# Is Extra-Biblical information needed for Biblical Interpretation?



## christianyouth (Apr 18, 2008)

This is a serious question of mine. From reading the Peter Enns thread, I'm getting the impression that most theologians answer this question in the affirmative. Scary.


----------



## Simply_Nikki (Apr 18, 2008)

Good question.  I'm inclined to say no they aren't "necessary", but helpful.


----------



## ModernPuritan? (Apr 18, 2008)

in some cases it is very helpful and can provide an accurate historical basis for understanding things. go to 
SermonAudio.com - Jesus, Giver of Living Water

its a sermon by Craig Hartman, BJU chapel hour. this is a example where a understanding of extra biblical things provide a much better understanding for some biblical events/stories.

interestingly enough i find when reading gills commentaries, a lot of references to the Talmud.


----------



## ModernPuritan? (Apr 18, 2008)

listen to the whole sermone sometime. its 50 min long or so but worth the listen (I had to listen to it or get demerits  )

but also understand there are somethings that dont need extra biblical refrences to help in understanding (Christ, Salvation, Trinity, DOG, etc)


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon (Apr 18, 2008)




----------



## ModernPuritan? (Apr 18, 2008)

Presbyterian Deacon said:


>



why the


----------



## Thomas2007 (Apr 18, 2008)

Everything that is necessary to know for salvation is entirely revealed within the Scripture. However, applying the Scripture to our lives and reforming the world around us does require a proper interpretative context in which the revelation is revealed. The Scripture gives historical details and it is generally clear when historical information is helpful. For example, the revelation concerning the tribute money, the Scripture reveals a question as to the denarius inscription - understanding what that inscription is and the context in which tribute was applicable is necessary for the proper application of this teaching to the world around us.


----------



## Herald (Apr 18, 2008)

Thomas, excellent! You stole my thunder.  

The scriptures are wholly authoritative and sufficient for interpretation. Extra-biblical sources can aide our application. It's similar to a sermon where an illustration is used in order to make a point.


----------



## Gryphonette (Apr 18, 2008)

*Exactly. What it's NOT used for is to re-interpret Scripture.*



North Jersey Baptist said:


> Thomas, excellent! You stole my thunder.
> 
> The scriptures are wholly authoritative and sufficient for interpretation. Extra-biblical sources can aide our application. It's similar to a sermon where an illustration is used in order to make a point.


For example, egalitarians insist that discoveries by archeologists over the past several decades are the basis for overturning two thousand years of Church teaching on male headship.

Homosexuals noticed how effective this tactic was and leapt in with their own new discoveries, which presumably shows that ordinary homosexuality isn't condemned by Scripture...just male prostitutes in pagan temples (well, something like that).

And who can forget the new information that revealed that first century Jews didn't really believe in any type or form works salvation, meaning the Church had been misunderstanding Paul all these centuries? 

No. This is precisely what extrabiblical sources are _not_ to be permitted to do. If this were allowed, Scripture would be a shaky foundation, indeed, changing with every new discovery.


----------



## DMcFadden (Apr 18, 2008)

Anne,

And, that is precisely what scads of revisionsts are engaged in doing every single day. Armed with the a set of lenses that can only see what is new, unconventional, or overturns an established teaching of the faith, they make the perspecuity of scripture seem anything but clear . . . or true.


----------



## bookslover (Apr 18, 2008)

Thomas2007 said:


> Everything that is necessary to know for salvation is entirely revealed within the Scripture. However, applying the Scripture to our lives and reforming the world around us does require a proper interpretative context in which the revelation is revealed. The Scripture gives historical details and it is generally clear when historical information is helpful. For example, the revelation concerning the tribute money, the Scripture reveals a question as to the denarius inscription - understanding what that inscription is and the context in which tribute was applicable is necessary for the proper application of this teaching to the world around us.



Another good example is understanding how the Greeks, in general, used the term "logos", which helps explain John's use of the term when he applies it to Jesus in his Gospel. Having this extra-biblical understanding is important, since John's Gospel is explicitly evangelistic (John 20:30-31).


