Sola Scriptura And Prima Scriptura

This may require more definition. The traditions that came from the magisterial Reformers could in some ways be considered prima scriptura. Scripture is the ultimate authority, but it is interpreted by the community and (to varying degrees depending upon which branch you follow) the confessions. And of course there are things that are adiaphora, and thus primarily up to the judgement of the community, informed by Scripture. This begins to look a lot like prima scriptura.

To go beyond that you have to look at specific kinds of issues. Just saying “sola scriptura” doesn’t tell you exactly where the limits are of what can come from tradition. E.g. we generally allow Christology to use later philosophical concepts, while many of us do not accept ideas such as the Assumption of Mary because it’s not Scriptural. The Reformed tradition believes that the elements of worship must be directly based on Scripture, though just how literally that is taken varies.

When you start getting into details you’ll find differences. E.g. I think modern Reformed theology is more skeptical of later Marian ideas than Luther was. There are very different approaches to basic concepts from the Gospel to the Incarnation between mainline and conservative Protestants, because we differ in our Scriptural scholarship and our willingness to use later philosophical concepts to formulate theology. As noted above, there are differing ideas on just how directly worship must be based on Scripture, with some parts of the tradition only permitting songs to use words from Scripture and not permitting the use of musical instruments.

You can’t deal with these differences by invoking sola scriptura or prima scriptura. Rather, there’s a spectrum of approaches, all of which conceptually consider Scripture the only public source of revelation, and the ultimate authority for all matters within Christianity.

I’m pretty strict on sola scriptura in theology, to the extent of being skeptical about the use of some traditional concepts that many consider normative. But I’m less so on practical issues such as worship and ethics.

you can not have Sola Scripture or even Prima Scripture without a set cannon
then you are accepting some authority outside of Scripture to set what is Scripture

unless you believe that the words in the Bible prove conclusively what ancient books should be seen as Scripture and what should not be seen as Scripture

When one accepts holy tradition one begins to read scripture differently; holy tradition is a hermeneutic that frames the way one reads holy scripture and shapes the way one lives a holy life. In holy tradition one learns to read in community and that community is wider than the community of one's brethren on earth. The community is of the whole church through all time.

Rhamiel said:

you can not have Sola Scripture or even Prima Scripture without a set cannon
then you are accepting some authority outside of Scripture to set what is Scripture

unless you believe that the words in the Bible prove conclusively what ancient books should be seen as Scripture and what should not be seen as Scripture

Click to expand...

Actually it’s not true historically that the function of Scripture depends upon having a set canon. It took several centuries to settle on the whole thing. Yet people quoted the Gospels and Paul’s letters well before that happened. Indeed 2 Peter appears to refer to Paul's letters as Scripture. It was surely written before the canon was settled.

From Bauckham's commentary on 2 Peter 3:16 (in the Word Commentary set):

"To determine the precise implication of this, we should first note that the term γραφή (“scripture&#8221 was not limited to the books of the OT canon, but could be used for apocryphal writings (Jas 4:5; Barn. 16:5; 1 Clem 23:3; cf. Herm. Vis. 2:3:4: ὡς γέγραπται, “as it is written&#8221. It need not therefore imply a canon of Scripture at all. The inclusion of Paul’s letters in this category certainly means they are regarded as inspired, authoritative writings (as v 15 in fact says), ranked alongside the OT and probably various other books, including other apostolic writings. Probably the implication is that they are suitable for reading in Christian worship. But this does not at all require the conclusion that the author of 2 Peter knows a NT canon. Apostolic writings must have ranked as authoritative writings, suitable for reading in Christian worship, long before there was any fixed NT canon."

If you’re going to treat Scripture as a random bag of proof texts, then it matters a lot which texts are in the bag. But if you treat it more critically, looking at how themes are treated throughout, and look at how different authors treated a subject and why they differed, then the kinds of variation in canon that existed in the early Church are much less significant.

Calvin's treatment of Scripture at the beginning of the Institutes sees it as inspired because it records the teachings of Prophets and Apostles. That is, he seems to see the authority coming from the fact that God spoke through the prophets and apostles that are its authors. This is subtly different from saying that this particular book as a whole, with a fixed table of contents, is inspired. He doesn't really even deal with the canon at that point. I don't think this is quite the same as Westminster, which plunks down the book on the desk, and declares it inspired.

