each. This seems to be what causes so much confusion on this subject. Let us define it in the spirit of the reformers as scripture alone as the source of theological authority. However, let us not forget the quite medieval mindset of these reformers. Since the enlightenment, we do use reason for our theological reflection (these very words seem to suggest such). Many of the posts do not understand that the use of reason, experience, and tradition in our theological reflection does not necessarily mean that they override scriptural intent. The question that I am raising is whether sola scriptura is still possible as we recognize that we are always using our reason to draw out implications of the texts. We are using our reason as the authority by which we interpret scripture whether we take it as literal or figurative. It is not theological reflection to say that the sun standing still is literal, and it is equally not such to say that it was a figurative event from any angle. What is theological about the text from Joshua is that God fights on behalf of his people. To affirm this we must draw the conclusion from the interaction between the special revelation of scripture (rlvaughn, as you defined sola scriptura, I agree with you. However, if it isn't practically possible, then it isn't possible.) and our mental faculty/reason (which is no doubt informed by our experience and tradition).
The question that must be answered is can the idea of sola scriptura support itself. If we take it as a theological precept, what authority is our source on this understanding. I would say that it is overwhelmingly not from scripture itself, but from our tradition and experience.
Yet for thousands of years when the Bible said that God "stopped the sun" that was interpreted literally. Now that we are certain that we live in a heliocentric universe, our extra-biblical reason has led us to interpret that metaphorically.
Sometimes we do let reason trump a literal reading of the Bible.
Joshua</font>[/QUOTE]And yet we would say what a pretty sun rise.
the sun did not rise the earth turned. But we all now what happen. When it said "stopped the sun"
we understand when we interpreted it literally that it did not move across the sky.
[ October 11, 2002, 02:07 PM: Message edited by: John3v36 ]
Daniel Dunivan
New Member
Alright, I have to call a spade a spade. It is scientifically impossible for the sun to stop in the sky for whatever reason. If the earth stopped spinning we would all die because of the force put on our bodies by inertia. However we describe this miracle, if we take it as a literal event in history, it must be a miracle that cannot be explained by what we know about science. Saying that it was simply from someone's ancient point of view does not help this case. In bringing this into the presenting discussion, we either believe miracles are possible or that they are not. (The sun stopping in the sky doesn't bother me so much, but I am committed to a little thing called the resurrection.) This does not shed light on the use of scripture as the only source of theological reflection. We can believe the Bible is true about everything, but this thread is about how the Bible is used, not about inerrancy.
[ October 12, 2002, 03:23 PM: Message edited by: Daniel Dunivan ]
[ October 12, 2002, 03:23 PM: Message edited by: Daniel Dunivan ]
Helen, please don't take this as a challenge, but can you cite a source where I could read about this? I have heard this kind of thing said, but from my Bible College days I think I recall information of this sort which turned out to be false.</font>[/QUOTE]It wouldn't be a problem if I could get up and check my own books, but I have the mother of all colds right now, so please content yourself with a few net things, OK? thanks:
http://www.labyrinthina.com/sitchen.htm
http://www.csinfo.org/Longday.htm
http://www.grmi.org/renewal/Richard_Riss/evidences/7longday.html
http://sunnyokanagan.com/joshua/ -- interesting references, but the earth did not go into reverse orbit, but, as Dodwell research showed, was subject to the wobble from a recent axis tilt.
http://www.creationism.org/csshs/v07n4p02.htm
Ackerman here does a good summary. I have seen the Dodwell material as it is a friend of ours who is getting it ready for publication, and the material is detailed and accurate.
http://www.caog.org.za/studies/studydetail.asp?Study_ID=7 -- found this one, too, with a little more detail
Hope that helps a little.
...Back to the sola scriptura question. I think it's always been understood that the Bible provides us with the "raw materials" of a doctrine but rarely gives the full details in a single context. The precise formulation of a doctrine is left to diligent Bible students, guided and illuminated by the Holy Spirit. This is probably as God intended; it encourages close and intense examination of the whole of Scripture. We have to have something to do, after all.
jerryMschneider
New Member
Don't know you well enough to really understand what you are implying with this, are you saying that reason should trump a literal reading of the Bible? Or are you trying to say that we shouldn't allow reason to be outtrumped by a literal reading of the Bible.
w_fortenberry
New Member
Sola Scriptura?
Yes, I think that would be a very adequate description of this thread.
I find it very amusing that of all the theological statements made in the course of this discussion, only one of them was presented with supporting Scripture. Sadly, this is often the case in Christian discussions. How can any of you hope to win the battle if you refuse to use your Sword?