----------



## A5pointer (Apr 18, 2008)

Seems extra-biblical tools are needed. A translation from original languages seems to be helpful, basic Logic, geographic knowledge, perhaps a dictionary, history/archaeology, Commentaries and all here agree creeds and confessions. To assume that an individual can correctly interpret the bible sans this in exhaustive list is not true. Ordinary means are needed. Thank God he has provided them to us. I guess it is what this list must include that is of controversy but let us remember that we do agree that some extra biblical information is needed,


----------



## Herald (Apr 18, 2008)

Bruce, we do agree? Last time I checked I didn't agree with you at all.


----------



## A5pointer (Apr 18, 2008)

North Jersey Baptist said:


> Bruce, we do agree? Last time I checked I didn't agree with you at all.



Brother, sorry, I have no idea what you are saying here.


----------



## Herald (Apr 18, 2008)

In my humble opinion (and I do wonder what the view of the Reformers was) God has given men the mental and intellectual faculties to understand Greek, Hebrew & Aramaic. Additionally information such as geography, customs and culture fall under the category of common knowledge. For instance, if I give you a map that says, "Go forward 15 steps and the man in the black hat will hand you the treasure", you need a command of the English language and grammar to understand the instructions. While these things are necessary in order to read and comprehend, they do not change the meaning of the text. The text stands alone. The bible is not an individualistic book. It was written to be read and understood by many. God has preserved His word through the centuries. Men of like faith have studied, debated and agreed on almost all of the major doctrines. Their educational background and expertise certainly was no detriment, but those things did not add to the interpretation of scripture.


----------



## Herald (Apr 18, 2008)

A5pointer said:


> North Jersey Baptist said:
> 
> 
> > Bruce, we do agree? Last time I checked I didn't agree with you at all.
> ...



I was responding to this comment of yours:



> but let us remember that we do agree that some extra biblical information is needed,


----------



## Devin (Apr 18, 2008)

The key is to maintain the Scriptures as your _ultimate_ authority. Extra-Biblical information can be useful. However, if your extra-Biblical data is in error, then you will have a hard time harmonizing it with Scripture. Once this happens you must go back to your ultimate authority.


----------



## Herald (Apr 18, 2008)

North Jersey Baptist said:


> In my humble opinion (and I do wonder what the view of the Reformers was) God has given men the mental and intellectual faculties to understand Greek, Hebrew & Aramaic. Additionally information such as geography, customs and culture fall under the category of common knowledge. For instance, if I give you a map that says, "Go forward 15 steps and the man in the black hat will hand you the treasure", you need a command of the English language and grammar to understand the instructions. While these things are necessary in order to read and comprehend, they do not change the meaning of the text. The text stands alone. The bible is not an individualistic book. It was written to be read and understood by many. God has preserved His word through the centuries. Men of like faith have studied, debated and agreed on almost all of the major doctrines. Their educational background and expertise certainly was no detriment, but those things did not add to the interpretation of scripture.



And let me add that the confessions are the faithful commentary on scripture by men of like faith.


----------



## A5pointer (Apr 19, 2008)

North Jersey Baptist said:


> In my humble opinion (and I do wonder what the view of the Reformers was) *God has given men the mental and intellectual faculties to understand Greek, Hebrew & Aramaic*. *Additionally information such as geography, customs and culture fall under the category of common knowledge.* For instance, if I give you a map that says, "Go forward 15 steps and the man in the black hat will hand you the treasure", you need a command of the English language and grammar to understand the instructions. While these things are necessary in order to read and comprehend, they do not change the meaning of the text. The text stands alone. The bible is not an individualistic book. It was written to be read and understood by many. God has preserved His word through the centuries. Men of like faith have studied, debated and agreed on almost all of the major doctrines. *Their educational background and expertise certainly was no detriment, but those things did not add to the interpretation of scripture.[/*QUOTE]
> 
> I am confused, you seem to be agreeing with me while saying you disagree. Geography, customs, culture and understanding of original languages are not as you say "common knowledge". It is these extra biblical disciplines that are needed for biblical interpretation. I believe these are referred to as necessary ordinary means in the reformed faith. Are you saying that without these the common man can interpret the bible? Are men unnecessarily attending seminaries to gain skills for interpretation. Is there a teacher or preacher here who would assume that they can approach the scriptures alone without consideration of extra biblical sources aiding them in interpretation? Am I understanding you rightly? Sorry if I am not.


