Sola scriptura or prima scriptura

When I said:

I no where said that scripture was only God's word when it communicated meaning! You are interpreting me incorrectly. I actually mean that on the level of theological and practical application the interpretation is what we actually see--pragmatically speaking--not the Word of God. Furthermore, Barth would never say what I stated above--that tradition, experience, and reason must be used in constructing theology. Especially early on he totally rejected any analogy of being between the human person and God--revelation can never be under experience. Instead, he would argue that only revelation as the Holy Spirit acts upon me as I encounter the "Word of God" (not necessarily the Bible) is the source of all theology. I know what Neo-orthodoxy is! I do like some of what Barth and Brunner say, but the extent to which they take them is not acceptable. I would argue that your claim that they have been destroyed by critique is absolutely untrue. Neo-orthodoxy is alive and well in contemporary theological reflection (just maybe not at the fundamentalist level--who would have believed that?--and it has definately moved beyond the expressions of the 50s and 60s)

Pastor Larry said:

This is exactly what I've been trying to illustrate. This theology of ordinances is not straight out of scripture, but is a product of tradition. This is absolutely undeniable! You are starting from within your experiences of a particular tradition to formulate this answer.

Pastor Larry said:

Actually the goal of Bible study is to convey the tradition of interpretation--when you read a commentary or listen to someone expound the text you are hearing a tradition of Biblical interpretation. When someone reads the text you are hearing the Bible itself. This distiction is paramount to this discussion. WE SHOULD NEVER ALLOW THESE TWO TO BE EQUATED IN EITHER THEOLOGY OR PRACTICE.

Matt,

I was meaning the Great Tradition of the Church not equated with either the Roman or Orthodox churches. I mean the larger tradition of the church. When you make the statement about error you are showing how you have replaced the Roman tradition with the reformation tradition. Would you say that the reformation tradition as it was expressed and developed has never come into error?

Grace and Peace, Danny

This is actually a great discussion!!

 

As we all come to celebrate Easter Sunday in a couple of weeks -

Why are we letting a non-scriptural based decree determine what the date for Easter is?

 

What seems important to understand is that tradition will not dictate our interpretation, but provide us clues. In other words, the use of tradition seems more of an aesthetic sensibilty than a scientific process.

I do think that it is important to search for a baptist tradition of interpretation (and theology). One of the reasons that we do theology is to show how we read scripture, though these two processes seem to always be in dialectial tension.

Grace and Peace, Danny

 

Who is the Church? There’s an obvious answer but as Keith said, it’s not so easy a question to answer.
It’s easier to see the works of the Church, (…and when it fails). Church Tradition is not inerrant.

The various ecumenical counsels performed some great works in defining the faith.
The doctrine of the Trinity,
Definition of the canon
Apostles Creed and Nicene Creed
and hundreds of others…

The “Tradition” is carried with each generation of believers. Sure, these doctrines are in the Scriptures but imagine the division if we had to go back to each controversy and fight them again.

…wait that’s what is being done now when we deny tradition of any form; we’re battling the same battles and others of a more insidious nature.

Rob

 

Who is the Church? There’s an obvious answer but as Keith said, it’s not so easy a question to answer.
It’s easier to see the works of the Church, (…and when it fails). Church Tradition is not inerrant.

The various ecumenical counsels performed some great works in defining the faith.
The doctrine of the Trinity,
Definition of the canon
Apostles Creed and Nicene Creed
and hundreds of others…

The “Tradition” is carried with each generation of believers. Sure, these doctrines are in the Scriptures but imagine the division if we had to go back to each controversy and fight them again.

…wait, that’s what is being done now when we deny tradition of any form; we’re battling the same battles and others of a more insidious nature.

Rob