Can you rephrase or elaborate on your question? I’m not sure exactly what you are asking.

Thanks.

I appreciate your comments. Thank you.

A few thoughts.

I’m not sure that we see Jesus, or the New Testament in general, drawing a fundamental distinction between Word and Tradition per se. That implies that Word (of God) = text. Mark 7 seems to be a specific refutation of traditions which nullify the Word of God (written or otherwise). Jesus is arguing against abandoning the commands of God for human tradition. We can see the Reformation parallels for sure! And yet Luther’s reform seemed to be at least initially in the Mark 7 spirit of standing against the specific traditions that were nullifying the revealed Word of God as practically defined by the Church/community he sought to reform.

I completely agree that God’s truth is not fundamentally determined by our recognition of such. Amen. Our question concerns the normative, practical means God has ordained by which we should know the scope and nature of his revealed truth.

On an individualistic basis, are we to just know?

We could go the route of Spencer Burke and other emergents, suggesting a Jesus without the Church or the Book. But I find this nonsensical. And yet, is that idea not honest ‘radical Protestantism’ run its full course?

This is why I think modern Evangelicalism fails so miserably to answer the legitimate questions of emergents. The canon question, for instance, is not answered by modern evangelical Protestantism. Those who grew up in that system, if they ever come face to face with the problem, are compelled to reject the fundamental concept (many are), or find a better, more historical and workable answer to the question (some are).

When we are brought into ‘the family,’ are we attaching ourselves primarily to a community or a text? Roman Catholics, Orthodox and Emergents would all say, “Community!” But they would mean different things. Inasmuch as the emergent concept of such, particularly at the movement’s fringes, is without authority or doctrinal mooring, we may have modern Evangelicalism to thank for it.

I appreciate the tension you are highlighting. I notice that Jesus did not address what ever discussions or debates that there may have been in regard to marginal writings yet he made a clear distinction between the word of God and tradition handed down. He often made explicit references to the Law and to the Prophets and he presented the gospel, that is His teaching concerning the kingdom of God as a superseding authority. I Think this is why the gospel (as we have in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) is referred to as “the Word of God” in Acts in a dynamic sense for those subjects of the New Covenant. I made some observations on this in “Progress in Acts and in You”.

Russ it seems to me that God’s Word is authoritative and He communicates that word to us through the “prophetic scriptures” with or without man’s recognition of scriptural authority. Would you agree that the Lord’s concern is centered on our recognition that the flow of authority is from Him to us as we embrace, and if we embrace, his cause as witnessed to us in the Gospel?…God’s authority at no point is dependent on man’s reception or verification or even his enumeration of what is counted as prophetic.

With joy and mutual hope in Israel’s Messiah,
Jeff

Not sure if Don and I are really agreeing or not. We do seem to agree on the track record of sola scriptura. I’m not we agree on the implications of such.

In the formal sense, I believe the scriptures are sufficient to tell us everything we need to know. But practically speaking, there is the matter of interpretation and what the bible is in the first place (both in terms of which books and the nature of). There is no inspired table of contents.

R.C. Sproul said that we have a fallible list of infallible books (his commitment to sola scriptura requires him to say this and I appreciate the honesty).

Does that ‘work?’

The sola scriptura purist is stuck. For the concept of biblical infallibility to have any meaning, one most hold to an infallible list of books. But to do that violates sola scriptura because it requires an extra-biblical definition.

I find your comments agreeable but one part leaves me with a question.
If I understand, you agree that something we are calling “sola scriptura” does not seem to “work”. What are your expectations? How do you determine when something does, or does not “work”?

Thanks
Jeff

Yep. In the Protestant context that is pretty much the best we can do. And it is indeed what we should do, even as we watch and remain open to the fact that Christ may have a better way for us even before he returns.

One solution would be for Jesus to return and let me sit at his feet so he tells me where I got it wrong.

Failing that, I think each person needs to act in faith based on their current understanding and be teachable. Study both sides (or more) where there are differences among believers. Be willing to admit one may be wrong. Love other believers and do not construct a high filter on what it takes to be a believer.

Scott (a protestant pastor) and his wife outline their long and difficult journey which led them to the Catholic Church.

An interesting read…

And so it would appear that we agree on the problem and the situation growing our of the idea of sola scriptura. But what of a solution?

GLW…

What the heck!? I need a red blooded translation of that comment.