----------



## JBaldwin (Apr 19, 2008)

I agree with those who say the Scripture can stand alone, but knowing about the culture, language, etc, helps us understand better. This extra-biblical resources are useful in trying to figure out what the Scripture is teaching. I also agree with those who've said that you have to be careful not to use the outside sources as a means to intrepretation rather than an aid. 

For instance, I find there is no need for an extra-biblical resource to define the "day" in Genesis 1 (I know there are those who disagree), because in my mind as soon as I read "evening and morning, one day" that's all the interpretation I need.


----------



## A5pointer (Apr 19, 2008)

The point is, the original audience did not need extra biblical sources. We however are removed by thousands of years and by culture. Sources are needed. Some though believe the HS fills the void. I do not agree,


----------



## danmpem (Apr 19, 2008)

ModernPuritan? said:


> Presbyterian Deacon said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...



 on the . This thread is giving me a lot to chew on for a while.


----------



## beej6 (Apr 19, 2008)

Since we laymen rely on translations, and are far from the original context of the written Word, both the grammar (translation's relationship to the original languages) and the history (cultural, political, Jewish, etc.) add context and prevent "reading into" the Word. Of course, that is what the job of the pastor and educated elders is. I'm *not* saying that an educated layman can't interpret, mind you...


----------



## AV1611 (Apr 19, 2008)

christianyouth said:


> This is a serious question of mine.



The more I think about it the more I would say yes we do need extra-biblical information for sound biblical interpretation.


----------



## k.seymore (Apr 19, 2008)

North Jersey Baptist said:


> God has given men the mental and intellectual faculties to understand Greek, Hebrew & Aramaic. Additionally information such as geography, customs and culture fall under the category of common knowledge.



This is good... I think everyone would agree with this. Without extra-Biblical information (including English for English translations) the Bible would be uninterpretable for us, so you seem to have proved that relative to us the answer to the thread is yes.


----------



## Herald (Apr 19, 2008)

Bruce,

I could have chosen my words a bit better. I did not mean to say that men need special help in order to interpret scripture other than those things that are ordinary (I agree, ordinary is a much better word) to learned men. In a sense the things that are ordinary are the entrance price for interpretation or critical study. You need to know how to read in order to engage and understand a book. The ability to read aids in interpretation to the degree you are able to engage the text with any hope of understanding. These common or ordinary things does not mean that using them to bring extra-biblical resources into play makes interpretation easier. In fact, it can do just the opposite. The more uninspired works of men that we use the more susceptible we become to incorrect interpretation. Let me ask this: what makes the New World Translation inferior? Is it the Greek and Hebrew texts? The scholarship of the translators? How about a presupposition towards their own point of view, an agenda? The fact they were devoid of the Spirit of God has no play? 

I think a convincing argument can be made that interpretation today really isn't happening. I would be interested in Matthew, Bruce or Fred's opinion on that. I am not a scholar and I could be seriously wrong. But I think this is one of the reasons why we are confessional. I am not prepared to say that the confessions are the final word on scripture for once and all time, but they have stood the test for the past 300+ years. If you look at many of the great schisms in the church (dispensationalism, pentecostalism, Finneyism etc.), they have emerged from a flawed view of the scriptures. It makes we wonder whether we are barking up the wrong tree to begin with.


----------



## greenbaggins (Apr 19, 2008)

I would say that in things regarding salvation, no extra-biblical information is necessary beyond a knowledge of the mother-tongue (provided one has the Bible in one's mother tongue!). Furthermore, extra-biblical sources cannot be used to overturn what the Bible says about salvation. This is what the creeds and confessions are designed to protect. That should be our guide as to what constitutes the biblical doctrine of salvation, and what constitutes a challenge to that biblical authority. 