Yes, I think that would be a very adequate description of this thread.
I find it very amusing that of all the theological statements made in the course of this discussion, only one of them was presented with supporting Scripture. Sadly, this is often the case in Christian discussions. How can any of you hope to win the battle if you refuse to use your Sword?
Daniel Dunivan
New Member
w_fortenberry,
One very good reason for this could be that the scriptures don't make a case for sola scriptura (or against it), and only the misinterpretation or anachronistic quotations of verses can be brought up as arguments (referring to your scripture quotations which for sure aren't referring to the NT).
One very good reason for this could be that the scriptures don't make a case for sola scriptura (or against it), and only the misinterpretation or anachronistic quotations of verses can be brought up as arguments (referring to your scripture quotations which for sure aren't referring to the NT).
Paul of Eugene
New Member
That's all fine and dandy but we don't really have a choice. If our reason says something is so, we believe it to be so regardless of what scripture says, and that happens to every one of us as we read the scriptures. We then interpret from there. This is the human condition.
A sample verse to test yourself:
Leviticus 11:23 "But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you".
Reading this verse, I personally refuse to alter my long held belief that all the flying creeping things have six legs, not four. In fact, nothing with wings has four legs; they all have either two or six. Do you join me, or do you follow your own advice and decide that insects, after all, only have four legs?
[ October 17, 2002, 01:36 PM: Message edited by: Paul of Eugene ]
Paul, what you are talking about here is something entirely different. We keep assuming our way of categorizing things is the only correct way. That's pretty ethnocentric, and while our way works for what we use it for, it is not the only way or even the most popular way.
The most popular way, historically, of categorizing animals is in terms of their locomotion. Thus bats are grouped with birds, as no one cared if they nursed their young or not. They flew by flapping their wings -- like birds.
Whales and dolphins were classified with fish. Warm or cold blooded was not something that concerned the other cultures. They swam like fish; therefore they were grouped with fish.
Now, as far as the insects go: They flew. They flapped their wings. But they were not birds. Birds were 'two-footed', and insects 'more than two-footed.' Idiomatically it was simple -- if you weren't two footed and you had more than that, then you were four-footed, regardless of how many feet you actually had. Millipedes were 'four-footed' not by count, but because they walked on more than two.
It was a designation, not a counting, and until we understand that, we are insulting the ancient Israelites who lived with the insects everyday and knew them well -- assuming that maybe they could not count or something!
The most popular way, historically, of categorizing animals is in terms of their locomotion. Thus bats are grouped with birds, as no one cared if they nursed their young or not. They flew by flapping their wings -- like birds.
Whales and dolphins were classified with fish. Warm or cold blooded was not something that concerned the other cultures. They swam like fish; therefore they were grouped with fish.
Now, as far as the insects go: They flew. They flapped their wings. But they were not birds. Birds were 'two-footed', and insects 'more than two-footed.' Idiomatically it was simple -- if you weren't two footed and you had more than that, then you were four-footed, regardless of how many feet you actually had. Millipedes were 'four-footed' not by count, but because they walked on more than two.
It was a designation, not a counting, and until we understand that, we are insulting the ancient Israelites who lived with the insects everyday and knew them well -- assuming that maybe they could not count or something!
Daniel Dunivan said:
One very good reason for this could be that the scriptures don't make a case for sola scriptura (or against it),
Sure it does.
One very good reason for this could be that the scriptures don't make a case for sola scriptura (or against it),
Sure it does.
That is sola scriptura in a nutshell. You can't be any more equipped than "thoroughly," and it is the Scriptures that so equip the man of God.
Paul of Eugene
New Member
Well, I take it you avoid changing your mind about how many legs insects have. Instead, you serenely adjust how you view the scriptures. And that is just what we all do when we have to. We are, as I stated, utterly incapable of convincing ourselves insects have four legs, in spite of the plain literal declaration to that affect.
The details of how you re-interpret the scripture are interesting and we could argue about them, but to what avail? My point has been made.
Now this verse is a "model" verse to be used as we watch ourselves interpret the rest of scripture. The rub comes in when some of us can have one view that others of us cannot.
Paul,
Think about what you are saying. You are saying that the Israelites, who lived off the land and grew crops and CERTAINLY knew bugs and the like, could not count.
Ok. But I cannot possibly come to that conclusion when I read the rest of what was written in Scripture from that time, including the numbering of people!
If you check ancient history, you will find that the way of 'taxonomic classification' they (ancient cultures in general) preferred had absolutely nothing in common with what we do today. They primarily had very general classifications according to locomotion with a very few 'sub-categories' involved.