Sola Scriptura as it was historically understood is essentially the same thing as Prima Scriptura. Basically, Holy Scripture is seen as the flagship of the apostolic witness. This position recognizes that it was the Church that established Holy Scripture and that it ought to be interpreted within the Church with the help of Tradition. It's merely a recognition that the Scriptures were established to be that standard with which we establish doctrine.

Sola Scriptura as it is often understood today means that nothing should be believed unless it can be directly found in Scripture and that Scripture can be totally understood in isolation, without the context of the Church and Tradition. When this new meaning is used, it becomes helpful to contrast the historic position by referring to it as Prima Scriptura.

hedrick said:

Actually it’s not true historically that the function of Scripture depends upon having a set canon. It took several centuries to settle on the whole thing.

Click to expand...

Is this why some mainline Protestants are OK with quoting from the Gospel of Thomas?

Are you saying that basically magisterial Protestants have an indefinite canon?

Is this why debate about the authorships of certain books is so critical for some?

hedrick said:

Actually it’s not true historically that the function of Scripture depends upon having a set canon. It took several centuries to settle on the whole thing. Yet people quoted the Gospels and Paul’s letters well before that happened. Indeed 2 Peter appears to refer to Paul's letters as Scripture. It was surely written before the canon was settled.

From Bauckham's commentary on 2 Peter 3:16 (in the Word Commentary set):

"To determine the precise implication of this, we should first note that the term γραφή (“scripture”) was not limited to the books of the OT canon, but could be used for apocryphal writings (Jas 4:5; Barn. 16:5; 1 Clem 23:3; cf. Herm. Vis. 2:3:4: ὡς γέγραπται, “as it is written”). It need not therefore imply a canon of Scripture at all. The inclusion of Paul’s letters in this category certainly means they are regarded as inspired, authoritative writings (as v 15 in fact says), ranked alongside the OT and probably various other books, including other apostolic writings. Probably the implication is that they are suitable for reading in Christian worship. But this does not at all require the conclusion that the author of 2 Peter knows a NT canon. Apostolic writings must have ranked as authoritative writings, suitable for reading in Christian worship, long before there was any fixed NT canon."

If you’re going to treat Scripture as a random bag of proof texts, then it matters a lot which texts are in the bag. But if you treat it more critically, looking at how themes are treated throughout, and look at how different authors treated a subject and why they differed, then the kinds of variation in canon that existed in the early Church are much less significant.

Calvin's treatment of Scripture at the beginning of the Institutes sees it as inspired because it records the teachings of Prophets and Apostles. That is, he seems to see the authority coming from the fact that God spoke through the prophets and apostles that are its authors. This is subtly different from saying that this particular book as a whole, with a fixed table of contents, is inspired. He doesn't really even deal with the canon at that point. I don't think this is quite the same as Westminster, which plunks down the book on the desk, and declares it inspired.

Click to expand...

I think though, that maybe Rhamiel's point is that there needs to be an accepted set of texts in use. It may be that there was not yet an official canon, or that even in the early days some things were used that would be eventually excluded. But the point is that without the authority or ability to make a decision as a community, it would be worthless to talk about the texts having some sort of authority.

MKJ said:

I think though, that maybe Rhamiel's point is that there needs to be an accepted set of texts in use. It may be that there was not yet an official canon, or that even in the early days some things were used that would be eventually excluded. But the point is that without the authority or ability to make a decision as a community, it would be worthless to talk about the texts having some sort of authority.

Click to expand...

thank you
you have to have some kind of way to recognize what is and what is not Scripture
so even if you list it as "Prima"
you have something above it that tells you "this is the Bible"

Rhamiel said:

you can not have Sola Scripture or even Prima Scripture without a set cannon
then you are accepting some authority outside of Scripture to set what is Scripture

unless you believe that the words in the Bible prove conclusively what ancient books should be seen as Scripture and what should not be seen as Scripture

Click to expand...

FireDragon76 said:

Is this why some mainline Protestants are OK with quoting from the Gospel of Thomas?

Are you saying that basically magisterial Protestants have an indefinite canon?

Is this why debate about the authorships of certain books is so critical for some?

Click to expand...

Note that I'm speaking of mainline churches. "Magisterial" refers to Lutherans and Reformed. I wouldn't want to be understood as speaking for the conservative parts of those traditions.

In worship we use the 66 book canon. However when exegetes and theologians work, they look more widely. So I don't think our churches would say the canon is indefinite. But you need to look at how it's used. Luther certainly had books he didn't think rated as high as others (e.g. James), and Calvin didn't comment on or refer to the Revelation. But used some books more heavily than others.