That being said, a knowledge of extra-biblical information related to the literary and historical context is invaluable for understanding particular texts. Understanding that bread was a staple of life, and is not some hermetically sealed loaf in a plastic bag that is one choice among many at a supermarket, but is rather one of two things without which you died in ancient Palestine makes quite a difference in interpreting the Bread of Life passage.


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon (Apr 19, 2008)

ModernPuritan? said:


> Presbyterian Deacon said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...



Sorry. Didn't mean to confuse you. 

It's an excellent question, and I meant to indicate that I would be sitting back and enjoying reading the answers as this is a subject I've had some musings about myself. 

That's all I meant by:


----------



## TimV (Apr 19, 2008)

> I would say that in things regarding salvation, no extra-biblical information is necessary beyond a knowledge of the mother-tongue (provided one has the Bible in one's mother tongue!).



That's where I was going to chime in, but as there aren't any clear definitions on this thread so far it becomes more off the cuff thinking than anything else.

In PNG I assisted a Bible translator by teaching literacy. Those people didn't even have a written language, as so many don't. So you've brought up a very important one.

One guy asked me if I was from the same clan as those who killed Christ. He had no concept of what a Jew was, or where one lived, or how one was different than any other White person.


----------



## servantofmosthigh (Apr 19, 2008)

1. Whenever "extra-biblical information" is being referred to, people usually take it to imply revelatory sources beyond the written word (e.g. General Revelation). There are two revelatory sources of God to man: Special and General. General Revelatory sources can aid our interpretion and understanding of the Special Revelatory source (Scripture).

2. Written historic documents can also supplement and further explain Scripture where Scripture is silent. For example, when the Roman soldier is commanded to break the legs of the 3 men on the cross, the only reason Scripture gives is because the Synagogue leaders did not want the crucified bodies to remain on the cross as the Sabbath was approaching. But the link between "break their legs" and "crucified bodies taken down before the Sabbath" is not well explained in Scripture. This is where "extra-biblical" historic records on the ancient Roman corporal punishment aids in understanding this.

To Christianyouth: do not fear "extra-biblical" sources of information. If it's General Revelation of God, then it's solidly biblical. If it's other documentations, then see if it serves to further aid you in understanding Scripture or if it conflicts against it.


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon (Apr 19, 2008)

greenbaggins said:


> I would say that in things regarding salvation, no extra-biblical information is necessary beyond a knowledge of the mother-tongue (provided one has the Bible in one's mother tongue!). Furthermore, extra-biblical sources cannot be used to overturn what the Bible says about salvation. This is what the creeds and confessions are designed to protect. That should be our guide as to what constitutes the biblical doctrine of salvation, and what constitutes a challenge to that biblical authority.
> 
> That being said, a knowledge of extra-biblical information related to the literary and historical context is invaluable for understanding particular texts. Understanding that bread was a staple of life, and is not some hermetically sealed loaf in a plastic bag that is one choice among many at a supermarket, but is rather one of two things without which you died in ancient Palestine makes quite a difference in interpreting the Bread of Life passage.



Just some quick questions. Perhaps a bit  --perhaps not!

How do you all see the use of commentaries and other human writings like Bible surveys, introductions and texts on hermeneutics fitting into this discussion?

Can we just pick up the Bible and "read it like any other book" (something I've heard somewhere in the past) and know what it means? 

What is meant by the perspiscuity of Scripture?

Is there a difference (or should there be a distinction) between understanding the "essential clarity" of Scripture and the view that "Every part is equally clear." ? 

What are the views here on the matter of "the principle of private interpretation"?

How does our appealing to the views of the Reformers, the Puritans, and other Bible scholars differ from the Roman Catholic practice of appealing to tradition?

Perhaps, the way I've worded that already shows my bias, but I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts.


----------



## Hippo (Apr 19, 2008)

A5pointer said:


> The point is, the original audience did not need extra biblical sources. We however are removed by thousands of years and by culture. Sources are needed. Some though believe the HS fills the void. I do not agree,



On two levels we need extra biblical resources.