The Bible, in the meantime, also mentions two other distinctly different types of classification: kind and clean/unclean. So the Bible itself refers to at least three different methods of classification. No, four. I forgot the animals with nephesh as mentioned in Genesis 1 and 7.
So there are four different ways of designating groups of animals, none of which agree with what we do today. It is pure ethnocentricity to claim they didn't know what they were talking about simply because we do things differently today!
[ October 17, 2002, 04:30 PM: Message edited by: Helen ]
Think about what you are saying. You are saying that the Israelites, who lived off the land and grew crops and CERTAINLY knew bugs and the like, could not count.
Ok. But I cannot possibly come to that conclusion when I read the rest of what was written in Scripture from that time, including the numbering of people!
If you check ancient history, you will find that the way of 'taxonomic classification' they (ancient cultures in general) preferred had absolutely nothing in common with what we do today. They primarily had very general classifications according to locomotion with a very few 'sub-categories' involved.
The Bible, in the meantime, also mentions two other distinctly different types of classification: kind and clean/unclean. So the Bible itself refers to at least three different methods of classification. No, four. I forgot the animals with nephesh as mentioned in Genesis 1 and 7.
So there are four different ways of designating groups of animals, none of which agree with what we do today. It is pure ethnocentricity to claim they didn't know what they were talking about simply because we do things differently today!
[ October 17, 2002, 04:30 PM: Message edited by: Helen ]
Paul of Eugene
New Member
Hi Helen! Of course the ancient Hebrews could count as far a six and get it right, WHEN THEY SET THEIR MINDS TO IT. After all, they used money, didn't they? Surely they didn't have a problem making change, and so forth. I personally think some priest was talking from the idiomatic phrase "going on all fours" about bugs just happened to change that phrase a bit in this one verse and say they HAVE four legs, not having had the advantage of our education where it is drilled into us from childhood that all insects have six legs. Sure, he was classifying critters. It's just that the words he chose to use, if taken literally, could mislead us.
So we choose to interpret them in another way, right? Because we have to. Like you just did. And that's my point! Sola Scripture is not really going to work all by itself, because when we just KNOW something is other than the literal thing we read there, we HAVE to reinterpret it. That's the way we are made. Its the human condition.
So we choose to interpret them in another way, right? Because we have to. Like you just did. And that's my point! Sola Scripture is not really going to work all by itself, because when we just KNOW something is other than the literal thing we read there, we HAVE to reinterpret it. That's the way we are made. Its the human condition.
Paul of Eugene said:
Sola Scripture is not really going to work all by itself, because when we just KNOW something is other than the literal thing we read there, we HAVE to reinterpret it.
This is a straw man argument. Sola scriptura claims that the Bible is a sole and sufficient rule of faith for the Christian church. You have shifted the focus away from the content of Scripture onto its interpretation.
The Bible does not contain a "Rosetta stone" to facilitate correct interpretation; it simply assumes sufficient literacy in its readers/hearers that they will be able to employ the usual means to come to understanding.
Sola Scripture is not really going to work all by itself, because when we just KNOW something is other than the literal thing we read there, we HAVE to reinterpret it.
This is a straw man argument. Sola scriptura claims that the Bible is a sole and sufficient rule of faith for the Christian church. You have shifted the focus away from the content of Scripture onto its interpretation.
The Bible does not contain a "Rosetta stone" to facilitate correct interpretation; it simply assumes sufficient literacy in its readers/hearers that they will be able to employ the usual means to come to understanding.
Thank you, Ransom.
A little study of other cultures of that time often sheds a little light on customs and idioms as well. For instance, sending two champions out to fight each other instead of two armies decimating each other was a known war option of the time, thus David and Goliath. It doesn't change the story; it just helps us understand it a little better in its own setting.
This doesn't change the authority of Scripture. It just helps us understand it a little better. And the more we understand, the better we know God and the better we know God the more we love and praise and are in awe of Him.
It works out rather nicely...
edit point: I would want to add that, where science and history are concerned, the Bible is just as accurate as it is in matters of theology. It doesn't give us all of science or all of history. But what it does give us you can take to the bank (that's an idiom that is culturally dependent...).
[ October 17, 2002, 05:16 PM: Message edited by: Helen ]
A little study of other cultures of that time often sheds a little light on customs and idioms as well. For instance, sending two champions out to fight each other instead of two armies decimating each other was a known war option of the time, thus David and Goliath. It doesn't change the story; it just helps us understand it a little better in its own setting.
This doesn't change the authority of Scripture. It just helps us understand it a little better. And the more we understand, the better we know God and the better we know God the more we love and praise and are in awe of Him.