However the mainline today goes further than that, based on critical judgements of each book: authorship, date, purpose, theological outlook, etc.

Some writers on this issue refer to a "stepped canon." They point out that Jews saw the Torah as key, with a kind of continuum of books going out from there, with the Prophets having a bit higher status than the Writings, and then a bunch of D-C books and other books that were used.

Most PCUSA preachers use the lectionary. You can't make a lectionary without a canon. But when you get to serious theology, I think the boundaries are wider and grayer, with people making assessment of each book individually.

Thomas. Some scholars claimed that this gave, or sometimes gave, earlier forms of Jesus' teachings. The "Scholar's Press" NT treated it in parallel with the 4 canonical Gospels. Outside that fairly small set of scholars, I haven't seen much support for this. I personally don't think it gives us much information about Jesus' teachings that aren't there in the canonical Gospels, so I don't tend to use it. The commentaries I normally use don't refer to it very often.

Yes, authorship matters. If you assess books individually, it matters to me whether 2 Peter is a late book by someone other than Peter or Peter's actual work. But it's not a question of whether I redefine the canon to omit 2 Peter. Rather, it's a matter of how I would use it.

hedrick said:

Note that I'm speaking of mainline churches. "Magisterial" refers to Lutherans and Reformed. I wouldn't want to be understood as speaking for the conservative parts of those traditions.

In worship we use the 66 book canon. However when exegetes and theologians work, they look more widely. So I don't think our churches would say the canon is indefinite. But you need to look at how it's used. Luther certainly had books he didn't think rated as high as others (e.g. James), and Calvin didn't comment on or refer to the Revelation. But used some books more heavily than others.

However the mainline today goes further than that, based on critical judgements of each book: authorship, date, purpose, theological outlook, etc.

Some writers on this issue refer to a "stepped canon." They point out that Jews saw the Torah as key, with a kind of continuum of books going out from there, with the Prophets having a bit higher status than the Writings, and then a bunch of D-C books and other books that were used.

Most PCUSA preachers use the lectionary. You can't make a lectionary without a canon. But when you get to serious theology, I think the boundaries are wider and grayer, with people making assessment of each book individually.

Thomas. Some scholars claimed that this gave, or sometimes gave, earlier forms of Jesus' teachings. The "Scholar's Press" NT treated it in parallel with the 4 canonical Gospels. Outside that fairly small set of scholars, I haven't seen much support for this. I personally don't think it gives us much information about Jesus' teachings that aren't there in the canonical Gospels, so I don't tend to use it. The commentaries I normally use don't refer to it very often.

Yes, authorship matters. If you assess books individually, it matters to me whether 2 Peter is a late book by someone other than Peter or Peter's actual work. But it's not a question of whether I redefine the canon to omit 2 Peter. Rather, it's a matter of how I would use it.

Click to expand...

Certainly Hedrick, you are indeed speaking for the Conservatives (Lutherans at any rate). The canon of Scripture has not changed; the order has, but even in placing the Deutero-Canon (Apocrypha) between the Testaments; Luther was no first. St. Jerome thought that was a good place to put them but was dissuaded by his superiors.

In the Lutheran Confessions there is no listed Canon. Within Scripture itself we are led to understand that there are other "books" which are lost. Lost forever, who knows; but a closed Canon would preclude their inclusion, were they to turn up and it were possible to verify their authenticity. Thus, in Lutheranism the Canon remains open.

MarkRohfrietsch said:

Certainly Hedrick, you are indeed speaking for the Conservatives (Lutherans at any rate). The canon of Scripture has not changed; the order has, but even in placing the Deutero-Canon (Apocrypha) between the Testaments; Luther was no first. St. Jerome thought that was a good place to put them but was dissuaded by his superiors.

In the Lutheran Confessions there is no listed Canon. Within Scripture itself we are led to understand that there are other "books" which are lost. Lost forever, who knows; but a closed Canon would preclude their inclusion, were they to turn up and it were possible to verify their authenticity. Thus, in Lutheranism the Canon remains open.

Click to expand...

I don't disagree with this approach. But most of the Reformed confessions (which I've just rechecked) do presuppose, and in one case present with a thud, a definite canon. This isn't unanimous. Heidelberg doesn't seem to have any doctrine of Scripture. Calvin, as I noted, is more focused on the authority of the Apostles than the final book. But still, I think it's safest to say that the mainline does informally what you seem to do formally.

I did not know that the Lutheran confessions left undefined the canon of Scripture, that's very interesting. The Eastern Orthodox have a similar position historically, I have been told, although there may be local synods that contradict this, I do not know for sure. All I know is what priests and friends have told me in the past.