Firstly we need to understand what is written we need to understand language and logic, we do need to understand the basic social structure that surrounds the biblical naratives. For many of us this understanding is so obvious we ignore our reliance on such knowledge but that is because we grew up in a culture that understands (and indeed derives from) a judeo christian culture. However imagine you were a tribal person with a completely different understanding of family, property and morailty.

On a secondary level you cannot seperate the bible from apostolic authority, the original audience were guided in their understanding of scripture and indeed what scripture was (i.e. what was canon and what was not) by the rule of faith and the apostles teaching. We do not interpret the bible by feelings but by the faith.


----------



## etexas (Apr 19, 2008)




----------



## Presbyterian Deacon (Apr 19, 2008)

Presbyterian Deacon said:


> Just some quick questions. Perhaps a bit  --perhaps not!
> 
> How do you all see the use of commentaries and other human writings like Bible surveys, introductions and texts on hermeneutics fitting into this discussion?
> 
> ...


----------



## JBaldwin (Apr 19, 2008)

Presbyterian Deacon said:


> Presbyterian Deacon said:
> 
> 
> > Just some quick questions. Perhaps a bit  --perhaps not!
> ...



I am not the best one to answer these questions, but here is how I study and use extra-biblical tools (and I do nearly every time I study). 

1. Pray
2. Read the Scripture to study in context. If have to read the entire book of the Bible, then I read the entire book. I can't read the original languages, but if I could, I would read them in the original. 
3. Write down what the Scripture is teaching. 
4. Outline the passage
5. If you haven't done so, go to the original languages to look up difficult passages. 
6.Then, and only then do I start going to outside sources, historical information about the book, the time, etc. Then I often reread the passage in light of what of the historical information. 
7. Then write down any new information and what I've gleaned. 

It's not until I've done this kind of study that I even bother with commentaries, etc. I find commentaries, confessions, etc. to be more validating than anything. In other words, if I come up with something totally off what the commentaries say, then I go back and look to see if I missed something. 

I used to run to the commentaries and confessions first, and I found this made me a lazy student, plus I often missed what God was teaching me from the passage. 

I would appreciate any thoughts on this.


----------



## DMcFadden (Apr 19, 2008)

Presbyterian Deacon said:


> Presbyterian Deacon said:
> 
> 
> > Just some quick questions. Perhaps a bit  --perhaps not!



*How do you all see the use of commentaries and other human writings like Bible surveys, introductions and texts on hermeneutics fitting into this discussion?*

One of the gifts of the Lord to his church are what the Reformed tradition calls the "doctors." Eph. 4 says that the Lord will give his church what is helpful to its edification. Do we need extra-biblical aids to be saved? Of course not. But, we don't necessarily need a pastor to facilitate that either. Yet, nobody would argue that a pastor was not invaluable to the church just because one can conceive of salvation without pastoral agency. Commentaries and other scholarly aids can be of tremendous value in study even though they are not "necessary" for salvation. 

in my opinion, part of the problem we experience relates to the trend towards untethered scholarship. When scholars are accountable to nobody, are rewarded for coming up with de novo ideas that contradict the Christian message, etc., then their work is less than helpful. That does not, however, mitigate the value of tools; it merely points out the need for discernment in selecting and using them. 

For my 33 years of ministry, I have used my Greek NT (or Hebrew OT) and a goodly collection of reference books for preparing sermons and Bible studies. Even in my current retirement home ministry, this morning found me pouring over the exegesis of Galatians 1 for a series I am beginning tomorrow. Could I teach the class with just my Bible (and Powerpoint of course )? Sure. But, why cut myself off from the exegetical, linguistic, historical, and theological riches of the giants who have gone before me?