It works out rather nicely...
edit point: I would want to add that, where science and history are concerned, the Bible is just as accurate as it is in matters of theology. It doesn't give us all of science or all of history. But what it does give us you can take to the bank (that's an idiom that is culturally dependent...).
[ October 17, 2002, 05:16 PM: Message edited by: Helen ]
Daniel Dunivan
New Member
Ransom,
I knew someone would quote this verse. Let's think about what you are saying. You are equating throughly equipped with only source of theology (this is what we are discussing). Notice what the author of the book is saying. He says not that it is the only source of theological authority, but that it is a sufficent source of ethics. There is a big difference.
Also, "interpretation" and "use as authority" are the same thing because interpretation is involved in use, not the other way around.
Helen,
Whether you realize it or not you are using a type of anthropological method (developed through reason) can emic analysis (or is it etic?, anyway). This type of analysis is attempting to understand a text by understanding the socio-cultural attitudes and techniques of a people. This is not scripture at all, but is reason. I will reiterate what I have proposed before, if we use reason, tradition, and experience to interpret scripture, we are giving it authority over scripture at some level.
I knew someone would quote this verse. Let's think about what you are saying. You are equating throughly equipped with only source of theology (this is what we are discussing). Notice what the author of the book is saying. He says not that it is the only source of theological authority, but that it is a sufficent source of ethics. There is a big difference.
Also, "interpretation" and "use as authority" are the same thing because interpretation is involved in use, not the other way around.
Helen,
Whether you realize it or not you are using a type of anthropological method (developed through reason) can emic analysis (or is it etic?, anyway). This type of analysis is attempting to understand a text by understanding the socio-cultural attitudes and techniques of a people. This is not scripture at all, but is reason. I will reiterate what I have proposed before, if we use reason, tradition, and experience to interpret scripture, we are giving it authority over scripture at some level.
Daniel, let me give you an example of how the Lord Himself drove home this particular lesson to me.
You know the section in the last discourse when Christ tells the disciples the He is the vine and they are the branches, and that any branch that does not bear fruit will be cut off -- right? It sounds for all the world like someone could lose their salvation. Either that or God is really bad at grafting!
And we both know neither of those options is true.
And so, despite the apparent meaning of that verse, I knew I was a sheep and that my Shepherd would take care of me and that I was His and that was that.
And so I rested in that faith.
But then God was gracious enough to add knowledge to it, which helped me understand more what God was doing (and saying).
I have grapes out along a couple of the fences here. Red flames. Wonderful things!
But although the vines were gorgeous for years, the fruit was small and shrivelled. Water or fertilizer didn't matter. I got magnificent growth and lousy grapes.
We have some pretty good vinyards and wineries around, so I knew it wasn't the weather or altitude!
Then, a couple of years ago, I thought, "What the heck..." and I cut off every branch which did ot have developing fruit on it. All the extra branches which sprouted during the year from the main branches I cut off mercilessly every couple of weeks all summer (they grow really fast!).
I got gorgeous grapes. Loads of them.
And I stopped, and I thought about that.
My life is like that. There are the areas, or branches, of my life which bear fruit -- the areas where God wants me to concentrate my time and energy. But man can I get involved in a bunch of other stuff that takes my attention away from the areas where God wants me!
And so He trims those areas out of my life. An opportunity disappears, a promise does not come through, I get sick and lose the right time for something....I'm sure you know the story. And I have learned what that is now. In order to get me to concentrate my growth where God knows there will be fruit, or His results, He cuts off the other areas of my life.
What Jesus was giving the disciples was a promise of care and results, not an indication that some people would be cut off!
I bet they knew this. I didn't. Now I understand that parable better.
Or consider this one -- how many times have you heard people talk about cutting off one's hand if it causes you to sin. My mother (not a Christian) considers that passage gory enough to refuse to read any of the Bible.
But the meaning is idiomatic, and knowing the culture helps one understand that. No hand can cause you to sin! You are not controlled by your hand, but by your heart and mind.
But if we understand the idiom used at the time, it makes perfect sense. Your hand represented what you do -- your actions. Your right hand was your strength. But 'hand' itself was simply what you did. So if what you do is causing you to sin, quit doing it! Cut it out of your life.
And I have to chuckle as I think of both the above pictures -- it is sort of like God saying to those who are His, "OK, that's not a productive part of your life. In fact it is involving you in rebellion against me. You are sinning. Now, are you going to quit it or am I going to cut it out of your life?"
Right in line with Philippians 1:6 and Romans 8:28-30 and Jesus going after the lost sheep and everything else!