I do know the Church of England's 39 Articles do have a defined canon of Scripture (and it is more or less the same as the Roman Catholic, with some qualifications). However, I have encountered a few Episcopalians that seem to regard the canon as open (the Rev. Cynthia Bourgeault likes quoting from Syriac scriptures quite a bit, for instance, seemingly with the same sense of authority she applies to the historic Bible), which is interesting as I wondered if there was a precedent in Protestantism for this, as I assumed the whole canon was completely closed soon after the Reformation and early confessions of Protestantism.

hedrick said:

Yes, authorship matters. If you assess books individually, it matters to me whether 2 Peter is a late book by someone other than Peter or Peter's actual work. But it's not a question of whether I redefine the canon to omit 2 Peter. Rather, it's a matter of how I would use it.

Click to expand...

I'm not saying every epistle is correctly attributed, but the certainty at times with which theologians proclaim a particular passage irrelevant just because it comes from a disputed book, baffles the mind. Protestants have faced similar challenges in other areas of theology as knowledge is revised: 50 years ago, for instance, many Protestant theologians were very OK with defining Judaism as "legalism" and seeing something defective in Jewish soteriology, even liberal Protestants... today they know better. Scholarship changes, so sometimes I think this approach can be too haphazard.

FireDragon76 said:

I did not know that the Lutheran confessions left undefined the canon of Scripture, that's very interesting. The Eastern Orthodox have a similar position historically, I have been told, although there may be local synods that contradict this, I do not know for sure. All I know is what priests and friends have told me in the past.

I do know the Church of England's 39 Articles do have a defined canon of Scripture (and it is more or less the same as the Roman Catholic, with some qualifications). However, I have encountered a few Episcopalians that seem to regard the canon as open (the Rev. Cynthia Bourgeault likes quoting from Syriac scriptures quite a bit, for instance, seemingly with the same sense of authority she applies to the historic Bible), which is interesting as I wondered if there was a precedent in Protestantism for this, as I assumed the whole canon was completely closed soon after the Reformation and early confessions of Protestantism.
...

Click to expand...

It may be woth noting that the Catholic position defines which books are regarded as canonical but as far as I recall the wording does not limit the list to the 73 books. That is, the canon tells Catholics which books are included but there is no statement along the lines that "these and ONLY these" are acceptable.

MoreCoffee said:

It may be woth noting that the Catholic position defines which books are regarded as canonical but as far as I recall the wording does not limit the list to the 73 books. That is, the canon tells Catholics which books are included but there is no statement along the lines that "these and ONLY these" are acceptable.

Click to expand...

hmmmm?
I thought scripture was counted as Public Revelation
and Public Revelation closed with the end of the Apostles?

Rhamiel said:

hmmmm?
I thought scripture was counted as Public Revelation
and Public Revelation closed with the end of the Apostles?

Click to expand...

That's right.

My comment related to writings that may be read with profit and may at some time in some circumstances be accorded similar authority to holy scripture as defined in early church councils and in Trent. I was thinking primarily about Catholics in Russia and some other eastern European lands where the bibles in hand do include some additions compared to the Vulgate (psalm 151, for example, and possibly 3 Maccabees etc).

MoreCoffee said:

That's right.

My comment related to writings that may be read with profit and may at some time in some circumstances be accorded similar authority to holy scripture as defined in early church councils and in Trent. I was thinking primarily about Catholics in Russia and some other eastern European lands where the bibles in hand do include some additions compared to the Vulgate (psalm 151, for example, and possibly 3 Maccabees etc).

Click to expand...

ah ok, good point

I could be mistaken but as I've come to understand it the exact phrasing of "Sola Scriptura" is perhaps more technically part of the Reformed tradition and the "Five Solas". Lutheranism on the other hand more historically has spoken of Solum Verbum--"Word Alone". Word Alone here refers to the power and dynamics of God's Word which comes to us through God's Means (Word and Sacrament). Word Alone comprehends the Scriptures as the Rule of Faith, the Norming Norm, etc; but the emphasis has been on the Word of God as comprehended through God's Means. As such the one who receives the bread and wine of the Supper receives the same Word as one hears preached and read aloud from the Scriptures. Even the Confessions (including the Creeds) are Word in that they are Normed Norm. That is, to confess that which has been confessed is to believe the Word of God.

Though, again, this is as I understand it and will happily receive correction here.

-CryptoLutheran