*Can we just pick up the Bible and "read it like any other book" (something I've heard somewhere in the past) and know what it means? What is meant by the perspiscuity of Scripture?*

What do you mean by "know"? Insofar as the Lord has inscripturated his word in human words, the words of the Bible are governed by the same rules of grammar and syntax as any other book. A good translation and the use of ordinary means will yield up the essential meaning. "Perspicuity" refers to the fact the the central message is clear and accessible to a person without the mediation of popes and priests. However, "knowing" is not a simple matter. What we "know" has a lot to do with the presuppositions we bring to the enterprise. A carnal mind blindled by sin will not discern spiritual truths. Since we are dead in sin, only the work of the Holy Spirit can open our eyes, give us the gift of faith, and effect the work of God's grace within us (that is one reason why I'm a Calvinist, not an Arminian).

*Is there a difference (or should there be a distinction) between understanding the "essential clarity" of Scripture and the view that "Every part is equally clear." ? *
Yes, every part is not equally clear. Some parts deal with milk, other parts are meat. Peter saw some of Paul's writings to be more difficult.

*What are the views here on the matter of "the principle of private interpretation"?*

Private interpretation was never intended to mean autonomous interpretation, errant interpretation, or heretical interpretation. In this sense private interpretation violates 2 Peter 12:20-21. What was meant by the Reformers was a rejection of the Roman Catholic magisterium in favor of sola scriptura. Scripture applied by the Holy Spirit, not tradition, rules.

*How does our appealing to the views of the Reformers, the Puritans, and other Bible scholars differ from the Roman Catholic practice of appealing to tradition?*

If I cite Calvin with approval for my interpretation, I am doing exactly what the Roman Catholic scholar does when he cites St. Thomas. However, what the Roman church means by tradition includes more than this. With Trent, tradition becomes a source of authority equal to the Bible. While some on this board may want to invest Calvin with incredible prescience and wisdom, none of us would say that Calvin is an equal authority to the Word of God.


----------



## ModernPuritan? (Apr 19, 2008)

Presbyterian Deacon said:


> ModernPuritan? said:
> 
> 
> > Presbyterian Deacon said:
> ...



thats fine.. just didnt know what a solitary  meant


----------



## Hippo (Apr 19, 2008)

the problem with the RC view of tradition is that they believe that they can create their own tradition and in effect whatever they do becomes tradition and is therefore authoratative. 

The orthodox view is that the Church inherited tradition from the apostles and from decisions deriving from the tradations of the apostles and because of this origin the resulting tradition has authority.

Thus orthodox tradition is not equal to the Bible, it is the Bible.


----------



## bookslover (Apr 19, 2008)

servantofmosthigh said:


> Written historic documents can also supplement and further explain Scripture where Scripture is silent. For example, when the Roman soldier is commanded to break the legs of the 3 men on the cross, the only reason Scripture gives is because the Synagogue leaders did not want the crucified bodies to remain on the cross as the Sabbath was approaching. But the link between "break their legs" and "crucified bodies taken down before the Sabbath" is not well explained in Scripture. This is where "extra-biblical" historic records on the ancient Roman corporal punishment aids in understanding this.



This is a good example. The Bible writers did not feel the need to explain the link between "break their legs" and "crucified bodies taken down before the Sabbath" because they assumed that their first readers, contemporary with themselves, would automatically understand the connection. We, however, living twenty centuries later, need to have it explained. Thus, the value of extra-biblical sources of information.


----------



## bookslover (Apr 19, 2008)

JBaldwin said:


> I am not the best one to answer these questions, but here is how I study and use extra-biblical tools (and I do nearly every time I study).
> 
> 1. Pray
> 2. Read the Scripture to study in context. If have to read the entire book of the Bible, then I read the entire book. I can't read the original languages, but if I could, I would read them in the original.
> ...



This is very, very good. I envy the kind of time you have to put into this kind of study. The best part is that you've got the priorities right: Bible first, then commentaries and confessions. I very much agree that commentaries and the secondary standards can make Christians lazy when it comes to studying the Bible itself.


----------



## bookslover (Apr 19, 2008)

Hippo said:


> the problem with the RC view of tradition is that they believe that they can create their own tradition and in effect whatever they do becomes tradition and is therefore authoratative.
> 
> The orthodox view is that the Church inherited tradition from the apostles and from decisions deriving from the tradations of the apostles and because of this origin the resulting tradition has authority.
> 
> Thus orthodox tradition is not equal to the Bible, it is the Bible.