Did you know that the same phrase that is translated as "lose its saltiness" in the Sermon on the Mount is used by Paul in his first letter to the Corinthians? But you won't find it translated that way there. You will find it translated as 'become foolish.'
And there is THAT idiom! The more we know of the culture and times, the deeper we understand what God is saying. It does not change the meaning and the meaning does NOT depend on our understanding of the culture or times in terms of the message of the Bible itself -- who man is, who God is, God's plan for man, what Jesus did and who He is, etc. But understanding culture and language is a wonderful help in fleshing out what was going on and what the people themselves understood Moses, or Jesus, or Paul to be saying.
I think that is kind of important. The effect in my life has been to leave me more in love with God and certainly more in awe of Him.
One of the first times I became acquainted with the fact that we may not be getting the point of some of what the Bible is saying is when I read Phillip Keller's "A Shepherd Looks at Psalm 23." I was not only stunned, but I finished the book loving God more than when I started.
It made no difference to my salvation, but an awful lot to my understanding of what David was telling us about God!
You know the section in the last discourse when Christ tells the disciples the He is the vine and they are the branches, and that any branch that does not bear fruit will be cut off -- right? It sounds for all the world like someone could lose their salvation. Either that or God is really bad at grafting!
And we both know neither of those options is true.
And so, despite the apparent meaning of that verse, I knew I was a sheep and that my Shepherd would take care of me and that I was His and that was that.
And so I rested in that faith.
But then God was gracious enough to add knowledge to it, which helped me understand more what God was doing (and saying).
I have grapes out along a couple of the fences here. Red flames. Wonderful things!
But although the vines were gorgeous for years, the fruit was small and shrivelled. Water or fertilizer didn't matter. I got magnificent growth and lousy grapes.
We have some pretty good vinyards and wineries around, so I knew it wasn't the weather or altitude!
Then, a couple of years ago, I thought, "What the heck..." and I cut off every branch which did ot have developing fruit on it. All the extra branches which sprouted during the year from the main branches I cut off mercilessly every couple of weeks all summer (they grow really fast!).
I got gorgeous grapes. Loads of them.
And I stopped, and I thought about that.
My life is like that. There are the areas, or branches, of my life which bear fruit -- the areas where God wants me to concentrate my time and energy. But man can I get involved in a bunch of other stuff that takes my attention away from the areas where God wants me!
And so He trims those areas out of my life. An opportunity disappears, a promise does not come through, I get sick and lose the right time for something....I'm sure you know the story. And I have learned what that is now. In order to get me to concentrate my growth where God knows there will be fruit, or His results, He cuts off the other areas of my life.
What Jesus was giving the disciples was a promise of care and results, not an indication that some people would be cut off!
I bet they knew this. I didn't. Now I understand that parable better.
Or consider this one -- how many times have you heard people talk about cutting off one's hand if it causes you to sin. My mother (not a Christian) considers that passage gory enough to refuse to read any of the Bible.
But the meaning is idiomatic, and knowing the culture helps one understand that. No hand can cause you to sin! You are not controlled by your hand, but by your heart and mind.
But if we understand the idiom used at the time, it makes perfect sense. Your hand represented what you do -- your actions. Your right hand was your strength. But 'hand' itself was simply what you did. So if what you do is causing you to sin, quit doing it! Cut it out of your life.
And I have to chuckle as I think of both the above pictures -- it is sort of like God saying to those who are His, "OK, that's not a productive part of your life. In fact it is involving you in rebellion against me. You are sinning. Now, are you going to quit it or am I going to cut it out of your life?"
Right in line with Philippians 1:6 and Romans 8:28-30 and Jesus going after the lost sheep and everything else!
Did you know that the same phrase that is translated as "lose its saltiness" in the Sermon on the Mount is used by Paul in his first letter to the Corinthians? But you won't find it translated that way there. You will find it translated as 'become foolish.'
And there is THAT idiom! The more we know of the culture and times, the deeper we understand what God is saying. It does not change the meaning and the meaning does NOT depend on our understanding of the culture or times in terms of the message of the Bible itself -- who man is, who God is, God's plan for man, what Jesus did and who He is, etc. But understanding culture and language is a wonderful help in fleshing out what was going on and what the people themselves understood Moses, or Jesus, or Paul to be saying.
I think that is kind of important. The effect in my life has been to leave me more in love with God and certainly more in awe of Him.
One of the first times I became acquainted with the fact that we may not be getting the point of some of what the Bible is saying is when I read Phillip Keller's "A Shepherd Looks at Psalm 23." I was not only stunned, but I finished the book loving God more than when I started.
It made no difference to my salvation, but an awful lot to my understanding of what David was telling us about God!