Your last sentence demonstrates that, at the practical level, there's not much difference between the Roman Catholic and Protestant views of the place of tradition, in the end.

In other words, there's not much difference between "they can create their own traditions" (RC) and "inherited tradition from the apostles" and "decisions deriving from the traditions" (Protestant). What happens to _sola Scriptura_ when we allow this to happen?


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon (Apr 19, 2008)

bookslover said:


> servantofmosthigh said:
> 
> 
> > Written historic documents can also supplement and further explain Scripture where Scripture is silent. For example, when the Roman soldier is commanded to break the legs of the 3 men on the cross, the only reason Scripture gives is because the Synagogue leaders did not want the crucified bodies to remain on the cross as the Sabbath was approaching. But the link between "break their legs" and "crucified bodies taken down before the Sabbath" is not well explained in Scripture. This is where "extra-biblical" historic records on the ancient Roman corporal punishment aids in understanding this.
> ...



I agree. I have a friend who says, "We have to put ourselves in the seats of the first readers." To those first readers it was completely understandable, but the challenge for us is to become acquianted with the "manners and customs" of those days. Certainly, something which in our twenty first century western culture is not all that simple to get at without assistance from grammatical and historical sources.


----------



## Hippo (Apr 19, 2008)

bookslover said:


> In other words, there's not much difference between "they can create their own traditions" (RC) and "inherited tradition from the apostles" and "decisions deriving from the traditions" (Protestant). What happens to _sola Scriptura_ when we allow this to happen?



I am not sure what you think the problem is here, there is a world of difference between the two positions and the fact that originally the RC's once shared what is now the Protestant tradition is both to be expected and a "good" thing. 

As to what happens to sola Scriptura is that it does not become solo Scriptura, scripture was not recognised outside of means, it was recognised by way of means which was tradition and this tradition was passed through and by the apostles.


----------



## greenbaggins (Apr 19, 2008)

Presbyterian Deacon said:


> greenbaggins said:
> 
> 
> > I would say that in things regarding salvation, no extra-biblical information is necessary beyond a knowledge of the mother-tongue (provided one has the Bible in one's mother tongue!). Furthermore, extra-biblical sources cannot be used to overturn what the Bible says about salvation. This is what the creeds and confessions are designed to protect. That should be our guide as to what constitutes the biblical doctrine of salvation, and what constitutes a challenge to that biblical authority.
> ...



I don't really have anything to add to Dennis's excellent answers. I agree with him.


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Apr 19, 2008)

Gryphonette said:


> For example, egalitarians insist that discoveries by archeologists over the past several decades are the basis for overturning two thousand years of Church teaching on male headship.



But most of their quotations don't come from the biblical period but periods 200-300 years removed after word definitions had changed. They read their conclusions backward into the bible here to try and promote egalitarianism where the original writers didn't intend it.



> Homosexuals noticed how effective this tactic was and leapt in with their own new discoveries, which presumably shows that ordinary homosexuality isn't condemned by Scripture...just male prostitutes in pagan temples (well, something like that).



And they are arguing for a non-existent category at the time - there were no 'loving monogamous homosexual relationships' at the time which were considered the norm between adults (other than some pederasty). All of these are summarily condemned in 1 Cor. 6:9-10 regardless of what they try to call them.



> And who can forget the new information that revealed that first century Jews didn't really believe in any type or form works salvation, meaning the Church had been misunderstanding Paul all these centuries?



No new information there - just someone taking existing information and misinterpreting it and drawing conclusions other than the truth.




> No. This is precisely what extrabiblical sources are _not_ to be permitted to do. If this were allowed, Scripture would be a shaky foundation, indeed, changing with every new discovery.



Agreed.


----------



## Gesetveemet (Apr 19, 2008)

My questions are-

Is the date 70 A.D. considered Extra-Biblical information?

and

Is knowledge of Alexander the Great needed for Biblical Interpretation of the book of Daniel? 




Thank you,


----------

